Fargo Smoking Ban

[Cratter]

You can still smoke. You can still buy tobacco products.

Reminds me of something quite funny actually.

Could one legally be able to buy tobacco but not legally be able to smoke it anywhere: any public place (already law in places), around young people (law against smoking in a car when children present), in your own home, even outdoors (at UND where they said you can't smoke outside - though not yet technically illegal yet), etc?

Sound like it couldn't happen?

Alcohol just didn't become illegal one day. First states passed laws banning "strong liquor." Then came health arguements in the name of safety (sound familiar). Of course knowing that you can help make people "safer and healthier" states began to ban it. Tea merchants and soda fountain manufacturers generally supported Prohibition, thinking a ban on alcohol would increase sales.

Then one day you right to have a cold beer was taken away nationally by the government.

Another similar story could be had for the most widely used illegal drug, cannibas. It wasn't always illegal to smoke it (1937). But again the name of safety came up. So the government didn't make it illegal. They just made you pay a tax (Marijuana Tax Act) that the government would rarely issue. All fueled by the fact that tobacco companies knew they would see higher profits. Boom: less individual choice that only hurts the user (or all of society as some would argue ).

[Sioux-cia]

Why do you support a ban on smoking but not on motorcycles? They are both dangerous.

I don't support a ban on smoking. I support a ban on smoking in a public domain where non-smokers health is adversely affected by second hand smoke.

I don't support a ban on motorcycles. I support the wearing of a helmet when driving or riding a motorcycle.

[Sioux-cia]

Reminds me of something quite funny actually.

Could one legally be able to buy tobacco but not legally be able to smoke it anywhere: any public place (already law in places), around young people (law against smoking in a car when children present), in your own home, even outdoors (at UND where they said you can't smoke outside - though not yet technically illegal yet), etc?

Sound like it couldn't happen?

Alcohol just didn't become illegal one day. First states passed laws banning "strong liquor." Then came health arguements in the name of safety (sound familiar). Of course knowing that you can help make people "safer and healthier" states began to ban it. Tea merchants and soda fountain manufacturers generally supported Prohibition, thinking a ban on alcohol would increase sales.

Then one day you right to have a cold beer was taken away nationally by the government.

Another similar story could be had for the most widely used illegal drug, cannibas. It wasn't always illegal to smoke it (1937). But again the same of safety came up. So the government didn't make it illegal. They just made you pay a tax (Marijuana Tax Act) that the government would rarely issue. All fueled by the fact that tobacco companies knew they would see higher profits. Boom: less individual choice that only hurts the user (or all of society as some would argue ).

Just one more of those darned ol' government agencies putting out a negative message about a little ol' thing like weed....

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

[Sioux-cia]

Well, for me personally, I don't live in Fargo. But have no fear, I am working hard when it comes to politics. And no, I am not waiting for someone else to carry the torch. I run my own colors up the pole and carry my own torch.

Then you can't blame yourself if this law passes or passed in your community and you can take credit if it doesn't.

Campaign hard. In spite of what has been said on this thread, there are more than a 'few, self rightous' against smoking in public businesses. If there were only a few opposed, this reg would not have passed.

[Cratter]

Then you can't blame yourself if this law passes or passed in your community and you can take credit if it doesn't.

Campaign hard. In spite of what has been said on this thread, there are more than a 'few, self rightous' against smoking in public businesses. If there were only a few opposed, this reg would not have passed.

Again: We live in a (Constitutional) Republic in which the majority rule is tempered by the minority rights protected by law.

Our Founding Fathers actually warned against a Democracy - A society where 51% would overrule the other 49% to protect them from ""tyranny of the majority."

* I understand the USA is a representative democracy. As there are different types of Democracies.

[Cratter]

I don't support a ban on motorcycles. I support the wearing of a helmet when driving or riding a motorcycle.

I totally agree with everything above. I support wearing helmets 100%. I just don't support having a law forcing someone to wear one.

I choose to keep my personal opinions seperate from the making and passing of laws that force others to think and/or act like me.

[Sioux-cia]

Again: We live in a (Constitutional) Republic in which the majority rule is tempered by the minority rights protected by law.

Our Founding Fathers actually warned against a Democracy - A society where 51% would overrule the other 49% to protect them from ""tyranny of the majority."

* I understand the USA is a representative democracy. As there are different types of Democracies.

So, when people vote, the majority does not speak? Whose fault it that? When I vote, I want my voice heard but I accept the majority vote even if it's not how I voted.

[Sioux-cia]

I totally agree with everything above. I support wearing helmets 100%. I just don't support having a law forcing someone to wear one.

