Wisconsin ready to pass statewide smoking ban - Update 5/18/09 Law passed!

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Having lived in CA where it became law many years ago and now MA where it became law just a few years ago I've noticed that after the initial protest smokers just adapted and now nothing is even thought about it. . Hell most smokers I know don't even smoke in their houses anymore.

I remember when the ban on smoking was passed here.

"OMG! We're gonna go out of business!"

"Fuck that, I won't go someplace that won't let me smoke!"

"Fuck em, I'm gonna smoke in the bar anyway."

Well, about 15 years have passed since the law went into effect.

Most bars and restaurants stayed in business. The ones that went under, did so for other reasons than the patrons not being able to smoke.

People have adapted pretty well to having to go outside to smoke. I certainly did. (even though it sux sometimes, it's still preferrable to sitting in a smoky bar/restaurant.

Those die-hards who continued to smoke...got sizeable tickets...and the places that permitted it...also got sizeable tickets.

Kahleeforneeya also permitted smoking in "private clubs." A few places tried to call themselves "private," but since they really weren't...they got fined...and slowly came into compliance.

While a bar or restaurant are private property, they are private property with public access. That makes them subject to more regulation than private residence, PLUS, as places of employment, unless every employee is a member of the owner's family, this is a health and safety issue for them as well.

Many of you say, "Fuck em. Let them find other jobs if they don't like it."

Does that apply to ALL safety-related issues? If you work with toxic chemicals, does your employer have to provide protective gear? Or is it, "Fuck em...let them find other jobs?" :roll:

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Having lived in CA where it became law many years ago and now MA where it became law just a few years ago I've noticed that after the initial protest smokers just adapted and now nothing is even thought about it. . Hell most smokers I know don't even smoke in their houses anymore.

I remember when the ban on smoking was passed here.

"OMG! We're gonna go out of business!"

"Fuck that, I won't go someplace that won't let me smoke!"

"Fuck em, I'm gonna smoke in the bar anyway."

Well, about 15 years have passed since the law went into effect.

Most bars and restaurants stayed in business. The ones that went under, did so for other reasons than the patrons not being able to smoke.

People have adapted pretty well to having to go outside to smoke. I certainly did. (even though it sux sometimes, it's still preferrable to sitting in a smoky bar/restaurant.

Those die-hards who continued to smoke...got sizeable tickets...and the places that permitted it...also got sizeable tickets.

Kahleeforneeya also permitted smoking in "private clubs." A few places tried to call themselves "private," but since they really weren't...they got fined...and slowly came into compliance.

While a bar or restaurant are private property, they are private property with public access. That makes them subject to more regulation than private residence, PLUS, as places of employment, unless every employee is a member of the owner's family, this is a health and safety issue for them as well.

Many of you say, "Fuck em. Let them find other jobs if they don't like it."

Does that apply to ALL safety-related issues? If you work with toxic chemicals, does your employer have to provide protective gear? Or is it, "Fuck em...let them find other jobs?" :roll:

Actually yes, BoomerD.

If Alaskan crab fishing is too dangerous for you, find a new job.
If damage to your eyes from welding is too dangerous, find a new job.
If working around cleaning solutions is too bad for your skin / nose / eyes, find a new job.
If working as a cop is too dangerous, find a new job.
If working in a bar where people smoke seems too dangerous to you, find a new job.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Having lived in CA where it became law many years ago and now MA where it became law just a few years ago I've noticed that after the initial protest smokers just adapted and now nothing is even thought about it. . Hell most smokers I know don't even smoke in their houses anymore.

I remember when the ban on smoking was passed here.

"OMG! We're gonna go out of business!"

"Fuck that, I won't go someplace that won't let me smoke!"

"Fuck em, I'm gonna smoke in the bar anyway."

Well, about 15 years have passed since the law went into effect.

Most bars and restaurants stayed in business. The ones that went under, did so for other reasons than the patrons not being able to smoke.

People have adapted pretty well to having to go outside to smoke. I certainly did. (even though it sux sometimes, it's still preferrable to sitting in a smoky bar/restaurant.

Those die-hards who continued to smoke...got sizeable tickets...and the places that permitted it...also got sizeable tickets.

Kahleeforneeya also permitted smoking in "private clubs." A few places tried to call themselves "private," but since they really weren't...they got fined...and slowly came into compliance.

While a bar or restaurant are private property, they are private property with public access. That makes them subject to more regulation than private residence, PLUS, as places of employment, unless every employee is a member of the owner's family, this is a health and safety issue for them as well.

Many of you say, "Fuck em. Let them find other jobs if they don't like it."

Does that apply to ALL safety-related issues? If you work with toxic chemicals, does your employer have to provide protective gear? Or is it, "Fuck em...let them find other jobs?" :roll:

Actually yes, BoomerD.

If Alaskan crab fishing is too dangerous for you, find a new job.
If damage to your eyes from welding is too dangerous, find a new job.
If working around cleaning solutions is too bad for your skin / nose / eyes, find a new job.
If working as a cop is too dangerous, find a new job.
If working in a bar where people smoke seems too dangerous to you, find a new job.

Probably the dumbest analogy I've seen in a long time.

I don't know shit about crab fishing but I'll address the other points.
welding -> job is liable if they do not enforce proper use of welding eye/face guards & ofc training
cleaning -> job is liable if employee does not receive proper training and protection (gloves/mask/etc.)
cop -> an inherent part of the risk, however proper training is given to cops on how to mitigate situations /etc. Additionally extensive programs are setup to assist in cops that suffer from work related injuries.
waiters/waitresses -> no training to deal with constant inhalation of carcinogenic smoke, no offering of face masks to alleviate the breathing in of smoke. If a waiter gets lung cancer having worked in a smokey restaurant for 40 years, absolutely no fallback safeguard for him or his family.

Any other moronic analogies coming down the line there skippy?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Having lived in CA where it became law many years ago and now MA where it became law just a few years ago I've noticed that after the initial protest smokers just adapted and now nothing is even thought about it. . Hell most smokers I know don't even smoke in their houses anymore.

I remember when the ban on smoking was passed here.

"OMG! We're gonna go out of business!"

"Fuck that, I won't go someplace that won't let me smoke!"

"Fuck em, I'm gonna smoke in the bar anyway."

Well, about 15 years have passed since the law went into effect.

Most bars and restaurants stayed in business. The ones that went under, did so for other reasons than the patrons not being able to smoke.

People have adapted pretty well to having to go outside to smoke. I certainly did. (even though it sux sometimes, it's still preferrable to sitting in a smoky bar/restaurant.

Those die-hards who continued to smoke...got sizeable tickets...and the places that permitted it...also got sizeable tickets.

Kahleeforneeya also permitted smoking in "private clubs." A few places tried to call themselves "private," but since they really weren't...they got fined...and slowly came into compliance.

While a bar or restaurant are private property, they are private property with public access. That makes them subject to more regulation than private residence, PLUS, as places of employment, unless every employee is a member of the owner's family, this is a health and safety issue for them as well.

Many of you say, "Fuck em. Let them find other jobs if they don't like it."

Does that apply to ALL safety-related issues? If you work with toxic chemicals, does your employer have to provide protective gear? Or is it, "Fuck em...let them find other jobs?" :roll:

Actually yes, BoomerD.

If Alaskan crab fishing is too dangerous for you, find a new job.
If damage to your eyes from welding is too dangerous, find a new job.
If working around cleaning solutions is too bad for your skin / nose / eyes, find a new job.
If working as a cop is too dangerous, find a new job.
If working in a bar where people smoke seems too dangerous to you, find a new job.

Probably the dumbest analogy I've seen in a long time.

I don't know shit about crab fishing but I'll address the other points.
welding -> job is liable if they do not enforce proper use of welding eye/face guards & ofc training
cleaning -> job is liable if employee does not receive proper training and protection (gloves/mask/etc.)
cop -> an inherent part of the risk, however proper training is given to cops on how to mitigate situations /etc. Additionally extensive programs are setup to assist in cops that suffer from work related injuries.
waiters/waitresses -> no training to deal with constant inhalation of carcinogenic smoke, no offering of face masks to alleviate the breathing in of smoke. If a waiter gets lung cancer having worked in a smokey restaurant for 40 years, absolutely no fallback safeguard for him or his family.

Any other moronic analogies coming down the line there skippy?

Nice way to use personal attacks and small mitigation of much more dangerous circumstances to avoid the point.

Even with face masks you can sustain damage to your eyes.

I don't think you've ever worked in a restuarant. High powered degreasers touch your hands all the times, you inhale fumes with no face mask, etc...

Cop you just call it inherent risk and say they have "equipment and training". Yeah that doesn't protect you from being shot in the head.

All in all, you fail. Thanks for a worthless reply.

 

[Phokus]

Funny, after states started passing smoking bans, business grew. Not that i'm necessarily for the smoking bans, but this is an instance where regulation HELPS businesses. I found myself going to bars and clubs more often when the smoking ban came into effect when i was living in MA, and the study referenced here showed that the increase in business was more than just anecdotal.

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...iness_under_smoke_ban/

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1

Originally posted by: Genx87sex, eating meat, excessive computer use, or drinking alcohol? All of these lead to many diseases and death in this country.

These activities only harm the individual choosing to engage in them. Drinking alcohol, specifically, is allowed. However, performing certain activities which are dangerous to others while under the influence is not.

Second-hand smoke is proven to be harmful.

To me, no law has yet gone far enough or gone about this properly.

People should be able to smoke wherever they want, however inflicting second-hand smoke upon another person whether it be a babt, bar patron or passer-by on the street should be a criminal offense on par with injecting someone with a syringe full of viruses.

Heart disease is the #1 killer in this country. Eating red meat is a contributor to this epidemic. High sugars are also a contibutor to obesity which leads to heart disease.

Remember curtailing smoking on private property is done so in the name of public health. What better way to cut medical spending and increase public health than erase the causes of heart disease?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

If you dont believe me this is a slippery slope waiting to be taken advantage of watch the evening news. There is a group lobbying washington today to regulate salt intake in restaurants. Why it is a public health risk is their reasoning.

:thumbsup:


But again, those of us with more than an ounce of sense see right through the "public health" excuse trotted out by the facists.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Fern
NC (where I live) is doing this too, just passed the other day.

I don't think restaruants care much, but the bars are not happy.

I suspect it will hit them pretty hard. Private clubs are exempt from the 'no-smoking' thingy so I expect to see bars switching to private clubs where possible.

Fern

Nope:

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...iness_under_smoke_ban/

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1

Originally posted by: Genx87sex, eating meat, excessive computer use, or drinking alcohol? All of these lead to many diseases and death in this country.

These activities only harm the individual choosing to engage in them. Drinking alcohol, specifically, is allowed. However, performing certain activities which are dangerous to others while under the influence is not.

Second-hand smoke is proven to be harmful.

To me, no law has yet gone far enough or gone about this properly.

People should be able to smoke wherever they want, however inflicting second-hand smoke upon another person whether it be a babt, bar patron or passer-by on the street should be a criminal offense on par with injecting someone with a syringe full of viruses.

Heart disease is the #1 killer in this country. Eating red meat is a contributor to this epidemic. High sugars are also a contibutor to obesity which leads to heart disease.

Remember curtailing smoking on private property is done so in the name of public health. What better way to cut medical spending and increase public health than erase the causes of heart disease?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

If you dont believe me this is a slippery slope waiting to be taken advantage of watch the evening news. There is a group lobbying washington today to regulate salt intake in restaurants. Why it is a public health risk is their reasoning.

:thumbsup:


But again, those of us with more than an ounce of sense see right through the "public health" excuse trotted out by the facists.

Exactly.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Funny, after states started passing smoking bans, business grew. Not that i'm necessarily for the smoking bans, but this is an instance where regulation HELPS businesses. I found myself going to bars and clubs more often when the smoking ban came into effect when i was living in MA, and the study referenced here showed that the increase in business was more than just anecdotal.

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...iness_under_smoke_ban/

Also, in new york:

New York

New York?s Smoke-Free Air Act came into effect on March 30, 2003. New York?s hospitality industry lobbied vigorously against the legislation, claiming that it would have a disastrous effect on bars and restaurants.

In March 2004, a report on the impact of the legislation was issued by the New York City Department of Finance, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the Department of Small Business Services, and the Economic Development Corporation. It concluded that:

?One year later, the data are clear. . . Since the law went into effect, business receipts for restaurants and bars have increased, employment has risen, virtually all establishments are complying with the law, and the number of new liquor licenses issued has increased?all signs that New York City bars and restaurants are prospering.?

Key findings from the report were that:
Business tax receipts in restaurants and bars were up 8.7%;
Employment in restaurants and bars increased by 10,600 jobs (about 2,800 seasonally adjusted jobs);
97% of restaurants and bars were fully smoke-free;
New Yorkers overwhelmingly supported the law.

The 2004 Zagat New York City Restaurant Survey of nearly 30,000 New York restaurant-goers found that 23 percent of respondents said they are eating out more often because of the city?s smoke-free workplace law, while only four percent said they are eating out less. Zagat?s press release concluded:

?The city?s recent smoking ban, far from curbing restaurant traffic, has given it a major lift.?