Who Is Higgenbottom?
?
To:The Smokers Club, Inc.
Sender’s Name: Brett Glass
Sender’s Email: http://www.brettglass.com/mailbrett.html
Date:? December 31, 2005
Message: At (this page)
you write:
“He has heard the sissy-voiced person is Brett Glass.? (As you probably know, one of the most outspoken of our Antis here and the idiot who filed a grievance against Joe.)”
This is Brett Glass. I was just referred to your site from someone who spotted the quote above.
I have never called you. The person who called was not me but Dr. Klaus Hanson, a University professor and a member of the Laramie City Council. He saw your letter and was attempting to verify whether it was truly input from a real person with a legitimate gripe.
You may want to correct your Web site to reflect this.
***************************
Editor’s note:? No one from your area has called the Newsletter, please read this article again.? The lovely young lady who attended the dog show has been a friend of mine for over ten years.? She is?very real.? The gentleman who responded with additional information on this issue?is a Newsletter reader, and?a local resident who attends your meetings.
Higgenbottom is found!? His name is Joe Hageman and he is on the City Council in Laramie!
Our source reported that,?”Joe Hageman found out about your Higgenbottem article.? His “other name” as he puts it.??Joe also was labeled “Hage-nazi” by the Antis.??He?has heard?the sissy-voiced person is Brett Glass.? (As you probably know, one of the most outspoken of our Antis here?and the idiot who filed a grievance against Joe.)? I actually wonder, looking at the times?between your reader’s?email to council and sissy-man’s phone call; which council member is feeding the Antis this info so quickly… problem is…all are seated until 2007!”??
Mr. Hageman’s emails with the Council are below.
Dear Newsletter Readers,
This one I just had to tell you!? We went to Laramie WY for a dog show Sunday and Monday.? We went up Saturday night, and then spent Saturday and Sunday nights in the perfect example of why there are so few Howard Johnson’s left…..? Of course, Laramie also has a smoking ban, our first foray into “smoking-ban land” since we got caught in California at the start of theirs.
?
At 11:54 a.m. today I sent the following message with a copy to the Cheyenne City Council:
Dear Laramie Council:
We just spent Memorial Day weekend at the dog show in Laramie.? It was a very miserable stay, largely because of your smoking ban, and we won’t be back under current conditions.? When we got back to town, we asked friends why they didn’t go to the dog show also, but they said there was no smoking in Laramie, in spite of it being Wyoming, and they wouldn’t go there.?
At not one restaurant did we see other smokers standing out in the wind and the cold.? This would tell me your own residents go elsewhere when they go out.? How odd to find a little chunk of California in Wyoming where people have always been free.
I certainly hope the other Wyoming places we regularly visit, like Cheyenne, don’t get sucked into the anti-smoking lies and make a ban like you did.? We won’t go there, either, if they do.
I signed with just my name and city.?
At 12:06 p.m. my phone rang!? A sissy-male-type voice asked if?I lived here and if I had just sent an email message to Laramie.?
He wanted to know why I sent the message, so I told him we had just spent a very miserable time and wanted the City Council to know why we wouldn’t be back.?
Then he asked me who asked me to write the message!!!? Uhhh…? Nobody?? So I repeated what I had already told him.? He said somebody named Higgenbottom (sp?) was trying to rewrite their law, and hadn’t he asked me to send the message?? I said I didn’t know anyone by that name, but, BTW, who was he??
He muttered something like, “Thanks for your time,” and hung up!
?
Whoever Higgenbottom is, I think I just gave him a boost…..
**************
6/3/05:? Response from? Jeanne Armintrout,? council person:
I am sorry to hear that your visit to the dog show was an unhappy one because of the smoking ban. I was not on Council when the ban was passed and I do not support the decision of the prior Council. I hope that emails such as yours will encourage the Council to reconsider their decision. Thank you for contacting us with your thoughts.
From: Joe Hageman [mailto:ajoehageman@wyoming.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:57 PM
To: City Council; rwaggener@ci.laramie.wy.us
Subject: Smoking Ordinance
Fellow Councilors:
??????????? As many of you know, I have spoken to individual council members since I had previously emailed a draft of the amendment to the smoking ordinance to all of you.? After considering the comments of other Councilors, as well as individuals in the public who have been in contact with me, it has become quite apparent that the hardship exemption I had previously considered for all businesses would be far too difficult and expensive to administer for our staff and was to subject to those who might “cook their books”.? You will note from the attached amended ordinance that there would now be three potential places which would not be covered by the City’s smoking ban.? These places would have to be adequately ventilated to keep any second hand smoke from reaching other places and would not be difficult and time consuming for City staff.
??????????? It seems reasonable to me, to allow patients who are hospitalized and who are allowed to smoke under the order of their treating physician as they come to the end of their days to be exempted from the ordinance.? Traditionally, those who stood before the firing squad were asked if they would like a last cigarette.? I believe that it is reasonable for the City Council to allow a patient and his or her physician to make that determination.
??????????? Within private clubs, where the members pay their dues in order to be able to enter and where the employees must also pay to be members before they can be employed, it makes sense for that club to be capable of expending its funds to provide an adequately ventilated area which is separated from the remainder where those members who choose to smoke may go.? No persons under 21 could be within this area so children are not at risk of second-hand smoke.
??????????? Bars and taverns, which choose to expend their own funds to create separate and ventilated areas can do so at their own expense and, of course, no one under 21 (and therefore no children) would be exposed to any smoke within those areas.? Those entering the area would know and choose their risks. Businesses would be able to determine whether they wish to expend money to have some portion of the free market niche available to them as a result of their own expenditure without creating an issue for our staff as to determining whether the actual economic detriments were sufficient to allow it.? With less smoking in the streets, litter will be reduced downtown.? Since the hardship exception is not included, there would be no smoking-area restaurants within the city.? For those who might care, I receive no direct personal benefit as the semi-public areas of my office will remain covered by the ban if you join me in what I consider a common-sense alternative that previously was not presented to Council.? I am aware that some consideration was given to exempting private clubs but the playing field of competition with bars would have been slanted.? I do not believe that a level field for bars and clubs with separated ventilated areas was brought before the Council in last year’s fray.? As I view the Amendment, it would make the cost of enforcement drop through fewer complaints to be investigated, allows the market to control whether drinking establishments can afford places for smoker’s while passing the cost to the smokers and takes smoking back out of the street and away from children and youth.? At least to me, the question is not “why make these changes” but instead “why not”.
Sincerely,
A. Joe Hageman
From: Eagle Rock Pottery [mailto:eaglerockpottery@wyoming.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:28 PM
To: ‘Joe Hageman’; ‘City Council’; rwaggener@ci.laramie.wy.us
Subject: RE: Smoking Ordinance
Joe,
Although I certainly respect your tenacity in continuing to address this issue, I can not vote to authorize any amendment to the original ordinance that was enacted at the will of the voters.? I defeated a long time and very popular incumbent and I would like to believe that at least part of the reason was that I favored the smoking ordinance.? My campaign was based on the ordinance in its original state and I will not sway from that stance.
There should be some enlightening and spirited discussion on Tuesday night!
Dave
From: Joe Hageman [mailto:ajoehageman@wyoming.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 5:55 PM
To: ‘Eagle Rock Pottery’; ‘City Council’; rwaggener@ci.laramie.wy.us
Subject: RE: Smoking Ordinance
I truly appreciate your forthrightness. With all due respect, please consider my analysis? of the enactment and the election. The ordinance was enacted by council? and not the voters because our manager/council form of government doesn’t permit initiatives by the voters. I was very close to this issue and I believe that the referendum petition would never have been signed by 10% of the registered voters if it had contained the exceptions in this amendment. I? believe that the divisiveness that grew quickly affected the potential compromise that may have otherwise have occurred and that the anti-council sentiment that was generated contributed to some degree to the defeat of every incumbent. I do not believe that there was a plank in your campaign platform(or anyone else’s) that you did not wish to see a terminally ill person be allowed a last smoke with the blessing of his or her physician.
Those who recall last August and September will recall that I did not oppose smoking bans in? many places but often said this went too far. In 1986 when the old ordinance was passed there was nowhere near the uproar and it backed people who chose to have smoke-free environments better. I think it is obvious to all that I would personally prefer to have many more places exempted than would be by this amendment but this is an attempt to create exemptions that fall within the protective spirit of 1650 while providing viable and reasonable alternatives. I continue to cling to the notion that voters can and do appreciate reasoned consideration and a logical basis for the decisions made by their elected officials even when the result of that consideration results in a change from a previously stated view. I respectfully request that you consider the amendment upon its own merit.
?
(c) Copyright 2005 The Smoker’s Club, Inc. Please repost with link back to this original article.
