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)

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.

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)

Fitchburg joins the fun

Provided it's not all an elaborate April Fools prank, the city of Fitchburg (Madison's southernly neighbor) will go smoke-free on April 1st of this year. While the rest of the state waits to see what our fine Legislature does come the next session (zzzzz), it's interesting to see individual towns and cities taking the initiative to deal with the problem themselves.

Of course, Fitchburg's ordinance includes an exemption until April 2011 for 4 businesses that apparently meet the requirements to be considered "existing small taverns," "existing bowling centers" and "tobacco bars." I'm a little torn on this. While the exemption for "tobacco bars" has always made sense to me--I mean, if the main purpose of a business is the selling and enjoyment of tobacco, they would have a valid argument to make about a ban negatively affecting their livelihood, and why would a non-smoker want to go/work there anyway?--but the other exemptions seem a bit strange. Does it really take 3 years for a business to ready itself for a smoking ban? I highly doubt that, and in the meantime it doesn't do what blanket bans are supposed to do: level the playing field for everyone by applying the rule equally.

Still, I suppose it's progress, and on the off chance that the state Legislature actually gets around to passing a ban next session, there's a chance that the 2011 extension will be trumped anyway. To make a terrible pun, though, I won't be holding my breath.

UPDATE: Just noticed a Badger Herald article stating that Eau Claire has also joined the ranks of cities banning indoor smoking. Congrats to them, too. Although it is disheartening to see that people are still parroting the Tavern League's completely unsubstantiated talking point about how many bars have closed in Madison allegedly due to the smoking ban.

Reasons Why

There are many, many reasons why certain state politicians can go frak themselves, but today I'm going to focus on the two that are currently driving me up the wall:

With the current legislative session ending this week, the Senate and Assembly had quite a few pressing issues to deal with; state budget shortfalls, the proposed statewide smoking ban, and ratification of the Great Lakes Compact. While the Assembly found time to vote through a budget measure that cuts $250 million from various services, and a bill (that will thankfully never see the light of day) to make English the official state language, they couldn't be arsed to pass the long suffering Great Lakes Compact. The GLC has already been ratified by three states, and passed through one or both houses in the other four.

Even though they've had years to look over the bill, some Assembly Republicans are crying about how it's moving "too fast" and they haven't had enough time to look over it. They're also kicking and screaming about a provision in the bill that would allow a single governor from one of the states in the compact to veto water diversion requests from communities inside the Great Lakes basin. What these folks don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around, though, is the fact that this provision provides tougher standards for said vetoes, and actually improves the chances of cities like Waukesha for having their requests granted.

Supporters of the bill as it is currently written point to Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-New Salem, and Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, as the main forces holding up the compact.

The lawmakers' two main concerns are the provision that one Great Lakes governor would have the ability to veto any water withdrawals requested by communities in any other Great Lakes state; and that the compact would in some way endanger the state's Public Trust Doctrine with regard to the use of wells.

Rep. Gary Sherman, D-Port Wing, pointed out that Wisconsin is different from the four Great Lakes states to ratify the compact so far, because Wisconsin has also included language on how it would be implemented.

The single-governor veto was included in the language of the original compact, signed by the eight Great Lakes governors in December 2005, and attempting to change any of the original language would mean all of the states — including the three that have already ratified the compact — to start all over again, Sherman said.

"Attempting to change the language of the actual compact itself through our ratification document ... it's not a non-starter because we're being politically stubborn; it's a non-starter because it's not an option," he said.

...

Jauch said those attempting to change the single-governor veto provision — whom he has dubbed the "flat earth society" — don't realize that the compact actually improves the chances of cities like Waukesha, New Berlin and Kenosha to be granted withdrawal requests.

Diversion requests are currently handled through the federal Water Resources Development Act. Through that law, Great Lakes governors can veto any diversion request for any reason, whether it's based on sound science or not.

Where the compact differs, Jauch said, is that it establishes science-based standards for withdrawals and conservation principles by which communities can defend their requests — putting the burden of proof on other states that may claim a request would be harmful.

Even the mayor of Waukesha supports the compact, as do a whole slew of business and community organizations around the state. For some bizarre reason, it seems that only the Assembly Republicans have a problem with the bill. There's absolutely no sense to their opposition, but there it is, causing problems for us all. "So what's new?" we ask.

As for the Senate, the always delightful Russ Decker (D-Weston) has succeeded in blocking the Breath Free Wisconsin Act from even receiving a vote during the current session. Even Decker's hometown chamber of commerce voted not to back his compromised version of the bill, so maybe he was feeling too stung by the rejection to allow for anything like an actual vote to happen.

Short-sighted douchebaggery apparently knows no bounds in terms of party affiliation.

Now we'll have to wait several months before helpful, necessary and healthy legislation like the compact and the smoking ban will even see a vote, and then yet more time before they go into effect. I think the message these obstructionist legislators are sending us all is loud and clear: it's time to issue some pink slips.

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.

Smoke up, Decker

Man, Russ Decker really isn't looking to redeem himself for his support of the Video "Not A Priority" Competition Bill. Instead, he's trying to gut the statewide smoking ban to the point at which it becomes useless. Way to go, jerk:

The Democratic leader of the state Senate said a proposed smoking ban isn't dead yet, but he wants changes that would allow smoking rooms in taverns.

There are 22 states plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico that have smoking bans that cover restaurants and bars: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington. The most important ones to note in that list are Illinois and Minnesota, both states that border Wisconsin. So the "but if we ban smoking people will just take their business across the border!" argument is pretty much a crock of shite.

Plus, the really good reason for a smoking ban is that it's the right thing to do, because smoking is nasty and causes real harm to everyone in the area, not just the smoker.

Look, I'm a musician who sometimes plays in bars and clubs and a social kind of person who likes to hang out at said bars and clubs. I'm sick and tired of having to decide whether or not I'm going to expose myself to smoker's Fumes of Death when I want to go out and/or play a show. Thankfully Madison already has a smoking ban (hallelujah!), but I have no desire to cloister myself away within the borders of this city for ever and ever, amen.

So PASS THE FREAKIN' BAN ALREADY! Hell, if France can do it, I think we can manage, too.

(h/t Jesse Russel at dane101.com for his insightful opinion piece about all this, plus Kyle's comment)

P.S. On a somewhat lighter note, this is one of the side effects of smoking. Seriously, it's science:

Yes, please

Gov. Jim Doyle asked lawmakers Monday to pass a statewide smoking ban before they adjourn for the year at the end of next week.

Yes, please.

I frequent bars and clubs (on account of playing in a band) and have only increased my patronage since the Madison ban went into effect. It has been a huge boon to me personally and to a number of people I know. An example: I sometimes sing for this group, and before the ban, it wasn't uncommon for my throat to close up and cause me to have a coughing fit in the middle of a song. That's not at all what an audience wants to hear (regardless of what they think of our music in general), nor is it something I enjoy doing.

Another bonus courtesy of the ban comes in the form of the weekly Bennett's ad in the Onion. I always look forward to discovering what crazy new illogical rant will accompany the plug for smut n' eggs.

But these are just small anecdotes. There are quite a few very good reasons to ban smoking in "public buildings, workplaces, restaurants and taverns."

I do understand the concerns of bar/club owners, and those expressed by the always vocal Tavern League. If the state were trying to ban something like, say, playing darts, then I'd be right behind them in their calls to block it. But we're talking about a proven poison, something that doesn't just harm the smoker, but wafts out and harms everyone around them, too. Hell, if you need your tobacco fix, take up the always charming "smokeless tobacco" (see: chew) habit. Just don't spit it onto my shoes.

The Tavern League's website has a list of bars that closed in 2007, supposedly as a result of the ban. Thing is, how does this compare to years' past? Where's the hard data linking their closures to loss of revenue due to the ban? How many of those places were headed for closure regardless of/before the ban went into effect? The Green Room, for instance, was a cavernous place filled with pool tables. Maybe they just couldn't afford the large space? And Bru's Anchor Inn, as far as I was aware, was having trouble staying open before the ban went into effect.

Like all things, businesses must learn to adapt or perish. It's harsh, but isn't that how we, the capitalists pigs, encourage innovation and improvement? Plus there's that whole cigarettes fucking kill thing, but I hate to sound so negative. Wait, no I don't....


(image credit: tobaccofree.org)