tax payer wrote on Oct 16, 2008 4:20 PM:
" Re: Kami Give me a break! 1 night you went into a bar and you are blaming the smoking because you found out you have cancer?. You are a complete and total moron for actually believing that. You probably inherited this from someone in your family. Why don't buy the game package and leave everyone alone. You pathetic excuse for a person!! "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:36 AM:
" One last thought, wiseup. Firefighters wear oxygen tanks and have used them as needed. So again, you fail to see the entire picture. This doesn't surprise me when it comes to your ranting. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BREATHE, not everyone smokes. Learn the facts based on reality for once. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:30 AM:
" wiseup, I treated smokers as people and attack the habit. That is something they can change. I don't have a problem with people, just their smoking especially those who have no regard for others. If you blow smoke in my face, I wish I could take that butt and ram it in your face for your lack of consideration. The same goes when one does it in the presence of children. When one is in a bar, you have entered into a business that is regulated. You claiming the private business bit has lost its truth. I'm not a control freak as you might think, however I will stand up for the safety of others. So blow that out of ears because you have already lost your mind. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:18 AM:
" wiseup, last year when the Packers played the Cowboys on the NFL Network, I tried to get into the Rivoli Theater where no smoking is permitted. I could not because I didn't have a ticket and there was no more room. So I wound up at a bar where smoking is permitted to watch the game because I don't have the NFL Network at home. In January, I wind up with cancer. Hmmm, makes me wonder about the one night in a bar... "
wiseup wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:33 AM:
" All you wannabee know it alls, explain why every firefighter is not dead before they are 30! Smoke from burning house is way more toxic than second hand exposure from a cigarette! Why aren't all the actual smokers of cigarettes and cigars DEAD? Why allow smoking in indian casinos? Why do the high schools have outside smoking areas when students aren't old enough to buy smokes? Will you ban cigarette lighters next? Cigarette fine more than underage drinking citation? "
wiseup wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:34 PM:
" Society does not treat smokers as second class citizens~ only pompous butt-less wonders that think they make the rules and can push others around would treat fellow citizens with such disregard! "
wiseup wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:32 PM:
" To Kami and others, you PROVE your need to CONTROL others through your rants and attempts to quiet others and limit their actions. LEAVE US ALONE, you don't frequent bars and should have NO say on their business PERIOD! BUTT OUT AND MYOB! "
retired wrote on Oct 14, 2008 6:03 PM:
" We treat felons as second class citizens, mostly because they caused harm to those around them. Society has begun to treat smokers as second class citizens for that same reason. As we learn more and more about the dangers of second hand smoke, people become more and more critical of people who choose to not only poison themselves, but those around them. I'm not in favor of banning cigarettes, but I am in favor of preventing smokers from causing others to contract cancer from their smoking.
All business are regulated by federal, state, and local governments. Businesses pay taxes, depend upon public services, and must obey laws that are passed by these governments. This imaginary line you all are in love with between the government and private business does not exist, and never has. "
illiminnesconi wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:51 PM:
" Business owner=Private owner rules and regulations.
State buildings=State regulations and rules.
Need I say more? "
illiminnesconi wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:48 PM:
" As a nonsmoker, this law is terrible! Slowly more and more we become a socialist country. Why do we treat smokers like second class citizens? I mean I understand the hospital but seriously a tavern, bowling alley, and nursing home? These are places where people go to relieve stress. The nursing home, you're already old so why does it matter? It's a person's choice and we have too many "poor me crybabies" lately. We'll pass a ban smoking but heaven forbid we look into other health issues such as prescription drugs being found in drinking water. That's more likely to cause more damage to your body than second hand smoke. What a bunch of softballs some people are. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:53 AM:
" To both local man and tax payer: I live in the real world. You both seem to live in fantasyland. Businesses are regulated for the benefits of both workers and customers. This goes for all businesses including taverns. You can't handle the truth anymore, so my postings never stop. I know you have trouble with reality, so you are dreaming of the day when there are no regulations. Those days are long gone. Once you return to the real world, come back and post something of value. There would be no need for government to control things if businesses would act responsibly. But they fear the loss of profit over being concerned for people. So blame yourselves for what is coming, the smoking ban. "
local man wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:20 PM:
" Thanks tax payer, I know we are not the only people in this city, state, and/or country who are sick of government intervention where it is not wanted or needed. We can not "baby proof" a naturally chaotic world, stop trying.
By the way, I stopped reading and/or caring what kami writes a long time ago, it does not listen to reason, and prefers the my way or the highway approach to life. "
tax payer wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:53 PM:
" To Local Man: AMEN!!!!! You are absolutely right and you speak for a lot of people. Enough of certain groups telling other people how they should live or run their business. Government needs to butt out!!
To Kami: Take a rest. Your comments are a complete waste of time. Step into the real world where people and businesses should be able to make their own decisions. If you don't like it, stay away. I don't think anyone would miss your presence. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 13, 2008 12:06 PM:
" local man: Why is it that anyone not agreeing with you is a nazi or commie? Your limited view is just that, limited. Your selfishness is beyond taste. While smoking is still legal, taverns are businesses not private property. This is where we disagree. A person may own a business, but ownership doesn't permit it to shirk its responsibilities to others. You want government out of your business, then stop shirking your responsibilities to the entire public like what was done by race or sex. Removing a hazardous behavior is a lawful act and responsibility of government when owners fail to act accordingly. If these owners would have acted as such, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. So keep whining into my crying towel because the smoking ban is coming soon to a tavern near you. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 13, 2008 11:51 AM:
" Clyde: Thank you for your interesting prospectives for this blog posting. You put much thought into yours and I enjoyed them. Hisorical perspective is needed and is always welcomed even when in disagreement. Thanks again! "
local man wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:39 PM:
" I can not even listen to you nazi fools anymore.
Please, can we get some more laws, ordinances, and bans in our "fair" city that limit any and everything that may or may not cause harm to someone at sometime either now or in the future. Perhaps we ban microwaves as they may cause cancer. How about banning cell phones as they also may cause cancer. Where does this nonsense stop?
Grow up people, you can NOT control everything in this world. Make your peace with it and go on with your life, however self centered it may be.
As always, smoking is still legal, taverns are private property, and get the government our of our businesses.
As an "adult" you get the right to choose where you go and what you do, for yourself, not any other American citizen. "
Clyde wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:05 AM:
" Thus was proclaimed vindication of the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution in the American colonies and in Europe, the creation of a republic based on the concept of the general welfare through commerce would redound to the benefit of all. Indeed Capitalism will always provide for the best of its customers as it will depend on the repeat sale to said customers.
What does all this mean?
General welfare has nothing to do with gov't telling businesses who their customers should be and whether those customers can or CAN NOT use a lawfully grown agricultural products with in the confines of said business. Indeed it guarantees the right of the business to choose.
Now if the do-gooders want to ban the sale and use of tobacco then the "promote the general welfare" argument WILL apply. Thank-you. "
Clyde wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:03 AM:
" Separate states cannot carry into being any great or comprehensive plan for the general welfare; agriculture, commerce, and manufactures may each have to give up something, but each will benefit from a general system. An unlimited commerce between states is a blessing of almost inconceivable value; each then looks after the interests of all, rather than its own narrow territory.
Thus was proclaimed vindication of the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution in the American colonies and in Europe, the creation of a republic based on the concept of the general welfare through commerce would redound to the benefit of all. Indeed Capitalism will always provide for the best of its customers as it will depend on the repeat sale to said customers. "
Clyde wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:02 AM:
" The General Welfare was understood in the first part of the 19th Century by John Marshall on the Supreme Court, In his discussions of the Preamble, it does not confer any substantive powers to the central government, it is a statement of intent and purpose, which can certainly be called upon in interpreting other elements of the Constitution. Such as: tariffs, the collection, distribution and expenditure of revenue, and internal improvements, such as roads and canals which are much better undertaken by the general government, and the post office. "
Clyde wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:00 AM:
" Franklin's experience led him to suggest the term to "promote the general welfare" be added to the preamble of the Articles of Confederation which then carried to the preamble of the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton argued that wealth, independence, and security of the nation are connected to the prosperity of manufactures. ``Every nation ... ought to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defence.''
Hamilton said it's the discretion of the legislature to determine what matters concern the general welfare, adding: ``And there seems no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of Learning, of Agriculture, of Manufactures and of Commerce should be promoted."
In his Final Address to the Congress in 1796, George Washington endorsed Hamilton's view.
Washington argued, ``with reference to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance.'' "
Clyde wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:55 AM:
" In 1727, Ben Franklin proposed a ``club for mutual improvement.'' Then was expanded with the 1744 creation of the American Philosophical Society. Useful knowledge to promote the general welfare through the development of what we would today call science and technology. There were always to be, among the members of the Society in Philadelphia, ``a physician, a botanist, a mathematician, a chemist, a mechanician, a geographer, and a general natural philosopher.''
The members met at least once a month, and correspond among themselves and those in other colonies, concerning horticulture, mines and minerals, useful improvements in mathematics and chemistry, labor-saving mechanical inventions, all new arts and manufactures, surveys, maps and charts, animal husbandry, and ``all philosophical experiments that let light into the nature of things, tend to increase the power of man over matter, and multiply the conveniences or pleasures of life.'' A colonial facebook as it were. "
tax payer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:24 AM:
" I for one will continue to fight this ridiculous ban. We are losing individual freemdoms one at a time and it has to stop.
As for Kami, your constant rantings have gotten pretty stale. I can't imagine anyone that would be able to live or work with you because you evidently think your ideas/life style is the only way. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you desparetly need professional help. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:15 AM:
" wiseup: You need to remember three important concepts. 1) SMOKING ISN'T A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE! 2) OUR CONSTITUTION STATES "WE THE PEOPLE...IN ORDER TO FORM MORE PERFECT UNION...PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE...TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY" meaning for all not a select few. This means we are all entitled to clean air because this affects us all. If you are a smoker, your choice is not shared by all and can thereby be regulated. 3) Government under the COMMERCE CLAUSE in our Constitution can regulated businesses in order to promote the preamble. Smoking has been found to violate promoting the general welfare, so government is required to act. If you want to be left alone, go home and let others live. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:22 AM:
" Hey wiseup, how would you know anything about where I got my cancer from? You weren't in my doctor's office, were you?! What I can't wait for is the day smoking is no longer legal in a person's home or car when others like children are present once they ban it in all workplaces. The state has my support on that issue under the commerce clause and in promoting the general Welfare...to ourselves and our Posterity preamble section of our US Constitution. Gee talk about a strict constitutionist. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:08 AM:
" wiseup has gone off the deep end. Having had to deal with cancer and its costs make me a better person to listen to than him. wiseup is a paranoid individual who thinks that smoking supercedes the right to breathe clean air. If only he could spend enough time inhaling his polluted ideas, then his demise would only silence his ignorance. "
wiseup wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:59 PM:
" According to California, you get cancer from filling up your car with gasoline if the gas station doesn't have the right spout. Like second hand cigarette exposure from a bar, WHERE ARE ALL THE DEAD PEOPLE? You PROVE YOUR CASE or don't try controlling the rest of us. "
wiseup wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:54 PM:
" You don't have ANY bodies to prove your case. Motorcycles kill hundreds weekly and the obits PROVE IT! Gov't regulators do a poor job on asbestos, carbon monoxide, lead, mercury, pcp's and radon! You are worried about second hand smoke from a cigarette? You don't even go into the places that allow smoking~ therefore BUTT OUT! MYOB and leave us alone! "
retired wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:06 AM:
" If you are only going to be convinced by bodies, then I'm sorry, I can't convince you.
