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."
Perhaps it’s little more than coincidence that the biggest opponents of smoking bans are heavy smokers.
My experience before the anti-property rights crowd gained ascendancy and banned smoking altogether was the same as yours.
There was, more often than not, a wait for seating in the smoking section.
That's an interesting comment, considering the FReeper who posted this article and expressed her opposition to the ban is a NON smoker................
Same in Nevada.. before the smoking “ban” (Its being ignored for the most part)
When we were allowed to smoke in restaurants the smoking section was ALWAYS full and the non section was quiet/empty.
We have to wait for non smoking too. Wonder if it’s the type of restaurant...we tend to frequent kid friendly chain type places.
It is curious that she is so active in smoking-related threads, is it not? My point remains the same, however: the majority of the most vocal opponents of smoking bans are heavy smokers.
Many places don’t even have smoking sections anymore (not that they do much anyway). From what I can recall, the “standard American fare” places that my family visits such as Outback, Chili’s, Applebee’s, Glory Days, Sweetwater (some of which are local), and so on are invariably “seat yourself significantly sooner” if you want to sit nearer to the smokers. I guess I also frequent the same type of places, so it’s hard to say. Most other places I go to (Italian and Japanese restaurants for the most part) are almost all non-smoking, so I can’t make a comparison there.
It's been our right for many years, Flint. When you lose one of your rights, don't come crying to us! We don't want to hear it.
I do not find it curious, there are many others that are non-smokers, but see this issue for what it is --- further government encroachment in our lives.
This is not about smokers, rather it is about too much meddling by government and nanny-state busybodies who think they know what is best.
The only sort of smoking ban I would support is one in which the people decide through voter referendum that they would prefer it. And I’m not talking a 51-49 vote. I don’t want city councils deciding this, I don’t want state legislatures deciding this, and I certainly don’t want the federal government deciding this because I don’t think it’s within their power. Restaurants can decide this on their own if market forces dictate as such (and many have).
You know, the problem with these types of issues is that they get to be way too emotional.
I’ve already acknowledged that there are liberty concerns here. It’s a very fine line, one that I don’t think government should be even thinking about walking. Suppose a relatively benign “public places” smoking ban is passed - one that would be supported by a two-thirds majority, for example. The danger comes not in that ban itself, but in government and those who want nothing more than to rule our lives (Clintonistas, for example) using that as precedent. Who defines what a “public place” is? How do public places and private property overlap?
Those are certainly legitimate concerns and as I said I would prefer the market dictate de facto smoking bans (as in restaurants say no smoking here if they find it’s better for business). Certain places can cater to smokers if there’s a market for it. I won’t go there. It’s really quite simple. It is my personal belief that many people oppose these bans because of a physical and emotional attachment to cigarettes rather than the above reasons. I also happen to believe that the very vocal minority of smokers prevent restaurants from following the wants of the majority (nonsmokers). That is what it is, and until they are more vocal about opposing smoking it’s not going to change. (I say again that only the people or the market should decide this.)
This statement of yours seems to be in conflict with the final sentence of your paragraph:
Restaurants can decide this on their own if market forces dictate as such (and many have).
A voter referendum forcing a smoking ban is really no different than a government entity enacting a ban. It is still someone else dictating to business owners.
The best referendum is the market. People "vote" with their wallets by not patronizing establishments with policies they do not like. And as you correctly point out, many restaurants have already adopted this policy on their own. Why force all to be the same?
We are pretty much in a greement with each other, except for one small point. You speak of the wants of the smokers and the non-smokers, but what about the wants of the owner of the establishment.
One of the very vocal opponents to the statewide ban in Delaware owned a very popular restaurant and bar, that was totally non-smoking. His argument was that the proponents of the ban were going to take away the market he had created for himself. He was correct.
FMCDH(BITS)
I suppose that in the presence of such a ban, he would need another way to attract customers. Again, the market should decide this; if his biggest draw is that his establishment is smoke-free he should provide better food, beverages, and prices, for example. Similarly, establishments that were previously smoking establishments now need to attract more people to compensate for the business that they lose. It goes both ways, though that is an interesting point.
I should specify that I mentioned the distinction between public places and private property is an open and very difficult question. That’s why I try to take care not to contradict myself. As far as the people deciding, I also make the distinction between a voter majority directly voting on something and elected officials voting on something. As you know it is quite possible for government to vote on something (and approve of something) that is not supported by their constituents or even a majority of the country as a whole.
Psst... I've even heard that teetotalers favor prohibition. Don't tell anyone.
But the wuaestion remains, why should either establishment, the non-smoking or smoking, be forced to change their particular business model that had been working for them by something other than the free market?
I understand your point in regard to who is doing the voting, however it still comes down to a matter of why should you have the right to vote to decide my clientele?
Chimney people, please listen
You don't know what you're missin'.
Best look for your rights as enumerated in the Constitution rather that in your imagination.
Now France, Germany, Bangladesh, OMGTIJOIA! (Oh my God, the injustice of it all!)
And I supported your bid to quit smoking and will support another experiment, perhaps this time for good...the experiment, I mean.
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.