Look out, Wisconsin. The Minnesota smoking ban is knocking on your door and you have some not-so sly infidels that are helping things along.

It would seem that some people are simply unable to leave well enough alone. They see an opportunity to take advantage of a situation and decide that they know best when it comes to other people’s lives. This is from Pheisty’s post last night:

“The San Pedro Cafe is owned and operated by Pete Foster, who also owns Barker’s, a bar and grill in downtown Hudson. San Pedro and Barker’s have been smoke-free since Pete Foster opened them. Good for him. He saw a market for a smoke-free dining experience, and ran with it. He recognized a popular niche and is now very successful in his ventures.

However, Pete Foster isn’t content with running his eating establishments as he sees fit. He wants to force other bar and restaurant owners to be told how to run theirs.”

Aye caramba! That’s no bueno! No bueno at all.

I have kept a very watchful eye on the progression of the smoking ban in Wisconsin over the past year, knowing that the folks in Madison look to Minnesota as some sort of Mecca of liberalism that should be followed, and fearing that by Minnesota passing the Freedom to Breathe Act that Madison would be wetting their pants to follow.
I was disturbed to no end when a poll surfaced back in February that was being used to promote a smoke free Wisconsin to the state government. I managed to obtain a copy of the survey and poll results and was disturbed by the lines of questioning which I found to be rather leading and not at all designed to accurately represent Wisconsin voters. For instance, they ask people their perception (based on opinion) regarding the health hazard of second hand smoke. They didn’t present the facts, they simply wanted to base their results on the public’s opinion, which I would say makes for poor policy. They also go so far as to present the people with these arguments:

“Supporters of smoke-free laws say that everybody has the right to breathe clean air without the dangers of second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke contains more than 60 cancer-causing chemicals like formaldehyde, arsenic and lead, and this law will protect everyone from second-hand smoke. It is time Wisconsin join the 16 other states around the country that have passed smoke-free restaurant and bar laws.

or

Opponents of smoke-free laws say that business owners, and not the government, should have the right to decide whether or not smoking is allowed in their bars and taverns. Smoke-free laws can cause bars to close, costing jobs. We can accommodate both smokers and non-smokers with common sense steps like separate sections for smokers and better ventilation.”

The person being polled is then asked if they support a law that prohibits smoking in public places based on these two arguments. As if! You might as well ask people if they support the right of a bar owner to kill you or if you support the government stepping in and making sure they don’t kill you. There is no objectivity to this poll, yet this is what was presented to the state government as an “official poll” regarding the voter’s stance on smoking in Wisconsin.

So now fast forward to October. Minnesota has just enacted its silly anti-smoking laws which is driving business from Minnesota bars and restaurants to Wisconsin where you can still light up with your beer. This is what brings us to today’s issue, and one that really should outrage anybody who believes in private property rights.

I’m not going to redo the work that Pheisty did, but I will shameless quote her regarding this hot topic and why we are growing concerned with people overstepping their bounds. She picks apart an interview with Pete Foster from the Hudson Star Observer, and has this to say about it:

“He makes sure to let us know what a good businessman he was for noticing that the non-smoking niche would prove to be a lucrative business decision, but in the same breath wants to deny other business owners’ their own niche that may include the use of a legal product on their property.”

Very true. He clearly claims that smoking is a public health issue and that it is up to somebody else (i.e. the government) to put their foot down. So in other words, he had the right to decide to make his restaurants smoke free but he doesn’t want anybody to have the right to allow smoking.

But it gets worse. Foster is displeased with the fact that smokers from Minnesota will be patronizing Wisconsin establishments. As he says, “I don’t like the idea of turning Hudson into the ashtray for Minnesota.” Boo hoo. But you see, here’s the real quandary. Foster doesn’t have to worry about it. He has made is restaurants smoke free already. His businesses will not see any change due to the Minnesota smoke-free law. He’s simply whining to hear himself whine.

I guess this is the real heart of the matter, isn’t it? These people want to have control over others. They are not content with the freedom to run their business as they see fit. They want to extend their beliefs onto the rights of others. They want to use tools like this cute little poll to convince the government that other business owners do not deserve the right to choose how to run their own business – even when those businesses have no direct impact on them. Would a smoke-free Wisconsin affect Foster’s business? No. The place is already well known as a smoke-free establishment and is frequently full. Businesses who do allow smoking are not drawing away his customers. This is simply a matter of control and elevating personal feelings and beliefs above common sense and reason.

Oh, but this issue of control gets worse… And as Pheisty points out, the owner of “Mamma Maria’s,” Gary Lamars, seems to think that the responsibility for his business shouldn’t fall on him. As he says:

“It’s a question of health. Why wouldn’t you support a move that would protect my customers and my employees? It’s the right thing to do.”

Well Gary, then you have the law on your side, buddy. You can make the decision to make your own business smoke-free. You don’t need a law that takes that decision from you – unless of course you’re too chicken to anger your own customers by making that decision yourself. If that’s the case, why don’t you let Foster make that decision for you? He wants that control, you can’t handle things yourself, so why don’t you partner up and let him hang up the no-smoking signs? Or are you simply afraid of losing business and you want the government to swoop in and make sure you don’t lose your customers by eliminating smoking everywhere. Either way you want it, Gary, you’re lying through your teeth that this is a health issue.

The moral of the story here, and to try to make a rambling story short, is that we have a big problem here. We have people running around using “public health” as an argument for something that is really just a control issue for people who don’t like smoking or are afraid of losing their customers if they voluntarily go smoke free. These people are rocketing their own feelings and fears above the basic rights that they are afforded and want those same rights stripped from everybody. This is not right, Wisconsin, and we need to put our own foot down before we end up in the same boat as Minnesota… And I, for one, do not want to be Minnesota’s little tag along buddy. We need to show some backbone on the issues that Minnesota caved on.

• The Tavern League of Wisconsin’s page on the smoking ban
• A list of establihments run out of business after Madison and Appleton went smoke free
• The longest running (1960-1998) study of second hand smoke and health which showed very little connection between second-hand smoke and adverse health effects.
• A study from the Oak Ridge National Observatory regarding second-hand smoke
• A study from New York and California showing smoking bans don’t reduce heart attacks
• An article by The Antisocialist on second-hand smoke with some good data.