[The Brazil Times nameplate] Overcast ~ 44°F  
High: 64°F ~ Low: 55°F
Thursday, May 5, 2016

Council asked to consider ordinance

Friday, November 12, 2010

(Photo)
Kandace Brown
During Wednesday's meeting, the Common Council of the City of Brazil was asked to consider creating and passing on ordinance which would create smoke-free workplaces.

Clay County Tobacco Coalition Director Kandace Brown presented council members the results of a public opinion poll conducted by the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) Survey Research Center.

"The study shows that rural communities are in support of smoke-free ordinances," Brown said. "This is a public health issue, but it would not be an ordinance saying people are not allowed to smoke."

Brown added the proposed ordinance would make indoor areas of businesses, restaurants, bars and private clubs, but allows for outdoor smoking areas to be created.

Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Director of Program Evaluation Miranda Spitznagle broke down the statistical results of the survey for the council.

"Out of the 607 people in Clay County surveyed, 409 of them live in Brazil," she said. "Sixty-nine percent of Clay County adults surveyed said they would support an ordinance prohibiting smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants, bars and private clubs."

Spitznagle added the results showed a strong public recognition of the hazards of second-hand smoke, along with evidence that business may increase if establishments become smoke-free environments.

"The findings show that there should not be a negative effect on businesses if they become smoke-free," she said. "Of those surveyed, 59 percent said they would continue to eat out as often as they do now, while 27 percent said they would eat out more, and only 14 percent said they would go out to eat less."

Brown also presented a draft of the potential ordinance, and council members were unified in believing a smoke-free ordinance would be a good thing.

(Photo)
Sam Glover
"It is important to note that if we do act, we do so in totality and not piecemeal the ordinance a little at a time," Sam Glover said. "Sometimes we forget that it is not just patrons of the establishments who are affected, but also the employees of those businesses as well."

City Attorney Bob Pell also posed the question of who would be responsible for enforcing the potential ordinance.

"We don't have a city health department, so there may not be a mechanism for enforcement at this time," Pell said.

Brown said the enforcement agent would be set by the council, and could be local law enforcement, the city itself or the county health department.

"These type of ordinances are very self-enforcing and there are high compliance levels," Spitznagle added.

At the end of the discussion, the council elected to table the matter for the time being to allow a complete ordinance to be created, and will consider the matter further during its December meeting.

In other business during Wednesday's meeting, the Common Council of the City of Brazil:

* Passed an ordinance on the first reading, with suspended rules, updating it to reflect the city's insurance buyout policy as ongoing instead of for a specific year. The ordinance allows the city to pay city employees not on the city's insurance a $1,000 bonus near the end of each calendar year. Clerk-Treasurer Karen McQueen said only three employees paid through the General Fund are affected by this, and if they were on the city's insurance, it would cost approximately $15,000 a year per employee,

* Updated a separate ordinance -- passed with suspended rules on the first reading -- setting the mileage reimbursement rate for employees using their personal vehicles for city business to be the same as the state rate. The current ordinance had not been updated since 2005, at which time the rate was 35 cents per mile, and

* Scheduled a public hearing for 6:45 p.m., Wednesday, Nov. 17, for the purpose of discussing appropriating funds in the Rainy Day Fund for the 2011 budget. The hearing will be followed by a work session to discuss potential changes to the animal ordinance.

The next regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Brazil will be at 7 p.m., Wednesday, Dec 8. This meeting, along with those on Nov. 17 will take place in the Council Chambers at City Hall.


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

this would be great if all public buildings including all resturants were smoke free.

-- Posted by GO HOOSIERS on Sat, Nov 13, 2010, at 12:10 AM

CLICK HERE

Smoking Ban Myth Myths

Article By Writer Michael Kraft Author: Michael Kraft

Published: May 1, 2007

FREE: Get our latest by joining the free newsletter!

Related: American Culture Charlotte News Charlotte Politics Free Speech Government Proposals Local News

Here is an excerpt from the Susan Burgess organization to force people to do as they are told. IN the name of saving you from yourself I give you the myths about myths about smoking. These are their explanations to deflect the right infringing laws they propose.

"MYTH #3: Because restaurants and bars belong to the owners, they should be able to use their property with no restrictions.

REALITY: Restaurants, bars, and other facilities are rightly regulated when public health is a concern. The importance and effectiveness of sound public health and safety laws, like restaurant hygiene laws, is well established. Restaurants and bars must already follow rules that protect the public from insects and rodents, employees who refuse to wash their hands before preparing food, unsafe cooking practices that could cause food poisoning, and fire safety problems. Secondhand smoke is just as dangerous."

REAL REALITY WITHOUT LIBERAL SPIN: Restaurant owner that put a sign out front saying smoking establishment is their own property and safety is followed.

Restaurants are regulated, but they serve, french fries, onion rings, cake, alchohol, fried chicken, bacon, cookies, butter, oil in salad dressing, thick red meat steaks and about 500 other things that cause heart disease.

These things are on the menu but you dont have to order them. All of these things are bad for your health but you know before you come in, so you make your own decision.

Anti-smoking tells a property owner what to do with his property, it has no connection to food health or cleanliness at all this is BS spin trying to change the issue. If the liberals lefists want to go after fried chicken and french fries next,.....at least they would be consistant in their pursuits.

To try to connect the right of owners to choose the type of restaurant they operate, to the food preperation laws?

This is standard stuff for people whos' ego wants to make decisions for you.

-- Posted by karenmeister on Sat, Nov 13, 2010, at 3:37 AM

The difference between eating french fries and smoking though is that smoke harms others in the room. These laws that have been put in place in other areas have been done so because the majority realizes that the health cost alone. This is why when you apply for auto insurance they ask if you wear a seatbelt or use a helmet for motor cycle ins. The potential damage to those who do not choose to use safety precautions is a lot higher which is why their insurance is higher. Moreover when you apply for life insurance they want to know if you smoke as you will likely die earlier than a non smoker so rates are higher. If you are employed at a place where you have to withstand smoke, you are more likely to have respiratory problems and more illness. Not everyone can vote with their feet but via public opinion through these surveys and studies they have been the voice of the people.

While I have empathy for those addicted to nicotine, I do not feel that others should suffer from their choices. Obviously others feel that same way.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Sat, Nov 13, 2010, at 8:27 AM

I am a nicotine addict, it is one of my vices and one that I cannot seem to get rid of. If you come to my house and I know that you do not smoke, I won't light up or we will step outside. I wouldn't smoke in your house if you don't. Just courtesy.

However, I do not go out "for a good time" to places where I cannot smoke. What would be the point of going somewhere to sit and talk to someone or to dance while having a couple of beers when to do so you have to go outside to be able to smoke, bad as that may be, but part of my life style?

Regarding an ordinance, that is nothing more than government regulation of choice, restricting a choice by the business owner as to what clientele to serve. That choice should be regulated by the clientele by their decision as to enter the establishment of not. The business owner should have the freedom to respond in the way that profits the business the most, period. Is any person forced to work in a place that allows indoor smoking? As there are no slaves in this country, the answer is a resounding "No". If you do not wish to breathe smoke, don't go where there is smoke, period. Personally, I avoid going places where there is tear gas as I don't like to breathe it. Again, if a business could not hire employees, the business would respond.

Now for the "hype" and "spin" that is associated with the smoke -- no smoke issue. The fact is that if you are exposed to smoke, you MIGHT develop cancer or something else that will kill you. There is no definitive research that proves that you will, nor is definitive research even possible. There is no way to isolate the one factor of exposure to tobacco smoke from a human life for a control group. There are people who have never smoked one cigarette who die of lung cancer and there are people who smoke the majority of their lives that do not. You can, however, take a bunch of lab rats and expose them to more cigarette smoke than any human could possibly be exposed to and draw a negative conclusion from that. Of course, you can also expose them to the carcinogens that are found in cow's milk or bacon and force them to develop cancers by exposing them to amounts equivalent to a human ingesting 30 pounds of bacon every day for ten years or drinking six or seven gallons of milk every day for the same period.

In a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people", it appears that the government has one major flaw. That "government" cannot seem to leave the people any freedom to choose for themselves!

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Sat, Nov 13, 2010, at 11:59 AM

Well if they can have smoke free resturants,bars etc. They should be able to have smoking ones to. Then we can decide for areselves were to eat & work.This is just like when if you were black you cant set here. So if you smoke you cant here. None of these people have any problem taking the money from taxes on tobbaco.

-- Posted by kd323 on Sat, Nov 13, 2010, at 4:56 PM

Leo L. Southworth, why don't you enlighten us as to what medical school you attended?

-- Posted by I. M. Lee Thall, Esq. on Sun, Nov 14, 2010, at 4:10 PM

My husband and I ate at a local establishment today for lunch, after church. They asked if wanted smoking or nonsmoking, we said nonsmoking -well let me just say, if they are going to have a non-smoking area there needs to be a separate room completely with a door dividing the two areas. Having smokers and non-smokers across from each other, in the same room, with a ceiling fan running definitely does not do the job. My throat and eyes were burning when we left the place. If an establishment's owner wants to allow smoking, that is up to him, I've often wondered how smokers can tolerate being out in the cold in the winter. But if they do allow it, both sides need to be considered, there needs to be a more substantial way of dividing the two areas, so both groups will be happy.

-- Posted by EYN1962 on Sun, Nov 14, 2010, at 5:51 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: