Should Mayor England veto the smoking ordinance? What are the reasons for and against a veto? What do you think?
(Note to potential posters: Our usual rules of non-anonymity apply. Photo credit goes to Christopher)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Personally I don't think it matters one way or the other nor do I care at this point.
The genie is out to the bottle and can't be put back in.
A smoking ban across the board is enevitable at some point be it Federal, State, or Local.
However the timing and methodolgy of this particular one I think serves no purpose save to cause divisive reactions. That goal I fear has been accomplished.
I hope it turns out to be worth the effort for whomever.
No veto. New Alb Annie, over at Diggin In the Dirt, summed it up pretty well in this post.
sorry guys...i just don't understand how catering to the minority of your patrons will cause financial issues.
seriously, why is there usually a wait for the "non-smoking section," while 99% of the time there is immediate seating in the smoking section?
i bet you gain more patrons by being smoke free, than you would lose!
in this area, approx. 30% of adults smoke. not all 30% of adults eat out everyday, or all at once, so i think we're talking about a very small percentage of business. the smoking percentage is probably higher in a bar environment, by the very nature of that type of business. so i'm not buying that a ban is going to hurt anyone's business.
look folks, all i want is for my family to go out and be able to breath clean air (period) why is such a hard concept for smokers to grasp?
and i find it hard to believe that anyone "likes" to smoke. it's just the fact that nicotine is a crazy dependent drug that tobacco companies have got smokers hooked on and they don't want withdrawals from it and that is the reason they smoke, not because it's a fun thing to do. if it were fun, then EVERYBODY would be doing it.
No. The purpose of a veto is to act as a check and balance against the power of the City Council.
In this case, it would serve no real purpose other than to cause the Council to introduce an exemption for bars and private clubs in order to override the veto. This would make the ordinance worse from a check and balance perspective.
Realistically, I understand that this is a hot issue and the Mayor wants to gauge the political fallout. In that case, I don't think the Mayor gains much by a veto that results in new ordinance with an exemption for bars and clubs.
I also agree with New Alb Annie's post on Diggin'.
Quack.
If you want clean air, you're going to have to get out of Clark and Floyd County. The EPA let the cat out of the bag and we even stumped Mitch last week when asking what he will do to improve air quality. The federal government feels the air outside is more of a danger than the smoke-filled rooms of New Albany. Even though I smoke, I can see both sides of the issue and like highwayman, I'm just tired of hearing about it. But, there would be no U.S. without tobacco. Does that make it right? No, but it's a fact. Especially in the Kentucky area, it seems funny to lobby against something that has been and still is the financial backbone of the region.
It depends on what he can get the council to do in return. The council put the mayor in a hell of a spot.
I'm with highwayman on this. I think a smoking ban is pretty silly, even though I'm a nonsmoker. Too many other issues that this city needs to have dealt with. I feel for the business owners and understand their position, even support their position.
I just want this all to go away and move onto something important.
I don't think he should veto. I don't buy that it will negatively affect economic development.
And for the record, I'm not a rabid anti-smoking activist. I was a smoker for 16 years, and quit at age 30, which was 19 years ago.
Secondhand smoke has detrimental health effects. Therefore, I think it's a habit that should be indulged in only in a smoking individual's home or car or their other personal property--and not around their children.
Coincidentally, I had to take my mom to a doctor's appt Friday morning right after the ban passed--to her pulmonologist, Dr. Richard Karman. I asked him what percentage of his patients are there specifically because of smoking related problems, and he said 90%. I asked of that 90% how many are non-smokers who have problems due to secondhand smoke, and he said about 1/10 of the 90%. But he said the biggest concern to him was the number of children who are exposed and have problems such as asthma, respiratory dysfunction and ear infections due to being around smoke.
Hearing that made me really glad I quit.
Roger, there's an unintentional bias in your question (and in the news coverage elsewhere.)
The question is not Veto or Not Veto. It is Sign or Not Sign.
I favor the ordinance and will urge the mayor to sign it.
That's less bias than admitted ignorance on procedural grounds.
Let's say he does not sign. What happens then? Does the council propose another ordinance (presumably, as Brandon suggested, sufficient for signing), or does it rest for a period?
IC 36-4-6-16
Ordinance, order, or resolution; power of city executive to approve or veto
Sec. 16. (a) Within ten (10) days after an ordinance, order, or resolution is presented to him, the city executive shall:
(1) approve the ordinance, order, or resolution, by entering his approval on it, signing it, and sending the legislative body a message announcing his approval; or
(2) veto the ordinance, order, or resolution, by returning it to the legislative body with a message announcing his veto and stating his reasons for the veto.
The executive may approve or veto separate items of an ordinance appropriating money or levying a tax.
(b) If the executive fails to perform his duty under subsection (a), the ordinance, order, or resolution is considered vetoed.
(c) Whenever an ordinance, order, or resolution is vetoed by the city executive, it is considered defeated unless the legislative body, at its first regular or special meeting after the ten (10) day period prescribed by subsection (a), passes the ordinance, order, or resolution over his veto by a two-thirds (2/3) vote.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.3.
Like it or not, this is the national trend. If he vetoes it now, it'll be back on his desk within 6 months and will become an issue when the next person runs against him. The nation is trending this way and, as Highwayman put it, the genie really is out of the bottle.
On an up-note with this. One of my wife's and I favorite places is the Comeback Inn in Jeff for their linguine dishes. We had stopped going because it was pretty much over the top with smoke. When the Jeff smoking ban took effect we returned and are there a lot more than we used to be. In our case, their business improved.
i'd like to see the city council actually do something productive for once.
all i see are citizens serving in a council position to better their own business...err i mean, hobby, or something that makes them money...
Just wondering if those who say smoking should be limited to a person's home feel the same about drinking, since drunk drivers kill hundreds of people every year.
I feel the mayor should in fact veto this ordinance.
My position has been made abundantly clear. There are far more important issues to be dealt with in this city other than a hazard that can be avoided by choice.
So many other more hazardous conditions across this city can not truly be avoided, and many people have no choice.
He should send a clear message to the council that smoke and mirrors will no longer work when it comes to taking care of this community.
@Daniel S:
But there are laws* in place to prevent one person's drinking from affecting another person. Which, I believe, is the aim and goal of smoking bans. To protect the employees of being affected by another person's choices.
So since a proactive stance has already been taken with drinking, why not smoking?
*yes I am fully aware people don't always abide by those laws
The grapevine continues to suggest that there will be a veto ... and that fact makes me highly suspicious, such is the legacy of disinformation in this burg. I believe most of this scoop is coming from one councilman, and a pro-ban one at that.
My girlfriend was giving me the evil eye when I smoked two cigs at the pizzeria last night. Good thing it's within walking distance.
Ceece-Well said. But the people who are really hurt by secondhand smoke probably won't be saved by this ban. It seems those most at risk are the ones who live with smokers, day in and day out. I don't really believe that a person who eats out two or three times a week even, is going to develop cancer or heart disease from that brief exposure to smoke. But I do think it's a worthy cause to try and protect people, just hope it doesn't go over the line, because I still love my Big Macs. Veto or no veto, I think both sides have done a good job of getting their message out.
daniel s,
You are writing about the customer. What about the employee who works 8-10 hours per day in the smoking environment? You seem to admit that someone living with a smoker would be at risk.
This is where my "problem" comes in, the employee. Just how hazardous is it? We have all kinds of safety laws(good and bad)to protect employees in the workplace.
Iamhoosier-I agree with you in terms of wanting to protect workers, and there is a difference between customers and employees. But at the meeting Thursday it seemed employees, even those that don't smoke, were against the ban.Though I know that's only a small sample of the NA workforce. It's kind of like being a construction worker, you work outside, you might get skin cancer. You work at a place that has indoor smoking, you have to put up with it. The argument I don't agree with is the "you have to work there" side. Granted, jobs are hard to come by, but there's a big difference in doing something out of convenience or for money, and doing something because you have to. You have to go to the City-County Building to pay taxes, you have to go to a post office to mail a letter, you don't have to work anywhere. We're talking about something here that is legal. Most workforce policies govern things that are illegal.
Just one quick example. Propane is also a legal product but it's storage and use is regulated for employee safety.
I'll buy you a beer(are you old enough?)and you can sit beside me and smoke all that you want. How's that?(grin)
I am and that sounds good, we can talk about UK's dominance of IU in basketball over the past quarter century :)
I hope the Mayor is smart enough to see through this farce of non- smokers who claim they want to protect the employees of the 17 of 47 restuarants in New Albany that allow some form of smoker presence because it is no more than than a thinly vieled attempt for Smoking Prohibition in the City. There are at present 30 restuarants that DO NOT allow smoking by their voluntary choice, why else attempt to force the last 17, as well as bars(which most of the non smokers would never grace the doors), private clubs and veterans posts(again of which the majority are not members)to become non-smoking?
I feel it is obvious. It reminds me of another sorry protect others syndrome vote taken in New Albany, which did not involve the council, but the fearmongers were out in number and we have paid for it ever since, the lost of the boat on our waterfront.
Live and let live and protect the right of Choice. Veto!!!!!
"thinly veiled" durn!
I hope the Mayor signs the ban.
By the way, daniel s, you should be aware that research shows that the air in smoky bars is much worse than even heavy air pollution outdoors. This was reported in the September 26, 2004 New York Times: "If you're wondering whether a smoky bar or a city street filled with diesel-truck fumes is more harmful to your health, you might want to skip your next happy hour. Smoky bars and casinos have up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than roads clogged with diesel trucks at rush hour, according to a recent study. Conducted by James Repace, the researcher who first showed that secondhand smoke causes thousands of lung cancer deaths, the study found casino and bar workers are exposed to particulate pollution at far greater levels than the government allows outdoors. The study, published in the September Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, was partly financed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation of Plainsboro."
Post a Comment