WI goes smoke free

[Killer_Man_]

http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-090518-smoking-ban-signing,0,7150415.story

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10355096

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/44464502.html

Not that it bothers me but I just find it funny how much more they will strip the rights of people. There are about six smoke free bars(Even before this ban) and they were always packed. Untapped market my friend untapped market...

Even then, I still always felt it should be up to the business owners.

Regardless, Doyle is leaving office and most democrats. We'll see how long the ban 'lasts' because a lot of places all over are very unhappy about this.

As soon as this bill takes effect, it will start saving lives of our citizens and saving money for our taxpayers," said Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison), who sponsored the ban with Reps. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) and Al Ott (R-Forest Junction).This is what makes me giggle, save our lives? Save money? Pfft. Whatever. Smokers will smoke whenever they want to, they aren't going to stop. That is like why they keep pushing for more taxes. What are they going to tax next if we really do stop smoking? Food? Booze? Come on think people.

Cigar bars and specialty tobacco shops are grandfathered in and are not required to abide by the ban, but cigar bars or specialty tobacco shops that open after the bill’s effective date would be required to be smoke free.

What? Come on, what's the point of a Cigar Bar if you can't smoke a cigar? lol...

http://milwaukee.about.com/od/governmentservices/qt/WISmokingBan.htm

[Tiger]

My city went totaly smoke free while i was gone... it was just restaurants when i left bars and clubs had a choice... personally i think its dumb, and i dont smoke but friends do and they have to go outside when we're somewhere to smoke...

The problem is the non-smokers are more active and get out there campaign and vote while the smokers dont do much when it comes time to vote on things like this much less vote on it.

[Killer_Man_]

My city went totaly smoke free while i was gone... it was just restaurants when i left bars and clubs had a choice... personally i think its dumb, and i dont smoke but friends do and they have to go outside when we're somewhere to smoke...

The problem is the non-smokers are more active and get out there campaign and vote while the smokers dont do much when it comes time to vote on things like this much less vote on it.

Trust me, they did. A lot of business owners got their crap together and even got their patrons to try to stop it. They don't care anymore.

[Arainach]

Saying you can't get rid of something because you collect taxes on it is retarded. Ignoring for a moment that smokers cost us an order of magnitude more in health care costs than they ever pay in in taxes, the system has a nice way of equalizing.

I'm generally not a fan of the prohibitionist drug policy, but if you were going to ban something, tobacco makes as much sense as anything else. It's related to why the government's allowed to prevent businesses from dumping toxic chemicals on their land - they have a way of spreading and affecting other people. Secondhand smoke is very real. People can do what in their own homes, but not in public where it affects others.

The smoking ban has worked out nicely enough in Seattle. Somehow, life went on as normal. It hasn't destroyed Michigan [any more than it already was being destroyed] either.

[Killer_Man_]

Saying you can't get rid of something because you collect taxes on it is retarded. Ignoring for a moment that smokers cost us an order of magnitude more in health care costs than they ever pay in in taxes, the system has a nice way of equalizing.

Huh? Alcohol causes the same amount of problems long term as smoking. Why not ban booze? Why not ban Oxycontin? That obviously causes problems for people too.

I'm generally not a fan of the prohibitionist drug policy, but if you were going to ban something, tobacco makes as much sense as anything else. It's related to why the government's allowed to prevent businesses from dumping toxic chemicals on their land - they have a way of spreading and affecting other people. Secondhand smoke is very real. People can do what in their own homes, but not in public where it affects others.

Yes, but if you don't like it, then go to a non-smoking bar. Simple enough. There are plenty of them in my city and people could still very well untap in a big market for non-smoking. Business owners should be able to run their business the way they want to.

The smoking ban has worked out nicely enough in Seattle. Somehow, life went on as normal. It hasn't destroyed Michigan [any more than it already was being destroyed] either.

This is true and it really doesn't bother me that much but I just find it silly enough. What about the tons and tons of poluation from factories?

Seriously though Ary, I am just saying if everyone would stop smoking or little to no one smoked(Due to taxes or going insane/dying from not buying anything but smokes due to the prices cause there are still lunatics out there who will do that), they are going to have to collect the 'extra' money from somewhere and they'll tax something else.

[Z]

ONE MORE STEP TOWARD IMMORTALITY! 6.5 BILLION HIGHLANDERS CAN'T BE WRONG!!

[Seegtease]

Yes, but if you don't like it, then go to a non-smoking bar. Simple enough.

It's not always a matter of liking or disliking. Like Ary said, some people just don't care, and it ends up putting greater strain on the health care system.

Further, in compliance with another good point, I wouldn't like to be told "if you don't like toxic waste on our lot, go find another store to shop at." I'd just kind of expect all stores to not have it. How should smoking be any different?

[The Moody Ronin]

But then... wouldn't you know beforehand that you'd be walking up to a store with toxic waste on the lot? It wouldn't be as if the smoking bars would be trying to trap non-smokers in them to poison 'em, right? Just like you'd know the difference between a strip club and a nightclub, I'd imagine that as long as you'd be able to tell the difference between a smoke-friendly establishment and everything else, that there'd be no problem.

[chefTENGU]

What are they going to tax next if we really do stop smoking? Food? Booze? Come on think people.
They already do.

The smoking ban has worked out nicely enough in Seattle. Somehow, life went on as normal. It hasn't destroyed Michigan [any more than it already was being destroyed] either.
Same for Maryland and DC. Kansas has yet to enact any sort of blanket ban on smoking in bars (as far as I know).

One thing that I really wish would happen is for militant non-smokers to shut the hell up once they get their way. Smoking is prohibited in the store (as it is in most retail outlets, I imagine), so when employees go for a smoke break, they go outside.

It really pisses me off to see guest comments come back from online surveys where someone complains "OMG THEY SMOKE OUT NEAR THE ENTRANCE YOU SHOULD STOP THAT." Seriously, where the hell do you expect them to go? Canada? They're already outside!

[Seegtease]

I would think that employees would smoke somewhere besides the front entrance, though. I mean, at least for the simple fact that management should realize that it "doesn't look good" and is bad for store image.

Smoking or not, I think it's best for employees on break to be out of sight of customers. One basic reason for this is that customers are stupid - they see an employee sitting and just assume they aren't doing their job.

[Killer_Man_]

They already do.

Yes but they'll tax it more.

It really pisses me off to see guest comments come back from online surveys where someone complains "OMG THEY SMOKE OUT NEAR THE ENTRANCE YOU SHOULD STOP THAT." Seriously, where the hell do you expect them to go? Canada? They're already outside!Yeah, what Zeit said but most places don't have anther entrance that employees can get in and out of in a quick jiff.

Regardless, like TMR said, it's not like they are making you stay there and you can tell if it's smoking or non.

It's not like you couldn't you know, be a smart man and open your own non-smoking bar and reap the rewards.

Trust me, there are other alternatives than smoking ban. Though I can see why resturants they would but bars? Meh.

Either way, we'll see how this will effect WI but to be honest, I've been seeing a lot of E-Cigs going around lately. It's suppose to be a little cig that gives you a nicotine hit from a puff and produces water vapor. My Dad has one since he's been trying to quit smoking.

It's not always a matter of liking or disliking. Like Ary said, some people just don't care, and it ends up putting greater strain on the health care system.


What about Obesity? Dumping toxins in Chicago River to stop some strain of Chinese fish from getting into the lakes? What about all the other 'toxic' stuff we do. You can't ban them all. Hey, cars put a lot of CO2/CO into the air. LETS BAN EM! SAVE THE ECOSYSTEM!

[Arainach]

What about Obesity? Dumping toxins in Chicago River to stop some strain of Chinese fish from getting into the lakes? What about all the other 'toxic' stuff we do. You can't ban them all. Hey, cars put a lot of CO2/CO into the air. LETS BAN EM! SAVE THE ECOSYSTEM! You missed my greater point. Simply opening a beer has no effect on people standing around you. If you drink too much and your actions hurt them, we already have laws against that. But simply lighting up a cigarette has an effect on the health of people standing around you.

