Minnesota Freedom to Breathe Act (Smoking Ban)

For those of you who know me, you can infer from the headline that I am about to launch into a tirade of biblical proportions. The “Freedom to Breathe Act” went into effect at midnight Oct. 1, 2007 creating a statewide indoor smoking ban. I am against this law. But rather than embark on a self-indulgent treatise about personal freedom and liberty (which I promise I will do at some point), I have decided to state the arguments in favor of this legislation and offer a dispassionate rebuttal for each.

The public health interest outweighs the property rights arguments.
This is like suspending habeas corpus or wire tapping every American because some of them might be communists. Sure, maybe some of them are. Are we really saying that second hand smoke is more important than property rights? Really? Are you sure?

Smoke-filled bars pose a significant health risk to patrons and employees.
We already have workplace air quality standards set by OSHA. I challenge anyone to find a bar (even the smokiest in town) that did not comply with OSHA clean air standards before the ban. What about loading docks, coal mines and back yard BBQ’s? The mother of all passive smoking studies, and probably the largest that will ever appear because of its enormous cost and effort, came from the labs of research professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Published in the prestigous British Medical Journal in 2003, this 39-year analysis of 35,561 Californians found no “causal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality,” adding, however “a small effect” can’t be ruled out. That’s a lot different than saying it’s the 3rd largest killer in the U.S. as some claim.

In other states, bars and restaurants saw an increase in business after the ban.
Well let’s ask the bar owners and these poor victimized servers in MN what the effects have been because it's not just the sales numbers. I quote a post from buzz.mn: “As a server in Minnesota who has worked both before and after the smoking ban, I can personally attest to the financial difficulties this has caused people in my line of work. I never see this addressed, so I'll go ahead and say this. And let me begin by saying that I don't have any hard proof and that I realize this isn't absolute by any means, but as a server you do see trends. In general, people who smoke tend to stay longer, spend more money, and tip better. Quite frankly, if smoking is keeping away people who are so uptight that they can't stand a little smoke IN A BAR, I don't want your 8% tip after you've spent the whole time complaining and trying to get money taken off your bill.

Here's the inherent problem. By and large, the vast majority of the people who really, truly support the service industry either smoke or don't really mind it. These smoking bans are aimed at the people who venture out of their town homes once a month for a glass of house wine and a chicken caesar salad. Great, you have a right to go out too. That's why there are non-smoking sections and non-smoking establishments. But those people aren't the ones who are spending real money at bars and restaurants.”
- Lynne36

This will help people quit smoking, which is good.
No it won't. As always, follow the money. The surgeon general proudly declared that no amount of second hand smoke is safe, then quit and went to work for one of the world’s largest manufacturer’s of nicotine replacement products. Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN and the state jointly sued the tobacco industry for the big “tobacco settlement”. Then we needed a health impact fee. Where’d that money go Blue Cross? There is no compelling evidence (beyond what I can only call junk science) that indicates passive smoke has a causal relationship with lung cancer or anything else for that matter. It’s a matter of carcinogen amounts. Normally our bodies can diffuse the carcinogens we take in on a daily basis because of their small amount. Passive smoke falls into this category, in much the same way as standing on a street corner and breathing in the exhaust from a Toyota Prius as it drives by. And no… it won’t cause any significant number of people to quit smoking. Trust me.

Smokers cost us taxpayers millions or billions of dollars in health care costs.
Contributions to the tax base by smokers as well as the tobacco settlement outweigh costs of health care shouldered by the rest of the rest of public. Smokers contribute more to health care revenue by orders of magnitude than any other class.

We need to protect children from the dangers of tobacco use.
What the fuck are they doing in a bar?

We have a right to go to smoke free places too.
Before the smoking bans in the metro, there was about 143 bars and restaurants (in the city of Minneapolis alone) that were already non-smoking. Statewide there were over 450 smoke-free options. So if you want to go out to dinner or socialize with friends in a smoke-free environment, take your pick.