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.
Newcomers, please take note.
ReplyDeleteNA 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
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.
ReplyDeleteAs 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.
This is a difficult one for me.
ReplyDeleteOn 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.
Having lived where smoking is banned, I can offer a few insights.
ReplyDeleteFirst, 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.
...anybody been to the Purple Catepillar Hookah Bar in West Lafeyette?
ReplyDeletePurple Catepillar Hookah Bar. Is it what it sounds like? It sounds frightening!
ReplyDeleteHaven't been to the Hookah place, but have been to the Triple XXX Family Restaurant in Lafayette:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.triplexxxfamilyrestaurant.com/index.html
ceece - are you saying you WON'T go to the Purple Catepillar Hookah bar with me?
ReplyDelete"Triple XXX" and "Family Restaurant" sound like a complete dichotomy to me.
ReplyDeleteBut from the looks of their web site, it's obviously a very misleading name.