Posted on 03/16/2007 8:52:58 AM PDT by flashbunny
We’re starting to find out who will carry water for Governor Doyle’s mega-intrusive plan to outlaw smoking in all public places.
One of Doyle’s press releases in January said, “Governor Doyle will call on the Legislature to pass a statewide smoking ban that is fair and equitable – banning smoking in all public buildings, workplaces, restaurants, and taverns. This ban would be in legislation separate from the budget.”
Someone in the Legislature had to author and introduce the bill. We now know who they are.
State Senators Fred Risser (D-Madison) and Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh) and state Representatives Mark Gottllieb (R-Port Washington), Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) and Steve Wieckert (R-Appleton) have drafted what they call the “Smoke Free Workplace Act”, legislation that would prohibit smoking in all Wisconsin workplaces including restaurants and bars.
Here is how the Legislative Reference Bureau analyzes the bill:
Current law prohibits smoking in most indoor areas that are accessible to the public unless there has been a specific area that has been designated a smoking area.
Under this bill, designated smoking areas may no longer be permitted in any public place or place of employment with exceptions for private residences, designated rooms in lodging establishments, and certain retirement homes.
The bill defines “a place of employment” to be any indoor area that employees normally frequent during the course of employment such as an office, a work area, an employee lounge, a restroom, a conference room, a meeting room, a classroom, or a hallway. Other locations where smoking areas may no longer be permitted under the bill, regardless of whether they meet the definition of “place of employment,” include the following:
1. Mass transit vehicles and school buses.
2. Schools and other educational facilities.
3. Residence halls and dormitories of colleges and universities.
4. Day care centers.
5. Inpatient health care facilities, such as community−based residential facilities and nursing homes.
6. Prisons, jails, and juvenile correctional facilities.
7. Mental health institutions and hospitals where the primary purpose is the treatment of mental illness, alcoholism, or drug abuse.
8. Centers for the developmentally disabled.
9. Restaurants and taverns, as described below.
10. Retail establishments.
11. Public waiting rooms.
12. Governmental buildings.
Current law also provides exceptions from the prohibition against smoking for bowling centers, halls used for private functions, for rooms in which the main occupants are smokers, and for areas of facilities that are used to manufacture or assemble goods, products, or merchandise. This bill eliminates these exceptions.
Current law allows smoking in any restaurant that has a seating capacity of 50 individuals or less, or that holds a liquor license, if the sale of alcohol beverages accounts for more than 50 percent of the restaurant’s receipts. This bill prohibits smoking in any restaurant regardless of seating capacity or the number of liquor sale receipts.
Current law allows smoking in any tavern holding a “Class B” intoxicating liquor license or Class “B” fermented malt beverages license, issued by a municipality (liquor license). This bill prohibits smoking in any tavern.
Enforcement
This bill requires that persons in charge of places where smoking is prohibited enforce the prohibitions by taking certain steps to ensure compliance, such as asking the person to leave or refusing to serve the person if the place is a restaurant or tavern. This bill imposes forfeitures on persons in charge who fail to take these measures.
I’ve read the draft of this bill. It states that people in charge of indoor areas subject to this bill shall make reasonable efforts to enforce the no-smoking law. If someone in charge, for example, a tavern keeper, sees a person smoking, he or she is to ask the person to stop smoking. If the smoker refuses and persists, under this bill the tavern keeper is to call the police. Police are then to respond.
The fines for violators, i.e. a tavern keeper who lets one of his beloved patrons light up, are as follows:
1. Not less than $50 nor more than $100 for the first violation.
2. Not less than $100 nor more than $200 for the 2nd violation.
3. Not less than $200 nor more than $500 for the 3rd or any subsequent violation.
Don’t our local police have better things to do than to respond to a call like, “Uh, yeh, I gotta guy, he‘s sittin’ in my bar and he won’t put his Lucky Strike out. I told him to knock it off but he just laughed at me and flipped me da bird. Can you get a squad over here right away?”
Again, mark my words. If these lawmakers are successful, and I pray they’re not, next they’ll go after smokers in their very own living rooms. It’s also frustrating to see Republicans joining with Democrats in the effort to strip away individual and property rights.
If this passes, we still won’t be as bad as wacky California, but close.
doyle & nanny state ping
Hell, If Craps Doyle is as successful at this as he is at controlling crime in Milwaukee, we are all going to die of second hand smoke!
well you'll only be able to be exposed to second hand smoke at indian casinos, which aren't covered by this law for some odd reason!
All the smoke hanging around in the casino really annoys me; it makes my lungs hurt. So, I don't go to casinos. Problem solved.
Nanny State Ping.
It's out patriotic duty to ignore laws such as these.
I'm not sure if it's the same two Republicans but I wrote to a pair some time ago, asking them why, even as a non-smoker, I should vote Republican when they're pushing more Big Brother on us. Of course, I never got a reply.
Welcome to NJ!
Oh wait, this is Wisconsin. Can't tell anymore.
I never got a reply from the RNC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1791031/posts
My Email to the Republican National Committee
I'm afraid, the system is so corrupt, we have past the point of them [politicians/political committees] even pretending to be interested in what we say.
Ahh.. more Nannystate government... gotta love it. The trend to bank smoking because it's bad for you continues it's drumbeat.
No smokes in the joint? You're going to have a lot of pissed off prisoners.
If you're not shoveling campaign money to them, they're not interested.
Yep. Seems like the ol' Delphi Technique is being applied by "our side" more every day.
I had such hopes back in the mid 1990's when we gained so much power back and even more when Bush became president. The GOP is blowing it.
Here in Cali there are municipalities that have already banned smoking in all places including single family homes. The Left are in a huge majority in such places, so thus far, there have been no serious Constitutional challenges. But at some point, there will be, I predict.
The second hand smoke fraud might someday be exceeded by the "global warming" nutjobs, but there's a lot of catching up to do there.
I don't think so.
The "overreaching" hasn't quite reached that level.
Let's hand out condoms and clean needles, but no one should smoke anywhere or eat trans-fats.
Liberals make me sick to my stomach.
Thank you for providing another "new thing I've learned today".
What seems interesting here is that, if the focus is consensus and the participants are not neutral or scientific, the results will always be a glorified synthesis of opinion with all the biases and agendas thoroughly homogenized into the final results.
Problem is, all these nanny state laws are sections of 3 treaties that we haven't ratified with the UN. Bush won't sign them, thank God. These treaties are suppose to be ratified by 2010. I don't know what the significance of 2010 is; but if a democrat or log cabin republican wins in 2008, they will sign them. There won't be another election if this happens.
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.