Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What!!!!! How can this happen? This can not be true. Some reporter must have gotten it wrong. The smoke Nazis said this would not happen!!!! They said smokers would be replaced by non-smokers who would more than make up the difference and bars would actually see an increase in business, I said smokers as a group were to cheap to support their own invalid grandmother let alone a bar or restaurant. Guess who was right, chipmunk, that’s who. Its not only Larry’s Bar and the Otter Supper club, I know two other long time eating and drinking establishments on the verge of closing. One of them long known more for their food than drink will really hit home to many diners and will adversely effect an entire small village with its closing. There is also the Graystone Lodge, where the owner voluntarily went smoke free before the ban and made a big deal of the fact, then put the place up for sale shortly there after. Now it’s been shuttered for several months.

Posted by mytwocents (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I DO AGREE with you chipmunk!!! Business' are losing business for sure. what happen to smoking and nonsmoking sections???????????????? I do believe in having clean air but if you don't like the smoke then stay in a different area. I'm not even a smoker!! I have kids and I either ask ppl to be respectful or would sit in a non-smoking section. And for bars well People have smoked in bars for HOW MANY YEARS????? Why change everything now? Why make ppl lose their business' and their income?? I just don't get it!

Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While I do not smoke, I worry that the state wide smoking ban has and will have unintended results. Some believe that smoking drinkers now regulated to drinking in each others houses are drinking more than that same drinker would in a public bar and for a longer period of time before getting behind the wheel and driving home. If true, a cleaner atmosphere in public houses will have been traded for a deadlier situation for all of us on our roads. A friend of mine at the U. of M. informs me that this phenomenon will be the subject of a new study shortly.

Posted by andtongs (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is an intended result for you chipmunk, Larry’s will no longer serve evil drink or smoke. Too birds with one stone. People who work in sin filled bars should pray for forgiveness and then find proper jobs. The world will be a better and cleaner place when cigarettes and alcohol are banned completely. By the way chipmunk, I saw your crude remarks about Handel’s Messiah. Just remember there is a price to be paid for every offence to God.

Posted by otfan12 (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

although i do not agree with everything andtongs is saying...really, is drinking and smoking such sinful things? i really do not see why the smoking ban is such a huge deal! all of these years us non-smokers have been having to breathe in the air of those smoking around us in restaurants, bars, etc. time for a little payback. smokers, welcome to clean air! now you will have to suffer and breathe our nice, fresh, clean air! enjoy!!!

Posted by Kloob (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The leftists are digging their talons in everyday. Too much regulation is usually a bad thing when we start addressing First or Ninth Amendment rights. I'm not a smoker, but I still struggle with the rationale behind this law. Concerned. www.sharkshellfish.com

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

otfan12, It’s not a huge deal to you because it’s not your freedoms which have been taken away. All these years you could have sat in the no-smoking section and not breathed any smoke. If what the professor says is true the payback may come on our highways for all of us. By the way I don’t drink alcohol in any form and I can’t stand drunks, but instead of bitching about them I just stay out of bars. Problem solved.

Posted by Laurarose828 (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do agree with the fact that the smoking ban is hurting businesses. I work at a small family-owned bar and the business has declined quite a bit. It's true that people don't want to go outside and smoke in this cold weather, so it's easier for them to spend more time at home. As far as going out and breathing smoke, otfan12, it was your choice to go to the smoky bars. You did not have to go there if the smoke was that bothersome to you. Have you now been frequenting the bars more often? The air is nice and clean so I would imagine that you'll be spending a lot more time there. Also, I have had a number of people tell me that this was being done to help the employees of the bar - thanks, but if I didn't want to breath the smoke I don't have to work in a bar. I made the decision to work at the bar and I could have chosen to work elsewhere. It's hard to work for minimum wage at a job in which you rely on the tips and have your tips decrease by over 75%. That's a big cut when it's your income - I'm sure most of you would complain if you took that big of a pay cut. It's really not worth being snide about the subject because the smoking ban was put into effect and it's now something that we have to live with. But it is a fact that it is hurting business owners who are working hard to make something of their businesses.

Posted by tracy (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My girlfriend got laidoff from her job waitress after just one week because of no smoking. Her boss said not enough business to keep her. She said no smokers are cheep tippers to.

Posted by otfan12 (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

what about my "freedom" to breathe smoke-free air? it's such a touchy subject...not being a smoker, i don't really know how hard it would be to give it up.
i just would like to say that it is nice to be able to go into a bar and not come out smelling like an ashtray! you would think that this wouldn't effect businesses so bad. people will stay go out and drink, even if they can't have a cig in their mouth the whole time. are the smoke building's effective at bringing smokers to the bar?

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WHAT??????

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't it strange that other states that have gone non-smoking are not reporting the same problem? In fact many business owners now admit that business is even better once people adjust to the change. Just asking but could it be that some of these business's were about to go under anyway? It isn't like there are not plenty other bars to go to! Admit it smokers, you are addicted to nicotine and it would benefit you, your family, and everyone around you if you quit. Okay Chipmunk, let me have it!!!!!

Posted by Kloob (anonymous) on December 29, 2007 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Too much regulation on our basic rights which were part of the reason for the Constitution of the USA are bad.

Does anyone remember the Calico Rose in Fergus? Or for that matter Arneson & Larson? Can you buy mens shoes in Fergus these days?? I didn't think so.

www.sharkshellfish.com

Posted by Kloob (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I almost forgot, please give Duncan Hunter a look if you sway Republican, the man is gold. www.sharkshellfish.com

Posted by Norse (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 12:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As someone who gave up smoking several times many years ago, and then finally for good, about 12 years back..This is the best thing for MN. I don't think money should be wasted on any foolish studies to see if people sit at home and get plastered more now that they can't go to the bar. Drunks on the road will be caught by FF's finest! As for bars closing... That place looks like a rundown dump, the owner herself probably smokes and can't stand not being able to smoke at her sacred 'work' sanctuary.

On the point of cigs and alcohol being evil, I would agree that's why they get taxed with a sin-tax. Now as for finding a non-evil job, I see that one as a challenge. There are many jobs that could be considered evil in one way or another, polution, foreclosure, usuary, glutany, etc.
On the Calico Rose, isn't there a mexican style restaurant there today? And what happened to that Chinese place on lincoln (which was razed)? Too many Rats? It's time to put out your butts and stop wasting all that money.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry, other states have had the same problem and when this issue was up for debate thousands of examples were given. These examples were poo pooed by non smokers as being from the wrong website or biased in their origin because some were funded by tobacco companies. The evidence was there for anyone willing to look at it. Now we are beginning to see the results of the ban here in Minnesota. The loss of Larry’s bar won’t have a large impact on public opinion here because the elite of Fergus Falls did not indulge their desires there, but when other more prominent bars or cafes are forced to close some will be forced to reconsider their opinions. I’m old enough to know that the pendulum swings both ways and the further it swings right the further it swings left the next time. Regarding being addicted, of course I’m addicted, that does not mean I haven’t lost a freedom I had before. Addiction or not I’m still a charming individual, just as you are addicted to conservative issues I’m sure you are a delightful, amiable person held in great esteem by persons beyond your mother. Have a nice smoke free day.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Norse, Too many rats at a Chinese place? The “Tong” may be coming for you. Look it up.

Posted by ffbison (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, why does a bar close because of a cigarette smoking ban? Its a bar. A place that sells booze. Its not a place that sells smoke! I'm pretty sure they have a liquor license, not a smoke license. Once again, misguided blame from the smokers. If people really went to the bar to drink, it wouldn't be going out of business. Seems to me they go to the bar mainly to smoke.

Posted by americanwerew31 (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

go chipmunk! although i don't necessarily agree with the WAY you say everything; i definitely agree with the point you are making. i am a light smoker, and although i don't frequent bars often at all, because personally i am not much of a drinker, i did enjoy the occasional night out with friends. We no longer go out, we stay in where we can smoke. so while my dollars spent at bars and restaurants didn't amount to much, it now amounts to nothing. And be aware, i also say all this as a parent of a preschooler, and we have never smoked around our child. i do totally believe in the freedom that my bad habit shouldn't effect others; and i was always polite about smoking. i agree that bars where usually a bit cloudy for most people's taste, but for cripes sake; it's not any worse for you than sitting there drinking the fire water...
andtongs- your close minded assault leaves me more angry than i care to express. it's your breed of sheep that willing gives up our civil liberties in the name of a mythical being. i think we ought to take away your right to sit in church and see how you feel. personally i don't care where your religious beliefs lie- but please, please, PLEASE be sensible enough to keep them out of politics and education for the rest of the populations sake.
Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.
Religion is bunk- Thomas Edison
Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin

Posted by Mauibill (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Staying in the Non smoking section?
That would be the same as trying to swim in the non peeing section. It's impossible.
Religion is bunk.... A relationship is not.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Markc, kindly elaborate on your statement that I should get my politics straight, if I have been unclear I will attempt to do better in the future.

Posted by Norse (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder what percentage of ‘militant’ smokers actually smoke more than just the 'legal' tobacco products on a regular basis (i.e., Crack, Meth, hash, Mj) isn't most of the paraphernalia associated with smoking tobacco really used for the dope? Bongs, pipes, rolling papers...I suppose in a free society all of that should be left up to the free will of each person as well. But why stop there?

As for being a smoker, smoking at home, and then claiming you never smoked around your pre-schooler....I call Shenanigans!

As for the statewide smoking ban, I think it was overkill, they need to come back and issue smoking licenses for establishments like Larry's Bar. I mean some people don't know any other way of life but to sit in a smoke filled bar sipping on a glass of tap beer for 8-10 hours a day. For those people there should be a designated establishment where they can frequent.

In a democratic society however, it's majority rules so if there are 6.7 people out of 10 that think smoking should not be allowed in public places then the other 3.3 people gotta deal with it.

On the rats, that would have pertained to the condition of the building and not the ingredients used in the dishes. I ate there many times and found the food to be wonderful, much better than the burger joint that was previously in that location.

Posted by OhYou (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No smoking in the bar and the possibility of a dui after 2 beers? No wonder people are staying home.

Posted by americanwerew31 (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

to respond the claim of shenanigans by Norse- it is absolutely true that i have never once smoked a cigarette in the presence of my child, except outdoors, and he just turned 4. We do NOT smoke in our house. We ONLY smoke in the "smoking room" in our entryway (which is not connected to the house ventilation) or outside. I do not smoke in the car with my child either. Nor around anyone else's children. Yes it is possible to be a conscientious smoker. I utterly and wholeheartedly put my child's health and well being above my own habits. I also understand certain people's sensitivity to smoke due to health concerns (such as asthma, COPD, allergies, etc.) and try never to light up in someone's presence without first checking if it will adversely effect them. I do not apologize to society for the fact that i am a smoker, i mean heck, the state's getting rich off the taxes that I'm paying, so why be bothered?

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thirty percent of the population smokes. What moron wouldn't see that banning smoking in bars and restaurants wouldn't hurt business? You'd have to be a complete idiot to think otherwise. Oh well, these restaurants will now just have to increase the price of food and service to make up for the loss. It won't be me paying cause I refuse to cater to nonsmoking bars and restaurants. I just say "NO". I won't eat there. And I don't buy cigarettes anymore. I just roll my own now like my dad used to. I'm glad I live in Michigan where these prohibitioners have tried and failed miserably to ban smoking in bars and restaurants here.

Some of you need to do some in depth research on the internet. Your car is pumping out more caricinagens (sp) then the guy smoking next to you. And you're breathing it sitting in you car moving down the roadway. More particulate matter from the cigarette, true; but more deadly cancer causing pollution from the car exhaust. Speaking of car exhaust, auto pollution has more than doubled in the past 20 years in this country. Maybe it's time we banned SUVs.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here are some quotes from the Ely “Timberjay” Newspaper of December 29th, 2007

“Minnesota’s Freedom To Breathe Act, which took effect Oct. 1, prohibits smoking at almost all workplaces, including bars and restaurants. While area restaurants say the smoking ban has affected their business, area bars have seen the sharpest decline.
“Our business is down probably 50 percent from last year,” said Bob Howe, manager of Orr’s Municipal Liquor Store. Howe said the drop-off in business is one reason that the city is contemplating switching to a solely off-sale operation. The store has already reduced its workforce and cut hours for remaining staff.
Tracy Luecken, owner of the Old Muni in Cook, reports overall business is down by 25 percent.
“Where we notice it the most is during the day,” she said, when a group of regulars would stop in for a few drinks and spend time in the bar smoking and chatting. “Our daytime crowd is gone.” She estimates that daytime business is down by 50 percent.
Randy Semo, who operates Good Ol’ Days Bar and Grill in Tower, has seen a similiar decline in business. “In October, we were down 34 percent on liquor sales and 11 percent on food,” he said. While liquor sales remained down
by almost a third in November, food sales seemed to be recovering and were off just six percent.
While Semo had hoped the ban on smoking would bring new customers into his establishment, he said that predicted influx has yet to materialize.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on December 30, 2007 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd hate to be andtongs Saturday night date. Boring.

I certainly recall someone, hmmm, who could that have been?...mentioning this in an op/ed piece.

http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/news/2...

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on December 30, 2007 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and I think it was reported closing on my blog the 27th.
http://www.areavoices.com/Human/
A scoop?
Nah.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Welcome back bob, hope everything went well at church. Since the debate on this instant issue began a day ago, I have been waiting for some of those posters who were so positive things like bar closings were not going to happen. They have failed to materialize just like their arguments. Now, thanks to your link we can compare usernames to see who was right and who was wrong.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bob if you think andtongs would be a disaster on Saturday night, consider for a moment what she would be like on Sunday night after a refresher course and battery charge on Sunday morning.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey andtongs before you come back with some fire breathing spew, just know that I have a post held in reserve for you and it has something to do with recharging your batteries. Think before you post.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on December 30, 2007 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Chip, I've also been waiting for the positive posters.
Insert crickets here.
Church did go well. Surprisingly, the holy water didn't even steam.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But did you drink any, as a chaser?

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on December 30, 2007 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Believe it or not, I managed to act respectful and decent the whole time I was there. It was the night before at Champps in New Brighton where it got a little out of hand. There were plenty of smokers outside making the best of being oppressed. I don't recall any of them saying how great the ban is. In fact, there was one woman out there who wasn't a smoker. She was one of those. "I only smoke when I drink."
Naturally, we big-tipping smokers welcomed her company with ease.

Posted by randlars (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a couple comments from someone new to the debate. I have never even put a cig to my mouth but I defend smokers. They are being treated like second class citizens. If we are going to eliminate all risk in life, I'm more worried about cell phone use while driving. We Minnesotans never cease to creat billion dollar solutions to million dollar problems. I don't like smoke so I chose in the past to not spend much time in bars, I have not increased my patronage because it's smoke-free and probably won't. I can't hardly take the chance of blowing .08 on a breathalizer, and if I'm going to drink non-alcoholic liquids, I can do it alot cheaper at home. Also, are all bars smoke-free? From what I hear, casinos are not. Very unfair. Whoever it is on here that instigates debate on politically correct issues, keep it going!

Posted by WhittsEnd (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It amazes me that non-smokers believe that smokers should take their turn at breathing clean air in lieu of their many years of oppression at the hands of smokers. If they choose not to breathe the stuff, then it should be as simple as . . . DON'T GO THERE! How hard is that?
Why can't a business be a smoking only establishment? If you don't smoke, don't go. But, oh no, non-smokers have to have their "right" to go where ever they want. To trespass on smokers rights? That's ok! They believe they have more rights than smokers because they are "better" that smokers! Remember, smokers are "lepers" of society now. God forbid their rights should be trampled on. What a bunch of Hypocrites! They argue like a bunch of little kids saying, "oh, yeah? Oh, yeah?" I actually pity them for having such small minds that they do not realize the jeopardy of their alienation of American rights. Freedom? They are chiseling away at American Freedom and won't be happy until it's gone. How sad they are!

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Indian Reservations are not subject to State Laws or State Taxes. They are Quasi Sovereign Nations subject only to Congressional legislation. And Congress has not banned smoking on Reservations. Or gambling, or any of those other so called sinful things these holier than thou people espouse. Last time I visited Minnesota, I stayed overnight at a Casino Resort. I smoked, gambled and drank alcohol till I could do no more. Then I went to bed. Room cost $70.00, won $250 gambling and the drinks were free. Like an oasis in the desert.

Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know chip won't mind if I move one of his posts on a related subject to this article, it seemed apropos.

"I have been hiding out this morning, trying to avoid the process servers. I guess I'm getting sued. I suppose I will have to quit smoking, since I won't be able to afford cigaretts. It all started late yesterday afternoon, I was driving my roller skate to the N.P. Park to pick up some acorns. I admit I was speeding and smoking at the same time, anyway, as I sped down the hill on Vernon Avenue the wind blew the ash off the end of my cigarette and my fur caught fire just as I passed a family of Mice on the corner by the Hospital. Apparently, a chunk of my burning fur fell off and landed on one of mice, now they are sueing me for second hand fur."

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No problem professor, I won that suit by the way, the Judge (a hairless weasel) ruled that the mice should not have been standing in a no standing zone and that they were in fact loitering, which I guess is illegal in Minnesota unless you are smoking outside a bar.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bars closing, less smoking, what's the big deal? Like any other business, you either change or you are gone. Actually the smoking population is down to 22-25 % of the population, except with drinkers. Give the law a year and the business's doing well now, will be doing even better. The other ones, well were they really doing that well to start with? Eventually it will take effect in practically all states. Even the Europeans are slowly going to non-smoking.

Posted by Paul (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I remember jerry was one of those who said the law would not hurt business he said just give it a month now he says give it a year. Now it’s the fault of the business itself not the smoking law. Here is fact for you jerry if it was not for the smoking ban Larrys bar would still be in business . You want smokers to admit they are addicted why cant you admitt you are wrong about bars closing, like all right wing nuts you don’t care about people loosing their jobs I disagree with chipmunk you are not a nice person you are a jerk.

Posted by Norse (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd be curious as to the cause of Larry's death in 2003 (can't seem to even find an obit). Also Paul it might be impossible for Larry to gave said anything about the 2005 smoking ban. I did find some complaining back in 1999-2000 about having to serve 3.2beer. I wonder what percentage of the revenue from these smoke and chugs was coming from the cigs?

Posted by Paul (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Norse, you should proof read what you write.

Posted by Paul (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Norse I wonder what percentage of your brain is working.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 11:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Paul, now you have gone and hurt my feelings! Chipmunk and I can disagree without being personal. Think positive though, when you are outside your favorite establishment in January, there are no mosquitoes! Closing of a bar bad---have you ever been to a cancer ward or a drug & alcohol rehab center? Ask any successful business owner, if you cannot deal with change, you need to change business. At least with the non-smoking law, they can blame closure on someone.

Posted by Norse (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 2:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd be curious as to the cause of Larry's death in 2003 (can't seem to even find an obit). Also Paul it might be impossible for Larry to have said anything about the 2005 smoking ban. I did find some complaining back in 1999-2000 about having to serve 3.2beer. I wonder what percentage of the revenue from these smoke and chugs was coming from the cigs?

Let's use our brain Paul and change the g to an H and then answer the riddle as to how he would have said anything about the 2005 smoking ban.

Posted by mwernimont (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"..A friend of mine at the U. of M. informs me that this phenomenon will be the subject of a new study shortly...." -ffprofessor

That is true ff, but only because the same drug manufacturer's foundation which funded the lobbying efforts of smoking bans, Johnson & Johnson's /ALZA, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, also funds the University of MN.

Now that J & J's private foundation RWJF has successfully increased their Nicoderm sales via passage of smoking bans...the push by RWJF for alcohol prohibition, which has been ongoing.....is also expected to help increase additional drugs marketed by Johnson & Johnson's family of companies...rent seeking legislation has become J & J / RWJF's specialty..and Universities have proven to be especially useful "tools" because they are willing to manipulate study results to fit the drug manufacturers agenda.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...

Posted by timetotalk (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK... Here I go... First of all, Norse, please don't bad mouth the owner and whatever habits she might have. Her smoking or non-smoking has NOTHING to do with the closing of Larry's Bar.
Chipmunk, I tend to agree with many of your statements, however, I would like you to know that Larry's bar has been the only "bar" (others are clubs or supper clubs) in Fergus Falls for several years. You would be suprised at the "Elite" that you see there and it WILL have a very large impact on Fergus Falls, for those that enjoy going to a good old fashioned bar.
To those of you who are bringing Larry into this discussion. Please stop now. It is pointless, he was a wonderful person who took on a losing battle with the location that Larry's bar was in and made it WORK! He fought to make his bar a "come as you are" establishment. There are "regular" customers there from near homeless to "elite" (to use your word).
Larry's bar is going to be missed and I am very thankful to have had the memories that I have from being a past employee to being a customer in the later years.
Thank you all for keeping Larry's memory and his dream alive as long as we could!

