- Filter by:
- All
High: 27° / Low: 16° — Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
[Via Star Tribune] The bill would ban almost all indoor smoking in Minnesota.
Huh? In my own house?
WTF. I'm not even a smoker (ok, I really like some Dunhill 3-Year Matured Virginia now and then, but I pretty much only smoke a pipe when it gets cold) and I am fairly liberal but this makes me think WTF.
You can't tell rational people that they can't choose to do (activity x, y, or z) in the privacy of their own home. That's just...republican.
In a bar or restaurant, it's affecting the health of people who work there but in your own home? Way over the line.
Electricity and heating would be allowed on the patios but not food or beverage service.
I understand why it's there, but the letter of the law seems pretty asinine. Of course, patio beverage service already sucks because you can't drink from glass.
Zenrhino, if you read the article, it says public indoor areas.
Exemptions
Exemptions include private residences and vehicles, hotel rooms, specific areas in nursing homes and some smoke shops. Local governments could impose stricter requirements; the state's Indian casinos would not be covered by the bill.
Phew! The link wasnt working for me earlier. =(
In a bar or restaurant, it's affecting the health of people who work there but in your own home? Way over the line.
Ha! There are people in this legislature who would easily make the argument that if you have children in your home, smoking in your home, around those children, constitutes child abuse and neglect. And those people ain't republican.
Ha! There are people in this legislature who would easily make the argument that if you have children in your home, smoking in your home, around those children, constitutes child abuse and neglect. And those people ain't republican.
Yes, you're right, Maz. BUT - if you actually read the article, you'll see that your home does not constitute a "public place" and therefore is exempted from the ban.
There are also people in this legislature who would easily make the argument that if you have children in your home, forcing them to drink turpentine constitutes child abuse and neglect. And those people ain't stupid.
The real goal of the anti-smoking Crusaders is to get into your house, though.
If anyone has any specific questions about the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007, fire away. My typing speed is a little slow, but I'll give it a shot.
Er, except you, Rat. Scurry back to your dark back corner of NE Mpls. If anyone wants to know my "real goal," ask me.
When you said awhile back Bob that this Crusade has only just started, I believed you.
Yes, you're right, Maz. BUT - if you actually read the article, you'll see that your home does not constitute a "public place" and therefore is exempted from the ban.
That's what it says in this legislation. I'm not saying they'll succeed, but they sure as hell will try.
The argument will be, "if you are physically abusing your children and exposing them to harm, you cannot hide it behind the closed doors of your home and expect to get away with it. Ergo, if you're smoking around your children, you're exposing them to harmful chemicals and you can't avoid being guilty of child abuse just because it's in your own home."
As a non-smoker, it's no skin off my nose. But mark my words. Those who believe in freedom will rue the day you voted the republicans out of power in the state legislature. Normally I'd say this is why you elect a republican governr, to veto such madness. But Pawlenty's off the reservation on this, I have no clue why he's taken this un-republican stand.
On the other hand, the Indian casinos should see a boost in bidness. cha-ching!
Can we have a discussion about this ban, and not discuss an elaborate fantasia set in a dystopia future where evil democrats try to control people in their home, and it is only the gallant work of stalwart republicans and their crafty veto skills that keep this from happening?
If that day comes, I'll be fine with the discussion, but for now, it sounds like that game that people in debate club used to play, where they would try to make the case that not supporting their position, whatever it was (resolved: banana and peanut butter make a great sandwich), would lead to atomic holocaust.
What about smoking with pets at home? Is that animal abuse?
Electricity and heating would be allowed on the patios but not food or beverage service.
Is this a significant change from what's currently allowed in Minneapolis? Damn straight of the lawmakers to allow electricity and heating, though. That way, citizens of this state won't have to huddle around a fire burning in a garbage can.
This bill is awesome. They should include a $500 fine for littering butts so smokers stop treating the world like one big ashtray. If smokers weren't inconsiderate slobs we would not need a smoking ban.
What about smoking with pets at home? Is that animal abuse?
I swear that's why my cat ended up with lung cancer--he lived 11 years with smokers. Animals and kids seem to be more susceptible to toxic substances than adults are.
On the other hand, everyone's got to die of something.
Good, honest sentiment Joe. Keep it comin'. Concern for your fellow Minnesotans caught in the throes of debilitating addiction -- Naah!
They're just slobs.
Important to see the true face of this Crusade.
It doesn't sound like it has the language of the earlier bill which was weaker than the Hennepin County bill, and wouldn't allow counties to have tougher restrictions.
That is good -- I mean -- definitely end of times. Repent sinners!
I agree that quitting smoking is tough but what does that have to do with picking up after yourself or being polite and asking those around you if it is OK if you smoke? If smokers were not in general slobs then why are there so many butts littering our roads, parks and sidewalks?
Wait a minute, are you trying to tell me this means I can't have a beer on an outdoor patio while smoking now?
Because if that's what this means, fuuck you, Minnesota. Everyone knows beer and cigarettes are a match made in ... uh, I don't know, because it's horrible for you, but it's still fun.
Joe, the simple answer to that is that we need more goddamned public trash cans. While you might be able to hold onto a food wrapper for five blocks until the next barrel, it's tough to stub a cigarette on something and stuff it in your pocket. Whenever there are barrels around I stub it and throw it in, but they are far too rare around this city.
I also try to be a considerate smoker and ask people I'm with if they mind, and while I'm walking about I try to blow the smoke away from anyone one else on the sidewalk/path etc. or wait to exhale until they've passed me by.
Wayne, I think it just means they can't serve you while you're on the patio. Taking your drink out there appears to be fine.
However, this does appear to be different than the status quo where cocktailers work on some smoking-patios, at least in MPLS.
I can't imagine they will require the bars on top of places like Brits, Stella's and Solera to close so people can smoke on them.
It means you buy your beer at the bar and carry it outside, wayne. How tough could that be -- I do it all the time. Patio service is notoriously slow at most places.
The Senate version of the bill does not include preemption, which means cities and counties could pass tougher -- but not weaker -- ordinances of their own. That said, I have not seen a big pent up desire by local governments to do so immediately, but there could be a few (like Golden Valley) that want to do more.
My guess is if a clean bill (like the Senate version) with no exemptions is signed into law, most muncipalities and counties will be satisfied with the progress made. If the statewide bill is not passed this session, expect a wave of new local ordinances.
I have a friend who always pockets her butts. There are no trash cans in the woods. And lots of people throw butts on the ground no matter how many trash cans there are. I don't believe they think twice about it.
What really makes me want to kick some ass is when people dump their ashtrays in the street. Once a woman did this while sitting at a stoplight and I laid on my horn and made her jump. Okay I'm kind of an enforcer but it made me feel a little better.
Isn't littering already punishable by fine, and don't cigarette butts count as litter? We can write all the laws and ordinances we want, but if we cannot enforce them, another law/ordinance is not going to help.
And I also stub my cigs out and throw them in the trash. If there's no trash, I put the butt back in the pack until I can find a trash can. (It's not too gross if you get the burned part completely off and there's only filter and paper left.)
But we do need more trash cans, ESPECIALLY on the Greenway. (I'm sick of carrying dog poop for a mile before I can toss it.)
It means you buy your beer at the bar and carry it outside, wayne. How tough could that be -- I do it all the time. Patio service is notoriously slow at most places.
What if you're eating dinner outside of a place that serves alcohol? Does that mean that you can't get food/drink service outside anymore? Is there some distinction between outdoor restaurant seating for restaurants that serve alcohol and a smoking patio for a bar? What's the difference? How is that defined?
yeah, wait, hold up I'm about to freak the fuck out: this seems to read that patio service -- food and drink -- will not be allowed period. someone better explain real quick like before I start smashing things.
here's what the text says:
5.26 Subd. 5. Outdoor patio. (a) A bingo hall, restaurant, or bar may build an outdoor
5.27patio consistent with state and local building codes where smoking may be permitted
5.28under the following conditions:
5.29 (i) the patio must have ventilation to circulate air;
5.30 (ii) there can be no food and beverage service by employees; and
5.31 (iii) no employee may smoke on the patio while working.
