Decision time is near for members of the Minnesota House of Representatives.

In a week or two, it’s likely that the so-called Freedom to Breathe Act will reach the House floor, where representatives will have to decide what’s right — and healthy — when it comes to smoking in the state.

The Senate already has passed the act, voting 41-24 on the bill that would ban smoking in virtually every indoor work space, including bars and restaurants. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said he will sign a smoking ban bill into law when one reaches his desk.

As the song says, “Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad.” But it doesn’t make a law.

So, now it’s up to the House of Representatives to do its part.

The Freedom to Breathe Act has taken a slower course in the House, where numerous objections to a smoking ban have been raised, most of them revolving around economic hardship or individual freedoms. These objections are not to be taken lightly.

But neither should the dangers posed by secondhand smoke be taken lightly. A strong smoking ban law, with as few exceptions as possible, is the best course of action  for the state and its citizens. The more exceptions, the more issues will arise.

State Sen. Steve Dille, R-Dassel, was co-author of the Freedom to Breathe Act and among six Republican senators who sided with the majority in the smoking ban vote.

At one point during the floor debate, Dille told his Senate colleagues, “I ask this body to have the political courage to vote yes today.”

Voting for the Freedom to Breathe Act is a courageous step in the face of strong and organized opposition. Meeker County commissioners saw and heard that opposition in 2005, when they voted to institute a smoking ban in county restaurants and bars. The ban offered a two-year grace period for bars who applied for an exemption. That grace period ends this summer, when all county bars and restaurants will be smoke-free — unless, of course, an exemption-ridden version of Freedom to Breathe is enacted.

Dille and Meeker County commissioners should be commended for their support of a law that will protect all workers  and patrons from the dangers of secondhand smoke in all businesses, including restaurants and bars.

We hope Rep. Dean Urdahl will do the same when the Freedom to Breathe Act comes up for a vote in the House of Representatives.

So far, the Grove City Republican has been noncommital. He said he believed some sort of smoking ban would be passed into law this legislative session. But he has left the door wide open for exemptions, saying only that he will wait to see what a bill includes or doesn’t include before making a final decision to support a smoking ban or not.

We hope that in the end Rep. Urdahl takes the same strong stand that his Senate counterpart has. A smoking ban with no exceptions is the best solution for the health of all Minnesotans and for fairness. Exemptions for clubs, or for bars that derive a certain percentage of income from food sales, only serve to create an uneven playing field for businesses.

It’s time for Minnesota to join the growing list of states with smoke-free laws in effect — currently, there are 17. Minnesota once was a trailblazer in protecting its residents from the deadly effects of tobacco smoke. The Legislature passed the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act three decades ago. But that 1975 law left a gaping exception on the books, continuing to allow smoking in restaurants and bars.

There is little dispute about the dangers of secondhand smoke. Containing hundreds of toxic or carcinogenic chemicals, including formaldehyde and benzene, secondhand smoke is said to cause about 3,400 deaths from lung cancer and more than 22,000 heart disease deaths in U.S. adult nonsmokers each year. One study found that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart disease compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars have been found to be two to five times higher than in homes with smokers and two to six times higher than in office workplaces.

Providing restaurant and bar workers, as well as patrons, the same protecttion from secondhand smoke that other state residents have enjoyed for decades makes good sense. A strong, exception-free Freedom to Breathe Act could ensure that protection.