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

[Thor]

Formerlurker: and your assessment may not be wrong, but this is WHY many states got Billions of dollars from their tobacco lawsuits. All they are doing  is taxing the smoker some more just because they can and want the extra money. So, ask yourself, what have the states done with the money they received from the tobacco companies?? Did they put it aside for smoking related illnesses like they were supposed to?? I doubt it. I know for a fact that MN didn't.

All in all, I agree with Doc's assessment. Y'all seem to be just a bunch of DUmmies in the guise of Conservatives, at least when it comes to some issues. Hypocrites, at best. 

First they came for my cigarettes, but I didn't smoke...
Then they came for my alcohol, but I didn't drink...
Next they came for my salt, but I use other flavorings...
Next they came for my trans fats, but I eat healthy....
ad nauseum.......

Regardless of whether or not I smoke, the American taxpayer is going to pay for my medical care and will continue to pay for it. That's a benefit I've EARNED. I don't live a risky lifestyle, but I'm far from perfect. We all have our flaws and to NOT admit that is supercilious.

[Wretched Excess]

better be careful.  right after they get my cigarettes, the will come after chocolate.

[Eupher]

Nice rant, Doc, but I'm afraid your fears don't square with the reality that's happening.

Fact remains that the government HAS interceded in our lives - in some cases to an intolerable level, in many cases, not enough. As you sagely pointed out it's a matter of perspective.

We've all got an opinion on the issue. That's great, but the laws are still being passed.

Personal freedoms have been chipped away since the beginning. I'd go so far as to say that Chief Justice John Marshall may have been one of the first that started the chipping process and in some cases the politicians and the courts have gotten out sledge hammers and chain saws to hew away personal freedoms.

We can cry and wring our hands and demonize each other, calling ourselves hypocrites and any other name we like, but it alters nothing. Slowly and steadily, cities and towns across America are banning smoking from public places.

I believe in personal responsibility and accountability just as much as anybody here. But I also believe in legal protections from the lifestyles of others. If that takes government intervention to keep those lifestyles from interfering with mine, I'm okay with that - pure and simple. Since there are an abundance of truly stupid people on this planet, those who honestly have no clue what their personal choices do to other people, that it takes the government to protect some from others. It gives me no pleasure to say that, but it is a political and personal reality.

Playing the Kum Bah Yah thing, it would be wonderful if we could all live in harmony. But we don't. Some people piss me the hell off and I'm quite sure that I manage to piss off others just as strongly. The upshot is, we can't depend on our common sense to deal with this and other issues. It takes laws and regulations to control behavior.

I'd agree with you that alcohol is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room that everybody sees, but ignores. Regulating the ingestion of alcohol already happens to some level - can't do it legally if you're under 18 no matter WHERE you are, much less in a private home. And yet it's still a problem. DWIs and domestic violence occurs all the time by those under the influence, and there are worse things that happen.

I believe what's happening here is that smokers are now a beleaguered minority. They simply don't have the political clout they might've had, say back in the Forties and Fifties. Ergo, THEIR rights are being chipped away. While there is a hue and a cry about personal freedoms and such being eroded, the political reality is, it is what it is. Those who don't smoke don't give enough of a rip to address your concerns, and Thor's concerns. Why? Because it doesn't affect them, except that when they walk into an establishment somewhere they're not accosted by the stink of tobacco.

Now that's a personal freedom I can wrap my lungs around.

[RightCoast]

We either believe in personal freedom or not, and if so, we will need to learn that others may conduct theirs in a manner that doesn't fit our personal template.  The founders never envisioned a government that exerted its tenacles into the legal conduct of its citizens.

doc

You can drive a car - you can not drive 150mph. You can smoke if you choose - you can not smoke in a restaurant. Like it or not the government is is control, and it isn't about personal responsibility when your right to smoke interferes with my right to breathe fresh air.

[RightCoast]

All in all, I agree with Doc's assessment. Y'all seem to be just a bunch of DUmmies in the guise of Conservatives, at least when it comes to some issues. Hypocrites, at best. 

That's weak at best. "We're more conservative because we want to smoke in public." Whatever, you sound more like a Libertarian: "the big bad, mean government can't stop me from doing whatever I want, whenever I want, and how I want." Last I checked we believe in the rule of law and smoking in public is fast going against that rule - thank effing God; if you don't like it you can run for office, or try to vote in your local dope smoking Lib-ertarian.

[formerlurker]

Formerlurker: and your assessment may not be wrong, but this is WHY many states got Billions of dollars from their tobacco lawsuits. All they are doing  is taxing the smoker some more just because they can and want the extra money. So, ask yourself, what have the states done with the money they received from the tobacco companies?? Did they put it aside for smoking related illnesses like they were supposed to?? I doubt it. I know for a fact that MN didn't.

Medicaid costs in my state is bankrupting the Commonwealth.   Money secured is money spent.   My state spends billions on medicaid yearly.

All in all, I agree with Doc's assessment. Y'all seem to be just a bunch of DUmmies in the guise of Conservatives, at least when it comes to some issues. Hypocrites, at best.  

You have a right to smoke, and too freakin bad if your smoke gets blown in my, or my children's face -- it's all about you right?

I am going to let the insult slide as I appear to be one of the few who isn't hyper-emotional over this topic.

First they came for my cigarettes, but I didn't smoke...
Then they came for my alcohol, but I didn't drink...
Next they came for my salt, but I use other flavorings...
Next they came for my trans fats, but I eat healthy....
ad nauseum......

You drive drunk, then there is a problem.   Your drinking = neglect of your children, then there is a problem.  

You eating salt or trans fat at a table does not affect the diners near you.   Anything banning the two is ridiculous and actually fits into your argument.  

Regardless of whether or not I smoke, the American taxpayer is going to pay for my medical care and will continue to pay for it. That's a benefit I've EARNED. I don't live a risky lifestyle, but I'm far from perfect. We all have our flaws and to NOT admit that is supercilious.

You didn't earn Medicaid.    

[formerlurker]

You can drive a car - you can not drive 150mph. You can smoke if you choose - you can not smoke in a restaurant. Like it or not the government is is control, and it isn't about personal responsibility when your right to smoke interferes with my right to breathe fresh air.

I would have just agreed with your post if I saw this prior to typing out my other one -- exactly.  When your habits interfere with my rights then guess what?  that's a problem.

[Thor]

Y'all STILL don't get it, do you??  Who are YOU to say what business does what, other than NOT being a customer. FFS, y'all are a dense and obstinate crowd. Y'all are FREE to have your ****ing non-smoking restaurants and bars. I could give a ****. I may or may not choose to go there. IF I DO CHOOSE to go there, then I'll have to abide by those rules, wouldn't I?? 

Now, why the **** do y'all want to control whether or not a bar or restaurant wants to be a smoking allowed establishment?? NOBODY'S forcing y'all to go there, are they?? If you don't want to breathe tobacco smoke, DON'T ****ING go there !!!! Now, how simple is THAT ?!?!?!?! Apparently, y'all are so rabidly "anti-whatever", that you can't even tolerate an individual's or business owner's choice. That's all I'm saying........ that people should have a choice!!!

And I DO agree that bars & restaurants that  simply have a smoking and non-smoking section are pretty stupid, unless the sections are separately divided rooms. And...... if a non-smoker has to walk through to smoking section to get to the non-smoking section, that's pretty dumb, too.

What I hear y'all saying is that as long as "whatever" fits within YOUR lifestyle, then you're all about "freedom". Lord forbid if something falls outside of YOUR lifestyle choices and SCREW anybody that thinks that they should have a choice, too. 

Yeah, I lean towards Libertarianism, to some extent, however, I am mostly Conservative.

You didn't earn Medicaid.   

No, but I DID earn  Tricare..... (paid for by the American taxpayer) one of the benefits earned by being retired Military.

I'd agree with you that alcohol is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room that everybody sees, but ignores. Regulating the ingestion of alcohol already happens to some level - can't do it legally if you're under 18 no matter WHERE you are, much less in a private home. And yet it's still a problem. DWIs and domestic violence occurs all the time by those under the influence, and there are worse things that happen.

You're wrong, Eupher. In Texas (and many other states), it is legal for a parent to serve their own minor child alcohol, in their home or even in a restaurant.

[Texacon]

My opinion nobody has the right to walk into a room that I'm in and start smoking.  Just like the other night when I was at the Sting concert and the bitch next to me wouldn't stop talking, I told her - nicely - to STFU.

Now if they try to say people can't smoke in their own house or in the car then I'll be right next to you defending that.

I am not a smoker and I have never been a smoker.  I take issue with the freedom's lost on this one.  Like many have said, if you don't want to be around smoke then don't go where the smokers are.  Either a business is going to change its policy or it is making its money off the smokers.

To me this issue is one that divides a lot of folks.  It is one of the small things used as a wedge.

Now to answer the bold part above;

Smoking in car ban in CA

Smoking in car ban in ME

National proposal for car ban

Proposal in GA

New South Wales

Canada anyone??

Now all of those links say the same thing; "It's for the CHILDREN"

Let's see where it goes from there;

Smoking ban on private balcony

Chicago considers outside smoking ban

Vetoed proposal to ban smoking in state parks

I dunno .... you decide how far it could go.


If you allow them to go down that road (smoking in a car with a child),  then me being a sun worshipper and living in the south, I say fine the shit out of any parent who will allow their child to go without sunscreen.  It is child abuse plain and simple.   

It's the same thing.  Overexposure to the sun causes cancer does it not?

Naw, I don't smoke but I'm not for any bans other than those I impose upon myself.  I'll stand with the smokers on this one.

KC

[Thor]

If you allow them to go down that road (smoking in a car with a child),  then me being a sun worshipper and living in the south, I say fine the shit out of any parent who will allow their child to go without sunscreen.  It is child abuse plain and simple.   

It's the same thing.  Overexposure to the sun causes cancer does it not?

Naw, I don't smoke but I'm not for any bans other than those I impose upon myself.  I'll stand with the smokers on this one.

