The following letters are real. They were not altered in any way-except that I removed the name of the sender. I simply copied them from my email inbox to this post. I'll make a few comments after the letters...
6-20-06 e-mail:
Dear City Council Member,
I commend the City Council for its commitment to community well-being. However, I believe that to implement a smoking ban without grandfathering provisions is misguided and would have a very negative impact on the community, most particularly the elderly.
When implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, one of the most important pieces of social legislation of our time, the federal government took the precaution of grandfathering in all existing businesses. This provided the social stability and continuity to allow communities to adjust gradually and created a win/win situation for all concerned. For the good of the entire community, I urge you to follow this precedent and the wisdom on which it was based.
From my years of social work in geriatrics and Public Health, I can assure you that there are many much more serious health problems than second hand tobacco smoke. One of these is social isolation. Another is alienation. Likewise, profound depression and disorientation can result when social change comes too quickly. While these and other problems could be talked about in conjunction with many populations and many issues, my immediate concern is with the elderly and the potential negative impact of a ban without grandfathering provisions on their ability to live independently.
The small restaurants in our community like Taffies, Sam's Café, Sammy's, and Carmen's are a godsend for the elderly. They provide a major, sometimes the only, source of nutrition and social interaction for the senior citizens that frequent them. Often the act of getting to and from their favorite restaurant is the only form of exercise, the only activity that our senior citizens engage in outside the home. If any of these restaurants were to close their doors as the result of a smoking ban, it would have a very negative impact on the quality of their lives and effect the ability of many to continue to live independently
Most of the local restaurants were not informed of the anti-ban petition drive. If they had been, the number of signatures would have been greater. I dropped a few copies of the petition off at Taffee's at noon the day before the Urbana City Council meeting. By 6 PM the next evening, more than 80 signatures were collected. Many of these were elderly. Many of these were non-smokers. I believe that if the public was aware of how these businesses and their patrons would suffer as a result of the ban, it would be universally in favor of grandfathering provisions.
For the sake of the senior citizens of this community, I urge you to grandfather in all existing restaurants and bars.
Sincerely, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CEBS, MSW
7-11-06 e-mail:
I wanted to express some further concerns about the processes that went on with regard to the smoking ban. There are three major areas that I feel are of concern.
The first concerns the rights of self-determination and how and why comprising the rights of self-determination of the small businesses will in the end undermine the freedoms, liberties, and rights of all American. If you would like to explore the reasons that I know this to be true, I would be glad to elaborate.
The second concerns the Smoke Free Alliance and their panels of paid lobbyists for big business medicine. In October, they were in the City Council actually threatening the council members. Why was this issue even brought up again in less than a years time? And why were not only votes changed, but entire ethical positions on the concept of conflict of interest?
The medical industry is a very powerful and prestigious lobby, but usually when the public acts on its advice, we do not see the benefits that are promised and, in fact, conditions, medical and otherwise, often get worse. For one small example, the cost of medical care has not become more affordable as the result of HMOs as was promised. Medical care is now less available, not more. The same is true for the health benefits of other policies that they have lobbied for. Is this an issue that the council will be discussing this evening? Is this an issue that you would like more information about?
People are saying that the Smoke Free Alliance is not a grass roots effort but a group of unsuspecting pawns being used by the pharmaceutical industry. The allegation is that their ads were paid for by a branch of the Cancer Society funded by a foundation that is in turn funded by a leader in pharmaceuticals. Is this true?
I have tried to get more people involved in advocating for themselves with regard to the smoking ban. As one waiter put it, "They don't care what I have to say. They only care about themselves." Is this true?
As a citizens and taxpayer in this county, I have further concerns. Would anyone like to hear them? Some are health related, some are economic, some are related to concerns about liberty, self-determination, and the democratic process.
Is there anyone on the city council interested in these concerns? Does anyone feel that they are worth discussing further?
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CEBS, MSW
Regarding second hand smoke, the Surgeon General has deemed it to be quite a serious health hazard. You may read the report or a future Fact or Fiction column about it.
Here are a few questions to ponder. Wouldn't the "health lobby" want you to smoke so that you eventually needed more healthcare? Similarly, wouldn't the pharmaceutical lobby want you smoke so that they could sell you drugs when you get sick or in order to quiit?
I suppose the insurance lobby would want people to quit smoking or avoid second hand smoke to keep their costs down. But, wouldn't they only want this if and because they thought that avoiding smoke would actually have a positive effect on people's health?
