[The Brazil Times nameplate] Overcast ~ 53°F  
High: 61°F ~ Low: 48°F
Monday, May 2, 2016

Council hears non-smoking pleas

Thursday, January 13, 2011

(Photo)
Clay County Tobacco Coalition Director Kandace Brown
During the audience comments portion of Wednesday's Common Council of the City of Brazil, Clay County Tobacco Coalition Director Kandace Brown, along with 12 other individuals, addressed the issue of a potential smoking ban ordinance.

"This is a passionate and heated topic, but it is a common good issue for the community," St. Vincent Clay Hospital Administrator Jerry Laue said. "As a respiratory therapist, I have seen numerous health issues."

Brown initially suggested the ordinance, which would prohibit smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants, bars and private clubs, during the council's Nov. 10, 2010, meeting, and provided the council additional information, which she said would dispel the myths of economic failure in areas with similar ordinances.

One topic among many of the speakers was how employees are affected in establishments where smoking is allowed.

"While this ordinance would not directly affect Clay City, hopefully it would cause an expansion throughout the county," Clay City Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) Sponsor Scott Stucky said. "We have some students working in establishments who are affected by the second-hand smoke."

Vigo County Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Program Director Carrie Evans added, "The workers themselves are left out of the argument and need to be protected as well. There are laws in place protecting employees from other health issues like asbestos and requirements for washing their hands."

Former Greencastle City Council member Russell Evans commented on the unenviable position the council is in, and how things have progressed since Greencastle passed a similar ordinance in 2007.

"I know what you're going through and it's not going to be pretty because there is not a lot of gray area; either you're for it or you're not," Evans said. "It will take some adjustment for the community, but it will make Brazil a better city, and I cannot think of a restaurant that has closed in Greencastle since we passed our ordinance."

Evans also informed the council, upon the inquiry of City Attorney Bob Pell, that the mayor and police chief are responsible for the ordinance's enforcement in Greencastle.

American Cancer Society Community Representative Rachel Romas claimed the passage of such an ordinance may help keep the youth in the area.

"This would be great for the image of Brazil," she said. "We have students going off to college and they may not come back."

Jon Crooks, co-owner of Coach's TIMEOUT Sports Bar and Grill, 101 E. National Ave., Brazil, said there was never a thought to allow smoking in his business.

"When this business opportunity came along, it never crossed my mind to not make it smoke-free," he said. "Even though I have some people almost begging me to allow smoking, I will close the place before doing that."

Speakers also emphasized it was important to provide healthy, smoke-free environments outside of restaurants as well.

"It is important to give our kids smoke-free environments and something to model themselves after," Clay Community School Corporation Health Services Coordinator Lynn Stoelting said. "If we provide healthy environments and lives now, hopefully it will create healthier individuals that will increase school attendance and possibly lower health insurance costs."

(Photo)
Brazil Mayor Ann Bradshaw
Brown inquired the council and Mayor Ann Bradshaw as to why they were not included on the official agenda for the meeting.

"I, along with the council, are still researching the current ordinances in place in other cities, especially to see how they are being enforced," Bradshaw said. "Plus, I have heard the state legislature is looking into the matter on the state level, so we would like to see what the state does."

Brown, in turn, urged the council to press the issue.

"You don't have time to wait. It has been before the legislature numerous times before, and maybe action on the local level is the extra push they need," Brown said. "I am for the hierarchy of moral reasoning to protect everyone from second-hand smoke and all other arguments will fall short."

In opposition of the ordinance, Van Buren Township resident Walter Young expressed his belief it should be up to the residents to make this type of decision.

"Most of the medical information I've read says that obesity causes more health issues than smoking," Young said. "Personally, I think this should go up for a referendum vote so that all the public can decide."

Bradshaw told The Brazil Times Thursday, the choice on what to do ultimately falls at the discretion of the council.

Also speaking out in support of the proposed ordinance were Indiana Rural Health Association representative Jim Miller, respiratory therapist and former school board member Ted Jackson, YMCA of Clay County CEO Deb Plummer, Northview SADD Sponsor Debbie Allen and Owen County Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Coordinator Dave Newgent.

The next meeting of the Common Council of the City of Brazil will be 7 p.m., Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2011, in the Council Chambers of 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.

Funny Kandace Brown really doesn't look like a Nazi Hitler wannabe dictator wanting everything her way. Here is an idea, don't go where smokers go!!!!!! Get off your soapbox and do something constructive. Like maybe solve world hunger! And who is going to enforce this ordinance? The police is already to busy enforcing every stupid ordinance thats been past the last 20 years(your grass is half inch to tall or you sit you trash out 5 minutes to early) to enforce most state laws that actually have a purpose. GET A LIFE! And stop trying to run mine.

-- Posted by driverdude on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 8:44 PM

this is the best thing that could happen to this county .vigo is getting ready to do it and i applaud thier council.mayor bradshaw for once in your life be a leader dont wait on the state do something on yor own.this is something that truely affects other people lives.plus i hate going home and smell like smoke.the bowling ally went smoke free and it has been great.my kids will sit next to me now because i dont stink and smell like smoke when i get home.KANDACE you go girl please please get this done.

-- Posted by GO HOOSIERS on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 9:32 PM

I am for banning smoking in public places. It is one of the most selfish things a person could do in public. It is dangerous, irritating, and stinky. People think restaurants would lose business if smoking is banned....only the smokers. The non-smokers would return to the restaurants to eat a meal without it tasting like an ashtray therefore increasing business. They may bring their children along knowing they won't be exposing them to a toxin. Smokers- you've had it YOUR way too long! It's time common sense and decency make a grand return. Take your filthy habit home with you and poison your family with your fumes, not mine. Or better yet, stop smoking- save some money, save your life.

-- Posted by Claycountian on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 10:19 PM

notanative, know what you are talking about and stop with stupid remarks. at least say how you feel without attacking people in a rude, crude way. it is OK to have differences but for pete's sake, give an intelligent opinion without attacking another person's opinions. I am glad you are "notanative" because we have caring, kind people around here with a few exceptions.

-- Posted by Tracy Jones on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 11:00 PM

You negative people live under a rock. I was back in Indiana over the holidays and was amazed that people were smoking in restaurants. No indoor smoking has been in place everywhere else for years in the U.S. The best compromise in the law is if the establishment serves food, then no smoking. If it's a bar only, then you can smoke if the owner approves.

-- Posted by coltsbeer on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 12:12 AM

I am for making Clay County smoke free!!!!

-- Posted by Unsolicitedtidbits on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 3:13 AM

Sorry to disagree with you, coltsbeer, but the best compromise is to let the owner of the establishment decide how to run their business. If they can make a profit and stay in business being either smoking or non-smoking, let them do so. Why should it be a matter of law or ordinance when commerce would decide it. If they cannot hire people to work in a smoking establishment, isn't it logical that they will go out of business? Isn't that what a "free market" economy is?

Also, you made the broad statement that"no indoor smoking has been in place every where else" which simply is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smo...

Do not forget that the tobacco tax is a "cash cow" for both the state and the Federal Governments, and believe me, not all of it goes to pay for the health issues caused only by tobacco use.

As for me, I walked into Coach's TIMEOUT Bar and Grill one time, then I promptly exited and I'll never return. I smoke. I've quit meeting people for lunch in Vigo County to talk business, if we must meet there we will stand outside. I can talk anywhere, so I'll go where I can smoke if I feel like it. If commerce is allowed to happen, perhaps someday someone will realize that there is a niche where profit can be made in providing good food in a smoking establishment in Vigo County and get the ban revised.

Of course, we could always try Prohibition again but tobacco production directly contributes over one billion dollars annually to the National economy, while the manufacturing, transportation, and retail sales figures both of tobacco products and the items used in tobacco production, contributes over one trillion dollars and millions of jobs. Of course, we can call it poison and grow it only for export, but then don't we have a problem with other countries who produce other drugs as cash crops and import them to the United States?

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 4:16 AM

What is up with trying to legislate health, anyway? The only way you can prohibit anything is by curtailing freedom. That was tried during Prohibition with alcohol and was a dismal failure that spawned organized crime. We are in a "War on Drugs" that is both costly and never-ending because we will not just regulate production and tax it instead of "fighting the tide". There is an indication that the next target will be obesity and overeating. The final target in this "health" war, after a person is prohibited from doing anything that may be harmful to them in any way, will be Death itself.

So, do you want to live forever bored to death but healthy or would you rather live while you can? To the people recommending this ban, I have a question. What is your vice? Are you running and exercising, wearing out your joints? Are you one of the obese? How's your cholesterol? What drugs do you take to stay healthy and what are their long--term effects or side effects? Just what are you doing that is going to end up costing someone else money?

What goes around, comes around.

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 4:39 AM

my believe on this is if the person owns this business and pays taxes on it which goes to the local government on up the food chain should be allowed to operate the business the way he wants without any interuption of the government to control his or her business. its a known fact its his business to run as they see fit so unless the government wants to run his business and make his or her profits they should keep thier noses out of how that person chooses to run his business, enough of these people who want to control other people laws lets start stamping these people out

-- Posted by brazil citizen on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 5:22 AM

Its seems to me that smokers really get upset with this issue, but lets be fair here, non smokers deserve a say too! I personally hate smoking, i used to be a smoker in my younger days, then i realized just how stupid it is! waste of money, your health, and it stinks . America wants health reform, well not smoking in public is a start ! I look around and see alot of people getting angry, how many of you are on welfare ? food stamps? housing ? why should i work to support your free life, so you can sell your free food to get free cigarettes? really ! grow up people ! smoke in your own home, if you have one, if not, quit trying to poison my family , JERKS !

-- Posted by otis66 on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 6:24 AM

Let's use some common sense. I smoked most of my life but have been smoke free for almost 2 years now. It is a disgusting habit but it is legal. Smokers should be given space in restaurants and bars if the business owner agrees. It should be in an area that non-smokers do not enter or pass through.

We all need to clean up our own lives and leave others alone.

-- Posted by River Rat on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 7:21 AM

I agree with Eddie Jr., and even though I usually agree with Leo on things, I disagree with his views here. The fact is of all the unhealthy habits, smoking can cause direct harm to others...that's the difference here.

Don't worry about if we do this, what's next? Because we all know, and this is a perfect example here now, that this community is about ten to twenty years behind just about everywhere else in the world when it comes to social issues. Non-smoking ordinances have been passed by various other communities many, many years ago, Bloomington being the first I am aware of. At this time, I am unaware of any other public health initiatives that have been mandated in those communities.

-- Posted by ClayCountyGuy on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 7:45 AM

First of all we don't need the remarks about smokers being disgusting and non smokers being Nazis. Where is respect for fellow human being??

Smoking is an addiction. Plain and simple. My father in law , may he RIP, was an alcoholic in recovery for over 20 years when he died but told us that the addiction to nicotine was so much stronger than the alcohol and really too much for him to stop, especially since he worked daily to keep off the alcohol. So let's call it what it is. It's an addiction like any other. We can still have compassion for the smokers even if we hate the smoke.

On the other hand, I think it was reported that cigarette smoking causes Indiana 2 billion in added health care costs so smokers it is a real hazard just like other hazards in the work place that are governed by OSHA. It does penetrate carpets, walls and curtains as well as one's clothes and lungs. Any non smoker can tell when they walk into a house or are near a child whose parents smoke. This same yellow tar coating is in these peoples' lungs even if they don't smoke themselves. While a restaurant patron has the option of not going to a restaurant, some of the workers don't....and are they going to complain if they have no other job prospects on the horizon? I doubt it. IF they were inhaling other carcinogens on the job, OSHA would have stepped in.

In other states some bars are licensed as "clubs" with memberships and there smoking is permitted. Club membership consists of a nominal fee and then owner registers them in a log book and they agree to abide by the rules of the club. This fee can be as low as a dollar or 50 cents and usually just covers the added work of keeping that log.

Other states permit smoking in bars that do above a specific percentage of business selling drinks over food sales. I don't know what the percentage is but something else that can be looked into.

Just like seat belt laws and speed limits, laws of a society are there when enough people provide a majority to warrant that it costs too much money or too many lives to not have that regulation. Like in many other states, that tipping point may finally be approaching here. Many places found that it did not hurt business but in many cases improved it as just as many who stopped going when they became non smoking, started to go as they had been avoiding the establishments that allowed smoking. I know I do as I am not a smoker. It has nothing to do with the people who run the restaurants. I don't think they're disgusting. I just decide with my business. Unfortunately, those who work there can't and some of them are under 18 which makes it a concern for those who want clean air for our young people as they will be needing their lungs a lot longer than those who have decided to smoke as adults. Even without the young worker being exposed to smoke, each smoker costs us in health insurance premiums as the rates have to cover the total cost. While each person is asked if they smoke when they get health insurance, that does not cover the cost of those covered under federal and state health programs. Just like the motorcycle driver who chooses to not wear a helmet. Yes a personal decision but it still costs those who pay for insurance to help pay for his increased chances of a serious head injury.

There comes a time where freedom of choice impedes the freedoms of others. Even if it is what they are required to pay for services like health care. When it gets to be too many others a change occurs.

We may have come to that time...or not. Let's just be civil about it.

personally think it's about time Brazil started to catch up with many other parts of the country and promote healthy living officially and stewardship of the town and the people in it. I think it's a step in making the community more attractive to others who might be thinking about moving here and certainly we need the outside investment in order to grow and prosper.

It may also send a message to the young people pondering smoking that even if their parents are addicted to it, it is definitely not cool...A lot easier to not start than to stop. Have a good day

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 8:12 AM

tulie32:

Well we have a primary coming up in May....Why not put it on the ballot then?

I do think though that the government is the way it is because of the people we vote into it so really have no one to blame but ourselves....or those few who actually vote.

How many even who have commented here actually vote? The percentage of voters in the US is so low that the government isn't working the way it should. Few take part so not a true democracy or even republic.

No issue with people complaining about the way it is ...if they vote. If we get a 30% turnout it's considered high while in third world countries it is much higher as they realize the importance and privilege of being part of the process....but that's another topic altogether.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 8:36 AM

Worried about losing freedom? OK lets do this...for every new ordinance created, they have to rescind one already existing.

Brazil has some questionable (to use a nice term) ordinances on the books now that I would gladly trade in. The first probably being the ridiculous one that allows police to cite you if your dog can be heard barking from 20 yards away. I haven't seen the actual ordinance, but know the person that received the citation.

-- Posted by ClayCountyGuy on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 8:53 AM

I have news for otis66, not all smokers are welfare recipents. Actually most of the smokers I know not only have jobs but have had those jobs for many years. And I have news for you smokers have just as many rights as non-smokers. Yes I am a smoker but, I do respect the wishes of non-smokers and it is time for all of you do gooders to respect us smokers as well. If it were not for taxes that all of us smokers pay on our cigarettes, there would be a lot of state programs that would really be suffering. So just get over yourselves.

-- Posted by benna30 on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 9:17 AM

If this passes, which I hope it does NOT, you should start saying your goodbyes to locally-owned restaurants and businesses. Think about it, when was the last time you saw someone smoking in McDonalds or Taco Bell? But guess which businesses here would take a major hit - Sunrise, Mario's, etc. Although I don't smoke, I have no problem allowing people to smoke in places where it is already allowed. We all have minds of our own, we need to start using them instead of letting a few rowdy people get their way. Personally, it should be up to the business owners to decide to be smoke-free or not because they pay taxes as well, yet groups like these aren't really interested in what they have to say. I'm glad I don't own a business because i would not want to be attacked in this way. Then again, if I did, i would probably use my "right to refuse service to anybody" on these people trying to dictate everyday life for a certain group of people, which, if i am not mistaken is a form of discrimination.

-- Posted by axegrinder1313 on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 9:49 AM

Say good-bye to the USA and hello to the USSA (United Socialist States of America). Have a nice day Comrade.

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 10:28 AM

i think this is a good thing because there are little babies dieng from lung cancer because people are to selfish they smoke around little babies instead of walking there big butt out side

-- Posted by tasha44 on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 10:55 AM

How long before the oh so wise and all knowing Government decides to tell us where we can live, what we can drive, where we can shop etc.? Every right we give up now makes it that much easier for them to come in and take another and another and another and before you know it we won't have any rights and will be nothing more than robots to our illustrious leaders. Think about it.

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 11:52 AM

BrazilResident2003.....EXCELLENT point, excellent! At least with smokers you see what you're getting into but you can't see the drunks until they hit and kill you!

Otis66...folks are very passionate about this issue, both smokers and non-smokers. I didn't see any proof from the comments I have read and I am sure we both have read the same ones, where you can state with any validity that the smokers are more aggressive than non-smokers. Why would you even say something that silly! The non-smokers, IMO have expressed their views much more strongly than the smokers and WHO cares anyway! You Sir are the Jerk!

"American Cancer Society Community Representative Rachel Romas claimed the passage of such an ordinance may help keep the youth in the area.

"This would be great for the image of Brazil," she said. "We have students going off to college and they may not come back." "

Really????? I have news for you Ms. Romas....this ordinance would not affect my decision on whether or not to return to Brazil! Reaching a bit aren't you? The BIG reason students or college graduates would not come back to Brazil is that they have secured better jobs outside of this area.

A lot of you have made some very good points both pro and con. I would like to see this put to a vote but if that doesn't happen that's OK too. I will have to say this though....I am a "less-than-6-cigarettes-a-day" smoker. I personally do not want to smell or taste smoke while I am out dining so it's all good on that aspecet, however, I do like to go out on rare occasions and frequent a couple of local establisments to imbibe in an adult beverage or two. That is where I will smoke just a bit more. I would like to say that I think each individual business should have the right to decide for themselves as to which way to direct the fresh air flow. Get my drift?

Have a great day!

-- Posted by Proud of My Country on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 11:53 AM

What about just trying to go in the front door of a store where people hang out to smoke. Is this fair to non-smokers. We have the right to shop! I personally do not think of that as respecting others rights when we have to walk through a fog of smoke for groceries. Would the non-smoking ban control that too?

