WOW.... Glad to see that my post of 5/16/09 made for much opinion but still no one addressed my point of the post... another tax on consumers ...when doe's it stop?!

tinkerb45, What will you do when the tax and spend liberals come after something you enjoy? Will you laugh then? I'll still be here screaming for lower taxes. Where will you be? Less Government = More FREEDOM!

tinker...., LOL!!!

truthteller, you'll be seeing a smoking ban in bars July 5th next year. And you are totally wrong about a smoking ban hurting businesses. If any smokers stop going to bars their absence will be more than made up by non-smokers.

Everytime I see $5.00/pack cigarettes at the gas station I just laugh uncontrollably. Smokers have got to be the dumbest people on the face of the earth.

I could see a smoking ban in restaraunts but NOT in bars. I smoked for 22 years until I got smart and quit about ten years ago. Most of the bar reguluars smoke. Banning smoking in them would cause many to close and how many would lose their jobs?

creature-In case you forgot what you wrote I'll cut and paste your entire comment for you. You said, "Officer that's a good one. Protect us from the "real criminals", Where are you anyway Long beach, Hells Kitchen, Downtown Cleveland? Janesville, Beloit area is not a hot bed of crime. Most of you guys are riding around giving speeding tickets. Maybe if they install traffic cameras then you could focus on the drug problem & drunk drivers. For the record I support the Police and give all respect but when I see a Spade I'm going to call it. The smoking issue is a Spade." That, to me, made it sound like you don't think there are any real criminals in the area.
Then you wrote, "Laws good or bad are in place for many reasons". Many of the reasons are because some feel good liberals in Madison decide to come up with this garbage. Yes, it is my job to enforce these liberal laws. That doesn't mean I have to like it. By the way, I love the Andy Griffith Show. Too bad our society can't go back to a simpler time like that. Sincerely, OfficerBarney.

Officer: Should I try to speak slowly for you? Should I spell the words phonetically for you? I said or should I say recommended the Police focus on Drug related crime. Do you understand the words on the screen. Maybe ask the cashier at the gas station to read it for you and explain the high points. As I said before, focus on the drug related crimes which means there must be a criminal so yes you’ve agreed with my statement. Regarding the liberal blah, blah, blah garbage. I’m seriously starting to doubt you are even a policeman. Laws good or bad are in place for many reasons. You’re job is to enforce, The District Attorney is there to prosecute, the Jury gives the verdict and the Judge hands down the sentence. Next is prison system. So if you agree or disagree with the law it’ not up to you but to enforce. With your attitude then all drug crimes would be pointless. If a user is only hurting themselves then who cares? At least according to OfficerBarneyfriendly. Your argument about non smokers should not go into places that have smoke unless at your own risk. That logic would then apply to your co-workers who back years ago went into Meth labs without protective gear and now have serious health problems. Too bad so Sad for the officer trying to do his job then according to you. Again, for the Galaticly stupid OfficerBarney. Laws are in place to protect everyone. Get it yet.

hannah: Yes there have been some isolated cases such as the ones you mentioned where both were horrible and sad for the families involved. If I'm honest about what I wrote and how it was presented using little bit of an edge. Mainly because our Officerfriendly has had some sharp criticisms about various posts that frankly were not constructive but based upon fear mongering such as Fear of "Big Brother" or “Fear of the Boogieman” which is comical because he is part of the system which is "Big Brother" and this is not the “Hood”. My interpretation of Law Enforcement is “Protect” the weak & strong, rich & poor, legal citizen & illegal alien and then “Serve the Community” which for me means according to Local, State and Federal Law. I still stand by my comment about Janesville not being a Hot Bed of crime. Overall the community is safe and you can feel confident about walking the streets day or night. Yes there is some violent crime from time to time but compared to other places with the same demographics and population we are much safer. Racine, Kenosha not so great. I've travelled almost every State and darn near every large metropolitan city and many you plan your travel routes, where you pick a hotel, what times of the day you travel, etc. So we are all very lucky to live here. From what I recall a majority of violent crimes in Janesville could fall under the categories of Domestic, Alcohol & Drug related, Sexual or Self Inflicted. Again I’m not saying we are all holding hands and singing kuumbiya around the campfire but we don’t have to duck and run either.

creature-But you said, "Janesville, Beloit area is not a hot bed of crime. Most of you guys are riding around giving speeding tickets." Are offenders committing "drug related crime" real criminals? I realize common sense is not one of your strong points but let me try to explain the protecting you from yourself statement. It means enforcing dumb laws that the government enacts so that liberals "feel" safer and "protected". Laws that are put into place because people are to stupid to take care of the problem themselves, like not going into a smokey bar/restaurant if you don't like the smoke.

Smoking is a dirty, nasty, life stealing habit. Can't wait for the law to go into effect and guess what........ I'm a smoker.

Officer: But of course addicts making home invasions would fall under the category of drug related crime. There again I think my mention of a focus on drug crimes would cover that but if you would like me to cover every possible section of the law code to waste some space. I just figured since your reading capacity was limited I leave it simple for you. As far as protecting me from myself? Trying to figure that one out. Is that some kind of code you guys use? Maybe those fine officers of the law who assaulted the guy that was thrown from the car and was unconscious were protecting him from himself. What is your reply to that one Barney?

Don't worry creature, I'll stay here and protect you from yourself for another 8 years. Are heroin addicts who commit burglaries/thefts real criminals?

Officer: Errrr... Drug problem...isn't that what I suggested you focus on? Maybe you didn't read that part of the post or maybe reading is something you find difficult in general. No one said the smokers were Evil except you. I welcome all smokers to puff till your lungs are sticky with tar and they drop like flies. Just keep your toxic waste away from me. Also officer you might as well get used to the idea of ticketing smoking offenders because it will happen and with the nice camera phone plenty of ways to prove the offense. It would be sad if you decided not to ticket when there was proof because you will find the problem become yours after a short discussion with the area supervisor. If you don't like the job then move on to the security or move to another state.

Not a hot bed of crime? Apparently you haven't been reading all the articles about the heroin epidemic in Rock County. In 2010 resources will have to be taken away from the "drug war" as we will have to investigate evil people smoking inside privately owned buildings.

Creature, I had seen the one-time reposting of your earlier material and mistakenly thought it was a cut and paste from elsewhere - Sorry! I've been active on another blog where someone had been consistently flooding the discussion with very extended cut and pastes of prepared propaganda/handout type material so my sensitivity meter on it was a bit high.

In terms of self-identification on blogs, in most cases "handles" are fine, but when dealing with a sensitive issue where there are big money lobbies on both sides, proper identification is important in order to avoid having ad hominem slurs take the place of information and argument.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Officer that's a good one. Protect us from the "real criminals", Where are you anyway Long beach, Hells Kitchen, Downtown Cleveland? Janesville, Beloit area is not a hot bed of crime. Most of you guys are riding around giving speeding tickets. Maybe if they install traffic cameras then you could focus on the drug problem & drunk drivers. For the record I support the Police and give all respect but when I see a Spade I'm going to call it. The smoking issue is a Spade.

And my job gets tougher every day because people loose common sense and know less about how to PROTECT THEMSELVES. Add this stupid law to the list. Now I'll have to spend time answering complaints about someone smoking inside a building when I could be out trying to protect you from real criminals.

LOL. Light 'em up if you got 'em -and if you're outside!!!

badump-bump
I'm here all day.
Try the veal.

By the way, I prefer Groucho.

He is a proponent of smokunism.

I would think an Officer would want to protect and serve the community/safety as that is what your job is? Well we all know that isn't the case if you've been watch the TV lately. A little red meat tossed in for fun. Seriously, Take the Government ban out of the picture. Smoking kills, It's a known fact. So why should a non smoker be subject to the free will of a smoker? To say the non smoker should not go there or work there is not a real answer. A better answer is for the smoker to take is poison outside where the effect on others is lessened. Not stopping you from smoking just from making me smoke along with you. At least with a law in place there is a vehicle to protect the ones who choose not to smoke. Just like the laws that protect people from drunk drivers, speeders, etc. My personal choice to do or not to do something should not bring harm to others. The world is a complex place and we all dance to the tune of a different song so that is why we have laws maintain a level playing field for the weak and the strong.
Creatureinthefreezer: Author of "Dissecting a Smokers Lung, Smells Like Burnt Wood Chips"

officerfriendly1, while I too am opposed to the smoking ban, my reasons are slightly less fear mongering. I will also say a utopian, class free society sounds pretty good to me, whether you call it Communism or not. Besides, the Communists would never ban smoking, but Stalin probably would not have had a problem with it. There's a difference between Communism and Totalitarianism, and combined they make a dangerous pair.

"don't want to breathe other people's poison"? Stay out of those places. Don't want to work in places where people smoke? Don't work there. Couldn't be any more simple. If bars and restaurants (private property open to the public) were suffering because people didn't like the smoke you can bet they would have enacted their own no smoking policy long ago.

Definition of Marxism: The economic, social, political, pseudo-scientific philosophy, theory, belief, or system based on the works of Karl Marx of Germany. The theory seeks the elimination of the notion of private property in order to gain control of the economic "means of production" by taking it from the bourgeois (the wealthy or propertied class) for the benefit of the proletariat (working class.) His philosophy of history was called "historical materialism" in which his goal was to bring about the end of history, by means of an eventual perfect, classless, utopian society he called Communism.

MJM: You are a so comical. Just for your information all of my posts are mine and not cut and paste of anyone's with the exception of a previous post I had that made the point so I used it again as I did with this subject. You might want to do some investigation prior to making a statement like that. Of course a real journalist or writer would know that. Ouch. Regarding the blog name this is common practice on the Internet unless you're trying to sell or promote something. Poor MJM he feels bad that no one believes his misguided views and now has to resort to grade school antics. Why don't you go back to the grease fryer smells like the fries are burning.

Creature, at least I write my own material in my posts rather than cutting and pasting others' work. :> If the Gazette preferred me to post anonymously, maybe as "Creatureintheoven" I'm sure they'd let me know, but I imagine they actually appreciate people being honest about who they are - you'll notice that most of their regular columnists write under their real names. Quirky, eh?

As to Zoom, I believe you're actually the only one who mentioned that there was a book for sale anywhere. You've brought it up at least a half dozen times or so, which is kind of nice since I virtually never mention it other than as a competing interest notice in my signature and quite specifically don't mention it being for sale.

And Hannah you didn't seem to have much to say outside of "whinewhine" and "toxic smoke" but if you do find anything in my writings to be misleading please let me know.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Wow, officer......, calling people Marxists just because they don't want to breathe other people's poison is very harsh.

Uh oh, now I've done it:

gazettefan: author of ...............

hannah
Co-Author of "Karl Marx The Genius"

Zoom
Author of "Karl Marx The Genius"

Zoom, I want to buy your book!!!

"Smokers crowding the streets around bars and such at nights, or standing under eaves and awnings around restaurant, hospital, and school buildings, have been a longstanding and frequent complaint seen in news stories from all over places where smoking indoors has been banned."

This is a red herring. If you lived here, you would know that we already ban smoking in restaurants, the hospital bans smoking inside and on their campus, and no schools here allow smoking on their property (and I don't know of any that do). I've been to both large cities in Wisconsin that have full smoking bans, and there aren't "smokers crowding the streets". Too funny.

Zoom
Author of "dissecting MJM's sales spamming".

MJM: Obviously you're whole point is to promote your book and the staff for the Gazette should block your access if you continue to mention it. My paraphrase of the statements made by the panel of experts who were called before Congress to testify on the subject of paying for the Universal Healthcare which was televised on C-SPAN was accurate. Do you not understand what paraphrase means? How can you say Smoking not an unhealthy practice? Millions of people have died from Smoking related causes and that is a fact! As I mentioned in a previous post on this topic, "I'm not going to go to some absurd web site and read many more unintelligent smokers posts who claim the wonders of inhaling caustic fumes. If anything you are the one failing. Failing to understand the danger in your desires. Failing to comprehend the waste of humanity from the countless lost lives to smoking deaths and countless lost production time from the ones who were unable to work because of smoking related illness. The cherry on the sundae for debunking your economic loss theory related to retail business is a fact that smokers have more lost time at work, smokers have shorter lives, smokers spend more money on health care, so if people did not smoke they would be more productive, make more money, spend that money on material or service related business and most importantly live longer which all adds tax revenue and income to business". "The natural progression of the antismoking bans will be to outlaw smoking in all public places. It will take time but with the help of the smokers who will insist on making their dirty habit a nuisance to the public it will happen. It may take 10 years, more or hopefully much less. So please continue to press this idea that smoking in public will become a problem. I welcome your assertion of so called smoking rights. You will only put an end to the public smoking rights".

Sorry for being absent... preoccupied elsewhere for a bit... but back for a visit.

Browntown wrote, "Not sure why McFadden is trying to say that if the ban passes all the puffers will be lurking in doorways and standing on sidewalks. Puffers need to stay in their homes and pollute their own air, or just stay in their garages or driveways."

That's the difference between you and me Btown. You write about the way you think things *should* be, while I write about the way things are. Smokers crowding the streets around bars and such at nights, or standing under eaves and awnings around restaurant, hospital, and school buildings, have been a longstanding and frequent complaint seen in news stories from all over places where smoking indoors has been banned.

===

Momof5 wrote, "MJM: What? I cannot base my decisions and beliefs on my own personal experiences? Huh? I thought was how people base opinions and beliefs?? "

No, decisions should be based on the best information you have, not upon opinions and beliefs just formed from individual personal experiences. The person who justifies smoking by saying "My dad lived to 93 and he smoked." is just as wrong as the person who says "Secondary smoke causes lung cancer because this nonsmoking bartender I know got it." Read the studies and their analyses in the links I posted and your decisions will be better informed.

===

Hannah, yes I live in Philadelphia, and I'm quite sure that if I lived in Rock County and I was posting stuff that agreed with you then you'd be quite content that I was here.

===

Creatureinthefreezer, you wrote, "The tax increase was suggested because smoking related healthcare costs are tremendous and it was said if you want to live an unhealthy life then you will pay for it. "

Creature, please go to http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/modules.... and I believe you will find solid evidence that you are wrong. If you find anything substantive to criticize there please feel free to come back and share it.

