Posted by ffbison (anonymous) on September 1, 2007 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Opinions like this are why we are regressing as a society. Good grief.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on September 2, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Really? Are people still clinging to this poorly-reasoned argument?

Posted by ruralguy (anonymous) on September 2, 2007 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't wait until the smoking ban. When it hits all businesses, it levels the playing field. I seriously doubt it is going to affect businesses. This old opinion is what we've come to expect in Fergus Falls anyway.

Posted by nobal (anonymous) on September 3, 2007 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was born In Fergus and visit and camp,fish ect.see relatives.
I live in Mo. now, and there are some bar'sand restrauts that have had to close because of the no smoking down here.
The smoking ban has prevented some people to earn money working at these and are now looking for work after working happily at these places.
There is stormy clouds in the air down here and where ever the smoking bans are closing stores,restraunts ect.
My visits to my birth state and town will be put on hold and I will start fishing and camping in the state where I now reside.
We have spent about $1,200 on our visits.
This is not a lot nut with all the others that come to camp,fish ect. stop the visits because of the ban will affect the the income of of the city.
Don't cry when your buss. goes bankrupt.
You have been warned by more people than just me.

Posted by ruralguy (anonymous) on September 3, 2007 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nobal, I doubt it.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 3, 2007 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good one, nobal. You come here to enjoy our beautiful outdoor, but then threaten to not come back when asked to smoke in it. Give me a break. I'd personally prefer you stay in the state where you live. I guaranty we won't miss you, your money or your smoke. Thanks.

BTW, is this the only thing this guy writes about? I'd bet he's at about a pack a day.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on September 3, 2007 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you honestly suggesting that hordes of people will just stop going out altogether because they can't smoke in bars and restaurants?

Please. Think about the logic of such statements before writing or speaking.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 4, 2007 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for reading and your input. I always enjoy the banter in comment land.

I'd say there's far more societal regression in willingly accepting the yoke of governmental control over your local watering hole, than saying something against it.

Posted by AFMama (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is one I have to comment on...Not only am I for a ban in certain areas, I am also for a ban at the entrances of businesses. I am in the military and on the installation where I serve no one is allowed to smoke within 25 feet of the entrance. Of course you have folks who like to push it, especially when it is raining, but a friendly reminder tends to keep it in check. I have a few reasons why the smoking ban does not bother me, for one I am allergic to smoke. Just the hint of tobacco smoke causes me to have a reaction and leaves me feeling miserable for hours, no matter what allergy medicine I take. Not only that, but I'm either blowing my nose continuously or spitting if I have no tissue. (Isn't that lady-like?) Another reason is I care for my health along with my childrens health. I know there are plenty of other pollutants out there to worry about as well, but if I can shield them from this one, I'm happy. Also, being in the military I see many a smoker out due to illnesses each year, which I'm sure is the same in the civilian sector of our society. I know when I come back to Fergus to visit, I will be more likely to visit an establishment that does not allow smoking than one that does allow it. And for once, it will be nice to not have to worry about someone lighting up and ruining my meal, etc. Thanks, and have a great day.

Posted by Kurtisishere (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just wait until a bunch of do gooders get together and script the Freedom To Silence Act! Then nobody will be able to write about their opinions on subjects such as these! The Journal will not be able to allow comments about their articles unless they are government approved, and there will be no such thing as an "opinion" column!

I predict the Freedom To Silence Act to pop up within five to ten years after the general public is led to believe that reading other peoples opinions causes stress, depression, and cancer. Even though these people will have a choice of whether or not to read others' comments and opinions, the Freedom To Silence Act will make sure that they don't! Doctors will begin telling people to quit reading, and before you know it you won't even be able to speak your opinions outloud in public places such as bars, because it is bad for other peoples' health! We need to STOP the insanity and take back our freedoms today! The more you give up, the less you will be able to get back people!

Posted by Pretendyouareanadultpeople (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good old Pawlenty, he doubles the price of cigarettes and then we can't even smoke em' in the bar. Real thinker he is! Having his cake and eating it too!

I for one will not be attending any of the local bars after the ban goes into effect. Restaurants are one thing, but bars are another all together. You are supposed to be 21 yrs old to go into a pub, and by that time you should be able to decide for yourself if you want to smoke or not. Nothing goes together like beer and cigarettes! Afterall, we smokers paid more money to be in here than you did!!

What do you think would happen if we all quit drinking and smoking at the same time? We would be paying to fix the roads then?? Maybe you holier than thou non-smoking whiners should be solely responsible for MN infrastructure from no on??!!

IF YOU DON'T SMOKE, and/or smoke bothers you in some way, stay outside in the fresh air! Be sure to stay 25 feet from the bar entrance too, especially when it is raining or snowing, otherwise you will be in our way, and we are thirsty and smart enough to come in out of the rain.

Just wait until the government tells us adults that we can no longer eat fast food as it is bad for us, makes us fat, and therefore we cannot decide for ourselves what we can eat. It's coming folks! The USA is going totally socialist!

I'm on a roll now!........

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love the title! "Smoke 'em while you got 'em." Isn't the phrase "Smoke 'em if you got 'em?"

Oh, that's right, it's only a matter of time before the do-gooders come after the cigarettes themselves. Then it's on to the big mac, cheese curds and pretty soon, hot dogs. Then what will we eat at baseball games?!? Peanuts? Unsalted peanuts?!? Well I, for one, am not willing to trade my domedog for a lousy bag of unsalted peanuts. So everyone listen to Bill O'Williams here and smoke your cancer sticks while you still can or soon we'll all be living off of unsalted peanuts and tofu.

Personally I encourage people to smoke whenever I see it. As long as I don't have to breathe it I think it's great. I figure if you're not smart enough to quit smoking in this day and age with as many facts that have come out about the dangers of smoking and what it does to you and the people around you, the quicker you remove yourself from the gene pool the better. Darwin would be so proud.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 4, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think everyone wants to wake up every day worrying about how healthy their lifestyle is when juxtaposed with the possibility of maybe just waking up and having a life...and a smoke.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're right.

Most non-smokers prefer an overlap of the two possibilities you just outlined (a balance, if you will). While most smokers (or drug addicts in general) prefer to believe it's a matter of choosing one or the other.

But like I said, to each their own. I'm fine with letting Darwin sort 'em out. I'm just glad this form of natural selection won't be taking place inside bars and restaurants anymore. I personally will frequent them more often because of it.

Thanks, Pawlenty! Wow, I can't believe I just wrote that.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People, you seem to be missing the point.

No one is telling you that you can't smoke. Period. You can still light up at home, outside, in your car, etc.

Giving yourself (and maybe your family) cancer is one thing. Forcing it on others who choose not to participate in the unhealthy habit is another. The purpose of the law is not to make the eating-out or drinking experience more enjoyable for the non-smokers, and it's not about infringing on the rights of smokers. It's about protecting the health of the employees, most of whom have no choice but to work there.

For those who have said they will quit visiting bars - I give your vow no more than 2 months.

For those of you attempting a slippery slope argument regarding free speech - read the Constitution. It's the First Amendment, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it's interesting that the House passed the bill with a vote of 81 to 48. That's 63% of the total votes being cast in favor of the ban. The Senate passed the bill with a vote of 43 to 21. That's 64% voting in favor of the ban. Those seem to be some pretty lopsided votes for a bill that according to Mr. Williams "went from a heavily debated bill to an accepted law overnight."

All that debating must have persuaded a lot of votes, huh. Though it's pretty obvious (from the votes and from reading the various comments here) which side of the fence reason lies on.

Posted by ruralguy (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm in favor of the ban. I'm definitely not part of the do-gooder crowd, either. Maybe I'm just an AVERAGE person. Polls, surveys, etc point that I am part of that average crowd.

Posted by ffbison (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have to remember those who tend to argue in favor of "not" banning smoking in places welcoming the public tend to also be the ones with a chemical addiction to nicotine dictating their thought processes...that said, simple solution, wear the patch or chew nicorette gum if you don't want to step outside.

Posted by ffbison (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Williams - this is no different than legislating its illegal to be drunk and drive. Its a public health and safety issue that affects people both first and second-hand. That is why the government steps in. Public health protection trumps personal rights....besides saying rights is a stretch because smoking is a "privilege" (used loosely since I would hardly call having the right to deliberately and slowly kill myself and others a privilege), not a right.

Posted by Pretendyouareanadultpeople (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, some of "you people" are simple.
If you consider smoking to be a chemical dependency (gotta love those "pill people"), that means that I should get my insurance to pay for the patch, and we all REALLY want to be "you" (since you think that I really want to quit smoking, the same logic that religious fanatics try to smother indigenous people with?? ~ "If we only 'knew better' we would do things the way that YOU do...). Sounds like "restless leg syndrome" to me...... who actually believes that stuff?
I personally know people that have never smoked, chewed etc...,that have cancer. To say that smoking causes cancer is right now a choice of how the statistics are presented to you. There is no line between smoking and cancer, in that simplistic view. Granted, It MIGHT help cause cancer, but since "they" can't even cure the common cold, how much stock do you actually put in "their" statistics? Don't be the proverbial sheep here........

It wasn't too long ago that eggs, milk and bread were "bad for you." Having grown up on a farm (granted a person that sits on the couch will probably die from something like obesity ==> thank you Darwin as these people will suck the live out of the socialist system longer than the rest of us! ~ we all will die from something right?) I know that that is not correct. I also know many people that have a smoke (and heaven forbid!) a drink, daily, and they live to be over 90 (how much more do you want???).
Let's get to the real heart of this matter shall we? Non-smokers (not all mind you) think that they should shepherd the rest of us. I am here to tell you that I have my own life to live (for better or worse). And if you are not ok with (for example) Roe vs. Wade, then don't have an abortion. Just do not tell EVERYONE ELSE how to live their lives. It is really not any of your business.

If you want to go to a non-smoking bar, then buy one up! Put a big fat sign on your door and wait for your friends to keep your lights on. More power to you, THAT is democracy! Democracy is NOT TELLING THE PEOPLE HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES. The smoking ban makes this a monarchy state.
And to the person that says "they give me 2 months....." Perhaps when you are driving your beemer on the Lewis and Clark wagon trail in that same amount of time, you will remember what I said before.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll gladly be the sheep if your apparent intelligence is the alternative.

Posted by americanwerew31 (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow! i applaud this article and those who are standing up for their right to smoke.

I am a smoker. Think what you will of me for it.

What REALLY gets me.
HOW can they ban smoking in BARS?
personally i don't drink, so it won't affect except maybe 1 night a year.
BUT how can it be ILLEGAL for me to kill myself with a cigerette, while killing myself with ALCOHOL?!
Do you see people getting in car wrecks and killing inocent people after smoking a cigarette?! NO! How is it that ALCOHOL which is PROVEN to cause/excelerate many illness and is a PROVEN public health risk still legal? the affects of alcohol are much more dangerous to the average unsuspecting citizen than smoking.

While i am a smoker, i am a consiencious smoker. i don't smoke in other people's houses, around children, or even to near to a non-smoker and i'm always careful to blow my smoke AWAY from people.

I will be fully accepting of them outlawing cigerettes as soon as alcohol is equally illegal in public.

oh, and yes there will be businesses that lose out on my $. When us girls go out for a night to chat- we like to sit and SMOKE. So we will be doing this at bars/restaurants no more.

i'm so sorry for the state of this nation and people's willingness to allow their civil liberties to be stomped on. What happened to people standing up and fighting?! i'd start if i knew where to begin.......

Posted by Rumpusgoopus (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pretendyouareanadultpeople, while we're at it, we might as well say man didn't walk on the moon either.

Otherwise, *yawn*, are we still really arguing about the smoking ban? In that case, how 'bout a good old fashioned debate on the Twins stadium?

Whoops, did I just preempt the next FFDJ editorial or letter to the editor? I apologize.

Posted by Pretendyouareanadultpeople (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Elizabeth,
"I'll gladly be the sheep if your apparent intelligence is the alternative."
I have forgotten more than you will ever know (concerning the REAL world).
Have fun in your fantasy land. It will last as long as you pay all the bills........
** And my intelligence, is no the issue here, but for your information my IQ was 140 at age 7.

Posted by Rumpusgoopus (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and I couldn't help but comment:

americanwerew31: "What happened to people standing up and fighting?!"

Logic and reason, americanwerew31, logic and reason.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pretend: So you admit you've gotten dumber with age?

By the way, next time you try to insult my intelligence, please do so cogently. Proper grammar, for example, would help immensely.

Posted by Rumpusgoopus (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh oh oh, Pretendyouareanadultpeople, do you have the truth behind the UFOs and Area 51? I must know!

Posted by Pretendyouareanadultpeople (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think I have gotten "dumber" (is that a word??)

Wonder where the UFO comment came from???....... eating mushrooms? Those are illegal too "don't ya know."
This has gotten to be incredibly boring.
Enjoy those smoke-free bars....... you and that one "other guy," while they remain open to the "public." Tip heavily, business depends on it!!!!

Posted by Pretendyouareanadultpeople (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Pretendyouareanadultpeople, while we're at it, we might as well say man didn't walk on the moon either. "
** How much wind do you think there is in space? Enough to make an American flag "blow" in the wind?" What color is your unicorn?

Posted by Rumpusgoopus (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pink, of course.

Posted by Pretendyouareanadultpeople (anonymous) on September 4, 2007 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That explains it all.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 5, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Venti said, "Those seem to be some pretty lopsided votes for a bill that according to Mr. Williams 'went from a heavily debated bill to an accepted law overnight.'"

What I'm really saying here is I find it quite difficult to comprehend how the bill went through 19 committee hearings/debates, and over 100 amendments were introduced before one conference committee report states, let's just do it how it was originally written and vote.

How 'bout we try it this way? No. What about this? No. Maybe if we allowed this? No. How? No. What? No. Maybe? No. No. No. No. No. etc. ad nauseum.

How could all 100 amendments to the bill have been so unacceptable that not one could pass in the bill?

I'd say 100 proposed amendments makes this heavily debated. I also believe that popping out of committee and voting with not one of those amendments in the bill makes it an accepted law overnight.

We're not going to allow any amendments. We're banning it and that's that.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pretendiamintelligent - "If you want to go to a non-smoking bar, then buy one up!"

Nah, I think I'll just wait until October 1st and then go to any bar I darn well please.

I can't wait to breathe the clean air, listen to the great music, and have a few beers all while being able to see the person sitting on the other side of the table.

BTW, I think The Z is starting "Acoustic Fridays" in October in honor of the ban. Should be a good time for everyone to head out, enjoy some good tunes and enjoy the new atmosphere in Minnesota bars. I think I'll be stopping in just to spend a few bucks to help prove all the nay-sayers wrong. I encourage everyone to do the same. Let the bar owners know that most Minnesotans support the ban and will support bars that do the same.

