So anyone voting for the yes no yes?

[D S ohM]

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.

[out there]

PSiedTSi;221631 wrote:
I don't see why so many people are opposed to the half cent sales tax increase.

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.

[amicheze]

A half cent sales tax increase has no guarantee whatsoever of working. If they were actually going to put it toward education or health care or something useful, that's fine. The same type of programs in other cities have shown that they don't work. Most of the time, smaller cities (like Fargo) attract these big businesses, but then they leave after their incentive to stay is up and take their jobs with them. It's happened in most cases, and it will probably happen here. It's basically like Fargo collecting tax dollars to play the lottery.

Your right to smoke and get any number of deadly diseases stops when my (IMO) more important right to breathe clean air and not get said deadly diseases is infringed upon.

[harm]

it's arguable that some people's right to "pursuit of happiness" is infringed upon when they aren't allowed to smoke in a bar, too, though. Bar owners have every right to ban smoking in their establishments, and so far most have chosen not to. 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.. then ban suntanning, and require everybody to wear large-brimmed hats and 45spf anytime they're thinking about maybe even planning on going outdoors. Oh, and ban artificial sweeteners (not just because they taste like ass!) because they're proven to cause cancer in test animals too.. Ban everything that offends everybody, start making everybody wear the same clothes, to keep people from being jealous or (lordy no) more individual.. Now would be a great time for a repost of the Harrison Bergeron story.

somebody, go find that.

I can't wait until tobacco prohibition hits.. it's going to be a rioting crowd of screaming, and subsequently phlegm-hacking people in the streets. =D

[2wheeler]

harm;221642 wrote:
You want to ban smoking because it causes cancer, fine.. then ban suntanning, and require everybody to wear large-brimmed hats and 45spf anytime they're thinking about maybe even planning on going outdoors. Oh, and ban artificial sweeteners (not just because they taste like ass!) because they're proven to cause cancer in test animals too.. Ban everything that offends everybody, start making everybody wear the same clothes, to keep people from being jealous or (lordy no) more individual..

K, but, YOU suntanning, doesn't affect ME. YOU not wearing sunblock, doesn't affect ME. YOU smoking, doesn't offend ME.

YOU smoking in an enclosed area that we are sharing, does have a very good chance of affecting MY health.

I could care less if all of the smokers get cancer. Your choice, your result.

[SPANISH-RICE]

i agree^ , to smoke around other people in a bar is just inconsiderate. sure people could just go to other bars but why should people who actually want to be healthy have to go out looking for a safe alternative to their bar? if YOU make the choice to smoke i think its YOURE responsibility to make sure it wont affect other people. go out of your way to find your own damn bar or do your own damn thing.

its been understood and accepted for a long time that smoking is unsafe/pointless and just cause you cant/dont want to quit and still do it around other people just shows how much of an inconsiderate ass some people are.

[chevymann]

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.

[bubba]

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...

[torbs]

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.

[DaveH]

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.

[torbs]

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.

[mazdagurl]

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.

[mazdagurl]

PS I think the only reason why MN has lost business is because Fargo doesn't have a ban

[harm]

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.
/sidenote

My 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.

[PSiedTSi]

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!

[KA-T_240]

I dont like going to the bar and have everyone smoking. That is cause it is in such a small area. However, you go outside and a person can be smoking 3-4 feet from you and you barely notice it(depending on the wind and a couple other factors).

[harm]

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 “forced to go into” 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 don’t offer you a choice. Who cares? You have another 102 places that you can go to have a steak or a beer.

[Guest]

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?

[mazdagurl]

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 “forced to go into” 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 don’t 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.

[CivicEX7777777]

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.