Am I Missing Something Here?
Monday night the Indianapolis City-County Council may vote on a tougher smoking ban for the city. I say “may” because as I write this post this morning there is some serious question as to whether either side has enough votes for a clear victory or whether the matter will be delayed for another meeting or tabled indefinitely.
You all know my position on the current proposal, I think it’s unnecessary because the current compromise reached back in 2005 works fine. Less than 1% of the 40,000 odd businesses in Marion County allow smoking and two-thirds of the places that serve alcohol are non-smoking. There are ample choices for individuals to work or customers to patronize an establishment that is smoke free. No one is forced to worked in a smoking environment and many of those who do already smoke.
So with all that said, my big question regarding this entire process is “why”? I consider myself pretty connected into the pulse of this community and of all the issues I hear about, this one has been nowhere on any average citizen’s radar screen. The subject never comes up at the Mayor’s town hall meetings. And with the exception of local advocates I seriously doubt most people care whether a bar is smoking or non-smoking if they have a place to go that fits their needs.
So what’s the need? My journalist counterparts say Indianapolis should “join other progressive” cities and ban smoking in public places. I consider myself pretty progressive, and there’s nothing progressive about taking choices away from adults who are perfectly capable of reaching those decisions on their own.
I for one will be glad when this issue is over and done with, although I doubt it will happen Monday. Regardless, right after the Council meeting I’m walking from the city-county building over to Nikki Blaine’s Cigar Lounge, lighting up a $20 cigar and wonder what the fuss is all about. Feel free to exercise your right to choose and join me.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:00 am
Those of us who favor it call it a matter of public health.
Those who oppose it cite property rights, etc.
But honestly, I don't understand the timing either, Abdul.
I was angry the first proposal was, in my view, lame. I recognize that opponents think otherwise.
Could it be, that money from the tobacco settlement, which is used largely to fund these initiatives, is near its end? I have no idea about that–just asking.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Can't get on board with the property rights crowd on this. These types have screwed me over so many times: Building stadiums for billionaire sport team owners, building other un-need projects to make a select few wealthy, lobby for property tax breaks when I don't get a break, etc..
Screw everyone….that is the new motto of this country. Me, myself, and I is now driving this country. Do whatever is in the best interest for you and yours. I don't go out to clubs/bars anymore, but my non-smoking relatives do. _I_ care about their health, so therefore I have no problem stripping away rights from others as long as it benefits me. So to protect the health of people I care about, I gladly support the smoking ban. Time to take it state wide as well. It is the new American way!!!
October 25th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I'm not sure who you've been talking to, but the 'average citizen' that works in a bar or other place that allows smoking, goes to one for entertainment, or stays home while their friends are out in smoky places has it on their radar. Not to mention everyone that now lives in a smoke-free city or state and comes back to Indy to visit.
If it doesn't affect you, it's probably not on your radar. Regardless, most people support it. I sure hope most of the Council does too.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
John Doe: your rationale from paragraph one to paragraph two is amazing. While I do not “have a dog in an Indianapolis situation” I am concerned about the erosion of freedom to do anything. Expect that each person has a different place they draw the line but mainly it is drawn where they have no “dog in the fight”.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
This whole issue is as much about public heath as global warming is about saving the planet. It's about control, plain and simple. And so-called 'progressives' today are about more governmental control and less personal accountability. The libs among us have bastardized another once-great word.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Which word is that, Rico? And where did you get your science degrees to comment intelligently on global warming, or lack thereof?
Just curious.
The government has the right to regulate public health issues. You cannot open a restaurant, for instance, until and unless your sewage lines are properly installed and working. Or until the fire exits are clear and marked and the electrical systems are properly installed and safe.
Who detemrines that?
Government. And I'm glad for that.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
As a patron I much prefer non smoking bars. And I don't think there are many non smoking options because just about every bar I have been in was smoking. What is almost worse than inhaling the second hand smoke is the way my clothes smell when I leave. It's not too much to ask for someone to step outside to have a smoke. I support the smoking ban.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Anyone who is truly for property rights opposes the guns of government being used to forcibly extract money (or otherwise reduce people's standard of living) for the purposes of transferring that property to others.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
The word is 'proggressive'. I'm sorry you couldn't follow my last post, wise one.
And I don't need a science degree to know that global warming should actually involve warming of the globe. That's why Nobel prize winning Scam Artist Al Gore has decided that it should be called 'climate change'. C'mon, get with the program!
I suggest you read Chris Horner's book “Red Hot Lies”on the fraud that is global warming. And I challenge anyone to debate Horner. Of course that will never happen. The only real way to perpetrate this massive global fraud is to marginalize the skeptics. The number of critics in the sciences grows each day, by the way. But don't let science get in the way. Those pushing the radical anti-capitalist agenda of the global warming crowd need only rely on consensus to make believers out of them. (And a whole lot of grant money!)
October 25th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
So, you believe that just because someone opens the doors and allows you to enter their property that you now have a right to force your opinion upon them. Interesting.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
No, actually the word is 'progressive'. I'd hate for your or Wilson to feel compelled to correct me.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
The global warming people take 150 years of temperature readings out of billions of years and try to make some grand claims, quite simply the following questions need to be answered:
(1) did the last round of glaciers that reached halfway down the United States recede before or after we all started driving cars and building factories? If it was not us, could it be we have been an extended warming period for quite a bit longer than we've been taking measurements?
(2) explain the global warming that also taking place, to about the same degree, on Mars and Jupiter over the same measurement period.
(3) It is well known that the planet was warmer when the Dinosaurs were here. Was Barney driving around in his S.U.V. too much?
Doesn't mean there isn't warming, but we overestimate our influence.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Smokers & nonsmokers have a right to associate, or not, as they so choose. This heavy handed ordinance making is sophomoric. There are real issues that need attention, not this busy body BS.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
No, I do not. I am not forcing my opinion on anyone; I am just voicing it. I do believe I have the right to do that. Do I believe that the government has the right to enact laws for the health and welfare of all citizens? Yes. Is the Indianapolis government now debating such a law in the form of a smoking ban? Yes. Do I believe that I have the right to voice my opinion on a proposal my government is considering? Yes. You know what's funny? I used to be a smoker and even then I supported smoking bans. And even when I was in bars that allowed smoking I would go outside because I felt bad blowing my smoke into other peoples' lungs. I don't understand why more smokers aren't so considerate. I was at a bar the other night and the smoke was so bad that I had to leave, and before you say “Yeah, well that's your choice. Go somewhere else.” keep in mind that there is really nowhere else for me to go since all the bars I go in allow smoking. The bottom line is it is not too much to ask for a smoker to step outside to have a cigarette. It shouldn't be this big of a deal.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
It won't affect you if you go to a place that is non-smoking. People like you are miserable fracking cowards! You refuse to expose yourselves to personal danger, so you get government to do your dirty work for you.
ALL of our rights mean something. You and your subspecies are so ready to demand that government infringe on the property rights of those YOU disagree with. What happens when others come after YOUR property rights?
Do you like fast food? Chips? Soda pop? Any other non-healthy foods? What will YOU do when others decree that they want YOU to stop consuming these foods…even in your own home!
The smoking ban crowd will NOT stop until all smoking is banned everywhere. They will take small steps to get this done.
Why are people surprised at this?
October 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“The government has the right to regulate public health issues.”
Really? Who is 'government'?
Most of what 'government' does in a business setting (electrical, food prep areas, etc) occur because the patrons cannot SEE behind the walls.
Patrons CAN see if a place is a smoking establishment. Alas, in your world, people are not expected to exercise personal responsibility.
Much easier to have someone else do your dirty work.
Do YOU walk into smoking establishments, then demand that the owner ban smoking on THEIR PROPERTY? Of course not. Much easier, and safer for YOU, to get men with guns (force of government) to do this for you.
It is telling indeed that you favor government intrusion into property rights.
But, it would be fun to watch you go into a biker bar and TELL THEM that they cannot smoke!!! I'd pay money to see that !!!
October 25th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
“And I don't think there are many non smoking options…”
David, Google is your friend! A bit of research on your part would help you make an informed decision.
“It's not too much to ask for someone to step outside to have a smoke.”
We see how it 'really is' for the anti-smokers. If there were 1000 nighclubs in Indy that were smoke free, and only 10 that allowed smoking, the anti-smokers would insist on patronizing the smoking allowed establishments, then demand that the property owner(s) and patrons either stop smoking, or step outside — 50 feet from the entrance, THEN light up.
How about this, “It's not too much to ask for someone to hold their breath while I smoke.”
Oppssss…..I don't smoke! Yet, I am FOR personal responsibility and property rights.
The Indianapolis Smoker – A resource for both smokers and non smokers. Shows S/NS establishments.
http://indysmoker.blogspot.com/2006/03/list-las...
Smoke Free Indiana: A listing of local smokefree dining and entertainment venues.
http://www.smokefreeworld.com/indiana.shtml
October 25th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“Smokers & nonsmokers have a right to associate, or not, as they so choose.”
Careful, Dave. Think Again, David and their ilk always know what is better for you than you do. This subspecies that they belong to believes that government is always the final arbiter — that We the People have nothing whatsoever to do except vote every few years.
And, TA and others of that ilk would never consider placing themselves at the pointy end and trying to force their will upon others. Why, that would entail accepting personal responsibility, and personal danger.
Much easier to have government employees with guns to do that for them.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
TA,
Your argument that because the government has some regulatory control over private business it should be able to regulate anything it wants related to private business would destroy property rights.
As far as global warming goes, Rico and SS are right. The science supporting man is causing global warming which will lead ot a catastrophe movement is itself based on flawed science. Why is today's temperature the ideal? Climate history says man does better with a warmer climate, including warmer than today. In addition, they are only looking at the last 120 years or so of temperature records when examining global warming. If they looked at other climate temperature records it would show that this recent uptick could just be a part of the inevitable zig-zag of temperatures each of which last between several hundred and thousands of years.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Uh, we in the property rights crowd protested the Colts stadium VERY LOUDLY, as well as other bailouts and abatements for the rich and well connected.
Seems to me that the same crowd that helped out their rich sports team owners are the same crowd pushing for the smoking ban.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Aires, I never said I knew what was better for you, than you do yourself. But I do know that second-hand smoke is a killer. That is not seriously debated.
As for the “can't see behind the walls” theory, and the other nonsense perpetuated by some here: govt. regulations that oversee the inside of a private business, are indeed the govt.'s right and responsibility. The width of the front door, its proximity to other exits, width of hallways, restroom doors, etc. Even the number, size and length of parking spaces–before you even get in the front door. Hundreds of regulations inside a business that you do see. And no, Paul it doesn't destroy private property rights. You ought to know better than to peddle that stale crapolla. Regulations for the public good have their roots in English common law.
I have no idea if the ban will pass tomorrow night, or ever. And I agree with Abdul, that the timing is odd. I won't curl up in a fetal position if it fails to pass. I do get amusement from the arguments against it. It's kinda funny.
So is the seemingly-endless broadbrush attitude of folks with whom we sometimes disagree. It reached the zenith on this argument, for me at least, when Aires compared zoning inspectors to govt. agents with guns. Completely ridiculous.
But I'm sure the code enforcement people will get a huge giggle out of that. As will most sensible folks, on either side of this prickly issue.
If that kind of discussion on public issues floats your boat, so be it. It doesn't accomplish anything.
Dial down the hyperbole and the wild commentary, OK? Tell us why you oppose the ban. Simply and without emotion.
I'll keep the code enforcement guys with guns quietly waiting over———————-here. Cause God knows they're Communists, make that Socialists, trying to steal your property rights.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Oh, one needs more than one degree in science to speak with wisdom on issues? That might explain the Indiana Legislature which in toto has so few degrees in science? It does explain stupidity on stilts from those who think degrees have much meaning. Let's repeat for TA that a high school degree in Indiana means only that it's holder has passed a dumbed down 9th grade level test. And, this is progress as brought to you from the Indiana Legislature because Indiana newspapers are written for 6th graders anymore.
October 25th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
You said you supported the ban. Therefore, you believe that the opinion of some, even a majority, should be cause to deprive the rights, freedom of choice or freedom of association of others.
Government, arguably, has the right to enact laws that protect the rights of individuals. That is nearly all government should do is protect the rights and freedoms of it's citizens, not allow itself to be used as a tool to reduce or limit them.
If there are insufficient non-smoking establishments (like Scotty 's Brew House and others) than put together an investment group or something and start one. Use the market, not the heavy hand of government.
October 25th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
It is ever the case that people much prefer using a proxy, like the government, to do the things they would never consider doing themselves. Whether that is robbing people to get donations to whatever private cause or enforcing their opinion and will upon the life, property or rights of others.
Anytime a new law is considered, it should always be asked, “are you willing to deprive of someone of their life, property or freedom or even shoot them for non-compliance with this proposed law?” Because, ultimately, the last recourse of the state (government) for non-compliance is when people with weapons show up to enforce the sentence, fine, confiscation of your property or to ensure your incarceration.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:53 am
TA, you want to tell a private business owner that you can't allow a legal actiivity on their property. Anyway you slice it, that is a limit on private property rights.
The fact is your argument can be used for ANY limit on those property rights. Where are you going to draw the line? Accordiing to your position, there is no limit to what a government can do to a private business owner if it is deemed for a “good” cause.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:02 am
“It reached the zenith on this argument, for me at least, when Aires compared zoning inspectors to govt. agents with guns. Completely ridiculous.”
I never compared 'zoning inspectors' to anyone. I use phrases such as “Much easier to have government employees with guns…”, or “Much easier, and safer for YOU, to get men with guns (force of government) to do this for you.”
Now, you imply that this is over the top. I disagree.
What do you suppose would happen to a property owner who was told to stop a legal activity occurring on his property, simply because some twits in government decided to trample on his property rights.
The PROPERTY OWNER (PO) refuses. Government issues a citation. The PO tears the citation into little bits, and mails it back to government. Government issues another citation. PO tears it up again. Government decides to close the business down, thus depriving the PO of the use of his property. The PO stands in the business doorway with his firearms (Art 1-32) to defend his property. Other government employees with guns arrive and order the PO to disarm and comply. The PO refuses, as he sincerely believes he is right, and defending his property rights. Government employees with guns attempt to rush the property. PO raises his firearm of choice in a 'threatening manner' (see police report). Men with guns execute the otherwise peace loving PROPERTY OWNER for not complying with government edicts.
TA, stuff like this has happened before, to people that honestly believe in property rights, the Constitutions of their state and federal government.
People have been executed by government employees with guns for far less.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Paul, I admit it's a tough call. But the sole claim here, by government, is public health. Evidence is strong to support that claim. So I'm on board with this particular regulation.
Aires, keep on talking about guns. Don't stop. It's so effective.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:03 am
If this were a sincere public health issue, smoke free folks would engage the sovereignty of those they claim to be concerned about, sponsoring something like smoke free clinics to “reach” and convert smokers, one by one; the genuine work of missionaries.
Risk free living doesn't exist, and determination for the same rests exclusively, in the hands of the INDIVIDUAL. Smoking establishments & especially private clubs, should counter this nonsense on a “right to associate” basis.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Risk-free living doesn't exist, Dave. You're right. But when we know the negative effects of certain activities, and we can curb them, we should.
Numerous hospitals, the American Lung Association, and others have offered free or low-cost smoking-cessation clinics for years. I'm told that smoking is a harder addiction to break than almost anythingn else. Why the hell do you suppose the tobacco companies put nicotene, a highly-addictive drug, in cigarettes? Tobacco doesn't grow with naturally-addictive components–they have to be added.
Everyone I know who's tried to quit has had a very difficult time, some with, some without prescription drugs to help. So IO'm very sympathetic.
Here are a few of those smoking clinic citations:
http://www.keyconsumer.org/support_groups
http://tobacco.medicine.iu.edu/health-provider/...
October 26th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Whether or not “we” adults, should curb certain legal activities, is purely a matter of individual decision, association, or disassociation; the freedom to walk away from those who associate in a manner with which we merely disagree.
“Disagreement” about a legal activity, is not “curable” by an infraction of force or mob rule.
The most dangerous drug in the world is despotism; the delusion or pretense that an adult or adults (confronted with their own daily & lifelong struggles of self control), have the “right” to control the lives of sovereign, law abiding, fellow citizens. That's regressive, not progressive.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Another 'progressive city' out in California is discussing the idea of a tax on soft drinks because they're 'bad for you.'
You see, this stuff never stops if we let it go on. First one thing, then another, and another. It's best to put the stake in the ground now. Smoking is a nasty, smelly habit that I abhore. But I'm not in favor of a total ban. It would certainly make me wonder, 'What's next?'
I'm in favor of laws that say how my meal is to be prepared safely, as it reduces my likelyhood of salmonella,etc. I can't tell what is in there so I need some assurance it's safe.
But with smoking, I have the knowledge of what I'm walking into and the sense to steer away. So there's no need to slap another on the books to outlaw it.
I would also have the sense to not work someplace if I personally thought it was hazardous to my health. Enough folks do that, and the 'problem' will self-correct without any legislative intervention required.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Well, whoop-dee-do for you John howard…you get to choose where you work. Many of us can't. So we can't always “steer away,” as you put it.
This will be over tonight…I suspect the ordinance won't pass, although it should.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Nicotine not an active ingredient of tobacco? Man, go back to freshman chemistry class. What a ridiculous statement. I will agree that the cigarette companies add extra nicotine, but man, it is one of the major constituent elements of tobacco.
Do you just make this stuff up?
November 9th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Think wants to know why people oppose the ban. I'll give one very simple answer: because it's based on lies.
Last week the IndyStar wrote a strong editorial in favor of a smoking ban. I issued a Challenge to them online and in a letter to the editor which has been ignored. The challenges were to:
1) Support surveying the workers they claim to represent to see if THEY truly want a ban to “protect” them. Antismokers NEVER support such surveys because they KNOW that outside of a few solitary voices they're able to dig up that the workers don't want anything to do with their bans.
and
2) For SmokeFreeIndy, with its 14 million dollars, and pro-ban Councilfolks, with their salaries, to stand behind their word that a ban won't hurt business and sign legal documentation to cover any ban biz losses that can reasonably be shown to result.
If they're telling the truth they should be happy to accept these challenges to get their ban. If they're lying they'll run like little girls from a flock of tarantulas.
So far they seem to be running. Readers, call your councilpeople. Barrister, challenge the Star to stand behind its position!
Oh… and Barrister? Don't for solitary moment think the Cigar Lounge will be immune. Once they're isolated and vulnerable the Antismokers *will* be back. And at that point they'll be easy pickins: there won't be anyone left to stand up for them.
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers' Brains”
November 9th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Think wants to know why people oppose the ban. I'll give one very simple answer: because it's based on lies.
Last week the IndyStar wrote a strong editorial in favor of a smoking ban. I issued a Challenge to them online and in a letter to the editor which has been ignored. The challenges were to:
1) Support surveying the workers they claim to represent to see if THEY truly want a ban to “protect” them. Antismokers NEVER support such surveys because they KNOW that outside of a few solitary voices they're able to dig up that the workers don't want anything to do with their bans.
and
2) For SmokeFreeIndy, with its 14 million dollars, and pro-ban Councilfolks, with their salaries, to stand behind their word that a ban won't hurt business and sign legal documentation to cover any ban biz losses that can reasonably be shown to result.
If they're telling the truth they should be happy to accept these challenges to get their ban. If they're lying they'll run like little girls from a flock of tarantulas.
So far they seem to be running. Readers, call your councilpeople. Barrister, challenge the Star to stand behind its position!
Oh… and Barrister? Don't for solitary moment think the Cigar Lounge will be immune. Once they're isolated and vulnerable the Antismokers *will* be back. And at that point they'll be easy pickins: there won't be anyone left to stand up for them.
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers' Brains”