Comments on: A Smoking Ban Casualty? http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487 Minneapolis + St. Paul Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:23:37 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: B http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-55906 B Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:17:06 +0000 #comment-55906 Smoking should be banned from all public places worldwide by law. Smoking should have never been invented at all and smoking kills including secondary smoke and smoking should not be allowed anywhere closer than 50 feet from any public building. I don't even care if it is pouring down rain outside and that it is raining very hard. If people want to smoke, they still even on days that is pouring down rain, should not be allowed to smoke indoors in public places and I don't care if they have to get soaking wet in order to smoke even if it is very cold outside but people's safety should come before a smoker's comfort to their smoking needs. Even if it is very cold and even if it is pouring down rain, if people want to smoke, they should still walk at least 50 feet away from the building even if they have to freeze or get wet in order to smoke. Smoking should be banned from all public places worldwide by law. Smoking should have never been invented at all and smoking kills including secondary smoke and smoking should not be allowed anywhere closer than 50 feet from any public building. I don’t even care if it is pouring down rain outside and that it is raining very hard. If people want to smoke, they still even on days that is pouring down rain, should not be allowed to smoke indoors in public places and I don’t care if they have to get soaking wet in order to smoke even if it is very cold outside but people’s safety should come before a smoker’s comfort to their smoking needs. Even if it is very cold and even if it is pouring down rain, if people want to smoke, they should still walk at least 50 feet away from the building even if they have to freeze or get wet in order to smoke.

]]> By: Dave http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-18723 Dave Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:32:19 +0000 #comment-18723 Okay, but how many restaurants and bars have closed in the Twin Cities metro in a typical year, pre-ban? I'm not exactly shooting down your statistic (yet), but it's a useless number without something to compare to. It's pretty common knowledge that restaurants fail and close all the time. And there are lots and lots of restaurants in the Twin Cities metro. Lots and lots.<br /> <br /> So give us the numbers from 2004 (okay, and multiply it by some percentage since the ban hasn't been around a full year yet), and maybe you'll have a good point then. Okay, but how many restaurants and bars have closed in the Twin Cities metro in a typical year, pre-ban? I’m not exactly shooting down your statistic (yet), but it’s a useless number without something to compare to. It’s pretty common knowledge that restaurants fail and close all the time. And there are lots and lots of restaurants in the Twin Cities metro. Lots and lots.

So give us the numbers from 2004 (okay, and multiply it by some percentage since the ban hasn’t been around a full year yet), and maybe you’ll have a good point then.

]]> By: marcus aurelius http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-18716 marcus aurelius Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:19:53 +0000 #comment-18716 It's entertaining to see how the pro-ban people try to spin the 58 bar & restaurants out of business since the ban......suddenly these owners after 5, 15, 50 years "don't know how to run a business that's why they went belly up" so says the iced tea & ice water pro-smoking ban crowd. <br /> <br /> 58 out of business and per the Pio Press it's only 17 new places Bob. <br /> <br /> By the way Bob I'm curious how your ilk will deal with the overturn of the smoking bans.......weren't they passed on the argument that SHS is harmful? This proves the argument false....therefore the bans null & void:<br /> <br /> http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/osha-and-environmental-health.html It’s entertaining to see how the pro-ban people try to spin the 58 bar & restaurants out of business since the ban……suddenly these owners after 5, 15, 50 years “don’t know how to run a business that’s why they went belly up” so says the iced tea & ice water pro-smoking ban crowd.

58 out of business and per the Pio Press it’s only 17 new places Bob.

By the way Bob I’m curious how your ilk will deal with the overturn of the smoking bans…….weren’t they passed on the argument that SHS is harmful? This proves the argument false….therefore the bans null & void:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/osha-and-environmental-health.html

]]> By: Not2Sure http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-18461 Not2Sure Wed, 07 Dec 2005 03:30:05 +0000 #comment-18461 "We will not allow (as many blogs do) unedited comments to be posted on our blog. While this decision may seem to run counter to what a blog is supposed to be, I felt it was important not to allow our new site to be highjacked by critics of Minnesota smoking bans."<br /> <br /> That made me laugh. Good find JJ Bean :) “We will not allow (as many blogs do) unedited comments to be posted on our blog. While this decision may seem to run counter to what a blog is supposed to be, I felt it was important not to allow our new site to be highjacked by critics of Minnesota smoking bans.”

That made me laugh. Good find JJ Bean :)

]]> By: Jo Jo Bean http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-18457 Jo Jo Bean Wed, 07 Dec 2005 02:23:58 +0000 #comment-18457 Thought this may be of interest to some.<br /> <br /> Bob from ALAMN lays out his organizations <a href="http://blogsurvey.backbonemedia.com/archives/2005/10/nonprofit_blog_marketing.html" target="_blank">"blogging strategy."</a> Thought this may be of interest to some.

Bob from ALAMN lays out his organizations “blogging strategy.”

]]> By: Jo Jo Bean http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-18456 Jo Jo Bean Wed, 07 Dec 2005 01:40:37 +0000 #comment-18456 RE: Bob from ALAMN.<br /> <br /> He is all over the blogsphere trying desperately to influence public opinion. He is paid to do this by the American Lung Association. While his action are not in any way illegal, they certainly feel smarmy.<br /> <br /> To Mike S:<br /> Your wit and sarcasm seem to be lost here. The bottom line is, and I'm not kidding, I think most people who actually go to bars are happy that their clothes don't stink. There are also alot of people weighing in who don't go to bars very much, if at all. This ban will probably continue because it is supported by the "fresh clothes" & the "I suck anyway, so I'll drag you down too" lobby.<br /> <br /> (Yes, if you don't go to bars, but are in favor of a ban, you do suck. You are like the old lady on your block who calls the cops on loud parties. Yes, you. That's you. You are probably old too, or getting there. Sorry. You suck.)<br /> <br /> Dan Savage makes a great point in his <a href="http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1305/article13951.asp" target="_blank">columns</a>. Basically, he is saying that the religous right is going after gays, les, and TG now, but straight non-evangelicals are next. I think Dan has a good point. I would rather help out the GLBTG folks fight the religous right today, than run for cover myself in a few years. Yeah, that's selfish, but it's also pragmatic.<br /> <br /> It's the same thing with smoking bans. Why can't you choose to stay out of a smoking bar? Why can't you put up your own money/time and open a non-smoking bar? This smoking ban won't be the end of bar culture, but it's going to go a long way to end it, and this is just the first battle. Alcohol companies will come under attack soon enough.<br /> <br /> As Jim stated, there are ramifications to this smoking ban. It is harming individuals, who invested money & time never expecting that the government would/could change the rules. If your attitude is, "Well, another bar will just open up. Only the strong will survive," the I'll join up with that douche CEO from Delphi, Robert "Steve" Miller.<br /> <br /> (I would link to the full article, but Fortune makes you pay for it)<br /> <br /> Basically he said, A mexican worker will work for $9000 a year, and Delphi pays $65 an hour with health care costs in the US. He wants to pay $20 an hour in the US, including healthcare.<br /> <br /> He said if you are a manual laborer in the US, you'd better be ready to accept a lower standard of living.<br /> <br /> This smoking ban constitues "taking" by the government, just like a condmnation of property via emminent domain. There should be compensation.<br /> RE: Bob from ALAMN.

He is all over the blogsphere trying desperately to influence public opinion. He is paid to do this by the American Lung Association. While his action are not in any way illegal, they certainly feel smarmy.

To Mike S:
Your wit and sarcasm seem to be lost here. The bottom line is, and I’m not kidding, I think most people who actually go to bars are happy that their clothes don’t stink. There are also alot of people weighing in who don’t go to bars very much, if at all. This ban will probably continue because it is supported by the “fresh clothes” & the “I suck anyway, so I’ll drag you down too” lobby.

(Yes, if you don’t go to bars, but are in favor of a ban, you do suck. You are like the old lady on your block who calls the cops on loud parties. Yes, you. That’s you. You are probably old too, or getting there. Sorry. You suck.)

Dan Savage makes a great point in his columns. Basically, he is saying that the religous right is going after gays, les, and TG now, but straight non-evangelicals are next. I think Dan has a good point. I would rather help out the GLBTG folks fight the religous right today, than run for cover myself in a few years. Yeah, that’s selfish, but it’s also pragmatic.

It’s the same thing with smoking bans. Why can’t you choose to stay out of a smoking bar? Why can’t you put up your own money/time and open a non-smoking bar? This smoking ban won’t be the end of bar culture, but it’s going to go a long way to end it, and this is just the first battle. Alcohol companies will come under attack soon enough.

As Jim stated, there are ramifications to this smoking ban. It is harming individuals, who invested money & time never expecting that the government would/could change the rules. If your attitude is, “Well, another bar will just open up. Only the strong will survive,” the I’ll join up with that douche CEO from Delphi, Robert “Steve” Miller.

(I would link to the full article, but Fortune makes you pay for it)

Basically he said, A mexican worker will work for $9000 a year, and Delphi pays $65 an hour with health care costs in the US. He wants to pay $20 an hour in the US, including healthcare.

He said if you are a manual laborer in the US, you’d better be ready to accept a lower standard of living.

This smoking ban constitues “taking” by the government, just like a condmnation of property via emminent domain. There should be compensation.

]]> By: The Rat http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-17571 The Rat Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:51:20 +0000 #comment-17571 A few restaurants here and few bars there are collateral damage in the war fought by the anti-smoking neo-Puritans. A few restaurants here and few bars there are collateral damage in the war fought by the anti-smoking neo-Puritans.

]]> By: Little Bird http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-17567 Little Bird Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:12:35 +0000 #comment-17567 I wish Bob was a registered MNspeak user so I could count how many pro-ban comments he's posted. I wish Bob was a registered MNspeak user so I could count how many pro-ban comments he’s posted.

]]> By: Jim http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-17565 Jim Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:52:39 +0000 #comment-17565 Yes, Bob, the ban is good for people's health, we get it. (This is in response to your entire body of worke here on MNSpeak, not just this post.) But you sunnily pretend that there are NO negative ramifications, when there clearly are. Stop prending it's black and white. Yes, Bob, the ban is good for people’s health, we get it. (This is in response to your entire body of worke here on MNSpeak, not just this post.) But you sunnily pretend that there are NO negative ramifications, when there clearly are. Stop prending it’s black and white.

]]> By: Bob from ALAMN http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/8487#comment-17563 Bob from ALAMN Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:51:09 +0000 #comment-17563 Disco notes that if Minnesota goes <a href="http://www.smokefreeworld.com/usa.shtml" target="_blank">smokefree</a> -- and it will -- it will be the first noncostal state to adopt a comprehensive indoor smoking law.<br /> <br /> Well, yes and no. This year Montana banned smoking in restaurants - bars will be exempt till 2009. Think of it, fellow Minnesotans. Marlboro Country voted to go smokefree before we did!<br /> <br /> The <a href="http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13186544.htm" target="_blank">news</a> from Saint Paul sounds good. Regardless of what Hennepin County does, the smokefree movement rolls on.<br /> Disco notes that if Minnesota goes smokefree — and it will — it will be the first noncostal state to adopt a comprehensive indoor smoking law.

Well, yes and no. This year Montana banned smoking in restaurants – bars will be exempt till 2009. Think of it, fellow Minnesotans. Marlboro Country voted to go smokefree before we did!

The news from Saint Paul sounds good. Regardless of what Hennepin County does, the smokefree movement rolls on.

]]>