Business Owner Opposes Smoking Ban
This is from Bill Savage, a business owner and legislative aide to Representative Pridemore.
Now that we spent an entire weekend at the Republican Convention or shall I say the Conservative Convention, listening to speaker after speaker talk about freedom, smaller government and liberty, we have come home to reality.
That reality is this; The republican party will never recapture the spirit of smaller government, personal freedom and private enterprise as long as there are republicans in office who are willing to trade those principals for a little face time in the newspaper or compromise their principals to do what is politically convenient at the time.
The fact that there are “republicans” who would actually vote to infringe upon the rights of private individuals and business owners is quite telling of the state of the Republican Party today.
The smoking ban supporters are simply a bunch of do-gooders who think it is their job to make sure we don’t hurt ourselves. This is as true for this issue as any other government intrusion, such as primary enforcement of seat belts. Obliviously, if you think that the government should be requiring adults to wear their seatbelts, then you also would support the government making sure we don’t smoke at the bar.
The question is not whether people should smoke or not. People should not smoke. They shouldn’t drink either. People should exercise 3 or 4 times a week and they should not eat fish fries on, even on Fridays. They should give up the cakes and candies and cut down on red meat. Many people believe that pre-martial sex is a terrible practice. Perhaps these things I‘ve mentioned can be next on the do-gooder’s list of things to ban.
Taken from a free-market stand point, the private sector moves fairly quickly to provide choices for the consumer. In Hartford, there is only one restaurant that allows smoking, the rest do not. Also, there is a bar that does not allow smoking. It seems everyone has a choice here. Non-smokers who are bothered by smoke have choices and those who are not also have choices. Fair enough?
Taken from a philosophical standpoint we could argue until the cows come home. Anyone who considers themselves an advocate for freedom cannot possibly support a smoking ban in taverns. Perhaps one could support a smoking ban in a grocery store, Dr’s office or a public building, but a tavern?
Why do you think tavern owners are the only one’s making a fuss? Try supporting a ban on sweating in a health club, or selling sugar in a candy store. It’s a door closer.
As a tavern owner, I will be fighting back. I will be looking to recall anyone I can who votes for a smoking ban in taverns. What else can I do? With 4 kids coming close to the age where my wife and I are talking about financing college, I cannot afford to have some do-gooder render our family business worthless.
After spending the weekend listening to all these “conservatives” talk the talk, we will also have the opportunity real soon to see who will walk the walk.
Tags: wisconsin, politics, economy
Let’s get this party started.
Every one is entitled to their argument but a lot of shrillness here which diminishes his effectiveness outside the circle of conservatives.
Never mind the point that no one has a right to expose someone else to a health hazard. If there is a bar smoking ban, where else is someone who smokes going to go? Not only is Hartford in the middle of the state but we are in the middle of states that ban smoking.
How much time on average does someone spend in a bar? Three hours? So someone can’t hold the urge to light up or step outside if they really have to have a cig?
If Savage wants to convince someone he is going to be so bereft he’ll have to do better than that.
Think this is a slippery slope? Maybe, maybe not. But we voters get to define the line and right now that is where it is.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 0701 hrsA lot of the idiocy of the right’s grabbing jerks like Keith is that *they don’t have to go to the bar if they don’t like smoke*. Even better, *they could open their OWN non-smoking bar*.
Oh wait, better to take away the right of the property owner than to actually provide alternatives or, you know, be a grownup and take responsibility for their own choices, right? Jerks, the entire lot of them.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 0726 hrsThe government is there to protect us. Military, Health, Transportation, etc. We have to stop at a stop sign for our protection. A retauarant owner has to maintain hundreds of little rules and regulations from the health department, from OSHA, from the state, from the city, etc., etc. This is only one more regulation that protects the public including those who have to work in a bar or those who own a bar. 400,000 die from smokng every year. Obviously those who smoke need help. Fast! I quit in 1966 and I’m 81 now thankfully. It dosn’t make sense fighting this. It is the right thing to do.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 0841 hrs“Not only is Hartford in the middle of the state….”
This will be a revelation to the good people of Wausau and Medford.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 0845 hrsThe government can make all the rules it wants if it owns the property. In these cases, it does not. Suck it John Hyland. The government should NOT be making these rules. It should be getting its nose out of the business of citizens.
If you don’t like smoke, don’t go to the bars. It’s that simple…unless you’re an idiot, which…apparently, you are.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 0854 hrsI’d be a bit more sympathetic to such rants if conservatives were more consistent in their opposition to government intrusion into our lives. Until 1967 it was illegal for mixed race couples to marry in the conservative south and it took the Supreme Court to change that. I know the right to love who you want cannot compare to the right to foul the air around you, but let’s get real here. I’d be interested in Bill’s view on the legalization of drugs (aside, of course, from the ones he pushes). That being said, I oppose the smoking ban. Certainly the right to be stupid is among our more cherished.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 0858 hrsCharlie, I love that last line. I’m firmly against the smoking ban, and helmet bans, and seat belt enforcement. I don’t smoke, I always wore a helmet, although I’m by no means 100% on the seatbelt thing. But I cherish my right to be an idiot. I drink too much caffeine, eat too much fried food, don’t exercise enough, and don’t eat nearly enough vegetables. We are not to far from the day when they start coming after my vices.
The death of liberty by 1000 cuts. If we don’t stand up for Charlie’s right to be stupid, who is going to stand up for us.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 0941 hrsHow dumb some people can be. Let’s see! It would be OK for a restaurant owner to not follow health department rules. No refrigeration of meat, never clean the kitchen, let mice run rampent, never clean out the beer lines. It’s just common sense. For the protection of all. I guess we don’t have to stop at a stop sign then. It’s not allowing me to make my own decision, they are forcing me to protect others. How dare they. The biggest losers are those employees who have to work in this smoke laden bar for hours at a time. And don’t tell me they can go elsewhere. Smokers can go outside if they really can’t get along with out a smoke for a couple hours or less. Why put the 80% non-smokers in jeopardy.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1027 hrsSo John, for the safety of all, I know you won’t mind if we take away your driver’s license. Most people in their 80’s have impaired vision, hearing, and reaction time. And don’t even think about that doughnut - second hand fat and all, not to mention that we are all probably picking up your healthcare costs. Safety uber alles - the battlecry of the NannyState. Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1105 hrsThe government is there to protect us. Military, Health, Transportation, etc.
Wrong. The government is there to protect our individual RIGHTS. Not protect us. “protecting us” ultimately, taken to its endpoint is tyranny. Protecting our RIGHTS has, at its end point a free society.
No refrigeration of meat, never clean the kitchen, let mice run rampent, never clean out the beer lines. It’s just common sense.
What a rediculous counterpoint.
When I walk into a smokey bar, I KNOW there is smoke there. I can see it.
When I walk into a restaurant, I do not know the kitchen is clean. I do not know the food I’m putting up to my mouth has bacteria on it or not. So there is NO logic in your comparison.
This comes down to one thing. Freedom and people who want to enforce their will on others. People who want to have their cake and eat it too. People who think because THEY don’t smoke but THEY still want to go to a bar, their selfish desires are more important than the rights of private property owners and the rights of OTHER citizens who CHOOSE to patronize those places.
And I don’t smoke, can’t stand smoke, and refuse to go to bars for that reason.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1125 hrsAlot more people die from heart attacks and strokes than from smoking. Maybe we should start banning cheeseburgers and fries too.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1127 hrs
After all it’s just another little rule to protect us.If we don’t stand up for Charlie’s right to be stupid, who is going to stand up for us.
Just for the record, I quit smoking in the mid 90’s. I just wanted to make sure I could coach my grandkid’s soccer teams. But, I do have a very high stress job. Do you think I could get one of those stimulus grants so I could relax a bit?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1135 hrsThis guy seems like he is perhaps the dumbest staffer in Madison. Recalls are for gross legal or ethical violations, not for simply disagreeing on an issue. Sullivan’s time will come, but at an appropriate time, such as, I don’t know, when his term is up.
Based on what I’ve read in the blogosphere, shouldn’t he be more concerned with showing up for his own job once or twice a year than whatever Sullivan is up to anyway?
Sullivan is wrong on this and many, many more issues, but let us make it about that. My bet is that nobody on the ‘inside’ or within the the Republican Party will have anything to do with these ill-conceived plans.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1147 hrsSmoking is unhealthy, dirty, expensive and downright stupid, but, last time I checked it was still legal. The gubment has no right telling a private citizen what legal activities he can and cannot allow on his private property.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1223 hrsI agree this is not what recalls are for, but this smoking ban is really a stupid idea. I am from northern Wisconsin and this will kill many taverns that survive on the guys from the mill that stop in for 5 or 6 beers everyday after their shift. They drink and they smoke. And if they can’s smoke at the bar they’ll buy a six pack on the way home from work and smoke and drink at home. How is this tavern owner supposed to replace that revenue - he probably sold the cigarettes too.
But an even bigger issue is that the market has been working in this area. There are plenty of options, where they are wanted. There is no need for the gov’t to be involved.
An even bigger problem is the inconsistency of this ban with our favorite funding mechanism – the cigarette tax. Given how much we depend on that tax and the ability to raise it all will without much of a fight shouldn’t we be handing out cigarettes in the soon to mandatory head start programs?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1226 hrssorry about all the typos
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1227 hrsThose of us who live in places like Madison where smoking is not allowed in bars and restaurants fully appreciate the smoking ban. The dire consequences that so many loudly projected about economic doom and gloom never came to pass. Instead what we learned was that those establishments with poor business practices and shaky balance books needed to re-examine the rationale for staying in business. Blaming the lack of smokers coming to their business may have felt good, but it was not an honest appraisal of why they floundered.
Posted by Gregory on May 13, 2009 at 1251 hrsInstead what we learned was that those establishments with poor business practices and shaky balance books needed to re-examine the rationale for staying in business.
In other words… those businesses who relied on smokers went out of business, but we don’t care.
Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1256 hrsI care about the health of those who had to smell the smoke, and suffered the side effects of second hand smoke. If you need to rely on smokers to make a profit…..well….....you are right…then I do not care.
Posted by Gregory on May 13, 2009 at 1332 hrsThose of us who live in places like Madison where smoking is not allowed in bars and restaurants fully appreciate the smoking ban. The dire consequences that so many loudly projected about economic doom and gloom never came to pass.
This is not an issue of “dire economic consequences” Its an issue of freedom.
If I own a bar, I should decide what activities I want to allow in there. If I want loud music. fine. People will know my bar is one you come to and can’t hear shit cause the music is loud. If I allow smoking, fine. Anyone who walks within a foot of the door of a smokey bar knows its full of chimneys getting their nicotine jones on. If I go to work at a bar, I know I am chosing to deal with smoke.
Now me personally. I WOULD say to all these bar owners. I can’t BELIEVE more of them don’t go smoke free. I know so many friends (including myself) who love live bands but don’t go see them in the winter cause of the smoke issue in bars. I would think there would be such a HUGE demand for a popular bar or two in every entertainment district to be smoke free. Why there isn’t. Who knows, but perhaps the bar owners know the market better than I do. And thats what freedom is all about.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1333 hrsAnd there we go…
Do you care about the obese and those with heart conditions who eat too much fast food? Should we shut down fast food places too? What about the people who die every year in car accidents? Ban cars? I used to kayak when I was in college. It’s a dangerous sport and I had an acquaintance who drowned. Ban it?
Or are there risks that each of us takes and people should be free to choose whether they want to take the risk or not?
Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1338 hrsI care about the health of those who had to smell the smoke, and suffered the side effects of second hand smoke.
Mind your own business. Everyone who smelled the smoke KNEW it was there and just like the person who stuck a cigarette up to their mouth KNEW what they were walking into. GO ELSEWHERE.
If you are so concerned about the health affect of those who have NO choice, how about a law making it a crime to smoke in your home if you have kids? I mean theres a place a kid can’t leave.
I at least have sympathy for kids who live in a house where the parents smoke like chimneys. They have no choice. I have NO sympathy for a person who walks in a bar and complains about smoke. F’ing LEAVE. Why ask the government to solve a problem you are CHOOSING not to solve yourself.
And while we are at it, I want a ban on soda and fast food for anyone under 18. Kids have no choice but to eat what their parents put in their mouths, so lets make it a crime to feed your kids soda and chips. Obesity is a far bigger problem than second hand smoke.
Lets create a government health panel to put together a rule book for how to live our lives. What we eat, how much sun exposure we get. We’ll tax the hell out of every vice and we’ll create a utopia where everyone is healthy because the government dictates there every behavior. Can’t wait.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1340 hrsI wonder if Bill will be running that recall campaign out of the Pridemore office, or if he’ll just do it while he’s “working from home.”
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 13, 2009 at 1359 hrsThe Declaration of Independence contains the following phrase: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The next sentence explains that men create a government that, with the consent of the governed, works to protect rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Is this government all-powerful and all-mighty, though, in its protection inalienable rights? The Founders were explicit on this point: it is the liberty of the people to protect AGAINST a government which infringes upon their rights, and this liberty is unalienable: it cannot be taken away. Further showing that the liberty of the people AGAINST any government which may take away their rights, the very next sentence contains this prescription for what recourse people may take: “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”
I personally don’t find this confusing. The Creator has created people with unalienable personal and individual rights. The people may choose to make a government for the express purpose of protecting these personal individual rights. Frankly, I too am afraid of a Hobbesian world where every man is in a war of all against all, where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (as he predicts in the Leviathan), where people live in fear every day that their neighbor may come and smite them in their sleep. The Founders agreed, setting up a Constitutional form of government in order to protect our individual, private rights to things such as life and liberty. When the government fails to protect our unalienable rights to things such as liberty, we private citizens are free to do our very best to change or abolish this government (i.e. recalls, referenda, elections, legislation, ballot initiatives, etc.).
So the question for us today is: is our government protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or is the government infringing upon these rights? To me, this issue is clear.
Private citizens… cannot be forced to enter bars.
Private citizens… cannot be forced to smoke.
Private citizens… cannot be forced to patronize establishments that they do not want to.
Private citizens… cannot be forced to own and operate any sort of establishment on private property which they themselves have bought if they do not want to.
Private citizens… will patronize establishments of public accommodation, such as bars, if they desire and if they meet the criteria for admission (such as being at least 21, breaking no laws while being there, obeying any rules set forth by said establishment, etc.)
Private citizens… can stay or leave a bar if they want to.
Private citizens… LIKE that they have the liberty – the UNALIENABLE liberty – to make choices. Any bar, such as the one run by Mr. Savage, would go out of business if it had no patrons. As he outlines, there are many choices available for the potential bar-goer, including bars where smoking is allowed and bars where smoking is not allowed. Therefore, if one goes to a bar where smoking is allowed, this is because they chose to do so. If no one wanted to go to a bar where smoking is allowed, they wouldn’t, and bar owners like Mr. Savage would either amend their policies or go out of business. Since he hasn’t gone out of business, clearly people like to go to his bar and do so of their free choice.
Private citizens… also have choices about where they choose to seek employment. Yes, it’s tough to get a job, but if you really don’t want to work as a bartender in an establishment where smoking takes place, you won’t. Nobody can force someone to work at a job they do not want to…at least since the 13th Amendment was passed.
Private citizens… recognize that children do not possess the same liberties as adults. However, this argument is specious here, since places like bars by definition cater to a 21+ crowd of adults. Other places, like restaurants, frequently have children present who are there whether they like it or not. However, a law which affects all establishments will invariably infringe upon the liberties of both the private property owner of an establishment that caters exclusively to those 21+, as well as the liberties of the people who choose to patronize that establishment.
Private citizens… who smoke are using a legal product. Many of the arguments here address the obvious health concerns regarding tobacco usage. However, these products remain legal to buy, and private citizens who are above the age of 18 may do so (and they directly fund state programs via their tax dollars when they do); I suggest that you focus your efforts on this.
Private citizens… realize that additionally, there are many other products, substances, foods, activities, occupations, etc. that may very well be harmful for their health or life. People still possess the unalienable liberty to eat a double bacon cheeseburger, however, or work in a factory, or give birth, or drive a car, or go for a jog even though they may have heart problems, or take a bath even though they may slip falling out of the tub, or do any other activity which could have the possibility of resulting in their demise.This is because our nation, our government, has been charged with protecting our liberties. Our government has not been charged with, nor should it, attempt to ‘protect people from themselves’ by infringing upon an unalienable right so central as liberty.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1412 hrsAnd grow up and stuff the personal attacks, already. I know Mr. Savage, and I know that he works hard to provide for his wife and children. If every child had two parents who are married and cared for by their parents, this world would be a better place. And it’s just a little bit ironic that those who promote the environmental benefits of things such as telecommuting and work-from-home (no burning of fossil fuels there!) then proceed to get all high and mighty when people actually telecommute or work-from-home. (And even if one may work from home on occasion, there are more than 40 hours per week.) As a private citizen, I highly value each and every one of my unalienable liberties and shall now proceed to continue pursuing happiness (and many of your comments sure gave me a chuckle!)
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1417 hrs
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1429 hrs
These are always fun to watch So the Republicans in the Assembly are running recall campaigns now? Bizarre.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1442 hrsThis is because our nation, our government, has been charged with protecting our liberties. Our government has not been charged with, nor should it, attempt to ‘protect people from themselves’ by infringing upon an unalienable right so central as liberty.