5.32 The establishment may construct the patio to accommodate electricity and a heating
5.33system.
5.34 (b) A patio built under paragraph (a) must comply with a city or county ordinance
5.35regulating outdoor smoking adopted prior to the effective date of this section.
which to me reads a) if there is smoking on any patio, no food or beverage can be served or b) if there is food or beverage, there will be no smoking on the patio . . .
Whoa.
I was once at the western-most point of the continental US. It is a little outcrop around Point Reyes National Park. It is a short hike, and at the end there is a little bench that overlooks the ocean. It is a lovely spot -- except for the cigarette butts littering the ground. I think a trash can would be worse, and who wants to hike the 1/4 mile to empty the trash can. There are no beer or pop cans or other litter there, just butts. So, some people are respectful, but there are plenty who are not.
(Thanks for the note about exemptions Bob, I was wondering if that language was in there or not...)
Let's hear from alamn on this one.
My take is smoking is banished outside, and further segregated to a designated smoking patio.
The net effect is existing sidewalk seating or patios built for food/beverage service become smoke free as well.
A small but vocal minority has been complaining that smokers are ruining the al fresco dining experience. Looks like bob's cronny's snuck this in the back door.
Call your state rep now.
spaceman, this is what I was freaking out about too. So then, does this mean sidewalk patio seating is no longer smoke-able? What about people walking by on the sidewalk?
because seriouly I'm going to be pissed if they try to tell me I can smoke on sidewalk seating.
On the other hand, the Indian casinos should see a boost in bidness. cha-ching!
LOL.
This bill is asinine. The Libertarians I voted for would not have allowed this to happen!
What's missing is the state's definition of "patio".
Is the sidewalk outside an establishment a "patio" (think Leaning Tower), is a heated but naturally ventilated space a "patio" (think Uptown Bulldog), is a seasonal rooftop which requires no ventilation a "patio", or is the hyperbaric chamber with huge exhaust system and heat a "patio" (think CC Club).
Without this defined, it's completely subject to interpritation.
Relax, folks. This is just one step in a long process, the final bill that reaches the Governor's desk may look different than what the Senate passed yesterday.
Alexis-free market capitalist and party person
(look ma, no buttsecks jokes!)
I read it you may build an outdoor patio for smoking but you cannot let your employees deliver services to such a patio. I read that it WOULD NOT place any restrictions on outdoor seating that IS NOT on a constructed outdoor patio, so sidewalk tables would remain available for smokers to get service.
Can we have a discussion about this ban, and not discuss an elaborate fantasia set in a dystopia future where evil democrats try to control people in their home, and it is only the gallant work of stalwart republicans and their crafty veto skills that keep this from happening?
No. It is not "elaborate fantasia" and there will someday be said proposals. Just like the incremental creep of banning cell phones while driving and any number of inch-by-inch examples of government sprawl.
So you can smoke at the sidewalk table but not on the patio table?
I'm so confused...
There are always proposals on the table, Kevin. When it gets beyond that, it'll be worth discussing.
And I'm all for banning cell phone when people drive. It's no more "government sprawl" than banning any other hazardous activity, like drunk driving.
Well, honestly driving a 3000lb vehicle can get pretty dangerous when you're not paying attention. I've no problem with banning cellphones while driving, since getting a license to operate a vehicle means you have to obey plenty of other rules for safety's sake (although a good number of these are routinely ignored, but still). I also think dumbass fratboys on bikes from target should put away their cellphones too.
If police witness someone driving carelessly while talking on a mobile phone can't they just charge them with careless driving, Matt?
Yeah. I think eating a big mac while driving should be illegal too. I mean, you KNOW some of that sauce is going to fall in your lap, then you have to wipe it, and then... BANG!
Fast food is a menace.
dumbass fratboys on bikes from target
This reeks of resentment or envy or both. Tell us why you included the "bikes from Target" part, wayne.
To pass a smoking ban without giving thought to what avenues it could open up for future legislation is short-sighted and, well, thoughtless. The balance between liberty and government is the point of having any representative governance and if it's not going to be considered, we may as well dispense with the whole fandangle and install a dictator. Am I the first person to use fandangle on MNSpeak?
I'm also not saying I'm against a cellphone ban for drivers, rather just throwing it out as an example.
I keep getting libertarians and anarchists confused. I need a set of encyclopedias.
And aren't republican's supposed to be all for state's rights? In that sense, I'm way into being a republican...unless I end up in Alabama.
The Rat, there are 'bikers' and 'college students on bikes.' Some bikers are also college students, but a lot college students on bikes are retards with no ettiquite or respect. Seriously, who talks on their cellphone about 'being soo drunk last night, broham' while riding a bike? Put the goddamned phone away and quit swerving around.
Plus their bikes are generally cheap models like they carry at target. That was just an asshole elitist style comment.
Yeah. I think eating a big mac while driving should be illegal too. I mean, you KNOW some of that sauce is going to fall in your lap, then you have to wipe it, and then... BANG!
Fast food is a menace.
Actually having grown up in california, learning to drive while eating fast food is like a rite of passage for people. I'm not proud of that, but it's something to keep in mind if you ever have to drive amongst people in california.
Wayne is so right. I'm also sick of lesbian unicyclists talking about the Indigo Girls, Catholic rollerbladers yelling at me about the Pope, and gay skateboarders arguing about shoes and cuisine.
It's SO annoying!
Don't forget mulsims on razor scooters. Get off the bike trails!
Wayne: Would it be better if they had an earpiece in like a real honest-to-goodness bike messenger that all the "bikers" in town appear to be emulating? They could strap their cellphone to their Chrome or Timbuk2 strap and make it look like a 2way!
The sneering hipster totally punk-rock alty-biker persona is dead. Orange flags and cards in the spokes are the new rolled-up japanese Levis.
perhaps, kevin, sidewalks could be excluded -- but there are plenty of patios that would be subject to this. There is no language that would exclude pre-existing structures. While most restaurant patios -- Stella's for example -- are already smoke free -- there are plenty -- think Town Hall -- that serve beer and food, and people smoke on them. This would mean if Town Hall kept the outside service, smokers would literally have to leave the premises to smoke. I'm all for no smoking, but the patio is outside for fucksakes; this doesn't make a lot of sense.
David is right about the definition piece.
When did Stella's rooftop go smoke-free? I smoked up there last summer...
5.29 (i) the patio must have ventilation to circulate air....
I thought patios were supposedly to be outside, not indoors. Yet, whoever wrote that statement in the bill was either: a) dumb, b) a total control freak, or c) someone who has no idea on the concept of home improvement repairs.
Bureaucracy is a bliss.
I was never a bike-punx anyway, but you try riding anywhere near the U when school is in session and not getting incredibly frustrated with the way the average college student bikes.
and bob:
Relax, folks. This is just one step in a long process, the final bill that reaches the Governor's desk may look different than what the Senate passed yesterday.
was that suppoed to make me feel better, or were you winking when you wrote that?
oh really? maybe I'm wrong, ranty. I was thinking it was smoke free . . . well, then the scenario changes considerably.
Don't forget that was you once upon a time Wayne.
Of course, you were 6, but still.
The nanny statists won when they made public urination illegal.
If the only argument left for these guys is to say that we are on a "slippery slope" that will lead us from perfectly sensible public health legislation all the way down to Singapore, they are screwed. In a world with so many Holocaust deniers, and global warming skeptics, can't you hire some people to challenge the science of secondhand smoke?
I certainly believe it is OK to smoke at any table in truly-outdoor situations, without segregation, but I believe the language of the law is drawn up so you can't skirt it by creating a virtual "patio bar" less outdoors than in. Think of the Lyndale Bulldog's prison patio on a large scale, except with another wall, as the entire joint.
