NEWS
Debate continues over smoking ban
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Emily Smolarek:
- Turn off all cell phones... in locker room (October 31, 2007)
- Bill would divvy up state budget (October 18, 2007)
- Officials: Reduce achievement gap (October 4, 2007)
- Debate continues over smoking ban (September 24, 2007)
- Youth pledge allegiance (September 14, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Illinois says 'Yes' to smoking ban (May 3, 2007)
- State ponders smoking ban (April 7, 2006)
- Restaurants in, taverns out on smoking ban (February 8, 2007)
- Smoking ban fight heats up (April 19, 2007)
- Senator hopes to light up ban (February 27, 2007)
by Emily Smolarek
Monday, September 24, 2007
A proposal calling for smoking to be banned in all public areas — restaurants and taverns included — is currently being discussed in the Wisconsin Capitol.
The proposed bill has requirements similar to existing statewide bans in Minnesota and Illinois and would only allow individuals over 18 to smoke in personal areas, including homes and cars.
Sara Briganti, a spokesperson for state Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, said the bill was proposed to better the health of Wisconsin residents.
"[The bill] supports good public health for residents, and has proved to be very popular," Briganti said.
The bill, Briganti said, has other benefits such as lowering health care costs for the state.
Scott Becher, a spokesperson for state Rep. Steve Wieckert, R-Appleton, said if the bill is passed by the Assembly in October, there would be continued support followed by a vote in the Senate.
Becher called the smoking ban "a good public policy issue," and he added that many states have laws similar to the one proposed in Wisconsin.
"[A ban] is already in the vast majority of the U.S.," Becher said. "In 1984, it was revolutionary for the workplace to be smoke-free. Today, it is very uncommon for smoking to be allowed at work."
Smoking bans have already been introduced in several municipalities in the state, including Madison, which passed the measure in 2005.
"[The ban] is very popular in our district," Briganti said, calling it "a well-liked ordinance."
Becher said Wieckert is a very active person, who is concerned about people's wellness. Wieckert supports the statewide ban, Becher added, because of the success of the smoking ban in Wieckert's hometown of Appleton.
But there is some opposition to a statewide smoking ban, due in part to the concern it would harm businesses throughout Wisconsin.
Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said the legislation could severely harm small businesses.
"It's the government telling [businesses] what they can and can't do, which is wrong, even though the goal may be admirable," Suder said.
Bard Woerishofer, manager of The Brew House, a restaurant and bar in Hartland, Wis., said his business could be adversely affected if the smoking ban passed.
"[The ban] affects customers in both ways," Woerishofer said. "We would lose some customers and gain some customers with the ban."
Suder said the vast differences in political and economic climate across the state makes the ban more beneficial in some areas than others.
"What may work for Madison may not work for Northern or North Central Wisconsin," Suder said.
The smoking ban could have a final vote as early as next month.
Anonymous (September 24, 2007 @ 11:07am):
Good. Ban smoking. Make it completely illegal. I'd vote for it.
Thomas Laprade (September 24, 2007 @ 8:00pm):
If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.
Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Anonymous (September 24, 2007 @ 8:16pm):
Please government I am a idiot! Tell me how to live a long long long long long long boring boring boring life.
Sam Nettles (September 24, 2007 @ 8:25pm):
OVERVIEW
God is surely lurking behind the crack in the Liberty Bell. Bans are un-american and so are proponents.
Sam Nettles (September 24, 2007 @ 8:28pm):
Murder, rape, robbery, sexual obsession, phony community betterment, bans, government intrusion, dominant money interests, self righteous power, arrogant and immature leadership, unfair taxation, uneducated control, idolatry, prejudice, bias, smokescreen issues, complacency, economic idiocy, disrespectful patronage, meaningless protocol, spinning free speech, deaf to truth ears, prohibition, false prophets, Godless interpretations of the Word and invalid instruction about what God wants, all endanger America and perhaps the entire world.
Surely God is lurking behind the crack in the Liberty Bell.
Sam Nettles - mailto:samnett@msn.com
Real Texas Freedom - http://www.realtexasfreedom.net
RTF Blog - http://realtexasfreedom.blogspot.com/
Anonymous (September 24, 2007 @ 10:10pm):
Wieckert is acting as a lemming for an intrusive tyrannical monster, a virus in society which needs to be cured; we know it as public health. Not the bricks and mortar and medical treatments which immediately come to mind when the name is used, this is a an for profit enterprise, with a crafted name operating out of The World Health Organization with the former Eugenics society now calling themselves the Galton Institute contributing to policy decisions as an active partner in crime. Wieckert should be made an example of, by pointing out; he is in favour of government intrusions into the last personal domain in a society barely clinging to Liberty and freedom, your own body!!!!
This should be seen as a danger not only to smokers but to all of us regardless of the smell, those in the majority detest. No one can claim the dangers of smoking are not well known and a choice to smoke is done so in accordance with a fundamental right to do as you wish with your own body.
No one is harmed by cigarette smoke, who has not made a choice to inhale it, when a warning sign is attached prominently on the door.
Employees also have a right to work where they feel safe; compensation demands should be the only defining point which indicates acceptance of the working environment.
No one can still legitimately claim the dangers of smoking are not well known. We read about the dangers in the papers every day. "New" sensationalized research is presented everywhere you look, with the science found in statistical theories and political reasoning, none of which defines genuine knowledge. In its precipitous definition, presentations are accepted by the media groups as "science" which in reality are only the many redesigned calculations and statistical contortions created specifically to sell the smoke free, fat free or any other "not exactly free" campaigns. Media groups can not hide from the fact; they in return profit from the Public Health campaigns precipitously.
People find value which exceeds the price of purchase in the enjoyment of a cigarette or in a Big Mac. Enjoyment they define for themselves. Someone who does not smoke does not understand what is being purchased. They are only aware of the dangers which define their decisions to not make those purchases.
Vilification of "people" and not an industry [as Public Health Scare authorities claim is the case]; for purchasing a legal product and punishing people for what is defined as an addiction, is so wrong in so many ways, it underscores entirely the wisdom of the sources who provoke smoking bans and cigarette taxes. The targeted demographic in this case is the poor and the elderly who comprise the majority of smokers, the increased poverty created through financially punishing an addiction will have undeniable deficit effects on us all, both those immediately recognized, and more dangerously in the subtle inspirations of hatred, as we become less tolerant and forgiving of each others choices.
Banning smoking on private property is an invasion of governments on rights they do not legitimately control. If a sign on the door settles the matter of choice for non smokers and employees, why are legislated smoking bans even an issue?
A smoking Ban is a moralist cult imposition, we should see for what it really is; a theft of the property rights of individuals, to coerce the decision making rights in domain over ones own body, by making life for someone who chooses to smoke as difficult as possible. Wieckert provokes a return to the Tambourines and claims of moral turpitudes found laughably in our past.
Forcing a decision which belongs with personal autonomy and a person's ultimate right to choose, is already known to be poorly considered. Or do we have to reconsider Roe VS Wade once more at Wieckert's behest?
Steve Hartwell (September 24, 2007 @ 10:40pm):
The claims by anti-smokers about Second Hand Smoke is Junk Science.
Littlewood & Fennell
Independent public and health policy research group
Austin, Texas
1999
NUMBER OF CIGARETTES NEEDED TO
REACH DANGEROUS LEVELS OF POLLUTION
IN AN ENCLOSED ENVIRONMENT
Estimated number of cigarettes required to reach TLV levels from side stream
smoke emission of selected chemicals in a sealed and unventilated 100 m3
enclosure (Gori and Mantel, 1991)
(Please note: 100 m3 are equivalent to a room 22' x 21' x 8' ceiling, or 3,696 cubic feet)
Methyl chloride 1,170
Hydroquinone 1,250
Cadmium 1,430
Acetaldehyde 1,430
Acetic Acid 1,660
Nitrogen oxides 1,780
Phormic Acid 1,790
Pyridine 4,100
Phenol 7,600
Methylamine 13,000
Benzene 13,300
Catecol 16,500
Nickel 40,000
Diethylamide 50,000
Hydrazine 145,000
Acetone 178,000
Benzo(a)pyrene 222,000
2-Toluidine 300,000
Polonium 750,000
Toluene 1,000,000
TLV = Threshold Limit Value. It is the threshold used in the USA, a
country with most restrictive standards for toxic exposure.
[*] Side Stream Smoke is the smoke from the cigarette released right downstream of the hot
tip. That type of smoke is the worst, since the chemical catalysis processes that occur a
few instants after the smoke leaves the burning tip still have to blend with the surrounding
air (in short, before becoming real passive smoke). But it is very unlikely that non-smokers
stand motionless 4 inches directly above the tip of a cigarette, as the sensor was positioned
for these measurements. Thus even the number of cigarettes estimated above to reach the
safety limits is understated.
[**] EPA data1990a, Table C-2, pages C-19, 20
[***] Based on the lower exposure limit for tar volatile compounds
[****] EPA 1990b
If the scenario described in the table above were undertaken in real
life, the smokers in the room would run out of oxygen long before
reaching the limit for methyl chloride.
Nothing is Risk-Free.
It is the AMOUNT of Risk one needs to know.
The Relative Risk of Second Hand Smoke is 1.17 to 2.0, far below the widely
accepted Statistically Significant RR of 3.0 for everything else.
EVEN AT PRESENT LEVELS
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS NOT A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT HEALTH RISK
THE POISON IS IN THE DOSE
1 milligram = 1/1000th of 1 gram
1 gram = 1/1000th of 1 kilogram
Daily Smoker - 125 to 700 milligrams per day
Daily Car - 2.2 MILLION milligrams PER DAY
The Car is about 1800 times WORSE than the Smoker, and,
while about 23 % smoke cigarettes, everybody else drives cars.
Compared to it's 1960s ancestor -
today's Car is a 26 % Reduced Risk Product accepted by society,
DESPITE the fact that over half the respiratory toxins in the air we all breath,
about 3.7 Million Metric TONNES of it per year in Canada, and rising,
comes from Cars Exhaust, & another 3.7 Million Metric TONNES from Industry,
is the 'Real Science' Cause of the exponentially rising illnesses and deaths,
not Second Hand Tobacco Smoke.
61 % Reduced Risk Cigarettes are about 2900 times LESS Risk than Cars.
Either also BAN 26 % Reduced Risk Cars
or also Accept 61 % Reduced Risk Cigarettes
www.reducedriskcigarettes.ca
Steve Hartwell
Anonymous (September 24, 2007 @ 10:48pm):
When each Wisconsin elected official took office, he/she each took an oath and swore to uphold our US Constitution. The constitutional purpose of our government is to promote commerce, build roads, protect us from foreign invasion and protect individual rights. This includes property rights. Any act to the contrary is an outright violation of the Constitution. A smoking ban is a violation of property rights in every state where such a law is passed. The Constitution was written in such a manner to specifically limit the power and scope of government to preserve our individual rights.
Everyone has the freedom of choice to go into any building where people are allowed to smoke or not smoke. No one has the inalienable right to go into a privately owned business and demand that it be smoke-free or demand that a smoke-free building allow smoking. No one should have the right to use government to force an owner to make his property smoke-free. If this becomes law, all our rights will become easier targets for anyone desiring to reduce our personal freedoms.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
Anonymous (September 24, 2007 @ 11:19pm):
This seems an excellent time to resurrect a reminder of smokers' potential unified power to fight a state-wide smoking ban.
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/172.html
"Political Power of Smokers"
Tobacco Control Proponents Claim That:
a) only 28% of citizens smoke in the US.
b) therefore smokers have no political power.
- Do you think the Catholics have no political power at 24.5% of the population?
- Do you think the Episcopalians have no political power at 1.7% of the population?
- Do you think African Americans have no political power at 12.8% of the population?
- Do you think Italian Americans have no political power at 5.6% of the population?
- Do you think all the Americans with the last name of "Smith" have no political power at 1.01% of the population?
Time for smokers to stand up and be counted!
We can be the biggest minority voting bloc in History!! Get off your butts...make it an issue! Ask your candidates where they stand on the rights of smokers and all minorities!
Garnet Dawn
Illinois Smokers Rights http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 2:40am):
Freedom of choice is the real issue.
To ban smoking takes away the rights of the people to decide for themselves.
The facts are available for everyone in great ubundance.
If people choose to smoke and nonsmokers choose to gather around them indoors or anywhere else... it is their decision to make... no one elses.
Since this is actually the truth... it must necesarily follow that there must be another agenda for a smoking ban.
What is the problem... with an educated citizenry... making up their own minds?... who's lungs are they?... who's will is it?... who's business is it?...who's country is it?...
Post a sign saying that tobacco is being consummed on premises... and let the PEOPLE decide... PERIOD!!!!!
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 9:08am):
"The proposed bill has requirements similar to existing statewide bans in Minnesota and Illinois and would only allow individuals over 18 to smoke in personal areas, including homes and cars."
I don't know how Wisconsin plans on enforcing what this quote mentions, if the state ban becomes reality.
I can imagine teens smoking in big Wisconsin cities like Milwaukee. And I notice it says "over 18." So it's illegal for an 18 year-old to buy cigs in Wisconsin? How are the WI smoke cops gonna assure nobody under 18 is smoking in their OWN car or OWN home?
This statement in the quote is on the borderline of a civil rights violation. An 18 year old can work, drive, and fight for our country, but that 18 year old can't smoke in even homes and cars at WI. A 16 year old can essentially do the same things. But a 16 year old can't smoke in his/her room while doing homework? Bogus in all honesty.
The worst part of a state smoking ban in ANY state is the taverns and Restaurants in WI will see decreased revenues, loss of customers who smoke, and workers at these taverns/restaurants will be forced to get unemployment checks as a result of loss of smoking customers.
They say smoking bans do NOT hurt businesses. But those antismokers are BIG liars. I've read and heard about so many taverns and restaurants closing down because of smoking bans across the nation and in other countries, it ain't funny.
Smoking bans are all about mind control from governments, and bans are meant to make smokers feel like they're worthless citizens in America.
Jay
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 10:56am):
The anti-smokers' health claims are all based on scientific fraud. All their studies are purposely designed to falsely blame smoking and secondhand smoke for cancer caused by viruses, i.e., they're covering up the fact that human papillomavirus is implicated in over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend ETS causes.
http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
And all those reports the anti-smokers claim are "independent" are NOT! The same little clique, ring-led by Jonathan M. Samet, has been behind them all - he was an author or editor of every Surgeon General report since 1986, a member of the advisory board of the 1993 "EPA" ETS report, Chairman of the 2003 IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) committee which produced the fraudulent Monograph on Smoking and Involuntary Smoking, and a member of the voting panel (with three longtime cronies who together formed a majority!) on the 2005 ASHRAE report!
http://www.smokershistory.com/Samet.htm
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 4:21am):
What should be really banned is the epidemiological fraud at the basis of the antismoking campaigns in particular and many 'public health' crusades in general. It should be made illegal to base any public policy or law on epidemiological junk science. Not only we would have no smoking bans, but also many other bans would be lifted because they are not based on science.
It is quite clear that epidemiological trash at the basis of bans is used to justify hatred and intolerance -- something that all religions banned, a very long time ago.
nancy sixel (September 27, 2007 @ 1:23am):
Saving health costs? How about a total ban on all restaurants to reduce obesity? A popular ordinance? So was the "war on terror" a few years ago. Wake up, all you Bush-voters: you're being duped again.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
