|
Dear Representative Bradley, I am writing to express my opposition to a statewide smoking ban. Some of my reasons: 1. Cities that pass such bans on their own (such as Bloomington and Minneapolis) and find them detrimental to their business environment should not be allowed to drag other communities down with them to "level the playing field." It is the responsibility of the individual community to make theirs a competitive one. In other words, they made their bed, and now must lie in it, or face economic reality and repeal their bans when they prove harmful. 2. There is no reason that business owners cannot choose to disallow smoking in their establishments, and sink or swim based on their decision. No one is forcing anyone to work in a smoke-filled environment, anymore than a person is forced to work as a house or industrial painter, exposing themselves to dangerous chemicals and solvents. People have choices in their profession. The risk averse shouldn't take "risky" jobs. Our market should be about choices. 3. Throughout the country, and the world, where smoking bans have been rushed into place, they are being repealed and modified to be less restrictive once the catastrophic damage to businesses is observed, but damage has already been done. 4. Smoking bans make us all less free. We should not sacrifice liberty for the mere (unproven) perception of modest potential health gains. We should not rush to bind the hands of business in Minnesota over shaky, contested and alarmist science to satisfy what can only be described as a selfish desire to force all businesses to cater to the tastes of one zealous group. You are in a position to uphold the best values of our republic in siding with liberty. I pray you do so. Respectfully, Dan McGrath Minneapolis |
|
As a small restaurant owner in Minnesota, I struggle to pay my bills, payroll, taxes and fees. It's apparent that the people in charge of all of these fees and rules have no idea what it takes to make a living. That goes right along with all the do-gooders out there who want to make my restaurant nonsmoking. How dare you tell me what I can do on my property? There are a variety of restaurants. Many restaurants choose to be nonsmoking. Eat at those establishments. You are welcome here, but you do not have to come in here. I used to buy a lot of merchandise in Duluth, stay in its motels and eat in its restaurants. Not anymore. All of my money now goes to Wisconsin, where being an American still allows you freedom of choice. The smoking ban in Duluth has hurt small businesses. It's time to pay attention to the people who pay most of the taxes in this state. Politicians do not do what's best for all of Minnesota. They do what's best for their careers. Money talks. Special-interest groups have money; small businesses don't. SARAH HAMILTON Grand Marais |
|
I agree with letter-writer Larry Shelley ("We want a smoking ban, not anarchy," Feb. 2) that personal liberty is a cornerstone of our society. But his proposal is exactly how we lose those most-cherished liberties, a little bit at a time, all the while wondering what happened. What will we need to ban next? Coal? X-rays? Alcohol? Grilled meats? Sunshine? Using Shelley's way of thinking, speed limits are not enough and cars must be banned. Drugs, too, cannot be regulated and all must be banned. The idea that someone smoking in the bar down the street is somehow harming you is ludicrous. With 80 percent of Minnesota's workplaces smoke-free, it's easy to avoid the "health risk" of second-hand smoke. No one forces a customer to enter an establishment that allows smoking or an employee to work there. Is there a limit to which government can legislate in the name of public health? Where do we draw the line between fundamental autonomous rights and government-granted civil rights? SUE JEFFERS Minneapolis The writer is the owner of Stub and Herb's. |