Posted on 05/22/2005 8:51:33 AM PDT by Maigrey
Clark Plunk wants the state to ban smoking in restaurants.
He wants it so much that he planned to run for the legislature when he found out that his representative wasn't of a similar smoke-free mind.
Rep. W.C. 'Bubba' Pleasant, a smoker, "told me his view is if you own a restaurant or bar, it should be your prerogative to say if you want smoking or non-smoking," says Plunk.
Plunk's view is that smokers' rights stop at the tip of his nose.
When Cuba, land of the fine cigar, bans smoking in restaurants, but bills to do the same in Tennessee fail year after year, well, that sticks in Plunk's craw.
In a beat 'em and join 'em move, Plunk, 57, of Lakeland, entered the race against Pleasant in the Republican primary.
And in the process, he learned an important lesson about lawmaking: A politically naive small business owner with a cause is no match for savvy legislators who, despite the promises they make, choose not to make the health of non-smoking restaurant patrons and employees a priority.
Soon after Plunk, who owns a cleaning company, entered the race, he got a call from House Republican leader Tre Hargett.
If he and Pleasant promised to vote for 'no smoking' laws, would Plunk take himself off the ballot? Hargett asked.
"I was naive enough to say yes, I'll do that," Plunk said.
"What I was naive about is they didn't have any interest in letting any non-smoking legislation get out of committee."
With just a week left in this session, no such bill has emerged from committee. Plunk believes Hargett and Pleasant had good reason to suspect they'd never have to make good on their promise.
In January, Democratic state Sen. Steve Cohen introduced a bill to allow local governments to regulate smoking in restaurants. Plunk asked Hargett and Pleasant to sign on.
"If you do this, I will feel that you have kept your promise to me to support anti-smoking legislation. Can I count on you to support this legislation?" he wrote Hargett.
Their answer? No.
Hargett and Pleasant acknowledge that Plunk was promised support in exchange for his withdrawal from the primary. The misunderstanding stems, evidently, from how you define support.
They maintain they agreed only to vote for the bill if it came before one of the committees on which they sit, or the full House.
"I could have co-sponsored the bill," Hargett said, but didn't "because I had other legislative priorities."
Said Pleasant: "If you carry a bill, you have to be committed to it," and he never was fully behind a ban that would take away people's rights.
Plus, he said, "They don't ever quit with one thing." Outlaw smoking in restaurant, Pleasant figures, and the next thing you know, they -- whoever they is -- will outlaw fast food.
That logic, Cohen said, is "absurd. The fat content and the calories and the carbs, it hurts the person who eats it, it doesn't hurt the person sitting next to the person eating it."
Cohen's proposed legislation would have trumped the 1994 law that prevents local municipalities from passing smoking laws stronger than state law, which requires only that restaurants have a 'no smoking' section.
Letting local governments handle their own affairs is traditionally a Republican value, but so is backing big business. The state's restaurant association and the mighty tobacco lobby, Cohen said, is against a smoking ban. Change will come only when more citizens like Plunk and more local communities lobby the legislature for change, he said.
Despite the misunderstanding, Plunk says he's still a Republican and that he isn't mad at Hargett or Pleasant.
"I'm mad at myself for being naive enough to trust Tre and Bubba," Plunk said in an e-mail to Cohen. "Thank goodness the terms only last two years. If this legislation doesn't pass, I will run against him next year and Tre won't talk me out of it."
Although rebuffed in Nashville, Plunk, a former pack-a-day Marlboro Lights smoker who had a heart attack three years ago, isn't deterred.
Each time a state, city or country bans smoking in restaurants, he lets Pleasant and Hargett know, via e-mail.
He patronizes restaurants that ban smoking in their dining rooms.
To help his sister kick the habit, he buys her nicotine gum.
At his favorite restaurant, Villa Castrioti, he convinced the owners to make one of its bars smoke-free. Signs went up, only to be defaced by smokers who crossed out the "no."
The fight, Plunk knows, is a war, not just one battle, and he's in it for the long haul.
"Our grandchildren are going to make fun of the smokers of today. I just hope I live long enough to see it."
And, last time I checked - smoking is still legal.
And I am a non-smoker.
I know you run the smokers ping list, so would you do your deed?
Nah. No bias in this article.
And if "they" continue to ban smoking, then the cigarette tax dollars contributing to the state should stop! Billions of tax dollars being paid 100% by the smokers. Not Big Tobacco and not the government. But the smoker's.
Smoker's are paying for this personal abuse.
I take that back. It appears to be an editorial.
Cohen does not have a clue what he's talking about. Most restaurant associations have a history of supporting the bans. As for the tobacco lobby - they either sit out the arguement or support the bans outright.
No, Plunk's rights stop when he enters someone else's private property.
Actually, the real Republican value is not having the government involve itself in personal and business decisions. A restaurant should be allowed to make it's own choice about whether to allow smoking and should be then accept the business consequences either way. If a restaurant bans smoking entirely, it will lose the business of some smokers. If it refuses to ban smoking, it will lose the business of some non-smokers. If it finds a way to design a non-smoking section that effectively segregates the smokers and the non-smokers, it will lose only the business of those who can't stand letting other individuals make their own choices. Unfortunately, that group seems to be getting bigger.
Bill
Well said!
You are correct. And it is amazing just how many FReepers are proud to be in that group.
I wish more people would understand that little factoid. While you have the right to enter a private business that does business with the public - it is still a private business and you are obligated to abide by the owner's rules.
I suggest Plunk move to Cuba.
I suggest Plunk move to Cuba.
"I take that back. It appears to be an editorial."
Matters not, the Commercial Appeal is just another big-city liberal rag. My Mom has taken to hiding parts of it from me when I visit. :)
I've sort of reached the point in my life where I'm starting to consider the word "activist" to be a euphemism for "Professional, Big-Mouthed A$$hole" and decided that anything said by someone who's a "self-described activist" can safely be ignored out-of-hand.
The reformed whore, putatively a "Republican," is eager to have individual choice become the object of mockery in the near future.
He's not naive, he's stupid.
It's like when we visit friends. If they are non-smokers, we do not smoke in their house or vehicle. Unless they invite us to do so. It's no different when a business owner open's his doors. His business his rules. Period.
Most of them are. In every state. I don't know how decent people work in State Houses. They stink to high heaven.
It's always nice to see a freedom grabber get slapped down.
Ah, Mr. Plunk thinks he is God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.