"Any employer who wishes to allow his establishment to be a non-smoke free environment takes on the liability of his employees health care in relation to any health care problems related to or aggravated by tobacco smoke. The burden of proof falls upon the owner of the establishment to prove that the health problem was NOT caused by exposure at his place of business. No employees shall be forced to sign waivers to this provision prior to or during employment nor shall any such waivers be deemed valid as related to smoking exposure. This burden shall not be construed as license to disregard employees right to privacy. Reasonable access to medical records and health history shall be permitted but shall not rise to the level of harassment as defined by law."<
Real good Steve, but there might be another way. How about smoke bars being licensed to proven smokers and those bars only being allowed to hire those who can prove they presently smoke. Have customers required to sign an affidavit that they are indeed smokers to be allowed in the building. Heck, why force anyone to have to work in a smoke filled environment when they don't smoke. Have a building owned and operated , employing, and serving only smokers?
If the government wants to make all that tax money off of smokers, which it has for more than fifty years, then make the government pay for the lung cancer from those taxes. If health care is too expensive then, lets slap a seven dollar a pack tax on it. A tax that is totally and only dedicated to health care for smokers. In that way the smokers pay for their own sins. Talk about hypocrisy, how much, (or better yet what percentage) of the tobacco settlement went to pay for health care or addiction prevention and treatment for tobacco addiction. My, My, My! Those politicians sometimes have sticker fingers than a snake oil salesman or some of the evangelical "Profits of the Lord" in our midst.
I know the ban language is only political pandering in Minneapolis, but we might as well put some logic into it. I wonder if anyone but me sees the ridiculousness of Minneapolis banning smoking in bars while the Federal Government subsidizes the farmers who grow tobacco? Perhaps the City of Minneapolis CM's should also limit the depths of their own hypocrisy and stop licensing stores to sell cigarettes. Just remove any such licensed sales within the City Limits. Minneapolis has apparently decided it does not like tobacco, so why license the sale of it. It does not have to be illegal to posses tobacco, just do not allow the licensed sale of it.
Starting to sound sort of like Marijuana don't you thin? So maybe when viewed as such a comparison a couple of our jay smoking CM's might start being more in favor of legal smoking. Minneapolis Police and Judges presently do not have the resources to catch or the will to put people in jail for smoking crack cocaine and crystal meth. Wouldn't it be funny if evil tobacco smokers were sentenced to stiffer sentences than those caught smoking crack or grass on 26th and Knox? Reality is constantly more laughable than most comedy acts.
Well I better get some sleep, I feel a sermon coming on about "Equal Protection Under The Law" and tomorrow is Sunday! I certainly would not want to disappoint Brother Dave and company if the Spirit moves me.
Jim the "Rev" Graham Ventura Village
"The only time some people are not hypocrites is in their sleep.I try to remember this when awake."<
REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
