Observation Paper on the Debate of Lexington County Council toward the Pending Senate Bill Proposal of Senator Ernie Harris

Observation Paper on the Debate of Lexington County Council toward the Pending Senate Bill Proposal of Senator Ernie Harris

 

Introduction

Before the Civil War, Lexington’s major crop was hemp, which was used in making ropes for the riggings of ships. However, after the Civil War, most farmers switch to tobacco, thus making it the new major crop of the county. Before long Lexington, also called the “Heart of the Bluegrass” and the “Horse Capital of the World”, came to be known as the largest loose-leaf tobacco market in the world. (Key to the City, 2004) However, this may soon change, depending on the outcome of the heated debate between the issue of ordinance on smoking in the county, which was approved last July 2003 and is still to be enacted, and the proposed bill in the Senate, which threatens to discontinue allocation of tobacco settlement in local governments, such as Lexington, that poses a no-smoking ordinance.  

 

The Issue

In the year 2003, the county government of Lexington approved an ordinance prohibiting smoking in all indoor places open to the public and all places where general public is admitted. (Yuen, 2003)  This move had drawn a lot of adverse reactions and criticisms, mostly from some business establishments and smokers. This was mainly because Fayette County (Lexington) is known to be as one of the major tobacco producers and selling stations in America, and also tops the nation in smoking rates. (Yuen, 2003) Now, an even bigger threat faces the smoking ban, and this threat comes from the Senate. A pending state Senate bill proposal is being endorsed by Senator Ernie Harris, the chairman of Senate agriculture committee, which says that local governments who will impose a smoking ban, like Kentucky, will forfeit their claim of the national tobacco settlement. (Biesk, 2004) If this happens, Lexington’s farmers will be negatively affected since settlement money set aside for agricultural development — from cattle handling to genetics improvement — would be discontinued. (Yuen, 2004) Gene McLean, an anti-ban lobbyist, and Vice-Mayor Mike Scanlon, plead the Senate agriculture committee not to punish Lexington farmers because they are “doing their jobs” of protecting their citizens’ health, and to be fair on counties and cities that go smoke-free. (Biesk, 2004)

 

Observations

It was a good thing a general assembly was held to discuss the smoking ban on Lexington and Senator Ernie Harris’ proposed bill that will greatly affect the citizens on Lexington. This may implicate that there is an effort to produce legislation that will benefit all the parties concerned in the issue.

Senator Harris has a point when he said: “You can’t partially swallow a pill. You’re going to have to swallow the whole thing. If you want the benefits that you perceive as coming from banning smoking, then the benefits that you receive from Phase I tobacco money need to go elsewhere.” (Biesk, 2004) In other words, perhaps the state senator must be suggesting that to solve the problem of smoking in Lexington totally, the roots must be targeted; meaning the production of tobacco must be stopped. If this is the real motive of the senator, then he must make an effort to explain this clearly to the other party and make his intentions clear. In addition, the reason why Senator Harris’ bill is suspect is because he is the chairman of the Senate agricultural committee, and of course, the senator must have doubts that the smoking ban in Lexington will affect the production of tobacco in the county, then eventually, Lexington will stop producing tobacco, which will in turn affect the US economy, because tobacco generates a lot of money for the US economy. The bill which he proposes will serve as a threat for Lexington officials to discontinue the no-smoking ordinance, and therefore, tobacco money will be safe. I hope the latter is not the real reason for the proposal of the bill. Because if it is, it will only prove what Senator Harris’ critics are saying: that he is attempting to blackmail Lexington county council just to protect tobacco money. (Lexington Herald-Leader Editorial Staff, 2004)

On the other hand, Lexington Council’s adverse reactions towards this proposed bill is justifiable. If this bill will be approved, Lexington’s economy will suffer, most especially the farmers who earn their living from planting tobacco. It will result to unemployment or worse, it will bring financial crisis to America’s largest producer of tobacco. As a resident of Lexington, I will personally do not want such things to happen.

The Urban County Council’s intentions are good: they want to protect their citizens’ health. Especially in a city known to be the city in the United States which has the highest percentage of adult smokers. (BBC News, 2004) The ordinance on smoking is a good start in helping alleviate the problems of smoking in Fayette County. However, for the smoking ordinance to push through without further protests, then they should make an effort to explain clearly ALL the aspects of the ordinance to the ordinance’s detractors: the reason for the ordinance, the benefits that will come from the ordinance, how the ordinance will be implemented, what changes will be implemented, etc. When I say all, I mean ALL. This way, not only will the County Council ‘eliminate’ the detractors of the no-smoking ordinance, but may generate support from them instead.

 

References:

 

BBC News. (2004). Smoking ban divides US tobacco state. In BBC News        Americas. Available at: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3049494.stm].             Accessed: [20/01/04].

 

Biesk, Joe. (2004). Smoking bans face new threat in Senate. In Lexington         Herald-Leader, January 13, 2004. Lexington: Knight Ridder Inc.

 

Key to the City. (2004). Lexington Kentucky Resource Guide. In Key to the City.         Available at:             [http://www.pe.net/~rksnow/kycountylexington.htm].         Accessed:    [20/01/04].

 

Lexington Herald-Leader Editorial staff. (2004). Pro-smoking twist. In   Lexington       Herald-Leader, January 13, 2004. Lexington: Knight Ridder Inc.

 

Yuen, Laura. (2003). Smoking Ordinance Q&A. In Lexington Herald-Leader,      September 28, 2003. Lexington: Knight Ridder Inc.

 

Yuen, Laura. (2004). Restaurateur: Business Hasn’t Suffered. In Lexington      Herald-Leader, January 16, 2004. Lexington, Knight Ridder Inc.

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com