Smoking Ban Dragging? Bill Faces Fight, but Gets 1st Vote Tuesday (WI)

Madison.com ^ | January 5, 2008 | Judith Davidoff

[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."

[NCLaw441]

I had the benefit of reviewing the entire thread, but I have made these points many times on prior threads, sometimes well-received and sometimes not so much.

[Eric Blair 2084]

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself. The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible, or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated. It essentially requires a system of checks and balances, like that explicitly incorporated in our Constitution..."

-- Milton Friedman, The New Liberal's Creed: Individual Freedom, Preserving Dissent Are Ultimate Goals," May 18, 1961

[Eric Blair 2084]

You’ve made your points. The smell of smoke stinks. Only I like it.

But the fetid breath of tyranny and government control smells a lot worse.

[timm22]

Well, as I’m sure you know, the anti-smoking lobby believes it’s their liberty (a right to clean air or some such) that they’re fighting for. ... I assure you plenty of proponents of various anti-smoking policies do in fact value liberty.

I think that's true in many cases. However, I think the anti-smoking side comes to the wrong conclusions about liberty. Their right to smoke-free air does not include forcing others to provide them with such an environment on private property, any more than my right to free speech requires others to provide me with a microphone or an attentive ear.

I don't hold them entirely responsible for this mistake since the political, legal, and educational establishment in this country has made a concerted effort to distort the understanding of both individual rights and private property in this country.

Of course, I suspect that there are also some smoking-ban advocates who are motivated primarily by a desire to increase their own profits or to simply increase their own convenience. However, as I will explain below, this does not particularly bother me.

I continue to believe that the biggest opponents of smoking bans are themselves smokers.

First, let me say that I am a frequent (and hopefully, somewhat persuasive) contributor to these threads...and I am a nonsmoker.

Respectfully...what difference does it make if the opponents are smokers or not? Arguments are either valid or they are not. They gain no more or no less legitimacy depending on who is proposing them.

I can understand bringing up an advocate's motivation when the issue involves empirical claims or studies. Since numbers can be fabricated and study methods flawed, it makes sense to know something of the person presenting the data. But even then, bringing attention to the advocate's possible ulterior motives can serve only as a call to increased scrutiny, not to an outright rejection of the data. In this debate, which is largely based on political philosophy, I don't really see the point in bringing up hidden interests. If an argument's reasoning is sound, it is sound even coming from a smoker.

As for the emotionalism in the debate, I will concede that from some individuals it may just be a result of having their habit threatened. But it is just as conceivable, if not more so, that people are legitimately outraged at a clear abuse of government power. Though my written contributions to these threads are often bland and excruciatingly long-wided, rest assured that I am shouting at the monitor and waving my arms whenever I read certain responses...and again, I am a nonsmoker!

Consider what the supporters of smoking bans are proposing- that we abrogate the rights of a property owner to address a "danger" that is easily discoverable, easily avoided, and a mere nuisance. That in itself should be able to inspire irrational reactions from anyone who values freedom, smoker or not.

[timm22]

I suggest referendums, by the way, as a way to allow the public to voice their opinions on matters which they are qualified to judge.

Just to clarify, you do not believe that the public has a general power to control the use of private property through referendum, correct?

So for example, the public is not qualified to judge on the menu selection, decorations, or service quality of a private restaurant through referendum.
(I leave open certain specific restrictions, such as sanitary conditions or building safety condtions)

[timm22]

What is your personal position on smoking bans? Would you vote for one?

[flintsilver7]

I’ve made it clear throughout this thread that I do not support such legislation pertaining to private property.

[timm22]

Ok. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but it was a little confusing due to the sequence of the posts.

[flintsilver7]

That’s my fault. I often have to explain my intent multiple times, which tells me I should be clearer at first.

[SheLion]

Thanks for this information, Eric!

[Raycpa]

No, but I must admit I like the outcome of the votes.

[timm22]

No, but I must admit I like the outcome of the votes.

Since you are also opposed to smoking bans, perhaps you could recommend some more effective arguments that could be used by our side?

[elkfersupper]

Elk, my friend, please calm down.

No, thank you.

Compromise and reasonable discussion is what got us to where we are today.

[Raycpa]

I have but the smoking folks don’t want to here them because they deny they contribute to the problem. In short, my proposal is for the smokers to become more considerate and launch a nation wide PR campaign of being polite smokers.

Unfortunately, the smokers on this forum are in denial about the affect they have on others or don’t give a crap. They prefer to address an issue that the other side doesn’t give a crap about because all they want is consideration for their space.

[timm22]

I have but the smoking folks don’t want to here them because they deny they contribute to the problem. In short, my proposal is for the smokers to become more considerate and launch a nation wide PR campaign of being polite smokers.

Interesting idea, and not without its merits. As part of this campaign, do you think it is reasonable for smokers to request certain venues where they can smoke as they please? In other words, do you think this scenario is fair:

Smokers are generally considerate and polite, checking with nearby nonsmokers before they light up under reasonable circumstances. However, smokers are allowed to have some places that are "smoker friendly", meaning that they can relax and just smoke if they please.

It's kind of the same thing that parents of small children have. Generally, there is an expectation that their kids will behave themselves and stay relatively quiet. However, there are places like Chuck E. Cheese (a kid's restaurant), bring-your-baby matinees, and church "cry rooms" available for them that allow kids to be kids. These places give parents a break from the stress of keeping their kids in line all the time. Smokers would have similar areas, for example, bars that are traditionally very smoky.

Fair deal?

Unfortunately, the smokers on this forum are in denial about the affect they have on others or don’t give a crap.

I can't account for all smokers on this forum, but most of the ones I know at least claim to be polite when in the company of nonsmokers. The exceptions I generally see are usually a reaction to particularly rude posters or a reaction to the militant nonsmoker. By militant non-smoker, I mean the type of person who would walk from one end of a public park to the other to complain about someone holding an unlit cigarette.

Also, keep in mind that some of us are nonsmokers, myself included.

They prefer to address an issue that the other side doesn’t give a crap about because all they want is consideration for their space.

What is the issue the "other side doesn't give a crap about"? Should the other side give a crap about this issue?

[swarthyguy]

That is certainly the blueprint along with the fake SHS data pushed onto the media by the WHO etc.

But, see, you have to understand the antismoking jihad in its full context.

After the events of September 11 2001, when evil, dastardly and despicable smokers brought down the World Trade Centers and seriously damaged the Pentagon, America turned decisively against the perpetrators of these heinous acts.

Smokers.

Then, on to Iraq. Why?

Saddam smoked big fat cigars all the time.

Heard the news about a RI school wanting to RFID enabled backpacks for all the chillun?

HAHAHAHA! Inshallah, Mullah!