Indeed.
If our founding father intended that we live by “societies norms” they would not have needed a constitution, nor bill or rights. They could have just said “majority rule”
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1504 hrsNo, I think Bill Savage, private citizen, wants to recall people. Perhaps not government paycheck-collecting Bill Savage. But who can really tell the difference? And when someone allegedly works from home at times, who knows where that line gets drawn?
You want to have an opinion as a staffer? Write a column for your boss. Staffers speaking for themselves always comes back to bite their bosses in the ass, because eventually the staffer says something idiotic and then the boss ends up accountable for it. One need look no further there than James Wigderson’s excellent posts on Kevin Fischer’s open support of recalling Jim Doyle. Kevin’s support is absolutely worthless, because nobody cares what he thinks in the first place. What it does do, however, is put Mary Lazich in an uncomfortable position.
The problem with these district bumpkins that leggies sometimes bring in (and SE WI offices are full of them) is that they all want to be players. Just shut your trap and do your job.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 13, 2009 at 1516 hrsRS,
I think your statement is a bit myopic. Bill is a staffer, but he is also a business owner, parent, husband, taxpayer, etc. Does the fact that he’s a staffer mean that he can’t voice his own independent opinion? Of course he can. This piece was written from Bill Savage the tavern owner, not Bill Savage the staffer. Not everything has to be driven through a legislative office to be considered relevant.
Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1554 hrsAs an addendum to my previous comment, what if I had posted this anonymously? Could we then discuss the merits instead of Bill’s personal situation? Does the fact that he is a staffer as well as other things so taint his opinion as to make it unworthy of submission?
Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1559 hrsTry the Libertarian party on for size. No comprimising their principles!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1624 hrsOwen, in a nutshell yes. He is entitled to his opinion, but it also reflects on his boss, an elected official. This is not a cut and dry relationship as it would be a bartender and bar owner.
Is this unfair? Yes, but that is the price he pays for working in the Legislature.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1640 hrsA good staff person never makes more news than the elected official.
Posted by Gregory on May 13, 2009 at 1712 hrsI agree in part, Owen. But when you work in that building, you’re a salaried employee. You’re never off the clock. Bill Savage is a legislative employee when he’s running his bar, when he’s walking the dog, when he’s at the grocery store, when he’s writing a blog post, whenever. Everything he says and does reflects on his boss. Staffers don’t get to decide when they’re wearing the hat and when they’re not.
If Joe Sixpack the staffer gets hammered one Saturday night and drives home and runs over someone in a crosswalk, that’s an issue for the boss whether it should be or not. That’s just the nature of the business.
Pridemore may well not care one way or the other, but a loudmouthed, outspoken staffer is never an asset to the boss. They’re just a distraction to the work a legislator is supposed to be doing.
Oh, and BTW, if Bill is such a free market crusader, why don’t we find out what he thinks about laws that restrict the number of available liquor licenses in his community? That’s a restraint of behavior in the name of the public good as well, but it happens to be a restraint that his business directly benefits from.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 13, 2009 at 1719 hrsSeparate these liberties for me will ya?
What’s the difference between someone working back in the kitchen spitting into your food because he has a “compulsion” vs allowing a customer to blow smoke into everyone else’s lungs?
Both are health issues. So the difference is….?
Maybe BW can spend a good two hours of his time generating 14 screen inches of copy on this one.
And gelt, you might be a smart guy but:
“Not only is Hartford in the middle of the state….”This will be a revelation to the good people of Wausau and Medford
was sorry to say, hardly clever. Or was the point that Wisconsin landlocked around non-public smoking states beyond your comprehension?
If Savage comes off in public the way he did in his rant above I dearly hope he is the front man for the Sullivan recall. If the American Cancer Society is on the ball they can make this race a cause celebre.
Someone. What’s the number of the Daily Show?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1738 hrsThe issue, Keith, is that a person has the liberty to knowingly enter a smoke-filled or smoke-free establishment knowing exactly what his or her lungs are in for. This falls under the category of those pesky unalienable liberties we have. An employee secretly spitting in food is not the same thing for two reasons: 1. it’s secretive—it’s pretty obvious whether a bar allows smoking or not and 2. spit does not belong in food. Whether smoke belongs in lungs is up to the individual person, whether by actively smoking or deliberately entering an institution that allows it. It’s a personal choice, whereas someone else spitting in your food is their choice, not yours.
That didn’t take two hours for me to compose, darlin’, and neither did my other posts. And, in the future, I’d thank you to not automatically assume that other posters whom you do not know are males…after all, it’s we womenfolk who used to make up those typing pools
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1747 hrs
Wow. The audacity and collective stupidity of those constantly trying to erode my rights will never cease to amaze me.
Posted by Mike Gallo on May 13, 2009 at 1749 hrsWell BW, you outed yourself. Someday we’ll come up with a neuter pronoun.
An intrusion on health is in an intrusion on health no matter how you slice it. Spitting in food is illegal, yes. And by virtue of the political process smoking in a public place will soon be illegal.
And the audacity and collective stupidity of those constantly trying to erode public health will never cease to amaze me.
There is another form of liberty—god you people are really perverting that term.
That’s the liberty for someone to be in a public place without having to pay for it with their health.. Telling someone there’s smoke here and you’d damn well better like it or get the hell out is nothing but pure bulling.
The question is who is intruding on whom. So you pass up on a cigarette or two. Big deal. You come down with cancer. Big deal.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1801 hrsOwen - I would never let any statement I would make be posted as Anonymous.
RS - I do not support the state of Wisconsin limiting liquor license’s. Perhaps locally but not at the state level- but nice try.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1811 hrsBW. How do laws get passed. The people you and I elect do their job. What is the difference between a law that says you must stop at a stop sign, or a law that says you cannot smoke in a public place. Both are passed by people you elected. Both are for our, everyones, safety. What makes you close your business at a certain time. The law. Oh, but I don’t want this law. I insist it is my right to stay open any hours that I want. Sure!!! I’m rfeally sorry you can’t get it! Here in Appleton, some bars that did what you are doing, ranted and raved for months. Now they have ads in our theatres telling people it’s the best thing that ever happened to them. Their business has increased. It’s been that way in every city. Lots of rants but then every one is happy. It just doesn’t hurt anyone except those who were ready to go out of business anyway
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1812 hrsIt just doesn’t hurt anyone except those who were ready to go out of business anyway
That’s BS. Do you have any data to support that?
Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1817 hrsHow about logic. Wisconsin is surrounded by states which do not allow smoking in public places (maybe Michigan is an exception). So where else would someone go?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1838 hrsHome.
Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1846 hrsSo by that logic Bill, do you also support allowing local governments to regulate smoking, but just not the state government? May local governments enact laws that restrain behavior in the name of the public good, but not state government? Or are you saying that it’s okay for local governments to create market exclusivity for liquor, but not regulate behavior in other ways?
Please elaborate. I just want to make sure I understand your position.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 13, 2009 at 1926 hrsJust my wife and I run the bar. We like cigarette smoke, and tobacco is a legal product. We also serve deep-fried cheese, and upside-down margaritas. We are considering showing porno movies during our monthly gun show.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1932 hrs
Wait, you got a problem with me smoking in my own bar?Then they just exercised choice. So Owen you some how believe someone is going to never go out to a bar or restaurant—ever. Fancy that.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1942 hrsWhen did I say that, Keith? Your inventing your own dragons to lance. Convenient, eh?
Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1945 hrsWeren’t you making the point that smokers were going to stay home?
So they are going to have to eventually stir and go out an patronize somewhere, and ultimately no one really loses business as Mr. Savage was ranting about above.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1953 hrsNo. You asked where else they would go. I provided an answer. That’s a far cry from “never go out to a bar or restaurant—ever.”
Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1955 hrsWhat’s an upside-down margarita?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1956 hrsWhat’s an upside-down margarita?
That’s where you lean back over your chair with your mouth open and the tequila and mix are poured directly into your mouth. Shaking your head before you swallow is optional.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 2010 hrsGood grief. Sorry I asked.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 2012 hrsSo the “Cons” want to end smoking in public places. I am all for the public deciding to end smoking in public places. That is, government owned places. If I own a bar or restaurant, it is NOT a public place, but a PRIVATE business that is OPEN to the public. I do not smoke, do not allow it in my home or vehicles. Such is my right. And I have left business establishments that I found too smokey. It is my right to complain to management to alter their business practices, and it is my right to take my business elsewhere. But I do NOT claim the right to limit the property rights of the owner. I am tempted to take up smoking and organize a “smoke in” just for spite. As to prohibiting consumption of fat and sugar, the do-gooders are already working on it.
No doubt the vast majority of those who claim defense of “the public good,” (how I hate that term) are also proponents of government funded health care. If you think intrusions on personal liberties are bad now, wait until the nanny state tells you that motor cycle riding, sky diving, mountain climbing, even tennis and football endanger your health, and can be prohibited or regulated. And how about our sexual practices? Since the government has an interest in containing health care costs, should we not also ban homosexuality and “unprotected” sex? Where does it end?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 0908 hrsJust when I thought this could not get any sillier, I heard this morning that the Indian casinos were exempted from the smoking ban. Does Doyle not care about the health of those workers? For those who have supported this ban, can you explain this?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 0925 hrsClearly, Doyle is racist and wants Native Americans to die of cancer.
Duh
Posted by Owen on May 14, 2009 at 0929 hrs
Indian casinos are exempted because there is no way a state law banning smoking in workplaces could effect tribal areas. The law would be struck down, and everyone of the opponents who railed against the new law because of this exemption knows it. Neil Kedzie looking in your general direction.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 1057 hrsI would love the feds to make the casinos smoke free too. I do not think there is any double standard here. If the state had the authority to do so, we would have. Most people I talk with wanted the smoking ban, but then most poeple I talk with do not smoke. But they all do enjoy music and are hoping for the chance to go out for live bands and shows and not have to cough up a lung the following morning. (Or leave their clothes at the door until they can wash them) Have you ever smelled your partners hair after going out to smoke filled places? Granted showering can be fun….....but coming home smoke-free is fun too.
Just relax and take a deep breath….this issue is now over and we can move on to some other topic of the day.
Posted by Gregory on May 14, 2009 at 1112 hrs“Just relax and take a deep breath….this issue is now over and we can move on to some other topic of the day. “
...as we brace ourselves for the next assault on our liberty, property and/or pocketbook.NOTHING is more dangerous to your health than living in a totalitarian regime. Especially if you are a dissident. And now we are one step closer.
“do-gooders” doing bad….
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 1136 hrsI look forward to the black market smokeasy bars that will now pop up and run outside of all government regulations.
Posted by Matt on May 14, 2009 at 1638 hrsIs proper spelling frowned upon at Texas A&M?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 1704 hrsThe smoking ban is just the beginning, this was bad legislation that we all need to take note of.
The main arguments for the smoking ban are; its harmful to workers, it will save lives and money, and it put all businesses on a level playing field. None of those arguments are why the ban passed.
The American public has been brainwashed about the dangers of second hand smoke for the past 30 years, it was a brillant campaign of half truths. If you actually read the surgeon generals report on smoking you cannot come to the same conclusion.
The saving lives and money argument doesn’t work either. Health care cost have not gone down in smoke free Madison, California, or anywhere else there has been a ban and wont after we have the state ban. We will not see the state save millions of dollars in health care costs. There are so many other environmental factors, ie radon gas, emmissions, diet, etc that that argument doesn’t hold water.
And the whole level playing field is a crock also. If gov’t wasnt intruding in our business there wouldn’t be a need to level the field.
The real reason why this bad legislation passed is the American people have become lazy and its easier for us to look to government to solve our problems than to take on the personal responsibility of our actions. This legislation works for 70% of Wisconsinites because its convenient for them. Its easier than making the choice to stay home when their friends are going out to a smoking environment, its easier than standing up and confronting your friends about your wishes, its easier than traveling a little farther to enjoy a smoke free environment, its easier than sharing your views with the business owner.
Unfortunately, this need for ease is done at the expense of all of our liberties. Most people don’t see it because its easier not to.
I spent Wednesday up at the Capitol watching this all unfold and I can tell you that we are in trouble. This is just the beginning. Pay attention to the people you elect because if you don’t, you will soon find that nothing will be easy.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2009 at 0958 hrsExcellent post, JB. Longer than I had time for, but good you posted it. Ae you a part of the movement?
To differ slightly. The beginning was a long time ago. Probably hard to establish exactly, but I would say the Fabians taking over England a bit over a century ago, and their influence on the “progressive” movement was something of a beginning. A beginning of the end IMHO. Today, few recognize ANY limits to government. The will of the majority is sacrosanct. And YOUR rights be damned. For decades we have seen the “PROGRESSIVE” erosion of our liberties. Today, the gloves are off, and wholesale frontal assaults on both your liberty and your pocketbook abound. But a sleeping giant is being awakened. There is starting to be some (more or less) organized resistance. Let us hope it is not too late. http://www.campaignforliberty.com
I say we target most of the incumbents, as Democrats AND Republicans have spent our children into debt slavery, even as they regulate our businesses and freedom out of existence.
A call to action, and a call to Liberty minded candidates, regardless of party.http://www.rtrradio.com Coming soon, the WI Freedom Report.
Unfortunately, we have 2 more years at least of this horrific assault on common sense and liberty. But let us work to take back our freedom in 2010.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2009 at 1024 hrsI love the indian casino part the most from this thread. So the rainbow color coalition party won’t ‘save’ the red races? What, are they foreigners? Separate but equal? Can a bar on diplomatic (say, Dutch?)soil have a smoking bar open to the public? I wonder how well that would do in a larger city with smoking bans… Can a bar on Indian reservations have smoking? How do you get land to be called tribal? I am fairly certain that the Potawatomi Bingo casino has not always been Indian soil (but I did not look it up). That picture is priceless. ‘Those damn redskins ruining our peaceful white lifestyle with booze and cigarettes… there oughtta be a law’
For the dumbass who brought up the idea that spitting in food is the same as smoking, I suggest never eating at the 6 or more Indian run restaurants at the Potawatomi casino. They might not have to refrigerate their meat and mice may be running rampant. Wait, these restaurants have the same health codes…except for smoking cigarettes? How bizarre, like say the rest of your argument. Oh wait, (roll eyes) that was Keith…nuff said.
Runner up, comparing Madison with anywhere else in the Midwest about anything. From the business standpoint, La Crosse might be an excellent place to do research if Minnesaota is smoke free in bars. Isn’t there town on both sides of the river? if there is a Minnesota bar and Wisconsin bar within a few blocks of each other anywhere on the border, which place has increased/decreased in overall profit and loss. I am against the ban on purely from a rights perspective, but I am even more against loss of jobs, especially now.
Greg, Keith, if it is so dangerous, why would you just not make it illegal? Why would you allow kids to be (rather intensively from my personal experience) continually bombarded in private homes and cars through their all-important growth years, why are indians ‘allowed to be killed’, but not us? Are they less valuable? From their contributions to Doyle and other liberals you would think Doyle would be doing them favors…Hmmm.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2009 at 1511 hrsKeith Schmitz,
Extremely weak statistics does not a health issue make. The fact is there is no proof that second hand smoke causes anything. OSHA (The governing body for workers safety) has ruled on second hand smoke and has taken no action because of that fact. If there was any proof at all there would be thousands of winning lawsuits against the tobacco companies for exposure to tobacco smoke just as there is for asbestos, where are they? You also ignore the fact that in a free society you are allowed to take risks, it is your obligation to protect yourself from risks that you find unacceptable. A bar is not a health club nor do they try to pass themselves off as one. If you are afraid of getting your nose broken, don’t step into a boxing ring. If you are afraid of cigarette smoke, don’t enter a business that allows it. It is not like the 50’s and 60’s when you did not have a choice. There are plenty of non-smoking venues. What gives you the right to force your views on everyone?
Posted by Marshall on May 19, 2009 at 0838 hrsJohn Hyland
“BW. How do laws get passed. The people you and I elect do their job. What is the difference between a law that says you must stop at a stop sign, or a law that says you cannot smoke in a public place. Both are passed by people you elected. Both are for our, everyones, safety.”John, John, John, Clearly you don’t understand the difference between public and private property. Public is owned by the government and therefore is public property. A business is private property even though the public is invited in to do business. You have a right to be on public property on private property you are merely a guest and can be asked to leave at any time. We have both a federal constitution and a state constitution forbidding the government from taking private property for public use. In case you are unfamiliar with the state constitution here is the part I refer to.
Private property for public use. SECTION 13. The property
of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor.Tobacco is a legal product and as such the use should be at the discretion of the property owner, not you and defiantly not the state. If you don’t agree with the smoking policy of a business you vote with your dollars, not get the government to strip the property rights from the owners.
Posted by Marshall on May 19, 2009 at 1014 hrs
Total Entries: 17559
Total Comments: 112275
Total Trackbacks: 1069
Most Recent Entry: 09/02/2010 01:40 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 09/02/2010 01:46 pm
Total Members: 9748
Total Logged in members: 5
Total guests: 89
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 09/02/2010 01:52 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Current Logged-in Members: crusher Owen Rich2 Steve-O Wendy
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).