Fargo Smoking Ban

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

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 choose to not be friends with smokers, to not smoke, and to not go to businesses that have smoking. And becuase of that, I will not suffer the health consequences. But people who choose to smoke or surround themselves by smoke have to live with the consequences. People have to be free to make their own choice, whether it is the correct choice or not, and then live with the repercussions.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

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.

Yes, it limits your choices. But only because you put in a requirement that must be met. Smokers are being limited without putting in a requirement. They are being limited by the government, you are not.

And for a private business, only the owner should decide what is right for it and what is not. I don't patronize certain businesses for a variety of reasons. But the private businesses should not be forced (by the government) to change so that I like them.

[sioux7>5]

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.

First and for most Thanks for your service to our great country. My point was to say that owners have to abide by laws already. This is a new law they must abide by. Just becasue they own a bar does not mean they get to set their own rules.

I see plenty of people outside smoking in february in Minnesota. Most bars have huts set up with heating lamps and make it warm for these people. I just think that it is in everyone's best interest to have this policy in place. I think it it makes for a more enjoyable eating out experience. A non-smoker should not have to breathe the smokers bad habit.

[Sioux-cia]

It amazes me to read that people actually think they have the right to a 'free' society. You don't. I don't. We don't have a 'free society'. This is not anarchy as someone posted. Anarchy is living without laws in a society that governs itself and lives in peace and harmony. Yeah, right!

There have been laws that prevent you from doing what you want in and on your own property and in the privacy of your own home since this country became independent. You can't discriminate when renting. You can't have a meth lab on your property. You can't physically, sexually, mentally abuse your family members (or anyone else's for that matter but for the sake of this argument, your family). You can't drive your vehicle in a reckless manner. You can't drink and drive in your own vehicle. You can't drive your own vehicle drunk or high. You can't keep your own farm animals, cows, horses, cattle, etc. in the city on your own property. You can't have dog/cock fights on your own property with your own animals. Get the point?

I can't refuse you health care based on your ability or inability to pay. If I can't save your life after you have sustained massive head injuries for not wearing a helmet and riding a motorcycle, your loved ones have the right to sue me. They'll likely lose but not after costing my insurance company, hospital, collegues, me and my family a whole lot more than just time and money.

You don't like welfare, medical assistance, medicare? Too bad, you're already paying for it. You do not have the choice to not pay into those programs. You feel smug because you have private insurance? Well, look at it more closely. There's a cap to how much they'll pay for everything! So, who's going to pay when that cap has been reached? A hospital can't throw you out into the street because you can't pay. But you know what? They can and do stop agressive treatment to make you the best you can be, maybe even get you to the point where you can hold a job again. All they have to do is the minimum. Sick as it sounds, hospitals are businesses and they can't afford to take care of anyone for nothing. See that mason jar by the cash register? You know, the one with the picture of the beautiful little child/the young adult/the war veteran? Why do you think it's there? It's not because that person is getting 'free' health care or because their insurance company is paying for all their health care costs.

2nd hand smoke, drunks behind the wheel of a car, riding a motorcycle without a helmet all cost society millions of dollars a day. You can still smoke. You can still drink. You can still ride without a helmet. There are laws that limit your ability to do those things where you can damage someone other than yourself.

Quit kidding yourself. The U.S. of A. is not a 'free society' but it's the only country I want to live in. For those of you who are sick of our rules/laws/etc., I'll contribute to Oxbow's fund and help you move away to a 'better place'.

[Oxbow6]

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?"

No love it or leave it argument from me, but the democratic voting process though is what it is. Life isn't fair, it just is what side of fair do you want to be on? I don't like to hear the baristra at Strabuck's griping about fair and he only works 24 hrs/week, sleeps in until 11 am every day and smokes pot. He could make his situation better, but chooses not to. I don't think it is "fair" that pray is taken out of schools as well as the Pledge of Alligence. I tell my kids that life is not fair, but it is up to you to get on the "right" side of "fair" as they see it. And if people do that, they have no reason to complain. Everyone of us can find situations in our life that are not "fair". I see the side of smokers being inconvenienced in Fargo by the ban and feel that it is not "fair", but the people of Fargo voted and it is what it is. The city continues to raise my property taxes. Fair? But my option is to move out of Fargo or deal with it and voice my opinion, wheter heard or not.

Appreicate your service to our country!

And jingoistic...I am not that smart!

[Trunk Monkey]

I am alergic to perfume, perhaps we can have a ban on that too in public places as that is a health issue for me.....