KC

As a matter of fact, my mom died at the age of 36 (35 years ago, almost to the day) because of malignant melanoma. How did she acquire such a disease?? She was fair skinned and like to lay out in the hot Texas sun at Lake Texoma (actually, it was the Oklahoma side). She was one of those who used baby oil & iodine. As far as I can remember, they didn't have sunscreen when I was a young lad, so I got a liberal dose of suntan lotion, which usually washed off after a dip in the lake.

[Doc]

Nice rant, Doc, but I'm afraid your fears don't square with the reality that's happening.

Not fears, facts, and they square perfectly with the concept of personal freedom and choice

Fact remains that the government HAS interceded in our lives - in some cases to an intolerable level, in many cases, not enough. As you sagely pointed out it's a matter of perspective.

We've all got an opinion on the issue. That's great, but the laws are still being passed.

And the underlying point to my dissertation is first, WHY.....and second, where does it stop.......when do we finally say enough......were we to all adopt your position, it likely never would.

Personal freedoms have been chipped away since the beginning. I'd go so far as to say that Chief Justice John Marshall may have been one of the first that started the chipping process and in some cases the politicians and the courts have gotten out sledge hammers and chain saws to hew away personal freedoms.

We can cry and wring our hands and demonize each other, calling ourselves hypocrites and any other name we like, but it alters nothing. Slowly and steadily, cities and towns across America are banning smoking from public places.

OK....lets look at it from  the prospective of an absurdity......you and I live in the same block.......I'm the Mayor of your town, and am afflicted with a hypersensitive hearing disorder.......everytime you practice with your instrument, it causes me slight pain, so I pass an ordinance that forces all musicians who play brass instruments to go outside the city limits, and stand by the side of the road, in the rain, sleet, and snow, should they wish to practice.

Ridiculous, granted, but the principle is EXACTLY the same........in this case, you are an "offending minority", therefore, your rights are no longer valid, because your lifestyle offends me, and causes me some discomfort......I therefore, as a person of authority, legislate away your rights........in the interest of providing a "peaceful and tranquil environment for the community".

You can argue the minutiae forever, but the fact remains that it is the exact same thing......the only difference is it is now your "ox being gored".

I believe in personal responsibility and accountability just as much as anybody here. But I also believe in legal protections from the lifestyles of others. If that takes government intervention to keep those lifestyles from interfering with mine, I'm okay with that - pure and simple. Since there are an abundance of truly stupid people on this planet, those who honestly have no clue what their personal choices do to other people, that it takes the government to protect some from others. It gives me no pleasure to say that, but it is a political and personal reality.

Actually you don't.......the two statements in bold above are diametrically opposed when one looks at them through the lens of the freedoms that are established by our founding principles.

Yes there are many stupid people on the planet, and you are quite free to remove yourself from their presence should you choose to do so, however, you are not free to legislate away their freedoms because their stupidity offends you,,,,,,,,,

It takes laws and regulations to control behavior.

WHY.....So long as said behavior is legal.......there is no need to regulate it because it might offend you, as you are again free to remove yourself from its presence.

I'd agree with you that alcohol is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room that everybody sees, but ignores. Regulating the ingestion of alcohol already happens to some level - can't do it legally if you're under 18 no matter WHERE you are, much less in a private home. And yet it's still a problem. DWI and domestic violence occurs all the time by those under the influence, and there are worse things that happen.

Which brings us to the proverbrial "bottom line"........in a free country people are free to do stupid things so long as what they do is legal.........we are going to continue to have public expense due to use of alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and anal sex for that matter........STFU about it........it is part of life here, stop  trying to advocate for the legislation and control of everything that might get your boxers in a knot.......if you find yourself in a situation that is uncomfortable, either don't go there to begin with, or vote with your feet......

I believe what's happening here is that smokers are now a beleaguered minority. They simply don't have the political clout they might've had, say back in the Forties and Fifties. Ergo, THEIR rights are being chipped away. While there is a hue and a cry about personal freedoms and such being eroded, the political reality is, it is what it is. Those who don't smoke don't give enough of a rip to address your concerns, and Thor's concerns. Why? Because it doesn't affect them, except that when they walk into an establishment somewhere they're not accosted by the stink of tobacco.

Now that's a personal freedom I can wrap my lungs around.

I'll remember that when I see you standing by the side of US 63, practicing your trombone in a blizzard.........

doc

[Thor]

Eupher, did I smoke when you were at my house?? No. Out of respect, I didn't.

Did I sit in the non-smoking section of the bar restaurant when we had a burger?? Sure I did.

Did you hear any protests?? No.

The fact is, if I want to go to a place that doesn't allow smoking (and there ARE many of them here), I follow the wishes of the owner. Why is it that smokers can't be allowed to have a place (a bar or restaurant) of their own to go to and smoke, drink, & eat to their hearts content?? Am I forcing you to go to that place?? No, I'm not. Nor am I forcing anyone to bring their children to those places. For the most part, I loathe children any more because they are unruly, whiny, obnoxious and lack discipline. I would like it were there a place that simply doesn't allow children, period. Can I find one?? No. Hell, even the VFW is infested with children from time to time. Furthermore, I have a lot of disdain for people who bring their children into the smoking section of many restaurants. IHOP has a segregated smoking section. That smoking section is still filled with kids from time to time. I DO remember a time when parents would be asked to leave if their kids were unruly (I was one of those that was unruly from time to time) I can't tell you how many times I got sent to the car to wait until my mom and grandmother were finished with their meal. In today's world, that would constitute neglect or even child abuse. Back then, it was common. Of course, it wasn't a locked car with the windows rolled up. If it was hot, I rolled down the windows.

[formerlurker]

Y'all STILL don't get it, do you??  Who are YOU to say what business does what, other than NOT being a customer. FFS, y'all are a dense and obstinate crowd. Y'all are FREE to have your ****ing non-smoking restaurants and bars. I could give a ****. I may or may not choose to go there. IF I DO CHOOSE to go there, then I'll have to abide by those rules, wouldn't I?? 

Now, why the **** do y'all want to control whether or not a bar or restaurant wants to be a smoking allowed establishment?? NOBODY'S forcing y'all to go there, are they?? If you don't want to breathe tobacco smoke, DON'T ****ING go there !!!! Now, how simple is THAT ?!?!?!?! Apparently, y'all are so rabidly "anti-whatever", that you can't even tolerate an individual's or business owner's choice. That's all I'm saying........ that people should have a choice!!!

And I DO agree that bars & restaurants that  simply have a smoking and non-smoking section are pretty stupid, unless the sections are separately divided rooms. And...... if a non-smoker has to walk through to smoking section to get to the non-smoking section, that's pretty dumb, too.

What I hear y'all saying is that as long as "whatever" fits within YOUR lifestyle, then you're all about "freedom". Lord forbid if something falls outside of YOUR lifestyle choices and SCREW anybody that thinks that they should have a choice, too. 

Yeah, I lean towards Libertarianism, to some extent, however, I am mostly Conservative.

The topic was resurrected over banning smoking in private homes, which is what I was addressing.    You are hardly unbiased, so your finger pointing is baffling.

No, but I DID earn  Tricare..... (paid for by the American taxpayer) one of the benefits earned by being retired Military.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Medicaid and why cigarettes are taxed.   

 

[formerlurker]

For the record, the state and local municipalities also regulate when a bar or restaurant can be open, what type of food they can serve, how much alcohol they can serve per patron, parking of vehicles on their property..... the list is rather extensive.  

It's the ban on smoking though that is the violation of personal freedoms......  first they come for happy hour, then they come for number of spaces I have to have in my parking lot,  then they come for the fire exits and sprinkler systems, and can you believe they check the temp of the food I serve?  

Whatever.  

[Eupher]

Not fears, facts, and they square perfectly with the concept of personal freedom and choice

And the underlying point to my dissertation is first, WHY.....and second, where does it stop.......when do we finally say enough......were we to all adopt your position, it likely never would.
OK....lets look at it from  the prospective of an absurdity......you and I live in the same block.......I'm the Mayor of your town, and am afflicted with a hypersensitive hearing disorder.......everytime you practice with your instrument, it causes me slight pain, so I pass an ordinance that forces all musicians who play brass instruments to go outside the city limits, and stand by the side of the road, in the rain, sleet, and snow, should they wish to practice.

Ridiculous, granted, but the principle is EXACTLY the same........in this case, you are an "offending minority", therefore, your rights are no longer valid, because your lifestyle offends me, and causes me some discomfort......I therefore, as a person of authority, legislate away your rights........in the interest of providing a "peaceful and tranquil environment for the community".

You can argue the minutiae forever, but the fact remains that it is the exact same thing......the only difference is it is now your "ox being gored".

Actually you don't.......the two statements in bold above are diametrically opposed when one looks at them through the lens of the freedoms that are established by our founding principles.

Yes there are many stupid people on the planet, and you are quite free to remove yourself from their presence should you choose to do so, however, you are not free to legislate away their freedoms because their stupidity offends you,,,,,,,,,

WHY.....So long as said behavior is legal.......there is no need to regulate it because it might offend you, as you are again free to remove yourself from its presence.

Which brings us to the proverbrial "bottom line"........in a free country people are free to do stupid things so long as what they do is legal.........we are going to continue to have public expense due to use of alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and anal sex for that matter........STFU about it........it is part of life here, stop  trying to advocate for the legislation and control of everything that might get your boxers in a knot.......if you find yourself in a situation that is uncomfortable, either don't go there to begin with, or vote with your feet......

I'll remember that when I see you standing by the side of US 63, practicing your trombone in a blizzard.........

doc

We're all starting to say the same things, over and over again. Frankly, I'm a little surprised at your vehemence - you're not normally this forceful.

In response to your hypothetical situation about practicing and your sensitive hearing, Mr. Mayor, you can believe me when I tell you that due to MY LIFESTYLE, I have to take certain precautions where I live. I can't live in an apartment. I can't live in a condo. And I really can't live in a house where my neighbor can count my nosehairs through the bathroom window. The reason is obvious - the level of sound both I and Mrs E generate simply doesn't allow it. So I have to live where I live - far enough away where MY CHOSEN LIFESTYLE isn't impacting others or I begin an expensive soundproofing project that might solve the problem in a different way.

