So anyone voting for the yes no yes?
-
torbs;221767 wrote:
Emission standards, psh...Yeah, tell that to the people in L.A. who deal with SMOG. I bet they'll agree with you fully that emission standards work...(BTW, I'm not a tree hugger...I'm using this as an example of what other person can think. I'm just trying to bring out all sides in this because an arguement that's all one sided just...sucks)I'll have to find the study, but I believe smog has reduced in LA in recent years.....don't have link readily available, so I'll have to pass that off as word of mouth/hearsay.
I should have made it more clear that I'm for a lot of the rules/regulations/laws out there already and not for anybody do anything anytime...No, I'm not for anarchy in any form. I just want people to be able to do as what they please, legally (Illegal aliens FTL). I'm not saying get rid of OSHA either. However, even in current construction jobs, there's still a risk of immediate death which the workers take head on. It's their choice to work in that environment. People get paid more to do dangerous jobs simply because they are dangerous (comparing a skyscraper construction worker to a local paved street)...People are willing to take risks in order to have more pay. That's how it works.
To an extent, but there are regulations in effect to MINIMIZE the risk.
Bartenders who work in bars that allow smoke get a higher salary because more people go to those places...You get my point. Also, when it comes to fire codes, those kind of accomodations are made not only because of safety reasons, but because technology has allowed sprinkler systems to be of a reasonable cost. The law states that only reasonable accomodations are required, and sprinkler systems are now reasonable, which is why they are required. That is, tall buildings are required to be handicapt accessable because things such as elevators have come down in cost.
There is a LOT more to fire code than sprinkler requirements. There is occupancy ratings/types, construction material, modes of egress....seriously, i can go on and on on this subject for hours....I've only been working in the fire protection industry for the last 7.5 years or so... Sprinklers are NOT reasonably priced and are probably the worst form of life safety as there is ZERO pre-warning and the sprinkler head has to fuse before that particular head releases water. Sprinklers save buildings. Period. They don't save lives of the people in the buildings necessarily....and they destroy everything they get wet...sprinkler water is NASTY stuff.....
I really hope this isn't the major reason for you voting as you are. That's like saying I hope banning liquor in bars makes alcoholics quit drinking. Your intentions are good, but the way you are going about it is wrong. How bout we invest the money going into enforcing this ban into a state-wide tobacco treatment program (like MN has...maybe ND has one already and could just add a boost to it? I'm not sure). It's the same idea between national healthcare and national health prevention. How about instead of paying to treat all of these people we enstill in them healthy habits? (once again, just an example) Also, the local economy will suffer a bit from less people going to bars (drinks there are more expensive than liquor stores and are therfore charged more tax...plus bartender's wage will go down). I'd like to know what the opinion is on this of the majority of bar tenders that work in smoking-allowed venues. It'd be interesting.
It isn't the major reason I'm voting for it....but it is one benefit.
I'm all for preventive maintenance programs for health insurance. Wouldn't it be great if all insurance companies provided a discount to health clubs/smoking cessation programs/etc....
We have laws against smoking in most establishments already...Why take away the few places that are left? Let the people have somewhere to go. BTW, with less people at bars and more people at home, be prepared to have more city disturbances because of loud parties.
How about we make the rules fair for everyone? Either allow it EVERYWHERE including schools or ban it everywhere. That would only be fair, wouldn't it?
I'm all for having a serious/in-depth conversation and not getting teH uber mad over it. What you think is what you think...I can try to change it to what I believe is right and you can try to talk me into what you believe. Even if we argue back and forth forever and still don't agree at all, it's not like i'll say "Chuck sucks big floppy donky dick"...i'll just be like "Chuck's political views suck big floppy donky dick."
please tell me how someone destructive (to themselves and those around them) habits carry more of a "right" than the "right" to breath clean air. Smoking is a privilege, breathing is a right.
But yeah, just because Ron Paul wants people to be able to make bad choices and live with them, I don't interpret that to mean that they can make bad choices and force others who are out in public to deal with them. I mean, if you want to tie an M80 to your nutsack and set it off, I'm ok with that....just don't do it next to someone else.
-
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=65033
click on the download link in the upper left hand corner.....
-
Fargo Initiated Smoking Ban Ord. CITY OF FARGO TJAMZ NOTE THIS IS THE ONE BANNING SMOKING IN BARS
Vote for no more than 1
Yes - Means you approve. . . . . . 913 61.61
No - Means you reject th . . . . . 569 38.39
Total . . . . . . . . . 1,482
Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 3
Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 20Fargo Referred Smoking Ban Ordinance CITY OF FARGO ***TJAMZ NOTE: THIS ONE MODIFIES EXISTING LAW SLIGHTLY BUT DOES NOT PROHIBIT SMOKING IN BARS*** Vote for no more than 1 Yes - Means you approve. . . . . . 614 41.71 No - Means you reject th . . . . . 858 58.29 Total . . . . . . . . . 1,472 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 1 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 32 -
those are not final numbers btw...only 6 precincts reporting at that time
http://www.casscountynd.gov/departments/Auditor/08election/EL45.HTM
-
nearly 50% of all votes counted thus far....still 58% for the ban
-
59 for 41 against the ban w/ 54% of all districts in the county reporting (not all districts voted in cass vote on fargo issues....so actual percentage of pertaining districts may not be accurate at this point)
EDIT: at time of this post....11 or 20 fargo districts have reported in their results.
-
Beings I'm too lazy right now to pick it apart with quotes...
I used the sprinklers as AN EXAMPLE. I wasn't referring to everything else in safety when it comes to buildings. They are a part of safety codes though.Are sprinkler systems not cheaper now than what they were say 30-40 years ago (especially when comparing it to inflation)? The law states reasonable accomdations, that's all I was getting at...You took that one a wee bit too far. You blurted out a bunch of random and non-related facts in order to dumb down my arguement when they weren't even related to what I was attempting to get at. I see how your brain works...you saw one word you know a lot about and just decided to go off to make me look dumb...solid work.
Also, I don't care if smog has gone down or not...it's still there. That's like saying bars used to have 100 smokers at peak and now have 50. You'd still complain would you not?
This quote of yours really disturbs me, "How about we make the rules fair for everyone? Either allow it EVERYWHERE including schools or ban it everywhere. That would only be fair, wouldn't it?"
-You are basically identifying something that won't ever happen again (smoking everywhere, even though that used to be the case in the past). It's comparing apples to oranges, it's just not possible or reasonable. If you are going to make a statement, at least have it be a realistic circumstance...I am getting at the point that, over time, smokers have had places normally available to them slowly taken away. Now, when there's very few places left, you want to take that away too. I'd really like to know how often you go to the bar Chuck because honestly, unless you work at one or have some illness, you have little chance of being affected by the smoke there. If somebody with asthma can't go to a certain bar because of the obvious, they have several other choices of places to go.You speak of other's decisions effecting others. Hell, lets just start the prohibition of alcohol again because more people die from it through poisoning, automobiles, etc. than 2nd hand smoke BY FAR. Give me a break. Second hand smoke's damages are like peanuts to what alcohol's damages are...We all know how that went. This is an attempt at eventually going to the prohibition of tobacco, not a doubt in my mind.
I'm done debating you because you just can't ever lose an arguement and look at it from somebody else's perspective. I've tried looking at it from your way and just don't see it as a fair decision with respect to not just smokers, but also bar owners who depend on customer turnout, bar tenders who depend on the customer turnout/tips, people that smoke when they drink, people with friends that are smokers, and everybody else that enjoys going to bars for the atmosphere (Obviously, bars that allow smoke attract more people, and thus it creates a more social environment.)
-
heres somewhere u can view the results that doesnt hurt your eyes.
http://www.valleynewslive.com/news/election/electionresults2.html -
torbs;221823 wrote:
Beings I'm too lazy right now to pick it apart with quotes...I used the sprinklers as AN EXAMPLE. I wasn't referring to everything else in safety when it comes to buildings. They are a part of safety codes though.Are sprinkler systems not cheaper now than what they were say 30-40 years ago (especially when comparing it to inflation)? The law states reasonable accomdations, that's all I was getting at...You took that one a wee bit too far. You blurted out a bunch of random and non-related facts in order to dumb down my arguement when they weren't even related to what I was attempting to get at. I see how your brain works...you saw one word you know a lot about and just decided to go off to make me look dumb...solid work.
Sprinklers are maybe 10% cheaper (adjusted for inflation) now than then...and are more expensive than when I first got into the business. I tore your argument apart because what you stated basically had zero to do with why the ordinances are in place. Trust me, cost has NOTHING to do with it and sprinklers have a margin (if any) affect on number of people allowed into a facility.
Also, I don't care if smog has gone down or not...it's still there. That's like saying bars used to have 100 smokers at peak and now have 50. You'd still complain would you not?
Yes and no, I acknowledge that less and less people smoke every day (some due to attrition).... But if I were in California, yes, I'd be upset about smog, but would be very happy that something had been done to reduce it and that it was working.
This quote of yours really disturbs me, "How about we make the rules fair for everyone? Either allow it EVERYWHERE including schools or ban it everywhere. That would only be fair, wouldn't it?"
-You are basically identifying something that won't ever happen again (smoking everywhere, even though that used to be the case in the past). It's comparing apples to oranges, it's just not possible or reasonable. If you are going to make a statement, at least have it be a realistic circumstance...I am getting at the point that, over time, smokers have had places normally available to them slowly taken away. Now, when there's very few places left, you want to take that away too. I'd really like to know how often you go to the bar Chuck because honestly, unless you work at one or have some illness, you have little chance of being affected by the smoke there. If somebody with asthma can't go to a certain bar because of the obvious, they have several other choices of places to go.I'm just trying to give smokers more places to smoke...make it legal everywhere. It's only fair. Oh, and I do have asthma, but do go to bars regularly, but nowhere near as often as if I didn't have asthma....I happen to enjoy The Hub, OB, Mr. G's, and Bucks (on occassion)....but seldom go there because I can't breath there. So I am left with what....Hooligans and maybe another 2 or 3 bars in town? Hooligans isn't my style of bar....don't know why, but it isn't.
You speak of other's dicisions effecting others. Hell, lets just start the prohibition of alcohol again because more people die from it through poisoning, automobiles, etc. than 2nd hand smoke BY FAR. Give me a break. Second hand smoke's damages are like peanuts to what alcohol's damages are.
But it is illegal to drink and drive....and I'm all for you smoking in your own home where it doesn't affect anyone but you....same with alcohol....drink yourself to death, I don't care...
I'm done debating you because you just can't ever lose an arguement and look at it from somebody else's perspective.
I can (and do) look at it from both perspectives... and in my opinion, the advantages of a ban by far trump the disadvantages.
I've tried looking at it from your way and just don't see it as a fair decision with respect to not just smokers, but also bar owners who depend on customer turnout, bar tenders who depend on the customer turnout/tips, people that smoke when they drink, people with friends that are smokers, and everybody else that enjoys going to bars for the atmosphere (Obviously, bars that allow smoke attract more people, and thus it creates a more social environment.)
Yes, this is true.....smoking bars draw more people on average....But I haven't seen too many bars in Moorhead go out of business due to a smoking ban....the Broken Axe (who was in financial trouble before the ban even)....and who else? O'Leary's is doing ok, as is Chumleys...
-
barring a miracle comeback, the voters of Fargo & West Fargo have spoken....no smoking in bars here.
-
ok. I skimmed through most of that but IN MY OPINION..... If you are a non-smoker and want to go out then go to an establishment where smoking is not allowed (like minnesota). Bottom line smokers have just as many rights as non-smokers. Whether non-smokers are willing to admit it or not. I personally smoke but I also have enough respect as where if someone asks me not to smoke around them I wont. But when I go out to the bars to have a good time I want to smoke and have a good time.
end rant/ -
iluvracing;221838 wrote:
ok. I skimmed through most of that but IN MY OPINION..... If you are a non-smoker and want to go out then go to an establishment where smoking is not allowed (like minnesota). Bottom line smokers have just as many rights as non-smokers. Whether non-smokers are willing to admit it or not. I personally smoke but I also have enough respect as where if someone asks me not to smoke around them I wont. But when I go out to the bars to have a good time I want to smoke and have a good time.
end rant/Do you have health insurance?
-
What an epic battle that has occurred throughout this thread. Truly one for the ages.
-
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just saying it's b.s. for people to piss and moan about this. If you don't like it then go somewhere else. And yes I have health insurance and I would like to quit. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. It's the right
Also.... This was once a FREE country. that is changing very quickly
-
iluvracing;221842 wrote:
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just saying it's b.s. for people to piss and moan about this. If you don't like it then go somewhere else. And yes I have health insurance and I would like to quit. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. It's the rightWell, since health insurance is pooled money and smoking greatly increases your risk of numerous diseases and cancers, I'd say your decision to smoke affects a lot more people than just you -- namely anyone within your insurance group and immediate taxpayers.
-
i agree. I'm talking about smokers rights. whether I smoke or not I think smokers should be able to go somewhere where they can smoke and have a good time like everyone else. I personally think smoking is retarded and I personally dont mind going outside. I just get irritated with people that think that EVERY PLACE should be smoke free. I don't mind going outside... THAT'S NOT MY POINT
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