Madison Update
 |
January 29, 2007 Channel 31 Madison, Alabama Interview with Pat Glass. |
City may decide on smoking ban early next year
December 27, 2006
THOMAS R. TINGLE
THOMAS R. TINGLE
Businesses would have three options to choose from
After hearing the pros and cons of a proposed Clean Air Ordinance for the city of Madison, it’s up to city leaders to decide if such a law will work and how soon they will need to put it into effect.
The Madison City Council could make a final decision on the ordinance as early as January.
A public hearing was held Dec. 11 to continue the discussion of the ordinance and its terms with representatives from the American Cancer Society and an attorney hired by those who disagree with the ordinance present.
Three options
If the council passes the ordinance in January, business owners will then get the opportunity to choose one from three options, including allowing smoking altogether, but no one under the age of 19 would be allowed, completely ban smoking, or have smoking and non-smoking parts, only if they had separate rooms for each.
During the past six months, the council has given residents the opportunity to voice their opinions on the issue while fine tuning the terms and conditions of the ordinance with the legal expertise of City Attorney Anne-Marie Lacy. The Clean Air Ordinance was first introduced by Councilwoman Cynthia McCollum in June. Since then, there have been several public hearings at City Hall.
McCollum said the idea of introducing the ordinance in Madison came shortly after the city of Huntsville enacted its ordinance last year.
Most favor ban
McCollum said the main reason for the proposed ordinance came as residents began asking the city council to take action, primarily because of their smoke-free dining experiences in Huntsville. A poll recently conducted by the ACS showed that 96 percent of those questioned stated that second-hand smoke is a health hazard and 74 percent stated they would be in favor of the Clean Air Ordinance.
“This effort is driven by health concerns that I stated in my original statements at the June 12th meeting and complaints from our constituents,” McCollum said.
McCollum said other cities and communities across the country that have enacted a Clean Air Ordinance vary in size.
“Many areas that do not have statewide bans still have bans on a city-by-city basis,” McCollum said, “and 39 percent of U.S. citizens live in areas that are covered by statewide or local laws limiting smoking, according to Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights.”
Smoking ban foes in Madison suggest changes before vote
December 25, 2006
WENDY REEVES
December 25, 2006
WENDY REEVES
Mayor, council leader disagree on age requirement
MADISON – The Madison City Council plans to vote on its proposed Clean Indoor Air Ordinance in January, following seven months of informational presentations and debate on the issue.
Opponents of the proposed smoking ban presented some suggested changes for the ordinance at last Monday night’s council meeting.
The ordinance is designed to regulate public smoking throughout the city.
Lawyer Mike Seibert, retained by Madison residents Margaret Daly and Pat Glass, asked for changes in the distance that smokers must be from a business entrance. He said 5 feet seems more reasonable than 20 feet. He also suggested that a requirement be added for business owners to provide a receptacle for cigarette butts in the smoking area.
In addition, Seibert said requiring hotels to designate only 20 percent of their rooms to smoking seemed unfair. He suggested that hotels be allowed to designate specific floors as smoking or nonsmoking.
At Monday night’s meeting, Daly thanked the council for listening, after saying in an earlier public hearing that she was disappointed because she didn’t feel like the council was listening to her concerns.
“I really want to thank you for listening to all the public comments, and I hope it will be written to include all of them and protect all citizens’ rights,” Daly said.
But Daly and other smokers are not the only ones with concerns.
Mayor Sandy Kirkindall suggested for the second time that the council consider changing the legal smoking age from 19 to 17 because of soldiers who may want to eat or play pool at a smoking establishment.
Council President Tommy Overcash said taking out the age requirement would defeat the purpose of the ordinance.
“That’s the only driving force behind it,” Overcash said.
“If we put a basic age restriction, then each establishment must declare whether they are smoking or nonsmoking and post it, or if they want they can include an enclosed smoking area,” Kirkindall said. “What I don’t want to get into is forcing a restaurant to card people, like an 18-year-old private from Redstone who wants to shoot pool at The Station but, because of this ordinance, they have to tell that private, ‘Sorry, you can’t do that.’ ”
Janet Craig, with the Partnership for a Drug Free Community, said since the legal age to buy tobacco products in Alabama is 19, the age limit for smoking should remain at 19.
She also asked the council to make the ordinance apply to all businesses.
“Anyone who wants to smoke, that’s their business,” Craig said. “I’m just asking you to protect the employees and those who enter those establishments, and I’m asking you to take a stand and be what you are elected to do as officials.”
In case any of you have not heard, the “public hearing” on the ban all smoking in Madison Ordinance is next Monday, 11 December. That over funded propaganda machine, the Cancer Society, has pulled out all the stops even funding a large push poll in order to put this piece of prohibitionist legislation into effect. Please forward this to anyone who you may think is interested in freedom to come speak in freedom’s favor.
Update on Madison smoking ban proposal
Nov 14, 2006
Madison City leaders are moving forward with plans for a new smoking ordinance.
The first reading of the latest revised ordinance will be held at Monday night’s City Council meeting.
A vote is not planned.
If approved, it would require business owners to designate the facility smoking or non-smoking.
A smoke-free designation would outlaw smoking throughout the business.
A smoking designation would allow customers to smoke but would prohibit employees or customers under the age of 19 on the premises.
That’s basically the same ordinance passed last year by Huntsville.
Smoke ban unconstitutional, woman says
November 14, 2006
WENDY REEVES
WENDY REEVES
MADISON – Margaret Daly told the Madison City Council Monday night that if it approves an ordinance banning smoking in public places it will be a violation of the Constitution.
Daly, of Marion Drive, said the law would be a constitutional violation “because it’s not necessary.”
Daly claimed she conducted a poll of 78 restaurants in Madison and found that 69 already have a no-smoking policy. The other nine had a smoking section. She said, since the majority of restaurants already have a policy in place, it’s not necessary for the city to pass an ordinance.
Daly was among residents and non-residents who showed up for the meeting when the proposed Clean Air Ordinance was up for its first reading.
The council scheduled a public hearing on the ordinance for the Dec. 11 council meeting.
If approved by the council, the ordinance will require business owners to either outlaw smoking throughout their premises or allow smoking but not allow employees or customers under age 19 on the premises.
The proposed ordinance is similar to the ordinance passed by the Huntsville City Council in September 2005.
Mayor Sandy Kirkindall suggested the council consider changing the age to 17 because “if a 17-year-old can join the Army and can vote at 18, he or she can choose to work in an establishment that allows smoking.”
Other residents still took the opportunity Monday night to speak about their right to smoke, their right not to breathe secondhand smoke and their right not to have their civil liberties violated.
Four members of the Partnership for a Drug Free Community’s Youth Empowerment Program presented facts and figures to the council about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Kareem Elsamadicy, a sophomore at Columbia High School, said the group has collected more than 700 signatures from residents who support the smoking ban. He said 16 people opposed it.
Nick Holland, a non-smoker of Madison, said he’s opposed to the ordinance “because it imposes on my civil liberties and while I can’t vote on it, I can vote at the ballot box in the next election.”
Ban on smoking may offer a choice
November 02, 2006
STEVE CAMPBELL
STEVE CAMPBELL
MADISON – City council members Wednesday night settled on language in a proposed citywide smoking ban that would give businesses a choice.
If a business – most likely a restaurant or bar – decides it will allow smoking, all employees must be at least 19 years old. Otherwise, it must not allow smoking. That provision is similar to one in Huntsville’s smoking ban.
The council discussed holding a public hearing on the proposal but didn’t set a date.
The compromise came after tense debate between the proposal’s supporters and the biggest opponents on the council, Larry Vannoy and Tim Cowles.
Cowles said a ban could hurt business. He said restaurants and bars should have a choice to allow or ban smoking.
He said a smoking ban could lead to other government interference on business, such as outlawing fatty foods.
Cowles suggested that supporters of the ban are discriminating against a minority of people who want to smoke in bars and restaurants.
“Some people are willing to discriminate against minorities, and I’m not,” Cowles said.
Councilwoman Cynthia McCollum, the proposal’s initial sponsor, said a ban would protect patrons from the dangers of second-hand smoke.
McCollum and Councilman Steve Haraway said they have received several e-mails from business owners and residents urging them to approve a ban.
Haraway pointed to Huntsville’s smoking ban and argued that a ban would boost business.
Vannoy and Cowles said they have received e-mails from opponents, including a few restaurant and bar managers.
McCollum wondered aloud why opponents haven’t lobbied council members who support the ban. “Why are they sending e-mails to just the two of you?” McCollum asked.
Haraway said non-smoking patrons in restaurants shouldn’t have to breathe smoke from bar areas. He cites the configuration of several restaurants that have salad bars and other non-smoking areas too close to smokers.
“You can’t even go to the salad bar without breathing somebody’s smoke,” Haraway said, referring to one Madison restaurant.
Vannoy’s arguments centered on the complexities of a ban. He questioned how such a ban would be regulated and how fines would be administered.
He joined Cowles in questioning Haraway’s assertion that a ban would boost business.
Council President Tommy Overcash said the majority of the seven-member council wants some kind of smoking ban and will likely pass a version of it.
I’ve just learned that this Hearing is now set for Nov. 1st and not Nov. 2nd. It has been changed. Gee, if they change it around often enough some of us might miss it!
– A Newsletter Reader
– A Newsletter Reader
Council meets Nov. 2 to revise smoking ordinance
October 20, 2006
Tracy B. Cieniewicz, Madison Record
The definition of a total smoking ban in Madison could be changing soon.
The Madison City Council will meet Thursday, Nov. 2, at 6 p.m. for a work session to discuss possible changes and revisions to its proposed smoking ordinance.
Read More
Convenient Omission
I was the fourth opposition panelist not mentioned in the Times article below. Obviously the Times supports the ban, fair enough, but why not tell the whole story? You be the judge. I presented this info to the audience and answered a number of questions as well as providing the Forces web address. The Madison proposal is for 100% smoke free.
I was the fourth opposition panelist not mentioned in the Times article below. Obviously the Times supports the ban, fair enough, but why not tell the whole story? You be the judge. I presented this info to the audience and answered a number of questions as well as providing the Forces web address. The Madison proposal is for 100% smoke free.
Roger Swafford
Forces Alabama
Madison debates banning smoking
Panel discusses merits of planned ordinance
Forces Alabama
Madison debates banning smoking
Panel discusses merits of planned ordinance
MADISON – About 30 Madison residents filed into city hall Wednesday night for a Madison City Council work session to hear a balanced debate on the city’s proposed ordinance to ban smoking in all work and public places.
Half of the eight-person panel supported the ordinance, stressing health risks to others by second-hand smoke and non-smokers’ rights.
The four opponents questioned widely accepted medical research declaring smoke unsafe.
There was even a reference to “Mein Kampf,” the autobiography of Adolf Hitler.
One opponent of the proposal, Chris McCalla, a representative of the Retail Tobacco Dealers of America, said an ordinance could spur legislation that could creep too deeply into peoples’ lives.
We could one day be “swallowing food pills and walking around in gray jump suits,” McCalla said.
Councilman Tim Cowles said the ordinance shouldn’t be supported because it violates a person’s choice to smoke and a business owner’s right to allow it.
In addition to denouncing medical research that determines smoke unsafe, Cowles said campaigns to ban smoking are becoming more popular because it unfairly appeals to the health of children.
“If you can convince people you’re doing it for the children, you can take all kinds of liberties away,” he said. “It was even observed in ‘Mein Kampf.’ “
(In “Mein Kampf,” Hitler wrote “as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”)
Debbie Davis, representing the American Cancer Society, said health risks associated with second-hand smoke necessitate passing the ordinance.
“We know for a fact, without a shadow of a doubt, that second-hand smoke kills people,” Davis said. “It’s not just a nuisance, it kills people.”
She said her organization does not seek to regulate human life to the extreme by lobbying against fatty foods.
“These things do not kill other people when one person uses them,” Davis said.
Davis said people are not allowed to work in buildings with other health hazards such as asbestos, so the same should apply to tobacco smoke.
Danny Cartwright, a doctor at Cornerstone Pediatrics, said the city should pass the ordinance to protect children from smoke.
“Madison has always looked out for the children of the community,” Cartwright said. “It’s very progressive.”
Cartwright said he’s seen too many children suffer health problems from their parents smoking around them. He also rebuked the panelists who dismissed medical research that comes out against tobacco smoke.
“This ain’t ‘Mein Kampf’ talking here,” he said. “This is a pediatrician that takes care of children and families every day.”
When the forum was opened for public comment, most residents came out against the proposal.
The council has not set a date to vote on the proposed ordinance, which was introduced June 12 by Councilwoman Cynthia McCollum.
Half of the eight-person panel supported the ordinance, stressing health risks to others by second-hand smoke and non-smokers’ rights.
The four opponents questioned widely accepted medical research declaring smoke unsafe.
There was even a reference to “Mein Kampf,” the autobiography of Adolf Hitler.
One opponent of the proposal, Chris McCalla, a representative of the Retail Tobacco Dealers of America, said an ordinance could spur legislation that could creep too deeply into peoples’ lives.
We could one day be “swallowing food pills and walking around in gray jump suits,” McCalla said.
Councilman Tim Cowles said the ordinance shouldn’t be supported because it violates a person’s choice to smoke and a business owner’s right to allow it.
In addition to denouncing medical research that determines smoke unsafe, Cowles said campaigns to ban smoking are becoming more popular because it unfairly appeals to the health of children.
“If you can convince people you’re doing it for the children, you can take all kinds of liberties away,” he said. “It was even observed in ‘Mein Kampf.’ “
(In “Mein Kampf,” Hitler wrote “as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”)
Debbie Davis, representing the American Cancer Society, said health risks associated with second-hand smoke necessitate passing the ordinance.
“We know for a fact, without a shadow of a doubt, that second-hand smoke kills people,” Davis said. “It’s not just a nuisance, it kills people.”
She said her organization does not seek to regulate human life to the extreme by lobbying against fatty foods.
“These things do not kill other people when one person uses them,” Davis said.
Davis said people are not allowed to work in buildings with other health hazards such as asbestos, so the same should apply to tobacco smoke.
Danny Cartwright, a doctor at Cornerstone Pediatrics, said the city should pass the ordinance to protect children from smoke.
“Madison has always looked out for the children of the community,” Cartwright said. “It’s very progressive.”
Cartwright said he’s seen too many children suffer health problems from their parents smoking around them. He also rebuked the panelists who dismissed medical research that comes out against tobacco smoke.
“This ain’t ‘Mein Kampf’ talking here,” he said. “This is a pediatrician that takes care of children and families every day.”
When the forum was opened for public comment, most residents came out against the proposal.
The council has not set a date to vote on the proposed ordinance, which was introduced June 12 by Councilwoman Cynthia McCollum.
On 8/27/06 – the 9/27 meeting has been moved to 10/4. Please change your schedule, thanks!
City to discuss smoking ban Sept. 27
August 17, 2006
Tracy B. Cieniewicz
Tracy B. Cieniewicz
Madison is one step closer to becoming a smoke-free city.
The city of Madison will hold the first work session on its proposed Clean Air Ordinance on Wednesday, Sept. 27, at 5:30 p.m. at the Municipal Complex in the council chambers.
Councilwomen Cynthia McCollumn requested the work session and is working with Councilman Steve Harraway, City Attorney Anne-Marie Lacey, and Council Aide Andrea Garrett to compose a panel of experts to speak at the meeting.
McCollum said representatives will likely include those from the American Cancer Society, Alabama Department of Public Health, Partnership for a Drug-Free Community, and members of the Madison business community.
“Hopefully this will educate all of us on the perils of smoking,” McCollum explained. “The panel will be all-inclusive to discuss how it effects each entity and person. People will be represented from all sides. That’s the only fair way to do it.”
The ordinance, which seeks to eliminate smoking in all workplaces and public places to make the city of Madison 100 percent smoke-free, was presented for its first reading at Monday night’s city council meeting.
McCollum assured the council that the Sept. 27 Clean Air Ordinance work session will be the first of many opportunities, including public hearings, for citizens and the business community to discuss the proposal.
“We have prided ourselves here in Madison on being fair, and you can rest assured that will happen,” McCollum said.
McCollum first introduced the idea for the Clean Air Ordinance in June.
City considers smoking ban
June 13, 2006
The battle against second-hand smoke is about to begin again.
The debate has moved into Madison, where city officials will soon start discussing a smoking ban.
While the first version of that city ordinance has yet to be written, initial plans would ban smoking in restaurants, all public buildings and most work environments.
Tentatively, that ban would also include areas around entrances and outside doorways as well.
Monday night, councilwoman Cynthia McCollum began those talks based upon what she calls high demand from those who live in Madison.
“A lot of people that are working in workplaces, they’re being exposed to the second hand smoke and it presents health problems for them down the road, particularly for young people that are working in restaurants and those kinds of things and they get the exposure,” McCollum says.
McCollum adds that she expects opposition so the council will take it’s time drawing up that ordinance. She says there’s no rush to get it done.
