smoking performance

Patrons of Barnacles on Mille Lacs Lake found a loophole in Minnesota's Freedom to Breathe Act, which banned smoking in bars and restaurants

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• mille
• lacs
• messenger
• news
• isle
• onamia
• minnesota
• Barnacles
• 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[xryanherox]

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

[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'

[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.