Lake Geneva snuffs out smoking ban

Bad breath, yellow fingers, and premature aging.

Lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease.

At 7 dollars a day for cancer sticks, and with the potential for earning 5 percent interest on that money, a smoker is throwing away $153,300 over the span of forty years!

Of course, early death from lung cancer, emphysema, or heart disease will reduced the amount of lost money!

Thanks for the info, crazycatlady. That would be $25,550 in ten years!!! Or over $100,000 in forty years -at current prices. Wow!

Gfan it's obvious you never buy cigarettes, your numbers are way low. I finally kicked a couple of months ago but just noticed the other day that the brand I used to smoke is up to $7.00/pack. At a pack a day I will save $2555.00 in a year alone. And as the taxes keep going up every year in 10 years who can even imagine! P. S. though even as a new non-smoker I still feel it should be up to the business owner. They should definitely be made to put in all their advertising & on the doors whether it is a smoking or smokefree environment & people can make their own decision as to whether or not to enter. IMO.

Of course the sooner you die from smoking, the less money you will lose from buying the smokes.

All you smokers should lose the cancer sticks. In money alone, they're costing you about $1,600 a year or $16,000 every ten years!

- You ask what happened to our freedom of choice.
We don't (and shouldn’t) have UNLIMITED freedom of choice in this country, the existence of limitations extends to bar owners. I can't CHOOSE to build a bar with asbestos-covered walls and staff it with illegal, 5-year old Mexican children or call rubbing alcohol vodka and serve it to people or run bar that stores hamburger patties at room temperature on a dirty floor. Why is this alleged freedom of choice an issue when it comes to allowing smoking but not building codes, health codes, laws regarding employment, etc.?
- If you feel that our government is taking too active of a role in our lives; that would be a move toward authoritarianism, not necessary socialism. The government doesn't allow me to sell another person's intellectual property as my own, an obviously capitalistic policy and an intrusion into my absolute "freedom of choice." By your standard of increasing government influence in my life, however, this capitalist practice is somehow socialist (anti-capitalist).
If we are to accept, for argument’s sake, that the government is becoming more authoritarian, then I would still have to ask why you can accept health codes, building codes, OSHA regulations, alcohol licensing and other such regulations but not smoking bans. Why is it smoking bans that suddenly move us from acceptable government intervention to authoritarianism (what you call socialism)?
- I think it is great to allow people to choose where they patronize; a smoking ban will not change that. A smoking ban will simply make the workplace of bartenders, waitresses, musicians, law enforcement, and many other workers a safer place to breath. As an additional benefit, those concerned about their long-term health or with conditions exacerbated by irritants such as cigarette smoke will be more likely to patronize bars.
- I don't see how a discussion about privacy would relate to smoking bans, which would affect public businesses.
- While it is possible that the government will try to ban smoking in private residences if it bans it in bars, I doubt that such a slippery slope argument is reasonable. A smoking ban in bars seeks to make a workplace safer and as a beneficial side-effect, hopefully reduce the exposure of the public to second hand smoke. I for one would be against a blanket smoking ban in private residences.
- The issue of an act being illegal implying that business owners should be allowed to permit that act in their business if they choose has come up several times before. But there are PLENTY of activities that are legal in some settings but not in bars. Sexual acts between consenting adults, discharging firearms, carrying a firearm, and selling whole, unopened bottles of liquor are just a few activities that are legal in some settings but not in bars. Are you against those bans or is it only smoking that you consider above regulation?

Freedom to choose by way of government control isn't really a freedom of choice.

When you're in a bar after the smoking ban passes you can exercise your right to choose by either not smoking or going outside to light up the cancer stick.

What happened to our freedom to choose? We are becoming socialist because the government is telling us how to choose. Why is it such a disgrace to have people choose where they want to patronize? What exactly is private anymore? Soon the government will come into our homes and not allow smoking in our own homes. In the name of safety. Be careful what you wish for. As long as smoking is a LEGAL activity it should be the business owners decision to allow it or not.

Actually, socialism is the government controlling the production and distribution of goods. Making bars a safer workplace has nothing to do with the government telling a business how many widgets of each type they must make and/or who they must sell them to at what price.
As I suspected, you glossed over my question. We already take away lots of business decisions from bar owners. You aren't, however, arguing that our current set of limitations on bar owner decisions is "socialism". This suggests that you might be willing to accept our current level of limitations. I simply ask what makes smoking different? Why can we limit the use of asbestos in bars but not cigarettes?
Why does the current set of limitations not represent "socialism" but adding a smoking ban is the thing that suddenly moves us into "socialism?"

It's all about government control.

Socialism is the government telling us how to run our businesses. How to run our lives. We know smoking is bad. We know eating to many whoppers is bad. This is just the start. You may not be a smoker or a business owner so, it really doesn't affect you now. But, once you give government a little they will take it farther and farther into our lives. Common sense has gone by the wayside. If you don't want to smell like smoke then don't go to the place that allows smoking. It's elementary my dear Watson.

Bubs, you're correct in not expecting an answer. There are none. The slippery slope whinery has hit the bottom of a slippery slope.

I'm actually kind of intrigued.
How does making one more work place safer to breath relate to the government controlling the production and/or distribution of goods or the elimination of private property?
Although I doubt I will ever get an answer, why is it unacceptable (or socialism) to ask for the air in bars to be safer but acceptable to regulate building codes, health codes, employment laws, firearm laws, hours of operation, product definitions (i.e. what is an "American Whiskey"), discrimination, etc.?

No, what's taking root is the SOCIALIZING that will take place once the smoking ban is passed.

Socialism is taking root.

The smoking ban is looking good for this year.

Maybe Hhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrffffffffffffffggggggggg cleaned itself up.

Haffargghs has been smoke free for only a few months and I can't smell stale smoke anywhere in there. Gfan that point is pointless. There are people that have smoke damage in their homes and businesses that can be clean within a few hours.

There's a reason manufacturers target kids and not adults with advertising.

whybesad, there are bars that are so filled with the remnants of smoking that they can be smoke-free for ten years and still smell like ashtrays. I suspect those two bars are like that.

GTfan are you saying that the bar that closed because his patrons could go somewhere else to have a beer and a smoke will come back because of the smoking ban? It seems that if this smoking ban was the will of the people that he would have had non-smokers coming into his bar and not having to have him close the bar. Since their are so many non-smokers that will fill the void of smokers staying home and drinking. Also, one of your links doesn't go to an article relating to a smoking ban.

Both these bars closed because nearby areas didn't have smoking bans. Therefore it was the lack of smoking bans that caused the problem.

With a statewide band, those bars can reopen.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/9276955/......

http://www.tobacco.org/news/220766.html

kid gfan has a lack of ability to answer questions. As long as the activity is legal then it should be the business owners decision in a restaurant or bar setting. If you don't like to smell like smoke when you go out and ruin your liver than go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking. It's really not that difficult.

gfan: you forgot to answer my question. If the people attempt to cause the government to ban alcohol consumption in public, will you actively participate in stopping that effort? If yes, why?

lifeisawheel as you can see from my previous posts i am a smoker but i totally agree with the smoking ban, what i don't agree with is because you chose to quit smoking that you are talking about someone's inability to stop a filthy habit, i smoke by choice i have quit twice when i was pregnant each time but i CHOOS to smoke i think that you of all people should not talk so harshly about people who smoke. i do agree it is nice to go into places and not be surrounded by smoke, i myself smoke outdoors everywhere. i don't smoke in my home, i don't smoke in my job or anywhere else. i find that ex-smokers have the rudest comments about people who do smoke and i think that is a joke

If the tavern league would benefit from such a ban then you can bet your behind that they would have already voluntarily implemented the ban.

I would bet the tavern league would benefit from such a ban, I can't wait to be able to go out to a bar without coming home smelling like someone's inability to quit a filthy habit. I used to smoke so I know what it's like, but after visiting somewhere, like Boulder, Colorado, that has such ban in place, it is heaven coming home and not feeling like a walking cancer patient.

"I know it's bad for me. I know the risks. If I choose to participate in that activity that is my choice."

The bill isn't about what YOU do to YOURSELF, it's about what YOU do to OTHERS. Your inability to understand that distinction is disturbing and trollish.

How will you oppose smoking bans?

And everyone of the questions in your last two posts have been answered many times, including the question about why there can't be smoking and non-smoking bars.

If I wanna go to a bar that allows smoking than I am making that choice to put myself and body at risk. Just like I out my body at risk when I tip that bottle of beer to my lips and drink the beer. I know it's bad for me. I know the risks. If I choose to participate in that activity that is my choice. If I choose to open a business isn't it my right to run it the way I see fit to run it? And to accompany the patrons who who spend money in my place of business? If the people that spend money in my establishment won't patronize my business because I allow smoking and I loose money from it. Your damn right I will change my business and not allow smoking.

I'll fight the smoking ban for outside tooth and nail. Doyle also proposed a tax on oil. He's a complete idiot thinking that they won't pass the tax onto us. It's all about big government and having the government telling us what is bad and what isn't. We can place this on nearly everything in society. Do we really need them to tell us how to live ourlives in every aspect. Of course there have been studies that say second hand smoke is bad. There have also been studies saying that microwaving food causes cancer to. And you gfan have never said why it is so terribly bad to have both a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar. You have NEVER answered that question. I'm all for limited Government and have great faith in people making the right choices for themselves. As long as it is a legal activity it should be the choice of the owner and the patrons to decide where they want to spend their money.

whybesad, you forgot to answer this question:

If the people attempt to cause the government to ban smoking outside, will you actively participate in stopping that effort? If not, why not?

(Your slippery-slope fear has you saying that smoking outside will be next to go after the smoking ban for bars is passed.)

Doyle just proposed a statewide smoking ban to take place two months after the new budget is passed.

Billy Wallace wasn't a smoker. But his great great great great grandchildren are chain-smoking soccer hooligans!!!

I think I shall go watch Braveheart. In the words of Sir William Wallace, FREEDOM!

"In general, business owners should not be making workplaces more dangerous than they need to be." Don't work in a dangerous work place. Problem solved. Less government = MORE FREEDOM!

i comprehend the logic behind the smoking ban. i DO have a choice to drive on a public road. i DO NOT however have the choice of being blindsided by a drunk. which is where the damage occurs from drunk driving. i DO however have the option to avoid a smoking establishment which is where the damage occurs w secondhand smoke. again...my kids dont need govt intervention to know NOT to go into a smoking establishment, but apparently you peeps do. thats to bad.

they do affect others differently. note the key word, OTHERS. secondhand smoke is annoying and if enough is inhaled may cause cancer. drunk driving however affects OTHERS more immediately than that and there is no MAY about the killing part. WILL. if your main concern is public safety then stop picking and chosing which public safety aspect to be concerned with. or at least pick the one that KILLS EVERY DAY. since most of you it seems only care about the public safety when it comes to smoking...i have a feeling that public safety isnt as much of a concern as your own personal iterest.

gfan: yer last post is silly. i NEVER said that i 'support smoking in public places'. i support FREEDOM OF CHOICE. and you can try to twist it all you want but even a FORCED decision, is still a decision and you still have the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE whether you want to enter the smokers bar or the non smokers bar. when the smoking ban passes, the smokers will have NO CHOICE and neither will the owners who made the DECISION to put their finances into providing a place of entertainment/employment.

The simplest solution is usually the best. Do we:

1) Require the <20% of the population that poisons 100% of the air in enclosed public space to step outside for a smoke?

OR

2) Limit where 80% of the population can breath clean air while working or playing in an enclosed public space with smokers?

The cost to implement #1 is zero for the business owner, while the cost for #2 is high for the +80% of the population that doesn't smoke.

"zoom: are you going to deny that they are both public safety issues??"

Of course they are public safety issues. But they effect OTHERS in different ways. Note the key word, OTHERS. The article above is about smoking, so I'm not going to debate the merits of drinking alcohol.

oops meant to put they don't have to put up with your habit

TheKid,
The only way you will get killed by drunk drivers is if you CHOOSE to be on public roads. I suppose that makes you ignorant from driving on public roads?

you could choose to move your smoke away, one of the problems is trying to make a point why people should have to endure your habit, that fact of that matter they don't have to and they have to put up with you smoking around them have the common sense to move away. you will never be able to convince people that it is okay to just smoke and cram it down people's throats literally. it is an battle that has gone on forever between smokers and non smokers and it is one that will never be won, if people want the smokers to move normally what happens if they have to move, so why not just not be ignorant and move your smoke somewhere else

thekid, to support smoking in public places is to force a decision on the non-smoker. A forced-decision is not a matter of free choice.

whybesad,
We often take away the opportunity to "let the market decide." Rather than letting people without adequate scientific or medical knowledge assess the dangers of things such as asbestos or DDT and make their opinion known through their purchases, our government took the advice of experts and banned these substances. Why is it appropriate to take away the market's power in those scenarios but not when it comes to smoking?
"Letting the market decide" is also a customer-centric view of the smoking in bars situation. It is also a safe workplace issue. In general, business owners should not be making workplaces more dangerous than they need to be. There are certain inherent dangers in working in a bar and serving alcohol to patrons. Smoking is not an integral part of serving alcohol and simply introduces toxins into the air of employees, patrons, and other workers who must spend time in bars for the convenience of the smoker who doesn't wish to quit, step outside, or not smoke for the evening.
***
TheKid,
I understand your post just fine, but as Zoom points out, it is simply a strawman (a weak, pointless one).
Smoking in an enclosed room with other people is dangerous to other people, as is drunk driving. We are simply looking for a ban on smoking in (public) enclosed rooms just as we have a ban on drunk driving. As long as people in a public place can ingest or inhale dangerous chemicals without forcing others to ingest or inhale them simply by being near them, I don't care what dangerous chemicals they ingest or inhale.
You contend that, somehow, a ban on drinking in public places is a logical progression since some people drive home drunk from such places. This is not a reasonable comparison, it is possible to drink in a public place without driving home, it is nearly impossible for a smoker to smoke near another person with the second person inhaling some of the toxins from the cigarette. A ban on drinking in public places would also likely be ineffective since people would probably still drive drunk due illegal speakeasies, drinking at private residences, or even having some drinks at home before deciding to drive somewhere. The only way you could hope to cut down on these is to reinstate Prohibition. This would likely also be ineffective but would be marginally MORE effective than a ban on drinking in public places.
Banning smoking in public places is quite different. Smokers can still go to bars, they simply have to not smoke for the evening, step outside to smoke, or quit smoking. They can also stay home. A minor inconvenience for smokers in order to protect the lungs of bar employees, other workers, and patrons seems reasonable to me.

latinmami i agree too that its uncalled for, rude, and should be illegal to force someone to inhale secondhand smoke against their will. but no offense...if im standing there smoking a cig and you CHOSE to enter the bar and stand next to me. who's the ignorant one??

or you could say stop forcing your smoking on other people and i am not saying this as a non smoker who has no clue i am a smoker, but i do not smoke anywhere indoors ever. and i don't force my habit on other people because it is my choice to pollute my body and i don't have the right to pollute others. so i think that if you choose to have a bad habit such as smoking then you should keep it to yourself. and you can say the same thing with alcohol but really that is not the topic, it is the smoking and the ban and i am all for it. smoke away from other people don't pollute their food or their area have some respect and don't be a selfish person which is part of the problem most people are only thinking of themselves and don't care what other people think and maybe if there was less of that this would be a better world to live in

zoom: are you going to deny that they are both public safety issues?? hate to spoil it but you cant say 'Public drinking only kills others if you drink and get behind the wheel'. you gotta know thats not true. most yes. but certainly not the ONLY way public drinking kills.

the ONLY way however, secondhand smoke kills, is if you CHOSE to stand next to the person smoking the tobacco. if you dont want to be exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke you simply avoid the place of business that would have it. seriously, my kids dont need govt help to figure that out. the will of the people will eventually win and even without the governtment intervention most bars would be smoke free eventually. i have no doubt. its a disgusting habit and we ALL(even smokers) know it kills. how long will the owner of quotes look at, according to hannah, a packed timeout before he realizes that smoking is not necessary for a successful business??

gfan: i cant be objective cuz i smoke pot?? how does that have any relevance to me not liking uncle sam FORCING PRIVATELY owned businesses to do something??

Yes, you people who are against smoking bans, we are talking about going into a public place licensed by the people by way of the government and not having to breath the toxic fumes emitted by others.

"there are many many dissimilarities between drunk driving and secondhand smoke. no doubt. the one GLARING similarity is that they are both public safety issues."

Your straw man argument is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Public drinking only kills others if you drink and get behind the wheel. You don't kill someone if you drink and get a ride home in a cab, a bus, or from a designated driver. The danger is from the combination of drinking (in public or private) and driving, not drinking and the public location. Drinking alcohol and smoking harm in different ways, so we have different laws. Stick to the topic. Analogies never hold up to the tests of logic.

thekid, you can't be truly objective about this because you, despite what you select to smoke, are a smoker.

biggirl, This not a religious issue, it's an health issue.

Smoking bans don't hurt businesses. The places where bans APPEAR to hurt business is a result of those businesses being near areas that have no smoking bans. Which means that it is a lack of smoking bans that hurt businesses.

Latin you could also say that if a person doesn't want to cloud themselves with smoke than they can either stay home or go to a bar that is smoke free.

If the ban was so popular you would see more bars going smokeless. Government isn't needed if the people demand it. Overtime made the choice without the government telling them what to do. That's the whole point of this. Let the free market decide. If you want to go to a bar that allows smoking then go there. If you want to go to a bar that is smoke free then spend your money there. If a business is losing money because they are allowing smoking they are going to change their business plan and go smoke free. The all mighty dollar is much more influential and cheaper than imposing a government ban. A long as it is a legal activity the government shouldn't be involved in the decision of a business owner or the consumer. I have tried to find information on the outside smoking ban in Madison. There wasn't much out there. My sister lives in Madison and she said that there were talks of an outside smoking ban there. I guess it really hasn't gotten legs yet. But, that's another point when you start banning things and getting the government involved they are going to keep pressing for more regulation.

i hope they do put the smoking ban in place, it is the best thing that has happened here in rockford and i think alot of the people who do vacation in lake geneva with their families will be happier as well. i don't think it will hurt the businesses and it is better for everyone. if you want to cloud yourself with smoke indoors than stay home.

im a bad example gfan. i let peeps smoke a cig or 2 in my car or my house. i dont fear the secondhand smoke. and being the non drinker that i am there is no way id ride with someone who has had a couple...cuz well i can drive. so there is no reality in your scenario.

i picture myself standing on the corner of main st. i can CHOSE to go into timeout or i can CHOSE to go into ?quotes?(not sure of the bar:). as a non smoker why on earth would i chose to go into quotes...unless thats where the tail leads;)?? as a responsible non tobacco smoking adult i make the obvious CHOICE to enter timeout and avoid the smoke. it really is that simple.

I don't smoke, and actually dislike being in smoking places. Nonetheless, I really think this push for a statewide smoking ban is a puritanical strain. In bars, at least, people should be allowed to smoke. The tavern owners are having enough problems as this is, and they have lost customers in areas where there has been a smoking ban. By the way, the Democrats could have passed a smoking ban years ago in our state if they would just exempt taverns. They're too puritanical -- to interested in controlling other people -- that they have refused even to offer such a bill. This all-or-nothing attitude is really unfortunate.

thekid, picture yourself (as the non-tobacco smoker you are) standing next to someone in a bar who is smoking a cigarette. Now picture yourself accepting a ride home from someone who's had a few drinks.

you should reread my post. i specifically said im not talking about banning the drug. just banning its use in public places. yet you talk about prohibition. its a lot easier to have a convo if you read what i write. there are many many dissimilarities between drunk driving and secondhand smoke. no doubt. the one GLARING similarity is that they are both public safety issues. the one GLARING dissimilarity is that the drunk driving kills instantly. raise your hand class...if you know someone who has died from secondhand smoke!! and now class, raise your hand if you know someone who has died from drunk driving!! i am simply using the 'logic' of the pro-banners that we need to oppress certain rights in the name of public safety. but as long as its not your poison...and there is NO fear of it ever being your poison taken away...then personal FREEDOM TO CHOSE is irrelevant.

Reinstating Prohibition might reduce drunk driving incidents but likely not as much as you profess. People could/would drive home from friends' homes after drinking. Speakeasies were common during the first Prohibition, they likely would be again. The same people who would drive home drunk from a bar now would likely drive home drunk from speakeasies. Currently, law enforcement knows where the businesses that serve alcohol are located, they also know the hours of those businesses. I suspect that makes it somewhat easier to know what types of places to watch for drunk drivers.
If you want to reduce the number of drunk driving incidents, wouldn't it be more effective to outlaw personal ownership of automobiles? You can't drive drunk without a car, truck, motorcycle, or some other vehicle and it's a lot easier to stop car ownership than private house parties and the proliferation of speakeasies.
Drinking is not the issue, nor driving, the issue is when people choose to mix the two. Smoking is not the issue (at least not to me), the existence of bars is not the issue, the issue is that currently, the two are allowed to legally mix.

bubs im not talking about banning a substance to curb 'a dangerous activity related to that activity' im talking about banning alcohol consumption in a PUBLIC place. are you going to deny that there would be waaaay fewer drunk driving related accidents if public drinking anywhere was banned?? pretty much the same philosophy behind fewer secondhand smoke related diseases by banning smoking in public places.

im well aware they are not, nor will they anytime soon, ban alcohol. im merely trying to get you to think 'what if'. what if they were trying to ban alcohol consumption in public places in the name of public safety?? i can promise you all would be screaming 'im an american, i have rights...'

For the same reason that we don't let the free market decide if we should use DDT or asbestos, because it is a public health and workers' safety issues. For the same reason that we have building codes, food sanitation standards, workplace safety standards, etc.

Let the free market take care of this issue not the government. Those who want smokeless go eat and drink at the smokeless bars/restaurants. Those that want to smoke and be around smokers go to the bars/restaurants that allow smoking. Why do we need the government to save us?

Just as you are against the use of alcohol in a fashion that endangers other people (drunk driving), I am against the use of tobacco in a manner that endangers other people (smoking in enclosed rooms). I am especially against business owners, specifically bars, making money off allowing such an activity.
What you are talking about is banning a substance in order to curb a dangerous activity related to that activity. I no more support criminalizing alcohol use than I criminalization of tobacco use or the current criminal status of most drugs (esp. marijuana and other relatively "natural" drugs, I'm not as certain about drugs like LSD or methamphetamines). Were anyone to try to criminalize alcohol or tobacco, I would be against such an action. Speeding is dangerous to other motorists, do you think it is logical to ban personal automobile ownership to curb that dangerous activity?

thekid, there is no serious interest in banning alcohol.

You continually only see the one similarity between two things whose dissimilarities are much greater in number.

i agree 110% that smokers do not have the rite to poison the air around non smokers. thats why if someone light up in Timeout they will be kicked our or fined. i dont know why i get caught up in this again...to the pro-ban peeps ita a health issue. to the pro-owners choice peeps its a rights issue.

bubs im trying to show the similarities in the two seperate issues. second hand smoke and drunk driving are both public safety issues with THOUSANDS of innocent victims. what would you pro-banners say if alcohol was next. what if uncle sam by will of the people said 'ya know what, dd has become an epidemic and the main way to curb it is to prohibit alcohol consumption in public places' i bet if it was a right you currently enjoy that uncle sam was comin for this would be an entirely different story altogethor...

"you say over and over and over that govt imposed food regulations are the same as a smoking ban."

Nobody ever said they are the SAME. Food regulations were brought up as an example of laws that business owners are subject to abide by. Businesses are not private if they serve the public, and are subject to any number of laws.

Saying smokers or bar owners should have a choice to poison the air of bar employees and non-smoking patrons is the same as saying bar owners should have the choice to make food in unsanitary conditions, or that drinkers should have a choice to drink as much as they want and get behind the wheel of a two ton killing machine. Smoking, drinking and eating can all kill in different ways, so we have different laws.

Thekid,
You are trying to confound two separate issues.
A smoker, simply by enjoying a cigarette, is polluting the air that everyone around them will inhale. A drinker, simply by enjoying an alcoholic beverage, does not place toxins into the air (nor any other carrier into nearby people). Despite the fact that a smoker's lungs have filtered out some of the toxins in the smoke that they have inhaled, cigarette smoke is still directly hazardous to those around a smoker.
Drinking and driving is another issue. Driving drunk is the illegal, combined use of alcohol and a motor vehicle. While we could (and should) do a better job of preventing drunk drivers, it is an illegal activity that we strive to prevent from occurring or punish the occurrence of. It is possible and even quite common to drink without driving or drive without drinking.
I don't care what a person does to their own body in private residences. Get wasted, smoke like a chimney, get high, shoot yourself up with whatever the heck you want. I do care, however, if doing those things endangers the well-being of other people.
"Freedom of choice," as you describe when it comes to smoking, simply doesn't exist in the real world. We don't let indoor movie theaters, educational facilities, inpatient health care facilities, restaurants, or retail establishments choose whether or not to allow smoking. We don't allow bar or restaurant owners to serve food or beverages with certain chemicals in them. Business owners can't operate a business wherever they want (zoning laws), they can't construct a building however they want (building codes), they can't be open whenever they want (i.e. bar closing/opening times), they can't hire whomever they want (definitions of immigrant/visa status, age requirements, etc.). I fail to see what makes the presence of smoking in bars so unique that it is beyond reproach.

Beautifully said, latinmama, thank you.

i don't think people who smoke should impose their habit on other people, like i said before i am a smoker but most of my family does not smoke so if i am around them or even friends or strangers who do not smoke i kindly step away with my nasty habit because it is not right to make other people be around it, and the whole thing if they don't want to breathe it then don't go near that is just plan rude, smoking endangers your health which i know this too and still choose to do it but it does not mean i should cram the habit down other people's throats literally. so all the rudeness and only thinking your point of view is right is horrible think about the other person for a moment and see how they may feel before you pass judgement especially smokers they always wanna say we have rights to, and we do we have the right to poison our own bodies but we don't have the right to poison other peoples bodies who do not want to smoke

i am a smoker. i am from lake geneva and now live in rockford where there is a smoking ban, i can tell you from living with the rule now it really is not all that bad to go in a restaurant with my children (i do not smoke around them for those who will want to critisize) and not worry about a non smoking restaurant. going to a bar is a little tough because you want to smoke more when you drink, i don't smoke in my home and never have so that is not an issue but really everyone adjusted here pretty well, i did go to lake geneva recently and was able to smoke inside while drinking and to tell you the truth it was not all that enjoyable to sit inside a smoke cloud. i would rather smoke outside where the air is fresher which i know sounds crazy to, but really i think people are worried more than they should be everyone is always against change but if the rules are the same everywhere then everyone will adjust, the bars here in rockford just designate a place outside where people can bring their drinks and smoke and i will tell you what even with the cold weather the drunks still enjoy the smoke just as much. so i say go ahead with the ban

yer a work of art gfan. you use the SAME argument i use 'One person's alcohol consumption doesn't enter the blood stream of other people' regarding ones food consumption and the health codes but you spin when i call you on it. i didnt really expect you to answer my question cuz whenever someone makes a more than valid point on the oppo side of yo beliefs you spin rather than either a) answering or 2) acknowledging. we ALL KNOW the answer gfan. of course you would be the first one to stand up and SCREAM WHERES MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE. thats why you wont even answer the question because you KNOW im rite. you keep preachin about public safety. secondhand smoke kills. well newsflash google drunk driving deaths. how many hits do you think you will see?? seconhand smoke is a public safety concern. i dont doubt that. so is drunk driving whether the alcohol is in your blood stream or someone elses. spin some more but i am right.

No, officer..., my interest in global warming is that I wish it were true.

thekid, the logical extension of your argument is to have no government. Not realistic.

The owner of a business should be required to make the environment safe. The food and the air should be safe.

thats funny gfan. you say over and over and over that govt imposed food regulations are the same as a smoking ban. its the govt doing whats in the best interest of public safety. i point out the diff is that the food regulations are meant to protect the DIRECT user, and smoking bans are meant to protect the INDIRECT user. when i say that you go on some long winded, gfan knows best, rant about why its dift and yet thats your EXACT logic on why alcohol in public is ok. cuz it only affects you?? it doesnt get directly into another persons blood stream. regardless of the innocent blood that has already flowed and that will continue to flow from your preferred 'eviler of two evils'. why cant the govt impose rules to keep as many people drinking at home(thus off the roads) as possible?? thats public safety which i believe is the CORE of your smoking ban argument. answer my question. ive seen you post for personal choice. personal repsonsibility. im also aware that you post about those things when and only when they benefit your side of the argument. ill ask you my question AGAIN. hypothetical of course...but if the will of the people was to ban alcohol consumption in public would you still shrug off FREEDOM OF CHOICE??

I'm guessing second hand smoke alarmist also believe in the global warming theory.

If you don't want second hand smoke in your lungs then stay away from people who are smoking. Couldn't be any more simple. Less government = MORE FREEDOM!

That won't be necessary after the smoking ban.

"When someone is smoking in a bar, that smoke immediately gets into the lungs of everyone else, including non-smokers." Then stay out of the bar!

thekid, try not to ignore the important particulars. When someone is smoking in a bar, that smoke immediately gets into the lungs of everyone else, including non-smokers.

If you're talking about alcohol connected violence and drunk driving, those things are not immediately and naturally attached to people being in a bar. There should be measures to prevent drunk driving, more severe laws etc. If you agree with this then you should agree that the obvious and immediate damage from tobacco smoke in bars should be banned.

are you saying that public consumption of tobacco is not ok because of the innocent victims...but alcohol consumption is REGARDLESS of the innocent victims?? answer my point blank question gfan. regardless of YOUR logic, if alcohol was the drug they were slowly taking away BECAUSE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, would you still shrug of the FREEDOM OF CHOICE??

One person's alcohol consumption doesn't enter the blood stream of other people.

public places are one thing. taverns are another. ask yo selves what if it was alcohol they were trying to take. as a public safety item of course. ban alcohol consumption in public to protect the innocent victims. would you still shrug off the FREEDOM OF CHOICE??

We are talking about banning smoking in public places. This is on the continuum of smoking bans in hospitals and schools. Banning smoking in hospitals and schools would only inspire the fear of communism, fascism, and totalitarianism in those people who have no understanding of what those mentalities are.

zoom: you are correct in saying that those of us who argue for choice are against the ban. that actually seems obvious. you are mistaken tho by saying we are pro-smokers. i am no where close to a pro-smoker(tobacco;). unfortunately for years the non smokers have had no choice. that doesnt mean its ok to take the choice of smokers away now. 'choice' is what we have now...and i dont understand why that is a bad thing. as gfan points out the will of the people prefer non smoking and hence the laws changing. well wouldnt that same will be the reason why places like timeout can not only exist...but THRIVE w/out govt intervention?? this country is based on the principle of 'freedom'. those of us anti-ban are not so much pro-smoke as much as anti-gov tellin everyone what to do. pro-choice peeps in this convo dont have 'any new ideas about why a ban would do more harm than allowing smokers to pollute the air of non-smokers in public spaces and work places'. thats not their argument here. we're all aware of the health risks of smoking and no smoker has posted otherwise. its not about health to the smokers...its about the basic AMERICAN principle of freedom of choice. dont like 'choice'?? there are other countrys around the world im sure that would love to have you...

It is time to outlaw tobacco all together. It's time for a Tobacco War. Think of the money the state could make on enforcement. Jobs would be created by building new prisons.

When people argue for a "choice", they are really arguing against a ban, but are not offering any new ideas about why a ban would do more harm than allowing smokers to pollute the air of non-smokers in public spaces and work places. "Choice" is what we have now. The pro-smokers have run out of arguments.

Because the stance of the non-smokers doesn't put toxic fumes into the lungs and hearts of others.

why is it that the smokers are open to having BOTH options but the non smokers say no way...they must ALL be non smoking. choices are OK people

Instead of running contrary to the idea of a smoking ban, Time Out's success is evidence that a smoking ban would be a good thing. People are saying smoking in a public place is bad. It's a matter of some people just not being wise enough to have figured it out yet. Those people can learn from others. The wise teach the unwise.

The occasional example of smoking and non-smoking bars being able to co-exist is not proof that it is viable in all municipalities.
Even if it were, two things shouldn't necessarily be allowed to co-exist simply because they can. As other posters and I have posted below, there are plenty of things that can/could co-exist that we should not allow. Despite the existence of a few bars like Time Out, I fail to see why we should allow smoking and non-smoking bars to co-exist.

hannah: good post. thats a prime example of how bars CAN AND DO survive when they chose to be smoke free, w/out being told to do so by uncle sam. WE CAN ALL HAVE A CHOICE.

shutup.... and whybesad, how about some details on that Madison situation.

Also, if the people attempt to cause the government to ban smoking outside, will you actively participate in stopping that effort? If not, why not?

And yet another pointlessly hostile first-time post from someone brand new or an old poster with a new screen name. At least from the nature of the post we won't be hearing from him or her again.

Get a life some of you. There is a real world out there that is beyond your computer. Cut the cord already...you dont need to be posting, checking and reposting and checking all day long.

Once Government gets involved they really don't know where to stop.

Ok once the Government feels it's okay to come into a private business and say that it's for the health of the public. Where will they stop? The roads are "public" the parks are public. The sidewalks are public. They will try to make smoking illegal in all public places. They are already trying to do that in Madison by making it illegal to smoke outside in public.

BTW- TIme out was PACKED last saterday. they had a band. I would say about 10 packed and quotes NOT busy yet.

whybesad, state what evil will follow from a GOVERNMENT imposed smoking ban. Don't just post a list, explain the connection.

BAAAAAAAAAA

Gazettefan- I'm not saying a ban is bad. It's just not what Government should be worried about. It should be the decision of the Private Business Owner. The right to run THEIR business the way they feel fit to run it. Government should have LIMITED involvement in Private business and the operations of that business. There is more to this than just a ban from smoking in restaurants and bars. Where will it end? You give government an inch and they will take it a mile. It's much more than just banning smoking. Be careful what you wish for. It's worked fine for this long without government involvement why change it now because a few whinnying self centered politicians who want more government involvement in our lives and decisions. It';s pointless and the agenda of certain politicians in Madison. It won't end with just a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. Just watch.

whybesad,
Since you contend that we have already become sheep, what other decisions would you like to give back to business owners and the public in general?
Have you started encouraging smokers to quit smoking before the ban is enacted so that they don't harm the environment and heating/cooling costs of bars by going in and out constantly to smoke?

The government is responding to the clear-thinking of intelligent people.

whybesad, what evil do you think will follow from smoking bans? Don't just cite bad stuff, explain the linkage.

Government taking away the right foe people to think for themselves. Taking away the right for people to make their own decisions. We have become sheep.

shutupandfish,
We are talking about banning an activity in bars, not banning a group of people. Smokers are welcome to patronize non-smoking establishments, they just aren't allowed to smoke in them.

It's self-explanatory.

Why would you want to deny a person who happens to smoke from not being able to go out to eat. Isn't that discrimination? Just have both options.

Should leave good enough alone. More problems in Madison than a smoking ban.

And, whybesad, what's bad for the environment? the escaping heat or the escaping smoke whenever the door is opened?

Newflash: both the heat and smoke will escape the building anyway.

LOL

Bubs, maybe on the plus-side whybesad is making progress here. He seems, now, to have some concern for the quality of the air inside bars!!!

The false concern and outrage is amusing.
If you are concerned about smokers going in and out too much post-ban, why not ask smokers to be responsible for the wasted energy. Stepping outside to smoke is not their only option. They can stay home, they can not smoke while out at the bars, they can quit smoking.
I suppose we should also ban music in bars because cell phone users might need to step outside to answer a call?
Bar should probably have underground parking too, can't have people going in and out to start up their cars to warm it up.
No food should be cooked in bars in the summer because it makes the air conditioner work harder, right?
Or, like your other ethical/moral/logical concerns, does this newest argument only apply to smoking in bars?

If a smoker has to go outside and smoke. That would incur more expenses to the business owner. What I mean is that every time a smoker goes outside there will be heat loss in the building. It is also bad for the environment. The need to use more energy to heat and or cool the building isn't a environmentally responsible thing to do just to please a group of people. We need to find a solution that will be acceptable to both the smokers and non-smokers. I believe that would be to have both smoking and non-smoking restaurants and bars. I think office buildings should have a designated area for smokers to go and have a cigarette on their breaks.

Where would the smokers eat and drink if there was a smoking ban?

Most smokers will continue to go to bars and restaurants and smoke outside. Any who don't continue to go to bars and restaurants will be more than replaced by non-smokers. This has always been the case.

If anything closes, it was borderline anyway. At least half of the 50 states already have statewide bans.

The economy is not in a position to go with a smoking ban.. drinkers that smoke will begin to drink elsewhere, smokers who eat will eat else where, we will slowly watch our business close one by one. I guarantee that all of you non smokers will not be there to replace the business of smokers when they take their business elsewhere. People really need to learn to choose their battles. Wisconsin has the highest drunk driving rate in the country and people are still worried about smoking? Yet alcohol is not a concern for health and safety? WOW people wake up...

Well January came and went and still no smoking ban. There is hope.

Very, very, very rare. I actually can't remember any thing recently that they have done right.

shutup......, don't worry about the government. Sometimes it gets things right.

I think the State Government has way more to worry about right now than worrying about a smoking ban that will not create one single job or stimulate the economy. We need the Government to help businesses create jobs. This issue should be shelved until we can get this State back on it's feet.

If you don't wanna choke on smoke go somewhere that already is smoke free. We can actually live in a society that offers both.

I'm all for smoking bans. I shouldnt have to choke on someone elses second hand smoke because I want to go out and have a good time.
When the death rate from cancer caused by second hand smoke is so high you think more people would be worried about it.
If you want to smoke, go for it. Just do it by yourself where you can't harm anyone else with your deadly habbit.

How is it unreasonable to have a bar that caters to smokers and a bar that caters to non-smokers? Instead of being a smoking nazi? and demanding laws. Be careful what you wish for. It won't stop with smoking.

To late.

thekid, I hope none of those unreasonable people have been elected to public office.

whybesad, I've said so plenty of times.

See what I mean, Bubs?!

gfan. i know an anti-potter or two who i would say the...exact...same...thing...to.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Gazettefan you have yet to answer why we can't have smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments.

There are places for a person to shot a gun in a public place. And yes you can shoot a gun and drink. Just go to the Delevan's sportsman club and see for yourself. As for bars allowing smoking most bars have a ventilation system in place to ventilate the air. I'm not sure what the EPA standards are for air quality in buildings but, that is something that could be looked at. Having a place get the air quality down to the standards set by the EPA. There are somethings that are allowed in taverns that aren't legal and are acceptable like the gambling machines and the football pools. A lot of your complaints are simple common sense solutions. Why would you want to open a business in a building that is about to fall over let alone patronize the place? There are all kinds of dangerous occupations in this world. Window washing on a high rise building for one. Something that I may be qualified to do but, knowing the hazards involved I would never choose that occupation. What other legal activities are banned from bars? We as a society should be able to cater to all types of people weather they are gamblers, smokers, gay, straight etc. There is no reason to ban a bar from allowing smoking as long as the patrons knowingly and willingly patronize the establishment and smoking is legal. The people entering and working at that establishment know the consequences of working or patronizing the establishment. People know what they like and what they don't like. Let the people decide where to spend their hard earned money if it's in a smoke filled bar that's their choice. If it's in a strip club that doesn't allow smoking that's their choice. You aren't going to have non-bowlers go to a bowling alley and be upset because they thought the place should cater to non-bowlers as well as bowlers. There are all kinds of threads in the fabric of society we as human beings need to be able to make the choices of which thread we want to be.

Bubs, he's like a lot of posters (especially some of the ones on the religious blogs), they nitpick and talk off the point. They do this because they know that the answers that pop into their heads are contrary to what they've been believing. They never thought these thing out before and are ashamed to have to be told what common sense thinking is. Pride prevents them from saying someone else is right.

Their repetitive, off-the-point non-sense is an admission that they are wrong.

Don't they have a right to go out to a bar and socialize just like everyone else? They aren't doing anything illegal.

If it's so bad for smokers to be going in and out of artificially heated/cooled buildings, why don't you encourage them to quit before the inevitable ban is passed? Why not encourage them to sit at home and drink and smoke in the privacy of their own home?
Although these are simple solutions, I'm guessing that you are not for them. Your solution is a simple one but it doesn't address the issue of making bars safer places for employees of ALL bars. A simple solution is not always a good one.
***
You do keep changing the topic after I challenge your assertions. For example:
- Why is the ability to co-exist a sufficient reason to allow smoking but not other activities?
- Why can we ban other legal activities in bars but not smoking?
- Why do you think that supporters of a smoking ban should support criminalizing smoking even though you apparently accept other bans on legal activities/substances in bars?
- Why should we ban the burning of materials that will release toxic chemicals into the air except when the material in question is a ciggarette?
- Why should we force employers of some businesses to provide their employees with relatively clean air but not bars?
***
As for employee choice, we don't give people unfettered choice when it comes to working in a dangerous work environment. I can't open a business that combines the fun of shooting shotguns with the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from shots of tequila, not even if some people would choose to work for such a business. I can't choose to work for a company that makes me work in a building that is about to fall down to save the costs of building a new office.
If smoking were integral to the operation of running a bar then I would be more accepting of this point. Madison bars are still bars. Many of them are still profitable. Most or all that aren't profitable can't chalk their low profits up to not being allowed to permit smoking (barring perhaps those that are near one of the few municipalities that still allow smoking).
***
No worries about the asbestos thing. I wouldn't have been able to tell you how hot you'd have to get it to burn either.

I take that back it burns at very high temps over 2500 degrees. Sorry for that misinformation.

bubs- Asbestos doesn't burn FYI

Bubs- If your a bartender and going into that profession I would think that you would probably realize that there maybe a slim chance that you may have to work in an environment that may contain second hand smoke. I guess if you have to work as a bartender you could go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking. There are choices for where one can place their application for work. That's like a straight person applying for a bar tending job at a gay bar and not knowing that the place caters to homosexuals. Let the business climate dictate what kind of bar to have. If people stop going to a place that allows smoking that owner will soon change their policies and make the place non-smoking. As long as it's legal I don't have a problem with a business owner allowing smoking in their bar.

We all know that cigarette smoking is bad. How can you not? Your taught that cigarettes are a drug in Kindergarten all the way through high school. You see it on the pack of cigarettes. It's all over. It's still a legal activity. Go to a non-smoking establishment if it bothers you. Hang out with people that don't smoke and keep the smokers in their own place. No need to have smokers go outside and opening doors and letting cold air into a building and letting the heat out of the building and making the business owner to pay more in electric bills. No need to harm the environment by unneeded electrical power usage. Just let the smokers mingle together and the non-smokers can mingle in their own place. Simple solution.

gfan... I always step on my butts and pick them up and put them in my pocket!!! Started my pocket on fire once.Hot pants,should of saved the boots !lol

whybesad,
Let's not resort to calling each other names or insult the intelligence of others. I don't assume that you are unintelligent, simply that we disagree. On the other hand, your post should have started with, "If you're too..."
I am intelligent enough to realize that if I go to a bar that allows smoking, I might inhale secondhand smoke. I don't recognize the right of the bar owners to permit patrons to put that smoke there to harm the health of their employees, employees of other business (or the government), and patrons any more than I recognize their right to permit the burning of asbestos. I don't care if people smoke in small, poorly ventilated rooms, I care if a business is making money off that activity.
An activity being legal does not mean that we should or must allow it in bars. Conversely, because we deem an activity dangerous enough to prohibit in bars does not mean we necessarily need to completely prohibit it. Discharging a firearm is legal but not in bars, that doesn't mean we should ban the ownership and discharging of firearms. Just because firing a firearm is legal in most instances, doesn't mean that we should or must allow discharging a firearm in a bar.
You insist on defending the idea that if businesses that allow an activity can co-exist, that doesn't mean that we should/must allow them to co-exist. Why is this logic, which fails with other activities, applicable in this situation.
The gay bar issue is another straw man. You won't become homosexual by standing next to a homosexual (assuming that you are truly straight and not living in denial, but that's a pre-existing condition). I also know of no studies that suggest that long-term exposure to homosexuals causes emphysema, lung cancer, or any other disease.

ihavealife, thanks. And despite my post below, I've always found you to be intelligent and good natured (and probably grateful that there are health codes for restaurants).

Good luck. And it might be helpful to know that when smokers quit smoking the bad of effects of having been a smoker tend to go away.

PS: Since you haven't been up there for a while, I guess it wasn't you who left that cigarette butt on the Devil's Staircase last summer.

gfan.. But I like my smokes :(. Smokers NEED to understand nonsmokers shouldn't have to inhale or smell because of us.This is 2009 and we have the information now what smoking does to our health.Yes I really want to stop after 39 years.I'm working on it !!!

The stupid ones who need to be protected are the ones who are too stupid to understand the danger of tobacco smoke.

Pro-ban people understand the danger. Stupid people like those would don't see the need for health codes for restaurants need the help of pro-ban people and the government.

If your to stupid to realize that if you go to a bar that allows smoking that it maybe possible that you may actually inhale some secondhand smoke than I guess you would need the government to hold your hand and issue a law against it. Again smoking is LEGAL. If it's so bad than it should be illegal. As long as it's LEGAL than it should be the business owners decission to allow it or not in THEIR business. The government can ban it from government buildings. Gay bars and non gay bars co-exist in society. Smoking and non-smoking bars can co-exist.

I don't lose money when the person next to me gambles their life savings away.
You still can't answer simple questions though. Smokers and non-smokers have co-existed up until this point with non-smoking employees and patrons needlessly inhaling cigarette smoke, I don't think that makes it right. When it came time for our society to ban ______ (insert your favorite currently banned substance or activity), no one said "Darn, we'd really like to ban this or that but up until this point, it has co-existed with people that haven't used/done it." Will we ever again be able to ban anything if we follow your mentality?

First and secondhand smoke causes emphysema. Emphysema can cause you to drown in your own spit.

I think that smokers and non-smokers can co-exist they have to this point haven't they? It's more about making choices as a human being. You choose to do things to your body that other people choose not to. I choose not to smoke. I do go to taverns and restaurants that allow smoking. That is my choice. I also patronize non-smoking establishments that's my choice. I don't go to casino's because I don't like to gamble. Money is to hard to make let alone blow it in a matter of minutes. I think gambling is a huge problem and ruins some people lives. Do I want casino's outlawed because I think gambling is bad? No, it's a legal activity and if someone wants to blow their hard earned money then so be it. If someone wants to smoke cigarettes then so be it. It's a legal activity. I can make choices on my own and don't need the Government more involved in my life. JMO

Bubs look back on your posts your the one that brought up slavery.

You almost gave a good response to why smoking is different from slavery by saying that slavery violates human rights. Some people on this board would claim that not having your job expose you to risks that are not necessary a human right so it's not the greatest point I've seen but at least it is kind of an answer.
Why are you unable to answer simple questions?
***
Is the ability to co-exist always a sufficient reason to allow things to co-exist?
If not, then why is it a sufficient reason when it comes to smoking?
If it is always sufficient, then how can accept the current laws and codes that we make business obey.
***
You keep focusing on how long ago slavery was banned. If how long ago it was banned matters, then one might logically assume that you will find a smoking ban acceptable at some point after it is eventually passed. Has Madison's ban been around long enough to become acceptable? If we had banned smoking in bars in the 1800s, would you find such a ban acceptable?
You keep focusing on slavery, but there are plenty other examples of existing "bans" which you seem afraid to address. We have building codes, zoning laws, immigration laws, laws prohibiting firearms in bars, prohibitions on pets in businesses selling food, regulations that dictate why types of jobs minors can perform, laws regarding nudity, etc. Care to tell us which, if any, of these regulations/laws/codes/bans you would like to eliminate? If none, can you possibly even come up with one example of a decision which we currently don't allow business owners to make that we should?

Is wondering why Bubs wants to take this blog back to the 1800's. Smoking has been around longer than slavery in this country. It has always been able to coexist in this country and not violate human rights like slavery. Let's compare apples to apples bubs.

hannah, the good thing about people who stop by to complain about people posting a lot is that they won't stay around long.

there was another one that went on longer about this. cannot remember the title of it anymore. "bust nets 8..." maybe. ust search under user haight and youll find it eventually.

Really people? This forumn has been going on for almost 2 months. Go post on another story.

Do you feel that the ability to co-exist is sufficient for any activity to be allowed at the discretion of business owners?
***
If no, then your argument that smoking should be allowed because in some places, smoking and non-smoking bars is flawed.
***
If you do believe it, then there are a whole bunch of activities that we need to question. Your argument essentially becomes that if A and B CAN co-exist in some place at a certain time, then A and B SHOULD BE ALLOWED to co-exist. I offer the example of slave labor in some companies in other countries. Surely you have enough compassion and intelligence to be against slave labor. The fact that A and B (companies with slave labor and companies without) CAN co-exist then does not universally imply that A and B SHOULD BE ALLOWED to co-exist if you take issue with slavery.
I then thought that perhaps you are only against new bans on things that currently are allowed to co-exist. That opens the window to question whether or not you would be against a ban on smoking in bars if it had been enacted well before you were born, say 150 years ago. It also means that if we were unfortunate enough to live in an America that still allowed slavery, the idea that slavery in business and no slavery in business could co-exist, your logic that co-existence implies acceptability would imply that slavery was acceptable.
***
This article is about the ban. You and several other posters (both pro- and anti- ban) were arguing whether the fact that non-smoking bars can sometimes co-exist with smoking bars means that we must accept smoking in some bars. I contend that such logic is faulty and have given several examples of why. Rather than address those issues, you seek evade the issue in any way possible. If you would like to discuss whether or not co-existence implies acceptability, I will happily do so. I will also happily allow you to admit that the logic is faulty and we can discuss other aspects of the proposed ban.

LOL

whybesad is the one who's focused.

;~)

Bubs you really need to stay on subject here. It may be difficult but please try it.

Now we are talking about the whole world? Can we please stay with this state. I guess I should have wrote this is 2009 there isn't much slave labor in this Country. There is that better?

whybesad, around the world about 27,000,000 people are currently enslaved.

There is what amounts to slave labor in plenty of countries.
That, however is not the point. You argue that because bars permitting smoking and bars not permitting smoking can co-exist, they should be allowed to exist. I simply point out that it is possible for businesses using slave labor and businesses not using might be able to co-exist. Does that ability of such businesses to co-exist also mean that we should allow them?
***
Now you wish to ignore the flaw in your logic by focusing on the fact that we currently do not allow smoking in this country. Madison does not currently allow smoking in bars and taverns. Does this mean that you find the Madison ban acceptable? If we had banned smoking in bars when we banned slavery, would you find it acceptable that all bars were smoke free?
If we hadn't banned slavery, would you feel that it is acceptable?

