Comments on: Is Smoke Free Indy Playing with Fire?

By: buerg37

buerg37 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:32:59 +0000

Think Again- I don't think you're a councillor, at least not a Republican one. The stories about what went on when Ballard talked to the R councillors in caucus are probably being circulated by one of the sore loser sponsors. Councillors followed what the the mayor demanded in”lockstep” fashion? What a hoot! The mayor dreams about his independent thinking R councillors doing that. Were you there? People on all sides of the issue who were there knew that Ballard had been talking about a veto for days. He didn't twist any arms, or influence any last minute decisions. People voted the way they always intended to. The first round was lost by the smoking ban brats and they have been having a temper tantrum ever since. “Waah-Waaah! I hate you Mayor! You're a mean mayor! Gimme my smoking ban! I want my smoking ban, and, and, I'm gonna scream and kick and call you bad names until you give it to me!”

By: buerg37

buerg37 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:32:59 +0000

By: Name

Name — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:15:13 +0000

GP38, you asked, and here's the logic:

Yes, I supported the President's bullying of House Dems last week. Because Obama campaigned on a platform of national health care. Using a tax on the richest 2% to help fund it. The House bill last week lowers that to the top 1.35-1.55%.

Anyone who didn't realize he'd use his political muscle to wrestle this huge problem to the ground, is dumber than dirt. He's following through. No surprises.

Yeah, Paul, I did hear Ballard make a promise to support the smoking ban. Nobody in the whole damned room thought he'd win, and I sure didn't base my mayoral vote on that answer. But he said it. And then, at the 11th hour, he works the phones in his own council caucus, and threatens a veto. There were a few votes in that caucus for the ban.

767. The number of days Ballard has left.

By: Matthew Stone

Matthew Stone — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:05:38 +0000

When even the anon comments aren't echoing MCDP/Indianapolis Times, then I somehow doubt it's something the public wants.

http://indianapolistimesblog.blogspot.com/2009/...

By: seanshepard

seanshepard — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:43:18 +0000

The money to keep paying them, keep them in the spotlight, make them feel important about themselves only keeps flowing so long as the task is not complete.

Unfortunately, there is rarely very much money in opposing the advance of tyranny.

By: Fact Checker

Fact Checker — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:13:15 +0000

Let Ballard veto this. The public wants it. If Ballard vetoes it then he will have yet another nail in his political coffin.

By: John Howard

John Howard — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:46:56 +0000

I heard today of a school ban somewhere on chocolate milk. San Francisco wants (or has) an added tax on 'unhealthy' soft drinks.

That's where this stuff leads. First one, then another, then another. While it's true we already have a smoking ban, that's not reason enough for me to want a more restrictive one to replace it. I would rather they not have the current one, actually.

And as I always note, I am a lifelong non-smoker who thinks it is a vile, nasty habit. I just think my government delving into such areas is even MORE vile and nasty. I simply have the smarts to not go where I know there is smoking. Simple really. And it works so well.

By: pogden297

pogden297 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:13:42 +0000

If Ballard truly broke a campaign promise then I would agree TA. I figured he just wanted some narrow exceptions that the smoking zealots wouldn't go along with.

But if you want to talk broken Ballard campaign promises, the smoking ban would rank about 99th. 1-98 involves his selling out reform-minded Republicans. So maybe he's just trying to even the score...sell out people on the other side of the political fence.

FYI, I didn't take your comment as "elitist." I just thought maybe you believed professional people were all on board on this total ban.

By: generalsn

generalsn — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:37:04 +0000

They're already in your home in some places. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1M9ENyWXIA

By: generalsn

generalsn — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:31:37 +0000

For those who say "it can't happen here", you must realize that a well funded "war on smokers" is underway. Here's where it started:

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

Here's the "model ban" from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the "smoking ban for dummies" It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community. As you can see. compromises are absolutly not acceptable.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229