Return to previous page
Nobdy said smoking was good for you or anyone else. Is it a persons right to smoke? I do not know. I know that people who choose not to should not have to sit next to someone who does. If you like to smoke lite up and let it rip it is your life and I do not care if you die before me, hey it is your choice. Right?
miltonalum this is a commie pinko meathead web sitehttp://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvL......
Alright, My turn to express my opinion. I'm a US Navy Sailor and I smoke, surprise lol. But, the fact of the matter is that I'm based in San Diego, and they have this ban already. And they have smoking areas outside of the bar. The problem is that these spaces are usually small due to the lack of space that the bars or restraunts can provide. Thus you always have people rubbing up against you. And, not only that you have other guys who like to grab and touch women cause they are drunk. I think bans on smoking in family restraunt would be a great idea, but you cannot expect to give human beings cramped into such small quarters, when they are drunk or just plain stupid, cause something always seems to happen. Trust me I know, being on a ship is the same exact thing.
Here is what we should ban -----------GUNS /TOBACCO / ALCOHOL / CARS /CHURCHES / LAWNMOWERS /ANYTHING WITH AN ENGINE / AND ANYTHING THE RIGHT OR LEFT WINGERS WANT . I CAN'T THINK OF OTHER RIDICULOUS /absurd , preposterous THINGS SO MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME ....
I can understand banning smoking from restaurants. Its a place to eat not to sit and inhale deadly fumes. As for the bars, I don't see why its such a hassle to be considerate and take a quick break outside and come back in. To me it would just be polite. If you can take a few minutes to step away from what you are doing to use the restroom, why cant you take a few minutes to smoke away from others?
A relative of mine has smoked since she was young. She was just diagnosed with a tumor in her lungs.
Packerfan1 Quote- "I just took a poll at work no one knows some one that died from second hand smoke I would be willing to bet that less than 1% of you winers do either. get a life." -Quote..Is 50,000 deaths a year just in the US enough for you? 1 would be enough for me so it would be nice to "get a life" by not inhaling second hand smoke..http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvL...
Harmful ChemicalsIn Cigarettes & Tobacco SmokeChemicals in cigarettes and tobacco smoke make smoking harmful.
Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 different chemicals. At least 43 are known carcinogens (cause cancer in humans).
Cigarettes are one of few products which can be sold legally which can harm and even kill you over time if used as intended.
Currently there are ongoing lawsuits in the USA which aim to hold tobacco companies responsible for the effects of smoking on the health of long term smokers.
Benzene (petrol additive)A colourless cyclic hydrocarbon obtained from coal and petroleum, used as a solvent in fuel and in chemical manufacture - and contained in cigarette smoke. It is a known carcinogen and is associated with leukaemia.
Formaldehyde (embalming fluid)A colourless liquid, highly poisonous, used to preserve dead bodies - also found in cigarette smoke. Known to cause cancer, respiratory, skin and gastrointestinal problems.
Ammonia (toilet cleaner)Used as a flavouring, frees nicotine from tobacco turning it into a gas, found in dry cleaning fluids.
Acetone (nail polish remover)Fragrant volatile liquid ketone, used as a solvent, for example, nail polish remover - found in cigarette smoke.
Tar Particulate matter drawn into lungs when you inhale on a lighted cigarette. Once inhaled, smoke condenses and about 70 per cent of the tar in the smoke is deposited in the smoker's lungs.
Nicotine (insecticide/addictive drug)One of the most addictive substances known to man, a powerful and fast-acting medical and non-medical poison. This is the chemical which causes addiction.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) (car exhaust fumes)An odourless, tasteless and poisonous gas, rapidly fatal in large amounts - it's the same gas that comes out of car exhausts and is the main gas in cigarette smoke, formed when the cigarette is lit. Others you may recognize are :
Arsenic (rat poison), Hydrogen Cyanide (gas chamber poison)
source: Health Education Authority (UK) - Lifesaver
hmmmm-62% for the ban. 37% against. Majority rules.
cvawda-you make it sound like a smoking ban would FORCE people to stop smoking, and as a result we will all be a paying $2.00 tax on something else AFTER that. How ignorant! Just because a ban might pass that prohibits smoking in public places, doesn't mean people will be SMART enough to stop smoking. Most smokers would probably go to extreme lengths to keep smoking...like GOING OUTSIDE to smoke. Duh.
And I thought Bare fans were bad spellers.
Do you mean winers or whiners? A friend of mine died 9 months ago from lung cancer. She never smoked a day in her life, but she worked a night job at a bar from time-to-time to make ends meet. She was under 40 with a two year old daughter. Why don't you contact me directly if you want to have a conversation about watching someone die of lung cancer caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.
Those who know whats best for us,must try to save us from ourselves.
I just took a poll at work no one knows some one that died from second hand smoke I would be willing to bet that less than 1% of you winers do either. get a life.
shutupandfish: We don't have roads for drunk drivers and roads for sober drivers. Second hand smoke is dangerous and no one needs to be exposed to it. As a society, we choose not to cater to those who are endangering our health of safety.
Do the socialists we strive to be in Sweden, and Amsterdam smoke in their bars?
If a smokier wants to go to a non-smoking bar and go outside to have his/her smoke then that's their choice. If a person who smokes wants to go to a bar and sit and have a smoke and a cocktail with fellow smoking friends that is their choice.
Should be up to the owner of the tavern or bar. We can cope with having both smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments in our society. Cater to both people. Just like we cater to other groups of people in our society.
Great info, jendood, thanks.
Wow, such an inconvenience to take a 5 minute break from your drink at a bar to smoke your cigarette outside then come back in. It's not like you can't smoke at all if you're out for a few or watching the game.
I live in WI, but just minutes away from MN, which does have the smoking ban, and it is SOOO nice (even my smoker friends agree) that it's nice to come home and not have your clothes smell caked with smoke.
It's also nice to not have to smell cigarette smoke while I'm eating at a restaurant - even in the non-smoking section. It's repulsive and makes me lose my appetite instantly. How is that fair to me, when a smoker could be considerate enough to take it outside for 5 minutes?
I don't think the ban is as bad as smokers are making it out to be. People are coping in MN, and businesses are still doing well.
Thats about half of them, good thing you listed those others, its alot, we sure wouldnt want to voluntarily add more to our already dangerous lives would we?
dl-CitronellolCitronellyl Butyrateitronellyl IsobutyrateCivet AbsoluteClary OilClover Tops, Red Solid ExtractCocoaCocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And PowderCoconut OilCoffeeCognac White and Green OilCopaiba OilCoriander Extract and OilCorn OilCorn SilkCostus Root OilCubeb OilCuminaldehydepara-Cymene1-Cysteine1-Decanol2-DecenalDehydromenthofurolactoneDiethyl MalonateDiethyl Sebacate2,3-DiethylpyrazineDihydro Anethole5,7-Dihydro-2-Methylthieno(3,4-D) PyrimidineDill Seed Oil and Extractmeta-Dimethoxybenzenepara-Dimethoxybenzene2,6-DimethoxyphenolDimethyl Succinate3,4-Dimethyl-1,2 Cyclopentanedione3,5- Dimethyl-1,2-Cyclopentanedione3,7-Dimethyl-1,3,6-Octatriene4,5-Dimethyl-3-Hydroxy-2,5-Dihydrofuran-2-One6,10-Dimethyl-5,9-Undecadien-2-One3,7-Dimethyl-6-Octenoic Acid2,4 Dimethylacetophenonealpha,para-Dimethylbenzyl Alcoholalpha,alpha-Dimethylphenethyl Acetatealpha,alpha Dimethylphenethyl Butyrate2,3-Dimethylpyrazine2,5-Dimethylpyrazine2,6-DimethylpyrazineDimethyltetrahydrobenzofuranonedelta-Dodecalactonegamma-Dodecalactonepara-EthoxybenzaldehydeEthyl 10-UndecenoateEthyl 2-MethylbutyrateEthyl AcetateEthyl AcetoacetateEthyl AlcoholEthyl BenzoateEthyl ButyrateEthyl CinnamateEthyl DecanoateEthyl FencholEthyl FuroateEthyl HeptanoateEthyl HexanoateEthyl IsovalerateEthyl LactateEthyl LaurateEthyl LevulinateEthyl MaltolEthyl Methyl PhenylglycidateEthyl MyristateEthyl NonanoateEthyl OctadecanoateEthyl OctanoateEthyl OleateEthyl PalmitateEthyl PhenylacetateEthyl PropionateEthyl SalicylateEthyl trans-2-ButenoateEthyl ValerateEthyl Vanillin2-Ethyl (or Methyl)-(3,5 and 6)-Methoxypyrazine2-Ethyl-1-Hexanol, 3-Ethyl -2 -Hydroxy-2-Cyclopenten-1-One2-Ethyl-3, (5 or 6)-Dimethylpyrazine5-Ethyl-3-Hydroxy-4-Methyl-2(5H)-Furanone2-Ethyl-3-Methylpyrazine4-Ethylbenzaldehyde4-Ethylguaiacolpara-Ethylphenol3-EthylpyridineEucalyptolFarnesolD-FenchoneFennel Sweet OilFenugreek, Extract, Resin, and AbsoluteFig Juice ConcentrateFood Starch ModifiedFurfuryl Mercaptan4-(2-Furyl)-3-Buten-2-OneGalbanum OilGenet AbsoluteGentian Root ExtractGeraniolGeranium Rose OilGeranyl Acetate
phlurky, thanks for the list, is that all you could come up with? Here is a list of known carcinogens JUST in cigarette smoke..AcetanisoleAcetic AcidAcetoinAcetophenone6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine2-Acetyl-5-MethylfuranAcetylpyrazine2-Acetylpyridine3-Acetylpyridine2-AcetylthiazoleAconitic Aciddl-AlanineAlfalfa ExtractAllspice Extract,Oleoresin, and OilAllyl HexanoateAllyl IononeAlmond Bitter OilAmbergris TinctureAmmoniaAmmonium BicarbonateAmmonium HydroxideAmmonium Phosphate DibasicAmmonium SulfideAmyl AlcoholAmyl ButyrateAmyl FormateAmyl Octanoatealpha-AmylcinnamaldehydeAmyris Oiltrans-AnetholeAngelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed OilAniseAnise Star, Extract and OilsAnisyl AcetateAnisyl AlcoholAnisyl FormateAnisyl PhenylacetateApple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and SkinsApricot Extract and Juice Concentrate1-ArginineAsafetida Fluid Extract And OilAscorbic Acid1-Asparagine Monohydrate1-Aspartic AcidBalsam Peru and OilBasil OilBay Leaf, Oil and Sweet OilBeeswax WhiteBeet Juice ConcentrateBenzaldehydeBenzaldehyde Glyceryl AcetalBenzoic Acid, BenzoinBenzoin ResinBenzophenoneBenzyl AlcoholBenzyl BenzoateBenzyl ButyrateBenzyl CinnamateBenzyl PropionateBenzyl SalicylateBergamot OilBisaboleneBlack Currant Buds AbsoluteBorneolBornyl AcetateBuchu Leaf Oil1,3-Butanediol2,3-Butanedione1-Butanol2-Butanone4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-OneButter, Butter Esters, and Butter OilButyl AcetateButyl ButyrateButyl Butyryl LactateButyl IsovalerateButyl PhenylacetateButyl Undecylenate3-ButylidenephthalideButyric Acid]CadineneCaffeineCalcium CarbonateCampheneCananga OilCapsicum OleoresinCaramel ColorCaraway OilCarbon DioxideCardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and PowderCarob Bean and Extractbeta-CaroteneCarrot OilCarvacrol4-Carvomenthenol1-Carvonebeta-Caryophyllenebeta-Caryophyllene OxideCascarilla Oil and Bark ExtractCassia Bark OilCassie Absolute and OilCastoreum Extract, Tincture and AbsoluteCedar Leaf OilCedarwood Oil Terpenes and VirginianaCedrolCelery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And OleoresinCellulose FiberChamomile Flower Oil And ExtractChicory ExtractChocolateCinnamaldehydeCinnamic AcidCinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and ExtractCinnamyl AcetateCinnamyl AlcoholCinnamyl CinnamateCinnamyl IsovalerateCinnamyl PropionateCitralCitric AcidCitronella Oil
cvawda Quote- " Does anybody realize what would happen w/out the smokers. First the job loss would be horendous and the amount of money that the states and the federal government would have to make up somewhere is huge!" -Quote..Yes i do realize what would happen, people would live longer healthier lives. Thats about the poorest excuse to keep smoking around that ive ever heard.
Mikki Quote - "Okay, then let's tell the business owner they can't sell alcohol, because we know what health problems that causes. And while we're at it, fatty food, because that causes all sorts of health problems, too." .You have no clue do you?.2nd hand smoke kills the person next to them, last time i checked, sitting across the room from someone who has a few too many drinks doesnt cause you to get drunk, drive home and kill someone. Sitting across the room inhaling someone elses second hand smoke WILL cause cancer over time. Sure you can say that they just choose not to go there anymore if they dont like the smoke. Why should someone have to make a choice on a personal health hazard. Alcohol is a personal choice that affects you and only you, second hand cigarette smoke affects every single person in the room..On a side note thank god im not a smoker, it must really suck to have to put a coat on and sit outside for 5 minutes on a -20 day just to get a fix.
tinkerb45, that has to be the most ignorant comment of the day. You win the cookie.
Do you want us smokers to have a place to smoke or do you want to pay minimum of $2.00 tax on something that you buy everyday... and if you do not buy it everyday that tax will be even higher than $2.00 each. Does anybody realize what would happen w/out the smokers. First the job loss would be horendous and the amount of money that the states and the federal government would have to make up somewhere is huge! I feel that since we contribute so much to the tax revenue we should be able to have a place to smoke if the business owner feel that is the type of clientele he or she would like to cater to. Just as smokers may not go to a "non smoking" establishment - a non smoker has the coice not to enter a "smoking" etablishment.
legal addictive substances are taxed higher and higher for two, make that three reasons. 1) revenue 2) people with the addiction have to weigh quitting or paying more. the usual result is they will pay more because of the nature of addiction. (ironically, gambling addictions have their built in increase, the more one looses, the more one gambles to win it back, the more one wins, the greater the reinforcement to the addict. how often do you hear the gambler say "they are taxing me to death at the slots!") 3) there is a built in cost to the taxpayer to treat and insure the addict. someone has to pay for that and the rational is the users.
hannah: Please don't eat off the dollar menu or smoke. My tax dollars can only go so far to help you. Thanks.
A statewide ban on indoor public smoking would be a boom for businesses like restaurants. We have a home in CO where they passed a ban a few years ago. Going out to eat is a pleasure and guess what? The places are full. We also noticed a smaller number of people outside smoking.
This is beyond a rights issue. Smoke free air is something our kids have a right to and we owe it ourselves to avoid huge health care problems as we get older.
If a bar without a restaurant wants to allow smoking, that's fine with me. Most simply will not go in the door. When their patrons hit their 60's and 70's and start having major health issues, they will think about the place.
no one has come up with what they would like taxed since they want cigarettes to go away. Kinda like the republicans - can't stand what the President is doing but have no other alternatives.
Smoking is a form of self-loathing and suicide. Even the most hard-core smokers know that it is at best an unhealthy habit. Now if you want to do that - ingest those chemicals intentionally, I have no problem with that. Your funeral. But when you want to insist that I have to breathe the same junk - then I draw the line.
I will not patronize establishments that allow smoking. I go out of my way to find non-smoking restaurants. Your rights to smoke ends when it causes ME to suffer the consequences of your choice.
Again a lot of angry people, we are not really going to solve the problem good old Uncle Sam will. Hannah I am confused are you for the ban or against it. Some of your comments go both ways, or are you on the fence.
Dont think this will end with a smoking ban. If the government gets thier way to a smoke free Wisconsin, what do you suppose is next? It will not stop there....Maybe next thing they want to take away will be something you dont agree with. What will be after that?
Smokers are dumb...and smelly. Having a smoking area in a resteraunt is like having a peeing area in a swimming pool.
There is a lot of anger in the room tonight ... or is that too much nicotine?
I hope all you nonsmoking preachers don't drive cars,take hot showers, heat your homes, or burn wood. If you do you are polluting more and doing more harm than a smoker. Self righteous hypocrites......
warm: Maybe people were rubbing their eyes and they couldn't see well enough to type and coughing too hard to speak.
fishin. I do not force you to inhale my smoke.i smoke in my own home, outside, and the rare occasion i go out to a bar. i do not smoke in your home, or in resturaunts. BUT if i go somewhere where someone is doing something i do not like (bit is perfectly legal) i have enough consideration and comon sense to go elsewhere and not whine about it. maybee i am a dinasour. I don't force my beliefs on other people. i still believe in loyalty, and the sanctity of mariage, and helping my neighbor. i would not have it any other way.
There are solutions to all problems; sometimes it's just difficult to figure out what the best solution would be. I do think I have a solution to the question by a smoker who asked, Where will we go? You can go over to MY2CENTS' garage and hang out, smoke and enjoy some inexpensive beer. It could be a fun time but just stay away from the lawnmower gas can. That is a DEFINITE no smoking area.
Face it, smokestacks, you're no longer popular.
PEDOPHELIA / BEASTIALITY / HOMICIDE / SMOKING IF YOU HOLIER THAN THOW, NOTHING BETTER TO DOTHAN COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERYTHING FOLKS HAVE NOT NOTICED, SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL. ACCORDING TO OUR STATE, LOCAL, AS WELL AS OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CONCERNED, WE SMOKERS STILL HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO. AND AS LONG AS WE PAY SUCH OUTRAGEOUS TAXES, IT WILL STAY LEGAL.
