Posted on 05/21/2004 6:31:28 AM PDT by MissTargets
CLEVELAND (AP) - An advisory panel says City Council should ban smoking in restaurants, workplaces and other public areas, but the council president said the group doesn't plan to take action soon.
Members of the Cleveland Clean Indoor Air Advisory Committee made their recommendation Wednesday. The group suggests making private clubs and 10 percent of hotel rooms exempt from the ban.
The panel is independent of council, which has not planned any smoking ban legislation, said Maxine Greer, council spokeswoman.
Council President Frank Jackson said he has not received a recommendation from the panel.
"If we do receive it, we don't plan to introduce or pass legislation any time soon to ban smoking," Jackson said in a news release Thursday. "City Council appreciates their interest in this issue, but other viewpoints must be considered."
Panel members began meeting in February to discuss the health consequences of secondhand smoke and the economic fallout from smoking bans. The group includes residents, people who work in public health, representatives of the Greater Cleveland Restaurant Association and the union representing hotel and restaurant employees.
Health experts say secondhand smoke causes as many as 65,000 deaths a year in the United States.
"If City Council will pass it, ... it will be a tremendous step forward," said Gary DeNelsky, chairman of the Cuyahoga County Tobacco Control Coalition. He was not on the panel.
Cleveland City Councilman Matthew Zone said he favors a tougher smoking law, but he wouldn't predict the chances of council adopting the panel's recommendation.
David Fitz, spokesman for Mayor Jane Campbell, was also noncommittal about whether the city will adopt the recommendations.
"We appreciate their thoughtful work and the mayor looks forward to meeting with them and hearing their recommendations," Fitz said.
Five states and 72 cities had imposed indoor-smoking bans as of January, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
If it does not effect them, they don't care. But someday, one of their freedoms will be taken from them.
Just like the assault weapons ban. Certain gun owners, who do not own those, so called "ugly" guns, do not care if they are banned. It does not effect them. But one day, their particular type of firearm, just might be next.
I don't know about "low lifes," but there's simply nothing you can do about the fact that around 70 or more percent of the adult population find the habit offensive. You can't force people to like a particular behavior; at best you can ask for their tolerance.
There are two parts to the smoking issue; one political and the other social. You can always affect the political aspect simply by being in a majority, or exerting influence on the majority, but the social aspect is driven by public opinion, which isn't quite as amenable to change.
"That puts smokers in a decided minority, amongst a majority which finds secondhand smoke to be at best a sickening annoyance and at worst a health hazard."
Wrong. The majority of the non smokers don't think it is that big of an issue, as is proven by the number of people currently entering private property where smoking is allowed. The true minority is the anti smoking population that is actively battling to control the rest of society.
"I wish my favorite tavern were smoke-free (the one me and my colleagues where I teach sometimes call the faculty club). My clothes reek of smoke when I get home."
Talk to the owner and make the request of him/her to adopt a policy that caters to your desires. If he isn't willing to cater to you then find another tavern or open one of your own. Government intervention is not required.
All's not lost. In Milwaukee, you can still get cigs for voting Democrat.
You make some very good points - but the problems are not all the fault of the smokers. They never have been and they never will will be.
The issue between smokers and non-smokers would not have and never should have become political, except for money.
Non-smokers, who are in the majority, should have been talking to the owners of their favorite places, instead of government people.
Most non-smokers never bothered saying anything, but a few did, and are now making very good livings by demonizing smokers and closing the doors of small businesses. The non-smokers who stayed silent are the ones that are to blame - and they are in the majority.
The problem is that they are the ones with the money - and we all know that money talks........and it doesn't matter that the talk is bovine excrement.
Good point. In fact, if it were only public opinion driving the issue, a smoker would no more think of lighting up in public than he would think of urinating in public. The fact that this has never been the case tends to show that nonsmokers are willing to put up with smokers, if it's only a matter of public opinion. But I think the attitude of the nonsmokers in reference to the political side of the question is somewhat on the lines of "since I don't really care one way or the other, I'm not going to get involved." If the nonsmokers don't get involved, the smokers will never win.
I have always been thankful to the non-smokers that oppose the government imposed smoking bans.
You and I have discussed this enough that you know I encourage non-smokers to speak with the owners - instead of going to the government.
Plus, there's no effective level of government between the city and the state, and Cleveland is ringed by suburbs even less likely to accept this nanny state logic than Cleveland proper is....hence the concerns of the restaurant/bar people. Even if Cleveland passed such a thing and tried to push the suburbs into following suit, at least ten would refuse simply on general principles.
-Eric
City Council doesn't sound too receptive, to the idea.
That's good, but the anti's will never give up.
Bad storms in the area tonight. We were out of power for 4 hours.
Should Cleveland ban smoking in bars and restaurants? | |
Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far. |
|
YES | 54% |
NO | 46% |
...and as little as none, according to the WHO.
I noticed, that you could vote more then once also. Polls like that, never give a correct count.
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.