Smokers should give up??? or..not???

[imabison]

Yes, I will probably be in the minority on this, but...


On Saturday, I was at a bar, and yes there were a few people that "Accidentally" lit a cigarette, and before the bar staff could tell them to put it out or go outside other patrons did.

Anyway one person said oh it will not matter, its going to be put on the ballot in November again because of the loss of business.

I have said it before, and still feel that they have to wait at least 1 year to evaulate the loss of business issue.

Also I told 3 different people that I would be them on the spot that even if they do manage to get it on the ballat that it will not change.

They seem to think that there are tons of smokers that did not vote, and they will vote and change the outcome.

Sorry, I think its in place, and will stay. The train of people going outside to puff will continue.

Hey who sells little poker style chips that are different colors on each side? Maybe we can market them to the bars. Green I am still here but outside smoking, or red I have gone for the night clear my spot!! :) :)

I have alot of friends that are smokers, and I used to smoke so to me its just what I think. I can live with the smoke or without.

[met1990]

I'm just waiting for the first pro-smoking person or group to provide some statistics showing how much money bars have lost since the ban went into effect, not taking into account that its summer and FM is a ghost town every weekend.

[imabison]

I'm just waiting for the first pro-smoking person or group to provide some statistics showing how much money bars have lost since the ban went into effect, not taking into account that its summer and FM is a ghost town every weekend.
Exacly, I actually do think there are some smaller establishments in the city that could be hurt by that ban, but I hope not.

[1bizon1]

I am a former smoker that cannot stand a smoky bar anymore. However, it's still a legal product and no one is forced to work in said establishments. I get kind of tired at times of all the PC stuff. People telling us what is right for us etc. You cannot tell me that all the cig tax goes to health care for people with no insurance and needing hospitalization, meds, etc. If cig's were made illegal tomorrow who is going to make up the billions of dollars in lost tax revenue?
Smoking is proven to be bad for you. (it was also the greatest stress reliever I have ever known!) That's why I finally smartened up and quit. But for now it's still legal and no one should be able to tell a private business owner that a legal product cannot be used in their establishment.
As for the time limit when it can go back on the ballot, I do not know. I am quite certain that the bar owners cartel will get it back on the ballot. Does anyone else believe that this could put more drunk drivers on the road? The ones that just have to have that smoke with their favorite beverage in a bar? They will drive out to Mapleton, Horace, Hickson or....have a few too many and attempt to drive home. I am not trying to paint smokers/drinkers as drunk drivers. Just a something that came to mind when this whole ordeal headed to us voters again.
I'll get off the soap box now. Thanx for allowing me my personal rant. I may be right but I may also be crazy. Anyway, just my two cents.

[ndsubison1]

I know I am in the minority here but smoking bans are just plain dumb, how about our rights get infringed a little more. And incase anybody is wondering I am not a smoker just so you know.

[tony]

Meh. A safe working environment is a right (a hard-earned one at that) and abandoning it wouldn't end well for anybody. I mean even if you think that bartenders and waitresses don't deserve a safe work environment, then who does?

[TransAmBison]

Meh. A safe working environment is a right (a hard-earned one at that) and abandoning it wouldn't end well for anybody. I mean even if you think that bartenders and waitresses don't deserve a safe work environment, then who does?
Ughhhh.

I do believe the public should make the decision. The vote was in. I am fine with that. The argument about the safe working environment does not work with me, though. They don't have to work there. Now, if they have no other skills and can only do that, they have made their own bad decisions and should take responsibility. End rant.

[tony]

Ughhhh.

I do believe the public should make the decision. The vote was in. I am fine with that. The argument about the safe working environment does not work with me, though. They don't have to work there. Now, if they have no other skills and can only do that, they have made their own bad decisions and should take responsibility. End rant.

BAH! Bartenders and waitresses deserve a safe-working environment like anybody else. Who else is unworthy in your eyes of a safe working environment? Construction workers? Miners? Plant workers? Service workers? Oil refinery workers?

[TransAmBison]

BAH! Bartenders and waitresses deserve a safe-working environment like anybody else. Who else is unworthy in your eyes of a safe working environment? Construction workers? Miners? Plant workers? Service workers? Oil refinery workers?
Nice counter with the Bah to my Ugh. Notice I had extra "h"'s at the end of mine. That means my "ugh" had more emphasis. Seriously though, I understand your point, just disagree with it. Back to being a smart@$$, do you think the guys of Deadliest Catch should have to quit smoking to make their job a safe working environment? :D

[Trim]

Maybe we should get rid of drinking in bars too. I used to be a bouncer. More than once I had to get out the old headlock because some drunk guy was accosting a waitress. It wasn't a very safe place for them. How about the time the drunk guy smashed a chair over an innocent bystander's head? I could go on and on.

