Ban or no ban?

I would love to see a ban. Businesses would not close because people adjust. This has been proven in other areas of the state. In California, smoking in public buildings, including bars, has been banned for a long time.

For several years I have heard the smoking issue compared to eating unhealty foods, driving faster than the speed limit, government's taking away of rights, and now even bowling balls!

It seems to me that the people who are arguing the smoking issue by comparing it to the other things are missing the point.

People have a choice to drive over the speed limit, eat unhealthy foods, pick up bowling balls, or whatever.....

However, non-smokers are not able to get away from smoke!

Yes, I have heard the arguments that I should just patronize businesses that don't allow smoking. That's fine, and I do. However, what about outside events? Shouldn't I be able to be outside and not breathe someone elses secondhand smoke?

In the past year, I have taken my young son to two demo derbys. Both times, people around us started to smoke in the seats around us. The smoke came right to us! One time, a lady even began turing her head a bit to blow the smoke backwards (toward us, in the next row up) so that the wind wouldn't blow it straight back into her face as she smoked. I couldn't believe it!

And no, we couldn't move. The bleachers were packed. It was standing room only. I am disabled and walk with a cane. To get up and stand, away from the crowd, for the entire event would not have been possible. After an hour, I very gently and politely asked (both times) for them to refrain from smoking because it was blowing right back at my son and me. Each time, the person became angry and continued to smoke. In fact, one person's response was "It's a free country. There are no laws against smoking here."

Another example is at outdoor ballgames. We love to attend games, but it is very difficult to sit in the stands. Inevitably, someone will be smoking and we end up breathing it.

Another example is leaving buildings. There are times we have walked out of a building, only to breathe in a large amount of smoke. People stand outside, smoking, and you don't always even see them until you are in the midst of the smoke.

How about waiting in outdoor lines, where the person in front of you is smoking and the smoke is blowing straight back.

Even at schools sometimes people are smoking just outside the doors. How do one avoid breathing smoke then? I know they are supposed to be smoking a certain distance away from the doors, but that is not always the case. I have seen people actually move the cigarette disposal closer to the door!

Now, it might sound like I am being picky about this, but

my young son has lung problems and it is detrimental for him to breathe smoke. He could become very ill. Also, because I have had several surgeries each year for the past four years, I am not supposed to be around any smoke. It can inhibit the healing of large, open wounds that I have had to deal with for the past several years.

What are we supposed to do? Stay home all the time?

I agree that the government is getting involved in many of our "personal freedoms." But until people use common sense (in regards to others), I feel the government SHOULD step in and create laws.

If people choose to harm themselves, they should be able to choose that, whether it be smoking, eating unhealthy or bowling. But those who choose not to be subjected to it should NOT be forced to.

This is the core of the issue.

Thanks for your reply. The purpose of the forum topic is not only to debate smoking versus non smoking. It is to ask if you were a city councilor voting on the issue, would a seperate smoking room be considered? The type of ban is what the council has to decide. Bans are written differently.

California, for example, is a statewide ban. A city ban is quite different. An example used at the Hutchinson public forum was a city ban in Bloomington. It is the most restrictive in the state. And, the representative from the Hutchinson Legion said the Bloomington Legion and VFW are closing because of the ban.

If you were a city councilor, would the possible closure of a service club change how Hutchinson's ban is written? Or, are the health benefits of a ban too compelling to consider exceptions?

Tim,

Thanks for your thoughts. What type of ban do you favor? To pass in Hutchinson, city councilors need to agree on the language of the ordinance. If you were a city councilor, would you allow a smoking room attached to a building? Would the possibility of a service club closing affect the type of ban you would support? Or, do you support a Bloomington sytle total ban because of its health benefits outlined by doctors at Hutchinson's public forum?

Smoking Ban or No Ban? I dont think it has to be as black and white as what has been being discussed. How about a "modified smoking allotment"? This would allow those businesses to have dedicated smoke free areas, so those who want to dine/shop/socialize without the smoke haze can do so. For those who enjoy the beer or cup of coffee with a smoke, they could do so as well in a seperate area. Some businesses have proposed modifications to address the air quality issue. I think the number one thing is to work with the businesses to see what they can financially do and what they feel is acceptable. I think it would be nice to have proper ventilation and to exhaust the smoke rather than myself walking up to a restaurant door to smell 10 people having their cigs as I walk into the restaurant. Just yesterday as I walked into a place 2 people were upwind from me and I had to walk through their haze. Had they been inside in a designated and ventilated area, I wouldnt have to see them shivering outside as well as smell it. Other posts talking about going to events where people smoke and say "it's a free country" as they blow smoke in your face, aren't representative of the majority of the people. Events like these should also have designated smoking sections or bleachers, so people of all sorts can go and enjoy themselves. To answer the question, if I were a councilor I would not pass the ban as proposed, but would have further discussions with businesses to see if air quality can be improved reasonably. If in the end the place serving my favorite cup of coffee, wishes to have a smoking establishment, I will either run in and run out while holding my breath, or I will quit buying their products. If they chose to have designated smoking areas with proper ventilation, then I most likely will sit down and have another cup. Either way I will respect that businesses decision.

