All posts in the topic Smoking Illegal? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 4 posts — by 2 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Dennis Hill at Mar 28 21:22 UTC
On Mar 27 2008, Dean Sheldon wrote:
> I find it most interesting that people think it is perfectly OK for the
> government to stomp the rights of privately owned businesses by outlawing
> smoking ( a perfectly legal activity) in bars and restaurants.
Hate to confuse this issue with the facts, but smoking has not been
outlawed. It has been further regulated. The rights of private business
owners of which you speak have never been recognized by any court of law in
Minnesota that I know of.
I know people who smoke everyday without violating any laws.
Dennis Hill
West 7th Street
Dennis,
My initial suggestion in this thread was for the mayor to "regulate" EVERY
surveillance type camera within the city so that citizens would be keenly aware
any time and every time they are being photographed. Additionally, they should
be able to readily know who was taking pictures, who has access to the
pictures, and be able to get copies if they want. I suggested any surveillance
type cameras in private businesses be required to have a flashing blue light
and a placard.
Mike's rebuttal was that the mayor could not do this because I was "calling for
an unwarranted intrusion of government into the rights of private ownership and
property".
My not too clear example of the smoking band in bars (which by the way, makes
it ILLEGAL to smoke in bars now) was to show that the government currently has
all kinds and manner of regulations on the rights of private ownership and
private property. I disagree with the government doing this, but yet they have
many current regulations.
Your rebuttal was, "The rights of private business owners of which you speak
have never been recognized by any court of law in Minnesota that I know of."
It certainly sounds like you agree then that mayor Coleman would have no
problem regulating surveillance type cameras in any private business within all
of Minnesota let alone all of the city.
As an example of my concern, I did some banking earlier this week. There on top
of the teller's shelf, nearly in my face, was a little 1/2 sphere, maybe 3
inches in diameter, smokey colored plastic "thing" . There was no sign, no
note, no explanation, no nothing. It just showed up one day. There is one at
each teller station. I assume it is a surveillance camera. But I don't know
what it is. Is it a camera? When is it taking pictures? What detail of picture
is it taking? Is it turned on only when there is a robbery in process? Is it
running continuously? Who is watching the footage? Can I really scratch myself
where it itches? Banks are Federally regulated. Are all my private banking
transactions being streamed right into the FBI and CIA? How long are the images
being stored? Where? Think about if there are similar 1/2 spheres out of sight
in the bank's rest rooms!
I feel we as private citizens in a free society have every right to know the
answers to these and similar questions for every camera "watching" us. Because
if we don't, then we are no longer free.
Current law allows legal action if the crime or evidence is in "plain view".
Current camera technology is able to spot a golf ball from miles in space.
Imagine if there were a series of cameras mounted, in the public space of
course, high up on swivels such that they could "peer" into any window of any
house in the city. Then for all you liberals out there, imagine George Bush,
Dick Cheney, and company can focus those cameras and are "mining" that data!
It's a pretty scary world we are building.
Dean Sheldon,
S A Park
On Mar 28 2008, Dean Sheldon wrote:
>Dennis,
>
> My initial suggestion in this thread was for the mayor to "regulate"
> EVERY surveillance type camera within the city so that citizens would be
> keenly aware any time and every time they are being photographed.
> Additionally, they should be able to readily know who was taking
> pictures, who has access to the pictures, and be able to get copies if
> they want. I suggested any surveillance type cameras in private
> businesses be required to have a flashing blue light and a placard.
Dean,
Government regulating indoor smoking is upheld by courts because it is a
legitimate public health issue.
Regulating the use of surveilance cameras is a completely different issue.
In general, I don't see being caught on camera while out in public as an
infringement on my right to privacy.
Just be glad you're not Brittney Spears....
Dennis Hill
West 7th Street
On Mar 27 2008, <email obscured> wrote:
>On Mar 27 2008, Dean Sheldon wrote:
>
>
>> I find it most interesting that people think it is perfectly OK for the
>> government to stomp the rights of privately owned businesses by
>> outlawing smoking ( a perfectly legal activity) in bars and restaurants.
Dean,
If you need additional proof that secondhand smoke represents a public
health issue for St. Paul hospitality workers check out the findings of
this recently released U of MN study.
U of M study provides first scientific evidence that the Freedom to Breathe
Act is creating healthier workplaces for hospitality employees
Study found an 85 percent decrease in carcinogen levels in study
participants
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn., March 27, 2008 A new study released today by the
University of Minnesota Cancer Center and ClearWay MinnesotaSM found that
since the Freedom to Breathe Act went into effect on October 1, 2007,
hospitality workers have significantly reduced exposure to a
tobacco-specific cancer causing chemical.
The study measured workers exposure to cotinine (a measure of nicotine
exposure) and NNAL, a by-product of a potent lung cancer-causing toxin,
before and after the law took effect. The study included nonsmoking
employees of bars, restaurants and bowling alleys from throughout the
state. Each participant submitted urine samples taken before and after the
law was enacted, as well as a detailed questionnaire, to the University of
Minnesota research team for analysis. Major findings include an 83 percent
decrease in cotinine levels and an 85 percent decrease in NNAL levels
inside study participants bodies.
Dr. Dorothy Hatsukami, a nationally respected tobacco researcher, served as
the lead investigator for the study. The comprehensive smoking ban has had
a significant impact in reducing bodily exposure to a powerful lung cancer
cancer-causing agent and nicotine in our hospitality workers.
Protecting our workers (and patrons) from known cancer causing agents,
which has been demonstrated to be present in the urine of these workers
prior to the smoking ban, should continue to be a high priority, said Dr.
Hatsukami, Forster Family Professor in Cancer Prevention, University of
Minnesota Cancer Center.
The findings substantiate previous University of Minnesota Cancer Center
studies that have shown that nonsmoking restaurant workers and casino
patrons have significantly higher levels of cancer-causing toxins in their
bodies after working in or visiting establishments that allow smoking.
Other research has estimated that restaurant and bar employees who do not
smoke have about a 50 percent higher risk of contracting lung cancer than
the general population. This risk has been related in part to exposure to
secondhand smoke in their workplace.
We have known for a long time that secondhand smoke is dangerous to
nonsmokers. This study underscores the health risks faced by Minnesota
hospitality workers prior to the passage of the smoke-free law, said Dr.
Barbara Schillo, Director of Research for ClearWay Minnesota. These data
provide conclusive evidence that the Freedom to Breathe Act is working to
create healthier workplaces for all Minnesotans.
Methodology This study involved 24 nonsmoking bar, restaurant and bowling
alley employees who typically were not exposed to secondhand smoke except
in their workplaces. Subjects were asked to collect urine samples and
complete exposure questionnaires prior to the smoke-free law after working
a shift equal to or greater than six hours. The second urine sample and
questionnaires were collected four to six weeks after the smoke-free law
went into effect and after working a shift equal to or greater than six
hours. These urine samples were assessed for total NNAL and total cotinine.
To view the report, visit www.tturc.umn.edu or www.clearwaymn.org.
more