|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.....• Video Lottery • MMBA |
|
. |
|
|
Former MN House Speaker Steve Sviggum Editorial on the Smoking Ban Bill (2/13/2007) Statewide smoking ban would be applied unfairly
When I take my wife out for supper, we enjoy going to a restaurant that is smoke free. As neither one of us smokes, it's always nice for us to dine in a place where secondhand smoke isn't going make our evening uncomfortable -- and we enjoy not having the smoke smell on our clothes when we get home. The proposed statewide smoking ban is supposed to cater to people like me. Bill sponsors say we need to ban smoking statewide because we should not have to be around smokers, and that employees and nonsmoking patrons of a smoke-filled workplace are helpless to do anything except breathe in the deadly toxins. Yet my personal opinion is a statewide smoking ban is an absolute assault on the personal property rights that are guaranteed to us under the U.S. Constitution -- and an assault of choices that we make as individuals in a free society. This act would ban smoking in all bars, restaurants, and places of employment. What falls under a "place of employment?" Believe it or not, your personal car and home. If a certain part of your home is used for business and at least one employee is present, you can't light up. If you're driving somewhere with a co-worker on business -- even if it's your own personal vehicle -- you would be violating the statewide smoking ban. This proposal is, without question, one of the greatest personal property rights violations I have seen in my many years in the Minnesota House. The market does work, as people do vote with their feet. The simple fact is that we should market businesses as "smoke free." In the spirit of cooperation and compromise, I will support a statewide ban in restaurants where families and children frequent, but we should not extend this ban to bars, VFWs, American Legions, Knights of Columbus halls and others. The smoking ban also represents one of the greatest hypocrisies I've ever seen in a proposed mandate. You would expect that every workplace in Minnesota would be covered under a statewide smoking ban, wouldn't you? Under this proposal, which is being pushed by Democrats, tribal casinos would be exempt. Oddly enough, Minnesota tribes are among the largest campaign contributors to Democratic lawmakers. According to a recent campaign finance report, Minnesota tribes put more than $1.2 million in the DFL's campaign coffers through contributions and disbursements during the last election cycle. The Democrats have long insisted tribal governments have a monopoly on casino gaming. Now they're insisting they have a monopoly on smoking in the workplace. Minnesota tribal casinos employ 13,000 people, but those workers will not have the freedom to breathe under this bill. If you are as outraged about this intrusive and hypocritical act as I am, I urge you to contact your state lawmakers and share your displeasure. Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, represents District 28B in the Minnesota House. Click below to see a 5 minute slideshow of the Ramsey County exemptions from the "Smoke Free Restaurant Ordinance" Before 3/31/06.
See the Smoking Ban Debate on Channel 2's Almanac Click here to see the debate on July 29, 2005. MLBA's Position Statement on Smoking Bans
It is the position of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association (MLBA) to oppose all attempts to manipulate government authority to prohibit smoking in licensed alcohol on-premise establishments as long as the act of smoking tobacco products is lawful. MLBA takes the position that the decision to allow smoking to occur in a lawfully licensed alcohol on-premise establishment is a decision best left to the individual licensee, their employees and customers. Should a majority of elected officials disagree with MLBA and determine that the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act should be amended to prohibit smoking, MLBA takes the position that partial prohibitions similar to those adopted in Olmsted and Ramsey Counties, the cities of Duluth and Moorhead are preferable to a total prohibition provided that all licensed establishments are treated the same regardless of whether operated as a public establishment, private club or municipal operation. Should a partial prohibition be adopted as stated, MLBA strongly believes that a statewide solution is better than a patchwork approach supported by anti-tobacco advocates. To achieve the goal of a statewide solution, MLBA supports preemption of local governments unilaterally adopting city ordinances that arbitrarily pick winners and losers based on political boundaries. MLBA requests that any remaining revenue sources continuing from the creation of the tobacco endowments be used to assist our members and employees by covering the costs associated with individual members and employees seeking access to smoking cessation programs. This is the unanimous position of the MLBA Board of Directors on behalf of its members statewide. It is clear that the smoking prohibition is an emotional issue for many involved, both pro and con. It is best for all involved to remember that civility during political debate is the cornerstone for the success of a democracy and to keep that in mind while members approach legislators this year. House and Senate Testimony from MLBA
|
||
|
Training | Links | Allied Members | Order Page | Contact Us | Home Copyright © 2007 - Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association - All Rights Reserved |
At the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association (MLBA) the Board of Directors created the following position statement as a guide for use during the 2005 legislative session. 
