For someone who is pro-business this decision is certainly anti-business. The government has no business mandating this ban. And, I'm a non-smoker.

I'm a former smoker...quit in 1998. While I do applaud and appreciate the smoking ban in RESTAURANTS ("no smoking area" my aunt fanny...what, the smoke goes to a certain spot and then magically stops?? And the stench is nauseating when one is trying to eat...) and other public buildings...., I do think they went just a tad too far banning smoking in bars. Just my opinion. I mean, I don't generally frequent bars anyway, but...when I did, it seemed that MOST of the patrons smoked. I think we could lighten things up there and permit smoking in bars, but....I fully appreciate the clean air in restaurants.

KP

Scott Walker ran on the promise to help small businesses who rely on smokers and non-smokers alike to repeal this bill if it lands on his desk! I volunteered heavily during his campaign, stood fast during the budget repair bill, lost friends and relatives over it. AND NOW HE SPITS ON SMALLER MOM AND POP BAR'S PROPERTY RIGHTS?

Wow. Scott Walker reinventing himself as a ... populist?

(I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.)

I disagree with Walker on this one. I think that business owners should have the right to decide if they want to allow or ban smoking in their businesses.

He has lost his guts!

After all his huffing and puffing and saying he supported small businesses, he has decided instead to kiss up to the nannies. I cannot believe it! SIckening!

He really must be scared of us lefties.

I support the repeal of Scott Walker! The only people he talked to was Big Pharma and Tobacco Control. In much of the state it is barely enforced and the ones complying are empty. http://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/sheriff-exposes-tobacco-control-lie/

A progressive in GOP clothing, denying property and individual rights for a collectivist nanny state.

Hail Comrade Walker!
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/peoples-republic-of-madison/

All these negative quotes smack of partisanship. The left loves all kinds of laws for controlling the lives of the general population. This would seem to be a perfect law for the left, not one they would complain about.

Smoking, along with alcohol consumption and lotto tix/gambling, are all an unwritten tax on the poor. You would think the left would be screaming at the top of their lungs to end this horrible pox on the poor of our nation.

Where were all of you Governor Bashers when DOYLE signed the bill in the first place?
Guess it was all right with you then because Doyle was a Democrat, huh?

I feel this is a mistake mr walker. The least I would agree with would be a referundem to the voters let the public decide if they truely want this. Business can then make the final decisions on their own We dont big brother. How can you be a freedom of speech liberal do gooder

Mr Walker, Karl Marx would approve of you and your smoking ban, Marx said the first plank to remove on the path to socialism is property rights... Marx salutes yo from his grave

To be fair, it really isn't Walker's smoking ban. It was put in place by Doyle. Walker's ownership is only to the extent that he's not supporting a repeal of the ban...

I know a number of people who work in bar+restaurants and they have found that business actually increased (at least at their locations). More families are coming in, too. The regular bar customers smoothly made the transition to smoking outdoors, and some were doing so already. A number of servers and bartenders, including the smokers, found that their chronic sinus issues had cleared up within two weeks of the ban. Of course these results might not be true everywhere.

Comments on this thread indicate that some folks are upset by the ban, but it's well documented that chemicals in cigarette smoke cause health issues even with minimal exposure (such as sinus problems and allergies). The smokers I know are aware of this and make sure they don't smoke around other people, especially their own kids and spouses.

I really don't think it's hurting any owners of bars/restaurants, so long as the entire playing field is even. Because the smoking ban is state law, all bars and restaurants are subject to it. Now, it would definitely hurt many, many small business owners if the ban was, say, on a county-to-county or a municipality-to-municipality basis. Then, we would see smokers most likely jump county or municipal borders frequently in order to find new hangouts.

The comment of 'entire playing field is even': Would things be even in the restaurant industry if all offered exacting the same menu? What ever happened to choice and signs? No one ever said any business had to offer smoking. It was always choice. So choice kept doors open and now with no choice, they will close. Congrats on your unemployment and welfare lines!

It appears to me that Gov. Walker plays two ends to the middle and is a damx liar who should be tossed out of office. To think of all the help he gained by those who believe in choice and freedom, who wasted their time to help get him elected and were made fools of, is going to make media news.

Aron the ultimate level playing field is the free market, I can name counties all over the state that the ban is being completely ignored. For a law that is supposedly so popular why is it that those complying are the ones that are empty????
http://www.fdlreporter.com/article/20110425/FON0101/110424005/Non-compliance-smoking-ban-create-rivalry-among-tavern-owners

Anyone interested in the junk science called Meta-analysis behind the smoking ban check out http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/meta-analysis-science-or-a-tool-for-advocacy/

The main thing is his hypocrisy. If while running for office he promised that he would repeal this when made available to him (I don't know if he did or not) and then changed his mind saying that after talking to people around the state...

I think we can all look back not too far and remember hearing him cite his promises for his reason to "Not" listen to people around the state.

He can't have it both ways. Oops, I forgot, he shouldn't be able to have it both ways...

Can't have it both ways? Is that what you call it when smoking ban supporters complain when Walker announces that he doesn't support a repeal of the ban?

This one is really simple - Although the Right/Republican folks have some hero worship for Mr. Walker, he doesn't need more bad press that labels him as yet another "bad thing". Coming out as "pro-smoking" is not a defendable position, and there's no amount of "pro-choice right to smoke" rhetoric that could unstick that tag once it's on him.
Scott Walker: Anti-education, anti-middle class, pro-wealthy, pro-smoking....
Yea, that's an additional label he didn't need. You could argue the rest, but not "pro-smoking"... pro-smoking = pro-tobacoo companies...
This one is too easy.

Dan BV, I would rather be called pro-smoking rather then a Nanny State Progressive. It is the TEA Party who got him in their and the smoking bans are not only a violation of freedom of choice but that of property rights.
http://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/smoking-bans-the-modern-day-jim-crow/

Well, from the comments posted here at least some folks on the right are figuring out that Scott Walker is a "bait and switch" proposition. People voted for him because he said he would create jobs. He wasn't elected to cut state jobs, create new crony positions, sell off power plants on the cheap, or any of the rest of it. This is why so many in the middle and "the left" are upset with him. The Koch brothers are salivating over the prospect of snapping up those power plants, which is why they poured so much money into Walker's campaign, directly, through their PAC, and through fat donations to the Republican Governors Association. Scott Walker will do whatever the Koch brothers tell him to do, and if one or both of them told him not to repeal the smoking ban, he won't, even if he campaigned on it. After all, he just said what Republicans wanted to hear so he could get elected. Now he thinks he can do whatever he and the Koch brothers want. Thanks Scott Walker!

Have any power plants actually been 'sold on the cheap'?

I suspect Walker would be bashed regardless of which way he does the smoking ban and probably by the same people. Because he's a Republican, the left will tee off on him for anything he does...By the way I don't smoke... both my parents did... Dad throat cancer... Mom managed to quit but died of a brain tumor...
I work in a factory... lots of smoke, all kinds except for cig smoke... we banned smoking indoors a year before the state ban... I always seemed work down wind from a smoker... but the best part: I don't have to swept up cig butts anymore!!!
Keep the ban.... it best for all concerned...

Ummm lol...he is being bashed here by the RIGHT...yes, perhaps also by the left...but that position hasn't changed - at least they are consistant. Many commenters here which are bashing Walker are TEA Party/Reps/Right Wing.

Commenter above admitted that he is indeed a Tea Party candidate. And while I actually support this ban - FULLY - and agree with him on this one (that just made my head spin); I hope this helps make him lose his base...just to make the recall even easier.

The repeal of this ban was the sole purpose for the tavern league (encompassing many liberals) went batty and supported this jag. Wahhhh Wahhhh, Tavern League. You deserve this one!!!

I can't believe people are slamming Walker for not revisiting smoking ban. Taking politics out of it, it's a proven fact smoking will kill you. No if's or but(t)s about it.

I feel that Government does not belong in private business. The owner of a business has every right to decide what he wants in his business, although second hand smoke may kill, the drunk sitting next to you who is not a smoker will kill you faster. Why don't we worry about that? In Wisconsin, we have the most lax laws on drunk driving and no insurance but we worry about smokers instead.

Being a lucky one who can say he's survived becoming an ex-smoker after a long committment to those little rascals, I don't know where to start because I've heard all the arguments and MADE all the arguments too. Perhaps what I am happiest with besides a longer life expectancy is the close to $3,000 that I am not spending annually to have my pack a day. Imagine the job creation that could occur in valuable industry, infrastructure that could be built and rebuilt with that money, etc. if they were totally illegal. And I'm not even adding in the healthcare cost savings.
The "right to suicide by cigarette" argument just goes nowhere with me.
The "anti-big government" argument falls flat too, because Big Tobacco is reaching into your pockets though the healthcare system too.
This is as good a law as banning DDT. Poison is poison.
And we do worry about drunk driving, Sharon, but I agree - not nearly enough.

I believe that the ban on DDT is wrong. Bringing back DDT will save a lot of lives worldwide...

Dan,

I'm an ex-smoker as well, enjoy the savings, happy to be able to actually walk up a flight of stairs without coughing up a lung. But I agree with CD on this. Even before the ban, I was able to find restaurants that, through their own choice, elected to not allow smoking. I could frequent them and avoid the others. And I did, even though I liked the food at some of the others.

Now, if folks want to make cigarettes illegal, they'll have to come up for a replacement for all the tax revenue lost (I know, tax the rich) and replacement employment for all the people who work in the industry (infrastructure?, not unless the mudders and ironworkers unions are willing absorb them).

