AS KIPLING greeted the end of war in “Lest We Forget,” Emporians can look forward to Wednesday morning. Tuesday’s vote on the city ban on public smoking should settle that matter, at least for now.
The debate has not been elevating. The ban was introduced out of the blue by a new organization following a playbook that seemed more interested in forcing through an ordinance than in building community support for an ordinance. The “We know what’s good for you” attitude riled a lot of people who, in the normal course of things, might have become supporters of a ban.
The opponents of the ban have not done any better. Their playbook has been mostly to ignore the health issue and instead argue that the ban is a government usurpation of property rights. That argument doesn’t float. Government at all levels has long had the authority to act to protect public health.
The opponents’ challenge to name one person who has died of secondhand smoke is disingenuous. Secondhand smoke is no more a cause of death than active smoking. Smoking is not a cause of death unless it is the direct cause of a fire that takes a life. But scientific research has established conclusively that both active smoking and secondhand smoke are contributing factors in diseases that do cause disability and death.
To argue that secondhand smoke is not as dangerous to people as the pollution from coal-fired power plants (which may or may not be true) is beside the point. That is like saying that children should not be vaccinated against tetanus because they are not being vaccinated against cancer.
The debate on the Emporia smoking ban has been months of “Because I say so!” and “You’re not the boss of me!”
It is good to know that it will end Tuesday with a quiet “Yes” or “No” vote.
driveonby (anonymous) says...
The "study" last week, was funded by the same pharmaceutical money that produced ALL the studies on Second hand smoke. First hand smoking does cause people problems, especially with other factors such as sedentary lifestyles, hydration, and genetics. SHS was drummed up by Johnson and Johnson as soon as they got their nicotine replacement products approved. Is this about SHS or direct smoking? Please do a story on the financing of the pro ban movement. After the vote it won't matter to the paper, but it would be interesting reading. The ad money will keep coming in.
April 6, 2009 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
Honestly, though, I think it would be a valid story discussing what this whole issue has costs the two leading organizations...if nothing else, it would put to bed the ludicrous innuendo that EOB had "big tobacco" money behind it. Instead I would like to know just where the truly big money spent in the seemingly endless ads and publicity for CAE came from. Those are some d-e-e-e-p pockets, friends...my bet is that they've spent more than many (most?) local political campaigns.
April 6, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
After over a year of experience here in Chicago, now that the fanfare has worn off and the lobbyists have moved on to other states, it's clearly obvious that trying to ban smoking in small neighborhood "shot and beer" bars is pretty useless. Many small bars in my area ignore the ban to keep their customers, neighbors, and local police (many are patrons when off duty) satisfied. In areas where real crime is an issue, the problem of undesirables being attracted by groups of people outside the bars and causing disturbances on the PUBLIC street, property that the owner has no control over, far outweighs the issue of people peacefully smoking inside a bar, bothering absolutly no one, All of the complaints are from neighbors of bars that comply. It's fading into history in many small neighborhood bars. The only places it becomes an issue seems to be in rural areas where local police have little to do except visit local bars and monitor their parking lots.
April 6, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksnewsie (anonymous) says...
Is this a binding election? In other words, does the city have to follow the will of the voters?
April 6, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
binding? absolutly, for ten years unless 1 side or the other brings another petition up.
Steve
April 6, 2009 at 6:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksnewsie (anonymous) says...
IF (note big IF) it passes, when would the ban take effect.
April 6, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
midnight tommorrow
April 6, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )