Compare and contrast the tone and demeanor of the McLean County Smoke-Free group with the tone and demeanor of our very own Coalition to Protect People From Themselves (CPPFT).
Here's a story and some quotes from the McLean County group:
A new coalition is in no hurry to propose an ordinance calling for further restrictions on smoking in buildings used by the general public.
"Passing an ordinance that is not a good ordinance would be worse than no ordinance," Jan Morris said after the coalition's first meeting Thursday.
Meeting on the day of the annual Great American Smokeout, the 16-member coalition -- called Smoke Free Bloomington-Normal -- brainstormed Thursday during their initial meeting at the McLean County Health Department.
The health department hosted the first meeting and brought the coalition together, but "it's not a health department group," said Morris, the department's health promotions program manager.
Eleven organizations are represented on the coalition so far, she said.
"It's a community group."
The coalition decided Thursday that it needs to be broader and is open to more members, Morris said. The group's next meeting on Dec. 8 will be an organizational meeting when a coalition leader will be chosen.
The group is organizing because the Clean Indoor Air Home Rule Act takes effect in Illinois on Jan. 1. That allows municipalities to set their own clean indoor air laws, which could impact buildings used by the public, not just restaurants and bars, Morris said.
Eventually, the coalition may approach the Bloomington and Normal city councils with an ordinance proposal, but is on no time frame to do so, Morris said.
"We're still doing our research," she said. "Everyone was receptive to going forward."
And here's one from the CPPFT:
Varble said he doesn't believe Dodds has a conflict of interest and said she's hurting her constituents by not voting.
"I don't think you're being an effective member of the city council if you excuse yourself from making important decisions affecting the entire city," Varble said. "This is an issue the community feels strongly about."
And another:
Scott Hays, president of the CU Smokefree Alliance, which had lobbied hard for some form of smoking ban, expressed disappointment with the outcome.
"It looks to me like it was a sound rejection," Hays said. "We'll certainly go to Urbana, given that Champaign has done nothing. We hope Urbana will show more leadership than the city of Champaign.
"I think they made a very poor decision in terms of public health and hurt the image of Champaign as a positive, progressive community," he added.
And yet another:
But Scott Hays, president of the CU Smokefree Alliance, said the proposal doesn't protect public health and he doesn't support it.
"Nonsmoking sections don't work," he said. "The smoke disperses throughout the establishment. There's no way to separate a smoking and a nonsmoking section. The proposal does not protect public health and we would not be behind it. It makes very little change in existing law."
A more reasonable proposal, Hays argued, would be that any restaurant or tavern with a kitchen ought to be smoke-free. That would leave about 20 bars without kitchens to allow smoking.
"To me, that seems like the fairest proposal," Hays said.
And I haven't even mentioned all the public challenges of political retribution against those who fail to heed the demands of the CPPFT, including some issued against those who have voted with the CPPFT in the past. Nor have I mentioned the insults hurled at the Council, from accustions of conflicts-of-interest to charges of rank stupidity.
Notice any differences? Which approach do you think will be more successful?