The impetus of this legislation is to prevent servers, IE wait staff and bartenders, from being exposed to second hand smoke. Thus, if a patio exists where people smoke, then the wait staff are excluded from that area. Hence, if they serve food or drinks anyplace outside, those outside places are not exempt from this ban. At least, that is my reading of it.
It is not a ban on *smoking*, it is a ban on exposing others to second hand smoke. It is a protection of workers.
There is no slippery slope from protecting workers to preventing you from smoking in your own house. You cannot sue your employer for exposing you to carcinogenic smoke if the only place you are exposed to it is at home.
However, many of you do not seem to comprehend that fact. The wording is such to prevent regular exposure of workers to second hand smoke. Just as they do in every other profession in Minnesota except wait staff and bartenders.
Well then Douglas, should we ban all outdoor smoking since non-smokers like to go outside too?
Smoke disperses pretty quickly when there's neither roof nor walls to hold it in.
ALAMN Bob's response was very instructive. Notice he didn't deny anything. Relax, he said. The bill could change before it reaches the govenor's desk.
This is not just a ban on indoor smoking. It is a ban on smoking near hospitality workers.
Smoke on the smoking patio, and bring your own beer.
But you won't be smokin' while sitting at an outdoor table, at least not one with a server. Bye bye Figlio, the Local, and Brits.
These establishments wont stop table service to accomodate smokers. Table service means food sales and faster drinkin'. Too much money left on the table if they drop it.
Bob, you magnificent, duplicitous bastard!
I will never believe another word from you or the American Lung Association.
There is no slippery slope from protecting workers to preventing you from smoking in your own house. You cannot sue your employer for exposing you to carcinogenic smoke if the only place you are exposed to it is at home.
I can make one: Workers must be protected from second hand smoke: children must be protected from second hand smoke. Hell, the case is probably stronger for the later being as children are defenseless and didn't make the choice to live with their parents. If I have a "right" to work in a smokefree workplace, the surely a child has the "right" to grow up in a smoke free home.
The patio language needs to be refined. If a bunch of dolts on MNSpeak can make reasonable cases for various interpretations, then so can judges. As Rep. Kahn reminds us, we are not a legislative intent state so we can't let things like that slip by and hope to avoid any problems.
Gawd we're talking about legislative intent. I am so turned on. Somebody quote statute!
i already did, kwatt, but you called me a dolt. so sorry, no butt for you.
kwatt: that wouldn't bother me any. I agree - the case is stronger in the case of children. I think the "no smoking outdoors while food is being served" thing oversteps the line.
Kevin, I'm curious: You seem to be a relatively conservative person; why would you give any credence whatsoever to "legislative intent"? My experience has been that the Legislature wants analysis to start and stop with the text of the statute, and courts are generally happy to oblige. (Of course, it helps to start with an unambiguous statute.)
I bet there are some restaurants that spent a lot of money after the ban in Minneapolis to construct outdoor patios, on the assumptions they would be able to do business there instead of merely making a place to corral their smoking patrons.
Now is the Senate saying that their good faith efforts at compliance are not good enough?
I can make one: Workers must be protected from second hand smoke: children must be protected from second hand smoke. Hell, the case is probably stronger for the later being as children are defenseless and didn't make the choice to live with their parents. If I have a "right" to work in a smokefree workplace, the surely a child has the "right" to grow up in a smoke free home.
But what about people without kids? What about enforcement? There are going to be plenty of incentives to make parents quit smoking for the benefit of their children, but mandatory? Do they mandate you not drink while pregnant? That would be the same issue. That would be the slope you should worry about first. You should quit for the benefit of yourself and your children, but the issue is still very different.
Don't forget that was you once upon a time Wayne.
Of course, you were 6, but still.
Actually I didn't learn to bike until I moved here, at 22.
It is not a ban on *smoking*, it is a ban on exposing others to second hand smoke. It is a protection of workers.
What about car exhaust? It's provably horrible for your health too, but no one says servers can't go outside when there are cars rolling by spewing exhaust fumes.
What a crock of shit.
I keep getting libertarians and anarchists confused. I need a set of encyclopedias.
