Smoking bans...

[Tab]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
I hate smoking but these bans are overbearing govt at work imo. MN is great. They ban smoking in the metro area and the bars on the outskirts flourish. So they spread the misery across the entire state. Now bars in Wisc across the border are hopping and they are pressuring wisc to ban smoking.

Then to add insult to injury the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside. WTF? HUH? What purpose does the smoking ban server if the state helps to build rooms to smoke in?

btw one of the biggest nanny stater who pushed through the smoking bans was a huge smoker who wanted to quit. Apparently he felt the best way for him to quit was to outlaw the practive for the states 4.5 million residents as well.

What a fucking douchebag.

While I don't agree with this smoking ban garbage, building seperate rooms does NOT violate the spirit of the law. The idea is that people can go to bars and not be subjected to tons of cigarette smoke - having smokers in a seperate area alleviates that problem.

Yes, it does. It's part of the bar, the voters voted for no smoking in the bar.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Thank God the government is here to watch over and protect me, as I am incapable of doing so myself. I don't smoke, I've never smoked, and I hate the smell of smoke. I'm so glad the government is willing to step in and tell everyone that they must cease the legal activity they enjoy so that I may feel comfortable in someone else's establishment. Thank God I live under a system that enforces my right to tell others what to do to make me happy. That's the American way!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Robor
This topic has been debated to death already. In the end it's a matter of public health protection.

Any place that allows smoking must have proper ventilation or it's illegal.

Before it was banned in FL I used to occasionally go to places that allow smoking and put up with it. Regardless of alleged 'proper ventilation' the level of smoke in them is enough to give me a headache and bother my breathing.

So? You will not get cancer from 2nd Hand-Smoke in these environments, it's not a public health issue nor was it in the first place.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87
I hate smoking but these bans are overbearing govt at work imo. MN is great. They ban smoking in the metro area and the bars on the outskirts flourish. So they spread the misery across the entire state. Now bars in Wisc across the border are hopping and they are pressuring wisc to ban smoking.

Then to add insult to injury the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside. WTF? HUH? What purpose does the smoking ban server if the state helps to build rooms to smoke in?

btw one of the biggest nanny stater who pushed through the smoking bans was a huge smoker who wanted to quit. Apparently he felt the best way for him to quit was to outlaw the practive for the states 4.5 million residents as well.

What a fucking douchebag.

Actually, one of the more important things you should do in order to quit smoking is stay away from smoking. So, if you're 21-30 that's going to be quite difficult to do if you're going out on the weekends.

Is that a fact? I have quit smoking twice in my 55 years and have never avoided smokers or establishments that allow smoking . Other people smoking has never interferred with my ability to quit. So i disagree with your statement.

Okay?

I am not a smoker but I have know many whom have quit and they say this was a determining factor.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Pabster
<Yawn>

Excuse me while I go light up. This nanny-state "Stop Smoking" obsession really needs to stop. Stay the fuck out of my life! :|

We wouldn't need laws like this if you'd keep your filth the fuck out of out lives!

Is he smoking in your house? If not then how is he forcing his smoking habits on you? Sounds to me like you went into bars that had smoking knowing full well the consequences.

So what if I want a drink without an asthma attack? What if I want to be able to walk from the parking garage to my building without having to duck and dodge? Apparently, 61% of voters in Fargo share my concerns. Fortunately, I live in a state that has some protection for bars and restaurants. We just need it in the other places where there isn't enough space to stay 50 feet back.

I fully support a public smoking ban however there were several non-smoking bars prior to the ban.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Pabster
<Yawn>

Excuse me while I go light up. This nanny-state "Stop Smoking" obsession really needs to stop. Stay the fuck out of my life! :|

We wouldn't need laws like this if you'd keep your filth the fuck out of out lives!

Is he smoking in your house? If not then how is he forcing his smoking habits on you? Sounds to me like you went into bars that had smoking knowing full well the consequences.

So what if I want a drink without an asthma attack? What if I want to be able to walk from the parking garage to my building without having to duck and dodge? Apparently, 61% of voters in Fargo share my concerns. Fortunately, I live in a state that has some protection for bars and restaurants. We just need it in the other places where there isn't enough space to stay 50 feet back.

I dont know of many\(any?) smoking bans that ban smoking outside. And I doubt this one will either. If you want to drink without having an asthma attack drink at home or find a bar that banned smoking. There were and are bars that do such a thing. I went to school at NDSU in fargo and while at school there was a bar that did just that(banned smoking within the bar). And you know what? The place was packed. It was called the 21st Amendment though it has since closed due to the owner being a douchebag.

By the same token, If you want to work for handicap-accessible workplace, go find one. Your argument is a fallacy, because you're assuming perfect market efficiency. Since one-time cost of a non-smoker visiting a smoke environment is minimal, most often he/she won't chose to go to a smoke-free bar. On the aggregate level, though, he/she is worse off and so are we (healthcare costs) and market will undersupply smoke-free bars.

I would suggest you google "asymmetric incentives"... fun economic therory and also the reason why all americans are paying 100-200 a year for sugar tariffs.

Uhh... What?

There were several non-smoking bars in Fargo prior to the ban and with adequate ventilation there is no risk of serious health concerns.

In the end I don't think the health concerns are even relevant. It's their own business, a private entity.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Robor
This topic has been debated to death already. In the end it's a matter of public health protection.

Any place that allows smoking must have proper ventilation or it's illegal.

Before it was banned in FL I used to occasionally go to places that allow smoking and put up with it. Regardless of alleged 'proper ventilation' the level of smoke in them is enough to give me a headache and bother my breathing.

So? You will not get cancer from 2nd Hand-Smoke in these environments, it's not a public health issue nor was it in the first place.

Where did I say anything about me getting cancer? I was talking about this 'proper ventilation' argument being a failure as a defense of allowing smoking in the workplace. Yes, it is a public heath issue to those who work there.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
I hate smoking but these bans are overbearing govt at work imo. MN is great. They ban smoking in the metro area and the bars on the outskirts flourish. So they spread the misery across the entire state. Now bars in Wisc across the border are hopping and they are pressuring wisc to ban smoking.

Then to add insult to injury the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside. WTF? HUH? What purpose does the smoking ban server if the state helps to build rooms to smoke in?

btw one of the biggest nanny stater who pushed through the smoking bans was a huge smoker who wanted to quit. Apparently he felt the best way for him to quit was to outlaw the practive for the states 4.5 million residents as well.

What a fucking douchebag.

While I don't agree with this smoking ban garbage, building seperate rooms does NOT violate the spirit of the law. The idea is that people can go to bars and not be subjected to tons of cigarette smoke - having smokers in a seperate area alleviates that problem.

Yes, it does. It's part of the bar, the voters voted for no smoking in the bar.

You are incorrect. That means it violates the letter of the law, not the spirit. The spirit of the law was to make it so non-smokers could enjoy the bar without the second-hand smoke. Building a smoking room outside still achieves that. Now, if a non-smoker goes into the smoking room and is offended by the smoke, that makes them an idiot.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
I hate smoking but these bans are overbearing govt at work imo. MN is great. They ban smoking in the metro area and the bars on the outskirts flourish. So they spread the misery across the entire state. Now bars in Wisc across the border are hopping and they are pressuring wisc to ban smoking.

Then to add insult to injury the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside. WTF? HUH? What purpose does the smoking ban server if the state helps to build rooms to smoke in?

btw one of the biggest nanny stater who pushed through the smoking bans was a huge smoker who wanted to quit. Apparently he felt the best way for him to quit was to outlaw the practive for the states 4.5 million residents as well.

What a fucking douchebag.

While I don't agree with this smoking ban garbage, building seperate rooms does NOT violate the spirit of the law. The idea is that people can go to bars and not be subjected to tons of cigarette smoke - having smokers in a seperate area alleviates that problem.

Yes, it does. It's part of the bar, the voters voted for no smoking in the bar.

You are incorrect. That means it violates the letter of the law, not the spirit. The spirit of the law was to make it so non-smokers could enjoy the bar without the second-hand smoke. Building a smoking room outside still achieves that. Now, if a non-smoker goes into the smoking room and is offended by the smoke, that makes them an idiot.

