The Wisconsin State Senate has voted to approve a statewide indoor smoking ban by a 25-8 margin. The proposed ban will now go to the State Assembly for consideration, and if the bill is approved by the Assembly without any alterations, it will head to the Governor’s desk for his signature.

I haven’t written much about the proposed statewide indoor smoking ban, but at the risk of losing my street cred as a liberal, I’m not in favor of the statewide indoor smoking ban. I’ve heard the arguments for and against the smoking ban, and while I can certainly empathize with the health concerns proponents of the ban have, I think this is an issue of personal choice. If a tavern or restaurant owners wants to allow smoking in their establishment, they should have that choice, just as patrons of those establishments can then choose whether or not to spend their money at those establishments.

Do I smoke? No.

Have I patronized taverns and restaurants that allow smoking? Yes, and I’ll continue to do so if the statewide indoor smoking ban doesn’t get passed into law.

As I said earlier, while I understand the arguments of those in favor of the ban, I think it’s a bad idea, plain and simple.

 

9 Responses to My “shocking” thoughts on the statewide smoking ban

  1. Anon says:

    Okay…now you are raining on my parade. You mean it hasn’t been passed yet? I thought I read it was going to go into effect in 2010. I did not realize it wasn’t a done deal. Holy Cow…WTH have I been celebrating??? Doh!

  2. Zach W says:

    The legislation passed in the State Senate, now it has to go to the State Assembly for a vote. If it does pass and Gov. Doyle signs it, the ban would go into effect on July 5, 2010.

  3. Rabbit says:

    American (and that includes Wisconsin)business’s will adapt and overcome.

  4. Anon says:

    Ha…it just passed 61-38 I think they said and now the only thing needed is Gov. Doyle’s signature. All is well again! Well…not all but it’s a start…:)

  5. Rich says:

    I think this falls into what I call the “Spandex Principle” meaning that just because it’s legal for you to wear spandex in public, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

    Similarly, just because it may be legal for the State to do this, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

    Zach, congratulations for showing your conservative side. I suspected something was up by your silence.

  6. Zach W says:

    Rich, you say it’s my conservative side; I say it’s my pragmatic side.

    :p

  7. Rich says:

    “I say it’s my pragmatic side.” Call it Fred Finklesteen if you’d like,,,it’s all good, no matter what the name.

    But unless it’s veto’d, it is a sad day for liberty.

    What’s next on the (excuse me Zach) “LIBERAL” agenda?

  8. Dave Reid says:

    I don’t think this falls into the liberty or freedom category as the health concerns for employees seems fairly valid (not for customers). That said what I think is lost is a bit of history, and culture. Of course the merits of that culture can be debated but clearly something is lost.

  9. Rich says:

    “…as the health concerns for employees seems fairly valid…”

    True dat. So what’s next? Protecting summerfest employees from sunburn? Because I’m sure there’s no safe level of skin cancer or sun exposure.

    IMHO Government intruding this far into our lives is indeed a sad day for liberty.

    YES, we gain some safety. No doubt about that. You got me there.

    But we also lose some of our FREEDOM.

    And I kinda like FREEDOM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.