• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Wisconsin ready to pass statewide smoking ban - Update 5/18/09 Law passed!

tk149

Diamond Member
Update 5/18/09
I hope they ban alcohol in bars, restaurants, and private parties at home next. Drunk drivers probably kill more people every year than lung cancer in Wisconsin. :roll:

It's official: Governor signs state smoking ban into law

It's official: Governor signs state smoking ban into law
Associated Press ? 5/18/2009 12:50 pm

Gov. Jim Doyle signed Wisconsin's smoking ban into law on Monday, snuffing out a smoldering argument that for years had pitted anti-smoking advocates against bar owners and their patrons.

The Tavern League ultimately signed off on the ban, largely because it won't take effect until July 5, 2010. And even then, smoking would be allowed in outdoor seating areas.

But for most bars, restaurants and other workplaces, smoking will be prohibited starting that Monday.

Anti-smoking advocates, including the American Cancer Society, struggled for years to find enough support in the Legislature to enact a ban. Supporters argued it was needed to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke.

But opponents, including the Tavern League, effectively blocked the measure, voicing concerns over the economic impact on the state's bars. They worried that barring smoking would drive away business.

As more communities enacted bans, nonsmoking bars more frequently were pitted against nearby bars where smoking was allowed. There were 37 such local bans in effect, including in Madison, Appleton and Eau Claire, by the time the Legislature last week passed the statewide law.

Doyle pushed for it for years, but could never bring together enough votes, or support, from the Tavern League to get it passed.

Under the law, the local bans remain in effect until the state one starts, but local governments would not be allowed to pass stricter regulations.

Even under the statewide ban, there are some places where smoking would still be allowed. Tribal casinos and existing cigar bars and specialty tobacco shops will not be subject to the ban. However, hotels could no longer offer rooms for smoking.

Violators would face fines of up to $250. Business owners who don't try to stop smokers would get a warning and then a $100 fine for subsequent violations.

Doyle first signed the bill in Milwaukee and also planned events Monday marking the occasion in Green Bay and Madison. He said the ban will save the state money in health care costs, improve public health and save lives.

Twenty-two states, including Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota, already ban smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Four more states -- Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Virginia -- will do so by the end of the year.

Original Post
I'm sure that anti-smoking legislation has been discussed here previously, but dammit, this is my home!

I hate the smell of smoke, but I respect the rights of others to choose. Wisconsinites are fatter and drunker (lots of Drunk Driving accidents) than residents of most other states, but they're not banning McD's and beer.

http://www.madison.com/wsj/blogs/PoliticsBlog/450141
Compromise state smoking ban would take effect in July 2010
By JASON STEIN
608-252-6129
jstein@madison.com
Lawmakers Wednesday announced compromise legislation that would ban smoking in bars and restaurants statewide but delay the effective date of the ban until July 5, 2010.

The compromise announced at a Capitol news conference would give bars more than a year to prepare for the smoking ban and would also prevent local governments from restricting outdoor smoking patios at taverns.

But unlike an earlier version of the bill, it would not allow hotels to set aside rooms where guests could smoke.


? Statewide smoking ban on fast track; Doyle could get bill by next week


"No legislation is perfect and no compromise will satisfy everyone. But the compromise we have here today I think is a good one," said Senate President Fred Risser, D-Madison, a long-time supporter of a ban who said it would save lives and cut health-care costs.

The compromise bill would:

? Keep existing local smoking ordinances such as the one passed in Madison in 2005. But in general it would prevent local governments from passing laws restricting outdoor smoking around businesses that are stricter than the state ban after it takes effect.

? Subject individuals to fines of $100 to $250 and businesses to a $100 fine for violations of the ban. There would be no fine for a first violation, and no more than $100 in fines for a single day. Businesses that act in good faith to stop a patron from smoking would not face fines.

? Grandfather in existing cigar bars and tobacco shops in the state to allow smoking in those establishments. It would also allow smoking by residents of assisted living facilities.

The proposed ban has been on a fast track in the Legislature. It is expected to be voted on by Assembly and Senate committees on Friday and could come to the floor in both houses as early as Wednesday. Both Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan, D-Janesville, and Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Weston, support the compromise, and Sheridan said he was confident the bill would pass his house with bipartisan support.

The Tavern League of Wisconsin had fiercely opposed a smoking ban for years. But League president Rob Swearingen, who runs Al-Gen Dinner Club in Rhinelander, said Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, helped broker a compromise between bar owners and anti-smoking advocates.

"This will be quite an adjustment for my members," Swearingen said. "Given the state of the economy in the state right now, hopefully when the phase-in does take effect on July 5, 2010, things will turn around."

Like anti-smoking advocates, Gov. Jim Doyle said in a statement he wished the ban would take effect sooner but was "pleased" with the compromise.

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/449935

Statewide smoking ban on fast track; Doyle could get bill by next week
By JASON STEIN
608-252-6129
jstein@madison.com
After years of failed attempts by supporters, a tough statewide smoking ban could be headed to Gov. Jim Doyle?s desk as early as next week.

The bill, which would end smoking in bars and restaurants in Wisconsin, could be taken up by both the state Assembly and Senate as early as May 13.

In a burst of action, senators held a hearing on the bill Tuesday and an Assembly committee is scheduled to hold a hearing today, with votes expected by both committees later this week.

"It?s very exciting," said Marilyn Townsend, a village of Shorewood Hills trustee who lost both of her parents to smoking-related illnesses. "There are many people who are trying to quit, and this would help them."

Townsend was one of dozens who showed up to testify both for and against a ban on Tuesday, with advocates arguing it would save both lives and health-care costs. Tavern and tobacco store owners argued the ban would crush their livelihoods. Outside the hearing room, both sides searched for a compromise that could clear the Legislature.

As it now stands, the bill is identical to one that Doyle, also a ban supporter, inserted into the state budget. The proposal would ban smoking in almost every workplace, with exceptions for people who live in assisted living facilities and for hotels, which could designate one-quarter of their rooms as available for smoking. The bill would allow two months to implement the ban.

Chris Marsicano, co-owner of the Village Supper Club in Delavan, said that with the weak economy, sales are already down at a business that has been in his family for 44 years.

"We?re just afraid that with the imposition of a smoking ban, we?re accelerating that," said Marsicano, a regional vice president for the Tavern League of Wisconsin.

Scott Stenger, a lobbyist for the Tavern League, said the group wants several changes: at least a year for implementation, protection of outdoor smoking areas from local ordinances, and lower fines than the current bill. It calls for fines of $25 to $50 for the first violation, $50 to $100 for the second and $100 to $250 for third and additional violations.

But Sen. Fred. Risser, D-Madison, a co-author of the bill, said state government and Wisconsin businesses pay enormous health-care costs because of smoking and a smoking ban shouldn?t face further delay. "The time has come now to provide a healthy environment for our workers and patrons alike," he said.

The bill resurrects a familiar argument for local residents ? whether to provide an exemption for cigar bars or tobacco shops ? as the city of Madison ultimately did after passing its smoking ordinance in 2005. Jeff Steinbock, owner of Uhle Tobacco Co., said his long-time Milwaukee business could shut down if an exemption isn?t provided.

"Nobody expects a smoke-free environment when they enter a tobacco shop or a cigar shop," Steinbock said.
 
Then they should also be willing to ban the sale of cigarettes as well and forego the tax money.

If they don't then they are just being hypocrites.
 
As a Wisconsin resident I am appalled. I do not smoke and would never smoke, but the state has absolutely no right to ban a legal activity from occurring in a privately owned establishment. Going down this road will lead to nothing good. Expect more government regulation over what you can do in private if this passes.
 
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Then they should also be willing to ban the sale of cigarettes as well and forego the tax money.

If they don't then they are just being hypocrites.

Shhhh. This is no place for logic.

ZV
 
:thumbsdown:

Yet another liberal gov't move to control people's lives. The libs did it here in Iowa and the libs in Wisc are doing it now too.

I guess that'll teach you people in Wisc to vote for a moron like doyle, just like it's taught iowans to not vote for a bumbling baboon like chester culver.
 
I wish they'd do that in Michigan. Was one of the ferw things I liked about living in Ontario.

"I only care about M. E. My Enjoyment!"-Homer Simpson
 
Wow this is ridiculous. I do not smoke and never will, but my gawd it is getting out of control. if they are that flipping bad just ban them already
 
Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
They did it in Arizona two years ago. Best thing they ever did.

We've had all the benefits of this simply by banning it in dining areas. People go outside, inside stays smoke free.

Everybody forgets about the dangers of second hand smoke.
 
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Then they should also be willing to ban the sale of cigarettes as well and forego the tax money.

If they don't then they are just being hypocrites.

It seems that these days being a hypocrite is a mandatory requirement to being a politician.
 
Originally posted by: masteryoda34
As a Wisconsin resident I am appalled. I do not smoke and would never smoke, but the state has absolutely no right to ban a legal activity from occurring in a privately owned establishment. Going down this road will lead to nothing good. Expect more government regulation over what you can do in private if this passes.

Blah blah blah we've heard that for years about smoke free states and nothing ever came of it. You get get off your slippery slopes now.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
They did it in Arizona two years ago. Best thing they ever did.

We've had all the benefits of this simply by banning it in dining areas. People go outside, inside stays smoke free.

Everybody forgets about the dangers of second hand smoke.

If they are so bad and so dangerous...then they should not be sold in Wisconsin.
 
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
They did it in Arizona two years ago. Best thing they ever did.

We've had all the benefits of this simply by banning it in dining areas. People go outside, inside stays smoke free.

Everybody forgets about the dangers of second hand smoke.

If they are so bad and so dangerous...then they should not be sold in Wisconsin.

There is a difference. A person who chooses to smoke does so on his own free will, he has a choice to smoke or not to smoke. People are subjected to second hand smoke do not have that choice, they are subjected to the will of another person who may be courteous enough not to smoke in their presence or who may smoke anyway.

Banning smoking in dining areas and allowing it outside is the best choice as it still allows smokers to smoke to their heart's content and at the same time protects those who do not.
 
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
They did it in Arizona two years ago. Best thing they ever did.

We've had all the benefits of this simply by banning it in dining areas. People go outside, inside stays smoke free.

Everybody forgets about the dangers of second hand smoke.

If they are so bad and so dangerous...then they should not be sold in Wisconsin.

There is a difference. A person who chooses to smoke does so on his own free will, he has a choice to smoke or not to smoke. People are subjected to second hand smoke do not have that choice, they are subjected to the will of another person who may be courteous enough not to smoke in their presence or who may smoke anyway.

Banning smoking in dining areas and allowing it outside is the best choice as it still allows smokers to smoke to their heart's content and at the same time protects those who do not.

But this isn't just about "dining", it's also for bars. Again(since you facists never seem to get it) - if YOU don't want to be around smoke - GO TO A SMOKE FREE ESTABLISHMENT! There are plenty of places that don't allow smoking - WITHOUT the nanny state forcing them to. So while you talk about smokers and "free will" you FAIL to also see that the non-smoker currently has the "free will" to not enter establishments where the OWNER DECIDES to allow smoking.
 
I love the fact that you cannot smoke in restaurants and bars here in California. It makes it so much nicer to go to these places and not have to breathe and smell the stale stench of cigarette smoke.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
They did it in Arizona two years ago. Best thing they ever did.

We've had all the benefits of this simply by banning it in dining areas. People go outside, inside stays smoke free.

Everybody forgets about the dangers of second hand smoke.

If they are so bad and so dangerous...then they should not be sold in Wisconsin.

There is a difference. A person who chooses to smoke does so on his own free will, he has a choice to smoke or not to smoke. People are subjected to second hand smoke do not have that choice, they are subjected to the will of another person who may be courteous enough not to smoke in their presence or who may smoke anyway.

Banning smoking in dining areas and allowing it outside is the best choice as it still allows smokers to smoke to their heart's content and at the same time protects those who do not.

But this isn't just about "dining", it's also for bars. Again(since you facists never seem to get it) - if YOU don't want to be around smoke - GO TO A SMOKE FREE ESTABLISHMENT! There are plenty of places that don't allow smoking - WITHOUT the nanny state forcing them to. So while you talk about smokers and "free will" you FAIL to also see that the non-smoker currently has the "free will" to not enter establishments where the OWNER DECIDES to allow smoking.

You're right, it's not about dining. It's about providing a safe workplace. Anyway, how about those who want to smoke can go to a cigar bar - you know, a place dedicated to enjoying that habit.
 
Originally posted by: Robor

You're right, it's not about dining. It's about providing a safe workplace. Anyway, how about those who want to smoke can go to a cigar bar - you know, a place dedicated to enjoying that habit.


Well, they could just hire bartenders/waitresses that smoke.

Speaking of safety, how about the safety of welders, machinists, ag sprayers, etc?
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
They did it in Arizona two years ago. Best thing they ever did.

We've had all the benefits of this simply by banning it in dining areas. People go outside, inside stays smoke free.

Everybody forgets about the dangers of second hand smoke.

If they are so bad and so dangerous...then they should not be sold in Wisconsin.

There is a difference. A person who chooses to smoke does so on his own free will, he has a choice to smoke or not to smoke. People are subjected to second hand smoke do not have that choice, they are subjected to the will of another person who may be courteous enough not to smoke in their presence or who may smoke anyway.

Banning smoking in dining areas and allowing it outside is the best choice as it still allows smokers to smoke to their heart's content and at the same time protects those who do not.

But this isn't just about "dining", it's also for bars. Again(since you facists never seem to get it) - if YOU don't want to be around smoke - GO TO A SMOKE FREE ESTABLISHMENT! There are plenty of places that don't allow smoking - WITHOUT the nanny state forcing them to. So while you talk about smokers and "free will" you FAIL to also see that the non-smoker currently has the "free will" to not enter establishments where the OWNER DECIDES to allow smoking.

You're right, it's not about dining. It's about providing a safe workplace. Anyway, how about those who want to smoke can go to a cigar bar - you know, a place dedicated to enjoying that habit.
I'm not trying to stir the pot, but wouldn't this bill ban smoking in all in door locations. I'm in MN and have never seen or heard of a cigar bar here.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:thumbsdown:

Yet another liberal gov't move to control people's lives. The libs did it here in Iowa and the libs in Wisc are doing it now too.

Oh, whatever :roll:
Nebraska is as red of a state as there is, but we have our own smoking ban too.
 
Originally posted by: BriGy86
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
They did it in Arizona two years ago. Best thing they ever did.

We've had all the benefits of this simply by banning it in dining areas. People go outside, inside stays smoke free.

Everybody forgets about the dangers of second hand smoke.

If they are so bad and so dangerous...then they should not be sold in Wisconsin.

There is a difference. A person who chooses to smoke does so on his own free will, he has a choice to smoke or not to smoke. People are subjected to second hand smoke do not have that choice, they are subjected to the will of another person who may be courteous enough not to smoke in their presence or who may smoke anyway.

Banning smoking in dining areas and allowing it outside is the best choice as it still allows smokers to smoke to their heart's content and at the same time protects those who do not.

But this isn't just about "dining", it's also for bars. Again(since you facists never seem to get it) - if YOU don't want to be around smoke - GO TO A SMOKE FREE ESTABLISHMENT! There are plenty of places that don't allow smoking - WITHOUT the nanny state forcing them to. So while you talk about smokers and "free will" you FAIL to also see that the non-smoker currently has the "free will" to not enter establishments where the OWNER DECIDES to allow smoking.

You're right, it's not about dining. It's about providing a safe workplace. Anyway, how about those who want to smoke can go to a cigar bar - you know, a place dedicated to enjoying that habit.
I'm not trying to stir the pot, but wouldn't this bill ban smoking in all in door locations. I'm in MN and have never seen or heard of a cigar bar here.

Not sure... We're 'smoke free' in FL but it's allowed in 'bars' (< 10% income from food) and I know there are cigar bars.
 
Originally posted by: BriGy86
I'm not trying to stir the pot, but wouldn't this bill ban smoking in all in door locations. I'm in MN and have never seen or heard of a cigar bar here.

Haven't read the actual bill, but the article says that all existing cigar bars will be grandfathered, i.e. allowed to operate normally.

Fine by me, the only problem I have is that being grandfathered also implies that no new cigar bars may open, which later can become a problem if existing bars decide to close and no new ones are allowed to open. Of course that is a stipulation on my part, but IMHO no new cigar bars is going overboard if true.
 
I don't get the logic here. It's ok to allow smoking in a "cigar bar", but not a bar? That makes no sense. Philly passed a smoking ban a couple years back and no one was exempted. Kinda flies in the face of the "logic" of protecting the workers if it doesn't apply everywhere no?

To any enterprising folks out there living under the rule of your moral superiors, study the smoking laws as written in your state. In Virginia, I used to go to an after hours bar that was allowed to continue selling alcohol after the legal time because they were a "private club." They charged $5 at the door for a one night membership. Plenty of smokers who don't go to the bar any more simply due to smoking bans. Start your own "private club" and I bet you'd make a mint.
 
Back
Top