I choose to keep my personal opinions seperate from the making and passing of laws that force others to think and/or act like me.

Which brings me back to the questions I asked earlier. The one's you didn't answer pending my answer to your question. I answered it. I await your answers to my questions. Post #145.

[nodak hockey fanatic]

after sifting though all hate and animosity the last 8 pages, it is obvious that there are some strong feelings on both sides of the line here, and both sides make some valid points, but the pro-smoking ban has my vote here. it seems the pro smokers feel they are having their rights taken away as are the business owners, but as has been stated, smokers can do so outside if they choose, and as for the owners, everyone is on the same playing field, no bar is being given this "smoking advantage" over others, so i guess my opinion is things will adjust, and they will. also people are playing the "it is legal, so why can't we do it in a bar or other public place?" card, my simple answer to that is sex is legal too, but that doesn't mean you can do it in a bar or library or the waiting room of your hospital. smokers had the same outrage when smoking was banned in airlines and restaurants, now it seems absurd that smoking was ever allowed there. the "pro smoking" group on this forum have been jumping all over sioux-cia and oxbow when they bring up health care issues, but they are very valid points and belong in this discussion. you guys seem to dismiss the public health argument, or the overwhelming affect smokers have on health insurance with the "its my right" argument, but rights no longer are yours alone when they affect others, and this is what is going on here. i know it sucks that you guys can't go sit in a bar and have a smoke and a drink, but if that is really what you want, do it at home. i would venture to guess alot of you don't even smoke in your own home, but yet you find it silly to ban it from a public place. if you love going out to the bar, smoke outside when you need one, i have a feeling alot of places will have covered patios with patio heaters to accomidate just like bww in fargo has now. the final point i have is that this went up for a public vote and passed. that is how laws like this are passed in our democratic society. like it or not, the majority has spoken and there is no longer smoking in the fm area. i am looking forward to it as i can actually go to a bar close to my home and not smell like a damn chimney when i go home or have a smoke hangover until noon the next day. i know it was my choice the few occasions i did go to a bar, but the only non smoking bar close to west fargo was bww which was always packed, and once in a while i like to donate to my local charities (aka - blackjack ). society will adjust to this change, as i believe in the next few years it will spread across our state and nation, and i think it is for the better.

[Oxbow6]

It is wrong that the government should have this kind of control over my life. It doesn't matter if it happened in a "legal" manner. It is still wrong and shouldn't happen. Don't forget that Hitler came to power in Germany legally. Yet, most would agree that what he did was wrong.

Wrong for the gov't to have this control? Medicare and Medicaid are gov't health programs that care for those who chose to smoke and become ill. But it is my tax dollars that fund those programs and I don't smoke. Should the gov't have control over my taxes to help those who are irresponsible and knowingly make poor choices that will affect their health?

An now the voice of the people who approved the ban thru the democratic voting process of this country is wrong?

And bringing Hilter into this...now you are really sounding ignorant. You try to connect the dots here and you really don't get it.

[Slamdance]

Evenin'

I do have a life outside my love of Sioux sports and home in general.

First, Sioux-cia, I apologize if I sounded like I was attacking you personally. My "high-horse" comment was directed towards everyone who feels that they have the right/obligation to tell other people what to do "for their own good." If you feel you fall in that particular group, that's on you...

As an aside, I agree with you on most other topics. (Except for Prpich, he's all yours as far as I'm concerned).

I am not "pro-smoking" as much as "pro-freedom of choice."

No one has yet to make a convincing argument to me that, if I was a bar owner, and I made it perfectly clear to my employees and customers, I allowed smoking in MY place of business, what right is it of the gov't to tell me I cannot do that?

Someone said my use of the word "criminal" was extreme. When you are pulled over and cited for a traffic violation, for all intents and purposes, you are a "criminal" in the eyes of the law. The same holds true for business owners and patrons caught violating the "no smoking" laws.

As insane Irish Steven said in "Braveheart", "stop changing the subject, just answer the fukkin' question."

[redwing77]

Someone said my use of the word "criminal" was extreme. When you are pulled over and cited for a traffic violation, for all intents and purposes, you are a "criminal" in the eyes of the law. The same holds true for business owners and patrons caught violating the "no smoking" laws.

True, but the way you put it in your initial post made it sound like just the mere fact that someone smokes, doesn't mind smoke around them, or a business owner who would like to allow smoking in their premises makes them a criminal.

This is wrong. I prefer to wait for people to break the law before labeling them a criminal.

If I misinterpreted your post, then I apologize.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

I don't support a ban on smoking. I support a ban on smoking in a public domain where non-smokers health is adversely affected by second hand smoke.

I don't support a ban on motorcycles. I support the wearing of a helmet when driving or riding a motorcycle.

Smoking is legal. I don't care what the health effects are. Either smoking is legal or it isn't.

No one should tell me if I have to where a helmet or not. It is about personal freedom. And we are losing it. To have freedom, you have to be free to make the stupid choice.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

Wrong for the gov't to have this control? Medicare and Medicaid are gov't health programs that care for those who chose to smoke and become ill. But it is my tax dollars that fund those programs and I don't smoke. Should the gov't have control over my taxes to help those who are irresponsible and knowingly make poor choices that will affect their health?

An now the voice of the people who approved the ban thru the democratic voting process of this country is wrong?

And bringing Hilter into this...now you are really sounding ignorant. You try to connect the dots here and you really don't get it.

I get it alright. My freedom is being taken away. I do not support Medicare or Medicaid. People who make stupid choices should have to figure out themselves how to deal with it. If I smash my thumb with a hammer, I have to deal with it. I don't go to the government. They shouldn't either.

I am not ignorant. "Tyranny of the majority" is true and real. And what happens is anarchy. Think about it. What are riots? Basically the majority taking over.

[Oxbow6]

I get it alright. My freedom is being taken away. I do not support Medicare or Medicaid. People who make stupid choices should have to figure out themselves how to deal with it. If I smash my thumb with a hammer, I have to deal with it. I don't go to the government. They shouldn't either.

I am not ignorant. "Tyranny of the majority" is true and real. And what happens is anarchy. Think about it. What are riots? Basically the majority taking over.

You seem to be displeased with what goes on in this state and country. For people like you I'd gladly pay the one-way ticket north to Canada for you. Whether you like it or not, the election process is what this country is based on. Fargo, not ND, voted for the smoking ban. This was not "tyranny of the majority", but a majority of the those who exercised their right to vote saying yes to the ban. Don't like the result, don't live in Fargo. Don't like the democratic voting process, head north.

[Oxbow6]

Smoking is legal. I don't care what the health effects are. Either smoking is legal or it isn't.

No one should tell me if I have to where a helmet or not. It is about personal freedom. And we are losing it. To have freedom, you have to be free to make the stupid choice.

Not ignorant? Try again. Come follow me for a day and see if you don't care about the effects of smoking on a person's health. You think it is fun for that 65 year old recently retired man who is now on oxygen with COPD or lung cancer due to 40 years of smoking. Yes the golden years! He has little quality of life for the short time he has left. Or the 75 year old great-grandmother who has blinding macular degeneration and can't see the faces of her great-grandchildren because she smoked for 45 years? Keep posting moronic comments, like the one above, so you can feel better about "your freedom" being lost. I bet in the 2 isolated cases I mentioned above, their "freedom" for a decent quality of life now makes them re-evaluate their past decisions of "freedom of choice" to smoke. But then again you "don't care"!

[LeftyZL]

Not ignorant? Try again. Come follow me for a day and see if you don't care about the effects of smoking on a person's health. You think it is fun for that 65 year old recently retired man who is now on oxygen with COPD or lung cancer due to 40 years of smoking. Yes the golden years! He has little quality of life for the short time he has left. Or the 75 year old great-grandmother who has blinding macular degeneration and can't see the faces of her great-grandchildren because she smoked for 45 years? Keep posting moronic comments, like the one above, so you can feel better about "your freedom" being lost. I bet in the 2 isolated cases I mentioned above, their "freedom" for a decent quality of life now makes them re-evaluate their past decisions of "freedom of choice" to smoke. But then again you "don't care"!

But they knew about the effects of smoking and still chose to smoke. Do I sound insensititve? Probably. But life's not all fun and games.

If a person knows that a bar/restaurant allows smoking and still chooses to enter, that's their choice. But they know the effects that go along with it.

[Bison Dan]

Not ignorant? Try again. Come follow me for a day and see if you don't care about the effects of smoking on a person's health. You think it is fun for that 65 year old recently retired man who is now on oxygen with COPD or lung cancer due to 40 years of smoking. Yes the golden years! He has little quality of life for the short time he has left. Or the 75 year old great-grandmother who has blinding macular degeneration and can't see the faces of her great-grandchildren because she smoked for 45 years? Keep posting moronic comments, like the one above, so you can feel better about "your freedom" being lost. I bet in the 2 isolated cases I mentioned above, their "freedom" for a decent quality of life now makes them re-evaluate their past decisions of "freedom of choice" to smoke. But then again you "don't care"!

