Aug 242016
 

In Naperville the age to purchase cigarettes is 18, while the age to sell them is 16. It seems like a disconnect, and the Naperville city council wants to rectify it by raising the age to sell to 18. Makes sense doesn’t it.

Now that the Naperville city council is back to work after having only one council meeting over a two month span of time, they are eager to taste the addiction of regulation by going all-out in considering and approving ordinances. One of the many under consideration is to increase the age to purchase cigarettes from 18 to 21.

Watch and listen to councilmen John Krummen and Paul Hinterlong along with Naperville Mayor Steve Chirico, discuss the issue:

It looks like Krummen really doesn’t like cigarettes, in fact, he hates and despises them, and if he can make it more difficult to buy them, he’s all for it. It makes sense to me. I hate and despise garlic. If I were a councilman, I’d want to make it next to impossible, if not impossible to sell and purchase garlic in Naperville.

I get it, cigarettes are not good for your health. However garlic isn’t so healthy either. People can be sensitive to the smell and can find it difficult to digest.

Cigarettes can kill. So can garlic. Besides gastro-intestinal distress, it can cause muscle aches, and fatigue. Driving while fatigued is not so good. Garlic also lowers blood pressure. That’s not so bad, unless you’re on blood pressure meds. The additive effect can be disastrous. Some folks are allergic to garlic, causing allergies, causing possible skin rashes, causing interesting conversations while waiting in the check-out line at Mariano’s.

I am all-for regulating garlic out of existence in Naperville. If councilman John Krummen really ‘hates’ and ‘despises’ cigarettes, why not really make a difference, don’t simply raise the age limit to 21, make a statement, and support regulating cigarettes out of existence in Naperville. He’s up for re-election in 2017. This could make or break him. Why not toss in garlic at the same time. Based on that, he just may win my vote.

  10 Responses to “Councilman Krummen Hates Cigarettes, I Hate Garlic, Let’s Outlaw Them”

  1. Unbelievable dialog….. 16 year olds can work. Most work in the service industry. Hinterland has the right idea, ask the store owners the impact. For the Mayor to not understand the logic between selling and buying shows he isn’t doing much thinking. As for Krummen what he hates is of no importance. He represents all the people of Naperville not just nonsmokers. He proves again his arrogance and lack of thinking of the City as a whole.

  2. These do gooders and paragons of virtue never seem to get enough of regulating other peoples lives for the better or common good. It’s getting to the point where Puritans had more freedoms then our current emasculated and castrated citizenship.

    Why don’t you nannyist spend your time and our money cutting bloated, redundant and nonessential costs from our budgets instead of wasting everybody’s time with this nonsense?

    • The city has cut it budget for the last 10 years. If you actually have gone through the budget and has some sincere cuts that you think the council should consider I recommend actually sending them an email, I have found this to be a very productive way to effect changes in our city government. You should try it, instead of being a “nannyist” and posting “cry me a river” general posts about city budget bloat. And no paramedic and ambulance service are not nonessential services, they are part of a nationally accepted standard by which the quality of life in a city is measured, meaning these services are expected to be available in large cities by most residents and are part of the reason Naperville ranks so high in national studies on quality of life, senior friendly, family friendly, safety, etc.

      Yes there is a lot of redundancy in our county, township, park district and school district governments, but these are outside the control of city government official. If you want to effect changes in these governments you need to be telling the officials of these organization and not the city.

  3. The problem is when you smoke you effect everyone around you not just you. You are forcing your lifestyle and beliefs on others without their consent or consideration. The health implication of smoking are very serious, just ask anyone suffering from asthma (for example) what it is like being around a smoker. Having been a suffer of childhood asthma I find the flippant attitude of the author of this article offensive and rude! Garlic is not a national health problem and comparing it to smoking is not even in the ballpark of funny or satirical.

    And why shouldn’t the legal age for selling tobacco products be the same as for buying them? We require this with alcohol to prevent underage drinking, shouldn’t this same standard apply to tobacco products? And if the feedback our council is receiving is a majority support for increasing the buying age from 18 to 21 is it not their duty as elected officials to at least give the issue serious consideration? Like it or not there is a national trending for raising this age to 21, just like when I was younger living in Colorado and the state changed the purchase age for low alcohol content beer for 18 to 21. As we, as a society, become better educated on issues like this one we have a duty to enact policies that provide protection from these hazards to all member of our society.

  4. Jim Haselhort, you weren’t elected remember, so people most likely don’t give a hoot about what you think on EVERY topic. Give it a rest already. Maybe you believe that sucking up to the council on all these posts will get you elected like the big red K – who knows maybe it will, it did work for him. Being the smart meter patsy for the city council and Chirico’s lap dog did finally win him enough votes to squeak in.

    • I have been commenting on this blog site since for over a decade, which is long before I decide to run for public office, a fact you probably missed since you have only recently started following this site, and my comments have nothing to do with culling favors from anyone. They have to do with providing a different perspective on an issue then that posted to provide insight and context that I believe to be relevant to the what is being discussed.

      Also, I do not always agree with the mayor and members of the council and have openly and publicly criticized them when in these situations, something you would know if you had ever taken the time to watch or attend any of the city council meetings. I will not waste time itemizing these occurrences since you can easily view them for you self by going to the city website and watching the council meeting videos posted there.

      Finally, your comment, which was clearly intended to bully and intimidate me in to shutting up, reminds me of the rhetoric we hear these days from the pluralists candidate Donald Trump, who prefers to intimidation to rational discourse. I can only guess that you are one of those foolish individuals who not only support him but have been suckered into giving him money to pay for the quadrupled rent he is charging his campaign.

      • Wow Jim, your true colors just showed up. You want to sound objective and impartial but just proved that unless someone agrees with you they are foolish. You’ve lost all credibility.

      • There’s no bullying involved, just facts;
        You received the lowest amount of votes, period! Less than 500 people colored in your little circle. So the majority of people don’t really care about your opinion on EVERYTHING being posted here.
        You have NOT been commenting for over a decade, this blog didn’t exist over a decade ago.
        You say Pluralist like it’s a bad thing – maybe you should google political pluralism.
        And no I’m not a Trump supporter, nor did I give him any money. And I don’t understand why he was even brought into this conversation.
        For the sake of your flawed argument, let’s say you have been commenting for over a decade, you have never commented on EVERY post prior to running for mayor. Nor have you defended the City Council or City Government as vehemently as you do now.
        I appreciate your service to our country, but I didn’t vote for you for mayor, nor will I fight a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

        • This blog “City Council Watchdog” has existed for well over a decade. This current form of the website is relatively new and less then a decade old. And I do not comment on every article written on this page, so once again you show that your do not know what you are talking about.

          Finally, I did not run for mayor solely to win. If you had followed the many debates and interviews I participated in you then would also know my reasons for running as well.

          • City Council Watchdog’s first posting was December 2010. It’s first full year was 2011. During that time we’ve had 454 postings averaging about 80 postings per year. Watchdog is on pace for 85-90 postings this year. Postings typically appear twice weekly (Sunday and Thursday). Though I am not aware of it, there may have been a Watchdog-type of blog previously. I imagine and hope there will be more in the future. Though the writer and the readers don’t agree on everything, and the readers don’t agree with each other, the one thing we all agree on is that we take an active interest in local politics and that in itself is a positive.

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)