People who didn't smoke never were forced to go to bars that allowed smoking, they could go to bars that DIDN'T. For smokers, that choice was taken away. There is no choice for them.
 
Again, I've explained the reasons for the lack of opposition. You've just chosen to ignore it.

Now there is a movement to push them farther from these businesses, instituting a buffer between the buildings and where the smokers may light up. Some businesses and workplaces have even instituted policies that forbid smokers from lighting up in their own cars if those cars are on the property.
 
It's not that you don't see it, it's that you refuse to. You got your way and the opinions of others just simply don't matter.

I was referring to the smoking ban that included bars. The ban is working out fine, proving it was the right way to go. People who don't smoke and want to patronize bars have a right to go to bars without breathing the smoke of others.

People who smoke can still go to those bars. Only now they have to smoke outside. It all seems reasonable. There's no groundswell against it.

If your intention was to ban smoking, I suppose it would be. Although I thought everyone thought I was the crazy one for thinking this would lead to an outright ban eventually. Hmm? It appears I was right from the beginning. As usual.

If you're referring to the public smoking ban, then that's exactly what I'm talking about. If there is truly a groundswell of opposition to public smoking, then the businesses that don't allow smoking would be the ones frequented and those that allowed it would stand forlorn and empty and eventually close due to lack of business and employees willing to work.

So, your saying that whether we have a smoking ban should be determined by how many people by cigarettes?

It seems I didn't make myself clear. People vote all the time with their money - take a look at area BP stations. Right or wrong, populism is strong using the dollar as voting ticket.

Stuff like this should never have been decided by elected officials. Therefore, something like this doesn't need to be solved with elections.

On the different subject of elections however, the freedom to vote is also a freedom NOT to vote, for whatever reason. Politicians from both sides of the aisle mandate "morality" far too often, leaving voters with little choice between the two evils. Now, if they spent a little more time on budgets and taxes, things might be a little better. They could hardly be worse.

What adjustment to the electoral or democratic process should be made to accommodate that demographic?

What adjustment to the electoral or democratic process should made to accommodate that demographic?

Well, first of all, since no one seems to notice it, I'd say that putting "This is not a scientific poll" on the bottom of these newspaper website things isn't enough. Perhaps they should use flashing text or giant letters. Before improvements can be made, deficiencies must be acknowledged.
 
Then, perhaps, we could all get off our elitist high-horses and live our own lives instead of telling people how to live theirs. We don't need to impose our beliefs on anyone - we need simply to promote and advocate those businesses and groups which we happen to agree with. Don't like naked beaches? Go to ones that require clothing. Don't like fast food places that serve unhealthy food? Go to restaurants with more healthy choices. Don't like smoking in bars? Go to bars that don't allow it.
 
If there truly is enough a majority, then those that refuse to accomodate will be forced out of business. No one is forcing anyone to go to these places.

And what adjustment to the process should made to accommodate that demographic?

I figured that since I was winning by so much, I would stoop to your level to give you a better chance.
 
Statistics show that smokers tend to be poorer, and have less schooling. Conveniently, poorer people with less schooling also typically vote less than others. That's why raising the drinking age from 18-21 was so easy - the people most likely to be affected were also those least likely to vote at all.
 
Before you say it, that's not the ONLY reason why the drinking age got raised - as a group people 18-21 simply aren't a large enough group to make up for those 22 and above. The easiest way to victory is to make sure the other side has no chance to defend themselves.

Nice comeback. But seriously, can you expand on the meaning of your statement?:

"The majority of smokers are those typically disenfranchised from the political system."

Your claims about smoking are untrue. But I appreciate you accepting the fact that you alienate people who don't do the same things you do.

Your claims about the Iraq war and Bush are untrue.

And I appreciate the fact that you point out that people who puff on cancer sticks are alienated.

It's funny how that turns out, isn't it? Everyone was against the Iraq war, but the groundswell never really happened. Everyone was against the Bush election win in 2000, but where was the groundswell then? The majority of smokers are those typically disenfranchised from the political system. Their silence has less to do with their numbers and more to do with the political elite running things.

Law makers accurately reflected the wishes of their constituencies. If this weren't the case and because smoking is an issue so close to everyday life, there would have been a groundswell of opposition to the ban.

No, the statewide smoking ban is indication that a majority of state lawmakers voted for it. There's a difference.

The statewide smoking ban is evidence that the great majority of people are in favor of it.

Do you want smoking and tobacco banned altogether?

I haven't conducted one either. I'm just saying it's premature to base your opinions on a poll that states outright that it isn't scientifically accurate. Still, if smokers were so statistically insignificant, why not ban the sale of cigarettes outright? I mean, it's not like so few people would have enough money to either tax or lobby...

What would be the results of a truly scientific poll?

Great Majority? This isn't a scientific poll here, and the fact that it says it explicitly should be a dead giveaway. The problem with single issues is that the loudest voices carry the most weight. There hasn't been a real scientific poll done statewide on the issue that I'm aware of.

Everything else is biased, one way or another, I'm afraid.

The only time I direct my comments at you are when you cut on me for things I post. What goes around, comes around. Let's pretend this is AA, yes I smoke, yes I take prescribed drugs, but I am still me.

scooter..., your "harassment" comment diminishes the seriousness of the problem of harassment in the real world. That obvious fact explains my "reality" comment.

Don't direct comments at me if you don't want me to direct comments at you.

scooter..., your "harassment" comment diminishes the the problem of harassment in the real world. That obvious fact explains my "reality" comment.

Don't direct comments at me if you don't want me to direct comments at you.

Who said this was "as real" as my real life? When I post I am posting my opinion and adding to the discussion. Do you think your posts solely about me, entertains everyone? Will you please get over it, gazettefan. Again you are being harassing. I aired my dirty laundry but don't need it thrown in my face everytime I wish to type my opinion on an article. Do you do this to others that posted on the article about the pain management article? If you are so interested in my life and the way I live it, you can write a book, I will give you all the info you need. Again, please stop harassing me, I would appreciate it.

This shouldn't be as real to you as your life offline. And given the effects of five powerful drugs topped with heavy doses of nicotine and other addictive drugs tobacco companies put in cigarettes, the line between fantasy and reality might be blurred.

I don't know about anyone else, but to me gazettefan, this is real. I post my opinions and do not live in a fantasy world. Have a good weekend everyone!

The great majority of people want the smoking-bans. That's democracy.

There is nothing wrong with allowing bar and restaurant employees to work in a smoke-free environment. Bar patrons who also smoke have always had the right to leave the bar to step outside for a smoke, and they still have it.
.
As a thought experiment, which of the following two bar customer's rights should be protected -- the person who wants to drink and blow a loud whistle, or the person who prefers to drink and listen to the jukebox?

Heh, everyone was like "Oh Mentor397, you're crazy, they'd never restrict rights like that!", and look what's happening sincem right here on the list. It's not just the taverns now, it's fifteen feet from. Some want smoking banned from hundreds of feet outside the building all the way to your own cars in their parking lots. Some want smoking banned from apartment buildings and condos because the smell expands. On a wholly different note, Las Vegas is even considering a ban on Hula Hoops. And you still think I'm the one wearing the foil hat? One by one every socially unacceptable thing will be banned, a little at a time, until we are all doing the same thing, all the time - for our own good. What a brave new world it will be.

scooter..., you do realize this isn't real, don't you?

First off, my blood pressure runs low, second, leave me alone, gazettefan. You are bordering on harassment.

scooter....., how's your blood pressure?

Scooter"What if people had to get out of the bar, restuarant, etc., in a hurry?"

They'll be there first and right away to hold the door open ! )

MrData, you are correct that smokers are now blocking entrances and exits. As you know, I am a smoker, but I am not rude. Even when in the casino, I ask the person next to me if they mind if I smoke, if they do, then I don't light up. Went by Jumbo's yesterday and they smoke out the side door only a couple feet from the sidewalk, that was kind of goofy looking if you ask me. What if people had to get out of the bar, restuarant, etc., in a hurry? This could prove to be a problem. If I worked right now or even went to bars, I think I could wait or go to my car to smoke.

tarbender--actually I would bet that the majority of voters do frequent bars. I have 20 or so friends at work that hit the bar scene on a regular basis and out of that group only 1 is a smoker. Everyone was thrilled that the Wisconsin legislators finally came to their sense and banned this disgusting habit from public places.....

OkieFed--I believe the law is 15 feet away from the entrance of a public place. I would appreciate it if the smokers would respect that because the distance would keep the smell out of the building.

Wrong. And I already got one.

Typical response from a tea partier. Get a life.

OkiFed, don't worry, the sky will fall before smoking is banned at home.

What about those of us who live in duplexes or apartments? Should we have to be poisoned by your stinky and selfish habits? Smoking should be banned within 100 feet of any residence or public area.

i am a bartender and i will guarentee most of the 1000 people that voted still love it never step foot in a bar! i bet if you went through bars and polled people the results would not look like that!!!!!!!!!!

jeans- I have asked before how many ARE actually allowed to smoke in their own home!!
Maybe this is why they are having such a fit about the no bar smoking now. A lot of people don't smoke in their own homes because Of........The STENCH. So why do you think we want this stench when we go out??

I just saw a lady yesterday at Mercy East sitting on the bench NEXT TO THE SMOKE FREE CAMPUS sign on the door SMOKING. DUH. Maybe you could afford reading classes if you quit. At least she wasn't pregnant! Funny thing was the bench was right next to the sign. A TRASH can was sitting next to the bench. GET A CLUE. Did you SEE an ashtray in the top of the can? N O !

To all of you people who complain about your "rights" being taken away: No one said you couldn't smoke in your own house!

I'll be "home" in October and now I can go out to the bars without having to take a shower when I get back to my room. I love it.

And why don't the pro-smokers here direct their hostility toward the tobacco companies who lace their products with addictive and dangerous chemicals.

Smokers' rights to just enjoy tobacco was infringed upon when the tobacco companies decided to poison and therefore addict its customers even more.

I wonder how good we have made this?

As I go past office after office, or business after business, and see their workers or patrons standing outside the front door puffing their brains out, it reminds me of the olden days when I was in high school and the 'punks', as we called them, stood across the street from the high school grounds in their leather jackets smoking!

When I walk into one of these places of business now where employees or patrons smoke in front near the door, I now have to walk through a hazy cloud of second hand smoke that wss never there before. The stench almost repells me back to my car. While I enjoy smoke free restaurants and bars, I don't think this approach (smoking outside at the front door) is an improvement, at least from my perspective it's not.

Worse yet, and at a recent open air art show my wife & I were accosted by the dirty thick smelly smoke from two nasty cigar smokers walking around blowing smoke in everyone's face. When one older man at the show asked them to go smoke somewhere else, they told the old man they were already stopped from smoking in their favorite taverns and they are not going to let him, or anyone else, stop them from smoking in public. They then blew a big intentional puff in his face and laughed as they walked away. So it's obvious the smokers are now ticked off and in a hostile mood ...

Those in office blow smoke in your face all the time , No law again'st that yet.

OkieFed, that's not a poem although it is sometimes referred to as one. It is a statement made by Martin Niemöller. He was sent to the Dachau concentration camp because Hitler didn't like him. At first Martin supported Hitler. Then after Hilter wanted party supremacy over religion Martin broke from Hitler. He actually survived the camp and was liberated by the Allies in 1945. It's a pretty amazing story. I did a report on it once.

Here is my point about why the smoking ban was/is LONG overdue...
.
In any other industry...any other job...a person working with the toxic and deadly fumes produced from smoking (inhaling 2nd hand smoke) would be required or at a minimum provided the opportunity to wear a gas-mask.
.
My thought is this...provide the employees and customers the same level of safety (gas-mask) as they would get if they were working with similar fumes caused by 2nd hand smoke in an industrial situation and then you can remove the ban.
.
Let's see a restaraunt with the cooks, waiters, etc... wearing gas masks and handing them to customers as they enter succeed.
.
No government restrictions EXCEPT the ones that have been in-place for years but have been allowed to be ignored by the restaraunt industry.

916 - Here's what you fail to understand. You ALWAYS had a choice to go somewhere that didn't allow smoking. Even before the ban, they existed. Now smokers have NO WHERE to go where they can smoke. They lost a right and you gained the ability to impose your lifestyle choice on them. You're living in a fantasy world if you don't think it will happen again.

Before you get all high and mighty again, look at the disclaimer. The poll states it is unscientific. Besides, an overwhelming majority of voters supported prohibition too and look how popular THAT was.

Mentor--but the tinfoil hat comment is definitely the most fitting:) This is what you are unable to wrap your head around--"We" didn't lose a freedom--"we" gained one. An overwhelming majority of the people wanted legislation that prohibited second hand smoke from infesting public places--the our state representatives then enacted it. Look at the poll results on this website if you don't believe me. So your definition of "sheep" are people who demand that the government take action and then are happy when they do? As I said--the hat is cutting off circulation:)

Most everyone here is complaining about the ban and how the "government" is taking away their rights. Well, do something about it and vote for the politicians that will not take away your rights! This ban was put in place by the liberal politicos you voted for so SHUT UP!

916WI - That's twice with the tinfoil hat. Can't think of any new insults? Look me up in thirty years and I'll show you that drinking has been restricted as well. There are new laws and ordinances limiting new taverns all the time. That's the first step. There are proposals to raise the legal drinking age as well, that might just be the second step. MADD is already pushing for it.

Who would have thought thirty years ago that smoking in public would be prohibited? Who says they need to wait thirty years anyway? How many more freedoms are you willing to lose in order to protect the public health, or are you willing to let those who know better choose for you? Who cares if a few books get banned, songs get tossed, words get buried, choices get lost as long as it's just a little bit at a time? After all, it's for the greater good!

If it's what it takes, I'll keep the foil hat. I'd rather be considered odd than looked upon as a sheep.

Mentor.......Huh? The tinfoil hat is on wayyyyy too tight!:) There are already laws on the books that deal directly with DUI and state legislators flat out refuse to make them any tougher than they already are. Now you're eluding to the idea that this smoking ban is a lead in to legislation which will result in shutting down all bars and put an end to public drinking? Seriously? You seem to consistently make the correlation between a smoking ban and a drinking ban. Other states have granted their residents the right to clean air in public places, this right was granted over a decade ago in some cases. How many of those states have even considered a public drinking ban? Give me one or two examples please. Or are you saying they are going to ease us into it by holding off another 30 or 40 years to reduce the shock on us by taking away another "right"?

916WI - and you've never had the opportunity to see that this right you speak of is only temporary, until they ban public drinking to reduce DUIs or ban public eating because home cooked meals are healthier. I mean, the public smoking ban was done for the public good, was it not? Why not a public drinking ban? What is the difference between the two? People run over by drunks on the road are just as dead as those who die of cancer.

Gazette - you're the one who mentioned thinking first. I'm sorry if it offends you to use your words against you. What you said merely proved my point.

Mentor--You're completely losing sight of the fact that it is all a matter of perspective. You can ramble on about mating animals, the big, bad government banning an old car or whatever other crazy idea floats your boat, but to the vast majority of us this law has GRANTED us a right--the right to freely walk into any public place and not have to deal with the disgusting second hand smoke--not taken a right away from us. The government acted exactly as it was designed to when it enacted law that the vast majority of people supported. If it didn't do exactly what it did and went against the will of the people, only then you could cry about the fact that it was depriving us of our rights.

Since the smoking ban, I do now patronize one of our local bars as they have the greatest food around. Sure is nice to be able to enjoy my food without someone blowing smoke in my face!! Also from what I can tell, Knutes hasn't suffered any from lost customers. He's busy as usual or busier.

OK, mentor...., you've portrayed yourself as smarter than the masses. Does feeling smarter than the masses give you pause for thought in the matter of your grip on reality?

Seriously.

jeansbooks - what about the right to LIVE? I'm not talking about life - a beating heart. I'm talking about doing things you enjoy instead of waking every morning, fearful of anything that might lower your time on this planet by hours or days.

Okay, okay. Smoking is bad, we all know that. What if a cost benefit study showed that the price of running (shoes, knee and muscle damage) outweighed the health benefits when compared to other exercises and they banned it? What if they banned rock, rap, country, or anything other kind of music because a study showed a higher rate of brain damage (headbanging), getting shot, crime rates, or pickup trucks? What if they banned driving cars because of the high rates of death from traffic accidents?

Would all that be okay with you? Would you be willing to live your life in a protected, non-reactive plastic bubble because it would allow you to live another day?

Also, would lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, mouth cancer, strokes, throat cancer, ulcers, bladder cancer, household fires, bad breath, and high blood pressure be prevented if smoking were banned entirely? Would any ONE of those things be abolished from the world as we know it, if smoking were just no longer allowed? What's next on the list to be banned to prevent those diseases? Salt?

I'm sorry you had to think about where you would go for meals before. Perhaps the government can tell you what to eat next? What to wear, when to sleep, and what to dream about...

Gazettefan - well, right here for one. But again, that's the point. If the government turned into a big police state and banned everything this very moment, the outcry would be heard on the moon. By attacking these things one at a time, the outcry is small. Freedoms aren't taken in lump sums, but rather one at a time.

What worries me most is the nonchalant attitude that makes all this possible as well as proves my point.

Here are some great quotes from some great men:

Posterity-You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.
John Quincy Adams

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln

When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]."
--From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

Daniel Webster warned, "There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing."

No, the greatest threat to America does not come from Russia, Iraq, Iran, or any other foreign country. America's greatest threat comes from a complacent populace who would sit back and do nothing while our own civil magistrates surrender our nation's sovereignty and independence to international interests.
Chuck Baldwin

and last but not least, from the honorable congressman from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul:

"We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and over run by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with."

