"Why do they snipe at me because I have cancer? It's a respectable disease. It's not as if I had a dose of the clap."--Humphrey Bogart
As we approach the vote next Thursday on the smoking ordinance I am moved to respond to some of the thoughts in the ether.
Roger Baylor, one of the exemplars of local public opinion, has chosen sides in the smoking debate. He chooses to couch the issue in a frame of all or nothing. New Albany Confidential's co-editor takes, basically, the same tack. That is their prerogative. I find no fault with their positions.
I see only two exceptions. One is a tobacco store such as Kaiser Tobacco or one of the outlet-type stores. The other is a private club with no employees; under that configuraton I can see only one in New Albany, the Culbertson West Club. Owners Carl Holiday and Steve Goodman are the staff. Is there another such club in New Albany?
Hugh Bir is the face I see when I contemplate the gravity of the vote before me. Hugh runs an establishment he refers to himself as, a "honkeytonk". His business is a smoky, funky joint. I don't think he would quibble with that characterization.
Baylor and Gillenwater opine unremittingly about the lack of progress in New Albany, rightly so. Baylor has something on his blog's masthead about a sleepy river town awakening, grudgingly, to the 21st Century.
Fellows, the 21st century is here, and it's smoke free.
I won't pull on people's heartstrings with a rollcall of people from my family who have died because of tobacco. It's no longer than most people's list. But the list is real and it has people on it that I loved or my wife loved. Make no mistake, the people for whom this ordinance is intended are loved by someone. The people for whom this ordinance is intended may not have a platform from which to express their feelings or wishes. They may not have the thought within them that they will benefit from this action. But I took an oath which I interpret to, among other things, protect the health of the citizens of New Albany. Meddlesome? Heavy handed? Maybe, but who's to argue the opposite side that unregulated smoking is a boon to health? Who's to speak for the nearly minimum wage worker, who needs a not-so-great job just to keep his or her head above water, if not the elected officials of their own city?
What's to become of that same worker if the "draconian" measures we contemplate result in the bar closing? Again, I think of Hugh's place. Will his patrons abandon the pursuit of pleasure on a Friday or Saturday night simply because they must step outside to light up? It's difficult to legislate against something and then hope for cooperation from those subject to the unwanted regulation. I'm reminded of a scene from the movie version of "Cold Mountain". Rene Zellwinger's character says, "They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say, 'Shit. It's raining.'" And yet I think we can lift most of the regulations that may make outdoor dining and drinking difficult to implement for independent bar and restaurant owners. If you come into an unfamiliar city do you not first seek out the places featuring outdoor dining? Doesn't that tell you something about what people want? And isn't that, at least, a starting place for an accommodation of bar worker's health and the public good?
I am chairman of the committee to look at rental property registration and subsequent code enforcement. This committe has not met, and will not meet, until after August 21. It is my intention to draft an ordinance that will result in dwellings in the city of New Albany that are safe and which complement the efforts of the entire community to be a workable, walkable, healthy city that is a reflection of the direction the nation should be taking in light of the environmental circumstances in which we find ourselves. It is disheartening to have an effort which has not yet begun, be stigmatized as a type of Original Sin by the failure of past City Councils who may have dodged the issue or been beholden to special interests. This Original Sin is then used, in a post hoc ergo propter hoc fashion to denigrate the sincere efforts of the current council to serve, to the best of its abilities, the interests of the health and well-being of this city's populace.
The vote on the smoking ordinance is the toughest vote I've cast since joining the City Council, and I don't see it as an expression of "diversionary, hypocritical, elitist bunk." as some have called it. I see it, rather, as the first step this body has taken toward moving New Albany forward in this still-new century.
76 comments:
Dear Reader:
I have run up against the limits of my expertise in typing. For reasons unknown and unknowable to me, repeated attempts to restore paragraph spaces were fruitless. I hope it does not seriously compromise the intended meaning.
John,
My position is and has always been that exemptions turn what could be a principled stand in favor of worker protection into a farce of personal favors and pandering.
Exemptions do nothing to advance worker protection or public health. They neither advance your stated cause nor provide voice to the voiceless you mention. They are in no way necessary or advantageous.
Why then defend them? Why not at least suggest that they be removed rather than further codify the notion that some people are worth protecting and some aren't?
The idea that someone like yourself, who've I'm come to admire for his stance on civil rights, would overlook such a fundamental principle in order to advance an agenda that you personally feel strongly about, particularly while offering no justification whatsoever, is frightening.
Given your status as one of the more learned council members, it does not bode well for the council or city at all.
Corrected:
Who's to speak for the nearly minimum wage TOBACCO RETAIL worker, who needs a not-so-great job just to keep his or her head above water, if not the elected officials of their own city?
John,
Are you aware of when and where the first most successful smoking bans were issued. I sure do, and I plan on laying out loud and clear at the next meeting.
Protecting the public from something they can choose to avoid by making informed decisions is no substitute for correctly prioritizing the hazards facing this city and its citizens.
And further, when every "worker" in this city can not be granted equal protection under this law that undoubtedly will be passed, then it is biased, if it is biased it is worthless.
All or nothing, that includes owners of homes being banned from smoking in their own homes if a contractor is called in, otherwise, there is no equal protection, and it amounts to fluff.
bluegill:
The exemption for tobacco stores was included at the urging of the American Heart Association. I don't think they hold any particular affinity for tobacco sellers. It is that group's experience that tobacco retailers have won this exemption in other places because "people buying tobacco sometimes want to sample the particular blend before they buy it."
If that exemption were eliminated I don't think it really tightens the ordinance up all that much. My experience with tobacco stores is limited. (I am an infrequent cigar smoker but a frequent lottery ticket buyer.) I have no problem eliminating that exemption from the ordinance. I would not sacrifice the intended coverage of 99% of the populace in pursuit of snagging tobacco retailers.
The other exemption is for the club I mentioned; not by design but by definition of "private". Again, no horse trading was involved in arriving at either of these exemptions.
For the sake of clarity none of the other clubs in town are covered by the exemption because, while private, they are staffed by employees.
I do hope you seek to end the exemptions. They just don't make sense.
The bit about Steve and Carl is just as troublesome as the tobacco retailers. There are lots of other businesses where the owners are the only workers but they will not be exempted. The private club part needs to go as well.
youre just a typical gutless politician. it should be all or nothing but the coward in you wants to placate select friends or people of influence. sorry john you are no different than the other cowards, at least steve price makes his anti ban position crystal clear as opposed to your smoke and mirrors
anonymous:
Peace, brother.
John, I applaud all movement by our elected officials to the 21st century. Smoking bans are pretty well established at this point and they are not so hard once you're used to it. But i would really like to see the criminals housed next door at the falling down slum house, who pay the slumlords bills in Florida, who are seriously,d aily, draining value from and demoralizing all of us abutters who are working to invest in our properties. As long as slumlords are allowed free rein to extract the last bits of value from the town, who cares who and where people smoke. I don't. The smoking ban is not going to increase investment in downtown or draw young families to our neighborhoods. It won't improve our failing inner city schools. It won't stop the tribal warring that has doomed this town through most of the 20th century. So please pass a sensible anti-smoking ordinance and please move on to something that really matters.
And yet I think we can lift most of the regulations that may make outdoor dining and drinking difficult to implement for independent bar and restaurant owners.
You may wish to consult the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission before doing so. They get very picky about selective enforcement of their rules.
I see it, rather, as the first step this body has taken toward moving New Albany forward in this still-new century.
There are some of us who would be grateful if the council took a step backward and moved toward ensuring New Albany fair electoral districts according to the law.
You have not referenced our points on this matter. Not that it's a surprise.
New Albanian:
It is my understanding relative to "fair electoral districts" that the council may indeed take a step backward whether it chooses to or not.
It is my understanding relative to "fair electoral districts" that the council may indeed take a step backward whether it chooses to or not.
Then why, John, are you not advocating that it do so voluntarily?
Why should anyone pay heed to any law coming from a council that refuses to follow the law itself?
Mr. Gonder,
The people I know, speaking as a friend, feel the US GOVERNMENT should outlaw tobacco IF it is soooo harmful to us, who do smoke.
Think, if they would, the smokers would stop smoking, business owner's rights would not be infringed on and the ones who do smoke can or may finally stop (which most of them would probably like to do).
Thank you for thinking of Hughie's. Think of Little Chef. Most of both clientele smoke, and if you do not like it, they don't come in or if someone in there doesn't like it -- they take it outside.
Please think of Little Chef, too. People come in there, regulars, and people respect them. Check with Griley and his wife, every morning, rain or shine, they come in from the "Knobs" for their breakfast and they do not smoke. Most do.
Matter of respect. Can't get any smaller than "Little Chef" (lol).
Thank you for your opinions, but until the Council enforces laws they haven't enforced for years which have been on the books, please understand why people may find this issue hypocritical.
Thank you for the job you do. No one said it was going to be easy, hey?
bluegill:
I am.
anonymous:
People are going to be inconvenienced by this ordinance. The inconvenience is going to fall heaviest on those establishments with the greatest number of smokers. There are more smokers in bars than in restaurant/bars, so the burden will fall more heavily on the former.
If you accept, as I do, that tobacco smoke is laden with harmful substances, it follows that something must be done about it if we are truly serving the interests of the citizens. Government involvement should not address the choices people make on the private use of tobacco. One of the cliches of the smoking debate is something along the lines of "your right to smoke ends at my lungs".
People have the choice to enter any establishment they want. They can avoid smoking establishments or frequent such places depending on their wishes. The argument that holds for me is the one of protection of the workers' health which is compromised by second hand smoke trapped in the confined area of a bar or other establishment and recirculated through the ventlation system.
I am aware of the difficulty of coordinating outside drinking and dining regulations. I think it is now the council's duty to work diligently to see that the burden of this regulation is softened to the greatest extent possible by lifting any city regulations which make outdoor extensions of bars and restaurants more difficult.
I am fully aware of other areas of lax enforcement of ordinances. The council is set to address those issues. We may succeed or we may fail but we have not begun to try yet. It is too soon to judge those efforts failures. If no progress is made during this term hold us accountable.
The majority of citizens are not smokers and they wish second hand smoke curtailed for the good of the city as a whole. The majority of New Albany's citizens are not rental property barons and they wish blighted properties curtailed for the good of the city as a whole.(insert your own pun)
The smoking ordinance is a tough sell for some. I think in years forward some will look back and see that we made the right move. I hope they will also see that we did what we could to make the implementation of this law less of a burden for our bar owners as well as places such as the Little Chef.
"Government involvement should not address the choices people make on the private use of tobacco."
I believe that people who are investing their own time and money to open a business (and pay taxes to the city, state & federal gov't.) should be able to decide whether or not their patrons can smoke. Then prospective employess could decide whether or not they want ot work in a smoking environment.
Something about this *feels* unconstitutional. I don't think this type of regulation is what our forefathers had in mind. We are now being micromanaged by the government. Where is freedom of choice?
The smoking ordinance is a tough sell for some. I think in years forward some will look back and see that we made the right move. I hope they will also see that we did what we could to make the implementation of this law less of a burden for our bar owners as well as places such as the Little Chef.
I'm trusting that you intend this statement as proof that the council will work to make it easier for smokers to huddle like outcasts on the street corner, perhaps by offering tax credits to erect foofs (more than 20 feet from the entrance), but it also sounds like apologetics for the inevitable "separate but equal" granting of exceptions.
First Kaiser's, now Culbertson. As for the argument about sampling the wares, I ask again, if I elect to purchase a tobacco sales permit from the state and restock cigars, do I now receive an exemption so that the people purchasing them can sample?
Anti-smoking advocates cire science, and pro-smoking defenders cite freedoms. When it comes to politics, I cite precedent ... and as such, contrary to the opinions of our visiting lawyers, when the discussion is political, precedent and the previous inclinations displayed by politicians are absolutely admissable evidence.
But maybe I'll expound upon that at my own blog. I find it admirable that you're willing to debate these issues. I find it cowardly that your colleagues will not. Their silence speaks volumes.
Thanks for having the courage to vote in favor of this ordinance. Could it be better? Yes, but I will take what I can get so I can breathe clean air when I choose to go out.
Dear John,
I am writing to express my opinion and experience with the smoking ban in l'ville. I own a restaurant with bar and am thrilled with the ban.
I know that the focus of NA's ban is worker protection and I believe we have taken steps to protect our staff and our customers. I know we have fewer sick days due to respiratory ailments.
I know too our customers still thank us for the ban. I don't worry about seating children near the bar because of the smoke cloud that used to be there. Older patrons who used to vehemently complain about the smoke no longer do so. No one else seems to mind stepping outside to smoke and there are no complaints.
I do not believe the ban has hurt my business and could say it has helped. I would continue no smoking should the city do away with its ordinance.
An added bonus--I paint less often and wash windows less. There are no burns in my carpet.
If Dublin, Ireland and New york City can do away with indoor smoking, so can we. These cities have long cultural traditions of smoky bars and yet have seen the light. Even New Orleans prohibits smoking in restaurants. Are we not as forward thinking as these places? Are we less concerned about the health and safety of our employees?
Thanks for the forum and good luck in passage of the ordinance.
"I am fully aware of other areas of lax enforcement of ordinances. The council is set to address those issues. We may succeed or we may fail but we have not begun to try yet. It is too soon to judge those efforts failures. If no progress is made during this term hold us accountable."
The majority of the "new" faces downtown during the elections had touted this very issue is the center of their campaigns. Politician after Politician listed this as the number one priority as soon as they took office. Yet here we sit, yes meetings are scheduled, yes, a pre-council meeting workshop was held, and yes, letters have been sent to the worst offenders. Meetings have not produced any change, letters have not produced any change. We re preparing to lease a new tow in lot from one of the worst "investment property" guru's in town.
I get the distinct impression you are not at all happy with me, and I can understand that. But John, with second hand smoke there is the possibility of people getting sick after long term exposure.
But there are families getting sick right now in sub-par housing, there are entire neighborhoods being losing their livability, property values, piles of tires dumped in yard breeding mosquito populations, the list goes on and on.
Patrons of business do have choices, and actually, employees DO have choice, hundreds of families around this city DO NOT have choice, either living by these rotting houses, of having to rent a rotting down house.
If the government has a moral, legal, and ethical obligation by the oathes they had taken to protect the community's safety, well-being, and health would it not make sense to focus all efforts on the housing infrastructure FIRST, once that is handled then move on to smoking bans?
I wholeheartedly agree Chris d.! John, drive by the corner of 7th and E Main st sometime and take note of 703 E Main - we've watched the back tenants now go to jail for drug-dealing and come back. There'll not prostituting on the corner at least anymore. Then take a look at the houses on either side. Both families with young children investing real money and hard work in repairing their houses and increasing the area property values. What chance do we have with a slumlord next to us? Whatever we do is lost due to the common nuisance he maintains. Whatever value we add, he immediately subtracts(straight out of town). This has been happening here for so many years it's insane. There's no mystery why New Albany is a poverty filled dumping ground for the rest of the county. Until the local government holds the investment property owners responsible for their extraction business, it's laughable a minute of time is spent at city hall worrying how to enact some new "healthy living ordinance". Yeah, in my opinion smoking bans are a done deal, I'm used it and it's not the end of the world.
Hellis wrote:
I know too our customers still thank us for the ban. I don't worry about seating children near the bar because of the smoke cloud that used to be there. Older patrons who used to vehemently complain about the smoke no longer do so. No one else seems to mind stepping outside to smoke and there are no complaints.
This makes it sound as if prior to the smoking ban, there was a law requiring you to permit smoking ... but that wasn't the case.
So, tell us: Why didn't you eliminate these problems before the city of Louisville gave you the cover to do it?
The New Albanian asked Hellis why it took a smoking ordinance in Louisville to do the right thing and go smoke free.
How many times in our nation's history has virtue led the law in securing freedom, rights, or other forms of beneficial behavior? The pattern is usually: vociferous pleading by an agrieved segment of the populace, an adamant stance by the government to hold the line, capitulation by the entrenched governmental structure and then grudging acceptance by the segment of the population who was supportive of the government's recalcitrance. It seems as though some in the South have yet to fully accept the Union victory and did not begin to do so until coerced through law. Did that make the rule of law simply a cover for what should have been done voluntarily? Or was it a failure by government to find a wrong and right it?
It is not my intention to equate New Albany's proposed smoking ordinance in any way, shape, or form with the valiant struggle for civil rights. The analogy is simply to point out that people generally do what they've been doing until something or someone comes along to shake up the status quo. Couple human nature with a powerfully addictive substance like tobacco and a Rovian/Norquistian/media driven anti-government attitude and one can easily see why people get their hackles up about this issue.
What has come along to bring this issue forward is, I believe, a national trend which found acceptance in Louisville,Lexington,Bloomington and other nearby cities. New Albany is typically not a trend setter but a trend follower. That we have somehow gotten in the upper quintile of this trend should not be viewed as some Gahanic plot to abridge freedom, but rather a willingness to look forward rather than backward.
John, I appreciate your answer very much, but with due respect, the question was personal and asked of Hellis, who essentially thanked the government for doing what he/she could have done without government intervention.
As for Gahanic plots, the only one that matters is the one directed against fair electoral districts. All the rest (if any) are window dressing. After watching the council president struggle mightily against the dullards so often, I have been supremely disappointed to watch as he has flipped to the dark side and attacked the principle of one person, one vote.
All because he wasn't asked first to do his job. Sad. Very sad.
John,
Can you please explain the difference between correlation and causation and how that difference applies to the evidence presented by the pro and anti ban factions?
A standard refrain in those opposing the smoking ordinance is to link past failures, such as code enforcement, with some imputed cynical attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes while engaging in political hocus pocus to some ill-defined end.
A typical query is "why wasn't the council concerned about real health issues found in poor,vermin-ridden housing?" Why attack smoking rather than "saving the children doomed to an unhealthy existence in some of our sub-standard housing?"
These are legitimate questions deserving sincere answers. The committee to draft a rental registration and code enforcement ordinance will meet as soon as possible after the August 21 council meeting. Standard notice will be given and the public will be invited to attend.
Prior to the meeting I would ask those who have specific instances of housing code violations to send brief synopses of those violations to my council address: John Gonder, Councilman at Large, c/o City Clerk's office,
City-County Building, New Albany, IN 47150. In the interest of privacy, please do not post these to my blog. These will be used as discussion points throughout the deliberations of the committee.
Back to the subject of linkage... Since so many have linked an unwillingness by this or past councils to address code enforcement violations with the effort to regulate indoor smoking, and such linkage is purported to be a disqualifier for a sincere effort in the present, does it not follow that if this council takes a pass on the legitimate health issue of second hand smoke now, that this body has no standing in the future to address another health issue such as poor housing/living conditions?
Are we not obligated to address both health hazards?
bluegill:
No. And I can't explain how Michael Phelps swims like a dolphin either.
I do have a question which is why does the slim chance of a private club having smokers in it cause you so much angst? The ordinance allows smoking in private clubs with no employees. This allowance is disallowed when the public is invited to a function.
How does this compromise an employee's health? And why would that be sufficient justification to scrap potection for the other 99% of covered employees assuming second hand smoke is indeed a health hazard?
No offense, John, but if you can't explain the correlation/causation difference it suggests that you may have misunderstood the evidence provided to the council, both pro and con, in regards to the proposed ban. It also suggests that you can't really say to what extent the proposed ordinance would protect people, damage them, or have no substantial effect.
It's a difficult question and anyone who tells you that they can give you a definitive answer is either confused or not being fully truthful. We can talk more about that if you like.
In response to your question:
It's about fairness and equality, which for me trumps pretty much everything.
Regarding those who'd be regulated by the proposed ban, you said that "They may not have the thought within them that they will benefit from this action" and it's your role to decide for them in order to protect them.
Why is that not true of Carl and Steve? Are they not worth protecting? Or are you suggesting that they're intelligent enough to decide for themselves if they should fill their workplace with secondhand smoke but no one else is?
What of other businesses that have work space outside the home but no workers other than owners? Why should they be treated any differently than Carl and Steve?
How is it equitable that a self-employed real estate broker, shop owner, or insurance agent can't smoke inside their own property but private club owners can?
The same principle applies to tobacco retailers but is multiplied by the presence of employees. You've yet to answer why their employees specifically aren't worth protecting. I don't think you would even if you could.
As written, the ordinance says that only those whose main business is tobacco sales are exempted. According to information you relayed, that's because customers might want to sample wares. Wouldn't that be just as true, as Roger mentioned, if someone else sold the same products as a sideline?
Why should the customers of one tobacco retailer be allowed to sample products while the customers of another aren't? If your regulatory premise is that secondhand smoke exposure is harmful, wouldn't the employees at both retailers be facing the same risk and therefore be entitled to the same protection?
It's the equivalent of saying excessive driving speed is dangerous for the public but that those who drive red sportscars should be exempted from the speed limit. I think most would agree that that would be indefensible nonsense.
What the current ordinance proposes to do is to further institutionalize inequality, making it law that, barring any consideration of mental disabilities, some adults are capable of making their own decisions but some aren't and/or that some people are worthy of protection but others aren't. It's exactly that type of lawmaking that gave rise to the civil rights movement in the first place.
To codify that while providing no rationale that the specific inequality provides any benefit to the public interest is in direct conflict with the principles on which our country was supposedly founded.
Is New Albany any better off by allowing Carl and Steve to smoke in their business? Are we somehow improved by allowing smoking at Kaiser's?
If not (and according to your own stance on secondhand smoke, we aren't), then purposely making people less equal under the law cannot be justified, let alone defined as 21st century progress, whether it's two people, ten people, or thousands.
There are certainly those that disagree but, to me, the main purpose of our legal system is to strive to ensure that rights and responsibilities are distributed equally- the provision of a level playing field.
That equality test should be a part of any legislative process, regardless of issue. The current ordinance fails that test but is easily correctable. To not endeavor to correct it, in my opinion, would be a dereliction of public duty as an elected representative.
As I mentioned, for someone who's obviously spent a considerable amount of time dedicating themselves to the cause of equal rights to suddenly pull those principles from the table and knowingly make the law less fair in an attempt to advance an agenda is disturbing, as in Bush-like disturbing.
If you choose to advocate for a public smoking ban, so be it, whether I or anyone else agrees or disagrees. I understand that you feel a certain moral obligation to protect people and you're one of the minority on the council who was legally elected to do such things.
Having said that, I don't think you can look me in the eye and tell me that you really believe that the exemptions written into the ordinance are fair. If you can't, I think you and I would both agree that you have a moral responsibility to try to change it.
If I'm wrong and you think the exemptions are fair, please explain.
Mr. Gonder,
I have to agree with others here. So much action surrounding a smoking ban when there are so many more pressing issues facing this city. I purchased a home on Elm Street about a year ago, I've already had my car broken into, vandalism on my property, my neighbor's car was broken into, and other vandalism. The rental property in this "historic" district are run down, seemingly rented to the lowest bidder.
Yet all that's being talked about is a smoking ban?
I just hope that one way or the other, this issue is dealt with quickly so we can move on to more substantive problems facing the community.
For the record, I'm a non-smoker and I wouldn't support this ban. If the place is too smoky for me and an adequate non smoking area isn't available, I simply leave...
John,
I would like to submit, even though the effort is there to begin to address the housing problems, this is indeed a short falling of the current council. The intentions are good, and in the right place, and you do WE have elected you to represent us at large, so any decision you come to, in the long run it is the voters who decided on this.
BUT, the fact remains, I personally have sat in on countless previous administrations meetings regarding the blight in this city, group meetings, neighborhood meetings, one on one meetings, provided documentation to the enth degree. And regretfully, the pattern has always been the same. Which brings us to this point. Do I doubt YOUR sincerity in dealing with this issue that is far more important than smoking bans, no I do not doubt you.
But I do doubt the council as a whole, and the city government as a whole.
Whilst smoking gets the crack down, and undoubtedly will be strictly enforced, and fines levied and make it to the front page when bar owner refuse to comply, and the fines come pouring in for the business owner who dont comply, there will still be meetings going on "exploring" what we can do to make a difference on the housing problem, and each day that problem will get a little worse.
The garbage will pile up a little more, the drug deals will get a little bolder down on main street, a family will still be paying $650 a month rent of a 800 square foot home with faulty wiring, moldy walls, broken windows, etc.
There lies my frustration, and there is no convincing our elected leaders otherwise, I am mature enough to realize this smoking ban is going to happen, and as I stated when it does, that is the point that I loose all faith in this city. You know what I have been through, and yes I am still willing to help, but for my block, its a little to little, and a little to late.
bluegill:
I took the correlation/causation you mentioned as a dialectic tarbaby harkening back to my college days; the equivalent of a census of angels on pinheads.
If,rather, you mean the correlation of smoking research to the basis of this ordinance I will stand with the research of the Heart Assoc. and other like organizations. Enough has been said about scientific evidence on smoking to know that one side will not change the other's opinion. I know that you are not disputing the scientific basis for the rationale of this ordinance or any other limiting legislation.
I get your point. It is the same point that as long as one man suffers in slavery or oppression, there is no freedom. That is an ideal. This ordinance is a product of imperfect melding of various ordinances from jurisdictions around the nation. It is one which has passed muster and been upheld if challenged. I had to check, but Louisville also has an exception for tobacco businesses in its ordinance. It does not seem to have an exception for private clubs.
Under the New Albany ordinance private clubs are excluded from coverage. The VFW the Legion are private clubs. They are not exempted, however, because they invite the public. Further, it would be unlikely that they would be exempted because a Private Club is defined as being one which "only sells alcoholic beverages incidental to its operation." Finally these clubs have employees, which is the basic determinant of which establishments are covered.
That leaves a private club with no employees. Again, I can only think of one in New Albany-Culbertson West. That club's exemption melts away when the public is invited in. If the owners invite club members to an event, even a card game, how does that exemption differ substantially from inviting people over to your house for cards or a party?
The passage of any bill whether local or national is the result of competing interests coming to a point where the majority can support the measure. I personally don't care about these exceptions. I don't think they they make the law better or worse. I don't think legislation is likely to find 100% acceptance or 100% coverage.
This ordinance stands or falls on its own merits, however, and it should not be seen as some type of litmus test of the council's sincerity in dealing with other valid, important issues facing the city.
I would not have chosen to start this fight now over smoking. Smoking, personally, does not bother me. I don't work in a bar though. I find it troubling that those opposed to this ordinance state cavalierly that if people don't want to work in a smoky place they should find another job, in other words "screw em".
Most people don't like their jobs. I'm not wild about mine most days. People find a tolerance level or they work for benefits or because the schedule allows them time to care for loved ones or any of a host of other reasons. They should not have to choose between holding a job and their health.
So what about the workers in a tobacco store? Are we saying "screw em" or are we moving the city closer to a time when they, too, will be covered by an expanded ordinance protecting them from second hand smoke?
A vote for the ordinance means coverage for all but a few. I would rather take this outcome now and attempt to fix any deficiencies later, rather than letting everyone else's health be compromised waiting for perfection.
This council does, in fact, have important business ahead of it. I am ready to move toward that.
For those interested in Rental Registration and Code Enforcement check back here for dates and times for committee hearings on that ordinance. Standard legal notices will appear in The Tribune.
The first hearing will be held during the week of August 25.
Your input will be invited and welcomed during consideration of this issue.
A vote for the ordinance means coverage for all but a few. I would rather take this outcome now and attempt to fix any deficiencies later, rather than letting everyone else's health be compromised waiting for perfection.
I'm not advocating waiting for perfection. You are. Why not fix it now? It's not as if removing a small bit of language from the ordinance is much of a burden. Heck, I'll supply the Wite-Out.
Going through the entire legislative process again later is much more laborious and much more derisive. It will take even more time and resources away from other issues. Exemptions invite legal challenges from everyone else rather than just those few who would lose them if the law was fair.
Are you suggesting that the same five members who voted for the ban would vote against it unless exceptions are made for a specific few people?
You're presenting the same either/or scenario that you criticized- either we have exemptions or we don't have a smoking ban. The only way that's true is if the council makes it so.
Thanks for the info about about the hearing.
I would not have chosen to start this fight now over smoking.
Interesting. Who did choose it, then?
(By which I mean: From someone within the council, or the professional health fascist lobby?)
The question regarding a contractor entering a private home to perform work (which makes it their workplace), is that covered, or are those workers too filed into the "screw 'em" bin?
In regards to the "find another job statement, I hardly think anyone is saying screm them. It is the language of the lobbyists and certain members of the council which has a derogatory manner towards these workers. The implied message is that these people have no choice but to work in a smoke filled environment, which simply is not the case. Further, it seems to me at the last meeting, and on various other forums scattered through out this area, those very people "who have no choice" are the ones who are also speaking out against this ordinance.
THe best example I can recall of someone who claimed they needed protection was the pregnant young lady who spoke at the last council meeting, however, she was not a bartender, a waitress, or a broom pusher at the VFW, hitchin post, or anyplace like that. In fact if memory serves me correctly that particular young lady, who was about the only person, pro or con who spole out about "workplace saftey, was a professional full-time paid anti-tobacco lobbyist who works for Andy Hannah at the CLark County tobacco coalition.
so, not only was she NOT one of these timid, meek people who can not decide for themselves, nor find work elsewhere, she was not even a member of this community, nor was she a voter.
Of course, this is falling upon deaf ears, since I disagreed once, and since then I have not had the common courtesy of even a single remark, or returned comment. Even a be quiet would suffice. It would go along way to helping me understand the follies of being such a strong supporter during the election.
Christopher:
I have made my views on this issue as plain as I can make them. I'm for the ordinance. I want to make the city as accommodating as possible to to the bar owners and restauranteurs as possible.
I don't think people should be forced to work in conditions that compromise their health.
This is an environmental issue for me.
We disagree on this point.
I want to move on to an issue that is of deeper concern for me and of broader concern for the city as a whole--rental registration and code enforcement. I want your help on that issue as one who has first hand experience of what a scumbag can do when given license.(just to be extra clear...you are not the scumbag, it is the landlord who torments you)
Despite the nearly venomous level of disagreement on the smoking ordinance, please understand I do respect your position, and I do not envy you at all. As stated anyway it goes the council is damned if they do, damned if they dont.
In regargs to the housing stock, I will help in anyway that I can.
"I want to make the city as accommodating as possible to to the bar owners and restauranteurs as possible."
but you are going to vote to force busnesses to not allow smokers in their properties, despite how opposed us business owners are to this. How much were you paid for your vote?
To the contrary, agree or disagree, John's been consistent in his beliefs for as long as I've known him.
The real question is the nature of Dan Coffey's miraculous conversion to tenderhearted concern for public health. The better question: What made him flip?
John, you may have missed this question I asked yesterday. I think the answer is important.You wrote:
I would not have chosen to start this fight now over smoking.
Interesting. Who did choose it, then?
By which I mean: From someone within the council, or the professional health fascist lobby?)
Roger:
Is it fair to label those oganizations opposed to smoking "fascists"?
In a nation subject to the rule of a rogue junta prosecuting an imperialist war, abrogating individual constitutional protections and elevating the upper economic class to the effective status of ruling class, I think that debases the word "facsist" just a tad. It should be reserved for those more deserving, ie., those who foster a corporate state and all which that entails.
But that's not why you called.
I never asked who brought this issue forward. My sense of it is that since the previous council had let this bill languish, Jeff Gahan wanted to resurrect it.
During the first meeting of this newly-seated council in January one of the very first questions was if any returning or new members wanted to take up any tabled ordinances from the previous council. I asked about the ordinance after the meeting and was told it had some deficiencies and we'd probably be seeing a tightened version somewhere down the road.
I'd hate to answer that I know who brought it, but my guess is that it's Councilman Gahan's.
It may sound as though I m ridiculously incurious, but I've never thought it was especially relevant who had an idea but, rather, what are the merits of the idea.
Thanks, John. I've edited today's NAC posting to reflect the answer.
R
BTW, I believe it was the Nation's columnist Alexander Cockburn who back in the 1980's coined the "health fascism" badge.
That's a liberal publication, too. Imagine that.
John. I do want to thank you for the open dialog, even if we are on different pages (or comletely different books for that matter), your willingness to discuss this openly speaks volumes.
Once we get passed this little argument I look forward to working with you on bringing bigger fish to the pan to fry.
On a sidenote, the fairmont neighborhood association is having a meeting thursday the 21st at 6pm, the flyer says city leaders will be there to discuss code enforcement, but it seems to me all the movers and shakers will be packed in like sardines at the council chambers??.....
John,
I am opposed to the smoking ban.
I just wanted to thank you for having an honest, open dialogue with your constituents.
Thank you,
S. Sinclair
John,
I am opposed to the smoking ban as written.
I do, however, appreciate the fact that you've had an honest, open dialogue with your constituents.
Thank you,
S. Sinclair
John,
I too want to thank you for hosting a public dialouge here.
It demonstrates among other things an understanding of the accessibility nof the internet as well as a willingness to exposure that is rare in these parts.
Well done!
Me, too, on the respect for talking, John.
I wish you weren't as stubborn as I am but I'll take honest in exchange.
You certainly know
smoking is dangerous to your
Health,
The Health of your children –
Other people and their children.
----------------------------Having surgery?---------------------
SMOKING INTERFERES WITH HEALING BECAUSE:
• it reduces the blood flow to the cell,
• it reduces the ability of hemoglobin to move oxygen around the body, by interfering with the special chemicals that allow the release of oxygen to the cells.
• it reduces the amount of oxygen released to the cells, It does this by shrinking small blood vessels (vasoconstriction)
People are aware that smoking can damage their health.
If you smoke or breath secondhand smoke before you undergo surgery you will delay healing and could encounter problems such as pneumonia, heart trouble and wound infections.
As soon as you reduce your child's exposure to the 4000 chemicals in cigarette smoke, the danger of it harming your child begins to go down.
Many of these chemicals escalate the risk that your child will develop asthma.. If the child has asthma, it increases the risk that he/she will have to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized.
Irritations of the nose, sinuses, and middle ear (the likelihood of needing surgery to have tubes put in the ears goes way up),
Babies exposed to the chemicals in cigarette smoke before birth are, as a group, smaller.
Secondhand smoke greatly intensifies infections anywhere from your child's nose down to his/her lungs: sinus infections, ear infections, pneumonia, bronchitis and greatly increases risk of cancer, including leukemia.
Secondhand smoke, also called environmental tobacco smoke, hangs in the air for hours and days. The smoke particles are too small to see, but even if the air seems perfectly clear, it isn't.
Unfortunately the use of nicotine gum and patches are no help around the time of surgery. The nicotine can interfere with healing in the same way as nicotine in cigarettes. Patches may be especially damaging because the constant supply of nicotine can interfere with the blood supply.
Smoking whether active or passive is a well known risk factor for the general health.
This in turn has bad impact on the safety of anesthesia and the incidence of complications.
There are more than 4000 chemicals in cigarette smoke, including 43 known cancer causing compounds and 400 other toxins.
Smoking accounts for more than 30% of all deaths from cancer, almost 90% of deaths from lung cancer.
A strong link has been discovered between smoking and cancers of the pancreas, kidney and urinary bladder.
Another terrible statistic about smoking and cancer is that the overall rates of death from cancer are twice as high among smokers as among non smokers (!) with heavy smokers having rates that are four times greater than those of nonsmokers.
Cessation from smoking adds 6-8 years to life - and the lives of those around you.
I was at the Council meeting last month when the first open forum was held on a proposed smoking ordinance, and the four reasons given by those opposed to a public smoking ban are utterly nonsensical:
1) Secondhand smoke isn't really dangerous -- Do we really even need to debunk this? There is no longer any serious debate whatsoever about the lethal effects of secondhand smoke, sorry. This argument is a non-starter.
2) The poll showing local support for a ban was flawed because only 600-ish people were surveyed -- I almost bit through my tongue not saying anything about the idiocy of this argument. Instead of making a valid point, those claiming this were only showing their ignorance of statistics. I guess these same folks think national polls include all 300+ million people to get their results...? In reality, a voluminous number of polls, for those of us who understand and believe in them, have consistently shown that a vast majority of people support public smoking bans.
3) Smoking bans hurt business -- On the face of it this argument could have merit if it wasn't purely conjecture. There isn't one shred of evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, though, there is quite a bit of research showing the exact opposite: smoking bans are good for business. More people enjoy going out sans smoke and it's a quality of life issue, so that communities with bans are more attractive for economic development. I defy anyone to show me how Louisville's smoking ban has hurt business on that side of the river.
4) It's about freedom of choice and government interference -- Really? Are you serious?! This has nothing to do with freedom of choice and everything to do with Government's responsibility to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens as mandated by our Constitution. What freedom permits people to expose others to a proven lethal substance? Would we allow people to go into public establishments and spray arsenic or dioxin into the air if the owner didn't mind? How is this any different? And saying owners should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit is ludicrous, unless one thinks we should go back to the mid-1800s of pure, unrestricted capitalism. I mean, do we allow owners to build wherever they want, pay their workers whatever they want, work them however they want, maintain whatever level of cleanliness they want, restrict any patrons they want, or fire anyone they want? Of course not! Government thankfully regulates business in many ways, and common sense dictates regulating exposure to a proven lethal substance should also be one of those ways.
John, stick to your guns because it's the right thing to do and the anti-smoking-ban folks don't have any really valid arguments. Change is hard, and there are always going to be people who oppose it no matter how rational or responsible it is. Most of the comments on here are digressions or attempts to muddy a crystal-clear issue. Public smoking bans are the way of the future because the reasons against them don't pass muster, public health is a real government issue, and the people want them.
And don't get baited into a phony debate about how excluding two businesses (Kaiser & Culbertson West) means there should be no ban at all. This all or nothing tactic is a red herring by a minority of folks who don't want a ban at all, much less a completely comprehensive one. But if they're going to try to use this against you/the Council, it would be best to call their bluff and remove these two exclusions.
Thank you for your principled and logical vote on this matter.
Mr. Sodrel,
I beg to differ with you on several points you had made.
#1 this ban is not being billed as a matter of public health, the ordinance attempt last administration never made it past the first reading as a matter of "public health", this is being billed as a move to protect workers.
#2 OSHA and the DOL do not list ETS as a significant cause for injury/illness in the workplace, as recently as the 2006 reports generated from 300 logs, the numbers of missed man hours as a result of ETS did not even get mention in the reports. Hence there has been no regulations set forth by OSHA regarding this, and in workplace safety issues, I think I would trust OSHA and the DOL much more than I would the Clark County Tobacco cessation coalition.
In addition to the information regarding injury/illness data from 2006 on OSHA reports, the "hospitality industry" ranked near the bottom of occupations where injury/illness due to work environments, and of those injury/illness reports most environmental causes of missed time were related to wet floors, heavy lifting, workplace violence, burns, and heat. ETS was not even listed.
#3 when it comes to issues of public health, local government has a moral, ethical, and sworn dity to protect its citizens against those items that present a larger more clearly defined threat first and foremost. If you would kindly take notice in the Helena report, EPA reports, medical studies, etc. the words "potential", "possibly", "Chance" " long term exposure" is the common language when realting to the hazards associated with ETS.
This city is in a crisis where real families are in real danger each and everyday of their lives, many of them have no choice in the matter, they are either renting or living near rental properties that have property owners who have been defiant of health and housing codes for over a decade now, nearly unchecked, it is the opinion of many community advocates that the housing infrastructure of this city by far outweighs the potential hazard of ETS. (on a side note, even though I am opposed to a ban, I DO think ETS can be hazardous to ones health with long term exposure, but touching on your statement of choice, persons can easily make informed choices to nearly completely eliminate this threat from their lives. My family and I do, but we do not have the ability to choose what type of slumlords degrade our neighborhood with their neglect)
I fully understand and appreciate the council in the first steps of addressing the housing infrastructure issue, but it is clear that should take priority over anything else, followed by addressing the staffing levels of the police department to meet census recommendations for police/population ratios.
Lastly, exemptions:
Many feel it should be an all or nothing ordinance, that there are no exemptions granted. How can it be considered fair that staff and employees of Kaisers can smoke in their place of business, yet veterans are not allowed to smoke in their private clubs? BY this standard, if any business applies for a tobacco retailers license, technically, they should be exempt to.
Peace and see you all tomorrow night.
and to John Gonder, it was nice to disagree with you, it was both challenging and educational! and I look forward to helping in anyway I can regarding the other issues!
Christopher Drake
Christopher:
You're welcome to take issue with the things I said, but as I said in my initial comments and was again proven in your response, none of your arguments pass muster or are relevant.
What freedom permits people to expose others to a proven lethal substance?
Breathing.
Hello, John Hughie is getting ready to telephone EVERYONE on the City Council about this argument about smoking and people's rights.
He smokes, his employees smoke and half of the band smokes.
Does not the argument about the "employee's wellbeing" fall down based on his argument?
He figures he will be "grandfathered" in because his business has been in effect for 60 years, count them.
I agree with his argument. Grandfathering is a BIG thing in the State of Indiana.
If he puts a sign at his door saying "beware, smokers are in this establishment -- enter at your own risk", is he okay?
As Hughie said tonight, as he wasn't aware he was the topic of conversation here, he has a gentleman driving from Crestwood simply so he can listen to live music and smoke and drink.
There is no argument as to the detriment this issue poses to people like Hughie, Hitching Post, hey, even Richos.
Please, realize people have a choice. Hughie fought for the choice, go Semper Fi. Respect the business owners in New Albany, what few we have, and simply let it go. Too many other pressing issues, trust me.
Hughie seems to think Mayor England will VETO this action, but at the same time he is not willing to risk that. Talk with him personally, as you have written about him. He only asks that of you. Thank you!
P.S. He used to have all of the Council and Mayor's telephone numbers posted, but he has lost them. We will provide them to him. Everyone in town needs all the help they can get, and this just isn't the issue to endorse; the bars and tattoo parlors are all we really have right now - maybe later. A Friend.
Mr. Sodrel,
As long as we are separate sides of this issue, nothing I could say would be considered relevent, period.
Those who are unyeilding supporters of such measures, always dismiss any opinions, facts, data, etc that may counter those that support such measures.
Of course by your own admission, by stating nothing I said was relevent, then you must feel second hand smoke is not a hazard? since I did state that is was??
Peace
Bluegill:
Silly, nonsensical response.
Christopher:
You didn't provide any relevant data or facts. Just because OSHA/DOL doesn't list ETS as one of their main hazards doesn't change the fact that ETS is a proven lethal substance for employees and patrons. And your fixation on code violations has nothing to do with this issue.
Anonymous:
"There is no argument as to the detriment this issue poses to people like Hughie, Hitching Post, hey, even Richos."
Wrong! There's no evidence that smoking bans hurt business but plenty of evidence to the contrary. People adapt to responsible change and life goes on.
So we don't exhale lethal substances when we breathe?
Maybe it's just me, but do I detect a condescending tone to Mr. Sodrel's remarks?
As in: I am the possessor of this truth, not you?
But I suppose I've been guilty of that a time or two myself.
Mr. Sodrel,
so it is your contention that code violations that directly effect the health, welfare, and well being of the community as a whole, commercially, economically, and as a matter of "public health" is not directly related to a proposed ordinance intended to protect the health, welfare and well being of the community, when the government itself has admitted it has been laxed in enforcing the epidemic problem of housing infrastructure, admitted it is a direct threat to the well being of the community, and has admitted they simply do not have the man power to enforce/correct the consistant thumbing of noses by the slumlord collective of said laws?
Really.... Please explain where this logic of yours comes from, it would be enlightening to learn how "protecting a worker" for 40 hours per week, and sending them home for 128 hours per week to live in rented shanties, or next door to collapsing, infested, properties, is better than the opposite at this time?
Keep in mind this is not about the customers, the general public, that has been made clear, this is about protecting the workers who members of the council feel are too uneducated, too unskilled, or too empoverished to work anywhere but the hospitality industry.
PLease Mr. Sodrel, enlighten me...
Christopher:
Your narrow fixation on code violations on this blog has shown that you can't be enlightened. That's not to say code violations aren't important, maybe even more so than smoking ordinances -- I don't know, but the two are separate issues (albeit under the broad heading of public health). Why don't you start a code violations blog and take your arguments there instead of getting off topic here?
The New Albanian:
I freely admit to being condescending toward smoking ban opponents and their "reasons" because I have facts and evidence on my side and they have none.
I freely admit to being condescending toward smoking ban opponents and their "reasons" because I have facts and evidence on my side and they have none.
--John Sodrel
Whoa! So much for winning friends and influencing people, lol.
Now that ultimate truth has been determined right here in li'l old NA, I must admit that I find this famous artistic confession just a tad more, um, poetic:
I have nothing to declare excpet my genius.
--Oscar Wilde
Maybe geniuses don't exhale?
Bluegill:
Comments not worthy of a response.
New Albanian, et al.:
Fact--a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. (Dictionary.com)
[secondhand smoke is hazardous, government routinely regulates business, smoking bans don't hurt the economy, the Constitution requires promoting the general welfare, etc.]
Evidence--that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. (Dictionary.com)
[research on the effects of secondhand smoke, polls about the wishes of the people, laws already on the books regulating business, studies on the impacts of smoking bans, etc.]
What you and others notoriously try to do is inject emotion and conjecture into an argument to fill your facts and evidence--ie, truth--void in order to confuse the issue and create a "debate" where one shouldn't even exist. Or you use red herrings like code violations to make your oranges argument and conflate an issue when we're actually talking about apples. There's no reasoning with people like you/Christopher/etc., so why bother?
It's telling that you can only note my tone and supposed superiority complex rather than mount a logical, reasoned, fact/evidence-based argument. But that's okay because I'm not on here to win friends, and people that don't have rational arguments can't/won't be influenced.
I'm simply on here to point out that public smoking bans are common sense and those opposed to them have no valid reasons that can stand up to scrutiny. If that makes me a "genius," then so be it.
All I did was answer your question with a scientifically proven fact.
Ignoring the plea's of dozens of business owners, allowing ban supporters to speak all they want and cutting off those against the ban in as little as 45 seconds.
Ignoring the advice of a professional police officer regarding if trouble erupts outside of a bar it will not be contained, and Councilman Coffey in a post meeting discussion stating out loud he doesnt "give a damn what asshole smokers think", congratulations New Albany City Council for taking away the ONLY economic edge the small businesses had here, congratulations bringing the owner of Studios to tears with your vote, congratulations in paying more attention to lobbyists from different states, than to the people here, and the ones at the meeting that out numbered the supporters of the bans ten to one easily.
THANK YOU councilman Messer, Price, and the others who opposed the ban, not based on the hyped up manipulted statistics presented, but on the fact you felt there comes a time when a person must accept responsibility for themselves, and not babysitted by government.
Christopher:
Wrong on several counts....
"...congratulations New Albany City Council for taking away the ONLY economic edge the small businesses had here..."
Wrong! There is no evidence that public smoking bans negatively impact the economy but plenty of studies that show the exact opposite.
"...congratulations in paying more attention to lobbyists from different states, than to the people here..."
Wrong! Numerous polls nationally and locally show people overwhelmingly support public smoking bans.
"...who opposed the ban, not based on the hyped up manipulted [sic] statistics presented..."
Wrong! There is no debate--none!--that secondhand smoke is a lethal carcinogen. And there have been too many credible, scientific studies about the effects bans have on air quality and business to just dismiss them. Just because you don't believe in facts and evidence doesn't make them hyped up or manipulated.
"...babysitted [sic] by government."
Wrong! Government has a role to play sometimes in our lives, and there are already numerous instances of common sense government regulations of business and this is just one more of them.
"Ignoring the plea's [sic] of dozens of business owners... Ignoring the advice of a professional police officer..."
Maybe so, but THANK YOU to the five Council members who listened to the will of the majority of the people, heeded the advice of health experts and professionals, and voted based on evidence and facts and reason rather than the unfounded, emotional-only pleas of a minority of business owners and smokers.
The New Albany City Council did good last night and now, hopefully, they'll get busy on other needed measures for our community as well.
Mr. Sodrel,
I do respectfully request that you kind sir, not judge me.
You have no idea what I or my family has been through for over a decade, and I do not recall seeing, hearing, or reading of you being an advocate for every citizen of this city as I have for those ten years.
You raise your arrogant head up on this issue and act much like a juvenile internet troll, respect no one whos opinions differ from yours. You are worthless, empty and a lemming, nothing more, obviously you are unable to think for yourself, or to be able to rely on yourself to make decisions on your own with out have heavy handed government control everyone and everything to babysit you from something you personally disagree with.
Please put up or shut, spend your money, your time, your sweat to try and make a REAL difference in this community or I respectfully request that you shut your mouth as to stop any more of your regurgitation of verbal bile.
Thank you and God bless
Life is filled with ironies. Mr. Sodrel trumpets his intellectual superiority to smoking ban opponents ... and I do the same v.v. the council president.
Mr. Sodrel hopes that the council follows through on this signal triumph and tackles other issues pertaining to health. Can we expect him and people like Dr. harris to join the struggle for clean rental properties?
I "hope" so, although Dr. Harris told Jeff last evening that when it comes to rental property regulation and reform, his courageous group of advocates have no dog in the fight.
Jeff will be elaborating at NAC. Stay tuned, campers.
Mr. "D",
1) I didn't "judge" you, I simply pointed out how many things you said were wrong.
2) What you or your family have been through and the work you've done for this community aren't relevant to this particular topic. However, you also have no idea about me or what I've done for this community, so your "put up or shut [sic]" comment, while irrelevant, is wrong, too.
3) You obviously can't be too busy advocating "for every citizen of this city" since you apparently monitor this blog religiously and post responses within minutes. And if you were truly advocating "for every citizen of this city" you'd be in favor of a public smoking ban since the majority of citizens support one.
4) If anyone is "worthless, empty and a lemming, nothing more, obviously...unable to think for yourself" it's you for continuing to hold on to an argument that has no basis in fact rather than educating yourself and having an informed stance.
5) Your personal, bile-laced tirade against me just goes to prove that public smoking ban opponents rely on emotion and are incapable of formulating cogent, coherent arguments.
Mr. Sodrel,
You're wrong.
Thanks.
Wow, that works really well!
For the historical record, I'll note that not one, of the public health advocates -- not Dr Harris, not Jamey Aebersold, not MeriBeth Adams-Wolfe, not John Sodrel -- made it to the slumlord abatement meeting on Saturday morning, just two days after their victory on Thursday evening.
Like Gomer Pyle once said, surprise, surprise ... surprise.
If the council really intended the smoking ordinance to segue seamlessly into the rental property struggle, then extracting a vow of non-hypocrisy from the health fascists might have been a useful first step.
Instead ...
"Like Gomer Pyle once said, surprise, surprise ... surprise."
What's no surprise is another idiotic, irrelevant comment by Roger Baylor.
In his warped mind and others like him, if you take a stand on one public health issue then you're required to take a stand on ALL public health issues. This is what these numskulls call "hypocrisy," even though it's nothing of the sort.
But if it were true, then Roger Baylor and his ilk are the biggest hypocrites in New Albany because NAC lists/advocates every issue you can think of in this town, but I'd be willing to bet they don't attend every meeting, discussion, question and answer session, symposium, etc. held for EVERY issue.
When, if ever, are these folks going to formulate a substantive argument?
Sensitive, aren't we. That was almost as fast as Christopher's responses, which Mr. Sodrel previously villified in this space.
Me? All I want is to get the last word. Just like Dan Coffey.
I recall seeing John Sodrel in the thick of several public demonstrations (correct?) against GW Bush and the like. I recall admiring these stances. I still admire them, and agree with many, if not all of them. But now I'm the enemy.
And so it goes. Ciao.
Post a Comment