Indy’s not no-smoking yet

The seemingly endless merry-go-round concerning a proposed Indianapolis smoking ban continues. “Back on the ride again,” a member of Smoke-Free Indy sighed on her way out on Monday night. After 200 speakers, nine meetings, countless hours of debate and compromise, Proposal 45 remains in limbo as it was kicked back to committee Monday night in a 16-13 vote of the City-County Council. What started as a near-total ban on smoking in public places now stands as a proposed ban on most workplaces, restaurants and indoor public areas, with numerous exceptions.

City-County Council members Patrice Abduallah, Steve Talley and William Oliver a the committee hearing that passed Proposal 45. It was later sent back to committee by a vote of the council.

A crowded auditorium greeted councilors at one of the most closely watched votes in years, both at the contentious meeting of the Committee for Children’s Health and Environment which passed the proposal 9-2, and the full meeting of 29 councilors who voted 16-13 to send it back to committee for further study.

“It’s kind of unusual that we spend so much time on a particular ordinance, but this is a very important public health issue, and we needed a lot of time to lay the groundwork and have ample community input,” said Angela Mansfield, chair of the committee that examined the proposal. “The original proposal was very comprehensive, and we wanted to see what the public thought. I think that’s what truly makes us a community, by interacting with each other and seeing what we want. That’s what we really want a community to be.”

The original proposal was a virtual total ban on smoking in all public places and workplaces, including sports arenas and parks, extending out 50 feet from any entrance to a banned area. Under the proposal as it now stands, the ban on outdoor spaces is now limited to only 10 feet from entrances to a banned area.

Another area of compromise was the enforcement date. The original proposal would put the law into action in just 60 days. Suggested dates ranged from “immediately” to two years, and the currently proposed date is Oct. 1, 2005.

The most significant compromise is the exemption for bars and taverns, which would continue to be allowed to be smoking establishments. Smoking bars and taverns must meet six criteria: They must hold a beer/liquor/wine retailer permit, allow no customers under the age of 21 at any time, employ nobody under the age of 18, not be physically located within a business otherwise required to be smoke-free, not be a restaurant that primarily sells food and have sent notice to the Department of Health of their intent to be a smoking establishment.

Also exempt would be retail tobacco stores and not-for-profit private clubs as defined by state law, who provide food and alcohol only for members and guests.

However, the definition of “bars” and “restaurants” remained a point of contention throughout the debate, particularly as Councilor Jim Bradford, the most vocal opponent of the ban, grilled supporters on the exact effects and wording of the proposal. Several members of the council indicated that the vagueness of the definitions was their primary reason for sending it back to committee.

“We’re talking about people that have restaurants that have lots of money that are invested in these things,” Bradford said. “And now I read that all restaurants are smoke-free depending on the box you check with the Board of Health.”

“All of a sudden, this place that has been a bar is a restaurant overnight,” added Mark Webb, of the Indiana Licensed Beverage Association. “They are staring into a storm of uncertainty right now, not knowing what the future is going to bring. That one line is a very pernicious line.”

Supporters of the measure made no secret of their displeasure at the vote.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” William Oliver said. “To send this back to committee is tantamount to defeating it.”

“I’m not happy. I’m not happy about this at all,” Mansfield said. “There were several council members who said they would support it who then switched their votes … I think some of those who said that [they wanted more specific definitions] were not sincere. I think they were looking at the special interests. I’m very disappointed. The community has been very clear on what they want and this council has not responded.”

The next meeting of the Children’s Health and Environment Committee, where the next chapter of this tale will be written, will take place May 19 at 6 p.m. at the City-County Building.