MN Senate approves statewide smoking ban

03/27/2007

The ban, which awaits action in the House, would eliminate smoking in nearly all public places, including bars and restaurants.

By Mark Brunswick,
Star Tribune
Last update: March 27, 2007 – 3:19 PM

The Minnesota Senate voted today to approve a sweeping statewide smoking ban that supporters say will eliminate almost all indoor smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants.

Attempts to enact exceptions for private clubs such as VFW and American Legion halls failed, as did an attempt to allow bars and restaurants to install ventilation systems as an alternative. An amendment that would have exempted bars where most of the sales come from alcohol also failed.

The Senate passed the bill 41 to 24. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has expressed concerns about the impact of a ban to private clubs but has indicated he supports the measure. A House version faces several possible hurdles and at least one additional committee hearing before a floor vote.

Seventeen other states have laws similar to the one proposed in Minnesota that include some prohibition on smoking in bars and restaurants. Twenty-five states overall have some sort of statewide smoking ban, though some of them exempt certain establishments. Eighteen cities or counties in Minnesota have enacted their own smoking bans and supporters of a statewide ban have suggested the measure would eliminate a patchwork or ordinances and regulations.

In an amendment added during its last committee stop, the measure does allow bars, restaurants and bingo halls to build outdoor patios were patrons could smoke. There would be no food or beverage service available to customers there and employees would not be able to smoke on the patio while working. The patios could accommodate electricity and heating.

Bar and restaurant owners have been passionate about their fears of losing business if a ban is enacted.

"Quite frankly, who goes to a bar to get healthy?" asked Sen. David Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm, during floor debate. Tomassoni has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the ban, consistently arguing that it would hurt businesses. "Nobody has to smoke in a bar if they don't want to, and nobody has to work in a bar if they don't want to."

Throughout the legislative process, amendments have been added in committees that would allow owners instead to install ventilation systems and for workers to qualify for state compensation if their jobs were affected by the ban. A similar amendment on ventilation systems during the floor debate was withdrawn.

Supporters have argued that no ventilation system effectively eliminates the impact of second-hand smoke. The debate has been focused as a worker rights issue for bartenders and wait staff, expanding protections initiated following the state's landmark Indoor Clean Air Act in 1975.

"These workers are the most exposed and least protected. The bottom line is that second hand smoke hurts Minnesotans," said Sen. Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato, the bill's chief author. As a concession to the potential economic impact, the bill provides that hospitality workers would be eligible to use the state's Dislocated Worker Program if they lose their jobs because of the ban.

Local governments would be able to impose stricter requirements but the statewide ban would serve as a minimum. There are some exemptions from the ban, including private residences and automobiles, hotel rooms, specific areas in nursing homes and some smoke shops. In addition, patients in locked psychiatric units would be permitted to smoke as would participants in traditional Indian ceremonies.

The state's Indian casinos would not be covered by the bill, generating a number of failed amendments designed to bring the state's tribes into compliance.

One of the key elements of the debate is a recent U.S. Surgeon General report indicating that no amount of second hand smoke is acceptable. During floor debate, Sen. Thomas Neuville, R-Northfield, who has a degree in chemical engineering, questioned the validity of the report and suggested advocacy organizations have crafted their arguments around "bogus science."This is a political movement, not a scientific movement," Neuville said.