Remember the old adage about how your right to swing your fist ends at your neighbor’s nose? We believe the same should…and we emphasize should…be applied to smoking. That’s why we support Gov. Doyle’s efforts to ban smoking in nearly all public places in Wisconsin. It’s not about your rights to smoke. It’s about our right to not be involuntarily forced to endure the unnecessary danger to our health.

With all we know about the health consequences of tobacco smoking in this day and age, we find it difficult to understand why anyone would start, much less continue. But if you must, then we say, “take it outside!” Anyone who does not wish to be exposed to your smoke should not be subjected to it.

We’ve all been in places where smoking takes place and we’ve been forced to take extraordinary measures when we get home just to rid ourselves of the effects. Our clothes and hair always stink of smoke. And there’s nothing we can do to cleanse ourselves of the impact on our lungs.

Smokers can do the same as they do nationwide in Ireland, for example: simply step outside when they need to puff. Non-smokers aren’t a source of health danger and annoyance to smokers. Smokers should have consideration for others as well.

Oh, and providing smoking and non-smoking areas in public buildings? That’s like having a “non-peeing” section of the swimming pool. It doesn’t work.

We all have a right to breathe clean air in public buildings. That right is restricted, however, when smokers force the rest of us to endure their bad habit.

It's not even about that. What it's about is: Do we live in a free country or not? How deep do we want the government in our personal lives? If you own a building, that building is YOUR property and now we have the government telling us what we can or cannot do within our own private property. It's OK to have women and/or men stripping naked and so called "dancing" in a bar but they better not light up a cigarette! How ridiculous. It's OK to sit in a bar and get drunk and then have to drive home, as long as you don't smoke while doing it! How utterly ridiculous. This militant anti-smoking campaign is nothing more than a "smoke screen" to keep the publics' eyes off the REAL issues!

WOW! aphephilia-where did you get that reply from, pretty idiotic. This is definitely about rights of EVERYONE not smokers over non-smokers. No one should be forced to be in any enviroment that is harmful. yah,yah - don't go in a place that allows smoking - people would like to enjoy a meal out without smoke everywhere. You are focusing on the extremes, not the norm. Not everyone gets falling down drunk when they go out. This issue is not going away. A state wide ban will happen and it should.

I can go along with the ban and the tax, when they do the same thing with alcohol products. How many kids try their first drink and then end up dieing in a car accident or like the foreign exchange student. Tobacco just happens to be the problem of the day for the people that feel they need to dictate to the masses. What is next.

_________________
God and the Soldier we all adore,
In times of trouble and then no more
when war is over and all things righted
God is forgotten, the old soldier Slighted.

logic, how about starting to use some? This has nothing to do with rights, it has everything to with the slowly stripping away our rights...one "smoke screen" at a time.

What will YOU say when your grandchildren ask you why you watched fundamental American freedoms being stripped away and did nothing and actually SUPPORTED it happening.

This isn't about smoking...

Can you imagine the economic devastation this country would experience if EVERYONE quit smoking? The government doesn't REALLY want that, they just want a reason to rake in more taxes.

I'm with you Old Scout, and let's not stop at alcohol products, we all know how deadly fast food is.

I do not like chocolate. Sure when I was a kid I consumed chocolate, everyone was doing it at the time, you were cool if you brought chocolate to school. But as I grew older I just outgrew chocolate. I have learned as I grew older that chocolate is a contributing factor to childhood obesity, it causes facial blemishes, and it could also be a contributing factor in early onset diabetes, heart disease etc… All of those things usually require health care. And health care is very expensive and a burden on the tax payers if you are under insured.

Therefore I think we should ban chocolate all together. And if that does not work we need to tax it to the max. Add $1.25 to each chocolate bar. We should also ban public consumption of chocolate. My children might see you eating a chocolate bar in a city park and think it is the acceptable thing to do, while I on the other hand know chocolate will only cause problems in their future.

I mean what the heck, I make the choice not to eat chocolate, therefore I am right and can tell each one of you chocolate eaters how to run your life, and I can tell all business owners how to run their business without any problems because it does not effect me!

this issue has everything to do with rights - of ALL people. This just happens to be the "issue" right now - smoking. It still comes down to trying to protect the public & not just certain people. All people should have the right to choose what they want to do - I don't think having to breathe other people's smoke is their choice but YES it is the smokers choice, so they should keep it to themselves. No thanks I do not want to share in it with them. Sounds logical to me

When you come up with an example of you doing something that physically makes me ill or does physical harm we'll talk. So far the only one I've see is basically, "why don't we ban getting drunk and driving home". Hate to break it to you but we already did...

You smoking in public places physically harms me. You eating chocolate does nothing. You having a drink does nothing. You eating a steak does nothing. You stripping and doing a dance might make me sick but won't require medical attention so we'll say it does nothing. See a pattern here?

Be happy you don't work for a company like Gannett. You can't smoke anywhere on their property anymore (not even the sidewalks outside). On break you can't technically leave the property (except for lunch). No more smoking at work. You also have to pay more for your health insurance if you're a smoker.

