Royal Purple

"What a jerk," Bob Sweet, owner of the Downstairs Sports Bar and Grill, said of Gov. Doyle.

Well, how very enlightening, Mr. Sweet. It's pretty much a sign that you can't make a good argument when that's your opening line.

There's not a perfect solution to the smoking and second-hand smoke problems. I happen to agree with Mr. Sweet that the proposed ban does take away some aspect of personal rights. That these are rights of a shrinking minority makes it all the more problematic. That said, it also ensures the right to the vast majority of non-smokers not to breath poisoned air. Sometimes decisions have to be made for the greater good, and perfect solutions are simply not possible. That's the case here. Which brings me back to my original point. When you have no solid argument to advance, let the name-calling begin.

This smoking ban has been pushed using so much junk science and bad information, it won't be a valid law when it passes. The Wisconsin ban should get the same respect the Ohio ban is now getting:

http://www.smokechoke.com/

Mr. Wilcox,

Obviously, the writer of this article leans strongly "pro-ban". If you've ever been interviewed by the press, you know that they will take whatever they want from your interview. I'm certain that Mr. Sweet probably said other things that the writer chose not to print.

The smoking ban is nothing more than a violation of property rights, and the freedom to choose. If the market calls for more non-smoking establishments, the bars and taverns will respond by providing them (as many already have). There is no need for a ban, that will certainly affect the tavern industry and small business here in Wisconsin.

If I have the right to assume risk by smoking a cigarette legally, anyone else has the right to assume risk by entering into an establishment that allows smoking. If they were really serious about this, and if it were about health, they would ban smoking, altogether.

Your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa.

Please visit www.banthebanwisconsin.com for facts, news, and information on fighting this proposed ban.

Give it up, pro-smoking advocates. Your days are numbered.

I can't find logic in the pro-smoker argument that alleges the lack of smoke-free establishments proves there isn't a demand for said establishments. That's just silly. Taverns allow smoking because the law lets them and a smoke-free establishment would segregate patrons and limit profit flow to owners, that's why no such bar exists in most towns.

If I want to go to a bar in Whitewater, I must accept that my clothes, hair, skin, jacket etc. will stink of smoke when I leave. It's my choice to go to a smoking bar, but if I desire to patronize any bar in Whitewater, smoking is a reality. If there was a bar that had a smoke-free atmosphere, I would definitely go there, but financially and business-wise it doesn't add up for proprietors.

The message from that scenario says drinking or socializing in a public atmosphere must require smoking. What if there were social establishments that allowed smoking, but not drinking? I sure as hell wouldn't be seen there. I'd be over at the place I can drink and meet friends and steer clear of smoke. Where would you smokers be? That's the choice you're asking nonsmokers to make, however, the scenario is just as hypothetical as pro-smokers telling non-smokers to go to a non-smoking establishment.

The earlier posters are exactly right in noting that there isn't an easy answer to the smoking debacle. In this case, the scale of justice will need to weigh in on smoking and make a judgment for which would do less harm--putting nonsmokers in harm's way by allowing smoking in all bars, or infringing on personal rights of those who smoke. If you can see the law through the American justice system's eyes, it is hoped you can see the value of the scale and the need to minimize harm.

It's incredibly selfish for pro-smoking advocates to say I can't have a smoke-free indoor environment because it would inhibit their free right. Let's minimize harm and restrict smoking.

I'm sick of smoke. I look forward to a day when smokers only put themselves in danger due to an addiction. Minimize harm by banning smoking in public establishiments throughout the state. Hopefully this type of ban will limit the scope of nicotine addiction in future generations and eliminate smoking as an appealing habit.

(And, just as a note, depending on the type of private ownership a business has will depend on how "individual" a business is in the government's eyes. Not ALL businesses are considered individual.)

I don't enjoy someone smoking next to me, but I respect the freedom that person has to smoke and even more, the freedom the business owner has to make the decision if smoking will be allowed in his establishment or not. No more big brother government telling us how to live.