 |
|
|
Updated: 10:43 PM Mar 7, 2008
Speaking Out About Eau Claire's Proposed Smoking Ban
Public health vs. going out of business: We talk to city leaders, the Tavern League and bar owners about making Eau Claire smoke free Posted: 9:26 PM Mar 7, 2008Reporter: Mary Rinzel Email Address: mary.rinzel@weau.com |
|
8 Comments WEAU.com most popular
- Woman who got caught up in scam also participated
- Man pulled out a knife and tried to stab people on a bus
- Hunters encourage to shoot deer with green ear tags
- Police arrest two people in string of business burglaries
- Families celebrate special birthday
- The hunt is (almost!) on; the camps are ready
- Suspect in high-speed chase speaks out
- Downtown Eau Claire kicks off holiday season
- Jackson County courthouse evacuated Friday morning
- Deputies involved in deadly shootout last month cleared
- Suspect in high-speed chase speaks out
16 Comments - Wardens asking hunters for help during the hunting season
15 Comments - Wisconsinites paying more for health insurance than the rest of the country
13 Comments - Harley-Davidson may be official Wisconsin motorcycle
11 Comments - Jail committee meets to choose site for new justice center
9 Comments - Oprah Winfrey's talk show will end in 2011
9 Comments
wi jobs
Check out the latest job postings from the WEAU Job Board!
View More Jobs.
Ohio has a complete ban. It also has over 28000 violations in less than a year. Hundreds of bars have either gone out of business or are on the verge of doing so. You still have a choice in your city. Let the owner decide. The market will determine what the customer prefers. Smoking bans NEVER bring improved business. Studies that say otherwise are funded by the people pushing for the bans. Studies funded by uninterested parties show that bans are bad for business. In England, the current rate of tavern closures since the ban is 27 per month.
Cory, I find it ironic that you use the phrase "your rights end where someone else's begin". Your right to pristine air ends when you CHOOSE to walk into an establishment that allows smoking, and the property owner's right who chooses to allow smoking on their property, begins. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to enter an establishment that allows smoking. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Placing your desire (that's the key word, not "right")to go out and not breathe second hand smoke above a property owner's right (and yes, that is his right) to allow the use of a legal product in their business is the craziest interpretation of American rights I've ever heard. www.banthebanwisconsin.com
Every one of those SG reports is totally corrupt, because they ignoring more than 50 studies which prove that human papillomavirus causes ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. And passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to HPV, so they use this dirty trick to falsely blame passive smoking for the extra lung cancer caused by HPV.
Can you please tell us which council member is leaning what way? It would be nice if we had a list of this so we may contact them directly to express our viewpoints either way. Thank you for your addition of that information, (when you get it listed) in an effort to provide complete and fair coverage.
Can you please post a list of the council members and state what way they vote when this is voted upon? The voters deserve to know whom to vote out of office next election.
I think most of the smokers are exagerating their "facts" here. First, your trying to justify second hand smoke by saying I should worry about the beer I'm drinking? Guess what, I'm putting that into myself, I am causing the (possible) damage, not someone else. Next, the ventalation thought isn't nearly valid enough to bring up. How long does the smoke stay in the air before it gets "sucked up"? Obviously long enough to be breathed in by someone else! You also say,"hey, you don't like it go to a different bar", but that's exactly what is being done here. Feel free to give yourself cancer, but leave my lungs alone please! Why do I have to risk lung cancer because of YOUR supposed "rights"???? Remember, your rights end where someone else's begin.
I was a bartender for many years, I believe that there should be no ban on smoking in such businesses as bars. I feel it is someones' personal choice to smoke or drink. If you are going to say "I don't want to be around second hand smoke" then shouldn't you also be thinking of the negative effects the beer you are drinking is having? I agree with the smoking in restaurants, but in bars? In my car? My home? Where does this really end? As a smoker, I understand not wanted to be forced to breath smoke, but isn't that what proper ventilation is for and smoke eaters? How would the people wanting this ban like it if all the smokers went around and said "Hey you don't like it go to a different bar." I think there needs to be a common ground. Such as the owner of Wagners. If there are business and people that will lose their jobs, is that a hit you want? What if your bar that you go to closes, because you are the only customer? Then what?
If the state legislature is going to drag it's feet on the issue, then cities and towns need to pass smoking bans. Polls show a large majority would like smoke free businesses because they don't want to be made sick from exposure to secondhand smoke.