In an effort to expand Madison’s smoking ban in restaurants, several city officials are pushing a proposal to amend the city’s definition of a restaurant, which could ultimately ban smoking in establishments like the Nitty Gritty.
“It’s frustrating,” Marsh Shapiro, Nitty Gritty owner, said of the proposed smoking ordinance. “For me, it’s not even a business issue. It’s a choice issue.”
Under current Wisconsin state law, smoking is prohibited in any restaurant, which a 1992 Madison city ordinance defines as an establishment serving or preparing food while obtaining less than 33 percent of its revenue from alcohol sales. The new ordinance, if passed, would increase to 50 percent the amount of revenue from alcohol sales an establishment must take in in order to qualify as a bar.
Alds. Jean MacCubbin, District 11, Gary Poulson, District 10, and Paul Van Rooy, District 18, drafted the proposal, which has been backed by Mayor Sue Bauman.
The proposal, made public Aug. 16, will be heard by the public health commission Sept. 9.
The commission will then make a recommendation to the city council for an Oct. 1 vote. If passed in the council, the new regulation would become effective Jan. 1, 2003.
The ordinance would mandate that dining establishments that double as bars, such as Shapiro’s Nitty Gritty, might be forced to become entirely nonsmoking. Shapiro asserts this development would give many bars a crippling disadvantage in having to compete with bars such as Monday’s, Bullfeather’s, and the Pub, which are likely to continue to qualify as bars and still allow smoking.
Shapiro was one of around a dozen local bar and restaurant owners who spoke up against the ordinance at the council’s Aug. 16 meeting.
The State Bar and Grill, State Street Brats and the Plaza are among a number of bars whose businesses stand to be affected by the ordinance.
Yet Ira Sharenow, a leading anti-smoking activist who helped to pass a 1992 smoking ban on the UW campus, insists Shapiro and others exaggerate the extent to which their bars might suffer; he says the ordinance would “level the playing field” on which bars compete with one another for business, and that the restrictions are modest compared with steps other states have taken in order to curb smoking. These states include California, Florida, and Delaware, which have all banned smoking in bars.
“Tens of millions of people benefit from healthier smoking laws than those in Wisconsin,” Sharenow said.
While many establishments in California have dealt with the restrictions by adding outdoor areas for patrons to smoke, Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, points out that Wisconsin’s fierce winters make a similar effort here unlikely to be successful.
One of the ordinance’s fundamental problems, Shapiro points out, is that the proposal makes no mention of how the ordinance might be enforced.
“What do I do if someone is smoking and refuses to put out the cigarette — call the police?” Shapiro commented.
Verveer said he is concerned the ordinance might compel bars that are close to the 50 percent mark to lower drink prices and raise food prices in order to tip the scales and qualify as a bar.
Ald. Tom Powell, District 5, who is as yet undecided on the overall benefits of the ordinance, believes the issue is of particular importance for bar employees, who sometimes face a dilemma.
“You quit the job or you deal with [smoke],” Powell said.
Yet Shapiro, himself a nonsmoker, maintains that exposure to cigarette smoke while working in a bar is inevitable and that it is the employee’s choice.
“No one is forced to work here,” Shapiro said.
While Verveer is not an advocate of smoking, he is disturbed by the trend he sees developing, which he thinks could produce an outcome farther down the line that would see the expansion of increasingly tight smoking restrictions on bars.
“If this ordinance is passed, it is only a matter of time before the city comes after every bar, banning smoking across the board,” he said.
