Haha. Smokers OWNED by Mankato

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For the referendum on keeping the smoking ban:

YES    9780   69.17
NO    4359   30.83

Oh yeah, it got over 60% in every single precinct, including the one where all the bars are. All the student precincts voted heavily for it too. And it was even endorsed by the owner of the Underground (most popular bar in town among young people)

Just goes to show, normals don't like cancer.

[adam]

Yes, a majority of Minnesotans are morons, we know.

[MaC]

why do you hate freedom BRTD?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ask the other 9779 voters.

[dazzleman]

I personally support the freedom to go into a public place and breathe air that isn't fouled by cigarette smoke.  There are few smells I hate more.

We talk about smoker's rights, but what about the right not to have somebody else's bad habit give you cancer?

Smokers will adapt.

[Bono]

We talk about smoker's rights,

Maybe you do. I talk about property rights.

[Speed of Sound]

Very nice BRTD! Congrats! I wish we had the same here, but theres just too many libertarian-conservatives. (~55%) Enjoy it for me my friend. Take two breaths every time you walk into a bar!

[adam]

I personally support the freedom to go into a public place and breathe air that isn't fouled by cigarette smoke.  There are few smells I hate more.

We talk about smoker's rights, but what about the right not to have somebody else's bad habit give you cancer?

Smokers will adapt.

Why don't we talk about the property rights of the bar owners? The right they SHOULD have to allow the consumption of whatever legal product they please on the premisis of their property. If these people want to breathe "clean" air, they can select another bar/restaurant, rather than trampling on the rights of bar owners.

[dazzleman]

I personally support the freedom to go into a public place and breathe air that isn't fouled by cigarette smoke.  There are few smells I hate more.

We talk about smoker's rights, but what about the right not to have somebody else's bad habit give you cancer?

Smokers will adapt.

Why don't we talk about the property rights of the bar owners? The right they SHOULD have to allow the consumption of whatever legal product they please on the premisis of their property. If these people want to breathe "clean" air, they can select another bar/restaurant, rather than trampling on the rights of bar owners.

A public place is not the same as your own home.  I agree that there can be differences of opinion on this issue, but I think the rights of non-smokers are just as important as those of smokers.  And owners of public places don't have absolute rights over how they deal with the public.

[KEmperor]

I personally support the freedom to go into a public place and breathe air that isn't fouled by cigarette smoke.  There are few smells I hate more.

We talk about smoker's rights, but what about the right not to have somebody else's bad habit give you cancer?

Smokers will adapt.

Why don't we talk about the property rights of the bar owners? The right they SHOULD have to allow the consumption of whatever legal product they please on the premisis of their property. If these people want to breathe "clean" air, they can select another bar/restaurant, rather than trampling on the rights of bar owners.

A public place is not the same as your own home.  I agree that there can be differences of opinion on this issue, but I think the rights of non-smokers are just as important as those of smokers.  And owners of public places don't have absolute rights over how they deal with the public.

Owners of a business have a right to allow or disallow the consumption of whatever legal substances they wish.  It's a private business, not a public agency.

[Alcon]

That's a pretty typical margin for a smoking ban, BRTD.

I'm against the smoking ban.  My aunt works in the office of the Washington Attorney General and says it is fairly useless and a pain to enforce, even though she initially voted for it.  If you don't want to get cancer, stay away from places where people smoke.

[adam]

I personally support the freedom to go into a public place and breathe air that isn't fouled by cigarette smoke.  There are few smells I hate more.

We talk about smoker's rights, but what about the right not to have somebody else's bad habit give you cancer?

Smokers will adapt.

Why don't we talk about the property rights of the bar owners? The right they SHOULD have to allow the consumption of whatever legal product they please on the premisis of their property. If these people want to breathe "clean" air, they can select another bar/restaurant, rather than trampling on the rights of bar owners.

A public place is not the same as your own home.  I agree that there can be differences of opinion on this issue, but I think the rights of non-smokers are just as important as those of smokers.  And owners of public places don't have absolute rights over how they deal with the public.

Owners of a business have a right to allow or disallow the consumption of whatever legal substances they wish.  It's a private business, not a public agency.

Beat me to it.

[Inverted Things]

Point #1:

Despite what the various media would have you believe, we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that second-hand smoke is harmful to a person's health. There was a study done a couple of years back wherein marriages with no smokers (control group) were compared to marriages with exactly one smoker. The study found no statistically significant evidence that living with a smoker (and hence inhaling much second-hand smoke) reduced lifespan. The study did note that the spouses of smokers had a higher rate of widowhood.

Why quote this particular study as opposed to others? For instance, I could quote a statistic I saw on the side of a bus today: 175,000 people die each year as a result of second-hand smoke. The reason I do not quote this is because I have no clue how one would conduct a scientific study and arrive at this result. It smacks of guesswork and rigging the results to produce a prearranged conclusion.

Point #2:

The free market is actually pretty good about offering non-smokers places to go without the second-hand smoke. In the last five years, three of the four biggest restaurants in my hometown got rid of their smoking sections because the smoking sections were mostly empty, resulting in loss of potential profit.

Point #3:

Having clarified that we have insufficient evidence on harmful effects of second-hand smoke, this is not a public health issue. Moreover, the free market was working just fine in giving the nonsmokers what they wanted. Now the government has stepped in and said that the free market is not allowed to give smokers what they want. That's tyranny of the majority, which is an awful, awful thing.

Closing:

Obviously, I'm a smoker. But I don't really give a damn about having to smoke outside. At home, I smoke outside out of respect for my wife, who is a nonsmoker. At my parent's house, I smoke outside even though my mother smokes inside. At my mother-in-law's house, I smoke outside even though she smokes inside. I don't even smoke in the car when I drive, because I don't want to depreciate the value. In fact, I only go out to eat once a month and never go to bars. By all rights I should not care too much about a smoking ban indoors.

Except that it really is the principle of the thing. This really is tyranny of the majority, which is the well-intentioned system of democracy gone sour.

[dazzleman]

I personally support the freedom to go into a public place and breathe air that isn't fouled by cigarette smoke.  There are few smells I hate more.

We talk about smoker's rights, but what about the right not to have somebody else's bad habit give you cancer?

Smokers will adapt.

Why don't we talk about the property rights of the bar owners? The right they SHOULD have to allow the consumption of whatever legal product they please on the premisis of their property. If these people want to breathe "clean" air, they can select another bar/restaurant, rather than trampling on the rights of bar owners.

A public place is not the same as your own home.  I agree that there can be differences of opinion on this issue, but I think the rights of non-smokers are just as important as those of smokers.  And owners of public places don't have absolute rights over how they deal with the public.

Owners of a business have a right to allow or disallow the consumption of whatever legal substances they wish.  It's a private business, not a public agency.

If it serves the public, it's not a fully private business.  That's the basis of laws like the Civil Rights Law, as an example.  Similar arguments were used to defend segregationist practices by businesses.

There are two competing principles here, and neither one is wrong.  I just favor public health over business rights in this case, though I understand the basis on which many people object.

[David S]

BRTD you really like bans don't you? How about if they ban strip clubs? The argument might be made that they attract sexual predators and make the neighborhood unsafe for women and children. It could also be argued that they  promote promiscuity which increases illegitimate births, and STDs. All those illegitimate kids end up on welfare supported by the state and the increase in STDs puts additional strain on the health-care system, so the state has a just interest in banning them. Besides, banning strip clubs would keep you away from all that nasty smoke.

What about freedom? How about if the bar owner has the right to decide whether he will have smoking and non-smoking sections, or no smoking at all or allow smoking anywhere? Then how about if you are free to go to the bars that maintain a smoke free area?

[Bono]

There are two competing principles here, and neither one is wrong. 

That's just plain ridiculous. If you really believe something like this, you need to learn some basic principles of sound thinking, such as the Law of Noncontradiction.

[TeePee4Prez]

Well, besides the Irish history this is another thing I kinda disagree with BRTD on.  I think there should be a well ventilated designated smoking area inside a bar if possible or a patio with a canopy in case it rains.  As a "drinking smoker" I appreciate places that have these designated areas.  It sucks when I have to go outside in the pouring rain to smoke. 

[Gabu]

There are two competing principles here, and neither one is wrong. 

That's just plain ridiculous. If you really believe something like this, you need to learn some basic principles of sound thinking, such as the Law of Noncontradiction.

Under what circumstances can it be decided that one is "wrong" and the other is "right"?  Statements of what ought to be are not statements of fact that can be falsified.

[Bono]

There are two competing principles here, and neither one is wrong. 

That's just plain ridiculous. If you really believe something like this, you need to learn some basic principles of sound thinking, such as the Law of Noncontradiction.

Under what circumstances can it be decided that one is "wrong" and the other is "right"?  Statements of what ought to be are not statements of fact that can be falsified.

He accepted both principles.

[Everett]

People can smoke wherever they please. If I get lung cancer they can also pay for my treatment.

[Gabu]

There are two competing principles here, and neither one is wrong. 

That's just plain ridiculous. If you really believe something like this, you need to learn some basic principles of sound thinking, such as the Law of Noncontradiction.

Under what circumstances can it be decided that one is "wrong" and the other is "right"?  Statements of what ought to be are not statements of fact that can be falsified.

He accepted both principles.

No... he said that neither one is wrong, which is simply true, as something can't be wrong unless it's theoretically falsifiable.  He didn't say that he agreed with both.

[Speed of Sound]

If you don't want to get cancer, stay away from places where people smoke.

Sorry Alcon, I tend not to take up fights with ya, but I gotta call you on this one. I must strongly disagree with putting health hazards above our own people. Youre saying if a non-smoker (the person who should be rewarded, or at least equal) shouls be forced to be confined to keep thier health. Thats a bit ridiculous.

   "Warning: Going in public may cause cancer. Alcon's solution: Get over it"

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

 As far as I'm concerned its up to the property owner/highest ranking government employee in a govenrment building call whether to allow smoking in that building. No local, state or federal rules on it whatsoever.

[opebo]

I strongly disagree with BRTD on this issue.  Smoking bans are needless oppression.

Besides, smoking is cool - while I don't smoke myself, I do like to hang out with smokers.  They are generally cooler than non-smokers.  Certainly the idea of a bar without smoking is ridiculous.  Who would go to such a place?  Not I.

[ilikeverin]

Congrats, BRTD