Friday, August 15, 2008

Logically speaking, all businesses should buy state tobacco licenses and become retailers, right?

Yesterday’s post about New Albany’s ongoing Greatly Unnecessary Smoking Debate of ’08 generated a plethora of comments, and I’d say that more than a few cans of worms were opened.
Council smoking farce: I'm taking it personally, too.

I read the essay aloud last evening on New Albany Now (blog talk radio), and Randy Smith provides this link if you wish to hear the spoken word.

Today, let’s focus on the comments generated yesterday. On the topic of the proposed ban’s effect on business, Ruthanne wrote:

Many businesses close because they were already struggling and/or the owners were ready to retire or move on.

Recall that in yesterday’s piece, I wrote:

The impact may indeed be short-term for my own business, but in an uncertain economy, and with consumers beset by rising prices, who among us should be forced by legislative fiat to make such a short-term sacrifice?

Quite frankly, the more I thought about Ruthanne’s comment last evening, the more puzzled I became. There is no way of knowing whether her “struggling … ready to retire” statement is true or not, although I’ve heard it repeated often by the pro-ban lobby both here and elsewhere. One thing that strikes me is that anyone repeating it without forethought may well have never owned a business.

As an example, the owners of the B & B tavern recently moved from Main Street to a new location, the former Stan's. I don’t know them personally, and they don’t run the type of tavern I favor, but those two points matter very little. It is clear from their comments to the Tribune that they believe the vast majority of their clientele to be smokers, and given the necessity of any business owner knowing his or her market, they obviously included this observation – this market research – in their plan of operation.

Also, they've just moved to the new location. Anyone who knows anything about such matters realizes that whether starting up fresh or moving, it's a big challenge for a business at the beginning.

Now, with little warning, the owners of the B & B are being told that their smokers will not be welcomed inside. There isn’t much space at the site to build a grandiose outside area, as might be possible at my own business, and anyway, they may not have any cash left to do it after the move.

So, having established that they're "already struggling" because they've only recently started anew, and now that they’re being given a not-so-gentle governmental shove, what are we to conclude if they can’t make it?

That they were struggling, anyway?

With the unspoken corollary: They must not have been very good business people, anyway.

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, although I could be mistaken. Furthermore, if ban proponents are going to shrug at places like the B & B, and blame its ensuing economic misfortune on it and not the legislators yanking the rug from beneath its feet, all the while trusting that respectable people like Sam Anderson and Roger Baylor need only spend more of their bountiful money to cope with the effects of the ban, then I believe we have steamed full throttle back into elitism, plain and simple.

---

I'll confess that in order to make the following somewhat coherent, I've had to miss a few contexts on the fringe. Readers are welcomed to check back with yesterday's thread to view the overall ebb and flow. Ruthanne made the case for an exemption.

Bluegill wants no exemptions. The only one I'm aware of is tobacco stores. Unlike other businesses, the sale of tobacco products is their sole purpose. Tobacco is, after all, still legal. There are no children admitted and second-hand smoke is not an issue, as non-smokers/tobacco users would not be patronizing such a store.

My blogging partner Bluegill answered.

Whether or not non-smokers are present is not an issue, unless you're regulating preference rather than workplace safety (and claiming that smokers are less worthy of protection).

To be honest, if Kaiser's hadn't been here so long, I don't think that provision would have been included. Even Tommy pointed out that his exemption was bollocks.

The fact that some of the council smiled and nodded as if to say "you're welcome" when he said thanks for exempting his family from the law was a pretty pathetic display of either contempt for equality or supreme ignorance.

BTW, if tobacco is the root of all the problems you say it is, why, of all people, should the council single out the family that makes its living by selling it for exemption? Shouldn't they be trying to drive them from our midst in the interest of public health and medicare savings?

Not all tobacco users smoke and there are plenty of other businesses besides tobacco stores where all or a majority of the employees smoke. How many separate but equal situations do you want to endorse? ...

... At this stage of the game, not a single council member gets it. Make it fair or don't do it. Given the majority's constant CYA maneuvering, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Maybe we should get Jamey Aebersold to advocate for code enforcement. Do the Kaisers own any rental property?

Bluegill continued to explore elitism.

You all can argue as much as you want but, as long as the ordinance contains the type of exceptions and exemptions that (councilman) John (Gonder) has already voted for once, the ban isn't about public health. It's about personal preferences.

If it's about public health, then all workers must be protected and not just some, unless John and others would like to explain why some lives are worth more than others. That's what the proposed ordinance says, and that's elitist.