WHY DON'T YOU DO GOODERS GET A TAX ON YOGURTCONTAINERS AND WATER BOTTLES THAT ARE FILLING OUR LANDFILLS. OR MAYBEE ATTACK THOSE IDIOTS THAT INSIST ON USING THEIR CELL PHONES WHEN THEY DRIVE. THE CHANCES OF ONE OF THEM KILLING YOU IS A LOT GREATER THAN ME AND MY LEGALY PURCHASED CIGARETTES.
I don't smoke BUT this is going to harm business'..you don't have to go to these places it's YOUR CHOICE, and you don't have to gamble just like wanting to get the casino in Beloit. DON'T GO THERE it's that simple..but then they don't have anything to complain about I guess..
Of course the gas tax did not pass - they still have the cigarettes to tax - what I said is when the amount of cigarettes purchased goes down the tax revenue for the state will be hurt and they will have to tax something else.
Also, Bellagio you must really hate life to say something so mean, hope cancer either by smoking or not doesn’t touch your life or for that matter anything bad because I would have a hard time feeling for you..
Wow so many haters out there, I am not ignorant because I smoke it is a habit and maybe a bad one. As I have stated in the past it is my choice, business owners should have the right to choose whether to ban it, as for TJ24 butts on the ground then stop spitting on the ground nothing I hate more then dodging goobers. There are many who will agree or disagree but as far as I am concerned just going outside is dangerous to your health so it really doesn’t matter as we will not have the choice to choose a ban or not, it is up to our government and we all know they know best.
disgusted1: Does have a good point about our governments change in democracy to communism,Paul Harvey once stated on his radio talk show back in 1974,That our government was slowly moving towards communistic ethics. And that this was happening at a very small rate,that the public would not realize it. He states that this would be more noticed after a longterm effect when compaired by decades of change. It was also determind that years of teaching our citizens countries of communism such as China & Russia were taboo,that people would not realize this is happening right here under their own noses.
whybesad, is it so hard to understand that people should be able to go to any public place without having to breathe the toxic fumes of tobacco smoke?!
whybesad: Your comment makes no sense. You either need to read the entire string or gain a better understanding of saracasm.
Gonefishing then just don't go to a place that allows smoking and you won't have to worry about second hand smoke. Boy that was hard to figure out. Should we have to pay for your medical bills due to your lack of common sense?
"It's bad enough you have to smoke but because of there stupid idea you now are worse off. They're the ones that caused the illness they should be the one footing the medical bills. Right?" Wrong. You don't 'have" to smoke. You are responsible for your behavior. Thanks for the chuckle though.
+why is it ok to always slam the smokers.....the taxes paid on cigarettes rise over and over again, yet heaven forbid if we raise a tax regarding alcohol.....time to slam the lushes for a change. for those who complain about our smoke......we can and will just go outside, but think of all the people that drive drunk and hurt, maim and kill innocent people......maybe a higher tax on them would curb the excessive drinking....then again, doubt it, this state is the lush capital of the united states
Disgusted: Are you actually saying that California's ban on smoking in public places caused their budget deficit? Are you sure it wasn't the housing market imploding? How about the financial sector colapsing and making credit nearly impossible to obtain?
Good thing all of the smokers in California don't have to go out in sub-zero temperatures to smoke and catch the pneumonia (check your spelling) that is threatening the Wisconsinites. Thank God for California's climate - at least they got something right.
Heck with it smokers just go outside and smoke at 30 below weather. Get phnumonia (because we know smoking weakens your lungs). Get addmited to the hospital for a week or 2. Then send the bills to your congressmen & women as well as the senators and govenor. It's bad enough you have to smoke but because of there stupid idea you now are worse off. They're the ones that caused the illness they should be the one footing the medical bills. Right?
First off the State wants to raise the tax on tobacco products to help reduce the state deficit, then they want to stop smoking in public. You can't have it both ways. First off the economy is so bad that raising the tax is bad enough since a lot of those smokers are unemployed at the time being. That alone may get some to quit smoking. Then what little money they do have, if they wanted to go out and have a cocktail and smoke while having that cocktail it is no longer aloud. Because of the economy bar and tavern businesses are hurting as it is, by stopping the right to smoke in these establishments is only going to make matters worse. So lets make those businesses hurt more and possibly put them out of business. We lose the tax money we got from those businesses, we lose the tax money from the smokers who quit because of the cost as well as not being able to go any where and be able to smoke. We sure will get a lot of tax money that way huh? Smokers as well as non smokers have rights. If businesses (which I have seen) put signs outside of there establishments stating they allow smoking then it is the choice of the non smoker or smoker to enter that establishment. The same goes for people applying and or working in said establishments. Besides they own that business and should have the right to run it as he sees fit (within the law). If those establishments want to run a non smoking establishment they have that right. How many of them do you see? Remember it's there choice. Just like it's our choice to smoke, not to smoke, to enter or not to enter those places.By passing this law of the state wide smoking ban again they are taking rights away from the people. This is happening more and more. We try to help other countries to become democracies while we are getting closer and closer to communism in our own country. Where people are losing right after right. THIS NEEDS TO STOP NOW !!! We all have rights and stop taking the rights away from those to make others rights better. That is not a democracy. For example take a look at California since they eliminated smoking in there state. They are the poorest state in the union with the largest deficit. So hum where did the state wide smoking ban get them? Do we really want to follow in there foot steps? Are we our own state or do we have to continue to play follow the leader? Just for your information I am not a smoker but I do feel strongly about equal rights. I am not seeing any here. This is another form of discrimination as far as I'm concerned. As well as watching more of our rights go away.
