Deal may be close on Indianapolis smoking ban

Nov 30, 2011 Full story: The Indianapolis Star 24

Facing a reluctant mayor and a competing smoking ban proposal carrying more exemptions, smoke-free advocates have faced an uphill struggle to cover Indianapolis bars with the toughest measure possible.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Indycarmike57

Chicago, IL

#1 Dec 1, 2011
A promising piece of news for Indianapolis.
mike

Greenwood, IN

#2 Dec 1, 2011
I think bars ought to be able to decide for themselves whether to permit or forbid smoking, and they can post it on the door. The absolute prohibition aspect of a complete ban seems troubling to me. I don't like the government telling small business owners what they can do in their privately owned bars. What about all these bars and bar owners who are opposing the smoking ban? Don't they have the right to do what they want with their own property? I find the people willing to snatch these rights away to be very big brother. A local city council shouldn't be able to tell bar owners they can't permit smoking in the pub.
Freedom

Niles, MI

#3 Dec 1, 2011
When like minded individuals lose the right to gather together in peace and comfort to enjoy a LEGAL lifestyle of choice on private property...just what loss of rights does one quote?

When the rightful owner of the land is forced to change their LEGAL lifestyle of choice on thier own property...even in their private office all alone...just what loss of rights does one quote?

If this can now be done to one LEGAL lifestyle of choice...just what protects your's if the new self righteous moral busybody collectivists turn their sights on you?

What a dangerous set of precedents indeed...for those with open eyes and a decent background in history.

The most dangerous smoke in the air is the smoke from our rights going up in flames...one by one.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#4 Dec 1, 2011
It is odd that there seems to be a political divideon this in Indy. Republicans are as likely to push smoking regulation as are Democrats generally.

Given that there IS such a polarization, I wonder whether the impending Democratic control would be adequate to override a mayoral veto? If so--and also if there are a few Republicans who would work with them--it might just be worth waiting for the shift rather than having to come back in a year or few and finish what they believe to be right. Fine-tuning will surely be more difficult politically than doing it right the first time, and if they go along with the watered-down plan now, opposition rhetoric later will make it out to have been THEIR idea for the lesser rule to obtain and demonize them for coming back after those with exemptions have committed to permitting smoking. Clearly it is the mayor and the controlling Republicans who are responsible for that step.

If they will lack the votes for a veto, though, maybe it would be better to accept defeat for now, go with the watered-down, mayor-approved effort, and wait out the mayor's tenure.

Who knows, maybe there will be an advance in addiction treatment that will make regulation of smoking irrelevant by then? Take away the addiction, and virtually no one will continue to smoke for long.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8 Dec 2, 2011
Jerry wrote:
<quoted text>
So let them serve alcohol to minors, serve alcohol past 2AM or whatever time Indiana is.... Let them violate the fire code, and store food at whatever temp they want, all because it should be there choice and the government should not tell them what to do on their property, right?
Let Joe Blow drink a beer in his Toyota and plow over a kid. After all it is HIS private property. Why should the government be able to tell him what he can and can not do??
Do you think with that brain?
Jerry, the analogies you are attempting to make between alcohol laws, fire and food codes, etc. and essentially banning cigarette and cigar smoking on private business property don't hold water. For example, when someone drives while intoxicated, the people they run into (literally) had neither warning nor a choice to avoid. Not true when it comes to smoking. No one who does not want to be exposed to smoke need enter an establishment where smoking is allowed. Under the existing ordinance, there were plenty of non-smoking bars where people who did not want to be exposed to smoke could go. Query: If exposure to second hand smoke is such a health issue and private property rights are of no concern, would you be in favor of an ordinance which bans smoking in cars and homes where people under the age of 18 are present?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#10 Dec 2, 2011
Indyno wrote:
<quoted text>
Jerry, the analogies you are attempting to make between alcohol laws, fire and food codes, etc. and essentially banning cigarette and cigar smoking on private business property don't hold water.
I wonder why it is that you add in "on private business property" only when you get to commenting on smoking? Do you somehow thing that the business owners are going to go out on the streets in their efforts to serve minors, for instance?
Indyno wrote:
For example, when someone drives while intoxicated, the people they run into (literally) had neither warning nor a choice to avoid.
And does this happen in the bars? What exactly is the relevance? Are you saying drinking should be banned as well or instead? There seems to be no thread of logic in your post.
Indyno wrote:
No one who does not want to be exposed to smoke need enter an establishment where smoking is allowed.
Ah, well, this means that if you don't want to be exposed to smoke, you should give up hope of catching your favorite band if they play in a bar, or you should give up the opportunity to develop a career as a performing musician because bars offer a unique training ground and smoking is allowed in bars. This means that if you join a pool league, you should only do so with the caveat that your teammates can't expect any help from you if they are scheduled to play in a venue that permits smoking.

These are a few examples of what you say should be given up so that smokers can have the convenience of sitting on their butts instead of stepping outside when they need to indulge in the country's #1 preventable cause of death and disease. I'd say you are asking too much.
Indyno wrote:
Under the existing ordinance, there were plenty of non-smoking bars where people who did not want to be exposed to smoke could go.
Health issue, not preference issue. Given that ~70% of smokers (according to virtually every survey/poll published) actually DON'T want to be smokers, the question of who does or does not want to be exposed to SHS is not so easy to answer. As to there having been "plenty of non-smoking bars", I reserve the right to healthy skepticism. Got numbers on either non-smoking bars OR on people who don't want to be exposed to SHS?
Indyno wrote:
Query: If exposure to second hand smoke is such a health issue and private property rights are of no concern, would you be in favor of an ordinance which bans smoking in cars and homes where people under the age of 18 are present?
Frankly, I am much more in favor of R&D funding for addiction treatment than of legal regulation of the inevitable result of that addiction, and of legal action against the industry than of regulation of the hapless customers.

That said, though, I still take exception to your assertion that caring about such things translates as believing that "property rights are of no concern". That is nonsensical rhetoric.

Overlooking all of that, though, there is a very good case for regarding smoking in the situations you describe as "child abuse". So, let me ask YOU one.

Do you believe that the convenience of a parent needing a fix should be regarded as an acceptably important reason for permitting child abuse?
Blank

Wise, VA

#11 Dec 2, 2011
Yet another example of the politically correct nuts assaulting smoker's rights!!! Smokers still make up a quarter of American population, and how much longer will they allow the PC nuts to intimidate them?? Whatever happned to freedom of CHOICE??
Freedom

Niles, MI

#12 Dec 2, 2011
Blank wrote:
Yet another example of the politically correct nuts assaulting smoker's rights!!! Smokers still make up a quarter of American population, and how much longer will they allow the PC nuts to intimidate them?? Whatever happned to freedom of CHOICE??
The real issue here as I see it is the right to freedom of association, which is fully dependant upon the rights that come with ownership of property.

Without property rights, there really can be no right to freedom of association.

Smoking bans do indeed trample all over the right to freely associate, and they rely on the removal of property rights to do so.

Those who advocate these bans will list all kinds of "restrictions" placed on private property, and then apply a huge amount of circular reasoning by basically claiming that one intrusion is the basis for another intrusion...which of course is justification for another governmental intrusion....ect.

Using such dangerous reasoning...there are virtually no Nanny State laws that could be justified.

Unfortunately, such a line of reasoning is being used over and over as we witness our once free nation turn into a police state.

It reminds me of the warning given by the founders...

“Government is instituted to protect property.... This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.... That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions [i.e., smoking bans], exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their [own] faculties”
James Madison

Charles Montesquieu, whose writings were recommended by major Framers such as James Madison, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, declared:“Let us therefore lay down a certain maxim: that whenever the public good happens to be the matter in question, it is not for the advantage of the public to deprive an individual of his property – or even to retrench the least part of it by a law or a political regulation”

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as a sorry state as the souls who live under tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
Finn

United States

#13 Dec 2, 2011
The really infuriating thing is that they won't even give a real exemption to bars that want to go all smoking. That's where any compromise would come. Some guy, with a bar, that wants smoking in his place. He should be able to put up a sign on the door, this is a smoker's bar, don't come in here if you don't like smoking, and don't apply for work here either. This is a smoker's bar. And he should be able to do it without a lot of "grandfathering" or application. To deny the right to be a smoker's bar is taking it too far. It doesn't respect property rights, or the rights of the 25% who smoke. You shouldn't be able to tell a husband he can't sneak off to the bar for a smoke and a drink. Facilities that cater to a smoking crowd shouldn't have to jump through hoops to satisfy a county wide sanitizing by representatives who clearly have their minds made up to stamp out all smoking. Its insulting to call it compromise. Compromise would be allowing business owners to decide for themselves whether to identify themselves as a smoking facility, adults only. They're not offering anything like that. They want to grandfather in a hookah bar or two. That's nothing. And they're afraid to rile the vets who were brave enough to fight for our country but now face being told they can't smoke in their clubs, which by the way, are bars. I think these councilmen and women need to back off. They don't speak for all men on all issues. And Ryan Vaughn is no conservative if he doesn't respect the plain property rights of landowners and businessmen.
Finn

United States

#14 Dec 2, 2011
So go ahead, tell Indianapolis what's next. Because there will be penalties for violators. In Des Moines the "flagrant violation" of smoke free regulations resulted in the revocation of liquor licenses by bar owners brazen enough the flaunt the rules. Is that where we're going, Indianapolis? Some little tavern lets its patrons smoke so they revoke his liquor license and put him out of business? They're afraid to rile up the vets with their no smoking business, but what about the other men out there that smoke? They think they're going to tell every single guy in Indianapolis that he can't go into a bar for a smoke? And that every single person, and every single establishment, is just going to swallow that? So be truthful. Non-compliance will carry a penalty. And in other places, like Des Moines, that means revocation of liquor license. Forfeiture of business. Or are our brave, members of the Indianapolis city county council willing to state for the record that there will be no penalties for non-complying bars?
Blank

Wise, VA

#15 Dec 2, 2011
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
The real issue here as I see it is the right to freedom of association, which is fully dependant upon the rights that come with ownership of property.
Without property rights, there really can be no right to freedom of association.
Smoking bans do indeed trample all over the right to freely associate, and they rely on the removal of property rights to do so.
Those who advocate these bans will list all kinds of "restrictions" placed on private property, and then apply a huge amount of circular reasoning by basically claiming that one intrusion is the basis for another intrusion...which of course is justification for another governmental intrusion....ect.
Using such dangerous reasoning...there are virtually no Nanny State laws that could be justified.
Unfortunately, such a line of reasoning is being used over and over as we witness our once free nation turn into a police state.
It reminds me of the warning given by the founders...
“Government is instituted to protect property.... This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.... That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions [i.e., smoking bans], exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their [own] faculties”
James Madison
Charles Montesquieu, whose writings were recommended by major Framers such as James Madison, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, declared:“Let us therefore lay down a certain maxim: that whenever the public good happens to be the matter in question, it is not for the advantage of the public to deprive an individual of his property – or even to retrench the least part of it by a law or a political regulation”
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as a sorry state as the souls who live under tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
True. As a moderate independent who depsises far left and far right equally, i know it is a fine balance. Such as governmnet care for people (promoted even by George Washington) and probably falling under the "necessary & proper clause of the Constitution...things like health care for all (which i support), and maintaining an infrastructure, education, etc. BUT....too many want to IMPOSE an agenda on citizenry, be it food restrictions, anti-smoking, or whatever! It is a fine line, and is a very "grey" area. I hope we can find the balance between caring for the poor and those who have no health coverage and the downtrodden but still maintaining individual liberties. It is very complex and not as cut-and-dried as either far left OR far right make it! Just my opinion.
Smoke Free

Atlanta, GA

#16 Dec 2, 2011
Finn wrote:
So go ahead, tell Indianapolis what's next. Because there will be penalties for violators. In Des Moines the "flagrant violation" of smoke free regulations resulted in the revocation of liquor licenses by bar owners brazen enough the flaunt the rules. Is that where we're going, Indianapolis? Some little tavern lets its patrons smoke so they revoke his liquor license and put him out of business? They're afraid to rile up the vets with their no smoking business, but what about the other men out there that smoke? They think they're going to tell every single guy in Indianapolis that he can't go into a bar for a smoke? And that every single person, and every single establishment, is just going to swallow that? So be truthful. Non-compliance will carry a penalty. And in other places, like Des Moines, that means revocation of liquor license. Forfeiture of business. Or are our brave, members of the Indianapolis city county council willing to state for the record that there will be no penalties for non-complying bars?
Hey if the bar owners can't obey the future smoking laws then what other laws are they violating now? I sure won't eat at one! Fire codes? Safety Codes? Are the owners the experts on everything?

You sound like you are living in the 1970's. Try visiting a State that has strick smoking restrictions and see how well they work. More people come out, better tips, more food sales. Smokers realize that smoking is their problem and they just politely step outside smoke and step back in. It ain't rocket science and is a win win for all.
Dr Phil

Walkersville, MD

#17 Dec 2, 2011
Smoke Free wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey if the bar owners can't obey the future smoking laws then what other laws are they violating now? I sure won't eat at one! Fire codes? Safety Codes? Are the owners the experts on everything?
You sound like you are living in the 1970's. Try visiting a State that has strick smoking restrictions and see how well they work. More people come out, better tips, more food sales. Smokers realize that smoking is their problem and they just politely step outside smoke and step back in. It ain't rocket science and is a win win for all.
The only bars you are associated with are on your padded cell.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#18 Dec 2, 2011
Blank wrote:
Whatever happned to freedom of CHOICE??
Nicotine addiction. Next question?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#19 Dec 2, 2011
Blank wrote:
be it food restrictions, anti-smoking, or whatever!
Interesting that you put regulation of food (absolute essential for sustaining life) on the same level with smoking (absolutely NONessential and actually ANTITHETIC to life).

It is symptomatic of how completely irrational the regard for smoking has become over the decades.

Pandemic nicotine addiction--fostered through the illegal acts of the tobacco industry over decades culminating in the RICO conviction during the last decade--has resulted in a society with the twisted perspective and skewed sense of proportion that are symptoms of that addiction. So many people either are or have been addicted to nicotine that the ridiculous activity of smoking is perceived as important far beyond any reasonable standard.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#20 Dec 2, 2011
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
The real issue here as I see it is the right to freedom of association,
Which means that if you don't like the local laws, you are free to find a community where others share your views and associate with them, right?

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

#21 Dec 4, 2011
New money is now available for ban "studies" from Pfizer. I guess they found they don't need to hide behind "foundations" or tax exempt political action committees pretending to be "charities".

www.wapt.com/news/29910020/detail.html
TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

#22 Dec 4, 2011
Indyno wrote:
<quoted text>
Jerry, the analogies you are attempting to make between alcohol laws, fire and food codes, etc. and essentially banning cigarette and cigar smoking on private business property don't hold water. For example, when someone drives while intoxicated, the people they run into (literally) had neither warning nor a choice to avoid. Not true when it comes to smoking. No one who does not want to be exposed to smoke need enter an establishment where smoking is allowed. Under the existing ordinance, there were plenty of non-smoking bars where people who did not want to be exposed to smoke could go. Query: If exposure to second hand smoke is such a health issue and private property rights are of no concern, would you be in favor of an ordinance which bans smoking in cars and homes where people under the age of 18 are present?
Hey...don't wanna get hit by a drunk driver...stay home!

That pretty much sum up your logic for you?

How about if some kook starts swinging his arms around and flailing them like a half crazed helicopter and walks towards your mom, wife child yelling, you don't like it, stay away!

There is no defense for performing a personal and selfish habit in a place where the public is invited, especially one that is toxic, obnoxious, and negatively affects so many others!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#23 Dec 4, 2011
generalsn1234567 wrote:
New money is now available for ban "studies" from Pfizer.
www.wapt.com/news/29910020/detail.html
Actually, your link would suggest that it is NOT available anymore. All it shows is that some Pfizer money went into a study being done by the CDC. I suspect that the CDC just may be able to do the work without worrying about the "pleasing the masters" syndrome.

It will be interesting to see whether and, if so, in which of those states all the doom-saying you and yours indulge in about the economic impact of smoking regulation actually holds.

Too, it will be interesting to see if they find a way to include the impact on agriculture in the tobacco-growing (not to say "tobacco-dependent") states included in the study.
The true impressive kapto

Fishers, IN

#24 Dec 4, 2011
The ironic thing about liberals and some repubs wanting smoking ban, I bet all of them smoke weed daily, Most liberals love to smoke weed. Yet they want to ban cigg smoking lol.When weed stinks worse than any ciggy smoke and causes lung cancer as well, But liberal scientist that smoke weed distort the studies. Like with smoking, There has not been one documented case that second hand smoke causes cancer to others.Liberals when they can't get what they want will sway medical studies until they get the outcome and prognosis they wanted. Like with abortion , For years liberals said its only a few cells, It's only a a fetus. They got their wish as abortion was made legal. Behind the scenes they were killing life babies with their partial birth abortion kills.It's all eugenics with hard left liberals, They always believe they know whats best for society and its peoples . They think they only matter most, They tout how well educated they are compared to the rest. So that gives them reason to kill off anyone they deem inadequate that doesn't meet their academic standards or I.Q.. So kill more small business's in this very bad created Obama economy.The little corner bar and brew pub's will be wiped out. Only the big events will have smoking allowed.You wont dare see council members go after them ever.Liberals always come up with reasons why we don't need a bar in this neighborhood or others. They will attack until they find another vice to go after that's now legal Funny same liberals want prostitution legalized and drugs lol.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Marion County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Eversole Murder Dec 9 SS INDY 2
Could Terry Curry Be 1st Democratic 2-Term Pros... Oct '14 Dave 2
Officials unveil new plan for crime-ridden neig... Oct '14 Blackology 1
New councilor has roots in community activism Aug '14 Blackology 1
wtf Aug '14 judge bean 1
Family of 15-year-old Indianapolis murder victi... Jul '14 Pontificating 2
Gov. Mike Pence appoints 2 new utility regulators (Feb '14) Jun '14 Prowd Tee Purty M... 4
More from around the web