Smoking ban in Minneapolis going into effect March 31, 2005

[CaptaiN_JacK]

This is why Minneapolis was rated by Popular Science as the most Tech-savvy city in America! Yay Minneapolis!

[gimp]

sure you can, they knew smoking was bad and still marketed it....

That's like blaming gun companies for people getting murdered. It's not like people are being forced to smoke, it's their own free choice.

[Sparta]

That's like blaming gun companies for people getting murdered. It's not like people are being forced to smoke, it's their own free choice.

Exactly, and we should protect that freedom of choice.

[deadeye9]

Penn & Teller did one of their shows about second-hand smoke.
It's on Showtime, and it's called

[PumpPlayer]

This ban is going on all around America...

Delaware (it's between PA and MD for you "geographically-disadvantaged") was one of the first states to implement the ban and it had been repeated in other states and locales including NYC (where it was already $6.50 for a pack). The issue is that federal buildings or any building with a federal office in it banned smoking by federal decree back in the 80's. States, on the other hand, are slow to catch on because of state excise tax.

For every cigarette sold, both the federal gov't and the state its sold in takes their cuts. State excise tax varies (I believe Alabama is the lowest, but I'm not positive), but it's usually pretty substantial. For a long time, states wanted to both give the appearance of not wanting people to smoke (for political reasons) and encourage smoking at the same time (so they still get paid the tax). It was always a balance between money and re-election.

Now that the smoking population is shrinking (50 years ago, more than 70% of adults smoked) and is continuing to shrink every year, states are begining to adopt laws that follow the trend so that their politicians look good. It's just a shameful solicitation for public support.

The line has to be drawn somewhere between the comfort of nonsmokers and the inconvenience of smokers. Should states encourage smoking? No, but they shouldn't discourage it either - it's not their place. If smoking is legal, it should be up to the sound-minded adults whether to choose to smoke or not. Furthermore, it should be individual establishments' decision of whether to allow smoking or not and their patrons should respect their decision accordingly. After all, aren't non-smoking sections effective enough at providing comfort to nonsmokers? I argue that they are.

My point is not pro- or con- smoking, I simply make the argument that state governments should not impose a regulation like this upon private businesses. Government offices, buildings and land - they make whatever regulations they wish so long as it does not obscure our use of such facilities. Private business is private business, however, and the government has no place making such a regulation.

I myself do not smoke and a ban does not affect me in any way... however, I am offended that state governments feel it necessary to intervene in the affairs of private business. Additionally, I do not feel that my tax dollars should be spent enforcing such a rediculous ban (even though I have a friend in the DE state police who enforces alcohol/tobacco regulations) - our money is better spent elsewhere.

I'm a fan of smaller government and as a citizen of Delaware, I have opposed the ban from the begining.

[MarkM]

Just think your goverment will get you ALL with a stealth tax if smoking decreases. The same is starting to happen over here in the UK. Already people have to go on the streets to smoke during breaks at work. Crazy thing is it is against EU law to force your workers to do this as you have to provide an area for them to smoke (it will be a brave worker who trys to take his/her company to court over this unfortunatly)...what the companies say "It is for the health of our workers that we have banned smoking on our premises"..what this actually translates to is "We are getting cheaper buildings insurrance as we have decided to take the price drop incentive to save money"..what this will also mean long term is that all the companies that allow smoking are paying slightly more for the insurrance but a ban when it comes in will then cause all the companies to pay the same amount of insurrance....not likely! It will go up so companies doing this enjoy the saving 'cos it is going to come back and bite you.
In the UK, the latest bandwagon jumpers all shout and scream about the health of the nation etc the strain on our national health system...yes I will grant you that smoking isn't healthy but it is a choice and that choice by way of taxation generates more money than our health service spends, so if it wasn't for smokers then where would the tax come from that non-smokers are currently benifiting from...everyones pocket.

You may have guessed that I am a smoker, but should I find myself in a situation that I can't smoke then I don't get all irate about it, even in a restaruant (sp?) where smoking is allowed I will not light up if the people next to me are still eating and I dislike someone smoking when I am eating also, so I am not an ogre about smokers and their rights.

[Thordic]

I love this law. It makes me much more likely to go to bars in the city rather than here in NJ.

If I go out all night here, I come home REEKING of smoke and my eyes are all irratated and god knows how much smoke I've inhaled.

Going to a bar in NYC, the air is clear, I leave the bar smelling normal, and its just much more enjoyable.

I really don't care if people want to give themselves cancer, but don't make everyone else around you suffer for it.

[BigEvil]

sure you can, they knew smoking was bad and still marketed it....

PEOPLE all know smoking is bad for you too, but THEY still smoke them.

Once this smoking ban becomes a little more widespread, people will wake up and go nuts about it. Right now, its just an inconviene for smokers to go out side to light up.

Me, I hate smoking. BUT its none of my business what other people do to themselves, and contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence second hand smoke affects you in any way. Although, it cant be that great for you, small amounts arent dangerous.

Besides, if the day comes when smoking is finally outlawed, all I know for sure is that my taxes are going to go through the roof from the govt losing out on all of that income.

[B.A.M.]

good 4 you. They banned smoking a while ago here in Boston a while ago though.

[hitech]

While I HATE smoking, I think the right to smoke should be protected...

Sure, in the privacy of ones own home between consenting adults. Every where elso, no.

[Igotu]

The only thing i hate about the smoking ban in st. paul is their stupid radio commercials about it, I cant remeber how it goes now but if i do ill post it.

[fcpchop]

See, thing is, if someone wants to smoke, that's their business. If you don't want to be subjected to it, that's your business. If that means not going to a bar where smoking is allowed, that's your business.

<3 government.

best post yet by far. It sums up it perfectly.

The companies sell poison. Screw 'em.

Definitly not the best post. The people are well aware that what they are buying is poison, but they still buy it. If it leads to their own death, than they brought it about themselves. They, and their anger family members, have no-one to blame but the smokers themselves. It's time for people to start owning up to their own actions instead of looking for somone else to point the figer at.

[hitech]

See, thing is, if someone wants to smoke, that's their business. If you don't want to be subjected to it, that's your business. If that means not going to a bar where smoking is allowed, that's your business.

So, because someone's chosen carrier is cocktail waitress they should have their health damaged? What if I wanted to "smoke" a radioactive chemical and spew it out into the air? Why is that ANY different? Why should ANYONE have the "right" to injure another's health in a public place?

And the argument that "they" don't have to work there; "they" don't always have a lot of choice. And it is against the law to deny someone work in their chosen field. What if someone were blowing radioactive something in your face while you worked?

Hell, what if I wanted to sniff skunk oil? It's not damaging to your health...

"You" shouldn't be allowed to injure another's health. If you want to do it to your own, that's fine. Do it in the privacy of your own home between consenting adults.

[PyRo]

Majority rule, simple.
Their are plenty of people out there who think it's ok to steal. Does that make it ok?
Lines have to be drawn somewhere and the majority rules (somtimes).

[PyRo]

best post yet by far. It sums up it perfectly.



Definitly not the best post. The people are well aware that what they are buying is poison, but they still buy it. If it leads to their own death, than they brought it about themselves. They, and their anger family members, have no-one to blame but the smokers themselves. It's time for people to start owning up to their own actions instead of looking for somone else to point the figer at.

Kind of like if I started putting up suicide booths (yes futurama referance, ha ha) people shouldn't be angry at me for having them, they should be angry at the people for killing themselves.