IBJOpinion

Ballard is right to oppose smoking ban

December 26, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

[Mickey Maurer’s Nov. 30 column] was the second article criticizing Mayor [Greg] Ballard on his position against a stronger non-smoking ban for Indy. As much as I have always admired Maurer as a successful businessman and all the good work he does with his wealth, it has been evident that he stands on the side of political correctness on most issues he writes about. Unfortunately he, like many other business leaders, does not see the forest for the trees.

The smoking ban issue is not really about health. If so, then why not ban everything that is not healthy according to a few people—alcohol, soda pop, Kool-Aid, candy bars, fast food?

While we all desire healthy living for all Americans, are we prepared to accept what will be the next ban? Will it be overeating, long hair, outdoor cooking, listening to music on our patio, mowing our grass on Sundays? Such infringements, like the smoking ban, should be vigorously fought.

The solution to the smoking ban is simple. Let the marketplace decide. As a [Danville] restaurant owner, I can testify that the marketplace does the best job. There are places for both nonsmokers and smokers and they have the choice to make where they want to spend their time and money. If customers are lost due to smoking, then sales will dictate a change in policy. Having gone non-smoking two years ago, my sales have increased and it proved to be a profitable decision that I made [that was] not local-government mandated.

In support of the mayor, it is significant to point out that he served our country as a soldier—protecting our freedoms abroad. Perhaps his experience of being in countries where there are no freedoms, but only tyranny, helped form his present position. We should be grateful for his caution and concern on this issue. It is easy to criticize when the numbers are on your side, but it takes courage and boldness to oppose the popular for what is right for all our citizens.

___________

Dave Byrdwell

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. JK, Thanks for your comments. I suppose your question of whether or not a more expensive but potentially better MRI quality is worth it depends upon whom you ask. If a radiologist misses a significant problem because of imaging quality issues, then maybe the extra cost would have been worth it. That is something a patient has to decide for him/herself. That being said, I too want more fair and competitive pricing and transparency from hospitals!

  2. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  3. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  4. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  5. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

ADVERTISEMENT