Home

Daniels says he'd sign statewide smoking ban

December 16, 2010

Keywords

Government, Government & Economic Development, Governor, Health Care, Health Care & Insurance, Health Care & Life Sciences, Smoking Ban, State Government

Gov. Mitch Daniels says he would sign a statewide smoking ban if Indiana lawmakers approve sweeping restrictions on indoor smoking in public places.

Daniels said Wednesday that he would definitely sign such a bill because "there seems to be growing momentum" for such a ban.

As IBJ reported last month, State Rep. Charlie Brown plans again to sponsor legislation in January that would prohibit indoor smoking statewide in public places. The Gary Democrat has won House approval of a smoking ban with exemptions in previous legislative sessions. This time he's seeking a ban with no exemptions.

Daniels spokeswoman Jane Jankowski says the governor has said for nearly two years that he would sign a statewide smoking ban if it passed the Legislature.

IBJ Conversations
12 Comments
Add Comment

Drinking?

JanieDecember 29, 2010 2:06 PM
Sassafras, I do not smoke and I understand what you are saying but tell me what about drinking? What about the fact that I could be driving and have no warning and hit by a drunk driver? Should drinking be stopped in bars and restaurants?

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Business owner

CertificateDecember 20, 2010 9:16 AM
I would bet that each person who has posted a comment encouraging this ban - does not nor has ever owned their own business. Listen as a business owner i want as many patrons as i can get, but i also want to make my own decisions -that is why i own MY own establishment. I found that when i work for someone else - i change my outlook and yes i want more and i want a policy change i want this i want that... But in my own establishment i look to what is best for me. True its selfish but that is why i work the 14 and 15 hour days.
So back to the ban - its not the smoking that i care about its the government forcing this policy on me - this policy leads to policing (sp). I dont want my employees to smoke in the office (i never set the policy, most people know that they cant do that anymore) but i really could care less if they want to take a break in the shipping area and have a smoke. I would rather the state not spend the resources to investigate these types of laws or ordinances but rather focus on roads, or whatever leads to lower taxes.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
land of the free to breathe

SassafrasDecember 17, 2010 10:54 PM
It's always nice to see the pro-smoking crowd resorting to name calling like "goody two shoes" or "winers" (sp) in an attempt to deflate this inevitable law. What about "selfish jerks" for the ones who feel they have a right to pollute public airspace with their addictions? No, that's not reasonable either, but clearly this is escalating to increasing resentment among the non-addicted majority. We continue to cater to smokers, by not regulating outdoor space so they can smoke, and I feel we should do that. They have that right, but it translates to a right being non-productive for 5-10 minutes every hour to further their addictions, while the rest of us non-addicts slave away.

Smoking has been removed from just about everywhere else because not only does the majority not smoke, but they find the smell and feel of cigarette smoke to be foul and undesirable. Clearly smokers don't understand; many of them actually LIKE it. It's becoming increasingly difficult for us to distinguish our resentment for smoking from our resentment--even dislike--for the smokers themselves.

Logician has a reasonable compromise, in the concept of tobacco permits. But the reality is that smokers are looked down upon, it used to be done quietly and politely, but it's increasingly hard to do so as the remaining nicotine addicts become and increasingly marginalized population, only slightly more tasteful than heroin addiction (which, incidentally, is a less addictive drug than nicotine). And more people feel that smokers actually deserve to be marginalized in order not to condone unhealthy and disgusting behavior.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Land of the free

pckDecember 17, 2010 2:38 PM
Let's see the government tried banning alchol because of goodie two shoes... did not want people drinking - Didn't work did it? Now the government (big brother) wants to go along again with the goodie two shoes and ban smoking in all public places. Is this freedom of choice? Or is the country becoming a police state? Oh by the way the local and federal gov't does want the tax $ from smoker's and people that don't smoke still get use of the taxes collected and use for medical claims of people that don't smoke but need their medical claims paid by tax $. This country has become a country of winers, people /groups wine about everything and want the gov't. to do something about it. Most smokers pay taxes- work -have homes-families believe in god and country - but goodie two shoes act like they are the only ones who should be making decision for everyone else. If you don't cook STAY out of the kitchen, If you don't smoke STAY out of the bars and restaurants that do allow smoking. There are other issue more important for our government to be involved with and make policy decision on than smoking and cell phone use.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
About time

RamzDecember 16, 2010 3:19 PM
IF you want to be known as a "world class city" ..supposedly, then quite frankly you need to start acting like one, this ban will only improve businesses, some might feel the backlash at first, but in the end its a good one for the city. Next up..Gov, why don't you see about intervening on that horrible parking 50 year plan. Thanks

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
"growing momentum?"

georgeorwellDecember 16, 2010 2:29 PM
Well, sure Gov,..there's "growing momentum" for a number of politically motivated ideas. What happened to the legal choices of responsible adults?

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Some useful numbers

DataheadDecember 16, 2010 2:13 PM
Here are some useful numbers to consider regarding the tax on cigarettes:

Indiana had a 2009 population of 6,423,113, which was 2.09% of the U.S. population of 307,006,550.

The estimated annual costs in our healthcare system for smoking is $157 billion. Equally weighted, Indiana's portion would be about $3,284,714,092.

In the 2009-2011 Indiana budget, cigarette tax revenues were estimated to be $558,900,000 ($449.2 million of that is dedicated funds that don't go to general expenditures). That means only about 17.015% of the costs of smoking in Indiana are recouped by cigarette and tobacco taxes.

Let's raise cigarette taxes such that 100% of the costs are collected from cigarette tax revenues. That would mean increasing the cost of a pack of cigarettes by a factor of about 6. $18 a pack? Now we're talking real justice.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
I don't get it at all.....

JanieDecember 16, 2010 2:05 PM
If a restaurant or a bar chooses to allow smoking, than those who do not want to be exposed to it should not go there. There are plenty of other places to go. I have yet to see a restaurant or a movie theater or a store or a shopping mall where people are smoking. If I am outside, walking to a building like a hospital and someone is smoking outside I don't have to get right up close to that person.

Why is it okay for any reason to allow drinking at home, in restaurants, in bars, etc. and then for these same people to get on the road and kill others. We have no choice while driving on the road whether or not we are exposed to a drunken driver and yet we spend all this time talking about smoking. If you don't want to be exposed stay away period. It's ridiculous. Oh, and by the way... I do not smoke and have not for many many years.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Slippery Slopes and Smokes

LogicianDecember 16, 2010 1:55 PM
I'd like to first point out that slippery slopes are a poor argument style. They're logical fallacies. Debate the merits and demerits of a smoking ban. No one (here) is talking about banning fats, salts, and sodas.

It's about time for the state to stop putting the "freedom" of smokers (15-20% of the population) above the health and well-being of the remainder of the population. The argument that the free market will create smokeless bars and restaurants is incorrect because there are too many externalities that have not yet been internalized. The tax on cigarettes may be high, but it is not yet high enough to compensate for the harm done. True equilibrium would put all the costs of the harm done by smokers onto smokers.

Here's an idea maybe smokers would prefer: let's sell licenses to have public smoking, much like licenses for alcohol. Business owners can buy the right to have smoking in your establishment. We would limit the number of available permits. We would then price them at the level of harm they create. Let the free market (which I believe in) show you how popular smoking would be if all the costs were internalized to smokers.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Freedom...really?

DavidDecember 16, 2010 1:41 PM
Freedom, really? What, freedom to blow deadly smoke into the faces of others? Please. All we're talking about is prohibiting smoking in public places. Want to smoke? Light up at home or in your car. As far as "banning" or getting rid of cigarettes altogether - not going to happen. And, as far as the revenue is concerned, the state should be able to collect $$$$; after all, it can go to pay for all the costs associated with medical claims that the state is paying anyway.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Really Mitch?

DebDecember 16, 2010 1:39 PM
I hate when Republicans go the way of "Big Government"! Next, I'm looking forward to Mitch monitoring my exercise routine, how many Big Macs I eat and how much salt I'm putting on those fries. Can't I just be a fat, unhealthy idiot if I want to?

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Why?

Slippery SlopeDecember 16, 2010 1:30 PM
Does it all come down to cost/benefit? Really? Does freedom not have its own benefit?

Next ideas: Ban Oreo Cookies(& other high fat), Ban Soda.

Did Mitch calculate the lost tax revenue as 80% of the cost of a pack is currently taxes.

Bad Idea.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment