Wisconsin will have a statewide smoking ban in January 2009.

Who cares about France? France is no barometer for how the world should be. In the 1940s France chose to convert to Nazism. The Allied Forces were required to rescue France from Nazi slavery.

Bars are only harmed by smoking bans in this country when they are near a bordering state that doesn't have a statewide smoking ban. This means that not having a smoking ban is what harms bars, cafes, and restaurants. States without smoking bans harm bars etc. just across the state line.

Re: allowing the business owner to make the decision re: smoking. Would you eat and drink in a bar or restaurant where the business owner, without the government, was allowed to determine his or her own health codes?

I'm not a fan of smoking. I love it when people go after the real culprit, which is Big Tobacco. But to try to get rid of smoking by eliminating small taverns is wrong. (Read today's New York Times - there is a great piece on how the smoking ban combined with the economy has destroyed cafes/bars in France).

We all make compromises in less than ideal situations. A compromise on this issue would involve allowing business owner to make this decision with municipalities regulating air quality through ventilation requirements, etc.

The standing argument of proponents that "it's coming" needs another look. Nationwide, communities that have passed smoking bans are taking a second look. Some are modifying the bans and some are exploring reversing them.

Someone made the argument in an earlier post that an exception should be made for cigar bars. I agree - but I would extend that exception to any adult establishment with a liquor license.

Statewide smoking bans will harm the effort to legalize marijuana.

I challenge you to locate a bowling alley i can take an 8 and 11 year old to on a whim on a friday night and be guaranteed that there will be no 2nd hand smoke around? MAYBE in milwaukee or madison but why do i have to drive over an hour to take the kida bowling and be comfortable their health is not at risk?

Who would patronize places that serve food and beverages if health codes were left to individual business owners?

miltonalum,

You argument is false. Around the country there are plenty of "kid friendly" bowling alleys that are non-smoking. In fact, in the surround metropolitian area I live in, a bowling alley that allows smoking is rare. In addition, it is not because of smoking bans that these establishments are free of smoke. The decision was based on the fact that they are marketing towards the family. So again the decision should be made by the business owners. Let the cosumer decide with his or her money.

Great, comprehensive post, Bubs.

What happened in Kenosha is hardly a mandate for smoking. The referendum only won by 52%. It took an energetic pro-smoking effort to garner that percentage.

This'll be a moot point when the statewide smoking ban is passed in January.

Milton alum makes great points. While I would say that this is partially an issue of business owners' "rights," that is only because we are balancing perceived rights versus the public good.
First of all, the Constitution was designed to give individual rights, not business rights. Individuals who want to run a business cannot do so in a manner completely determined by then. Business owners are subject to laws governing zoning, liquor sales, nudity, child labor, employment of undocumented workers, safety, hours of operation, taxation, drug use and sales, medical services provided, etc. They must follow these laws/rules, in return they benefit from our government and society from things such as decent roads, employees who were offered a free public education, safe and clean tap water, licenses that tell patrons that their establishment is relatively safe, police and fire protection, military protection, etc.
The risk to the health of workers and patrons is sufficient for me to tell bar owners that this isn't a choice for them. I do think there should be an exemption for cigar (or pipe or cigarette) bars that would be limited by population and would have to receive a certain percentage of their revenue from the sale of appropriate tobacco products. Those bars should, however, be held to high standards in terms of air filtration and circulation to TRY to limit the adverse effects of concentrated smoke. For the remaining bars, they can still have whatever theme they want, the can serve the types of alcoholic drinks they want, have the types of (legal) entertainment that they want, I just don't want to give them the choice to allowing people to smoke in enclosed buildings.
For patrons, bartenders, bouncers and even police officers, musicians, and other people whose jobs require them to spend time in bars, making bars smoke free is the right thing to do.
While I am also concerned about giving business owners as much latitude as possible to run their business how they want, I just can't agree with giving them that choice when it comes to smoking. With all the other activities that we don't allow in bars, I wonder why anti-ban people feel that smoking is different?

No, it should not be the business owners decision. This is a health concern, just as much as asbestos was banned for its cancer causing agents. The non-smoker does not have a choice on inhaling 2nd hand smoke with 200 known carcinogens, yes they willfully came to a bar or bowling alley to bowl or have a few beers and 2nd hand smoke is an inherant factor in that decision to come out, however, people shouldnt have to make that decision of where they want to go based on smokers. Right now I cannot take my family out bowling without subjecting them to 2nd hand smoke, no matter what bowling alley we go to theres a 90% chance its filled with smoke. Obviously all the smokers out there are going to fight this to the end but this needs to go the way of other known public safety concerns just like asbestos has, and yes, its just as bad as asbestos. No, its not a "business owners" decision, its public safety. Smoking WILL be banned eventually its just a matter of time.

whybesad:
I never thought I'd write this, but I do agree with you on this one.

About time citizens stood up against the bans. Should be the business owners decision not the government.

Finally a town that respects the choices of the business owner. Let Capitalism decide. If people don't want smoke, they will vote with their patronage.

I still think it should be left up to the bar owner or the owner of the business. That way if you are a non-smoker you know what bars won't have it or where it is in another room. And if you are a smoker you can smoke without getting nasty looks and comments about you killing the world oh and yourself!

These ban lobbyists will never quit until all smoking is banned. They are getting endless funding from many tax exempt political action committees (charities) that are being supported by big pharma. You can see on the last page of their book that they must return every year until total bans are passed. Here's their book. http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamen...