The scientific evidence has been there for years. The financial argument is easy to make. Yet the idea of protecting the
public from the potentially deadly effects of secondhand smoke hasn’t caught fire in the halls of power—at least
that’s been the case in Indiana.
While 27 other states and cities large and small across the country have stepped up to protect the public’s health
by outlawing smoking just about everywhere except private homes and the great outdoors, Indiana and its largest city have
failed to act.
The state hasn’t done anything. In Indianapolis, the partial smoking ban that went into effect in 2006 was a good start,
but the city’s bars and some of its restaurants are still thick with smoke. Mayor Greg Ballard’s reluctance to
get behind a stronger ordinance is a black eye for a city trying to become a magnet for life sciences workers and conventions.
Finally, however, there’s a glimmer of hope. As IBJ reported this month, at least some among the vocal minority who’ve thwarted government
action up until now are beginning to see the handwriting on the wall.
As state Rep. Charlie Brown prepares to introduce for the fifth time a bill that would ban smoking in all enclosed public
spaces, John Livengood, one of the chief lobbyists working against such a law, told IBJ the ban is inevitable and
that opposition to it is weakening.
In Indianapolis, evidence is mounting—at least anecdotally—that the very business owners Livengood and his supporters
have tried to protect are ready for a change. It’s not hard to find a bar owner who wants to go smoke-free and would
happily comply if only the watering hole down the street had to do the same. Some have tried to straddle the line by instituting
non-smoking hours.
What is needed is a comprehensive law that levels the playing field and allows everyone to compete for customers with the
same set of rules—in the best interest of public health.
We hope 2011 is the year the Indiana General Assembly passes this common-sense measure. If for some reason it doesn’t,
Indianapolis must take action. It’s too late to lead the way in a state where dozens of towns and cities have already
made the right move, but in this case being a follower is preferable to isolating the city as one of only a handful where
working in or entering a bar is hazardous to your health.
Offer help, but keep cash
After the Great Recession, everyone is trying to do more with less. The vast majority of not-for-profits might greet that
news with a loud “welcome to our world.”
Not-for-profits, most of which provide services that are essential but funded in large part through the generosity of others,
are used to stretching a dollar no matter the state of the economy. But when times are hard, they have to stretch even further.
Our decades-old Holiday Wish List is your chance to help them—without spending a dime.
The list will run through Dec. 20, giving not-for-profits a place to request goods and services you might be able to supply.
Their needs are broad, from filing cabinets to horse feed to elementary-school tutors. Click here to see if you have something to spare that might make a big difference to an organization in
need.•
__________
To comment on this editorial, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
5 Comments
Add Comment
The expression "handwriting on the wall" is from the Book of Daniel 5: 25-28. Daniel interpreted the mysterious handwriting on the wall to mean that the king's deeds had been weighed and found deficient and that his kingdom would therefore be divided.
In the Summer 2010 Cato Institute policy paper "The Economic Losers from Smoking Bans," the author states, "A 2003 study that I also conducted with John Dunham of Wisconsin of bar and restaurant owners concluded that bar owners lost business 50 percent more often than restaurant owners following adoption of a local smoking ban. Smoking ban studies that disaggregate to the level of business in the United Kingdom, Scotland, and India also yield evidence of differential effects. . .
"Some might also worry that smoking bans in effect target specific locations for harm such as those catering to smokers and alcohol drinkers. That raises the possibility that bans are used to systematically target individuals who gather at bars, veterans associations, and fraternal organizations. It would appear that these individuals matter less in our definition of communities than those not targeted, when one accepts the validity of a â??community effectsâ?? methodology to
judge whether or not a ban causes economic harm. If true, it would be more ethical to simply state that targeting such locations for harm is appropriate rather than pretending that no one suffers harm or that, even if there are more winners than losers, that bans do not systematically penalize some in our communities more than others."
www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv33n2/regv33n2-4.pdf
When NJ passed its full-scale smoking ban, I stopped going to bars because I no longer enjoyed it. A local tavern I used to go to called Chauncey's, which had been in business since 1946, went under a year after the ban was implemented because 95% of its clientele were smokers.
If smokers in Indiana do what smokers in NJ did, there will be 26% less business for everyone (or in any event) less business for everyone than exists now. All this law does is handicap businesses who cater to smokers. This is EXACTLY why Livengood identified a total ban as "leveling the playing field." He knows smokers patronize places that allow them to smoke.
I'm waiting for states with full-scale bans to wake up to the possibility that they'll have to enact legislation mandating a minimum number of times annually that smokers patronize smoke-free bars and restaurants because--if they don't--there will inevitably be a significant decrease in aggregate hospitality industry business.
In bad financial times, this is a really, REALLY stupid move. You are NOT a good man, Charlie Brown.
Which bring me to 2 last points to make: the fact that all anti-smoking groups and lobbyists are strictly instructed to keep coming back to each place that has a partial ban in place, until all exemptions are removed(even for outdoor patios and other outdoor settings). They also insist on a very strict national model ordinance, which only does nothing but greatly hurt private businesses catering to smokers. And why I've always believed the Indianapolis/Marion County city-county council nailed a very great balance on the smoking issue that eliminated it in just the right places(while still giving latitude to adult-only private businesses to set their non-smoking/smoking rules as they want), when they approved the existing ordinance in 2005.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf (instructions for all smoking ban coalitions to follow, this is a must read for anyone not familiar with their tactics. there are many rules they follow, such as discouraging coalitions for collecting signatures for a smoking ban referendum, though they don't outright prohibit groups from taking this approach.)
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229 (the current smoking ban model ordinance goes so far, that there is no exemption for even tobacco shops or private clubs! and I'm surprised it even allows for motels to have 10% of their rooms as smoking, considering they removed the tobacco shop exemption only since this new version of the model ordinance came out.)
I'd have at least a marginal bit of respect for this paper, if it advocated removing all state taxes on tobacco while entirely banning smoking in all places, or entirely banning its sale in any form outright. (never mind many use tobacco, and don't die from any tobacco-related diseases, but old age) If Indiana or Indianapolis lawmakers foolishly think all bars and clubs will comply with a ban if enacted tomorrow, they obviously haven't looked at the major disobedience adult establishments have shown against total bans in Ohio and New York CIty.
http://www.smokechoke.com/
http://ny.eater.com/archives/2009/11/the_return_of_smoking.php