Comments on: Abstain On Your Record

By: chrisworden

chrisworden — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:24:36 +0000

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?

By: chrisworden

chrisworden — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:24:36 +0000

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?

By: Ryan_Vaughn

Ryan_Vaughn — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:42:02 +0000

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.

By: IndyRacer57

IndyRacer57 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:35:00 +0000

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.

By: workforce600

workforce600 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:43:26 +0000

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.

By: Indiana_Barrister

Indiana_Barrister — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:55:16 +0000

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!

By: Ryan_Vaughn

Ryan_Vaughn — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:34:03 +0000

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.

By: generalsn

generalsn — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:27:03 +0000

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

By: seanshepard

seanshepard — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:19:28 +0000

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?

By: varangianguard

varangianguard — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:06:17 +0000

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