How can there be a conflict of interest (for Brian Mahern)? Is there a better rebuttal against an alleged conflict of interest than to take somebody's money and then vote against them?

Angela Mansfield is a great Councilor? She is so far left that most of the Democrats do not want her.

Anyway what workd is LindsayG living in? Go to a socialist/coomunist country so you can impose your will upon them. They are use to it. Not in America. Adults can make adult decisions.

FYI, Ed Mahern gave $2,000 to Brian Mahern. If Dane Mahern can't take money raised by his Dad, then logic dictates Brian Mahern should abstain for taking money from his Uncle Ed. Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Just a reminder of the sources of the bans, the RWJ Foundation, owned by big pharma, and the coalitions, more concerned with "social change" than the bans themselves:

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912

And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the "inside -out", provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses. You may need to CTRL and scoll to enlarge it.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf

Your arguments falls flat...what? in his likeness? My Latin is too rusty.

I don't follow the argument that there is a lower ethics standard for part timers than full timers. They swore to the Constitution and if there is a provable quid pro quo, then abstention is in order; maybe worse.

Dane was already opposed to the smoking ban, so your quid pro quo is vestri argument cado campester in suus visio.

Interestingly, Dane's cousin Brian is for it. Should Dane's cousin abstain also since his uncle is (reportedly) lobbying? Is it only a conflict of interest if you intend to vote against the ban?

Excellent retort. We morning sharpsters are a rare breed. I start to disintegrate by 2 PM, but that's another story.

Part-time council members (Lord how I hate the term "Councillors") have many mouths to feed, and more to listen to...

It was your sharp cyncism about Angela that set me off. Uncalled for. Whether you disagree with her or not, there are far too few of her kind on the council. And for that we're all at a loss.

But the overall point is genuine, and fair. Thanks.

Hey, your comments make the blog worthwhile. If we were in public office you would make a great leader of his majesty's loyal opposition.

Abdul, your cynicism knows no bounds.

Angela is a great councilwoman. She and I may disagree on some issues, but she serves her constituents well.

And if you're so "into" hypocrites: take a look at this--isn't it true that Barnes & Thornburg has been paid to carve out special cigar bar exemptions on this ordinance? And isn't Majority Leader Vaughan a partner at B&T? And didn't he personally lobby council members on this ordinance and the potential exemptions>

Your witness, Counsellor.

Think Again - I noticed your assertions are in the form of questions, so I'll take the opportunity to answer. Barnes & Thornburg has not been paid to lobby the Council for a special cigar bar exemption in this ordinance. I am not the Majority Leader, I'm the Vice President. I am not a partner at Barnes and Thornburg, I'm an associate. Finally, I have not lobbied council members on this ordinance or any potential exemptions. In fact, I was approached (like all Councillors have been) by the sponsors asking for my support. I listened to the arguments and stated very clearly that I would not support the ordinance if it resulted in businesses in my district having to close their doors. I am satisfied that the exemption drafted and passed in committee cures that issue and as long as that exemption remains I intend to support the proposal. I have also made it clear to the sponsors that I do not oppose other reasonable and well crafted exemptions. As always, if you have questions about my votes or representation of my constituents feel free to call my cell phone: 437-7701.

As I understand this exemption only protects certain "special cigar bars" You have until December to apply for these permits at a cost of $250 for the app free then $1000 for the permits. After December there will be no more permits. Could you understand this protects only certain companies or people. If I wanted to open a new cigar bar after December, I could not allow smoking in my own building. I would love to take this case to court because is discriminates against new business. Your statement "I would not support the ordinance if it resulted in businesses in my district having to close their doors." What about that neighborhood bar that just may close due to the no smoking policy that mommy and daddy put us under? It seems that only a few will benefit from this ordinance exemption.

IndyRacer57 - You've fairly summarized the exemption other than the fact that it applies to "specialty tobacco bars" not "specialty cigar bars." Admittedly, the only difference is the inclusion of Hookah tobacco with cigars. I also agree that this exemption "protects" only certain companies. That is in fact the nature of an exemption. In order to have an exemption you have to have a clearly defined "group" that is exempted from whatever regulation it is that is being enforced. The current law has many exemptions. In fact, most every regulation in our code has some type of exemption. I disagree, however, that this exemption creates some right of action under the law. First of all, an entity that doesn't exists, doesn't have standing to sue. Second, there are currently examples of limited licenses / permits that are valid and enforceable. For example, there are a limited number of alcohol beverage license, taxi licenses and permits to operate adult establishments. The second part of your comment goes to the economics of the argument. There will certainly be winners and losers under this proposal (independent of the exemption) as there are with every regulation. There were winners and losers when the current law passed. For my part, I've contacted many of the businesses in my district that opponents of the ban claim would be negatively affected by the ban. Overwhelmingly, their responses back to me indicated that they would prefer to compete for customers on a level field of non-smoking as opposed to being forced to make an economic choice of smoking or not; thereby, dividing their customer base. The minority opinion was to leave the existing ordinance in place. As always, I'm happy to discuss further via e-mail or phone.

I could also argue that all God's part-time Councilors have a potential conflict of interest. Until you get a full-time Council, this is the price you pay for the government you got.

Just like Joanne and her union ties. Your witness.

lindsayG - Are you saying you have never been paid to talk / write / campaign for smoke free policies? Hard to believe, or maybe Lifetime Nonsmoker is right.

Nothing has stopped Steve Buyer from voting for tobacco interests after hundreds of thousands in contributions from big tobacco. What's the difference if City-County Councillors do the same for anti-smoking interests.

I don't see you up Buyer's butt about it.

"Weird" is the pretense of purpose assumed by those telling legally consenting adults what they can and can't do. Grow UP!

We've got REAL PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY, outside the tenuous yet not apparent to clueless ninnies, liberties of frivolity; afforded the soft bellied, distracted & inexperienced, in challenges of the core.

Your mission isn't about health, it's about TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO. Drop the flakes & reach for the protein- you're suffering a deficiency.

Have tobacco companies pulled stunts? Sure they have. Who doesn't know that? When you set your alarm tomorrow, try waking up!

Of course I'm not trying to impugn the integrity of Councilor D. Mahern or imply anything about him personally. My point was to make the contrast between the tobacco industry vs. the concerned citizens of Indianapolis. The tobacco industry should not decide the health policy for Indianapolis or Indiana.

Just my 2 cents...

2 cents by way of tobacco (industry settlement) money?

Anyway, aren't we all still waiting for actual bar patrons and workers to organize and demand this heavy-handed smoking ban stuff en masse? As near as anyone can tell it is still outsiders with an agenda for others organizing (anyone getting paid to organize? most of the opposition are true volunteers or people actually affected by this legislation) against the rights of property owners and freedom of association amongst adults.

I think there is a big difference between Mansfield taking dollars from volunteers, non-paid members of Smoke Free Indy compared with dollars coming from the tobacco industry. I hope the difference is obvious.