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 have a good point - that I don’t deny. There is a chance that if cell phone use while driving was illegal at the time we might not have been hit. Of course, there’s a chance they could’ve been doing something else that would’ve caused them to hit me. I don’t know. I do know there are plenty of hands-free devices that make cell phone use no different than talking while driving. Remember that “distracted driving” is against the law in most places. Citizens pay for those roads, and we expect some measure of safety. If you ask me, people who talk on their cell phones pose a far greater hazard than people driving 46 in a 40.
What happened to the mom & pop restaurants (which happened to have the best food)?
Mob rule. Always a good prospect.
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. That’s an appeal to tradition that you’re using by saying that they are people who value liberty. I assure you plenty of proponents of various anti-smoking policies do in fact value liberty.
I continue to believe that the biggest opponents of smoking bans are themselves smokers. Of course, most of the people who would oppose a Twinkie ban would likely be avid Twinkies eaters. All of them? No, of course not. Again, that’s a bad example, because I don’t think the majority of people would ever support such a nonsensical movement.
What is next is something you hold dear.
Are you suggesting that the United States is ruled by the mob?
Not quite sure what you’re asking, but I didn’t list the various local establishments as unless you’re near me you won’t have any idea what they are.
At what time do we load do we load smokers into boxcars, freedomlover?
A whole lot of us would support your experiment to STFU (to no effect of course).
Thank you for making it all the way to post 8 to judge me.
The Constitution doesn't enumerate individual rights, it enumerates government powers; which people like you have usurped gleefully.
Thank you for letting us know where the forces of freedom need to attack first.
It is........Modesto.
There, all fixed.
Why do you care, and why do you want to legislate your concerns?
The majority on FR are statists.
Don’t talk to me.
Now, what?
“We know what the public wants..”
Yeah right.
Good response to my arguments (or at least the ones you must have read, since your comment shows you don’t understand the others). I like your capability for logical reasoning and ability to produce and convey a civilized counterargument.
By that I mean you’re about as endearing as a bladder infection.
Is it unlawful for any restaurant or tavern to declare themself a no smoking facility? The answer is “no”. No legislation, no laws, nothing is required for this simple expediency. Everything else is sophistry.
You have to ask yourself why the various governments are inclined to pass all or nothing legislation, then. Why do you suppose that is?
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.