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

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: trooper11
Im not a smoker myself, but I find this whole debate very interesting.


I have to agree with others that finds it particularly laughable that the government would dictate to a private business that smoking is banned, while still allowing the sell of them. If these things are bad for you and the government is concerened about that, then ban their sell.

otherwise, this is just hypocracy.


i dont particularly like being around a bunch of smoke at a resturaunt, but I dont ahve anything against someone having sections for both, or opening up a place that has only non-smoking space or smoking space. If a resturuant allows smoking anywhere and I find it offensive, then I just dont come back. I dont expect the government to come in and tell them what to do. If they dont get any customers becuase of the practice, then they either change or go out of business.

Personally, Ive been to many resturaunts that had smoking and non smoking sections and I never even noticed the smell or saw smoke from the smoking section, so whats the big deal? To me, alcohol can cause just as much discomfort for people around your as a cigarette. Both are harmful and yet the two are treated in vastly different ways. Its ironic that as cigarrettes become taboo, marajuana becomes more mainstream and accepted lol.

They are really public businesses. The public is who comes in and spends money there. Private is your home.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Sounds good. Here in Kansas they have banned it in a few counties already with good results. I enjoy going out to the bars once again. My right to clean and healthy air trumps your right to smoke around me. Not saying you cant smoke. Just not in public.

I'm not saying you can't go to bars, just not the ones smokers are in.

Unfortunately that was all bars here. Im glad they banned it. Obviously you guys are on the losing end as more and more states are passing these kinds of laws. Its what the majority of the people want and im all for it.

Actually I'm not a smoker, I just believe that law abiding people and business owners have rights that are not defined by the "majority" but by the rule of law.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Sounds good. Here in Kansas they have banned it in a few counties already with good results. I enjoy going out to the bars once again. My right to clean and healthy air trumps your right to smoke around me. Not saying you cant smoke. Just not in public.

I'm not saying you can't go to bars, just not the ones smokers are in.

Unfortunately that was all bars here. Im glad they banned it. Obviously you guys are on the losing end as more and more states are passing these kinds of laws. Its what the majority of the people want and im all for it.

most people feel that way until the majority fucks them over.

 

[Colt45]

I really enjoy visiting civilized countries, where I can smoke _everywhere_, and drink in the street.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Then they should also be willing to ban the sale of cigarettes as well and forego the tax money.

If they don't then they are just being hypocrites.

Shhhh. This is no place for logic.

ZV

great, lets turn over tobacco to the black markets :roll:

Actually, cigarrettes should be sold only under strictly controlled guidelines. They should not be visible to the customers. They should only come in plain black and white boxes. There should be no advertising allowed for them at all.

In fact, cigarettes should be treated as a drug and only for people who have unfortunately become addicted.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
They did it in Arizona two years ago. Best thing they ever did.

We've had all the benefits of this simply by banning it in dining areas. People go outside, inside stays smoke free.

Everybody forgets about the dangers of second hand smoke.

If they are so bad and so dangerous...then they should not be sold in Wisconsin.

There is a difference. A person who chooses to smoke does so on his own free will, he has a choice to smoke or not to smoke. People are subjected to second hand smoke do not have that choice, they are subjected to the will of another person who may be courteous enough not to smoke in their presence or who may smoke anyway.

Banning smoking in dining areas and allowing it outside is the best choice as it still allows smokers to smoke to their heart's content and at the same time protects those who do not.

But this isn't just about "dining", it's also for bars. Again(since you facists never seem to get it) - if YOU don't want to be around smoke - GO TO A SMOKE FREE ESTABLISHMENT! There are plenty of places that don't allow smoking - WITHOUT the nanny state forcing them to. So while you talk about smokers and "free will" you FAIL to also see that the non-smoker currently has the "free will" to not enter establishments where the OWNER DECIDES to allow smoking.

That's such a load of horseshit it's not even funny. Prior to the ban on smoking here EVERYPLACE allowed smoking. There were no smoke free establishments.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

That's such a load of horseshit it's not even funny. Prior to the ban on smoking here EVERYPLACE allowed smoking. There were no smoke free establishments.

Gather up some capital and make one. In Fargo while at school we had a smoke free bar called the 21st Amendment. Packed all the time with college kids.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Then they should also be willing to ban the sale of cigarettes as well and forego the tax money.

If they don't then they are just being hypocrites.

Shhhh. This is no place for logic.

ZV

great, lets turn over tobacco to the black markets :roll:

Actually, cigarrettes should be sold only under strictly controlled guidelines. They should not be visible to the customers. They should only come in plain black and white boxes. There should be no advertising allowed for them at all.

In fact, cigarettes should be treated as a drug and only for people who have unfortunately become addicted.

Hiding it only makes it more attractive.

The Religious Right tried that with sex and both parties with drugs. Look how that turned out.

Authoritarian laws designed to protect people from their own poor choices are useless and counterproductive.

What shocks me is that the very people who so rightly oppose the oppressive ideals of the religious right choose the RR's very tactics for trying to stop activities they deem harmful.

Same shit, different party. Both sides see the common man as too stupid to make choices for himself so they must make those choices for him.

 

[Moonbeam]

Amused, Did you ever stop to think that maybe just maybe how you yourself sees things is how you assume others react?

A: Hiding it only makes it more attractive.

M: You are about to criticize the smoking banners for seeing others as too stupid to make choices for themselves, but here you are assuming people are too stupid not to be attracted to the hidden. Or do you merely see that is how people are just like the banners may see similarly and without notions of stupidity, that some people make bad choices if given the chance.

A: The Religious Right tried that with sex and both parties with drugs. Look how that turned out.

M: Those stupid bastards.

A: Authoritarian laws designed to protect people from their own poor choices are useless and counterproductive.

M: But many laws you might call authoritarian have been passed and the purpose isn't so much to protecting people from themselves but to prevent others from using their poor choices to make a profit, such as the poor choices people make who are hooked on drugs.

A: What shocks me is that the very people who so rightly oppose the oppressive ideals of the religious right choose the RR's very tactics for trying to stop activities they deem harmful.

M: But such people are bigots who have no rational explanation for the laws they want to create. They are simply programmed Bible-bots.

Laws against drugs, for example, have a rational basis, to make illegal the playing of the addicted who cannot help themselves so long as they do nothing about their addiction.

A: Same shit, different party. Both sides see the common man as too stupid to make choices for himself so they must make those choices for him."

M: My my, how stupid those two parties are. We are going to have to find some way to save ourselves from those tendencies.

 

[BoberFett]

Clearly your life is nothing BUT bad choices Moonie. Perhaps we need to take away your freedoms?

 

[Fear No Evil]

As a person who doesn't drink, I think I should have the right to go into a bar and have a soda without a bunch of drunk slobs all over the place ruining it for me.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
As a person who doesn't drink, I think I should have the right to go into a bar and have a soda without a bunch of drunk slobs all over the place ruining it for me.

If you can get that legislation passed then go for it. This is democracy in action. If the people of this state don't want this harmful drug in the state then out it goes. Unless you don't care about states rights. And also aren't you against MJ legalization? What is different here?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Clearly your life is nothing BUT bad choices Moonie. Perhaps we need to take away your freedoms?

You are a black and white thinker and that makes your life so much easier. No difficulty for you sorting among the grays. But people who eschew the simple in favor of the real see all kinds of shades. What you call choices I see as multiple issues; some are choices and some are not. You imagine yourself to have free will but you do not. What you know about yourself depends on how brutal your honesty is as opposed to how much you want to protect yourself. Honesty costs the ego alot.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
As a person who doesn't drink, I think I should have the right to go into a bar and have a soda without a bunch of drunk slobs all over the place ruining it for me.

If you can get that legislation passed then go for it. This is democracy in action. If the people of this state don't want this harmful drug in the state then out it goes. Unless you don't care about states rights. And also aren't you against MJ legalization? What is different here?

Wrong. There wasn't a vote by the people. There was a vote by the gasbags in Madison. I dare say that if it were put to a referendum vote - it'd lose badly.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Sounds good. Here in Kansas they have banned it in a few counties already with good results. I enjoy going out to the bars once again. My right to clean and healthy air trumps your right to smoke around me. Not saying you cant smoke. Just not in public.

That's the point. They haven't banned smoking in public. They aren't banning smoking on public streets and sidewalks. They aren't banning smoking in parks, playgrounds, or forest preserves. They are trying to ban smoking in private establishments. Places where citizens can choose to go to or not.

Does government have the right to enforce the will of the majority on the minority? The whole Bill of Rights was an attempt to prevent that...

While I personally stand to benefit from this proposed law because I abhor the smell of smoke, I think it's a horrible erosion of personal freedom.

Wait'll they ban <insert your favorite activity here>...all in the name of public health...

Off-Topic: I must admit, I am confused by how "liberals" can be for this law, yet accuse "conservatives" of trodding on rights (e.g. abortion). I just don't understand what the idealism involves. Aren't these issues just two sides of the same coin?

 

[Genx87]

I dont think people realize the slippery slope in this argument. If the govt can ban a legal behavior on private property due to public health concerns what is stopping them from banning sex, eating meat, excessive computer use, or drinking alcohol? All of these lead to many diseases and death in this country.

And I am sure this is where people come back with 2nd hand smoke. So what of it? Nobody is putting a gun to people's back to go into a smoky bar are they? The goal here is to lower public health risks right?

 

[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.

 

[Fear No Evil]

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.

My car exhaust is causing global warming and spewing out other pollutants which effect people. Should the government ban me from driving?

 

[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.

 

[tk149]

Bump for update

 

[IGBT]

so the dopers gota quit smoking their dope?

 

[randalee]

I'm not a smoker, but legislation like this pisses me off. If I want to open an establishment, and I want to allow smoking on MY PRIVATE PROPERTY, that is my business.

With liberty comes allowing that same measure of liberty to everyone else around you.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[*kjm]

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.

True.... my whole family quit....... 4 out of 5. Now they are looking at taxing soda, heathcare, ect. Does anyone have a clue how much smokers paid in taxes? A carton costs what $6 to make and we were paying $58! Like I said you all have 4 less paying that crazy amount of taxes and I sit back laughing at all the "new" ideas comming out.
It should have been left up to the owners of the businesses how to run thier own place..... not up to goverment. Don't like it don't go there! Show the place with your wallet. It is called Freedom of choice.