As far as the toxins that a "mechanic at any auto repair place" are exposed to, prove it.
I have posted links to many many studies looking at the toxins in cigarette smoke, the consequences of those toxins, their association with cancer, the fact that they cause cancer in lab studies, and the correlations between smoking and cancer and heart attacks. Do you have any, or is this some random belief of yours with no proof?
OSHA regulates air quality in the workplace, but has thus far refused to regulate tobacco smoke. Are you suggesting that there are toxins in auto shops that OSHA is ignoring? I'd be interested to see that. "
wiseup wrote on Oct 10, 2008 10:47 AM:
" Remember, we are talking about casual second hand smoke exposure from a bar. Those nonsmokers they claim died from 2nd hand smoke were exposed as children and had LONG TERM exposure, not weekend warriors! The mechanic at any auto repair place is exposed to MUCH GREATER toxins than an employee of a bar or restaurant! "
wiseup wrote on Oct 10, 2008 10:43 AM:
" To retired, get real. You control freaks are out to force others to change their lives then you better have more PROOF than some studies funded by people with predetermined results! My point is WHERE ARE ALL THE DECEASED nonsmokers that were exposed to second hand smoke from their time in a bar. The answer is clear~ there aren't ANY! Now motorcycles kill people weekly, where is your outrage on their deaths????? "
retired wrote on Oct 10, 2008 9:14 AM:
" We simply don't list cause of death on obits, thankfully. If you want concrete examples of people who have died because of second hand smoke, here are two. Bear in mind that there are hundreds of thousands, their stories just don't make it into the newspaper because it is very common.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060522/crowe_obit_060522/20060523?hub=Canada
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/11/18/opinions/a041118_02.txt "
retired wrote on Oct 10, 2008 9:14 AM:
" I really don't understand why Wiseup needs to know someone who has died from second hand smoke to get on board with the ban. If it was just one study that showed second hand smoke causes cancer, I'd be with him in his skepticism. But there are hundreds. He's like those people that, in the face of hundreds of examples of evolution, refuse to accept it. And when someone refuses to accept something that has overwhelming support and evidence in the scientific field, it's difficult to talk to them as they live in fantasy-land. "
wiseup wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:38 AM:
" PS name names of ACTUAL PEOPLE that have died from second hand smoke exposure from their limited time in a bar! There aren't any. Millions acrossed the world enjoy a smoke when they drink and YOU can't stop them! I know 80 year old chain smokers and they have smoked all their lives! So much for your theories and studies. "
wiseup wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:35 AM:
" Kami, GET REAL. You don't have cancer from smoking or second hand smoke and that is the issue we are talking about. There are plenty of kinds of cancer and plenty of sources. Do NOT enter a smoking allowed facility and you have nothing to worry about, Do NOT try to push other people around or control them. That is NOT your right and I hope people have civil disobedience and IGNOR the ban if it becomes law. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:40 PM:
" To Get Real: No silly. The law is not there to protect just you; it's there to protect me from people who don't respect others. When a smoker blows his crap in someone's face for example, should the nonsmoker be able to take the cig and ram it in the face of the smoker? I wished we could but we cannot. When I go somewhere, should I have to breathe the smoker's misguided pollution no matter where I am. Employees should be protected from employer abuse. Companies can be sued for misuse of chemicals including storage, training in using them, and what to do when an accident occurs. That's why they have MSDS sheets. Smokers don't provide MSDS when they light up. This exposure can cause health problems. Taverns have failed to live up to their growing and changing responsibilities. It's time they do. "
Get Real wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:21 PM:
" Listen, I get that smoking is bad, clean air isgood. But if I choose to be in a place that may not have the best air quality in the world that is on me. The government shouldn't have to save every person from every thing that might not be good for them. It reminds me of the seat belt law. I don't want to wear one when I am going a half mile to the store, but it looks like that will be a law soon. Let me make that decision. I will live with the results of my actions. I don't get why anyone needs to step in to protect me if I can't protect myself. I don't like the direction tbis is going in regards to personal freedoms. "
retired wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:34 PM:
" The effects of second hand smoke are underestimated, not exaggerated. Cigarette smoke is an incredibly complex mixture, and studying the group of chemicals is difficult, so often the individual components are studied. The compounds likely have synergistic carcinogenic effects.
Smoking bans have been shown to have large and immediate effects on local health. For example, in Pueblo, CO, 18 months after a ban was enacted the rate of hospital admittance due to heart attack had dropped 27% with no change in this number in neighboring communities where smoking was allowed.
Repeating your belief that the effects of smoking are exaggerated is silly, and has been roundly proven incorrect. Second hand smoke is dangerous. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:29 PM:
" "wiseup": get cancer and deal with its consequences. I have and I have NEVER SMOKED! Your ignorance is just based on lack of experience obviously. People will still act foolishly but laws are there to punish those not willing to abide by them. Business owners have had plenty of time to fix smoking problems within their workplaces including bars. They want their cake and eat it too. Time for change to fix their foolishness. Now it should cost them money because it cost me money for the health care needed to survive someone else's disrepectful misbehavior, legal or not. "
nomad wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:10 PM:
" From the American Lung Association...
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis. Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.
Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.
The current Surgeon Generals Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack. "
nomad wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:08 PM:
" From the American Lung Association...
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma. "
nomad wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:04 PM:
" From the American Lung Association...
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces. "
nomad wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:55 AM:
" To Wiseup, I don't think I've ever seen many obituaries that even list a cause of death. That would be on the death certificate which does not get published.
As I said before, the death certificates don't list tobacco smoke as the cause of death. They list the disease that the smoke caused, which ultimately killed them. "
wiseup wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:51 AM:
" To Kami, YOU can't stop people from doing what they want with your crummy ordinances! Murder, speeding, littering, OWI are all illegal and continue WORLDWIDE DAILY! Get over your need to control others! "
wiseup wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:48 AM:
" While the dangers of chain smoking are clear, NO ONE has been able to point to a single obit of a non-smoker dying from second hand cigarette smoke from exposure in a bar! NOT ONE! According to drips like Kami, EVERYONE that enters a smoking allowed bar is dead man walking. The millions of people that will go to their favorite waterhole EVERYDAY should ALREADY BE DEAD~ BUT THEY'RE NOT! 2nd hand smoke dangers are GREATLY EXAGGERATED! "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:59 AM:
" To Darwinism: I saw the exemptions and couldn't believe it myself. I worked in a nursing home for nearly 12 years and the rooms used by residents for smoking were filthy. Washing the walls, ceilings, windows, carpetting, and other furnishings was bad enough; smelling the stinch was even worse. And these rooms had ventilation without smoke eaters of any kind. Even with the window open, the smell remained, therefore the pollutants also lingered. The only reason for the exemption for these residents is because they may not have a place to return to like home. So they are living out their last days in these places until they die and they are being made as comfortable as possible. To me, this violates the intent of the ordinance which is to promote the health of employees. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:49 AM:
" To "retired": My concern is that once an ordinance passes, there will be those who may wish to contest such. If a smoker who should be fined for their act loses, punishing this person so they won't do it again is pertinent to enforcement. Fines need to be heavier than they are to discourage continuing improper behavior. I think coddling smokers with small fines doesn't work to change their behavior. If bar owners aren't at fault by trying to comply, yet someone wants to violate the ordinance, then the smoker is responsible and must be taught a lesson to become compliant. We must raise all the fines including littering and DWI because they aren't keeping up with inflationary means. Higher fines gets the point across especially after one pays the first one in full. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:39 AM:
" Hey "local man": Let's first clear something up; SMOKING ISN'T A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE! Like driving is a privilege that can be regulated so can smoking. Both are legal activities that can be regulated and if need be taken away from a person. Businesses cannot act in irresponsible manner just because they are privately owned. This is why we have 40 hour work week laws, child labor laws, health and safety laws even for actions that are legal. So your ranting is becoming worthless because under the commerce (which pertains to trade and business) clause of our Constitution, the government may tax, license, and regulate any and all businesses within its juridiction including taverns. I know this reality hurts but if you would only grasp my crying towel, you may someday see that it was business owners who failed to act responsibly that caused this to happen. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:13 AM:
" BTW, "notme": the Health and Human Services Committee passed this 7-1. Now this goes before the entire county board for approval, most likely with changes. Please read the entire article before getting upset. It would save on your health due to unnecessary stress. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:09 AM:
" "notme" Now that I found out it was mailed, please check my response to you on another blog topic concerning the three people arrested on 10-8. You will see he isn't required to act and therefore he won't. He is a lawyer and knows well enough if he needs to act or not after having consulted the county law enforcement and DA's office plus the state's law enforcement. Just a reminder: if you enter a business wearing such you can be required to remove it or leave the premise. Failing to do so is considered disorderly conduct and any mishap or use can result in a charge of reckless use of a firearm. Both are generally finable offenses unless you act further. "
notme wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:38 PM:
" What irks me most is Doyle's pandering. The tribune reported on Friday, that an ordinance had been drafted, and it has already passed committee without allowing any time for public input.
What irks me most is the fact that Doyle has been sitting on the RTKBA resolution since August and refuses to bring it to the committee.
What irks me most is the fact that the paper won't ask Doyle about this and do a headline story on the RTKBA resolution.
