IBJNews

Advocates want no weakening of Indiana smoking ban

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Anti-smoking advocates aren't happy about an 18-month exemption for bars that's included in a bill for a statewide smoking ban, and said Thursday they are aiming to prevent the proposal from being watered down any more as it moves through the Indiana Legislature.

A state Senate committee is expected to act within a couple weeks on the bill that was approved the House last week. The proposal prohibits smoking in nearly all public places and businesses while still allowing smoking at casinos, private clubs, retail tobacco stores, and cigar and hookah bars.

Opposition from health advocates last year to a House-approved bill that included a bar exemption without an end date contributed to its defeat in a Senate committee after its chairman argued the provision was needed to win Senate passage.

Danielle Patterson, co-chairwoman of the Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air, described the current proposal as a "tad bit better" than last year's total exemption for bars.

"If we could have bars included without the phase-in that would ideal, just as long the bill doesn't get weaker at this point," she said. "It will be tough for us to support it if it gets any weaker than it currently is."

The bill would permit bars that currently allow smoking to keep doing so until September 2013. House members also added a broader exemption for the state's 13 casinos that would allow smoking anywhere on their property, not just on gambling floors as originally proposed.

The Indiana House has approved statewide smoking limits six times in recent years, but the Senate has never voted on those proposals.

Senate public policy committee Chairman Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, said he believes the current exemptions are needed for the bill to get through the Legislature before this year's session ends by mid-March. He said adding other exemptions — such as for nursing home residents — could be considered by the committee.

"To think you're going to go nonsmoking throughout the entire state of Indiana without any exemptions, history has told us in the years that it's come out of the House that it has always had those exemptions," Alting said.

The House voted 62-35 in favor of the bill, although some legislators maintain the state shouldn't mandate smoking policies to business owners.

Republican Rep. Eric Turner of Cicero, who sponsored the ban in the House, said he believes growing public awareness of the dangers of secondhand smoke and support for a statewide ban from Gov. Mitch Daniels gives the proposal its best chance so far of making it through the General Assembly.

"My goal is to minimize the number of exemptions but maximize the number locations that would be smoke free and still get a bill passed," he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • This is complete BS
    If you are going to pass a smoking ban, which I am in favor of and am myself a smoker, then pass a smoking ban. I don't get why casino's are exempt. I can smoke in a casino since the are so heavily taxed and hurting. I am extremely dissapointed to our legislature for not inacting fair laws. I hope this bill gets killed.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT