There's no substance to any of the pro-smoking claims below.

Anybody that thinks this is a good idea needs to talk to former bar owners in madison, and present bar owners surrounding madison.

first of iam a smoker. i do not smoke in my house, in the car,i dont go to restaurants to smoke i go there to eat, so no problem there. ive stopped going to restaurants in the last couple of years due to the excessive perfumes and colognes people wear, it makes me sick to my stomach because some people pour it on. so instead of wining about it i dont go out to eat. i think it is rude to target overweight people, or drinkers such as ive been reading, by the im neither of. over weight people are hurting no one but themselves, so you should keep your snide remarks to yourself. as far as drinkers are concerned they should never drive so they dont hurt anyone. business owners who pay their taxes and have worked hard to have good businesses should not be run out of business,due to a statewide smoking ban. the ones who complain the most are the loud mouths who continually need to complain about something. i cant believe the turmoil our country is in and this is what you have to complain about. do as i do, if you dont want to be around the smoke avoid it or stay at home.

hannah - "thais funny you think your rights are infringed. so non smokers dont have rights to clean indoor air!!!>???"

Sure, and if the non-smokers were as devouted spenders and patrons as the smokers are...then they would have there smoke free places. But the facts of the economics...i.e. supply and demand - would appear to suggest the latter! Oh I almost forgot...Duh!

Ekim 8404 says: "In fact bars and clubs that do allow smoking now would see a larger more diverse customer base of they banned smoking."

Ha, ha, ha,...your funny! The tavern league has stats on this if you'd like them, also I challenge you to walk into any bar or tavern on a friday or Saturday night and take a poll.

The fact is the opportunity for "smoke free" bars and restaurants has been around for a long time. Some have done well (more power to them), and many others (most) have fallen flat on there face. But seriously...if anything creating this ban, will do little more than remove a potential niche for those places; we could have had both...smoker friendly places, and non-smoker friendly places...but not if this crap flies. I don't smoke but I am getting really sick of everybody trying to control the lives of everybody else.

Out of Public Buildings...Yes
Out of the service industry...up to them. Personally I'd rather not live in a totalitarian state but whatever; watch these businesses get run into the ground, and then noone can go there.

First off, let me say that I am a smoker, for now anyway. I have gone to bars and restaraunts, both smoking and nonsmoking (owners choice). I work in a nonsmoking place (school) which is my choice. I have worked at businesses where I had the choice to smoke if I wanted to (my choice). It was the owners choice to allow smoking at these businesses. My point here is that it should be up to the owner of a business to allow or not allow smoking at their establishment, not the goverment. Just as it is the choice of smokers and nonsmokers to go to or not to go to these places.

Whenever it doesn't appeal to my sense of reason. That's how people decide between conflicting results from studies of the same issues. It's what you have done here.

Also, you extend your choice issue into the realm of taking responsibilty for obeying the law. If a bar owner complies with a law he doesn't like, he isn't necessarily choosing, he's being responsible for being a part of something larger than himself. He is not being an anarchist, he is partaking in a social compact for the sake of living in an organized society.

True, Cherry's going smoke-free before the ban kicked in may not have been entirely a matter of choice. It may have been an example of how the passage of a necessary law not only compels compliance but also influences how people think.

Many of the people who buckle-up now while driving didn't do so before it became mandatory. Now many of that group have allowed it to become a habit and have come to believe that it's the safest way to drive.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss and sometimes it's the contrary.

So you reject all studies that don't favor your point of view.. I suppose ignorance is bliss. That ties back into people finding and latching onto only those studies that suit their goals. Part of the reason I posted those links showing you I can find studies that support my views as well.

As far as the business owner he wants to stay in business if that means he has to uphold a law on banning anything to stay in business well they make a choice. sell or abide. As it sits they already have a choice to make it smoke free or not by refusing service be it to the non smoker or to the smoker.

ultimately your arguement holds no water in light of the fact its the owner making the choice to keep it smoking, since if its truely better to be non smoking they would have done that, prior to being forced into doing it. Going smoke free before a ban, after a ban is put in place really isn't choosing to go smoke free. They had a lot more time to do it before they banned it.

When it comes to blogging I'm drawing the line on taking reading assignments and handing them out.

I'll only attempt to reason things out here. I accept the results of all the studies re: the danger of smoking and second hand smoke. Those studies appeal to my sense of reason.

I've studied the opposing studies and I reject those results.

Your new point:

I'm not aware of problems stemming from people who violate smoking bans. If it is happening, it must not be happening in significant numbers.

In your example you left out the thinking of the business owner. His concern will be with people phoning in a complaint to the proper authorities and then being faced with a citation and a hefty fine and the threat of losing his licence for repeated offences. That's why smoking bans are working. Smoking bans are working also due the compliance of smokers.

This blog should get an award for longevity in the catagory of stories not on the blog list.

The Janesville smoking ban for restaurants allows smoking in a separate room that has it's own vetilation system. I think the Wedge In on the eastside has one.

A lot of restaurants don't have the design or space (let alone the money) for such a room and are doing well, like Cherry's. After the Janesville ban was passed, Cherry's went smoke free before the ban was to take effect.

I don't know if a separate such room for bars is even an issue.

I do enjoy selective reading myself. I linked a few articles supporting the fact that cancer in itself is defeatable and I likened my burning leaves statement to other forms of cancer.

Thereby making the leaves, grills, and exhaust arguement valid. Since you have not disputed smoking occurs only in bars and select bowling alleys, I can assume that your supporting the fact we have given every other facet of public life over to the non smokers.

So a simple statement of its not valid without a supporting sophisticated arguement, as u put it, will not do.

Ultimately the bar is the last public place u can smoke unless your sitting in your house or car with the windows rolled up. Even then you would not be happy cause the smoke would come rolling out when I open the door.

Now you give us somewhere to smoke and mingle or your going to run into a lot of mean drunks in bars smoking anyway and starting a good many fights with the people dumb enough to tell them they can't. That would include cops since being drunk precludes u gave up on being sober.On another note I will revert to my statement of we reserve the right to refuse service. your a non smoker get out my bar.

Then of course you will run into those ignorant people you said were not worthy of a voice if they were too dumb to go vote. Again they will literally start a fight if you try to stop them. They will make a point of turning up to vote come next election or ban.

Look at how many people actually go outside and smoke at your workplace. It's a safe bet 30% do, and over half smoke or have quit. A lot of non smokers will show up to a bar just to smoke away from the significant other.

Yes, it's still going on. Seems to have an amazing hang time! And you're still checking it. So am I, sadly.

I've been waiting for you, gazettefan. lol. Thought I may have rung a bell in there. -;)

I think I've stated my position about as thoroughly as I can. Let non-smokers create their own environment. Then everyone wins, at no expense to the people on the other side. Bar owners can choose, employees can choose which environment to work in, and patrons can choose which to visit. My argument really is narrowly focused on bars. I concur with bans in restaurants, government buildings, and offices. My only dissention is bars. This doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

This just came to me, though: What would happen if a bar owner had a room adjacent to their bar which was not technially open to the "public," and which had no employees? Could he/she then permit patrons of the bar - by invitation only - to use that room for smoking? Interesting thought. Would it please the pro-ban folks? Back to the statues!!!

Is this still going on?!

All the arguments against smoking bans have been addressed earlier by those who support the bans.

For example: hannah has repeatedly pointed out that comparisons like burning leaves are inappropriate.

As for several new arguments:

You're on shakey ground when you claim that an opponent cites research only to confirm a bias. The proper thing to do is to address that research with an opposing argument of equal sophistication and credibilty.

Also, it isn't my point that Wisconsin should have a statewide smoking ban just because other states do. My point is that Wisconsin WILL have a statewide smoking ban. You can't un-ring a bell, the genie is out of the bottle. You can determine what the future will bring by looking at how things have changed in the past and then extending the nature of that change into the future.

There was a time when there were no smoking bans; now there are a lot of them. There will be more.

Existing smoking bans will not be abolished, none ever have.

Prohibition: I'm against it for the very same reasons that the prohibition of alcohol didn't work. Eventually smoking will have all the popularity and alure that sniffing snuff has now: Still legal but done by only a few.

for arguements sake lets assume I actually bothered to find these on the internet instead of reading them when I 1st found them.

this one is about tangerines and the ability to fight cancer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20741919/

these are about lycopene and cancer, too bad I didn't find the rat one I originally read.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/conten...
http://www.cancerproject.org/protective_...

and smoking is done outside of every establishment other than bars and some bowling alleys. but there are wood burning stoves and fireplaces in many homes.

Now there are 2 types of heating and cooling devices. they draw their air from inside or from outside and vent to either. This means your either getting recycled air or outside air which could contain any number of those pollutants.

Now unless you change your filters like crazy your blowing dust around in the air, fine particles which even if you do change your filters still exist and in vast quantities. The more people in the building the more dust. The longer the building has been in use the more fine dust particles you can find in it.It all amounts to an irritant that can trigger asthma or cause congestion in healthy people.

Cancer, is caused by the growth of cells that have had their DNA damaged. Causing the growth of an undesired set of cells. Almost anything can damage DNA. From the chemicals u use to clean your house to a virus like the common cold. In general your immune system attacks and destroys those cells and they don't reproduce.

you act as if being around smoke will make u fall over dead in 5 seconds, as opposed to a prexisting health condition. Like your family being predisposed to cancer increasing you risks. You say cigarettes, I say no. Any smoke can give u cancer. Exposure to fine particles gives you cancer as well, mesothelioma aka black lung. That was just coal dust being breathed into their lungs.

I say lets ban the sun from shining cause it causes cancer. It causes far more cancer than smoking does. The sun is hurting you and the children and me everytime I am exposed to it. I could die from cancer because of it...

yet you fail to even address the risk of you driving after drinking at a bar. Frankly the designated driver is a cop out, most people who imbibe no alcohol have zero tolerance of it. Anyone who says they get a designated driver every time lies.

Bars accept non-drinking customers, but they don't make a lot of money off them like drinkers or the smoking drinkers. Usually non-drinkers want to leave as soon as possible making for a short night out for you. Seeing a non-drinker at a bar is almost as rare as seeing a non-smoker. Quite a bit of irony in that.

Haeight...good post. Well-reasoned.

It is a fact of human nature, I suppose, that people will latch on to whatever evidence they can find in order to support their own likes or dislikes. I think people in here have pretty much shown that they are using studies to support their bias, regardless of whether those studies are the true reasons for that bias or not. It happens every day, I'm sure. "I don't like it, and I will find every conceivable reason to impose my will on everyone."

And, as much as I think gazettefan has presented a reasoned argument, I really have to disagree with the notion that "other states are doing it, so Wisconsin should too." Many states have legalized concealed carry of weapons. Yet, Wisconsin has not. Wisconsin bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many states do not. Many states have capital punishment. Wisconsin does not. Wisconsin allows underage persons to consume alcohol with their parents, ostensibly so the parents can teach them moderation. Many states do not. The list goes on and on. Mind you, I am not voicing any opinion on those matters, simply putting them forth to point out that because one state does or doesn't do something doesn't mean Wisconsin should or should not.

On this subject, I simply do not think that forcing one group's will upon society in general is appropriate. As has been stated many times, here and elsewhere, non-smokers have the RIGHT to work with bar owners to develop smoke-free nights and/or establishments. That was one main point of your post, I believe. No law mandates that bars allow smoking. And those who are against a smoking ban do not seek to require bars to allow smoking. At least I have never seen such a demand.

Yet, many wish to force all bar owners to sacrifice their smoking customer base just in case a single non-smoker MIGHT, at some point in time, want to patronize that business. That, to me, is interfering with the business owners' rights to run their business as they see fit. I have never heard a single smoking opponent personally guarantee every bar owner the level of income they receive from those who choose to smoke.

Beyond the obvious of the pot calling the kettle black.

1st any smoke can be an irritant and could be used in an arguement for banning the burning leaves, wood, grills, even automobile exhaust anywhere in the city due to the smoke released and fine particulates that could cause asthma sufferes undue harm. There are only studies on smoke related to asthma due to the direct link between smokers and their children. But the findings of those studies support any inhalation of fine particulates from any source that causes a normal person to choke.

2nd you harping about smoke in bars and your health disreguarding the obvious and more immediate killer of OWI. Operating While Intoxicated, if your pulled over after leaving a bar your getting a DUI or an OWI one means ur over the legal limit the other means you been drinking. A single second is all it takes to run someone over cause u weren't paying absolute attention or to hit another vehicle.

So consider the essence of a bar and a club. Bars are for drinking, clubs are for dancing and having a good time. Either way you look at them its a place in public for the population at large to go and enjoy their vices. Be it drinking and driving or smoking and drinking and driving. Any way you look at it your affecting someones health.

I choose to go to bars on rare occasion because of drunk driving, I have smoked on and off for half my life. I had asthma as a child. I played sports. You can chalk just about any health condition up to any susbstance you want, and you can probably find a study to support it. Overall its just the first substance they found and called it quits on looking for the real culprit. I had 3 other siblings that I grew up with, they did not have asthma even though my parents were smokers.

Kids, adults, and any animal you can find will leave an enviroment they dislike. They will seek out and create an enviroment they do like and rarely if ever revisit the places they did not enjoy. I suggest you find that enviroment and leave those that enjoy their enviroments alone.

Once you win all your wars on for your own reasons someone will attack the next best thing. Then the next. Prohibition didn't work out too well, given time people will forget that. Next on the chopping block alcohol.

Hannah, good article. Here’s something else everyone should read.

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've been out getting slightly tilted in a smoke-free bar.

copperguy and haeight, it's been a pleasure here.

And, even with her giving a dig here and there, I've been amazed at how articulate, in a such an understated way, hannah is.

Gazettefan, thank you for a civil and reasoned debate. Chalk me up as a member of your admiration society! I will continue to monitor this forum in case you or others wish to continue the debate in a meaningful way. Hopefully, I have offered some food for thought. I have seen your posts in other forums, and commend you for your civility and disciplined discussion!

Hannah, as others have suggested, all you need to do is get others who want a non-smoking bar together and either open a bar or find one or more bar owners to have non-smoking nights and or establishments. Then you get what you want without infringing the rights of those who prefer smoking establishments. It's simple. We do not need a smoking ban just so that those who want smoke-free facilities can pick and choose where they want to go. If we have a ban, then those who want non-smoking get their way entirely at the cost of the smokers. And, unless they are going to guarantee income to every single bar, whether or not they frequent that bar, then they must not be allowed to infringe the bar owners' right to cater to the clientele he or she chooses.
There is no law requiring fast food restaurants to sell healthy (or less-harmful) foods. There is no law requiring bars to offer non-alcoholic drinks. There is no law requiring a non-smoker to patronize a business that allows smoking. These are choices. All choices.
I like salad. Salad is good for you. Hamburgers are not-so-good for you. Do I think all restaurants should be required to offer salads and not offer hamburgers? Of course not. So if a restaurant only offers less-healthy food, I simply do not go there. That's my choice, and not an imposition of law.

lol

Gazettefan, I think what I am suggesting is that loud music, cigarette smoking, alcohol, fatty foods, soft drinks, etc., are all harmful. We choose whether to have poor nutritional habits, drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes. Businesses choose whether or not to sell those products and/or services. Employees choose whether or not to work in those businesses. These are all choices that are made.

People who do not wish to eat fatty foods do not have to frequent fast food restaurants. People who do not want to have their hearing damaged do hot have to go to bars with loud music. Those who do not want to cause harm to their liver or other negative effects do not have to consume alcohol. These are individual choices between harmful and less-harmful acts.

Similarly, if one doesn't want to wade through clouds of cigarette smoke or be on the alert for burning cigarettes, they don't have to go to bars that allow smoking. I, for one, abhor sitting in a nice restaurant trying to enjoy my meal, only to have a screaming or crying child nearby with parents that don't care about the disruption to others. That causes me mental anguish. Yet, I am not calling for mandatory child-free areas in, or banning children from restaurants. I have the choice of not going out to eat. I am not trying to force society to adopt rules and laws to my benefit at the expense of others'. I don't go to restaurants that cater to young children. It's that simple. Those who are offended by or uncomfortable with the dangers of cigarette smoke can choose to patronize businesses that are non-smoking.

I do not like blues or hip hop music. Accordingly, I do not go to bars that feature blues or hip hop music. I do not call for legislation outlawing blues and hip hop music.

A very close friend of mine owns a bar. I occasionally help him at his business. Smoking is allowed. There are costs and incoveniences associated with smoking, such as ash tray clean up, cigarette butts on floors, maintenance of smoke removal systems, etc.. And he is a non-smoker himself. Yet, his clientele chooses his establishment in part, at least, for the ability to smoke. So he chooses to allow smoking. It's his choice to allow it, and the patrons' choice whether to frequent his bar.

I have never seen a Mcdonalds, Pizza Hut, uh take your pick commercial. If you need advertisments for bars stating that they are smoking establishments, and the customers want smoke free. They are bankrupting themselves on purpose. Those would be the establishments that fail.

in order for a small business to be absolved of debt there are certain bankruptcy guidlines they need to meet. I believe insolvency exclusion is the one most resort to. If I am wrong and someone knows better please speak up.

insolvency exclusion
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p908/ar0...

You can not deny the dramatic increase of closed bars in the period of time directly proceeding the bans in madison.

Seems how smokers and health issues are cropping up in the blog here there is another article that I feel is linked with this in those reguards and deserves just as much attention.

Robson introduces fire-safe cigarette bill

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

Hah! You almost got me there Haeight.

I said earlier that this country is in a transition period. Eventually the playing field will be level.

And, I was told by one of the employees at the Argus in Madison that they didn't expect the ban to be a problem.

So you admit Fitchburg has an advantage over madison bars for the business owners? One being banned and the other not.

Smokers can choose to kill themselves anyway they deem fit. You can't argue a living will to pull the plug of a patient who has standing do not resusitate orders. You can walk away from a smoker.

The owner can expel smokers from their establishement. They can run ads inviting the masses of smokers.

Jobs can write you up even fire you for smoking on their property. They can make you pay more for healthcare.

Government buildings are no different for enforcing certain guidlines to follow. When it pertains to the private sector and businesses you have your "HOT" issue.

Either way banned or not around those government buildings I feel you owe those tax paying smokers their area to smoke while they visit those government facilities they pay to run. Inside or outside those buildings.

Haeight, you just made a good argument for a statewide smoking ban. Take the advantage away from Fitchberg.

Haeight, good point re: McLards. The poorest people in this country are the fattest people in the world.

The problem is jumping from the particular to the general and comparing apples with oranges.

The concentrated toxicity of smoking mirrors why we are so concentrated on smoking as an issue. Smoking is so obviously bad for the smoker and anyone near him or her that it just doesn't compare with people who like to stuff their faces with junk food. This means something. It explains why smoking bans are hot issues.

Applying the general idea of principle to all this suggests that because our laws cannot be entirely consistent we should let chaos reign under the banner of let the people choose.

And people who don't particpate in decision making (one way or another) have proven their lack of qualifications for such.

How many people listen to madison radio stations? How many times since the no smoking ban went into effect have you heard an ad about a smoking bar just outside its city limits.

Smoking in bars is a huge selling point to get the masses to show up. If they aren't making money off those smoking patrons, why are they paying for all those ads?

copperguy, good point on the civility here.

I agree that loud music is harmful to people. But I don't agree that the issue is apples to apples with smoking.

Smoking is much much worse.

But let's just say they are equally harmful: Then what logic is being proposed?

Smoking shouldn't be banned because loud music isn't?

I'd go with the logic that just because the people and the government are not dealing with the harmful effects of loud music doesn't mean that they should also overlook the harmful effects of cigarette smoke.

One bad thing being banned is better than two bad things being legal.

Mcdonalds is still serving lard on a bun, same for every fast food restaurant. Its your choice to eat a 3,000 calorie burger and kill yourself with it. There are no codes or laws protecting me from that one burger which has the same caloric intake as an entire days worth of meals.

There is nothing protecting the children or adults from consuming massive amounts of pop or energy drinks, and the dangers of becoming diabetic as a result of the sugar consumption.

There are also very few enforced laws reguarding clean air. A few cities and states are strict, but when was the last time your car was tested for emissions?

We are not spinning our wheels, the issue is being obfusacated. Its not about one law or ban its about how we govern our own actions and regulate the Industries enviromental impact. Not allowing a few people in a position to effect change in laws/bans due to their own personal preference.

By and large the bulk of the population doesn't even bother to voice their opinion. Only those in favor of specific laws and bans turn out to effect change.

First, I have to correct my post about beer tax. I try to proof stuff before I post, but I did err in the math. The correct amount of tax on a six pack would be 3.6 cents, not 7.2 cents. I have no idea how I flubbed that one!

I find it interesting that those who argue it is a health issue do not address the many other legitimate health issues that have been poised. Again, the most direct comparison I have seen is that of loud music and the hearing loss that it causes to the patrons and employees of the bars. Many of the other comparisons that I and others have offered are not quite so apples-to-apples. That one is.

I do want to commend many of those who are posting here. Most appear to be staying civil and simply offering viewpoints. Some seem to just be getting frustrated and, if you will, "shouting," but not nearly as bad as in some other forums. Kudos to those who can engage in civil dialogue and discussion without just getting mad.

We are spinning our wheels on this.

People used to choose to do a lot of things that have since been affected by codes, laws, and statuets: eat unhealthy food, drink unhealthy beverages, and breath unhealthy air.

Should we abolish these codes, laws, and statuetes so people can choose?

How about all the bars that went out of business in Madison when they went smokefree?

If smokefree bars are the future, then its up to the business owner to adapt to the patrons. Its not up to the public to impose their hopes upon that owners economic interests.

Overall, smoking bans have not harmed businesses but only helped them.

This country is in a transition period re: smoking. Isolated examples are not valid.

The future will have all such places smoke free. Then the playing field will be level.

You let the owners choose, you let the patrons dictate to the owners what they want by chosing to spend their money at their establishment.

I am not arguing smoking around food is good I am saying there are people who enjoy it, and have had their rights revoked because of it.

As far as bars, well non smoking bars in general fail. The smokers jump ship to the next best place that they are allowed to smoke and drink. By far more smokers and people who quit smoking show up to bars then people who don't smoke.

If you can influence your local pub to go smoke free for a night or a month more power to you. Overall that owner will laugh since non smokers complain less then the amount of people smoking in those establishments.

Which brings it back to the owners choice in how they choose to serve their customers. Do they want to make money catering to those patrons they have or those patrons who might show up as a result of a ban.

Should we abolish existing health codes re: food, beverages, and air in bars and restaurants and then let people choose?

Yes it is a choice, its your choice to not support the owners of establishments that promote smoking.

Just like its your choice to buy a foriegn car. I think we should ban foriegn vehicles since it doesn't support our local economy.

It's not a choice issue; it's a health issue.

Nobody complains about the health codes that already govern the conditions of food, beverages, and air (asbestos etc.) in bars and restaurants.

A smoking ban in bars and restaurants would only be an improvement on those existing codes.

Well, you have a point hannah we should take away the right of the business owner to run their business the way they see fit. Forcing them to chase out their regular customers that smoke and drink in favor of drinking at home. Its going to hurt their profits and run their business into the ground. Its your choice to walk in.

Find yourself a bar owner pitch a smoke free enviroment to them. Get all your friends that are nonsmokers to come show them how much more money they could make being smoke free, by organizing a smoke free night. Don't impose your will on other people that have made a choice.

As far as smoking around public buildings, hey smokers have rights too. Give them a spot to smoke, almost all of them will use it. You see cigarette butts lying on the ground around places that fail to provide butt containers.

If you want to enforce a law don't make one up enforce the ones that are there, littering.

Lets pay more city/county/state employees to enforce a ban, cause they can monitor every building that needs it all the time. Its going to be a whole lot cheaper putting a camera up to catch people throwing litter anywhere they like.

Before anyone raises a beef about being filmed in public, think of how many places you go that are taping you. Banks, stores, gas stations, you name the place they have video of you.

This is an example of our government knit picking. Cigarettes are not illegal, they can be purchased and smoked by anyone over 18. I can understand wanting a smoke free indoor enviroment at government buildings. But give the smokers a nice little place off to the side to smoke and enjoy their rights.

hannah, thanks, I saw your post on the other blog re: where this blog is.

I found this blog earlier today and other blogs in the past that have disappeared from the blog list with the search method. Don't know why this is necessary. A lot of bloggers are lost because of this.

thanks for the info copperguy! I would suspect that the reason for such a low alcohol/beer tax is because of the lobbying that comes out of Milwaukee against it. Anybody know which states have cigarette factories?

According to the WI Departent of Revenue website, tax on a 31 gallon barrel of beer is $2.00, which comes out to 8/10 of one cent on a 16 ounce glass, 6/10 of one cent on a 12 ounce can, or 7.2 cents on a six pack. And 4 cents on a 1.5 ounce shot of liquor. This versus 8.85 cents on a single cigarette.

I see that there is compromise, but from the smokers.
Should there be a smoking ban at restaurants, government buildings, and health centers? My opinion is yes.
If someone around me asks me not to smoke, or if I see they don't like it, I move or stop. That is a matter of respect.
Anyone want to buy my truck, it releases unhealthy emmissions and could cause an accident, and the state will probably ban in.

point well taken, copperguy. But, if you check out the link I posted, many states are upwards of $3+ a pack. I wonder what the tax is on a 6 pack of beeR!?

I am a smoker and do respect others that don't smoke. While at work, I go to my car if I want a cigarette. But what about truck drivers? They drive for hours on end and then stop to eat and can't have a smoke while waiting for their meal. That is ridiculous. Has the government and the non smokers forgotten that we depend on them for our food and other merchandise? They need to be able to sit down and relax and "yes" have a smoke. I wouldn't mind the extra money we have to pay for cigarettes, if they would use the money to stop all the illegal immigrants from coming in and taking our jobs. Think about it.

