They’re at it again.
Our U.S. Senate began the discussion about tobacco tax increases, “for children’s health care” no less, with the pronouncement that federal taxes would be increased from the current $0.05 per cigar to as much as $10.00 per cigar. This, of course, was all part of the cigarette tax increase which is always a favorite since cigarette smokers simply curl up in the corner and never try to defend themselves.
Now, our benevolent Senate has decided that it can probably provide health coverage to “the children” for something in the range of just $3.00 per cigar…and we’re supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy about this great gesture.
The House has stated its position on the matter at just $1.00 per cigar. Again, we’re supposed to be thrilled with this continual “reduction” in our taxes.
As it now stands, a joint committee will settle the exact amount to be taken from us cigar smokers sometime in September. If they split the difference, we’re looking at an additional $2.00 per cigar at the federal level.
How great is this? We’re going to be given this huge break of seeing our cigar taxes going up by ONLY 2,000 to 6,000 percent. The compromise could settle in at a mere 4,000 percent increase.
Having been so blessed by our elected officials in Washington, we can then settle in for the continuing fight in Wisconsin.
There is a glimmer of good news on the horizon, however. For all of you who do not like President Bush, you may well have to admit that he did at least one good thing: he continues to state that he will veto this whole SCHIP (state children’s health insurance program) bill if it reaches his desk. He understands that this bill is the Trojan horse. It would increase nationalized health care by incrementally adding adults to the “children’s” health program to get far more than the current 46% of U.S. citizens into a federal health plan. That 46% is the approximate chunk of our citizens currently on Medicare and Medicaid.
This is classic government in action: take money from some citizens in order to give it to other citizens. Our elected representatives seem to know far better than we mere mortals where our hard-earned money will do the most good, and it always does more good in their pockets than in ours.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Cigar Smokers Excluded from Legislation Elsewhere...
The movement to ban smoking is rampant in many states. It is, as we’ve pointed out, easy for people to attack cigarette smokers because they have been made to feel guilty about themselves and their second-hand smoke. The typical cigarette smoker simply goes on about his or her business, but never seems to even think about fighting off the bans.
Cigar smokers have had their right to smoke in designated locations preserved in Washington, D.C.
Cigar smokers have had their individual rights to smoke in retail tobacco stores preserved in Tennessee.
Similarly, cigar smokers in New Jersey have had their right to smoke in cigar bars preserved.
Doesn’t it make sense for Wisconsin’s cigar smokers to enjoy those same individual freedoms? We are all consenting adults. There is virtually no incidence of second-hand smoke being offensive to any inhabitant of cigar store smoking lounges as we’ve discussed. The employees are the owners. Additional employees tend to be almost entirely made up of the stores’ customer base since these people know the product.
We deserve to have our individual freedoms preserved!
Cigar smokers have had their right to smoke in designated locations preserved in Washington, D.C.
Cigar smokers have had their individual rights to smoke in retail tobacco stores preserved in Tennessee.
Similarly, cigar smokers in New Jersey have had their right to smoke in cigar bars preserved.
Doesn’t it make sense for Wisconsin’s cigar smokers to enjoy those same individual freedoms? We are all consenting adults. There is virtually no incidence of second-hand smoke being offensive to any inhabitant of cigar store smoking lounges as we’ve discussed. The employees are the owners. Additional employees tend to be almost entirely made up of the stores’ customer base since these people know the product.
We deserve to have our individual freedoms preserved!
Monday, June 11, 2007
Cigar Tax Proposal Defeated in Joint Finance Committee...
An effort to cap the OTP (Other Tobacco Products) tax at the present 25% died on an 8-8 party line vote last Friday.
The votes for were cast by:
Rep. Kitty Rhoades
Rep. Jeff Stone
Rep. Steve Kestell
Rep. Scott Suder
Rep. Dan Meyer
Rep. Robin Vos
Sen. Alberta Darling
Sen. Luther Olson
The votes against came from:
Sen. Russ Decker
Sen. Dave Hanson
Sen. Bob Jauch
Sen. John Lehman
Sen. Lena Taylor
Sen. Mark Miller
Rep. Mark Pocan
Rep. Pedro Colon
Informed sources indicate that a single Democrat cross-over vote was thwarted by intense pressure at the last minute.
This aspect of the Budget will now go to the floor of both houses and will eventually be decided in a conference committee presuming that the Democrat majority in the Senate upholds the Governor’s Budget and the Republican majority in the Assembly does not.
Our elected representatives need to hear from you. This battle is far from over…unless we fold our tents and bury our heads under the covers. Cigar smokers must unite and separate themselves from the emotions attached to cigarettes.
The votes for were cast by:
Rep. Kitty Rhoades
Rep. Jeff Stone
Rep. Steve Kestell
Rep. Scott Suder
Rep. Dan Meyer
Rep. Robin Vos
Sen. Alberta Darling
Sen. Luther Olson
The votes against came from:
Sen. Russ Decker
Sen. Dave Hanson
Sen. Bob Jauch
Sen. John Lehman
Sen. Lena Taylor
Sen. Mark Miller
Rep. Mark Pocan
Rep. Pedro Colon
Informed sources indicate that a single Democrat cross-over vote was thwarted by intense pressure at the last minute.
This aspect of the Budget will now go to the floor of both houses and will eventually be decided in a conference committee presuming that the Democrat majority in the Senate upholds the Governor’s Budget and the Republican majority in the Assembly does not.
Our elected representatives need to hear from you. This battle is far from over…unless we fold our tents and bury our heads under the covers. Cigar smokers must unite and separate themselves from the emotions attached to cigarettes.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
First Hand Cigar Smoke...
The National Cancer Institute has a wealth of information regarding smoking. It has commissioned studies over time that probably form the bulk of our knowledge on the subject.
NCI monograph #9 is quite interesting since it deals with the issue of first hand smoke for both cigarettes as well as cigars. We can see their conclusions about first hand cigar smoke and the statistical rates of death per hundred thousand people. This study, which was conducted over a twelve year period, also recognized that the degree of inhalation of cigar smoke contributed to different rates of death from all causes.
Cigarette smokers have significantly higher rates of deaths from all causes. Smokers of less than a pack per day are about 1.5 times as likely to die from all causes as are cigar smokers smoking between one and two cigars per day. Full pack a day cigarette smokers are about 1.75 times as likely to die of all causes, and those who smoke more than a pack per day are some 2 times more likely to die of all causes.
Cigar smokers who smoke one to two cigars per day and who do not inhale the smoke compare favorably to the population as a whole. When looking at deaths from all causes, cigar smokers were noted to be at only a 2% higher incidence than the entire population as a whole...smokers and non-smokers.
Given that the people who patronize cigar shops with smoking lounges are the ones smoking cigars, there is an extremely small potential for second-hand smoke impact. It also stands to reason that first hand cigar smoke would be significantly more hazardous than second hand cigar smoke.
While it is generally acknowledged that second hand cigar smoke is a more significant health hazard than is second hand cigarette smoke (due to the sheer size difference of cigars and cigarettes and given different levels of carcinogens due to curing and burn rates), it becomes obvious that any real second hand smoke hazard from cigars is virtually non-existent.
Why is there virtually no second hand smoke risk?
- Because the tobacconist is typically working alone in his or her smoke shop.
- When not there, he or she has almost always hired smoker/customers as part-time employees since they know the product mix.
- Because people who do not smoke cigars do not sit in smoking lounges.
Given that there is virtually no second hand cigar smoke risk, and with SB150 written to protect people against second hand smoke, it also, then, stands to reason that an amendment to exclude tobacconists' cigar smoking lounges would certainly be in keeping with the original goal and intent of the legislation.
Who amongst our legislators will step up to the plate with a suitable amendment to SB150?
NCI monograph #9 is quite interesting since it deals with the issue of first hand smoke for both cigarettes as well as cigars. We can see their conclusions about first hand cigar smoke and the statistical rates of death per hundred thousand people. This study, which was conducted over a twelve year period, also recognized that the degree of inhalation of cigar smoke contributed to different rates of death from all causes.
Cigarette smokers have significantly higher rates of deaths from all causes. Smokers of less than a pack per day are about 1.5 times as likely to die from all causes as are cigar smokers smoking between one and two cigars per day. Full pack a day cigarette smokers are about 1.75 times as likely to die of all causes, and those who smoke more than a pack per day are some 2 times more likely to die of all causes.
Cigar smokers who smoke one to two cigars per day and who do not inhale the smoke compare favorably to the population as a whole. When looking at deaths from all causes, cigar smokers were noted to be at only a 2% higher incidence than the entire population as a whole...smokers and non-smokers.
Given that the people who patronize cigar shops with smoking lounges are the ones smoking cigars, there is an extremely small potential for second-hand smoke impact. It also stands to reason that first hand cigar smoke would be significantly more hazardous than second hand cigar smoke.
While it is generally acknowledged that second hand cigar smoke is a more significant health hazard than is second hand cigarette smoke (due to the sheer size difference of cigars and cigarettes and given different levels of carcinogens due to curing and burn rates), it becomes obvious that any real second hand smoke hazard from cigars is virtually non-existent.
Why is there virtually no second hand smoke risk?
- Because the tobacconist is typically working alone in his or her smoke shop.
- When not there, he or she has almost always hired smoker/customers as part-time employees since they know the product mix.
- Because people who do not smoke cigars do not sit in smoking lounges.
Given that there is virtually no second hand cigar smoke risk, and with SB150 written to protect people against second hand smoke, it also, then, stands to reason that an amendment to exclude tobacconists' cigar smoking lounges would certainly be in keeping with the original goal and intent of the legislation.
Who amongst our legislators will step up to the plate with a suitable amendment to SB150?
It's News to Me...
An Associated Press story this morning prompts me to realize I’ve never understood the language of our trade restrictions on the purchase or smoking of Cuban cigars.
The “Governator” (Gov. Schwarzenegger) was featured as having potentially broken the U.S. trade sanction against Cuban cigars when he not only purchased one in Canada, but had the unmitigated gall to actually smoke the darned thing.
I confess. I didn’t know that it was illegal for me to buy and smoke a Cuban cigar so long as I wasn’t in the U.S. I thought I understood that any such “contraband” I tried to bring into this country would be confiscated.
Several thoughts on this…
…I may’ve broken this law, but since I smoked the evidence, that will never be known.
…I may not have broken this law since I may’ve simply purchased and consumed a counterfeit Cuban cigar as have tens of thousands of others.
…Have we not enough really serious issues to focus on?
…Could Pres. Kennedy be charged posthumously since he squirreled away a several year supply just before he embargoed these cigars?
The “Governator” (Gov. Schwarzenegger) was featured as having potentially broken the U.S. trade sanction against Cuban cigars when he not only purchased one in Canada, but had the unmitigated gall to actually smoke the darned thing.
I confess. I didn’t know that it was illegal for me to buy and smoke a Cuban cigar so long as I wasn’t in the U.S. I thought I understood that any such “contraband” I tried to bring into this country would be confiscated.
Several thoughts on this…
…I may’ve broken this law, but since I smoked the evidence, that will never be known.
…I may not have broken this law since I may’ve simply purchased and consumed a counterfeit Cuban cigar as have tens of thousands of others.
…Have we not enough really serious issues to focus on?
…Could Pres. Kennedy be charged posthumously since he squirreled away a several year supply just before he embargoed these cigars?
Friday, June 1, 2007
More Heat than Light...
The Senate Committee hearing yesterday on SB150 generated a lot of heat according to reports. Senator Risser, D-Madison, and Rep. Wieckert, R-Appleton, were the heavy lifters for this proposed bill that would eliminate smoking in all workplaces, including the smoking lounges of tobacconists.
Risser stated that “society” had the obligation of protecting workers from second-hand smoke, and Wieckert pushed the theme of helping to curtail health care costs as being an important result of this bill.
These hearings tend to be lopsided in favor of the proponents, so this theater was not totally unexpected.
Much work remains to be done if we are to save our smoking lounges so we can enjoy “first-hand smoke” when and where we choose. There can be little doubt that incremental change will simply continue to occur until one day we find ourselves on the outside looking in. The absurdity is borne out by the fact that California is now considering banning smoking in apartments, condominiums and so forth to protect the non-smoking occupants from second-hand smoke. The day could come when we’ll not be permitted to smoke anywhere other than in the middle of the woods…and that isn’t even assured since the animals would be adversely affected in the minds of many who would protect “society” from itself.
Risser stated that “society” had the obligation of protecting workers from second-hand smoke, and Wieckert pushed the theme of helping to curtail health care costs as being an important result of this bill.
These hearings tend to be lopsided in favor of the proponents, so this theater was not totally unexpected.
Much work remains to be done if we are to save our smoking lounges so we can enjoy “first-hand smoke” when and where we choose. There can be little doubt that incremental change will simply continue to occur until one day we find ourselves on the outside looking in. The absurdity is borne out by the fact that California is now considering banning smoking in apartments, condominiums and so forth to protect the non-smoking occupants from second-hand smoke. The day could come when we’ll not be permitted to smoke anywhere other than in the middle of the woods…and that isn’t even assured since the animals would be adversely affected in the minds of many who would protect “society” from itself.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Cigar Freedom Petition...
Please take a couple of minutes to read and electronically sign our petition to be sent to the members of Wisconsin’s Senate and Assembly concerning SB150. If not properly amended and passed, SB150 would eliminate smoking lounges in tobacconists’ locations across the state. Click on the link under "Favorite Links".
The first hearing on this Bill occurs on Thursday, May 31st. Testimony will be taken before the Committee with limits of five minutes and begins following an Executive Session that commences at 9:30AM.
If you are able to attend (Room S411), please take a few minutes to add your comments to this blog for everyone’s benefit.
The first hearing on this Bill occurs on Thursday, May 31st. Testimony will be taken before the Committee with limits of five minutes and begins following an Executive Session that commences at 9:30AM.
If you are able to attend (Room S411), please take a few minutes to add your comments to this blog for everyone’s benefit.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Legislator's Positions on SB150
In a recent Shepherd Express article, Lisa Kaiser authored an article titled “Enacting a Statewide Smoking Ban”. In preparing that article, she obtained information concerning the position of area representatives which I paraphrased in the following recitation:
In support of the Statewide Ban:
Sen. Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee) (a co-sponsor): stated support based upon the safety of workers
Rep. David Cullen (D-Milwaukee) inclined to support
Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) (a co-sponsor): no stated position except that which can be assumed given co-sponsorship
Rep. Mark Gottlieb (R-Port Washington) has strong feelings about health reasons for ban; seeks statewide standard to set level playing field
Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) goes beyond the individual’s right to smoke because employees in bars and restaurants are being victimized
Rep. Peggy Krusick (D-Milwaukee) believes ban would protect public health and level the playing field
Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) (a co-sponsor): a second-hand smoke issue that raises public health care costs
Rep. Tony Staskunas (D-West Allis) we need a uniform statewide policy
Rep. Barbara Toles (D-Milwaukee) (a co-sponsor): generally stated that she feels the state has to help change people’s habits
Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) (a co-sponsor): sees the damage exposure to smoke does as physician and legislator
Do not support:
Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) I’m for freedom; I’m not so arrogant as to tell the person paying the mortgage what to do
Rep. Mark Honadel (R-South Milwaukee) occasionally I like a good cigar
Rep. Bill Kramer (R-Waukesha) believes that government should not interfere in private business decisions
Rep. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) doesn’t support statewide ban in private businesses
Rep. Daniel LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) believes in giving local property owners the right to choose their smoking policy
Rep. Don Pridemore (R-Hartford) believes the business owner should decide
Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) supports ban except in taverns
Rep. Robert Turner (D-Racine) supports except for taverns
Rep. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa) an RN but does not support statewide ban; values the property rights of the owner
Rep. Josh Zepnick (D-Milwaukee) does not support statewide ban since it would disproportionately affect small bars and taverns
Undecided
Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee)
Rep. Pedro Colon (D-Milwaukee)
Sen. Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield)
Rep. Cory Mason (D-Racine)
Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon)
Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greendale)
Rep. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee)
Rep. Leon Young (D-Milwaukee)
No response
Rep. Jason Fields (D-Milwaukee)
Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee)
Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford)
Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin)
Rep. Sue Jeskewitz (R-Menomonee Falls)
Rep. Samantha Kerkman (R-Randall)
Rep. James Kreuser (D-Kenosha)
Sen. John Lehman (D-Racine)
Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee)
Rep. John Steinbrink (D-Pleasant Prairie)
Rep. Pat Strachota (R-West Bend)
Sen. Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa)
Rep. Robin Vos (R-Racine)
Rep. Annette Williams (D-Milwaukee)
Sen. Robert Wirch (D-Pleasant Prairie)
Rep. Rich Zipperer (R-Pewaukee)
In support of the Statewide Ban:
Sen. Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee) (a co-sponsor): stated support based upon the safety of workers
Rep. David Cullen (D-Milwaukee) inclined to support
Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) (a co-sponsor): no stated position except that which can be assumed given co-sponsorship
Rep. Mark Gottlieb (R-Port Washington) has strong feelings about health reasons for ban; seeks statewide standard to set level playing field
Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) goes beyond the individual’s right to smoke because employees in bars and restaurants are being victimized
Rep. Peggy Krusick (D-Milwaukee) believes ban would protect public health and level the playing field
Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) (a co-sponsor): a second-hand smoke issue that raises public health care costs
Rep. Tony Staskunas (D-West Allis) we need a uniform statewide policy
Rep. Barbara Toles (D-Milwaukee) (a co-sponsor): generally stated that she feels the state has to help change people’s habits
Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) (a co-sponsor): sees the damage exposure to smoke does as physician and legislator
Do not support:
Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) I’m for freedom; I’m not so arrogant as to tell the person paying the mortgage what to do
Rep. Mark Honadel (R-South Milwaukee) occasionally I like a good cigar
Rep. Bill Kramer (R-Waukesha) believes that government should not interfere in private business decisions
Rep. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) doesn’t support statewide ban in private businesses
Rep. Daniel LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) believes in giving local property owners the right to choose their smoking policy
Rep. Don Pridemore (R-Hartford) believes the business owner should decide
Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) supports ban except in taverns
Rep. Robert Turner (D-Racine) supports except for taverns
Rep. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa) an RN but does not support statewide ban; values the property rights of the owner
Rep. Josh Zepnick (D-Milwaukee) does not support statewide ban since it would disproportionately affect small bars and taverns
Undecided
Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee)
Rep. Pedro Colon (D-Milwaukee)
Sen. Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield)
Rep. Cory Mason (D-Racine)
Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon)
Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greendale)
Rep. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee)
Rep. Leon Young (D-Milwaukee)
No response
Rep. Jason Fields (D-Milwaukee)
Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee)
Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford)
Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin)
Rep. Sue Jeskewitz (R-Menomonee Falls)
Rep. Samantha Kerkman (R-Randall)
Rep. James Kreuser (D-Kenosha)
Sen. John Lehman (D-Racine)
Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee)
Rep. John Steinbrink (D-Pleasant Prairie)
Rep. Pat Strachota (R-West Bend)
Sen. Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa)
Rep. Robin Vos (R-Racine)
Rep. Annette Williams (D-Milwaukee)
Sen. Robert Wirch (D-Pleasant Prairie)
Rep. Rich Zipperer (R-Pewaukee)
SB150 Hearing Date Set - May 31
The Senate Committee involved with SB150 that would ban smoking in cigar lounges offered by tobacconists will conduct a hearing on May 31st.
The Public Health, Senior Issues, Long Term Care and Privacy Committee will convene in Executive Session at 9:30AM in Room 411-S. Upon conclusion or at 1:00PM they will hear testimony on SB150. Testimony will be limited to 5 minutes.
The Committee members and their contact information follows:
Sen. Carpenter (D), Chair
Telephone: 608-266-8535 or 800-249-8173
E-mail: Sen.Carpenter@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen. Coggs (D), Vice Chair
Telephone: 608-266-2500 or 877-474-2000
E-mail: Sen.Coggs@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen. Kreitlow (D)
Telephone: 608-266-7511 or 888-437-9436
E-mail: Sen.Kreitlow@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen. Schultz (R)
Telephone: 608-266-0703 or 800-978-8008
E-mail: Sen.Schultz@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen. Cowles (R)
Telephone: 608-266-0484 or 800-334-1465
E-mail: Sen.Cowles@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Coggs is a co-sponsor of SB150.
We believe that inclusion of smoking lounges in the bill's language is an "unintended consequence" since they would be so designated because they have employees and not because of what they do as their primary business.
We believe that an amendment to SB150 is in order to assure that this unintended consequence can be removed prior to being accidentally codified.
Please communicate with your representatives and the Committee members to share your concerns.
The Public Health, Senior Issues, Long Term Care and Privacy Committee will convene in Executive Session at 9:30AM in Room 411-S. Upon conclusion or at 1:00PM they will hear testimony on SB150. Testimony will be limited to 5 minutes.
The Committee members and their contact information follows:
Sen. Carpenter (D), Chair
Telephone: 608-266-8535 or 800-249-8173
E-mail: Sen.Carpenter@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen. Coggs (D), Vice Chair
Telephone: 608-266-2500 or 877-474-2000
E-mail: Sen.Coggs@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen. Kreitlow (D)
Telephone: 608-266-7511 or 888-437-9436
E-mail: Sen.Kreitlow@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen. Schultz (R)
Telephone: 608-266-0703 or 800-978-8008
E-mail: Sen.Schultz@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen. Cowles (R)
Telephone: 608-266-0484 or 800-334-1465
E-mail: Sen.Cowles@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Coggs is a co-sponsor of SB150.
We believe that inclusion of smoking lounges in the bill's language is an "unintended consequence" since they would be so designated because they have employees and not because of what they do as their primary business.
We believe that an amendment to SB150 is in order to assure that this unintended consequence can be removed prior to being accidentally codified.
Please communicate with your representatives and the Committee members to share your concerns.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Hypocrisy Aimed at Cigar Smokers...
Causing people who frequent cigar stores to be unable to smoke that product in those stores is hypocritical, at best.
It is understandable that someone might be offended when they walk into a bar for a beer and are “accosted” by smoke.
I cannot imagine that anyone who walks into a cigar store was ever similarly taken unawares! We walk in knowing precisely what it is we’re doing. We stay there to smoke a cigar of our own free will!
Now, the co-sponsors of SB150 in Wisconsin believe they know better than we know ourselves what we should be permitted to do. Cigars, so far at least, are a legal product that states make a lot of money from by taxation. For those same states to then declare that this legal product/state money-maker cannot be consumed within the establishment that sold it, if that establishment chooses to permit such activity, is ludicrous.
As to the employees who work for the tobacconists, the majority are part of ownership or the owners’ families. Others are almost always customers of the same tobacconists who work part-time. Virtually all are also cigar smokers.
We don’t need protection from the state, nor do those who are employed by the tobacconists.
Further more, the state is encroaching on individual freedoms with this proposed action and that is just plain wrong.
It is understandable that someone might be offended when they walk into a bar for a beer and are “accosted” by smoke.
I cannot imagine that anyone who walks into a cigar store was ever similarly taken unawares! We walk in knowing precisely what it is we’re doing. We stay there to smoke a cigar of our own free will!
Now, the co-sponsors of SB150 in Wisconsin believe they know better than we know ourselves what we should be permitted to do. Cigars, so far at least, are a legal product that states make a lot of money from by taxation. For those same states to then declare that this legal product/state money-maker cannot be consumed within the establishment that sold it, if that establishment chooses to permit such activity, is ludicrous.
As to the employees who work for the tobacconists, the majority are part of ownership or the owners’ families. Others are almost always customers of the same tobacconists who work part-time. Virtually all are also cigar smokers.
We don’t need protection from the state, nor do those who are employed by the tobacconists.
Further more, the state is encroaching on individual freedoms with this proposed action and that is just plain wrong.
Cigar Smokers Under Attack in Wisconsin...
Those of us who enjoy cigars have come under some pretty intense scrutiny as a byproduct of the movement that would see the use of legal tobacco products severely restricted.
Those restrictions take the form of Governor Doyle’s proposed budget to increase the tax on cigars by something in the range of 125%. The budget debate is ongoing in the Joint Finance Committee where republicans and democrats each have eight seats. Tie votes mean that the Governor’s budget, as proposed, will be voted on by both the Assembly and the Senate. We must not permit these wholesale tax increases to occur in Wisconsin that already “enjoys” the reputation of being among the highest taxed states in the U.S. The democrats, so far, have hung together on most of the budget propositions already debated. If this pattern holds, and it likely will, we must encourage the republicans to stand together against the entire budget.
Republicans control the Assembly. If they stand together, the budget need not be passed with all the onerous taxes it now contains.
Additional, and even more onerous restrictions are to be found in Wisconsin Senate Bill 150. SB150 contains language that would eliminate our ability to enjoy smoking a legal product in the cigar store after our purchase. Since cigar stores employ people and since smoking in all places of employment would be prohibited…smoking in the lounge area of your cigar store would become illegal.
We have discussed this with various co-authors of SB150 and have received a courteous but, so far, non-reply to our requests for an amendment to be sponsored that would protect tobacconists and cigar smokers. This blog is devoted to changing the tide of battle and that depends upon every cigar smoker and tobacconist standing together. The cigar manufacturers are lobbying for the same things we stand for, but are keeping their contact information secret for now to protect those whom they may’ve convinced to bring an amendment to SB150 or those who have pledged to stand against the budget onslaught. That is understandable but disconcerting since we could find ourselves defenseless if they are not winning support...and we won't know that until it is too late.
Hearings are soon to be held. It is imperative that all of those who think this is unconscionable begin to make regular periodic contact with their elected representatives. We must let our elected officials know that we know what is happening, that we oppose what is happening, that we are numerous, that we vote and we influence many others who also vote.
You will find a links to the Retail Tobacco Dealers of America (RTDA) Legislative Action Center in our favorite links area. Use this tool to determine by whom you’re represented and to make contact with each to voice your views and to respectfully request their attention and support.
We will call on individual members of the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate, and will provide you with their positions as those become known. You’ll want to applaud those who support our positions, and make further contact with those who have yet to see the light.
Your comments to these blogs are appreciated. If you would like to be permitted to post blogs simply e-mail the Cigar Curmudgeon with your name and level of interest.
Those restrictions take the form of Governor Doyle’s proposed budget to increase the tax on cigars by something in the range of 125%. The budget debate is ongoing in the Joint Finance Committee where republicans and democrats each have eight seats. Tie votes mean that the Governor’s budget, as proposed, will be voted on by both the Assembly and the Senate. We must not permit these wholesale tax increases to occur in Wisconsin that already “enjoys” the reputation of being among the highest taxed states in the U.S. The democrats, so far, have hung together on most of the budget propositions already debated. If this pattern holds, and it likely will, we must encourage the republicans to stand together against the entire budget.
Republicans control the Assembly. If they stand together, the budget need not be passed with all the onerous taxes it now contains.
Additional, and even more onerous restrictions are to be found in Wisconsin Senate Bill 150. SB150 contains language that would eliminate our ability to enjoy smoking a legal product in the cigar store after our purchase. Since cigar stores employ people and since smoking in all places of employment would be prohibited…smoking in the lounge area of your cigar store would become illegal.
We have discussed this with various co-authors of SB150 and have received a courteous but, so far, non-reply to our requests for an amendment to be sponsored that would protect tobacconists and cigar smokers. This blog is devoted to changing the tide of battle and that depends upon every cigar smoker and tobacconist standing together. The cigar manufacturers are lobbying for the same things we stand for, but are keeping their contact information secret for now to protect those whom they may’ve convinced to bring an amendment to SB150 or those who have pledged to stand against the budget onslaught. That is understandable but disconcerting since we could find ourselves defenseless if they are not winning support...and we won't know that until it is too late.
Hearings are soon to be held. It is imperative that all of those who think this is unconscionable begin to make regular periodic contact with their elected representatives. We must let our elected officials know that we know what is happening, that we oppose what is happening, that we are numerous, that we vote and we influence many others who also vote.
You will find a links to the Retail Tobacco Dealers of America (RTDA) Legislative Action Center in our favorite links area. Use this tool to determine by whom you’re represented and to make contact with each to voice your views and to respectfully request their attention and support.
We will call on individual members of the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate, and will provide you with their positions as those become known. You’ll want to applaud those who support our positions, and make further contact with those who have yet to see the light.
Your comments to these blogs are appreciated. If you would like to be permitted to post blogs simply e-mail the Cigar Curmudgeon with your name and level of interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)