Nailqueen your comment shows your lack of intelligence. It was clearly sarcasm....you STINKY DIRTY SMOKER !

The harm from secondhand smoke is always there in a bar when there is no ban.

A drunk crashing a car only happens a fraction of the time. And such crashes are caused by drinkers who smoke at least as much as drinkers who don't smoke.

council 7/5/10 post A notice from NCC1701 "To all non smokers"You can take your law and stick it where the sun don't shine". And it means exactly that. And i do have a right to freedom of speech! and if you don't like it to bad."

Since you feel that way"SMOKER"next time I feel like drinking and driving and you in my way,well you may just get squished. Thanks for giving me my freedom of speech also
~
~
I'm sorry council.. I guess I don't get the relatedness of your above idiotic statment. Since when is running soneone over a freedom of speech. It is not..That's the 1st I heard of that. That sounds to me like INTENTIONAL homicide. And pre meditated since you have it thoufgt out and have this in writing. Could be taken as a threat. Shame on your ignorance!!

916WI 6/30/10 9:54a post..
Beeferer.....They will probably ban drinking in bars when my having a drink negatively affects the health of the person sitting next to me who is not having a drink.......So the answer to your question would be "never".......Hopefully that clears it up for you:)
~~
~~
So you may not effect your bar stool partner, but what about you leave the bar and on your way home or maybe on your way to the next smoke free bar...you smash your vehicle into a innocent person's (families) car and kill them all. That's when they should start to ban drinking at bars. So what will you do then???? Never say never my dear!!!

Yes.

Eventually no one will be able to afford cigarettes anyway. I was wondering, are cigars taxed as heavily as cigarettes?

Thank you, Jenny. I think if everyone who smokes was this way, no law would have been put into effect. I agree, smelling second hand smoke is not fun, my dad smoked 3 packs a day of non filters when I was growing up, so I have been on both sides of the track. Just be polite, people, that is all you need to do. JMO

Scooter47 - Kudos to you for being polite about your smoking, most really don't care. Don't worry about the medical community - history has shown us that as one disease is cured, another is ready to take it's place. It's another one of mother nature's methods of population control, so a disease-free world will never be possible.

I am a smoker and have NEVER smoked where not allowed. Even in the casino I ask the person/persons around me if they mind if I smoke, if they do, I don't. It is only polite. I agree with nonsmokers having rights but so do smokers. We are all human beings no matter what we do. I see this ban as in the long run affecting the medical community. What will happen when people no longer need them for illnesses such as lung cancer? Just wondering. Cancer is a big money maker for the medical and pharmacutical communities. I am not saying that all smokers get these diseases. JMO

This was a very wise decision and needed government intervention to do the only right thing. Smoking unlike other bad habits (drinking, overeating, etc) pollutes the air that we ALL require to live. I cannot chose whether to breathe the air or not. I have just as much right to socialize in and enjoy any public place (including bars) as anyone else and breathe air that is unpolluted by cigar and cigarette smoke. Denying me the ability to smoke-free air in public places is a violation of MY rights! Wake up and "smell the smoke"...public sentiment was going this way anyway. It all comes down to one thing - YOU do NOT have to smoke to live, but we all must breathe air to. So go ahead and drink all you want...it doesn't make me drunk, eat all you want, it doesn't make me overweight, just dont force me to breathe your polluted air!

There will always be controversy between smokers and non-smokers. I am a smoker and I really don't like to offend people with my habit. I worked at the hospital years ago when it started going smoke-free. At first, a portion of the cafeteria was designated for a smoking section, followed by no smoking in the cafeteria but providing a smoking room for staff, followed by taking the room away and squeezing smokers between the back entrance exit doors, followed by no smoking in the building but providing an outside ashtray near the entrances, followed by no smoking on campus -- period. Now this was a hospital that was able to devise it's own rules as well as promote "health" and it made perfect sense. Smokers could always duck out to their vehicles if they needed a quick cig -- no big deal.

What is so frustrating about not being allowed to smoke in taverns is that the choice to make these rules has been stepped on by the government and smokers or non-smokers be aware -- it is government interferring with a business owner's right to free enterprise "to run their business free from government interference". It makes us all "SHEEPLE" and it makes me angry to have the government overturn one of the reasons why people flocked to America 200 years ago -- it's really beginning to feel like communism and the "people" (little "p") don't get to vote on the issue. It is so sad, and you all are still fighting about the wrong issue.

So does the alcohol "taste funny" without a cigarette to puff on? Seriously... Hope you're enjoying this "Hissy fit".

NCC1701, would you like some of my "happy" pills? Cripes... for as long as I have smoked, the only time I ever have a nic-fit is at a long concert or indoor sporting event.

You do NOT have the inalienable right to hurt others. Cigarettes damage people's health. YOU cause harm to others by smoking around them.

You DO have the right however, to kill yourself with them... for the rest of our sakes, go for it!

:)

Get over already, mudsill! This law took effect on Monday and there is not a darn thing you or I can do about it. Either stay home or in car and smoke til you turn blue or go to these places, excuse yourself and go outside or in your car to have a cig. Is it really that hard to understand?

And any good bar will eventually have outdoor heaters. They are fairly inexpensive, every bar in our city has them and they work excellent in the winter. We have just as many smokers outside in the winter as we do in the summer so you can forget that argument too. No doubt people will boycott and bitch for awhile, but once the temper tantrums are over they come back!

916WI-You're right. It's a major violation by the State Board of Health (which checks the bar unannounced) to make sure that a hood/ventilation system is located where it's supposed to be and that it actually WORKS at all times! If an inspector doesn't like what they see they can and WILL shut you down. You simply do not get to make your own rules when you own a bar. Ask the former owner of Corvina's or any other "aspiring" bar owner that refuses to understand that.

This whole "you're breathing in food/cooking fumes" argument is absolutely ridiculous. Not even close to second hand smoke.

Second hand cigarette smoke KILLS. Kill yourself if you want, but I'd like to keep my lungs healthy, thank you very much.

Lost another battle in the war on Capitalism.

Oops, I see 916WI beat me to it!

It's called a hood and it ventilates the smoke, steam, and other stuff coming off the food when it's cooked.

Can't say that I've seen that Okie--I would say that it wouldn't be the smartest idea--to have food cooking around all of the liquor....Regardless--I'm sure that in one of these places there is an exhaust hood/vent which is directly over the grill which would capture all of the smoke and suck it out of the building. Otherwise there would probably be a major building code violation--right?

Mudsill, get real and stop grasping at straws? Carcinogens in the bar food? Please! When people smoke in an enclosed area, non-smokers HAVE NO CHOICE but to inhale that garbage. Nobody's force feeding cheeseburgers to anyone last time I checked.

Too bad smokers. We win, you lose. End of story.

Unless someone is licking up your spit, we'll be fine...unlike smoke.

OkieFed, you should ask your questions to the Wisconsin Tavern League. They are the lobby group that delayed the start date of the ban.

Okie....., seems like you're on to those culprits. Maybe you should call somebody.

Mudsill--The bartender probably needed to take the garbage out then--open the windows up, prop the door open and air that place out. I've been into dozens of bars that went non-smoking and they have never had a smell--You probably just smelled the residual smell from the smoke that will take a week ot two to dissipate. It was way too nice of a day/night to spend it sitting in a bar anyway!!!

NCC - It appears you have a much bigger problem than smoking! Get help!

Dwight-LOL. Too funny!

Happy (a day late) Independence Day! Independence from carcinogenic smoke hovering around and freedom to enjoy your favorite restaurant, bar, or nightclub without having to come home smelling like smoke. Poor little NCC1701, it looks like the law got shoved up his *** and it's been stuck there a day or two. He seems a little constipated and angry right now.

Mudsill--I am EXTREMELY happy! I plan on running up to the bar I worked at years ago this coming weekend. I stopped going for the most part because even when you stopped by for 5 minutes to say "hi" to everyone, you would end up leaving reeking of smoke. I don't see how you consider non-smokers advocating for a law which is against smoking hypocrites? As for people being outside--they should have been. I was working outside all day and into the evening. It was perfect weather. The right temperature with a great breeze. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the people would rather spend time outside vs. in a dark, dingy bar considering the circumstances.......

A notice from NCC1701 "To all non smokers"You can take your law and stick it where the sun don't shine". And it means exactly that. And i do have a right to freedom of speech! and if you don't like it to bad."

Since you feel that way"SMOKER"next time I feel like drinking and driving and you in my way,well you may just get squished. Thanks for giving me my freedom of speech also

NCC...., go getchyur shine box.

I just don't get the argument that I have a right to smoke AND make a non-smoker's life miserable. Seriously! I have smoked for 35 years... Its cause and effect... I refuse to let my cause (or addiction) effect another. Just like I refuse to let someone who is (fill in the blank) effect MY freedoms... This is a correct way to protect everyone's rights. Will I quit? Maybe... but no one deserves to have THEIR rights tromped on, just because I think I am MORE entitled. That is just crap!

NCC-sounds like you need a ciggy. Take a few puffs and chill out. You sound like a broken record.

Yep, the Anchor is a pretty classy place.

Scooter-when the Anchor Inn in Newville has bands, there is dancing. And a mixed crowd, not all teeny-boppers.

Is the Gun Club in Beloit? I would love to go dancing somewhere. I can go without smoking and I don't drink so that would be fun. Anyone know of any other places? Thanks! (sorry to change the subject matter).

scooter~I go dancing at alot of places, not just in Janesville.

But FOTH nor is there an outcry from barowners that think thier business survival DEPENDS on smokers! Trust me! There are all kinds of good customers! Doesn't even matter WHO smokes! Janesville will survive this just like we did!

Smoke'em while you got em Janesburg!

You're right FOTH, there's definitely a difference between liberty and lawlessness. The problem is that everyone's definition and compassion for what that means is different.
And not even Abraham Lincoln's "government by the people,for the people" can make us all agree on who is right and who is wrong? So where do we go from here? Man! It's the 4th of July already! I'm glad I even get to bitch at you on a public forum about it! Wish I could meet you because I'm sure we'd get along! God Bless America!

3 MORE DAYS! YES!

I am so tired of idiots that say they stand up for indivudal rights (as long as its the same opinion as theirs). The reality is, if someone is smoking, and I am bothered, I would either leave or ask them to take a break. Thats my choice.... They have the right to put whatever they want into their bodies. Their 2nd hand smoke is merely smoke. If I dont like it , I leave. Same as if I sit next to person with BO or a gassy problem. But I do not have the right to ban them, any more than I can ban people with a cold because they cough.

nurse, I would like to know where in Janesville you can go dancing besides kiddie bars like Tremors and Jumbo's? I am with monkey, the law has passed, will go into effect in 3 days and there is nothing us smokers can do about it. It doesn't bother me. I can go without cigs for a movie, dinner, anything actually. It is not that hard. I also agree with foth, it is taking away a human right. JMO

krsmith: just so you don't get the wrong impression, I'd personally like it if all bars were smoke-free. So would nearly all of my friends. But this isn't about you or me. This is an issue of liberty, not lawlessness. There isn't any outcry from bar owners for being deprived of their freedom to shoot or poison customers who are demanding the freedom to be shot or poisoned. That's the fundamental difference between liberty and lawlessness. :-)

FOTH-I completely understand and respect your view on this topic. We definitely disagree on it, but I genuinely respect people who are smart enough to know that they do not need to use sarcasm, threats and name calling to get thier point across.

Some things however, based on history, must be mandated or history will repeat itself. Without mandates, we could serve deadly contaminated food, shoot patrons we don't like, and let our children get drunk all day long if they wanted to and we would never have any responsibility or liability for it. Bars would be like saloons of the wild, wild, west. I would love to think that we could live harmoniously in a world where everyone could do whatever they want, whenever, to whom ever, however they want, and always act responsibly. Unfortunately, we already know based on history that doesn't work!

This is a pointless argument. The law was passed and it's done and over with, so I don't see the point of continuing to discuss something that will not change anytime soon. There are a few here who should smoke a bowl and look at the other's side. Or take a walk in their shoes. Or whatever it takes to look beyond yourself, because your blood pressure meds are being strained.

krsmith01: Your argument has been used to rationalize all forms of tyranny, up to and including totalitarianism. You are using the precedence of tyranny to justify subsequent acts of tyranny. It is especially glaring in this case because liquor licenses are government mandated monopolies granted to a privileged few.

The smoking ban is built on the premise that a person has more right to determine how others interact than others do by voluntary mutual consent. This slippery slope started when the principle of liberty was no longer self-evident in the minds of Americans. I'm afraid we have already slid too close to the bottom.

FOTH - Ok, I understand your point. However, according to the video, when we purchased our liquor license (from the State)we mutually agreed to abide by the laws of the State to do what is required as it relates to public health and safety, and that laws are subject to change. We voluntarily entered into that agreement. We were not coerced or forced. So if you stand behind the message this video is sending, clearly no one's liberties are being violated by the new smoking laws because you still have choices. You can still smoke at bars, just on IN them. And every patron still has a voluntary choice to either sit on the smoking deck or indoors! People are just pissed because they have to accommodate everyone now and not just themselves anymore.

Is the smoking ban over the line when it comes to the human societal need for the Hobbesian Leviathan?

Mudsill--That's the thing, you actually do think you are making a point with your idiotic comparisons--it's only when their idiocy is pointed out do you realize how foolish you sound!!!!:) Try to give up the cigarettes--I didn't think it was possible, but the chemicals are killing off your brain functions one by one!

It's hardly getting hysterically defensive--I think the non-smoking crowd is in awe of the stupidity that's being used to attempt to justify repealing this law. After all-we won--you can't pollute the air with your cigarettes in these places anymore--we're just trying to help you come to terms with that:) Good day!!!!

Whoot whoo! No more going out dancing & coming home smelling like an ash tray!!!!

***"mudsill, from the 300,000,000 people you didn't subtract the number of people who weren't exposed to secondhand smoke"***
***"a large percentage of the country is never exposed to second hand smoke."***

I will ask again, if the 2 above statements are true, then WHY do we need a law? Most of the people exposed to 2nd hand smoke probably were exposed due to their own actions, like knowingly going into a smoke-filled establishment. Because it was their choice.

With all due respect, krsmith01, you have entirely missed the point. (Watch the video; it's only 8 minutes.)

Mud - Sorry,talking cocky won't compensate for your lack of experience and knowledge about this topic. But as long as you think it works for you, knock yourself out.

meant people that smoke

Mudsill-You got 1 thing right. Some of us really just don't like smoke!! Bingo! You figured us out!! And no matter how many ways you try to say your considerate...and blow it up in the air, it still stinks up the entire surrounding area. Love the way smokers try to sugar coat it or act like they "try" to keep the smoke away from people. If you smoke around other people, it affects other people.
Very simple, people that smoker around others are rude. Maybe it was TalkingMonkey that always blows it up in the air. Either way it's obnoxious.

For me to condemn smoker's would be total hypocrisy. I smoked for 30 years and nobody and nothing was going to take away my cigarettes! The only reason I finally quit was because my dad's death from lung cancer was hideous. Even then it took me 10 more years to actually kick the habit. I have absolutely NOTHING against people who choose to smoke. I choose not to smoke because my lungs just don't have the stamina for it anymore. Older, Wiser.

Okie,
You are exactly correct that league bowling keeps all lanes afloat! I think you are also correct in stating that 1 of the 3 lanes will be closed shortly, of course that related to the local economy and not the smoking ban. IMO, bowling leagues will have +/-5% change due to this new law and quite honestly I'm not sure which way it will go. I dont smoke and neither does my wife and now she wants to join a couples league becasue of this. She rarely goes to any bar becasue of the smoke. I can assure you, if we join a league, we will more than cover your $40 as alcohol is my fix. Certainly, some devoted smokers will also quit leagues.But what are they going to do for entertainment in the winter? I sure hope they like outdoor activities, cuz there is nothing else to do and enjoy a cig, is there? You may see some smokers leave sooner after bowling, but again I think that will be a wash to the aditional people that will enjoy smoke free atmospheres. I bowl with many smokers and they are not happy either. But, all of them enjoy the activity and certainly wouldnt give up bowling, their night out, the beer, the poker afterwards because they cant smoke for what..3-5 hours. Are u crazy??

Also, you underestimate open bowling!It's AMAZING how much is spent by 14-25 YO's on Friday and Sat nights during Open Bowl. I dont know where they all get their money from, but suffice it to say that no matter the age, they all have at least 20-40 with them and let's face it, they dont leave until the money is spent.

I really feel bad for you if you have to give up an activity you like because u cant smoke for 2.5 hours??

BTW, have you banned going to Hospitals or on airplane rides when they implemented smoking bans? Teach them all a lesson!!

And fool_on_the_hill - "The decision to provide and maintain a drinking establishment rests solely on the shoulders of the individual owners of the businesses"

That statement is COMPLETELY FALSE! The decision to provide and maintain a drinking establishment rests on the shoulders of the business owner ONLY IF YOU ARE COMPLYING WITH STATE, CITY, and COUNTY LAWS FIRST!

Mud-Your lack of knowledge of small business ownership "rights" couldn't be more obvious. Any experienced bar owner knows that the majority of thier "so-called rights" are directly determined by state law, excise and the board of health. In fact you have very FEW personal "rights" in the bar business. You can't just operate the alcohol and food business any old way you want to, and responsible bar owners know WHY it's that way. The reason you can't grasp that is likely because you've never actually "owned" one.

"The only argument about the smoke is coming from the non-smokers. It's about the rights of the business owners that are being tread upon. THAT is the issue."

Exactly, Mudsill. The issue is not whether a smoke filled bar is desirable or undesirable; healthy or unhealthy. The important issue is one of property rights and of consenting adults to freely enter into voluntary agreements. It's a question of who has the right to make these decisions. Presently, these decisions are made by individual business owners and their welcome patrons. The decision to provide and maintain a drinking establishment rests solely on the shoulders of the individual owners of the businesses. None of us has an inalienable right to have a drinking establishment provided for our own personal enjoyment. It is not an entitlement, though many Americans today have become convinced that it is. Until the smoking ban takes effect, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head. Each and every one of us is now free to make our own individual choice in the transaction. When the ban does take effect, one more manifestation of property rights and individual liberty will abruptly come to an end. Many people will cheer because they will have gained yet another government coerced entitlement without losing any of their own liberties in the process. Not this time, anyway. Most upsetting is how any American is able to cheer when another brick it added to the wall that separates ANY of us from our liberties. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys...

+1 Gazettefan--Another completely clueless and meaningless comparison by mudsill:) The 30 percent figure of an alcohol involved accident is based on a person's lifetime. A little bit different when you're considering that 3400 are dying from second hand smoke every year--Don't you think? Also there's a big difference between being in a fender bender compared to dying a painful death stemming from lung cancer. Lastly, as gazettefan said, a large percentage of the country is never exposed to second hand smoke. Every time you attempt to make a correlation by offering a comparison, the comparisons get more and more stupid. I have to admit, it is entertaining though, it's like the fat kid at McDonalds trying to do everything he can to justify to his parents why he should get two happy meals instead of one:)

Mudsill- you wouldn't be related to Napalm, by any chance, would you?

mudsill, from the 300,000,000 people you didn't subtract the number of people who weren't exposed to secondhand smoke. With the new total of those exposed, the percentage of fatalities would be much higher.

Mud, are you that bored you have to comment every few minutes? I smoke and I am not going to sit all day or for that matter, all week and tell people off. Learn to live with the law, $hit happens! JMO

Yeah--you got me there:).....It's not a health issue at all. The American Cancer Society reports that 3400 people die each year from exposure to second hand smoke. They probably are way off though--they're probably dying because they drove around in their cars with the a/c on and the windows rolled up.....right?!?!?!

Talking money--most non-smokers are not close-minded, we just don't want to be affected by YOUR addiction. Smoke in your house, car, on your property to your heart's content. Just keep it away from me in a public place.

Mudsill--As far as you arguing to irritate the non-smokers, don't forget the end result of this legislation is that that the non-smokers won their right to breath clean air:) The bar owners I talked to about this law are non smokers and they can't wait to toss all of their ashtrays in the garbage. These businesses are licensed and regulated by the state--there are hundreds of regulations they must adhere to. You have to be an idiot to think that this is the first time a restriction has been imposed on a business.....Seriously:)

Not to mention a pandemic of people who make feelings-based choices in life...

mudsill- I am confused- with the info on the bar toxins DO YOU SMOKE???? If yes WHY?

It's almost as if nicotine opens the eyes.

There is an pandemic of close-mindedness when it comes to people who DON'T smoke.

Mudsil I'm sorry to say but your are a scorn man, to believe that you believe all of the crap that is coming out of your mouth really just makes me wonder what happened to you in life that you do not understan reasoning. I hope that you put down your beer and cigarettes long enough to pick up a book and start reading on the effects of second hand smoke and then when you understand the law and number of lifes it will save every year and maybe one of those will be your grand children then you can join the group of people that are trying to make this world a better place to live.
Spoken like a true close-minded yahoo.

Like I said before - "Whether you believe it or not, people don't stop drinking in bars just because they have to smoke outside!" So you smokers can complain all you want, but you're making a much bigger deal out of the smoking ban than it really is. Just wait, you will see.

Too funny Mudsill!!!!!:) Rational thought? First comparing a clean air/health oriented law to same sex marriage legislation. Now we're on to dish soap being as toxic as breathing in second hand smoke? You should be a comedian--just start your act by wearing a tin foil hat onto stage:) Even if your analogy was even remotely close to being true, I don't lick the bar surfaces and I drink bottled beer, so with the removal of the disgusting smoke(which my lungs thank this law for) stopping by the bar for a beer or two to socialize with friends should be a healthier experience......

Mudsil I'm sorry to say but your are a scorn man, to believe that you believe all of the crap that is coming out of your mouth really just makes me wonder what happened to you in life that you do not understan reasoning. I hope that you put down your beer and cigarettes long enough to pick up a book and start reading on the effects of second hand smoke and then when you understand the law and number of lifes it will save every year and maybe one of those will be your grand children then you can join the group of people that are trying to make this world a better place to live.

Mudsill
Jun 30, 2010 at 10:18
Well said dude. We ARE in trouble and too few appear to care. Selfishness to the extreme.

I have been in ALOT of bars, and they mostly have air cleaning systems installed. I blow my smoke in the air like alot of people I know (but some are so hammered they can't really think for themselves anymore and forget basic politeness, but they usually realize it afterwards and apologize) and it goes right into the system. Some bars DO have smoke problems, but I think it is because they can't afford the system. This smoking ban is silly, much like quite a few comments about it. I think people are just getting really whiny about something that hardly anyone ever said anything about in past...

okiefed". Meanwhile the buses are idling nearby, spewing carbon monoxide into the air."

You are correct and NOW YOU will be poluting the OUTDOOR air NOT indoor air!!!!!!!!

Mudsill.
I couldn't have said it better and it scares me that what you say is actually becoming a reality.
To the opponents of this law, like me, it really is not about smoking, but rather another freedom being taken away. I have said it before, if you don't like smoke no one is forcing you to enter a smoke filled place.

Talking Monkey-the smoke isn't going up someone's pant leg, or into their shoe. It goes into their face, eyes, throat. Not saying that it is intentional, just saying that is where it goes.

Mudsill....believe me, I wouldn't want to be in the same league as you. As far making a fool of one's self, I'm fairly sure you have the market cornered on that one:) What it comes down to(regardless of what you think of our legislators) is that this is a public health policy. Second hand smoke has been proven to contain all of the cancer causing carcinogens as first hand smoke. In a public place--a business licensed and regulated by the state--the state has every right to make law that looks after the health of its citizens. How you can relate same sex marriage to what is clearly a debate regarding a health issue(one group imposing a negative condition on another) doesn't make any sense. Does the government intrude too much into our lives? Possibly. But this is definitely one situation where it is entirely justified. Smoke away in YOUR house or YOUR car--stink those places up and turn YOUR lungs black if that makes you happy--Just remember to leave your cigarettes at the door of any public place after this weekend because they are no longer welcome there:)

I'm sure that smoke-in-the-face happens once in a while, but I doubt that it is deliberate most of the time because I rarely see it and it rarely happens to me. Again, I say that people are just looking for something to cry about and smoke in the face is a good one. Even though it is an accident most of the time.

@Mudsill-

"Usually it goes in someones face. Even if you don't blow it directly into their face."
-
Exageration.

If that was an exageration, this wouldn't be an issue and this law wouldn't be passing. You are wrong.

Mudsill...Your comparison makes no sense at all. Absolutely acceptable in the case of those fringe groups. Their activities do not compromise the health of the people around them.

Here we find an explanation for some of the posts written here...

From: http://www.nutri.com/index.cfm?fuseactio...

Lower intelligence has been related to smoking. In fact, smoking is both a cause and an effect of lower intelligence, just as smoking is both a cause and effect of lower income. The (smoking)-(lower-intelligence)-(lower-income)-(more smoking) vicious circle can unknowingly spiral a brainwashed young person down and down into the depths of poverty and despair. He'll not be as physically or mentally able to cope with life's challenges. Our successful capitalistic system is based on competition, and the physically-mentally handicapped smoker inevitably ends up at the bottom of the heap. So get smart, today, now, and join the happy, healthy ranks of the non-smokers.

Talking monkey--With the percentage of Americans who are smokers at around only 20%, I would say that the elected officials are definitely representing the majority in this case.....

meant clarify.

I know the smokers like to twist things...so I will clarity, anytime you smoke around anyone, the smoke doesn't just dissappear, like magic. It goes somewhere. Usually it goes in someones face. Even if you don't blow it directly into their face.

Just curious why the smokers that are so angry about the ban don't respond to the question of why they think it's their "right" to blow smoke in ANYONES face. People that smoke don't like to inhale other peoples smoke, as well as people that don't smoke. Not one smoker will answer that question. Is it because they don't want to acknowlede how rude they are? Pretty sure thats the reason.

I bet if the state would have used the internet to poll 95% of the population, the results would be different. This elect-a-rep garbage we got now doesn't truly represent the majority. I bet those career politicians will fight THAT to the death, if only to save their jobs.

Okie--If these people are that weak-willed that they can't go a few bowling games without puffing on a cancer stick, they've got much bigger issues. They should take the $40 they're going to be saving on their bowling game, get a nicotine patch and invest the rest in payments on an elliptical machine. Their bodies will thank them in the end:)

I see many people frequent the grocery store even though you cannot lite up in them anymore. They also still go to the hospital! )

I will personally be glad when all places will be smoke free. Bar owners have been given plenty of time to prepare. I have respect for smoker's but it's finally time for non-smokers to get their respect. It will be great to go out and karaoke without coming home reeking like smoke. Thank you law makers, it's about time.

And to futher make my point, I can tell you that our bar business has picked up since the smoking ban, because not only were we able to still accommodate our smokers, but we also gained customers that literally have told us that they wouldn't come to our bar (before the ban) because it was too smokey! We had an extremely large smoking clientele and we still do! Whether you believe it or not, people don't quit drinking just because they're pissed that they have to smoke outside! Our bar is living proof and so is our bottom line!

Okie - I understand what you are saying and your fear of the "slippery slope." Many people had that same "fear" when our smoking ban went into effect and I can tell you from experience (as a bar owner) thier fears were totally unfounded. Not that it wasn't difficult and scary at first but now we seldomly hear people complain at ALL about the smoking ban anymore, In fact you hear more positive feedback now even from smokers! Don't implant zero tolerance "fear" into people because this ban is clearly NOT zero tolerance.

"Smoking and bowling go hand-and-hand"...AND Doritos and Twinkies are proven weight loss agents!!!! I use to manage a bowling alley, and over 50% of our bowling patrons began bowling in...drum roll please...youth bowling leagues. Not a large demand for Chesterfields in the 5-15 age group. And I will take any wager on ANY league that you can show me where 80% of the people smoke. Thats 1 person on every 5 person team that has white teeth. Almost every bowling center has banned smoking on the settee area because.....it bothers so many of the non-smokers ( I guess these establishments are VERY concerned about that 20% who chooses to have taste buds). I'm not sure of the % of bar patrons that smoke..I suspect around 30-50% depending on type of establishment. But, it amuses me to think that someone would think that percentage would go up when you factor in : people participating in an activity (cant say sport for bowling, sorry), people of ALL age, economic, societal, gender, and race; and a great deal lower percentage of people with OCD tendencies compared to people who drink alcohol. Let me know when I can come see this league of 80% smokers please....actually, does anyone have any infrared goggles because I'm sure I won't see anything through the haze if I'm wrong....

Sincerly,

Chester Field

okiefed- I recall .08 going into effect to get more money from the state for stuff.

I think I'm going to start league bowling.

916wi ".....They will probably ban drinking in bars when my having a drink negatively affects the health of the person sitting next to me who is not having a drink"

Look out for the projectile(sp) puke ! )

Sorry "do not chose or is it choose oops to smoke in the house?

cookie"know that a lot of local small town bars will be going out of business very shortly because of this stupid smoking ban."
I guess the patrons don't really care about this bar then do they??!! So are they going to hang at home then so they can smoke rather than stepping outside or SITTING outside to smoke. I wonder how many of these smokers cannot smoke in the house or chose to smoke in their house??

OkieFed--The vast majority of people support this because it is a public health issue where a small minority negatively affects an overwhelming majority. You always hear about these slippery slopes that never seem to materialize. California passed it's law well over a decade ago--Where has that slippery slope led them over the last decade as far as individual freedoms are concerned? Same place they started at except everyone(except those who still smoke) has healthier lungs because they went down the "slippery slope". The scare tactics regarding alcohol are a red herring as well. The clean air law sailed through with little effort as far as these laws go. Laws relating to tough sentencing on alcohol violations are knocked down time and time again. For proof--look at the latest effort our state took to get "tough" on DUI arrests--A felony after the 4th conviction........Yeah--MADD is really getting their way......

Interesting that a Trekkie would be irritated at something, justified or not. Usually they are quite placid and un-interested. Maybe the point of that show is lost on NCC1701.

Zoom-I think NCC is due for a smoking break, getting cranky.

It's not the government trying to take away freedom OkieFed, it's a sign of the times. The enlightened majority of people actually want to be healthier and live longer, plain and simple. So why should those who want to be healthier have to sacrifice because the unenlightened minority of people (who don't care), still want to smoke?

That was meant for NCC1701.

And yet, here you are, whining...in almost every post you make.

Now all Wisco has to do is fix thier drunk driving laws and the entire state will finally be up to par with the rest of the world.

The comments here sound just like the people did in Fort Wayne where our smoking ban occurred roughly 3 years ago now. We all thought the smoking ban would be the end of the world for bars and restaurants. Well. . .it wasn't. Everyone got over it and as a smoker myself back then, when I go to states and cities where smoking is allowed, it almost seems barbaric and hillbillyish to see people smoking in public places now. Yeah, some bars went out of business, but they were soon replaced by new bars with smoking decks and the remaining bars survived it just like Janesville will. So get as mad as you want, although it's a waste of energy you just might come to respect and enjoy the fact that you don't have to be exposed to smoke to eat, drink and still have a good time.

NCC--That's fine--and like I said, just stick your cigarettes right up there where you plan on sticking the new law because they are not welcome in the bars anymore:) The smokers that are acting all tough will quickly fall in line after getting hit with a few hundred in fines.......

NCC-have a cigarette, it will calm your nerves...wow. Scary.

NCC....., what's the name of your organization that will petition the government to shut down bars?

;~)

Beeferer.....They will probably ban drinking in bars when my having a drink negatively affects the health of the person sitting next to me who is not having a drink.......So the answer to your question would be "never".......Hopefully that clears it up for you:)

I'm all for the law banning smoking in bars. Smoking is hazardous for your health. So is drinking. How long before the government steps in and bans drinking in bars?

Yeah, we're gunna miss ya.

yup, you might want to take a "weapon" like a can of air freshener with you :)

If I must stop smoking then I should be allowed to carry a weapin anywhere I go. That way I can shoot people that fart burp or belch. Rest. and bars will loose money. Will it be enough, we will only see after the laws have been in effect. I will not go out and will cook at home where you cant invade my privacy.

Yes, everything that happens is not the beginning of or part of a slippery slope to something worse. The slippery slope dodge has hit the bottom of its own slippery slope.

ezoner-if do gooders are responsible for smokers not being able to inflict a nasty habit on people that don't want it around, in public, more power to the "do gooders".
Gotta love it when people resort to the old scare tactic of "be careful, they will come after something you like next". If it's anywhere near as disgusting as smoking, let them.

+1 to evansvillehousewife for using "big words", lol.

cookiedough, IL already has had one of the strictest smoking bans in place since January 2008. 27 other states have smoking laws. The majority of businesses already have some sort of smoking restrictions. A healthier workforce increases productivity, and reduces health care costs if they self-fund their insurance plans, so it is in the best interest of the company to limit smoking as much as possible. Your company is changing the smoking rules because of the new law, not because they care about their workers.

916W -- while I understand your issue with chain smoking.... After a good meal, I do like setting down at the bar with a good scotch whisky and a cigar. To cap it all off. Do gooders will continue their invasion into individual rights and privacy until they finally reach into something you care enough about and only then will the tide change.

cookiedough--I bartended at one of these these small town bars that you claim is going to go under. At most 10-20% of the patrons were heavy smokers. Your 50% number is skewed because that 10-20% is chain smoking from the time they hit that bar stool. The amount of smoke/haze that these people create is incredible. I know several bar owners who can't wait until this law goes into effect. They are non smokers as well and have tolerated the disgusting addiction to keep a small segment of their customers happy......Just accept it--possibly use this law to rid yourself of this disgusting habit. Your body will thank you in the end!!!!:)

Evansville Wife. Would I like a woman carrying her fluids around no. Would I outlaw it NO... Quite honestly... its her business how she lives her life. Not mine.

I also do not see that as a fair analogy -- aas in general -- I do not spit in public and when I do I am very descrete. Ohh I also had seen a comment that someone would not want their dog to walk through it, yet that same person would allow the dog to lick her face promptly after the dog licked its butt.

I think I own YOU, Gfreak. lol

Smokers-the world is not your ashtray anymore. Get used to it. Keep your homes and cars as your ashtrays. Oh, thats right, many of you even say you won't smoke in your own homes, you go outside. Yet you expect to be able to go to public places and smoke. It is laughable that smokers are so outraged about people saying enough to having to put up with the stench of smoke and all the other crap that goes along with it. Finally, a law that makes sense.

I think it is B.S. that the WI govt. can tell bar owners to ban smoking in THEIR life and business. I'd say over 1/2 the bar patrons smoke and the owners have the right to choose to honor the smoking ban, not the govt. telling them what to do. I know that a lot of local small town bars will be going out of business very shortly because of this stupid smoking ban. Even where I work and I do not even smoke well over 1/2 the warehouse workers smoke and effective July 1st, the stupid company is requiring them to step outside the building to smoke ONLY on their breaks. They use to have a smoking room since about 70% of the workers smoke to do that on their breaks only - no longer. Even some people are so obsessed with smoking they are thinking about quiting and finding a different job in IL instead of WI and their ignorant laws like this one. I also heard rumors very shortly after this year no smoking on company grounds whatsoever. Fine with me, but what about the other obsessed smokers who cannot go a full 8 hours without smoking at all?

TalkingFunky, e-wife owns you.

What compels you to walk into a bar in the first place? Alcoholism? Don't like your life? Complain about anything just to feel better about yourself and have a drink or 10? Quit complaining and deal with it.
Too bad those dummies in the legislature are buying into a lot of rhetoric and BS. Wisconsin is turning into a giant Janesville.

I'm excited. I am tired of walking into a bar for 5 minutes and walking out smelling like a smoke heap. I don't want to have to breathe in other people's poison in order to hang out with my friends. I choose not to smoke for a reason (its gross and disgusting) and I'm tired of being forced (I have to breathe) to inhale that crap!

NCC...You can stick the law where ever you choose to......As long as you keep your cigarettes locked up there too:) They are no longer welcome in the bars!

TalkingRelentlessly, you're beat and you know it.

nailqueen, know this:

The space outside of buildings is larger than the space inside buildings -much larger.

EHW, you are a self-rightoeus know-it-all with no sense of reason. Your name-calling and rhetoric is astoundingly sheeple-ish. You are a parrot with no original thought of your own, only what you were taught in school or whereever. Remember, they were telling EVEYONE that the world was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe at one time. You think you know it all? Then answer me satisfactorily why some people get cancer and why others don't. You can't, can you? And don't say it's genes, cuz that's a load of crap. Futhermore, you WON'T have the proof, merely more rhetoric and name-calling. No response to why they call it a practice? You're pathetically parrot-ized.

I am a smoker. I don't go to the bars very often. But when I do I like to sit there and drink my beer and every once in a while light up. It's not about the taking away the right to smoke in a bar, it's taking away the right of the owner to make their own decision. After a while they may follow suit after observing other bars. I just think the government has too much control over us, they are evil and corrupt. Like I always said we the people are nothing, expendable. Just pawns in a chess game. And we will all lose. Unless you have God on your side.

All you non-smokers talk about the smokers polluting your clean air. Now all the smokers that were once confined in the bar will now be going out side to pollute. Possiblly walk down the street and walk right past you. Or a few smokers step outside ALL light up maybe 20 feet from the door and you want to go to that bar, but to get there you would have to walk past the smokers. I guess you have 3 choices 1) hold your breath and walk by, 2) cross the street to avoid them SMOKERS and cross back to get into a bar or take a big whiff of that.

Don't worry Ezoner. Keep chewing. Oncology docs always appreciate new patients.
Like I said, you can whine and moan and extol the educated do-gooders. But when you or a loved one gets sick, you'll come looking for medical help.
So, if you claim that spitting into a cup is sanitary, do you mind if women collect thier menstrual blood in a cup and carry it around?

talking monkey confuses delerium with science and chokes:such as increased blood flow to the brain, which helps cognitive processes, relaxes one somewhat while in an emotional state, It also seems to help with hyper-actice swiss-cheese brain syndrome by allowing me to focus better.

Cite your source. You claim it increases blood flow to the brain. What region? Frontal lobe? Hippocampus? Brainstem? How MUCH?

You're a quack, monkey. You should call yourself talking duck.

At least you admit you have hyper active swiss cheese brain.
SOme of us take charge of our lives and create our lives as fulfilling, so we don't have to "get away from it all."
Those that don't blame us and call us health nazi do-gooders.
Funny thing, they always turn to us with beseeching eyes for news when their loved ones have a stroke/heart attack/tumor scan.

i didn;t bother answering, monkey, for two good reasons: 1) i have a job and a life to attend to, and 2) You have no clue. You confuse sugar molecules with petroleum bases. It's like trying to teach quantitative analysis to a baby.
You say the reason some don't get cancer is "it has to be diet and exercise." What is your proof on this other than a few observations?
Unless you have analyzed the genome of all people how did not get cancer and were heavy smokers, controlled the study for all other factors including stress, you have no evidence.
Here, we are forced to cite our sources, show our data, repeat our studies, get analyzed by peers, and defend our thesis.
You have a few anecdotes.
Again, the proof is that one of us is at a world class medical school making bank, while one is typing and waiting for his unemployment check to come in so he can buy more smokes.

Once again -- Tbacco chewers unite.... there are no laws against chewing and there never will be.... oh wait.... they will find something these do gooders dont like....

There is something I don't understand about the smoking ban where taverns are concerned. (I'm not talking about public buildings, courthouses etc or anywhere there might be a "captive" audience.) Under the circumstances of the type of establismhment, why can't a privately owned business such as a tavern choose to be licensed as "smoking" or "non-smoking"? Then (as it already is) patrons and prospective employees can either choose to or not to enter. And, like liquor licenses, the number of each could be limited (for example) to 50% of the number of total liquor licenses).

Hasn't the growing of tobacco been subsidized by the government (even as the they sued cigarette manufacturers, as a matter of fact)? And they are still legally sold, and heavily taxed?

I think it's great that non-smokers have the guarantee of a smoke-free place to drink intoxicants, and, since they are apparently government approved, tobacco users should have equal access to a place that allows smoke. The cost of this process? The bars who choose to become licensed as "smoking". or throw another quarter tax on cigarettes (would hardly be noticed), or...maybe those who choose to change to "non-smoking" might freely purchase such a license.

Gma0f3-finally, something we can agree on " but prefer Brandy"..

I am a smoker, I dont light up in restaurants (even I hate the smell of smoke ruining the aroma of a good meal). However, I resent the government getting involved in how an owner chooses to run his/her business. Most of those affected will be small business owners who don't get special tax incentives and garbage like that to bring their company to a specific town, how dare the government tell them how to run their business that in many many cases was built on their own dime, with blood, sweat and tears to boot. I have no problem going outside to smoke, that is what I do at home. I know it is a nasty disgusting habit. My aversion to this law has nothing to do with that, I want the government to quit babysitting the adults of this nation. Land of the free my butt. As for the cars argument, I also worked in a repair shop for over a decade and saw people become ill from the brake clean spray, parts clean solvent, various body shop particulates and almost everyone at one time or another got at least a headache from the exhaust fumes, not to mention the noxious odor of all those men and women that think if a little perfume is good a lot must be better. One work place can be just as bad as another so don't feel so bad for those bartenders, ps did that job too and at that time all of us were smokers.

If a person is voluntarily going into a smoke filled public place, then he/she is compromising their own health. Right?

Brown -- for the same reason that not taking a bath, working out before going out, sweating, overweight people may offend you. I really could care less if I offend you. If you would just pay attention to yourself and leave others alone you would be much happier.

916WI-From the comments from the smokers, I would say no, no common sense there. Common sense would tell you not to blow smoke around or near others. That is rude. Smokers can't answer why they think it's ok to be rude and inconsiderate around non-smokers and even other smokers. There are also smokers who don't like having to inhale someone elses smoke.

jcommon--fairly simple answer. We need this law because smokers should not be allowed to compromise the health of everyone around them in a public place. Pretty much common sense--huh?

fishingal, when you fish do you throw the butt in the water or on the shore?

hhhmmm, more liquor stores, and fewer bars. Could it be that liquor is cheaper at the store than at the bar?

fishingal, you do realize we have just bottomed out from the worst recession since the Great Depression, right? Many businesses have closed. Your anecdotal "evidence" is not scientific.

916,
I don't smoke, I don't have a burn barrel, I don't burn leaves and I don't drive a diesel truck. BUT, I don't need a law to tell me NOT to do any of these things. I already know that going into a smoke filled bar may be bad for my health. I also know that having alcohol may also be bad for my health. Sounds like your friends don't need this law either if they already know that breathing smoke is bad for your health....so why do we need this law?

The research articles you are quoting are for large, mostly yuppy cities.

The town that my "weak willed" family lives in is a little smaller than Janesville and YES it has had an impact on the number of bars. Actually, now there are more liquor stores in town than bars.

What does that tell you? Should I close my eyes and only believe what some researchers from Harvard (with no bias to keep their grant dollars) tells me.

No thanks, I'll keep my eyes wide open.

I'd like for Zoom to give us an update in 6mos to a year and let us know how the job search is doing.

Makes my BREATH smell better... How did you get the idea that a breath mint solved the bodily residue issue, which is really small potatoes to begin with?
I think it's a sign of OCD when someone notices a smell of tobacco on someone and then says something about or reacts in other ways, usually negatively.

Jcommon--I wouldn't call 911. It's not really an emergency. I would just call the regular police number to report the incident. As for your other questions, I don't have a burn barrel, I don't burn leaves, I don't text while driving and I don't drive a diesel truck. I can say for sure that my non-smoking friends would also answer "no" to all of your questions as well......

I think we should just call 911 every time we see someone light up in a bar. Isn't that what all these law-abiding do gooders want? Then, every time we see a person texting while driving we should also dial 911. Give the activists what they want. Pretty soon maybe they will realize that these kind of laws are a joke. Police have a tough enough time enforcing the current laws, but we need to keep making more. How many of you who support this law, have a burn-barrel? How many burn leaves in the fall? How many drive a diesel truck....hypocrites!

Talking monkey said about smoking: "Bad breath, but a mint takes care of that..."

No, actually a mint doesn't make you smell much better after smoking. You still reek of smoke - it is in your hair and on your clothes. Honestly, it is a kind of BO.

It would seem that the nature of addiction would preclude anyone's opinion, but I am considerate to other's feelings on smoking while in close proximity to them. Speaking for myself, I don't smoke around people who don't like it. It DOES makes ones eyes water some if they are not used to it. But if I am in a place of business where people are smoking, I figure those people are there by choice and can't say anything. I avoid blowing smoke in anyone's face and I lower the window if I am in a vehicle.
People can be very unreasonable when it comes to smoking, and tend to overlook it's benefits, such as increased blood flow to the brain, which helps cognitive processes, relaxes one somewhat while in an emotional state, and offers a time-out to someone who just needs to get away from it all for fleeting minute. It also seems to help with hyper-actice swiss-cheese brain syndrome by allowing me to focus better.
It has its drawbacks as well, such as people getting crabby (I swear people use it as an excuse to lay into someone), stains on the walls (ventilation would prevent that), people leaving butts in the road or other areas (I put those butts in my pocket unless I am driving. I knock the cherry off first ☺) and they're EXPENSIVE nowadays. There are more but I can't think of any offhand at the moment.
Well, I had a smoke and came up with a couple more. Bad breath, but a mint takes care of that and it also requires thinking about where I am for safety reasons. Oh, and it makes people (like there's a button in their head that I can push) angry.

talking monkey-you answered on the fireworks..but not my other question to smokers. Tell me why no common courtesy, please.

I'm against fireworks, but I like to smoke. Less dangerous and polluting. Mother Earth can handle smokers, not a deluge of smoke from class A fireworks. I mean really, does it make any sense at all to make a mess in the name of a mess like the war that was fought over taxes? Seems hypocritical to me. Wanna say Happy Birthday to America? Light up a candle on a cake and sing like a regular birthday. American pride is making our foreign neighbors wish they weren't on the same planet. Not a humble position at all.

Funny how you didn't respond to my question or the rest of that post, EHW. Methinks you have issues (because you seem hellbent to destroy my idea without a measured response). Probably from all that medical terminology that's jammed in your head. No room for an original thought there, is there?
Some smokers get cancer, some don't. Why? Has to be diet and lack of exercise and other contributing environmental factors, not from smoking or being in the same room as a smoker alone. Reasonable doubt, people...

Talking Monkey- was your post about banning fireworks because they cause pollution a joke?? Must be. That contradicts most of your posts on this blog.

Can a smoker explain why anyone, smoker or non-smoker, should have to breathe the smoke of another person's cigarette? The few people I know that still smoke get that it is obnoxious and foul and other people don't want to smell it. They go away from people, even other smokers, to do it. It's called common courtesy. Why are most smokers so ignorant to COMMON COURTESY. Please.....enlighten.

Talking monkey, you don't even know that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are different chemical classes.
I'm not going to even start on the issues that poses in liver metabolism.
I still invite you to come up to UW School of Medicine and Public Health and educate the cardiologists and pulmonary specialists. i mean really. it'd be a hoot.
Also, I invite you to actually learn the difference between proven fact and theory, sometime.

I totally back the law. I'm an x smoker, ten years now and the whole reason is for worker safety. i knew a guy that dj'd faithfully for twenty years, nevered smoked cigarettes and died of lung cancer at 51.Huh? Lets face it smoking kills and the government is trying to protect the majority of the public from harm. I really don't know where the smokers get the cash for those $7 packs, holly crap, I would be spending a hundred a week. Glad I quit. $5200 a year now goes towards a nice vacation. Money well spent. All my employees smoke and only ones bitchin' about it. The tavern owners had plenty of time to get their places up to snuff for their smoking customers. I don't know the numbers but I think there more none smokers than smokers these days which should benefit the bar owners. The worst critic is the x-smoker. Go party in your fovorite bar for a night and feel the mornin' blues. go party around a campfire for a night and I'll bet you feel a whole lot better in the morning. It's all that smoke you were inhaling the night before even if you don't smoke. Good luck to all the bar owners, you will probably be surprised. most of you will increase your attendance

"Like research data has never been skewed or anything... Wake up people." Finally Talking Monkey has sad something I can agree with. In fact, I've said almost the same exact thing, but that was about some different lines of research.

Of course we don't need experts and their research studies to observe the effects of second hand smoke ourselves. When those with allergies, asthma and other such respiratory diseases acquired through no fault of their own are present when liberty demanding smokers exercise their "rights" and light up their chemical spewing stink sticks without regard for the rights or well being of others, they quickly begin to choke and are forced to leave an area they have as much right to occupy as those smokers. But like many so called libertarians, smoking libertarians like some of the ones who posted comments below seem to limit their concern for liberty restrictions strictly to their own liberty with no regard for the restrictions on the liberty of others. If smokers had exhibited self restraint(aka common courtesy), laws like this smoking ban would indeed be unnecessary. But since so many have such callous disregard for the health and welfare of their fellow human beings, I hope the police vigorously enforce this new law. With some people, only ever worsening consequences get them to do what they shouldn't need a new law to tell them to do.

Hey facts--how about keeping the law in place and cut funding to your liberal "feel good" programs? That would truly be a win-win situation in my book:)

Ok lets just say for the sake of argument that everyone quits smoking. Now all the little health nazi's are pretty happy. Until they see the taxes they pay for everything go way up. The state raised taxes on cigs this year so they could collect more tax money not only for Badger Care but for several other "feel good" causes that liberals like. Now when you don't have a tax base to draw that "projected" tax money from where does it come from? You guessed it and I hope all the little whiners that b#T+H@D pay till they are broke. Its time to repeal some of this crap law and get government out of the business of telling people how to live their lives.

Mudsill--A little bit dramatic huh???:) You're partially right--I really don't care if you get cancer from making your choice to smoke--I do care if your addiction affects my health though. Not having to smell like a dirty ashtray is just one more great benefit of this legislation. Last time I checked, stopping by the bar on a Friday night to have a couple of beers and socialize with friends hardly qualifies as a life/family/dream destroying situation--It's actually a great way to wind down the week. Give it another try--while your reasoning makes absolutely no sense, your persistence is admirable!!!:)

NCC--Non-smokers have no intention to completely stop you from smoking. I personally could care less if YOU choose to smell like an ashtray and YOU choose to saturate your lungs with toxins. As far as being in a public place where I'm affected by your addiction is where there is an issue. There is no doubt that smoking bans work. I might actually go back to bartending on the weekends after the smell clears out. I've been to dozens of bars where they have been in effect and have never seen anyone lighting up. Bar owners are strict about such things not only because of the fines, but also because they would never want to compromise their liquor licenses. Just accept it--if you want to smoke, simply go outside and do it....

NCC1701... well, I like wine, but prefer Brandy..

I've smoked for 35 years. Not boasting, just stating a fact. I do NOT smoke in my own home! I go outside or to my back porch. I don't like the smell in my house. I can't stand the smell if I am in a hotel room for smokers. Its disgusting. I have NEVER lit up in a restaurant if there obviously is no one else smoking, (but its allowed).

I am going to try Chantix (for the 3rd time) it may or may not "take". Regardless, my addiction should NOT impair others' RIGHTS to breathe clean air.

"Wine Wine Wine is that all people in Janesville do."

Pot...kettle.

Smells like teen spirit. I love it. Smoky bars and dim lighting... oh yeah...

"Wine Wine Wine is that all people in Janesville do."
No.
Whine Whine Whine is that all people in Janesville do.

T-Monkey, what does cigarette smoke smell like to you?

Like research data has never been skewed or anything... Wake up people.

My incorrect use of terminology is no cause to call me clueless. That is close-minded behavior and I am glad you are not MY doctor. And besides, a medical practice is just that. Practice. Implies a lack of total, 100% knowledge. Don't forget that DNA and genetics are a new field of study and there is MUCH to learned, and in some cases, UNlearned.
The liver STILL breaks down that complicated sugar and turns it into who-knows-what. Sorry you don't like my theories, but that's your problem, not mine, and it will stay that way.

Yeah, I guess BURNING FLESH would be way worse than cigarette smoke.

Smoking bans do not hurt businesses. If there's a change, businesses improve. Most smokers will continue to patronize their favorite bars and some non-smokers will now bring in additional revenue.

There's no "loss of business" problem in Chicago or any of the other areas with comprehensive smoking bans.

Is the claim: Smokers will only now drink at home or at other smokers' homes? C'mon. If "loss of business from smoking bans" is a problem, it would be national news.

So do most bar owners.

"The poor bartenders" Are you kidding??? They choose that job/profession...they knew what the job was about before they started working in a bar. Most, not all, bartenders smoke theirselves.

Zoom, there is a GREAT chance that you will no longer have a place of employment.

Those that choose to stay home to have a drink and a smoke will by far out number those who suddenly decide, "Wow, I can finally go to this business I've never stepped into and have a drink without any second hand smoke".

Do you really think that all of these "non-smokers" are going to make up for the lost revenue? Enough non-smokers to keep your place of employment afloat AND the other 50+ bars in Janesville?

Since IL passed the law, what, 7 years or so ago, not a single one of my relatives or friends in IL go to the bars anymore. Yeah, they save a TON of money, but it hasn't changed their smoking habits.

Go to a bar in my old hometown and you can hear the crickets chirping in the corners.

Mudsill--Now it's our turn--I'll watch with delight as bar owners and patrons who break the smoke free law are slapped with fines when they attempt to light up:)

Crabby.....Actually the government did do that when it passed the Clean Indoor Air Act. The employers had no choice--they were forced to go smoke free. It's nice that bars are finally following suit!

True, the taxes on cigarettes pay for a large amount of BadgerCare in Wisconsin. We will see if all taverns obey this law.......I am pretty sure some tight knit taverns will ignore this whole law.

If everyone in the State of Wisconsin quit smoking, those who don't smoke would be screaming about their taxes. Plus you'd see the Gov standing outside the schools handing out free cig's. They talk a great game but in the end the TAX REVENUE is much great than their voice. Don't believe it? Ask them.

Hey Zoom, the government didn't do that, your employer did and if you don't like what your employer does, than you have the freedom to go find a new JOB!