-- Posted by Say it again girl! on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 12:10 PM

Probably not.....just depends on how the ordinance is written. Smokers may have to maintain a certain distance away from an entrance but, like I said, it all depends on how it is written.

-- Posted by Proud of My Country on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 12:45 PM

I think it should be up to the business owner to decide if banning smoking would be beneficial, or if it would hurt their business. If you don't like smelling cigarette smoke, than YOU can choose not to go into that business. Besides, I would be more concerned about the obesity rate in this area...does that mean we should we ban Twinkies & Pepsi? lol. .

-- Posted by IndiMa06 on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 12:50 PM

This is my problem with smokers. You have every right to do as you wish with smoking. However, your smoke becomes my smoke when I am around you. I don't come over inflict any bad on you. If you want to smoke, that is fine. Just do it where others don't have to endure it. I have a right to eat a meal without having to smell and taste your habit.

-- Posted by cubbiefan on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 12:52 PM

People really, do you not understand the ordinance? Nobody is taking your rights to smoke away, you can continue to smoke. You will be able to continue YOUR addiction and you will be able to continue to poison yourself. Nobody is going to take that right from you.The only thing that changes is the place, you cannot smoke in a public place, so you cannot poison everyone who does not wish to be poisoned. It's a fairly easy concept.

As for being a business owner and making their own decisions...they cannot, we have plenty of ordinances and health regulations to keep us safe. Washing your hands while serving food comes to mind...serving meat cooked at a certain temperature...these regulations cost time and money but they still have to be held to.

I cannot open a Burger Joint and serve burgers rare with just a tad bit of arsenic sprinkled on them...the arsenic won't kill you right away but , yea eventually it will. Kinda like second hand smoke it may not kill you right away, but breathe it in for a long period of time and you have health issues and yes, possibly early death.

It's not the smell of cigarette smoke that kills, it's all the chemicals in the smoke!

There is no second hand cholesterol, second hand obesity...if you eat a twinkie it's not hurting me.So you an come sit next to me eat your twinkie, have a beer....just take the cigs outside.

-- Posted by Take Action on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 1:35 PM

What about all the people who drowned themselves in perfume and cologne and go out in public??? I have asthma, which is partly my fault for being a smoker and also because I grew up in a household of smokers, and I cannot breathe at all (will go into an asthma attack) because of the ridiculous amount of perfume and cologne people put on and I have friends and family, along with my son and step-daughter (neither my son or step-daughter are smoked around, we take it elsewhere to smoke for them) who also can't breathe very well because of this, not to mention when we go out to eat and get sat near some of these people it makes the food and drinks taste like perfume/cologne! What about things like that, for asthmatics things like that is JUST as bad as cig smoke! What's next are they going to want to pass an ordinance that says we can't even smoke in our own homes!? I am VERY respectful when it comes to going out in public and my smoking, I stay away from the doors or where groups of people are when I am smoking and I put my cig out before I go near the door...honestly I would rather take in cig smoke/fumes that half the fumes that come out of peoples vehicles when they are driving by you when you are trying to walk to a shop/store. I wasn't born or raised here, only lived here for the past 6 years so what do I know or what does my opinion matter, regardless that I am an active voter. I understand why people are so heated on this issue and why it's being brought up...BUT if this gets passed then that impedes on people who smoke's freedom of choice which is just wrong and unconstitutional, the government doesn't know what's right for EVERY SINGLE PERSON only WE know what is right and best for us. They are just trying to make it sound like they AREN'T taking our freedom of choice from us.

-- Posted by jlc on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 1:40 PM

QUOTE: "As for me, I walked into Coach's TIMEOUT Bar and Grill one time, then I promptly exited and I'll never return. I smoke".

Wanna bet the owner couldn't care less if you ever return? Doubt if he changes his smoking policy any time soon.

-- Posted by I. M. Lee Thall, Esq. on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 1:40 PM

I agree with jlc the stinch of some peoples perfume/cologne is sometimes much worse that the smell of smoke. And as far as having to walk thru a clud of smoke to get groceries, I don't think I have ever seen a group of people standing outside the doors of Kroger to smoke. Even when their employees go out to smoke they stay clear of the doors. I think you people are just grasping for straws.

-- Posted by benna30 on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 1:58 PM

Hey, back of the bus please, oh sorry you can't use that water fountain, no no no that table isn't for your kind. Sound familiar?

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 2:02 PM

Don't count on the State Legislature to ban smoking statewide. This is a very controversial issue where ever it's talked about. The fact that all local governments have the ability to adopt ordinances banning smoking in public places makes it highly unlikely that members of the legislature will put their careers in jeopardy when they can let it happen at the local level. Just my opinion, we'll see what happens in Indy over the next few months.

-- Posted by open minded on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 3:21 PM

The bars where I live built on smoking rooms for the smokers so they don't feel shut out because of the no smoking ban. The resturants left things like they were since most people don't need a smoke until after their meal and then they are ready to leave most times anyway. A good compromise for smokers and non smokers

-- Posted by southwest dude on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 3:35 PM

The smoking while not dining...OK

I just see some bad incidents coming forth if they ban smoking in places like bars. If they can't smoke inside they will come outside. Our sidewalks are going to be full of people who have been drinking because they are outside smoking.

This in turn will lead to the people on the sidewalk (the ones who get carried away) yelling at cars/people as they go by the establishments, which will then lead to fights, etc.

If in turn they make smoking in front of the buildings a no-no...then you will have people all over the main drag in town just to smoke.

Please, no one attack me. I haven't sided with one or the other. I am just stating what I can forsee happening.

I also will say that some of the comments about smokers being on welfare and "if you have a home", etc is a very hurtful remark. I too know plenty of smokers (relatives and friends) who work very hard, pay their own way, and have NEVER been on any type of goverment assistance. Most have worked at their jobs for a long time...so being jobless isn't a true remark either for all.

I am not saying if I am a smoker or not. You can't judge me just by my comment here on whether or not I am a smoker. I have agreed with the no-smoking in an eating establishment but I have also said how hurtful it is to "lash-out" at someone with the disgusting remarks that have been stated. I would feel that way non-smoker or smoker.

Along with this ban should come more pertinent (sp) bans. I read above about being able to get cited for someone hearing your dog 20 feet away, grass being more than an inch high, putting your trash out a few minutes to early?!? Is this town cRaZy or what?!?

What about most of the police/cops that you can see sitting in a big group (it is probably everyone of them that is on duty at the present time) sitting in a food place for 2 hours or more. They do not move from that spot. All police on a lunch/dinner break at the same time? Who came up with that rule (just incase someone states that they deserve a break too) and a 2 hour lunch break? I'm sure my husband would love to have a 2 hour lunch break at work w/out lifting a finger to do anything.

I have read someone a few months back that there was a place that was going to ban smoking in your own car and outside your own home. You could only smoke in your house as long as there was noone in your home that disagreed with smoking (no matter the age). I also read on the News 10 site last night that it is a law that states that Jane Doe is not a smoker and John Doe is. If Jane Doe and John Doe is outside in the park and Jane Doe ask John Doe to put out his ciggarette...that legally John Doe has too. Has anyone heard that law? I'm not sure if it's real or not. I don't see a problem with a person smoking in their own vehicle, yard, and home. Why can't things just stop at non-smoking restaraunts (when dealing with the smoking ban)?

WOW...I got windy on this one....LOL

Hope everyone has a great night! = )

-- Posted by JQuick on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 5:38 PM

Take Action, you have nailed it. But they still won't get it.

-- Posted by I. M. Lee Thall, Esq. on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 9:45 PM

One thing I don't understand is how is it inconsiderate or selfish for someone to smoke in an area where it is allowed? If they were smoking in a no-smoking area, then i can understand the complaint, but as things are right now, it is allowed, and it should be up to the business owners to decide for themselves or it is no longer "free enterprise"

-- Posted by axegrinder1313 on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 10:46 PM

well terre haute passed their ordinance by a 9-0 vote . great job vigo county.these small brazil business' wont be hurt because these smoker's will still eat out they just wont be able to smoke until they get in thier car and go home .JON and GINA made a very good decision I have been there several times and will go back.the best part now is i know LEO dont go there because he smokes. well he just made my day dinner in peace.thanks LEO

-- Posted by GO HOOSIERS on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 2:14 AM

cubbiefan: yes, you have a right to eat a meal in a smoke free place. Go to one that is smoke FREE. And Quit bitching about the ones that are not smoke free.

-- Posted by (B_b) is an idiot !! on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 8:46 AM

Thursday night Terre Haute adopted a comprehensive smoke free workplace ordinance to go into effect 2012. Brazil will soon be surrounded by smoke free cities.

All but a handful of states have gone smoke free. Though it is possible the state will move forward and pass a smoke free workplace ordinance, waiting on the state may not be what is best for Brazil. Workers in Brazil should be protected now.

The reason for these historic steps towards smoke free air is not because people are against smokers but rather second hand smoke is toxic. It is proven to make people sick and cause premature death due to exposure. For every 8 smokers who die from a tobacco related illness 1 nonsmoker is taken with them. The latest Surgeon General's report once again confirms what has already been confirmed; There is no safe level of second hand smoke. Separate smoking and nonsmoking rooms and separate break rooms protect no one, especially those who work in these establishments daily. "So work somewhere else." the opposition will say. That luxury belongs to a few. A parent will work to provide for the needs of the family and risk personal health to do so before letting their kids go without food, shelter, and clothing. No one should have to choose between their job and their health. NO ONE!

As for local businesses being hurt by a comprehensive smoke free workplace air law: Here is what has been documented all over the united states:

1. Towns, cities, states across the county successfully have adopted and implemented comprehensive smoke free laws.

2. Stark claims of doom and gloom for the hospitality industry were apart of these forerunner campaigns and the claims were not supported by facts. Comprehensive levels the playing field.

3.Smoke free laws improve workers health.

As for the real cost: Tobacco claims the lives of 9,700 Hoosiers each year and costs the state 2 billion per year including $487 million in Medicaid costs.

Sadly, most people who work in the hospitality industry do not receive insurance from their employer. So when their place of work makes them sick they are now faced with greater financial hardship.

It is so easy to just say "go elsewhere if you don't like the smoke." Yes, easy for me and maybe easy for some of you. But what if it's not about us? What if it is for the greater good; For the one who fears lose of job and poverty if they were to speak up?

And how I wish the debate was as simple as not liking the smell of smoke in one's hair and the taste of it in one's food.

Second hand smoke is dangerous. It kills. All other arguments pale to this truth.

-- Posted by yestosmokefree on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 11:36 AM

Why would anyone want the government to make this decision for you? Let each business make their own decision. Everyone should respect each others decision to smoke or not. As long as the government stays out of it, we can all have a choice. For those of you who want the government to pass a no-smoking band, why are you so eager to give up your rights? Do you really think they should stop there? Give government an inch and they will take a mile. I applaud and respect business's that implement their own non-smoking band. I applaud and respect the business's that do not implement their own smoking band. I have no problems attending either type of establishment. I am glad they have a choice and are not dictated by our government on what they have to do.

I find all this ironic. When I was in California back in 2003, I felt like a leper because I was a smoker. Yet they are eager to overlook smoking marijuana. I ask, when it comes to lung disease, what is the difference? Think about it folks. Are you really ready to give up another right?

-- Posted by jleffel on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 4:12 PM

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=1...

Very interesting story...Brazil???

-- Posted by semtex_sticky on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 4:57 PM

pork chop Kandace needs to go to another town and live. Like Bloomington.

-- Posted by (B_b) is an idiot !! on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 9:57 PM

ONLY IF SHE TAKES JENNY AND LEO WITH HER. KANDACE YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB WAKE THE MAYOR UP.THE ELECTION IS COMING SOON SHE NEEDS TO WAKE UP BECAUSE SHE IS ON HER WAY OUT.

-- Posted by GO HOOSIERS on Sun, Jan 16, 2011, at 1:42 AM

I dont smoke and never have, but I still believe it is the choice of the business owner what to allow or not allow in their business. I find it hard to believe an employee is "forced" to work anywhere that they dont like the conditions. If you cant stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you dont like the smoke, choose not to eat where it is allowed. That simple.

-- Posted by lifehasitsmoments on Sun, Jan 16, 2011, at 11:53 AM

I underatand everyone's strong opinions on the matter of smoking in public resturants and bars. I myself grew up in a home with 2 parents who were/are smokers. I remember the smell - I couldn't get away from it. But it was not my decision at that time. It was my parents home and my parents rules. I am now the parent. I choose not to smoke. Since my children were born I have not allowed smoking in my home - even my parents. They do not like it but they respect my decision - they do however, smoke around my nieces and nephews with no problem. This is my choice. I do not go to places where smoking is heavy - I can't physically handle it any more. If the town of Brazil would choose to go smoke free, I would choose to begin frequenting their establishments. I have lived here for 10 years now and there are places I do not go - have never gone specifically due to the fact that smoking will make breathing uncomfortable for me. I choose to be smoke free - and that includes where I go to eat. I totally get it - it is my choice. But...when I do have to be around those who choose to smoke it does effect me and that is when I feel I have no choice.

-- Posted by lovemykidsmore on Sun, Jan 16, 2011, at 7:12 PM

Don't smoke.

-- Posted by Gunslinger on Mon, Jan 17, 2011, at 6:57 PM

I know of one good example: The bowling alley in Greencastle was around for a very long time, that is until they passed the smoking law. Now it is a really old empty building on the edge of town that no one will touch. I think all extra sweet foods, fats, salts, and gentically engineered foods should be banned. If the government doesn't protect me from me, who will! The reason all of this is an issue is money, bottom line. The insurance companies have a very good lobby organization and routinely get laws passed to help sell their product and limit their payouts. No body in the statehouse cares about you smoking or not. Personally, if I don't want to go somewhere because it is smoke-filled, or painted green for that matter, I won't go there! If I really like the place, I will tell the owner that I would continue to spend money there, but it is just too smokey. If enough people start taking their business elsewhere because of smoking, the proprieters will make the necessary changes. Just give the business owners a choice, the greencastle bowling alley never had one.

-- Posted by almostfootballfree on Tue, Jan 18, 2011, at 6:31 AM

Put it to a vote and make sure that it is well publicised to allow the greatest number of folks to voice their opinion. Don't blindside folks like you just did Kandace! That was not fair at all, then again maybe it was to you! So not cool!

"Brown, in turn, urged the council to press the issue." Of course you did Kandace, you had all your little cronies lined up and nobody there to speak out for the rights of owners who want, no, demand the right to choose for themselves. Maybe you need to re-think your strategy Ms. Brown because that was pretty dirty! How much money are you going to get in kickbacks or extra grants for your little pet projects should you be successful in pushing this through and forcing it down people's throats huh? Interesting question isn't it? Just bringing some things to light!

-- Posted by Proud of My Country on Tue, Jan 18, 2011, at 11:50 AM

Village_Idiot.....The Government already tells you where you can drive>>roads and highways not the farmers fields...They tell you where to live>>on property you have purchased or are leasing....you cannot live in a state/ natl park.

The Government also tells you to>wear a seat belt>put your child in a car safety seat>you have to stop at a red light>you cannot take mail from another's mailbox>you cannot beat your spouse>you cannot starve your children......

-- Posted by Take Action on Wed, Jan 19, 2011, at 1:13 PM

Isnt_it_obvious-You really need to get out more...maybe a smoke free place would be good....

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml...

-- Posted by Take Action on Wed, Jan 19, 2011, at 1:22 PM

proud of my country...really Kick backs? If you only new who actually got the kick backs lol!!

It sure isn't people like Kandace...but you Might want to take a look at the opposition. Big Tobacco has deep pockets and long arms...

-- Posted by Take Action on Wed, Jan 19, 2011, at 1:25 PM

Take Action....Oh I do know where the money goes. You are correct in saying that tobacco has deep pockets and long arms but........I stand by what I said!

-- Posted by Proud of My Country on Thu, Jan 20, 2011, at 11:04 AM

@Proud....LMAO,sorry...Kandace does not get extra funding and doesn't get a pay raise!! You REALLY need to get your facts straight! The benefactors will be the community and members because then this can be promoted as a step forward not to mention HEALTHIER PEOPLE.

-- Posted by Take Action on Thu, Jan 20, 2011, at 12:16 PM

What vitality a smokefree workplace law would bring to Brazil! I support it all the way!

-- Posted by Higher Thinking on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 1:34 AM

Isn't_it_obvious, I know what the word means, and YES there would be a HUGE impact on public health in MANY ways. But why are you so focused on the lungs? How about a study at IU that found heart attack rates in NON SMOKERS declined 70% after implementation of a copmprehensive law prohibiting smoking in the workplace. SMOKERS heart attack rates stayed the same. What does this tell us? Get rid of 2nd hand smoke in public, and greatly improve health.

As for issues of the lung, any moron knows inhaling anything but oxygen into your lungs repeatedly is not healthy. Add 7000 toxic chemicals, 70 of which cause cancer, and you have a bonafide health threat! Its common sense. Most lung cancer (90% in men 80% in women) is caused from smoking be it primary or secondhand smoking.

-- Posted by Higher Thinking on Mon, Jan 24, 2011, at 1:02 PM

By the way, the IU study focused on Bloomington:

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/5...

-- Posted by Higher Thinking on Mon, Jan 24, 2011, at 1:04 PM

Oh Isn't_it_obvious, ever heard of google?

While I realize you will likely still choose to turn a blind eye to the FACTS here, please peruse some of these studies, they show evidence of decrease in respiratory ailments in countries, states and cities alike. Oh fyi, "respiratory" means pertaining to or serving for respiration. So this word refers to the lungs just like the word pulmonary. Didn't want to confuse you.

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/conten...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/98514...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17032...

http://www.library.nhs.uk/RESPIRATORY/Vi...

http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd53/cr...

http://www.suite101.com/content/smoking-...

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/con...

http://journals.lww.com/co-allergy/Abstr...

-- Posted by Higher Thinking on Thu, Jan 27, 2011, at 11:34 AM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: