everyone continually complains about the smokers,and the second hand smoke,but you dont mind all that money generated from the huge taxes put on it,what would you tax if cigarettes were made illegal?do you realize how much in taxes would be gone? i dont go to bars or restaurants,one because i dont drinnk and 2 because most of them are not very clean, so i dont care if they ban smoking in those places,and no one should ever have to try and eat their food with cigarette smoke blowing in there face.i smoke outside at work now,so i dont care if they ban it in the work place also.as a matter of fact, in the last eleven years ive never been able to smoke in any place ive worked.but when it comes to me smoking outside,dont you dare complain to me about the smoke,considering you have no problem coming into my work place covered in perfumes and colognes that make my allergies go crazy.not one of you have any consideration,for anyone who has allergies to perfumes.i wish they would make cigarettes completely illegal,then watch what happens when they lose millions of tax dollars,then you can put that in your non-smoking ban and puff on it.

This is just the start to more Government control in our lives.

This is a sad day for Wisconsin, and for anyone who values living in a free society. Thank you CarolT for speaking up for the truth and for real science. Since the early 90's, concocted, doctored, and in some cases, outright fabricated studies have been beating the drum of demonizing smoking. Now, there is no argument that smoking is not the healthiest habit one can engage in. However, it should be known that on average, smoking two packs a day reduces one's life expectancy by 2-4 years. Relatively insignificant. Secondhand smoke reduces life expectancy by no measurable amount whatsoever. Smoking Bans are immoral, unnecessary and ill-conceived. As a non-smoker, I do not believe that I have the right to not be annoyed, and as such I support a business owner's right to choose what goes on his or her business.

Zoom,
During the job interview, every single potential employee had the abilty to ask if smoking would be allowed at their workplace. If you don't ask before accepting the job, then you can't complain when you find out that smoking is allowed on the job. In the case of bars and bowling alleys....you have to be stupid to not realize that smoking is typically the norm. If you know that smoking is going to be allowed in your workplace, then don't take the job. It's that simple. Nobody is forcing you to take a job at at smoking establishment. The only time your argument means anything is if an employer suddenly started to allow smoking after previously being smoke free. How often does that happen?

I ain't beleivin' how long it took you folks to come with this here law. We down here in the south been having it for years. You folks sure are some backwoods fellers. Guess that be why our women folk look better than yours, healthier.

You have the right to smoke and I will defend to YOUR death your right to do so.

As usual, those who speak of the "rights" of business owners to allow smoking never mention the employees. An employee had (until now) no choice if the business they worked at was smoke free or not. There is no reason to have to work in a smoke filled environment. My right to breath clean air trumps your right to pollute it.

Everyone always has something to say, so here's my two cents:

everyone is born a non-smoker, you choose to take up the habit and it's your own problem to find places to smoke where it doesn't annoy the hell out of the rest of us.

This is not a party line issue...it's a public health issue. As another poster put it, the smoking ban talk began when Bush was in office, and Tommy Thompson wanted a statewide ban. There are 25 other states with a ban, and restaurants and bars aren't hurting. Some states with the ban are GOP states, some are Dem. states. Now, go back to your altar before Hannity and Rush and pick up some new talking points. Everything will be ok.

When some bring up tanning salons, it's ridiculous. There's no such thing as secondhand fake-bake. When some bring up outlawing alcohol in bars, there's no such thing as secondhand drunkenness. Regardless what CarolT thinks, seconhand smoke is one of the leading causes of cancer in the world. It's time for those who chose to not smoke to be able to go in any public building and not need to worry about being subjected to carcinogens in the air.

The real issue is not the "offense" to non-smokers, but rather the "defense" of private-owned businesses to determine how they want to run their establishment. If a tavern owner wants to create a non-smoking place, it should be up to them, not government. The owner has invested in this business, even though it is open to the public, the profit is not paid to a government entity (excluding licensing and taxation). It is up to the individual entering the door whether they want to join the crowd there. Your governing body has stepped beyond their authority and has bruised our right to free enterprise. They have empowered themselves
to impose regulations beyond government funded businesses to include all places the public frequents.

I think people have the right to smoke if they want, and I dont agree with the tax increase, but I do agree with this ban. Smoking is bad for your health and the health of those around you. Just because YOU decided to kill yourself slowly by smoking doesnt mean the people sitting around you should suffer.

I thought we lived in the land of the free? Yeah over tax us, raise the prices on EVERYTHING and now when alot of people are hurting and stressing out the most, go ahead and take something else away from them. Communism, pure and simple.

you know whats next, tax on internet, email postage, theres a big source of revenue from people online and someday they will get around to charging you for every word you write, for every site you look at, for every move you make, just a bunch of money grubbers, they talk about the money going for services, what services, i think they hire more people to sit around and think up ways of digging into our wallets, government is growing like a cancer, someday it'll do us all in..it can't go on forever..

If the majority ruled all of the illegal aliens would be gone and employers would be fined. By the way, I have never smoked in my life. It has nothing to do with party lines, just the government as a whole dictating what ir or isn't good for us. I guess the majority wants to go this way. Just don't complain when they take something from you that you may like.

Cigar bars are exempt.

Hurray for the smoking ban!!!!

;~)

Good.

The majority rules in a democracy.

No one has told anyone, smokers or nonsmokers where they should go to eat or drink, until now. Next "they" will be telling you where you can shop or where you can work. You have always had a choice of where to work, there were plenty of places where people did not smoke that you could work at. Doyle is just adding up more people that will not vote for him again. Not that he needed this to make the numbers climb.

I am just stating a fact. I am not busting on any group. Just trying to explain what is going on.

Smokers are the group that needs to stop whining--Smokers will still be allowed to smoke outside the buildings. Just put on your jackets, walk outside and deal with the cold, wind and rain to feed your habits...When your out there, you'll have sympathetic ears to listen to you while you're crying about the "good ol' days" when you could smoke inside the bars:)

What did all of you expect when you vote Democrat. They have an agenda to stop smoking everywhere! The beer tax hasn't been raised since about 1947. It is all about the democratic party and its agenda against smoking. Look it up.

highersatthanu, you are right on track. My wife works in a "scent free zone." No perfume allowed. Can't even send her flowers because they have a scent. People have gotten into trouble with plastic flowers before because someone thought they were real and tattled to the boss. Some days I think the whole world has gone insane.

-quote- "Ban tanning salons next. Then get alcohol out of bars to reduce drunk driving. Then get to work on unhealthy restaurant menus. Then on to the supermarkets selling food that's not healthy. Thanks big brother for making my choices for me... I guess. Oh, and don't forget to protect me from all the unhealthy media, movies, and video games (internet included)." -quote-
.
.
This isnt even the same argument, Those things are all people choice items, I have a choice to go tanning, A choice to go to the bar, a choice to watch unhealthy media.
.
.
what i dont have is a choice to go to a smoke free bowling alley with my children.

Awesome news! Have to give the politicians a rare thumbs up on this one....They are definitely representing the majority when they supported this smoking ban....

The whiners get their way again. What's next, perfume?

What about cigar bars? There was no mention of it this time.

CarolT get over it.

Wow manson! Are you a smoker?

I recently quit smoking due to the price increase, but i don't agree with a ban on smoking in bars

What happened to personal responsibility? It is a little scary that the government is dictating what an individual can and cannot do. Frankly if you don't want to be exposed to smoke don't go to a bar, also resturants have non-smoking and smoking sections for a reason.

Great timing Marissa, I'll take Business Ethics

Ban tanning salons next. Then get alcohol out of bars to reduce drunk driving. Then get to work on unhealthy restaurant menus. Then on to the supermarkets selling food that's not healthy. Thanks big brother for making my choices for me... I guess. Oh, and don't forget to protect me from all the unhealthy media, movies, and video games (internet included).

good thing that I just started to quit :)

CarolT, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I, personally, can accept this ban regardless of the reasoning. Ironically, as one that lights up, I get sickened as I am trying to eat a meal or socialize with friends when I get smoke puffed in my face. I don't like to walk through the smoke cloud as I enter a building.

Yes, it does sound like a double-standard, but it helps me to decrease my 'intake' and quit in the future.

Say what you like, but the health costs of this has not detered me. I hope that, between these bans and the continual increase in costs per pack, I will quit before it is too late for me, my family, and my friends.

We will never accept this law because it's based on sound and thoughtout scientific facts. There have been more studies, which show that the human ID10t virus causes over ten times more rediculous claims than the smokers pretend are caused by potheads. For socioeconomic reasons, non-smokers are less likely to have been exposed to this ID10t virus. And the smokers purposely use defective oxygen deprived thought processes that are based on nothing but dreams of smoking something from the green belt in order to accuse non-smokers for all those times they feel insecure. There's no scientific debate because it is intuitively obvious that smoke is not a good thing!

;~)

amen carolt.

We will never accept this law because it's based on criminality and corruption and scientific fraud. There have been more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than the anti-smokers pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. For socioeconomic reasons, smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus. And the anti-smokers purposely use defective studies that are based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires in order to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. They are automatically guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring those 50-plus studies, and lying in our faces that there's no scientific debate. There's no scientific debate because these criminals have censored it, not because of lack of scientific evidence!

http://www.smokershistory.com/wismoker.h...