smoking performance

[pcisntforme]

There is really no reason to complain about this considering the fact that people who don't smoke really have no reason to be at something like this. One must realize that it should be up to the owner of an establishment to choose whether or not it should be smoke free. I can guarantee you that if some bars allowed smoking and some did not, the ones that did allow smoking would do a hell of a lot better.

[g55122]

INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SMOKING BAN. PERIOD.

According to health economists at the University of California, cigarette companies rake in nearly $50 million annually from U.S. smokers. All that spending usually leads to even more money paid out by insurance companies to compensate for smokers health care costs. Researchers estimate insurance companies pay about $72.7 billion per year to provide health care for those with problems related to cigarette smoking.

[VoldFam]

It's only a matter of time before this is squashed, as it should. I laugh at everyone who thinks smoking is not dangerous. If it isn't dangerous, why did big tobacco put filters on at the first sign of trouble. And, why where those filters made of ASBESTOS (micronite)?!? Fine by me if you like being short of breath. I just don't want to be responsible for your health care. Crap bars close because of these bans. Good bars stay open because they're worth going to regardless of smoking.

[RaspyWolf]

@VoldFam Who doesn't know that it's dangerous? Seriously, name ONE SINGLE F#CKING PERSON in the US who thinks that cigarettes are good for you- Just 1! If someone wants to kill themselves by smoking, let them. I'm all for the banning of smoking in public places, but to ban smoking privately owned establishments, such as this bar, is fascism. Just don't go to smoking establishments, I certainly won't but I won't tell them they can't decide to let people smoke at their place of business either.

[zazopolis]

Eat it do-gooders. This is about there not being enough non-smoking business to compete with smoking bars and the willingness of smokers to avoid such healthy bars, but the lack of desire of fascist non-smokers to stay in their territory. You're the fun police. You're the people who killed Jesus!

[mjbvideo]

This is in Minnesota? My god, I thought all the morons lived in Wisconsin!

[flashmobmedia]

At the end of the day this about worker's right to health. Yes it's cute that that guy looks like a creepy pirate, but meanwhile the employees who may not be smokers are being subjected to second-hand smoke. This is about the freedom to work in a toxin-free enviornment, not the freedom to wear frilly shirts and put on "plays".

[hannahhow]

It's easy to say you can "choose" to find another job, but sometimes that's asking people to "choose" between their health and their ability to put food on the table - a choice no one should have to make! It's a shame that people are ignoring this law that was written to protect peoples' health! As a patron I now choose to stay LONGER than before because my contact lenses are not clouding up from the smoke and my lungs are not starting to burn!

[zeconstruct]

being employed by whomever you want is not one of our rights.

And about your contact lenses, again, the choice of the bar owner whether or not she/he cares about them/you :P

or at least at a rights-level thats what it should be.

[xryanherox]

The health of human beings is more important than the well-being of a business. Gross.

[silleetak]

Shame on these establishments for getting cute with people's health! This law is meant to protect bar patrons and workers and I for one appreciate being able to go out for the night and not have to risk my health to do it!

[thelittlebisch]

this is sad...a pathetic display...this law is meant to protect people's health. these people need to get a life.

[scottkurr]

O and thank you for thining out the persons that go out post OCT-1st making it a ghost town for the bar seen not to mention the taxes your forceing on others to pick up for states losses in Rev and if you dont belive that U soon will you should not even call yours self an American you must love PRES BUSH! FOOL!

[scottkurr]

if America wanted smoke free than we would have seen some smoke free clubs besides you sitting at a bar killing your own liver what's next prohibition stay home if it bothers ya that much we smokers and non smokers could prob.. care less about the nanny persons taking our rights away and if it was about health why is it that we can not have a room that entirely separate from non smoking area that makes me feel as though it is a control issue

[scottkurr]

if a bar owner wishes to have a smoke free environment he has that right us smokers do not force a bar to have smoking tell me if you owned a night club would you have it a non smoking club just wondering because I own one and as far as I no there was no law stopping any one from making there club smoke free

[baya012588]

Okay... so... Mark is my boyfriend's father. Mark, I like you and all, but smoking in public is something that should never have been legal. What about people with asthma? It isn't fair that they should have to inhale someone else's mistake. Second-hand smoke is worse in the sense that it isn't your choice that you are breathing in a nasty habit that isn't your own. I think the smoking ban is great!!!! Also, Jem made a good point... nobody should have to work in that type of enviroment.

[lotus2133]

I agree with you completely.  Smoking is morally reprehensible and irresponsible.

[1978RDC21]

some people believe that drinking coffee is morally reprehensible (caffeine is a mind altering drug). are you going to ban coffee next?

you idiots have no idea what freedom is about, freedom is having the choice to make a bad decision too.

[1978RDC21]

noone HAS to work in that environment, they have CHOSEN to work in that environment. What about people with asthma? are you saying that one person's illness should dictate the law for the rest? Once again the asthmatic has a choice to enter a bar or not!

[JEM55014]

Once and for all, it's NOT about restricting smoking and it's resulting secondhand smoke, in order to "disrespect" smokers. It's about providing a healthy workplace for the people who are providing the service to these people. This is IGNORANT! Get the facts!

[scottkurr]

It is our Wright to choose to smoke just as it is your choose to walk in to a Smokey Bar as it is your choose to work at one so any one with the argument has a better argument than "Once and for all, it's NOT about restricting" post it I have not seen one yet!

[JEM55014]

Well if I understand what you're saying (and I'm not sure I do), that's just silly. Of course smoking isn't a right (or even a "wright"). It's a privilege, and one that has been revoked for certain places in this state. You don't have to live in Minnesota, you know. There are still 26 states that don't have smoke-free workplace laws.

[gertken23]

You are ignorant. As long as smoking remains legal, it IS a right and it is constitutionally protected. The ONLY reason the legislature has been allowed to ban smoking is because of the special interest LIES that smoking is harmful to others. It is not harmful, and it doesn't take a whole lot of research to discover the truth.

[JEM55014]

Post a link to your research. The Surgeon General's report (a Republican-appointed Surgeon General at that) is pretty definite.

And it isn't constitutionally protected.

[1978RDC21]

Rights not specifically given to the Gov't by the people remain the people's rights. I have to agree that most bar owners didn't give their rights on running the business to the Gov't.

[JEM55014]

You're right; however, no matter what someone's right is, it is preempted when it harms someone else (e.g., libel). And smoking harms other people. PLEASE don't say these restaurant and bar workers can "just" work somewhere else. Why should they have to? All this amendment does is even the field for workers who weren't protected when the original Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act was passed 33 years ago. That's all. It's NOT about discrimination or prohibition, no matter what anyone here says.

[1978RDC21]

smoking DOES NOT harm someone else. (search Penn & Teller Bullsh*t re: smoking ban).

They don't HAVE to work anywhere, they CHOOSE to work somewhere. Unless this is a communist republik and "The State" issues jobs to people.

ok, JEM I guess you got me. PROHIBITING the use of a legal substance on someone's PRIVATE PROPERTY isn't about prohibition or discrimination. But the fact is that it is absolutely, positively, undoubtedly, 100% wrong! NO 'IFS', 'ANDS', or 'BUTS'

[scottkurr]

Yea well then maybe you and your non-smoking NANY buddies should have bought your own Night Club and made it non smoking instead of crying about it "FREEDOME TO BREATH" as if smokers were going to protest the non-smokers night club and force them to have smoking

[1978RDC21]

First of all that is a facade, but if you choose to argue that way then... If you cannot work in an environment in the presence of second-hand smoke work somewhere else or open your own bar/ restaurant.

In your scenario it's the employees telling the employer how to run his business. But the employees aren't the one's that put up the money and took all the risk to open a bar/ restaurant, so that doesn't seem right does it? It's about PRIVATE PROPERTY rights!

[Basswood78]

AWESOME............Just simply AWESOME!