This is 2009. Not sure there is a lot of slave labor going on this day and age.

Why does your logic not apply to building codes or slavery?
Businesses with dangerous construction or slave labor could likely exist right along with safe buildings without slave labor.
The mere ability to co-exist is not sufficient does not give certain business practices the right to exist.

We have strip clubs and non strip clubs. We have gay bars and non-gay bars. People are given a choice. If you don't like it then don't go.

What's the problem with having both smoking and non smoking bars? It makes absolutely no sense why we can't trust people to make their own decision on where to spend their money and what business to patronize.

thekid, macrocosm and microcosm are useful words. Never stop expanding your vocabulary, it'll help you expand your ability to ratiocinate.

Now listen: If a bad thing and a good thing coexist, that doesn't mean the bad thing is justified nor does it mean it takes on the qualities of the good thing.

Bubs, they want to ban health codes: Owner's choice!!!

whybadsad, there's nothing in my post that agrees with your point. As usual, you're not paying attention and you're just making stuff up.

thekid
The purpose of the ban is to remove smoking in public places and workplaces, of which bars belong to both groups. "Coexistance" is what we have now, and your repetition is just a red herring to divert the argument away from the problems with smoking.

ive never said they wouldnt pass a statewide ban in public places. i just wanted to point out that when you say a non smoking bar surviving in a smoking town is 'the owner shows that a smoking ban does not harm a business' is silly. it shows that a town can have BOTH smoking/non smoking bars to make EVERYONE happy. its not a microcosm of any macrocosm or any other silly word you want to try and spin with. its logic. that simple. if you cant even acknowledge that BOTH types CAN and DO survive, regardless of your belief on the ban and smoking in general, for no other reason than free market and WILL OF THE PEOPLE then you are obviously having this discussion with blinders on, and like ALL OTHER DISCUSSIONS YOU HAVE HERE, its gfans way or no way...

Does business owner choice only come into play when we are discussing smoking?
If not, what other current bans would you like to see lifted?
If so, why is smoking different from all the other things that we ban from bars or other businesses?

Gazettefan exactly that's our point let the Owner decide not the government.

thekid, because smoking should be banned in all bars and many owners are not banning it is why we need a statewide smoking ban. Therefore people by way of the government will impose a smoking ban.

And, there is no difference between eating food and breathing air in a bar or restaurant. The purview is the same. An owner is responsible for providing the safest air possible. No asbestos, ventilation for fumes even less toxic than tobacco smoke, etc.

Also, even though smoking would still be permitted elsewhere, the government has the right to make the air safe in a public place even for smokers. The prohibition of alcohol in parks is also for the sake the of the potential drinker.

Is it your conclusion that if every state has a statewide smoking ban in public places, smoking should be banned entirely everywhere? If every state eventually enacts a statewide smoking ban would you support banning smoking entirely everywhere?

Health codes: Seems your statement implies that restaurants should have the choice of not having government imposed health codes and you would merely exercise your right not to eat at them. Am I right?

Great point, Zoom.
If co-existence were sufficient reason to allow businesses to make decisions, we would allow a lot of other nasty practices.
Some companies voluntary forgo using slave labor to make their products. The fact that these socially responsible companies can co-exist (and be profitable) with companies using slave labor does not make slave labor any more acceptable.
How about safe building codes? Perhaps some businesses could be successful in dilapidated buildings. If employees or patrons get injured or killed, we could just point out that they made the choice to work or go there and their deaths or injuries don't matter. We could also make their families feel better by reminding them that we just couldn't take away the "right" of the business owners to make their own darn decisions about the way they ran their business.

if your logic is that when a business goes non smoking, that is the same as them imposing a 'ban' and proving that a smoking ban wont hurt business then why cant we leave it to the owners to impose smoking bans gfan?? and as far as the health codes go...im not sure how you dont understand this. the health codes are put in place to protect the person eating the food. not the person serving it or the person next to them. the smoking ban isnt meant to protect the smoker, if that were the case they would ban smoking entirely, it will be put in place to protect the worker and the person sitting next to the smoker. would i eat at a restaurant that didnt follow govt codes of health...absolutely not. thats my choice. i also have the choice to find a non smoking bar if i want to enjoy the bar atmosphere without being bothered by smoke.

The purpose of the ban is to remove smoking in public places and workplaces, of which bars belong to both groups. "Coexistance" is what we have now, and your repetition is just a red herring to divert the argument away from the problems with smoking.

Then, thekid and whybesad, a smoking ban imposed by the owner shows that a smoking ban does not harm a business.

Also, should the owners have the choice of not having government imposed health codes?

again, the grumpy troll is a non smoker brew pub and they do just fine in a town that doesnt force them. non smoking/smoking not only can co-exist but do. why cant EVERYONE have an option.

I have been to several other taverns on Sunday afternoons and they allow smoking and they have been just as busy if not more busy than timeout was. So, I guess they can co-exist without government intervention.

What? Put words in my mouth now. Never said that.

So, whybesad, now you're saying that the crowd at the Time Out (when you went there) doesn't necessarily show that smoking and non-smoking places "can coexist in society without government intervention."

It could have been busy because they just opened up. Technically it's a pub and eatery.

didnt go yet sorry had gift card for applebees and went there.

whybesad, you just dealt away a major argument that opposes smoking bans, the one that claims a smoking ban would hurt a business. (By the way, Time Out is technically a restaurant [revenue exceeds 50% from food] and not solely a bar. Smoking is banned in restaurants in Janesville.)

And, the argument that smoking in bars should be an individual choice (owner and customer) still suffers under the weight of this question: Would you and your family eat in a restaurant that didn't operate under the requirement of government imposed health codes?

You admitted that you and your family would eat in a restaurant without government imposed health codes. You said eating in such a place would continue until you or someone in your family got food poisoning or something worse there (then you would sue).

That's you, I insist that the great majority of people would not.

Hannah what did you come up with?

I went to the Time Out bar on Sunday afternoon to watch the football games and it was packed. And Gazettefan this just shows that smoking and non-smoking establishments can coexist in society without Government intervention.

kid- i have NEVER posted your name. just so you know it wasnt me.

I will go to time out on a sat night and see how busy they are compared to looking glass. well not a good comparison cause I dont think time out will let you dance on the bar. so we will comepare it to main street or legends and we will see how many people are in a BAR type place that doesnt have smoking.

whybesad, do some study re: socialism.

Why even have owners of taverns if the Government is going to be involved in every aspect of the business and the decission making involved in the business? We mightas well live in a socialized society.

zoom an owner of the business can place their own ban on smoking. No need for the government to become involved.

Haeight, more proof that a LACK of a state wide smoking ban can cause trouble. (If what you're saying is true and is the real problem. By the way, why no loyalty?)

Lack of an example does not an argument make. For arguments sake, take Tilley's here in Beloit. Forced non smoking due to their restaurant that has been in business for well as long as I can remember, so over 30 years. In a city coveted by out of state smokers jumping the stateline.

This sole business is your poster child. A place with a good reputation that does well, so well it owns its own delivery cars. It sits in a city that allows smoking in bars and has an influx of customers looking to smoke. This would create an island for nonsmokers to come and socialize in a smoke free environment.

Simply put their bar business has tanked. Meaning your coveted smoke free environment is a farce.

lovemycountry:

Apparently you didn't catch the special irony of your Holocaust reference used as attempt to attack the effort to remove toxic fumes from confined spaces.

I'm not a smoker, taking liberties with a quote by a holocaust survivor....

"They came first for the Smokers, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Smoker;

And then they came for the Gun Owners, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Gun Owner;

And then they came for the Obese, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t Obese;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Since you can't provide any examples, your point is moot. Epic fail.

Janesville is not the only city with partial smoking bans as you put it. If I have to list bars, then apparently you have not visited any of those that are now smoke free. Meaning your making an issue about something that is already provided for in your community.

"If nonsmoking drinkers were so prevalent there would be many many more nonsmoking bars."

Not without a smoking ban. The number of bars in Janesville (or any city) is limited by ordinance (liquor licenses). There is more demand (customers) than there is supply (bars). Therefore, bar owners currently do not have to cater to non-smokers by trying to enforce a smoking ban without a law to back them up.

"Crawl out your holes and find the bars that were forced into nonsmoking establishments due to city ordinances for no smoking in restaurants. Then find out how their business has been since being forced smoke free creating the exact environment you advocate."

Since you have apparently crawled out of your hole, please name the bars that were negatively effected by the Janesville partial ban. It would be interesting to see if they have also been effected by the many other factors that can contribute to a loss of business, and not just the partial smoking ban.

Haeight, you have bars confused with the senior center.

thekid, somebody else posted your name?

My tobacco reference was meant to tie the tobacco smoking problem to the pot smoking problem.

Can beer be made from hemp?

i should give tobacco smoking some thought?? yer saying i should START again?? i dont get it.
.
ive never posted my first name. ive seen it posted an then removed...not sure if it was MY name or just a coincidence. im sry you read my replys to you as cranky cuz theyre not. truly. its a rare situation where anything gets me cranky. yer posts annoy me sometimes but if i got cranky it would only add stress to MY life and do nothing to yours or anyone elses...and i loath stress...so i wont get cranky. if youd listen to what ive been saying or at least acknowledge when someone else makes a valid point, whether you agree or disagree, maybe not so annoying...

The purpose of a bar is to provide an enjoyable environment for a group of people. Its been pointed out each bar caters to specific crowds to promote their bar over all others. Smokers as you pointed out are just one group, its not our fault that they hold more sway than nonsmokers.

If nonsmoking drinkers were so prevalent there would be many many more nonsmoking bars. Crawl out your holes and find the bars that were forced into nonsmoking establishments due to city ordinances for no smoking in restaurants. Then find out how their business has been since being forced smoke free creating the exact environment you advocate.

The grass is not always greener on the other side, simply put it will chase clients away from bars all together. Especially in bad weather which you tossed in our faces. This will only create more public intoxication complaints since they will in essence be loitering and littering due to the lack of butt containers. Look at the proximity of bars in town and the amount of people that bar hop. More people will wander the streets in good weather instead of driving.

whybesad, bars have a high percentage of smokers for customers. This is because smoking is now permitted in bars. This means that smokers don't have to go outside to smoke. This also means that many non-smokers who would like to go to bars will not go to bars.

When the smoking ban is enacted, a few smokers will stop going to bars, but most smokers will continue to go to bars and they will do their smoking outside. Also, non-smokers will then go to bars and more than make up for any smokers who don't go to bars anymore. This has been the case where ever smoking bans have been enacted.

The purpose of a bar is to not provide a place for smokers to smoke. The purpose of a bar is to sell and serve alcoholic beverages.

thekid, I thought you mentioned your first name in a post. I'm sure it's not "the."

It's very rare that I resort to the language used in my recent posts about smoking. But you should give the whole smoking tobacco thing some thought while removing your hostile thoughts about me for a while. The hazard and cost of it makes it hard to be polite about it all.

You do get cranky on a frequent basis.

Gazettefan your saying that cigarette smoking is bad for ones health and should be outlawed in taverns and is an expensive habit. Well, isn't drinking alcohol also harmful to a persons health and an expensive habit? They are both legal activities why don't you think that smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments can co-exist in society? They are leagl activities and the right to participate in a legal activity should be the choice of the person participating in that activity. If one doesn't want to spend their hard earned money in an establishment that the owner has decided and made a business decision to allow the legal activity of smoking then that person shouldn't spend their money there. You go on and on about how this is the "will" of the people. I ask you if it's the true will of the people why would there be any bars that would allow smoking? Owners tend to cater to their customers in order to stay in business. If I had a tavern and heard complaints of my customers (who I depend on to make a living) that they weren't going to spend money in my bar then I would most certainly change my business and not allow smoking in my business. If it;s the will of my customers to have PBR on tap then I will make sure to get PBR on tap. Again a business decision.

roofers?? now yer smokin carpenters?? you see insults when i call you on your silly post that states anyone who 'regards the act of smoking as a matter of choice' is also arguing in favor of ones right to 'choose to be ignorant or uneducated' or 'arguing in favor of someone choosing to be a fool' your OPINION does not make something fact. again im not sure anyone who would say smoking isnt a choice but if gfan says so it must be. cranky most of the time?? you dont even know my first name but you know that?? tell me again how you dont judge??

Alcohol is legal also, but there are restrictions on where and how much you can drink and still drive. I've struggled with an addiction to nicotine for half my life and I fully support a smoking ban. If you don't smoke, you should not be subjected to breathing in cigarette smoke in a public place. Period. I know that view point is unpopular with a lot of smokers, but when I was smoking, I was more than happy to go outside and smoke. Clean air should definitely trump breathing in second hand smoke.

thekid, every time I get close to smoking me one of them roofers you come and show me that even though you're a chronic pot smoker you are cranky on regular basis, especially when there's a little opposition in your life.

I say to myself: I'm a easy-going friendly man, do I really want to be bi-polar like thekid?!!!

Go ahead, align yourself with tobacco smokers, it is they and their habit that have ruined any chance of legalizing pot smoking.

"My right to smoke is my right, if I get cancer and die so be it, my choice think about population control."

The ban will not end your right to smoke, get cancer, and die. It will end your ability to poison the air in public spaces and workplaces, which harms others who have no control over your choice.

"I do agree the government should not be involved it should be the owners choice..."

Employees do not have a "choice". Since smoking is not integral for the business to function, government, by way of the people, will limit pollution of the air in public spaces and workplaces.

you sure are sensitive gfan. yesterday you were whining cuz i insulted you by calling your comment about there not being a vote on legal pot because of lack of interest asinine. today all i did was point out that you are stereotyping AGAIN. it doesnt matter where your train of thought came from...or where its going...you SAID those who chose to smoke are essentially fools. not even those who smoke...but those who feel smoking is a CHOICE...which again is pretty much all peeps. as for the expense of it...who are you to tell someone they arent spending their dough properly?? go earn their check for them then judge them for spending it how they want. sry if you see more of my insults in this post too. wait...heres one ya cant miss...pull yer skirt down yer 'you know whats' are showing.

thekid, if I descramble your post correctly you're saying that I'm off the point of the smoking ban and am commenting on smokers and the act of smoking in general. That train of thought began when I pointed out how expensive smoking is. One of the reasons I did this was to highlight the fact that the expense of smoking parallels the foolishness of smoking itself. This is poor judgment spills over into the area of bars. This ultimately criticizes the willingness of smokers to pollute bars where non-smokers would like to drink without suffering the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page to post your next insult.

Ok I have spent the last hour reading all the comments, I am a smoker my choice no I do not like smoking in restaurants I do enjoy going to a tavern having a couple of drinks and smoke.

I do not smoke pot, now that can of worms is another issue I do not care either way legal or not. As for businesses, deciding I am for that it is my choice on where I want to go smoking or not.

My right to smoke is my right, if I get cancer and die so be it, my choice think about population control.

As for health care not going there as we have homeless people, sick children and others who do not have health care and the tobacco tax should and could pay for that.

I do agree the government should not be involved it should be the owners choice as points were made more people go to taverns smokers and non-smokers. The point here is we all have rights some may like them others may not but that is freedom.

As for remarks made everyone is intitled to their opinion again freedom of speech to dismiss this is wrong and apparently when people are posting they are not reading the user policy agreement that the Gazette has posted.

There is not a right or wrong answer here we as a society have to pick our fights and determine what is worth fighting for. I again smoke so I will pick my fight as for non-smokers you can pick yours and we all can hope for the best.

gfan AGAIN with the asinine stereotypes 'If you want to regard the act of smoking as matter of choice you are also arguing in favor of a person's right to choose to be ignorant or uneducated in which case you are arguing in favor of someone choosing to be a a fool' youre not talking about a smoking ban there. you are talking about anyone who wants to 'regard the act of smoking as matter of choice' as being an ignorant, uneducated fool. i bet you big money that almost everyone anywhere regards smoking as a 'matter of choice'. i actually dont know how its anything but...

I am a smoker and I do enjoy an after dinner smoke, but I must admit, it is sometimes nice to be at a resturant and be able to really smell the food. Sometimes they are so smokey that I really cannot smell my food, all I smell is smoke.
I like the idea of resturants like Ground Round where they are split up and you have a choice. I know that is not going to work in most cases because a lot of people would have to remodel but it's nice to at least have a choice.
I know that people are saying, well if you don't like it, then don't go out to eat, but that's not really fair either. I wish they had cigarettes that were not harmful, but then again, why would that be the case??
I am sure that most places will eventually be all non smoking... we will all just have to take it in stride... because really... it IS healthier for you and the people around you.

When the smoking ban is enacted smoking will not be legal in bars. Just like driving a car through a bar is already not legal.

Smokers should factor into their behavior that smoking is not only dangerous to themselves and others but that it is also expensive. The faulty thinking that smoking is OK is consistent with overlooking the financial expense of smoking. Therefore, pointing out the expense of smoking to a smoker will help some smokers to reconsider their poor habit. Some smokers who quit have used this information to help them quit.

If you want to regard the act of smoking as matter of choice you are also arguing in favor of a person's right to choose to be ignorant or uneducated in which case you are arguing in favor of someone choosing to be a a fool.

gazettefan It sounded like you were making an argument about why people shouldn't smoke because of the costs. If they choose to spend their money on that activity then so be it.

Just let government tell you how to run your life and where you can and can not engage in legal activities.

Posting a comment to tell someone to stop posting is silly. I wonder why people do that.

...and I agree, common sense would have someone not pollute the air in an enclosed room with non-smokers.

shutup....., common sense has people causing smoking bans because smokers are totally lacking in that regard.

And I've already heard that stuff about the royalty of the U.S. on pot.

angel....., someone said the same thing to you on another blog -in much more harsh terms- and I defended you a little bit.

G-fan,I have seen YOU on here more than anyone else.Im not normally an upfront ,in your face kind of person, but, dont you think it is time to move on???? Eventually all the non-smokers will win this fight....just go to bed,call it a night and snore ! (btw,im a smoker) and I dont snore.

Gfan you would be surprised at who smokes pot. I know lawyers and teachers and doctors and librarians that smoke pot.

Taxes isn't the government telling you HOW to spend your money. They just take it and use it where they want to.

common sense would tell someone to not go into a bar or restaurant if they didn't like smoking.

Simmer down, whybesad, I didn't say the government should tell you how to spend your money, only that common sense should.

Yes, people spend a lot of money on crap. But usually that crap isn't dangerous to them and the people around them.

By the way, the government does tell you what to do with some of your money, it's called taxes.

Also, I'm very anti-communist. As a matter of fact, I've killed me some.

So gazettefan you think the government needs to tell people how to spend their money? So what if someones pays money to buy cigarettes? People spend money on all kinds of things that don't make much sense to me but, I'm not going to govern them to spend their money differently. You might as well live in communist China if you like government telling you what to do and where to eat and what to watch on t.v

Not very articulate. Are you high? Never mind.

blahblahblah. i cant say anything to highlight your lack of intelligence on the subject any more than your owns posts do. good day. i said good day.

thekid, can't you respond to opposition without resorting to insults. Because you can't, I can't help but believe that disagreeing with you is tantamount to insulting you. This disposition on your part clouds your thinking and makes you come off as cranky, belying your claims about the miraculous effects of the demon-weed.

You speak of marijuana legalization as all encompassing because you are ill-equipped to discern the difference between the issues of smoking marijuana and non-smoking marijuana (or using its THC active ingredient). You must learn to make distinctions and to stop over-generalizing YOUR need to puff weed on the entire marijuana issue. You are exhibiting poor thinking with this train of thought.

Did you pay attention in American history class?! STATES RIGHTS was used to justify and legalize slavery. We live within a federal system. That means the federal government over rules state governments and other local governments. State and local governments get to make laws deemed left-over by the federal government. The federal government determines what drugs are legal and not legal. Eventually states and local governments will be dealt with re: these pocket "legalizations." The issue will probably end up in the Supreme Court. That court will not legalize pot smoking.

Talk about not thinking before you type re: pot in cookies. Why aren't you aware of the child obesity problem in this county?! You should be. And besides, children who aren't fat or obese eat cookies too. Look it up!!!

did you even read my post?? i speak of non-smoking legalization?? i speak of MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. how one chooses to consume it is their business. the fact that theres no vote means theres no interest in legalizing it?? yer asinine. again...read this slowly or twice whatever to comprehend this...STONER NATION IS BEHIND THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA BECAUSE WE KNOW ONCE A MAJORITY OF STATES ARE MEDICAL UNCLE SAM WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO REMOVE HIS TENTACLES AND LEAVE IT A STATES RIGHTS ISSUE...
.
in uncle sams eyes its not legal to smoke anywhere. in the states eyes there are 13 states where its legal to smoke marijuana medically. im sure there are many towns around that have passed ordinances legalizing it. i know denver, co is one of those citys.
.
more of a gateway because delivered in a cookie?? maybe for fat kids. but seriously...do you even think about things before you type?? or do you just let yo fingers do the talking??

thekid, it can't be voted on because it doesn't get to the point where there is a vote. Which means there's no interest in legalizing it. The legalization you speak of is NON-SMOKING legalization. Where has pot been legalized for smoking?

By the way, talk about GATEWAY, pot in cookies is a gateway delivery system for kids to become stoners. Much like the pop wines of Boone's Farms and Ripple were/are gateway beverages for kids to become alkies.

they keep forgettin to get around to it?? 13 states are medical because of stoner nation and that number will continue to grow until uncle sam can no longer deny it. once uncle sam removes his tentacles you will see the states, a majority who will already have legal medical marijuana, go one step further and de-criminalize or even legalize the possession/consumption by a legal adult. the states NEED revenue and will tax it big times. not to mention that it should be a STATES rights issue in the first place.
.
gfan when exactly was the last time you voted against legal marijuana?? ive been voting for a few years and havent seen that on the ballot.

Smokers spend about $1,600 a year on cancer sticks. That's $16,000 every ten years. Or $24,000 every fifteen years -enough money to pay cash for a new car.

They keep forgetting to get around to it.

When was the last time that issue was put to a vote by the people? I must have missed that on the ballot. Most people would rather have it legal so it can be taxed and it'd take some of pressure off law enforcement with this war on drugs to go after the really dangerous drugs.

What exactly do you mean? That people should be able to do what ever they want? C'mon. The freedom to choose re: pot shows itself by way of the fact that the people of this country are choosing to keep it illegal.

yes freedom of choice would be a wonderful thing. can you imagine such a society?? it would be like we are all...i dont know responsible for our own selves or something...

Freedom to choose.

Huh? Why does there have to be a "winner"? And why would the gazette disable a blog that gets so posts? You came to post here, after all.

"FADS" come and go. Smoking has been around for um... how long?? I really wish everyone would just get over it and move on !! BTW,why hasnt this blog been disabled yet ? This seems to be one of those arguments that will never be won by either side.Disable this blog,already !!!

To each is own.

hightest. not highness;) and i appreciate what you say but i dont need you not judging me to not make myself look like your non judgemental judgements.

Yeah, but you're coming out of that judgment looking pretty good, your highness.

im sure about that:) when you say im the exception to the rule...you are acknowledging that i live a healthy lifestyle while smoking marijuana on a regular basis and yer saying most people who smoke pot are the opposite...as a rule. thats judging sir.

Are you sure about that? You might be letting my friendly digs toward you to skew your impression of me. I don't judge that much. I only strongly state my opinions with the occasional kidding around. When someone responds with direct insults then I might respond in kind. It's best to not resort to name calling.

third hand smoke article from msn
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/quit...

no gfan its not like calling you late for dinner. you judge more on these blogs than any other person, from what ive noticed, who blogs here. maybe every other thread you blog on i dont see you dont judge, but when it comes to my lifestyle you most certainly judge. and to early?? a)9:36 PM and 2)have you not been payin attention?? some peeps wake to a cig an a pot of coffee...i wake to a quick two hitters an start the day with a smile:)

No, thekid, it's like calling me late for dinner.

thekid, kind of early for the you-know-what, isn't it?

Smoking is bad, wherever you are or go. It's a fad, that should have been 'snuffed out' long ago. We must relize that the effects of it, are all around us. No air is truly smoke-free.
However, I urge everyone, smoker and non... to do their part. To raise first the awareness of how smoking can harm us and our world. Next. as a sign of good faith... how about moving those longnecked butt urns somewhere else.
Here in my new town, WM has noted that some will opt to shop elsewhere. (their urns are at the doors) I for one can take the smell but... some of my new neighaors about-face, when they 'smell that smell'. We can do little to stamp out smoking. However, creating new ways to at the very least, tolerating it... is a tad bit better than doing nothing at all.

gfan says to not judge to quickly or to harshly?? isnt that like the pot calling the bag green??;)

Yes, those flummerian questions are to fill the void where reasoning is supposed to take place.

"Still waiting for an answer as to why gazettefan is so adamant about smoking bans....."

Wondering why you're so adamant to know the answer, or how your inquiry adds anything to the discussion.

Dueley noted.

Still waiting for an answer as to why gazettefan is so adamant about smoking bans.....

Only if you're alienated.

It's not the will of the people it's the will of the government to impose on our personal lives even more than they are already.

If it was the will of the people wouldn't more bars and taverns open up as non-smoking establishments?

fromjanesville......., first you must garner millions of people who agree with your causes after which you will contact your congressman. And, of course, you'll have to manage your recruitment-time and energy much more wisely; for example: spending 62.5% of your posts on me will be non-productive. Also, you should make an effort to not judge others too quickly and too harshly.

The 3 sea shells? What are those,anyway? They never explained that in the movie.

pretty soon they will tell us what kind of toilet paper we can wipe with or better yet this country will be just like the movie demolition man ....anyone remember that movie ...................

all i have to say is that smoking has been around since before we settled this fine country of ours and i am not talking about wacky tobacky...we smoked peace pipes with the indians hey wait lets blame them ...not or lets blame each other bottom line is if you do not like smoking hold your damn breath it has been around for thousands of years as far as i am concerned it is our right to decide if we want to smoke and it should be the owner of the bar or dinner or what ever to decide how he or she handles the smoking as along as they are doing their best to providefor both the non-smoking and the smokers or this country...

gfan - Quite honestly a ban on anything does nothing more than to FORCE a group of people to stop doing something. Granted some of these behaviors may be illegal, but smoking is still legal.
+
By the way, I don't think you've ever answered why you are so adamant about getting smoking banned. Really, why do you feel so strongly about this?

I think a fair trade for banning smoking would be:
+
1. Riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet is now a primary offense and will result in a hefty fine. (Personal choice now gone)
2. Driving on worn tires is now also a primary offense and will result in you not being able to drive your vehicle until it is fixed. (Government hand holding.)
3. Driving without a seatbelt is now not just a ticket but a 2 week jail sentence. (More personal choice gone.)
4. Driving while talking on a cell phone is now a fine and jail time. (Personal choice gone.)
5. Having unprotected sex is now a felony. (AIDS kills about 10 times as many people as second hand smoke supposedly does.)
6. Being overweight is now a fine, $1 for each pound you are overweight per month. (More government hand holding)
7. Patrons of fast food restaurants will now have to pay a "fat tax" regardless of whether they are overweight or not for fear that they may become overweight. (Government knows whats best for you.)
8. Patients Rights are hereby revoked, anyone refusing medical treatment for a treatable illness will now be required to undergo psychiatric evaluation. (Your doctor knows what is best for you and will do it with or without your permission.)
9. Any person with an IQ less than 90 by the age of 13 will be sent to a location away from the smart people, where they will not dilute the gene pool. (Not everyone is special, even you.)
10. You must call a government office for permission when to use the restroom. (And possibly where and when to work, shop, eat, live, etc.)
+
The way things are going if our rights keep getting whittled away pretty soon #10 will be a reality. Well maybe not that far but you get my drift. Jeez, you would think I'm a smoker.

Smoking bans prevent the situations too.

Someone can also prevent the situation by not going to a place that allows smoking.

"Welders are subjected harmful fumes every day through their choice of employment, also other people who may not be welders, supervisors or material handlers for example, are exposed to these fumes as well."

Fumes are a biproduct of welding. While as much as possible is done to prevent it's harm, fumes will result. Smoking is not a requirement in a bar, or any other public space or workplace. The harmful effects of smoking can simply be eliminated with a ban, while not effecting the primary purpose of the business.

A person should have the right to breth clean air in their workplace no matter what profession they choose.

If everything in life were fair,wouldnt everyone be warm,fed and living in a house? Just an observation.

Stewy,nobody said life was fair.Not trying to be rude but it is true.

be_happy...that line of thinking could be applied to any workplace hazard...but should it be?

Yeah but it's just not fair. What if they are a really good bartender and they can't find work anywhere else that is non-smoking?

Oh yeah,people who apply for jobs in known smoking places....their choice,their problem!There are plenty of non-smoking places to work at!

This thing started in Nov. and you guys are really STILL battling?It is simple....smoking sec/non-smoking sec !!!!!!!! OK, argument over!Glad I could help.

I see gazettefan is still beating his drum: You wouldn't eat at a restaurant that didn't follow health codes. Okay, fine you win that one health codes are important for the cleanliness of a restaurant. But in case you weren't aware, smoking is already prohibited in restaurants. Do I think it should be, yeah maybe but I don't go out to restaurants enough for it to be a major issue.
+
To say that workplace safety is essentially the core issue here as far as bartenders go is, in my opinion, a non-issue. Thanks to our restaurant smoking ban there are now plenty of restaurants that have bars where a person could go to tend bar without the supposed danger of second hand smoke. Welders are subjected harmful fumes every day through their choice of employment, also other people who may not be welders, supervisors or material handlers for example, are exposed to these fumes as well. The point I'm trying to make is it is a choice where you work and where you choose to go to eat, drink, socialize, etc. The significant majority of eateries in this state are now non-smoking. Non-smokers go there to eat and go there to work and leave the places where people go to smoke, drink, and socialize alone.

OkieFed - I think I love you. LOL
.
Heaven forbid I have to put up with smoke when I'm going to the bar to drink my liver to shrivels, eat deep-fried cheese curds, listen to the jukebox at 200 decibels, curse like a trucker and gamble at the Cherry Master machine until I fritter away my paycheck! Gasp!!

Simple fix really. Taverns that allow smoking should post a highly visible warning sign. That way, people could avoid the establishment. Employees who choose to work there, and where you work is a choice, would do so knowing full well of the dangers of exposure. Probably too simple, and makes too much sense to ever be accepted by those whose real objective is not public health, but controling behavior they find offensive

The government protected you from being absorbed by the Third Reich and international communism.

Your associating smoking bans with all these other problems is irrational. Smoking bans are a healthy aspect of left of center politics.

The "slippery slope" screed has hit the bottom of its own slippery slope.

Good point about placing drinking on a pedestal. The anti smoking crowd doesn't realize that after the smoking ban is passed, that they are going to move towards an absolute sobriety law. We are headed that way already. In my opinion, these smoking bans are intended to damage the tavern industry (for example all the bars that have closed in Madison since the ban), weakening them against the neo-prohibitionist efforts of lobbying groups like MADD. Someday the smoking Nazi's wont be able to go "have a glass of wine without coming home reeking of smoke" unless they designate a driver. This is because nobody wants to stand up for personal freedom anymore. Everybody seems to want the government to protect them..

WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that the direct use of tobacco products causes the user to ask irrelevant questions in lieu of clear thinking.

I suppose a few points of interest are in order. Namely the toxic environment that people claim exists specifically in bars allowing smoking, in many other posts its been pointed out high concentrations of pollutants exist in everyones day to day lives that have no direct contact with smokers. Be it high fine particulate concentrations or any plethora of other bacteria/fungi that all create the same conditions as smoking not to mention chemical exposure at work. All these cause similar conditions directly attributed to smoke inhalation, since its the current scape goat like lead paint was 30 years ago.

To use an example someone said a cable guy, well they use wiring and anyone handling flexible plastic is exposed to lead. I rarely see anyone wash their hands who handle wires. If you don't believe me pick up an extension cord with the warning label still in tact and read up, I do find them in Xmas lights as well.

Your all still pots calling the kettle black, by condemning smoking and holding public drinking on a pedestal. Drinking in taverns increases drunken driving rates by an unfathomable amount by setting up the exact conditions that allow multitudes of people to leave after having maybe just one too many drinks. Simply put your trying to support drunken drivers in a "safe" smoke free setting... gimme a break.

So...I tell all you one more time make it illegal or set it free. Your simply making your own anti public drinking arguments while trying to win a crusade against smoking. Think before you type, and sorry in advance for regurgitating arguments I brought up over a year ago since everyone got silly.

"They don't want to give bars the option of allowing smoking because they know that most would go to the smoking bars, thus defeating their argument."

Bars can allow smoking right now. Giving bars an "option" is not a ban.

That's a good idea. Gazettefan and zoom could start up a non-smoking bar. If it's in such demand and is the will of the people you should certainly have plenty of customers.

gazettefan, how often are you in contact with smokers? Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

"If people are not smart enought to stay away from it, that is their own fault !"...........
..
That's a good point! Unfortunately many want to tell others how to live. If you don't like smoke stay out of the bars. Common sense. Don't use your twisted logic, throwing the bar employees in as a red herring. This is not the main concern of the anti smoking folks, they could care less about employee safety. They just want to go where they want without the annoyance of smelling smoke. They don't want to give bars the option of allowing smoking because they know that most would go to the smoking bars, thus defeating their argument. I don't believe for one second that second hand smoke in such infinitesimal quantities poses any danger. Why don't you anti smoking people just come out and admit you don't like doing laundry after you go to the bars? Simply put if you don't like smoking, stay out of establishments that permit it, or start your own. Mind your own business, and stop trying to legislate what others can and can't do.

