# Fargo Moorhead smoking ban, do you support the idea?



## ChrisP

*Do you support a workplace smoking ban?*​
No1551.72%Yes1448.28%


----------



## ChrisP

I was just wondering what you think about instituting a workplace smoking ban in the FM area. Do you support the idea? Would a ban change the amount you go to restaurants and bars? Have you ever visited a city that has a smoking ban?


----------



## Bobm

The decision should be left to the individual business owner, If somone does like it take your business somewhere else. 
Public buildings should be non smoking.


----------



## adokken

No employee should have to inhale some ones smoke to make a living. I am tired of all these weeklings that do not have the abilityu to quit crying about not being able to intrude on some ones quality of life. I was a life time smoker and quit in 1953 the year I left the service,
All of my old buddys that did not quit have been dead for many years.


----------



## Ryan_Todd

i agree with bob on that it should be up the buisness owners themselves. what i though was extremely stupid was that they were going to include bars and a cigar shop. how many non smokers go into a cigar shop on a regular basis. i'm a smoker and i don't mind banning smoking in resturants. but i think people should be able to smoke in bars. and should absolutly be able to smoke in a cigar shop. 
my .02


----------



## swift

Okay, you guys that don't agree here. Answer this for me. Should a 50 year old women with lung cancer be able to collect workers comp for her illness because she was exposed to smoke in her workplace?

Before you answer consider this...

Asbestos workers with lung cancer are able to collect from worker's comp for there disability.

The reason I ask this is I see people daily with lung disease due to smoking and the majority of these people are on medicaid because they cannot work due to their breathing problems.

We can reduce the number of severely ill people on state funded medical coverage by reducing the exposure to carcinogens these people have.

Another thing is It seems like people should have the right to breath clean air above a person having the right to smoke. A smoking ban only affects the smoker. Allowing one person to smoke affects everyone breathing around them.


----------



## huntin1

It should not be left up to the business owner, employee's should not be subjected to anyone's harmful smoke just so that they can make a living. The customer may be able to go elsewhere, the employee can't, this includes bars. If you want to smoke, that is your right, however, if your actions create a harmful situation for the rest of the population, you no longer have the right to exercise that action. Smoking should not be allowed anywhere in public, if you want to smoke, smoke at home, where the only one you will be harming is yourself, unless of course you have children, then you should not be able to smoke there either.

Bar and restuarant owners don't get it, they think that business will decline if smoking is not allowed, people are still going to go to the bar and drink, they are still going to go out and eat. In fact, I believe that their business will increase, there are alot of people like my wife and I who refuse to go to restuarants and bars because of all of the cigarette smoke.

Go ahead and flame away, if you smoke I ain't going to change your mind, and you d%&n sure ain't going to change mine.

huntin1


----------



## Bobm

I need to clarify, When I said the business owner I was speaking in terms of businesses like bars and restaraunts where restricting it could possibly run off customers, both customers and employees that don't like smoking can go somewhere else. The business is not there for the benefit of the employees it there for the financial benefit of the owner. I do think it should be prohibited in any business that would not suffer loss of customers which would include almost every situation except bars and restaraunts. 
I do think that people that are smokers and get a smoking related illness should not be eligible for medicaid, just like a motorcyclist shouldn't be eligible for public medical help if he doesn't wear a helmet, save his life then seize his assets to repay the tax payers for the expense. If someone is going to engage in a risky behavior they should bear the cost and responsibilities associated with it, period. I don;t want to pay for their stupidity.
I can't stand smoking. Smokers have been proven as a group to be of lower IQ and lower income than non-smokers which makes sense because its an incredibly stupid thing to do. And most smokers will admit its stupid which really is hard to understand, it really must be addictive.


----------



## Plainsman

Bobm

It must be just us old guys up this morning Bob. I had to scare the robins out of my juneberries early in the hopes they will not come back for a while. Maybe this year I will get some. Sixty trees and the birds get most.

I sort of agree with you on the smoking and that the business is there to profit. However in the restaurants I go to the smoking section is divided by nothing most of the time. I have had smokers blow their smoke my direction, because they thought it was funny to do that. It is those with poor manners that will get it banned, and it will be banned. The owner of the business has a right to profit, but not on my cancer. I think if it is banned in all places then the business owner will not suffer. People are still going to restaurants and bars. The only time a business will suffer is if the city in question bans in some restaurants and bars and not others.

The ban on smoking sadly to say is just the beginning of this type of change. The drug companies and medicine in general has become so expensive that it will lead to socialized medicine. I don't like the idea, but I am afraid that today's greed will make it happen in the not to distant future. I will go one step further and say that within the next generation or two we will see private land began to disappear. This pay to hunt will destroy the hunter landowner relationship, and agriculture will loose a very important ally. When the hunter pays for hunting he no longer feels he owes the farmer anything. Food, that is cheaper imported from Canada, Mexico, South America, Australia, and on and on. I hope they wake up and throw the outfitters off their land because the outfitters may be paying a few bucks now, but they are driving nails in the coffin of agriculture. It's not what I want to see, but lets face it if I can't hunt the land without paying what good are they to me. That may be a selfish viewpoint, but that is how people are going to think. This is not only going to kill hunting, it will do the same to agriculture support, and the corporations will be waiting in the wings when the independent farmer bites the dust. I know landowners will say it is their landowner right to charge to hunt, but it is their right only as long as the majority of the people in this nation say it is. A hundred years from now Bob we would not recognize this country, and our grandchildren will not know the freedom we have.


----------



## Bobm

> A hundred years from now Bob we would not recognize this country, and our grandchildren will not know the freedom we have


I hope modern medicine comes up with a pill that allows us to tell them in person :lol: .
Yeah the youger guys are just waking up and wondering where they were last night. Headaches, cottonmouth...there is one benefit of old age and more sense.....
I don't like smoking at all and I know what you mean about non-smoking areas in restaraunts but its still their business not mine. I tell the manager what I think and go elsewhere. I make a point of tell them though so it is on their mind. I see a lot more restaraunts that are non-smoking today down here. What was really bad was the non -smoking area in planes that was really a joke, I'm glad that was ended. 
The seasons almost here time really flies it seems like it just ended last month to me.


----------



## swift

Plainsman you are correct. The smoking ban in all places will not affect any one buisness. Just selective bans will. I can't believe I'm typing this but maybe we can learn something from California. Since there smoking ban buisness have not suffered at all. Most work places are smoke free other than in the service industries and the employees that work there still find time and a place to smoke other than in the store.

Bob, how can you say medicaid shouldn't pay for them. Not All of them smoked. Many become disabled every year from second hand smoke. Your analogy to a motorcyclist is a bit off base too. In emergency medicine we call motorcycles and helmets DONORCYCLES because many organs can be harvested after motorcyles crashes. Without a helmet the crash victims die with one they linger on in nursing homes as vegetables. (disclaimer : Of course I recommend the use of helmets when any activity may result in head injury. And of course not all people die or end up maimed.) Had to protect myself from Tiger and the other liberals out there.

I would back a smoking ban in my town in public area's but not a tobacco ban. Smoking directly affects everyone in the cloud of smoke with dangerous chemicals. Smokeless tobacco does not, it only affects the one using it. This is how I see the "rights" part of this issue. I have the right to breathe clean air. You have the right to use tobacco but not at someone elses expense. NO I don't use any tobacco.


----------



## Bobm

Swift 
Swift you read it wrong
I said


> I do think that people that are smokers and get a smoking related illness should not be eligible for medicaid


Explain to me how you can be a smoker and not smoke???
My anology to motorcyclists then makes sense, I think. 
We're one the same page, sorta :lol: . 
I don't want some government nitwit telling me what I can do in my place of business if you don't want to breathe smoke avoid those bars ect. Some people do want to smoke and if a place of business wants to cater to them its fine with me I don't have to go there. 
The problem with this stuff is it never ending, once the politically correct police get one thing accomplished they will be on to the next issue. I don't care if everyone that smokes coughs up a lung and dies today, it their body, its their risk, and its their business, just don't ask for one cent from me for their medical care. The second had smoke argument is fallacious, no one is forced to breathe it, I don't when someone is smoking around me I get out of there or tell them in no uncertain terms to put it out if I can't get away ( which has only happened once). There is one exception to this and its kids stuck in a car with a mother that smokes they should be arrested for child abuse, its disgusting.
Next they will be making the arguement that everyone fat because of Mcdonalds ect. when the fact is people that are fat are fat because they don't have the disipline not to be, no one is ramming the food down their throats. 
The more people that smoke the more money that will be available for social security for us non-smokers because they die young for the most part. Darwinism at work. Smokers should be liscensed so they can be identified so when they come down with some smoking related disease they can be forced to pay for it themselves.


----------



## swift

Bob, usually I'm on your side but not this time. Why can't I go to a sportsbar on Friday night in the winter and watch a Sioux hockey game without sitting in a cloud of smoke? I am not asking for much just clean air to breathe. The smokers can go outside. I can go to a sportsbar and watch the Sioux and drink Diet coke, which is what I do. It's not like I am asking for the bars not to be permitted to serve alcohol because I don't drink. I just don't want to stink when I leave as well as the other problems associated with second hand smoke. Iam as against the PC police as anyone but I don't see this as PC. As a matter of fact it is the opposite of PC. The PC crowd would say "let the buisness owners do as they please it's their choice."


----------



## Bobm

> The PC crowd would say "let the buisness owners do as they please it's their choice."


No the fact is the PC crowd is at the forefront of anti smoking because they think they should be able to tell everyone else what to do. 
As far as the sportsbar, if the owner felt it was in his best interst to ban smoking he would do so so obviosly your wrong and he doesn't run his sportsbar for your benefit its run for his profit period. If you don't like it go elsewhere don't ask for legislation to force him to do something he can do anytime he wants. 
Smokers and drinkers don't care about their health they are both selfdestructive behaviors and they go hand in hand. If you want to relax and are concerned about your health find other things to do, if your not concerned about your health go to the bar. Its up to the individual what compromises they are willing to make. 
Smoking is a disgusting habit engaged in by the ignorant, if you see someone smoking you know they are stupid. Swift, if you expose yourself to their second had smoke in a bar you're stupid also. You ever notice beer commercials always show a bunch of healthy lean individuals partying, go to a bar and look around especially at the people approaching thirty that have a little time spent smoking and drinking women with bad skin and fat *****, men with beer bellies and puny arms, no wind ect. real glamerous stuff. Spend your time hunting, fishing and in the gym, thats what I do. Time spent in a bar is time wasted that cannot be made up.


----------



## Field Hunter

Getting BACK to the original question. Yes ban everywhere in Fargo. I believe Minneapolis just went smoke free and I'll bet the bars and restaurants will be just as full tonight as last night.

The new initiated measure brought by the bar owners in Fargo last week that will be voted on by the voters in Nov...is a little week. It's amazing when you look at the types of liquor licenses there are available in Fargo and what would allow smoking and which wouldn't...Let's see, I think you would be able to smoke in Paradiso but not in Mexican Village...You could smoke at the Ground Round but not at Applebys.....doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it. I HOPE someone brings up another initiated measure to have a total ban on smoking in All public places, including bars and restaurants. It would be very interesting to see which measure got the most votes. Actually, if their measure passed it might be interesting to see if the public did a little "voting" again by packing the non-smoking retaurants.

As far as havng the businesses make their own decision on the matter let's look at some other areas of their business. They have to follow the outdates on food and only sell meat that has been inspected....why, because it's for the PUBLIC safety. They have health inspections by the counties and states....why, Public safety again. They follow regulations as to how long they can stay open at night....public safety again. Why should they be allowed to do harm to the public safety, not to mention the people that have breath in the smoke that work there on a daily basis. If you take into account the people that visit bars and restaurants as to the percentages of smokers to non-smokers then 75% would welcome a ban in all public places. Isn't the majority rules philosophy they way we run things in this country?


----------



## Bobm

> Isn't the majority rules philosophy they way we run things in this country?


No its isn't, we a society based on the rule of law, thankfully or racial civil rights wouldn't of been enforced.
And your favored majority sure as hell shouldn't be able to tell anyone how to run their business. 
Those laws to protect the public were all related to the product the restaraunt sells, not what legal activities the restaraunt owners chooses to allow, as long a cigarette smoking is legal, its his business and if he wants people to be able to smoke in it its his decision. 
Next they will be telling you what you can allow people to do in your home in the name of public good. The we'll see what you think of this stuff. If you don't want to smell it don't go there its that simple. 
Good old Minneapolis the liberals heaven uke:


----------



## Mr. B

The cities of Bloomington and Minneapolis have passed smoking bans that do not take affect until March. St. Paul is looking at the ban and since Bloomington and Minneapolis have passed it the mayor will not oppose a ban in St. Paul.

I agree that smoking is a disgusting habit, but that being said I do not believe that the Government should get involved banning it. I just think the government's job is to protect us from things we can not protect ourselves from. We all know that smoking is bad for us, we all know that wearing seatbelts and helmets are good ideas we do not need laws to tell us these things.

Bob there are a few of us conservatives left in the Twin Cities although you are correct in that there are fewer and fewer of us.


----------



## gandergrinder

Here is my take on the smoking ban.

We do not need to ban smoking in businesses. Public places yes private business no. Here is why the market will take care of itself.

The basic tenet behind economics tells us that individuals will act in there own best interest. With that said. If people feel that it is in their best interest to avoid smoke then they will patronize businesses that have a smoke free environment. If it turns out that the majority of the people feel that a smoke free environment is what they want then you will see the businesses changing over to a nonsmoking. This is because the business owner will act in his best interest, profit maximization. The establishments will cater to the public if the public wants to avoid smoke and the hazards associated with it.

As for the employees. It is pretty widely known that many occupations have certain hazards associated with them. For example construction workers who are willing to work on skyscrapers are paid a premium wage to do so. The same will happen if you are willing to work in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. People will be paid a premium to work in these areas. If individuals feel that being able to smoke in the restaurant is important to them then they will have to pay the premium for that. Each person puts a value on there health and this will be the cost.

We do not need smoking bans or votes on smoking bans. What we need is to educate the public and employees on the hazards of smoking. Then all we have to do is sit back and let people do what they feel is in there best interest. This is the only equitable way to do so. Let the market work.

Why do many people feel that they need to protect everyone from themselves. As far as I know I live in the United States of America and the majority of us still value personal freedom. This is just another way that we are eroding personal freedom. If I want to go into a smoke filled bar and breath smoke then that is my business. Not yours or anyone elses. MINE.


----------



## Bobm

Mr. B and Gandergrinder you understand freedom :beer: thats great. So many people feel they need a nanny to keep them safe and its an incremental thing which will get around to firearms sooner of later( they are sooo dangerous aren't they) then the lovers of the nanny state will be wondering why their ox is being gored.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

First off the phrasing of the question is correct but not what the issue is about. Bars and Restaurants will become smoke free under the current rules. The Bars have summited and petition referring this ordinance for certain facilities. Most work places are currently smoke free and are because of the owners choice. Not the government. Work places that are smoke free are more productive. This has been the underlying reason for most to go this route. Not for any other reason.

Basically it boils down to this should be left to a business choice. The patrons have choices but, many the workers do not. That is bunk. If you choose to apply in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking then you are aware of the risks before hand. Same as being a welder or other types of work, IE. farming or construction that are more dealt and dangerous.

I am opposed to government inter fence into area's like this that are based more on PC issues than science.

WIth that being said I do not like smoking having lost a sister to cancer from cigarettes.

Swift you wanting to go to a certain bar and not have smoke is no different than someone wanting to go and see the game and have a smoke. The bar owners should beable to decide what is best for him and his busness.

This is going to affect jobs and tax revenue and a whole list of other things. I think


----------



## BigDaddy

I am a bleeding heart liberal that is against a smoking ban in private businesses. How about that? I fully support a smoking ban in public spaces like government offices, courthouses, and libraries because those are PUBLIC spaces. However, bars and eating establishments are PRIVATE spaces, owned by private businesses.

The marketplace will determine who goes to certain businesses and who works there. Contrary to popular opinion, you don't have an inalienable right to go to a bar, watch a hockey game, and not inhale smoke. Going to that private business was your free choice, as was the choice of people to work there.

If enough people complain to the business owner, he or she will weigh the potential increase in business to the current situation. He or she will act accordingly. The same goes for the employees. If enough employees complain about smoke, start missing enough days because of illness, or refuse to work in a smoke-filled space, the owner will have to react. If enough people refuse to work in a smoke-filled space, the owner will have to increase wages (in essence creating hazard pay) or factoring this into their decision to ban smoking.

The key is for customers or potential customer to clearly express their viewpoints to the business owners. You need to let them know why you do or do not frequent their business. Any mature business owner would welcome such feedback.

Interesting enough, I am also a liberal against mandating the use of handicap-accessible ramps and other hardware in private businesses. Having equal access to public space is a right of all citizens. Having equal access to a private business is not. If installing these types of hardware makes good economic sense or increases their pool of quality employees, the owner will do so.


----------



## Bobm

Big Daddy good for you, I am not the least bit surprised you came down on this side of this issue. You have often shown an underlying appreciation for freedom which is why even as a bedwetter :lol: you have my respect. :beer:


----------



## swift

Mr Gilmore there is a huge difference in me going to a smokefree place and a smokers not being permitted to smoke in another place. First off When Nobody smoking is banned only the single smoker is affected. When smoking is permitted it affects everyone in the room. If a smoker can contain his/her smoke so that it will not TRESSPASS into another persons personal space then I'm with you. Next time you go to a public place go stand 6 inches from another person in the room and see what kind of response you get. You have the right to stand there as long as you are not touching them. It is no different than contributing toxins into another persons personal space. I would support the illegalization of smoking throughout the country. It affects ME directly when you smoke near me. Do it outside or don't do it at all.

Bob your conspiracy theory is getting a little old. You seem to be a very intelligent man so I know you can make better arguements then They (?) are coming to get us. Where in the constitution does it say Americans have the right to smoke. As a matter of fact the constitution says the opposite is says Americans have the right to a safe place to live (paraphrasing).


----------



## gandergrinder

Swift,
You missed the point. If you don't want to breath smoke. Don't patronize the business. It is that simple. You have a choice. Vote with your dollars and if enough people feel as you do then the market will make the correction. The business owner has the right to refuse service to you, you do not have the right to tell the business owner that they cannot smoke in their building. YOU DO NOT OWN THE BUSINESS. Businesses are OPEN to the public. The ability for you to enter a privately owned business can be taken away at any time by the owner and there is nothing you can say or do.

Where in the constitution does it say that you can take away someones right to smoke in their privately owned business?


----------



## Bobm

Swift if you need a nanny to make decisions for you fine I don't. As for a conspiracy theory there was a long period in our history that gun ownership was considered a given right and now we have to pro-actively protect those rights, don't we. I live in a factual world and the nannies are using incrementalism in the name of "public saftey" for eroding our rights. This is what is slowly turing this country into a nanny state. Stick your fingers under a running lawnmower and when surprise surprise you come up with a stump you can successfully sue the manufacturer when in fact you make a stupid decision and suffered the consequences. Same with cigarettes, you don't have to smoke them, and its none of your business if someone else does on private property its their property not yours stay off it if you don't like it. And just like gun ownership rights not to long ago private citizens could smoke on their own property without any question. The real problem is the same nitwits that want to prevent smoking on private property are the people that think we should all have to pay for the illnesses associated with smoking. I think smokers should have to pay their own medical bills and provide their own insurance. If they choose to accept the risk and not buy the necessary insurance then let them die or rely on charity.


----------



## BigDaddy

The underlying issue here is the fact that many people mistakenly think that bars and restraurants are public spaces. They aren't. They are private spaces open to the general public.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

I'm with big Daddy here.
First off, employees can choose whether or not to work in a smoke-free enviroment, patrons can choose whether or not to avail themselves of the services of privately-owned establishments which allow smoking, and owners can choose whether or not it's good business for them to allow smoking in _*their*_ establishment. 
Fargo has a wonderful place called JT Cigarros which specializes in good drinks and fine cigars. How the hell can anyone either work at or patronize this place without expecting to get some secondhand smoke? The Fargo City Commission has basically ended their business, which is a very profitable one at that. How is that right on any account?
There are numerous non-smoking places in Fargo, if you don't like the smoke then go there. Any "liberals" like myself who feel differently, don't forget that we're still supposed to support peoples' liberties and rights, and the Constitution doesn't stipulate that your favorite restaurant must be smoke-free!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Swift GG hit the nail on the head, they are private businesses open to the public of which you nor I are guaranteed access. I am all for public buildings being smoke free. The difference is they are held in trust by the public.

