The Wrestling Talk Forums - View Single Post

ccbig · 09-16-2008, 07:44 AM

The health nazi's won another battle.

Bar's in Minnesota have taken huge losses in income since the smoking ban went into effect.

The loss of business has been so high in the several years since the smoking ban has taken place that out of desperation some bars have taken to having "smokers performance nights".

During these "performances" all bar patrons become actors in a bar smokers reenactment play. Because smoking is allowed in performances a few bars have experimented in this way to get around the smoking ban. On the nights a bar holds these "plays" the bar is packed to overflow.

The smoking ban includes VFWs and other private clubs. I find it ironic that veterans who fought for other American's freedoms are not free to smoke in their own private club.

The health nazi's have gone as far as to ban smoking in some outdoor public parks. The idea being that the mere act of seeing a smoker is a bad influence on children.

Why I think these smoking bans are outrageous:

1) HVAC technology can create a positive airflow room that would not allow smoke to leave that room and with filtration systems and air exchange the other parts of a bar or restaurant would remain smoke free. Several bars in Minnesota asked to use this new technology at their own expense and were denied.

2) Smoking bans in outdoor areas like parks do not guard against health effects of secondhand smoke.

3) Some of these smoking bans are extending to home use. A smoker in some places is not allowed to smoke in their own apartment if the building owner decided they want to have a smoke free building. Some places ban a smoker from smoking in their own car in a open air parking lot. Again this is not protecting others from second hand smoke.

4) Protecting workers is a bogus claim because workers have the freedom to choose where they work. If during the hiring process a worker is given the information that a establishment is a business that will expose them to tobacco smoke that worker has the choice whether or not to work there. Just as any worker has the freedom to quit a job that where they do not want to be exposed to tobacco smoke.

5) Non smokers can actively not patron businesses that allow smoking. No one who does not smoke would have to enter a bar that allowed smoking.

I agree that smoking and other tobacco use is highly addictive and very dangerous/deadly to a person's health.

However, the government has decided to keep tobacco a legal product and collects taxes on it.

The effect of many of these smoking bans I have outlined above is to infringe upon the rights of people to engage in a legally accepted behavior. The smoking bans are also infringing on the rights of property and business owners.

09-16-2008, 07:44 AM	#15 (permalink)
ccbig NCAA Champ Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 1,058 Tournaments Joined: 2 Tournaments Won: 0	Re: Smoking ban in PA at last The health nazi's won another battle. Bar's in Minnesota have taken huge losses in income since the smoking ban went into effect. The loss of business has been so high in the several years since the smoking ban has taken place that out of desperation some bars have taken to having "smokers performance nights". During these "performances" all bar patrons become actors in a bar smokers reenactment play. Because smoking is allowed in performances a few bars have experimented in this way to get around the smoking ban. On the nights a bar holds these "plays" the bar is packed to overflow. The smoking ban includes VFWs and other private clubs. I find it ironic that veterans who fought for other American's freedoms are not free to smoke in their own private club. The health nazi's have gone as far as to ban smoking in some outdoor public parks. The idea being that the mere act of seeing a smoker is a bad influence on children. Why I think these smoking bans are outrageous: 1) HVAC technology can create a positive airflow room that would not allow smoke to leave that room and with filtration systems and air exchange the other parts of a bar or restaurant would remain smoke free. Several bars in Minnesota asked to use this new technology at their own expense and were denied. 2) Smoking bans in outdoor areas like parks do not guard against health effects of secondhand smoke. 3) Some of these smoking bans are extending to home use. A smoker in some places is not allowed to smoke in their own apartment if the building owner decided they want to have a smoke free building. Some places ban a smoker from smoking in their own car in a open air parking lot. Again this is not protecting others from second hand smoke. 4) Protecting workers is a bogus claim because workers have the freedom to choose where they work. If during the hiring process a worker is given the information that a establishment is a business that will expose them to tobacco smoke that worker has the choice whether or not to work there. Just as any worker has the freedom to quit a job that where they do not want to be exposed to tobacco smoke. 5) Non smokers can actively not patron businesses that allow smoking. No one who does not smoke would have to enter a bar that allowed smoking. I agree that smoking and other tobacco use is highly addictive and very dangerous/deadly to a person's health. However, the government has decided to keep tobacco a legal product and collects taxes on it. The effect of many of these smoking bans I have outlined above is to infringe upon the rights of people to engage in a legally accepted behavior. The smoking bans are also infringing on the rights of property and business owners. __________________ If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them. ~Paul Wellstone~