Flatulant is a pollutant.

The air we breath is polluted by a variety of pollutants. Your best bet would continue to sit inside your warm cozy house and not venture out into this big bad world.

O BOY :(

How can this still be up for debate ? 2nd hand smoke kills ! End of story ... If people are not smart enought to stay away from it, that is their own fault ! Should it be illegal ? Yes it should .

You're welcome.

But what freedom? What about the freedom to breath air unpolluted by people smoking cancer sticks?

Oh thanks for clearing that up for all of us. The world is full of choices. Don't take that freedom away from us.

Decency? Decency should compel a person to not fowl the air of the people around them.

Rudeness isn't illegal, but we shouldn't be rude anyway.

whybesad,
It's not their policy, in both of the examples I gave, it's the law. If a ban on smoking in bars and taverns were to pass, it would be policy (due to the law) to not allow smoking in such establishments.
Under the current law, some business owners get to make the choice but some don't. You contend that it should be up to the owner. Therefore, you should be asking the government to rescind laws that infringes on the right of the business to decide. After surgeons begin burning patients or semi trucks begin exploding, people will know not to go to that hospital or use that trucking service.
This would be much in line with your "logic" requiring pro-ban people to argue for bans on smoking in private residences that repair people must enter.

What does decency have to do with anything? If the bar/restaurant allow smoking and smoking is legal the person isn't doing anything wrong. If it offends you find a non-smoking restaurant/bar.

That's their policy.

Common sense AND common decency!!!

I personally would assume that common sense and decency would lead a person not to burn toxic chemicals in the presence of the lungs of other people.
You haven't answered the question though. Why should we ban certain types of workers from smoking but not others? In addition to bans for reasons of public safety, we also don't allow smoking in certain buildings such as government buildings. Why shouldn't those people be allowed to light up at their desks? You rail about the rights of bar patrons to smoke but don't speak up for other workers.

zoom so we should just assume that a bar won't loose any business. There are studies that say the opposite as well. Just use the smoking license on a trial basis. If people don't patronize the bar then the owner will most definitely change their policy on smoking. It all comes down to making money. You know it's the will of the people to put a ban in place. Well let's just see.

Bubs I'm talking about a exemption for taverns. Common sense would tell you not to light up around oxygen or gasoline.

"Zoom a business owner would rather pay the license fee than loose money from people not wanting to go to his/her bar. If the business looses business the state will loose valuable tax money."

There is much evidence that shows businesses do not lose money when a smoking ban is enacted, including in our very own state. There are more then enough non-smoking patrons to make up for the few smokers who choose not to curb their habit for the short time they are in a bar.

You contend that business owners should be allowed to decide whether or not to allow their customers and employees to smoke. By your reasoning this means that hospitals should be allowed to let surgeons smoke. Trucking companies should decide whether or not drivers with hazardous chemicals such as explosives or fuel should be allowed to smoke.
Why would you allow some businesses to make the decision but not others? You claim smoking is a right, why would you take it away from some employees but not others?

I have been in homes much more smoky than any tavern. Why would you want to pick and choose which employee gets to work in a non-toxic environment. The argument that has been posted before claims that all employees should have the right to work in a non smokey environment.

Zoom a business owner would rather pay the license fee than loose money from people not wanting to go to his/her bar. If the business looses business the state will loose valuable tax money.

You're trying to create a cute little false dilemma that doesn't exist. The main purpose of the ban is obviously to improve the health of workers in consistently smokey businesses, such as bars. Secondary considerations include other professions and patrons in the bar.
The difference between banning smoking in bars and smoking in private residences that workers may have to enter is twofold. One, we are talking about PRIVATE residences versus businesses operating in the PUBLIC sphere. Secondly, there is a difference between bartenders, waitresses, and other workers such as musicians who may spend 6-8 hours in a bar several days a week every week (whom a smoking ban is primarily meant to protect), and a repairman who may occasionally have to spend time in a smokey residence (who a smoking ban would secondarily be directed at). The ban is directed at long term, prolonged exposure to concentrated levels of secondhand smoke.
What you falsely imply we must accept is that it essentially become illegal to put any amount of secondhand smoke for any amount of time in any location if we wish that prevent prolonged exposure to concentrated levels of tobacco smoke.
***
You believe that smokers should have the right to smoke in bars. That doesn't mean that you must argue that gasoline delivery drivers must be allowed to smoke while loading and unloading their trucks because they have the "right" to smoke wherever they want.
***
Apologies for repeating some of your post, Zoom, I notice that while I was typing a response, you posted a similar reasoning.

"zoom like I said before how do you protect a person whose job it is to go into people's homes to do their work? Like the cable guys, the phone guys, carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians etc. If you want to protect all employees from the toxic fumes not just a select number."

Who ever said ALL workers? I will be happy with cleaner air in public spaces and workplaces. However, if you also want to ban smoking at home, I suggest you call your Congressman.

"Make some money for this economy and everybody is happy."

The business owner won't be happy paying for another license. A statewide smoking ban will costs a business owner absolutely nothing to implement.

zoom like I said before how do you protect a person whose job it is to go into people's homes to do their work? Like the cable guys, the phone guys, carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians etc. If you want to protect all employees from the toxic fumes not just a select number.

Now there is a plan. It would be fun to see the bars with the smoking permits business compared to the non-smoking bars.

A license doesn't fix the employee health problem. Also, a license still has to be enforced, much like a liqour license must be enforced now.

Use a license so they don't have to enforce the code. Make some money for this economy and everybody is happy. Smokers have a place to go and non-smokers will have a place to go. The license will let the government regulate how many bars allow smoking while also making some money.

If you think a smoking ban is going to violated in a significant way, you are wrong. The bans are working elsewhere. People will report violations frequently enough so that business owners will not want to risk expensive fines and the eventual loss of their licenses. Making the calls for enforcement minuscule.

Mostly, though, owners will not permit violations of the ban.

If the ban goes through. There are going to be an aweful lot of costs involved in enforcing the law. I would suggest using a license for the owner to apply for to be allowed to have smoking allowed in their own private business. It would increase revenue for the state and counties. We are in a very bad economic times right now we really don't need to enact a ban that is pointless and can be handled differently. We will spent money on enforcing the ban that we don't have.

whybesad, do you understand your own question?

Because Sam's and Costco are FOR-PROFIT, their club status wouldn't exempt them from a smoking ban. As will be the case with clubs/bars in Wisconsin. Sam's and Costco's club status only means you can't go in them if you're not member.

If you don't answer my questions, it's because the answers are in my favor and you just don't want to say so.

Is Costco and Sam's club non-profit? Food regulations aren't the same as a ban on a legal activity. Yes smoking is legal.

And, whybesad, "members only clubs" would only have an exemption based on non-profit status. If you think the business owners here are going to turn their livelihoods into non-profits, well..........!!!

You're just making stuff up!!!

You didn't answer these questions:

Are you back to saying that instead of smoking bans, smoking should be legal everywhere?

Would you eat in a restaurant without government imposed health codes and reserve your choice until something went wrong, like food poisoning?

And, would you allow your children to eat there until something went wrong?

There will be ways around the smoking ban. The bars/restaurants will just become clubs. For members only.

O boy. Wasn't that answered somewhere? Why do you have to keep beating a dead horse?

whybesad, are you back to saying that instead of smoking bans, smoking should be legal everywhere?

And, would you eat in a restaurant without government imposed health codes and reserve your choice until something went wrong, like food poisoning?

And, would you allow your children to eat there until something went wrong?

Why can't we accommodate both types of bars? both smoking and non-smoking? People haven't answered that. Ok so you bring up the workplace issue. What about professional people that go to private homes and perform their jobs? IE painters, carpenters, plumbers, electricians etc. and the people that own the home are smokers. What then? Why is that any different than your lame argument about the workplace issue?

I haven't read where second hand smoke is an epidemic and people are dying from stepping inside a bar for a few hours on a weekend. Haven't heard of a law enforcement professional dying because he/she went into a smoky bar. The smoking Nazi's are just trying to make this a much bigger deal than it really is.

Also, bars are not workplaces for just bartenders. Law enforcement, musicians, sound and light techs, health inspectors, EMTs, fire marshals, delivery people, and repair people are a few of the professions that have to spend varying amounts of time in smoky bars due to their job. There is nothing so intrinsic about a bar (bars in Madison are still bars to a vast majority of people) that it is impossible to remove smoking from the business owners' list of decisions they can make about the safety of their workers and patrons. While this is primarily a workplace issue, it is also a public health issue for the patrons.
As Zoom points out, even if people know the risks and deem them acceptable because they need a job and/or enjoy serving drinks (protecting and serving the public, making music, enforcing health codes, etc.), that may not be a decision that we want to let them make.

I would be in favor of having a seperate license for a bar owner to require if they want to permit smoking. Like the license they are required to pull to serve alcohol. If that's what it takes to have the business owner being able to run their business the way the want.

"The workplace theory is kind of misleading."

No, it isn't. One purpose of the ban is to improve working conditions. It doesn't matter what a potential employees current expectations are. At some point in our past, children were allowed to work 40 hours a week. The fact that parents new this, and allowed their children to work those hours anyway, doesn't make child labor a good practice. We evolved, and will continue to evolve.

The workplace theory is kind of misleading. A person that wants to become a bartender knows what kind of enviroment that that job entails. A car mechanic knows what job they are going to be required to do and the enviroment that entails. You will prpbably be working with hazardous chemicals and working in a gargage which at times is going to be extremely cold or hot certain times in the year. A bartender could apply for a job in a gentleman's club and be required by the owner to be topless. This is the owners choice of how he/she wants to opweate their business. It's called common sense to not drive a car in a building like gazettefan fan suggested that would happen if their weren't laws in place. If a person wants to tend bar they should do their homework and see where they can serve drinks and if the establishment is smoke free. People can get naked in bars they are called strip joints.Bubs I would be in favor of having a seperate license for a bar owner to require if they want to permit smoking. Like the license they are required to pull to serve alcohol. If that's what it takes to have the business owner being able to run their business the way the want.

"why can't we have both smoking and non-smoking taverns?"

One purpose of the smoking ban is to protect employees, like many similar laws (think OSHA). We don't allow businesses to decide individually if employees have to wear certain protective equipment, for instance, when working around certain chemicals. Working in a smoke filled environment is the same logic. Employees should have the right to work in a smoke free environment, and not be subject to the wims of the owner.

Can you seriously not think of a single legal activity that is not allowed in a tavern? Not even one? Gazettefan already helped out a bit but here are a few more:
Butchering an animal, discharging a firearm, lighting off fireworks, repairing engines, having an establishment open during certain times of the day (2am - 8am in WI I believe, other than certain days of the year), purchasing entire unopened bottles of liquor for personal use outside the establishment, storing nuclear waste, enriching uranium, selling prescription drugs, smoking medical marijuana (legal in some jurisdictions), performing medical procedures, practicing psychotherapy, manufacturing auto parts, grooming pets, selling pets, having more than a certain number of people in the establishment (i.e. 301 people in a bar with a capacity of 300), some jurisdictions don't allow musical acts without a specific type of license, etc.
***
The truck driver metaphor/anecdote is simply an example of when the greater public good overrides what you perceive to be the "freedom" of a person to smoke wherever they wish. For the public good, we don't allow truck drivers to smoker within a certain distance (I believe 300 ft) of trucks carrying certain cargoes, such as TNT. For the public good, some of us want to prevent smokers from filling the enclosed space of certain businesses with toxins.

Driving a car, being naked, and having sex, to name just three.

Hey bubs also can you tell us what other legal activities there are that aren't allowed in taverns?

bubs why can't we have both smoking and non-smoking taverns? Your arguement on truck drivers and smoking is completely off the subject.

shutupandfish,
There are plenty of legal activities that are not allowed in certain types of businesses. The fact that smoking is a legal activity is not a sufficient reason to continue allowing it in bars.
***
OkieFed,
Being able to smoke wherever the heck a person wants is now a personal "freedom"? I would agree that people should have the freedom to choose what they put in their bodies, but find reasonable and prudent restrictions on when and where they can do it a good thing. For example, truck drivers transporting certain materials cannot smoke or handle open flames near their loads. Is it infringing upon personal freedoms that require a truck driver transporting TNT to be a certain distance from his vehicle while enjoying a cigarette?

Yes, and pro-smokers blame smoking bans on something inherently wrong with lobbying. Lobbying is what the Tavern League did.

There was no vote. The ban didn't pass because the Wisconsin Tavern League was able to block a vote on any bill. Also, the league wanted a two year exemption period for bars, not a complete exemption. When one purpose of the ban is to protect employees, there is no reason to exempt bars for two years.

It's a legal activity. It should be up to the business owner. I do think they should have smoking areas available to smokers in the workplace. The ban would have passed if the would have made taverns except from the ban. they wanted all or nothing and it failed.

You guys are still arguing about this? I think it's a foregone conclusion that the libs will get their way with this ban next year. Once they start stripping away personal freedoms, they will take everything they can. When that happens, keep in mind this passage (you can replace Communists with smokers).

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Though guns will probably be next, I'll be waiting for when they crack down on fast food, etc....fat people have always kinda irritated me.

Sue them if something serious happened.

So, whybesad, you're saying you would eat in a restaurant without government imposed health codes and reserve your choice until something went wrong, like food poisoning?

Would you allow your children to eat there until something went wrong?

You think an owner of a restaurant isn't going to clean the restaurant on his/her own and make the food eatable? Do you really think people would spend their money at a place that was dirty? The word of mouth would put the place out of business. Don't get me wrong a little bit of government is a good thing. I realize we need it in our lives. I just don't think they need to run our lives.

whybesad, there'd be more cases of food poisoning plus many more cases of contagious diseases and therefore epidemics if there were no health codes. These epidemics would threaten the health and lives of of you and your family whether you or they ate in restaurants or not. Despite all the advancements in medical science, it is the improvement of sanitary conditions that has made humans healthier and able to live lives much longer than humans did since the species began.

Do you know that the paved streets and highways that allow you to easily get around town and elsewhere were put there by the government?

How would it be much worse? If you get sick at a restaurant are you still going to go there? With codes or not? The government doesn't have to tell me if the food sucks than i shouldn't go.

The intelligent conclusion to draw from that is that the problems would be much worse without the codes.

When food poisoning occurs with codes, the government can take corrective action against the wrongdoer.

The codes now are pretty lame. You can still get food poisoning now with codes.

So you're saying you would eat in a restaurant without government imposed health codes and reserve your choice until something went wrong, like food poisoning?

Would you allow your children to eat there until something went wrong?

Fact is if a restaurant didn't have health codes and I patronized the place and was not satisfied with their operation I wouldn't patronize the restaurant anymore. It would have a domino effect and if the owner didn't change their practices they wouldn't be in business very long.

I have gotten food poisoning from restaurants that have health codes. So, the codes really can't protect a person 100% of the time. I don't patronize that restaurant anymore after that incident.

Sure. I would look at the place and decide if it was up to my standards. I still make choices now with the health codes. If a place seems dirty to me I will go somewhere else.

whybesad, would you choose to eat and drink in restaurants and bars if all government imposed health codes were removed?

No joke there. I was was taken home from the hospital on my mothers lap. The point is that we know there are health hazards involved with smoking but, we as human beings can determine what is bad for us and what isn't.

whybesad- I know you were half joking when you said you even came home as a baby on your mother's lap. PLEASE remind everyone reading that Children under the age/weigt limits should be in car seats & seat belts. Car accidents are a leading contributor to fatal injuries in children. You would not get on a roller coaster without the safety harness being engaged.
+
Smoking around children can cause asthma and numerous health hazards. I would suggest that you choose NOT to subject children to it.
+
Happy New Year & Be Safe!

Here is what I have always thought things should be:
+
Restaurants: no smoking unless there is an entirely separate smoking area. (Pretty much like it is now.)
+
Bars: Smoking permitted per owners discretion.
+
Definition of a restaurant: 60% of sales is from food. A bar is everything else. This still allows bars to serve food which most of them do.
+
Then again, my belief is that in any establishment, the owner should be the one to decide.

instead of banning smoking in some places, it should be banned everywhere.
WHY???
Why should a group of people be banned from participating in a legal activity if it allowed in a private business?

If smoking is soooooo bad than it should be against the law.It's funny how somebody complains about smoking in bars when they are there to consume alcohol which can cause liver disease and all kinds of health problems. If non-smoking is truly the WILL of the people than tobacco would be outlawed.

If I wanted to smoke around my baby I have that choice. Is it good? Probably not. It's not against the law.

Because I made the choice not to.

Haeight, contained in your effort to dodge the question is your admission that you would smoke in the presence of a baby. Now, the question becomes: would you smoke in the presence of your own baby?

Power trip? Immediate area? The underlying psychology behind smoking is to control the immediate area by spewing toxic fumes in it which in turn is to control and damage the well-being of people in that area. Your advice is in conflict. You suggest others should concentrate on doing good things in their immediate area while you also suggest that the reasonable thing to do is: instead of banning smoking in some places, it should be banned everywhere.

Everyone gets what they want with smoking bans. Smokers can continue to smoke as long as they don't smoke in public places. Non-smokers can go to public places without the danger of breathing toxic fumes.

Many things that are legal aren't legal everywhere.

If the baby lights up first I am all for smoking around them.

Its simply a courtesy. You don't smoke at your non smoking friends house and they don't complain when they come visit you smoking in yours its about manners.

Simply put smoking is expected in specific places such as bars and bowling alleys. It doesn't stop an owner from saying they don't want it in their house/establishment. Its your choice to come there.

There have been multiple arguments expressed in the last 2 years with multiple solutions that let bygones be bygones. The only problem is that people like to power trip and control everyone. Instead of just looking out for themselves and effecting change in their immediate area.

You can't be everywhere at once, and not everyone is welcome everywhere they want to go. So trying to control an entire city or state based on the use of a legal substance is oppression. That runs counter to the interests of a, supposedly, free society not to mention the laws set in place when it was formed.

Regulating is great if it creates areas for all members of society, banning anything legal is petty and wrong. Make it illegal or set it free.

If you smoked, why wouldn't you smoke around babies?

What's that got to do with anything? If I smoked I wouldn't smoke around my baby. That's my choice. My parents both smoked as I was growing up and I am healthy. They even took me home from the hospital on their lap.

whybesad, is it okay to smoke around babies?

I bet if perfume fragrance was studied as much as cigarette smoke they would find that it could cause cancer. What doesn't nowadays?

The paranoids are out to get us.

stewy: always:)

It wasn't Christmas time and stating a fact isn't whining. Like I said an odor doesn't cause cancer and smoke does. Evidently you have cancer of the brain.

edsci did you give the homeless person a helping hand during the Christmas season? Or did you just go about your day and decide to whine about his odor on the internet? The fact is that there are a lot of things that are unhealthy for us and could be outlawed. But, when is it ok for the people to use their ability to think and choose what to do with their bodies? When is to much government a bad thing?

Equating smoking to perfume and aftershave? If it made you actually sick then why didn't you go to the hospital or see a doctor? Inhaling second hand smoke can ACTUALLY make you sick. An odor is much different than finely burned chemicals such as formaldehyde floating in the air. I don't know of anyone who got lung cancer from perfume do you? In fact the history of perfume is that it is usually used to cover up the smell of sewage or body odor. I only wish the homeless guy in the library had been wearing some perfume. You do get used to smells after awhile otherwise no one would live near a paper mill or on a farm. Businesses that are open to the public have to obey laws dealing with their public interaction. The best idea would be to turn your bar into a private club. So, crazycatlady remeber what Jesus said, turn the other cheek or nostril as it were.

Soon the government will be telling us more and more how to run our lives and businesses. So sad. That's their agenda.

You know, noone is ever going to win this argument on one of these forums. And we all know the non-smokers are going to win in the end just because they outnumber the smokers. Doesn't really matter to me personally anyway cuz I don't go to bars, can certainly stand sitting in a restaurant to eat without smoking & hope to quit in 2 weeks anyway January 5 I try again. Guess just what bugs me is #1 the freedom of choice, sorry all you non-smokers but smoking is LEGAL & if I own a bar I should have that right, it is not the same as the health codes regarding food & you can use that argument until you are blue in the face but you are wrong. What would be SO BAD about having to advertise your establishment as either/or & people can make their choice? I just don't get it. And #2 if you get your way on this, then why why why do I have to put up with your disgusting perfume/aftershave. Went to church yesterday morning for Christmas services & was so sick by the time I left that it ruined my whole day, but that's okay, I can put up with YOUR toxic fumes I guess, seeing as how they are LEGAL.

Soon the decision will be: Should I go outside and have that smoke or should I tough it out and shake the cancer sticks once-and-for-all?

There is a place for each. People can decide where to go and where to spend their money.

This issue is about removing the toxic fumes of tobacco products from public places. Every new smoking ban is evidence that the American public is making the right choice.

The DMV is a joke. And people want more government involved in our lives. Be careful what you wish for. I have faith in the American people to be able to make the right choices for themselves and their families.

Government bureaucracy makes things much more complicated. Have you been to the DMV??

whybesad, thanks for the complement; I guess now you'll stop using the word "ban" as though the government owns it.

Stewy, the argument is supposed to be: it's easier to let the government make your decisions for you, you got it backwards.

gazettefan- Really? Nobody owns a word? Your brilliant!!!

Yeah everything is pretty easy when you can make decisions on your own without the government making the decisions for you.

Gfan- Your getting pretty technical with the whole owning of words and everything.

whybe...., the government doesn't own the word "ban", it can be applied any time something is prohibited, illegal, or taboo.

If an owner decides not to serve Shlitz beer at their bar is that a "ban"? If the decide to not allow smoking that is a ban? Am I missing something? Sounds to me like it's a business decision. Nothing more nothing less and the Government didn't even have to get involved. WOW!!! Merry Christmas!!!

thekid, I got a feeling everything's easy for stewy.

Judge people?! Humans do it all the time. But it's usually tactful not to voice that judgment -unless provoked.

You might be projecting the loneliness problem. You partake in a an activity that naturally doesn't allow you to mesh with the rest of the world. By your admission, you and your fellow pot heads can't let yourselves be none. Coincidence? I don't think so. Spare us the paranoid rant about the government.

A cartoon is a cartoon. And what sense is there to be made from your reference. It seems to be that even though you're an adult, you feel like you're not one of them. If I'm wrong, please explain. Why don't you reference the Great Books if you want to impress me.

And don't drag your kids into this, they can't help you.

Oh, and I really need advice from you about having an open mind, ha!!! Merry Xmas.

almost sounds to easy doesnt it stewy?? seriously gfan, do you do anything besides judge people?? i have a feeling you live a lonely life. my thought process has something to do with the fact that i watch cartoons?? its not beavis an butthead i referenced. i referenced one of the greatest animators of all time. a cartoon that is on tv year after year after year. my kids watch it. wanna blast their thought process?? millions of kids today would be aware of my reference. the fact that you arent aware of it actually says a lot more about who you are, than who i am for knowing it, and that actually makes me sad for you. have a good holidaze an a good new year either way. not to tell you how to live yo life by you should try '09 with open eyes and an open mind. its a much better world that way...peace...

stewy, do you really think there's a difference between a bar being smoke-free and a bar having a smoking ban?!!!

And what kind of world do you operate in where calling someone a retard is OK? There's something revealing about your inability to reason and your use of that word as an insult.

thekid, unlike you, you reefer-stick smoking, macaroon-munching stoner, I don't watch cartoons. But the fact that you do, explains a lot about your thought processes, the reefer doesn't help either.

The owner didn't BAN anything he/she simply decided that they wanted THEIR business to be smoke-free.

for some reason i assume your voice sounds EXACTLY the same as all the adults in charlie brown

thekid, LOL.

Thanks for explaining that "smokin mother nature" is to blame for your raucous inability to grasp clear reasoning. If I exhibited that same kind of reasoning, I might claim myself that being puking drunk was to blame.

My point was directed at the claim of the pro-smokers that smoking bans would harm businesses. Your example, no matter your intent, goes to that end: If a bar owner bans smoking and the bar survives then the "harming the business" argument is trounced. Accordingly, businesses do not suffer from municipal, county, or state smoking bans.

If border town bars in a smoking ban state are suffering, that suffering comes from the lack of smoking bans in the states across the border.

Smokers will adjust and smoke outside. Some smokers will use the ban as encouragement to quit. In any case, non-smokers will fill the void, if any, left by any smokers who no longer go to a particular bar, or bars.

PS As for your throwing the insults again, I appreciate your feelings of regret.

i hate to say it gfan. but yer just plain dumb i think. did you really take my example of how a smoke free bar will survive in an otherwise smoke dominatad society and use THAT as your example of how a smoking ban will work. duh. i mean omfg im glad ive got mother nature here or id be bouncing off the wall. OF ALL THE THE INSANE THINGS YOUVE POSTED THATS IS THE MOST. really ' It was a smoking ban in microcosm showing that a ban in macrocosm would be the right and fair way to go'. that leads me to wonder where secondhand smoke is worse...in everyones lungs or up everyones arse which is exactly where yer blowin it. want an example of bars surviving with a smokin ban?? duh...look south. not A NON SMOKING BAR SURVIVING IN A SMOKING SOCIETY. sry but im still rotflmfao. thank you sir.

thekid, it's only logical that you should support a way of reducing drunk driving by having smoke free bars that are within walking distance of people's homes.

munchies, got ya, thekid.

There was a smoking ban where you were: the owner banned it. It was a smoking ban in microcosm showing that a ban in macrocosm would be the right and fair way to go.

hannah, made a great point recently. She'd like to be able to walk to the nearby bars on Main St. so she doesn't have to drive back home from far-away bars while sloshed. She'd like to patronize those bars without being exposed to toxic fumes and its stink on her cloths. A lot of us feel that way. It's unfair that smokers are allowed to dominate those bars.

the intelligent thing i said?? from your perspective maybe. of course from EVERY OTHER PERSPECTIVE my point was that when left to the owners...the ones who CHOSE smoke free SURVIVE. i reread my post and dont see anything about me saying anything about being anywhere near a city/state that had anything to do with a smoking ban.
.
that was the bar and omfg nachos to die for:) and im a professional muncher:)

The intelligent point of what thekid said is: Smoking bans don't hurt businesses.

Suck on the cancer sticks at home!!!

Thekid that's the whole point. There isn't a need for a law. Good post the bar wasn't the grumpy troll was it?

Applauding- GO HANNAH!

crazycatlady, here is a report that shows that the removal of secondhand smoke by way of a smoking ban prevents myocardial infarctions and death.
-----------

CHICAGO -- A ban on smoking in public places in Helena, Mont., led to an immediate 60% drop in the incidence of myocardial infarctions.

The surprising finding was observable because of a unique geographic and health care situation--all heart disease patients from Helena and two other surrounding communities are treated at a single hospital. The study involved an analysis by residence of all myocardial infarction cases treated at that hospital over a 4-year period. The two communities surrounding Helena did not have a smoking ban and did not show evidence of any changes in the incidence of myocardial infarctions.

crazycatlady, apologies, I re-posted someone else's post that seems to be in desperate need of decimal points.

As for banning smoking in public places, my reasoning for such remains impenetrable.

Gazettefan: I am confused by a post you made back on December 19 stating that every breath of second hand smoke that you take takes 3.75 years off of your life. That just doesn't compute for me. Wouldn't that mean that if you were in a smoky bar for like say an hour or so you would already be dead?

Your next to last post points out that no smoking in bars does not hurt the business.

Your last post shows you have the potential to be brilliant.

gfan yer 12:08 post was good.

i was in a bar in mt horeb yesterday that voluntarily was smoke free. no city or state ordinance forcing them to be...and it was a great atmosphere. they seemed to be surviving. looks to me like not only COULD the option of allowing the business owner to decide work...but it actually IS...

The complaints and threats have been made and the owners failed to comply. They are afraid of the smokers and some of them understand they their businesses won't be hurt and some of them don't understand that their businesses will improve.

The irrationality that business owners have to deal with with smokers is evident on these smoking ban blogs.

You still fail to grasp how the democracy works in a republic.

If it was the will of the people. Businesses would act accordingly. If an owner hears constant complaints about their business and people threaten not to patronize the place of business and he/she will see the trend and change their policies of their business. If people see a demand for non-smoking establishments then they will seize the opportunity to make some money an open a non-smoking establishment. In stead we want to enact laws which cost millions of dollars and waste hundreds of hours of lawmakers time to enact and enforce the law. In this economy I think the lawmakers need to focus on other things besides a smoking ban.

This issue is about banning smoking in public places, like bars. You are generalizing this thing onto other things that you are not naming. How will smoking bans cause the other problems you are so worried about?

Every thing that happens that is undesirable to some people isn't the beginning of a slippery slope. The slippery slope excuse has hit the bottom of its own slippery slope.

If you're so worried about the bad that can come out of one thing, you should be worried about the meaning of that next cigarette you or someone else lights up. It will immediately do undetectable damage to your heart and lungs and the pleasure derived from the nicotine and the pleasure derived from the orality of the experience will encourage the smoking of another cigarette, then another one, and so on.

Again, the government(s) didn't just up and decide to enact smoking bans, the government(s) is responding to the will of the people.

To believe otherwise is symptomatic of a sense of alienation from the real world. This alienation shows itself when toxic fumes are spewed from the smoker into the space between him or her and the real world.

The government can't protect us from every single thing that may be bad for us. People need to make up their own mind on things. I hate smoking but, I trust people to make their own decisions in not going to a place that may harm them. It could end up being a regulation state. Let the owners make the choice of how they want to run the business. Maybe a special tax stamp to allow business owners to allow smoking. Like the alcohol tax stamp. I don't think we should cater to only one group of people.

whybesad,
You are correct, but that's not the point of the ban. Under a smoking ban (i.e. in Madison) smokers can choose to go to the bar and step outside to have a smoke or not smoke for the evening. Truisms, however, bring nothing to the conversation.
The freedom for most people to make the decision whether or not to go to a smokey bar under the current legal system is also not the point. The "freedom" at question in the ban discussion is the "freedom" of smokers to light up in enclosed rooms with other people, especially workers, and the "freedom" of business owners to allow them to do so.
The primary focus, for most pro-ban people, is on subjecting workers of all types to cigarette smoke in an enclosed room as a part of their job. Bartenders, waitresses, cooks, law enforcement, fire marshals, musician, sound and light technicians, delivery people, repair people, and health inspectors are subjected to varying amounts of time in a smokey environment. We don't allow people to make the choice to work (or to run a business) in a building full of asbestos, or a building that is falling down, or a building that has high concentrations of radiation contamination. Smoking is not such an integral part of the bar business that it's presence is necessary or that it is unreasonable to consider banning its presence.

In a republic (small r intended) the people rule by voting representatives into office. Everything isn't always the way it should be; that's a fact of life that some people just can't grasp. Existing laws over a period of time are subjected to the scrutiny of the people. For a long time the people approved, in a sense, of smoking in public places. Big government, if that's what you want to call it, acquiesced to the will of the people by permitting smoking in public places. Now after years of consciousness raising, the people have decided otherwise, the people no longer want smoking in public places. Use off-the-point terms, like big government, all you want, but you are only doing so as a way of avoiding due attention and study to this matter.

By the way, the police are part of the government. So, if you're ever attacked or someone breaks into your house, call a hippie.

I heard ya but I still am in shock over your love for Government controlling your decision making.

People don't vote to have health codes. The politicians in Madison and Washington make up the laws. Not once have I ever voted for a health code. Bigger government means they have job security. More control in our lives. God gave us the ability to make decisions. God didn't create Government to make those decisions for us.

You heard me!!!!!!!

CHOICE?!!!! The people are choosing to make public places smoke free.

Just like the people chose government imposed health codes.

WHAT??????????

CHOICE?!!!! The people are choosing to make public places smoke free.

Just like the people chose government imposed health codes.

Bubs and you have a choice of not going to a place that permits smoking.

whybesad,
To answer an earlier question by you, the law should not have to provide us with a place to eat. It also shouldn't have to provide smokers with a place to smoke. Perhaps some people simply want more places available to them but I doubt that is the main reason behind supporting the ban for most people.
You bring up fried food as a health hazard and suggest that if we ban smoking in bars, perhaps we should enact a ban to prohibit the sale of fried food. The very obvious difference is that while a smoker's cigarette smoke is inhaled by those near them, a diner's bacon cheeseburger, fried cheese curds, and milk shake don't get ingested by others in the establishment. A ban on smoking in bars would take away what is currently seen as a right of smokers to contaminate the lungs of others.

Has there ever been a lawsuit where a bartender has sued due to unhealthy conditions in there chosen profession? And won.

It's worked good so far why change it?

How long have we had smoking in taverns? Can anyone point to a death resulting in a person being in a tavern due to second hand smoke?

Did anyone ever here of a bar in a restaurant? An area dedicated to drinking inside the restaurant.

A smoking ban in public places will not bring on the problems that the total prohibition of alcohol did.

The total prohibition of alcohol did not stop people from smuggling, manufacturing, and consuming alcohol. If tobacco were totally prohibited, it would bring on the problems of alcohol prohibition. Instead, the smoking bans will only prohibit smoking in public places.

for more information on tobacco and it's origin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco
.
it was our european ancesters that further mass produced the crop and got us where we are today... if the ban passes, at least they can't stop me from smoking in my car or anywhere on my property... it seems like this is going to wind up replicating prohabition of the 1920's and 1930's... only difference is that it's not alcohol...

"Applebees, HAAFARRGH, Ground round, Buffalo wild wings will be smoke free, Hooters. I haven't been to every single bar in town but, those are just the ones I know off had."

Those aren't BARS. They are restaurants that serve alcohol. Try again.

We need a smoke-free state.

