Smoking Ban Statewide in Wisconsin - Page 3

pk · 02-28-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Personally, I find fat people eating at McDonalds more disgusting than smokers. But that's me.

at least they are not hurting anyone around them. (unless of course you make them mad with your smoking and they sit on you). lol

I'm not a spring chicken and I'm also not the size 3 I use to be

but when I go to mcdonalds at least I order a diet coke with my double hamburger and leave off all the other junk on it and get plain pickles only, and share my fires...every bit helps when you eat something fattening. lol so as I sit there trying to do my share..maybe the person next to me won't mind doing their's and smoking outside.

I'm on the forums to have fun...I know I said this before but I am taking a break from this subject..see you on other topics. *waves*

pk

**CarolsCritterCare** · 03-01-2007, 07:16 AM

Except.....Mark......what you are quoting me on is something I was actually quoting someone else on only I didn't know how to use that feature to make it show proper.

I dont join political forums for the purpose of staying out of debates and attacks and mudslinging.

I'm not going to bother wasting my time and quoting you because I just wont post here any more. I'll just pick a different forum where I dont have to worry about debate. That is not me. I dont have time for it.

Thanks all, it's been nice. Sorry I posted an updated news article.

Carol

kmfarm · 03-01-2007, 08:49 AM

I've re-read this entire thread just to check if I was out of line in any way. I don't believe I was.

I don't think I attacked anyone or slung any mud. Matter of fact, my tone is more civil than some of the other posts.

Carol, I hold no ill feelings for you or your position. I can respect everyone's point of view and still disagree. That's what I try to do. If I failed, sorry. You come across to me as a very nice person and I don't want to offend you.

Don't go away on my account. If you'd like to post more, I'll stay away from resonding to your posts directly. I don't want to be the reason for someone staying away.

Mark

**j10asen** · 03-01-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolsCritterCare

I didn't know how to use that feature to make it show proper.
Carol

Helen of Carolville, oops I mean Carol of Helenville

here is what you need to do to quote someone

[aQUOTE="person you want to quote here"] <---This starts the quote

PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT QUOTED HERE

[/aQUOTE]<---this ends the quote

only remove the letter a from the word "aquote"

**MrKhay** · 03-01-2007, 12:54 PM

...or, on the post that you'd like to quote, find the "quote" button on the top right of the post. This action will open a page where you can post your message along with the message you'd like to quote. This action will quote the entire post.

ToesInTheSand · 03-01-2007, 04:04 PM

Hmm, well well. I see the thread was moved........

Or am I seeing things again? (at least the voices in my head are gone)

Sorry to see you go Carol, but then again, if you are, you won't see this anyway.

Stay on the forum, just stay away from this particular section. As my Mama always said "If ya can't stand the heat......" :lol: I mean this in a funny way now...some folks aren't cut out for forum debates, and it's that way in EVERY community forum to some degree, depending on the tolerance of moderators and what image they want for their forum. I really personally did not see any mud-slinging, etc., just good ol' "debating" on a very touchy subject matter. I love to read the different views, even if they do not agree with mine.

Like in my previous posts, I am a smoker trying to QUIT, and since I am not in WI., but visit, I suppose the state wanting to go "non-smoking" really does not bother me. What DOES bother me is the fact that it seems to be a "community" ban, and that is not fair to Appleton in itself, as patrons who smoke will just go "next door". If you're going to ban smoking, BAN SMOKING, and be done with it.

I do not feel that a "free-standing" bar (drinks only) should be included as BARS are for adults only, over 21, and it should be left to the owner of the bar. If you are an employee, you can choose to work there or NOT, to limit your exposure, and children would not be in there anyway.

Unless the laws are different in the state of WI., children are NOT allowed in bars, right? I do not know the current laws. Here in FL. you cannot bring ANYONE under 21 into a bar or allow under 21 to "belly-up", if you will, to a bar, even in a restaurant, with or without parents or guardians.

(as a retired bartender, I always had to point that out to angry tourists from WI who brought their children into my bar and I had to refuse service!)

Some would even try to order cocktails for their older children. YIKES! Sorry, jail time for ME! (...and the moral issue is troubling for me having kids in bars, just MY opinion) :wink:

I feel this issue is most certainly politically motivated, but maybe the trans-fat issue will start garnering more attention soon?
:roll: :lol:

Since I have been in a state that has gone "non-smoking" almost 3 years ago, I suppose I have gotten used to it, and it doesn't bother me at all. It seems very strange now to go to another state that has ashtrays on the restaurant tables. Like, who would actually SMOKE while eating?? 8O

As far as "smoker's rights", smokers also have to consider "non-smoker's rights" as well. There can be a happy medium. I bet if they did leave it up to the business owner, as to allowing smoking in their establishments, I bet those businesses would slowly feel the loss in business as so many people are quitting the habit. And trust me....there's no one more intolerant than a REFORMED SMOKER! :wink:

**MrKhay** · 03-01-2007, 04:19 PM

pk has 666 posts...watch it!
SMOKEM' IF YOU GOTTEM'...I say :lol:

Chulio · 03-13-2007, 06:21 AM

If smoking is so bad and terrible why not make it illegal.
If a new substance similar to tobacco was born today, it could not be made legal.
But no, the powers that be make waaaayyyy to much money taxing the crap out of it and would lose millions in revenue each year.

Personally I find smoking a very bad habit and do not smoke.

I grew up in a community (with Keith) where a corner had no less than 4 taverns. People who go there smoke. People who do not don't
People who work there that don't like to breath the smoke can work some where else.
We have choices people. We do not want to give that up.

Public places are a completely different situation. No Smoking in public buildings make perfect sense, but a private enterprise is a different story.

Either ban it completely let the people to decide.

**MrKhay** · 03-13-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chulio

If smoking is so bad and terrible why not make it illegal.
If a new substance similar to tobacco was born today, it could not be made legal.
But no, the powers that be make waaaayyyy to much money taxing the crap out of it and would lose millions in revenue each year.

Personally I find smoking a very bad habit and do not smoke.

I grew up in a community (with Keith) where a corner had no less than 4 taverns. People who go there smoke. People who do not don't
People who work there that don't like to breath the smoke can work some where else.
We have choices people. We do not want to give that up.

Public places are a completely different situation. No Smoking in public buildings make perfect sense, but a private enterprise is a different story.

Either ban it completely let the people to decide.

We still have the liberty to choose...let's exercise it. "If you don't use it, you lose it".

talleyJudy · 03-14-2007, 09:25 AM

Sort of a different twist on the subject of 'smoke free air'. Of course I found this because Walter E. Williams is one of my favorite "personalities". If you have not listened to him on the radio occasionally filling in for Rush, you have missed a real 'economical' educational opportunity sprinkled with cleaver wit.

The following is his column of Wednesday, March 14, 2007.

"The most fundamental principle of economics is the law of demand, which postulates that the higher the cost of a behavior, the less people will do of it, while the lower the cost, the more people will do of it. The law of demand applies to any behavior, and I'm going to apply it to anti-smoking behavior. First, let's get the health issue out of the way because it has no relevancy to the particular principle under examination, which is how people respond to the cost of something.

The cost to nonsmokers to impose their will on smokers, say, in a restaurant, bar or airplane, is zero, or close to it. They just have to get the legislature to do their bidding. When the cost of something is zero, there's a tendency for people to take too much of it. You say, "Williams, in my book, there can never be too much smoke-free air!" Here's a little test. Say your car's out of gas and stuck in a blizzard. You wave me down for assistance. I say, "I'll be glad to give you a lift to safety, but I'm smoking in my car." How likely is it that you'll turn down my assistance in an effort to avoid tobacco smoke? You might be tempted to argue, "That's different." It's not different at all. The cost of a smoke-free environment is not what you're willing to pay.

*next paragraph is the caption of a picture that did not 'copy/paste'*
A smoker is seen smirking as he puffs on a cigarette at the Pigskins Sports Bar, Thursday, Feb. 15, 2007, in Honolulu. Faced with one of the toughest new anti-smoking laws in the nation, some Honolulu bar owners are openly defying the statewide smoking ban by letting their customers light up anyway. Bar owners complain that the law, which was passed to decrease the danger of secondhand smoke, is ruining their business and keeping away smoking tourists, especially from Japan. (AP Photo/Marco Garcia)

*back to W.E.W.'s text*
Say you don't permit smoking in your house. When I visit, I offer to pay you $100 for each cigarette you permit me to smoke. Instantaneously, I've raised the cost of your maintaining a smoke-free environment. Retaining smoke-free air in your home costs the sacrifice of $100. Of course, I could offer you higher amounts, and economic theory predicts that at some price, you'll conclude your 100 percent smoke-free air isn't worth it.

Air that's either 100 percent smoke-filled or 100 percent smoke-free is probably sub-optimal. At zero prices there will either be too much smoking or too little smoking. The problem in our society is that laws have created too much smoke-free air. To a large degree, it's the fault of smokers, who haven't created a cost to smoke-free air.

My rule is by no means absolute. There are instances where I put up with zero-priced smoke-free air, and there are other instances where I don't. It all depends on the cost to me. I think other smokers ought to adopt the same agenda. Say you're asked to do some volunteer work. You might answer, "Yes, if I'm allowed to smoke." This strategy might also be a nice way to get out of doing something without saying no. Just ask whether smoking is permitted.

The economic lesson to extract from all of this is that zero prices lead to sub-optimal outcomes, and it doesn't just apply to the smoking issue. How would you like zero prices at the supermarket or clothing store? If there were, what do you think you'd see on the shelves when you arrived? If you said, "Nothing, because people would take too much," go to the head of the class."

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.