THE ECONOMIC IMPACT MYTH.   Smoke-free opponents will claim that the Freedom to Breathe Act has hurt the bar and restaurant business. While it’s too early to document hospitality industry trends in Minnesota since the Freedom to Breathe Act has been in effect, scientific research that uses actual revenue and jobs data from other smoke-free states and communities show these sky-is-falling claims are more fear than fact. The research shows you can have healthy workers and a healthy business, that successful businesses adapt and not only survive but thrive as smoke-free workplaces. [Read More]

THE LAWS ALREADY PROTECT MYTH.While most Minnesotans worked in smoke-free workplaces because of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, not all of us did. Most notably the bars and restaurants that we visit and that are bartenders, waiters, waitresses and many musicians’ workplaces were NOT smoke-free. [Read More]

THE VENTILATION MYTH.   The 1986 Surgeon General’s report on involuntary smoking was the first to conclude that the simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers does not protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. Research since then and just recently updated in a 2006 Surgeon General’s report has linked secondhand smoke to a number of illnesses and diseases including lung cancer and heart disease. In response the tobacco industry has advocated for ventilation technology as an alternative to smoke-free laws. Unfortunately, the ventilation solution is rife with shortcomings from being ineffective to being too costly. [Read More]

THE PEOPLE OPPOSE MYTH.   Smoke-free opponents often claim to be “speaking for ‘the people’” or “the little guy” when they voice their opposition to smoke-free laws. To be clear, when they oppose smoke-free laws they are not speaking for the vast majority of Minnesotans. [Read More]