Our state legislature has wrapped up yet another session. Although, by the time you read this, they may have decided they have to reconvene to try to accomplish more. From what I can tell, the only piece of legislation to come out of the session that Gov. Pawlenty won't veto is the smoking ban. Just about everything else they voted on involves a tax increase of some sort, and we all know what our governor thinks about tax increases. They supposedly rushed through bills so they could provide an on-time budget for the first time since 1999. Did it work? Only time will tell. Where are the millions (billions?) of dollars coming from that are needed to balance our budget?

We live in a democratic country that is governed for the people, by the people, etc., etc. Unfortunately, it has become a "for the party, by the party" government.

Sen. Bill Bradley recently wrote a book, and I apologize for not remembering the name of it, in which he discusses the fact that our country is on a collision course for disaster if the two parties don't learn to play well together again. There was a time when legislation was passed because it was for the good of the people. Now it seems that it is passed because the "other" party doesn't want it.

Now, about that smoking ban. I realize that smoking is bad for your health. Heck, it says so right on the side of the cigarette packs. Then, why does our government subsidize the tobacco industry? Wouldn't it make more sense to do something about that, before passing a bill that says "You can't smoke in public, na-na-na-na-na-na." Our government is telling its constituents that they can't smoke in public at the same time they are pouring dollars into the very companies that manufacture cigarettes. If there is some logic there, could someone please explain it to me?

Since we live in a "free" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to let restaurants, bars, service organizations, etc. decide for themselves whether or not they will allow smoking in their establishments? There are already some smoke-free places; if anyone else jumped on the bandwagon on their own, they might actually feel like they still have some say in how their business is run.

Then there is the secondhand smoke issue. I'm not sure how much I buy into that theory (and I know some of you will disagree with me). While I do feel that cancer of any sort is devastating, can I just say this: My dad smoked, my brothers smoked, almost everyone I hung around with in high school smoked and yes, my husband still smokes. If secondhand smoke is so lethal, I should be dead.

You can reach Mary Bruemmer at mary.bruemmer@pineriver journal.com