The Indiana House on Monday approved a statewide smoking ban that includes exemptions for casinos, bars, clubs and even nursing
homes.
Now the real work begins for ban supporters, who have to balance their desire to remove those loopholes with the political
reality of trying to move the bill through the Republican-led Senate, where similar proposals have died before.
The Republican-led House voted 68-31 Monday to approve the bill on the same day that nearly 300 anti-smoking advocates gathered
at the Statehouse to urge lawmakers to support the bill. Advocates in the House balcony applauded as the vote was taken, and
clapped when House members said they wanted to tighten up the bill.
No one spoke against the bill Monday, though opponents have previously raised objections of too much government intervention
and concerns of lost business.
Mara Candelaria Reardon, D-Munster, said people who work in smoke-filled environments shouldn't have to choose between
their job and their health.
"The time has come," she said. "It is 100 percent about workplace safety."
Bill sponsor Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, said he hopes some of the exemptions are removed as the bill moves through the legislative
process.
The exemptions for casinos and horse racing tracks were approved earlier in January after the nonpartisan Legislative Services
Agency said banning smoking in gambling establishments could cost the cash-strapped state about $190 million a year.
The House later voted to exempt bars that only admit adults over age 21 after some lawmakers argued that it was unfair to
exempt casinos and tracks without exempting bars. They said bars located near casinos could lose business if smokers decided
to hang out at casinos instead of at bars.
Lawmakers also made exceptions for nursing homes and fraternal clubs after some said veterans and those living in nursing
homes should have the right to smoke in certain areas.
While some health advocates say they would not support a bill with so many exemptions, Brown says compromise is part of the
legislative process. And the exemptions — especially those for bars and casinos — will give the bill a better
chance of passing the Senate, said Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne.
Long said last week that the smoking ban proposal will get a Senate committee hearing this year, which might be the bill's
best chance of passing in years. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce supports a ban, and Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels says he'd
sign a statewide smoking ban into law if legislators approve it.

















IBJ Conversations
23 Comments
Add Comment
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz/2009/08/the-colorado-clean-indoor-air-act-smoking-ban-and-its-effect-on-billys-inn/
How can you ignore letters about Colorado's smoking ban like this, when the bar owner cited in this letter(Billy's Inn, Denver, CO) lost 41% of his business, right after the ban went into effect in 2006? Within a year, the loss in business was enough that he had no choice, but to shut down. Also, his letter cites this: "63 bars, 478 employees(I'll asuume this is bar employees in the closed bars, he's referring to), 1 casino, 62 employees, 2 nightclubs, 46 employees, 1 bowling alley, 3 pool halls, and 16 bingo halls all closed. Number of employees un-known."
Not to forget, the decision of the Colorado Legislature to expand that state's ban to casinos, affected them as well. Read this report from the Colorado Gaming Association, that shows among some things, that state gaming taxes paid by Colorado casinos went down by just over $15.5 million, and $15.6 million in indirect business taxes related to pre-casino smoking ban revenue went uncollected, due to economic multiplier effects from lower business:
http://coloradogaming.com/web-documents/Economic%20Impact%20final.pdf
As for statistics don't Lie's February post, it doesn't matter that something like 30 states have instituted bans. My big annoyance about them is that consistently, you can count on anti-smoking groups to LIE, LIE, and LIE about the effects of bans on the few establishments permitting smoking. There is no doubt to me that if the free market could've worked in those states(like it already has worked in Indy to drive a decent percentage of bars to ban smoking, and over 2/3rds of businesses in Northern Kentucky), that similar results would play out in all those 30 states(a majority prohibiting smoking, but with a limited number opting to be smoking establishments). I remember a study that was released during a failed effort to stop Evanston, IL's city council from expanding their ban to all restaurants and bars in 2006(the Evanston smoking ban that was in place inbetween 2004 and 2006 just covered regular workplaces), that 2/3rds of restaurants and bars(then exempt) had voluntarily banned smoking on their own. Save Indiana Bars already cited that 99% of private establishments are non-smoking, so why is it wise to go after the last 1% of Indy/Marion County adult businesses permitting smoking? And what would be the good in forcing many employees in those few establishments(if not all) out of a job? Every adult can read a 'this is a smoking establishment' sign(as Indy/Marion County's current ban requires on businesses opting to permit smoking), so I don't see a need to ban it in all businesses. If you still think it's a good idea, talk to bar and other business owners in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana communities with total bans(Bloomington, West Lafayette, Fort Wayne, etc.) who were affected by total bans, with some bars very quietly choosing to be 'smokeasies' just to not close their doors.
Get over it, smokers. Non-smoking laws do not mean a business apocalypse.
Come on we understand that the habit is bad for your health and others, just be patient, dont use force and fines to reach your objective. The education is working and look the poeple that allow it will in their business will be gone in 10 years (either through economics of lost revenue or lung cancer).
Despotism forces - Democracy teaches.
Let's be honest, smokers just have to go outside and will not be less likely to visit a bar. What a sad argument by bar owners that their business will suffer. It would be a level playing field accross the board. You go to casinos to gamble and bars to drink/socialize NOT to smoke.
1. Arizona
2. California
3. Colorado
4. Connecticut
5. Delaware
6.Hawaii
7. Iowa
8. Illinois
9. Kansas
10. Massachusetts
11. Maryland
12. Maine
13. Michigan
14. Minnesota
15. Montana
16. North Carolina
17. Nebraska
18. New Hampshire
19. New Jersey
20. New Mexico
21. New York
22. Ohio
23. Oregon
24. Puerto Rico
25. Rhode Island
26. South Dakota
27. Utah
28. Vermont
29. Washington
30. Wisconsin
Only the states with laws that do not allow separately ventilated smoking rooms and do not have size exemptions are listed above. 100% smoke free.
The second list should read:
Plus many states who have not enacted a COMPLETE state wide ban, such as SC, KY, TX, MS, MO, WY, AK, MO, IN, GA, AR, and AL, have implemented bans in BARS in most major cities. (For example: Indiana has already banned smoking in all bars in Bloomington, Cumberland, Elkhart, Fort Wayne, Franklin, Greencastle, Hancock County, Lowell, Monroe County, Plainfield,
West Lafayette, and Zionsville.)
Also, I don't profess to be an expert in Nebraska law, but unless you are claiming that opponents of the smoking law in that state are making some federal statutory or Constitutional argument about exemptions, then what happens in Nebraska is of little relevance to Indiana since Indiana has its own separate laws and state constitution. Moreover, I would find a federal constitutional challenge to a smoking ban, even with exemptions, to be a very difficult case to bring. There is no right to smoke and states have police power to enforce health and safety rules. Also, states can and do enforce special standards to protect minors, so it would be quite reasonable for a state to ban smoking in any establishment open to an individual under 21 years old.
In any event, I think this is a good step. If individuals wish to smoke, then they are free to do so in their own home or car, or in an establishment serving individuals over 21, such as a bar or casino.
Those figures don't come from bogus Anti-Tobacco fairy tales. Those are from state tax revenue reports.
BTW, Nebraska exempted bars, tobacco establishments and some other establishments. Now the antis are questioning in court whether ANY exemptions are unconstitutional. One more reason NOT to pass these idiotic laws. Let the marketplace â?? customers who vote with their wallets, and business owners â?? make these decisions, not government nannies.
If you look at the states and commonwealths who have banned smoking in bars:
1. Arizona
2. California
3. Colorado
4. Connecticut
5. Delaware
6.Hawaii
7. Iowa
8. Illinois
9. Kansas
10. Massachusetts
11. Maryland
12. Maine
13. Michigan
14. Minnesota
15. Montana
16. North Carolina
17. Nebraska
18. New Hampshire
19. New Jersey
20. New Mexico
21. New York
22. Ohio
23. Oregon
24. Puerto Rico
25. Rhode Island
26. South Dakota
27. Utah
28. Vermont
29. Washington
30. Wisconsin
Plus many states not listed here who have not enacted a state wide ban... including most major cities in SC, KY, TX, MS, MO, WY, AK, MO, IN, GA, AR, AL...
Not one of them can show a negative impact on their bars and most show a positive impact within a year. The truth is that smokers will keep going out and keep spending money. The non-smoking, majority population is on average more educated and more wealthy which means they have more disposable income.
Further, when a major company investigates where it wants to locate new operations they look at the quality of life in a city. Smoking laws are a major factor in quality of life. This means that the city as a whole values health, which encourages healthy employees and the business insurance rates go down. If a business has a choice and the only difference is smoking or not 100% of the time they will make the smarter economic decision to go where smoking is not catered to. Wake up to the future, the longer this battle is fought, the more we lose as a state.
Smoking outside is not asking very much for all of the positive benefits. I guess some people are just really selfish are not willing to give something back to their city. I guess it's ok, the next generation will get there chance to do what is right as the demographics shift over the next few years.
Do NOT pass this restrictive and unneeded law. Let the free marketplace decide. Let a business be all-smoking or all non-smoking, post warning signs, and put a stop to this legislative jihad.
(Formerly "Frumious" until my screen name was hijacked by an impostor)
We need a comprehensive smoking ban that includes bars! If you want to see the bar business flourish we need a smoking ban! More people don't smoke than do, and smokers can still just step outside and light up.