Why the cover up. "
Darwinism wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:19 PM:
" Irony: Many residents in nursing homes, especially Lakeview HEALTH CARE CENTER are placed there against their will by courts and/or guardians under the "Protective Placement" statutes (stat 54/55). These residents are not capable of making good choices for themselves, thus others make them. They can be HELD in a building that may permit smoking but idiots who take a job or patronize a smoking allowed establishment who have the right to leave need protection from themselves? "
Get Real wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:18 PM:
" I guess I don't feel I am so important that any business I walk into I feel I can dictate what everyone else in a bar does. When you walk into a bar do expect that the music be at a comfortable level for you and maybe all the bartenders make every drink exactly the way you want? Every bar is different. Some people who smoke go into a bar everyday after work and because you might drop in once a year and don't like smoke it should be banned? I hope you don't break your leg getting off your high horse. If a bar is too smokey for you obviously the owner has chosen the smokers business over yours, which the bar owner has a right to do. Do what the rest of us non smokers do and go somewhere else. "
Darwinism wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:11 PM:
" Don't you see the irony and lack of logic? Two of the three exemptions are health related establishments (nursing homes and health care facilities). The health care workers and patients in frail conditions are ok to be in a building with smokers "some of whom end up staying for 10 to 15 years". These facilities can safely manage second hand smoke for residents and employees but no one else can? What magic occurs there to not let second hand smoke effect the sick and frail that can't be duplicated in a privately owned establishment if GIVEN THE CHANCE? "
local man wrote on Oct 8, 2008 5:44 PM:
" You know what irks me the most about this particular ban?
The people voting on it don't even go to bars. The people commenting on it, clearly are not going to bars as they are home online complaining about something that doesn't really even affect them.
As always, SMOKING IS LEGAL. BARS ARE PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENTS, NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY/AREA.
Can someone, anyone, please get the government out of our local small businesses? It's difficult enough in this day and age to survive. "
Casual Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:27 PM:
" Retired: You're welcome. I only wish I could have been more helpful...... "
retired wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:26 PM:
" Thanks. I've been looking around, but all I'm finding are statements by the guys that make these things. Not terribly helpful. "
Casual Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:21 PM:
" Retired: (continued) Smoke-eaters, however, are specifically designed to do just that. I only wish I could locate more information and resources that related to them. "
Casual Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:20 PM:
" Retired: Unfortunately, I can't say what the actual efficacy of a smoke-eater is. I know the one that is utilized in my place of employment functions very well. I'm sure it doesn't remove all smoke from the air, but if a larger model were to replace it, the results would be better. While working, I do not notice the smell of cigarette smoke at all. I realize that this does not indicate that "all second hand smoke has been effectively removed," but it is, at least a step in the right direction. I have been attempting to locate more data regarding their overall effectiveness, but to date have been unsuccessful. Central heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems, though, are not designed to "filter and remove" smoke, so I can see why the Surgeon General says they are ineffective. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:14 PM:
" Get Real, there is a perfect compromise available. Smokers can partake in their nasty habit no problem. As long as they confine their poison of course. They can do this by wearing a bubble suit in the bar or perhaps a better choice, going outside to smoke, 20 feet from the entrance that is. Perfect! "
retired wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:57 PM:
" Hey Casual Observer, you and I had a civil conversation about this yesterday, maybe you have an answer for me. According to the Surgeon General, "neither central
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems nor separately ventilated rooms control exposures to secondhand smoke."
These systems just blow around the filthy air. He's saying there is no ventilation system that can effectively clean smokey air.
I don't think anyone has looked at the efficacy of "smoke eaters". Do you know of any stats? Anyone who looked at it? Is there some other search term I should be using? Until someone looks at it, shouldn't we assume these products are not effective at cleaning the air other than the visible crap? "
Get Real wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:36 PM:
" First I think it is amazing that people think the government should decide what a business owner does on their property. Tobacco is a legal product which the government both subsidizes and taxes, which makes no sense to me. As a non smoker I go to many different places. Some are well ventilated some are not. If the smoke bothers me I leave. I see it as no different a choice then to go to bar that is noisy or quiet. Why punish every bar? There are close to 140 bars in the LaCrosse area and there is not one that is acceptable to non smokers? "
rfield wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:33 PM:
" nomad - you forgot at least one. Colorado. "
retired wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:23 PM:
" I would like to respond to Wiseup. The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are not exaggerated. If anything we are underestimating the damage cigarette smoke is doing to our bodies. Tobacco is one of the most potent human carcinogens.
There is no single ethnicity, life style, body type, occupation, diet, gene, or activity that is a greater risk factor for cancer than smoking tobacco. Over 3800 nonsmokers are killed by lung cancers caused by smokers. "
nomad wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:09 PM:
" The following state laws have been passed by legislature and signed by governor but are not yet in effect:
• Montana enacted a 100% smokefree bar law, which is scheduled to go into effect October 1, 2009.
• Nebraska enacted a 100% smokefree workplace, restaurant, and bar law, which is scheduled to go into effect June 1, 2009.
• Oregon enacted a 100% smokefree workplace, restaurant, and bar law, which is scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2009.
• Utah enacted a 100% smokefree bar law, which is scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2009.
But Wisconsin clings to it's title as "ashtray of the upper midwest" "
nomad wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:06 PM:
" All workplaces in these states and commonwealths are smokefree:
Arizona
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico "
nomad wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:38 PM:
" To the nicotine addicts that constantly post ridiculous messages on any anti smoking article...
Smoking and second hand smoke kills!
No, the death certificates don't list tobacco smoke as the cause of death. They list the disease that the smoke caused, which ultimately killed them.
No, the business owner should not get to decide if the air in their business contains poisons and carcinogens.
And quit trying to hide behind the personal freedom arguments. "
retired wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:19 PM:
" kamikazefaase, please calm down. I usually agree with the sentiments of your posts about smoking, but punishing smokers won't get anyone anywhere.
We don't need enormous tickets for smokers. And we don't need tasers or cameras for cops. We can do what New York, Minnesota and California have done. If someone notices smoking in a bar, you call the police non-emergency number, and a cop is dispatched. He then gives the bar owner a reasonable ticket for allowing the smoking.
Individuals are going to do whatever they want, business owners are a little more sensible. If given the choice between getting tickets every night or preventing people from smoking in their bar, they'll opt for prevention. "
Casual Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:07 PM:
" rfield: I would be 100% in favor of that. As for enforcing/monitoring it, yes, I can see where issues could arise. What about some sort of 2/3/4 month check similar to what county health inspectors do for establishments that serve food? And yes, the initial expense may be more than what is "acceptable," perhaps, just as there are for other small businesses, some sort of grant or assistance program could be established in order to assist owners in their attempt to comply? I don't have all the answers, that's for sure, but there has to be some way to find a middle ground with this issue...... "
rfield wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:54 PM:
" Casual Observer. Does your bar have fire exit signs? Do you have to wash your hands before you work? These are measures for PUBLIC SAFETY in a private business. I would go for a compromise, certainly. How about requiring all bars have enough ventilation and smoke eaters to get the air quality in any bar to an acceptable level? This would be much more difficult to enforce though. And, I would imagine the cost would be prohibitive for a bar owner to install the monitoring and ventilation systems. "
notme wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:51 PM:
" kamikazefaase
wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:23 AM:
The resolution:
--------------------------------
Whereas, the county of La Crosse Wisconsin, affirms that the people have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
Be it Resolved, that open carry is not an unlawful means to exercise these rights, and that no one may restrict a citizens’ lawful exercise of their constitutionally protected rights.
--------------------------------
Was submitted to Chairman Doyle and ADA Clarke in August of 2008.
The reason I bring this up, is that when someone requested a SMOKING BAN, the resolution was in front of the committee within a week, but RTKBA resolution sits dormant for two months.
I think the voters have a right to know why the double standard? "
local man wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:48 PM:
" People. Smoking is LEGAL, period.
Get government out of business, period.
If you don't like smoking, I understand, don't frequent those PRIVATE establishments, period. No one has the right to take away other's rights, period. (Yes, even if those rights you don't agree with or may cause some harm. A U.S. Constitutional RIGHT is just that, your right!)
When and where does this end? What will be the next frivolous law LaCrosse enacts? Perhaps it will take away a RIGHT you enjoy. "
been_there wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:38 PM:
" I agree with enuffalready. Yeah! Now we just have to enforce the littering law and start teaching smokers what ash trays are for. No more tossing those butts out the window and into motorcyclists faces or on the dry grass along the road. "
notme wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:29 PM:
" Native
wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:31 AM:
"local governments are in violation of the US Constitution if they don't enforce the safety of the public."
How do you rectify that with the fact that the courts have consistently ruled that government, local or otherwise, is under no obligation whatsoever to protect you or me? "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:01 PM:
" Fighting for the right to smoke around others is like fighting for the right to pour acid down your throat and spray it on the guy sitting next to you. You smokers should be so proud. Never giving up your principles! *applause* (gag me) "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:47 PM:
" Casual Observer: First off my proposal should have been "the compromise". If enacted, we might not be having this conversation. Second, public policy decisions are a big deal. There has always been a bad taste with the public over smokefilled backroom deals. Why do you think Hillary Clinton was so concerned for her campaign for her party's nomination? Her fear of Super Delegates making backroom deals with Obama and not her? What about Cheney and other present government officals doing this? Where do you think all this pork barrel spending comes from? What nonsmokers want is the freedom to go to places where things are discussed without endangering themselves. This includes bars. I don't care who owns it, if you're not acting responsible then government is required to make you do so. Government under the Commerce clause of the Constitution can do this without overstepping its boundaries. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:33 PM:
" Casual Observer: I didn't call you "dense", but if you feel you were being inferred as such then suit yourself. I brought history and other means to get you to see beyond your limited scope. Others have also done this. I disagreed with the late Ronald Reagan that government was the problem because SOMETIMES GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY ANSWER OR RECOURSE TO SOLVING PROBLEMS. You may not like government intervention, but as I have said many times businesses have had plenty of opportunities to fix this problem but have failed to act responsibly. I have a proposal for them to act upon and they won't consider it because it might cost them money. I have had this proposal out there for sometime, yet they won't do what is necessary. So I put the blame for this ordinance where it belongs...on those business owners. "
Casual Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:29 PM:
" Here's a question: Has anyone considered a compromise? "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:21 PM:
" Native, excellent post! PicklesPlease is right on. And those who support businesses in this case are failing to see what happens when businesses aren't required to act responsibly. Our present financial crisis is the result of no regulation or enforcement. This is why Republicans go after OSHA by cutting its budget first thing they get into the White House along with anything to do with labor. They hate regulation especially those that make them responsible. They only care about CEO's and business owners with everyone else left to fend for themselves. There is more of us than of them, it's time government acts that way to preserve our livelihood. Fat cats have gotten by with excesses and forgot to trickle down the productivity to those working. Change is coming! "
Casual Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:21 PM:
" Kami: The last time I checked, having an opinion that differs from yours does not indicate a person is "dense." If you are unwilling or unable to objectively consider opinions that may differ from yours, then please leave. I am here to have a rational, adult discussion about an issue that concerns me. That being said, the government, once again, is overstepping its bounds and playing "Big Brother" where it is neither wanted, nor needed. And as for "making political decisions or deals away from public scrutiny"--that concept, in itself, has absolutely nothing to do with the current issue of the smoking ban. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:08 PM:
" Not so fast Casual Observer: Making political decisions or deals away from public scrunity is a big deal nowadays. Why do you think Cheney is still a part of this campaign? His backroom deals in the White House with oil company executives and speculators has still come under question and some investigation. And this started with a bar conversation between his staff while out campaigning. Gee, makes you wonder what other deals were done without public knowledge? "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:05 PM:
" Casual Observer. Are you dense? How many people have to tell you that government has the right and duty to regulate private businesses for safety and health. A public health issue doesn't mean it has to be a public place either. Public refers to people of the general population. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:02 PM:
" Hey Melon Head: If I suggest a huge fine for something it's because the present fines are too small that they aren't enforced. Take littering for example. The fine of a mere $200 is so seldomly enforced it has become a joke. Raise the fine to $1000 and boom, cops would be looking to enforce it more. The same with OWI's and other finable offenses. These fines have not kept with any inflationary or even minimum wage scales. I have also this about the liquor tax in this state as well. If more fines were levied against these kinds of offenses, then property owners could pay less in taxes because those breaking the rules would start paying their fair share of the expenses they make. "
Casual Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:53 AM:
" Kami: I still maintain, a tavern is not a "public place." It is a private business. If people choose to congregate there after a political event, etc, that is there choice. Their presence, alone, does not make it a public place. Men, centuries ago, did not use taverns and ale houses as "public places" to speak without women present. It was a private business where women were not allowed. And whether or not "many political deals and conversations" have occurred in such establishments is irrelevant. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:52 AM:
" OnaRes: The reason for the 20 feet rule would be to get smokers away from the entrances to a business that nonsmokers must use to enter such places. Presently, smokers that go outside hover around entrances making entering businesses a significant problem. Also only some owners have means of disposal of byproducts of cigarettes, let alone other tobacco products. In most cases, a 20 foot rule would allow most people to use the PUBLIC sidewalk in front of businesses to not be confronted by smokers, placing smokers in their vehicles if need be so all people may enjoy going from building to building like in downtown La Crosse. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:41 AM:
" enuffalready: I'm more than willing to see fines for OWI double or triple with more jail time. And if more people demanded these from our legislature and judges, we might actually get somewhere. BTW, I have a crying towel for those not doing enough to hold our judges and elected officals accountable for this failure. We don't hold those accountable enough, so enuffalready. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:36 AM:
" Casual Observer: You might not consider a tavern a public place, but from the before the colonial times to even this day many political deals and conversations have taken place in these establishments. Certain backroom deals and colonial independence speeches were seeded there. Before women's liberation, this was one place where men could speak to one another in public without women present(hookers and dancers excluded). Therefore these businesses were public gatherings for then only men but now is a place other public gatherings. Where do you think people will go on election night from both political parties to deal with the results? If you said a tavern or restaurant/bar, give yourself some credit for knowing how this all works. "
enuffalready wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:30 AM:
" kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:07 AM:
The ordinance should ticket first the smoker $500 for the first offense and $1000 for each offense thereafter with jail time added for the third offense and beyond.
********************
Kami:
We can't even get those kinds of things for multiple offense OWI's. You really think those types of fines and jail time would ever be put into place??
If you do, I've got a really cool blue bridge for sale. "
laxcarguy wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:28 AM:
" Smokers unite!! Let's send around petitions to all of the affected establishments and keep thin thing under wraps. "
Melon Head wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:23 AM:
" RE: Kami
You should be fined $10,000.00 for everyday you are above ground. Everything you comment on has a huge fine attached to it. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:23 AM:
" Hey "notme": How do you know about any resolution concerning RTKBA? Did you deliver such personally? Do you know who might have done so? Explain yourself so others will know you actually have proof of such existance otherwise I consider your statement as merely heresay in order to promote your cause. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:07 AM:
" PicklesPlease: That would require that fruitcake called "wiseup" to actually know his fruits. I have never seen these so-called thousands of signed petitions. They must be in the bars he patronizes because no one would dare come to my doorstep with such foolishness. The ordinance should ticket first the smoker $500 for the first offense and $1000 for each offense thereafter with jail time added for the third offense and beyond. BTW, this ordinance should also include smoking in vehicles with children present AND smoking in the home with children present. They are the innocent victims and must be protected from parental abuse of this nature. "
Casual Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:04 AM:
" PicklesPlease: "Public health issue" refers to public areas such as parks, ballfields, stadiums, etc. A tavern is NOT a public place. Let's try to keep the two separate, shall we? If I don't want to be around secondhand smoke, I stay out of a "smoking allowed" bar. If I choose to enter said establishment, I willingly assume the risks that are associated with doing so. That's what individual rights and responsibilities are about. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:51 AM:
" wiseup this is a public health issue. How is my getting an abortion going to infringe on your right to live/breathe? Let's compare apples to apples here. "
wiseup wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:23 AM:
" Maybe this committee decides abortion is murder and votes to ban abortions in the county. I am sure the TRIB would be the first to complain the committee OVERSTEPPED their AUTHORITY and print all the names of the panel that voted to outlaw abortion! Abortion KILLS millions compared to casual second hand exposure from a cigarette, whose dangers are GREATLY EXAGGERATED! "
wiseup wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:19 AM:
" If the local cops are given grants to enforce this unenforceable ban, get ready for tazers, entrapment teams, cameras in restrooms and nightly brawls over a cigarette! Do they give the business owner a ticket because someone lights up in the locked restroom? Do they give the business owner a ticket because they find a butt on the floor or an ashtray inside? Outrageous to expect an owner or employee to kick out a paying customer over a cigarette, especially in these economic times! "
wiseup wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:13 AM:
" Where is 1 article interviewing some of the thousands that signed petitions AGAINST this ban? The Trib can't see past their Bias and refuses to admit or cover the many opposed to this intrusion. Read the obits and you will NOT find people dying from casual second hand smoke obtained from exposure in a bar. The control freaks make it sound like the thousands of non-smokers on 3rd street every weekend are DEAD! "
B wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:52 AM:
" lkt - what state do you live it where government does not regulate business? "
Casual Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:42 AM:
" The last time I checked, "taverns" were considered private businesses, not public places. Banning smoking in parks, ball fields, etc? Sure--no problem. But when it comes to private business where adults are free to make the concious choice whether or not to enter, the government needs to butt out. (no pun intended) "
Native wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:31 AM:
" Governments can regulate businesses for the public safety- sprinkler systems, smoke detectors room capacity limits. The US Constitution states that and person and or organization can lose its Constitutional rights if it infringes upon the rights of others. This is stated in Amendment 9 (1791)of the Constitution, example given is shouting fire in a crowded theater. The right of the freedom of speech is lost for the public safety. Public safety is a right, smoking is not; the local governments are in violation of the US Constitution if they don't enforce the safety of the public. "
laxcarguy wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:59 AM:
" I sure hope that the tavern leauge will stand up them at the next meeting and protect the tavern owners of La Crosse. They still can opt out of this B.S. law. "
lkt wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:58 AM:
" Glad I moved to a different state. I don't ever want to live where the government can dictate how a person runs their business. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:41 AM:
" B is on the right track. There are plenty of legal substances, such as blood and snot and saliva...and bleach and gasoline. But that doesn't mean I can spray it all over my customers in my place of business or mix it in their food or drinking water even if they full well know that that's how I like to run my business. That is why we have government: to regulate unethical business owners and practices. About time this ban passes. Breathable air is not a commodity--let's keep it that way! "
Cards wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:40 AM:
" Great Law!Smoking sucks and is a filthy habit which I understand is hard to quit, but it all helps!! "
B wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:23 AM:
" Yes wisCONsin - that may be why you are not allowed to bring a car into a bar and let it run, pumping that poison into the air. "
enuffalready wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:00 AM:
" Mack wrote on Oct 8, 2008 7:26 AM:
" This is WONDERFUL! Now let's enforce littering laws with smokers tossing their butts on our sidewalks and out car windows. "
*****************************
Mack, I agree. And disagree. I always thought that it was kind of ironic how smokers like to tell us how they enjoy smoking, yet whenever it gets cold out most of them seem to have their window cracked a bit to let the smoke out.
Don't you think that they would want to keep all of that good stuff in their with them??
Having said that I don't agree with this proposal. I think that a business, any business, should be allowed to determine what legal activities are permitted inside their business.
FYI: I don't smoke and never have. I have also had a family member die from lung cancer. "
OnaRes wrote on Oct 8, 2008 7:45 AM:
" I agree and love the thought of smoke free bars, but smokers should be allowed to step outside and smoke, the 20feet rule is silly, all that is going to do at most establishments is put people out in the parking lot and create issues with vehicle/people accidents. "
Mack wrote on Oct 8, 2008 7:26 AM:
" This is WONDERFUL! Now let's enforce littering laws with smokers tossing their butts on our sidewalks and out car windows. "
Clyde wrote on Oct 8, 2008 6:23 AM:
" Now is the time begin what we have learned about community organizing. First we need to apply for a grant to organize for citizen freedom, S.E.I.Y.G.U.(Smoke Em If You Got Um).
All those who stood up at the hearings 10 years ago and said "WE WILL NEVER TRY TO STOP SMOKING IN BARS AND TAVERNS", They were telling false statements(surprized?). SEIYGU will organized all who will volunteer for CIVIL DISOBIEDIENCE AND ARE WILLING TO GO SMOKE AT BARS AND TAVERNS ONCE THE BAN IS PASSED! SEIYGU should receive the admiration of the Community Organizer in Chief, Barrack Obama.
They cannot arrest us all and they should not arrest us WE ARE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING. I have never smoked but I am willing to light up, hold but not inhale in solidarity with those who would. LET THEM COME AND TRY TO STOP US! "
wisCONsin wrote on Oct 8, 2008 5:48 AM:
" We also need to ban gas burning car older than 2 years old within city limits!!
In 60 seconds, one idling automobile produces as much carbon monoxide as 22 cigarettes, as much nitrogen oxides as 39 cigarettes and as many volatile organic compounds as 57 cigarettes.
And for the readers who may doubt it, these facts can be found in Environmental Science and Technology magazine. "
High Plains Drifter wrote on Oct 8, 2008 5:38 AM:
" America........land of the free. WHAT A JOKE. "
Loser wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:15 AM:
" Please government... come in and tell me what legal activities I can allow in my private business! I really don't like being able to choose myself! "
An Onalaskan wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:31 AM:
" What wonderful news! Workers in these smoke-filled businesses: Your DAY OF LIBERATION is coming. The local lackeys of the tobacco industry are about to be crushed. "
notme wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:26 AM:
" OK, Chairman Doyle, now what about the RTKBA resolution? Why won't you bring it to committee? Why isn't the paper investigating why Doyle is hiding the RTKBA resolution? "
Advertisement
