The following are some comments from Tom Emmer's LTE in the SC Times.
MASTER OF rePUPPETlicanS from Wherever I May Roam
Number of Posts: 351
Comment Posted: 12/26/2006 12:59:05 AM
That's the problem with you conservatives Tom. You never think to the future!
... of course the smoking ban is going to pass!
So... see what you can do about creating a smoking license (similar to a liquor license) that may be issued by and purchased from local municipalities.
By forcing businesses to buy a smoking license, you eliminate smoking from 80% of the establishments that currently allow it, yet give the 20% the option to keep smoking if they feel it will hurt their business.
... and you get to collect more revenue for something or other.
It's a win, win, win!
Some Clown from Central Mn
Number of Posts: 4
Comment Posted: 12/26/2006 7:51:20 AM
This writer is a hypocrite. He claims to be opposed to government government control and taking away rights, yet in the last legislative session he voted to ban Gay marriage. Then in this letter he is so two faced as to say "What will stop them from legislating who we can associate with by restricting procreation based on genetics?"
He tried to ban marriage based on genetics. (gender is genetic)
I can respect opposition to smoking bans based on the thought that it will harm business. ( Although I think the evidence shows otherwise)
I can respect the opinion that this is government overstepping its bounds, if the same position of less government then carries over to other areas such as marriage, business, religious freedom, labor law, and adult businesses.
To oppose a smoking ban, while at the some time trying to pass his own government control of individuals is total hypocrisy.
Robert M from ALAmn
Number of Posts: 6
Comment Posted: 12/26/2006 8:18:19 AM
I wish Rep. Emmer would name the members of the "junta" he seems so concerned about. I follow this issue closely, as many of you know, and I can tell you that the only state lawmaker who has made a "top priority" of the Freedom to Breathe Act is Mr. Emmer, in his personal media campaign in favor of the status quo. Why so much protest for a bill that has yet to be introduced in a session that has not yet begun?
While it is true that most Minnesotans support the Freedom to Breathe Act, and there has been changes in House leadership, I again point out that there is strong support for a smokefree Minnesota among Republican representatives and senators as well, not to mention Governor Pawlenty.
Castle: We "antis" can speak for ourselves, so don't put words in our mouths. BTW: just about all of the tobacco settlement money is being (or has been) spent by the MN Legislature, not by groups like ours.
M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A!! from Golden Gopher Land
Number of Posts: 4
Comment Posted: 12/26/2006 9:06:30 AM
It is also indisputable that if you hold food above 41 degrees for too long bacteria will grow. It is a state reguulation that food be held at a certain temperature. Not in your homes...but in a privately owned restaurant or bar and grill. If you believe in the rights of the private business owner then this law should go as well.
So, let's review: Food held above 41...bad. Regulations passed to protect the customers from contracting a food borne illness.
Second hand smoke...bad. Regulations passed to protect customers and employees from contracting various illnesses.
Seems pretty plain to me. Argue away.