OPINION & EDITORIAL
Madison smoking ban NOT progressive
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Casey Hoff:
- State should allow cabbies to carry (November 22, 2005)
- Don't pass go, don't collect $200 (April 18, 2005)
- Lawmakers twist Avery case for political, personal ends (November 29, 2005)
- Left-wing, right-wing out of bounds with war rhetoric (April 25, 2005)
- Residents, police need to work together (December 6, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Open the flue (April 22, 2004)
- Sifting and winnowing (August 8, 2005)
- Waiting to exhale (January 19, 2004)
- Socialism in progressive clothing (October 11, 2005)
- Need for statewide smoking ban (October 12, 2005)
by Casey Hoff
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Madison is often considered a "progressive" or "liberal" city, where personal freedoms and rights are respected and tolerance of an array of lifestyles trumps conformity and sameness. That's why the recent smoking ban that was ratified by the Madison City Council seems more like a decision that should have been made in a right-wing conservative town like Oostburg, Wisconsin rather than a left-wing progressive one like Madison, Wisconsin. First of all, I must say that I'm not a smoker. I never have been one. And I never will be. But the smoking ban in Madison highlights a disturbing trend by the City Council away from any inkling of tolerance for alternative lifestyles and views.
Smoking ban proponents, such as Tobacco Free Dane County, say that this ban is all about workers' rights to be in a workplace absent of second hand smoke. However, there are already many alternative jobs in Madison, which mandate smoke-free environments on their own accord. If a person had applied to work at a bar in Madison prior to July 1, he or she already knew that they would be subjected to second hand smoke in the workplace.
Even more asinine is that "cigar bars" were not given an exemption to allow smoking under the ban. A person who applies to work at a cigar bar and doesn't expect to encounter smoke is like someone who applies to be a lifeguard and doesn't expect to encounter water.
Smoking ban proponents also made claims in local newspapers, like the Capital Times, that the smoking ban would help current smokers to quit by banning it in employees' workplaces. However, just days after the smoking ban went into effect, these same proponents claimed to be in shock at the amount of cigarette butts that were being littered outside the bars. It seems to me that the pro-smoking ban crowd was wrong again.
Just like the prohibition of alcohol failed in the 1930's (people flocked to speakeasies), a ban on smoking in pubs will not get smokers to quit either. All it will do is push them out of the bars to smoke in other places and litter more butts in the process. Environmentalists are now worried about the amount of butts that are being swept into our lakes through runoff. I certainly hope that we don't have thousands of nicotine-addicted fish swimming around that need to go on the patch.
There are many things that the government could regulate so as to protect us from ourselves. The government could ban the sale of fatty foods, such as cheeseburgers, French fries and chocolate shakes, in order to cut down on obesity. The government could regulate the speaker amplitude at private rock concerts in order to minimize hearing damage for concert-goers. The government could mandate at least eight hours of sleep per night since studies have shown that this is ideal for people's health. However, the government doesn't get involved in any of this because of a great concept that most people cherish called "free will".
Smokers should be free to smoke in Madison's bars, just like non-smokers should be free to enjoy a night of drinking there as well. If bar owners opt to make their establishments smoke free, then so be it. But it's not the government's job to tell a business owner whether or not he can allow smoking in his establishment. Many bar owners in Madison are already seeing their clientele move to neighboring cities' bars in places like Middleton and Verona. This puts an extremely unfair burden on the bars.
Don't believe me? Just ask the owners of Maduro's and the Wine and Cigar Room what they think of the smoking ban and they'll tell you how it has destroyed their businesses. Telling a person that he or she can't smoke in a private establishment is far from progressive — rather it is regressive. The Madison City Council needs to wake up and realize that it's not the government's job to protect people from themselves. Allowing people the freedom to make their own choices is a fundamentally American value and it's one that we should cherish and uphold in a city that claims to be "tolerant" of others; especially if one claims to be "progressive".
Casey Hoff (choff@badgerherald.com) is a UW student and the host of "New Ground with Casey Hoff," live Monday through Friday, 9-11 a.m., on Talk Radio 1670 WTDY.
Anonymous (July 22, 2005 @ 11:38am):
I only started smoking after I arrived at Madison (as a freshman in 1970). I started smoking mostly because I figured there was so much smoke everywhere I might as well smoke too. In those days you could smoke anywhere, even in classes. I thought I could control my smoking and not get completely addicted. I was wrong and ended up with a 2 pack habit (Camel straights!).
I finally quit 5 years ago. It was mostly because it was very inconvienient to find a place to smoke and the cost was 10 times higher than when I started.
I support ANY measures which make it harder for people to get hooked on or continue the dirty, smelly, unhealthy tobbaco addiction. Smoking has no redeeming features whatsoever.
Every smoker I have ever known would like to quit. Banning smoking makes it easier.
Anonymous (July 22, 2005 @ 11:55am):
1. There are few, if any alternative jobs with the same pay and hours that bars have, particularly for students, who are usually unskilled. Try paying for your tuition working as a bartender. Now try it as a cashier.
