Laserfiche WebLink
] <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />, <br />� <br />� <br />C� <br />Cl <br />E� <br />E3 <br />[� <br />LS <br />I� <br />L� <br />L8 <br />1� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�B <br />�9 <br />3� <br />3l <br />3� <br />�3 <br />�� <br />�� <br />3� <br />3� <br />]8 <br />3� <br />� <br />�F L <br />�.� <br />�� <br />� <br />�5 <br />�� <br />�t <br />separation of smokers and nonsmokers, nor the introduction of new ventilation <br />systems, can eliminate the health hazards caused by secondhand smoke. <br />Employees in smoky workplaces are at special risk. One study has estimated that <br />working in a smoky bar for eight hours is equivalent to smoking 16 cigarettes. <br />Also at special risk are <br />children, elderly people, and those with cardiovascular disease or impaired <br />respiratory function, including people with asthma and those with obstructive <br />airway disease. <br />Objective evidence does not bear out the fear that elimination ofpublic smoking <br />will harm a community's economy or result in a net loss of jobs in restaurants <br />and bars. On the contrary, <br />many independent economic studies have shown that the elimination of smoking <br />has no material economic impact on a community. These studies are drawn from <br />the experience of hundreds of communities that have successfully eliminated <br />smoking in workplaces and public places. The states of California, Connecticut, <br />Delaware, Maine, and New York have adopted laws ending all smoking in bars, <br />restaurants, and other public places, as have the nations of Ireland, New Zealand <br />and Norway. <br />By reducing the exposure of young people to adult smoking and unhealthy role <br />modeling, <br />elimination of smoking in public places furthers Minnesota's goal of reducing <br />youth smoking. <br />There is no legal or constitutional "right to smoke." Business owners have no <br />legal or constitutional right to expose their employees and customers to toxic <br />chemicals, whether in tobacco smoke or otherwise. On the contrary, employers <br />have a common law duty to provide <br />their workers with a workplace that is not unreasonably dangerous. <br />Accordingly, the City Council finds and declares that the purpose of this <br />ordinance is to: <br />(1) <br />(2� <br />(3) <br />Protect the public health, welfare and safety by better ensuring the <br />ability of citizens to breathe safe and uncontaminated air; <br />Affirm that the right to breathe has priority over the desire to <br />smoke; and <br />Protect vulnerable populations, including employees, children, the <br />elderly and those with chronic health conditions. <br />Sec.238.02 De�nitions. <br />Public Smoking ord final draft Thune 7-28-04.wPa Page 2 of 6 <br />