The Gadsden Flag

The Gadsden Flag has made a comeback, and it was time for a makeover:


The Gadsden Flag has made a comeback, and it was time for a makeover:

"Kids can still enter a bar, accompanied by an adult."

Then the Parent, an Adult with the God-Given Liberties of Citizenship, has made a decision on behalf of his child, another God-given Liberty traditionally recognized and respected in the United States of America, and nearly all the rest of the Civilized World.

"I can't believe your insipid argument, here."

Believe it or not, once we separate Restaraunts from Taverns, the logic is sound. The decision to bind both in the same big net is arbitrary, and the only way the proponents of the Ban could "get" the Bars and Taverns, in my opinion, was to do just that.

I think you just don't like losing an argument.

"Smoking isn't cool anymore. The few young smokers that do exist have other addictions and issues so tobacco is just a side note for them. You don't see healthy, clean, ambitous young people smoking. Smoking is an addiction of a bygone era. Buh-Bye smokers."

Again, how is this Bigotry and Wishful Thinking RELEVANT to the Civil Rights and Liberty of Proprietors and their Patrons?

"You keep trying to distinguish between bars and restaurants? Why?"

I recognize that the Government may, indeed, have a Compelling Interest in keeping smoking out of an environment that:

1.) is in the business of Food Service as it's primary function.
2.) does not bar Minors from entry.

Bars and Taverns, however, are AdultLand. Adults have the God-given Liberties of Full Citizenship.

Schemers.

I'd like to add weight to my contention that the Smoking Ban will not stand Judicial Challenge. Please reference 2009 Act 12 at

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/acts/09Act12.pdf

and Wisconsin Better Smokefree's Business Brochure at

http://wibettersmokefree.com/resources/workplace/employers/Business_Brochure.pdf

This part of the Law is *critical*:

101.123 (2m) RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSONS IN CHARGE.

3. Asking a person who is smoking to refrain from
smoking and, if the person refuses to do so, asking the
person to leave the location.
(d) If a person refuses to leave a location after being
requested to do so as provided in par. (c) 3., the person in
charge shall immediately notify an appropriate law
enforcement agency of the violation.

You can see this instruction represented in the Business Brochure as well. Does it look familiar? It's elementary Law.

This is TEXTBOOK TRESPASSING.

I do believe that the Authors of this Law, knowing full well beforehand that "smoking charges" would never stick (cigarettes are legal), chose instead to have Bartenders engineer textbook trespassing cases against smokers, which *will* stick if anyone publicly challenges a citation.

I don't think we even need to get to Constitutional Law, we may not even need to go to a Courtroom at all. Our State Legislature has, in my opinion, been played for Fools and tricked into this Fraud. They have been used as a Convenience to advance an extremist philosophy, and by all rights ought to stike down this law to spare themselves Public Humiliation.

That takes care of the Smoker, but what about the Proprietor? This may constitute Entrapment. And we cannot have laws that require Citizens to break other laws.

This is the message I'll be propogating amongst our State Legislators.

"Candidate Mark Neumann would be an idiot to go into a governor's race claiming to be against 81% of the voters on an issue as important to people as the air they breathe.
With only one week of smoke-free air behind us, people are realizing how good it is to be able to breath everywhere they go AND they are talking about it. At this stage of the game, any candidate who stands up and says, "Let's go backwards. Everybody who wants to choke on smoke again, vote for ME" will essentially guarantee himself a lost race.
Smokers, give it up already. It's over. Done. You can stay at home alone yelling at the television set about how unfair it is, but smoking isn't cool anymore."


I think it's an inevitable position for a Candidate who is true to Conservative Philosophy to take. And 81%, WOW. Can you supply a link to the General Election results on that?

What I DO believe is that you'd *really* like me to believe that.

I'm not buying.

"We have decided that people don't give up their right to breathe unpolluted air by entering a business, but there is no such law for residences."

Please define: Unpolluted Air.

As I understand the term, this is something that does not exist outside of Laboratory Conditions. Perhaps you're employing a backhanded euphemism for second-hand smoke?

If so, I'll reiterate my earlier challenge: Deliver the Research Data as specified.

"How would anyone be denied their liberty without due process? Is liberty an issue at all? Is the penalty jail time or is it a fine? In any case there'd be due process; a citation, court appearance, etc."

In this case, I do believe that Liberty is defined as encompassing ALL Citizen's Rights. Being denied the Right to smoke in the Tavern is an Encroachment upon Liberty, and if done so without Compelling Interest, has been done without Due Process, and therefore in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

You don't have to be sent to Jail for your Liberty to be Violated. I'm arguing that the Denial of the Right to Smoke *is* the Forceful Restraint upon our Liberty IN AND OF ITSELF. I think that we all have an intuitive sense of this, but it has eluded graceful expression.

