Fargo Smoking Ban

[Sioux-cia]

Quit smoking on Jan. 1 after almost 40 yrs. & haven't had one yet.

Probably the toughest thing I ever did. Still have a way to go before I consider myself off them for good. Still love the smell of a burning cigarette but the old stale odor is now nauseating.

Illinois had a state wide smoking ban start then & that along with other reasons convinced me to quit.

The part I thought I would cause me the most trouble with quitting was smoking at work.

The owners & 90% of the people smoked, so I was able to smoke in my office. When the ILL smoking ban started to my suprise the owners said no more smoking in the offices. That definately made it a lot easier for me to quit.

So far I made all the goals I set for myself. The big one is making it to the one year mark.

When I make that one, it will be time to celebrate.

It's the one of the most important and best things you've done for yourself! Congratulations!!

[Siouxmama]

Still love the smell of a burning cigarette but the old stale odor is now nauseating.

I haven't smoked since March 1987 (quit cold turkey......while at the bar), but sometimes I will take a big sniff of a new light up. I won't light one up thought, even after 21 years, what if I like it and start again. Don't even want to put myself in that position.

Congratulations Speez. Hope it's smooth sailing for you.

[redwing77]

Ok, since the Home Rule Charter passed, then why are we all in a tiffy over this?

The Smoking ban passed...for now. But it will now appear on EVERY ballot from here until they repeal this Home Rule Charter...

Or am I completely off?

I could live with a partial or full smoking ban either way. I was really hoping the Home Rule Charter wouldn't pass.

[Ray77]

Ok, since the Home Rule Charter passed, then why are we all in a tiffy over this?

The Smoking ban passed...for now. But it will now appear on EVERY ballot from here until they repeal this Home Rule Charter...

Or am I completely off?

I could live with a partial or full smoking ban either way. I was really hoping the Home Rule Charter wouldn't pass.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but because the Home Rule Charter measure passed, doesn't that just mean that Fargo city commissioners will be prevented from changing ordinances that voters put on the books. Why would this mean that it will appear on every ballot until this is repealed?

[Hammersmith]

Ok, since the Home Rule Charter passed, then why are we all in a tiffy over this?

The Smoking ban passed...for now. But it will now appear on EVERY ballot from here until they repeal this Home Rule Charter...

Or am I completely off?

I could live with a partial or full smoking ban either way. I was really hoping the Home Rule Charter wouldn't pass.

I assume you're talking about Measure #1. If you are, it doesn't do what you seem to think it does. Measure #1 takes away the ability of the city commission to change or repeal any ordinance(initiated by citizens or referred by the commission) approved by voters. It was an attempt by the pro-smoking camp to lock the partial ban in place that backfired on them. They were afraid that the commission would vote for a full smoking ban in a couple years even if the full ban failed on Tuesday. By passing Measures #1 & #3, it would've prevented the commission from ever changing the partial ban. Instead, the full ban will now be in effect and no future commission will ever be able to remove it. Oops.

While I don't mind them getting their just desserts, I also am sad it passed. I understand that many feel that the smaller the government the better, but I think the commission should have the ability to alter ordinances passed by the voters. Sometimes it might be because the initiated ordinance was worded poorly, or even illegally. Sometimes it's because an ordinance passed 25 years ago no longer has a purpose. In any case, it hamstrings the commission in some cases for no real benefit. If a future commission overturns a voter approved ordinance for no good reason, just vote the bastards out. Half the commission is up for reelection every other year; it's not like they have 10-year terms or anything.

[siouxlove]

Based on the fact that I have zero respect for you or your opinion, nothing that you say can possibly hurt my feelings. The fact that I called you out for your behavior does not imply that my feelings are hurt. I'm just the kind of person who will return the favor when somebody gives me attitude.

Although many other SS.com members respond to my posts, most of the responses are not negative and even the ones that disagree with me are at least civil in their approach to giving a counterpoint to my point. Most people are not nasty and spiteful like you are. Not expressing any hurt feelings much to your dismay, just calling a spade a spade.

You're a miserable human being who thrives on negativity and drama. I would say the same thing to your face if we were to ever cross paths and you were to treat me in person the same way you treat me here. Now go ahead and have the last word that you so desperately crave, I'm done with this thread.

