Smoking Ban Referred to Ad Hoc Committee

At tonight's meeting, the Monona City Council referred the proposed smoking ban ordinance to an ad hoc committee for review and recommendation. The committee will consist of seven members, probably including two alders, some bar owners, and some supporters of the ban.

Prior to this action, the council heard from about 35-40 speakers, including about 18-20 bar owners or tavern-industry related representatives. The Tavern League knows how to get the crowd out on short notice. Not surprisingly, they were unanimous in opposing the ban. There were 3 or 4 residents not connected to the tavern business who opposed the ban. There were about 10 or so residents who supported the ban and a few health professionals.

The council had a 'discussion' that got a little testy at times, but not too bad. To a great extent the opponents and proponents talked past each other. The opponents raised valid concerns about potential harm to businesses and bogus claims to 'free choice'. The proponents talked mostly about the large negative health aspects of secondhand smoke. Proponents did offer that numerous studies have shown that the net overall economic impact of smokefree laws is neutral or positive. Of course, that doesn't mean that individual businesses won't successfully adapt and will be hurt.

One thing that became clear - and this information came as much from the bar owners as anyone else - is the great extent to which Monona has already become a 'smoking island' after the Madison ordinance. Query: Would you rather be a smoking island or a smokefree island?

The 'choice' argument is bogus in a couple respects. It is not a legitimate 'choice' for business owners to operate their business in a way that they know causes significant harm to their customers and employees. That sounds more like intentional infliction of harm to me. Second, when consumers make the 'choice' to smoke in a public place they exercise an effective 'smoker's veto' over the rights of nonsmokers who want to avoid exposure to carcinogens and increased risk of heart disease. People who are at risk for heart disease are already advised to stay away from exposure to tobacco smoke. When the smoker lights up their 'choice' takes precedence over the interests of all others.

I think we moved the smokefree argument forward in one way or another. We got it on the public agenda. If nothing else perhaps we have encouraged our state senator to make pushing the state ban a high priority.

And on we go to the ad hoc committee. Keep an eye on who gets appointed and the pace of progress (or lack of same). If you support the smoking ban, then you need to be vigilant because the bar owners and the Tavern League will most certainly be there looking out for their economic interests. Vigilance is the price of clean air.