Wisconsin lawmakers are forcing workplaces, with a few exceptions, to be smoke-free by July 5, 2010.
The day following Independence Day in 2010, the government will trample on the freedom of individuals.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
A statewide workplace smoking ban that includes restaurants and taverns will start July 5, 2010, according to a deal reached Wednesday in the Legislature.
The measure is expected to pass next week and be signed into law by Gov. Jim Doyle.
All workplaces would be smoke-free under the bill before the Legislature. Legislative leaders, smoking ban advocates and the Tavern League of Wisconsin agreed to the changes to the proposal, which is now on a fast track.
With little opposition remaining, the bill is set for a vote Wednesday in both houses of the Legislature.
Supporters, who called the ban a major public health protection, had been pushing for an earlier start date. But owners of taverns and other businesses said they needed more time to prepare for the change.
"As soon as this bill takes effect, it will start saving lives of our citizens and saving money for our taxpayers," said Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison), who sponsored the ban with Reps. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) and Al Ott (R-Forest Junction).
The ban won't start saving lives as soon as it's in place.
Some smokers won't stop. They just won't be allowed to do it in the workplace, restaurants and bars.
As far as saving taxpayers money, that's a joke.
Does anyone really think that the money not collected from taxing tobacco products will remain in the pockets of the public?
A new tax on something else will take its place.
The government has no intention of cutting back spending because it won't be collecting as much revenue from the tobacco tax.
And how would the smoking ban start "saving money for our taxpayers" as soon as the bill takes effect if you don't buy cigarettes in the first place?
Under the proposal:
• Taverns, restaurants, hotels and other businesses would have more than a year to prepare for a ban. Existing cigar bars and tobacco shops would be exempt. Casinos run by the state's Indian tribes wouldn't be covered.
• Individuals caught smoking in workplaces would face fines ranging from $100 to $250. Business owners wouldn't be penalized if they attempt to stop people from smoking or commit a first violation but would see $100 fines for subsequent offenses.
• Local governments would not be allowed to pass ordinances stricter than the state law except on government-owned properties.
• Taverns, restaurants and other businesses would be allowed to create outdoor smoking areas.
How convenient that casinos run by Indian tribes, Jim Doyle's buddies, wouldn't be covered by the ban!
That's good news for those establishments. Of course, that means at casinos there would no "saving lives of our citizens and saving money for our taxpayers." I guess you win some, you lose some.
According to Risser, the casinos are "independent nations," and we "do not have the ability by law to outlaw smoking in casinos."
Independent nations?
Does the state have the ability to outlaw other behaviors in casinos, like prostitution? Maybe someone should look into that.
The proposal includes fines for individuals caught violating the ban. Will there be new "smoking ban patrols" to swoop down on the lawbreakers? Will the government depend on whistleblowers to find the evildoers?
The ban is not going to be easy to enforce.
The Tavern League of Wisconsin had opposed the bill but worked to reach a compromise with lawmakers and smoking ban advocates brought together by Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Waunakee). League President Rob Swearingen, owner of the Al-Gen Supper Club in Rhinelander, said the implementation delay was important because it would allow tavern owners time to prepare for the change, as well as give the economy time to improve.
"We're hoping they will make that adjustment, get their customers ready, get themselves ready," he said, adding that the league represents 5,000 "mom-and-pop" taverns. "I hope there's not going to be any hardship on our people."
Advocates had been pushing for an earlier start date but said the deal was a workable one.
"In a perfect world, there would be no exceptions and no delays," said Maureen Busalacchi, executive director of SmokeFree Wisconsin. "But that said, our priority is to protect employees and their right to breathe smoke free air at work."
The ban has the support of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, which said it will provide a level playing field for restaurants and taverns.
"It appears we finally have Wisconsin's business community united in support of smoke-free air," Ed Lump, president and chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, said in a statement.
This is silly: "[T]he implementation delay was important because it would allow tavern owners time to prepare for the change."
What do they have to do to prepare? Do they need a year to remove ashtrays?
Moreover, how do we know a year will be enough time for the economy to improve?
I think the Wisconsin Restaurant Association's stand that the ban will provide a "level playing field for restaurants and taverns" is goofy.
Level playing field?
What is that?
Maybe to level the playing field all restaurant owners should share their recipes and specialties. Why stop there? Maybe they could share their earnings. That would really level things. The government could set prices and determine menu offerings, too. Make all restaurants equal. Take away choice.
I'm not a smoker.
I prefer not to be around smokers. But I don't think that the state should impose this ban.
Selling and smoking cigarettes and cigars isn't illegal. I think the individual business owners should decide if they want to allow smoking in their establishments.
Let each business be a sort of "independent nation."
Let people decide for themselves if they want to patronize or work for these "independent nations."
The ban is intrusive.
As much as I'm bothered by smoking, I oppose it.
___________________
Ex-smoker Eugene Kane declares the ban to be a good thing.
Quitting smoking was the best move I ever made, but it probably took way too long to come to that decision, health-wise. Hopefully, we can give today's smokers a lot more incentive by cutting down on the number of places where they can kill themselves.
"Nanny" Kane should butt out, or he should be consistent, health-wise.
Perhaps the government should cut down on the number of places where women are allowed to kill their babies. Such a move would start saving lives right away.
7 comments:
In downtown Waukesha, the House of Guinness, an Irish pub, has banned smoking. I was there a couple times in the last two months and the place was as packed as ever. I think the time has come to ban smoking in confined public places.
I think that allowing smoking in such places is allowing the smokers to trample the rights of the rest of us to breathe clean air.
Ordinances banning disturbance of the peace -- like making noise in a residential area late at night -- have been standard for years. A smoking ban is no different.
If smoke was merely annoying, that would be one thing, but the fact that it is very unhealthy tips the balance for me, surely.
I think private business owners should not be stripped of the right to determine whether they want to allow smoking on their property.
Let the free market play out.
As you note, no smoking places are very popular.
I have avoided places because they were too smoke-filled. They lost my business. Then again, all the smokers weren't bothered. They were happy to be there.
Smart business owners will do what's good for their businesses. They should be permitted to appeal to their clientelle.
I'm not in favor of an across the board ban.
If you don't like the air, breathe somewhere else.
It only took one winter to drive smokers inside many neighborhood bars here in Chicago. I see the same thing happening before January 2011 in WI. unless global warming kicks in first.
This is stupid this causes all of the smokers to be excluded from things that non- somkers get inside like heat for instance. There should not be a ban it should be the owners choice. If you don't like smoke stay out of the places allow it and don't work there, then it becomes your fault for breating it.
I agree Mary. This issue is not about smoking. In this day and age it is easy to avoid cigarette smoke. Most businesses other than bars went smoke free on their own. This is nothing but an attempt by the state at social engineering and striping property rights. After all if you can declare a bar "public space" you have just declared the Fifth amendment of the United States no longer valid. Same for the Wisconsin Constitution. Private property for public use. SECTION 13. The property
of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation. What's next? Here is a preview of my blog that will be posted Monday after the bill is signed.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/peoples-republic-of-madison/?preview=true&preview_id=425&preview_nonce=a030a1cd5e
"I think that allowing smoking in such places is allowing the smokers to trample the rights of the rest of us to breathe clean air."
Nothing is forcing anyone to frequent establishments that allow smoking. I suppose we had better ban coal plants and vehicles as well. They trample our right to breathe clean air as well.
We have a tavern owned by 2 people with no employees. Whose workplace is being protected?
Neither of us smokes, but almost all of our patrons do. If it was a wise business decision to ban smoking in the tavern, then we would ban smoking in the tavern. Dane County Wisconsin's smoking ban went into effect on Saturday. Our gross receipts were off by 50%. It was probably just a coincidence, right?
Post a Comment