So here it starts. Yesterday the Wisconsin Senate chose to resurrect the State smoking ban (SB 150) and passed it through their committee which allows it to go to the floor now.
This is not acceptable.
I started phase one by sending out email letters, and since that didn’t gain me much I am now sending out hard copies of my letter along with packets of information regarding smoking ban damage and the lack of hard evidence regarding second-hand smoke.
Phase two starts now. I have put together an informal petition that I hope to get circulating around Wisconsin to help guage response as well as gather data.
This is where I need help. Anybody in Wisconsin who reads this, please sign the petition here and forward it on to everybody you can. We need the power of the people more than ever now, as the Governor Doyle and the Wisconsin legislature has proven to us time and again that they don’t care about anybody unless they make a ruckus. So you know what? It’s time to make a ruckus. It’s time to be as annoying and in-your-face as the anti-smoking crowd.
Remember, this isn’t about smoking. This is about freedom and rights. This is about the right of a person to choose their own path. It’s about the right of a business owner to run their business as they want.
Remember, the more we allow them to take away, the more we lose in the long run. Is this the future that we really want?
Below is my commentary on SmokeFree Wisconsin’s asinine press release on the Senate move:
SmokeFree Wisconsin: Statement on the committee vote on smoke free legislation
1/9/2008
For further information:
Maureen Busalacchi
(608) 268-2620
MADISON—The Wisconsin State Senate Public Health Committee took an important step today in advancing Senate Bill 150, legislation that would make all public places and workplaces in the state smoke-free. Unfortunately, amendments were added to the bill by the committee that create loopholes for Big Tobacco and delay health protection for restaurant and bar workers for two years. A coalition of public health and business groups urge a vote on the Senate floor as soon as possible to correct and pass SB150.
[See, here's the problem with the anti-smoking crowd. They want all or nothing. There is no such thing as a compromise with them. They want it their way or no way... And of course, no way is not an option. They also want things to move along as quickly as possible, which I think is a ploy to make sure laws are in place before anybody has a chance to argue another side of the equation.]
[She sounds like she is taking this personally. Shouldn't the passage of restrictive legislation be based on objective reasoning over personal feelings? I mean, we're talking about stripping away the basic rights and freedoms of Wisconsin residents and business owners in the name of public health - something that they cannot definitively prove anyway.]
[Here we go with the lack of compromise or exemption. What is the deal? Why such an all-or-nothing stance?]
[Here we go... The big, bad, evil tobacco companies are running the government. Yeah, right. This is a personal issue to people like Ms. Busalacchi. She's on a personal mission here. She hates tobacco. She hates smoke. She hates smokers. She would rather see a blatant violation of freedom than allow big, bad tobacco to get one over on her.]
[As always, I can't help but to ask why it is that people supposedly have no choice? If people do not want to be exposed to ETS, they have the choice not to patronize establishments that allow smoking. Is it that hard to figure out? And stop throwing around this "breathe free" thing. Breathing free is having the right to breathe whatever we choose, not being told what to breathe. Give me a break!]
[That's because these people are placing the importance of pandering to special interests over freedom which is wholly unacceptable.]
[Ah yes, the evils of ETS. It'll kill you faster than Plutonium according to the surgeon general. Yet... OSHA has not put any limits on exposure. So if I worked somewhere where I was exposed to the same array of chemicals in a non-ETS related capacity, I wouldn't have to take precautions, yet when it's ETS you have to ban it to protect everybody. I don't want to hear about biased coalitions who want to see the abolition (or at least the complete cessation) of smoking. There's no objectivity to these people. If they are going to slap us with nanny-state laws and infringe this severely on our rights and freedoms, I want objective data. No opinions. No personal vendettas against smoke. No personal hatred of big tobacco.]
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
I live in Madison and I’m a non-smoker. Honestly, the threats of second-hand smoke don’t bother me as much as the smell of the smoke does, so this really doesn’t affect me all the much.
However, smoking has been shown to cause a wide array of diseases and complications for those who choose to smoke. Sure, smokers have the right to choose what they do to their bodies, but it sounds like this bill is focusing too much on the second-hand effects rather than the effects on the smokers themselves, who are in the greatest danger. They made suicide/assisted suicide illegal. I see this as a mere extension of that law. Stop killing yourselves!
On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of such stringent control over the lives of the citizens in Wisconsin. If only there were some way to get nicotine without all the other chemicals….
There are many ways to get nicotine without all of the other chemicals, tobacco companies are just not allowed to disucss the benifits of these products over smoking.
Even if there were, however, many people like to smoke, it sometimes doesnt have much to do with the nicotine.
Remember when I was ranting about your earlier blog piece on this subject? Well, our state Legislature wants to pass a ban on cursing in bars!!!!
When a state legislature starts banning this and that then you have a state legislature passing laws based on MORALITY!
Wasn’t it these freakin’ commies who were screaming, “Don’t shove your morality down my throat?” “Keep your laws off my body?”
Arclight is right on: It’s about freedom, individuality, independence, morality and choice! Those who are accusing us of passing legislation based on morality and those idiots who scream about choice are the first ones in line to take your CHOICE away.
Don’t let them do it!
I would go for the business owners who have the most to lose on this. Does your state have the initiative process? If so, consider going for an initiative to reinstate choice for business owners.
You could put up the names, faces and home addresses of the legislators who have passed this ban, and then go to their houses for a smoke in! You can send out a press release before hand, not too much before hand, so the legislator doesn’t find out about it, but enough time to get the press out there. That may generate some support for your petition.
