South Dakota American Cancer Society disputes the fact that 417 MN bars & restaurants closed since smoking bans were enacted
Actually their dispute seems to be that the list of 417 closings includes 26 Starbucks that closed in and around the Twin Cities after the statewide ban was enacted. Well to set the record straight, many of the Starbucks in MN went smoke-free voluntarily before the statewide smoking ban. Logically then, much of their success was that they (and a couple other non-smoking establishments) had cornered the small smoke-free niche market, but once every other establishment was forced to ban smoking.....Starbuck's no longer had the corner on that smoke-free business.The other indisputable fact is that Minnesota's smoking bans took effect prior to our economic downturn, subsequently the avalanche of smoking ban affected hospitality closings also started at a time when our economy was booming; so economic downturn had nothing to do with Minnesota bar & restaurant closings. (In 2004, the last year without a ban only 14 MN establishments closed. As a side note, in 2005 there were approximately 1200 liquor licensed establishments in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area, so 417 closings represents the loss of 1/3 of Twin Cities establishments.
)Furthermore, a review of Minnesota's smoking ban law shows lawmakers knew the ban would destroy jobs....see language inserted into bill:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/08/review-of-minnesota-smoking-ban-law.htmlexcerpt:"Dislocated worker" (4) has been permanently separated from employment in a restaurant, bar, or lawful gambling organization from October 1, 2007, to October 1, 2009, due to the implementation of any state law prohibiting smoking;
Sec. 13. DISLOCATED WORKER PROGRAM; ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.The Job Skills Partnership Board must enable the dislocated worker program under Minnesota Statutes, section 116L.17, to provide services under that program to employees of bars, restaurants, and lawful gambling organizations who become unemployed from October 1, 2007, to October 1, 2009, due to the provisions of this act.
(see "review" link above)Additional note, "studies" that showed "no financial impact" from smoking bans have repeatedly been discredited, such as this recent university "study"http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/07/clearway-mn-dusts-off-old-study-which.htmlAnd these economic impact of smoking ban studies:http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/09/mpaat-now-known-as-clearway-minnesota.htmlhttp://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/03/minneapolis-revenue-numbers-for-bars.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/economic-impact-bars-restaurants-opinions-contributors-smoking-ban.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/8426223/PakkoUpdate: State of Minnesota Auditor's Office finally comes clean, one year after smoking ban; revenues are down 31.9% on average:http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/10/minnesota-releases-revenue-numbers-that.html
Minnesota releases revenue numbers that verify what we've already known.....smoking bans destroy the hospitality industry
http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Reports/gid/2008/liquor/liquor_08_report.pdf(Excerpt page 7)This report provides comparative data on municipal liquor operations owned and operated by Minnesota cities.1 In 2008, 212 Minnesota cities operated 242 municipal liquor stores, with 120 cities operating both on-sale and off-sale liquor establishments and 92 cities restricting their municipally-owned establishments to off-sale liquor stores. While the majority of municipally owned liquor stores are located in Greater Minnesota, 19 cities within the 7-County Metro Area (Metro Area) own and operate liquor establishments.(Excerpt page 9)Among on-sale operations, net profits totaled $1.9 million in 2008, which was a decrease of $913,333, or 31.9 percent, from 2007. (On-sale means bar operated by a municipality)Total net profits for off-sale operations totaled $18.5 million in 2008, which was a decrease of $1.1 million, or 5.6 percent, from 2007 (pg. 7). (Off-sale means liquor store operated by a municipality)
What happened in Minnesota in 2007?.......You guessed it the statewide smoking ban. Municipal Minnesota bars lost 31.9% revenue one year after the smoking ban passed, yet municipal liquor stores; which are unaffected by the ban; only lost 5.6% revenue. Finally Minnesota state auditors report the truth......though you can rest assured they had no idea that their data would be used to verify what most of us have always known......smoking bans destroy business and jobs......period.
Minnesota auditor's report proves the "Freedom to Breathe" Act was a complete failure and only serves to eliminate business and jobs while fulfilling special interests' agenda.
Have you checked the latest "benefits" of the smoking ban in Minnesota yet? Nearly 420 closed bars & restaurants (15,000+ jobs lost) thanks to Dems
See which MN lawmakers voted to eliminate choice and jobs (vote link) here in MN. Here's a spoiler alert for you.....liberal lawmakers, called DFL here in MN, voted approximately 85-95% in favor of unnecessary, government imposed, smoking bans....Republicans voted approximately 85-95% in favor of PRIVATE hospitality owners making their own business decisions....see vote link above. (in fact the MN Republican party platform included a plank to oppose property rights destroying smoking bans see section 7 paragraph S) So you can see why Clearing the Air strongly opposes the ignorant anti-business, anti-jobs policies of the Democrat party.....vote Republican this election.....your job may depend upon it.
Air quality testing of secondhand smoke in bars & restaurants and how the results compare to OSHA air quality standards
OSHA itself has stated regarding secondhand smoke:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
Multiple AQ test results from around the globe confirms secondhand smoke is NOT a workplace health hazard
This University of Washington study tested 20 Missouri smoking establishments and found that secondhand smoke levels in ALL 20 bars & restaurants tested ranged from 110 to 877 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality standards require.
This Johns Hopkins University study tested Baltimore smoking establishments and found that secondhand smoke levels in ALL of the bars & restaurants tested ranged from 30 to 238 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality standards require.
This British Medical Journal published study tested European smoking establishments and found that secondhand smoke levels in ALL of the bars & restaurants tested ranged from 4 to 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality standards require.
This American Cancer Society sponsored study tested Western New York smoking establishments and found that secondhand smoke levels in ALL of the bars & restaurants tested ranged from 532 to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality standards require.
This St. Louis Park, MN. Environmental Health Dept study tested 19 Minnesota smoking establishments and found that secondhand smoke levels in ALL 19 of the bars & restaurants tested ranged from 15 to 500 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality standards require.
WHO report on secondhand smoke
How does secondhand smoke in the workplace compare to welding smoke in the workplace?
Welding smoke is far more hazardous than secondhand smoke. Yet air quality testing shows that welding smoke is regulated to safety standards by OSHA, so lawmakers allow OSHA do do its job rather than ban it.
Secondhand smoke on the other hand, though proven to be 15 – 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality regulations, requires government intervention according to Nicoderm funded activists and some lawmakers…….This double standard however, and the air quality testing above prove that a special interest agenda might be the real motive behind the demand for bans.
Otherwise, if health were the real concern we would show some consistency, either by allowing workplace (OSHA) air quality regulations in our bars and restaurants.......or by imposing a ban on all other potential workplace air quality hazards.
Smoking cigarettes can be hazardous to the smoker, no argument there. However, secondhand smoke is not the deadly hazard pro-smoking ban groups claim. Which should lead one to question what is the real agenda, and why the hype?
US Supreme Court sides with Native Americans and against special interest nanny activists
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/supreme_court_sides_with_cayug.htmlThe Cayuga Indian Nation today won another court victory in its bid to continue selling tax-free cigarettes at its LakeSide Trading stores in Union Springs and Seneca Falls.Anyone who follows the smoking ban / anti-tobacco issue knows the real impetus to increase tobacco taxes and ban tobacco use comes from special interest activists who receive funding from the pharmaceutical nicotine industry. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF) true motive for funding laws which discourage tobacco use comes from the fact that they are part of the Johnson & Johnson conglomerate which owns, sells or manufactures Nicoderm, Nicorette, Nicotrol, Commit, etc.....not exactly an unbiased and upstanding motive.