Now, let's not let democracy run rampant here.

M

Monkeyleg

New member
The topic of smoking versus non-smoking has been discussed to death on TFL. However, I found the comment (which I bold-faced) rather interesting in this article.

******

Council will rekindle smoking ban in eateries

Franklin aldermen expected to propose a referendum

By ANNYSA JOHNSON
anjohnson@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Dec. 20, 2004

Franklin - Two weeks after rejecting a proposed smoking ban in restaurants, the Franklin Common Council will revisit the issue Tuesday night as two aldermen propose taking the question to voters.

Ald. Jim Bergmann and Council President Lyle Sohns are expected to propose a referendum on the issue in separate actions tonight. Bergmann said Monday it is the only way to gauge citizen interest in the measure.

But anti-smoking activists oppose such a move, saying local officials have an obligation to protect public health and should not abdicate that responsibility to the electorate.

"We assume we would win in a referendum," said Lori Hislop-Kaczmarek, a cardiac nurse and spokesman for Fresh Air for Franklin, which proposed the ban. "But this is a public health issue. It is their job to protect patrons and employees."

The Franklin Common Council rejected the proposed ban on a 4-2 vote Dec. 7, saying it would infringe on the rights of restaurant owners and hinder the city's ability to attract new businesses.

The Franklin Board of Health and city health officer William Wucherer had recommended the council adopt the ban.

Had it passed, Franklin would have become the 19th community in Wisconsin and second in Milwaukee County to restrict smoking in restaurants. Wauwatosa adopted a ban last year that is scheduled to take effect in 2006.

Sohns could not be reached Monday to explain why he is resurrecting the ban after voting earlier to reject it.

Sohns' proposal calls for the Board of Health to re-examine a possible smoking ban, taking into consideration the concerns of business owners and other affected groups. The Board of Health would then make recommendations to the council, which would draft a proposed ordinance to take to the voters.

But Bergmann said he wants to see if citywide sentiment mirrors that of his 6th District, where he believes the vast majority of residents supports a ban.

A former four-pack-a-day smoker, Bergmann said he fielded about 400 inquiries before the Dec. 7 vote, 80% of those in favor of the ban.

"As a politician, you don't have to draw me too many pictures," Bergmann said. "My job is to represent the people in my district. I'm going to suggest we go back to the table."

But Hislop-Kaczmarek believes a referendum - especially if it doesn't take place until next November - only invites "Big Tobacco to . . . put their money on the table and blur the message."

She said the public already has spoken, showing overwhelming support in a citywide survey and signature campaign.

"There is clearly community support for smoke-free restaurants in Franklin," Hislop-Kaczmarek said. "We're disappointed they're going this way."


****

OMG, NO! Don't invite the People to get involved in the decision-making process of Elected Officials.

:barf:
 
You know what I say? IF YOU don't like other people smoking, DON'T GO to that restaurant. It is not a public place, you don't have to be there.

As for the activists, don't some people have jobs?
 
Ya know, I'm about as anti-smoking as one can get. I despise breathing second hand smoke with a passion, and think tobacco use is a scourge on humanity. But the gov't has no business whatsoever in meddling in this issue - it's really simple.... If a restaurant doesn't provide a smoke-free area, then I don't have to GO THERE. The free market takes care of the issue perfectly well, in the long run. Worst case scenario, I can cook at home (gasp) and will survive, even if all restaurants are smoke-filled. The referendum vs. council deciding is a red herring to the bigger issue. But in that regard, there's nothing wrong with some direct democracy referendums on close issues occasionally, even in our REPUBLIC. But having said that, I prefer that the informed legislators make the decisions we elect them to make, most of the time, primarily because they tend to familiarize themselves with all sides of an issue, before deciding, in addition to seeing where the political winds are blowing, whereas the general public is hampered in having full information, not for least reason that the little blurb/paragraph that actually appears on the ballot is someone's SUMMARY of the law, not the actual language of the law being voted on, and this summary could easily be biased and incomplete.
 
not being able to smoke at certain places indoors thats fine with me, its understandable some places are just non smoking or "smoke free" buildings just something youve gotta deal with, what pisses me off is when they tell you that you cant even smoke outside in certain places... whats the difference where you are... if you dont like it dont stand down-wind is what ive told people =)
 
I think we can all agree that anyone who smokes today is kinda stupid.

If a business owner wants to cater to the stupid people that's their right. It's a very profitable market, pet rocks and chia pets prove that

I have no problem with a ban in any public place inside or outside. But private property is a whole nother case.
 
what pisses me off is when they tell you that you cant even smoke outside in certain places... whats the difference where you are...
Click to expand...

You mean the people that stand two feet in front of the no-smoking sign outside the hospital while people with respitory problems are trying to walk in without coughing?
 
"You mean the people that stand two feet in front of the no-smoking sign outside the hospital while people with respitory problems are trying to walk in without coughing?"

no i respect those signs and only smoke in the "designated" outdoor areas.. im talking about states passing silly laws on like waiting in line at the movie theatre or amusement park..
 
Thank you for the compliment, joab
Click to expand...
I guess I should have adde that I'm down to two packs a day after about 25 years.
I knew the health risk when I started and I know the risk every time I light up.
My lungs my problem

But when people are subjected to my smoke against their will, even in outdoor areas such as lines to get into movies and amusement parks, then I have the respect and courtesy not to smoke.
If more smokers did then maybe there wouldn't be so many of these goverment regs
 
OK, I speak here as a man who once smoked three packs each and every day for something like 35 years. And, frankly, I enjoyed every damn one of them I lit up. I quit when I concluded that even my iron constitution might not tolerate another 35 years of that abuse.

Let bars and restaurants choose whether they allow smoking: they are, after all, private premises and NOT public accomodations. Regardless of what the idiot federal government says.

I bet within two years you'd have a limited number of smoking establishments patronized by folks who love the evil weed, and many more places where lighting up was not permitted by the owner.

To each his own. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. If you don't like booze, don't drink it. If you don't like weed, don't smoke it. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Better yet, don't get knocked up.

But please, leave the damned government out of these private matters.
 
I think we can all agree that anyone who smokes today is kinda stupid.
Click to expand...
Just like people who feel the need to make themselves feel better by insulting other people. I'm assuimg you eat nothing but health food because, according to your logic, anything else would make you stupid.
 
If there is really this huge upswell of people who don't want to be in a places with smoking you would think that market forces would have taken care of it already.

Imagine a city with 4 bars. All four of them have smoking sections. And all four share an equal portion of the market. One of these bars decides to go non-smoking. If that bar suddenly gets 80% of the market what happens with the rest? They follow the leader and go non-smoking too (except for one or two bars that grab the other 20%). In a city of several hundred drinking establishments I cant name that many that don't have a smoking section of some kind. Seems to me that the public isnt really behind this.
 
Just like people who feel the need to make themselves feel better by insulting other people. .
Click to expand...
Anybody that smokes nowadays is committing an act of stupidity. Anybody that denies that or defends the action is trying to make themselves feel better.
I just light up another cowboy Red if I need to feel better (I'll assume that you didn't read my second post)
I'm assuimg you eat nothing but health food because, according to your logic, anything else would make you stupid
Click to expand...
Change that to healthy food and I would tend to agree with you. Not that I do eat only healthy food but at my age it would be kinda stupid not to at least try.

So just who exactly have I insulted, more than myself, by my comment
 
Wow guys.

Seems that some folks are getting awfully "lit up" ;) about the smoking issue.

I am an occasional pipe and cigar smoker, mostly in my own home, and have always considered smoking a private matter. I respect the fact that there are people who would like a cigarette after their meal, and I would not infringe upon that. I also know that there are people who are addicted and cannot help that. ( No offense meant to those who post here, please consider the context). I do my best to respect both groups and have never found second-hand smoke to be all that annoying, except in bars or other high-smoke areas. The restuarants I have visited usually have their smoking/non-smoking areas well seperated and it is a non-issue.

On the other hand, I understand the health concerns of others, and do my best to respect that. i am usually selective about my surroundings when I light up, and do my best to respect other with health concerns or who just don't like it.

I have found that a bit of cooperation and a little "give" from each party goes a long way.

Just my $.02
 
Reminds me of the time, many years ago before the anti's had their way. I was riding in public transportation and a person sat down next to me and began to light up. Noticing my glare he asked "Do you mind if I smoke" in the usual snotty way.

I replied "sure, if you don't mind if I Fart".

He got up and left :p
 
At the outset of this thread, I mentioned that the smoking topic had been done time and again on TFL.

What struck me about the article was that someone would claim, as in the bold-faced part of the article, that public officials should not abdicate decisions to the public.

I've come to know many public officials at a number of levels. Some of them are sharp as a knife, others smart in the political sense (shaking your hand while simultaneously stabbing you in the back), and others dumber than rocks.

How have we reached a point where what our elected officials say is anymore important or knowledgeable on a topic than what we have to say? Few elected officials read the bills they vote for in their entirety, and that lack of reading becomes more commonplace the higher the office.

What makes Ted Kennedy more of an expert on health care than, say, the average GP or RN? Or Chuckie Schumer an expert on firearms?

It is the responsibility of the citizen himself to learn the issues, and then elect representatives who hold the same beliefs. Granted, we can't all be Phd's on a particular subject, but we can at least know enough to say, at least in this case, "it's up to the owner of the property, and that's it."

Sorry for the rather long harangue, but I just got home from having dinner with my in-laws. One of me versus six of them telling me how we're going to be in Iraq for twenty years and lose 1,000,000 soldiers. Who told them that? Why, our local Democrat elected officials, of course. :rolleyes:
 
I'm not a smoker, never will be... But that doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to smoke.

That being said, I say resteraunts should put some form of smoke barrier -- IE, a wall and door, etc, which will keep smoke-free areas smoke-free. We shouldn't require these barriers though, instead we should simply encourage them.

Some states to that "Red/Yellow/Green" thing that resteraunts have to post on their doors, based on their smoking rules... Well how's about we give a special sticker to resteraunts with an effective smoke barriered smoke-free zone? Resteraunts without effective barriers would go without the stickers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top