If you strongly favor a state law that would right some wrong you think still exists, and the legislative process results in a bill so watered down it's barely recognizable, do you, A) support it anyway on the theory that you'll take what you can get now and work for more later or, B) withdraw your support because a bad bill would be worse than no bill at all? The Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air takes the latter view, withdrawing its support for a statewide smoking ban:
As originally drafted, this bill would have protected all Hoosier workers from the proven-deadly chemicals in secondhand smoke. But as amended, it leaves too many at risk and creates classes of workers.
[. . .]
The best way to protect people's health is to pass a comprehensive bill the first time. History shows it's very difficult to go back and fix a watered-down ordinance once it has been passed. It took Fort Wayne 10 years to do so. It's taken Indianapolis four years to even start the conversation again.
But Rep. Linda Larson, D-Hammond, opts for the conciliatory approach, offering weakening amendments to her puppy mill bill in an effort to save it, a move applauded by a supportive Evansville Courier Press editorial:
Abusive puppy mills are the kind that cram dogs into small quarters with little ventilation or light, no space for exercise and most unsanitary conditions. Buyers of puppies from these operations usually don't see the inside of these places, or they would walk away. These operations that need all of the regulation that Indiana government will allow.
If that means accepting a weakened version of the puppy mill bill this year, just to get something on the books, then that is what backers of this legislation should do. In this case, something is better than nothing, if it provides the opportunity to begin the regulation of puppy mills.
If I were a strong advocate for these two bills, I think I'd probably take the opposite approach, favoring passage of the weakened smoking bill but scuttling the weakened puppy mill bill.
Banning smoking in public places has a lot of momentum, and this bill would add to it. While legislators are waiting to strengthen the statewide ban in a year or two, more non-smokers will be protected than are protected now, and even more cities will probably add their own bans, making passage of a stronger bill more likely later on. This is a case in which one of our newer cliches is true: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But the conditions in puppy mills are horrible, and this is a first-time effort to fix the problem. A weakened bill might make too many people think the problem has been solved when in fact it hasn't. And the opposition from vested interests has been so fierce that some legislators might be willing to use the poor law as an excuse not to keep working for a good law. Dogs will continue to suffer whether the bill is passed or not, but more are likely to suffer longer under a weakened bill.
But those are individual judgment calls, and a lot might depend on what other battles the General Assembly has going at any given time and how much wheeling and dealing is going on behind the scenes.
Comments
I'd favor a new bill to replace the General Assembly with 5th graders.
Just a thought..
Leo:
You forgot about choice *C*:
Blow SMOKE in their primate faces and storm the hell out, fuming it was a stupid-ass bill to begin with, and that we have bigger fish to fry.
But that's just me...
Nice idea, Tim...as long as their I-STEP+ scores are good!
;)