I still think private businesses should be free to allow legal activities. However, that would be the compromise. It's not what has happened in Minnesota though.Originally Posted by Zool
HOFer
I still think private businesses should be free to allow legal activities. However, that would be the compromise. It's not what has happened in Minnesota though.
HOFer
Not washing your hands after using the bathroom is still legal....I still think private businesses should be free to allow legal activities. However, that would be the compromise. It's not what has happened in Minnesota though.
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
Whatever you do, make it statewide IMO. Keep the field level by making every location operate under the same rules. Allowing some with versus some without only re-directs the patrons away from where they might normally go because of the smoking rules not the service the establishment offers, not fair.
In a public restaurant it should be banned, without a question. It's been that way in Florida for ages (largely because of all the old people and tourists that populate the restaurants from December-May)
However, if it is a private place then that place should have the authority to decide whether smoking is allowed or not.
"I've got one word for you- Dallas, Texas, Super Bowl"- Jermichael Finley
I'm for it; it's a bad thing. I'm also all about putting an obnoxious state tax on cigs and apply that toward the budget deficit as well
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
Fact: Nutz and Skinbitch are considerate smokers. I know this from when I met them last October at the PR get together.
Really that is what it comes down to, courtesy and common sense so I think I agree with the butt brothers. If bars want to allow it they should be able. I will either spend my time on the patio area like I did at the Stadium View in Green Bay or else go somewhere else.
Once it cost owners $$$ they will see the light anyways.
Private organizations are allowed to do any legal activity. There are lots of private clubs that allow smoking. By "private business" you just mean privately owned, but they are still open to the public and regulated for lots of public interests. Businesses are subject to labor laws, health and safety laws, all kinds of shit that doesn't apply to how a person acts in their home or klan group.
Welcome to the post-1920 world!
That's a bright future, I love taco bell. And the best part about them isn't the bells, its the tacos. All their new concoctions like gorditos and spic-food-bell-grande are slop, just give me those hard shell tacos and keep um comin.
All of you have no historical viewpoint on smoking bans.
Pope Urban VII's 13-day papal reign included the world's first known public smoking ban (1590), as he threatened to excommunicate anyone who "took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose".
Whole cities back then banned smoking. Interestingly enough, most were in germany/austria/bavaria....same stock that inhabits wisco.
The Nazis banned smoking as well. What is it with GERMANS!!!
Anyway, you have really two flavors or argument. The personal property/government intervention or the econ loss argument.
PP/Gov is based on Mill, but even mill said, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
Pretty much game over.
The econ..well, we have conflicting studies. I can give you studies that show no loss of revenue. And some that gained revenue. Overall, smoking bans are better for the economy. Better for job growth, better for cleanliness, better for decreased liability, and less fuel needs (less ventilation).
And better for our funny bones...is there nothing more humorous than smokers freezing their asses off outside because they can't control their addiction.
What is indisputable is that heart attacks in cities that enact smoking bans decrease.
Smoking bans are good.
Cept for crack. Let's not get crazy folks.
If there is demand for non-smoking bars, then this is the way things should be without government regulation. Essentially it sounds like you're for the status quo - places where smoking is allowed and not allowed, only it feels much dirtier to be doing something that is "banned.'
As far as smoking outside of bars, it's almost nonexistent as is with little more than social pressure. It's pretty rare you see someone just standing around smoking anywhere near populated places anymore and I'm sure the passing nonsmokers will survive their brush with death even when there is an inconsiderate smoker they have to walk past.
It's become a pack mentality where there's only safety in numbers. Last time I smoked outside a bar was outside some shitty grocery store next to a pizza joint. During the time it took to smoke 1 fag, no fewer than 4 other people lit up outside the same store. Fact is, if smokers don't see someone else smoking somewhere in public that isn't the back corner of a parking ramp, they aren't likely to light up these days, which says to me that shit is just fine without Jim Doyle telling me where I can and can't smoke.
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
I get the feeling the government is just going to keep hounding you until you quit. Further bans and more taxes are inevitable. At some point quitting will be less painful than continuing to smoke.
Trust me - this is where legislating freedom leads you... not smoking in an entire city/downtown area.
Welcome to Burbank - if you hate smoking - please come visit. Apparently, people aren't visiting since the ban and business is being affected.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1940059/posts
Let's move to Stage 8 - then hopefully we can overthrow this shit or just become Chinese communists and no one will have any choices....
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." (emphasis mine - he continues...)
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these
nations always progressed through the following sequence
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage "
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota... believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase." (end quotation)
-------------------------------------------------
IF that really is so - then the only stage left is #8 - From dependence back into bondage. What might that look like I wonder? Possibly the welfare state becoming openly socialist and increasingly totalitarian - possibly even a dictatorship? One thing is for sure - our civil liberties will become extinct in the name of "the public good" or "safety."
You know, the Founding Fathers saw this coming and cemented our inalienble human rights in the constitution so that all future laws and govt. actions had to keep these in the center of their thinking and rulings. But social progressives constantly want to redefine these rights and the constitution so that it can be "applied" to modern situations. In the end, all that does is make it easy for some dictator(s) to "redefine" our rights and the constitution so that they can "legally" take them away (so much for inalienable).
HOFer
I agree with this. Though I am of the opinion that as much as I hate people smoking in enclosed bars, they should be able to smoke outside (even near doorways except for the hospitals and medical buildings because those are sick people for godssakes) and I think trying to outlaw people smoking in their cars is absolutely ludicrous. Maybe they should put smoking lounges in the back of the bar like they do at the airport (I know, except for Chicago, but it's the people that brought you the Bears, what can you really expect?). Either way, it looks like it's gonna happen, like it or not.
Around here they made the hospitals completely smoke free--you can't even smoke on the grounds outside and now people are hesitating to check themselves into rehab because they won't be able to smoke...
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
As always, this topic will be a continuing debate. I have always said, if there is to be a ban, make it state-wide or nothing. Right now, there are pockets of cities that have bans in WI...Appleton, Madison, Wausau.... BUT, those are city bans. If the City of GB banned smoking, well you could still smoke at Stadium View, Anduzzi's, The Bar, etc but on the other side of the stadium, you couldn't because it's the city itself. So, to make it fair, do it state wide or don't do it at all.
As someone who has struggled for years to quit smoking, I could care less about this ban or not. I quit smoking at the beginning of the year, but yes I still sneak one here and there. Being around a bar full of smoke isn't anymore difficult for me vs craving one after I eat or drive in a car, etc...all things that went along with smoking for me.
What I hate about the idea is that it's just another thing we're letting our government decide for us to do vs letting private business owners make their own decisions.
I think Americans still have a libertarian spirit. There is a backlash when regulations go too far. (Obviously that's a judgement call, but most people understand the old saying "your right to extend your fist ends at the tip of my nose.") Taxes - that is another issues, awfully tempting to tax your neighbor's sins.I agree with this. Though I am of the opinion that as much as I hate people smoking in enclosed bars, they should be able to smoke outside (even near doorways except for the hospitals and medical buildings because those are sick people for godssakes) and I think trying to outlaw people smoking in their cars is absolutely ludicrous. Maybe they should put smoking lounges in the back of the bar like they do at the airport (I know, except for Chicago, but it's the people that brought you the Bears, what can you really expect?). Either way, it looks like it's gonna happen, like it or not.
they don't let private business owners decide whether they can sell toys with lead paint. (I can just see the argument, "Let the parents decide whether they want to buy the lead paint toys.") It is worth it to let the government make rules in the interest of public health when the evidence is strong.
World Health Organization Warns of Tobacco Use in Developing Countries
One Billion People May Die of Tobacco-Related Illness This Century
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 7, 2008; 5:56 PM
One billion people may die of tobacco-related illness this century, almost all of them in developing countries, the World Health Organization warned today as it rolled out an unprecedented global campaign to limit the spread of smoking.
The effort provides for the first time a comprehensive look at tobacco use, as well as smoking control and taxation policies, in 179 countries. It also lays out six strategies to reduce tobacco use, many used by rich countries in recent decades, although far from fully deployed even there.
Tobacco use is a risk factor for six of the world's eight leading causes of death and causes about one in every 10 deaths of adults now. That toll is expected to rise steeply as tobacco companies target new customers, particularly women, in low-income countries, WHO officials said.
"What we're saying is that we don't want to let that happen," said Douglas Bettcher, director of the WHO initiative. "We want to see the operating environment of the tobacco companies become as difficult as possible in the near future."
While WHO cannot force countries to make stringent tobacco control a priority, it hopes to convince them such efforts are cheap, proven, and especially beneficial to their poorest citizens.
"In many countries, money spent by the poor on cigarettes is taken away from what they could spend on health and education," said Patrick Petit, an economist at WHO who helped produce the 329-page report accompanying the initiative's launch in New York.
Margaret Chan, WHO's director-general, said the compilation of data is itself a powerful tool for change. "I truly believe that what gets measured gets done," she said.
WHO is using marketing techniques reminiscent of the tobacco companies'. It has branded the campaign MPOWER -- an acronym for the six strategies -- and is eschewing scare tactics in favor of the theme "fresh and alive." Press materials came with a box that looked like pack of cigarettes and contained a pad and pens describing the elements of the campaign.
The six strategies are: Monitoring tobacco use and control policy; Protecting people by enforcing smoke-free laws; Offering smokers nicotine replacement and counseling programs; Warning about smoking's hazards on cigarette packs; Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising and promotion; and Raising the price of tobacco through taxes.
By packaging them together "we are saving the countries of fishing around for the most cost-effective measures," Chan said.
Numerous studies have shown that raising the price of cigarettes is by far the most powerful strategy. For every 10 percent increase in price, cigarette consumption overall drops about 4 percent, and about 8 percent in young people.
While some cities, states and provinces employ many of the strategies in a coordinated fashion, no countries do so on a national basis, the WHO report said. Uruguay, the world leader, does three -- graphic pack warnings; universal smoke-free laws; and free smoking-cessation help. The United States does one-and-a-half -- national monitoring, and a national ban on many forms of tobacco advertising.
