Now if we could only ban heroin, obesity, laziness, and entitlements...

;-)

You're welcome.

I know I do NOT need to be "saved" by liberal socialists on a "do good/feel good" mission. I can take care of myself. Thanks anyway Gfan. How's that for gratitude?

FOTH, you haven't provided any evidence that smoking bans hurt business.

It's sad that people need to be saved and don't know it. It's also sad that people have to be saved by others while being incapable of feeling gratitude.

Sad this guy needs the government to save him with a smoking ban.

"This inappropriateness is typical of their side of the debate." --Gazettefan

Wrong. Inappropriateness is making an absolute and unprovable assertion such as, "Smoking bans don't hurt businesses" and then rejecting any rebuttal evidence with, "I don't take reading assignments".

LOL

I suppose in some sort of delusional bizarro universe, that might justify a declaration of victory. Come to think of it, isn't that debating strategy right out of the Flat-Earth Society Handbook? Regardless, back here on Earth, those two statements back-to-back constitutes forfeiture by default. Good day! :~)

(Nothing else should be inferred from my continued absence here.)

For the record, this is my mention of "Hitler.":

"foolonthehill, if you look hard enough on the internet you will find "proof" that Adolf Hitler invented the chicken dance."

The word "Hitler" wasn't important to my statement. It didn't identify anti-smoking ban people with Hitler. It was the anti-smoking ban people who inappropriately used the word. This inappropriateness is typical of their side of the debate.

Yes I know, it should be "their" instead of "there".

For the record, Gfan first brought up Adolf Hitler.

Those of us against the smoking ban are not socialists. We are for smaller government, quite the opposite of the socialist Nazi party/smoking ban Nazi's. Those who don't know there history are bound to repeat it. Less government = MORE FREEDOM!

officer....., Hitler and his crew with there "socialism" never imposed smoking bans. This fact (by your reference) puts Hitler in the camp of anti-smoking ban people, not pro-smoking ban people.

Wow now Hitler is brought into this smoking debate? I suppose the holocaust was just made up too right?

Gfan, Adolf Hitler was a socialist just like many of you who stand for big government.

Big news. GM has picked Orion Township for the new GM plant. Announcement will be made later today. You heard it here first!

If I were an anti-smoking ban person I wouldn't bring up Hitler. Hitler slaughtered ten million people. Many of those people were murdered with toxic fumes. Toxic fumes; sound familiar?

I don't take reading assignments. Maybe foolonthehill will read it and comment on it.

I hate Franken just like I hate those other loud mouths Limbaugh and Hannity.

Did someone mention Adolf Hitler?
****************
Beware: Anti-smoking Nazi's not satisfied with smoking ban
By Kevin Fischer
Jun. 4, 2009

During the smoking ban in Wisconsin, I cautioned that the anti-smoking zealots (and yes, that is exactly what they are) are very much like the moonbat left in this regard: They are relentless and they work incrementally.

They didn’t stop and kept pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing until they got what they wanted: an anti-business erosion of personal, private property rights that will shut down business and kill jobs, just so they can selfishly feel better.

Are they done? Will they stop now? Will they take their crying towels and sob stories and go home?....

http://www.franklinnow.com/blogs/communi...

foolonthehill, where'd you get that association? You just made it up. It doesn't follow from anything.

There have been several articles, by actual journalists, about the Madison and Appleton smoking bans not hurting overall business. In fact, Appleton even had a waiting list for liquor licenses after the ban. Your poor excuse for a web site is a joke.

"foolonthehill, if you look hard enough on the internet you will find "proof" that Adolf Hitler invented the chicken dance."

Thank you for the above wise and highly intellectual refutation of evidence, GFan. Interesting how you associated Adolf Hitler and "The people by way of the government have decided..." in the very same post.

foolonthehill, if you look hard enough on the internet you will find "proof" that Adolf Hitler invented the chicken dance.

I don't take reading assignments.

Stay focused:

The people by way of the government have decided that they do not want to breathe the noxious and toxic fume that spew from the cigarettes and throats of others.

Re-read Zoom's post below.

Are you saying that information and statements are falsified, Zoom?

GFan, if nothing else, you should have waited more than two minutes to at least create the ILLUSION of actually having read the link I provided and given thoughtful consideration to the comments of the (former) business owners therein. ;~)

fool_on_the_hill, I've seen the web site before. If someone wants to see an example of unscientific data, I can't think of a better web site. There aren't even any dates, or who collected the data, or how old it is.

Oh contraire gfan.

Smoking bans don't hurt businesses.

"The simplest solution is to eliminate smoking inside the business. That costs the business owner nothing."

These business owners disagree with you: http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm

You continue to miss-characterize your opponents here as "pro-smokers". I don't recall ever being "pro-smoker". This issue isn't about smoke. It is about how the definition of "individual rights" in the United States of America has become FUBAR.

Now, if you were complaining about how your neighbor's smoke was disturbing you in your back yard, I'd probably be one of few defending you, while many others chastised you to quit whining.

You're right. Feel free to initiate the karaoke ban.

What about the employees hearing damage on karaoke nights? They can't wear ear plugs because they wouldn't hear the customers order and this would cost the business money. The simplest solution is to eliminate karaoke inside the business to protect the employees.

The pro-smokers continually forget the employees of these businesses. No, they can't wear a respirator (a simple mask does nothing to filter the hundreds of toxins in smoke), becuase that would interfere with their job, which is making money for the owner.

The simplest solution is to eliminate smoking inside the business. That costs the business owner nothing.

We already have laws limiting sound volume for businesses. Never heard of complaints about Karaoke being too loud, so it's a silly analogy.

miltonalum, I'm heartbroken...NOT!

I have heard that Japanese Anime causes cancer.

Well....youve officially lost any and all notion of credibility in your arguments. Fortunately most bars have karaoke for a couple hours 1 night a week, Id be more than happy to compromise your smoking to a time frame like that. I can certainly avoid a bar for that time.

Sure I could wear ear plugs, but wouldn't that interfere with my RIGHT to hear conversation in the bar just like it's your RIGHT to breath clean air in the bar? In the same token, couldn't people bothered by smoke wear a breathing mask to filter out smoke? Karaoke may not cause cancer but it does cause PERMANENT hearing loss. Studies prove it. Cancer can be cured. I am living proof! Oh that's right. The simple thing to do if I didn't like loud horrible karaoke that will cause hearing loss is to NOT GO TO A BAR THAT HAS KARAOKE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Another silly analogy. I can plug my ears if the music gets too loud. Employees at concerts, race tracks, etc., routinely wear hearing protection. I can't stop breathing to avoid your toxic fumes, however. Oh, and sound doesn't give me cancer.

Karaoke kills!!! (my soul)

Detergent isles give off a strong odor. Might be next on the governments list.

What about my food stand?

You might want to avoid the State & County Fairs. The noise could be excessive and the livestock smell/fumes are not everyone’s cup of Joe.

Get the new ban rolling. Karaoke, the audio on TVs, and smoking has done severe damage to the sanctity of the bar experience.

Officer: To protect your ears from all other dangerous sound levels as determined by OSHA and others to cause permanent damage, you'll also want to avoid anyplace with live rock or country music. Plus, to avoid the double whammy of both illegal noise AND toxic fumes, you'll definitely want to avoid NASCAR, drag races and --that health menace of all health menaces-- the tractor pull.

Try some ear plugs, Maybe the owner could build a small booth that the singer is inside and the so called music is played at acceptable levels over the sound system. Yes I see your point about risks. You could take that even farther. How about noise levels at Packer Games, Badger Games, Movie theaters, Concerts, etc. etc. Walking down the street and some kid has music playing at high levels in his car sound system. How about that screaming kid on the airplane.

So what do I do if I want to go into a bar/bowling alley that has karaoke but I don't want to subject myself to ear damage? Gfan, miltonalum, jarvis53121,IndysGirl, creature and others, please help me! I don't know what I should do! The studies show that karaoke is harmful to my health/hearing.

Karaoke bad for you: study

Tuesday, 8 July 2003

music notes
It's official. Listening to and participating in karaoke is bad for your health, Korean and Hong Kong studies have found.

The two new studies have shown that strenuous singing can damage the voice and increase the risk of noise induced hearing loss. Both studies were reported in this week's British Medical Journal.

Karaoke singing - where the singer's voice is amplified against accompanying background music - is very popular in Asia, and has spread to Europe and North America. But there have been very few studies looking at the impact of the phenomenon on the participants' health.

Noise levels in a typical karaoke singing environment were higher than 95 decibels, the Korean researchers found, after measuring average and maximum sound pressure levels during various types of karaoke singing - including ballads and rock.

In what sounds like torture, the subjects were exposed to 100 minutes of karaoke. Each singer's hearing threshold levels were measure before and after the exposure.

"Further statistical analysis of hearing threshold shift revealed that up to 8dB of significant hearing loss was found at the most important human hearing frequency band, centred at 4000Hz, after about two hours of karaoke noise exposure, indicating that karaoke facilities may pose a serious threat to noise-induced hearing loss," warned the study.

The results were published in the International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics.

But its not just listening to karaoke that is dangerous. A second study, undertaken by researchers from the University of Hong Kong, found that because most karaoke singers have no formal singing training, they are more vulnerable to developing voice problems.

The problem is karaoke singers are so enthusiastic they tend to sing for long periods without a rest and without drinking any water.

In what must be said to be a subjective measure, the researchers found that people who did have drinks and rests sounded better than those who did not. They were also able to hit the high notes the others couldn't. The study was reported in the Journal of Voice.

Danny Kingsley – ABC Science Online

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stori...

Now it is official. Karaoke, a favourite passtime in Asia more than anywhere else, may be fun for those belting out the songs, but it is no good for your ears.
Karaoke

If you stand around singing or listening to karaoke for just a couple of hours, please be advised that your hearing is seriously at risk.

The noise of a typical karaoke evening can be overwhelming.

Korean researchers studied the impact of karaoke on people's health. In bars and at parties with heavy use of the karaoke system the researchers found noise levels above 95 dB, and at times, much higher.

The party goers were hearing tested before and after 100 minutes of karaoke exposure. On average, the noise moved their hearing thresholds 8 dB in the wrong direction. The results of the study were reported in the British Medical Journal.

If you have been drinking alcoholic drinks your ability to judge the intensity of the noise is impaired. And before you get too carried away with your karaoke performance, make sure that you, your voice and, most of all, your ears take a break away from the stage and the loudspeakers. You may regret it forever if you don't.
http://www.youth.hear-it.org/page.dsp?pa...

Karaoke can damage singers’ voices and hearing

Roger Dobson Abergavenny

Researchers have confirmed what many people unlucky enough to listen to karaoke singing already knew—it can have adverse effects on health.

Strenuous singing can damage the voice and increase the risk of noise induced hearing loss, according to two new studies. The popularity of karaoke singing, where the singer’s voice is amplified against background accompanying music, has spread from Asia to Europe and North America, but few studies had looked at its impact on health.

Researchers in Korea measured average and maximum sound pressure levels during performances of various types of karaoke singing, including ballads and rock. They also measured each singer’s hearing threshold levels before and after 100 minutes of karaoke. Results showed that noise levels in the typical karaoke singing environment were higher than 95 decibels. Maximum noise levels frequently exceeded the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s non-permissible level of 115 decibels, roughly equivalent . . .

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/3...

Okay, officer...., NOW we agree on something!!!

"...be stuck in a bar for karaoke night sucking in someone elses deadly habit." I think the government should outlaw karaoke. How many ears have to be damaged by loud horrible singing before the government does something about it!

Officerfriendly, DiGriz, and the others hanging onto some thread of argument.....
.
Ive sat back and read the majority of these posts, absorbing both sides and seeing alot of good points made and i have come to a conclusion. Both of you are so blinded by trying to make more out of this than it is, that you have lost concept of what this country is all about. This law is not about taking a freedom or opening a door for the law to take more. I can understand why you try to make a mountain out of this mole hill with this argument, its the only one that you have, but it doesnt hold enough water to take a drink of. Someday your children will thank you, or better yet they wont because they wont even know what it is like to be stuck in a bar for karaoke night sucking in someone elses deadly habit. Im done with this thread now as this dead horse has seen enough beating.

creature, my views on the "drug war" are well documented. Do a little research. Open minded? Sure, you could say that. I prefer to say libertarian. http://www.lp.org/
Less Government = More Personal Freedom

Quote------- "There is no such thing as "clean air." And certainly not in any outdoor environment in any U.S. city. There are, in city air, according to the New York Times, 320 toxic chemicals spewed out by industry; that, plus emissions being leaked by every car. (It's been said that a non-smoking jogger in Manhattan inhales the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes for every mile he/she jogs.). Add cooking to the equation: One study among many that nicely makes the point. Conducted by the British government's Health & Safety Executive, in 12 restaurant kitchens, "The Importance of Good Ventilation in Commercial Kitchens and Industrial Cooking Areas" reports restaurant workers are exposed to: "airborne chemicals including [the carcinogens] heterocyclic amines (HA), nitrosamines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), aldehydes, and various volatile organic substances. Irritants such as acrolein, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were detected..." as were other respirable particulates. Nonetheless, all these substances were found to be-- just as are the substances in second hand smoke - below the airborne OELs (the Brit equivalent of OSHA's PELS, i.e, Permissible Exposure Levels.) "
.
Thank you for finally making my point, all of this you listed is what we breath in every day, what gives anyone the right to compound all of this by adding a 100% preventable substance (SHS) to the equation?
.
In laymans terms, you dont help a man who eats 10 big macs a day lose weight by handing him an 11th....................

Officer - Just wondering what your personal viewpoint is on the Illegal Drug Laws? For, Against, or maybe a little of both depending on the drug or situation? How about speeding laws? Would you be in favor of something like what they have in Germany? How about age of consent for minors to adults on sexual issues. There is plenty of times when the adult and a 17 year old might both agree but it’s not legal. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I get the impression that you might be one of those open minded police officers as you wrote, "less government = more freedom”.

My problem with some smokers is that they don't mind leaving their litter for others to have to pick up. I have lost count of the many times I have seen smokers who carelessly toss their cigs out the car or truck window. If you have to smoke, then take care of your own garbage.

Gfan, I particularly liked the part "The sheep wander aimlessly, without any cause..." Whatever the government tells us must be true, right? If more than half the states have a smoking ban it must be a good idea, right? Please Big Government, save Gfan and the rest that can't save themselves. Don't tread on me!

DG - I'm lazy, far from it. You must be having another bad day in the field. I've seen the posts prior to my last comment and I stand by mine. I'm not going to regurgitate every position like you do. Waste of time and space. I know you're pro establishment owners rights to do as they please in spite of health hazards and risks to patrons. In fact, you've stated on previous occasions that you would like to own a bar so you could kick out people who didn't smoke just for S@#$% and Giggles. Or make them light up to stay. It would be an interesting legal case against you for causing someone to become addicted to cancer sticks because they were required to light up in your bar. Well anyway name call all day as that is your way. As for my specific reference to lazy smokers who cannot be bothered to go outside to light up. Fairly straight forward viewpoint. You want to smoke go outside. You don't want a ticket then go outside. You want to be an owner of a bar that allows smoking move to a State that has that option left. Don't wait because those days are numbered.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” – The Declaration of Independence.

Some claim that a smoking ban in all public places violates our liberty and probably our pursuit of happiness as well, but does it? Don’t non-smokers have the same unalienable rights? Not just the trivial right not to smell tobacco smoke but also the not-so-trivial right not to have the tobacco smoke initiate an asthmatic reaction or worse depending on the aliment or condition a public bystander may have? I can think of a few parallels that may help clarify the debate. We all respire in public. Sometimes, when we are sick with a dangerous disease, our government uses its sovereignty to quarantine us away from the public in the interest of the greater good, infringing on our liberty to prevent an epidemic. We also have necessary bodily functions that we all must perform from time to time (I’m referring to personal hygiene and sanitation sans the details) which our government also regulates the free exercise thereof by banning such activity in public (except for facilities specifically constructed to accommodate said necessary functions). Regulating smoking is similar to regulating these things with the notable exception that smoking is not a necessity and therefore there is no need to provide accommodation. And keep in mind that the government’s rationale for regulating such activities is public health which also is its concern regarding smoking. There are many people with respiratory problems such as asthma who have every right to be in public whose liberty is denied by smokers who are all to keen on their own liberty but seem so impervious to the liberty of asthmatics and others who may suffer from the effects of tobacco smoke. If smokers (not all of course) were considerate of the liberties of others, a smoking ban would be unnecessary but that is not the case. How many times have we all seen smokers asked to extinguish their butts and get a one-fingered salute (or something equally as eloquent) for the effort?

I cannot even believe this is still dragging on. The lazy smokers who for whatever reason cannot be bothered to get up and go outside for a smoke are frankly addicted to a drug and it clouds their judgment on this topic. The nonsmokers have a legitimate argument that they should not be subjected to breathing in secondhand smoke. Bottom line is a law was passed and the only option is for those that want to change it back work through the legislative system. The big brother argument is getting tired.

Digriz, are your serious with your recent comments?

officer....., newsflash: There weren't any smoking bans in the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

Metaphors, similes, diversions, and incoherencies aside, here is the issue:

The state of Wisconsin has banned smoking in bars for health reasons. This is because some people in bars have been spewing noxious and toxic fumes from the ends of cigarettes and their throats.

"2nd hand smoke is not my choice to inhale, while it is my choice to patronize an establishment, I do not choose to inhale your toxins."

Read your own words over and over until you get it. Hint: the operative word being "choice". Everyone now has a choice. (That is, until July 5th, 2010.)

The flaw in your entire thesis is that you have convinced yourself of some "right" to enter the private property of another. That is incorrect. You may enter and remain there only by permission.

"When you go into business in this country you are subject to regulations, hundreds of them..."

Thank you for helping to make my point. Add one more to regulation to that pile. In particular, a regulation passed over the objections of business owners and their welcome patrons. In other words, the willing and rightful participants in such transactions. That is called PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. As someone who objects to breathing tobacco smoke, you would not be a willing participant. If your objections interfered with the willing participants, then you would not be a welcome patron. Naturally, this would also apply to smokers and smoke-free businesses. Avoiding undesirable transactions, especially those where you are not welcome, would also be called PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Prior to the ban, no one had a gun held to their head. That is called LIBERTY. The first Americans understood and were willing to die for it.

As for straw man analogies... are you aware of any chefs fighting for their right to toss pancakes on the floor or of any patrons fighting for their right to eat them? Do you intentionally obfuscate this issue or do you still not understand the concept of liberty?

Gfan, Zoom, miltonalum and the rest of the socialist's theme song:
Red Alert 3 Theme: Soviet March – Literal translation from the Russian

Our Soviet Union subjugates the whole world
Like a gigantic bear from the East.
The sheep wander aimlessly, without any cause,
Yet the Soviet bear's on the hunt.

Our brotherhood's a good life, Our generosity is without compare.
All those with us are strong,
All those against us, beware.
It'd be a shame if we had hardships.

To all those around us, it's not worth your while
If we were to turn you to ashes.
We thank you profoundly, and bow to you deeply,
From the mightiest nation in all the world.

"Unlike other discussions, where there is actually intelligent discussion, this one has fallen to the level of "smoking stinks, it's bad, and I don't care about anything else, because I don't care because it's bad and that is that and I don't care because it's bad. So there."
.
OK, lets got back to the basics then.
.
A public place is a business, subject to regulations, hundreds of them.
.
2nd hand smoke is not my choice to inhale, while it is my choice to patronize an establishment, I do not choose to inhale your toxins.
.
2nd hand smoke causes cancer, period, its proven, Its happened, it will continue to happen if left unregulated.
.
Why is it your "right" to subject others to toxic chemicals?
.
Throw all your political bs away and just answer the most basic of facts, forget about so called freedoms for a second and just think about the topic at hand. Why do you think you have a right to do this. Dont give me all this fancy mumbo jumbo about freedom of speech and amendments, in the most basic of forms, what gives you the right to pollute the air in a place of business with cancer causing 2nd hand smoke?

"Some of you people need chainsaws, or you really are just sheep."

But calling folks sheep, and not brain-dead sheep, is intelligent discussion. Got it.

Equating posters to brain-dead sheep elevates the discussion how?

The EPA now has the authority to regulate (not ban) tobacco. I don't see how the government will increase revenues by making tobacco less apealing.

"The law gives the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate the marketing and manufacture of tobacco products. It bans fruit- and spice-flavored cigarettes, slaps expansive new warnings on packages and gets rid of the monikers "light" and "low-tar."

It also allows the FDA to order manufacturers to reduce — though not eliminate — the amount of the addictive chemical nicotine that's in cigarettes."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/200906...

Darn it Gfan, I thought concealed carry might be SOMETHING we could agree on.

"The reason the smoking ban is the perfect issue for a discussion about individual liberty is precisely BECAUSE smoking is nasty, dirty, offensive, objectionable and potentially dangerous. Smoking is clearly indefensible in the mind of any reasonable person. Much like the sort of speech that needs First Amendment protection."

Just another analogy that fails...this time about free speech. We're not talking about banning tobacco here. We're talking about banning smoking where it harms others, in public spaces no less. Kinda like the illegality of yelling "fire" in a crowded room.

Quote "The reason the smoking ban is the perfect issue for a discussion about individual liberty is precisely BECAUSE smoking is nasty, dirty, offensive, objectionable and potentially dangerous. Smoking is clearly indefensible in the mind of any reasonable person. Much like the sort of speech that needs First Amendment protection."
.
That argument makes no sense whatsoever. The 1st amendment is about freedom of speech, it has nothing remotely to do with the right to endanger other peoples health by smoking or any other means.
.
Smoking is not, was not and never will be a right, simply because it hasnt been regulated until now does not gift a right to do it, never has. When you go into business in this country you are subject to regulations, hundreds of them, simply buying a private property and starting a business does not give you a free pass to do whatever you want on that property. The same kind of regulations that wont let a restaurant serve pancakes off the floor.

Quote "That's from an old "Wisconsin Interest" off WPRI. After reading that, can someone tell me how this ties in with the current smoking-ban debate? Maybe THIS will peak your interest enough to look past the smoke and your noses and do a little research."
.
Perhaps, just perhaps if you have a problem with the government taxing the bejesus out of tobacco............Quit, you wont get any sympathy from anyone about a habit that is killing you, and if You wont thank the government for making a little money while at the same time discouraging a habit that is killing people. Perhaps your children, family, friends will, maybe someday you will understand while you lug that oxygen tank around what this is all about., its not about taking a freedom, its about giving one back.

The reason the smoking ban is the perfect issue for a discussion about individual liberty is precisely BECAUSE smoking is nasty, dirty, offensive, objectionable and potentially dangerous. Smoking is clearly indefensible in the mind of any reasonable person. Much like the sort of speech that needs First Amendment protection.

"In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Tocqueville

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_...

It is obvious wny people are against smoking..the stink is beyond obnxoxious..even smokers say they can't stand the smell. So, put all the legal and political jargon aside. It is a NASTY habit and non smokers have put up with this crap long enough. Time for a change...time for non smokers to have clean air. Smokers always say they are considerate..not true. They always hold their cigs away from THEMSELVES. Of course...they don't like the stink either. Who would?? Love it that the puffers get on and say they are considerate...if they puff and do around non smokers..they are not considerate. Obnoxious.

Its too convenient that all the naysayers picked the smoking ban topic to defend our freedom and choices. All you have been able to come up with are poor analogies i.e. inflatable pools and fast food. Any of these or the others named are not even in the same ballpark. There are a million things that can kill us in this world but i cannot think of one thing (other than 2nd hand smoke) that someone else can do legally against my will (whether i choose to be in the building or not) that can and will kill me over a long enough time. Yet somehow this smoking thing has become a "right" and a "freedom" that is being ripped from our clutches.
.
Somehow this opens up a gateway to the government taking more of these "rights" from us? personally i cannot think of one that falls into the same class as SHS.

DiGriz, along with miltonalum's point, there is nothing productive (instead it's counter-productive) in using the smoking ban issue to make a larger point when the smoking ban issue doesn't apply to the larger point.

Why not use a substantially relevant issue to defend the larger point of liberty? If there are no real issues than the totalitarian calamity some people are clamoring about has no basis in fact.

As for war, contrary to what you said about me I'm convinced that war is an eternal constant. There is some form of war in just about every facet of human life. Posting here is a case in point, like when you attempted to engage me in a little war within the story line of The Silence of the Lambs. I countered by rejecting that theater (no pun) of war. Instead I employed gamesmanship (war) by playing another game.

Sometimes your game includes personal attacks. What's good about this theater of war here is that it can be fought just by staying true to the issue(s).

You should be back in a few days. Let us know and I'll post a "welcome home" and a "thank you."

officer..., how would my statement that smoking bans don't hurt businesses necessarily mean that I would support another issue just because 48 states have? I only refuted a false claim about smoking bans.

Not that I don't support concealed carry. But supporting it doesn't necessarily follow from my statement of fact re: businesses.

Thanks, Zoom.

Quote " I also am a smoker but the smoking ban isn't what gets me going either."
.
Talk about an oxymoron, the smoking ban just "happens" to be the fight you choose to protect your "freedom".

"And if smoking bans were bad for businesses, more than half the states wouldn't have bans." So with this logic I can get your support for concealed carry? 48 states have concealed carry. Wisconsin and Illinois are the only states that don't.

I'm guessing gazettefan doesn't bring up his service in every other post because he doesn't need the attention, and it's off topic.

I also totally agree with every comment you have made on here (I check it daily). I also am a smoker but the smoking ban isn't what gets me going either. It is our so called "leaders of our nation". Like you said, once this ban is all the way thru, what are people going to gripe about then? By the time my grandkids grow up, we will be just like Russia I fear. Sad to say, but true.

DiGriz and officer frieWisconsin’s problem is not that we tax too little, it’s that we spend too much.” - Jim Doyle in 2003

To All Recall Doyle Team (WWW.RECALLDOYLE.COM) Members :

There will be a protest at the Capitol in Madison on Tuesday! The next step is for the formation of a conference committee to reconcile the two versions of the budget (House and Senate) WE WILL BE THERE!

We will hold a protest Tuesday at noon in the Capitol Rotunda. Any one who can make it for even a hour will be greatly helping. We will provide signs if you need them. The idea is to have a ring of people holding 4x4 foot cardboard signs circling in the rotunda showing the faces of bad actors on the finance committee who have put together this lousy budget. If anyone has a pig face mask please bring it (dollar store may sell these). We want to emphasize what pigs our goverment is filled with.

Additionally we will have the message on signs showing our intent to recall additional Legislators for their breach of trust with the people of Wisconsin. Please call anyone you know who may be able to help. PHYSICAL PRESENCE is the most effective means of communicating with DEAF politicians!

Thanks for partnering with us to save Wisconsin!
YOUR RECALL DOYLE TEAM

ReplyReply AllMove...AddressesReaders digestndly, this ones for you!

8:58 is for DiGriz.

Your multiple and needlessly long posts would be fewer and shorter if you left out all the wild and erroneous assumptions. I hate Limbaugh as much as I hate Franken and all the other politicos in the media etc.

Your statement that I think you and other people are stupid is a glaring case of projection on your part. It is you who takes the superior stance. And it is you who is overly focused on the smoking issue with your claim that it is a step toward some kind totalitarianism here. And if smoking bans were bad for businesses, more than half the states wouldn't have bans.

My MOS was 11B40. Let me know what yours is so I can decide if I should return your insult about my service.

It will be liberating to work in a place that is smoke free. I will have the freedom to breath clean air in my workplace. After all, smoking has nothing to do with business.

Sorry if that isn't enough liberty and freedom for you.

DiGriz: Three minutes of standing ovation for so many points of principle so eloquently expressed! I have nothing of substance to add, except for one interesting observation from reading the latest exchange here. Some people seem oblivious to the concept of defending liberty on principle alone. Those same people seem equally oblivious to their own desire to control others. I guess that's why there is war.

(Many thanks for the offer but I did find "Kandahar" locally.)

DiGriz, why did you quite smoking for six months?

In order to get elected, politicians have to have knowledge of what people want. Each party tries to stay true to its base while also trying to appeal to the electorate of the other party. That's why the parties do reflect what we are and that's why there doesn't appear to be much difference between the parties to someone who's alienated.

As for my question about non-smokers who are against the smoking ban, yes (I didn't say all), some are lying. And my question remains: why don't the ones telling the truth smoke? Your attempt at defection is obvious.

And as for your respect, or lack of it, for me, the only thing that causes me to lose sleep is the pain from gunshot wound by a communist. Speaking of communists, I'll repeat that the Soviet Union never had a smoking ban.

"There is absolutely no compromise within your train of thought."
.
On the contrary Im willing to compromise greatly, in fact, I would be extremely against a 100% smoking ban, If you want to smoke, if you want to poison your body more power too you. Just dont do it where it affects my family or anyones family. How can you possibly think it is your "right" to smoke in the presence of children, families, people who dont want it, and that the government is doing something wrong by regulating that. Its mentalities like that which are dangerous.

If you are so convinced that the government is taking away a "right" and using the public health concern as the wool to pull over our eyes to indeed take this "freedom" from us.
.
Convince me that 2nd hand smoke is NOT a public health concern whatsoever.
.
Perhaps a couple of examples of other habits or cultural rituals or things that affect other people against their will legally?

Businesses fail every day, I myself have failed at business. Ya know what, I picked myself up and started over with little mouths to feed they have turned out ok. Banning smoking is a public health concern and i dont understand why you cant see that.
.
It was never a freedom to smoke in a public place, it was never a freedom to smoke publicly, It is not a right and never was to smoke and the government is still not taking that away from you. All the government is doing is regulating, for public safety, where you can smoke when it affects other people who made a choice not to smoke, yet do not have a choice to have a drink without inhaling your cancer. I dont understand why you cant see that.
.
I do, however, understand why you are arguing that it is losing a freedom, Its the only argument you have. You say that it will drive people out of business, Maybe a few, but the fact is that it does not affect the majority (have you ever been to state street on a weekend). If you truly believe that a smoking ban in public places is losing a freedom or opening a gateway to the gov taking more, then you need to take a look at what this country is all about because regulating a business to preserve the health of our citizens is the farthest thing from taking a freedom that i can think of, in fact i think its giving a freedom to all of us.

foolonthehill, my question is self-explanatory.

But if you insist:

1. Are they really non-smokers?

2. Or, if they really are non-smokers, what is there about smoking that they don't like?

GFan, the intent of my mockery was to imply that your question was nonsensical. I think further explanation is in order. I.e., what is your point?

Hmmm... For some reason, the phrase "dangerously clueless" popped to mind.

I also get a kick out of all the people who bash the government but live in such luxury.
.
Have any of you been to 3rd world countrys? we have it pretty damn good here in the US. The most run down dump of a house here would be a palace in most places around the world. Im not even talking about 3rd world, even Jamaica, if you have ever been there, one of the caribbeans tourist capitols is in poverty, people live in tin houses with rain barrels for drinking water.
.
But we have the audacity to say the government is "taking something away from us" with this smoking ban....

-Quote- "We don't need you people saving us from ourselves."

Thank god the state gov. has saved us from you then.

People have to be very alienated to believe that. One of the reasons we hate the two main political parties is because they are an accurate reflection of us. We want the world to be absent of our own imperfections.

Has the question about why non-smokers who are against the smoking ban don't smoke been answered?

Please accept my condolences on your fallen comrades, DiGriz. I wish we could bring all of you home NOW!

(I'll look for Kandahar but it's probably not readily available around here.)

It is quite safe to say that anyone in favor of a state-wide smoking ban is NOT a libertarian. The fact that neither the Democrat nor Republican party is a defender of liberty proves nothing. This is most definitely political.

miltonalum, LOL.

It was to ridicule your question for that very reason, GFan. :)

Quote - "Why don't I smoke? Because you liberal fascists have taxed the hell out of tobacco making it too expensive."
.
A simple "thanks for saving my life" would have been sufficient.

foolonthehill, not sure of the meaning of your question. Unless you think pro-smoking ban people and anti-smoking ban people who are non-smokers each don't smoke for different reasons. In which case you'd be wrong. ;~)

You already know that the RCT&DCofA is a non-smoking organization.

DiGriz, I don't think officer..... wants the cancer sticks.

officer....., you say that (cost of cigarettes) like it's a bad thing.

Again, you're wrong about my politics. Pro-smoking ban and anti-smoking ban are not indicative of political affiliation.

"Will the non-smokers who are against the smoking ban tell us why they don't smoke?" -GFan

As a follow-up question, also tell why you don't like having sharp sticks jammed into your eyes. There is strong suspicion your reasons will be dramatically different from why proponents of the ban don't like having sharp sticks jammed into their eyes. ;~)

Why don't I smoke? Because you liberal fascists have taxed the hell out of tobacco making it too expensive.

How does the post below this relate in any way, shaoe, or form to the subject at hand?

"Let's all stand behind the non-smokers that insist on scratching their lottery tickets off at the counter in the Mini-Marts. Or wait for them to count out a pocketfull of nickels and dimes to purchase that gas station hotdog and a big gulp of Mountain Dew. Then we can watch as they scratch the side of their head, wondering how to exit the building after having lost all their money to gambling on a state sponsored bet. But that's okay"

Will the non-smokers who are against the smoking ban tell us why they don't smoke?

"OK, I'm going to have to resort to name calling here pretty soon. If Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) reached or exceeded the permissible exposure limits (PELs) under 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants you can bet your ass that OSHA would do something about it."

You're making my point. Tobacco smoke is dangerous, just not dangerous enough to hit OSHA's PEL limit. That doesn't mean second hand smoke isn't harmful, it just doesn't meet OSHA's standard. People against smoking in businesses have a higher standard. OSHA could, however, use the General Duty Clause, but they don't, by exercising prosecutorial discretion.

"Most people wouldn't think about the movie like I do, or as much, perhaps."

Their loss, DiGriz.

DiGriz: I thought you were chiding me for "welcoming you home". Apparently, I'm the one who didn't get it. (Wasn't this an Abbott & Costello bit?)

Speaking of 21st Century America and the ongoing themes of GazetteXra comments, have you seen "Gran Torino"?

"YW - I wasn't aware that I'd left..."

Touche!

*
"OK, I'm going to have to resort to name calling here pretty soon."

Name calling in this case would be a statement of the obvious. (But I do share your sentiment.)

Quote "Bars are today what bars are today, as determined by the market. Bars are not enclaves for the health-conscious and never have been. For whatever reason, "smoke filled bar" has become a cliche and, apparently for some reason, most bar patrons find that environment enjoyable. But, since not enough bar patrons agree with you, you want each and every bar transformed into something more to YOUR liking by government mandate, even those bars you will never conceivably visit. You could care less that its owner, every employee and every patron in that bar wants it to be smoke-filled because that isn't what YOU want. Well, that bar isn't any of your business or mine. This isn't about smoke. It is about your inability to see that."
.
Thinking like yours is dangerous, by your logic and most others who are against this ban, your not willing to evolve with the times. The "This is the way it is and has always been" mentality, just because it has been like this forever doesnt mean its right. Asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread at one time, look at it now, laws have to change and things have to change, we as a people are in our infancy in this civilized world, as population booms, we need to ensure certain values and safetys are upheld.
.
This is about smoke, it always has been, we have NEVER had the RIGHT to smoke in public places, we have just never been told we cant. It is your inability to see that. I believe the gov pulls the wool over our eyes in many ways but dont make this out to be more than it is, although its one of your only and strongest arguments against this its sinply not true.

Quote "That's not the point. Per your line of thinking, inflatable pools, like cigarettes, are inherently dangerous. Therefore, ban inflatable pools. No one needs that luxury. Buy a super-soaker instead. I think if you accidentally fell into an inflatable pool and nearly drowned, you'd be singing a different tune."
.

Listen to what i am typing, Its a completely different beast, Sure inflatable pools can be dangerous, sure if I fell into one and drowned i be dead and upset, ya know what If i drowned in one It was my choice to go into it, If I fell into one, accidents happen, there are a million things that can kill us.
.
2nd hand smoke, IS NOT my choice to inhale and is NOT an accident.

Gracias, DiGriz. Let me be the first to welcome your return to 21st century America, where the concept of freedom is regarded by some as merely a quaint anachronism.

"On the contrary, it is a law to protect me from your habit."

Just where did you get the idea it is MY habit, miltonalum?

"Doesnt matter one lick to me as long as i dont have to put up with the byproducts."

I don't think anyone here is arguing that you should have to. I'm not. Smokers shouldn't smoke in other people's houses or cars unless invited to do so. Even asking permission to smoke there is rude. People shouldn't smoke in restaurants with "smoking sections", unless those are physically separate rooms. People should be mindful of staying downwind of others when smoking outdoors, even in their own backyards. Am I enough of a Smoke Nazi for you, miltonalum?

Bars are today what bars are today, as determined by the market. Bars are not enclaves for the health-conscious and never have been. For whatever reason, "smoke filled bar" has become a cliche and, apparently for some reason, most bar patrons find that environment enjoyable. But, since not enough bar patrons agree with you, you want each and every bar transformed into something more to YOUR liking by government mandate, even those bars you will never conceivably visit. You could care less that its owner, every employee and every patron in that bar wants it to be smoke-filled because that isn't what YOU want. Well, that bar isn't any of your business or mine. This isn't about smoke. It is about your inability to see that.

OK, I'm going to have to resort to name calling here pretty soon. If Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) reached or exceeded the permissible exposure limits (PELs) under 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants you can bet your ass that OSHA would do something about it. By the way, what causes Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis again? Oh that's right, THERE IS NO KNOWN CAUSE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE SMOKE DON'T GO TO A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT!

To sum up, if there was no opportunity to prosecute, OSHA would not be able to exercise prosecutorial discretion. The logic that smoking is not harmful becuase OSHA doesn't ban it IS false.

"...as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS."

General Duty Clause:
29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(a)1: Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

The term "prosecutorial discretion" refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute and unreviewable power to choose whether or not to bring criminal charges, and what charges to bring, in cases where the evidence would justify charges.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecut...

To sum up, if there was no opportunity to prosecute, OSHA would not be able to exercise prosecutorial discretion. The logic that smoking is not harmful becuase OSHA doesn't ban it false.

Wow i feel like im arguing with a wall, You cannot compare SHS with car accidents, that is a horrible argument, we could sit here for years and argue why we should stop everything because everything kills people. SHS is something we can and will prevent realistically in todays society, nobody is going to outlaw cars or rubber pools or quarter pounders.
.
If your only argument is some sarcastic definition of why SHS compares to why children die from falling at the playground and why we should ban monkey bars if we ban smoking, dont bother.

OSHA, by law, cannot regulate smoking because it is not illegal (yet until 2010) in a public work place, therefore it cannot regulate it unless it directly relates to the job at hand (i.e. gas refineries, ignition danger). OSHA cannot go above the law and tell you that "were deciding we can fine you for smoking even though its not illegal".
.
You cannot argue the effects of 2nd hand smoke, try it with the 3000 that die a year and the 10's of thousands that suffer. It shouldnt matter to you officefriendly, you already put a price on human life in your previous post by stating you would trade a human life for the right to smoke in public. I would expect nothing more from you.
.
Even if OSHA wanted to it could not regulate general smoking in the public work place, however, as this law makes its way around the nation and becomes federal (which it will, in time) Look for OSHA to finally dip its hands into these regulations.
.
OSHA studies were a real time, experiment, at that very moment 3000 people would need to light up...... OSHA has not and has had no need to until now study long term effects. Not that it matters anymore since its now illegal.

Oh but OSHA does specifically address Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). OSHA found that ETS "In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs)..." For those who can't or won't read all the posts let me repeat an earlier post.
___________________________
From the website of OSHA:

February 24, 2003

MEMORANDUM FOR: REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS STATE PLAN DESIGNEES

THROUGH: R. DAVIS LAYNE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FROM: RICHARD E. FAIRFAX, DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS

SUBJECT: OSHA Policy on Indoor Air Quality: Office Temperature/Humidity and Environmental Tobacco Smoke

.....Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

For further information to offer to employers/employees as guidance, you may wish to review a document published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the health effects from environmental tobacco smoke, A Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. Additional information on indoor air quality in general can be found on the Indoor Air Quality Technical Links page on the OSHA website.

We hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190

Quote - "You are absolutely right, G-fan. That's the point. Yet another law to protect us from ourselves."
.
On the contrary, it is a law to protect me from your habit. If you want to smoke a carton a day go sit in your backyard and do it. Doesnt matter one lick to me as long as i dont have to put up with the byproducts.

OSHA is not above the law, OSHA cannot regulate beyond the boudaries of what is legal in this country. Just as they cannot regulate against alcohol, only coming to work under the influence of it. Just because OSHA doesnt have a specific standard doesnt mean it is not harmful in the workplace.
.
OSHA also doesnt specifically have any standards addressing throwing live hand grenades at work, I suppose that is ok as well because osha does not specifically address it?

OSHA-Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Zoom, If OSHA isn't the arbiter "of all things safe in the workplace", who is?

The majority of people – including many smokers -- favor smoke-free establishments. Secondhand
smoke is a health hazard to all exposed to it. All workers – and patrons – have the right to a safe,
smoke-free environment. Businesses should be able to set business practice until it affects public
health, and then regulations are needed.
.
Everyone has a right to breathe clean, smoke-free indoor air, the same as eating safe food and
drinking clean water. Knowing the severe health effects of secondhand smoke, there is no reason
for allowing smoking in restaurants and all other places of employment.
.
Sure, fast food causes severe health problems, as does salt, dairy products and alcohol, if not used
in moderation and as part of a well-balanced diet. BUT ONE PERSON’S DIET DOESN’T ENDANGER
OTHERS; ONE PERSON’S SMOKE AFFECTS EVERYONE ELSE. There is no safe level of exposure
to secondhand smoke! Even trace amounts are harmful and can be especially harmful to people
with heart conditions and respiratory ailments.

"And your "legal" stance is moot once a smoking ban is passed." *

You are absolutely right, G-fan. That's the point. Yet another law to protect us from ourselves.

* It IS law, just not enforced until the day after Independence Day, 2010. How appropriate...

You're holding up OSHA as the arbitor of all things safe in the workplace? If OSHA were proposing to ban smoking, you would complain of too much government intervention, but in this case, OSHA (the government) is all knowing. How ironic...and convenient. The logic that OSHA hasn't banned smoking, so it must be safe, doesn't make sense.

Hannah--> No offense, but please do a spell check, and or proof reading before pssting. JMO.

milton, I thought I was clear on my answer to your "1 life" question. You are willing to allow the government to take away personal freedom from citizens and private business owners to save just one person. I am not. That one person should have the CHOICE to go into a smoking or a non-smoking establishment.

FOTH, are you sure such behavior is legal?

And even if the owner is the only one with the right to be there, in order for the owner to have others there he or she is required to comply with health and building codes that protects the public. (And discrimination is illegal i.e. race, creed, color.)

And your "legal" stance is moot once a smoking ban is passed.

G-Fan: Repeated, undesirable, obnoxious but LEGAL behavior can and will get one bounced from a Pub at the owner's discretion because a Pub is private property. I doubt anyone has ever made a successful case for being unjustly sent down the sidewalk on his nose just for displeasing the owner of a tavern. No one has any "right" to be there, except its owner.

The horseback riding comparison definitely does not apply. :~)

The opponents of the smoking ban need something to compare with this:

Someone goes into a bar and there are people in there spewing toxic fumes from the end of cigarettes and their throats.

A bar is a public place licensed by the people by way of the government which imposes health and building codes. The word "Pub" comes from the term "Public House."

h0rselvngrl: That wasn't aimed at you, thought I did hope it might keep you emotionally vested in the discussion. (Sorry, I thought you'd recognize it as a reductio ad absurdum argument just like DiGriz' wading pool.) We are in 100% agreement that banning horsebacking riding is as silly as banning wading pools, smoke-filled bars, skydiving and other risky activities undertaken by informed consenting adults of their own volition.

Okay I may have "vented" a little to much as the "horseback riding" comment hit a nerve, as it would for anyone on any subject that they enjoy, no pun intended.
*****
Digriz' comment on inflatable pools was rather funny though.

"Of course your inflatable pool analogy is valid. I think a ban on horseback riding is equally valid, especially if it could save just one Superman. The issue here is about private property and INFORMED CONSENT"
******
That had to be an aim at me, no? You do not even want to get me started on that subject, or I'll be stuck at my desk all day (done @ 12p so that's a no go).
*****
"Superman" took a risk in choosing to "event" (what it is called in horse terms,jumping his horse), that was his CHOICE. You take a risk in everyday life from driving a car, to walking acrossed the street, so should be ban driving while we are at it? Everyone has a CHOICE in whether to smoke or not, and whether they would like to inhale the second hand smoke or not.
'
I don't know if you were trying to make a valid point and or compare "superman" with the "inflatable pool" comment?! Or if you were trying to be "funny". We shouldn't be comparing the "smoking-ban proposal" to horseback riding, as that's just silly.

DiGriz: Of course your inflatable pool analogy is valid. I think a ban on horseback riding is equally valid, especially if it could save just one Superman. The issue here is about private property and INFORMED CONSENT.

Analogies that aren't valid would be radon, asbestos, armpit burgers, dirty hands, etc. because those are CONCEALED hazards. There is no concealing the smoke in a smoky bar. For those who are averse to such risk, exposure is painfully obvious to them and, therefore, informed. (Signs declaring the property "Smoking Permitted" or "Smoke-free" would remove any doubts.) The risk of drowning or a breaking one's neck should be obvious to the parents of kids using inflatable pools and horseback riding actors, respectively. The difference between informed risk and concealed risk is enormous. It's apples and oranges.

(Yeah, I'm clear on your position re: the ban but was confused by your phrase, "Since it's non-smoking...".)

In left-wing land, correlation is causation (global warming), free choice is a bad thing (except for abortions), and we'll all be better off if we just have the government tell us what to do. Get used to it: these people are in power in WI and across the country.

DiGritz and officefriendly, you still havent answered my question, just alot of skirting around it trying to justify what i know your answer is.
.
So, simply yes or no, If this smoking ban in public places saves 1 life is it worth it?

What are you arguing?
.
Radon and asbestos are already banned.
.
Overweight people made life decisions to be the way they are. Completely different than 2nd hand smoke, which is not a decision other than choosing to go to a bar with some friends. Last time i checked me eating a couple big macs didnt give you heart disease or make you gain weight, however, your 2nd hand smoke can give me cancer.
.
So, wheres the similarity?

NO SMOKING IN OUR HOUSE! (But feel free to go downstairs and breath in our Radon and Asbestos)
.
Who's up for an omelette? Bacon or cheap processed cheese food product with that, anyone?

I have a problem with fat people that show up and use them store-provided motorized scooters, hogging them up from people that are truly handicapped. As I wait in line behind them while they place their soda, cookies, and candy on the belt.
.
Isn't it also killing me slowly, waiting for them?

A statewide ban on smoking? Including taverns?
.
Good idea..... Sure would hate to confront a driver that had 'A few too many' cigarettes under their belt before they climbed in behind the wheel.
.
I'd be just as inclined to worry about the morbidly obese person that was travelling down the freeway at 75 miles an hour, after just having bought a carload of "Happy Meals". Let's go have a Big Mac and celebrate our smoking ban victory. Then, after that, we can go to Walmart and buy a new scale.

Show me something that we currently cause people to do against their will that can kill them like inhaling your 2nd hand smoke thats not illegal, every single thing listed comes with a free will choice, unlike sucking in your carcinogens.
.
The only rebuttle anyone ever has is "if you dont like it dont go there". IT is a public health issue, business ownership comes with hundreds of public health regulations, the same reason its illegal to serve pancakes off the floor in a restaurant. Someone said that its private property and why should the government take decisions away. for the same reason you cant store meat in the toilet and serve it to people, PUBLIC HEALTH.

If you tried to force me into an inflatable pool against my will, that is illegal.
.
Why shouldnt it be illegal for you to force me to inhale your 2nd hand smoke?

"Ban on inflatable pools proposal. I'm drafting it up right now. Drowning hazard and a luxury. If it saves only one life...."
.
Thats a choice by the parent or person to use that pool with inherant risks. It is your choice to smoke, which is fine, its not my choice to sit at the end of the bar and inhale your smoke. You just forced me into your "pool" . Try again and dont try the bogus "if you dont like it dont go there argument"

I forgot hOrselvngrl. Kidney stones, no Lannon Stone.

hannah's right, DiGriz. You took a straight shot. Uncalled for. Let's have a real apology. We'd all like to continue to have nice thoughts about you.

DiGriz: Didn't you mention that you smoked --why the smoke-free bar? It sounds great but I'm not in Jvl so no promises.

Gazettefan--> My kidney stones may get in the way of that ;)
'
I'm assuming you were commenting in regards to me? Digriz?

The honeymoon suite at the Lannon Stone is available for you two lovebirds.

DiGriz--> Yes I knew Denny quite well. He was a kind man. I'm sorry to hear about your inflatable pool disaster, how did it turn out? My story involved margaritas, a "kiddy" inflatable pool, a hot summer day, and a best friend. Good times.

DiGriz I understood the comment. I was just being sarcastic, as usual, but then again, that's me most of the time.

I used to enjoy a cold bucket of water when I was little. LOL.
*****
DiGriz I'm still trying to figure out whether I might know you or not. My story was good, and it ended up at Quotes that night, LOL.

Let me rephrase that....I'm not anorexic, LOL. I honestly LOVE food, I'm just one of those girls that burns it off right away, I guess?
*****
Oh and I'm correcting my own spelling, I had a typo on "daugther", should be daughter. :) It's do darn early in the morning (yawns).
******
DiGriz--> *QUOTE* "merely teach children to enjoy a good bucket of cold water over the head every once in a while *QUOTE*
*****
Those inflatable pools can be dangerous! I have a hilarious story about adults in inflatable pools. ;)

Gazette--> It was actually great :) I placed in every class, brought home 3-4 seconds(out of 10-12 horses in each class), a 5th in halter (out of 15-20), and a 4th in another.
******
Officer---> Do you have a daugther that shows horses?
*****
DiGriz---> Well I sure HOPE it was a typo! Though I was "hoeing" my garden last night and told my so(signifigant other) how much I "love to hoe", LOL. But of course I was meaning the garden itself. *(insert sarcasm here)*
*****
DiGriz--->
We visit Time out EVERY friday for our "one" drink after softball, and I can tell you that not one girl on our team is overweight. ;0) I am 5'3 (.5) notice I added my .5 to the equation, 110lbs soaking wet (as everyone tells me), so I know I'm not overweight, unless anorexic is the new thing now days??

Miltonalum: I think DiGriz' point is that people tend to be amazingly myopic when it comes to recognizing the flaws in their own arguments against those particular inanimate objects they personally oppose for being "the source of evil". Nothing faux or sarcastic about that.

"Then I can assume I have your support on my motor vehicle ban proposal??"
.
Sarcastic faux arguments dont add any credibility to your arguments, last time i checked nobody needed to ride a cigarette an hour to work to provide for their family or hop on a red strike to take grandma to the hospital. Vehicles are required, smoking is a luxury.
.
As for the handgun regulations, also, different ballpark, last time i checked nobody has ever snapped and blew smoke in their wifes face killing them instantly, this is a public health issue that can be prevented. also the right to bear arms is indeed on the bill of rights, I dont see anything about smoking.
.
What else ya got? lets compare apples to apples. not apples to oranges.

DiGirlz, you must not get out much. Other states have smoking bans and their bars are still doing business. The smoking ban is coming. Get used to it.

milton, It's not public places! It's PRIVATE PROPERTY! This is the slippery slope that I referred to earlier. You are willing to allow the government to take away personal freedom from private business owners to save just one person. How do you feel about concealed carry of firearms? It might save just one person. Can I get your support for concealed carry?

Officerfriendly, If this smoking ban in public places saves just 1 persons life It is worth it.
.
I challenge you to convince me that i am wrong.

My daughter did very well at the horse show. Thanks for asking.

How did it go at the horse show?

gazette---> Lol I know. I just thought it was rather funny that I was looking like a ho's lvngrl, ha ha.

In DiGriz' defense, it was probably a typo.

Although he should apologize for that rude comment he made.

DiGriz---> And not that is really matters, but I'm not a "h0slvngrl" I'm a "h0rselvngrl". I'm pretty sure I do not love the hos(would be hoes), lol, but I do love horses. ;)

DiGriz--> No problem, and thank you as well. I remember Denny! I was sad to hear he passed in February :( He was such a sweet man. We used to be "regulars"(few nights a week/wknd) down at Quotes a few years back(05-06). I played Volleyball for them for a few years w/ Jason, those were the good ol' days! I bet we would recognize each other DiGriz :0)

Thanks for the information karen. Jimmy boy does need to go!

Why was there no smoking ban in the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics?

DiGriz and officerfriendly, this ones for you!
1)Slumber party at the Capitol
"Democrats in the state Senate said Tuesday they'll begin debate in the full chamber Wednesday about a budget-balancing plan thatwould increase the cost of gasoline and raise sales taxes inWisconsin's most populous areas.The Democrats,whocontrol the Senate, met secretly Monday to discuss changes to the $62.2 billion spending plan."We are not going to put up with another all-night budgetsession.Call your State Senator toll free at 800-362-9472 and tell them NO to higher taxes,NO to higher fees,NO to more regulation,NO to pork,NO to gas price hikes,NO to sales tax hikes.
2)Wisconsin is in Jeopardy!
Test out your knowledge see how well you know what Doyle's budget will do!
http://www.recalldoyle.com/jeopardy/jeop... and invite your friends,just remember that nobody's a winner
3)Thursday morning June 11th a group called Wisconsin Interests Now(WIN)had a number of enthusiastic protesters at Southwest High School Green Bay.The group was large enough to post people with large brightred “Taxed Enough Yet?www.RecallDoyle.com” signs "Motivated by the oppressive tyranny, spending and taxing policies of Gov.Doyle, protesters came from several States,as much as two hours away."They were excited to see thenumber of drivers passing by who honked,smiled,waved and gave the thumbs up sign.There were three to four drivers giving positive support to Recall Doyle for every one whoindicated thumbs down.
4)We need hundreds of businesses across the state that will collect petition signatures. We will have the list of businesses prominently displayed.If you are a business owner,please fill out the Recall Doyle Business Inclusion Form.Some of the gas stations affected by the gas hike,stock brokers affected by capital gains hikes,businesses affected by the income tax hike,the bars affected by the smoking ban,the cell phone stores affected by the cell phone tax,grocery stores affected by the slaughter tax, insurance agents affected by the increased mandates, car rental places affected by the RTA tax, Contact businesses and see if they will help emailvolunteer@recalldoyle.com subject Business Finder.
5)Fighting the Media Blackout
Many of us have been disappointed with the lack of media coverage.E-mail your local media and tell them to cover the Recall Doyle effort!
6)Campaign Interns
Volunteer@recalldoyle.com (subject: CAMPAIGN INTERN).Looking for energetic volunteers to put in 20 or more hours per week making phone calls, answering emails,contactingmedia,preparing fliers,helping to organize events and more.
7)All new www.RecallDoyle.com!
8)Volunteers needed to circulate the recall petition.Email
volunteer@recalldoyle.com.

:QUOTE:I have lost two friends (one recently) and a grandfather I never knew that died as a result of drinking themselves to death. How would you propose to have saved them? You think banning alcohol would have done it?? Or would you agree that they would have gotten it anyways no matter how many laws were passed? Don't even.....:QUOTE:
******
Hey Digriz---> I was looking through the "older" comments and found the above. I'm truly sorry to hear the above. I feel that I am going to lose my "sperm donor"(and yes that is what I call him) or biological father the same way in the up coming years. It's really to bad that he chose not to have me be a part of his life. I do agree with you.

Is second hand smoke dangerous? Possibly but if I truly believed it was dangerous I would have the common sense to stay away from second hand smoke. I wouldn't need the government to enact laws to protect me from something I already knew was dangerous.

The EPA estimates "approximately" 3000 deaths a year are caused by second hand smoke. What causes idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis?

:0)

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children
Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth weight babies.
.
Source. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conten...
.
Do not try and debate that 2nd hand smoke is not dangerous, unless you want to lose that last thread of any credibility your hanging on to.

When is the last documented case of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis being caused by second hand smoke? This entire article is a sham. Idiopathic means there is NO KNOWN CAUSE!

-Quote- "What's next? If you go into a Chinese restaurant and they don't have the Wienerschnitzel you want to eat, are you going to force that business owner into offering German food because you are offended by Chinese food and won't eat it? It's the same thing." -Quote-
.
Same thing eh? whens the last documented case of a weinerschnitzel killing someone? Its far far from the same thing, not even in the ballpark.

And your right, they should ban smoking in a car with children, absolutely right.

What dont you get about this? Seriously, smoking and 2nd hand smoke KILL people, that cannot be argued, when things KILL people it is no longer an individual decision or right. Just as I cant go into your business with a gun and I cant drive drunk. Stop clouding the issue with you trying to convince yourself that the government is taking something away from us.
.
Ive said it before and I say it again, 2nd hand smoke kills about 3000 people annually, thats a fact. So, if this ban saves 1, just 1 life, 1 person from a lifetime of suffering and a family from a lifetime of grief It makes it all worth it. I challenge you to put a price on a human life by arguing that its the business owners decision. Give me a break.
.
The ONLY unfortunate thing about this law is that it took so long to get here and because of that it ruined this gentlemans life, along with hundreds of thousands of other peoples.
.
But its should be a business owners decision right?????????

"On the contrary, when the bill of rights was drafted there were no laws against marijuana and other drugs, our forefathers took those "rights" away from us long before this by passing laws regulating them." Yeah that worked out pretty well didn't it?

I believe in the United States and their pursuit of freedom. But if you really think about it, our freedom comes with rules and regulations and tracking systems and limitations. Yes I know that we don’t have tanks rolling up and down our streets telling us when to turn out our lights, and I am thankful for that and support those in the armed forces that are keeping us free and safe. But the government has found other ways to control us, and banning smoking in businesses is not one of them. This is being done to create a healthier environment for you, your family, and those strangers around you. Not to mention to the environment. So, those of you who are smokers and put your foots down to walking into a smoke free restaurant or bar, think twice to why you are going into that restaurant or bar. Obviously because you smoke you are not taking into consideration your own health, but please be respectful and take into consideration your children and the people around you’s health.
.
You may think that is harsh to say, and yes I have many friends that smoke, but in speaking to them, they realize that it is harmful to them and may kill them someday, but they aren’t doing anything about it to stop. And that goes for the other people that smoke as well.
.
respect others with their opinions and wishes, don’t stop having a good time just because you can’t inhale tar into your body, and for the love of God, if you don’t care about stopping smoking or what smoking is doing to your body at least consider what it may or could be doing to your children and their bodies. And if something happens to you because of your constant intake of suicide, think of how your family would feel to loose you because of something that you could have stopped, but chose not to.

I have abstained from this post for a few days because its like arguing with a wall.
.
Regardless of how you sugar coat it, this IS a public health issue, this is NOT a loss of "freedom". You say that if we dont like 2nd hand smoke, then dont go into the establishments, ok, by your logic thats taking away my freedom to go where i want to have a beer. There is 1 bar listed in rock county that I know of, 1 bar out of hundreds.
.
There was no amendment to the bill of rights adding the right to smoke in public. On the contrary, when the bill of rights was drafted there were no laws against marijuana and other drugs, our forefathers took those "rights" away from us long before this by passing laws regulating them. This bill has been a long time coming and a blessing.
.
98% of the people against this bill are smokers, figure that one out. This goverment has 1000 things wrong with it but this is clearly NOT one of them.

;~)

FREEEEEEEDOOOOOMMMMMMM!

officer......, your quest for "freedom" is subsumed by your need to lose.

bully, you have me all figured out. I do love to argue. Especially with socialist liberals. I will always argue for FREEDOM!

officer...., how could your posted definition of socialism have anything to do with the smoking ban?!!! HOW?!!!

Why was there no smoking ban in the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics?!!! WHY?!!!

Why don't you look up the difference between the specific and the general?!!!

It's not about public health? That's quite wrong, it IS about public health. Whatever, all your posts I've read just lead me to believe you like to disagree with everything!

http://www.freedomworks.org/

I'm not for absence of government just smaller government. Less Government = More Freedom! Definition of less, 1: constituting a more limited number or amount <less than three> <less than half done>2: of lower rank, degree, or importance <no less a person than the president himself>3 a: of reduced size, extent, or degree b: more limited in quantity <in less time>

Admit it gazettefan, you are a socialist.
so·cial·ism Pronunciation:
\ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

officer....., you have freedom confused with anarchy.

By they way, George Wallace, in the 1960s, said there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Wallace was a racist and a demagogue and so are you. This reasoning parallels your claim that anyone who is for a smoking ban is a socialist.

Republican Party and conservative party no longer go together. There is little if any difference between the two parties anymore. If you stand for big government, i.e. the smoking ban, than you are a socialist liberal no matter what party you say you are affiliated with.
The government should not be involved in this private business issue. It is not about public health. OSHA would be involved in enforcing air quality issues relating to smoking if it thought it was harmful to employees. OSHA says, "Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS." The EPA estimates "approximately" 3000 deaths a year are caused by second hand smoke. Does this number include idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis for which there is NO KNOWN CAUSE? "Approximately" 3000 deaths out of 2,426,264 total deaths a year and we have to have government intervention?
If you personally don't like smoke then don't go into a smokey establishment. Go to "Time Out" instead or any other smoke free establishment.
horsegirl, I get it. I get that you don't have the common sense to stay away from second hand smoke if you believe it is harmful to your health. I get that you want the government to make that decision for you. I get that I'll ALWAYS stand for less government because that allows for more personal freedom.

Bullysarebest~~~> We are def. in the same boat :)

I have to laugh at those who say those that are pro smoking ban are liberals. I am a proud card carrying member of the Republican party. And probably unlike those here who are spouting off about liberalism~I WORK the campaigns, I volunteer much of my time to the conservative party. BUT, I do AGREE with the smoking ban. You will NEVER convince me it's okay for smokers to pollute the same space of others with their deadly smoke. You want to kill yourself, do it at home~~don't involve me or my family.

DiGriz.......it's not even worth my time to reply. I don't agree with everything Jim Doyle does, but I do agree with a smoking ban as it is NOT fair to breathe in someone else's second hand smoke. But hell, a lot of things in life are not fair.....

Not being able to smoke infringes on your freedom? Oh please. You, also, can't come naked~~does that infringe on your freedom?

Instead of PC, how about civility? Argue the issue, not the person.

DiGriz, I'm very opposed to PC too.

My comment was in reference to your statement that the reason a bar was crowded and doing good business was because its patrons are obese.

DiGriz, your "obesity" comment was very low-brow; especially for someone who's extremely sensitive to criticism.

Officer~~~> "Time out" is always packed, has amazing food, and is rather spacy. As far as generalizing all of us as "socialists" or "liberals"....don't, because you have NO idea how I vote, how political I am, or if I am a democrat or republican....so don't assume you know something when you do not. I am the furthest thing from being a democrat, socialist, or liberal ;) I just have MY OWN opinions about this smoking ban. I should not have to be subjected to second hand smoke, regardless of where it is. You just do not get it.

officer....., in a recent post you implied that (what you thought to be) the absence of smoke-free bars in Janesville supported your anti-smoking ban stance.

And in a more recent post you claim that the presence of a smoke-free bar here is proof that there shouldn't be a smoking ban.

Great suggestion Officer.

If the government wants to "protect" us then they should ban smoking altogether. But they won't for billion$ of reasons. Even the new bill giving the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco partly written by Phillip Morris. The FDA isn't allowed to eliminate nicotine from cigarettes, just reduce it's level, which means more cigarettes smoked and more money for manufactures and taxes.

http://www.thecabin.net/stories/060509/o...

If there is such a demand for smoke free bars that all you big government socialist liberals won't fit in just one, why aren't there more smoke free bars in Janesville? hannah, maybe you could open one up. You could be a capitalist entrepreneur and you could call it "Lib's". Kind of like "Fib's" down in Rockton.

officer,,,,, the smoking ban law enhances the FREEDOM of people who deserve to breathe clean air in a place licensed by the people by way of the government.

Smokers will still be FREE to go to smoke-FREE bars and they will still be FREE to smoke outside.

officer....., in a recent post you implied that (what you thought to be) the absence of smoke-free bars in Janesville supported your anti-smoking ban stance.

In your last post you claim that the presence of a smoke-free bar here is proof that there shouldn't be a smoking ban.

h0rselvngrl, I'm not from Janesville and had not heard of "Time Out". See, they didn't need big government to tell them to open a smoke free bar, they had the forethought to do it themselves. How's their business doing? I hope they are doing well. Why don't all of you big government liberals take a "Time Out" and help support this smoke free bar? Leave the rest of the PRIVATE businesses who wish to have smoking alone. Everyone will be happy! :) Hopefully this can all be reversed when Jimmy boy and the rest of his cronies get thrown out of office. It's hard to get freedom back after it's been taken away though. Headline from JSOnline posted Jun. 15, 2009 12:04 p.m., "Doyle's approval ratings weak heading into 2010 election". THANK GOD!

