Smoking Ban Theater

A loophole in the Minnesota state Smoking Ban for theatrical productions has been the subject of many stories and much wringing of hands. You see, several very imaginative (and desperate) bar owners are using that loophole to get around the ban...including one here in Scott County which is taking the issue to court.

A giant playbill greets patrons at the door to one of the two neighboring bars dotting Main Street in the former town of Elko.

Inside, the bouncer — excuse me, usher — checks a visitor’s ID and makes sure she is aware of tonight’s performance.

For just $2, this visitor can also get a badge and become an actor if she cares to smoke as part of the performance at the Bullseye Saloon in Elko New Market.

The production this evening (or rather, early morning)? A theatrical performance and satire called "An Unconstitutional Ban," in which bar patrons typically act as themselves.

The owners of the Bullseye Saloon do have their work cut out for them as this MinnPost story points out.

While the Minnesota "actors" who smoke in bars have drawn attention from across the country, they aren't the only ones to dream up ways to skirt smoking bans. Some have declared themselves exempt private clubs, other have said they don't understand the "no" in "no smoking." They've lost in the courts. Benjamin's odds of winning are probably about the same.

Personally, I think that the smoking bans are an undue, odious taking of property rights. I have a dear friend (Sue Jeffers) who is a former bar owner who has been a long time vocal critic and activist against the smoking ban. Sue knows the struggles that these bar owners are facing - with patrons staying home because they are not allowed to smoke indoors.

Sales dropped drastically when the ban took effect in October and were down an average 20 percent for five months, he said. They came back when theater performances began in March.

"I had employees upset that their tips had gone away and they were really having trouble making ends meet. I said, ‘I’m going to do everything in my power to keep all of your jobs,’ " he said.

Ironically (for the smoking ban folks) the owner of Bullseye is, like me, a non-smoker who is opposed to the bill on civil liberties reasons.

Like the other employees at Bullseye, Braun is a smoker. (Owner Robert) Ripley, the owner, is not.

Ripley opposes the ban because he thinks it violates personal freedom. He also says it’s harming establishments in an already down economic time.

Ripley, who took out a home-equity loan about five years ago to buy Bullseye, said he reviewed the law carefully before turning Bullseye into a theater.

Mr. Ripley took a big risk buying a business and employing Minnesotans. He should be rewarded by the state, not punished for it! Unfortunately, the Minnesota State Legislature doesn't see it that way. Maybe that is why so many businesses are leaving Minnesota....like Northwest Airlines.

Good luck Mr. Ripley. I fear you will need it!

Here Is What Happens

Here is what happens when you give 85 Democrats control of the Minnesota House of Representatives!

1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to public health; increasing affordability and continuity of care for state 1.3health care programs; modifying health care provisions; establishing a public 1.4health access fund; increasing the tobacco impact fees; providing subsidies for 1.5employee share of employer-subsidized insurance; establishing the Minnesota 1.6Health Insurance Exchange; requiring certain employers to offer Section 125 1.7Plan; creating an affordability standard; requiring mandated reports; authorizing 1.8 rulemaking; appropriating money;amending Minnesota Statutes 2006, sections 1.916A.725, subdivision 1; 62A.65, subdivision 3; 62E.141; 62L.12, subdivisions 1.102, 4; 256.01, by adding a subdivision; 256.9658, subdivisions 3, 9; 256B.061; 1.11256B.69, by adding a subdivision; 256D.03, by adding a subdivision; 256L.05, 1.12by adding a subdivision; 256L.06, subdivision 3; 256L.07, subdivision 3; 1.13256L.15, by adding a subdivision; Minnesota Statutes 2007 Supplement, sections 1.1413.46, subdivision 2; 256B.056, subdivision 10; 256L.03, subdivisions 3, 5; 1.15256L.04, subdivisions 1, 7; 256L.05, subdivision 3a; 256L.07, subdivision 1; 1.16256L.15, subdivision 2; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, 1.17chapters 16A; 145; 256B; proposing coding for new law as Minnesota Statutes, 1.18chapter 62U; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 256L.15, subdivision 3. 1.19BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

If you are a smoker, a member of the middle class (income $45,000 to $150,000 annual income), an employer, a health care professional or a health care consumer be prepared to pay dearly for your health care. For example:

2.10 Sec. 3. [145.986] STATEWIDE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
2.11 Subdivision 1.Goals. The initial goals of the public health access fund are to reduce
2.12the percent of Minnesotans who are obese or overweight to less than half by the year
2.13 2020 and to reduce tobacco smoking by 2 percent annually starting in 2011. By
2011,
2.14 and considering available funding, the commissioner of health, in consultation with the
2.15 State Community Health Advisory Committee established in section 145A.10, subdivision
2.16 10, and other stakeholders, may make recommendations as to future goals related to
2.17alcohol use and illegal drug use.

