The Champaign council passed an ordinance last night making possession of tobacco by a minor illegal, punishable by a hefty fine.
From the 1/16 News-Gazette:
The CU Smokefree Alliance, which has led the fight for a smoking ban in public places in Champaign-Urbana, also will not support the proposed ordinance, according to spokesman Matt Varble.
The alliance believes the proposal "is a bad idea whose time has not come," Varble wrote in a news release.
"It appears that the mayor is simply pretending to be anti-tobacco in a way that blames our youth for tobacco problems when, in fact, the problem is citywide and spans beyond youth possession," Varble said.
The best way for underage youths to learn not to smoke "is for adults to stop smoking in public places," he said.
"A focus solely on youth possessing cigarettes says smoking is wrong for kids, but just fine once you reach 18 and beyond," Varble wrote. "It's not."
My question – I thought the alliance was concerned about public health? For them not to support this measure seems to give credence to my contention that they really just want smoking banned in bars and restaurants because it annoys them.
Update:
Commenting closed - thanks to all for participating. We shall see soon enough if the fears of those opposing this new ordinance were realistic.
2nd update:
By popular demand, comments are now being accepted again. More thoughts?
Matt, they're conservatives. What makes you think they care about treatment or prevention?
Just as an FYI Springfield just passed a public smoking ban in restaurants and bars last night that will take effect in September of this year.
Now on to last night in Champaign:
I will say that the CU Smokefree Alliance does agree that youth should not be in possession of tobacco products. What we didn't agree with was the specific details of the youth possession ordinance proposed last night. A $145 fine for kids who don't have the money and not having cessation programs or an educational alternative codified into that ordinance is what made it unacceptable.
City Councilman Vic McIntosh tried to assert the Smokefree Alliance supported the ordinance, which is a total fabrication. The CU Smokefree Alliance met with Vic and stated that they would like to assist in drafting an ordinance and McIntosh refused to agree to it.
The reason we suggested this is to avoid the poorly created and ineffective legislation that we saw last night. If the Mayor and Vic McIntosh were interested in working with the community they instead would have welcomed such input or solicited that information in the first place instead of turning it away.
Thus, the obvious result was opposing an ordinance that is focused on punishment instead of treatment or prevention along with failing to do this as part of a comprehensive approach to a public smoking ban.
"the obvious result was opposing an ordinance that is focused on punishment instead of treatment or prevention"
Treatment and prevention? You don't seem to have those same concerns for smokers in bars, you just want them to stand out in the cold. Do you not think the threat of a $145 fine will result in some "prevention"?
Once the person is addicted to nicotine, a $145 fine will just cause them to not smoke out in front of the school. It doesn't address the issue of youth smoking. It instead addresses an issue of the School District wanting to eliminate a potentially negative image problem of people standing across the street from the school smoking. Kind of similar to cities that buy the homeless a bus ticket...we don't want to see this problem, so move away from the area or we'll fine you.
The real issue is the "Open Campus" the school allows in the middle of the day. Also we wanted fines to be earmarked for educational and preventative programs similar to the DARE program. Instead we have a bad ordinance that only focuses on punishing, and intends to criminalize people at a very young age.
And you wonder where bad attitudes about the police come from? It's stuff like this where we (as in the city) use the big stick instead of trying to educate young impressionable minds.
Kids haven't heard that smoking is bad? Are you serious?
Some may have through some other means, but there hasn't been concerted or targeted effort in the schools here and there's not any specific programs for treatment or prevention here either.
Kids addicted to smoking need some type of treatment or help to quit. A $145 fine for punishment isn't going to do that especially if the funds aren't part of a creating a program or having an educational alternative instead of punishment.
Again, we're just moving the problem around instead of treating it. We're also not setting an example either whereby a public smoking ban would be consistent with a better youth possession ordinance.
"we're just moving the problem around instead of treating it"
Again, you don't seem to have that same thought when you force adult smokers on to the sidewalk. Where is your compassion for these poor addicted souls?
