Erpenbach Ramming Through Smoking Ban
There’s not even a pretense of giving a crap about what the citizens think.
State Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Waunakee) has given the public barely 24 hours notice before holding a hearing on a bill to ban smoking that is suddenly racing through the Legislature.
The ban on smoking in workplaces, including restaurants and bars, stalled in recent years but is now on a fast track.
The law requires public hearings to be announced at least 24 hours in advance, and often legislators announce them days or even weeks ahead of time. Erpenbach, who is chairman of the Senate Health Committee, posted a notice about the hearing on the smoking ban 24 hours and 35 minutes in advance.
“Adhering to a 24-hour notice is absolutely ludicrous,” said Peter Fox, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, noting that people from northern Wisconsin would have almost no chance of attending the forum.
The hearing will be held at 10 a.m. Tuesday in the Capitol.
When you need someone to feign indignation you can always count on Peter Fox. You know what’s really ludicrous? The way Peter and his members force local governments to spend millions of dollars needlessly by running hundreds of thousands of column inches in legal notices in their dying tabloids. All because legislators are scared to piss off the newspapers.
This topic is about as much of a dead horse as your library issue in West Bend. Everyone knows every argument out there. They’ve all been made countless times. There’s nothing to be gained by waiting another day, another week, another month. Nothing will change. Nobody from Superior is going to show up at this hearing and tell anyone anything they haven’t already heard. If the votes are there at this point, nothing’s changing them. And a guy who spends as much time sanctimoniously lecturing the Legislature as Peter Fox knows it.
Maybe Peter should spend more time working on that bailout package for his financially floundering members.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 04, 2009 at 1745 hrs
So on the one hand you write a thoughtful entry about how there are consequences to elections, and that a recall on Doyle simply because you don’t like his policies is foolish. Then, you post this, the second complaint over procedure in a few days, when no law has been violated, over an issue that has been in the public debate for years.
Now, a couple years ago you logged this criticism when Healthy Wisconsin was introduced and adopted in the Dems budget with a quicky hearing and little to no public input. There was logic to those comments as that was the first time unveiling of a major policy initiative. But this is properly noticed, on an issue that is 4 years in the making.
I’m not asking you to accept it and suppprt it, but go after the merits. The procedural complaint is kinda pointless on something as widely known and understood as this issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 04, 2009 at 1754 hrs
What most citizens think in poll after poll is that they want a smoking ban.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 04, 2009 at 2027 hrs
We should let Americans decide via polling which rights and what property they with to take away from someone else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 04, 2009 at 2047 hrs
Tobacco is a regulated substance. No one’s rights or property are being infringed on with a statewise ban. I’m not a supporter of smoking bans, but the hyperbole that this is some sort of infringement annoys the hell out of me. It is a public policy decision, well within the norm for state and local governments. Just because you or I disagree with it doesn’t mean that it is some sort of violation of our rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 04, 2009 at 2103 hrs
We should let Americans decide via polling which rights and what property they with to take away from someone else.
You mean like we do with marriage?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 04, 2009 at 2136 hrs
Lefty the communist:
How is this not an infringement on property rights? You’re telling someone that they can’t do something *legal* on their property. What’s next, private homes. Douchebag.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 0646 hrs
All business owners’ rights are being infringed on when the government is telling them whether they can or cannot allow a LEGAL activity on their property. How is that not infringing on their rights?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 0834 hrs
RS,
Marriage is a rite, not a right. It is certainly not inalieble. If it were a right, arguments could be won for forced marriages in a court of law.
You just can’t stand the idea that the separation of church and state is a two way street, too bad.
The fact that there are now enough legislators to pass a law that is unconstitutional, does not make it right. I do agree with you that there is no point in prolonging the foregone conclusion. Hopefully, (heh) the judicial branch will do it’s job and strike it down. Public places are one thing, private places are another.GMan and Chris, you are wasting your breath. RS had it right in his first comment that all the arguments are known. If lefty and Keith do not understand the idea that a place of business can also be private property by now, they never will. Or worse(and more likely), they do understand and are perfectly okay with the idea that Government has the right to tell you what to do and what to pay anytime, anywhere.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 0859 hrs
So all of you smoking ban folks will have to say the same thing when business owners are not allowed to ban openly carried weapons in their business? The same rule applies. If you think that a property owner does not have the right to decide if they can allow smoking Then they also don’t have the right to tell me that I can’t exercize my 2nd ammendment right. Carrying a weapon is a right after all and smoking or not smoking is not. You can’t have it all ways. If you are against property rights then you are against property rights.
Posted by fishaddict on May 05, 2009 at 1027 hrs
God I hate this kind of governence ... no matter which side is doing it. The question no one is asking here, that they should be, is ‘Why?’. Why are they ramming it through? Why such short notice? Why the rush? Its for the same reason that Congress rammed through the conference version of the stimulus bill. Those that support it, and have the votes today, know that the longer this is at the forefront of the legislative process, and the more light that is shown on it, the more there is a real and thorough public examination of the issue, and a real debate on its merits, the less people are going to like it, and the more difficult it will be to keep the votes to pass it. If the proponents of this were sure that they could pass this anytime, anywhere, they wouldn’t feel the need to sneak it in, get it voted on, and get it over with. If it was truly that popular, they would milk the process to get their faces on TV supporting such a popular position at listening sessions around the state and hearings at the Capitol, and it would drag on for months. Anyone who has even the slightest understanding of how the legislative process works knows this. Which begs the question, RS ... why don’t you seem to?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1149 hrs
You are wrong on one thing TD. We were not ‘not asking why’. Everyone here knows why. This issue has been up and down frontpages for several years. The Dems think they have the votes now, so they will put it to the vote now. That is why.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1202 hrs
TUERQAS,
Actually, Marriage is a right: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
But I’m curious as to what legal basis you think a court would have for striking down a smoking ban.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1214 hrs
Are you guys being ingnorant on purpose? Can you serve alcohol at any business? It is legal isn’t it? Can you operate a business at any residence? Zoning laws aren’t familiar to you?
It is a regulated substance. There is no scarey expansion of government power being exerted here, just a change in regulations.
The hyteria is laughable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1233 hrs
Are you guys being ingnorant on purpose? Can you serve alcohol at any business? It is legal isn’t it? Can you operate a business at any residence? Zoning laws aren’t familiar to you?
It is a regulated substance. There is no scarey expansion of government power being exerted here, just a change in regulations.
The hyteria is laughable.Except you have the option of whether to serve alcohol at your establishment or not. And if you do, you need a license to do it.
In this case, you’re not being given the option of whether or not you want to allow smoking in your establishment. And the government is not going to offer any sort of license to allow you that option of whether to allow smoking in your bar or restaurant or not.
Big difference between a smoking ban and a liquor license.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1343 hrs
This is horse crap! Why couldn’t Rep Phil Garthwaite make sure that there was atleast a weeks notice for this hearing. How am I supose to get off work to attend. This is BS! Mr. Garthwaite should be able to atleast make sure his party dosn’t ram bad bills like this through with out any one having a say.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1430 hrs
@TUERQAS: I think we may actually be in agreement. I’d much prefer government get out of the business of “marriage” entirely. If government wishes to acknowledge the relationship for legal purposes, call it a civil union (or whatever) and make it available to everyone.
@TD: Nobody’s trying to sneak this in. This issue has been in the spotlight for years, and every year, the numbers in support of a smoking ban get bigger and bigger and bigger. Increased exposure to the arguments appears to have increased people’s desire for a ban, not decreased it. Perhaps the question is why can’t your side seem to make a persuasive argument against a ban? How much longer should they wait so you can figure it out? A week? A month? A year?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 05, 2009 at 1439 hrs
Super ID,
I am not stupid enough(quite) to argue law with a lawyer. I would say the opinion section of racial controversy over marriage is a weak citation, but after chasing down some of the references, it is clear that though it is not listed in the constitution or bill of rights(the reference I was thinking from), it is considered a basic right.The reasoning behind my thought of striking down a ban was that it is currently not a controlled substance. I could be wrong legally here too (I am according to lefty), but the basic right of drinking or driving is denied to minors for the same that smoking is. A controlled substance definition from ‘Law dictionary’ is:
Drugs whose general availability is restricted; any one of a number of drugs or other substances which are strictly regulated or outlawed because of their potential for abuse or addiction. Such drugs include those classified as narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, and cannabis.
That does not include alcohol or tobacco. Classifying tobacco as a controlled substance would allow such regulation, but until then it seems to me there is sketchy foundation for banning a substance in a privately owned business regardless of zoning laws. Again, I am no lawyer, and your request for reasoning virtually assures that I am mistaken somewhere basic. So where is my glaring hole legally?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1500 hrs
I’d take two weeks notice of a hearing, and a month’s notice on the final floor vote. I think that is reasonable. You don’t? If not, why? Why must they do this with such short notice?
And please, stop pretending like there isn’t significance to the way this is being procedurally handled. 24.5 hours notice of a hearing is done to prevent extended and focused public discussion and debate before a vote. You and I both know it ... and so do the leaders in the Senate.
And that is no more speculation on my part than your feigned spin of this as not indicative of legislative hijinks is a reflection of your naivity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1503 hrs
RS, We do agree on this:
@TUERQAS: I think we may actually be in agreement. I’d much prefer government get out of the business of “marriage” entirely. If government wishes to acknowledge the relationship for legal purposes, call it a civil union (or whatever) and make it available to everyone.
That has been exactly my position for years. My only problem with same sex marriages has always been purely that the definition of marriage is spelled out in the bible and Webster’s writers or Government has no right to change that. Government never had any right to perform marriages in the first place. They had the right to perform a secular union and call it something else. It was simply convenient to call it marriage and before anyone conceived the notion of a same sex marriage or polygamy/polyandry, nobody really cared. The correct thing to do at this point then, is to correct the boundary Government has overstepped, not to continue destrtoying the boundary.
With respect to the 24 hour notice, I think TD has been the naive one, but you are guilty of playing word games.
Perhaps the question is why can’t your side seem to make a persuasive argument against a ban?
The simple opinion that I have always held as a non-smoker who grew up with and hates secondhand smoke is that as long as tobacco is not a controlled illegal substance, smokers have the right to smoke anywhere. Banning it in an enclosed public space is acceptable because there is research that shows secondhand smoke can be harmful. A public place that you pay taxes for such as a museum, or a place where you may have to go, like a school or courthouse make sense. Anyplace that you have a choice to enter, however, is a different matter regardless of how it is zoned. The very next application is a car with passengers, then a home during any holidays. Just ban the substance already, if that is your intent. If it is harmfull enough to ban here and there and most everywhere, ban it like cannabis is banned. if it is not that harmful, then the rights violation outweighs the health concern. Perhaps that is not persuasive enough for you, but then what is healthy debate, but a vigorous disagreement?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1536 hrs
TUERQAS:
The rational basis test would apply to the ban. Under this standard, courts would be required to uphold the law as long as there is a legitimate purpose. The State would only have to say they upheld the law to protect people against second hand smoke and they would win.
My own feelings are somewhat mixed on the ban. I dislike the state telling people what they can do on their own property. But even more, I hate smelling like smoke after a night out because 1 person at a bar is lighting up. So call me a hypocrite, but I’ll support the ban because I’m selfish.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1556 hrs
Yeah,
I get that, but I still think like I said above. If the health concern outweighs the right being compromised, it should be a banned substance. If it does not, it should not be ‘banned’ in the first place. Note my ‘heh’ was meant as a severe doubt the court would find the ban unconstitutional even if they wanted to.
It seems to me an extremely conservative court could find the ban uncostitutional couldn’t it? (Say, virtually any court before 1850)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1609 hrs
Please explain to me TUERQAS how I am being naive by stating that this a ram job by Senate leadership to hold a hearing with less than 25 hours notice, and scheduling of a vote less than a week out?? The fact is, that is EXACTLY what it is, and have had it confirmed by someone very close to me who works in Senate leadership.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1620 hrs
“It seems to me an extremely conservative court could find the ban uncostitutional [sic] couldn’t it? (Say, virtually any court before 1850) “
I think you would have to find a very activist court.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 1701 hrs
TD, I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on proving that they’re in a hurry. Nobody’s disagreeing with you. The reason they’re hurrying is obvious to anyone who can read a calendar and realizes that the last day of floorperiod is the 21st. They want to have the bill out of the Legislature and on the governor’s desk by the time everyone packs it in for the summer.
You’ve failed to convince me (apparently some others), however, as to why anyone should care about the timing. In terms of notice, Sen. Erpenbach followed the procedure prescribed by the Open Meetings Law. Meetings are noticed a day or two ahead of time all the time. There are no shades of grey there - either the law was followed or it wasn’t. If you don’t like the law, perhaps you should contact your legislator and ask them to introduce a bill that changes the law.
Also, when you’d prefer a month’s notice before a final floor vote, what does that even mean? Nobody ever knows when a final vote for something will be scheduled because it all depends on the will of the minority to use the rules to muck with the timetable. Should the Legislature no longer suspend the rules and move to third reading, as it routinely does to avoid needlessly dragging out the process? Would you rather everyone wait a couple of days to do third reading, even if it means bringing the Legislature back in at the cost of $10k+ a session day in per diem to take care of business it easily could’ve taken care of earlier if only you allowed it to suspend the rules?
I get that “a month’s notice before a final floor vote” sounds simple in your head, but anyone who’s lived through how that body works would ask the same question. How do you go a month prior to a point in time that can’t be determined a month ahead of time?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 05, 2009 at 1809 hrs
The funny thing about this is that this law does not include Indian casinos. So I guess the govenor is concerned about the health of citizens in bars but not the workers or patrons of the casinos.
The cigarette manufacturers should just stop selling thier product in the state of WI. The lost tax revenue will cause the morons in Madison to reconsider.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2009 at 2110 hrs
Irwin, a ban couldn’t be enforced in a tribal casino unless the provision was worked out as part of the gaming compacts. Democrats in CT are trying right now and the GOP there is making that very argument. Doing it legislatively and threatening sanctions for non-enforcement is just going to get the State of Wisconsin sued. I suspect Governor Doyle is well aware of that.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 06, 2009 at 0006 hrs
Ah yes the compacts. Didi the state ever finish those or did Diamond Jim forget about those?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2009 at 0726 hrs
TD,
RS pretty much already covered it, but the naivete’ is in wondering why no one else brought it up and showing so much zeal about it. Everyone here already knew why and there just isn’t a debatable argument there. If this were the first or even second time this subject came up or it was shorter than the prescribed time limit, there could be an uproar over it.The truth is that liberals have the votes for a lot of things right now and the majority of the state and the nation voted to make that possible. The liberal ideal is not about freedom, it is about equality so there may be many freedoms lost in the pursuit of equality over the next years. And, if enough of them appeal to the selfish part of individuals, they will even be approved of by the majority.
You do not have to like it, but individual votes are rarely swayed by ‘the masses’. You vote for a liberal to have liberal policies pass(or in protest for not having conservative policies pass, but that is another subject and it amounts to the same thing.) A public discussion is not new on this issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2009 at 0752 hrs
You are approaching this the wrong way Owen. Erpenbach has been blocking the smoking ban. Leadership was about to pull the bill from his committee unless he held a hearing and now he is giving short notice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2009 at 0923 hrs
If a ban passes it will simply create black market smokeasy bars that will be unregulated and untaxable by the state.
If you are selfish like Super Id and want smoke free bars then vote with your dollars and only patronize bars that have gone smoke-free already. If it is lucrative to run a bar smoke-free then more bars will go that way. No legislation necessary.
Posted by Matt on May 06, 2009 at 1335 hrs
“If you are selfish like Super Id and want smoke free bars then vote with your dollars and only patronize bars that have gone smoke-free already.”
Try to find one of those bars… It ain’t easy in this city. Besides I’m too selfish for that, I’d want the bars to change so I don’t have to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2009 at 1359 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134034
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:13 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 125
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 08:37 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).