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."
You obviously don’t know me. I don’t smoke. Never have, never will. But I am an American Patriot. Retired Army. Voter. Poll Worker. Freedom Lover. Constitution Warrior. :)
You said: “There certainly are concerns of liberty here...”
Yes, there certainly are! But you “rabid Smoke Gnatzies” are pulling your dog out of this fight prematurely. Actually, you’re all going Belly Up and hoping that a bunch of Nanny State Busybodies won’t spank you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper should you DARE to light up in public, LOL!
So get a grip and please realize that these postings are NEVER about “smoking.” They are about ADULTS and BUSINESSES being able to do as they please on private property and in their own businesses. You will find us fighting this fight on many other topics as well...not just smoking.
What are YOU going to do when you’re the next scapegoat? Smokers were the Beta Version of what’s coming down the pike as far as individual freedoms for ADULT, LEGAL substances are concerned. Not to mention your future ability to get health care, be ALLOWED to reproduce if you have any genetic problems, be ALLOWED to live out your life naturally even if you’re a disabled “useless feeder” no longer able to produce tax dollars “for the good of us all.”
Man, you (and other Smoke Gnatzies) just can’t see the forest for the trees.
If tobacco is so bad for us...BAN IT. Tell Mother Government to suck it up and BAN IT and then she can dip even further into YOUR pocket for tax revenue.
It’s all cut from the same cloth, FRiend. Substitute any LEGAL, ADULT “vice” for tobacco and then tell me that I’m not right. (I’ll help you; Alcohol. On-Line Gambling. Hunting on your own land. Building on your own land. Adding a pier to your shoreline. Owning a gun to secure your property. Seatbelt use. Helmet laws. Speed limits. ADULT Porn. Taxes on hunting licenses. Fast food. Take your pick.)
And if you need a list of the Constitutional Rights you’ve already given up since 1780 or so, or the various Constitutional passages that have been b@stardized to suit the agenda of the Left, just let me know.
I am here to educate and serve my fellow Freepers. :)
See my Post #41. I’m surprised that you’re missing the core issue on this one. You seem pretty darn smart to me, Sarge. ;)
See my opus in Post #41. ;)
Where ya been? Modesto routinely bans fireplace use and any fires during times of extreme pollution. You know, little kids getting asthma and bronchial problems inordinately. Oh those meddling tyrants!
Why would you come here out of fear?
The reason that the same arguments keep coming up is that they are sound arguments; not because some are afraid it’s coming to a theatre near them.
Banning smoking is very popular right now as well as being profitable for cities and states since it always seems to be accompanied by a tax increase on the retail sale of cigarettes.
The law of diminishing returns will apply as it does to all grand ideas and the revenues will fall to the governments and then they will go around looking for something else to blame for social illnesses and ban them as well; fast-food drive through lanes are a hot topic in some of the trendiest places.
But I don’t eat at Mackey-Dees so I won’t be bothered, and anyway, that so-called food stinks and you can smell an employee a mile away and boy, do they stink.
3 of 4 people are non-smokers; as long they think that they will be less inconvenienced than the small minority, their conscience will not bother them very much; now if three lions and one wildebeast begin discussing dinner we might see some fur fly.
And others are at the mercy of their rabid smoker-hatred.
Well put, Professer! :)
And a drinker would be upset at the forced prohibition of all alcohol. And your point is...?
I see (now that wheee the people has been banned) the biggest piece of rabid smoker-hating ‘convenient conservative’scum on FR has once again reared their ugly head-and I believe you all know who I’m speaking of.
Happy new year, She!
When are they going to get around to banning Fireplaces, Backyard Fire Pits and Wood Stoves?
*******************************
Where ya been? Modesto routinely bans fireplace use and any fires during times of extreme pollution. You know, little kids getting asthma and bronchial problems inordinately. Oh those meddling tyrants!
____________________________________
at bay, the question was rhetorical...they are banning fireplaces in certain towns in CA ‘just on bad air days’ for now, then it will be most to all days....Liberal baby-steps.
Bans on Outdoor Wood Boilers are sweeping the country, even in the most remote areas, once those have been wiped out sufficiently they will be banning wood stoves and fireplaces next. I hope you can rely on electric, oil or gas for heating [if needed] and have the income to pay for it. It cost over $900 to fill a 275 gal oil tank in MA right now.
I value my wood stove to cut the costs.
Concerning asthma; people are also triggered with asthma for pets, ragweed and pollen - going to ban that too?
Is it you just don’t like people who smoke?
I see you didn’t bother to read my other posts in this thread. As usual, people read one or two posts and immediately resort to name-calling (you are guilty of this). Had you read the rest of my contribution to this thread, you might understand my point. At least I gave you a convenient excuse to wave your Gadsden Flag and rant for a while, which you seem to enjoy. That’s all well and good.
My point remains that smoking bans remain a very emotional subject for many because of the highly addictive nature of cigarettes. I’m sure there are people that simply enjoy smoking, but every time I see people out on a loading dock on a cold rainy day I’m reminded it’s a physical and mental necessity rather than simply for enjoyment. When people get emotional, they quickly lose their ability to debate rationally. Again, read the rest of this thread - there are plenty of valid concerns on the matter.
I would suggest if you’re going to be calling people names like this, you might as well do it privately. Posts like this contribute nothing to the discussion.
Forced prohibition has already been a failure. Two other key differences are that the majority of people who enjoy alcoholic beverages are not dependent on them and a supermajority of Americans drink alcoholic beverages. While I see the parallels, it’s overall a poor comparison.
Smoking bans don’t pass everywhere they’re introduced. Virginia, even as it’s been turning a sickening shade of blue, has twice rejected a statewide smoking ban.
Ahhh, an all knowing NEWBIE...run along now to DU.
Thank you for illustrating your ignorance by not reading this thread. I award you no points.
Now I’ve read your further ignorance and realize that you just feel that anything that causes you to be uncomfortable should be banned (oh, but not alchohol...probably your drug of choice, eh?)
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.