===

OK! Glad to be back though I can't promise to be a frequent contributor!

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

futurerichguy, I guess you didn't hear about the movement to ban cigar bars.

I see opportunity...time to open a cigar bar in Janesville!

How can the government prohibit smoking while they are profiting from taxing the thing they prohibit? Isn't that being hypocritical? What kind of trust can we put in our elected officials when they can't honor the free enterprise system our country was founded on! Business owners have the right to run their business unrestrained by government interference.

The tax increase was suggested because smoking related healthcare costs are tremendous and it was said if you want to live an unhealthy life then you will pay for it. Smoking was not the only target. There was some discussion about higher premiums for overweight people and also tax increases for food manufacturers that use high amounts of sugar in their products. Alcohol is also one of the targets that will see an increase in Federal Taxes. The overall goal was to push people into making healthy choices by taxing unhealthy lifestyles. It’s early yet and it would be surprising if they even get to a point of passing anything into law.

$2.00 price increase on cigarettes for universal health care, why should the smoker pay for non-smoker’s health care. If this is going to happen then shouldn’t a non-smoker have to pay a higher tax on their life as they may out live the smokers? The smoking ban passed so nothing can be done now, business owners might suffer a little but again why should one class of people be taxed higher then another. Now you can say the smoker has a choice to buy cigarettes but where will it end on the taxes.

samriggs, did the big slide toward totalitarianism start with building codes and health codes?!!!

samriggs: I saw over the weekend on CSPAN that one suggestion for raising money for Universal Healthcare will be a $2.00 per pack tax increase on cancer sticks. The writing is on the wall with regards to smoking. Tax it out of business and keep it out of the public areas. Funny how some people can't take the hint.

If the government cannot end it's addiction to the tax revenue's created by tobacco products then by what right do they have to regulate it's use? Is this not a discriminating law being that a ban is a ban without exception ?

It's taking away the right of a private business owner to run their business the way they feel fit. This is just the beginning folks. They have their foot in the door.

Zoom said, "There are cases where OSHA could prosecute, but chooses not to." Really? Where are those cases? Remember Zoom earlier said, "Until the Constitution specifically bans tobacco, the decision is up to the states. Recall that Prohibition of alcohol required an amendment to enact (the 18th), and an amendment to repeal (the 21st)." How could they prosecute without a constitutional amendment? Again Zoom, please try to follow along. The reason OSHA does not entertain the idea of prosecution is because "In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs)". They would have no case. That is why they would not attempt to prosecute. OSHA has prosecutorial discretion on every violation they encounter but they have to have proof of a violation before they can attempt to prosecute. For the record I am a non-smoker and a cancer survivor. I don't need the government making laws for things that I can simply use common sense to avoid if I choose. Like to old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. I love this quote by Janesville City Councilman Yuri Rashkin in the May 14 article "Vote upholds Constitution: Lawyer". Yuri stated, "I lived in the Soviet Union,.... When governments (act) proactively, I get very nervous". It's too bad more Americans don't feel the same way.

I guess you will either obey the laws or pay the penalties. If you feel your rights to kill yourself are being infringed on, then by all means, keep buying those cigs and paying the fines.

I am trying not to further damage my lungs from too many years of smoking. I try to stay away from bars, and any place that has it, but I cannot control the smoke that wafts my way from public smokers and that second had smoke is what is making my life worse. I have stated before that if you want to kill yourself smoking then I guess it's up to the rest of us to try to keep you from committing suicide and murder as well.

ihavealife-marleneb has many posts stating she is a bar owner and against the ban. From her posts, you will see she doesn't care about the health of her employees and that if they are willing to work in smoke filled conditions, no prob!

officerfriendly1, I was commenting on your 1:15 post, where you left off "prosecutorial discretion". Your argument is that if OSHA hasn't made a rule banning smoking in the workplace, there must be no harm with second-hand smoke. That's silly logic. There are cases where OSHA could prosecute, but chooses not to. That's what "discretion" means.

If smoking is so bad for you and the Government wants to "protect" us from the harmful effects of it. They should just outlaw the use of tabbacco. Not some stupid "ban" on smoking. Cars produce way more harmful chemicals into the "your" clean air. I hope you don't drive a car. It's just more control for the Government that isn't needed.

Smokers a dying breed. No pun intended. Sarcasm fully in effect. Why do people who smoke feel they have a right to pollute my clean air? Try keeping all the toxic chemicals in your lungs by not exhaling so our air is free of your poison. On a more serious note the debate is done and the law is going to be signed and you'll have to deal with it period. To say you'll just ignore it. Doubtful. The owners of the bars will not allow you to smoke for fear of tickets. The other people around you will not allow you to smoke. You will be ticketed. Just a few snaps of the camera phone and a call to the local police and you're paying a nice fine cha-ching. So wake up, give it up, you lost, your killing yourselves, quit smoking you idiots, save your money, your lives. Smoking kills,

We will never accept this law because it's based on criminality and corruption and scientific fraud. There have been more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than the anti-smokers pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. For socioeconomic reasons, smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus. And the anti-smokers purposely use defective studies that are based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires in order to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. They are automatically guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring those 50-plus studies, and lying in our faces that there's no scientific debate. There's no scientific debate because these criminals have censored it, not because of lack of scientific evidence!

The anti-smokers systematically commit this same type of fraud, of deliberately using defective studies to falsely blame tobacco for diseases that are really caused by infection, with every disease they blame on tobacco. And all this is happening because of political corruption by the American Cancer Society. They have been the corrupt powers behind the throne ever since Governor Walter J. Kohler was national chairman of the Cancer Society at the same time that he was governor in the 1950s. And the same clique with close ties to the Cancer Society have been the leading contribution bundlers behind both Governors Thompson and Doyle. One of them was recently convicted on Federal charges of bribery and corruption. This has been a 50-year campaign to disenfranchise the people and shove health fascist tyranny down our throats, and I believe that Wisconsin government is absolutely and unredeemably corrupt.

http://www.smokershistory.com/wismoker.h...

Zoom, Be careful with your backstroke. You could injure your shoulder.

Zoom, I retract my recommendation for you possibly being the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice. If you can't read you can't be a judge. If you try to read my post from May 15, 2009 at 1:04 p.m., the language you're saying I forgot is clearly there in the sixteenth line down. OSHA has prosecutorial discretion covering a wide range of things that could be harmful to employees in the workplace. Have you ever had OSHA come to your workplace and perform an inspection? The reason they are not using their prosecutorial discretion when it comes to tobacco smoke is because, "In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs)". By the way, how can OSHA even have prosecutorial discretion without a constitutional amendment? Please try to read and follow along next time.

You forgot "as a matter of prosecutorial discretion". Why would they have to state that if there was nothing to prosecute? Like I said, OSHA basically sees bigger fish to fry than taking on a nationwide ban.

Zoom, OSHA has an Indoor Air Quality Policy that addresses Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) without a constitutional amendment. How can this be? OSHA doesn't see a problem with Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) because "In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs)",

From the website of OSHA:
February 24, 2003

MEMORANDUM FOR: REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS STATE PLAN DESIGNEES

THROUGH: R. DAVIS LAYNE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FROM: RICHARD E. FAIRFAX, DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS

SUBJECT: OSHA Policy on Indoor Air Quality: Office Temperature/Humidity and Environmental Tobacco Smoke

.....Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

For further information to offer to employers/employees as guidance, you may wish to review a document published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the health effects from environmental tobacco smoke, A Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. Additional information on indoor air quality in general can be found on the Indoor Air Quality Technical Links page on the OSHA website.

We hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190

Zoom, You're talking in circles. If OSHA can ban smoking in elevators without a constitutional amendment then why couldn't they ban smoking inside a workplace without a constitutional amendment? By the way, OSHA has a lot of resources and the federal government has all kinds of money. Haven't you been following all the bailout news?

I suppose a nationwide ban on smoking in work places could be tied to the allocation of federal funds to the states, similar to the drinking age limit. I think the Congress has more important fights at the moment.

"Please enlighten me how the federal government enacting a nationwide smoking ban would be unconstitutional."

A nationwide smoking ban would require an amendment to the Constitution. An amendment must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and requires approval of three quarters of the states' legislatures. If that's what you meant by "enact", then I guess you're right.

officerfriendly1, you have a comprehension problem. Again, I never said OSHA "doesn't have the resouces". Degrees, grasshopper.

The 10th amendment to the Constitution states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Until the Constitution specifically bans tobacco, the decision is up to the states. Recall that Prohibition of alcohol required an amendment to enact (the 18th), and an amendment to repeal (the 21st).

Zoom, maybe you should read your posts first. You stated, "Enacting a nation wide ban would take a lot of resources....". So they don't have the resources? OSHA already regulates all businesses. It would be nothing for them to enact a smoking ban. Obviously they don't see it as a problem or they would have enacted a smoking ban sometime over the 39 years. Please enlighten me how the federal government enacting a nationwide smoking ban would be unconstitutional. Maybe you could be the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice!

Enacting a nation wide ban would take a lot of resources (i.e. fighting the tobacco lobby), and might be unconstitutional. Smoking is really a states-rights issue.

Zoom: I don't understand this statement. If it is unconstitutional to have a nation-wide ban why is it not unconstitutional for a state to ban it? Please clarify. I'm not arguing your statement, I just don't understand what the difference is.

"The almighty OSHA doesn't have the "resources"?"

I never said they don't have the resources. I said they have deemed the fight too expensive, considering all the businesses (offices, factories, retail, etc.) and states that have voluntarily went smoke free. Again, do some research on the Constitutionality of a nation-wide ban. It ain't gonna happen.

Since you seem to like the government (OSHA)when it agrees with your views, but not when the government (our elected representatives) doesn't agree with your views, wouldn't you prefer your tax dollars be spent by OSHA on things they can actually fix?

Plan A: Alcohol

Plan B: Beg

RumageSalesRock, sounds good.

And thekid might want to attend, with his now super potent reefer.

Here is a suggestion to ALL. This is what we do. We get a thirty pack of our choice at the time, build a campfire in the back yard, pull out some lawn chairs and drink, smoke cigs, laugh and SAVE TONS OF MONEY. In this economy, I don't know about you, but the bar isn't even an option for our family. I couldn't justify sitting in a bar and spending for times the amount for a can of beer that I can happily enjoy around my fire and not have to worry about driving or if I can smoke or not. No brainer to me. :o)

officer....., have you ever been outdoors?! Especially compared to the indoors, it's very, very big!

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 heralded a new era in the history of public efforts to protect workers from harm on the job. This Act established for the first time a nationwide, federal program to protect almost the entire work force from job-related death, injury and illness. Hmmmm, 39 years and no ban on smoking indoors? The almighty OSHA doesn't have the "resources"? I think you've been smoking something other than cigarettes Zoom.

It's a little ironic that you're using OSHA, a government agency, for your argument aganst a government imposed smoking ban.

Actually, OSHA prohibits smoking in elevators. OSHA hasn't banned smoking in work places because many states and businesses are voluntarily making their own bans. Very few businesses allow smoking indoors anymore, besides some in the hospitality industry. Enacting a nation wide ban would take a lot of resources (i.e. fighting the tobacco lobby), and might be unconstitutional. Smoking is really a states-rights issue.

Now you're just being silly Officer.

Mark my words Zoom. Smoking outdoors will be the next thing government goes after. They will discover that pushing all smokers outdoors has somehow added to the green house effect. Ever wonder why OSHA doesn't already ban smoking inside a business? Think about it. OSHA has rules for just about every little thing you can think of but no rules against smoking indoors. Could it be that second hand smoke is not harmful?

The only way for the club thing to work is if bar owners won't mind if they don't make any money. Don't count on it.

I hate coming home from a Janesville bar feeling like a cured piece of meat... with burning eyes, a scratchy throat and smelling like a cigarette butt. The ventilation in some of bars is questionable. It's nice going into establishments such as Time Out and finally being able to breathe!

officerfriendly1, employees of businesses that allow smoking are not standing outside, downwind of smokers, for hours at a time.

Ouch, hOrselvngrl, get well!!!

I agree Latin and gazette :)

***

I've been in bed w/ kidney stones, so it looks as though I've missed quite a bit :0)

***

Everyone KNEW it was coming sooner or later, so get over it.

Without government intervention I may not be able to live out my dream of wasting away in a nursing home while they take every dime I've earned while working to the ripe old age of 90 because Social Security and Medicare are defunct.

So if I'm outside is it safe for me to stand down wind of a smoker because the outdoors is infinitely vast? How will I know if the second hand smoke is getting into my lungs or not? Is it my responsibility to move away or the evil smoker? Maybe the government should issue personal air quality monitors so we can detect second hand smoke. That way we could avoid smoke anywhere and we can all live longer and prosper. Please big government, SAVE ME!!

Yes, officer....., you are correct. And the explanation is: The world outside of buildings is infinitely vast, especially compared to the confined space of a building.

From JSOnline in reference to the chemical plant fire in Columbus: "Eight air quality monitors have shown no signs of hazardous material in the air, according to reports released Tuesday afternoon." Whew, what a relief. It's good to know that you can be downwind of a chemical plant fire and not be in any danger but boy if you're next to a smoker, run for your lives!!!

Right on, latinmami.

they should just pass the ban, if you want to smoke do it outside, there is nothing wrong with that.

lol...ya i know - way off topic. i'm just trying to find something out and they shut down the other sight...

Is he for or against the smoking ban?!

Maybe they found something out at the big heroin meeting in Milton last week ? Who is taking Mr. Caspers place at work / school while he is out getting paid to do nothing ?

ya, kinda funny isn't it? what scares me is the milton police chief's quote: "It's something that could potentially affect a lot of people," so this doesn't sound like he had an inappropriate relationship with one student. it sounds like something much bigger.

Isn't it funny how yesterday "Police want extra sets of eyes in Milton neighborhoods" but today they don't want to give any information to the public about one of their own being investigated. Typical government hypocrisy.

If that doesn't work, call the Milton Police Department and demand information. If enough people call they will come out with more information just to shut everyone up.

You are right. You should be entitled to information because your children go to school there. Maybe you could call the school and demand information.

No I didn't sorry.

that's ok. i know everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but i think i have every right to know what he is being accused of. especially when my children go to that school. you didn't happen to catch any information before they shut it down did you?

25pkfn27, Apparently we're not allowed to comment about it. Someone doesn't want it discussed. I didn't mean to imply that you were being disrespectful.

i'm not being disrespectful, it's just that my kids go to milton high school and i'm concerned. that's all.

Careful 25pkfn27. The powers that be will shut these comments down too.

does anyone know what's going on with the milton officer suspended? i'm assuming it's officer casper. does anyone know what he's accused of?

The reasonn largely, one cannot smoke inside Wal-Mart for instance, is because it is against the fire code.

So, if the banned was stopped and changed to a fire code, would that stop all the out cry and conspiracy theories?

MJM: What? I cannot base my decisions and beliefs on my own personal experiences? Huh? I thought was how people base opinions and beliefs??
.
I live, eat, work, and play in Dane County. Madison has had the ban for what? 5 years someone said. The little "bedroom community" I live in does not have a ban, however the restaurants and retail establishments there do not allow smoking. All in all, the places I have daily contact with, I'd guesstimate 95% of them to be smoke free. People haven't been allowed to smoke inside MANY if not ALL retail type establishments and hospitals for eons now. The only places I can think of, really, that allow smoking inside them "as you please" are bars. Pretty sure I won't be parading my son infront of them anytime soon!

If your scare tactics were truthful, then we ALL would see gobs of smokers walking down the sidewalks, standing in doorways and entryways EVERYWHERE and I don't and haven't in 5+ years. When I visit other cities it is the same thing. (Minneapolis, Chicago, Janesville, Rockford, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Appleton, Wisconsin Dells, blah blah blah). I don't see a bunch of lemmingesque zombies walking around puffing on their cancer sticks. I'm sure you'll say that is because they are "all" contained in the local pub down the street smoking. Yeah. Ok. And the Philadelphia Eagles are going to win the Super Bowl this year. Lol!

Of course my experiences, or those in the midwest in general, may differ than those in say Philadelphia. While I care about all of humanity, I really (like many) can only truly worry the most about what happens in my own backyard. What happens in Philadelphia, for now, really isn't a top concern of mine.

I'm curious: are you a smoker? Do you also contest the SERIOUS health effects caused by smoking?

etown, you didn't put a lot of thought into your post, did you.

so now thats this is settled , what s next ban over weight people from fast food restaurants? the whole reason behind this , or so they say is because of health issues , and the money it cost s the state. so maybe next year they should charge 100.00 for every pound your over your bmi .

marleneb,
Businesses open and close all the time, especially restaurants and bars. Only Three in Appleton and Five in Madison are on that list. Not very compelling, and highly unscientific. Absolutely no evidence they closed because of the ban.


SUN., APR 19, 2009 - 10:18 PM
Madison's smoking ban hits 5-year anniversary

"Although some establishments suffered or closed because of the ban, the number of liquor licenses in the city has increased 7 percent from 331 in July 2005 to 354 this month, city data shows.

“The dire claims of the opponents of the smoking ban did not happen,” Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said. “It’s overwhelmingly popular.”

The same is true for Appleton, which enacted a ban about the same time as Madison, and for other cities that have done so, said Maureen Busalacchi, executive director of Smoke Free Wisconsin.

David and Jackie Arms, who bought the South Bay Lounge, 5404 Raywood Road, three years ago, took over a business that was hurt by the ban and whose former owner helped organize a bid to overturn the law, with the council sustaining it by a narrow 10-9 vote in September 2005.

The Arms remodeled and made investments, including an outdoor patio with seating where smoking is allowed.

“Business is pretty good,” she said. “We don’t want smoking inside the bar.”

But some establishments didn’t survive.

Dane County Tavern League President Barb Mercer said about 40 taverns have closed since the ban began.

“Some of them stayed closed,” she said. “Some of them have sold two or three times.”

There has been no independent study exploring how many bars went out of business because of the smoking ban."
http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/44...

I can see none of you have checked the validity of any of the scientific evidence given to you on a silver platter by Michael to the contrary of what you have been led to believe. Some people don't like smoke, some people don't like perfume, some don't even like the smell of beer. But you can make your own decisions, the government should not do it for you. I am leaving now, but remember me 10 years from now when there is not a bar left anywhere! Big pharma will make sure of that, they will have a pill to curb your alcohol and food cravings, just like Nicorette and Nicoderm for smokers, after all, the profits are enormous. I can't resist, we told you so!

Gazettefan-I agree 100%. He thinks people are that gullible. WOW.

WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that Michael J. McFadden is full of crap.

Carmona's report is no longer valid, had you checked you would know that. Cigarette packs no longer say that cigarette smoking causes cancer, just that cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide. Now why would that be?

zoom et al: Thousands of places have closed due to smoking bans. Sorry, I must add a link, I know you don't like that, but I have only so much space here. And this list is not up to date, it could not keep up with the closings.
http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm
WI Appleton Polly's Restaurant and Lounge Bar/Restaurant Closed BUSINESS LOST: 100% JOBS LOST: 100% When Polly Anderson thinks about the tavern she operated for 10 years, she remembers lines at the bar that sometimes were three-people deep.
WI Appleton Ravens Bar Closed 100% 100% Donna Bradley, co-owner with husband Mike, said Appleton’s smoking ban was Ravens’ downfall.
WI Appleton Various Places 65% "After only one month with a ban."
WI Madison Ole 'N Rick's North Side Inn Closed 100% Terry Olson, co-owner of Ole 'N Rick's North Side Inn in Madison, said business is down 60 percent and he started cutting back shifts for three or four bartenders Monday.Owner Terry Adkins warned the City Council this would happen
WI Madison The Hammer Time Bar Closed 100% 100% … just the first of many economic casualties sure to be caused by the city's 9-month-old smoking ban, the owners and their allies said.
WI Madison Tip Top Tavern Tavern It's terrible, absolutely terrible, said Cal Beecher, owner of the Tip Top Tavern. "I've been here 32 years. It's going to close me down."
WI Madison VFW Canteen Tavern Closed 100% Saying its clientele had mostly vanished into clean air.
WI Madison Wiggie's 30% Dave Wiganowsky, "By implementing this ban, the city has kicked the spokes out of my wheel that I had spinning very nicely for 25 years."
WI Wausau Diamond Dave's Restaurant Closed 100%

Not sure why McFadden is trying to say that if the ban passes all the puffers will be lurking in doorways and standing on sidewalks. Puffers need to stay in their homes and pollute their own air, or just stay in their garages or driveways. Does he really think that the "fear" of people smoking on sidewalks is going to make a difference. Jeez..give people some credit Mcfadden. They don't buy easily into your b.s.

U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona in his report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, concluded:“evidence from peer-reviewed studies show that smoke-free policies and regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry.”
http://www.wispirg.org/home/reports/repo...

Here's more evidence that smoking bans don't hurt business. Written by people in...you know...WISCONSIN.

"Madison, WI – As the state legislature considers smoke free legislation to protect public health, WISPIRG released a new report confirming smoke free policies have accomplished that goal without harming local economies. The report exposed that claims that smoke free air policies are bad for business have been purported by Big Tobacco and their allies, and not based on reality, as evidenced by a vast library of independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies. Building on previous studies, WISPIRG’s report also includes new empirical data from Madison and Appleton, finding a positive economic impact on the hospitality industry.

The new report, Smoke and Mirrors: Tobacco Industry Claims Unfounded, found that requests for liquor licenses in Madison and Appleton has increased since the implementation of the smoke free ordinance in those communities with 365 licensed liquor establishments in Madison in January 2008 compared to 332 in July 2005 before the ordinance, and for the first time ever in Appleton there is a continuous waiting list for Class B liquor licenses with 8 currently on the waiting list. The average assessed property value in business districts in both communities has increased since implementation. In addition, the report summarizes findings from nine peer-reviewed scientific studies that were selected for their geographic and demographic diversity to help demonstrate similar conclusions have been made in different communities.
http://www.wispirg.org/news-releases/smo...

Zoom, if you'll pay attention long enough to read the postings here you'll notice that the *only* links to the book site were ones made in direct response to the topic or questions here. One to a detailed examination of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and two in response to personal questions about me.

- MJM

MJM lives in Philadelphia? Stop spamming this web site with links to your "book", and go eat another cheese steak.

Article published November 30, 2008

"The results of the ban have been almost universally positive. All businesses now operate under the same rules, the health of patrons and workers has been safeguarded, and people haven't abandoned bars and restaurants in droves as opponents predicted."
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...

MJM: I forgot to mention that the natural progression of the antismoking bans will be to outlaw smoking in all public places. It will take time but with the help of the smokers who will insist on making their dirty habit a nuisance to the public it will happen. It may take 10 years, more or hopefully much less. So please continue to press this idea that smoking in public will become a problem. I welcome your assertion of so called smoking rights. You will only put an end to the public smoking rights period.

Hannah, I live in Philadelphia. See "About The Author" at www.Antibrains.com for details if you want.

- MJM

MichaelJMcFadden: I've not failed, This is not a test, I'm not going to go to some absurd website and read many more unintelligent smokers posts who claim the wonders of inhaling caustic fumes. If anything you are the one failing. Failing to understand the danger in your desires. Failing to comprehend the waste of humanity from the countless lost lives to smoking deaths and countless lost production time from the ones who were unable to work because of smoking related illness. The cherry on the sundae for debunking your economic loss theory related to retail business is a fact that smokers have more lost time at work, smokers have shorter lives, smokers spend more money on health care, so if people did not smoke they would be more productive, make more money, spend that money on material or service related business and most importantly live longer which all adds tax revenue and income to business so you in fact are the loser. I on the other hand am a winner. A winner because I grew up in a household that had both a Mother and Father who smoked 1-2 packs a day each and Grandparents on both sides who also smoked like chimneys and I've never taken even one puff. I've had and do have friends who smoke. Aunts and Uncles, etc. etc. etc. I'm a winner because I choose not to smoke in spite of the environment. So smoke if you choose, smoke till the end, your choice and your outcome is inevitable. History doesn't lie.

Momof5 wrote, "Michael: I told you why I'm for the ban....because I have not seen the effects you claim. I live in a town where there is a ban." You can't take your own personal experience as being the rule elsewhere though. Go to Google and enter "gauntlet of smoke" in quotes and read some of the 1,300 entries there. Or try putting the four words smokers doorway clouds smoke without quotes into Google and read what you find.

If you're truly concerned about people, adults OR children, with asthma encountering smoke unwillingly then you should not support a ban. Keep the smokers inside their smoking allowed places and off the sidewalks and away from the doorways of smoking banned places.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Michael: I told you why I'm for the ban....because I have not seen the effects you claim. I live in a town where there is a ban. I work in a facility that patrons cannot smoke inside of. There isn't myriads of people wandering along all sidewalks puffing away on their cigarettes just to get their fix in.

Creature, you wrote, "The people against the smoking ban have yet to make a plausible argument." Creature, the arguments made in the Stiletto at:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257....

are both plausible and strong. If you feel they are not then please point out their weaknesses. Otherwise you have failed.

Momof5, I'm still waiting to hear why you would want to increase the exposure of your son to smoke if you ever go walking along sidewalks in town or go to restaurants. As pointed out before, the smoking ban will clearly increase such exposure and it seemed to be the primary thing you were concerned about.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

hannah: I do it on the 3rd Saturday of every month. I plop little Bobby down on the sidewalk out front with a Happy Meal while I go inside and "get my drink on." Didn't you know?

Looks like I might have to go get him some of those candy cigarettes now just so he fits in. Peer pressure, ya know.

I will draw the line, however, when he comes home and says his girlfriend's name is Bubbles or Candy.

The old saying is so true. You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink. The writing is on the wall with regards to smoking. It kills period. Second hand smoke kills period. More people die from smoking related activities than anything else. More people have died from smoking than all wars combined throughout history. Smoking is and should be considered a WMD. Suicide is not an acceptable practice yet people will argue for their right to a long and slow suicide/death because of smoking. The people against the smoking ban have yet to make a plausible argument. Save a life, Save your life while you still can, give up the Cancer Sticks.

ihavealife wrote: "have tears running down my legs"
.
to which MJM replied:"Always happy to bring a little joy into the world...."
.
well....that all DEPENDS :)

Ihavealife wrote, "MichaelJ.... I'm laughing so hard at your comments I have tears running down my legs..... "

Always happy to bring a little joy into the world....

;>
MJM

Momof5 wrote, "Why would you say that is Mr. McFadden?" Honestly, I have no idea. Usually I see complaint after complaint by Antismokers about having to wade through "gauntlets of death" as they testify in favor of 25 foot "exclusion zones" from entrances or for banning smoking from entire open air hospital and college campuses because of "the problem of smokers clustered in doorways." So actually I have no idea at all why you seem to have avoided experiencing such a thing.

However, you can be sure that once the smokers are thrown out of the bars, clubs, and bar restaurants that you WILL find your child far more heavily exposed to smoke as you walk along sidewalks than now.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Michael: I hate it when adults use children as their human shields to add weight to their arguments. Dress yourself up if you want, but leave the kids out of it. That I agree with.

One cannot smoke in the mall, retail establishments, hospitals, schools, many restaurants (if you live in Janesville or Madison or some of the other "banned" cities already). But, I cannot seem to remember a SINGLE instance when I had to wade through smoker after smoker to barrel my way in the front door!??! Even at Chuck E. Cheese, where after an hour I could use a cigarette to calm my nerves (kidding)...not sure I've EVER seen a parent/patron outside smoking.

Why would you say that is Mr. McFadden?

Momof5 wrote, "MichaelJMcFadden: WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY??" I knew exactly what I was saying Momof5. Ban supporters routinely drag classfuls of 5th graders and such to hearings about banning smoking in bars and strip clubs. Dunno why, but they do. They even have them dress up as various diseases and all go up to the microphone in bright taxpayer bought antismoking tshirts and say things like "I am BRAIN CANCER and I am going to DIE from SECONDHAND SMOKE! Please vote for this ban!"

My main point remains quite valid though. If your concern as stated is limiting your child's exposure to smoke you should most definitely be fighting against the ban unless you are routinely taking him to the strip clubs, bars, and restaurants where ban supporters are banning smoking.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

MichaelJMcFadden: WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY?? I cannot take my son to strip clubs now because the patrons will be outside smoking instead of inside. That's it. Sign me up to join your cause.

You, the car to the right, may have the right of way, but you are to turn into the lane closest to you.

gazettefan: you are a top dog!

McFadden, but if they add drunk driving to it, they are selfish.

Hannah wrote, "well i guess theyre not very smart then are they and more selfish about their smoking than i thought." in reference to the increase in drunk driving caused by smoking bans. Hannah, no one who drives drunk is smart. However people who drive to go to a place where they feel comfortable and welcome with their friends has nothing to do with being selfish.

Momof5: Unless I missed it, you completely ignored my main point: If you truly want to protect your child from encounters with smoke you should be AGAINST the smoking ban. Without the ban it's easy for you not to take your child to smoky bars or restaurants or strip clubs. But once the ban is in place those smokers will all be out on the sidewalks where you walk. Given the extreme sensitivity you describe for your child you clearly should be fighting to make sure those smokers are back inside places where your son will not be exposed to their smoke.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

I relish that.

I can't tell you how much I would love to see their reactions...especially when the pants were pulled up...I think it's great. People don't like being called out in public for what they do. It's too much of a reminder to them that it really isn't just their world afterall.

lakennedy: A friend of mine went up to a group of teenagers who were walking around with the pants around their knees (showing the world their boxers...ick!), she grabbed their pants, pulled them WAY up and said do you need me to buy you a belt? I about DIED from laughing so hard and to cover my nervousness. I don't have the balls to do that...yet. I'm kind of like Sophia on Golden Girls....the part of my brain that sensors things doesn't work real well. I'm working on it. But, it's like scrubbing an oceanliner with a toothbrush!

I do it when I see people liter...I pick it up, tap them on the shoulder and say "You dropped this." Not all the time of course. LOL

I don't know how this developed into an "us against them" argument so quickly...
+
I smoke, but realize how stupid it is and am working hard on quitting (who isn't, right). I understand exactly what the argument is for not having it happen legally inside public places. I do agree that it is a slap in the face to business owners, though. I think it's a good idea, and healthy for competition, for business owners to open their own non-smoking establishment...like Brian Cherry did. I still go to Time Out, I actually like it because it doesn't have all of the smoke as other downtown bars.
+
I hope the non-smokers can understand this from a business owners point of view. While I don't believe smokers have a very credible argument, I do think the business owners have a solid one.

hannah: it started when gazettefan asked what the Ketchup Advisory Board (or something like that) had to say....ihavealife replied with "don't cut the mustard"..... Not sure what it means either but I couldn't resist throwing in the Greu Poupon joke for good measure. lol

momof5...I can't stop laughing at your comment...my boyfriend tells me that everyday.

These pro-smokers like to Poupon this website.

It's a fact that if someone is a smoker, the odds are greater that he or she is crazy. With people like ihavealife as one of the exceptions.

SwissChick, driving is legal but speeding is not. Drinking is legal but not in parks. Smoking is legal but will not be in bars. See how that works?!

hannah, nice handling of the insane 'smoking ban causes more drunk driving' comment.

Okay, Momof5, I know where you're going with this! Good one!

creature: If I see it at a stoplight or someone is walking, I almost always respond with "the world is not your ashtray." My husband tells me to shut the hell up because I don't know if the person is crazy and maybe pull a gun/knife out. He's probably right, I should think about shutting up. Thinking.....Nah!

SwissChick: but why is speeding illegal? It is my car and my tax money goes towards the upkeep and building of the roadways. Why can't I speed if I want to? (Just play along.....)

Panama: I completely agree with your post regarding the nasty pigs tossing butts out the windows, on the ground, etc. I mentioned that in the previous blog about the smoking ban. I do realize the police have far better things to do than patrol looking for the little piggy’s. Not all are dirty people but most are. Some of the lame excuses I've heard from friends and relatives that smoke. I don't like the smell of the old butts in my car so that is why they toss them out. I don't want the ashes to blow around when I open the window. What else can I do but drop them while walking. Where would I put it in my pocket. The best was closest to the truth and said by a good friend whom I've lost much respect for, "I don't really care and besides smokers have dropped them on the ground for decades, they just blow away or give the city workers a job". I say shame them all into compliance.

Speeding is "illegal". Cigarettes are not.

To those using the "it is their business, who is the goverment to tell them what to do" excuse... What about speeding? The government doesn't pay our insurance premiums or car payments. Last I checked, Captain Jim doesn't take my car in for oil changes or wash it. Why should these beaurocrats get to tell ME how to drive MY car? If I want to drive 75 in a 25, I should be able to. No?

What about CPS? They're my kids, not theirs. Who are they to dictate where, when, why and how I can discipline my kids? I should be able to take a switch and blister my daughter's behind for eating the last brownie on Mother's Day, no?

gazettefan and ihavealife: "Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?"

momof5: If you really love your kid with asthma, you may want to move! It is simply easier to blame it on a non-issue such as smoke. How would your child have been around so much smoke? Studies not paid for by big pharma have shown all along that the alarming increase in asthma is caused by high traffic areas and fumes/chemicals/pollutants related to the heavy traffic. Even the secondhand smoke studies do not take into consideration where those who were studied reside or resided and how where they live(d) impact(ed) their health, including lung cancers.
***********************************************
My son has asthma, which he is outgrowing (or his respiratory system is just getting stronger because he is NOT around smoke), because of a serious respiratory infection he got when he was only 2 months old. It nearly killed him. The infection he got is called RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus). Look it up. His asthma is not caused by Tylenol, eating mint chocolate ice cream on Wednesdays instead of Thursdays, home or environmental allergens or any other cockamamie EXCUSE you have given. It is a VIRUS...basically a cold on steroids.

For a number of years, my son took an asthma medication called Singulair once a day, had an at home nebulizer and also an emergent inhaler that we carried with us every where all of this "maintenance" was a direct result of his RSV. Then, suddenly, in the summer of 2008, he no longer needed the Singulair to keep his coughing and heaving at bay. His doctor was amazed at the HUGE uptick in his respiratory function tests, both in person and on a computer simulated model. His doctor is the chair for the pediatric allergy/asthma department at UW and is using my son as a teaching tool. Why?? Why the sudden "recovery" and lessened dependence on medical interventions? He was no longer sharing his home with a smoker 50% of the time and was therefore no longer subjected to second-hand smoke. (Of course I didn't like that grandma smoked in the house and we were in the middle of a legal intervention when all the pieces perfectly fell into place....)

So, marleneb and MichaelJMcFadden, don't tell me "if you really loved your son" because you weren't the ones in the PICU with him 3 times while he was fighting for his life. You aren't the ones who woke up numerous times in the middle of the night to his coughing and had to get out the nebulizer. You aren't the ones who refilled his $97 prescription month after month after month. You can TRY all you want to "dissect this non-smokers brain" but you will NEVER get me to concede that secondhand smoke isn't harmful.

You will never convince me that something made with rat POISON isn't harmful to the human body--direct or indirect.

marleneb: give it up with the comical cut and paste offensive. I'm guessing everyone is just skipping over your endless stream of blah, blah, blah. The fact is you will not change the trend towards smoke free so deal with it. Save your money, save your life and quit that nasty habit.

Thank you PanamaRed. I think that is the best point yet. Smoking (albeit unhealthy) is legal. Maybe there should be a statewide referendum.

I also agree with the comments referencing that if the state really wanted people to quit, and they did, what would they do with the bazillion dollars in tax revenue lost each year?

When I've been out, sometimes the most vocal people against smoking are the drunkest. (And they're driving).

A saloon is not a health club. I don't believe that there is much that goes on in one that actually constitutes as being healthy for you, even without the smoke.

As long as smoking is a legal activity, why does the state think they can tell a bar owner what they can allow?

I'm all for the owners' deciding for themselves.

IMO

What does the Ketchup Advisory Board have to say about all this?!!!

Everywhere you look on the net, the RWJF has their hands in something. Doesn't take a genius to figure out what they're up to! This is just page 1 of a google search:
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation | Public Agenda
Private philanthropic organization devoted exclusively to projects on health care issues. ... ON THE AGENDA. Ethanol, or not? Scott Bittle. May 6, 2009 ...www.publicagenda.org/sources/robert-wood-johnson-foundation - Cached
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Financier of Temperance
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The American Medical Association (AMA) The ... The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Neo-Prohibitionist Agenda, April, 2003 (www. ...www.alcoholfacts.org/RWJfoundation.html - Cached
The New Puritans and Alcohol: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health ...
... Alcohol: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Care Agenda - by ... The New Puritans and Alcohol: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Care Agenda ...www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=2241 - Cached
Nicotine Conference - Introduction
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is pleased to welcome you to this important and ... [Nicotine Conference Program Index][Program Agenda] ...www.nida.nih.gov/meetsum/nicotine/intro2.html - Cached
NICODERM MARKETING PLANS
Current Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) board of trustees: ... Fighting the smoking ban agenda by exposing the lies and the pharmaceutical ...cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-... - Cached

11:34 AM
... that the same Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which provides the behind ... the secondary agenda of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.alcohol prohibition.pretty ...cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/08/smoking-bans-and-new-ban-on-al... - Cached
PND - Newsmakers - Dr. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, President/CEO, Robert Wood ...
Today, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has almost $8 billion in assets and awards ... say that realization really led me to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. ...foundationcenter.org/pnd/newsmakers/nwsmkr.jhtml?id=108500008 - Cached
PND - News - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Awards $10 Million to AARP ...
... the center will pursue an aggressive agenda designed to raise ... Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Launches Effort to Retain Experienced Nurses (1/18/07) ...foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=196800008 - Cached
[PDF] Chronic Care in America: A 21st Century Challenge
1748k - Adobe PDF - View as html
Prepared by. The Institute for Health & Aging, University of ... Robert Wood Johnson. Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey ... Toward a National Agenda ...www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/ChronicCareinAmerica.pdf
[PDF] Taking on Tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Assault on Smoking
164k - Adobe PDF - View as html
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's tobacco-control grantmaking illustrates ... and Opportunities for Tobacco Control: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Agenda. ...www.rwjf.org/files/publications/books/2005/chapter_01.pdf

http://www.capitalresearch.org/news/news...
The May 10 issue of the New York Times reports that the Ford Foundation is launching its largest initiative to support nonprofit media in more than a quarter century. Ford will send $50 million over five years “to a baker’s dozen of public television, radio and other media organizations,” according to the report.

Hannah wrote, "well if business going down in the bars MAYBE so will drunk driving"

Actually Hannah, the reverse is true. Research has indicated that drunk driving INcreases after bans kick in as smoking drivers drive longer distances to SmokeEasies or out of jurisdiction. The Wisconsin ban won't have much out of jurisdiction driving but there will certainly be the SmokeEasy problem.

As for momof5: if you REALLY want to protect a sensitive child from the smallest wisps of smoke you should be AGAINST the ban rather than in favor of it. Right now the smokers are sequestered safely inside of bars and smoking restaurants for the most part and your child will almost never encounter smoke. Once the ban kicks in they'll be all over the sidewalks and the smoke will be unavoidable. I think you need to change your position.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Business owners should have the ability to allow a legal activity to take place in their establishments. If you don't like smoke, then don't patronize the business. I am a former smoker and there are a some places I don't go because I don't like the smokey air or the smell that clings to you once you leave. However that's my choice and the legislature should NOT be FORCING business owners to ban smoking. I would much rather see our law officers ENFORCE the NO LITTERING LAW for all the stupid, lazy, pigs that continue to throw their cigarette butts (or any garbage for that matter) out their car window. How dimwitted do you have to be to think its okay to throw ANY garbage out your car window much less a cigarette butt. People should have the freedom to smoke but that doesn't give them the right to leave their butts scattered on the ground. Next time your waiting in a left turn lane (especially turning left from Hwy 26 N on to West Rotamer Rd.)check out the pile of butts laying next to the road. Although, not all smokers are pigs, all smokers that throw throw their butts on the ground are. Use your brain and show a little self-respect; find an ashtray to discard your butt.

hannah: I won't be long. They have already re-started that crusade in Australia where they started the war on tobacco. There will be no bars left that serve alcohol. They said it wouldn't happen for smoke-free? Just wait until it's alcohol-free! They began with the least desirable, smoking. It worked so well. They are not done, alcohol and obesity are next. There is a bill pending in the Mississippi legislature that would ban restaurants from serving anyone that appears overweight. How many restaurants will like that? How many patrons do you think they will lose and have to close? Already in LA and NYC no fast food restaurant can open near a school. Where is my paranoia now, GAZETTEFAN?

Gazette, my "predictions" referred to the classic Attila the Hun argument of inevitability. Attila supposedly won many victories purely through spreading the propaganda that he and his troops were invincible and that their victory was "inevitable." The quote line in question is "Throw down your arms and we'll spare your women and children."

The Tavern League was evidently offered the "compromise" of not having the ban kick in immediately. They believe their members will be able to "prepare" for a ban and minimize its pain. They're wrong: whatever "preparations" they make will merely take a bit of the sharp edge off the knife, but it'll cut just as deep. If they reverse themselves and stand firm they might be able to avoid it entirely. And I don't see such a reversal as being out of the question: I would imagine they're catching a merry bit of hell from their membership at this point.

Still waiting for some substantive criticisms of the studies and points examined in the Stiletto referenced below by the way. Or, if you'd like to stick strictly to the topic of the main justification for the ban, the "deadly threat" of ETS, go to

http://www.antibrains.com/shs.html

and offer your criticisms of that.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

gazettefan: "The government didn't just spontaneously decide to enact it." The government does exactly that! Did you want a multi-trillion dollar stimulus plan? Did you even know about it before the election? Do you really think the people have any say anymore? Dream on! The letters I received from Doyle quotes reports that were thrown out by none other than the Supreme Court of the United States. And he is a government official!? I would rather my elected officials study the facts first and then make an economic decision in the name of public health that turns out to be nothing more than corporate greed than be a Sheeple that will believe anything! They will always say 'it's for our children'. How many children do you see in bars?

The electorate did NOT convince the government to enact this ban! Why would a business owner want to reduce his customer base? Some smokers will adapt, but that is not the point! IT IS THE OWNER THAT LOSES! THEY HAVE THE VESTED INTEREST, NOT THE PATRON!

This is going to be good to bad it wont make a difference.

momof5: If you really love your kid with asthma, you may want to move! It is simply easier to blame it on a non-issue such as smoke. How would your child have been around so much smoke? Studies not paid for by big pharma have shown all along that the alarming increase in asthma is caused by high traffic areas and fumes/chemicals/pollutants related to the heavy traffic. Even the secondhand smoke studies do not take into consideration where those who were studied reside or resided and how where they live(d) impact(ed) their health, including lung cancers.

Now, from a 02/14/2009 Cincinnati Enquirer article, an on-going study from 1998 reportedly shows:

The researchers identified a possible new biomarker associated with prenatal exposure to certain hydrocarbons. The compounds are found in vehicle emissions, especially in high traffic areas. "Asthma is increasing in this country, and there's plenty of evidence showing it's related to traffic and other environmental issues, including dust mites and other indoor air quality issues" Ho said. Babies born to mother exposed to high levels of the pollutant were more likely to show the biomarker, which shows a change to the gene in the lung. Those same babies were also more likely to exhibit asthma symptoms before their fifth birthday.

Acetaminophen may raise asthma risk in kids
Study covered pain reliever's use among children in 31 countries.
In the United States acetaminophen is widely sold under the brand Tylenol and is used to relieve fever, minor aches and pain. It is used in a liquid suspension for children.
Medium use of acetaminophen in the past 12 months increased asthma risk by 61 percent, while high dosages of once a month or more in the past year raised the risk by over three times.
Medium use was defined as once per year or more, but less than once a month.
Suspicions of a possible link between acetaminophen and asthma emerged in recent years when experts observed an increased use of the drug to a simultaneous rise in asthma prevalence worldwide. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26788879/

Michael J. Fox Foundation Funds $1.1 Million for Cutting-Edge Approaches to Parkinson's Disease Under Rapid Response Innovation Awards 2008
-Rahul Srinivasan, MBBS, PhD, and Henry A. Lester, PhD, of the California Institute of Technology are working to better understand epidemiological findings that have consistently shown smoking may protect against PD. The researchers hope to elucidate the mechanisms by which nicotine may protect dopamine neurons through development and validation of a screening test for small molecules that could increase nicotine receptor expression in the brain.

McFadden, which would garner the most readers? A published book or an unpublished one?

The Tavern League would have never given up. It faced reality. Your predictions for women and children are odd.

Less Government=More Freedom! Give'em heck marleneb and MichaelJMcFadden.

Sorry, I just mean common courtesy is required just because no ash tray doesn’t mean throwing out the window is ok as you could do damage or injury

marinab, OK, you get a pass. But the way you wrote your post could be taken either way.

Gazette, it depends on whether the author is seeking to make money or seeking to have an influence on events. If you read my bio at www.Antibrains.com you'll see that I tend to be more interested in the latter. Self-publishing gives an author far greater control over the content and distribution of his work - an important issue in political publishing.

Now, to respond to your more substantive argument: "McFadden, the Wisconsin Tavern League lobby failed to counter and overpower the pro-smoking ban electorate. It was the electorate who caused the ban. The government didn't just spontaneously decide to enact it."

You're quite correct that there was nothing "spontaneous" about it. The antismoking lobby has enormous amounts of money, on the order of 900 million dollars a year just from the states, and a lot of experience and skill in what they do: See Marlene's pasting of the "Fundamentals" guidebook T.O.C. below and go check the guide out yourself. As for the electorate, see "Lie #2" at www.TheTruthIsALie.com and consider how independent the electorate's choice actually is when faced with that volume of propaganda.

The Tavern lobby has made a major mistake: they bought into the Attila The Hun strategy of the Antismokers and surrendered in order to save the women and children. They'll find out too late that the women will be raped and the children butchered anyway. They could have fought and won - they could STILL fight and win - if they had/have the guts for it.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

"Smoke-free policies do not harm business" ?- This
statement is an already proven lie. The smoking ban in Ohio is hurting
businesses. During the first 12 months of the smoking ban 5,400 jobs were
lost in the hospitality and leisure industry. Permit holders lost a
potential of $67.44 million in 2007 sales. One large beer distributor
reports a 5 percent decline in sales. The coin machine industry is down 25
to 35 percent in liquor pouring establishments. The trickle down affect
includes the loss of income to musicians, karaoke vendors, snack vendors
and more. Families invested their money and their lives into owning their
piece of the American Dream. Now if they can sell their
businesses it's for a fraction of the money, blood, sweat and tears they've
invested. Due to loss of revenues, private clubs are no longer able to
support charities at previous levels.
What other health laws have been imposed by more than
$2.6 million of private special-interest pharmaceutical support?" $2.1
million (80 percent) of that sum was contributed by the American Cancer
Society and its divisions. The Society receives direct financial support
for its smoking ban advocacy from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which
as of Dec. 31, 2007 owned $3.0 billion in common stock of NicoDerm CQ patch
manufacturer Johnson & Johnson.

gazettefan what are you smoking? I said I do not condone this action.

Smoking is most certainly *not* an "act of aggression on other people" if it takes place in an environment where the people present knew that there would be smoking taking place and freely chose to be there.

As for litter, the only relevance the littering discussion has regarding the ban is that the ban will increase the amount of litter. {Note: that's a statement of expected fact, not a statement of approval of littering, OK?}

No substantive comments on the material in the Stiletto yet?

How about some comments on this: The Antismokers consistently claim that any negative impact on business is "hogwash" and a lie. Check out what happened to Minnesota's charitable gambling receipts after their partial and full bans at:

http://arclightzero.web.officelive.com/D...

Notice the total nose dive taken at the end of 2007 when the full ban kicked in? That dive continued throughout 2008. When the economic meltdown hit in October it dove again... but not as big as it had when the smoking ban hit.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

marinab, listen to yourself! Who causes the 'cigarette butt in the car problem'?!

lakennedy, I heard about that letter. Her attitude is overwhelmingly characteristic of smokers. Only a small number of smokers are not like that.

McFadden, the Wisconsin Tavern League lobby failed to counter and overpower the pro-smoking ban electorate. It was the electorate who caused the ban. The government didn't just spontaneously decide to enact it.

I missed the letter about the woman who threw a cigarette butt out the window. I am a smoker however even though they do not make cars with ashtrays what are we suppose to do. DUH use a can or buy a little ash tray. Throwing it out a window is wrong it could fly into someone’s car or if you ride a bike motor or peddle could burn someone.

Further, McFadden, no one chooses to be self-published over being legitimately published. In your reply, you didn't even offer the possibility of going both routes. In short, your book is unpublishable, that's why it's self-published.

I agree gazettefan...did you see the letter to the editor from the woman who was upset that she was pulled over after chucking her cigerette butt out the window. I couldn't believe that.

I understand and see both sides of this debate. As a member of the idiotic smoking population, the only people who I feel empathy for are the business owners. This interference of the government just doesn't sit well with me, although I do understand the arguments posed by the non-smoking population.
+
We smokers knew this was coming!!! It may be inconvenient to us, but we'll get through it just fine, maybe some of us will stop smoking because of it:)

The choice in this issue is that the electorate chose to convince the government to enact a smoking ban.

And it is certainly true that smoking is an act of aggression on other people and the environment -including the tossing of cigarette butts all over the place.

My right to breath clean air in public spaces and workplaces trumps your right to pollute it.

MarinaB wrote, "Michael, you just set yourself up for some harsh words, good luck I will feel your pain"

LOL! No worries Marina. :) I'm a big boy now.

Let me give the ban folks something to work with though so they can attack me a bit more effectively. Go to:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257....

and read the "Stiletto" you'll find there. It's short, big print, and one-sided - but its facts are accurate and their presentation is honest. I'll be more than happy to answer any substantive criticisms anyone has of anything within it.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

- MJM

Michael, you just set yourself up for some harsh words, good luck I will feel your pain

Gaz, most definitely. It was the most efficient way to get it out to the widest number of people involved in ban fights while there was still a fight to be fought. Lag times in the publishing world for a non-established author are usually two to three years (if you're lucky!)

- MJM

Mac, is your book self-published?

Mr. Sheridan said, “I think everyone realizes this is inevitable,”

Actually Mr. Sheridan it certainly is NOT "inevitable" unless the antismoking lobby succeeds in convincing people like you that it IS "inevitable." They're basically playing the old "Attila the Hun" con game, demoralizing the enemy in order to get a victory without a fight. It's a lie but unfortunately they have enough money and lobbying power behind them at this point that they'll probably get away with it.
There are other "con games" too in this fight. E.G. the poster here who's in favor of the ban and pictures those against it as believing that "one should be able to pollute the air and thei neighbor anywhere they go with their smoke" when actually the Free-Choice proponents are fully in favor of still allowing businesses to ban smoking on their own. Neither I nor anyone I know is in favor of a law requiring all businesses to allow smoking.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

No I was not referring to you but some of the post were hurtful to the family and I am all for freedom of speech however we should keep in mind who might be reading the post. I know emotions run high and certain subjects but we all must remember someone could be hurt. I agree this subject is a tough one, and as a smoker, I try very hard to respect people who do not smoke. However, I do feel our government needs to step back and give a choice I would rather see this issue put to a vote and if the non-smokers win then great.

Marinab: are you saying I was being disrespectful on those two topics? What? Really?

And, I agree with you on marleneb's posts....very confusing!

I agree I do not believe that smoking is not bad for you I am saying that is my choice I do respect others when I decide to light one up, I will ask or if I see someone is not smoking I will go outside. I gave up reading Marlene's comments as they were confusing me. As for respect of ones opinions, I do not agree with you. Some were being rude and hurtful about Jeff and with that woman who was murdered. We may not agree about some things but I try not to be hateful.

Marina: I cannot speak for others, but marleneb is absolutely entitled to her own opinion. Disagreeing with it has nothing to do with being perfect. Disagreeing with it has to do with being able to differentiate cause and effect relationships and using common sense. She and many others believe (along with you) that one should be able to pollute the air and thei neighbor anywhere they go with their smoke. I, and many others, do not believe that. I respect that. However, where her arguments crossed the line, lost respect and became nothing more than idol chatter is when she started trying to persuade us that smoking was not harmful! It is hard to take someone serious like that! If not impossible!!

Holy crap! The mall went smoke-free what? 15 or 20 years ago? I can remember being able to walk around Kmart and smoke. They haven't went out of business, marleneb!!

WAIT! That's it! That's the source of our economic woes...the ban of smoking in retail establishments has FINALLY caught up with us!

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Marlene, apparently we are being mistaken for the same I would like to say unlike others here I respect your opinion and that of others, I may not agree with you 100% but again I respect your opinion. You see this blog and other blogs on this website are here for others to judge, as they are perfect in every way. I am sorry to say that people want their opinions to be forced on others. Yes, I smoke my choice but I do respect non-smokers the key word here is respect some people do not have this. I do not smoke around non-smokers; I do not have a problem with not being able to smoke in certain places. I do however have a right to choose where I can or cannot go. If I do not like a business I do not go there my choice, I would like to see some places smoking and other’s not.

marlenab, communism is an aggressive, suffocating, self-defeating phenomenon, just like smoking.

Marleneb: if you are infact a business owner (and being a ebay junky doesn't count...I mean a business housed in a brick and mortar location)...then you'd know that the government ALREADY intereferes in the daily workings of a business. Some local ordinances dictate your hours of operation, how bright your sign can be or what material it can be built out of. "They" dictate how many parking stalls you need, what age your patrons can be, what product line you can sell, what hours your employees can work and how much rest must be in between shifts and also go as deep to suggest return/exchange policies. THEN, if you choose to accept credit cards, you have even MORE rules and regulations you must follow!

Don't give me this crap that it is up to businesses and how dare the government interfere on any level. The government "interferes" in businesses every day and many more invasive ways than this.

Just admit you don't want to be told what to do and YOU being able to smoke is more important than my son with asthma being able to eat a meal without hacking and wheezing.

Because YOU choose to smoke, MY health care premiums are higher. That's how the system works. I may get a discount on health and life insurance because I don't smoke, but the premiums are already inflated because of the smokers!!

Your views are totally narcisistic and paranoid!

marinab & marlenab: Where do you two get off anyway? Smoking is not a right it's a choice. Just like not smoking is a choice. The difference is your choice to smoke infringes on non smokers’ rights not to smell or breath in the smoke. Regarding the end of the free world and the end of retail business in general. How utterly ridiculous. Smoking or not smoking has little to no effect on business operations or profit margins. If you think people will just hole up in their homes and smoke away as leisure because they cannot pollute everyone else’s air you need to get out more and breath some clean air because the math just doesn't add up. Fact is smoking kills, Fact is since the 80's and the start of the smoking bans on airplanes, trains, retail establishments, workplaces, etc has done nothing to put people out of work. Bad business models and poor management puts a company out of business. The smart business owner will see the ban as a way to increase business by marketing to a whole new group that is far larger than the smokers. Again if you choose to smoke go outside choke down the smoke and then come back in. Simple enough. Better yet give up the cancer sticks and save your life.

For all of those who complain about the bars or bowling alleys losing money because of the ban or their belief that the government should not tell the private business owners what to do, please remember that people go to the bar, restaurant,bowling alley,etc, for OTHER reasons like to socialize, bowl, enjoy a meal,etc. People do not go to these places to just smoke! Smokers will still come to their favorite hangouts. Deal with it!

"ZOOM Time out is non smoking and its on main street. Do you even go to bars in janesville. How could you not know about this bar. Its a nice bar and lots of people go there for the lack of smoke. People like you want it banned from places you dont go and never will go anyways."

OK, that's one. And they opened less than a year ago. Where is this "choice" the smokers are talking about? And don't count the places that serve food, and are under the current ban.

I want a smoke free work environment for employees. Smoking is not an integral part of drinking (or bowling), and has no place in the work environment.

gazettefan I did not say we spend that in bars I said restaurants and bars. As for the future, I see a communist country as our government is making sure of that

marleneb, and her husband spend $3,600 to $4,800 a year drinking in bars?! That's $36,000 to $48,000 every ten years.

Add on: about $12,000 in ten years for a pack of cancer sticks for each person per day and in ten years they spend $48,000 to $60,000 on cigs and drinking (not counting what they drink at home and other places)!