Posted by tink (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do go to the bars more now. I also enjoy eating at the Viking. I have been to the Otter recently and could not get to the bar. It is really nice to be able to wear my coat into the bar and not have to leave it in the car. The non-smoking section is a joke. I think the smoking ban is awesome.!!!

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Timetotalk, you are right, I could have been clearer in my post.

Posted by timetotalk (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, Chipmunk :)

Posted by melindakay (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is quite humorous to see all the argumentation going on here. In just a few years, not smoking in bars will seem normal, just like not smoking on planes, in hospitals, other businesses, etc.

I have a student whose father died of second hand smoke when she was in ninth grade. This was the official diagnosis from the doctor. She is now in eleventh. This could have been prevented. While I understand some of your unwillingness to have more laws placed on you, understand that this law is for the greater good, and your selfish needs do not come before others' health.

As for businesses, all of the bars I have been to have not suffered. They have in fact thrived since the ban. Many non-smokers are much more willing to come out for a while, since they can breathe easily and not go home smelling like an ashtray - myself included.

For the businesses that are suffering - stop complaining and take action. If you are a bar patron, continue going there and bring your friends. If you are a bar owner or a worker, use some creative marketing so people have an excuse to visit. The ban is not hurting all bars, so there is certainly a way to fix the problems of those bars that are not doing as well.

And last, as a digression to answer a previous post, there is a bible verse that mentions what you were looking for: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20). I give this to you not as a religious fanatic, just to settle the argument above. Whether or not smoking and drinking are sinful behaviors is not an argument I am about to involve myself in. It is when peoples' smoking becomes a health issue for others that I protest.

Posted by antiquesforsale (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When first reading this article - there was 1 comment - to my surprise now 52!! Hit a nerve or what?
I was going to comment that change is always hard for a business - BUT - if you don't change you are done. From the looks of Larry's Bar - the owner could have done many things to make it more appealing to some non-smoker prospective customers - fresh coat of paint, some interesting landscaping - I don't know if she served food but if not how about getting a food license and diversifying! We have owned a few businesses during the past 40 years and always have had to grow and change with the new laws and economy ups and downs. How about some live music or other "specials"?? Instead of blaming the demise on someone else, get smart and advertise....ALSO, I am a former smoker. It was very hard to quit but I had teenagers at the time - I didn't want them to see me smoke outside or anywhere else. I wanted to be a good role model so in the future they wouldn't take up this expensive and unhealthy habit. They have not and it has been 26 years since I quit.
Finally - these posts should not get personal with insults etc. Stick to the topic at hand - thanks!

Posted by timetotalk (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately, the owner of Larry's Bar, is not the owner of the building. It is a leased building.
For those of us who enjoyed Larry's Bar, enjoyed the "atmosphere" of the building, however, I do agree with antiquesforsale that some upgrades could have been made by the owner of the building.
As far as making changes, the State of MN did that for this establishment. It was doing just fine for 10 years. Advertising was not needed, as word of mouth kept the customers coming.
It is very sad that this all happened. Larry's Bar is much more to some people than a bar. It is a place to gather with friends and solve the worlds problems, as they say. It is a place where you can be yourself and not have to try to "fit in" with any specific group (clique) of people and you were allowed to voice your opinion, have a discussion, then come back the next day and start all over again.
This is definately an end of an era.

Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a former employee of the Otter Supper Club, the management was well aware of the possibility of a smoking ban many years ago...and at the time was being proactive by figuring out the best way to deal with it. Unfortunately, it seems that it’s a little to late to try to put a band aid on the situation. I'm not going to knock Linda, 'cause I've never had the opportunity to work for her (although she did very graciously show me the way out after a long hard night of drinking), but previous management could've put that place on the map by being prepared, but failed to do so.
Many of the bars and restaurants here in the cities offer their patrons a heated outdoor smoking area. I've seen some cheap ones, such as the Spring Street Tavern, that put up a 250 square foot “room” with some two by fours and plastic sheeting with a little heater - or some like at the Nomad Pub, that keeps a firepit and a decent stock of wood on the deck for people to congregate around...the point is - with a little planning and foresight, this shouldn't be a problem. As far as I'm concerned - all these places knew the ban was coming and now want to whine about the loss to their business rather than actually do anything about it...that being the case, they deserve to close...the lack of preparation demonstrates that they never truly cared about their customers anyways, it was all about the benjamins.

I guess it's survival of the fittest...more ways than one!

Posted by Lucky33 (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep in mind that the smoking ban was enacted at the end of the busy season for nearly every hospitality-based business in greater Minnesota. Of course there's going to be a decline in business as the "Lakers" return to hole up in Edina for the winter and the "Locals" begin to hibernate. That natural and inevitable decline in traffic has nothing to do with smoking, but it's worth remembering while you bash those of us who don't smoke.

Besides, it's not the fault of non-smokers that there might be fewer folks in bars. It's the fault of the whiny smokers who would rather sit home and feel sorry for themselves and their perceived "right" to smoke whenever and wherever they want. If you love the local watering holes so much, get off your couch and go spend some money at fantastic establishments like Larry's. At eight o'clock in the morning. On a weekday.

Posted by Paul (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "whiny" ones are the non-smokers who whined about smokefilled bars until they got their way. Now they don't go to the smokefree bars, probably because the few customers there are whiny non-smokers who no body wants to be around.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Next year I resolve to be kinder and gentler with those who disagree with me. Well, perhaps not kinder and gentler, just nicer. Maybe just a little slower to get in their face. Maybe occasionally let someone with a stupid opinion slide for a day or two. Perhaps I’ll even learn to accept a small bit of constructive criticism when offered with a delicate word. You know, sort of “Live and let live”, be reasonable with my fellow man. It’s a new year, a time of fresh beginnings, time to throw off the yoke of troublesome thoughts towards those with inferior opinions. A whole year, three hundred and sixty five days of skipping merrily through flower strewn meadows, oblivious to the contrary opinions of others. After all, they are still going to have ill conceived opinions whether I acknowledge them or not. I’ll let them pass unfiltered, unrestrained by my own quality control standards, deep into the minds of hapless Journal readers and I’ll be the better person for it. I feel better already. I even feel lighter, as if a onerous burden were lifted from my person. I can see my fellow poster Jerry in Florida, soaking up the sun, thinking conservative thoughts and it doesn’t bother me at all. I can see Freda and Mel getting their daily dose of Rush and I just let it go. Ah, I have at last total grasp on perfect Zen. This is wonderful, my whole outlook on life is……Wait a minute…..what the hell is happening here….forget all that crap I must have been having a flashback. Kids don’t ever smoke dope. I take it all back, next year I’m going to be meaner and nastier than ever, I’m going to even make fun of cripples. Mel and Freda, you are on notice, one stupid remark, even a hint, and I’ll be on you like ugly on an ape. Jerry, put away that suntan lotion, get off the beach and hide in your basement. I’m coming for you too. I even hope the republicans win the presidential race and take back congress just so I’ll have more to bitch about. Now I feel better. Now I know what Zen really means.

Posted by randlars (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My compliments to mwernimont, he/she has it figured out. The ban has little to do with science and more about profit. There are other glaring examples of junk science for profit, can anyone say.... global warming!

Posted by tanker8 (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are those smoking shacks legal? I love how Mabel Murphy's constructed one right at the back door, creating an almost constant arctic wind tunnel all the way to the dining room.
Are we going to ban bonfires soon? Cause that would really suck.

Posted by tanker8 (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I kind of agree with Lucky33, I think we'll see the true impact to business towards the end of summer.
Not that alot of tourists went to Larry's... I never saw many boats there...actually...Lucky33 doesn't know whats goin on at all, nevermind.

Posted by mwernimont (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for the notice randlars, I have researched the funding sources for smoking bans for 2 years now. Johnson & Johnson / ALZA company which manufactures Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ use their private foundation RWJF to fund the ALA, ACS, AMA, CDC, and other organizations lobbying for unnecessary smoking bans.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...

I say unnecessary, because I have tested air quality at workplaces for 17 years......and even the American Cancer Society testing found that SHS is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational air quality regulations.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006...

Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously, randlers - "The ban has little to do with science and more about profit"....are you being serious? I mean, forget about the science, who in the world is getting rich off the smoking ban, and where do I get my cut?

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mwernimont, the problem with your argument is that it is based on science , logic and reason, all of which can find no purchase when dealing with fanatics. The county health nurse was a big supported of the ban, supposedly because of her concern for workers health and safety, but she makes absolutely no effort to review the conditions inside places like machine shops where “cutting oils” are constantly used. Oils which are heated by friction to the point where the air is filled with smoke thicker than any bar on the planet. I just go to show where her true agenda really lies.

Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The current state of scientific opinion shows a consensus of agreement that second hand smoke is indeed harmful. This is an accepted fact by every major medical and scientific organization, including the WHO, National Insitutes of Health, the CDC, The US Surgeon General, the EPA, the American Academy of Pediatrics....the governments of over 150 nations have signed and ratified WHO documents that recognize that "scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."

Conversely, recently a US district court ruling found that the tobacco industry had internally acknowledged the harmfulness of second hand smoke before it was publically known. Seems to me that this is where the money is...if the public stops smoking, how will the tobacco barons live? The way I see it, it's in their best interest to propagate the lies...how can anyone believe otherwise?

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No one has said that smoke is good for you. Of course smoke is harmful. Any kind of smoke or by-product from combustion is harmful. Whether from tobacco or from a campfire or a chimney, or a tailpipe or workplace. Breathing is harmful when a pollutant is present. This is obvious. A no-brainer. You're sliding down a slippery slop Minnesota. What's next on your agenda. Alcohol perhaps? Oh wait, the puritans already tried that and it didn't work. Wood stove smoke maybe? Yeah, let's ban that. Light up your stove or fireplace and the neighbor will call the cops. I see you've already banned windshield mounted GPS devices. But not cell phone use by drivers? Where's the logic there? Doesn't the bible say something about the cell phone use whilst driving? It must damn wood smoke, cause that actually existed 2000 years ago.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chipmunk, I am glad you came to your senses, I told you that you can't drink that Zen before 5 PM. Not fair wanting a Republican president, I want a Democrat so I have something to complain about for 4-8 years. The main thing is we have fun settling all these worldly problems, some people take it to seriously. All the post are is opinions and you know what they say about those. Anyway I wish you and your family a very healthy, Happy New Year! I really would like you to give up those Marlboro's in 2008 though!

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry, Happy New Year to you and yours, not much to do on new years eve since I gave up drinking some twenty years ago. The wife and I have spent the last ten days deep in the north woods in our cabin, just us the wolves, deer and pine martin and the ravens of course. I have been thinking about quitting smoking but have been waiting for some timely milestone to measure progress from. See you on the other side.

Posted by mwernimont (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...are you being serious? I mean, forget about the science, who in the world is getting rich off the smoking ban..." -AndyMosity

Are you having problems clicking on the links I provide? Have you ever heard of Nicoderm, Johnson & Johnson.....or are you from a different planet?

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...

"...makes absolutely no effort to review the conditions inside places like machine shops where “cutting oils” are constantly used. Oils which are heated by friction to the point where the air is filled with smoke thicker than any bar on the planet....."-chipmunk

Funny you should mention workplace pollutants....improving industrial air quality is what I do for a living. Check out some of these workplace pollutants and how the compare to secondhand smoke:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marcus, before I retired as a union representative I would get employers who wanted to ban smoking in the workplace, for their employees health of course. Every time it was some anti-smoking personnel manager or his boss. So we called OSHA to test air quality in the plant, I can still hear them squealing about OSHA fines and forced upgrades and having to hire guys like you. The facts are they never were concerned about employees health, it was all about the few seconds it takes to light up and puff a cigarette multiplied times the number of employees times the number of cigarettes per day, also the premium reduction from the insurance company (which the boss kept without returning any portion to the employees until he got caught) after the insurance contract has been bid and used as a bargaining chip in contract negotiation with the union.

Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on January 1, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mwernimont - I have looked at your links...all of them that lead to the website of some crybaby who lost his job selling air cleaning equipment. Another jerk who didn't have the foresight to see what was coming and do something about it. If he had any true sense of purpose, he'd quit wasting his time on the internet and get a real job. As a side note - those people "making money" off of selling medications that help people quit? I'm sorry, you're gonna have to try harder - first, those aren't the only medications they make that make them rich. Second, those medications are only short term solutions...once you kick the habit, you no longer take them. Third - as it is with smoking, it's a choice you're making - you can either kick the habit on your own, or take one of those crutches to help you out.

Chipmunk - I'm surprised your as stubborn as you are regarding this issue. Boohoo - somebody took advantage of a situation...you know as well as anyone that's unfortunately another demonstration of someone taking advantage of a situation. You're simply blinded and trapped by your addiction, which in my opinion makes you pretty weak.

Posted by jafo (anonymous) on January 1, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm, I drive by Larry's quite often... seemed to be no fewer cars there than before the ban. The building is an eyesore, and yeah, I know the Legion owns it, but if it were your business, wouldn't you ar least put some effort into keeping it decent?? And, why is the Legion leasing out space for competetion anyway? I don't know what the rent is for that dump, but there can't be too much other overhead costs, and with 10-12 cars there every night, that has to have been a small gold mine for the the last years. I think they've made out good, and are tired of it... convenient way to get out, and blame closing on something else.

Posted by username (anonymous) on January 1, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please...join me in a moment of silence..

*the sound of TAPS playing in the distance*

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 1, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AndyMosity, I expect employers to take advantage, that what they do. The purpose of my example was to show how some smoke Nazis couch their anti-smoking sentiments in a phony concern for the health of others, when in fact they simply wish to force their lifestyle choices on others. Never the less I welcome your long distance diagnosis of me, if its as accurate as your opinion you have failed on two counts.

Posted by Paul (anonymous) on January 1, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jafo, what’s that Italian for dork? It sounds like you just drive by Larry’s and have never been inside, but you know why they closed. Ya, it’s a gold mine, but they just got tired of running it and decided to quit now so they could blame it on the smoking ban. Go back to posting on fantasy sports, DORK.

Posted by mwernimont (anonymous) on January 1, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"....website of some crybaby who lost his job selling air cleaning equipment..andymosity

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is your first time using the internet. If you go to that website and click on the colored text (called hyperlinks) you'll be brought to websites such as Nicoderm's partner RWJF who admit to funnelling $200 million to lobby for smoking bans. Here are some of those grants and who they funded since you don't seem to understand how to click thru to supporting data.

Recipient: American Medical Assoc. $88,000,000.00

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/npreports/sm...

Recipient: American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association $99,000,000.00

http://www.rwjf.org/research/researchdet...

Recipient: numerous research universities around the country

http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/grantlist...

RWJF ties to the Johnson & Johnson Company:

http://www.rwjf.org/about/founder.jhtml

ALZA is the company which manufactures Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ for GSK:

http://www.alza.com/alza/products

ALZA is owned by Johnson & Johnson company

http://www.alza.com/alza/about

...according to this industry watchdog pharmaceutical nicotine product sales is a $500,000,000.00+ annual business almost exclusively owned by the Johnson & Johnson conglomerate, of which RWJF is an entity and single largest shareholder of J & J stock, with a $5.4 billion dollar holding.

http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/art...

Why would a pharmaceutical company fund smoking bans?

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005...

And as for your disregard of a government's action which eliminates an individual's livelihood.....you my friend are indicative of what's WRONG with this country.

Remember the holocaust poem? ....and when they came for me there was no one left to fight....

Socialism does not overtake a government in one day.....it creeps in slowly to steal proprty rights, liberties, and freedom.....and it's people like you who think that as long as it's not your freedom you won't stand to fight the injustice.......however, when one day the freedom you hold dear is jeapordized it will be too late...because your silence and support for previous governmental intrusions paved the way for the next. Trust me I heard this as justification in testimony at the capital for support of the bans last year. Lobbyists actually said in committee hearings..."...we already have laws for x....now we just need another law banning smoking....."

Posted by jafo (anonymous) on January 1, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL at Paul. I am honored that you took the time to go back and read some of my past posts, though.

Posted by Paul (anonymous) on January 1, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dork, I didn’t read your past posts out of admiration but just to see if I could pinpoint the exact date you became a know it all dork with the ability to pass a bar on the highway and determine the thoughts of the people in the bar.

Posted by Paul (anonymous) on January 1, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, I could not determine an exact date, looks like you have been a dork since the beginning.

Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mwernimont - I'm not going to waste my time sifting through your propaganda.

"....and when they came for me there was no one left to fight...." - nice touch, I use that one often. Guess what? The shoe fits on the other foot - In my opinion, clean air is my right, and I don't stand up and fight for it, nobody will.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

C’mon people. Anyone who has ever been inside "Larry's Bar" knows that the smoking ban is not the only reason it closed. For those of you who have not been inside, let’s just say it is very consistent with its appearance outside. The place didn't even have the $ to pay for basic upkeep of the building and all of a sudden the big bad smoking ban came in and ruined an otherwise thriving business? Give me a break. Sounds to me like the straw that broke the camel's back. And if you ask me, Fergus Falls will not experience a void which needs to be filled because there is no more “Larry’s Bar.” Obviously if you have the same 10 customers every night and all of them smoke, forcing them to go outside for 10 minutes every hour for a smoke is like forcing the business to close an hour early every night. But, honestly, if cutting out an hour of business every night is enough to make a business go under, that business probably isn’t doing very well in the first place.

It would be interesting to know what Larry Seibel died from. I wonder if Ms. Seibel is a smoker. Is it possible that the smoking ban, while temporarily costing Ms. Seibel her livelihood, may be saving her life? I wonder.

As for people drinking more in their homes than in bars… why would this not be a good thing? If you need to smoke inside while you drink and for that reason choose to stay at home, great, at least you won’t have to get in your car and drive afterwards. If you choose to go to a friend’s house and smoke and drink inside, fine, at least there one has the option of sleeping on the couch or in the spare bedroom, which, unless I’m mistaken, is not an option at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning when the bars shut down. At that point, they throw you out the door and, one way or another, you try to make it home. It seems to me this scenario would be more likely to result in drunk driving than the other. But I guess that’s just my opinion, I haven’t done a study or anything.

Posted by timetotalk (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Venti, what part of "Larry's Bar is a LEASED building" don't you understand? The owner of the building did not make any changes, updates. In my opinion, it was not the sole responsibility of Larry's Bar to do that.
Your comments regarding Mr. and Mrs. Seibel and whatever habits they may or may not have, have NOTHING to do with the bar closing. I was pretty sure I made my point clear on that earlier this week.
The entire issue is a done deal. Fergus Falls has lost it's one and only "hometown" BAR. We have clubs and supper clubs and dance clubs (which are, for the most part, great) but no good old fashioned bars, and that is sad.
Larry's Bar was never a place that needed to make a ton of money. They were there for their customers. They were not in business to make a huge profit, so Venti, the smoking ban DID break the camels back and that is a very sad deal.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The owner of the building did not make any changes, updates. In my opinion, it was not the sole responsibility of Larry's Bar to do that." - Agreed. However, if they were near going under and had any interest in staying in business, it might not have been a bad idea, in my opinion.

Also, I never said the Seibel's habits had anything to do with the bar closing. I simply asked if it might be possible that what is perceived as being "bad" for Ms. Seibel right now (the bar closing), may very well be "good" for her and her family in the long run (resulting in her living longer). I was also wondering if what was perceived as being "good" for Mr. Seibel in the short term (in the six years he spent managing Larry's Bar) may well have been "bad" for him and his family in the long run (causing him illness resulting in his death). Again, I'm not making any assumptions, just raising the question.

As far as the camel goes, it just seems like Larry's or the Legion at the request of Larry's could have done a few things to remove some of the other straws before this last one was placed on it's back. Again, just my opinion.

Posted by mwernimont (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...In my opinion, clean air is my right,..."-andymosity

Not in a private business establishment it's not..The owner pays the bills, it is not a public place.....you don't even have a right to be there if that business owner doesn't want you there. So when the American Cancer Society pushes the next ban in a private home, as they will.....is that also to "protect your right to clean air" in a place you have no business being?

"...QUOTATION:, Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety...." Benjamin Franklin

And again add the fact that all these bans were lobbied with funding from Nicoderm / RWJF money and the bans take on a very sordid dubious appearance indeed. American Lung, American Cancer, the AMA., etc. all sunk themselves down in the mud and forever tarnished their images once they accepted special interest pharmaceutical funding to push a rent seeking, marketing agenda.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...In my opinion, clean air is my right,..."-andymosity

"Not in a private business establishment it's not.." - mwernimont

Actually, in terms of second hand smoke, it is... now.

Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Venti summed up my feelings exactly. Another way of putting it: If a business owner is unwilling to conceed to the wishes of the public, the public can elect officials who will act on their behalf.

By the way, how much money does the tobbaco lobby direct toward elected officials, mwernimont?

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Private business establishments" may not be public places, but most are open to the public, and almost all have employees. Personal property rights have always been compromised when someone opens up their property to the public or hires employees - health department codes, employee protection laws, etc, etc. That comes with the territory of running a business. The smoking ban is just good government at work - clean food, clean water, and now, clean air.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do you anti-smoking people keep on keeping on, you won!!!! You can stop talking now, we get it, again you won…..unless….you realize this ban went too far. Maybe….you fear it will be revisited when people come to their senses.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As long as people continue to argue the ban is wrong, I will continue to argue it is right. Personally, I believe the "senses" have just recently been found.

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

chip - you've got 19 of the 92 posts on this thread - I have 1 (well, now 2 out of 93) - who's keeping on keeping on here? It's a dead horse. Happy New Year.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I’m keeping on keeping on, but I’m the one who has lost something, Happy Year to you.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Aww, you've lost your right to kill waitresses, bartenders and restaurant patrons? Poor little critter.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The smoking ban was wrong and it is a slippery slope towards other bans on things deemed unhealthy by the People for an Antiseptic Society(PAS). NY has already banned certain fatty foods. Let's face some facts: everything you ingest is bad for you in some way, especially if you over use it. Everything. Milk, sugar, alcohol, cigarettes, chocolate, potatos, beef, pork, water, flour, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, fish, vegetable oil, asparagus - everything. People react differently to things. Some can ingest large quanitites and be fine (let's not get into another alcohol debate Venti...haha), and some have their sinuses seal shut at the first whiff of smoke. We are all different. That said, it is impossible to legislate a society where everyone is protected from every possible ill. Can't be done. However PAS is trying to do just that. If a few people don't like something they impose their will upon the majority. This is a societal blight that transcends the smoking debate. It is currently the American way due to the rampant apathy in this nation. But I digress.....it comes down to this: nobody is forced to go to a bar or restaurant. You do/did not have to go to a smokey establishment. The establishment is a private business - open to the public, yes, but still privately owned. It was the right - a freedom if you will - of the owner of the bar/restaurant to ban or allow smoking. Now they lost that freedom. If there was such a public outrage over smoking in bars, don't you think more bars would have banned smoking on their own? Ahhh...but we just eliminate another freedom. In a way it's like rap music - if you don't like it, change the channel but don't ask to have it banned.

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And I suppose business owners should have the right (the freedom) to set their dishwasher temperatures where they want, and not require their workers to wash their hands after using the restroom, and make salads where they just cut up poultry, etc, etc. And if I don't like it, I don't have to go there? Thinker, you drag out the same old tired arguments that did not work when this was debated in the MN Legislature - slippery slope, business owners freedom, choice to not go there, and now, the PAS argument? Just keep throwing spaghetti up against the wall, and maybe someday, something will stick. It's your opinion that this ban is wrong - it is my opinion that it is good government at work - making bars, restaurants and other businesses healthier for workers and patrons alike - and you still have the freedom to smoke - just step outside.

Posted by Survivor (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All right I'll give in and post....my opinion....
I am a cancer survivor and for the life of me I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to take the chance of going thru the pure H__ of chemo if they can help it. But that said it is your choice not mine and I'll honor that. I HAVE frequented local bars, I leave my coat in the car, when I get home I undress by the washer and immediately wash my clothes, I then take a shower to get the smell out of my hair so I can sleep. That is my choice to go but I will say I have gone more now since the ban and have actually ate there too, when before I did not. I am not a heavy drinker - I puked enough during chemo I don't care to drink til I puke anymore.1-3 is enough for me. But if I have been in a bar all night that is heavy with smoke I feel like I have a hangover the next morning, my throat hurts and my nose is all stuffed up. It takes at least 2 days for the feeling to go away. Does this sound like fun? Someone along the way mentioned the "no-smoking" section - what a joke, have you ever sat in one. You might as well light one up there. My whole family leaves smelling like we were in a "bar". My Mom's boyfriend smokes and everytime they are here I have to "air" out the bedroom because of his clothes laying on the floor. Even if you do not smoke in front of the kids, or in the car when they are with you, or in the "room" - the kids are still exposed to it in your hair, clothes, fabric or carpet in the car. Have you ever hugged someone who smokes? It stinks! My kids do not want to hug my Mom's friend at all and they have known him for 10 years and love him but still will not hug him. It scares me to think of ALL these people who are now staying at home to drink and smoke - so there kids are in bed, you don't think it reaches them or it magically leaves by morning. Who is watching out for their rights? During chemo, I seen little kids being treated for lung cancer - tell me who stuck the cig in their mouth? All right off my high horse...actually what I'm saying is if we liked the food or to be with friends we've gone into smoking establishments no matter what- it's the way it is or was, our choice - but truthfully, we will go WAY MORE now.
The VFW in town has made an area for the smokers, they prepared and knew it was coming.
To say they will go after other rights is probably true... the Ten Commandments, what's next "In God We Trust" off of our money? Press 1 for Spanish? Change happens...cigs use to cost a lot less, but you still buy them no matter what the cost, so now you can't smoke in a bar, etc. but I'm sure you'll still smoke, which you do - everyone finds a way to make it work - example the VFW !!!!!

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well done Survivor, Thank You!

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I concur with buck. :)

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those who don’t remember history are bound to repeat it. I just heard there is going to be a “smoke easy” opening in Fergus or very near Fergus in the near future, like tomorrow night. It’s by invitation only (at first) and you must have a cigarette in your kisser when you knock. Bootleg cigarettes from organized crime will be available for $20.00 a carton and no tax. Whining non-smokers are not allowed, and every room is a smoking room, even the potty room, where you can use as many sheets as you like.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Update….dateline ….Fergus Falls, New “smoke Easy” will be named “Old Smoky II”, back ground music will be “Smoke Gets In Your Eyes”, Smoky Robinson, has been hired as the bouncer, appetizers will include, smoked salmon and smoked sausage and the staff will ware smoking jackets.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on January 3, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know I'm in on that gig.
Now I just need an invite to that joint up in Perham.

Posted by Paul (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Chip, will they serve minors and let you smoke MJ?

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are a member of the United Steelworkers of America…..oh you mean young people…of course, what’s the fun of being illegal if you can’t bust a few laws. That’s what happens when law and order break down and citizens resort to their own devices.

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bob - I heard that you had your own personal smoke-out in the crapper this week. You are quite the rebel.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bucksteel said :"And I suppose business owners should have the right (the freedom) to set their dishwasher temperatures where they want, and not require their workers to wash their hands after using the restroom, and make salads where they just cut up poultry, etc, etc"
This is not at all the same as banning smoking. You are talking about problems arising from consuming food in an establishment. These items relate to obvious food diseases that people can catch and spread via contaminated food. Nothing at all like smoking. Food is a basic necessity - smoking is a habit some people have. You may as well throw child labor in the argument for the same lack of relevence.

The smoking ban is a several things: 1) proof that the loud minority gets to push their views upon the majority (and no, a majority of any state or federal legislature is not speaking for the majority of the People of the US - only a fool would believe that), 2) a further erosion of freedom, 3) Clearly a slippery slope opening the doors of further behavior prohibition, 4) infringement upon the rights of the private business owner (go ahead and point out other rules/laws/regulations against business owners - I'd bet few if any are relevant to the smoking ban; don't bother with any consumption related arguments), and 5) nothing more than the continued attempt to legislate all behavior into a utopian antiseptic society - and attempt that will absolutely fail since, and I must say it again, you cannot protect everyone from everything. As more rights and freedoms are taken away do not come crying to me when something you enjoy doing is restricted or banned altogether - and it will happen. For the record, I don't smoke and never have.

