Let me start by saying, "I do not smoke." Let me add quickly that, "I believe that a No Smoking Ordinance for Greensburg is TOTALLY, TOTALLY RIDICULOUS and an invasion of our rights."

I am employed at a business which does not allow smoking. This was a decision made by the owner of the business, and one which has been made similarly by many, many other local businesses. This is how our free country is supposed to work. You should have control over what you own.

I have been informed that the basis of this decision may be related to grant money being afforded to communities willing to take the step of enacting ordinances controlling where smoking can and cannot take place.

Can anyone explain WHY certain areas of nursing homes are excluded from the proposed ordinance? Why not exclude certain areas of every business then? This doesn't make any sense at all to me. Maybe it is presumed that our elderly are immune to the effects of smoke and second-hand smoke if they have reached the age where they require living assistance. Makes about as much sense as everything else in this.

As a non-smoker, I'm going to remember those in office who vote in favor of this ban and place my vote elsewhere at election time--who knows what other aspects of my life they might try to control in the future.

Opponents of this proposed ordinance need to take immediate heed and let those in control know how they feel about this instead of talking about it behind their backs. Voice your concerns in this regard--for whatever good it might do or not do.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Skipper Fan,

While I absolutely agree that business owners should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking at their business, something else bothers me even more...PRIVATE clubs are having this imposed upon them??? How can this be legal???
Yes, pretty much everyone has decided to jump on this particular bandwagon, mostly because it is considered to be very PC right now. So they're trying to protect children - does that mean that it will soon be illegal to smoke in your won home if you have children?

I am absolutely for the no smoking ban in any and ALL public areas. You can't go around shooting people or stabbing people so why should you be allowed to go around killing people with your cigartte smoke just because it is a slower and more painful death? And yes it should be illegal to drive around in your car with kids trapped in the smoke chamber your car becomes when you light up!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Webhead>,

Let me start by saying that I no longer smoke. My mother smoked in the car all the time and I hated it. I dislike rude smokers who always seem to blow smoke in the non-smokers direction. If business would install "quality" air filtering systems, I would support killing the non-smoking ban. However, since that requires thousands of dollars, businesses that invite non-smokers and smokers should cater to the party that does not add stains, burns, and that yellow haze to the walls. Not to mention smokers who refuse to throw away their butts and leave them for non-smokers to pick up if they want "clean" places to walk, sit, or enjoy their food.

"Spins" are inherent in any topic of discussion, but the medical facts are solid. Smoking harms those who do not smoke and inhale your exhaust. Like it or do not like it, smoking is bad for everyone and that is a fact. I didn't put my life on the line so you could blow smoke in my face and I will defend my right to "handle" your disrespect in a manner becoming of the Marine Corps.

Lastly, Honda has non-smoking policies in place in their factories and requires them for their suppliers. The Japanese are more about productivity than individuality and they have eliminated the "distractions" most American manufacturers still allow; unions, smoking, large banks of vacation hours, etc. So Honda executives would be in support of smoking bans. If you are going to work for Honda -- you better get: healthy, educated, and productive. Sitting on your butt expecting something to be freely given to you is no way to go through life and is the quickest way to have Honda move on to another city or state.

i would like to take a moment to address the foolish smoking ban that is in the process of getting railroaded through this town. Greensburg is known for a tree on the tower and presents itself as being a friendly little community on the rise. With foolish laws like the smoking ban, cameras in public places on Franklin street, the fear of locals (especially young people) of even driving around town after dark (more so on the weekends) of getting pulled over and ticketed for something as minor as a license plate light combined with the unwritten policy of this county of "don't make waves" we are gaining a reputation of a nearly "gaited community". If we are presenting ourselves as this hostile to the members of our own community how can we be be percieved as less than hostile to those outside of it? America was founded on freedoms, business is founded on freedom of choice...government has no business in business..don't sell our businessmen and women short..they know exactly what works for them and what doesn't and don't need your help. If their customer doesn't like the environment there they will go somewhere else..there are other choices and it is their choice to make...not big brothers. This town is on the verge of over-regulation as it is...praise goes to the one member of the council who is doing just what he was elected to do, support those who placed him in a position of authority. Thaks for the forum.

I'm tired of folks making the "this smoking ban is taking away our rights" argument. It doesn't work here, unless you're going to argue that it's okay for businesses to leak toxic fumes from their buildings, or dump unhealthy waste into public waters. Would you say it's their "right" to do so? I mean, they paid for the building right? and the machinery? If you happened to live right next to them before it happened, you should have moved right? C'mon.

And the whole alcohol point is worthless. Guess what, they do have restrictions on alcohol, and you can't just drink all you want. They've created laws determining when folks become a danger to themselves and others (where were you guys then?). It's called public drunkeness and yes, you can get arrested inside a bar, no matter what the owner says. And to skipperfan, I like when you write but the reason they limited it to bars is because kids are not allowed inside bars. They can't control private clubs because they are membership only, not public. This ordinance is to protect those who can't protect themselves. Stop thinking of only adults here.
Plus, if you're going to take hthe economic stance, why wouldn't you people want healthier people in this state? Insurance rates here are higher than in other states because of things like widespread smoking. Why should I pay more for basic health care just so you can smoke? And this ordinance isn't even taking away your right to smoke-- smoke all you want outside in your home, in your car, etc. There are no "inalienable rights" taken away. If anything you should be in support of this, because it allows you to smoke. It could have gone the way of pot, heroin and relieving yourslef in public (why don't you all complain about not being able to relieve yourself in a public setting?, still in favor of opium dens?).
This is getting ridiculous. Businesses have never been able to completely monitor themselves, and you wouldn't want them to. Tell the folks who have jobs where people choose to smoke to simply "get another job." You'd rather somebody change their lifestyle before limiting someone's choice of doing something they can do outside with no problem. There's something wrong with that. I'll choose to vent my septic tank up near your property line-- you move.
Stop claiming your rights are being taken away. Not only does it make you look like whinners, but it belittles the argument when there really is a case for the claim. The government has always governed the way business owners run their business, be it through book-keeping or even determining what business they can run. You know why? Because the people aren't protected if they don't. Capitalism is not a form of government. Businesses don't and shouldn't run the people, although some would say they are doing so already. Stop making the possible cut in income (which studies show is minimal if not nonexistent over the long run) more important than the cut in health of your community.
Both the left and right whine too much as it is, and it's always an inflated argument. I'm tired of it.

Smoke, smoke smoke....Redundant to the max. This planet has had more fires, volcanic eruptions and other disasters than you have a clue about. You seem pretty smart in your reasoning about why the gov. did this and that, but the bottom line is this county and probably others in Indiana has more cancer related deaths than normal. Why, who knows. But, explain to me why so many cooks and chefs are dying of cancer? Cooking meat? Then by God we better ban cooking too! People are going to die at any age. If you live, then you must be able to deal with the enviorment. Not good all the time or the best. It must be the survival of the fittest. Do you agree? If not, then tell me how "laws" have kept us alive. Killed more than you can ever guess!

Hey, Guesser, tell me this is not a right, when the next ordiance directly affects you! When power is given, then more is wanted.

quote:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.

Some fairly smart guy.
Name was Franklin or something.

From my conversations the major of smokers DO NOT feel they have the right to smoke wherever they want to. Smokers HAVE NOT been lighting up where bans were already in place BEFORE the city counsel passed the ordinance including government buildings, school property, most retail stores (Wal-Mart, CVS, Lobills, etc.), the Armory, the Library, the movie theater, churches and most of the franchised fast food restaurants, etc. which proves most smokers do respect nonsmokers and do respect the rights of businesses, property owners and the government to restrict (or allow) smoking in their establishments.

I believe the entire argument against the smoking ordinance rests on the right of private business to set their smoking policy within government interference or intervention.

Summarizing some of the posts above illustrates the argument. According to the posts, at some point the owner (‘s) of a local restaurant exercised their rights as an owner to allow smoking in their establishment. At least one nonsmoker (the one that has been waiting 8 years to eat a tenderloin which is hard to believe, come on, if you really wanted a “Trackside” tenderloin there is TAKE-OUT), exercised their free will and rights and boycotted this establishment because of the smoking policy. Other nonsmokers exercised their free will and their rights and decided to continue patronizing the restaurant even though the owner allowed smoking. Smokers smoked at the establishment since the owner made a personal and business decision to allow it. In this case, everyone involved had the ability to exercise their rights. The constitution and democratic principles prevailed.

With the new ordinance, business owners and private clubs no longer have the right to make their own business decision to allow smoking or have their own smoking policy. This is totally wrong. Remember, no one is FORCING a nonsmoker to patronize establishments and businesses that have smoking policies. No one is FORCING nonsmokers to work at businesses that have smoking and nonsmoking areas for their employees. For example, there are a variety of places people can get tenderloin in a nonsmoking environment.

Is the city of Greensburg going to reimburse the revenue lost to establishments that lose money from the ban like is done when jobs are lost due to dumping of imports? Is the city of Greensburg going to offer abatements to help local manufacturing facilities comply with the ordinance and still provide areas where employees can smoke? Remember in the United States and the State of Indiana cigarettes are still legal. Since smoking is so bad, why doesn’t the US and State of Indiana ban tobacco products help the people that are hopelessly addicted. I will tell you why. It is the tax revenue that is generated from legal sales of the product. And that is the same reason many business owners are against the ordinance, a loss of revenue that results from government interference, which restricts their clientele.

I wonder how long it would take for the ACLU or a nonsmoker to file a lawsuit if a business owner decided to restrict clientele by posting a sign saying: “First and Second Hand Smokers Welcome Only, Non-Smokers keep out”. Nonsmokers would have a cow, but when the shoe is on the other foot it is considered in the “interest of public health”.

The ordinance needs to be revisited. Children and the general public need to be protected. However business owners have a right to conduct their business without government intervention. If you do not want to subject yourself or your children to second hand smoke, don’t go into establishments or don’t work for companies that have smoking policies. It is your choice, and it is that simple.

Concerning the person that has not had a “Trackside” tenderloin in eight years, I would challenge you to go into the Trackside and let the owner know you supported the ordinance and you are happy the owner has lost the right to manage his business before ordering your tenderloin. I look forward to your next post after this has been done.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Fan:
I'm curious--what do you all think of the prospect of sending the Mayor and a commissioner to Japan with Vicky Kellerman and the EDC? He would be attending various receptions they intend to put on to promote ED. I will refrain from giving detail reference my opinion, but I don't think this is a good idea for many reasons.

Would it be ok if they left the mayor in Japan when they come back to Greensburg?

Anybody read Nathan Harter Sr.'s column about the smoking ordinance?

Yes, it was so inspiring I started a post in Headlines; Greensburg Indiana.

Has anyone check out Mr. Bower,I sure a lot of what he said were lies...............

Really? Which parts? This isn't the Dimeline... Back it up!!!