Also - your right about the repetition and the "digs". The problem as I see it right now is that a select few "who have controlled this blog" have drawn their proverbial "lines in the sand" and are wasting time trying to change the minds of others who obviously are not (or no longer at least) willing to even consider the other side of the argument regardless of its merrits. Which brings you and I to where we are...basicically not willing to let the other get the "last say" so to speak...sorry I never said I wasn't competitive.

Oh...and while I certainly implied or suggested...I did not accuse (I asked) you of anything. You gotta admit though "echolalia" is not a word that most folks use or throw out there with proper understanding of the definition...matter of fact I don't believe I have ever heard that used in a sentence before.

Fair enough, but if you come at me again I will not relent. You play nice and so will I.

justthefacts, yes, I applied it to myself too. I mentioned on the other blog about good-natured digs. I took a dig at myself.

Repetition here is causing us to go in other directions -digs and wisecracks- we should stay just short of direct insults.

You're not the first blogger to accuse me of seeking a word elsewhere solely for blogging here. There'd be nothing wrong with that, though I've yet to do it. Maybe sometime I will. I have a good vocabulary and learning new words is not a bad thing.

I am curious as to how long it took you to browse through wikepedia to find the word you were looking for though...now thats dedication!

gazettefan - cute and quite clever...you do realize it would apply to you as much as anyone else I presume? Still funny in relation to our little "to and fro" here though...touche!

First-hand smoke and second-hand smoke causes echolalia.

This is fun - There is no substance to any of the pro ban arguments below.

There is no substance to any of the pro-smoking arguments below.

There is no substance to any of the pro ban arguments below.

I would like to put a new spin on this discussion if no one minds. Now I will tell you that I am a non-smoker but I have friends and family who smoke and I have been exposed to it all my life. Some by choice, some not. I bowl and it is where smoking is allowed. I love bowling so I choose to go there. However it would also be my choice to not go somewhere if I didn't want to be around smoking. My point is this: (sorry actually 2 points) First of all my uncle died from lung cancer and never smoked a day in his life so it happens. Was it from 2nd hand smoke? I don't know.
Second point I would like to make is this. I would like to know why people who chose to smoke and ended up with sicknesses, etc.. were allowed to sue the tobacco industry for it when as everyone has said it was their choice to smoke? We all make our choices and we have to deal with the consequences but in all fairness do you think it was right for them to do that when they chose to smoke despite the health warnings? I mean if you say yes it was then you have to turn around and say that non-smokers should be allowed to sue for second-hand smoke WHEN they were in circumstances that they had no choice in being in it ( not for times they chose to be in it).

Your post below is non-responsive to my post. The issue is about banning concentrated cigarette smoke where people gather. Get on point.

Read the story again. It's right above this post.

PS If you could ever get on point and stay on point, you have the persistance to be a good lobbyist.

My posts are dead on, the point of smoking and its percieved risks related to the ban. Since all these issues should be considered when it comes to air quality, which in case you haven't noticed is a very very major concern. Its what this issue should be called, not a smoking ban.

Your post below in non-responsive to my post. The issue is about banning concentrated cigarette smoke where people gather. Get on point.

If your insulted its only because somewhere you feel there is an oune of truth to what I say. There is nothing inappropriate about applying smoking to pollution since when you want to classify it, its called air polution.

If you want to get technichal, then the same air outside your home is inside your home. Inside there are other toxins beyond what there is in the air outside. Are you aware that with int he last 10 years they have started applying quite a few lung diseases to molds and bacteria that grow in homes? Mainly causes by water leaks that were not properly repaired?

Again one more thing that has the potential to cause any number of ailments.

Did you know they have a direct link between gingivitis/pereodontal(think that is right spelling) and increased heart disease.

Again a fairly new study int he field of medicine, you could find that out from simplay talking to a dentist. But I am sure that was checked for in every case they chalked up to smoking.

So yes please by all means don't read anything that has the ability to discount your statements and dismiss them in this blog and others. At least I haven't denied the grain of truth in the issue. You fail to even come up with an arguement other then , I don't need to cause I don't want to. Which seems to be the general problem when issues are discussed.

wisconsinheat, yes lobbying can work both ways. Find which side champions your cause and jump on train. In this case, go directly to the smoking car.

I already spoke to the issue of other pollutants. I don't need any reading assignments from you to tell me that there are other pollutants to worry about. And I know people die from other causes. You are unnecessarily repeating yourself. Go back and read some of my recent posts.

You persist with the logical fallacy of going from the particular to the general: You inappropriatly apply the act of smoking to all other other causes of pollution. And now you're applying it to all other kinds of dangerous activity.

My focus appears narrow because the dangers from smoking where people gather can be easily prevented with a ban. I'm staying on point. You go off point with your rambling, irrelevance about other things.

The second-hand smoke from people who smoke and people who have smoked has caused immeasurable harm to others.

You condemn lobbying when it works against you. It took tons of lobbying and money to keep smoking legal and to keep it in places where people gather. Now that's changing -live with it, and I do mean live.

Refrain from insults and I won't respond in kind.

Yes I think you have it exactly... you have a focus so narrow that only cigarettes are the bane of the world in your eyes. This is the general belief of the bulk of nonsmokers. You still have yet to address any of the other things I mentioned weather u believe in them or not and why.

Just makes me think you have something personal to settle in this matter. I had a grand mother die when I was young from cancer, her choice, I was too young to know her. I had a grandfather die from drinking himself into an early grave. Again don't really care it was his choice. Yeah I miss them. Everybody dies from something, they chose theirs they saw it coming.

Its no different then showing up to a job every day of my life working around equipment that could fail and crush me. Or equipment that emits exhaust like, gas powered forklifts. Working in a building that has dust from ages past floating around still. Not to mention being exposed to countless lubricants and their fumes. All in a poorly ventilated factory. There is a direct link between petroleum based chemicals, lubricants, and plastics with cancer and other diseases.

You would probably know that if you looked at a MSDS sheet for half the crap you have been exposed to in your lifetime. When was the last time you even looked at the ones at your workplace? If you have even a single cleaning product in your work they are required by law to have MSDS sheets on it open to the employees.

Unlike the nonsmokers I don't blame tobacco for everything as a scapegoat. I am just sorry that there are people so ingrained in their hatred they are blind to other causes. This is caused mostly by your money grubbing lobbyists.

One of the biggest problems with the legislature as it pertains to lobbying is that they allow lobbyists inside access to pending legislation and allow them to help shape that legislation before the public get a chance for input.

After they get it drafted just the way they want it, quite often there is very limited opportunity / time for citizen input.

And as always; FOLLOW THE MONEY.

What the non-elected people are doing is called Lobbying: Lobbying is when individuals or groups pressure or influence elected officials for a specific purpose.

Lobbying is one of the ways change can be made or prevented in our democracy.

You can try it as an individual but you'd be more effective as a member of group.

Who exactly are the anti-smoking advocates mentioned in the article and why are they and the Tavern League negotiating something that is a primary function of the legislature? How many of each group are elected officials? Will the general public have any say in how this law will be written or whether it will be passed other than not voting for someone in a future election?

Haeight, I finally get it. It's a put-on, right?

Re: your last post yesterday: Smokers are smarter than non-smokers because they know the health risks from smoking because they read the warning that non-smokers put on the cigarette packs, but smoke anyway.

copperguy, thanks for staying polite.

Yeah I know if this smoking ban goes though I am going for a statewide ban on cars trucks n suv's that don't get 50 mpg. Cause it causes too much poluution and causes asthmatics to have severe reactions. Its also stinking up the air, and I get headaches from it....

Forget it Haeight. These people are not interested in reasonable compromise. Their only interest is dominating. I, for one, would like to see smoking removed from eateries. But there is no room for that here. So we must encourage Senator Breske, et al, to not give an inch. The other side has made it an "all or nothing" proposition, so give them nothing.

maybe its those fire safe cigarettes... you get a lot more nicotine from them.

If your not smart enough to realize there are other causes of the health risks you bring up and refuse to read anything to the contrary then yes smokers are smarter then u.

They at least know smoking leads to increased health risks you nonsmokers made sure to put warnings on our packs n cartons of smokes.

Your hung up on one thing, your right to walk away. Meanwhile your standing right in front of the smokers yelling at them. Show me one place outside a bar and some bowling alleys smokers can sit inside a room and smoke?

You can't can u? The only reason there is an offer from smokers to be rejected is cause of that fact. Cause we at least are calm enough to have a discussion that doesn't revolve around abolishing smoking.

Now you're being mean by saying I should be a politician.

Smokers are smarter than non-smokers???!!!

What exactly are you smoking???!!!

its real simple.. cigarettes aren't the problem they are the scapegoat and none of u non smokers are smart enough to figure that out. For someone that knows all you don't catch on real quick. Your a slipper feller too you might run for politician someday. Then again not a lot of ppl are agreeing with your slant on things in this or the last blog so...

To be more specific, I doubt if businesses with compliant smoking rooms would have any claim against the city or the state.

R1234, first, we aren't dealing with a proposed city ban on smoking in bars. We are dealing with a state mandated ban. I don't know if a statewide smoking ban would still allow smoking in restaurants that are in compliance with the "separate room with a separate ventilation system" condition.

I mention restaurants only because I know of no bars Janesville that are in compliance with the above mentioned smoking room.

Let me know if the statewide proposal allows restaurants that are in compliance with the Janesville code to benefit from separate smoking rooms. In any case, state law superceeds municipal law just as federal law superceeds state law.

Good try, Haeight, but the story doesn't mention smoking because it deals with a situational matter that's under the perview of the DNR. The DNR doesn't deal with tabacco problems.

And, that goes to the problem you and I are having: You want to broaden the scope of the issue by bringing in all other forms of pollution. Managing other forms of pollution is not the same as managing the pollution that comes from smoking.

Smoking pollutes a room in a very concentrated way. And stopping that pollution is easily managable. Just outlaw it. The other forms of pollution require more complex solutions.

look gazettefan its not just smoking... its fine particulates.

http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne...

Several years ago, establishments were given a choice: Number one choice was to go non smoking and the other choice was to make expensive modifications to their buildings and heating systems to allow for smoking areas.

If the ban goes through, will the establishments who chose to make the expensive modifications be grandfathered or maybe the city should reimburse them for the cost of their modifications?

I think this is a fair question. I am not a tavern owner but if I were any business owner, then I would be pretty mad that I complied with the law, spent untold amounts of money on my business only to be told that this is a new day and a new law.

Hopefully Senator Breske and others will keep this matter DOA until/unless the pro-ban folks decide to recognize that they are not the only ones with rights.
They have the right to not patronize a smoking establishment. There is no need to take away the rights of the business owners who choose to cater to smoke-firendly clientele, or the rights of those who choose to partake in a lawful activity.
The anit-smokers have the option of finding a non-smoking bar or, alternatively, to convince establishments to offer non-smoking days and/or establishments. That is not good enough for them: They want to rule everyone.
Not one anti-smoker has offered any argument against the proposition that they find/make non-smoking establishments. They just want all business owneres and all people conform to their wishes.
To say that they are compromising by "letting" people smoke outdoors is (pardon me Gazettefan) outrageous, ludicrous, asinine, pathetic, horrible, and just outright mean. Shame on them...all of them.

Again dismissing anything I have to say, very.. witty? Being rude? isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? I posted the link earlier to that blog.. u just probably ignored it.

I would love to hear anything you have to say in this blog to rebuff all the statements I have made and the other bloggers.. or will you just ignore me and continue on posting about your wonderful vision of your utopian society?

To whom it may concern:

If you would like clear, intelligent counter-points to Haeight's or any of the other pro-smoking bloggers, read Hannah's and my posts here and on another blog that can be reached by clicking below:

http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne...