Oh......and wow...did I miss a lot over the weekend! I had a horse show on Saturday and a parade on Sunday, so I had NO time to sit and argue on a computer ;)

**QUOTE** If having a smoke free bar was such a great idea why hasn't someone opened a smoke free bar in the area? Let the free market decide not the government. Less government = MORE FREEDOM!" **QUOTE**

Officer....are you even from the area?? There is a smoke free bar downtown Janesville right next to The Looking Glass. It's called "Time Out" owned by the same person who owned "Cherry's Bar and Grill". We play softball for them :)

Term limits would be a great idea which in turn might help reduce the size of government.

Guess what, in a year there will be about 10000 of them in this state. You have no clue what free market defines if you think that the smoking ban has anything to do with it.

If having a smoke free bar was such a great idea why hasn't someone opened a smoke free bar in the area? Let the free market decide not the government. Less government = MORE FREEDOM!

Both, yeah im old.
.
If your arguing that stopping smoking Is an infringement on individual business owners choices, It again falls back on public safety, You wouldnt let a business owner sell a knife to a guy whos mad at his ex wife to go kill her, or sell a gun to a 12 year old. Why should they be allowed to contaminate the air everyone breathes because it is their choice to allow it to happen? I cant go sell asbestos siding if i want? why, because its a public health concern.
.
Now if you were arguing that the government told them they can only sell miller light and not bud light then yes, that is an infirngement on their right as a business owner, allowing smoking is not a right, never was, It just hasnt been illegal until now.

The problem with your argument is that nobody is arguing that smoking is being banned because the environment doesnt like it, your right If this was a "green" debate then hippocrates take flight.
.
Ok so you can make the argument that emissions from a car are bad for you jst like 2nd hand smoke, I will give you that but, there is one Major difference. Smoking is a personal choice luxury, you have every right to smoke, you dont have every right to force me to inhale your byproduct of your habit. You dont NEED to smoke, you choose to smoke, you may be addicted, but that is a choice you made, not me. Vehicle emissions are not my choice, In a perfect world i would work next door and walk in, I cant, I need to drive an hour to support my family. They have placed regulations on emissions in an effort to curb them, just as they have now placed regulations on where you can smoke.
.
There is an amazing gap between an aerosal can degrading the ozone layer and your fiending habit potentially causing cancer for thousands, hundreds of thousands. they arent going to make smoking illegal in its entirety, They would loose too much tax revenue, so just walk outside have your 3 minutes of pleasure and come back in and have a beer with me, dont make it out to be more than it is.

You want to pick something to blame the government for theres a list about 1000 pages long but this smoking ban is one of the few bright spots.

Quote "Because your desire to drink with your friends in any particular establishment is NOT a right, it's a priveledge." Quote.

Who said anything about drinking, Id like to take my kids to a bowling alley, You, my friend are the one reading into this far too much. Dont stand on your carton of smokes trying to pass this off for more than it is, this is plain and simply a public health and safety issue, nobody ever once said you cant smoke, go smoke, hell eat the darn things for all I care, just dont pretend that your "rights" are being taken away because you cant smoke inside a public building, Your "right" kills people, you want to kill yourself with them go ahead but dont try and make it like the government is using this as a stepping stone to take more, get a clue and dont dismiss it as the people staring in the governments headlights. 2nd hand smoke kills people plain and simple, show me another "right" you are by law allowed to keep that has been scientifically proven to kill thousands of people a year. They should have banned this 25 years ago when the 1st studies came out.
.
If your best argument against this law is a "conspiracy theory" by the government or a "stepping stone" to taking more "rights" away then go light up a smoke and think of something better to come back with.

Great points, hannah.

officer....., you just manifested a speedy slippery slope of your own: You went from the specific to the general in warp speed.

gazettefan, you better get your skis on because we are going down fast!

The cry of "slippery slope" has hit the bottom of its own slippery slope. The smoking ban exists mainly so non-smokers don't have to breathe the smoke of others. 3000 deaths per year is a lot (not to mention the other problems of secondhand smoke). Smokers and over eaters, though their habits have some negative effect on others, are mainly harming themselves. And these people are benefiting from having their consciousnesses raised: people are becoming more aware of the harm of smoking and over eating. Some smokers are being prompted to quit because of smoking bans. This is the reverse of the "slippery slope."

I vote for infidelity being banned?! Any takers? That is one of the MOST hazardous things happening in bars than anything.....lol.

Thing that sucks is, GM is 60% owned by the government, but who owns our government?? Yep, CHINA! Therefore, China is certainly taking over our car industries one way or another. I am guessing it's not going to be too long before all sh** hits the fan, and the plans to take over our country for decades are going to be in full effect. I wouldn't be surprised if these countries that want us under their thumb have had people breeding here for a century as "American" citizens and are just waiting for the perfect moment to take over. OK, so it is a bit of a conspiracy theory, and I tend to oppose to these types of thinking, but it seems too logical to not think about it as time goes on.

I do, however, agree with you that this country is headed down a socialist path for different reasons than banning smoking in public places though, this is something weve needed for years.

officer -Quote- "This can't be a public health issue. 300,000 people a year die due to obesity and overweight. 400,000 a year die from directly smoking cigarettes. Where is the public health issue?"
.
you also said that ONLY 3000 a year die from 2nd hand smoke and thats not a public health issue. Are you nuts? 1 death a year is too many if it can be prevented. How many lives saved does it take to make it worth it?
.
Your arguments hold no water, the 300k and 400k who die from smoking and obesity cannot be compared to 2nd hand smoke fatalitys because unlike 2nd hand smoke, they made a CHOICE to smoke and they made Life CHOICEs that made them obese. 2nd hand smoke is not anyones choice and the argument of "if you dont like it dont go in" simply doesnt work, Its like saying the only place i can go have a drink with my friends Is the non smoking section of a restaurant? give me a break, why take that right away from me because you want to suck down a grit somewhere.

IndyGirl said, "The ban is obviously addressing a public health issue, it is not a political agenda." Are you kidding me? The EPA says there are "approximately" 3000 deaths a year from second hand smoke out of 2,426,264 total deaths a year according to the CDC. This can't be a public health issue. 300,000 people a year die due to obesity and overweight. 400,000 a year die from directly smoking cigarettes. Where is the public health issue?

"the use of the smoking ban to compare this country with the old Soviet Union is a scary sign of impaired judgment." I don't think so. It's a slippery slope. This issue along with national ownership of the auto industry and the push for a national health care system are some of the things that lead me to believe we will soon be living in a socialist country if some of us don't stand up and fight against it. Right now the hot issue is smokers. What will it be next? I will always stand for freedom. You are free not to go into a smokey building if it bothers you.

Does anyone remember in the late 70's early 80's when you could actually smoke in a hospital????? I remember going to visit one of my mom's friends with her who had a baby, and she was puffing away on her ciggies right there in her maternity room with her baby nursing....I still to this day cannot believe I saw that with my own eyes. But this does prove the point that in earlier years the dangers were unknown to us, and if I had it to do all over again, I would NEVER have lit that first one. I have been addicted to things in my life, bingo, weekend partying while I was younger, garage sales, shopping....etc...but smoking is seriously the only thing I haven't been able to say, ok enough. I am pleased with as much awareness there is out there for our new generations....just because I smoke, I certainly don't think it is my right to smoke around others who don't like it. Honestly, when I am at a bar with non-smokers, I will remove myself from our space to smoke....although I realize they are breathing it anyway, I don't want to be rude and blow it right at them.... I have NEVER smoked around children, and never would...in an enclosed area. This is a matter of health, and I can agree with that 100%~

officerfriendly -Quote- "When I see governments pass laws that infringe on personal freedoms, I get very nervous." -Quote-
.
This is not about personal freedom in the least, Its public health, It is killing people no matter what you or anyone else can argue.
.
Why is it illegal to take a gun and shoot your neighbor, that should be personal freedom right? they took away your right to fire a gun at someone, thats a freedom issue isnt it?
.
Why is it illegal to Drive drunk? just because you drink why should they take away your right to drive? sounds like a personal freedom issue to me.
.
Why is it illegal to use cancer causing asbestos in building? they took away your personal freedom to use the material you want, sounds like an issue to me.
.
.
the answer to all of these is because THEY KILL PEOPLE, just as 2nd hand smoke does, It is not a personal freedom issue at all, its public health.
.
On a side note as you requested I take my kids to a smoke free bowling alley, There is none within an hour of here, I guess that means You as a smoker just took away my kids personal freedom right to a game of bowling....
.
Get a Clue

It all boils down to this: No, smoking is not good for anyone. The person who smokes or the people around them. I have smoked for 36 years and wish I could quit on some days and on others, I enjoy it too much. It is like any drug, it is addictive and alters your chemistry in your brain. I read all the posts on here and I agree with every one of them to some point. Officer and DiGriz, sign up to recall the idiot (Mr. Jim Doyle) at www.recalldoyle.com. I did, because he is messing with our freedom and the freedom and livelyhood of business owners, amongst other things he has done. He is another Tommy Thompson!! Look at what that did to the low income children in our state! Take a statewide survey of low income families and find out if they have food in their cupboards!! And how many grocery stores and medical facilities have closed since he reigned supreme!! He took away AFDC for families and made them go hungry and without proper medical care. So, like I said, I agree somewhat with every post on here, I just don't agree with how Govenor Doyle is handling our state and its residents!

It's too bad it's taken Wisconsin so long for a smoking ban. Smoking stinks and is so unhealthy to skin, hair and lungs. If you want to smoke, don't let it affect non-smokers, especially children in public places. The smoking ban shouldn't be a year away, it should be as soon as possible. We all have to breathe to live; smoking is optional.

officer....., the use of the smoking ban to compare this country with the old Soviet Union is a scary sign of impaired judgment.

Okay, okay.......Officer you seriously NEED to get a new defense. ;) The "big ole fire pit" was already brought up once, no? I'm pretty sure noone cared. ;)
*****
Zoooooooom (sorry I had to): You said it quite well!

"Bars and restaurants are not public buildings they are private businesses held open to the public. They can refuse service to anyone."

Every business is a workplace for somebody, and the government regulates the workplace. What does refusing service have to do with anything? And are you somehow suggesting that businesses shouldn't be subject to regulations, simply becuase they are privately owned? Trying to argue that businesses can't be subject to this law is silly.

Smoking is not integral to drinking, bowling, eating, or anything else. An employee should not have to be subject to second hand smoke.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, those "commies" are going to strip all of our personal freedoms, our guns, our Hummers, and our beloved cigarettes! C'mon people! Where do we draw a line between social responsibility and personal freedom? We are all in this together. People don't like change, and IMO this ban is a change for the better NOT the worse.
~
The ban is obviously addressing a public health issue, it is not a political agenda. As was adressed in this article, this man did not KNOW the dangers of second hand smoke. Shall we EDUCATE or PROTECT the ignorant and innocent? To say that people should just stay away from smokers if they don't like cigarette smoke, doesn't acknowledge that non-smokers', "personal freedoms" are being/have been violated for years. There aren't many establishments that non-smokers can go to without encountering cigarette smoke. Especially around here. I think that the public is finally well educated about the dangers of smoking and cigarette smoke and people are finally speaking up and doing something about it, to the dismay of the smokers!

"We will now be free to breath clean air in public spaces..." What about RummageSalesRock's "big ole firepit"? She's polluting the air you breath outdoors. Should we outlaw firepits now?

Zoom....I believe that as well.
****
Officer....my apologies as I did think you were a "smoker", but I do have to agree with the above.

Officer I agree with you 100%

Public buildings have been smoke free for quite some time now. Bars and restaurants are not public buildings they are private businesses held open to the public. They can refuse service to anyone. I'm sure the commie-libs in Madison will try to get that changed as well. God knows you should have the right to tell private businesses how to run their business.

I am a smoker, I am sorry for this man, I also have found out about a new product for us smokers and it has only nicotine not the other chemicals check out the web site of course it is not FDA approved. However, we know that is because it will be better then cigarettes I am going to try it will see, some people I know are using it and have quit smoking it helped them quit. http://www.smokestikusa.com/

I see the government passing a law that expands my personal freedom. We will now be free to breath clean air in public spaces and workplaces.

"...affects the lives and health of everyone around them." Approximately 3000 deaths a year from second hand smoke according to the EPA out of 2,426,264 deaths each year. This is peanuts folks. The numbers are probably much lower than 3000 if you don't include such diseases as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis which THERE IS NO KNOWN CAUSE FOR! That's what idiopathic means! From the Merriam-Webster dictionary; idiopathic 1: arising spontaneously or from an obscure or unknown cause.

"Even though I am not convinced at all that "second hand smoke" caused this condition, I agree with the others who say that if this guy had such a problem with working in "smokey" environments he should have changed professions."

That doesn't make any sense. He didn't have a problem until YEARS later. From the article: "At the time, Seifried didn't realize second-hand smoke was harmful."

When I see governments pass laws that infringe on personal freedoms, I get very nervous.

As I've stated before I am not a smoker. I used to chew tobacco but quit shortly after being treated for cancer. I don't need the government passing laws that simple common sense will take care of. If you don't want to be in a smokey environment DON'T GO THERE! If you don't want your kids in a smokey bowling alley DON'T SEND THEM THERE! It's really that simple. LESS GOVERNMENT = MORE FREEDOM!

Thank you gazettefan ;)

Officer......, your quote is too general to apply to the smoking problem. Did Yuri say that he was against the smoking ban? I doubt it. Re: the smoking problem in Russia: the government you are talking about never banned smoking in bars.

"that you are a smoker" I'm editing this, lol. Im meant to say "because you are a smoker".
******
Miltonalum I completely agree 100%!

Mr Officerfriendly.....I honestly do NOT care what "Yuri Rashkin" has or had to say. You are just getting all bent out of shape as I'm assuming, by your defense, that you are a smoker. It's probably the simple fact that you don't want to walk 5ft to a door, go outside, and "light up". I believe that this is YOUR choice to SMOKE, NOT NON SMOKERS. Right now we have NO choice in the matter when you decide to light up, and I think it's revolting. "Ask to be moved to another table" when the smoke bugs us? A HA HA HA, you try that in a busy establishment on Friday or Saturday night! There are not to many "smoke free" places to hold parties buddy ;) But I'm sure, to your defense, you will give me a list of those in your next post, which is fine, because I will still laugh at what you have to say. You're just another smoker who is getting all upset and throwing a "tizzzy fit" about this ban.
*****
Rummage~~~> LOL I did the SAME thing ;) When I was growing up I worked for a rather large pony farm here in Janesville training ponies, and one of my jobs was to clean stalls, which was very interesting. We always ended up having "horse apple" fights, ha ha. Ah the good ol' days! There is a horse show this weekend @ the fairgrounds in Janesville :) I shall be there w/ two :)

-Quote DiGriz- "I have lost two friends (one recently) and a grandfather I never knew that died as a result of drinking themselves to death. How would you propose to have saved them? You think banning alcohol would have done it??" -Quote-
.
The key wording in your argument is "drinking THEMSELVES to death"
.
They choose to drink, they made that choice as an adult. 2nd hand smoke is NOT a choice, this law does not stop smokers from CHOOSING to smoke, It just stops them from CHOOSING to smoke where it affects the lives and health of everyone around them. If you want to smoke 15 packs a day go do it, nobody cares, just dont do it in a bowling alley where my kids are having their birthday party 100 feet away.

h0rselvngrl, You CHOOSE to go "out to a place that allows smoking, whether it be out for a few drinks, out for a family function, a birthday party, a welcome home party, etc..." Stay home if smoke bothers you. Ask to be moved to another table if you "DO NOT have a choice whether you get stuck next to a smoker or not" and the smoke bothers you. If smoke free establishments were such a great idea you can bet entropenours would already have opened smoke free establishments. Let the free market decide not the government. LESS GOVERNMENT = MORE FREEDOM! Quotes from Janesville City Councilman Yuri Rashkin, "I lived in the Soviet Union", "When governments (act) proactively, I get very nervous".

OH when I was a youngin...hehe, we had horses, and I LOVED the smell of my jeans after riding, and would want to wear them to school, but mom said no...haha. And as far as horse poo, it doesn't stink at all! I used to make horse poop pies when I was little. Aw, thanks for the memories!

I would have to agree IndysGirl, getting bucked is far more painful vs. getting bit! OUCH! It did look like it hurt when you were thrown, but i couldn't help but laugh, of course after I made sure you were okay.
*****
I wonder if methane gas comes out of all animals?? What about pigs, chickens, etc now THEIR poop REALLY stinks! I can handle a good pile of cow/horse poop ;)
****
I might add that I'm pretty handy when it comes to getting in horse poo fights, I rule ;)

Indy bucked me off last Friday and I strained a muscle in my neck and bruised my back. I am more afraid of getting thrown than bitten.
~
I have heard that the waste of cows produces large amounts of methane gas which effects the atomosphere. Kind of silly considering there are many other bigger things polluting the atmosphere. As for regulating that, good luck.

a ha ha I typed "for" twice, whoops. Where are the grammar police when you need them??

Gazette...most do not, but some, some that are poorly trained and have no manners, tend to bite in the upper left region of my chest :( Which results in one being quite larger than the other for for a while :(
*****
They are only as scary as you make them :) I love my guys! You can catch me riding down Hwy 14 E on a cute little horse once in a while ;)

I'm afraid of horses. Do they bite?

LOL, very true, very true.

I would almost swear that there has to be some kind of poison that comes out of me?? I can clear a room in 1 second ;) ;) Ha ha.

On second thought, I retract my approval of a ban on flatulence on the grounds that some people just cannot help it. It would be interesting to find out if there are any poisonus substances in the gasses emitted though.

Oh and Rummage....you wouldn't want to smell the stuff that can come out of the farm girl ;) Just ask "IndysGirl". LMAO!

Rummage~~> I'm all for it! I own 8, and am trying to slim down to 5, so if you know anyone looking I have few nice ones! Full arab huh? We used to raise Straight Egyptian Arabians, but have since started breeding Quarters. I do own 3 full blooded se arabians though, and they are amazing creatures.
****
Burning tires?? I'm in ;) ha ha. We have TONS of wood as well! We are in the middle of re-doing fences and are cutting the tree lines down, so this should make for a rather large bon-fire some night :D
****
As far as the cows and gas go....I guesssssss I'm screwed then as we have about 100 milking cows, 25-30 steers, 25-30 heifers, and 15-20 calves. :-0 (covers her mouth w/ her hands) WHOOPS :D

OFFICER, I did think the same thing you mentioned about this is a probable diagnosis. I am happy that this man is at least comforted with an explanation in his own mind to what is wrong, but from past experience there are far too many illnesses out there that go undiagnosed. It is truly a process of elimination. That show mystery diagnosis is a prime example. And I just read in the news that they are trying to figure out once again how to eliminate the gas of cows that supposedly ruin our ozone? Is this for real???? That is hilarious! Because I would hate to think of what some of our gas has in it, we eat way worse stuff than cows...lol....

And my point about agreeing with the ban wasn't to rip on my fellow smoker, it was only to show that sometimes smokers themselves get smoked out! :)

It's pretty much a safe bet my BIG OLE FIREPIT isn't going to bother my neighbors being the closest one is 2 miles away...:) But it is awful nice of you to be concerned about them! hehe
.
HORSELUVIN....You are hilarious! And I just might have to take you up on riding those horses you have that need it!! I had one, but had to get rid of him because I was spoiling him too much, see, I didn't know quite how to disapline him, and he was a full blood arab, and he got pretty attached to just me, and I have boys, and he had NO friends...he was all alone. He is super happy now, he went to a friend who shows, but I still miss him the same! But I promise I won't smoke on your horse, and to assure all, we only burn WOOD that we cut down 24/7 360 days a year it seems from our woods. I'll post if we decide to burn tires or that wild reefer we find once in a awhile...LOL

Oh and I caught my own typo (trying to stay motivated at work as well)...
****

I meant THEIR not THERE arm out.
****
LMAO @ Officerfriendlys reply to "fire pits". I didn't know the smoke from a fire pit was poisonous? But I may be digging myself a hole now, because it DOES depend on what is burned.

IndysGirl & Gazettefan~~~> I completely agree with you.
*****
Officerfriendly~~~> you're not so "friendly" now are you? When going out to a place that allows smoking, whether it be out for a few drinks, out for a family function, a birthday party, a welcome home party, etc (you get my point), you sometimes DO NOT have a choice whether you get stuck next to a smoker or not. And it eeeeerks me that most of these "smokers" will hold there arm out w/ their cigarette away from them so the smoke DOES go in someone else's face.....disgusting.
****
We can choose to eat McDonalds,drink coffee,etc, but sometimes we cannot choose who we are sat next to, or have to sit next to at an establishment that allows smoking.
****
Hmmmm.......is right IndysGirl ;)

"big ole firepit"? But what if the smoke bothers the neighbors? Firepits should be outlawed!

IndysGirl, You have a CHOICE not to stand near someone who is smoking a cigarette.

The EPA says approximately 3000 deaths a year are caused by second hand smoke. Why is this number approximate? Because of cases just like the one this article is written about. Speculation that this man's pulmonary fibrosis was caused by second hand smoke when idiopathic means there is no known cause. According to the CDC 2,426,264 people die each year in the U.S. Approximately 3000 deaths from second hand smoke certainly does not justify this stupid law. If you don't want to be one of the supposed 3000 don't be around smokers.

I am a smoker, and I agree with the smoking bans. When I go to places with smoking, it hurts my eyes and I come home smelling terrible. But see, I don't smoke in my home because I knew from the day I started it wasn't fair to my family members to breath my second hand smoke. There will be places to smoke at certain establishments, and it may be a bit inconvenient, but just think of it as maybe a way to help us quit our habit... :) At first I thought it was wrong for the government to step in and stick their nose in businesses business, but the more I think about this, really, it isn't our right as smokers to contaminate the air....it's our right to contaminate our bodies, and if we choose to do that, and pay the price, when then we are going to be put out a little bit. I have a big ole firepit and a garage with a fridge stocked with beer, you know where I will be. LOL. I will save money as well by staying home.

I have a CHOICE whether or not I go out and get a Big Mac, or a chocolate bar, or a cup of coffee and I consciously CHOOSE TO ingest these things, and the substances they contain such as trans-fats that coat my arteries, and caffiene that might give me eventual heart problems. However, when it is completely unavoidable and necessary to stand near someone who is smoking a cigarette, I can only hold my breath for so long. I suppose that I could CHOOSE not to breathe, but my body will finally force me to take a breath, and unfortunately I'll inhale the 2nd hand smoke. Now if inhaling trans-fats and caffiene were an issue... and McDonalds employees or Starbucks baristas started shoving french-fries and dumping lattes down my throat I would have some big problems.
~
And yes, I am with some of you on banning flatulence... there is just no need for that.

From the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website:
"Overweight and obesity may soon cause as much preventable disease and death as cigarette smoking," Surgeon General David Satcher said. "People tend to think of overweight and obesity as strictly a personal matter, but there is much that communities can and should do to address these problems."

Approximately 300,000 U.S. deaths a year currently are associated with obesity and overweight (compared to more than 400,000 deaths a year associated with cigarette smoking). The total direct and indirect costs attributed to overweight and obesity amounted to $117 billion in the year 2000.
*******************
From the EPA's "Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking":
The report concludes that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as secondhand smoke -- is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children.
****************
I think the numbers speak for themselves. The 3,000 deaths a year of non-smokers exposed to ETS could be avoided by simply staying away from smokers. Next they will come after food that makes people fat. Exercise will become mandatory if you want health insurance. Where does it end? If everybody lives to be 100 years old who's going to pay for their long-term care?

gazettefan let me refer you to one of my previous posts:

From the website of OSHA:
February 24, 2003

MEMORANDUM FOR: REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS STATE PLAN DESIGNEES

THROUGH: R. DAVIS LAYNE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FROM: RICHARD E. FAIRFAX, DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS

SUBJECT: OSHA Policy on Indoor Air Quality: Office Temperature/Humidity and Environmental Tobacco Smoke

.....Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

For further information to offer to employers/employees as guidance, you may wish to review a document published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the health effects from environmental tobacco smoke, A Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. Additional information on indoor air quality in general can be found on the Indoor Air Quality Technical Links page on the OSHA website.

We hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190

Others don't ingest that other stuff. A smoking ban is mainly for the protection of others. This is akin to the irresponsible business owner and his patrons.

Clean air falls under the purview of health and safety codes, just like asbestos removal, proper food temperatures, and structural requirements.

"Chocolate in excess causes obesity which leads to other health problems, therefore chocolate must be banned. Let's call a duck a duck, shall we?"

I completely agree. perhaps we should ban McDonalds while we are at it? Caffine is a drug which also causes heart problems, lets ban all soda and coffee too. Just another agenda being pushed and more personal freedoms lost.

If its hot in the kitchen....get out.

Nice catch, IndysGirl.

A "regular" cigarette. Hmmm...

Clean air falls under the purview of health and safety codes, just like asbestos removal, proper food temperatures, and structural requirements.

DG- no I do not agree with you..I dont feel that smoking in a designated area is a huge inconvenience.. It was an analogy.. I am sorry that you have to crap in the open at times.. But we are talking about Wisconsin.. Not Kuwait.. No disrespect by that- my brother did 3 tours, and I do hope you make it back secure and safe!

DiGriz, THANK YOU for your service to this great country. Send me an e-mail when you get back home and I'll be glad to buy you a beer or two. I would buy you a pack of smokes also but they are too darn expensive now that the dems have taxed them silly.

creature wrote: "The days of freedom to choose a lifestyle are slowly slipping away from all of us." Yeah that's what we've been trying to tell you! This entire article is a sham. There is no known cause for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. That's what idiopathic means. But the writer wants you to believe it was caused by second hand smoke. This is either due to an overzealous press member with an agenda or she failed to do her research on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

OK- DG..Lets say you gotta take a crap.. Are you going to use a bathroom or just squat anywhere? I mean C`mon,taking a crap is a "God Given Right" right? But in society it has always been something that we dont do infront of others, theres actually "designated" places for it..So why is a place deignated for smokig such a loss of yours or mine rights? I mean I would think you would be screaming about where you are forced to crap...?...

DG - Thank you for the apology and no problem here. I'm very sure the atmosphere you're in can put anyone on edge. Regarding the statements you made about overweight people is actually spot on. The insurance giants are currently working on ways to make people pay higher rates based upon their body fat index. The federal government is also taking a close look at this issue in a way to pay for national health care. The days of freedom to choose a lifestyle are slowly slipping away from all of us. The bottom line is money on multiple levels. The government spending on rising health care costs. Individual company premiums going up. Insurance giants looking to maintain profit margins with the ever increasing cost of health care services. Hospitals paying for the uninsured who flock to the emergency rooms. We can't forget about the good old drug company's who've continued to jack up prices in the name of profits. The end result is we the people get the short end of the stick with higher rates and most likely loss of freedoms or paying a higher price to live as we choose and not everyone can afford these increases. The greatest impact is on the lower income level individuals which studies have shown tend to indulge in more risky behaviors such as smoking, drinking and poor nutritional diets. It would take a massive revolution by the people to begin the swing back in the other direction and the people of our nation are asleep at the wheel. For me if you choose to drink, smoke, overeat, or any other high risk behavior that is your right as long as it doesn't endanger others. Please know that I respect your dedication to our nation and pray all the men and women of our Armed Forces come home soon SAFE and SOUND. All of you over there are the Real American Heroes. Thank you again and may God Bless you and protect you.

There still is some freedom of choice left. I don't smoke. I don't go into places that have smoking. If people want to smoke and have a good time at a bar, why not let them? It's their choice. There are plenty of places for the nonsmoker's to go. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

DG- you are defending what here? Smoking? LOL.. Something that you KNOW is not good for your health let alone the person who doesnt smoke sitting next to you.. Ingnorance. People can stroll outside and have a smoke if they want one.. It really doesnt change things all that much. Most Tavern owners in Madison have made outside smoking shelters that have kept their business booming. You sound ridiculous because nobody is losing here..?.. People are gaining their rights to breathe fresh air.

DG - Sorry to burst your bubble but no hurt feelings here. Just a couple shots back at your negative comments that were unjustified. I always welcome a good debate and the nastier the better. Regarding your assumption that any owner of a bar can do as they please. The world is not so simple. Smoking laws are no different than drinking age laws that changed in the 70's and 80's which took away rights of owners also. I thought you would have figured than one out on your own. Guess not. Regarding a bar owner kicking people out because they don't like them. Yes they can and so what. Not really a good business model to just kick out paying customers unless they've done something offensive or illegal like smoking in a nonsmoking area as described by the new ban. FYI my MOS was 19E "M60A3" Tanker with the 2/107th ACR almost two decades ago. I was just fishing to see if you were whom you say you are. THANK YOU for your service to our country. As for my comment to smokers or bar owners to "deal with it" You of all people should understand rules and regulations. No one likes being told to do or not to do something but that's what laws are all about. The "deal with it" may have sounded harsh but appropriate in that the smoking issue is not going to change so just take it outside or risk the penalty of a ticket for both the bar owner and patron. Honestly speaking smoking in any form is not a healthy lifestyle and people should give it up. If they cannot or do not want to then so be it but the ones who do not smoke should not have their health affected. So going outside to smoke is a small inconvenience but allows all patrons to enjoy a bar owners establishment. DG be safe and take out the Taliban and Al qaida. As for the beer I'll buy you one but not a smoking bar and we can find a neutral meeting place if you so choose.

Too bad that science has always been involved in the operations of power. It was when it concluded scientifically that certain races were inferior, and it was when it decided later that certain people -- people of color, the poor, the imprisoned -- were of less consequence and thus perfect subjects for radiation experiments that were conducted in our country by scientists through the 1970s. Science is not beyond reproach now, especially as its research is increasingly funded by big corporations and by the military industrial complex. Pharmaceutical experiments conducted by major university scientists have been demonstrated to be corrupted. All of this makes it wrong-headed to attach words like "right" and "wrong" to people based on a supposedly objective Science.

janesvillean - I with you on both issues. Hard to defend the obvious with regards to Global Warming. Oceans rising, Temperature increasing, Ice Caps melting at a rapid pace. Well you know the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink". Maybe we'll teach the horse to do the backstroke when the plains are flooded.

"Both sides of the issue will have plenty of reports that back their claims. Nothing new in the world of politics. Just like Global Warming, some say yes, some say no."
.
That may be true, but there is a difference between claims backed by the National Cancer Institute and those that ... aren't. There is a difference between claims backed by the International Panel on Climate Change and those that ... aren't. Some say yes, some say no, and the "no" in both cases is wrong. People don't want to face being wrong, so they reject science. That's a sad commentary on our educational and political culture.

Wow DieGrease, If that is some lame attempt to intimidate me or any other intelligent well educated nonsmoker?? Yawn, Zzzzzzzz where you babbling something. Well anyway if it gets you through those hot days and cold nights in the field so be it. Glad I could be of service. Just let me know when you're back so we can discuss this one around a couple of beers and share some stories from the good old days. FYI there was no real deep message just rebuttals to the various don't stop me from smoking in your face arguments. By the way what is your MOS? You must be on guard duty now since it’s almost midnight over there. Let me guess you’re really not there just pretending. That’s ok, we understand you’re actually just a lonely misunderstood Special Forces Ranger who doesn’t sleep much.

People, no smoking in public places is a good thing. Why is anyone against this? It keeps everyone (you, me, our kids) more healthy. That's good, not bad. Seems pretty simple to me.

If you want to inhale some cancer sticks do it in your own home. I'm sorry but you don't have the "right" to harm others with your own personal decisions. Do you really want that "right" anyway? Think about it.

Both sides of the issue will have plenty of reports that back their claims. Nothing new in the world of politics. Just like Global Warming, some say yes, some say no. The right to smoke is not taken away. Yet. Just do it outside. That simple. To complain about your smoking rights, or the rights of the owner of the establishment is one side to this two sided coin as the nonsmokers also have rights not to breath the poison. The sky is not falling people. Laws are in place to protect the weak and strong, educated and uneducated, smokers and nonsmokers, etc. Funny how people quickly run for the communism garbage the first time they disagree with certain laws. How about my right to drive really fast, or tailgate the idiot who is driving 55mph on the left lane on I90 or ignore the drive slow with caution in work zones. Maybe I'm a great driver, maybe I'm a NASCAR professional and could do it at 190mph all day. Well that would be wrong and illegal for obvious reasons. Same applies to the smoking issue now so deal with it.

The man who invented the electronic cigarette did it for his dad - a passionate smoker. But it was too late ...
We know a lot about tobacco cigarettes: they are not good for your health and contain thousands of toxins.
Electronic cigarettes are certainly an alternative with many great benefits ranging from cost savings, to odor less, to no butts littering our country!

Here is a quick introduction to electronic cigarettes: http://www.ecigarettes365.com/new

But a person having a drink next to you then driving home does affect you. Yes, we have laws but they are not strict enough when a person can get 6 DUI's and still have their freedom and their license!

memyself- It is not the same..Not at all. And there are laws about Drinking and Driving. What is happening is not stopping people from smoking, it is stopping smokers from polluting the air lets say in a bar or eatery.. Big difference. If a person is having a drink next to me , it doesnt affect me at all. Smoking would. Your argument does not make sense.. This is an article about banning smoking from public places.

Hay he picked his job in life he had the choice to not be in the smoke filled rooms so do not blaim any one else for his condition but him self.

DiGriz...If you must know I do occasionaly drink. My whole point is that the government wants to control smokers, but what are they doing about the people that are drinking in driving and killing innocent people?? Like what you ask...you cannot help someone that doesn't want help; however, they can make stricter laws and penalties for drinking and driving. I also have a family member who is an alcholic in which I believe he just received his 6th DUI. Sure he spent some time in jail, license taken away for a short while, treatment, and probabtion but as soon as his probabtion was over he was back to drinking and driving. I am scared the next time he will end up killing someone and it most likely will be an innocent person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of couse, Gov Doyle won't touch alcohol because we are the wonderful state of Wisconsin. Tax tobacco and make stricter laws regarding smoking in public places, but don't worry about all the people getting killed by drunk drivers!

good luck mickie.

i cant believe cigarrettes are even legal. nicotine is a DRUG that has NO KNOWN medical uses and OBVIOUSLY has a high risk of abuse. according to the controlled substances act of 1970 that should list it as a schedule 1 narcotic making it illegal to possess or manufacture. hypocrites.

Sorry- I am a smoker, soon to be an X-smoker..(Been cutting down to quit for good this Monday). I agree that smoking should be banned in public places.For those of you that do not believe that second hand smoke cannot cause lung cancer or other diseases of the lungs are probably folks who smoke. Do some research. My father was just diagnosed with lung cancer Easter weekend, this is by far the hardest thing I have had to watch or endure. Smoking is one of the dumbest things I have ever fallen into. It is also something that I do "force" upon others if I do it in a public place.. Smoke your heads off where others are not forced to breathe it in..Also for those of you comparing alcohol etc.. Get real- its not the same thing at all..

"I am an entertainer and musician"
"six days a week over the last six decades performing"
And he's never had a cigarette?
Yeah, right.
Just as I am on a first name basis with the Queen of Merry Old England.

"There is not one study that has been done that can conclusively say 100% that second hand smoke causes cancer"
.
Uh, the National Cancer Institute would beg to differ. According to them, there is no safe level of secondhand smoke.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/facts...
.
If you have been told differently, you have been lied to.

officerfriendly1, touche I lost my Dad last November of IPF and had not smoked since I was 4 years old and I am 48. My Dad worked out side all of his life and worked as a cement mason. His lung specialist said that his could have been caused from certain chemicals they put in cement, but were unable to say for sure if that was what caused it. I also asked the specialist about second hand smoke causing cancer or other lung problem such as IPF and his answer to me was this. There is not one study that has been done that can conclusively say 100% that second hand smoke causes cancer, but he said that anyone who suffers from ailments such as asthma or chronic bronchitis are more susceptible to having other lung issues because that is the weakest part of their body. In my Dads case who knows because he always had very good lungs he was diagnosed with IPF in early October and passed away a month later.
For those who will comment on this I will say what the other person said. Idiopathic means no known cause so how can they say it was from Second Hand Smoke if there is no known cause? Sounds to me like someone is trying to push an agenda.
I don't wish upon anyone to be diagnosed with IPF and I wish you the best Duke. Hopefully someday they will have a cure or medicine that will extend a persons life. Will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.

From the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute:

What Is Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis?

Pulmonary fibrosis (PULL-mun-ary fi-BRO-sis) is a condition in which tissue deep in your lungs becomes thick and stiff, or scarred, over time. The development of the scarred tissue is called fibrosis.

As the lung tissue becomes thicker, your lungs lose their ability to move oxygen into your bloodstream. As a result, your brain and other organs don't get the oxygen they need. (See the section on How the Lungs Work for more information.)

In some cases, doctors can find out what's causing the fibrosis. But in most cases, they can't find a cause. They call these cases idiopathic (id-ee-o-PATH-ick) pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

IPF is a serious condition. About 200,000 Americans have it. About 50,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. IPF mostly affects people who are 50 to 75 years of age.

IPF varies from person to person. In some people, the lung tissue quickly becomes thick and stiff. In others, the process is much slower. In some people, the condition stays the same for years.

IPF has no cure yet. Many people live only about 3 to 5 years after diagnosis. The most common cause of death related to IPF is respiratory failure. Other causes include:

* Pulmonary hypertension
* Heart failure
* Pulmonary embolism (EM-bo-lizm)
* Pneumonia (nu-MO-ne-ah)
* Lung cancer

Some people may be more likely to develop IPF because of their genes (the basic units of heredity). If more than one member of your family has IPF, the condition is called familial idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Today, scientists are beginning to understand more about what causes IPF, and they can diagnose it more quickly. They also are studying several medicines that may slow the progress of the disease. These efforts should improve the lifespan and quality of life for people who have IPF.

Revised May 2009
***********************

So if idiopathic means the doctors can't find a cause then how can we assume that second hand smoke caused this gentleman's pulmonary fibrosis?

Thank you for speaking out, Mr. Seifried. My best wishes to you.

1st and 2nd hand smoke kill. can ANYONE tell me why tobacco is legal??

This is what IL proposes and will WI pass this,
i think this would be a great idea also hard Liquor.
+
http://www.healthyrockford.com/homepage/...

My thoughts and prayers are with you. I just wish that Congress and the State Legislator would do more about the people that are killed by alcohol??

Thank you for being so frank about your health condition. I hope that this will open some peoples eyes that have opted to poo poo the fact that second hand smoke is indeed dangerous. I wish you the best and again thank you very much.

My Grandpa had the same thing and he never smoked a day in his life either. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.