|
Post by rick on Dec 6, 2006 9:53:17 GMT -5
Yahoo!
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Dec 6, 2006 11:44:06 GMT -5
Having given that bad habit up in 1992, I understand the thought behind the new ordinance, and all those that are in other locales....I do have a problem with it however. It seems to me that a designated smoking area should be available in most public buildings ( and I don't mean outside on the sidewalk). It is a terrible habit, one worth kicking....but for those that haven't or can't it doesn't make them second-class citizens and that's what we are telling them.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 6, 2006 11:57:13 GMT -5
Having given that bad habit up in 1992, I understand the thought behind the new ordinance, and all those that are in other locales....I do have a problem with it however. It seems to me that a designated smoking area should be available in most public buildings ( and I don't mean outside on the sidewalk). It is a terrible habit, one worth kicking....but for those that haven't or can't it doesn't make them second-class citizens and that's what we are telling them. Indiana seems to be behind the national trend. Our relatives in Florida are surprised when they come to Indiana to find smoking in restaurants. I think California may be another state??? which bans smoking. It's coming. And I'm glad. Smokers can smoke at home. The rights of the majority in the public square trump the rights of the minority, especially when it involves a serious health issue. This is a legitimate power of government. Don't ban smoking but keep it away from those who can be harmed.
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Dec 6, 2006 12:00:05 GMT -5
Not sure about the majority thing...but even if true, being the majority doesn't make you totally right...seems to me there could and should be a compromise, but that's what makes this a great country, we are allowed to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by valpotx on Dec 6, 2006 12:10:59 GMT -5
The whole idea is that their bad habit makes non-smokers' health worse. I have asthma, and cannot be around people who smoke for too long. I should not be at extra risk for cancer & other smoking-related illnesses when I have never smoked.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 6, 2006 12:24:05 GMT -5
Not sure about the majority thing...but even if true, being the majority doesn't make you totally right...seems to me there could and should be a compromise, but that's what makes this a great country, we are allowed to disagree. We all live with laws in a free society. We don't allow people to walk around naked in a public square even if some think they have a right not to wear clothes in public. The smoking ban will be a new law that most of the people (government by the people) want. A compromise doesn't make sense. Second hand smoke harms others. Nonsmokers should not have to have their health threatened just because a few people with bad habits choose to blow their poison in the air with no concern whether those around them are uncomfortable or not. It is not classy (a word you like to use) to be so selfish and to be only concerned about one's own self-satisfaction with no regard for how it affects others. If someone wants to smoke, knowing that it is harmful to them, go for it! Just don't make the rest of us be forced to agree with you. You don't have a right to harm the health of others when you are in public. As I said, this is a legitimate power of government to enact laws which promote the good health of its citizens. A "greater good" thing.
|
|
|
Post by crusaderjoe on Dec 6, 2006 13:22:09 GMT -5
I'm intrigued.....is this ban absolute city wide or have limiting instructions been put in place? Can people still smoke in bars for example?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 6, 2006 13:43:50 GMT -5
I'm intrigued.....is this ban absolute city wide or have limiting instructions been put in place? Can people still smoke in bars for example? I think they are working on the details. As I understand, a restaurant with a bar cannot offer a smoking section unless it wants to declare itself to be a bar for smoking. So a bar may or may not allow smoking depending on the choice of the owner. Other restaurants without bars will not be able to offer a section for smoking. There may also be a situation where a restaurant could have a separate building for smoking rather than just a partition, which will not be allowed. I know one of the owners in Valpo (Strongbow's) wants to have a smoking section and does not support the new ordinance. They may be able to completely wall-off certain parts of their building and comply with the "separation" requirements. I don't know for a fact that any of these situations are allowed. I'm just going on what I have heard and read. I think all government buildings will be smoke-free as well. I will post anything official as I find it.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 6, 2006 13:49:12 GMT -5
The proposal would ban smoking in workplaces, restaurants and public places, including retail stores.
Smoking still would be allowed in bars, private clubs and some other areas, however.
