Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Smokefree Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public health groups and residents urge Delaware County commissioners to reject cigar‑lounge exemption
Summary
Public health advocates and residents told the Delaware County Commissioners on March 16 that a proposed cigar‑lounge exemption to the county’s smokefree ordinance would endanger workers and residents and could invite legal challenges; staff said ordinance language needs more review before formal consideration.
Public health advocates and several residents told the Delaware County Commissioners on March 16 that a proposed exemption to the county’s 20‑year smokefree ordinance for a cigar‑lounge would harm workers and weaken the county’s public‑health protections.
“A single full‑size cigar may contain almost as much nicotine as a pack of cigarettes,” Taylor Williams, representing the American Lung Association and Tobacco‑Free Indiana, told the commission during the public‑comment period. Williams also warned that ventilation systems cannot reliably clear indoor secondhand smoke and said no amendment language has been presented for public review.
Jordan Moss, director of the Tobacco‑Free Coalition of Delaware County, said allowing indoor smoking in a single business would send the wrong signal to young people and could undermine retention of younger residents. “Increasing or weakening our policy to allow a certain bar to allow smoking is inappropriate,” Moss said, adding that recent state legislative activity — cited in the record as SB 144 — underscores a broader policy context.
Dr. Lynn Witty, a lung and critical‑care physician, described clinical harms tied to tobacco and cigar additives and urged the commissioners to preserve strong local protections. “It causes cancer. It causes a lot of other things,” Witty said, urging the county not to create indoor spaces that normalize tobacco use.
Staff earlier in the meeting described a draft Ordinance 2026‑03 addressing a cigar‑lounge exemption but said they found discrepancies between a 2011 smoking ban and the codified language in chapter 13 and asked for time to resolve those inconsistencies before proceeding. Because staff requested additional review, the commission did not vote on a policy change during the March 16 meeting.
The public commenters also warned of potential legal and economic consequences, including higher health‑care costs and employment concerns for workers in smoking environments. Williams said that, absent narrowly tailored amendment language, an exemption could expose the county to costly lawsuits and create an uneven regulatory environment for local businesses.
The commission did not adopt any changes to the smokefree ordinance on March 16; staff will continue to reconcile the ordinance language and return with clarified text for further consideration.
