Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wiggie's Busted for Having Smokers (Madison, WI Smoking Ban)
Madison.com ^ | February 24, 2006 | Bill Novak

Posted on 02/24/2006 1:01:34 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin

(Health inspector: 'We had complaints')

Madison's most outspoken critic of the smoking ban has been busted for allowing smoking in his tavern, but the bar owner says he will fight the charges and might try to get the smoking ban overturned because of his case.

Dave Wiganowsky, a county supervisor and owner of Wiggie's, 1901 Aberg Ave., is being taken to Madison Municipal Court on two counts of violating the city's smoking ordinance for allegedly letting patrons smoke in his bar on Dec. 17 and Jan. 14.

Public health officers working undercover went into Wiggie's on both occasions, based on complaints from patrons that smoking was going on in the bar.

"We had complaints," said Doug Voegeli, city of Madison Environmental Health Services supervisor. "We talked to Dave, went over the ordinance with him and then did compliance checks to make sure he was complying."

Wiganowsky told The Capital Times today he doesn't allow smoking in his bar, but if someone is smoking and won't quit, he has to watch out for the safety and welfare of his employees.

That's apparently what happened in the January incident, when a man lit up a cigarette at the bar and angrily refused to put it out when the bartender told him to.

"I'm not putting my people in harm's way," Wiganowsky said. "I've already had a smoking customer throw a glass at a bartender and another throw a burger on the floor. When you shut 'em off, people get aggravated."

Wiganowsky said he has hired an attorney and will fight the complaint. Neither the patron nor the bartender was issued a citation.

"It will take some time and effort, but maybe this case will get the ball rolling on getting the smoking ban overturned," he said. "We'll go to Municipal Court and maybe lose that one, but there are many other things to look at."

There is room for negotiating on the charges, said Assistant City Attorney Marci Paulsen, just as other bar owners in similar situations have done.

"We'll probably make a high-low offer," Paulsen said. "If he's good and there are no more violations for the rest of the year, it would be a low fine. But if there are other violations, he would get the highest fines allowed."

Wiganowsky is facing up to $671 in fines and court costs because of the two violations noted in the complaint. If it was only one offense, the maximum penalty would be $198.50.

Is the outspoken smoking ban critic being singled out by the smoke police?

"Definitely not," Voegeli said. "There had been complaints against his establishment and we are required to follow up on the complaints."

Voegeli said five Madison taverns have faced court dates because of the no-smoking ordinance, based on 22 complaints since the smoking ban went into effect in the city on July 1, 2005. All but one owner (apart from Wiganowsky) settled before going to trial.

Public health officers do have some leeway in citing or not citing smokers, bartenders or owners if a customer lights up.

"If a customer's told to put it out, we're not going to write a citation to the bartender," Voegeli said. "It all depends on the situation."

Wiganowsky said some situations are more volatile than others, and he's not willing to put his employees up against surly smokers if it means his bartenders could get hurt.

"My daytime bartender is 61 years old," he said. "My wife Angie is 5-foot-2. What are they going to do?"

Wiggie's court date is set for March 17, St. Patrick's Day.

"That's my busiest day of the year, and I've already laid off five people," he said.

Paulsen said the court date can be changed if Wiganowsky asks.

No matter if it goes to trial or not, Wiganowsky is fighting both the complaints and the smoking ban all the way.

"My livelihood is at stake," he said.

He couldn't care less if he's able to smoke in his own bar, he said, but wants his customers to have the chance for a smoke and a beer.

"I quit smoking 20 years ago," Wiganowsky said. "So did Angie. It doesn't bother me."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: libertarians; potsmokerslaughing; puff; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-242 next last
To: oyasuminasai
I don't smoke, and rather like being able to go out to the bar and not come home smelling like a chimney.

Who's forcing you to go in there?
Go find a non-smoking establishment or stay home.

101 posted on 02/24/2006 5:19:46 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (We're Americans, we can do anything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
Judst set a smudge pot beside the entrance; anyone making it past that point can decide for himself if he is in the right place.
102 posted on 02/24/2006 5:40:35 PM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

Its okay for smokers to break laws but not aliens.


103 posted on 02/24/2006 5:41:31 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
You can make your own smudge pot starting with a brass toilet float; unscrew th arm, turn the pot over with the hole pointing up and ream out the hole to fit a 4-6" strip of an old cotton belt, glue a saucer to the bottom of the float with Liquid Nails, soak the belt (wick) in lamp oil, fill the float housing 3/4 full of lamp oil after saoking the wick (belt scrap), place where desired for effect and light.
104 posted on 02/24/2006 5:47:21 PM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Hon, it's in WISCONSIN, not California.

You forgot. California is the center of the universe.

105 posted on 02/24/2006 5:56:14 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: oyasuminasai; SittinYonder
A bar isn't personal property

Are you in the right place? And by right, I mean right, you know what I mean!

106 posted on 02/24/2006 5:56:35 PM PST by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

[Why do you think I own land in Northern Wisconsin, and will be building on it within the next decade?]




So you can smoke your filterless Camels in peace?


107 posted on 02/24/2006 6:06:10 PM PST by spinestein (The King of the News Media is dead. Long live The King!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
You forgot. California is the center of the universe.

OH.......

(smacks self on head)

I forgot.

LOL!

108 posted on 02/24/2006 6:08:20 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT a ~legal entity~, nor am I a *person* as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: oyasuminasai
A bar is a regulated business. I'm in business and have to conform to a slew of laws and I don't even have a retail facility. All business is regulated by the government, and none are free to flout those laws without reprocussions.

Yep, businesses are treated as public spaces. People should know that before they buy or start one. It's still private property, but not the same as if we lived under anarchy.

109 posted on 02/24/2006 6:15:47 PM PST by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
Re: Oyasuminasai. This is going to be interesting. I predict the name calling starts in Five, Four, Three, Two... ;)

Too late. Nazi was already used three times before your post.

110 posted on 02/24/2006 6:21:39 PM PST by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
That's apparently what happened in the January incident, when a man lit up a cigarette at the bar and angrily refused to put it out when the bartender told him to.

"I'm not putting my people in harm's way," Wiganowsky said. "I've already had a smoking customer throw a glass at a bartender and another throw a burger on the floor. When you shut 'em off, people get aggravated."

That's quite believable considering the threats of violence from the smokers on these threads.

111 posted on 02/24/2006 6:22:58 PM PST by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Taglines are normally used on this forum sarcastically, or to generate humor.

Yours appears to be an advocacy statement.

112 posted on 02/24/2006 6:24:06 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

My tag line is from Reagan, who also had to explain that he wasn't a Libertarian or Anarchist just because he was for limited government.


113 posted on 02/24/2006 6:27:34 PM PST by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
I knew Reagan.

Reagan was my friend.

You, sir (or madam) are no Reagan.

114 posted on 02/24/2006 6:35:02 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; SittinYonder
The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

You know that Reagan didn't mean that in a good way, right?

115 posted on 02/24/2006 6:37:13 PM PST by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Here's some better Reagan quotes:

I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.

Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

The most terrifying words in the English langauge are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.


116 posted on 02/24/2006 6:44:05 PM PST by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
I know what Reagan meant, and at the time it applied very well to the federal government. Reagan cut a lot of regulations, but he didn't cut all of them, and if you look through his record you'll probably find a few new ones he created.

I would rather not regulate smokers, but over the years most have proved to disrespect the person and property of others. Now they are being regulated. That's the way it goes and the trend isn't going to stop unless a viable smokeless and buttless cigarette is invented.

117 posted on 02/24/2006 6:44:42 PM PST by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
the trend isn't going to stop unless a viable smokeless and buttless cigarette is invented.

So cigars and pipes are okay with you.

We can live with that (but I suspect you would still not be happy).

118 posted on 02/24/2006 6:52:35 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
[Why do you think I own land in Northern Wisconsin, and will be building on it within the next decade?]

So you can smoke your filterless Camels in peace?

You made me splooge!

119 posted on 02/24/2006 6:58:52 PM PST by countess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
If it's quality tobacco, it is a lot more tolerable. A smoker on a thread a few weeks ago said that home rolled cigarettes are a lot better smelling than the commercial ones.

I have a feeling that's why most people assume second-hand smoke is toxic. Anything that smells that bad has to be.

120 posted on 02/24/2006 7:03:15 PM PST by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-242 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson