Breaking News! Tavern League to Cave on Smoking Ban?
For the last 18 months, the Tavern League of Wisconsin has been working to pass a bill setting a single, statewide standard on indoor smoking in Wisconsin. This standard would allow their members to operate their small businesses on a level playing field with other taverns throughout the state. Extreme bans in Appleton and Madison have hurt taverns in those cities, as smoking customers flock to bars in neighboring communities that allow business owners to set their own smoking policies.
The bill supported by the tavern league narrowly passed the Assembly, facing much stronger opposition from majority Republicans than expected. The bill has stalled in the state Senate, due also to opposition from some GOP senators. Governor Doyle has insisted he would veto any bill that set a single standard or that would overturn the ban in Doyle's hometown (and political base) of Madison.
In a memo just delivered to all state legislators, Tavern League President Bill Hunter says the League would accept a compromise that would allow smoking bans in Appelton, Madison and possibly Milwaukee to stand.
So, rather than continue to fight for their principled position--that all their members deserve protection from local bans that put businesses at risk--TLW has appeared to have caved to Jim Doyle and decided to let their members in areas which already have local bans (including Appleton, Madison and possibly some very soon, Milwaukee) fend for themselves by supporting a "compromise" that would permanently lock in the non-smoking "islands" established by these local bans.
The small businesses who have patrons who smoke have been disorganized and demoralized from the start. This cave in appears to be yet another example of their inability to fight the anti-smoking zealots.
For the record, I loathe cigarette smoke. I generally choose to spend my time and money in places where the impact of smokers is minimized. It's the exercise of free market principles.
The nanny state mentality of the anti-smoking zealots escapes me. But they are well funded, organized and motivated.
Bar owners could be. But for some reason are not.
5 Comments:
They could push for a ban all across the state. That would also level the playing field.
;)
Elliot,
I oppose smoking bans, but even a full statewide ban would be better for the tavern league members than what they appear to support now.
for months they've been saying that local bans are the worst thing ever, but now they say they're OK for the ones that already have them.
It makes no sense.
Brian, just for the record, the Wisconsin Restaurant Association will not support the Tavern League's compromise. We will not support any local smoking ban, period. Any action on smoking should be done at the state level, which is why we support the current version of AB-414.
In fact, WRA is working with the local Tavern League folks in Milwaukee to oppose the Milwuakee ban and we will be weighing in at the public hearing on March 2.
Pete Hanson
Director of Govt Relations
Wisconsin Restaurant Association
We forget who pays for the medical cost of smoking. We do, the taxpayers pay the cost. How? Medicare and Medicaid. As as Family Physician Practicing 26 years in Wausau Wisconsin it is disconcerting to repeatedly deal with the anguish patients and families go thru when their loved one has lung cancer, Heart attacks or damaging strokes. Thes patients don't die right a way. They linger on for many years with the most scientifically advanced medical care in the world. Need I add expensive? Hospital costs, Physician costs, Highly trained nurses, Lab personel, X-ray people, CAT scan operators, MRI specialists, all highly trained and highly educated people that cost money. These patients eventually end up in assisted living and nursing homes. After their personal money runs out(unless they divest themselves 3 or more years before they need nursing home care) Medical assistance pays the bill. We want our individual rights to smoke and damage ourselves prematurely; then the rest of society pays the bill. Medical economists claim that 50% of medical costs in America are the direct and indirect result of smoking. Yes, we human beings have to be baby sat. We are not as wise as we like to think we are. Frank J. Rubino MD Family Practice Wausau Wisconsin 54401
Mr./Ms. Anonymous,
Actually, this has very little to do with public health. Your comment only makes sense if one assumes that it's government's obligation to pay for medical bills at all, much less for self-destructive behavior.
(And for the record, Jacob Sullum's For Your Own Good documents that smokers actually SAVE the government money, on average. Smokers who die of lung cancer and related ailments get sick in their mid 60's - about retirement age. And their illnesses are usually pretty quick compared to other ailments - like heart conditions - that people can have for decades. So between dying before collecting (much) social security, and having illnesses that result in the person's death pretty quickly, the system actually saves money on these people, pocketting their unused tax funds for use on people who linger for decades, and require expensive treatments and prescriptions for the rest of their lives. You could accuse Sullum, and me, of being macabre on this point - but then, as he points out, it was you, as the anti-smoker, who framed the issue of personal health choices in terms of money. Fine - by that metric, you should applaud smoking. Sure - there are people like you describe who do cost the system a lot of money. But they are balanced out by others who save the system money by dying earlier and not collecting Social Security, pensions, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.)
I think the anti-tobacco movement would be able to find accord with their oppenents if they offered to allow smokers to smoke as much as they want, and in places like bars, in exchange for those smokers agreeing to be on their own for medical costs, after having received whatever back in taxes they paided in Medicare, Medicaid, etc. If smokers are such a burden on everyone else, this would solve the problem without having the government resort to paternalism.
Post a Comment
<< Home