He went on to elaborate:

What a lot of this boils down to is the ability to pass ordinances at little to no financial cost.

Like many other ordinances on New Albany's books, the smoking ban (no matter how it's written) is destined to fail in implementation because there's no one to enforce it.

Hell, ban walking and we can all wave to each other as we pass on the sidewalk, just like we've always done.

We'll know the majority of the council is sincere about anything having to do with public health when they agree to pay for enforcement.

We'll know they're sincere about the law at all when they agree to legally and equitably redistrict and at least act like the foundation of democracy means anything to them.

Until then, ANY law they pass will be a matter of saying that everyone should be required to follow the rules except them.

If that's not hypocritical and elitist, what is?

And, Bluegill concludes:

Whether or not an exemption filled ban could withstand a direct legal challenge (and I don't think it could based on the (Louisville) precedent that Roger mentioned on-air) is only part of the picture.

If smoking ban foes are clever enough, they'll also challenge this council's authority to enact any legislation.(Better to do it now than to wait for the slumlords to do it.)

In order to rebuff that challenge, the council would have to prove that their authority was granted through a legal election process. They can't really do that.

I'm intrigued, also, by Randy's on-air assertion that if an exception was made to the ban, he'd immediately insist that he, too, be granted the sovereignty to decide the smoking issue for his own business. But, he says here in print that he supports the ordinance as written.

Why do the exemptions in the current ordinance not matter? Or why would new ones matter more or less?

Re: the vote argument- I would hope that most sensible citizens and, quite frankly, our attorney friends especially, would spend their time and talents arguing that everyone should be treated equally under the law rather than trying to justify why they're not.

Then again, Jerry Ulrich may have more job security than anyone in town. The way things are going, the next vote might be to dedicate EDIT money to the council's legal defense fund.

14 comments:

Iamhoosier said...

So many words. So many "side" issues. This all looks like me trying to explain and/or examine an issue(albeit, much more eloquently written)

Whatever happened to:

Does the exposure of employees to secondhand smoke, rise to a sufficent level of danger to prohibit said exposure?

If yes--vote yes, no exceptions. (How can you justify protecting one employee and not another?)

If no--vote no

If "don't know"--vote no

The New Albanian said...

Thanks, IAH.

I'm doing my level best to keep this focused on the core issue (your "yes" answer below), but the ban's proponents keep changing the subject, i.e., tobacco store employees are "different", and implying that even if one class of employee continues to be exposed, the greater good ordains some weird variety of separate/equal exceptionalism.

That's bunk.

The more the scrum gets muddied (and rest assured I'm full-tilt in seeking as much mud flying as possible), the more that fundamental issue keeps bubbling to the surface amid the goo.

And, I think it is perfectly valid for me or anyone else to deploy the council's conceptual (and hypocritical) discomfort as a bludgeon against it. A council unconcerned with Constitutional health is concerned with public health? That's a chortle. As Bluegill wrote:

If smoking ban foes are clever enough, they'll also challenge this council's authority to enact any legislation.(Better to do it now than to wait for the slumlords to do it.)

In order to rebuff that challenge, the council would have to prove that their authority was granted through a legal election process. They can't really do that.


The lawyers among us may disagree, and I respect their greater skills, but to me, in the rhetorical sense, it is perfectly permissable to make hypocrisy the primary side issue, and to grease the wheels for the next round.

Lest we forget, all this is coming down after one -- one -- public meeting. Apart from John Gonder, the council's Pro-Bloc seems uninterested in dialogue, and I'm obliged to point that out, too.

Why isn't the council's Pro-Bloc, especially the flagrant hypocrite Coffey, going out to meet the people the way that Steve Price's crews (note the irony) is?

Looking fairly cowardly to me.

The New Albanian said...

crew is

Daniel Short said...

Second hand smoke is harmful. On that statement most can agree. But, individual liberty and the liberty of a business to operate in a free market system trumps ALL. No person has to work or eat at a place that allows smoking. If a business owner wants to make their establishment smoke free, and the market will bear it for them, then so be it. If the trend is towards smoke free venues, other businesses will likely be forced to follow. Ban smoking inside government buildings and let the rest decide for themselves. Roger may serve the best brew in town, but if you have to have one, you will have to endure some smoke. If you don't like that scenario then complain to the business owner, not your councilman. What's next? No smoking in your yard because the smoke will float over to your neigbor's house? Enough is enough. We are all grown ups here, why don't we all act like it?

Iamhoosier said...

Not aimed just at you, NA. Not really aimed at anyone in particular. I don't disagree with you, Bluegill or anyone else who doesn't always trust the council's motives and/or reasoning.

I "don't know" the answer and that's how I would have to vote, based on what I do know today. SHS is bad for you, but HOW BAD? With the exception of a couple members, I really don't think most of the council members are any smarter than I am. If that is bragging, so be it.

Highwayman said...

Daniel,

Please tell me you don't beleive your statement (the liberty of a business to operate in a free market system trumps ALL).

If you do then we must toss the EPA, OSHA, DOT, MSDS, and all other government dictated safeguards.

For each and everyone of them makes it difficult, expensive, and often impossible for any one to remain in business in this country.

Christopher D said...

As it has been previously stated, if the dangers of second hand smoke in the work environment was as bad as the Abersold/Hannah factions make it out to be, why hasnt OSHA, DOL, or EPA issued guidelines?
I mean, I know they are sometimes slow reacting to problems, but sometime in the last 95 years she could have issued something.

Daniel Short said...

Mr. Highwayman, I may have been speaking as if I were in a perfect world....some agencies are necessary even if it is often overkill. Do we need the ATF to inspect every dive in NA for ashtrays? I thought this town wanted economic development? Ask the Clarksville council about that one.

Ruthanne said...

Hypocrisy. Hmmm! About these objections about exemptions. . . While there might be a legal case for or against exempting tobacco stores, could that be just a straw dog for those who don't want a smoking ban - period? Would they try to exploit a perceived chink in the armor of the ordinance so no one will think they support smoking or, heaven forefend, agree with CM Price? Just wondering.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

If yes--vote yes, no exceptions. (How can you justify protecting one employee and not another?)

That sums up my entire argument. It's a question that, so far, not a single council member has publicly raised.

I've not argued for or against a ban on its merits. Frankly, on the most personal of levels, I don't give a rat's patoot if we have one or not.

What I've argued against is codifying into local law the notion that some people are worth more than others, an idea(l) that I feel supercedes smoking and a host of other issues.

It's something that's easily rectifiable but, unfortunately, the anti-ban council members are arguing for even less equity and the pro-ban faction seems more interested in justifying its cause in any number of fashions except explaining why it's necessary or even desirable for the public interest to institutionalize such blatant hypocrisy as a part of that cause.

There's simply no reason, outside of personal relationships or vote pandering, to include the exemptions.

If this were a different issue, I think most of the commenters here would be responding very differently.

Suppose the council passed a strict rental inspection program but exempted real estate agents, knowing as we do that some of them both own and help propagate slum properties. I don't think most here would be arguing that their exemption would be justified or accusing others of creating straw men.

Iamhoosier said...

Healthblogger,
I read your comment in the previous posting on this subject. Excerpts:

" As the current Chief of Staff of Floyd Memorial Hospital and Health Services, I did send a letter on behalf of the Medical Staff to the council supporting the ban.

The data is very clear on the risks of smoking and second hand smoke and there is convincing data that contradicts the harm to businesses.

All of that said; if I were a councilman voting for this ban as it stands, I would vote against it."

Your stated objection(one which I agree with)is to let the marketplace decide on places that are optional for the public to attend. That does not address the employee safety situation.

As I have already noted, I do not have the knowledge to answer the question. You are a health professional. In your opinion, do the risks of exposure to SHS by employees justify a ban?

My layman's opinion is that it does not rise to that level. Is there a risk? Yes. There is a risk an employee could catch on fire in a kitchen but we don't require them to wear fully fireproof clothing. There are other safety measures required by law.

B.W. Smith said...

Have a good weekend everyone, visit the S. Ellen Jones festival on Saturday, and be sure to read up for next week's topics: abortion, religion, the war in Iraq, and crunchy vs. creamy peanut butter.

Highwayman said...

No Daniel but you bring up a whole new subject.

There has yet to be any reference to the when, who & how of enforcement.

Is there any mention in this ordinance of an appropriation of monies to fund such? Pay for additional manpower on the street? Additional law department staff to prosecute chronic offenders? Court? Judge?

Has anything been heard from the administration or the city attorney concerning how all the above will happen?

Or is this to be yet another in the vast volume of "feel good" ordinances with no muscle to back them up?

If the latter proves to be the case then this will indeed have been a waste of time, resources, and good will all around.

Randy said...

Creamy!!