Why do I do these things? Because I respect my neighbors. I can't say the same about everyone. And isn't the entire purpose of creating and enforcing laws in general to regulate behavior? That's a straight up yes or no question, doc. To pick and choose which laws conflict with personal freedom versus those that don't puts the onus at a different level of law, doesn't it? Who's going to make that decision?

Why are there noise ordinances in some areas/towns? It's to protect normal citizens from stupidity by others. Are you suggesting that all such ordinances be taken off the books? If you do so, Mr. Mayor, you're going to have a bunch of pissed-off citizens and you just might find yourself out of a job. This is the political reality I'm talking about.

Like it or not, the smoking establishment is bowing to a larger majority. This is my point. Life is not fair - and neither is this matter.

And believe me - I've played outdoors in plenty of blizzards. Ain't gonna happen no more.  

[Eupher]

Eupher, did I smoke when you were at my house?? No. Out of respect, I didn't.

Yes, I noticed that, and we both appreciated your graciousness. I simply wish that everybody would be that way, but it isn't the case. I have to say I didn't notice an extensive cigarette odor either, which tells me that either you don't smoke a lot or you have lots of air-moving going on.

Did I sit in the non-smoking section of the bar restaurant when we had a burger?? Sure I did.

Again, a sign of your graciousness. I absolutely can't eat in an area that is choked with cigarette smoke. If I'm asked to, I politely decline and move elsewhere.

Did you hear any protests?? No.

The fact is, if I want to go to a place that doesn't allow smoking (and there ARE many of them here), I follow the wishes of the owner. Why is it that smokers can't be allowed to have a place (a bar or restaurant) of their own to go to and smoke, drink, & eat to their hearts content?? Am I forcing you to go to that place?? No, I'm not. Nor am I forcing anyone to bring their children to those places. For the most part, I loathe children any more because they are unruly, whiny, obnoxious and lack discipline. I would like it were there a place that simply doesn't allow children, period. Can I find one?? No. Hell, even the VFW is infested with children from time to time. Furthermore, I have a lot of disdain for people who bring their children into the smoking section of many restaurants. IHOP has a segregated smoking section. That smoking section is still filled with kids from time to time. I DO remember a time when parents would be asked to leave if their kids were unruly (I was one of those that was unruly from time to time) I can't tell you how many times I got sent to the car to wait until my mom and grandmother were finished with their meal. In today's world, that would constitute neglect or even child abuse. Back then, it was common. Of course, it wasn't a locked car with the windows rolled up. If it was hot, I rolled down the windows.

We've rehashed this in previous discussions. We can definitely find some common ground in the case of kids. I don't want to be around them either.

Didja ever start to think that maybe you're the way you are because of being sent to the car and being forced to roll the windows open? I think it's called heat on the brain. 

[Thor]

Didja ever start to think that maybe you're the way you are because of being sent to the car and being forced to roll the windows open? I think it's called heat on the brain. 

NO, it wasn't the "heat". I come by it naturally!! 

(Either it's a symptom of my disease, or I'm too much like my real father, OR TOO many years in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club....... OR a combination of all of the above!!)

[Doc]

We're all starting to say the same things, over and over again. Frankly, I'm a little surprised at your vehemence - you're not normally this forceful.

In response to your hypothetical situation about practicing and your sensitive hearing, Mr. Mayor, you can believe me when I tell you that due to MY LIFESTYLE, I have to take certain precautions where I live. I can't live in an apartment. I can't live in a condo. And I really can't live in a house where my neighbor can count my nosehairs through the bathroom window. The reason is obvious - the level of sound both I and Mrs E generate simply doesn't allow it. So I have to live where I live - far enough away where MY CHOSEN LIFESTYLE isn't impacting others or I begin an expensive soundproofing project that might solve the problem in a different way.

Why do I do these things? Because I respect my neighbors. I can't say the same about everyone. And isn't the entire purpose of creating and enforcing laws in general to regulate behavior? That's a straight up yes or no question, doc. To pick and choose which laws conflict with personal freedom versus those that don't puts the onus at a different level of law, doesn't it? Who's going to make that decision?

The original intent of the "law" is to regulate criminal behavior........not legal behavior.......further, if the intent of a law is to protect "public safety", then the test should be, does it equally effect ALL of the public, and not a small segment thereof.

If you wish to campaign to make tobacco use illegal, be my guest.....but so long as it is legal, businesses should be allowed to choose whether they wish to permit it, as a part of the concept of "private property", whether the public participates in those businesses or not.

And yes, I'm more than vehement about it, because I'm damn tired of a bunch of do-gooders trying to regulate what I do, for example, if I wish to drive a vehicle that gets 8 mpg, so long as I can afford to buy the damn gas, it's no one's business but my own, that includes the government........I've always gone to great lengths as well, to not place others into my personal sphere, and I demand the same respect from the anti-smoking nazis, and the PC control freaks........