:roll:

So, why can't I make my bar just a smoking bar? It's one big room damnit!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Robor
This topic has been debated to death already. In the end it's a matter of public health protection.

Any place that allows smoking must have proper ventilation or it's illegal.

Before it was banned in FL I used to occasionally go to places that allow smoking and put up with it. Regardless of alleged 'proper ventilation' the level of smoke in them is enough to give me a headache and bother my breathing.

So? You will not get cancer from 2nd Hand-Smoke in these environments, it's not a public health issue nor was it in the first place.

Where did I say anything about me getting cancer? I was talking about this 'proper ventilation' argument being a failure as a defense of allowing smoking in the workplace. Yes, it is a public heath issue to those who work there.

How is it failure when there is no health risk?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Tab
There were several non-smoking bars in Fargo prior to the ban and with adequate ventilation there is no risk of serious health concerns.

In the end I don't think the health concerns are even relevant. It's their own business, a private entity.

There are health concerns regarding 2nd hand smoke and it doesn't have to be cancer or emphysema for proof of this. I know people who have their asthma triggered by being in a smoky environment.

These private businesses you talk about are already regulated by the government.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
I hate smoking but these bans are overbearing govt at work imo. MN is great. They ban smoking in the metro area and the bars on the outskirts flourish. So they spread the misery across the entire state. Now bars in Wisc across the border are hopping and they are pressuring wisc to ban smoking.

Then to add insult to injury the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside. WTF? HUH? What purpose does the smoking ban server if the state helps to build rooms to smoke in?

btw one of the biggest nanny stater who pushed through the smoking bans was a huge smoker who wanted to quit. Apparently he felt the best way for him to quit was to outlaw the practive for the states 4.5 million residents as well.

What a fucking douchebag.

While I don't agree with this smoking ban garbage, building seperate rooms does NOT violate the spirit of the law. The idea is that people can go to bars and not be subjected to tons of cigarette smoke - having smokers in a seperate area alleviates that problem.

Yes, it does. It's part of the bar, the voters voted for no smoking in the bar.

You are incorrect. That means it violates the letter of the law, not the spirit. The spirit of the law was to make it so non-smokers could enjoy the bar without the second-hand smoke. Building a smoking room outside still achieves that. Now, if a non-smoker goes into the smoking room and is offended by the smoke, that makes them an idiot.

:roll:

So, why can't I make my bar just a smoking bar? It's one big room damnit!

Did I read the part where it said "the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside." incorrectly?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Obviously the gov't knows what is best for us...as long as they can tax it...

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Tab
There were several non-smoking bars in Fargo prior to the ban and with adequate ventilation there is no risk of serious health concerns.

In the end I don't think the health concerns are even relevant. It's their own business, a private entity.

There are health concerns regarding 2nd hand smoke and it doesn't have to be cancer or emphysema for proof of this. I know people who have their asthma triggered by being in a smoky environment.

I am one of these people. I don't need to wait around for cancer. I get an immediate effect like somebody standing on my chest.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Pabster
<Yawn>

Excuse me while I go light up. This nanny-state "Stop Smoking" obsession really needs to stop. Stay the fuck out of my life! :|

We wouldn't need laws like this if you'd keep your filth the fuck out of out lives!

Is he smoking in your house? If not then how is he forcing his smoking habits on you? Sounds to me like you went into bars that had smoking knowing full well the consequences.

So what if I want a drink without an asthma attack? What if I want to be able to walk from the parking garage to my building without having to duck and dodge? Apparently, 61% of voters in Fargo share my concerns. Fortunately, I live in a state that has some protection for bars and restaurants. We just need it in the other places where there isn't enough space to stay 50 feet back.

I dont know of many\(any?) smoking bans that ban smoking outside. And I doubt this one will either. If you want to drink without having an asthma attack drink at home or find a bar that banned smoking. There were and are bars that do such a thing. I went to school at NDSU in fargo and while at school there was a bar that did just that(banned smoking within the bar). And you know what? The place was packed. It was called the 21st Amendment though it has since closed due to the owner being a douchebag.

By the same token, If you want to work for handicap-accessible workplace, go find one. Your argument is a fallacy, because you're assuming perfect market efficiency. Since one-time cost of a non-smoker visiting a smoke environment is minimal, most often he/she won't chose to go to a smoke-free bar. On the aggregate level, though, he/she is worse off and so are we (healthcare costs) and market will undersupply smoke-free bars.

I would suggest you google "asymmetric incentives"... fun economic therory and also the reason why all americans are paying 100-200 a year for sugar tariffs.

Uhh... What?

There were several non-smoking bars in Fargo prior to the ban and with adequate ventilation there is no risk of serious health concerns.

In the end I don't think the health concerns are even relevant. It's their own business, a private entity.

Oh I agree, except for the mountain of evidence that proves the costs of individuals smoking are bourne by all of us by the means of health care premiums, ssoc costs and taxes.

You're missing the role of policy or government though. it is supposed to step in and fix market externalities and failures and smoking is one of them.

In a perfect workld, all smokers would go to smoker bars and all non-smokers would go to non-smoker bars. But we don't live in a perfect world and it's simply not economical to run a non-smoker bars in most cases. Also as I mentioned before, most of the time it's not economical for a non-smoker to go to a non-smoker bar. Ergo the market failure and gov't stepping in.

 

[nakedfrog]

Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Pabster
<Yawn>

Excuse me while I go light up. This nanny-state "Stop Smoking" obsession really needs to stop. Stay the fuck out of my life! :|

We wouldn't need laws like this if you'd keep your filth the fuck out of out lives!

Is he smoking in your house? If not then how is he forcing his smoking habits on you? Sounds to me like you went into bars that had smoking knowing full well the consequences.

So what if I want a drink without an asthma attack? What if I want to be able to walk from the parking garage to my building without having to duck and dodge? Apparently, 61% of voters in Fargo share my concerns. Fortunately, I live in a state that has some protection for bars and restaurants. We just need it in the other places where there isn't enough space to stay 50 feet back.

I dont know of many\(any?) smoking bans that ban smoking outside. And I doubt this one will either. If you want to drink without having an asthma attack drink at home or find a bar that banned smoking. There were and are bars that do such a thing. I went to school at NDSU in fargo and while at school there was a bar that did just that(banned smoking within the bar). And you know what? The place was packed. It was called the 21st Amendment though it has since closed due to the owner being a douchebag.

By the same token, If you want to work for handicap-accessible workplace, go find one. Your argument is a fallacy, because you're assuming perfect market efficiency. Since one-time cost of a non-smoker visiting a smoke environment is minimal, most often he/she won't chose to go to a smoke-free bar. On the aggregate level, though, he/she is worse off and so are we (healthcare costs) and market will undersupply smoke-free bars.

I would suggest you google "asymmetric incentives"... fun economic therory and also the reason why all americans are paying 100-200 a year for sugar tariffs.

Is a handicapped person handicapped by choice? Bad analogy imo.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

Horray!

 

[Carmen813]

This is why if you choose an addiction you need to choose one that will never force you out, like gaming!


As for my opinion, I'm all in support of smoking bans. As a cancer survivor who suffered lung damage through treatment it is difficult for me to breath normal clean air, breathing in cigarette smoke automatically invokes my gag reflex. Needless to say that can be terribly embrassing in public. I don't go to bars, but thank god NY has a smoking ban so I can still enjoy restaurants, movies, and go to college.

It's a private privaledge that has known, and serious, health consequences. Keep it in your homes.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Pabster
<Yawn>

Excuse me while I go light up. This nanny-state "Stop Smoking" obsession really needs to stop. Stay the fuck out of my life! :|

We wouldn't need laws like this if you'd keep your filth the fuck out of out lives!

Is he smoking in your house? If not then how is he forcing his smoking habits on you? Sounds to me like you went into bars that had smoking knowing full well the consequences.

So what if I want a drink without an asthma attack? What if I want to be able to walk from the parking garage to my building without having to duck and dodge? Apparently, 61% of voters in Fargo share my concerns. Fortunately, I live in a state that has some protection for bars and restaurants. We just need it in the other places where there isn't enough space to stay 50 feet back.

I dont know of many\(any?) smoking bans that ban smoking outside. And I doubt this one will either. If you want to drink without having an asthma attack drink at home or find a bar that banned smoking. There were and are bars that do such a thing. I went to school at NDSU in fargo and while at school there was a bar that did just that(banned smoking within the bar). And you know what? The place was packed. It was called the 21st Amendment though it has since closed due to the owner being a douchebag.

By the same token, If you want to work for handicap-accessible workplace, go find one. Your argument is a fallacy, because you're assuming perfect market efficiency. Since one-time cost of a non-smoker visiting a smoke environment is minimal, most often he/she won't chose to go to a smoke-free bar. On the aggregate level, though, he/she is worse off and so are we (healthcare costs) and market will undersupply smoke-free bars.

I would suggest you google "asymmetric incentives"... fun economic therory and also the reason why all americans are paying 100-200 a year for sugar tariffs.

Uhh... What?

There were several non-smoking bars in Fargo prior to the ban and with adequate ventilation there is no risk of serious health concerns.

In the end I don't think the health concerns are even relevant. It's their own business, a private entity.

Oh I agree, except for the mountain of evidence that proves the costs of individuals smoking are bourne by all of us by the means of health care premiums, ssoc costs and taxes.

You're missing the role of policy or government though. it is supposed to step in and fix market externalities and failures and smoking is one of them.

In a perfect workld, all smokers would go to smoker bars and all non-smokers would go to non-smoker bars. But we don't live in a perfect world and it's simply not economical to run a non-smoker bars in most cases. Also as I mentioned before, most of the time it's not economical for a non-smoker to go to a non-smoker bar. Ergo the market failure and gov't stepping in.

How is this a market failure? Twenty some years ago there weren't any non-smokers bars in Fargo, but several years ago we had some pop up simply because of demand for non-smoking bars.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

Horray!

That's not really equivalent, as there are still other tobacco products available.

 

[halik]

Is a handicapped person handicapped by choice? Bad analogy imo.

The analogy was to free market providing alternatives, not the choice of smoking. Or in other words we don't need People with Disabilities act, as there are buildings with ramps and elevators already.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

But that means they'd lose the taxes gained by it's sale. but these bans are for "health"....:roll: The only way I'll ever believe that is if they ban the sale of it. If it's really so bad that we have to protect people who choose to go to places where it is used then it should just be plain banned. But that assume consistency....something the anti-smoking nazis and local/state gov'ts seem to lack

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
I hate smoking but these bans are overbearing govt at work imo. MN is great. They ban smoking in the metro area and the bars on the outskirts flourish. So they spread the misery across the entire state. Now bars in Wisc across the border are hopping and they are pressuring wisc to ban smoking.

Then to add insult to injury the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside. WTF? HUH? What purpose does the smoking ban server if the state helps to build rooms to smoke in?

btw one of the biggest nanny stater who pushed through the smoking bans was a huge smoker who wanted to quit. Apparently he felt the best way for him to quit was to outlaw the practive for the states 4.5 million residents as well.

What a fucking douchebag.

While I don't agree with this smoking ban garbage, building seperate rooms does NOT violate the spirit of the law. The idea is that people can go to bars and not be subjected to tons of cigarette smoke - having smokers in a seperate area alleviates that problem.

Yes, it does. It's part of the bar, the voters voted for no smoking in the bar.

You are incorrect. That means it violates the letter of the law, not the spirit. The spirit of the law was to make it so non-smokers could enjoy the bar without the second-hand smoke. Building a smoking room outside still achieves that. Now, if a non-smoker goes into the smoking room and is offended by the smoke, that makes them an idiot.

:roll:

So, why can't I make my bar just a smoking bar? It's one big room damnit!

Did I read the part where it said "the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside." incorrectly?

I love corporate welfare!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

Horray!

That's not really equivalent, as there are still other tobacco products available.

Okay, how about hard liquor?