All this leaves us with good reason to not trust their judgment on what the future holds.

Also, for all the years non smokers have had to put up with the smoked filled bars, I think it is the smokers turn to deal with it the other way around :>

marleneb-usually my husband & I can't go out to those smoke filled bars, we can't stand the smoke and it makes me sick. We also have many friends that won't go as well. We can definitely offset the money you won't be spending.As well as most of our friends that will be going out to the smokeless bars again.

Once this ban goes in effect my husband and I will stop going out so I look at it like this, it is our choice to smoke it is also our choice to not go out to restaurants or bars and we will stop spending our money there. I guess our $300 to $400.00 a month will be in our savings instead of your community. So maybe all the smokers can start saving money and our community will lose money. That is a great solution to this right. And as for the cigarette tax, I have pay for it and I pay a higher insurance premium. So I ask instead of higher premiums give me a debit card when I buy cigarettes take that tax and put into an account for my health care not the non-smokers or the rebuilding of this state I smoke so my tax should cover me only.

marleneb, again with the problem with cause and effect. Lose the selective perception and confirmation bias.

Smoking bans do not hurt the bar business. If some of your smoking customers prove to be disloyal, non-smokers will fill the gap.

Many smokers will continue to patronize your place and you may do even better business with many more non-smokers.

You know, you don't have to take my word for it that this is all social engineering. This is from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundations
own agenda page: "Taking on tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Assault on Smoking"
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Taking+...

Beyond ministering to the press and providing information, documentation, and sound bites for the tobacco-control point of view, it would push for policy change to denormalize tobacco.

According to their November 2005 publication, "Taking on tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Assault on Smoking", from 1991 to 2005 the foundation paid $446,398,054 in tobacco-control grants. Grantees that did not move from tobacco education to tobacco control became ineligible for further grants.
As of March 31, 2008 the foundation owns 35,435,189 shares of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) common stock (valued at nearly 2.3 billion dollars) and is one of the company's largest institutional holders. As a tax exempt foundation RWJF pays 1 percent tax on realized capital gains and dividends from its investments, while other investors pay 15 percent. Johnson & Johnson profits from the sales of Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette products. The foundation therefore directly profits from cigarette tax and smoking ban laws they've provided grants to create. In January 2008, 1,000,000 boxes of the company's nicotine replacement products were reportedly sold and Nicoderm CQ is touted as the "best selling smoking cessation patch in history". April 15, 2008, Forbes reported that Johnson & Johnson profit jumped 40% during the first quarter of 2008.

There is not one business owner that stays open just to live at the poverty level. If a business isn't making any money it CAN'T stay open. Buildings need maintanence, utilities need to be paid, etc etc. I am sure you know this. It costs money to live especially with children. If you don't want to live the American dream of owning a business, don't, but not everyone wants to work for someone else!

On the contrary, it is my private property rights that I do not wish to lose. What is the point of owning if everyone else has the rights to my property, why would I want to go to the trouble?

I see....it is all about your income. Got that right away, but at least you admit it. Very selfish.

Neither did your comment "It is obvious you have no regard for anything other than YOUR income."

Did you also know that if a 35 year old guy who gets killed in a motorcycle accident and he was a smoker, that his death is added to the numbers generated and attributed to premature death from smoking? Same with an 88 year old man who dies from natural causes, if he smoked, his number is also added to premature death from smoking. These are numbers the American Cancer Society uses.

marleneb-not sure how my answering that question has anything to do with a HEALTH ISSUE.

Browntown: How many other people's income do you worry about above your own?

Every one of the deaths attributed to second hand smoke is a computer generated number.
THE Truth: Simply stated there is no known cause for any type of cancer. With all the testing that has been done with every type of chemical, gas, inert matter, and substances that have been altered through exposure to heat or chemical reaction, nothing has been proven to cause cancer. NOTHING! In some instances specific substances, in massive quantities, have been administered to laboratory rats. In these cases many of the animals might have developed a cancer. These sorts of tests may be considered Junk Science in that they have no relationship to a real life scenario.

The World Health Organization ran one of the most exhaustive tests on SHS ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showed no measurable relationship of SHS to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke. The W.H. O attempted to hid these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public.

THE TRUTH: It is impossible for SHS to be a public health issue for the simple reason there is NO proof that SHS has hurt anyone. In fact, according the W.H.O. (see above), SHS may have some beneficial effect on children. The smoke haters like to point out that the Health Departments have a right to control smoking issues for the same reason they have the right to check on health conditions in restaurants and bars.

This is a specious argument primarily because true health issues in food service establishments relate primarily to microbes and organisms that have an absolute direct effect on heath and sanitation. It is the Health Departments' sole responsibility to see to it that health standards are maintained. If individuals are concerned about SHS a simple notice stating that smoking is allowed is all that is needed for the public to make a decision about patronizing and establishment. This concept is called, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

marlenb-you need to get real. It is obvious you have no regard for anything other than YOUR income. Glad I have a choice and don't have to work for someone like you. I feel sorry for your employees.

marleneb, compare my question with yours.

Come on gazette fan, get real.

If my employees don't like what they do they can go elsewhere. I wouldn't want an unhappy employee. No one is forcing anyone to work in any given place! If you don't like the smell of food don't work in a restaurant. If you don't like the smell of beer don't work in a bar!

marleneb, as a business owner would you vote to abolish all health and safety codes?

No danger from second hand smoke...tell that to my girlfriend who has lung cancer from second hand smoke. If possible, your posts get more ridiculous each time.

"Any business that has employees should be regulated and follow guidelines to ensure the SAFETY of the employees. Good idea, since many employers don't care about the welfare of their employees"
OSHA's regulations protect the safety of others from unseen dangers. OSHA's regulations prove that there is no danger from second hand smoke. If there were, OSHA would have stepped in. You can see smoke, if you don't like it don't go.

marleneb-so you don't care about the welfare of your employees from your statements. If they "choose" to work for you, then their health isn't an issue for you. Nice.

I am a business owner and I am the one that pays the taxes and I am the one that should decide how I operate that business and I am the one that reserves the right to deny service to anyone. The government gets enough of my money, they should not have the right to sink me too. Smokers welcome, non-smokers welcome, anti-smokers buy your own business!

marleneb-Any business that has employees should be regulated and follow guidelines to ensure the SAFETY of the employees. Good idea, since many employers don't care about the welfare of their employees.

Whether the public favors a smoking ban or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether government has a right to interfere in the affairs of private businesses and their owners when no illegal activity is taking place. Criminalizing a heretofore legal activity in order to facilitate that interference is a criminal act in and of itself.

The U.S. economy is specifically designed to provide many different choices to many different people with many different preferences. These preferences should include the choice of patronizing Smoking-Allowed or Non-Smoking bars and restaurants. This is also directly applicable to any worker's choice of employment as well.
Seeking employment in businesses with foreknowledge that smoking is allowed posses no more unknown risk than knowingly diving head first into the shallow end of a swimming pool. You know what you’re getting into before you do it. The theory behind the “Level Playing Field” would also obviously dictate that if you have the skills required to work in a Smoking Allowed environment, then those skills would also be applicable and in-demand in a similar Non-Smoking business as well. The choice of where to apply those skills is up to the individuals that posses them. They have a choice. Adults that choose to smoke, and business and property owners that wish to accomodate those that have made such a choice are no less deserving of their choice to do so.

It’s all about choice, and "voting" to rescind the options available to one group in favor of expanding the available options to another group is naively petty and embarrassingly criminal.
This issue is less about public health concern than it is about social engineering. It's about unelected health advocates using the power granted to them to regulate and prevent infectious diseases, and instead using that power to effect societal change through media scare tactics, and forced government intervention. By ignoring opposing points of view, dismissing all opposition as selfish or uninformed, and allowing their self-perceived nobility of cause to over-rule sound judgment in an effort to achieve the desired result, it is nothing more than moralistic self indulgence. It is readily apparent that these organizations, regardless of how well intentioned, are willing to sacrifice sound public policy and more importantly to abandon strict scientific standards without discretion in their effort to have the end justify the means. It is quite simply shameful.

Marlene- perhaps what you aren't getting is responsibility.... Smoking laws did not rape or kill anyone. SOME FREAKING PSYCHO did! And, I am sorry, but, if some loser is hell-bent on raping some poor lady, the fact that this woman was outside may have made her first, but, if not her, it would have been someone else. WHAT is Your personal investment here? You are awfully passionate about this topic. WHY to the extent that you are?

Would you vote in favor of allowing the public to decide what's best for your business even though they have nothing invested in it, and may never set foot inside, let alone even know of it's existence at all?

marlenab, you are agreeing with the cause and effect problems of others.

Why do so many people put so little value on their health? People actually quitting smoking because they can no longer afford it as opposed to doing it just because it's the right thing to do. Priorities not in line.

marleneb-I would love to see your blogs/posts if they decided to ban twinkies...this isn't a conspiracy theory, it is a HEALTH ISSUE. That simple.

gazettefan: These are called "headlines", not too hard to understand.

marleneb, you have a serious problem understanding cause and effect.

We hear reports of deaths of a kind we never heard before the smoking ban campaigns.
“Man Charged with Severing Wife's Tongue and Windpipe.” It states the man slashed her
throat because she smoked a cigarette to celebrate her birthday. She was in
critical condition, and he was charged with attempted murder. We never used to
see stories like that, but here are some more:
Utah: A teenager was murdered for smoking in downtown Salt Lake City.
Ohio: Man Beaten To Death For Not Giving Up Cigarette. Ricardo Leon, 23, died.
UK: Nurse stabbed to death at hospital in an outside smoking area.
UK: man killed wife and two sons over her smoking. John Jarvis, 42, stabbed his wife Patricia in the heart and then murdered their sons, John, 11, and Stuart, eight.
Louisiana: Pregnant woman shot over cigarette. 18-year-old refused to stop smoking.
Calilfornia: A 21-year-old woman was stabbed several times early Saturday
outside a Carlsbad home when she went outside to smoke a cigarette, police said.
California: Smoker Gunned Down. A gunman fatally shot a man outside a sports bar in unincorporated Hayward as the man took a cigarette break, authorities said Friday.
Illinois: Smoker Falls To Death. Ian Honeycutt, 28, of Glenview, tumbled from a ninth-floor apartment, blown off a window sill by a gust of wind while smoking. His aunt asked him not to smoke inside, police sources said.
Ireland: Eamonn Mulvenna, 20 year old victim died when he fell from a fire escape being used as a smoking area because of the ban.
Canada: A 65 year old smoker dies out in the cold.
Alabama: Smoker Attacked. He was standing in a parking lot, smoking a cigarette when he was attacked.
New York: 60 year old man beaten unconscious for smoking.
Florida: Father Stabs Son Over Cigarette.
New Zealand: Abduction And Rape Of Smoking Woman. The incident proved people would be more vulnerable if they had to go outside and smoke, something Prime Minister Helen Clark had not thought of, he said.
Ireland: Three men had jaws broken as they smoked outside pubs in Sligo, Kilkenny and Dublin.

Colorado: Bar Owner Blames Smoking Ban For Rape. A Pueblo bar owner says the smoking ban that forced his female employee outside is directly responsible for her rape.
Texas: Date Rape Pill Put in Drink, While Going Outside for Cigarette. Maria says she and two other friends stepped outside to smoke a cigarette. She says it was during that time that someone spiked her drink.
UK: A female backpacker fell 100 feet to her death from the roof of a hostel early yesterday. The 20-year-old Canadian plunged six storeys into a lane at around 3am. One theory is that she climbed onto the flat roof of the no-smoking Edinburgh Backpackers hostel for a cigarette.
Colorado: Courtney Chinn, 25, of Colorado Springs was shot and killed in an area near the Anchor Lounge where smokers congregate on September 20, 2003. [It is said] the problem of crime outside of bars where smokers gather will persist.
Africa: Baby sister killed in brothers' anti smoking crossfire. 3 Year Old Girl Dies In Smoking Ban War.
UK: Boy smoker hanged himself. A 12-year-old boy hanged himself with his school tie rather than admit to his parents that he had been caught smoking.
Wisconsin: Girl kills herself after being caught with a cigarette.
Massachusetts: Melissa Pierce and Angela Aiello, after leaving the bar to smoke, were struck in the heads with a metal pipe. Richard Jervah of Lynn was pushed through a plate glass window. Arthur Brestovitsky was stabbed in the chest, face, and arm.
We didn't hear stories of
these kinds of violence before the smoking ban activists started fomenting hatred with their jihad (holy war) against smoking. It's time for them to admit their lies result in killing far more people than secondhand smoke.

The anti's are in Australia where they test market their propaganda, did you know that anti tobacco started there too? They are now after alcohol: http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.c.... It is all about manipulating public opinion to act against a product and gaining grants and government funding to keep their agenda going. Now that the bars are smoke free, it is only a matter of time before there are no bars. Paranoid you say? No one would have believed smoking would be banned even 10 years ago!
Those who have been paying any attention to “public health” issues of late have been predicting an assault on alcohol similar to the offensive against smoking. The telltale signs of the looming war are everywhere. And, the tactics to be used in the pending “war on alcohol” will, apparently, be the same as those used in the “war on smoking”. The prohibitionists claim that the booze industry is unlike any other “normal” business; they sell a product which causes death and destruction and a host of societal ills. And, even worse they’ll tell you, they encourage children to experiment with alcohol and perhaps become regular consumers of these products as they grow older.

So, in the name of public health these products, and those who use them, must be painted as something evil; something less than “normal.” For their own good, and for the sake of the children.
These are the same tactics employed by over-zealous public health advocates in their efforts to destroy the tobacco industry and eradicate smokers. It’s a social marketing concept called de-normalization. I hate it, but it is brilliant.

Crafty: go smoke a cigarette. It'll calm your nerves and may stop you from comparing apples to oranges.

After how many breaths are you permanently injured? One? Two hundred?
The sun also burns your skin, should we outlaw that too?

Marleneb: if this country is run by pharamceutical companies, is a conspiracy more than a democracy-why haven't you moved to a more serene and less invasive in its citizens' lives country?!!! Like, oh say, Cuba?

