House backs statewide smoking ban

The Minnesota House approved a statewide smoking ban Thursday, but with more loopholes than a Senate version passed earlier, setting the stage for a showdown in a conference committee that will try to find compromise.

The House bill would eliminate most indoor smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants, VFWs, American Legion posts and bingo halls. But it would allow bar and restaurant owners who get most of their revenue from liquor to install separate indoor smoking rooms, where there would be no service, if they received approval from local governments.

No similar exception is in the Senate bill passed last month, and even House author Rep. Tom Huntley, DFL-Duluth, said he actually prefers the Senate version over the final form of his own bill.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has indicated he would sign a bill for a statewide smoking ban, and Minnesota would become the 19th state to ban smoking if it becomes law.

Debate over other amendments that would have further loosened the ban by allowing bar owners to permit smoking if they installed ventilation systems or got approval from their local governments consistently failed.

Spirited eight-hour debate

But they inspired spirited debate over basic philosophical differences about local control, personal freedom, social engineering, and the potential economic impact on winners and losers.

More than two dozen amendments were offered in nearly eight hours of debate before the 85-45 vote, divided as much along rural vs. metro lines as party affiliation.

"We want to avoid the patchwork of city and county ordinances that really provide an unfair competitive disadvantage for bars around Minnesota," said Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul.

Others argued that businesses would lose customers and that that would reduce charitable gaming revenues. An amendment was approved to require the Gambling Control Board to study the economic impact of the ban on charitable gambling.

"The fact that it doesn't hurt business is a lot of hooey," said Rep. Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan. "Please don't treat this body as if we don't have a brain. Don't treat the people of the state of Minnesota as if they don't have a brain."

Supporters said there were no safe levels of secondhand smoke that could be ameliorated by ventilation systems.

"Today we're talking about the freedom to breathe for those people who do not smoke," said Rep. Dean Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, one of the bill's authors. "Forty years ago you could smoke anywhere. Twenty years ago they banned it out of airplanes. Ten years ago California put in a smoking ban. This is time for this particular bill."

Ban as 'smoking jihad'

"If you could put a person on the moon, you could put a ventilation system in a bar that could suck a little guy like me right up the second I enter the room," said Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, one of the most vocal opponents of the ban.

At one point, Rukavina referred to chief author Huntley's pursuit of the ban as a "smoking jihad" and compared Huntley with deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Rukavina's comments prompted Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, to dress him down for inappropriate language on the House floor. Rukavina quickly apologized.

An amendment outlawing smoking entirely also failed, following an argument over personal rights and authoritarian government.

"Individual freedom, property rights and some of the really basic things we've argued about have been thrown aside today," said Rep. Dennis Ozment, R-Rosemount, the author of the prohibition amendment as well as the failed amendment allowing ventilation. "If health is really the reason, then we really need to let Big Brother come into this issue."

An amendment permitting border cities' bars and clubs to be exempted if the neighboring city has no ban also was rejected.

Some exemptions in both bills

Smoking ban supporters have said they could not support the version with the smoking room and local control provisions included.

The Senate version allows for a separate outdoor smoking area for bars but has no provisions for exempting indoor smoking for either bars or restaurants.

The House bill would take effect in January 2009. The Senate version would take effect in July this year.

There are a few exemptions to the ban in both bills: scientific study participants, traditional Indian ceremonies, tobacco shops, commercial trucks and hotel rooms. Smoking would not be permitted in health care facilities, except for enclosed rooms or designated areas in nursing homes.

The state's Indian reservations, including casinos, would not be covered under the bill. A bill that would have permitted smoking at establishments within a five-mile radius of a casino, as well as several other casino-related amendments, failed.

It would be a petty misdemeanor for bar and restaurant owners or for smokers who fail to comply with the ban.

Mark Brunswick • 651-222-1636 • mbrunswick@startribune.com