Wiggie's Busted for Having Smokers (Madison, WI Smoking Ban)

Madison.com ^ | February 24, 2006 | Bill Novak

[Lowell]

The first place a revolution starts is with telling the 'enforcers' to go hell. When they get their asses kicked a few times the 'lords' get the message that they are next.

[PaxMacian]

"The LAW is smoking cannot be done in public places. Thus you must take up the issue with LAW MAKERS not LAW ENFORCERS by flouting the law."

The problem with the LAW is that it requires property owners to become LAW ENFORCERS without compensation or protection for doing so. If bar owners simply started a campaign of dialing the police everytime someone lights up then they should be covered. Of course, this is not the best thing the LEOs could spend their time on, but LAW MAKERS are responsible for that determination.

[VegasCowboy]

I don't condone any of the activities you just described, nor do I smoke. However, it is clearly an infringement for the government to disallow otherwise legal activities in a business. I'm really surprised we see people defending this on Freerepublic.

By the way, if one were to urinate on a bar, the bar would be the one to throw you out. In this case, bar management wishes to allow an activity that the government has deemed unhealthy. Well, drinking is unhealthy too. Maybe they should ban that too, and we should all just shut the hell up since it is clearly a public health issue. Right?

[Tspud1]

Maybe the smokers should make other complaints on other taverns. This would keep the smoking police busy for years
and they wouldn't be back for a long time.

[PaxMacian]

The revolution is as close as your phone. Bar owners need only call the police atleast once a night to report these heinous criminals. When they show up, hours later, tell them the guy is gone, they missed him. Keep calling every night and it will show on their logs. When they come to bust you for not obeying the law you have a record of your attempts to keep within the law. No citizen is required to become a law enforcement officer. If I could tackle every idiot that litters the ground with his butts and issue him a fine, then I might be so inclined.

[The Foolkiller]

Then stay the hell out of Wiggie's bar.

---

I've got a good idea, too. Stay the hell out of these threads. Better yet, go to DU and stay out of FR.

[HIDEK6]

Either are understanable, having a cloud of smoke over all patrons is unhealthy, and for workers it can well be deadly.

You're very suggestible, aren't you?

[SheLion]

I'm really surprised we see people defending this on Freerepublic.

I keep a list.  You would be shocked to find out how many in FRee Republic defend the forced smoking bans by the government on a private business.  It's mind boggling, to say the least. 

[SheLion]

I've got a good idea, too. Stay the hell out of these threads. Better yet, go to DU and stay out of FR.

Sickening, isn't it?!

[kevao]

I don't recall anyone forcing you or me to enter a bar.

One thing I just can't understand about second-hand-smoke-kills bar patrons is, they truly believe their lives are at risk from SHS, yet there they sit, in a smoke-filled bar, bitching about the smoke.

[spinestein]

[...having a cloud of smoke over all patrons is unhealthy, and for workers it can well be deadly.]



That is simply an opinion, and it's not backed by compelling evidence. I'd worked for years in restaurants and bars (in smoking heavy northern Wisconsin) and the worst I can say about 2nd hand smoke is it's annoying if it becomes too thick.




I agree with you about the proper venue for debating the law is at the legislative level. If our elected lawmakers do things we disagree with then we can boot them out at the next election.

There is an agreed upon exception to this, and that is when laws passed infringe upon our Constitutional rights, in which case the courts should rule accordingly. That is the venue chosen by Wiggie's Bar which has decided that the no smoking law is just such an infringement, and they are letting it go to court for their decision.

It would be a sad day when Americans will stand around and accept the government ordering them about in their private lives without fighting for their inherent liberties.

[Lowell]

Not bad, but the Lords still don't get the point. They want you and me to live whatever lifestyle they think is appropriate. If the enviornment is offencive to someone don't go there. Point being its our choice not theirs.

[kevao]

It's a health issue

Not if nobody forces you to go to a smoking establishment. Following your logic, the government should ban smoking in private homes as well. After all, we smoking homeowners are known to have non-smoking acquaintances over for cocktails on occasion.

[elkfersupper]

Government has the right to legislate what a restarant can do with regard to the public health.

Governments can't have rights. Governments have obligations. Only people can have rights.

I learned this in the 7th Grade. You will too.

[spinestein]

[By the way, if one were to urinate on a bar, the bar would be the one to throw you out. In this case, bar management wishes to allow an activity that the government has deemed unhealthy.]




It's ironic that the government can prevent people from lighting a few ounces of tobacco on fire because the resulting wisps of smoke supposedly kill innocent bystanders, but if the same people were to roll out an American flag, douse it with gasoline and set THAT on fire, then that would be protected by the Constitution as free speech, and any one who complained would be labeled "intolerant" and told to go to hell.

I would like to request a little consistency from our government and suggest that patrons be allowed to smoke cigarettes rolled up in paper printed with the American flag, and if others don't like it then THEY can go to hell.

[jjmcgo]

If no one complained and the cops just walked in that should mean the law violates the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. No complaint, no justification.

[jjmcgo]

And there's so much more room in them now. Why, you have your choice of seats.

[jjmcgo]

I'm getting real close to taking them outside myself.
I'm not kidding, this is totalitarianism.

[jjmcgo]

What on Earth are you, a big fan of government intervention, doing on a Conservative website?

[spinestein]

[Governments can't have rights. Governments have obligations. Only people can have rights.]



It's amazing how few people know this, considering The Constitution clearly and consistently spells this out.

I also get tired of the looks of incredulity I receive when I tell people that our rights are not a result of their being spelled out in The Bill of Rights but are inherent to us, and the government's only job is to not infringe on those rights.