Wisconsin State Wide Smoking Ban
The Number One Online State Wide Ban Blog

Goal of this Blog

Print the article

This entry was posted on 3/18/2007 5:58 PM and is filed under WI Smoking Ban.

It is the goal of this blog to allow the residents of Wisconsin to comment on their feelings concerning a smoke free work place environment and the passage of a state wide smoking ban.  It is my hope that Wisconsin legislators will use this forum to seek comments from the public but to also add their comments so the public knows where they are on this issue. There are categories called 'Comments for State Legislators' as well as 'Comments from State Legislators'.  It is my hope that both of these categories are used to provide honest positive feedback on the subject of a Statewide Smoking Ban.  General comments either pro or con can be listed under the 'WI Smoking Ban' category.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    • 4/1/2007 10:09 AM Robert Dobbs wrote:
      I find a limited ban basically to be a joke. The government has lied down with tobacco for so many years and the government loves the regressive tax, which affects people with less money more than those who can afford the tax increases.
      Reply to this
      1. 4/8/2008 6:24 PM Marshall Keith wrote:
        Since the Surgeon Generals report includes the EPA report which has been proven to be fabricated and does not include reports like Enstrom/Kabat and proven lier's like Stanton Glantz have such strong control on who gets published. And WHO tries to bury one of the biggest studies ever done. That one isn't in the surgeon generals report either. And all other studies are funded by anti-smokers groups or pharmaceutical Who do you think I should trust you..........LMAO.......

        You anti's are quick to shoot down studies funded by big tobacco. And rightfully so. But you are quick to embrace studies funded by anti smoking groups and pharmaceutical company's. The anti-smoking groups the bias is obvious.

        The pharmaceutical company's the bias is less obvious. But if you look at the history of the studies done by them, they would fund studies on their drugs but only publish the ones favorable to their cause. This is what they call publication bias.

        The problem became so pervasive that editors of several prominent medical journals (including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and JAMA) announced that they would no longer publish results of drug research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies unless that research was registered in a public database from the start.
        And since they cherry picked studies for publication on their drugs what makes any study they fund any more credible. Remember that rule of Registering in the public database only applies th studies on drugs. How many studies did they do on ETS until they got the numbers they wanted and this bias may distort meta-analyses and systematic reviews rendering them worthless. Do you think that pharmaceutical companies are helping create the ban out of concern for peoples health. I think not!!! How much would you guess they stand to profit from smoking cessation products. As you anti-smokers are fond of saying follow the money .

        Based on the fact that all of the studies have questionable funding,(they are either profit or politically motivated.) I don't think any ban is justified until bias can be taken out of the equation. They should have to be registered in a public database from the beginning. Accepting the fact that the Surgeon General allowed the EPA report (which is pure junk science) and doesn't contain the Enstrom/Kabat study. And the fact that the surgeon General has to out and out lie about the report shows how little faith he had in it.

        Tell us who are we to believe? Freedom is at stake
        Reply to this
      2. 1/3/2010 1:07 AM derek wrote:
        I found I good way to deal with the ban. Check this out: they make electronic cigarettes and have no smoke. Just a mist.odorless. I sneak puffs at the office all day long right at my desk! I found them @
        http://undergroundfleamarket.webs.com

        They are on the home page right below the Obama watches
        Reply to this
    • 4/1/2007 7:23 PM Nancy Schulz wrote:
      A statewide smoking ban is totally against small busines. We are a Mom and Pop tavern that is a gathering place in our community. We had hope of our Sons and Grandsons running the business. A total smoking ban in our
      business would most definately put us out of business. Government does not have the right to tell us how we do business. People are not forced to enter our business. They that want to should be allowed to smoke. I am a non smoker. However, people have the right to smoke. It is LEGAL!!!!
      Reply to this
      1. 4/18/2007 6:07 PM Bill wrote:
        If you are truly a gathering place in your community you should be concerned about the health of your community. People have the right to smoke, but not to kill other innocent patrons. It sounds to me like profit over death.
        Reply to this
        1. 4/22/2007 9:38 PM ron wrote:
          Bill, It has always been legal to have a non-smoking bar, right? If people want a non-smoking bar, they will go to one. You dont like smoking, fine. I dont like county music, so I dont go to honky tonks. you dont like smoking, stay out of the few places that still allow it.
          Reply to this
          1. 5/3/2007 10:27 PM MES wrote:
            I don't think this has to do with what's legal or individual rights and all, but more of a public health concern. If we're talking about rights, then what about nonsmoker's right to a healthy environment? In addition to your analogy, country music doesn't kill people, where secondhand smoking have proven to contribute health risks. Besides, businesses shouldn't be too concern about losing money due to the ban, since there are less smokers than nonsmokers...especially if a business want to profit from the majority of the customers.

            -just my thoughts
            Reply to this
            1. 5/8/2007 12:32 PM Elizabeth wrote:
              But it is a matter of individual rights. Both parties should not have their rights infringed upon, therefore, it should be the business owner's who get to decide what is best for their business. Some will opt for no-smoking based upon the majority of their customers and others will opt for smoking based upon the majority of their customers and the loss that their business can stand based upon their choice. Then smoker's and non-smoker's win down the line as they will both have places to go.

              In regards to you stating that their are less smoker's (minority still counts) AND ask most business owner's - it is the smoker's that stay longer and spend more money.
              Reply to this
              1. 2/2/2009 9:21 AM JTM wrote:
                It has been said that business owners should be able to decide to allow smoking or not. It has also been said that each individual chooses to go to an establishment or not. So why is it that a non-smoker must choose to endanger their health? Why can't a smoker DECIDE to visit an establishment knowing they cannot smoke in there? Do you REALLY think they wouldn't go? Non-smokers go to bars where they are definitely endangering their overall health because they have no choice if they want to attend a social gathering of people. Smokers would do the same if they had no choice if they wanted to visit a tavern. Given the two choices, how can anyone say that we should allow smoking to occur in any public setting when a ban of smoking in public establishments would be healthier for all involved as opposed to the opposite scenario?
                Reply to this
              2. 7/7/2010 4:05 PM Nancy wrote:
                I totally agree with this viewpoint. I live in a small town with 3 taverns, 2 do not serve food. More people in this town smoke than do not. There are going to be 3 less businesses here and the tax burden will fall on all. Taverns/bars/grills provide a lot of revenue for small communities. It should be up to the business owner, after it all, cigarettes are not illegal. Doyle likes all the cig tax to fund other nonessential things. There are more items on the market that are not good for anyone. Should grocerie stores be exempt from selling junk/prepared food, gas stations from selling gas and diesel? Lots of smoke emissions from that? I say leave the little guy alone. Cigar bars are legal so the fat cats can enjoy themselves, what about the rest of the "working" class.
                Reply to this
            2. 5/15/2007 11:26 PM Sherry wrote:
              Regarding public health concerns ... Ten years ago doctors were prescribing HRT to middle age women to prevent diseases associated with aging. Five years ago they changed their mind and warned against HRT, and now they are uncertain.
              And remember the silicone implant scare of the early 1990s? Now, silicone implants are okay, according to the "latest" studies, but several businesses are bankrupt due to previous "studies."
              My point is, we can't believe every study unless the study has been evenly and thoroughly conducted. And that has not yet happened in the case of secondhand smoke. How can you possibly blame secondhand smoke for cancer unless you have eliminated such things as genetic tendencies, mold exposure, radon, and a host of other airborn pathogens that we all encounter in the normal course of life?
              I'm not willing to risk thousands of jobs and businesses and our state's economy on uncertain, trendy "studies."
              If people are worried about secondhand smoke they can avoid it. But, it is pretty difficult to avoid economic devastation if we pass a feel good law that could put thousands of people out of work. Wisconsin has lost enough jobs!
              Reply to this
            3. 1/30/2008 1:23 AM Ben wrote:
              I completely disagree with you. Car exhaust is just as bad a smoking a cigarette if not worse. So does that mean that all vehicles should be illegal too? Yes businesses should be concerned about losing money. If we were to ban smoking that would mean that a lot of people would be out of jobs.
              Reply to this
            4. 3/15/2008 7:30 AM Marshall Keith wrote:
              To all of those that believe that the ban does not hurt business then check out this in the year before the ban went in to affect 14 bars went out of business. (they use to average about 15) In the 20 months after over 117 went out of business, thats over a 300% increase of lost business. This includes almost all of the bars in the Mall of america.
              http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html

              And if the ban is so good then why is Minnesota working on a bill lifting the ban in bars???
              https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H3818.0.html&session=ls85
              Reply to this
            5. 3/31/2009 6:07 PM Judy wrote:
              I would like to know where you got your facts that there are a lot more non-smokers then smokers. I have never seen or heard of any count made. Just because you and your friends may not smoke, I and my friends do.
              Reply to this
          2. 10/16/2007 11:15 AM Angie wrote:
            I couldn't agree more! We should be allowed to have smoking and non-smoking establishments. You don't like the smoke - don't go there - you want to smoke then don't go to a non-smoking establishment! It's that easy!
            Reply to this
            1. 3/16/2009 10:54 AM rafaelthatmf wrote:
              No one says you can't smoke. You have the right to smoke. I also have the right to swing my arm. However my right to swing my arm ends when it hits someone else. If your right to smoke can occur without inflicting unwanted effects on others then you have that right. If it harms others the others then have the right to demand that you stop.
              Reply to this
          3. 5/28/2008 3:00 PM Trevor wrote:
            From Where I'm from there is smoking in every bar. My girlfriend and I love playing pool but we hate to come home smelling like smoke. We rarely go because of this. If places were all like this maybe there would be more visitors. People are worried about losing there rights to smoke well where is my right to breath clean air and not have to listen to the person next to me caughing up there lung?? People are only worried about themselves this proves it.
            Reply to this
            1. 5/12/2009 10:49 PM Lou wrote:
              Heaven help us with people like you out there. If you enjoy a non-smoking bar, I have a great idea for you. Save some money (probably strike one with you), write a business plan (probably strike two,) and be willing to work more than 38 hrs a week (most likely strike 3) to open a smoke free establishment. If your theory is true, you will appeal to the masses, and be doing some community a great service, and earning a respectable living. But, that sounds like a LOT of work, so I would WHINE for more laws - way eaiser. Who is worried about himself ?
              Reply to this
          4. 2/2/2009 9:15 AM JTM wrote:
            Ok..... I'm not sure where you live but here in Wisconsin (Milwaukee, in particular), I would love for you to show me a Tavern that does not allow smoking. Nearly EVERYWHERE you go in this state you are smoking in one form or another!

            For you smokers, if I had an old jalopy that banged & smoked as if I were trying to smoke out as wasps nest & I lived next to you, wouldn't it piss you off every time I drove up & down the street spewing a noxious smoke plume into your house & lungs?
            Reply to this
        2. 5/4/2007 8:04 PM Beth wrote:
          Bill, Why is it that this mom & pop bar is responsible for your or anyone elses health for crying out loud?
          Aren't you concerned about your health when you are drinking their booze?
          Obviously you were one affected by the shrinking brain syndrome caused by drinking!
          No one invited you there in the first place and they also do reserve the right not to serve you.
          To me going into a restaurant or bar is like going into someones home. I DO NOT have an inherent right to be there?
          If you think it is such a great idea why don't you invest your life savings and open a non-smoking bar that sereves juicy drinks and herbal teas and leave the rest of us alone!
          Reply to this
          1. 4/4/2008 12:03 PM Fred wrote:
            What????!
            Reply to this
        3. 5/15/2007 9:52 AM Sherry wrote:
          I am a smoker, and frankly, I find it difficult to find a good restaurant that allows smoking. If you are worried about secondhand smoke exposure, perhaps you should avoid going to smoking allowed businesses, and check out a few more nonsmoking establishments. They are abundant in Wisconsin.
          Reply to this
          1. 12/23/2007 4:31 PM Angela wrote:
            I don't know what county you live in but in my county there are no nonsmoking bars or restuarants unless you count Macdonalds. If the band is state wide buisnesses will not suffer. Walmart is smoke free but smokers still shop there. You cannot convince me that smokers are going to start staying home if they can't smoke. That didn't happen in California or New York and it won't happen here.
            Reply to this
            1. 7/6/2010 12:28 AM KC wrote:
              There's a difference between going to Walmart and going to Moe's Bar. People don't go to Walmart to smoke. But people do go to bars to smoke. The ban surely will hurt small businesses.
              Reply to this
          2. 5/28/2008 3:07 PM Trevor wrote:
            I thought people went to a restaurant to eat not to smoke. I think if people want to smoke, eat at home and you and your children, or husband or anyone you want to breath in secondhand smoke, go for it. I find it sad people cannot go to a restaurant for One hour and have a problem with not smoking. I find this to be the problem.
            Reply to this
        4. 1/23/2008 10:45 AM Anonymous wrote:
          your statement that smoking kills other people is just plain wrong
          Reply to this
          1. 2/7/2008 10:24 PM Anonymous wrote:
            With all the statistics about the effects of second hand smoke on non-smokers, what kind of moron chooses to argue this? Are you going to argue that majority (non-smokers) are not paying for your health with higher insurance premiums???
            Reply to this
        5. 3/20/2008 12:29 PM Bee wrote:
          Whats next, are you going to start banning alcohol? That's just as bad. How many people have died from drunken drivers or just plain drinking. I realize second hand smoke can be bad, but 85% of my customers smoke. The very few whom complain about the smoke don't send money in the bar in the first place. Even if it was smoke free they would never be regulars. Most people who complain and push this don't even go to the bars. They are more do-right people, who seldom go out. Lets face it..If they are that worried about their health and the effects of second hand smoke they sure are not going to be out drinking alcohol which is just as bad for your health.
          Reply to this
          1. 2/2/2009 9:27 AM JTM wrote:
            Bee.... come on! You cannot blame alcohol for drunk driving. That is like blaming guns for killing people or pencils for bad grammar. If I drink & get drunk, I am not hurting anyone. I can stumble home without so much as perhaps making a mess on the sidewalk. IF I CHOSE TO GET IN A CAR & DRIVE, IS THAT NOT MY FAULT, NOT THE ALCOHOL? YOU MAY AS WELL BLAME THE AUTO MANUFACTURER TOO!
            Reply to this
        6. 4/8/2008 9:33 AM Lucas wrote:
          I want to know where you get your facts from. Do you really think that these people are choosing profit over the health of the community? She made a perfect point that smoking is legal and the government should have no right to tell us where we can and can't smoke. Every day more and more freedoms are taken away from us. something needs to be done
          Reply to this
        7. 4/5/2009 4:24 PM wkj wrote:
          It about choice a smoker chooses to smoke a non smoker chooses to enter into a smoking establishment its apparent that these non smokers who enter smoking establishments are intelligent enough to not believe the propaganda non smoking lobbyist put out there. If your a non smoker stay out of smoking establishments its that simple.
          Reply to this
          1. 4/6/2009 11:23 PM Tx wrote:
            You make a good point. I don't believe everything I read either. Although I really cannot recall propaganda promoting smoking that didn't directly reference the dollar. However, there is a ridiculous misconception continuously propagated in the defense of smoking. Smoking is not a right. The 'right' smokers refer to is the right to have a habit. A personal habit. Smokers are in fact defending their right to have a habit, not the right to have a right. I too defend the right to have a personal habit. I am a non smoker. I have a right to breath clean air just as smokers do when they are not in the act of fulfilling their personal habit. Clean air is not a habit. It actually exists in the absence of smoke (and other pollutants of course), and doesn't contain nicotine. The ingestion of nicotine is really the goal of the (smoker's) habit. If it isn't prove me wrong and remove the drug and see how long the habit lasts. Find a way to ingest the nicotine without burning leaves (or spitting) and we may find a resolution. Smokers prefer to ingest the drug via burning leaves hence the label 'smoker'. There are drug laden patches available that provide a legal smoke free way to ingest nicotine. How about making it a habit to stick a patch on your skin when in public and smoke like it's the day before you quit when you are in the privacy of your home? (now I am preaching) I bet we would find patches replacing the butts that many smokers have a habit of discarding just about everywhere but in a waste basket. And be mindful of the environment and example you (smokers) provide for the little people in your life that have less choice in the habits they partake in.
            Reply to this
        8. 5/4/2009 5:10 PM Rudy wrote:
          Perhaps then you would be in favor of businesses that post "smokers only" on their doors. My point is if people want to gather together and engage in a "legal" activity, should they not be allowed to do so?
          Entering a smoking establishment for a non-smoker involves personal risk, much in the same way smoking itself. I agree that government has to step in on- high risk situations. But is allowing your child to ride horse, or motocross, or play soccer creating a lesser or greater health risk than second-hand smoke? All are about taking personal risks and personal freedoms. I am a non-smoker, but I believe that standing up for others rights, as well as my own, is most important in a democracy or republic. Minorities should not have to give up legal freedoms just because they are in the minority (and I believe smokers are in the minority)
          Reply to this
        9. 5/7/2009 10:28 AM Illinois wrote:
          Being from Illinois and have just gone thru the ban..Patrons at bars are no less , but more. Two of my friends own little bars..They actually have more business - more non smokers coming in..this is true if you want to belive it or not..I am talking from experience. Sure it is a question of rights - not denying that. You are going to be the 26 state to pass this law, so now you are in the majority...Trust me Beer drinkers wont stop going to there favorite pub or bar..might complain a little , but the crowds will still be there....
          Reply to this
      2. 4/26/2007 4:00 PM pamela wrote:
        you are absolutly right.since when dose the goverment get to come in a tell people how to run their businesses?If those anti smokers have their way you will not have any business left for your son and grandson to run.I really think this is sad since we were or are supposed to be a free country and it's people have the right to the pursuit of happiness.althrough it dose not garenteed to the pursuit of it at least.I,ve seen that people are now jumping on the smoking ban wagon and that's not good because as a smoker it infringes on my right as an american citizen if people truly whanted communism they would move to a communistic country don't ya think?You antis are going way way to far with this banning of smoking and it is gonna back fire in your face.
        Reply to this
      3. 8/5/2007 1:53 PM spurs wrote:
        I think you are right absolutely without a doubt don't think that the government should inter fear with small mom and pop businesses!I feel for your situation because why should someone spend their whole life savings and hard work only to be told by a few Nazi assholes that they have to go smoke free!To a little mom and pop place such as yours going smoke free is a death sentence,Mydad was a bar tender in a small town and the majority of people who came in the bar were smokers not the other way around.Their are good non smokers too but them damn antis suck because they want to enforce their will on everyone.It's about time that the mom and pop business owner stand up along with all their smoking and non smoking clientel and take their business BACK!

        from a smoker that is mad as hell with all them bans!Their are people like my dad who also was a smoker and that work for them little mom and pop places that depend on them for their living!
        just say no to all smoking bans especially since these mom and pop places do and will be hurt which in turn means that people WILL BE OUT OF WORK!

        BANS OF ANY KIND ARE SIMPLY UNAMERICAN!
        Reply to this
      4. 8/19/2007 1:36 AM pamela wrote:
        I just wanted to say that I feel for you my dad worked in a lot of small town bars,the smoking ban had they had them at the time would've devestated, them to the point were some would've probably closed, as they were country bars a couple of them.I think when people save their whole life to buy a business and put in all the hard work to make it happen,the government has NO BUSINESS TELLING THE OWNERS WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE HIS ESTABLISHMENT SHOULD SERVE SMOKING NON SMOKING OR BOTH.Is the government and it's antis gonna pay for the unemployment that them people you lay off will surly have to get?
        Reply to this
      5. 10/10/2007 11:10 AM Anonymous wrote:
        If this were a smoking ban that was just for your small community, yes it would affect your business, the smokers might find a spot just outside of the smoking ban to gather. HOWEVER this would be a STATE-WIDE smoking band, I highly doubt smokers are going to commute to Illinois or Minnesota to gather and smoke. People come to your Tavern to DRINK not to smoke.
        Reply to this
        1. 3/15/2008 2:20 PM Marshall Keith wrote:
          No they just won't go out. Thats what happened with the statewide ban in Minnesota and it has hurt business enough that they are working on lifting the ban that has been in effect for less than six months See https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H4032.0.html&session=ls85
          If non-smokers don't want to go into a smoking establishment they don't have to they are free to take their dollars elsewhere. But the anti-smoking Nazi's don't believe in freedom or the free market they believe in State Control.
          Reply to this
      6. 1/30/2008 9:23 AM Sonia M wrote:
        WHAT makes anyone think the statewide smoking ban is AGAINST any business??? What makes anyone think that smoking is a required part of ANYTHING? If the ban is statewide, involving every tavern, restaurant, etc. business will go on as always. Do you think smokers go out just to smoke? NO. They are out to be out at sitting with friends, sitting in a bar rather than at home. Just because they can't smoke in the establishment does not mean they won't go to that establishment. Now, if one tavern DOES have smoking while the neighboring tavern DOES NOT have smoking, of course a smoker may pick the one he/she can smoke at over the non-smoking place. But if EVERY place is non-smoking people are still going to go out. Smokers may not be happy about it for a while, because people don't accept change that easily. But it needs to come to NON-smoking in all public places. A smoker has the right by all means to smoke. BUT a non-smoker has a right to be there as well and NOT have to breathe the poisons the smoker has CHOSEN to kill him/herself with. Why should I as a non-smoker have to go out to enjoy myself at the tavern and worry about stinking like someone else's smoke. Hair, clothes, lungs, even purses polluted by SOMEONE ELSE'S SMOKE. It isn't MY smoke. I don't want to have the dry cleaning bill. I have a coat that I try to wear every time we are going out to the tavern/bar. That coat stinks to high-heaven. I don't even take it into the house anymore. I leave it out in the foyer to air out, and you know what? It's ruined anyway. That coat has a horrible reek to it, no matter how long I leave it outside. I try never to wear dry-cleanable clothes to the bar because, even though they are clean, they have to be dry-cleaned to get the stink out. Every time we do go out for the evening, I cough up who-knows-what the whole next day. Even the inside of my purse stinks like SOMEONE ELSE'S SMOKE. We have walked into and right back out of numerous bars over the years for being WAY TOO SMOKY. So, where are MY rights as a non-smoker??? It is unhealthy for everyone, especially those breathing second-hand smoke. Many people with cigarettes arent even smoking them. They light them up, take a puff, and the cigarette sits in the ashtray polluting the air for everyone. Either make the taverns/bars/restaurants control the air quality 100% for everyone in the establishment with some kind of air purifying system (which would be too expensive or impossible), or ban the smoking inside. Sure, you want to smoke: by all means that is your right. Just don't pollute anyone else's air that they have to breathe. Maybe someone needs to invent a big bubble apparatus that smokers can wear over their heads while smoking. They can get all the benefits of their habit and spare everyone else who doesn't want to be forced to partake of their deadly exhaust. Everyone at a bar/tavern is there willing consuming alcohol, not cigarette smoke.
        Reply to this
        1. 3/16/2009 6:38 PM Troy wrote:
          Ok well stated, but where are all the non-smokers? They sure are not going to the Eau Claire taverns. Just as an example, the Happy Hollow (an Altoona bar) has stated that since the ban went into effect, their weekdays are like their weekends use to be and their weekends are like New Years Eve. So now that the Eau Claire bars are smoke-free, where are all the non-smokers to pick up the slack? They are probably with all of their friends in Altoona or Chippewa.
          Reply to this
      7. 11/13/2008 10:53 AM Pamela wrote:
        I am sorry to hear you feel that the ban would put you out of business. I am a non smoker and am very allergic to the smoke. I have spent over an hour now trying to find a bar or other entertainment establishment in or around Milwaukee for me and my non smoking husband and friends to hang out at and enjoy. I am afraid there is no such place. We would love to bowl, shoot darts or pool or just sit and talk but I cant find anyplace.
        Reply to this
      8. 2/2/2009 9:10 AM JTM wrote:
        Why do you think you would be put out of business? Do you think the smokers in your establishment would pick up & go to another tavern that allows smoking? A smoking ban is a BAN.... not allowed. Not just at your place. For those smokers, how do you think it feels when i want to visit an establishment only to go home smelling like I am a smoker myself. My hair, clothes, & skin all reek of smoke! The next morning, my lungs & voice are affected! Sure, I went to this establishment myself willingly. But why is it that I have to be punished for a social situation? My habits don't affect others around me in public. I don't spit my beer in a smokers face when I am finished swilling it in my mouth & my drank beer doesn't float across the room & into a smokers bloodstream causing them issues. I don't walk into your smoking lounges or smoke shops & demand the right to get drunk & puke in your establishment. Yet, I am expected to tolerate this so that I may also enjoy a social situation. So that you may have the "right" to smoke. That is NOT RIGHT! Just a footnote here.... Taverns, Bars, Pubs, or whatever you call your local watering hole, are not in business to sell cigarettes! They sell alcohol!

        Now don't tell me the places I visit must have bad air handlers. I have been all overt the country to all sorts of establishments & none of them has perfect air handling where don't smell like cigarettes when I leave. I was in a bar this weekend & was only there for 35 minutes to meet a friend. I smelled like smoke the rest of the night.

        I have absolutely no sympathy for any group of people who has none for my situation. Choke on it!
        Reply to this
      9. 2/5/2009 11:30 AM Guy wrote:
        It certainly interferes with the right to contract (every transaction is a contract). I found a solution for business owners and smokers alike with no argument from nonsmokers. Beyondtheban.com seems to resolve everything! I love it
        Reply to this
      10. 2/16/2009 9:41 PM Anonymous wrote:
        If you spend most of your time in your bar...you in fact ARE a smoker whether or not you ever light one up. Unfortunately, it's a worse killer than you think and I think it's a crime to think that you want your kids and grandkids to be subjected to an environment so harmful to their bodies. Check the statistics on other states with a ban and you will find that customers will still frequent your establishment, but you will be in a much safer environment.
        Reply to this
      11. 9/4/2010 10:31 PM Douglas Breiting wrote:
        I agree with you 100% however the people we now have in office have lost focus on peoples and business rights. They seem more interested in catering to the small interests groups that are hell bent on imposing their will on everyone else. Lets take a long look at both parties and get these people out of office with the up coming elections.
        Reply to this
    • 4/2/2007 8:10 AM Terry Harvath wrote:
      I have personally seen the effect of a smoking ban. The first year product was down 29 percent. This last year I was down 13 1/2 percent from the year before. Keep in mind this is product. I have been selling it cheaper to get customers in. Imagine my profit loss!
      Reply to this
      1. 2/2/2009 9:36 AM JTM wrote:
        I am sorry to hear of your plight but to use a phrase (or variation thereof), you can choose to have another business if you don't like a non-smoking law.
        Reply to this
    • 4/2/2007 10:51 AM Judy Vandenhouten wrote:
      This is a personal rights issue in that I should have the ability to determine the way I want to run my business.Too many freedoms are being taken away from the individuals.
      Reply to this
    • 4/19/2007 2:26 PM Mark wrote:
      Ridiculous, everyone private property owner has the right to allow a legal substance to be used by people who are of legal age to use it. If people are concerned about their health, they should not patronize those establishments that allow smoking or petition the establishment to disallow smoking and make the argument for it such as “your establishment will get more business from non-smokers than it will from the few smokers who now patronize you establishment”. Because anti-smokers are lazy and do not want to approach the issue via free market and capitalism, they urge politicians to take rights away from smokers and more importantly private property owners. Sounds like socialism at work to me - not the freedoms the United States or the State of Wisconsin was founded on.

      -MTS
      Reply to this
    • 4/22/2007 9:33 AM Adam wrote:
      I feel that a statewide ban is the only way to truly "level the playing field" for Cities like; Madison, Appleton, Shorewood Hills, Shorewood and Fitchburg. Like it or not I think the governor was right is saying, "This is what direction history is moving" If not passed at the state level it is only going to be a matter of time until more cities pass these bans at the local level. You may oppose a statewide ban now, but you will wish it had passed when your city goes smoke free and your customers can drive a half mile down the road to an establishment that may still allow smoking.
      Reply to this
      1. 5/4/2007 7:27 PM Beth wrote:
        I am so sick of the term "level playing field". All Doyle's going to do is "level" everyones business equally. Obviously you haven't read about the loss of small mom & pop bar business in NY and DC after the bans. I think it is also a way of getting rid of these hang outs where mostly middle-lower class hang out. It is not only tobacco prohibition it is leading to alcholo prohibition again also.
        There is no reason there needs to be ANY bans. The people can vote with their feet and the businesses can adapt to their own clientel.
        Historically these bans just snowball, next it will be banned 25 feet to entrances, in your own car, and in one's own home.
        You are living in a dream world if you believe otherwise!
        There is no reason there needs to be a ban at all.
        Reply to this
        1. 7/9/2007 11:39 PM Bill McLean wrote:
          You people that think a smoking ban will be bad for business don't know what you are talking about. I am a native Wisconsinite who currently lives in New York and spends a great deal of time in DC. The bars in both cities are thriving. Anyone who tells you differently is lying to you. People go to bars to drink and be social. Since smoking is only an an auxiliary activity at a bar, most smokers won't stop going just because they are not allowed to smoke. In fact, many smokers I know in New York have actually decided that they too like the smoking ban because the clean air is more pleasant for them too, and they like the fact that their clothes no longer stink at the end of a night out at the bar.

          So, bar owners, you should support a ban. It will make your establishment a much more enjoyable place to be, and you won't lose your business. I, for one, go out to bars far more now, than I did before the smoking ban in New York. In fact, I generally won't even go to bars when I'm in a state that allows indoor smoking, such as now while visiting my family in Wisconsin. On the other hand, smokers will always come out to drink whether they can smoke indoors or not.

          Besides, anyone that would prefer to sit at home alone, just so they can smoke without stepping outside, instead of enjoying a good drink at a smoke-free bar, is probably not the kind of person that a tavern owner would want as a customer. Those kind of people don't bring in business. They often chase it away with their depressed attitude.
          Reply to this
          1. 12/4/2007 10:17 AM BAROWNER wrote:
            If there was a market for it, why has a smoke free bar not opened in my town?
            I am glad that you enjoy it, but I enjoy you not telling me who I should want as customers... It Is All About The Money... If It Would Have Been/ Would Be Profitable... It Would Open And Work Don't tell me what I should do!
            Reply to this
      2. 5/8/2007 12:41 PM Elizabeth wrote:
        OK - so everyone jump off a bridge because that's what the last guy did? That's ridiculous - let's all be little robots for the government then, eh? It is over the top to EXCLUDE smoker's from all public buildings in addition to controlling the business owner. Hey, Hitler worked his magic a little at a time - let's allow our government to do the same until we're all sitting around staring at each other with NO freedoms and new names like Equality-7-2521
        Reply to this
      3. 5/15/2007 10:26 AM Sherry wrote:
        There is no such thing as a "level playing field" in small business. With or without a smoking ban the cities you mentioned are economically stronger than most of Wisconsin's smaller, rural communities. In Appleton when one business closes, there is a developer or new investor to purchase the property.
        But, the developers and investors aren't flocking to Wisconsin's smaller, rural communities. And they never will, with or without the mythical "level playing field" that would be created by a statewide ban.
        The Wisconsin communities that have already moved to a smoke free platform are, for the most part, economically stronger than our smaller, rural communities. They have more attractions that draw people into their communities. If anything, their status as a smoke free island, should be an economic plus -- nonsmokers from the surrounding communities, should be flooding into Madison and Appleton, etc. in great numbers. The flood of out-of-town customers now coming into Appleton (for example) should offset any revenue flow that the smokers might be taking out-of-town.

        So, when I hear a community that has become smoke free argue for a "level playing field" to discourage people from going out of town, I have to wonder if smoke free is all that economically beneficial? And if it is not, can Wisconsin afford to "level the playing field" and put all of our Mom and Pop businesses at risk?
        Reply to this
      4. 5/22/2007 4:00 PM DD wrote:
        Okay, let's level the playing field. Bars in my city pay more taxes than bars in the next city - make it a law that they pay the same.
        Some bars are located in busier areas - let's require people to visit bars in less busy areas.
        Some bars have better jukeboxes - let's provide tax breaks so everyone can have good jukeboxes.
        Sounds silly? Of course, so does any argument about 'leveling the playing field.' If your city is dumb enough to enact a ban - you pay the price. Why should the rest of us?
        Reply to this
    • 4/25/2007 6:17 AM Bob wrote:
      If "this is the direction in which history is moving" then we are all in big trouble. There is no proven health risk to anyone from "secondhad smoke". It is a fraud, a lie told often enough that most people believe it is true. Watching science get prostituted for the sake of the $$ that flow to the anti-smoking organizations and the big pharmaceutical companies should be painful to anyone in this "enlightened" society.
      Reply to this
      1. 4/25/2007 1:24 PM Mike Puerling wrote:
        Amen Brother! The level of ignorance I'm reading in some of theses comments is truly frightening. Exactly what is the problem the anti-smoking zealots have with the free market? If this were truly a "health issue", the market place would long ago have clamored for, and received, smoke free establishments. Just because the "enlightened" don't like the smell of smoke on their clothes, they feel they have the right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. The arrogance is unbelievable! As you correctly pointed out, there is ZERO evidence that second hand smoke is a major health hazard.
        And this nonsense about "levelling the playing field". Do these people actually want to throw bartenders and waitresses out on the street?
        Reply to this
        1. 5/28/2008 3:13 PM Trevor wrote:
          No one is taking away rights. I cannot stand the smell of smoke when I go to a restaruant. I hate while I'm there and can't stand the smell when I leave. I find it pathetic people cant go a whole hour or two without smoking. Oh it disgusts me people can't handle change. I think most people have come to terms with smoking not being healthy but some continue think people are just out to get them and take away their rights. I could care less if you sit in your home and kill youself don't subject it to others.
          Reply to this
          1. 5/11/2009 4:03 PM Aunt b wrote:
            Thanks for your comments, Trevor. You hit it right on the head. Smokers are the biggest babies and need to GET OVER IT ALREADY!! Smoking is banned pretty much everywhere else anyway-step outside and have your stupid cigarette and come back in. No one has the right to harm anyone's health, period. Smokers are not a protected class, therefore, you never had rights in the first place. I cannot even take my niece and nephew bowling, which they love, because of some idiot smoking right next to us-they're children for crying out loud!! I cannot wait for this ban to take place. It's about time!!!!!!
            Reply to this
            1. 5/11/2009 10:42 PM wis4life wrote:
              Smoke ban vs. property rights In all the talk about municipal and statewide smoking bans, little has been voiced in defense of private property rights. Smoking is an unhealthy and expensive practice, arguably a bad choice, but still an individual's choice. The government may exercise its prerogative to establish smoking bans in public buildings, the use of which is required by the public for ongoing workings of an organized society. However, in the case of private establishments, including restaurants and bars, private property rights trump the state's good intentions. If they choose to allow smoking, it's not only their choice, it's their constitutional right. Their patrons exercise the same choice in deciding where to spend their money.

              wake up and think about it!
              Reply to this
      2. 7/9/2007 11:45 PM Bill McLean wrote:
        Don't be a fool Bob. I used to work for a very big tobacco company. I don't believe that the health risks of secondhand smoke are a fraud. If you're worried about protituting science, remember where the big money is. Its in tobacco sales, not prevention. And, as far as money goes, why would the big pharmaceutical companies want people to stop smoking? Remember, they make more money when people get sick.
        Reply to this
        1. 3/15/2008 7:58 AM Marshall Keith wrote:
          Financial ties between the anti-smoking activists and pharmaceutical nicotine interests. are a fact. And what do they have to gain well to sell their stop smoking drugs and other smoking cessation products. Pharmaceutical lobbies are the biggest and most powerful in the country what makes studies done by them and left wing organizations more credible the one done by tobacco companies. Don't be naive there is no such thing as an unbiased study everyone has an agenda. See
          http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/04/financial-ties-between-anti-smoking.html
          Reply to this
    • 4/25/2007 10:06 AM Lisa Daul wrote:
      When will the government stop sticking their fingers into our small businesses? I can't believe that they want to ban something that is legal. We have been told by a senator that "we haven't raised the sales tax in years." Well, that's fine. But do they realize that if they pass this smoking ban, that our business will drop. Therefore, we won't be paying as much in sales tax every month. Then what will happen? Oh yeah! They'll raise another tax and then another. We need to stand up for our rights as business owners and as citizens. Last time I checked, it was still a free country.
      Reply to this
      1. 12/19/2009 11:27 AM John Bowler wrote:
        When will YOU people stop being so paranoid about the government as if it's some unseen group of people trying to to take away your rights? It's legal!! So was slavery!! Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.The will of the people is being carried out here, the will of the Majority! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!! The law is designed to protect the rights of workers who have to work in second-hand smoke as part of their jobs!!
        Reply to this
    • 5/1/2007 1:23 PM Mike Puerling wrote:
      Well, I see our genius, finger-in-the-wind governor has said he won't accept anything but a complete ban, including bars. He maintains that "this is the way the world is going, and Wisconsin should be leader". A leader in what, I wonder. A leader in telling the citizens they are too stupid to know what's good for them? A leader in taking away their citizens' freedoms? If they get away with this, what's next?
      Reply to this
      1. 5/3/2007 10:39 PM MES wrote:
        We're suppose to drive 65 mph on the freeway, but people go over that anyway... so, the ban will most likely be the same way. Imagine if we can all drive as fast or as slow as we'd like on the streets - ain't that kinda dangerous, as if it's already? so, it's now public health issue and protecting everyone's right to a healthy life. Sometimes, it doesn't hurt to have a little reminder. Plus, it's not like you can't smoke at your own house.
        Reply to this
        1. 5/8/2007 12:46 PM Elizabeth wrote:
          Why should I, a single woman, have to stay at home so I can smoke when I should be able to go out socializing at a smoking bar and meet a fellow smoker (or non-smoker that opted to come to a smoking bar as opposed to a non-smoking bar)? We should be able to be comfortable too with our LEGAL substances
          Reply to this
        2. 5/8/2007 12:52 PM Elizabeth wrote:
          Why should I, a single woman, have to stay at home so I can smoke when I should be able to go out socializing at a smoking bar and meet a fellow smoker (or non-smoker that opted to come to a smoking bar as opposed to a non-smoking bar)? We should be able to be comfortable too with our LEGAL substances
          Reply to this
    • 5/2/2007 3:38 AM Lisa wrote:
      I feel smoking should not be banned. It should be up to the owner. Let them place a notice at the entrance stating that it is a smoking establishment. If the people don't want to be around the smoke they can go somewhere else.
      Reply to this
      1. 5/2/2007 1:38 PM Mike Puerling wrote:
        Exactly. Think about where this is going. You're in the bar with your buddies on Saturday night to watch the Badgers, or Sunday afternoon to watch the Packers (or whatever) and you go to light up; and you can't because all of a sudden it's AGAINST THE LAW!. Whatever happened to reasonableness?
        Reply to this
        1. 5/3/2007 10:32 PM MES wrote:
          Don't you think the law is to your benefit? That's reasonable. After all, I think smokers don't like the ban, because they can't quit smoking. No offense, but it's true. There's other things you can do, besides lighting up- grab a drink, or a fruit.
          Reply to this
          1. 5/4/2007 1:53 PM Mike Puerling wrote:
            Hell no I don't think this law is to my benefit! How in the world is taking away my freedom to do a legal activity that I enjoy a benefit to me? This isn't a health issue, this is about people being told how to live their lives, by other people who think they aren't doing it right.
            Reply to this
            1. 7/1/2007 11:44 PM Bob wrote:
              I think it is comical reading all of these comments whining and complaining about not being able to do something so ridiculous. It is hilarious to look at the big tobacco companies' profits every year to see how much money all of you are throwing away. People talk about the "mom and pop" bars falling off the face of the earth because of the ban. Where exactly are all of the night owl bar frequenting people going to go if every public place in the entire state is the same? Do you think they are going to sit home and do nothing just because they can't smoke? Stop your whining and find something worth arguing about. The bill is going to pass no matter how much you complain. Appleton is a perfect example, each time it was brought back up to change the ban, the number of people supporting the ban increased.
              Reply to this
      2. 5/15/2007 10:29 AM Sherry wrote:
        Exactly! No one is forced to either patronize or work in a smoking allowed establishment. Let the market force make the decisions.
        Reply to this
    • 5/2/2007 6:59 PM Bob wrote:
      Don't know if I can post a link here, but this shows the damage in the Twin Cities very clearly.

      http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
      Reply to this
    • 5/4/2007 6:09 PM Beth wrote:
      I am against any type of smoking ban. It is wrong for the Government to interfer with private business. Both non and smokers are already accomodated in restaurants and bars could opt to create a non-smoking night of the week if their clientel requested it.
      Enough of this nanny crap from Govenment!
      We all work hard and pay our taxes. If we choose to go out and drink and smoke in our free time and the bar/restaurant allows it whose business is it of Doyles!
      Reply to this
      1. 5/17/2007 1:36 PM Mike Puerling wrote:
        What, exactly, are we going to have to do in order to put a stop this madness?
        Reply to this
    • 5/8/2007 3:22 PM Shannon wrote:
      Ethically, is it not bad business to run an unhealthy environment? It irks me that my home state, historically quite progressive, has been lagging behind so many others in banning smoking in public places. It is NOT a business issue, it is a public health issue. If everyone would get on the bandwagon, no one would be losing money to each other. I love drinking in taverns in Washington, and they're making money off me while I'm breathing easier. Let's think outside the box folks.
      Reply to this
      1. 12/4/2007 2:55 PM BAROWNER wrote:
        Okay, so healthy is good, and everyone has a choice to be healthy... Why do you feel as if you have the right to gamble my future as a bar owner by mandating healthy... what's next? Mc Donalds... Mandate healthy? Oh no our Liquor... Mandate healthy... If you don't stand up while others are putting my business at risk, I won't be able to stand up while they put your livelyhood at risk.
        -Very Concerned Bar Owner
        Reply to this
    • 5/14/2007 11:53 AM gayle wrote:
      I do not support the smoking ban. I do not smoke. Taverns are completely voluntary entertainment venues. Adult entertainment. I want the right to live my life in peace, without governor doyle telling me what I can and cannot do for my health.
      Reply to this
    • 5/18/2007 10:51 AM Paula wrote:
      I just spent some time in North Dakota and there are smoking bans in the larger cities but...if they separate the smoking section from the non-smoking section with doors and insure that their filtration system is adequately removing the smoke, then it is allowed. Although there wasn't as much seating in the smoking area, it was standing room only. I also bartend part time and can't even imagine what it will do to the establishment if this passes. It is absolutely ridiculous that the government can collect taxes from us and then turn around and tell us where we can or can't smoke. If that's the case then they should drop the tax. It is a legal substance. Alcohol is legal but do they say you have to have a no drinking establishment? How ludicrous (laughable or hilarious because of obvious absurdity or incongruity)this whole thing has become.
      Reply to this
    • 6/7/2007 10:56 PM Sherry wrote:
      If this is truly about public health, why aren't the members of the anti-tobacco movement petitioning the state and federal governments to ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and use of tobacco products? Why is the focus on the individuals and the small business owners? How come no one seems to worry about the tobacco products that are sold through convenience stores associated with petroleum giants such as Mobil, BP, Cheveron, etc.?
      Reply to this
    • 7/2/2007 1:20 PM Erick Frommgen wrote:
      I can't believe the Wisconsin restaurant association backs a complete smoking ban (sb-150). Oh wait,I figured it out,they went 100% Mark Green in the last election and lost! Ol Mr. Ed (exec. direc.) is really smoothing things out with Doyle.Don't be fooled Doyle, over 60% of Ed's members are already smoke free.It is the business owners right to decide their own fate not these nanny legislators.Remember the old saying,"just cause Johnny jumps in a lake,so should you?" As far as fair playing field,pass a state wide fair dining act and supercede any local ordinances. Very simple.Then put doyle on the hot seat with his big veto pen!
      Reply to this
    • 7/6/2007 2:28 AM Billie wrote:
      I think that this 'ban' is really an attack on the tavern industry by closeted prohibitionists with an agenda. Yes, I smoke, but I also work in a bar. I have seen firsthand how smoking bans can kill off business, and I would hate to see that the owner of the establishment I work for lose every penny she ever put into her bar- and the benefits she does provide to her employees. This potential piece of legislation is dangerous to every bar owner in WI - not to mention our personal freedom is at stake here, too.
      Reply to this
    • 8/18/2007 3:09 PM Mike Puerling wrote:
      I haven't seen anything posted here in a while. Are we getting anywhere? I hope we are not just resigned to the inevitability of this thing passing. Shouldn't we be planning a PRO-smoking rally?
      I will throw this out there. I thought Illinois had a smoking ban; but I was down there the last weekend of June, and there were plenty of people smoking. I was told at one bar that you weren't supposed to smoke within fifteen feet of the bar. But every other place we went to people were lighting up right at the bar. If that's a smoking ban, I'll take it!
      Reply to this
    • 8/21/2007 10:50 PM This Sucks wrote:
      I work at a major hospital in the area and they are enforcing a no-smoking ban for all guests, employees and patients on their property. The new "health revision" takes effect in two weeks. I am only reading your comments and concerns because I am completely obsessed with this topic now. Smoking VS. Obesity in modern American society.
      Before the hospital decided to enforce this bullshit fucking "look at how healthy we are" code, all of the smokers had a designated area to smoke anyway! It was along the side of the building, away from all visitors or guests or entrances. Oh, did I mention that it's an enclosed glass box!? We were fine with being treated like fucking lepors, but the complete ban on all hospital property is infringing on my right to choose what I do, and do not do with my body. Maybe I wouldn't complain so much if I could just walk out to my car and smoke in there...but no, that too, is against policy. Our health insurance deductable, per person, is being upped by $1,500 per year, if you are a smoker and admit to it..."Honesty is the best policy" is their new slogan now that Health Risk Assessment time is just around the corner. I am just perplexed at the idiocy of the administration and anyone who could think this is acceptable. I completely agree with someone else's comment written earlier, we need to encourage personal responsibility...not enforce it. Right on.
      Oh, and just a side note...the hospital's Nursing Supervisor, yes, the one completely in charge of all staff and volunteers, is 200 gross, disgusting, morbid, flappy, smelly, unfair pounds over weight.
      Reply to this
      1. 2/2/2009 9:44 AM JTM wrote:
        Hey... you don't have to work there. You can CHOOSE to work elsewhere. You can CHOOSE to stop smoking. You have many choices. I can't drink in your hospital.... why should your vice be any different? I can't drink where I work. I can smoke but I can't drink. There are people I work with that smoke about once an hour & are "forced" to go outside to do so. They say nothing to them about their habit & the time they devote to it each day, week, year. God forbid I take an extra break to grab a snack at the vending machines though.
        Reply to this
    • 8/24/2007 12:37 PM Jim wrote:
      Smoking Bans

      All of the people who say they don’t smoke, and wish for a total ban on smoking in Wisconsin; give this some thought.

