Kerry Least I forget..It is true that an alcoholic is sick and needs help but not all drunks are alcoholic they are just out having a "GOOD TIME"
So if they dont pour the drink into yours then they are causing no harm? Right? and by the way did you also know that alcohol can also cause cancer? and there is also no known safe limits for that..it also causes fetal alcohol syndrom.
not to mention ulcers, diabetes, pancreatitis, heart problems and death. So maybe a great tax on alcohol would not be a bad idea to help with all the medical costs to the person drinking, the innocent victims.
If there was not alcohol there would be alcoholics.
So wrong you are.

<small>[ February 04, 2007, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: redo2006 ]</small>

redo2006,

A drunk driving is already doing something illegal and is now putting you in harms way. A drunk making a scene at a restaurant could be considered disorderly conduct and at a minimum the restaurant should call them a cab and escort them out.

Remember that I helped develop award winning ads against drunk driving and I feel stopping it is extremely important.

Second hand smoke is ALSO a problem and its one we should be doing something about.

And how about automobile emissions?

I picked up on a GREAT example that was overlooked earlier in this thread.

But first.. I am a smoker. I am sympathetic to the concerns of non-smokers in general, and I make a special effort not to subject non-smokers to my bad habit. That being said, I disagree with the fact that "Each Individual Business Owner does not have the right to choose whether they allow something that is LEGAL.. or not."

The example that I wanted to bring up, was the "Exotic Dancer" establishments..
Let's all be honest and realistic about this. These bars cater towards certain people, and they allow certain things that not everyone agrees with, or enjoys.. Fortunately, these people just plain DON'T HAVE TO GO THERE if they don't like it.
It's simple.
If they want to just go out and have some beverages without being "exposed" to something they don't like, there are plenty of bars/clubs to choose from. They have other options.

If you don't like it, just. don't. go. there.

As much as non-smokers want to bring in the "health" aspects (which I completely agree with in a practical sense), that simply ISN'T the argument here. Just about everyone is in agreement that it's a bad habit, and that it's not healthy.
This isn't about that, it's about the personal choice of the individual business owner to run their establishment as they see fit within the boundaries of the law, and the choice of each consumer to go to an establishment that conforms to their criteria.
People are saying that they 'don't like' going somewhere that they "want to GO". Then... don't GO THERE. (Is it really that hard to come to that conclusion?)

It's honestly as silly as an individual who demands that a bar/strip-club stop allowing women to strip, because they would like to go there to have a dew drinks... and they don't like the women "disrobing".

<small>[ February 05, 2007, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: abnerman ]</small>

_________________
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese....

"In 2001 the government’s net gain from the tobacco industry was $146 million."

I don think that the $146 Million come Close to the 2.16 Billion

The health and economic toll of cigarette smoking continues to be significant in Wisconsin. Over 8,000 people died in the past year from smoking: 7,215 died from directly related causes and 853 died from illness and fires indirectly related to smoking. With nearly 16 percent of all annual deaths in Wisconsin directly attributable to cigarette smoking, and $2.16 billion paid in direct health care costs, most Wisconsin residents are or will be affected by cigarette smoking at some point.

How many died alcohol related deaths?

The cost of treating alcohol related illness is big I would guess..seeing as how by the time most of them seek treatment the job is gone, the family is gone and health is gone too.
Drinking in excess does much damage to the body,
heart disease, liver disease, dementia, pancreatits, diabetes etc. etc. so most of them are treated by Medicaid(our money)there also is Fetal alcohol syndrom and that has nothing to do with drunk driving and we are not talking about breaking the law we are talking of rights on both sides of the issue and health issues. No one knows what a safe level of drinking is.
Just because you dont break the law drinking you are still drinking. I dont feel that alcohol should be served where food is served so what do we do about that?

<small>[ February 09, 2007, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: redo2006 ]</small>

It is very true life is about choices. None of us like it when our choices in life are under scrutiny or restrictions imposed on those choices. Is it right that a business owner is not allowed to make choices regarding how that business is run? I say yes when it creates an unhealthy and dangerous atmosphere for patrons and employees. The argument on this thread has been that an individual should make the choice not to patronize or work in establishments that allow smoking. I for one patronize, if at all possible, restaurants that are smoke free. My husband, a smoker, doesn't have an issue with dining in a smoke free enviroment. What has become an issue in our family dining in a smoking vs smoke free restaurant is when my entire family is together. My sister and her husband own a bar and grill in the Fox Valley. We like to patronize their place when we are all "home" for a visit. It is becoming more difficult as a family. My youngest sister has elementary aged daughters, who although enjoy going for dinner at "Aunt Caryl's restaurant", don't like the "icky smoke". My son and his wife won't go now that they have their son. Now I do know that there is an argument for not taking children into a bar. My sister's place is not of a rowdy atmosephere and many families do dine there with young children. That's not the issue here. We as a family aren't able to support a fellow family memember due to their choice of allowing smoking. My brother-in-law (a non-smoker)is of the opinion that if a state wide smoking ban is put into place his business will suffer greatly. It could. I do feel that it will enhance their business. People that now stay away because of a smokey enviroment would then patronize them. The town they are in is a small college town. They don't serve the college crowd, but do serve some of the families that visit or are in town attending athletic events and the like. My sister doesn't seem to think that they are getting all of the business that they could from this segment of the college population. She has mentioned the dining establishments that do get more of the college families, the non-smoking restaurants. They have also lost some good college student waitresses and bartenders because of the smokey enviroment. One waitress leaving for a job that paid less across the board just to be in a smoke free enviroment. Yes, this gal exercised her gift of choice to be in a smoke free work place. I would say that is sad that the rights of a few create the need for someone to make that choice. This gal eventually found the need to find 2 part time jobs to make up for what she was making in tips and wages waitressing. During college my son opted for a smoke free job working more hours for less than many of his friends that bartended. Again that was his choice, but I don't think that choice should have to be made.

Realistically I think smokers would adjust. We are a society of convenience and socializing. Not being allowed a cigarette immediately following a meal won't keep people home. Not being able to smoke on a plane doesn't keep people from traveling. OK, just my two cents worth, which probably isn't worth that much.

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

Deb,

I have to agree with you on most of your points. I too smoke and it doesn't really bother me to go out for dinner and not smoke while we are eating. If I feel I want one after dinner I go out to the bar area if smoking is allowed there or wait and have one when we are outside on the way to the car or just wait until I get home. I don't smoke in the house or car because it bothers my wife. My big beef with this is the idea to put a high tax on it to make it either unaffordable or difficult for many to purchase them. I guess this is supposed to discourage young people but I wonder what some of the older people who have smoked all their lives will do when it becomes more expensive. There are many older smokers that (I am talking seniors here) that are on limited income and this is maybe one of the few pleasures they have left in life while they are sitting in their rocker watching the world pass them by. They already have trouble making ends meet and now our un-esteemed gov. wants to take some more away from them. Why is it the first thing politicians want to do is tax something as a way to control it. As I said before, a typical tax and spend democrat. It is about time to seperate the issue of smoking in public buildings from the government greed.

<small>[ February 10, 2007, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Old Scout ]</small>

_________________
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.

Aph! you should be in Washington lobbying for the tobacco industry!

More like lobbying for some common sense which seems to be lacking in this country. everyone's motto seems to be down with everything and up with me.

_________________
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.

P;d Scput is again correct as he normaly is. I don't smoke and have not smoked in 25 years, but the current political situation regarding this issue is ridiculous. If the government really thinks that smoking is all that harmful and that it should be banned, then they should outlaw cigarettes altogether just as the same group of idiots did with booze back in the 20's. Once it was outlawed, those who want a smoke would be able to get cigarettes for a reasonable price again. You won't see the government doing that anytime soon because none of them really give a rip what happens to any of us. Cigarettes are a major revenue source that they are not going to do without. They walk a delicate balance between health advocates and smoking advocates, playing one against the other in order to maintain the arguement and also to keep the revenue rolling in. They count on anti-smoking folks to OK any move they make to raise taxes and also count on smokers to continue paying the tax even though they are opposed to it. What a rip off for both groups!

I think we should ban ALL motor vehicles, anything that has EXHAUST! Afterall, automobile emissions are far more deadly than cigarette smoke. Don't believe me? Then sit in your car, in the garage, with the door shut, with the motor running while I sit in a bar full of smokers. We'll see who comes out alive! If you come out alive instead of me? I'll never smoke another cigarette again, EVER! and that's a promise

Aphephilia,

I think you gave me a good idea!!! I'm going to start selling smoking "containment" systems. They're going to be all of the plastic bags I have left over from shopping.

I bet it has the same effect as a car in the garage though, that could put a dent in my sales. Then again, if it's anything like the government's smoking regulations I'll be able to get away with it for years!!!

Really doesn't it come down to good ole' common courtesy? Just don't offend your fellow man(woman). Being idealistic in a realistic world is a chore isn't it?

Any one who hasn't seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" should do so. Al Gore for President!

I originally posted this in the Letters to the Editor but it belongs here instead.

Question for Aphephilia, doesn't it make you even a little mad that as cigarette sales have fallen the tobacco companies have increased the nicotine in their products? Why do they do that? Hmm, I wonder. I would make an educated guess it has to do with making it harder to quit. There is nothing ethical about the tobacco industry.

I always find it interesting that so many smokers I know in real life, namely some co-workers, are those who can least afford to buy cigarettes. None of our teachers smoke. None of the professional staff (nurses, OT, PT, etc) smoke. Who smokes? The classroom assts who make $10 - $15/hour. No, they don't all smoke. Only a minority do. But my point is that with the price of cigarettes how can they even think of buying a pack of cigarettes/day? They complain how they are short rent money or car payments. To be honest even on my salary as a R.N. I don't know how I'd be able to afford spending $30 or so on ciggies every week. I say quit smoking, put that money in a piggy bank, and at the end of a year do something special just for yourself.

As for SIDS, I grew up in a smoking home and I didn't die of SIDS either, duh!! The reality is that long term studies of thousands of children show that babies and children in smoking homes have a higher incidence of SIDS. Pregnant mothers who smoke have a significantly higher incidence of placenta abruption, a condition that can kill both the baby and the mother. Children in smoking homes have a significantly higher incidence of respiratory infections, asthma, pneumonias, ear infections,and colic. I cannot believe that any mother, once educated on these facts, would continue to smoke in the home or in the car.

My mother began smoking in 1936. They did not know the effects of smoking on health then. Since 1964 those effects on health have been well publicized so anyone who has chosen to smoke since then either doesn't care about the effects or thinks it won't happen to them. But to not care about the effects on babies and children is indeed very sad.

If my brother, who smoked less than 1 pack/week, can get throat cancer don't fool yourself that it can't happen to you.

If you want to smoke no one is stopping you. But given that a minority of Americans smoke why should the 75 - 80% who do NOT smoke be forced to breathe second hand smoke? Why should innocent unborn babies, babies, and children be made to pay the price?

And to smokers who have always been considerate of others, thank you. My mother would never light up in my home or car as she knew it made me and my children sick.

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

cigarette sales have fallen? could have fooled me, we sell more cigarettes than anything else at the convenience store where I work my second job. I would guesstimate that about 85 to 90% of the people I wait on during a shift; buy cigarettes, cigars, or snuff.
I'm not saying it's a healthy addiction, there is NO such thing as a healthy addiction. What I'm saying is, this is America. No one forces anyone to be in an environment where people smoke. People CHOOSE to go to those restaurants, bars, etc. They don't have to go where there is smoke, they can go somewhere else. Just like I don't have to go to a strip joint if I want a drink. I can CHOOSE to go to a bar that doesn't have strippers (aka dancers).
As far as cancer goes, anyone can get cancer. You don't have to smoke at all or have ever been exposed to second hand smoke to get cancer.
I was raised in a two smoker household. I have no memory of being absent from school due to illness hardly ever if at all. I rarely stayed home sick. I never get sick now either. I don't even remember the last time I've had the flu. I've never had pneumonia, heck, I've never even had a sinus infection.
My children grew up in a two smoker household. They rarely, if ever, missed a day of school due to illness. They never had pneumonia or anything of the sort. In fact, one of my very good friends, who is very anti-smoking, used to get mad and upset because her children were always staying home sick from school and mine never did and she figured it should be the other way around because I smoke.

Yeah, I know, I have 3 primary cancers. Never smoked a day in my life.Don't drink alcohol either. I will likely die from my malignant melanoma in my eye, if my lung disease doesn't kill me first. I am having to retire early because of my medical problems.

However, you cannot deny the role smoking plays in many cancers.Only 8% of men with lung cancer are non-smokers. More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and cervical cancer combined. We hear about breast cancer all the time, how often do women hear about lung cancer? Smoking is a major cause in lung cancer, throat cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, and many others. Even breast cancer, one of my cancers, is higher in smokers. The truth is that the chemicals in cigarettes alter cells making it easier for cancers to start. If you really want to reduce your risk, and I don't think you do, buy pure tobacco and roll your own ciggies. It's not so much the tobacco doing the damage, it's all the chemicals added by the tobacco companies. Doesn't that even bother you? They deliberately add things that are KNOWN to be carcinogens. Jeesh, you'd think smokers would be up in arms about that.

No one EVER said 100% of children exposed to smoke will be ill. I don't think you understand that. But a significantly higher number are ill if you examine medical records of thousands of children. You cannot extrapolate that just because neither you or your 2 children showed ill effects from smoke that no other children will. I grew up with one smoking parent and I was ill all the time with respiratory illnesses, pneumonia, ear infections, and so were all 3 of my siblings. That doesn't mean I can extrapolate that ALL children will suffer similar illnesses. Ignore the medical studies. But don't be so blind as to think because you and your 2 kids never were ill that smoking is not a health hazard.

My mother was never sick. She didn't even have a smoker's cough. She never got sick til the day she coughed up blood and died 16 months later of small cell lung cancer, which has a 2 year survival rate of 10%. SCLC is the most common lung cancer among smokers.

As for going elsewhere to dine out it's kind of hard to do when about 98% of eating establishments, without laws banning smoking, allow smoking. When I lived in Tomahawk I could not name one smoke free eating establishment. Now there are a few, mostly fast food chains. Can you really see the Pine Tree going smoke free? When pigs fly.

I hope you are asking for IDs on the smokers you sell to. It's the law and I'm sure you would not want to contribute to a minor becoming addicted.

The smoking rate for Wisconsin is 22% per the American Lung Association.

http://lungaction.org/reports/state-narrative05.tcl?geo_area_id=55

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

And unlike you Nell, I DO happen to care about your health and I will keep you in my prayers.

and just for the record....

I don't smoke around anyone if they don't want me to. I am a considerate smoker.

BUT

GOLL DANG IT ANYWAYS

This IS America

If I own a building, be it a bar, a restaurant or a dang tattoo parlor. I should be able to welcome smokers if I want to.

I should be free to have a totally smoke free establishment or a totally smoke filled establishment, why? because it's MY establishment and I live in the USA!

Thank you for the prayers.

But why, unless the law mandates it, do establishments provide only smoke filled environments? Why? It makes no sense. Name one smoke free restaurant in Tomahawk, excluding fast food chains who have to be smoke free because of a coporate decision. What bar or restaurant owner in Tomahawk voluntarily went smoke free? Or anywhere else for the matter.

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

I saw an anti smoking commercial on TV once showing a smoker inhaling and exhaling thru a paper tissue. What was deposited on that tissue should make anyone with an ounce of common sence toss those cigs out at once! And those exhalations constitute second hand smoke! If that much deposit came out of the lungs how much must have remained?

Support smoking ban

The Wisconsin Restaurant Association board of directors has voted 36-1 to support a statewide workplace smoking ban that does not exempt bars or bar areas in restaurants. The association has always defended a business owner's right to make his/her own decisions, it was noted. However, the current patchwork of local smoking bans puts hundreds of restaurants at an unfair disadvantage where they may lose customers to restaurants just outside the smoking ban area or to taverns that may be exempt. "Given the proliferation of local ordinances in the state of Wisconsin, WRA's board of directors has voted to support a workplace smoking ban," notes Ed Lump, president and CEO. "We feel that this is the only way to create a fair competitive environment for all eating and drinking establishments in Wisconsin. The problem with exempting bars from a smoking ban is that this puts restaurants at a distinct disadvantage compared to bars that may serve a lot of food and can still allow smoking, WRA noted. Share your thoughts about this issue on our Message Board.

Tomahawk Leader 2-13-2007 issue

Well, it is wonderful to see that this issue is finally being faced by people that are thinking of EVERYONE & not just themselves

As ususl everything boils down to the almighty dollar. The Gov. wants more the resturants are afraid of losing it, and the health issues will get lost in the shuffle.

_________________
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.