Minnesota Smoking Ban (school, live, restaurants)

[JGZ952]

Originally Posted by dennis s

"weak genes"..........are you kidding me?

Cigarette smoke contains hundreds of different poisons.

If you smoke your original DNA has been altered dramatically and permanently.

This change is definitely not for the better.


Who has weak genes now? ...............tough guy.

Well Dennis, I see you missed out on some education in your lifetime.

There are MILLIONS of people who are subjected to second hand and even first hand smoke that do not suffer these problems. These people are overall pretty healthy. They are not helping themselves by smoking, but they are not dying from a mere whif of tobacco smoke. These people who do not get sick have what scientists would call "strong genes"

There are only THOUSANDS of people who suffer these illnesses that make it so easy for them to blame cigarette smoke. These people also more than likely have plenty of other health issues that, regardless of cigarettes smoke, will cause them problems throughout their lives. Remember, it is not the smoke that causes the asthma, it is the weak genes that cause the asthma. Scientists would suggest that people who are ill all the time or have life long ailments that make it difficult for them to live in our environment have weak genes.

So therefore, regardless of your OPINION, the FACT is that people who are always sick have weak genes.

If they do not allow smoking anymore, those poeple who are complaining about smoking will surely move on to complain about somthing else instead of just learning to live with and accept the lives they were handed.


Also, never assume anything. You made that little tough guuy comment. That was very witty except for you don't know me. You have no idea if I smoke or not, nor do you know if I am tough or not. I will let you in on a little seceret about me though. I am smarter than you.

Have a nice day.

[dennis s]

Riiiiiiiiiight

[glitter]

I am absolutely disgusted with our Minnesota government and the smoking ban is just the tip of the iceberg. So they spent the last few months or years dealing with the smoking ban issue, completely disregarding the feelings of their constituents (the ones that would be affected by a smoking ban, i.e. workers and patrons), and yet they just closed their session with some of the most detrimental bills I have ever seen. Less money for schools and healthcare, more tax cuts for the wealthy. Geez get a grip government officials!

My major issues with a smoking ban are that although there is no proof that secondhand smoke is dangerous, (there are assumptions based on the fact that smoking is dangerous so that smoke in the air can't be good) let's just say for the sake of argument that it is dangerous -- Bars and Restaurants are not places that people must go to conduct business (except for employees), they are places people choose to go. They take the calculated risk and most don't have an issue with it. Most employees either smoke or a high majority of their customers do. I always use this analogy for employees who don't like smoke in bars. If you don't like to get dirty, you don't work in dirt...if you don't like blood, don't become a nurse...if you don't like smoke, don't work in a bar.

There were some bars and restaurants that had chosen to go non smoking before any bans were in place in Minnesota. Non smokers had options when they wanted to go out in a non smoking environment. There is a supply and demand issue. If more non-smoking bars and restaurants were wanted by the public, then non-smokers would have patronized and spent more money in non-smoking establishments and boycotted smoking establishments, thereby convincing more bars to voluntarily go non-smoking. The fact is there is not much of a market for it. So that is scary for most of us working in the bar industry. Let's see if a single mother is supporting herself and her children on her tips from her job at a bar...and 90% of her customers smoke, hence 90% of her tips probably come from smokers that means that she will be making 1/10 of what she used to make.

Which brings me to another issue that the smoking ban will bring about. Minnesotan's are already among the highest taxed people in the country. We have the second largest sales tax in the country (last I heard). Property taxes are sky high. If bars aren't allowed to permit smoking in their establishments then they certainly won't be selling cigarettes so the state will be losing out on their sales tax and the bonus bull**** tax (also known as the $.75 health care fee). They will be a smaller amount of sales tax from food and liquor sales going to the state. So the state's income will go down. Then on top of that, all the single mothers without a college education in a specialized high paying field, will be forced to go on public assistance, thereby costing the state money. In order to recoup these loses the state will be raising taxes just watch and see. Financially, this is a lose lose situation.

This issue really isn't even about second hand smoke, it is about discrimination. Part of the bill that was passed says that establishments can permit smoking on outdoor patios but that no one can wait on them. So, if I am working on the patio and I have a table of non-smokers and a table of smokers, I am allowed to wait on the non-smokers, but must walk past the smokers and not help them. That makes no sense. But I think that rule actually means no one can get service on a patio.

It is currently illegal to smoke at OUTDOOR parks in Hennepin County. This is not about secondhand smoke. DISCRIMINATION.

Just wanted to point out for the person who posted about their illnesses and moving to California the cleanest air.....I thought maybe they'd cleaned up their act, but in fact I just saw on the news within the last few weeks that the condition of the air in California is in the bottom 5 of the country. Minnesota is in the top 5. Get your facts straight.

I think that what this all boils down to is that we don't want or need the government's protection from ourselves. Remember when you were a kid and could ride your bike without a helmet (it's still legal, but not for long). Seat belts are a good thing and I wear mine, but I think it's stupid that they made it a law. Who cares! Survival of the fitest. Do we really need to be super duper safe about everything we do so we can live into our 100's? We won't have social security by the time I retire so how's the government proposing to care for all those people. There is a length of time you're supposed to live period. And you're supposed to enjoy it. How about we ban skydiving, bungee jumping, they're fun and dangerous activities. Or we could ban flying, driving, crossing the street! So smoking might be dangerous, so what! We do dozens of things daily, weekly, monthly, that are dangerous and the government needs to stop micro-managing our lives! LET US BE!!!!!!

[glitter]

Just wanted to add to the rebuttal of the weak genes theory. I agree that people who are sick all the time have weak genes and they will find something else to complain about besides secondhand smoke.

Just wanted to share an interesting theory. Scientists have spent years trying to cure muscular dystrophy, aids, and many other ailments and diseases. Some successfully and most unsuccessfully. Somehow though they have been able to pin lung cancer on smoking and yet not determined a cause for breast, brain, prostate, lymphoma, uterine, ovarian or any other kind of cancer. Lung cancer is the only one that they've found a cause for? I don't buy it.

[dennis s]

Originally Posted by glitter

Just wanted to add to the rebuttal of the weak genes theory. I agree that people who are sick all the time have weak genes and they will find something else to complain about besides secondhand smoke.

Just wanted to share an interesting theory. Scientists have spent years trying to cure muscular dystrophy, aids, and many other ailments and diseases. Some successfully and most unsuccessfully. Somehow though they have been able to pin lung cancer on smoking and yet not determined a cause for breast, brain, prostate, lymphoma, uterine, ovarian or any other kind of cancer. Lung cancer is the only one that they've found a cause for? I don't buy it.

The only reason they have figured out that smoking and second hand smokes cause lung cancer is that the research was sponsored by the cancer society, and other NON-PROFIT groups. Or governments of more progressive countries than ours. Virtually all studies are done by groups that will profit by the findings, which they already know the answer to.

All of the diseases that you have mentioned above have KNOWN causes and if caught in time, A CURE. The A.M.A. "protects" it's members (doctors) by downplaying any findings saying that the studies aren't conclusive and more research needs to be done. Doctors who treat the causes of these diseases rather than the symptoms are most often drummed out of the A.M.A. and are no longer allowed to practice medicine.

The insurance companies won't cover so called "experimental" treatments so we rarely move forward with treatments and cures.

The pharmaceutical Companies are making BILLIONS of dollars of of drugs for AIDS, cancer, lymphoma, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and even "E.D." (now classified as a disease).................. Why would a doctor cure you? You wouldn't come back. The doctor wouldn't get any kick-backs from all of the testing labs that he or she is sending you to. How would your doctor pay for the yacht and the pool?


P.S. Now the pharaceutical companies are paying lobbiests big bucks to try and make simple vitamins and suppliments difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.

[cinnamon_toast]

I agree, it should be made illegal. Either that, or health plans should refuse to insure smokers. I'm tired of the increasing health care costs. Also, what about the poor children that are exposed to these poisons by their parents in their homes, cars, etc. Some of them are too young to speak up for themselves.

[dennis s]

Originally Posted by cinnamon_toast

I agree, it should be made illegal. Either that, or health plans should refuse to insure smokers. I'm tired of the increasing health care costs. Also, what about the poor children that are exposed to these poisons by their parents in their homes, cars, etc. Some of them are too young to speak up for themselves.

My father smoked all through my childhood. I was a terrible student with bad grades and A.D.D.. The only time I did great in school (and I mean GREAT) is the same time my dad went out to sea for a year. I didn't figure this out till recently but I firmly believe there is a correlation.

My father was told by my doctor and my mother's doctor that he shouldn't smoke around us but he didn't believe that there was a problem and continued to smoke. After his quadruple bypass surgury.............. he quit.

[SueJ999]

Originally Posted by mr_evergreen

It is bad enough that we have smokers in the first place, but no one wants to breath cigarette smoke out in public. Everyone breathes that air. Smoke in your own home.

I'm a smoker and, although I'm not for the smoking ban in SOME bars, it's fine to not breathe smoke in restaurants. I don't smoke when I eat either!! As for smoking in my own home, that doesn't happen--I have a no smoking policy in my own home--smokers can step outside or, in the cold bitter Minnesota winters, in the garage!

[chilaili]

I was ecstatic when they brought in the non-smoking law! Firstly because as a non-smoker and contact lens wearer it was impossible for me to go out anywhere because the smoke would make my eyes tear up and go red and sting so badly I'd be in severe pain. Secondly, the stench of smoke that would be in my hair and clothes when I got home would make me gag and I'd have to jump straight in the shower and throw all my clothes into the laundry. Thirdly, having to endure the smell of cigarette smoke whilst trying to eat a good meal somewhere is frankly disgusting.

[nick is rulz]

why is it that smokers are okay to ostracize for being disgusting and unhealthy but fat people arent?