kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:12 AM:
" retired: Your posts with localman are excellent. But may I add the following: SMOKING ISN'T A RIGHT, BUT A PRIVILEGE. A person may eat or drink within reason. But when it comes to items like driving, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, and smoking which the items or actions affect others, then the government must intercede on behave of those potentially victimized by such. We all have the right to breathe clean air because we all as humans do such. But not everyone smokes, therefore smokers are imposing themselves upon nonsmokers while in the same place. Smokers don't need to smoke, but everyone needs to breathe. This is why this health issue is important to everyone. Smokers need to stop poisoning others because their actions do affect others health, not just theirs. "
retired wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:43 PM:
" A smoking ban is not a partisan issue, it's a health care rights issue. As someone else pointed out in this thread, isn't this a perfect example of small government? Republicans believe all government should be local, and local decisions should be left up to local representatives, and local tax dollars should not leave the area. Here, no tax dollars are being spent, and the ban is being passed by city councils, county boards, and soon the State Assembly and Senate. In this case, the people feel strongly that a smoking ban is appropriate for our area. "
retired wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:43 PM:
" When it comes to your rights taken away by the "liberal" government, that simply isn't true. Lately, the government has been run by conservatives on both the state and federal level, and they have done a good job of limiting the constitutional rights of the people. One area of our lives that has come under heavy fire from conservatives is the exact right you are invoking; the right to privacy. "
retired wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:40 PM:
" I agree that it's good to be skeptical of polls. This study was done by the Mellman Group, and polled 500 likely voters in Wisconsin, weighted evenly between Republicans and Democrats, and asked them how they felt about the proposed smoking ban. While not a comprehensive poll (it had a MoE of 4.4), it's the best poll out there, and in the absence of contradictory evidence, we can be confident in the trends. The poll certainly wasn't done with only people in Madison, but a spread across the state. "
local man wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:08 PM:
" I could take a poll myself and get about 90% against any smoking bans. I never got referenced poll, did you, did anyone? Who voted in this poll, when, and where? Just because somebody asked 50 people walking out of a cancer research center if they thought smoking bans are good ideas doesn't mean everyone feels that way. Point being, you can make a poll's results any way you wish with the proper questions and/or audience.
Regardless, I stand by my rights as a United States citizen to eat, drink, and smoke whatever, whenever within the confines of the United States Constitution. Each and every day liberal government demands another one of our God given rights because it isn't exactly their way of thinking. Tough, that's what makes this country great, we have the right to freedom of choice and TO BE DIFFERENT! "
retired wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:41 PM:
" It seems like the board members are in touch with the people, as polling in Wisconsin has shown that 69% of the state is in favor of a smoking ban. And that number is climbing each year. Regardless of what the board members believe, if they support a smoking ban they are representing the large majority of Wisconsinites that also want this ban.
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/04/09/wi/08wis08.txt "
local man wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:31 PM:
" I am not disagreeing that second hand smoke is potentially harmful. I do not disagree that children should not be working in factories. What I do disagree with is LaCrosse's ultra liberal board members pushing their personal beliefs on our community, be it smoking, drinking, whatever.
When the federal government makes smoking illegal, Wisconsin, and LaCrosse will comply. Until then, let's not worry about a few guys shooting pool and having a smoke at their locally owned bar and grill.
Last I checked, people are getting stabbed and shot by guns and knives, not cigarettes. "
retired wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:12 PM:
" I'm sorry Local Man; I don't understand why you feel my reasoning is flawed. Could you please be clearer? I was making the point that the government had to outlaw child labor because business owners would not have. Now that we know smoking is dangerous even for the non-smoker, it is necessary for the government to ban it in public places.
If we wanted to, I suppose we could argue about smoking being a right. However, we can all agree that all Americans have the right to pursue life. Smokers are making health decisions for non-smokers by puffing away in public places. Smokers do not have that right; you don't have the right to take away the lives of others. "
retired wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:11 PM:
" Wiseup, why are you always talking about farting and banning farting? You seem to have some fascination with farts.
We all agree that farting is rude, it is not carcinogenic. Cigarette smoke is carcinogenic, as is second hand smoke. The reason you don't find second hand smoke in the obituaries is because we don't list causes of death in obits unless the death was sudden. However, based upon the best research out there, second hand smoke causes 3,400 lung cancer deaths per year and between 22,700 and 69,600 heart attack disease deaths among adult nonsmokers in the US (Center for Disease Control). These are well accepted facts, simply because you don't know anyone who has died doesn't make the statistics any less true. "
local man wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:29 PM:
" retired, you contradict even yourself. Making the child labor is bad argument, then telling us there are already laws in place. Exactly my point, thank you. Until it is federally illegal to smoke, LaCrosse should stop infringing on constitutionally given citizen rights. End of story.
To those of you who don't smoke, had cancer, have cancer, whatever, my heart goes out to you, however that does not give anyone the right to take away anyone else's rights. I don't like the smell of some perfume, but last I checked it's still legal to purchase and use. I don't particularily enjoy the sound of loud bass in cars, but is music illegal? The list goes on.
Please stop being hypocritical people, perhaps the next frivilous law LaCrosse enacts will take away a RIGHT you enjoy. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 6, 2008 2:24 PM:
" Sorry wiseup. The law would permit me as a patron to either notify management or call the police myself. Great thing about cell phones and using 911. A $500 fine for the first offense might send the right message, if not then $1000 fine on the second should catch their eye. It's time for smokers to huff and puff and blow only themselves away. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 6, 2008 2:18 PM:
" enuffalready: So you think you are qualified to speak on the topic. Being a cancer victim, I'm just as qualified as you. I've lost loved ones to cancer in various means: lung, bonemarrow, pancreas, etc. Cancer is evergrowing and expensive disease to treat. People want to know why their insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. The costs of my cancer is over $110,000 and mine was abdominal. I never smoked, yet I got this. I wish I knew what caused it so I could avoid making the same mistake. There is evidence concerning secondhand smoke, so it must be dealt with. Now is the time! "
nomad wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:54 PM:
" Personally I think everyone who engages in any risky behaviors should be denied any health care at the taxpayers expense.
Obese? Pay for that knee or hip replacement yourself.
Smoke? No cancer, heart or lung care for you. "
wiseup wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:10 AM:
" Do you expect business owners to drop everything and call the cops because someone lights a cigarette in the locked men's room? Do you get a ticket because someone found a cig butt on the floor or an ashtray on the premises? Don't trust these coalitions because they LIED about the LAST COMPROMISE! "
wiseup wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:07 AM:
" Again, casual 2nd hand smoke for non-smoking weekend warriors has NOT been shown as harmful and the proof is in the LACK of Obituaries! Some of you jerks will push for laws against farting in public too! Crappy laws like this DON'T WORK! Smokers will still smoke. We can't keep people from committing murder, rape, burglary, speeding, fireworks, illegal drugs. Do you really believe we should spend resources on entrapment teams to verify compliance? "
enuffalready wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:47 AM:
" I find this debate interesting since I agree with both sides on certain points.
If smoking is such a great thing and people enjoy it so much, why when driving, (even in the winter) do they feel the need to crack the windows and let the smoke out?? Keep it inside with you and enjoy it yourself. And don't even get me started on the butt thing. That really pi$$es me off.
But I also feel that a private business (not just a bar) should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to allow smoking or not. Customers can choose to support the establishment, or not. Workers can choose to work there, or not.
These views come from someone who doesn't smoke and has had a family member die from lung cancer.
So yeah, I am qualified to speak to the issue. "
enuffalready wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:26 AM:
" Reading....reading....reading....wait,
....there it is.
"Dane County recently adopted a smoke-free workplace ordinance that goes into effect next August."
I'm shocked.
Okay. Not so much. "
enuffalready wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:24 AM:
" La Crosse County could become the second county in Wisconsin to require smoke-free workplaces if a proposed ordinance introduced next week is approved.
Without reading the article, let me guess, Dane County was the first county to pass such an ordinance. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 4, 2008 2:27 AM:
" Great stuff retired. local man is being simpleminded without thinking through things. Wherever there is pollution in this country, the government can regulate. Once we get smoking bans in taverns and bowling alleys, the next focus should be where children are present because they don't have a choice in their exposure. So let's make it illegal to smoke inside a house or vehicle with children present. This goes after these selfish smokers who don't care about the consequences they inflict on children. But the question should be in the penalty: do we simply fine the smoker or remove the children into temporary foster care if a parent is involved? We must protect the innocent children forced to live in this hazy environment. "
retired wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:27 AM:
" Local Man, all of your arguments could be made for employing 8 year old children to make boots at the rubber mill. Until it is federally illegal, we should employ children, and it should be the right of the owner who they employ. The rubber mills are a private industry, the government shouldn't tell them what to do. The rubber mills will lose money if they are unable to employ children.
Private property can be regulated by government, and it is on a daily basis. We have child labor laws, minimum wages, laws against discrimination, and laws to keep workers and patrons safe. A smoking ban is in line with all of these previous endeavors. Bars aren't special because adults go to them. "
local man wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:52 PM:
" Until smoking is federally illegal, it should always be the right of the private citizen to choose how they live their life.
We don't need out of touch, out of date, power hungry board members telling us what we can and can not do.
Tavern OWNERS are just that, private property OWNERS, if they choose to be smoke free, more power to them, if not, more power to them.
Banning smoking in a library, grocery store, church, etc., fine by me, children go there, but in a bar, get real people...ADULTS CHOOSE TO GO THERE.
ENOUGH WITH ALL THE LAWS LACROSSE!
Concentrate on stopping actual crime! "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 3, 2008 3:56 PM:
" Mack, I'm with you on the littering. But the way to do that is to increase the tax on cigs by $20 per pack. That's $200 per carton which about where the fine presently is. Since smokers cannot clean up after themselves it seems this needs to be done for them, but let them pay that cost upfront. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 3, 2008 3:52 PM:
" Krusty/Earl: So what if the bars/taverns are private property? If they inflict poisons into the air they can be regulated. Smoking does that you fool. You cannot endanger others even on your private property including at home. And you must be careful when in self defense too. As far as Nestor is concerned what business is that to you? Is he your chum. Besides, if I recall, you started this calling out of darral in the very first place before Nestor was ever involved. So Earl please return to Iraq where you are needed and stop clowning around here. It's obvious who the fool is so stop staring at yourself! "
Mack wrote on Oct 3, 2008 3:36 PM:
" Overdue. Next, let's implement littering fines for throwing cigarette butts on the sidewalks and out of car windows. "
Vicky wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:42 PM:
" The smoking ban is a HEALTH issue and not a RIGHTS issue as some would believe. If tavern owners could exercise all their RIGHTS then they wouldn't have to have their restrooms inspected, wouldn't have to put up Exit signs by doorways, and could sell non-inspected food. There is a reason for all these regulations and that is to protect the health of the public. I hope the County Board passes this unanimously. It's about time! "
recklessness and water wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:39 PM:
" Moderate Republican, isn't this exactly what Republicans are supposed to support? Local governments coming to a decision based upon input from their constituents? No federal involvement, no taxes, no unfunded mandates; it's just Wisconsin people deciding that we aren't going to allow a group of people to give the rest of us a deadly disease. "
Learn to Spell wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:27 PM:
" I think the smoking ban should either just happen, or individual businesses should decide for themselves. I am a non-smoker, who also witnessed the Madison banning while a student there. My friends who smoked were a little t-ed off it happend, but still smoked nonetheless outside. A smoking ban doesn't keep patrons from coming and drinking, at least not younger ones. Most people are true to the bar and/or owners they like. This is true of the Bodega, I feel. It is doing just fine despite going smoke-free.
Also, all of you bloggers make La Crosse look like a joke. Learn to spell and learn grammatical skills for goodness sakes! You complain about your childrens' education(another article), yet in that complaint you cannot even discern between the "their, there, they're," etc. Wake up and be educated before you go proclaiming anything. "
Yes!!!!!!!!! wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:18 PM:
" I'm crossing my fingers & praying very hard that this passes. Maybe I can finally go out socially & enjoy a drink/go bowling without someone elses nasty cig w/10,000 chemicals harming me!
I lived in Minneapolis and the bar business increased when the smoking ban went into effect. People will still go out. Big deal if they have to step outside to have a cig. Maybe cig smokers will even help themselves by not smoking 1 0r 3 packs a night because they have to go outside to smoke.
PLEASE pass this law for those who would like to go out but care too much about their health to walk into a smokey chemical filled bar. "
Irreverent Response wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:38 PM:
" Krusty's argument is crap, but how can you not help being obese? Even if you have diabetes or some other metabolic disorder, there are plenty of ways to alter your weight.
Take responsibility for your obesity, it's the first step toward becoming a more healthy person. "
retired wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:34 PM:
" Business owners have many choices they are free to make, however, they do not have the freedom to give others cancer. To quote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The right to swing my fist ends at the point of another person's nose." "
Moderate Republican wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:21 PM:
" I am a smoker and I believe that it should be up to the business owner. Once the whiners get their way, what will they go after next? I want to go into a smoke nazis place of business and start telling them how to run their show. When they don't comply I will go to the state level and start crying. This used to be a free country. The do gooders of this country are forgetting what it means to have freedom to choose! "
Now What wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:51 AM:
" If you don't want to be around smokers, stay out of bars, or go to a non-smoking bar. If you don't want to be around obese people, stay out of fast food places. If you don't want to be stabbed or shot, stay out of the Cognac Club. "
HOME GIRL wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:40 AM:
" I am a non-smoker and a cancer survivor. I appreciate restaurants and other businesses that prohibit smoking. As for bars and taverns, what does it matter if people smoke there? I would rather have them smoke than those few idiots who get soused and then drive. THEY are the greater danger!!
And Krusty, you make me sick. I am obese and cannot help it. I don't need the likes of you trying to put me down. We know we have a problem. What's your excuse? "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:38 AM:
" Neither business owners nor citizens have the RIGHT to poison the air of others. Yes, it is a poison whether you want me to name all the 60 known carcinogens or not. And here's some info so you can enlighten your ignorant a$$ http://www.trdrp.org/research/PageGrant.asp?grant_id=443
And if business owners actually cared about their customers or employees, they wouldn't have to think twice about what needs to be done. It's honestly shameful that so many owners have to wait for the government to come put them in the corner before they learn they're doing something morally and (soon) legally wrong. "
Seriously Now wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:06 AM:
" To Krusty and the other nicotine stained addicts:
This is a public health issue.
Even if it were not, am I allowed to pick up a few dry autumn leaves and set fire to them in an ash tray while at a bar? I do like the smell.
If not, why is it that you can burn leaves just because they are stuck in your mouth? "
recklessness and water wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:43 AM:
" Wiseup, the entire medical and scientific communities agree that smoking causes cancer, and secondhand smoke causes cancer. These aren't based on one study (like your BRIGHT LIGHTS or toner examples), but rather hundreds. Repeating your belief (IN CAPS!) that cigarette smoke isn't linked to cancer does not make it any less untrue.
Krusty, the government has the responsibility to ensure safe working conditions. We've gone through this with OSHA arguments, and child labor laws. A smoking environment is unsafe for everyone present, therefore it is an unsafe establishment. This is why we have government, and why we have local officials that we can contact about our issues. This will pass, statewide, during the next session of the State Legislature.
PS Are you suggesting we make smoking illegal? "
Krusty wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:29 AM:
" Let's try to get this through the anti-smoker's thick skulls...Bars are PRIVATE PROPERTY nobody forces you to go there...SMOKING IS LEGAL...Nobody is forcing you to smoke...Idiots "
wiseup wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:15 AM:
" To nonsmokers, if you don't like second hand smoke DON'T go in the business or work there. I know smokers that are over 80 years old, why are they still alive? Second hand smoke exposure from a visit to a bar/restaurant is less deadly than the fumes from our buses. Why aren't the obits full of casualties of nonsmoker weekend warriors? BECAUSE the dangers of 2nd hand smoke are GREATLY EXAGGERATED and anyone with common sense knows that. A recent study linked breast cancer with bright lights, ARE YOU GOING TO DEMAND DIM LIGHTING NEXT???? "
wiseup wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:08 AM:
" I remember when this special interest group, trying to push people around, stated publicly they were satisfied with making 99% of ALL places smokefree AND THEY WOULD NOT BE BRINGING THIS ISSUE UP AGAIN! DO NOT TRUST THESE PEOPLE! THEY GAVE THEIR WORD AFTER THE LAST COMPROMISE AND THEIR WORD MEANS NOTHING! Doug and Sue and Dr Mahr are CONTROL FREAKS AND ONLY INTERESTED IN POWER OVER OTHERS! I am a non-smoker and make my own choices where to eat and drink and don't need these promise-breakers deciding the fate of the few places left that have decided to ALLOW smoking! "
Krusty wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:05 AM:
" As for "outing" kaminazi-darral, the only reason I do it is because he seems to take great pleasure doing it himself. How many times darral have you thrown Nestors name out there? Not that he cares, but you still try to make something out of it. Nobody will touch the point I keep making...This is private property that these bar owners have. They own it, not you. Nobody forces you to go there. "
right reality wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:21 AM:
" Quit talking and make it happen. I am so tired of smelling that crap from uncaring individuals. I don't fart and blow it in your faces. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:20 AM:
" To castafly: Here's my support for you quitting. My best wishes from a cancer survivor who never smoked and has spent 10 months out work fighting it. BTW Krusty...Earl, I haven't seen you in a while since I lost over 50 lbs. while embattled in cancer. Maybe your lack of education and experience continues to prove how much of a clown you really are. You should limit your comments on things you know something about, but that would mean you would almost never post which would be better for everyone. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:12 AM:
" Hey Krusty...Earl. At least I propose a solution that makes taverns accountable for permitting smoking in their establishment. That's more than you ever provide with your lack of wisdom. Clowns like you are just that and most of the time you aren't even funny. My proposal contains three elements needed to work: 1) informs the general public prior to entering business so it becomes buyer beware; 2) protects the employee the best it can under the circumstances; and 3) allows the business owner to decide at what cost does he/she want to pay for permitting smoking in their business. This gives them a choice where a complete smoking ban doesn't. Freedom has a price...owners need to choose if they want to pay for it or do something else. "
castafly wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:45 AM:
" Make it volentary, many workplaces are already smokefree. I agree with kamikazefaase post. I'm sorry to admit that I am a smoker and I believe it to be a disgusting habit that someday I will beat. Wish me luck. "
rfield wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:36 AM:
" The argument that non-smoking will be bad for business is a joke. Look at the Bodega, I still see the same people in there, they step outside to smoke and are fine with it. The business is actually doing better because people that don't smoke are going in more and more! "
Tuesday123 wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:25 AM:
" What I find very interesting is the fact that the Tavern League SUPPORTS a work place smoking ban just not in their businesses. So what does that mean??? You dont care how the ban would effect other business owners just as long as it doesnt effect yours. I would think it would go against your point of argument. "
Darwin wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:25 AM:
" ...still really like my self-contained smoking apparatus best: smoke in a bubble so you can really knock yourself while not sharing. Truly encompasses the selfishness of smoking. Just think: you won't have to share your yummy smoke with anyone! Unless you might think it will stink too much in there? Maybe you could rig up some sort of a feedbag-type ashtray so you can save your litter too. "
rfield wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:14 AM:
" Krusty, I've heard it all now... second hand eating. I hate that that guy next to me is eating another Big Mac. I'm getting so fat just sitting next to him. Whatever, I don't want to have to breathe in smoke at work. That is my choice. Your right to smoke infringes on my right to choose not to smoke. THAT is the issue, not your freedom to do anything. Kill yourself, I don't care, just don't kill me in the process. "
Richard Cranium wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:51 AM:
" To Krusty: You know what I find disgusting? People like you that out fellow posters by using their real name. You would have fit in real well with the Bush administration. I could just see you taking pleasure in outing CIA officers. You know what I find most disgusting? That you would do it to a relative of yours. Your a pathetic human being. Come over to Jimmy's blog where you have to post with some intelligence. Then again, this kind of posting fits right in with your character. "
bluebunny wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:28 AM:
" Oh yes, I can't wait to see all of the ridiculous comments from smokers : D The "obesity" one is my favorite...yes, it is dangerous, but at least you are choosing to kill yourself. Same goes for smoking, but hello, you're also killing others in the process! "
happycamper wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:21 AM:
" It's about time! Get with it Wisconsin! "
Krusty wrote on Oct 3, 2008 4:15 AM:
" Kaminazi-darral, here's a solution for you...If you don't like the smoke in a privately owned (that means it isn't yours) business then don't go there! How dare you lay your morality on someone else? You know something darral? I can't stand how fat you've gotten, I'm going to demand that your employer ban donuts and soft drinks, your obesity is much worse for your health than smoking. It isn't your property, and smoking is a legal activity. How hard id it to understand this? By the way darral, I don't smoke and I find it disgusting, the same as I find obese people disgusting "
jerminator2 wrote on Oct 3, 2008 3:17 AM:
" kamikazefaase... interesting... finally someone with a practical solution! If only more people would get involved like that instead of just complaining! "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:02 AM:
" When is the Tavern League going to get with the program. I proposed many times over my solution to the problem but they won't listen. If they would: 1) post on the door smoking permit within permises allowing patrons to vote their pocketbook with noted information; 2) pay for the health insurance including all deductibles and copayments of all employees for LIFE; 3) be required to have proper air quality ventilation to remove smoke immediately; and 4) inform and require consent of employee to work in such environment provided employer complies with the other three previous conditions. Finally deny licenses to sell tobacco products at these locations unless they meet the above conditions. Since taverns want this to be about their rights, let them pay through the nose for them. "
jerminator2 wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:24 AM:
" yes! I can't wait until mid-january when it's below 0 to drive down third street to see all the dumba$$e$ standing outside puffing on their cancer sticks!!! "
Advertisement
