$nbsp;

Stop the erosion of freedom

 
LOADING
Dec 19, 2006 - 04:06:32 CST
Stop the erosion of freedom

By CHAD BIEGLER

Bismarck

This letter is about the proposed statewide smoking ban. Unbelievable. How is this ban even considered? Has our sense of government been eroded to the point where we would allow it to tell private business owners they cannot allow smoking?

We all can agree on the dangers of second-hand smoke. Smoke of any sort is bad for lungs.

Should we ban fast food? We all know obesity is far more of a problem than smoking. Or what about alcohol? You're telling me we would be allowed to get drunk at a bar but not smoke. Who ever killed someone or committed a serious or even minimal crime while under the influence of nicotine? No one.

The argument is rights. Why wouldn't there be a choice? That is why we beat our chests as Americans, isn't it? Freedom. Choice is the only real freedom there is. That's it.

Citizens should stand up, even if they despise smoking. Stand up and stop this erosion of freedom.
News > Opinion
   Printer friendly version
Stop the erosion of freedom
Comments

youluluak wrote on Jun 19, 2009 9:01 AM:

" This is stupid. If you live in an apartment that allows smoking and your not a smoker, then that sounds like your own fault to me. Come on, smoking is already banned from all restaurants and stuff, what the hell else is next? Gona try and stop all the pollution in the world? cuz i know that damages the respiratory system more than the tiny amounts of 2nd hand smoke in the air. "

LAURA wrote on Feb 27, 2008 12:46 AM:

" I NEED HELP , I LIVE IN A CONDOMINIUM AND MY NEIGHBOR DOWN STAIRS SMOKES AND EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE AT LEAST 4 TIMES A MONTH THE SMELL OF THE SMOKES COMES IN FROM MY ROOM AND THE VENTILATION AND EVEN MY PATIO DOORS WHEN THEY ARE OPEN WHO DO I CALL TO GET THEM TO STOP ? MY HOA OR A ATTORNEY? "

Nome Morgan wrote on Feb 18, 2008 8:51 AM:

" I'm glad that they are trying to pass a ban on smoking that includes the whole state!!!! I live in CT and we have a ban on smoking in public places inside!! It's excellent to people that are adversely affected by it. Smokers are addicts and since nicotine is a legal drug, they feel that they have a right to die there own way, even if they bring others along with them. When a smoker lights up a cigarette they are letting off dangerous chemicals into the air that other innocent people have--they don't have a choice--to breathe in. I have a smoker that lives under me and I don't have a choice, because they have a civil right to smoke that crap, but Ihave to breathe it in. That is why "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 22, 2007 12:41 PM:

" Universal health care. The mess we see in the health care problem is due to government intervention in private enterprise. There are now more people in a hospital who give no medical assistance than there are medical people working in that hospital, and they don't come cheap. Due to the government intervention in health care, it became a high buck corporate industry which amongst other things extracts the maximum amount allowable from the government and the insurance companies. Yes, by all means get universal health care so that you and your relatives can die from a lack of health care because their appointment was 10 months after the first conditions were recognized. I exaggerate? Go talk to the Canadian families who have lost a loved one to the system. Those individuals who run to the doctor for any excuse KNOW how to use the system so that they can get in and plug up the system. When you have lost a loved one to government health care, then come back and tell me how wonderful it is. OH, by the way, you might also find out that since you have this wonderful "free" benefit, your estate will now go to the government. "

Chad Biegler wrote on Jan 21, 2007 2:06 PM:

" Good idea!!! Call your legislators about the health care. Call them about the smoking ban too while your at it. Let's stop this tyranical invasion of freedom. (too dramatic I know) But remember the boiling frog theory.......... "

Universal Health Care wrote on Jan 20, 2007 11:18 PM:

" Here is a "new concept" for the state of North Dakota. 2007 - Legislator's PAY ATTENTION. How about joining the following states who are implementing or are considering implementing "universal health coverage" for all North Dakotans who are uninsured? In the last month, governors, legislative leaders and blue-ribbon commissions have declared universal coverage an attainable goal in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington state and Wisconsin. Massachusetts and Vermont are to put their programs into effect this year, while Maine is tweaking its existing system. Many more are considering significant expansions. Now is the time for N.D. to join the ranks and follow these other states who are "ahead of the curve!" "

RR wrote on Jan 20, 2007 7:35 AM:

" Anyone know if using one of these bad boys in a bar (for tobacco) would count as smoking? http://www.vapir.com/technology.php# (click the demo button). | Surely that would be allowed, right? I'd say someone needs to start a company to make models of these specifically for bar owners to make available to their customers. Maybe make them a little more aesthetically pleasing,less expensive, and easily reusable. Hell, make them "cool", bring back Joe Camel and put his likeness on the side of them. Combine them with ipods and cellphones. It really should be the future of smoking. healthier, safer, no second hand smoke. It would be really hard to find somoene who would complain about that. "

Wondering wrote on Jan 19, 2007 9:50 AM:

" Last night, while talking with my brilliant lawyer/husband about these blogs and the people who bring up the "it's my right to smoke because it's legal" argument, he said "Wondering, smoking is NOT A RIGHT. It is a PRIVILEGE afforded by law." He told me that with privileges come responsibilities, and one responsibility of smokers is not to harm anyone but themselves by their actions. So, since this is a public health issue, a law is being proposed to limit where smokers can harm themselves so as to prevent them from harming other people. I wrote a version of this on another blog, and since this is on the same topic, I thought I would share it on this one, too. "

Disabled Vietnam Veteran wrote on Jan 18, 2007 1:11 PM:

" When i was in the Navy during the Vietnam War, I was a Corpsman. I worked with a medical doctor and helped him diagnosed and treat other Navy personnel. A 64 year old, Navy Admiral came to the clinic one day and said he wasn't feeling well. He had trouble breathing and was coughing uncontrollably. Needless to say, he was diagnosed with LUNG CANCER. He had been a SMOKER - non-stop, for over 50 years. He died about a week later suffocated, unable to breath, while in the hospital. A coroner was asked to perform a biopsy and found his lungs were completely black. I asked the coroner what caused that condition, he simply said - SMOKING. He said he sees it all the time when people succumb to breathing problems. I am so glad, I never started the unhealthy habit of SMOKING. "

Miler wrote on Jan 18, 2007 9:40 AM:

" Mr E. If you don't want to hear the answer to a question, don't ask. It's that simple. So I mispelled "Wheasle". I would venture to guess that since you took the time to look it up in the dictionary to correct my spelling, you got the point. This is not a spelling bee or a typing contest. If it were either, I would not have shown up. I will consider myself "noble" for sticking up for Deb and all the non smokers. Good for me. Chad: I fully appreciate your side and views regarding this situation. I'm not sure there is such a compromise. It's like having a smoking section in the restauraunt. Without physical walls, it's impossible. Smoke filters through the air. My daughter has chronic asthma. Before they passed a law prohibiting people from smoking in restaurants, I could not go out to eat. Smoke is the single worse trigger. Nothing is scarier then sitting in an emergency room with a child who can't breath. Yes, I know the argument will come from those that children are not allowed in bars, so who cares. When I do go to the bar, I have to put all my clothes outside and take a shower to get the smoke out of my hair. Perhaps my views, and opinions are driven by that. Perhaps seeing the effect on other people has hardened me a bit. Maybe, my daughter's case is extreme.. but, not according to the doctor. It's hard for me NOT to support the smoking ban. Both my parents smoked when I was growing up and I hated sitting at the breakfast table, choking and smelling their smoke. Perhaps you could throw some sort of compromise out there. What are your ideas? I would be interested in listening. "

Jody wrote on Jan 18, 2007 9:20 AM:

" This is still an issue that should be left up to the business owner. In reality the only place left for smokers is the bars in ND what people are not getting is that there are non-smoking options out there. If you don't think there are enough then open another non-smoking bar. My Great grandmother smoked since she was 12 she died at 112 and 11 months in her sleep. Never sick never any type of breathing issue on the other side of the family I had a relative who never smoked and never went anywhere that people did because she could not stand the smell she owned her own business which SHE CHOSE to make non-smoking and she died 3 months after being diagnosed with lung cancer. If you look at the reality everything out there causes a health risk if you want someone to give you a study on it they will find one. The so called proof of smoking I am not too sure about the scientific studies because in the last 100 years our so called "clean air" has been polluted by factories and the automobiles that we all drive including you non-smokers. This was about our freedoms in a country that is supposed to be free. Business owners should be allowed the choice if being a non-smoking bar is so popular than we should be seeing alot more of them. I also did not agree with the ban 2 years ago in restaurants. There are ways to seperate smoking and non-smoking without seperate buildings. But now is the time to keep government out and leave it to business owners. "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 17, 2007 10:26 PM:

" Miler: I've been in debates before with Deb so save your fingers from explaining. I already knew. And I don't know what "wheasle" means (maybe weasel) but I have addressed every single comment Deb has posted to me. Not just bits and pieces like both of you pick out of everybody elses posts. And I don't think Deb needs you to defend itself either. But oh how noble. I just think it is funny when someone says at least twice that this is their last post...and then continues to post. And how are others single minded when they are trying to come up with other solutions. You deal in absolutes. Bars are the last place for smokers to go and I don't believe they should lose it. Deb: The employees issue has been addressed. I swear you must have one foot shorter than the other because you keep going in circles. There are many jobs where employees are exposed to unhealthy environments. But if that is your last point, then maybe employers should be required to have masks available to those employees who wish to not breathe in 'deadly' smoke. But I'm sure you have some problem with that. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 17, 2007 9:31 PM:

" rather, it is people who have failed to pay any attention to what is going on that has allowed the judiciary to WRITE LAW from the bench. I know that some think that the Constitution is a "growing" document, and is up for change anytime someone which calls itself a judge decides to write law from the bench. It is all too obvious that you are oblivious to the number of miscarriages of justice which have been committed by "judges" under the color of law. As for the John Birch statement, you have proven to me that you have failed to get beyond the comic books. Try studying for a change. It will not give you a headache, nor will hair grow on your palms. Quit listening to those common taters and get yourself some education. King George had over 50 "judges" hanged for writing law from the bench. There have been numerous judges in this country who have been removed from the bench by common people such as myself documenting their crimes. We are such radical extremists that we expect judges to follow the law. Boy that is surely revolutionary. As for the JBS I know of no such actions by the JBS to pushing for forcing (with the law) those who enforce the law to obey the law, but then again I have not read any of their materials for 35 or 40 years, so I really don't know what they are up to. Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance is death. Try pleading ignorance of the law in a court and let's see where that get's you. If the law applies to you, it also applies to judges etc. "

Chad Biegler wrote on Jan 17, 2007 4:56 PM:

" I have addressed every concern posted head-on and I think I have reached reasonable compromises. Until cigarettes are made illegal for all the obvious reasons, this proposed STATE-WIDE ban is unjust. And Miler I appologize for calling you selfish. Your intentions are the farthest thing from that. I sympathize with your position. However, I believe the ban itself is selfish and a knee jerk irrational reaction to a problem that could be solved in much more constructive ways. The goal, I believe, is not to have non-smopking persons exposed to side-stream smoke. I also believe we can reach a suitable compromise for both sides. To the supporteers of the ban are there any solutions you would be happy with that still allowed both smoking and non-smoking establishments?? Would you be willing to concede any compromise to us vile beings?? "

Miler wrote on Jan 17, 2007 4:50 PM:

" Leah: Smokers are willing to compromise because you are already giving yourself cancer. What else do you have to lose? "

Leah wrote on Jan 17, 2007 4:29 PM:

" OK, this will be my final post on this subject. As I have said many times before, this about people making choices that are right for yourself. Let the business choose what is best for their business. If the employees feel that they are working in a death trap then they need to find new employment. Plain and simple. We all make choices everyday, some good, some not so good. But we all still have to live with the choices that we make. What ever happened to taking responsiblity for ourselves? Why dont we need the Gov. to dictate what is best for us? Miler, you are no different than I am, in the fact that I am standing up for what I believe and I will fight it until the end, Just like you. You also are unwilling to make any compromise, and I find that to be very self centered. At least the smokers are willing to do that. "

Miler wrote on Jan 17, 2007 3:54 PM:

" To Mr E: I have never stated that the "smokers" or the "freedom fighters" have not made good points in this debate. The fact is, they have. Putting up a sign warning people of the "death risk" could be an option. Do I think it is the logical option? No. Non-smokers like to go out and enjoy a good band, or hang out with their friends without dealing with the "death danger" from someone else's bad habit. Smokers enjoy smoking and that is o.k. however the problem arises when their habit effects others in a common area. That is my opinion. You have been quick to call us whiners however it would be safe to say that those that "disagree" with me are also very single minded and refuse to see the argument from the opposition. In regards to Deb: My comment to you regarding learning more about Deb was simply this. I have been on the opposing side with Deb and she does not go away easy or is she easily intimidated. You call her posts rants because that seems to be the only way you can wheasle your way out of addressing her. Furthermore, who cares if she has posted 10,20,30 times??? She is keeping up with the debate. People fight for what they believe in and are passionate about certain things. I am glad she is on my side on this issue and am enjoying her posts. "

Deb wrote on Jan 17, 2007 2:50 PM:

" Mr. E: I have addressed the signage issue. You'll just have to read through again. One word: EMPLOYEES!! "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 17, 2007 1:52 PM:

" Why not just have a sign in the window warning people of the "death danger" inside the bar. You two have not addressed that possible solution which has been brought up numerous times on this board. Then you assume the risk when entering such establishment. This is utilized in other situations where one's health is at "risk." And Deb, was that your tenth "last" post or did I lose count? The fact that you are an ex-pot smoker now helps me understand the logic behind some of your rants... Is that what I had to learn about Deb, Miler? "

Miler wrote on Jan 17, 2007 12:43 PM:

" To: Mr Miler: Your post makes no sense to me. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, if any. Somewhere along the line you and Leah have confused this post with the marijuana post. You must have gotten a contact high. Heather Crowe was diagnosed with a smokers tumor, which she died from not so long ago. She never smoked a day in her life. It is easy to look for excuses such as doctors make mistakes, they used old equipment back then (who cares, who says her lungs were ever x-rayed back then?) but the fact of the matter is, there are numerous studies, not just "one" doctor, that proves second hand smoke is harmful to those exposed. Like Deb stated, no one is taking away your right to smoke. They are asking to take away your right to harm others with your smoke. Sounds logical to me. "

Deb wrote on Jan 17, 2007 8:15 AM:

" To Leah: To clarify, and I can't believe that this is an issue here - if you read my quote again, you'll see that I said legalization COULD, repeat, COULD be an options for the US. No where did I say that America SHOULD legalize marijuana. Also, you stopped short of copying and pasting my entire quote, most likely to fit your own feeble attempt at debeasing my argument. The end of my post on legalization is the following: "But that is just one idea. Far from the best, I'm sure." So, with a little closer examination, you see that I was giving out ideas, and actually, I started my post with "some thoughts on this debate" - which is far from what I am accomplishing here, which is completely boxing in all of the "smoker's rights" people. Honesty is Best: You say that I am against tobacco and never condoned marijuana - find me where I said that anywhere. I have said that I am an ex-smoker and I have friends to smoke. While I don't smoke, I am not against tobacco or the use of it - just not around me in an enclosed place. I akso said in the marijuana blog that I am an ex-pot smoker. Never once did I say that I don't condone its usage. To both of you: You could have at least tried to meld the two arguments, with a simple "Deb, if you are for the legalization of marijuana, would you be for the establishment of smoking cafes like they have in Amsterdam?" Which, again, the amswer is NO. So, let's get back to topic now, shall we? "

ratner wrote on Jan 16, 2007 9:11 PM:

" nodak john: after your rant about judges I know now that you must be the leader of the John Birch Society as that is the only answer for such ignorance. Do you know the legal elements that one has to prove to prevail on a negligence claim such as the spilled coffee? Which party has the burden of proof and what that burden is? The doctrines of comparative and contributory negligence? The concept of decisions left to juries or that appeals courts exist after the trial court level? How as you claim are judges violating their oaths and the laws? What is your source for your claim that "many" judges don't take an oath of office? I would laugh this nonsense off if it wasn't so scary that people are out there that actually believe it. "

Honesty is best? wrote on Jan 16, 2007 7:36 PM:

" Deb, on January 15, 2007 5:06 PM, you posted on the "Jailing Marijuana users is terrible" site. You wrote: "I think this country could legalize it, tax it and regulate it and spend all funds from said tax toward welfare or other public funding and it would be a great thing for this country". Deb you now state that you are against tobacco and never condoned marijuana? Could you clarify? "

Jack A. wrote on Jan 16, 2007 7:03 PM:

" Smoking is a property rights issue,if you want to smoke in your private domain, it shoule be your own business. If you own a bar or restraunt, same rights should apply. These owners should be able to decide if their establishment is smoking or not. If it is smoking, post a sign at the front door, and if they advertise put a small disclaimer in the ad saying it is smoking. If not a smoking business, post it as such and advertise as such. I do not believe these businesses would have a problem with this. If you have a problem with one or the other, STAY AWAY!!! Life is NOT that difficult....... "

Leah wrote on Jan 16, 2007 6:56 PM:

" Oh but Deb you did say it....Let me quote a portion of your statement."I think this country could legalize it, tax it and regulate it and spend all funds from said tax toward welfare or other public funding and it would be a great thing for this country" So yes, lets back up the short bus! "

V.x. wrote on Jan 16, 2007 6:17 PM:

" Peaceful assembly is an entitlement. These protests at funerals instigate hostilities between the two parties. Therefore it is justified to limit them Hence forth hitherto jabba the hut. It makes no sense..... to compare the two issues here. "

To Mr Miller wrote on Jan 16, 2007 5:34 PM:

" Yes a canadian doctor did say that Heather Crowe died from exposure to secondary smoke at age 61. That means she was young in the 1940's when doctors used fluoroscopes to x-ray peoples lungs for TB. Massive doses that did not just take a quick picture, the doctor watched the heart pumping and the lungs breathing on a TV type screen (cathode ray tube). The doctors died faster than anyone else because the machines were not shielded. DDT and other chemicals were in common use when she was young. Was she a chronic user of insecticides or other chemicals? We do not know because a canadian doctor said it was only secondary tobacco smoke. Strange that she did not live as long as the Johns Mansville asbestos workers that smoked and breathed asbestos without protection and died at average 66. Back in the 1950's doctors were using x-rays to cure pimples, by killing the germs in face pores. They causes a lot of cancer of the thyroid gland and is the reason dentists now put a lead shield on your neck before tooth x-rays. In the 1960's doctors quit using penicillin routinely for office visits because an average of 30 allergic people per year died in their offices immediately after a penicillin shot. Unless times have changed doctors only live to an average age of 64 because they do not get enough exercise. Miller did you know that cancer of the cervix is usually caused by a virus. None of this has any meaning to a crusader so why bother. Back in the 1950's all "female monthly problem" were considered to be mental. Doctors were wrong then and are often wrong now. There is not enough room here for me to list all the times doctors were wrong concerning my family members over the last many years. The people I have known that died young were either in high stress jobs or chronic users of ant poison and bug spray. Miller you can easily find 100 canadian doctors that will tell you marijuana is not harmful to smoke? "

Deb wrote on Jan 16, 2007 5:28 PM:

" Back up the short bus, Leah - nice try at changing the subject. I never said that I would legalize marijuana. You're caught in a corner and you're lashing out. Enjoy the brief time that you have in your smoking bar. Good day. "

Leah wrote on Jan 16, 2007 5:21 PM:

" We have people that will NOT patronize the bar if it goes non smoking, just like you two, their thinking is, it is my way or the highway. We have already had several people tell us that they will quite darts if it goes non smoking. Because like I said before, most are smokers. They want to come in relax, drink a beer and smoke a ciggarete. They will get them some beer take it home and drink and smoke until the heart is content. And it's funny that alot of the non smokers that do come to the bar, smoke when they drink. Most will not support our bar like we will. If you think that our little gang, going there a couple times a week is going to keep that bar open, you are sadly mistaken. One thing that I find amusing is that you, Deb, would legalize marijuana. "

Miler wrote on Jan 16, 2007 4:37 PM:

" Leah: How unfortunate for your small town to depend on smokers to keep it running. It is a shame to think that the only reason you go to the bar is to smoke. I would think you would go to the bar for the comradare and entertainment value and the chance to "get out of the house". You are quick to call non-smokers self righteous morons when in fact you have no substance behind your argument except for your goofy theory that your small town will go under. Perhaps you never posted on the funeral protests however you were quick to defend the double standard. To: The terrorists are winning, you are confused, as is Leah. High heal shoes and lipstick does not cause cancer to those exposed. stick with the point. I refuse to be a target for smokers. To bad Heather Crowe didn't have someone standing up for her........ "

Deb wrote on Jan 16, 2007 4:20 PM:

" Leah - you were the one who said that you would NOT stop going to your small town bar if the smoking ban were put in place. So do you think that the rest of the patrons of that bar will quit going? If they are for their community and for the bar staying open, keeping that family in the community, kids in school - all the things that you said - do you really think that your fellow smoking patrons of the bar would quit going? I think NOT. AND - better yet - maybe a lot of other residents of your community would come to the bar BECAUSE THERE IS NO SMOKING THERE!! We're not taking away your freedom. We're not infringing on your rights. You just have to step outside to have your smoke. And I WILL keep socializing with my 450 friends, and if your town's bar decides to go smoke free - you might see us in the future. "

The terrorists are wnning wrote on Jan 16, 2007 4:07 PM:

" Prayer in school is illegal. Saluting the flag is history. This smoking ban is just a lead-up to outlawing boy scout camp fires and barbeque pits. When they outlaw smoking in bars the people supporting terrorism are closer to winning. Soon the Miss America contestants will all be wearing Burkas. The accident rate will be cut by 50 percent because women will not be allowed to drive cars. High heeled shoes and lipstick will only be in history books. "

Leah wrote on Jan 16, 2007 4:00 PM:

" Deb-What the heck is my problem? Let me tell you what my problem is. My problem is with people who think that they have more rights than me. My problem is with self rightous morons that can't make choices for themselves. My problem is that I am sick and tired of the gov. interferring when they need to keep their nose out of something like this. My net loss is zero? wrong! If the local bar closes and we have one in my small town of less than 90 people, then we have lost a business, probably the person that owns it and his family, because he will have to go elsewhere to find work. He will have to remove his children from school, which we can't afford to loose any kids. So my loss is, our town dwindles away. You have no idea what this will do to the small town guy. It probably will not effect the bars in the larger towns, But you go ahead and continue to party with your 450 fiends and don't worry about us small town folks. And just for the record, I never posted on the funeral protest site! "

Miler wrote on Jan 16, 2007 3:45 PM:

" Leah: Sorry. Based on the argument here, there is no difference between protesting for non-smoking, or protesting at a funeral. This letter to the editor is about more of our freedoms being taken away by laws and regulations. My argument has been that second hand smoke is proven unhealthy to those that are exposed to it and should be regulated. This is not a personal attack on smokers, or their rights. If your going to join the party than perhaps you should read up on it a little. Your a Johnny come lately. We have been down your road and back. Just by the contents of your post alone, it is clear your only argument is the fact that you and your friends like to smoke and feel you should be able to smoke anywhere you want. You claim you will still support the establishments no matter what happens, but still whine about it. You are also referring to non-smokers as if we have no life. We have good jobs, spend money, go out to eat, go to the bar, go bowling, play bingo... the list goes on and on. Please don't flatter yourself by thinking that smokers run the economy. Deb: imagine the business that is lost in smoking establishments because non-smokers won't go there? All we ever here from bar owners is that most of their customers smoke. Duh... did it ever cross their minds that the non-smokers aren't there because the smokers are? "

Deb wrote on Jan 16, 2007 2:18 PM:

" Miler- I thought the same thing - the same people who are railing on about how great a ban of protesting is, are railing on about how no-smoking is an erosion of their freedom. Gimme a break. The right to protest is protected in the constitution. The right to kill people with smoke is not. Leah - if you will still frequent a bar if it goes non-smoking, then what the heck is your problem? Your net loss is zero either way. You can still go play your darts, and still smoke (outiside), and still enjoy a frosty beverage. And to your question as to how much people who are pro-smoking ban go out to bars a week - let me tell you this: I belong to a group that is numbering somewhere around 450 people in the Bis-Man area. We plan at least 2 events a week, somtimes as many as 4 and we all go to locally owned bars and restaurants. The only businesses that don't qualify are smoking restaurants and bars. There are people who smoke in our group, but out of respect for the health of the rest of us, they step outside to smoke. Never heard a PEEP from a one of them that we are "eroding their freedom" by not going to smoking bars. Think about the bars in Bis-Man and surrounding areas that are losing those potential 450 people as customers. I don't and won't go to smoking bars. I can name 450 people who feel the same as I do. How many people do you know who WON'T go to a bar if it goes non-smoking? "

Leah wrote on Jan 16, 2007 1:23 PM:

" Miler- It is relevant, because if you do not frequent the bars then who is going to support them? Are all of the non smokers going to come out of the woodwork and support these bars? I doubt it.. We go at least once a week to play darts and sometimes 2 or three, depending on what is going on in town. The vast majority of people in the bar that we go to, are smokers. That is where our freinds hang out, and it should the owners choice, as he knows what is best for his business. After all, the smokers are the ones that are supporting the bar the most. And we will continue to support our local establishement no matter the outcome. I don't want to see his business fail because of stupid people who are complaining about this, but never go to the bar. There is a huge defference in protesing against smoking and protesting against a solider that has died for mine and your freedom. one last thing, If you want to dish it out, then you better be ready to take it and not whine that you are being ganged up on!!!! "

Miler wrote on Jan 16, 2007 11:45 AM:

" Leah: How many times a week I go to a bar is irrelevant and none of your business. Perhaps there would be more people in bars if they didn't have to deal with smoke and feel like they just sucked up an ashtray. That however is my personal opinion. I am getting ganged up on here by all the smokers and "pro-rights" people who think I am anti-American. Times are a changing people. I for one love going out to eat and enjoying my food smoke free. I do find one thing interesting though. A lot of you same posters are happy to vote for and pass a law forbidding protestors at funerals. I'm all for that aswell and would never cry that your taking away a "freedom" or a "right". Your applying your own logic and your own personal belief but it is a double standard. You are calling me anti-American and say I celebrate the loss of freedom, yet you turn around and support other "laws" that seemingly take away our freedom's. Think about it. I'm out. "

Susan Beehler wrote on Jan 16, 2007 10:51 AM:

" I am against smoking, but I believe smoking should be allowed in bars that choose to allow it. Smoking is legal and as to 50 years from now, smoking will possibly be around or some subsitute for it. Smoking has been around since ancient times we could make it illegal, but we all know prohibition did not stop drinking. This issue is about rights. As far as health issues, our state from my understanding does not have a current safety standard on "vapors", although the EPA does. Because the state does not, residents can be exposed to cancer causing vapors, such as the diesel fumes in Mandan that the EPA has stated at certain levels and lengths of time can cause cancer (living 25 years in an area with diesel fumes; according to the document I have). The government has informed us smoking can be "unsafe" but that does not mean we are informed of every vapor that can cause cancer. The Mandan City government has this report and so does the health department they chose not to go public with this information, because they do not have to. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 16, 2007 8:55 AM:

" Miller, A law abiding judge would not allow an attorney to come into his court if the attorney tried to pull the stunt some of these "attorneys" have pulled and those "judges" who have allowed them to get away with bogus law have eroded the foundations of this nation. Two examples. In the Florida case where the woman balanced her cup of coffee on her steering wheel, spilled it in her lap, and sued the restaurant for serving hot coffee, IF that were truly a judge who heard the case, he would have thrown the attorney and the litigant out of his court and warned the attorney that if he ever tried to pull that stunt again, he would never be allowed in his court again. In the case in California where the "judge" determined that foreign felons must be given free health care, That "judge" under a Constitutional Republic would have been removed from the bench faster than you can say, "your fired". WHY? Because in both cases they violated their oath of office. Do you know that in this modern litigious society that many "judges" no longer take an oath of office in spite of the law which declares that they must in order to hold that elected office. Instead of excusing them for their malfeasance and misfeasance, how about joining a group such as jail for judges and call them to answer for the laws they are violating. The Constitution (both State and Federal) are not that difficult, only criminals make it seem difficult. The Constitutions are being ignored or perverted, and now the legislators think nothing of also violating those laws because we are so gutless that we will not confront them. "

rbeesh to miler wrote on Jan 16, 2007 2:18 AM:

" children around smoke is a different story. they are not adults they may not be able to just leave like an adult can. that is a big difference. i think it should be a siteable offence to smoke in a closed area with a child present. "

rbeesh wrote on Jan 16, 2007 2:14 AM:

" to skotish, not only are you wrong about obesity only affecting you, you kinda make it sound like people that do not smoke have no choice as to the establishments they frequent. obesity affects others in this way... when you are fat and health problem arise because of it this affects your loved ones in a physical and mental way. worrying causes heart problems from anxiety and may result in a heart attack. we all know that heart attacks can be fatal. emotional problems may arise from your Obesity with your wife/husband and or children, and emotional problems could and have lead to many deaths by suicide for many young and older persons in our fine history. my point is this. everything you do, good or bad can affect everyone around you so maybe this isn't a problem of stopping people from smoking maybe this is a problem of people who are offended by it not choosing to remove themselves from said enviroment. a problem can usually be resolved by accepting difference and moving on. how about we just try that, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. like putting on an oxygen mask on a plane, help yourself before assisting others. why try to help people quit smoking that do not want to. and if you do not want to stay away from smoke don't complain about it, simply use it as a daily reminder to never smoke. thank you for your time and smoke 'em if you got 'em!! "

rbeesh wrote on Jan 15, 2007 10:07 PM:

" thank you, our freedoms as americans are slowly vanishing. there are good points and comments here but the simple fact is not whether it is bad for you or others it is a simple freedom that is slowly being taken from under our feet. stand up for your freedoms. our founding fathers fought life and limb so we could be a free country, now a virus of bleeding hearts is trying to strip us of what this country was founded on. FREEDOM!! help to stop it "

Our Personal Freedoms wrote on Jan 15, 2007 9:45 PM:

" TO: lw wrote on January 15, 2007 8:35 PM:" In fifty years from now or less, grab your Koran because that is what you will be reading, if the people in power in the Middle East have their way! They are relentless. They will overcome . . . . . . "

lw wrote on Jan 15, 2007 8:35 PM:

" To Stop Smoking Now - The is the United State of America, dear, not France. You're probably right though - in 50 years there won't be cigarettes, guns, private property, families with more than two kids, freedom of religion, a military, churches, charities, ... it'll be great! "

Stop Smoking Now wrote on Jan 15, 2007 6:53 PM:

" Let's just look ahead, say, 50 years or maybe even 25 years. By that time, people on this planet Earth will be wiser and more knowledgeable about SMOKING and its detrimental affects. They will view this period of arguing for and against SMOKING and wonder, - "What were they thinking?" Fifty years from now Cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and chewing tobacco will be non-existant because every country in the world will have outlawed them. France is banning them today. So, in reality, why are we arguing about TO SMOKE or NOT TO SMOKE now. Just quietly put out your cigarette and walk away from this filthy habit. "

Leah wrote on Jan 15, 2007 6:28 PM:

" I am interested in knowing, just how many times a week or month that Miler actually goes to the bar??? "

Politicians need new voters wrote on Jan 15, 2007 5:09 PM:

" It's just the politicians recruiting a new swing vote. George Washington and the guys had only male property owners voting. But politicians kept recruiting new voters for themselves. Non property owners, women, minorities, now both parties are fighting for the illegal "immigrant" (not alien) vote and the non-smokers vote. Did I forget the quiet attempts at getting the homosexual/lesbian vote. Real important that they be able to form some kind of civil union so they can qualify to buy houses together easier and get group insurance rates when one has a factory or government job. They want to adopt children and maybe that is the answer to all the abortions? This country is becoming a circus so lets stretch logic as far a possible. Meanwhile California recently outlawed cigarette smoking in covered parking lots??? Real important to push those smokers out in the rain. "

lw wrote on Jan 15, 2007 5:07 PM:

" To Chad - That's how Miler and the rest operate. They throw things out there and state them as fact and, of course, build their points up and tear everyone else's down. Miler - I don't need you to decide for me which restraunt or bar I will go into. And I would imagine the business owners of Bismack and Mandan CERTAINLY don't need you to tell them whether they can allow smoking or not in their own business that you have nothing to do with. I'm late about all of this? Sometimes I save my best stuff for last! To I think - you are exactly right. There are plenty of restraunts and bars that this shouldn't be an issue - but to bring about a compromise, you need two sides willing to give and take. This issue has one side that takes but won't give. And they think they are just taking from the smokers (who they look down on anyway so don't care) but there's the business owners in all of this and THEY should have the last word about it. There will still be both smoking and non-smoking bars - there already are and there isn't a ban! This is the part that people just can't get, Miler. "

To Miler: wrote on Jan 15, 2007 4:41 PM:

" We both know this has gone from a health issue to a personal comfort and power issue. One short exposure to smoke does not cancer make. Cancer can occur from second hand smoke, I suppose, over a period of time of constant exposure. Ten seconds outside a business door? That's lame and petty. Sure glad I don't work in a mechanic's garage. I have a right to work there, though, so can we outlaw exhaust, please? This issue has become a bandwagon for bored and nasty people who crave power in some way or another, or don't have the resources to figure out how to avoid unpleasant situations. Most of these people who want so badly to be able to be in bars without smoke probably go to a bar once a year. We can't possibly outlaw all the hazards, so we need to learn to avoid them and be responsible for our own safety. Going to a bar is totally optional. And, yes, the smell of leather does make me gag. Next time, in the movie theater, I will ask the leather owner to please take their coat or whatever outside. Yes, this is purely a power issue, with people resenting those who do not think or conduct their lives exactly as the non-smokers think they should. Just an issue for bitter nasty people who can't stand to see someone who is not as miserable as they are. Tell me, are these pro-ban people really that interested in the health of thousands of people they don't even know? Do they really care that much about all of humanity? Or do they just care that others be their puppets and they can have a little taste of power and a second of fame? Questionable on the fame. "

Miler wrote on Jan 15, 2007 4:40 PM:

" Chad: I did not bring children into this. I only stated that I had heard that Maine had passed a law prohibiting people from smoking in the car while children are present. Just an observation that the world we live in is changing. You make some good points however I stand firm and don't believe I fall short. You stated you concede that non-smokers and children should not be exposed to second hand smoke in commonly shared places. After that statement, the rest of your post doesn't follow suit. You are quick to think that this is in fact a selfish, non smoker who only cares about my own rights. You couldn't be further from the truth. In my mind, this couldn't be more clear however it is fair to say that everyone views this differently. I also believe we have only tipped the iceberg on the effect of second hand smoke but that is just my opinion. I also truly believe that although we live in a free society, safety standards and regulations are the basis for a free society that works (to some degree). Otherwise, we would live in pure chaos. You seem like a smart, educated person who is passionate about this subject. I will agree to disagree. "

Chad Biegler..Please read entirely... wrote on Jan 15, 2007 4:04 PM:

" I concede to the fact that non-smokers and children shold not be exposed to second-hand smoke in commonly shared places. However, I have two points here. One: bars can only allow adults the age of twetny-one or older to enter there establishments. Why? Because It is agreed upon , by most, that at this .age adults are aware and responsible enough to deal with the hazards of alcohol consumption. The smoking age is 18 for the exact some reason. We have age minimums to ensure responsibile decisions. Thus people who choose smoking bars over non-smoking bars are making responsible adult decsions upheld by our law's age requirements. TWO: I have heard that smokers should only stay at their home or in private vehicles to consume cigarettes. O.K.. But in our capatilistic society, there is a market for the people who wanna smoke outside their home. To clarify. If there are 4000 people out of 50000 who are smoking in their homes these 4000 people, who all are responsible enough to possibly endanger themselves by smoking, would heavily support a smoking establishment. Now the main argument seems to be this violates the rights of nonsmokers to breathe clean air. But that is selfish and ujustified because there are many if not more "safe" bars they can go to. Thats what it means to be mature. To make your own decisions and it is fundamentally right. To be sure, liability waivers could be signed by employees and customers to ensure the risks are known. Also explicitly viewable signs posted on the buildings would further deter "non-suicidal" patrons from entering. If all persons that are going to these smoking bars are the same people who would be smoking at home, then where in lies the unwarranted violation of health?? The only difference is that they would have a place to go to enjoy themselves the way they see fit. And the law says they are old enough and responsible enough to make that decsion. That is where you come up short Miler. You keep putting yourself(a nonsmoker)into the equation who is also (I assume) old enough to make the responsible decsion for youself. Or you put children into the equation who have nothing to do with bars anyway. Can you acknowledge this point sir?? Do you see what I am saying here. If the only people who go to these smoking bars are the ones who smoke at home or are fully aware of the risks involved(in writing if need be) then who is really to be held accountable here?? This truly ensures liberty on both sides. "

Miler wrote on Jan 15, 2007 3:52 PM:

" To and I think; When they prove salons cause lung cancer, then we can talk about our hair. When they prove cat hair on my coat causes you to get lung cancer, then we can talk about cat hair. When it is proven that the leather on my shoes causes lung cancer, then we can talk about our shoes. You need to change your posting name as clearly you DON'T think. "

Miler wrote on Jan 15, 2007 3:44 PM:

" to Nodak John: Keep dreaming. Only in a perfect world would we be able to live in a society such as you describe. Unfortunately when you have freedom, you don't get the picture you are painting. It was a nice try, but not a realistic one.... next... "

And I think: wrote on Jan 15, 2007 3:38 PM:

" At construction sites, for safety, they hand out hard hats to those visiting or working there. In bars, they can hand out gas masks at the door. That will ensure everyone's safety from the smoke. Those who are offended by the smell or are concerned with their health can wear the masks, which will take care of the problem. Hey, we wear gloves in the winter, swim caps because there is chlorine that damages chemically treated hair (which has a terrible stink along with perming solution), so gas masks seem quite apropriate. By the way, what do these smell-sensitive people do to have nice hair? Hair salons have a strong and offensive odor. "

I think: wrote on Jan 15, 2007 3:01 PM:

" Since our society is split into smokers and non-smokers, why can't the businesses be split, as well? Here's a bar that says you can smoke - oh, look, here's one around the corner that says you can't. This family restaurant says you can't smoke, but, over here we have a fine dining where someone can enjoy a glass of wine and a cigarette after an expensive meal. Why can't society offer both kinds of businesses, and why can't business owners get together and decide who has what restrictions, so perhaps there are some of each in fine dining, no smoking in places that attract the younger crowd, (i.e. fast food), can someone tell me why it has to be all or nothing? What happened to civility, and thoughtfulness for all? These non-smokers are a relentless condescending bunch who are using this to try to look pure and perfect, when in fact it is a power thing. They shouldn't have all or none, no one should. There's enough bars and restaurants to split the restrictions and serve everyone. And for those who will experience asthma attacks when around smoke for the five or ten seconds it takes to walk by a smoker OUTSIDE, get a new doctor. Offensive fumes are a part of life. Your new leather shoes stink, and upset my stomach, I can't stand that smell and it makes me gaggy. I'll just walk away and keep quiet. I'll put up with your strong offensive perfume that triggers my allergies, and you don't even have to go outside to douse yourself in it. Non-smokers, you have your own set of offensive behaviors. The cat hair on your coat throws me into a coughing fit. Please get rid of your cat. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 15, 2007 2:49 PM:

" Miller, tw has it right. From your comment: "what kind of society we would live in if we had no safety regulations" Answer: A Republic. A place where each is responsible for their own actions. A place where if you injure someone, you will have to compensate them for their loss. Corporations and individuals could not get by with the "stuff" they are pulling because the judges would throw them out of court on their ear for some of their actions, and have them working for the injured party the rest of their lives. It is only through big government, it's protection of miscreants, and other forms of lying, stealing and cheating which allows irresponsibility to prosper. We have, on the part of far too many, become a lazy, irresponsible, incompetent nation which serves only it's belly. Our founding fathers warned us to not allow this to happen, but in our "wisdom" we did it "our way". "

Miler wrote on Jan 15, 2007 1:45 PM:

" lw: Your a little late. Your questions have been put through the ringer already. Yes, we live in a free society and yes, that business owner purchased and paid for that business. We all still have to adhere to certain standards of living. There are many safety regulations in place to protect the public. Second hand smoke is deadly. It's proven. When something becomes dangerous to the general public, it becomes an issue. Why is it so difficult for people to see that? This isn't about non smokers being selfish with a me, me, me attitude. Can you please explain to me what kindof society we would live in if we had no safety regulations? "

lw wrote on Jan 15, 2007 11:16 AM:

" To Supporters of the Ban - You claim to have the right to go to a restraunt and/or bar and not have to breath in smoke - convenience or health, whatever the case. Where do the rights of the business owners fall into this? What rights do you agree belong to them? Let's forget the smoker for this question - I am wondering about the business owner. You know ... that person that bought and paid for the business and is suppose to be living in a free country. "

Leah wrote on Jan 15, 2007 10:49 AM:

" See there is no compromise with Miler!! Wait until some idiot desides that drinking a beer or two is killing people and then they can just close all the bars down and ban all alcohol. Then we won't have to worry about it any more. "

lw wrote on Jan 15, 2007 10:27 AM:

" To TC - You are just one person but I would bet that this whole ban on smokers started out with just one person too. Left unchallenged, it grew into a group. People talk about their "rights". That word, "rights", has gotten so over-used and abused. It would start out as someone's "right" to vote, or to own property, or to have a fair trial, or a right to freedom of religion - some pretty serious things. NOW, it's someone's right to not be offended by the words "home with a view" (ie the blind) or someone's right to demonstrate (ie the military funerals) or someone's right to not have to smell cigarette smoke while at the bar to pound a few down. It comes from a society that has developed into a "me, me, me" society. It's a selfish trait. And I see the supporters of this ban as just that - selfish. It's not enough to have half of the restraunts (and they have them ALL) or some of the bars smoke free - no, they want them ALL to be smoke free. It's selfish. They don't want to live with anyone else but their kind - because, in their eyes, they are perfect. That's arrogance. Add that to selfish and you have a perfect description of the supporters of the ban. They stake their claim of "rights" smack dap on top of other people's "rights" and don't give it a second thought. "

Miler wrote on Jan 15, 2007 9:42 AM:

" Yeah! Go Bangor Maine. They just passed a law outlawing people who smoke in their cars with children on board. Regardless of what all you pro-smokers think, the world is a changing. It is no longer acceptable to put others in harm because of your selfish act. The world will survive without a smoker in a bar. Go ahead, bash my comments......... it's o.k. "

lw wrote on Jan 14, 2007 11:39 PM:

" To TC - If you want to see how totally out-of-whack this whole issue has gotten, make sure you go back and read ALL of the posts. Posts go on and on about how second-hand smoke kills but alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation so that's okay. Do you remember about, oh, a generation or two ago when mothers who were PREGNANT smoked like chimney's (because the health risks weren't well known) and yet there's an entire generation of basically healthy people walking around (the baby's that would have been born to these mothers). The supports of the ban have turned second-hand smoke into this killer that knocks people over as they walk down the street and it just simply isn't. Is it good for you? No but it's not the killer they want to make it out to be. The supports of the ban talk more about what their hair smells like after a night at the bar than anything else. There's even a post from way back on 12/19 where the supporter says straight out "we'll just keep chipping away until nicotine is completely banned." That's it in a nutshell. They are a communist bunch of people who want to dictate not negotiate. It's sad, no doubt, that they've gotten as far as they have. The restraunt owners have already fallen victim to them. In 2006, 12,700 people were killed by drunk drivers (in the US) yet you don't see any legislation about more strict DUI laws, do you. No, leave the drunk driver but get that killer smoker! "

Just trying to help wrote on Jan 14, 2007 11:34 PM:

" To lw: I started out trying to pick an argument about what would be logical in the eyes of an engineer. Then I switched to include mentioning the obvious attacks on any industry that is american owned (in this case Tobacco). These are both logical but socialized medicine is also the next big item coming our way. The object is to regulate every aspect of your life and for the government to eventually own everything. So the question is whether or not this is an intentional conspiracy, or whether it is just the result of us expecting our lawmakers to pass more laws. Maybe we need to only elect people who promise to find outdated laws and eliminate them. "

T.C. wrote on Jan 14, 2007 11:13 PM:

" To lw: Agreed, to a point. Part of the problem is that everyone is so busy with the "I want my RIGHT to smoke" or the "I want my RIGHT to not have smoking around" legislation that noone is even trying to "legislate" for a compromise. If I had the time and knowledge to do that I would try, but alas, I am just one person so I guess that will never come to pass. "

lw wrote on Jan 14, 2007 10:57 PM:

" To TC - On second thought, you can't even really call what is in place a compromise. The reason I say that is because ALL restraunts are non-smoking even if the owner didn't want to go that route. So, for you to find the compromise your looking for, you would actually have to go BACK and un-do some of the ban already put into place. This effort to ban smoking in Bismarck/Mandan is already beyond compromise - and to think they still want more. I don't smoke in bars or restraunts so am really not out anything but it's still not right no matter how you look at it. It is insane that the legislature is wasting it's time on such crap that isn't important when there are things that REALLY need our attention. But I doubt the "ban" people haven't given that much thought - the world is here to serve their needs, you know, and everyone else can just deal with the aftereffects. "

lw wrote on Jan 14, 2007 10:44 PM:

" To just trying - I read the American Industry post and wanted to respond "WHAT???". To TC - A compromise isn't acceptable to the supports of the ban no matter what it is. The "compromise" is already in place. It's non-smoking and smoking bars - pick one and enjoy. The supports of the ban don't want things to be even - they want it all. It's just that simple. This type of thing is TRULY an erosion of freedoms because it starts out with a small amount and ends up being the whole kit-n-kaboodle. "

T.C. wrote on Jan 14, 2007 9:21 PM:

" If you can find a "real" solution to reusing the smoke fine, do it and I will find the people to buy it. When I asked for compromise I meant something realistic that the legislature can actually do something with, it really doesn't pay to come up with solutions that are fictional but funny, does it? I am seriously trying to see if there are any ways to compromise out there so we can get this debate over with, legislate it satisfy both sides, and finally put it to rest. "

Just trying to help wrote on Jan 14, 2007 8:42 PM:

" lw, good post. Actually I think engineering wise smoking in a bar or other place where people gather to smoke is the most efficient use of secondary smoke so-far. When people gather to smoke then they are the ones breathing in the secondary smoke, from the end of the cigarettes, which is very logical. Breathing in from a cloud of smoke from the ends of cigarettes means they will need to smoke less overall. That should mean a monetary savings. I just posted on another site that I believe this is just another "American industry" under attack. The environmental lobby and perhaps the AMA might be getting donations from the chinese. Look in your stores and try to find American made products. When ever you see an assault on any american made product it would be wise to watch closely. No doubt as soon as the tobacco industry is broken we will see cheap Chinese Tobacco being imported. "

lw wrote on Jan 14, 2007 8:26 PM:

" To just trying to help - I AM laughing about this so don't be offended that I wasn't impressed with your idea. I just can't think of too many things more disgusting than drinking cigarette butt tea - have you ever fell victim to the "butt in your beer" thing? I have and it's pretty nasty! There's a ton of things I throw away that I certainly don't want to make into a beverage so as not to waste - engineering sense or not. Maybe you'll find a taker to your idea, who knows. "

Smoking Rights wrote on Jan 14, 2007 8:22 PM:

" This is getting more exciting than when that cow got loose on Main Street! "

lw wrote on Jan 14, 2007 7:23 PM:

" To Just want to help - Well, if not drinking cigarette butt tea means I don't make engineering sense, FINE!! Why don't you just roll up and smoke a chunk of roast beef and call it supper? "

Just trying to help wrote on Jan 14, 2007 7:10 PM:

" Not long ago our homes were often heated by fireplaces. Often they were no more than 10 percent efficient. Most of the energy from unburned gasses went out the chimney. They were replaced by metal air tight wood burning stoves that increased the temperature of combustion and controlled the amount of air entering the unit. Perhaps a much more efficient tobacco smoking pipe could be developed. What is a pack a day habit costing right now, 110 dollars a month? Would it not be worth it to save half that money and give off less smoke for others to breath. It sounds like you are not willing to change your habits even though it makes logical sense and offends less people? "

Just trying to help wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:52 PM:

" lw, why would a person buy an expensive product and only consume half of it? From an engineering viewpoint you are the one not making sense. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Jan 14, 2007 5:34 PM:

" to just trying to help; Great idea. Never looked at cigarettes from that standpoint before. It would certainly be economical. You not only get to smoke, you can also brew your own cup of tea from the previous butt. Now if you can just find someone to test this on, you might be in business. "

lw wrote on Jan 14, 2007 4:22 PM:

" to Just trying to help - what in God's name are you talking about? If you want to rinse a used cigarette butt and make tea, be my guest, but you might not want to let anyone know you're doing it - it's nuts. "

Just trying to help wrote on Jan 14, 2007 3:14 PM:

" All the arguments about cigarettes have been ridiculous from an engineering standpoint. The glass is not half empty or half full and the glass is not twice to big. The problem with cigarettes is that the users of that product are wasting so much of what they have paid good money to purchase. From an engineering standpoint over 50 percent of the product is simply going up in smoke and/or bothering others. Filters should be required on both ends of the product to capture all of the desired elements to later be put in food if so desired. I would estimate that a pack a day smoker could reduce his/her habit/expense by over half if the filters were rinsed at the end of each day and put in some type of tea or coffee. "

Chad Biegler wrote on Jan 13, 2007 4:26 AM:

" I think a compromise would be excellent. Thats all I could ever hope for in this debate. I don't think that its in the opposition's vocabulary, however. "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 12, 2007 10:44 PM:

" The whining of those like Deb and Miler will never be silenced. And I can deal with that. As long as they know common sense will debate back. As I've said many times before, I don't smoke. And I have the common sense to not be around it. Some people think the world was made to revolve around them, instead of living in a society. So many things are unhealthy in this world (a lot of which we, including Deb and Miler, take advantage of) but that doesn't mean they should be banned by the government. Information is the best tool. Educate. There is plenty of fresh air outside of a bar to breathe (not 'breath' Miler... and at least in ND). This debate was once started on the "right" to breathe fresh air. Then it flip-flopped to not being a "right" but a "health" issue. That IS the case, but SO many other health issues should be considered more important because smoking now (thankfully) occurs in such a restricted area... Of which in many places, including ND, does not involve a restaurant, Miler. That's already taken care of. DON'T REGULATE ANY MORE! EDUCATE! But then again, that doesn't support the personal agenda of 'whining' non-smokers. "

T.C. wrote on Jan 12, 2007 6:49 PM:

" V.X. makes sense to me, find a compromise. I suggested on the site for the capitol grounds ban that maybe smoking huts such as MedCenter 1 used to have would be good alternatives at some places but V.x.'s idea is a great one as well and could satisfy both smokers and nonsmokers. Both groups have rights so it sounds like if some sound alternatives/solutions could be found then both sides could come out of this satisfied with the results. The smokers would be free to kill themselves slowly with nicotine and the nonsmokers could kill themselves with whatever habit they prefer.(because we all die, we can eat healthy, not smoke, drink, drive to fast, take care of our bodies, we can even get frozen and thawed out in 100 years, but we all die eventually. As the song says.) So why not let people choose to live the way they want, give them a place to drink, or smoke, or drive to fast, just not where it will harm others, hence a seperate establishment in which to eat or drink or a smoke hut. "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:54 PM:

" Sounds good to me V.x. "

leah wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:34 PM:

" vx- I think that would be a good idea, however, the nonsmokers want EVERYWHERE smoke free, it's not good enough that there already are smoke free establishments. People like Miler and Deb would never agree to something like you are suggesting, because they think that they have more rights than anyone else. "

V.x. wrote on Jan 12, 2007 4:41 PM:

" Well it seems both sides of the issue have a strong case. The people who want everywhere outside of their home to be smoke free will always want that. And the people who believe thats an infringement on freedom will always believe that. So isn't a fair compromise appeasing both right sides?? Regulate the number smoking establishments and license them. Put signs at these building saying enter at own risk. Is that bad? "

Miler wrote on Jan 12, 2007 11:07 AM:

" To Lunacy: I am also sick and tired of hearing that if you don't like the environment, change jobs. In a lot of instances just a few years ago, people were not aware of the dangers of second hand smoke. The startling facts and truths resulting from years of research are now coming to light. Some of those people obviously don't have the ability to go back and do it over, nor do they have their life. Now that we know how severly second hand smoke can effect other people, changes need to be made. This comes on the heals of educating ourselves and educating the public. That is using the brain the good lord gave us and adding some common sense. "

This Is Lunacy wrote on Jan 12, 2007 10:59 AM:

" I am so sick and tired of this issue coming up. I am a non-smoker, but as such I have the right not to patronize any establishment that allows smoking. I also have the right to choose my employer. If you don't like working in a smokey bar or restaurant, FIND A NEW OCCUPATION! Come on now people, THINK! Use that brain the good Lord gave you! The more we allow government to get involved in private enterprise, the more freedom we lose. I am not a child. I do not need government telling me how to run my life or my business. "

Miler wrote on Jan 12, 2007 10:04 AM:

" Nice try Chad. You sound so hypocritical it isn't even funny. You are encouraging some regulations for the safety of the public but can't seem to find the argument with second hand smoke. I just saw the commercial last night... I can't recall her name... but she was diagnosed with a smokers tumor and never smoked a day in her life. She was dying of lung cancer because she was a waitress for many years in a smoking establishment. She worked there to support her family. I noticed last night a new line added to the end of the commercial, she died in 2006. She wasn't very old either. Second hand smoked robbed her of her life.. her time with her children, her spouse, her grandchildren. The proof gets more powerful everyday. The research continues on... everyday.... Oh, and when was the last time you heard of someone dropping dead from food poisoning? In most cases, you will get sick for a couple days. Open your eyes Chad. Mr E. clearly you are new to these boards and have a lot to learn about Deb. "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 12, 2007 9:03 AM:

" "Arguement?" Calm down and breathe some of that clean air you can choose to breathe. Had a change of heart for that rant? "

Chad BIegler wrote on Jan 12, 2007 1:09 AM:

" Very nice everyone!! Miler, the reason we adhere to cleanliness, firecodes, and other sanitary regulations are because the negative effects of not adhering are instant and severe. Food poisoning could kill you the day of ingestion. A fire could be devastating human loss if we didn't regulate occupancy. These are accepted safety precautions because of the instant severity of not doing so. Nobody dies from being exposed to secon-hand smoke instantly. But yet alcohol overdose happens every day. This is the hypocracy as stated before. This takes away the argument of public safety. Regualtions try to prevent events that are an immediate danger. Deb you are naive and in fear of something that will not kill you as long as you don't let it. You keep fighting where there is no argument. Of course its dangerous!! You don't seem to think common men capable enough to make their own decisions regarding health risks. I do. Educate don't regulate. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 12, 2007 12:32 AM:

" I was just reading in my MENS HEALTH magazine that taking vitamin C greatly reduces getting heart desease from second hand smoke. This study was done by the University of California. Just thought this was interesting. "

Deb wrote on Jan 11, 2007 11:33 PM:

" HAH! Mr. E - go ahead and set up a legit arguement, I'll knock it down. Don't be a sore loser. Any topic- your choice! I can tell you honestly that I've never been "boxed in" before - and I have never run away with my tail between my legs. I've won this battle -even the author has dropped off. My tail is up high. And if you take all this chatter seriously (as you seem to) I feel even sorrier for you. To quote you: I "DON'T have the freedom of choice to go wherever [I] please." Uhm, okay, so... explain... my guess is that it has something to do with private property...blah blah blah... No, really, continue...I look forward to it *yawn*... "

Mouth from the South wrote on Jan 11, 2007 5:57 PM:

" to miler; No, I do not believe that we are in control of how long we live. There are other things besides disease that shorten our lives, such as car accidents, murders, natural disasters, etc. Yes, of course, we can do something about the odds of our dying from certain things but in the long run, I don't believe that we have much control, no matter how healthy we live, over when we are going to die. We may feel better about ourselves, we may be more active, we may look better, etc. but as you say, there are no guarantees. I think that genetics has a great deal to do with the length of our lives. And we can do little to improve upon that after we are born. Guess we just have to pick the right ancestors and live as healthy as we can. Plus, unless we lock ourselves into an isolated bubble, we are always going to be exposed to dangers from the outside world, whatever these dangers might be. "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 11, 2007 5:53 PM:

" Yeah, because everyone gets arrested for being drunk in a bar! That is completely ridiculous. Five drinks gets you arrested? You've really lost it now. But then again, you've been boxed before and run off with your tail between your legs saying you're not going to post anymore. And guess what else Deb, you DON'T have a "freedom of choice to go wherever you please." "

Miler wrote on Jan 11, 2007 3:46 PM:

" Mouth: you said we aren't in control of how long we live or how healthy we are? C'mon... you truly cannot believe that statement. We may not be in complete control of every situation but it is a proven fact I can do things to make me healthier. I can eat right, exercise, not smoke, wear my seatbelt, not do drugs, not worship the sun etc... the list goes on and on.... am I guaranteed to live longer than a smoker or someone who is over weight and doesn't exercise or care about what they eat??? NO. But will I have a better chance??? YES. There are no guarantees in life. That is a given. We will just see what happens. I am an American and proud of it. I appreciate our freedom as much as the next guy however I for one know there are limits to our freedom and standards we must follow. It is the basis of a free society. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Jan 11, 2007 3:17 PM:

" to miler, Deb and others; We do know that smoking and breathing in second hand smoke can cause disease. However, it has not, to my knowledge, been proven that everyone who breathes in second-hand smoke will develop a smoking related disease. Wouldn't the fairest solution to this problem be to make sure, as is happening now, that there are smoke free establishments that are available to all and establishments that are also available for smoking. There have been some very adamant posters here trying to make sure that they can go anywhere they want without regards to the rights of others. Restricting smoking to certain establishments would be a reasonable and fair solution and would certainly not infringe upon your right to go out on the town and enjoy yourself in a smoke free bar or restaurant. I would certainly not choose to go to a smoking bar, but I would not want to stop my neighbor from going out to a bar and enjoying a smoke, either. (And absolutely no one ever has to go to a bar. Drinking alcohol is not a necessity.) We have a fairly good solution to this problem now. Anything else, in my opinion, is overkill. As far as the health situation goes, there is no sure way we can determine, in advance, who may get sick or who may not. We can follow all the health rules and regulations in the world and still fall over from a heart attack. We can eat high cholesterol foods and smoke daily and still live to be ninety. We really aren't in control of how long we live or how healthy we are. We just like to think that we are. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Jan 11, 2007 2:54 PM:

" to miler; Apology accepted. And I do try to be as polite as possible. My point about the regulations is this; we simply do not have the means to determine whether or not botulism or other contaminants are in the food that we eat in restaurants. We must rely on others to determine that these places are as clean as possible. However, as I stated, cigarette odor is extremely easy to detect. We all know that it can and probably does contribute to disease. We can determine for ourselves, because we already have the knowledge about possible dangers, whether or not we wish to subject ourselves to the tobacco smoke. No government regulation should be needed for that. Only common sense and your own personal likes or dislikes. "

Deb wrote on Jan 11, 2007 2:40 PM:

" This is getting just funny to me. Mr E - you're making my point for me, so first off - thanks! If you drink too much alcohol in a public place, you can be charged with drunk in public. If you drink too much and get into your car, you can be charged with DUI. However, alcohol is legal, so if you want to buy a bottle from a local establishment, take it home and get rip-raring drunk - heck man - ROCK ON! The same is now being legislated with cigarettes - it is not safe in any amount to inhale, therefore, for the public good, don't do it around other people who don't give their permission to you to harm. But, it is legal, so if you want to smoke at home, around your kids and dogs and plants and whatnot-- again, heck man - ROCK ON! As for the rest of the arguements - I'm through with this debate. You will never change my mind, and the freedom smoke screen (pun intended) that you are throwing up is flawed on every level. So, good day to you faux freedom fighters!! "

Miler wrote on Jan 11, 2007 2:30 PM:

" To Mouth from the South.... I probably should have left you out of the ninkumpoop category as generally I feel your posts are credible and well said, so for that.. please forgive me... with all due respect your last post was extremely contradicting. In the first half you agree that resturaunts should have to adhere to certain health codes, cleanliness, etc.. but then in the same post, say that not allowing smoking is the violation of people's rights? Why should restaurants have to adhere to cleanliness, or any health codes? Why is it fair to say you agree with that, but then in the same breath agree a smoker should be able to smoke where they want? This is clearly the point. When what you are doing harms the general public, it must be regulated. I understand we have a choice to not go into a restaurant if people are smoking, but why should I have to avoid going out on the town because I don't want to inhale other people's bad habit? In the same sense, then where is my right to breath clean air in a public facility? You stated in an earlier post to Deb that nothing in our constitution gives us the right to breath clean air (tell that to Tesoro) so then what in the constitution gives a smoker the right to pollute our air? I don't believe our constitution tells us that business owner's must follow safety standards, or that resturaunts have to be clean either. I think it is safe to agree to disagree. I take my health seriously and wonder why other's don't feel the same way. We have been given one body to live in. It is up to us to keep it as healthy as we possibly can. Some things we can control, others we can't. I for one will fight for my health and my right to it, whether I am in public or in my own living room. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Jan 11, 2007 2:10 PM:

" to miler, Deb and others; Of course, we do need regulations about some of the health risks that we face. I am totally in agreement that we need to set standards for the cleanliness, etc of our restaurants and other food establishments. We certainly cannot establish whether or not the food will make us ill until after we have eaten. But any ninkumpoop, myself included, with any brains, when opening the door of any establishment, bar or otherwise should be able to detect the odor of cigarette smoke. You then have the freedom to turn around and leave if you so wish. Any other expectation is pure arrogance and a violation of others rights. "

Pat wrote on Jan 11, 2007 1:59 PM:

" Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense, consists in the ability to choose. Simone Weil The government taking away our right to choose scares me! Deb, I understand your position of being exposed to something that is harmful and that cigarette smoke is hazardous to your health and the health of everyone, but why cant you just except that and then choose not to be around it. Simple. why do you need a goverment to tell you this... take care of yourself and your family if you have one and take resposiblility for own actions. you can choose to be around the smoke or not and so can everyone else!!! I CHOOSE to be a non smoker and I CHOOSE to be around other non smokers, and I CHOOSE to work in a non-smoking environment, and I CHOOSE to go to a restaurant where I can eat without smelling smoke, etc... I am in control!! "

Mouth from the South wrote on Jan 11, 2007 1:52 PM:

" to miler; I do not smoke. I abhor the smell of cigarette smoke. But I do believe that this is an issue of freedom as well as a health concern. But as long as no one is 'forced' to enter a place of business that reeks of cigarette smoke, I will continue to hold to this belief. For the sake of the continued rights of others, I am willing to compromise as long as there are smoke-free places for me to patronize. Sounds like you are not. As for Deb's argument that she has a constitutional right to breathe 'clean air,' I certainly don't buy that one. As for calling me a nincumpoop, I have been called worse and probably by more intelligent people than are some of the posters here. Particularly those that have to resort to calling others stupid names in an attempt to get their point across. "

Hiram wrote on Jan 11, 2007 1:52 PM:

" Miler, my argument is about nothing but freedom. When you voted to disallow a restaurateur to offer smoking, you took freedom from him. I don’t care that the argument is about smoking or at what temperature his potatoes are served. Making the restaurateur conform to arbitrary rules makes him do something he may not choose to do otherwise. Being made to do something you don’t want to do is the opposite of freedom. It is slavery. The concept of freedom is what our Founding Fathers fought and died for and tried to secure for us in the Constitution. The fact that you seek to destroy them (freedom and the Constitution) is appalling to me. I am not referring to carbon monoxide. I am referring to the smoke itself: http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/healtheffects.html "

HAIL COMRADES wrote on Jan 11, 2007 1:37 PM:

" "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin I am sorry to say, but freedom is dangerous. "

nonsmoker wrote on Jan 11, 2007 1:36 PM:

" Amen to Hiram!!! An american who knows what he is talking about! I despise cigarette smoke, but am happy every day that I have a choice whether to be around it or not!! If a restaurant or bar owner chooses to be smoke free that is where I will bring my business!! it is that simple... my choice to work, socialize, eat where I feel is best for me! I can not remember a time in the last year that I was exposed to second hand smoke because I choose to stay away from it and I still go out and I still eat out and lead a fun productive life! "

Miler wrote on Jan 11, 2007 1:30 PM:

" Clearly Mr. E, Hiram and mouth from the south have all missed the point. Or have they? I don't believe for one minute any of you that claim this is about "freedom" or "Liberty" really believe that BS for one minute. The reason for your argument is much more selfish than that and you know it. We all know (and that includes all of you) that public places are regulated for the safety of the public. There is no argument there. It's common sense. If it wasn't so, our society would be menacing beyond compare. We might consider ourselves FREE in America, but let's face it, there are limits to our freedom and there should be. You smoke so therefore you are coming up with irrational logic regarding banning smoking in public places for the safety of the public. It's all about you. Problem number one with our society. Any more wasted energy arguing with you ninkumpoops is senseless. I for one will be thrilled when the smoking ban passes. It might take awhile, but eventually, you and your nasty habit will lose. Oh, and anyone with half a brain knows that a fireplace that is properly installed and property vented (must meet code.. hmmm) will not cause carbon monoxide to come in through the inside. Hiram: Here is a test for you. Go to your fireplace (with fire burning)and plug in your CM detector... wait... hmmm, nothing... Now go light a cig and smoke by the detector..... bingo..... "

Hiram wrote on Jan 11, 2007 12:17 PM:

" Deb, I wouldn't suggest that you'd find a campfire in the middle of a restaurant, but you would find a fireplace. Since, according to the EPA, wood smoke is dangerous, using your logic, fireplaces should be banned. Right? "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 11, 2007 12:14 PM:

" Stop bringing up employees that work in such establishments as if you care. This is your own personal agenda. Besides, Biegler tore that argument up in his January 08, 2007 4:26 PM post. If this is a health issue, not a rights issue as you so say, then everything that is unhealthy must be banned. As for the alcohol drink limit, who said anything about driving? What about those who take taxis or have designated drivers? According to your 'health' statements, no one should be allowed to drink more than a couple. Shouldn't that regulation be implemented then? This is a HEALTH issue, right? The point is we don't need that much gov't regulation. We're talking about watering holes for goodness sakes. "

Hiram wrote on Jan 11, 2007 12:14 PM:

" Deb, you don't have the right to go anywhere you please, you only have the right to enter an establishment if the owner grants it to you. Employees do have the option to find other work if they choose to. Would you suggest they don't? Under the premise of health and safety, Deb, would you seek to outlaw cars? Certainly if you outlawed cars, thousands of lives would be saved. Don't you agree? Freedom loving people understand that all of their actions come with some risk. To try to remove all risk from everyone's life, you do erode freedom. Certainly you would not argue, Deb, that limiting freedom is an American notion, would you? "

Mouth f rom the South wrote on Jan 11, 2007 11:42 AM:

" to Deb; Nothing in our constitution guarantees you the right to breathe clean air. You have the right to breathe, period. Your points about smoking second hand smoke are well known and are basically accepted. The one argument that I have with your posts is your claim that your rights to breathe clean air outside of your own home supercede your neighbors right to smoke outside of his home. I don't believe that is true. You both should have equal rights in this issue. Once you go outside of the privacy of your home, you can and should assume that you will have to deal with all sorts of dangers. Your personal rights should only supercede someone else's in the comparative safety of your own home. That is why some cars have more safety features than others. That is why some bars are non-smoking while others aren't. You are constitutionally given the right to choose where you go or what item you wish to purchase. You are not given the right to expect that others will change things just because you don't like the available choices. If there are cars with the safety features that you like, buy them. If there are bars that are non-smoking, go there. But allow me to make choices that don't agree with yours even at the risk of possibly damaging my health. That is not your responsibility. You are only responsible for yourself. I resent the implication that you and others know what is best for me. At best, I should be warned of the dangers, after that, I am on my own. "

Leah wrote on Jan 11, 2007 11:26 AM:

" Hiram- You are 100% right. This is what I have been saying all along.It's a choice! The employees have a choice, the patrons have a choice. Take responsibility for your self. "

Miler wrote on Jan 11, 2007 10:53 AM:

" Go Deb... Go Deb..... Hiram... Go home. You are clearly a defensive smoker who's judgement has been clouded by a marlboro and claims to be on a freedom loving patriotic soap box who thinks a smoker has more rights than a non-smoker.Anyone with any common sense can see this is not an attack on smokers or their rights,just like a fire code is not an attack on a pyromaniac's rights. It's a health issue. Period. "

Deb wrote on Jan 11, 2007 9:50 AM:

" Or are you limiting my freedom of choice to go wherever I please without being exposed to deadly environments? Also, the employees of smoking bars aren't able to to choose to not be there. So, you are taking away their freedom to work in a safe environment. And, I assure you, if there was a bar that had a campfire burning in the middle of it, it would be outlawed. "

Hiram wrote on Jan 11, 2007 7:45 AM:

" Deb, who is forcing you to enter these establishments? When a non-smoking zealot chooses to enter an establishment that offers smoking, who is to blame if that person is exposed to smoke? The restaurant owner? Well, in your freedom-limiting mind, you are blaming the restaurant owner, not the person for choosing to sit in a smoky room. In a truly free society, the restaurant owner would be allowed to offer smoking and you would be free to choose to enter his establishment or not. What you have succeeded in doing is limiting the restaurants owner’s freedom, congratulations. Deb, have you ever sat by a campfire? Who do you blame when you breathe in second hand campfire smoke? The tent owner? The landowner? Surely campfire smoke is worse than cigarette smoke, who will save all the campers that are exposed to campfire smoke? http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/healtheffects.html "

Deb wrote on Jan 10, 2007 10:41 PM:

" Quite honestly, Mr. E: there is a law against driving after imbibing more than three servings of drinks (of course, I know, this depends on the person - I'm speaking of the general 3 drinks for a man, 2 for a woman rule - regarding the generally accepted "able to drive" law). One and one half glasses of red wine a day is recommended. One mixed hard alcohol drink a day for a man is also recommended. While there is no "ban" per se on fast foods, the foods, which are often fast, that contain trans fats, are quickly becoming remnants of the past (physiologically necessarily banned). Fats that are scientifically proven to be bad for you in ANY amount should be banned, as they are often invented as a cheap way to replace other alternatives. Example: trans fats, or hydrogenated oils, are VERY cheap ways of replacing saturated fats. What's funny (in my sick mind) is that trans fats are one twist of a molecule away from being plastic (think: Ziploc). And the industry suppressed this info for years, because it allowed capitalistic America to become fat with money (pun intended). Now they need to own up to the damage they have inflicted on our youth - childhood obesity at an all time high. 60% of America is over weight. Countless physiological diseases are rampant. Trans fats, now being banned across America. Back to the smoking debate - there is NO amount of 2nd or first hand smoke that is safe to inhale. This will kill you - your elected representatives know this. It is not safe for you to join your friends at the local corner pub to enjoy a smoke. It is not safe for the employees to suffer your habit. You cannot control your urge, or, more to the point, most are too ignorant to recognize that in their own addictive impulse, they are killing others. Ipso facto - legislative action is needed. "

undue restraint wrote on Jan 10, 2007 10:23 PM:

" In my dictionary, two definitions for the word "liberty" is "freedom or right to be in or use a place"; "freedom from external control or interference",etc. Nothing about health or breathing air. So to get back onto the subject of the legislature passing wider smoking ban legislation. A LAW is being considered that will diminish another person's liberty, correct? About breathing air...........as sure as I am pounding away at the keyboard here, there are sure to be more people dying who only breathe non-second hand smoke. "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 10, 2007 5:20 PM:

" So by this statement, "The air you breathe is equally as important to your overall well being as the food you eat and the liquids you drink." You are saying all unhealthy foods (fast food, salt, etc...) should be banned, a three drink limit on beer/wine and a total ban of hard alcohol should be implemented, right? "

Deb wrote on Jan 10, 2007 4:48 PM:

" YES! I WAS WAITING for someone to say that it is unpatriotic/unAmerican to not allow smoking in bars. Congrats, HIRAM!! You win the Republican Spin Award of the day!! You've completely voided out any chance of anyone taking your arguement seriosuly! Here's the bottom line: laws are passed when peoples' lives are at risk from dangerous behaviours/practices that can be unknowingly put upon them. There are laws and health standards in place to help the public know that where they eat and what they eat while there are safe and will not kill them (Taco Bell- WHOOPS!). The health code violations are printed in the Trib twice a year. Now, those same standards are (hopefully) being applied to the air that you breathe while you are in the place that you choose to dine/drink. The air you breathe is equally as important to your overall well being as the food you eat and the liquids you drink. Miler - I agree, it's great to be on the same side of an arguement with you. I can't wait to see what Hiram has up his other sleeve. My guess: If we stop allowing smoking in bars, the terrorists have won. "

Hiram wrote on Jan 10, 2007 4:05 PM:

" Miler, I don't think a restaurant owner should have to comply with those arbitrarily created laws. I would argue that if the restaurant does not have any feature that you deem important, then don't enter it. If enough people have the same concern about the same issue, i.e. food freshness or personal hygiene, then the restaurant owner will conform to those wishes or lose business. You need not pass laws to accomplish those ends. It’s in his best interest to provide what the consumer wants or risk losing money. To make him comply with those laws without giving him the option is an erosion of freedom. I think it’s sad that you celebrate and promote the loss of those freedoms. "

Miler wrote on Jan 10, 2007 3:23 PM:

" Hiram: do you actually think before you type? Of course I don't think a restaurant is public property. However, it is open to the public, therefore there are regulations put in place for the safety of the public. Let me ask you this American Hiram: Do you think restaurants should have to pass health inspections? Should they have to make sure there are proper emergency exits in place? Should they have to comply with a maximum number of occupants? Do you really think a restaurant owner can do as he wishes with that property? Must I repeat myself. This is NOT ABOUT CELEBRATING THE EROSION OF OUR FREEDOM. Think Hiram, think. "

Hiram wrote on Jan 10, 2007 1:10 PM:

" Miler, are you saying that a restaurant cannot refuse service to anyone they so desire? To reitterate, you are saying restaurants are public property? Do your taxes go to pay for restaurants? In fact, restaurants ARE private property and the owner can (well, not anymore) do as he wishes with that property. You have eroded his liberty when you said he cannot offer smoking even if all of the patrons and all of the staff don't mind. You have taken away freedom and you celebrate that loss. That is sad that an American would celebrate the removal of liberty. "

Miler wrote on Jan 10, 2007 12:16 PM:

" Earth to Hiram, Restaurants are not private property just like my home is. That is like comparing oranges to apples. My home is not open to the public. If it was, I would have to have the same health inspections and fire regulations a restaurant does because it serves "the public". Get a clue Hiram. Your being defensive. Your not thinking this through. "

Hiram wrote on Jan 10, 2007 10:32 AM:

" Miler, your argument would be more valid if we were all forced to enter into restaurants, however, we all have the right to not enter any establishment. Nobody is forcing you to go out to eat. If smoking were so reviled, non-smoking restaurants would open and they would get all of the business. The free market has a way of naturally regulating itself based on profits. If only non-smoking restaurants got business, other restaurants would follow suit and prohibit smoking. It should, however, be left up to the restaurant owner whether or not smoking is allowed. Restaurants are private property, just like your home is, and the owner should have the right to offer smoking or not, it’s his property. When you remove his right to offer smoking, you’ve removed some of his freedom. "

Miler wrote on Jan 10, 2007 9:45 AM:

" Hiram: you are clearly not getting the point and are going to the extreme. This isn't about losing freedom. This is about public safety. Can you imagine the society we would live in if we could all do what we want when we want? Private business owners have to follow fire safety codes, they have to close at certain times. Restaurants have health codes they have to follow so your food is not contaminated so YOU don't get sick. I even see signs in the bathroom that says "employees must wash their hands". If your theory held water, then who has the right to tell me when I have to wash my hands???? second hand smoke harms others. It has been proven time and time again. This is not about smokers rights. No-one is trying to bash smokers. Think about it. "

Hiram wrote on Jan 10, 2007 7:44 AM:

" Outlawing smoking in public places has nothing to do with health and safety and has everything to do with an anti-capitalist agenda. The same could be said for the environmental movement, these people don't care as much about the environment as they do about harmiing the capitalist. When smoking is outlawed under the guise of health and safety, all you have succeeded in doing in eroding your constitutional rights. The restaraunt owner who has purchased the facility, pays the bills, pays the wages, pays the insurance, buys the product, etc. now cannot offer smoking in his private property. That goes against everything American. What argument will you make, Deb, when the food guide pyramid is enforced in your own home? Government agents will enter your home and look through your pantry and cupboards, under the guise of health and safety, to ensure you are following the food guide pyramid. The concept is the same for the restaraunt owner who now cannot offer smoking in his own property. We have lost freedoms, and you seem to celebrate it. "

Deb wrote on Jan 9, 2007 9:29 PM:

" Mr. Biegler: Nope, sorry, it's not that one dimensional, but thanks for the summary. I'll wait for your "stay tuned" so that I can fully deal with the breadth of your latest arguement. Hiram: thank you for the info and I will check it out when I have a second. While I have not taken the time to fully delve into that website, my first reaction is to say that they are only dealing with "cancer" as the end result of smoking (first and second hand). The real problem with smoking has gone so far past cancer it scared the life outta me when I really absorbed the enormity of it. Everything from urinary tract infections to degenerative heart disease is caused solely by smoking. I have heard many studies that have an end result similar to the ones that you quote. However, they all seem to hinge upon the fact the the results are only valid if and when the subject QUITS smoking or is NEVER in contact with second hand smoke again, i.e. you have a 70% less chance of developing emphysema if you quit today, rather than 5 years from now. It's an equation, I understand, however, employees of smoking places don't have the luxury of not being around smoke - therefore I have a hard time accepting as a general truth a lot of those studies. Again, I will look at that website more clearly and get back. "

riffraff wrote on Jan 9, 2007 6:05 PM:

" By Riff Raff Fargo This letter is about the current nationwide marijuana ban. Unbelievable. How is this ban even considered? Has our sense of government been eroded to the point where we would allow it to tell private homeowners or renters they cannot allow smoking marijuana? We all can agree on the dangers of second-hand marijuana smoke. Smoke of any sort is bad for lungs. Should we ban fast food? We all know obesity is far more of a problem than smoking marijuana. Or what about alcohol? You're telling me we would be allowed to get drunk at a bar but not smoke marijuana at home. Who ever killed someone or committed a serious or even minimal crime while under the influence of marijuana? No one. * The argument is rights. Why wouldn't there be a choice? That is why we beat our chests as Americans, isn't it? Freedom. Choice is the only real freedom there is. That's it. Citizens should stand up, even if they despise smoking marijuana. Stand up and stop this erosion of freedom. | Chad, I'll stand up for your right to smoke in bars if you'll stand up for my right to smoke marijuana in my apartment, deal? We'll pound our American chests in unison, alright! That way, I can just bypass the bar altogether in favor of a nice night at home. Sorry, bar owners and beer companies :( Bar owners should have the choice, no doubt about that. But you'd have a hard time finding one marijuana smoker that would complain if the most inconvenient thing he had to do in order to be able to enjoy his drug was to step outside of a bar. So what I'm saying here, my fellow social outcast, is that you are in no position to complain too loudly. "

Chad Biegler wrote on Jan 9, 2007 4:45 PM:

" Deb here is your argument. Since smoking is unhealthy and affects people in the very near vicinity it should not be allowed in any business regardless of personal judgement. Smoking has no nutrional value therefore serves no purpose except death. All of this justifies legislation for the safety of the general public. Wow, I just destroyed myself. Your welcome!! Anyone know how to argue that?? Stay tuned.... "

V.x. wrote on Jan 9, 2007 4:37 PM:

" I don't know about anyone else here, but in the bars where smoking is still allowed, I haven't seen anyone drinking red wine for their health. I don't see how that tears Mr. Biegler's argument apart?? "

Hiram wrote on Jan 9, 2007 3:16 PM:

" Deb, you said there is no amount of second or first hand smoke that is safe to breathe, however, according to the World Health Organization's environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study, there is no increased risk of cancer as a result of ETS exposure: RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9776409&itool=pubmed_Abstract "

Miler wrote on Jan 9, 2007 1:40 PM:

" Deb: I'm enjoying your debate and I am waiting for Chad to respond because I would have to say, You are winning. You are ripping his logic apart. It's a nice change to be on the same side with you. In my opinion, these are the same people that would stand outside a refinery protesting their right to breath clean air. To Chad: I have sparred with Deb. You have your work cut out for you on this one. "

Miram wrote on Jan 9, 2007 7:40 AM:

" Hey Grandma, do your realize the government does not have their own money, they simply spend our money? I think, especially this crop of legislators, will have no problem spending money to build smoke shacks. "

Grandma wrote on Jan 8, 2007 11:55 PM:

" Why does everyone get so upset about smoking bans? because smokers have rights too? Yes. SOLUTION!!!!! Why not ban smoking in all public buildings, restaraunts, bars, the works. Then, the state and government can provide smokehouses for the patrons like the one that used to be used at med one hospital. The state or government can subsidize the cost since they banned the smoking. Next, ban all outdoor smoking and let the state and government pay for smokehouses for parks and outdoor facilities like with restrooms. The state and government are the ones who seem to want the ban and yet are unwilling to go all the way and just ban the sale of tobbacco so why not let them foot the bill for all the smoking bans they want. I agree, ban smoking, then make the state and government pay the cost untill they are ready to go the full distance. I smoke and have no problem smoking outside, in my car, in a smokehouse, in a smoking area, whatever so that I do not bother a non smoker, just make up your mind what the rules are. If you want to ban it everywhere then just ban tobbaco altogethor and get it over with. The only reason that doesn't happen is that for all that the state and government and all the nonsmokers don't want us smoking they also don't want to lose the money made on taxes and revenues from tobbaco. Thats the bottom line. "

Hello Chad wrote on Jan 8, 2007 11:31 PM:

" I have been searching for a logical sounding reason that you are wrong. I think I have found the logic. The legalize marijuana people have been trying various methods to get their favorite drug legalized. When Clinton was fist elected the momentum of the ultra left was to outlaw cigarettes and legalize marijuana. It made no sense to me until a few months ago when congressman Charlie Rangel tried to get a bill passed for a new military draft law. The left wing democrats were against the war but were for a draft? SURE... Because it would irritate the american public and put more pressure against the war effort. So now back to outlawing cigarettes and creating a backlash that would open the door to legalizing marijuana. "

Deb wrote on Jan 8, 2007 7:41 PM:

" Chad - there is no amount of second hand or first hand smoke that is safe to breathe. Alcohol, taken in moderation is good for the human body. A glass and a half of red wine a day is recommended. What's your next argument that I can tear down? "

Chad Biegler wrote on Jan 8, 2007 4:26 PM:

" To deb...did you know alcohol is a poison?? Did you know alcohol can kill you if you drink too much?? Did you know nearly 80% of violent crimes are alcohol related?? Basically you want the right for people to poison themselves in a smokefree environment. Why?? Becuase smoke is poisonous. Hmmmmm. That is your argument. That does sound silly. I don't think I need to get into the smog levels of cities(cars). Doesn't that violate The "right to breathe clean air." Do you know why it doesn't?? Because you can leave the city that is smoggy. You can leave a bar that is smokey. Is that illogical? And quit bringing up the employee oppression. It is tired and irrelevent. Miners, fisherman, construction workers, taxi drivers, soldiers, bartenders and many more HIGH risk employees know the risks and own up to them. They are responsible for themselves. You are responsible for your actions as well. Don't put the blame on people who are minding their own business in a business they choose. "

Chad Biegler wrote on Jan 8, 2007 3:40 PM:

" To ratner. You can fight only one battle at time. You have brought up gay marriage more than once. Your premise is valid I suppose. It is the ultimate freedom of choice. If it suits you I will send another letter to the editor supporting it. While we're at it why not abortion as well. Why not assisted suicide. I will fight to take the power back on all of these. Lets keep responsibility with the individual. In all of these issues both sides are right. The only thing that is wrong is that one side wants to take away the choice of the individual on the other side. True freedom allows both sides to thrive. Natural selection will then weed out these degenerates(like myself) and all will be well. "

private business owner wrote on Jan 8, 2007 3:30 PM:

" Wages $6114, payroll taxes $756, Rent $1940, Insurance $1252/yr. This is for 1 month at my business. Not huge amounts by any means, but what I have to come up with to have the doors open. Not to mention stocking the place, utilities, and other misc. items. I am a smoker, and I choose to make my place non-smoking. I CHOOSE!!! Not the govt., not anyone else. Whenever someone is willing to step up to bat and pay these bills to ensure that I stay smoke-free, I'll be all for it. However, I do not believe for one minute that the govt or other people have any right to tell me what to do. You are not here 50 to 60 hours a week, you do not listen to employees whine for their breaks, take many days off for 'sick' days, or lose time with your families to be assisting customers past closing to make them happy. But it's MY choice as a business owner to do so. And those #'s do not including a half dozen other taxes I pay each year to the gov't. And stop blaming every smoker for everything!! I'm sick of it. I do not throw my butts on the ground or out the window, but I sure clean them up around my business and around my home. I'm lectured constantly when I do light up and you know what?? I get it!! I get that it's bad for me. So what? Let me lead my life. I'm not affecting anyone else. I do not walk up to non-smokers and blow it in their faces, I use the ashtray in my car each time. I choose not to go out to eat since the restaurants are non-smoking. My choice!! Why can't the non-smokers just leave us alone? I just want to run my business the way I see fit. If you don't like it, don't come in, I'm ok with that. Bars and hotels and restaurants shouldn't have to fold to the pressure. If I had spent thousands and thousands to follow what the new laws were to say of separating the sections, only to be told, 'Oops, forget it, we changed our minds again' I'd be beyond furious. Will non-smokers only be happy when the gov't tells them what to wear each day too? As I said, pay my bills to have my business available for to you to patronize and then you can tell me just how you want it run. There's a reason the non-smoking bar in Mandan doesn't do so hot, the non-smokers don't want to go there. Why not?? The way everyone is talking on here, the place should be jammed full of people every night. "

Deb wrote on Jan 8, 2007 10:44 AM:

" NoDak John - I would question the wisdom, experience and abilities of a doctor who says that second hand smoke does no harm. I could get you 10 docs to your one who say that it is harmful. If you read the Fargo Forum or the GF Herald or travel to either of those cities recently, you may have noticed a group of doctors billboards and ads against smoking and for no-smoking in bars and restaurants. "

Deb wrote on Jan 8, 2007 10:41 AM:

" Chad- the only argument here is the right of every person to breathe clean air. The "smoker's rights" group, including you, are attempting to throw up the smoke screen of "personal choice" and "erosion of freedom." While I find that argument faulty, I'll use it as another way to show you how it is affecting our society: I can choose not to go into a bar where there is smoking, but the employees can't. Telling someone to get another job is taking away their right to choose where they get to work. Smokers have been allowed to take over our bars and restaurants for decades, and now it's time for we non-smokers to enjoy our choices and our freedoms. We can now "choose" to go to bar. Our freedom to go wherever we want to eat or drink has been eroded by the supposed right of smokers to kill themselves and others in a social manner. I'm sure you're reading this thinking how silly it sounds. That's what I think of your arguments. This is a health issue, not a "rights" issue, as no one has the right to harm another person, even in a social setting. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 8, 2007 10:14 AM:

" Deb, I am very familiar with the medical field and have family members in the profession. There are some rather fantastic individuals in the medical field. I have not heard one of them say that what they really need is more control by various entities. What they are really unhappy about is the number of practicing physicians who are anything but a credit to their profession but seem to be able to keep their license where on the other hand a physician who desires to use remedies which have been proven effective in 10's of thousands of cases are not allowed to do so because it is not some substance manufactured from petro-chemicals on which there is a profit of as much as 583,000 %. Many doctors die from the same maladies as their patients because they have been "narrow gage" educated. On the other hand, a Doctor cured me of cancer, but he will never say a peep about how he did it because he will be out of business the next morning. Ask Dr. Dean Burke the former head of the American Cancer Society about how fast you can be tossed out on your ear if you so much as mention investigating other than "accepted" (HIGH profit) techniques. "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 8, 2007 8:50 AM:

" A person can be exposed to asbestos without being aware of its presence. It can be practically invisibile, hence the regulation. Employees could not have even been aware asbestos was in a building. You'd have to be quite a dolt to not realize if someone is smoking. Argument condensed. And if the overall health of the people is what you are SO concerned about, better regulate decible levels at concerts. Remove salt. Regulate a three-drink limit per person at every bar. Ban every hard alcohol. Ban any indoor event where combustible engines are used. Better yet, ban all cars, their noxious fumes will be the death of us all. Or don't those examples fit in your personal agenda. And lastly, an accredited doctor told me that short-term exposure to second hand smoke will NOT kill me. Imagine that. "

Alaskans Quit Smoking wrote on Jan 8, 2007 3:04 AM:

" For what it's worth - this story was made available from Anchorage, Alaska -KTUU-TV - A new study shows Alaskans that use a ‘Quit Smoking' line are more successful when trying to quit compared to smokers in other areas. The study found that people calling Alaska's ‘Quit Smoking' line were able to stop 41 percent of the time compared to 34 percent in Oregon and 30 percent in Washington. Those trying to quit can call the free help line 24 hours a day. Smokers are also given an information kit and nicotine patches to help them kick the addiction. For more information you can call 1-888-842-7848. "

ratner wrote on Jan 7, 2007 10:30 PM:

" So you are saying that since something is legal, it can't be regulated? Since when? Free speech is guaranteed by the constitution (unlike smoking)but that right isn't absolute, as it is subject to time, place and manner regulations to name just a few constraints. Driving is legal too, just not drunk driving. Serving food is legal, just that some food has to be a certain temperature. Nobody is saying you can't smoke at all, they are saying WHERE you can smoke. And "private business" is not immune from the type of regulation we are talking about here. If it is, show me the legal precedent. How's that for making a point? (now go back to the ridiculous nobody is "forcing" people argument again). And so the distinction now is that bad food can make you ill immediately whereas second hand smoke doesn't, so therefore its health effects are questionable. Under your logic, asbestos is just fine because the health effects aren't immediate. Abestos was legal, so how in the world did it ever become strictly regulated? Seems to me, "private business" was affected by those regs now wasn't it, and nobody was "forced" to work or be around abestos were they? What happened to the issue of "private business" freedom and choice to use abestos in the manner they choose? Geez, it seems all your arguments have just evaporated haven't they. "

Mr. T wrote on Jan 7, 2007 7:18 PM:

" To answer your first question: Pretty much everybody included in the Surgeon General discussion... Way to keep up. I also applaud you for ranting double-digit lines without making a point. Undercooking food can immediately effect everybody. Second-hand smoke affects others differently. (Some don't even show symptoms of dying after three hours of being submitted to it. Amazing Huh) The point is, it's LEGAL. Therefore a private business should be able to allow it if they want to. "

model T wrote on Jan 7, 2007 6:00 PM:

" AAh, I harken back to the good old days. sittin' beside Grandpa on the porch. Him rocking and grunting contendly, smoking his pipe and drinking home made hootch,the aroma of sweet fine blend of tobacco smoke wafting in, around , and over around me and others to inhale and savor. Those were the "good old days". 93, gramps got to be. I'm gettinng right up thre too. "

ratner wrote on Jan 7, 2007 5:36 PM:

" Mr. E., who is arguing that the issue is whether smoking is bad? The only issue here is whether second-hand smoke affects the health and safety of the public. Are you disputing that? You and Chad keep bringing up that nobody is "forcing" people to go to the hazard. Since when is that an argument when the health and safety of the public is involved? Why can't you build your house under a power line since nobody forces anybody but you to be in the house? Why do restaurants have to serve food a certain temparture as nobody is forcing anybody to eat in one that doesn't? Why require people to shovel the snow from their sidewalks when the majority already do shovel and nobody is forcing you to use my sidewalk if I don't want to shovel? Do you want me to keep going? Why keep making loser arguments that have no relevance? The issue is whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, and not whether or not the public is "forced" to be exposed to a hazard. And Chad, since you expouse these broad principles and said in your letter that "choice is the only real freedom there is," did you write the same letter during the same sex marriage debate in the state, and if not, why didn't you? "

Chad Biegler wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:02 PM:

" To Deb....Noone here is debating the dangers and stupidity of smoking. What is in debate is the choice of personal risk assesment. I have never claimed smoking is safe. I believe a citizen should be able to decide for themselves what is worth their risk.(not just smoking but moutnain climbing, food choices, career choices...etc.) Your argument is that this choice of having smoking establishments also affects your health without your consent. But I have destroyed your argument thoroughly. If I had not you would have posed a real response to the real issue at hand. What say you?? "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 6, 2007 9:37 PM:

" Deb: Perhaps your response wasn't allowed (sorry, not 'published') is because you're irrational. Yes smoking is bad, that's why I don't do it. But it is still LEGAL. We've strayed off of the topic and just turned to how bad smoking is, which has no argument. You said, "Bottom line: you will NEVER have the right to kill me with your second hand smoke." Who is forcing you to suck in second hand smoke? Name one place, besides outside and in a private home, where a person can go to smoke. Get off your high horse. No one is forcing you to slowly kill yourself. You bring that on yourself. The world doesn't revolve around you, me, smokers or nonsmokers. YOU ARE NEVER FORCED TO INHALE SECOND HAND SMOKE. Enough whining already. And also, how's that indoor monster truck/motocross/fireworks movement going? "

Deb wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:50 AM:

" Mr E: I had a response to you that the editors didn't publish for some reason. Anyway- you just didn't get my point. NoDak John: Sorry, but the part you are leaving out of your posts against the Surgeon General and the medical and pharmaceutical fields is that for years it was (and still is) the tobacco companies who funded research and in exchange, the big medical groups looked the other way on the harmful effects of cigarettes. It is taking the gutsy work of independent doctors (some are relatives of mine, so I'm speaking first hand knowledge here) who are taking a stand and saying that it isn't okay anymore. They are tired of dealing with sick people and sick kids whose illnesses are primarily caused by the effects of first and second hand smoke. Also, doctors are bound by, over and above any allegience to a medical corportaion, the Hippocratic Oath, which in essence means to do no harm unto its patients. I have not heard from ONE SINGLE doctor in the nation who has said that even ONE cigarette will do you no harm. There isn't a doctor in the nation who will tell you that first or second hand smoke is "basically breatheable air." So whatever your problem is with the legitimacy of the Surgeon General or the AMA or whatever your latest conspiracy theory is - here's what I ask of you: find me someone who disagrees with me. Find me someone who says that it's okay to smoke and that second hand smoke won't hurt you. I'll wait. "

Deb wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:40 AM:

" Chad- what else can I say to you? You will not change my mind, and medical fact backs my claims. You have nothing but "smokers rights" and some junk about how your liberites are being taken away. Bottom line: you will NEVER have the right to kill me with your second hand smoke. My rights as a non-smoker have been taken away for years and I want them back. No matter how much you whine and chatter about your freedoms and how this isn't the American way, there is just absolutely NO arguement in favor of anyone's ability to kill another. It is illegal to shoot someone, and soon it will be illegal to slowly kill someone with your bad habit. Sorry, it's fact and America will do what is best for all of its citizens. The only American thing to do is to give the inalienable right to freedom to all of its citizens, not just smokers who want to have a drink. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 6, 2007 10:36 AM:

" Deb wrote on January 04, 2007 1:11 PM:"NoDak John: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" - Sinclair Lewis" Sinclair Lewis was very familiar with the Bible and his words are quite probably from Revelation 17. An all controlling governmental system is called a beast. An all encompassing religion is called a harlot. The language is clear and the simile is deadly accurate. A beast system relies on the harlot to seduce the people and keep them in line with such pseudo Christianity verbiage such as "you must obey all government (no matter how evil) or you are in opposition to God." It is therefore incumbent upon any who desire to live as a free people to be very careful to not be sucked in by the siren song of those who are incapable of producing anything good or of value but only desire to enslave the productive to serve their leech like character and behavior. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 6, 2007 10:12 AM:

" OK, so the Surgeon General says something, and what he says is absolutely true because he says it. That is delusional. 1. The Surgeon General serves at the pleasure of the President. 2. His license to be a Doctor is under the control of the AMA which is owned and incorporated by a group in England which is heavily invested in the petrochemical/pharmaceutical industry. 3. The words which come out of his mouth are also with the approval of the FDA or he will lose his license through their actions. The FDA is indirectly controlled by the pharmaceutical industry in that if you as a doctor working at the FDA come out with a report the controllers don't like, you are history. On the other hand if you do the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry, you are assured of a 7 figure income for the rest of your life. Now, let's hear again about the unbiased reports from the medical field. "

Second Hand Smoke wrote on Jan 6, 2007 2:36 AM:

" The Surgeon General of the United States, the highest ranking medical officer in the country, says that there is NO safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. He also says that ventilation and "modern air treatment" do NOT work to clear the air from the dangers of secondhand smoke and that eliminating smoking indoors is the is the ONLY way to fully protect people from secondhand smoke. "

undue restraint wrote on Jan 5, 2007 11:45 PM:

" So this is what it gets down to here. A forum for phantom persons to be able to take shots at each other. Fine, I guess, but doing it to a "real" person is something else. Chad, a "real" person submitted a "real" letter to the editor to a "real" newspaper in the "real" world where hopefully a lot more "real" people read it than in this comment page. Chad obviously felt strongly enough about his opinion that he took the "high" road and had it published in the Tribune, where it might get read by enough people who could make a difference. Chad did his part so get on the high road and write your own letters to the editor. "

The people wrote on Jan 5, 2007 10:03 PM:

" We are rising up, it's just not in your favor Chad. Soon we can all breath fresh air again. We will have all of you smokers in a bubble soon, ha ha. "

Chad Biegler wrote on Jan 5, 2007 9:48 PM:

" To Deb, Your last post speaks to my legitmacy. You have no argument against me that is valid and you begin to realize it. Sometimes one must amplify themselves to be heard over the chatter of ignorance. Anyone who wishes to impede on my freedom deserves to be belittled. You must realize your vision takes away liberties while mine ensures it. My tone was sharp and effective. And by doing so I hope I have penetrated your psyche and caused a thought to stir. Do not get soft on me now. Prove me wrong. "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 5, 2007 3:54 PM:

" Deb: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... And don't you know, only Denny Green can be found on the high road. "

Deb wrote on Jan 5, 2007 3:32 PM:

" Mr. Biegler: You would bring a lot more legitimacy to your argument if you wouldn't attempt to belittle and subsequently shout at people who disagree with you. Remember, we are but faceless, faux-named bloggers, while you are a "real" person. Take the high road and you would gain more real-world support. "

Chad Biegler wrote on Jan 5, 2007 2:17 AM:

" To deb and all who are ignorant...You are right. Smoking kills. It is bad. People around are affected negatively. No one should be around it that does not want to be. But there are people that don't care. Crazy I know. But they don't. That is why they are at the bars in the first place. It's not smoker's rights. It's basic humanitarian rights. I am not asking for the right to smoke around you. I am asking for the right to decide what is best for me. I don't want to be around uptight, germaphobic, smoke-fearing psychos. And Do you know what?? There are many more like me. We are hethans. You know how many bars in town are non-smoking??? Plenty. There are 10 just off the top of my head. And they do just fine. Seriously answer this question. Why couldn't you just go where there is no smoking?? What is seriously wrong with that?? Are you really that oppressed??? DON'T GO WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING!!!! If I must I will point out the places you could go. And I will probably will see you there cause I HATE smokey bars myself!! The only people being exposed to second-hand smoke are people that choose to. That is called free will baby. Get over yourself. "

Undecided S. (that loves cigarette smoke on an emotional level) wrote on Jan 4, 2007 11:58 PM:

" NoDak John, It is a bigger subject than just lung cancer. Carbon Monoxide contributes to Heart Attacks. The Tars even end up in the body's filter the kidneys, eventually the bladder. Bladder cancer is common in smokers. I found a reasonable article on Carbon Monoxide poisoning and why it is very hard on the heart. Basically when we inhale air some of the oxygen is taken up through the lung membrane directly pulled into receptors on the red blood cells. From there the oxygen is transported throughout the body. Carbon Monoxide is so similar to oxygen that it will attach to the same red blood cell receptors. Basically the more carbon monoxide that is attached to red blood cells the harder the heart must work to supply the body with oxygen. Copy and paste this address and scroll down almost halfway to "Toxic Mechanism", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning Smokers do not spend 8 hours in a bar but employees do. I know of no studies showing how much carbon monoxide or tar is inhaled by an employee in a bar (whether or not he/she smokes). I am not aware of any study of the amount of cancer causing chemicals in bar room smoke inhaled for eight hours. I would certainly not inhale smoke for eight hours then go hiking or hunting the next day knowing my ability to use oxygen is reduced and my heart must work harder. "

Undecided S. wrote on Jan 4, 2007 2:31 PM:

" NoDak John, I was not intentionally dodging your remarks on cancer causing chemicals. I have lost track on the number of cancer causing chemical in tobacco and how many are in cigarette paper. I recall thinking maybe the paper was the worst. But then after reading more articles years ago about the tobacco growers actually working to increase the amount of addictive nicotine, and the fungicides used in the drying process??? None of it is good, all is bad. "

Undecided S. wrote on Jan 4, 2007 2:15 PM:

" NoDak John, I do not know who finances the med schools. Many years ago an heir of one of the tobacco companies became an anti smoking activist after watching his grandfather die of lung cancer. The asbestos workers found that the tar in cigarettes actually blocked some of the cutting by the sharp asbestos particle in the lung sacs. The smokers, who had asbestosis, lived to age 66 and the non smokers only 64. It almost sounds like a little tar, a little phlegm, and perhaps a little coughing is good if a person is breathing sharp particles without a filter mask. I would make a wild guess and speculate that people working in sharp dusty air would be better off spitting up the phlem instead of swallowing. But the subject gets gross and breathing filters are the modern solution. Many people that are working with fiberglass insulation are not presently wearing breathing filters so probably history will be repeated. I have seen pictures that show each lung sac having the small cleaning feather like sweeper. Tar in the lungs reduces the distance it can clean (like gumming your windshield wipers on your car so they clean only part of the windshield. Unfortunately when a long term smoker stops the "wipers" do not work better as the tar is absorbed. That leaves a place for germs (on dust?) to settle. I do not work in any medical field and will not say it is better for old people to continue smoking. I have read about carbon monoxide attaching to the red blood cells (in the lungs) taking the place of where oxygen would normaly attach. I have not found any statistics on how much carbon monoxide is in the average smokers system and how long it takes to dissipate. This would be especially important to diabetics who have leg and foot infections because of low oxygen. Smoking for a diabetic is like begging for gang-green of the feet. This is getting long but if you know of any articles about oxygen absorption reduced by carbon monoxide please pass it on. I have not read any for a long time. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 4, 2007 1:21 PM:

" Undecided, Your sarcasm is noted. I do not advocate smoking. The tars in cigarettes is, by comparison, a minority problem. Many of the chemicals used on the tobacco crop end up in the cigarettes. IF your conclusion about tar and lung cancer were correct, then lung cancer can not be stopped cold with something so simple as nutrition. The doctors said the same thing, but they had their previous xrays and tests in front of them, and they had the latest tests and xrays in front of them. Their comment to him was "What in the world have you done?", "This is impossible". Back to my point. The petro chemical industry has multi billions of dollars to lose if they have to pay for the damage they have done. Do you think that a few million spent on disinformation is paying off? I certainly would have to conclude that to be the case. PS. A question for you: Who heavily finances nearly EVERY pre-med and medically related school? "

Deb wrote on Jan 4, 2007 1:11 PM:

" NoDak John: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" - Sinclair Lewis "

Deb wrote on Jan 4, 2007 1:09 PM:

" Mr E: it is illegal to assist in suicides, not to commit suicide. Therefore, the smoker who is poisoning the air, killing the people around him is assisting. And no, I'm not calling for the arrest of smokers. Just don't smoke around other people. Leah - you're right, I was not a very curteous smoker when I was a smoker. Now that I'm educated on the effects of smoking, both first and second hand, I choose not to smoke. Especially now knowing how deadly even second hand smoke is, I believe, along with the medical community, that there should be no smoking in public places, even bars and resaurants. And, yes, I understand that bars are private property, but putting someone's health in jeopardy should not be an individual right of private bar owners. I don't believe in smoker's rights. You have the right to kill yourself in your own home, garage, away from other people, but you do not have the right to smoke wherever you want to when it is damaging other people's bodies. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 4, 2007 1:07 PM:

" Deb, I will try one more time to get past your heavy duty programming. You stated that Shrub (Bush) was right wing. WRONG! You are saying that a totalitarian state is the opposite of a totalitarian state (Fascism vs Communism). If you can not get beyond that illogical programming, (Fascism = Right, Communism = Left) how then can I have any hope for you? "

undecided speculation wrote on Jan 3, 2007 11:59 PM:

" Cigarettes keep you warm in the winter when the snow falls. Frostbite of the lungs is prevented in very cold weather. They are very relaxing and people quarrel less when relaxing smoking a good cigarette. A good pipe is even better for warming the hands while inhaling the warm smooth smoke. There is a reason that American Indian's would pass the peace pipe when sitting around the warm fire, taking the bite from cold frigid nights.... This is getting so gooey I am beginning to believe it myself. I quit 40 years ago and still on occasion I really want just one of those nasty, smelly, finger staining, cancer causing.... Oops caught myself... They are relaxing and keep mosquitoes away. Mosquitoes carry west nile, malaria, and other germs like encephalitis..... Whoops switched again... The delicate pink lung sac lining has a feather like broom constantly cleaning each cell. The cigarette-tars pool up in the bottom of each lung sac and hold the cancer causing chemicals tightly to the lining blocking and gluing the little broom feather....... "

Mr. E wrote on Jan 3, 2007 8:02 PM:

" Deb: Isn't it illegal to assist in suicides in this country? By your logic, any nonsmoker going into a bar that allows a legal product, such tobacco cigarettes, is committing suicide. Shame, shame whining nonsmokers. You'd think you'd know better. You have so much to live for!! "

Leah wrote on Jan 3, 2007 6:44 PM:

" Deb, I bet when you were a smoker, that you could have cared less if people around you were bothered by your nasty habit. (I'm sure you were a very courteous smoker) It's funny how most of the ex smokers are the biggest pains in the you know what, when it comes to smoking. Get it over it already people. LIke I have said before, make the CHOICES that are right for you. If you feel that being around smokers is a hazzard, then stay away. After all, the only place that you would have to be around them is some bars... "

The generation that is dying of cancer wrote on Jan 3, 2007 1:36 PM:

" The generation that is dying now was young when x-ray machines were primitive/dangerous high wattage devices. DDT was routinely used on crops and even sprayed on people for lice. Bugs in the home were sprayed by things now illegal to sell. Asbestos was in every cars brake shoes and as they wore out the asbestos dust fell to the roads to be whipped up into the air. Lead in gasoline came out the tailpipes into the air. Nowadays it is claimed that skin cancer is caused by the "Sun". Lung cancer is caused by "second hand cigarette smoke". In the 1950's I once watched a group of mexican farm workers working in a field that was being sprayed by a crop duster. The differences between today and when many of us were young is far to numerous to do any statistical research. The doctors do not even give the same medicines because so many were harmful. "

Deb wrote on Jan 3, 2007 12:07 PM:

" NoDak John: Let's break down what you just said. "The Surgeon general is a puppet on a string." Who's string? The administration who appoints him? Okay, then logic would dictate that the last Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona, would have the ideals of the Shrub administration in his sights. Uhm, the last I checked the right wing agenda, public heath and taking away smoker's rights (whatever that means) was not on the top of their agenda. Next, you say "his opinion is of no more value than that of anyone else" - oh really? LAst I checked, the Surgeon General is a board certified DOCTOR, whose opinion FAR outweighs yours and mine or anyother non-doctor. They are bound by the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. Coming out with an opinion, again, based on scientific FACT gathered over the years that NO amount of second hand smoke is safe for ANYONE to inhale EVER - there's not a lot of gray room in there. Not a lot of room for interpretation. Why? Becuase it's fact based on the scientific method. We can go back and forth all day about effects of second hand smoke and the effects of breathing other air borne chemicals, but this subject is about allowing smoking in bars and the false idea that somehow someone who smokes has the right to kill someone with their habit. Sorry, there is no logical argument for that. As for your WWII generation smoking facts - 3 of my four grandparents died from the effects of smoking. My grandfathers were both WWII vets & smokers and my Grandmother smoked until her death. Lung cancer is not the only effect of smoking. It affects all parts and systems of the body from the skin to the lymph system to the heart and circulatory system. It is a filthy habit and it is not okay anymore to poison the world with it. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 3, 2007 9:31 AM:

" Deb, the surgeon general is a puppet on strings. Even if he was not, his opinion is of no more value than that of anyone else. IF he had scientific proof of his opinion, then it would be his testimony not opinion. Just because he is an official does not make him infallible or omniscient, nor does it mean that he CAN NOT be "led down a primrose path".. Hasn't anyone figured out what the second hand smoke "smoke screen" is all about? The purpose is to get more people to believe that the lung problems we are having are caused by second hand smoke so we will push for a smoking ban. Once that has been accomplished, then it is "Katy bar the door" for a whole family of laws and rulings which will follow. There are several sites putting out fertile statements with regard to second hand smoke. The fact that the period of highest cigarette consumption was WWII and there was not a corresponding increase in lung cancer should at the very least cause people to question the modern rhetoric. Has anyone had the integrity to check them out? Hasn't anyone watched a court case and watched a "hired gun" "doctor" testify that (for example) the persons broken neck and other injuries had nothing to do with the litigants terrific migraine headaches and his inability to hold down a job? Why would you believe pseudo science? If you are all that concerned about second hand smoke, you are really in serious trouble because there is not one place on earth where there is not some rather deadly contamination in the air. Those who have contaminated the air do not intend to be held liable for the damage they have done, and the cigarette will continue to provide the smoke screen they so desperately need. "

To "Mixing The Air" wrote on Jan 2, 2007 8:17 PM:

" So you think high ceilings are good and cigarette tar kills bugs but is fine for people? Creosote preserves wood by keeping bugs away but I do not want to be around smoke from burning creosote. I must be missing something? Except I suddenly have a desire to go wash a little spot on a bar room ceiling. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Jan 2, 2007 6:09 PM:

" to Deb; That is certainly your right. I would never think of stopping you from believing that or expressing your opinion. I only ask that you grant me the same right to hold my beliefs and also express them. But I also know that what was thought to be perfectly alright ten years ago has now become dangerous to our health and the reverse also holds true. Scientific opinions change constantly with new or better research and this is to be expected. Very few things in our scientific or medical world, if any, are static. Of course we know that lung cancer can be caused by cigarette smoking, but not all lung cancer is caused by smoking and not all people who are exposed to cigarette smoking develop lung cancer or other respiratory diseases. I, personally, would hate to have all the focus for these diseases be on smoking and other causes, for these diseases, be neglected or downplayed. And that could very easily happen. "

Deb wrote on Jan 2, 2007 2:59 PM:

" Mouth: there are people who know more than you on this subject- they're called "doctors." The Surgeon General of the US says that no level of cigarette smoke is healthy for anyone to breathe, ever. Sorry, but I'm taking his statement for truth over your armchair family practice. "

Mixing the air is bigger problem wrote on Jan 2, 2007 1:43 AM:

" The biggest problem is Air Conditioners, Heat Pumps, and all forced air heating. The constantly mixing of perfume, smoke and exhaled air is not like the old days. Anyone who has ever gone to an old "boxing smoker" knows that there was a cloud of smoke at the ceiling where smoke and exhaled air (both warm) would raise to the ceiling. Old high ceiling buildings like movie theaters were the same. Usually you would paint the ceiling brown. White ceilings would eventually become brown and could be painted over if the tar not to thick. In old wood beam ceilings the cigarette tar would actually help preserve the wood and seal small cracks. Ask any bartender if he has problems with bugs or spiders on his ceilings or ceiling corners. Nowadays the best tar samples can be taken from the ceilings of old prisons and prison gun towers. Much better than paint because it never cracks or peels. "

Second-Hand-Smoke wrote on Jan 1, 2007 1:13 PM:

" As far as the smoking ban is concerned: I believe you cannot permit people to poison for profit. Smoking in bars should have been discontinued in N.D. a long time ago. In 2007, bars in North Dakota are still continuing to harm people by allowing smoking in their bars. Second-hand smoke needs to be eliminated an all bars, casinos, and hotels/motels. A great website to look at is: http://www.freshairmn.org/ That should give those that are not aware or don't care about second-hand smoke a reality check. "

Second-Hand- wrote on Jan 1, 2007 1:12 PM:

" As far as the smoking ban is concerned: I believe you cannot permit people to poison for profit. Smoking in bars should have been discontinued in N.D. a long time ago. In 2007, bars in North Dakota are still continuing to harm people by allowing smoking in their bars. Second-hand smoke needs to be eliminated an all bars, casinos, and hotels/motels. A great website to look at is: http://www.freshairmn.org/ That should give those that are not aware or don't care about second-hand smoke a reality check. "

Mom wrote on Dec 31, 2006 10:42 AM:

" Today I cried for the smokers I know and the smokers I have known. When I was a little girl; we would gather with relatives at holiday times to play cards and games. There were several relatives that would love to smoke; one cigarette after another while playing. I loved being together but after hours of their smoking it would be difficult for me to sleep. I would beg my parents to ask them not to smoke and I would get scolded for being rude. So I would go off to my room hoping they would leave because I was gasping and frightened that I might not get my next breath. My parents didn't know I had asthma, for me it was terrifying. The ones that I loved getting together with, have now succumb to the fate of their "freedom" of choice. One had a stroke before the age of 50, one died before 50 at our home with a pack of cigs in one hand and a lighter in the other, one now has to be on oxygen round the clock, one has been hospitalized several times because of their infection sensitive lungs that are badly damaged. All have quit smoking after more than 30 years, their "freedom" of health and life being robbed. Maybe we should be thinking from the prespective of an innocent child who loves and who's choices have not been clouded by a society who may have discouraged a child from saying,"smoking is rude", maybe our love ones would be more inclined to choose the ultimate "freedom" of life and health, if the ghosts of Christmas pasts had visited them like they visited those who have lost a loved one to the nicotine addiction. Hind sight can see through the smoke and it is clear smoking may be a "freedom" to choose death or ill health, you just don't realize the choice you made inflicts pain on the ones you love and costs you dearly but the choice is made on yours and their future not in the here and now. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Dec 29, 2006 9:19 PM:

" to Freeman: I would tend to agree with your question of where is all this exposure happening? I see very few people smoking anymore and the ones that I do see are not standing around blowing smoke in other's faces. This issue of smoking in bars certainly should not affect our children, they don't have any business in those establishments. By the time they do have business there, they should be old enough to make their own decisions. And almost every other place that they may go is considered smoke free. And I simply do not believe that casual exposure to cigarette smoke on an occasional basis is going to harm most people. I no longer smoke and simply stay away from those businesses that allow it. What I don't believe should be happening but is, is that we are losing the freedom of choice because someone else thinks that they know better than I do what is good for me and they are going to make sure that I do what they think is best. Big Brother mentality. And I don't need a big brother. "

Erosion of Freedom? wrote on Dec 29, 2006 7:27 PM:

" In a few more years Mexico will be taking control of California by population. California has a massive 55 Electoral Votes and is winner take all. Once Mexico has control of California the president of Mexico will practically control our federal elections. Soon Mexico will have taken over most of the other border states. Their leaders are very aware of this and we should also be aware. "

Freeman wrote on Dec 29, 2006 5:35 PM:

" I heat my house with passive solar, and do not own a car, lawn mower or internal combustion engine. I think polluting my air with hydrocarbons should be banned completely. I am a vegetarian. I believe hunting, polluting my space with bullits, should be banned. I distill my own water. I feel that publicly distibuted water should be unchlorinated and unflourodated. I could go on and on, but you can see the problem. Freedom isn't always free. I can't understand where all these non smokers are being exposed to this second hand smoke. You can tell that most of these folks aren't sitting down at the Coral Bar. Where is the exposure to them and their family taking place. It's not at the mall, resturants, public buildings, grocery stores, retail outlets, etc. Where is this happening? "

Chad Biegler wrote on Dec 29, 2006 4:14 PM:

" To miler...Your premise of regulation is exactly the argument I want you to use. Using that logic we would slide down the slippery slope of oppression. Dramatic yes. But very possible. You see my WHOLE point is not with the smoking itslef, it is with the proposition of regulating everything deemed unhealthy by our government. It is too empowering. Thats why I point to fast foods. Thats why I point to alcohol. Thats why I point to "extreme" sports. Or sports in general. How many football players, boxers, hockey players, and any other contact sport athlete suffer immensely from sport-related ailments later in their life?? Do we ban them?? Should we ban our polluting power plants?? Where will the next line in the sand be drawn?? How much more liberty will we sacrafice for the illusion of safety?? We all will die. We cannot control all harmful practices. All we can do is be free to pick our own (legal)poison. Right now with smoking....there IS a choice. Keep it that way. --The daily dose of "truth" brought to you by Chad Biegler. "

Mr. E wrote on Dec 29, 2006 12:56 PM:

" MILER: Speaking of lack of basic intelligence, what part of "I don't smoke" do you not understand - I never have. And inhaling someone else's bad habit also makes you ignorant. Like I said before, I have not even been around cigarette smoke for over a year. It doesn't concern me and is definately something I won't ever whine about. You saying a smoker should stay at home so it doesn't bother people is the exact same argument of that same smoker saying you should stay home to not inflict yourself to cigarette smoke. And littering is ILLEGAL, smoking isn't. So you don't need to start on that issue. "

Miler wrote on Dec 29, 2006 9:57 AM:

" Mr. E, Mr. E, I believe my posting name is spelled Miler... with one L. You seem to lack even the basic intelligence to spell my name correctly. Could that be because you have the intellegence of a horse, Mr E....d? Why is it that you can't smoke in a restaurant? Aren't those privately owned business's? How about within a 100 feet of an entrance that goes into a hospital? It isn't about catering to intolerant people. Is it fair to say I am intolerant because I don't want to inhale someone else's bad habit? Just like everyone else on this board, you are missing the point. When something becomes dangerous to the welfare of someone else, it needs to be regulated. Otherwise we would live in an extremely menacing society. If I enjoy lighting paper on fire, can I go into a bar and do it? What if I chew tobacco? Is it o.k. for me to spit on your shoe? I could care less if you smoke. Just do it at home where it doesn't bother other people. Oh, and need I start on the littering issue. For some reason smokers don't seem to think throwing cigerette buds out the window is littering. What about when they stop at a stop sign and empty out their ashtray on the street???? GO SMOKING BAN!!!!!!! Mr. E, it's time for you to be turned out into the pasture. "

Jerry B. wrote on Dec 28, 2006 11:59 PM:

" To NoDak John. Here is one of the "money trails" you are looking for. Basically this article tells how our tax dollars end up back in the pockets of Environmental Groups who then contribute to getting laws passed. http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=320867&PT=PERSONALITIES This is not the entire iceberg but better than just the tip. "

Jerry B. wrote on Dec 28, 2006 11:40 PM:

" Hello NoDak John. I have a web site you might be interested in reading. http://www.kgoam810.com/djadditionalinformation.asp?djid=3552 Dr Bill Wattenburg is an engineer who is also a realistic activist. His radio show can be heard on the computer with a real player. He spends time challenging the Environmental Lobby that owns most California Politicians. He used his radio show to fight against the cancer causing MTBE that was put in California gasoline for years. It had been demanded by the so called environmentalists. He talks about how the original director of Greenpeace will no longer support the organization. He talks about how the Sierra Club has been taken over by obstructionist lawyers. He constantly challenges anyone from any environmental group to be on his program. They all hide from him because he has all the skeletons in closets well documented. His talk show is late on Saturday night and Sunday Night. Here it is 11pm to 2am on computer only. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Dec 28, 2006 9:40 PM:

" to Skotish; Just exactly who decided that it was the responsibility of the government to keep the general public safe? I do not believe that this is included in the Constitution. It might be the governments duty to tell me what may be dangerous, but certainly not to stop me from doing what may be dangerous to my health or well-being. Witness the three hikers on Mount Hood. It is considered dangerous to attempt to climb any high mountain in the winter, but we should be free to make the attempt. As long as I am an adult, able to make my own decisions, I believe that the Government should stay out of what I personally do. If I wish to smoke and possibly shorten my life, that again should be my responsiblity. The government has done it's job by informing us of the danger of smoking. If we are concerned about those dangers, we just shouldn't patronize a business that allows smoking. I believe one of our major problems is that if we do something damaging to ourselves, we want someone else to blame. As far as smoking is concerned, I smoked and was well aware, from the time I was a child in the forties and fifies, of the addictive and obnoxious qualities of smoking. I still chose, as an adult, to smoke and certainly couldn't blame the tobacco companies or anyone else for my habit. "

Mr. E wrote on Dec 28, 2006 8:18 PM:

" Miller: If the "smell" of smoke gives you cancer, I hope you don't drive a car or go near a running one. Or even enter a private establishment that allows the use of a legal product. And aren't millers (maybe millars) also known as moths? Something that eats away fabric...of dare I say of our society. YOU DON'T HAVE TO INHALE SMOKE WITH OUR CURRENT LAWS. I have not been around someone smoking in probably over a year. And just because they are a business, does not mean they MUST cater after your every whim you selfish, intolerant person/moth. "

NoDak John wrote on Dec 28, 2006 7:48 PM:

" Age of Activism, Good points. I have asked a number of those "activists" to look into their source of funding, but have yet to hear if any of them did so. The old rule of "follow the money" does work and work well. Sometimes it takes some major digging to get to the source, but it can almost always be done. Have you ever wondered "who flipped open the lid to their brain and poured in all that propaganda?" It is one thing to be a good steward of the land, but it is quite another thing when an individual or group decides to control the people. The second hand smoke theory has been proven fallacious, but you will note how often it is quoted as fact. The huge amount of money spent on the anti smoking campaign comes from some very interesting quarters, but do the people really care? "

Miler wrote on Dec 28, 2006 5:02 PM:

" To Miler: sorry, the smell of dessert won't give anyone lung cancer. Nice try fatty "

To Miller wrote on Dec 28, 2006 1:08 PM:

" What do you mean "Gett off your fat lazy rump and exercise". Do you not realize I am a victim of the advertisers who have college degrees in bending brains. Also my excess weight has amplified my back problems making exercise out of the question. I really want the government to outlaw serving desserts in restaurants so I will not smell it or see it. They should be required to eat dessert out on the sidewalks with the smokers. "

Miler wrote on Dec 28, 2006 11:15 AM:

" To better idea: Just because we choose not to infect our bodies (the only one we will ever get) with poison, you have the audacity to call us "do gooders"? Your just jealous.... You can't deal with the every day stresses of life so you think you need a cig to help you deal with it. Your probably popping prozac like candy. Buck up... and to Ban Obesity: Gett off your fat lazy rump and exercise. Smokers clearly have zero respect for life. To all of you other smokers who are posting because this will be your only form of exercise today..... You are missing the point. Your nasty habit effects others. period. When you endanger others, it becomes a problem. Sorry, but the guy next to me eating a pastry won't give me lung cancer. You need to clear your "smoke filled" head! "

a better idea wrote on Dec 28, 2006 12:29 AM:

" I think we should just ban the sun and artificial light. That way tobacco, barley, wheat, etc. wouldn't grow. We could do away with all of the bad vices in one fell swoop. Plus I wouldn't have to look at all the do-gooders faces when I sit next to them in the bar. ;) "

Thank You for Smoking wrote on Dec 27, 2006 10:45 PM:

" Someone wrote earlier, that they don’t see the restaurants closing as a result of the smoking ban. Well there have been three businesses that I know of in Bismarck/Mandan that have closed in the last year, and the ones that remain open may still be profitable, but their profits have dropped by huge margins. I will be getting the results of the State's hotel and restaurant tax revenue results and posting them here when available. coming soon "

undue restraint wrote on Dec 27, 2006 9:30 PM:

" You remember one of the claims against tobacco companies was that they targeted a certain age group of people to induce them to buy their products. Look at the target market cereal companies go after. CHILDREN! Cereal products loaded with lots of artificial sweetners, colors, and probably additives that induce them to crave more of it. Boxes with nice cartoons on them, etc. The cereal aisle is full of this stuff for kids! Not defending Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds but what about General Mills, Nabisco, etc. huh? "

Yes Ban Obesity wrote on Dec 27, 2006 7:48 PM:

" I always weighed within the chart limits until I quit smoking. Now 100 pounds to late I find that fat is more of a hazard than cigarettes. When I see advertisements of ice cream sundays, chocolate anything, and those diet killing bakery goods.... Nothing as good as a danish pastry on a cold day. Yes lets outlaw cigarettes, but then we know what all those ex-smokers will do. They will all get fat eating sugar and bakery goods. Then they will become a burden to our health care industry. However Fat People help save Social Security by putting money in then dying before getting much back. Logically speaking the things that cause people to die quickly of Heart Attacks cost us all less than people who die lingering deaths like cancer. But now they have found that Cancer of the Cervix is caused by a Venereal Disease (one of the Papilloma Viruses) http://www.wmich.edu/~hquest/sexuality/hpv.htm So now that we know at least some cancers are caused by viruses will cigarettes get better press. I have been thinking about growing my own tobacco indoors with grow lights. That way I can avoid all the insecticides, fungicides, and flavor enhancers now in cigarettes. By smoking a pipe I can avoid the chemicals in Cigarette paper. Anyway I have found out it is not my fault I am fat. The sugar pushers hire psychologists and expert advertising people to overwhelm me with seductive pictures and slogans. I want to outlaw all ads for food items containing sugar or sugar substitutes. I want all bakery ads outlawed. Bakery shops should be required to blacken their windows and disguise the odors that reach the sidewalk. I do not even want to walk by a person eating a pastry on the street and smell the addictive odors. "

Age of Activism wrote on Dec 27, 2006 7:00 PM:

" There seem to be groups run by masculine women, vegetarians, and socialists (to name a few) that are really interested in changing our laws. People who never go in bars are very interested in changing the law to outlaw smoking in bars. Some years back a California Farmer was arrested for plowing up some type of endangered mice on his own land. A man on the east coast bought land for a Ski resort and found he could not cut down his own trees for ski runs. Loggers and Lumbermen in Oregon were put out of work because it was claimed the "spotted owl" was endangered. Groups claiming to be environmentalists want to tear down hydroelectric dams claiming the Salmon are endangered. When the hatchery salmon were doing very well after their five years at sea it was claimed they were genetically inferior and must be killed. A logical person managed to get a video of hatchery workers killing salmon with baseball bats and other methods and burying them with tractors. Some so-called environmentalists were caught planting endangered species on land they wanted to sue about. Some of us still remember the San Francisco group "Earth First" who would go up to Oregon and put metal spikes in trees to endanger loggers and sawmill workers. Earth First also put sand in logging workers tractors hydraulic systems. Often Political Action Committees (PAC's are people who raise money to influence politicians) are only interested in any issue they can use to raise money for themselves, most unfortunate they must give some to politicians. If the ACLU's government money was cut off (they get paid legal fees by government when they win) many of these issues would go away tomorrow. Harassment is legal as long as it is done by Political Action Committees and Lawyer groups. A few neurotics still complain about people smoking outdoors even if the weather is freezing outside. They are not as dangerous as the neurotics that donate money for so-called environmental reasons. Perhaps they expect the rest of us to move to Lawless Larimore. "

Mr. E wrote on Dec 27, 2006 6:31 PM:

" Skotish: Depends on the bar. Publicly traded companies do not have the right to refuse service to anyone. Private companies do. Hence Menards can kick out anyone they want out of their store for whatever reason whereas Sears cannot unless they have proper cause. Anyways, this is just so silly that people have to whine and complain about going someplace that is a "smoky stinky death trap." I don't smoke, so I don't go there. I don't need the gov't to tell me I should stay away because it is bad for me. What are we 3-year olds people? Do we really need the gov't to regulate businesses like this? If it is such a murderous and disgusting product, make it illegal already, but leave the business alone since it is STILL A LEGAL PRODUCT! "

miler wrote on Dec 27, 2006 3:20 PM:

" Just curious and Chad Biegler: I think it's time for you to go blow your cigarette smoke up someone elses proverbial fox hole. "

Skotish wrote on Dec 27, 2006 2:01 PM:

" just curious, You ar enot but this is not talking about private places (aka your house) but bars and restaraunts are considered PUBLIC places since it is open to the public. "

just curious wrote on Dec 27, 2006 1:26 PM:

" second hand smoke doesn't hurt you if you don't go into the PRIVATE owned business. it is your choice to go in there, just as it is your choice to eat fast food. "

Skotish wrote on Dec 27, 2006 11:48 AM:

" See the difference between fast food and smoking is smoking affects more than the inidivdual partaking in the smoking. When you get fat you are only making yourself unhealthy, smoking makes other unhealthy. It is the Govt. responsibilty to keep the general public safe. "

just curious wrote on Dec 27, 2006 9:11 AM:

" ever wonder why it is illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt, however it is legal to drive a motorcycle, and without a helmet none the less. I wonder why no one has tried to outlaw motorcycles yet? give it time, smoking is the start of a legislation wave to "protect" us by taking away choices, new york is proving this with their regulation of resteraunt food. by the way I don't smoke and hate smoke, however I value my rights, it won't stop here. "

Little know statistics and facts wrote on Dec 27, 2006 12:51 AM:

" About 20 years it was revealed that Cigarette Smokers with asbestosis were living 2 years longer than the non smokers. This was because the tar in the bottom of each individual lung sac was trapping the small sharp asbestos particles. Then the sharp particles could make fewer cuts and less scar tissue with each breath. According to statistics of that time the (asbestos worker) smokers lived to age 66, and non smokers lived to age 64. At that time 64 was said to be how long medical doctors lived. At that time all brake linings on cars and trucks were made of Asbestos. As we all wore out our break linings we would breath the asbestos dust that had fallen to the roadway and stirred up by our wheels. Then there was the lead in gasoline that went from being part of a liquid (Gasoline) to being part of a vapor/gas (Exhaust fumes). The lead then fell to the roadways. When I was young in the 1940's Tuberculosis was common and all parents and children were invited to be fluoroscoped at the free clinic. There was no sensitive x-ray film and the x-ray doses received from the unshielded machine were massive. The doctors who operated the machine were the most effected. Therefore (1) What is really killing my generation that is living longer than any before. (2) Should Doctors and nurses be required to wear breathing masks when around all sick people. Perhaps doctors should be required to also change their germy clothing before going home to families? We should not just stop at "Bars", Lets make everyone healthier. Let's study the vapors in Politicians Offices. Plastic furniture, paint fumes, floor wax, insecticide, perfume, and maybe study the coffee pots? I am very sensitive to perfumes and would really like a law at least forcing women to put perfume on in small amounts and out of doors. "

NoDak John wrote on Dec 26, 2006 10:19 PM:

" Someone put a gun to that persons head and told him that he had to work in a bar? Amazing! I must be living in Russia. How foolish of me, I thought this was he united States. It is very simple, if you don't like smoke, stay out of his bar. People who push laws to make others behave in the manner they desire to have them behave, forget one thing. Big government is dangerous to ALL. The government which can do everything for you can also do everything to you. History is replete with examples of how people went from freedom to slavery just by adding another and another "insignificant" law. Why not just put another tax on the bars, then get a bill passed to have it given all that tax money to the non-smokers? Oh that's right, taxes stacked on taxes drive businesses out of the city. I know, we will make it State wide, then we can tax everyone out of the State. End of problem. North Dakota can then be given to the UN as a heritage site. "

Miler wrote on Dec 26, 2006 4:20 PM:

" To AJ. You got it right. That is the absolute basis of this argument. Once your habit puts others in danger it becomes a problem and needs to be regulated. Clearly smokers are very defensive about this. They don't want to have to leave their cigarettes at home. To NDr: Did you ever think that if you didn't have so many smokers in your bar, there might be more non smokers in attendance? Do you really believe that "tobacco do gooders" don't go out, don't drink etc..?? Give me a break. You clearly don't have a clue. Perhaps they are not visiting your bar because they want to breathe. You know, air...... we all need it to survive. What time do you need to close your bar NDr???? hmmm? Is there a regulation that tells you how late you can be open??? Why?? Hopefully your next post will at least show some intelligent signs of life. "

AJ wrote on Dec 26, 2006 2:41 PM:

" As a former smoker, I can definately see both sides of the issue, but I think when a business owner opens his doors to the public, public safety trumps the right of the business owner. It's the same reason we have building & fire codes - to protect the occupants of the building. I've heard people say that non-smokers can go somewhere else if they choose. What about the employees? Sure they are free to choose a different place of employment, but what if working in a restaurant or bar is the only way they can pay their bills. Should they be forced to breathe carcinogens, just because they are unable to find a better job? That's like saying mining or construction companies shouldn't have to provide for the safety of their workers. Why don't those workers just go find another job if they think it is too dangerous. Do I have the right go into your workplace and release carginogens into the air you breathe, whether by smoking or some other method all together? I'm sure I'd make a lot of people pretty upset if did. I don't have a problem with smoking, except when it directly affects the health of others, then I think the govt. (We the People) have the right to step in. "

Tim from bism. wrote on Dec 26, 2006 11:26 AM:

" Let's abolish all tabacco products and the "sin taxes" the state collects from these products and they can do what they do every session, place the burden on the property owner in realestate taxes!!!!! "

NDr wrote on Dec 26, 2006 9:50 AM:

" Could not have said it better NoDak John. Why is it that everyone has to put their nose in everyone elses business? The smoking debate is a perfect example. I own a bar. The other day I looked around and out of 38 people 32 of them were smokers. Who's business to me is more important? The six who don't or the 32 who do? The irony of it all is that I know the people who are the "tobacco do gooders". They don't drink and rarely go out. So, what right do they have to push their beliefs on me and my business? If you don't like the way someone looks or runs their business, you go to a different one. You don't make a law that all employees need to look cute or that every business has to be run exactly how you want it too. So, butt out of my business. "

Thank You for Smoking wrote on Dec 25, 2006 9:09 PM:

" Private Businesses have "the right to refuse service" to anyone. That includes politicians, non-smokers and bleeding heart liberals. -- Thank You FOR Smoking, come again. "

Jack A. wrote on Dec 25, 2006 10:33 AM:

" A statewide smoking ban? For those pushing for it, lets see if your moral compass is so straight. DEMAND that ALL SALES of tobacco products be BANNED in the state also. After all, this product is nothing but sickness, dying, and death. All we need is someone like you to save us all. Will never happen, the state makes too much in taxes off the sale. "

NoDak John wrote on Dec 25, 2006 9:01 AM:

" Wonder what the "bright boys" are up to while we stand in the middle of a smoke screen? I have a right to not do business with those businesses which offend my "sensibilities" and I exercise that right every day. One of the computer companies decided that it was their right to control every aspect of their employees lives, so I exercised my right to NEVER buy their products. If a business reeks of smoke or stale grease, I also exercise my right to go somewhere else. I don't however stand outside their doors holding a billboard decrying the fact that people are smoking in there. They have exercised their choices and I have exercised my choices. Rather simple way of handling the various situations. That way I don't have them controlling my life, and they don't have me controling theirs. "

Blame Game, learning game wrote on Dec 24, 2006 8:57 PM:

" Once upon a time the American Indians learned to carry hot coals from fire to fire while moving with the game. Obviously the smallest charred wooden bowl capable of carrying lit coals became the modern smoking pipe that was introduced to the first Europeans. Very important to be able to start a fire during a long hunt that extends overnight. When Europeans and Americans began smoking the first matches had (phosphorus?) chemicals that were much worse to inhale than the tobacco. Europeans once fermented various grapes, berries, even milk, to preserve them before pasteurization and preservatives. Alcohol (rum) was important in disinfecting water for early sailing voyages. Alcohol has been with us since and is now a health hazard when used to excess. Salt was a popular preservative before refrigeration. Today there is very little reason for excessive salting like sauerkraut (salted cabbage), salted meats, and our addiction to salted nuts and popcorn. During the old days when railroads were built with hand labor many workers died of heat Exhaustion. When the water-boys were instructed to put salt in each bucket of water the heat exhaustion deaths stopped almost entirely. Now our distance runners have learned to use other "electrolytes" like potassium in their drinks. We are learning that a small amount of alcohol helps prevent heart attacks. The statistics are not yet completely in on the relaxation rituals like smoking. The way statistics are presently done I am sure that George Burns who died at 100 had his "cause of death" recorded as caused by tobacco (his cigar). It is hard to refer to cigarette smoking as a relaxation ritual now that they have been driven out doors during breaks and now pursued wherever they go. The prisons in this country hold more men (not more women) than any other country in the world. Apparently the prisons are not full enough. At what point do we "storm the Bastille" (or clean house and senate). "

No Smoke wrote on Dec 24, 2006 7:15 PM:

" Smoke all you want, get cancer, then I can go back to having a drink occasionally in a bar. I make a choice now to stay out of bars simply because of the smoke. People who serve drinks in a bar have made a choice to work there. Life is all about choices. "

ratner wrote on Dec 24, 2006 5:00 PM:

" Why are you folks talking about smoker and non-smoker "rights"? THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS. If there are, please tell where I can find them in the constitution. Oh that's right, I asked that before, didn't I. Why don't you argue what the law is instead of making up misleading non-issues. The government has the right to regulate to promote the health and safety of the public. That is the issue and nothing more. Whether you agree with the issue or not, it will play out in the political process just like the seat belt issue, and will likely end up with a vote of the people. I'm sure everyone here arguing about choice and freedom was just as strong willed against taking away the choice and freedom of same sex marriage, which is probably the most personal choice and freedom that a person can have. But I doubt that. It's funny how the "big picture" issues like freedom and choice are only relevant when they personally affect you, isn't it? And Chad, telling me that "people like you are intent on imposing your private prefernce on the community for what could only be considered selfish reasons" and that I "seem like the type that would just roll over" is funny if not insulting. Can't that be said for the people behind any law that is passed? And you don't know what fights I've had with the government or what side of this issue I'm on as I've never said I'm in favor of one side or the other and dare you to find otherwise. I believe in arguing the real issues instead of false ones. As such, I've been challenging the charactization of the issue as one of rights and "private business choices" when there is no such thing. You apparently don't want to talk about the only relevant legal issue, which is the health and safety of the public, and instead want to make loser arguments based on non-existent rights. So, if someone doesn't want to debate the real issue, rather than staw man arguments such as choice or freedom that they can't back up legally, I'm done here. "

Leah wrote on Dec 24, 2006 1:53 PM:

" Ranter, What happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions? You see, as of right now, smoking is legal in bars. Employees have every right to walk out on these jobs that are so "dangerous". No one, other than the employee is to blame for working in these horrible places that allow smoking. No one forced them to take such a job, so that was a choice that they (the employee) made. I don't care what logic you use, I, in my opinion feel that you are wrong. Why should a non smoker have more rights than me? Let's give these bars a choice. I don't think that is unreasonable. The goverenment doesn't always make the best choices for it's people, so you just wait until they ban something that you feel strongly about! Merry Chirstmas everyone!! "

Chad Biegler wrote on Dec 24, 2006 1:42 PM:

" To RATNER....You seem like the type that would just roll over any time the government asked you to. You have a point that regulations are imposed on our "vice" luxuries. However, you are forgetting that if there was a movement for 24 hour bars it could be done and is done elsewhere. It takes the will of the people to decide. The government does not have the final say. We as citizens do. If you don't believe that, you do not deserve the freedom we have. My logic in this scenario does not harm anyone's freedom. However people like you are intent on imposing your private prefernce on the community for what could only be considered selfish reasons. This is true abuse of our system. And just because it has been abused and is being abused does not mean we simply accept it and move on and say oh well. No!!! This is not about smoking. This is about the big the picture. This about how we want our governing body to affect our daily lives. This is about the very fabric our scoietal blanket is made out of. This is about the integrity of what liberties we have left. Look deeper.... "

my opinion wrote on Dec 24, 2006 8:22 AM:

" there is so much anger and bitterness and out and out hatred showing up in these comments. i think a lot of these nonsmokers should reconsider and start smoking to help control their tempers or pop more prozac so they can deal with life outside their homes. i only hope they throw away their gallons of perfume and aftershave before they start invading these non smoky bars where there will no longer be any smoke to help cover their horrible fragrances; not to mention the body odors and passing of gas that takes place in these dives. they will probably be back wanting to lift the ban after they realize what it is they are really inhaling in these bars! "

I am a smoker wrote on Dec 24, 2006 6:39 AM:

" I do not smoke in my house, vehicles or around non-smokers. If I am at a non-smoking place and my need for a smoke gets that bad, I step outside away from the door and can always find a empty can to put my butt in. But, if some of my smoking friends and I want to go out for a while, I believe that we should be able to sit inside. Just as I have the choice to go into a non-smoking place, non-smokers have the choice not to go into a smoking place. Does this make sense to anyone else. "

ratner wrote on Dec 23, 2006 9:48 PM:

" Leah, are you living in 1806 or 2006? There is no such thing in the law as a "private business choice," or that businesses don't have to look out for the health and safety of their employees. In fact, the law is just the opposite of what you're saying. Why don't you argue that it's a "private business choice" for bars to be open 24/7/365 if they want? Is it because you know that the government says that they can't? Shouldn't each person be able to decide for themselves whether they want to go to bar that closes at midnight or one that is open 24/7? Your arguments have no basis in reality. "

Leah wrote on Dec 23, 2006 10:02 AM:

" Smokers are NOT saying that they want to do want ever they want! We know that we can't smoke in public buildings and no one here is disputing that, The point is, that it should be a "private business" choice to be smoking or non smoking. We(smokers and non smokers) should all have a choice. If a bar is smoking then non smokers have a choice not to patronize those establishments. and visa versa. It's all about choices...I hate to keep harping on this, but why, if a nonsmoker hates smoke so bad, then why do they continue to go into these establishments that do allow smoking? There are non smoking bars, it just seems to me that if you continue to go to these places that are "stinking up your clean air", that you are making bad choices for yourself. And you have no one to blame but yourself. As far as employees, If you choose to take a job that could be a possible danger, why would you have that job? So stop whining about it, IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICES!!! "

zelda wrote on Dec 23, 2006 12:32 AM:

" Cigarette smoke, carbon monoxide producing vehicles,fatty fast food, liver destroying alchohol, cancer causing teflon, and bug sprays, and common household products of every stripe, mind debilitating pornography and violence on television and the list goes on and on and on.Lets call the whole thing off and get under the blankets and have a mutual 4th amendment breakdown and wait until mommy and daddy government say its okay to emerge into the brave new world they have created for us. "

Miler wrote on Dec 22, 2006 2:10 PM:

" to Get a life: you clearly need to get a life if you have one left after you suck up all that carbon monoxide. To Ratner: I agree with you. Smokers like to whine that it is their right to do whatever they want. Huh! If their bad habits endanger others, than it becomes a problem. Guess what, PRIVATE BUSINESS's are open to the public. Therefore they become "public places". It is a FACT that second hand smoke is dangerous. Numerous studies have proven it. That is why it needs to be governed. You put everyone else in danger when you decide to light up. You want to kill yourself, go ahead. "

Get a life! wrote on Dec 22, 2006 1:05 PM:

" Freedom of choice! So you are saying that a non-smokers choice to clean air is more important then a smokers right to smoke? Banning smoking is just one more decision that they are taking away from us and private businesses. Who is to say that a 21 year old is any more responsible than a 15 or 18 year old? Their are many countries that don't have a drinking age and have less of a problem with drinking. That is your choice to not patronize those establishments that do not meet your standards. "

right on wrote on Dec 22, 2006 9:13 AM:

" TO JD, I SIR, AM NOT ON WELFARE! I HAVE SEVERAL COLLEGE DEGREES, STARTED WORK WHEN I WAS 15, SERVED IN THE MILITARY, WORKED 2 PROFESSIONAL JOBS AND I AM RETIRED! THANKS TO THE GRACE OF GOD, I AM HEALTHY AND THE LESS GOVERNMENT I HAVE IN MY LIFE THE BETTER OFF I AM! JD, HAVE A VERY MERRY CHRITMAS AND A 2007 THAT HAS JUDGEMENT IN IT!! "

NoDak John wrote on Dec 22, 2006 8:39 AM:

" What and Chad. I understand your point all too well and totally agree, but you did not mention how these rights were subverted. The incorporation of the towns, counties, states and even the United States (see Delaware corporations) served a number of purposes, but what got shredded were the various founding documents of those entities. Two of inumerable results is the use of Martial Law and the violation and abrogation of the Posse Comitatus Act which have been replaced with Public Law 109-364.see thomas.loc.gov which will give you the printout of any legislation which has been sent to the Government Printing Office. "

Bullies? wrote on Dec 21, 2006 11:23 PM:

" Now it is becoming clearer. "WHAT" had it upside down, but the word he used what on the mark. Smokers demand to do whatever they want. It does not matter if it is harmful to people around them. They whine about "freedom" but what is really going on here is that they are acting like bullies who are mad that people are saying enough is enough. "

WHAT? wrote on Dec 21, 2006 10:36 PM:

" I hear you and agree with you Chad....Sad to say that smoking is not the only freedom we have given away- but oh well. Why try to protect the one thing this country was built on- That would be completely stupid of us(or maybe it is our stupidity that has put us here in the first place, we cant be to bright- From the looks of it, not many people truely understand what the deeper message behind your article really means). Our own likes and dislikes are much more important. Your talking to a city filled with egotistical bullies! "

Boy Scout Campfires? wrote on Dec 21, 2006 8:47 PM:

" Why is no one concerned about Boy Scout campfires. The wind blows back and forth and some boy scouts are constantly breathing the smoke. Some of the wood put in those fires are harmful to cook a hot dog on. And what about fire places in the home. Does anyone really know about any harmful chemicals in different trees? Many old trees have mold. Has anyone ever tested the smoke from various burning molds? And what about the helpless bug larvae in old logs thrown into the fireplace. The real problem is barbecue smoke. Then the dreadful burning fat from a juicy steak falls into the fire (whoops I am getting hungry, must go fire up). "

NoDak John wrote on Dec 21, 2006 8:44 PM:

" The purpose of a license serves two purposes: income and control. The person taking a license gives up his/her rights and exchanges those rights for a privileges. The city/county/state can tell a bar what it will do because the Bar owner went to the various corporations and surrendered his right when he became a sub unit of those corporations. I do assume that the town the bar is in is an incorporated town. There are a few unincorporated towns. In other words, the Bar owner has only those rights which the corporation deems appropriate. "

ratner wrote on Dec 21, 2006 6:23 PM:

" Somebody please tell me the specific constitutional right involved here please. I'm waiting. And "get a life", read my post below. Do you mean the government can't tell bars what hour they have to close, or restaurants that they must refrigerate their food. After all it's their private business and if you don't want to get sick, you don't have to go eat there, right? Isn't that what you are saying? Or that a bar can have only a certain number of people in establishment at one time (occupancy restrictions)? Aren't these examples of the government telling a private business what to do? Again, what specific constitutional right are you folks talking about? Must be a new one. "

D wrote on Dec 21, 2006 5:55 PM:

" Get a Life says "how can you legislate how PRIVATE businesses run THEIR business. " Ummmm, welllll, lets see..... By your logic, a PRIVATE business should be able to sell beer to a 15 year old right? "

Chad Biegler wrote on Dec 21, 2006 2:56 PM:

" Please indulge me Mr. Wonering....I think my argument is quite sound giving the nature of our constitution and our ideals of free enterprise in this country. Please lay it out for me and everyone else to see. I am sure we are both right in our logic leaving only one logical answer....The power to decide for ourselves where we want to patronize. Why would you have the government be involved?? "

Get a life. wrote on Dec 21, 2006 1:53 PM:

" All you none smokers and reformed smokers need to get a life. Like it has been previously stated how can you legislate how PRIVATE businesses run THEIR business. I can see banning smoking in public places but how can you tell PRIVATE business owners what they can and cannot due in their own establishment. If you don't like the smoke then don't go to that business. That is your right. These business owners pay their dues so that they can run their business the way they want not by giving into the will of a group of people. It should be up to the business if they want to allow smoking or not. If you do not see this as a violation of our rights then we have bigger problems. If you want the government to tell you what you can do and where you can do it then you can have that. For me that is a right that I want to keep. You give the government an inch and they take a foot. Just like in NY with the trans fat ban. I know that these things are bad for me so it is MY CHOICE to do these things. I don't need someone saying that I can not do these things because they are bad for me. That is why we have freedoms for and America is the great country that it is. If you want someone to tell you what to do and how to live your life then move to another country that doesn't have the same freedoms as us. "

Miler wrote on Dec 21, 2006 11:11 AM:

" To rantner: You got it right. I'm tired of smokers stinking up my clean air. You want to smoke, do it in your own home. If I want to go out to a bar I shouldn't have to inhale your nasty habit. To suemo: to bad your so easily swayed. You said you miss the dancing and your friends but choose to stay away from it because you have gotten use to your clean air. What a shame "

Suemoe wrote on Dec 21, 2006 9:26 AM:

" I believe I've actually been swayed. Way to go Chad. I started out as a staunch believer that there should be a smoking ban. It's personal preference. But just because I don't like something personally, doesn't mean I have the right to dictate other people's choices. I miss the bars, the friends, the dancing, but I choose not to go because I've gotten used to my clean air. - Having said that I don't believe we really have the right to legislate, I will not hesitate to vote yes for a ban. I liked going to London/NYC and knowing that no matter where I went (except outside) it would be smoke free. The people for the most part seemed to accept it too. Isn't freedom all about the majority's preferences anyway? Gay marriage is a choice, but we legislate that. "

Wonering wrote on Dec 21, 2006 9:13 AM:

" Chad, Chad, Chad, you need a good college course in logic. Yours is completely flawed, and it is too bad that you are probably not curious enough to find out why. If you cannot afford a college course, go to the library and ask the nice lady to help you find "Logic for Dummies"; then use it. "

bigpoppakdog wrote on Dec 21, 2006 9:05 AM:

" to ratner: awesome counter point..... "

undue restraint wrote on Dec 20, 2006 7:48 PM:

" To Chad Biegler: Your logic about the smoking ban is sound, I think. Looking through the dictionary for a particular word starting with the letter "c" I came across "caveat emptor" [let the buyer beware] which is a principle in commerce meaning that without a warranty, the buyer takes the risk of quality upon himself. Although this is intended for the condition of consumer goods purchased in a store without an expressed warranty to its condition, perhaps it can be applied to eating establishments and bars as well. "

ratner wrote on Dec 20, 2006 6:06 PM:

" Man, has everybody gone loopy here or what? The government has authority under its "police power" to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public. And surprise!!!, this power extends to private property too. Can you build a house a foot from the street curb even though you own the property. No, because zoning and setback laws prohibit it for safety reasons. The argument that you don't have to drive on that street if my house is built on the curb is ridiculous. In addition, you can not use your property in a manner that may injure some one else pursuant to a number of legal theories, such as nuisance for one. Sorry, but bar owners do not have a so-called "right of choice" if they are endangering the health of their employees. "

bigpoppakdog wrote on Dec 20, 2006 3:13 PM:

" good post chad...I agree with you...just wonder if businesses would actually increase if they were smoke free? "

Chad Biegler wrote on Dec 20, 2006 1:49 PM:

" Good show everyone!! I appreciate all the discussion taking place here. Some of you are enlightened to what I am saying. I will be more articulate in saying that the smoking ban I am referring to is in our bars. Bars are not public domain. They are private. All these arguments about smoke oppressed emoployess and patrons are invalid. These people are only held hostage by their choice not by the smokers. This ban is well-intentioned and good hearted. To say it wouldn't be beneficial to health would be ignorance on my part. But the end does not justify the means here people. We can not sacrafice our freedoms as citizens and/or business owners for good intentioned infringements. Instead of a ban why not have incentives for non-smoking establishments?? Why not let the people and the market decide the fate of this nasty habit?? Choice is our ultimate freedom folks. And as it stands right now we all have the choice to go to these bars or not. No smoking in public?? Fine and fair. In bars, of all places, where immorality is a way bigger detrement to our health?? Not logical. In fact hypocritical. Do not rely on the government to tell you what is better for you. Keep that choice where it belongs....with the people. Your rights are not being violating when you step onto private property where smoking is allowed. Bar owners would have their right of choice violated if this ban passes. It's very simple. And to soldier. you raise a very nice compromise to get more non-smoking bars estrablished. "

Mr. E wrote on Dec 20, 2006 10:57 AM:

" To OK: I agree with you. Some people just don't get it. Like I said earlier, it is not someone's "right" to even enter a private business. Although some on here think it is. "

bigpoppakdog wrote on Dec 20, 2006 10:20 AM:

" to nodak: some people don't care that the smoke they exhale effect other people....unfortunate, but true...look at all the posts on this topic....they probably wouldn't bat an eyelash at the thought of smoking next to a baby..... "

OK wrote on Dec 20, 2006 9:21 AM:

" Freedom for non-smokers, freedom for non-smokers, freedom for non-smokers. Fine! But what most of you are refering to as your freedoms is bogus! Do away with smoking in places that are actually public. I am fine with that. But a bar is not owned by the people. Therefore, it is not actually a public place. They invite the public to patronize the business and whether the public wants to or not is up to them(whether it is becasue of smoking or because they are a cowboy not wanting to sit belly up between a couple of bikers). A bar is owned by an individual who should have the right to allow smokers to enter thier establishment if they want to. THEY OWN IT and THEY PAY TAXES AND OTHER FEES!!! The non-smokers on this page may as well say that I would be infringing on thier freedoms by allowing smoking in my home. It is the same thing whether you want to believe it or not. Public places are not privately owned establishments. They are the capital, libraries, city halls, ect. When will people realize this?? "

NoDak John wrote on Dec 20, 2006 8:48 AM:

" Don't you have to wonder who is throwing million and millions and millions into the no smoking campaign? Doesn't that strike you as being a bit peculiar? Don't tell ne that it is because some business has our best interests at heart. 50 years ago I would have believed that to be possible. Then there is the pseudo science of second hand smoke. NO! What the smoke screen is all about is the industries which have so carelessly polluted our air that lung cancer and other cancers have sky rocketed and industry doesn't want to stand up and pay the bill. The rate of cancer in children now exceeds the old rate of cancer in ALL individuals. That should concern us all and we should be putting an end to the cause instead of staring at smoke screens. "

A friend wrote on Dec 19, 2006 10:11 PM:

" Back when I smoked, I often asked when I was where no one else was smoking, if the person minded if I smoked. One friend answered best. She always responded, "Do you mind if I pass gas" (or something like that). Smokers just do not seem to understand that they are the ones who do the offense and they should excuse themselves to do their thing elsewhere. "

Bismarcker wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:37 PM:

" Smoker anger seems to be growing, as are the excuses and upside down double talk. You know, many smokers sound like children who know they have done something wrong, but just won't admit it so they get angry and pout. As for freedom, it means clean air. Dirty air from cancer causing smoke makes us sick...that's not very free, is it? "

Whoa wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:28 PM:

" The way I see it, the non-smokers have been courteous for a long long time. Now, after accomodating the pushiness and I get mine mentality of smokers, and finally after all the evidence is in, it is time that freedom prevails and clean air wins. The people who have to find a place for themselves are smokers, not non-smokers. As someone said, it really is simple. The air is clean. Someone comes in and fouls it up. Not good. Stop whining and do your thing somewhere else...or show some guts and backbone and quit. "

Chaw wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:22 PM:

" Hey, just do what I do. Resort to the smokeless tobacco. Then you can spin in your beer can and hope that jerk that is hitting on your girlfriend picks it up. "

lw wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:17 PM:

" To Amen - it's the NON-SMOKERS that want special priveledges. The only thing I've heard smokers say is that there should be BOTH smoking and non-smoking establishments and that the owners should be able to decide which group they prefer to do business with -NEVER have I heard anyone say smoking should be allowed everywhere. Get off your high-horse and quit making an jackass of yourself. "

How I see it: wrote on Dec 19, 2006 7:48 PM:

" This whole smoking issue boils down to smokers being easy targets, and non-smokers get to mouth off, feel in control, and take out their aggressions somewhere. It's just a bandwagon to jump on to have something to do. The anger I hear in some of these blogs tells me that the non-smoker is angry with a broader spectrum of issues, and the smoker is handy. I would think those who hate smoking so much would stay away anyway, and don't have to deal with it much. Where, these days, does anyone have to deal with it unless it's outside? Do they want to control the outside air, as well? I don't see how walking by a smoker outside is going to diminish their health or collapse their lungs. A bit overboard and condescending there? Exhaust from a motorcycle is equally as foul and dangerous. Most of my friends don't smoke, and I have never seen them go off on a tangent with the bitterness and meanness of the outspoken people here. They simply don't care and don't let other people's habits control their lives. This whole issue is very therapeutic to those who have no control anywhere else. Just listen to the anger and you will agree. The once a week or so that they walk by a car with a smoker will not drop them dead on the spot. There wouldn't be any population left if that was the case. I think more people die from strokes and stress secondary to anger and fast food than walking by a car with a smoker. Many of these non-smokers are ex-smokers who would really like to be smoking but since they have made a choice not to, they are angry at those who do smoke. It’s rather entertaining, actually. "

mom's view wrote on Dec 19, 2006 7:31 PM:

" Hey, I do not believe in smoking, it'll kill you. I do believe in freedom and I believe businesses should choose to allow or not allow smoking, if their is smoking there and I don't like smoking, I don't have to work there and I don't have to spend my money there. I really have enjoyed restrauants that are all non-smoking but that does not mean their should be restrauants that don't cater to smoking. The government does not need to dictate all aspects of our life even when we choose something that will kill ya. There needs to be a balance between the rights of individuals and the public. All or nothing is not the way to go, it is not American. "

Amen wrote on Dec 19, 2006 6:32 PM:

" Yes! It is time for non-smokers to stand up to the whiney smokers. For some unknown reason, some smokers think they should have special privileges over others. Freedom is a great thing and we are going to take back our air - in every establishment in our community. Cough cough and bigpoppakdog said it straight. Now, let's get on with it. "

WTF wrote on Dec 19, 2006 5:42 PM:

" I like the general title of this letter, however I think we are too late. Most of our freedoms have been already eroded, not just for smokers but for Americans in general, this is due to our elected friends in public offices. The old saying was, with freedom comes responsiblity... unfortunately we have had a lot of irresponsible people in charge of our lives. "

bigpoppakdog wrote on Dec 19, 2006 3:52 PM:

" to cough cough cough: amen brother!!! "

Mr. E wrote on Dec 19, 2006 3:35 PM:

" I still can't believe people think it is their "right" to patronize a private business. IT IS NOT A RIGHT! "

Cough, cough wrote on Dec 19, 2006 3:18 PM:

" I'm all for ANY smoking ban. I'm for the total ban of all nicotene. For years non-smokers have had to endure the smoke filled air of smokers. For years non-smokers have had to walk through smoking areas to either exit establishments or to go to the bathroom. For years, non-smokers have had to put up with messy ashtrays and butts litter everywhere. For years, non-smokers have had to put up with mouthy-in-your-face retorts from smokers. For years, non-smokers have been pushed out of places if they didn't want to fill their lungs with smoke. And for years, the minority has dictated to the majority. Now smokers want to cry foul when non-smokers are fighting back with what they perceive as unfair rules. TOUGH! For years is has been unfair to the majority. So I will take every advantage I can to stop smoking. And I don't give a darn if it's fair or not! "

bigpoppakdog wrote on Dec 19, 2006 3:11 PM:

" I am standing up now...alot of us are..we're tired of it...smokers better get used to it....this is not a matter of choice....funny how the author of the article states we can get drunk in a bar...yeah but can you drive drunk? Shouldn't that be a choice also? Non-smokers have put up with this for too long...now we are making a point and you smokers are crying about it and throwing absurd comments back to support your unwise lifestyle choice....who has more right to clean air? "

bigpoppakdog wrote on Dec 19, 2006 3:05 PM:

" ok beesh...you've need to be put in your place....smoking is legal....go ahead smoke in your house...smoke in your car....its your lungs go ahead...but to tell me that I have to stay away and keep my children away from public places because I don't want to be exposed to your cancer sticks is absurd....just because something is legal doesn't mean there aren't any regulations or limitations. Driving a car is legal....but there are limitations...freedom to speak is legal..even if you post absurd statements..but not if you slander people....see we're in a generation where the people who make unwise choices are starting to make the rules because they complain while the others who make wise choices don't. If you want to smoke go ahead, but why don't YOU LEAVE and go somewhere else...if you don't want to go to a eating establishment where there is fresh air then order in and eat in your smoke filled house.. "

Wondering wrote on Dec 19, 2006 2:48 PM:

" To "Undue Restraint":Smoking and non-smoking areas in an establishment? What are you talking about? There can be no smoking and non smoking sections UNLESS they are in completely different buildings with no connection between them whatsoever. There is no amount of second hand smoke that is safe -- and that's according to the latest medical evidence, not just my opinion. For all of you who say the business owners should have the right to decide; where does that leave their employees? Right in the middle of a death camp if the owner decided to go smoking. Absolutely no one should have to put up with second hand smoke, nor should they have to look for a job where their health is not in danger in order to make a living. This is strictly a health issue, not a rights issue. Stop with the red herring already! These laws are going to pass all over the country. It's an idea whose time has come, so get used to it or quit. "

Clear the air wrote on Dec 19, 2006 2:34 PM:

" The air is free. Smokers pollute it. Smokers do not have the right to change clean air to smokey air. It really is simple. Those who insist on pushing their dirty smoke into our air are really acting like bullies. Freedom means clean air. "

Glenn wrote on Dec 19, 2006 1:38 PM:

" Obviously we should immediately ban automibiles without manadatory automatic belt restraints, bicycles without mandatory helmets, elbow pads, face shields, etc., nicotine, alcohol, transfats, grease of almost any kind, butter, lard, air travel, ....... The land of silliness and humor awaits us. Sad that some people actually want to do this. "

undue restraint wrote on Dec 19, 2006 1:21 PM:

" It would seem that everyones' rights were treated fairly when bars and resturants set aside smoking and non smoking sections in their establishments. Smoking already is prohibited in many places, especially public buildings, etc. I think private business should have the option to be smoke free or not and let the consumer go to the place he wants to patronize. Nothing is to be gained from undue harsh treatment of people who smoke. After all smokers and non smokers alike contribute to the economy. "

Deb wrote on Dec 19, 2006 1:02 PM:

" Soldier- but again, that's impeding business. What if the next bar that wants to open is also a smoking bar? The point of this legislation (hopefully) is to even the playing field for all businesses and moreover to prevent the poor health side effects that employees and non-smoking patrons are subjected to from the smoking minority. "

dubbles wrote on Dec 19, 2006 1:01 PM:

" these non smokers that are crying and whining about 2nd hand smoke this is for you. Stay away from establishments that allow smoking! Instead go to a establishment that prohibits smoking!. There thats pretty easy isnt it. Now quit the whining! "

Soldier wrote on Dec 19, 2006 12:04 PM:

" Deb, I am not stating that if somebody wants to open a smoking establishment that they would have to wait until a non-smoking establishment is going to open as well. Let them open, but the next one of the same type to open would need to be non-smoking. "

Deb wrote on Dec 19, 2006 11:44 AM:

" Soldier - that's an interesting thought, but the city or state can not pass laws that impede business. I.e. "you will have to wait to set up your smoking bar until someone wants to set up a non-smoking bar." Another huge reason for this smoking ban is to level the playing field of all bars and restaurants. If Minnesota passes it, ND will fall quickly in line. UNfortunately, we won't set the precedent. "

Soldier wrote on Dec 19, 2006 11:05 AM:

" I myself do smoke. I also agree with not smoking in restraunts. When smoking was allowed, the smoking section was almost always right next to the restrooms so the non-smokers had to walk through all the smoke to get to the bathroom. As far as the government telling all business owners they can not allow smoking in their business is just wrong. It SHOULD be the business owners choice. Now I would not see a problem if the city wanted to regulate the number of smoking and non-smoking establishments so there is more of an equal number to please everybody involved. Any thoughts? "

Punker wrote on Dec 19, 2006 10:49 AM:

" Why would you enjoy alcohol in moderation??? "

thats right wrote on Dec 19, 2006 10:31 AM:

" shouldnt bother anyone...its only killing me. and all those 'healthy' people sure are going to feel foolish someday laying in a hospital bed dying of nothing. at least i will have an excuse. "

Deb wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:57 AM:

" To Chad Biegler: Here are the false statements in your letter: "should we ban fast food?" Non-trans fat fast food, eaten in extreme moderation, in a public setting will not kill you or the people around you. "alcohol? You're telling me we would be allowed to get drunk at a bar but not smoke." It is illegal to be drunk in public or drive while drinking, so, no, that is not okay under our current justice system. Also, having a glass of wine or one or two beers at a bar will not kill you or the people drinking aroundyou. Last, this is not about taking your rights away. You can smoke to your heart's content. You are the one who is taking my rights away by not allowing me to go into certain bars because of your insitence of smoking. Yousay it in your letter that no amount of second hand smoke is safe. Therefore, you are takingmy right to life away when you are smoking near me. This is a health issue, not a rights issue. "

Stepper wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:34 AM:

" To You missed the point...alcohol is just as addictive and is just as dangerous. Don't just label nicotine as addictive. It has long been my advocacy that getting drunk should be banned as well. They are just as disgusting if not more. They throw up on their shoes, get in a car which will become like a dangerous weapon aimed at some innocent soul (not to mention acceleration of domestic violence that alcohol can cause, health issues, break up of families, etc). Both habits need addressing but alas it seems the smoker will take the brunt of the banning. Until we recognize that drinking is just as harmful to others as well, both habits will continue to be a problem. "

Jody wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:15 AM:

" I am with you on this the business owners should have the right to choose whether they have a non-smoking place or not. When they started to ban from restaurants a certain restaurant in town went to the expense of putting up a closed eating area with a good ventilation system so that could be their smoking area but could never effectively use it because the ban is for all restaurants. Yes I smoke but I can't believe that my rights are any less than a non smoker. I have talked to many bar owners and they know that if they ban smoking in their establishments they will lose money on top of the issue of clean up outside for people who run out to have a smoke and leave butts lying around. That is what happened at the one now nonexistent non-smoking bar in Mandan the back door of their bar was a mess every morning when they had something more going on. I feel that the government runs enough areas of our lives it is time for them to back off and let individuals make decisions. "

Beesh (non smoker) wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:11 AM:

" To WHATEVER, you wrote, "Yep, smokers should have the right and the freedom to physically abuse non-smokers." So, What...Does that give non-smokers the right to verbally, emotionally or some times physically abuse smokers? Last time I looked, smoking was not illegal. Maybe non-smokers need to stay away from establishments that have smoking, like bars, tobacco stores, etc. Maybe non-smokers need to move away from smokers in public. There are two sides to that coin, dear. Until it's illegal, YOU deal with it. "

JD to right on wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:09 AM:

" You want the government to "get out of our lives". Does this include your welfare check? Should we end medicare and medicaid? Eliminate all laws and regulations? What about pollution control? Who is going to pay for your medical bills from smoking if the gov't is out of your life? Your statement makes no sense. Smokers are polluting the breathable air of our public places with their waste. Smokers are truly inconsiderate. What about the butts all over our streets that cover my boulevard every spring? At least throw them away "

Dan wrote on Dec 19, 2006 8:48 AM:

" I still see the truly fair way of doing things is to allow individual business owners the right to decide. "

However wrote on Dec 19, 2006 8:34 AM:

" The difference is ANY level of smoke is damaging to the lungs. Fast food and alcohol can be consumed in moderation and have no negative effects. "

a wrote on Dec 19, 2006 8:26 AM:

" Let me start off by saying that I think smoking is a horrible and deadly habit. The smoke is offensive and unhealthy and I am quite allergic to it. I would also like to say that I have enjoyed the smoking ban here in Bismarck because I don't have to worry about smelling like a bar when I go out to eat. HOWEVER, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE SMOKING BAN. I believe that business owners should have a choice whether or not to allow smoking in their facility. If those who do not like smoking would all quit going to restaurants that allow smoking, soon enough we would have numerous eateries in Bismarck that are non-smoking. "

You're Missing the Point wrote on Dec 19, 2006 8:23 AM:

" You're missing the point. And that being that nicotene is an addictive drug. And, like any other addictive drug; it needs to be banned. It has taken many years to get this far. It would be great to ban it immediately altogether, but there are too many people like Chad Beigler who see nothing wrong with using addictive drugs and getting drunk at bars. So we'll keep chipping away little by little. So sooner or later, we succeed in the total banning of nicotene. "

right on wrote on Dec 19, 2006 8:19 AM:

" congratulations chad, apparently you are one of the few that understands freedom, as defined by the us constitution (a document few know anything about). If government wants to do something for our health, get the heck out of our lives. do i like smoking, NO, do i think it is unhealthy, YES! do i think that government is is solution, NO! it is the problem!! if you don't want to be in a smoke filled room, STAY OUT! if you don't want to be in a room where a lot of alcohol is being consumed, STAY OUT! if you want to be free, tell your government STAY OUT!!!!!!!!!! right on "

To Comrade and Chad wrote on Dec 19, 2006 8:15 AM:

" You miss the point and say something that is not logical. Drinking and driving IS illegal. Nothing about somking is. Anyone can drink at a restaurant/bar/office/etc. without harming another person. No one would choose what you put in your own body. No one is saying you can't smoke. BUT, when your choice invades my lungs, a ban does not infringe your freedoms. Acutally, you are infringing my freedom. Yes, I could just not go to any bars (where it is allowed now), but why should anyone, not to mention the employees of the bar, have to suffer for your addiction? "

Reality wrote on Dec 19, 2006 7:51 AM:

" The air started out good enough to breathe. Freedom means not having someone else foul our air. You are the one who is taking away other people's freedom. Thank God we are getting our freedom back from those like you. "

WHATEVER wrote on Dec 19, 2006 7:43 AM:

" Yep, smokers should have the right and the freedom to physically abuse non-smokers. And if non-smokers don't like it, they can exercise their "freedom" by staying out of all public places. After all, the rights of the smoker is far more important than that of the non-smoker. "

comrade dubbles wrote on Dec 19, 2006 5:44 AM:

" some would think that our elected officals are communists. I totally agree though on the part about drinking. You can go and get drunk at a bar and drive home and end up killing someone instantly. But we all know drinking alcohol is a widely accepted drug, most everyone drinks, but not everyone smokes. The USA fights to stop the spread of communism in other countries, but our own country is becoming more communist every day. sincerly comrade dubbles "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.
Local Headlines:

North Dakota News

Bismarck News

Recent Headlines:
LOADING

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY