Now that state lawmakers have reached a deal to prohibit smoking in virtually all workplaces -- including restaurants and taverns -- we wondered how local business operators would react to the ban, which will start in July, 2010.

The plan would replace the hodgepodge of local ordinances restricting smoking that have been passed in dozens of communities, including Madison, Appleton, Eau Claire and, for a time, Wauwatosa.

Upon ratification, Wisconsin will be the 26th state to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants, joining Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota.

Under the new rules, smokers who violate the ban would be fined between $100 and $250. Bar owners would not be fined as long as they take steps to prevent smoking in their establishments.

We asked several bar and restaurant owners for their thoughts. Feel free to use the Talkback feature to add yours.

B.J. Seidel
Co-owner
Burnhearts, 2599 S. Logan Ave.

"The smoking ban is a tough position to take as a smoker and bar owner, but I think it is bound to happen (as it has all over the world) and we have no choice but to accept it when it does. I believe it will have an immediate negative impact on our business, but I am hopeful that it will not have a long-term affect on us.

"Burnhearts will not actively enforce the bill until it has become law. We are currently looking for a solution so that our smokers will not be stuck on the freezing cold street in front of the bar during the dead of winter. We are also concerned that our neighbors will not be affected by an increased number of patrons smoking on our streets. I think with a little ingenuity we can make our bar smoke-free while still accommodating to the independent spirit of the smokers."

Joe Sorge
Owner
Water Buffalo, Swig, AJ Bombers and Sullivan's

"My initial reaction is that the ban is good for the health and reputation of Wisconsin. However, as a business owner I believe the choice to designate your business smoke-free should be yours to make.

"Since our businesses are primarily smoke-free establishments I do not expect an impact.

"I think the bar mentality (at least mine and different
than a restaurant mentality) is to hold on as long as possible and let our guests enjoy the right to choose."

Mike Eitel
Co-owner
Diablos Rojos Restaurant Group (Trocadero, Cafe Hollander, Cafe Centraal, Fat Abbey Biercafe)

"Hallelujah! Free at last! We've wanting a fair, level playing field ban for years.

"With this type of ban (statewide, as opposed to city- or county-wide), I know that businesses will end up doing better after an adjustment period of a few months. I've watched three bans go into effect right before my eyes over the last decade. I was trying to open a Nomad in San Francisco when they put their ban in place about eight years ago. All the bar owners were screaming and resistant and saying the ban would put them out of business. Within a few months, you didn't hear a peep because they had just seen record profits from the new influx of people who could now enjoy themselves in bars and restaurants.

"Conversely, I did watch the negative effects of a ban in Minneapolis four years ago while I was helping to open a Nomad up there. The difference was what I call "The Island Effect." The bigger the geographical area involved in a band, the less chance of the loss of business to unfair and arbitrary ban borders. St. Paul was too close to Minneapolis, so their bars were able to pack in all the smokers while those on the border of Minneapolis saw their business dry up. MOst were able to hang on until the statewide ban kicked in. In San Francisco, there are literally no adjacent suburbs -- it is completely surrounded by water and long bridges.

"Probably the most humorous moments are on the night the ban takes effect. It made for huge pro/anti-smoking parties in Paris, Dublin, London, San Francisco and even Minneapolis. When you are out that night, you feel like you are a part of history -- good stuff.

"Our group is likely to change its smoking policies this winter. We were hoping the ban would take effect by the end of '09. Feedback from a vast majority of our customers in "pro-ban," however, we have to buffer that with our appreciation for the loyal customers we have who do enjoy smoking at our barstools. I think we have a plan for the winter that makes sense for everybody. We just need to polish it a bit before the snow flies."

 Page 1 of 2 (view all on one page)

Next >>

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

Recent Talkbacks ...

Posted by marbee on Sept. 9, 2009 at 9:47 p.m. (report)

All of this hysteria was begun by the big pharma, namely the major shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in their effort to de-normalize certain behaviors. Why? Not for the good of public health but for corporate greed! A "non-profit" foundation funded most of the smoking bans. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation paid just through 2005 over 446 MILLION DOLLARS for tobacco control. $99 million to the ACS, ALA, AHA for bans. $84 million to create/fund Tobacco-Free Kids. RWJF was created by the founder of Johnson & Johnson. RWJF owns tens of millions of shares of J&J stock. J&J sells Nicotine Replacement Therapy products (CESSATION). Michael Fiore of the U of WI received grant money from RJWF; Fiore helped write federal mandate that doctors tell patients they MUST use drugs, not to quit cold turkey and yet, NRT products have a FAILURE RATE OF 98.4% for one year or longer quitting. And you wonder why these groups are opposed to anyone selling nicotine products besides the drug companies? A study was done showing 80% of the time, minors were able to buy NRT products with no ID. And how about Nicorette's "minty fresh" gum with teeth whiteners or "cinnamon burst" gum? Hypocrisy. It's ok for the drug companies to sell alternative nicotine products? What a scam this whole thing is. On their own website they say that in 2009 begins the war on alcohol, they have a new drug now. They will spend millions to de-normalize just to market their new product. It took almost 30 years to get where they are regarding tobacco and with that ball rolling, the alcohol drug should take about a third of the time. Smokers, drinkers, and eaters beware, big pharma will take care of you!

Posted by Freakonomics - NYT.com on Sept. 9, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. (report)

Why Have Smoking Bans Caught On So Easily? Even in Ireland and Italy? And why, meanwhile, are bans on things like file-sharing failing so miserably? Henry Farrell at the Crooked Timber blog argues that smoking bans succeed in large part because prevailing societal norms about smoking e.g. That Irish people can smoke in pubs to their hearts content, and that others will just have to put up with it were much weaker than we thought. After all, he writes, state enforcement capacities are obviously insufficient to push something like this through. http://crookedtimber.org/2009/06/12/smoking-bans-and-public-norms/#more-11550

Posted by marbee on Sept. 9, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. (report)

I read an article about a boy that OD'd on Nicorette gum given at school without parental knowledge. So, very quietly, pharmaceutical nicotine is pushed on 12 year old kids. If anyone doubted that the anti-smoking crusade leads back to Johnson & Johnson, the cat is totally out of the bag!

Posted by marbee on Sept. 9, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. (report)

Smoking bans absolutely devastate the tavern industry. People stay home to drink when they cant smoke. Over 300 bars in Ohio closed the first year alone of the smoking ban. There are 327 documented closings due to the smoking ban in the Minneapolis area including the last VFW there. Most of the bars affected are privately owned, and these bans trample private property rights. Most small bars are not affiliated with big chains, they are mom and pop bars that become virtually worthless after a ban. Close to 90% of the weight of tobacco smoke is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and plain water (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). This mix is usually called fresh air. For this we take away property rights? So that someones smoke-free preference can trump an owners rights? Smokers Welcome, Non-Smokers Welcome, Anti-Smokers Buy Your Own Business!

Posted by thelordyourgod on May 27, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. (report)

Hey Newbar- 1. The post by papeaj was meant as SARCASM. 2. The companies that manufacture toilet paper need government approval for all of their products before they can be sold, so technically the government DOES tell us which colors we can use. 3. Nobody is attacking your freedom. The law is simply protecting citizens who choose not to smoke and still want to be part of society and not sit at home. 4. Nobody is encouraging pregnant women to drink. 5. You will probably still be able to sell cigarettes. You will still be paying the municipality in which your business operates for the license to sell them. 6. What on earth does this law have to do with communism? What a stretch. 7. I hope that you and your business are not affected by the ban, I really think you will be suprised by how little effect the ban will have. At least your patrons will have something to discuss when they come to your bar.