I'm a former smoker & support a state-wide ban of smoking in any public building. The smell & the health effects of secondary smoke should make a ban a "no brainer". I think that IL & MN have passed the ban. The Wisconsin Tavern League went on record as opponents of a state wide smoking ban. Dumb.

To me this is as stupid as the League supporting no alcohol sales by retail stores after 9 PM. Let folks drive to bars to get their buzz after 9? I think it would be safer for Johnny to buy a six after late shift & take it home than for him to bar hop because it's past 9 PM.

_________________
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

I agree with Jeff - smoking in a public place is offensive to ALL & it is a PUBLIC place not just there for the peole that smoke. A smoking ban is set to allow everyone to enjoy public places. It is just wrong to assume smoking is accecpted by all & ikt is ok. We all need to wake up & think of everyone - not just smokers. The above mentioned petition is one that I will not sign. As far as the 9:00pm cut off for liqour sales - yes, drinking at home would be better instead of bar hopping - we need to rethink that also.

I don't smoke and I hate the smell of smoke. It's a proven health hazard and every negative thing that has ever been said about it is mostly true. It's a nasty and stinky habit to have and to be around. In California the laws against smoking in public have been around for at least 10 years. In fact I find it rare to even see people smoking anymore. And I like it this way.

After saying all of that I get really nervous when the government passes more and more laws against how we should and shouldn't behave.

There is already much hypocrisy concerning smoking. If smoking is so bad why aren't there laws against it period. The reason is because the tobacco lobby has such a strong hold on the politicians.

Now we have more and more laws against smoking in public. What about smoking in your own home where the 'second hand smoke' and smell might drift to your neighbors house? Will there be laws to prevent you from smoking in your own home unless the windows are completely shut. But what if your children are at home with these windows completely shut? Are you guilty of child neglect because they will be around all the second hand smoke. Believe it or not in California there are already laws that are moving in that direction.

My concern is when and where does this government regulation of behavior stop? Think about the motorcycle helmet laws. Think about the strong lobby that fights the NRA and gun rights. No matter what side of the argument you are on you will have strong reasons for your opinion...but my point is that government regulation of behavior...no matter how stinky and nasty the behavior is...can be a dangerous precedent for even more regulation.

We have to be very careful about the laws that regulate us...remember that old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." He can never be pulled back out!!!

_________________
Ken Martell
kenmartell@gmail.com
Thankful to be alive and healthy. Proud to call Tomahawk my hometown.

Ken,
Bikers that don't wear a helmet risk their own life.

Smokers in a public place such as a restaurant, bar, public building risk others' lives. That is what is not acceptable.

Protecting the right of U.S. citizens to "bear arms" does not affect my health unless some one goes "postal". With no smoking ban I have no choice but walking into a smoke-filled restaurant to "eat out" unless the owner dares to be different and ban the practice.

_________________
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

It's not about smoking, it's about our freedoms being slowly eroded away. It's also about being an adult and being able to make your own choices without daddy government telling you what you can and cannot do.

POP QUIZ: Who enacted the very first smoking ban?

I had an extremely intelligent professor that taught one of my high level business classes. He made a comment in class one day that's really stuck with me. It basically was that all laws forced on businesses by the government are due to a failure of businesses to regulate themselves. I think this is a pretty good example. If the businesses are smart enough to do it on their own someone's going to force them to do the right thing...

As far as the pop quiz... From what I found Pope Urban VII had the first smoking ban as he threatened to excommunicate anyone who smoked in the porchway of or inside a church. It actually included any form of using tobacco (smart Pope if you ask me). What you are likely referring to was the Nazi ban in many German buildings. While they were a horrible bunch of people they also did some things that made sense. Hitler pushed for the Autobahn, which was the precursor to our interstate system and the VW, a car anyone could afford... Fortunately he also died and sadly it took the horrible things he and his party did for the world to learn a valuable lesson (and sadly one we're bound to forget and allow to repeat - see Darfur and any other area with massive genocide right now that isn't our problem because it doesn't affect us).

Kerry, I think your professor showed alot of common sense in his thinking. It is about doing what is right for the all people. If it could be guaranteed that parents would use common sense in placing their children in car seats or seatbelts we wouldn't need laws regarding that. The same for cell phone use, crossing the street, etc. Basically laws are to protect us from our own lack of common sense. Or stupidity depending on how you look at it.

Eau Claire now has a smoking ban. All reports are that it is working well. A number of nicer restuarants in the downtown area have always been smoke free, which did not deter from their business. We certainly have made strides as a society from the days when a nurse would bring an ashtray to your hospital room if you weren't able to make it to the "smoker".

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

How exactly is smoking related to private property? Some of the businesses making this claim lease or rent their location and overlooking that the impact of the smoking impacts all in the form of impaired health potential and if we ignore that there is is still the increases we all pay in increased insurance and health care costs. No rights are absolute. When your right begans to negatively impact another, then you have reached the point where your right is no longer absolute. If you are on rented property, private property, or public property when this happens makes no difference.