2. No one else gets fat from my cheeseburger.
3. Many people smoke primarily when they drink. Friends from NY agree they smoke considerably less--this will be all the more true when lines start forming when school starts.
4. The decision certainly wasn't libertarian--but I'm not sure Casey's using a well-defined version of the word progressive. Tolerance of "lifestyles"? Come on.
5. This really is a minor issue. Are we going to hear the Badger Herald bitch about it all next year as well?
Anonymous (July 22, 2005 @ 12:31pm):
Hoff doesn't know what it means to be "progressive."
Consider these other "right-wing" cities that have similar smoking bans: Berkeley, CA; Boston, MA; New Haven, CT; New York, NY; Providence, RI; San Francisco, CA.
Anonymous (July 22, 2005 @ 1:53pm):
Employees who work in restaurants and bars that allow smoking are exposed to secondhand smoke levels at 3-6 times that of other occupations. That's simply unacceptable. When is it ever o.k. to discriminate against workers of one sector (restaurant/bar industry) by refusing to protect them at levels we expect in other jobs (retail stores, grocery stores, city/county occupations, etc.)? This issue IS about workers' rights and public health. I applaud the Madison City Council and Mayor Cieslewicz for leading the way toward a healthier Wisconsin.
Anonymous (July 22, 2005 @ 1:59pm):
check out the latest recommendation from ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers) -- the standard-setting body on indoor air quality for the U.S. and countries around the world -- they maintain that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and unanimously agreed the only way to protect people from the over 50 carcinogens which are found in the substance is to eliminate indoor smoking completely -- I'm glad we've finally gotten with the times!
Anonymous (July 22, 2005 @ 5:22pm):
Why not ban panhandling, jaywalking and public drunkeness instead? Those are much more of a threat to our safety downtown than smoking could ever be!
Anonymous (July 23, 2005 @ 1:02pm):
Nice job Casey. This is the first thing you've ever written that I've agreed with.
Anonymous (July 23, 2005 @ 1:06pm):
"5. This really is a minor issue. Are we going to hear the Badger Herald bitch about it all next year as well?"
I hope so. This is by no means a minor issue. This is clear example of the government violating property rights (just like Kelo.) If you think this is a "minor issue", it is clear that you cannot think beyond the range of the moment. The smoking ban is fascist, and the Badger Herald should make sure everyone knows it.
Anonymous (July 23, 2005 @ 10:24pm):
Lots of nice posters to put up everywhere!
http://www.conbinibento.com/photos/index.php?gallery=./Smoking%20Manners
Anonymous (July 24, 2005 @ 4:06am):
I agree that smokers should have the freedom in smoking, but non-smokers should have the 'freedom' in not being affected by second-hand smoke too. As a non-smoker myself, I seldom go to bars as I don't want to be affected by the second-hand smoke. I am happy about the ban and will visit the bars more often from now on because I am now free to enjoy some good times at bars with friends in smoke-free environments.
Anonymous (July 24, 2005 @ 7:34am):
That's right- you do have the freedom in not being affected by second hand-smoke. You also had several options before the ban. You had Dotty's, the Crave, or you could have had your own smoke-free party. The point is if there were many people out there like you who only would patronize non-smoking establishments, the market would have naturally created even more options for you. But there isn't that much of a market for smoke-free establishments, so the Madison Common Council decided to stick their noses in.
Anonymous (July 25, 2005 @ 10:50am):
Hey, just hold off judgement until October after all the students come back from home/internships/etc. If the bars (cigar bars aside which should certainly have exemptions) are still complaining about business, then we'll talk.
Anonymous (July 25, 2005 @ 10:51am):
And PLEASE would the BH use a different damned picture of Hoff? It's bad enough having to see his pores up close on the sides of buses, let alone weekly in the paper.
Anonymous (July 25, 2005 @ 10:30pm):
We'll talk if the bars are complaining about business?? Come on! Anyone who knows how the Madison City Council operates knows that won't change any minds.
Here's a better argument to make: If there's less patronage of the bars because of the smoking bans, this will likely result in bartenders losing jobs or hours. Many bartenders are women. There we go! Now we have a women's issue on our hands! A nice progressive cause that we can run with!
Anonymous (July 25, 2005 @ 11:52pm):
Here are some cities that have comprehensive 100% smokefree laws and the date of implementation.
Davis, CA 1993
Berkeley, CA 1997
Alameda County, CA 1998
Corvallis, OR 1998
Eugene, OR 2000
Fort Collins, CO 2003
Bloomington, IN 1/1/2005
Lincoln, NE 1/1/2005
Austin, TX 9/1/2005
Madison, WI 1/2/2006
Anonymous (July 26, 2005 @ 11:41am):
Now we have a poster who really stretches the use of the word "fascist." Tying it to Kelo shows your cards. Next thing you'll know the government will force fire safety codes on businesses, or zoning laws. The connection between eminent domain and the smoking ban is only a relevant one in the "extreme long view" where logic goes to die. Reasonable people can disagree on the politics of the decision, but the question of whether a town should be able to regulate something that could easily be perceived as a public nuiscance is beyond the pale, even for Justices like Scalia. I suppose my inability to link the smoking ban to the end of political or economic freedom is, in fact, a sign that I cannot think beyond "the range of the moment." It more likely signals that you're paranoid.
Yes, the decision does have that "liberals know what's best for you" flavor--not a pretty taste. Yes, it is a violation of the free market. However, since the ban was to protect employees, who, again, did not have comparable employment options, the problem could be seen as a market failure (albeit not a perfet one).
Do you really think students will drive out to Verona to get past the smoking ban? Or stay home from the bars? House parties aren't suddenly going to become cool just because you can smoke there(if the owner is dumn enough to let 50+ people smoke in his or her house).
Anonymous (July 27, 2005 @ 2:49pm):
I'm just saying that if we wait just about one-and-a-half months, I doubt most bars will fold, and we'll know whether or not this ban really is a detriment.
We haven't even had the ban for a month yet. I'd say it's better to legislate based on facts than fear.
Anonymous (July 27, 2005 @ 4:49pm):
Badger Herald NOT Progressing
In a move that shocked and disappointed loyal Badger Herald readers, Casey Hoff's column was retained for the upcoming academic year.
Hoff's column, universally reviled for its poor writing, utter lack of logic, and total disregard for reality, was expected to be eliminated. Upon hearing that the column was nevertheless retained, eight distraught UW students were observed wailing, rending their garments, and falling to their knees screaming "Why God? Why?" on the Library Mall.
Anonymous (July 28, 2005 @ 3:12pm):
"Smoking ban proponents also made claims in local newspapers, like the Capital Times, that the smoking ban would help current smokers to quit by banning it in employees' workplaces. However, just days after the smoking ban went into effect, these same proponents claimed to be in shock at the amount of cigarette butts that were being littered outside the bars. It seems to me that the pro-smoking ban crowd was wrong again."
What? Do you really think the Cap Times' point was that people would stop smoking IMMEDIATELY upon implementation of the ban? Give it more than 'a few days'.
"Environmentalists are now worried about the amount of butts that are being swept into our lakes through runoff. I certainly hope that we don't have thousands of nicotine-addicted fish swimming around that need to go on the patch."
Aside from being the 'funniest' part of this article, is this true? Are environmentalists saying this?
"The government could regulate the speaker amplitude at private rock concerts in order to minimize hearing damage for concert-goers."
You mean like noise ordinances?
Anonymous (August 2, 2005 @ 9:20am):
Up yers, jammer.
Anonymous (August 2, 2005 @ 11:52am):
Nobody ever died from a secondhand cheeseburger.
Anonymous (August 2, 2005 @ 12:37pm):
"Nobody ever died from a secondhand cheeseburger."
I'm not sure that's true. E. coli and Listeria bacteria can be spread through beef and fecal matter, and both can be fatal, so it's possible that somebody has died from a secondhand cheeseburger.
Anonymous (August 3, 2005 @ 12:59pm):
One glaring ommission in Hoff's column is that he doesn't acknowledge that it was progressives that tried to exempt the cigar bars, and it was the conservatives who killed that exemption.
Anonymous (August 5, 2005 @ 6:42am):
"E. coli and Listeria bacteria can be spread through beef and fecal matter"
Yup, ya gotta stay away from those who sprew raw beef and/or shit all over the place!
Anonymous (August 5, 2005 @ 6:36pm):
"conservatives who killed that exemption."
Conservatives? On the Madison City Council? No such thing!
Anonymous (August 6, 2005 @ 8:55am):
Casey Hoff says: "Smokers should be free to smoke in Madison's bars, just like non-smokers should be free to enjoy a night of drinking there as well.", but these two things are in fact, mutually exclusive. How can I, a nonsmoker, enjoy a night of drinking in a smoky bar, when my eyes sting and I cough and I come home permeated with smoky stench, and wake up the next morning with a sore throat?
Anonymous (August 6, 2005 @ 8:58am):
Casey Hoff says: "Smokers should be free to smoke in Madison's bars, just like non-smokers should be free to enjoy a night of drinking there as well.", but these two things are in fact, mutually exclusive. How can I, a nonsmoker, enjoy a night of drinking in a smoky bar, when my eyes sting and I cough and I come home permeated with smoky stench, and wake up the next morning with a sore throat?
Anonymous (August 7, 2005 @ 3:35pm):
"Yup, ya gotta stay away from those who sprew raw beef and/or shit all over the place!"
Just vote the Republicans out of office, and it won't be a problem.
Anonymous (August 8, 2005 @ 6:54pm):
"Yup, ya gotta stay away from those who sprew raw beef and/or shit all over the place!"
Just vote the Republicans out of office, and it won't be a problem.
***
Stay off KOS and you won't have a problem.
