Ending workplace smoking in Wisconsin, including inside bars and restaurants, is an idea with strong, bipartisan public support and one that's time is long overdue.
For close to two years, the Wisconsin Legislature debated the merits of protecting workers from the dangers of secondhand smoke, and after two years the only conclusion leadership came to was to shirk its responsibility to public health and decline to schedule a vote.
But the people, if not their representatives, know what they want and they want a smoke-free law.
A bipartisan poll conducted jointly by the Mellman Group and Public Opinion strategies last month found an overwhelming 69 percent of Wisconsin voters support a statewide smoke-free law including bars and restaurants - an increase of 5 percentage points in just 12 months. Moreover, 78 percent of all respondents, including those who oppose the law, believe it will pass soon. These are men, women, young and old, Republicans and Democrats all across Wisconsin who recognize secondhand smoke as a serious health hazard and want to end exposure to it as soon as possible. It's no wonder local communities are stepping up to take action.
In the short time since the Wisconsin Legislature left the capitol and its work undone, the cities of Eau Claire and Marshfield have passed comprehensive smoke-free ordinances by wide margins - a 7-4 vote on Eau Claire's City Council and a 2-to-1 margin by public referendum in Marshfield. Now Monona and Middleton are considering similar proposals.
They're not alone. Since the Breathe Free Wisconsin Act was first introduced in the state Legislature, Minnesota and Illinois have passed and implemented statewide smoke-free laws and Iowa will end workplace smoking this July, just three months after its bill's passage.
Wisconsin, meanwhile, is not leading but trailing its peers in public health, and for whose benefit? Tavern owners certainly don't gain from a patchwork of local ordinances in lieu of a state law. In fact, dozens of owners stood up in Eau Claire and Marshfield and asked for such a law.
It's only Big Tobacco that benefits from the status quo; scaring bar owners into thinking having smokers step outside will mean economic ruin, when nothing could be further from the truth. A February 2008 report issued by the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group concluded regardless of the variables, smoke-free policies have either a neutral or positive economic impact. And in 2003 a report from the Center for Tobacco Control found every single study claiming negative economic effects was supported by Big Tobacco.
So the question is whose interests are reluctant lawmakers really looking after? The overwhelming majority of their constituents who support a statewide smoke-free law, the workers of Wisconsin who deserve protection from secondhand smoke, or the narrow interests and deep pockets of Big Tobacco?
It's a question all Wisconsin lawmakers should have to answer if they claim to represent the will of the people.
For close to two years, the Wisconsin Legislature debated the merits of protecting workers from the dangers of secondhand smoke, and after two years the only conclusion leadership came to was to shirk its responsibility to public health and decline to schedule a vote.
But the people, if not their representatives, know what they want and they want a smoke-free law.
A bipartisan poll conducted jointly by the Mellman Group and Public Opinion strategies last month found an overwhelming 69 percent of Wisconsin voters support a statewide smoke-free law including bars and restaurants - an increase of 5 percentage points in just 12 months. Moreover, 78 percent of all respondents, including those who oppose the law, believe it will pass soon. These are men, women, young and old, Republicans and Democrats all across Wisconsin who recognize secondhand smoke as a serious health hazard and want to end exposure to it as soon as possible. It's no wonder local communities are stepping up to take action.
In the short time since the Wisconsin Legislature left the capitol and its work undone, the cities of Eau Claire and Marshfield have passed comprehensive smoke-free ordinances by wide margins - a 7-4 vote on Eau Claire's City Council and a 2-to-1 margin by public referendum in Marshfield. Now Monona and Middleton are considering similar proposals.
They're not alone. Since the Breathe Free Wisconsin Act was first introduced in the state Legislature, Minnesota and Illinois have passed and implemented statewide smoke-free laws and Iowa will end workplace smoking this July, just three months after its bill's passage.
Wisconsin, meanwhile, is not leading but trailing its peers in public health, and for whose benefit? Tavern owners certainly don't gain from a patchwork of local ordinances in lieu of a state law. In fact, dozens of owners stood up in Eau Claire and Marshfield and asked for such a law.
It's only Big Tobacco that benefits from the status quo; scaring bar owners into thinking having smokers step outside will mean economic ruin, when nothing could be further from the truth. A February 2008 report issued by the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group concluded regardless of the variables, smoke-free policies have either a neutral or positive economic impact. And in 2003 a report from the Center for Tobacco Control found every single study claiming negative economic effects was supported by Big Tobacco.
So the question is whose interests are reluctant lawmakers really looking after? The overwhelming majority of their constituents who support a statewide smoke-free law, the workers of Wisconsin who deserve protection from secondhand smoke, or the narrow interests and deep pockets of Big Tobacco?
It's a question all Wisconsin lawmakers should have to answer if they claim to represent the will of the people.
