The agenda for tonight’s city council meeting can be found here.
Buried in the “tabled ordinances” area, where it has been moldering since late winter, is the floundering council kingpin Larry Kochert’s Omnibus Diversionary Behavioral Modification Ordinance, otherwise known as G-07-02: An Ordinance to Prohibiting Smoking in Specified Areas.
While there is no indication that the council intends to revisit this controversial proposal, legendary local jazzman and prolific anti-smoking crusader Jamey Aebersold recently offered a letter to the Tribune on the topic of the council's smoking ban inaction, in which he expresses indignation over the legislative body's unwillingness to address the issue.
Alas, it would seem that Aebersold is so understandably ecstatic in the unexpected turn of events that finds New Albany in possession of a new club (the Speakeasy) both jazz-oriented and smoke-free that he has failed to notice an “unwillingness to address the issue” as a council default setting rather than a one-off occurrence -- although in this case, the foot-dragging just might be an indication of sanity given the passions aroused by such measures.
Be that as it may, here’s what Aebersold had to say.
----
LETTERS: June 17, 2007
Where’s New Albany’s smoking ban?
On Feb. 22, 2007, many citizens met at the New Albany City County Building to present to the City Council a comprehensive smoking ordinance for New Albany.
After presenting overwhelming evidence of the importance of such an ordinance, a committee of three was appointed: Kevin Zurschmiede, Beverly Crump and Jeff Gahan.
It is now three months later and the committee has yet to meet. Repeated e-mails and phone calls to committee members have been met with silence.
Citizens run for various public offices because they feel they can contribute to the betterment of the city and their presence will make a difference. The people on this smoking ordinance committee are shirking their duty and need to answer the question — “Why haven’t you met?”
I feel it is disrespectful to New Albany’s citizens to continue to remain silent. Why form a committee if there is no intention of meeting and discussing the issue? I also feel one shouldn’t have to write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper in order to communicate with public office holders.
— Jamey Aebersold, New Albany
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I believe the Council is meeting @ 6 with Kay Garry on cutting the budget. Anyone know if that is an open meeting?
As far as Mr. Jamie, we know where he gets his hot air from for all that jazz!
Speak easy is a PRIME example of why we do not need government forcing its way into such details of our lives. The owners made the decision to be smoke free, and the patrons know that, yet they still go.
I think the it is the same way with conners place (or at least I have yet to see anyone smoking), lets not forget La Rosita's, and every single fast food joint in town.
feel like having a smoke with your meal? Then there is still Tuckers, Hungry Pelican, and a couple more.
It is more "non-smoking" than it is smoking with out an unenforceable, expensive ordinance.
Social perception changes have changed the collective attitude on smoking, which restauranteers have reflected that.
Mr. Abersold will still have plenty of opportunities to show graphic autopsy pictures of cancer ridden plural cavities to 2nd and 3rd graders and convince them that parents who smoke are as bad as crack smokers.
(gee Chris dont hold back, tell em how you really feel!)
Not sure whether it is an open meeting. Anyone?
I'll be there for the regularly scheduled performance.
maybe if someone had shown those pictures to my grandpa 70+ years ago then my family and I wouldn't have had to stand around his hospital bed for 2 months last year and watch him die of smoking related lung cancer...
i applaud Mr. Aebersold for his effort in educating the community (not just children)
ceece,
wow we find ourselves in disagreement again! Thats like twice.
Trust me, I know first hand the dangers of cigarette smoke, I see it a bunch at the clinic I run.
My problem is NOT with the rights of individuals exercising free speech when voicing personal opinions regarding issues such as these.
My objections are to the intrusion of government into personal choices, not really of the individual, but of business owners. Before it is brought up, I know there are issues regarding sewage, cooking etc that is regulated by government.
We should be free to make educated, informed decisions as adults regarding the participation, or exclusion of an activity that has NOT been deemed illegal from any state or federal laws by persons over the age of 18.
I DO agree with laws that protect areas such as government buildings, health care facilities, child care, play grounds etc.
BUT in a setting where there is a reasonable expectation where one can assume that there is a chance of exposure to things such as ETS, and more so when there ARE reasonable choices a person/family can easily make to for the most part completely eliminate ETS from their environment, I do not think we need another law, another unenforceable ordinance, only because a lobbiest such as abersold has a personal gripe with ETS.
Where have we gotten with dozens of us lobbying for stricter ordinances regarding the state of run down properties in the city? No Where! Because it is not Politically correct now.
If you ask me, the filth in this city is more harmful to the health of our citizens than second hand smoke, which can be avoided, waste products,rodent and insect infestations, garbage, sewage problems, toxic mold spores, drug dealing and using can not be avoided once it takes over your neighborhood, unless your forced to sell your home at a loss, if that is even an option for most people.
It is a serious question of priorities. Satisfy this years politically correct movement (which I might add are funded BY SMOKERS) or deal with the more serious, dangerous problems at hand we have now?
(ps after a week on my butt and at least 4 more days to go I'm getting grumpy and long winded...sorry! :>) )
CSD, I agree with you when it comes to individual rights, but to me this is not a choice that just affects "the indvidual".
Your point rings true Ceece. BUT, if we allow ordinances such as this to pass in the interest of the "public good" where does it end?
Who is next? If you noticed anti-smoking groups have really backed down on the "deadliness" of ETS, and are now focusing on the cost of health care for indigent smokers. Which, with much experience I can first handedly state that smokers and former smokers are not the most demanding and expensive indigent population to treat.
So when the PC bandwagon on this comes to a grinding halt, and the state and federal governments miss out on hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money generated from tobacco taxes, who is next?
DO we go after the diabetics, they cost us billions of dollars a year in indigent health care? Do we tax junk food, fatty foods, etc? After all morbid obesity can lead to increased risks of hypertension, certain cancers, COPD, CHF, chronic joint and back problems, diabetes, which costs all of us tax payers billions a year.
We MUST maintain the ability to have personal responsibility and accountability. If we allow and continue to allow, and demand that the government step in and pass more laws, more ordinances, not truly in the name of public welfare, but to satisfy the political correct lobbiests, and to generate more tax money, we will wake up one day and find that we are no longer allowed to choose for ourselves, the choices will be made for us.
Smoking bans are governmental sponsorship and of the most monetarily powerful lobbiest group in the country today. ANd they WILL get their way.
SO I ask this, who's next? We already place an inappropriate tax burden on what id statistically speaking the poorest demographic in the state to carry the bulk of the burden for medicaid and indigent health care systems on smokers, we also pay the lobbiest groups from this demographic. I am sorry but this is WAY to volatile of a tax base to depend on for such an important issue.
Its just TOO much, and too risky, because once we allow local and state governments to take chips out of the corner stones of our individual rights, we allow them to weaken the entire foundation.
Just a couple of small points of clarity, since the smoking ban debate is about as tired as the abortion debate:
Virtually every law we pass is a balancing act between restrictions on freedom vs. the public good. Where we draw the line at "public good" is the issue here. Ask yourself - does the public good from a comprehensive smoking ban outweigh the restrictions imposed by the law? You have no constitutionally protected liberty interest in smoking, so the legislature/city council can essentially do what they want. Politic accordingly.
I almost put myself to sleep typing that. Sorry. Resume rantings.
It's funny that whenever this comes up, I always say that all participants in the debate are missing the point. Now I'lldo so again.
Folks, it's not about your rights are wrongs. It's about workplace safety. That's the magic bullet, and that's why the new generation of laws are being passed. Smoking ban proponents are very much in favor of arguments that ultimately don't have anything to do with the legal wedge they've devised.
Sorry Roger!
True enough you have mentioned that magic bullet before, and you are correct in that.
I just suppose I am a slow learner... Or maybe I just want a big fat cigarette right now!
Roger, exactly. The only rights issue is the same issue that comes up with every law we pass. There is nothing special about a smoking ban, but the rants get long and loud from both sides about civil liberties and constitutional rights. You'd think we were debating gun control. (eek)
Brandon,
I know I tend to rant when t comes to this, for this I am sorry. I just have some real fundamental problems with the current political state of smoking.
I seriously doubt my position would change if I were not a smoker.
To point out an example of a root problem I have with this issue, the state wil provide our facility "special funding" to pay for chantix prescriprions for smoking cessation at nearly $200 per month per patient, but yet we can not get budgetary approval on our formulary to pay $30 per month for patient to get epi-pen auto injectors to stop anaphylaxis from immediate life threatening allergic reactions from bees, food, or medical allergies? Again, priorities...If this is but one example of how how government ignores truly serious issues, yet continues to favor the lobbiests of the week, I will continue to advocate against such lobbyism in any manner, avenue, or angle I can find.
Unlike smoking in restaurants, you have a constitutionally-protected fundamental right to rant. :)
Seriously, like Roger, it is the nature the smoking-ban debates in general that irks me, not your posts. The broader issue you raise about how we prioritize political issues and healthcare initiatives is an important one, in my opinion.
Post a Comment