Stacked and Packed
Here are ten simple rules on how NOT to have a “informational” Town Hall meeting on the implications of a total ban on smoking in all workplaces in Marion County.
- Don’t have everyone on your “information” panel be associated with the anti-smoking group.
- Don’t have your moderator be affiliated with the anti-smoking group.
- Don’t have the banner of the anti-smoking group prominently displayed in the front of the room.
- Don’t have the banner of the anti-smoking group prominently displayed at the entrance to the meeting.
- Don’t have the anti-smoking group label T-shirts with their supporters names on them to hand out at the meetings.
- Don’t have 40-percent of the audience be affiliated with the anti-smoking group.
- Don’t forget to tell the audience at the start of the town hall meeting that the second town hall meeting will present an alternative point of view.
- Don’t spend the first 40 minutes of your two-hour “informational” town hall meeting talking about how the city needs a smoking ban.
- Don’t ever say the reason your anti-smoking message isn’t getting out is because of a “restriction of the flow of information.”
- Don’t forget, if the city does pass a full smoking ban, someone is going to get rich finding the loopholes. Hint! Hint!
February 17th, 2009 at 8:51 am
If they feel that way, THEN DON’T GO TO A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT, it is after all….THEIR right. Don’t tell me how to live my life! I don’t smoke, but if I want to go somewhere where one can light up, I sure as hell am not going to bitch about it. IT WAS MY CHOICE. If they want to work there, by all means, tis THEIR choice too.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Isn’t Indiana an ‘at-will’ work State??
-
Furthermore, while there is merit in the economical argument posed by smoking establishments, why aren’t they raising Constitutional issues, such as property rights, free choice, etc.
-
Certainly, it couldn’t be that lawmakers and judges are hostile towards our Constitution??
-
Nawwwww……..that couldn’t be it…..
February 17th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Abdul
Looking back do you think the reaction to making seatbelts mandatory and trying to convince pregnant women that research proves drinking and smoking is hazardous to the health to their baby received the same reactions?
Once again it not about the right of the individual smoker, but the health of the public in general. I bet a lot of bar owners deep down would welcome this ban, it would truly level the playing field for all bars.I bet those who have tolerated smoking in their establishment would admit that their business is the best during the season when people are able to eat outside.
There are great propane heaters and gas pits.
Let’s use them.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:26 am
whatsayyou: Wasn’t it awhile back the government mandate for airbags turned out to be killing some children and short adults? If drinking and smoking during pregnancy is hazardous as is 2nd hand smoke then why are we not outlawing women from behaving in those manners during pregnancy? And you are aware it was the insurance companies that made the big push for seat belt laws, right?
.
I’m sorry but your point is meaningless and actually damaging to your argument for government intervention on behalf of the public.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Did they notice that someone stole all of the ashtrays?
February 17th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I am a non smoker and as far as I care we could outlaw all smoking. That being said i’m amazed the the anti smoking folks wanting to protect employees that have a choice where they work and not about children trapped in vehicles or homes of smokers.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Mr. Moore, you make an EXCELLENT point. I demand a backlash at this group!
February 18th, 2009 at 4:50 am
I have a better idea. The state of Indiana could make National headlines by being the first state to ban the sale of all tobacco related products. Opps, that would cut out alot of tax funded programs that smokers fund. So don’t look for this to happen anyway soon.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:10 am
On another blog, the Smoke Free people were complaining about the competition being funded by BIG Tobacco… Aren’t the Smoke Free Indy people funded by the FORCED big tobacco settlement and local department of healths? I.E. tax dollars? Doesn’t that mean they should be held accountable when they do stupid things like harassing bar owners for earning a living?