For accuracy's sake, the tax increased by $1 per pack. Total state tax is $1.77 per pack. Reference: http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/ise/cigar...

Check out this link and then tell me that Wisconsin smokers have it rough! According to the map and grades, $1 a pack is child's play and a mere drop in the bucket!

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/addi...

The smoking ban is being presented as protection in the workplace. I reiterate my earlier question: Why are we not banning loud music in bars, since that is also detrimental to the health of those who choose to work there? That is easy to see as a direct comparison to the ban on smoking in the workplace.

The other suggestions I posed - such as banning soft drinks - were a bit more tongue-in-cheek for the purpose of making a point. Some people have their workplace on the roads (delivery people, technicians who travel to client locations, etc.), so why are we not banning drive-thru restaurants? People eating while driving are distracted and, hence, a health threat to those who earn their living on the road. Same argument for banning alcohol. It causes a health threat to those who make their living through driving.

We can make just about any argument for or against any proposed legislation. Parts of our constitution and many of our laws are created to protect the rights of the few against the wishes of the many, when it comes to civil rights. But we have freedom of association in this country. People are free to frequent - and work at - the establishments they choose.

Banning smoking (smoking tobacco is still legal) infringes on that freedom of association. Without making such an infringement, people are free to socialize and work where they wish, based on the smoking or smoke-free offerings of that establishment.

or lets ban people that have a disease like aids, because they might fall down and get blood in public places that could infect and kill you all. That is bad for your health too. I could go on and on and on. You choose your life and what you want to do and where you want to go. Choose wisely

We live in a free country. We are allowed to make our own choices, yes there are laws that we must follow, but when it comes to the trivial bs it gets old. Before you know it, we are not going to be allowed to leave our homes for fear that we are breaking a law or going against a "ban". It is the business owners decision to allow smoking or not. If you don't like it, don't go to that business. Simple as that. Get over yourselves people. I should organize a ban on people that cough in a public place. that it totally disgusting and filled with harmful germs that might kill me.....

I am a smoker. I do not smoke around non smokers. It is a habit I have quit many times and picked back up. No excuses, just no will power. Non smokers have the choice of not going to bars that allow smoking. If non smoking bars are so profitbable, there would be more of them. If you like to go to bars, and you do not want to smoke, open your own bar that does NOT allow smoking.
You have the right not to have to breath my smoke, I agree on that. But I have every right to smoke in designated smoking areas.

davbrok38, that disgust you feel when you see fat people should be offset by the knowledge that you're not one of them.

It works for me.

But nothing that goes on in your head will offset the toxic effects of cigarette smoke.

It's not a choice issue, it's a health issue. State and local health codes already control the condition of food, beverages, and air (asbestos etc.) in bars and restaurants. Banning smoking in all these places would improve on this control.

After a period of adjustment, businesses are helped not harmed by a smoking ban. Illinois now bans smoking in bars. Smokers who stop going to bars altogether will be replaced by people who don't go to bars now but would like to go out for a smokefree drink. A smoking ban in Rock County or Wisconsin will even the playing field for our area bars.

In Ireland and in states here where smoking is banned, the incidence of heart attacks drops dramatically. Some people who smoke now and oppose the bans will be nudged a little closer toward quiting. Increased taxes on cigarettes will nudge them even further. They will also benefit from less second hand smoke from others.

Smoking bans and increased taxes are becoming facts of life. They are the future.

Hello everyone? I guess I can start by saying this. I'm tired of looking at fat people. Ban fast food, it hurts my eyes and projects an image in my brain and I cant get it out. I'm tired of reading one-sided comments about public issues, It really makes me angry and that raises my blood pressure and makes me more prominent for a heart attack or a stroke. So ban public forums on the internet. I'm tired of driving up the interstate, and being fearfull of my life, because of idiot truck drivers more concerned of there time schedule than the personal saftey of other motorists. Ban Truck Drivers.
So why don't we just ban everything. I'm probablly just ramblling and I'm probablly going to get moronic replys. But, hey guess what I had the freedom to type this.

Smoking is a health hazard, so ban it. While we're at it, how about the blaring music in bars that causes hearing loss? Ban the music! People who drink and drive cause injuries and deaths, so ban alcohol in bars, too. And what about soft drinks? They cause tooth decay and obesity. We must ban soft drinks in bars. Come on, Wisconsin, let's get serious about healthy choices and ban bars altogether!

I love how people toss around freedom of choice, then proceed to trample everyone elses. Its very very simple, the owners of the establishments make a choice to allow smoking or not. Its your choice to stay or go.

There is a standing rule in every place of business, we reserve the right to refuse service. This means if your smoking or not smoking they can toss you out legally.

If you want a smoke free bar/restaurant then open one. As far as some one smoking while they prepare your food, that is a health code violation. That is like asking the cook to not spit in your food when they make it.

The simple truth is any ban will only hurt the owners of a business. Smoking almost everywhere in public facilities has been stopped, unless outdoors. Most workplaces don't even give smokers a designated area to smoke, hence butts ont he ground everywhere. I have worked at a few places that would write you up for littering and make you clean up the parking lot if your caught throwing butts on the ground. Those were some of the cleanest places I ever been in.

I guess I'm divided on this issue.

We've had a state wide smoking ban in California for years. It hurt at first, but bars are now actually attracting clientele that they wouldn't have if smoking were still allowed. While I don't go to the bars for my health, it's awfully nice to come home an not have to shower and fumigate my clothing.

People will adjust, but it will take some time. That being said, I just wonder where it all ends. We now have a law banning smoking in cars if there is a child on board. At least our police are busy enough hunting down criminals to truly enforce this.

Do you know the impact of a total smoking ban?
Maybe you should talk to a bar owner in South Beloit. Business has dwindled to nothing.
What will be the fate of these tax payers? They won't be there.
Non-smokers are not coming out in droves because they can go out and be smoke free. The people who drink will stay home and drink, and then go to the liquor store and get more to drink. Then, we will have to close down the liquor stores, because they cause drunk driving deaths.
If Wisconsin goes smoke free in bars, the state will lose those guaranteed tax payers. Then we will have to pay more taxes elsewhere to cover the loss. People will lose service jobs, and become more of a burdon on society and cost the state more. That means more taxes to pay for the housing and medical costs for those people. That means more taxes.
There are bar owners that have smoke free nights, and that is the CHOICE of the bar owner. WISC has a poll that gives 4 choices for different opinions on partial/no ban in bars, but only 1 choice for total ban. Instead of adding the compromise choices v. total ban, the total ban wins.
Since our economy is based upon business that supports business, we must look beyond the skin of the issue. Distibutors, drivers, health officials, producers, manufacturers and you will be effected if we do not attempt to compromise.

Yup, Big brother is feeding all this stuff into your heads about smoking. I smoke and I choose to do it, I will. I don't disrespect non smokers so non smokers should respect me as well. It's a free country that is going the way of big brothers.

Hannah- So the Free country is only for Non-Smokers? Give me a break.

Do you keep your stench on your porch?

As far as rights go, my right to breathe clean air supersedes anothers right to suck carcinogens into their lungs and expel them to those surrounding them.

As a former resident of some of the western states, WI is WAY behind in these matters. CA and OR have had no smoking no smoking laws for years now, and guess what, all the bars and restaurants still get business, why? Because those folks will still go to the bar, no matter what. I don't go to bars because of the stench and that wonderful smell of dirty ashtray in you clothes and hair, mmmmm, sounds good!

In fact bars and clubs that do allow smoking now would see a larger more diverse customer base of they banned smoking.

If an establishment is going to offer a public area to eat or gather, shouldn't it be made comfortable for everyone? Wouldn't that be in the business owners best interest and in the end more profitable?

People who smoke and go to a bar or restaurant are still going to go, they just have to step outside to stink.

Have a nice day.

I also think it would be nice if there were a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. The only problem I have with this is where do you draw the line. How far do you go before you are stepping on peoples rights? It has to be well thought out and enforced. The other problem with these types of bans is how much power do we really want to give the government. When they take away a persons right to smoke (even though it is disgusting and unhealthy)it is still a freedom that they are taking away. What other citizens rights are they going to take away next, where do you draw the line?

there should be a statewide smoking ban in all public places. Bars and restaraunts should be able to set their own rules. People who don't like the smoke will find other places to spend their money that are smoke free. All workplaces should be smoke free as well.
But I doubt it will ever happen. Too many smokers with too much influence.

i am so sick of people smoking right in front of doors. the smell is nasty and it also makes my clothes smell from walking though a big cloud of smoke. same with people smoking behind me or in front of me at a drivethrough. i have to turn off my heat so my car doesn't smell like cigarettes. granted, it's going too far to ban THAT. but i think they should ban smoking in front of buildings. either do it in your car or so many feet away from the entrance of a building.