The government has now given me the freedom to breath cleaner air in my workplace. See how that works?

I think the biggest issue here is why government is meddling its nose into how people run their businesses. If you want to be a non-smoking tavern, then do it and people can go there. But don't tell every tavern how to run their business. People do things everyday that kill themselves and cause extra medical expense....eating bad food, drinking and driving, driving ,motorcycles without helmets, eating and driving, etc. We are letting government take away so many of our freedoms and we don't even realize it!

"Oh good now the little anti-smoke nazi's are going to assault those of us who choose to smoke outside."

Yes. If you BLOW SMOKE IN SOMEONES FACE. Put out that cigarette. It's effecting your comprehension skills.

gazettefan: they will not want to endure repeated fines and loss of license.
Loss of license cannot happen no matter how many times they are fined. Please check the law as written you will see I am right. The tavern league made sure this was written in this way.
evansvillehousewife: If he blew smoke in someone's face, he'd be arrested, or in my case, punched. Good and hard.
Oh good now the little anti-smoke nazi's are going to assault those of us who choose to smoke outside. I wonder when these people will get around to the book burning? My guess is that when we change leadership in Madison some of this ban will be repealed. I myself don't have a problem going outside to smoke. Or not smoking at all when in a place that does not allow it. And I would put out my smoke if someone asked me to. But to regulate this onto people and business is not something the government should be doing.

I love going to bars that don't have smoking. it's great, never knew how terrible I felt or smelled when people smoked in bars all the time, till I went to places that didn't allow it for a while and then to places that did. I don't miss it at all.

BUT, this is America. Smoking is a legal practice for adults and a business owner should be able to make their own rules as to what legal activities can or cannot happen in their privately owned business.

If they want to make smoking illegal, then just admit that's the plan and do it. Otherwise let people and business owners chose to allow and partake in whatever legal activties they chose to.

The removed comment t was to jterry pointing out the futility of his life by being a lying jerk. The site staff are very scared of feminine hygiene products. You know, because everything associated with female genialia is shocking, and icky.
Irregardless, there are no public buildings in Madison where you can smoke in, or even NEAR an entrance. Jterry is a troll and a liar. If he blew smoke in someone's face, he'd be arrested, or in my case, punched. Good and hard.

Again, you have no clue. Hydrocarbons are petroleum products, what are floating in the gulf right now.
You don't even have a clue as to complex carbohydrates are built, much less their biochemistry.
Please, spread the truth about smoking. I can see how far you're getting.

Well, I don't know what you typed EHW, but it seems that the site staff are on a rampage because I have never known you to be a site rule-breaker. If you like, you can email through the site to repeat it. I am interested in your opinion.

The liver breaks down processed sugar (I believe they are called complex hydrocarbons) in a way that is unknown to science and with those unknowns floating around in the bloodstream, they will interact in ways we don't know.
My theory is simple. Keep hydrated and the lungs will move the crap out better. I don't need a degree to figure that out. As far as pulmonary hyper-tension is concerned, I did not consider that in my limited knowlegde of of all things medical, and I apologize for my grandiosity, but I do feel that bad diet plays a large part in that particular problem. Processed sugar messes with everything. Even during pregnancy, which is probably the WORST time to consume it.
As long as there is a reasonable doubt, as long as there is not 100% knowledge of a particular situation, there is room for improvement. Or are you the type of person that repeats learned info without a shred of intelligent thought? After all, people thought the world was flat for a LONNNNNG time until someone fought otherwise. Meet my mission.
My real point in all of this is that we weren't told the whole truth about smoking. If it isn't 100%, then there is a flaw in the theory. If someone can live for 80 years while smoking Camel Straights, then what is different from the ones who DID die from lung cancer? My answer is hydration, excercise and avoiding processed sugar and until I see direct empirical evidence to the contrary, I will keep this alive.
"purposefully inundating your pulmonary cilia" Am I to take this as meaning to dump water directly into the lungs??? Please explain.

talking_monkey, you asked why else docs tell people to drink lots of fluids with the flu?

A primary reason is that flu often involves vomiting and diarrhea. These two insults combined can kill a healthy person in a matter of days. The bronchial irritation causes coughs, but a person will live regardless of a productive cough vs and unproductive one.
Dehydration is *the* leading cause of flu hospitalization. Slam em in, IV em, give then 2-3 liters of Ringer's.

You want to thin mucus, Guafenisen. Simple.

you know what we do to the health nazi's here in madison? we stand as close as we can in any public building and blow smoke in their face, try it it is a lot of fun, and who knows, maybe some day one of those health freaks will exit this earth

And no, an unproductive cough is NOT always caused by lack of moisture. Ever hear of pulmonary hypertension? It's caused by extremely high blood pressure in the lungs, so much so that the osmotic pressure prevents O2 transfer. It's a horrible way to die (and also is a frequent reason for 2nd trimester abortions incidentally) A person with PH coughs and coughs and one of the primary treatments is DIURETICS. Diuretic treatment is also indicated in congestive heart failure. Diuretics REMOVE water from the body. Give someone with CHF more fluids and you'll kill him.

Are you claiming that purposefully inundating your pulmonary cilia is inconsequential? That a smoker only need drink water and the ciliary insult is abated?

The only proof I need, talking-monkey, is that if your theories were worth anything, YOU'D be the one in the Medical School making bank instead of me.

Really, if all the doctors here up in the Med school are ignorant- come up and educate them. See how many lives you save. i have seen families revived and the dead literally brought back to years of a healthy life.

Really, Come on up and see how many doctors and scientists you convince. i mean, if an ignorant person like me can do it, certainly YOU can.

Cardtrader--smokers make up probably 10% of the population at best. Many of their friends are non-smokers, so they have heard the argument from the "other side" as well. I was living in Illinois when the bars there went non-smoking--No issues at all. As long as there are no ashtrays and a staff that makes it's position clear, it shouldn't even be an issue........

Cant wait to read about all the fights that start now when all the do gooders start sounding off in bars and get the rowdy smokers pissed off, you know it is going to happen. Or when they turn in people smoking in the bars.

talking-monkey,
I manipulate DNA in my profession. Please cite what "hydrocarbons" you speak of in DNA mutation. It involves phosphate groups and amplification of certain sequences.
Hydrocarbons are primarily found in petroleum products- they are not even CLOSE to carbohydrates. I mean, yeah, they contain C and H, but I think all your knowledge of chemistry is from some fake website.

A hydrocarbon and "presence of processed sugars". NO, no. No. The process in driven by the Krebs cycle, the only carbohydrate present in the cell by now is GLUCOSE, which is NECESSARY for DNA replication.

Dude, you have no clue. You have NO understanding of biochemistry. You have some weird pro-smokers website based ENTIRELY on theory, no science.
Again, enjoy your disgusting habit. I am glad I don't have to suffer from it.

cheddar - Sitting by an obese person may not cause me to become obese, but they are also cause huge rises in insurnace premiums that fan out to everyone else, and they also cause a drain on the social security system, medicare and medicaid systems.

Mudsill--No, I don't "GET IT." Thankfully neither do the legislators that supported this law:) It's a great thing that the bartenders will no longer have to deal with the smoke and the negative effects that is associated with it. If you want to smell like an ashtray, fine--that's your right. You're going to have to take it outside from here on out though because non-smokers don't have to deal with it any longer. I think that it's a great thing that they are fining both the bar and the patron as well. That kind of pressure will get people adhering to this law that much quicker. A good friend of mine owns a bar and he as happy as can be to finally be able to throw away all of the ashtrays in his place!

T-Monkey, you write like your education came from being beaten on the head by textbooks.

evansvillehousewife - I love you!

talking-monkey - your handle says it all!

More analogies that fall short.

Smoking is not integral to the function of any workplace or public space, save a tobbaco bar, which has a carve-out in the legislation. My right to breath clean air in a workplace or public space trumps your right to pollute that air by smoking.

You just stay happy in your ignorance.

"talking_monkey: Well, since 100% of sexual encounters do not end up in pregnancy, babies must be brought by the stork."

Hah....good one.
I think I will start putting a condum on my daily cigar!!! :-)

The Big Tobacco lawsuit was obviously edited for the public to suit the anti-smokers who are in a position of power.

An unproductive cough is ALWAYS caused by lack of moisture and the phlem containing carcinogens and pollutants stays there. Why else do docs tell people to drink lots of fluids while having the flu???

Mudsill, there is no such thing as second-hand obesity.

What you have is an utter mis-understanding of how DNA and genetic mutations occur. Even DNA can't function correctly if the body is unindated with a lack of proper moisture and massive amounts of complicated hydrocarbons (processed sugar). Do a little research before you open your mouth next time.

I'm also a little fascinated by this bizarre statement that the lungs need to "clean themselves out."
Lungs are protected primarily from contaminants by mucus and cilia, microscopic hairs that sweep particles and fluids out towards the throat, where they are expelled by coughing/swallowing.
This obsession you have with water as it pertains to lung health is unclear- viscous, thick blood high in PCV will contribute to high blood pressure, or sure, but the only exchange in the lungs is the gas transfer of O2 to a heme molecule in the red blood cells. There is no transfer of particulates to plasma; CO2 is expelled through diffusion.

