Another Ban Failed: WI State Page 2

Government intrusion bigger hazard than secondhand smoke
July 8, 2010
Local smoking bans have nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of “secondhand” smoke.
Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous cancer: the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether secondhand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists educate people about the potential danger, or force people to make the “right” decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places — places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid “secondhand” smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks.
All decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behavior.
The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario
_______________
Bartenders and tavern owners adjust to smoking ban
July 6, 2010
BARRY ADAMS
If your bartender is a little more surly than usual, please try to understand.
The statewide smoking ban is intended, in part, to make workplaces safer for employees, including bartenders, many of whom like to smoke.
Debbie Kampmeier, at Crapp’s McFarland Tavern, typically smokes about a pack a day, but in the first three hours of her shift Monday she had not even gone through one cigarette.
It was only half gone, resting in an ashtray on the bar’s back deck where bottles of Miller Lite and other alcoholic drinks are banned but where smoking is allowed.
“I’m just trying to keep myself busy,” Kampmeier said, shortly after a noon rush for the featured prime rib sandwiches. “We all knew it was coming. Nobody’s real happy about it, but I don’t think it will impact our business.”
Wisconsin’s workplace smoking ban took effect Monday and prohibits, with a few exceptions, smoking in bars, restaurants and other workplaces. Violators can be fined $100 to $250. Businesses violating the law will be given a warning and then be subject to a maximum daily fine of $100, regardless of the number of violations.
“We realize the debate over going smoke-free was long and at times difficult,” said Allison Miller, a spokeswoman with the American Cancer Society in Wisconsin. “We hope businesses view the transition to smoke-free as an opportunity to appeal to a larger customer base.”
Some communities have had smoking bans for more than a decade. Madison enacted its ban in 2005.
Monday marked the first day that every business in the state was on a level, no-smoking playing field.
“Since everyone is in it, I think they’ll be OK,” Cassandra Grueneberg said of her daughter and son-in-law, Coco and Michael Crapp, who have owned the McFarland bar for more than 13 years.
The couple doubled the size of the back deck and added two plastic cigarette receptacles on the deck and one at the front door. They also plan to thoroughly clean the walls of the business, located in a historic building across the street from the village’s library, Grueneberg said.
At Clayt’s Corner Bar in Albany, about 30 miles south of Madison in eastern Green County, bartender Greg Statdfield opened the bar at 8:30 a.m. and by 3 p.m. would have typically finished off a dozen cigarettes. On Monday, he had smoked just four.
“It’s getting to be kind of a long day about now,” Statdfield said. Customers are “fully aware of (the law) and there is discussion of it, but what are you going to do?”
At the Outpost Bar & Grill in Cottage Grove, the smell of smoke remained, but the ashtrays had been removed. A patio with four picnic tables on the side of the business is the only option for those who want to smoke and drink.
Carol Altenberger, a cook at the business, said she thinks smoking customers may not stay as long, but the absence of smoke could increase the sale of burgers and fries.
“I may have to work harder,” Altenberger said. “But that would be OK if we picked up more food business.”
Across the street at the 1855 Saloon & Grill, which has been smoke-free since opening in 2007, manager Owen King didn’t expect his business, to suffer even though there will be more dining options for those who don’t like cigarette smoke.
“The more traffic both places get, the better for both of us,” King said.

---

Local businesses worry about smoking ban???????

By LYNDA BARRY-KAWULA
Earlier this month, Wisconsin became the 26th state to enact a statewide smoking ban, which will take effect on July 5, 2010. Without this legislation, Governor Doyle stated Wisconsin was in danger of becoming known as “the ashtray of the Midwest.”
But while the Governor shuttled among ceremonies in Madison, Milwaukee and Green Bay to celebrate the ban he was signing into law, and while he took calls from cancer survivors such as bicyclist Lance Armstrong to congratulate him, the mood at Brodhead’s Cardinal Lanes was decidedly grim.
“It’s going to kill business. It’s just going to kill it,” said owner Jack Binko as he prepared for the Friday night fish fry. “The less you take in, the less you can give out. People are going to have to start laying off employees.”
If you ask Robin Goldberg, owner of Dream Lanes in Madison where a smoking ban has been in effect since 2004, those concerns are justified. “It was like going off a cliff,” testified Mr. Goldberg at a hearing on the bill earlier this month. “Our business went down 25 percent.” Six of his employees lost their jobs. After four years and $80,000 spent on construction of an outdoor smoking patio, business is still not back to what it was. “I can only imagine the devastating effects of a smoking ban on a bowling center given today’s economy.” Roger Westmont who owns a jukebox and amusement games business testified that his business dropped 35 percent when the smoking ban went into effect in Madison and has not come back. “I’d like to know when it’s going to come back to normal,” he said, adding that the biggest impact of the no smoking ban is not on restaurants but neighborhood taverns. He said some taverns in Minnesota have lost between 25 to 50 percent of their value since the smoking ban was enacted there.
Supporters of the ban feel those kinds of losses are minor when compared to the benefits of lives saved, illnesses prevented and reductions of smoking-related medical costs. Karen Timberlake, Secretary of the Department of Health Services put that figure at about five hundred million dollars. At present less than 20 percent of Wisconsin residents are smokers, and she believes the ban will help reduce that number even further.
Doctors, nurses, asthma sufferers, people who had lost family members to lung cancer, parents of children with heart conditions and anti-tobacco lobbyists all came to Madison to plead for quick passage of the bill, stressing that it is an issue of pubic health, intended to protect employees and non-smokers from the known dangers of second-hand smoke such as increased risk of heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory disease. One man testified on behalf of his 8 year old daughter with a heart condition who couldn’t attend school bowling parties because of what he called “heart poisons” in the air.
Owners of smoke shops, cigar bars, supper clubs, and taverns testified that this was an economic issue and also one of individual and property rights. One cigar shop owner began his testimony by saying, “I’m here to fight for my business.”
Last Friday afternoon, the friendly crowd at Cardinal Lanes clearly sided with the last group, resenting what they saw as yet another instance of Madison government telling rural communities what they can and cannot do. “Next thing you know,” said a patron named Scott, “They’ll be telling us what to eat and what to drink.”
“I think we should just ban Democrats,” said another, “Or tax them 200 percent for being Democrats.”
When told the state smoking ban won’t apply to casinos, one patron said, “How about if we just name this place ‘Brodhead Casino’, will that work?”
When asked if the game of bowling itself would be affected by the ban, a woman named Chris who bowled in a state tournament where smoking wasn’t allowed, said she wouldn’t want to do that every week. “It does make a difference, “ she said. When bowlers have to step outside to have a cigarette, “It holds up the game.” A patron named Brian added, “If we want to go out, we have to take off our shoes. You can’t wear your bowling shoes outside.”
“Who I really feel sorry for are the Mom and Pop bars,” said Scott, as he lit up a cigarette. “That’s their life savings right there. That’s their retirement.”
But at Villa Pizza, a sit-down restaurant which went smoke-free in February, owner Lena Mazzarese said it has had no effect on business. “People are very happy, They said, ‘That’s the best thing you guys did. Put in No Smoking.’”
Yanci, a waitress at Knutes Bar and Grill, in Orfordville, didn’t believe it would hurt the dinner service because she said Knutes already offers a separate smoke-free dining area. But she said the bar business would suffer once the ban took effect, and she too, bristled at the intervention of government on what she believes should be a business owner’s choice. “I don’t think they should be telling us what to do. I don’t agree with it at all.”
At 6:30 p.m. Knutes was crowded with customers, including families, who came for fish and chose to dine upstairs where smoking was allowed, though only two people out of about 50 present were having cigarettes. One of them was Sonja Haegele, who said she probably would stay home more if she couldn’t smoke in the bar. “Yeah, I’ll probably just stay home at my campfire and drink and smoke there.” Another customer leaned into the conversation and said, “Yeah, but I’ll be staying here longer.”
Sonja said, “I already feel like a minority.” One Brodhead tavern owner who requested anonymity was worried about loss of income and also resented what felt like strong arm tactics from the state government. “I don’t smoke, and I never have,” the owner said, “But my customers do. And after working hard all day I feel they have the right to come in and have a drink and enjoy a cigarette if they want it.” Adding, “They should let us put a sign out that says, ‘This is a smoking establishment’. It should be our choice.” Though the ban allows businesses to have outdoor smoking patios, tavern owners didn’t feel that would help things. “I only own this place from the front door to the back,” said one, “Where am I supposed to put people? On the roof?”
With exception of the Ms. Mazzarese of Villa Pizza, who went smoke free by choice, local tavern owners and workers we spoke to on Friday were angry and frustrated with lawmakers who they feel are ignoring the impact the ban will have on their businesses. “We work hard,” Said one, “They keep taxing us and making money from us, but they also want to kill us.”
“The ramifications are far-reaching,” said Binko of the smoking ban, “I complained, I called my legislators, they don’t want to hear it.”? He believes local people should be able to decide this issue for themselves. “If you don’t like smoke, don’t come in here,” he said. “They have a choice,” he added, but when it comes to the smoking ban, “I don’t have a choice.”?? Before he headed back to the kitchen to get the Cardinal Lanes fish fry going, he said,? “Governor Doyle is a moron. And you can quote me on that.” There were nods of agreement from patrons all around the bar.
When asked what he thought the long term effect of the smoking ban would be, a bartender at Flinagans Bar and Grill summed up the feelings of most local tavern owners we spoke to. He said, “It goes into effect July 5 of next year, right?” he said, “And so we’ll be broke by the sixth.”

---

Two more states about to fall victim to smoking bans

May 27, 2009
By William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

Smoke ’em if you’ve got ’em, people. Because for all you pipe, cigarette, and cigar smokers out there, we’re surely in the waning days of the Age of Tobacco. A statewide indoor smoking ban has cleared the state senate in Texas and is looming in Wisconsin. And if those Bill of Rights-shredding, anti-smoking lobbyists have their way, this ban is coming to a state near you sooner than you think.

One of the ban’s supporters in the Texas statehouse, Sen. Rodney Ellis (a democrat, naturally), claims that “the bill goes a long way toward reducing the incidence of cancer in Texas.”

Hogwash. Secondhand smoke is one of the biggest loads of bunk ever to be foisted on the population. The hysteria over secondhand smoke has single-handedly ushered in our current age of ever-eroding personal freedoms. As I’ve written to you on more than one occasion, smokers are merely the first group to have their personal freedoms yanked by do-gooders.

Time is running out on personal freedom up in Wisconsin, too, where the political fervor for a statewide smoking ban has been steadily gaining ground as smoke-free laws (of course enacted to “protect” people from secondhand smoke) have spread through 37 towns and cities in the state.

Bar and restaurant owners already know that the Wisconsin ban will put a dent in their profits. When the town of Wauwatosa enacted a local smoking ban in 2006, businesses took it on the chin. One restaurant had sales drop as much as 20 percent in a year.

The silver lining in this smoke cloud is that some people are finally starting to join me in my argument against these unconstitutional bans on your personal rights and freedoms. Republican Texas State Sen. Bob Deuell is one of them. He said he voted against his state’s ban because, “It’s a constitutional, personal property issue; I don’t think we have a right to tell somebody what to do with their personal property.”

Adam White, a Bayside, Wisconsin bar patron (and a non-smoker), acknowledged that the ban puts everyone on the same slippery slope. “I own my own business, and the last thing I want is the government telling me how to run it,” he said.

And therein lies the essential truth of what all smoking bans represent: the limitation of personal freedom by the government. All in the name of “protecting” people from a nonexistent threat.
http://douglassreport.com/

---

Wisconsin Smoking Ban Bill Awaits Governor’s Signature
Senate, Assembly members passed the smoking ban bill late-Wednesday.

Jake Miller FOX 6 Anchor/Reporter
May 14, 2009

MADISON, Wis. (AP) – Lighting up in bars and restaurants would be illegal anywhere in Wisconsin under a bill state lawmakers approved Wednesday. The Senate voted 25-8 and the Assembly 61-38 to approve a statewide ban on smoking in almost all indoor workplaces across the state. The Democratic-authored measure now goes to Gov. Jim Doyle, who can sign it into law or veto it.

The governor, a Democrat, issued a statement saying he supports the ban but did not explicitly commit to signing the bill.

Opponents decried the measure as an attack on personal freedoms that could keep smoking customers away and drive businesses under. Supporters countered the move will save lives and tax dollars that would otherwise go to pay for health care costs tied to secondhand smoke.

“This is a hazardous material in the workplace,” said Rep. Mark Gottlieb, R-Port Washington, one of more than a dozen Assembly Republicans who voted with Democrats to pass the bill. “I think we are going to move our state to a better place after we pass this bill.”

Twenty-five other states already are smoke-free. North Carolina’s Legislature approved a statewide ban just Wednesday.

Wisconsin’s ban has been years in the making, however.

The powerful Wisconsin Tavern League has stymied past attempts to impose the prohibition. The league fears the ban will drive taverns out of business because smoking patrons will choose to drink at home.

But nearly 40 local governments have passed anti-smoking ordinances in the last five years. The league says that’s led to a patchwork of regulation that has pit smoking bars against nonsmoking bars.

State politics shifted in last November’s elections when Democrats seized control of the full Legislature. Assuming a statewide ban was now inevitable, the tavern lobby struck an uneasy truce with anti-smoking groups and hammered out compromise legislation.

Under the plan both houses approved Wednesday, the ban would apply in almost all workplaces. It would take effect in July 2010, giving businesses time to prepare.

Smokers who violate the prohibition would face fines of up to $250. Bar owners could set up outdoor smoking areas within a reasonable distance of the establishment. Owners who don’t try to stop smokers would get a warning and then face a $100 fine for subsequent violations.

Local governments couldn’t pass any regulations stricter than the state ban. The prohibition wouldn’t apply to tribal casinos, existing cigar bars and existing tobacco shops.

Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, chief author of the bill, said the prohibition creates fair competition throughout the state and would save both lives and taxpayer dollars on health care expenses. A state Department of Health Services fiscal estimate attached to the bill said the measure would save about $754,000 in Medicaid expenses annually, with savings likely to grow over time.

“I don’t have to tell you about the health effects of smoking,” Risser told the Senate. “We all know it. It is the most preventable cause of illness in the state.”

Senate and Assembly Republicans tried to upset the delicate alliance between the tavern lobby and anti-smoking groups. They spent hours in each house trying to attach dozens of amendments to create exemptions, from hotel rooms to private clubs.

Rep. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa, branded the ban “anti-smoking zealotry.”

“The only thing that’s compromised are individual rights and individual freedoms,” she said.

Democrats rejected all the amendments, preserving the compromise.

“It’s not a tough thing to get off the bar stool and step outside and smoke,” said Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Waunakee, himself a smoker who helped craft the legislation.

Eric Schutt, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society, called the votes historic. They will protect generations of Wisconsin residents, he said. Pete Madland, executive director of the tavern league, and league lobbyist Scott Stenger didn’t immediately return messages late Wednesday evening.

Tag Grotelueschen, 41, co-owner of the Club Garibaldi bar in Milwaukee’s Bay View neighborhood, said it’s “ludicrous” to regulate consumption of a legal product, but he’s glad the ban would be statewide.

“If it were by municipality it would hurt the bars on the fringes, but if it’s statewide I don’t think it’s going to hurt us,” he said. “Customers might complain at first but I think they’ll acclimate.”

But businessman Bruce Andreasen, 62, of Milwaukee said he wouldn’t go to bars any more if he has to step away from his drink to light up.

“Rather than meeting friends at a bar I’d suggest alternatives, like meeting at someone’s home,” he said. “This ban is definitely going to make me stay home.”

---

Rein in pharma money
Drug company funding of continuing medical education raises conflicts for the University of Wisconsin. The school should set strict guidelines.
Apr. 2009
It’s no surprise that continuing medical education courses bought and paid for by drug companies come with a heavy dose of marketing.
The surprise is that schools like the University of Wisconsin-Madison haven’t done more until now to insulate themselves from the pernicious effects of drug company money.
UW officials are evaluating the school’s policies on continuing medical education. They must set strict guidelines that protect the school’s reputation.
In another of their periodic reports on the problem, Journal Sentinel reporters Susanne Rust and John Fauber found that doctor education courses offered by UW and funded by drug companies often provided biased information that tended to favor prescription drugs over non-drug therapies and failed to mention important side effects.
Pfizer, for example, is shelling out $12.3 million for an online UW course to instruct doctors on how to get patients to quit smoking. The course materials heavily promote Pfizer’s drug, Chantix, which is the most effective drug on the market but also has been linked to serious side effects. None of them are mentioned in the course.
Fauber and Rust found that four of nine online UW doctor education courses were funded by industry – all free and all recommending drugs as the first line of treatment. The other five courses, costing $20 each, stressed nutrition and quality of life issues.
Such cozy relationships tend to drive up medical costs by encouraging doctors to prescribe expensive brand-name drugs and by promoting the use of drugs not approved for ailments. The Wisconsin Medical Society, among other groups, has called for restrictions on drug company money.
UW might consider emulating Stanford University, which has banned companies from designating how their contributions can be used. Companies can make general-purpose contributions, but Stanford determines for itself how that money is used. Another option: banning drug company funding of continuing medical education altogether.
Universities should not lend their good names to the marketing machines of the nation’s pharmaceutical industry. Strict guidelines are needed.

---

Move statewide smoking ban as separate bill

April 26, 2009
The Legislature is back on track to snuff out smoking in all bars and restaurants across Wisconsin.

Two Democrats and two Republicans introduced a bipartisan bill Friday that would ban smoking in all indoor workplaces 60 days after passage.

The sponsors who deserve credit for moving forward this public health proposal include Sens. Fred Risser, D-Madison, Mike Ellis, R-Neenah, and Reps. Jon Richards, D-Milwaukee, and Al Ott, R-Forest Junction.

Many more lawmakers are sure to sign on to the bill. But its passage won’t be easy, particularly in the Democratic-led Senate, where it stalled last session.

Getting this measure into law will require the public to demand it. So call your representative and senator today.

A real person answers the state’s legislative hotline — 800-362-9472 or 608-266-9960 — from 8:15 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. on weekdays. The operator can offer help in determining who your state representatives are. The operator can take a message or transfer you to the right place.

You also can find the e-mails, direct phone numbers and addresses for the entire Legislature here.

Gov. Jim Doyle has been aggressively pushing a statewide indoor smoking ban for years now. He even brought bicycle champion and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong to Madison last year to stump for it.

But Doyle made a mistake by putting this sweeping policy proposal into the state’s two-year state spending plan.

It doesn’t belong there.

That’s because it doesn’t affect state spending, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Slipping controversial policy into the giant state budget limits public input and protects lawmakers from taking tough votes.

The smoking ban might be easier to pass by camouflaging it in the budget. But it deserves an up or down vote on its own merits as separate legislation.

More lawmakers from both major political parties are supporting this reasonable proposal for public health. With public pressure this year, bar patrons — and especially
staff — will finally breathe easier.

---

IPCPR Offers Op-Ed to Wisconsin Newspapers on Proposed Statewide Smoking Ban
November 24, 2008
Dear Editor:
There are few topics as controversial as politics and religion. Secondhand smoke is one such topic. Although people get passionate about all three subjects, the main difference between them is that the former are based on promises and beliefs while the latter is based on science.
Unfortunately, the science of secondhand smoke is often less reliable than the promises of politics and the beliefs of religion.
As the Wisconsin legislature considers a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants and bars, they should look behind and beyond the numbers to determine their validity and viability which is what my organization – the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association – tries to help legislators and consumers do.
Anti-smoking forces throw statistics around like ping pong balls. People believe most of them because, after all, who is going to question a source like the American Cancer Society? They take whatever numbers are printed in the ACS news releases and accept them as if they came from the Bible. Before we deny more people of their rights, we should analyze the data and statements to be sure they reflect reality.
The Truth Revealed
For example, the Surgeon General’s 2006 Report actually says throughout that the evidence regarding health effects of secondhand smoke is inconclusive. Unfortunately, most folks only quote from the executive summary which skews the results to support the anti-smoking force’s false agenda.
Another example of misrepresented data would be the report on secondhand smoke produced by the Environmental Protection Agency. The science quoted in the EPA report was so badly conceived and poorly executed that a federal court condemned it as being deliberately biased and declared it null and void.
On the other hand, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration gets it. They established what they consider to be safe parameters for secondhand smoke. Those parameters are well outside of the range that anyone would find in an average restaurant or bar according to scientific testing done by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Other than that, OSHA does not regard secondhand smoke to be a workplace issue.
Finally, history has shown that legislatively imposed smoking bans can lead to lower tax revenues from businesses like restaurants and bars plus widespread layoffs and even forced closings. In Wisconsin, businesses potentially affected by a smoking ban could include the 30 of IPCPR’s 2,000 members who are owners of neighborhood smoke shops that pay millions of dollars annually in payroll, sales and excise taxes.
The bottom line is that government does not have the right to impose smoking bans on private businesses. Our nation’s founders clearly opposed government intervention into matters of private property – like businesses, including bars and restaurants – where owners have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their premises. Customers and employees then have the right to patronize or work at those businesses.
Legislators should spend their time on serious matters instead of on matters of dubious representation.
Chris McCalla, Legislative Director
International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association
4 Bradley Park Court
Columbus, GA 31904
706/494-1143
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

---

Voters Reject Kenosha Smoking Ban
November 5, 2008
KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) – Voters in Kenosha are urging the City Council to reject a proposed ban on smoking in workplaces.
Fifty-two percent of voters in an advisory referendum Tuesday voted against the smoking ban.
A council committee deferred action on the proposal last August, sending the issue to a referendum. That set up a divisive battle between those with health concerns about secondhand smoke and how the ban would impact business at local bars.
Organizers of Breathe Free Kenosha promised to continue the fight to ban workplace smoking.
Jim Matzur, the chairman of Be Fair Kenosha, which rallied against the ban, said the hard work paid off and the “spin is over.”
Information from: Kenosha News, http://www.kenoshanews.com

---

Past and Present Collide?
24 October 2008
By Mary Magdalen Moser

Here’s good news for all who worship scientific discovery. Bow down before your god, and feel righteous superiority with this evidence from your priesthood: According to “Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention” (the American Association for Cancer Research’s magazine), scientists have found the “smoking genes” and have been studying their inheritability in families since 2003.

Researchers working with the Human Genome Project headquartered at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York have identified seventeen genes for nicotine addiction: CHRNA1—10, CHRNB1—4, CHRND, CHRNE, and CHRNG.

Those stubborn smokers who won’t quit despite all the evidence are genetic misfits biologically hard-wired from birth to be hopeless slaves to nicotine.

Once again, science grants permission justifying discrimination against a minority. Just like eighty-four years ago, when the “undeniable scientific evidence” of the day allowed well-intentioned people to feel good about forcibly sterilizing the “unfit,” anti-smoking crusaders can now bask in their own genetic supremacy. Never mind that researchers can’t explain why some children of smokers never smoke, even when they have the “smoking genes;” that pesky detail can be explained after smoking bans have been passed to genetically ghettoize those “unfit” smokers.

Here’s bad news for all who value the constitutionally-protected right of equal protection under the law: Until 1940 the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory was home to the Eugenics Records Office, headed by the authors of the racist Immigration Act of 1924 and “Laughlin’s Model Law,” the blueprint for all compulsory sterilization legislation. In 1972, the American Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology.

Social reform laws like smoking bans put us back on the highway to the Holocaust.

Mary Magdalen Moser

---

International Premium Cigar and Pipe Dealers Association: Spreads truth to head off Wisconsin smoking ban

10/17/2008
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

Wisconsin’s local and state legislators need to wake up to the truth about smoking bans before it is too late, according to Chris McCalla, legislative director of the International Premium Cigar and Pipe Dealers Association.

According to McCalla, smoking bans are bad for business, defile the constitutional rights of business owners and are based on erroneous assumptions regarding secondhand smoke. Nearly 30 of IPCPR’s 2,000 members are Wisconsin-based owners of neighborhood smoke shops that pay millions of dollars annually in payroll, sales and excise taxes.

“History has shown that legislatively imposed smoking bans often lead to lower tax revenues from these businesses, widespread layoffs and even forced closings,” he explained.

McCalla also challenged erroneous information provided by anti-smoking groups.

“People should stop blaming secondhand smoke for every ailment under the sun. That’s what led to bans in Madison, Appleton and other Wisconsin cities and that’s what is influencing cities like La Crosse and Kenosha to consider their own bans while the state is said to be gearing up to confront the controversial issue after the winter holidays,” McCalla said. “Here’s the truth: The 2006 Surgeon General’s Report clearly concluded that secondhand smoke should not be considered a legitimate health or environmental hazard,” he said.

“That’s why the Occupational Safety and Health Administration isn’t anywhere near citing secondhand smoke as problematic in the workplace or elsewhere,” McCalla pointed out.

According to McCalla, OSHA has established safe exposure levels for secondhand smoke and says that “field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that it would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that (those levels would be exceeded).” McCalla also pointed to Oak Ridge National Laboratory testing of air with secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants that proved to be, in their words, “considerably below limits established by OSHA.”

“Our nation’s founders opposed government intervention into matters of private property – like businesses – where owners have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their premises. Customers and employees then have the right to patronize or work at those businesses,” he pointed out.
http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=139214

---

Ryan vs. the Anti-Smoking Movement
By Ryan Evans
Tonight I initiated stage one of my assault on the anti-smoking movement here in Wisconsin. I have decided that politics, policy, rights and common decency don’t work, so it is time to fight fallacy with fact and fall back on that wonderfully objective argument called hard science. Below is a copy of the letter that I sent off to involved WI government and advocacy groups in the hopes of forcing a response from them that I can use in future arguments.
I will be posting their responses as I receive them.
Open Letter to Smoke Free Wisconsin Requesting Documentation for Smoke Free Wisconsin Health Claims
Dear Smoke Free Wisconsin et al.;
cc: American Lung Association of Wisconsin, American Cancer Society (Wisconsin), Wisconsin State Senator Harsdorf, Wisconsin Assembly Representative Hraychuck, Governor Jim Doyle, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Read More

---

WI Smoking Ban

January 30, 2008

MADISON – The latest attempt at a compromise on a statewide smoking ban has been rejected.

Democratic Sen. Roger Breske of Eland said Wednesday that anti-smoking advocates have rejected a proposal that would delay the ban on smoking in taverns until July 1, 2011. The ban would take effect immediately for all other work places and restaurants in Wisconsin.

Breske says he believes the talks are now back to square one.

Gov. Jim Doyle has been pushing for a statewide ban for all work places, restaurants and taverns to take effect everywhere as soon as possible.

But Breske and the state’s Tavern League have been pushing for a phase-in.

---

Legislators push back on Doyle’s call for smoking ban
January 24, 2008

Gov. Jim Doyle used his State of the State address to again urge lawmakers to pass a statewide smoking ban for next year — no exceptions.

Leaders of both houses made it clear the governor won’t get what he wants.

Assembly Speaker Rep. Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem, said members of both parties remain opposed to a workplace smoking ban and they’re concerned how businesses will be affected by regulating what’s still a legal product.

Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, said the Assembly might end up killing the measure, even if the Senate approves something.

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Russ Decker, D-Weston, said his house is getting closer to drafting a compromise his house can accept.

Personally, Decker says he’d favor an immediate smoking ban in restaurants and workplaces – give taverns until 2011 to comply – and let the 30 communities which have more comprehensive smoking bans keep them in place.

Doyle called the current local bans a “patchwork approach to public health.” He said it’s bad for business, and the time is now to take the bans statewide.

---

Hudson / Governor attempts to light a fire under state lawmakers Doyle visits front line in smoking ban battle

01/09/2008
BY KEVIN HARTER

The day after a Wisconsin Senate committee voted to delay a smoking ban until 2010, Gov. Jim Doyle stopped by Hudson, the smoke-filled front line of the battle, to urge lawmakers to snuff out smoking in bars and restaurants sooner than later.

“There is a small group keeping the will of the people from being done,” he told a crowd Wednesday at a Hudson restaurant. “We need to do the right thing and pass a statewide smoking ban without exceptions.”

A Senate committee voted 3-2 Tuesday to pass a bill that would ban smoking in state workplaces starting next year but give bars and restaurants until 2010 to implement the ban.

Doyle said there are many issues in Madison, like the budget, that need to be scrutinized and negotiated, but a statewide smoking ban is not among them.

“A lot of things are complicated. This is not,” Doyle said.

Since neighboring Minnesota extinguished public smoking in October, border towns, most notably Hudson because of its proximity to the Twin Cities, have experienced an influx of Minnesota smokers. And Wisconsin’s other main neighboring state, Illinois, instituted a smoking ban last week.

Standing before a large sign Wednesday mockingly suggesting the state tourism slogan be changed to “Wisconsin, the Ashtray of the Midwest,” Doyle said he wanted Wisconsin to be a leader, not a follower, in the public health issue.

“I wanted Wisconsin to be one of the first states, not the last. Let’s at least fall in the middle,” Doyle said, noting 22 states have gone smoke-free.
Before arriving in Hudson, Doyle spent the morning with Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty discussing, among other issues, Minnesota’s smoking ban.

Doyle, a Democrat, said Pawlenty, a Republican, told him there was a lot of talk about delays and exceptions, but when the statewide ban took effect, it was anticlimactic.

Doyle said a Wisconsin smoking ban was the third and most important step in an effort to improve the state’s health.

The first was raising the cigarette tax by $1 per pack, and the second was a $10 million increase to the $20 million already budgeted for programs to help smokers quit.

If the third part of the plan is implemented, Wisconsin will save money on health care and save lives.

Doyle told about 50 people gathered at Pier 500 restaurant – mostly health care and elected officials – that he had come “to hear your thoughts and ask for your help.”

“It’s time for Wisconsin to follow Minnesota’s lead,” said Geralyn Karl, St. Croix County Tobacco Control Specialist.

“Senate Bill 150 is a tremendous bill to protect the health of people in Wisconsin and St. Croix County. We know that second-hand smoke causes disease. The time is now to protect people from second-hand smoke,” said Charlotte Sortedahl, St. Croix County Public Health officer.

Since the Minnesota ban took effect, Richard Purdy, a member of the Pierce County Board of Supervisors, told Doyle the county has seen a spike in drunken-driving arrests involving Minnesota motorists. When asked by the governor, Purdy said he would provide the information from the Pierce County sheriff’s office and district attorney.

While they weren’t in attendance Wednesday, many smokers and establishments in Hudson wish the governor and lawmakers would butt out.

Some Hudson hotspots, including Dick’s and Dibbos, allow smoking, while others, including Barker’s and San Pedro, do not. Pier 500 is smoke-free until 10 p.m.

Andrew Kron, Pier 500’s owner, said he would prefer to let business owners decide, but he agrees the trend is increasingly toward no smoking, so his bottom line is fairness.

“I realize it is going to happen, so as long as it is statewide and creates a level playing field, I support it,” he said.

Kevin Harter can be reached at kharter@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-2149.