You are sure welcome!!!!!
Posted on 01/06/2008 7:23:28 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Although France, a country known as much for its smoky cafes as its patisseries, recently snuffed out smoking in all public places, smoking opponents in Wisconsin are facing an uphill struggle to muscle a similar proposal through the state Legislature with only a couple of months left before adjournment.
The bill, which would ban smoking in all Wisconsin restaurants and bars, is poised to get its first scheduled vote Tuesday in the Senate Committee on Public Health, Senior Issues, Long Term Care and Privacy. But Sen. Roger Breske, D-Eland, a former tavern owner, wants to exempt bars from the bill, and Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Schofield, has said he would not schedule a full vote on the Senate floor until Breske is able to reach a compromise on that issue with Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, the bill's author.
Risser said Friday he has had several conversations with Breske, but the two have not reached any compromise. Neither Breske nor Decker returned phone calls for comment.
Introduced in April by Risser, the bill was initially buoyed by the support of the Wisconsin Restaurant League, which had opposed repeated previous efforts to implement a statewide smoking ban, and Gov. Jim Doyle, who announced plans last January to push for a ban and a $1.25 hike in the cigarette tax. But when Sen. Judy Robson, D-Beloit, was ousted in October as Senate majority leader in favor of Decker, the bill's fortunes changed.
Alison Prange of the American Cancer Society and other supporters of a comprehensive statewide smoking ban say they are confident the bill would pass if it made it to the floor of the state Senate or Assembly.
"We feel very good about our chances," she said Friday.
Doyle spokesman Matt Canter said the proposal remains a key issue for the governor, who intends to continue working to get it passed by both houses of the Legislature.
"The governor hopes and expects to have action in the beginning of this year," Canter said. "We believe we have the votes. This was part of our effort to raise the price of smoking and create smoke-free facilities all across the state."
John Miller, spokesman for Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, declined to say whether the speaker supported the bill or an exemption for taverns.
"He's going to wait to see what they come up with," Miller said in reference to the state Senate.
Prange said that if the bill passes the Senate committee Tuesday, "there will be a pretty strong outcry if there's not an up or down vote on the floor."
"It's going to be interesting," she added, "because we know what the public wants, and it's a matter of whether the Legislature is listening."
Border crossing
Illinois and Minnesota have recently passed smoking bans, and a similar proposal has passed one house in the Michigan legislature. Doyle has said Wisconsin will become the "ashtray of the Midwest" if the state does not follow suit.
Phil Hanson of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association has similar concerns about uniformity. He said his group decided about a year ago to support a full ban because it "wanted to level the paying field for all establishments in the food and beverage industry."
Hanson said he also fears that if the state Legislature doesn't act this session, more and more localities will move to pass their own bans, which could drive customers across nearby borders.
"There are 33 local ordinances already in place, and we know there will be more of those," he said.
Bill supporters point out that a surprising coalition of business, public health and tourism groups have come together to support the bill, including the American Cancer Society, Smoke Free Wisconsin, American Lung Association of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Tourism Federation, Wisconsin Innkeepers Association and Wisconsin Restaurant Association.
The state Ethics Board Web page lists the Wisconsin Tavern League, Wisconsin Wine and Spirit Institute, Wisconsin Amusement and Music Operators, Cigar Association of America Inc. and Bowling Centers Association of Wisconsin as opposed to the bill, though the Tavern League has been the only group to mount a significant fight.
According to Mike Buelow, research director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a watchdog group, Breske and Decker led Senate Democrats in recent years in campaign contributions from the Tavern League's political action committee and conduit. Unlike a PAC, a conduit is not restricted by the size or number of contributions from individuals, which are bundled into one large check for candidates.
Between Jan. 1, 2003, and July 1, 2007, Breske received $12,782 and Decker received $7,858 from the Tavern League's PAC and conduit, according to Buelow. The state Senate Democratic Committee received $6,030 during the same period.
Risser, on the other hand, received no money from the group. Nor did Robson, who championed the smoking ban as Senate majority leader before her ouster. But Buelow pointed out that the state Senate Democratic Committee did receive a lot of the money under Robson's watch.
Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said the Tavern League does not carry the same weight as political heavy-hitters Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), but it is nevertheless "an influential lobby."
"I wouldn't consider them insignificant at all, and I think money is part of what is behind their influence," McCabe said. "They have helped a fair amount of people get into office, and they have legislators who are loyal to them."
they opened the mom and pop sex shops...
Elk, my friend, please calm down.
While flint and I are not in total agreement on this, we have had an extremely civil and pleasant discussion on this issue today.
That is what we have wanted for years! This smoke or not to smoke should have been left up to the business owner and his patrons, and NOT city councils OR state government!!!!!
You are sure welcome!!!!!
Crawled out from under your rock, did we?
Huckabee supported and signed into law the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2006, which prohibits smoking in most Arkansas workplaces. He said the other night that he supports banning smoking in all public spaces. I could never vote for Huckabee because he would only further perpetuate the discrimination and hostility towards smokers. When you consider that 20% of the American voters smoke, I do not believe he can be elected by offending such a large segment of the population. By his stand on smoking he has also demonstrated to me that he is not an independent thinker. If he had done his own research on secondhand smoke, he would have discovered that there is a great number of credible studies proving that secondhand smoke is not harmful. We have to spread the word that he will be hostile to smokers.
Huckabee supported and signed into law the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2006, which prohibits smoking in most Arkansas workplaces. He said the other night that he supports banning smoking in all public spaces. I could never vote for Huckabee because he would only further perpetuate the discrimination and hostility towards smokers. When you consider that 20% of the American voters smoke, I do not believe he can be elected by offending such a large segment of the population. By his stand on smoking he has also demonstrated to me that he is not an independent thinker. If he had done his own research on secondhand smoke, he would have discovered that there is a great number of credible studies proving that secondhand smoke is not harmful. We have to spread the word that he will be hostile to smokers.
Who CARES?? It’s gone, that’s all I care about. GOP_Lady brought it to my attention. I checked-gone. ;^D
Because the real driver is the big restaurant chains that don't want to compete with smoking restaurants and don't want to divide their tables between smoking and nonsmoking.
Then we are in complete agreement, we have nothing to argue about. But I suspect you know that the “all or nothing” legislation is designed specifically to crush the free market?
A referendum supporting the abolition of property rights is no more legitimate than abolition of property rights by government fiat.
I made clear throughout this thread that the people only have the power to control that which they, through their tax dollars, fund. This does not include restaurants or other private property.
I hope you’re not “addicted” to the practice of Christianity. The same tools that many on FR celebrate being used against smokers, are already being used against Christianity. Here is but one example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1947758/posts
“What About the Children?—Is Religion Child Abuse?”
You must not frequent the types of businesses that I frequent. In fact, the only businesses that struggle in my area are the locally owned businesses that have gone smoke free. The large chains do well with smoke bans, but the locally owned, smaller restaurants and bars do not survive.
Personally, I like places with personality and neighborhood ties, as a result I will fight these bans tooth and nail. Heck, on one intersection in my neighborhood, there are 4 bars. One is smoke free, one is very good at controlling the air and it is very clean for a smoking allowed place, the third is a very smokey, blue collar place and the fourth allows smoking but I have never entered. The only one that has to run ads and specials in the local mailers is the smoke free venue. The only one that seems to always have an empty parking lot is the smoke free venue.
Seems the market in my area doesn’t support the market in your area. Heck, let the markets work in both areas and then we can all be happy. Why should we support the destruction of capitalism?
“Restaurants can decide this on their own if market forces dictate as such (and many have).”
This is the ONLY valid solution for this situation. Now, considering that you are on the same side as the original poster of this article, why do you feel the need to emotionally attack those of us that feel the same?
“The only customers that pleased was the smokers because the smoke was still there.”
I’m amazed that the non-smoking customers kept subjecting themselves to such displeasure. I would suggest that most of the non-smoking customers simply didn’t find it so displeasurable. Instead, they found it a worthy experience of going back and spending more of their money.
“I assure you plenty of proponents of various anti-smoking policies do in fact value liberty.”
These proponents are the same folks being duped by the Globull Warming theorocrats.
You asked: Who defines what a “public place” is? How do public places and private property overlap?
***
I think public places should be defined as places owned by the government. Typically, people who business in such places do not have a market freedom not to go there.
Private places are places that are privately owned, and as such, the owners should decide whether, where and when smoking may or may not be done on their property, considering the owners’ preferences and market impacts.
I don’t smoke, don’t care much for it but can stand it if it is not too thick in confined areas, but this is a matter that ought to be left to the owner of the property in question— including the represenatives of the public entity that owns public property.
All of that said, smoking is not a right, at least not a fundamental right— but it is closer to being a right than the “right” to health care or the “right” to housing. If smoking is a right, then there is a corresponding right not to smoke or to be forced to inhale it or have it cling to one’s clothes. I think smokers overplayed their hands not all that many years ago when smokers were in the majority and pretty much smoked at will whenever and whereever they wanted. Now, the majority is non-smoking, and they are overplaying THEIR hand, seeking to ban smoking from property that they do not own. The pendulum will swing back a few more times before an uneasy equilibrium is reached.
Agreed. I made most of those points throughout the rest of this thread, just not as concisely as you did.
Agreed. I made most of those points throughout the rest of this thread, just not as concisely as you did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.