I would put up posters in their neighborhoods of those individuals who hate freedom and shame them.
Something to think about! It would take work, but it’s so much fun!
Hehe, here we go again. **cinches seatbelt**
So just for the record, I posted that news article about banning bad language in bars and also found it completely ridiculous. From phase one smoking arguments, you all know where I stand on smoking but that’s where I draw the line. I will fight to stop the stupidity of banning table dancing and bad language…utterly ridiculous.
Besides, table dancing is quite entertaining.
Good luck, and I salute your effort.
I live in Las Vegas, and smoking was banned in bars here. In Las Vegas, a city with the highest per capita number of smokers in the US, and probably the most bars. I never thought I’d see the day, but the ban passed without much of a peep.
I hope you can stop this one, because today it’s smoking and trans fats, tomorrow it’s guns and red meat.
Signed the petition, I am after all “thinking” of moving to WI
Smoke On!!!
enkaybee seems to have hit on what the non smokers who support smoking bans are really trying to accomplish. It’s not that non smokers are conserned about second hand smoke, they just don’t want to smell it.
You hit the nail on the head, it isn’t about smoking, it is about the government taking over peoples everyday lives. The more you give, the more they take. No Compromises gives us a perfect example of that, banning speech in bars because it might be offensive to people? We already have political correctness to do that for us, now we are going to have outright bans on cursing? Where are all the liberals crying about the loss of liberty?
Great work, as always, Ryan! I’m right there with you!
Next, we need to get a group together and storm Madistan.
Bring your cigars!
You are wasting your time. The vast majority hate the smell of second hand smoke. Those who don’t seem to think they have something to lose financially from a smoking ban. Besides, It seems to me the smokers enjoy getting a chance to go outdside a couple of times a day.
Interesting argument Richey. I have to admit that I really don’t think the bans would be as prevalent as they are today if smoke didn’t smell as bad as it does. In effect, smoking kind of shot itself in the foot by smelling so bad. hehe.
The thing to remember is that the smell was only the catalyst to this argument.
Wasting my time on private property rights, Richey?
I hope – for all of our sakes – that you don’t vote.
No offense to anyone above but alot of this is missing an even greater aspect. And that would be private property. Ownership of ones self and properties. I own myself and have the faculties to operate that ownership. And if I dont like the way something smells, I get the fuck out. Offices and malls are one thing. But a privatly owned restaraunt that allows smoking should be just that !
I have the right to open a bar with big fat smelly beer drinking smoking bikers if I want !
And you dont like “MY PROPERTY” get “YOUR FUCKING PROPERTY OUT OF IT!”
I think the only way this will ever get beat is by playing the individualism and private property card.
Using examples of eminent domain to point the injustice.
An excerpt from my post on part 1 of this argument…
“The public vs. private argument, Thomas, is flawed. My home is my home and is considered private as I’ve stated before. Other’s cannot enter without my expressed permission <– pay attention to that statement. Restaurants, bars, etc.. are privately owned but do not require expressed permission to enter but rather it’s assumed (implied) since it is open to the public, used by the public, and regulated by the government. I don’t recall ever having to ask permission to enter any restaurant. In most cases the land the bar or restaurant is on is deemed for commercial use only which means you couldn’t build a private home on it anyway.”
So this really never got a response, maybe now it will.
If I open a commercial fish farm you have no right to bitch about the smell. Or your allergy to fish.
If I open a bar that also offers cigars and a room to smoke them in, that is commercialism.
Bike paths are for bikes and sidewalks are for feet.
If I open a spa that smells like cucumbers and avocado it is my commercial right to do so. If you dont like it. Buy a bar of ivory and wash your face at home.
Alot of commercial enterprise contains a risk to its patrons. You accept this risk if you enter.
Skating rinks etc…
If you dont like the music or anything else that cotributes to the ambience and theme you have a choice.
As you do not need “permission” to leave anywhere. Unless you are incarcerated by law.
A no smoking establisment will attract its proper element and thrive just as one that caters to smokers will.
We should not be denied choices, we should be offerd them.
I think the answer was given, I think you may have just disagreed with it.
They may have altered the definition of ownership in Minn, but in most places, public property is considered government property and private property is just about everything else. A sign on a restaurant normally reads “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. With these bans and the government trying to take over ALL establishments, those signs will soon have to be removed.
The purpose of business ownership is just that…ownership. When the government starts telling you what legal activities can and can not be done in your establishment, it is no longer yours. (notice I said legal activities, that way you can avoid your silly assault with a beer argument)
You often say where you draw the line and that there has to be some regulation. The problem with that is that the line is never drawn. Once they get a foot hold, they run amok. California just made it illegal to smoke in your car with kids in it. Some places in California have made it illegal to smoke in your back yard and recomend that your neighbors turn you in if they see smoke. Those bans will not be stopped because the politicians think they have the publics support and the bans become like a steam roller. They will not stop unless the people get fed up with there rights being trampled on and start reversing these fascist bans.
Right around the time we start selling trans fats on the black market
Did I mention that the black market on cigarettes is huge now? Many crime families are bootlegging cigs because they can make more money off of them than drugs. (They are basically making the tax profits that the government wants) We don’t hear about it often, but in Alaska, the taxes are so high we are seeing more tobacco shop robberies than bank robberies. There is more profit in it.
Bans and unfair taxes breed crime and black markets. They just don’t want to tell you about it.
Unfair taxes are one thing but I don’t think bans (of this type)are moving cigs to the black market.
Ever heard of zoning mickey2? IF you open a fish farm then the area must be zoned for that AND if the people (other business owners) don’t agree with that then they have the right to petition it’s removal. I’ve seen it happen with other types of businesses.
“If I open a bar that also offers cigars and a room to smoke them in, that is commercialism.”
So is selling lemonade on the sidewalk…what’s your point?
“Bike paths are for bikes and sidewalks are for feet.”
Again, your point?
You mention skating rinks. I’m assuming you mean we should ban hockey due to the inherent danger of getting hit with a puck (something I am completely aware of). You are right, getting hit with a puck is a definite possibility and is very dangerous (just ask my dad to show you his fake front teeth). The thing is we put up plexiglass boards and ceiling high nets to mitigate that risk. We didn’t have to ban hockey, just partially “ban” the pucks affect on the public. You get my drift? We’re not banning smoking per se, just mitigating the risk to the public.
So now on to Camel’s discussion
The big bad government take over is not an argument…just a scare tactic. You say my public vs. private argument was answered, I guess I didn’t see that…could you link that for me? I get lost on this site a lot hehe.
Well I have to agree with the fact that some states ARE “running amok” and that needs to be stopped. I think it’s somewhat ironic that the unfair taxes are pushing cigs to the black market like an illegal drug. Anyone else see the irony there. Seriously though, I don’t agree with taking something like that and taxing it through the roof. I keep waiting for the day when the entire global economy just crashes because the taxes and inflation have driving things so far out of whack that a cheeseburger costs $20. But this isnt’ really about taxes is it?
Spawn…a coment on hockey…
Your quote: “You mention skating rinks. I’m assuming you mean we should ban hockey due to the inherent danger of getting hit with a puck (something I am completely aware of). You are right, getting hit with a puck is a definite possibility and is very dangerous (just ask my dad to show you his fake front teeth). The thing is we put up plexiglass boards and ceiling high nets to mitigate that risk. We didn’t have to ban hockey, just partially “ban” the pucks affect on the public. You get my drift? We’re not banning smoking per se, just mitigating the risk to the public.”
You just proved our point. The government didnt make us put up plexi glass. The market demanded that we did. That is the only answer.
Something interesting to read.
http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200710221.pdf
This is a web document linking what Spawn calles “big” tobacco to the pro smoking movement. At first glance, I was intrigued because I was finally able to find something that put companies other than PM in research funding.
It wasnt tough to see that this document has nothing to do with research, just with these companies trying to protect their business and help stop these bans.
Now that we know how much money the tobacco companies have invested in protecting their interests, we need to compare it to how much the anti freedom movement (anti smokers..hehe) spent in the same time period. I am betting that what tobacco spent (didnt know tobacco had a check book, but oh well) is far less than what Pharma and special interest groups spent.
Ah but you make a good point as well. Why should we wait for the public to ban something that is inherently dangerous? I’m really not sure where the netting came from but it was so obviously needed that it happened.
To me, moving the smoke outside is so obviously needed it should have happened long ago but as it turns out the public is somewhat divided on that so that’s where the government comes in.
If we, the public, had been divided on the netting, for instance, it probably would have required a deciding entity to make the decision based on public safety and common sense. I don’t think I made YOUR point.
Spawn. Restaurants are subjected to zoning also.
But the point is that even if its in its proper zone such as a restuarant is, you do not have the right to make the owner contain the smell within his walls so as to keep it just from you. Anymore than the garlic in the air at my restuarant, its a part of the establishment.You dont like it, you can have a table outside. Being a neighboor in a zone is one thing. Demanding your specifications to the interior is a whole nuther thing.
Camel hit the skating rink on the nose
If I open a bar that offers cigars and a room to smoke them in, “DONT GO IN THE ROOM !
You cant demand to ride on the sidewalk and walk on the bike path just because you feel discriminated against. Its called “designation”
Spawn, there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is any more dangerous than gerbil warming.
And we should by all means wait for the public to ban something and not allow nanny state government to begin even thinking they can tell us how to operate a FREE market
Hmm, designation…I’m all for it. As I stated before, I do not go to places that allow smoking, if I can help it. If it was designated as a private club that allowed smoking then I would be ok with that. I’m not about to ban smoking altogether, it’s a helluva revenue maker as has been stated before.
Oh, for the record, I don’t believe in global warming other than it’s a natural process the earth goes through from time to time. But you bring up an interesting argument. If you believe ice ages existed and you believe that global warming is a precursor to an ice age (as good science would suggest) then it would be logical to think that global warming is dangerous. Perhaps not dangerous today or tomorrow but at somepoint in the future it will be. Now, earth processes are damn near impossible to predict, reverse or stop but mitigating smoking is easy. Global warming is dangerous….ETS is dangerous (i’m pretty sure they will prove that, even to your satisfaction some day) to what degree is irrelevant. If we can mitigate a danger, we should.
“If you believe ice ages existed and you believe that global warming is a precursor to an ice age (as good science would suggest)”
Bullshit. Man wasnt around for any of most previous cycles. Assuming that these changes are all made by man.
If we mitigate a danger ?
Thats all subject to perception.
Just because you wear steel toes doesnt mean I have to fork out the extra bucks because you think I should.
Sure ! Of course ! By all means dont fuck up the earth. But sell me a buch of shit on the premise that it will make it any better.
Most intelligent or at least informed people know its all a sales platform for anything from edible dildos to shitty cars.
I’m sorry for not being more descript on my last comment. The claim that gerbil warming is man made is what pisses me off.
When as you say good science proves that the earth is always warmer prior to ice ages, you’re right.
