Jan.09.2008
1:58 pm
by arclightzero
Where Do You Stand, Wisconsin? The Smoking Ban Resurfaces
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 gauge 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 ruckuss. 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:
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.]
“This legislation is long overdue; it is time for everyone who lives and works in Wisconsin to have basic health protection from secondhand smoke,” said Maureen Busalacchi, Executive Director of SmokeFree Wisconsin. “The bill needs to be corrected through amendments but we are looking forward to finally having action on the Senate floor.”
[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.]
A last-minute amendment was passed that exempts “a place of employment operated by a manufacturer, importer, wholesaler, or distributor of tobacco products” as well as “a tobacco storage facility” from the law (quoted from amendment LRBa0722/1). These broad and undefined exemptions would exempt tobacco company-owned businesses and possibly open up broader loopholes. For example, Reynolds American recently entered the bar and restaurant business by opening an establishment in Chicago. Such an establishment would be clearly exempted under this amendment.
[Here we go with the lack of compromise or exemption. What is the deal? Why such an all-or-nothing stance?]
“It is outrageous that tobacco companies still have a say when we write laws to protect health,” said Busalacchi.
[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.]
“The delay in implementation of the law is also a problem,” said Alison Prange, Wisconsin Government Relations Director of the American Cancer Society. “Why should people have to wait two full years to breathe free inside a restaurant or bar?”
[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!]
The measure is now available to be scheduled on the Senate floor where advocates believe a majority of Senators, including members from both parties, will pass the bill. If the bill becomes law, Wisconsin would become the 23rd state to require all restaurants and bars to be smoke-free.
[That's because these people are placing the importance of pandering to special interests over freedom which is wholly unacceptable.]
Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, including 69 carcinogens. An impressive coalition of health and business advocates have joined together to support SB150, including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, SmokeFree Wisconsin, Wisconsin Medical Society, Wisconsin Restaurant Association, Wisconsin Innkeepers Association, and others.
[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.]
Filed in Better not Larger Government, Call to Action, Preserving Civil Rights, Socialism VS. FREEDOM! |
If you were serious about rights and freedoms you’d respect my right to eat my dinner or have a few drinks without the reek of tobacco coloring every bite of food or every sip of beverage. You’d give me the freedom to breathe air free of a substance I don’t want to inhale. Your demand that you be able to impose your substance on my airspace is much more of a limiting of my personal rights and freedoms than restricting your smoking to your own personal spaces. Freedom means freedom for everyone, not just the people who agree with you. And in this case most people do not agree with you.
If you want to eat your food or have a drink without smoke, you could always go to a place that has banned smoking on their own. If a private establishment allows people to smope it should not be the governments business. This whole smoking ban crap is a total infringement on Private Property rights. I don’t smoke and it does not bother me.
You can always go to a place that already banned it. It is called freedom of choice.
Stix hit it right on the head, and really this is what I have been arguing all along. Nick, what you’re advocating for isn’t freedom. You’re advocating for your own freedom which is wrong. Freedom is the right to choose, not the right to do whatever you want. You have the right to choose whether or not you go someplace that allows smoking. Since a majority of restaurants that I know of do not allow smoking at all (and some do but only in the bar and bar is physically separated with a door), I would say that you people already have the upper hand over smokers. Why do you think that you have the right to go that extra distance and ensure that you have the right to go anywhere you want and not have to deal with smoke?
If we lose our right to choose, we’re submitting to tyranny. We are allowing the government to tell us what we can or can’t do. We are giving up our right - one of our most basic rights - to make decisions for ourselves and deal with the consequences of our actions.
The craze for Jim Smoke laws is being funded by the Tobacco settlement brought about by Skip Humphrey when he was Minnesota’s Attorney General. What seems to have happened was that the states, the insurers, and the tobacco companies reached an accord before the trial, which only occurred because Skip Humphrey wanted a “show Trial” to make him look like a hero for forcing the tobacco companies to come to terms.
Indeed, a show trial was what it was, a kangaroo court whose decision would’ve never stood appeal. So why wasn’t it appealed? Because the tobacco companies weren’t paying for it. The costs of the settlement were all passed on to the consumers. Who got the money? Well, it was turned into a slush fund for the politicians and the already filthy rich “non profit” medical industry.
You know, when I first heard about the lawsuit, I thought, “Hmmm, I smoke, I might get something.” Silly me. Instead I ended up paying for a vicious multibillion dollar special interest group that does nothing but promote laws to harass me.
As far as the second hand smoke angle, it is a perfect example of Johnny’s First Law of Political Dynamics: The problem expands to justify the solution. They pretend to be concerned about the health of people who work in restaurants and bars, but how many of them can afford health coverage? None that I know of.
Remember: capitalism without competition is just privately owned socialism. The consolidation of hospitals in Minnesota proceeded without any anti-trust intervention under the approving eye of - you guessed it! - Skip Humphrey.
Without competition prices are set by the interests of the service provider, not a free market. Free markets are just for peons who get their jobs shipped overseas.