A statewide smoking ban that health advocates assailed as too weak was rejected Wednesday by an Indiana Senate committee
after several members said they supported broader restrictions on smoking in public places.
"People are asking for a clean-air bill — and this is not a clean-air bill," said Sen. Jim Arnold, D-LaPorte,
who helped the Senate Public Policy Committee reject the plan on an 8-1 vote.
The bill, which had been approved in the House, provided exemptions to casinos, bars, fraternal clubs, smoke shops and nursing
homes. The committee's chairman, Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, wouldn't allow senators to remove any of the exemptions,
saying they were needed to secure enough votes in the Senate and the House.
Sen. Joe Zakas, R-Granger, said he would have supported expanding the ban to bars, but noted that lawmakers faced different
views from various business groups and anti-smoking advocates.
"I think the default position became 'let's go back to the drawing board,'" Zakas said.
Sens. Veneta Becker, R-Evansville, and Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, voted against the bill after saying they supported a
comprehensive ban. Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, was the only committee member who voted to advance the bill to the full Senate,
saying he hoped the exemptions would be removed.
Arnold said he also wanted to see fewer places left out of a statewide ban.
The American Cancer Society opposed the proposed ban because it would be one of the weakest in the country, said Amanda Estridge,
the group's state government relations manager.
Similar smoking ban proposals have cleared the House in recent years, but this was the first time one had been considered
by a Senate committee.
Estridge said that was progress and rejected arguments from Alting that the proposal would have been a big step forward by
prohibiting smoking in most workplaces and restaurants throughout the state.
"Bars are workplaces, too," she said. "Those that work in bars and taverns and private clubs are most regularly
exposed to secondhand smoke."
Democratic Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary, who has led the smoking ban push in the House for several years, said he was caught
off guard by the cancer society's opposition to the bill and was disappointed that it wasn't more willing to compromise
in hopes of having even a weaker ban become law.
"I would have been more than happy to come back next year and talk about those four or five exemptions that are currently
in there and which ones we can unitedly try to get out of there," Brown said.

















IBJ Conversations
21 Comments
Add Comment
You could leave your half of the ownership to the public in your will, I am sure it will get somebodies attention when you tell your son what you have done
I think it's beautiful Indiana lawmakers shot down the statewide smoking ban bill since it'll save jobs, plus not to mention the bill didn't even allow restaurants or bowling alleys to have a walled-off room(with 50% or less of the entire floor space, i.e. a bowling alley's bar or restaurant physically separate smoking room) for smoking. If it had such a walled-off room exemption, I wouldn't have opposed this year's smoking ban bill.
http://ny.eater.com/archives/2009/11/the_return_of_smoking.php (NYC bars/clubs)
http://www.smokechoke.com/(all kinds of Ohio businesses looking the other way, and not just mom and pop bars)
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29455559.html (Harrah's Metropolis laying off 30 workers in early 2008 as result of IL ban, plus major decrease in its business)
http://willcountywatcher.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/andy-mihelich-is-the-change-needed-in-joliet-vote-andrew-andy-mihelich-for-mayor-of-joliet/ (Joliet, IL mayoral candidate notes that casino revenue between the 2 Joliet casinos decreased 40%!)
http://kansas.watchdog.org/4038/michigan-bar-owners-boycott-lottery-in-smoking-ban-protest/ (Michigan bars doing their 1st statewide revolt against the ban via boycotting state lottery ticket sales)
http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Michigan_restaurants_and_bars_to_stage_New_Years_Eve_smoking_ban_protest_112135549.html?storySection=story (New Year's Eve 2010/New Year's Day 2011 smoking ban boycott, and the 2nd one MI bars have done against the state ban)
We have all now been informed..................ta!
I have found compromise with these people !
It is a sad day when people do not realise what your ancestors were about and sacrificed to make you stand free, and proud.
A constition is only as good as it's weakest link, it takes only one bad one to make it so. Several countries do not have the freedoms you have,nor choices.Wise people will tell you make the best of your choices no one on the face of this earth has it all or owns it all.
Therefore, the smoking issue becomes a decision best made at the community level. The community can pass the ban, then businesses can decide whether to conduct commerce there or not, and the community assumes the risk that they may not reap revenue and potentially diversify their tax-base by inviting certain business-types.
If we are going to ban smoking state-wide because it is a) potentially dangerous to people who are not direct users, and/or b) it smells bad or is 'offensive', then we better ban:
--all forms of transportation other than walking ("your poor driving hurt me, your exhaust fumes hurt me")
--all sports ("your hip-check, pitch, tackle, etc. hurt me")
--all large-venue events where crowd-noise is produced ("your noise levels hurt me")
Home-rule, people. If all the communities eventually pass their own bans, you have your state-wide ban.
This is not about taking smokers rights away. It is about workplace safety.
Don't lock your exits in case of fire, keep food refrigerated so you are not selling bacteria, and dont subject your employees to proven second-hand smoke that gives you cancer.
You speak of freedom. But freedom has costs, not just benefits. Only when bar owners and smokers must pay the true costs to society of their reckless, dangerous, disgusting habit will the free market operate properly. And my guess is that the average bar owner would be far less likely to allow smoking if he had to pay the costs for his business decisions.
Nowhere in the Constitution or in any law is there a right to smoke. It is a behavior, which like any other behavior may be regulated to the extent it affects the well-being and safety of others. That said, you do have the full right to smoke as much as you want on your own private property. The issue is that smoking in public affects the people around you. If smoking were more like shooting up heroin, then I would see more logic to your argument about letting people do as they please, and I would fully by in to it. Heroin may kill you, but it doesn't have any immediate direct health impact on others when you inject it. Tobacco companies could simply save a lot of money they currently spend on PR and lobbying, if they moved ahead with finalizing the long-promised smokeless cigarette they have talked about for the past couple of decades.