All the health codes are OK with me. Are there any, in addition to the smoking ban, that you'd like overturned.

Do you have a particular health code that you would like me to respond too?
It is pointless to argue about it when you only see your point of view.

jc....., no, I avoided people's toxic fumes. And since bars are licensed by the public by way of the government, we non-smokers have a right to control what goes on in licensed businesses. (And, I don't believe you don't smoke.)

When someone is doing something harmful to others, it's perfectly proper for people to stop that harmful behavior by way of the government. Bar owners love the ban. It took the decision out of their hands, prior to the ban they had to suffer intimidation by smokers. Good thinking by the people caused the ban. Why no public outcry to prevent the ban? Why no public outcry to strike down the ban?

Everyone benefits from the ban, even many smokers benefit because some of them now smoke less, and some of them have quit entirely.

When you respond to my comments put some effort into it. Address the details instead of restating your chronic response of the boogieman is picking on you.

Why no response to this question:

Should bar owners be exempt from health codes?

I don't smoke, and I agree that it is nice to go into some places and not come out smelling as such. But, I don't think that I have any right to go into a place, by my own accord, that I don't own, and try to tell the owner how to run it. IE, if a business owner wants to allow smoking, then he/she can loose business because of it. I don't change things to force the business owner to accommodate me.

So,
Let me get this straight, gfan, you apparently have the potential for thinking, but didn't have the ability to walk out of a smoke-filled bar?
Instead you had to have legislation to move the smokers away from you?
See, In my life, I get away from the problem, but I see people like you would rather move the problem.
My way only effects me, your way effects everyone whether they like it or not.

"jcommon
Jul 11, 2012 at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal

Wow,
Some of the posters here never cease to amaze me.
You are so glad to be able to go to a bar and drink till your liver can't take anymore, but are so worried about your lungs that you be damned if you have to breath a little secondhand smoke.....
stupid comment- no all go to a bar to get plastered! Some just have a couple and go home.

"bassman
Jul 10, 2012 at 8 p.m.
Suggest removal

They should have smoking bars and non- smoking bars ! Then we would see who does the most business,I would bet you would be surprised !!!."

But if you have crappy service in the smoking bar then the results would not be correct or vice versa.
Went into Road Dawg the other night.
Asked for a blended Margarita. Hubby was walking to the bathroom and over heard"do you want to make a blended Margarita,to the other bartender" she said H3$# NO" So she came back and said the blender was broke! LIAR. It isn't that hard. Guess if you weren't a guy in there also and you were a wife in with your hubby you wont get good service. WE LEFT! NEVER to return!

Darwinism plain & simple. Let the stupid ones die of cirrhosis or of a respiratory impairment.

Sigma40, never call someone a fool. Everytime you comment you prove yourself to be one.

OK, you're a put-on, right?

If not, and just in case you have the potential for thinking, try this:

Smokers who would otherwise be smoking in bars are not smoking at all, or are smoking outside, or are smoking near other smokers, and/or are smoking near non-smokers who don't have the wherewithal to be elsewhere.

And, the next time you are outside take note that there are usually no walls and ceilings there. And when you're inside take note that there are walls and ceilings. Now, when you manage to get five minutes of free time, ponder the differences. If during that time nothing sensible pops into your head, kindly move to Canada.

"In bars people are spared the smoke of others."
Standing together smoking in another room, or outside just moved the smoke to another place.

Wow, the reading comprehension problems continue. Put the cancer stick down.

In bars people are spared the smoke of others.

"They just don't get how smoking is dangerous to people nearby the smoker. "
And how did banning smoking in bars change this?

Right, 916... They just don't get how smoking is dangerous to people nearby the smoker. Their smoke is fogging their ability to think clearly.

Smoking in bars is dangerous to others like not having health codes is dangerous to everyone.

EM...., Eagle's most recent post shows that I understood him perfectly. The reading comprehension problems are yours and his.

Bassman....if the hamburgers and cheeseburgers began causing heart problems in people sitting next to those consuming these foods, then yes, I would be for such a ban. I don't think it's going to have to come to that though:)

Hey EMMO gets it not too difficult to understand was it? I thought the sarcasm was very obvious but I guess some need others to point things out, same people that need Others to make their decisions for them. Woohooo for big government and making all our choices for us!!!!

gaz-fan...you are not real good at recognizing or appreciating Eagle1's sarcasm, are you?

Eagle, did you truly understand what you said?

If you're in favor of banning things that shouldn't be banned, then you must be in favor of banning something that should be banned.

Maybe you should put a little more attention to your reasoning. Bars are allowed to be open by the general public by way of the government. (That's why you can't open a bar without governmental approval.) Therefore, he general public should be able to go to bars without breathing the toxicity of tobacco smoke. Your examples do not apply. And, by your reasoning, bar owners honoring health codes should be voluntary. Think about it.

Eagle, did you truly understand what you said?

If you're in favor of banning things that shouldn't be banned, then you must be in favor of banning something that should be banned.

Maybe you should put a little more attention to your reasoning. Bars are allowed to be open by the general public by way of the government. (That's why you can't open a bar with governmental approval.) Therefore, the general public should be able to go to bars without breathing the toxicity of tobacco smoke. Your examples do not apply. And, by your reasoning, bar owners honoring health codes should be voluntary. Think about it.

Thanks gazettefan it's like you really truly understood what I was saying.

Eagle.., we got you down as being in favor of the smoking ban.

Next.

No in fact I wish they would incrementally start banning other things in privately owned businesses, those gambling machines, alcohol, deep fried foods for starters. Gambling, alcoholism, and obesity are huge issues and people don't have the self control to stay away, we need more rules and laws to protect us from people making their own decisions to engage in such unhealthy behavior. I say keep going onto these things then move on to soda and sugary foods after that. We can't stop until privately owned businesses are only allowed to serve water and unsalted crackers, wait nope too many carbs, water and lettuce. Then we should start banning other things I ride a motorcycle and put not only my life but others at risk everytime I start it plus it is load, I can't stop I need a law to ban me from continuing this horrible practice. The smoking ban has been wonderful, the best part is I am no longer led by gunpoint to inhale second hand smoke. Thank God for such wise people that make laws for us people that can't make decisions or cannot stop such horrific behavior even though we so desperately want to.

health nazi's when will it end

The smoking ban in restaurants has allowed the grossly obese to linger over their king- and queen-sized portions without going home smelling like smoke...they just smell like restaurant grease now.

What's next ,Hamburgers,Cheeseburgers ? They cause heart problems ,and cholesterol and all of that fun stuff don't they ?

Should bar owners be exempt from health codes?

Ban alcohol too! Does a lot of damage in so many ways to so many people. Ban perfumes and fragranced anything in public. Triggers allergies and asthma. No fried foods as the oils smell. Ban this, ban that, etc, etc. Everyone and anyone can claim issues and effects from something.
If a bar owner wants to set up a blocked off room with ventilation not connected to the rest of the building, why not? Doesn't bother me one way or the other as the bars aren't my cup of tea. Former smoker here, so you don't all jump up and down. Let business owners decide the fate and fortunes of their businesses.

I don't smoke, so could care less personally, but this ban the way it is written is not right...
If not a public place, and privately owned if you want to allow smoking that is your business. If it offends non smokers..don't go there.....
No different than serving unhealthy high fat foods and so on.....
Interesting comments though on a tough subject.

Right. They like to claim that smoking bans are the beginning of or part of a great erosion of our rights. But they can't say what other rights they have lost as part of that erosion.

I'm just wondering where in the costitution smoking bans are verboten. And smoking as free speech doesn't work.

Should health codes be up to the bar owners?

it should be up to the bar owners, if they want to allow smoking, not the state. the state of wisconsin is broke according to walker, the revenue lost from this law is never published. the loss of taxes from sales taxes, vending machine permits etc. so in turn, the has state has raised taxes in other areas, to make up the loss. wisconsin is rated, as one of the highest cigerette taxes in the us.

That's right, allow yourselves to be intimidate by a bunch of slobs, instead of handling it the right way.

Truecitizen I agree as someone who lives next to a bar the patrons are outside until bartime. Disrupting the neighborhood with their hollering. Empty beer cans everywhere until the owner shows up in the morning to police the area. Let the owners decide if they want a smoking or a non-smoking establishment.

Ted......, should bar owners be allowed to not follow health codes?

For the good of all of us, smoking should be outlawed in or near all places open to the public.

Wow,
Some of the posters here never cease to amaze me.
You are so glad to be able to go to a bar and drink till your liver can't take anymore, but are so worried about your lungs that you be damned if you have to breath a little secondhand smoke.

I bet most of you also have a fire pit in your back yard and sit around that breathing in the smoke and don't complain about the smell.

Tobacco is a billion dollar industry... for the govt and the manufacturers... It will never be banned.

but there are bars that still allow smoking in them, they still have ash trays on the bar and dont care if they get a ticket. oh well. but i do enjoy going out for a few drinks and not having to take a shower before i go to bed because of the smell.
but as a former smoker i still do enjoy the smell, but if you are going to ban it then ban it. then you have to enforce it.

When evaluating a problem, the proper proportion should be assigned to all aspects of that problem.

Some victims of the tobacco industry smoking outside is nothing compared to a bunch of them smoking inside.

Coming from a person who has never smoked at all, I say let the bars have smoking inside their business. It would sure beat the crowd outside the business that when you go for a run you have to dodge and inhale all the smoke anyways. Restaurants... no. Bars yes. Simple as that.

Indy......., should bar owners be allowed to decide on all health codes?

PACKRAT, I AGREE WITH YOU 100 percent... ITS IS SOOOOOOO NICE TO COME HOME NOT SMELLING LIKE SMOKE.

crazycat......., you're a smoker. Quit for your own good, and the good of the people around you.

truecitizen, what you said is not the problem you claim. If it were, you'd be obligated to have the police handle it. And your mentality that if some people are abusing the public then a sane law should be struck down is nothing more than fear of mob rule.

I agree 100% with crazycatlady. Let businesses do as they please.

no

Crazycatlady..then gazettefan wouldn't be able to have the government do all of their thinking for them...
*
As a person who enforces, I can tell you that every bar is now surrounded (outside) by a loud crowd, who have to be outside of it's walls to smoke. I would not want to be the one living next to it. Then you have to make sure people don't wander off with their drinks. The bar owners have a harder time controlling their patrons now. This micromanaging the public thing goes too far and causes other issues.

I say ban smoking altogether. Drinking and driving kills people, they outlawed that.. Smoking kills people.. Why not outlaw it? With all the health care bs going on.... i'd think the govt would really want to do away with smoking entirely.

Greg, my answer to your question is a simple, emphatic NO!
...
Since the ban went into effect, it has been pure bliss frequenting restaurants, bars, bowling houses, etc., and not come home smelling like an ashtray.
...
Prior to the ban, available choices of establishments were very limited.

Magnets for stupid people have been eliminated. Get on with your life.

Personally, I don't smoke but here's a thought. Let the business owners do what they want with THE BUSINESS THAT THEY OWN & if you don't like it,DON'T GO THERE!

They should have smoking bars and non- smoking bars ! Then we would see who does the most business,I would bet you would be surprised !!!.

No. No indoor smoking area. Absolutely not. Public indoor areas are places where fools, like smokers, can be protected from themselves by government law. Plus, there's no guarantee that some non-smokers wouldn't be damaged by such areas.

NO-
I guess we have to bring this up some more?
We have had sidewalk in the paper already 3x this week.