Smoking Ban

[Brent_Bobyck]

Has anyone heard or know firsthand how the GF Smoking Ban is going? What places are and are not smokeless?

Do you feel like this is a good idea for Grand Forks?

My personal feelings are that you need to have a smoking ban but have it across the board. All public restaraunts and bars or none at all. I don't like this "if you have 60% of your business from food" rule. All or nothing I think. About a year ago I visited Lincoln, NE and all of their bars have gone smokeless, across the board. It was very nice not smelling like smoke when you walked out of there.

What are your takes?

[airmail]

What are your takes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally, if smoking bothers people that much, don't go in the establishment; then you are forcing the owner to change to get your business. I think that if the demand was really there, it would take care of itself without government meddling. There's lots of talk about non-smokers' rights, but we have to remember something... It isn't our right to enter a privately owned business, it is a privelege extended by the owner. It's not ours, it's theirs.

What's next, mandating whom business owners shouldn't and should hire? Oh... wait a minute......

[ESPNInsider]

As far as the smoking ban I like it. And I agree with you that it needs to be across the board. Who cares if people feel they need to smoke. Go sit out in the 30 below winter and smoke, I don't want to breath it in.

My feeling is that in 10 years people will be saying, "I can't believe you used to be able to smoke inside buildings"

I used to think about that as I sat at Hyslop for b-ball games. People actually used to just sit there smoking cigerettes during the games. GROSS!

[Brent_Bobyck]

Personally, if smoking bothers people that much, don't go in the establishment; then you are forcing the owner to change to get your business. I think that if the demand was really there, it would take care of itself without government meddling. There's lots of talk about non-smokers' rights, but we have to remember something... It isn't our right to enter a privately owned business, it is a privelege extended by the owner. It's not ours, it's theirs.

What's next, mandating whom business owners shouldn't and should hire? Oh... wait a minute......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes but it is not only an issue with the customers. People who work there have to breathe in the air as well. This creates health hazards for both the employee and the customer. It is a person's right to smoke, but they don't have to risk the health of those who do not smoke.

[airmail]

People who work there have to breathe in the air as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, while it may not be a popular opinion, I have to say that people aren't being forced to work there. If the employer can't get anyone to work for him, he'd have to change how he operates his business. Again, a case where overwhelming demand would be the cause and effect; all without outside intervention.

Not trying to be pig-headed or argumentative, just stating my personal opinion.

[Brent_Bobyck]

Again, while it may not be a popular opinion, I have to say that people aren't being forced to work there. If the employer can't get anyone to work for him, he'd have to change how he operates his business. Again, a case where overwhelming demand would be the cause and effect; all without outside intervention.

Not trying to be pig-headed or argumentative, just stating my personal opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can respect your opinion and I see where you are coming from but it always comes back to a health concern. Not everyone that works and frequents a bar smokes. You are right, people do not have to go in or work there but that would get very old going to the same place every time you go out simply because it is the only smokeless place in town.

I do not think it is that tough for people who do smoke to go outside to light up. This way they still get to smoke and they do not risk the health of those that work there and frequent there.

[airmail]

I do not think it is that tough for people who do smoke to go outside to light up. This way they still get to smoke and they do not risk the health of those that work there and frequent there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll agree with you here, in that most smokers are used to "stepping outdoors" anyway. I'll also agree that a smoke free environment is more pleasurable for a nice dinner or social gathering.

Where I differ is in a governmental agency controlling the operations of a private business. The business owner will always have the best insight on making his/ her establishment profitable. With the smoking ban, they are, IMO, being denied their right as propietors to determine what is best for their business. Maybe no smoking will be the best thing for them... but I firmly believe it should be their choice.

[ESPNInsider]

I'll agree with you here, in that most smokers are used to "stepping outdoors" anyway. I'll also agree that a smoke free environment is more pleasurable for a nice dinner or social gathering.

Where I differ is in a governmental agency controlling the operations of a private business. The business owner will always have the best insight on making his/ her establishment profitable. With the smoking ban, they are, IMO, being denied their right as propietors to determine what is best for their business. Maybe no smoking will be the best thing for them... but I firmly believe it should be their choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that the government probably has to step in though as people are dying at an extremely high rate of cancer caused by either smoking or second hand smoke. I wish, and it sounds like you do to, that bars would choose this on their own, but they don't seem to.

Do you guys think that smokers will really fight it? Do you think that businesses will suffer?

My thinking is that it will go on without much hassle in GF. Smaller town bars claim that it hurts their business. In GF I don't think it will. I'm guessing in a few years it will be an afterthought.

[CoteauRinkRat]

Interesting to note that it has already caused Bonzer's to apply for a different liquor license. They will now be a 21 and older bar/sandwich pub, Therefore you can still smoke in there, but you have to be 21 to go in. This law has really hurt some small town supper clubs that are the only place in town to get a good meal for a family. A lot of them have just changed to restricing anyone under 21 from coming in, so they can continue to allow smoking.

[ESPNInsider]

Interesting to note that it has already caused Bonzer's to apply for a different liquor license.  They will now be a 21 and older bar/sandwich pub,  Therefore you can still smoke in there, but you have to be 21 to go in.  This law has really hurt some small town supper clubs that are the only place in town to get a good meal for a family.  A lot of them have just changed to restricing anyone under 21 from coming in, so they can continue to allow smoking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder if that would hurt more? Do you think that Bonzers would lose more if they didn't allow smoking or by not allowing anyone under 21?

I would think they would lose more by not allowing people under 21.

[CoteauRinkRat]

[ESPNInsider]

[CoteauRinkRat]

  If the whole city was non-smoking though, I don't think businesses would be hurt, only when some are and some aren't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does that mean?

[ESPNInsider]

[airmail]

[CoteauRinkRat]

CRR made a good point about the small town places that are now affected.  My snowmobile club has been contacted by many small town bars that there will be no more -21 people allowed this winter.  Ever since I've been running snowmobiles (lots of years folks), kids warming up and having a burger or pop alongside adults has been the norm in "small-town bars" across the countryside.  It appears that this year they'll be staying home... or packing a sack lunch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are so many examples of this in small towns that it makes me sick.

[ESPNInsider]

[Brent_Bobyck]

[CoteauRinkRat]

It was interesting to follow the city of Grand Forks and their discussions about the smoking ban. At the beginning, the city council talked about restrictions that would be tougher than the state law, but as time passed and the actual law came before the city council, they ended up passing a law that was just about the same as the state smoking ban.

I would have liked to see an across the board ban as well.

[Cratter]

That if the whole city was non-smoking then I don't think that Bonzers business would be hurt. I don't think people are going to stop going out because they can't smoke inside.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By whole city do you mean GF & EGF? Cause right now GF is smoke free, hence CRR saying Bonzers business was hurt because of the ban...apparently people for the past month did indeed quit going there because they couldn't smoke inside.

[ESPNInsider]

[dakotadan]

Non-smokers have the right to breath smoke-free air, and I have the right to smoke. What I think is stupid is the argument that non-smokers shouldn't be forced to breath smokey air. That is why places like the Italian Moon, Dagwoods, and Suite 49 were already smoke free. Non-smokers had options. An all smoking ban would give me absolutely no options as a smoker.

I used to go to Bonzers usually twice a week. I haven't been there since the smoking ban. We have all started going to whitey's where we can smoke. I am not claiming smoking is good for your health, but we are taking away one groups rights just to please a few. Kinda sounds like the NCAA.

[Brent_Bobyck]

Non-smokers have the right to breath smoke-free air, and I have the right to smoke.  What I think is stupid is the argument that non-smokers shouldn't be forced to breath smokey air. That is why places like the Italian Moon, Dagwoods, and Suite 49 were already smoke free. Non-smokers had options. An all smoking ban would give me absolutely no options as a smoker.

I used to go to Bonzers usually twice a week. I haven't been there since the smoking ban. We have all started going to whitey's where we can smoke. I am not claiming smoking is good for your health, but we are taking away one groups rights just to please a few. Kinda sounds like the NCAA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You smoking in a room of people puts everyone's health at risk. Me not smoking in a room of people puts no one at risk. See the difference.

Is it too much to ask smokers to go outside?

[ESPNInsider]

Non-smokers have the right to breath smoke-free air, and I have the right to smoke.  What I think is stupid is the argument that non-smokers shouldn't be forced to breath smokey air. That is why places like the Italian Moon, Dagwoods, and Suite 49 were already smoke free. Non-smokers had options. An all smoking ban would give me absolutely no options as a smoker.

I used to go to Bonzers usually twice a week. I haven't been there since the smoking ban. We have all started going to whitey's where we can smoke. I am not claiming smoking is good for your health, but we are taking away one groups rights just to please a few. Kinda sounds like the NCAA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do have options. You can walk 10 feet out the door and enjoy your cancer stick.

This does not just please a few. It pleases the millions of us that will now be able to go home after the bar and breath.

[Cratter]

The entire city is not smoke free. That is the problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again..... by "entire city" do you mean GF & EGF OR Bars should be smoke free along with all public places?