Hooray....Smoking Ban Compromise Reached! (Cato: sex offenders, crimes, taxes)

[Eshea]

It would have been nice if the "compromise" included some kind of smoking license similar to a
Cabaret license. This would let people CHOOSE if they want to be a smoking establishment and CHOOSE if they want to be or work there. It would also have generated a little extra money locally.

[Bullitt007]

I see both sides here, but I think the best solution is to have smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments. What's so difficult about that?

[rso092]

Originally Posted by Bullitt007

I see both sides here, but I think the best solution is to have smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments. What's so difficult about that?

Because the whiny douchebags wouldn't be able to control private businesses through the force of government.

[tully]

Originally Posted by Bullitt007

I see both sides here, but I think the best solution is to have smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments. What's so difficult about that?

But this is essentially what exists now so I don't quite see your point.

I just think businesses will always cater to the lowest common denominator (smokers) to everyone's detriment. No business wants to "be the first", on anything, until they are regulated or threatened to be regulated.

I still have a hard time believing this ban-- atypical for a somewhat stodgy state like WI. And it seemed to 'just happen' out of the thin blue. I think that was by design. The conservative core would have shot it down. (And may still.)

Originally Posted by gold*dust1

It's already been rumored in our newspaper that many of the smaller towns and individual owners will find a way around the ban. Who will enforce them? Good luck smoke nazi's...maybe you can buck up and create a watch group

First off, catchall usage of "nazi" betrays unimaginitivity with language. (Keep it to historical/genocide references if you want to be taken seriously.) Nobody is marching smokers to gas chambers. This is a state protecting its citizenry from the harmful effects of smokers, as well as competing economically with neighboring states (IL, IA, MN) all of whom passed statewide bans.

Second of all, nobody cares what happens in the boonies. It'll take them months/years to comply and that's to be expected. This is aimed at the cities.

[susancruzs]

Several popular restaurants in Manitowc and Two Rivers did it on their own but they are very busy all the time so they probably figured it would not hurt their business that much.

I don't get the name calling to make a point, real intelligent and government control, get over it!

[FormerCaliforniaGirl]

I equate the anti-smoking legislation to that of the anti-drinking and driving legislation.

If people want to smoke, that is their right. But smoking in public is not only a nuisance to non-smokers (who are the majority), but second-hand smoke is a health hazard. Therefore, legislation is necessary to protect non-smokers.

It's no differnt than drinking and driving. If you want to drink, fine. But once you get in a car, you become a hazard to others. Therefore, legislation is necessary to protect the public from those who would drink and drive.

Face it. It's smart. It's simple. It's necessary.

[zz4guy]

Originally Posted by FormerCaliforniaGirl

I equate the anti-smoking legislation to that of the anti-drinking and driving legislation.

If people want to smoke, that is their right. But smoking in public is not only a nuisance to non-smokers (who are the majority), but second-hand smoke is a health hazard. Therefore, legislation is necessary to protect non-smokers.

It's no differnt than drinking and driving. If you want to drink, fine. But once you get in a car, you become a hazard to others. Therefore, legislation is necessary to protect the public from those who would drink and drive.

Face it. It's smart. It's simple. It's necessary.

Defined how and by whom? Where is the statistical data from the a study that proves this.

And you still don't get it. This is about PRIVATE business. PRIVATE establishments that you eat at. If the majority wants to rule out public smoking at a hospital, DOT, or city hall, then I have no problem with that. Your drinking and driving analogy is false because we HAVE to share roads. It is a public right. But walking into the corner bar is NOT YOUR RIGHT. And working there IS NOT YOUR RIGHT either. If smoke bothers you get the hell out and find something else to complain about (I'm sure the list is long).

[rso092]

Originally Posted by zz4guy

Defined how and by whom? Where is the statistical data from the a study that proves this.

And you still don't get it. This is about PRIVATE business. PRIVATE establishments that you eat at. If the majority wants to rule out public smoking at a hospital, DOT, or city hall, then I have no problem with that. Your drinking and driving analogy is false because we HAVE to share roads. It is a public right. But walking into the corner bar is NOT YOUR RIGHT. And working there IS NOT YOUR RIGHT either. If smoke bothers you get the hell out and find something else to complain about (I'm sure the list is long).

[FormerCaliforniaGirl]

Originally Posted by zz4guy

Defined how and by whom? Where is the statistical data from the a study that proves this.

And you still don't get it. This is about PRIVATE business. PRIVATE establishments that you eat at. If the majority wants to rule out public smoking at a hospital, DOT, or city hall, then I have no problem with that. Your drinking and driving analogy is false because we HAVE to share roads. It is a public right. But walking into the corner bar is NOT YOUR RIGHT. And working there IS NOT YOUR RIGHT either. If smoke bothers you get the hell out and find something else to complain about (I'm sure the list is long).

WRONG.

Restaurants and bars are open to the PUBLIC. Therefore, they are public establishments whereby the PUBLIC has a right to be free of pervasive, carcinogenic second-hand smoke.

Your argument is petulant and childish.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by FormerCaliforniaGirl

It's no differnt than drinking and driving. If you want to drink, fine. But once you get in a car, you become a hazard to others. Therefore, legislation is necessary to protect the public from those who would drink and drive.

Face it. It's smart. It's simple. It's necessary.

Here's where your analogy falls apart: you can avoid cigarette smoke by not patronizing businesses where smoking is allowed. You have that choice. There is no parallel corollary for roads; there are no roads where drunk driving is allowed and you can mitigate the risk by simply avoiding those roads by taking some other route.

You have options. Exercise them instead of trying to make everyone exercise your option. And careful what you ask for -- a government powerful enough to take away someone else's choice for your convenience is powerful enough to take away your choice for someone else's convenience.