Monday, June 29, 2009
Smokin' Huffaker Flip-Flops on Smoking Ban
Posted by Brady Moore on Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM
The City of Eagle was well on it's way to becoming the first smoke-free city in Idaho, until last week, at least. Councilman Michael Huffaker put a stop to the city's Clean Indoor Air Ordinance when he changed his vote on June 23.
The ordinance would have prohibited smoking at all businesses with more than five employees, including standalone bars, and would limit where smokers could light up outside, within city limits.
At the June 9 City Council meeting the ordinance was read for the first time and passed with a vote of 3 to 2. It seemed as if residents could soon breathe fresh air in Eagle. There were few objections to the ordinance except for a sprinkling of residents who were concerned about over-regulation.
Huffaker joined the skeptics last week when he changed his vote in opposition to the ordinance saying that possible detriments to the City of Eagle outweighed the benefits to the city. Huffaker cited a study that claims that if bar rats can't smoke in their favorite bar in Eagle they will drive to neighboring cities to get their fix and then drive home drunk.
In a statement to the citizens of Eagle, Huffaker says, "I came to the Council meeting on June 23rd fully prepared to vote the same as I did on June 9th, but after listening to all the arguments again both for and against the ordinance, I felt myself being persuaded that although the intent and purpose of Ordinance 622 was good, that passing this particular ordinance was not the best way to accomplish that purpose ... It was a very difficult decision to make but I felt I had to vote my conscience and for what I thought would be in the best interest of the city as a whole."
Eagle City Council hasn't quite stopped fighting for clean air just yet, though the ordinance has been tabled. They plan to send a resolution letter to the Idaho Legislature to encourage a statewide ban.
Showing 1-10 of 10
why are so many politicians afraid to make positive change. they need to question the morality of their clean air policies.
What an idiot. He picks up some extremely dubious "study" off the internet, and with no investigation whatsoever, swallows it whole. So stupid. And not the way science works at all.
IMBECILE!
Vote him out.
These smoking bans will probably go down in history as one of the greatest marketing scams ever by using tax exempt political action committees calling themselves "charities". They want to "hurry up and pass the bans" before people find out who is paying the lobbyists pushing for them by using our tax money.
Here's the beginning of the ban movement in the USA.
www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=1491…
Here are the instructions from Johnson and Johnsons' (makers of cessation products) RWJ Foundation for their tax exempt political action committees. They are getting enough money from the RWJ Foundation, plus using MY tax money. They aren't getting any more money from me.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
Why do they keep trying to legislate morality? It never works.
Thank you, generalsn, for your ridiculous boilerplate, with which you spam every message board in the country.
Go ahead, Google this guy.
And how much money would the State of Idaho lose due to lack of tax money paid for cigarette sales?
So, what programs would be hurt by that lack of funding?
That federal money goes to more than just smokers.
So, what would be massivley taxed to make up for that monetary lack?
Why is everyone allowing the government to run our lives more and more everyday. Its getting ridiculous! Isn't this the LAND OF THE FREE!!! I think all smokers should switch to the alternative then they can smoke wherever they wish.
www.Crown7.com
Smoking bans are not local issues. They are instigated by professions lobbyists traveling the country.
oops, "professional"
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
It's my understanding that professional lobbyists are the only ones who have representation in this country... and more's the pity. Both sides have their lobbyists, and both sets of lobbyists have their pocket legislators.
Comments (10) RSS