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."
The first place a revolution starts is with telling the 'enforcers' to go hell. When they get their asses kicked a few times the 'lords' get the message that they are next.
"The LAW is smoking cannot be done in public places. Thus you must take up the issue with LAW MAKERS not LAW ENFORCERS by flouting the law."
The problem with the LAW is that it requires property owners to become LAW ENFORCERS without compensation or protection for doing so. If bar owners simply started a campaign of dialing the police everytime someone lights up then they should be covered. Of course, this is not the best thing the LEOs could spend their time on, but LAW MAKERS are responsible for that determination.
I don't condone any of the activities you just described, nor do I smoke. However, it is clearly an infringement for the government to disallow otherwise legal activities in a business. I'm really surprised we see people defending this on Freerepublic.
By the way, if one were to urinate on a bar, the bar would be the one to throw you out. In this case, bar management wishes to allow an activity that the government has deemed unhealthy. Well, drinking is unhealthy too. Maybe they should ban that too, and we should all just shut the hell up since it is clearly a public health issue. Right?
Maybe the smokers should make other complaints on other taverns. This would keep the smoking police busy for years
and they wouldn't be back for a long time.
The revolution is as close as your phone. Bar owners need only call the police atleast once a night to report these heinous criminals. When they show up, hours later, tell them the guy is gone, they missed him. Keep calling every night and it will show on their logs. When they come to bust you for not obeying the law you have a record of your attempts to keep within the law. No citizen is required to become a law enforcement officer. If I could tackle every idiot that litters the ground with his butts and issue him a fine, then I might be so inclined.
Then stay the hell out of Wiggie's bar.
You're very suggestible, aren't you?
I keep a list. You would be shocked to find out how many in FRee Republic defend the forced smoking bans by the government on a private business. It's mind boggling, to say the least.
Sickening, isn't it?!
One thing I just can't understand about second-hand-smoke-kills bar patrons is, they truly believe their lives are at risk from SHS, yet there they sit, in a smoke-filled bar, bitching about the smoke.
Not bad, but the Lords still don't get the point. They want you and me to live whatever lifestyle they think is appropriate. If the enviornment is offencive to someone don't go there. Point being its our choice not theirs.
Not if nobody forces you to go to a smoking establishment. Following your logic, the government should ban smoking in private homes as well. After all, we smoking homeowners are known to have non-smoking acquaintances over for cocktails on occasion.
Governments can't have rights. Governments have obligations. Only people can have rights.
I learned this in the 7th Grade. You will too.
If no one complained and the cops just walked in that should mean the law violates the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. No complaint, no justification.
And there's so much more room in them now. Why, you have your choice of seats.
I'm getting real close to taking them outside myself.
I'm not kidding, this is totalitarianism.
What on Earth are you, a big fan of government intervention, doing on a Conservative website?
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.