The law would take effect in April if the council approves it on two readings.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 6, 2006 13:52:35 GMT -5
Valpo council adopts smoking ban ordinance, 6-1 VALPARAISO: Workplaces, restaurants must go smoke free April 1 BY PHIL WIELAND pwieland@nwitimes.com 219.548.4352 This story ran on nwitimes.com on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 12:47 AM CST VALPARAISO | Valparaiso cigarette dealers have lost $3,000 worth of business, but Councilman Robert McCasland might have gotten the first vote in his mayoral campaign following Monday's adoption of the city's smoking ban ordinance. Only McCasland voted against the ordinance as an unfair intrusion on business, calling it "way out of bounds" for the council. Three residents, including the owner of a cigarette outlet, supported McCasland's opposition during public comment, while 16 others spoke in favor of it. McCasland said there should be some control on smoking, mostly by people not patronizing businesses that allow it, but added, "I have a problem with stepping on the freedoms people have fought and died for. What goes on in my business, as long as it is legal, should not be the government's concern, and, as of today, smoking is legal." He said he thought the threat by Robert Luckiewicz at last week's meeting was a little extreme. Luckiewicz vowed not to patronize any city businesses if the ordinance were approved, including the cigarette outlets where he spends more than $3,000 a year, and to support any candidate who supported repeal of the law. McCasland said last week he plans to run against Mayor Jon Costas in the Republican primary in May. Several residents urged the council to be a leader rather than be one of the last to adopt a ban on smoking in the workplace and restaurants. Bars and private clubs are among the handful of exceptions granted in the ordinance, which takes effect April 1. The council agreed a couple of issues need to be dealt with before the effective date of the law. The ordinance allows hotels and motels to allow smoking in a maximum of 20 percent of the rooms, which is stricter than the 25 percent recommended by a model ordinance. The task force on smoking in the workplace that drafted the ordinance agreed to talk to hotel and motel owners to try to come up with a fair percentage that would not create a financial burden to comply. The issue of the new downtown liquor licenses available to the city also will be addressed because the guidelines drawn up by the city require they be nonsmoking establishments. City Attorney David Hollenbeck said smoking should only be referred to in one ordinance. Councilman Chuck Williams said he talked to 21 restaurant owners and found only three opposing the law. Three wondered why it didn't take effect until April. He said one bar owner plans to go smoke free in January to gauge the effect before making a final decision whether to seek an exemption by April 1. The council voted to keep the task force together to deal with the hotel/motel issue and to monitor the impact of the ordinance and possibly look at changes no later than 18 months from now. The 6 -1 vote by the council matched the margin from public comments during the past three meetings.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 6, 2006 13:55:37 GMT -5
Valparaiso snuffs out smoking
December 5, 2006 By DIANE KRIEGER SPIVAK Post-Tribune In a 6-1 vote Monday night Valparaiso became the first city in Northwest Indiana to go smokeless.
Council members, several of whom have battled cancer, and Mayor Jon Costas all praised the ordinance, which will go into effect in April.
The ban prohibits smoking in restaurants, public places and the workplace, with the exception of bars, private clubs and some other areas.
Restaurants that include bars must choose to be either one or the other. If they choose to become bars, they may not admit or employ anyone under 18.
Councilman Chuck Williams said that out of 21 restaurant owners only three opposed the ban
"The smokiest restaurants in this town are owned by people who want this ordinance to pass," Williams said. "People said to me, 'It's about time.' This is an ordinance I support whole-heartedly."
The city also received resolutions from the Porter County Health Department, the Tobacco Coalition in the American Cancer Society.
"We are here to do the will of the people, and the people are overwhelmingly in favor of this ordinance," Councilman Jan Dick said.
The only holdout was Councilman Robert McCasland, who voted against the ban, arguing that restaurants could successfully separate smokers from non-smokers.
"I think people have to use their freedom of choice," McCasland said.
A task force formed earlier this year distributed 2,500 surveys to Valparaiso-area residents, 915 of whom responded largely with a desire for a smoking ban in restaurants and the workplace.
The council also approved a four-point amendment to the ordinance, one point of which called for another study by the ordinance task force to further discuss the percentage of smoking rooms that may be included in hotels.
Councilman John Bowker, a cancer-survivor who said he quit smoking 9,330 days ago, said the ordinance was "a very personal issue for me.
"If 75 percent were not in favor of it, I would not be voting for it," he said.
Costas said the ordinance was arrived at through a fair process.
"It became clear that it was the will of the people," he said.
Contact Diane Krieger Spivak at 477-6019 or dspivak@post-trib.com
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 6, 2006 14:02:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by crusaderjoe on Dec 6, 2006 15:04:12 GMT -5
Very interesting information. I could see where a restaurant owner would not be in favor of this ordinance. While well intentioned, it does appear at first glance to be a bit economically intrusive to the business owner in the hospitality industry. I'd be interested to know what the definition of "restaurant", "bar", and "private club" means as it relates to the context and intent of this ordinance.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Dec 6, 2006 15:34:04 GMT -5
"MARYLAND: Montgomery County restaurants allow smoking only at the bar; so if a restaurant has no bar, there is supposed to be no smoking. Shopping malls tend to be smokefree."
Since that list, at least 3 other counties have banned smoking in public places (including bars) altogether, and Baltimore City is working on it as well.
There is a small conflict with the incoming governor, who does not agree with individual counties passing these bans, as it hurts businesses near the borders. He would rather a state-wide ban, which I can agree with.
DC has also passed legislation for restaurant and bars as well.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 6, 2006 15:42:11 GMT -5
Very interesting information. I could see where a restaurant owner would not be in favor of this ordinance. While well intentioned, it does appear at first glance to be a bit economically intrusive to the business owner in the hospitality industry. I'd be interested to know what the definition of "restaurant", "bar", and "private club" means as it relates to the context and intent of this ordinance. Don't you live in Florida? How's the ban there going?
|
|