Council resurrects workplace smoking ban proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.


  • Challenge the ban...
    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"
  • Go Away!
    Like some little kid with ADS. Then again leftwing control freaks are a lot like that, aren't they?
  • Keep Your Earplugs
    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.

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.