Should MN repeal the smoking ban?

Brent wrote:

...instead of applying nanny state laws to everyone and forcing free enterprise to the Dakotas, Wisconsin, and Iowa where they can be free to make thier own decisions with their hard earned money that they invested to open the bar or restaraunt.

Yeah, tell that to the ADA.

Go Sue Jeffers!

Brent:
Our government and their public funded activists have delegated among their self that people can no longer be trusted to make business decisions about their own lifes investment by deciding what clientel to attract to his/her business.
Pat Mcone from the American lung Association Minnesota in the DNT said about private citizens losing everything because of un attainable and biased laws against the "Resturants and bars are a volitale business and they will fail any way" she had no comment about some of the 50 year old businesse's that folded under her style of tyranny encouraged by her legislative enablers.

I love hearing people complain about losing their rights. I want the right to go to a bar or rest. and not smell like an ash tray afterwards. If there were bars pre-ban that allowed for this I would be against the ban. Restaurants, however, did a fine job keeping smokers and nons away from each other and should not be punished.

While you smokers are at it why not sue your employers for not allowing you to smoke at your desk? Since you are there most of the day isn't that more of an infringement on your "rights?"

As long as the government benefits from the collection of cigarette tax revenue, there should be no law enacted against the use of a perfectly LEGAL product. Non-smokers drive vehicles, and heat their homes, which contributes to greenhouse gases, etc., etc. Should we take away their "rights" too? Should the bar owners be penalized in revenue loss for going non-smoking without compensation of some sort? If the market demanded non-smoking bars and restaurants, they would be open without regulation. Fact is, there weren't very many of them.

Land of the "Free", and home of the "Highly Regulated"

Mankato Mike wrote:

Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You'd get a solemn and contrite, Yes.... Those who fail to protest the free passage of tobacco smoke in the air come close to the Zyklon defendants in pleading ignorance.

Well, I for one am damned glad that you don't have the power to make decisions for me.
You don't want to come in contact with second hand smoke. Okay, don't go to the bar or restaurant that allows smoking. End of your dilemma.

Brent wrote:

JCT:
What would you think of this solution:
The Bars that want to smoke free can be, and could advertise them selves as Smoke Free and post a sign outside their doors saying "This bar is smoke free" and the Bars that want to allow smoking can allow it and post a sign outside saying "This Bar allows smoking, Enter at your own risk" and let responsible adults chose which bars and restaraunts they want to patronize, instead of applying nanny state laws to everyone and forcing free enterprise to the Dakotas, Wisconsin, and Iowa where they can be free to make thier own decisions with their hard earned money that they invested to open the bar or restaraunt.

Great Idea Brent -- but I like this one better and so do many others, I know this because they passed a law. No smoking inside. Smoking outside. Smoking in Wisconsin, Iowa and Dakotas. Smokers actually have more options than non-smokers.

RGG wrote:

I love hearing people complain about losing their rights. I want the right to go to a bar or rest. and not smell like an ash tray afterwards. If there were bars pre-ban that allowed for this I would be against the ban. Restaurants, however, did a fine job keeping smokers and nons away from each other and should not be punished.
While you smokers are at it why not sue your employers for not allowing you to smoke at your desk? Since you are there most of the day isn't that more of an infringement on your "rights?"

Yeah, and I want the "RIGHT" to not be offended by liberal left wing nuts who believe that it is their responsibility to keep me safe from myself.
Unfortunately, neither one of us has a "RIGHT" to what we want.
We are granted, by the Constitution, in the first ten amendments certain inalienable rights. The right to go to a bar and not smell like an ashtray is not one of them.

This is my concern, it is already happened elsewhere....as you can see they are going with banning smoking in homes, "outdoor" workplaces, parks, and it looks like they held back a little, they are still allowing smoking on sidewalks and streets, if they are not close to a banned area...

The Belmont City Council on Tuesday night adopted a landmark ordinance regulating secondhand smoke in the city.

The ordinance passed on a 3-2 vote and will go into effect in 30 days, according to City Manager Jack Crist.

The ordinance was introduced by the City Council on Sept. 11, and then approved with a few wording changes at its Sept. 25 meeting.

Thought to be the first of its kind in California, the ordinance declares secondhand smoke a public nuisance and extends the city's current smoking ban to include multi-unit, multi-story residences.

Though Belmont and some other California cities already restrict smoking in multi-unit common areas, Belmont is the first city to extend secondhand smoke regulation to the inside of individual apartment units.

Smoking will still be allowed in single-family homes and their yards, and units and yards in apartment buildings, condominiums and townhouses that do not share any common floors or ceilings with other units.

