We believe: Something is better than nothing when it comes to a public smoking ordinance.
The Anderson City Council recently voted down an attempt at a smoking ordinance in the city because the law didn’t go far enough.
Well, all life is about compromise. As the Rolling Stones once sang, “You can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.” The council dropped the ball, and the anti-smoking group that cheered the ordinance’s defeat was too unyielding to see the relative benefits of having a law in place.
City Councilman Art Pepelea, who was all for the ordinance, said it best: “I’m shocked and astonished that we have people in the community who would rather have nothing than have something.”
Councilman Rodney Chamberlain, who voted against the ordinance, took the attitude of the anti-smokers when he said, “We’re either going to have a non-smoking community or we’re going to have a smoking community.”
All or nothing. So Anderson got nothing.
There were many exemptions to the ordinance such as private residences, hotel rooms set aside for smokers, taverns, fraternal clubs and designated smoking areas at businesses to name a few. One was too many for the comprehensive ban group.
Councilman Ollie Dixon voted against the ordinance because it infringed on the rights of businesses.
Pepelea wanted an ordinance to protect children from secondhand smoke. But those against the ban want all workers to be protected. Realistically speaking, people are going to smoke even if the city hires a butt patrol to walk around carrying squirt guns. But where they smoke is a public concern and can be regulated, even if smoking itself can’t be altogether abolished in the city.
The perils of secondhand smoke are well-documented. Many communities have passed strict smoking ordinances. Many restaurants have taken it upon themselves to ban smoking. An ordinance, even one that is not comprehensive, is a step in the right direction because it raises awareness and protects children.
Also, many communities have found ordinances forbidding or limiting smoking in public places to be a boon to economic development. Smoking ordinances suggest a city is concerned with quality-of-life issues such as providing a healthy, clean environment.
If the ordinance had passed, it could’ve been amended as needed. However, Kareesa Knight-Wilkerson, executive director of the Healthy, Tobacco-Free Madison County, said that wouldn’t happen. Why the defeatist attitude? Why not accept the compromise and work to refine it?
But no. The all-or-nothing crowd decided that smoking should continue everywhere instead of somewhere. Where is the logic in that?
Representative government is founded on the concept of individuals representing different constituents coming together on common issues. There have to be compromises. Apparently some people haven’t learned that yet.
