MN Smoking Ban - Results,

[rehmwa 2]

So - In complete violation of a business's private property rights, the local metro area passed a smoking ban.

1 - I think they crossed the line when they put it into effect in private businesses. They certainly have the right (and the duty, IMO) to ban it in public places (schools, university, airport, government buildings, etc). That's my politics on it.

personal

2 - We went out to a restaurant a couple days ago that we normally can't, and it was GREAT. I think it was a Green Mill - used to have to Go through the smoking area to get to handful of nons. This place was also more full than ever on a Wednesday evening - the staff was commenting on the HUGE uptick since the ban. More restaurants are having increases in business rather than decreases. I think bars are about breaking even with the exception of those on the state border - they are losing business to those driving across the river.

So, I "personally" love the results, however, I'm still against intrusion in private business and think it was a mistake. Let's make that clear - I know it's hard for some liberals to understand how one can support a 'rights' position that is contrary to one's personal preferences, but think hard on it and you Might get it.

3 - So the state screwed up. Clearly noted. Stay out of our private property rights.

4 - What about the businesses, how did they bring this about?

example - El Loro restaurant in a suburb. This place advertised both smoking and non-smoking areas - they divided them up and used glass all the way to the ceiling. Between the areas was a VERY small opening. Smoke does NOT go from the one room to the other. The non-smoking room was always full, smoking hardly ever. But they chose to have both. They did it right - now, even though they did it right, they still have their model upset by interference by the gov.

example - Applebee's in a suburb. This place advertised both smoking and non-smoking areas. The smoking area is the center of the room. Non-smoking is the booths on the periphery. One can be in a non-smoking booth (apparently defined as a table without an ashtray) and be within 2 feet of a smoker. Obviously, this type of restaurant is the direct cause of this unlawful (IMO) private property use law coming into being. Further, with the increase in business, the owners also screwed up in not recognizing the lost business opportunity.

{{Aside - I'm sure once the state realizes that restaurants are actually getting an increase in business, they will rationalize some way to steal a bigger cut of their profits. It's just natural here for that kind of thing to happen}}


simply speaking - the gov screwed up. But they got help from REALLY stupid restaurant owners. I think these guys screwed it up for themselves. Had they done it right, it never would have come up.

The "applebees" of the area, IMO, pretty much screwed it up for the "El Loros" of the area.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gawain 0]

What's going to be worse is when they ban smoking and tax it to the point that even smokers will drop the habit, and then all that tax revenue which is being misappropriated already will dry up.

Taxes only work if there is a revenue stream to draw from. Cigarettes could be construed as a victim in this case.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Any thoughts for the rights of the employees to work in a non-toxic environment trumping the rights of people to toxify same?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Any thoughts for the rights of the employees to work in a non-toxic environment trumping the rights of people to toxify same?

"Right to work" laws and conventions, perhaps? Also the fact that it hasn't (yet) been listed as a toxic substance.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Any thoughts for the rights of the employees to work in a non-toxic environment trumping the rights of people to toxify same?

I think I have a right to enjoy the ride to altitude without toxic gas effects...who's going to stand up for my rights?!

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Any thoughts for the rights of the employees to work in a non-toxic environment trumping the rights of people to toxify same?

yup, lots of thoughts -

1 - sucks to have to work where people smoke. If employees quit and go elsewhere, business owners will have to do one of 3 things - pay a LOT more to have employees, or go non-smoking to have employees, or only hire smokers (and suffer less profits from the smaller, but loyal, customer base)

2 - "toxic" - You make an ordered list of toxins and draw the line in the list where you think above the line the government should control the business and below the line the business should control the business. then people will argue about where the line is and also the order of the list. I'll start, let's put mildly dirty shoes on the bottom of the list, and airborne chlorine gas on the top - fill in the middle items and include tobacco smoke.

I'm very anti-smoking (smoke in your car? shut the windows, etc etc etc), but, I'm afraid, my position on private property rights is stronger. (I even believe that someone has the right to despoil the flag if they own it. I think it's disgusting and stupid (both flag nonsense and smoking), but if it's their property and on their property, then I and the gov have to stay out of it).

It's a tough balance and not at all cut and dry. I don't believe owners are fighting for the right to "toxify" their staff. That's unfair assumption of devious motivations. I believe owners are fighting for what they believe is their business' livelihood, and the right to decide what goes on on their property. (I think they are wrong on the livelihood issue in most cases, but so what, it's not my store/shop/etc)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think I have a right to enjoy the ride to altitude without toxic gas effects...who's going to stand up for my rights?!

if one stands up at 7500 feet, they might be more, not less, likely, to release gases of various forms.

Just remember when you get a whiff of that odor - moments earlier it was located in someone's rectum. Now it is lodged in the soft tissue of your lungs and throat....

"we demand, a SHRUBBERY"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Just remember when you get a whiff of that odor - moments earlier it was located in someone's rectum. Now it is lodged in the soft tissue of your lungs and throat....

"we demand, a SHRUBBERY"

"Smells like someone shit on a pine tree!"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I think I have a right to enjoy the ride to altitude without toxic gas effects...who's going to stand up for my rights?!

if one stands up at 7500 feet, they might be more, not less, likely, to release gases of various forms.

Just remember when you get a whiff of that odor - moments earlier it was located in someone's rectum. Now it is lodged in the soft tissue of your lungs and throat....

"we demand, a SHRUBBERY"

I should be allowed to recoup damages, double in the event that Mexican food was ingested the night before with large amounts of beer...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[AWL71 0]

1 - I think they crossed the line when they put it into effect in private businesses. They certainly have the right (and the duty, IMO) to ban it in public places (schools, university, airport, government buildings, etc). That's my politics on it.


But where do you draw the line? Restaurants, (though private businesses) are public places too. There is really not a good way to seperate smoking and non-smoking sections. I have never seen it done successfully.

But like you I think this is something the state should stay out of. I myself don't go to restaurants that have smoking sections because I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke. It should be left up to the individual business owner.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Let's make that clear - I know it's hard for some liberals to understand how one can support a 'rights' position that is contrary to one's personal preferences, but think hard on it and you Might get it.

.

I think EXACTLY the same about some conservatives who can't understand support for a 2nd Amendment rights position that is contrary to one's personal preferences. If they think hard, they might get it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But where do you draw the line? Restaurants, (though private businesses) are public places too.

I think you draw it well with your parenthetical. Publicly "owned" (gov buildings, libraries, airport, parks, etc) is clearly different than a public "place"

Quote

There is really not a good way to seperate smoking and non-smoking sections. I have never seen it done successfully

I have, all it takes is a bit of consideration and foresight. It takes very complicated things called "walls" and "windows"



The state can/should be in it for publicly "owned" property. And that's it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Let's make that clear - I know it's hard for some liberals to understand how one can support a 'rights' position that is contrary to one's personal preferences, but think hard on it and you Might get it.

.

I think EXACTLY the same about some conservatives who can't understand support for a 2nd Amendment rights position that is contrary to one's personal preferences. If they think hard, they might get it.

/me subscribes to thread to see the comments on THIS whopper!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think EXACTLY the same about some conservatives who can't understand support for a 2nd Amendment rights position that is contrary to one's personal preferences. If they think hard, they might get it.

You are a supporter of the 2nd, a likely an owner of a one or two guns. They accuse you of not being one because you like the debate and kind of hide your true position to keep them rabid at you.

HOwever, you falsely state incorrect positions about others too. So it's funny to see you upset when they use that (crappy) debate technique on you.

"hamster.....elderberry"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

But where do you draw the line? Restaurants, (though private businesses) are public places too.

I think you draw it well with your parenthetical. Publicly "owned" (gov buildings, libraries, airport, parks, etc) is clearly different than a public "place"

Quote

There is really not a good way to seperate smoking and non-smoking sections. I have never seen it done successfully

I have, all it takes is a bit of consideration and foresight. It takes very complicated things called "walls" and "windows"



The state can/should be in it for publicly "owned" property. And that's it.

You must have "high tech" walls in MN. There is no way to keep cigarette smoke smell from seeping into most everything it comes into contact with. And it will eventually seep into the no-smoking section. Im sure your walls have doors and when those doors open that smoke smell comes right on out. The air freshners they use to cover it up only work slightly. But businesses should do as they wish but the ones that allow smoking won't get my business.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

1 - sucks to have to work where people smoke. If employees quit and go elsewhere, business owners will have to do one of 3 things - pay a LOT more to have employees, or go non-smoking to have employees, or only hire smokers (and suffer less profits from the smaller, but loyal, customer base)

Or hire someone with two kids to feed who needs the work. The argument that employees who don't like the environment can go elsewhere was very prevalent during the formation of the major unions on this continent; a look at the history of the United Mine Workers of America shows this. Regardless of ones feelings about unions today most people I have met believe that the conditions in the coal mines of Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Nova Scotia etc. during the thirties were not acceptable no matter how much those men needed a job. Twenty years from now people will look back on the practice of putting our young child-bearing age women to work in smoky bars in similar light.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You must have "high tech" walls in MN. There is no way to keep cigarette smoke smell from seeping into most everything it comes into contact with. And it will eventually seep into the no-smoking section. Im sure your walls have doors and when those doors open that smoke smell comes right on out. The air freshners they use to cover it up only work slightly.

You're right there. It can't be 100%, I'm looking for 'reasonably' effective isolation. I've been in mixed restaurants that did just fine. And I've got a VERY sensitive nose for that crap.

Quote

But businesses should do as they wish but the ones that allow smoking won't get my business

I'm completely on board with that.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Or hire someone with two kids to feed who needs the work. ......Twenty years from now people will look back on the practice of putting our young child-bearing age women to work in smoky bars in similar light.

Yup, I see your point and have seen this one a million times.

I still consider that level of employment to be mobile if the employee has the guts to do so. (For THIS issue, again, I draw the Toxin line 'above' the 2nd hand smoke line. You draw it below - we've heard all the arguments already) And not having employees is a great way to get an owner to change his practices.

If employees were willing/gutsy enough to change jobs and insist on a non-smoking environment, guess what, the non-smoking establishments would have more applications, could pick the best employees, pay them less, have more profits, open more places, hire more non-smoking employees, do better - all the while the smoking places are shut down due to crappy service and low profits.

I don't see this assumption that people are "stuck" with a job.

Quote

Twenty years from now people will look back on the practice of putting our young child-bearing age women to work in smoky bars in similar light.

I really hope so. I don't think 20 years will be enough for some people to wise up.




I got one for you - I think it's absolutely disgusting to be served food by someone with face piercings, especially nose piercings. The image of crust and snot gathering around the post and falling off into the food is obvious.

Should the state outlaw that? Or should I just let business owners know about it and that it is the reason I don't eat there.

I wonder how many anti-smokers EVER told a restaurant manager that they don't go there because the place stinks. I have, and I did it politely, and most appreciated comments when delivered politely. One place took my number and invited me back after they made some changes. People complain, but rarely do anything proactive. Or, they wait until they are emotional about it and then delivery like assholes so the target listeners ignores them.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

I know it's hard for some liberals to understand how one can support a 'rights' position that is contrary to one's personal preferences, but think hard on it and you Might get it.

You were doing so well except for that comment.

Although, since it's you I'm guessing you just put it in to laugh at people getting uptight about it

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I think EXACTLY the same about some conservatives who can't understand support for a 2nd Amendment rights position that is contrary to one's personal preferences.

Please elaborate.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

I think EXACTLY the same about some conservatives who can't understand support for a 2nd Amendment rights position that is contrary to one's personal preferences.

Please elaborate.

Thank you, I think you just made my point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pirana 0]

I was wondering when you'd show up. Kallend's comment was like someone turned on the Batsignal. (You know, that spotlight that let's him know he's needed).

Good fun.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think EXACTLY the same about some conservatives who can't understand support for a 2nd Amendment rights position that is contrary to one's personal preferences.

Please elaborate.

Thank you, I think you just made my point.

You assume so much.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Although, since it's you I'm guessing you just put it in to laugh at people getting uptight about it

I have no idea what you mean



Edit: No one is commenting on the one important point - that a large portion of restaurants had terribly and irresponsibly 'failed' with pathetic attempts to accommodate no-smoking areas and, essentially brought this on themselves and the "smart" restaurant owners. (in other words, if you do something, do it right, else liberal big brother government will feel compelled to step on your rights)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Edit: No one is commenting on the one important point - that a large portion of restaurants had terribly and irresponsibly 'failed' with pathetic attempts to accommodate no-smoking areas and, essentially brought this on themselves and the "smart" restaurant owners.

Absolutely.

It's always amazed me at just how badly most restaurants have treated the majority of their customer base, the ones that don't want to smoke and eat at the same time. I guess they've just always been to scared to take the risk of upsetting the status quo.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?