Breske hits the rails

I have no idea whether or not this was a purely political move on Doyle's part, but apparently he's appointed good ol' Sen. Roger Breske, perpetual thorn in the pro-smoking ban movement's side, to be the new commissioner of railroads.

Which, frankly, sounds like too sweet a job for that guy. I could totally be the commissioner of railroads. I'd push for expanded commuter service to and from Milwaukee/Madison/Chicago, lobby for better state funding, and insist on riding in at least one caboose a week. I used to love waving to the caboose guys as a kid.

Anyway, Breske's move over to ye olde commissioner job means he's pretty much out of the way now in terms of getting a statewide smoking ban in place sometime before the next Ice Age. I'm not going to give him so much credit that I think this means smooth sailing from here on out, but it's certainly helpful.

Plus, while Breske was hardcore anti-ban, full of mis-information about smoking, and the former Wisconsin Tavern League president, the two candidates currently vying for his seat seem far more open to the idea of a ban.

Tom Tiffany, a Rhinelander businessman who lost to Breske in the 2004 election, says it's unfair to ban smoking in taverns while exempting casinos within close proximity.

Former state Department of Tourism Secretary Jim Holperin, the second candidate, said he would support a statewide ban, but emphasized the issue is not a priority among more pressing matters in the upcoming race. Still, he thinks a statewide smoking ban is inevitable.

So, we'll have to wait a see what all effects Breske's departure from the Senate has. More importantly, we'll have to continue our efforts at education and action to get a statewide ban in place. Small victories like this are always welcome, though.

More smoke and mirrors

Apparently, state Republicans and Democrats have plenty of time to engage in public dick waving matches, but no time to schedule a vote on the proposed smoking ban legislation.

The Republicans involved also apparently don't see any irony in the fact that, when it comes to voter ID laws, they cry for immediate voting. Bring up the smoking ban, though, and it's voting be damned.

I've written about the ban controversy several times already, including Roger Breske's baffling insistence that secondhand smoke doesn't have any harmful effects. Now Senate leader Russ Decker (D-Weston) and Assembly leader Mike Huebsh (R-West Salem) are dragging their collective heals about even scheduling a vote on the bills (SB-150 and AB-834) in the Senate and the Assembly.

The current legislative session ends on March 13. After that, who knows how long it will be before they get back around to this.

Presumably, they're miffed that their heavily edited and bastardized version of the bill met with (deserved) rejection by anti-smoking groups just last month.

Still, this kind of behavior is pretty shameful. Regardless of how they end up voting on the matter, it's only right to allow for the vote to take place. All of this ducking and weaving is making me feel nauseated.

As a side note, I was in Chicago this week for a show, and it was amazingly refreshing to be able to enjoy the music and the scene without my eyes watering, my throat burning, and my clothes smelling like ass. I'd love to be able to do that all over the state of Wisconsin, too, and not just in Madison.

Start spreading the news

It's time to ante up and make it known that we want a smoke-free Wisconsin! I just had the following information sent to me and thought it was worth spreading the word:

+ A public hearing will be held on the Assembly version of our bill [AB834] this Wednesday Feb 27th at 12pm in Rm 417 North of the State Capitol. Free lunch will be provided. RSVP here (http://wisconsin.grassroots.com/CIA/RSVP022208). The Senate hearing earlier this year went late into evening, so even if you work during the day, consider coming later.

+ Lance Armstrong will visit our rally at the State Capitol on March 4th. Registration and free lunch from 10:30-12, rally at 12-1, and meetings with your legislators from 1-3. Free buses will depart from the following locations: Eau Claire, La Crosse, Wausau, Green Bay, and Milwaukee. RSVP here (http://wisconsin.grassroots.com/CIA/RSVP021408).

If this is an issue you feel at all strongly about, I urge you to come out and make your voices heard. Don't let Breske and the Tavern League's misinformation and maneuvering win.

More: www.itstimewisconsin.org

Breske's bluster can't change facts about secondhand smoke

(cross post from dane101.com)

Sen. Roger Breske (D-Eland), has been on a roll lately. In the fight over whether or not Wisconsin should impose a smoking ban for all workplaces, including restaurants and bars, Breske has come out as the champion of the Wisconsin Tavern League. His arguments against a ban have been laughable at best, dangerous at worst.

"I think they're sticking their noses into everything," [Breske] said. "It's seat belts, it's helmets, you name it. Why does the government have to tell people what to do all the time? I just can't believe this is what we're here for. We should be doing something decent, like helping people to try to find jobs."

Breske dismissed the potential health threat posed by second-hand smoking as "hogwash," adding, "I was born and raised in a bar since I was that high, and I was tending bar since I was that high (holding hand four feet above the ground.) And there was only one light bulb in the bar. There was no fans, and everyone smoked. It was blue in there. Come on, I'm still alive, and I'm 69 years old. It's sickening."

Screw public health then, eh Roger? Seat belts are government interference in our God-given right to be thrown through car windshields and smashed into trees! Helmets are government interference in our right to have our brains splattered all over the pavement!

Who elected this guy, and was he this crazy during his campaign?

I'm no fan of a Big Brother government, but there are certain basic human rights that cannot be left to the whims of individuals, companies or towns: things like a person's right not to have cancer-causing smoke blown in their face while they work to make a living, possibly in the only job in the area they could get.

So what I'm left wondering now is whether Breske is just a little loopy or if he's both loopy and in the pockets of the anti-smoking ban interest groups? It might also be worth noting that the Tavern League lists both R.J. Reynolds and Altria as "Affiliated Associations." R.J. Reynolds owns several cigarette brands, and Altria is the parent company of Philip Morris, just in case that wasn't clear. I don't suppose there's any vested interest there in scewing the facts in order to thwart a statewide smoking ban? And maybe it's paranoid to think that the Tavern League and its "affiliates" are pretty cozy with one another's best interests.

The fact remains, no matter how many anti-ban activists might have you believe otherwise, that secondhand smoke has been definitively linked to causing lung cancer and other ailments in those people who're exposed to it, regardless of whether or not they've ever personally smoked a cigarette in their lives. This applies to both restaurant and bar patrons (not all of whom go there just to smoke, by the way) and to those people working in those places.

The common argument is that by banning smoking in all work places, you'll be forcing many of those businesses to shut down, thus harming those waiters and bartenders you profess to want to protect. But riddle me this: just how many establishments have been forced to close based solely on economic downturn as a result of the Madison smoking ban? The Tavern League would like us to believe that the number is at least 12, even providing us with this handy list of names.

However, what they fail to do is account for other factors that may have led to some of these closings. Madhatters, for instance, was located in the University Square building that was demolished to make room for a whole new development. Bennett's "Smut n' Eggs" on the Park was pretty much a hole-in-the-wall. Kimia Lounge had been having financial troubles for awhile. In the end, it's mighty presumptuous to claim that the smoking ban was the main cause of these closings, while ignoring the fact that businesses come and go all the time. In a capitalistic society, that's the natural way of things.

What anti-ban types also fail to think about are the medical expenses incurred by employees of smoking establishments if and when the various secondhand-linked ailments begin to take hold. "They could just quit if they don't like it!" goes the argument. Sure, they're free to quit, but a lot of people holding down jobs as waiters or bartenders are doing so because they have to. Maybe there aren't any smoke-free workplaces in the area that'll hire them, or where the hours and pay will support their needs. Maybe it's what they're most qualified to do. Maybe they love the work. Ultimately, there are regulations in place to ensure that employees are treated fairly and safely in the workplace. Constant exposure to secondhand smoke is dangerous and should be regulated the same way that exposure to any other carcinogen is. So either start buying your workers gas masks, or just get rid of the source all-together.

I'd advocate the same course of action for Mr. Breske, who'll be up for reelection this year.

The effects of secondhand smoke on state legislators

I am still hopeful that Wisconsin will join the tide of other states moving to ban smoking in public places, including taverns and clubs, soon. But I am extremely dismayed by today's news that a heavily compromised version of the bill offered by Senate Democrats has been rejected by anti-smoking groups.

I don't blame them for thumbing their noses at the offer. What I'm dismayed by is the compromised version of the bill. Sen. Roger Breske (D-Eland) made the offer, backed by your friend and mine Majority Leader Russ Decker (heavens do I miss Judy), that included a delay of the law for taverns until July 2011 (anti-smoking groups wanted it to go into effect in 2010 for bars and 2009 for all other work places). It also included a provision that would have prohibited any community from enacting separate legislation to ban smoking prior to the state-wide effective date.

In a word: lame.

But what really got my hackles in a tizzy was a statement by Breske, when he claimed that the argument that secondhand smoke is a hazard to non-smoking patrons was "hogwash." His reason for believing that? "I'm still alive."

Good for you. But I find it unacceptable that one of our elected leaders seems to harbor such disdain for mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. Have some statistics, courtesy of the EPA and the NIH:

• EPA has concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in adults who do not smoke. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in nonsmokers.
• Exposure to secondhand smoke has also been shown in a number of studies to increase the risk of heart disease.
• ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. ETS has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. This classification is reserved for those compounds or mixtures which have been shown to cause cancer in humans, based on studies in human populations.
• There are conclusive published studies that indicate increased risk of lung cancer in nonsmoking women living with smoking husbands or working with smoking co-workers.

Need more convincing? Check out this fact sheet from the American Lung Association.

I can't believe anyone in this day and age, with access to libraries, the internet, and even television, would have the brass ones to make a ridiculous claim like "secondhand smoke doesn't hurt people." In public. As an elected official.

I think the original plan--bars get until 2010, everyone else gets until 2009--is plenty of time for people and places to adapt. Plus, the fact remains that our two nearest neighbors, Minnesota and Illinois, currently do having smoking bans in place, so the argument that crazed Wisconsin smokers would flee across the borders for their nic fixes is pretty ridiculous, unless we expect them to drive all the way to Iowa or Indiana.

There are arguments to be made about the potential negative economic impact such a ban might have, but ultimately, the more states that follow suit, the less of an issue it'll be. And in the end, this is another instance of something coming down to how we think about and treat the general health of our fellow citizens. Sorry Mr. Breske, but your argument is hogwash.