Interesting??!!?? part 2 wrote on Dec 14, 2006 9:38 AM:
" OK I'm now off my soap box but my point is this, if you don't want to spend your hard earned money somewhere then DON'T DO IT!! However we do not need the government sticking their nose in it, period!! RS "
Interesting??!!?? wrote on Dec 14, 2006 9:37 AM:
" Smoke smell stink, claims they won't spend thier hard earned money at businesses where they allow people to smoke. Good point, that is your right as a person to chose. Shouldn't business owners be given that right as well? In the Winona Post they also asked these same people from the survey, if smoking was banned would you go into these businesses(i.e. restaraunts, bars, etc.) 64% said they would not!!! So should a small business owner such as a bar or restaraunt owner suffer their business, simply because people want it their way or no way. If this 64% stated they would indeed spend more of their hard earned money at these establishments, this would be a win-win situation, but by not changing their spending habits all you are accomplishing is hurting the small business person who pays taxes, employs part of our citzenship, etc. etc. T.B.C... "
Smoke smell stinks wrote on Dec 13, 2006 8:22 PM:
" If smoking is allowed in a place I don't spend my money there. Recently I went in to eat at a place that allows smoking. I walked out while being seated as the place smelled so bad. I'm not paying out good money to have my clothes smell when I leave a place and not be able to enjoy the taste of the food. Smokers don't realize how bad they smell to a person that doesn't smoke. "
RFA wrote on Dec 13, 2006 8:02 PM:
" Lot more serious problems than smoking ban. Wait for the state to stop it. Really see no reason for the ban. Hell of a lot more things can kill you. "
Kevin H wrote on Dec 13, 2006 7:19 PM:
" The government has taken many, many actions to protect public health that some felt were violations against private rights. For example, seat belts in cars. Do you think automakers would have put them in if a law hadn't mandated it? How many lives has that saved?
Protecting the public health probably should be one of the main functions of government. "
Doesn't anyone remember wrote on Dec 13, 2006 3:46 PM:
" Not too long ago, CG's lounge was smoke free. Guess what! They went to a smoking bar; wonder why? I think I know why; no money in a smoke free bar. I don't smoke and if I choose to go to a bar, then I know there will be smoking, it's my choice, just the owners choice to be smoke free or not. "
idots wrote on Dec 13, 2006 12:33 PM:
" Comparing gum chewing noise to 2nd hand smoke??? Is there really someone that stupid or are they just trying to fuel the blog fire? "
Frank Schnurstein wrote on Dec 13, 2006 12:18 PM:
" What part of the warning that is on all cigarette packages not understood? If smokers have the right to smoke does that also give them the right to force people around them to breathe secondhand smoke? When used properly, cigarettes kill the smoker and harm the people around them. How many other products can claim that distinction? Seems like a No Brainer to me. I won't remain in a restaurant or other public building where people are smoking. I can spend my money where the atmosphere is healthier. "
New problems wrote on Dec 13, 2006 11:24 AM:
" I went to college in Winona but live in Minneapolis now, where smoking was banned in 2005. I'm a smoker, but it's not a huge deal to step outside. Kind of annoying, though, to come back inside and find that your table has been taken b/c you stepped outside to smoke. I could see it causing problems in downtown Winona with all the college kids smoking on the sidewalks outside the bars. More sidewalk traffic, fights, etc. Good luck with that, Winona County! "
Kevin H wrote on Dec 13, 2006 11:00 AM:
" I find it interesting that some people are complaining that their right to smoke in a "public" place may be taken away while others complain that a "private" business should be able to do what it wants.
So, which is it? "
Big Govt. wrote on Dec 13, 2006 10:51 AM:
" This is just another example of regression, not progression as some seem to think. You(govt.)are getting too intrusive...what's next? This trend in govt. needs to stop before Americans have as few of freedoms as most others around the world. Quit trying to make everthing and everyone perfect....or we will cease to be a democracy. "
Support the Ban wrote on Dec 13, 2006 10:22 AM:
" The arguments for "freedom/choice to smoke" or "BAN all fragrances in all fairness" is just uneducated nonsense. When is the last time millions of people died by the use of a certain hair product or perfume? Never. How many people have died from smoking, whether they smoke or not? Millions. Figure it out before you comment or before you die from one of the cancers smoking causes. "
Hey Bob wrote on Dec 13, 2006 10:12 AM:
" Does your clean indoor air act address VOCs from perfume and other fragrances? Talk about the big stink! Scented soap, lotion, laundry detergent and softener, scented hair products, then add aftersave or perfume on top of that! Then some people feel the need to bathe in it! Smell them a mile away. "
Mr. Copenhagen wrote on Dec 13, 2006 8:35 AM:
" Sorry, Joe Camel, more business for me. "
Need a state ban wrote on Dec 13, 2006 8:24 AM:
" We need a state wide smoking ban. Second hand smoke kills and it stinks! "
Mark wrote on Dec 13, 2006 8:23 AM:
" I would support a ban on smoking, 2nd hand smoke is dangerous. Some states have gone as far as banning smoking in cars if there are minors present. I don't juggle knives in front of public buildings or in restaurants (perfectly legal, perfectly dangerous), so don't expose me or anyone else who chooses not to smoke, to a dangerous activity. "
Torn wrote on Dec 13, 2006 8:02 AM:
" I don't smoke, and I would support this, but at the same time, it would be difficult because that would mean people going right outside the door of whatever place they are at and leaving the butts all over the ground, then we have a litter problem on our hands. "
non smoker wrote on Dec 13, 2006 8:01 AM:
" Why not let the business owner decide if they will allow smoking at their business or not? If their is a market for smoke free bars and such, and it looks like there is, then businesses will cater to that market. Let the free marketplace solve this problem. "
Joe Kool wrote on Dec 13, 2006 8:00 AM:
" Come on guys, if you have to smoke, YOU HAVE TO SMOKE!!!!! "
Bob from ALAMN wrote on Dec 13, 2006 7:20 AM:
" For a more informed look at clean indoor air ordinances in Minnesota, visit our site: www.alamn.org.
"
Give Me A Break wrote on Dec 13, 2006 4:54 AM:
" I'm not a smoker, but, I have a lot of friends that do. THAT is their right. Communisum is taking over this country too. So, let me get this right, it won't be legal to smoke in public places, so, are those public places going to be able to sell cigarettes? If so, isn't that kind of a double standard. Why don't they make it illegal to sell cigarettes too, and see how many of the places that don't allow smoking raise a ruckus. While your at it, how about banning alcohol, and the sale of it. Here's another one, gum, I hate listening to people chump on their gum, talk about noise pollution. I could to on and on, but I think you get my drift. "
worry about other things wrote on Dec 13, 2006 4:01 AM:
" get off it are you guys so bored with your life , "
Advertisement