While we are on the subject of anti-smoking nazis, I don't know if you have lived in this state long enough, but if you have, you'll recall that the same nazis placed referendoms on the ballot in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 election cycles to grotesquely increase the taxes on tobacco products in Missouri (ostensibly to discourage use, and cover "health care costs"), and they were summarily defeated every time it was attempted........they were not defeated because an overwhelming majority of the voters that came out were smokers, because that is certainly not the case.......they were defeated because the voters, most of whom were non-tobacco users, determined them to be fundamentally unfair.......the same is the case when our local community of 60,000 placed a broad-based public smoking ban on the local ballot......it was defeated by a 65-35 margin, therefore, the City Council arrived at a compromise ordinance that allows businesses to choose whether to become "smoke free" or not........and that has worked out very well here.  The nazis aren't happy, but we've discovered that they are (albeit loud) an even smaller minority than the smokers......

Therefore to answer your "yes or no" question, I can state emphatically no......I don't favor any law that regulates an otherwise legal behavior, unless it is a direct public safety issue, a good example being speed limits on municipal streets.......however, for a reasonable citizen (such as myself) I rarely have to even pay attention to them, as I govern my driving by the environment that I'm in....using common sense.

At the root of it, an anti-smoking nazi is fundamentally still a nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!

I will never yield to politically correct fascism in any manner, whether it involves tobacco, fast food, phony accusations of racism, or whatever their next target of opportunity happens to be.

doc

[Revolution]

At the root of it, an anti-smoking Nazi is fundamentally still a Nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!

Thank you for these words, Doc. I think I mentioned how they're going to proceed on to the next issue a few pages ago. From what I'm hearing, it will be "food that is bad" and they will base it off of "carcinogens in food....

And for the record, one of the nearly 30 bars in this small town has already started construction on their bar. They're making a wing of their bar totally for smokers. I for one think that it is a great idea. I'm already hearing bartenders bitch about losing some money, and the cops being on their backs over "loitering" smokers outside. The particular bar building an extension should be raking in the profits while the other bars suffer. I sincerely hope the bar adding on makes that money back, plus some. After all, they were forced to do it via Jim Doyle, and his ignorant law.

[Texacon]

The original intent of the "law" is to regulate criminal behavior........not legal behavior.......further, if the intent of a law is to protect "public safety", then the test should be, does it equally effect ALL of the public, and not a small segment thereof.

If you wish to campaign to make tobacco use illegal, be my guest.....but so long as it is legal, businesses should be allowed to choose whether they wish to permit it, as a part of the concept of "private property", whether the public participates in those businesses or not.

And yes, I'm more than vehement about it, because I'm damn tired of a bunch of do-gooders trying to regulate what I do, for example, if I wish to drive a vehicle that gets 8 mpg, so long as I can afford to buy the damn gas, it's no one's business but my own, that includes the government........I've always gone to great lengths as well, to not place others into my personal sphere, and I demand the same respect from the anti-smoking nazis, and the PC control freaks........

While we are on the subject of anti-smoking nazis, I don't know if you have lived in this state long enough, but if you have, you'll recall that the same nazis placed referendoms on the ballot in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 election cycles to grotesquely increase the taxes on tobacco products in Missouri (ostensibly to discourage use, and cover "health care costs"), and they were summarily defeated every time it was attempted........they were not defeated because an overwhelming majority of the voters that came out were smokers, because that is certainly not the case.......they were defeated because the voters, most of whom were non-tobacco users, determined them to be fundamentally unfair.......the same is the case when our local community of 60,000 placed a broad-based public smoking ban on the local ballot......it was defeated by a 65-35 margin, therefore, the City Council arrived at a compromise ordinance that allows businesses to choose whether to become "smoke free" or not........and that has worked out very well here.  The nazis aren't happy, but we've discovered that they are (albeit loud) an even smaller minority than the smokers......

Therefore to answer your "yes or no" question, I can state emphatically no......I don't favor any law that regulates an otherwise legal behavior, unless it is a direct public safety issue, a good example being speed limits on municipal streets.......however, for a reasonable citizen (such as myself) I rarely have to even pay attention to them, as I govern my driving by the environment that I'm in....using common sense.

At the root of it, an anti-smoking nazi is fundamentally still a nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!

I will never yield to politically correct fascism in any manner, whether it involves tobacco, fast food, phony accusations of racism, or whatever their next target of opportunity happens to be.

doc

Very well said doc.

A couple of things I will expound on; When the taxes do in fact get put in place and the people stop their abhorrent behavior the next thing to happen is the state starts looking for other things to tax to keep the revenue they generated which means it will shift to ... Oh I dunno ... maybe those who buy brass instruments.

And I'm with you on the 'Nazism'.  Being a motorcyclist I am around a few ... what we call 'gear Nazis'.  These are the people who insist all motorcyclists MUST wear all protective garb.  DOT approved Helmet, ANSI approved glasses, leather riding jacket, leather full finger gloves, leather chaps/riding pants and heavy boots.  It all sounds grand and would in fact help in an accident but what a lot of them fail to understand is; when you are riding and it is 105 degrees outside you could pass out from heat exhaustion/stroke due to the gear ... now that seems a problem to me so I don't ascribe to their notion of 'all gear, all the time'.

