My "redrant" that did not seem to take there so I will post it here.
209+ comments! There is definitely interest. I run the website http://freedomtoact.com It just passed 10,000 "hits". Both of these show a definite interest in the subject.
First off, an appeal has been filed on the test case. I posted the appeal filing http://presslord.com/cigap.html The deadline for filing rebuttal comments should be a week or two before the elections. I'll will definitely post them on my Presslord.com and link at FreedomToAct.com.
For the record, I quit smoking in the early 1970's but strongly support smokers rights. I made an effort when the Minneapolis bar ban was first enacted in early 2005. To quit I had to dodge smoke for six months. This was not easy before Minnesota's original so-called "Clean Air Act". which I tend to support. I generally support efforts at "practical avoidance". In this realm, I had reports that after the ban Minneapolis stage theaters, specifically the Minneapolis Jungle Theater allowed smoking on stage without signage or advance notifications. This would have put me in a bind had this occurred the first months after I quit. Secondhand smoking triggered a strong cig craving the first few months after I quit. Something the "antis" and the drug companies, who make commercials of these with "the patch" talking to smokers fail to acknowledge.
First off, the new exemptions would have stringent requirements and apply mostly to legacy fraternal organisations like VFW's and establishments without a kitchen or a food menu much beyond the frozen pizza heated in a countertop electric oven. Also, a good electrostatic precipatator and ventalation system would be need along with prominent signage saying that smoking is allowed. The irony here is that this is strongly supported in small towns and rural areas where there are few entertainment choices but "politically" in the larger metropolitan areas where there are abundant dining/entertainment options the political opposition to this "tavern solution" is greatest. Go figure!
A couple of points on surveys. I a day or so MTC bus and LRT fares are going up a quarter. The mid 1990's bus strike debunked the claim that not having the MTC would gridlock traffic. It turned out that only 2% of Twin Cities residences were fully dependent on public transit and only 20% regularly used it. Gosh darned! I never seem to see surveys about what share of the "cost to society" MTC riders should bear?
Second is welfare. I favor a constitutional amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would have the strictest residency requirements of any state in the US. Gosh darned! We never see a survey on that among likely voters. The maximum residency limit would be at most one to five years and most Minnesotans could "do the math". Nearly 25% of Hennepin County "welfare" payments are to immigrants and a large portion are to those who had not had a history of gainful employment in Minnesota before applying for welfare benefits. The police blotter shows the same pattern. How come no surveys of Minnesotans who, for the most part have been long term, law abiding, productive residents of Minnesota.
A generation of the "skilled trades" has worked in Minnesota since the original "MN clean air act". I think a lot of them chose the skilled trades because they could smoke. The works is less sedentary than an office so overall, they probably came close to breaking even, compared to "desk jockeys" when it came to health risks.
Now these people, who make very good money are starting to retire and there are a lot of problems finding replacement people, virtually guaranteed a job for life who can now be fired for smoking in their work truck when driving. Next time your furnace quits at -20 below I suggest you call a company and demand a non-smoking repair-person.
First off, an appeal has been filed on the test case. I posted the appeal filing http://presslord.com/cigap.html The deadline for filing rebuttal comments should be a week or two before the elections. I'll will definitely post them on my Presslord.com and link at FreedomToAct.com.
For the record, I quit smoking in the early 1970's but strongly support smokers rights. I made an effort when the Minneapolis bar ban was first enacted in early 2005. To quit I had to dodge smoke for six months. This was not easy before Minnesota's original so-called "Clean Air Act". which I tend to support. I generally support efforts at "practical avoidance". In this realm, I had reports that after the ban Minneapolis stage theaters, specifically the Minneapolis Jungle Theater allowed smoking on stage without signage or advance notifications. This would have put me in a bind had this occurred the first months after I quit. Secondhand smoking triggered a strong cig craving the first few months after I quit. Something the "antis" and the drug companies, who make commercials of these with "the patch" talking to smokers fail to acknowledge.
First off, the new exemptions would have stringent requirements and apply mostly to legacy fraternal organisations like VFW's and establishments without a kitchen or a food menu much beyond the frozen pizza heated in a countertop electric oven. Also, a good electrostatic precipatator and ventalation system would be need along with prominent signage saying that smoking is allowed. The irony here is that this is strongly supported in small towns and rural areas where there are few entertainment choices but "politically" in the larger metropolitan areas where there are abundant dining/entertainment options the political opposition to this "tavern solution" is greatest. Go figure!
A couple of points on surveys. I a day or so MTC bus and LRT fares are going up a quarter. The mid 1990's bus strike debunked the claim that not having the MTC would gridlock traffic. It turned out that only 2% of Twin Cities residences were fully dependent on public transit and only 20% regularly used it. Gosh darned! I never seem to see surveys about what share of the "cost to society" MTC riders should bear?
Second is welfare. I favor a constitutional amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would have the strictest residency requirements of any state in the US. Gosh darned! We never see a survey on that among likely voters. The maximum residency limit would be at most one to five years and most Minnesotans could "do the math". Nearly 25% of Hennepin County "welfare" payments are to immigrants and a large portion are to those who had not had a history of gainful employment in Minnesota before applying for welfare benefits. The police blotter shows the same pattern. How come no surveys of Minnesotans who, for the most part have been long term, law abiding, productive residents of Minnesota.
A generation of the "skilled trades" has worked in Minnesota since the original "MN clean air act". I think a lot of them chose the skilled trades because they could smoke. The works is less sedentary than an office so overall, they probably came close to breaking even, compared to "desk jockeys" when it came to health risks.
Now these people, who make very good money are starting to retire and there are a lot of problems finding replacement people, virtually guaranteed a job for life who can now be fired for smoking in their work truck when driving. Next time your furnace quits at -20 below I suggest you call a company and demand a non-smoking repair-person.
No comments:
Post a Comment