Wisconsin: Smoking is now banned in Bars, Taverns, and The Workplace

[Revolution]

I WILL say this: since the Government has mandated that a certain chemical be added to cigarettes in order to make them extinguish themselves, I have noticed that I have had more lung problems and difficulty breathing. Before that chemical was added, it seemed as if smoking bothered me some, physically, but not to the extent it does a year or so later

Actually, I have been thinking along the same lines. I too have been coughing a bit more since it was added now that I think about it. Not sure I can prove it's the chemical, but new things crop up daily, so we may soon find out.

[Chris_]

I WILL say this: since the Government has mandated that a certain chemical be added to cigarettes in order to make them extinguish themselves, I have noticed that I have had more lung problems and difficulty breathing. Before that chemical was added, it seemed as if smoking bothered me some, physically, but not to the extent it does a year or so later

That's like asking Mrs. Lincoln "Did you enjoy the play?"  It's not like smoking is actually a health benefit.

[RightCoast]

And yet every public pool one goes to, there has undoubtedly been some kid who pissed in there. You may have even swam through "warm spot" at some point. The whole point here is that you don't beat the kid's ass and ban him/her from the pool. It's one of life's many little things one has to deal with. It may be unpleasant, and distasteful, but all you really have to do is go home, and take a shower.

See what I mean?

That's fairly simple to me, and I agree 100%

I find it quite odd that I can smoke like a chimney, but dislike the taste of chew. I've tried dippin' a couple of times, but it just isn't for me. Something about the way it burns my gums, tastes, or something. I don't know. Maybe I just don't like the feel of it in there.

Peeing in the pool is the wrong analogy.  If you went to a public pool and someone stood next to you and started peeing and some of that pee splashed onto your shirt and the side of your face and all you could smell for the next few hours was pee - that would be the right analogy. So after you get pee'd on just go take a shower...

[Thor]

Right Coast, let me guess. You used to smoke, didn't you??

[Revolution]

If you went to a public pool and someone stood next to you and started peeing and some of that pee splashed onto your shirt and the side of your face and all you could smell for the next few hours was pee - that would be the right analogy.

No it wouldn't. Simply for the fact that that never happens. At least that I've seen. And how would it splash onto your face, anyway? Either someone can projective piss into the water, or they'd have to be peeing straight up into the air.

That's pretty farfetched.

[formerlurker]

and I stated that the data is flawed. I liken it to the data we got from the Glow-Bull warming crowd. The bigger fact is that second hand smoke cannot be directly attributed to cancer, IMO. There are MANY environmental factors that are left out. Radon exposure ( a MAJOR contributor), exhaust fumes, chemical exposures, etc. I recall a Doctor in Houston that was intentionally skewing the data because if he decided that a person smoked or was exposed to cigarette smoke, he would mark that on the death certificate, regardless of the REAL cause.

I will admit that smoking is NOT good for anybody. I question whether or not second hand smoke actually causes the damage people claim it does. I've been on BOTH sides of the fence as far as being a smoker or non-smoker. Does second hand smoke stink?? HELL YES!! Does it do damage?? Possibly. There is data out there to debate what the Control Freaks  are publishing. I WILL say this: since the Government has mandated that a certain chemical be added to cigarettes in order to make them extinguish themselves, I have noticed that I have had more lung problems and difficulty breathing. Before that chemical was added, it seemed as if smoking bothered me some, physically, but not to the extent it does a year or so later.

The data in that fact sheet is a listing of the chemicals found in second hand smoke.  I can't see how that is flawed.   

How is secondhand smoke exposure measured?
Secondhand smoke is measured by testing indoor air for nicotine or other smoke constituents. Exposure to secondhand smoke can be tested by measuring the levels of cotinine (a nicotine by-product in the body) in the nonsmoker’s blood, saliva, or urine (1). Nicotine, cotinine, carbon monoxide, and other evidence of secondhand smoke exposure have been found in the body fluids of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.

That is pretty specific evidence. 

This fact sheet also links numerous studies/research on this topic.   Rather difficult to discount all as flawed. 

[formerlurker]

No it wouldn't. Simply for the fact that that never happens. At least that I've seen. And how would it splash onto your face, anyway? Either someone can projective piss into the water, or they'd have to be peeing straight up into the air.

That's pretty farfetched.

Just because it doesn't happen, doesn't make it a far fetched analogy.     Inhaling the smoke that you exhale into my lungs (permeating my hair, clothes, pocketbook) is not the same as being in a public chlorinated pool with a child who peed.    That is what is far fetched. 

