OK, before I begin, let me get this off my chest: I am (still) a smoker (sorry, mom).
I have made many efforts to quit and plan to give it another whirl as part of my latest plan to work out, get in shape and lead an all-around healthier lifestyle, but as of now... I'm still a smoker.
Which is why I'm a little perturbed at the gung-ho attitude towards Milwaukee's forth-coming smoking ban. Listen, I know the health benefits. I understand that I'm basically filling out my own death certificate. I get it ... thus, I - like many puffers - want to kick the habit.
But I don't think it's the government's job to bust my bones about it, and force private industry to adhere to its dictum. Long story short, it's not the government's job and secondly, it's kind of shooting itself in the foot.
Take away the health issues for a second (don't worry, I'll touch on those later) and let's look at one very important reality: the state is in desperate need of cash. When Gov. Doyle jacked the state cigarette tax up a few years ago, he predicted an influx of revenues as a result of the increases, but if smoking becomes essentially outlawed everywhere but the privacy of one's home or car, where will the state make up that money?
It wasn't that long ago that Wisconsin, like many states, received a dump truck full of money from tobacco companies as part of a major legal settlement. How did the state spend that money?
It didn't invest into quit-smoking campaigns; it didn't boost funding the health care or fund other necessary services. Instead, then-Gov. McCallum used the money to plug a one-time hole in the state budget.
Currently, Wisconsin smokers are taxed $3.53 per pack, with $2.52 ending up in the state's coffers. Do the math, and you'll see that's a pretty hefty chunk of change being pumped into the economy.
If a majority of smokers quit, which is an aim of the ban, that money has to come from somewhere and, more than likely, it's going to come out of the pockets of non-smokers ... the same ones that supported tax increases and a ban.
Whether you want to admit it or not, smokers do an awful lot to help the economy, even if they're playing Russian Roulette with their own well-being. True, non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer the effects and I am totally in support of banning smoking in restaurants, hotels and other places where non-smokers and smokers mingle, but bars are another story.
Bars, taverns and lounges are a place to indulge in vices. Yes, beer and alcohol are regulated. But go back in history and you'll see that the two go hand-in-hand. Look at Europe where an after-dinner cocktail and cigarette are common place, yet you don't see the governments there - decidedly more liberal than our own - trying to slap down bans.
Bars in Appleton are seeing a steady decrease in business since that city's ban, approved in an April 2005 referendum, and some are petitioning the city council there to insert a hardship clause into the ordinance.
It stand to reason that bar owners here will feel the pinch, too, which will mean more money lost thanks to a decrease in alcohol and sales tax revenues.
Like it or not, smoking pumps money into the state. The government's job isn't to dictate what choices people should make. Smoking bans should be voluntary, not requirement.
Go ahead and cite statistic after statistic about how much healthier the world will be without cigarettes, but I wonder if people will be singing the same tune when the government comes calling for higher taxes as a result.
