Several things....

1) You can't make the argument that smoking must be bad because insurance companies charge smokers higher premiums if you're also going to make the argument at smokers drive premiums up for nonsmokers.

2) Woody says nonsmokers just want to control what they breathe. If this were true then nonsmokers should oppose somking bans so that smokers will go back inside their smoking-allowed places rather than being out on the street where everyone is walking.

3) Zoom says there can't be a national smoking ban because of the Constitution. Sorry Zoom, the Antismokers couldn't give a flying butterfly about the Constitution: they'll simply do what the Antidrinkers did with the 21 drinking age law and deny federal money to states that don't comply. Unfortunately the Founding Fathers never dreamed of a federal government having enough money to be able to blackmail the states.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

phatfly: It's Unconstitutional due to the 10th Amendment. Any powers not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the States, is left to the States or the people.

There will never be a national smoking ban, contrary to what some politicians have tried to promise.

ihavealife:
i stand by my comments.
banning smoking in public places will have very little effect on the decisions your children make.
smoking for 39 years, despite the preponderance of evidence that doing so will KILL YOU, will have tremendous influence on them.

i good friend of mine just quit -- he watched his dad die of lung cancer at age 61.

he literally coughed himself to death.

for me, i despise smoke. so, i stay away from places where smokers congregate.

i do not feel our government has any right to ban smoking where they see fit. UNLESS the have the bullocks to criminalize tobacco.
but, as i mentioned, they won't as that would necessitate eliminating tobacco subsidies -- and lose votes).

Ban it.

The constitution does not stop a ban on smoking. What in the world would ever give you that idea?

dub190, smoking bans are a states rights issue. Our U.S. constitution prohibits any national ban on smoking.

The right to breath clean air while in a public place or workplace trumps a smokers desire to polute that air. Smokers can still smoke at home.

Smoking in public places and workplaces will be regulated, just like health codes for anyplace that serves food or beverages, child labor laws, etc.

Forget about the economy and the state budget and what can be done about GM employees. Behavior that MIGHT kill you in sixty years is of paramount importance. Thanks for getting our priorities right. Of course a few lines of text banning smoking will consume a years worth of debate but that's Madison.

Nonsmokers really do not care one bit if someone else wants to smoke. They just want the option to never partake in their habit. The nonsmokers don't want to control you, but instead, they want to control what they breath.

I feel like "Big Brother" is watching me. I realize that everyone, smokers and non alike, have rights. It seems that the smokers rights are being suppressed. I am a smoker, so maybe that makes me byassed in some peoples eyes. I was a NON smoker for most of my life, but my parents smoked. I understand not wanting to be around smoke, But I know many non smokers, who smoke when they go out. I do not feel bars should ban smoking. It should be the owners choice. Non smokers have the right to NOT go into a smoking bar. My fear is once they have the smokers "CONTROLLED" who will they go after next... the obese, the diabetics, the occsional drinker. Where does it end, when government gets to decide what is right and wrong, DESPITE what the Constitution says.

I agree with the Tobacco ban because we all know Cigarettes cause more deaths than drunk driving and drug use .

The government should stop subsidizing and regulating tobacco farmers. Let them take the same market risks as soybean farmers. It SHOULD outlaw smoking in government buildings and public facilities. Tobacco smoke is a known killer and second-hand smoke can kill people who make the smart choice not to smoke.
.
The government should not ban smoking unless they are also willing to ban drinking. That kills people and we've all seen the stories of drunk drivers killing innocent people. I don't know if alcohol is responsible for as many or more deaths than tobacco, but they both kill. Historically, we know how well banning drinking worked out last time, and we are still losing the war on illegal drug usage even with those being outlawed. Prohibition won't stop the users, but perhaps the drug lords would go back to being booze kings and we'd fix our balance of trade deficit as they stopped buying coca leafs from Columbian farmers and poppies from Afghan farmers and started buying locally grown crops to illegally brew beer and distill alcohol in the United States.
.
If businesses choose to ban or to allow smoking, it should be their right, as long as they notify people by signs at entrances what their choice is. People can choose to patronize or not patronize those businesses.
.
This is just another one of those "smoke and mirrors" issues both the Democrats and the Republicans use to stir up people and distract them from the fact that neither party is balancing the state budget, which should be JOB #1!

Funny how smoking brings out the Joe McCarthy in some people. For the record, I don't give a flying hoot whether you smoke or not -- they're your lungs -- but do it in a space that isn't shared by non-smokers. Oh, and don't ask for insurance when you get lung cancer, because you raise my rates to pay for your slow and agonizing death.

ihavealife:
cigarettes are LEGAL. and as long as they are, people should be able to partake.
because you cannot quit does not mean other should be affected.
banning smoking in public spaces will have ZERO effect on whether your kids smoke or not.
what WILL and does affect them is YOU SMOKING FOR 39 YEARS.

brewerguy78:
you can go dozens of places and find no smoking policies.
i never come home smelling like an ashtray.
i don't go to places where people smoke.

funny, the state of WI is considering legalizing medical marijuana, but outlawing smoking.
if our lawmakers want to ban smoking, why don't they just criminalize tobacco?
the federal government still sends hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct payment subsidies to dozens of tobacco farmers right here in good ole wisconsin.

millions in subsidies to tobacco farmers in the south.

lawmakers should put their money where their mouths are. but they won't because they will lose votes if they cut the subsidies.

it's easier to make gestures that affect everyone rather than go to the heart of the matter (and possibly lose votes).
too bad.
i thought democrats governed smarter.

lakennedy........wink..wink.

lurching left and farther left.
democrats have NO roadblocks in Wisconsin.
get used to it.
helmet laws will become mandatory -- even on bicycles.
smokers will see higher and higher taxes -- (cigarette taxes are as regressive as taxes get).
watch for a beer tax.
tickets for seat belt violations.
higher fees for every service.

remember, democrats KNOW BETTER than you do.
remember, they feel government solves ALL our problems.

wisconsin has been moving left for years.
and when all these nanny-state ideas become law, watch all those dumb-a** democrats complain.
and, worse, vote democratic again and again and again.
befuddling.

It would be nice to go out and not have to come home smelling like a ashtray.

NVgrf: After reading your first post, i wasn't sure if you were kidding. I was worried.

Yah, you tell 'em rex. Commie, pinko Marxist punks. Just leave us the heck alone. Who needs schools, roads, sidewalks, parks and all of that baby sitting crappola. We can take care of ourselves! The one that really gets me is requiring baby safety seats in cars. Hell, we bounced around during fast stops as kids and we made it this far. And we have far too many laws of all kinds too. Out here in the desert, we just pack old Roscoe and don't worry about someone assaulting us. "Just bring it on buster. Make my day!"

As someone who doesn't, and has never smoked, I still don't feel we need this Nanny State mentality. If businesses want to ban smoking fine, public buildings, fine, but I don't need the government deciding for me. Then again, look what we just voted for in the election, better get used to it cause it seems like I'm in the minority. Apparently alot of folks didn't get enough of being treated like a child when they were a child.

So typical of what will happen under the new Obama socialist administration. First our cigs, then our cigars, then our pipes. If a man can't be free to pollute the lungs of others and take his own life then we have started down the slippery slope to complete totalitarianism. I blame the liberal leftist media for promoting such ideas which limit our freedoms as Americans. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves! Many of them were smokers. Let's not forget that long covered-up historical fact!!

Yippee!!! A "green" act if I ever saw one!

WW

Yes, pass it. It's the wave of the future.

It will be implemented within 90 days of it's implementation. That what page 12 the ban lobbyists textbook, published for the tax exempt political action committees (charities) tells them to do. See for yourself. Here's the book. www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pd...