The idea of a Wisconsin smoking ban is lighting fires.

You can hear about it all over the state these days, a debate over a smoke-free Wisconsin.
I’m a non-smoker myself. I long ago decided that I didn’t like the way cigarettes made my mouth taste the next morning.

If you listen to the radio these days you’ve probably heard advertisements promoting a smoke-free Wisconsin.

So far I’ve heard the same two ads repeated over and over again and I’m rather unimpressed with both.

The first commercial features a woman who took her daughter to a bowling alley after being told that it was non-smoking during the day.

She then proceeds to complain that the alley’s bar had patrons who were smoking. Apparently the alley made the distinction between smoking on the lanes and smoking in the bar.

While I agree that it was wrong for the bowling alley to be less than candid about their policy when she first asked, her next statements are where I get lost.

She claims her daughter was sick for three days after bowling in a smoky environment.

“It’s scary to think what second-hand smoke can do to your body.”

Regardless of the fact that this ad relies on a “think of the children” formula, which I hate, there are a number of reasons I find it to be ridiculous.

Now I’ve been to alot of bowling alleys, and have never seen one where the bar was less than 25 feet away from the lanes. They might exist, but I tend to think they’re rare.

I understand that the smell of smoke carries a long way, but at 25 feet I just don’t see it making someone sick, and especially not for three days.

The woman in the commercial never states how old her daughter was, but if I had to guess I would say she’s at least five if she’s strong enough to shove a bowling ball down the lane.

If your five-year-old is sick for three days after smelling smoke, then you should probably put them in a plastic bubble and have them under 24-hour medical care.

As a person who likes to consider himself quite logical, I find it much more likely that this woman’s daughter used one of the alley’s loaner balls which hundreds of other children had touched.

It’s a simple fact that objects out in the world and covered in germs.

So, to my mind, the arguement is that this little girl picked up a cold from a bowling ball and that’s why we should ban smoking.

Of course there is another commercial which I am more sympathetic to.

A gentleman who owns a bar tells the story of his battle with throat cancer. He says he has employees whom he cares about, which I find admirable.

At first glance this really does seem like a valid arguement for a smoking ban.

Only there’s a catch. Couldn’t this gentleman make his bar non-smoking all on his own?

It is the legal right of any establishment to ban smoking. There exist a number of bars which are non-smoking, and they continue to enjoy fine custom with a number of regular patrons.

Non-smoking establishments do tend to have four or five smokers standing right outside the doorway, but in general the inside of the bar, tavern or pub smells quite clean and fresh–or possibly like spilled beer.

Of course, not all bar owners are so generous to their employees, and the claim is that those employees should not be forced to put their life on the line for a pay check.

Being a journalist, I have news for you. Lots of people put life and limb and health on the line for a pay check. A drastically abridged list of these people would include law enforcement officers, fire fighters, nuclear technicians, demolitions crews, farmers and everyone who rides a bus or drives a car to work.

Bar employees just face a different sort of hazard.

Just because something is dangerous or unpleasent to some doesn’t mean that it needs to be banned.

Today they’ve come for the cigarrettes, tommorow they’re coming for the spicy and fatty foods. The day after that they’ll be coming for the alcohol, again.

Where does it all end? When we’re left with nothing but tofu and wheat grass juice. My tastebuds shudder to think of the day.

Not to mention that state legislators just raised the tax on cigarettes this year. If, in theory, a ban on smoking in taverns is carried out, wouldn’t that mean less people smoking and less money from the new tax?

With government spending continuing to grow, you just know that revenue lost on that tax is going to come back to bite your wallet in a different way.

Of course, the advertisements don’t stop on the radio. Other newspapers are carrying full pages of ads depicting Wisconsin as an ashtray between Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.

It’s good advertising, there’s no doubt about that, but is it really fair?

I personally would rather see the flame of freedom burning brightly, even if someone does occasionally use it to light a cigarette.