Haeight, despite the fact that you are prone to be rude, I have to give you points for being persistant.

And your avoiding the crucial fact that its not ur health, its a free country, and smoking is legal.

You have your right to walk away. We have our rights to smoke if we so choose. Your freaking out about circumstantial events. Your mad that you might walk by a smoker and have to smell smoke for 5 seconds.

Guess what, its ur 2 legs walk around them. If your so mad that they standing outside doors smoking think about why they are there. Cause they got kicked out of a once smoking building that refused to set aside a smoking area for them to sit and smoke.

Your all pissed off about ppl with asthma getting irritated from smokers... guess what unless they walking into a bar that isn't a problem anywhere. If they are they a full aware everyone there is smoking.

Your turn a blind eye to any study or suggestion that shows or supports that genetic predispositions to cancer, or a persons enviroment might cause cancer. Unilaterally declaring cigarettes the issue, well they aren't.

In my previous posts I showed u that any fine particulate in the air can cause reactions in ppl with asthma. You ignored those statements. I gave u names of cancers and told you about previous cases of many people getting cancer that never smoked. Yet you ignored those statements, choosing to believe instead that everythign is is great in the USA barring the smoking issue at present.

There is no way people could be exposed to asbestos, work with dry wall all day, even run sanders in wood shops, or any number of jobs w/o being told to use or smart enough to use the proper breathing aparatus. There is no way a flare company would have hundreds of workers near the stateline working in conditions where they could see the yellow hue in the air of potassium chlorate and not be given a breathing mask.

There is no way a school would allow a coach to setup a storage area for equipment and allow students access to it if there were asbestos warning signs hanging every 10-15 ft. Wouldn't happen would it?

Just no way anything other than smoking could be the cause... I told u earlier ignorance is bliss. I have seen human stupidity in action. At leat people are well aware of the assumed risks of smoking and choose to buy that next carton or pack. There is plenty of other things they are exposed to in the course of their lifetime that would or could cause cancer or even death.

Most of the recent pro-smoking posts here only amount to repetitive nickpicking and avoidance of the crucial fact that smoking is a HEALTH ISSUE. It's a HEALTH ISSUE!

I'll repeat or copy and paste as long as there's nothing new to say. I've covered it all. It's the pro-smokers here who aren't reading and comprehending plain english.

Yes I think its funny gazettefan that u dismiss anything that backs you into a corner as gibberish. Or that you dismiss it to carry your propaganda to whomever listens.

everything u said in this blog is a rehash of the blog I posted, in which you stated "Whenever it doesn't appeal to my sense of reason." in accordance to studies done or anything supporting smoking.

Now you unilaterally ignored the other link I posted, which is astonishing since it both rejects and backs part of your claims about smoking. Showing you really don't care so long as you get your way. Do us a favor and read up before you spew your beliefs upon us.

And for clarification; I don't think I said anything about "pro-smokers." I did refer to "tavern league lobbyists" which probably could be more accurately referred to as "pro-smokers' rights."

"I don't think I was claiming victory as much as predicting it. wisconsinheat indicated that the pro-smokers were winning and so I stated that there is a clear power base for the anti-smokers given that they're in a position to reject an unacceptable proposal."

Kind of like cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Thats weak but not unexpected.

copperguy, I don't think I was claiming victory as much as predicting it. wisconsinheat indicated that the pro-smokers were winning and so I stated that there is a clear power base for the anti-smokers given that they're in a position to reject an unacceptable proposal.

Yes, that is a good qualification on your part re: legislators voting for what is best for their constituency, but that constituency put them there, at least in part, for that purpose. The door is not closed for an uprising by that constituency to oppose an unacceptable decision. It becomes a matter of: does that constituency have to will?

Also, it's true compromise is the bedrock of any civilization. The compromise I acknowledge here is that when the ban at issue is in place smoking will still be legal. Smoking will still be allowed but not where people are gathered for the purpose of eating and drinking.

And, some things are non-negotiable: like infants in baby seats in the back of the car.

Sorry justthefacts but you lost me there with the jibberish.

gazettefan said: "justhefacts, the first sentence of your last post contains its own condemnation: Yes, anarchy is without rule. Your complaint is that you don't want to be ruled by law. That would make you an anarchist."

That was a feeble attempt at a circle jerk argument...if that demonstrates your "ability" to relate one seemingly unrelated topic to another...I would suggest you avoid doing that in the future; it makes you sound foolish. Trust me...your not clever enough to contradict anything I say on a logical level, by being "witty" it would be better if you stuck to fact, or something with substance at least.
The proposed law really won't affect me on a direct personnel level as I am not a smoker; however will effect me in a number of indirect ways in the future (as everything seems to come back to haunt us).
And no my complaint in no reasonable way has anything to do with "rejecting rule"...that might fly if I was advocating breaking one, or changing an existing one (even that would be a stretch). My complaint is in regards to a special interest group pursueing a law that literally impacts the civil liberties of another group. To speak out against a "proposed law" is not anarchy, its called free speech, freedom of expression, and if done publicly and lawfully freedom of assembly.
Oh...and to play Devils advocate for a moment if objection to a law I feel is unjust makes me an "anarchist", wouldn't that in turn mean that you would fall in to the "Tyrant" or "Facist" categories for advocating the loss of civil liberties and rights for another group of individuals?

Now, now, gazettefan. You know I've praised you for your debating skills. I have to call you out on claiming a victory becuase the anti-smoking lobby rejected the offer from those who want a phase-in. EITHER side could claim that as a victory.

Second point is that legislators are not bound to vote the will of their constituency. If that were true, the recent cable bill (among others) may not have passed.
Many patriotic legislators will make the argument that their responsibility is to do what's BEST for their constituency, which may not be what the constituency WANTS (no relation to the cable bill).
With regard to the smoking ban bill itself, I'm glad it is still stalled. Those on the side of permitting smoking in bars and taverns have shown a great ability to compromise. The anti-smoking lobby has shown no interest in compromise. They want what they want, and to heck with those who disagree. Compromise is the bedrock of any civilization. Hats off to the smokers for their willingness to be reasonable. Too bad the same can't be said for the other side.

justhefacts, the first sentence of your last post contains its own condemnation: Yes, anarchy is without rule. Your complaint is that you don't want to be ruled by law. That would make you an anarchist.

A smoking ban in bars would, in effect, be just another health code. The choice you should be worried about is the choice the smoker will have when that ban is in place: He can go to a bar to drink but if you CHOOSES to smoke he has to do it outside.

Agreed. Apathy is / will be the downfall of our system.

If the anti-smoking lobby just rejected a proposed moderation of a state wide ban, then it must be operating from a position of power. It's nip and tuck. We'll see.

When ever someone doesn't actively vote (in an election or a referendum) then they in a de facto sense voted for the winner. Whether they approve of the winner or not, they in effect voted for the winner because they didn't vote against him, her, or it. Therefore, the will of the non-voter is reflected in every election.

A legislator gets elected by the will of the people. Every issue cannot be the subject of a referendum. The legislator has the responsibility make decisions that reflect the will of his constituancy.

Ours is representitive form of government; it can't entirely be a democratic one; that's not practical.

But opportunity is left to work out mistakes and imperfections.

gazettefan "...The opposite of this is anarchy..." not definition wise, in Webster's anarchy could be summed up to mean "without rule".
Seriously though folks (all my previous frustration and sarcasm aside...sorry about that), this issue is really very clear, non-smokers rights are not being impacted (talking about the bar and restaurant thing), nothing is preventing an entrepeneur from establishing non-smoking establishments (there are some). What you are advocating in the advocacy of the ban is the removel of the rights of both the smokers, and the business owners. It really appears that your "beef" is with not being able to control those around you. I will agree with you about public building bans, and even setbacks from entrances to those facilities. And I will agree with you that the littering is at the very least unsightly (but honestly the cans, plastic bags and bottles, fast food wrappers and such are far more bothersome).

I would respectfully disagree on both points.

So far the tavern league lobbyists seem to be winning against the anti-smoking faction.

And on the second point. Quite often legislation does NOT reflect the "will of the people". Well maybe SOME of the people; but all too often not the majority of the people. Sometimes it's a mjority of only the ones who bother to vote. And yes, shame on the ones who don't. And all too often it reflects the will of individual legislators who, being saavy to the political process can get legislation pushed through in a number of ways.

The government doesn't create laws out of a vacuum. Laws tend to reflect the will of the people -not necessarily the wish of every individual but generally the will of the masses.

The opposite of this is anarchy.

A lot of the time laws are the result of lobbying -indivduals or groups appealing to elected officials for the purpose of passing a law or not passing a law.

In this case, the trend has the anti-smoking lobby being more sucessful than the pro-smoking lobby.

My question didn't pertain to just air quality. It pertains to the GOVERNMENT making laws to protect people from one another, and our by-products. Air quality would be inclusive, but certaintly not the only thing we need protection from. How should they decide?

We were talking about places that serve food and drink.

The government has created other laws to improve the air beyond bars and restaurants: catalytic coverters for cars etc.

But it goes WAY beyond bars and restaurants.

The same way it determines health codes:

Certain measures in bars and restuarants have to be taken to insure that patrons don't injest anything that is harmful to their health.

To all those in favor of a smoking ban; please answer this question.

"How should the the government decide which "bad for us" things to ban?"

garyprimer, Karl and Frederick had to share the same pack too.

Haeight, you're totally out of line when you representing what someone has said.

If Hannah or I said what you claim then cut and paste those statements, in context, to this blog.

Hannah and I participate; we don't attemtp to control. Your faulty reasoning and your false claims are an attempt to control this blog just like when you're puffing away is an attempt to control the environment.

just cause its funny here is a study tht says there is no link between cigarettes and a certain type of cancer... lol

http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/environ...

Ah.. gazzettefan and Hannah trying to control another smoking blog. this is the link to the other blog where they both admitted to not caring what anyone says so long as what they want is done. There are a few links there about cancer fighting vitamins n minerals, and a lot of discussion about who is trying to be controlling and who is exercising their freedoms. Looks like they stole some of their previous blog's too.

http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/lates...

They liked the red package.

Marx and Engels smoked Marlboros.

justthefacts,

My smoking/asthma/children post refers to several posts below, not necessarily the smoking in bars issue.

Though adult asthmatics should not smoke and they shouldn't smoke around other adult asthmatics.

wisconsinheat "Actually, HOMICIDE is when you kill SOMEONE ELSE."

Thank you for pointing that little "typo" out...saved me the time.

Hannah...the word you were looking for I believe would be suicide...but what do I know I support those evil smokers....nasty...nasty smokers, I blame the for polluting my air (wait...no, the million or so industries in the country did that) uuhhmm??? I blame the for our polluted water (wait...no, that was the industry, and the farmers), aahhh...I blame the for the social decay of my society (wait...no that was the industry, the farmers, politicians, school system)...yeah forget it I got nothin!

"For children: an irritant such as cigarette smoke, which for asthma is worse than an allergen, inflames the bronchial airways...blah, blah, blah"

I did not hear anyone here advocate taking children into bars. That is also a "choice" there are plenty of restaurants that don't allow smoking indoors to take your kids already...try McDonalds - Oh wait, all that fatty food, and that Ronald (he looks shady...probably a smoker), msg...cholesterol, sodium and salt. Don't worry ban advocates...you'll always have some great injustice to battle for.

There are valid points on both sides. But one has to wonder; just how does the the government decide which "bad for us" things to ban? The list is so long, and at any given time - depending on who you listen to - could cover just about everything we eat, drink, and do. (And sometimes think.)

Marx and Engels!!!

How do health codes become an indicator of Communism?!

Yup, as most of you have said, it's just another way for the government to keep something legal, but not let anyone partake. Granted, it's not the healthiest thing to do, but so what. There's plenty of other things that should be banned that aren't. It's just ridiculous for the government to try and control every facet of everyday life. Let the business owners decide. Otherwise, everyone better read up on Marx and Engels.

Here's a report from the Ameican College of Chest Physicians re: smoking and asthma.

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/...

dub 190, I hate to be rude by questioning your truthfullness but it's hard to believe that you are truely asthmatic and a smoker without suffering the harmful effects of that bad combination. Take note that the damage to an asthmatic may not be quickly obvious.

Also, to your credit, it's a good debating ploy to question the other person's source. I can't remember the source, so that's in your favor.

But I'd also insist that because the toxic effect to the cardio-vascular systmen from smoking is so obvious that the burden of proof lies with you for your claim that smoking is not harmful to an asthmatic.

You'll be eating those words someday Hillbilly. Gazettefan, what is your source for this information? I have asthma, and cigarette smoke has NEVER bothered me. I should suggest you look into who funded the study you were reading. Anti Tobacco groups have tons of money and they can find whatever results they want. I'm not saying anyone else doesn't have these effects from smoke. Anyone here have asthma?

Yes, homicide is when you kill someone else. And, no, killing yourself is not unlawful. Attempting to kill yourself is, itself, not unlawful (maybe a violation of local ordinance like discharging firearm, etc.). Suicidal persons can be detained for psychiatric evaluation, but no crime exists for actual or attempted suicide.

Actually, HOMICIDE is when you kill SOMEONE ELSE.

jamesburghillbilly- they do give tickets for not wearing seatbelt now . and yes it is illegal to shot yourself- called homiside

For children: an irritant such as cigarette smoke, which for asthma is worse than an allergen, inflames the bronchial airways. The inflammation then causes the over-reaction of muscular contractions, and mucosal swelling, which in turn causes the over-production of mucus. This results in a tightening of the chest, coughing and wheezing, shortness of breath, and low blood oxygen.

Half the time, immediate asthmatic reactions to cigarette smoke are followed by delayed reactions. Delayed reactions are more damaging than the immediate ones for an asthmatic child:

Greater inflammation in the airway produces greater over-reaction and irritability there that results in scarring.

Smoking not only aggravates asthma but actually causes the disease in an otherwise healthy baby or child.

I have to say I don't necessarily agree with the smoking ban either. I'm sure it's all done with good intentions, but it's just another choice the government is making for us, among other issues I won't get into, when they are not 'in the mix' to actually see what goes on.

Obviously not smart though. Smoking should be the establishment's choice, just like it's my choice not to let people smoke in my home. It's not hard for people to go outside if necessary, but still shouldn't be the governments decision. They aren't going to tell me I can't let people smoke in my home, or is that next?

If you think about it, they should be banning or regulating alcohol sales in bars and restaurants. I'm more concerned about drunk drivers than people that have been smoking cigarettes. Of course drinking is legal too, but they don't seem to want to take action on things that really matter. Make people stay home if they wanna get wasted.

Ok, I'm done typing for now. :)

Freedom of choice is what you want
Freedom from choice is what you got --D. Evo

And they say the US is not communist? I have even heard that they may pass a law that people will be fined for being caught smoking in a vehichle with a chid present. Whatever happen to our freedom? Cigarettes are legal. It should be up to the business to chose if smoling is allowed or not.

I am sick and tired of the demorcate controlled government telling us what we can and can not do with our lives. They think they know what is best for the people they serve. When truely they have no clue. They should leave it up to their people to decide what they want to do and not want to do with their lives. After all its our life not theirs to control. I will never re-elect our "wonderful" governor. I think he doing crappy job and has no clue what is best for the state that he has been voted to run. I think that every one should stand and fight against these people who think they can tell us what we can and cant do. They take and take but what do they give us........... not a damn thing!

HHmmmm..Segregation, No Blacks allowed, Whites only...HHmmm..Segregation, No Smokers allowed, Non Sokers only
Democracy..Government of the People, For The People
Facisim..Government to Rule The People
Raise taxes on cigarettes till everyone can not afford to smoke...what will they tax next to make up the lost tax money
You can drive at 16, can go to war at 18, you can buy alchohol at 21, you can now be claimed as a minor for federal taxes only till 17
I am 42 years old...am I considered an adult yet, in a country that is supposed to be free, to make choices on my own, or do I need someone to walk me thru the one life I have?
I for one will Vote in the next Wisconsin election and it wont be for Gov. Doyle

The sun burns my skin, Can't the government find a way to block it? And no, I don't care at all what anyone else wants! It bothers me!
I DEMAND gas and deisel powered vehicles BANNED! The pollution and smoke from these things are killing me! Also I do not want Restaurants to serve meat, it hurts my feelings and most of all upsets my stomach.
Can you also outlaw candles, lighters, incense, anything flammable, tall buildings, bungee jumping, anything sharp, snakes, bugs, frogs, and babies?
They all bother me so much?
Thank you Gov. Doyle, Your biggest fan...

Freedom of choice is what America is or should be about!Our right to smoke or not to smoke.Government needs to stop regulating every part of our lives.

With the implementation of the smoking bans, non-smokers of the militant and whiny variety have seen a marginal increase in their choice of where they eat and drink.
The choices of smokers have been reduced to zero.
The people who brought us toilets that won't flush and pill bottles that won't open now bring us cigarettes that won't stay lit.
The oft-repeated lie that second-hand smoke is dangerous to our health remains the same big lie it was last year.
I remain outside what must be becoming the mainstream. I've been unable to convince myself that I am better off having decisions made for me by self-serving, unaccountable bureaucrats.

The argument that the business' suffer when smoking is banned is only partially accurate. If it isn't a level playing field in that it is banned in all business' then that is true, smokers will just go "down the road" to where it is legal.

But it has been shown in places where it is banned in all surrounding areas, after an initial downturn, business usually recovers and then some. (Of course there are exceptions and I'm sure someone will be quick to point them out.)

I am a nonsmoker who laughingly tells others "except on weekends when I have a 2 pack a day habit". I bowl on leagues and smoking is allowed but because I love the sport I deal with it. It has been easier since members of my teams have quit smoking. I have to admit that while I enjoy going out in Illinois and not having to deal with the smoke I have seen firsthand the damage it is doing to businesses. I agree that there are some places where it shouldn't be allowed (schools,hospitals,etc..)but as far as the rest I look at it like this. I am a grown-up. I can choose to go somewhere or not. If I don't want to be in the smoke then, I don't go. I try not to be around it too much because it affects my sinuses but there are friends and places I refuse to "let go of" just because they smoke or it is a place where smoking is allowed. I have too much fun to not go there anymore.

You all make good points. However you must have forgotten what state you live in. After all, Diamond Jim and his Madison cronies know far better how to run your life than you do, just ask them, they'll tell you.

The market will take care of this if people would stop trying to regulate. If the place of business allows smoking, then non-smokers will not go there and viceversa. It is simple economics and if you are worried about health issue, then tackle the root problem of the smoking danagers and not to regulate the symptom (people who smoke). This author does not smoke and if a place of business allows smoke then it is my choice if I go in or some place else.

dakie: I agree 110%! This should be up to the business owner on what he or she wants to do. Not the government.

What everyone seems to forget is, Smoking is legal. The amount of tax that every smoker pays for a pack of cigarettes is herendous. The bars in Illinois are going broke. They have started a campaign on writing to that governer on that very subject. Does Wisconsin want more empty buildings because of the special interest groups that want it totally band. Which brings me to another subject, why is our goverment listening to this special interest groups. We all know smoking is not good for you. But lets give people the their credit due, if there is smoking in a place, don't go there! Period. If you don't like what is on TV, don't watch it. We don't need more laws telling us what to do.