[Killer_Man_]

You missed my greater point. Simply opening a beer has no effect on people standing around you. If you drink too much and your actions hurt them, we already have laws against that. But simply lighting up a cigarette has an effect on the health of people standing around you.

But then... wouldn't you know beforehand that you'd be walking up to a store with toxic waste on the lot? It wouldn't be as if the smoking bars would be trying to trap non-smokers in them to poison 'em, right? Just like you'd know the difference between a strip club and a nightclub, I'd imagine that as long as you'd be able to tell the difference between a smoke-friendly establishment and everything else, that there'd be no problem.

EDIT:

Besides the fact that I do believe opening a beer can effect others. Not directly by you consuming it but consuming it over time and being an idiot.(Such as drunk driving, beating your wife/gf, or just doing anything while under the influence.)

But whatever, when you have 50 people amassed outside smoking, it's not the bar owner's fault.

[chefTENGU]

Besides the fact that I do believe opening a beer can effect others. Not directly by you consuming it but consuming it over time and being an idiot.(Such as drunk driving, beating your wife/gf, or just doing anything while under the influence.)

But whatever, when you have 50 people amassed outside smoking, it's not the bar owner's fault.
Ary already conceded that getting yourself drunk can affect others; I think you missed what he was getting at, though.

Think of it like this: if you open a beer, hold it in your hand, and don't drink any of it, nothing's going to happen to anyone. If you light up a cigarette, hold it in your hand, and don't smoke it, yourself and everyone around you is still exposed to something harmful.

[Killer_Man_]

I think cigarette smoke is the least of my worries when going to a bar, I understood what he meant but I just think it's silly nilly logic. I can understand banning it from hospitality businesses but from what I've seen bars are suppose to be 'dirty' in a sense but whatever. If you don't mind infringing on business owner's rights to have the establishment smoking or non-smoking. Then go for it. I'm seeing this more of business owner's right to open a smoke free or smoking bar.

I'll be sure to keep in check of what closes down and is still open. Then again, I just drink at home cause that way I don't have to walk. xD

Oh and by the way.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1

[Arainach]

It's a tragedy of the commons thing. No bar will go smoke free, since if ONE bar allows smoking, it will get more patrons and more profit. Thus, it's in no bar's individual interest to go smoke-free unless they ALL do simultaneously.

Also, your article concedes that studies have shown the effects of second-hand smoke. Let's take its premise for a moment and assume that me spending half an hour in a bar where there's smoking won't kill ME without prolonged exposure. But what about employees of that bar?

[Killer_Man_]

It's a tragedy of the commons thing. No bar will go smoke free, since if ONE bar allows smoking, it will get more patrons and more profit. Thus, it's in no bar's individual interest to go smoke-free unless they ALL do simultaneously.

Also, your article concedes that studies have shown the effects of second-hand smoke. Let's take its premise for a moment and assume that me spending half an hour in a bar where there's smoking won't kill ME without prolonged exposure. But what about employees of that bar?

Ary, I've already stated that there is at least four bars that are smoke free in my city alone, those bars are ALWAYS PACKED. Which means someone could have made more of a killing if they made anther smoke free bar.

What about the employees? Don't like it then don't work.(Though you can't say that at this time cause of the economy but in good circumstances, you know what you are getting into). Which goes hand in hand with not going to a bar with smoking.

Like I said, I understand restaurants, hotels and apartments but the rest *shrugs*.

We'll see what happens.

[Arainach]

What about the employees? Don't like it then don't work.We have many levels of government oversight dedicated to ensuring safe workplaces for employees. If you are unaware of this or don't understand why this is of critical importance, I reccomend you do some reading on working conditions at the turn of the 20th century and even in the latter half leading up to the creation of OSHA in 1970, as it's an important chapter in American history that's still relevant today.

[Seegtease]

Besides the fact that I do believe opening a beer can effect others. Not directly by you consuming it but consuming it over time and being an idiot.(Such as drunk driving, beating your wife/gf, or just doing anything while under the influence.)

Those things are illegal, though. People violate them, but they're still illegal.

[Killer_Man_]

We have many levels of government oversight dedicated to ensuring safe workplaces for employees. If you are unaware of this or don't understand why this is of critical importance, I reccomend you do some reading on working conditions at the turn of the 20th century and even in the latter half leading up to the creation of OSHA in 1970, as it's an important chapter in American history that's still relevant today.

Don't assume I don't know about OSHA. There are postings about it in every work place in teh staff rooms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Administration

And besides, according to OSHA, it's done more harm than good.
Working in a bar is not hazardous, you know it's there. If you don't want to work there then do not work there.

You aren't being forced to work in such conditions. OSHA was mainly made to stop people from being forced in hazard situations and doing such situations cause they were worried about being fired. That and keep companies from skipping out on maintaining things(Such as fire alarms and other things).

[Arainach]

OSHA also covers things such as exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace. If you work at Dow Chemical, you know <substance name> is there too. Doesn't make it less dangerous.

[Killer_Man_]

http://www.ehso.com/oshaoverview.php



Self-employed persons; http://www.ehso.com/_themes/ehso/greenball.gifFarms at which only immediate members of the farmer's family are employed; http://www.ehso.com/_themes/ehso/greenball.gifWorking conditions regulated by other federal agencies under other federal statutes. This category includes most employment in mining, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons manufacture, and many segments of the transportation industries; http://www.ehso.com/_themes/ehso/greenball.gifEmployees of State and local governments (unless they are in one of the States (http://www.ehso.com/safetylinks.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.osha.gov/oshprogs/stateprogs.html) with OSHA-approved safety and health programs).I doubt working in a chem plant is covered but I assume it depends on the rules state by state.

Cause of this too...


What About Public Employees?

Under the Federal OSHA law public workers are exempted but the law contains a provision that allows each state to set up its own OSHA law and program. These state OSHAs must be "at least as effective" as the Federal OSHA and they must cover all workers including public workers in that state. Most states that have their own OSHA follow the Federal OSHA standards and rulings.


The following states have their own OSHA law which covers both private sector and public sector workers: Maryland, Indiana, Michigan, Vermont, California, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia.


New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Ohio have state plans that cover public sector workers (although the OSHA website does not list Ohio's plan on its list of state-approved plans) while private sector workers are covered by the Federal OSHA law.


The Federal OSHA law covers all workers in the private sector; the law does not cover Federal, State or Municipal employees. One of the problems with U.S. labor laws is that they have almost always been written to be covered by the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. The "commerce clause" gives the Federal government the right to regulate commerce between the different states. The first paragraph of OSHA reads: (a) the Congress finds that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments.
So according to Congress, the real reason to pass OSHA is that injuries to workers cost businesses money and the Federal government wants to help business by eliminating these extra costs. The problem with making OSHA constitutional by using the commerce clause is that OSHA then becomes vulnerable to attacks by businesses who claim it costs them more to make a workplace safe than it would cost to pay for the injuries that occur. http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_usingosha.html
Shall I keep going?

[Arainach]

The Federal OSHA law covers all workers in the private sectorNeither bars nor chemical companies are in the list of exemptions you provided above. What's your point again?

[chefTENGU]

I have to admit, I'm a bit lost too, but then I found this picture.

http://user.bloodcinder.com/kevin/cyborg.jpg

I'm gonna move this thread to the mediator's hut, carry on.

[Killer_Man_]

Neither bars nor chemical companies are in the list of exemptions you provided above. What's your point again?

I have no point but will have to go through it again but even then, Ary, OHSA really only covers places that force you to do things when you know it's unsafe.

[Z]

I have no point
Lawl :lol:

[Killer_Man_]

Way to take the quote out of context, I thought I was right and was proven wrong thus have no point Z.

Really uncalled for.

Regardless, I'm still going to laugh when and if when problems occur cause of people smoking outside more or other things.

*shrugs* It matters not but still I feel that bars are suppose to be the bottom of the barrel and cesspools of crap.

[Seegtease]

I thought... and... thus have no point...

I.. be.. cesspools of crap.

[Killer_Man_]

Once again derailed and closed by my option. Want to discuss it? Make your own thread. Jerks.

[SpaceProg]

You all, that wasn't necessary. Give KM some slack, geez.