[thundley4]

Millions of smokers have never had cancer.  Anecdotal stories of people living well past their 90's who smoked their whole life and never got cancer.   I sometimes wonder if there isn't some other factors being overlooked in those that do get cancer.

[Revolution]

Just because it doesn't happen, doesn't make it a far fetched analogy.     Inhaling the smoke that you exhale into my lungs (permeating my hair, clothes, pocketbook) is not the same as being in a public chlorinated pool with a child who peed.    That is what is far fetched. 

Actually, it's quite the same. You mentioned the chlorine: You body is like the chlorine that dilutes the smoke/piss, actually. You think a smoker's body takes wear and tear, right? A non smoker's system who isn't around it very much can deal with it a whole heck of a lot more efficently/speedily. Heck, even a non smoker who's around it a lot takes in less than a pack a year. (refer to my link.) 0.03 cigarettes a day. Should be safe to assume that the body, being  the remarkable machine that it is, could process that much of a cigarette, and clean out your system in no time.

[formerlurker]

Actually, it's quite the same. You mentioned the chlorine: You body is like the chlorine that dilutes the smoke/piss, actually. You think a smoker's body takes wear and tear, right? A non smoker's system who isn't around it very much can deal with it a whole heck of a lot more efficently/speedily. Heck, even a non smoker who's around it a lot takes in less than a pack a year. (refer to my link.) 0.03 cigarettes a day. Should be safe to assume that the body, being  the remarkable machine that it is, could process that much of a cigarette, and clean out your system in no time.

Refer to link to numerous studies in Hawkgirl's post, and the excerpt I pulled from that link.

[Revolution]

I saw it. Believe me when I tell you...I read it. Here's one of the first things I noticed...

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes.

Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

No offense here, Hawk, but I then proceeded to laugh my balls off. See the "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentallity here?

It would be like me saying having a wood burning stove in your home will give you cancer without providing any concrete, hard data to back it up. Which...there isn't for this topic. It's all subjective/suspect. A heck of a lot of people use wood burning stoves for heat/cooking. I have never..ever heard of anyone getting any type of cancer from it. My grandmother used to have one before she moved out of her house. She has no ill effects.

[Chris_]

As a non smoker, I think it's great that it's been outlawed out of restaurants.  I hate the smell of smoke and smokers....

Agree.

I can't stand being in my parent's house or cars whenever we go back to visit.  It's stale smoke.

A ban isn't necessary though.  There are non-smoking sections.  Some of the non-smoking sections suck and you can still smell a lot of smoke, so it defeats the purpose, but still....

It should be up to the businesses whether or not they want customers smoking in their establishments.

I haven't read this whole thread yet.  I just wanted to quote you! 

[thundley4]

I agree with not allowing smoking in restaurants, I don't like the smell either when I'm eating, but bars are a whole different thing.  Many restaurants in Illinois were non-smoking even before Illinois passed their ban.  Illinois went too far with their ban. All public buildings are non-smoking.  One bar we used to go to built a little shed with heat outside their back door. They were told that they would have to remove the door and the windows or else it would be covered by the ban.

Also, if you run a business out of your home, and customers come into your house, then your own home is considered a public building and no smoking is allowed.

[PatriotGame]

And yet every public pool one goes to, there has undoubtedly been some kid who pissed in there. You may have even swam through "warm spot" at some point. The whole point here is that you don't beat the kid's ass and ban him/her from the pool. It's one of life's many little things one has to deal with. It may be unpleasant, and distasteful, but all you really have to do is go home, and take a shower.

See what I mean?

Erm no because there is chlorine in the pool to kill the piss.

There is NO chlorine in the air to kill your smoke....

[Revolution]

Erm no because there is chlorine in the pool to kill the piss.

There is NO chlorine in the air to kill your smoke....

Outside, there is just wide open space that disperses the smoke to almost nill. All you really get is the smell. (which changes nothing, by the way, cause that's all SHS really is...an acrid smell) Inside? Well, I personally know business owners who have spent oodles on vents, and such to get partially rid of the smoke. After all, it was made a rule here in WI that you were required to have something like that in your business for smokers. Now what are they going to do? They're out that money they spent. Seem FAIR to you guys?

THANKS DOYLE!!!

[formerlurker]

I saw it. Believe me when I tell you...I read it. Here's one of the first things I noticed...

No offense here, Hawk, but I then proceeded to laugh my balls off. See the "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentallity here?

It would be like me saying having a wood burning stove in your home will give you cancer without providing any concrete, hard data to back it up. Which...there isn't for this topic. It's all subjective/suspect. A heck of a lot of people use wood burning stoves for heat/cooking. I have never..ever heard of anyone getting any type of cancer from it. My grandmother used to have one before she moved out of her house. She has no ill effects.

Wow -- take text out of context much?  The entire quote:

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).

Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

[NHSparky]

Millions of smokers have never had cancer.  Anecdotal stories of people living well past their 90's who smoked their whole life and never got cancer.   I sometimes wonder if there isn't some other factors being overlooked in those that do get cancer.

And millions more have.  My father was one.  My grandmother another.

[formerlurker]

And millions more have.  My father was one.  My grandmother another.

My MIL died from lung cancer from smoking also.

[RightCoast]

Outside, there is just wide open space that disperses the smoke to almost nill. All you really get is the smell. (which changes nothing, by the way, cause that's all SHS really is...an acrid smell) Inside? Well, I personally know business owners who have spent oodles on vents, and such to get partially rid of the smoke. After all, it was made a rule here in WI that you were required to have something like that in your business for smokers. Now what are they going to do? They're out that money they spent. Seem FAIR to you guys?

THANKS DOYLE!!!

Fair...Funny word, I don't think it's fair that I can be sitting in a restaurant with my family, enjoying our meal and then you can come sit down next to me and ruin the evening by lighting up a smoke. Seem FAIR to you???

You want to smoke outside go ahead, just don't think you're going to stand next to me and my kids while you do it.

Again I'm staying away from the SHS health argument because we simply don't know 100% - although really what are the odds that all those chemicals don't cause lung damage? I SIMPLY DON'T WANT TO SMELL THAT SHIT. That is why the pee on the face is the better pool analogy.

As far as the smoke eaters that businesses bought, oh well, they don't really work all that good on heavy smoke, but work great as ventilation to dissipate body heat without turning on the AC. I've gone through the smoking bans in 2 states now - no bars have closed that weren't going to close anyway, and new bars open everyday. I worked at a hugely popular restaurant/bar during the transition in Mass. - the difference in how I felt and how I smelled at the end of the night after the ban was amazing. And that place had some of the best smoke eaters available, and is still in business today after 12 years of not being able to smoke.

Smokers bitch and whine, then go outside like sheep and smoke in the cold...oh ******* well.

[RightCoast]

Right Coast, let me guess. You used to smoke, didn't you??

When my uncle had me stationed on Oki I smoked for six months. Every morning after a night out I gave away or threw away whatever was left in the pack from the night before. Wouldn't lite up again until the first round the next night.

[Revolution]

I saw the carcinogens. I don't doubt there are TRACES of many different carcinogens. Whether they are class A cancer causing when EXHALED...is disputeable. Think about it. The smoker's lungs absorb the majority of it.

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen

But where pre tell, is the hard data? There's 1, 2, 3 numbers to refer you to places, but they're not links. They're not clickable. If they're going to tout this unadulterated shit, they should at least be able to link you to a credible study with hard data proving their point. (Which I feel I should bring up that I haven't seen one that isn't either funded to come out to a specific conclusion, or supported by prohibitionists, or propped in some other non scientific way)

The other thing they do in this link:http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html

is play to your sympathies as a tactic. Smoking during pregnancy, and around people with respiratory problems specifically. Everyone knows that smoking while pregnant, or around asthmatics/others with respiratory problems is detrimental to their health. It isn't because of the smoke solely either. It's a combination of the acrid smoke, and the fact that the person has a problem breathing normally. We going to ban campfires too so that these two categories of people are fully content? Hell, we should ban fire totally so that pregnant women, and people with breathing problems don't have to deal with any kind of smoke. Perfect world, right?

Even smokers usually move away if someone asks. Common decency dictates that. Only a complete dick would stick around. That's not the issue. The issue is this site playing to sympathies, and building strawmen where they shouldn't be any. Because that's exactly what these little linkies are without hard data.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way: Not one of the studies provided anywhere on this issue meets the scientific standard to be credible. CI Rating, I believe it's called. It must be 3.0 minimum to prove anything, and must have an RR of 200% All other studies on any subject are subject to this standard. For example, the '92-'93 EPA study which much of the "proof" is based on had a CI rating less than 2.0, and an RR of 95% which means it proved nothing.

I actually believe some of what I said above was in the 2nd link I provided, lurker, but you kept assuming that I didn't read the quote/link provided me, so you kept shoving it in my face. I can only restrain myself for so long... Read MY link now that I have addressed Hawk's, kay?


I hate to say it, but I have had this conversation time, and time again with liberals, and a lot of left wing loons. It's disappointing to say the least that I am running into some of the same comments that I did at other discussion boards. I honestly thought it would be different here as pertains to this topic. I've seen variations of the phrase "A lie is still a lie even if mentioned 1000 times" posted here a few times, but it seems to me that only a few in this thread take it to heart. Would many of you be saying the same things if the DUmmies were looking for bans on tobacco products across the United States? I'd still be sticking to my guns. Admittedly, tobacco products are worse (for THE SMOKER) than the soft drink bans in San Fran, but did any of you support those??

Fair...Funny word, I don't think it's fair that I can be sitting in a restaurant with my family, enjoying our meal and then you can come sit down next to me and ruin the evening by lighting up a smoke. Seem FAIR to you???

Firstly, if that's the way it panned out, no. But that isn't usually the case, now is it? Secondly, restaurants USED to have two sections. You could go to yours without fear of a smoker coming in and lighting up next to your kid. Third, even if a smoker did light up on the bench next to you in your non smoking section, you could do one of two things. 1. Ask him to leave/go back to his section. 2. Talk to the manager or whoever is in charge. Simple really.

You want to smoke outside go ahead, just don't think you're going to stand next to me and my kids while you do it.

I'm just curious, but do you happen to give smokers shit as you walk by them standing outside having one? It just seems that your attitude is quite hostile. Don't worry though. Unless you/your kids have respiratory problems, or are pregnant...you're gonna be fine. (If by chance someone in your family does have respiratory problems, I would NEVER smoke around them, and would hope nobody else would either.)

As far as the smoke eaters that businesses bought, oh well

That's both outrageous, and comical One, it's entirely crass to say "Oh well" to owners that were FORCED to get these gigantic, money eating things that are now worthless. Two, because you seem like the kind of person that the prohibitionists bought. Two sided coin, I guess.

However, the prohibitionists, and the media bought the majority of people based on a lie. So did Obama. Why is it that we can criticize Obama based on his lies, but because we don't like the SMELL of something, for God's sake, it A-OK to buy right into the rhetoric??

[BlueStateSaint]

NYS has had the ban for at least three-four years (don't remember the exact number).  Patrons smoke outside.  Ya know what some of the bars in Albany, along Pearl Street, did?  They got some of those propane-powered heaters that stand about seven feet tall, put them outside their front doors, and put their butt receptacles next to them.  The bars are still packed on the weekends.

It's "adapt and overcome," people.  Isn't that what us conservatives do?

[Revolution]

Yes, we do. However, there's so much we have to overcome these days, I don't think another BS item should be in the cards. This is directly a nurtured plant of liberalism, and it grows bigger, and bigger by the day. It shouldn't have to be something we need to overcome simply because an unfair target was placed on our backs.

[Thor]

NYS has had the ban for at least three-four years (don't remember the exact number).  Patrons smoke outside.  Ya know what some of the bars in Albany, along Pearl Street, did?  They got some of those propane-powered heaters that stand about seven feet tall, put them outside their front doors, and put their butt receptacles next to them.  The bars are still packed on the weekends.

It's "adapt and overcome," people.  Isn't that what us conservatives do?

Minnesota did the same thing when they passed their smoking ban. It appears to work. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind it if a place CHOSE to be non-smoking. There are a few around here where I live in Texas. That's fine by me. I can choose to be a patron or not and sometimes I do patronize these places. Same with the non-smokers. They are free to choose whether or not to go to a place that allows smoking. Nobody is forcing people to do anything they don't want to do. So, non-smokers, your arguments don't wash.  Folks, this isn't really about smoking, it's about FREEDOM (the removal of), property rights, and CONTROL. Already a few places in this county have started an initiative  controlling what we eat or consume. It's creeping incrementalism at its finest.

[Zeus]

Yes, we do. However, there's so much we have to overcome these days, I don't think another BS item should be in the cards. This is directly a nurtured plant of liberalism, and it grows bigger, and bigger by the day. It shouldn't have to be something we need to overcome simply because an unfair target was placed on our backs.

The Smoking Haters are so emotionally invested in the issue no one will ever change their minds. I thinks it's utterly astounding that the "haters" have so totally bought into their positions with classic Liberals Ideals. They are so extremely emotionally invested that no amt of evidence to the contrary will move them from their position.theyalso fail to realize that by ceding more control to govt it paves the road for yet more & more govt control over everyones lifes. So typically liberal, govt control over others not them & emotion rather than logic & factual driven