I represent the Madison Chapter of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association with respect to a City of Madison ordinance proposal which would ban smoking in restaurants that derive up to 50 percent of their gross receipts from alcohol, including prohibiting smoking in separately ventilated rooms in such restaurants. Surprisingly, the tavern industry and the innkeepers strongly support us in this misguided effort to increase public health.

This is the third time in five years that those opposed to smoking have come forth with proposals to further restrict smoking in alcohol-licensed premises. The goal of these individuals, including several alders, as well as Mayor Bauman, is to do everything possible short of stomping on the Constitution to rid the entire city of smoking. This conclusion comes not only from their conduct but also the words they have used when directly speaking to me or others.

The debate over the current ordinance proposal should not be characterized as anti-smoking versus pro-smoking or as one of health versus economics, as some would like to cast it.

The hospitality industry accepts the proposition that smoking is harmful and should be discouraged. It accepts the proposition that patrons and service workers should not be involuntarily exposed to second-hand smoke. Interestingly, Madison’s existing ordinance statement of intent and purpose states that “smoking of cigarettes … may affect the health of nonsmokers when they are involuntarily in the presence of smoking”.

As with many single-issue advocates, the proposed ordinance put forth by the anti-smoking advocates fails to strike a proper balance with other important values, such as economics and choice. They insist on protecting us even if we do not want it, and if they can get the government to do the protecting, so much the better.

Our industry has developed a substitute proposal, which we believe does strike a proper balance. In short, we propose that smoking continue to be permitted in full-service bar areas and in separately ventilated rooms if appropriate physical barriers (floor-to-ceiling walls) and ventilation standards are put in place. These standards are designed to preclude anyone’s involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke. In addition, we propose advertising and signage standards to inform patrons of their choices when making a decision where to dine. We also propose informing all employees and applicants for employment with respect to the employers’ practices so such employees can make an informed decision.

The economics should not be ignored. Roughly one quarter of the adult population legally smokes. Another half or so of the non-smoking population accommodates smoking friends and acquaintances by joining the smoker in a smoking setting or in an establishment in which the smoker can have a cigarette. Nowhere in Madison is anyone more than three miles from the border. Does it take rocket science to figure out where the smoker and his friends will go? I have personally spoken to restaurant owners and elected officials outside of Madison who would welcome Madison’s ban, because they know it is to their benefit.

Madison, as an entertainment Mecca, has an uncanny ability to shoot itself in the foot. Particularly with respect to the downtown area, where assessments are sky-rocketing annually and the bulk of the tax-generating businesses are restaurants, bars, clubs and hotels, the proposed anti-smoking ordinance will drive customers away so that the revenues can no longer cover the costs.

Both sides in this debate have hurled studies at each other saying smoking bans hurt business or smoking bans help business. The proof is really in the pudding. Ask the small-business owner who lives, eats and breaths his business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He or she knows, better than anyone, his or her customers and bottom line.

And let’s not forget Wanda from the wait staff, who relies on a critical mass of customer base to generate the tips, which are her income. She’s the one who takes a huge hit because of yet another example of politically correct imperialism.

Quite ironically, the anti-smoking proposal could have a deleterious effect on the currently existing, smoke-free restaurants that have already carved out that market niche. If all restaurants are compelled to be non-smoking, those that already are will lose business. This is yet another example of policymaking by policymakers who have never taken Econ. 101.

Last, but not least, let’s give some careful thought to the unintended consequences of the smoke-ban proposal. City alcohol policy downtown has encouraged the opening of restaurants, while making it next to impossible to open a bar. That policy was largely driven by the perception that it’s better to serve food with alcohol as a way to decrease over-consumption of alcohol. A number of alcohol-license holders will reduce their food offerings to keep smoking privileges for their patrons.

And let’s not forget the RWJ Project and the UW’s efforts to increase the number of restaurant venues downtown as places where its underage adult students may lawfully recreate. Bars that generate 50 percent or more of their gross receipts from something other than alcohol are classified as restaurants by state law and underage persons may lawfully be on the premises. The resulting de-emphasis on food to save patron smoking privileges will reduce the number of establishments the University has supported and inadvertently driven student drinking and smoking back into the private house parties the ALRC and the University have worked so hard to discourage.

What odd times we live in. Soon, cigarette smoking will be treated as a criminal misdemeanor, while the smoking of a joint will be visited with a wink and a nod.

Attorney Rick Petri

Madison Chapter of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association