Posts
By a 5-1 vote the Monona common council adopted a comprehensive smoking ban with an effective date of June 1, 2009. Alders Wood, Speight, Miller, Thomas, and Kugle voted 'yes' and Alder Wiswell voted nay. An earlier amendment to delay implementation until October 1, 2010 failed 2-4 (Kugle and Wiswell voting aye).
Earlier today I did not expect that we would vote on the measure at a first reading, but after listening to public comments and council discussion, it became apparent that little point was to be served by waiting for a second reading in July. The ordinance had been debated by the council way back in March when it was first introduced and then at four ad hoc committee meetings. Discussion was full, frank, and robust.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The comment most often made last evening about the smoking ban ordinance was that since noone was satisfied with the compromise it must be a good one? The essence of good government is compromise, went the slogans.
ReplyDeleteCompromise begs the question whether principle or interest was compromised.
Public Health, the common good of protection from disease is not a matter of compromise...get cancer or other tobacco related diseases a litte while longer so business can make profits; can prepare better to serve your interests?
This was a bad compromise, and no matter how many were dissatisfied, people are going to get sick from tobacco products used at these establishments. This is not a compromise...this is immoral behavior.
Shame on Monona!
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to disagree with you. First, a general observation. Governing requires the ability to compromise - politics is the art of the possible. In this case the BreatheFree group made a better compromise possible.
ReplyDeleteI also happen to think, however, that an immediate ban would be unfair and unwise. We, as a society, have allowed bars and restaurants to operate as places where their customers can smoke. It would be unfair to the owners and employees to suddenly require them to change without giving them time to change their business model.
Until Alder McKeevr and I brought this up in March, we could get anyone interested enough to organize a show of support for a smoking ban. Now, nothing less than immediate action would satisfy some, such as Mr. Guilfoil. So be it.
We can be proud of this ordinance and the process we went through.
"the city parks department will have the power to declare any part of a public park smoke-free."
ReplyDeleteIs this true we really do need to ban smoking at the dream park and the skate park.
Drove by the skate park the other night and it looked like a convention for the under aged sponsored by camel.
"Compromise begs the question whether principle or interest was compromised.
ReplyDeletePublic Health, the common good of protection from disease is not a matter of compromise...get cancer or other tobacco related diseases a litte while longer so business can make profits; can prepare better to serve your interests?"
guilfoil: No-one is forcing you patronize these businesses and 'get cancer.' No-one is forcing anyone to work at these establishments either. These decisions should be left to the free market.
The ordinance give the Parks Board authority to designate no smoking areas. I was not especially happy with that provision because this ordinance is about second-hand smoke, but I did not want to nitpick.
ReplyDelete"These decisions should be left to the free market." No, they should not. Smoke-free laws protect employee health. We don't leave employee working conditions to the free market.
A remarkable part of the smoking ban ordinance is for the protection of children in public places,i.e. day care centers. This concern for children's needs for health care should be extended to all living conditions for children.
ReplyDeleteWhy should parents be allowed to damage the health of their children by smoking in the confined space of the home or apartment?
We offer social services for children abused in the home, for lack of proper hygene and medical care. Why not consider the use of tobacco products a form of child abuse?
Asbestos and lead paint are considered health hazards, why not tobacco smoke?
Last time I checked, DCFS isn't taking kids away from houses that have lead paint or asbestos. How about parents who feed their children McDonald's 4 days a week? I'd argue that obesity is at least as detrimental as second hand smoke. Where do you draw the line?
ReplyDeleteIf there was evidence in the scientific literature and strong opinion in pediatric medicine to the effect that McDonalds is a danger like tobacco there would be no line.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that something is injurious and have evidence to support your concern then work for the public good.
Don't confuse reasoned judgment with random opinion.
It's a lifestyle choice, and whether you agree with it or not, you have no control, nor should you.
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly, until our city can fix our roads and advocate for our schools, they have no business trying to police smoking in private homes. What do you propose? Mandatory abortions for any smoking woman who becomes pregnant?
Give me a break.
Lifestyle, if it is consistent with a reasonable judgment about health and welfare of children, is somewhat intelligible. I would expect the choice of lifestyle would avoid tobacco products, especially if having children were intended.
ReplyDeletePregnant mothers should avoid second hand smoke for the good of their fetus.
I think guilfoil has valid points. I think that Monona should install telescreens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four) in every home to monitor behavior. Any people possessing contraband (cigarettes, Big Macs, skateboards [they harm thousands of children every year]) will be dealt with!
ReplyDeleteReally, I do not understand how the city can ask businesses (no require) to ban cigs. (I appove) and sit idle
ReplyDeletewhile there is a camel cig convention every night on city property-since springtime
It is offensive and distasteful.
Out walking last night went by ye' ole smoke park and they were playing the following on their boom boxes:
ReplyDeletehttp://youtube.com/watch?v=fIN8MmMloZE
At least it is catchy.
The other thing I'm confused about in the city of Monona is having 2 new smoke shops in town. One next to Curves and another, cigars I think, next to the new health club in town.
ReplyDeleteI just don't get it.
Are these the type of businesses we want to attract to Monona? Will storefronts like these help us attract new families?
I wonder...
"The other thing I'm confused about in the city of Monona is having 2 new smoke shops in town. One next to Curves and another, cigars I think, next to the new health club in town."
ReplyDeleteNeither of these business is new. The Tasting Room is relocating to the Slinde development and the Tobacco Outlet just relocated from a block or so down the road. The council created narrow exceptions for these existing businesses.
Lisa Jo-I must agree with you.
ReplyDeleteThat issue and the smoke park does not work it smells :)
In all frankness, if we are to permit smoking at the smoke park.
We need to place an office or detective (we have three don't you know) to check IDS.