Two and a half years ago, the city of Madison witnessed the end of an ongoing smoking-ban controversy after accepting its adoption. Since then, a far more intense battle has taken place among citizens of the entire state over whether there should be a statewide ban. Within the issue itself is a sub-argument over how such a debate should be decided. Last week, state Sen. Judy Robson, D-Beloit, urged Gov. Jim Doyle to include the ban in his upcoming budget proposal. Such a move by Doyle would leave the decision up to the state Legislature, but many argue it should be put to a vote among the people of Wisconsin.
When deciding an issue that is exclusively going to affect the people of Wisconsin, there seems an obvious choice here. The best course of action to decide the statewide ban is through the same beloved democracy our country was founded upon, rather than sacrificing the people's opinion. The customers, employers and employees of Wisconsin are the only players in these situations. Consequently, the right decision will be made through all Wisconsin citizens' voices rather than just those of legislators.
Aside from the national right the residents of Wisconsin have to vote on this issue, there are additional advantages that will result from this method. A main controversy that stemmed from cities like Madison passing the ban was the fact that bars in such ban-labeled cities would lose business. This would occur from customers traveling to neighboring, ban-free cities where they could smoke inside bars. With the people partaking in a state vote, the entire conflict will be cleared up. Making the smoking ban a state decision rather than a city decision is a good idea in and of itself.
A statewide ban eliminates any chance of smoke-free city bars losing business to bars elsewhere. With the citizens voting rather than the state Legislature, the very owners of these bars, clubs and restaurants can have their say on paper, regardless of its impact on business. With the ban being a state issue, these voters will decide based on how they think it will affect society, now that business conflicts are eliminated.
Additionally, it will be more than fair that employees get the same opportunity. Regardless of one's smoking-ban stance, it is indisputable that this is a health issue. Waiters and waitresses are continually on the undesirable side of second-hand smoke exposure. It is repulsive to think they did not have any direct effect on the previous outcomes.
Of course, the state cannot exclude its beloved customers from having a say. Without them, these establishments and, in effect, this conflict would not even exist. A common argument for the ban is that smoky bars and diners can ruin one's night and even make it difficult for them to choose an appropriate place to eat or drink. A common argument against the ban is that the lack of ability to smoke inside will repel these same customers. These are two completely opposite arguments somehow resulting in the same set of circumstances and, clearly, whichever polarizing direction the great people of Wisconsin lean to is the one that most deeply affects their own dining habits and enjoyment.
Legislation can attempt to reflect the opinions of smokers and non-smokers, but they cannot come close to the accuracy that will be executed in an ultimate vote among all Wisconsin citizens.
It is foolish to try to voice the opinion of over 5 million people through legislation when it can easily be done through a simple democratic process, which is what this country is famous for.
Dan Josephson is a senior majoring in political science and legal studies. We welcome your feedback. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
