Justin Vega, Fargo, column: Anti-smoking measure snuffs out personal freedoms
October 13, 2012 at 7:05 pm in Grand Forks Herald
Anti-smoking activists clearly have established that equal rights mean nothing to them. Don’t people who smoke have as much of a right to commune in a bar of their choice with other smokers as nonsmokers do with other nonsmokers? Continue Reading
As a non-smoker, I have left a bar where smoking is allowed simply because the stench of the unfiltered air of the place was so disturbing that I could not stand it. Talking with many people about this I know I am not alone. You mention how damaging this would be to local bars and similar establishments. I feel quite the opposite. A clean air atmosphere is inviting to those who may not want to go, simply because of that God awful stench. You refer to smoking in a bar as a personal freedom. How about the personal freedoms of the non-smokers to breathe clean air that is not going to be damaging to their health? It’s mind blowing to me how people can still defend this tooth and nail when it’s very clear how damaging 2nd hand smoke is to the human body, especially a non-smoker as yourself. If this country wants to lower health care costs, this is a good start. I could not be more happier that Grand Forks, Fargo, Devils Lake, and other communities in this state have been ahead of the curve and went smoke free. It’s about time the rest of the state followed suit.
Hot debate. What do you think?
36 
24
Many believe it’s the camel’s nose under the tent. If you want to see the whole camel it’s name is Bloomberg and the tent is New York City.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
13
And here I thought that the best government was local, being able to use local standards as a benchmark for rules and regulations. If New York City thinks it’s what they need, then who are we to second guess that? But of course, that old chestnut about local government being the ideal, is only a smokescreen (no pun intended). The real story is that no government should be able to tell anybody what they can and can not do, right, Gene? The logical extension of total liberty is anarchy.
Like or Dislike:
14 
14
Blanket statement, realist. Govts were formed in the US to be the servant, not the master. When they start dictating what size Coke you can buy or what kind of lightbulb you can use, it’s clear it’s all been turned around. You apparently have no problem with that. I do.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
11
You can’t use a blanket statement to cover gov’t policies, Gene. Some policies are in place for people’s safety whether the people like it or not.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
18
That viewpoint gives you the nanny state.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
14
Freedom is more important than safety. People who are free can choose to be safe, as they define it. People made “safe” by government edict cannot choose to be free.
I despise cigarettes. I didn’t patronize bars in part because I refused to put up with the stench. I dislike people smoking on the sidewalk; if I can smell it.
The obvious answer to this would have been for bar and restaurants and other public places to have installed better air filters and/or ventilation systems forty years ago. The fact that none of them did points to the recklessness of their actions; and their disregard for their employee’s and patron’s health. Now, Government is going to “fix” the problem by promoting an even more restrictive policy. It was inevitable. Businesses refused to take action on their own…now someone else is choosing the action for them.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the business owners. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the smokers. And even so, I do see how this is a freedom vs. regulation issue.
No perfect solution.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
9
The point you miss in all of this is that “we” are the government. If New York City wants to guzzle extra large drinks, then they can just vote out Bloomberg and get somebody in there who agrees with them. Government does not act on its own. Government is us. The real issue is that some do not want to abide by majority rule, so they complain about government when the real irritant for them is that their opinions are not in the majority.
Like or Dislike:
14 
12
Realist, majority rule in this country is limited by the constitution for the specific purpose of protecting the minority. We do not have a pure “majority rules” system in the United States for many very good reasons. Contrary to your assertion, you are not required to abide by the majority rule when it infringes on your constitutional rights. You need to look no further than the multitude of laws that have been passed by the majority but subsequently determined to be unconstitutional, e.g. flag burning, separate but equal, literacy tests to vote, the Klu Klux Clan’s right to assemble and march in parades . . . . That being said, I don’t think people have a constitutionally protected right to smoke, and if there is one it is abridged by the government’s interest in general, health safety and welfare, so the majority is free to regulate away.
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
Being from MN I am glad to have no smoking in all indoor places including bars. I never entered a bar for enough time for a drink until smoking was banned in them, I could not stand the stench, having to remove clothes, throwing them in washer immediately when I got home. Smoking is a health hazard for anyone inside a bar with smoking allowed. For the Health of ND that do want to be in bars, go Non Smoking.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I use a vaporizer. I’m not aware of any data suggesting negative long-term health effects for others who inhale the water vapor I exhale.
Voting no for science fail.
Like or Dislike:
16 
6
Gene: I applauded your reference to the gov’t regulating the size of coke I can sell you. The discussion about smoking in public is finished in many states. Hopefully, ND voters will clear the air in November. We need gov’t involvement in many areas, but today’s liberal approach to every facet of our lives has ruined any chance of our country recovering. From forcing our diet in schools and restaurants to forcing carbon monoxide detectors in our Mn homes TO wind energy and ethanol FORCED onto customers and making incandescent and some flourescent bulbs contraband, it’s embarrassing that 50% of our population has no problem with any of it. It’s so sad and irreversible.
Like or Dislike:
14 
9
Yeah, those awful seatbelts, speed limits, and laws against minors in possession. Actually, the reason you are upset is not that governments can make laws and write regulations; it’s that you don’t agree with the majority opinion. If those in the minority could be in charge they would write plenty of laws like allowing the state to determine when women should bear children, force everybody to uphold Christian values all the while dismissing any rights other religions have to do the same and making second class citizens out of people who’s sexual orientation they dislike.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
16
Your reductio ad absurdum argument deosn’t hold water…or soda.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
Realist, the irony of your post is that you give a number of examples of where the majority actually took the action you list, but when challenged by the minority was held unconstitutional. The majority has restricted same sex marriages in many states but those restrictions where held unconstitutional (hence constitutional amendments), abortion was restricted by the majority and held unconstitutional when challenged by the minority, forced prayer in school was implemented by the majority in many schools until challenged by the minority and there are numerous freedom of religion cases where the majority restricted religious rights but were determined to have acted unconstitutionally. Your post is a complete contradiction of your earlier “majority rules” post.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
You are talking about past action; I am speculating about future ones. Big difference.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
I don’t find your assertion that you were speaking prospectively credible, but I will play along. So, if your comment was prospective you must be asserting that there are no areas of the country where a majority of the residents
would “write plenty of laws like allowing the state to determine when women should bear children, force everybody to uphold Christian values all the while dismissing any rights other religions have to do the same and making second class citizens out of people who’s [sic] sexual orientation they dislike.” Unfortunately there are plenty of places in this country where a majority of the residents believe many of those things. What stops them from enacting or enforcing those laws is the Constitution’s protection of minority rights. Your assertion that these things don’t happen because they are minority beliefs is incorrect. I wish it weren’t true, but it is.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
You miss my point. Theoretically, if the minority COULD do those things, they would. In fact, in certain places where these beliefs predominate, they actually do. You see, we agree on this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wha ha ha ha ha ha! I don’t believe I can express the amount of laughter I have on this opinion piece and the response. This is a very OLD debate! Most large cities and states have already put a smoking ban in place and guess what? It has huge resistance at first but after a month or 2 is welcomed with open arms by BOTH non smokers and smokers alike. I witnessed mn go smoke free in a small town and I witnessed grand forks go smoke free and the same pattern holds true. Smokers are angry refuse to go to the bars but after a couple weeks they come back, and smoke outside in the shelters and shacks and busses. They realize smoking is a social experience now and actually enjoy having an excuse to step outside for a smoke. And at the same time they smoke LESS without even knowing it. Saving money and their very own health plus the health of all the non smokers around them
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
My goodness, what an odd rant. You put a lot of words in my mouth and missed my point completely. I have no problem with seatbelts or anything else you mentioned. I was very specific. The fact that one-half of the population (including you) is okay with the gov’t regulating soda sizes puts you on a different planet than me (politically). I, too have a huge problem with the religious right. There is very little “realist” about most of your posts, including this one.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Well I think if someone can smoke indoors than I should be allowed to drive my vehicle in as well and leave the motor running. Or better yet shoot fireworks off inside a bar. Sure why not.
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
How about installing toilet seats at the bar to afford patrons more drinking time. The smell is comparable.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
I give mr vega a c- on his ndsu english paper. He brings credible arguments but only supports his arguments with emotion instead of facts.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
I do not have a problem with you smoking – outside or in a hermetically sealed room completely separate from me. I do have a problem with being asked to show compassion when you are fat, bloated, living in a recliner urinating on yourself because you can’t breath well enough to get to the bathroom.
There is no doubt that smoking kills you. The argument over that was settled a generation ago. We are not talking global warming here. Even the tobacco companies admit their product is harmful.
If you choose to die, that is your choice. Where I draw the line is you wanting to consume massive amounts of scarce healthcare resources on what is at its core a behavior issue. You chose to die, it is unfair to expect everyone to get bent out of shape and come to your aid when what you asked for happens, and you begin to die.
I know that sounds horrible, but before you give me a thumbs down, what part is inaccurate or unfair?
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
You have gotten off the path. The question is not whether smoking is bad. The question is to what extent should the govt legislate programs dictating to private businesses in order to satisfy the whims of part of the populace. I have already underscored the extent to which a meglomaniac in NYC has. Point is, if you are a non-smoker, and you know there in smoking in a bar, don’t go there; it is your choice. Please don’t give the whine “But I wanna!” There was a no smoking bar in GF, Dagwoods. It went belly-up. Tkaen to its logical conclusion, you will cease to see pop, salt, red meat, booze…all in response to those who eschew it, and demand all others are forced to do the same.
Like or Dislike:
8 
7
Second hand-pop? Second-hand salt? Second-hand red meat? C’mon, Doc..we already have laws against second-hand booze which, by my definition is vehicular homocide. Smoking in public places is in the past, even in a state that ranks 48-50 in most important areas. ND voters will clear the air. I’m sure of it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
homocide..oops homi
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I’m well aware smoking in public places has been eliminated by govt fiat. My point is, that is the opening of Pandora’s Box. I use NYC for the very reason of what has occurred there: the decision on the part of the mayor to eliminate other things. We ive in a society where interest groups seek to apply their beliefs to all through legislation. There really is no difference between the topic of gay marriage and size of pop containers. In both cases, groups want their preferences turned into law. And the govt, in its desire to accumulate more control over the populace, is more than happy to comply.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Still, the soda thing seems to be legislative. The smoke-free thing is in the hands of the voters. That might be a subtle difference to you….north & south pole to this humble obsevrer.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
I agree with you, Gene. The coke example is the most outrageous example of gov’t intervention, but this pandora’s box was opened a long, long time ago, not only because of lawmakers, but also due to rule making by agencies (employees) who have no regard for personal rights or our economy. The train has left the station without a conductor.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Flyingnurse, I agree with you. If you make a personal choice to engage in behaviors that you know are harmful to your health and likely to increase the amount of medical care you will need, you should not get a free ride on the Medicare and Medicaid.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
The truth will set you free!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I quit smoking in 1982, can’t stand the smell, but don’t support the measure. I think the debate here is missing the point. Getting smoking out of places like resturants, stores, and other places where the general public (Particulary minors) have to endure second smoke was needed, and once gone many of the resturants actually saw an increase in traffic rather than the drop in business they feared.
I don’t know at the top of my head what all this measure includes, but I know that it includes getting rid of smoking blocks of rooms in motels and places like the Hooka joint down town as well as smoking in bars where adults are practicing healthy events like chugging, extreme drinking, drunk movements referred to as “Dancing”, puking, fighting, and just having a fun night out…..
This measure goes way over the top. For those non-smokers who are behind this…….Take a break…We already won the important battle…This is like coming in after the war and plowing down the few bildings that were left standing. In general these targeted areas are not a bother to most non smokers since I understand that there’s many bars that at least have sections now days. Lighten up…..Let the few smokers left light up in areas most of us non smokers to get bothered at anyway.
At the price of smokes and the price of fuel I don’t think there’s many new smokers coming on board now days anyway when they have to choose between the two. I don’t think there’ll be many smokers left within a decade. When I see smokers outside buildings and other places they congregate….Most are mid thirties and older…..Kids are finally thinking there’s nothing in tobacco that’s worth the money they charge now days.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
I own my property. I allow you to enter if I choose. You have a right to NOT enter. I allow smoking and that fact is posted on the door. If you choose to enter, knowing that, I would say you have some issues you need to deal with. Every person who works for me is a smoker, and knew that smoking was allowed when they applied for the job. What is so hard about minding your own business? What is so hard to understand about how these nannies are paid by pharma companies who sell patches and gums to do their drug pushing for them? Vote no to nannyism.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
I would expect with that attitude you would also provide healthcare dollars out of your own pocket, not subsidized by the rest of us, for your employees who end up having health problems from working in a closed smoke filled environment? Or am I being optimistic about your ability to see hypocrisy?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
See your argument doesn’t work. It is a public health issue. The bars and restraunts are regulated by health inspectors. They are staffed by employees. They have vendors going in and out of them everyday bringing everything from pop to pull tabs to beer. They are regulated by the gambling control board. These people have to walk into these places to preform their jobs. When I sign up to deliver coca cola I did not sign up to have someone blow smoke in mmy face. Why don’t you let me know where you work and I will come in and sit on a stool and smoke all day in your office.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
So you’re saying she martin is prohibited from selling beverages and food with known carcinogens in them. If this law passes, the air they breath will be equally safe. I think you might have something here, ron.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Why hasn’t there been a measure to reverse smoking bans in minnesota? Because it is not a big deal. The bars are better because of it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
There’s another reason, too, ron. Mn voters cannot initiate measures and no legislator would get such a bill past a committee.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
unless or until the sale of tobacco is outlawed as a controlled substance,there should not be a state ban on it’s use.This will never happen because of the heavy taxes that neither the state or the feds are willing to forfeit.As well as the effect on the economy if the tobacco industry were to fail . I find it interesting,that so many of the comments refer to smoking in bars,but little is said about the effects of alcohol on innocent people including
children. Remember Prohibition ? that sure worked well !
Here we discussing smoking in BARS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Marie Johnson, yes there are a lot of taxes imposed on cigarettes, but study after study has shown that the cost to state and federal governments in increased healthcare far exceeds any tax revenue. The idea that cigarettes remain legal simply to provide a source of revenue is not credible. Similarly, while elimination of the tobacco industry would have devastating effects on those involved, the impact on the economy as a whole would be negligible. I don’t understand your comment about prohibition, people will be free to smoke as much as they would like, they just wouldn’t be able to smoke in places open to the public; much like running around naked in your house is legal but not allowed in public. Personally, I don’t think smoking should be eliminated in bars and people should be free to make their own choice. On the other hand, I think there should be significant penalties for exposing minor children to second hand smoke and if you choose to smoke you should be required to pay an increased Medicare tax.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Before we talk about making tobacco a banned substance…..I think we need to stop subsidizing tobacco growers first.
I’ve always found it strange that while one side of government keeps raising taxes in an effort to discourage smoking that the other side pays farmers growing it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Tobacco subisidies totalled over $191 million in 2011. But this crop is detrimental to the survival of many rural areas in the south. This is a complex issue. We sued the tobacco industry in 1998 and gave them money at the same time in the form of price supports. The health issue should be key and reason enough to ban the substance…yet the black market will surely supply the product to smokers in the US.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I basically agree, and would like to see it go away myself. There’s still some places in the south that proudly have signs on resturant doors that state, “WE DO NOT PROVIDE NO SMOKING SECTIONS” The first time I saw one years ago I thought it was a joke….But it wasn’t. I haven’t seen one for a while, so maybe even the tobacco states are toning it down.
None the less I really think this will become a moot point in a decade or so. Between the high prices and people generally made to feel unwelcomed as a smoker to basically anyplace but around other smokers…….The customer pool is dwindling. One of the reasons I quit when I did was because a pack went up to eighty cents and I thought that was way too high of a price…..Who knew what they’d eventually reach ($10 out east I’ve heard) It’s mind boggling that there’s still enough people smoking at these prices to actually have another ban bill come up….
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I am not advocating deregulation of alcohol or tobacco.That
is ridiculous, Smoking bans should be left up to individual
communities .Not to state or federal laws. I am not a smoker! My concern is that more and more of our freedoms
of choice are being trampled !!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And republican north dakota’s system is so much better. A state full of people who ask for less government has a system where every special interest group can come into the state find enough signatures and create measures that actually need more government regulation and influence. Increasing animal crulty, medical marijauna, eliminating property taxes, and it goes on and on.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Ron, none of the initiative measures you mention have passed, and only one is even on the fall ballot. How do failed initiatives increase regulation? Using your logic, the fact that none of these measures have passed (yet) would imply that North Dakota voters are consistent and have rejected more regulation. Frankly, I find little logic in your post and don’t see where making it easier for voters to bring matters to a direct vote implies that North Dakota wants more government. To the contrary, allowing voters to decide issues insures they get the level of regulation they truly want.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Ron: forgive me if I missed your sarcasm, but the quote: “republican north dakota’s system is so much better. A state full of people who ask for less government … ” struck me as odd.
ND is one of 8 states that takes more from the federal government than it gives. It has a state bank, a state mill, and government sponsored and run health centers (gyms) which compete with private business.
How exactly do the Tea Party officianados in ND believe in less government?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Marie with that train of thought we should eliminate all regulations on alcohal or outlaw it., yep those regulations that zone bars, limit alcohal consumption in public, and outlaw driving while intoxicated.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Smoking in public places should be prohibited because under no circumstances are your rights allowed to infringe upon mine. It is really that simple. You do not have the right (Constitutional, moral, or otherwise) to negatively impact my health with your behavior.
There is also a public health issue involved. In the early days of the AIDS crisis the cities of SF and NY chose to close the gay men’s bath houses (euphemistically called “health clubs”) in an attempt to staunch the spread of the disease.
The public outcry was immediate and LOUD. It was viewed as a civil rights/civil liberties issue and many of the same arguments expressed above were used to advocate for keeping the baths open.
I am a Libertarian, if given the choice between trusting the government to do the right thing or kissing a poisonous snake, 9/10 you will find me making out with a reptile. That said, I do believe your rights begin at my front door, and that includes my nose and mouth.
As for the bar owner who says he has a sign that says he allows smoking: that is irrelevant. You operate a public service establishment. Same as a Woolworth lunch counter. They had to serve African Americans against their will and you will end up prohibiting smoking. Now if you want to form a private club, and restrict membership to only smokers, I am sure there is a way to make it happen legally. You can call yourself the NCAA Smoke Shop.
As for vending machines in school: take them out. I don’t care if they buy the band uniforms. They are a stupid idea.
As for a 7-11/Circle K/Valley Dairy across the street with everything you prohibit: go for it. It is not on school grounds.
Altru prohibits smoking on its campus. Perfectly legal and makes sense. They control the campus. They don’t control across the street.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Nurse what is north dakota’s color in almost every election? Red!!! Over ten straight wins for republican presidential canidates! 6 out of the past 30 elections have not been won by a republican in north dakota! 5 of those were 1940 and earlier! Your comment just shows that the state only follows conservative values when it is convinent and are a bunch of hypocrites.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Btw nurse tea party followers only believe in less government only in programs that do not benefit them or programs that regulate their industry. I love rick bergs line about reducing epa regulations than make farming and ranching more difficult. You know it is terrible that farmers have to have their irrigation wells tested and cattle farmers are regulated on where a feedlot can be located.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Preaching to the choir with me. I do not like or support the Tea Party or what they stand for. I have been very consistent in my disdain for people who believe in smaller government for everyone else while working hard to insure their access to the federal teat is unfettered.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
One thing I haven’t considered. Does ND have a smoking ban in restaurants or is that just in the major towns? If it doesn’t then maybe something like this is needed. I still think its wrong to not allow hotels & motels to set aside a block of rooms for smokers. At the price of a room now days they should be allowed to feel home comfort just like the rest of us
Like or Dislike:
1 
0