Certain perfumes are very noxious to myself causing immediate breathing difficulties and impaired vision etc. The continued exposure to it can be deadly. Should the air quality because of my condition not have to be perfume free?

I really think that when you look at the science you will see that documented non cooked studies indicate my risk is greater than someone else's exposure to second hand smoke.

Like I said before I am not a proponent of smoking, I dislike it and dislike going into smoky environments, but I have the choice not to. As a business owner it concerns me greatly and it should all of us to see Gov waste our tax dollars, and time better spent on community safety concerning streets and intersections than on involving themselves in creating new laws that will restrict business.

This is the third glaring nonbusiness friendly issue this Commission has undertaken in the last year. I am involved and attend meetings and supported candidates that want to return common sense to the Commission, but Fargo is reflecting the trend in the nation of people not wanting to take personal responsibility, but are looking to Big Brother to solve our problems.


----------



## Dano2

:evil: 
I think they should pass a law that 
lets you shoot a flame thrower
at the Ahole driving in front of you
that throws their cig out the window.
I see it almost everyday and it really
pizzes me off. I would be totaly cured 
of road rage now if it wern't for these idiots .
for one thing, what are
ash trays for, and another, its littering.


----------



## swift

OKAY all you PRIVATE BUISNESS guys. I dare you to put a sign on your buisness that says OPEN TO WHITES ONLY. Or NO MINNESOTANS ALLOWED and see if you have the RIGHT to do that.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Swift I think you just flip-flopped on your position. :eyeroll:


----------



## gandergrinder

Swift,
:lol: You sound like a politician. When all else fails play the race card.

A business owner can put a sign on his business that says. "IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO INHALE SECOND HAND SMOKE PLEASE DO NOT ENTER AS THIS BUSINESS ALLOWS SMOKING"

You act like a person doesn't have choice. Make a choice. Go into the place or don't. Work at the place or don't. Pretty simple concept.

Let me make my own decisions. Unlike many others in this country I have a mind of my own and am perfectly capable of making my own decisions. I don't need you or others to "help" me out by making them for me.


----------



## stoeger

With theses bans that go in effect what about the taxes on these cigs. The states still make sure they collect their fair share. I guess what I dont understand is your banning something that is legal. If your gonna go after it then why dont these individuals push to ban cigs all together. We know how that worked with alcohol.


----------



## BigDaddy

Swift, most bars I frequent have a sign on the walls that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Know what this means? It means that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.


----------



## swift

Okay I concede defeat. And I do so because you all ... Ron, GG, Bob etal. Have made good arguements and even though I don't agree totally you have swayed me. Keep the bars smokey.


----------



## Plainsman

Bob, you put up a good argument. Have you noticed the poll keeps turning in your favor. When you mentioned the PC crowd that makes me see red. I would rather let people smoke anywhere they want than let the PC influence my life. PC = arrogant, condescending people who can't mind their own business. They always say live and let live, then violate that in their next breath. Every time I make contact with these people I lose more respect for them. If the truth be known the average conservative is far more tolerant than those who espouse tolerance or political correctness. I think the reason liberals are for gun control is because when they imagine a confrontation they can imagine killing someone. I say that because I have witnessed their very bad tempers. Simply look at the hatred for Bush this year. Did you ever see those of us who didn't like Clinton advocate violence towards him? NO. The smokers in the restaurants wouldn't be so bad if people in small towns had a choice. You either endure their smoke or you stay home. What really ticks me is when they sit by a big sign that says no smoking, light up, then look around the room and smile. I guess this is a hard decision for me, but as irritating as stupid smokers are, they are not as irritating as the PC crowd. Somebody get me off this fence.


----------



## Bobm

Yep smoking is disgusting but I don't want those PC jackasses telling me what I can do next, I just don't go into a place where there are smokers its the price I feel I have to pay to be healthy and its a small one. I like the way they throw their butts around really shows you why smokers consistantly prove to have lower IQs than the general public. I just look at them and smile knowing there will be more social security money for me.


----------

