Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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."
Re: Oyasuminasai. This is going to be interesting. I predict the name calling starts in Five, Four, Three, Two... ;)
Well, it sure isn't owned by the STATE!
"In effect, the property owner is giving up a rightful use for the property with no compensation.
Almost an act of 'eminent domain.'"
Exactly. Which type of business is targeted next "for the common good?"
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Have a quick brew, then head for the nearest tavern that allows smoking..
Don't need to do that, the assault on smokers comes always from the same direction: those who deny others' rights for their own comfort. Sadness is that more and more people cave in on the individual rights issues at the behest of the Leftists who want the world to be THEIR WAY, and pass laws to enslave the society to their handouts/approvals.
Stay out of Wiggies and you won't have to smell like smoke.
If you want a no-smoking bar, you are free to open one.
I don't smoke but I see this as a personal choice issue. If you don't like the smoke stay out. It's legale and they pay a lot of taxes. The same law could be applied to cars, busses and trucks. You will never see them outlawed but their second hand fumes polute. Their second hand accidents kill. While we are at it, let's ban certain foods becuase they are fattening, when will it stop? I don't like football because it injures people so let's do away with it and on and on...
I think we all sleep better at night knowing local yokel politicians and hatchet men posing as cops and health officials are REALLY worried about the air we breathe and not about grandstanding, revenue and an additional expansion of the welfare/police state.
In Bloomington, they've made it illegal to smoke even on the public street...
Bar business is down, resteraunt Business is down, and tax revenus are down as people find alternatives, such as across the County Line....
OH Bull SAP! I worked and hung out in smoky bars and restaurants when there WERE no smoke eaters. With the big smoke eaters today, there is no reason to ban smoking! What are you going to do? Never step foot into a casino in VEGAS? Because they allow smoking and they have huge smoke eaters.
You want deadly? Ok. Then you sit in your vehicle inside an enclosed garage for one hour with the motor running.
I will sit in my vehicle in an enclosed garage, windows up and I will smoke. Heck, I will even invite 4-5 of my smoking friends and we ALL will smoke.
Guess who will come out alive at the end of the hour?? Any guesses??
If the government is TRULY concerned about public health, why does it still allow the consumption of alcohol in Wiggie's bar?
You have no clue, do you. Ok, I repeat:
Public property: That which is purchased and maintained by tax dollars for the benefit of all people.
Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner.
WOW.
I really don't understand why the bar owners don't take this as far as they have to - This is an infringement on private property plain & simple.
I live in Madison - and I swear this town is run by the ghost of Stalin.
I'm probably Naïve - but why doesn't wiggie take this to the supreme court?
He doesn't need to use some lame ass "safety" defense because some drunk is throwing mugs & burgers. Trot out the G*D DAM Constitution!!
He should do this on his 1st trip downtown to muni court - those Fockin commies would recoil in horror at the site of it..
BIG time!
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Where does it stop... Smoking just opened the door. Seems like you had no problem walking through it.
Then why is the "owner" being cited for "allowing smoking in his bar"?
"I don't smoke, and rather like being able to go out to the bar and not come home smelling like a chimney."
Then frequent bars that CHOOSE not to allow smoking. You'd think the city owned the establishment; they certainly act like they own the place.
standard required disclaimer on all smoking threads: I do not smoke, and personally don't like to be where there is lots of smoking. However, I don't feel my interest overrides those of other patrons nor especially of the owner of wherever I elect to visit.
In short, it's not "your rights end where my nose begins" but "both our rights to take offense end with our choice to enter someone else's business."
Now places where people have no choice but to go, such as government buildings, are a different matter. I don't recall anyone forcing you or me to enter a bar.
Well, Virginia and Maryland voted down a total state wide smoking ban yesterday. Both states made this states lawmakers look like complete azzes!
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.