So DaveK, you don't like Sioux-cia. I haven't read anything she posted to you or about you that was anywhere near what other posters have posted about or to you. In fact I remember in the football thread other members really got on you and then there was that peewee (?)hockey thread where you totally were reamed by other members. Yet, you single out one member to jump all over. Get a grip!!

[redwing77]

I assume you're talking about Measure #1. If you are, it doesn't do what you seem to think it does. Measure #1 takes away the ability of the city commission to change or repeal any ordinance(initiated by citizens or referred by the commission) approved by voters. It was an attempt by the pro-smoking camp to lock the partial ban in place that backfired on them. They were afraid that the commission would vote for a full smoking ban in a couple years even if the full ban failed on Tuesday. By passing Measures #1 & #3, it would've prevented the commission from ever changing the partial ban. Instead, the full ban will now be in effect and no future commission will ever be able to remove it. Oops.

While I don't mind them getting their just desserts, I also am sad it passed. I understand that many feel that the smaller the government the better, but I think the commission should have the ability to alter ordinances passed by the voters. Sometimes it might be because the initiated ordinance was worded poorly, or even illegally. Sometimes it's because an ordinance passed 25 years ago no longer has a purpose. In any case, it hamstrings the commission in some cases for no real benefit. If a future commission overturns a voter approved ordinance for no good reason, just vote the bastards out. Half the commission is up for reelection every other year; it's not like they have 10-year terms or anything.

Maybe not. I thought Measure #1 would allow these smoking ban-opponents to put the issue back on the ballot every single election.

I guess I'm wrong?

[Goon]

Quit smoking on Jan. 1 after almost 40 yrs. & haven't had one yet.

Probably the toughest thing I ever did. Still have a way to go before I consider myself off them for good. Still love the smell of a burning cigarette but the old stale odor is now nauseating.

Illinois had a state wide smoking ban start then & that along with other reasons convinced me to quit.

The part I thought I would cause me the most trouble with quitting was smoking at work.

The owners & 90% of the people smoked, so I was able to smoke in my office. When the ILL smoking ban started to my suprise the owners said no more smoking in the offices. That definately made it a lot easier for me to quit.

So far I made all the goals I set for myself. The big one is making it to the one year mark.

When I make that one, it will be time to celebrate.

Speez it is a daily fight with dip I took at smoking cessation drug and quit haven't had a dip in 17+ months not once.

It is tough I will all of a sudden have a craving for nicotine out of the blue with no rhythm. I have fought it took and nail.

I hope you can kick it. Everytime I go to Valley Dairy I look back at the dip behind the counter when the store clerk asks me if I need anything else.

[Siouxmama]

Everytime I go to Valley Dairy I look back at the dip behind the counter when the store clerk asks me if I need anything else.

NOOoooooo!! Don't do it Goon!

[Goon]

Makes you wonder what kind of god awful beer he drinks.

Smoking is killing the taste of his horrible beer.

[sprig]

Unfortunatley, bars are the thing that keep many people smoking. If you can smoke there, I think many would just quit.

Second hand smoke is the thing that keeps me from bars. Absolutely cannot stand smoke hangovers, and those occur in some nasty places without having a drink.

[Goon]

Some people enjoy drinking coffee while reading the paper, I enjoy smoking cigarettes while drinking beer. Sorry.

come on now that is a horrible analogy.

[Sioux-cia]

Being it's Father's Day, I've been thinking of my father. My parents divorced when I was an infant so I never really knew him. He moved to California where he drove truck for a California winery. I was told he smoked 2+ packs of cigarettes every day. He died from lung cancer. His autopsy did not reveal any other health problems or potential health problems, just lung cancer.

[Sioux-cia]

Went out last night (MN). Drinkin' a little, talkin' a lot, having a bit o' fun. NO SMOKE!!!!! This morning woke up without a smoke (or alcohol) hang over and my clothes didn't stink of second hand smoke.

One city, one state at a time....

[petey23]

Don't smoke cigarettes myself. Just think that it is crazy that in the United States we tell a private business owner that he can't allow something that is legal in the United States to be done in his/her place of business.

I do enjoy an occasional cigar so it's not like you can step outside in the winter for an hour to enjoy a cigar and a drink.

But that is the will of the 8 or 9,000 or so people in Fargo that voted so that is the way it will be I guess.

I just think we are heading down a slippery slope. What are the next targets? Beer? Liquor? Wine? Fast Food?

[Sioux-cia]

Don't smoke cigarettes myself. Just think that it is crazy that in the United States we tell a private business owner that he can't allow something that is legal in the United States to be done in his/her place of business.

I do enjoy an occasional cigar so it's not like you can step outside in the winter for an hour to enjoy a cigar and a drink.

But that is the will of the 8 or 9,000 or so people in Fargo that voted so that is the way it will be I guess.

I just think we are heading down a slippery slope. What are the next targets? Beer? Liquor? Wine? Fast Food?

I look at smoking the same as speeding down the highway. If you smoke and no one else is exposed to your second hand smoke (unless by choice), do it. But, if your smoke has an adverse affect on employees, non-smoking patrons who don't enjoy your second hand smoke then you should smoke somewhere else.

Many people enjoy speeding down the highway but speeding is going to have an adverse affect on other people on the highway, so you can't do it. You have to speed on private property (racetracks).

If you think about it alcohol consumption is already regulated. You can't drink and drive. You can't have an open container in the car. Public intoxication is against the law. You have to be 21 years of age or older to drink alcohol.

There are times when I wonder if fast food shouldn't be regulated. After seeing a 66 pound, 21 month old toddler with asthma and no other metabolic health problems, I wonder if that wouldn't be a good idea. She weighed 5 pounds less the previous month. She obviously doesn't have a choice in what she's fed. IMHO that's child abuse! But, I digress.

[petey23]

I look at smoking the same as speeding down the highway. If you smoke and no one else is exposed to your second hand smoke (unless by choice), do it. But, if your smoke has an adverse affect on employees, non-smoking patrons who don't enjoy your second hand smoke then you should smoke somewhere else.

Many people enjoy speeding down the highway but speeding is going to have an adverse affect on other people on the highway, so you can't do it. You have to speed on private property (racetracks).

If you think about it alcohol consumption is already regulated. You can't drink and drive. You can't have an open container in the car. Public intoxication is against the law. You have to be 21 years of age or older to drink alcohol.

There are times when I wonder if fast food shouldn't be regulated. After seeing a 66 pound, 21 month old toddler with asthma and no other metabolic health problems, I wonder if that wouldn't be a good idea. She weighed 5 pounds less the previous month. She obviously doesn't have a choice in what she's fed. IMHO that's child abuse! But, I digress.

For example. If you apply for a job at JT cigarro you make your own decision to do so. And if you go to a bar called JT cigarro which is a cigar bar, then you also make this decision to go there of your own free will and if you have any wits about you, you may reasonably deduct that since I am going to visit or apply for a job at a cigar bar that you may be exposed to smoke there and even if this doesn't occur to you and you end up there, you can leave of your own free will . No one forces anyone to work at or patronize a bar that allows smoking. don't like it, go somewhere else. Guess I am still a believer in free enterprise in America.

[LeftyZL]

I look at smoking the same as speeding down the highway. If you smoke and no one else is exposed to your second hand smoke (unless by choice), do it. But, if your smoke has an adverse affect on employees, non-smoking patrons who don't enjoy your second hand smoke then you should smoke somewhere else.

Many people enjoy speeding down the highway but speeding is going to have an adverse affect on other people on the highway, so you can't do it. You have to speed on private property (racetracks).

If you think about it alcohol consumption is already regulated. You can't drink and drive. You can't have an open container in the car. Public intoxication is against the law. You have to be 21 years of age or older to drink alcohol.

There are times when I wonder if fast food shouldn't be regulated. After seeing a 66 pound, 21 month old toddler with asthma and no other metabolic health problems, I wonder if that wouldn't be a good idea. She weighed 5 pounds less the previous month. She obviously doesn't have a choice in what she's fed. IMHO that's child abuse! But, I digress.

To me, and I'm not picking on you Sioux-Cia, but your 1st paragraph explains everything. In every restaurant/bar/etc., you have a choice whether you want to go to that specific place or whether you want to work at that place or not.

I know we want to make this country safe, or whatever you want to call it, but when do we cross the line? In California, they were(they might have) trying to pass a law fining drivers who smoked in their car with children present.

