PRINT ADS

" "This is a free country. You are free to do what we tell you to do." Signed, your Government. "

" First they came for the people who use marijuana. I said nothing because I am not a pothead who smells like a goat. Then they came for the 18-20 year old adult drinkers. I said nothing because I was 22 at the time. Then they came for the people who don't use their seatbelts. I said nothing because I always buckle up. Now, they are coming for the business owners who choose to allow smoking in their business. Still, I say nothing. It just occured to me: who will be around to speak up when they decide to come for me? "

" No, Tim. You have it all wrong. With the information you just cited, the only responsible thing to do is ban SMOKING, period. If you advocated prohibition, you would give yourself some credibility.

To cite the dangers of smoking as they relate to consenting adults, and to then use this platform to justify the banning of a legal act on privately-owned property, you've found yourself in quite a moral paradox. If you truly believe that smoking is so harmful to Wisconsinites and have suddenly found yourself filled with concern for us that you want to save us from ourselves, you must then advocate the banning of the practice altogether.

Tim, you insult the intelligence of every Wisconsinite by leading us to believe that you care about us so deeply (as a mother would). You then add more insult by presuming that you (and the government) have the moral authority to tell grown adults that they don't have the wherewithal to choose which tavern they'll frequent on a Saturday evening.

You do not have the right to tell a private business owner that they cannot allow a legal act on their property, and neither does the government. Start preaching prohibition and then we can actually have an honest debate on this matter. "

" Governments gone wild


The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -
from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
threat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a
cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized
throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local
government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of
unlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force
people to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have
actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local
bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be
answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and
unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
intrusion of government into our lives.

We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour. "

" In PA we finally passed a smoking ban. The same pro-smoking arguments were made here (owner rights, flawed data, etc.), but common sense ruled tha day and our state will have s smoking ban in September. The same will happen in Wisconsin. Just keep fighting for a smoke free Wisconsin. "

" I don't know where he gets his information from. (Actually I do)But Science just doesn't back him up. The Surgeon Generals Report not only was made up not only the same studies as the faked EPA studies but the same activist players with very little new information. It also ignored the biggest and most comprehensive study ever done Enstrom/Kabat.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/4/

The point that Ryan makes is even more important. The property rights issues have been well argued on the Madison forums.
http://www.madison.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49690&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

It was also well argued here.

http://www.madison.com/tct/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49162&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135

In closing here is here is what Sen. Mike Folmer(PA) had to say.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should continue to push for good public health. At the same time, I am obliged to uphold the solemn oath I made to honor the Constitution, which protects private-property rights. Pennsylvanians are endowed by God with the right to own and use private property. Smoking, though highly unhealthful and distasteful, is legal. Further, it is the right and the prerogative of those who

own private establishments to determine whether or not their patrons can engage in legal activities. Nonsmokers enter a private establishment as a privilege extended by the owner, not as a constitutional right. The private business owners right to allow his patrons to engage in a legal activity supersedes the intolerance of that activity by those who patronize the establishment by privilege. "

" I totally agree with Tim Baures. Many studies over the years have shown that secondhand smoke is very detrimental to the health of both staff and customers in places where smoking is still allowed. There has been a very strong trend to smoke free establishments and smoke free workplaces everywhere over the last number of years as the evidence of the health damage has consistantly gotten stronger. These regulations have been legally challenged in many areas, and have always been upheld by courts due to the fact that they are important public health regulations. Many areas of Wisconsin still do not have adequate public smoking laws to protect the health of non-smokers. Hopefully this will soon change as more cities and towns and the state government all pass effective public smoking laws. "

" I'm not sure where Tim is getting his facts, but the coronary study has been soundly refuted by medical doctors who don't have a vested interest in smoking cessation.

That aside, even if we cast aside property rights, we're still treading dangerously on individual rights as we continue to tell responsible adult citizens that they are too stupid to make the right decisions and must be saved from themselves through force (law).

But getting back to the property rights issue, let's not forget that government regulations are in place to protect people from unknown or uncontrollable hazards. Patronizing an establishment that allows smoking is not only a conscious decision, it is 100% avoidable if somebody chooses not to be exposed to smoke.

Undercooking food, not washing hands, unsanitary kitchens etc are unknowns that a patron cannot avoid and thus must be regulated.

This isn't rocket science... In fact, it's pretty simple stuff. "