Council votes to expand citywide smoking ban

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis City-County Council voted in favor of an expanded public smoking ban Monday night.

Members voted 19-9 in favor of expanding the citywide ban to include bowling alleys, hotel rooms and most bars. Tobacco shops, hookah bars and some private clubs would be exempted. The measure needed one more vote to become veto-proof.

The measure still needs the signature of Mayor Greg Ballard to become law. Ballard said he would veto the measure because it won't exempt private clubs that host children's events.


  • novelty lighters, anthem
    What is your problem? Why do you care what these people do? If you want to control someone Join a Cult. Trying to control the entire state or city - are you mad? This is just another step in control of the state and the people.
    Really i havent been to a smoking establishment in years. But guess what the guys in the shop smoke, and i go out there occassionaly, so you are making that illegal. Give me a break, you all need to go home and pass judgement on yourselfs. Nanny.
  • Constituents
    Mayor Ballard was elected to represent and serve his constituents. If the majority of his constituency wants non-smoking, it is his duty and responsibility to do everything within his power to see that their wishes are acceded to. However, because he is a smoker, he wants to exempt facilities where he is likely to go (i.e., Veteran's halls). That is a selfish disregard of the trust the citizens of Indianapolis placed in him.
  • Hookah bars
    Hookah bars should be outlawed outright. All they are is a place for kids (many under age) to drink and smoke.

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing