OCR Text |
Show The National Enterprise, August 3, 1977 t Page twenty-seve- n Pragmatic Dogmatics j e Smokers strike back by Kent Shearer Several years ago, a Republican friend who should have known better urged me to run for public office. I declined, but he continued to insist. Finally, to put the prospect to rest once and for all, 1 told him, Look, 1 wont be a candidate because Id have to give up smoking in public. 1 was correct. Those smokers who have enjoyed any success in modem d?v Utah politics have had to go private. Cal Rampton and Laurence Burton come to mind. As if the Word of Wisdom were not enough, the United States Surgeon General cinched the matter by his determination that cigarette smoking is t J i . 5 - i dangerous to health. The Utah mood is reflected, no doubt accurately, by the Indoor Clean Air Act, passed by the 1976 Legislature. It required areas in places patronized by the general public or utilized as a work site. Violation is a class C misdemeanor, and petitions now circulate to finance vigilante-typ- e enforcement local boards of health, the cost to be borne by smokers. by guess who? non-smoki- V . i ! i i i J i K.1 s a HIU.I0B ' ft ng It should not be thought, however, that Utahs attitude is necessarily in tune with that of her sister states. The July 13 San Francisco Chronicles Question Man column, for instance, devoted itself to the topic, Whats Your Gripe About In that you are unlikely to witness such a journalistic enterprise in Zion, it may be to share some responses with you. Said Myra Canales, a general clerk on Clay Street, They make too much of a fuss over smoking. They try to sneeze and say how theyre getting air pollution and that well die of cancer. They gripe too much and it just makes me smoke all the more. Added Bob Holley, an import clerk on Jackson Street, My big gripe is when Im outside on a park bench, and they ask me to put out my cigarette, and I was sitting here first. They have a little clout now and they cant handle it." Complained Kurt Trepel, a landscaper of Polk Street, I dont particularly like it when youre invited over for dinner and they wont let you smoke inside the house. You have to go Non-Smoker- s? mind-broadeni- IT ng THe REST r Crudest of all was Jim Lexvold of Polk Street, appropriately a barbed wire salesman. He said, I think should be kept in their own area so they wont bother people. I dont think we should trust people who dont smoke. I certainly dont. Id never loan them money and dont even care to talk to them. Let it not be thought that I share any or all of the quoted opinions, particularly those of Mr. Lexvold. I trust certain, but not all, persons who abstain from the weed, just as I trust certain, but not all, people who embrace non-smoke- rs it. In fact, Ive thought from time to time about kicking the habit, more because of the Surgeon General than due to awakened But, just when Ive political ambitions. decided to quit, the Utah legislature goes into session and Sen. Karl Snow, introduces another bill to hike the tobacco tax. At that point. I realize what a boon my addiction is to the school children of the state, then light up. ART CRIPFUP- - TH6V STJU-M- A KB M5 SICK. I m m 1 J 1 1 i. They shouldnt make you uncom- &JT 50,000 MAKE? MPSICK- outside. fortable. ( c i; WI&50C0 CANT FUJI? woo: WOWRS mS WMAKT M5 Mf SICK I&, If i J s On July 15, 1977, the Salt Lake County Attorney wrote a letter to the County Commission, charging that institutional mismanagement, and not w'ater scarcity, is the primary water problem in the Salt Lake Valley. The letter opens with a y, 5 : oQ. ' QC LU J 't t I D O i 4 i it I o as statement that deserves some attention, and perhaps sheds This office some light on the motiviation of Mr. Van Dam. was granted permission to make a study of the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project, Mr. Van Dam says. Granted permission. That phrase does not reflect the normal relationship between Commission and Attorney. Normally, the Commission will direct its attorney to do something, and normally, the something he is directed to do is draft a legal opinion, not conduct an investigation into some technical area. In short, the attorneys areas of expertise is the law; if the county needs technical assistance, it has other avenues available to it. the attorney But let us return to the permission received. Apparently, he asked the Commission if he could investigate the Central Utah Project, and the Commission gave its approval. That must have been an interesting session of the County Commission. And why did Mr. Van Dam ask for permission to investigage the CUP? Because he is particularly knowledgeable in hydrology? Because the County has no legal problems that need work at the moment? Or because Mr. Van Dam knows a good chance to grab a headline when he sees one, and has interests in higher office himself? The County Commission its ought to consider these questions, and sh authority over its Attorney. Substantively, Mr. Van Dams letter is of a piece with other criticisms of the Central Utah Project. Those who do not y have the responsibility of delivering water to water users are free to sit back and take pot shots. It requires very little information or evidence. Indeed, Mr. Van Dams ignorance of the water situation in Utah is laughable and typical of the instant expert. Those who must actually produce water, on the other hand, have not the luxury of the armchair strategist. They must deliver year after year, and heaven help them if they fail. Then the wolves will be out, and they will bite worse than Paul Van Dam does. The Central Utah Project has just survived a concerted attack by the Carter Administration, on water projects in The Congressional general and the CUP in particular. committees involved found the arguments for the project impressive and provided funding for it, in the coming fiscal year, above what President Ford had requested. In addition to the merits of the project, it is clear that the unanimity of local support was influential with the Congress. Obviously, that unaminity should not be preserved simply for its own sake; if the project docs not deserve it, it should be withdrawn. At the same time, it should not be sacrificed on the Let it be altar of Paul Van Dams political ambitions. withdrawn after mature consideration by those who understand water; not on the strength of an irresponsible reaction by a nine-da- y water wonder. day-to-da- |