So anyone voting for the yes no yes?
-
harm;221686 wrote:
Mazdagurl: I don't think smokers "wanna take over the good bars" at all.. and I know a lot of people who only smoke when they go out. Just like a lot of people only get drunk when they go out, they don't do it at home, it's part of WHY they go out to bars.To answer your question, I don't go out to "have fun" and dance.. so I'm not familiar enough with the whole 'go out and go dancing' scene to know if we even have places that are nonsmoking anymore. I don't think there's anything left locally, so unfortunately you are kind of SOL for now. There have been a few dance clubs around town that were smoke-free, I think most recently the old Pistol Pete's in Moorhead.. Atomic? Never went there, not sure on the name. It's closed now anyway. Possibly because most people still go to places that allow smoking. I'm all for non-smoking venues.. they just don't seem to last long, or do as much business as smoking-allowed venues. I was pretty sure The Hub was non-smoking.. I've only been inside once, to see my little brother's group playing.. and didn't see anybody smoking, but that was in one of the little divided off areas. , so I don't know for sure.
I can understand where you are coming from and I know a lot of people dont really understand where I am coming from. With pistol petes isn't closed it just moved to west fargo and is now a country bar (which doesn't do me much justice.)With the hub it started out non-smoking and people just started smoking and turned it into a smoking club and no one had the balls to enforce the non-smoking. If I had the money, I would totally build a bar that would have a venue for smoking and a venue for non-smoking where everyone would be able to be happy and have fun. Seems like the smartest business plan to me. But yeah the above reason with the hub is kinda why it feels like to me the non-smoker that smokers take over bars. And I dont think its too fair. If i was a smoker, i'd be bitching about the ban probably but I would level with those who don't want me to blow smoke in there face and i'd take my break outside.
-
I'm a Ron Paul supporter that isn't in favor of a smoking ban. I view the smoking problem entirely in the context of property rights and freedom of association rights. I'd sooner ban smoking in public places (like parks, sidewalks, etc) than inside of a business.
I think the comparison to mining with no safety equipment is an apt one -- there are people who are willing to trade some health for money. We hired 2 such people a few years ago to tear siding off of our house because we were concerned it had asbestos in it. We asked if they were comfortable and trained to deal with that stuff and they said yes on both counts.
What infact happened was that 2 dudes in flannel shirts showed up and just ripped the shit out of the house. Not so much as a dust mask. That's their choice to make and I don't feel it's my job to tell them how to live their lives.
I carefully read the half cent tax proposal and I have to say I'm way against it. Not just because I'm generally against taxes, but because there is so much handwaving and stupid government pony tricks going on here. Someone else wisely pointed out that Fargo already attracts companies due to its low labor cost structure -- I can vouch for this 100%. I have worked for Microsoft in the same role in Redmond (our normal labor market) and now in Fargo. There are campus specific salary adjustments depending on where you work. A guy doing my job in Fargo generally would make more in Redmond and would make more still in our office outside of Copenhagen, Denmark. Of course, living in Redmond is way spendier than Fargo, and Copenhagen is more expensive still (how does 150% taxation on cars sound to you guys? No joke.)
Furthermore, what this amounts to is the government "picking winners". They list al of these things like Science/Math educaiton in K-12, high speed internet, increased airport effectiveness, etc etc. But then you look at where they want to spend money and all of those get nothing. The places that will get money is some kind of shared R&D lab space and some "administrative and entruprenurial" type incubation stuff. The world is certainly larger than my imagination, but i cannot imagine what they're going to spend this money on that is going to uniquely solve even one companies research problems, much less a set of multiple companies.
I don't want my taxes to get higher, that's a given, but I especially don't want my taxes to get higher so that a few corporations can be chosen as "winners". The market works because the price function captures all of the distributed intelligence of the entire economy. No group of individuals can possibly be more intelligent or as knowledgable as the market in the whole. Planned economies always fail in the general case because they cannot compete with the distributed information of the price function.
-
The place over by safari I was thinking of that used to be Pete's was named Eclipse, I think.. dunno where I got 'atomic' from. if I remember right Eclipse closed, opened, and closed again. so moot point, they're not around anymore.
Sucks that the Hub just gave up on enforcing the non-smoking policy.. probably just cheaper to bring out ashtrays than employ extra security people. Lame either way. If that's the way it went, people smoking anyway, and them just giving up on enforcing it.. I see what you mean by smokers taking over, completely, and I'd just like to add, I hate people. I see the same thing on the rare occasion I make it out to a concert in a non-smoking venue (anything other than a show at a bar.. the civic center and the dome, namely). Ugh.
