Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Middleton Votes to Widen Smoking Ban

How long until “private residences being used for child care” includes any private residences with kids?

Before a packed audience, the Middleton City Council voted 6-2 Tuesday night to ban all indoor public smoking beginning March 15, 2009.

Alds. Jon DiPiazza and Hans Hilbert dissented.

The move extends the city’s ban on smoking in restaurants, in place since 1996, to include all workplaces, taverns and public buildings.

A public building is defined as everything from apartment building lobbies and common hallways to nursing homes to private residences being used for child care, adult day care or health care. Outdoor theaters and sports arena seating are also considered public spaces and fall under the ban.

Smoking-designated hotel rooms and retail tobacco stores are excluded.

 

(7) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1829 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Was it packed with lobbyists from everywhere but local neighborhoods?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2008 at 0844 hrs


  2. Of course. This isn’t a neighborhood or a community issue. It’s all tied back to Madison and the anti-tobacco organizations who think that they not only run the state but also think they can overrun and bully the individual cities and towns.

    Posted by Ryan on July 17, 2008 at 1010 hrs


  3. An alternate to smoking bans


    It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined

    with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely

    artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the

    standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology

    does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial

    and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has

    set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not

    scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.

    The anti smoking agencies do not want safe standards that would still allow

    people to smoke…they simply want a ban that will push smokers

    outdoors like outcasts.
    Smoking laws are not about health and it never was about helath.
    It is all about de-normalizing smoking.
    Unfortunately the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire

    Smoke from tobacco is a statistically insignificant health risk

    http://smokersclubinc.com
    http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
    http://www.ventilatedsmokingrooms.ca

    Posted by Thomas Laprade on July 17, 2008 at 1146 hrs


  4. Here in Chicago, after 9 months, the ban is “going away” in a lot of small “mom and pop” places where the patrons all know each other. That’s the only way to keep operating. We all wonder how long it will take for all these new customers to “flock” to all the places.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2008 at 1247 hrs


  5. Smoke from tobacco is a statistically insignificant health risk

    I agree with most of your statement - if someone wants to smoke they should be allowed to - but, as someone who lost both parents to smoking and suffers from asthma as a result of living in a smoke-filled home, I couldn’t disagree more with this part of your post.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2008 at 1419 hrs


  6. Are smoking bans justified if a person suffers from asthma??
    Doesn’t the owners have anything to say in this matter, since they are the ones who are affected by these laws.

    Posted by Thomas Laprade on July 17, 2008 at 1515 hrs


  7. I have always thought this problem of smoking in public could be solved with technology.  Kenosha has a smoking ordinance that permits smoking only in areas of restaurants that are specifically designated as smoking and sealed off from non-smoking areas.

    With proper ventilating equipment you can employ the same principle and keep a smoking areas smoke confined to the smoking area.  If an establishment wants to have a smoking area they would just have to prove through an air test that their smoking section smoke does not migrate into the other parts of the establishment.  Employees would have the option of working in the smoking or non smoking areas of the restaurant.  If you can’t find enough employees to work in the smoking area then it can’t operate.  A policy like that would guarantee the public access to smoke free establishments, but give business owners the freedom to choose whether or not they want to permit smoking.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2008 at 1602 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.