Do you smoke? Use alcohol? Overweight? Be prepared to have the state dictate what you can and can not eat, drink or otherwise consume.

Say you are a family of 4 living on $66,000 a year (400% of the federal poverty level). Your cost for "free" government health care will be capped at 8% per year or $5280. If you have employer provided health care you will get a "credit" for the amount of your health care premiums, deductibles and other cost sharing, minus an amount based in the "affordability" specified in section 62U.08. Now for this typical family in that range our premiums, deductables and other cost sharing only amounts to about $2500 a year - net increase in health care premiums of $2780.00. I thought this was supposed to make health care "more affordable"?

It also creates a whole new level of state bureaucracy - the Commission of Health! Just what we need.....more government!

I am just starting to read this 52 page book. Keep an eye for more thoughts and notes here in these pages. But if first impressions are anything, I am not expecting much from this.

Driving Government Vehicles

On Wednesday, State Senator Scott McCoy (D-Salt Lake) introduced a bill that should make all freedom loving Americans shudder (HT - The Senate Site).

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
Section 1. Section 41-6a-1716 is enacted to read: 41-6a-1716. Smoking in vehicle prohibited when child is present
-- Penalty --
Enforcement.
(1) As used in this section, "smoking" has the same meaning as defined in Section 26-38-2 .
(2) Smoking is prohibited in a motor vehicle if a child who is less than five years of age is restrained or is required to be restrained in a child restraint device in the vehicle in accordance with Section 41-6a-1803 .
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of an infraction and is subject to a maximum fine of $45.
(4) The court may suspend the fine for a violation of this section if:
(a) the person has not previously been convicted of a violation of this section; and
(b) the person proves to the court that the person has enrolled in a smoking cessation
program.
(5) Enforcement of this section by a state or local law enforcement officer shall be only as a secondary action when the vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation by any person in the vehicle of Title 41, Motor Vehicles, other than this section, or for another offense.S. (6) A violation of this section may not be used as a basis for or evidence of child abuse or neglect as defined in Section 62A-4a-402. .S

The Senate Site also posts a You Tube Video of Senator McCoy and Senator trying to justify this assualt on private property rights!






Oh where to start...where to start... How about with this....

"We had the foresight and the where with all to say you have to have your child strapped in a car seat, to protect them against a hypothetical, potential harm from an automobile accident yet uh there are some that would have us say we won't protect them from a known present danger of second hand smoke if someone lights up a cigarette..."

Well first off Senator, it is a proven fact that automobile accidents KILL KIDS. There is still plenty of debate on whether second hand smoke kills anyone. I want to go to one specific quote from one of the links provided.

The question of whether or not ETS exposure is high enough to induce and/or promote the carcinogenic effects observed in epidemiological studies thus remains open, and the assumption of an increased risk of lung cancer due to ETS exposure is, at present, more a matter of opinion than of firm scientific
evidence.

Emphasis mine. However, the most laughable comment came out of Senator Michael Waddoups R-Taylorsville (heads up Senator....if all goes as planned, I WILL be your constituent in a few very short weeks).

As a child you really have no say so in what's going on...you don't tell tell 'em where to turn, you don't tell 'em how fast to drive, and you don't tell 'em not to smoke.

Obviously Senator Waddoups you have never had a D.A.R.E graduate in YOUR house. The Junion Logician (bless his heart) has been the driving force behind getting the Logical Husband to FINALLY quit smoking (I quit 16 years ago FYI). However it is this comment that got my goat the most.

We are not going to go into the people's bedrooms...we regulate the roads.

Why should we believe you when you say you will not come into our bedrooms? Our automobiles, like our homes ARE PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY! By passing this bill you have already shown a propensity to only honor private property if it suits the politically correct agenda you are pushing. The only time that the government should be concerned about the activities that a citizen is engaged in (when he or she is driving on the roads) is if he/she is engaging in activities that put OTHER DRIVERS IN DANGER. If smoking while driving is so very dangerous then why not prohibit ALL drivers from smoking behind the wheel.



Better yet - I will repeat what I have said all along (during the debate over the MN smoking ban)...if smoking is such a hazard to human health then ban the sale of cigarettes ALTOGETHER! Make them as illegal to possess as marijuana or heroin is. However, we all know that will never happen in a million years because our government (state and federal) is too addicted to the tax dollars that tobacco sales brings in.

That's moxy

I like the way this Brit pub owner thinks.

"For pub-goers who enjoy a cigarette with their drink, next week's ban will make England a very different place.
So one landlord has claims to have found a loophole to fight the new law - by declaring his pub to be part of a different country.
The Wellington Arms in Southampton is set to transform itself from a public house into the official embassy for a tiny Caribbean island. "

I wonder if the King of Redonda would like to open a Minneapolis embassy. I know one pub owner who would probably be happy to discuss the possibility with him. What do you say Sue???

Pretzel Logic

The local media has been heavily covering the story of Jacob and Jordan Heck, the Mankato conjoined twins who are in state custody because of parental abuse.

"A Mankato couple was accused Wednesday of abusing their 4-month-old son, one of two conjoined twins who underwent separation surgery last fall at the Mayo Clinic.
Valerie J. James, 20, and Robert L. Heck III, 27, were charged with one count each of felony first-degree assault and aiding and abetting the alleged crime, said police Lt. Dan Muyres."

Thankfully, the abuse was discovered before the baby was killed. Not all have been that fortunate.

I am all for putting parents in jail who beat their kids so hard they break bones, who sexually assualt and otherwise physically and emotionally abuse children. Which makes this law all the more insane.

"Anti-tobacco forces are opening a new front in the war against smoking by banning it in private places such as homes and cars when children are present. "

What is wrong with this country when we jail parents for smoking in front of a child and yet we put kids back with parents who break their bones and rape them? Can someone please show me the logic in this. Can you really, honestly say that 2nd hand smoke is more harmful to a child than having daddy bounce their heads off of a brick wall? Someone please explain this to me???

Lesson to be learned.

There is a lesson to be learned in this story. Will the Governor and Legislature listen?

"D.C. bar owners say business has fallen significantly since the city's smoking ban was implemented almost two months ago. In contrast, restaurants say they have fared relatively well -- with little or no drop in sales. Their biggest complaint is the pile of cigarette butts lining their front sidewalks. Bar owners say that smokers no longer leave the office for lunch and a smoke, and that late-night customers don't stay out as long or they go out in Virginia, where they can smoke inside. The lunch and afternoon business at Adams Mill Bar and Grill in Adams Morgan fell so significantly that owner Darrell Green eliminated lunch service. He used to open at 11 a.m. Now, the doors open at 4 p.m. "

Business down, hours reduced, workers hurt.....TAX REVENUES DOWN!!!!!

Hello....is anyone in St. Paul listening?????

Score one for personal responsibility

The Supreme Court made a ruling this week that finally returns the responsibility for the damages of cigarette smoking back to where it belongs...with the individual who smokes!

"The Supreme Court yesterday took away almost $80 million awarded to the widow of a longtime smoker and threw into doubt the prospects of future high-dollar jury awards against businesses. A divided Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Altria Group, the parent of Richmond company Philip Morris USA and Kraft Foods, which contested an Oregon Supreme Court's upholding of an earlier verdict that forced the maker of the popular Marlboro cigarette to pay $79.5 million in damages. "

For lovers of freedom this ruling is doubly good news. Not only does the ruling put the onus of responsibilty back on the individual who chooses to light up (there is a reason cigarettes are called "cancer sticks") and it also throws into doubt the validity of those multi-million dollar judgements against the "deep pocket" corporations.

"Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said a punitive-damages award based on a jury's desire to punish a defendant for harming those who are not parties to the lawsuit amounted to taking property from the defendant, which would be a violation of the constitutional right of due process. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter made up the rest of the majority. "

Admittedly, the Court could have done better...it could have stepped up to the plate and given everyone a definative set of guidlines to follow in settling future cases.

"The court's decision leaves U.S. juries to ponder punitive damages under this rule: The jury may consider actual or potential harm to others in deciding how reprehensible a company's conduct was, but may not punish the company for the harm caused to others. "The court took a big wooden spoon and stirred up the swamp, making the view muddier than ever," said Steve Emmert, chairman of the appellate practice subcommittee for the Virginia state bar's litigation section. "I am convinced that this ruling will lead to confused juries looking to confused judges for guidance."

However, it is a necessary start.

Back when I was younger, I too chose to smoke...even though I watched what they had done to my grandmother (who died from emphysema when I was in High School). However, no one forced me to smoke...it was a personal choice and no one should be held responsible for any problems I face as a result of that choice but me! It's part of being an adult.