Also, I may have inadvertently obscured the issues: We are now talking about TWO sets of rights: Those of the Property Owner, and those of the Citizens at large. So far, we've been attacking this as a Property Rights issue.

The Right of the Property Owner to choose if smoking will or will not be permitted in his establishment supersedes that of the Customer's. The Ban restrains the Rights of BOTH.

Neumann backs repeal of new state smoking ban

"Republican candidate for governor Mark Neumann said Friday he would support repealing the state's 4-day-old smoking ban."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/98140499.html

This could be VERY good news...

"You must respect the Law."

When Law behaves like a crazy person, Law is given the respect a crazy person normally gets in our society: None. The Smoking Ban, applied to Taverns, undermines confidence in and respect for Law.

"What part of the Wisconsin Constitution is at issue?"

Excellent question. I'm thinking the Fifth Amendment to the UNITED STATES Constitution (which supersedes the Wisconsin Constitution):

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, >>> LIBERTY <<< , or property, without DUE PROCESS of law"

The Due Process, where we currently stand, is repeal or revocation via the Courts or Legislature. An Executive Order suspending enforcement during that process would help too. I see no reason not to use ALL THREE prongs of the Pitchfork. And I fully expect a Conservative court to weigh the issue on the Standard of Compelling Interest, which ought to fall in favor of Revocation once Restaraunts are removed from the issue (food service, health codes).

In California, restaraunts went first. All the bars had to wall off the kitchen, and give it it's own entrance. They then delivered to the bar. We MAY have to go there.

See, we held them off at the Tavern on Constitutional Law for two years that way. It took, as I recall, two Voter Initiative measures during the next election cycle to amend the State Constitution as to create a Loophole (on the Primary ballot), then exploit it (on the General Election ballot). But then, California is a different culture, the pro- Property Rights movement simply folded on this issue. Rob Reiner was fronting for the Ban - and we *are* talking about a state that made at least two Action Movie Stars their Governor.

And, it was cheaper to just ignore the ban.

Also, if any Fault can be found in the Due Process of the original legislation, I expect a proverbial slam-dunk in State court. Federal Constitutional challenge ought to be the Trump. And if the Congresscritters fold, we don't even *need* to put the Trump on the table.

Of course, Laywers will need to be consulted, and Organization to date consists of these chats. But I think it's time for the next step, which is to get sponsorship to hire the Lawyers.

"Employers cannot force employees to give up their rights for a job."

It's done all the time. Ever heard of HIPPA? Exercise your Right of Free Speech in violation of *that*, and Hello Bubba.

And where was the pack of Ambulance Chasers suing Tavern Owners on that? I mean, talk about ringing the Dinner Bell...

"Wisconsin's smoking ban was supported by about two-thirds of Wisconsinites--not exactly a small, special interest group."

I don't recall the vote that was taken on that. Can you supply me with the totals for the general public vote?

> Were you forced to enter these places?

"This is a silly argument. Lots of rights are not waivable.

If you grope a waitress in a tavern, you would be subject to arrest, even if the tavern had posted a sign that said women are agreeing to being groped by entering the tavern. According to you, this violates your rights, the waitress' rights, and the tavern's rights. Employers cannot force employees to give up their rights for a job. Maybe you should try it and find out!"

Sexual Assault is Illegal, and that law has stood review by the Courts. The argument you're rebutting has the TIME PRIOR TO the Ban as it's frame of reference, when smoking in the Tavern WAS NOT ILLEGAL.

Logic like this is why you still can't smoke weed, dude.

"Now you can take your filthy habit outside with the rest of the addicts."

Now what did I say about name-calling? We stop doing that when we leave the Kiddie Table.

As applied to Taverns, any Conservative Court should blow the Smoking Ban out of the water. Hence the divide-and-conquer strategy. And then there's always the possibility that the Politicians, seeing another horrible Defeat being handed to them, will simply modify the Law to make the bad Public Relations go away in the Election Season. They have enough to cling to this November as it is.

"Wisconsin's smoking ban was supported by about two-thirds of Wisconsinites--not exactly a small, special interest group."

Perhaps, however, that INCLUDED Restaraunts. And as a matter of passing Constitutional Muster in Court, that Ban as applied to Taverns will NOT stand. Of course, if the Politicians want to avoid being handed another defeat, they can choose to modify the Law. They have enough to cling to this November as it is.

APPEAL - REPEAL - REVOKE!
APPEAL - REPEAL - REVOKE!
APPEAL - REPEAL - REVOKE!

"We will fight to breathe i guess so you and others can kill yourselves and us."

Do you receive a Paycheck that *depends* upon your failure to comprehend?

"You lost, We won, get over it."

It's far from over, but you'd really like us to believe that, wouldn't you?

"Property owner's rights are always trumped by health issues just the same as tainted food or drink would be."

Ah, yes, the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the United States Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"Smokers SUCK!"

Well, we're not particularly fond of self-appointed child god-kings who would inflict their philosophy upon us, but we stopped calling people names when we left the Kiddie Table.

"Research sposored by Tobacco Companies is Tainted."

Researchers clearly have "cooked the books" on Global Warming Research, so it's possible. However, I now have to disregard YOUR research as well, and for the same reasons.

"It's a Health Issue, not a Property Rights issue"

It is both, however, it does not matter.

Lacking COMPELLING Interest, the Health Issue MUST take a back seat to the Property Rights issue. And in the case of Taverns, where Minors as a rule are prohibited from entry - and where no one else need enter (unlike, say, a Hospital) - THAT is where the people who railroaded this thing through violated a boundary that ought not have been Crossed.

I will not try to argue that there is no Health Issue in contention, even if the numbers on second-hand smoke *do* turn out to be as cooked as the Global Warming research. It simply does not rise to the level of Compelling Interest where Taverns are concerned.

And, yes, employees have to work there. But guess what, they're Adults, and they knew what the Tavern was all about when they signed on. The Constitutional test of Compelling Interest still weighs toward Property Rights, therefore the Health Issue is a moot point.

"The Ban makes Taverns safer."


Well, I don't know about SAFER. What I do know is that last night, a 26 year old lady was on the second floor of the Knuckles & Skyy Club club building, which is where the Smokers were, because they have a retractible roof, so they can smoke there. This contrivance, that was not neccesary to keep business in the bar just one week ago, has directly contributed to her DEATH, as she took a header through the skylight to the first floor.

That's right kids. DEATH.

We now have our first casualty. Can't wait to see the lawsuit on this one...

"The problem with smokers is your filthy self destructive habit affects me, even when you are 10 or 20 feet away from me."

Who forced you to enter a Tavern? Do you go to Taverns? Your dollars don't appear to have Voted for any nonsmoking Taverns, and money speaks rather loudly, I'm told...

“A spoiled saint, a Pharisee, an inquisitor, or a magician, makes better sport in hell than a mere common tyrant or debauchee.”
- C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Tactics, Part II

I lived in Los Angeles when the California Smoking Ban took place. It was very good for restaraunts, and very, very bad for Taverns. The ones who survived did so by ignoring the ban. They put the ashtrays behind the bar, you have to ask for one, it will NOT be offered. They put outdoor security cams on the parking lot and entrances, with monitors where the customers can see them.

The standard of enforcement is that a cop has to see a cig BURNING. A stray ashtray might get the House a ticket, but Enforcement is rare at best anyway, and compared to the cost of going bankrupt...

To the States or any one of them, or any city of the States:
RESIST MUCH, OBEY LITTLE,
Once unquestioning obedience, once fully enslaved,
Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this Earth,
ever afterward resumes its liberty.
--Walt Whitman

Tactics

The site to report violators is http://wibettersmokefree.com/violation - you can go to proxy.org, mask your computer's address though a random proxy, and report random businesses. There is no requirement to supply contact data, although a random pick from the phonebook will waste time and rile up the populace, and there is no penalty of Perjury attached to this.

News you can Use

We MAY have the first Casualty of the Smoking Ban, folks. The relevant section of the law is that part which states that if there is no roof, you can smoke - and a large, open skylight may qualify:

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/woman-falls-14-feet-at-green-bay-club

"She fell approximately 14 feet into Knuckles Bar and Grill, which is directly below Skky Club at 219 Washington Street.

The glass area is used as a ceiling window at Knuckles for people to see through Skky Club, which has a roof that can be opened."

"Once the stale smoke smell has gone, we'll be more than happy to eat out often at any of these establishments."

You keeps spelling B-A-R-S, but it's obvious that you're talking about Restaraunts. Are you intentionally confusing the issue?

"taverns ,restaurants whats the difference?"

Restaraunts are primarily in the business of Food Service, and Minors are not prohibited from entry.

Taverns offer Food as an accommodation to their patrons as a sideline (if they offer food at all), and Minors are barred from entry.

That's a *world* of difference in demonstrating Compelling Interest in restraining the Rights of a Citizen, namely, the Tavern Owner.

Welcome!

This blog is a sort of "Debate Handbook" for those seeking to revoke the new Smoking Ban in Wisconsin's Bars and Taverns. Each post will be a "bullet point" if you will, an argument in favor of the Ban, followed by a response. Most of the "arguments" are drawn from the Reader's Comments in various Wisconsin newspapers.

This blog is not intended to try to convince people who's Profit, Power or Prestige will not allow them to be convinced. It's intended as a forum to get together and get "on message" in preparation for a move to Revoke the Ban in Taverns.

I should state that I feel the need to cleanly split Taverns from Restaraunts on this issue, as a matter of Political Pragmatism. I'm seeking a battle we can WIN, and the vast majority of Restaraunts these days are Corporate Concerns. They have no stake whatsoever in the preservation of Citizen's Rights, only Profit.

So here goes!