By Kelsey VanArsdall, The Republic Reporter
SEYMOUR — A smoking ban would infringe on property owners’ rights and discriminate against smokers, community members told Seymour City Council Tuesday in a public meeting.
Council members expressed disappointment at the small crowd: Fewer than 15 attended the second public hearing on the proposal.
“The purpose has been to let the public voice their opinions,” said Mary Voss, a member of the council’s governmental affairs committee.
“We didn’t have to do that.”
The council heard pleas from five audience members during the meeting, which lasted just over a half hour.
“I’d rather see them go after (homosexuals),” said Tony Clark.
“It’s (homosexuals) and (overweight people) that are raising health care costs as much as smokers,” he said, using derogatory terms for those groups.
Clark said that if the government enacted a smoking ban, it would emulate a communist regime and intrude on people’s rights.
Chuck Moutoux, who has been a smoker for 55 years, said the issue should not be considered because of health care issues.
“People don’t like it because they say they’re allergic to it,” he said.
“People are allergic to peanuts. Are you going to ban peanuts in the city of Seymour?
“People are allergic to dogs. Are you going to ban dogs in the city of Seymour?”
‘Leave us alone’
Moutoux cited smell, too, should be excluded as a factor.
“Women’s perfume smells bad. Body odor smells bad. Are you going to regulate these things?” he said.
“As a smoker, I just say, leave us alone for awhile.”
Jim Lucas, a small-business owner, said the smoking issue should be decided by the public.
“If people don’t want to eat in a restaurant that allows smoking that’s their choice. If a business wants to enact a smoking ban on their own, let them do it,” he said.
“I’m totally against the government regulating a legal activity,” he said.
“A lot of things are bad for our health, but we still have a choice. But as soon as you enact a (public) ban you take away everyone’s choice.”
Voss, one of the three council members on the governmental affairs committee, but the only one who attended, said the next step for the council is to review public comments.
“We haven’t gotten far enough on the issue to even decide what kind of ban we would adopt if one were enacted,” she said.
Council member Mike Jordan suggested another public meeting due to Tuesday night’s poor turnout.
No dates for further public hearings have been set.