Every do-gooder act of social-engineering has some unfortunate side-effect (or 3) to it that should be thought through and accounted for, no matter how appealing it is to just commit the act itself.

Just to play devils advocate, I'm curious to find out your thoughts on the relationship between smoking and health issues. I get the perspective that government shouldn't tell businesses what to do. But given the extreme health care expenses that smoking causes, where do you think the burden lies when people have the right to smoke their lungs out and the burden that causes on our health care system?

Smoking related health issues cost companies, employees, and taxpayers (not mutually exclusive groups) billions of dollars each year. When smokers (and surrounding second-hand smoke victims) have health insurance, it increases policy costs for everyone. We know how private American insurance companies like to collect premiums and not pay claims, so who ends footing many of the bills? Smoking is a devastating addiction but at the same time the tobacco industry funds a lot of elected officials ("the government"). As long as there is money to be made, this issue won't be resolved anytime soon.

As a smoker I pay much higher premiums for my health and life insurance, non smokers do NOT pay more because of second hand smoke.
I was totally against the ban in bars and supported the business owner if he/she chose to allow or disallow smoking in their establishment. After a year with the ban in force, many have erected smoking areas with heating and cooling for the patrons who enjoy their smokes. No point in changing the law now- those who wish to allow smoking have found a way to do so within the limits of the law.
The liberals in California would like to ban smoking outside, yet they support smoking pot...

One only has to look at the marketing strategies by Johnson & Johnson, makers of their own brand of nicotine in droplets stuck in a piece of gum and bariatric surgery that maims the demonized overweight people, and all of the deadly drugs they've put out lately that has resulted in recalls, and the fact that they were busted for bribery recently, to see that this is just more propaganda. Tobacco is in the nightshade family that includes potatoes, tomatoes, broccoli, cauliflower. Should we ban those? Not yet, pharma doesn't have a substitute, but they do have vitamins, thus the push to ban raw milk, herbs, and backyard gardens. They use bogus "science" to hoodwink uneducated legislators into making unconstitutional laws in the name of "public health" that in essence just wipes out the competition in a brilliant marketing scam, and these legislators have no idea that they've given away OUR farm. More and more people are paying attention, We The People DEMAND the nanny state retreat to the scum ponds from which they came!

Say a state has two million people with 20% smokers, that's around 400,000 and you demonize them with anti-smoker laws and get perhaps half of them to try and quit, that's 200,000 buying nicoderm or nicoret at about $200 a try, that's $40,000,000.00, for big pharma. Hospitals are complicit in this marketing scam. Wake up people! Walker's wife works for an arm of pharma!

The founding of the U.S. was financed by tobacco, yet the nannies would ban the use of it now. And look how many famous people smoked and died of old age. In fact, some of the world's oldest people are, or were smokers. It's true, the person who lived longer (122 yrs) than anyone else in the world to date, Jeanne Louise Calment, smoked her entire life as did many others. Smokers already pay more for health insurance. That nonsense that smokers cost more to the health care system is propoganda that many have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. 1/4 of the population did NOT cause costs to rise the way they have! But government is allowing big pharma to use laws and our uneducated elected officials in a brilliant marketing scam for their own brand of nicotine. And THAT'S where everything went wrong, by allowing pharma's nanny organizations as tools to use their propoganda unchecked. It's time for the PEOPLE to unite and put an end to it!

I believe Sheila Harsdorf voted for the smoking ban. Should we call off the recall election?

Anyone voting to strip property rights from owners in the name of corporate greed should be recalled! 21 people from 9 states filed a formal complaint against pharma's racketeering with the gov't and have thus far been ignored. That alone should tell you something.

Oh by the way what is Sen. Ron Johnson doing about this issue? ZERO!

It Thought that the pro-life party(GOP) would advocate a product that has been proven to kill people

Robert Heike, for one thing there were many Tea Party Libertarians that backed Scott Walker. Second there is a difference between killing an innocent child that has no say in the decision and adults choosing to smoke or entering private property {like a bar}. What is funny is the liberals calling for a strict desperation of church and state only to impose their own morality on the public. Is not morality the domain of the church? Should not that separation go both ways?

The sidewalk in front of Foxie's in downtown port is disgusting. Walk down the street and you'll notice how dark the sidewalk is compared to other areas due to all the ash dropped on it since the ban took place. Lot's of gum too.

It would be interesting if Scott Walker answered this question: Mr Walker, who do you support, special interest pharma foundation funded mob induced smoking ban and pharma nicotine profits or tax paying citizens who invested in their own privately owned businesses?

I personally think Scott Walker is unfit for office, his remarks shows his lack of interest in private business ownership which is good for the states citizens, who will pick up the tab for his dereliction of duty to keeping WI free from mob tyranny?