State smoking ban gets a boost

“We looked at the big picture and decided this was best for the restaurant and hospitality industry”

The effort to enact a statewide smoking ban got a major boost Wednesday as organizations representing the state's influential tourism industry signed on as supporters. via Appleton Post-Crescent

[Lurking]

It looks like WI is off the vacation list! It to bad they don't get the actual reports and studies done that have not hit the main stream since they are NOT financed by those who started 'the agenda'. They need to stop reading the fudged 'to fit the agenda' reports and ARTICLES.

[muskyhusky]

"“We looked at the big picture and decided this was best for the restaurant and hospitality industry”

Who is the WE in this story??? Gosh it wouldn't be the government telling us once again what we can and can't do. How can the people of Wisconsin sit back and let this happen??? Smoking is bad for you granted, but so is us letting the government get away with this... What happened to:

government of the people, by the people, and for the people?????

[bdjunker]

muskyhusky wrote:

What happened to:
government of the people, by the people, and for the people?????

Get with the program!
That's only for ANTI-smokers!
Us smokers are not people. Why we're not even educated. We are low-down, no-account WHITE TRASH(even if you're black). We abuse our chillens, and raise them to be WHITE TRASH. We have no money to buy a car, go on vacation, or even put food on the table. The ANTIS can't wait for us to die, and some are quite willing to help us obtain that goal. We are all paid by Big Tobacco(I know, that sort of clashes with the ANTIS No money mantra, but hey it doesn't matter because they're always right), and if you're an elderly smoker in a nursing home just go outside and freeze to death while your smoking, that's one less smoker.

There's probably a lot more, but that's the main gist of all the ANTI'S posts on these forums, and the essence of their beliefs.

I

[muskyhusky]

bdjunker wrote:

<quoted text>
Get with the program!
That's only for ANTI-smokers!
Us smokers are not people. Why we're not even educated. We are low-down, no-account WHITE TRASH(even if you're black). We abuse our chillens, and raise them to be WHITE TRASH. We have no money to buy a car, go on vacation, or even put food on the table. The ANTIS can't wait for us to die, and some are quite willing to help us obtain that goal. We are all paid by Big Tobacco(I know, that sort of clashes with the ANTIS No money mantra, but hey it doesn't matter because they're always right), and if you're an elderly smoker in a nursing home just go outside and freeze to death while your smoking, that's one less smoker.
There's probably a lot more, but that's the main gist of all the ANTI'S posts on these forums, and the essence of their beliefs.
I

That's good, I liked that. It's true all anti-smokers are closet smokers and drinkers.... And those of us that smoke are poor white trash from trashy trailor courts...

Smokers unite against the anti-smoking trash of Wisconsin.....

[sglide99]

The anti smokers are just old fashioned communist hiding their agenda from the public.They want to gain total control of your lives one step at a time.Befor you know it we are a socialist or communist country.
And then we will have no choices at all.

[muskyhusky]

sglide99 wrote:

The anti smokers are just old fashioned communist hiding their agenda from the public.They want to gain total control of your lives one step at a time.Befor you know it we are a socialist or communist country.
And then we will have no choices at all.

Isn't that already happening???

[muskyhusky]

sglide99 wrote:

The anti smokers are just old fashioned communist hiding their agenda from the public.They want to gain total control of your lives one step at a time.Befor you know it we are a socialist or communist country.
And then we will have no choices at all.

So let see if I have this right, or maybe I'm getting senile at the age of 55, here goes:

If we enact a state wide smoking ban [on all those trashy smokers that spread diseases when they smoke]

then we will have more tourists coming in from Ill and other states, just want we need, more maniac drivers from Illinois.

[Jeff Larson]

You smokers are going to love this.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...

[muskyhusky]

Although I am an ex-smoker, I don't think that the government should be telling anyone where they can and can't smoke. Right now it's cigerettes, next will be McDonalds, Ho-Ho's, booze, and God only knows what else. Uncle Sam needs to keep his nose in his own business and let the citizens make up their own minds as to what/where we should or shouldn't, eat, drink and/or smoke.

[muskyhusky]

Considering all the puppy mills and non-regulation of these puppy mills, it seems to me that Wisconsin's legislatures could busy themselves with something that is needed, not a stupid non-smoking laws. I think they need to check and see where their priorities lie... Hey Doyle why did u get rid of the puppy mill bill????

[whoDunIt]

sglide99 wrote:

The anti smokers are just old fashioned communist hiding their agenda from the public.They want to gain total control of your lives one step at a time.Befor you know it we are a socialist or communist country.
And then we will have no choices at all.

Reminds me of the Nazi propaganda against smokers.

http://www.forces.org/articles/art-fcan/nazi2...

[MJS FdL]

Why is it people who don't smoke are automatically told they have to breath in the smoke anyway because otherwise it infringes on a smokers rights. What about the non smokers right to clean air. If you want to smoke fine. But why do I have to smoke with you. It was your choice to smoke just as it was my choice not to. If you drink I don't get drunk, so why when you smoke do I have to cough.
I also noticed you got very aggressive when anyone suggests anything that doesn't match your view.

[Smoker]

MJS FdL wrote:

Why is it people who don't smoke are automatically told they have to breath in the smoke anyway because otherwise it infringes on a smokers rights. What about the non smokers right to clean air. If you want to smoke fine. But why do I have to smoke with you. It was your choice to smoke just as it was my choice not to. If you drink I don't get drunk, so why when you smoke do I have to cough.
I also noticed you got very aggressive when anyone suggests anything that doesn't match your view.

First let me ask, who are you replying to?
Second, you think the air you breath is clean? There is no such thing as clean air and smoking is by no means even a concern to the air you breath. Think about how many cars there are in the USA alone. You think that exhaust is safe? Look at the chemical breakdown of the gases. Do you honestly believe the air you breath is clean at all? A gas expands to fill its container, that is the whole planet, your house, your, car, everywhere. Every single breath you take contains car exhaust. Every single bit of food you eat contains hazardous chemicals whether or not it is "organically" grown for the simple fact that all these toxic chemicals from cars, planes and industry make there way back to the soil and water where everything we eat is grown. Are people out there really that naive?

The average driver produces 7000KG of CO2 per year, thats over 15000 pounds and thats just one gas. So when you are driving 5 minutes to the store when you could wake or drive you are tainting my air as well. Your comfort hurts everyone, everywhere.

[Smoker]

MJS FdL wrote:

Why is it people who don't smoke are automatically told they have to breath in the smoke anyway because otherwise it infringes on a smokers rights. What about the non smokers right to clean air. If you want to smoke fine. But why do I have to smoke with you. It was your choice to smoke just as it was my choice not to. If you drink I don't get drunk, so why when you smoke do I have to cough.
I also noticed you got very aggressive when anyone suggests anything that doesn't match your view.

First let me ask, who are you replying to?
Second, you think the air you breath is clean? There is no such thing as clean air and smoking is by no means even a concern to the air you breath. Think about how many cars there are in the USA alone. You think that exhaust is safe? Look at the chemical breakdown of the gases. Do you honestly believe the air you breath is clean at all? A gas expands to fill its container, that is the whole planet, your house, your, car, everywhere. Every single breath you take contains car exhaust. Every single bit of food you eat contains hazardous chemicals whether or not it is "organically" grown for the simple fact that all these toxic chemicals from cars, planes and industry make there way back to the soil where everything we eat is grown. Are people out there really that naive?

The average driver produces 7000KG of CO2 per year, thats over 15000 pounds and thats just one gas. So when you are driving 5 minutes to the store when you could walk or ride a bike you are tainting my air as well. Your comfort hurts everyone, everywhere.

[SarahFrances]

MJS FdL wrote:

Why is it people who don't smoke are automatically told they have to breath in the smoke anyway because otherwise it infringes on a smokers rights. What about the non smokers right to clean air. If you want to smoke fine. But why do I have to smoke with you. It was your choice to smoke just as it was my choice not to. If you drink I don't get drunk, so why when you smoke do I have to cough.
I also noticed you got very aggressive when anyone suggests anything that doesn't match your view.

I don't expect you to inhale my cigar, pipe, or cigarette smoke. I don't think that we as smokers have the right to smoke anywhere we want. But states are proposing and passing smoking bans that: are too restrictive, base smoking on % of food sales or age, deceive voters, etc. In other words they don't make sense except to those who propose them.

Take Florida & Ohio for example. Both deceived voters by announcing after the ban was passed that it would also affect private clubs.

One restaurant here offered to buy or build a second restaurant on a parcel across the street that would operate under the same name but would be smoking only while the original location would be non-smoking. They said that would be fine as long as the smoking location didn't server food!

I don't see why provisions for smoking establishments cannot be put into these bills.

[Kent]

muskyhusky wrote:

<quoted text>
So let see if I have this right, or maybe I'm getting senile at the age of 55, here goes:
If we enact a state wide smoking ban [on all those trashy smokers that spread diseases when they smoke]
then we will have more tourists coming in from Ill and other states, just want we need, more maniac drivers from Illinois.

I'd go with the you're "getting senile at the age of 55".

[Jeff Larson]

Another smokefree Victory!
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm...

[muskyhusky]

I can't wait to see how both you Kent and Jeff Larson react when they start fining you for eating at McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys or any other fast food resturants. Or how about a national ID card if you don't have all your vital statistics encoded on that card you can't buy any grocers or anything else... Just remember it all started with the smoking bans and the government tell the public what they can and can't do.

[Boomer]

muskyhusky wrote:

I can't wait to see how both you Kent and Jeff Larson react when they start fining you for eating at McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys or any other fast food resturants. Or how about a national ID card if you don't have all your vital statistics encoded on that card you can't buy any grocers or anything else... Just remember it all started with the smoking bans and the government tell the public what they can and can't do.

Actually smoking bans are intended to protect the health of the non-smoker. I really don't care that much if the smoker wants to increase his chances of serious illness, but I do care if he impacts my health by smoking indoors around me. I don't know why the nearly 80% who don't smoke should be the ones who have to avoid certain places because smokers supposedly can't smoke outside.

[SarahFrances]

Boomer wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually smoking bans are intended to protect the health of the non-smoker. I really don't care that much if the smoker wants to increase his chances of serious illness, but I do care if he impacts my health by smoking indoors around me. I don't know why the nearly 80% who don't smoke should be the ones who have to avoid certain places because smokers supposedly can't smoke outside.

And I don't see why a non-smoker would go out of their way to patronize a smoking establishment. Yet they complain that if there is 1 smoking establishment to 20 non smoking establishment it violates their rights as a non-smoker. Not to mention how ridiculous it is to ban smoking in a Cigars shop.