Proposed smoking ban rejected by council committee

0 Comments

email Email to a friend

Printer-friendly

Add to myNUVO

Digg this

Recent stories by
Glenn Guimond
The other side
Mar 15, 2006
Blue Line not so blue
Jun 15, 2005
Rebuilding Together
May 4, 2005
Trouble on 38th Street
Dec 1, 2004
Murders on the Westside
Nov 24, 2004

Recommended stories

News
Tightening the belt
by Tim Burris
Aug 11, 2004

News
Up in smoke
by Summer Wood
Aug 27, 2003

News
Smoking ban, workers’ rights
by Fran Quigley
Dec 3, 2003

News
Is Indianapolis next?
by Nicholas Jaqua
Jan 5, 2005

News
The other side
by Glenn Guimond
Mar 15, 2006

Letters
Smoke-free
by Letter to the Editor
Mar 22, 2006

Proposed smoking ban rejected by council committee
by Glenn Guimond Nov 19, 2003

Councilor Coughenour blasts opponents of ban as “cowardly”

The Indianapolis City-County Council committee meeting on Nov. 11 was, by the end of the evening, more schoolyard brawl than a gathering of professional adults. All the fuss came after the committee of Rules and Public Policy voted down a controversial anti-smoking ordinance proposed by Republican Councilwoman Beulah Coughenour.

After Proposal 122 fell by a 5-2 vote, Coughenour made her feelings clear, telling the other members of the committee, “I think that’s a very cowardly thing to do.” The majority of the 150-person crowd gathered for the meeting agreed, booing the outcome of the vote. Republicans Robert Massie, William Dowden and Curtis Coonrod voted against the ban. So did Democrats Rozelle Boyd and Frank Short. Only Republican Philip Borst voted with Coughenour. Democrat Karen Horseman, who is in the middle of an election recount, was present for part of the committee meeting but left before a vote was called. The crowd responded with cheers as Coughenour continued her post-vote tongue-lashing of the dissenting committee voters. “Somehow it escapes me, how you can put a definition above the health of the people,” she said. Council chairman Robert Massie defended himself. “It’s not some cowardly or dastardly act to not pass this proposal,” he said, going on to call the crowd hostile. This was met with even more boos and jeers. As people arrived at the Tuesday night meeting, it was clear that if the committee didn’t pass the ban they were in for a fight. Supporters of the smoking ban had come out in droves and were primed to voice their displeasure. In order to get into the public assembly room on the second floor, a visitor had to pass through two security checkpoints. The first is what we’ve come to expect when entering any government building. You have to empty your pockets and hand over any bags before walking through a metal detector in the lobby. The second, while more subtle, was just as effective. The anti-smoking lobby had brought children with them. They were waiting on the second floor landing and outside of the assembly room. The children were there to hand out stickers saying, “Smoke-free air at work, home and play, ask for it. Expect it.” Before passing any of the kids, who ranged in age from 6 to 8, people had to answer a couple of questions. “Do you smoke? Are you here to support us?” Several people answered that they were smokers. The kids lost the smiles they had on their faces a moment before and hung their heads.

Commission could not reach consensus

Ten months earlier, the committee rejected another version of Coughenour’s ordinance. At that time, a commission was formed to work out a compromise. Chairman Massie stated that the proposal was only to be brought back before the committee if a consensus had been reached. It wasn’t. Talks between the two sides broke down months ago. Massie said that Coughenour and her colleagues wrote this new version of the ban without consulting anyone else on the commission, which includes local businesses and health groups. Some of the changes made to the proposal by Coughenour included exclusions for outside dining areas at restaurants or bars, bars that derive 75 percent or more of their gross annual receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages, off-track betting parlors and gambling boats. Under the ordinance, anyone caught smoking in a prohibited area would have been fined $50. Business owners and managers would pay $100 for the first violation of the year, $200 for the second and $500 for the third. Coughenour, who is retiring after 28 years on the City Council, may have looked at this ban as her lasting legacy. Coughenour is not the only committee member retiring this year. Massie, Dowden and Short are also out after the first of the year and two other committee members, Coonrod and Horseman, are involved in recounts. This means that only two of the committee members, Boyd and Borst, are guaranteed to be returning next session. The controversial ordinance has both its supporters and detractors. Rob Katz, a smoker who attended the council meeting, said, “I disagree with a mandatory smoking ban. Leave it up to the individual businesses, since they are the ones who will live and die by the business profits which may be affected.” Alsie Palmer, a restaurant bartender, said, “It’s about consideration. I smoke but when I go out to eat I sit in the non-smoking section so that I don’t bother others. But it goes both ways. I want a choice. Why are they trying to pass a law that would force me not to smoke?” Lance Cook, a manager at the Lonestar Steakhouse on 38th Street said, “Since Sept. 11 the restaurant industry has seen a drop in business of 10 to 20 percent. In the last few years we’ve seen a little bit of that business return. Now you’re going to throw another obstacle at us? We’ll lose the 4 to 5 percent of the business we’ve gained back in the last few years.” Tim Holm, a non-smoker who has worked in the restaurant industry for 17 years, said that he moved here from Fort Wayne where there is a ban currently in effect. “The smoke doesn’t bother me. But I’d be in favor of a ban if there were some kind of compromise like they have in Fort Wayne,” he said. “You see they have areas closed off for smokers. I think that you need to give people a choice. We are, after all, a retail and service business.” Karla Sneegas of the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Agency pointed to a ban currently in effect in Helena, Mont., one of several throughout the country, as evidence of the health benefits of such an ordinance. Since the public places smoking ban took effect in Helena, Sneegas said, reported heart attacks dropped 60 percent. In response to concerns about the limited ban in Forth Wayne, Sneegas said, “It is more for the consumer who will be spending only one to one and a half hours in the establishment. The employees who work in those areas will spend eight or more hours in there. And that’s unfortunate.”

The rejected smoking ban The ban rejected by the City-County Council last week would have prohibited smoking in many public places, but included the following exclusions: • Outside dining areas at restaurants or bars. • Bars that derive 75 percent or more of their gross annual receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages. • Off-track betting parlors and gambling boats. Anyone caught smoking in a prohibited area would have been fined $50. Business owners and managers would pay $100 for the first violation of the year, $200 for the second and $500 for the third.

Digg this

Comments on Proposed smoking ban rejected by council committee