" To whomever;re CitizenSmokr,
Why do you embarrass yourself by ignoring history and the wealth of research that states that secondhand smoke is no risk to anyone? "

" WIRes;
Apparently you have trouble reading or are attempting to build a "stick-man argument".(another pet tactic of the anti-smokers)I did not disagree that "It is fact that most citizens in WI are non-smokers. It is also a fact that the percentage of adult smokers is lower than EVER in history." Try reading my first post again,slowly.

It appears that you should become better informed,both in the history of tobacco control and credible research.If you were more knowledgeable,you would have recognized the acronyms that I used.They are medical journals etc.(one of the problems using acronyms is that people don't recognize them,but it is common practice to use them to save time and space) I suggest that you do not just use sites like Governor Doyle's,if you actually want to find unbiased,factual information.I've seen many such sites,filled with biased,force fed "propaganda".Often these read more like the comic pages. "

" The first thing I think of when I here anyone take up the cause of Anti-smoking is "uninformed socialist",...or more correctly,.. "useful idiot"

Nonsmoking patrons and employees enter a private establishment as a privilege extended by the owner, not as a constitutional right. This does not automatically confer any entitlement to a special consideration of their individual preferences for a smoke-free environment if it is not in the business owners interest to provide this environment while acting only as their host. The private business owners right to allow his patrons and/or employees to engage in a legal activity supersedes the intolerance of that activity by those who would patronize, or accept employment in the establishment by that privilege. Property owner preferences are paramount in maintaining a choice for the minority that would readily accept the invitation due specifically to the type of environment available, as opposed to the majority who may or may not decline it.
The "majority" has, and has always had a choice, but it is clear that the proponents of smoking bans believe that the minority should have no choice whatsoever.

Business and Property owners, patrons, and employees have the right to contract and associate freely. Anyone that accepts an open invitation to enter a property where the express consent to smoke is made known through appropriate signage, including employees, or persons that seek employment, does so with the universal knowledge and common law understanding that they do not own the property and that the terms of that invitation or employment are established by the owner of that property.
There is no obligation to enter, patronize, and accept or continue being employed..EVER.

Using the solicited force of law to enact restraints of private property rights under a banner of We know better than you because majority rules without regard for minority rights is in fact, Tyranny by Majority.
By making criminals of those that disagree with this myopic new morality and of those who decline to join the cult by abandoning their personal freedom of choice, the very definition of Utopian Socialism is realized.

Increasing restraints on private property rights continues to shift the balance of power from the personal attributes and aspirations of the owner toward behavior that political authorities, and commercially motivated paternalist organizations approve. That is not a fundamental purpose of having a system of strong private property rights. Eliminating the choice by property owners in providing accommodation to smokers is a clear and prejudicial violation of the property owners right to quiet enjoyment, exclusive use, and all other enumerated benefits of ownership.

Ignoring the available weight of evidence that directly contradicts the quasi science behind Smoking Bans in order to promote the illusion of a level playing field and eliminating any choice of venue available to smokers is in direct opposition to the great diversity of personal preferences and abundant options available to meet those preferences that are the basic building blocks of what a Free Market Economy is designed to offer and excel at in providing.
Artificially created Level Playing Fields are a failed economic fantasy and have no place in a Free Market Economy.

Smoking Bans have nothing to do with the health of Non-smokers since the Non-smokers choice of hospitality environment remains, as it always has been, A CHOICE. By calling it help rather than punitive coercion, and in order to help those that have made the unapologetic choice to smoke, and specifically the Private Property Owners that allow it into surrendering their right to make those choices, they deceitfully claim its for the workers.
A decidedly socialist propaganda slogan if ever one existed. As previously stated elsewhere, Stalin would be proud....of such useful idiots. "

" The difference between me drinking diet soda and you smoking is this....I am only doing damage to MYSELF while your secondhand smoke is hurting OTHERS. See the difference. And please don't embarrass yourself and say there is no proof that secondhand smoke is harmful. "

" I'd like to know where everyone gets the idea that they will live longer OR healthier IF they do what others want them to do. Better yet, that they actually think there is any kind of a guarantee that they will live longer or healthier is a joke.

In case you all need a reminder, our country is NOT a democracy (where the mob rules). We ARE a Republic and the rights and freedoms of the minority are just as protected.

EVERY ONE deserves choice and total bans are NOT giving choice to ALL.....only to the mob who feels they have some kind of right to trample on others.

Hitler would be proud to know his playbook is being used so well (re-read your history and you'll see this). "

" Vince Harden & CitizenSmokr....your comments make no sense. Get over it! And Vince....the facts are easy to find. Go online and do some research like the letter writers have. Governor Doyle's website will give you all the stats you need or want to dispute. Ms. Betsinger's facts are right-on. It is fact that most citizens in WI are non-smokers. It is also a fact that the percentage of adult smokers is lower than EVER in history. So nice try, but your arguments are pointless. "

" Smoking bans fly in the face of our Constitutional rights to privacy, private property, and Free Assembly. They are an affront to nearly every settled law on our books regarding the rights of "consenting adults" and MINORITIES. I am so tired of busybodies who think they have the moral highground in trying to tell ME how to care for my own body. (I don't try to legislate those poisonous diet sodas from your mouths!)

Just because smokers are in the minority should not give the State the right to unfairly tax us, or segregate us from the rest of society. (A simple sign warning those who prefer to avoid tobacco that it is in use on the premises, should be more than enough warning to satisfy those who would avoid it; and would protect the right to "choose" for ALL citizens.) The anti-tobacco lobby, funded by pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists, and smokers' taxes, has gotten out of control: frightening us into a nation of "chicken littles" who are now passing OUTDOOR bans in public parks, (that smokers help to finance)... and which is beginning to invade the privacy of apartment dwellers and drivers. (Give 'em an inch and they take a mile!) When, and where, should we draw the line?

member: http://smokersclubinternational.com "

" Get ready. The time is coming. A smoking ban. I can't wait. "

" This letter is full of "inaccuracies".

"The majority of the people in our great state are nonsmokers." This should be considered a good thing by all.However the rest of this paragraph is drivel.HEATHER BETSINGER does not speak for this group,nor should she portray her view as theirs.Most of the nonsmokers that I know resent people like her "putting words in their mouths".Remember that is the reason why you are trying to scare them into agreeing with you.It is nonsmokers,when compared to smokers,that are by far the greater cost to health care.(NEJM & several others)This "sleight of hand" of applying cost/risk to one group of humans while not applying any to another group and then comparing them is fallacious.Of course the group without the cost/risk will appear better.That is why this tactic is used.To try to make this shorter,it is the elderly that have the greater cost/risk.So,it would seem,that Heather is advocating the removal of the elderly (or any other group that has a cost/risk factor which is obviously everyone)

"For the first time ever, the percentage of Wisconsin smokers is below 20 percent. In June, the number was at a record 19.6 percent."
This may,or may not,be.However this would not be attributable to anti-smoker "initiatives" like smoking bans or any tobacco tax increases.It would be despite them.Historically,when tobacco control measures are foisted on decent people,the smoking rate has either slowed or stalled in it's normal decline.In many cases the smoking rate has increased.This is the case now,in the U.S.,Canada and everywhere else that I can recall.The national smoking rate declines have stalled.(ACS,CDC,etc.,etc.)In fact,due to the negative effects of tobacco tax increases (smuggling),the smoking rate is probably rising.This is particularly true in countries with high tobacco taxes,like Canada.The group buying the most smuggled tobacco products per capita would be the young people as they have less disposable income.Take Nazi-era Germany as an example of then.When they tried to force "tobacco control" on their citizens a large tobacco use increase was the result.(BMJ for one)I mention them now because,as most people are aware,they were rather adept at reducing other rates.Actually the quoted statement reminds me of another tactic used by the anti-smokers.They take a statistic from one place,usually with a small population,and try to make it appear that this would be the case everywhere. "

" I really love it when the government has nothing better to do than strip private business owners of their rights to cater to the clients they wish to do business with.
It's just another form of Liberal Fascism, live it, love it. Yes we can. "