smoke gets in your eyes

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Wisconsin Legislature might actually vote on a statewide ban on smoking in all work places, including restaurants and taverns, in the next couple weeks. (Illinois & Minnesota have passed bans.)

[Joemailman]

No. I support bans in publicly owned places (government buildings), and in hospitals. Otherwise, I think it should be an owner decision.

[SkinBasket]

If there is a market for smoke free bars and taverns they will exist. Bar owners want to make money - not promote smoking.

Fuck Doyle. He likes to pretend this is California so he can feel more important than he is.

[MadtownPacker]

Why should people have to breath your bitch ass smoke? Would you piece of shit smokers like it if someone was blowing weed or meth all around you? Yeah, I know, cry like a bitch that cigs aint illegal but when you break it down it aint much different. You really think restaurant owners arent going to change their policy? They will just make your ass go outside or to a special area just like the stinkin chimneys that you are.

Shouldn't even need a law. People should just show some damn courtesy.

[packinpatland]

At the PR game weekend, I was surprised at the number of places we went into that allowed smoking.

Here in CT... no smoking anywhere public. I think that just within the past year(s) they passed the same law for NYC............with little or no impact.

[SkinBasket]

Why should people have to breath your bitch ass smoke? Would you piece of shit smokers like it if someone was blowing weed or meth all around you? Yeah, I know, cry like a bitch that cigs aint illegal but when you break it down it aint much different. You really think restaurant owners arent going to change their policy? They will just make your ass go outside or to a special area just like the stinkin chimneys that you are.

Shouldn't even need a law. People should just show some damn courtesy.

You don't like it, then stay the fuck out the bar. Go to Applebee's.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Why should people have to breath your bitch ass smoke? Would you piece of shit smokers like it if someone was blowing weed or meth all around you? Yeah, I know, cry like a bitch that cigs aint illegal but when you break it down it aint much different. You really think restaurant owners arent going to change their policy? They will just make your ass go outside or to a special area just like the stinkin chimneys that you are.

Shouldn't even need a law. People should just show some damn courtesy.

I don't smoke, but we're talking about private bars and restaurants. You don't have to go there. If the smoke bothers you, go elsewhere. Too much fucking "big brother" government for me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why should people have to breath your bitch ass smoke? ..... Shouldn't even need a law. People should just show some damn courtesy.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I can't believe I totally agree with the mad man on this one.

The idea that you can go out in public and start a fire that wafts smoke in everybody's face is just ridiculous. The only reason we accept it is because it is (was) traditional, we thought of it as normal out of habit.

Twenty years from now, people will look back on the practice of smoking in restaurants & shake their heads in amazement.

[MadtownPacker]

You don't like it, then stay the fuck out the bar. Go to Applebee's.You stupid ashmuncher, you dont get it. When this happens and it will, it will be just like in Cali and probably every other staste that has done this where owners of bars have to be forcing people to go outside. There is no way anyone is going to want to lose business because of someone wanting to smoke.

In fact am gonna laugh at your ass when it happens.

Deal with it hoe. :lol:

[MadtownPacker]

I don't smoke, but we're talking about private bars and restaurants. You don't have to go there. If the smoke bothers you, go elsewhere. Too much fucking "big brother" government for me.Maybe you are right but you arent as pissed about this because you chew that crap which makes you even lower. :lol:

[Partial]

As much as I hate people smoking, I do think it is pushing the limit of what governments role should be.

[Harlan Huckleby]

At the PR game weekend, I was surprised at the number of places we went into that allowed smoking.

Here in CT... no smoking anywhere public. I think that just within the past year(s) they passed the same law for NYC............with little or no impact.

Wisconsin people are the oddest folk in the country. They are generally progressive, electing a Jewish lefty maverick like Fiengold to the Senate. But they also have this cranky conservative streak: Voting 60% to keep homos from getting married or civil unioned; and they'll be damned if the government is going to take away their cigs.

[MadtownPacker]

I just wanna say that I dont think the government should force owners to do this but it should just be common sense.

If you are gonna smoke in a resturant then why not while youre pushing you shopping cart through the aisle at ToysRus? Dont forget when you are in an elevator or a waiting room at the doctors office too.

Or is their something different about those places?

[MJZiggy]

As much as I hate people smoking, I do think it is pushing the limit of what governments role should be.

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

When we were in GB, the waitress was 20, pregnant and working in bar full of smoking people. Was she supposed to quit? Then what? Depend on the government to support her kid?

[packinpatland]

As much as I hate people smoking, I do think it is pushing the limit of what governments role should be.

So maybe you think that anyone over the age of 21 shouldn't have to wear a seatbelt..........after all, they're only going to kill themselves should they get in an accident, right?

[Harlan Huckleby]

packinpatland, no need to shout. Partial is of a tender, vulernable age, and besides, its unsophisticated.

[packinpatland]

packinpatland, no need to shout. Partial is of a tender, vulernable age, and besides, its unsophisticated.

I tried to get the *%$# it to get back to normal font size and it wouldn't do it................sorry, didn't mean to raise my voice. :oops:
Got your attention tho, didn't I? :wink:

[MJZiggy]

packinpatland, no need to shout. Partial is of a tender, vulernable age, and besides, its unsophisticated.

I tried to get the *%$# it to get back to normal font size and it wouldn't do it................sorry, didn't mean to raise my voice. :oops:
Got your attention tho, didn't I? :wink:

You have to put the [/b] inside the [/quote]. Each tag you use has to be closed before you close the one before it.

As in [ quote][ b] [ i]then the [/i] comes before the [/b] which comes before [/quote].

Does that make sense?

[packinpatland]

packinpatland, no need to shout. Partial is of a tender, vulernable age, and besides, its unsophisticated.

I tried to get the *%$# it to get back to normal font size and it wouldn't do it................sorry, didn't mean to raise my voice. :oops:
Got your attention tho, didn't I? :wink:

You have to put the [/b] inside the . Each tag you use has to be closed before you close the one before it.

As in [ quote][ b] [ i]then the [/i] comes before the [/b] which comes before [/quote].

Does that make sense?[/quote]


:pc: No........but I'll keep trying!

[HarveyWallbangers]

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

Then make it illegal and quit bitching about it. If it's legal, the government should stay out of it.

[Scott Campbell]

Wisconsin people are the oddest folk in the country.


You need to get out more.

[packinpatland]

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

Then make it illegal and quit bitching about it. If it's legal, the government should stay out of it.

Can't do that..........way to much $$$$ involved. Big Tobacco=Big Money.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Can't do that..........way to much $$$$ involved. Big Tobacco=Big Money.

Yeah, blame it on Big Tobacco. BTW, the effects of second hand smoke are vastly exaggerated.

[MJZiggy]

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

Then make it illegal and quit bitching about it. If it's legal, the government should stay out of it.

They know that they'd never get away with making it completely illegal, but this is as close as they can get and still remain in office. It's been publicly banned here for quite some time and it's really not that big a deal. Hasn't affected the restaurant trade like so many were screaming it would. People still go out to eat, they just smoke before they go.

[Fosco33]

Starts in bars/restaurants - then goes to streets....

I live in Burbank, CA - and people can't smoke anywhere downtown, in their cars, in their apartment porches - and the law says 'smoke in designated areas' - but there are no designated areas. Shit is f-ed up.

Gov't shouldn't be in this arena.

And no - I don't smoke. I used to though.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

Then make it illegal and quit bitching about it. If it's legal, the government should stay out of it.

sex is legal, but you aren't allowed to do it in a restaurant.

(well, maybe oral sex under table, but oral sex isn't sex.)

[GrnBay007]

As much as I hate people smoking, I do think it is pushing the limit of what governments role should be.

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

When we were in GB, the waitress was 20, pregnant and working in bar full of smoking people. Was she supposed to quit? Then what? Depend on the government to support her kid?

Consuming alcohol is also proven to cause all kinds of health/driving/death-related problems. I don't see the government stepping in there to that extent with respect to alcohol. I'm pretty confident more people are killed by drunken drivers than they are by 2nd hand smoke.

I don't condone smoking, but the 20 year old pregnant waitress needs to take responsibility for herself and her unborn child and find more suitable employment....and I'm sure she can without depending on government support....if she really wants or needs to work.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the 20 year old pregnant waitress needs to take responsibility for herself and her unborn child and find more suitable employment.

You can make this argument against regulation of any workplace health issue: if you don't lke the working conditions, get a new job.

[SkinBasket]

You don't like it, then stay the fuck out the bar. Go to Applebee's.You stupid ashmuncher, you dont get it. When this happens and it will, it will be just like in Cali and probably every other staste that has done this where owners of bars have to be forcing people to go outside. There is no way anyone is going to want to lose business because of someone wanting to smoke.

In fact am gonna laugh at your ass when it happens.

Deal with it hoe. :lol:


What don't I get? That California is a cesspool of confused and inept state and local government that claims to be forward thinking and liberal while legislating how exactly everyone should be liberal and forward thinking?

I support a ban for restaurants where the establishment is based on serving food. Not for bars and pubs however. You can make an argument that a family should be able to go out to eat at a restaurant without a whiff of smoke from the bar area, but everyone in a bar should be 21 or older and able to take responsibility for themselves.

Again, if there's such widespread support for this, then there would plenty of non-smoking bars out there already due to demand. Fact is it's the people who don't go to bars that are trying to regulate them. Like Harvey said, until it's illegal, stop treating it like it's a crime, or making it a crime in this case, to smoke.

[packinpatland]

Can't do that..........way to much $$$$ involved. Big Tobacco=Big Money.

Yeah, blame it on Big Tobacco. BTW, the effects of second hand smoke are vastly exaggerated.

I always thought that too. A few years ago I went with my then 85 year old aunt to the DR., she had a nagging cough. He told her it would help if she would quit smoking. She said 'OK, but my husband would have to die.'
She had the lungs of a 30yr smoker...........never ever smoked a cigarette in her life......herself.

[MJZiggy]

Consuming alcohol is also proven to cause all kinds of health/driving/death-related problems. I don't see the government stepping in there to that extent with respect to alcohol. I'm pretty confident more people are killed by drunken drivers than they are by 2nd hand smoke.

I don't condone smoking, but the 20 year old pregnant waitress needs to take responsibility for herself and her unborn child and find more suitable employment....and I'm sure she can without depending on government support....if she really wants or needs to work.

Drunk driving may kill people, but you sitting next to me with a drink in your hand ain't gonna do it, and last I checked, driving with a bloodstream full of alcohol is actually illegal. And they enforce it.

The 20-year old just didn't seem the genius type that's gonna be able to go out and land a job wherever she chooses. Not too many people are going to hire a pregnant girl anyway and you'd have a hard time convincing me that she was planning this ahead of time and could have chosen her occupation accordingly. Taking the entire bar and restaurant industries away from less educated folk who make great waitstaff but just want to keep themselves healthy seems kinda crazy to me. She was a very good server so she should quit so you can have a smoke?

I'm curious as to what GBR thinks about this having recently quit--if it would make it easier on her not to have to have cigarette smoke floating around when she goes out. I mean when you have a drink and at breakfast are the hardest times, right?

[Deputy Nutz]

Can't do that..........way to much $$$$ involved. Big Tobacco=Big Money.

Yeah, blame it on Big Tobacco. BTW, the effects of second hand smoke are vastly exaggerated.

I always thought that too. A few years ago I went with my then 85 year old aunt to the DR., she had a nagging cough. He told her it would help if she would quit smoking. She said 'OK, but my husband would have to die.'
She had the lungs of a 30yr smoker...........never ever smoked a cigarette in her life......herself.

Ok, I do think Harvey was talking about second hand smoke in bars or at a resturant, not living with a smoker of 50 years. Quite a jump.

[Zool]

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

Then make it illegal and quit bitching about it. If it's legal, the government should stay out of it.

sex is legal, but you aren't allowed to do it in a restaurant.

(well, maybe oral sex under table, but oral sex isn't sex.)

What I dont get is why smokers always say, "Then dont go to the bar" as the reasoning. If smoking in the bar is illegal DONT GO TO THE FUCKING BAR. If I take a shit on the table at a bar, I go to prison, but some assface sitting behind me can smoke himself retarded. Is shitting on the table a bigger health risk? Not unless you plan on eating it. Then why is it bad? Because it smells bad? So do cigarettes.

I know 2 bar owners where I live and they bitched up a storm when they heard about the MN smoking ban. "Buisness is going to fall off, we're going to lose customers". Well low and fucking behold, buisness is UP. People who didnt want to smell like they work in a constantly burning coal mine actually started going to bars after the ban.

I'm not all for govt telling me what I can do, but if there even a shred of credibility to the studies that say second hand smoke causes cancer, then all smokers can kiss my ass. You go back to your house and do what you want there. Don't subject me to your smoke if I cant subject you to my feces.

[SkinBasket]

She was a very good server so she should quit so you can have a smoke?

There are plenty of places for a knocked up slut to get a job other than a bar or restaurant. Just like there's plenty of places to eat where you can't smoke. Chain restaurants and hotels have bars that are non smoking for those who want a drink without the smoke.

There's pretty much only one place people can go smoke in a social environment. The bar and some restaurants. Is it really that difficult for those who are so concerned about 2nd hand smoke to avoid these places that you need your state government to help you?

[Deputy Nutz]

People just don't get it, the only place I can go or Skin can go to smoke are bars, without our wives finding out. You close those down, then what?


Anyways, I like going to Madison, wait no not really, but I do like to go to Badger footbal games, and then I like to go to bars. I like not hanging out in a place that doesn't smell like an ashtray, I like that most places have patios where I can go puff on a heater without smellings like ass. Thats my personal take, however my society take on it, is it is another way government has decided to play big brother. Government wants to control just about everything and it makes me sick. Telling bar owners they can't have patrons or themselves commit a legal act in their establishment just sticks in my craw.

[SkinBasket]

Telling bar owners they can't have patrons or themselves commit a legal act in their establishment just sticks in my craw.

Can I stick something in your craw?

[MJZiggy]

She was a very good server so she should quit so you can have a smoke?

There are plenty of places for a knocked up slut to get a job other than a bar or restaurant. Just like there's plenty of places to eat where you can't smoke. Chain restaurants and hotels have bars that are non smoking for those who want a drink without the smoke.

There's pretty much only one place people can go smoke in a social environment. The bar and some restaurants. Is it really that difficult for those who are so concerned about 2nd hand smoke to avoid these places that you need your state government to help you?

If all the knocked up sluts and young people who could get knocked up stop working at the bar, who's serving you your drinks? :idea:

[SkinBasket]

If all the knocked up sluts and young people who could get knocked up stop working at the bar, who's serving you your drinks? :idea:

Old toothless skanks. Who else?

[Zool]

She was a very good server so she should quit so you can have a smoke?

There are plenty of places for a knocked up slut to get a job other than a bar or restaurant. Just like there's plenty of places to eat where you can't smoke. Chain restaurants and hotels have bars that are non smoking for those who want a drink without the smoke.

There's pretty much only one place people can go smoke in a social environment. The bar and some restaurants. Is it really that difficult for those who are so concerned about 2nd hand smoke to avoid these places that you need your state government to help you?

If all the knocked up sluts and young people who could get knocked up stop working at the bar, who's serving you your drinks? :idea:

I assume the same assless chaps wearing men who serve him now. They cant get knocked up.

[SkinBasket]

I assume the same assless chaps wearing men who serve him now. They cant get knocked up.

Our last barmaid was actually a 23 year old mother... who smoked more than we did. Assless chaps would have earned her a significantly higher tip. Of course, higher tips are something she apparently has trouble with. When you play just the tip, you don't get pregnant.

[packinpatland]

[quote=packinpatland]Can't do that..........way to much $$$$ involved. Big Tobacco=Big Money.

Yeah, blame it on Big Tobacco. BTW, the effects of second hand smoke are vastly exaggerated.

I always thought that too. A few years ago I went with my then 85 year old aunt to the DR., she had a nagging cough. He told her it would help if she would quit smoking. She said 'OK, but my husband would have to die.'
She had the lungs of a 30yr smoker...........never ever smoked a cigarette in her life......herself.

[b]Ok, I do think Harvey was talking about second hand smoke in bars or at a resturant, not living with a smoker of 50 years. Quite a jump.[/quote



Second hand smoke is second hand smoke, shouldn't matter where it comes from or where you inhale it.

[packinpatland]

Comparing liquor consumption to that of smoking is apples and oranges.

It's proven that wine, in moderation is beneficial. I just don't remember reading any reports that state a cigarette a day is going to do you any good.

[SkinBasket]

Comparing liquor consumption to that of smoking is apples and oranges.

But comparing the risks of the person in the bar next to you smoking versus the risks of them downing 8 drinks then driving on the same road as you aren't.

I think the point being made was that drunk drivers may kill more people than 2nd hand smoke. Both being products of someone else's actions.

[oregonpackfan]

At the PR game weekend, I was surprised at the number of places we went into that allowed smoking.

Here in CT... no smoking anywhere public. I think that just within the past year(s) they passed the same law for NYC............with little or no impact.

PIP,

I had the same reaction when I went to the PR game. Here in Oregon there is also no smoking allowed anywhere in public. This is not a hardship for smokers. They will always find somewhere to smoke.

[RashanGary]

I believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. There is some grey in there, but I believe having to deal with 2nd hand smoke infringes on the right of non smokers by forcing them to breath in uncomfortable, and almost certainly harmfull smoke.

I support the ban. Smokers have the right to smoke in their homes, in their cars and away from people.

[packinpatland]

This nothing what so ever to do with smoking..........just thought it was :lol: :lol: :lol: !

To my friends who enjoy a glass of wine... and those who don't.

&nb sp; As Ben Franklin said: In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria. In a number of carefully controlled trials, scientists have demonstrated ! that if we drink 1 liter of water
each day, at the end of the year we would have absorbed more than 1
kilo of Escherichia coli, (E coli) - bacteria found in feces. In other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of poop.
However, we do NOT run that risk when drinking wine & beer (or te quila, rum, whiskey or other liquor) because alcohol has to go through
a purification process of boiling, filtering and/or fermenting.
Remember: Water = Poop,
Wine = Health.
Therefore, it's better to drink wine and talk stupid, than to drink water and be full of shit.

There is no need to thank me for this valuable information; I' m doing it as a public service.

[Deputy Nutz]

Second hand smoke is second hand smoke, shouldn't matter where it comes from or where you inhale it.

How about how long you inhale the second hand smoke from your lover on a regular basis? How about living in a house where someone has smoked for a half a century, do you think that makes a difference?

I am just throwing it out, I wasn't pointing out that smoke exhaled by smoker A is more deadly than the smoke exhaled by Smoker B. Get it?

[Deputy Nutz]

I believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. There is some grey in there, but I believe having to deal with 2nd hand smoke infringes on the right of non smokers by forcing them to breath in uncomfortable, and almost certainly harmfull smoke.

I support the ban. Smokers have the right to smoke in their homes, in their cars and away from people.

It is not the concern of the smoker verse the non-smoker. It is the government coming into your establishment, place of business and telling you what you can and can't do.

[Freak Out]

I smoked for years before quiting 7 years ago but had to vote yes.

What's funny about this country is that most Americans will pass a tax on smokes and booze to try and force people to stop and "help" cover health care costs but would never dream pf raising a tax on gasoline to try and curb consumption and force people to park the guzzlers.

[packinpatland]

[quote=JustinHarrell]I believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. There is some grey in there, but I believe having to deal with 2nd hand smoke infringes on the right of non smokers by forcing them to breath in uncomfortable, and almost certainly harmfull smoke.

I support the ban. Smokers have the right to smoke in their homes, in their cars and away from people.
It is not the concern of the smoker verse the non-smoker. It is the government coming into your establishment, place of business and telling you what you can and can't do.[/quote


If that helps you sleep better, keep thinking that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It is not the concern of the smoker verse the non-smoker. It is the government coming into your establishment, place of business and telling you what you can and can't do.

Ya, I can understand this point of view. But you're not allowed to hire child labor to work cheap for your business. And the government says you can't let your doggy eat scraps off the floor back in your diner's kitchen. The government does a lot of interference in the interest of protecting certain public interests. Its just the reality, we ain't going back to the 1800's.

Working in an establishment that allows smoking is a hell of a health risk. Can you imagine what it feels like to breath-in smoke for a 10 hour shift? And the argument "if you don't like the health/safety risks, quit your job" has never flied and never will. If you talk to workers in restaurants/bars a few months after a smoking ban goes into effect, you find very happy, relieved people.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What's funny about this country is that most Americans will pass a tax on smokes and booze to try and force people to stop and "help" cover health care costs but would never dream pf raising a tax on gasoline to try and curb consumption and force people to park the guzzlers.

:lol: :lol: :lol: It's so true that people are happy to punish other people's vices! Smoking weed is relatively unpopular, so the majority is willing to ruin those peoples lives and careers by sending them to jail.

[Deputy Nutz]

It is not the concern of the smoker verse the non-smoker. It is the government coming into your establishment, place of business and telling you what you can and can't do.

Ya, I can understand this point of view. But you're not allowed to hire child labor to work cheap for your business. And the government says you can't let your doggy eat scraps off the floor back in your diner's kitchen. The government does a lot of interference in the interest of protecting certain public interests. Its just the reality, we ain't going back to the 1800's.

Working in an establishment that allows smoking is a hell of a health risk. Can you imagine what it feels like to breath-in smoke for a 10 hour shift? And the argument "if you don't like the health/safety risks, quit your job" has never flied and never will. If you talk to workers in restaurants/bars a few months after a smoking ban goes into effect, you find very happy, relieved people.

There are child labor laws that business have to follow. Smoking has been legal in this country for 100s of years. I am only pointing out that smoking is legal, using child labor in coal mines is not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am only pointing out that smoking is legal, using child labor in coal mines is not.

Again, fucking is legal. Fucking on the diner counter is not. Well, maybe after hours is cool.


Damn, you can be dense sometimes.

[RashanGary]

It is not the concern of the smoker verse the non-smoker. It is the government coming into your establishment, place of business and telling you what you can and can't do.

Good point. I guess if you don't like smoke, don't go to places that allow it.

Public places that are necessity like an airport, DMV, grocery store, and things like that I think it's right to ban. Places like bars or movie theaters should be the choice of the owner. If there is smoke at one movie theater I'll bet most people don't take their kids there and almost no non smokers will go there. People who smoke tend to go to bars. If they can run a buisness having smoking, I think it's right to leave it up to them.

