Smoking hurts everyone

haight and those against this- time will tell AND THE MAJORITY WILL WIN.

http://www.nbc15.com/polls?pollID=193294...

as do I, lynda. I watched my father die because of lung cancer. One would wonder why/how I would smoke knowing how it affected my family in such a horrible, painful way.

Addiction is bizarre. It allows one to minimize the affects, justify one's behavior and make promises that one cannot live up to ("I'll quit tomorrow"). I was insensitive to joke about going out to buy more cigarettes, but the reality is: I'm not quite ready to quit yet. Don't ask me why. I have asked myself the same question many many times.

lynda, sorry for not sounding serious in my recent posts. I understand the full meaning of your post.

tjncj and Zoom, sorry, I got mixed up on who wrote what.

Yes, tjncj, it was gripping. I was reminded of my own experience. Take the next "1000".

Novecientos noventa y tres.

Zoom, tjncj, had 1000. But alright, novecientos noventa y dos.

lynda, a very valuble post, thanks.

I have been smoke free now for about 14 years and still have health problems because of the years of smoking. I really hope that a complete ban will someday be in effect for all of us. I watched someone very close to me die from this insidious drug and it was pretty sad as their last breath was one of misery. It's all so meaningless and preventable.

Zoom, I intentionally made post # 1000 on topic, telling in gripping detail my only smoking experience. 990.

The last 15 posts (including mine) are off topic, and shouldn't count. I'm rolling back the meter.

988

YES!

Good work, sassy and tjncj. I think trey is French.

I smoked a cigarette once. It made me cough.

I don't think it is. Maybe it should have been "tres" or just plain old three.

Is trey Latin?

no habla espanol.

Estoy seguro que un día no voy a fumar. No estoy seguro de que aún si será porque dejé o porque mató a mí.

Novecientos noventa y siete

For others like me, because I am confident that others are STILL reading this blog...ha! I said:

I'm sure one day I will not smoke. I'm not sure yet if that will be because I quit or because they killed me.

Nine hundred ninety-seven

Courtesy of: http://www.google.com/translate_t

sassy, maybe someday you won't smoke.

novecientos noventa y seis

I do not want to see this blog die out, even though nearly everything that can be said on the issue has been.

That said, I just got back from buying another very expensive pack of cigarettes, which I will probably smoke. *sigh*

995. :)

LOL,tjntj.

If staff doesn't shut down this very important smoking ban blog at 999, I will not do post 1000: I don't think I'll be able to stand the excitement.

novecientos noventa y cuatro

Novem centum nonaginta trey

I think the mentions of the stinky stuff were the problems. Only tolerable on the other blogs.

Novecientos noventa y dos.

hey! I was only censored two times on gazettextra! maybe three, but who's counting?

oh yeah, NVgrf is. :D

Let me know if Guinness will consider it, cuz I think I have been fairly tame compared to many here...but that's just me.

I didn't read any of these comments. I just tuned in to see how many times ms sassy gets censored. Three more and I'm calling Guinness!

tjncj, you are one smart cookie! I had to check though, to make sure you had all of the X's and V's in the right places....(you do!)

Are you from Rome?

Or at least Italy? LOL

989, btw

CMLXXXVIII

For me no smoking would be great. I have asthma and when it kicks up any amount of tobacco smoke makes next to impossible to breathe. I don't want to take smoker's rights away, but I would like my rights to be able to go places that I can't go now. Smokers CAN live without smoking for a bit, but I CAN'T live without breathing. I just had to leave my job because even though the staff and residents smoked outside, they smoked just outside the doors and the smoke would all come back into the building. My asthma kicked in and I have not been able to work for just over a month. Management would not do anything about it. No one would even go faher away from the doors to smoke either. I have coughed so much and so hard that I have re-injured a rib that I broke in an accident in January. I have to lose my income, take extra meds, and cough for a month.Is that fair? I take my meds as prescribed and do everything I am supposed to do to try to avoid asthma issues. Why does it have to be such an issue for smokers to give it up for a little while when they go out? California and some parts of Colorado were great! No smoking in public places and these places had lots of business. Smokers have their right to smoke, but people like me have a right to breathe and be able to go out also.

