Eden Prairie backs away from widespread smoking ban

startribune.com ^ | 2 October 2002 | Josephine Marcotty

[SheLion]

The Eden Prairie City Council Tuesday decided against a broad smoking ban after a highly charged community debate evolved from what was good for its citizens to what was good for its businesses.

The council instead proposed a resolution that would support a smoking ban in city-owned property and public spaces, encourage voluntary smoking bans in businesses and form a task force to develop ideas that stop short of regulating businesses.

[SheLion]

Wow! What a breath of fresh air!

[SheLion]

PUFF

[ChicagahAl]

"but she blamed her disease on second-hand smoke." And she knew this how?

[SheLion]

"but she blamed her disease on second-hand smoke." And she knew this how?

MY thoughts exactly! She's just "blowing smoke!" hehe

[Bob Mc]

In what she described as an "odd, strange twist of logic," Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, a strong supporter of an ordinance to ban smoking in all indoor public spaces, said she would vote against such a ban. "

Typical liberal. They have somehow re-defined "public" property. "Public" property is property owned by the taxpaying citizens, such as court houses, mayor's office, city streets and sidewalks. Private businesses and homes are NOT "PUBLIC" PROPERTY. They are private.

Do-gooders often fall for this trap about "public" property, and get dragged along in support of destroying private property rights, as they push the governments to enact these morality laws (it's all for our own good you know).

[Great Dane]

All the council members said the debate had became emotionally charged and sometimes ugly. Council Member Jan Mosman said that mailings sent to citizens were full of misinformation about the consequences of a ban on business.

I don't think so, just look to Ottawa.

[Gabz]

"We've been working for years to get businesses to go smoke free," she she said. She said two-thirds of Minnesota employees work in smoke-free environments, but an estimated 800,000, many in the hospitality industry, are not protected.

Obviously they have been unsuccessful. Did they ever think that the MAJORITY of those in the hospitality industry have CHOSEN to work there????

Could someone please tellme WHAT is wrong with people like this??????????

No one is forced into a bar or restaurant and no one is FORCED to take a job in such.

If you don't like tobacco smoke eat somewhere else or talk to the owner about it. And to be honest the wages at the local fast-food joint are a lot higher than in main stream restaurants, so if you don't like smoke, don't look for a job in place that permits it.

[KS Flyover]

[maxwell]

If you don't like tobacco smoke eat somewhere else or talk to the owner about it.

Ahhhh-- but there's the rub, chick... That makes perfect and reasonable sense to you and me, but in this Age of Entitlement, folks have the "right" to NOT be offended anywhere anytime, didn't ya know that? [snortle]

I was in a bar with some of my running club buds last night-- one of the few in town that lets ya smoke anywhere in the place... (Well except for one or two token tables in the corner. But that's only during the day.) Running club doesn't like "Paul's" because it's "too smoky" so it ain't their first choice, but it's first on my list for dinner or whathaveyou JUST BECAUSE of its nonrestrictions on lighting up. Everybody knows why *I* vote for Paul's-- I support smoking establishments. ;)
Dude next to me was givin' me hell about lighting up-- it was pretty crowded-- I said, Dude, this is a f---ing bar. You don't like it, go down to that faggoty martini place down the street. He saw my point.

I will say this for the running club though, they don't like the smoke so they generally stay out, exercising their right not to go into a place that they don't dig the atmosphere. So far I have not heard any moves toward anti-smoking activism or anything, which is good-- most of 'em recognize it's a lifestyle choice, and I try to be considerate as far as lighting up around 'em so it goes both ways...

[Gabz]

Ahhhh-- but there's the rub, chick... That makes perfect and reasonable sense to you and me, but in this Age of Entitlement, folks have the "right" to NOT be offended anywhere anytime, didn't ya know that? [snortle]

Yeah, RIGHT!!!!!

I was in my local place yesterday to speak with the owner, have a beer and play some trivia Everything was going along fine. A couple more folks came in and all of a sudden I started having a sneezing fit, I could not stop sneezing, to the point dsome of my friends were starting to get concerned, including one of the guys who had just walked in.

Should I have demanded the guy who came in wearing the cologne that set off my sneezing leave or take a shower? Because it was his cologne that set off my sneezing. I can walk into the most smoke-filled bar you can find and if there is one person in the place wearing Stetson or Lady Stetson colgne, I will know it within 30 seconds, even if they are at the opposite end of the establishment, and that's what he was wearing.

I said my good-byes and left. He offered to leave and I thought that was ridiculous. I've known him for years and he is a non-smoker. I asked him if he would expect me to put out my cigarette or leave because it irritated him. He said no, that would be crazy, because he knew there would be smoking. I said same thing - his cologne irritated me, but it was not my place to tell him not to wear it.

The nico-nazis have no clue about getting along with people.