True North

Well Minnesota, it would seem that you're stuck in a losing battle when it comes to smoking. I wish I could say that you're fighting a losing battle, but I can't rightly say that I have seen much in terms of fighting. In fact, I have seen more conceding than fighting, which is sorely disappointing when you consider what is at stake here.

We all saw this coming, yet nobody stood up and tried to stop it. Being in Wisconsin, all I can do is watch and learn and hope to God that the masses on this side of the river learn from this disaster; and I am not using the word disaster here lightly. For you see, Minnesota, as if the smoking ban wasn't enough, there is one flaw in the legislation that ran deeper than the others, and it was allowed to pass without scrutiny. That flaw, and the one that people should really be taking notice of, is the open-ended nature of the legislation.

The nature of the Minnesota smoking ban allowed for local government to add to the State smoking ban as they saw fit. That is bad news for smokers who live in the prissy liberal areas, and even worse for bar and restaurant owners in those areas. Those of us who were critical of the Freedom to Breathe Act when it was first introduced saw this coming, and now that the State officially went smoke free as of October first, we figured it was only a matter of time before local governments started squeezing even harder; and while I would like to say that it surprises me that it has taken less than two weeks to surface, I can't.

According to an article in today's Pioneer Press, the state smoking ban is getting local governments thinking about outdoor patio rules. For those who don't know, the Freedom to Breathe Act banned smoking indoors but allowed establishments to have outdoor smoking area. It did not, however, limit local government's ability to ban outdoor smoking, which is now become a hot topic among the cities. After all, the cities around here seem to be in constant competition with one another, slobbering over each other as they fight over who can bend the furthest to special interests... And now they have just been thrown one of the biggest bones of all. how long will it be before a Minnesota city goes over the edge and bans smoking on private residences? It's already happened in California (read about it here on Wake Up America), so what's to stop it from happening here?

What's really concerning is that the cities are working in very underhanded ways to cut smoking. Instead of simply saying that they aren't going to allow smoking and face the fallout head on (which would also open them up to direct challenges), they are working on backdoor methods of eliminating outdoor smoking. For instance, the city of Bloomington has added patio ordinances that prohibits smoking 25 feet from building entrances and open windows and requires half of outdoor seating to be smoke-free. Other cities, like St. Paul, require approval of 90% of residents living within 300 feet of a patio and Lakeville who is working on an ordinance that requires fencing, emergency exits and limited hours... And Dakota County has already tacked on a smoke free perks ordinance.

So the big question is when is enough going to be enough? As the anti-smoking crowd lays claim to private property as well as public spaces, how long will it be before they succeed in snuffing out smoking rights completely? The only place they have left to go is your own home and property, and if the city of Belmont, California stands as any sort of barometer, Minnesotans should really be concerned as local governments take aim at legislating smoking out of existence.

(This article is cross posted from A [sometimes] Logical View of the Illogical, where comments are encouraged and welcome)