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

[debk]

Ohio has had a smoking ban for a few years now.  Bars and bowling alleys have really been affected, especially on border cities like Cincinnati.  People just go over the river to KY.  Covington and Newport have been and still are exploding.

People who voted for this change said that the reason they didn't go to bars and bowling alleys was because of the smoke.  Guess what, they still aren't going.  What ever happened to just not going somewhere if you don't like the atmosphere?  I know a couple who quit going to Applebee's before the smoking ban because they didn't allow smoking.  It was a business decision by Applebee's and it should be left to the business.

Covington and Newport are going to continue to explode because the two cities were smart to take down the old stuff, particularly some really trashy areas along the water in Newport, and add all sorts of "fun" stuff, great waterfront hotels, wonderful restaurants, revitalize "downtown" Covington, with some great restaurants.

[Zeus]

Government Wants Your Individual Obesity Rating By 2014

Submitted by KC Kelly Ph.D. on 2010-07-16
All Americans, by 2014 will be required to have an individual obesity rating electronically recorded. It has been determined that under the new health stimulus law passed by President Barack Obama recently, that all Americans, by 2014, will be required to have electronic health records which will include their height, weight and body mass index (BMI).

BMI is a formula that calculates ones body measurements, including height and weight, in order to come up with an individual obesity rating. Calculation of BMI is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity and coming up with an obesity rating, which is the measure of a person’s body fat percentage.

Regina Benjamin, the U.S. Surgeon Genera stated that according to the CDC, “BMI provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.”

America has been criticized for being a nation that actually promotes obesity and hence leads American's to have health issues. The new health regulation also stipulates that the electronic records, including BMI will be able to quickly send individual health records as public health data to state and federal health agencies such as the HHS and the CDC.

The new obesity-rating regulation will be enforced in every American's electronic health record. The regulation states that it must, “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.” In addition, these electronic health records will be available for viewing on a national exchange. Seems a bit invasive, say many, but there will be security measures in place on these electronic records to try to help with privacy. ...................

[Doc]

Ohio has had a smoking ban for a few years now.  Bars and bowling alleys have really been affected, especially on border cities like Cincinnati.  People just go over the river to KY.  Covington and Newport have been and still are exploding.

People who voted for this change said that the reason they didn't go to bars and bowling alleys was because of the smoke.  Guess what, they still aren't going.  What ever happened to just not going somewhere if you don't like the atmosphere?  I know a couple who quit going to Applebee's before the smoking ban because they didn't allow smoking.  It was a business decision by Applebee's and it should be left to the business.

Our suburban community in Missouri took a rather pragmatic approach.  Smoking is banned in restaurants (that do not serve alcohol) and other public venues, however bars (including those serving food), bowling alleys, private clubs, and pool halls are allowed to choose whether to allow smoking or not.  Should they choose to allow it, they pay an additional $20 per year for their business license, are required to provide a nonsmoking area, and the City gives them a sign that is posted at the entrance marking it as a "smoking establishment"......seems to be working out fine.

There are a number of nonsmoking bars and restaurants, and some that allow smoking........everyone is happy, except for the anti-smoking Nazi control freaks......and nobody really cares about them anyway.

So fine in fact that since we are suburban, and smoking is banned completely in the city of KC (except in casinos), the bar business here has increased over 150% since the change, providing more revenue to the city coffers.......

Bans are silly.....allow merchants to make a choice......along with the customers.

doc

[Thor]

Majority of the additives are govt mandated they add.

Are you saying that the extra nicotine and flavor enhancers are government mandated??

The only government mandated additive that I'm aware of or can find is the chemical used to make them "fire safe".

FSC cigarettes even more dangerous?

After lighting up are you experiencing more headaches, stomach cramps or a coppery taste in your mouth? Does your new FSC (fire-safe cigarette) taste bad, cause dry mouth and are you coughing more?

New York State was one of the first states to require that cigarettes be made with the new fire-safe paper. This paper is constructed by gluing two or three thin bands of less-porous paper together with an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer emulsion based adhesive (carpet glue).

These papers have bands (see image) that act as speed bumps, so if the cigarette is left unattended it will self-extinguish. The coalitions that passed these laws believe that these cigarettes would limit the number of cigarette fire deaths.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-11705-NY-Holistic-Body--Spirit-Examiner~y2009m7d12-Are-the-new-FSC-firesafe-cigarettes-making-smokers-sicker-than-ever

[Zeus]

Are you saying that the extra nicotine and flavor enhancers are government mandated??

The only government mandated additive that I'm aware of or can find is the chemical used to make them "fire safe".

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-11705-NY-Holistic-Body--Spirit-Examiner~y2009m7d12-Are-the-new-FSC-firesafe-cigarettes-making-smokers-sicker-than-ever

Naw the nicotine spikes are by the manufacturer. The govt mandated additives are as you mentioned the fire safe additive,Then there is perfumes to reduce the smell and the additive to make cigs burn slower and I'm sure there are a few more,

[Revolution]

I may have to add to the name of this thread "....and the home" sooner rather than later...

Wisconsin's youth are struggling for breath, as the state was among the top five in the nation with high levels of secondhand smoke exposure for children 17 and younger.

About 10.5 percent of Wisconsin children were regularly exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes in 2007, according to an article published in this month's health journal Pediatrics.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/health_med_fit/article_4188162a-9b51-11df-aafc-001cc4c002e0.html

I've been saying it. They're going to start intruding into your homes based on a lie with the smoking issue. Next could be anything. Restrictions on food because of the carcinogens in food, hell, the sky is the limit.

At what point do we say ENOUGH!?!

[formerlurker]

They are pushing legislation to ban smoking in private homes?

[Revolution]

Looks like it, doesn't it.

[thundley4]

Haven't some cities already banned smoking in cars if a minor is present?  In Illinois you cannot smoke in your home if you run a home business and customers enter your home.

IIRC, there was a case of some guy being sued for smoking outside because the smoke bothered his neighbor.

[Revolution]

IIRC, there was a case of some guy being sued for smoking outside because the smoke bothered his neighbor.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

[formerlurker]

Haven't some cities already banned smoking in cars if a minor is present?  In Illinois you cannot smoke in your home if you run a home business and customers enter your home.

IIRC, there was a case of some guy being sued for smoking outside because the smoke bothered his neighbor.

Honestly, you are a putz of the highest order to smoke in a vehicle when your child is strapped in a car seat.   Disgusting.

I just did a quick search and foster parents are forbidden to smoke in their homes, which they kind of sign on to when they became a foster parent. 

I really don't see this legislation ever applying to private homes however. 

[Revolution]

People didn't think a lot of things that are happening nowdays would happen.

I'm banking on the legislation passing. I'm also banking on the fact that I may well go to jail for civil disobedience if it indeed does happen.

[asdf2231]

Guys I smoked for almost 30 years. I was NEVER so glad as when the smoking ban kicked in here in WI. After I quit it was all I could do not to puke when we tried to eat in restaurants that had smoking sections. Or I would walk in and I would instantly want a smoke if I was having a bad day. I started going to non-smoking establishments by choice.

Im glad for the ban. *shrug*

[Thor]

Honestly, you are a putz of the highest order to smoke in a vehicle when your child is strapped in a car seat.   Disgusting.

I just did a quick search and foster parents are forbidden to smoke in their homes, which they kind of sign on to when they became a foster parent. 

I really don't see this legislation ever applying to private homes however. 

You really need to read the bullshit lawsuits out there against smokers. I recall one homeowner getting sued because he smoked (inside his house) and the smoke drifted into the neighbors house. I think Revolution is right, it will ultimately come to where the Government will mandate  against smoking in one's own home because it has already in some areas.

Guys I smoked for almost 30 years. I was NEVER so glad as when the smoking ban kicked in here in WI. After I quit it was all I could do not to puke when we tried to eat in restaurants that had smoking sections. Or I would walk in and I would instantly want a smoke if I was having a bad day. I started going to non-smoking establishments by choice.

