Hooray....Smoking Ban Compromise Reached! (live in, safety, eat)

[rso092]

Originally Posted by FormerCaliforniaGirl

Oh puleeeez. What dribble.

The great thing about democracy in the U.S. is that legislation reflects the will of the majority. The majority of people in the U.S. are non-smokers. The majority of non-smokers want your pervasive and nasty cigarette smoke out of our lives. The majority speaks, and the majority makes legislation.

Hey...if you can't beat 'em, why not join 'em?

Thank God we don't live in a democracy, otherwise the majority can run roughshod over whatever group they feel like...oh wait.

There's a reason our system of government is NOT a democracy and was set up as a Constitutional Republic, and this issue is a great example.

[UpNort]

No Smoking:
Lodging establishments
Bed and Breakfast,hotel or tourist rooming house.

All enclosed places.

An enclosed area is defined as a structure or area that has a roof and two or more substantial walls. A substantial wall is a wall where at least 25% of the surface area is not part of an opening that may be used to allow air in from the outside.

[tully]

Originally Posted by Drover

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.

Examples where your 'voting with your feet' philosophy falls apart:

- Concerts.
You seriously expect fans to skip their favorite act on tour, over smoking? WI isn't Chicago. Skip a tour in Milw, Madison, Green Bay, etc, and you're likely not to see them again for years and years.

- MLB/NFL season ticketholders.
If the person upwind of you starts puffing, you can't very well move can you.

- Company meet-ups at a restaurants, sports bars, etc.
Mandatory or not, essentially there's no choice in the matter. (Political grandstanding generally not being a good career move.)

[Drover]

Concerts. I don't know what goes on up there, but around here several venues were already non-smoking before the smoking ban. And hey, some people don't like big sweaty noisy crowds at concerts -- what say we pass a law requiring no concert venue be at greater than 50% of theoretical capacity to accommodate them folks? Will of the people, after all. Or, you can put up with it for 90 minutes if seeing someone in concert means that much to you.

-MLB/NFL season ticketholders: I can't remember the last time smoking was allowed at major sports venues. Even outdoor venues. That includes Lambeau Field and about 95% of Miller Park. But evidently a smoke-free environment in 100% of Lambeau Field and 95% of Miller Park is not good enough for you. That 5% just grates at you enough to want to pass a law. That's the kind of intolerance many people -- even some non-smokers -- can't stand when it comes to the debate on smoking bans. They call it a "compromise" when it's really all-or-nothing.

Company meet-ups: you can decline without making a political statement. Simply say you have family obligations. I've declined countless company meet-ups for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the venue or whether or not people smoke there.

We all have choices. Unless we let the government take them away from us. Today, it's someone else's choices. Tomorrow, it's yours.

[tully]

You're being arbitrarily dismissive.

Ducking company meetups - especially for new hires - is REALLY tempting fate. Perhaps you have seniority at your job and no longer care.

95 percent ban in stadiums doesn't matter much to the hundreds (thousands?) of seats bordering the 5 percent, so I really don't get the point there.

Can't say anything more about concerts except to say, yes, most WI concert venues are smoking to my limited observation (limited to trips home..) But I don't have any numbers to throw out.

The odd thing about Libertarians (if I can be so bold as to slap a label on you) is that you see "slippery slopes" where they don't exist. You see a smoking ban as a "nanny-state thing" that will lead to other bans. Delusional. The ban is a question of public health. One that was settled a long time ago, and is simply being codified. Better late than never.

In a way you remind me of the Wisconsiners who fought the 21 drinking age for YEARS longer than other states (notably early-adopters IL and MI), without a leg to stand on intellectually.

[FormerCaliforniaGirl]

Originally Posted by tully

You're being arbitrarily dismissive.

Ducking company meetups - especially for new hires - is REALLY tempting fate. Perhaps you have seniority at your job and no longer care.

95 percent ban in stadiums doesn't matter much to the hundreds (thousands?) of seats bordering the 5 percent, so I really don't get the point there.

Can't say anything more about concerts except to say, yes, most WI concert venues are smoking to my limited observation (limited to trips home..) But I don't have any numbers to throw out.

The odd thing about Libertarians (if I can be so bold as to slap a label on you) is that you see "slippery slopes" where they don't exist. You see a smoking ban as a "nanny-state thing" that will lead to other bans. Delusional. The ban is a question of public health. One that was settled a long time ago, and is simply being codified. Better late than never.

In a way you remind me of the Wisconsiners who fought the 21 drinking age for YEARS longer than other states (notably early-adopters IL and MI), without a leg to stand on intellectually.

Very well said.

[Drover]

You can label me whatever you want. Labels are so much easier than addressing the substance of the argument, after all.

I highly doubt the "hundreds" or even "thousands" of people near the smoking sections of Miller Park even know the difference, especially seeing how most of the smoking areas are indoors away from the general seating. But just the thought that someone, somewhere in the same structure as you might be smoking, whether it has even the most remote impact on you or not, is so unnerving that you want to bring the crushing power of government to bear on them to make them stop.

Originally Posted by tully

In a way you remind me of the Wisconsiners who fought the 21 drinking age for YEARS longer than other states (notably early-adopters IL and MI), without a leg to stand on intellectually.

And then you tell me about slippery slopes. A government that babysits your neighbor will babysit you. Yesterday it was telling some adults they can't drink. Today it's telling adults they can't smoke even where others give them permission. Tomorrow it will be something else (ban trans fats maybe?), because once you accept the premise that government should have the power to mold behavior, that's exactly what they'll do. Such as, say, forbidding gays to marry.

And I'm sure as not buying the "public health" argument when some on this board have flatly admitted they only care about their own personal comfort. Oh, and tell it to the bartenders who like the fact that they can smoke on the job -- tell them you're doing it for their health. If you're that concerned about the (highly exaggerated) health dangers of second-hand smoke, there's already a remedy: stay away from places where people are permitted to smoke.

[susancruzs]

I do stay away from smokey places, no problem and I'm not so self-sbsorbed that its about my own personal comfort.

I believe from first hand experience that what you call highly exaggerated truly does exist, second hand smoke is dangerous and a health hazzard.

There is no end here, I'm not going to try and convince anyone my point of view, I feel very strongly about 2nd hand smoke. However, it is my responsibility to protect myself. I frequent a very small bar in town, sometimes its smokey, other times not. I may have a beer or stay longer and have a burger.

If it gets too smokey, I leave, no scene, no big deal. I'm realistic enough to know this neighborhood place will have a rough go of it and that is too bad. I can see both sides, I've lived both sides.

[quijote]

All of the analogies and comparisons aside, there are people who believe that cigarette smoke is fundamentally toxic, and should be allowed in very few places, if anywhere. Interestingly, few people protest bans on using lead dishware in private establishments, or using DDT in private gardens. Part of the problem is that there are no acceptable alternatives to simulate smoking cigs. People can eat off of lead-free dishware without noticing much difference, and people can use legal pesticides in their gardens, but if you pull the plug on smoking, you pull the plug on something that cannot be easily mimicked.

I wonder if chewing tobacco will make a comeback.....

On another note, though I understand the argument that private businesses ought to make their own choices regarding smoking, I find it interesting that many bar owners (backed by the Tavern League) continue to work hard to make sure that grocery stores and other retail outlets cannot sell liquor past 9:00 pm. These "blue laws" are still used to compel thirsty people (without well-stocked liquor supplies at home) to go to bars at night, and few of the options are smoke-free. That doesn't seem very fair.

[quickdraw]

Originally Posted by Drover

is so unnerving that you want to bring the crushing power of government to bear on them to make them stop.

Jeez, be more of a drama queen.

Those of us who live in non-smoking states have heard all the arguments before- business will go down (it doesn't), people will smoke anyway(they don't), this is the beginning of more rights taken away(it's not)...