So anyone voting for the yes no yes?
-
In my opinion I don't think it will affect the bars, since the moorhead bars already have it done, people are going to want to go out. The mall doesn't let you smoke in it, that hasn't stopped people from shopping. If you go to other cities in the u.s. there are smoking bans in all the clubs I have been to so far, most of them have another area in the bar some where, where people can smoke, I guess people who built the bars around here should have thought that some day there will probably be a ban with smoking in bars. Everyone has their own opinion and I guess thats just my personal opinion. I don't think its going to pass anyways but who knows.
-
D S ohM;221633 wrote:
I don't care about the tax increase. But im getting fucking sick of people bitching about smoking in bars. If you don't want to be around smoking, go to a different fucking bar that doesn't allow it. Go to fucking Moorhead or a bar/grill. Fuck./end rant...headed out to smoke.
+1...
-
You people are so dense it's rediculous. Sure, I smoke cloves on occasion and i dislike normal cigarette smoke, but I don't think that gives me the right to tell somebody what they can/can't do in their own establishment. Whatever happened to capitalism and free ownership to do with your property what you want?
How bout we ban alcohol at bars because drunk people can sometimes get violent and therefore hurt somebody else physically right on the spot. That means if YOU'RE a violent drunk you can hurt ME. Beings it's all about ME that's all the matters, right? Hell, while we are at it, let's ban gun ownership in dangerous neighborhoods because THAT PERSON and hurt ME with their gun. Please, give me a fucking break with the the whole ME ME ME thing...Everytime you go into a bar, you have virtually the same chance of getting into a fight as you do getting lung cancer down the road. Both aren't necessarily abundant, but both are proven to happen.What happened to all of the people here that 'stand' for the Constitution and what it stands for when it comes to personal rights. It was all over this site when Ron Paul's name came about. Now look at yourselves. You are a bunch of hypocrits that are just trying to use politics in your own favor, just like most of this nation. You yourselves are seemingly blind how this is an infraction against personal ownership and rights to do with your property as you so chose. If you stood for personal rights, you would respect the owners of the bars that allow smoking and let them to do with their establishment as they so chose. It shouldn't be the government that steps in and tells them what to do with THEIR business.
So in the end...most of you are hypocrits just like every other politician out there. You have become what you have seemingly grown to hate, one that looks to their own interest, not to the interests of what is right and what this country IS SUPPOSED to be about, personal rights/freedom.
This is just another step towards socialism and banning tobacco all-together...
P.S. I'm against the half cent tax increase too.
-
All laws are "suppose" to be there to protect "we the people". There are all kinds of laws that impose on our freedom. Speed limits impose on my personal right to go as fast as I want, laws against theft impose on my personal right to go take someone else's stuff that I want, etc.
This "ban smoking here", "ban smoking there" is just dumb. Either a substance is good/fine for you and it's legal or it's bad/going to kill you and it's illegal. The argument is framed completely wrong.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;221663 wrote:
All laws are "suppose" to be there to protect "we the people". There are all kinds of laws that impose on our freedom. Speed limits impose on my personal right to go as fast as I want, laws against theft impose on my personal right to go take someone else's stuff that I want, etc.This "ban smoking here", "ban smoking there" is just dumb. Either a substance is good/fine for you and it's legal or it's bad/going to kill you and it's illegal. The argument is framed completely wrong.
I was primarily trying to frame it with respect to owners' rights, not with respect to the people...To me, whether the people in general want it or not doesn't matter. They shouldn't be able to tell somebody what he/she can or can't do with their own establishment., period. It's all about supply in demand. If banning smoking would make the businsses more prosperous (more demand), the owners would do it...Let the market decide when owners should ban smoking. People will quit going if smoking becomes a big problem and that will then cause the owners to not allow smoking anymore. That, to me, is truely letting the people decide. People not going to the business, that's the statement that should be made...Not asking the government to tell them what to do.
On another note, bars in MN have LOST business ever since the smoking ban. People would rather drink at home and have a few friends over (to smoke) rather than going to the bar with them...This ban would hurt the Fargo bar owners, no question about it.
-
Ok... I'm sorry but if you and I were chillin in a bar and you were smoking and I was chewing.. and I spit chew in your drink and made you drink it you cannot tell me you wouldn't be pissed. I don't know about you but when I go to a bar most people dont care if they just blow smoke in your face. How is it fair that all smokers can go out and party but non-smokers can't. If you talk about the Constitution, it talks about democracy not only for a certain people but for everyone. There ARE people who dont like breathing in shitty air so they should have the same rights as anyone else. Just because there are people who don't like smoke in public does that mean that they should be fuckin hobbits for the rest of their life that never go out in public? There are people out there that can't help that they are allergic to smoke or smoke-sensitive, so that means they can't have fun too when they go out? I happen to be with someone that if they get too much smoke they actually could die and they have gone to the hospital for it after going out. I've known people who have died of SECOND HAND smoke. If smoking is your own thing by all means do it in your own private place or do it away or outside the bar. Or even have a smoking part of the bar for people. Actually i agree that there should be a smoking part of a bar where there is smoking allowed but also a non-smoking part for those you dont. I bet those who are against the smoking ban still go to restaurants that had the ban and they eat shit up. There are tons of places you can't smoke and yet people still go. I can understand why smokers are pissed that they wouldn't be able to smoke in bars because its where they want to release stress but they have to look at the other side too. I know many people are saying go to moorhead and party but pretty positive if you wanna go dance and listen to dance music there is NO WHERE in moorhead so what does that leave? Fargo. Lets face it. Every business has standards to abide by. They are set up by laws made primarily by a governing body. Thats the american way pretty much. Things change. Yeah, the ban would be good for health primarily but thats not why I'm voting no. I just want my right back to have fun when I go out and not feel like I'm gonna die of smoke inhalation. I have nothing against smokers smoking, hell do what you want with your life i dont care, but other people have to smell the shit too and it is MY personal right and freedom to breath clean air in a public place where I wanna party. Just my opinion.
-
note:
harm;221642 wrote:
Your choice of going into an establishment that allows smoking shows that you don't care as much about clean air as you say you do.playing devil's advocate, btw. Even though I do find it a valid argument from either side.. I think there is an injustice being done with a total smoking ban.. what happened to freedom of personal choice, and personal responsibility? I don't need government to be my daddy. I sure as hell don't WANT government to be my daddy.
You want to ban smoking because it causes cancer, fine..
should've said I was trying to imply "in smokers" there. Sorry. However, I don't like seeing people who have tanned themselves to a crisp.. and therefore they do affect me by making me slightly nauseous. =D
one thought, if you really want to protect your right to go places and not breathe smoke, can I suggest you start lobbying business owners to change their smoking policies? Find a place you really like, leave a note for the owner, start a petition at the door, whatever. Some people absolutely love dive bars, revel in their clothes reeking of beer and cigarettes afterward even if they didn't have any beer.. or cigarettes.. it's like a measure of how much shitty fun you've had. Other people like to go out, drink themselves into a stupor, and not smoke or be around smoke. (and yes, some people are actually responsible, and just want to go out to the bar for ..i dunno, a glass of water and some salad?)
HOW THE FUCK DOES ANYBODY HAVE A "HEALTH" ARGUMENT FOR NOT ALLOWING SMOKING IN BARS!? just a side note. I mean, alcohol is great for you. Really. Never killed anybody. Ever. Definitely doesn't get people arrested, or put in the hospital, or somehow inspire stupid decisions or public urination. Couldn't possibly be involved with ANY "morning after" story EVER. Noway, nohow.
/sidenoteMy position - my real position? I'll vote 'Yes - No - Yes' tomorrow; not because I'm a smoker.
We already voted on the issue once, and the Commission wants to just be able to overturn the vote. PRECEDENCE is what scares me most here. If they pull this off now, the future is less free. Also.. honestly, I don't want a total smoking ban, I'd rather go out somewhere and hang around with my smoker friends than sit in one of their tar-stained residences and watch TV. When I don't want to sit somewhere where I'll be breathing toxins and pollutants, I'll go to an establishment where the owner has chosen to keep the place smoke-free, or just go home.
This argument is pretty worthless, though. I'm surprised they're even giving us the benefit of a vote, because we all know how this will eventually end. Kind of get the same feeling about it as I do with the presidential election: the media is running it, and some people are trying to fight back. When it comes to the Smoking/Non argument.. whether you're on one side or the other, both are right, and both are wrong. The problem I have with the issue at hand isn't about smoking. Smoking is bad for you. Smoking is bad for me. We all know this. Freedom to choose is GREAT for both of us, however, and this vote is about taking some of that freedom away. This is the kind of vote where people's rights begin to erode more quickly, with government making more decisions that affect people, affect businesses, and have an effect on a lot more than whether or not people can smoke in public.
-
out there;221636 wrote:
because it is all about reducing the cost of businesses to come here. i would have no problem if these high-paying entities from chicago, st louis, cleveland, anywhere pay the same wages here; but i think the big selling point to bring them here is going to be: "our cost of living is low, you can pay people here peanuts and they'll be happy!"how about looking at the "silent crossings" bs and the new fargo library with the huge cost increases that were unforeseen? the wet house near the new elementary school?
simply put, this area's administration doesn't know how to handle money or listen to the people. wait... that's all of america.
Yeah that's very true. I am not a ND resident so I have no choice in the matter which is why I have so much ignorance on the subject(I assumed that it was because of the "expense" of the increase why people were opposed, but figured there had to be more to the story). This is exactly what I was looking for. And, after posting, I remembered there were a lot better things that could potentionally use that tax increase.
I don't make a ton of money by anyones standards, but because my job is payed based on a scale for the Minneapolis metro area, I come out pretty good. It's actually really sad when I look at other jobs and they require a bachelors plus 5 years of experience and it only pays $5-10k more than I made starting and I would lose my company car. Granted, theres probably a higher ceiling there than my job, but it's just not worth it for me to A.) stick around here much longer and B.) finish my education and end up MORE in debt which would negate the pay increase. Sorry that got off topic, but it's irritating!
-
-
eh, quick quote from a local business owner.
There are 121 liquor licenses in the city of Fargo, and out of that 121 there are only 19 bars that you would be āforced to go intoā that are totally smoking; the other 102 bars/restaurants are either smoke free or you have a choice, as with our establishment. This whole nonsmoking battle is simply about those 19 bars in Fargo that donāt offer you a choice. Who cares? You have another 102 places that you can go to have a steak or a beer.
-
Ok...my reasoning for banning smoking in bars is somewhat selfish, because I could easily make the argument that nobody really goes to a bar to "get healthy"....
However, I can see the point from a potential bartenders perspective. Yes, they could go work for a bar that doesn't allow smoking, there are several in town right now, but I'm 99% positive that the most tips are earned at places like The Hub and other places like that...the hot spots if you will. So, then the bartender has to choose, "do I want a good paycheck or good lungs?" Kind of a shitty choice if you ask me.
It's like asking someone "will you work in this lead mine w/ no respirator if we pay you more money to do so?" or "are you willing to work w/o personal protection equipment on this construction site for more cash?" The answer to both might be yes, but I can guarantee OSHA will shut them down in a heartbeat if caught.
I have no problem if anyone on here smokes...your choice, your consequences....but I don't see why bars are given any different freedoms than any other establishment. For example, adult book stores (porn shops/whatever) are smoke free and only allow people age 18 and up inside....but why can't they allow smoking inside?
If two business owners have businesses side by side, why should one have to follow a different set of rules than the one next to them? It's kinda like DaveH's argument of why should I pay $10k in taxes each year when others only have to pay $100 in taxes...we both work hard for our paycheck, why should one get taxed at a higher rate than the other?
-
harm;221677 wrote:
eh, quick quote from a local business owner.There are 121 liquor licenses in the city of Fargo, and out of that 121 there are only 19 bars that you would be āforced to go intoā that are totally smoking; the other 102 bars/restaurants are either smoke free or you have a choice, as with our establishment. This whole nonsmoking battle is simply about those 19 bars in Fargo that donāt offer you a choice. Who cares? You have another 102 places that you can go to have a steak or a beer.
Taken straight from yesnoyes.org most of those 102 are RESTAURANTS. you name one of them that is an actual BAR, bar. The dancing bars here are pretty much G's, bucks, the hub, and the OB. Hooligans is really the only non-smoking bar of note is Hooligans and for people like me who like to go out and do more than just drink when we go out we are S.O.L. I agree with TJams. Like I said before, every business has standards. Why should one type of business be treated differently than every other business. Who cares? I do because I happen to be someone who wants to just more than just sit and drink. I wanna be able to go to a popular bar that has good music to dance and listen to and be able to breath. Yeah I'm selfish but most American's are. Like I said, nothing against smokers but I deserve to breath clean air and not have to be cooped up at home because smokers wanna take over the good bars when they could just take their smoke break right outside just like any other establishment that is non-smoking.
-
My opinon (I dont smoke, and i dont like the smell of smoke) I say let the bar owners decide if people can smoke in the bar or not. For all of you who are bitching that you shouldn't have to be around the smoke and breathe it in. Stop going to the bars that allow smoking, its common sense isn't it? I mean seriously just go to a non smoking bar or across the river to a bar in Moorhead.
-
The non-smoking bars with available dance floors just don't seem to make it around here. Period. So what does that mean about the flow of customers? A lot of them must want to go out, drink, dance, and smoke. A lot of people who "don't smoke" DO smoke when they're out having fun. Should you talk to the business' owners about it, and see what they have to say? Nah, better just ban smoking in bars. One more step toward a total ban, one more step toward tobacco prohibition. May as well make everybody's decisions for them. I'd like it if there were a place where people could go and drink and dance and not smoke.. it'd be healthier. And a lot less crowded. I don't dance, though, so what's the point of me going? ..aside from watching drunk chicks, I guess.
When I go shopping (those rare occasions, when I actually get groceries) I CHOOSE to avoid foods with hydrogenated fats, because I know the trans-fats are bad. It's a choice I make. Was it New York that actually banned hydrogenated oils? I didn't follow the story much. Great for health. WOW for forcing decisions on 'what to cook with' for an entire city.
-
Mazdagurl: I don't think smokers "wanna take over the good bars" at all.. and I know a lot of people who only smoke when they go out. Just like a lot of people only get drunk when they go out, they don't do it at home, it's part of WHY they go out to bars.
To answer your question, I don't go out to "have fun" and dance.. so I'm not familiar enough with the whole 'go out and go dancing' scene to know if we even have places that are nonsmoking anymore. I don't think there's anything left locally, so unfortunately you are kind of SOL for now. There have been a few dance clubs around town that were smoke-free, I think most recently the old Pistol Pete's in Moorhead.. Atomic? Never went there, not sure on the name. It's closed now anyway. Possibly because most people still go to places that allow smoking. I'm all for non-smoking venues.. they just don't seem to last long, or do as much business as smoking-allowed venues. I was pretty sure The Hub was non-smoking.. I've only been inside once, to see my little brother's group playing.. and didn't see anybody smoking, but that was in one of the little divided off areas. , so I don't know for sure.
-
Ok. I wouldn't be bitching about this if there was a non-smoking place that I could dance at. You name ONE place that was non-smoking that opened up in fargo that was like the hub, or g's, or bucks, or the OB where you could actually dance with a lot of space and it wasn't the size of your thumb. I would say no shit that smaller bars weren't able to handle it with non-smoking especially if they didn't advertise right or manage it correctly. there is more that goes into you losing customers and business than SMOKING. People lose business because they don't advertise enough and give the customers a reason to stay there and they have given up. A lot of people who smoke or go out to just drink wont really share my perspective because they dont really care about places they wouldn't really go to if their was smoking there or not. Yeah there are people who don't smoke and smoke when they are having fun. There are people who smoke normally and hate going out to bars that are smoking as they rather smoke outside. There are all kinds of people. smoking bans doesn't mean that cigarettes are going to be outlawed. as we know there aint no way that's gonna happen they already tried it once. PS food bans are different than smoking bans. Yeah they are both your choice, but obviously bad food isn't imposed directly on other people who are around you like smoking is. If the ban doesn't happen, yeah whatever its will just stay the way it is but at least I can say that I didn't sit back and let it happen by not voting.
-
harm;221686 wrote:
Mazdagurl: I don't think smokers "wanna take over the good bars" at all.. and I know a lot of people who only smoke when they go out. Just like a lot of people only get drunk when they go out, they don't do it at home, it's part of WHY they go out to bars.To answer your question, I don't go out to "have fun" and dance.. so I'm not familiar enough with the whole 'go out and go dancing' scene to know if we even have places that are nonsmoking anymore. I don't think there's anything left locally, so unfortunately you are kind of SOL for now. There have been a few dance clubs around town that were smoke-free, I think most recently the old Pistol Pete's in Moorhead.. Atomic? Never went there, not sure on the name. It's closed now anyway. Possibly because most people still go to places that allow smoking. I'm all for non-smoking venues.. they just don't seem to last long, or do as much business as smoking-allowed venues. I was pretty sure The Hub was non-smoking.. I've only been inside once, to see my little brother's group playing.. and didn't see anybody smoking, but that was in one of the little divided off areas. , so I don't know for sure.
I can understand where you are coming from and I know a lot of people dont really understand where I am coming from. With pistol petes isn't closed it just moved to west fargo and is now a country bar (which doesn't do me much justice.)With the hub it started out non-smoking and people just started smoking and turned it into a smoking club and no one had the balls to enforce the non-smoking. If I had the money, I would totally build a bar that would have a venue for smoking and a venue for non-smoking where everyone would be able to be happy and have fun. Seems like the smartest business plan to me. But yeah the above reason with the hub is kinda why it feels like to me the non-smoker that smokers take over bars. And I dont think its too fair. If i was a smoker, i'd be bitching about the ban probably but I would level with those who don't want me to blow smoke in there face and i'd take my break outside.
-
I'm a Ron Paul supporter that isn't in favor of a smoking ban. I view the smoking problem entirely in the context of property rights and freedom of association rights. I'd sooner ban smoking in public places (like parks, sidewalks, etc) than inside of a business.
I think the comparison to mining with no safety equipment is an apt one -- there are people who are willing to trade some health for money. We hired 2 such people a few years ago to tear siding off of our house because we were concerned it had asbestos in it. We asked if they were comfortable and trained to deal with that stuff and they said yes on both counts.
What infact happened was that 2 dudes in flannel shirts showed up and just ripped the shit out of the house. Not so much as a dust mask. That's their choice to make and I don't feel it's my job to tell them how to live their lives.
I carefully read the half cent tax proposal and I have to say I'm way against it. Not just because I'm generally against taxes, but because there is so much handwaving and stupid government pony tricks going on here. Someone else wisely pointed out that Fargo already attracts companies due to its low labor cost structure -- I can vouch for this 100%. I have worked for Microsoft in the same role in Redmond (our normal labor market) and now in Fargo. There are campus specific salary adjustments depending on where you work. A guy doing my job in Fargo generally would make more in Redmond and would make more still in our office outside of Copenhagen, Denmark. Of course, living in Redmond is way spendier than Fargo, and Copenhagen is more expensive still (how does 150% taxation on cars sound to you guys? No joke.)
Furthermore, what this amounts to is the government "picking winners". They list al of these things like Science/Math educaiton in K-12, high speed internet, increased airport effectiveness, etc etc. But then you look at where they want to spend money and all of those get nothing. The places that will get money is some kind of shared R&D lab space and some "administrative and entruprenurial" type incubation stuff. The world is certainly larger than my imagination, but i cannot imagine what they're going to spend this money on that is going to uniquely solve even one companies research problems, much less a set of multiple companies.
I don't want my taxes to get higher, that's a given, but I especially don't want my taxes to get higher so that a few corporations can be chosen as "winners". The market works because the price function captures all of the distributed intelligence of the entire economy. No group of individuals can possibly be more intelligent or as knowledgable as the market in the whole. Planned economies always fail in the general case because they cannot compete with the distributed information of the price function.
-
The place over by safari I was thinking of that used to be Pete's was named Eclipse, I think.. dunno where I got 'atomic' from. if I remember right Eclipse closed, opened, and closed again. so moot point, they're not around anymore.
Sucks that the Hub just gave up on enforcing the non-smoking policy.. probably just cheaper to bring out ashtrays than employ extra security people. Lame either way. If that's the way it went, people smoking anyway, and them just giving up on enforcing it.. I see what you mean by smokers taking over, completely, and I'd just like to add, I hate people. I see the same thing on the rare occasion I make it out to a concert in a non-smoking venue (anything other than a show at a bar.. the civic center and the dome, namely). Ugh.
If you have a place with a no-smoking policy, and you don't enforce it, you don't have a no-smoking policy, do you? Why not just kick smokers out if they light up inside? Are they going to come back with lawyers? Kicking them out is what, offensive? It's your friggin' business, your rules, and that should be pretty damn final. I'm betting somebody could pull in a decent chunk of business with something like what you said, a place with a good-sized dance floor, bar, no smoking in most of the place, smoking section closed off and ventilated like what the law currently provides for. It's just nobody's going and doing it.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login