Fond du Lac Passes Smoking Ban in All City Workplaces

Sure enough...

Smoking will be prohibited in Fond du Lac taverns, bowling alleys and other workplaces following a close vote by the City Council.

Council members voted 4-3 last night to ban smoking in all city workplaces.

Liberty takes another one on the chin. 

1. American Freedoms have been dying from a thousand cuts for some time now. Cities that continue to do these types of things just push us closer to the edge of socialism, and the end of Freedom. Ultimately, ‘We the People’ are at fault. We were warned at this Nations birth that vigilance was the price of Freedom. We have not been, so soon we will not have.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0726 hrs




2. “Liberty takes another one on the chin.”

   As does the local econonmy.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0910 hrs




3. Since several cities in East Texas have enacted these stupid smoking bans, more and more restaurants are looking to build just outside the city limits.  That’s where the people are going.  I don’t smoke, but this burns my butt (pardon the pun).

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0942 hrs




4. We were warned at this Nations birth that vigilance was the price of Freedom. We have not been, so soon we will not have.

   Indeed.

   Its amazing the foresight of our founding fathers.  Truly amazing.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0957 hrs




5. I don’t smoke, but I think that this should be put to a vote by the citizens, not the board. If the citizens of that area vote for a ban, then so be it. This shouldn’t be decided by 7 people, elected or not.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1108 hrs




6. The ban lobbyist cannot allow a vote. Page seven of their book clearly states “avoid ballot measures”  Here’s their book.    http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1124 hrs




7. I bet the people who voted for it will get a quick lesson about “public property” if they get 86ed from every bar in town.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1129 hrs




8. I don’t smoke, but I think that this should be put to a vote by the citizens, not the board. If the citizens of that area vote for a ban, then so be it. This shouldn’t be decided by 7 people, elected or not.

   So Jonny V.  How about if they put to a vote wether anyone should be allowed to own an SUV in your city? 

   If the majority of the citizens vote for the SUV ban then “so be it?”

   Where does freedom lie if 51% of the population can assert there will on the other 49%?

   And why did we need a constitution at all if everything was just majority rule?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1220 hrs




9. Bob…I have, in the past, donated to the American Heart Assoc. and the American Cancer Society.  Never again!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1525 hrs




10. These “charities” have become nothing but illegal tax exempt political action committees. I wonder if the IRS is investigating their tax exempt status.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1542 hrs




11. I don’t look at this as a liberty issue as much as a quality of life issue for a community.  Much in the same way they have zoning laws, restrictions on types of businesses in certain places (like a porn store or half-way house for sex offenders next a pre-school), noise ordinances, pollution and odor controls, and the like.  While a 51/49 split in public opinion doesn’t automatically mean something should become law, I think the national (and local) disgust for cigarette smoke is so overwhelming that it is not unconstitutional, nor an affront to liberty, to impose this kind of restriction on a business.

    Posted by David on October 23, 2008 at 1542 hrs




12. I think the national (and local) disgust for cigarette smoke is so overwhelming that it is not unconstitutional, nor an affront to liberty, to impose this kind of restriction on a business.

    Well if I owned a tavern, that I bought with my own money, I think I’d feel differently. We are talking about private property. 

    David, I can’t express more how much I hate smoke. I walk between the Chase building and the river every day on my way to my office and I call it the ‘cancer corridor’ because its lined with people out smoking on their morning break.  Even walking outside, the smoke can be enough to make you gag. (and thats not hyperbole)  you get out there on a calm day with no wind to disperse the smoke and you are walking thru a gauntlet.  It sucks. 

    But we are talking about banning smoking INSIDE A PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT.  Could it be more freedom encroaching?

    Its NO different than banning smoking in a private residence.  Everyone in a bar CHOOSES to be there (including employees) and everyone in that bar is there at the pleasure of the owner on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1610 hrs




13. Thank you David, I couldn’t have said it better myself. I am not that eloquent.

    I was going to say something like, what is the high-water point? 51%, 71%, 91%? What if 51% of the voters had voted for the Gay Marriage amendment, should it NOT have been put into law then?

    xxpilot, I completely understand your argument regarding the majority. But, we vote as a majority to change the constitution. If a judge were to overrule the Gay Marriage Ban, you would say it was “legislating from the bench”. But, yet you don’t like a fair majority decision. Who then decides?

    What do you think is the proper solution. If a community decides to ban something, what is the proper way to go about it? Serious question, no sarcasm.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1623 hrs




14. xxpilot. You are not allowed to discharge a firearm within the city limits on your private property. (not even to shoot your lawnmower!) How do you view this as different? I believe that both are considered “public safety” concerns. Whether you agree or not that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous.

    I don’t know if I agree with these bans or not, but I do wish this had gone to a public vote. That would make me feel better about it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1639 hrs




15. http://whyquit.com/pr/102208.html

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1725 hrs




16. I’m with #13.

    If I’m a bar owner, should I be able to offer my patrons nude lap dances from strippers who hand out straws and line up the meth on our shiny, mirrored tables?  I mean, hey, private establishment, what business does government have telling me what my customers can or cannot do?  If I want to turn my business into an obscenity-filled meth house, why shouldn’t I be able to?

    Or perhaps this is just a debate over where to draw the line.  After all, the issue regarding smoking in public - namely, that it potentially harms the health and welfare of others - is no different than the issue that results from falsely screaming “fire” in a crowded building.

    I’m not sure that I think smoking in private establishments is the business of government, but I’m just one person drawing a line based on my beliefs.  I can see why others, using the same logic, would place the line in a different place.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 23, 2008 at 1804 hrs




17. This is what comes from people who try to make decisions without a principle on which to base that decision.

    The principles that America was founded upon was liberty and justice; both of which were in short supply in 18th century America and sadly becoming so in 21st century America.

    RS-meth is illegal, smoking is not.  You are telling a private citizen that he can not do something legal on his private property.  You are telling a private citizen that the public has more of a right to his property than he does.  How about we get 51% to vote that RS has to provide a place for us to watch Packer games every Sunday?  That would be silly because we would violate the principle of liberty.

    If you use logic, then you would come to the same conclusion for the smoking ban.  If you come to a different conclusion, you are illogical or unprincipled.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1936 hrs




18. xxpilot. You are not allowed to discharge a firearm within the city limits on your private property. (not even to shoot your lawnmower!) How do you view this as different? I believe that both are considered “public safety” concerns. Whether you agree or not that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous.

    Smoking is NOT a safety concern, its a health concern.

    So is fast food, so is a sedentiary lifestyle and the list goes on…

    But being on the side of freedom, I believe people are free to pursue life liberty and happiness right up until the point when that begins to infringe on someone elses right do so.

    So then the question for me becomes, is people smoking in a private establishment at the blessing of the owner, amongst people ALL of whom chose of their own free will to go there infringing on anyone elses rights?  All of whom have every right to go somewhere else or not go at all.

    And I don’t believe it is.

    You may not like smoke.  I hate smoke.  But you don’t have the right to go into an establishment that allows smoking and have your will subvert that of others any more than you have a right to walk into a movie theater and claim your rights are violated cause you don’t like the movie they chose to show that day.

    I’m a little suprised that you would in all seriousness try to compare shooting a gun in a populated area to smoking?  Really?  REALLY?  You think thats an applicable comparison?

    If you walk by a bar that allows smoking your rights are not affected.

    If your neighbor is shooting a firearm in your subdivision, your rights are affected.  If you can’t see the distinction there, there isn’t a point in furthering the conversation.

    But please don’t kid yourself that you believe in freedom then. 

    I’m so sick of people who change the definition of freedom to fit THEIR personal preferences.  Its shameful.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 2029 hrs




19. I don’t smoke, but I think that this should be put to a vote by the citizens, not the board. If the citizens of that area vote for a ban, then so be it. This shouldn’t be decided by 7 people, elected or not.

    The people can vote with their dollars and thier feet.  If there is a market for smoke-free dining establishments, then such a business should flourish if an restarautuer or tavern owner were to make their establishment smoke-free.  Why is this so hard for the anti-smoking nazis to understand?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 0810 hrs




20. The new Carrie Nations make their hatchets felt.

    <a>http://www.sendafriendabeer.com/article.asp?aid= 12</a>

    Posted by Brad V on October 24, 2008 at 1626 hrs




21. Oops - we’ll give the hyperlink another shot:

    <a>http://www.sendafriendabeer.com/article.asp?aid= 12</a>

    Posted by Brad V on October 24, 2008 at 1627 hrs