RSW I can sort of guess that you must not have any children. If you did, then maybe you'd understand this differently.
Young children deserve more time, effort, and attention since they are relatively young and impressionable and can be more easily persuaded and treated to perhaps change their behavior. Adults setting an example is a more effective and powerful tool that a $145 fine.
Go ask any child psychologist this. Your cynical talking points are designed to try and tear down and direct attention away from the main issue here, which is children, not adults. That's a separate issue. It's also a separate issue when we're talking about smoke free public places, versus youth whom are addicted to smoking.
If you want to talk about adults addicted to smoking, there are many resources already in place an available. Adults also (presumably) have more disposable income than children and can more easily seek and afford treatment on their own.
My cynical talking points are designed to display the inconsistencies between your two different stances on similar issues.
And I know plenty about what kids are learning in school. Light up around some 1st or 2nd graders you know, and see how many of them look at you in horror - "You are going to DIE!"
The anectdotal evidence you suggest may have been your experience, however the fact remains the ordinance (as proposed and passed) last night was a bad piece of legislation for all of the aformentioned reasons.
There was a lot of opportunities to fix it and make it right that were ignored or bypassed by the sponsors since they really weren't in support of getting input from the public on it. They instead did this as a result of what the Police Department suggested or wanted and that was it...Do whatever the Cops say and make it a law and then "poof"...Kind of like when the police got line item funding from a City Council Bill to buy a Tank. They also had the great idea to ask for Tasers too...So the Police Department suggesting policy has been just great hasn't it?
RSW...do you smoke? Do you have children? You're responses are quite telling here about why you hold or assert that position.
Mr. Varble,
please address, if you want, Mayor Schweighart's comment "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time".
Isn't an incremental change to restrict tobacco use a good thing?
Does the ordinance passed last night preclude further ordinances involving bars and restaurants? Why or why not?
"Kind of like when the police got line item funding from a City Council Bill to buy a Tank. "
THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE A TANK YOU MOORON. ITS A BRINKS TRUCK. A TANK HAS A GUN ON TOP.
Incremental restrictions on smoking are fine, so is prohibiting youth possession of tobacco. I have no qualms telling you why I didn't agree with the wording or focus of this particular youth possession ordinance. Please see my first comment at the beginning of the thread as to the detailed explanation.
In a nutshell they didn't do it right, and they focused on punishing youth instead, which isn't the correct way to do this. All health organizations such as Heart, Lung, ICAT, American Cancer Society are also uniformly and unanimously opposed to the type youth possession ordinance that was enacted last night for all of the reasons I stated in my original comment.
THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE A TANK...Or sorry an "Armored vehicle" or Armored personnel carrier....So much better.
For the record, I do have kids and I do not smoke. And if my child was smoking outside a school, I would see it as a public service to me if the police drove by and fined my child. (Is parental notification part of this bill?)
I always thought it was kind of odd that it was illegal for a youth to buy cigarettes, but not actually possess them. (Do we really not want them to smoke, or not?)
Kids are not lacking for education on this subject - public schools and kid tv constantly pops out anti-smoking messages.
The opposition to this bill by the alliance looks like a "sour grapes" position - it came from the mayor, he didn't ask for our input, he opposed our main objective, and this might give him some political cover as "trying to protect the youth against smoking". That may not be the case, but it sure does look that way.
Perhaps it does to you, but I will tell you it doesn't. It has nothing to do with whom proposed the ordinance. It has to do with the content and thrust of the piece of legislation. Nobody wants youth in possession of tobacco products, or youth smoking, however we need to focus on the aspects of treatment, prevention, and setting a community example. The intent of the ordinance last night was to address littering or loitering and an irritated school district, not youth smoking. If they really wished to address "youth smoking" then we had a much better suggestion and approach.
The radio says it passed, eight to one. Who voted against it?
Rosales
I thought this whole issue was brought about after the melee at Central HS a few months back. If I remember correctly one of the reasons why the fight happened was because some of the instigators were outside smoking or the ones let in were smoking. Immediately afterward I remember some people within the school district suggesting someting be done about that to help reduce the likelihood of a repeat incident. I thought that was why the ordinance passed was so narrow in focus.
While I'm surprised that Rosales voted against it, it was a pretty stupid move if he wants to run for Mayor. It "muddies the water" on the anti-smoking issue.
Exactly...the cops also made this immediate suggestion. The issue here is the "Open Campus" at the School and that is the real problem here and this possession ordinance we saw last night was a reaction to a situation at the H/S. Thus, they didn't really think it out too well and have it intended to be used as punishment or criminalizing undesirable youth behavior rather than address the problem of "youth smoking".
Go watch outside the school for the cops. I'm sure they're salivating to write a bunch of citations and we'll have a lot of upset parents in response to this poorly thought out bill...Just wait and see.
Criminy. Am I the only one who wishes this guy would visit the railroad tracks across from the Savoy Wally-World and put himself out of our misery?
I've been smoking since I was 8 and I turned out just fine.
Well then, Matt, I guess it probably does come down to what The Squire said then:
"Matt, they're conservatives. What makes you think they care about treatment or prevention?"
In this case, I think the message is out and there is nothing wrong with punishment. Thanks for the info - you have communicated your position fairly well.
Your comments clearly demonstrate how "fine" you turned out to be....
Thank you RSW for the constructive dialogue.
Will someone please explain to me Giraldo Rosales? Is he the new Maggie Mattingly? "If everyone else thinks its a good idea, then I don't"? Its good to know that his term ends in 15 months.
He pushed and pushed for a smoking ban in restaurants, but since this ordinance is not that ordinance, he votes against this ordinance. I wish someone would point out that he is living in Urbana, and has been for one year now since his home on Hill Street was damaged, but maybe that shouldn't be mentioned here. He's like a visiting professor from Urbana who get to cast votes in Champaign.
$145 fine doesn't seem so hefty for conduct that is not accidental. If kids are not able to afford it, they can see a judge and seek an alternative punishment. If it causes them to refrain from smoking they will save that much money in 40 packs (80 days?).
I was shocked to hear that the Mayor had quit smoking. Good for him. He mentioned that he was generally a law-abiding kid and if such a law existed when he was a teen he may have never started smoking. That's the stuff for speculation, but it just may be true for some kid in 2006.
Congratulations to the City Council for getting together on a common goal and resisting the screaming lunatics on both ends of this issue who want to fight for the sake of self-aggrandizement.
As I recall, the fight at Central was between 2 girls over a boy. The fight grew with sides being taken.
The school district certainly has an interest in prohibiting smoking on (or near?) its grounds, but I don't think the school board "put up" the council to do this.
The school board has its own problems right now, and they're a lot bigger than the "grits" (that's what my kids called them when they went to Central) having a smoke across the street.
That said, I support the ban on kids possessing smokes. Possessing alcohol, drugs, and porn, too.
When they reach adulthood (majority) they can do what they want, just like the rest of us, but until then, they shouldn't be allowed to.
I don't necessarily think its a bad ordinance because it addresses a specific problem as a lot of other ordinances do. This addresses a safety issue at the HS, and I don't believe it was intended as an anti smoking deterrant even though it may indirectly cause that. If my kids were going there I would appreciate the city doing something to address the safety issues.
veritas, I disagree. I don't see how this is a safety issue, please explain what you mean. I do think it is a health issue, and was designed just as an anti-smoking issue, to deter kids from possessing smokes. Most cities the size of Champaign have such ordinances, it was just time for Champaign to get on board. If we can keep cigarettes away from only a few kids, that would be a good thing.
And, again, what safety issue are you talking about?
I am referring to the fight at Central HS that involved 20-30 students and resulted in the injury of several faculty. I can't remember who exactly said it, but it was some administrator who partly blamed the incident on kids smoking outside. It was not a health concern then and when the city took it very soon after that it was to try and curb that behavior and reduce the likelihood of a repeat incident. In their minds it serves two purposes: safety and health. The former being the reason why for the ordinance and the second is a good thing and a logical progression of the original state law barring teens from buying cigs. Had it not been for the fight at the HS then this would not have been brought up as quickly as it was. Criticism of the original law about sales was very strong since it did not address possession, but that was some time ago and no one seemed interested in taking it on until now. Cause and reaction. I'm not arguing that they should be allowed to smoke at all. I think this is an ordinance that should have been on the heels of the original law that didn't address it.
Whatever the reason that motivated the Council to do this, how can you argue against it with a straight face? It has to be sour grapes, as was suggested earlier.
While we're at it, is there any truth to the rumor that the Mayor is as sick as Matt Varble suggests on his blog?
Rosales for Mayor? When pigs fly. He would have to answer for missed meetings, questions of residency, and weird off-the-wall positions he has taken in his first three years. He once said he felt so strongly about an issue on North First Street (Lone Star Lodge) that he abstained from the vote. Come again?
At least the CU Smokefree alliance didn't trot out Matt Varble last night, although if they had it would have been the only Champaign resident to address the council. Urbana, Savoy and Philo sent speakers because the folks who live in Champaign were watching the Illini game. Priorities, you know.
I think RJ Reynolds has Kathy Ennen in their pocket. They secretly want kids to be banned from smoking, and they pay city council members to advance their secret plot.
Conspiracy Theorists Unite!
This is great...now can we PLEASE outlaw smoking in private homes where children are present?
They do not deserve to be put at risk be irresponsible parents.
Note: I am not advocating the state taking children away from parent who do smoke.
"it would have been the only Champaign resident to address the council"
One of the other CU Smokefree Officers whom resides in Champaign did address the council as well as a few other people not part of CU Smokefree who were also residents of Champaign.
Hey Varble, doesn't your boss monitor your internet time?
I am the boss
Funny, that's not what ADM said when I called to ask them how you spend your work time. They said you're a 20-somthing punk lower manager, socialist wannabe who's sucking the corporate teat looking for a handout and a fancier plaque above his desk.
Now, Wally - Mr. Varble has been very polite today - let's keep things civil.
Remember, if you ignore the imbeciles, they'll stop trying to get attention.
Matt V. -
I still don't quite understand what you would have wanted done instead. What more do you want done, here on a local level or on a national level? I just don't hear anything besides you saying that it is a 'bad ordinance' when really it is only an extention of a pre-existing law that has been in place, that hasn't been working. I won't even try to understand some of the 'going-ons' at your level but don't we have laws for a reason? And if something is done to try and improve something that just isn't working, how is that 'bad'?
You are not the boss of ADM. WOW I think the CEO of ADM shhould get a copie of this
"I still don't quite understand what you would have wanted done instead.."
Read the very first comment of the thread. Also go research the positions of Amer. Cancer Society, Lung, Heart, ICAT and you will see our position mirrors theirs on "youth possession" ordinances.
I realize that a lot of posters on this site don't care for Matt Varble or his opinions, but I don't understand the need for the hateful personal attacks. I appreciate that he has taken the time to explain his position on and an important local issue. Gordy, I'm especially disappointed in your "imbecile" comment, since you should be encouraging thoughtful discourse on local issues rather than ridiculing opinions. That type of comment doesn't bode well for the future of this site.
"I realize that a lot of posters on this site don't care for Matt Varble or his opinions, but I don't understand the need for the hateful personal attacks. I appreciate that he has taken the time to explain his position on and an important local issue. Gordy, I'm especially disappointed in your “imbecile” comment, since you should be encouraging thoughtful discourse on local issues rather than ridiculing opinions. That type of comment doesn't bode well for the future of this site."
Irritated,
I made the "imbecile" comment in reference to those imbeciles who were deliberately trying to bait Varble into a flame war. It was advice to Varble, and to everyone here, not to take the bait. I'm sure he understands that, as does almost everyone else here.