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah

Strange observation today... Sitting at a stoplight, noticed it smelled like cigarette smoke. Yep, I've lived in smoke free cities long enough now that I could actually smell the cigarette the girl in the car next to me was smoking (my windows were up, just got sucked in the air intake).

Friends and I also more and more question if the city we're in is smoke free before deciding whether to head out or stay in... Businesses are losing our business because we've stayed in and watched movies we already own rather than deal with the smoke.

Aphephilia:
Buy some nicorette. The health concerns of second-hand smoke should make the ban statewide. (I'm assuming your protests are due to being a smoker.)

The Tavern league's objections make no sense. If the ban is statewide, then there is a level playing ground for all. Especially if surrounding states have already made the move to smoke-free.

_________________
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

Smoking bans in bars, are directly related to private property.

It is, and should be, the decision of the business/property owner whether or not to allow something on their property and in their establishment, provided that it is a legal activity.
The 'negative impact on others' that you mentioned, is not a valid grievance unless said others are being subjected to something against their will. And in this particular case, they are simply not.

The key word here is "choice". It applies to all involved, and that is the way it should stay.

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

See there, you said it yourself, it's about economics, the "level playing field" it has nothing at all to do with public health.

Also, it's about PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, not about smoking.
A business owner who owns the property in which they conduct business should most certainly have control over what legal activities can or cannot be engaged in at their establishment.

I'm not talking about rented property nor am I talking about public places, I'm talking about privately owned property.

Just because a business owner welcomes the public into their establishment doesn't, or shouldn't mean that said establishment becomes a "public place". It's privately owned and should be treated as such.

If you don't like the way a business is run, you simply choose not to do business there. That's the American way, that's the ADULT way of handling it.

You are an ignorant citizen if you believe the government should be able to have control over your private property.

Yes there is free choice. My family already makes the choice to avoid restaurants that permit smoking. I am a former smoker & probably the least tolerant of the bunch. I believe that as folks get a real feel for the effects of second-hand smoke, the general public & employees of establisments that permit smoking will be shouting for a smoking ban.

Looking at things in a slightly warped manner: Natural selection may eventually make this whole argument moot. Smokers in establishments permitting/supporting smoking will eventually die off from the effects of their smoking & the effects of breathing in the unfiltered second hand smoke from everyone else.
(Tilt?)

_________________
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

When it comes to health related issues and safety issues its normal for a business to be regulated guys... And it is done for both the consumer and employee's safety.

You can't use asbestos
Must have clean running water to serve food
Must meet electrical standards
Must meet fire codes
Must meet numerous food related codes
Employees must wash hands before leaving bathroom
Must follow OSHA safety requirements
Must meet handicap accessibility requirements in a remodel
Must have operating licenses
I'm sure we can find a ton more...

Consumers could have chosen to visit businesses that label there exits, etc. For everyone's good, we simply require it by law... How is smoking really any different?

Sunday morning Sermon

This is what would happen to Noah (read on, whether you believe or not - it still has truth to it) if he were building his ark in 2008:

In the year 2008, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said,’Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans’

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying,’You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.’

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark.

‘Noah!’ He roared,’I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?’

‘Forgive me, Lord,’ begged Noah,’but things have changed. I needed a building permit. I’ve been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I’ve violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark’s move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There’s a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me.

They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodations were too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the EPA ruled that I couldn’t build the Ark until they’d conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood.

I’m still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I’m supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization are checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work.

The trades unions say I can’t use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I’m trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark.’

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky. Noah looked up in wonder and asked,’You mean you’re not going to destroy the world?’

‘No,’ said the Lord.’The government beat me to it.’

Can controlled substance use be considered a right? The government 'controls' the allowed use of tobacco and alcohol. We have been granted the permission, per the guidelines that control the substance. For all controlled items (hey, including guns, they're a constitutional 'right' but there are lots of rules to play by to be allowed the right of ownership) the government sets the parameters for allowable use. I can't drink in my car. I own the car. But my private property right to do as I will in my car is not impugned, because that's one of the rules that comes along with the government allowing me to drink at all. So, same goes with the smokes. The government controls the acceptable use of cigarettes. Smoking bans aren't a removal of rights, just a redefinition of what the acceptable use (the right) of the controlled substance consists of.

Every single relevant thing that you mentioned, is required for the sake of the consumers and employee's who are not aware of the circumstances to which they are being exposed. And that is simply not the case, when it comes to bars that allow smoking.

[I want to clear up the fact that this is not me arguing as a smoker just 'wanting to smoke in bars'. This is often an argument that becomes convoluted with the nuances of being a smoker or non, which takes entirely too much prevalence over what I consider the real issue.
In my opinion? Smoking is a bad habit, and it is unhealthy for all involved.. That is not something I personally question, and I have been completely content for several years living in states where smoking in bars and restaurants is banned.]

That being said, what I am not content with is that this is two sides of an argument with opposing personal opinions that are based on a simple matter of individual choice.. and the government has taken (in some cases) the liberty to choose a side and just eliminate the other by law.

This is not an issue of whether smoking or being exposed to second-hand smoke, is healthy or not. We all know it's not.
This is an issue of the legal rights of business owners being compromised to appease the personal choice of a certain group of people..
And in my opinion, that is wrong.

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

A couple of those requirements are much closer than you might think...

The handicap regulations in particular match pretty closely. If they want better access they could simply go somewhere else or stay home. If a business owner wants to make them happy they would do it on their own, etc. Admittedly it is more about requiring fair, equal access...

Sexual harassment also has some parallel arguments. You could argue as a bar tender a girl should just expect sexual harassment in the work place and if she doesn't like it she should find a job somewhere else. It is still illegal and up to the bar owner to ensure any situations are dealt with.

Smoke at home or step outside. If you choose to step outside, place the butt/remains in the ash tray or other receptacle that each business should provide outside their door. Butts don't degrade, so throwing them on the ground means they stay there. Smokers in public places already **** folks off. Keep the areas clean that still permit smoking.

_________________
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

Smokers need to clean up after themselves everywhere. We have had to rake up butts at campsites. Good grief the firepit is only inches away! Butts flicked out of a car window is a real pet peeve of mine, if you don't want the butts in your car, don't smoke in your car. I certainly don't want your filth possibly finding it's way into an open window on my car, nor littering the highway. Same for the idiots that empty their car ashtrays in parking lots, find a garbage can.
My husband is a smoker and he will actually hold a butt until it's cool and place it in his pocket if there isn't a receptacle.
It only takes one careless smoker to destroy acres of woodland.

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

I came across this post, for I often jump on here and read what you all have to say. I agree with most of your opinions, even though I am not a regular poster.
Well, I guess it is time to post my own.
I have many different views on this matter.
#1 being an ex-smoker
#2 being raised in a home with excessive 2nd hand smoke.
#3 being a private property owner and a owning a public place, being a bar and restaurant.

Let me explain something to you people that are upset with the Tavern legue, the Wi tavern legue is oppossed to the non-smoking ban because it WILL hurt the small BARS off the beaten' path. IE: Most of the BARS that you/we all snowmobile to. I hate to say it but drinking and smoking go hand and hand. Not that either is a good thing. But that is a personal choice. I agree with Ken, we do not need our government regulalating our personal choices.
The Tavern Legue is a lobby group. They will lobby for what they feel is best for there cause, that being all bars, this does not mean that all bars that belong to the WI tavern leque believe in this ban, they just support it. Remember we all pay property taxes, sales tax, liquer taxes, cigarette taxes, and withholding taxes.
Now, NOBODY mentions WI Restaurant Association, (WRA) they support the smoing ban. They feel that it "levels the playing field on ALL establishments" They also have been in Madison Lobbying for there cause. Again, no right or wrongs, it is what they believe.
Now MY turn...
I OWN a Bar/Restaurant in the Northwoods, since we purchased our restaurant 3+ years ago, my husband and I decided to go NON-SMOKING even though I was a smoker at the time. I must say it has not hurt our business by any means, but that is not to say that if we were to change would we get more business? I don't know the answer to that question, nor will I ever find out.

But, here is my advice to you, SUPPORT your LOCAL RESTAURANTS and BARS that are NON-SMOKING and Tell your NON-SMOKING friends. Instead of getting angry and writing about it on the internet. GO OUT! SUPPORT those establishments. Don't know which ones that are NON-SMOKING, make a call to Onieda County they have NON-Smoking Coalition that prints a list of ALL SMOKE-FREE establishments. I'm sure Lincoln County does the same.

BAck to what Ken said, We as a country and society do not need any gov't regulations over our personal choices and I must say our own stupidity.

Much kudos to you for taking the risk and going smoke free. You make some good points. I do not go into bars because of the smoke, yet I would like to have a drink on occasion. Many of my friends feel the same way. We are not going to go into an establishment and have someone sitting next to us inflicting their drug habit on us. That is our choice. I do think that the smoking ban will hurt many bars. Maybe, it will drive some out of business. Maybe, that is not a bad thing. Maybe we could use fewer bars. Let’s face it, many of the people that spend of lot of time at bars live an unhealthy lifestyle, be it drinking, diet or smoking; it all goes hand in hand for a certain segment of the population. Maybe, with fewer bars, they will engage in healthier behaviors and spend more time with their family. I am in favor of the ban. All businesses are regulated, that is part of being in business. If you don’t maintain sanitary conditions in your kitchen someone may get sick and you won’t keep your license very long. The same should be true for the air in your bar room.

I plan you check out the web site and may be doing business with you soon.