Im glad for the ban. *shrug*

Your keywords are bolded. You CHOSE to go to a non-smoking establishment. I'm ALL for that!! I'm against ANY ban that infringes on the rights of others. Let the owners & their customers decide. If I want a non-smoking place, I'll go find one. If I want a smoking place, I'll go find that, too. Is it really THAT difficult?? And you folks call yourselves "conservatives"........  Last I knew, "Conservatives" were all FOR LESS Government intrusion into their lives, NOT more.  If anything, I'd call y'all anti-smoking Nazis, "Libtards" or maybe "Progressives".......

[Thor]

Some people want the Government to fluoridate their drinking water and others want to restrict other folks' rights & privileges...... Damn........ am I posting in DU???

[IassaFTots]

Last weekend I was talking to a buddy that is smarter than me, and we were discussing the Dallas area's crazy smoking bans.  He came up with a great idea.  If a city/county/district wants to ban smoking, fine.  But then that same entity cannot sell cigarettes, pipe tobacco, cigars within it's boundaries so they can't make a tax profit off of it.

I thought that was a pretty good idea.

[Eupher]

Last weekend I was talking to a buddy that is smarter than me, and we were discussing the Dallas area's crazy smoking bans.  He came up with a great idea.  If a city/county/district wants to ban smoking, fine.  But then that same entity cannot sell cigarettes, pipe tobacco, cigars within it's boundaries so they can't make a tax profit off of it.

I thought that was a pretty good idea.

Yep, I think that's called "walking the walk."

But in all honesty, do cities/counties/districts/parishes collect separate taxes on tobacco products? The states do, of course, as do the Feds. I think that's the reason for that blue tax stamp across the top of the pack. I haven't smoked in 31 years, so I'm a little behind on things.....               

[Thor]

Yep, I think that's called "walking the walk."

But in all honesty, do cities/counties/districts/parishes collect separate taxes on tobacco products? The states do, of course, as do the Feds. I think that's the reason for that blue tax stamp across the top of the pack. I haven't smoked in 31 years, so I'm a little behind on things.....               

They collect sales tax. So, cigarettes are taxed by the state TWICE!! In Minnesota, shortly before I left, they banned smoking in bars & restaurants. Then, the state levied another $1/ pack tax on cigarettes. Seems they couldn't turn down that extra $17 MILLION per month in revenue regardless of the fact that the state also received a HUGE award from one of the tobacco industry lawsuit.

Tots: I like your friend's idea!!

[formerlurker]

They collect sales tax. So, cigarettes are taxed by the state TWICE!! In Minnesota, shortly before I left, they banned smoking in bars & restaurants. Then, the state levied another $1/ pack tax on cigarettes. Seems they couldn't turn down that extra $17 MILLION per month in revenue regardless of the fact that the state also received a HUGE award from one of the tobacco industry lawsuit.

Tots: I like your friend's idea!!

Look at the state's stats of those on disability (medicaid) for smoking related illnesses before claiming any revenue is "extra."

 The cost of medical care and lost productivity related to smoking is conservatively estimated to be $150 billion. These costs to smokers and non-smokers alike are funded at the state and national levels.

http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_health/volume_3_number_2_21/article/financing_smoking_related_illness_and_smoking_cessation_can_it_be_done.html

[formerlurker]

Yep, I think that's called "walking the walk."
        

Walking the walk would also entail the smoker not seeking federal and state benefits should they become disabled due to their choice to smoke. 

[Eupher]

Walking the walk would also entail the smoker not seeking federal and state benefits should they become disabled due to their choice to smoke. 

Um, I think the phrase "walking the walk" as I put it really talked toward the city/county authorities ban towards smoking, then eliminating the double standard that would exist by taxing the very product they're banning.

The smoker him/herself - yeah, I'm with you on those folks leaning on the taxpayer when their lungs stop functioning due to their choices. Why should I pay for someone else's destruction of their body due to their own habit? T'ain't right.

Same goes for fat people getting their knees replaced on the public dime due to their obesity (but that's a different thread).

[Doc]

Look at the state's stats of those on disability (medicaid) for smoking related illnesses before claiming any revenue is "extra."

 The cost of medical care and lost productivity related to smoking is conservatively estimated to be $150 billion. These costs to smokers and non-smokers alike are funded at the state and national levels.

http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_health/volume_3_number_2_21/article/financing_smoking_related_illness_and_smoking_cessation_can_it_be_done.html

I'm gonna have to vehemently differ with you (and Eupher) on this conceptually........

First, any human activity can be "demonized" for political purposes........whether it is use of tobacco, alcohol, trans-fats,  salt, fast food, carbonated beverages containing sugar, corn syrup, red meat, (strangely, we never hear about the fiscal health impact of male homosexual activity, which statistically reduces the practitioners lifespan to an actuarial 48 years).....on and on, ad nauseum.  I become an adversary when one equates "costs the public" with any legal human activity, for a variety of reasons, mostly based in ,my interpretation of personal freedom.  Virtually all of the items/activities listed above, plus inumerable others,  can be determined by some manipulation of government statistics to "cost the public" something.  The base issue should be why are we, the people, through our taxes, paying for health care to begin with........We (conservatives) used the "public cost" argument to support the theory of rationing, and denial of services during the debate over Obamacare........to be intellectually honest, we can't have it both ways........

The same argument is always lurking around the edges of the gun control debate.......what "might" happen, and how much it "costs the public"........we have to decide if we stand for personal freedom or not.......and we have to stand up for it even when a citizen might conduct his/her life in a manner  in which we don't personally approve, so long as their life is conducted in a manner that is "legal".

The demonetization of tobacco use has opened the door to political demonetization of all types of human activity under the guise of "saving the taxpayers expense" (with the exception of homosexuality), and many of you gleefully go along with it so long as your particular ox is not being gored.  Frankly it is hypocritical as hell for one to claim to be a conservative, and then whine about how the lifestyle choices of others cost you money.  I'm certain that were we to commission a study we could discover a correlation between a lifetime spent playing the trombone to the taxpayer having to eventually shell out a few extra bucks for arthritic elbows, and disorders of the mouth, teeth and gums........it is all a matter of perspective, and the basic question always gets lost in the background noise.....

The question being first, why is the government involved in the issue of people's personal legal choices to begin with, and second (and perhaps most importantly) in a nation where the citizens are free to make their own lifestyle choices.......why should anyone care?

I always get a chuckle out of the discussion of the "public cost" of tobacco use (or anything else for that matter), when we tolerate the gigantic annual cost in lives, property, injury, and general mayhem created by the use/misuse of alcohol..........the costs dwarf the so-called "costs" of tobacco use by several orders of magnitude but we distainfully shrug it off by stating that "we tried to ban it with prohibition", and it didn't work.........again, intellectual dishonesty.

There is certainly nothing wrong with our government arriving at the determination that a particular activity is so great a hazard to the public at large, that it should be controlled by appropriate legislation, however, as we learned with prohibition, such attempts rarely succeed (see also "War on Drugs") and if embarked upon, should be done with extreme care.

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

[Zeus]

I'm gonna have to vehemently differ with you (and Eupher) on this conceptually........

First, any human activity can be "demonized" for political purposes........whether it is use of tobacco, alcohol, trans-fats,  salt, fast food, carbonated beverages containing sugar, corn syrup, red meat, (strangely, we never hear about the fiscal health impact of male homosexual activity, which statistically reduces the practitioners lifespan to an actuarial 48 years).....on and on, ad nauseum.  I become an adversary when one equates "costs the public" with any legal human activity, for a variety of reasons, mostly based in ,my interpretation of personal freedom.  Virtually all of the items/activities listed above, plus inumerable others,  can be determined by some manipulation of government statistics to "cost the public" something.  The base issue should be why are we, the people, through our taxes, paying for health care to begin with........We (conservatives) used the "public cost" argument to support the theory of rationing, and denial of services during the debate over Obamacare........to be intellectually honest, we can't have it both ways........

The same argument is always lurking around the edges of the gun control debate.......what "might" happen, and how much it "costs the public"........we have to decide if we stand for personal freedom or not.......and we have to stand up for it even when a citizen might conduct his/her life in a manner  in which we don't personally approve, so long as their life is conducted in a manner that is "legal".

The demonetization of tobacco use has opened the door to political demonetization of all types of human activity under the guise of "saving the taxpayers expense" (with the exception of homosexuality), and many of you gleefully go along with it so long as your particular ox is not being gored.  Frankly it is hypocritical as hell for one to claim to be a conservative, and then whine about how the lifestyle choices of others cost you money.  I'm certain that were we to commission a study we could discover a correlation between a lifetime spent playing the trombone to the taxpayer having to eventually shell out a few extra bucks for arthritic elbows, and disorders of the mouth, teeth and gums........it is all a matter of perspective, and the basic question always gets lost in the background noise.....

The question being first, why is the government involved in the issue of people's personal legal choices to begin with, and second (and perhaps most importantly) in a nation where the citizens are free to make their own lifestyle choices.......why should anyone care?

I always get a chuckle out of the discussion of the "public cost" of tobacco use (or anything else for that matter), when we tolerate the gigantic annual cost in lives, property, injury, and general mayhem created by the use/misuse of alcohol..........the costs dwarf the so-called "costs" of tobacco use by several orders of magnitude but we distainfully shrug it off by stating that "we tried to ban it with prohibition", and it didn't work.........again, intellectual dishonesty.

There is certainly nothing wrong with our government arriving at the determination that a particular activity is so great a hazard to the public at large, that it should be controlled by appropriate legislation, however, as we learned with prohibition, such attempts rarely succeed (see also "War on Drugs") and if embarked upon, should be done with extreme care.

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

Damn straight Doc  

Freedom & personal responsibility WOW what a concept:

[ColonialMarine0431]

Where I live you can't smoke in the football stadium. And it's OUTDOORS! 

[formerlurker]

I'm gonna have to vehemently differ with you (and Eupher) on this conceptually........

First, any human activity can be "demonized" for political purposes........whether it is use of tobacco, alcohol, trans-fats,  salt, fast food, carbonated beverages containing sugar, corn syrup, red meat, (strangely, we never hear about the fiscal health impact of male homosexual activity, which statistically reduces the practitioners lifespan to an actuarial 48 years).....on and on, ad nauseum.  I become an adversary when one equates "costs the public" with any legal human activity, for a variety of reasons, mostly based in ,my interpretation of personal freedom.  Virtually all of the items/activities listed above, plus inumerable others,  can be determined by some manipulation of government statistics to "cost the public" something.  The base issue should be why are we, the people, through our taxes, paying for health care to begin with........We (conservatives) used the "public cost" argument to support the theory of rationing, and denial of services during the debate over Obamacare........to be intellectually honest, we can't have it both ways........

The same argument is always lurking around the edges of the gun control debate.......what "might" happen, and how much it "costs the public"........we have to decide if we stand for personal freedom or not.......and we have to stand up for it even when a citizen might conduct his/her life in a manner  in which we don't personally approve, so long as their life is conducted in a manner that is "legal".

The demonetization of tobacco use has opened the door to political demonetization of all types of human activity under the guise of "saving the taxpayers expense" (with the exception of homosexuality), and many of you gleefully go along with it so long as your particular ox is not being gored.  Frankly it is hypocritical as hell for one to claim to be a conservative, and then whine about how the lifestyle choices of others cost you money.  I'm certain that were we to commission a study we could discover a correlation between a lifetime spent playing the trombone to the taxpayer having to eventually shell out a few extra bucks for arthritic elbows, and disorders of the mouth, teeth and gums........it is all a matter of perspective, and the basic question always gets lost in the background noise.....

The question being first, why is the government involved in the issue of people's personal legal choices to begin with, and second (and perhaps most importantly) in a nation where the citizens are free to make their own lifestyle choices.......why should anyone care?

I always get a chuckle out of the discussion of the "public cost" of tobacco use (or anything else for that matter), when we tolerate the gigantic annual cost in lives, property, injury, and general mayhem created by the use/misuse of alcohol..........the costs dwarf the so-called "costs" of tobacco use by several orders of magnitude but we distainfully shrug it off by stating that "we tried to ban it with prohibition", and it didn't work.........again, intellectual dishonesty.

There is certainly nothing wrong with our government arriving at the determination that a particular activity is so great a hazard to the public at large, that it should be controlled by appropriate legislation, however, as we learned with prohibition, such attempts rarely succeed (see also "War on Drugs") and if embarked upon, should be done with extreme care.

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

My comments on medicaid costs were related to taxing cigarettes.