KC

[Doc]

And I'm with you on the 'Nazism'.  Being a motorcyclist I am around a few ... what we call 'gear Nazis'.  These are the people who insist all motorcyclists MUST wear all protective garb.  DOT approved Helmet, ANSI approved glasses, leather riding jacket, leather full finger gloves, leather chaps/riding pants and heavy boots.  It all sounds grand and would in fact help in an accident but what a lot of them fail to understand is; when you are riding and it is 105 degrees outside you could pass out from heat exhaustion/stroke due to the gear ... now that seems a problem to me so I don't ascribe to their notion of 'all gear, all the time'.

KC

Yeah.....back in my youth I rode as well.......I even laid a Honda 750 down at about 70 mph on I-35 near Minneapolis one rainy morning, and although the helmet (which cost me 10 bucks at K-Mart) probably saved my life, it was not a DOT approved helmet, and I've still got some "road rash" scars, but I lived through it.........and learned.

The same argument also applies to "seat belt laws"......and I'm old enough to have been driving before manufacturers even put them in cars.  The argument for them spun out of their use in aviation, and as a pilot, I sorta chuckled about that one, because, the use of seat belts in aircraft has nothing to do with "saving lives" (your chances of living through a crash are slim and none).......if you auger one in, the seat belt ain't gonna save you........the purpose of an aircraft seat belt is to keep you in the seat in turbulence, not save your life.......

All of this automotive safety stuff started back in the 70's (the motorcycle stuff started about a decade later), and now, with electronic inertia-reel belt/harnesses, front impact air bags, side impact air bags, head restraints, side impact body reinforcements, crumple zones, roll-over reinforcement for the passenger compartment, electronic stability control, and on and on........this stuff now adds about $7,000 to the cost of a family-sized vehicle,  For all of that government-mandated cost is it really worth it?  I certainly don't know......based on raw statistics it seems that highway deaths per passenger mile driven has not been reduced by very much, certainly not enough to justify the staggering cost of attempting to engineer an automobile that is "idiot proof".

And as you stated, the "safety nazis" are essentially the same as the anti-smoking ones........

Interestingly, I'm sitting here in my den watching a couple of neighborhood kids riding their bicycles in the street.........they are wearing helmets, gloves, knee-pads, goggles, and some sort of arm pads (it's also 95 degrees out there)........gone are the days when I would hop on my 26-inch Schwinn in a pair of shorts, a t-shirt, and a baseball cap, and ride all day with my friends.......alas, times don't always change for the better......

But I digress......

doc

[Attero Dominatus]

The original intent of the "law" is to regulate criminal behavior........not legal behavior.......further, if the intent of a law is to protect "public safety", then the test should be, does it equally effect ALL of the public, and not a small segment thereof.

If you wish to campaign to make tobacco use illegal, be my guest.....but so long as it is legal, businesses should be allowed to choose whether they wish to permit it, as a part of the concept of "private property", whether the public participates in those businesses or not.

And yes, I'm more than vehement about it, because I'm damn tired of a bunch of do-gooders trying to regulate what I do, for example, if I wish to drive a vehicle that gets 8 mpg, so long as I can afford to buy the damn gas, it's no one's business but my own, that includes the government........I've always gone to great lengths as well, to not place others into my personal sphere, and I demand the same respect from the anti-smoking nazis, and the PC control freaks........

While we are on the subject of anti-smoking nazis, I don't know if you have lived in this state long enough, but if you have, you'll recall that the same nazis placed referendoms on the ballot in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 election cycles to grotesquely increase the taxes on tobacco products in Missouri (ostensibly to discourage use, and cover "health care costs"), and they were summarily defeated every time it was attempted........they were not defeated because an overwhelming majority of the voters that came out were smokers, because that is certainly not the case.......they were defeated because the voters, most of whom were non-tobacco users, determined them to be fundamentally unfair.......the same is the case when our local community of 60,000 placed a broad-based public smoking ban on the local ballot......it was defeated by a 65-35 margin, therefore, the City Council arrived at a compromise ordinance that allows businesses to choose whether to become "smoke free" or not........and that has worked out very well here.  The nazis aren't happy, but we've discovered that they are (albeit loud) an even smaller minority than the smokers......

Therefore to answer your "yes or no" question, I can state emphatically no......I don't favor any law that regulates an otherwise legal behavior, unless it is a direct public safety issue, a good example being speed limits on municipal streets.......however, for a reasonable citizen (such as myself) I rarely have to even pay attention to them, as I govern my driving by the environment that I'm in....using common sense.

At the root of it, an anti-smoking nazi is fundamentally still a nazi.........and when the smokers are ultimately "dealt with", they will turn their fascism to the next issue that "offends them"......and for those readers whose glance in life's mirror find themselves "offended" by my reference, my simple response is.....tough shit!

I will never yield to politically correct fascism in any manner, whether it involves tobacco, fast food, phony accusations of racism, or whatever their next target of opportunity happens to be.

doc

Well said. Nanny-statism and other 'good intentions' are the seed from which authoritarianism spreads. If the dems manage to maintain control of congress, or the republicans do not repeal Obamacare, the feds will start trying to regulate what people eat and drink, because healthcare will be rationed.

[Texacon]

Interestingly, I'm sitting here in my den watching a couple of neighborhood kids riding their bicycles in the street.........they are wearing helmets, gloves, knee-pads, goggles, and some sort of arm pads (it's also 95 degrees out there)........gone are the days when I would hop on my 26-inch Schwinn in a pair of shorts, a t-shirt, and a baseball cap, and ride all day with my friends.......alas, times don't always change for the better......

But I digress......

doc

Gad.  I can't tell you how many people have gotten on to me about not making my kids wear helmets and such while riding their bikes.  Me, the wife and the kids LOVE to ride our bikes (as my daughter would say ... ching, ching not vroom, vroom - bikes)  We don't wear anything but our shorts, t-shirts and shoes.  We do take water to stay hydrated .... that should count for something right?!  LOL

How did we all live to this point?

KC

[Thor]

Very well said doc.

A couple of things I will expound on; When the taxes do in fact get put in place and the people stop their abhorrent behavior the next thing to happen is the state starts looking for other things to tax to keep the revenue they generated which means it will shift to ... Oh I dunno ... maybe those who buy brass instruments.

And I'm with you on the 'Nazism'.  Being a motorcyclist I am around a few ... what we call 'gear Nazis'.  These are the people who insist all motorcyclists MUST wear all protective garb.  DOT approved Helmet, ANSI approved glasses, leather riding jacket, leather full finger gloves, leather chaps/riding pants and heavy boots.  It all sounds grand and would in fact help in an accident but what a lot of them fail to understand is; when you are riding and it is 105 degrees outside you could pass out from heat exhaustion/stroke due to the gear ... now that seems a problem to me so I don't ascribe to their notion of 'all gear, all the time'.

KC

KC, I could agree with you on the "Gear Nazis". HOWEVER........ what pisses me off to NO extent is the fact that motorcyclists, in some states, are not required to wear a helmet and yet, those of us in cages are required to wear seat belts. Another hypocritical move by the "Fascists".  I think I was 6 years old before seat belts became mandatory in cars and I was long an adult before they became mandatory to wear. IF a state has a seat belt law, then they should have a helmet law. If a state has NO helmet law, then they SHOULDN'T have a seat belt law. (Texas and Minnesota are a couple of those hypocritical states)

Are seat belts and helmets a good thing to wear?? No doubt. I learned a tough, hard lesson while riding back from Ensenada one night. I had take the face shield off of my helmet, as it was a nice day. It started to rain and me and a buddy had to return to San Diego before curfew. It was a suck ass ride with only sunglasses to protect my eyes (at night) Where the rain hit, it felt like a needle with every drop that hit my unprotected face. Helmets DO save lives and the Navy required that I wear one. (otherwise, any medical bills incurred would be MY responsibility)

[Texacon]

KC, I could agree with you on the "Gear Nazis". HOWEVER........ what pisses me off to NO extent is the fact that motorcyclists, in some states, are not required to wear a helmet and yet, those of us in cages are required to wear seat belts. Another hypocritical move by the "Fascists".  I think I was 6 years old before seat belts became mandatory in cars and I was long an adult before they became mandatory to wear. IF a state has a seat belt law, then they should have a helmet law. If a state has NO helmet law, then they SHOULDN'T have a seat belt law. (Texas and Minnesota are a couple of those hypocritical states)

Are seat belts and helmets a good thing to wear?? No doubt. I learned a tough, hard lesson while riding back from Ensenada one night. I had take the face shield off of my helmet, as it was a nice day. It started to rain and me and a buddy had to return to San Diego before curfew. It was a suck ass ride with only sunglasses to protect my eyes (at night) Where the rain hit, it felt like a needle with every drop that hit my unprotected face. Helmets DO save lives and the Navy required that I wear one. (otherwise, any medical bills incurred would be MY responsibility)

Thor, I agree with you only to the extent that it is hypocritical.  I think seat belts and helmets do save lives in most, not all, cases.  I do NOT think that if a state has a seat belt law then they MUST have a helmet law.  That is backward thinking.  I think the seat belt laws should be repealed.

I'm very libertarian.  Note the small 'L'.  when it comes to laws.  I don't think the legislature should be able to pass a law without repealing 5 old ones.  We are legislating ourselves to death!  As doc said above about how much it costs to build vehicles ... how much cheaper would it be to manufacture many, many things without all the regulations.

I generally don't wear a helmet.  I don't like them for various reasons but I do understand they have a purpose but I know the risk I'm taking and I'm the only one who can make that decision.  I have ridden in the rain, the wind, hail and bright sunshine all with nothing more than my baseball cap and sunglasses.  I have been down twice and both times I had a helmet on ... I broke my neck once.  Did the helmet cause the break?  I don't know but it is one of the downfalls of helmets.  It did save me from a larger cut on my face than I had though.

KC