The ban for multi-unit apartment buildings will not take effect for an additional 14 months after the ordinance is passed, so that one-year lease agreements will be unaffected.

Smoking will be permitted only in designated outdoor areas of multi-unit housing.

Additionally, smoking will not be allowed in indoor and outdoor workplaces, or in parks, stadiums, sports fields, trails and outdoor shopping areas.

Smoking on city streets and sidewalks will be permitted under the ordinance, except in the location of city-sponsored events or in close proximity to prohibited areas.

City officials have said that enforcement of the smoking ban will be complaint-driven.

Chad wrote:

This is my concern, it is already happened elsewhere....as you can see they are going with banning smoking in homes, "outdoor" workplaces, parks, and it looks like they held back a little, they are still allowing smoking on sidewalks and streets, if they are not close to a banned area...
The Belmont City Council on Tuesday night adopted a landmark ordinance regulating secondhand smoke in the city.
The ordinance passed on a 3-2 vote and will go into effect in 30 days, according to City Manager Jack Crist.
The ordinance was introduced by the City Council on Sept. 11, and then approved with a few wording changes at its Sept. 25 meeting.
Thought to be the first of its kind in California, the ordinance declares secondhand smoke a public nuisance and extends the city's current smoking ban to include multi-unit, multi-story residences.
Though Belmont and some other California cities already restrict smoking in multi-unit common areas, Belmont is the first city to extend secondhand smoke regulation to the inside of individual apartment units.
Smoking will still be allowed in single-family homes and their yards, and units and yards in apartment buildings, condominiums and townhouses that do not share any common floors or ceilings with other units.
The ban for multi-unit apartment buildings will not take effect for an additional 14 months after the ordinance is passed, so that one-year lease agreements will be unaffected.
Smoking will be permitted only in designated outdoor areas of multi-unit housing.
Additionally, smoking will not be allowed in indoor and outdoor workplaces, or in parks, stadiums, sports fields, trails and outdoor shopping areas.
Smoking on city streets and sidewalks will be permitted under the ordinance, except in the location of city-sponsored events or in close proximity to prohibited areas.
City officials have said that enforcement of the smoking ban will be complaint-driven.

This is the exact thing that smokers said would one day happen and the anti-smokers swore wouldn't and we were just being alarmists. At least one city, Burbank has outlawed smoking on public sidewalks. Another thing we were being alarmists about. I really think smokers need to start filing lawsuits when these kinds of law are introduced.

I have a comprimise. Have all bars install state of the art smoke eaters and air exchangers. It may be not be perfect, but it will eliminate the lions share of the smoke. Most smokers can tolerate a little smoke, just not a room blue with haze. Did I mention I sell HVAC equipment including smoke eaters and air exchangers?

compromise I mean.

maybe the lefties should quit trying to regulate what i can or can't put into my body, and the righties should quit trying to regulate what I do with my body....Give me a flippin break here..

Marine from Marine wrote:

I have a comprimise. Have all bars install state of the art smoke eaters and air exchangers. It may be not be perfect, but it will eliminate the lions share of the smoke. Most smokers can tolerate a little smoke, just not a room blue with haze. Did I mention I sell HVAC equipment including smoke eaters and air exchangers?

That was proposed when the FBTA was in committee. The response from the anti-smoking lobby and their politician lapdogs was no. They don't want compromise, which is what we already had with the MN Clean Air Act of 1975. They want smoking completely banned and they won't stop until they get it, or we stop them. And the tide has been turning against them lately. That's why they're putting up billboards at the borders portraying us as a green, clean air state in the middle of smoke. Trying to influence the border states who aren't knuckling under to their pressure and propaganda.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/1...

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, and I want the "RIGHT" to not be offended by liberal left wing nuts who believe that it is their responsibility to keep me safe from myself.
Unfortunately, neither one of us has a "RIGHT" to what we want.
We are granted, by the Constitution, in the first ten amendments certain inalienable rights. The right to go to a bar and not smell like an ashtray is not one of them.

Sorry Bill but you have me confused with someone else. I am not a "left wing nut." Rather, I am a right wing nut who simply wants the same opportunity as you without having to feel the effects of the right you choose. In other words smokers like yourself care little for those who choose not to do it by blowing it in our faces. It is sad that Big Government has to pass legislation for you to see that, andif this is a "liberal" point of view than it is one of three issues that you will ever see me on that side of the aisle.

I attended "the freedom to act act last night at Buggs place in so St Pl, wonderful people. A lot of Marines that do not operate in reverse, about 75% were non smokers. there was not a hint of "hazy blue smoke" like the health terrorists talk about. Didn't see a black trench coat wearing health department suleth in the whole place.
Almost like going back to 1956 when people were "Free smoke" instead instead of the new dictator agenda.
The Buggs family is very brave to challenge the bully. Government bullies are capable of anything out side the constitution, Save your self legislators that were influenced by the public funds that purchased the ban from you, repeal the ignorance and insulting activity of an oligarchy imposed government. Do NOT let this social wound fester. Thanks to Mark Benjamin the Marine , lawyer, and sunday school teacher and his dedication to the freedom of all people. You are very brave and unselfish, Salute to you and the Buggs family and the non predisposed non smokers that are the real majority.

Too bad that some people just can't live and let live. If you don't like what's going on in a place, don't go in there. Whether it's smoking or anything else. Or are you so used to having your way wherever you go that what anybody else wants doesn't matter? I still haven't been convinced that the second-hand smoke issue is as harmful as we've been led to believe, but I guess the loud mouths are the ones who get the most attention.

JRichards wrote:

Too bad that some people just can't live and let live. If you don't like what's going on in a place, don't go in there. Whether it's smoking or anything else. Or are you so used to having your way wherever you go that what anybody else wants doesn't matter? I still haven't been convinced that the second-hand smoke issue is as harmful as we've been led to believe, but I guess the loud mouths are the ones who get the most attention.

Unfortunately, it's loud mouths with ***DEEP*** pockets. They've got millions in tobacco money to use to fund their propoganda machine.

On another note, an amendment was passed last night to the omnibus bill allowing for smoking shelters (fully enclosed). This is a step in the right direction, and as far as I'm concerned, the nays are rabidly anti-smoking and need to be voted out:

Atkins, Benson, Bigham, Brown, Brynaert, Bunn, Carlson, Clark, Davnie,
Dittrich, Dominguez, Erhardt, Fritz, Gardner, Gottwalt, Greiling, Hausman,
Hilstrom, Hilty, Hornstein, Hortman, Huntley, Johnson, Kahn, Knuth,
Lenczewski, Liebling, Lillie, Loeffler, Madore, Mariani, Morgan, Mullery,
Murphy E, Murphy M, Norton, Paulsen, Paymar, Pelowski, Peterson N,
Peterson S, Poppe, Ruud, Scalze, Severson, Simon, Slawik, Swails, Thao,
Thissen, Tillberry, Tingelstad, Tschumper, Wagenius, Walker, Ward, Welti,
Winkler, Spk. Kelliher

Thomas F wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately, it's loud mouths with ***DEEP*** pockets. They've got millions in tobacco money to use to fund their propoganda machine.
On another note, an amendment was passed last night to the omnibus bill allowing for smoking shelters (fully enclosed). This is a step in the right direction, and as far as I'm concerned, the nays are rabidly anti-smoking and need to be voted out:
Atkins, Benson, Bigham, Brown, Brynaert, Bunn, Carlson, Clark, Davnie,
Dittrich, Dominguez, Erhardt, Fritz, Gardner, Gottwalt, Greiling, Hausman,
Hilstrom, Hilty, Hornstein, Hortman, Huntley, Johnson, Kahn, Knuth,
Lenczewski, Liebling, Lillie, Loeffler, Madore, Mariani, Morgan, Mullery,
Murphy E, Murphy M, Norton, Paulsen, Paymar, Pelowski, Peterson N,
Peterson S, Poppe, Ruud, Scalze, Severson, Simon, Slawik, Swails, Thao,
Thissen, Tillberry, Tingelstad, Tschumper, Wagenius, Walker, Ward, Welti,
Winkler, Spk. Kelliher

Did you notice that these are mostly metro DFLers, while most of the non-metro DFLers voted for the use of shelters. I particularly noticed that both of the Maplewood DLF reps (Lillie and Slawik) were in favor of this. They are the ones who brought us another four years of continuous circus in our city too by supporting Rossbach for city council. I wonder, who do they really represent?

Luvs the Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>Did you notice that these are mostly metro DFLers, while most of the non-metro DFLers voted for the use of shelters. I particularly noticed that both of the Maplewood DLF reps (Lillie and Slawik) were in favor of this. They are the ones who brought us another four years of continuous circus in our city too by supporting Rossbach for city council. I wonder, who do they really represent?

Just to clarify, the Maplewood reps were in favor of the original ban and against letting people use a shelter outside.

KEEP IT! I want to be able to breathe when i go out! I don't feel like getting cancer from someone else's bad habit!