Fargo Smoking Ban

[SportsDoc]

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.

As a health care practitioner (dentist), I could not agree more. Not only do the smokers cause BCBS rates to rise, I, as a non-smoker, get to help pay for it too.

And, on another note, it baffles me to no end that we can enforce seat belt laws, but not have helmet laws on motorcycles enforceable. Why is that "freedom" different? And, by the way, I come down on the side of helmet laws, not revoking seat belt laws.

[Shawn-O]

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.

I am no expert at all, but I agree with you on the potential complications of second-hand smoke, and the issues created by it. That being said, I've read several articles that state the rising cost of perscription drugs is the primary driver for the increase in health-care costs and premiums. I don't mean to get way off-topic, but I'd be interested in your take on that.

[Oxbow6]

I am no expert at all, but I agree with you on the potential complications of second-hand smoke, and the issues created by it. That being said, I've read several articles that state the rising cost of perscription drugs is the primary driver for the increase in health-care costs and premiums. I don't mean to get way off-topic, but I'd be interested in your take on that.

Right on the money there. But why is that? More chronically ill people need more meds to sustain a quality of life. And why are they chronically sick? Again, no other risk factor, that is non-genetic and avoidable by choice, that causes more of a burden to healthcare system than smoking. It is just that simple. Smoking and it's complications/risks to the human body kills more people than any other controlled lifestyle factor--even obesity by poor diet choices.

[Oxbow6]

As a health care practitioner (dentist), I could not agree more. Not only do the smokers cause BCBS rates to rise, I, as a non-smoker, get to help pay for it too.

And, on another note, it baffles me to no end that we can enforce seat belt laws, but not have helmet laws on motorcycles enforceable. Why is that "freedom" different? And, by the way, I come down on the side of helmet laws, not revoking seat belt laws.

My wife, by education, is a Neuro/Ortho RN. She said when we got married the one thing I couldn't ever do is drive a motorcycle without a helmet. She said when she worked in that field, the worst of the worst traumas were bike accidents without helmets. Scrambled eggs!!

[Cratter]

Call me crazy, but its a sad day in America when I can't open a Bar called:

"Cratter's Bar and Cigars" - A place for people that went to have a drink and have a smoke. This place of course would be where people like me (the owner) would go to enjoy a drink and cigar.

But I should be thankful because the Government knows best and is looking out for me by saying "NO" you can't smoke inside.

It's called the slippery slope and there is no end in sight. UND already now has an outdoor ban on smoking. Again call me crazy.....but that should never happen anywhere.

I have been known to frequent a MPLS bar. Bars and smoking just seem to go together. So the bar decided to help out there smokers by making a nice smoking section in the back of the bar outside...low and behold the place was so busy they decided to add a bar outside and sell alcohol. They eventually added heaters (for the winter), lights, and a canopy. The nonsmokers would come out to hang out because of the popularity. Again to bad they couldn't have added walls for wind protection for the "smokers" because I guess then it would technically be a bar that had smoking....thanks Government.

A note that makes America Great: Just because you don't agree with something (smoking) doesn't mean we should pass laws to ban or prohibit them. We live in Free Republic not a Democracy.

Alexander Hamilton, also in 1788:

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."

End Rant from a nonsmoker.

[Goon]

My wife, by education, is a Neuro/Ortho RN. She said when we got married the one thing I couldn't ever do is drive a motorcycle without a helmet. She said when she worked in that field, the worst of the worst traumas were bike accidents without helmets. Scrambled eggs!!

My wife works in SCCU and calls them Donor Cycles.

[Ray77]

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 guess I disagree with this logic. I look at it this way - take smoking out of the equation - we both have the same "right" to go into any restaurant, bar, workplace, business, etc. Now, you have 2 people...one that wants to ban smoking and one that wants smoking to be allowed. Who is more "right"? Smoking is harmful to non-smokers. I guess I feel that the "right" to breathe clean air and not be affected by smoke is greater than someone's "right" to be able to smoke in that establishment when it affects others. If you want to smoke, you still can, you just have to go outside to do it. It's not about a non-smoker wanting to take away a smoker's "right" to smoke...it's about not allowing them to do it indoors where it affects others.

[Shawn-O]

Right on the money there. But why is that? More chronically ill people need more meds to sustain a quality of life. And why are they chronically sick? Again, no other risk factor, that is non-genetic and avoidable by choice, that causes more of a burden to healthcare system than smoking. It is just that simple. Smoking and it's complications/risks to the human body kills more people than any other controlled lifestyle factor--even obesity by poor diet choices.

Could it also be very inflated marketing budgets from the pharmaceuticals? (Twice the marketing spend as R&D industry-wide). I'm as pro-business as anyone, but big pharma has a seat right at the table with big tobacco in this mess. I was wondering if you'd give them a free pass, which you did in your remarks.

[Ray77]

You're missing the point. We could have our cake and eat it too by simply giving people the option of going to either a smoking or non-smoking bar. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Oh really? I'm missing the point? I am for the smoking ban and the bars that I like to go to allow smoking. Actually, how many non-smoking bars in Fargo can you name (bars, not restaurants)? I'm sure there may be 1 or 2, but I haven't heard of any. So to tell me that I can go somewhere that is non-smoking - isn't that like having it all your way? Great...I can choose between 2 places!!! Also, this isn't all or nothing - you can still smoke, just do it outside.

[Cratter]

I guess I disagree with this logic. I look at it this way - take smoking out of the equation - we both have the same "right" to go into any restaurant, bar, workplace, business, etc. Now, you have 2 people...one that wants to ban smoking and one that wants smoking to be allowed. Who is more "right"?

All right good argument....now replace that "customer" with "owner." Both have the same right: one who can open a non smoking bar and one that can open a smoking bar. Who is more "right"? It use to be no one was "right," hence the individual owner had the right to choose the business how they wanted to run their own business.....but I guess now thar "right" has been taken away. The right to do what one chooses.

[Hammersmith]

Just throwing this out here...

Would it be workable to have smoking licenses for businesses just like liquor licenses? That way, a city could restrict the number of smoking establishments for the public's health, yet still provide fluid exemptions to places like JT Cigarro's. A city's council or commission could set a figure of 75% non-smoking, or 90%, or even 98%. It's probably a bad idea since the system would get too complicated, too quickly, but it could provide a type of safety valve for a limited number of smoking businesses. And the precedent has already been set with alcohol.

[Shawn-O]

Just throwing this out here...

Would it be workable to have smoking licenses for businesses just like liquor licenses? That way, a city could restrict the number of smoking establishments for the public's health, yet still provide fluid exemptions to places like JT Cigarro's. A city's council or commission could set a figure of 75% non-smoking, or 90%, or even 98%. It's probably a bad idea since the system would get too complicated, too quickly, but it could provide a type of safety valve for a limited number of smoking businesses. And the precedent has already been set with alcohol.

I was wondering what was going to happen to Cigarro's, so thanks for the post.

[Speez]

Just throwing this out here...

Would it be workable to have smoking licenses for businesses just like liquor licenses? That way, a city could restrict the number of smoking establishments for the public's health, yet still provide fluid exemptions to places like JT Cigarro's. A city's council or commission could set a figure of 75% non-smoking, or 90%, or even 98%. It's probably a bad idea since the system would get too complicated, too quickly, but it could provide a type of safety valve for a limited number of smoking businesses. And the precedent has already been set with alcohol.

After the Illinois smoking ban went into effect all you had to do was be a "Hooka" (sp) Bar.

The owner was able to have limited entertainment & refreshments. It was part of the culture & was given an exemption.

Before there was a statewide ban, certain towns bannned smoking. The outcry of unfair advantage was always being brought up. I actually expected bars to become private clubs with nominal dues ($1.00) with one of the main rules to allow smoking. Don't know why it wasn't tried, but all buildings are non-smoking now.

Even though I used the smoking ban to help me quit smoking, I can see the other side of the argument.

