House approves smoking ban in public places

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The House has approved legislation that would ban smoking in public places statewide except casinos and pari-mutuel horse racing venues.

The House approved the measure sponsored by Democratic Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary on a voice vote Wednesday. It was an amendment to a bill dealing with various health matters.

The House could vote on the overall bill Thursday, but if it passes it could face a tough road in the Senate.

The House passed a statewide smoking ban bill earlier this session, but only after it was amended to also exempt bars, taverns, tobacco shops and fraternal clubs. The Senate did not consider that bill, even with all the exemptions.

The proposal could end up in a House-Senate conference committee where a compromise would be sought.


  • read the proposal more carefully
    Maybe you should try reading the actual proposal. There was an ulterior motive to this proposal, to ban electronic cigarettes. Minimal research clearly shows that electronic cigarettes are 99% safer, do not emit second hand smoke, and contain 4,000-11,000(brand dependent) LESS TOXINS. Anti-smoking groups, publicly funded by big pharma and big tobacco, have issued false reports of the contents of these products. Considering the much lower cost, and the FACT that an increasingly large number of people are switching to electronic cigarettes and are able to quit smoking even after years of trying and failing with the gums, patches, etc. produced by huge pharmaceutical companies. Naturally the FDA is in an uproar, our health plans are funded by tobacco taxes, they donâ??t WANT people to quit smoking! Do a little research on who funds ASH, one of the largest anti-smoking groups and most vocal on ecigarettes, big pharma and big tobacco. Their leader, a self proclaimed billionaire, pulls in over $200,000 a year from ASH alone, so he is basically paid by the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. Where does his interest lie?
    This campaign is no longer â??anti-smokingâ??, it is â??anti-smokerâ??. These groups are no longer anti-smoking groups, they are haters and are power hungry. Power=big bucks.
    If you must vote on an anti-smoking proposal, please ask them to eliminate the electronic cigarette from the bill. These products are saving lives, and I know this for a fact. I switched to ecigarettes after smoking for over 25 years and can taste, smell and breath again, and do not desire to go back to traditional cigarettes just to support and already bloated industry, nor do I wish to use pharmaceuticals that cause thoughts of suicide, nightmares, and countless other harmful side effects. The other pharmaceutical alternatives are to directly ingest nicotine, or to absorb it through the skin. No thanks.
    Research before support please.
  • It's a one-trick pony...
    I'm not done with my research, but I have found one common thing: that letter is cited all over the web, but it's the only thing even close to what's being paraded in all of the various media assets which mention smoking bans. More than 10% of that reference are from Harley (alone).

    How is it this one study is being used by Adam, Eve, and all of their descendants to disprove something?

    Isn't there anything else which does the same thing but doesn't use a reference to that one letter?
  • Interesting comments
    But it's a copy/paste others have used. Only 105 entries, but it's a start. Sometimes it was posted (twice) to the same media site, +/- a month.

    Statistical data to prove a point is listed, but it's severely clustered, making its value suspect. How was this information collected? Who collected it? What was their motivation?

    Even Canada is listed, meaning it should be removed from the data. As I woke up today (after a long night of time-shifting the Olympics), and as I am writing this, we don't control Canada. And we will never control them, even if we kick their keisters in hockey. That will serve to infuriate them more. Think of jamming a stick in a beehive or hornets nest.

    One question which seems to fit here better than any other location: are you using the cite to say the numbers given to Dr. Pletten, PhD, to support his finding that smoking is not an issue, particularly in the workplace?

    California has a state ban. I didn't see any businesses going belly-up because the state banned smoking. That's a BIG state. (Look at how many electoral points they have!) Don't you think there would be a campaign to get Ah-nold out of office? He's unpopular for other reasons. If smoking is ruining businesses, shouldn't we see an organized group of people who want it repealed - use it as a plank for an opposing candidates' platform?

    If things are as bad as cited, I'd have expected to see hundreds, or thousands of medical professionals, statisticians, etc., hired by the tobacco companies (without disclosure of the relationship). Insurance companies do what makes them the most profit. Why would they ask the question, knowing it would cost them money? Are you advocating "don't ask, don't tell" policy for smokers? "Don't tell" is nearly impossible because the odor makes it obvious :(

    If the insurance firms have nothing to gain from it, I don't think it would be requested.

    Here's a quote which pops up in the pursuit of Dr. Pletten's (PhD) documents:

    "Partem aliquam recte intelligere nemo potest, antequam totum, iterum atque iterum, periegerit."

    ("No one can rightly understand any part until he has read the whole again and again.")

    Just as a personal project, I'm going to dig through all of the case history, remembering that quote.

    I've got some time on my hands and I'm taking care of time-shifting some Olympics.

    IANAL, but I know how to follow trails until I find the end.

    Just promise me you'll respond to whatever I post.

    "Truth fears no trial." -Paine

  • Something old, something new:
    (Please read the entire post before you presume this is a rubber stamp like everyone else)

    When Indianapolis was pondering a tough no-smoking policy, owners of places which were in some place like Greenwood cost them business. It wasn't the policy in that location per se. It was because people merely had to "cross the line" to someplace legal; e.g., Indianapolis.

    If the entire state were to ban smoking and a prediction of reduced customers would decrease significantly, it would either mean people are driving outside of the state line (I have a good idea people from Indianapolis aren't going to hit Illinois, Kentucky, or Ohio just to have a smoke), stay home and boycott any place which doesn't tolerate smoke, or go to the exceptions of the rule.

    There was one thing which was obvious when the Indianapolis City Council met for a final vote: there was a crew which came in together, all wore matching shirts, ... and were boisterous when they felt appropriate. They locked everyone else out, making it appear those who were the most interested showed up.

    Is there a reason politicians, specific the legislative branch don't like to deal with this? Smokers will make a lot of noise, organize and do everything they can to prevent them from winning the vote. Non-smokers don't do that because they know the people who appreciate it the most don't have to show it with their vote(s). Non-smokers don't feel the need to make their candidates throw fits simply because they did the right thing.

    I said to read the entire post. Here's why:

    I have been known to drink beer. What if I were to step up on a chair and expel the by-product on someone, particularly a smoker?

    Smokers are known to have a few options for those who are repulsed by cigarette smoke: get used to it, not go there any more, or wash/dry clean the clothing. I would offer the same to smokers who get soaked.

    How about insurance? As a business owner, am I required to hire someone who is a smoker, knowing my premiums will increase? There's a nice item on every employment insurance form: Do you smoke? Yes [__] No [__]

    Are there any other situations where a single question appears? How many people have sued potential employers because they thought they were overlooked because they smoked? How many of those suits were successful?

    There are no little boxes which detail anything else. Oh, the one smokers love to mention drinking or fitness. "And you can't tell me someone who drinks or is fat is less that the smoking risk, blah-blah-blah." I'm getting tired of listening to that song, playing over & over & over. I can't be the only one.
    • Agree with Lindsey
      I'm with Lindsey, I can't stand the smell of it either. We should have a state wide law that mimics Bloomington. I enjoy going out there where you do not walk out smelling like smoke!!! I don't think the Bloomington law has hurt anyone's business.
    • It's about time!
      In regards to the post above - I don't care if second hand smoke is a lie or not - I can't stand the smell of it. If this legistation makes it through the Senate it will be a good thing.
    • the joke of second hand smoke

      What would you call a law based upon lies, deceit and total fabrication? You'd call it a smoking ban!

      The idea of second hand smoke was first pushed by the Nazis in the 1930s but the new antismokers brought it back 35 years ago as the key to reinstituting prohibition. All it took was a billion a year in propaganda and the total ruination of medical science to make it work. Today we have a prohibitional lie based upon smoke that's 94% water vapor and ordinary air,with 3% carbon monoxide and 3% of everything else that they fabricate as being deadly dangerous.

      They sell it as 4000 chemicals......but they dont say the amounts of course as that would make them a laughing stock. They're measured in picograms and femtograms if they can be measured at all. But the biggest laugh is that shs/ets tobacco smoke is just 94% water vapor and air.......Now I dare ya to go look at any smokefree or government website where they actually admit that!

      According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

      They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

      They concluded that:

      All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

      For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

      "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

      "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

      Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

      "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

      For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

      The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

      So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

      Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997


    Post a comment to this story

    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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