[Deputy Nutz]

[quote=JustinHarrell]I believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. There is some grey in there, but I believe having to deal with 2nd hand smoke infringes on the right of non smokers by forcing them to breath in uncomfortable, and almost certainly harmfull smoke.

I support the ban. Smokers have the right to smoke in their homes, in their cars and away from people.
It is not the concern of the smoker verse the non-smoker. It is the government coming into your establishment, place of business and telling you what you can and can't do.[/quote


If that helps you sleep better, keep thinking that.

I could really care less about smoking in public places, but have you ever heard of the slippery slope effect? You keep handing over your rights to the government pretty soon they just start taking your right without even putting it up for debate.

Thanks, I got one of those sleep number beds and they really do help. I didn't sleep real well last night though, my right shoulder has been damaged it is a pain to sleep with. I will continue to update you on my progress though.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am only pointing out that smoking is legal, using child labor in coal mines is not.

Again, fucking is legal. Fucking on the diner counter is not. Well, maybe after hours is cool.


Damn, you can be dense sometimes.

Last time I checked if I took a shit on a resturant table it was illegal, and has always been. fucking on the counter is 100% illegal and I am pretty sure it NEVER WAS LEGAL!!!!

Smoking has been allowed in privately owned business for a very long time.

Unless something is specifically written out you can't wrap your 2 cent head around it.

[MJZiggy]

Smoking has been allowed in privately owned business for a very long time.



That's because at the time no one knew or would admit that the shit can KILL YOU!!! Now they know better and don't want the public exposed to it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I smoked for years before quiting 7 years ago but had to vote yes.

What's funny about this country is that most Americans will pass a tax on smokes and booze to try and force people to stop and "help" cover health care costs but would never dream pf raising a tax on gasoline to try and curb consumption and force people to park the guzzlers.

I don't know where you live, but we have a massive gas tax here--to go along with sales tax (vendor and consumer), income tax, property tax, sin tax, death tax (let's tax 50% on money that's already been taxed--just because you want to pass your money to your kids), luxury tax, marriage tax, estate tax, corportate income tax, environment affecting tax, capital gains tax, retirement tax, user fees, seat rights, parking fees, tolls, etc. Our tax burden is outrageous.

Of course, the sin tax is a great way to get people to quit smoking.

[MJZiggy]

How can you have a death tax AND an estate tax? :?: (they only get away with that because they know the dead people won't vote 'em out of office. :lol: )

[HarveyWallbangers]

The smoking ban is just more bad legislation that sounds good to the electorate, so it's easy to pass.

My uncle manages local bands in the area. His business has been affected severely. Bars aren't seeing as many patrons (a smoker will smoke at home over going out to a bar to not smoke). This affects those businesses. Bar owners aren't paying for live entertainment. This affect musicians. That's affected my uncle's business. It's a good thing he's invested wisely over the years. Otherwise, he wouldn't make it. He is worried about the golden egg when he retires in 10 years though. Sure, after 25 years he could go out and try something else. Personally, I think it's easier for people to slightly adjust their lifestyles (e.g. don't go to a friggin' bar that allows smoking if it bugs you that much). I'd rather the govenment get their noses out of it. Apparently, they learned something from prohibition. They just didn't learn the right thing.

Despite their obvious flaws, the founding fathers created an awesome republican system of government based on individual rights (among other things), and the burden of personal responsibility. Our country is failing miserably on both fronts.

[packinpatland]

[quote=JustinHarrell]I believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. There is some grey in there, but I believe having to deal with 2nd hand smoke infringes on the right of non smokers by forcing them to breath in uncomfortable, and almost certainly harmfull smoke.

I support the ban. Smokers have the right to smoke in their homes, in their cars and away from people.
It is not the concern of the smoker verse the non-smoker. It is the government coming into your establishment, place of business and telling you what you can and can't do.[/quote


If that helps you sleep better, keep thinking that.

I could really care less about smoking in public places, but have you ever heard of the slippery slope effect? You keep handing over your rights to the government pretty soon they just start taking your right without even putting it up for debate.

Thanks, I got one of those sleep number beds and they really do help. I didn't sleep real well last night though, my right shoulder has been damaged it is a pain to sleep with. I will continue to update you on my progress though.



Good one......one point for you. :lol:

[MJZiggy]

I could really care less about smoking in public places, but have you ever heard of the slippery slope effect? You keep handing over your rights to the government pretty soon they just start taking your right without even putting it up for debate.



What if you look at it more as protecting the rights of the rest of the people that the public smoker affects? I appreciate the right to breathe clean air that won't KILL ME.

Think of it this way. After they found out that not washing your hands after going to the bathroom contaminated food and caused disease, they made it mandatory for restaurant workers to wash their hands before returning to work. It used to be legal for employees to take a **** and then go back to cooking your food, should we go back to that? It infringes on the restaurant owners right to permit whatever he wants in his restaurant just like a smoking ban does...

[Freak Out]

I smoked for years before quiting 7 years ago but had to vote yes.

What's funny about this country is that most Americans will pass a tax on smokes and booze to try and force people to stop and "help" cover health care costs but would never dream pf raising a tax on gasoline to try and curb consumption and force people to park the guzzlers.

I don't know where you live, but we have a massive gas tax here--to go along with sales tax (vendor and consumer), income tax, property tax, sin tax, death tax (let's tax 50% on money that's already been taxed--just because you want to pass your money to your kids), luxury tax, marriage tax, estate tax, corportate income tax, environment affecting tax, capital gains tax, retirement tax, user fees, seat rights, parking fees, tolls, etc. Our tax burden is outrageous.

Of course, the sin tax is a great way to get people to quit smoking.

Oil money cures all here.

Locally I pay property taxes and thats about it. Of course there are user fees and such for State campground/trail parking, fishing/hunting licenses......usw, but no sales tax. Our gas tax here is very low...booze and smokes are taxed pretty high. You are correct when you say we are over taxed though...everybody wants a piece of us. One thing that irks me is if I want to appeal my property taxes I have to pay $100! Fuckers.

[SkinBasket]

What if you look at it more as protecting the rights of the rest of the people that the public smoker affects? I appreciate the right to breathe clean air that won't KILL ME.

You're still talking about a "public smoker" inside a privately owned business. PRIVATELY OWNED. Not state owned. Not owned by you, or the non-smoking American public.

You have the "right" to breathe clean air almost anywhere you go. Maybe you should consider accepting the responsibility of avoiding those very few places left where people can, and want to, smoke. There are plenty of non-smoking alternatives out there for people to express their "right" to breathing clean air.

Should we also ban insulation in houses because if you crawl up in your attic and stuff your face in it, it's bad for you?

[MJZiggy]

My attic insulation has benefits. Remind me of the benefits of smoke again?

[Zool]

What if you look at it more as protecting the rights of the rest of the people that the public smoker affects? I appreciate the right to breathe clean air that won't KILL ME.

You're still talking about a "public smoker" inside a privately owned business. PRIVATELY OWNED. Not state owned. Not owned by you, or the non-smoking American public.

You have the "right" to breathe clean air almost anywhere you go. Maybe you should consider accepting the responsibility of avoiding those very few places left where people can, and want to, smoke. There are plenty of non-smoking alternatives out there for people to express their "right" to breathing clean air.

Should we also ban insulation in houses because if you crawl up in your attic and stuff your face in it, it's bad for you?

No, but if someone was walking around blowing it in peoples faces I would say yes. If you want cancer, smoke up. Dont force others to breath in your toxic shit. You can just as easily go home as the people who dont smoke.

They make smoking bars for a reason.

[Harlan Huckleby]

My uncle manages local bands in the area. His business has been affected severely. Bars aren't seeing as many patrons (a smoker will smoke at home over going out to a bar to not smoke). This affects those businesses.

Some people used to make a good living selling fireworks. Or selling radiation machines that let you see the bones in your feet in shoe stores.

The world changes, and sometimes specific businesses suffer. The statistics are that smoking bans are a net boost to restaurant/entertainment industries, but even if you don't want to believe this, the economic losses of a few businesses can not trump what the public sees as their important interests.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I looked-up a recent survey of economic impact of smoking bans. I was repeating what I read from the past, but it appears I am wrong and smoking bans are hurting bars. Employment at bars drops 4% to 16% after bans.

http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2008/a/pages/smoking-ban.html

[HarveyWallbangers]

They make smoking bars for a reason.

What smoking bars? There aren't any in Minnesota. They have a state-wide ban.

[Zool]

With a smoking ban should come smoking specific bars. I guess coming from Cali, there were smoking bars all over the place. People would walk from a non-smoking bar, down to the smoking bar for a drink and a couple smokes, then migrate back.

The system has been in place for a long time in CA, and bars there are far from hurting. I've stood outside in enough lines to know that much.

[RashanGary]

My attic insulation has benefits. Remind me of the benefits of smoke again?

Some people like it and as much as you think you know what people should and shouldn't do/like, nobody has that power over anyone else.

If someone enjoys smoking, that is a benefit to them. I'm all for bans on places people need to go but bans on bars seem over the top. It's a personal choice to go or not to go.

[Zool]

My attic insulation has benefits. Remind me of the benefits of smoke again?

Some people like it and as much as you think you know what people should and shouldn't do/like, nobody has that power over anyone else.

If someone enjoys smoking, that is a benefit to them. I'm all for bans on places people need to go but bans on bars seem over the top. It's a personal choice to go or not to go.

Exactly, if you cant smoke there, dont go there.

[MJZiggy]

My attic insulation has benefits. Remind me of the benefits of smoke again?

Some people like it and as much as you think you know what people should and shouldn't do/like, nobody has that power over anyone else.

If someone enjoys smoking, that is a benefit to them. I'm all for bans on places people need to go but bans on bars seem over the top. It's a personal choice to go or not to go.

How bout smokers go there and just don't smoke inside where it's enclosed and every other person there has to suck up their smoke?

[RashanGary]

And coming from someone who smoked from age 15-20 and quit for the last 6 years, I can say that there are real benefits to smoking.

1. It gives a satisfying uphoric feeling
2. It's comforting
3. If you smoke it tastes good


I obviously thought the downs outnumbered the ups, but I'm not going to shove my priorities down someone elses throat. I don't want them shoving 2nd hand smoke down my throat at schools, airports, grocery stores or governement buildings either.

[Deputy Nutz]

Smoking has been allowed in privately owned business for a very long time.



That's because at the time no one knew or would admit that the shit can KILL YOU!!! Now they know better and don't want the public exposed to it.

Wait a minute, you are telling me that people didn't realize that enhaling smoke was bad for them? Sucking on something that is burning just tells me it is probably going to be harmful to me. I knew smoking could kill you 20 some years ago but they still let you smoke in movies and on airplanes.

[MJZiggy]

apparently you should have shared your wisdom, because in the past it was believed (advertising sells, baby!!) that smoking was cool and fun and not bad for you at all. Even when evidence to the contrary was mounting, the tobacco industry failed to share what is common knowledge today. That's why they got their asses sued off...

[SkinBasket]

My attic insulation has benefits. Remind me of the benefits of smoke again?

You're right. We should outlaw everything that doesn't have a clear "benefit."

You ever see the movie demolition man?

[Deputy Nutz]

apparently you should have shared your wisdom, because in the past it was believed (advertising sells, baby!!) that smoking was cool and fun and not bad for you at all. Even when evidence to the contrary was mounting, the tobacco industry failed to share what is common knowledge today. That's why they got their asses sued off...

I don't know about you, but the advertising did work because peer pressure is a motherfucker, I don't think I would have ever touched a cigerette after I took one from my dad when I was 9. If it was so refreshing and cool, why did I gag all over myself? I knew right then that this really couldn't be good for someone when the hot burning smoke choked all the oxygen out of my lungs. Clean and refreshing? Better smoke menthol.

[Zool]

My attic insulation has benefits. Remind me of the benefits of smoke again?

You're right. We should outlaw everything that doesn't have a clear "benefit."

You ever see the movie demolition man?

Wesley Snipes looking like Dennis Rodman? Thats gold right there.

"In the future all restaurants are Taco Bell"

[HarveyWallbangers]

The system has been in place for a long time in CA, and bars there are far from hurting. I've stood outside in enough lines to know that much.

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.

[MJZiggy]

The system has been in place for a long time in CA, and bars there are far from hurting. I've stood outside in enough lines to know that much.

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.

Not washing your hands after using the bathroom is still legal....

[twoseven]

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.

[BallHawk]

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.

[Bretsky]

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

[MadtownPacker]

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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I still think private businesses should be free to allow legal activities.

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!

[Harlan Huckleby]

"In the future all restaurants are Taco Bell"

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.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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. :twisted:

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.

[SkinBasket]

With a smoking ban should come smoking specific bars. I guess coming from Cali, there were smoking bars all over the place. People would walk from a non-smoking bar, down to the smoking bar for a drink and a couple smokes, then migrate back.

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.

[Scott Campbell]

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.

[Fosco33]

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-backroom/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).

[MJZiggy]

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.

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...

[GBRulz]

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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.

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.

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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.

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.

[Freak Out]

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.

[MadScientist]

My attic insulation has benefits. Remind me of the benefits of smoke again?
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.

[SkinBasket]

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.

[Kiwon]

The Wisconsin Legislature might actually vote on a statewide ban on smoking in all work places, including restaurants and taverns, in the next couple weeks. (Illinois & Minnesota have passed bans.)

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

[Iron Mike]

Whole cities back then banned smoking. Interestingly enough, most were in germany/austria/bavaria....same stock that inhabits wisco.


<==Eine bayerische Ratte