There's a difference that you're missing. If I drink, unless I become violent or perform acts with endanger others, my drinking would not affect anyone else. Whether I am sober or rambling around in a drunken stupor, it is isolated to me alone (actually I can't drink for the rest of this year, but that's for another story). With smoking, if you're in a location where others are nearby it is therefore considerably more difficult to avoid having secondhand smoke indiscriminately invade the nostrils of the non-smoker.

Take the example of the Packers stadium. If I am a non-smoker, who wanted to enjoy Packer games, should I therefore not go because there are smokers there? Now the law's changed so I can go without inhaling secondhand smoke. There's probably something to the fact there's more and more non-smoking designated areas popping up around the place.

The thing is, smokers tend to treat non-signed areas as designated smoking areas. They therefore smoke at their will, claiming that it is not a non-smoking area. This is what I mean by their disregard for other persons in their vicinity. I cannot and will not tolerate such a lapse attitude. I do vacate such premises when smokers arrive - but why should I? Why should I, the non-smoker, be forced to vacate a location, when my actions have yielded no detriments to others in my vicinity while smokers do? I don't believe smokers should have the same rights as non-smokers. If cigarettes are a requirement in our society (I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why this is the case), then at the very least designated smoking areas should be available for those who feel the need to smoke and every other location should be non-smoking. This would save much of the problems with SHS, and further compound the health problems of the smokers, but then they already knew that, didn't they?

---

At Lambeau Field i have NEVER seen anyone smoking while in their seats. I have ONLY seen them smoking out in the outer concourse, where it is allowed and doesn't bother anyone else.
So why the need to change that?

---

Hear, hear!

---

I have, more than once. There isn't much you can do about it because busting their nose gets you in jail. Cops and ushers never seem to be around when you need them.

Once at Miller Park a drunken jerk was puffing away for the whole game and the entire section was in an uproar. Ushers and cops WERE summoned and all they did was wave their finger.

Regardless, I like the law. I'm tired of the stink. Even if secondhand smoke was 100% safe, I still get sore lungs from breathing it.

There are already many laws on the books regarding public behavior. You can't jump up on the stage at a rock concert to read from the Bible. You can't jump up in church to play your electric guitar. You can't stand up and sing on the bus. Etc. Etc. Etc.

This is just another law forcing idiots and boors to keep their personal problems to themselves.

However, I have no problem with a smoker smoking in a restaurant if he/she puts a plastic bag over their head and ties it in place with a rubber band around the neck. In other words, why has it been my problem to put up disgusting idiots or stay home?

If you smokers are feeling persecuted, you shouldn't feel that way. It's just time for you to realize you have absolutely no right to offend and annoy the people around you. None! Am I free to chew tobacco and spit the juice on your shoes? What's the difference?

Making Indian casinos exempt is just another reason why Doyle has got to go and be replaced by someone who isn't bought and paid for.

---

I don't know what you wound up with in Wisconsin, law-wise.

Between the anti-smokers and the pro-smokers, everyone will draw lines in the sand, bringing in statistics, personal experiences, morality, intellect, etc.

The reality is that about 15-20 percent of us smoke.

Should smoking be allowed in public venues? Yes, if the smokers are segregated from the non-smokers regarding the air that they breathe.

It isn't that hard to do.

All the "unfair" loopholes here in Pennsylvania seem to have created enough venues for the smokers to smoke and the non-smokers to avoid them if they so choose.

The biggest "unintended consequence" is probably an increase in DUI related problems, as smokers that choose to go to a bar that allows smoking wind up having to travel greater distances, hence drinking and driving more. I don't have the stats...it's a guess.

I totally understand the non-smokers arguments, and I am quite good with the laws as they exist here, regarding where and when I can light up. The taxes, on the other hand, are just reflective of the shithole form of government so many seem to like in this day and age... screw it, I can afford it...wait til they get you for something you hold near and dear...especially the zealots...I hope you can't afford it.


.

Hell of a place we got going, when freedom of choice has become a radical concept in an ostensibly free society.

Guy mowed a little piece of public park in a town in Ohio last week. It was across from his house and he didn't like looking at it. Grass was a foot tall. Cops arrested his ass. What a country.

Obstructing Official Business and Persistent Disorderly Conduct 


The best part is, he will wind up mowing it as punishment while in jail I guess.

The part you didn't think about?

Some fuck called the cops on him. Think about that.


The beer you drink, the food you eat...couple of things your fellow citizens have their eyes on nailing you for. Your fellow scientists can explain it to you so you can understand it.

When they do your brewski's like they did cigs, plan on 10 bucks a beer, which would be less than they did to cigs.

Take Action! 

Yup.
Once they tax cigarettes to the point where people stop smoking because they just can't afford it, millions of dollars in tax money will be lost.

Why should us non smokers care?
Because guess what......our great government NEVER likes to lose money. So i can GUARENTEE they will find a way to make up for that lost tax revenue.
Maybe tax beer at a dollar or two a can? Think it can't happen?
Then you haven't been watching.

---

Already happening. Doyle is such a wonderful governor. :smoker:

---

You know... I have never looked at it like that, or from that angle.

The argument would be the government would save billions of government dollars spent on medical services for smokers with out health insurance, which is probably a high percentage of smokers.

However, I agree Cheesey... Even if they saved that money, they will still look to take in the same amount and maintain the incoming revenue on that side of the books.

A wise observation Cheesey.

---

sure sure cheesey says it he gets compliments and i say it back on page 2 and i get argued against lol


YOU Bastards lol

---

I thought everyone knew that. Where do people think the government gets its money?

---