Yesterday I recalled having a framed copy of this Piccasso drawing "The Man of La Mancha. With a few minutes searching I found it and hung it up in my home-office room. The theme seems appropriate. This effort can seem at times like Don Quixote charging windmills. Is this a mad and futile attempt? Time will tell but today when driving around both radio stations I listened to had the "smoke theater" updates. In casual conversations with people I encounter around 90% of local adults are aware of the "smoking theater" controversy. I've found that at least half have "tactic support" of the effort. There are the smokers and "rights" people but a lot of people want there to be less smoking in the future but they have very strong negative "feeling" about the "nanny state" and the tactics and behavior of many of the "anti's". Few make the connection with St. Paul City Council President Dave Thune remarks about "8000 puking republican lobbyists" and Thune's spearheading of the Twin Cities bar smoking bans before Thune latest remarks. Thune needs to be a made a "poster child" of this because of the economic impact of this (and because he is a jerk! He emailed that he would not attend a city employees Christmas gathering because the owner of the bar supported Thune's opponent. Obviously, Thune's believes in "boycotts" so perhaps the convention planners could return the favor and try to boycott events and businesses in Thunes district. Early on $850K had reported been pulled and switched to more "tolerant" areas.
Anyway, this art print represents the fact that we are out gunned and out funded. That "big tobacco" money is nowhere to be found. In my case I have $14.20 direct cost in this (two new domain names registered for one year each). My time and effort is "priceless". Obviously, I can afford the $14.20 bu there are real burdens, real expenses, especially for lawyer Mark Benjamine. MPACT/Clean Air Minnesota apparently has a $200 million dollar endowment and a alledegly a $20 million dollar annual budget and the governemnt agencies have huge resources. Also, the "anti" side there tends to attract the "zealots". (Chick on picture for larger version if you want to print)
Publicity is our friend and the media has been coming around to greater or lesser degrees. If you see or hear positive stories let the media outlet know. Also, therefor needs money. None will go to me. They will go for legitimate legal expenses, which there will be plenty. Please give and promote http://DefenseofRights.com
Anyway, to get past my spiel (which I try to always color code in red there are two examples of the "newsworthiness" of the effort.
The first is http://MinnPost.com which reported on the Star Tribune editorial against "smoke shacks" but noted that the Strib editorial gave some ground on an adequate "smoking shelter" because apparently, the Strib editorial writers discovered that Minnesota has this thing called "wnter". It's odd that the Star Tribune didn't notice "winter" in the three years since the Minneapolis bar smoking ban. The "smoke shack" provision is unrelated to "bar theater" issue but it shows "progress". We might have fun with this in the future. I currently have parked http://leanto.com (feel free to "share" the "telemarketer graphic". )
Anyway, here are the links and text to the MNPost comments and Strib editorial. (color coded)
The Strib edit page says a current amendment for winter smoking shelters should be "snuffed out," but indicates it might be OK with "small smoking shelters" at smoking-banned hangouts. That's buried toward end of a piece criticizing a House proposal to liberalize the smoking ban. Stribs warn that shelters could become "extravagant structures." ("Hey, why does Puffy get all the pinball machines?") Also, a joint's servers can't enter the shacks, but patrons perhaps "could be served by a neighboring establishment that happens to have the same ownership." Theater-night folks, you enabled these contortions.
Editorial: Smoking-shelter plan needs to be shut down
April 13, 2008
The state's ban on smoking in bars and restaurants still has that new-law smell, but already some lawmakers want to water it down. A late-night amendment slipped into a state budget bill would allow smoking shelters to accommodate patrons during the winter.
Now legislators need to reconcile the House version of the bill, which has the shelter exception, with the Senate version, which does not.
Recent efforts by some bar owners to abuse an existing exception in the smoking ban make us wary about the shelter proposal. As written, the amendment does not limit a shelter's size or scope, leaving open the possibility of extravagant structures that go beyond merely providing protection from the cold. The exception also says that "employees of an establishment with a smoking shelter may not serve food or beverages to persons in the smoking shelter," but does that mean they could be served by a neighboring establishment that happens to have the same ownership?
Far-fetched? Perhaps. But some Minnesota bars have demonstrated their willingness to violate the intent of the law. Schemes such as "theater nights," in which patrons became "actors" and bars were turned into "stages," were meant to make a mockery of the law. A shelter exception would likely invite similar impertinence.
Legislators slipped the smoking-shack exception into a wholly unrelated state budget bill in a dead-of-night vote in the House, which prevented it from being decided on its merits.
From a public-health point of view, an exception for shelters is a clear backsliding in efforts to reduce smoking. The indoor ban was part of a comprehensive effort, along with increases in tobacco taxes and antismoking education, to discourage new smokers and encourage those who might want to quit smoking.
The ban is also a workplace safety issue, protecting the health of workers and nonsmoking patrons by assuring that they have clean air to breathe. In that context, a small smoking shelter that employees are not required to enter and where secondhand smoke is comprehensively isolated could be a reasonable accommodation during our breathtaking winters. But it would be essential to ensure that workers would not be exposed to secondhand smoke and that they would not be pressured to enter smoking shelters as a condition of employment. Other patrons would also need to be completely protected from secondhand smoke.
With those major caveats, the shelter proposal was worthy of a full hearing at the Legislature. But the potential public-health risks are too significant to allow the amendment to go forward. As written, the proposal is a fundamentally flawed effort to get around the indoor smoking ban. The legislative conference committee should snuff it out.
© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
