Antitobacco legislators in Minnesota are feeling the heat from constituents.
Kathy Tingelstad provides an excellent example. Minnesotan Bob Pobul recently wrote this Minnesota House representative to express his disgust with the state smoking ban (officially known as the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007, finally passed through congress between March and April 2007, signed by the governor in May 2007, taking effect October 2007.)

In a letter of 14 March Representative Tingelstad responded in a most conciliatory manner:

"Thank you for contacting me about the Freedom to Breathe Act. I empathize with your situation … The Freedom to Breathe Act seems to be a ‘Catch-22’ issue … That is why I supported a statewide smoking ban in restaurants where families frequent, but should not have been extended to VFWs, Legions and bars … Again, thank you for contacting me. I certainly appreciate hearing from you."

In correspondence with friends, Bob Pobul asks, "Why did she then vote for it if she didn’t agree with it?" In fact Kathy Tingelstad did not merely vote for but was a co-sponsor of the legislation (scroll down at: Linkstored link).

Bob’s question is well asked and the answer would seem to be that Kathy Tingelstad is equivocating now because of vocal indignation from constituents over the legislation she helped to inflict on them. Bob Pobul also wonders how many other representatives’ positions have been or are becoming shaky with regard to tyrannical nanny law, as do we, and we recommend once again for all readers, from everywhere, to petition Minnesota legislators (to do so click here).



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder