Freedom to Act

Gopher Football: Losing coach Brewser and no "brew" at the games.

2009-11-12T08:14:00.002-06:00

Long time since a Redrant, perhaps five months so here goes: In my garage I have an old sign from Charlie's Cafe Exceptional in Minneapolis. It has a football drawing and text saying that they would have buses "to the game". No explanation was necessary.

Charlie's Cafe, just south of the downtown Minneapolis "courthouse row" but when the sign was made the Twin Cites were devoid of pro-sports. As a U of MN student I recall attending a few football games at the old "brick house". Pretty dead back then with pro sports here. Admittedly the dome didn't help but basically the market and times have changed.

The new Gopher stadium is a structural masterpiece. My dentist of 25 years has an office next to it so I have followed the construction saga. I have no complaints against the building itself.

That said, the alcohol policy there, especially in terms of how it relates to students borders of "gestapo tactics". Our modern day "prohibitionists" have considered the U of MN campus a "market free environment". They impose ever stronger restrictions on tobacco and alcohol.

Student drinking at games has long been considered a "cat and mouse game" (think Madison, WI). The prohibitionists at the U of MN seem to have crossed the line with breathalyser tests of students. There is a long history of turning drunks away from games but this is documentation and the prohibitionist with their "gestapo tactics" want this recorded on a students record. That is very scary.

Most modern students are computer savvy and they realize the ramifications this might have. They interact with the less savvy out of state students (part of the university life). The threat of punitive action and the "crossing the line" of documentation is very scary to all.

The most vocal prohibitionists are "politically correct" Marxists who hate everything about the USA: http://Cloward-Piven.com

The logic of the early game low student turnout seems to be that all the U of MN students are recovering from hangovers from Friday night. Hmm! This after decades of the prohibitionists combating student drinking? Hmm!! It was several decades back but I live in Dinkeytown, adjacent to the U of MN campus for 12 years. Students weren't all Friday night drunks back then and they aren't now.

If someone wants to go after the prohibitionists a student boycott of the new Gopher stadium would seem a good target. In the 1970's it was tried but failed. The sports grip was too strong. Nowadays we have far more options and the Big 10 Network was badly over-marketed even before the economic crash.

The old economic boycott strategy might work here. If it starts student section attendance might be closely monitored. If you build it and the students don't come this will be the focal point. If the powers that be try a "switcharoo" I'm sure our many student journalist will find out about it and report.

Greg Lang

Response to MN Court of Appeals ruling on Theater Night

2009-07-14T14:51:00.000-05:00

MARK W. BENJAMIN

Criminal Defense, P.A.

237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111

Cambridge, MN 55008

763-691-0900 (office)

763-670-9664 (mobile)

markbenjamin@msn.com

www.markwbenjamin.com

Press Release

MN Court of Appeals rules against Theater Night; No standards provided; Appeal to follow

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today against Tom Marinaro, owner of Tank’s Bar in Babbitt, Minnesota. Mr. Marinaro was issued a ticket in March 2008 for allowing patrons to smoke in his bar. Two months later, he went to court and alleged that his patrons were performing in his improvisational play, The Gunsmoke Monologues. Under Minnesota law, it is legal for actors to smoke indoors during a “theatrical performance”.

The district court judge ruled that Mr. Marinaro’s play was a sham because his patrons did not perform on stage, did not wear costumes and did not read scripts.

Today the Court of Appeals ruled that the district court judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that Mr. Marinaro’s play was not a play. Unfortunately, the Court declined to provide any standards by which Minnesota bar owners might comport their conduct so as to not run afoul of the law. The Court said it would not issue “advisory opinions concerning hypothetical situations” and that it was “neither necessary nor prudent … to attempt to set forth an all-purpose definition of the term ‘theatrical performance’”.

But the continuing economic distress of some Minnesota bar owners is anything but hypothetical as they continue to cut hours, lay off employees and go out of business. The legislature declined to provide clarification of the “theatrical performance” exception and now, sadly, the Court of Appeals has done the same.

It is for that reason that Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Marinaro will seek review by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Our show goes on.

Greg, Here is the Wisconsin Tavern League Letter in response to the passage of their smoking ban.

2009-05-20T11:14:00.002-05:00

Quick "redrant". It seems a bad idea to consort with zealots. Success just encourages zealots to push for more extreme actions.

As in politics if side "B" tries to be "side A lite" it demoralises those on the "B" side and reduces public support for "B".

Also, other states except for Minnesota and Wisconsin seem to be able to restrict smoking at tribal casinos. The inability here seems based very much in the intense lobbying and large political contributions of the tribal casino industries. I've been following this for almost a year and a half and the there has not been one word of criticism from the anti-smoking groups about the large expansion of smoking sections in Minnesota Tribal Casino's. Perhaps "money talks (or silences) Greg Lang

May 15, 2009

Dear (Wisconsin) Tavern League Member:

As you already know, Senate Bill 181, a Statewide Smoking Ban, has passed the Senate and the Assembly and awaits the Governor’s signature. This bill was a result of negotiations between our association and Smoke Free Wisconsin, The American Cancer Society and thirty other groups they were representing.

This was not an easy decision. The Tavern League of Wisconsin Board of Directors, consisting of thirty-eight fellow TLW Members debated long and hard before reaching a unanimous decision to support a compromise very similar to the one that was agreed on. It was a gut wrenching decision for all involved, but one we felt was in the best interest of our membership.

The necessity to compromise was a result of actions taken by Governor Jim Doyle. We found ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. The governor, a strong proponent of the smoking ban, placed his extreme version of a ban in the State budget and forced Senate leadership into a vote on May 13^th. Faced with the probability of the budget being passed with a very strict Smoking Ban, we felt compelled to act. The Governor’s Bill would have included excessive fines, an immediate start-up date and no restrictions placed on municipalities regarding their ability to pass stronger bans locally along with other components placing even heavier burdens on your business.

The hardest thing I’ve had to do to date as your president was to sit and negotiate an agreement with the very same people we have been fighting the past several years. This was especially difficult given the amount of time, effort, money and emotion that our members have poured into the fight. No one, including myself, is satisfied with how this battle ended however this was our only option.

Please understand this was not an easy decision and one that was not taken lightly. We had to reconcile the interests of members in the growing number of communities with smoking bans with the interests of members without bans. We also knew the issue was not going to go away which factored in to our decision to act and get pre-emption, phase in and lower penalties.

If you want to blame the TLW for agreeing to this deal that is your prerogative, however please remember the position we found ourselves in and that we only did what we believed was in the best interest of our Membership. Had Governor Doyle not made this one of his top priorities and included it in his budget bill we would have fared much better.

It is my hope that you continue to support the Tavern League of Wisconsin. Like you, I operate a small business and see the many values of the Tavern League of Wisconsin. We were the only group fighting this ban and we did the best job we could. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and I hope you have a better understanding of why and how things happened.

Sincerely,

Rob Swearingen

Frequently Asked Questions

1. I thought the powerful Tavern League of Wisconsin could have defeated the smoking ban again this year. Why did the TLW compromise if they could have killed the bill again?

We could not have killed the bill. Last session there were 18 authors of the bill this year there were 34 authors. Unlike last session, Governor Doyle took the unprecedented step of including an extreme smoking ban in his state budget bill. He had us in a very difficult position – either compromise or risk passage of his smoking ban in the budget. Governor Doyle’s bill would have taken effect August 1^st and allowed local governments to ban outdoor smoking and fine business owners up to $500 for violations. Based on that information the TLW Board of Directors unanimously agreed to seek a compromise which would include three main provisions. 1. A year long phase in, 2. Pre-emption of local smoking ordinances, and 3. Lower fines. The compromise accomplished that objective. Some members have said we should have fought to the bitter end. Our objective was to defeat the smoking ban and when that became unachievable we tried as best we could to do what was in the best interest of the Membership.

2. What does pre-emption mean and how will it affect me?

This is one of the most important elements of the bill. We felt it was so important to achieve pre-emption or we would be fighting battles in municipalities to ban smoking outdoors. This provision of the bill prohibits local municipalities from enacting any ordinances restricting smoking outside of a licensed establishment. In addition, the pre-emption language eliminates any existing local smoking ordinance and local fines on July 5, 2010 and replaces them with the state law. Pre-emption provides you certainty that you can create an outdoor smoking area which will not be jeopardized by a local ordinance. It also reduces fines in communities with an existing smoking ban.

3. What are the penalties in the bill?

The penalties of the bill do not go into effect until July 5, 2010. The bill requires a warning be issued to the licensee holder or a person in charge of a licensed establishment for a first violation. Subsequent violations shall be $100 for all violations occurring on a single day. A person smoking on the premise would face a fine of at least $100 but nor more than $250. The bill eliminates any municipal fines that may currently exist in communities with smoking bans effective July 5, 2010. Very importantly, the bill provides that neither a municipality nor the Department of Revenue may use any smoking violations to revoke, suspend or refuse to renew a liquor license or permit.

4. Why aren’t the casinos covered by the bill?

According to the legislative staff attorneys the state does not have the authority to impose a smoking ban on a tribal casino or have the ability to enforce a smoking ban if it were imposed.

5. When is Jim Doyle up for re-election?

November 2, 2010.

You are receiving this email as a member of the Tavern League of Wisconsin. Because parts of this email may be categorized as commercial you may want them discontinued. If you would like these emails discontinued, please reply to this message and ask for removal from our list. You can also email info@tlw.org or call 608/270-8591 and ask that your email address be taken off of our list

More apartments are snuffing out smoking

2009-05-08T02:09:00.002-05:00

Article: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/44563632.html

Lighting up is now prohibited in about 2 percent of the rental properties in Minnesota, according to Live Smoke Free.

RedRant: First off the comment I posted in the Star Tribune discussion section.

"according to Live Smoke Free, a program of the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota funded by a Minnesota Department of Health grant."

Hmm! A political advocacy group funded by public money? Hello!!!! This got it's start in California specifically San Francisco and Berkeley. A few problems. In the Bay Area they have very high housing costs so rental tenure is somewhat akin to property ownership. If the "lifer tenant" leaves the landlord can get far higher rent and rent to a friend. Also, in CA they have the idea that marijuana is "medicine". If "Dr. Feelgood" can give prescriptions for pot here will smoke free building have to allow people smoking pot but not smoking cigarettes? The next buildings at the SW corner of the Lake Street Bridge are smoke free. You often see slacker guys smoking on the front stoops. Hmm! Something tells me they are not leaseholders.

posted by bikemiles on May. 8, 09 at 2:04 AM

First off, "follow the money". First off, these anti-smoking organisations seemed to get the bulk of their funding from public money grants or pharmaceutical companies pushing anti-smoking "medications". The MN DOH has done good work on the recent flu pandemic. That said should they be in the business of funding political advocacy. This is a pattern which goes way back to "Smoke Free Minnesota" having almost unlimited public money to complain about the non-existant "big tobacco funding".

The tobacco settlement money was public. The Minnesota case was brought in the name of the public so the money is public despite any sleigh-of-hand in fund designation.

I don't have a problem with private market rental housing having a nonsmoking provision. The complex at the south west corner of the Lake Street bridge opened a few years back smoke free. No one was displaced. It is rental and I have seen no big "apartment available" signs so it must be working.

What is funny to watch is the smokers on the stoops. Especially, on Saturday and Sunday morning it's the "twenty-something" "slacker" type males on the stoop smoking. I live in the neighborhood and use the Lake Street Bridge often so I do a "stoop census". I can't recall a twenty-something women smoking on the stoop.

Go figure! Sounds like "twentysomething" single women who embraced the smoke free lifestyle are "picking up" smoking males.

Greg Lang http://freedomtoact.com

Healthy Menus Cause Some To Pick Less Healthy Options

2009-05-02T04:06:00.002-05:00

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1680536/healthy_menus_cause_some_to_pick_less_healthy_options/

Redrant: In the experiment subjects were given menus with and without "healthy" options. As the "healthy" option became more extreme (veggie burgers) the subjects were even more likely to choose the most "unhealthy" item (a bacon-cheeseburger). The researcher theorised that this was

"vicarious goal fulfillment," in which merely having the opportunity to act in a way that achieves long-term objectives satisfies a person’s goal, even if they ultimately do not make the healthier choice"

I disagree with this theory. To me the addition of a "veggie burger" triggers a defensive reaction to "food police/nanny state" type chiding. This would seem to explain the more strong willed people being the most likely to choose the bacon cheeseburger" when the veggie burger is listed.