Secondly...can you PLEASE stop throwing out the word "nazi" like it is candy at a parade? I find it to be completely disgusting and ridiculous. Our government (including lobbyists) is far from perfect, but show a little respect by not comparing them to a group of horrific individuals who KILLED hundreds of thousands of the innocent. The mere use of that word can still evoke fear and sadness in many and doesn't belong in the context of discussing a smoking ban-especially when you believe the "truth" is that the sky is falling and it is all Johnson&Johnson's doing!

Don't forget, Doyle's buddies who own the casinos will still get to make their own choices when it comes to their businesses. But, not your neighbor who owns a small bar, barely making ends meet.
==
=

Don't smoke, it MIGHT hurt someone. But go ahead and kill all the babies you want. Smokers have become the minority that it's ok to hate.

More than half the states adopted a conceal carry law.

I think that the government should not have the power to tell business owners whether or not people can smoke in their business. If you own it you should have the decision power. If someone wants to go to a place of business that is smoke free thats their choice, but if you want to smoke you should be allowed to go to a smoking place. Whatever happened to eaquality? Now its just whoever whines the loudest and most gets their way. This country is becoming the nation of whiney little brats, waaaaaaaaah!

Happy Mother's Day!

There is absolutely no evidence that smoking bans hurts business long term, in either Wisconsin or any of the other 20-some states that have enacted a ban. The vast numbers of non-smokers will more than make up for any business lost by smokers in the long term.

Non-smokers will leave existing non-smoking businesses and go to the new non-smoking businesses? That's a new one, and highly illogical. By the way, where are all these non-smoking bars in Janesville people are talking about?

"The government has no right to step in and tell these people how to run their businesses."

No right? Really? I guess we don't need those pesky building codes, or sanitary codes, or drinking laws, or labor laws. We all know business owners will only do what's in the best interest of their employees and patrons, and not the bottom line.
/end sarcasm

For the people such as browntown96 and others that think this is a good idea. The bars and restaurants are privately owned, funded and run by individuals such as yourselves. The government has no right to step in and tell these people how to run their businesses. If you don't like the health issues associated with patronizing these places, don't go. There are other options. Answer back with your wallet. You may not care about the rights of the individual business owner and not care about this issue, but what happens when there is an issue you DO care about that the government wants to change or take away from you? How do you then jusitfy stepping in and raising your voice or opinion if you don't step up now?

There are quite a few non-smoking businesses in this state already. Some that have become quite profitable by catering to non-smokers. How do you think that they will now be affected by this? Those non-smokers will go elsewhere now and they will LOSE business. They will be penalized now for being a trendsetter early on. Think that's right??!?!?

Either way, this is simply an individual right and issue. Don't go if you don't like the smell or hazards associated. YOU have a choice. The barowner or restaurant owner should be afforded a choice too.

And, by the way...Smoking is a dangerous, filthy disgusting habit. I hate smelling like smoke or smelling anothers lit cigarette while eating a meal. As a business owner, you should have the choice. Or, maybe the government should tell the restaurant owners that they shouldn't serve red meat, only chicken, as chicekn is better for you (sarcastically). Where does it end?

Browntown: I am not paranoid, but you certainly are apathetic. How do you think these bans started? Certainly not by just some people who don't like smoke! RWJF has spent over 10 BILLION dollars over the last 30 years to get to where we are now. The EPA report which led to the Surgeon General's report stating smoking and second hand smoke causes cancer etc. has been ruled null and void by the U.S. Supreme Court due the Judge Oosteen's ruling vacating the EPA's findings because they are all false. Paranoid? How about educated on the whole subject! By the way, that's something they would rather you did not know.

David G: There are plenty of places that are non-smoking that you can go to. Where will the smokers have that option now? Our country is NOT a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. Our founding fathers did not want mob-rule. Democracies have NEVER lasted more than 200 years. Now that the people have forgotten this and have found that they can vote for anything and everything that they want it's only a matter of time that the good old USA will cease to exist as it was intended. Now THAT is not a conspiracy theory, that is a fact.

If I was a bar owner I would be very angry that the government has taken my private property rights away to cowtow to someone that is not paying my taxes, paying for my bars upkeep, cleaning up the mess in bathroom from people who can't hit the target, etc. etc. Smokers welcome, non-smokers welcome, anti-smokers buy your own business, you are not welcome!

Browntown: Don't you remember anything about Prohibition? The bootleggers have already started hauling massive amounts of cigarettes into Canada because of the high taxes. People are beating and killing and robbing smokers forced outside. The poorest people will forgo food and basic neccessities. I see that you think all is well so long as you are happy. Wake up!

Finally! Now that we can breath in some of these places we might even frequent them more often to have a beer or two. While most bars or taverns that did not serve food were full of customers in the past, this is not always the case anymore. Drinking laws have changed. We as a society are finally beginning to recognize that some of this stuff our parents did all the time just might kill us a bit earlier than we like.

In every case where I have worked and a ban was imposed, the numbers of smokers gradually dropped off over the next few years. Since I had asthma, I was in trouble for years. Now that I'm away from smoke 98% of the time, I have very few problems.

If I was a bar owner, I'd clean the place up, put in a little overhang over the side door, put up a no smoking sign asap, and watch your business pick up. The bartender will sure feel better.

The paranoids are out to get me!!!

I wouldn't bother building an outdoor patio yet!
www.no-smoke.org.
FUNDAMENTALS OF SMOKEFREE WORKPLACE LAWS
Executive Summary & Index
November 2008
This summary includes an outline of guiding principles described within the full document.
These recommendations for developing and implementing effective smokefree policies are based
on experiences and lessons learned from tobacco control advocates throughout the country over
the past several decades.
OVERVIEW page 1
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES page 2
�� Begin at the local level page 2
�� Plan before you act page 3
�� Agree on “dealbreakers” page 3
�� Be realistic about resources page 4
�� Take it to the Roots: Start with a strong grassroots base page 5
�� Move in step with your community page 7
�� Start with model policy language page 7
�� Include expert advisors page 8
�� Avoid ballot measures page 8
II. DRAFTING PRINCIPLES (language) page 9
�� Develop clear definitions page 9
�� Use clear, concise, and consistent language page 10
�� Cover all workplaces page 10
III. NEVER AGREE TO PREEMPTION page 11
IV. DEALBREAKERS: Provisions to avoid at all costs page 12
�� Ventilation exemptions page 12
�� Red light / Green light provisions page 13
�� Minors Only provisions page 13
�� Hours provisions page 13
�� Consent provisions page 14
�� Hardship exemptions page 14
�� Opt Out exemptions page 14
�� Licensing, Permits, and Tax incentives page 15
�� Sunset provisions page 15
�� Trigger provisions page 15
V. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO AVOID page 16
�� Exemptions for membership organizations (Private Clubs) page 16
�� Tobacco shop, cigar bar and hookah exemptions page 16
�� Exemptions for casinos and gaming establishments page 16
�� Grandfather Clauses page 17
�� Long phase-in provisions (over 90 days) page 17
VI. ADDITIONAL CAMPAIGN TIPS page 18
As you work for smokefree air, we hope you will read this document in full and take advantage
of technical assistance and resources from national partners listed within this document. Contact
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights for a complete list of resources at 510-841-3032 or visit
www.no-smoke.org.

marleneb-WOW-can you say paranoid? Your cut and paste blogs don't have anything to do with the fact that people are tired of second hand nasty smoke. Save your energy and the blog space.

This "non" profit foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, paid 99 million dollars in grants to the ACS, ALA and AHA for smoking bans: http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/b... (pg. 5 shows the $99,000,000 grant to the AMA and http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/b... shows how the AMA doled it out to the ACS, ALA and AHA for tobacco "control") Only providing tobacco education got grant money taken away from grantees. The RWJF wanted tobacco "control" (aka BANS). Why? Take Ohio, for example.
RWJF, in 2006 when Ohio's ban was bought and paid for by RWJF via the ACS/SmokeFree Ohio, RWJF owned 55,983,308 shares of Johnson & Johnson stock valued at $3,696,018,000. http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/a...
RWJF was created by the founder of J&J.
J&J owns Nicorette
3 studies have proven that these products:
1) only have a 1.6% success rate for quitting smoking 1 year http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/... Yes-that's a 98.4% FAILURE rate (however it is interesting to read the authors of this study laud this rate as a success compared to the placebo-and the authors are tied to Big Pharma)
2) the gum and lozenges, in a study, are now linked to possible oral cancer http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an...
3) 80% of the kids who attempted to buy NRT products were successful at doing so http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-ne... (maybe it was the candy flavors of the gum that the anti smoking cartel uses against the tobacco companies that enticed the underaged)

Here's one more question. Why are they having such a fit over dissolvable tobacco and the electronic cigarette? ANSWER: because Big pHARMa isn't profiting from them. Remember, this is all supposedly about the fictitious secondhand smoke? Dissolvable and electronic tobacco wouldn't harm anyone by secondhand anything. And yet any nicotine not purchased by Big pHARMa is forbidden.
Now do you see what this is all really about?
Money for Big pHARMa and the non-profits. NO money for the bars, restaurants and private clubs that are closing. More and more people are discovering the truth behind this social engineering they call "denormalizing" our behaviors.

It's a win-win for these health nazis. Papers reported 1,000,000 boxes of NRT sold January, 2008. They get to profit and push their social engineering. They opted for smoking bans first to close as many bars as they could so that when they push the alcohol bans, less opposition. They even paid Stanton Glantz over a million dollars to create the website "TobaccoScam" to create the fallacy that Big Tobacco says the bans hurt the hospitality industry. Ask the people who own hospitality businesses!!! Ohio papers reported "More Ohioans are drinking more booze than ever before..and they're doing it at home" http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content...

After alcohol, then sugar, fatty foods, etc. Insurance will be doled out to the "deserving" and those of us who choose their definition of "unhealthy lifestyles" will be the less deserving.

It's all about money, greed and power. It's not going to be pretty when this all blows up. People are starting to see what's going on. Anyone involved is going to be covered in "it".

This matter is about keeping the toxic fumes of tobacco out of the workplace and public places where people consume food and beverages.

You don't have to believe me. The truth is out there if you bother to look! Here is one of the premier sites with all of the research anyone should need!
http://www.forces.org/Scientific_Portal/...

We must recognise the blueprint for other future — and very profitable — enterprises in the name of "health," such as, for example, the campaigns against fat and those against alcohol.

Unbeknown to the masses (that are fed only strictly controlled information by mass-media that are now largely dependent on pharmaceutical income), the pharmaceutical industry and its political marionettes in the ministries of health and medical associations are installing an endless series of laws, regulations, jurisprudence and mechanisms that are designed to bypass democratic structures and impose mass-behaviour and ideology directly from the multinationals, through the false and piloted information and "studies" information that are systematically disseminated by both the health authorities and directly-financed activist groups.

As “public health” has become the ideological and political strong arm of Big Pharma, knowledge of the systemic corruption induced by this monster industry is vital to fighting what “public health” has become, and to prevent the total cultural assimilation of the people into becoming merely consumers of pharmaceutical products and slaves of a fraudulent system.

At stake is the control of one of the largest markets known to humanity, with well over a billion customers on the planet. The actual and projected financial returns to the pharmaceutical multinationals from smoking "cessation" (which, in reality, is not cessation, but a different way to consume nicotine) are truly staggering, and well beyond the imagination of the layperson. They are certainly worth the multi-billion dollar investments by the multinationals in the ongoing corruption of international and national institutions. Media control and political control are manipulated to the end of pervasive population control.

3. The Absurd Methodology - The overwhelming majority of ETS studies does not define risk on the
necessary basis of higher or lower frequency of cancer in function of higher or lower exposures to ETS,
as it should be done. Rather, self-declared non-smokers all with lung cancer and exposed to ETS have
been compared to self-declared non-smokers without lung cancer, the latter also exposed to ETS
because it is impossible to find never exposed people. To illustrate, studies may have found that nonsmokers
without lung cancer recalled ETS exposure at a 100 rate, while non-smokers with lung cancer
recalled exposure at a 120 rate. With an absurd logic, the studies presume that having remembered 20
per cent more represents 20 per cent more risk!
Such presumption also implies the equally absurd reasoning that a 20 per cent excess exposure – which
is impossible to verify or measure in the first place – had been responsible for all the lung cancers of
the non-smokers with the disease, while non-smokers who remember only a little less exposure remain
totally immune from lung cancer.
Conclusion - No study of ETS and lung cancer has provided a credible and accurate measurement of
ETS exposure. The overwhelming majority of the studies has not measured different frequencies of lung
cancer in different groups. Lacking reliable measurements, the statistical analyses of the studies are
illusory. No study can guarantee that some of the non-smokers studied were in fact smokers or had been
smokers. No study could exclude that the lung cancers observed might have been caused by other risks
and not by ETS. The overwhelming majority of studies adopted improper and absurd methods of risk
calculations. The majority of studies did not report differences of risk, and many claimed a reduction of
risk. Independently or combined, these considerations negate the credibility of claimed ETS risk
for lung cancer, and are equally applicable to ETS studies of cardiovascular and other diseases.
The statement of the US Surgeron General is based solely on the studies discussed above. All smoking
bans are also based solely on this body of evidence.
-- The FORCES International Board Of Directors

2. Fatal Flaws -According to summaries conducted by groups that have an interest in finding elevated
risks for ETS, the average of all studies on lung cancer and passive smoke published up to May 2006
(about 75) claims a risk elevation of some 20 per cent. Such a relatively low elevation is not credible
because the studies have not accounted for a whole series of other known risks of lung cancer, and
prejudices and biases that are inevitably present. Here a few examples.
It is known that people with lung cancer are more prone to amplify their recall of exposure (recall bias)
than those who are not so affected, and for obvious emotional reasons. Another example is that some
declare of being non-smokers without saying they have been smokers, and therefore contaminate and
bias the results (misclassification bias). Yet another one: there are over 30 risk factors for lung cancer
reported in the professional literature – over 300 of them for cardiovascular diseases – and their very
likely interference in ETS studies has never been credibly measured and corrected for. It is therefore
exceedingly probable that the small risk elevation of 20 per cent is fictitious because of interferences
that are not and cannot be calculated. Singly or combined, these considerations are sufficient to
explain the glaring inconsistencies of different studies, and erase the credibility of the claimed
risk of ETS.

The case against passive smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) is mainly based on statements
that it causes lung cancer or cardiovascular disease in non-smokers. This short analysis examines what
is considered the strongest evidence, that on lung cancer. What follows applies equally to the risk for
cardiovascular disease and for any other disease attributed to ETS, as the methodologies of the studies
are essentially the same.
The possible risk of ETS for lung cancer could be determined if the frequency of lung cancer is greater in
non-smokers exposed to ETS. Because it is impossible to find persons never exposed to ETS, the only
real possibility is to observe if the frequency of lung cancer is higher or lower in non-smokers that are
more or less exposed. A study would then require a reliable measurement of both the extent of individual
exposure and of the frequency of lung cancers in different groups of non-smokers. Because there are
many other proven risks for lung cancer, a study also must find whether individual lung cancers in nonsmokers
might be linked to other risks and not to ETS.
The following analysis reveals that no study of ETS and lung cancer has met these simple requirements,
and therefore was not capable of determining risk.
1. Nonexistent Measurements - Because lung cancer is a disease that develops slowly and manifests
itself for the most part at an advanced age, the exposure to ETS needs to be measured over the lifetime
of non-smokers. This is what ETS studies claim to have done, even though it could not have been a
measure of exposure starting from any person’s birth through the 60-70 years needed for lung cancer to
develop, nor a backwards reconstruction of a person’s exposure from old age to birth, both tasks being
obviously impossible.
So impossible, in fact, that ETS exposure has never been measured at all. Instead of an independently
objective measure, 60-to-70-year-old non-smokers have been asked to recall what their personal
exposure to ETS might have been during their lifetimes . Typically, such people were asked to recall how
many cigarettes, cigars or pipes had been smoked in their presence since early childhood. Their reveries
– elicited in a few minutes usually over the phone, or even provided by proxy recalls of the relatives of
deceased persons -- were recorded by the studies as precise numbers devoid of error and uncertainty.
It is well known how difficult it is to remember what one ate one week ago, never mind 20 years ago or
during childhood; how could it be possible to remember, with an absurd expectation of precision, the total
exposure to smoke over the 50-60 years of a prior lifetime? The only compelling conclusion is that
without dependable measures of exposures, the ETS studies produced statistical estimates of
risk that are illusory.

Marleneb: what in the world are you smoking? Do you live in an underground bunker too? Wow is all I can say!

As for your misconception about DNA and social security numbers... Babies are given a heel stick while still in the hospital. It is not for the type of DNA test you think. It is for metabolic diseases (ie PKU) and liver functions (jaundice). Those tests SAVE lives. ALL parents have the OPTION of applying for a social security number while still in the hospital. It isn't a requirement or conspiracy by any means.

YOU have the right to smoke. But, you do not have the right to make ME smoke with you. No one likes the idea of "big brother" interferring in our lives or being told what to do. We all have to conform at some point.....

Ok, thekid, read slowly. It is much easier to control things in a confined space than it is in the great wide-open spaces.

The people and the government attempt to control drunk driving with laws but, of course, the task is infinitely more difficult than it is to control smoking in confined public places.

yeah, the same way theyre controlling the drunk driving problem by allowing it to happen. wait...that sounds just as silly

The government has been controlling the smoking problem by allowing it to happen. Now the people have told the government to stop allowing smoking in public places.

It's pro-choice: The people have chosen to not have smoking in public places.

I am offended by how easily people give up various freedoms & welcome more government control. If a business wants to be smoke free, then that is their choice, but if they choose to allow smoking, why shouldn't they have the same option.

Those who fought for the freedom in this country would be shocked at how little their sacrifices mean to the current inhabitants of their legacy.

"Nicotine is known to help many illnesses...."

And cigarette smoke contains over 40 known carcinogens. Your point?

"How else would an industry create governmental policy to wipe out the competition (tobacco) with lies and studies with paid for conclusions,..."

uuuhhh, if Johnson & Johnson wipes out the tobacco industry, they won't make money selling Nicoderm and Nicorette.

haeight, is that you?

Big pharma aka Johnson & Johnson markets the only smoking cessation products on the market, Nicoderm and Nicorette. Tobacco is the competition. They completely influence legislation and spend billions of dollars to do it.
Do you remember when you went to a doctor, that he/she owned their OWN business?
Now all are connected to a group and a hospital and they MUST run their office, exams and all per the head rules.
You made an appointment by name without ever giving your SS # for nothing.

I’ve heard that for some time now, that when babies are born, they take a blood sample from the heel for DNA without parents permission and it is in a giant gov database. Note that they now also give the child a SS number while still in the hospital. It used to be a thing got when one got their first job. I venture to say that the SS number and DNA is matched that day for life.

Recently I’ve wondered with routine lab tests (for all not DNA sampled at birth), what else is tested / test run that we do not know about.

With this stuff about a national health insurance and 660,000 (or was it 666,000) orgs eyes now IN our medical records AND considering what we know the pharma’s want and are doing for controls and SALES …. I think we are fighting a giant cancer.

what is wrong with you people? our society is becoming controlled.most of you winers that continually complain about smoking in taverns,dont even go to them.its all about control.if we banned everything that people didnt like our society would be very bland,yes smoking is bad for you,we all know that,if you dont like it stay away from it.i cant be around alot of perfumes and colognes,but you dont see anyone trying to ban them.and dont give me the song and dance about perfumes dont give off dangerous toxins, because yes they do. i hope they outlaw cigarettes period, to show you people what it will do to our economy, taxes will be outrageous,because they wont have any cigarettes to tax.dont think for one minute that their going go after alcohol,because it wont happen,the same people who are always complaining about cigarette smoke will be the same drunks who will oppose an alcohol tax.

I am a smoker and I do hate the fact I won't be able to smoke when i go out to the bars . But I do understand its not fair for people that don't smoke to have to be around it. It is a very nasty habit I wish I never started I've tried to quit a few times . I know one of these times I will finally do it. But I am in support of banning it from public places.

All of the anti-smoke nazi's have not been able to stop the thousands of privately owned places from closing. Why? BECAUSE YOU DON'T PATRONIZE THESE PLACES LIKE YOU SAY YOU DO! Freedom is lost along with constitutionally protected private property rights to mob-rule. I truly hope that the anti-smoke nazi population gets hit with a ban on something that directly affects you. It is only a matter of time after you let it happen once!

Nicotine is known to help many illnesses. It helps dimentia, Alzheimer’s, increases vein growth and a lot more. Now why wouldn’t the pharmaceutical industry want to own it? Just think of a $100 pill in place of ONE cigarette!

Meanwhile, the pharma industry makes the big bucks off the no smoke products while they in turn BUY negative research with grants to fit their agenda and bans with grants to orgs and institutions who are the middle man (they profit).

Tobacco is IN the same food group as potato, tomato, green pepper, cauliflower, chili’s, egg plant and other foods. They ALL contain nicotine, but the general public doesn’t know it. … It is served in restaurants and school cafeterias. Are those the next ban and high tax items?

One really doesn’t have to look very far to see that big pharma controls the state and federal government. How else would an industry create governmental policy to wipe out the competition (tobacco) with lies and studies with paid for conclusions, yet advertise drugs that the public can’t even get without a prescription. Not to mention that these drugs kill over 100,000 people a year in the U.S. alone! So who is there to stop the government and an industry with billions of dollars that are hand in hand?

Think there is a budget shortfall now, just wait! Private businesses will close due to government intrusion. Just some headlines:

Smoking ban hurting those who comply - Journel News, Hamilton OH

Smoking ban hits Bingo night tills - South Wales Echo, UK

Smoking ban has �killed business� - News Shopper - UK

Owners: Smoking Ban Bad For Business - NBC5i.com - Ft. Worth,TX,USA (40% decline)

Hawaii Tourism Slumps on Heels of Smoking Ban - eNewsChannels - Torrance,CA,USA

Smoking ban fallout - South Bend Tribune - South Bend,IN,USA (49-55% decline)

Smoking Ban Hurting Small Taverns? - KKTV 11 News - Colorado Springs,CO,USA

(up to 80% decline)

Suspend smoking ban: bar owners - Montreal Gazette - Montreal,Quebec,Canada (30% decline)

The list goes on and on. Good Luck Wisconsin!

I live in California and we've had smoke-free bars for a long time now. Prior to the ban, I hated the way I smelled after coming home after a night out, so I stayed home a lot. Now that bars are smoke free, I go out all the time and drink more than I should. So the smoking ban has actually affected my health negatively. I never did think people went to bars for their health in the first place.

Oh well. In another ten years, smoking will be banned completely and then they can start on alcohol. Oh, wait. They've tried that. Never mind.

MiltonRedmen? Isn't it MiltonRedHawks?

So I guess we should still be able to use asbestos in our business if we want since it's our business? Perhaps we should still be able to use other cancer causing chemicals on our properties if we want?

So, are they going to add extra police officers specifically to go though every tavern, every day, every hour, just to make sure no one is smoking? Not a smoker, but the choice I make is to go to a tavern that allows smoking. Isn't that the American way? Freedom of choice? If this ban passes, how can the smokers choose to go to their favorite bar and enjoy a drink and comradery with a cigarette? I disagree strongly with this ban.

I quit smoking in February (YAY!) but I still don't get it. I don't frequent bars very often so actually last night was the first time I was in one since I have quit. There were people smoking there but it really didn't bother me at all. I am now a non-smoker & plan to continue being one but I still think it should be up to the owner whether smoking is allowed in THEIR business or not. After all it is private property and people can choose whether or not to go there. And I don't get the hotel room part at all? Since when are there any employees actually in the hotel room when the people are smoking?

Great news for tavern owners--all you "non-smokers" who "hate" the smell will be at the bars now---they won't have to worry about losing money at all and closing and laying off workers.

personally, i'm sick of walking into a business and having to walk through a cloud of smoke. it's rude, tasteless and it makes me sick to be around it. hopefully the ban will go in effect.

I think the statewide smoking ban is FANTASTIC. Even when I used to smoke, I used to HATE how smokey it was in bars. Even as a SMOKER I used to barely be able to enjoy a drink because my eyes would be burning so horribly. Now as I am proudly 84 days from quitting smoking, I cannot wait to see the bars in Janesville go smoke-free so that I won't have to travel to Madison to visit a smoke-free bar! I'm glad that soon I will be able to have a supportive atmostphere to stay quit, and still be able to go out and enjoy a cocktail with friends. I like whoever used the bathroom analogy. You can't just go to the bathroom wherever you please, because it is not socially acceptable, nor is it sanitary, so you shouldn't be able to do something as equally gross as smoking anywhere you want. You should have to use the designated area, OUTSIDE! Not tryin to be one of those bossy ex-smokers, but please people, this is a public health issue!!!

Wisconsin casinos are exempt from the smoking ban due to their tribal compacts(agreements) with the Feds. State law does not apply to them. They operate in a different legal arena. The Wisconsin casinos are owned by the Indian tribes. The Illinois casinos are owned by private companies and they are part of the Illinois smoking ban. Thus, the difference.

Yes, no restaurants can have smoking inside their establishment. No more smoking and non smoking sections. Existing cigar bars and cigar stores are exempt.

This will be good for the future health of Janesville. People do not go to bars just to smoke. They can do it in other places and even outside the bar.

What will happen when everyone stops smoking? How will government make up for the enormous amount of tax dollars collected from tobacco sales? Will people live longer? What will happen to the already failing Social Security and Medicare programs?

People aren't going to stop smoking just because they can't smoke at a bar. That is not a worthwhile point, it isn't going to happen.

well if you dont like the way it smells then stay away from it,i havent seen where youve been able to smoke in a work place since ive lived here and thats been 11 years,other than bars. yes i do smoke, but i dont smoke at work i go outside.no one should have to be in a room where they are exposed to smoke. but you people who choose to work where you are exposed, do nothing but complain. when you started working in these places you knew there was smoking.as a smoker i dont go to bars, there is to much smoke in them, their ventilating systems are not very good.as for restaurants, you should never be able to smoke in them,before the laws changed,i used to hate going out to eat, because i could not stand all the cigarette smoke in them when i was trying to eat. in my home you are not even allowed to be at my table with a cigarette, and if im eating you better not blow that smoke anywhere near me.all the smokers that come to my house are going to get ready to hate me in about a week,because they are going to have to go outside and smoke,my 17 year old daughter is getting sick from all the smoke,so be it. but the last thing, do you realize that if smoking was banned and people stopped,as sad as it may sound,they would have to find something else to over tax,do you know how much we would lose in tax dollars? taxes are high enough.i think a better solution to the smoke problem would be a better idea,make these owners of business get top notch venting systems,because non smokers are right, no one should have to put up with that awful cigarette smoke.as i said i smoke and i cant stand the smell of it,it must be awful for those who dont smoke.

gmaof3: I've been where you are and believe me, if I can do it, so can you.
I wish you the very best of luck. It's hard but you will be so thankful you did and you can be very proud of yourself.

This article does not mention the fact that Indian Casinos are exempt from this ruling.

Smoking will be allowed outside but there are some restrictions in terms of location(certain amount of feet from the front door). Smoking will also be allowed in beer gardens,patios,decks but there will some specific requirements as to what constitutes the smoking area.

I am a non-smoker and bartend where smoking is allowed and hate the way I smell when I get home; that is my choice to work where I do so don't bash me. On my own time if I go out, it is to Time Out or HHFFRRRGGH so I don't smell like an ashtray when I get home. It is funny how many people will not smoke in their home but yet in the garage or stand outside on the patio in the cold and rain to smoke. Windows down in their car in the dead of winter. Why do you do this? Is it because you or your family doesn't want to smell like smoke? You have rights but so do the rest of us....I just dislike the way you smell and make me smell with your dirty habit.

jstwndrn thats the way it is in Beloit 15 ft either entry or exit .

I have seen signs near business entrances that state no smoking within so many feet...wonder if that is part of the regulation? Other than that, I don't know. Best wishes to you for your efforts to live a healthier lifestyle!

Just curious... if a business owner has a smoker's spot outside, is this also banned? I am back on Chantix, but have smoked for 30 years. I'm on my 3rd attempt to quit with this product.
.
I haven't smoked in a place of employment since the late 80's.
.
Does anyone have an answer?