City debates smoking ordinance

Whether it was the credibility of research that links cancer to secondhand smoke or the smoking ban's impact on local business, everything at Wednesday night's public comment period on the Bloomington City Council's proposed ordinance was contested by those both in favor and opposed to it. A full council vote on the proposed ban will occur on March 26.\nAt the standing room only meeting at council chambers downtown, more than once someone against the ban rooted their arguments in terms of individual freedom -- only to be followed by someone in favor of the adoption, making a point using the exact same language.\n"This proposal is an ambush on the rights of individuals and business," said Bloomington resident Lance Deaton. "Arbitrarily reducing the rights of individuals and business is never your job."\nThe debate's crux concerns the competing rights of smokers and nonsmokers: If one side wins, the other loses. The speaker who preceded Deaton said smokers are the ones who abuse freedoms.\n"It is smokers who limit the rights of nonsmokers. Freedom does not include the freedom to push passive smoke on kids, co-workers and nonsmokers," he said. "Their decision to smoke is not a freedom. It's a personal choice and should be kept to personal space."\nAnthony Pizzo, a member of the council for 12 years and a pathologist at Blooomington Hospital, set the tone for the meeting with a detailed presentation about the dangers of secondhand smoke. He cited studies from the the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Center for Disease Control that link secondhand smoke to cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.\n"I have no grudge against smokers. I consider them victims of an industry that can manipulate the political process. Most smokers are trapped," Pizzo said. "Our resolution is to ensure a safe and civil city. We are concerned about the rights of the 80 percent who don't smoke."\nAt one point, as Pizzo reviewed the chemical composition of cigarettes, a man in the crowd stood up and interrupted him, demanding from Council Chairman Michael Diekhoff the opportunity for people to talk about the ordinance and not be lectured about secondhand smoke.\n"I've had open heart surgery and I don't smoke," he said later during the public comment period. "But I think it's my choice to go where I want."\nAndy Storms, a bartender at the Video Saloon, encapsulated the opposition arguments in a short speech that drew applause from the crowd.\n"This ordinance affects my livelihood, my business and the charities I donate money to," Storms said. "Please think about this as you think about restricting the rights of adults using a legal product on private property. If you want to stop smoking, tax the hell out of it, but let me keep my job."\nA speaker from the Bloomington Chamber of Commerce read a resolution adopted by that body in favor of the ordinance. The chamber's resolution says smoke-free workplace laws do not impair business or tourism; businesses that permit smoking in the workplace pay more in maintenance; and health care and workers should not have to choose between their health and their jobs. \nTheir resolution also notes a minority of chamber members oppose the ordinance as an "unwelcome and unjustified intrusion into the rights of businesses."\nWednesday night's meeting completed the second reading of the ordinance.