It’s still illegal for me to choose to smoke in my home (as I run a business here) according to those who claim to make the rules, but you got to love it when other businesses find their way around the loopholes in these tyrannical laws: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_fe_st/smoking_ban_loophole;_ylt=AiTnewlIu_ogB7qXBQiE2Nms0NUE
Thats funny…but an easier way would be to not smoke…
Dance for your nicotine bar monkey.
If the lawmakers want to close the loophole, they should ban poor acting.
Their acting is smokin’ hot!
Kinda like unicycling on a no-bicycling trail… cute but rude.
That is too funny. I don’t smoke, but I’d go there and smoke a cigarette or cigar just to stick it to the man. 
I’m all for businesses choosing to be smoke free. I’m all for fewer people smoking and getting addicted to cigarettes. I can agree that less smoking around children is better than more smoking around children. But the trend of anti-smoking legislation is fundamentally and philosophically wrong IMHO.
Its going to be imposible to be addicted in a few years cause of the prices.
Its like 7 bucks a pack here.
Many smokers smoke like 2 packs a day.
Thats 98 bucks a week.
Thats 294 a month.
Thats 3528 bucks a year.
Crazy shit.
Whoa! I forgot to factor in that bit. I’d have to buy a single cigarette from somebody for a dollar.
Sin taxes against a minority of people are a bad thing for a democracy to do. It’s too easy for the majority to stick it to those sinners and generate some revenue. You can smile about it till the government sets its eyes on some minority activity that you enjoy and decides to sin tax it.
I can buy illegal smokes cheaper than from a store…
But that’s an awesome way to stick it to the man!! I’d totally do that!
Or you can buy your own paper,a tub of tabacco and a cigarette making machine and make a pack for $2. A lot of kids did this when I was in college. They were too poor to buy an expensive pack. It probably tastes worse than the big names, but it was cheap and they still got to smoke.
true…
Good to see that political theater isn’t dead.
No filter though, you die that must faster.
The ban, as I understand it, is for the food service workers who have to choose between smoky bar, smoky resteraunt, and smoky diner if they want to support their family. There aren’t enough non-smoking establishments to support all the workers who don’t want second hand smoke exposure- some of them HAVE to work in a smoky establishment. They don’t have a choice.
So the question is, what is more wrong - forcing people with a career in food service to expose themselves to dangerous second hand smoke every day, or forcing the smokers to smoke somewhere else.
I don’t know where I stand on this - but it’s not a black and white issue. The employees can’t just go somewhere else.
When they entered that industry, they knew what the environment was and yes, there are many careers that require a similar skillset level that do not include such an environment. Further, before the ban went into effect here in MN, there was no shortage of establishments that were non-smoking.
The nanny state thinks they are supposed to protect your from making decisions on your own about what’s best for you.
I’m anti-smoking (2 siblings have died of lung-cancer, both smokers), but I got to admit that’s some nifty thinking 