Indiana Senate panel sets vote on smoking ban

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The chairman of an Indiana Senate committee has scheduled a vote on whether a proposed statewide smoking ban will stay alive in the Legislature.

The Senate Public Policy Committee is expected to vote on the bill Wednesday. Amendments won't be allowed to the bill that currently includes exemptions for casinos, bars, fraternal clubs, smoke shops and nursing homes.

Committee Chairman Ron Alting of Lafayette has warned the ban's supporters that they could kill the bill by lobbying for a comprehensive ban that doesn't include wide exemptions.

The bill cleared the House by a 68-31 vote in January, and Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels has said he would sign it. American Cancer Society volunteers are expected to visit the Statehouse on Tuesday to urge legislators to adopt a tougher ban.


  • FOG
    Always said Indiana was in a fog when it comes to progressive issues. Now know it's really just smoke. It's the workers who are forced to breath the smoke that is a problem.
  • No Real Ban
    With the exceptions that have been stripped from the bill, this thing is useless. As it stands now, it's a waste of taxpayer resources to even consider it. If it were back in its original format, then I'd say it deserved recognition and passage. As it is now, no...
  • Except for cigar bars and Hookah establishments
    I'd like to see everyplace else smoke free. I went into a casino once---never again. I could hardly catch my breath from the smoke and my clothes stank of cigarettes. I was only there for about 1/2 hour. Outside of my grocery store, the stench is so bad I hold my breath as I walk in. Such a nasty habit!!
  • Weak
    A smoking ban when really it doesn't make the entire state smoke free, this is pointless to say the least.

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
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing