This is a bad law.

I for one dislike cigarette smoke with all the chemical additives in it.

Yet I really enjoy a good all natural cigar outdoors when watching a football game.

Having designated smoking areas seems to have been a compromise.
Why not let the market decide when it comes to businesses. You can have smoking and non smoking bars and restaurants, each catering to their own clientel.

If I was paying for a Lambeau luxury box I would certainly want to smoke in it. It would disturb no one outside the box.

Like most people I want the right to light up when I feel like it and not have others light up when I don't want them to light it.

Out here in Davis California a city ordinance says you are not allowed to smoke outdoors unless you are homeless.

That is too far.

Eventually everyone will be using chewing tobacco.
When it comes to pouch tobacco real men swallow.

---

I have never understood why someone would want to smoke cigarettes.

Things I understand:

1. Smoking weed. (to get high) I don't smoke weed. But I understand why some people do.
2. Drinking beer. (to get drunk)

Then you have smoking cigarettes:

They make you cough. They make your house/car/clothes smell like sh#t, cost 4 dollars a pack or more, AND you don't get high.

Yeah that's a lot of fun.

I agree.

---

- They give you and your kids emphysema, asthma, COPD or other such respiratory diseases.
- They create low birth weight and birth defects in unborn children
- They create low sperm count and cause 'limp dick'
- Kill white blood cells and decrease vit c
- Let alone one of the leading causes of cancer

btw the reason weed was outlawed was because of the tobacco industry - they didnt want the competition; and like you said cigarettes can only offer you a addiction that kills (cant even make you high or drunk).
Guess they make you look cool? ... err maybe in the 70's (least I'm told)

It still should be up to the individual businesses.

If a place WANTS to go smoke free, more power to them.

The casino in Milwaukee has smoking and nonsmoking areas, so it caters to both sides. And LOTS of people smoke in there.
Like i said, it should be up to the business owners, not the government.

If it's supposedly health issues, then we might as well go back to prohibition. Alcohol related illness and people killed or maimed by drunk drivers should make them make drinking illegal.

Oh.........and they should outlaw any junk food. No more Twinkies, or McDonald's or any junk food. After all, how many people die each year because they are over weight and have high blood pressure and heart disease. Parents that let their kids eat that stuff should be put in jail for contributing to the delienquency of minors.

Take my word for it.....not so many years in the future, the government will put a special tax on all junk food, to try to "force" people to eat more healthy.
"Big Brother" gone amuck.

---

It's already being proposed in some states, Brother Cheesey.

---

Meh, he's a pretty bad republican with all these restrictions. Maybe he's a neoconservative... oh well. My opinion? Let the owners choose. Some owners have a SMOKING SECTION, which worked. Some people get mad because they can still smell it, but usually the place wasn't built with that in mind. Also, what forces someone to eat/play/enjoy something? They can maybe... not go! A freaking genius might, you know, UNDERSTAND that when he goes to a bar he might smell SMOKE. I doubt he'd bring the family anyway, so what's the big deal?

And the whole Lambeau thing. I don't think it should be PROHIBITED, but I do think they should have a section, not the lonely back ally, but a couple of places to smoke with some TVs or something of that sort. See? Was that so hard?

---

Geez...............doesn't surprise me.
The government will find a way to tax ANYTHING.

They make like the "cigarette" tax was made to stop people from smoking.
Thats alot of B.S.
They ONLY did it to fill their pockets.
We are grown ups, and SHOULD be allowed to decide if we do or don't smoke, and what places we frequent.

---

We should also decide if we do or don't want to smoke marijuana . . . or corn silk . . . or banana peels, for that matter. As long as we're not hurting anyone else, it's none of the government's business, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm strongly opposed to smoking bans. I don't smoke personally, but I believe I should have the right to vote with my dollars. La Crosse has two smoke-free bars. I like the atmosphere there, so I tend to frequent these establishments. But that doesn't mean I think they should be forced to be smoke free. I'm all for offering consumers choices -- let them decide where they want to go.

The excuse that smoking ban activists shove down our throats is that bartenders shouldn't have to breathe smoke in the workplace. Let's face it: How many bartenders do you know who don't smoke? I bet you can count them on less than one hand. And even if they don't smoke, if they find the atmosphere so unbearable, they're perfectly free to find another line of employment -- or migrate to a smoke-free establishment.

The rationales for smoking bans are bogus.

I find it amusing that cigar bars will be allowed under this proposed ban. So why not cigarette bars? Why not pipe bars? Why not . . . hookah bars?

---

Ya, hookah bars.

Are you originally from Massachusetts, non?

Hey Harree, pahk the cah, I see a sign for the hookah bah.