Minnesota Smoking Ban (Welcome: to buy, income, restaurant)

[dennis s]

Originally Posted by nick is rulz

why is it that smokers are okay to ostracize for being disgusting and unhealthy but fat people arent?

fat people don't blow their fat into my face.......... that's why!

[nick is rulz]

hahahaha that was an excellent reply.


point I am trying to illustrate is in the matter of picking and choosing which vices we disapprove of due to health concerns, its hypocritical to bash smoking and smoking alone when you consider how fat this country is.

[AVguy]

The real distinction that you are missing is that smoking affects other people's health because we breathe the same air, while other activities, such as eating unhealthy foods, does not impact the health of the people not partaking in the unhealthy activity. For example, if you decide to pig out at Cheesecake Factory and eat an entire cheesecake on your own, my blood pressure, cholesterol levels, etc. are not effected. However, if you breeze through a few cigarettes at the table next to me while I eat a salad, most people would agree that my health has been negatively impacted. This is a pretty easy distinction to recognize, in my opinion.

Some people have a knee-jerk reaction that banning smoking in public places is too paternalistic. Banning smoking in your own home (similarly to marijuana) would be paternalistic. However, not compromising the health of people who choose to not engage in unhealthy behaviors is seen as good public policy by most.

One note on the argument that smoking has not been shown to cause negative health consequences, the main reason for this lack of scientific evidence is because it is seen as immoral to subject people to studies in which the controlled condition is widely thought to be dangerous. No institution is going to incur the liability and scrutiny of conducting a longitudinal study in which people are either required to smoke or required not to smoke. But only under these conditions would these scientific results be "proved."

[TimtheGuy]

Cigarettes Suck!!!!

[TimtheGuy]

Yea, that's a great scent they leave on people!!

[glitter]

I am appalled at the fact that I as a smoker am ostrocized and made to feel like a second class citizen(because I do something on purpose that is bad for me), and because it costs the health care industry money, but there is no penalty for eating french fries, sky diving, bungy jumping, riding an airplane, boat, driving a car, walking down the street. ALL OF WHICH COULD HAVE DIER CONSEQUENCES and if you do any of these things on purpose you are taking your life into your hands. BUT GUESS WHAT it's your life and your right to pursue happiness and liberty is protected by the United States Constitution.

As for you non-smokers, I hear you that you don't like the smoke, so you have some options. Baker's Square went non-smoking of it's own accord many years ago as have some other places. You need to lobby your local bar owner to go non-smoking ON HIS OWN!!!!! The right to allow an activity in a place of business you own is your perrogative. I can smoke outside and that's not my main beef with this non-smoking law. My secondary beef is that I make my livelihood in a bar and am scared ****less that I am going to be on welfare in a year. BUT MY MAIN complaint about this law is how dare I repeat HOW DARE the government not have the balls to outlaw a behavior and yet have the gumption to tell a land (business) owner that he/she is not longer allowed to permit a LEGAL activity to take place there. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF I COULD IMPEACH THE GOVERNOR AND ALL THE HOLIER THAN THOU REPS I would. Guess what? prohibition didn't work in the 20's and this won't work either!

[glitter]

Originally Posted by AVguy

The real distinction that you are missing is that smoking affects other people's health because we breathe the same air, while other activities, such as eating unhealthy foods, does not impact the health of the people not partaking in the unhealthy activity. For example, if you decide to pig out at Cheesecake Factory and eat an entire cheesecake on your own, my blood pressure, cholesterol levels, etc. are not effected. However, if you breeze through a few cigarettes at the table next to me while I eat a salad, most people would agree that my health has been negatively impacted. This is a pretty easy distinction to recognize, in my opinion.

"

You don't HAVE to go to bars, you choose to. So choose not to and you'll be fine.

[dennis s]

I love to smoke a cigar once in a while I also like to be around people.(mostly females) I have found though that the two don't mix. Now I only smoke when I'm alone or with other cigar smokers. You are right though, part of the experience of being at a bar is the smoke. I remember being in South Carolina in a bar and asking the bar tender if I could smoke a cigar. He laughed and said "boy, yo in Sou' Ca'lina now, we love ouah t'bacca" I was very happy and had a great time. In Palm Beach it's a whole different story as one might imagine.
On the other hand in a restaurant I don't want to smoke my, or anyone else's cigarettes.

[AVguy]

Originally Posted by glitter

You don't HAVE to go to bars, you choose to. So choose not to and you'll be fine.

Likewise, you can smoke wherever you want to, including private residences and outdoors, but don't smoke where I'm eating. If you smoke where I eat, I have no choice not to be exposed to your smoke, similarly to the new law not letting you smoke in smoke-free restaurants. Your main argument actually cuts both ways.

If you are looking for a reason not to like the new law, just simply write that it sucks, because it does suck for smokers. However, there is a long history of common law and statutory provisions that allow governing bodies to regulate "legal" activity in public areas. (For example, consider that alcohol is legal but you cannot operate a vehicle on a public roadway with an open container, nor can you drink a case of beer in public. But I thought that alcohol was "LEGAL"!?) Private business owners subject themselves to public regulations as soon as they open their doors to the public. Private business is not "private" in the same sense as the activities in my home are private. Because businesses open their doors to the public, and because governments regulate public behavior and actions, businesses are allowed to operate with the blessing of the government, despite how you feel things work. We can argue this point if you would like, but a closer examination of this country's history and laws will show you that freedom and liberty has never stood for the proposition that you can do whatever you want whenever you want.

If your public taking argument is really your best argument, you are better off just ranting about how the law sucks and how non-smokers choose to expose themselves to smoke. The state goverment's actions are quite well founded in law, and based on public opinion, I would say that the state legislators listened to their constituents.

Do you really think that the new law amounts to alcohol prohibition? I can't wait to read that!

[LeroyBSimpson]

Before I start, nice to meet ya...

Originally Posted by glitter

...but there is no penalty for eating french fries, sky diving, bungy jumping, riding an airplane, boat, driving a car, walking down the street. ALL OF WHICH COULD HAVE DIER CONSEQUENCES and if you do any of these things on purpose you are taking your life into your hands...

For most of what you just said, the consequences are limited to the active party. However, smoking affects anyone within breathing distance. You can smoke (or anyone elses) for all I care, that is, until your smoking affects my health. In your car, in your home, OK, but it's time public spaces were made a bit less polluted.

Originally Posted by glitter

...
As for you non-smokers, I hear you that you don't like the smoke, so you have some options. Baker's Square went non-smoking of it's own accord many years ago as have some other places. You need to lobby your local bar owner to go non-smoking ON HIS OWN!!!!! ...

It doesn't work that way and you should know that. Business owners are loath to anger of anyone. Since the smokers are already entrenched, there's no way an owner is gonna anger of an established group on the chance new patrons will visit. It takes a clean (smoke free) slate to get new patrons in.

Originally Posted by glitter

...
BUT MY MAIN complaint about this law is how dare I repeat HOW DARE the government not have the balls to outlaw a behavior and yet have the gumption to tell a land (business) owner that he/she is not longer allowed to permit a LEGAL activity to take place there. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

I can't drink alcohol in a school, I can't drive in a pedestrian mall, I can't drink alcohol at a polling station, yadda yadda yadda. There are multiple examples of restricted behavior for what's defined as the public good. Add one more to the list.