I have a mother in law that is on oxygen from smoking for 50 years. Smoked 5 years on oxygen - she finally stopped smoking and immediately looked & felt 100 times better. She still bums a smoke every so off which is stupid. The cost to medicare that she has racked up would be in the 100's of thousands.

[siouxjoy]

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 her mother's choice.

Sorry, just wanted to fix that...I am a girl.

Proceed with the discussion.

[Oxbow6]

But they knew about the effects of smoking and still chose to smoke. Do I sound insensititve? Probably. But life's not all fun and games.

If a person knows that a bar/restaurant allows smoking and still chooses to enter, that's their choice. But they know the effects that go along with it.

But if my wanting to go to a restaurant/bar/club affects my health as a non-smoker because there is smoking, that LIMITS my choices as a non-smoker. How is that now different than the new ban. I used to choose not to frequnet those places because of smoke. Now smokers have their choices LIMITED but the ban doesn't dictate that they CAN'T smoke. Now I can go to a place with smokers, enjoy their company but not be affected by their smoke and they still have the OPTION to smoke, just not in that enviroment. Inconvenient for smokers? Yes. Lost their right to smoke? No.

[sioux7>5]

This is for Slamdance and homeofthesioux! Slamdance you keep saying that if a bar owner wants to allow something that is there choice. Should a bar owner be able to say I think a 15 year old is old enough to consume alcohols so I am going to serve everyone over the age of 15? Do they have that choice? No they don't because of Public Safety we have to wait till we are 21 to drink, legally. That is because it is harmful for them to drink at such a young age.

My guess is we all drank underage and had some fun in our day, but I for one love being able to go to a bar and not have to smell like smoke the next day. But I do think that there should be accomadations for those who choose to smoke.

Just my two cents.

[Slamdance]

This is for Slamdance and homeofthesioux! Slamdance you keep saying that if a bar owner wants to allow something that is there choice. Should a bar owner be able to say I think a 15 year old is old enough to consume alcohols so I am going to serve everyone over the age of 15? Do they have that choice? No they don't because of Public Safety we have to wait till we are 21 to drink, legally. That is because it is harmful for them to drink at such a young age.

My guess is we all drank underage and had some fun in our day, but I for one love being able to go to a bar and not have to smell like smoke the next day. But I do think that there should be accomadations for those who choose to smoke.

Just my two cents.

If you really want to get off on a tangent about drinking age, I'm happy to oblige. I feel that if you are old enough to vote or fight and die for your country you are old enough to drink. Either lower the drinking age or raise the age of voting and military service.

Your "15 year old being served alcohol" is not a valid argument. And, at this point in Fargo, neither is my bar owner allowing smoking. The smoking issue is what I am annoyed with. Prior to this law being passed, a business owner could LEGALLY allow smoking in his place. His employees would be aware of this and could decide to work there or find other employment. His potential customers could either patronize this place that allowed smoking or choose to go somewhere else. Those choices have been removed. That is not fair.

The only accommodations here in CA are that smokers have to go outside on a smoking patio or, in the case of gov't buildings, 20 feet from any entrance, to enjoy their vice. Granted, the "20 ft. rule" is not seriously enforced, but it is part of the law. My guess is that a smoker in February in Fargo is pretty much S.O.L.

I have already stated I like being able to go out and not smell of smoke by the end of the evening. That is not the point. The point is: our freedoms are being eroded and we as a nation are allowing it to happen.

That is not why I honorably served my country.

[Oxbow6]

Fixed your post. Can draw you a picture if you like.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

You seem to be displeased with what goes on in this state and country. For people like you I'd gladly pay the one-way ticket north to Canada for you. Whether you like it or not, the election process is what this country is based on. Fargo, not ND, voted for the smoking ban. This was not "tyranny of the majority", but a majority of the those who exercised their right to vote saying yes to the ban. Don't like the result, don't live in Fargo. Don't like the democratic voting process, head north.

Canada is considerably worse then the USA. Besides, that would be disloyal and unpatriotic.

[Slamdance]

And Oxbow6 (and anyone else who wants to throw the "love it or leave it" argument out there),

My first instinct is to tell you to "piss off"...

I am so over the jingoistic crap.

Please come up with something better.

The reason I and others on here are annoyed with these nanny laws is part of the democratic process. I vote precisely so my voice can be heard.

I love my country. However, it is the most effed up one on the planet, except for all the other ones.

I vote so I can bitch.

And, as was said on the movie the "F-word"...

"...the Republicans are trying to take my porn and the Democrats are trying to take my guns. Who speaks for me?"