Advocates and lawmakers once again have started a campaign to ban smoking from all public places in Indiana, and this year,
they think they will finally be successful
State Reps. Charlie Brown (D-Gary) and Eric Turner (R-Cicero) joined members of the Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air on
Wednesday to announce legislation for a comprehensive ban they plan to introduce next year. They were joined by Indiana Sen.
Sue Errington (D-Muncie), who plans to push for the law in the Senate, where it has failed to get a hearing in the past.
Their message was followed by a hearing of the Indiana Health Finance Commission, which took testimony on the issue.
Indiana is among 11 states without a statewide law prohibiting smoking in public establishments. About 1-in-4 adult Hoosiers
smoke, higher than the national average of about 1-in-5.
Some Indiana cities, such as Fort Wayne, have bans in all workplaces. Others, such as Indianapolis, ban smoking in most workplaces,
but make some exceptions for bars, bowling alleys and private clubs.
A proposal for a stronger ban was tabled by the Indianapolis City-County Council last year.
It will be Brown’s fourth attempt to implement a full workplace ban, which would include restaurants and bars, and
he said he’s confident that it can pass this year.
“I think—slowly but surely—my colleagues are realizing it’s a health issue and it’s costly,
and it’s not an intrusion on businesses,” said Brown, who cited 97 studies that show no negative economic impact.
But Brown also expects to face opposition from bar and casino lobbyists who he said have fought the measures in the past.
Brad Klopfenstein, spokesman for Save Indianapolis Bars, an Indianapolis-based group that fought the most recently proposed
local ban, said the opposition so far hasn’t been organized, but he hopes it can continue countering with their message.
“In a free society, employees have to take some responsibility for working in establishments that might harm their
health or whose policies they don’t agree with,” Klopfenstein said. “Smokers should be able to get together
in their own establishments and enjoy each other’s company.”
Advocates say they’re better equipped to counter those arguments this year.
They’re armed with a growing body of research, such as a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that
highlights nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke and calls for laws that ban smoking in all public places.
They’re also hoping for more support from key lawmakers. Brown said he’s had several conversations with Senate
President Protempore David Long (R-Fort Wayne), who supported studying the issue further to educate his caucus.
And there’s a growing public call, smoking-ban supporters say, for lawmakers to support their cause. A local poll released
this summer by the group Smoke Free Indy and the national Campaign for Tobacco-Free kids showed 70 percent of Indianapolis
residents support making all workplaces smoke-free.
“We know that we have more constituents across the state who are calling legislators and asking them to create smoke-free
air,” said Amanda Estridge, Indiana state government relations manager for the American Cancer Society, one of the groups
involved with the campaign.
But Klopfenstein says there are plenty of others who are just as content to keep things the way they are.
“Not all people like country music,” he said. “There’s not a mandate that all bars have to be rock
and roll bars.”


















IBJ Conversations
27 Comments
Add Comment
I'm very sorry to hear about your breathing problems Kathy(heck, I definitely wouldn't have smoked around you if I was your father!), but I must disagree with you that smoking needs to be banned in all places. What I think would be much fairer is if any establishment allowing smoking had to post clear exterior signage that they permitted smoking, and had clear disclosure to both patrons and potential employees that they do permit smoking, so that anyone who is sensitive to smoke will have advance notice of the type of business they're getting into before applying. OSHA does NOT completely ban workplace smoking, and if SHS was as dangerous as anti-smoking groups like to lie about(which is NOT, but is just a farce and is nothing more than an annoyance to 99% of those who don't smoke) then shouldn't factories that have welding going on indoors also be banned? Why do anti-smokers have to be so idiotic to remove choice from those who do prefer to patronize and/or work at establishments allowing smoking, and if you dislike smoking and/or have health problems that stem from smoke exposure, what is so wrong about USING YOUR HEAD and hurting their bottom line BY NOT PATRONIZING such establishments?!?
Bottom line: smoking bans are only appropriate for truly public places that both non-smokers and smokers must use together, such as government buildings and public transit vehicles. They are NOT appropriate for privately owned businesses, and never will be. Want to see the major cost that smoking bans do to privately-owned businesses, especially mom-and-pop bars? Read between the lines and talk to Fort Wayne, Bloomington, Zionsville, etc. bar owners that were hurt, and check out Illinois and Ohio businesses for yourself. Google Smoke Choke Ohio, and see how many Ohio businesses ignore the state ban to this day. One Illinois casino in Metropolis had to lay off 30 employees almost immediately after the statewide ban took effect, and casino revenue declined OVER 20 percent in Illinois from 2008 to 2009, versus slight gains seen in Indiana, Iowa, and all other surrounding states that didn't ban smoking in casinos during the same period.
Please for the love of freedom that this country was built on, and to all Marion County councilmen, Indiana state lawmakers, and its governor, do not ever enact a comprehensive smoking ban! Enact common-sense measures instead, like requiring any business permitting smoking to post exterior signage, for disclosure of smoking policies to potential employees, and for automatic opt-out on applications for sensitive employees to work in only non-smoking areas, plus penalties for employers that don't honor an employee's opt-out request.
Johnson and Johnson, the makers of Chantix and Nicoderm, fund the bans through their Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-RWJohnsnF.html
Many tax exempt political action committees (charities?) received millions to sell smoking bans from the RWJ Foundation. These bans are nothing but clever marketing strategy, with lots of highly publicized "sky is falling" hype, similar to gun control tactics;
"Gun ownership disease"
http://www.nrapublications.org/SG/index_jan10.asp
Tobacco control funding sources for "social change" to handle the "tobacco problem"
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912
And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the "inside -out", provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers. Their many coalitions infiltrate local governmnts.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
After closing many bars, prohibition is their next goal.
http://alcoholfacts.org/RWJfoundation.html
www.denverpost.com/ci_9359399?source=pkg
But please continue with the dramatics. For such are the stories that turn politicians' heads. Cries for freedom, property rights, choice and less government aren't nearly as moving, and only fall on deaf ears.
And please, don't everyone pile on with anecdotal hand-wringing, because the perennially aggrieved and bereaved have driven this debate for far too long. The notion that secondhand smoke in a bar, pumped out almost instantly by a properly maintained smoke-eater ventilator, causes cancer is a fairy tale. Don't like the way smoke smells? I'll give anyone the win on that complaint. But secondhand smoke does not equal death, which is the way smoking bans have been forced on businesses for years. Stinky smells do not make a deadly killer. But no one could get a ban passed if it was just over a smell they don't like. Thus the fiction that secondhand smoke kills.
What on earth is wrong with an ordinance that says an establishment must be all non-smoking, or allows smoking with warning signs plastered all over it, so the public has a choice? And yes, employees have a choice with that system too. If only 20% of the population smokes, surely the marketplace will settle into 80% of bars and restaurants being non-smoking, if non-smokers are actually willing to do more than just bellyache and actually spend their money in such places. But the same pattern has happened in every community in the US and the UK where smoking bans have been forced on businesses: the smokers get tired of being treated like child molesters, and stay home, and the non-smokers don't flock to these now-squeaky clean bars and restaurants where they "risked their lives" coming into before. And bars and restaurants shut down. Britain is losing 3 pubs a week since their nationwide ban.
The truth no one will confront on this story is that smoking deaths are overwhelmingly genetic in nature. Your body is either predisposed to lung cancer and emphysema or it isn't (and BTW, looks like Tylenol might be the real culprit in skyrocketing asthma rates, and not the whiff of a cigar puffs from the next booth).
Smoking bans are feel-good legislation that let the nannies sleep more comfy at night. Smoking has been sufficiently demonized, and smokers are now in the minority. So my doctor can't smoke in my hospital room anymore the way he could in 1959. 20% of the population is being bled to death with tobacco taxation and higher insurance premiums, and they still smoke. So back off, thank them for keeping your taxes low, and leave them to enjoy an adult activity they have chosen. And keep away from totalitarian bans.
And since government seems to be more addicted to cigarettes than smokers, I would think that persecuting them would amount to sabotaging the state's revenue.
Finally, I wish someone would put a moratorium on endlessly repeating the myth that secondhand smoke is a killer. It is a distortion of the facts, and the anti-smoking jihadists know it.
I am not a smoker but I don't think I have anymore right to impose my decision to not smoke on someone who choses to smoke nor vice-versa.
This has nothing to do with economic impact. It has to do with a denial of personal freedom of choice on private property, period.
To those trying to impose this ban I say you can go outside to breathe your "fresh" air. Get a life and leave everybody else's alone.