Minnesota lays down the law and says, hey, Keep your butts outside:
Minnesota smokers beware. If you're headed to a restaurant or bar, you'll have to take that cigarette break outside. Monday, Oct. 1 is the first day of Minnesota's new statewide smoking ban. (Source: Minnesota Public Radio)
Does the ban affect you or your business? Did Minnesota miss an opportunity to generate revenue (a smoking license) or did it make the right decision? Do you think you'll prefer smoke-free restaurants & bars, or no?
______________________
Julia Schrenkler
Minnesota Public Radio Interactive Producer
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 102
Why waste wine, Peter? *grin* I take it you have some preference for nonsmoking.
Will the federal government still subsidize tobacco farmers?
Will legislators with spending addictions swear off tobacco tax revenue?
Is governement addicted to tobacco tax revenue?
Why are the "Pro-Choice" people silent? Don't you have a choice whether to work or patronize a certain business because it doesn't appeal to you?
20 years ago when I was in college and worked at many bars and restaurants, I was the only employee who DIDN'T SMOKE! The boss was mad because I took by "smoke break equivalent" and the boss realized how much time he lost to smokers having to light it up.
I tell cigarette smokers to "light one up, it's for the children" or "light one up, there is a politician with a spending habit that needs a fix"!
What is the next legal product for the social engineering types to ban?
What would the ramifications of a "smokers bar" be for the public? Nonsmokers wouldn't be going there so it can't be the secondhand smoke issue. Is it about economics?
Not sure, Diana. One would think the "smokers bar" model could work both socially and economically. To Gary's point... if the government is banning tobacco use from public places, why keep the substance legal? I ask for sake of discussion. Frankly speaking, it is a very, very interesting social change.
I used to drive home through North and Northest Minneapolis until the bridge collapsed , Erv's closed, Johnny A's 200 closed.
Minneapolis and St Paul bars have already felt the hit and many more will close. Many in the inner city, where the property will just fall vacant, and tax revenues will be down for the city.
I don't smoke cigarettes, I can't afford to smoke. I do smoke a occasional cigar, but unless it is stated as "cigar friendly" I wouldn't smoke there.
Julia, here's some ideas for all your hard hitting journalists at MPR.........
How has this effected the cigarette revenue the state level?
How is this effecting the alcohol tax revenue locally? Statewide?
Seeing that the Indian Casinos now have a smoking monopoly, how much money did they give the key proponants of this legislation in campaign contributions?
How many bars have gone out of business since this went into effect? Where were these bars located?
With the increase cigarette and cigar tax a year ago, online tobaccco sales have skyrocketed, especially with cigar sales, is the state collecting tax revenue from lost sales in that?
Then with that in mind, let's ban the Minnesota State Fair.
The social engineering types LOVE to protect us from ourselves. Not very "Pro-Choice". But, they LOVE the tax revenue. A spending addiction, wouldn't you say?
Great great new for MN.
Anyone wanna go bowling?
And if you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be able to benefit from the tax revenue it raises?
WHAT A CONCEPT!
Gobi's near Snelling and Randolph in St. Paul.
Before it's too late!
Julia, don't you love being forced into a "type"?
Anyway, I love bowling, now that I don't choke on the cig fumes and smell to high heaven when I get home. I love going to bars and listening to great music, too - but avoided them for many years. Now, YES, my friends and I ARE going out more. That being said, since I'm a city girl, I don't know how this will affect (not "effect") those bars out in the boondocks. I have a feeling it will be quite a negative impact, at least at first.
/I>
It's not that people "don't like" cigarette smoke. It's that it KILLS them. It HARMS them directly. Don't bring up the Prohibition comparison, either; alcohol can kill the individual person (and ruin families), but we don't have alcohol forced into our bodies, as we do cigarette smoke.
What other legal products that some people don't like
Sorry 'bout that.
Dale, yup. It's going to be hard on the small town bars.
As much as I hate smoking (I had one cig when I was 12 and thought "huh, this is gross" and that was it), I wish the individual owner (yes, Gary, it's ME saying this!) had a say in the matter. It seems that the "half smoking, half non-smoking" situation doesn't work, because no matter HOW many air vents there are, the smoke STILL gets around. So, the owner should be able to decide that his/her bar should be ALL smoking or ALL non-smoking. Wouldn't that make more sense?
I enjoy going to Washington where the ban is in place. I go out more when I am there. Only a small segment of the population smokes, and they will adjust. So will bars and taverns. Last itme I was in Seattle, there were lines outside almost every bar and tavern. As in any business, you have to adjust to changing times.
Twnety years form now, if all states adopt this, maybe less people will smoke. I get tired of people arguing that the only reason a bar can be busy and fun is if you allow smoking. NON-SMOKERS ARE FUN PEOPLE TOO!
Deb A- I agree... I understand that smokers don't want their freedom impeded- but as a non-smoker, I don't want mine impeded on either. I don't choose to smoke, but when the person standing next to me does, I'm smoking as well.
Adults with 16 or more years of education had the lowest smoking prevalence (11.3 percent). Adults with 9 to 11 years of education had higher smoking prevalence (36.8 percent) compared to adults with fewer or more years of education.
Smoking prevalence was higher among adults living below the poverty level (32.3 percent) than those living at or above the poverty level (23.5 percent).
Draw your own conclusions.
Jennifer, I work downtown (Minneapolis), and oftentimes I'll think "Hmm, I could use a break. I think I'll go out for a breath of fresh air." Ooooh, big mistake. Everywhere I walk, I pass by smokers and breathe in their smoke (no matter how windy the day!). Some throw their butts into the receptacles, but most don't bother. It's a bummer. All I want is a short stroll and some fresh air, and I can't get it (at least, downtown). Of course, where else can they go? (And yes, the bird eat the butts... poor things.)
My biggest pet peeve is those who toss their butts from their cars. Don't cars have ashtrays?
If there's a business owner out there who would like to track how the ban changes their place, I'd love to read about it. There's a lot of speculation at this point, although I spy some lessons from Washington state. Wonder if the taverns and bars outside of Seattle are still busy? Are the smokers comfortable or feel as if they're covered? In the MPR Commentary Collection on this story, a Washington resident notes that their ban also "...prohibits smoking within 25 feet of doors, windows that open, and ventilation intakes. "
Funny how the idea of licensing or allowing the business to decide if it is all smoking or all non-smoking keeps coming up. Even a percentage of non-smokers seem to nod at that.
This whole situation sounds eerily like the beginning of a Niemoller poem. I wonder what the next stanza will bring.
The conclusion I drew from the demographics I cited has more to do with the idea that this ban will hit the little towns much hard than cities (like the town where your granma lives, way up in northern MN in the sticks and only about 9-10 people go to that bar on a given day and all are smokers. I think that there's a higher percentage of MBAs and PhDs living in and around large cities than in and around the sticks, therefore this ban will be more harmful to the bar owners in those rural areas.
In re: the invasion of private decisions or private businesses and individuals: the invasion does exist for the private businesses. However, the invasion to individuals and to our private decisions has to do with the smoke, not the government. The invasion comes with breathing in the smoke when I privately decide to take a walk outside at lunch time. The invasion comes with breathing in the smoke when I want to hear my favorite band at a bar (thankfully, not anymore).
I hope this clarifies things. Sorry for the confusion.
Glad you quit, Deb. Sh*t, if my DAD can quit, ANYONE can.
When NY first adopted a city-wide smoking ban critics were largely mocked for asking "what's next, a ban on bacon double cheeseburgers?" But less than 10 years later NYC enacted a ban on restaurants using transfatty oil. The city's argument was based in large part on a precedent established in the smoking ban litigation, that is the city has a compelling and legitimate interest in regulating this activity because it has a proven impact on public health.
So where, exactly, should this line be drawn? Is there any inherent right of an individual to simply do dumb things just because? Eating fatty foods, smoking, hanging out in smoky places, not wearing a seatbelt, not wearing a motorcycle helmet, not wearing a bicycle helmet ... to different degrees all are dumb things to do. Some are legal, some aren't and some are heavily regulated, other's aren't.
What's the best way to balance the competing interests of living in a safe & enlightened society, with our freedoms as individuals to engage in stupid, risky behavior just for the heck of it?
Deb, er... the individual business owners who allowed smoking? I dunno. We're already getting f***ed by high insurance premiums due in great part to smokers and their horrendous physical health.
Is there any inherent right of an individual to simply do dumb things just because? Smoking is not just a "dumb thing." It harms and kills other humans.
And, did I sound obstinate or nasty in my posts? What's the reason for you saying: "Hey Gabby...Explain that one Gabby?" That didn't sound very nice. Did I tick you off? Or are you pissed about something else?
Dale, where do you live? How big is your town? I think that might have something to do with it (see my comments above, re: demographics).
One bar and 20 people in it looks like a lot more people than 6 bars with 20 people total in all of them. Evenly spread out there would be 3.someodd people in each non-smoking bar. So, when you see 3.someodd people in an establishment it looks like not many people who don't smoke go into the other bars.
Dale wrote: "Of 7 bars in town, only 1 allowed smoking. It was always the fullest. Ever think it's maybe smokers that go to bars the most anyway? "
Stupid Sir Walter Raleigh! I blame him for this mess!
In California, where a bar is inside a restaurant you cannot smoke inside the building, period. I haven't been to any casinos in California since the ban so I cannot speak from experience there. Maybe someone else can do that. Needless to say, I cannot frequent bars that are stand-alone.
Kori... er, so... you care about the health of your kids, but not about anyone else's health? Why don't you smoke around your kids?
Julie, Dale, and I all live in Minnesota, where there are lots of casinos, owned by native Americans. They don't have to follow the smoking ban.
He wrote: I am a smoker, and I don't smoke in the house, in the car, etc...because I DO have kids.
I wrote: Kori... er, so... you care about the health of your kids, but not about anyone else's health? Why don't you smoke around your kids?
If he recognizes that it's harmful to his children, why doesn't he recognize and acknowledge that it also harms other human beings? Are his childrens' lungs more important than mine? Than anyone else reading this thread? Um, I don't think so.
Michigan in recent years has made hospitals, schools, and Government property all smoke free. They've also adapted a ban that any higher education properties can allow smoking outside, but not within 30 feet of any door, so that people aren't walking through a cloud of smoke.
I'd love to see less smokers, certainly, because they shouldn't be able to choose to pollute MY air. Regardless of whether they want to pollute their own, they shouldn't be able to pollute another persons air.
My favorite eyeroll moment is the argument that second hand smoke is harmless.
California lobbyists got it through a year or so to smack a 50 cent PER PACK tax on cigarettes for guess what? Schools, of course. (Does that mean that if I quit smoking some poor kid won't get an education? Give me a break.
Heather, I am sick to death of hearing the old saga of "smokers polluting my air". That comment has been uttered by the same self-righteous finger-pointers that don't have a problem at all with sitting in traffic, in their SUV, behind a bus.
In 2007, Las Vegas passed the smoking ban in restaurants, too ~ but with very fine print. It only applies to restaurants OFF THE STRIP!
A place of business should have the option to allow or disallow smoking in their establishment. Non-smoking patrons would have the option to frequent those businesses - or not.
Some beach cities in California now have a non-smoking ordinance. If you're caught puffing on the beach, it's a $25 ticket. California is a three-strikes state. Does that mean I'll go to prison for life (and possibly face the death penalty) for smoking on the beach? The reason for this ban? Litter. Gee, I wonder how many actual citations have been written for littering our beaches and lakeshores with dirty disposable diapers, used condoms and empty syringes?
Hey, all you smokers in Minnesota, if ya got 'em, smoke 'em. It's going to get a whole lot uglier............
The groundwork is being laid with the smokers, you can believe it. The insurance industry, the medical industry, they all want to make sure you don't harm yourself, and free will be damned.
Some of the democrap nominees are suggesting MANDATORY health insurance and exams. It won't be long before there are MANDATORY diets and exercise programs, all in the name of saving money, and cost effectiveness, because "universal healthcare" is now the domain of the GOVERNMENT, and all the rules will be MANDATORY ! ! ! ! !
Sure, crow now about how the EVIL smokers are finally getting pushed to the back of the bus. Wait till they come for YOUR vice, porkies......
That's a great, insightful question, Jeff. I need to pare it up, first, though. Are we really living in a safe and enlightened society? After reading through all of the posts here, I don't think so. imo, enlightenment brings with it a perspective of seeing the common good, which is lacking in many of these posts.
Sure it would be great that each of us could dictate exactly how he or she wanted to live, including smoking, eating lard, and shunning all forms of personal hygiene, but we are social animals who are interconnected in ways that we don't even always realize. What I do, even in private, affects you.
Living with others is messy; it involves a lot of germ-sharing in the form of dirty hands, snotty fingers, smokey breath, and greasy lips. I'd love for the government to stay away from it all, but since they pay the cost of germ-sharing, they want to minimize the damage.
Objectively speaking, what should government do?
I still like Jeff's question.
I guess, in that sense, the Government is acting like our Mother, which most of us probably don't want.
While kids are getting shot in North Minneapolis, the police will be busy enforcing smoking in bars!
Well, if we ignore all those "little" things like toots and sneezes and thank-you notes and holding the door open for others, then how can we expect children, soon-to-be-adults, to also respect others in bigger ways?
Shooting someone with a gun. That's one of the ultimates of Disrespect. Learn it at your parent's knee. Learn respect from ground zero. Being more respectful of others won't eliminate murder and sexual pillage, but it will decrease it. At least I think so.
It's all connected, Gary. Disconnect leads to disharmony.
But the smoking ban is about banning a legal product on private property. It's about choice, you don't have to work there, you don't have to go to that business.
It's about hypocracy. The same people who like the benefits of people smoking (tax revenue) are the same people who want to restrict it's use.
Just wait until they outlaw something you like.
How do you know they haven't?
Gary, it can be unwise to make such broad generalizations: The same people who like the benefits of people smoking (tax revenue) are the same people who want to restrict it's use.
Not that you asked, and I apologize preemptively for my assumptive comment.
Even for an unborn human being?
I value the viable, existing, fully-developed female human life and her own personal choices that will impact her in ways you cannot imagine, over an embryo or fetus. Personally, I could never have an abortion, but I have no say in another woman's life and I don't pretend to.
Um, Gary, when YOU get pregnant, YOU can make your own personal choice in the matter.
The law provides exceptions for limited types of locations and establishments. They are as follows:
Private homes and private residences are exempt unless they are used for child care or day care.
Private motor vehicles are also exempt.
Non-enclosed areas of public places, including open air patios, porches or decks, those that are enclosed by garage type doors when all such doors are open; and any that are enclosed by tents or awnings with removable sides or vents when all such sides or vents are removed or open are exempt. However, smoke from these areas must not infiltrate into areas where smoking is prohibited.
Venues that restrict access to persons who are 21 years of age or older at all times are exempt. Employees must also be 21 or older in these establishments.
Private businesses with 3 or few employees are exempt, and may only allow smoking in an enclosed room not accessible to the general public. Smoke from such a room must not infiltrate into areas where smoking is prohibited.
Private clubs are exempt.
Smoking rooms in hotels and motels are allowable, provided that no more than 25 percent of the rooms in a hotel or motel are designated as smoking rooms.
Tobacco manufacturers, importers and wholesalers are exempt.
Retail tobacco stores that prohibit minors from entering are exempt.
Nursing homes and long-term care facilities are also exempt from this law, but are subject federal regulation and the policies and procedures established by those facilities.
Commercial vehicles are exempt when the vehicle is occupied only by the operator.
I am all for the ban (and would welcome the transfat ban too). I lived in CA and loved not having to worry about smokers.
(Tennessee laws, posted by Monica)
That always makes me laugh ... there is NO WAY that the smoke DOESN'T infiltrate into areas where smoke is prohibited. It's the nature of smoke to infiltrate! Try as they might, no engineer or architect has yet to design a space that is entirely smoke-free, if someone is smoking near that space.
My great grandmother smoked all her life coming from Germany and a good glass of beer and lived past 99 yeas of age.
My aunt who lived in the country, who never went anywhere, her husband did the shopping (grocery, etc ) and died of Cancer of the Lungs in her 50's.
When you ask a doctor about it......they never are too sure what might have caused it.
But it sure in the heck wasn't smoking.
Lets get real folks before long hamburger will be outlawed or some other meat. What you going to do than, live on a pill.
Notice they don't outlaw Alcohol do they......no big money, big taxes