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

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.

I believe the drinking age should be 18. Once you turn 18 you are an adult. Either you are an adult or you aren't. Non of this non sense where you are an adult but still can't do something. Children have several restrictions that adults don't have. What we are discussing and debating is whether adults can use a legal product on a private citizen's land (bar, theater, etc.) that allows it.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

I am alergic to perfume, perhaps we can have a ban on that too in public places as that is a health issue for me.....

Yes, and peanut butter. And baggy pants. I don't like those. Same with backwards hats. I also don't like cars clogging the streets. Lets ban cars from downtown. After all, it is our safety we are talking about. I could get hit by one while crossing a street. I want a ban on advertising, oh wait, we already have that! I hope you guys see the sarcasm.

[Oxbow6]

I am alergic to perfume, perhaps we can have a ban on that too in public places as that is a health issue for me.....

And peanuts too I'm sure!

[Sioux-cia]

I am alergic to perfume, perhaps we can have a ban on that too in public places as that is a health issue for me.....

Many businesses, most noteably health care facilities, already ban their employees from wearing perfume in the work place. I'm allergic to perfume as well. On two occasions in the remote past, my reactions were severe enough to send me home. Oh, and those thirty+ patients I was suppose to see on each of those days, rescheduled. That's called policing your self. Doesn't work everywhere.

Don't misinterpret my post. I just wanted to add to your 'tongue in cheek' post.

[Sioux-cia]

And peanuts too I'm sure!

Another example of policing yourself. MANY children are allergic, fatally in more cases that I can cite, and their schools, daycare centers, athletic organizations ban peanuts when they know someone in their group is allergic.

[Slamdance]

"I'll contribute to Oxbow's fund and help you move away to a 'better place'." Sioux-cia

First class to Tavarua, please.

I understand this is not a "free-country". I understand your health-care argument. I just don't buy it.

I am not debating the effects of smoking. I know smoking is bad. I know second-hand smoke is bad.

I have kids. When I am visiting my family in GF and we all go out, we don't go to places that allow smoking, or find a table as far away as possible from the smokers.

I wear my helmet when I ride, because it is safer and I don't want to pay a fine. The same with seat belts and car seats when my kids needed them. I did not like having the choice taken from me and I voted against all of those laws. Not because I'm irresponsible, but because I believe in freedom of choice.

If you (prior to these nanny laws being passed) did not want to exercise common sense, I say let Darwinism take its course.

jingoistic - chauvinistic patriotism (the dictionary is your friend)

[Trunk Monkey]

Well as a non-smoker, I am on the fence on this one. For selfish reasons, I will not miss smelling like smoke coming out of a bar or restaurant. On the flip side, I find it a slippery slope as to what will be the next thing that is banned and that scares me. Example noted below:

I think as a member of this site and a proud fan of the FIGHTING SIOUX and what we as fans have had to endure over the last several years, I would think that we could all agree that once the "political b.s. crowd" gains some momentum and push their agenda for "correctness" as evidenced by the fact that we most likely have to change the nickname, common sense is all but gone.

[Sioux-cia]

I understand this is not a "free-country". I understand your health-care argument. I just don't buy it.

No, you're not. But, regardless of your position, you are paying for it.

[Oxbow6]

"I'll contribute to Oxbow's fund and help you move away to a 'better place'." Sioux-cia

First class to Tavarua, please.

I understand this is not a "free-country". I understand your health-care argument. I just don't buy it.

I am not debating the effects of smoking. I know smoking is bad. I know second-hand smoke is bad.

I have kids. When I am visiting my family in GF and we all go out, we don't go to places that allow smoking, or find a table as far away as possible from the smokers.

I wear my helmet when I ride, because it is safer and I don't want to pay a fine. The same with seat belts and car seats when my kids needed them. I did not like having the choice taken from me and I voted against all of those laws. Not because I'm irresponsible, but because I believe in freedom of choice.

If you (prior to these nanny laws being passed) did not want to exercise common sense, I say let Darwinism take its course.

jingoistic - chauvinistic patriotism (the dictionary is your friend)

You don't have to buy it, but again it is what it is. Not perfect but still the best of what is available world-wide.

Thanks for the definition.

[Slamdance]

I don't like those. Same with backwards hats.

A good friend of mine, who lives in GF incidentally, has a quote about backwards hats.

"If you wear your hat backwards, you're either a catcher or a c**ksucker. So which is it?"

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

It amazes me to read that people actually think they have the right to a 'free' society. You don't. I don't. We don't have a 'free society'. This is not anarchy as someone posted. Anarchy is living without laws in a society that governs itself and lives in peace and harmony. Yeah, right!

You like not living a free society? I personally want to live in a free country.

There have been laws that prevent you from doing what you want in and on your own property and in the privacy of your own home since this country became independent. You can't discriminate when renting. You can't have a meth lab on your property. You can't physically, sexually, mentally abuse your family members (or anyone else's for that matter but for the sake of this argument, your family). You can't drive your vehicle in a reckless manner. You can't drink and drive in your own vehicle. You can't drive your own vehicle drunk or high. You can't keep your own farm animals, cows, horses, cattle, etc. in the city on your own property. You can't have dog/cock fights on your own property with your own animals. Get the point?

These laws all generally have to do with your interaction with another person. You can't do something that violates someone else. I believe I should be able to own farm animals in the city. It is my property.

I can't refuse you health care based on your ability or inability to pay. If I can't save your life after you have sustained massive head injuries for not wearing a helmet and riding a motorcycle, your loved ones have the right to sue me. They'll likely lose but not after costing my insurance company, hospital, collegues, me and my family a whole lot more than just time and money.

Frivolous law suits cost this country who knows how much money. Something needs to be done about it.

You don't like welfare, medical assistance, medicare? Too bad, you're already paying for it. You do not have the choice to not pay into those programs. You feel smug because you have private insurance? Well, look at it more closely. There's a cap to how much they'll pay for everything! So, who's going to pay when that cap has been reached? A hospital can't throw you out into the street because you can't pay. But you know what? They can and do stop agressive treatment to make you the best you can be, maybe even get you to the point where you can hold a job again. All they have to do is the minimum. Sick as it sounds, hospitals are businesses and they can't afford to take care of anyone for nothing. See that mason jar by the cash register? You know, the one with the picture of the beautiful little child/the young adult/the war veteran? Why do you think it's there? It's not because that person is getting 'free' health care or because their insurance company is paying for all their health care costs.

I know I am already paying for it. But that doesn't mean I like it or agree with it. I donate money to charity so that when people have unexpected health care costs, there is some money there for them. Just think how much more money I (and many other people) could donate to charity if we didn't have to pay such high taxes.

2nd hand smoke, drunks behind the wheel of a car, riding a motorcycle without a helmet all cost society millions of dollars a day. You can still smoke. You can still drink. You can still ride without a helmet. There are laws that limit your ability to do those things where you can damage someone other than yourself.

My not wearing a helmet can hurt no one but myself.

Quit kidding yourself. The U.S. of A. is not a 'free society' but it's the only country I want to live in. For those of you who are sick of our rules/laws/etc., I'll contribute to Oxbow's fund and help you move away to a 'better place'.

I am not kidding myself. But I believe the USA can be better then what it is right now. The USA is also the only country I want to live in.

You may bring up that smoking violates those around the smoker. Well, why don't you campaign to ban smoking all together? Either it is legal or it isn't. If you don't like smoking you should be working to make it illegal like other drugs are. But don't try and limit a legal product.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

A good friend of mine, who lives in GF incidentally, has a quote about backwards hats.

"If you wear your hat backwards, you're either a catcher or a c**ksucker. So which is it?"

Ha! That is funny!

My cousin had his hat on backwards at a ball game once. And my dad turned it around for him and let him know his disapproval. A bird then came over and crapped on his hat bill. My dad made sure he knew that if he hadn't had is hat on right, he would have had bird crap all over his face.

[Oxbow6]

A good friend of mine, who lives in GF incidentally, has a quote about backwards hats.

"If you wear your hat backwards, you're either a catcher or a c**ksucker. So which is it?"

Golfed in right behind Brian Lee's 4-some last Thurs. He had his cap on backwards the whole round and I doubt he is either.

[Oxbow6]

You may bring up that smoking violates those around the smoker. Well, why don't you campaign to ban smoking all together? Either it is legal or it isn't. If you don't like smoking you should be working to make it illegal like other drugs are. But don't try and limit a legal product.

And how does alcohol fit into your "argument"? Alcohol is legal at age 21. It becomes illegal when you are intoxicated and caught with a DUI. That is limiting a legal product when the comsumption of that product becomes a risk to the user or those in potential contact with the alcohol user.

Try again...

[SportsDoc]

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 think this is workable, as long as it is very limited. The danger is in all bar owners wanting to be on the smoking side, not the non-smoking, which is what would happen. It is apparent that bar owners feel that smokers are their best customers. Drink more, stay longer, return more often. I don't know this to be true, but I know bar owners who are convinced it is.

[Slamdance]

Golfed in right behind Brian Lee's 4-some last Thurs. He had his cap on backwards the whole round and I doubt he is either one.

Fixed your post. And how do you know, did you ask?

Clarification is your friend.

Tag, you're it...

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

And how does alcohol fit into your "argument"? Alcohol is legal at age 21. It becomes illegal when you are intoxicated and caught with a DUI. That is limiting a legal product when the comsumption of that product becomes a risk to the user or those in potential contact with the alcohol user.

Try again...

No need to try again. There is no limits on the consumption of alcohol. What there is a limit on is what you can do when impaired. You can lose your license to drive with out ever having a drink if you are a hazard on the road. Your argument isn't valid. Drinking isn't limited, driving reckless (impaired) is limited. Same as if you drive reckless by while lighting a fag or talking on the mobile phone or eating a cheeseburger. You will get cited for reckless driving for a whole slew of things.

[Sioux-cia]

I believe I should be able to own farm animals in the city. It is my property.

My not wearing a helmet can hurt no one but myself.

I am not kidding myself. But I believe the USA can be better then what it is right now. The USA is also the only country I want to live in.

You may bring up that smoking violates those around the smoker. Well, why don't you campaign to ban smoking all together? Either it is legal or it isn't. If you don't like smoking you should be working to make it illegal like other drugs are. But don't try and limit a legal product.

1. You can believe what you want but the city will not allow you to raise angus cattle or thoroughbred horses on your private property. In, GF you're not allowed to own more than two dogs per family unit! Someone reported me when my son moved home for a short time with his two dogs because I aleady had one!! AND I have a six foot fence around my lot and a half!

2. Your not wearing a helmet and sustaining traumatic head injures will result in around 4 million dollars for life time medical care. Then there are those nasty home modifications, ridiculous acute rehabilitation costs, and if you're lucky, there are 'supportive employment' costs. Those are just a few of the costs for traumatic brain injury sustained from riding a motorcycle without a helmet. There are more, just don't have the desire to list them. Do you have funeral insurance? If you don't, add $10-15,000 that your family is going to have to shell out of their pockets to bury or burn you.

3. I don't want to live anywhere else either. But, I'm not so naive' that I believe I'm living in a 'free' society.

4. I don't believe that a complete smoking ban would work. Alchohol prohibition didn't work. I just don't want it where it adversely affects people who don't smoke. I've been reading about 'don't like it don't work there, don't go there'. Not so easy for some. One of the best paying jobs for a mom is bartender/bar waitress. She works nights. Dad stays home at night. No exhorbitant daycare costs. You think she's going to go work for a significantly less wage and have less for her famil?. Anyone even suggesting it isn't remembering what their own parents sacrificed for them!

How many young adults are driven by what their peers want. In a group of 6, one smokes, so rather than leave that person out, they go to a smoky bar. I know, it's their choice,but it's either go with the flow or stay home when you're a certain age. I'm convinced that the 'common sense' gene doesn't kick in until you're well over 30.

Light 'em, smoke 'em, enjoy 'em. Just don't do it in a public establishment or in my home/car.

[Sioux-cia]

No need to try again. There is no limits on the consumption of alcohol. What there is a limit on is what you can do when impaired. You can lose your license to drive with out ever having a drink if you are a hazard on the road. Your argument isn't valid. Drinking isn't limited, driving reckless (impaired) is limited. Same as if you drive reckless by while lighting a fag or talking on the mobile phone or eating a cheeseburger. You will get cited for reckless driving for a whole slew of things.

There is not limit on how much you can smoke. You can't do it in a public establishment but knock yourself out at home or out doors or anywhere else it's not banned.

Lighting a cigarette while driving may become illegal just like texting on your cell phone is becoming illegal in many states. Remember the car load of cheerleaders, (5?6?) who were killed because the driver was texting someone in the car following their's? Yeah, I'm sure the girls made a choice to text vs to live. I don't believe the car they ran into had any fatalities but where was that drivers choice? But, again, I digress.

You can drink as much as you want but not in a car. Open container in a vehicle is illegal, you don't have to be impaired or driving recklessly to get cited, points added to your driving record and your auto insurance to go sky high!