      The tax revenue generated from sales of cigarettes that you don’t pay into is now going to be added to the taxes you currently pay.

      The government is so addicted to revenue from cigarettes that banning it now going to create a shortage of money, (as you know the money is already spent). So where will the missing revenue going to come from? The answer – your pocket.

      Choices are things that each and every one of us cherish. You can choose to buy a certain type of car, house, boat, shoes, etc, you get the point. Why do you get to tell me how I want to live my life and try to ban something that is not illegal in any way shape or form? If cigarettes become illegal, law abiding people will quit. However, it is hypocritical to raise taxes to stop people from smoking while collecting and utilizing revenue from smokers’ habits.

      Anything done excessively can be bad for you. Eating too much leads to obesity. Drinking too much damages your liver. Too much T.V. – well, you get the picture.

      Everything has consequences; those making choices may pay for it in one way or another. If someone chooses to smoke, it is a choice that affects them. If you don’t like smoking in a place of business there are plenty that don’t allow it because they choose not to. If that choice affects their business and they loose money it’s their choice. Conversely, if you choose not to frequent a business that allows smoking – the business owner loses your money.

      I choose not to hand my decisions over to the government. If I choose to smoke, I do so understanding that there may or may not be consequences. Likewise, next time you take a bite of your Big Mac or a swig of a cold Miller, you do so with the same understanding that there may or may not be consequences as well.
      Reply to this
    • 8/31/2007 4:09 PM Laura wrote:
      I am currently going through zoning to open a restaurant/bar in Wisconsin. I fully support a smoking ban, but do it correctly. It must be statewide, and in EVERY public place. This is my opinion and my lungs. Its a filthy habit that I should not have to deal with....kinda like picking your feet at the table.... never mind that it is deadly. Wake up everyone!
      Reply to this
    • 9/1/2007 10:26 AM JJ wrote:
      Visit the website and learn what has been feed to us hook, line, and sinker.

      http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html#OSHA

      And, even if some the stats are a bit outdated, even if they have doubled, it's still outrageous that smoking bans are happening.

      Our federal government should be looking into redefining segregation and discrimination.
      Reply to this
    • 10/24/2007 9:41 AM t nelson wrote:
      A state wide smoking ban is a terrible idea. What next?? A state wide drinking ban?? Casino ban---lottery ban?? Fast food ban? Loud obnoxious people ban? Naughty children ban??
      This is supposed to be a free country.
      Reply to this
    • 11/19/2007 9:29 AM Jamie wrote:
      When reading through this blog, I find that most of you are very displeased with the smoking ban issue. However, I have an entirely different viewpoint because I am a supporter of the ban. As a non-smoker, I am aware that secondhand smoke does affect me. That is the last thing I want to be around, because it is not fair that someone’s choice to smoke will affect my health.
      Some people are not well informed about the risks of smoke. Bob and Mike Puerling said that there is no evidence that secondhand smoke is a health risk. I am curious to as where this information was found. Kellyn Betts wrote in the Environmental Health Perspectives, that there is an enormous link between secondhand smoke and breast cancer. Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among nonsmoking women which proves that it is a health risk. This is just one example of many other affects. Secondhand smoke also increases the risks of dementia, lung cancer, heart disease, chronic respiratory problems, and also has an affect on asthma.
      Health issues were never included in the justifications against the smoking ban. For example, Nancy Schulz commented that the ban would put her small business out of business. You have to remember that many restaurants have seen an increase in business because more non-smokers will dine in now. So even when businesses lose a few customers, they continue to gain profit from the non-smokers. The government would not create a law for the purpose of lowering the income of businesses. I also noticed the argument that the ban is a personal rights issue and infringes on individual freedom. What about the health rights of individuals, including non-smokers? You have to remember that public smoking does infringe on everyone’s health rights and the government has the power to take away individual rights because of this. The government is not going to put a law in action to simply take away rights. Public health laws are put into affect for a reason, and in this case, that reason is to prevent endangering the public with such a practice as smoking.
      Reply to this
      1. 11/21/2007 6:51 AM Dan Gabor wrote:
        Jamie is wrong! Jamie said that non-smokers will replace the smokers. NOT TRUE!

        Fact: In Belfast, domestic violence rose 40% after the non smoking law went into effect. Do you want to hear your mayor moaning about that?

        Fact: In Denmark and Seattle, restaurant owners are still waiting for the non-smokers to come out and replace the lost smoker. The only result of this will be higher taxes and we pay enough already!

        Please work to stop the waste, entitlement and propaganda and you'll be able to turn this decrepit state around!

        Your environmental government idea is pure fascist communism. Adolph Hitler took away the right to smoke in 1933, then gun ownership in 1935, then the right to vote in 1936. Are you getting the picture?
        Please help us to keep our right to choose and continue to do something right for a change!
        Reply to this
      2. 11/21/2007 12:17 PM Shawn wrote:
        I think that, "what about my right to be in a non-smoking environment?" is a very tired and baseless statement because virtually EVERYONE in the US has the right to be in a non-smoking environment. The vast majority of businesses DO NOT allow smoking. If you anti-smokers like a business that allows smoking, tell the business owner you will not return if it does not go smoke-free. If they get enough complaints, they will go smoke free. Almost all businesses have the goal of making as much money as possible. If they believe going non-smoking will cause them to make even more money, chances are, they will become non-smoking. Instead, lawmakers decide it is better to FORCE these businesses to alienate many of their customers potentially lose money. Also, if you non-smokers believe that you have the "right" to force all businesses to eliminate smoking, then what else should we force them to do? I hate country music. So, therefore, what about the "right" for me to go into a bar without hearing country music? Should that be banned as well?

        And I know there is the "bad for other's health" argument. The truth is, there are a lot of studies that show that second-hand smoke is harmful to others. But, there are also a lot of studies (and no, they're not funded by cig makers) that show that SHS is NOT harmful, in some cases even BENEFICIAL. I should also mention that many of the studies that indicate SHS is "bad" were conducted in methods that are questionable by most scientists, and other studies had data cherry-picked by anti-smoking lobbies to fit their agenda.

        And, no, the government is not going to pass a law to take away rights. At least, those lawmakers do not believe they are, because they are constantly hearing from these heavily funded special interest groups who tell them what to do.

        For those of you who don't believe in the "slippery slope" argument, just remember that the Nazis, in their early days, also banned smoking. And we all remember what happened after that.
        Reply to this
    • 11/30/2007 9:04 AM Racquel wrote:
      I'm not sure how you people can say that there is no link between second hand smoke and illnesses. My step sister was a healthy 5 year old and then she went to live with her grandparents who both smoked and nearly a year later, she came down with asthma and now has to use an inhaler. Also, neither of her parents had asthma so it was not just her genetics.
      Reply to this
      1. 2/24/2008 7:39 PM Shawn wrote:
        Have you ever heard of the word "coincidence"? Blaming your step-sister's grandparents for her condition is rather cold and baseless. But, it's just too easy to blame someone else. My father smoked in the house with me for the first 16 years of my life and I never developed asthma nor any other serious illness.
        Reply to this
    • 12/3/2007 1:43 PM Jorge Villa wrote:
      When someone question me if its okay to smoke by me. I dont want to be rude and mean. They should already know the smoke bugs people. When Bar owners refuse to improve the bar by avoiding to put air filtration. This make it their fault why A STATEWIDE BAN IS NEEDED. At least restaurants try to compromise, but bars dont care. They are rude and dirty! A health hazard to our community.
      Reply to this
      1. 12/4/2007 9:56 AM BAROWNER wrote:
        There is no rudeness implied on my part, and infact no health hazard... if you don't come in... we as bar owners and as business owners have the absolute right to refuse service to any one for any reason, other than race, creed etc... being a complaining none smoker I choose to not serve you... If there was a market for a bar to open for complaining non smokers I would have been done in more frequency by now... Has anyone ever done a poll about what my customers want? NO instead you have your stupid statewide none bar going out polls... Life Is Not Fair... Do For Yourself!!! If You Don't Like It Don't Come In!!! We Don't Want Your Business Any Way!!!
        -A Guy Trying To Make Money(BAROWNER)
        Reply to this
      2. 1/7/2008 8:49 PM Small Business Owner wrote:
        This is more about our rights than anything, but if you think bars are rude and dirty, stay home. I am a non-smoker, but I feel enough of my rights have been taken away, such as the right to choose if I want to wear a seat belt or not. Shouldn't adults be responsible for themselves and make their own decisions. If the government continues to do things to hurt small business, where do you think the lost tax money will come from - YOU
        Reply to this
    • 12/21/2007 5:19 PM Concerned wrote:
      I agree with all the comments about government not telling business how to run their establishments. I was thinking away around this would be to sell memberships to a private club.
      There are many more things for government to be concerned about... the abused children, the quality of education our children are getting, the loss of jobs, etc. Why not ban all junk foods and sodas since obesity causes deaths. How about the additives in foods that have a link to cancer? I asked some teens why they smoke with all the education going on about it. Their replies are all the same... because we can't! Remember as a teen how fun it was to do the things you weren't suppose to and get away with it!!!! Most of the dedicated non- smoker advocates probably do the illegal smoking or other drug enhancing things. The people in government wanting to interfere in our lives are power mongrels who were the hippies of the 60's. Wisconsin did not use the money from the cigarette companies and the anticipated money from the taxes for what it was intended. It is just another way to get money for their elections from the smoking ban supporters. Smoking is not the cause of all the diseases that people die from. I would be more concerned with the sludge used to fertilize land our food is grown on. The antibodies and growth hormones given to animals, that we in turn eat. How about the pollution from the SUV's. Actually the fumes from them bother my allergies and I might find a need to have them banned from our roads. The pollution in our lakes so that the fish are no longer edible. Aren't there bigger problems in our state to be concerned about?

      If you don't like the smoke, don't go. Go where there is a smoke free environment. If you want government in ALL areas of your life, MOVE there.

      I am NOT a smoker, never was. I just don't think this is a government issue, but an individual company or business decision.
      Reply to this
    • 12/26/2007 10:20 PM Dennis Miller wrote:
      To date we are nearing 4,000 men and women that have paid the ultimate price to fight a war so that people can have the freedom of choice and yet there are people that want to pass laws to take that freedom of choice away.....It's time to remove your head from where the sun doesn't shine.
      Reply to this
    • 12/30/2007 8:14 AM Bob wrote:
      The bars and casinos next to the Chicago border are gearing up for a bonanza when the Illinois ban goes into effect. The next statewide ban they want now is leaf burning. Can outdoor grills and fireplaces be too far in the future?
      Reply to this
    • 1/9/2008 12:17 AM Brian Keith wrote:
      I think it is sad that Big Brother has to step in and put small buisnesses (out of Buisness). I spend allot of spare time and money in local bars and restaurants eating drinking and playing games and when the smoking ban takes affect I will no longer even stop in at all. I will be going to the Indian Casinos to have fun. I LOVE OUR COUNTRY AND THE FREEDOMS WE USE TO HAVE!
      Reply to this
    • 1/9/2008 4:53 AM Jennifer wrote:
      It's funny that everything now is a public concern for health. I do own a tavern in Milwaukee and am also a non-smoker. We live in an environment which is polluted in more ways than one. I can tell you that I would rather breath in second hand smoke than the fumes from the tailpipe of a car but we aren't concerned about things like that. So everyone that says smokers aren't thinking about the health of others why don't you non-smokers think twice about the pollutants you put in the air also for everyone to breath.
      Reply to this
    • 1/10/2008 12:01 PM Alan wrote:
      Some quotes to think about:

      "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison


      "...and this is the issue at hand, whether we believe in our capacity for self government, or weather we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." - Ronald Reagan

      "Those who want to give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

      "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."" - Ronald Reagan

      "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." - Gerald R. Ford

      I believe the businesses and individuals of the great state of Wisconsin are intelligent enough to make there own decisions in how to run there business and run there lives. Maybe the state of Wisconsin can control what food is served and what food I eat next. Remember, heart disease is the #1 killer in the US, the largest contributor to heart disease is obesity and the largest contributor to obesity is food.

      Just some thoughts,
      -- a non-smoker
      Reply to this
    • 1/11/2008 1:32 PM Frances wrote:
      Ok - I admit - I am not a smoker, and I like the fact that when I come home from the bars that my clothes and hair do not smell like smoke - but I also chose to go into that establishment. Can a Tavern become a Private Business, and charge people a membership fee say $1.00? Then they could go to that establishment and smoke??
      Reply to this
    • 1/28/2008 10:17 AM Jane Loizzo wrote:
      I can't help but think of all of the people who don't visit public places because of disrespectful smokers. People with asthma, COPD, Cystic Fibrosis, would you still blow smoke in my face if you knew I had an "invisible" life threatening disease. I have to stay home because of smoking that is allowed in public places, now you want me to feel sorry for you because you have to step outside to get your fix. I can't wait for the smoking ban, I can enjoy a night out like smokers do.
      Reply to this
    • 1/30/2008 9:45 AM Sonia M wrote:
      When we choose to go out for the night to a tavern/bar, we go out to consume alcohol at that establishment. They are serving alcoholic beverages across the bar, which is what we expect to purchase when we are a customer there. The establishment is NOT serving cigarettes across the bar. The bartender is NOT serving up shots of cancer-causing smoke with a chaser of carcinogenic pollutants, for EVERYONE in the building to be affected by. We go out to socialize, have a few drinks, unwind. I do NOT believe that it is someone's right to light up their stinky, smoky, poisonous cancer-stick where I have to inhale their exhaled and smoking pollution. My drink is not jumping up and stinking up my neighbor at the bar. My drink is not polluting their clothes, hair, personal belongings. My drink is not causing cancerous pollution to affect them in any way. A bar does serve alcohol. That's what I went there for. Unfortunately, somehow cigarettes and smoking just got thrown into the mix through the years. Numerous studies have been done, proving how poisonous and deadly cigarette smoke really is. Why should ANYONE except the smoker have to smell their smoking cigarette????? I am all for rights. I HAVE RIGHTS TOO. And it is my right to be able to go out, have clean-smelling clothes, sit at the bar and enjoy my beverage, without stinking like or inhaling someone else's nasty rotten cigarette smoke. Go ahead and kill yourselves, just don't kill me or my friends/family. Kill business with the statewide no-smoking ban? No, kill business WITH smoking in establishments. We would rather stay home and drink than go out to a stinky tavern. We ride motorcycles in the summer and stop for sodas along the way at taverns. If there isn't an outside place to sit, we will NOT stop there. Sure, air-conditioning and tv would be nice to relax to for a bit, but not when "Bubba" is sitting next to me with his/her cigarette smoking away. No thanks. You can add our friends too, to the list of non-bar attenders. I have a couple of friends that suffer from asthma. They absolutely cannot step into any place polluted with smoke. So what about all of us, that establishments have excluded and lost our business and money as well? There are getting to be more and more non-smokers. Smokers are becoming the minority, and I think establishments would be wise to cater to the MAJORITY, rather than the selfish smoking few. Just give it a few more years. Maybe they will all have died off by then from throat, lung, mouth and all the other cancers contributed to by cigarette carcinogens.
      Reply to this
    • 2/1/2008 3:53 PM Wisconsin Citizen X wrote:
      I have been a Wisconsin citizen all my life. I love Wisconsin! I also believe in people's rights. The right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of speech just to name a few. However I am sick of inconsiderate people believing they have a right to subject others to a health risk! It is impossible to argue that smoking cigarettes does not present a health risk to the individual smoking it or others breathing in the smoke. You can check the chemical breakdown of cigarette smoke and easily see that the chemicals contained in it are hazardous. If people chose to ignore these facts and still chose to smoke why should I be subjected to health risks because of their poor decision. I am an adult. I can choose to stay away from smoking but what about the children whose parents smoke around them. Do they have a choice can they simply choose to not goto their home. No! Our society is so backwards that people are willing to defend the right to smoke purely to keep the government from making people do what they should be doing anyway! Smoking is bad for everyone! You smokers should be pushing for an alternative to smoking or a safe product to replace smoking not to continue to do something that poses such a huge health risk to you and others. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. You want the government to leave you alone then be responsible for what you do! Don't subject others to a health risk.
      Reply to this
    • 2/16/2008 3:13 PM Amy Kohlwey wrote:
      I would just like to take this opportunity to state my support of a statewide smoking ban. As an individual who worked in a resort with a bar and grill while pregnant with my first child; I have personally seen the effects of secondhand smoke. My son was also in this environment for the first 5 months of his life. My son had pneumonia twice before his first birthday. He was using a nebulizer before his second birthday. He has since been diagnosed with asthma that the doctors believe is a direct result of the environment I was in while pregnant and in his first few months. My son has also had sinus problems that I believe are also directly related to this. I never smoked a single cigarette during this entire time. My son is now almost eight years old and to this day I can't eat in a restaurant that allows smoking without my son having respiratory problems for the next week. Why is it that our freedom does not allow me to enjoy a dinner out with my son without endangering his health, but freedom allows a smoker to dictate where I can have a family meal? We have laws governing us to provide safety in our society and yet we continue to allow a fraction of society to dictate where we can work, where we can eat and wherecan safely enjoy family activities (ie. bowling, etc) without the threat of health issues. I beg you to help allow my family to enjoy a dinner out at a restaurant that does not have a drive-through. I beg you to help provide a safe working environment so others do not have to experience the heartache that I have knowing that it was my paycheck that caused my son's health problems.
      Reply to this
    • 2/22/2008 11:43 AM Matt wrote:
      I think we should have a statewide ban on food. Fat people offend me and their gluttony costs us much more in health care than smoking does.
      Reply to this
    • 2/25/2008 4:13 PM MILWAUKEE bar manager wrote:
      I'm a bar Manager and think THE BAN SHOULD GO THROUGH right away. Yes, many will be Upset, but thats Life and the direction many of us are looking to go forward with. Wisconsin could be smarter about the ban, but it should go through. EVEN AT TAVERNS!!!!
      Reply to this
      1. 3/15/2008 8:08 AM Marshall Keith wrote:
        Bar manager I see you are not the owner I'll bet the owners have a different feeling. Look at all the bars that went out of business in the Twin Cities after the ban. they use to have an average of 15 bar closures a year. The last year before the ban there were 14. 20 months after the ban thee were 117 closures. Thats over a 300% increase.
        http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html

        If it is so good for business why is Minnesota now working on lifting the ban on bars bingo parlors and clubs like VFWs.???
        Reply to this
    • 2/26/2008 1:37 PM Mary wrote:
      I live on the boarder of Minnesota and Wisc. and am a Wisconsin resident. I love the smoking ban. the bars in Minnesota are even more full than ever! and people that smoke really don't seem to mind. Hey, it's nice to come to Minnesota eat a meal or have a drink without smelling like an ashtray, I am all for a Wisconsin smoking ban and I know everyone I know even from Wisconsin thinks so too.
      Reply to this
      1. 3/15/2008 10:10 AM Marshall Keith wrote:
        What are you smoking it sure isn,t cigarettes. Bars in Minnesota are not more full than ever. In the year before the smoking ban went into effect 14 bars went out of business. within 20 months 117 bars went out of business. Thats why the bars are having theater nights right?? Check your facts before you speak. Here are the facts.
        http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
        Yea it has helped business so much that Minnesota has bills lifting the ban on bars,bingo halls,VFWs, and private clubs see:
        https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H4032.0.html&session=ls85
        Reply to this
    • 2/27/2008 5:24 PM deb wrote:
      Who do u all think u r telling what we can and cant do thats not Freedom,thats dictorship.U start with a smoking ban, then what will the next thing be.So tell me why u r still allowing them to be sold,doesnt make sense to me.OH! i know why its money in u all pockets.Stop selling them,People will not stop.Its our Freedom and our right,U cant tell us what to do that is not American.Freedom let it ring.Freedom,not i have to check with u all before i can visit someone or to the store.Freedom i have the right to smoke .Its my RIGHT FREEDOM God help us all,U people scare me,its just like Jericho.U all r scaring.
      Reply to this
    • 3/4/2008 5:21 PM Terry wrote:
      I do believe that smoking negatively affects a person's health, but I don't think the government should dictate that a legal substance is in essence banned. I think the tavern owner, not restaurant, but tavern owner should be able to choose to make the bar smoking or non smoking and that not only customers but also prospective employees can make the choice.
      Reply to this
    • 3/5/2008 1:00 PM John wrote:
      Nobody is banning smoking...just banning smoking in places of employment. People in bars are more than welcome to go outside and smoke. I do my business in the restroom instead of in the middle of the bar....same thing. Individual community bans negatively affect those businesses when patrons can simply go to the next closest community. A statewide smoking ban evens the playing field. Plus, I would be able to take my kids to Applebee's or the zoo without having some idiot light up right next to the stroller. I simply avoid those situations now, which isn't fair either.
      Reply to this
      1. 3/19/2008 11:54 AM Marshall Keith wrote:
        Is it fair to dictate what legal activities a business owner can allow in his business. As far as the health aspects read this.

        http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
        Reply to this
    • 3/6/2008 7:22 AM Leah wrote:
      why can't people leave smokers alone. You never somment about cars that have bad exhausts. I am a smoker but if you do nt like smoking GO AWAY!! I can see if you are eating it is nasty to have soeone smoking. I do not like it but we should be free to smoke outside. Second hand smoke is not that terrible. You do not like it change your area of walking or standing.
      Reply to this
      1. 3/12/2008 10:31 AM Cancer survivor wrote:
        Leah--are you high??? "Second hand smoke is not that terrible??" Wow. I can't do anything but laugh at that one....what are you up to now, 3 packs a day???
        Reply to this
    • 3/11/2008 8:46 AM jeff bakken wrote:
      Lets forget about statistics,government control, and choices. There is only two points to this matter. First, second hand smoke causes medical issues and it can kill. Secondly, ,many adults do not make clear and wise choices in life. Both of these can not be debated. Last week I was in a popular eating establishment and observed many adults enjoying a wonderful evening with their infant children breathing in second-hand smoke.
      Reply to this
    • 3/13/2008 12:56 PM Kerry wrote:
      I am very disappointed that this issue did not make it to a vote this past session. I intend to find out where my local senator and representative stand on this. If either of them are against a statewide ban, I will not vote for them next election--no matter what. As people above have said, its working well in other places and the playing field will be level for all.
      Reply to this
    • 3/13/2008 1:44 PM rick wrote:
      If someone wants to be a hero why dont they build their own bar and grill and have it non smoking and all the cry babies call go there with all the lawmakers to eat and drink because nobody will want them anywhere else after they threaten to take away everyone business. If you dont like smoke it seems simple enough go somewhere where there isn't any. If you dont like strip bars dont go there. If they took away the cigarettes watch how fast the government will collapse. They get all the money from the tobacco companies and use it for "other budget shortfalls". My friends from Minnesota said they dont even go to the bar anymore. Can't imagine the ban being good for business at all especially when Wisconsin has all the small bars all over the place in remote areas. I vote dont play follow the leader and make a big mistake like Minnesota.
      Reply to this
    • 3/15/2008 7:46 AM Marshall Keith wrote:
      I would also like to comment on the $1.00 a pack tax increase. The government based it on the claims that smokers are a bigger burden on the health care system. there are numerous studies out that totally disprove that. Isn't taxation without representation what started the Revolutionary war??? How many of you smokers feel represented. The lawsuits against the tobacco companies were based on that same lie . . . Where did the money go???
      Reply to this
    • 3/15/2008 2:41 PM Marshall Keith wrote:
      There is a good thinking piece that I think you all should read. Truer words have never been spoken!!!
      http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36544
      Reply to this
    • 3/28/2008 9:52 AM Dale wrote:
      I live in Minnesota and the ban has destroyed the bar seen. Don't let it happen in WI too! The small bars and private clubs are struggling and none of my friends and I really go out anymore. You mights as well go to family establishment now and have a milk shake. That's what it has come down to. Rural bars are hurting so bad, they are going against the ban anyway. It's not in their nature to tell small town friends and family to go outside to smoke, when it's their private business, sometimes their home. You can say all you want that this is about protecting public health, but the reality is, anyone can CHOOSE to work or patronize a smoking establishment, so it is ultimately up to an individual to protect themselves. No one is forced to inhale second hand smoke. Give me a break!
      Reply to this
    • 3/29/2008 4:13 PM JC wrote:
      I love how all of you are blaming this on the government, don't you realize that large insurance company lobbists are the ones behind all of this.

      There are so many other deep seeded issues that drive this that the average joe sitting in a bar just can't comprehend.

      Look at it this way, if we don't implement the state wide ban, overall insurance rates for residents of wisconsin go up, this effects every tom, dick and harry, regardless if they ever visit a bar or not, so in an effort to curb the increase in those costs, insurance companies lobby to implement a ban. From a government point of view, high insurance costs could be a deterant for a potnetial business moving to wisconsin or not. That busines may not have any association with taverns or smoking but they are certainly going to look at the bottom line to see what it costs to do business in wisconsin. So at the end of the day a few Mom & Pop shops suffer to pave the way for much larger businesses (potential and existing) to grow in wisconsin. Those large business pay 100 times more in taxes in this state than a small tavern, so debate all you want, I am 100% positive Minnesota won't repeal their ban and it's only a matter of time until Wisconsin implements our ban.
      Reply to this
      1. 4/8/2008 10:33 PM Marshall Keith wrote:
        You are so wrong non-smokers are less of a burden as far as medical costs from the study.

        Obese individuals had the highest health care costs from age 20 to 56, and obese individuals and smokers had a higher rate of heart disease than healthy individuals, the study found. However, the study found that obese individuals and smokers had lower lifetime health care costs than healthy individuals because they died earlier.

        On average, healthy individuals lived 84 years, compared with 80 years for obese individuals and 77 years for smokers, the study found. Healthy individuals on average had lifetime health care costs of $417,000, compared with $371,000 for obese individuals and $326,000 for smokers, according to the study.

        http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=3&DR_ID=50256
        Reply to this
    • 4/4/2008 12:53 PM Jennifer wrote:
      I think it would be great if Wisconsin was smoke free. There are so many more places that my husband and I would go if they were smoke free!
      Reply to this
    • 4/7/2008 9:01 PM DK wrote:
      people fight back OUR RIGHTS AND CHOICE!
      sign the petition to stop this smoking ban I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

      "Stop the Wisconsin Smoking Ban"
      http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stopthewiban?e

      I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes less than a minute of your time.

      Thanks
      Reply to this
    • 5/28/2008 10:15 PM Joey wrote:
      For those of you who are interested in fighting the ban, please come to our website, www.banthebanwisconsin.com
      Reply to this
    • 6/21/2008 11:35 AM standing up wrote:
      Why in the world would Wisconsin want a nanny or a big mother watching over all of us tax paying citizens. We are all adults and we do know the word choice.
      If a private owed business that serves to the public should be allowed a legal substance on there private owned property. We need to get rid of the babysitters.
      Reply to this
    • 9/3/2008 7:15 PM Beth wrote:
      If you are AGAINST the ban join BAN THE BAN WISCONSIN.
      Contact your legislators. Speak up for yourself to those who actually vote on this.
      Member of
      wwwbanthebanwisconsin.com
      Reply to this
    • 9/16/2008 1:01 PM Presow wrote:
      Well I believe that people don't want to know the truth about why anything is done. They are unable to really think for themselves anymore. This has nothing to do with anyone caring about your health. They don't care. This has to do with control for your life in another area. It is forcing you to do what they want again, against your free will, again. That saying "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness," is actually, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Personal Property. That is what this ban is all about. Where do think this will lead to after the ban on your personal property that you own, not them, that you pay taxes on, on them. This will only be the tip of the iceberg with the ban, affecting your property rights. But you see they know this, there is an agenda they must meet. What do you think all those meetings the governors and mayors go to nationwide. Not only are they all like-minded and that is why they get into office, they go to discuss more control over us. They believe they will be untouched, they believe they are better than us, the elite of the city. The goal and I know you think communism is gone, but that is exactly what they want. This is not a free country, a free country does not have all the controls that are in place for everything and getting worse. You have to start thinking thoroughly and reading the truth about what is really happening in our community. You hear all about the run for presidency, but what is important is what are they really doing to our state. (They) are using environmentalism to take away everything from us. Please, you must try to understand this.
      Reply to this
    • 9/30/2008 8:22 PM Michele wrote:
      As a Non-smoker, I can say I love going out to bars (you will frequently find me there), but I love it even more when I don't come home smelling like smoke, but I know it comes with the territory. I understand both sides of the debate. Because of health reasons, I do leave an establishment if it becomes too smokey, that's my choice. I would love to go out and not have to deal with the smoke, but does the government have to police everything? Or is this one instance that it is warranted? I'm inclined to believe we could debate this all evening, and the highest bidder will win. Will it be the tobacco companies or the insurance companies?
      Reply to this
    • 11/3/2008 1:25 PM Paul A wrote:
      I believe that a statewide smoking ban would be detrimental to to many small businesses in Wisconsin, i believe that an ordinance should be in place mandating businesses to post a notice on doors that state if they are a smoking or non-smoking establishment and let the patrons decide if they want to enter or not. what next.....are they going to try to ban starting our cars because it causes pollution in the air here in Wisconsin which is also bad for our health,just to name another thing that causes harm to us, and if a business allows smoking they can make employees sign a waiver that they understand the health risks involved in working there and the employer cannot be held liable for any health problems this leaves the business in the hands of the owner and keeps the local and state government out, where they should be.i have seen to many small buisnesses fall because they cannot get enough customers into their places to afford staying open because of the no smoking laws....all said and done.....LET THE OWNERS DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO BE SMOKE FREE OR NOT!!!!!!....not the government
      Reply to this
    • 11/21/2008 6:50 PM Rodney Shafer wrote:
      I agree with Judy Both of my parents were smokers and had health issue because of it. I have lung problems because of that. I also live next to a dumpy bar and notice that the smokers are also the biggest drinkers , so I can see why the bar owners are against the smoking ban. It is a profit issue for them,smoking increases booze sales.
      Reply to this
    • 11/26/2008 5:57 PM Heather wrote:
      I have been reading a lot of the comments on this website. It amazes me how many non-smokers are so concerned about my health. Think about it. Where is this leading us. First we ban smoking, then what. What will you focus your attention on. Maybe we should ban fast food because it is making people fat. Then we could sue the fast food places for putting addictive additives to their food such as grease. Come on doesn't anyone see what this is about. Is all about control and discrimination. If you non-smokers don't like to be around us, open your own bars and stop trying to control the ones that already exist.

      And here is a note to RODNEY SHAFER. Smokers by nature have addictive tendencies. That is why we drink and gamble. It is not all about profit. That is what the bar is concerned about, but the patrons just want to keep their drinking establishment up and running. Haven't you been watching the news. We are trying to keep small business open, not kill it. Find another hobby.
      Reply to this
    • 12/11/2008 9:04 PM John Beesley wrote:
      Well, Fond du Lac has now fell to the smoking ban zealots. Our city counsel 3-2 has approved a workplace ban on smoking,to include all taverns,restaurant's, an private clubs.although, the chambers were packed to compasity with small business owners,and some of there employees,there voices fell on deaf ears.all against this proposed ordnance. it seamed to me, that there minds were made up before the meeting begin. Safe Wisconsin was also there, with there bought an paid for,"experts". We also know that the women who brought this proposal to our city counsel, was approached by Safe Wisconsin,helped her write it,"said proposal",and how to present it to the counsel. I'm sure, she was paid well for her efforts! Maybe even a few of our counsel members!! I guess these people can't read, cause if they could, they'd maybe understand The 4th Amendment in our Bill of Rights, No infringements of Legal Activities On Private Property. Now,with that being said, I believe, that consumption of Tobacco Products are still Legal an so, smoking it is Legal also,"maybe not healthy,but Legal." Has anybody heard of anyone getting cited for violating this new law? Well, i haven't! So what does this say? Come on, don't tell me nobody has not validated this new rule, and not got caught?? Im sure if there are so many non-smokers in our taverns,at least 1 of them would squeal,"foul, and rat them out",the winers they are. Anyway, I don't believe this law is even enforceable or will be enforced. The Police have enough to do,let alone, Policing our smoking habits. I've heard some cops say right out that, they are not going to enforce it. Now, what does that tell ya? They know this is an unlawful act of government powers. And, I'm sure the Courts doesn't want to here it either. There already over burdened. Now,lets talk taxes. Wrong. The Tobacco tax last year is by far an illegal tax. It is not going where it was intended. Prove it, we can't, but we know where it's not going, an that's not for health care. Least not smokers health care. More like Governmental health care,"or is that,"financial care." With what we, or they pay, they should be allowed to smoke about anywhere they please. Of course, thats my opinion. I carried on long enough,thanks for letting me vent. I sure hope this ban gets killed, enough is enough...
      Reply to this
    • 12/16/2008 11:05 PM Neil Paules wrote:
      As a california resident since the banning of smoking inside businesses, bars and restaurants started years ago, I can tell you that businesses, both large and small, have NOT suffered either financially or lose of customers. Truth is that all businesses have benefitted from this ban. First, employees lose less time at work due to upper respirator distress. Employers gain in the extra productivity. Bars haven't lost patrons; they just step outside for their cigarettes, even when it is cold outside. Restaurrants love it because more people go to their establishments because the aroma comes through, not the smell of stale smoke. The first thing most California residents will do is smell the air and if filled with smoke will complain. This will save lives - maybe even yours. Hope you change and enjoy it like we Californians do now.
      Reply to this
      1. 12/22/2008 11:45 PM sheila wrote:
        You REALLY need to check your facts. Bars, large and small, bowling alleys, bingo parlors, have all suffered terrible losses in California.
        Many areas have new businesses, called "smokeeasys". This is also common in NYC.
        There are two objectives of the ban crowd:
        1. Shame people into trying to quit smoking repeatedly.
        Benefit- Johnson and Johnson, makers of Nicoderm, Nicorette, and Chantix ( J%J took over Fizer) who are the largest contributors to the international smoking ban effort, will make HUGE profits. J&J make their contributions through their partner, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year go to states and county health departments to fund the smoking ban ads and personel.
        2. Break mom and pop businesses and run customers into the really big businesses, who are the big contributors to political campaigns.
        Johnson and Johnson will not lobby to stop the SELLING of tobacco products. If all selling would stop, there would be no need for Nicoderm, Nicorette or Chantix.
        I personally do not want to live in a society run by pharmaceutical companies. It was reported this week that 1 in 4 of ALL Americans are on prescription drugs, and 1 in 10 are getting food stamps.
        Let small business owners run their property and their lives.
        If you want to go to a non smoking establishment, BUY ONE. Then YOU can call the shots.
        Fight for freedom.
        Reply to this
    • 12/27/2008 11:42 AM Jordan wrote:
      Detrimental health concerns are quite prevalent on the topic of second hand smoke. It is important to note that not only the patron but the employees of an establishment are also impinged by the adverse effects of second hand smoke as well. A State wide smoking ban is crucial!
      Reply to this
    • 1/2/2009 3:05 PM Randy wrote:
      Sheila -

      Who cares about California. Both Madison and Appleton have city wide smoking bans and as a resident of Appleton, I can tell you that the bars, restaurants, etc. have not suffered since the ban has been implemented. In fact, many have actually seen increases in their revenues. I'm calling for freedom from second hand smoke... It is about time that our State legislators listen to the public outcry for clean air...
      Reply to this
      1. 3/3/2009 12:12 PM katty wrote:
        Randy, you are so full of it. I know quite a few bar owners there and they are saying just that its killing them.
        How dare you put something out there that is not true.
        People like you do not have a clue what it is really doing to there business.
        Reply to this
    • 1/6/2009 4:09 PM Scott wrote:
      I think smokers should not infringe on the rights of non-smokers to be healthy while they are in a tavern trying to destroy their liver and wolf down a couple of cheeseburgers and fries and maybe have some deep fried goodies. They just want to have clear lungs and high blood pressure, maybe some clogged arteries and veins, all that fried food is good for you right? Obesity is the number 2 killer.
      Reply to this
    • 1/9/2009 3:45 PM Ken wrote:
      What law says you cannot be a smoke free establishment? What law forces non smokers to a bar the allows smoking. It sound to me like everyone has a choice which is how it should be. If health were a real concern and not just personal discrimination then people would be fighting to make smoking illegal, not just banning it from bars or restaurants. If smoking is a legal activity than you should be able to smoke in an establishment if the owner will permit you to. What are we going to ban next. Fatty cheeseburgers or steaks. No because you have a choice to eat those items. no one is forcing the fatty food upon you Just like having a choice regarding smoking. no one is forcing you to go to that bar go to the one down the street that is smoke free. Or open your own smoke free bar.
      Reply to this
    • 1/9/2009 11:14 PM Jennifer wrote:
      First of all, I am 39,a non-smoker and have been all my life. I grew up in a family of smokers and have worked many years of my life in smokey bars and nightclubs. I have never once had any respiratory issues and to date am in very good health. Right now i am proud to say I own a small corner bar in milwaukee. About 70% of my customers smoke. I don't see how if a smoking ban is put into effect how suddenly non-smokers would replace the lost percentage. Also, it is very ironic to me how some non-smokers in favor of the ban push the issue of second-hand smoke and how people are forced to breath it. I'm sure most non-smokers drive cars and they have no problem polluting the air with no regrets. To all you non-smokers against smoking I offer you a challenge, breath the second-hand smoke of a cigarette or put your mouth by a car's tailpipe and breath that. What would you choose? Be honest now!! But I suppose you're not willing to give up driving to work now are you. What if someone wanted to take away that right from you. How would you feel? No one is innocent in this. We live in a toxic society. Now, I don't want to come off as insensitive but I just don't get that fact that if you don't want to be in a bar with smoke you don't have to. You can leave. There are many more bars and restaurants opening up that are non-smoking. People do have options of places to go if they don't want to be around smoke so let others have options if they choose the opposite. It is very unfortunate for the people who get lung cancer, but their are so many other exposures both internally and externally that it's so hard for me to believe that second-hand smoke is the almight culprit. If everyone did quit smoking people would still get lung cancer. Let's take about genes and heredity, antibiotics and hormones in food, artificial sweeteners, pesticides, and pollution from cars, and the list could go on and on. Disease and illness is unfortunate but it is a fact of living. Unless you want all your rights taken away slowly and live in a not so free society you should really reconsider your opinion. Persons that don't want smokers to smoke around them so they don't have to breath in what they consider pollutants should stop driving their cars that do just as good a job of polluting the air.
      Reply to this
    • 1/25/2009 9:39 PM Cathy wrote:
      Jennifer had a very real point. It's about "OUR rights". What bothers me so much about any governmental body banning, not only smoking, but anything they shouldn't even be involved in, especially when it involves private businesses and their owners. I mean, what the hell? After they ban smoking, what's next? Over weight people? Alcohol? Harley riders and their loud, outrageous bikes? What we are allowed to eat? The list could go on forever. Why don't we let the business owners make their own decisions? If a business isn't smoker friendly, we won't patronize it. Couldn't bars/grills/pubs/restaurants add better ventilation? The various options to banning smoking could go on and on.
      Reply to this
    • 1/28/2009 7:48 PM Megan wrote:
      I think that Wisconsin should banned smoking because scientist have made their test and it shows that people do die from 2nd hand smoke. I think they should banned big businesses for smoking because thats were most people are. With the same one its usually smokes only. I have grown up in a small town and i think that it shouldnt be banned in small businesses. But as i get older what will i do when i want to go out and have fun. I'm not going to go to a smoking bar because i dont want to have health problems but i would have no where to go. As a 15 year old i have seen MANY young teens smoking and it's mostly from there parents from smoking to. Would you like it if when you are born and your mom or dad were smoking around you and later on in life you have something wrong with you because your parents smoked in front of you. I pretty sure i wouldnt want that to happen to me! People should stop think about themself and look around you and see many healthy people around. And yeah we have the right but we are killing a lot of people from it.
      Reply to this
    • 2/2/2009 7:20 AM Dan Behrens wrote:
      This country was founded on freedom and is now wrapped itself in regulation. The thought that government would regulate the behavior of its citizens in a legal activity would be appalling to our fore-fathers. Our constitution has been shredded so many times in the last 100 years that rights are no longer preserved, they are routinely stamped out in the name of political correctness and popularism. We are not the keepers of a republic which Ben Franklin warned us of years ago when he was asked what type of government we have been given.
      Reply to this
    • 2/2/2009 2:40 PM Kelli wrote:
      Wisconsin should be a smoke free state. As should every State. No one has the right to put anyone else's life in danger. No one will EVER win this argument with me. A very close, young, non-smoking, family member of mine lost her life to lung cancer. It is a horrible, painful death. If you are diagnosed, you have a 90% chance of dying from it with in 5 years. Businesses will be just fine if it's a statewide ban. What are you going to do, drive to Missouri to have a smoke in a bar for a night? Go outside. Is it really that big of a hassle? Maybe it'll help you to quit, is that a bad thing?
      Reply to this
    • 2/4/2009 1:58 AM Jennifer wrote:
      Everyone who wants the smoking ban to go through always states "no one has the right to put anyone else's life in danger." If that is true please explain to me why cigarettes are still legal and continue to be sold. Why hasn't the government just stepped in and said enough and taken them off the market. When any drug is proven unsafe it is usually taken off the market. I'll say it again, everyone wants to blame second hand smoke for lung cancer but how do you explain the millions of people who smoke and never get ill. If you want to go one route and say scientists have proven that second hand smoke causes cancer then are these the same scientists that have proven that most of the artificial sweeters that probably everyone has consumed in their life also cause cancer. I mean now supposedly high fructose corn syrup is the new culprit (which is literaly in everything most americans consume and have consumed.) If someone does not smoke and gets lung cancer of course second hand smoke is stated as the cause. There are still just to many external and internal factors to consider why a person has gotten ill. I am sure that non-smoker has eaten foods their whole life containing pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics, artificial sweeteners and besides that their is always heredity.
      I guess it's just easier to blame something else.
      Reply to this
    • 2/5/2009 1:02 AM Generic Viagra wrote:
      That's great, I never thought about
      Wisconsin State Wide Smoking Ban like that before.
      Reply to this
    • 2/10/2009 5:51 AM Cathy wrote:
      I believe in freedom. I believe we have the right to choose. Any time a government tries to limit, it murders our rights to choose. One step closer to socialism! Think about it.
      Reply to this
    • 2/13/2009 9:20 PM Brian wrote:
      Our freedoms our being ran over by this legislation. I'm a smoker but what's next alcohol?! Why isn't there a ban on fast food?! or Semi's the black smoke I smell through my air ducts while driving? These kill many people yearly beyond the effects of tobacco. Obesity how many overwieght people that have health problems in this state? Ban overeating! I don't want to look at overwieght people just as you don't want to smell like smoke! If people want to go out to a smoke free bar or restaurant look it up on the Internet. This is blasphemy and our rights are being widdled away. To think I fought for freedom that is steadily being taken away by government. Think it's time to move I'm sure many others would like to get out of here too. Note to Madison focus on the job stimulation not a dictation!
      Reply to this
    • 2/22/2009 4:17 AM Julie wrote:
      I am totally against this Ban. What kind of sense does it make to raise cigarette taxes and then have a state wide ban. Wisconsin is one of the highest taxed states in the Country, and one of the highest on Tabacco tax.

      I believe this smoking ban will effect many small business's. These are hard economic times, at the very least we are in a recession, do we need anymore job losses?

      For the people who say the smokers will still go out. I don't believe this one bit. They may go out to required events, but once their social commitment is met, they will leave. They won't hang around any longer than nesessary. They get uncomfortable. Smoking is an addiction. This is not something people can just quit or the craving will just go away, because you can't smoke.

      I for one will not go to places where it is banned. If I do, my time there is short. This ban, what does it all entail? Every public place in this state, even the sidewalk? Does that mean, I won't be attending Concerts, or go to the park anymore also. What about hotels. Will every hotel have to ban smoking. Does this mean our Tourism industry will take a hit also? Every hotel I go to has non-smoking rooms isn't that good enough for the non-smokers.

      You might want to ask yourself who benifits from this. Most work places have banned smoking because of their insurance premiums. Most Restaraunts in my area are Non-smoking. I can only think of a few that aren't. If a non-smoking bar would be such a hit, why aren't there more around?

      IMO-I think this ban is all about the Medical insurance companies and what they want. It is about taking away rights. It is about a bunch of people telling me how to live my life.

      Wake up people, if this goes through what will be next.

      Also, as far as pollution goes, there are more serious things to worry about than 2nd hand smoke.
      Reply to this
    • 2/23/2009 5:21 AM NOT A MARXIST wrote:
      Take away smoking. Pretty soon you wont be able to talk in public places.Welcome to Communist America.Hell maybe when they take all your rights away you will wake up. I hope the ban coffee, smokes, soda, hamburger's, apple pie and your right to hang an American flag all on the same day. Maybe then people would get the big Picture. Were do I order that government mandated GPS unit for my car. As the Nazi's said papers please papers.Oh yeah, thats right this is America, I cant go anywhere without an ID. Go like sheep to a slaughter.
      Reply to this
    • 2/25/2009 6:19 PM Rob wrote:
      I think this is a wonderful idea! Between our sky-high business and residential taxes, why not remove the right to choose to do a personal activity while at the same time remove free enterprise for businesses whose personal policies are dictated by the government?

      WHY DO WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO BE FREE AT ALL, WHY NOT JUST HAVE THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSE WHAT'S GOOD AND WHAT'S BAD FOR US AND ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO GOVERN ALL FACETS OF OUR LIVES WHETHER PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL? SEIG HAIL!
      Reply to this
    • 2/27/2009 7:14 AM Cathy wrote:
      The nonsmokers need to pay attention to this law. If our government raises taxes on cigarettes (which it has) and then bans smoking, people WILL quit smoking. Now, where will the money come from to fund what they need? Fact: we need the tax money that smokers pay. Like the SCHIP bill that was just passed for childrens (30 yrs old and younger) healthcare, funded by cigarette tax. They (the government) figures that they need 22.4 million NEW smokers to pay for this. Where is this money going to come from? Right, ALL tax payers!!!
      Reply to this
    • 3/4/2009 2:41 PM StoutMedia wrote:
      University Wisconsin stout polytechnic Considers Campus Smoking ban
      indoors and outdoors cross campus.

      article here: http://uwstoutmedia.com/possible-smoking-ban-on-campus/
      Reply to this
    • 3/5/2009 4:47 PM jeff ircink wrote:
      i live in CA but am a WI native. considering my home state has a d----- for a governor, i think it'll pass- sad to say. this is the same governor who wants to allow YOUR tax dollars to pay for illegal alien's college tuition. what do you expect.
      Reply to this
    • 3/21/2009 8:10 PM Geoff Tullett wrote:
      I often wonder why the Anti Smoking brigade are so cruel.Mostly tavern people are tolerant and pleasant.Why do the anti smoking brigade want 100% victory when we could all live with a compromise? Are they trying to make up for some defect in their personalities?
      Reply to this
    • 3/21/2009 8:37 PM Geoff Tullett wrote:
      Why are the Anti Smoking brigade so cruel and unfeeling? Why do they want 100% victory when a compromise can easily be reached?
      Reply to this
    • 3/24/2009 4:23 PM 4wisconsinsrights wrote:
      This smoking ban are only killing our small business. Wake up and stop this before you have us all on welfare!
      Reply to this
    • 3/24/2009 7:13 PM bail me out wrote:
      4wisconsinrights! Right on!
      So if all of our small businesses folds due to the smoking ban I guess we can count on our government to bail us out. Welfare here we come.
      Reply to this
    • 3/29/2009 1:18 PM Christine S wrote:
      I feel Wisconsin should be smoke free altogether with the whole United States coming onboard, smoking is one of the #1 causes of CANCER, which means ALOT of deaths attributed to smoking, there is nothing beneficial from smoking unless you like to smell bad, have bad breath and get cancer and pass your second hand smoke onto others which could end up killing them too and as for your rights, non-smokers have had rights too, which have been ignored for TOO Long; it's about time we start taking this issue seriously, especially when it comes to the work place and eating establishments...If you cannot go without a cigarette for 1-2 hours until after you eat, you have a serious problem (addiction)...not to think how rude you are not to think of someone else not wanting to smell like an ashtray, as for the work place, everyone everywhere has the right to breath CLEAN Air, non-carcinogen air, that is everyone's God given right, I think each State should raise the price of cigarettes to $20.00 per pack, that would benefit tax payers in every state.
      Reply to this
      1. 4/8/2009 9:44 PM cathy wrote:
        Chris S,
        I can't believe that you are that ignorant. $20.00 a pack? The smokers tax NOW can't even begin to pay for the SCHIP bill let alone all the other things the government is taxing cigarettes for. I am a nonsmoker but know for a fact that if they raise the cigarette tax that high that people will quit smoking. Then who is left to pay???? You and me and all tax payers Are you kidding me? The states need the tax that smokers pay. The government will and is taking over what, when, where we do everything. How much do you weigh? Hopefully you are not overweight because they will come after you next....can you say health insuranse? Or even what temperature you set your thermostat. This is NOT about smoking it's about government control. Can you say Socialism? Better look up the term because it is headed our way. I promise!!!!
        Reply to this
    • 4/22/2009 5:08 AM HDRiders wrote:
      Here is a website that allows you to speak out to your officials.
      http://www.tobaccoissues.com/alertcenter.aspx
      Click on your state, register and it actually writes a letter and e-mails it for you.
      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2009 11:11 AM Charlotte wrote:
      I think a statewide smoking ban would be unhealthy for current smokers. If someone were required to quit immediately, they'd have a lot of trouble getting rid of an addiction that may have had years to develop. This isn't to say I think smoking should be encouraged. I just think that the ban shouldn't be immediately in effect if it's passed. Smokers should be given time to get over their addiction before smoking is illegal in Wisconsin.
      Reply to this
      1. 5/4/2009 3:28 PM RER wrote:
        In response to Charlotte's comment... unhealthy for current smokers??? Why should we care about their health when they don't care about their own or the health of others by smoking and filling OUR shared air in restaurants and bars with toxins?? Give me a break!!! I would go out A LOT more if there was a smoking ban, and I have a lot of friends who agree. So that B.S. about loss of business is a load of it too. Coming home from a bar and smelling like a tobaco factory is never something I set out to do. Time to start CARING about the people that actually want to improve the public health and well-being not pollute it. BAN SMOKING NOW!
        Reply to this
    • 5/4/2009 10:10 AM Griffin wrote:
      I find it disturbing that the government believes it is within its purview to regulate private conduct in private businesses. I believe this law will be promoted as protecting workers, but I urge lawmakers to look to history for what spurred changes in the workplace. It was not government dictated safety standards, it was driven by market forces. OSHA came into being in the 1970's, but workplace safety had vastly improved long before then. The fact is, both employees and patrons have the freedom to choose where to work and where to spend their money. Bartending is a lucrative job, and part of the job is the hazard of secondhand smoke, just like fishing for king crab carries the hazard of frostbite and death. It is part of the job, and the labor market factors that into the compensation.

      Furthermore, even though most of the public does not smoke does not mean that banning smoking indoors altogether is justified. Following that logic would suggest that discrimination be legal. Does that make sense? Since when did non-smokers become a protected class?

      I am a non-smoker, and believe in freedom of choice. A smoking ban removes that choice.
      Reply to this
    • 5/4/2009 8:48 PM Geoff Tullett wrote:
      I hope everyone on this blog and discussion board turns to www.forces.org This is the best compendium of arguments that I have found against the poorly based "science" which tries to show second hand smoke is so lethal.This blog is a MUST.
      Reply to this
    • 5/5/2009 4:18 PM KM wrote:
      I am a non smoker and a small business owner of a bar in Northern WI. I am against the smoking ban. I am upset that the government wants to step in and tell me who I can or can't have in my bar. Smoking is not illegal and If I want to let you or anyone smoke on my property,(whether it is my home or my bar) why can't I. What is next banning people from smoking in their own homes! Right now I have tables outside and allow smoking inside - Why can't the non-smokers sit outside??
      Bottom line - I think it should be up to the bar owners if they want to allow smoking or not in their bar not the government.
      Reply to this
    • 5/6/2009 9:16 AM Anthony Luciano wrote:
      This is a scary time we are entering, where we are giving up more control of our lives to government. I cannot believe the ridiculous notion that a complete ban of smoking is a good thing to "level the playing field" for some businesses. Why is it not level? Because it was artificially tilted by politicians. The notion that there must be some all-encompassing rule that passes one broad stroke over all business entities is crazy. There probably is no place for smoking in a doctor's office, or a grocery store, but why not at a cigar store? There needs to be common sense exceptions to this nonsense. The public forgets that there is no right to have a private business tailor its environment to them. I may hate the loud music in a clothing store. Other places might smell objectionable. There are plenty of other choices available, just as there are plenty of places that have made the decision, based on simple supply and demand, that smoking does not fit in their establishment. No government action is necessary.
      Reply to this
    • 5/6/2009 9:07 PM mel wrote:
      I think this law they are trying to enforce is asinine. This law is going to kill off businesses. Lets face it in todays economy we need every cent we can get to make it. Whats next is the government going to do tell us we can't drink because were going to get liver cancer. There bars sit with soda bars oh boy. The way I look at it everything we do effects our body and mind. If we allow the government to do this people were going to have to ask to use the bathroom sooner or later. I thought this was the land of the free. I guess its not if people allow this law to go threw. Just think there goes our taxes even higher yet. Can all you people afford that to happen. I can't!!!
      Reply to this
    • 5/7/2009 1:25 PM Tiff wrote:
      I can appreciate concerns regarding children and smoking and the effects of second hand smoke, however freedoms are seriously being restricted by influencing individuals liberty on smoking. Whether an establishment is smoking or not - should be to the owners or proprietors discretion. Just as it is also at the discretion of an individual to patronize a business or not depending on their preferences. This is a serious infringement on personal freedoms. The ban as well as the 'sin tax' is bias as it does not also encompass other so called 'harmful' things such as McDonnalds (and many others). Concerns of the state should apply to much more imperative issues such as the cost of collage education and crime. I believe it is an abuse of goverment power to implement personal feelings on smoking onto the citizens of this state. The issue is not whether it will saves lives or not, but the removal of choice for individuals. Freedom and choice is what this country is founded on and the goverment is quickly leading us towards being a police state. Serious reconsiderations need to occur upon the smoking laws and 'sin tax' that is associated with smoking. A healthy economy depends on a free market in this country and that directly relates to autonomy and choice. It that not what makes America the land of the free? I think it would be in the best interests of business, citizens, and the economy to have options of establishments –variety is what brings about success. (a smoking tavern/restaurant and a non-smoking tavern/restaurant – what is the problem with that? Each individual can have the benefit of freedom of choice based on their preferences.) The gravity of this issue of freedom and choice in America is being buried under individual’s grievances and desires. The fact is plain that this law is designed to restrict personal freedoms and that is a very dangerous thing that goes against much of what I believe in and what this country represents. This is not the beginning of restrictions nor will it be the end if we as citizens do not stand up for our freedoms and put this to a stop.
      Reply to this
    • 5/8/2009 9:33 AM Mark wrote:
      Your argument is worth noting. To what extent will a society infringe on the rights of a few to appease what may very well be insignificant if non-existent claims. Think about it; how many people do you know that smoke? Now how many people do you know who have been hospitalized from second hand smoke THAT DO NOT LIVE WITH A SMOKER? Keep in mind - smoking is still legal in the home/auto, so a ban does nothing for that situation.
      And if it is true what Illinois said that bar attendance increased with the ban, then I see "opportunity" for some bar and restraunt owners who would like to aquire all the non-smoking people, instead of having the government provide the business model of their choice.
      Smoking ban now? what will be next?
      Reply to this
    • 5/8/2009 5:27 PM Stu Johnson wrote:
      Okay, so the TLW lost this fight--What is the bestway to help our business financially? Any suggestions? Besides the outdoor deck area? Do we start the ban now in hopes of bringing in a new clientele base? I know that has worked in other states.
      Reply to this
    • 5/9/2009 5:43 AM Jake wrote:
      Since Dictator Doyles goal is to destroy many busniesses in WI lets help him. Dont even go to any bars or restaurants anymore AT ALL. You want to drink go to the liquor store and take it home, eat at home. Thats less taxes you pay, no tips to pay, and that way you keep all businesses smoke free , employees wont have to work about smoke in their work place, actually they may not even have to worry about a job anymore. No patrons, no business. Since this is Dictators Doyles dream to destory us all.
      And now they wont even allow hotels to have rooms for smokers, they have taken this way out of hand. But this is Doyles way of doing things, whatever the majority wants he sides with. I dont think hes ever made a decisions about something on his own.
      No I dont really want to destory businesses but this is Doyles goal. Im very sorry to all those who may end up losing there businesses because of this new law.
      And this is WI so we are suppose to freeze to death in the winter so we can go outside and have a cigarette.
      Since we cant smoke in places then as far as Im concerned I cant spend money at those places either.
      Reply to this
    • 5/11/2009 10:25 PM Joe wrote:
      I would like to know the reason for Doyles tax increase on cigarettes. I mean he did it to gain revenue for the state. Also the smoking ban is to decrease the risks for non smokers. My question is, why not increase the tax on something else like birth control. If Doyle is worried about losing lives due to something out of that persons control, birth control sounds like it does the same thing. A fetus has no control over it living or not. Birth control prevents life too doesnt it? And as far as the total ban on smoking, i work in a mechanics shop and 90% of the employees smoke there. Granted i dont think that smoking should be allowed in an office setting but if an enforcement of the ban walked into my shop and told the employees they couldnt smoke, i would walk him/her over to our sandblast booth, then by someone who is aluminum welding, and then light a cigarette up by them and ask which is worse.
      Reply to this
    • 5/12/2009 9:12 AM Rudiger wrote:
      I would just like to say that I have no sympathy for smokers in this situation. Maybe if smokers were a little more considerate of the general public's health (i.e. smoking in front of public entrances), as well as the health of the planet (i.e. littering), I would sympathize a little more.

      Its not like you still can't smoke. The ban is to prevent your filthy, suicidal habit from harming those who have the right to breathe in air that is not contaminated with all of the cancer-causing elements from a lit cigarette when we go out in public places. You can still smoke it up at home. At least that way you are only harming yourselves. Unless you have kids, in which case: shame on you.

      I get a laugh at all the cons addressed here. You people really think you are being discriminated against. Well, that is pretty ridiculous. You were not born a smoker.
      Reply to this
      1. 5/12/2009 9:39 PM Joe wrote:
        Rudiger you are correct in saying that no one is born a smoker. But thats like saying no one was born a drinker, or a worker. Everything you do is a choice. I dont tell you what religion to practice if any, so dont lecture anyone else about life choices.
        Reply to this
    • 5/14/2009 10:44 AM steve wrote:
      If Wisconsin goes to no smoking, who is going to pay for all the taxes that Doyle added per pack. not to mention this is only one step away from outlawing cigarettes altogether. I have smoked for 20+ years and I am getting tired of people complaining about it. It is legal and my choice. Whats next prohibition? Because that worked so well last time. and look at all the job loss, i wont be going to a restaurant or bar that doesn't allow smoking, and so many others wont, so lay off the workers and eventually shut it down for lack of customers. Look at what is happening in Iowa with the smoking ban I can't believe that anyone wants that here.
      Reply to this
    • 5/15/2009 7:52 PM Jake wrote:
      I agree with you Steve. No more going to places that dont allow smoking. If they want the place smoke free thats there choice like its my choice where my money goes. I hope many bars close down because of this and I hope many more people lose their jobs over this. Then they'll have something besides cigarette smoke to complain about. And if smokers do go to these places dont be giving the bartenders any tips, their tip can be the smoke free atmosphere they are working in. And isnt it nice to know that they havent increased the tax on liquor in many many years. And they say second hand smoke is dangerous so they tax the hell out of cigarette but no increase for the booze. And the second hand effect of a drunk that gets behind the wheel of a car and hits someone it can be INSTANT DEATH. Not to mention many other things affected by drinking. But lets just complain about the smokers.
      Reply to this
    • 5/16/2009 9:40 AM Jim Collins wrote:
      How can you people continue to advocate smoking in bars? (a) non-smokers do NOT have a choice to avoid smoking bars, because no business owners want to drive away any cash paying customers- list even 10 bars in all of Milwaukee that are non-smoking: good luck finding even one! Only a statewide ban will give non-smokers a chance to find a health venue to drink (non-smoking bar). (b) Look at states like California, New York, even Illinois-- a state-wide ban PROTECTS small businesses because there is no discrimination, ALL bars must ban smoking and therefore all existing businesses have the same restriction and thus a level playing field. The arguement that YOUR bar will go out of business because of a state-wide smoking ban is just plain bulls--t! Other states bans prove that arguement is bogus!
      Reply to this
      1. 5/18/2009 5:25 AM Cathy wrote:
        You just don't get it! It's about Freedom/Choice. THAT, my friend, is what our country was built on. The government is slowly taking away our (all Americans) freedom, our choice. In this case they are taking away one of the "choices" of private business owners. Trust me, it won't end here, with smoking. This is just the beginning. They are already talking capping salaries! WTF???? :-0
        Reply to this
    • 5/18/2009 6:40 PM Charlie wrote:
      What about all of those people who go to the bars to smoke, for instance a hookah bar. owners generates over 90% of there revenue from customers renting a hookah and smoking it in the hookah bar for instance. People go to the hookah bar, with full knowledge that there will be smoke, and naturally second hand smoke, so where will the benefit of the ban be here.
      Reply to this
    • 5/19/2009 4:31 PM chris wrote:
      well, i e-mailed a judge today. one who is VERY concerned with the rights of the people. he stated very clearly that a smoking ban is unconstitutional. i guess enough said, huh?
      Reply to this
    • 5/21/2009 2:05 PM Helen Brodnos wrote:
      I would like to comment on this issue. I live in California now that has the smoking ban and I can tell you the majority of people are much happier that they don't have to work in a smoky environment. I am moving to Eau Claire and am glad to hear that they have the smoking ban, but I hear you do not yet. Please consider it. We non-smokers have been inconvenienced for years by smokers, and I believe that you will help them to live better lives. I have asthma due to my mother and other smokers, and find it very difficult to even now be around smokers. My mother passed away the same year as her mother (NanNa 92/Mother 69). My daughter was very upset. If there had been a smoking ban, I think my mother would be alive today. People learn to adjust to non-smoking. Smoking is a very serious health risk both to smokers and non-smokers alike. The owners of the bars ought to think about their employees and their health. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
      Reply to this
      1. 5/22/2009 11:54 AM chris wrote:
        so now it's fair to inconvenience smokers doing something perfectly legal? in my experience, smokers outnumber non-smokers at pretty much every bar i've ever been in. plus most of the bartenders i know are smokers. and do you honestly believe that if your mother wouldn't have been able to smoke in a bar that she would have quit smoking? people need to exercise their FREE WILL. if you walk into a bar and don't like the smokey atmosphere, you can turn around and walk yourself right back outside. not trying to be insensitive, but people need to understand the term "private business". the business owner can do what he wants with his private business within the boundaries of the law (last time i checked, smoking was legal for adults). if you don't like it, i'm sure they won't mind if you don't patronize their bar.
        Reply to this
    • 5/31/2009 7:39 AM Jake wrote:
      I think this ban and the tax increase has more to do with Doyles hate for smokers than it does for the health of people. If he so worried about everyones health why hasnt he gone after the fast food places, how many overweight children are there in WI, obesity is a serious issue in this state. And how come he hasnt increased the taxes on beer? Thats also not good for your health. How many alcoholics do we have in this state? How many woman, children are beaten and raped at the hands of an angry drunk? How many people are killed each year by a drunk driver? And Doyle REFUSES to raise the liquor tax. This is all about him and his special interest group. Hes not for the people of WI hes only out to impress his special interest groups.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/2/2009 11:24 AM chris wrote:
        i believe you hit the nail on the head there. it IS all about special interest groups and lobbyists who own doyle. we're heading to a future of really fat people, with numerous health problems, but hey, at least they won't be smoking at work, right?
        Reply to this
      2. 7/16/2009 9:20 PM Cathy wrote:
        Just wait "my pretty"!!! (spoken like the wicked witch of the west.) They have/are talking about taxing over weight people. Just follow the money....that is what Doyle is after!!! TRUST ME!
        Reply to this
    • 6/3/2009 1:05 AM Jewel wrote:
      I do like the idea of the smoke ban while in a public restaurant or otherwise bar. However I do have some feelings towards the fact that most business does come from the smoking people. Just please have a heart for all when considering this ban in Wisconsin.


      Thank you
      Reply to this
    • 6/18/2009 2:09 PM chris wrote:
      according to the enstrom/kabat study:

      "In a large study of Californians followed for 40 years, environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure

      These findings suggest that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed

      Active cigarette smoking was confirmed as a strong, dose related risk factor for coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease"

      and i believe that study was funded by the American Cancer Society until the findings weren't to their liking, at which time they cut funding. i could be wrong, but what i've read gives me that impression.
      Reply to this
      1. 3/10/2010 10:20 PM SilverShadow wrote:
        But yet I cannot drive my car in California, or use my lawnmower, or use my rope lights, light bulbs,my duplicate house key, the lock in my door or pretty much anything else I use on a regular basis, because it is Known in California to cause cancer and birth defects. I find many "studies" out of California to be skewed in the direction of those who pay for them.
        Reply to this
    • 6/19/2009 12:38 PM Ian wrote:
      I found an Electronic Cigarette that allows me to smoke in banned areas
      and I really like it. The reason is because when you exhale there is no smoke only vapor and they allow you to choose the level of nicotine that you want. Friday on CNN they did a piece on the Electronic Cigarettes and said the same thing plus a number of other positive points.
      If you want to check it out go to this link

      http://myinlife.com/smokeelc
      Reply to this
    • 7/16/2009 1:56 AM Marshall wrote:
      Remember the legislators who passed this draconian law in the next election

      http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/remember-these-legislators/
      Reply to this
    • 2/5/2010 2:20 PM Brett wrote:
      I work at an appliance shop. We have been in business since the 40's. This entire time we have been able to smoke in the shop, as customers are shopping upstairs. This new law is moronic, not to mention a hundred other words for it that I could come up with at the drop of a hat. But yet my children go to school and are all short of books, teachers, funding, etc. But what the hell, lets ban public smoking. Am I the only person who sees problems that need to be addressed before yet another stupid law is instated??? Lets address our elderly and lack of medical and prescriptions, etc. Now lets move to illegal immigrants, for whom we are paying for them to live here, we pay their insurance, their taxes, medical, housing, food, etc. To wrap this all up I think this is the most anal law I have ever heard of. Soon we will all be ending all of our comments with "Hail Hitler" instead of "God Bless".
      Reply to this
    • 2/9/2010 5:11 PM Ken wrote:
      Public smoking is extremely rude. The smoker shows no regard for others by allowing the smell of tobacco to permeate everything around him. The smoke causes discomfort of the olfactory system in others. The potential to initiate sickness in others is obvious, ranging from sinus headaches to possible cancer. Tobacco is a toxic product and shouldn't even be allowed for sale. The concept of smoking areas in public places is a ridiculous as a peeing area in a swimming pool. I'd like to go to public places for entertainment without putting up with smoke. Just wait and see if business doesn't improve for tavern owners after the ban.
      Reply to this
    • 3/10/2010 9:33 PM SilverShadow wrote:
      For those tavern owners b!tching about "a smoking ban will put me out of business." You need to think about your business plan. If you think the only reason you have your clientele is their ability to smoke, you have a problem, if it TRUELY is why your clientele comes in, then you definitely have a problem. If the only reason people come in to your establishment is to smoke, then what does that honestly say about the atmosphere you are providing? If you are truly a community gathering place, a statewide ban would only benefit your business…think about it, the people who are coming in have come in for years right?? So if they cannot smoke at any other establishment, why leave the place they like to hang out? They won’t…if you have more to offer than just somewhere to light up. And get this, the people who want somewhere to hang out or meet up, but cannot stand to smell like a cigarette…they will come too, for the community, and the pool, dart, volleyball, etc. leagues, Think about why nonsmokers statistically don’t stay, the smell, the cloudy atmosphere, etc. Whether I smoke or not is irrelevant, I tend bar, and talk to the people who come in…I have based my response on clear business sense, living and working in states with and without bans, and the conversations I have had with customers.
      Reply to this
    • 3/10/2010 11:21 PM Dan Gabor wrote:
      You are all experiencing what the rest of America (or what is left of it) is experiencing. WAKE UP! This is corporate govermental control over your lives! If you do not believe this, then you are asleep. Second hand smoke is what they are blowing up your keister.
      Reply to this
    • 3/30/2010 6:11 AM Kelly Heller wrote:
      I have to go to work in an office where everyone but me smokes. We deal with customers too and this is so groos that in not only embarrasses me but it hurts my already weak lungs.They put up plastic in order to keep the heat in the office but it also holds all that smoke on there too and that is where I have to work!! Please bring a smoking ban into ALL work places
      Reply to this
      1. 6/16/2010 10:18 AM William Michel wrote:
        Grow a pair and make the ACT illegal. I smoke but the "do-gooders" want to CONTROL businesses and others because they know better. If it is so bad, give up your state tax income and make smoking illegal. I grow sick at the two-faced government happily pocketing it's tax money and then wagging a finger telling us it is bad.

        I am waiting for the next round of social engineering where soda, fat content, salt intake or some other inane invasion into people's personal lives. I mean why try to make tough choices to contain government waste when you can enact laws that potentially make you money. (My city is hurrying to get rules enacted so it can get in on the revenue generator this law is...)
        Reply to this
    • 5/10/2010 4:04 PM Toni wrote:
      I have been told by someone that is connected to a hotel that hotel/motel are exempt from the ban. They seem to think that smoking will still be allowed in hotels. Please advise as to what the proper ban will entail fior hotels - confused.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/3/2010 11:28 AM Holly Tomlanovich wrote:
        Hotels are NOT exempt from the law. As a motel owner what I am trying to find out is:
        1. How far away from the motel must folks be to smoke.
        2. If a renter of a room lives in the room as their residence. Can they smoke.
        Reply to this
    • 7/4/2010 11:43 AM Lisa wrote:
      I also am a bartender and have seen what the smoking ban did to MN taverns. Some lost their businesses. Now its our turn for more forced communism in our state! Dumb, when our bar has a new ventilation system that even non-smokers appreciate because it does truly eliminate unwanted smoke in the air. Business owners should have been given the choice to smoke or not to smoke. Hail Hitler!!
      Reply to this
    • 7/6/2010 5:30 AM mark wrote:
      smoking ban in Minnesota has closed 400 bars and restaurants to date and counting:

      http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
      Reply to this
    • 7/9/2010 4:07 PM Sharon wrote:
      Okay, the smoking ban has taken affect and as a smoker I feel that my right as a free American is being infringed upon. Any establishment that I decide to spend my money at should have the right to decide if I may or may not smoke. I do patronize restaurants that do NOT allow smoking and that is fine but when I am enjoying a few beverages with a host of friends I do like to have a cigarette as do some of my friends, but not all. What will be banned next? Alcohol? That causes deaths but I do not see anyone protesting that alcohol be consumed in a public business such as a bar. I am so glad that I am free to decide what I will or will not do, oh wait, they took the freedom away from me to have a cigarette. Dictatorships tell people what they can and cannot do, sounds a bit like Wisconsin is a dictatorship State now. I am certain that a lot of people will take longer breaks at their local establishments and go outside to have a cigarette or stay home since they are being discriminated against. Don't like the smoke? Start a smoke free business and see how many people help you make a living.
      Reply to this
    • 8/26/2010 2:00 PM Kenneth Spears wrote:
      I am writing because my A.. club is required to be smoke free. I feel that it is actually endangering society to require that people dealing with the lack of an addictive but legal drug;(alcohol) be forced to try and deal with all the issues associated with the long term withdrawal symptoms and attendent behavior modification by forcing them to attempt to deal an additional withdrawal from cigarettes.
      It is impossibel to concentrate on what a person is saying in a meeting while thinking about the next cigarette.
      It will be used as an excuse to not go to a meeting, or stay only long enough to get your attendence paper signed. All this leads to less and less people getting a "clue" about the addiction to alcohol and the consequences to society, it will increase the number of people whom are revoked from parole, the number of people whom drive drunk and the number of active criminals on the streets. I would like to see an exemption for A.A. and N.A. clubs because they have the potential of criminality and death to citizens through drunk driving and associated intoxicated behaviors. This application of the law to the recovery groups of A.A. and N.A. will increase the number of practicing alcoholics and drug addicts on the streets and raise the toll they take on society.
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.



      
    Copyright 2007. http://statewideban.com. All rights reserved.