Do you agree with Minneapolis' recently passed law?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Starting in April, all bars and restaurants in Minneapolis will have to be completley smoke free. No more of having to smell that disgusting crap my time there and having my clothes smell like crap when I get home!

It passed 12-1 and I agree with it. Unfortunately a similar ban was voted down here.

[nclib]

Yes.

[Jake]

Of course, you should be able to enjoy a lap dance without clouds of smoke everywhere.

[Nym90]

For restauraunts, it's ok, though I'm still not a huge fan of it. For bars, no.

I personally hate the smell of smoke, and it makes me sick, but restauraunts probably should be able to have a smoking section, provided that it's clearly seperated from the rest of the restauraunt. A bar is a different case, however, and I don't think smoking should be banned there. It's part of the bar experience, for better or for worse.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

see Jake's comment. I don't know if he was sarcastic but that's my view

For a brief period my freshman year, I actually liked the smell of tobacco smoke because I associated it with all the illicit keg parties I went to. But after awhile it just went back to being just plain disgusting again.

[A18]

No, I like freedom.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Eddie Izzard

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Eddie Izzard

except Minneapolis is a very liberal city so it'd never ban those things since liberals aren't for banning them. Liberals are anti-tobacco, but not alcohol or sex.

[Keystone Phil]

I can't stand when I have to walk through a smoking area to get to my table at a restaurant but I disagree with the action in Minneapolis. Leave it up to the owner of the buisness.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Eddie Izzard

except Minneapolis is a very liberal city so it'd never ban those things since liberals aren't for banning them. Liberals are anti-tobacco, but not alcohol or sex.

Awsome man, you proved that comedian wrong .  I highly doubt that the chicken was intentionally choosing to cross the road, it is much more likely it was an impulse subconscious decision.

Anyway, the joke was about California a while back.

Here's the full quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

It's not surprising. MN was the national leader when it passed a statewide ban in public places about 20 years ago. That Minneapolis is following suit in eateries keeps pace with a generation there that has aged with the original ban.

I have long felt that the restrictions on smoking stem from the original anti-smoking campaigns in the mid-60s. The influence on children at that time should not be underestimated. Even many of those that became smokers remained with a deep sense that it was a bad habit and no one should have it forced on them. The result was that as those children became policy-makers, they have remained sensitive to all issues of second-hand smoke.

[Jake]

see Jake's comment. I don't know if he was sarcastic but that's my view

No, I was serious.  I'd be kinda angry if I had to smell smoke while getting a table dance.

[John Dibble]

Look down.

[dazzleman]

For restauraunts, it's ok, though I'm still not a huge fan of it. For bars, no.

I personally hate the smell of smoke, and it makes me sick, but restauraunts probably should be able to have a smoking section, provided that it's clearly seperated from the rest of the restauraunt. A bar is a different case, however, and I don't think smoking should be banned there. It's part of the bar experience, for better or for worse.

Well, Eric, we've found an issue in which I have a more liberal position than you.

I support the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars.  We have one in New York City, and one was just recently passed in Connecticut, and I love it.

I can go out for a drink, and not go home stinking.  Not to mention the health effects of breathing in second hand smoke.

I don't deny people's right to smoke, but to smoke in a closed environment infringes on the rights of those who don't want to breathe in that disgusting smell.  If you need to smoke, go outside.

I allow no smoking in my house or my car.  I grew up with constant smoking, and it's probably the reason that I have a respiratory weakness today.  I'm done with it.  I'll never live with smoking again.

Separate smoking sections don't work all that well in many restaurants.  There has to be real physical separation, and a ventilation system that doesn't mix up the air from the two sections.  Few places have this.

My sense is that in NY, after suffering some temporary loss in business, the business in bars is bouncing back.  It may even end up better because non-smokers who couldn't stand the smell previously will find a trip to the bar more enjoyable.

Some parts of California banned smoking in bars 15 years ago.  I was out there at that time, and it was a really novel idea then.  But I thought it was a great idea then, and I do now.

You Michigan guys just haven't caught up with us coastal elites yet...

[TeePee4Prez]

Ban in restaurants. Smoking sections in bars.

[John Dibble]

Ban in restaurants. Smoking sections in bars.

Ever been in a bar? They aren't structured like restaraunts. They don't generally have divided sections, nor are many big enough for them.

If you don't like it when an establishment allows smoking, don't go. It's your choice to deal with it or not.

[dazzleman]

Ban in restaurants. Smoking sections in bars.

Most bars aren't big enough for a separate smoking section, and few have the physical separation necessary to keep the smoke from the smoking section from going into the non-smoking section.

It would end up like the old "smoking sections" on the airplanes, before smoking was banned entirely.  The smoke spread beyond the smoking rows, and was carried further by the ventilation system, so the whole plane ended up being the smoking section, whether any cigarettes were actually being lit there or not.

I would even go so far as to allow bars to have a smoking section as long as there was physical separation and a separate ventilation system, so that no smoke from the smoking section would drift into the non-smoking section.  But practically speaking, few bars would be able to provide that, given restraints in size.

[Jake]

Ban in restaurants. Smoking sections in bars.

Ever been in a bar?

You're asking Flyers that question.  Better one is does he ever leave

[Nym90]

For restauraunts, it's ok, though I'm still not a huge fan of it. For bars, no.

I personally hate the smell of smoke, and it makes me sick, but restauraunts probably should be able to have a smoking section, provided that it's clearly seperated from the rest of the restauraunt. A bar is a different case, however, and I don't think smoking should be banned there. It's part of the bar experience, for better or for worse.

Well, Eric, we've found an issue in which I have a more liberal position than you.

I support the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars.  We have one in New York City, and one was just recently passed in Connecticut, and I love it.

I can go out for a drink, and not go home stinking.  Not to mention the health effects of breathing in second hand smoke.

I don't deny people's right to smoke, but to smoke in a closed environment infringes on the rights of those who don't want to breathe in that disgusting smell.  If you need to smoke, go outside.

I allow no smoking in my house or my car.  I grew up with constant smoking, and it's probably the reason that I have a respiratory weakness today.  I'm done with it.  I'll never live with smoking again.

Separate smoking sections don't work all that well in many restaurants.  There has to be real physical separation, and a ventilation system that doesn't mix up the air from the two sections.  Few places have this.

My sense is that in NY, after suffering some temporary loss in business, the business in bars is bouncing back.  It may even end up better because non-smokers who couldn't stand the smell previously will find a trip to the bar more enjoyable.

Some parts of California banned smoking in bars 15 years ago.  I was out there at that time, and it was a really novel idea then.  But I thought it was a great idea then, and I do now.

You Michigan guys just haven't caught up with us coastal elites yet...

Hah, it was bound to happen eventually.

I'm definitely with you on the hatred of smoking. It's certainly a tough issue.

I agree that restauraunts should have to have clearly seperated sections, physically, and the seperate ventilation systems, too, if they are going to allow smoking.

I guess I just view a bar as being something different. Children can't enter them, for one thing, and helping children by protecting them from second hand smoke is one of the best reasons for a smoking ban. Unlike adults, they can't choose whether or not to enter a restauraunt, and whether to be in the vicinity of smokers, so the state definitely has a compelling interest in protecting children from smoke.

I agree that it's often in the best interests of a bar to be smoke free, but I'll side with the libertarians on this one (scary, I know ) and say that if that's true, the bar will choose to ban smoking on their own, which they certainly have the right to do.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

see Jake's comment. I don't know if he was sarcastic but that's my view

No, I was serious.  I'd be kinda angry if I had to smell smoke while getting a table dance.

well then we do agree on something, although I'd be suprised if you would want a lap dance. What if it was a Lebanese stripper?

[John Dibble]

I guess I just view a bar as being something different. Children can't enter them, for one thing, and helping children by protecting them from second hand smoke is one of the best reasons for a smoking ban.

Actually, this is wrong. As I said, I oppose these bans, but I'm going to tell you that this is blatantly wrong. Children can't enter bars without an adult, but they can enter them with one - I used to do it all the time(and they weren't that smoke filled).

Still, if a parent would seat their kid in the smoking section, they are probably smokers anyways. You can't protect kids from everything. If the state has a vested interest in protecting them from smoking, why not everything else - why not regulate their diets to prevent them from being overweight? If they really had such a vested interest, they'd ban smoking altogether - it would be the only sure fire way to keep children from being exposed to it. I have a serious problem with a 'for the children' mentality, because when people have it they tend to let their emotions get the best of them, no offense intended.

Now, although I oppose smoking bans, I'm still willing to compromise - I'd be fine with requiring owners to have seperate ventalation(or, in the case of a nightclub in Georgia, a special kind that pretty much sucks up the second hand smoke quickly), even though it would be a regulation. Lesser of two evils I suppose.  Still, I think the best solution would be to require owners to instead mark their front entrances if they allow smoking with a small warning(not fine print small, just not huge) that stated that the establishment allows smoking and the risks of second hand smoke - that way the reprecussions are stated, so it's up to the consumer to decide if they want to take the risk.

[Nym90]

Well I agree that the "for the children" thing can be taken to an extreme, definitely. But I don't think this is an extreme case, and I certainly wouldn't support it in extreme cases.

Obviously there is a line where parents just plain have to be responsible, but my point was that the government has more right to protect children than it does to protect adults, since adults can make their own choices, and children can't.

[John Dibble]

Obviously there is a line where parents just plain have to be responsible, but my point was that the government has more right to protect children than it does to protect adults, since adults can make their own choices, and children can't.

Well, I can argue right back on this - that's what parents are for.

[Jake]

see Jake's comment. I don't know if he was sarcastic but that's my view

No, I was serious.  I'd be kinda angry if I had to smell smoke while getting a table dance.

well then we do agree on something, although I'd be suprised if you would want a lap dance. What if it was a Lebanese stripper?

I wouldn't, hypothetically though

[dazzleman]

Hah, it was bound to happen eventually.

I'm definitely with you on the hatred of smoking. It's certainly a tough issue.

I agree that restauraunts should have to have clearly seperated sections, physically, and the seperate ventilation systems, too, if they are going to allow smoking.

I guess I just view a bar as being something different. Children can't enter them, for one thing, and helping children by protecting them from second hand smoke is one of the best reasons for a smoking ban. Unlike adults, they can't choose whether or not to enter a restauraunt, and whether to be in the vicinity of smokers, so the state definitely has a compelling interest in protecting children from smoke.

I agree that it's often in the best interests of a bar to be smoke free, but I'll side with the libertarians on this one (scary, I know ) and say that if that's true, the bar will choose to ban smoking on their own, which they certainly have the right to do.

I guess I'm an extremist on this issue, but I really don't think smoking should be allowed in any public place.  I think smoke is just as dangerous to adults as to children, and just as unpleasant.  I don't even find it necessary to rely on the children crutch in order to support a full smoking ban.

I think it's simple.  Your rights end when they begin to harm other people.  And smoking in public places does that.  Since it is the smoker, and not the non-smoker, who is creating the problem, it is incumbent upon the smoker, and not the non-smoker, to adjust his behavior.  That's why I don't buy into the "if the non-smoker doesn't like the smell, he can stay home" argument.

Long-term, I think the smoking bans will be good for business.  Smokers will go to bars anyway, and adjust by going outside, which they have been doing with increasing frequency anyway.  And non-smokers will go more often, not having to deal with the noxious smell, not to mention the cleaning costs.  To go there after work, wearing clothes that need to be dry-cleaned, can be very expensive, because when you leave the bar, everything reeks and all needs to go to the cleaners before it can be worn again.