Arguments aside, the way leading lawmakers handled the issue of a potential statewide smoking ban in taverns and restaurants this week was not in the spirit of a more transparent government.

The two committee chairman handling the bill -- Jon Erpenbach and Jon Richards -- gave a just a shade more than the required 24-hour notice before holding a hearing and then voting on the bill.

With the Democrats now in control of the dome, it's expected that the ban will sail through the Legislature swimmingly, so there was really no reason for legislative subterfuge.

Republicans were in the majority and able to block such efforts last year. Gov. Jim Doyle tried to shove this policy in the budget, but Democratic leadership thought that move even less transparent and figured this would be a better dog-and-pony show.

It didn't get past Milwaukee Ald. Bob Donovan, who sent out a scathing press release about the under-the-radar hearings.

"It now seems Gov. Doyle and some state legislators are willing to throw out the constitution on their crusade to snuff out smoking," Donovan said in a statement. "Forget about smokers' rights -- now we're talking about the fundamental issues of fair play and the ability of citizens to address and respond to a major proposed new law."

He added that he thought the ban would affect the many small corner taps in his district. "The smoking ban would be the end of the line for many of these proud residents."

The hearings themselves were filled with the usual suspects -- Lung Association representatives, people afflicted with asthma, tobacco store workers and a few bar owners. The Tavern League and the Innkeepers Association also attended. The Innkeepers asked that 25 percent of the rooms in hotels be reserved for smoking, a measure that is in the bill.

An agreement reached Wednesday would grandfather in most cigar bars. It would also ban smoking in taverns beginning in July 2010, while restaurants will go smoke free almost immediately.

The Cigar Store Alliance of Wisconsin showed up in force, telling the committee that they have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars on ventilation and air purification systems and other amenities. They unanimously said that a smoking ban would shut down their businesses.
The response to the cigar group from anti-smoking folks was that it was too bad that they made a bad business decision given the environment towards smoking.

A more interesting comment came from a women identified as "Miss Thompson." She sees the anti-smoking folks as conducting a "witch hunt" and that it's a "Nazi ideology that the individual belongs to the state" and that victims are being kept in the dark by a "censured media" while government is "totally corrupt and out of control."

Sometimes, the advocates for the ban got their facts confused, with one Lung Association representative saying that four of every five people are non-smokers and another Lung Association rep asserting that the figures are three non-smokers for every four people.

Sailing Into a Land Fight: UW-Milwaukee just can't seem to please everybody anytime as it tries to build its campus around town since its current location is landlocked on the East Side.

First, there was the propensity to build scattered-site dormitories to the consternation of those living near the buildings. Then, there was the proposed new engineering school in Wauwatosa, which Milwaukee city officials took umbrage to since there's the better part of 12 acres sitting vacant on the northern edge of Downtown.

Now there's a UWM plan to build a new fresh water research school at the site of the former Pieces of Eight Restaurant on the city's lakefront. The land is owned by the city's Harbor Commission and leased to the restaurant.

It is also land that is grandfathered by the state to allow buildings to be built on land-filled parts of the shoreline called "the public trust doctrine."

 Page 1 of 2 (view all on one page)

Next >>

14 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review.

Recent Talkbacks ...

Posted by Poeartemer on May 9, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. (report)

Yeah well just wait....until BIG BROTHER takes away ALL your OTHER RIGHTS ...legal or not!!!

Posted by cwhufsch on May 8, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. (report)

megster37, If casinos really were totally seperate from the United States, then why pay any state a single penny for gaming? They would just do it themselves and not pay anyone. They could place more money into their own system for whatever they wanted. Who pays a tax they don't have to? I suspect you are right though about going smoke free in some of their bars, not all, but at least they have that choice. I guess on Indian grounds, second hand smoke will have no effect on me. Those magical lands....

Posted by mkelover on May 8, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (report)

How difficult is it for people to, on their own, decide NOT to go to a bar that they know is too smoke-filled? I make a point to patronize bars/restaurants which have decided ON THEIR OWN to go smoke-free as a business decision...not a mandate from our nanny-state government. If we all have a "right" to clean air, then I'd like to see a ban on all emissions coming from cars, buses, and trucks because ingesting that air is far worse than a bar.

Posted by megster37 on May 8, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. (report)

Casinos are exempt because tribes are their own separate government. They are allowed to make their own laws (y'know in exchange for years of genocide and oppression), and I suspect they will probably go smoke-free eventually. There's no conspiracy theory about campaign donations.

Posted by sas_tarr on May 8, 2009 at 10:56 a.m. (report)

Every place in the world can be considered someone's working place. So, we are essentially saying that we ban smoking habit. It did not work for alcohol, did not work for drugs, why do you think it will work for tobacco? Another problem is that we are sending message that every employee has a right to be safe. Is that so? Does it mean a football player can sue his employer and his fellow players for injuring him? No, he definitely waved that right. But when a hotel owner hires people, why cannot him ask his employees to sign the same waver? He might compensate for exposure to dangerous elements, but smoke is arguably not worse than radiation, other chemical elements, and so on. It should be treated as such, in the same framework of law to be fair.