"Greater Louisville Inc., the metro chamber of commerce, is supporting a ban on smoking in most businesses ... 'We believe that this piece of legislation has reasonable controls and is responsible in terms of really making a difference in the community and ultimately helping us reach our vision of becoming an economic hot spot,' chamber President Steve Higdon said in an interview."
From Chamber to back smoke ban; Business group's stance is new, by Joseph Gerth, the Courier-Journal (limited shelf life for C-J links).
Here's an interesting web essay on the evolution of the smoking laws in Bloomington, Indiana.
Even though I am an ex-smoker and still have a cigar once in a while, I think the smoking ban is the only way to go. In travling to areas of the US where this kind of law is already in effect, it is not as bad as people suspect. Did Bloomington IN get their smoking law passed?
ReplyDeleteWe were just there last week, and there seemed to be no smoking whatsoever indoors.
ReplyDeleteHere's an essay on the topic:
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/903342
I look forward to the day when we ban obesity.
ReplyDeleteThere will be scales and a chart showing ideal body weight based on gender and height at the entrance to each business.
Signs will explain why those who don't fall within the safe ranges on the chart aren't allowed to eat in restaurants (you've had enough already), purchase travel tickets (necessitates the use of too much fuel) or work in businesses (drives the cost of insurance up for the rest of us). Obese people, after all, far outnumber smokers.
The above is a bit exaggerated but I often wonder how many of the people touting a health revolution showed up to vote driving a car with an eight cylinder motor, ate a high calorie pre-meeting meal spiked with hormones and pesticides, and then went home afterwards to celebrate victory by plopping down on the couch and draining a six pack.
When I see them biking to work, advocating for public transportation, outlawing anything except organic foods, committing to an exercise program, and generally swearing off any other unhealthy vices, I may take them seriously.
Until then, I will thank them to keep their hypocrisy to themselves and to allow everyone else the opportunity to make our own choices, healthy or not, just as they do.
Bluegill, well said.
ReplyDeleteI offered the above excerpt for a specific reason: Higdon speaking of a smoking ban bolstering the goal of becoming an economic "hot spot."
Why, now, does the chamber equate the two? Previously, it seemed to resist making a connection.
I think GLI, in the grand tradition of protesting too much (or at least being forced to by a smart interviewer), largley answered that question by stating that their lost connection with Brown and Williamson had nothing to with it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting that everyone involved with GLI is an evildoer with purely their own economic interest at heart.
My guess, though, after perusing GLI's list of board members and donors, is that we won't see GLI take a strong stance on auto fuel efficiency, healthcare and insurance reform, or truth in advertising anytime soon, regardless of the impact those stances could have on development and opportunities for small business.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteAs you said, hypocrites. It's unreasonable to place the burden of public health on a select group of people while others, particularly those who make the rules, continue to engage in unhealthy behavior that negatively affects all of us, possibly to a larger degree than smoking.
Logical validity doesn't account for the fairness that should be one of the first tests applied to any ordinance passed.
Logic can be a useful tool for finding the truth. That doesn't mean it is the truth. I'll take Wittgenstein over Russell any day!
For once, I'll not disagree with Tim.
ReplyDeleteAs an occasional cigar smoker, my view is that I can wait until the time and place are right for smoking.
As we all know, it isn't so simple for cigarette smokers.
In 13 years at the Public House, no single issue has such potential for divisiveness as smoking vs. non-smoking. None.
We continue to debate it, and my deadlines generally pass without agreement on the part of my co-owners. One of these days ...