House - 81 to 43.
Senate - 43 to 21.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In my opinion, Bob, those "100 amendments" diluted the bill so much that, as you wrote in your article, the "spirit of the original bill" was lost. Which, again to me, says that those 100 amendments that were added on created so many exceptions, so many "loopholes" in the bill, that it would have amounted to nothing more than a formality. Something that says, "yes, we have a smoking ban in place, unless you have a window open, then you can allow smoking." Or "if you have an adequate ventalation system, then you can allow people to light up." That's not what this law is about. Our lawmakers realized that and said, enough, this is a smoking ban, not just empty words on a piece of paper. Let's vote.

And again, almost 65% of both the House and the Senate voted in favor of it. And although "Pretendiamintelligent" claims to have had an IQ of 140 at the age of seven, he must have missed out on civics class, because we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. It's a system of government where power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. If people have problems with this bill they should really take it up with their representatives, not their fellow voters.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 5, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hear ya.
However, being a former Dallas, Texas resident, where you can get shut down at the door of a bar for your style of clothing, rather than your smoking, there are ways around this which don't inhibit the entire population.

I can see the side if you're a non-smoker and can't stand a late night drink at Mabel Murphy's because it's like a sunny summer smoggy day in L.A. in there.

However, there are alternatives, rather than just chuckin' the smokers outside and having a non-smoker hug fest inside.

At Cool River in Forth Worth, Texas, a Texas-sized steak house, they have an enclosed ventilated smoking room. You can't smoke out by the eaters.

The place has multiple humidors for purchasing cigars and cigarettes, comfy leather loungers and a killer ventilation system. You can puff a cigar and barely see your smoke it's sucked out so fast.

I don't see why an amendment, which would allow a bar owner to make such an improvement, would have been so hard to include.

Posted by Pretendyouareanadultpeople (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Venti -
Pretendiamintelligent - "If you want to go to a non-smoking bar, then buy one up!"

Nah, I think I'll just wait until October 1st and then go to any bar I darn well please.

I can't wait to breathe the clean air, listen to the great music, and have a few beers all while being able to see the person sitting on the other side of the table.

THERE SHOULD BE PLENTY OF PLACES TO SIT IN THERE!
I hope you are a heavy drinker, because YOU will be keeping their doors open from now on.

"Pretendiamintelligent" claims to have had an IQ of 140 <== Fact! and you look good in green!!

he must have missed out on civics class, because we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. It's a system of government where power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. If people have problems with this bill they should really take it up with their representatives, not their fellow voters. <== Again, "you people" get to have the only say in what goes on an opionion website, correct? The rest of us don't even get to comment on an opinion page?? The OPINIONS of "the people" are why we are even reading/writing this stuff! What a Nazi!

Posted by Rumpusgoopus (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Woo-hoo! We've reached Godwin's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_La...

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The rest of us don't even get to comment on an opinion page??"

Not at all, comment all you want. I'm simply suggesting your complaints would be better directed at the people who drafted and passed this law. Who knows, maybe you'll change some of their minds with your highly persuasive arguments. Nonetheless, they are the "Nazis," as you like to refer to them. And like it or not, Minnesotans voted for them. Does that mean that Minnesota is full of "Nazis?" I don't think so, but you're free to make your own call.

Thanks, y'all! Hope to see you in October!

Posted by ruralguy (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a bunch of garbage this comment section has turned into.

October 1st will quietly pass, and no one will notice the difference in business. I've been to many cities where smoking is banned in bars and restaurants, and have yet to notice or hear of business decline because of a smoking ban. If your business can't survive, it could very well be poor business attitude or management.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 5, 2007 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Au contrair. Lots of instances. To be fair, there was a study done in El Paso in 2002 where the effects were minimal. However, check out this page:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.h...

Owners: Smoking Ban Bad For Business
NBC5i.com - Ft. Worth,TX,USA
Brett Russell owns Saltimbocca’s restaurant and said the smoking ban was a major factor in his decision to close the establishment. Pete Moore co-owns Bobby V’s in Arlington and said he’s not certain if his business will survive either.
“The majority of that is in the bar and we saw that business tail off by about 40 percent,” Russell said.

Smoking ban forces pub out of business
Scotsman - Edinburgh,Scotland,UK
Takings at the community-based pub have fallen by around £1000 a week, or about 20 per cent, since the ban came into force a year ago.

Smoking Ban Hurting Small Taverns?
KKTV 11 News - Colorado Springs,CO,USA
Lawyers for Colorado bar owners say the eight-week-old statewide smoking ban has devastated some smaller taverns, slashing their incomes by up to 80 percent.

Posted by ruralguy (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My prediction is probably still more accurate. Try provide something useful that pertains to an area closer to MN. Your info is not useful. I could give a rats about the UK, Colorado Springs or wherever your quick internet search takes you. It looks like some sort of desperation.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 5, 2007 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obviously you didn't go to the page.
Voila!

Williston Bingo parlor closing

Bismark Tribune

The Bingo Barn is closing after 20 years, and officials say the state's law that bans most indoor smoking is the reason.

The bingo parlor, which will shut down after its final session on Saturday, supported three charities: the Williston State College Foundation, Williston Basin Skating Club and North Dakota Association for the Disabled.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 5, 2007 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not Minnesota-ee enough?

Minneapolis Bars Blame Smoking Ban For Closings

Porter's Bar & Grill on Nicollet Avenue in South Minneapolis is one establishment that said it's closing its doors for good. It's been in business since 1938.

Thirty-five bars have gone out of business in Minneapolis since the ban went into effect. On average, that amounts to about one every eleven days.

"March 31 of this year, when the smoking ban went into effect, we lost about 30 percent of our customer base," said Matthew Lamphear, owner of Molly Quinn's Irish Pub.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 5, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think anyone has stated the ban is going to kill all business. It is going to affect some and kill a few and that's the point I'm making.

There's one side saying it isn't going to do anything and business will thrive. Well, our entire system is based on business succeeding and business always adapts to change.

However, there are businesses which will not be able to. It's already been proven in this state and many others.

If you want to jump on that business and blame them for not being able to adapt to legislative change, you will anyway.

My point all the long is this is an issue the business itself should be able to control. I'll never understand why the goverment has to regulate what people do in their free time. It's an agenda, if it's anything and certainly, it's a high priority for a lot of people.

If you get some weird feeling of winning because of this more power to you. It isn't a contest. There are people who enjoy governmental regulations in their personal lives. It makes no sense to me.

Where's that booming non-smoking bar without the government-backed ban? Where is it? Where is a strip of bars all advertising, "No Smoking Here!" There aren't any. As of October 1st, they all go. So be it.

I won't stop going to bars. I will initially cut back my time spent there. It just won't be the same. In time, like wearing seatbelts, it will become normal.

I travel to San Francisco and stand out on the street there. I've lived in numerous places with and without the ban. For my taste, I prefer the latter.

Now I'm going to go outside in the heat and address my drug problem. ;~)

Posted by ruralguy (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can anyone tell me if these bars blaming the smoking ban for causing them to close weren't already having tough times before the ban? Pass the blame. I look at the successful establishments in this area, and I just can't imagine the ban will cause them to close. If any in the area do close, I could probably guess which ones.

Smokers will get used to it, and we will look back wondering why we were so worked up about it.

Posted by gmoneyproductions (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

instead of you people blowing smoke on this page like you half a brain, why don't you do something productive and blow yourselves!! IDIOTS!

Posted by ffbison (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

citing davehit.com bob? c'mon...just because something is on the web doesn't make it credible. Did you even go through English 101?

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the smoke nazis will support restaurants and bars when the smoking ban goes into effect. Don't hold your breath, this effort will last about one week, then these cheap fanatics will revert to their true colors. While there are exception to every rule, most smokers are too cheap to provide a base of support for any bar or restaurant, if the opposite were true there would have been thousands upon thousands of smoke free bars and restaurants in the past.
I remember when this issue cropped up about a year ago the owner of Graystone Lodge on Ottertail Lake made a big deal of going smoke free, then put the restaurant up for sale about a month later. I do not know if it sold or not (we don't go there anymore) but if it was such a going concern as a smoke free place why sell it.
Ask any server or bartender who they would rather serve, a smoker or a non smoker, most will tell you smokers are much better tippers, more gregarious and more fun to be around.
Who in their right mind would prefer to hang around with a bunch of stubborn, cranky, anti social smoke nazis, all they do is bitch, "Oh, thats wrong", "That guy over there is smoking" "that person parted his hair on the wrong side"
"That old lady is waring too much perfume" "Im allergic to perfume", "I'm allergic to smoke", "Someone farted in here last week and I can still smell it" God, if I did not need a drink or smoke before I would sure need one after an evening with a smoke nazi.
Let's look at some prominent anti-smokers, like Adolf Hitler, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell Be honest, can you really imagine any of these guys leaving a big tip? Do you think of these idiots a part of a fun evening at a local pub? It is interesting to note that while Hitler did not smoke himself he allowed others to smoke in his presence. Gee, even Adolf Hitler the chief Nazi was not a smoke nazi.
Let me make a fine point here, I do not consider all non-smokers to be a smoke nazis, only those who would impose their will on everyone else when they are perfectly capable of removing themselves from the others bad influnce, but prefer to remain so they can bitch about it.
My smoking coffee club has made arrangements to have our morning coffee and smokes at each others house in a nazi free environment, and I guess this is just another reason to travel to Fargo, North Dakota where you can shop till you drop and smoke where you eat. By the way cigarettes are cheaper in Fargo, so it's another way to give the governor the finger.

Posted by ffbison (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml...

Smoking bans do not have a statistically significant effect on business. Studies have proven this over and over. Smoking bans do not affect busines in any significant manner. Where's a credible scientific study proving otherwise? Does Davehitt.com or Smokersclub.com have something stating otherwise. I'm guessing they do....but considering the source, I wouldn't give that evidence much creedence.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 5, 2007 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I did cite the cdc El Paso report in an earlier post; from what I recall of 101, it was a lot of grammar.

Posted by silversaloon (anonymous) on September 5, 2007 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

as a bar owner, its hard to say what the future may hold. we fought the ban on a county level, and it worked. we saw what was coming from the state, and know here we are on the eve of change. truly in business it is the actions and reactions of customers that direct how you operate your business. if the food sucks people won't go there, just as if it's too smoky people won't go there. so it should be up to the customer to decide whether to come in or not and for what reasons. We try to see both sides. We expect a loss of business over time at this point. the majority of my customers are in fact smokers. But if all goes well, those who smoke will still visit us and those non smokers who didn't frequent before will help fill in the gaps. it's hard to put merit in an opinion about "how much better things will be" or "it will have no effect" as each business has it's own challenges, as does each demographic. Most people making these opinions are not running a bar or restaurant. Example: I don't know anything about running a grocery store, so I'd be ill advised to make an opinion on the effects of tainted spinach. For us, we'll wait and see. no more dirty ashtrays, more cig butts outside, cleaner smelling bar, more noise outdoors. Good and bad. I hope to see some new faces with this, lets prove ourselves right or wrong. You'll probably see me eating with my kids at work now, but happy hour may be a bit quiet. Glad we didn't invest in that smoke eater.

PS personal attacks don't help anything, calling someone ignorant etc. because you don't agree is a waste of time, you should be arguing it out over a beer in one of the areas fine drinking establishments, that would be great
....email us silversaloon@wildblue.net......

Posted by adamtroy (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a non-smoker and former bartender, I can tell all you fascists three facts: 1) Bar staff often make pretty good scratch, especially when they keep smokers' ashtrays clean. 2) They are old enough to know second-hand smoke is not healthy. 3) There are already establishments which do not allow smoking.
We're all big kids now. Mommy and Daddy should have taught us how to make what adults call CHOICES. Can everybody say CHOICES? Ok, now here's how this works: You find out what you're options are, and choose the option that suits you best. I believe that those who want the government to make sure ALL the CHOICES suit them, giving no regard to others ability to make their own CHOICES have come to be known throughout history as FASCISTS. So if those smokers have to admit they are drug addicts, it's only right that those of you who want the government to limit choice admit what you are...FASCISTS!
And finally, as a non-smoker who will personally be affected very little by the ban, let me just say to you nazis...EAT A D---! (self-censored, impressive huh?)

Posted by adamtroy (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am even willing to pre-empt myself by admitting that last post was overwraught with emotional outburst and blatant sarcasm. That being said, I defy anyone to make an argument against the indefeatable logic expressed appropriately through the three facts.
Also, Elizabeth, the First Amendment is already being systematically dismantled thanks to the fascist smokescreen known as The Patriot Act.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The logic of adamtroy is indisputable, and his solution, novel. Never the less as Sydney Smith said: "never try to reason prejudice out of a man, it was not reasoned in, it can not be reasoned out".

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

adamtroy:

You list three completely unrelated "facts" that seem to point to three completely separate arguments.

"1) Bar staff often make pretty good scratch, especially when they keep smokers' ashtrays clean."
Here you seem to arguing that bar staff will make less money because they won't be able to clean ashtrays. If that is what you're arguing you've said very little to support your argument. Cleaning ashtrays was just one of the many tasks I used to perform when I was a bar tender and I've yet to see any statistics stating that bar staff at non-smoking establishments categorically make less money than bar staff in smoking establishments. In fact, I'd love to see a comparison of income between all bar staff in Hennepin County (which is all non-smoking) and all bar staff in Ottertail County (which is mostly, if not all, smoking).

"2) They (bar staff) are old enough to know second-hand smoke is not healthy."
Here you seem to be saying that there should not be regulations regarding the health risks present in a working environment as long as the employees are aware of the risks. Again, if this is what you're trying to say, you've supported you argument very poorly. Are you really prepared to say that a safe work environment should not be mandated by our government? Most adults also know that going to work in a building that is infested with termites and consequently about to fall on top of them is dangerous. Or that going to work in a building that has large quantities of airborne asbestos inside is dangerous. Should we get rid of all the rules and regulations relating to these things as well and leave it up the employers and the employees to make a judgment call?

"3) There are already establishments which do not allow smoking."
Here you seem to be saying that the existence of safe work environments justifies that existence of non-safe work environments. I fail to see how this is sound logic. Does the existence of structurally sound work environments make is okay for others to be falling over on people? I don't think so.

Some people have very funny ideas of what "logic" is.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, I'd love to see a comparison of the "average" income for all bar staff in Hennepin County (which is all non-smoking) with the "average" income for all bar staff in any other county in the state of Minnesota (which are still mostly smoking). Can someone conduct a survey?

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Venti would like to see a comparison of the income between bar staffs in Hennepin county and Ottertail county and then infers that any difference between the two is related to smoking. I don't have a degree in staticial analysis but I bet that any job pays more in Hennepin County than the same job in Ottertail County, especially in Fergus Falls. Who makes more money, the non-smoking attorney in Minneapolis or the filthy smoking attorney in Fergus Falls? Who makes more money the non-smoking reporter for the Minneapolis Star and Trib. or the smoking reporter who works for the Fergus Falls Daily Journal. I hope Bob Williams is listening, if he would just quit smoking he would not only save the money he formally spent on cigarettes, but the publisher of the Journal would pay him more money. Yeah, thats going to happen.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry I could not post sooner but I have been conducting the survey requested by Venti. A complete and through review of the facts, taking into account current trends and the demographics involved and quantum analysis of the Einstein curve and daylight savings time, I can safely report that Venti is wrong.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How nice. You came up with an inference for me and then proved me wrong. Good work chipmunk!

The conclusion I would have drawn from your self-derived statistics would have been quite different from what you came up with though. That being, simply, that it is not imperative that people "keep smokers' ashtrays clean" in order to make "pretty good scratch" working in a bar (which is one of the arguments adamtroy seemed to be making). I'd argue it's more dependant on the type of bar, the location of the bar and the type of patrons that frequent said bar, as opposed to whether or not it has ashtrays to clean.

I appreciate you conducting the survey and passing on the information though.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You might want to look up one of those words...

"im·per·a·tive"

It has to do with logic. ; )

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are welcome. Anytime I can help.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I could give a rats butt about ashtrays, I'm talking about your contention that bartenders in Hennepin County make more money because they work in a non-smoking county, instead of conceding that they make more money simply by working in a much larger metro-area, where all wages are higher.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

chipmunk wrote: "I'm talking about your contention that bartenders in Hennepin County make more money because they work in a non-smoking county"

Again, it seems I must point out that I never made such a contention. You did. Granted, you did so on my behalf, but you made it all the same. I believe your exact word were...

"Venti would like to see a comparison of the income between bar staffs in Hennepin county and Ottertail county and then infers that any difference between the two is related to smoking."

And again I'll point out that I made no such inference. In fact, what I'm actually saying is that the difference has nothing to do with smoking. It has everything to do with those other kinds of factors I listed earlier. Namely, the location of the bar, the type of bar it is and the type of patrons who frequent the bar. Isn't it amazing chipmunk? I'm actually agreeing with you and you're still arguing with me. LOL!

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Laugh all You want, you still said it. If your contention was as stated in your last post, why mention smoking and non-smoking in your earlier posts?

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

chipmunk wrote: "Laugh all You want, you still said it."

Please point out what exactly "I said" because you don't seem to understand the difference between something "you said" and something "I said." It's a pretty basic concept really. Anything that is listed under the name "chipmunk," you said, and anything listed under the name Venti, "I said."

The quotes are listed directly above the box you are typing in. Just copy what "I said" and paste in into the box.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vendi, you said:
In fact, I'd love to see a comparison of income between all bar staff in Hennepin County (which is all non-smoking) and all bar staff in Ottertail County (which is mostly, if not all, smoking). I will say it again, if you did not mean to infer that non-smoking was the reason wages were higher in Hennepin County way bring up smoking at all. If your true intentions were otherwise all you had to say was "I wonder if bartenders in Minneapolis make more money than bartenders in Fergus Falls?"

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

chipmunk wrote: "if you did not mean to infer that non-smoking was the reason wages were higher in Hennepin County way bring up smoking at all."

Wow, okay, let me try to lay this out for you one more time, then I'm done trying to reason with your prejudice.

The reason I pointed to the much higher average income of a Hennepin County bar staff member was because this is the exact opposite of what adamtroy seemed to be arguing. Remember?

adamtroy wrote: "Bar staff often make pretty good scratch, especially when they keep smokers' ashtrays clean."

He was the one who brought up income as a correlation to whether a bar was smoking or non-smoking.

Now again (let me be clear about this), in no way am I saying, nor have I ever said (YOU DID, I DID NOT), that non-smoking bar staff members make more money that smoking bar staff members, but I am pointing to Hennepin County bars as an example of a place where non-smoking bar staff member make a VERY good living. Not because they are "non-smoking bars," but because of the other factors I pointed out earlier (location of the bar, type of bar and type of patrons). The same kind of factors that determine the average income of bar staff members in Ottertail County, not their smoking or non-smoking status as adamtroy was vaguely trying to contend.

Again, my contention is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN that I have never seen any statistics showing that smoking bar staff members categorically make more money than non-smoking bar staff members. Perhaps you could conduct another survey chipmunk? I hope this clears everything up. If not, there's nothing more I can do for you.

Good day, sir.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 7, 2007 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are right Venti, there is nothing more you can do for me.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on September 7, 2007 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chipmunk wrote: "I hope Bob Williams is listening, if he would just quit smoking he would not only save the money he formally spent on cigarettes, but the publisher of the Journal would pay him more money. Yeah, thats going to happen."

