Smoking ban proposal advances to City-County Council

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Supporters of a stronger Indianapolis public smoking ban cleared their first hurdle Tuesday night.

The City-County Council’s Rules and Public Policy Committee voted 6-2 in favor of the stronger ban. The proposal could be voted on by the full council at its April 16 meeting.

Councilors Angela Mansfield, John Barth and Pamela Hickman, sponsors of the proposal, think the version they’ve introduced will have a better chance of gaining Mayor Greg Ballard’s approval.  

Ballard snuffed out the council's last attempt at a stronger ban when he vetoed the proposed ordinance Feb. 11.

The new proposal is nearly identical to the last measure except that it no longer bans smoking at existing private clubs. New private clubs, those founded after April 1, would have to go smoke-free.

The council on Jan. 30 voted 19-9 in favor of expanding the citywide ban to include bowling alleys, hotel rooms and most bars. Tobacco shops, hookah bars and over-18 private clubs would have been exempted. The bipartisan vote fell one short of being veto-proof.

Ballard, however, said he couldn’t support the proposal because it made private clubs and fraternal organizations, including military-veterans groups, choose between allowing smoking on their premises or allowing patrons younger than 18 to enter. The ordinance, he said, posed an unfair dilemma for not-for-profit groups like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which raises money through family-oriented and children's events at VFW posts.

The new proposal does not include Speedway, Lawrence, Beech Grove or Southport. It also added an exemption for downtown's off-track betting parlor.


  • E-cigs, you're totally right-on w/your comment
    The fact e-cigarettes are still included in Proposal 136, and were included in the final version of Proposal 18(which of course vetoed by Mayor Ballard), just goes to show the anti-smoking activists DO NOT care about treating businesses fairly, but about imposing their elitist views over others. If these smoking bans were truly about fairness(or health), you would think the CCC members aligned with anti-smoking activists would just propose a ban that'd treat all businesses under it(rather than just a few businesses(i.e. private clubs, OTB/gaming businesses, etc, at the expense of neighborhood mom and pop bars). The fact the newest smoking bans include e-cigarettes, also further proves smoking bans have NEVER been about health or for any logical reason, and never will be. You would think these misguided CCC councilors would just leave Indy's existing ban alone, and let every adult-only business decide their smoking rules for themselves. Can't forget that dozens of adult businesses that could permit indoor smoking right now if they wanted to, have imposed voluntary bans with NO unnecessary government mandate necessary! Or that smoking bans in other cities and states, have caused decreased business, and employee tips in areas where they have been imposed, and have at times led to the closures of numerous private businesses(very often neighborhood mom and pop bars) throughout the country.

    Further proof too how extreme anti-smoking activists are, when one of the most major groups(Americans for Non-Smokers Rights) has a model smoking ban ordinance, which basically only exempts private residences from it, and eliminated an exemption for motel/hotel rooms as of 2011, and eliminated exemptions for private clubs and tobacco/cigar/hookah bars in the previous years before that:

  • four legs good two bad
    WHy is it that we are all equal but some of us OTB and Casinos are more equal than the rest of us?
    Why is it that the old lawn mower shop owner who chews on a cigar all day is now a criminal but if he had slot machines well that is different. I call BS,, use your freedom to choose where to patronize and where not to.
  • Important issues
    Why don't these dumbocrats work this hard on something that is important. Everyone is born with cancer cells, and second hand smoke is not causing as much cancer in people in the midwest as are the chemicals that go on the fields every spring and fall! This is another attempt by dumbocrats to control everyone. However, we all know that dumbocrats are much smarting than everyone else.
  • What?
    I read that this ban would also include Electronic cigarettes?????

    Is second hand water vapor fairly dangerous?

    Or do the freedom haters who back these bans on the freedom of private business owners hate the look of someone smoking too?

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. So as I read this the one question that continues to come to me to ask is. Didn't Indiana only have a couple of exchanges for people to opt into which were very high because we really didn't want to expect the plan. So was this study done during that time and if so then I can understand these numbers. I also understand that we have now opened up for more options for hoosiers to choose from. Please correct if I'm wrong and if I'm not why was this not part of the story so that true overview could be taken away and not just parts of it to continue this negative tone against the ACA. I look forward to the clarity.

  2. It's really very simple. All forms of transportation are subsidized. All of them. Your tax money already goes toward every single form of transportation in the state. It is not a bad thing to put tax money toward mass transit. The state spends over 1,000,000,000 (yes billion) on roadway expansions and maintenance every single year. If you want to cry foul over anything cry foul over the overbuilding of highways which only serve people who can afford their own automobile.

  3. So instead of subsidizing a project with a market-driven scope, you suggest we subsidize a project that is way out of line with anything that can be economically sustainable just so we can have a better-looking skyline?

  4. Downtowner, if Cummins isn't getting expedited permitting and tax breaks to "do what they do", then I'd be happy with letting the market decide. But that isn't the case, is it?

  5. Patty, this commuter line provides a way for workers (willing to work lower wages) to get from Marion county to Hamilton county. These people are running your restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and retail stores. I don't see a lot of residents of Carmel working these jobs.