What you need to have "clean lungs" as you claim, is a healthy circulation. If you want to see what the opposite is, google congestive heart failure, a common killer of smokers.

Any water you consume will not compensate for the gross insult to cardiac health that tobacco smoking creates. You cannot have healthy lungs without a healthy heart. Period.

This is so far off from prohibition that i don;t understand why it's being mentioned. Alcohol is far more controlled than cigarettes as far as third party purchase laws, tavern regulation, and consumption control. No one here is crying that alcohol is too regulated.

talking_monkey: Well, since 100% of sexual encounters do not end up in pregnancy, babies must be brought by the stork.

What you have is an utter failure to understand the complexity of cancer. There are hundred of types of cancer, and all have genetic variation as a factor. You cannot predict every person's genetic code; what you can predict is that probability of tumor development that the vast population has when exposed to carcinogens at a consistent level. .

The fact is that yes, there are people out there who have a genetic code that, when exposed to certain carcinogens, are 100% assured of getting a fatal cancer. These are the people that this law protects.

There is also considerable evidence that even individuals with resistant genetic codes will develop tumors when exposure to secondhand smoke is prolonged and severe enough. This another population protected by this law.

Then there are those of us who enjoy not stinking like an ashtray, work hard to keep ourselves in shape, and would like to enjoy all the health we work to give ourselves. There are unborn children that cannot make a choice about the air their mother breathes.

Enjoy your poor dental health, your sallow yellowed skin, your rancid odor, and your depleted pocketbook. I for one am glad of this law.

It makes certain that you only sicken yourself.

Again, I ask: "OK, so how do you account for the other 10-15%?". Anyone??? No? Well then I guess lung cancer isn't 100% caused by smoking. I repeat: The lungs need water to clean themselves out. Anything that stays in the lungs will likely end up causing cancer. Period. Way too many people living in a dehydrated state. Govt. imposed water intake? Hmm. I doubt it. But nice try at a funny, gfan.
Fan, short for fanatic. Fanatical: Motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. Gfan: someone who is obsessed with a piece of paper.

"When 85 to 90% of people with Diabetes are obese, and anti-smokers cite lung cancer as it's related costs as the reasons to regulate smoking in public, I would guess that the next logical step for them is to ban obesity in public??"

It isn't just the health care costs born by nonsmokers that warrant a smoking ban. Sitting next to someone who is obese doesn't cause you to be obese. There certainly have been discussions of various fat taxes (on pop, junk food, etc.) and attempts to limit access to junk food (like by prohibiting vending machines in elementary schools) if you are looking for examples of public policies to reduce obesity.

maybe someday you non-smokers can pay for someone to come over and give you second hand MARY JANE smoke to help you with your health problems from this issue

I'm looking forward to going to a couple of restaurants that I thought were too smokey.

talking monkey said:
"Because if second-hand truly caused cancer, EVERYONE would get it. Get it???"

Oh my.

second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke. puff puff give

NCC1701 wrote: "This is no different than prohibition. It will never work."

I guess those 26 OTHER STATES with similar laws aren't a good enough example.

unfortunately gfan the current ignorant prohibition does NOT allow for an adult to consume in the privacy of his own home.

Yes, T-Monkey, let us know how your government imposed "drink more water campaign" goes.

;~)

Talking_Monkey can really talk huh haha

"So, if everything pollutes, what's the point of a smoking ban?"

Second hand smoke is bad for non-smokers in an enclosed space, like a workplace. You can't counteract that by drinking water, lol.

Correct on both counts, thekid.

Prohibition made the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol illegal everywhere except in the home (production was allowed for non-consumptive uses) -Prohibition created a black market for alcohol. The smoking ban does not create a black market for tobacco. The problems of alcohol Prohibition will not come from the smoking ban. And bar owners will not tolerate violations of the smoking ban, they will not want to endure repeated fines and loss of license.

Prior to the time of governmentally imposed health codes, people were suffering and dying frequently from food and alcohol poisoning. The government also imposes building codes so that businesses operate within safe structures. Should we go back to when the government didn't impose such codes for the "principle" of keeping the government out of the business of private business?

mudsill- so tired of that agruement. We don't drive the cars INSIDE and we now don't smoke INSIDE. Yes it would be VERY bad if cars we allowed to be run inside. Go to a car repair shop. They run inside WHEN plugged into a tub that take the exhaust outside.

Is it REALLY that hard to walk you lazy but outside with your butts????
I don't know anybody that has a problem with this except people on this blog.

And seeing that there is a huge percentage of second-hand smokers out there who get lung cancer, it is very likely that these people are dietarelly challenged as well.

Don't get me wrong. I don't dis-agree that smoking can contribute to cancer, but there ARE other factors involved. That 10-15% of people who smoke and DON'T get cancer must be doing something healthy. Like avoiding processed sugar, eating healthy and drinking plenty of water. Water is a required ingrediant for the lungs to clean themselves and I would bet 85-90% of smokers don't drink enough water, instead preferring to drink pop or beer or some other diruetic. The liver turns complicated hydrocarbons (processed sugar) into things no one knows. Are these the contributing factors in cancer??? I bet they are.
The studies are skewed to bolster opinions for the people who don't like smoking. Too bad you are so ignorantly biased. It's people like you that really screw up the world.

Now they need to ban the wearing of oversized pants and baseball caps on backwards and the world would be a better looking place.

OK, so how do you account for the other 10-15%? God??? You obviously don't think logically.

gfan...the answer is yes. its called a vaporizer and it is THE cleanest most efficient way for people to ingest thc.

footballfan: if they banned tobacco they would just create a black market for it and the profits would fall into the hands of criminals instead of legit businesses and uncle sam. its called history...ch ch ch ch ch check it out.

Talking-Monkey.....When 85 to 90 percent of lung cancer victims have also been smokers, I would think that the rhetoric correlating lung cancer to exposure to cigarette smoke is spot on......Get it??????

just light up and enjoy.....

916WI, you are repeating rhetoric about second-hand smoke. Ever wonder why some people get cancer and some don't? Because if second-hand truly caused cancer, EVERYONE would get it. Get it???

I think they should have the non smokers sit outside they are the ones complaining the most and if they don't like the smoke stay home or elsewhere. I also this should be a state wide vote.!!

Breathing second hand smoke is another reason I never went to the bars. I don't miss it as I only have a drink with friends in restaurants and house parties where smoking does not take place. I am sure millions of us agree on this issue.

Another chink in the chain from the liberal freeks that want us to be enslaved. These small laws are adding up to total control. Common sense would be to have any establishment post if they allow smoking or not. If it was all about health the casinos would be included. Its all about a slow death for freedom from progressives (commies).
Wake up people!!

NCC--Sure it will work. Two states that I have spent a little bit of bar time in are Illinois and California. No one smokes in their bars and it's not even an issue to them. I'm a huge fan of this law as are many of my friends. As far as the driving correlation posted in another entry, that's possibly the most ignorant thing I've heard. People are getting cancer and dying from second hand smoke. Some people work in bars because they can not find employment elsewhere--the job market isn't exactly strong right now. Smokers need to not be so selfish by forcing the side effects of their disgusting habit on others. Not all of us want to smell like an ashtray after stopping to have a beer or two on the way home.:)

So does this mean they will not be able to use smoke generators on the dance floor anymore? :)

Oh, and yes, PLEASE stop driving indoors, idiot.

So, if everything pollutes, what's the point of a smoking ban? Catering to whiny, powerful people, perhaps?

If you really want to make an acurate analogy, you would ask me to stop driving INDOORS. In the end, everything we do pollutes. Even breathing. Care to stop breathing? You go first.

As soon as someone can prove that second-hand cologne, perfume and dirty diaper fumes in the workplace cause cancer, I'm sure thay will be banned too. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying cleaner air from the smoking ban.

Yes, you're right.
I have a right to breathe clean air, too.
That means no cologne, no perfume, no smelly diapers, nothing.

You want clean air? Wear a mask, because even the "fresh" air has pollutants in it.

No, the law is required to protect workers from smokers.

The "why don't they just ban tobacco" argument is a straw man. People are free to poison themselves in their own home, or outside. My right to breath clean air trumps your right to pollute it.

Once again we find IDIOTS deciding that they need to protect us from ourselves......If smoking is so bad, why not outlaw it.
Simple....GREED......
Oh, and I don't even smoke, but find this one more step in unwanted and not needed control.
These public MORONS need to spend their time on drugs sales, and serious crime in WI and Janesville.

Why don't you ban the alcohol too....If they had there way the bars would be banned period.

Hey
qaz668_ Read this...

Users agree NOT to:

* use our Web site to advertise, solicit, or promote without our express written approval.

If they were serious about stopping smoking they would make tobacco illegal.

And what about electronic vodka? Can I drink it anywhere?

And is it of any use to stoners?

Does that gizmo come with batteries included?

Mudsill, the answer is tes.

The new laws allow for the smoking of electronic cigarettes in prohibited businesses.

I also know of a long time smoker who kicked the habit with the help of electronic cigarettes.

qaz668 i've tried that and your right that is a better way to go. Thats good u put this on here

A travern is where you can't troke trigerettes anymore.

What a wonderful Mother's Day gift!!!

What's a Janesville TRAVEN?