Flawed smoking ban better than nothing

The Wisconsin Legislature's passage of a state-wide smoking ban seems like all but a done deal at this point, and generally, I couldn't be happier. I'm about as ardent a smoking ban proponent as you're likely to find. I've enjoyed the hell out of the ban in Madison, going out to bars and clubs far more often, not worrying about whether or not my voice will stop working in the middle of a show, and being able to wear a shirt the day after going out and not smell like a chimney.

I firmly believe in the freedom and liberty of people--which stops once it begins to infringe upon the freedom and liberty of others, like my right not to inhale your smoke when I'm trying to enjoy some live music or have a meal.

But I have to admit, there are aspects of this ban bill that irk me. The fact that the workplace smoke ban applies even to hotel rooms seems, well, a bit far-reaching. Hotels generally maintain both smoking and non-smoking rooms. So when you book your stay, you can indicate which you'd prefer. Smoking and non-smoking rooms are generally well and thoroughly separated from one another in the layout of the building, and everyone is happy. Being that this situation is not at all analogous to being in a restaurant or bar where it's nigh unto impossible to keep all of the smoke away from a non-smoking section or non-smoker, I think it merits its own exception. Or at least a re-thinking.

And while I was glad to see an exemption in the bill for cigar bars, it occurred to me: Why not create a special designation and licensing process for, say, cigarette bars? Or just tobacco clubs in general? The idea came up in a lively discussion over at Dane101, and I have to admit, it seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise. Licensing for such establishments wouldn't be easy, but it would at least give a business owner the option of running an indoor bar/club specifically for smokers (or those who didn't mind being in a smokey room*). But that should be the niche, the exception, not the rule. Non-smoking establishments should be that rule.

Which is why, overall, I'm pleased as punch that the bill is being passed--even though I have the aforementioned reservations about its overall fairness. It's a start. We're shifting the playing field so that smoke-free, as it should be, is the norm. The next step, I believe, should be in carving out fair, equitable spaces for those who still choose smoke.


*Let it be noted that I also think there needs to be 1) better prevention and treatment programs for smokers, 2) stiffer penalties and taxes levied against tobacco companies, and 2) health care penalty fees for those who willfully choose not to quit. Being that I'm a fan of government-paid health care, I recognize the burden that would be placed on such a system by those who refused to take care of themselves. That's their choice, certainly, but the resulting, avoidable illnesses ought not place undo burden on everyone else.

(photo by Whiskeygonebad on Flickr)

Show me the money: tobacco suit funds and the mollycoddle myth

Gov. Doyle today announced several vetoes and re-workings of the recently passed state budget repair bill. In it, he changed how the bill would be financed (instead of issuing a veto) in order to scale back the amount of money that could be found by securitizing bonds from tobacco company payments. Specifically, Doyle and his aids said they would "seek to borrow $150 million instead of the $209 million outlined in the bill."

In case you hadn't heard much about it lately, Wisconsin, like every other state, received a large sum of money ($5.9 billion) from the major tobacco companies as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement, the "largest civil settlement in US history." The agreement freed the companies from tort liability with the state governments (several of which had pending lawsuits against them) in exchange for these payments and additional restrictions on advertising.

Currently, the state collects just over $600 million a year in revenue from what is leftover of this tobacco settlement and tobacco taxes. It spends a paltry 2.5% of that on tobacco prevention programs It spends a paltry 2.5% of that on tobacco prevention programs. This is in stark contrast to the recommended amount as laid out by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which suggests states spend between $31.2 and $82.4 million a year.

To add insult to injury, these funds have been raided for other purposes several times now. In 2002, the Legislature and Gov. Scott McCallum securitized (sold to investors, for a smaller, up-front payment) the $5.9 billion into a $1.6 billion lump sum - most of which was used to address the state's one-time budget deficit. In this new budget repair bill, the original language called for securitizing another $209 million of that.

Doyle cutting that back to just $150 is progress, but still not great. In the end, this money should be going toward funding tobacco prevention services, and probably health care costs associated with tobacco use, too. Instead, our state legislators (and governors) seem content to raid that cookie jar for other purposes, as opposed to responsible budget balancing, and transferring the costs over to the taxpayers. I call shenanigans.

And speaking of shenanigans! Our good friends over at Ban the Ban Wisconsin have decided to change course and attack the people of the state instead of the "pro-ban activists." In a little something they cleverly call Operation Mollycoddle, the authors are calling on anti-ban types to convince regular folks that groups like Smoke Free Wisconsin think they're all "idiots" and "can't think for themselves." Here are a few choice tidbits from the site:

The underlying goal of Smoke Free Wisconsin is to convince the people of this state that they are nothing more than helpless idiots who cannot think for themselves or make their own choices.

...

Sometimes the best way to weaken an enemy is to avoid their strong points and attack a seemingly benign target. To accomplish this goal, we need to filter away the politically correct garbage and public health crap and expose the insulting and offensive nature of Smoke Free WI; namely that the people can't take care of themselves. Operation Mollycoddle is to be a tactical strike directed at the people of Wisconsin; not Smoke Free Wisconsin. Our goal is to piss off the common citizens so badly that they will turn against the ban advocates.

...

Just remember, people are easy to offend and bring to anger. A few simple insults is usually all it takes, especially if you're insulting their intelligence or their ability to think for themselves. A precision strike at people's "anger buttons" is a much more effective method than chasing the anti-tobacco zealots around.

So in order to bolster their cause, Ban the Ban seems to be advocating the use of mollycoddling to tell the people they're being mollycoddled by Smoke Free Wisconsin. Interesting. Instead of speaking plainly and sticking to the facts, both methods that seem to have failed them totally (understandably), they're now going to "avoid [the opposite sides'] strong points" and "filter away the politically correct garbage and public health crap."

That "public health crap" they're talking about are the inconvenient facts about second-and-first-hand smoking:

• 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.

It goes on and on. But still, some anti-ban activists don't seem to give a shit about their own health, let alone that of the people around them. This isn't a matter of Smoke Free Wisconsin (or any other pro-ban group) accusing the people of not being able to think for themselves. It's a matter of keeping those who have thought for themselves and still decided that they don't care about public health from hurting others. Y'know, like laws against assault.

Regardless, Ban the Ban seem hell-bent on mollycoddling the state, apparently thinking so little of their fellow citizens as to believe they can be duped into believing the crap that BtB is putting out there, in the air, for all to breathe.

(cross-posted from dane101.com)

Smoking hot Mexico City

Add Mexico City to the list of locales banning smoking in all public places.

MEXICO CITY, April 3 (Reuters) - Mexico City on Thursday banned cigarette smoking in all public places, from bars to office buildings, to reduce the amount of carcinogens inhaled by residents of the smog-filled capital.

The city, home to some 18 million people in the metropolitan area, is the latest large city around the world to pass a smoking ban to improve public health and protect nonsmokers from secondary smoke.

From small towns like Marshfield to major metropolitan areas like New York City, people are catching on to the notion that secondhand smoke is a danger to public health and should be regulated accordingly. This is good news.

On the other hand, you have poorly sourced research that alleges a link between smoking bans and an increase in the number of drunk driving incidents. An article in today's Capital Times sports this headline: "Study links smoking bans to OWIs."

I don't know about you, but something smells fishy when the authors of a study reach a conclusion based on nothing but a comparison between numbers of incidents before and after smoking bans. There's no control group. There's no way to know just where these drunk drivers were headed to or coming from. There's no way to know if their being out and about had anything to do with smoking, or even if they were smokers themselves.

It's not unlikely that smokers who live in a smaller area with a ban might be inclined to travel to a nearby town without a ban to do their drinking and/or socializing. It's a mighty leap, though, to publish a study that purports to show a significant rise in OWIs with the blame placed squarely on bans (not to mention the idea that smokers are more inclined to drive drunk). Even though this conclusion might make a good argument in favor of a more comprehensive, say statewide ban, I wouldn't be comfortable using it. Does it stand up to any kind of decent peer review? I doubt it.

(h/t Kyle)

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.

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.