Eichhorn: Champion of Iowa's Smokers
Nathan Greene
5 Comments
By Emily Geiger
I guess if you can't represent Iowa, the next best thing is representing Iowa's smokers.
It appears that former U.S. Senate candidate George Eichhorn, who lost the GOP primary by a narrow margin to Christopher Reed, has found a new pass time with which to occupy his time.
He’s suing the state on behalf of bar owners to challenge the smoking ban. Eichhorn (who is a picture of health) and his clients want a judge to issue an injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the smoking ban until the courts have an opportunity to rule on the merits of their case.
While I agree that there is a problem in the fairness of applying this to basically everyone but casinos, I really think that’s the only part of this law that the legislature messed up from a legal standpoint. With that provision they are not treating everyone equally. There had been rumors that this group would hire former Gov. Tom Vilsack to represent them, but apparently, he only thought he could challenge the casino exemption, not the whole law, so the group decided not to go with him.
My understanding is that states have the right to pass laws regulating the people’s conduct, especially people’s public conduct that affects others, so long as they do it in a fair manner that is equally applicable to everyone. Take away the casino exemption, and that’s pretty much what was done.
If bar owners and their smoking patrons don’t like it, they should lobby the legislature to pass a different law. The problem is that 80% of Iowans don’t smoke, so it’s going to be pretty hard to convince legislators to cater to the other 20% because they risk pissing off the 80%, who very soon will soon discover that dining out and going for drinks just became infinitely more pleasant.
Eichhorn & Co. don’t want to give people a chance to get used to this new pleasant experience because people might just figure out that they don’t miss smoking that much after all.
I find this all pretty ironic because it’s usually liberals who go to the courts to challenge valid laws and practices in an effort to try to impose a minority viewpoint on the majority (think of the various lawsuits challenging the mention of God or Christianity anywhere in the public sphere, or the courts overtuning gay marriage prohibitions).
I’m highly disappointed in Eichhorn for taking up this loser, I mean, losing cause.
Reader Comments (5)
Actually, this is a different group than the one that was courting Vilsack. And from what I've heard from them, they are still going to go down that track as well; the other group is going to or has hired Vilsack and they are going to fight the casino exemption. There are legislators who have actually told these people that they wrote the law this way on purpose; so that they could cater to the casinos and look good; and then when the lawsuits come and overturn the exemption; the legislators come out smelling like roses.... how's that for Iowa political strategy????
80% of Iowans don't smoke huh, what poll did you get that from. Most people lie about smoking anymore because of the huff they receive. The restaurant and bars we frequent, there are certainly alot of smokers in them. Esecially the bars rather it's in the city ir small towns.
But about the smoking ban and what it has taken away from bar owners and patrons, it's called freedom. Went and had a drink tonight and the bartender said most of the smokers came in had a drink and left. Eating a home they said. Revenues are definately going to go down. Hopefuly you non-smokers can pickup the pace to keep all business afloat. As the one newscast I seen somebody with the health dept. said we non-smokers have a right to go a healthy bar. Must be an excersize bar. And some guy telling people to thank the bar & restaurant owners for going non-smoking, duh idiot they didn't have a choice. That brought a chuckle to most in the office.
I think the big cities might be ok, but the new law is going to hurt the small town bar/restaurants.
You people go on about non-smokers rights, what about smokers rights. They definately pay more in taxes each time a pack of cigarettes are bought. Does anyone think of that? When I turned 21 even my father didn't tell me what was good or not good for me anymore. The government just keeps taking our freedom away from us. And that's what all people should be concerned about.
Razzle,
Perhaps you can show us some polling evidence that supports your claim that revenue will go down considering that has not yet happened anywhere else where a smoking ban has gone into effect. In fact the overwhelming numbers of patrons who do not frequent restuarants and/or bars because of the unhealthy atmosphere (especially for families) tend to resurface when the threat of second hand smoke is eliminated.
But don't let the facts get in your way of a psuedo libertarian stump speech.
Please continue.
There was a meeting tonight of bar/restaurant owners and according to all revenues are down considerably. Like was said before, the cities may fare well, but your small towns will not. With the small towns it's usually combination bar restaurant. The choice should be left up to the owners of what they want, remember freedom. Told them about this web site and the comments here hopefully they will log on to here and let the game begin.
As for your comment no rakish lies, just reading and observing. Do you own a bar or restaurant? Sit back and see how you would feel if some bureaucracy is telling you how to run your business, what you can and can't do. What has happened to the freedom of choice. I am a former smoker, but when I go into a smoking place I know that smoking is allowed, but it's my choice to do so. There is no smoking allowed in my house, but my house, my choice. I feel that choice should stay with the owner.
Mr. Greene - I find your comments distasteful and ignorant as you write "(who is a picture of health)." It shows a lack of judgement which is also reflected in your argument for heavy handed government knows best laws and regulations.