Does this bother anyone else?
News-Gazette - 2/17/07
CHAMPAIGN – The C-U Smokefree Alliance intends to make retaining the local indoor smoking ban a key issue in Champaign's city council elections. The alliance sent a letter via certified mail on Feb. 9 to the nine primary candidates for the three at-large city council seats in Champaign, asking them to sign a statement of support for Champaign's Clean Indoor Air Ordinance. The statement indicates that the signer "will not weaken, reverse or repeal this ordinance" and would only support amendments that would strengthen the ban. Those who don't sign or return the pledge will be presumed to favor a total or partial repeal of the smoking ban, Hays said.
=========================================================
This reminds me of something I read in the history books, and I believe it involved late night knocks on doors and gulags.
Coalition to Protect People From Themselves busibody Scott Hays states, "My take on this is, it's about toxic environments in public places," Hays said. "It's a public health issue."
But Ken Pirok, the swing vote on the council, differs with Hays. "We didn't want to be forced to inhale smoke while we were eating. We didn't want to go home smelling like a chimney after visiting local bars. (Notice that I'm not mentioning anything about the health effects of smoking. Any who considered the health factor was only primarily worried about the effect on non-smokers.)
So what is it? A health issue, or a stink issue? In any case, the CPPFT's requirement of a pledge on the part of council candidates does stink. I would encourage all city council candidates to sign the pledge. Then after they are elected, say they changed their mind. Sort of like Ken Pirok.
Requirement?
From the article, it sounds like they are trying to determine who they want to endorse or otherwise support. If a candidate isn't willing to commit to supporting their key issue, then they are presuming that the person is either sandbagging their position or openly against them.
Why would you endorse or support a candidate that was unwilling to commit to supporting your cause? Nobody is required to sign anything. Even Bruno and Rosales who voted for the ban could simply not sign the pledge, and then not get the support of that particular group.
If a candidate feels that the majority of his constituents would support him in backing the ban and would elect him to office because of the ban, then it might be a good idea to sign. Similarly, if a candidate feels that the majority of his constituents would support him in repealing the ban and would elect him to office because of the ban, then it would probably be a good idea not to sign.
Of course, any candidate that is unwilling to let you know where they stand on the issue is free to do so, but then voting for them is simply buying a pig in a poke.
I don't see any problem with it. If you don't believe in a smoking ban, don't sign it. If you do, sign it. It seems to me that if a candidate is comfortable with his/her stance on the issue, then signing or not signing something that makes public their stance is no big deal. And the Smoke Free Alliance is a special interest group. There's no more late night knocking or gulags with them than with there is with the NRA or GunsSaveLife.com.
The dirty-air gang has always wished for a referendum. Here it comes. Be careful what you wish for.
The only hope is for the pro-tobacco crowd to waffle. A clear indication that repeal is in the works will fly in the face of statements (which are on video tape) that they made when waffling for the council appointment to the Kathy Ennen vacancy.
Back then the Feinen, Gordon, Glithero, Foster, Henley group was trying to walk a tightrope. Now the clean-air crowd has shaken the tightrope and its time to decide on which side they want to fall.
Sadly, there is so much more at stake, but smokers have blinders on. The bars will end up with 21 year old bar entry age, supported by all the dirty-air folks.
Still no answer on the difference between the Pirok smelly clothes and Hays' health reasons. If the council continues passing ordinances based on their personal preferences, will the next ordinance passed prohibit an activity you like because a special interest group pressured candidates/councilpersons? And where does it stop?
And again, the issue is property rights. We keep sliding past that issue.
The pledge should state, "Do you believe individuals and businesses have a right to control their own businesses and personal lives? If you don't, sign this pledge. By not signing, we assume that you are supporting private property rights, and we won't support your campaign."
The pledge is a ploy. The CPPFT knows who the pro-rights candidates are. They just want to create publicity. That's why I believe all candidates should sign the pledge. I doubt that the CPPFT would change the support they already have decided to give.
good hard-ball politics by the anti-smoke folks
I kind of like putting candidates on the spot. At least you know where they stand. On the other hand, perhaps this isn't the most important issue for the Champaign City Council. It looks like it will all be a moot point soon. So if we vote in some unknowns just because they want to repeal the clean air ordinance, then what if we don't agree with their other politics?
Check out this pending legislation, sponsored by Republican Christine Radogno, and others:
Short Description: SMOKE FREE ILLINOIS ACT
Senate Sponsors
Sen. John J. Cullerton - Ms. Mattie Hunter - Jeffrey M. Schoenberg - Christine Radogno - Iris Y. Martinez, Todd Sieben, Louis S. Viverito, Jacqueline Y. Collins, Susan Garrett and Dan Cronin
Last Action
Date Chamber Action
2/8/2007 Senate Referred to Rules
Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
New Act
30 ILCS 805/8.31 new
410 ILCS 80/Act rep.
Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Smoke Free Illinois Act. Sets forth the findings of the General Assembly. Creates several definitions. Prohibits smoking in public places, places of employment, and governmental vehicles. Requires "No Smoking" signs to be posted in each public place and place of employment where smoking is prohibited. Requires ashtrays to be removed from any area where smoking is prohibited. Prohibits smoking in student dormitories, including, but not limited to, sleeping rooms, dining areas, restrooms, laundry areas, lobbies, and hallways, of a building used in whole or in part as a student dormitory that is owned and operated or otherwise utilized by a public or private institution of higher education. Provides that the Department of Public Health, State-certified local public health departments, and local law enforcement agencies shall enforce the provisions of the Act. Sets forth fines for violations of the Act. Provides that the Department, a State-certified local public health department, local law enforcement agency, or any individual personally affected by repeated violations may institute, in a circuit court, an action to enjoin violations of the Act. Prohibits discrimination against individuals who exercise their rights afforded by the Act. Provides that a home rule unit may regulate smoking in public places, but that regulation must be no less restrictive than the provisions in the Act. Prohibits smoking within a minimum distance of 15 feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited. Amends the State Mandates Act to require implementation without reimbursement. Repeals the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act.
Well, now I realize it was just some well timed publicity by the CPPFT. The release in the N-G was on Sat., and the full profile of the candidates was on Sunday, where they declared their opinions anyway.
I doubt that the IL legislature will be able to pass a bill in that form, taking into consideration that bars in Chicago don't have to be smoke free until July 8, 2008, and then only if they don't have the ventilating equipment installed that the city requires. Bar owners are going to be rather angry if they spend the money on expensive new equipment only to find out that their IL representatives voted for the measure.
To James E.:
Maybe Ken Pirok and Scott Hays had two different reasons for supporting the same ordinance?
Very perspicasious thinking. And the point is that a large number of people have been economically impacted, (and at the very least inconvenienced) by one individual's preference of odors.
Not exactly. While it is true that the Chicago Clean Air Ordinance of 2005 provides that bars, taverns, and restaurants with bars do not have to comply with the ban until July 1, 2008, or they must implement an air-filtration system that will allow the indoor air with smokers to be of the same quality as the outdoor air, the Commissioners of the City of Chicago Departments of Public Health and Environment have adopted regulations enforcing the ordinance stating that "no existing engineering approach or technology is capable of reducing the concentration of the constituents of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) to levels that will eliminate health risks or to levels found in ambient air in spaces where no smoking occurs." Accordingly, those regulations further provide that "No public place or place of employment subject to [the Clean Indoor Air Ordinance of 2005] shall be exempt from the smoking prohibition by claiming that such regulated area has been equipped with air filtration or purification device or similar technology that can render the exposure to secondhand smoke in such regulated area equivalent to such exposure to secondhand smoke in the ambient outdoor air." http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/BOHciaoRegs.html
In other words, although the ordinance contains an air-filtration system exemption for bars, the City has already decided that no bar may apply for an exemption claiming to have an adequate air-filtration system because that technology simply does not exist. So long as Democrats dominate the General Assembly and control the governorship, the Smoke Free Illinois Act will be passed and bars will not be exempt.