That statewide restaurant smoking ban that looked like it was on the fast track hit a brick wall in the House Commerce Comittee Wednesday. MPR's Tom Scheck was there:

Supporters of the statewide smoking ban knew that the House Commerce Committee would be the bill's toughest test. The committee regulates and considers matters concerning business. With some minor exceptions the bill would ban smoking statewide in any establishment that sells more food than liquor.

Rep. Doug Meslow, R-White Bear Lake, the chief author of the bill, told committee members that he understood their concerns regarding the ban's financial impact on restaurants. But he told them that they should also consider the health interests of restaurants employees and customers. He believes the committee erred on the side of business.

"At its root, this bill balances health concerns with business concerns. I think that members of this committee were extra concerned about the business issues," he said.

Meslow and other ban supporters hoped that the Legislature would approve a bill this year. In the past year Ramsey and Hennepin counties passed smoking bans that go into effect at the end of the month. Supporters took out full page ads in several newspapers encouraging support for the ban in the interest of public health.

In the Star Tribune Conrad Defiebre looks at what might happen next:

Rep. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, however, predicted that the measure would pass if it were to reach the House floor, perhaps as an amendment to another bill. "All options are open," added Latz, the initiative's original sponsor. "I'm not declaring this bill dead."

...A stronger smoking ban, with bars and private clubs included, is still alive in the Senate. Some proponents suggested that they would await action by the full Senate before attempting to revive the bill on the House floor.

If that occurs, members' votes would probably be recorded. And that could spell trouble for opponents of the ban, said Rep. Dan Severson of Sauk Rapids, the only outspoken Republican ban supporter on the House Commerce Committee. "You'd better have a real good reason to go against 70 to 80 percent of the voters," he said.

While members of the Commerce Comittee were protecting businesses from people who don't want to smoke, the Civil Law Committee was protecting businesses from overweight people. MPR's Laura McCallum had that item.

Rep. Dean Urdahl's bill would grant legal immunity to a company sued over someone's weight gain. No such lawsuit has been filed in Minnesota, but the parents of two overweight New York teenagers have sued the McDonald's fast-food chain.

The trial lawyers' association says the bill sets a bad precedent by protecting private, for-profit companies. But Urdahl, R-Grove City, calls it a common sense measure.

"This is a bill about personal responsibility and I don't know how much discovery it takes to know that if you eat too many cheeseburgers, you get fat," he said.

And if you smoke too many cigarettes, you die.

There's some news on Gov. Pawlenty's state-run casino plan. Patrick Sweeney has it in the Pioneer Press:

[Sen. Sandy] Pappas and [Rep. Andy] Westerberg said their bills would allow up to two new metro-area casinos, presumably the joint state-tribal operation that Pawlenty supports and a rival casino planned by the owners of Canterbury Park racetrack. Pappas said the two proposals also might be merged. In that case, the state-tribal casino would be built at the racetrack in Shakopee, just a few miles from Mystic Lake, the largest of Minnesota's Indian casinos.

Anoka County and at least other three communities are contenders to host a casino, Westerberg said. He refused to name the three.

In a new wrinkle in the long-playing casino debate, Pappas said her Senate bill would devote part of the state's gambling earnings to paying for expanded early childhood education for low-income children. In January, Pawlenty said some gaming revenue might be used to build professional sports stadiums.

Pawlenty also said in January that he wanted tribes to pay a $200 million licensing fee to the state and agree to a distribution of profits that would give the state about $114 million a year once the casino was in operation. Pappas said Wednesday she expected the proposed legislation to be announced Friday would set a lower licensing fee if the Legislature approves more than one casino.

Pappas and Westerberg said they did not know what percentage of profits the legislation would propose the state receive. Last week, Leech Lake tribal chairman George Goggleye said the negotiations called for the state to get about 24 percent of the gross revenue from slot machines. In the past, Canterbury's owners promised 40 percent of that revenue to the state.

Do you think smoking will be allowed at the new casino(s)?