Which means that there is actually very little we can do about the cycles since they generate themselves.
Everybody is correct about the rights involved in this. The problem is, once it is voted into law, your rights go out the window, and the law takes pecedence.
Most of the people that vote these bans into law simply see this as a chance to “stick it” to smokers, whom they view as second class citizens, and it’s personal. It’s the one type of legislation that allows people to directly fuck with others they don’t like, and because of that, these things are virtually unstoppable.
People are more than willing to give up a few rights, if they get a chance to screw over some filthy smokers.
That’s a really negative view on these “bans”, perhaps they should be called “smoke mitigation legislation”. Does that might make it more palatable? Perhaps you are right though, perhaps the crazies are out to get you…quick look behind you! LOL.
Anyway, at least one of my best friends is a smoker. No matter what he does (within reason of course), he’ll always be my friend so this isn’t vindictive for me. I don’t speak for everyone so I’m sure there are people out there that really take this personally.
We cant legislate ethics or morality. Period.
To try would be a moot effort. You would have to be able to read minds.
I dont even smoke in my own house or near others who dont smoke.
I have this thing called manners.
I am a professinal in all fields of restuarant and foodservice, chef in ten different areas, managed 8 houses, Associates from the u of hawaii.
And I firmly believe that when tasting my food you should not be subjected to any unpleasent impositions such as smoke or unsanitary conditions. Your experience should be pure.
If I was told I had to allow smokers I would be just as upset as the guy with the biker bar that said he couldnt have smokers.
How kind of you, alaskanspawn, to still continue a friendship with your smoking friend. I’m sure he’s relieved that you’ll still hang out with him. Please.
As for your comment on “not asking permission” to go into a bar or restaurant…have you ever seen those signs that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?? That means that you are on PRIVATE PROPERTY and the owner can ask you to leave at any time, for ANY reason. That means if you have red hair and he doesn’t like redheads, and asks you to leave, you have to leave. It’s his private property, his second mortgage, HIS investment, HIS property.
It’s no different than someone coming over to your house for a visit, and you telling them to leave if you so wish. Private property is private property, whether it’s a home or a business. The constitution makes no separation between them.
Besides, no one FORCES you to go into a bar or restaurant. It isn’t your Constitutional right to go out for a beer, or to stop by a bar and grill for a hamburger.
So mickey2 are you with Ryan when he says he’s on the fence for restaurants that do more than 50% business in food? From you comments I would assume as much. As I’ve stated before, common decency is not a common trait among smokers. This is from personal experience not just some arguable study. I applaud your manners…it’s just too bad it’s not common.
Joey, attacking a statement about a friend is in poor taste to say the least. If this were my blog I would remove you for that. Your arguments are old and worn out. That’s all the entertainment I’ll give you.
Oh crap, for those of you who will generalize my statement about common decency and smokers, let me clarify. It’s not that smokers are without common decency it’s just that it’s my experience that they can easily forget common decency when they’re smoking. Camel smokes outside at his home and doesn’t smoke around me…decent.
Spawn,
Your right. The friend comment was out-of-line and I read your statement too fast and got the wrong impression. My apologies.
But as far as the private property comment, you have no valid argument against it. I have yet to hear one statement from you about private property rights that holds water.
As for the black market, YES, bans do cause black markets. Look at drugs, look at Al Capone and bootlegging…
First of all, thanks for the apology. I have given your private property argument another look.
I can only guess that you have read my other posts too fast as well. I have stated many times that many times that bars, restaurants, etc. are private property but do not fall under the same juristiction as one’s home. This law website defines the right to refuse service… http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html
Notice that they also conclude that businesses are private property but are “are also considered places of public accomodation”. That’s the part that I was getting at. Expressed permission and implied permission was also, I feel, a good argument for the differences between one’s home and one’s place of business.
As far as bans go. Total bans, complete and all encompassing, do cause black markets. This ban is only partial and does not prevent you from buying them through legal channels. That was my point.
Here’s an interesting question though… Could people start making restaurants “private” and remove the implied permission aspect and get away with smoking? If you put a notice on the door stating that it was a private restaurant with no implied permission to patronize it and by entering the door you are agreeing to the rules and standards blah blah blah….
It’s something to consider.
Of course, I think the anti’s in MN anticipated that move and that’s why they extended the ban to all private clubs and organizations too, which I feel was the worst offense they did…
I kinda missed making a point with Spawn.
I dont see what zoning has to do with anything. A fish market still smells like fish no matter where it is. And I hardly believe someone has the right to walk into a properly zoned establishment and bitch about the smells that a part of that establishments draw. If I would like to open a bar that caters to smokers , that right there is my theme, and it is what I have a right to sell. And you do not have a right to come and tell me to take it off my application of services. You do have the right to not participate.
Seeing as how the alcohol is actually more detrimental to yours and societys health than a smokey room, you might want to find something better to bitch about. The odds of you getting hurt by a room full of people drinking is alot higher than some smoke in the air. As Ryan pointed out in an earlier post.
Does Macys have to remove their perfume and cologne section because it smells ? Or could they excercise their right to open a botique exclusive to that product alone ? Either way I see no arguement that could deny them that right. If you are allergic to or dont like perfume you probably dont wear any. So why would you go in ?
So let me set the record straight, I am in favor of private establishments and the removal of implied permissions. I did not know that MN went that far as to ban smoking in those establishments as well. That is going to far in my book.
Creating a tobacco bar, mickey2, is also acceptable in my book. I see no harm in allowing those types of establishments to exist and operate under seperate rules. As a matter of fact, I was getting new tires put on my truck the other day and right next door was a tobacco shop. Inside were 4 men, 1 being the owner I assumed, and all were kicking back having a smoke or cigar. I thought the law covered that as well. Either way, I personally have no issue with that.
So I’ve asked a similar question before and got a few responses but here’s a different one. Being fairly strict conservatives and under the same pretense that you aruge this ban, would you also fight to legalize all other drugs (i.e. pot, acid, lsd, crack, meth…etc)? Using your arguments (aside from the restaurant stuff) we’re all adults and can make our own decisions about right and wrong. We don’t need nanny legislation, etc…
Clarifying Spawns comment, I only smoke outside when he is around. Otherwise, I smoke like a chimney anywhere I want in my house.
)
I know more about the effects of drugs on people than the average guy. But lets put it this way.
We monitor and have laws for liquor. The sindle most addictive and costly (to society) substance on the market.
http://micky2.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/thoughts-from-a-recovering-addict-2/
So I read your article Mickey and I have to say it was a frightning read. There were good counters as well as agreements in the comments.
I myself, growing up in Alaska, have always been partial to legalizing marijuana. Taxing it and regulating it would possibly do a lot of good. Legalizing other more “potent” drugs could be seen as a positive or a negative. On the one hand it would reduce or completely kill the black market drug trade (good thing). On the other hand, it might just make crazies out of everyone who tries it (bad).
Like Ryan, I too grew up in the “drug are bad, mmmkay” age and never really touched anything but alcohol and pot. Hell, I never even drank in high-school…not one drop. Went a little crazy with the beer after high school but that’s another story.
The point I was trying to make was that extremes on either end are bad, we should aim somewhere in the middle. This “smoke mitigation litigation”, as I like to call it, it’s somewhere in the middle. I am trying to understand those on this website that oppose the ban and call themselves conservatives, which is why I ask the questions I do.
Spawn, Minnesota went way over the top with their ban. They forced it down private clubs (including country clubs etc) and private veteran’s organizations like VFWs and American Legion halls. These are places that the general public cannot go without some sort of permission, and there is no implied permission.
But again, this is the problem with the antis, and this is where they are the most transparent. They do not want to make any compromises or exceptions. It’s all-or-nothing to them, even if that means invading private establishments. Just wait, homes are next.
As for your question on other drugs, I look at it this way: smoking has a severe negative impact on a relatively small percentage of users. The numbers are high, yes, but as a per capita number, it’s really rather low. Other drugs – with the possible exception of pot – have a severe impact on a very high (like nearly 100%) percentage of users. I know that people would argue that anything that causes harm should be banned, but the truth of the matter is that if you look at the hundreds of millions of people who have smoked at one time or another over the years, how many of them have had some sort of a negative impact on their lives? Now compare that to people who shoot heroin, smoke crack or snort speed…
When it comes to bans that infringe on liberties, I have to base those decisions based on damage done. In that sense, I would be more apt to ban alcohol than smoking because the damage done is more significant than smoking.
Here’s something interested I got from In2theFray…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=P0KQ2D40H4BV5QFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/11/ncnbis111.xml
That really makes you stop and wonder…
I’ll agree that everything should be in moderation but I refuse to beleive that marijuana is putting 500 a week in the hospital. This, I know from first hand experience is, as the Brit’s would say, bullock’s…
How in the world do you treat someone for cannabis anyways? Give ‘em a cookie and a place to take a nap?
This statement from the artice…..
However, the department also announced yesterday that the budget for the National Treatment Agency, which co-ordinates drug treatment, will be frozen at 2007 levels for the next three years. The agency will also be expected to find “efficiency savings” of £50 million a year from its £398 million annual budget.
Despite the freeze in his budget, Paul Hayes, the head of the agency, insisted that the number of drug treatments it can fund will rise.
“By becoming more efficient at delivering the best outcomes for individuals we will be able to continue to increase the number of people into treatment, while increasing treatment effectiveness,” he said.
…..should let you know why this article was written. Someones budget is not inflating so they need to create a crisis…
sound familiar?
I have to say something here that is a little off topic. (so what’s new ?)
TRM;
” I refuse to believe that marijuana is putting 500 a week in the hospital.”
Marijuana like any drug in excess can do some serious damage. Addiction to marijuana is a psychological addiction. It alters the body organically , but not in the same areas. Long term effects are more cardio and pulmonary. Loss of oxygen to the brain is almost nothing compared to meth or alcohol.
The dangers to ones self from excess intoxication is a frightening experience. And in the elderly in can be life threatening.
To be plain and simple about it, how many of you have been too stoned at some time in your life ? Smoked too much or underestimated some really good shit ?
Blood pressure and pulse can rise to dangerous levels causing you to hyperventilate, pass out, vomit out or just fucking freak out and do something really stupid. There is such a thing as overdosing on pot. I dont care what anyone says. If you ticker is not up too it, it can be pretty dangerous in excess.
The redeeming factor that pot has is that people dont go fucking nuts when they run out. Withdrawls are non existent physically and if so are only induced by a placebo effect. Its all in your head just from anxiety and not your body craving it directly.
I’ve seen people bang on the dealers door at 3 in the morning trying to buy more coke or heroin with 3.75 to their name. Pot smokers just don’t fall to that level of desperation. Sure, you may think you need it.
But you wont end up going to the emergency room for withdrawl seizures, convulsions or Delirium tremors.
Legalizing pot will no doubt make it more available and result in more trips for unsuspecting lightweights and kids to the ER.
Being through treatment for alcohol and drugs on many levels from the psych ward to out patient to a year of residential treatment I can easily say that the ones who come in and say they’re addicted to pot almost always get laughed out the room by those of us who have been there and done that.
Putting down a joint for us was never the problem as opposed to putting down the bottle or pulling the needle out of our arm. There’s just no comparison.
Wisconsin lawmakers would do well to heed the lesson we in Minnesota are learning. The pro-smoking ban activists here lied to politicians when they claimed smoking bans are good for business. West of the river 151+ establishments have closed since bans were enacted in 2005…..yet only 14 closed in 2004, the last year without any bans.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
Furthermore, recent air quality testing proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace regulations:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html
It was interesting tonight, I polled my broomball team about the anti-smoking legislation. What I found interesting was that all of them enjoyed the smokeless environment and thought it “strange and weird” when traveling that other states still allowed smoking but one of them thought that they should allow bars and bars only to allow smoking. Even tho she enjoyed the smoke free bar we were at tonight. So that’s kind of a strange dichotomy, I enjoy the smoke free environment but think bars should allow smoking. We didn’t really get into it but it was kind of new to me.
So real quick. I keep seeing these studies that were linked by mark. They are all the same and use nicotine to put a value on the danger of ETS. I’ve done a little research and found that nicotine is really not that dangerous as far as chemicals found in ETS goes. If this is true and you agree that nicotine, while it is the only truely measurable byproduct, is not what the problem is and therefore the tests are worthless.
I’ve read different reports that claim some 4000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. Just measuring nicotine levels has absolutely no bearing on how dangerous ETS is. A quote:
“Although the public believes nicotine to be among the most dangerous of tobacco toxins, in reality, the toxic harm associated with nicotine itself is relatively minimal.”
Thoughts?
Oh btw, there are also studies that think nicotine is harmful…of course, but it’s difficult to determine to what extent.
Thanks Mark, that is some great info! I will find some great use for it in the near future here in Wisconsin.
I will be in contact.
Spawn, I think it’s kind of interesting that you would cite your broomball team (damn, you really are Alaskan, aren’t you??!) when it comes to smoking. Under ordinary circumstances, I would assume that people who are physically active enough to be on a winter sports team, they are going to be conscious of smoking.
I could poll my workplace and find (presumably) a different response, since most of my coworkers are smokers and enjoy sitting at the bars after work and enjoying a beer and a smoke to unwind.
Interestingly, one of my coworkers started chemo for cancer today. We don’t know what kind of cancer he has, but he is in his 50’s and has smoked all of his life. He just quit last month, presumably because of the cancer.
What I found even more interesting was that not a single other smoker in my company put down their cigarette. They all know that there are risks, and now one of their own is sick… But they are still willing to take that gamble.
As for nicotine, you’re right and wrong. in low levels, nicotine isn’t harmful. But in high concentrations it can kill you.
It is important to note that nicotine has a great deal of associated toxic effects (including carcinogenic), which is why OSHA has PEL limits for it. So if we scratch nicotine off the list of ETS byproducts that will kill you, that only leave 3,999 others
Seriously though, when you look at the ORNL study, aside from respirable particles, what else is there? We can nitpick all day long about “unknowns” but the fact remains that the poison is still in the dose. Sadly we don’t yet have an answer as to what dose of ETS is actually poison.
Well now, don’t mistake the fact that I play broomball with being in shape hehe. I was coughing up a lung for a week after our first game…ironically I felt like a smoker hehe.
We’re sponsored by Liquor Lyles in Uptown, one of the smokiest bars around (was anyway). After each game we would hit up the bar for free beer but my wife and I would decline, most of the time, due to the smoke. Now that they are smoke free, we’re free to hang out there. For a Monday night there was quite a bit of business…I really couldn’t compare it to when smoking was allowed.
“…while it is the only truely measurable byproduct, is not what the problem is and therefore the tests are worthless.
I’ve read different reports that claim some 4000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. Just measuring nicotine levels has absolutely no bearing on how dangerous ETS is. A quote:
“Although the public believes nicotine to be among the most dangerous of tobacco toxins, in reality, the toxic harm associated with nicotine itself is relatively minimal.”
Thoughts? -alaskanspawn
Since OSHA has permissible exposure limits for most if not all of the claimed “4000″ chemicals, I actually would welcome testing any of the other chemicals….I think the results would be the same if not more dramatic.
I do plenty of work for manufacturing facilities where OSHA conducts air quality testing on the chemical components of welding smoke. Even though there are thousands of chemical components in welding smoke, OSHA usually only tests for the one or two components which are found in the highest concentration.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/10/smoking-ban-saves-factory-workers-from.html
Well I think my point was that while too much of anything will kill you (even water if you overdose just like that lady that drank 2 gallons on the radio stunt) the dose of nicotine in those reports was arguably designed to debunk the dangers of ETS. I concede that the nicotine dosage in ETS is small, not worth talking about but that doesn’t prove that ETS is not dangerous, just that nicotine in that dosage is not dangerous.
I’ve yet to find a report that shows the entire range of chemicals found in ETS and what effect that might have in measurable dosages. I still think that the MRI study shows promising data, only time will tell if it proves to be reliable data.
As a side note, I used to work in a tank welding shop. I have to say those guys there are a different breed. After breathing that smoke in enclosed places for years on end I don’t think a one of them could run a full lap around a standard high school track. That smoke is terrible. Needless to say I didn’t last long there…
Damn, I wish there was an edit button. Just to be clear about the testing of the supposed 4000 chemicals in ETS, it’s the COMBINED effect that I’m looking to guage. Each individual chemical may be small but the combined effect may be the kicker. Just a hypothesis.
For further reading additions to what Mark W has posted on clearingtheair please visit:
http://www.forces.org
http://www.smokersclubinc.com
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
(this is one of the “dr.s” that testified for the MSA)
http://www.heartland.org
http://www.aynrand.org
(for the Rational Man still alive in the USA)
http://www.americanthinker.com
(again for the Rational Man in the USA)
The science is out there-and the frauds utilizing the cherry-picked sciences are out there also. As you read the Surgeon General’s report, Al Gordo’s Glowball Lukewarming — The Debate IS NOT OVER.
I thank you for “listening”.
Love this blog! Living in Madison, WI is like living in the BIG SANDBOX OF PC-Perpetually Offended-EcoGroupies-Karls Marx’s Peoples Republic of Madison…you get my drift…
Smoke em if ya got one-Praise the Lord and pass the Ammunition! Because this has Never been about the Smoke, it has Always been about The Smoker.
“oldstudent” in the etherworld
Spawn, the question isn’t about ETS being dangerous. That has never really been the question. We know it isn’t necessarily good for you, but the question is at what level is it unhealthy?
I just recently found this:
I am working to find the original NEJM study, but by my calculations, you would have to be exposed to ETS for 250 hours to be exposed to the equivalence of a single cigarette… And considering there is little likelihood of those 250 hours being consecutive, I’m not even sure that you would have the same adverse effects as sitting down and smoking that cigarette.
If the NEJM study is indeed true, I would find it hard to believe that an 8-hour shift at a bar would really be enough exposure to be harmful.
The original study is in this issue:
http://content.nejm.org/content/vol292/issue16/
But you have to pay to read it. I am trying to find it elsewhere right now…
Thanks for stopping by, Capri! Great information too.
If you’re interested in getting involved or helping out at all, let me know. Pheisty (http://www.pheistyblog.com) and I are putting together a campaign to try to fight this smoking ban and put Jim Doyle in his place.
We have started a new blog at http://www.banthebanwisconsin.com and are currently working on putting together an advertising campaign. If nothing else, please spread the word, and if you haven’t signed the petition yet, please make sure you do it and tell everybody you know to sign it too!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stopthewiban/
Just to be clear, I do understand your arguments and know that YOUR argument is not about whether ETS is healthy or not but shouldn’t it be?
There are lots of things that are unhealthy for you that we don’t ban but we certainly try to mitigate them. Even exhaust…emissions regulations. OSHA has regulations for so many chemicals and environmental conditions. EPA has rules and regulations. Why is smoking such a stretch to mitigate? This is not a BAN, merely mitigating the risk to non-smokers. Choice is not an issue here, you can still choose to smoke, you, as a restaurant owner, can still choose to allow smoking (outside of course).
If you would like to start a new fight to oppose the ridiculous notion of banning smoking in truely private property then I’ll be with you.
Btw, by posting that absurd video at the banthebanwisconsin site you’ve already lost the battle. As soon as you start the swearing and misrepresentation you’ve already lost.
Funny, yes. Silly? duh.
Ok, to be fair the video wasn’t posted by me. You should know me better than that by now
I’ll talk to Joey and see what she thinks about it.
Anyway, to get to your point…
Should this argue really be about health? Sure, but what arguments are we going to use? If we eliminate every study that has ties to tobacco companies, smoking cessation companies and anti-smoking special interest groups… What do we have left? If we look at hard science, the answer almost always comes up as “we don’t know” which sadly translates to “ETS will kill you” to the antis, and “ETS is harmless” to the smokers.
Any doubt can be answered by this excerpt from a research paper on analyzing ETS that I found in the UCSF research area:
So, from a purely scientific perspective, how do we evaluate the true effects of ETS? We have to consider ventilation, different chemical decay rates at various temperatures, air pressures, disbursement rates etc… We have to know the exact PPM of chemicals actually being inhaled…
The point is that there is enough question to blow the speculative arguments about the toxicity of ETS right out of the water. I would be more likely to consider ETS an irritant and control it that way.
The Wisconsin do-gooder-fascist-prohibitionist legislators should mind their own damn business and let Bar and Tavern owners and the free market choose what’s best for them and their customers.
Amen to that! Regulating the free market like this is an insult. There is no rational reason to take away the right of people to choose.
I am a resident of Milwaukee, and I do support a smoking ban. As a non-smoker, I fully utilize my rights NOT to smoke, but I am continously subjected to second hand smoke every time I go out to see a band play. I am a non-drinker as well, and I find it sad that I wake up the morning after a show feeling as if I have a hangover. My eyes are crusted over, and I generally feel sick all day long. I don’t support prying cigarettes out of smokers’ hands, but give people a break. There’s no reason that every bar, concert hall and VFW has to be a smokestack. I am seriously considering NOT going out to music shows, one of the only things I truly enjoy doing, simply because they are not smoke free. I hate having to feel like I smoked 2 packs every time I go out to hear a band play. Enough’s enough.
But Angela, the fact of the matter is that you can choose – and you want to take that right away from others so you don’t have to choose. Is that fair?
You say that every bar, concert hall and VFW has to be a smokestack – and you’re right! They don’t have to, they do, however, choose to. If there was no market for establishments that allow smoking, they wouldn’t. You act as if the only way to get someplace to go smoke-free is to force them through laws, and I think that is absurd.
Do you honestly think that it is fair that places should be forced to cater to people like you? I just don’t get it.
Ryan, your arguments are slightly flawed. Since I’m home sick today (smoking related…hehe just kidding) I’ll be able to elaborate. It might be the medicine speaking though so take it with a grain of salt.
I really don’t think that the VFW’s, bars and concert halls “choose” to be a smoke stack. I would postulate that since the early 1900’s smoking has been the status quo. We have to change that status quo and to do so will invariably cause some pain, as change often does. In the “wild” west we used to allow everyone to carry guns into bars and concert halls, this was the status quo. It would be absurd to allow this behavior today and in the few examples that it has happened distatrous things have happened. I speak of the many deaths by shooting that have occured in the Twin Cities areas (at bars, not just in general).
We need to fight to change the “norm” if it is right to do so. We that support this change feel it IS right to do so and it would seem that we and the 22 other states to enact bans (<– still don’t think that’s the right term to use) apparently think so.
You often fight for less federal government and more power to the local and state governments or at least that’s what I read from you supporting Ron Paul. Since this is “local” government, I would think you would support it’s right to govern this issue. At least in principle.
Yes, I do think it’s fair that places should cater to me…and you…and smokers, after all, when smokers aren’t smoking we are all the same right? Why should places cater to a bad habit that is so prone to movement at the slightest breeze? I just don’t get it.
Why not? Whatever the status quo, it doesn’t change the fact that each and every establishment has that choice. If they cannot survive by establishing themselves as a smoke-free environment, then it should not be the job of a higher power to come in and change the rules and force an even playing field.
WE do, yes, but change should happen naturally. Change should be a flow that allows things to happen on their own course. It should not be forced – especially when that change isn’t happening culturally. If this was something happening as a result of a cultural shift, I would embrace it. Instead, it is happening because special interests are pushing the issue, which is why I can’t get behind it.
I fight for limited government and a shift from an overarching federal government to more states’ rights. However, just because I advocate for state rights, I still elevate limited government above all else.
In my opinion, the best way to handle a ban would be to allow counties or cities to make their own choices (much like AK does with alcohol). The state should back the decision which would prevent the local governments from having to defend themselves from challenges. And to further that, I would say that the counties or cities should only be allowed to enact a ban by passing it via popular vote.
What pisses me off is that in places like MN and WI the major metropolitan areas think it’s ok to establish state-wide bans like this without considering the opinion of the greater state. Madison and the Twin Cities are not representative of the states as a whole, but they still think they can make decisions for us.
So what happens when change does not happen naturally? Should we just allow it to continue, no matter how “bad” the status quo my be? Getting rid of guns in bars probably was not a natural process but rather forced.
ah when lung cancer is the number one killer of men and women in 2008 that might have something to do with it! what else could it be carbon monoxide, smog, what other chemicals are there floating around? you just dont get what freedom of right are, not intrepreted to your satisfaction but what our courts say they are, like it or not. we elected these people and they run our country. so i suggest you find a local politician that will run on a smoke doesnt kill platform…see if he/she gets elected. grow up america!
so here is what has happen state wide to businesses and revenues state wide.
we do not need anymore losses!
Sorry this is the site
thanks for the link!
Have you been to http://www.banthebanwisconsin.com? we have put together a huge amount of data on smoking bans…
This is a good site for everyone concern and should fight for this.
I have been a tavern owner for quite a few years.
And in our government cannot see that it is only going to hurt the future.
If anyone is interested in the Eau Claire area there is a meeting tonight 3/24/08 at 7:00 p.m city hall Farwell street e.c. for the public to say there concerns on the smoking ban.
Keep fighting!
Thanks for stopping by, Deb! We’re doing our best to help keep you in business.
Folks, do as Vegas is doing.. flat out IGNORE the bans.
We are doing it out here.. and they are POWERLESS to stop us.
If you stand up to these little anti smoking hitlers they run away and cry.
Just take a stand and say no more.. like Las Vegas is doing.
my sister just turned 18 and has been smoking since she ewas 16 and is now legal to smoke i dont beleive that the leal smoking age should be 18 it should be moved up to 21 justl ike drinking i mean what is the difference between them? And i do beleive i am right and not wrong!!!!
I think u have a good point but u are missing but the comment about people rights and the buisness rights was just a little out there ya u can smoke but not in the places that don’t allow it its government law u got to follow it. By being annoying and the “in your face” thing that will only give them a reason to push the issue.
Here’s why I dislike the ban.
I myself have been hoping to open up a hookah bar for a long time. This is a bar dedicated to smoking, and I don’t know if I will be able to find some way to still do this. I might be able to get away with making it a private club or running it myself without any employees.
Adults should be provided the area/venue/room to do whatever they want to as long as they aren’t offending someone else. This does not validate carte-blanche wholesale prohibitions of actions that some find offensive. If the majority of people wish to prohibit smoking everywhere, or owners of business wish to prohibit smoking in their establishments, it is their right. BY THE SAME TOKEN, if the owner of an establishment wishes to allow smoking on their premises they should be allowed to. They should be allowed to do so AS LONG AS the smoke doesn’t spill over to the public areas and be offensive to the non-smokers. THE MARKET PLACE HAS BANNED SMOKING IN MOST WORK PLACES AND RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS. The market does it a lot better than heavy handed politicians. There should be some places left to smoke. A CIGAR STORE/BAR is a fine example, if the smell of cigars offends someone, they shouldn’t go in. If I have a establishment , or private place, where smokers mingle and it is clearly marked smoking allowed, non smokers should not be able to impose their prejudices against those that do smoke. The tyranny of the majority must not be allowed to run unfettered over the rights of the individual.