If I owned a company or a business I would have a hard time not smoking in the building.

To have all the responsibility to make the business sucessful & paying all the bills, I would have a tough time abiding by the ban. Looking back I would probably not abide by it. I would let it be known this is a smoking establishment or company & if your not inclined to smoke or tolerate it, Please Do Not Enter or apply for a job here. I know I couldn't get away with it, but I would give it a shot.

Matter of fact the owner of our company just started smoking in his office again. Not sure if it's because the windows are open & he thinks no one can tell or if he feels the same way I would.

[Oxbow6]

Could it also be very inflated marketing budgets from the pharmaceuticals? (Twice the marketing spend as R&D industry-wide). I'm as pro-business as anyone, but big pharma has a seat right at the table with big tobacco in this mess. I was wondering if you'd give them a free pass, which you did in your remarks.

Not disputing your take on pharma, but to say they are at the table at the same level as tobacco is a leap. Pharma, for all their faults, helps provide a possible cure or solution to what tobacco causes. Not giving pharma a pass, but this is an apples to oranges scenerio.

The healthcare system of this country that I work in has flaws that are too many to count. The main issue

I see is that people don't take responsibility to their own well being. When they are sick or ill, they want a quick cure, like going thru the drive-thru at McD's, but they won't think about modifying their lifestyle. i.e losing weight, exercising, stop smoking,...

There are no easy answers to the healthcare issues we face as a country. Bottom line is you, as an individual, need to take accountability for your own health. If you smoke, stopping is the single greatest lifestyle change you can make for the betterment of your health long-term.

PS: I wouldn't want to receive healthcare in any other country but ours. It is not perfect here but it is still the best system overall worldwide.

[Bison Pride]

Wrong again.

http://www.wday.com/tv/?page=video&vid=29_jtciggaro

[Sioux-cia]

Wrong again.

http://www.wday.com/tv/?page=video&vid=29_jtciggaro

Thanks for the link. Good to see that not only are their employees NOT losing their jobs but sounds like JTCiggaro is actually going to hire more employees. Guess the non-smoking zealots can take that off their list of 'things to feel guilty about'.

[Sioux-cia]

To say they're staying in business is very misleading. They are in essence starting over from square one.

Twist it any way you want but the facts are that JTCigarro was planning this change in business for quite some time. The smoking ban did not cause them to change their business and start from square one. They have been and are negoitating for one of three new venue spots, they already have financing and they have blue prints in hand. All of this did not occur within a few days of the smoking ban vote.

DaveK, wrong once again!! By the way whatever happened to,

.... I'm done with this thread.

[siouxjoy]

I am pretty torn on this subject. I don't smoke, and don't intend to start. I grew up with a mom that smoked heavily, and I believe that my "asthma-like" condition (that's what the doctor called it) was caused by growing up with a smoker. But, I also know that she was addicted to nicotine, and was not able to free herself of the addiction.

I can remember a few years ago, when she and I went out to eat, the hostess asked which section--smoking or non-smoking--and I rolled my eyes when she insisted we sit in the smoking section. I realized that, sure, she could sneak out and have a smoke outside, but then I wouldn't be hanging out with my mom anymore, I would be sitting at a table while she would be relegated outside. So, we sat in the smoking section and I spent some precious time with my mom (and she tried really hard to only smoke a little bit and blow her smoke away from me). It was what it was and we made do.

I love being in smoke-free bars and restaurants. I was super excited to discover that St. Paul was smoke free when I went down for the Final Five. But, ultimately, I hate that people (smokers) can be made to feel like second-hand citizens, which I think sometimes happens as a side-effect of smoking bans.

[Sioux-cia]

I mistakenly referred to the pissing match as "this thread" because that's what you had turned it into. I didn't mean I was abandoning the original topic...

...I'm giving the explanation only because other SS.com members are worthy.

Gotcha!

And I'm sure the other SS.com members whom you have deemed 'worthy' are eternally grateful.

[Slamdance]

I find this thread kinda funny, because I have been living with the smoking ban here in CA for quite some time.

It is nice to go out to a bar or two, and not smell horrible by the end of the night.

Some of the bars illegally allow smoking. They set up "kitties" for the smokers to donate to if they are lighting up, in case the bar gets fined.

I feel, as some on here do, that if I owned a business and wanted to allow smoking, why can't I do so? You do not have to patronize my place, you don't have to work here. Why are allowing this country to become such a nanny state?

I ride motorcycles. Prior to the helmet law here in CA, I wore my helmet 90-95% of the time. It saved my life on a number of occasions. But I still voted against it. I do not like having my choices taken away from me.

I don't smoke (except for an occasional cigar at home or in Vegas), but I am almost ready to take it up just to piss off all the self-righteous non-smokers. I remember when Dagwoods opened and was the first non-smoking bar in GF. I thought, "What a brilliant business decision." Everytime I visited home and went out to Dags, it was packed. Now that marketing opportunity for a new place is removed.

I don't get it.

[Sioux-cia]

I love being in smoke-free bars and restaurants. I was super excited to discover that St. Paul was smoke free when I went down for the Final Five. But, ultimately, I hate that people (smokers) can be made to feel like second-hand citizens, which I think sometimes happens as a side-effect of smoking bans.

Your post points out two important facts in the 'smoke/choose not to smoke' argument. You made a choice as an adult to sit in the smoking section of a resturant to spend time with your mom. That's great. It is important to spend time with your parents, family and friends. AND I appreciate that nicotine for most is an addiction. Like many addictions, it's hard to quit.

Children don't have a choice regarding exposure to second hand smoke. If smokers were cognizant of the rights of children (and non-smokers) not to be exposed to second smoke, California would not be looking at/or already has passed a bill to cite smokers who smoke in cars with children passengers. You mention your 'asthma' like condition caused by second hand smoke, that's serious! You didn't have the choice to move to a non-smoking environment. I see children crying in pain due to an ear infection daily. Many of those children live with parents who smoke. They swear they don't smoke in the house or in the car yet when I walk into the exam room the smell of stale smoke slaps me in the face as I enter. I see young pregnant women who still smoke. "I've cut way down. I only smoke around half a pack of cigarettes a day now." Well, let's see, hmmm, that's 10 cigarettes a day your fetus is smoking!!

As an adult, the choice is go to a business that allows smoking or don't go. Big choice. People talk as if there were a multitude of non-smoking venues to go to, there weren't. Now it's possible to go to work and go out after work or any time without coughing and hacking because of someone's choice to smoke.

If your smoking only affects you and you choose to continue to smoke, go for it!! But, when it affects others who don't want to be exposed to your second hand smoke and all the dangers it brings, it's time to stop smoking or go somewhere else to smoke. Trite as it sounds, smokers have rights, too. This ban enforces those rights.

Someone likened smoking bans to 'white only' establishments of the past and see the smoking ban as delegating smokers to the 'non-white' status of persons of color from not so long ago. I don't see the ban as making smokers second hand citizens. They still have the right to smoke and to go into non-smoking establishments, they just can't smoke there. In the past, if you weren't white, unless you were an employee, there was nothing you could do to go into 'white only' establishments. That agrument doesn't fly for me.

[siouxlove]

You made a choice as an adult

Children don't have a choice

It all comes down to Choice! Do you have a choice or not?

It's been a hard week for those of us who knew Krista Gisvold. She was in a motorcycle accident. She chose to ride without a helmet. Her parents took her off life support a few days ago and donated her organs so others may live.

It's hard to make the right choice when your young and think you'll live forever. I know that I will always vote for a mandatory helmet law where ever I may end up and it comes up to a vote.

RIP Krista.

http://www.caringbridge.org/cb/viewMyStory...hod=executeInit

[Slamdance]

"Children don't have a choice."

Isn't the choice of the parent to decide to smoke or patronize establishments that allow smoking and bring their kids there?

Why is that my problem?

When I go out to places with my kids, I choose not to go to places that allow smoking.

