Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Fargo voters decide on total smoking ban

Fargo voters decide on total smoking ban

Jun 11, 2008 - 04:06:30 CDT

By DAVE KOLPACK
Associated Press Writer

FARGO - Residents in North Dakota's largest city are showing early support for extension of the citywide ban on smoking in public places.

With nine of the 20 precincts reporting, the proposal to eliminate smoking in bars and truck stops was leading by a 2,831-2,038 vote, or 58 to 42 percent. The measure to allow smoking in those places was trailing 2,655-2,164, or 55 to 45 percent.

It's the second time in four years that residents have been asked to decide the smoking issue. Fargo voters decided in 2004 to eliminate smoking in restaurants, but rejected a measure that would have made it illegal to light up in most stand-alone bars.

The total ban was back on the ballot Tuesday.

Krista Bergren and Jacinda Wollan said the decision on whether to change the city ordinance was a difficult one. Bergren voted "yes." Wollan voted "no."

Bergren, 32, said she's an ex-smoker and one of her friends is a bartender who recently gave up cigarettes.

"I feel I'm supporting those people who are forced to be in a work environment where it's too smoky," Bergren said.

Wollan, 26, said she understands why people are worried about their health, but said her decision was a vote for small business.

"You can't tell a business that it can't sell pantyhose. It should be a choice," Wollan said.

Some bar owners worry that a ban could put them out of business and take down charitable gambling sites. Supporters of the ban said workers in those bars should be protected from second hand smoke.

"If we believe that the health of people working is important enough to be protected, it should apply to all businesses," said Barry Nelson, a spokesman for Share the Air Fargo.

Bar and restaurant owner Randy Thorson said several fellow pub owners in neighboring Moorhead, Minn., have complained about losing business when Minnesota enacted a total ban.

"We've been trying to inform people about the negative impact this will have on businesses and charities," Thorson said. "If that wasn't true, Moorhead tills would ringing and they're not."

West Fargo residents also were voting on a total smoking ban while keeping tabs on Fargo's decision. If approved, the West Fargo ordinance would take effect on July 1, but only if Fargo residents approve similar restrictions.

Both sides were expecting a close vote.

"I know I'm going to upset some of my friends but I just feel it's time for a total ban," Bergren said.

"I do think that where we live, as Americans, we should be able to figure out a different way to do it rather than ban it completely," Wollan said.

News > State

Printer friendly version Fargo voters decide on total smoking ban

Comments

Barb wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:30 PM:

" Thanks Mom-- I am not a smoker either, but that's my choice-- just as it is a smoker's right to smoke. . I just won't go into establishments that allow smoking. That again is my choice. Nicely said, Mom. I am sick of people telling me what I can do and what I can't do. Enough "

Bismarcker wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:24 PM:

" Right on Mom...I could not have said it any better!!! "

Mom wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:57 PM:

" I'm sick and tired of laws being passed to regulate everything a person or business does. Where's the freedom of choice? As long as tobacco is legal people should be able to legally smoke it in any establishment that chooses to allow it. I don't smoke and I have asthma, but staying away from places that are filled with smoke is not a problem. It's not like anyone 'has' to go there. On the other hand, while out camping sometimes the neighboring campers have bonfires going that makes it a little hard to breathe. Are those going to be banned too? It's not healthy to breathe in either. I'll rather throw on a mask or move to another spot than take away people's freedom to do something legal. "

Troy wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:07 PM:

" ok not one of you anti-smoking nazi's have answered this question. If we ban smoking people are going to live longer you will lose all that tax money smokers pay also what will you do about social security make the retirement age 90. Come up with a legitimate plan and I would support it. And majority rule is not always just look at Jim Crow laws for example. "

W wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:41 PM:

" Citizen, you had better do YOUR homework. Brake pads and/or brake shoes are not made of asbestos. They are made of aramid fibres. True, older vehicles did have abestos in their brake linings but that has been removed on newer vehicles. If the brakes have been replaced on older vehicles the material contained in the replacement pads and/or shoes will not have asbestos in them.

Also Citizen, I want you to quote me your source of information that, "Smokers save insurance companies money because they die sooner than nonsmokers." Citizen, what are you smoking in your pipe? "

Disgusted wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:23 PM:

" Citizen- I can only assume your comments were meant to be amusing... they're not. My father was a smoker, so yes, he did die sooner and did not live long enough to end up in a nursing home. However, his lung cancer sure managed to rack up a hefty price tag before he died! He didn't save the insurance company, or my bankrupt mother, a single penny. Way to go Fargo! "

wolfmanjack wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:16 PM:

" Now my wife is mad. How is she going to know I was at the bar, without that stench on me. Oh my, oh my! "

snoller wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:34 AM:

" As I read the comments, I used to smoke for years. Quit, cold turkey, now it stinks, should I care???? Well, to ban smoking in bars; NO, everyone in the bar is over 21 years old and they know the consequence of the smoke. Don't like it, leave. Waitresses that don't want to work in it, don't. Plain and simple language for adults.
Now, for all the children under age 6, what are they drinking. High sugar drinks, pop, candy all which are bad for the children. They are given these drinks from adults, go figure. How many children are being fed McDonalds (fast food) high fat foods and dangerous amounts of sodium. That's OK, feed the children and make them sick so they can be at the doctors office raising more health care costs.
If we don't start feeding the children right, then we may as well forget about banning smoking at all. The children will either be obese or fully nutrient neglected. Look at how pop children are drinking, put that in your pipe and smoke it. "

Citizen wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:28 AM:

" Most of you that are for the non-smoking ban haven't did any homework. Vehicle brakes are made of aspestos which is going into the air everytime you hit the brakes - let's ban braking in vehicles - oh wait someone might get hurt then. The latest study on health care is that the smoker SAVES the insurance companies money, they tend to die earlier and don't have to be taken care of in an expensive nursing home. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. "

kev wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:41 AM:

" When you live in a democracy the majority rules and the majority don't smoke. End of discussion! "

Barb wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:48 AM:

" Dave- you are missing the whole point we are trying to make-- we are talking about freedom---freedom. Where does it all end? That is the point I am trying to make. My Choice and your choice . Like I said--I am not a smoker, but we all better think about where all this is going. Our freedom of choice is getting less and less. Just like you have your freedom of speech, so do I... "

Dave wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:19 AM:

" Ok Barb and Nodak, you go ahead and get the ball rolling to get indoor motorsports events banned. I'd love to see how far you get with that one. While you are at it, maybe see if you can get indoor basketball games banned too because all those darn players keep breathing up all the oxygen and breathing that dang carbon dioxide. "

just for thought... wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:41 AM:

" I was listening to a local radio station from Fargo about a week before the vote took place and the hosts pointed out that out of all the bars in Fargo, only about 20% still allowed smoking in their establishment. So it makes me wonder, what was the point to all of this. Nonsmokers had plenty of options as to what nonsmoking bar they wanted to visit, yet a big stink was made over the small percentage that made their decision on which way to go. Is smoking bad for you, yes. But there are many other things that are. Such as obesity, alcoholism, drug abuse, tax evasion...should I continue??? These are all things that can affect us in some second hand form. I suppose this is just the first of many issues that will arise. Now that this is finished I'm perched on the edge of my seat to see what happens next. Better enjoy that burger at McDonalds, it just might be your last. "

Question wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:45 PM:

" Just wondering how many of the people who voted for the smoking ban actually go into bars and truckstops. I am willing to bet that the majority of the anti-smoking voters were not even effected by smoke in public paces. You couldn't smoke in restaurants or other public areas already. Maybe only those who were effected should have had the chance to vote. By they way, I don't smoke but still choose to go to the places where others do. It is my choice. "

Barb wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:42 PM:

" Well said "To Dave" - that is my point--if you do for one-- do for all "

to Dave wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:47 PM:

" One or two events are too many if the indoor air quality can't be met, If we only hold 2 events indoors, it shouldn't be that big of a deal to ban them. Remember the employees who are subjected to second hand smoke? Isn't that one big cause for the smoking ban.
Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander!
Dakota "

Nodak wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:44 PM:

" Fargo citizens have got the ball rolling. The PEOPLE made an elective decision to VOTE on a matter they felt strongly about. They got the NO smoking in bars measure on the ballot using signatures, and they showed up in more numbers to VOTE. The majority rules and smoking will not be allowed in bars or truck stops in fargo. Some bars may suffer but the majority will stay open and do as much business as before. Look at Buffalo Wild Wings they are a smoke free bar but no body really has a problem going outside to smoke there they just do it. Truckers will still stop at the truckstop to fuel and buy things. People will be ok in fargo "

Barb wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:22 PM:

" to wrote---
Gosh, life is tough-- to wait 20 minutes for a drink? it's so sad-
I am not a smoker- but you people have to ease up of these smokers---
They deserve a break, and if it's outside- it's their choice. It's still a free country "

.. wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:49 PM:

" Great - now when you go to the bar in Fargo, rather than waiting 20 minutes for a drink - you will wait 40 minutes because all the bartenders and waitresses will be taking their smoke breaks outside. "

LJK wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Bismarcker- it's not the government and local officials who are deciding to initiate the ban, but rather the residents who have voted. Cigarettes have been engineered to become more addictive over the years and are a far cry from the original tobacco products that were marketed early on. I agree- there should be an insanely high tax paid by the tobacco companies for manufacturing a product that has no benefit to the consumer whatsover and will only cause harm. Currently everyone, smokers and nonsmokers alike end up paying for the health problems that tobacco induces. "

Bigger Worries wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:26 PM:

" I always have to chuckle how a few people complain about a few smoky bars. Just the other day I stood in line at a fast food joint in Bismarck. I was again convinced of why obesity is the number 1 problem for Americans. Perhaps it is time to go after the food restaurants serve? Or should we just leave it alone and let people make their own choices? I am old enough to know whether I want to patronize a smoky bar or a fast food restaurant! I don't need another set of rules to tell me how I should live my life. "

MamaMia wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:21 AM:

" As the old song says, "People get ready, there's a train a comin'. You don't need no ticket, you just get on board." And it just left the station in Fargo. "

Bismarcker wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:17 AM:

" To "W" -- then why doesn't the Government and the health insurance companies go after the tobacco companies. When they started making ciggys they knew they were addicting and caused health problems but that was great for business. Seems to me they are the bigger reason we are paying so much in health care insurance. The Gov't should slap them with a health tax of a couple of bucks per pack and give that directly to the insurance companies so it doesn't have to come out of our pocket. I don't smoke. Used to, but grew up. "

Bismarcker wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:44 AM:

" Bismarck still has the chance to be a leader...let free enterprise make their own choices and stop our local officials from banning everything. You don't have to wonder about smoky restaurants, obviously they are smoke free including most all restaurant/lounge combinations. I could name several bars in Bismarck that have already made the choice to be smoke free. There are places to go if you do not want to be around smoke. The problem with these bans is that it just leads to more and more government control over private businesses. "

Dave wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:14 AM:

" Dakota, please let us all know where these indoor facilities are that have exhaust fumes in them from sporting events on a regular basis? There is a motor even in the civic center maybe once or twice a year? I'm pretty sure that is not a fair comparison to places that are full of smoke on a daily basis. Seriously. And when you go to a motor even inside a building, I'm pretty sure you should expect a few fumes. Some people want to go to a bar or eating establishment without wondering if it will be full of smoke or not. "

LJK wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Good for Fargo- eventually one town in N.D. would have to step out of the cave on this issue. Too bad Bismarck couldn't have been the leader. "

Sunshine wrote on Jun 14, 2008 8:22 PM:

" I agree with the person who said "why not ban indoor motor events?" My brother-In-Law took my son to one of those sporting events and he came home so sick-- now that is worse than smoking! Also, the person who said---Way to go Fargo. Now all those non-smokers can go to the bar, get drunk, and drive home without having to smell like cigarettes. Way to go. " That was just a brilliant statement. Like I want to be on the road when you are drinking and drunk? I would rather smell like smoke than drink and drive!!! Maybe we should ban bars and liquor,too!! Sound stupid-- Well, you asked for it! "

Traveler wrote on Jun 14, 2008 2:55 PM:

" I stay away from anywhere that has indoor smoking. There are plenty of good places to go without having to wake up the next day with my throat and lungs feeling like I spent the day fighting a forest fire and my hair and clothes reeking. I voted on this a long time ago with my wallet. "

Gambler wrote on Jun 14, 2008 12:18 PM:

" Casinos are on sovereign land and don't have to follow state law. Casinos also know where their revenue comes from...smokers! "

NDfarmer wrote on Jun 14, 2008 9:09 AM:

" Now that Fargo has a smoking ban in bars, I guess the people should go the the casinos. I was surprised that when I went to a casino here in ND, that the people could still smoke in the gambling area and in the restraunt in the smoking section. I did not ralize the the reservations have different laws than the rest of the state. "

Dakota wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:36 PM:

" The most common symptoms of CO poisoning are headache, dizziness, weakness, nausea, vomiting, chest pain, and confusion. High levels of CO inhalation can cause loss of consciousness and death. Unless suspected, CO poisoning can be difficult to diagnose because the symptoms mimic other illnesses. People who are sleeping or intoxicated can die from CO poisoning before ever experiencing symptoms. "

To Amuzed wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:31 PM:

" Carbon monoxide causes more than cancer......I think the bill should be proposed as an indoor air quality bill, not just againt smokers........facts are facts
Dakota "

Impaler wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:05 PM:

" First let me say I am a non smoker and think it's a smelly habit. But these bans are getting absolutely ridiculous. Let's all just wear a respirator outside to keep all pollutants from hurting us. Honestly where does it stop? I don't like to smell like smoke so I don't go to bars it's that simple. Yes smoking is a health risk to the smoker. But do a little research and you find second hand smoke can not be linked to causing cancer. There are so many factors that go into determining each persons risk for cancer. If you want you can correlate getting up at 6am everyday to cancer if you want. So to makes laws from inaccurate data is just plain silly. "

Amused wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:42 AM:

" It's interesting that most of the pro-smoking replies use name calling and ridicule to make their point. To the "ban indoor vehicle events"- vehicle exhaust does not cause cancer, smoking does. To the "anti-government" people- the government isnt dictating behavior, majority rule is. The "get another job" people appear unaware that at roughly 2.6% unemployment, it's not that simple. The botton line is most people against the ban have a vested interest in supporting a habit that is potentially deadly to all in the vicinity, and they are lashing out in the face of reason. "

rajonrondo wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:16 AM:

" Some of you make it sound like this smoking ban was passed down from a Nazi dictator. This came from the ground up - from the people! Your right to smoke should stop at my right to clean air - its really very simple. "

Sick of the smell wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:57 PM:

" This is and always will be a highly debated issue but I for one am thrilled that Fargo got it done and I hope Bismarck-Mandan is next. I enjoy meeting friends out for a few drinks but if I go to a bar... I have to pay for it the next day with a stuffed nose, breathing issues and smelly clothes. It's not worth it for me. Smokers... although I feel bad that you are losing your freedom to smoke in bars, I am afraid your day is coming! "

Pete wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:24 PM:

" This is great news. The vast majority of states now have passed bans that call for smoke free restaurants and bars. We're finally catching up here in North Dakota. Hopefully the state legislature will take up this kind of comprehensive ban in the next year. People will still be able to smoke, they'll just have to do it in places where it will cause harm to others. "

non smoker wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:00 PM:

" now let's get this on the ballot in Bismarck so the voter's here can decide "

kuyy wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:12 PM:

" yea Moorhead bars went smoke free before Fargo bars, and Moorhead was losing a ton of business because of it, but anyway, i agree with law..have a mix of smoking and non-smoking bars to make everyone happy (patrons and employees alike), and do without the people who are against smoking that don't even go out to bars to keep their anti-smoking philosophy to themselves and let freedom ring! "

Dakota wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:25 PM:

" I haven't seen ANY responses to banning indoor events with motors? Where are you anti-smokers that are worried about your health and employees of these events?
I thought so! "

Racist Biker wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:18 PM:

" So does any one know if in Moorehead the bars are smoke-free? If not all Fargo managed to do is put more drunk drivers on the road between the cities. Smart move Fargo way to go. Remind me not to ride around Fargo between 11pm and 3 am. Also just cause Fargo does it doesn't mean Bis will. Fargo bars close at 2 am and Bis is still at 1am. However, with the mass conservatism in Bismarck the smoke-free issue will become reality long before the 2am closing will. "

Law wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:57 PM:

" I don't frequent bars that have smoking in them, its my choice to be a patron of a place or not. Instead of forcing this on everyone let the market dictate. Smokers in one bar, nonsmokers in another. The workers can apply at the place they want to work at. "

W wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:43 PM:

" There is more to this issue than the government taking away your right to violate my space with your smoke. There is a huge health issue here and who pays for all the smoke related diseases when you visit the doctor and/or have to enter the hospital. If you have insurance, that's fine. You will most likely have the majority of your bill paid. What about people that have no insurance and they have no means of paying for a large doctor/hospital bill? If you guessed that you people with health insurance are paying their bill you are absolutely right. Right now I am paying close to $1000.00 per month for a family plan from BC/BS. I think this is a little out of line since I was paying $45.00 per month when I first started working in 1972. I blame a big percentage of this premium increase on smokers and their smoke related illnesses and the vast amount of money it takes for their health care. It will eventually come down to no smoking anyplace and that will happen in all the states of the US. You had better get used to it now people because it will happen. In this case I agree that the government has to step in and make some decisions because many times people are too stupid to make a healthy decision for themselves. I do not agree that the government should be telling us what to do every time we turn around but in this case I have to agree with a total smoking ban. I used to smoke but quit many years ago. If you are a smoker try quitting. You will love the way you feel. It is not impossibe to quit. It can be done. "

Same old story wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:23 PM:

" This is not a case of government pushing their views on you (smokers) this was a measure voted on my the PEOPLE...this is how democracy works...people vote on issues they feel are important...if you felt that strongly about it I hope you voted against it, but obviously either more people want that ban than don't , or smokers don't bother to vote...either way...YAY Fargo! Bismarck next! "

Way Around This wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:48 PM:

" Since this is a ban on public places, the bar owners should make their bars private clubs. They can charge a $1.00 membership fee, give a membership card (a simply card printed on the PC works) and that member then gets to come and go as he/she pleases. That way, the bar is a private club and the public areas ban doesn't apply. This has been done very successfully in many other states and helps the bars keep their business. If a worker in one of these establishments doesn't like the smoke, get a different job. "

why wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:12 PM:

" I wish ppl would quit making laws for my health.Seatbelts were on the ballot for many years till it passed. Done to protect me. Now these tree huggers are after my smoking. I know its bad I know its expensive but if they want clean air go outside or to the back of the bar. Smokers aren't Black nor are they in the 50's so don't treat us like Colored ppl and send us to the back of the bus. If you want bars that don't allow smoking go to Fargo there ppl seem to have the same ideas as the tree huggers here. A few years back they passed a law if the bar built a room with as seperate exhaust system seperate fron the main room people could go in the room to smoke BUT NOOOOOOOOOO! thats not good enough. If smoking is banned I think those places that spent thousands of dollars should be reimbersed for their expenses of making smoking rooms by the same govt. who banned it. "

Yeah Right wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:37 PM:

" You anti-smoking people always want society to believe it is for the "health of our people". Whatever, there are so many more important issues that are killing the average American than a few smoky bars. Eventually I can only hope people stand up against government dictating what a PRIVATE BUSINESS can do and can't do. All in the name of health...what a joke. I know what works for my business and more government control surely is not the answer! "

Dakota wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:34 PM:

" If the people who pushed for this anti- smoking law had REAL concerns for our health, they would have added "no indoor auto, motor cycle, tractor events and so forth with the proposed law. The indoor air quality is unacceptable.
Don't people have to work in these enviroments as well!!!
If this proposed change comes to Bismarck this issue should be attached to the bill as well. "

Deb wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:27 PM:

" As goes Fargo, so goes the rest of the state.

Congrats Fargo! Another step forward for health!

Can't wait for Bis to do the same. "

AR wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:02 AM:

" No one is telling you that you have to quit smoking. They are just trying to give the rest of us the right to breathe clean air when we're in a public establishment. Puff away.....outside! "

Choice wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:33 AM:

" Well I am not surprised Fargo residents would vote this way considering they are so close to the Twin Cities. I too can only hope this type of thinking stops at the West Fargo city limits as well. Don't give me this BS about workers working in a smoke free business. I could name several people I know that CHOOSE to work in bars because they WANT to smoke. As always this issue is about a few people trying to force their radical ideas on the rest of society. Hopefully people here in the western part of the state will have more guts to allow freedom of choice. What a sad day for free enterprise in Fargo. "

Razors Edge wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Way to go Fargo. Now all those non-smokers can go to the bar, get drunk, and drive home without having to smell like cigarettes. Way to go. "

Uninformed wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:13 AM:

" Editor: Did everybody in the newsroom forget that there was an initiated/constitutional measure to vote on? How about those results? Or were you going to only print partial election results? "

W wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:10 AM:

" I am pleased that the citizens of Fargo and West Fargo had the guts to get this passed. There will be a TOTAL SMOKING BAN coming to North Dakota very soon and the sooner the better. "

SICKNESS wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:09 AM:

" well what is next. i think we are entering a natzi era, no more freedom of choice the goverment is telling us what to do everywere. I would give anything to see the USA become a free country again. we are allowing way to much control. what next do we tell krolls kitchen they cant make kneophla soup anymore. i wouldnt be suprised. "

Moker wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:56 AM:

" Way to go, Fargo. Another step has been made in your efforts to become a clone of the Twin Cities. I pray that the Nanny State mentality stops its westward creep. But we all know that our own local anti-smoking nazis will push and push and push until they get their way, regardless how many times they're told NO. "

sip wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:38 AM:

" If your friend wants to work in a smoke free environment, then they should find a new job. Cigarettes and beer, both go hand in hand. "

Post Your Own Comment

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.