I have no problem with people smoking outside but I love the idea of an indoor ban. I also can't believe there aren't more places that fine for smoking with a child in the car. I consider that bordering on child abuse. Nothing like strapping them into a car seat for the trip down lung cancer lane...

You can preach all you want about health, but in the end Doyle has only one agenda. More taxes ! Being a typical liberal tax and spend democrat the money taken in on the higher tax will disappear into the general fund to be spent on some foolish program that isn't needed and will never be seen again. His BS about using it for health care is just a smoke screen ! We are already one of the highest taxed states and he isn't going to be happy until he gets us up to No. 1.

_________________
God and the Soldier we all adore,
In times of trouble and then no more
when war is over and all things righted
God is forgotten, the old soldier Slighted.

believe it or not, not everything is about taxes. I think we need to have a wider grasp on things other than to blame everything on a tax issue. Let's be more realistic than that. This issue IS about health & being courteous to your fellow man. Let's be human for awhile!!!

"So far the only one I've see is basically, "why don't we ban getting drunk and driving home". Hate to break it to you but we already did..."

Hate to break it to you Kerry, but that wasn't the point of the message. You must have been sipping a brew when you read that part. There is a difference between banning driving drunk and banning drinking alcohol in public completely and putting a large tax on every six pack you take home. Or perhaps that is next on the agenda.

_________________
God and the Soldier we all adore,
In times of trouble and then no more
when war is over and all things righted
God is forgotten, the old soldier Slighted.

It's a small tax but there is a tax on alcohol already (at least in Wisconsin). Also, remember that medical studies have shown that if consumed in small quantities alcohol is actually good for you. I've yet to see ANY study that says smoking at any level is good for you. And again, how does someone having a drink harm me exactly???

Kerry, it may seem hard to believe, but it isn't all about YOU! Ask someone who was raised by an alcoholic parent or married to an alcoholic spouse or someone who had a child killed by a drunk driver that question. Ask THEM how someone else's drinking has affected THEIR lives!

Carbon Monoxide May Alleviate Heart Attacks And Stroke - Carbon monoxide is a by-product of tobacco smoke. A report indicates very low levels of carbon monoxide may help victims of heart attacks and strokes. Carbon monoxide inhibits blood clotting, thereby dissolving harmful clots in the arteries. The researchers focused on carbon monoxide's close resemblance to nitric oxide which keeps blood vessels from dilating and prevents the buildup of white blood cells. "Recently nitric oxide has been elevated from a common air pollutant . . . to an [internal] second messenger of utmost physiological importance. Therefore, many of us may not be entirely surprised to learn that carbon monoxide can paradoxically rescue the lung from [cardiovascular blockage] injury." The pharmacological benefits of tobacco are nothing new.

Smoking Prevents Rare Skin Cancer - A researcher at the National Cancer Institute is treading treacherous waters by suggesting that smoking may act as a preventative for developing a skin cancer that primarily afflicts elderly men in Mediterranean regions of Southern Italy, Greece and Israel. Not that smoking should be recommended for that population, Dr. James Goedert is quick to assure his peers. What is important is not that smoking tobacco may help to prevent a rare form of cancer but that there is an admission by a researcher at the National Cancer Institute that there are ANY benefits to smoking.

Smoking Reduces The Risk Of Breast Cancer - A new study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (May 20, 1998) reports that carriers of a particular gene mutation (which predisposes the carrier to breast cancer) who smoked cigarettes for more than 4 pack years (i.e., number of packs per day multiplied by the number of years of smoking) were found to have a statistically significant 54 percent decrease in breast cancer incidence when compared with carriers who never smoked. One strength of the study is that the reduction in incidence exceeds the 50 percent threshold. However, we think it important to point out that this was a small, case control study (only 300 cases) based on self-reported data.

Parkinson's Disease Is Associated With Non-smoking - Bibliography of references from studies associating Parkinson's disease with non-smoking. Certain benefits of smoking are well-documented, but the anti smoking groups, backed by several medical journals (more interested in advertising revenue than in informing the population), are silent. By the way, what about the cost of non-smokers to society due to their prevailing tencency to contract Parkinson's disease?

Alzheimer's Disease Is Associated With Non-Smoking - "A statistically significant inverse relation between smoking and Alzheimer's disease was observed at all levels of analysis, with a trend towards decreasing risk with increasing consumption".

Oh, and it's really not about taxes? Here's a tidbit for ya: In 2001 the government’s net gain from the tobacco industry was $146 million.

you are still missing the big point (by choice it seems) this smoking issue comes down to rights of EVERYONE. Face it (and be real about it) Public smoking is just plain wrong! If you want to harp on the tax issue, I guess there is no better place to put it then on the stupidity of cigs.

I said A drink. An alcoholic is someone who is sick and needs help/treatment. A drunk driver already broke the law and is now harming someone else (often so has the alcoholic, be it abuse or drunk driving).

The only way alcohol and smoking is comparable would be if the person having the drink was walking around poring a large portion of their drink into yours. Now you are being forced to consume their drink (actually, it would be interesting to see what a smoker did if you walked up and pored a water in their drink and then told them you wanted to share with them since they were sharing with you).

You've perked my interest with the benefits to smoking and I'll enjoy seeing more on these in the future. However, smoking in public places still is harmful to more people than it helps. Remember, this only suggests banning smoking in public places (and my suggestion of in cars with minors).

I remeber writing a short story in high school on the future, 2010, in that story I wrote of public "smokeatoriums". My teacher chuckled at the thought. Looks like the future is here.

As someone who smoked many years ago, I enjoy going to restuarants that don't allow smoking. My husband smokes and doesn't mind nonsmoking restuarants. He for one would like to see bans, for him it would be more insentive to quite. Smoking is an addiction and not an easy one to overcome. I do feel something needs to be done. Smoking has increased health care cost, insurance cost, not to forget lost time at work.

I agree Kerry, smoking in a vehicle should be banned ,not only with minors present but always. Just the same as cell phone use without some sort of hands free, eating, drinking and the like. It jeopardizes us all.

_________________
Life is too short for drama & petty things!
So, laugh insanely, love truly and forgive quickly!

Ok... Let First talk about Peoples Right and Government Control.

There 15 Class A Carcinogen identifyed by the EPA Secondhand Smoke is in the same category as mustard gas, arsenic and asbestos. All substances that the Government controls.

This is why CLEAN INDOOR AIR LAWS are important.

June 2006 "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke:
A Report of the Surgeon General" 6 points:

1)Children and adults are still exposed to secondhand smoke.

2)Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disability.

3)Children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.

4) Exposure has immediate effects and causes serious disease. ( Look up the Helena Montana Study, 40% decrease of heartatacks comparded to the surrounding area when the city w)ent smoke free.

5) There is no risk-free level of exposure.

Non-smoking/smoking does not work the particles are still in the air.

6)Eliminating smoking indoors is the only way to reduce the risk from exposure.

From a World Health Organization 15 member nation study and a 118,094, 38 year American Cancer Society member study:
World Health Organization: "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure. [Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1440–50]”" Interestingly, this study also found that non-smoking children of smokers were less likely to develop lung cancer than other non-smokers later in life.
ACS Conclusions: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

The American Cancer Society, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the St. Louis Park MN EPA have all found levels of nicotine (the largest and only measurable smoke component)to be anywhere from 20,000 (restaurant with separate smoking area) to 584 (bingo hall) times safer than OSHA recommended 8hr levels. Bars were all over in the middle. We have also found that in OP and Shawnee(KS) bar and bar and grills smoking employees constituted 80% of all employees. Several local establishments were 100% smoking employees. So who would a ban be protecting there?
Yes, it will have an effect on those workers sensitive to environmental particulates. Such as people with allergies or asthma. The resolution for this is don't work in those environments. These same people wouldn't dream of working in a dust filled construction environment or as firepersons would they? So what is their problem here when there are numerous options.

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon , France , which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.

I don't know the source, however my daughter-in-law has done research regarding second hand smoke and SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and it seems that there is a direct correlation. A higher percentage of SIDS babies have parents that smoke in the home. I guess my belief is that why take the chance. Aph, good to hear from you but me thinks she protests too loudly.

_________________
Life is too short for drama & petty things!
So, laugh insanely, love truly and forgive quickly!

Well, I was raised by a two smoker household as were my 5 siblings, so were my two children and guess what? none of us died of SIDS, the fact of the matter is with SIDS, there is NO KNOWN CAUSE. That's why it's called SIDS ... I have also studied it extensively throughout my
'early childhood and development" education.

True, there is no known cause for SIDS, however recent studies show that a higher percentage of deaths were of babies in homes with smokers. It's the same with having babies sleep on their backs. SIDS deaths have decreased with putting infants on their backs. So why smoke around an infant and why put him/her on their tummy. Yes, aph, I too was raised in a home with second hand smoke, as was my husband, and regretfully for a time my own children. There just wasn't the education. Now we have a little more info, why not protect our babies.

As an additional note, a family aquaintance, actaully of my mother-in-law, lost a child to SIDS some 30 years ago, at that time the pediatrician was doing a study on his own of tummy vs. back and SECOND HAND SMOKE. I remember my mother-in-law being rather put out by the whole idea of second hand smoke causing anything. My mother-in-law is on the verge of needing an oxygen tank, gladly she no longer smokes.

<small>[ February 03, 2007, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Deb Richardson ]</small>

_________________
Life is too short for drama & petty things!
So, laugh insanely, love truly and forgive quickly!

I would guess that it depends if you are a smoker or a drinker.
I prefer to smoke.
Have you ever sat by a DRUNK in a restaurant?
Not fun to say the least.
Have you ever passed a drunk driver going south in the northbound lane? I have and I wish he had been smoking instead then he probably would not have been in the wrong lane. By the way that man killed 2 elderly people out for a Sun. drive.
It happened a few yrs ago by Brokow.
But I shall remember to tell the family that drinking does not endanger the lives of others by giving them cancer.

<small>[ February 04, 2007, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: redo2006 ]</small>