At the story link I wrote this comment #1:

Posted by Greg Lang on 05/01/2009, 04:23
Interesting study but I disagree with the logic. The "healthy options" on the menu might trigger a defensive reaction. This might be compared to very hard sell from store personnel deterring you from buying something you might have wanted anyway. We are constantly bombarded by "Nanny Culture" and "Food Police" people and messages. Many are by self-righteous, often unpleasant people. The "veggie burger" on the menu might trigger this defensive response in people. It's a stretch to so that because the "healthy" item was on the menu people considered it. As for those with "high self control" (whatever that means) reaction more strongly these people are more likely to respond strongly to perceived or subconscious cohersion. Here is an experiment. Blow up a picture of "Mary Poppins" or other "nice Nanny" into a poster with the caption "Be sure to eat your vegetables" and put it in the produce section. I'd guess that produce sales would go down.

Greg Lang

(original article) http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1680536/healthy_menus_cause_some_to_pick_less_healthy_options/

Healthy Menus Cause Some To Pick Less Healthy Options

A new study finds that simply thinking of a healthy food can satisfy our good intentions of eating well, ironically making it easier to eat less healthier foods.

Researchers at Duke University found that people were significantly more likely to choose the least-healthy option on a menu when the menu included a single healthy option, such as a fruit or a veggie burger.

"Because the healthy option is there, it somehow satisfies this healthy eating goal in them and then they felt liberated to sort of go crazy and choose something really, really bad for them," said Dr. Gavan J. Fitzsimons of Duke University, in an interview with Reuters.

Fitzsimons, who led the study, and his team were exploring something they call "vicarious goal fulfillment," in which merely having the opportunity to act in a way that achieves long-term objectives satisfies a person’s goal, even if they ultimately do not make the healthier choice.

The researchers hypothesized that people would select the least-healthy option on a menu more often when the menu included a food that represented a healthy goal, compared to when they were presented with a menu with only less-healthy options.

In every one of their experiments, Fitzsimons and his colleagues found their hypothesis held true.

For instance, among 70 undergraduate students, 37% chose a bacon-cheeseburger when the alternatives included a veggie burger. However, just 17% did so when the veggie burger wasn't on the menu.

Similar results were seen when salad was included on a menu with french fries, chicken nuggets, and baked potato (more selected the fries) and when 100-calories worth of Oreo cookies were offered along with original Oreos, chocolate covered Oreos, and golden Oreos (more people picked the chocolate-covered cookies).

Surprisingly, those with high levels of self-control were more likely to make the less-healthy choices when offered a healthy option than those who had less self-control.

Additional experiments showed that people who were more restrained unconsciously acted as if they had fulfilled their health goals by simply considering a healthy choice.

Fitzsimons concluded that persuading people healthier requires more than merely adding healthier options to the fast food or school cafeteria menus. Indeed, people should avoid fast food joints altogether if they really want to keep eating healthily, he said, while schools should eliminate unhealthy choices entirely rather than trying to lure children away from the pizza with fruit and vegetable offerings.

By offering a few nutritious choices, fast food restaurants may entice health-conscious customers with the possibility that they might pick these items, Fitzsimons said.

As a result, purveyors of junk food continue to see their profits grow.

"It's not from salads,” said Fitzsimons.

The study was published in the Journal of Consumer Research.

---

On the Net:

The state's smoking ban is back at the Legislature.

2009-04-28T01:47:00.000-05:00

http://blogs.twincities.com/politics/2009/04/up_in_smoke.html

Up In Smoke

The state's smoking ban is back at the Legislature. Two efforts to carve out exceptions to the ban narrowly missed being included in the House HHS bill tonight.

The first try came from Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, who attempted to set a up a scheme where bars could have a ventilated room with no food or liquor service. It failed, 63-69, but not before a Rukavina-esque blast across the floor fo the House.

"You love to hammer on those poor smokers with a regressive tax and then make them stand outside when its 35 below and make them feel like second-class citizens,” he chided.

The next came from Rep. Larry Howes, R-Walker. It would set up "shelters" seperate from the main body of a bar where people can smoke. Kind of like smoking outhouses.

That too was defeated, but it was close. The full House was evenly divided, 67-67.

Posted by City Hall Scoop on April 27, 2009 9:52 PM | Permalink

Mark Benjamin press release on appeals hearing

2009-04-17T21:06:00.000-05:00

MARK W. BENJAMIN

Criminal Defense, P.A.

237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111

Cambridge, MN 55008

763-691-0900 (office)

763-670-9664 (mobile)

markbenjamin@msn.com

www.markwbenjamin.com

Press Release

Local News Video Report of Oral Arguments at Court of Appeals on April 16^th in Duluth.

Link: http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/S883113.shtml?cat=10335

Cambridge Attorney Mark W. Benjamin appeared before the MN Court of Appeals yesterday on behalf of his client Tom Marinaro.

Last May, Mr. Marinaro was found guilty of allowing his customer-actors to smoke in his bar during a performance of his improvisational play "The Gunsmoke Monologues". The district court ruled that his play did not fit within the "theatrical productions" exception to Minnesota's state-wide smoking ban. Why? Because his customer-actors did not wear costumes, read from scripts or restrict their performances to a stage.

These standards do not exist in the language of the statute and bar owners have been uncertain just what would satisfy the Minnesota Department of Health. No bars have hosted Theater Night since last spring, worried that they might inadvertently run afoul of the law,

That could all change if the Court of Appeals affirms the district court. For the first time, bar owners would have legal authority to employ those standards in hosting future Theater Nights. Simply put, all performances would be restricted to a stage and all customer-actors would wear costumes and read from scripts. Oh yes, and they would smoke too.

Strangely enough, a loss for Mr. Marinaro would be a victory for Minnesota's small bar owners. Theater Night 2.0 would be born and better than ever.

Mr. Benjamin emphasized that Mr. Marinaro and other small bar owners mean no disrespect to law enforcement or the courts. They simply want the same thing the Guthrie Theater wants. They want to make money -- legally.

The Court of Appeals has up to 90 days to reach a decision.

Our show goes on.

New Study of National Heart Attack Admissions and Mortality Finds No Evidence of a Short-Term Effect of Smoking Bans

2009-04-15T01:14:00.002-05:00

First the source link to the story. Also posted on my http://freedomtoact.com http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-study-of-national-heart-attack.html

Redrant: The money quote: "The Helena, Montana study examined 304 heart attack admissions in one community over a period of six months. This study examined a total of 217,023 heart attack admissions and 2.0 million heart attack deaths in 468 counties in all 50 states over an eight-year period."

I recall reading and the Consumer report website about an IBM executive who complained of "chest pains" $150K of diagnostic work and testing it was finally determined that he had taken up yard work and was experiencing "weed wackier muscle strain", a common condition if you are not adapted to this type of "lifting". Also, we have to assume that if didn't balk at even the co-pays, he had a rather large residence that required a lot more weedwacking than my 40 foot city lot. I recently sniped at a doctor posting at http://minnpost.com who wrote that the Framingham heart study "contained few women" when the charter group was over 50% women. http://freedomtoact.blogspot.com/2009/03/minnpost-doctor-claims-framingham-heart.html

A glaring error but this doctor and it indicates a mindset. The charter Framingham group contained no minorities (Framingham, MA had a very low percentage of minorities in 1948, somewhat comparable to the Twin Cities at the time). If you use "victimology logic" you might conclude that the Framingham study charter group must not have included women because it didn't include minorities! Of course, a few seconds of fact checking on the Internet could dispel this.

That is point one. The mindset. If you think you are fighting "social injustice", evil corporations or whatever, you are not likely to question the idea that the the Framingham study contained few women.

Actually, the doctor writing this column is pretty good. He tends to write about how doctors don't tend to adapt to research and the huge disparities in diagnosis and treatment rates. I can't recall him taking on "heart attack" hospital admissions rates and I don't know if the aforementioned IBM executive was admitted there is wild inconsistency in hospital admission rates for "heart attacks". First off, these are for hospital admissions, not actual verified heart attacks. Someone complains of chest pain and someone calls the ambulance. (They don't call it "heartburn" for nothing.) For starters, except for a true serious heart attack where you are "down" an actual heart attack is very difficult to diagnose. Basically, an EKG, preferably with a past reference EKG. Also if heart tissue actually dies there is detectable blood and urine waste tracers which apparently are different for the typical "sore muscle" waste tracers.

That said, the Framingham heart study found that at least in males 25% of heart attacks were "silent". They did yearly EKG's so I would assume the diagnosis was done with EKG variances. On the other extreme I knew the late "Meet the Press" Tim Russert's family. I happened to know that Tim got "top notch" medical treatment, had an exercises regime and a there was an on site heart defillabrator.

For a second example a now retired co-worker (who was very "high strung") was basically forced to go to a doctor after he became totally tired after carry a rather heavy computer a couple of hundred feet (endurance and energy recovery are good hints). The doctors ordered him admitted and he had (as I recall) a quadruple bypass.

Basically, "walking wounded". He looked in rough shape but he took more asprin than I did (dollar stores have a bottle of 200 USP asprin for $1. Cheapest insurance around!) The Framingham study found the link between asprin and dramatically reduced heart attack risk. He could have gone a long time this way as walking wounded. If he had a massive heart attack and died that would not be a hospital admission. It would have been a "statistic".

The point here is that if a reduction in "admissions" occurs" after a smoking ban there could be a number of reasons. Smokers might stay home more or frequent more "smoke friendly" establishments (Minnesota Indian casinos, exempt from the smoking bans have greatly expanded smoking sections) and if at home, the person might take an aspirin or die in their sleep. I am wondering if nowadays the "patient harvesting" hospitals are advising the admission of more people for "heart attacks" with good insurance versus non-insured? We would have to look at initial hospitalisations recommendations versus actual hospitalisation.

Yet another variable. Basically, the Helena study was "cherry picking" data, a "gotcha" of sorts. This is a very large study where the "law of large numbers" applies.

Of course the anti-smoking "family" has no problem sacrificing science for "propaganda". They don't debate. I wonder why? Greg Lang

Smoking Ban Appeal this Thursday

2009-04-15T00:08:00.000-05:00

MARK W. BENJAMIN

Criminal Defense, P.A.

237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111

Cambridge, MN 55008

763-691-0900 (office)

763-670-9664 (mobile)

markbenjamin@msn.com

www.markwbenjamin.com

Press Release

REMINDER – Theater Night – Oral Arguments at Court of Appeals – April 16^th at 10:40 a.m. in Duluth.

This Thursday morning, April 16^th at 10:40 a.m., at the St. Louis County Courthouse, 100 North Fifth Avenue West, Mark Benjamin will argue before the Minnesota Court of Appeals on behalf of his client Tom Marinaro, owner of Tank’s Bar in Babbitt, Minnesota.

Factual Background. On the afternoon of March 14, 2008, Mr. Marinaro received a citation for violating Minnesota’s smoking ban, even though his bar was participating in “Theater Night” at the time. Mr. Marinaro demanded a court trial and claimed he was innocent, given that the ban allows smoking during “theatrical performances” by “actors” and “actresses”. This exception provides no guidance, standards or restrictions on what constitutes a “theatrical performance”. Mr. Marinaro, a former steel worker, put on the best play he could and claimed that smoking in his bar was legal as long as the play was being performed. The trial court disagreed and fined him $300. Mr. Marinaro appealed.

Legislative Background. In the closing days of the 2007 legislative session, a conference committee was formed to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions of the smoking ban. Rep. Tom Huntley of Duluth – as a favor to the Guthrie Theater – introduced a “theatrical performances” exception in the committee. One of the legislators warned that the exception’s language was broad enough to allow acting (and smoking) in bars, not just playhouses. He was greeted with laughter and the new exception was voted in as written.

Theater Night Background. The first Theater Night was performed on February 9, 2008 (3 days before the new legislative session) at Barnacles Bar in Aitkin. Within three weeks, approximately 100 bars across Minnesota were hosting their own versions of Theater Night. Despite this, the legislature refused to limit or clarify the language of the “theatrical performances” exception. The Department of Health cracked down on several bars with administrative penalties. Nobody appealed these actions and Theater Night seemed doomed.

Our Goal. We hope the MN Court of Appeals will properly rule that the legislature shirked its duty to define its terms and declare that Mr. Marinaro comported his conduct within the admittedly broad language of the “theatrical performances” exception. Bar owners are hoping for a favorable ruling so their businesses and employees’ jobs can be saved. We ask the legislature to examine the law and provide reasonable accommodations for our blue collar bar owners and veterans clubs – just as it did for the Guthrie.

Our show goes on.

Minnpost Doctor claims Framingham Heart Study had "very few women".

2009-03-27T02:50:00.002-05:00

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/03/23/7528/risk_factors_vs_risks_who_will_develop_cardiovascular_disease_--_and_could_a_new_polypill_help_prevent_it

Key quote in this otherwise good article: "Early risk-factor data on cardiovascular disease came from the likes of the Framingham Heart Study, which Grimm describes as "very famous; but as a study it was tiny by today's comparisons, and it included essentially no blacks and very few women."

My posted comment:

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/03/23/7528/risk_factors_vs_risks_who_will_develop_cardiovascular_disease_--_and_could_a_new_polypill_help_prevent_it#comment_22182

The Framington Heart study was essentially all "white" in the beginning but the majority of the original participants were women, contrary to what is written. This is very relevant to the "second hand smoke" debate because back in 1948 most men smoked and few women did. Also, most women didn't work out side the home so we have an good, long term study of the effects of second hand smoke that is ignored by things like the Surgeon Generals report on second hand smoke. Framingham asked about these things.
Here is a breakdown of the "charter" 1948 participants.
Age 29-39 40-49 50-62 Totals
Men 835 779 722 2,336
Women 1,042 962 869 2,873
Totals 1,877 1,741 1,591 5,209
http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/participants/original.html

Redrant: My calculator says that the Framingham original 1948 participants were 55% women. Often I have gone into a bar or party that is more than half women and concluded there were few women there but hey! I was usually looking for a date! As for the original group being almost all "white" this may not be PC but if you are Italian are you you going to reject the Mediterranean Diet Heart study because almost all participants are Italian? Because it is not "PC"? Of course not!

The Framington Heart study turned 60 in 2008 and has followed three generations. The youngest original cohorts would be in their 90's by now so most have passed on. Almost all participants agreed to autopsies after their death. The key was getting a good look at the heart but if you crack open the chest it's easy to also get a look at the lungs.

Also, children in smoking and non-smoking homes could be studied since many participate. As I mentioned most women did not work outside the home back then and the questions asked about smoke exposure in the home and outside the home. Framingham could not find any specific relation to domestic secondhand smoke and illness. Framingham, also found that occasional male smokers, what we call "chippers" smoking less than ten cigarettes a week had a lower heart disease rate than non-smoking males! My guess is that that the non-smoking males tended to have more sedentary "desk" jobs which often had a lot more stress.

Physical activity and stress are two factors that are hard to quantify. I have seen several shows on primates where CAT scans and autopsies showed that the "submissive males" in the group tended to have a severe hardening of the arteries due to stress. As one researcher noted, these primates couldn't sneak out for to double cheesburgers, booze and cigarettes but the effect was dramatic with these variables controlled.

I downloaded the 650 page Surgeon Generals report on second hand smoke. I tried searches with assorted variation of "Framingham" but the Framingham study did not rate a mention. To paraphrase the man who claimed to have helped create the Internet, Al Gore, the Framingham study seems to contain "Inconvenient Truths". Greg Lang

Theater Night – Oral Arguments at Court of Appeals – April 16th at 10:40 a.m. in Duluth.

2009-03-19T22:45:00.000-05:00

MARK W. BENJAMIN

Criminal Defense, P.A.

237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111

Cambridge, MN 55008

763-691-0900 (office)

763-670-9664 (mobile)

Press Release

Theater Night – Oral Arguments at Court of Appeals – April 16^th at 10:40 a.m. in Duluth.

Mark your calendar. On Thursday morning, April 16^th at 10:40 a.m., Mark Benjamin will present his oral argument to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on behalf of his client Tom Marinaro. Mr. Marinaro is the owner of Tank’s Bar in Babbitt, Minnesota. On the afternoon of March 14, 2008, he was issued a citation for violating Minnesota’s smoking ban, even though his bar was participating in “Theater Night” at the time. Mr. Marinaro demanded a court trial and claimed he was innocent of any wrong-doing, given that the ban allows smoking during “theatrical performances” by “actors” and “actresses”. This exception provides no guidance, standards or restrictions on the venue of the play, the quality of the performance or the credentials of the performers. Mr. Marinaro may not be a patron of the performing arts, but he put on the best play he could and claimed that smoking in his bar was legal as long as the play was being performed.

The trial court disagreed, found Mr. Marinaro guilty and fined him $300. Mr. Marinaro appealed.

Mr. Benjamin will argue that the language of the exception to the state’s smoking ban is clear and unambiguous, namely, that smoking is allowed by actors and actresses during a theatrical performance as long as non-actors are advised ahead of time.

Mr. Marinaro displayed posters outside of his establishment and performance programs inside – all advising patrons that “The Gunsmoke Monologues” would be performed from 3:00 p.m.. to closing every day and that there would be some smoking during the performance. Any patron who wanted to perform (and smoke) in Mr. Marinaro’s play had to wear a clearly-marked ID stating that he or she was an actor.

Although the media has had a good chuckle at the Theater Night “loophole”, many participating bar owners claimed it to be a “lifeline”, allowing them to retain waitresses and bartenders and pay their bills. For instance, before he started participating in Theater Night, Mr. Marinaro laid off his office manager of 18 years, shut down his restaurant on Sundays and Mondays, and cut the hours of his bartenders.

Our hope is to win at the Court of Appeals and then petition the legislature to make reasonable accommodations for our struggling bar owners. In this way, we hope to achieve a healthy balance between physical and fiscal health for all Minnesota citizens.

Join us at the St. Louis County Courthouse, 100 North Fifth Avenue West in Duluth on April 16^th.

Our show goes on.

Survey: Minnesotans want higher state tax on smokes

2009-03-12T11:38:00.002-05:00

Redrant: How about a survey asking if a public transit users should pay higher costs, perhaps double the current fares to pay the cost of public transit?
No skin off my back! I rarely use public transit. ...... The point here is that only a very small percentage of people regularly use public transit so higher fares won't affect them. ......... Past Twin Cities transit strikes have shown negligible impact on traffic.......How about using using the same method of this survey for a survey on users paying public transit costs? .....Same survey logic! Greg Lang

Survey: Minnesotans want higher state tax on smokes.

http://www.startribune.com/local/41148317.html

Theater Nite Update 3-8-09

2009-03-09T00:45:00.001-05:00

Hello Everyone,

It has been a while since my last update and a few things have been happening. First of all, Mark Benjamin has received the date (April 16th) for his appeal hearing and will be issuing a press release soon. A few other things have been going on in the Legislature and I have noted them below......a Senate bill for an employee smoke room (SF 898), a House bill to REMOVE the smoking exception for patients in psychiatric wards (HF1142), and the Senate version of the bill "no smoking in cars with children" is proceeding through committee hearings. Further down the e-mail is an update from the Tavern League that you may find interesting....interlocking devices are gaining momentum. One last item, I have been hearing of several establishments that are getting fined/ticketed for "over-pouring customers".....apparently the state does not like missing out on it's tax revenue.

Don't forget to visit www.freedomtoact.com and read about the former US surgeon General accused of scandal and the Rasmussen Poll (51% oppose outdoor smoking ban).

On with the Show!!!

Sheila

	Employee Smoking Room

Senate Authors	Tomassoni ; Day ; Vandeveer ; Sparks

S.F. No. 898, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Feb 19, 2009

1.1A bill for an act

1.2relating to health; creating an exception to the Clean Indoor Air Act; allowing
1.3employee smoking rooms under certain conditions;amending Minnesota Statutes
1.42008, section 144.4167, by adding a subdivision.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 144.4167, is amended by adding a
1.7subdivision to read:
1.8 Subd. 10. Employee smoking rooms. (a) Sections 144.414 to 144.417 do not
1.9prohibit smoking by employees in a designated smoking room, provided no common door
1.10exists between the place of employment and the smoking room.
1.11(b) A smoking room that satisfies the conditions in paragraph (a) may be heated and
1.12cooled, may have a roof and four walls, and may share a common wall with the place of
1.13employment.

	Smoking ban exception for patients in locked psychiatric units eliminated.

House Authors	Huntley ; Greiling

H. F. 1142, A bill for an act relating to health; removing an exception to the smoking ban for patients in a locked psychiatric unit; amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 144.414, subdivision 3.

Smoking ban exception for patients in locked psychiatric units eliminated.

	Smoking in motor vehicles with children prohibition

Bill Name: SF0359
Bill Text

Companion: HF0379
Companion Text
Companion Status
House Search

Revisor Number: 09-0811

Senate Authors	Pappas ; Marty ; Prettner Solon ; Higgins

Short Description	Smoking in motor vehicles with children prohibition

Long Description

Committee Hearings and Actions
Division Reports Committee Engrossments

Senate Counsel & Research Summary

SENATE Actions HOUSE Actions Top

Date ↓	Action	Description / Committee	Text	Page
02/02/2009	Introduction and first reading		Intro	149
02/02/2009	Referred to	Health, Housing and Family Security
02/12/2009	Author stricken	Dille		235
03/02/2009	Comm rpt: To pass as amend & re-ref to	Judiciary	1	360a
03/09/2009	Comm rpt: To pass as amend & re-ref to	Finance

Tavern League MN NEWS BRIEF WEEK OF FEBRUARY 27, 2009

ALCOHOL

Indiana House Passes Repeat-Offender Interlock Bill

The state House has unanimously approved HB 1020, a bill to require ignition interlock devices in the vehicles of repeat drunken drivers with a blood alcohol level above .15. (WIBC TV, IN) The bill was originally a first-offender mandate, but was amended in committee. HB 1020 has been transmitted to the Senate and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Wyoming House Passes Repeat-Offender Interlock Bill

On Thursday, the state House passed SB 88, a bill to require ignition interlock devices in the vehicles of repeat DUI offenders with blood alcohol levels of .15 or higher. (Associated Press) SB 88 has already been approved by the Senate, and all other interlock bills from earlier in the legislative session have died.

FOOD

Maine Menu Labeling Proposal to Be Introduced

House Speaker Hannah Pingree (D-North Haven) will introduce a state menu labeling bill that would require foodservice chains in the state with 15 or more locations nationwide to provide calorie information on menu boards and at drive thrus. Rep. Pingree is proposing the bill in order to address obesity. (Maine Public Broadcasting Network) The proposal has not yet been assigned a bill number.

LABOR/WAGE

Alaska Minimum Wage Hike and Indexing Bill Passes Senate Committee

SB 1, a bill to raise the state minimum wage to $8.75 and begin annual indexing increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) on January 1, 2010, has passed the state Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. The bill is sponsored by three Senators on the Labor and Commerce Committee, and has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee next. (Alaska Journal) Alaska?s unemployment rate increased 19 percent from December 2007 to December 2008.

Rhode Island Minimum Wage Hike and Indexing Bill Introduced

HB 5233, a bill to raise the state minimum wage from $7.40 to $7.75 on July 1, 2009, has been introduced by 5 state Representatives. The bill would also begin annual indexing of the minimum wage to the CPI starting July 1, 2011. HB 5233 was heard in the House Labor Committee on Wednesday and is pending decision making. (Providence Journal, RI) Hopefully legislators take into account that Rhode Island?s unemployment rate has increased 92 percent from December 2007 to December 2008 when considering this mandate.

Mandated Paid Sick Leave Bill Introduced in Minnesota (Read This)

A bill to mandate up to 9 days of paid sick leave per year for almost all workers in Minnesota, the Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces Act, has been introduced. HB 612 (and companion bill SB 416) would require employers with 10 or more workers in the state to provide 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, for up to 72 hours of paid sick leave per year for employees. Employers with fewer than 10 employees would only have to provide 40 hours of paid sick leave per year. HB 612 was heard in the House Commerce and Labor Committee on Tuesday. (Workday Minnesota)

SMOKING

South Dakota House Passes Smoking Ban Bill

The state House approved a statewide smoking ban proposal on Monday by a 43-27 vote. HB 1420 would ban smoking in bars, video lottery casinos, and restaurants that serve liquor, and was also amended by the House to ban smoking in gambling halls. The bill now heads to the Senate (where another version of a smoking ban was defeated earlier this year).Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson (R-Sioux Falls) says he will ?enthusiastically? support the House?s version of the smoking ban, but is ?cautiously optimistic? that it will pass. (Associated Press) South Dakota?s legislative session ends on March 30, 2009.

North Carolina Smoking Ban Bill Reintroduced

The state House Health Committee held a hearing on HB 2 (companion bill SB 205)--a bill to ban smoking in public, indoor workplaces, including restaurants and bars--on Thursday. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hugh Holliman (D-Davidson), will be heard again on Tuesday. Previous smoking ban legislation failed in the House in both 2005 and 2007. (WRAL TV, NC)

Bill to Weaken Ohio Smoking Ban to be Introduced

State Sen. Bob Schuler (R-Cincinnati) will introduce, within the next two months, a bill to allow exemptions for the state smoking ban that went into effect in May of 2007. Sen. Schuler says he has heard from businesses in the state--like bowling alleys, bars, and private clubs?whose business has decreased since the ban was enacted. Sen. Schuler?s legislation is likely to allow exemptions to the ban for private clubs, family-owned and other small businesses. (Dayton Daily News, OH)

Bill to ban smoking in cars with kids moves ahead

2009-02-26T01:22:00.003-06:00

Story link.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/40307832.html

comment link (scroll down to last entry).

http://ww2.startribune.com/user_comments/comments.php?d=asset_comments&asset_id=40307832&sort=E&section=/politics/state&start=80

Constituents, the hit list-

Let's see who's behind this nonsense besides Pappas. The other 3 co-authors are Marty (SD54, DFL), Prettner-Solon (SD07, DFL), & Higgins (SD58, DFL). Dille (SD18, R) was also, but wisely withdrew his name. So if you are a constituent of either of those 4, you know how to vote next time around, forget about party for once and throw the meddlers out. The committee this got through is Health, Housing, Family Security- chaired by Marty, no surprise. Also seated among the 13 are Prettner-Solon & Higgins. The other 10, for their constituent's consideration are Torres-Ray (SD62, DFL), Koering (SD12, R), Berglin (SD61, DFL), Doll (SD40, DFL), Erickson-Ropes (SD31, DFL), Fischbach (SD14, R), Hann (SD42, R), Johnson (SD49, R), Lourey (SD08, DFL), & Lynch (SD30, DFL). Unfortunately its difficult to get a good report on the breakdown of the vote to pass this forward, but motivated constituents can chase that down on their senators themselves through contact. Last but not least, I can't resist having some fun with the generalities involved here. It so happens that eight of the 13 on this particular committee are female by way of gender. Should we be surprised, given that stat....that we get legislation that looks like it was generated by a pack of ol' nannies? (LOL). The thing goes to the Committee on Judiciary next, hopefully it gets the death sentence it deserves there.

posted by chris5144 on Feb. 25, 09 at 9:57 PM |

3 of 4 people liked this comment.

Letter: Ill advised smoking ban

2009-02-14T08:30:00.002-06:00

http://abcnewspapers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6006&Itemid=43

SCROLL DOWN IF CHECKING LINK.

Ill advised smoking ban

To the Editor:

Re: American Legion halls need community support.

I was amazed that Don Heinzman was able to mention the results of the ill advised smoking ban along with the .08 BAC “tripwire law” as the culprits of the demise of the once financially healthy service clubs and the loss of the billions of charitable dollars collected for citizens over the years by the service clubs and their smoking, drinking and dancing customers. SOURCE ARTICLE

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety is using local police and the Minnesota Highway Patrol as “administrative cops” to fine farm the public to the point of turning free moving citizens into fair game for fines in an occupied zone.

Now the citizens simply stay home, or go to Wisconsin or a Native owned casino where they are treated with respect minus the Minnesota insult.

Going out to a club, slamming a $50 bill on the bar for some pull tabs, a few drinks and a listen to a good band is no longer an option. The adminstrative cops advertise that violating the over zealous DUI laws can cost up to $20,000. No thanks!

Along with the $25 seatbelt fine that actually costs citizens a $72 surcharge and a $7 library fee that goes to the DPS administration to fund even more oversight of law abiding citizens by administrative cops. The $25 fine is actually $104, another insult!

The handful of anti-smoking zealots heavily funded by some Minnesota legislators was able to get a RINO governor to sign it into law. The health conscience anti smokers are not turning out like they promised.

The own every business in town and now refuse to support their smoke free freedoms. I am sure everyone remembers the anti-cartel telling how glorious business would be if the smokers were insulted out of the place.

Repeal the ignorant smoking ban, put the BAC back to .10 and then get out of the way and let free responsible citizens do what they do best without government oversight, live a free life and choose the people you wish to spend your time with.

Up until now the freedom to associate and enjoy our freedoms is stifled by big spending, invasive and dysfunctional government agencies shored up by elected representatives that don’t know the difference.

Hard times will for sure be on us. The “overseers” would do well to start circling the wagons instead of building social fences that separates citizens.

Ironically, Don Heinzman wrote articles supporting the smoking ban. Has Mr. Heinzman had a reawakening?

Archie Anderson
Coon Rapids

Minnesota Smoking Ban -- Theater Night -- One Year Later

2009-02-05T22:24:00.000-06:00

MARK W. BENJAMIN

Criminal Defense, P.A.

237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111

Cambridge, MN 55008

763-691-0900 (office)

763-670-9664 (mobile)

Press Release

Theater Night – One Year Later – Celebration at Barnacle’s Resort on Saturday at 8:00 p.m.

One year ago on Saturday Evening, February 9^th, Minnesota smokers fought back, lit up and acted out. Exploiting a little-known “theatrical performances” exception to the Freedom to Breathe Act, patrons of Barnacle’s Resort and Campground became actors for the evening and smoked cigarettes indoors – legally. Minnesota’s first “Theater Night” was a smashing commercial success and received both rave and ranting reviews.

This was the culmination of a 3-month search to test Mr. Benjamin’s legal theory, namely, that the language of the “theatrical performances” exception to the smoking ban was broad enough to cover improvisational plays in bars, not just playhouses. Jim and Sheila Kromer – the owners of Barnacles Resort & Campground – agreed to host the first Theater Night.

News spread fast and soon over one hundred Minnesota bars were hosting their own versions of Theater Night. Despite the looming recession, many bar owners happily reported that their revenues immediately bounced back to pre-smoking-ban levels. Waitresses and bartenders were once again flush with tips and the future looked bright. Three weeks later, the Minnesota Department of Health weighed in and declared that any smoking during theatrical performances in bars violated the smoking ban. The Department filed lawsuits against several bars. Faced with dire threats of more lawsuits and liquor license reviews, many bars discontinued hosting Theater Night.

However, Tom Marinaro of Tank’s Bar in Babbitt, Minnesota went to court and claimed that he was engaged in a legal activity – putting on improvisational plays, allowing patrons to sign up as actors and smoke as part of their theatrical performance. The court ruled against Mr. Marinaro but he has appealed. As of this press release, all briefs have been filed with the Minnesota Court of Appeals and we await a date for oral arguments.

In the meantime, we will rejoice in our liberties and take a moment to recognize Jim and Sheila Kromer. Our celebration kicks off at 8:00 p.m. and the band starts playing at 9:00 p.m. All freedom-loving Americans are invited.

Barnacle’s Resort & Campground is located at 36569 State Highway 18, Aitkin, MN 56431 and can be reached at (218) 678-3122. Their website is: www.barnaclesresort.com.

Our show goes on.

Redrant: Proposed Minnesota Tobacco settlement proceeds sale.

2009-02-02T21:28:00.006-06:00

First draft, subject to revision.

As part of the attempt to balance the Minnesota state budget Governor Palenty is proposing selling future Minnesota proceeds from the the tobacco settlement for "cash now". I personally think that this is a bad idea. It can potentially illuminate the true value of these assets by potentially putting them up for sale.

I have been following this since the Minneapolis smoking ban went into effect three years ago. Those following my http://freedomtoact.com, started a year ago know that the "smoking ban" campaigns have gone "global".

First the disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and only claim to know this as a "citzen". This is still a better comprehension of tobacco settlement law than 99% of lawyers. I won't attempt the "legal lingo". This is where the "deep legal research" is needed. Also, if I can't understand it, casually following the tobacco settlement since 1998, few others will be able to. Use this "redrant" as a guide to what to look for and what questions to ask.

A "securitization" is basically a sale for "cash now" of a "structured settlement". On the most basic level think of the lottery. If you win (fat chance!) $100 million it is $4 million per year for 25 years (or something like that). If you want to "take the money and run" and get "cash now" you might get a "lump sum" of around $50 million or 50%. On http://powerball.com/ the current jackpot is $52 million and the lump sum is $ 28.3 Million Cash Value. Around 55% of a 25 year payoff.

This is the "gold standard" of securitization since the 25 year payout is a long haul. The Minnesota tobacco settlement is paid into perpetuity so that might add, at most 5% over a 25 year schedule. If so we give 60% of future payments as a "bullseye". Anything lower spells "issues".

The first "issue" is the time value of money. Sort of the opposite of a mortgage. In my first house mortgage for $57K the 30 year 8% principle and interest payments were $422 per month.
Over 30 years $422 times 360 months would equal $152K. This was FHA insured and market rate interest is lower now but you get the idea. 30 year is roughly equal to "perpetuity".

The other factor is risk. I'm sure we all know how this goes when you borrow someone money. Will it ever get paid back? This is the "800 pound gorilla" in any proposed tobacco secuitization. Currently the Minnesota tobacco settlement has payments at least 10% less then scheduled. This has put the settlement into "perpetuity" to make up for the lower than promised payments.

To be continued: Minnpost.com on Wednesday had this basically accurate, with some "liberal biase" article on the proposed Minnesota securitisation. I assume that this years expected $200 million is already factored in so anticipated one-billion dollars is in lue of payments in future years which are now $200 million per year. I can't make sense of the $1.6 billion expected payments over the next twenty years. It would seem to anticipate lower future payments and taxed cigarette consumption is expected to decrease in the future.

To make a "mock securitisation" let's go back to my original FHA 30 year 8% fixed loan. Let's say that we had six years, the current years and five years ahead for a "cash now". Five years time 12 months is 60 months times $422 per month or $25,320. Two ways to look at this. The original loan was $57K so this is around 60% using "lottery math". Looked at it the other way, $422 per month over 360 months/30 years would be total payouts of $152K. The $25,320 would be around 17% to 18%.

It is a crude comparison but if we assume that the tobacco settlement payments will continue to be the current $200 million per year we have a securitisation yeild of under $20%. I'm sure that there is some formula for "perpetual" but it can't be much more than 30 years. Using a loan calculator I checked my $57K for 100 years and payments are $380.17 per month rather than the $422 at a 30 year term. That's 10% to 12% lower payments. The annuity or cashout would be the mirror of this. This should not be deemed accurate but instead a "ballpark" of 30 year versus perpetual. Figure at best 10% to 15% lees/more for perpetual.

With money there is the "time value" of money and the A"risk value" of money. To take the lottery lets say you won $100 million and you were asked if you wanted the $100 million now or $4 million for the next 25 years. Ignoring taxes here, if you took the $100 million now and invested it at 4% you would basically have a $100 million "endowment" with four million annual income. The lottery winnings are heavily insured so we can ignore risk. Due to the "time value" of money if you won $100 million in the lottery you would get $53 million now. This is dependent on the current interest rate market. Basically, if the interest rate market goes down the lottery "lump sum" percentage goes up. If interest rates go up the percentage goes down. For a reference, if you get an 8% fixed rate 25 year loan, the total of the monthly payments will be basically double the loan principle. If this does not seem logical, remember that as you make the payments the principle is reduced so you are paying more interest. I recall my first mortgage payment had well under 10% to principle.

Next there is "risk value" of money. Here is where it get's "interesting", in term of the proposed MN tobacco securitisation. My home mortgage was backed by the FHA and my home value has more than tripled (even after a recent $15% decline) but let's assume the value was static. If the morgage was held for the full 30 years it might have been one-third paid off in fifteen years and half paid off in 20 years. This is a "first lien" so like wine, the risk improves with age. The opposite will tend to be true with the tobacco settlement money. Will the tobacco companies be structurally and financially viable to pay the money to MN in the future? This is known as the "risk value" of money.

From the peak, the payments, based on cigarettes sold are down some. I heard 10% decline maybe five years ago. The anti-smoking efforts have gone "viral" since I started seriously watching this when Minneapolis started it's smoking ban in the Spring of 2005. This has reduced smoking some and along with it the annual payments to Minnesota. If the "war on smoking" continues this amount could be reduced even more. If the federal government raises the cig tax this could further reduce the taxed cig useage and reduce the payments to MN.

Another factor is so called "pirate" or illegal cigareetes. In Canada, they raised the cig tax and now an estimated half of cigarettes are not taxes. On Canadian Indian reservations cigarettes can be had for a six dollars a carton. Even the Star Tribune coupon section had an ad for a cig rolling machine for cigs for "sixty cents a pack". Off brand cigs sell for under three dollars a pack here and the "little cigars" sell for a dollar a pack. I've been told by smokers that the "little cigars" are quite different and hard to adjust to but when I smoked "generics" worked for me. The big secret is that the tobacco is an extremely small part of the ultimate price of cigarettes so it's not like chuck roast versus tenderlion in beef.

There is also the factor of "small tobacco" versus "the settlement" In the Master National Tobacco Settlement (which I read in the late 1990's) new entries, the so called "small tabacco" would need to escrow 150% of the settlement amount in case claims are brought against them. "Deep pockets" encourage claims. An example is the "issue" that can delay the closure and distribution of an estate. The original stated premise of the tobacco litigation was that the tobacco companies decieved the smokers and the public of the dangers of smoking. A saavy "small tobacco" company doesn't do this so they are being punished for the alledged "sins of the father". I could produce a Certoria arguing convincingly that this is illegal and the small tobacco producers, especially those who don't are due triple punitive damages. It's a tought fight but possible. Right now tobacco matters are "political" and the US Supreme Court hates to be thought of as "political". Hey, I am not even a lawyer!

I recall something about the Minnesota Tobacco Settlement stating that Minnesota cannot raise cigarette taxes. I don't know the details but it seems behind the nonsense of Governor Palenty's past "tobaccos health assessment fee surcharge" proposal nonsense. This leads to potenial liabilities to the state of MN from a securitisation. Let's say this is still in effect (I do not know) and MN securitses it's future payments and raises cig taxes (actually it might make more by not raising cig taxes due to cross border buying). If payments are less than anticipated

Theater Night Update 1-31-09

2009-01-31T11:39:00.000-06:00

Hello Everyone,

As promised, below are some e-mail addresses. I would suggest you e-mail or call: 1) your elected officials (senator & rep) and 2) Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson-Kelliher and then the committee members if you like. If you feel like it....e-mail Slawik and Pappas and let them know what you think of their "super-parenting" regarding the smoking ban in cars with kids (Below is the Bill). If anyone does not know who their elected officials are please send me your address with zip code and I will be more than happy to send you their e-mail addresses.

Ask your rep/senator and Speaker Kelliher to consider exemptions from the smoking ban such as ventialtion, hardship waiver, separate rooms. Let the committee members know that you are anxious to see the Bills heard in committee and thank those authors of the exemption Bills.

People it is time to stand up as a force. Have your friends and neighbors e-mail and spread the word. This is no longer a fight for the bars/restaurants but for all people alike. For smokers, they will end up coming into your home and once they have accomplished that then they will go after "fat" people and then so on and so on. It will not end that I promise you...what do you say we take a stand now. We can do it...just motivate. What is 5 minutes out of your day for a little freedom from those who want to "super-parent'" us?

A BIG 'thank-you' to the people that have already e-mailed their reps/senators.....Kudos to you for getting involved! Tell others how easy it is to get involved and be heard!

The current Bills for smoking ban exemptions are SF270 and HF257. It is interesting to note that Paul Thissan and John Marty are both running for governor in the next governor's race. Another tid bit of information, the last time I looked there was over 400 comments on the Star & Trib article about banning smoking in cars and over 95% was negative...meaning very few people were in favor of this ban!

The show goes on!!

Sheila

Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson-Kelliher e-mail address rep.margaret.kelliher@house.mn

Bill for Smoking Ban in cars with children.

House Authors	Slawik ; Murphy, E. ; Loeffler ; Hornstein ; Kelly ; Clark ; Hausman ; Greiling ; Paymar ; Hayden ; Liebling; Ruud

Referred to Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight

H.F. No. 379, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Jan 28, 2009

1.1A bill for an act

1.2relating to health; prohibiting smoking in vehicle with children;proposing coding
1.3for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 169.
1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.5 Section 1. [169.472] SMOKING RESTRICTION.
1.6(a) Smoking is not permitted in a motor vehicle when transporting a child who is
1.7under the age of 18 years.
1.8(b) A peace officer may not issue a citation for a violation of this section unless the
1.9officer lawfully stopped or detained the driver of the motor vehicle for a moving violation
1.10as defined in section 171.04, subdivision 1.
1.11(c) For purposes of this section, "smoking" means inhaling or exhaling smoke from
1.12any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted tobacco or plant product. Smoking
1.13also includes carrying a lighted cigar, pipe, or any other lighted tobacco or plant product
1.14intended for inhalation.
1.15EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2009.

Members of the Minnesota House of Representatives 2009 - 2010

Note: All of the office numbers are in the State Office Building,
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Saint Paul Minnesota 55155.

If you are uncertain who represents you please visit our district finder.

District	Name (Party)	Office	Phone	E-mail Address
48B	Abeler, Jim (R)	203	651-296-1729	rep.jim.abeler@house.mn
19A	Anderson, Bruce (R)	295	651-296-5063	rep.bruce.anderson@house.mn
13A	Anderson, Paul (R)	239	651-296-4317	rep.paul.anderson@house.mn
43A	Anderson, Sarah (R)	217	651-296-5511	rep.sarah.anderson@house.mn
03A	Anzelc, Tom (DFL)	417	651-296-4936	rep.tom.anzelc@house.mn
39B	Atkins, Joe (DFL)	503	651-296-4192	rep.joe.atkins@house.mn
35A	Beard, Michael (R)	207	651-296-8872	rep.mike.beard@house.mn
43B	Benson, John (DFL)	517	651-296-9934	rep.john.benson@house.mn
57A	Bigham, Karla (DFL)	353	651-296-4342	rep.karla.bigham@house.mn
25B	Bly, David (DFL)	557	651-296-7065	rep.david.bly@house.mn
25A	Brod, Laura (R)	291	651-296-4229	rep.laura.brod@house.mn
27A	Brown, Robin (DFL)	337	651-296-8216	rep.robin.brown@house.mn
23B	Brynaert, Kathy (DFL)	421	651-296-3248	rep.kathy.brynaert@house.mn
35B	Buesgens, Mark (R)	307	651-296-5185	rep.mark.buesgens@house.mn
56A	Bunn, Julie (DFL)	521	651-296-4244	rep.julie.bunn@house.mn
45B	Carlson, Sr., Lyndon (DFL)	479	651-296-4255	rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn
58B	Champion, Bobby Joe (DFL)	329	651-296-8659	rep.bobby.champion@house.mn
61A	Clark, Karen (DFL)	471	651-296-0294	rep.karen.clark@house.mn
24B	Cornish, Tony (R)	281	651-296-4240	rep.tony.cornish@house.mn
31B	Davids, Greg (R)	283	651-296-9278	rep.greg.davids@house.mn
62A	Davnie, Jim (DFL)	545	651-296-0173	rep.jim.davnie@house.mn
52B	Dean, Matt (R)	287	651-296-3018	rep.matt.dean@house.mn
29A	Demmer, Randy (R)	245	651-296-9236	rep.randy.demmer@house.mn
52A	Dettmer, Bob (R)	251	651-296-4124	rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn
06A	Dill, David (DFL)	571	651-296-2190	rep.david.dill@house.mn
47A	Dittrich, Denise (DFL)	371	651-296-5513	rep.denise.dittrich@house.mn
33B	Doepke, Connie (R)	215	651-296-4315	rep.connie.doepke@house.mn
12B	Doty, Al (DFL)	433	651-296-4247	rep.al.doty@house.mn
41A	Downey, Keith (R)	323	651-296-4363	rep.keith.downey@house.mn
28B	Drazkowski, Steve (R)	247	651-296-2273	rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn
17A	Eastlund, Rob (R)	243	651-296-5364	rep.rob.eastlund@house.mn
02A	Eken, Kent (DFL)	575	651-296-9918	rep.kent.eken@house.mn
19B	Emmer, Tom (R)	301	651-296-4336	rep.tom.emmer@house.mn
20A	Falk, Andrew (DFL)	431	651-296-4228	rep.andrew.falk@house.mn
08B	Faust, Tim (DFL)	567	651-296-0518	rep.tim.faust@house.mn
26B	Fritz, Patti (DFL)	551	651-296-8237	rep.patti.fritz@house.mn
53A	Gardner, Paul (DFL)	581	651-296-2907	rep.paul.gardner@house.mn
36B	Garofalo, Pat (R)	221	651-296-1069	rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn
15A	Gottwalt, Steve (R)	231	651-296-6316	rep.steve.gottwalt@house.mn
54A	Greiling, Mindy (DFL)	381	651-296-5387	rep.mindy.greiling@house.mn
24A	Gunther, Bob (R)	289	651-296-3240	rep.bob.gunther@house.mn
48A	Hackbarth, Tom (R)	309	651-296-2439	rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn
22B	Hamilton, Rod (R)	209	651-296-5373	rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn
39A	Hansen, Rick (DFL)	401	651-296-6828	rep.rick.hansen@house.mn
66B	Hausman, Alice (DFL)	453	651-296-3824	rep.alice.hausman@house.mn
15B	Haws, Larry (DFL)	473	651-296-6612	rep.larry.haws@house.mn
61B	Hayden, Jeff (DFL)	539	651-296-7152	rep.jeff.hayden@house.mn
46B	Hilstrom, Debra (DFL)	379	651-296-3709	rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn
08A	Hilty, Bill (DFL)	559	651-296-4308	rep.bill.hilty@house.mn
36A	Holberg, Mary Liz (R)	303	651-296-6926	rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn
34B	Hoppe, Joe (R)	317	651-296-5066	rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn
60B	Hornstein, Frank (DFL)	437	651-296-9281	rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn
47B	Hortman, Melissa (DFL)	377	651-296-4280	rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn
14B	Hosch, Larry (DFL)	565	651-296-4373	rep.larry.hosch@house.mn
04B	Howes, Larry (R)	201	651-296-2451	rep.larry.howes@house.mn
07A	Huntley, Thomas (DFL)	585	651-296-2228	rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn
16A	Jackson, Gail Kulick (DFL)	531	651-296-6746	rep.gailkulick.jackson@house.mn
67B	Johnson, Sheldon (DFL)	549	651-296-4201	rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn
13B	Juhnke, Al (DFL)	485	651-296-6206	rep.al.juhnke@house.mn
59B	Kahn, Phyllis (DFL)	365	651-296-4257	rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn
17B	Kalin, Jeremy (DFL)	579	651-296-5377	rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn
26A	Kath, Kory (DFL)	357	651-296-5368	rep.kory.kath@house.mn
60A	Kelliher, Margaret Anderson (DFL)	463	651-296-0171	rep.margaret.kelliher@house.mn
28A	Kelly, Tim (R)	241	651-296-8635	rep.tim.kelly@house.mn
16B	Kiffmeyer, Mary (R)	229	651-296-4237	rep.mary.kiffmeyer@house.mn
50B	Knuth, Kate (DFL)	507	651-296-0141	rep.kate.knuth@house.mn
20B	Koenen, Lyle (DFL)	439	651-296-4346	rep.lyle.koenen@house.mn
34A	Kohls, Paul (R)	313	651-296-4282	rep.paul.kohls@house.mn
50A	Laine, Carolyn (DFL)	407	651-296-4331	rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn
09A	Lanning, Morrie (R)	259	651-296-5515	rep.morrie.lanning@house.mn
40B	Lenczewski, Ann (DFL)	509	651-296-4218	rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn
66A	Lesch, John (DFL)	537	651-296-4224	rep.john.lesch@house.mn
30A	Liebling, Tina (DFL)	553	651-296-0573	rep.tina.liebling@house.mn
01B	Lieder, Bernard (DFL)	423	651-296-5091	rep.bernie.lieder@house.mn
55A	Lillie, Leon (DFL)	369	651-296-1188	rep.leon.lillie@house.mn
59A	Loeffler, Diane (DFL)	349	651-296-4219	rep.diane.loeffler@house.mn
42B	Loon, Jenifer (R)	311	651-296-7449	rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn
37A	Mack, Tara (R)	321	651-296-5506	rep.tara.mack@house.mn
22A	Magnus, Doug (R)	253	651-296-5505	rep.doug.magnus@house.mn
67A	Mahoney, Tim (DFL)	591	651-296-4277	rep.tim.mahoney@house.mn
65B	Mariani, Carlos (DFL)	563	651-296-9714	rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn
09B	Marquart, Paul (DFL)	597	651-296-6829	rep.paul.marquart@house.mn
38A	Masin, Sandra (DFL)	527	651-296-3533	rep.sandra.masin@house.mn
53B	McFarlane, Carol (R)	223	651-296-5363	rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn
57B	McNamara, Denny (R)	255	651-296-3135	rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn
40A	Morgan, Will (DFL)	411	651-296-4212	rep.will.morgan@house.mn
23A	Morrow, Terry (DFL)	415	651-296-8634	rep.terry.morrow@house.mn
58A	Mullery, Joe (DFL)	367	651-296-4262	rep.joe.mullery@house.mn
10B	Murdock, Mark (R)	213	651-296-4293	rep.mark.murdock@house.mn
64A	Murphy, Erin (DFL)	413	651-296-8799	rep.erin.murphy@house.mn
06B	Murphy, Mary (DFL)	343	651-296-2676	rep.mary.murphy@house.mn
46A	Nelson, Michael V. (DFL)	569	651-296-3751	rep.michael.nelson@house.mn
49B	Newton, Jerry (DFL)	331	651-296-5369	rep.jerry.newton@house.mn
10A	Nornes, Bud (R)	277	651-296-4946	rep.bud.nornes@house.mn
29B	Norton, Kim (DFL)	387	651-296-9249	rep.kim.norton@house.mn
38B	Obermueller, Mike (DFL)	335	651-296-4128	rep.mike.obermueller@house.mn
01A	Olin, Dave (DFL)	593	651-296-9635	rep.dave.olin@house.mn
11B	Otremba, Mary Ellen (DFL)	445	651-296-3201	rep.maryellen.otremba@house.mn
64B	Paymar, Michael (DFL)	543	651-296-4199	rep.michael.paymar@house.mn
31A	Pelowski Jr., Gene (DFL)	491	651-296-8637	rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn
32A	Peppin, Joyce (R)	279	651-296-7806	rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn
04A	Persell, John (DFL)	529	651-296-5516	rep.john.persell@house.mn
45A	Peterson, Sandra (DFL)	345	651-296-4176	rep.sandra.peterson@house.mn
27B	Poppe, Jeanne (DFL)	487	651-296-4193	rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn
07B	Reinert, Roger (DFL)	429	651-296-4246	rep.roger.reinert@house.mn
41B	Rosenthal, Paul (DFL)	393	651-296-7803	rep.paul.rosenthal@house.mn
05A	Rukavina, Tom (DFL)	477	651-296-0170	rep.tom.rukavina@house.mn
42A	Ruud, Maria (DFL)	515	651-296-3964	rep.maria.ruud@house.mn
02B	Sailer, Brita (DFL)	577	651-296-4265	rep.brita.sailer@house.mn
51A	Sanders, Tim (R)	233	651-296-4226	rep.tim.sanders@house.mn
54B	Scalze, Bev (DFL)	451	651-296-7153	rep.bev.scalze@house.mn
49A	Scott, Peggy (R)	225	651-296-4231	rep.peggy.scott@house.mn
21A	Seifert, Marty (R)	267	651-296-5374	rep.marty.seifert@house.mn
05B	Sertich, Anthony "Tony" (DFL)	459	651-296-0172	rep.tony.sertich@house.mn
14A	Severson, Dan (R)	261	651-296-7808	rep.dan.severson@house.mn
18A	Shimanski, Ron (R)	227	651-296-1534	rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn
44A	Simon, Steve (DFL)	375	651-296-9889	rep.steve.simon@house.mn
55B	Slawik, Nora (DFL)	403	651-296-7807	rep.nora.slawik@house.mn
63B	Slocum, Linda (DFL)	501	651-296-7158	rep.linda.slocum@house.mn
33A	Smith, Steve (R)	271	651-296-9188	rep.steve.smith@house.mn
03B	Solberg, Loren (DFL)	443	651-296-2365	rep.loren.solberg@house.mn
37B	Sterner, Philip (DFL)	523	651-296-4306	rep.phil.sterner@house.mn
56B	Swails, Marsha (DFL)	409	651-296-1147	rep.marsha.swails@house.mn
65A	Thao, Cy (DFL)	359	651-296-5158	rep.cy.thao@house.mn
63A	Thissen, Paul (DFL)	351	651-296-5375	rep.paul.thissen@house.mn
51B	Tillberry, Tom (DFL)	583	651-296-5510	rep.tom.tillberry@house.mn
21B	Torkelson, Paul (R)	211	651-296-9303	rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn
18B	Urdahl, Dean (R)	237	651-296-4344	rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn
62B	Wagenius, Jean (DFL)	449	651-296-4200	rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn
12A	Ward, John (DFL)	533	651-296-4333	rep.john.ward@house.mn
30B	Welti, Andy (DFL)	389	651-296-4378	rep.andy.welti@house.mn
11A	Westrom, Torrey (R)	273	651-296-4929	rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn
44B	Winkler, Ryan (DFL)	525	651-296-7026	rep.ryan.winkler@house.mn
32B	Zellers, Kurt (R)	315	651-296-5502	rep.kurt.zellers@house.mn



Minnesota Senate Members - Alphabetical List	Printable View
2009-2010 Biennium Eighty-Sixth Legislature

District Order List Leadership List

Alphabetical List (DFL) Alphabetical List (R)

Mailing Address - Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Room (See numbers below)
St. Paul, MN 55155-1606

Mailing Address - State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Room (See numbers below)
St. Paul, MN 55155-1206

Legislative
District

Party

View Biography
Page

Room and Building
Telephone

Contact by Email

DFL

Anderson, Ellen R.

120 Capitol
(651) 296-5537

Use Mail Form

DFL

Bakk, Thomas M.

226 Capitol
(651) 296-8881

Use Mail Form

DFL

Berglin, Linda

309 Capitol
(651) 296-4261

Use Mail Form

DFL

Betzold, Don

111 Capitol
(651) 296-2556

sen.don.betzold@senate.mn

DFL

Bonoff, Terri E.

325 Capitol
(651) 296-4314

sen.terri.bonoff@senate.mn

DFL

Carlson, Jim

G-9 Capitol
(651) 297-8073

sen.jim.carlson@senate.mn

DFL

Chaudhary, Satveer S.

205 Capitol
(651) 296-4334

sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn

DFL

Clark, Tarryl L.

208 Capitol
(651) 296-6455

Use Mail Form

DFL

Cohen, Richard J.

121 Capitol
(651) 296-5931

Use Mail Form

DFL

Dahle, Kevin L.

320 Capitol
(651) 296-1279

sen.kevin.dahle@senate.mn

Day, Dick

113 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-9457

sen.dick.day@senate.mn

DFL

Dibble, D. Scott

111 Capitol
(651) 296-4191

sen.scott.dibble@senate.mn

Dille, Steve

103 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-4131

sen.steve.dille@senate.mn

DFL

Doll, John P.

G-9 Capitol
(651) 296-5975

sen.john.doll@senate.mn

DFL

Erickson Ropes, Sharon L.

G-24 Capitol
(651) 296-5649

sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn

Fischbach, Michelle L.

145 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-2084

sen.michelle.fischbach@senate.mn

DFL

Fobbe, Lisa A.

306 Capitol
(651) 296-8075

sen.lisa.fobbe@senate.mn

DFL

Foley, Leo T.

G-24 Capitol
(651) 296-4154

sen.leo.foley@senate.mn

Frederickson, Dennis R.

139 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-8138

sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn

Gerlach, Chris

129 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-4120

sen.chris.gerlach@senate.mn

Gimse, Joe

105 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-3826

sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn

Hann, David W.

127 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-1749

Use Mail Form

DFL

Higgins, Linda

328 Capitol
(651) 296-9246

sen.linda.higgins@senate.mn

Ingebrigtsen, Bill G.

123 State Office Bldg.
(651) 297-8063

sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn

Johnson, Debbie J.

135 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-3219

sen.debbie.johnson@senate.mn

Jungbauer, Michael J.

121 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-3733

sen.mike.jungbauer@senate.mn

DFL

Kelash, Kenneth S.

320 Capitol
(651) 297-8061

sen.kenneth.kelash@senate.mn

Koch, Amy T.

115 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-5981

sen.amy.koch@senate.mn

Koering, Paul E.

131 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-4875

sen.paul.koering@senate.mn

DFL

Kubly, Gary W.

301 Capitol
(651) 296-5094

sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn

DFL

Langseth, Keith

122 Capitol
(651) 296-3205

Use Mail Form

DFL

Latz, Ron

306 Capitol
(651) 297-8065

sen.ron.latz@senate.mn

Limmer, Warren

141 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-2159

sen.warren.limmer@senate.mn

DFL

Lourey, Tony

303 Capitol
(651) 296-0293

sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn

DFL

Lynch, Ann

G-24 Capitol
(651) 296-4848

sen.ann.lynch@senate.mn

DFL

Marty, John

328 Capitol
(651) 296-5645

sen.john.marty@senate.mn

DFL

Metzen, James P.

322 Capitol
(651) 296-4370

Use Mail Form

Michel, Geoff

133 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-6238

sen.geoff.michel@senate.mn

DFL

Moua, Mee

120 Capitol
(651) 296-5285

sen.mee.moua@senate.mn

DFL

Murphy, Steve

325 Capitol
(651) 296-4264

Use Mail Form

DFL

Olseen, Rick E.

G-24 Capitol
(651) 296-5419

sen.rick.olseen@senate.mn

Olson, Gen

119 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-1282

sen.gen.olson@senate.mn

DFL

Olson, Mary A.

124 Capitol
(651) 296-4913

sen.mary.olson@senate.mn

Ortman, Julianne E.

125 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-4837

sen.julianne.ortman@senate.mn

DFL

Pappas, Sandra L.

120 Capitol
(651) 296-1802

Use Mail Form

Pariseau, Pat

117 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-5252

sen.pat.pariseau@senate.mn

DFL

Pogemiller, Lawrence J.

235 Capitol
(651) 296-7809

Use Mail Form

DFL

Prettner Solon, Yvonne

G-9 Capitol
(651) 296-4188

Use Mail Form

DFL

Rest, Ann H.

205 Capitol
(651) 296-2889

Use Mail Form

Robling, Claire A.

143 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-4123

sen.claire.robling@senate.mn

Rosen, Julie A.

109 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-5713

sen.julie.rosen@senate.mn

DFL

Rummel, Sandy

323 Capitol
(651) 296-1253

Use Mail Form

DFL

Saltzman, Kathy L.

306 Capitol
(651) 296-4166

sen.kathy.saltzman@senate.mn

DFL

Saxhaug, Tom

124 Capitol
(651) 296-4136

sen.tom.saxhaug@senate.mn

DFL

Scheid, Linda

G-9 Capitol
(651) 296-8869

Use Mail Form

Senjem, David H.

147 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-3903

sen.david.senjem@senate.mn

DFL

Sheran, Kathy

G-24 Capitol
(651) 296-6153

sen.kathy.sheran@senate.mn

DFL

Sieben, Katie

321 Capitol
(651) 297-8060

sen.katie.sieben@senate.mn

DFL

Skoe, Rod

303 Capitol
(651) 296-4196

sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn

DFL

Skogen, Dan

303 Capitol
(651) 296-5655

sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn

DFL

Sparks, Dan

317 Capitol
(651) 296-9248

sen.daniel.sparks@senate.mn

DFL

Stumpf, LeRoy A.

208 Capitol
(651) 296-8660

Use Mail Form

DFL

Tomassoni, David J.

317 Capitol
(651) 296-8017

sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn

DFL

Torres Ray, Patricia

124 Capitol
(651) 296-4274

sen.patricia.torres.ray@senate.mn

Vandeveer, Ray

107 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-4351

sen.ray.vandeveer@senate.mn

DFL

Vickerman, Jim

226 Capitol
(651) 296-5650

Use Mail Form

DFL

Wiger, Charles W.

323 Capitol
(651) 296-6820

sen.chuck.wiger@senate.mn

Senate Health, Housing and Family Security

sen.john.marty@senate.mn

sen.patricia.torres.ray@senate.mn

sen.paul.koering@senate.mn

sen.john.doll@senate.mn

sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn

sen.michelle.fischbach@senate.mn

sen.linda.higgins@senate.mn

sen.debbie.johnson@senate.mn

sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn

sen.ann.lynch@senate.mn

Prettner Solon, Yvonne

Hann, David W.

Berglin, Linda

House Committee Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight

	Phone Number	E-mail Address
Chair: Paul Thissen (DFL)	651-296-5375	rep.paul.thissen@house.mn
Vice Chair: Tina Liebling(DFL)	651-296-0573	rep.tina.liebling@house.mn
Lead-GOP: Jim Abeler (R)	651-296-1729	rep.jim.abeler@house.mn
Laura Brod (R)	651-296-4229	rep.laura.brod@house.mn
Julie Bunn (DFL)	651-296-4244	rep.julie.bunn@house.mn
Tom Emmer (R)	651-296-4336	rep.tom.emmer@house.mn
Patti Fritz (DFL)	651-296-8237	rep.patti.fritz@house.mn
Paul Gardner (DFL)	651-296-2907	rep.paul.gardner@house.mn
Steve Gottwalt (R)	651-296-6316	rep.steve.gottwalt@house.mn
Jeff Hayden (DFL)	651-296-7152	rep.jeff.hayden@house.mn
Thomas Huntley (DFL)	651-296-2228	rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn
Tim Kelly (R)	651-296-8635	rep.tim.kelly@house.mn
Carolyn Laine (DFL)	651-296-4331	rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn
Diane Loeffler (DFL)	651-296-4219	rep.diane.loeffler@house.mn
Tara Mack (R)	651-296-5506	rep.tara.mack@house.mn
Erin Murphy (DFL)	651-296-8799	rep.erin.murphy@house.mn
Kim Norton (DFL)	651-296-9249	rep.kim.norton@house.mn
Maria Ruud (DFL)	651-296-3964	rep.maria.ruud@house.mn
Cy Thao (DFL)	651-296-5158	rep.cy.thao@house.mn
Paul Torkelson (R)	651-296-9303	rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn

Second Theater Night Update

2009-01-30T03:23:00.000-06:00

Hello Everyone -

A second update for today. I really didn't need to open the paper to the headlines "State bill would ban smoking in cars with kids on board". This morning I sent out the Pioneer Press article and below I have copied the Star & Tribune article. Be prepared to either accept what is happening or get involved and do something about it. It only takes about 5 minutes to e-mail or phone your elected officials. I will send a list out tommorrow.

After reading an article last night (which I will share), I e-mailed the President. I am tired of all this CRAP! The 'so called' science on smoking, second hand smoke and now third hand smoke has got me fuming. The lies are just never ending and getting more ridiculous by the day.

Enjoy!

Sheila

The Article that got me Fuming

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
Anti-Smoking Groups and Advocates Now Going Off the Deep End in Full Force; Movement is Rapidly Losing Its Credibility; ASH Calls Smokers "Killers"
In a proposal presented at the Fifth World Conference on Nonsmokers' Rights sponsored by Action on Smoking and Health in 2008, an anti-smoking advocate called for statewide campaigns to change the law so that smoking becomes a controlling factor in child custody cases.

Randall Richardson of the Florida Coastal School of Law wrote: "In recent years, courts have begun to take into account second hand smoke issues in child custody proceedings. The courts, using the broad standard “best interest of the child”, have started to use smoking as a factor in determining custody issues. While not deeming it a controlling factor, some courts have used it to determine issue when all other factors were equal. ... What seems to be missing in each of the state family law statutes, is whether the statute specifically states whether the parent smokes or not is a controlling factor in determining child custody. Therefore, what I purpose is to amend through grass-root state campaigns, state family law statutes that make whether or not a parents smokes a controlling factor in determining child custody cases. This can be accomplished by either putting the issue on the ballot in the form of a referendum or by supporting candidates that will vote to change the statutes."

Last week, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) issued a press release in which it boasted about how the public is growing increasingly "hostile" to smokers. It calls for "no more privileges and toleration" for smokers, which it terms "polluters and killers."

One of the policies for which ASH expresses support is banning smoking by people with children. Other policies which ASH cites as being appropriate ways to treat these "killers" include:
not hiring them and firing them if they are already employed;
not allowing them to adopt children;
refusing to perform certain operations on them;
banning smoking on sidewalks; and
taking their children from them in custody battles.
According to ASH, smokers "kill thousands of their own children every year."

ASH also equates smokers who smoke in a home or car with children with "child abusers."

And in supporting the denial of surgery to smokers, ASH writes: "Patients seeking a liver transplant may be denied one if they are going to continue drinking alcohol, so why should smokers expect to get all the operations they wish if they are going to continue to smoke and thereby endanger the success of the operation."

Message Sent to President Obama ( I wish that I could have said more but space was limited) http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/opl/

Since 'change' is the mantra these days. How about bringing back some integrity into Science and the Surgeon General's Office. When I read statements like this " Last week, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) issued a press release in which it boasted about how the public is growing increasingly "hostile" to smokers. It calls for "no more privileges and toleration" for smokers, which it terms "polluters and killers." This discrimination against smokers has gone too far and needs to be addressed.

Do you find this surprising? See any connections here?

- Robert Ingram (vice chairman Glaxosmith kline, fomer CEO of American cancer society),
- Gary M reedy (vp Johnson & johnson, trustee @ American Cancer Society Foundation, director @ American Cancer Society)
- Karen L. Katen (trustee @American Cancer Society foundation, chair pfizer foundation, former pfizer Inc. vice chairman)

We are labeled as 'killers' and 'polluters' but they will take our Lungs.

Donor smoking history

The generally accepted criterion for an ideal donor is a smoking history of ≤20 pack-years. A smoking history of >20 pack-years falls into the category of a “marginal” donor.

One of the major potential risks associated with the utilization of lungs from donors with a significant smoking history is the development of lung cancer in the transplanted lung.

No article has provided specific commentary on this and one assumes that this was not a significant finding within the period of follow-up in these studies.

There have been no studies in the lung transplant literature reporting functionally significant emphysema, attributable to donor pathology or smoking pre-mortem, developing in transplanted lungs.

As announced in October of 2003, this group of highly knowledgeable and skilled doctors use the lungs of smokers for transplants to patients who needed them to expand the list of available donors.

This more than doubled the number of transplants done.

Star & Trib Article

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/38598657.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

State bill would ban smoking in cars with kids on board

The measure to be introduced at the Legislature today would make it a crime to smoke in a car if children are present.

By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune

Last update: January 29, 2009 - 12:34 PM

Cars could be the next area subtracted from the ever-shrinking sphere where Minnesotans are allowed to light up.

A bill to be introduced today in the Legislature would ban smoking in cars where children are riding.

It would be the latest expansion of prohibitions on smoking that began in 1975, when Minnesota became the first state to ban smoking in most workplaces.

And the bill's House author, Rep. Nora Slawik, is bracing for a fight that could reprise the battle over the 2007 Freedom to Breathe Act, which banned smoking in bars and restaurants.

"I haven't heard any objections yet, but I'm sure it's coming," Slawik said. "That's just part of being a legislator."

But she said her goal -- what she called "a generation of healthier kids" -- should override any objections.

The bill would make it illegal to smoke in cars while driving with passengers younger than 18, treating it as a moving violation. That would carry a $100 fine.

But it would be considered a secondary offense, akin to not wearing seat belts. That means a driver would have to be stopped for some other offense before being ticketed for smoking.

"Obviously, we don't want the police to have to have one more thing to do, but this is an important health care issue. That's the point of this."

In 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that "there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent."

Slawik said she came up with the idea for the ban while being interviewed last year by a constituent who was researching public policy issues related to secondhand smoke. The constituent mentioned the fact that at least four other states have banned smoking while driving with children.

"It made sense to me and seemed like a great idea for a bill," she said.

She also discovered that the activists who pushed the Freedom to Breathe Act also were considering pushing just such a ban, "so I'll have some support on this."

Slawik said a companion bill will be introduced in the Senate, probably next week, by Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul.

Bob von Sternberg • 612-673-7184

Smoking ban in Cars with Kids - Theater Night Update

2009-01-30T03:17:00.000-06:00

Hello Everyone - Just thought you would be interested. Trust me....intrusion into your lives will only get worse....obesity.

Sheila

http://www.twincities.com/ci_11577227

Minnesota smoking foes want ban in cars with kids

Lawmakers to introduce legislation today; fines would start at $100

By Jason Hoppin
jhoppin@pioneerpress.com

Updated: 01/28/2009 11:18:39 PM CST

Minnesota has banned smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants. Some suburban communities have banned smoking in parks, and university campuses are taking up the fight, too.

Now, under a bill expected to be introduced today at the state Capitol, lawmakers will consider extending that prohibition to your ride.

Backed by the same groups that helped enact the statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, the new bill would prohibit smoking in cars when children are present.

"It's our children who are breathing this air," said Rep. Nora Slawik, DFL-Maplewood, chief author of the bill in the House. "That is a concern for all of us."

Slawik said she expects the bill to be controversial, though versions of the ban have passed in at least four states: California, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maine.

The ban would be part of a new frontier in anti-smoking advocates' efforts to fight the harmful effects of smoking, as state and municipal governments have pushed legislation into new areas. They include not only bans on smoking in cars with children, but passing bans on foster parents smoking around their children, for example.

Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, will serve as chief author of the Senate's companion bill.

"I'm a mom. I'm a grandma. There's no safe level of secondhand smoke for kids, especially in the closed environment of a car," Pappas said.

Studies have shown that even with a window rolled down, it takes mere seconds of a lit cigarette

for the air quality inside a vehicle to vastly exceed the levels deemed too hazardous to breathe by the Environmental Protection Agency.

In 1975, Minnesota became the first state to ban smoking in most workplaces. Anti-smoking advocates scored another big victory in 2007, when the Freedom to Breathe Act extended the ban to bars and restaurants.

The U.S. Surgeon General has determined there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. In children, it has been linked to everything from ear infections to sudden infant death syndrome.

That's why people such as Phyllis Sloan, executive director of La Créche, a childhood development center that serves 130 young children in northeast Minneapolis, supports the bill.

Sloan said many of the parents at the school often discuss the dangers of smoking around children, and she's seen the effects on children at La Créche.

"Ear infections and asthma — we see far too many cases of those," Sloan said.

Lawmakers expect the bill to catch some criticism, including by those who still feel stung by the Freedom to Breathe Act. Pappas, however, said there are many cases where the state sets rules for parents, including car seat and seat belt laws.

"The state does act like a super-parent in some instances," Pappas said.

The bill would make smoking while driving with children a moving violation. Fines for moving violations begin at a little more than $100.

However, a violation of the law would be a secondary offense, like a seat belt violation. In other words, a patrol officer would need some other reason to stop a vehicle before issuing a ticket for smoking in the car.

"This is heavily educational," said Jeanne Weigum of the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota, one of the groups advocating the law. "We don't ever want police officers chasing smokers. That's not their job."

Jason Hoppin can be reached at 651-228-5048.

Redrant: Studies Find Mercury In Much U.S. Corn Syrup

2009-01-29T02:47:00.004-06:00

Redrant: (article text below). I previously mentioned the "bear trap" of increasingly sensitive chemical detection technology. We are getting to detection of parts per BILLION to parts per TRILLION. To comprehend a BILLION think of an typical Olympic sized swimming pool. click here for info. Basically, it's half a football field, no end zones, six feet deep in water.

One part per BILLION would basically be around one-eighteenth of a gallon or equal to one five ounce cup of coffee in a half football field six feet deep in water. One part per TRILLION would be one thousandths of this. This would be one two-hundredth of an ounce. There are basically 30 grams per ounce so we are talking one sixth of a gram. Basically the weight of a drop of water. click here for info.

Basically, take the "home" side of a regulation football field, cover it in six feet of water and one drop would be one part per TRILLION. One five ounce coffee cup would be one part per BILLION. Note this is a chemical contaminate that cannot reproduce like a "germ" or virus.

Scientifically, this doesn't mean anything specific but it gives a sense of scale. This much reproduced article on corn oil and mercury didn't say anything about the detected dose. Here lies the "bear trap" I mentioned in a previous "redrant". Dose is everything when it comes to contaminant. As an example, a lot of organics have higher traces of so called "heavy metals" but this is rarely tested or reported. First it is a small market and it is not PC for the mainstream media to report this. Organics are mostly unhealthy to your wallet since they tend to cost at least twice as much but there is a "Bear Trap" if someone wants to test these organics for the same BILLION or TRILLION trace levels of contaminates.

Personally, I am not too worried about these "trace" levels but a contaminant is a contaminant, it isn't good or bad. As an example, my yard had elevated arsenic but the EPA says the level is "safe". OK, but why no the same standard for things like tobacco or corn oil?

Greg Lang

Here is the source article. Notice no mention of concentration.

http://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/51392

Studies Find Mercury In Much U.S. Corn Syrup

Date: 29-Jan-09
Country: US
Author: Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON - Many common foods made using commercial high fructose corn syrup contain mercury as well, researchers reported on Tuesday, while another study suggested the corn syrup itself is contaminated.

Food processors and the corn syrup industry group attacked the findings as flawed and outdated, but the researchers said it was important for people to know about any potential sources of the toxic metal in their food.

In one study, published in the journal Environmental Health, former Food and Drug Administration scientist Renee Dufault and colleagues tested 20 samples of high fructose corn syrup and found detectable mercury in nine of the 20 samples.

Dufault said in a statement that she told the FDA about her findings but the agency did not follow up.

Dr. David Wallinga, a food safety researcher and activist at the nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said he followed up on the report to find mercury in actual food.

"When I learned of that work, I said that is interesting but we don't just go out and eat a spoonful of high fructose corn syrup," Wallinga said in a telephone interview.

"We went and looked at supermarket samples where high fructose corn syrup was the first or second ingredient on the label," he said. These 55 different foods included barbecue sauce, jam, yogurt and chocolate syrup.

"We found about one out of three had mercury above the detection limit," Wallinga said.

The Corn Refiners Association challenged the findings.

"This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance," the group said in a statement.

Wallinga and colleagues said they believed the mercury got into the food during manufacture, at plants that use mercury-grade caustic soda produced in industrial chlorine plants, although his team was unable to show this.

"Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two reagents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years," Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, said in a statement.

Wallinga said the studies were based on samples taken in 2005, the most recent available.

Many studies have shown that fish can be high in mercury. Wallinga said consumers should know about other potential sources so they can limit how much they eat. "The best mercury exposure is no exposure at all," he said.

"Even at low levels methylmercury can harm the developing brain. The last thing we should intentionally do is add to it," Wallinga added.

He said his team did not test foods that did not contain corn syrup to see if they were also high in mercury.

(Editing by David Wiessler)

Theater Night Update 1-28-09

2009-01-29T02:05:00.000-06:00

Hello Everyone -

Just a couple of articles to remind you how bad it has gotten. In the first article, this guy recommends changing your clothing after you have a cig and before you can re-enter work because of third hand smoke. In the 2nd article, pushing for smoke - free sidewalks. Greg has also posted a new study on his websitewww.freedomtoact.com .....the title is ' Too much thinking can make you fat' . This study is a prime example of what science has become.....a travesty!!

Hang in there!!

Sheila

Presented at the Fifth World Conference on Nonsmokers' Rights, held in July 2008 and sponsored by Action on Smoking and Health.

A paper presented by a UCLA researcher argued as follows:

08, KERMANI-NEJAD, Ramin, University of California Los Angeles, Smoking Break? Ok…As Long As You Don’t Smell Like It.

By now there are many statutes in place that prohibit smoking in work places. This in turn has forced smokers to go outside on smoking-breaks to indulge their habit.

Unfortunately, when they return to the workplace, these smokers give off a pungent odor of smoke that is usually evident to any non-smoker in their vicinity. This odor is offensive and can cause many non-smokers to pick up the odor on their own clothes, develop headaches, and generally feel ill. In effect, it is practically just a step down from being subjected directly to secondhand smoke.

My proposal is to make an administrative petition for rule making for a statute that would allow companies to prohibit smokers from re-entering the workplace until their clothing is free of an odor that can be “easily” detected by other people working within a reasonable proximity to the smoker. This would serve the purpose of assuring companies that they would not risk beings sued by smokers if the companies adopted this rule.

This can be done in a few ways. Either there can be made a mandatory “wait out” period after a person is done smoking, which may be set as a specified time that allows the smoke to clear from a smoker’s clothing (for example 5-10 minutes). The second way would be to have a slightly more flexible policy that leaves it to the smoker’s discretion as to when the smoke has cleared out, provided that the odor is not offensive to other co-workers.

There are a few legal means that could be utilized to achieve this law, but I believe the one that could be most effective immediately would be to start a grassroots campaign with anti-smoking organizations to lobby a federal administrative agency such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention or another agency from the United States Department of health

This would have two main positive effects. First, it would protect non-smokers from being subjected to offensive smoke-related odors. Second, it would push smoking further away from the work-place by making it even more difficult for smokers to persist with their habit. Smokers would be forced to add an extra 5-15 minute “wait out” time to their smoking breaks. This could make smoking breaks prohibitively long for some employees, and thus force them to smoke only during lunch hours, or to consolidate their entire day’s smoking breaks into one long break.

Opponents of such a new law would probably argue that it is oppressive and places an unreasonable burden on smokers in the workplace. The policy counterargument to such an objection could be that nonsmokers should not have to be subjected to any kind of second hand smoke or offensive smell from smokers.

One obvious issue that would arise is the definition of the term “easily.” The new law would propose a definition that entails that entails a person of reasonable olfactory faculties being able to smell a co-worker while keeping the minimum appropriate distance that is normally maintained by co-workers within the workplace. A nonsmoker would not be allowed to bring their nose within a few inches of a co-worker, and then complain of a smoke order.

Although some may claim that the suggestion is drastic, there is a compelling policy argument supporting the odor-free work environment. The foundation of the policy would be that some nonsmokers experience illness (albeit maybe temporary) from being subjected to smoke odors, and that they should have the right to not be subjected to any sort of odor that could cause illness, even if temporary.

American Lung Association of California Pushing for Smokefree Sidewalks; Nova Scotia Town Follows Just That Advice

It is now official. The mainstream tobacco control movement is now pushing for an extension of smoke-free protections to the outdoors and specifically -- to sidewalks. The American Lung Association of California has released its 2008 State of Tobacco Control report, and one of its criteria in grading the strength of anti-smoking laws is "smoking restrictions on sidewalks in commercial areas." Another criterion is "smoking restrictions at parks, beaches, trails, sports fields, and other similar recreation areas."

Following this advice, the Nova Scotia town of Truro recently banned smoking on a downtown street. Earlier, the town of Bridgewater in Nova Scotia had banned smoking on "all public property, including streets, parks, and other recreational areas. The bylaw was softened from a previous proposal to ban smoking outdoors in the whole community."

To read the rest of the story, click on the link below.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Too much thinking 'can make you fat'

2009-01-28T01:10:00.000-06:00

Greg - Just had to send this....this is what science has become....what a travesty!

Sheila

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4043727/Too-much-thinking-can-make-you-fat.html

Too much thinking 'can make you fat'

Too much thinking could make you fat, according to a new study.

Last Updated: 11:34AM GMT 31 Dec 2008

Despite the low energy cost of mental work, students who participated in the research consumed 23.6 per cent more calories after intellectual tasks Photo: ALEXANDER BRATTELL

Researchers found the stress of thinking caused overeating with heavy thinkers seeking out more calories.

The research team, supervised by Dr Angelo Tremblay, measured the spontaneous food intake of 14 students after each of three tasks.

The first was relaxing in a sitting position, the second reading and summarizing a text, and finally completing a series of memory, attention, and vigilance tests on the computer.

After 45 minutes at each activity, participants were invited to eat as much as they wanted from a buffet.

The researchers had already discovered that each session of intellectual work requires only three calories more than the rest period.

However, despite the low energy cost of mental work, the students spontaneously consumed 203 more calories after summarizing a text and 253 more calories after the computer tests.

This represents a 23.6 per cent and 29.4 per cent increase, respectively, compared with the rest period.

Blood samples taken before, during, and after each session revealed that intellectual work causes much bigger fluctuations in glucose and insulin levels than rest periods.

Jean-Philippe Chaput, the study's main author, said: "These fluctuations may be caused by the stress of intellectual work, or also reflect a biological adaptation during glucose combustion."

The body could be reacting to these fluctuations by spurring food intake in order to restore its glucose balance, the only fuel used by the brain.

Mr Chaput added: "Caloric overcompensation following intellectual work, combined with the fact we are less physically active when doing intellectual tasks, could contribute to the obesity epidemic currently observed in industrialised countries.

"This is a factor that should not be ignored, considering that more and more people hold jobs of an intellectual nature."

The results of the study, carried out at Universite Laval in Quebec, Canada, are published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine.

Theater Night Update 1-27-09 Exemptions

2009-01-27T04:22:00.000-06:00

Hello Everyone,

Another quick update. On Friday, Jan 23rd, the following Bill (SF270) was introduced by Senators Koch, Day, Tommassoni and Vandeveer. It is a companion Bill to the House Bill for smoking exemptions. It was referred to the Health, Housing and Family Security committee. Keep in mind that another Bill relating to smoking exemptions is being worked on and will hopefully be introduced this week. It is time to get active and get involved.....I can't do it alone. Please start e-mailing your representatives and senators to support this bill or any additional bills that will be introduced. If you don't know who your reps are...e-mail me and I will find out for you. A word of 'thanks' to the following authors of the Bill's also goes a long way (I've included their e-mail links below).

Larry Howes rep.larry.howes@house.mn

Tom Emmer rep.tom.emmer@house.mn

Hackbarth rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn

Loren Solberg rep.loren.solberg@house.mn

Tom Rukavina rep.tom.rukavina@house.mn

Amy Koch sen.amy.koch@senate.mn

Dick Day sen.dick.day@senate.mn

David Tomassoni sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn

Ray Vandeveer sen.ray.vandeveer@senate.mn

Thanks and get e-mailing!! They need to hear from us!

Sheila

Senate Authors	Koch ; Day ; Tomassoni ; Vandeveer

S.F. No. 270, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Jan 23, 2009

1.1A bill for an act

1.2relating to health; permitting smoking in certain bars; amending Minnesota
1.3Statutes 2008, section 144.4167, by adding a subdivision.
1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.5 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 144.4167, is amended by adding a
1.6subdivision to read:
1.7 Subd. 10. Bars. Sections 144.414 to 144.417 do not prohibit smoking in a bar
1.8provided it has a ventilation system that will exchange indoor air at least two times per
1.9hour and an on-sale intoxicating liquor license, an on-sale nonintoxicating malt liquor
1.10license, an on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license, a wine license, or a strong beer liquor
1.11license; and:
1.12(1) the bar's sales of beer, nonintoxicating malt liquor, 3.2 percent malt liquor, wine,
1.13and intoxicating liquor are demonstrated for an existing licensee to be, or for an initial
1.14licensee projected to be, more than 50 percent of the total net sales of food and beverages,
1.15after taxes, that are served in the establishment. For the purposes of this section, "sales"
1.16are the sales reported to the Department of Revenue from the most recent calendar year; or
1.17(2) the bar:
1.18(i) is separated from the restaurant on all sides by continuous floor-to-ceiling walls,
1.19which are interrupted only by closable doors that are continuously closed, except when a
1.20person is actively entering or exiting the bar;
1.21(ii) has ventilation systems that are totally separated from the restaurant, with the bar
1.22maintaining a negative air pressure in relation to the adjacent restaurant;
1.23(iii) does not permit entrance or employment of minors at any time notwithstanding
1.24section 340A.503, subdivision 4, paragraph (b); and
2.1(iv) has a food or beverage license, which is separate from the restaurant, issued by
2.2the appropriate licensing agency.

a report from WDIO tv

2009-01-27T04:13:00.000-06:00

Hey Greg,

It appears that the word is getting out.....below is a report from WDIO tv. The video link is below. This would be a good one to post on the website. I am going to send it out in an update also.

Sheila

From WDIO Channel 10 TV in Duluth:

Some lawmakers, including two from the Iron Range, would like to see the smoking ban include a provision for smoking rooms.
Representative Loren Solberg, from Grand Rapids, and Tom Rukavina, from Virginia, are sponsors of the legislation, but they are not the chief authors.
“It’s not economy related. The original legislation in the House back in 2007 included the smoking rooms. But that part was taken out in conference committee. We are bringing it back,” Solberg said over the phone from St. Paul.
The smoking rooms would need to be entirely enclosed, and have a ventilation system. And the provision would only apply to bars or restaurants that make more than 50% of their sales from liquor.
Pizza Luce in Duluth has a room like that. Owner Scott Nelson said he is interested in the bill, since he already has the room. But he said he doubts it will pass into law.
The American Lung Association said they will fight this bill.
“It’s a past notion. Most Minnesotans love the smoking ban,” said Pat McKone, Director of Missions for the ALA.
The bill does not have a companion one in the senate.

See the video here.