OPINION & EDITORIAL
Ban supporters: Smoke on this
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- He's not the best, but Bush not worst president either (January 31, 2008)
- A much needed political playlist (January 24, 2008)
- Want a democratic vote? License and registration, please (January 21, 2008)
- Set 'em up, knock 'em down: 3 issues worth tackling (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A breath of fresh air (February 19, 2002)
- Smoking ordinance is about saving lives (November 15, 2002)
- Need for statewide smoking ban (October 12, 2005)
- Bars should go smoke free (September 27, 2002)
- Open the flue (April 22, 2004)
by Ryan Masse
Thursday, February 7, 2008
As habits go, smoking has little to recommend itself. It costs a lot of money. It makes you smell bad. Long-term, it wreaks havoc on your lungs and raises your vulnerability to heart disease. Outwardly, it leads to premature aging.
All pretty bad stuff, this smoking habit. And yet, there are those who love it, for whatever reason, with many of them preferring to light up at their favorite bar. This is their choice, and the state should not stop them.
This is becoming an unpopular stance in Wisconsin, where a smoking ban that would apply to all workplaces — including taverns — is currently being debated in the state Legislature. Gov. Jim Doyle supports the ban, as do 64 percent of state residents, according to a recent poll from the Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies. Editorial boards throughout the state (not The Badger Herald’s) have editorialized in favor of the ban.
In fact, even a paper outside of Wisconsin — the Twin Cities’ Star-Tribune — chimed in last week recommending their neighbor adopt the ban. And it’s fortuitous they did, because in laying out their case for the law, the Star-Tribune’s editorial board unwittingly made the perfect argument against it.
The Star-Tribune editorial told the story of Randy Calleja, who opened the bar Ready Randy’s in New Richmond, Wis. in 2006. He decided to make Ready Randy’s a non-smoking establishment, a decision the newspaper claims has led to “hopping” business. “We hear more positive than negative,” Mr. Calleja told the paper.
Mr. Calleja voluntarily chose to pursue a certain business model, and he was rewarded for it by quickly gaining a substantial customer base. So, naturally, the government should coerce every other bar into following his lead, thus taking away the smoking decision from other bar owners and depriving Mr. Calleja of his competitive advantage, right? This is the Star-Tribune’s logic.
Mr. Calleja is not a trailblazer in the tavern arena. Before the city of Madison’s smoking ban went into effect in 2005, establishments like Crave and Dotty Dumpling’s Dowry prohibited smoking on their own volition, not the government’s. Those bar owners found it to be a profitable policy for their businesses.
The reason for this is because of people like Harrison Loveall of Appleton, Wis. Mr. Loveall is one of eight state residents featured in a new radio ad campaign funded by the state — yes, the state, the one suffering from a $400 million revenue shortfall — aimed at rousing up support for a statewide smoking ban. On the campaign’s website, mysmokefreestory.com, Mr. Loveall reveals he will not frequent establishments that allow smoking. One of the campaign’s other featured Wisconsinites, bartender Jeff Sims of Madison, says flatly, “I would not work in a bar that allowed smoking.”
Messrs. Loveall and Sims support the smoking ban (that’s why they’re in the ad campaign), but they’ve made their decisions to patronize and work at certain businesses free from any government mandate. Randy Calleja was aware that such people exist, as were the owners of Crave and Dotty’s. They knew there was a market — both in labor and consumers — for bars free from smoke.
There are those, though, who would tell us the market must take a backseat to public health in the smoking debate, as if taverns — the places most affected by the ban — have long been destinations of choice for those on a wellness regimen. Nothing like burgers and booze for a health boost, right? Complaining about smoke in bars is like complaining that Old Country Buffet doesn’t utilize enough organic ingredients — it’s just not the right complaint for the forum.
One of the Legislature’s most vocal opponents of the smoking ban, Sen. Roger Breske, D-Eland, said last week that health concerns about secondhand smoke are “hogwash.” This is wrong — the science linking smoke, including the secondhand variety, to health problems is clear. But lung cancer doesn’t develop after a visit or two to a smoky bar. Smoke becomes a health problem only if one makes the conscious choice to let it become a health problem, by regularly and knowingly exposing oneself to it. If people’s minds are too feeble to make or not make such decisions, there is a far more pressing “public health” need that should be addressed in Wisconsin.
Most bars in the state would probably survive a smoking ban, although not unscathed. With Illinois and Minnesota having already enacted bans of their own, smokers would lack any other options. But it would still be a horrible policy, one that is completely anathema to personal choice and responsibility. Some of Mr. Breske’s arguments might be a tad unorthodox, but his underlying effort to keep the government from “sticking their noses into everything” deserves applause.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com)
is a first-year law student.
Anonymous (February 7, 2008 @ 8:39am):
The entire purpose of the ban is to protect health in the work place. The people who frequent bars the most are the people who work there. Willingness to expose yourself to the health risks of secondhand smoke should not be a prerequisite for working at a bar. By focusing on the personal choice of bar patrons your article misses the point completely.
Anonymous (February 7, 2008 @ 8:49am):
"This is their choice, and the state should not stop them."
Right, absolutely. If it's your choice to ruin your health, the state should not be responsible for your medical bills when you reach retirement. Keep smoking, assholes!
Anonymous (February 7, 2008 @ 10:02am):
I'm in favor of the ban, but I'm curious 8:49, will state imposed diets be next. I sure don't want my gummint paying for no health care for no fat sob!
Anonymous (February 7, 2008 @ 11:04am):
Smoking in an area where others can be affected is NOT a personal choice! It pisses me off when, in an effort to be nice to their friends, smokers hold their cigarettes away from them and nearer to me. Like I want that in my face!
Second hand smoke is dangerous and I don't want to be exposed to it. The argument that I don't have to go to these places doesn't hold water either. Its like saying that drinking and driving is a personal choice, and if you don't want to get hit, stay off the roads.
Anonymous (February 7, 2008 @ 11:10am):
Stupid, stupid stupid... Drinking and driving is a personal choice too. If you don't want to get hit, stay off the roads (or the ditches or buildings close to the roads)!!!!
Bill Hannegan (February 7, 2008 @ 12:14pm):
A bartender in a bar with air filtration breathes at most a fraction of a cigarette per week. Breathing less than one cigarette per week is not going to cause anyone lung cancer or heart disease.
Anonymous (February 7, 2008 @ 12:24pm):
By this reasoning, there is no reason for there to be an OSHA, nor any work place health and safety rules. Coal mine operators should be free to ignore the OSHA rules that minimize the conditions that cause black lung. After all if you don't want to expose yourself to whatever risks of black lung (and mine collapses) that the mine owner is willing to tolerate (if not expose himself to), you don't have to accept employment there.
Anonymous (February 7, 2008 @ 12:56pm):
"will state imposed diets be next."
Good point. You probably haven't had to apply for a life insurance policy yet, but they will deny coverage or charge a premium for unhealthy behaviors like smoking and obesity.
I'm not sure why the government provides a "come one, come all health care free-for-all." Wouldn't it be fair to "qualify" for coverage, or at least compensate for unhealthy personal choices?
Anonymous (February 7, 2008 @ 1:11pm):
As much as it is my preference to be in a non-smoking bar, I don't know if it's the government's best interest to be banning smoking in them.
They talk about how the workers have to deal with the smoke. Just like no one forces the consumer to go to a smoking bar, no one is forcing someone to work there. Outside of the cities, most bartenders I know are smokers themselves.
Bill Hannegan (February 7, 2008 @ 2:37pm):
Bars are already OSHA compliant in regards to smoke.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
Anonymous (February 7, 2008 @ 5:10pm):
All public health groups on the planet say that smoking bans are absolutely necessary to protect public health. The air quality in bars and restaurants can be far worse than on an LA freeway at rush hour. Should staff have to put up with this every day as part of their employment? And even as a customer that's something to be very concerned about. And even the tobacco companies, former enemies of smoking bans, are starting to come around. The world's largest tobacco company now acknowledges that second hand smoke cause heart disease, respiratory problems and lung cancer. And they no longer object to restrictions on where people can smoke. Take a look at their web page.
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp
Anonymous (February 8, 2008 @ 12:58pm):
Not "all public health groups say that smoking bans are absolutely necessary to protect public health". The American Council on Science and Health for one is staunchly opposed to the concept that they are shown to save any lives, and if you read the statements of many of the groups it's pretty clear that social engineering lies at the base of their motivation.
To get an understanding of the lies behind the bans, visit
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4472
and you'll see a short booklet I wrote on the subject titled the "Generic Stiletto". Download and print out the .pdf version and you may be surprised when you see the extent to which the truth has been manipulated in favor of social engineering goals.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Anonymous (February 8, 2008 @ 3:50pm):
ok, smoking and second hand smoke causes all these horrible things but HELLO... it's a BAR where people go to drink- the most physically damaging vices of all.
it's a choice as is everything
there should always be a choice and denying people the privledges of a choice whether it be the bar not allowing or allowing smoking, or the smoker smoking or the non-smoker chosing not to smoke - it's a choice. If a person doesn't want to be around smoke they can choose not to. If a person wants to go to a smoke filled room and throw down booze and cigs - that's their choice. If a person wants to drink at home - their choice. If a person wants to go to a smoke free bar - their choice. Point being - the choice should be there and be our own.
Anonymous (February 9, 2008 @ 12:18pm):
The Mineapolis Star Tribune also failed to mention that MN smoking bans have closed down 155+ bars and restaurants......and eliminated 5,000 - 7,000 jobs.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/01/economist-at-federal-reserve-declares.html
Mark
Minneapolis, MN.
Meanwhile air quality testing proves that secondhand smoke is NOT a workplace hazard.....actually up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations:
Johns Hopkins, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html
Anonymous (February 9, 2008 @ 12:55pm):
Feb 7, 2008 @11:04am, I pity folks with such mentality. It's sad to think we are all going to suffer because of such ignorance.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 12:20pm):
well done masse. keep up the fight for individual rights.
MM in MN
Kathie Long (April 27, 2008 @ 12:23am):
As a foster home for many years, I've seen children come into care for many reasons: the most common being illegal drugs and alcohol. I've never had a child come into my home because Mom or Dad smoked cigarettes.
Personally, I'd like to see alcohol banned! Now I'm not going to say that smoking a cigarette has NEVER caused a car accident, BUT how often does drinking and driving cause one?
I'm all for the choice of the business owner. Storheims (sp?) in Green Bay went smoke free long before it was popular. I'm sure some people went there because it was smoke free. I chose not to go there for the same reason. It was the owner's choice. Because I don't drink, bars going smoke free is not going to affect me. But it should be the bar owner's choice. Most businesses are now smoke free. If you don't smoke, find a job that doesn't allow it. It's as simple as that. If you want to ruin your health by going to a bar and don't smoke, again, find one that's smoke free. It's simple enough.
Alcohol ruins many more lives than smoking does. Let's ban all bars completely.
I saw an article about some town down south that wants to ban obese people from their restaurants. They talked about having a scale at the front door. Is this next? It's a health issue. Why not? Is this the US or Nazi Germany?
Anonymous (April 29, 2008 @ 11:27pm):
actually I'm pretty sure that cigarettes kill more people per year than alcohol, but its a close second.
Don't take away people's liberties.
The market will take care of itself.
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.
