This is an argument I'd expect from someone far less, uh….worldly.

It's convenient politics lately, to drive to the edge of an argument, open the car door, and peer over the edge of the cliff. It's as if you're driving to South Bend, but do so by way of Terre Haute, and wonder why it took longer. Yeah, you can get there, but it's a stretch.

It's not very accurate, however.

I doubt it's an ecodev issue, Abdul. It is absolutely a quality-of-life issue. Does that have economic development impact?

Only in the very long term. The ecodev argument is silly, and so is yours.

Of course this is a silly argument, but I'm not the one who raised the specter of economic development.

The assumption that a smoking ban is good for business is based on the idea that people who have not invested a penny in a business know better than those who have invested their money by buying and operating these businesses. I”m pretty sure that's a bad assumption.
.

Oh, OK…I get it…you were demonstrating the silliness by being silly yourself.

Damn I hate blogs sometimes. So two-dimensional. I couldn't see the smug smile on your face while you typed it.

Live and learn I guess.

Believe it a good posting assuming that EC advocates take such a position. Assuming 25%+/- of people still smoke (a lot or a cigar once in a while) then is it not likely some serve on boards that make decisions for where a meeting/convention will be held. Personally, I smoke and have for 50 years–would I consider the smoking policy of an area before voting for it–yes, along with other factors. In fact, I do some volunteer work around the state and since I do not intend to give up smoking just because of a local ban–such as no smoking within 500 feet of someone, etc. I am choosing which places I will volunteer my services and some will get dropped. And I do seek to respect others when I smoke. With all the concerns about alcohol usage perhaps Indy should become a dry area–just think of the savings of police enforcement of DUIs, bar fights, etc…..Great economic development idea.

Economic development is generally the large lie behind which all sorts of economic crimes are committed. State Universities are all about economic development (or anything else that will keep them on the pap). Schools claim that their lavish facilities are economic development even though a coin toss is about as good a predictor for students actually passing the ISTEP in Indiana. On the topic more directly, what Indianapolis has is a compromise and wisdom would suggest giving it much more time to evaluate. If folks in the future are going to compromise they are more likely to do so if the “deal” is given a fair shake. If two sides are going to constantly wage war until the other side is utterly defeated then don't be looking for progress of an incremental sort, or compromises.

May all you smokers die from your tar lined arteries and lungs! Now let me get back to my Big Mac and super sizer fries!

Moneyguy is funny.

Agman–you tlak about the 500-ft thing, and I udnerstand your desire to smoke. It certainly is your right.

Here's a thought: how about you smoke only on your property? And only in places where you absolutely control the emitting of the foul smoke?

Why is that so hard for some smokers to grasp? I just don't get it.
The right of smokers to smoke anywhere in public, should exist only inasmuch as their smoke is completely contained by them.

TA–can't help but agree with you–but what about the property owner who owns a business I guess it is alright to tell them how they can conduct business on their own property; what about the vehicles with smog causing exhaust; and the list could go on and on. Just as the old saying about “your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins” could surely be applied to situation after situation after situation.

So if a property owner's cigarette smoke blows over his property line, what then? These people won't be happy until smoking is banned.

What about the environmentalist liberals pushing this issue and the foul body odors that some of them, no doubt, emit? You're fine with that? Sure you are.

(Pay no attention to Rico, Ag…I'm starting to think nobody else does either)

Vehicles which cause smog are on public streets (usually), so the govt. can and does regulate them. Not hard enough for my liking, but there are regulations.

Business owners never, ever operate a business that's open to the public without government approval. Public health codes, building codes, other local and state ordinances/laws must be met before you can open. So the whole “my business I get to decide” thing is kinda lost. You don't get to decide if your restaurant has good drains…and guess who regulates that? The demon Board of Health (if you believe some of these arguments).

Your swing/nose argument is perfect. Smokers can't and won't abide by that because: the single place their smoke causes no harm to anyone else is their home, IF all occupants are adults and able to make their own choices to get up and leave. Or perhaps their car, if they roll up their windows and the same thing applies regarding adults/ability to get out of the car.

Every single public place and business which opens its doors to the public can only do so after numerous other govt. regulations are met. This is another one. A true public health issue.

I am sorry TA if sometime I was driving down 465 and passed you in the far lane while I was smoking. gone

BY car smoke, I particularly meant smoking in cars where children or the infirmed were passengers.

So TA you're argument is that because government may do some regulation of business it has carte blanche to regulate business however it wants including requiring a private business owner to ban a perfectly legal activity on the private property.

You do realize, don't you, that a person does not have a right to patronize a business – that she or he can be tossed out if the owner doesn't want him or her there?

Well, you're starting to think. That's a good sign.

And I'm sure agman appreciates you lookin' out for him by deciding for him to whom he should and should not pay attention. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

What the anti smoking people are not thinking about is this. It is cheaper to treat smokers while they still smoke. Ok every one quits smoking, they live longer. They will need more nursing home space. How much will it cost for people who quit to live into thier 80's and 90's? You do the math while health care keeps going up and up

What the anti smoking people are not thinking about is this. It is cheaper to treat smokers while they still smoke. Ok every one quits smoking, they live longer. They will need more nursing home space. How much will it cost for people who quit to live into thier 80's and 90's? You do the math while health care keeps going up and up