If viewing with a cell phone
newscasts - click to shrink
weau extended - click to shrink
NewsCenter13 Poll
How have higher gas prices affected your driving?

Driving Smarter
Driving Less
Finding other ways to get around
No Change


SkyWarn Doppler Radar
Search WEAU - HomePage for:

Speaking Out About Eau Claire's Proposed Smoking Ban Save Email Print
Posted: 9:26 PM Mar 7, 2008
Last Updated: 10:43 PM Mar 7, 2008
Reporter: Mary Rinzel
Email Address: mary.rinzel@weau.com

A | A | A

City leaders, the local Tavern League and bar owners are speaking out about making Eau Claire smoke free.

We first told you Thursday, that the city is considering an ordinance to ban smoking in all public places and some areas outside.

The big debate is public health versus taverns losing customers and possible going out of business.

"We're talking work places where people are exposed to second hand smoke. You're going to see an overwhelming public response saying 'yes, it's time,’” says City Councilman Dave Duax, who cosponsored the ordinance.

"When you look at other cities with similar bans, it has hurt businesses,” says Sally Jo Birtzer
with the Eau Claire City County Tavern League. “In Madison, 30 bars went out of business. In Appleton, 14 did. That's a huge economic impact.

We talked to several bar owners, managers and bartenders in the past of couple days. Many are against the ban. But several say going smoke free is a good thing.

It's a ban Steve Hanson, the owner of Wagner's Lanes says will have his customers moving elsewhere.

"We'll lose business. It's a proven fact," Hanson says.

He says half his bar is already smoke free and that's his choice. But, he says his customers also have a choice.

"If they come in and it's too smoky, they'll go somewhere else," Hanson says.

Somewhere else, like Dooley's Pub, where smoking is off-limits.

"They really caught onto it, and it has helped business in the last couple years," says Owner Mike Dooley.

Dooley says as a business owner, saying no to smokes was his choice.

"I’m not a smoker and if I’m going to be here everyday for the rest of my life, I prefer to be in a non-smoking environment," he says.

But, that doesn't mean he thinks all bars should ban smoking.

“I don't think the city should force businesses to do it. It should be done on their own free will,” Dooley says.

The proposal will be introduced at Monday’s city council meeting. Councilman Duax says he hopes the ban is approved by the end of this month.

But, before the council can vote on the ordinance it will have to schedule a public hearing where anyone can speak up for or against the ban.

To read the full ordinance click on the link below.

Email  del.icio.us   Google   Yahoo  digg

Related Links
More Stories
Cemeteries Turning Off the Water

Decades-Old Ring Mystery Solved

Body Found in Rusk County

On-Base Hotel Proposed at Fort McCoy

AAA Predicts Fewer Travelers This Holiday

Chueng Lee Trial Begins

Staying Safe on Two Wheels

State Troopers Want Lunch Breaks

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Sheri Location: Ohio on Apr 11, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Ohio has a complete ban. It also has over 28000 violations in less than a year. Hundreds of bars have either gone out of business or are on the verge of doing so. You still have a choice in your city. Let the owner decide. The market will determine what the customer prefers. Smoking bans NEVER bring improved business. Studies that say otherwise are funded by the people pushing for the bans. Studies funded by uninterested parties show that bans are bad for business. In England, the current rate of tavern closures since the ban is 27 per month.

Posted by: Joey Location: Clayton, WI on Mar 19, 2008 at 07:57 PM
Cory, I find it ironic that you use the phrase "your rights end where someone else's begin". Your right to pristine air ends when you CHOOSE to walk into an establishment that allows smoking, and the property owner's right who chooses to allow smoking on their property, begins. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to enter an establishment that allows smoking. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Placing your desire (that's the key word, not "right")to go out and not breathe second hand smoke above a property owner's right (and yes, that is his right) to allow the use of a legal product in their business is the craziest interpretation of American rights I've ever heard. www.banthebanwisconsin.com

Posted by: Carol Location: Maduison on Mar 10, 2008 at 04:32 AM
Every one of those SG reports is totally corrupt, because they ignoring more than 50 studies which prove that human papillomavirus causes ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. And passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to HPV, so they use this dirty trick to falsely blame passive smoking for the extra lung cancer caused by HPV.

Posted by: Scott W. Location: Eau Claire on Mar 9, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Can you please tell us which council member is leaning what way? It would be nice if we had a list of this so we may contact them directly to express our viewpoints either way. Thank you for your addition of that information, (when you get it listed) in an effort to provide complete and fair coverage.

Posted by: Scott Location: Eau Claire on Mar 9, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Can you please post a list of the council members and state what way they vote when this is voted upon? The voters deserve to know whom to vote out of office next election.

Posted by: Cory Location: EC on Mar 9, 2008 at 02:17 PM
I think most of the smokers are exagerating their "facts" here. First, your trying to justify second hand smoke by saying I should worry about the beer I'm drinking? Guess what, I'm putting that into myself, I am causing the (possible) damage, not someone else. Next, the ventalation thought isn't nearly valid enough to bring up. How long does the smoke stay in the air before it gets "sucked up"? Obviously long enough to be breathed in by someone else! You also say,"hey, you don't like it go to a different bar", but that's exactly what is being done here. Feel free to give yourself cancer, but leave my lungs alone please! Why do I have to risk lung cancer because of YOUR supposed "rights"???? Remember, your rights end where someone else's begin.

Posted by: Heather Location: Eau Claire on Mar 9, 2008 at 12:03 AM
I was a bartender for many years, I believe that there should be no ban on smoking in such businesses as bars. I feel it is someones' personal choice to smoke or drink. If you are going to say "I don't want to be around second hand smoke" then shouldn't you also be thinking of the negative effects the beer you are drinking is having? I agree with the smoking in restaurants, but in bars? In my car? My home? Where does this really end? As a smoker, I understand not wanted to be forced to breath smoke, but isn't that what proper ventilation is for and smoke eaters? How would the people wanting this ban like it if all the smokers went around and said "Hey you don't like it go to a different bar." I think there needs to be a common ground. Such as the owner of Wagners. If there are business and people that will lose their jobs, is that a hit you want? What if your bar that you go to closes, because you are the only customer? Then what?

Posted by: Phil Location: La Crosse on Mar 7, 2008 at 11:30 PM
If the state legislature is going to drag it's feet on the issue, then cities and towns need to pass smoking bans. Polls show a large majority would like smoke free businesses because they don't want to be made sick from exposure to secondhand smoke.

Sponsored Headlines