The Rights of Smokers
Before dinner last night, my little family and I went to Schofield FunDays to have some community time. We basked in the boyish bliss of the bounce house and giant inflatable slide until our delight was tainted by the actions of one woman on the playground.
As a way to lure our toddler son away from the rides, we promised him some playground time at the school playground near where we had parked. I ran around with Ben, taking too many pictures of him as usual, and Chris stayed on a bench with Baby Anna.
A woman with children came to join us, but she sat down next to Chris and lit up a cigarette, just a couple feet away from Anna’s face. We left. Ben has asthma, and Anna, as a preemie, is especially susceptible.
We were in public and outside, so that’s a smoking area, right? Sure, but it’s a school playground.
Chris and I hotly debated the issue on the way home. We were both outraged and indignant by her rudeness, but I drew similarities between people who are sensitive to cigarette smoke and people who get migraines when in the presence of perfume wafting through the air. When do the rights of the sensitive people outweigh those of others?
Though I smoked for several years, I don’t anymore, mostly because of my children but also because the severity of my family history of lung cancer finally knocked itself into my thick skull.
Soon after quitting, I became hypersensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke. I avoided it because it made me long for the good ol’ days when I could indulge. When I was pregnant, I avoided it for the sake of my gestating baby, and I was annoyed but resigned to walking through the smoking section of the Log Cabin Restaurant to get to the restroom.
Like the sensitive people who avoid perfume, I now avoid cigarettes. I walk away. I pack up my kids and leave. I silently judge those who smoke in their children’s faces. I quietly hope that someday, the desire to quit wins out over the nicotine addiction.
How do you feel about smoking bans? Should there be different rules for places for children rather than for adult places like bars?
Barry Liss said:
No smoking on school grounds…cuz smokin aint allowed in school…
July 21st, 2008 at 11:04 am #
Shawn Sullivan said:
I’m 100% in favor of a statewide smoking ban.
It’s a tricky one, but I think this argument gets derailed as soon as you start talking about the “right” to smoke. There is no such thing.
My thing about smoking bans is that smoking is an activity that has been proven to be harmful to others. Therefore, I believe that if someone’s behavior negatively affects my, or my children’s health, I would be OK with bans.
I also get frustrated by the “business owner should decide” argument. We don’t give a restaurant the choice regarding health code violations. We don’t give a bar the choice to serve underage patrons.
If everyone is on equal ground with a statewide ban, I would think that the impact to business would be minimal. Just my two cents.
July 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm #
Boogenstein said:
Outright ban in school areas. Bars and Resteraunts should be up to the owners, but if they allow smoking, they should have effective and well maintained air cleaner systems. I stopped 3 months ago but I still hate the self=righteous jerks. Last year whiole outside a woman asked me to smoke elsewhere because she hated the smell. The breeze was taking the smoke away from her so I told her to go and talk elsewhere because I hated the sound of BS!
I applauded the efforts of the Red Apple in their campaign to enjoy the freedom to do what they wanted. The idea of freedom is becoming a distant memory as more and more draconian laws are accepted by a brainwashed populace. Why give the lawmakers such a chance? You can drink on the grass of the 400 block but could be arrested if you carry your open beer across the road to order a burger from the Mint. Before long smoking will be banned from the whole area but we’ll be able to sit in a drunken stupor and suck in the fumes from the vehicle exhausts. Maybe I am an idiot but I don’t always understand this Country’s willingness to give the buffoons in power absolute power.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:39 pm #
Boogenstein said:
Sorry if I got carried away. It is just that I see a country in economic and social meltdown and we worry about Favre and smoking.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:49 pm #
deepintheheart said:
I can understand smoking being looked upon unfavorably on a school playground by a “smoke-sensitive.” I can understand smoking being disallowed in nursing homes and hospitals. I can not understand how a state with such a proud progressive tradition would take away such a basic freedom of it’s citizens and those who come to visit. Wausau and Mosinee make smoke. Weston III makes smoke by the trainload. The buses in your fair city blow smoke. When I visit your happy little town, I make smoke.
In Texas one can choose to carry a concealed handgun. In Texas one can carry a loaded, non-licensed handgun in your glovebox. In Texas we can drive 70 mph as a posted speedlimit. And, more often than not, In Texas you can smoke. In Texas we are free to kill ourselves as we so choose.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm #
Mohawk Matt said:
100% against a smoking ban. Y’all can kiss my smoke.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm #
Boogenstein said:
A bunch of wannabe do-gooding dictators want to force their wishes on the whole populace?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
Really, force their will? How do you explain polling that indicates like 68 percent of the population support a ban?
I think Shawns post is of incredible merit. Clearly that perspective was not responded to.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 am #
Mohawk Matt said:
I think it’s interesting that everyone that I talk to in bars, non-smokers included, don’t care about the ban. I think the 68% figure is a little skewed. Why don’t the do a poll of regular bar patrons and not just the once a month crowd?
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 am #
Dino Corvino said:
That is not how it works. We do not base legislation on what a specific group of people wants. I suppose we could ask people with drinking problems if the drinking laws are too strict.
An accurate cross section of the state is represented by polling numbers, or the poll is deemed of little or no value.
And back to force their will,these people were in fact elected. ANy of us can vote another way.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 am #
Mohawk Matt said:
Well no shit that’s not how it works. Where is this 68% coming from though? Nobody ever asked me. I don’t know anyone who was asked. If they want accuracy, why haven’t regular bar patrons been able to have their say? Bar owners? Bartenders? I have not heard anything from that side of the coin.
You know I’m not stupid, Dino. Don’t think I haven’t thought this subject through.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 am #
Dino Corvino said:
You can go online and find the sampling data.
You cannot say that regular bar patrons have not been asked.
Eau Claire passed it.
Madison passed it.
The Village of Weston is looking at doing it. You can go to a City Council meeting and speak out against it, if you want to protect my rights.
Bar owners, and regular opponents to these measures are given their voice in articles by newspapers, television news, radio call in shows.
But at the end of it, it comes down to civic engagement, will you show up at a City Council meeting, and voice your opposition? Then vote for the people that fit your view of this.
Avail yourself to the political process.
Contact your city council.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm #
Mohawk Matt said:
I’d go to a city council meeting, but I can’t smoke there.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm #
citizenweston said:
Smoking is proven to be harmful due to second-hand smoke, so it seems like it is almost an issue of child abuse when I see parents walking around smoking cigarettes while holding infants. HOWEVER, I also consider it extremely irresponsible parenting when I see parents with obese children. In both cases, the children appear to be in harm’s way due to the actions of their parents. Can you legislate the way parents feed their kids or involve them in aerobic activities? Of course not. The difference with smoking, is that your smoke could harm someone else.
I’m very thankful that I live in a village that is willing to listen to the voice of its constituents as opposed to the money of Tavern League lobbyists.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:57 am #
orkmommy said:
I’m a part time smoker. What I mean by this is I smoke during working hours and not at home with my family.
The reason I decided to comment is because I have a problem with Shawn’s comment “It’s a tricky one, but I think this argument gets derailed as soon as you start talking about the “right” to smoke. There is no such thing.”
As an adult living in America I do have a right to smoke. What I don’t have a right to do is harm someone else with my smoke. I don’t have a right to sit down a few feet from a small child at a school playground and smoke. I don’t have a right to smoke in a restaurant surrounded by families. I don’t have a right to smoke in my car with my daughter in the back seat. I do however have the right to smoke outside away from people who don’t want to inhale my second-hand smoke.
ALL smokers need to realize that what we do affects other people. We don’t have a right to harm others, but we do have a right to harm ourselves!
July 24th, 2008 at 12:39 pm #
timothyp said:
“I’m very thankful that I live in a village that is willing to listen to the voice of its constituents as opposed to the money of Tavern League lobbyists.”
Don’t think that the Coalition for Clean Air or what ever they call themselves has not pushed as much money into this than the Tavern League has? Doubtful, but possible.
Did anyone hear about a smoking ban before the Coalition showed up? Again…doubtful, but possible.
Think that a fair amount of these polls were done in areas where people smoke? Again doubtful, but possible. BTW, who did the polling and where?
Do you think that a business can be hurt by not allowing smoking in their venue/tavern? Ask the Fillmor… many people are not going there because of the policy, I KNOW this to be true. Well, that and because they really haven’t done much as far as booking new, fresh talent with the exception of a couple bands (Karaoke on a Saturday Night?)and many, many more problems with customer service, but I’ll save that for a different thread I imagine. At Malarkey’s, (I go past there pretty much on a nightly basis and stop in once and a while) there are usually more people outside smoking and HAVING DRINKS (I thought that is illegal by the way)than there are inside the place.
The allowing a legal activity such as smoking does affect taverns financially whether you want to believe it or not. If you do not like cigarette smoke, go where it isn’t or assume the risk of having to just deal with it. Go to a non-smoking tavern, restaurant where drinks are served (where smoking I believe is already banned), or where ever your hearts decide, you have that choice… as where smokers themselves can only go to the last haven to congregate outside of the home…the bar.
The health risk to the employees is surely the MAIN reason that the smoking ban is being considered! Doubtful, but possible again.
There is an implied risk to any job site whether it be equipment, hazardous chemicals, materials and byproducts or ingestibles. Same scenario should be taken into factoring who would normally be working at that position… they know what they do to make a living can be risky, but they make a decision to work there anyways.
Why is a tavern any different? Anyone in their correct mind would know the apparent risk of cigarette smoke before even applying for the job. Don’t want to be in the position of ingesting other people’s smoke, do something else to make the rent payment on time… in a non-smoking place, they are all over the place.
As far as smoking near children or people that do not, I am very courteous and either walk away or not smoke for that length of time. If the urge strikes me to light up, I go elsewhere. I do not instantly light up any time I feel like it, nor when I’m in another person’s home without permission to do so, unlike some smokers that I have encountered… it comes down to manners.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm #
brianseehafer said:
The statement made above is the most indefensible position I’ve heard in a long time. You statement that “Your right to smoke is not in the Constitution” although technically true is fundamentally flawed. In essence the constitution outlines in-alienable rights not all freedoms granted by our form of government.
As far as I understand it there is no law at this time that prevents me from purchasing or using cigarettes. Notable exceptions are the bans in workplaces and restaurants which I whole-heartedly endorse.
Using your logic above then I also wouldn’t have the right to drive a car, drink alcohol, or vote (although the amendments cover two of the three). All of these things have also been proven to hurt others in certain circumstances.
I believe the ultimate point here is that we should not undermine our existing freedoms. If society as a whole would take responsibility for policing itself then most of the inane laws that are passed yearly would be unnecessary. I don’t want the government telling me what I can and can’t do as long as I’m not directly hurting another person. Personal responsibility is what we are severely lacking these days.
I don’t smoke around my son, or at restaurants (even when it is allowed), or at public events outdoors unless I’m away from other people. Therefore what right does the government have to say I can’t do it?
That being said I don’t have a problem with banning smoking on school property as the possibility exists that at any time children may be present.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pm #
Andy Laub said:
“Using your logic above then I also wouldn’t have the right to drive a car, drink alcohol, or vote (although the amendments cover two of the three). All of these things have also been proven to hurt others in certain circumstances.”
While this is true, smoking is harmful under all circumstances - 100% of the time. Not always to others, but at the very least to the user.
For those who say they won’t smoke around kids - why the double standard? It’s alright to harm others as long as they’re not children?
July 24th, 2008 at 1:59 pm #
orkmommy said:
Andy, I won’t smoke around children because they’re not always old enough to make their own decisions. If I’m smoking outside away from people and a child walks over, I put the cigarette out. If an adult walks over they made the choice to come near me.
Children also want to be just like the adults around them. I don’t want a kid to think it’s cool to smoke and decide to try it because they saw me do it whereas an adult can make an informed decision to smoke.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:11 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
wow
July 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm #
Mohawk Matt said:
This is the last post I’m making about this, then I’m done. Maybe there are no rights for smokers. But, there are rights for PRIVATE businesses. If I owned a bar, it’s mine, I can refuse service to anyone just because I don’t like them. I make the decisions in my establishment, not the government. There are a few exceptions, like the health code, if I served food. But smoking? If you don’t like smoke, don’t go to my establishment. Go down the road. I’m sick of people wanting the government to intervene when they have a problem. We don’t need this much government involvement in our lives. So all of you people that want the government to step on business owners rights, I hope you have places of your own that I can come shit on.
“When the Government is big enough to provide everything, it is big enough to take it away” - Thomas Jefferson
July 24th, 2008 at 3:42 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
I am truly sorry man, that is not that case. In your own comment you give me the response.
The health code is an agreed upon set of arbitrary standards. At least at one time they were. At one point we did not know what a germ was.
I think that the vulgarity is not needed as well.
A business owner is no more free to do what they want with their business, than anyone else is. There is an agreed upon standard, and it applies to things like the temperature that chicken is cooked at for how many minutes minimum.
Soon, that standard may include no smoking indoors. Or public places.
This is the rule of law that we accept in this country.
What I must find most curious is the fact that this issue is getting so much attention, and local policy making gets none.
Again, please refrain from the vulgarity.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:08 pm #
Jim Carlson said:
It is a great debate. As a musician who is a non-smoker, I saw crowds leave bar/restaurants when Wausau passed the ordinance. From my observations, it is no coincidence that venues in Schofield/Rothschild/Weston started adding music.
Unless there is a state wide ban, smokers and their money simply move to other locations where they can enjoy a cig and a beer.
Venues like Kelley’s Martini Bar (which became III before changing hands to become Malarkey’s Pub) became destinations as ‘non-smoking’ bars. Their ‘no smoking’ policy differentiated them from other clubs, and that actually helped them draw their own crowd.
The success of the ‘non-smoking’ bars is often sited as a reason why communities should go smoke free. What people miss is the fact this was a business decision, not a law. They took the risk to introduce an alternative experience. It was the business owners choice.
Brian and Matt hit on something I agree upon, let the market decide. There are choices, and in the real world, the almighty dollar dictates change. If the surveys are correct, I am shocked more non smoking bars are not cropping up….seems like a gold mine, why aren’t investors lining up?
Bars are adult places, they not for children. Adults have the right to make their own decisions. There are both smoking and non-smoking bars, and the consumer (and their employees) can choose where they want to spend their time and their money.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:18 am #
deepintheheart said:
Sitting at one of my haunts the other day, Leo the Argentinian bartender mentioned that at the end of August it would be a smoke-free joint. This fact I already knew. I told him I would never return. Leo feels he will have to quit his job because business is going to drop and his primary living–tips from smokers (who are the primary drinkers in this joint) will diminish. Leo does not smoke or drink. He chose the job because of the potential to earn a better-than-average wage as a 20 year-old starving artist college student. In fact, he thanked me for “buying” him his new Samsung Instinct phone.
I have nothing to offer on the whole “rights” discussion.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:04 am #
Dino Corvino said:
Should we let the market decide about other health related things like cooking time? Food preparation standards?
Maybe the market can decide other things, like reading standards? Curriculum in schools?
The market does not decide legislation.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:04 am #
Boogenstein said:
The legislation should not be banning smoking, it should be forcing establishments toput up signs showing if smoking is allowed. If someone doesn’t want to work in a smoking joint. I agree with Matt about the business owner losing their rights. The principle here is freedom, not health.
Dino, you don’t smoke or drink so what gives you the right to decide that my freedom is curtailed?
July 25th, 2008 at 5:27 pm #
Jim Carlson said:
New York City and California have enacted laws against trans fats in restaurants. Foie gras was banned in Chicago. LA was seeking a one year ban on fast food restaurants. Oregon attempted to ban soda pop and other sugary snacks in schools.
Apparently, we are unable to make ‘healthy’ choices for ourselves, so the government is more than willing to help us ’save ourselves’. This is all done to ‘advance the general welfare’, but they really are helping vocal and well-organized special interest groups [which translates to votes].
In pursuit of their vision of the ‘perfect world’, special interest groups are more that willing to run our lives for us. It is easy to justify restrictions of our freedom and force us to live their way; after all, they are protecting us from ourselves.
To Matt’s point, how many of those surveyed actually go to bars regularly? Should non-drinkers have a right to say that drinking alcohol in bars should be banned? After all, there are many health risks associated with drinking. Is prohibition next?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:52 pm #
Andy Laub said:
It just bums me out that I can’t walk downtown (usually right outside the mall, on 3rd St, without walking through someone’s smoke.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:28 am #
StarEyes said:
This is my first response to any post on CitizenWausau, but I feel it’s a topic worth responding to.
Fundamentally, I agree with both sides of this issue (or, all five sides of this issue, as it now seems to be). I believe in the rights of business owners, just as I believe in the rights of individuals. I don’t agree with the government getting more involved in my life (or businesses) than it already is. Having said that, if someone disagrees with the local government’s decisions regarding smoking - or anything else for that matter - why don’t they voice their opinions to the appropriate people? Contact your legislators. Get involved in the local government. Work for the changes you want to see. Is anything going to change because you’re responding to a blog post? Probably not. You can voice your grievances all you want, but unless it’s to the right people, and unless you’re willing to actually DO something about it - don’t expect to see the changes you hope for. There’s an awful lot of talk, and not much action. You may just be one person, but don’t underestimate what a single person can achieve.
As for the rights of “smokers” vs. “non-smokers,” I’m wondering… if a smoker has the right to smoke and expose others to secondhand smoke, don’t I, as a non-smoker, have the right to breathe cigarette-smoke-free air? Whose rights come first? The rights of those who knowingly harm others, or the rights of those who choose/want to live secondhand-smoke-free? Unfortunately walking through someone’s smoke, as Andy mentioned, isn’t always avoidable - especially when it’s in abundance in PUBLIC places.
My choice to live smoke-free shouldn’t come second to those who choose to expose others to their harmful addiction.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:55 am #
Darcey Westcott said:
Reading this aaaallll through…everyone has very strong points…wow, what a thread. All this from Cheryl’s smoking incident - way to hit the playground Cheryl!
you’d think by the length of this thread that this topic is pretty beaten to death…one head knocking against the other…yet, I can still eek in a few more points!
One feeling I got from the discussion was that it seems as though the government “needs” to step in when our society is not able to maintain a collective sense of responsibility. Hmmmm. The “one bad apple spoils the whole brew” theory.
Geez, my parents smoked excessivley during my growing up years and I hated it. Despised it. They wouldn’t stop no matter how much I badgered them or begged them to. They might be the type to light up in a schoolyard if they didn’t see any children around. And, if there are no children around, it wouldn’t bother me that they were lighting up in a schoolyard. It bothers me that they choose to smoke near my children or near me…but now I can walk away as I so please. They still get their choice and I get mine. No government intervention needed.
I prefer to go to businesses where there is no smoking, but will briefly go to those where smoking is allowed. Again, it’s all my choice. I would vote for a smoking ban just because it benefits me and my family and it is a healtheir choice for our people…but in doing so it would be a totally selfish vote and I’d admit to that. Voting for a president isn’t selfish, it’s our right as an American. Voting for a ban isn’t our right, it’s a selfish infliction.
If the government was mandating a smoking law…I’d be pissed. Really pissed. The gov would totally be infringing on my personal rights to breathe smoke-free air. I’d be getting signatures and picketing places that push cigs. (in theory…I’ve never actually picketed before). Does anyone see the paradigm shift there?
…who is the ban really benefitting? What or who are we reacting to? Irresponsible people? The squeaky wheels? To a point made above, we do need laws to govern our society or we’d digress to the stone ages or those talking ape shows. But at times it seems as though the government is dipping too many toes in the water…and if the gov loses balance, who has the towels to dry us off? Hmmmmm.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pm #