Thursday, January 25, 2007

Minnesota statewide smoking ban introduced ......again

KARE 11 covers the reaction to another statewide smoking ban attempt.

And yes, my two cents were added........but it's always fustrating to know what was edited out of an interview. Yet, I have to say reporter Scott Goldberg was pretty fair, he did tell me that it was impossible to get all the information I provided he asked what one message I would like to see survive and he made sure it happened check the video yourself.

That message was that there should be some financial compensation for those whose businesses closed and for the employees who lost jobs and so much more, due to the smoking bans. My preference is that the pro-smoking ban lobby would fund that compensation pool themselves. That lobby consists of the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, the American Non-Smoker's Rights Foundation, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids......and especially the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who provided $200,000,000.00+ of pharmaceutical nicotine industry funding to all the preceeding groups enabling them to continue their pro-smoking ban lobbying efforts.

If however, lawmakers don't feel they are able to compel the pharmaceutical nicotine profiteers into funding that $200-$500 million compensation pool...then lawmakers should set aside a portion of the surplus to help pay for that smoking ban.

Smoking bans have contributed greatly to a significant number of business closings, and subsequent job losses in the thousands. Lawmakers, and non-smokers seem to have the impression that smoke-free laws are "free", those of us out in the cold know that isn't the case at all.

Look, as a conservative I would much rather see the entire projected state surplus returned to Minnesota taxpayers. However if lawmakers are going to enact anti-business legislation and they are not going to compel the smoking ban profiteers to compensate those negatively affected......then they ought to be willing to pay for that new legislation. Perhaps Minnesota taxpayers might take a more active role in the smoking ban discussion if they have to fund it.

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


    "Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights"

    Shop for Aircleaners

    Combustion Engine Emissions Eliminator (CE3)