Nannies will continue to smoke, but not in bars and restaurants.

All the other bars in town will soon be smoke free too.

Here's what you do re: banning fried food. Garner millions of people to support your cause, then contact your congressman.

We don't need a nanny State.

Maybe we should enact a ban on bars to serve deep fried food. This is a health hazard.

Applebees, HAAFARRGH, Ground round, Buffalo wild wings will be smoke free, Hooters. I haven't been to every single bar in town but, those are just the ones I know off had. I may have to take a couple weekends and go to every bar in town and do some "research" of course by cab :)

Sometimes it is necessary to enact the will of the people by way of the government.

Owners still allow smoking in bars because of inertia. Smoking bans are changing that inertia.

By the way, you still haven't listed all the non-smoking bars in Janesville.

"Why does the law have to guarantee you a place to dine?"

Never said that. Note that the current law in Janesville already provides for smoke free dining. A smoking ban will simply extend that to all public spaces and workplaces.

The city limits the quantity of bars by the number of liquor licenses they allow. The demand for bars of any kind is so great that the bar owner doesn't need to put up with the hassle of policing smokers without a law to back them up.

If it was really the will of the people to have these non-smoking bars then the places that currently allow smoking would either change their policies on smoking or go out of business.

Why does the law have to guarantee you a place to dine?

As long as it is a legal activity it should be the choice of the owner to decide if he/she wants to allow smoking or not. Non-smoking people can congregate in non-smoking bars and smokers can congregate in smoking bars. Just the way it is now. There are plenty of bars/restaurants that are smoke free and can accommodate the non-smoking crowd.

"Zoom you can go to a place that doesn't allow smoking."

Currently, the law doesn't guarantee that, and neither does the market Feel free to point out all the non-smoking bars in Janesville, and compare that to the total number of bars. The point of the ban is to allow ALL public spaces and workplaces to be smoke free. Our right to breath clean air is more important than your inability to control your weakness for a short period of time.

CHOICE?!!! The people are choosing to make public places smoke free. Just like the people chose government imposed health codes.

Zoom you can go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. Or do you need somebody to tell you where you can go? Simpleton

Not sure who zoom was directing that post to. But there's my 2 cents :)

it's "weak" and personally I have chosen not to smoke. I'm not going to get all crazy about regulating who can do what and where. I know what's bad for me and what's good for me. If I choose to enter a bar that allows smoking that's my choice. We have choices all around us.

Not after the ban. Are you so week minded that you can't hold off on smoking for a couple hours? Sorry, I can't hold off on breathing. It's called choice. You don't have to go there after the ban is passed.

It's called choice. You have the choice of going to anyplace you want smoking or not.

anotheropinion's post from another story:

Let's get our priorities straight. How was he going to vote on the smoking ban? Cigarettes kill 5000 people every hour in Wisconsin alone. 50,000 every minute in the USA. 4000 a second die from second hand poisons. Last year, 50,000 people died from second hand smoking. 75,000 of those folks contracted lung cancer from public exposure. Every breath of second hand smoke you inhale takes 3.75 years off your life, you smoke a pack everytime you pass a smoker who is outside. STOP THE INSANITY and pass a ban now!

Everyone should be able to go into every public place without being subjected to the toxic fumes of tobacco products. It's a health issue. Would you eat or drink in a place that didn't have government imposed health codes?

Then don't go!!! Simple enough there are non-smoking bars in town also.

whybesad- if those worked that well there wouldnt be an issue. when you walk into a bar and you can cut the smoke with a knife that ISNT enough filtration.

Kind of like the exhaust fans that are used in bars?

stewey- something HAS been done their called HOODS. same as in any kitchen in a restaurant. It would pretty hard to eat in a restaurant if they had to cook outside.

studiodi, would you eat or drink in a place where there were no government imposed health codes?

fromjanesville2waukeshau, you started only a few days ago and you've left six posts. Three of those posts (a whopping 50%) slam me. But you're the one whose concerned about how I spend my time here and what my focus is?!!! Are the cancer sticks fogging your mind?

Thank you diplomat for the link to U-tube. That says it all. If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen. I think that smoking in a bar or restaurant should be left up to the owner of the business. If you don't like it then don't go there.

Maybe the Prime Quarter should be banned from the whole grill your own theme. Having open grill in a public place where patrons can burn themselves and are inhaling second hand grill smoke. Something needs to be done. What about the health of the patrons and the employees? Oh wait..... People that go there and work there know the hazards of grilling your own steaks and that there is smoke from the grills. I guess it has been working well for them for 20 years now. Why implement a ban now?? I gotta a little carried away there. I guess people can make their own choices in what kind of profession to enter and where they can eat or drink.

fromjanesville..., after due consideration I decided that the best response to your last post was to just re-post your post with only one comment of my own:
-----------------
GAZETTEFAN HAS POSTED **136** TIMES ON THIS ARTICLE

gazettefan, people have smoked for 40,000 years and we've done ok so far. How many times have you been in a bar with your friends... What I meant to say is how many times have you been in a bar alone and asked a bartender (while he/she was smoking a cig) how they felt? City codes restricting rat feces and state law restricting smoking, a legal activity, are two different things. Maybe the next law will govern which Star Wars character you and your next door neighbor can dress up like. How would that make you feel? Huh?

As far as the number of posts you've written: Computers are able to count. People are able to enact a "tactic" and the computer can count things for the user. Computers can also draw pretty pictures. You should try it then take the picture upstairs and show your mom. That'd be fun wouldn't it
------------------------
fromjanesville...., tell your mother from the knot hole in your basement ceiling that if she doesn't slap some manners into your annoying mug that my service calls to her will be discontinued.

GAZETTEFAN HAS POSTED **136** TIMES ON THIS ARTICLE

gazettefan, people have smoked for 40,000 years and we've done ok so far. How many times have you been in a bar with your friends... What I meant to say is how many times have you been in a bar alone and asked a bartender (while he/she was smoking a cig) how they felt? City codes restricting rat feces and state law restricting smoking, a legal activity, are two different things. Maybe the next law will govern which Star Wars character you and your next door neighbor can dress up like. How would that make you feel? Huh?

As far as the number of posts you've written: Computers are able to count. People are able to enact a "tactic" and the computer can count things for the user. Computers can also draw pretty pictures. You should try it then take the picture upstairs and show your mom. That'd be fun wouldn't it!

Oh my god!!!

A person who seeks employment as a bartender knows the situation that they are applying for. They should realize that smoking may occur in the establishment. I'm sure that is brought up when they go apply for their license. That's like somebody going into the dentistry field and not knowing they may have to look in the mouths of people.

I guess that would depend on the owner's choice to allow smoking or not. Kind of what is going on now.

"Catering to the smoking crowd" is what we have now. Simply reducing the number of smoking establishments doesn't fix the problem that a ban is trying to solve. How would that even be accomplished? Who would decide what bars would allow smoking and what bars wouldn't? It's a stupid suggestion, and seems to be the last argument you have.

There is a difference from disagreeing with a position, and not being able to understand the positions at all. I'm done trying to fix your comprehension problems. Have a nice day.

Spanky, it's also a safe-workplace issue. What if a non-smoking licensed bartender was looking for work in town? Without a smoking ban, he or she would run the risk that the only available opening was at a bar that permitted smoking. This would unfairly prevent that bartender from practicing his or her trade in an atmosphere free of the toxic fumes of tobacco products.

Your argument is to ban it from everywhere. Why not have both?

fan- I think your the one who isn't seeing the other side of the issue. Whybe has made some arguments and so have other posters but, it seems you won't accept that maybe there would be a reasonable way to have both smoking and non smoking places. We know it's not the best to be around second hand smoke but, if I want to sit in a restaurant or bar that allows smoking I should be able to. I should also be able to go to a non smoking place if I want to. Just like if I wanna have unprotected sex that's my choice not the governments. I know it may be bad but, that's my decision.

fromjanesville....., there's no tally for individual posts on each story, so, you actually had to count the number of my posts here. But you are the one who's concerned about how I use MY time. Not only that, but you apparently can't keep yourself from picturing me in my underwear.

And if all that isn't bad enough, you actually admit to watching a TV show with "Corky" in the title -what ever that is (By the way, I don't watch television but given the dumb-downed nature of your posts, you are apparently a TV zombie). When are you going to say something that leaves us impressed with your existence?

Maybe if you put the cancer-stick out, you could actually concentrate on the issue here and respond point-for-point.

whybesad, Maybe you're just a kid, maybe you have an attention deficit problem, I don't know. But you fail to show that you can understand a person's point-of-view without agreeing with it. It's as though you're not doing any reading here.

I hope the both you enjoyed my 135th post.

Zoom- Exactly if we catered to both the smoking crowd and non-smoking crowd there wouldn't be a need for Government intervention to implement a smoking ban.

"Why not cater to both the smoker and the non-smoker?"

That wouldn't be a smoking ban. Not sure why you keep asking that silly question.

"GAZZETTFAN" POSTED **134** TIMES ON THIS ARTICLE
gazettefan, it's time you find another hobby. I realize you want the government to run your life but some of us don't. What if the government told you how to mop floors at your job? Would you like that? You kind of remind me of Corky from the show, "Life Goes On." With that, i'll close. I'm sure you have a lot of sitting around in your underware watching TV to do.

happy...., you read all my posts yet you don't know the answer to your own question? I think, happy..., despite your screen name, it is you who has negative tunnel vision.

If you read my posts comprehensively, you'd see that they're very positive and life affirming.

The same goes for hannah, she's a breath of fresh air in this crazy mixed up world.

g-fan... what happened to you in your life that made you so hateful of,well.. almost everyone? I have read most of your blog entries and you just seem to never be happy with anything! What does it take for someone like you? (and Hannah too) We all deserve the same rights. I cant go out much anymore cuz I cant smoke... How does that make your argument any different from mine?

gazettefan
Dec 8, 2008 at 11:43 a.m.

Bub, yes, you're on a roll. Two great posts now.

Cigar bars or whatever ONLY for the sale and consumption of tobacco products.

Really?

I'm not in favor of cigar bars of any kind.

I think the community could embrace and be fine if we had bars/restaurants that allowed smoking and non-smoking bars/restaurants. It seems pretty simple. Why would you limit a cigar bar to not be able to serve drinks or food? That doesn't make much sense. Does smoke now contaminate food and drinks? What's your reasoning?

whybesad, it was my point that if a bunch of people wanted to mutually ingest toxic fumes without anyone innocent being subjected to that danger AND food and drinks weren't served there then OK. It was a concession. I'm not tied to it. And if it will cure you of your fixation on it, I'll change my mind.

But more importantly, think about what happens to someone who smokes a cigar compared to a joint.

As for your claim that I haven't explained my point re: smoking and non-smoking establishments: Well, I can write these posts for you but I can't read them for you. Get someone you know to read them for you.

Zoom- If smoke is so bad for the public it would have been in the "codes" long ago. It's not like we just learned yesterday that smoke is bad for us. You just didn't get the point. I like that video it's so true. Why not cater to both the smoker and the non-smoker? Gazettefan has yet to explain why that isn't an option. You approve of a cigar bar. What the heck is the difference with what I stated and having smoking bars and non-smoking bars? I guess you don't care about the people that would be employed and going to these cigar bars health.

thediplomat, why don't you add to your post-count by telling us the point contained in that site?

You can close the forum. This explains it all: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/inde...

Even though it is comedy, it is so true.

"If it is so bad why wouldn't the "codes" already been changed to ensure the safety of the public?"

That's the dumbest argument yet. Just because a ban hasn't happened yet, it's not worthy? By the way, there are already smoking bans in many states, including Minnesota and Illinois. I guess Wisconsin is just slow.

"This is about a person's right to make decisions for themselves."

And how has that worked out in the home mortgage market, which was allowed to operate with less and less regulation? When you make a "decision" to light up next to me in a bar, my only "choices" are to breath toxic smoke or to leave. You are inhibiting my choice to breath clean air where I choose, in a public space. The law will give freedom back to the vast majority of the public that doesn't smoke.

I'm not blindly pro-government. And this is about toxic fumes coming off the ends of cigarettes and out of the mouths of smokers in public places. The problem is unique enough for it not to be lumped into the other issues you mentioned.

Also, you throw "pro-government" around as though a person could possibly be anti-government without being a hypocrite. Even successful business owners are pro-government to the degree that they are successful over business owners who don't or wouldn't comply with government imposed things like health codes. Successful business owners, in good conscience, would not want to compete with unsanitary business owners in a world with no health codes.

Again, this is about the easily preventable problem of smokers spewing toxic fumes in public places. You are misapplying a principal by not understanding the uniqueness of the problem.

It seems that we will never agree on this issue. Your pro-government and I'm more pro-business. People are able to make decisions on their own without the government mandating bans. I see now that new york wants to tax non-diet foods and drinks by 15%. An obese tax. This is my point we know that some foods are fattening and smoking is bad and driving on sidewalks is wrong. If we consistently have the government make decisions for us on what to eat and drink where does it end? They will consistently make arguements for having government more involved in our lives. This isn't about smoking and how bad it is for you. This is about a person's right to make decisions for themselves. Be it a business owners rights to allow smoking in their business or a consumer making a decision to by a regular coke or a diet coke. Where does it end? That's the point I was trying to make.

Many laws are enacted to protect people from themselves: Driving is legal but there are laws that help prevent crashes: Stoplights, stop signs, speed limits, etc. These are like codes for the road.

Put your cynicism aside and acknowledge that this a democracy. The government is methodically responding to the will of the people, with smoking bans.

The current consensus is that to ban smoking entirely would be a greater negative than leaving it legal outside of public places, to avoid alcohol Prohibition type problems.

There is an easy remedy for the toxicity of tobacco smoke in public places: ban smoking in those places.

Your nit-picking about this (why don't they just stop smoking now in public places? why don't they make it illegal entirely? etc.) shows that you're not applying re-world thinking to this. You're merely trying to rationalize smoking in public places.

You are cluttering all this up with irrelevancies and an unwillingness to focus.

Summation: Individuals should not be allowed to spew toxic fumes in a public place.

gazettefan your good at the bob and weave. In your own words why would it be the end of the world as we know it if we had smoking friendly bars that cater to a person who chooses to enjoy a cigarette (which is legal) with their dinner or their drink. And cater to non-smoking individuals who don't want to smell the smoke and smell like soot when they get home. What is so bad about that. And don't get into the whole "codes" argument. If it is so bad why wouldn't the "codes" already been changed to ensure the safety of the public? If it's so bad why is smoking legal? If it's so bad why isn't the government shutting down these bars and restaurants that allow smoking? It's not like it was just yesterday that we found out that smoking is bad for you.

Yes, just because these other pollutants exist doesn't mean we shouldn't remove one that is immediately toxic and is so easily removable.

sorry angelwings the car,bus, smoke etc agrument doesnt work. It would if you pulled one inside the building and let it run. But NOBODY does because it is toxic!! just like cigarette smoke INSIDE.

"Even IF public smoking is banned,a person will still have to worry about environmental issues!"

Exactly! The article above is about smoking in workplaces and public spaces. Just because this one issue is being considered, it doesn't mean other environmental issues aren't being discussed by other groups.

whybesad, I've mentioned that ad infinitum. Smoking doesn't belong in public places like bars and restaurants, period. Cigarette smoke is toxic.

"government telling businesses what do do" What do you think building codes are? What do you thing health codes are? The government is already involved in how businesses are run, for the good of the public. It's also a safe workplace thing. And it's a fact that most owners want a statewide smoking ban but they don't say so in order to keep the peace.

Gazettefan- Couldn't find anything arguing that having smoking friendly bars and non-smoking bars would be a terrible injustice in your posts. If you could re post your argument that would be great.

gfan...I suggest you wear a face mask! Even IF public smoking is banned,a person will still have to worry about environmental issues!

angel...., please don't go on. Instead go buy yourself some earmuffs.

I didnt want my name on here again but...holy crap! Would you people grow up? Smokers will,and have ,always been here! Separate the sections,I can live with that. Just STOP making us go out side! You think your lungs are so special that only cig. smoke can cause you harm? Try going outside once in a while!!!!!! Buses,cars,semi's.... need I go on?? Cuz I can!!!!

fromjanesville...., your fixation on me is as odd as your assessment of me is wrong. Please explain yourself.

And get used to smoking outside whenever you're out drinking in K-town.

gazettefan, according to the amount of posts on this and other stories, writing on the gazette web log must be your full time job. I will assume you are in perfect health, have no debt, don't drink, exercise for at least 55 minutes per day, and give at least 20% of your income to charity. There are also some things about your diet i'd like to have readers vote on. Your next post should include your daily regimen for the past 30 days. Let's let the voters decide exactly how you live your life. Smoking is a legal activity correct? Who needs liberty when you have big government. :)

whybesad, I already explained that thoroughly and repeatedly. Scroll down.

Gazettefan why can't there be smoking bars and non-smoking bars? What's so bad about catering to each group?

I guess you have a better chance of dying going to a bar than sitting in a bar that allows smoking.