This probably will piss off all my friends who smoke, and for that I apologize. But as most of you know I’m an avid non-smoker and have been since I watched my mother smoke herself to death when I was young. That’s why I think the smoking ban in Wisconsin is one of the great things ever to happen in the State.
The people of Wisconsin waited a long, long time for a smoking ban. The State signed into law Wisconsin Act 12 on July 5, 2010. We have now joined the ranks of New York, Illinois and 26 other states in implementing a ban on smoking in enclosed spaces. July 5 came and went, there was a little dialogue and a little complaining, but after a while the dust settled and everyone seems to have found a way to deal with it. Non-smokers, who are far and away in the majority, can now work, eat and congregate in restaurants and bars without having to worry about being subjected to the dangers and discomfort of second hand smoke.
But lurking behind the scenes was City of Greenfield’s City Council. Apparently having not enough to do, within two months of the effective date, they passed a 3-2 vote to send a resolution to the state asking to have the ban repealed.
This Greenfield initiative is quite curious. Greenfield is the 20th largest city in Wisconsin, which doesn’t necessarily give it huge clout in Madison, so, why in the world would its City Council take on the State?
And why bring a resolution to the table before any real assessment can be made of the ban’s impact? Actually, the ban seems like its working. Most establishments are observing it, and those that aren’t either have patrons that complain or don’t come back. Either way, I think it’s found its own level, and most of us are dealing with it.
I contacted each of the three Alderpersons who voted for the resolution as a concerned citizen trying to determine their rationale. To their credit, they all got back to me right away. The Alderman who introduced the measure to the City Council said they wanted to “…prevent the State from mandating on our civil liberties. Smoking is not against the law, and the State should not be allowed to target our own personal freedom.” Huh?
What about the “personal freedom” and “civil liberties” of the non-smoker? Does this mean that the smokers have the “right” to blow smoke in my face?
The State isn’t saying people can’t smoke. They are saying that when someone smokes in an indoor public place, the smoke directly infringes on the “right” of the non-smoker to breathe clean air. You can smoke in your house. You can smoke in your car. You can smoke outside. You just can’t do it when it causes discomfort to the people around you.
I began thinking that, outside of this self-righteous personal freedom stance, there’s got to be something else behind the resolution. When pressed, the three Alderpersons as a group went on to say that they wanted to protect businesses that purportedly were losing or were going to lose money as the result of losing smoking patrons.
Not once did any of the three elected officials voice a concern about the rights of people who don’t smoke to enter a smoke-free environment. Nor did the Council seek to determine the wishes of the Greenfield residents who elected them, people who filled the city’s blog with complaints after the resolution was announced. Bottom line, the three members of the Council behind the resolution picked business over their constituents. Without even a consult with their constituents.
I’d really rather see the elected officials worry as much about the citizens they represent as they do about the businesses in their district. It would have been nice during the course of their discussions if they had listened to Alderperson Shirley Saryan from Greenfield District 5, who opposed the resolution. When asked about the ban, Shirley said: “I feel it is a good thing for our lungs.” Indeed.