I hope that every smoker which i am one and i keep saying that because i want non smokers to know that i am on the otherside of things but i know that my habit that i choose to do is not good and does do harm which is why i don't smoke around other people or inside any building, home, restaurant or anywhere else. I grew up in Wisconsin and now live in Illinois where the non smoking ban is already in place, at first i thought it was crazy but now i think it is really a great thing especially going out to eat with my kids. Also every bar and restaurant here has little areas setup for people to smoke in outside and they can take their drinks out with and it seems from what i have seen people don't seem to mind, the bars are still packed the restaurants are still packed, so i think some of the worries are for nothing and some i understand
Daleb, lets get a bunch of smokers on a roof with you, then see if you jump rather than smell a little smoke, think about it.911 come on.
You know when i eat i ingest the food into my body, when i drink i ingest the fluid into my body! What don't you smokers get about this? How would you like me as i eat and drink to spit up the contents of my intake into your mouth like a bird feeding their young and force you to eat it. When i saw the attack of the Twin Towers on 9/11 i saw people leaping to their deaths to escape the Smoke, heat and flames...Think about it, and i mean really think about it!
Yes I am a smoker - I don't even smoke in my house...but I do believe a business has the right to choose. I just wonder how all of you would feel if so many stopped smoking that the tax revenue would have to go somewere...how about $2.00 per gallon tax on gas or milk. Or why don't we just raise taxes for those that don't smoke.
If cigarette smoke only affected and went to the one smoking, fine, let them use it, but when I am invited in and their smoke makes it's way over to me, endangering my life, that is when it bothers me.
I shouldn't have to put myself in the way of getting lung cancer, emphesyma, or any other number of diseases just because someone else feels the need to keep up a habit.
If they want to die, stay home and puff your butt, drink your six pack or mixed drink then if you must, but dont bring it to the bar and do it under my face or close enough that it finds it's way to me or those of us who are allergic to it or just don't wish to die from second hand smoke.
We cherish our lives, our lungs, our fresh air, even if you don't. We've lived our lives without this smoke filled haze we find at times from one person lighting up and putting out then lighting up again one after another.
Sorry, but sometimes life is tough, there are ways to get help and stop this addiction, and yes it's hard, but it can be done, you just need to have the will.
My father and mother both smoked for since they were teens until their mid-forties, many many years and they quit, I've seen them go through it. You just have to be very strong. So why not at least try before you endanger your lives.
Smoke free is the only way to go, breathe free, clean air, the ability to talk without having to gasp for air, good smelling breath, non-ashtray tasting kisses..think about it. Everyone benefits.
Tavern owers should not worry about a smoking ban ruining their bussiness;if they read the Gaxette,we have a problem with drunk drivers. I think there are enough drunks to fill all the bars.An increase of alcohol tax will solve the problem;too expensive to drink.people willstay home.good way to curb druk driving.
Toooooo much goverment guys. Next they will tell you what to buy when to buy it what to eat when to eat it, its just not the goverments place to tell us what to do that are involving our cilil liberties, Yes I WAS a smoker, NO i do not smoke currently, but it is my god given right too choose if i want to go to a establishment or not. I take offence that the goverment can tell me what i can do there or not. If the establishment allows smoking then so be it. If they are smoke free then I have more choices for me and my family. We are loosing our freedom in this country, that sucks.
Jin, Fact: You sound like Dwight Schrute.
Occasionally, I do have to go while in a public setting...but I don't use a urinal...They generally don't have those in ladie's rooms. I avoid places that have a high content of fumes. I wasn't always this sensitive to chemicals. There was a chemical spill where I worked, that did it. I try to stay away from the stuff that sends me to the ER for oxygen and breathing treatments. So, I don't go to restaurants, bars, etc. I can't attend churches, large meetings where people decide to bathe in perfumes (a shower does wonders for the body odors...). Generally speaking, if you're there in perfume, I can't be. I have similar reactions to smoke, but not as bad. Go figure.
Fact: I don't use chemicals to clean. I use all natural for cleaning and laundry. Fact: I've stated that I don't go to restaurants anymore due to the chemicals there (perfumes and other fumes). Fact: I don't use urinals...Fact: I have stated that I don't have a problem with smoking bans.
I do feel that if you're going to let the government decide where people can pollute the air with smoke, you should also be concerned with the other toxins that so many of the nonsmokers (as well as smokers) subject the public to. I've heard so many people complain of the smoke, yet they reek of some "perfume." (I don't smell the perfume, just the chemicals)If you're on the band wagon to rid the world of one, why not the other?
I am a smoker, I'll say that right off the bat. But I do believe that whoever owns/runs the business should have the right to make that decision. If a bar I go to all the time decides to go non-smoking, then it is my choice to continue to either go there or go elsewhere. And it should be the right of the owner to make this decision as well.
All the complaints about fumes from other things supports the whole point of smoking bans.
Please don't throw your cigarette butts in the urinal, they get soggy and are hard to light!
my2cents:Yes; that is the whole idea. After the excessive regulations kill the business, the government can then move into to nationalize the restaurants. I mean your soon going to have nationalized banks so lending will be "fair". Then next will be a nationalized auto industry where the government will decide the best vehicle they deem for you to be driving. Once they nationalize the restaurants they can serve food they deem healthy for you, and even have the great concept of you paying for your meal by your "means". So the doctor or attorney who comes in will be charged $100 for that steak dinner, while the destitute off the street can eat for free, because that is what is right, and fair.
If perfume is that bad, and I believe it is, then most certainly smoking should be banned in bars.
The National Academy of Sciences reports that 95% of the chemicals used in fragrances today are synthetic compounds derived from petroleum, including known toxins capable of causing cancer, birth defects, central nervous system disorders and allergic reactions
http://www.ourlittleplace.com/chemicals....Under EU legislation there are few restrictions and even fewer outright bans on the quantities or combinations of fragrance chemicals that may be used in cosmetics. A typical perfume contains a mixture of fragrance chemicals (often between 50 and 100) mostly derived from petroleum. These include benzene derivatives, aldehydes and many other known toxins capable of causing cancer, birth defects, central nervous system (CNS) disorders and allergic and asthmatic reactions. These substances can get into the body by inhalation or by being absorbed through the skin. When fragrance chemicals penetrate the skin they can be toxic to the liver and kidneys.
Still others accumulate in fatty tissue and leach slowly back into the system or are passed on to children via breast milk. Inhaled, they can cause sore throat, runny nose, sinus congestion, wheezing, shortness of breath, nausea, headache, dizziness, lethargy, mood swings and muscle pain. Perfume chemicals not only affect users but also those around them, and there are now urgent calls for second-hand scent to be considered in much the same light as we consider second-hand smoke.
Maybe I don't want to inhale any of them...
The concern of you people who are against the smoking ban is duly noted. Now go buy the patch.
If I know people are smoking in a certain bar, I won't go there. I DO NOT NEED GOVERNOR DOYLE AND HIS CRONIES TELLING ME HOW TO MAKE MY CHOICES! I also do not smoke, the smell is disgusting, but BUSINESSES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE. If you work at a bar and don't like it, quit. If you go to a bar and people are smoking, leave.
I would no more support a ban on smoking in such places than would I support a requirement that people actually must smoke in them. Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating personal habits or preferences. BTW, I'm a non-smoker.
i am a smoker and my thought is if you want to smoke go outside. i do not smoke inside anywhere and i do not try to force my habit down anyones throats. for us smokers it is our choice to smoke and the rest of you could have a little more respect and step away from the non smokers
I support the smoking ban 100%. Smokers can live without smoking, but I have asthma and can't live without oxygen. Yes, I know that I could just avoid those places, which a do the majority of the time, but is that fair? Smokers can still go no matter what, I can't if smoking is allowed. Perfumes were mentioned as causing cancer too??? Please, perfumes, which granted can be obnoxious, do not have cyanide and carbon monoxide as a by product. And to the other comment that smoking and drinking go hand in hand... That's funny, I have drank alcohol and not felt the need or pressure to smoke. Smoking is a habit and an addiction. It is bad for your lungs AND your heart, and there is help to quit! Many of my cardiac patient's hearts were damaged by smoking. Smoking is a choice not a necessity of life.
MY2CENTS...., we're going to miss you. Your absence, though, will be more than made up by the non-smokers who are staying home now.
No smoking in bars means I will not go out anymore. Not for a few after work not during the games on Sunday. I understand why people want it banned and I respect their reasons but as a smoker I know that smoking and drinking go hand n hand. If the state/city wants to take from bar owners pockets then so be it. I can get a case of beer for around 15.00 dollars that will last me alot longer then ah night of drinking. Its cheaper anyway. We pay 2.50 a beer times that by 24, you do the math. My garage will be my new hang out.
No, the opposite. Like I said, I don't have a problem with a smoking ban. I just want to know why there is no ban of the rest of the chemicals...If they all cause cancer and other health issues, shouldn't they all be banned in public places? I don't go to bars. I would like to go to restaurants, but have quit due to the perfumes. People would ask a smoker to put it out ( I would always try to be polite about it and most were polite about putting it out), but you can't escape the perfumes. I just feel that if it's a health issue, it should be broadened to include the other cancer causing chemicals.
Jin....., what is your reasoning? That just because there is no movement to ban perfume there should be no effort to ban tobacco smoke in bars?
I don't have a problem with places being non smoking. The part about perfumes (or any chemical based scent) is that those chemicals have been proven to cause cancer. I'm tired of hearing someone inside a business complain that they had to walk through a cloud of smoke to get in, but they are polluting the interior with just as dangerous chemicals. If the health issues are WHY smoking is to be banned, then it should cover all second hand chemicals that cause cancer or other serious health issues.
in_my_opinion,Yes, the property owner has the right to decide if their business is smoking or non-smoking...right now. The purpose of the ban is to take that decision out of the business owners hands, to the benefit of their employees and patrons. There is no slippery slope. Smoking will not be banned in private vehicles or homes.
inmy....., we can only hope. A bar is privately owned but the public has access to it. The word pub comes from the term "public house."
Zoom-A bar is private property in the sense that the bar owner has paid for the property. I am not suggesting that it would be illegal. I am saying that the property owner has the right to say weather or not it's a smoking faciltiy. It always starts with bars and restaurants. Then it's all public places which includes your vehicle if parked in the lot. You know that the ban will move on to your homes.
Why not just nationalize every bar and restaurant? I mean that is the direction we are heading. Then the government can ban smoking, only serve food they deem healthy, have surveillance cameras at every table, ext...Don't worry all that will soon be coming.
in_my_opinion,A bar is not private property in the way you seem to think it is. What kind of delusional world are you living in? Are you somehow suggesting that a ban on smoking in bars is not legal? I understand that you don't like it, but have you not heard about the smoking bans in Minnesota, Illinois, and many other states? I was never on the debate team either, btw.
Silly logic of the day: Perfume gives me a migraine, and it's not banned, so I'm going to stomp my feet and make sure toxic smoke, proven to cause cancer, doesn't get banned in public places either! I'll teach them!
I'm sure once we prove the smell of coffee, laundry soap or perfume causes canceer, we'll ban those things in public places too. Until then, have some perspective people. The article above is about smoking, not whatever straw man argument you can think up.
I believe it would scan i then set a precedent I am a non-smoker by the way. But if the smell of coffee brewing makes me sick? Can i ask that coffee not be served?, or anything other item hold about walking down the detergent/cleaning supply asile of any store. that alone is enough to make people sick.
Perfume today is not made from flowers but from toxic chemicals. It's about as romantic as hazardous waste.
More than 4,000 chemicals are used in fragrances. Of these, 95% are made from petroleum.
No agency regulates the fragrance industry, yet perfume chemicals are as damaging to health as tobacco smoke.
Why do smokers have to go outside when this stuff is allowed everywhere? I've walked out of so many businesses because of the perfumes of people near and far. I get beyond a migraine, I end up at the ER for oxygen and breathing treatments...If it's the chemicals in second hand smoke that's getting it banned, then the second hand scents should alsom be outlawed!
Both these bars closed because nearby areas didn't have smoking bans. Therefore it was the lack of smoking bans that caused the problem.
With a statewide band, those bars can reopen.
What's with all this perfume bashing???!!!
And don't burn your leaves either.
What I dont like is being pregnant and wanting to go out to eat and having to be in a place where people are allowed to smoke.
I do try to pick places to eat that don't allow smoking.. however I really like to have breakfast at Denny's and I HATE the smoke that I can smell -- across the restaurant. Just them coming in and out of the smoking section is enough.
It isn't just horrible smelling but it also is a risk to my unborn child. I don't like the thought of that too much. Should I have to give up going there because some people want to smoke?
I don't want to, but really.. if you want to have a smoke can't you go outside? My husband is a smoker which drives me nuts as it is, but he still smokes outside the home and away from me. He says it wont kill him.
Another truth, smoke is on your clothes and if people can smell it they are still inhaling the fumes from your cigarettes which still is a health hazard. (I was told this by my physician.)
That's fine, have your right to smoke but respect my right to breathe cleaner air please. That's all I would ask.
Leostime36"smokers are brain dead""smokers are so ignorant...""nasty idiots"I take it you were never on the debate team???As a smoker, I choose to frequent establishments that let me smoke. I don't go to those that don't allow it. That's my choice. It doesn't matter to me if I can smoke at my place of employment or not. That is a choice made by the business owner. He has that right. I personally think that every business owner (not the government) has the right to allow or ban smoking. It's private property. As for a complete ban on public smoking...I'm okay with that. A bar is private property. A restaurant is private property. If there is a ban on public smoking because it makes people sick, I want it to include ALL toxic things. When I'm in the mall and I walk past a store with a large perfume display, I get an instant migraine. So I have to make sure I plot my path accordinly. When some man or women walks by me in the store and they have taken a shower in their cologne, yep-instant migraine. And while I'm at it, driving down Milton Ave, by Blackridge Rd. makes my stomach turn-so I want the landfill moved. I can't stand the smell of nail polish and remover so I want to close all the nail salons....I also don't drink, so I want drinking banned because everytime someone has one, they are endangering my life. In case you've missed my point, you can choose where you go and where you don't. Quit ur whining. And now smarty pants, you can resume calling me names to prove your point.
If all you are doing is trying to raise money, why don't you increase taxes on boose? Maybe you can get some of these drunk drivers off the road! Won't the end result be quicker by getting rid DUI than second hand smoke? Sorry, I forgot how happy drunks there are out there!
Bars are public places. The word pub comes from the term "public house." Bars are required to comply with government imposed health codes. Bars are required to have a ventilation system for air quality. Banning smoking will be an improvement on that requirement. Bars are licensed by the people by way of the government. Even if there are pollutants in the air, that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop one more that is so easily preventable.
While the government is making all these laws about what's best for all of us, let's get all the stuff out of the air! No perfumes inside anyplace there is no smoking (check the toxins in those-takes my breath away!). No air "fresheners," similar toxins. No body odor. No beer stench. If you've used scented products (fabric softener, laundry soap, hair or body products), you cannot be where others may breath your chemical soup. OH! Don't forget no "chew" spit anywhere any living thing is.
I say let them smoke! there is no way we will over come paying for the 2.6 billion in health costs. Now the tabbaco tax helps pay for the cost of helth care, when we ban smoking and make no mistake about that it is comming; we the tax payer will have to make up the lost revenu.
If smoking is bad enough to ban in workplaces or restaurants, why should bars and halls be exempt? The few smokers not willing to smoke outside should not dictate what level of toxic air people should have to breath in a public space or workplace. The few smokers that don't want to smoke outside can "unwind" in their own home.
History, your information is outdated. New drug treatments to prolong and improve the life of lung cancer patients are coming out nearly daily. Unless you can actually cite a source that shows that lung cancer actually provides a cheap way to die - maybe you shouldn't comment. Why would you even attempt to make this argument? You clearly do not know the first thing about lung cancer.
Bars are workplaces too.
i as a smoker agree that smoking should not be allowed in restaurants, work places unless its outside in a desinated area. however, when it comes to bars and use of banquet halls smoking should be allowed. people pay a fortune to rent some these places then they say no smoking. most people dont want to rent them, there goes loss of business.a lady once put in these comments that she would like a smoking ban in bars so it could be more like a family atmosphere. children do not belong in bars, and bars are not family places. people go there to unwind after work or a long day. not to listen to someones screaming kids.smoking is always going to be an issue,an in our society people who are forced to do something are always going retaliate, it doesnt matter if cigarettes are 8 dollars a pack, people are still going to buy them.
"Lynda if you think taxes are going to stop people from smoking it's not going to happen. They keep raising the taxes & people still smoke. It's an addiction. More people will roll their own to cut the cost." Increased taxes on tobacco have already shown to reduce smoking (which reduces health care costs), while increasing tax revenue. The rate of smoking is declining. Less than 20% of the popluation in Wisconsin smokes. It's time to remove smoke from places where people have to work.
another....., if the purpose of the tax and the ban is to get people to smoke less or not at all (and I believe it is) then we'll all be better off -even if the tax revenue has to be extracted another way.
History 101 is correct. While cancer treatment can be expensive, smokers do not usually live into their 80's and 90's. Therefore they do not consume as many Medicare and Social Security dollars as non-smokers. Additionaly, the years that most smokers lose as a result of their habit, are the end of life years featuring declining mental awareness and managed care facilities.
The sad truth is that the human body was not designed to live much past the seventh decade. Despite all the excercise and healthy eating, almost all people that live to a very advanced age will suffer one kind of infermity or another.
Almost makes you want to take up the habit.
Since the Governor has already proposed a draconian increase in the cigarette tax, we need smokers to fund our budget shortfall. If he continues to reduce the number of places they can smoke, it only follows they will smoke less, purchase fewer cigarettes and pay less taxes.
Make up your mind Jim. Either outlaw them or let the people buy them and fund your wasteful spending.
Scott Walker in 2010...it can't come soon enough!
Smoke is nasty-even smokers say it is...Not rocket science.....workers shouldn't have to work in smoke. If people want to smoke they can go outside. Even people that smoke say they know it's nasty and don't want to inflict it on non smokers. Government or not...people that need jobs shouldn't have to work in smoke filled atmospheres. But, there is no reasoning with smokers, they are brain dead. This is where the government does need to step in. Unfortunately, smokers are so ignorant that there is no reasoning with them.......common sense doesn't come in to the equation. They don't get it. If they all sat in a little room with no ventilation and smoked to their hearts content....that would be great, but they want to be able to inflict it on everyone. Nasty idiots. They don't get that we aren't going to put up with it.
I am not a smoker, but I'm sick of the Government telling us what we can do. Let the business owners decide. Lynda if you think taxes are going to stop people from smoking it's not going to happen. They keep raising the taxes & people still smoke. It's an addiction. More people will roll their own to cut the cost.
Once lung cancer is found, it's usually too late. There isn't much that can be done. As the article says, lung cancer is usually found too late for lenghty expensive treatment. I'm only talking about cancer, not all the assiociated extensive/expensive problems smoking causes.
t3268, I'm with ya on that one...
Here's an excerpt from http://www.njquit2win.com/QuitHome/BeSmo... "According to the CDC estimates for 2002, $2.48 billion is spent annually in New Jersey alone for the direct medical costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses, including outpatient care, hospital care, prescription and nonprescription drugs, home health care, and other products related to health care."Do you suppose these prices from 7 years ago went up or down?
History101 - have you lost your mind? Lung cancer does not lower the overall cost of care. Do you have any idea how much one single treatment of chemo costs? Smoking leads to COPD as well as a host of other problems that increases the health care burden. Maybe you know someone who went quickly, but overall smoking is an expensive health care concern.
IF YOU DONT WANT TO SMELL SMOKE DONT GO INTO THE BAR OR RESTURANT. HAVE THE BARS POST IF THEY ARE SMOKING OR SMOKE FREE. LET THE PATRON DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT NOT THE GOVERNMENT
The sad truth is that smoking and lung cancer reduce the cost of health care. When death comes earlier in life and within months, the health care burden is smaller. I know - I lost my brother at 59 years old to smoking.
When the federal tax get raised on cigarettes, it will only be a short time when people will want to put their money to better use. Too bad it might take that to inspire smokers to stop the madness.
As long as the activity is legal it should be the right of the business owner to decide. We can have both in our society. People can choose where to go and spend their money.
i think it should be the choice of the owner.. either way they might lose business. it's a persons right to choose where they go and don't go...if you don't like the smoke stay out of that bar.. as for Resturants yes i think smoking should be banned . Yes i am a smoker and i have to admit i don't like it when i am eating.
A very good friend of mine died a year ago of lung cancer and she never smoked a day in her life. Second hand smoke is not the same as selling fatty foods or alcohol. One can choose not to consume, one cannot choose not to breathe.
I used to smoke and still enjoy a smoke from time to time and I personally am on the fence with this subject. On one hand if a person wants to smoke, then they have the right too. But on the other hand, if you dont smoke you have the right to not breath/smell smoke. Coming home not smelling nasty from smoke isnt all bad either. This is a subject that will always be debated to the fullest. Being an ex smoker, I see both sides to the story. Whatever the out come is, it is going to make someone mad. So there is no reason to site here and complain at each other.
Mikki, That's a comment only a smoker would make and a situation they could not fully grasp. Cigarette smoke STINKS! Badly.
If I had the choice I would never EVER smell it again. And for the most part, most (not all!) smokers are really insensitive to other people. I'd say smoke in your own car, but there is likely children that have no choice either in there too. Which is really sad...
And while I'm on the smoking soap box, could you look around. Why do smokers think I want to see nasty gross butts all over the freaking ground everywhere, even on playgrounds. Have some respect would ya?
So yeah I'm a big HELL YES vote!
I'm not a smoker, so duh - I'm going to say yes. But this is not really a choice anymore - it comes down to public health. Even if smoking is still legal, it's dangerous. No two ways about it.
"100 years from now, ain't none of this gonna make a bit of difference." -Anonymous-
Okay, then let's tell the business owner they can't sell alcohol, because we know what health problems that causes. And while we're at it, fatty food, because that causes all sorts of health problems, too.It's THEIR property. If they want to have a separate area for smoking, why not?Oh, the non-smokers want their rights...that's funny.What's real funny is when you see a smoker OUTSIDE smoking, and a non-smoker walk up, the do the "fake cough" thing. Like it's even bothering them.Give it a rest.People, you ALL will die someday.
The smokers say "if you don't want to be around smoke stay home, well the same goes for the smokers who don't give a rip about anyone else but themselves! If they think about it they not only are smoking their own cigarettes but also everyone elses, DUH! I am all for the smoking ban. I know quite a few smokers who are also for the smoking ban. WAKE UP WISCONSIN AND GET IT DONE!!!!
A business owner doesn't have the right to put lives at risk by exposing them to second-hand smoke. Jobs are scarce - people shouldn't have to choose between making ends meet and their health.
I believe a business owner should have the right to have a smoking section on their own property if they so choose.
Oh yes...for sure
Commenting requires registration.
Username: Password: (Forgotten your password?)
» More most emailed stories
» More popular discussions
Staff Directory |
Contact Us |
Legal Notices |
Subscriber Services |
Site Help |
Site Map |
Latest News |
Public Record |
Special Sections |
Political Cartoons |
Photo Galleries |
Slide Shows |
Blog List |
Latest Blog Entries
Customer Care |
Newspaper In Education |
Reader Rewards |