To everyone: If someone writes a comment that personally attacks you without any other purpose, ignore it. That's the point behind, "Remember, if you ignore the imbeciles, they'll stop trying to get attention."
Well let's see, I've had my employment threatened, been called names, told to go stand in front of a train and die, called a punk among other things. Isn't the thought of public service great? This is the reward you get for engaging public discourse. Thanks.
Forgive me for attempting to intelligently articulate a position on this controversial local issue that some of you don't agree with me on. I haven't commented here for a long time due to this kind of reaction and I agree with Irritated's assessment (above).
"Well let's see, I've had my employment threatened, been called names, told to go stand in front of a train and die, called a punk among other things. Isn't the thought of public service great? This is the reward you get for engaging public discourse. Thanks.
Forgive me for attempting to intelligently articulate a position on this controversial local issue that some of you don't agree with me on. I haven't commented here for a long time due to this kind of reaction and I agree with Irritated's assessment (above). "
Matt Varble,
See my comment above. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.
I know you have a history on this site, but I think we could all do our part to improve this place by simply ignoring the worst comments. I'm hoping that if they don't get a response, they'll stop.
I am referring to the fight at Central HS that involved 20-30 students and resulted in the injury of several faculty. I can't remember who exactly said it, but it was some administrator who partly blamed the incident on kids smoking outside.
Oh, ok, I get your point now. Cigarettes caused the fight, or made the fight worse, or something like that?
Thosekidsmust have very very bad nicotine habitstoriot over cigarettes.
Some kids were outside, and they joined in the fight (which started between 2 girls over a boy, not over cigarettes). Cigarettes had nothing to do with it.
The American Lung Association and their ilk exist because good people donate money that in turn employs a cottage industry of not-for-profit fund-raisers, executive directors, staff liasons, etc.
Their mission is to have a mission. If all lung diseases were suddenly eradicated they would all be out of work. Of course that's not going to happen, but waging big battles is more productive for their goals than making small incremental progress.
The organizations have ulterior motives for stirring the pot, and banning childhood smoking doesn't bring out the zealots (and the money) like banning smoking in restaurants does.
So they tell the rank and file to fight it, because a fight is what they live for. Never mind that this fight doesn't make sense or that they cannot articulate how this ordinance hurts, just that it: "doesn't help" or "doesn't help as advertised".
Check out the Circuit Clerk's web site for civil cases involving Giraldo Rosales....
Regular Reader,
I assumed you knew a bit more about the incident because you were posting at that time. I don't remember if you posted about the incident but I don't think you were living under a rock either. It was NOT about smoking. Ok? Got that?
The cause of the fight happened the weekend previous between rival people who then enlisted help from a wider network of friends. The incident carried over into the school week when one group decided they would incite a fight at an appointed hour and use the excuse to go outside and smoke and allow non-school poeple, who were outside waiting, into the school to join in a fight over what happened during the weekend. Administrators believed that if students weren't allowed to smoke then the incident wouldn't have gotten out of hand as it did. If it still isn't clear to you I can probably go get the police report and read it off verbatim if necessary. Sheesh.
veritas,
now I'm really confused. The administrators allow the students to smoke? That certainly surprises me. Maybe go outside, but go outside to smoke? Really?
Thanks for the offer of getting the police report, and I'll take you up on it. I look forward to hearing from you what it says. How long will it take you to get it and post what it says? I'm really curious about what it says.
Thanks.
Matt Varble -
"All health organizations such as Heart, Lung, ICAT, American Cancer Society are also uniformly and unanimously opposed to the type youth possession ordinance that was enacted last night..."
"Also go research the positions of Amer. Cancer Society, Lung, Heart, ICAT and you will see our position mirrors theirs on “youth possession” ordinances. "
You didn't direct that at me, but I researched it anyway and found that on the American Cancer Society's website, they count this among their legislative accomplishments in Florida:
"Prohibited possession of tobacco by minors, enumerating the penalties based on the offense (first offense, second etc.). "
Yeah, look at the ordinance....Enumerated penalties, tiered steps, prevention etc. It was a comprehensive approach and not an immediate harsh punishment like the ordinance here.
"For example, in Plantain, Florida, teens must appear before the judge with their parent or guardian, must view an anti-smoking video, and experience a lecture from a throat cancer survivor."
Remember the ads by tobacco companies with a fat, balding shopkeeper supporting the "We Card" program that shows several geeky students walk in trying to buy cigarettes. Tobacco companies gladly supported such advertising because any cool, rebellious kid is confident they could have gotten away with it and other kids just follow them...over cliffs sometimes. Once kids are hooked on nicotine, they're a cash cow for the tobacco companies.
Isn't the new tobacco fine more than if caught with marijuana or alcohol (not in a car, hopefully)? Will this shift rebellious behavior to other (admittedly less addictive) drugs?
RR,
Yes they did. They have an open campus or at least did. Can't get any clearer than that, but you can file a FOIA request if you want the info that bad as I'm sure you are.
Whatever happened to incrementalism on the left? Once you get the possession offense on the books, then you can work on changing the punishments. Sounds like a more reasonable tact then the "smoke-free" people saying we shouldn't punish kids when they smoke.
veritas,
thanks.
Let us know when you get the police report you offered to get. You did offer to get it, didn't you?
Yeah, but its much easier to do legislation correctly the first time instead of going back and trying to fix it later (recall Pres. Bush and campaign finance reform? Yeah the courts will fix this later...whoops). Also with a city council this wobbly, you never know. Their positions are subject change and have changed at a moments notice and it's very much an unstable political environment with those folks. The less you have to deal with them the better off you are.
Mr. Varble, one thing about the city council's stability is everything you are for, they are agianst, and have voted as such.
That's stability. Except Giraldo. Not much stability there, what with him living in Urbana instead of Champaign, and having his wife file an order of protection against him (hat tip to Marlboro Girl).
"everything you are for, they are agianst, and have voted as such"
Absolutely untrue. They passed a domestic partner ordinance, stopped tasers from being purchased, they also approved some North 1st Street redevelopments that I agreed with, they also supported a special census, and they approved property maintenance updates for apartment buildings. Those are a few things off the top of my head I can recall in the past several months.
I have disagreed with their positions on smoking, severance pay, a few things on Burnham, some specific issues with the library, their rejection of a homeland security grant.
Also your comments about CM Rosales are highly inappropriate and offensive.
I found your post about Schweighart highly inappropraite and offensive. At leat RR could show proof of his statment unlike you.
From Champaign County Circuit Clerk Linda Frank's web pages:
https://secure.jtsmith.com/clerk/clerk.asp
#97OP00248 Melodye Rosales vs Giraldo Rosales, Petition for Order of Protection, Plenary Order of Protection entered, Guardian Ad Litem appointed (for the children) Petition later withdrawn on motion of plaintiff (Melodye)
#01LM00459 Gabe's Place vs Giraldo Rosales, Forcible Entry and Detainer (Eviction) defendant failed to appear, judgment entered
#03LM01834 Goldfarb vs Rosales, Forcible Entry and Detainer (Eviction) defendant failed to appear, judgment entered
#04LM00933 Busey Bank vs Giraldo and Melodye Rosales, caused dismissed
I am offended by politicians who:
have orders of protection entered by a court against them;
have evictions filed against them, and don't even show up to court;
have other lawsuits filed against them (does Busey Bank really waste its time with BS suits, or was there something to it?)
I can excuse
Macon County 2001 TR 010902, VARBLE, MATTHEW J
IMPROP LFT TURN/ON-COMING TRAF
careless, dangerous, but no big deal. (Macon County Circuit Clerk Kathy Hott website)
Try looking up Schweighart sometime Matt. Oh, too bad, nothing there.
Xian you are correct
So do you guys actually want to discuss effective legislation regarding smoking or just spew personal attacks? Was Busey Bank suing because Mr. Rosales prevented their staff from smoking?
From what I can see from his and Mr. Varble's arguments their line of thinking is that it's good to pass legislation to prevent smoking, but punitive ticketing of minors is not effective. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Varble.)
We may disagree with that thinking. There are certainly arguments against it. But if you call them stupid and hypocritical for putting forth that argument at all, then you are just spouting off of your partisan politics with no respect for civilized debate.
Can you really not see the logic that fining minors who have been illegally addicted to a substance is not a just or effective civic response?
Can you really not imagine the class/race complications that would result from such an ordinance?
As someone who has never committed a crime beyond speeding (and that more rarely than most), but was constantly harassed by CPD for being living colored in a white neighborhood (I was stopped by the police for getting my morning paper), I'm not looking forward to watching the enforcement of this law.
I copied this over from the 1/20 open thread - somebody wanted to get this discussion going again.
"My Thoughts - says"
I didn't see any posts from the long-range or big picture angle. The big picture..it is appropriate that we as a society say to our youth “Smoking is bad.” It costs us as a whole billions of dollars. Banning youth from posession of a substance that is dangerous and costly to themselves and everyone around them, a good and appropriate thing. BTW, I am a smoke with an adult child who smokes.
The fines, regardless of who benefits from them, may serve to deter younger children to take up the habit or at least be more discreet resulting in even younger impressionable children not viewing the older “cool” kids smoking.
The fines also are a gradual indoctination of our youth into adult accountability sorely lacking in our society today. It says to these youths who choose to violate that there are personal consequences for their actions. We all must follow rules whether we agree with or like them. Should you choose not to follow the rules, you pay.
I understand Mr. Varble's stance on the issue, but one must ask”¦is this beneficial to the greater good? I think yes.
Thank you RSW.
And a correction to my post. I am a smoker, not a smoke.
Please excuse my typos, my mind moves faster than my fingers.
You are quite welcome.
I am quite against the mentality that the "users" are victims.
Generalization alert:
Conservatives believe in the free will of the individual - no one can make you steal a car, shoplift, do crack, or smoke cigarettes. Liberals blame the gun makers, the shop owners and society instead of the offender.
Do we assume children are fully responsible for their own decisions? Once they're hooked on a highly addictive drug, how much choice do they really have?
Free will of the individual? Such as using the excessive force of banning smoking instead of trying less nanny state measures first?
There's plenty of responsibility to go around...it's not just kids or shop owners.
Check out today's NG Editorial 1/23/06
~~Well let's see, I've had my employment threatened, been called names, told to go stand in front of a train and die, called a punk among other things. Isn't the thought of public service great? This is the reward you get for engaging public discourse. Thanks.
Forgive me for attempting to intelligently articulate a position on this controversial local issue that some of you don't agree with me on. I haven't commented here for a long time due to this kind of reaction and I agree with Irritated's assessment (above). ~~
Wow.. Matt.. need to get that velcro off both your forehead, and the back of your hand. The "Oh, poor little me!" attitude is kind of pathetic. Quite frankly, if you aren't prepared to be attacked on a personal level it might be advisable to simply go to a chat room with only like minded individuals to pose your opinion. That way it wouldn't cause such undue stress to your defenseless little personage. Though I see that your ability to attack others hasn't changed one Iota. I think the main problem is the flip-floppy stance on smoking. You people want to gripe about not having enough programs in school to thwart smoking? Are you kidding me? the national testing average is down yet again this year making our children officially smarter than only four implements in the garden shed and you want to suck them further away from academics by glomming yet more crap into their schedule? I wonder to myself how it is someone can protest this ordinance and then issue a statement like "Nobody wants youth in possession of tobacco products, or youth smoking, however we need to focus on the aspects of treatment, prevention, and setting a community example." and retain a straight face.