The reference is an analagy to the employees who choose to work in a smokey bar. Many of them smokers themselves. The ban centered around the health risk associated to those who work in a bar. That's how this whole thing was sold to the public and just one of many reasons it's so hypocritical. There are hundred of jobs out there in which people are at risk everyday. It's not about any patrons right to smoke or not. The patrons vote with their feet and their wallet. And they have done that loud and clear in the case of the local corner tavern.

I don't have time to read all the posts in the thread but I did read enough to see some bars claim a 45% drop in business.

I have a hard time beliving this. You can't smoke in restaurants but restaurants aren't claiming 45% losses, smokers apparently will still eat out but not drink out, I doubt it.

All other businesses are doing fine without allowing people to smoke I am sure bars can to. In all the bars I frequent I would have to call B S on the owners if they claim big losses becuase every place I go is as busy as they have ever been.

If these bar owners are going to take this to court they better be able to prove their actual losses, I am sure the state will be looking.

The State can easily verify by looking at sales tax payments for any particular corner bar and compare October of 06 through April of 07. Then do the same thing from October 07 through April 08.

Of course the TGIFs and Chammps of the world aren't going to see much of a decline, but the Stand up Franks and the Tanks Bar of the world have seen huge ones.

My company does the payroll for a TON of bars in Minnesota. They have to report hours and tips. It's a pretty good indicator of whats going on. So is the big drop in charitable gambling. Not going to be able fudge those numbers.

Well - Here's whats coming up next. I hope all of the smoking banners don't like to drink either.


Health leaders plan worldwide campaign to target alcohol abuse

Geneva - The World Health Organization (WHO) agreed Tuesday to target alcohol and alcohol addiction worldwide with a campaign warning against the risks of abuse. European countries are the greatest consumers of alcohol, with the Czech Republic consuming more beer than any other country and Luxembourg more wine, according to WHO figures. Moldova, the Russian Federation and Thailand are mong the biggest consumers of spirits.

The move follows a similar WHO initiative against smoking in 2003 when the world body organized the anti-tobacco convention.
The WHO estimates there are two billion alcohol consumers worldwide. Some 87 million of them lived in Europe, that is ten per cent of the population. There were 2.3 million cases of alcoholism, with alcohol blamed for 1.8 million deaths a year or 3.2 per cent of the total.

Alcohol is said to play a role in 20 to 30 per cent of cases of cancer, liver, chest and throat disease and is blamed for up to a third of all traffic accidents.

Alcohol consumption and diseases related to drink are twice as high in Europe compared with the average worldwide. It was responsible for 55,000 deaths in young people aged 15 to 29 in 1999.

The WHO plans to launch a worldwide drive to curb alcohol consumption in 2009.

I can hear the argument already: Why should you be able to get drunk, swear and talk loud, totally ruining my dinning experience?

Oh boy... what next??

Here's whats next - scary stuff:

The "War" Against Obesity

by Radley Balko

If you checked out the Web site for the recent Obesity Summit, you'd have noticed the quote the summit's organizers chose to set the tone for the three-day event. It's from U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona: "As we look to the future and where childhood obesity will be in 20 years ... it is every bit as threatening to us as is the terrorist threat we face today. It is the threat from within."

First up to the podium at the summit was Time magazine president Eileen Naughton, who expounded on the numerous important, intelligent people from all walks of the diet, nutrition and medical fields that were in attendance, and who then complemented all of us conference attendees for our "shared sense of urgency."

Time's science editor, Philip Elmer-DeWitt, also took the stage. Mr. Elmer-DeWitt showed the results of a Time poll on American attitudes toward obesity.

Unfortunately, a healthy majority of poll respondents blame fast food companies, restaurants, marketers and advertisers, and food manufacturers. Fewer than half also blamed the government. Even more disturbing, 74% of respondents favoured government-mandated warning labels on high-fat, high-sugar foods; 61% believe restaurants should be forced to disclose calorie and fat content of every menu item; 56% favour a ban on advertising high-fat or high-sugar foods to kids; 41% favour a tax on fatty or sugary foods; and more than one in five actually favour legal limits on restaurant portion sizes.

Speaker after speaker reinforced the notion that obesity is a looming health crisis of catastrophic proportions. Attendees were told Americans have been getting fatter for the last quarter century, and that we're already seeing exploding health costs as the result of the many maladies associated with overweight. That obesity is a very public, very urgent problem was more a universal, inarguable premise than the subject of any real debate.

The summit seemed to centre not around whether or not obesity was a public or private matter, but around what collection of federal regulations, restrictions and lifestyle programs we ought to implement to fight it. In a concluding speech summarizing the conference, for example, Time's Ms. Naughton said there was "consensus" that obesity is a huge public health problem, but conceded that she personally was disappointed that "we didn't have an 'aha' moment, where we came to a consensus that we need to ban the marketing of sweets to children."

All Right now lets hear those wine sippin winers state the benefits of alcohol.HaHaHa

I suppose it won't be too long before every MN citizen will be required to join a health club and get regular cardiovascular workouts. After all, it is medically shown that this will improve our overall health and to do that will be a huge step toward reducing medical costs. Besides, who can argue with promoting a healthier Minnesota?

Maybe we can also expect a ban on soda pop because that product is known as a leading cause of tooth decay, excess sugar, and high intake of caffeine for children in particular.

Where will it stop? We already succumb to the seatbelt laws. Yes, it is undeniable that seatbelts have been shown to reduce the seriousness of accidents but let me decide for myself if I want to take the risk. It's not anyone else's business.

Bob

I was gonna have a BBQ this weekend and have friends that smoke. Do I need to call that Theatre Night even though it's my house? It's rediculous, if you own the place it's your choice to be smoke free or not, at least it should be.

I wonder if my office will go to Hall Passes to use the bathroom anytime soon? Seems the way things are going we need someone to hold our hands through life.

This was the first paragraph of the health reform bill the Governor just vetoed.

Section 1. [145.986] STATEWIDE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Subdivision 1. Goals. It is the goal of the state to substantially reduce the percentage of Minnesotans who are obese or overweight, and to reduce the use of tobacco.

Subd. 2. Grants to local communities. (a) Beginning July 1, 2009, the commissioner of health shall award grants to community health boards established pursuant to section 145A.09, and tribal governments to convene, coordinate, and implement evidence-based strategies targeted at reducing the percentage of Minnesotans who are obese or overweight and to reduce the use of tobacco.

This is how much they wanted to spend on this particular program:

$152,000 in fiscal year 2009 is for statewide health saving research and measurement.

(NOW CHECK THIS OUT)

The health care access fund base shall be increased by $19,587,000 in fiscal year 2010 and $26,175,000 in fiscal year 2011 for grants to local communities in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 145.986, 46.10subdivision 2;

Instead of coming up with true reform for the under-insured, this is the Dems answer to health reform in the State of MN. In addition, this bill was basically a Universal Health Bill in which the state would dictate to hospitals what they would pay and created a whole new bureaucracy. They were proposing this bill with absolutely no idea how much it was going to cost. In other words, pass this bill now and we'll figure out in 2010 what the total cost will be and how we will pay for it.

No question in my mind we need reform, but this isn't the way to go about it.

I have to point something out:
you DONT have the right to go into restaurants or bars. It's the owner's decision about who to serve and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. ie. "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". It's the owner's choice as to whether you can enter their establishment or not. Accept it.

EXCEPT in the case of smokers with a lit cigarette. THEN the owner's decision was made for them by the govt. No choice for the owner at all.

I know that the original poster wont be checking this thread but felt others may benefit from some clarification

What about smoker's rights? We allowed our legislature to pass a law banning smoking in private establishments. What about those that prefer the smokey atmosphere? Don't these people have a say? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not? Why not take the same stand as those supporting the law. Maybe smokers should pool their resources and petition the legislature on the grounds that they should not have to be subjected to the environment pushed on them by the current law.

As I've said before, I am not a smoker and never have been. I really don't enjoy the stench of cigarette smoke and I truly appreciate the clean environment the law provides but I stop short of putting my arms around a discriminatory law such as this.

Bob

As a smoker, I feel like a criminal every time I light up in public. Sure, it's a nasty habit/addiction, but it IS legal. The ban is just another liberal example of windmilling and hipocrasy. Amen to your post, BobT.