Supporters of a stricter ban on smoking in Indianapolis workplaces said the City-County Council’s decision
Monday night to table the proposal will not kill efforts to get legislation passed.
Ben Hunter, a Republican council
member who co-sponsored the bill with Democrat Angie Mansfield, said he hopes Indiana lawmakers will
pass a statewide ban.
“We’ve at least raised the debate,” Hunter said. “Hopefully, [state
legislators] will champion the cause.”
If not, Hunter said he still believes the local
proposal will find new life and ultimately pass. He expects another vote on the proposal to occur sometime
early next year.
“[Opponents] don’t have the votes to kill it,” Hunter said.
“We do have the votes. It’s just a matter of tweaking” the measure.
The proposal fell short of
the 15 votes needed to pass, with the final tally 13-12 against the ban. Council members then decided
in a 14-13 vote to table the legislation, which means it can return to the council agenda at future meetings.
The
proposed ordinance would have prohibited patrons from lighting up in bars, bowling alleys and nightclubs.
It would have broadened an existing law that prohibits smoking in most public places, including restaurants
that serve minors.
“It’s unfortunate the council wasn’t able to get it passed and
make all Indianapolis workers a lot healthier,” said Melissa Lewis, chairwoman of the advocacy group Smoke Free Indy.
“Luckily, the council will get another chance to bring Indianapolis forward with the rest of the country.”
Meanwhile, opponents of the ordinance say they are not backing down.
“If anything is a threat to
Indianapolis business, you can expect Indianapolis business owners to fight it,” said Brad Klopfenstein, leader of a
coalition called Save Indianapolis Bars. “We don’t expect it to go away.”
The Indianapolis Chamber
of Commerce gave its support to the proposal before Monday night’s vote, saying its passage could help economic development
efforts. Chamber President Roland Dorson said he is disappointed but not defeated by the council’s decision.
“We recognize this is part of the process,” Dorson said. “This is how public policy works. Our hope is
all the advocates continue to stay with it. We intend to.”
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
IBJNews
Smoking-ban backers, opponents vow to keep battling
Brock Benefiel
October 27, 2009
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
 Follow IBJ's Tweets on these topics: |
||
| @IBJNews | @Propertylines | @IBJTheScore |
| @IBJArts | @IBJHealthcare | @IBJDining |
| @IBJLists | @IBJSmallbiz | |
-
This is a big help. Thanks for share it here.
-
Doug Henning!
-
These guy were thugs — they grew up in freaking Haughville! Smh, sigh. If the mayor needs/wants "quality" Black Hoosiers who are NOT corrupt, give me a call — I know plenty. Land bank info here - http://www.kubepharm.com/indylandbank/IndyLandBank.html
-
Magician and illusionist!
-
The basic idea of nice apartments with parking and retail is a good one, but this design seems overwhelmingly big/tall for Broad Ripple. The size could be disguised a bit with lots of big trees/landscaping, but the complex is too massive to blend in easily. That section of canal between College and Westfield will also need to be upgraded on both sides. Nice apartments facing onto a nice promenade with shade trees/plantings could bring together the canal towpath/Monon recreation, the outdoor seating at existing restaurants, and this project into something that upgrades the whole area. A plan for the whole stretch makes more sense than facing nice new housing onto what looks like a ditch. Is there a plan? Does the public have input? Who pays? The apartment idea seems to be reasonable, but Whole Foods is not a good idea for appropriate retail. Besides the store being physically too big, there are already Fresh Market at 54xCollege and Whole Foods in Nora for fancy groceries. Good Earth and Kroger are within walking distance of the Shell site. There are at least 7 grocery stores within a safe bike ride. Whole Foods would add nothing but traffic congestion. This design is on the right track, but there needs to be more work done to ensure that it blends in with and enhances the existing community. A project that large will set a tone for that whole part of town. It could be a real asset, but only if done right.
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
14 Comments
Add Comment
Of course I didn't post "ALL" the information from IARC on my website: my argument was honest and clear in terms of Class A Carcinogens and I referenced their material appropriately and correctly. Your link however to the IARC's general assessment of ETS studies simply links back to this page.
And yes, I am most certainly an activist. I have no criticisms of the activists in the "Great American Antismoking Crusade" for their activism, though I do criticize those who try to pass themselves off as activists while actually pulling down fat paychecks in one way or another for their "activism."
As for the google search to find me spewing "vitriol" and "hatred towards non-smokers" would you mind offering a few examples? You'll always find me under my name or "Cantiloper" while signing my name: I don't hide behind anonymous handles.
I notice that, like Sassafras, you've failed to offer ANY substantive specific criticisms of ANYTHING that I've written in all the hundreds of web pages and thousands of pieces of writing I've put online over the years. Surely if my information and beliefs are so defective you should be able to pull up at least a half dozen or a dozen clear examples at the drop of a hat.
Please do so, and share them here for everyone to see.
I'll try to stop back... even if you wait a few weeks before posting.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
In it they discuss the potential costs and benefits to businesses with smoke-free policies
Costs
1.Lost business due to smokers visiting less frequently or cutting visits
short
2.Costs of establishing and maintaining smoking lounges for smoking employees
3.Implementation and enforcement costs
4.Lost productivity due to increased or longer smoking breaks for smoking
employees
5.Costs of establishing and maintaining smoking areas for patrons
And the benefits
1.Increased business from nonsmokers visiting more frequently or staying
longer
2.Reduced cleaning and maintenance costs
3.Reduced fire, accident, and life insurance premiums
4.Increased productivity as smoking employees quit or cut back and
require fewer smoking breaks
5.Increased productivity due to reduced absenteeism and improved health
among smoking employees
6.Increased productivity due to reduced absenteeism and improved health
among nonsmoking employees
7.Reduced health care costs from reductions in smoking among smoking employees
8.Reduced health care costs from reductions in exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmoking employees
9.Avoidance of potential litigation costs from nonsmoking and smoking.
It seems that the 'International Agency for Research on Cancer' doesn't agree with your assessments. Page 22, Table 2.1, 'Adverse Effects from Exposure to Tobacco Smoke Published in Major Reports' gives a synopsis of the vast adverse health effects from second-hand as reported in 9 major, credible reports.
http://www.ibj.com/smoking-ban-backers-opponents-vow-to-keep-battling/PARAMS/article/10762
Sir, you speak of the "motivations driving the activists of what has been called The Great American Antismoking Crusade" And you are not an activist? You are not fanatical about insuring that smoking bans are not passed in any city, town, or country? One only has to do a Google search of your name to find that you spew the same vitriol in newspapers and blogs wherever and whenever a ban comes up for vote.
Your hatred towards non-smokers is palpable. We don't hate our fellow citizens who smoke. We are asking for one thing, and evidence clearly states it is the right thing. You will never see it that way, no matter how much scientific evidence is placed in front of you. How sad.
You don't actually need to get a copy of Brains to have at me if you want. I've got several websites with extensive excerpts posted and you can read them and come back here to criticize my faults. Try
www.Antibrains.com or http://TheTruthIsALie.com
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
They're drug addicts.
Short book, I'd say. As more people see smokers as selfishly putting the majority's interests at a low regard, they are increasingly kicked to the curb. Playing the victim card about smoking in dumpsters arouses no sympathy since you'll always be able to smoke in your filthy houses. And you can still take your nicotine addiction breaks at work by stepping outside once an hour, while the productive non-addicted population continues to slave away.
Regardless of what the CDC or EPA says about secondhand smoke, smokers are pariahs.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
There is no sound reason for the ban to be extended a single iota beyond where it is now. If you examine the medical research out there you'll find that there is no solid evidence that the low levels of smoke that would be found in any decently ventilated establishment today represent a health threat.
The Council did the right thing by tabling the measure, but they would have done even better to have simply killed it outright.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
You being fat doesn't give ME cancer.
Then we need to make some judgements on the fat people that are clogging up our health system. Also those drinkers, we'll round them up too.
Don't worry, it's for your own good, you'll thank us after we're done.