Bunny Lebowski: Ulli doesn't care about anything. He's a Nihilist.
The Dude: Ah. Must be exhausting.
So at Brits for example the wait staff would be forced to walk through people potentially smoking on the public sidewalk to serve drinks to people that can't smoke sitting in the sidewalk seating area? I sometimes question the intelligence of elected officials.
But you won't be smokin' while sitting at an outdoor table, at least not one with a server. Bye bye Figlio, the Local, and Brits.
I disagree because "...may build..." wouldn't include table set up outside an establishment. I note that it's also futurescriptive. Does that then go backwards to affect business that have built patios?
Broken-hand Bob, maybe you should raise this issue with someone so it can be taken care of now if it is indeed a problem. Otherwise you're going to be in court afterwards, I would presume. Maybe even iwth the dreamy Sue Jeffers!!!
And spaceman, you didn't quote statute. You quoted bill language. If it is signed into law by the governor, then it will be statute. Know the diff, dolt.
Simpleton: If you're holding a drink and a cigarette, you cannot be near waitstaff or they're within their rights to hit you with pepper spray.
well, then, here you go:
"609.293 SODOMY.
Subdivision 1. Definition. "Sodomy" means carnally knowing any person by the anus or
by or with the mouth."
It would be funnier if it were called Karnal Knowledge.
I dump my car ashtray on the street all the time. I also like to just stub out my cigarette butts on the sidewalk and walk away. When people complain about me smoking or do that subtle hand-waving thing, I like to blow smoke right into their faces, complete with a nice smirk on my face. And I'm going to keep doing all of it until smoking is made illegal.
And then I'll probably still do it, but I'll have so more fun doing it.
Correction: So much more fun.
Soooooo much more fun...
Wayne: "Actually I didn't learn to bike until I moved here, at 22."
Dude, and you wonder why you get hit by cars and drivers yell and throw shit at you...
yes, I do, because I bike well and follow almost all the rules. I try to be as courteous as possible too.
Just becuase I only learned a couple years ago doesn't mean I'm bad at it, dummy.
It would be funnier if it were called Karnal Knowledge.
I did a news release headline on that note recently, Max:
Kernel Knowledge
Public Awareness of E85 Fuel Up Sharply In Minnesota
I learned how to stop complaining only a few years after I learned how to ride a bike (c. 1978), so by my reasoning Wayne will be cured of his whining pretty soon.
thank god
Good. Let's next teach him how to drive a car.
No, I already know how to drive. I gave that up. Maybe I can give up smoking next.
Better still might be "cornhole knowledge." Ahem.
C'mon now, people. I want to see a libertarian defense of public urination before I buy the 'slippery slope' argument. I'll even get you started by saying that it's a completely natural act, which many people cannot control.
If you're comparing secondhand smoke to human waste you're being ridiculous, Champs.
Um, I don't know that this qualifies as libertarian, but urine is good for compost...
Don't invite me over for a meal of your garden vegetables.
Awwwwwwwwwww...
Is a little bit of pee so much worse than old coffee grounds mixed with stale pizza crusts mixed with eggshells mixed with rotting oranges?
It's all naaaaaaaaaaatural, baby!
(I stop short of dog poo only because I'm too lazy to dig a pit for it. Otherwise I'd compost that too.)
"If you're comparing secondhand smoke to human waste you're being ridiculous, Champs. "
I have to side with the Rat on this one, Champs. Secondhand smoke is much more toxic than urine. Seriously, look it up.
"If you're comparing secondhand smoke to human waste you're being ridiculous, Champs. "
I agree.
I just felt like talking about pee and compost.
Secondhand smoke is much more toxic than urine.
Petty annoyances versus cholera. Sure, Bob.
You know how bad you're hurting your cause by saying things like that?
MNSpeak post of the month:
Dude, and you wonder why you get hit by cars and drivers yell and throw shit at you...
In a world with so many Holocaust deniers, and global warming skeptics, can't you hire some people to challenge the science of secondhand smoke?
That's the best thing I've read all week...
The Rat is living in a whole other realm of denial by believing that secondhand smoke is merely a "petty annoyance" and cholera can be caused by a sterile bodily fluid.
Petty annoyances versus cholera. Sure, Bob Yes, I am sure.
PS: A big shout out and 'thank you' to zenrino, for making Bob suffer. He (or she?) knows what I mean.
zenrhino gave bob cholera?
no, I think zenrhino broke his hand ):
Heh!
nice unibrow wayne
I have no such thing!
Can someone explain to me what's the point of the patio provision? To explain my confusion, I give you the following definitions, straight from bill text:
Subd. 1a. Indoor area. "Indoor area" means all space between a floor and a ceiling that is bounded on two or more sides by walls...
Subd. 1b. Place of employment. "Place of employment" means any indoor area...
Subd. 2. Public place. "Public place" means any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public...
And smoking is prohibited in the following places:
Smoking shall not be permitted in and no person shall smoke in a public place...in a place of employment...
So if smoking is only banned in places defined as indoor places and indoor places are specifically defined as having a ceiling and at least two walls, than a sidewalk area (think The Local or Sally's near the U) is not indoors and smoking is not banned. But then I'm not an attorney and they put in the patio language, so there must be more to it. Any attorney's on MNSpeak care to take a look? Or, kwatt, surely your caucus has attorneys you could ask.
" You seem to be a relatively conservative person; why would you give any credence whatsoever to "legislative intent"? My experience has been that the Legislature wants analysis to start and stop with the text of the statute, and courts are generally happy to oblige. (Of course, it helps to start with an unambiguous statute.)"
My experience is that any statute can easily be found to be ambiguous by a motivated judge. Many are poorly written, and are, in fact, ambiguous, while others are merely inconsistent with the judge's philosophies. Similarly, any statute can be mis-read or mis-interpreted by a motivated, dumb, or misled judge, and then, legislative intent can get you back home when nothing else will.
I may not have been clear. My point was that we are not a legislative intent state so the law needs to be as clear as possible or else we will leave these decisions in the hands of judges.
What do you mean, "we are not a legislative intent state"? It's argued all the time. There are some evidentiary hurdles placed on it, but still, if you can clearly show the intent in a situation where ambiguity has been found, it's valid and useful.
Or did you mean, we don't recognize the "yeah, that may be what the words of the statute say, but it's not what they meant" argument? If so, yeah, you still need that ambiguity finding first.
An anniversary worth noting: March 31, 2007 marks the two-year anniversary of the Minneapolis, Golden Valley, Ramsey County, and Hennepin County clean indoor air ordinances.
Two years of smokefree air. Happy birthday, smoking ban.
April 2, 2007 update: The House bill passed out of Rep. Rukavina's committee today on a voice vote.
From the Strib: Former U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Rachel K. Paulose retaliated against a top prosecutor in her office who reported her for careless handling of classified homeland security reports, a watchdog agency said Wednesday.…
Andrea Swensson tackles the 11 year legacy of the Minnesota hip hop supergoup the Heiruspecs. If you've somehow managed to remain unfamiliar with them, here are some started pages: Their Web page, their MySpace page (with music), and a recent video i…
Aaron points out that it is ridiculously easy to look up someone else's utility bills online here in the Twin Cities, and pay them, if you like. But is this a bug or a feature? After all, utility bills are public information. Aaron does a little digg…
MnHotline has posted an ad looking for people to be in the audience for the taping of pilot game show, "Risk Your Meat," starring the ever bizarre Rich Kronfeld, formerly of Let's Bowl and, er, Dr. Sphincter. Not sure what this might be? It's a meat …
Vikings defensive linemen Kevin Williams and Pat Williams have been suspended for the last 4 regular season games. Both players had taken a weight loss supplement called "StarCaps." The supplement itself isn't banned by the NFL, but it contains an u…
Ok MnSpeak folks, here's the deal: Having seen how it works in other states, I am selling ad space on my exams. I'm not kidding. I'm almost out of copies for the year, and I'm already over $1,000 out of pocket to buy the necessary books and materia…