I enjoy the debate and agree with many points on both sides. However, there is just something about not allowing smoking at bars that seems fundamentally wrong to me. It's a bar, bad things happen there.

[BisonAccountant44]

BAH! Bartenders and waitresses deserve a safe-working environment like anybody else. Who else is unworthy in your eyes of a safe working environment? Construction workers? Miners? Plant workers? Service workers? Oil refinery workers?

Nobody is saying they don't have the right to a "safe-working environment." All they have said is that they have the same opportunity to work in that bar as they do for a construction company, mining company, factory, or other service company, and they choose to work in a place where the business owner allows a certain, while unhealthy, LEGAL activity to happen on his PRIVATE PROPERTY, and they accepted the risks that came along with that when they accepted the job. There are dangers in everyone of those other occupations you listed, and all the employees in those industries made the same type of choice when they accepted those jobs.

To me I could honestly care less where people smoke. I don't smoke, and I kind of like not stinking when I get home from the bar, but I see this as more of a property rights issue than it is anything else.

[BlueBisonRock]

Nice counter with the Bah to my Ugh. Notice I had extra "h"'s at the end of mine. That means my "ugh" had more emphasis. Seriously though, I understand your point, just disagree with it. Back to being a smart@$$, do you think the guys of Deadliest Catch should have to quit smoking to make their job a safe working environment? :D

That shouldn't be a problem as long as they smoke 50 ft off of the boat.

[mebisonII]

Has there been a constitutional challenge to these smoking bans? As I've said in other threads, I like the bans for selfish reasons, but I've always been surprised they can get away with it. I've thought that a well-organized constitutional challenge* might work, but I've never heard of one so either I'm assuming either there's some reason it wouldn't work, or no one quite cares enough fight it.



*I'm thinking of a challenge by smokers for the right to smoke, moreso than bar owners for the right to allow smoking.

[UTH]

That shouldn't be a problem as long as they smoke 50 ft off of the boat.

I'm enjoying watching where you're taking this thread... http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff311/indio_rojas/Watchwheregoingwhatdoingfail.gif

[tony]

Has there been a constitutional challenge to these smoking bans? As I've said in other threads, I like the bans for selfish reasons, but I've always been surprised they can get away with it. I've thought that a well-organized constitutional challenge* might work, but I've never heard of one so either I'm assuming either there's some reason it wouldn't work, or no one quite cares enough fight it.



*I'm thinking of a challenge by smokers for the right to smoke, moreso than bar owners for the right to allow smoking.

Well, the government is here partly to mediate between one person's right to do whatever they want and another's right not to be directly harmed by the first party doing whatever they want. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing somebody filing a suit like that - I'm no legal expert and could well be wrong. It'd be interesting to see how it plays out.

On the other hand, bartenders and waitstaff have a legal remedy open to them too: They can sue bar owners for allowing smoking (and just like airline attendants they would probably win).

Some good points made in other posts. Yes, some jobs are dangerous - the legal line (I think) is drawn by employer making the job as safe as is reasonably possible. And generally speaking, BisonAccountant44, bartenders have a legal obligation to cut off drunks - isn't that violating their right to drink?

If people could smoke without harming the health of folks around them, then this wouldn't be an issue.

Note: sometimes I like a good argument - today is obviously one of those days :)

[BisonAccountant44]

Well, the government is here partly to mediate between one person's right to do whatever they want and another's right not to be directly harmed by the first party doing whatever they want. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing somebody filing a suit like that - I'm no legal expert and could well be wrong. It'd be interesting to see how it plays out.

On the other hand, bartenders and waitstaff have a legal remedy open to them too: They can sue bar owners for allowing smoking (and just like airline attendants they would probably win).

Some good points made in other posts. Yes, some jobs are dangerous - the legal line (I think) is drawn by employer making the job as safe as is reasonably possible. And generally speaking, BisonAccountant44, bartenders have a legal obligation to cut off drunks - isn't that violating their right to drink?

If people could smoke without harming the health of folks around them, then this wouldn't be an issue.

Note: sometimes I like a good argument - today is obviously one of those days :)

You're right sometimes a good debate is fun. :)

I agree with you that we need to be able to mediate between where one persons rights end and another begin, and we have a number of laws inplace to do just that.

I would say that the difference though between that bartender/waitress cutting off an obviously intoxicated patron, and a law that doesn't allow others to smoke in that bar is that the reason the bar employee is obligated with not overserving is in the hopes of stopping that person from leaving the bar, and getting in their car to drive elsewhere, and hurting an innocent bystander who had no idea what danger they were in. A patron going into that bar knows what is/could be going on there, in regards to the smoking and even the possibility of what another drunk customer may do as Trim pointed out, and is choosing to put themselves into that situation.

[TransAmBison]

Honestly, who goes to a bar for their health?

[DenverBison05]

Has there been a constitutional challenge to these smoking bans? As I've said in other threads, I like the bans for selfish reasons, but I've always been surprised they can get away with it. I've thought that a well-organized constitutional challenge* might work, but I've never heard of one so either I'm assuming either there's some reason it wouldn't work, or no one quite cares enough fight it.



*I'm thinking of a challenge by smokers for the right to smoke, moreso than bar owners for the right to allow smoking.

There probably hasn't been a challenge because this would be a slam dunk case in favor of the government.

Since there is no fundamental right involved (i.e. it doesn't involve a right such as the freedom of speech) and it doesn't involve any suspect classifications (i.e. race or national origin) the standard of review would be the rational basis test. Therefore the burden would be on the smokers or bar owners to prove that the ban is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. In this case the governmental purpose is health of its citizens.

Reviews under the rational basis test are almost always upheld as long as the government states a logical reason. THe law would have to be arbitarry or irrational for the ban to be declared unconstitutional This is only a brief synopsis of the constitutional analysis for a smoking ban. It would take more than a few pages worth of writing to explain it all and Im sure no one would read the whole thing, so I gave you the condensed version.

[Bison_Pride]

I'm in the industry and since the ban has taken effect, I've heard 10x more positive comments than negative ones. Some from customers, but mostly from employees, the majority of whom are smokers. Of all those people, not one has told me they bothered to vote. The ones who have made all the noise are the bar owners who are worried about being at a disadvantage, a normal reaction. Most of the customers and employees have adapted just fine. One comment I've heard more than once is that they find they are drinking more because they aren't smoking as much.

[Ferd]

I am a former smoker that cannot stand a smoky bar anymore. However, it's still a legal product and no one is forced to work in said establishments. I get kind of tired at times of all the PC stuff. People telling us what is right for us etc.

++++++++++++++

[mebisonII]

There probably hasn't been a challenge because this would be a slam dunk case in favor of the government.

Since there is no fundamental right involved (i.e. it doesn't involve a right such as the freedom of speech) and it doesn't involve any suspect classifications (i.e. race or national origin) the standard of review would be the rational basis test. Therefore the burden would be on the smokers or bar owners to prove that the ban is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. In this case the governmental purpose is health of its citizens.

Reviews under the rational basis test are almost always upheld as long as the government states a logical reason. THe law would have to be arbitarry or irrational for the ban to be declared unconstitutional This is only a brief synopsis of the constitutional analysis for a smoking ban. It would take more than a few pages worth of writing to explain it all and Im sure no one would read the whole thing, so I gave you the condensed version.

Thank you, that was very informative!

[Thundering Herd]

I can't smoke in Chub's anymore??? Dammit!
:banghead: :ranting: :mad: :smh: :confused:

[met1990]

I can't smoke in Chub's anymore??? Dammit!
:banghead: :ranting: :mad: :smh: :confused:

Don't worry. You'll be able to breathe in decades of secondhand smoke in Chubs for years. That's part of its charm.

[Herd Mentality]

Glad to see that JT's found a loophole to allow their patrons to smoke in the tobacco shop portion of the business. Can't believe "the moral majority" is already clamouring on how to close it,

[imabison]

Glad to see that JT's found a loophole to allow their patrons to smoke in the tobacco shop portion of the business. Can't believe "the moral majority" is already clamouring on how to close it,
I am not against what J T Cigarros has done, now will the other establishments add a Tobacco Shop to their locations, and will the city allow it to happen.

I noticed it did say in the article that no alcoholic beverages are allowed in the smoke shop. Will that mean that the powers to be will send someone in to by a beverage and then sneak it in to the Tobacco Shop to see if they are following the rules?

[TransAmBison]

I'm glad for JT's. The article said there have been complaints. Honestly???? Whoever complained really needs to get a life.

On a sidenote, when we went downtown Minneapolis for the Bison/Gophers game there were bars that had an outside section where you could smoke and drink that was covered with a tent and had large heaters. They even had a little beer cart out there to buy beer at. I wonder how they worked that to keep it legal. Possible avenue for Fargo bars?

[Herd Mentality]

I'm glad for JT's. The article said there have been complaints. Honestly???? Whoever complained really needs to get a life.

On a sidenote, when we went downtown Minneapolis for the Bison/Gophers game there were bars that had an outside section where you could smoke and drink that was covered with a tent and had large heaters. They even had a little beer cart out there to buy beer at. I wonder how they worked that to keep it legal. Possible avenue for Fargo bars?

I heard last weekend that the Hub is already planning on construction of a LARGE, outdoor HEATED patio.

[Bison_Pride]

How is that a loophole when you can't even drink in there? There are places in Fargo that have patios you can still drink on and smoke if you like, Big D's for example. Those sound like better options for smokers than what JT's has.