IBJNews

  • Home

Council resurrects workplace smoking ban proposal

 IBJ Staff
November 10, 2009
Keywords
City Government, Government & Economic Development, Health Care & Insurance, Health Care & Life Sciences, Health care regulation, Smokefree workplaces, Smoking Ban, Workplace Issues
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Two weeks after reaching a stalemate on a proposal that would broaden the city’s workplace smoking ban, City-Council Council members voted Monday night to resurrect the measure.

The council is expected to take up the issue again at its Nov. 30 meeting.

Council members tabled the proposal, which would have prohibited patrons from lighting up in bars, bowling alleys and nightclubs, on Oct. 26 when it fell short of the 15 votes necessary to either pass or fail. The measure would have broadened an existing law that prohibits smoking in most public places, including restaurants that serve minors.

Democrat Joanne Sanders challenged the decision to table the issue, saying that violated city law because the measure did not get the 15 votes required to pass or kill an ordinance. Members voted 16-12 to reverse the decision to table the matter, and added the matter to their Nov. 30 agenda.

"It is alive and well," said Sanders, who voted in favor of the proposal last month.

Supporters had vowed to continue fighting for the stricter smoking ban, but didn’t expect the council to revisit the issue until early next year.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard is reportedly among those opposing the measure.


ADVERTISEMENT
  • Challenge the ban...
    Michael J. McFaddenNovember 11, 2009 12:21 AM
    The question is whether you trust that the Antismokers are telling you the truth. I believe they are lying, and I believe I can PROVE they are lying. How? Simple: if they're telling the truth they should accept the two challenges below which have been publicly posted throughout the Indianapolis area and submitted formally to Indy's City Council and to the IndyStar as a response to a pro-ban editorial.

    The challenges are pretty simple: Survey the workers whose jobs will be affected by the ban. Antismokers say they want "protection" from secondhand smoke. A bi-partison well-designed secret-ballot survey would let the Antismokers prove their case and advance a ban... *IF* they're telling the truth.

    Of course they're not telling the truth and they know it: with all the thousands or even millions they spend on specially designed polls supporting bans they have never, never, NEVER done one of the bar workers they claim to be "protecting" ... because they know that they're lying.

    The second challenge is to back up their claim that the ban won't hurt business by guaranteeing to cover any losses out of their own pockets and budgets. Should be simple if they're telling the truth... and it would guarantee that business owners would drop their opposition to the ban... but will they guarantee such a thing? Perhaps using some of the Councilfolks' salaries and SmokeFreeIndy's 14 million dollar annual budget?

    Of course not. They know the ban will cost bars and even some bar-restaurants enormous amounts of money. They're lying when they say otherwise and they KNOW they're lying.

    Smoking bans are bad laws based on lies. When you challenge the antismoking lobbyists to stand behind their words they run faster than little girls from a flock of tarantulas.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Go Away!
    George OrwellNovember 10, 2009 3:25 PM
    Like some little kid with ADS. Then again leftwing control freaks are a lot like that, aren't they?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Keep Your Earplugs
    BobNovember 10, 2009 10:21 AM
    Even passing a ban won't get rid of these arrogant lobbyists. They'll keep returning every year until ALL exemptions are gone. Here are their instructions.
    http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. Members must realize if you stop paying your dues you will lose. Why else would your employer honor the rtw bill. Before you take this step think about what you may be giving up in the long run. Very little of your dues money goes to any dem candidate. YOu will never know how much your republican employer gives his party with money he could be paying the employee. Who will step up and demand better wages or benefits if you have no representation. Union is the way for a better life. Our carpenter union offers a 4 year apprenticeship and 2 year degree from Ivy Tech all paid for with union dues . This is a great opportunity for kids who cant afford schooling after high school. The same opportunity is there for any person,any age, either sex to provide a better living for their family. Pension, anuity, health insurance all for your dues. How is this a bad choice.

  2. The FDIC is funded by assessments paid by banks, not taxpayers. That is not to say that bank customers don't ultimately pay the cost because, in the end, banks don't survive if they don't make profits.

  3. SCB Bank's failure is expected to cost the government $33.9 million,dont you mean middle class another bailout our government has no money

  4. Diogenes, the company did not call "pro-life" statements inflammatory. The IBJ article used the words "pro life."

    All, the company did, is what it should do which is apologize profusely for offending people with a program that offered statements that support an infamous apartheid proponent, Dr. Verwoerd, suggest that sometimes rape is justified, and quote Biblical text to people, not looking for it.

    If this is what you think is "insanity" then more companies need to behave insanely.

  5. I totally disagree with $45mil being given to the state Attorney General's office. That money is a waste. All of the money should go to help the homeowners & the people who were foreclosed on. Why such a big percentage to state govt? They'll get to start another agency staffed with people who have new-found power & don't care about the people they serve. As soon as the program was announced, I knew the states would end up with a huge chunk of the money for themselves that would just be squandered. Or maybe Mitch Daniels will just happen to "find" another big chunk of money that was "posted in the wrong section of the state's books."

ADVERTISEMENT