BY THE WAY...THREE OF THE FOUR PEOPLE I SPOKE OF DIED IN THE 1970'S. YOU COULD SAY IT COST THE FOUR OVER A MILLION DOLLARS AT TODAYS INCOME VS. COST VALUES.

They had the RIGHT to live longer and enjoy the money they earned during their lives! Tobacco companies got rich. They got dead!

Have any of you people talking about "rights" ever watch someone die of of the effects of tobacco? I have...4 TIMES! Between the four, there were over $400,000.00 in medical and nursing home bills! These people went through The depression, WWI, WWII, and worked their behind off all of their lives, only to have cancer, heart disease and strokes take every cent they own! They didn't know the harm cigarettes could cause,because the tobacco companies lied to them. You talk about rights!? Their rights were violated big time! Three of the four did not live to see their 60th birthday!

To all of you who are posting comments bashing this wonderful smoking ban, you are very ignorant people. Don't you know that this is good for us. I don't want to be bothered with making my own decisions on which businesses I patronize. The government just took care of a whole lot of thinking on my part.

And as far as this Nazi business. Why are you bothering the rest of us with this ugliness. Yes, in pre-Nazi Germany there were many people who were running around warning people of what was coming and what all of the legislation was leading to and, yes, they were call crazy and "conspiracy theorists" but that cannot happen again. We don't need to do anything to watch our politicians. I am sure they are completely different than the ones in Nazi Germany. So what if our founding fathers wore themselves ragged writing letters to us telling us that we had to be vigilent or we would wind up right back in the same boat. You "tin foil hat" types are just trying to bring the rest of us down. Don't you know that there is magic fairy dust sprinkled all over America and that makes us all special so we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about tyrannical governments and an out-of-control federal and state governments. We are free from paying attention to our wonderful selfless elected officials. I am getting used to the government telling me what to do so when they use their power on bigger and bigger things it won't bother me one bit. Lighten up all of you.

jcommon"First off, do we as a state want to be like California, NY, or IL? They are broke and getting worse"
we are broke too incase you didn't know. Did you not wonder why taes in WI are SO darn high. Did you ever wonder WHY when you fill out you State tax forms WHERE are all the nice credits like on the IRS forms. Well I did and I asked an accountant WHY doesn't the State have tax credits. She said we are broke. they want more of our tax money too.

This whole "ban this-my rights" thingees are scary! I can't count how many times I've said the movements for banning will no doubt enter our bedrooms in short order,then what? So so sad that some people just can't tolerate the ways of others. Well,your turn might be next! I want to ban all use of "Mayonaise products"!

916 wrote about mentor comment being dramitic
"Just wait. Scientists have concluded your chances of becoming obese are more than doubled simply by hanging around with other people who are obese."

I think he is right on about this part of the comment. Have you even gone to Quotes and watch the big girls come in with big girl friends. And they dress like they are 100 lbs.

mentor...., where is the outcry re: all these lost "freedoms?"

First off, do we as a state want to be like California, NY, or IL? They are broke and getting worse, but the smoking ban is in each of those progressive states. Also, if businesses are doing better after the ban, why did the playing field need to be level?

916WI - I figured my posts were long enough, but here goes. They've made most fireworks illegal, they've made it illegal for state law enforcement to assist federal immigration officials, they've made many many older-model cars illegal, Bathhouses are against the law, Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1500 feet of taverns, schools, or places of worship (Go figure), it is illegal to spank your children, selling power-intensive televisions is illegal, and so on. Each one of these restrictions are for our own good. Each one is hardly more than a nuisance on their own, but add them up - and keep adding them up, and it builds. One by one, former freedoms become illegal. Keep those blinders on, you're only helping them do it.

That's why I said it.

Of course Gazette. You must know all and see all. Perhaps you also know that "you people" is now considered derogatory too.

You're making excellent points, 916WI.

The stuff smokers come up with! Wow!

Mentor......Too funny:) That's all you can come up as an example of this systematic loss of rights in a state that banned smoking well over a decade ago? The city councils in a handful of cities who have said "Three McDonalds locations in a square mile is enough, those already there can stay but we're not going to issue licenses for anymore." That's it? Seriously?????:) Loosen up the tin foil hat buddy--you're not getting enough oxygen up there:)

You people against the smoking ban who claim to be non-smokers must have very long noses.

Hey uh, Enterprise guy? They tried prohibition and even more people died. Moonshine is too easy to make these days anyway.

The problem here is that there really aren't any penalties for drunk driving and there certainly isn't any sort of punishment for it in Wisconsin. Until people learn there are consequences for their actions, it will never get better.

Indeed, it will get worse. The more the state tries to eliminate danger and protect the citizens from every wrong and foul, the more people will feel invincible. The day of reckoning still comes, but the price to pay is much higher.

My addiction... I like how you assume I smoke. I don't. Odd sort of position for me to taken then. You wouldn't understand.

But again, if people want to breathe clean air, why didn't they just go to the bars that had banned smoking on their own? No, it took the state to do it equally to everyone before consumers realized they had no choice.

Rights aren't taken away in a mass effect. Rights are taken away piecemeal. Already large areas in California aren't allowing more fast food joints in poor neighborhoods - again, taking away a choice, for "our own good".

I may be dramatic, but you're blind. And dramatic, in your own way.

Mentor--Yep--you're being extremely dramatic:) It's unfortunate that your addiction affects others, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue. The "this is the beginning of losing all of our rights" line is laughable. California has been smoke-free in bars for well over a decade. There has hardly been a mass exodus of rights over the decade that they have been smoke free. In all reality that state has become more liberal than ever. You can still smoke when you go out, it's just that you'll have to get up and go outside to do it. When the vast majority of the people around you want to breathe somewhat clean air, that's not asking that much is it?

916WI - Here you are, drawn like a fly to flame, forced against your will to remain in taverns where every breath causes disease and environmental decay and you call ME dramatic?

Non-smokers have long had bars and other places that didn't allow smoking where they could go and not feel slighted in the least. Now smokers have no place to go where they might enjoy a drink and a smoke. Rights have not been given here, rights have been taken away. The state will continue taking those rights away, piece by piece, and all for the greater good. Just wait.

Oh really? Who says the state has to be logical? There's no laws against pickling your liver in a bar, there's barely any consequences for the first four DUI's, but light up a cigarette in that bar and the long arm of societal peer pressure will surely fall upon you in an unholy wrath.

The fact of the matter is that if you're worried about trees falling on you, you don't hang around in forests. If you're worried about bombs falling on you, you don't hang around in war zones. Is it really too much to expect that if you didn't want to deal with smoke, you wouldn't hang around a smoking bar?

916WI - if life is so much better now with the ban, why didn't these owners simply ban smoking there in the first place? All the non-smokers could gravitate there and the marketplace would decide which cause it right.

I don't like the smoking ban simply because it should have been the owner's choice to be smoke-free or not.

scooter...., define "fine."

I am very close with the families of two bar owners. Neither owner smokes and they couldn't wait until this ban went into effect. It put every bar/restaurant on a level playing field and neither bar has seen an effect due to the ban(except cleaner air inside the bar:)) Both bars are in the area, have grills, but have alcohol sales MUCH higher than food sales. I might even go back to bartending once a week--It was really good money, but I couldn't deal with the disgusting smoke. I'm so glad that this isn't an issue anymore!!!

My weight is fine and how is yours gazettefan? A lot of us commented on the article about the doctor so quit with your comments already, will you? They are really getting personal and you are attacking me, lay off!

Yours is a very important post, overthehill.

WE are bar owners in northern Wisconsin and the ban has not effected our business. People have quit smoking rather than be bothered to go outside, we have two so far of our regulars. It is a good law when that happens. We LOVE not having to clean filthy ash trays on the bar all the time and the rest of our regulars love the fresh atmosphere. I think we will pick up customers in the restaurant now that there isn't going to be smoke. We have really good ventilation, and still it stunk with that crappy smell. WE have a deck where they can smoke, but usually they go outside in the front and a new atmosphere is created, like mentioned before. I would not vote for a state candidate if they say they want to rescind the smoking ban, which will never happen. He is just saying that to get votes. In this poll alone 63% of the people love the ban.

mentor...., what would scientists have to be smoking to come up with a conclusion like that?!!!

Mentor--Don't be so dramatic. There is no denying that second hand smoke is a health risk. Bars are regulated and licensed by the state. The state has set hundreds of rules as to how these places can be operated. This is just one more in a long list. I could care less if people are stupid enough smoke or eat unhealthy food--Those people will have to deal with lung cancer or diabetes resulting from their decision, not me. I shouldn't have to deal with a health concern when I want to go into a public place that is licensed by the state. By the percentages posted in the polls, a vast majority of people believe that same thing.:)

Just wait. Scientists have concluded your chances of becoming obese are more than doubled simply by hanging around with other people who are obese. Wait until they ban unhealthy food for the greater good. One by one, everything will be reduced to whether it can be regulated for the safety of the public.

