Brookings Banter

Minneapolis put a smoking ban into effect a couple years ago and let me tell you it is wonderful. Seeing a show at First Avenue is a whole different experience. It's almost pleasant now (if you don't think about what's on the floor.) It used to be a big hassle in the winter. You were faced with running all the way from a parking ramp without a coat or counting on dry cleaning what ever coat you did wear that night because it would stink too much to wear the next day. I eventually got an old beat up army jacket that I would generally only wear someplace that I knew was going to smell. I asked at one of the places I go to on occasion if they had been affected by the smoking ban. The waitress told me if anything she thought they had a slight upturn in business. That made sense to me as I know there are places I'll go now that I was unlikely to go to before. I recently took a friend of mine who is a big Replacements fan to have lunch at their old hangout, the C.C. Club. I never would have done that in the middle of the work day if I was going to end up smelling the way I used to before the ban.

I was in Greece a number of years ago when someone got on an elevator smoking a cigarette. I remember thinking I couldn't imagine someone in the US doing that. I suspect that 10 years from now we might think the same way about smoking in any public place.

What amazes me is how some folks (including the artist of the linked cartoon) think that a smoking ban is somehow an infringement on some basic liberty. You know, there a are million legal things, from building a campfire, to using a chainsaw, singing show tunes at the top of your lungs or masturbation, that we rightly restrict to certain times or places. Almost all of them, except maybe the show tunes, are less offensive than smoking and no one thinks it's unusual that you can't do them in a bar. Think about strippers for a second (not too long tho). That's an act that courts have found is arguably a form of artistic expression and therefore, unlike smoking, falls at least partially under first amendment free speech protections. Does anyone think the City Council oversteps it's bounds if it bans that in town? Clearly smoking is of a lesser liberty interest than speech.

And of course even speech is regulated in this country. Constitutional law recognizes a whole truckload of what are called "time, place, and manner" restrictions. Even political speech, the most zealously protected speech, is subject to such restrictions. If you don't believe me crank up Rush (the right-wing blowhard, not the band) NPR, or Air America Radio on the stereo at 3 AM and see if the cops show up.

"I as a Member of the City Council can not tell a person what do to with their body or tell a business how to operate. " Come on Tim, you do it all the time. With bars and restaurants you tell them where they can operate, when they close, how many people they can serve. You even tell them where to buy their booze (from the city of course.) Heck they come to you to even be allowed to exist. If someone wanted to sell beer to the public right out of his own living-room, would you let him? Of course not. Yet you're telling him what he can do in the privacy of his very own home. If you can do that surely you can tell him he can't expose other people to his smoke in a public building. By the way, is smoking banned in city council meeting? Why should you get cleaner air at your job than a bartender or waitress gets at theirs?

Stand your ground, Tim - just because government restricts a ton of freedoms already is not an argument to restrict more.

sounds strange, but I don't know that we need to make masturbating in a bar illegal. I wouldn't frequent any bar that allowed it, and neither would anyone else who found it offensive. If someone wants to open a bar that caters to public masturbators, why should it be illegal? Let the market decide.

And the staff (who are not forced to work there) could wear protective clothing (just as they currently could wear a respirator).

Jambo,

I personally agree that a smoking ban would be great. It is my understanding that Hennipen county establishments saw an increase in business with the ban and that helped the passing of a state wide ban. The next time you are back in town the first place I will recomend to meet is smoke free.

Smoking will be banned in bars overtime. Either the market or "I know what is best for you elected officials" will force smoke free. I agree we will look back and wonder why it was done sooner.

The place we are talking about is a bar. If you don't like the smoke don't go. I will continue to regulate safety in bars and make sure nobody is hurt, I'm leaving self pleasing comments alone.

To your point of someone that works there shouldn't have to put up with smoke. You got a 1/2 point, but as tight as the labor market is in Brookings, a smoke free bar could be seen as a recruitment tool, just like pay, time off, and health insurance. Let the free market roll!

A pocket full of farts for Slats (while he is kissing his companion if possible). A smoking ban would be great. Many people avoid public gathering spots because of smoking. Frankly though I really don't think a ban is needed: when a bar has several customers and none of them are smoking, no one but a clod would light up. Unfortunately we have many clods who do not have the common decency to consider the impact of their personal actions on others.