A statewide ban would be the best option. However, until that happens (and I believe it will eventually) it is great to see more cities taking action on this.

I don't think any exceptions should be made, a separate room, for example. There tends to be so much "grey area" when there are exceptions.

We faced some of these same issues when Litchfield passed its smoking ban. One thing we did decide to do was to give bars some extra time to "phase in" to the ban.

This smoking ban is getting rediculous. I go both ways on this topic. Yes the non smokers should be able to go out and enjoy some dinner without the smoke and the smokers should be able to go have a ******tail and a smoke. It is a smokers choice to go to a smoking or non smoking facility as it is a non smokers choice to go into a smoking or non smoking facility. The part where Stotts was saying his daughter was forced into working in a smoking facility is rediculous. It was her choice to put that application in at that business, it wasn't the business asking for her to work there. Remember you have a choice where to go and where to work so leave it alone and let the businesses make the choice. Hennepin counties smoking ban is not as good as it sounds, businesses have shut their doors because most of their bar business was from the smokers. Sales are down in the businesses that most of their business was bar sales, like Lamplighter. Why would the city want to run more business out of this town. If this passed as a city ban Lamplighter will hurt the most. Just looking at the statistics from Hennepin county. The non-smokers from the board meeting are talking about how it won't hurt these businesses, is that a gaurantee? NO... This needs to be county wide but even better would be state wide, because if this passes at city level the smokers are going to drive a few extra minutes to Biscay or Cedar Mills driving there sales up and Hutchinson's down. Let Gail build his smoking room at the Bowling Alley. At least it's something that is going to work, the non smokers would appreciate seeing that at least there is an area for the smokers, keeping the second hand smoke down to very little or even none. I don't think the non smokers would have an issue with that. Hennepin county businesses were able to build patios for outdoor seating, giving the smokers a right to smoke while dining at that business as the non smokers previously recieved the right to ban smoking inside the building. Out door seating was designed for the smokers dining them an area to eat. This helped those businesses affected by the ban. I also think that this ban should not affect the private clubs/organizations like the Elk, Legions, or VFW's These are the people who fought for our county, so let them enjoy their clubs. Leave them alone and let them make the choice if their building needs to be smoke free or not. Another big issue I have with this smoking ban is the CITY LIQOUR STORE. WHY THE HECK ARE YOU PUSHING THIS SMOKE FREE ISSUE WHEN YOU ARE SELLING CIGARS AND CIGARETTES ON YOUR CITY SHELVES? UNBELIEVABLE. If this is going to be a city matter than let the PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS CITY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE NOT THE FEW ON THE BOARD. Until it goes county/state wide just leave it alone.

Kevin, frankly, your comments about "pigtail Suzie" astonish me. Comparing the atmosphere of a Grateful Dead concert to that of a demolition derby show your ignorance on this subject. What about an outdoor baseball game? It's happened there, too. When you say "places of that type" what are you referring to? Could you provide me a list of places I could safely take my son, places where we could be assured of not having to deal with this? Maybe I am ignorant, but I didn't realize the commonality between Pink Floyd concerts, demolition derbys and ball games, not to mention many business entrances. Have you not read the research (especially recently) about the dangers of secondhand smoke? Let me ask you this: do you have health insurance benefits through your employer? Do you realize the the effect smokers have on our health insurance premiums? If the side effects were a just a headache (like you get from perfume) I wouldn't be complaining about this. Educate yourself, please, before you make comments like you did.

Back to the ban

Thanks to everyone who is responding to this forum. Please remember this forum is not just about smoking. It is more about how you would handle the specific ban in front of Hutchinson's city councilors.

Bans are written differently in McLeod County, Meeker County, the proposed city ban in Hutchinson, Mankato, Bloomington, etc.

If you were a city councilor, would you pass the ban as proposed including all businesses? Councilors heard from one business person who would remove smoking from his business, but attach a smoking room. Would you allow it?

Are the health benefits too great great to allow exceptions?

There are no bans that are ok when you are considering banning something that is legal to buy and use.

Bird10, thank you for making a point to read the editorial I wrote in 2004. I worked very hard finding all of the statistics that you read. The problem is that people still say I am not telling the truth when I cited specific court cases and statistics that show that ETS is not as harmful as all of the "experts" like to think.

To those who don't think that my business will go down if there is a ban, I can't wait to see each and every one of you down at the establishment I represent. I sit in the forums and meetings and have yet to see a single person on the side of the ban come down to my establishment to see what we have done differently. We give so much to this city and the city council, the hospital, and the non-profit bullies are very willing to take it all away.

This ban is wrong. The city of Hutchinson is willing to let our business go elsewhere, and they dont care because the city owned liquor store will gain huge profits with this ban. It makes me sick that they push this issue to the county, then try to come in like heroes and say that the county didn't do a good enough job. It makes me sick that they are doing it just after an election because they know they probably would have had a tough time getting re-elected if they had done it before. It makes me sick that they do it when Kay Peterson was ill and she is the only one against the ban.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Shame on you, city council, for even thinking of taking my business away.

I have disturbing feelings about this ban. I've been smoking for years, and I've tried to quit often. I've survived a brain aneurysm, chronic headaches and seizures. I look forward to coffee and cigarettes every morning. I finally got everything under control ~ and then I heard about the smoking ban. The bars are where I get together with my friends and relatives. We laugh and enjoy each other totally. My dear friend's son is manager at one of the bars. When I last saw him I shook his hand and said "it's been nice knowing you". He said he's heard that a lot. No more getting together there is like the end of a tradition. Now our plans are to travel. Fortunately, my husband doesn't drink so he can drive. But, having to change our routine at this point in our life is a little ridiculous. My social membership to the local golf club is done. My interest in the new bar approaching soon is none. I have to quit smoking in order to abide by this ban ~ but then so do all my friends and relatives. Who on the City Council has the ability to "poof" our smoking urge away?

For one I have to say thank you to all of the posts. I have enjoyed reading them, and seeing the different opinions. As my name says I am opinionated, especially about this one. I will add that I am a smoker, so this may seem a little bias, as well as most other's comments. I'm sorry I also will argue the smoking first. I am one that when I go into an establishment to eat, I have NO problem not smoking. My favorite resturant is King's Wok, and anyone that has gone in there, it is smoke free. Yet besides that, during school my friends and I go in for their lunch buffet (I will also add that my friends also are smokers). Therefore, when it comes to eating out, the ban does not bother me one bit. What starts to get to me is people are trying to interfer with my weekend night fun. Lamplighter is my favorite bar. They have great food, they mix the best drinks in the area, and their staff are hard to come by. Although I do love it there, I also love to smoke while I drink. By the time that this starts to happen, I will add, there are no children in the bar. (I do not agree with smoking around children as they are still developing) So when it comes to this smoking ban, I think it is wrong.

To add to this if I was a council member, I would be ashamed of myself. They did that phone survey, and as a town member, I had recieved a call. After telling me that it was a survey, they asked if I smoked. I of course said yes, I was then hung up on. I talked to others who either had the same thing happen or where not directly asked if they were for or against the ban. I'm sorry, but that survey was bias and should not be aloud to be used in determining the outcome of the ban. I was taught in my English class about surveys, and how you need to state that the piece was bias, or not use it.
So as a council member considering this ban, I would 1)have a survey, or vote that in no way can be bias 2) figure out a way to have more of the cities voice put into the decision, and 3) MOST IMPORTANTLY I would let the indiviual business owners decide what would be best for their business.
On that note, I am sorry to the businesses that are going to be suffering, I am outraged that I am not going to be able to enjoy my favorite bar, and I am upset at how this ban has become bias (on both parts).
One more thing, how come it is that when there is one person that is rude about something (smoking, drinking, ect.) people think that all are the same way. I'm sorry that there have been rude smokers, but I can honestly say, I am not one of them! Maybe others need to be a little more open minded before saying that all smokers are as rude as some are.
Sorry if I rambled I have A LOT to say about this topic, and I'm more worked up for the fact that it is bias, and now because of the ban, smoking drinkers are being driven out of town, so that means more DUI's, drunk driving, and drunken accidents. I hope everyone stays safe on the roads after June 1st.

I think that the smoking ban is getting out of hand. It is like this is becoming you will do as I say or else, I thought that we have a democracy here, but it is more becoming a dictatorship here. Do we not have rights?? Is this fast becoming; Big Brother is Watching You? We as smokers need to speak up for ourselves!!

http://smokersclubinc.com

A smokeless environment
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how
far does
that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights?
Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an
individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any
smoking law.
What should not be included are places located in or on private
property,
providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to
frequent or
work at that specific location.

Second-hand smoke is not a significant health risk.