When I go out with my adult friends, I choose to go to places we agree on, smoking or non-smoking.

Isn't choice a wonderful thing? Why are you trying to take mine away?

As an aside, as a motorcycle rider, my condolences go out to Krista's family. I do not know what her age was or if she understood the dangers of crashing without a helmet, but that doesn't mean a helmet law is good idea.

Case in point, here in CA, there is a mandatory helmet law. However, it is legal to ride a motorcycle in just shorts and flip-flops, just as long as you have a DOT approved helmet. Hmmmm...

BTW, being an organ donor is just the right thing to do, rider or not.

[Sioux-cia]

"Children don't have a choice."

Isn't the choice of the parent to decide to smoke or patronize establishments that allow smoking and bring their kids there?

Why is that my problem?

When I go out to places with my kids, I choose not to go to places that allow smoking.

When I go out with my adult friends, I choose to go to places we agree on, smoking or non-smoking.

Isn't choice a wonderful thing? Why are you trying to take mine away?

As an aside, as a motorcycle rider, my condolences go out to Krista's family. I do not know what her age was or if she understood the dangers of crashing without a helmet, but that doesn't mean a helmet law is good idea.

Case in point, here in CA, there is a mandatory helmet law. However, it is legal to ride a motorcycle in just shorts and flip-flops, just as long as you have a DOT approved helmet. Hmmmm...

BTW, being an organ donor is just the right thing to do, rider or not.

Children do not have a choice. It's their parents' choice. I don't think siouxjoy made the decision to have a lifelong respiratory condition. That was his mother's choice.

Saying your not responsible for choices people make for their own children makes me sad. I see people making dangerous choices for their childen frequently. My choice is to report them to the police/social services. My choice is to spend an extra 15/20 minutes, making other patients wait longer, to tell them exactly how they are endangering their children's health. Heard it already? Too bad, you're going to hear it again because obviously you weren't listening the last time someone warned you about the adverse affects you actions have for your children. My choice is to not accept children suffering because of their parent's 'rights' to do whatever the hell they please inspite of the damage to their children. My choice is to get involved. To look the other way because it's not my problem is not my choice.

But, we're getting off topic. You have the choice to go to an establishment that allows smoking (kittie payment) or to go to an establishment that does not allow smoking. The choices for non-smokers is now greater.

As a health care provider who works mainly in emergency room/ Urgent Care settings, a helmet law is always the better choice, IMO. I wish they were stricter. I wish that a helmet law could take away the right to drive a motorcycle or could put the driver in jail rather than losing a life or limb or living with the fact that a passenger died because she was allowed/given the right to ride without a helmet. If it were my child whose organs I had to donate because of a 'choice', I would forever wonder why things had not been done differently so my child would still be here to outlive her parents. So the right to ride a bike without a helmet is being trampled, well, society isn't as free as we want it to be. Look around and you'll see it's never been as free as you think it was. When taking away 'rights' for the betterment of public health is an issue that comes to a public vote, I know which way I'm voting.

[Hammersmith]

While I'm comfortable voting for a full smoking ban, I've never been completely comfortable voting for seatbelt and helmet laws(with the exception of s/b for children). I've always thought that health/vehicle insurance companies should provide two rates: one for seatbelt/helmet users and one for those who refuse to wear them. Of course, the former's rates would be far cheaper than the latter's, but that's their choice. If a driver/rider chooses the seatbelt/helmet policy and then gets into an accident while not wearing one, the insurance company doesn't have to pay or pay only a small fraction of the medical bills. It'll never happen, but it seems the most fair to me.

Does my smoking affect me? Yes.

Does my smoking affect anyone else? Anyone in the vicinity(indiscriminate).

Result(IMO): Worthy of a law for public places and areas where children are present.

Does my wearing a seatbelt/helmet affect me? Yes.

Does my wearing a seatbelt/helmet affect anyone else? Those that have to pay my hospital bills(not indiscriminate).

Result(IMO): Not worthy of a law, but worthy of insurance companies charging more.