please accept my sincere apology to the gazette staff and anyone commenting whom I offended with my language...

and possibly my last comment on this article: with any right there is a responsibility. As an occasional smoker, I feel it is my responsibility to make the environment of the non-smoker as clean as possible. After all, I am the one who is choosing to smoke, therefore, it is also my responsibility to reduce the interference of my smoking on others. I think it has to do with manners as much as anything else.

Ya, and so is the whole, "Oh my god, I'm going to get cancer for sure if I inhale a bit of smoke." And smokers have "modified their behavior" yet people still bitch. Hell, we can't even go to certain bars anymore. Isn't that what a bar is for? Smoking and drinking? And I say we lock you in your house for a long period of time, let's see how you do.

Yes, cars pollute. I think driving them indoors has already been banned.

The law won't require people to quit smoking, just modify their behavior. The idea that people will turn into "unsocial psychopaths" is a little dramatic.

LOL..only if you wanted to, gazettefan...only if you wanted to. don't forget about the beads and incense though, too, if you're going the guru route. can't have one without the others, can ya?

Would I have to get a guru?

Nine hundred and seventy eight

977

and good one jsvlparkergrad!

(however, technically, I believe this is a count UP, but who on the gazettextra.com gets technical?!)

Ok, wis1031, let me see if I have your logic straight:

By REMOVING harmful toxic fumes from confined public places, we will all somehow end up herded into confined secret places for the specific purpose of being murdered by the RELEASE of toxic fumes.

I'm Casey Kasem, now on with the countdown.

Ahhhhh, just got back to my house from downtown Toronto. What a gorgeous day!

Especially enjoyed all the non-smoking places, bars included.

Yep, saw that box car go by....oh, WAIT! It was a streetcar, and everyone was smiling and having a good time (must be the pot they are able to smoke legally here)!

I think it is time to take the money away from the bars , bowling alley's, and restaurants they don't need that money from there 25 to 40 percent of there customers. After this we should outlaw 1person in a car and the amount of children you can have. You idiots don't realize its not a health matter its a private citizen issue. Go ahead and give up your rights (until it is something legal you want to do).Change the laws and then we can all go quietly on the box cars.

972

Hey, tjncj, do you think cyberspace grows on trees?! ;)

970

Studies have revealed that cigarette smoke mixed with the interior smell of a new car is especially toxic.

That's right Hannah.

And Zoom, coffeman's not fooling anyone. He's knows this train's been in station long enough.

ALL ABOARD!!!

Coffeeman,
If you didn't want the discussion to continue, why did you comment two days after the post before yours?

coffeman- it just isnt smokers against non smokers. As I mentioned my husband smokes and he would prefer no smoking in all public places. cause the cloud of smoke that is in a bar cannot be handled by their air systems. Just cause someone smokes doesnt mean they want the WHOLE bars smoke on them

The beatings will continue until moral improves.

Why is this discussion even being allowed to go on? Other discussions are pulled right away even though they are popular. I think 936 comments just about covers it all and it will always be smokers against non-smokers. Remove this blog please!!!!!! There is no other ways to present your arguments differently than what has already been stated.

good point gazettefan on the health code issue and "the rights"

crazycatlady- if you have read this whole forum yould see we already debated this agrument. you shouldnt have a right to smoke in a public place that you eat in. BAD AIR QUALITY. I am still suprised they dont use this agrument for taverns. they cook food in there is should eb against health code to polute the air with cigarette smoke IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE. and if YOU dont like YOU dont have to go in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I enjoyed several of the no-smoking venues in Madison yesterday. It's only a matter of time, Janesville.

justthe..., logic from the anti-banners?! That's a laugh!!!

