" To bad most bar owners are only in just the money

A very simple exhaust fan system would suck out any and all smoke and would be cheap to run and also bring in fresh air


The smoking ban people are the same morons promoting GLOBAL WARMING and other really STUPID thoughts with no Proof "

" All those bars closing in the UK. Just think of all the drunk drivers that might keep off the roads. Maybe that's not a bad thing? I don't smoke, but like to go to the local bars and see old friends. Why can't good air filteration systems be put into these bars that will suck up the nasty smell of cigarette smoke? It seems that bars would make more money if they could get both the smokers and non-smokers into their place of business. Instead you have many, many people like myself who would like to stop in more, but maybe have to go somewhere afterwards and either can't have or don't want to have the smell of smoke all over them, so we just don't stop. In many of our local bars in Tomah, just walking in for 5-10 minutes makes your clothes, your hair, and everything you have on you stink like smoke. You would think that spending a little more on a good filteration system that actually works would be money well spent in the long run for these bars. "

" Michael McFadden sums things up very nicely. However I would go further as someone who has looked at most if not all of the studies. It is only the Press releases that claim the harm from passive smoke, even in the SG reports and the UK's SCoTH report. The detail in the studies shown no scientifically significant association between PS and terminal ill health. The solution is a simple one a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard as advocated by by both UK Work Place authorities and your own. At least your bar owners have a choice. That choice has been removed in the UK and as a consequence over 1400 bars have closed in 9 months. The choice for customers is diminishing with these bans paid for and engineered by the Big Drug companies "

" I and my family have asthma bad. Should I be able to go to a persons place of business (bar) and demand that I can sit there and be free from smoke. NO way. I don't pay the taxes of these businesses. Why am I more important as a minority than the business owner and their futures. I just will not go to these places. WOW what a novel Idea. "

" If smoking has been banned, then smokers have also been banned. If smokers are banned when will the non-smokers take full responsibility for the construction and maintenance of all governed structures smokers have been banned from?

Smokers are not required to support offices, restaurants, bars, or any specific business, but they are required to support government installations, courts, schools, hospitals, clinics, concert halls, and stadiums they will never enter or use.

What happens when each of these venues are forced to support themselves?
"

" 2 things I dislike, Government regulating small business & smoke filled bars. I would love to see the free market at work with this issue, but we'd need to see a bar owner take a risk and go smoke free. If patrons don't want smoke filled bars as Gov't suggests, then the non-smoking esablishment should have all the business. Thats where I'd belly up.
LET THE FREE MARKET WORK (but somebody please give me a smoke free bar to patronize). "

" Let's look at this strictly analytically and take emotion completely out of the equation


First off It's is CLAIMED that smoking kills people, That is not disputed by anyone correct?

Supposedly second hand smoke kills people

Smoking is very bad


So why are we banning it, and NOT OUTLAWING IT TOTALLY?

This PROVES without a doubt, this has nothing to do with health but more to do with MONEY

You see if the product is SO BAD IT SHOULD BE OUTLAWED WITHOUT QUESTION.

But look at the BILLIONS of dollars that STATES have collected because PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SMOKE

WE hear all the time about our "EROSION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" But people Choose to smoke and the GOVERNMENT is going to tell them where they can SMOKE, BUT IF THEY QUIT SMOKING THERES A LOT OF PROGRAMS THAT WOULD DIE AS THE SMOKER DOES

MY GOD WE ARE FUNDING A CHILD HEALTH CARE PROGRAM ON THE BACKS OF THE SMOKERS and yet were telling them they can't smoke in public.But the smoker can't stop smoking because the program needs the money

Do we not see the irony in this Pathetic argument.

Do I like the Smoke-- no, But do I choose to go into a private establishment that don't have good air filtration or bars that are full of smoke, NOPE.

The fact that our Government is circumventing our Rights and RESPONSIBILITIES as ADULTS to make our own decisions is absolutely astonishing and completely against our founding fathers view when setting up this country

We are slowing moving from "WE THE PEOPLE" having the rights to make our own decisions regarding our lives to the GOVERNMENT MAKING THE DECISIONS FOR US.

If you cannot understand what the Government is slowly doing to erode our personal rights then shake hands with previous Socialist Like Stalin and so many others. Once we go down this path of Restricting personal "FREEDOMS" complete control is just a minor skip away

Personally I choose not to enter a place that's full of cigg smoke and that's MY CHOICE, I don't need the Government intervening on my behalf. If there are so many so against Smoking then the establishments would make there own rules to disallow it in there buildings and that would be the proper way to do this, I MEAN AFTER ALL THE GOVERNMENT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SMOKE, This is SO DISINGENUOUS It's beyond BELIEF

Why does the Bars want this ban not to happen? this is simple BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE IN BARS SMOKE, DUH

The bars should post a sign CAUTION SMOKERS ARE INSIDE ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK. That should pretty much cover it

"

" I see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Just read about a new brand of cigarettes available that pleases both smokers and non-smokers alike.

Crown7 (www.crown7.com) is a battery-operated cigarette that uses a nicotine cartridge, a micro-chip and a water vapor mist – and there is no smoke!!!

It looks and acts like a cigarette WITHOUT the harmful side-effects of tar, second-hand smoke and offending others.

The best part is, it's legal around the world and doesn't violate the smoking ban at restaurants, bars, public places, etc.

"

" Your editorial stated, "Ever since the U.S. Surgeon General’s 1964 report proved that smoking is slow-motion suicide, the battle against public smoking has been an enormous success. Smoking has been eradicated from retail establishments, offices, public transportation and public buildings."

Actually, the "battle against public smoking" has only been a "success" since the 1975 World Conference on Smoking and Health" where frustrated antismoking campaigners decided that to truly eliminate the "problem" of smoking,“...it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS.” (Huber et al, Consumers Research Magazine, 02/92)

The fear campaign around secondary tobacco smoke was created in the 1970s and pumped up by our tax money ever since. The evidence is fractured, contradictory, and shoddy, and sometimes crosses the border into claims that are outright fraudulent... but it continues because in the name of "public health" it is seen as for "the public good."

No scientific study has ever yet shown that long term exposure to the low levels of smoke that would normally be present in any decently ventilated modern establishment would harm anyone, but the popular perception, driven by a media that feeds upon paid press releases from a very powerful antismoking lobby, is that the opposite is true. People need to do more reading and research on the issue, from BOTH sides, before passing laws that help to destroy our country's freedoms.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com "

" A ban that excluded taverns would be fair enough and lots of smokers would be happy with it--if it can be assured that a little further on down the road, the antimsoking jihad doesn't return calling for the smokers' last refuge to be seized and "purified". "

" Your diatribe is nothing but honest, and that I can appreciate.

However, what I cannot appreciate is the fact that you are supporting a ban in restaurants (which are privately-owned establishments, just as taverns are)and as far as I know, no one is forced by the end of a gun to enter into an establishment that allows smoking.

Signage outside of privately-owned establishments that allow smoking should be sufficient acknowledgement for those entering the establishment to assume any risk associated with the secondhand smoke inside of said building. Smokers do it every time they light up. Packs of cigarettes have warnings one them that make the smoker aware of the risk involved with partaking of the legal cigarette they are about to legally smoke. Why can't non-smokers assume the same risk when entering into an establishment that allows smoking?

People like you are frightening to me, because you admit that the entire reason why you want a smoking ban of any sort is because you, personally, don't like it. You are justifying legislation that will undermine our Founding Fathers' principles against intrusive and overreaching government because you, personally, think smoking is disgusting.

I think cheap perfume is disgusting and offensive, and it gives me massive migraines, but you don't see me screaming for legislation that would put the entire cheap perfume industry out of business, and force teenage girls to wear patchouli oil rather than cheap Wal Mart brands by the end of a gun.

This legislation seeks to make criminals of otherwise law-abiding people, and all you can think about is your own comfort and ability to go wherever you please without being disgusted.

You shouldn't be living in America, then.

Joey Monson
www.banthebanwisconsin.com "