The advice and the laugh were both appreciated.

Posted by mermaid (anonymous) on September 8, 2007 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Chipmunk needs to find a HOBBY!!! Would someone else agree? He seems very agitated when confronted...I dont know if this is his personality...shoot I dont even know the guy and I can tell he is agitated when confronted.

Sorry Chippy!

Posted by toad3 (anonymous) on September 8, 2007 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think mermaid needs a hobby! He continually throws crap in chipmunks face! I can see why chipmunk could get agitated after being put down by smart a-- mermaid and the insulting posts. It is like something a nine year old would write.Mermaid must have been picked on when mermaid was a kid, thus trying to bully chipmunk. Mermaid is trying also to control chipmunk, which obviously is not working! Thus mermaid is pissed off and writes his sick posts.Mermaid, don't act like a child, you have made this too personal! I think you need to go jump in the lake.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on September 9, 2007 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

adamtroy-

I'm very familiar with the USA Patriot Act, and I don't like it; however, I don't see it as dismantling or interfering with the First Amendment. I see it violating the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Posted by adamtroy (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freedom of Assembly, Elizabeth. Now protesters can be deemed "terrorists" and the protests considered an act of terrorism. I'm glad you don't like it, but you should despise it.

Posted by adamtroy (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Venti- isn't it interesting how influential the barworkers' health and safety lobby is compared to, say the coalminers' health and safety lobby? I mean, if it's really all about workers' safety, and not about the comfort of a minority of the customers. Or should I have said, more appropriately "potential customers?"

Posted by adamtroy (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wasn't vaguely contending anything, just trying to be funny. Bartenders make a good living, considering they don't have to go to college to get the job. That is not directly or indirectly related to the fact that bar patrons are mostly smokers, it's just the truth. If bar owners want to allow smoking, they should be able to do so without the government telling them how to run their business.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

adam,
It's been about a year since I've read the Patriot Act... can you point me to the part that says that or the part the administration uses as justification to call protestors "terrorists."

I'm not arguing that the Act is wonderful. In fact, I think it should be repealed... but I've never heard that argument against it before.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism. However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating ""terrorism."" The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

adamtroy wrote: "isn't it interesting how influential the barworkers' health and safety lobby is compared to, say the coalminers' health and safety lobby?"

If only it were, adam. If only it were.
http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/MSHAINF2.HT...
The first federal statute governing mine safety was passed in 1891. That's 116 years ago. Since then there have been numerous laws passed to insure the greatest level of safety possible in such an inherently dangerous work environment. Did you notice this quote from the page? "Mining fatalities dropped sharply under the Mine Act from 272 in 1977 to 86 in 2000." Can you imagine if there were only 86 deaths per year because of second-hand smoke? The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States. Granted this is an estimation, but we've been trying to minimize the deaths of coal miners due to their dangerous work environments through legislation for over a century, perhaps you can tell me what why we haven't been doing the same for bar and restaurant workers? What has the "barworkers' health and safety lobby" been up to all those years?

I think we're ready for some legislation.

Posted by mermaid (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Mr Toad3,

I was the one who picked on you when you were a little kid sitting in the corner of the room sucking on your blanket! It is unfortunate you do not understand the WHOLE meaning behind my posts to CHIPMUNK as I, for some reason, think you actually may.

Now go get your blanket, put it in your mouth, and start crying for your mommy. Nice try genius! When you come up with a better one...consult Chipmunk (again) and give me your best shot!!

Ribbit, Ribbit....See you in the water,

Mermaid

Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mermaid, if you were in my class you would be standing in the corner, like a bad little girl. Grow up.

Posted by toad3 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ffprofessor has got mermaid figured out!

Posted by adamtroy (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, Venti, I need you to first understand that I am with ya, brother! But if you compare the safety requirements that our neighbors to the north have put in place for mining operations, to what the laws require in the good ol' "corporations come first" United States, it's a friggin' joke! Let me just say that what happened in West Virginia a couple years ago, and what happened in Utah this summer, would not have happened in Canada, they're just cooler to their working class up their!
Anyway, Bar workers are not unionized, and they likely never will be, the reason being that it is basically a self-serving profession! There were many weekend nights when I loathed the taste of crud in my mouth because of patrons cigarettes! But ya know what... the $200+ that I got to put in my pocket, tax-free, at the end of the night kinda made it all not worth worrying about. Bottom line is...it was my personal choice to work there, knowing full well the situation. I didn't cry to Dbag Pawlenty to change anything for me. The crux of this charge came straight from the fascist impetus of those pulling the strings, not the people!

Posted by adamtroy (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Elizabeth, you need to realize that throughout history governments have grasped at whatever they could to assert more control over the people. Mark my words, we are seeing only the beginning of government asserting itself into every aspect of our lives. All we need to do is remember that the words are written in our declaration that if the government becomes abusive of these ends, it is our duty as citizens to overthrow such a government! 9/11 was an inside job!!