If Haeight is your champion, you should give his posts a good read. Logic and clarity are grossly absent.

crazycatlady, tells us how eager you would be to eat in a restaurant that was exempt form health codes.

Health codes are government imposed requirements for the purose of assuring healthy conditions in privately owned businesses patronized by the public.

OK here's how I see it. Smoking cigarettes is legal, it's not good for you but it is legal. Eating at McDonald's is legal, it's not good for you but it is legal. You own your own business, it is YOUR business, it does not belong to the government, it does not belong to the people, it belongs to you. What gives anyone the right to tell you what you can & cannot do in your own business as long as it is legal. So just make it a law that if you allow smoking in your establishment that has to be made known in any advertising that you do & a sign has to be posted on the door that clearly states this is a smoking establishment, then if you don't want to go there guess what you don't have to. But the choice should be up to the business owner, not the government or anyone else.

justthefacts,
In none of my posts did I "defend" hannah or gazettefan, nor did I have to. You, on the other hand, felt the need to "defend" haeight all the way back on post #16!

Feb 6, 2008 at 2:02 p.m.
"Haeight said: "While lining up countless non mokers I know that think its wrong to live in a dictatorship."
This non-smokers still with ya Haeight!"

What are we, back in grade school?

Well, just...., it was dead until you came along. Maybe now Haeight will come out of the Bat Cave.

The Tavern League interferred with the ban for the purpose of lining the pockets of the bar owners near the Illinois and Minnesota statelines. That will end.

Seriously...your still going on about this? If you actually reveiw the posts for their context, it appears Haeght and the anti-banners won this "debate" long ago (at least they presented a more logically consistant argument). Oh, and in case you haven't noticed the ban is benched for the meantime at least. I quit participating in this blog 2 month's ago because nothing new was being added to it. Haeght would state some facts...gazzettefan would say he was off topic, hannah would chime in with a quirky little chirp here and there, and zoom would be there to defend the latter two. The only thing that has changed is that each side has managed to round up a couple individuals into their respective "posse". Do you really think your going to change each others minds at this point? Isn't there another post we can beat to death by arguing in a futile manner?

The toxicities of pot and tobacco are one and the same problem. There's no getting around it.

"Our whole society is based off that concept of standing on the poorer."

...I LOL'd

"...me first and screw all others..." is exactly what a smoker is saying when he lights up in a public place.

I haven't worn blinders in years. Its sad the majority of people in society are so self absorbed they wish to bend all aspects of that society to their will. This is the inherent janesville attitude I spoke of the attitude of entitlement. The me first and screw all others aspect of the daily life, the lets pull out in front of traffic because there is just barely enough room for them to hit me in the rear end and have it be their fault.

The overall absence of empathy to anyones wishes beyond their own. I have freely admitted The only place I care about enjoying a cigarette is at a bar. I even offered multiple solutions to drive a dominate smoke free tavern enviroment. But alas you care not.

Like every person in our country I pollute, but so do you. You could at least demonstrate you have read some of the information posted through out this conversation. Instead of trying to get a rise out of the rest of the smoke free lackeys.

Being so wrapped up into the issue you all would do well to pull the blinders off and view the precipice your smoke free bill sits upon. I have shown multiple avenues it could be constitutionally attacked. In order to establish smoking only places of business. You can lead a horse to water...

thekid..., you and Haeight are two of a kind when it comes to polluting the air.

That's right Haeight, you're not looking at the big picture.

haight you keep mentioning the NONSMokers. their are some SMOKERS on this blog that are fine and would prefer no smoking bar. maybe you should reread(aloud if it helps you)

I granted to thekid... that pot smoking might be legalized for home use but I'm not entirely comfortable with that. How are the toxic fumes to be kept out of the nostrils of children and pets?

Going after industrial pollution doesn't preclude going after tobacco pollution.