If you have a place with a no-smoking policy, and you don't enforce it, you don't have a no-smoking policy, do you? Why not just kick smokers out if they light up inside? Are they going to come back with lawyers? Kicking them out is what, offensive? It's your friggin' business, your rules, and that should be pretty damn final. I'm betting somebody could pull in a decent chunk of business with something like what you said, a place with a good-sized dance floor, bar, no smoking in most of the place, smoking section closed off and ventilated like what the law currently provides for. It's just nobody's going and doing it.
-
tjamz;221679 wrote:
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?
Why can't places like that have smoking and one not?...Simple, because people like you (not you, like you) voted against smoking in establishments like that previously. Either that, or it's the business owners' decision. Either way, your arguement is based on pointing to something that (IMO) is wrong (banning smoking in establishments) and using it as an excuse to ban it elseware. That's called using one small negative and bringing it to a larger one. It just builds up and up until it's banned all-together (in this case).
Chuck, for how smart you come off to be a lot of the time, I admit, you sound very uneducated, selfish, and anti-free market right now...Re-read what you wrote and think of what Ron Paul would say, or anybody that has a general understanding of how piling small laws on top of each other works...With this, you just took a step down (polically, i still
you in a totally non-gay way lol) to me. I guess I just don't see how you can be somebody that supports a candidate who stands for all of the things you are now seemingly against, all because it works in your favor. Hypocrit. -
torbs;221665 wrote:
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.Too late, bars are already regulated as to whether they can serve food or liquor or not, who they can serve it to, etc. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't have those regulations either. Should the kitchen in a bar/grill have to meet the government regulations on cleanliness, etc? After all, isn't it the bar owners right to serve food with salmonella if he chooses? (yes, a little devils advocate there).
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
torbs;221699 wrote:
Why can't places like that have smoking and one not?...Simple, because people like you (not you, like you) voted against smoking in establishments like that previously. Either that, or it's the business owners' decision. Either way, your arguement is based on pointing to something that (IMO) is wrong (banning smoking in establishments) and using it as an excuse to ban it elseware. That's called using one small negative and bringing it to a larger one. It just builds up and up until it's banned all-together (in this case).Chuck, for how smart you come off to be a lot of the time, I admit, you sound very uneducated, selfish, and anti-free market right now...Re-read what you wrote and think of what Ron Paul would say, or anybody that has a general understanding of how piling small laws on top of each other works...With this, you just took a step down (polically, i still
you in a totally non-gay way lol) to me. I guess I just don't see how you can be somebody that supports a candidate who stands for all of the things you are now seemingly against, all because it works in your favor. Hypocrit.This is the one major issue I am against of RP's. Because in MY understanding of the american laws, one persons rights end when another persons gets infringed on. I don't think there is a "right" to smoke (didn't see it in the constitution anywhere or bill of rights), but I think there is more of a right to not have your health compromised by the choices of others.
If I walked into a bar with the following chemicals:
Acetaldehyde Acetamide Acrylamide Acrylonitrile 2-Amino-3,4-dimethyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (MeIQ) 3-Amino-1,4-dimethyl-5H-pyrido [4,3-b]indole (Trp-P-1) 2-Amino-l-methyl-6-phenyl-1H-imidazo [4,5-b]pyridine (PhlP) 2-Amino-6-methyldipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole (Glu-P-1) 3-Amino-l-methyl-5H-pyrido {4,3-b]indole (Trp-P-2 2-Amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole (MeAaC) 2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole (AaC) 4-Aminobiphenyl 2-Aminodipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole (Glu-P-2) 0-Anisidine Arsenic Benz[a]anthracene Benzene Benzo[a]pyrene Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[j]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene Benzo[b]furan Beryllium 1,3-Butadiene Cadmium Catechol (1,2-benzenediol) p-Chloroaniline Chloroform Cobalt p,p'-DDT Dibenz[a,h]acridine Dibenz[a,j]acridine Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene 3,4-Dihydroxycinnamic acid (caffeic acid) Ethylbenzene Ethylene oxide Formaldehyde Furan Glycidol Heptachlor Hydrazine Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene IQ 92-Amino-3-methyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline) Isoprene Lead 5-Methyl-chrysene 2-Naphthylamine Nitrobenzene Nitrogen mustard Nitromethane 2-Nitropropane N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine (NDBA) N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (NDPA) N-Nitrosodiethanolamine (NDELA) N-Nitrosodiethylamine (DEN) N-Nitrosodimethylamine (DMN) N-Nitrosoethylmethylamine (NEMA, MEN) 4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone (NNK) N'-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN) N-Nitrosopiperidine (NPIP, NPP) N-Nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR, NPY) Polonium-210 (Radon 222) Propylene oxide Safrole Styrene Tetrachloroethylene o-Toluidine (2-methylaniline) Trichloroethylene Urethane (carbamic acid, ethyl ester) Vinyl acetate Vinyl chloride 4-Vinylcyclohexene 2,6-Xylidine (2,6-dimethylaniline)
and spilled them onto the floor, I'd be arrested for endangering the lives of the people around me...but every chemical in there is a KNOWN carcinogen found in cigarettes.
-
tjamz;221707 wrote:
[snip]...but every chemical in there is a KNOWN carcinogen found in cigarettes.A lot of those chemicals are found in foods as well. At least, acrylamide is. Oh no, the humanity! (I actually agree with you, and am a non/neverwill-smoker.)
-
DaveH;221705 wrote:
Too late, bars are already regulated as to whether they can serve food or liquor or not, who they can serve it to, etc. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't have those regulations either. Should the kitchen in a bar/grill have to meet the government regulations on cleanliness, etc? After all, isn't it the bar owners right to serve food with salmonella if he chooses? (yes, a little devils advocate there).Actually, I prefer my food with e. coli. It tastes better.
-
Governemnt: "Don't smoke here/there/almost everywhere but for god's sake don't stop buying cigarettes, we make too much money off of them."
On another note I find it interesting that some of the most harmful drugs for your health are those that are perfectly legal.
-
3_Series;221711 wrote:
On another note I find it interesting that some of the most harmful drugs for your health are those that are perfectly legal.I agree.....I can think of a lot of more fun, less harmful to your system drugs than tobacco...err...umm...so I hear.
-
Parker;221714 wrote:
i think we should ban drinking... but hey why stop there... i say we ban darts in bars...Could you juxtapose the societal costs of alcohol consumption and smoking for me? I think that everyone's right to clean lungs/air overrides a person's right to smoke. There are designated smoking areas outside of almost all buildings now. If you want to smoke, just step outside. It's that simple.
-
tjamz;221720 wrote:
I agree.....I can think of a lot of more fun, less harmful to your system drugs than tobacco...err...umm...so I hear.Examples plz.
-
tjamz;221707 wrote:
This is the one major issue I am against of RP's. Because in MY understanding of the american laws, one persons rights end when another persons gets infringed on. .Seriously?...It's my right to go into a bar that allows smoking or not. It's my right to go out and smoke if I so chose. Placing a ban in a bar infringes on my 'rights' to smoke in a private establishment that I already know has risks aside from smoke....Ok, we need to ban cars because they effect everybody's air. We also need to kill all livestock because they create more greenhouse gases than all human transportation combined (See the UN's document 'Livestock's hidden Shadow). Let's be realistic here, if that was everybody's attitude, we wouldn't ever get anywhere because in all reality, there's no one compromise everybody will be happy with. Therefore, your arguement has no merit.
You still sound like a selfish/immature prick who wants the world to himself, and wants everybody to abide by what you think is right. You are only thinking of people like yourself. You are trying to say that because you believe 'such and such' that that is the best way out there. The best view out there is every individual's. You're trying to spin everything so it works in your favor, and the easily pursuaded may believe you, however, anybody that understands what true capitalism is and how the markets should work, will take what you have to say as a misunderstanding along with your general lack of knowledge of how the system is designed to work...(To reiderate) You're trying to manipulate the system to work for you, not as it was designed for which is to protect rights. I don't care if there's one person in Fargo that smokes. As long as bar owners keep smoking in their bars then that should be their own personal choice. Just as it's your choice to go to a bar or not...
And Mazdagirl...you sound even more selfish because you think that all because you want to drink/go to a party that you have a right to not have smoke around you. What if I like smoking and dislike drinking? Should we ban drinking because drunk people can get violent and hurt others?
Both of you are entitled to your opinions, even though they are totally skewed...
P.S. Woulda written more but I got class
(to be continued...everybody go buy stock in popcorn!)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login