Only 5 percent of the global population is protected by smoke-free laws; only 5 percent live in countries that completely ban tobacco advertising and event sponsorship; and only 6 percent live in places where cigarette packs carry pictorial warnings of smoking's hazards. (In Brazil, some packs feature a man with a tracheostomy, a breathing hole created in the front of the neck created after treatment for throat cancer).
The report sketches a picture of huge diversity between countries and regions in current tobacco use.
In Greece, 59 percent of men smoke cigarettes every day; in Sweden, 15 percent do. Thirty-eight percent of Serbian women smoke, but only 1 percent of women in Kyrgyzstan. In Indonesia, 65 percent of men are smokers, but only 4 percent of women.
Nearly two-thirds of the world's smokers live in 10 countries, with China accounting for nearly 3 out of every 10. About 100 million Chinese men now under 30 will die from tobacco use unless they quit, the report said.
In India, which is second to China in the number of smokers, tobacco control is complicated by the fact there are two types of cigarettes that are priced and taxed differently.
In 2006, Indians smoked about 106 billion conventional cigarettes and one trillion "biris." The latter are loosely packed combinations of tobacco and flavorings such as chocolate or clove, wrapped in a leaf of the tendu tree.
Biris are made in thousands of small factories and home workshops and cost about 10-cents for a pack of 25. They are taxed at a lower rate than normal cigarettes, ostensibly to protect the poor, who are their main consumers.
WHO's campaign was put together with financial help from a philanthropy run by Michael Bloomberg, billionaire businessman and New York City's mayor. He is giving $125 million over two years for global tobacco control, and helped pay for the country-by-country survey that provided baseline data for the campaign.
In New York, he created one of the most comprehensive anti-smoking programs in the country. His advocacy of higher tobacco taxes has pushed the price of a pack of cigarettes there to $6.20, and he is seeking another 50-cent increase this year.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in June that the percentage of adult New Yorkers who smoke fell from 22 percent to 18 percent from 2002 to 2006, with the steepest drop in people 18 to 24 years old.
The campaign organizers held two press conferences in New York yesterday, one at the United Nations, WHO's parent organization. Ironically, UN headquarters is about the only place in the city where the smoking ban is not enforced, because the UN campus is autonomous territory.
The Vienna Cafe there is packed with smokers all day long. It used to have signs saying "Smoking Discouraged" but they haven't been in evidence recently.
Colum Lynch contributed to this article from New York.
C.H.U.D.
Some percentage of smokers die a horrible painful death. Unfortunately the percentage is too small, and it takes too long for them to start dying.
I have allergies, so any place that allows smoking is a place that I can't go. I'm very happy that Madison has a full ban on smoking, it's made a lot of restaurants available to me (the practice of letting the addicts use the bar area poisoned the whole restaurant.) I've walked out of many places that cater to the moronic druggies. It's sad that owners don't realize they lose more business than they gain by allowing the addicts to rule the roost.
Some pussies with allergies die a horribly painful death. Unfortunately the percentage is too small, and it takes too long for them to start dying.
I don't have allergies, so any place that allows smoking is a place that I can go. I'm very sad that Madison has a full ban on smoking, it's made a lot of restaurants so full of sniffle noses and hypochondriacs that the places are unusable to me (the practice of letting the weepy eyed dillholes use the bar area without smoking poisoned the whole restaurant.) I've walked out of many places that cater to the moronic whiners. It's sad that owners don't realize they lose more business than they gain by allowing the sad sacks unable to take responsibility for themselves to rule the roost.
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
In England, here's an idea to pay almost $20 for a license to smoke.
.................................................. .................................................. .......
'£10 licence to smoke' proposed
Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way.
No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England.
Its chairman, Professor Julian Le Grand, told BBC Radio 5 Live the scheme would make a big difference to the number of people giving up smoking.
But smokers' rights group Forest described the idea as "outrageous", given how much tax smokers already pay.
Professor Le Grand, a former adviser to ex-PM Tony Blair, said cash raised by the proposed scheme would go to the NHS.
He said it was the inconvenience of getting a permit - as much as the cost - that would deter people from persisting with the smoking habit.
"You've got to get a form, a complex form - the government's good at complex forms; you have got to get a photograph.
"It's a little bit of a problem to actually do it, so you have got to make a conscious decision every year to opt in to being a smoker."
'Extra bureaucracy'
He added: "70% of smokers actually want to stop smoking.
"So if you just make it that little bit more difficult for them to actually re-start or even to start in the first place, yes I think it will make a big difference."
But Forest said it would be "an extra form of taxation, while tobacco taxation is already at record levels".
Forest spokesman Simon Clark said that when the cost of administration, extra bureaucracy and enforcement are taken into account, "the mind boggles".
He added that the people most affected by the proposals would be "the elderly and people on low incomes".
Mr Clark added: "The senior government advisor putting this idea forward is not only adding to the red tape and bureaucracy we already have in this country.
"He is openly bragging that he wants to make the form as complex as possible to fill in."
A department of health spokeswoman did not rule out such a scheme as part of the next wave of tobacco regulation.
She said: "We will be consulting later this year on the next steps on tobacco control.
"Ministers are seeking input from a whole range of stakeholders."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