What?!!!

There is that classic janesville attitude I have come to know. We already have it screw the rest of the state.

Since when is it wrong to use free market economics to a companies advantage or even for personal gain? Our whole society is based off that concept of standing on the poorer.

I think Zoom mentioned this earlier: The Tavern League is just exerting a devious plan to fatten the wallets of Wisconsin bar owners on the Minneapolis and Illinois borders. They are showing great insensitivety toward bar owners in those states.

I agree with going for a complete ban, because we already have smoke free restaurants in Janesville, and most other businesses are smart enough to have a smoke free environment in their public spaces (hospital campuses, etc.). Why would the taverns need a year to figure out how to put up a "no smoking" sign? Oh yes, so the taverns on the borders with Illinois and Minnesota can take advantage of the smokers that will travel from their non-smoking states. Thank you Wisconsin Tavern League for making Wisconsin the ashtray of the midwest.

See your looking at that wrong zoom and every other self righteous non smoker, things get done when you deal with single specific issues.

You could have smoke free restaurants already you could have everything but smoke free taverns already.

Problem is that your so bent on controlling every aspect of life that you lumped it all together and you got got.

The work is mostly done. Now all the legislature needs is an opportunity to vote on the bill, which the Wisconsin Tavern League has managed to block.

The smoking ban doesn't have to be stopped in order to work on other pollution issues. If we only worked on one problem at a time, nothing would get done.

moonpuppy....take out the words "smoking, smokers" in your last post, and substitute the words "corporate/industrial pollution, polluter's".
.
Now THAT'S something we should really be concerned about. Let's get our priorities straight.

Smoking should be banned from all public places including outdoor public places...there are many people who are trying hard to keep in good health and smoking destroys the body and stinks horribly.
I won't go to public places that allow smoking. I am also forced to keep my windows closed when it is nice outside because of the smokers in my neighborhood who won't smoke in their house, instead they take it outside and the smoke blows directly in mine.
Non-smokers rights need to be protected just as much as smokers rights!

gazette fan you should add your last commment to the POT blog. exect it is so good for you you know

Even if pot is legalized, it will be banned in the same places that tobacco smoke is banned. Most likely, pot smoking would be confined to a person's home.

Aside from the obvious dangers of pot smoke, its fumes are highly toxic.

Oh just saw your question about William Shatner. From what I can see, his wife was an alcoholic and drug abuser. She apparently fell in their pool while intoxicated and drowned. Apparently he was not investigated and it was ruled an accident/possible suicide.

jsvlparkergrad, my last post came from surfing around and looking at the positive effects from smoking bans in the U.S.:

"People experience improved health where smoking bans are in place. For example, the rate of heart attacks drop significantly. This is true across the board where bans are in place."

You brought up something I've wondered about for some time, American veterans in Canada. Is it exclusively Americans or does it include Canadians too? Let me know here or by way of GazetteXtra's email service.

gazettefan:
Sorry I can't find any stats on that yet, since the ban has only been in effect for about 2 years.
One positive thing I have seen happen is with the veteran's association I belong to here. I play in the cribbage league for my vets' club and see that there are a few members who are on oxygen can come out and resume playing cards at the various vet clubs. And others have commented how nice it is to not have put up with the second-hand smoke. We take breaks while playing, and allow time for anyone who wants a smoke to go outside and light up. The only time I heard a complaint was from one guy who wished he didn't have to go outside to smoke, because that evening the temperature and wind chill was about -35.
Overall, you will hear occasional griping about having to go outside to smoke when at a bar, but most people just take it in stride and step outside. I think that smoking has decreased slightly, and it will probably take a few years to get some good statistics about this.

Haeight-
The trigger that seems to affect my daughter the MOST is cigarette smoke..(Pulmonary hypertension is such a NASTY disease)..
But thank you for your input.. HOWEVER, I think the medical research has shown how devastating tobacco smoke is on ANY one, including but NOT limited to ALL kinds of cancers and pulmonary diseases..
Just a thought I wanted to share when someone lights up their cigarette and they can enjoy the weather with their car window down, yet my daughter can't have her car window down.. or else she can't breathe.. Nice weather, or breathe better?? Not much of a choice, now is there?
HAVE A NICE DAY!

People experience improved health where smoking bans are in place. For example, the rate of heart attacks drop significantly. This is true across the board where bans are in place.

jvslparkergrad, any info on how the general state of health has improved in Canada with the onset of smoking bans?

nice spammich...

Shatner's head should blow-up any day now. What's the buzz up there about whether or not he killed his wife?

Rush2112: Assuming you are talking about Rush Limbaugh, he's from Missouri, and I highly doubt he'd even want to set foot in Canada.
gazettefan: LMAO at your description of poutine! I will have to share that one with my buddies here!
And, no thanks, you can keep Wayne Newton and the others. Although I do have to apologize for sending William Shatner there.

One person's smoke goes into another person's face. Not so with alcohol, unless sickened by cigarette smoke a drinker vomits on the smoker.

Whenever I'm in Detroit I cross the border just to enjoy an Eskimo Pie.

I had a dream today. Where the smoking and nonsmoking people of the world could sit together in one bar with a giant vent that sucks the smoke out.

I had a dream today! That if people could wake up and realize that they're getting smashed in a bar and might possibly die from alcohol poisoning or die later in life from a bad liver, or make some stupid choice that winds them up in jail, that smoking is just a cousin to alcohol...

Next thing you know the designated drivers will want alcohol taken out of bars because they don't want to drive home and worry about a drunk driver smashing into them.(Only satire: don't take it seriously but think about it)

If you're going to ruin your health one way, I don't see how you can be so concerned about ruining it two ways...But that's how the world works I guess, everyone wants to be safe but they still want to do things that aren't. And if you think about it, smoking can take years to kill you, if you mess up and drink enough you can die in hours.

The least anyone can do is have smoking and non smoking bars maybe right next to eachother so if people who are smokers have friends who are not smokers they can walk back and forth from bar to bar and hang out. But what do I know? I'm just one person.

Smoking and drinking is bad mmmmkay.
But so is restricting freewill.

Canada brought us Rush! I love Canada.

Yes, I would consider Canada's smoke-free policies among its freedoms.

Every time I see the word "poutine", I think it's something I can get off Celine Dion's girl-cousin with just a happy hello and a couple of cheap drinks.

You can take:
Neil Diamond
Wayne Newton
and the Osmond Family, except for Marie (even though she's nuts)

parkergrad, interesting thing about that sentence:

"If you think this is a dictatorship here, move to Canada."

Even though it's grammatically correct, it can be read in two totally opposite ways.

918

917

916

Oh, by the way, gazettefan, I reread your comment about Canada being a dictatorship, and I can see that I parsed that statement rather badly. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Also, to make up for any hard feelings I may have caused, I will be sending you a heapin' helpin' of poutine :-P
Lastly, I wouldn't mind if the Tories also went to America......seeing that they are ideally closer to Bush than the other parties here (I think Stephen Harper is W's bestest friend in the whole world!).
On topic: We sure are enjoying the wonderful ambiance of our bars here....places I can actually go to now and drink a beer without it tasting like someone put a cigarette out in it.

gazettefan:
Believe me, all of Canada is extremely grateful that the US is keeping Celine Dion :-D

Then don't assume a condescending position when it comes to rights and liberties.

Don't start with the platitudes.

There are 2 sides to every coin.

Smoke-free = freedom from the toxic fumes of tobacco.

With a statement like that gazettefan it becomes apparent that you either never had a concept of freedom or lost perspective on what constitutes freedom.

Don't forget to blog from the cancer ward.

Thank you for pointing out that it is the tavern league lobbyist who are opposing this! I'm going to cash in some of my crude oil future contracts tomorrow (which are up a good 700 some odd % the last few months) and make a sizable donation to this group.
What a great cause to support!

Also, I consider smoking bans to be freedoms and not the contrary.

jsvlparkergrad, not sure if you think I said Canada is a dictatorship. I know it isn't.

In my better moments I can even forgive Canada for Ann Murray and Rich Little.

Haeight aint going nowhere till he gets this stateside thing straightened out. Then he's going up there looking for Tories!!!

Ummmm, gazettefan, Canada is not a dictatorship. Sure, there is a public smoking ban here, but, on the whole, there are more freedoms here than in America.
Besides, don't encourage Haeight to move here. We rather enjoy our freedom ;-)

There's a difference between a minority and a malignancy.

Be it a process of democracy then you would do well to remember the previous links to the constitution and how the laws were crafted. Essentially preventing the majority from removing a minorities rights/liberties, maybe you didn't read that far.

The smoking bans are the products of the democratic process. If you think this is a dictatorship here, move to Canada.

There is no persuading when your dictating.

Persueding elected officials to do the right thing is not an oxymoron. Look up the word.

That statement is an oxy moron. How do you choose if your forcing legislation upon people?

Choosing is deciding where to spend your nights out talking to every owner in every establishment you goto about going smoke free. To press the issue you have 20 of your friends show up. Then leave when they refuse.

But that will not work if your not a regular...

Freedom and the ability to exercise your rights and liberties granted to you in the constitution precludes the fact that there are places your allowed to do anything you like that is legal. Smoking falls under legal, hence its classified as a right/liberty. Meaning you can't legally remove our right/ liberty to use it in a public venue.

But you can legislate away that there are set amounts of smoking or non smoking places for the public to go. To create an area for non smokers as well as smokers... but that is just too much to handle for the smoke crazed non smoker.

We are choosing to create a healthy environment based on the circumstances and what's practical.

SO are any number of things I pointed out, including the alcohol you drink at the bar your trying to get smoking bans enacted at.

I don't see anyone trying to ban any of the other things I brought up. Some of it is either not regulated or just barely.

The universal limiting factor in all those cases I brought up is choice. Its your choice to buy a car, its yourchoice what kind of car you buy. Its your choice to drink, and cause an alcohol related accident and possibly get cancer from the damage it does to your body. Its your choice to live near an industrial area where there is increased pollution, resulted in more inhaled fine particulates among other compunds. Its your choice to live near a highway and suffer the same from vehicle emissions.

There are so many things that are choice, there is not even a whisper of banning any other legal activity. The only thing setting precedence with bans accomplishes is the removal of rights and liberties. Blindly following as a means to accomplish your goals makes you just as guilty as the next person in moving us towards a totalitarian society.

You say your rights and liberties are removed by smokers, your wrong. Where have you been legislatively banned from?

It's a health issue.

Yes the blame falls squarely on the anti- rights/ anti-liberty legislation being passed in the form of legal substance bans...

This is something the population at large fails to understand, apparently even the senator fails to grasp the concept of free market. Supply and demand dictate policy in establishments.

If not our fault you non smokers have been so blind in supporting smoking establishments causing them to flourish instead of creating more nonsmoking.

All is fair and just in a world of no choices..

Believe me, I regulary go to several bars in Chicago that are just as crowded now as they were before the Illinois ban. A woman bartender in one of those bars is a smoker and she said that she's glad there's a ban because it'll help her to quit.

A statewide smoking ban in bars has a powerful effect. Smokers accept it, they see it as a serious sign that smoking is unwanted in all public places. They adjust.

If any smokers do stop going to bars, they are at least cancelled out by non-smokers who now go to bars as a result of the smoking ban. Non-smokers who previous patronized bars before the ban now stay a little longer.