How can you possibly come up with an idea regulating what people eat? It's not just fast food, although that probably didn't help the situation, but what about what they feed the kids in general?

I used to really like going to Suite 49 because of the unique-ness it offered by being smoke free. They understand that they might not get some customer's because of the smoking issue, but that's the niche they want to be in and the customer base they want to target. I personally enjoyed going there over other bars in town(except for Judy's Tavern, of course.)

But the bottom line for me is what people have already stated: When do you start limiting private businesses on certain issues? People have the choice which bar/restaurant to go to, and if they decide not to go to a specific one because of smoke, eventually that place will close due to lack of business.

Everytime I hear that another state is passing this law, it just further restricts our freedoms.

[fightingsioux4life]

To me, and I'm not picking on you Sioux-Cia, but your 1st paragraph explains everything. In every restaurant/bar/etc., you have a choice whether you want to go to that specific place or whether you want to work at that place or not.

This is the problem that I have with the pro-smoking rights lobby. They think that smokers should have more rights than non-smokers. And that is not what this country was founded on. A person's rights and liberties are guaranteed so long as they don't infringe on other's rights and liberties and/or the activity in question does not cause harm to other people.

Smoking in an enclosed area exposes non-smokers to toxins that are worse than what the smoker is inhaling. That is why it is being regulated. Asbestos was discovered to be a cause of cancer, so we don't use it in building construction anymore. And if someone wants to renovate a building that has Asbestos in it, they have to remove the offending substance so that people aren't harmed by it. Based on pure private property rights however, we should just let businesses decide if they want to use Asbestos in their buildings and if people don't want to be exposed to it, they should just not patronize the place or "choose not to work there".

Some people think fast food is next, but I think that is different. If you go to McDonalds and gorge yourself on Big Macs and Quarter Pounders, you are only hurting yourself; the guy in the next booth isn't going to be harmed by it. Smoking harms not only the person lighting up, but everyone in that building who breathes in the second-hand smoke. And the next business owner who tells me (through the media) to get out if I don't like second-hand smoke will never get my business again. Ever.

I am not in favor of outdoor smoking bans, as I think that goes too far in punishing smokers. As long as they pick up after themselves, they can huff and puff all they want. But indoor smoking bans are no different than health regulations for bars and restaurants, fire safety regulations and building codes. Free enterprise must be tempered by reasonable concern for public health and safety.

End Rant.

[dakotadan]

This is the problem that I have with the pro-smoking rights lobby. They think that smokers should have more rights than non-smokers.

On the contrary. Smoking has been banned from essentially every single public place and private business. It is the anti-smokers who are looking to take away absolutely every single last right of smokers to have a few select businesses that choose to allow smoking. I don't see how you could make that statement with a straight face or even begin to believe it.

I guess I just don't understand why it is so difficult for some to grasp the idea that they ALREADY have the right to go to bars that don't allow smoking. Why do some feel so self righteous that they can't allow others the same right to choose to patronize a place that allows someone to smoke.

[Goon]

On the contrary. Smoking has been banned from essentially every single public place and private business. It is the anti-smokers who are looking to take away absolutely every single last right of smokers to have a few select businesses that choose to allow smoking. I don't see how you could make that statement with a straight face or even begin to believe it.

I guess I just don't understand why it is so difficult for some to grasp the idea that they ALREADY have the right to go to bars that don't allow smoking. Why do some feel so self righteous that they can't allow others the same right to choose to patronize a place that allows someone to smoke.

I am all for personal rights if you want to play russian roulette at a poker party at your house more power to you, if you want to do drugs in your home where I can't see it or smoke 8 packs of cigerettes great puff away but if I am sitting in McDonalds with my daughter present while she wears her happy meal that smoker doesn't have the rights to polute the air around me or my daughter.

I am torn on public BARS. I think smelly bars that don't serve food that allow smoking are some what different, however, public places like the malls, concerts, hockey games ____________ public event should be smoke free. Eventually you will be able to go to a bar and not smell smoke, that is just the way it is going. I can see public support for all eating, drinking establishments to be smoke free.

[Oxbow6]

There is no greater burden to today's healthcare system than the health issues that come from smoking. ND BCBS just asked for a 15% premium increase and has continued to raise it's rates for years. Coincidence? The baby boomers, who grow up in the smoking culture, are now the one's coming in with COPD, asthma, hypertension, cancer, macular degeneration...should I continue? These are, just to name a few, illnesses on the rise that are directly linked to the adverse effects of smoking. Don't complain as insurance rates continue to rise and in the same sentence say "my rights" are being infringed apon! If your smoking leads to a non-smoker having chronic health issues, not to mention your own, don't come to me with "the deer in the headlights" look when I tell you your health issues are directly related to your choice to smoke.

[Sioux-cia]

....if I am sitting in McDonalds with my daughter present while she wears her happy meal ....

We do have choices. Smokers have the choice to not smoke in bars, etc., they can go outside to smoke, or they can choose not to go to business that don't allow smoking. I haven't bowled in years because bowling alleys were so smoke filled, I could only stand being there a game or two. There were no other choices except bowl in a smokey atmosphere or don't bowl. Now, I can go bowling and have fun while I'm there! There were resturants where the food was wonderful but the smoking was terrible. There weren't choices except eating takeout. It's so trite to say, go somewhere else if you don't like smoke. Many times there wasn't a good 'somewhere else' choice. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

I didn't know California was ticketing drivers who smoke with children in the car. Children don't have a choice when adults subject them to second hand smoke. It's proven that 2nd hand smoke is a direct cause of many illness children may get; ear infections, asthma, upper respiratory infections, allergies and all those other potentially terminal illnesses which include bladder cancer, lung cancer, heart disease..

Good for California!!!

[Sioux-cia]

To me, and I'm not picking on you Sioux-Cia,....

A honest, respectful dialog without name calling is not 'picking on' anyone.

If we all lived, believed, and thought the same we wouldn't be Fighting Sioux fans, we would be the Stepford Wives.

[redwing77]

There is no greater burden to today's healthcare system than the health issues that come from smoking. ND BCBS just asked for a 15% premium increase and has continued to raise it's rates for years. Coincidence? The baby boomers, who grow up in the smoking culture, are now the one's coming in with COPD, asthma, hypertension, cancer, macular degeneration...should I continue? These are, just to name a few, illnesses on the rise that are directly linked to the adverse effects of smoking. Don't complain as insurance rates continue to rise and in the same sentence say "my rights" are being infringed apon! If your smoking leads to a non-smoker having chronic health issues, not to mention your own, don't come to me with "the deer in the headlights" look when I tell you your health issues are directly related to your choice to smoke.

They may be linked to smoking, but they are not BECAUSE of smoking. People develop lung cancer without being exposed to much if any smoking. If we all quit smoking across the board, lung cancer wouldn't cease to exist. It'd drop something like 85-90%, but it would still stick around. The problem is that we're too quick to blame one thing for the many problems we face in this world. Heh, morbidly speaking, you want to lower health care costs? Stop spending money on people over 75 years of age. No one tells you that, in the majority of people in the United States, most of the money you'll spend on health care will be spent on you within the last 40 years of your life. After 50 years of age, the amount of money spent goes up, smoker or non-smoker. It's just how it is.

BCBS raises its rates because it can. Health care rates goes up because it can. However, install a national health care plan and then watch what happens. It's bad enough now.... we'll get taxed to death. Maybe the National Health Care Plan can also cover morgue costs too.

There is no good way to alleviate this problem. Lots of things contribute to it. A "drug-first" society contributes to it. This means people look for the quick fix, the drugs or health care to cure their ills that they could resolve simply by eating better and exercising more. Drug companies face a lot of charges, sure, but they spend millions (if not billions) on meaningless crap (like drug-name pens, notebooks, etc. At one point, my father was tempted by a drug company to fly to Bermuda for a drug conference all on the drug company's dime... Seriously! Put that money into R&D or take the money for that and apply it to operating costs and drug prices will decrease and it won't affect their profits). Malpractice is OUT OF FREAKING CONTROL. The price of life is a hard number to come up with, but the one thing that we must remember is this: The cost is adjustable depending upon the construction of the jury and the quality (or lack of quality) of the attorneys in the case.

Health care costs are partially society's fault. We're scrambling to fix the faults in the system without trying to fix society. The "As long as I don't have to change my life" mentality is rife in the US. I know I've been guilty of it. Until that changes, we can expect higher costs.

End rant.