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Air is a basic necessity. Clean food, clean water, clean air - they are now a package deal in MN Thinker. And that is a good thing. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here, here, buck. Breathable air, a necessity? Who ever heard of such a thing? LOL!

I, for one, will be over-joyed when Old Smokey II is up and running. It will keep them all away from the entrances and exits to all the buildings. BTW, chipmunk, you could just as easily open up this "smoke easy" in your very own house. You and the others can smoke yourselves silly and no one would give a chipmunk's behind.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Smoking is a legal thing to do if you are old enough. This ban is nothing more than a small bunch of "do-gooders" imposing their will upon private business - and society. But many of you will not get that point and will only say go ahead and take away another right that I may choose not to enjoy but that others do enjoy. Let Uncle Sam tell you what is or isn't good for you. Sure. The govt knows best. If this is such a health issue, why stop with a smoking ban? Ban all smokables, alcohol, all fatty food (the fat content to be decided by YOUR all knowing and benevolent govt), candy, all fast-food restaurants, all internal combustion engines, all plants/companies that use fossil fuel....these are all obvious health hazards and should be stopped. People should be forced to wear helmets at all times whether inside or out as a head injury can occur anywhere at any time.

Sound ridiculous? Absurd? Wait for it to happen....the continued attempt at the antiseptic society.....

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for your endorsement Venti, instead of five stars by James Beard, we will have five stars by (…..) Venti and we will keep the dishwater at an agreeable temperature in your honor. If you ever decide to stop by and they refuse you entry, just tell them you know the guy with the fluffy tail inside. You can come inside and pet me.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

Muuwwaaahahahahaha!!!!!

Posted by jafo (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thethinker, all the things you mentioned (Milk, sugar, alcohol, cigarettes, chocolate, potatos, beef, pork, water, flour, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, fish, vegetable oil, asparagus - everything), have some value to the life process, except ONE...smoking tobacco is 100% pure poison, and 100% guaranteed unhealthy. Eventually, it will be outlawed entirely.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Venti, 2008

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

114 posts on The Closing of Larry's. That has to be a FFDJ record. Ban anything you want but leave the chocolate alone! I would think since approx 75-78% of the population is non-smokers, they would be the majority, not a loud minority.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, but how do we really know, chip? How do we really know???

Thinker's got my back on this one. ;)

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We don't, Venti, We don't.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Venti....go get 'em....lol....

jafo - all the things I mentioned can cause serious illness and death(in certain circumstances). If the premise for banning smoking is health oriented it can easily be concluded that the antiseptic society theory should extend to all potentially unhealthy things. Breathing in auto exhaust is more deadly than a cigarette, and since as many if not more people drive cars than smoke we should ban cars too. Also, human have smoked for literally thousands of years. Like the sun rising in the east it is a way of humanity and civilization. The worst chemicals in cigarettes are not found in the tobacco but are in the paper used to roll it. Not trying to promote smoking but the real culprit is the paper - not the tobacco.

Jerry - a minority of people voiced the opinion that smoking should be banned (true, the majority of Americans do not smoke; smokers have held held steady at about 20% since the late 70's). If there had been a vocal majority the bar owners would have seen their business reduced (due to smoking) until they - voluntarily - banned smoking in their private establishments. Then more people would attend due to the smoking ban. However no such actions took place anywhere. In fact, I have not heard of any tavern having increased business due to the ban. Either it remained the same or decreased. The few bars in the area that did ban smoking failed. I can think of the Becker in DL - now called Goobers. They couldn't make it by banning smoking before there was any law.

It doesn't matter. You can't close Pandora's box or put things back into it. I won't change any of your minds with my reasons for being against the ban - which have nothing to do with health and everything to do with freedom. As I've mentioned before, I do not smoke nor have I ever smoked. But I did not see a public clamour to get smoke out of bars when it could be done voluntarily by the owners. It wasn't there. Now there is no choice as that choice, that freedom, has been taken away in the name of protecting everyone from everything. Go put on your helmets.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly, thinker. Just remember...

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on January 4, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This chat thread has finally gone Orwellian.
Nice pull, Venti.

Posted by kidvanwechel (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The smoking ban sure has a way of getting people excited. I think the delivery method of that sweet, sweet nicotine is what's to blame here. If bar patrons could get that sweet, sweet nicotine via another delivery method, the smoking ban wouldn't affect anyone. It's the burning of the tobacco that everyone (except smokers) hates. Put that sweet, sweet nictonie in a liquid, gum, inhalent, or some sort of dermal absorbtion form and everyone is happy (and I wouldn't have to burn my clothes after hanging out with the woodticks at Larry's Bar). The lung cancer rates would obviously drop too. Everyone wins! Horray for nicotine!

Posted by jafo (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thethinker... yes, everything you mentioned CAN cause harm, but they ALSO are beneficial in some way or another. That is NOT the case with smoking... and that the difference.

It is true that there are chemicals in the paper, but it is not true that the paper is the bigger culprit.

Tobacco
Only a portion of the tobacco inside a cigarette comes from the leaf of a tobacco plant. A significant amount of the shredded brown innards of most modern cigarettes is a paper product called "reconstituted tobacco" or "homogenized sheet tobacco," which is made from a pulp of mashed tobacco stems and other parts of the tobacco leaf that would otherwise go to waste. Manufacturers spray and impregnate reconstituted tobacco paper with nicotine and other substances lost during the process, along with as many as 600 chemical additives. These include several that may come as a surprise, such as ammonia, which aids in the delivery of nicotine, and chocolate, which masks the bitter taste of tobacco. Finally, the 'recon' is sliced to resemble shredded leaf tobacco.

In addition to reconstituted tobacco, cigarette companies pack cigarettes with so-called puffed tobacco (also called "expanded tobacco"), which allows them to produce more cigarettes per pound of tobacco grown with lower levels of tar particles in the smoke. Manufacturers saturate this tobacco, which they make from the leaf of the plant, with freon and ammonia gases and then freeze-dry it. This process expands the tobacco, increasing its volume to at least double its natural state.

Paper wrap
Though seemingly innocuous, cigarette paper is largely responsible for the rate at which a cigarette burns and the amount and density of the smoke it produces. The paper displays a pattern of concentric circle striations called "burn rings." The burn rings correspond to two different thicknesses in the paper, which serve to precisely control the speed at which the cigarette burns, slowing it automatically when the smoker is not inhaling in order to prolong the cigarette's consumption and speeding it up as the smoker takes a drag so as to maximize smoke intake. In addition, like the tobacco, the cigarette paper contains a host of chemicals, among them titanium oxide, which accelerates and maintains burning so the cigarette does not go out and the smoke is delivered evenly with each puff. These chemicals have contributed to many cigarette-caused fires, a problem that some manufacturers have not addressed until recently.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So did Larrys close on New Years eve?

Posted by jafo (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course it did...it said so in the Journal!

But, I will check, next time I drive by... I can tell these things, you know. ;-)