It would be big news if smoking bans really hurt the bar business; that news just isn't there. New York City and Los Angeles bars have been doing well for years with smoking bans.

This belief that smoking bans hurt the bar business is largly a knee-jerk reaction. Where there are problems, those problems are only temporary.

Again, the South Beloit situation stems from a pro-smoking lobby in Wisconsin. We should put the blame where it belongs.

Your reason to why it's hurting S. Beloit would make sense. On the same token, I'm sure Beloit bars are doing very good (from the IL business). It's dificult to say if it has hurt business in the broader IL area. No hard data is yet out on that, and just siting what some article says is only speculation.
The ban (in IL) has only been into effect since Jan 08. I'd be curious to see what many bars report the next fiscal quarter or two. My gut feeling would be that it will hurt many of them. Most smokers are pretty adament to smoke when going to a bar. My guess is that many smokers will simply stop going to those bars now that smoking is banned, and will simply have private clubs/house parties to get around the ban. Like any ban, most just find a way to get around it.

The proper change is coming about by way of the people using the government as its insturment.

You should be worried about your health re: secondhand smoke. Support the ban: improve your lot in life, come on over from the dark side.

Then make them by talking to the owners, if they are truely non smoking owners/bartenders they are more than willing to change for a large group of patrons.

On the other hand there are more smokers who own bars and more smoking bartenders. The entire time This running arguement has been going on idk how many bars I been at that over half the crowd over the course of 5-6 hours was smoking.

South Beloit.

People who don't smoke and people who shouldn't smoke made those busnesses.

If the border town bars are having trouble, it's because smokers aren't being loyal to the bar owners and the employees of those bars. Also, in the case of Beloit, the problem comes from the lobbing of a small pro-smoking group, the Tavern League.

The right to have smoke-free public places is the liberty at issue here.

There is a difference, smokers made those establishments. Like every other place you have to influence the owners to cater to your rights and liberties. Since its their rights and liberties your stepping on.

If those non smokers are coming out en masse to support the bars then there would be no issue of bordering towns losing business.

Since there is a place for smoker to go and enjoy their rights and liberties, it shows the frailty of the ban.

Its sad non smokers feel "forced" to opress groups from public places.

coast,
Thank you for your oservations. This is proof that Wisconsin will become the ashtray of the midwest without a smoking ban (Minnesota has a ban also). As the article suggests, a smoking ban will not harm businesses in the long run.

Just avoid the fact that smokers have removed my right and liberty to breath clean air in an enclosed public place.

Just avoid the fact that people want to smoke in bars then... just remove rights and liberties given to us all when this country was founded.

coast2coast, I'm not being cold about someone's business problems. But I'm in Illinois and Chicago a lot and from what I've seen and heard, the smoking ban in Illinois and in other states is not hurting the bar business.

South Beloit's situation could be an exception. That problem comes from the fact that smokers who use to smoke in bars there can just cross the stateline into Wisconsin and smoke in bars here.

The pro-smoking Tavern League here is the problem.

gazettefan:
I'm not to firmilar with the battle that is going on in WI (I'm pretty new to the area). All I am saying is that I know that in IL it has hurt many businesses there. I really don't have an opinion on the ban one way or another. If the public wants to use their elected officials to pass petty legislation, then more power to them. I'm just saying that's is easy to be against something if it doesn't effect your means of making a living; as it has many local business owners where I use to be from.

See gazettefan they have had this battle once and they are still fighting it. its called pro-life pro-choice.

Go figure which one is currently winning....

coast2coast, The South Beloit problem is caused by a PRO-SMOKING lobby in Wisconsin interfering with the statewide smoking ban.

coast2coast, the problem isn't that Illinois has a smoking ban; the problem is that Wisconsin DOESN'T have a smoking ban.

It's still being worked on here in Wisconsin; when our ban gets enacted then the playing field will be level.

On a side note; those who said that's it's all about $$$ are right on. They will never b