It would be amusing if it weren't so sad that some folks actually condemn the smoking ban as an infringement on their rights. These so called libertarians are quick to defend their right to smoke like a house on fire when and where ever they choose, but they obviously couldn't care less for the rights of those who have respiratory problems due to no fault of their own such as asthma sufferers. Now with this new smoking ban, these folks with respiratory problems are free to go out anywhere in public just as the smokers can. The smokers can still have their smoke, they just can no longer light up in public without regard for those who would be harmed by these careless ones as in the past. But the smokers are not compelled to leave any public venue in defiance of their rights (unless they will not wait to light up) as the non smoking asthmatics have had to do before this ban took effect due to the indifference to the rights and well-being of nonsmokers by air polluting smokers. Due to that indifference, this smoking ban is well justified and long overdue.

Angry--It's all a matter of perspective. I consider it gaining a right(the right of not having to ingest second hand smoke when I am in a public place) If your addiction didn't have a negative effect on the people around you it wouldn't be an issue. If you don't like it just stay home to smoke and drink. One of the great things about this law is that it fines both the bar and the patron in the case when the law is broken. That way everyone is more motivated to abide by it:)

No, scooter......, I don't have anything better to do than monitor your health -a subject you made an issue on this site.

How's your weight?

Later, generaism.

Gazzetefan, the bars barely made it through the remainder of the first winter, but enough people came out during the summer to keep them alive, The neighbors were complaining, and they have the power to vote their precinct dry. The bar owner has no jurisdiction on the public street. No one cares. The ban has basically faded into forgotten history. There are at least a dozen bars , maybe more, that ignore the ban within a mile of my house. Some of the patrons are off duty police and politicians. Some areas are now discussing exempting adult bars from the ban. The snitchline is called only when someone get 86ed, even from the bars that comply.

Manners,

I respect your right to not breathe second hand smoke, but no one forced you to go places where people were smoking. You havn't gained a right, you've gained a cater to your preference at the cost of other peoples rights and freedom.

There were smoke free bars and restaurants before the ban right? Most places in town were smoke free already were they not? Many other people than you choose to smoke and enjoy doing so. Why shouldn't they be able to have a bar or somewhere that they can do so?

Angry_again, I have gained a right. The right to choose not to smoke, or have it put in my lungs against my wishes because you do.

Gazettefan, don't you have anything better to do than monitor my health? I appreciate the concern.

Yeah, let us know how that goes.

Designated areas??????? Having a smoking section in a bar is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. The ban is great and is obviously supported by the vast majority of people in this state, including business owners because their business usually increases after a ban goes into effect. Democracy in action.

I haven't seen any business closings because of the ban. If that happened I am sure the owners would be very vocal about the cause and we would all know it. Those that claim this is hurting businesses are just blowing smoke. (couldn't resist that one)

There are plenty of perfectly legal activities that can/should only be done in certain designated areas. It's why we have bathrooms.

Yeah, OK, angry....., settle down and have another cancer stick.

No one seems to mention that we have allowed another lost freedom.
It Don't matter what it is in the name of. Drinking isn't healthy either is it? Next they will ban that in the bars too and raise health insurance premiums on that group. I can see smoking bans in a hospital or stores, but at the bar??
Smokers are by far now a minority, and are getting assaulted by the government. Higher insurance cost, Higher Unfair taxes, 7+$ a pack now, (because they can, and non smokers wont support a smoker rights) Now in -30 weather they will have to go outside and friggin freeze to death in winter to smoke or get soaked in the rain. Isn't that bad for smokers health? They justify the high taxes because of heath care cost.. uhh, that’s why we pay higher premiums.
(sigh)
Don’t forget, when you let the govt. take away a freedom, it never comes back and it makes it easier for them to justify taking more of our freedom away in the name of some other cause.
What if it were unfair tax hikes on say, coffee, or Tea? maybe some of the non smokers who voted to cram this bill up our behinds would understand how it feels to be targeted by the govt and have self righteous non coffee drinkers vote to assault them again and again. How much is enough?

Enough government strangulation, and discrimination! Support freedom for every American

scooter....., with the five other dangerous drugs you ingest, smoking brings the number up to six. You claim you're weening yourself off the first five drugs but you're resigned to die with a cigarette in your hand?

Seriously, we're worried about your health and your thought-processes.

generaisn, not true. If any of the small dive bars in Chicago are allowing smoking, it's not because they would have closed if they didn't. They would be allowing it because it's too difficult to police every bar. What is your claim? that if those bars honored the ban, the patrons would only drink at home? Ha.

Eventually the ban will be universally honored (if it isn't already). It's honored now at all the bars worth going to. Eventually the complaints will spread the word that bar owners face big problems if they don't honor the ban.

Here in Chicago, as the second winter approached, (the ban started on New Years Day)
Many bars in working class neighborhoods had to decide whether to allow smoking, or close. The only time the snitchline is called is after someone gets 86ed, even from bars that comply. It's an easy way to hassle a bar that someone has a grudge against. The ban is basically fading into forgotten history.

scooter said..."I will probably die with one lit!"
*
Just call the firemen first! There's more than one way smoking kills.

It does not matter what side of this debate you are on the thruth is the choice to be a smoking or a non- smoking place should have been the owners. That is what freedom used to mean. At the least the owners should of been made to declare their business smoking or non and then maintain it that way for five years.This would have given the owners the choice and we would have satisfied both sides. The owners know their clients better then the state they should have been given the choice. This law was and is wrong in a so called free nation.

Okiefed, I am with you! I agree totally. I grew up with a dad that smoked 3 packs of Pall Mall non filters a day. My mom did not die from secondhand smoke nor do any of us girls have any kind of smoking related illnesses. Oh, and my dad didn't either and he was 80 when he died. I smoke and I am with you, I like to relax with one. I will probably die with one lit! If I get the urge to quit, which I haven't yet, I would try, but I have no desire. It is bad that people have to stand outside and yes, can hand off their beer (which isn't likely), but I can see them taking them in their cars. I wonder if bingo places like the Moose have lost customers?

My husband and I each lost both of our parents to the effects of cigarette smoking. They came from a generation that did not know what the cigarette manufacturers were hiding about the health problems cigarettes cause, so I am not faulting them. However we know now what cigarettes can do, so I am annoyed at anyone 40 or younger that takes up the habit. To you...young people...have you ever watched someone die of lung cancer or stroke? We have; four times, now. The cigarette ban in public places is wonderful.

I have gone to dive bars and you cannot see though the smoke. Now I can too go to dives and actually see where I am walking.

The popular pub in Madison Essenhaus is VERY busy. They drink plenty in there if the Irish comment referred to Irish drinking a lot.

Had to wait for a table to drink out of "da Boot" tried to help but got a small thing of wine instead. I am a wine and brie girl(yum) but will drink my wine in a bar!

Try sherry with shortbread cookies sometime YUM!

"see how much you love it,when businesss's start closing down"

Seriously?! lol. Other states, other major cities, NYC etc... (ever been out on a Thursday-Saturday in Madison?!) all have smoking bans. And all have the same # of patrons in their establishments as before. Smoking bans do zero to "take away" patrons. Stats show that businesses actually do better after bans, as non-smokers outnumber smokers 3 to 1, and now the folks who couldn't stand being around the smoke enter the doors, as well.

You cannot drink on the sidewalk. You can drink in those porch areas. So I guess you can hand your beer off from there to a minor if you are an idiot.

Are the bars really hurting?

okiefed- do you stay away from restaurants as well? Grocery store? Hospital? Department store? Gas station?

"see how much you love it,when businesss's start closing down"

I STILL don't see how this is a good arguement.
Like people wont go out because they cannot smoke inside??!?!! No they will still go out and go OUTSIDE to smoke just like you have to in every other business!!!

see how much you love it,when businesss's start closing down,this town an other places are struggling an the business'are losing more clientel.hopefully they will make smoking illegal,then smokers dont have to pay all those taxes,an then they can raise the house taxes an state taxes to make up the loss.i cant wait it will be hilarious listening to all the commotion,about how they cant afford it,uh,who cares.these die hard smoking police should have left the smokers alone.lol be careful what you wish for,its not always for your benefit,because if you think the state of wisconsin is going to take a hit for this,youre wrong.im glad i dont smoke or own a house.hahahahahaha

Where's "Still couldn't care less"?

I hadn't been to a bar since the smoking ban took place until a week ago. I loved it. I'm able to breath clearly, my eyes don't feel like they're wired shut, and I don't stink like an old, used up ash tray by the time I leave. It didn't seem like the smokers were too upset, either. Going outside to smoke just creates another social atmosphere... at least until it gets too cold to stand outside.