Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Is the Great New Albany Smoke-Out coming down the pike?

Posted by Picasa
NAC touched briefly on this item Sunday:

Smoking ban approaches in New Albany, by Eric Scott Campbell (News and Tribune).

New Albany could ban smoking in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces as early as January, using a model similar to Jeffersonville’s and Louisville’s new laws.

Councilman Larry Kochert plans to propose such a law once legislators overhaul budget and staffing for the city’s two ambulances.

Cynics might suggest that the key word in this passage is “once,” and that CM Kochert's anti-smoking law might well have to wait until Doomsday to see introduction, much lass passage, given the council's chronic inability to act decisively and CM Dan Coffey's probable absence (he'll be mugging for the cameras while pushing gurneys down State Street or posing behind the wheel of an ambulance wearing a fire hat and a vintage Joe McCarthy sneer).

Council president Jeff Gahan hasn’t seen enough of the ordinance to form an opinion yet, though his “initial impression is that we may need to ... consider additional exceptions.” He declined to elaborate on what extra exceptions he’d support before the council debate begins.

“The evidence is there that secondhand smoke is harmful, and it is something that we can’t ignore, but tobacco is not an illegal substance,” Gahan said.

Campbell's article notes that none of the current sitting council members use tobacco, suggesting perhaps that in spite of previous signals to the contrary, local anti-smoking advocates view their prospects as warmer now than after the elections of 2007 usher in a shiny new class of contestants. At the same time, recalling the rancor and divisiveness inspired by the smoking issue in surrounding communities, CM Kochert's prospective push may be nothing more than a tactical trial balloon.

For more, see also: Another incremental gain for local anti-smoking advocates.

16 comments:

CannonFarms said...

I am a lone wolf on this issue too. As a former smoker I detest the smell on peoples clothes, in their hair and skin, cars and homes. Scented candles and flatulance stink too, will they be out lawed next? The smell walking into the court house as employees are always blocking the door ways, stays in my nostrils several hours. It makes me want to light one up. Back to my initial statement, I feel like the lone wolf because in my opinion the Council oversteps their authority tackling the smoking issue. In Lexington Kentucky dozens of businesses closed within a year after the ban was in place. It is not right to tell a private businessman how to operate his or her smoking policy. It is a form of prohibition.

Sloburn said...

I myself am not a smoke and I never have smoked. I have to say that smoke free places would be nice but a total smoking ban is crazy. Public places such as court houses should have a well ventelated smoke area. Restaurants should have seperate smoking areas with a full wall and doors. It is peoples right smoke but its also peoples right to not have to put up with the odor, irritation and possible dangers of second hand smoke. Not to mention the effect smoke has on people with asthma. They have just as much right to have a peacful dinner with out the intrusions of smoke. Each side of the fence has a legit argument.

ceece said...

I have to comment here. As a fan of modified smoking bans, not because I'm a whiney person who doesn't like the smell of smoke on my clothes but for health reasons.

We all know second hand smoke is dangerous, even moreso to those who are asthmatic or allergic.

I am all for two seperate (completely) areas for smokers and non. The whole lets put up a half wall solution is a joke.

ISn't having a smoking section in a restuarant like having a peeing section in a pool?

stenson said...

Let's say a bunch of people are minding their own business, doing what pleases them in a bar.

Someone walks into the bar and says, "Stop it! I don't like what you're doing in this bar! That's why I hate coming here! I demand that you stop so I can come in here without being offended by what you are doing!"

Why on earth should the people in the bar not tell him to fuck off and find a bar where they don't do what he is so offended by? What they were happily doing among themselves?

This applies equally to smoking, hippy dancing, gambling, nude-model life drawing, high-fiving, watching the World Cup...

If non-smokers would assert their economic power, they could make bars suited to their tastes viable

The New Albanian said...

Newcomers, please take note.

NA Confidential believes in a higher bar than is customary in the blogosphere, and follows a disclosure policy with respect to reader comments.

First, you must be registered with blogger.com according to the procedures specified. This is required not as a means of directing traffic to blogger.com, but to reduce the lamentable instances of flaming and personal attacks on the part of the anonymous.

Second, although pen names and pseudonyms are perfectly acceptable, the senior editor (yours truly) must be informed of your identity, and according to your preference, it will be kept confidential.

To reiterate, I insist upon this solely to lessen the frequency of malicious anonymity, which unfortunately plagues certain other blogs hereabouts.

You may e-mail me at the address given within my profile and explain who you are. Failure to comply means that your comments almost certainly be deleted -- although the final decision remains mine.

Thanks for reading, and please consider becoming a part of the community here, one that is respectful of the prerequisites of civilized discourse, and that seeks to engage visitors in dialogue.

Roger

Meatbe said...

I agree with Ceece that this is a public health issue. Second-hand smoke is a dangerous carcinogen, the deleterious health effects of which are well-known. As such, I do not believe that anyone has a "right" to inflict it upon other people in a public setting. I say this even though I have been known to smoke at times myself.

As to your point, Stenson, I am all for freedom of expression. I would, therefore, support the right of individuals to engage in hippy dancing, nude-model life drawing or high-fiving in a public establishment, because those activities would not cause harm to other people. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for smoking.

John Manzo said...

This is a difficult one for me.

On one hand, most especially when I dine out, I don't like cigarette smoke anywhere near where I am. I have a too good sense of smell and strong odors of any sort bother me. Frankly, if I was sitting near an person of questional scent (is this pc for smelly?) I would be unhappy.

On the other hand, I do understand that smokers also enjoy dining out and having libations with friends. And smokers do enjoy smoking when eating and drinking.

I can only think separate or incredibly well vented rooms so that everyone can be accomodated.

On an odd side note, on Saturday evening my wife and I went to Jeff to eat at Buckhead's. Jeff, of course, has a no smoking policy. Across the street Hooters was packed to the gills. It was during the Ohio State/Michigan game and Hooters was packed with folks who like football, chicken wings, beer, and, well, okay. But what was sort of bizarre was that they had a whole contingent of people standing outside smoking. Smoking is inproper in Hooters? I realize it's the law, but, please, we need to get real.

Neal Page said...

Having lived where smoking is banned, I can offer a few insights.

First, I am not a real smoker (what I mean by that, I don't smoke cigarettes, but enjoy lighting up a fine cigar occasionally). I enjoy not having to have lunch next to someone puffing away, but I also am disappointed that I cannot enjoy a martini and a cigar at a bar.

Stenson's comments are, in my opinion, very realistic. Make an exception for bars. Maybe even consider an exception for bars and restaurant to have the choice. Then, if a bar or restaurant chooses to be a smoking establishment, I won't go there when I don't want to smoke. But if I want to smoke, I can choose to go there. Giving the businesses an option will, economincally, work itself out in the end.

stenson said...

Non-smokers are passionate about banning smoking. It is very important to them. Just not important enough that they will change their nightclubbing habits by refusing to frequent smoking venues. They would rather make the world change to suit them by bringing the police to bear on their prejudices.

G.Coyle said...

...anybody been to the Purple Catepillar Hookah Bar in West Lafeyette?

John Manzo said...

Purple Catepillar Hookah Bar. Is it what it sounds like? It sounds frightening!

The New Albanian said...

Haven't been to the Hookah place, but have been to the Triple XXX Family Restaurant in Lafayette:

http://www.triplexxxfamilyrestaurant.com/index.html

ceece said...

Stenson said:
Just not important enough that they will change their nightclubbing habits by refusing to frequent smoking venues.

Wanna bet? I haven't been to a "bar" in 2 years. It's just not worth it to me and my allergy to be sick all the next day. But I guess I should just "suck it up" huh? I don't want to infringe on joe-bobs right to smoke. Even if it means having not seen my fav local band in that long. And when I go to a restaurant that is non-smoking I make it a habit to tell the owner or manager how much I appreciate it.

Again, it's not all about banning everything, it's about doing what's necc to make things as enjoyable as possible for everyone.

G.Coyle said...

ceece - are you saying you WON'T go to the Purple Catepillar Hookah bar with me?

New Alb Annie said...

"Triple XXX" and "Family Restaurant" sound like a complete dichotomy to me.

But from the looks of their web site, it's obviously a very misleading name.

ceece said...

G, for you I'll make an acception.