IBJNews

Indiana legislators approve smoking restrictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate on Friday narrowly approved a statewide smoking ban proposal and sent it to the governor, who is expected to sign it into law.

The ban approved by senators in a 28-22 vote will still give people plenty of places to light up since it exempts Indiana's bars, casinos and private clubs, such as veterans and fraternal organizations.

Lawmakers seeking a tougher ban swallowed hard on the compromise, saying it was better to approve some type of ban now and return to it for more extensive restrictions later. Public health advocates argued the measure was too weak after bars were cut out of the ban.

The House approved the ban Thursday night in a 60-33 vote. Gov. Mitch Daniels made adoption of Indiana's first statewide smoking restrictions part of his legislative agenda and has said he expected to sign the bill.

Bill sponsor Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, said she had hoped for a more comprehensive bill, but knew that the exemptions were needed in order for it to clear the Legislature.

"It will result in the protection of the health of hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers from secondhand smoke," Gard said in urging senators to support the bill.

Several senators argue that business owners should have the right to decide whether to allow smoking.

Earlier in the session, the House approved a ban on smoking in most public places and businesses that gave an 18-month exemption to bars, while the Senate passed a watered-down version last week that gave bars a complete exemption.

The compromise version negotiated this week also exempts casinos, private clubs, retail tobacco stores and some in-home businesses.

Danielle Patterson, co-chairwoman of the Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air, said before the Senate's vote that she appreciated efforts by the bill's sponsors to win support for a tougher version. She said she thought it was important to include bars in the statewide ban, pointing out that the Indianapolis city smoking ban still exempts bars several years after it was adopted.

"We just feel that this was not the best bill for Hoosiers," Patterson said. "It will get something on the books but it may be five to seven years before we can improve it."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Nanny law
    Thanks nanny. I am glad mr. smith lawn mower repair is going to get hounded by the law for smoking in his shop, by himself. Good thing you turned him into a criminal. You nags are nothing more than 21st century version of slave masters. No you are free as long as you do what we command. HMMM mmm sho be good.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT