IBJNews

Indiana House panel backs smoking-ban bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana House committee has approved a bill for a broad statewide smoking ban that's tougher than a proposal that failed in the Legislature last year.

The House health committee voted 9-3 in favor of the bill Wednesday after adding an exemption for retail tobacco shops. The bill would prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including bars. The proposal would allow smoking only on the gambling floors of casinos, fraternal and veterans clubs and cigar and hookah bars.

Its sponsors expect some legislators will try to add exemptions for bars when the bill is debated in the full House.

A Senate committee chairman says a bar exemption that the House approved last year might be needed for the restrictions to win passage.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • What about me?
    This is such a cop-out by the State of Indiana. Because I work on a casino Floor my health doesnt matter. There are times when I literally can hardly breath because of the smoke. Once again the ole mighty dollar rules. I would love for some of these legislators to step into my shoes with a couple cigar smokers puffing away. WHAT A JOKE!!!
  • Lies....
    Anita, the problem with including casinos is that it's hard to hide the damage from the taxpayers. When the little bars close and people lose their jobs, there's no strict accounting of it: the taxpayers will pay for it in higher unemployment taxes etc, but it won't be obvious.

    Casino tax income is **VERY** well-regulated, tabulated, and reported on though. When Illinois' ban came in their casino tax income fell by 22% although other states' casino income stayed stable or rose. Anita, you say you think casinos should be included: that could easily cost Indiana taxpayers fifty to one hundred million dollars a year. Do you want to pay that?

    And are you happy with the idea that you'll be paying similar but more well-hidden amounts for the rest of the ban? Don't let them fool you when they claim it will be "cost-free." One VERY important thing to remember about antismoking advocates is this: THEY LIE. Some of them lie for what they think is a "good cause," and some of them lie simply because they don't know any better and they're just repeating what they've been told, but they're still lies.

    Check the reference link to "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" that I gave in my previous post below. If you think I've misrepresented things there, then show it to everyone right here.

    - MJM
    • Agree
      I agree, this should also include casinos.
      • Freedom to choose
        Why do the smoking ban advocates feel this is such a great thing. Non smokers have the freedom to choose where they go and there are plenty of non-smoking bars in this city. What they want to do is take away a smokers right to choose to go to a bar that allows smoking. I personally always choose one that allows smoking. I will quit going to bars.

        My wish and prayer is that as soon as this freedom is stripped from me that all the backers of the ban are the next targets in the governments infringement on people's right to choose for themselves. I really sincerely hope that something that you enjoy is taken from you and you lose a freedom!
      • casinos
        This should have also included the casinos. Maybe next time.
        • Air Quality
          How about part of a bar's health inspection to include an air quality test. Every bar should be required by law to have smoke eaters fully operational and inspected yearly to scrub the air quality.
        • Smoking Ban Vote:
          While the vote was disappointing it wasn't unexpected: despite all the sound arguments to the contrary, it would be VERY hard, politically speaking, for a member of a "Health Committee Panel" to vote against a smoking ban without endangering their political position. The real test will come from the full vote when all the arguments are laid out and the legislators actually have to balance the harms of such a ban against the claimed benefits.

          In terms of those supposed "benefits," the lawmakers might want to listen to what the president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Peter Carmel, had to say:

          "Despite tremendous progress in enacting smoke-free laws and higher tobacco taxes to discourage tobacco use, the United States has seen smoking rates, especially among teens, remain flat...."

          http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2011-11-30-reduced-funding-tobacco.page

          The ban will NOT stop "the children" (even the 18 - 25 year old children that are the new "target" of antismoking advocates") from smoking. Nor will it "protect employees who are begging for help": you'll notice that you will NEVER see a poll of bar/club/ restaurant/casino employees asking them if they want a ban. The Antismokers KNOW that these folks do NOT want bans that will put them out of jobs and reduce their main source of income: happy customers.

          To see how they lie in order to get these bans pushed through, read "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at:

          http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

          It's openly one-sided, but its facts are accurate and their presentation is honest. If anyone has ANY specific substantive criticisms of anything it says, please feel free to expose them here. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.

          Michael J. McFadden
          Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

        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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

        2. If you only knew....

        3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

        4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

        5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

        ADVERTISEMENT