A new smoking ban near children’s play equipment in council parks did not go far enough to protect young people, according to Labor Party councillors. Independent councillor Brendan Luchetti moved staff recommendations at the December 13 meeting that Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC) introduce a ban on smoking within 10 metres of play equipment in parks and playgrounds under council control following Cancer Council of Australia recommendations that children be protected from secondhand smoke.

“It’s a bit of a no-brainer, really,” he told the meeting.

But Labor councillors Mark Greenhill, Adam Searle and Alison McLaren said the proposal didn’t go far enough.

“If we really believe that people should not smoke around children in parks, then let’s resolve that,” Clr Greenhill told the meeting.

“We could send it off and have a report but is there not enough evidence in the public realm about secondhand smoke? Don’t we know that?

“There can be no doubt that secondhand smoke around children is not acceptable. When parents take their children to the park and other parents are smoking in the area they inflict that on not just their children but other people’s.”

Clr Greenhill moved an amendment that smoking be outlawed altogether in council parks containing children’s play equipment.

While Clr Fiona Creed said the ban was a “fantastic policy”, it was too difficult to enforce as people often ignored no smoking signs and peer pressure did not work.

“I am the fly in the ointment . . . but I just see it being really, really difficult to police,” she said.

It was a sentiment echoed by Clr Chris Van der Kley.

“It’s not the point that I am against or for smoking . . . this is about trying to be able to control something,” he said.

“Putting up a sign is not going to work. I don’t believe it’s enforceable.”

In supporting Clr Greenhill, Clr Adam Searle said 10 metres was “simply not far enough away to protect children.

“People should not be free to smoke around children,” he said.

A statewide smoking ban could again be on the agenda next year during the Indiana General Assembly. Leaders of the Republican-led legislature say they would like to revisit the issue. House Speaker Brian Bosma said last week that a ban on smoking in most public spaces could be in effect before the February 5 Super Bowl in Indianapolis. Republican Governor Mitch Daniels says he also supports a ban.

A smoking ban was introduced in the 2011 session, but was watered down with exemptions to the point that even anti-smoking advocates would not support it.

It failed to win passage on the committee level. The Indiana General Assembly begins January 4th.

A City-County Council committee tonight voted down a smoking ban proposal that would have been eligible for a final vote at Monday’s meeting of the full council. It wasn’t clear whether the proposal, which has struggled to win support from Democrats who saw it as too weak, had enough votes to win passage Monday. Tonight, the Rules and Public Policy Committee’s three Democrats — supporters of a comprehensive smoking ban with fewer exemptions — voted against advancing the measure.

The motion failed 6-2 after about an hour of public comments.

Most who spoke to the committee urged passage of a measure that some saw as imperfect but a step in the right direction.

Democrat Angela Mansfield — who has pressed for a stronger smoking ban but reluctantly supported Vaughn’s measure — pulled back her support in tonight’s vote.

She took issue with an amendment submitted by Republican Angel Rivera, a smoking ban opponent. It would have made clear that if private and fraternal clubs vote to retain smoking, they could still allow minors in nonsmoking areas. The two other Democrats on the committee also opposed the amendment, but it passed.

Even if Mansfield had not backed out, the measure may have failed because Democrats Joanne Sanders and Monroe Gray were otherwise reluctant to support Vaughn’s bid.

The council could revive the proposal Monday with a simple majority, but whether sponsors will try is unclear.

During a committee break, Council President Ryan Vaughn, the measure’s author, said he would consider his next step later this week. He will likely confer with Smoke Free Indy spokeswoman Lindsay Grace, who said, “We’re disappointed that it didn’t move out of the full committee.”

Vaughn’s proposal would expand Indianapolis’ 2005 smoking ban to bowling alleys, hotel rooms and most bars, with several exemptions.

It would carry these exemptions: existing cigar and hookah bars, tobacco shops and nonprofit private and fraternal organizations if their members vote to retain smoking. It also would exempt Downtown Indianapolis’ off-track betting parlor.

With many Republicans opposed, the proposal would need support from many Democrats to win passage. It would take effect Jan. 22, before Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl.

If that proposal dies, Democrats are likely to push for a stronger smoking ban after they gain a majority of council seats Jan. 1. But Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, a Republican, has said he is unlikely to sign one stronger than Vaughn’s.

The committee resumed its meeting after a break to take on another tough topic — whether to advance a Republican-backed redistricting proposal to the full council. That measure is expected to win the panel’s endorsement.

Cigarette manufacturer Phillip Morris is gone and now smoking is on its way out, too, as Concord City Council bans smoking and the use of tobacco products from city parks. Concord City Council voted 4-3 Thursday to ban smoking and tobacco use from the city’s parks to encourage healthier choices for residents and to reduce the effect of secondhand smoke on the children and adults who use the parks.

Council members Dr. Hector Henry, John Sweat, Lamar Barrier and Ella Mae Small voted for the ban. Council members David Phillips, Jim Ramseur and Alfred Brown voted against it.

The “Prohibiting Ordinance” prohibits all smoking and the use of tobacco products in the parks and places enforcement with the Concord Police Department. This model mirrors the one used by Cabarrus County and Harrisburg in their parks.

Council members were presented with two options before the vote. One option was to completely ban smoking and tobacco use from the parks and the other was to ban it from most the park, but allow it in parking lots at the parks.

Small said she voted for the total ban because she wants to protect youth from secondhand smoke.

“I used to smoke years ago. Because of my smoking, I do have a lung problem now. It’s not anything that’s life threatening, but cigarette smoke can damage your lungs,” Small said. “There are a lot of children in the parks and I would not like to have them exposed to even secondhand smoke. If (people) want to smoke, they can drive away from the park and smoke and then come back.”

Ramseur said he supported banning smoking from the parks, but preferred the option that still allowed it in the parking lots.

“I’d like to speak for the restricted portion where we still allow smoking in the parking lots only. I’d like to try it out and stick our foot in the water before we jump in the water,” he said during the Concord City Council meeting on Thursday.

Henry said he thought allowing smoking and tobacco use in the parking lots, but not the parks would be confusing for patrons of the parks.

“It is the way things are done at the Cabarrus parks and the Harrisburg parks,” he said. “It does bring consistency to the park system everybody uses.

“There’s no question that there are going to be people who will not follow the rules,” he said. “I think we need to be very aggressive about this. There’s a tremendous amount of support for this. I really think this is a good step forward.”

City-County Council President Ryan Vaughn introduced a new citywide smoking ban Monday, but it is unclear whether his tenuously crafted compromise with Democrats will hold together. Democrats made it clear through months of election-year campaigning that they want a stricter smoking ban when they take control of the council next month. They are upset at provisions of Vaughn’s last-minute and, in their eyes, watered-down proposal.

Minority Leader Joanne Sanders said Monday that Democrats haven’t taken roll, but she thinks most are against it.

Vaughn said he hopes he can get six to eight Republicans to back his proposal but admits it could be significantly fewer.

In order for this version to be passed, the measure, which would be stronger than the 2005 ordinance, would have to be voted on at the council’s last meeting of the year later this month. But with a majority of 15 votes on the 29-member council needed to pass the measure, its fate is up to the Democrats.

Many of them are clearly upset with the way this went down. But are they ultimately just blowing smoke?

“To come up with this at the eleventh hour is bogus,” Sanders said. “It’s likely a number of Democrats will want to wait until next year.”

Democrat Angela Mansfield and Republican Ben Hunter — in a nod toward bipartisanship — had been busy last month drafting a strict smoking ban that exempted only tobacco shops.

But Vaughn beat them to the punch, drafting an ordinance of his own that would exempt existing cigar and hookah bars while preventing new ones from allowing smoking. His ordinance also would presume existing social clubs and fraternal organizations to be nonsmoking, unless a majority of members vote by July 1 to retain smoking.

Monday, Vaughn sent his ordinance — along with a controversial redistricting plan — to the Rules and Public Policy Committee. If the committee signs off Dec. 13, Vaughn hopes to vote on both proposals at the council’s Dec. 19 meeting. The smoking ban, if passed, would take effect two weeks before the Feb. 5 Super Bowl — and clean-air advocates see that as a chance to highlight Indianapolis’ progressiveness.

It may not be so simple, though. A group called Save Indianapolis Bars plans to lobby council members to minimize exemptions, so no competitors gain an advantage. While they’re worried about profit, others see it as a public health issue.

“This is unfair to a group of workers who will not be protected,” Sanders said. “And anyone who says people choose where they work in this economy, I think they are in denial.”

Vaughn said he tweaked his original proposal last week after hearing suggestions from anti-smoking advocates to tighten the scope of his exemptions. However, Mansfield and other Democrats say they never saw Vaughn’s original proposal, so it’s difficult to know what was changed.

In an admission of the political reality of the situation, Mansfield said she will vote in favor of Vaughn’s plan. However, that comes with a caveat: She is upset by the way in which Vaughn and Republican Mayor Greg Ballard handled this, so she won’t lobby for her fellow Democrats’ support.

Mansfield met with the mayor and Vaughn about his proposal Wednesday, but she walked away feeling that there was no room for discussion on the ordinance. She had been willing to concede on social clubs — which include veterans halls — if the ban would include cigar and hookah bars.

But Mansfield said she thought their attitude was unyielding: “It was my way or the highway.

“To me, a compromise is if you both start in different directions and end up somewhere in the middle. This was not even an open discussion,” she said Monday.

Vaughn, though, sees it as a clear compromise. The number of workplaces that allow smoking in Indianapolis, he points out, would drop from an estimated 370 to about 60 or fewer.

“I really think this represents our only chance at a compromise,” he said. “The mayor felt pretty strongly he wasn’t going to support anything more strict.”

That may be so, but Democrats are clearly steamed about the whole process. The smoking ban, Mansfield said, should be a council issue.

“I tried to explain that to the mayor,” she said. “I don’t think he understands this three branches of government thing.”

Still, for all of the debate in Indianapolis, others see the potential smoking ban as clear progress.

Lindsay Grace of the anti-smoking advocacy group Smoke Free Indy said — even with the exemptions — that this is still a good ordinance.

The group will lobby the Indiana General Assembly next year for a statewide ban. And, if the local ordinance passes, Grace said she hopes the state follows the lead of its capital.

Elsewhere in the country, she said, states have followed the lead of influential cities. For instance, she said, New York and Boston both helped pave the road for statewide bans.

“If we can show the General Assembly that Indianapolis can do it in a bipartisan fashion with support from the public health community, we think that will go a long way in the Statehouse,” Grace said.

State Reps. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, and Eric Turner, R-Cicero, will be watching Indianapolis’ move. They’re likely to sponsor the state legislation.

“It would be a big benefit if the largest city in the state takes that quantum leap and goes smoke-free,” Brown said.

The statewide smoking ban in bars and restaurants may have caused fewer people to suffer heart attacks in North Carolina. A study just released by the North Carolina Division of Public Health shows visits to the emergency room for heart attacks dropped 21 percent after the smoking ban went into effect. Heart attack ER visits dropped from 9,066 in 2008 to 7,669 in 2010. The state is saying the smoking ban is the cause of the drop, but some doctors aren’t as quick to link the smoking ban with the statistics.

“I think it would be hard to say for sure if the smoking ban caused the decrease in emergency room visits,” said John Pasquini, MD, FACC. “There are a lot of factors that could be playing a role.”
Dr. Pasquini is a cardiologist with Mid Carolina Cardiology and Presbyterian Cardiovascular Institute in Charlotte. He said it’s difficult to tell how much of a role the smoking ban played in cutting down on ER visits without having more than a retroactive study focused on statistics.

However, he said nothing but good has emerged from the smoking ban when it comes to North Carolinians’ health.

“The harder you make it for people to smoke, I think the easier it is for people to actually quit. I think it’s clearly cut down on the use and there’s no doubt that it reduced the secondhand smoke hugely,” said Pasquini.

While the drop in heart attacks is good news, the decrease didn’t happen for everyone. In fact, women in North Carolina experienced more heart attacks, not fewer.

91 more women had heart attacks in 2010 than in 2008. That’s compared to 1,488 fewer heart attacks for men over the same two-year period.

Pasquini said he can only speculate as to why heart attacks didn’t drop for women. He said one factor could be stress. It’s becoming more common for women to take on many duties at once, sometimes having full time jobs in the workplace while simultaneously working full time as mothers.

Overall, he said the smoking ban has been a win-win situation for North Carolina’s smokers and non smokers alike by reducing the amount of smoke in the air.

Harford County government says it plans to impose a complete smoking ban on its properties, owned or leased, though it isn’t clear what specific properties fall into that category. The Harford County Department of Administration will conduct a public hearing on the proposed rule and regulation requiring county government property to be tobacco-free on Dec. 5 at 2 p.m. in the second floor conference room, Harford County Government Administration Building, 220 South Main St. in Bel Air.

“Basically there will be no smoking on county property,” Bob Thomas, the chief spokesman for county government said Monday. The county currently bans smoking in all its buildings, but not on the grounds.

“There’s been an issue at the county office building, where smokers congregate down the handicapped ramp and also at a picnic table on the parking lot,” Thomas said.

The proposed tobacco-free rule and regulation states: “Smoking and use of any tobacco products is prohibited on all property owned, leased or operated by Harford County, Maryland (the ‘County’). This consists of all buildings and grounds, including exterior open spaces, parking lots and garages, driveways and recreational facilities. In addition, smoking is prohibited in any vehicle owned or leased by the County.”

Besides cigarettes, cigars and pipes, “smoking” is defined as the use of other tobacco products such as snuff and chewing tobacco, as well as, e-cigarettes.

The tobacco ban will take effect Jan. 1, 2012; however, the regulation has a provision for the county to provide a designated smoking area outside any leased county facility that is under contract to be used prior to the ban taking place.

Employees who violate this regulation are subject to disciplinary action, according to the regulation. Visitors and/or vendors who are observed violating this regulation will be required to cease the violation, or will be asked to leave the premises.

Thomas could not immediately provide specific details on the properties that will or will not be affected by the ban. He did say he had been told the libraries’ grounds would not be covered by it.

The tobacco-free rule and regulation is expected to be posted on the county’s website sometime on Tuesday.

Some students at the University of North Texas handed out free cigarettes Monday to protest a proposed smoking ban. A group called Young Americans for Liberty is opposed to a proposal that would ban smoking on campus. Leaders of the group said the university shouldn’t be allowed to make those kind of rules.

With the free cigarettes, protesters will also be asking students to sign a petition.

The current UNT policy on smoking prohibits smoking inside buildings and university vehicles. Smokers must also be 25 feet from any building.

STRUGGLING businesses have begged Strathfield Council not to ban smoking during outdoor dining on council footpaths. One local business owner at last Tuesday’s Strathfield Council meeting, Con Christodoulides,of CC’s Char Grill in Strathfield, told councillors the proposed move would be the final nail in the coffin for local trade.

“We have had Burwood Station being upgraded, Strathfield Station has not had a change to it at all, we have lost a lot of trade to Burwood,” Mr Christodoulides said. “If there is an issue with smoking then abolish it altogether, get rid of tobacco.”

He said businesses had barely survived the economic downturn and any change in trade would be disastrous.

“If we abolish smoking we lose a lot of trade and we need that trade – business is tough, we rely on that trade, the economy is tough.”

The amended draft outdoor dining policy does not allow smoking in outdoor areas on council footpaths. Liberal councillor Bill Carney assured retailers at the meeting the ban would not be passed without canvassing public opinion on the issue.