02.02.08
Ban the Ban Press Release
For Immediate Release: January 30, 2008
Ban the Ban Wisconsin Campaign Launch
In the wake of a recent surge in pressure tactics by Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle and activist groups to impose a state-wide smoking ban, a local group of rights activists have launched a campaign aimed at countering the drive to make Wisconsin a smoke-free state.
Ban the Ban Wisconsin is seeking to educate people regarding the biased and misguiding information that is being put forth by the anti-smoking proponents as well as counter the flawed arguments commonly used by supporters of smoking bans. Additionally, they actively support organizations and individual business owners who see smoking bans as a violation of their rights.
“This isn’t a matter of public health; this is a matter of personal rights and the freedom to choose. Wisconsin has more smoke-free facilities than smoker-friendly, and businesses currently have the ability to choose based on the market they serve. Proponents of the smoking ban want to strip that right away from private business owners and impose their personal agenda on all of the citizens of Wisconsin. This isn’t conducive to a free society or a free market.”
Ban the Ban Wisconsin strives to take an objective stance on smoking issues and doesn’t encourage nor discourage people to smoke; rather the goal is to ensure that the citizens of Wisconsin are afforded the right to choose.
“The smoking cessation movement seeks to end smoking across the state and isn’t afraid to trample individual rights and freedom in the process. To them, this is a personal mission which taints their objectivity on the issue. We are simply asking people to take a fair and informed look at the whole picture before deciding to jump on the ban bandwagon.”
The goal of the campaign is not to convince people that smoking is ok or that smoke is healthy. Instead, the goal is to encourage the people of Wisconsin to not willingly give up their rights to the government without first considering all of the facts and future ramifications of their actions.
“The smoking cessation movement and proponents of bans hope to hope to foster support for their cause via guilt. We are working to strip away that guilt by presenting the facts in an objective manner and by giving the underrepresented a voice – even if that isn’t the popular thing to do.”
mark said,
February 3, 2008 at 12:18 pm
The economic impact of the smoking ban in the UK has been far reaching-not only are pubs shutting down at an alarming rate,allied trades are also starting to suffer.
deaconblue said,
February 3, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Broken record time here…
These bans aren’t so much about smoking per se, but an effort to shut down bars and the like, which allow developers to move in at cheap prices to put up a strip mall or some such. In NY it was targeted against the small local bar/pub, the ones that have been there for ages and eons. Some of these places have been labeled as “problems” mainly because of location as opposed to any sort of verifiable “problems.”
But this is typical of the left. Discrimination is bad, unless it’s something we don’t like. Politically Correct speach anyone? They put a veneer of “in the interest of the public health” on this to legitimize their position. But it’s the same attemopt to control not only our actions, but our thoughts as well.
deaconblue said,
February 3, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Oops, forgot the good luck part! I sincerely hope you can prevail in this. You don’t want to go down the road we were forced to in NY.
Ryan said,
February 5, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Thanks Deacon, we’re going to need all the luck we can get. We’re going against the established “norm” here, and that’s not easy.
You’re right though, there is nothing legitimate or honest about smoking bans. they are completely agenda-driven and based heavily on the principle that political correctness will prevail over logic and reasoning.
deaconblue said,
February 5, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Arc-
I’m not familiar with the Wisconsin legislation. Is there a provision in it for “economic hardship” which will give a business an exemption? NY has one, but out of some 2000 applications, only about 8 were ever granted. Of course the wording of the exemption clause was so arcane that no one knew exactly what constituted a “hardship” and what didn’t. Approval was supposed to be thorugh the the county DOH’s, but the state stepped in on more than a few occasions to nix the applications.
Ryan said,
February 5, 2008 at 7:50 pm
No, Wisconsin legislators are going at it like Illinois did - that being a no exception smoking ban in all indoor public areas. Part of the reason that Joey and I are fighting as hard as we are is because they are being so damned unreasonable. The opposition in the state legislature even tried to make a compromise that they would accept a ban if they allowed for a 2-year phase-in for taverns only, and they still said no. It’s all or none for them.
deaconblue said,
February 5, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Why does this not surprise me? No phase in period and no exemption clause? It will be interesteing to see how this plays out, specifically on the economic front, in terms of job losses (which were intentionally under reported here in NY), declining property values (empty store fronts and businesses don’t increase them), loss of revenues from sales (and fees and excise taxes), and how they all react to it.
BTW, there’s a study out from the UK that suggests that “healthier” people will actually increase the costs of health care long term, and reduce the revenues to support them. It was in today’s NY Post, but I don’t have a link for it. Anyone else find it?
Ryan said,
February 5, 2008 at 8:21 pm
yeah, I hit on that one this morning which drew the ire of our Senate majority leader here.
the economics of bans is my biggest talking point. The UK is being torn apart by economic losses thanks to the ban. I don’t know how these people disillusion themselves into thinking that there is economic benefit from bans. Even here in Wisconsin they are making that claim, yet MN, IL, NY, the UK and many others all report significant economic fallout.
The truth remains that the anti-smoking crowd only cares about ending smoking and fulfilling their selfish personal agendas. Everything else is simply fodder to them.
Ryan said,
February 5, 2008 at 8:22 pm
BTW, I don’t know how interested you are in ban stuff, but our website is http://www.banthebanwisconsin.com
deaconblue said,
February 5, 2008 at 11:57 pm
It would have been nice if the opposition to the ban here in NY had its collective act together like this. It was so disjointed and ad hoc, that it never was able to mount any effect resistance. Well, that and it was a bit of a surprise to the general public. No advance announcement or anything until it was all said and done.
deaconblue said,
February 5, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Nice site. Like I said, I only wish we had the opportunity to do something like this here.
Ryan said,
February 6, 2008 at 6:46 am
Well, I hope it’s all worth it in the end. If we can succeed I am hoping that we can create a wave that other states can work with and possibly use to work to overturn existing bans.
I can dream, right?
deaconblue said,
February 20, 2008 at 2:50 pm
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/20/scotus.internet.tobacco/index.html
Not specifically ban related, but it is one of the “tools” that the antis use.