Opposing view: Minnesota statewide smoking ban not necessary

by Dawn Campbell

I was recently directed to a website by a fellow non-smoker which urges those interested to "urge MN Legislature to enact smokefree workplace law". I reviewed the brief statement on the site and decided that even as a non-smoker, I dispute the need for such a law.

MN already has a Clean Air Act. It's been around since 1975 and most recently was updated in 1995. It's MN Statute 144.411 for those of you who enjoy the details. After skimming over its contents, I gather that it pretty much covers most of where a person would breathe air in Minnesota, under the definition of "public place". I am not familiar with the lobbying movement for "smokefree workplaces" or their arguments for supporting such a law. What I am is not a big fan of redundancy and/or overkill written into law. We experience enough of that in the nursing home profession, practically paralyzing us at times! In my opinion, the Clean Air Act is not being applied effectively, which may be part of the complaint of those who believe new laws are needed.

While I personally enjoy and often choose an environment that is smoke-free as a consumer and as a person who might be seeking employment, I do not fully support the idea that all people have a right to smoke-free air. To me, it's not a right. If we're focusing on air quality, why don't we focus on bigger issues like massive amounts of pollutants released into the general atmosphere on a daily basis that affects everyone who steps outside and is currently breathing? Why isn't someone trying to take away my ability to drive a car that may or may not pass emissions testing?

I am hard-pressed to think of a place of employment that is oppressive to the employees to the extent that the employees have zero other choices of employment that would fit their individual desires for the type of environment they work in and be a match for their knowledge, skills, and abilities. I'm sure there are examples — I did see the movie "North Country" and that, to me, provides an example of a location where employment choices are scarce. Mankato is no such place. Minneapolis is no such place.

I don't think people who work in bars and restaurants are victims to their customers' smoking habits. They knew when they filled out the application that they were applying for gainful employment in an establishment that allowed for smoking. Unless they just moved to America and/or had led a life apart from mass media, I can hardly believe that they aren't slightly aware of the surgeon general's warnings about smoking and second-hand smoke. I give some employees the benefit of the doubt because we do have a fair number of people who work in this country who may have zero clue about their working conditions and the hazards they may or may not face. In Minnesota, we've had the Employee Right to Know Act since 1983. MN Employers are required by State Law to inform their employees of all hazardous substances, infectious agents, and environmental factors (e.g. extreme noise, pollution, temperature, etc.). So, again, I believe that employees, in general, have opportunities to choose a workplace that provides an environment that matches their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

As consumers, there are choices all over the place. I acknowledge that in some communities, there may just be one restaurant and one bar and sometimes it's the same place, so there's no chance for the people who wanted to enjoy an evening out and not be subjected to a smoky environment; on the other hand, I've lived in and near communities such as that and none of them ever talked about enacting a law in their city that banned smoking in restaurants and bars — they knew better: it would drastically kill their last few chances at having commerce in their tiny city.

So, what I don't get is why a city as large as Minneapolis and a city as large as Mankato would have to stoop to writing such a restriction into law? Can't the proprietors of the businesses decide to whom they are marketing their goods and services? Do we have to do their thinking for them in terms of helping them build a business plan to be attractive to consumers and employees who enjoy smoke-free environments? What if allowing smoking in the environment is part of a successful business plan? It seems backward in this case that laws would be written to discourage a business from performing successfully, thereby losing the opportunity to get to pay more taxes, etc.

Even as a nursing home, we are not required to be a smoke-free environment. Our particular facility chooses to be smoke-free. It's one of the few laws that applies to us that gives us an opportunity to meet the standards of the Clean Air Act without necessarily restricting us to one given set of behavior. So, why aren't other businesses given an opportunity to meet the standards of the Clean Air Act before imposing something much more restrictive?

Just my 2 cents on the matter.