A statewide ban on smoking in all public places might have the momentum it needs to finally pass the Indiana General Assembly
in 2011 after four unsuccessful attempts.
State Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, said last week he will offer a bill in the coming legislative session that would ban public
smoking without an exemption for any establishment.
There are indications, he said, that the issue has “a stronger possibility of passing” the Senate than it did
this year, when a similar bill—laden by numerous exemptions tacked on in the House—failed to get a committee hearing.
Even the lobbyist who represents some of the principal opponents of a statewide ban said it’s just a matter of time
before smoking is prohibited across Indiana.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that eventually we will have a smoking ban,” said John Livengood, president
of the Indiana Restaurant Association, the Indiana Hotel and Lodging Association and the Indiana Hospitality and Tourism Foundation.
“I think public opinion is on that side. Even though I personally feel like it is not something government ought to
do, clearly it’s where we’ve been heading for a long time. It’s more of question of when than anything else.”
Gov. Mitch Daniels “prefers home rule,” according to spokeswoman Jane Jankowski, but has said “he would
sign a bill if he received one.”
Consequently, “I think the stars might be lining up” for a ban's being enacted, Livengood said.
That would be a culmination of five years of work by Brown, a 28-year lawmaker. His efforts to have Indiana join 27 other
states with statewide bans on public smoking failed the past four sessions. But the votes were not along party lines, leading
Brown to surmise that the bill is not doomed merely because Republicans, who already controlled the Senate, also took control
of the House in the Nov. 2 election.
Brown’s co-author for the past three years has been Rep. Eric Turner, R-Marion.
“It may be that Eric Turner may have to take the lead and carry the legislation as opposed to my being out front,”
Brown said. “So be it. I just want the legislation to pass.”
He said he was heartened when Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, told him late in the 2010 session that reviewing
the matter in a summer study committee would give Senate Republicans time to learn about the issue. He was further encouraged
when Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, told him Long had asked her to sponsor the ban bill since its previous sponsor retired.
Neither Long nor Gard returned phone calls from IBJ.
Brown said he would resist attempts to amend the bill to exempt certain establishments, such as casinos or bars, “because
once you start saying you are exempt because of these reasons, then everybody’s going to come up with a reason as to
why they should be exempt as well.”
In past sessions, “the argument has always been, you’re going to hurt the small businesses and small restaurants
and bars may go out of business as a result of you restricting their customers from smoking,” Brown said. “My
argument against that has always been that only 24 percent of the population of Indiana smokes. That means that 76 percent
does not smoke. It appears as though, with those numbers, your business stands to increase clientele as opposed to losing
clientele.”
Brown said that no data exist to support the business argument, just supposition. Cities such as New York and Chicago have
banned public smoking and “no one has complained about persons being unable to smoke in public places,” he said.
Indianapolis tourism leaders, in fact, told IBJ earlier this year that the city’s refusal to ban all public
smoking turned off tourists and cast a backward image.
Livengood said “probably most of our members in Indianapolis would prefer an across-the-board ban rather than the partial
ban that we have in Indianapolis now just to have a level playing field,” he said. “But the people who benefit
from having the exemptions … don’t feel that way.
“It is an issue that both for the restaurant association and the hotel association puts us in a very difficult position.
That’s why I’ve said the only thing that satisfies everybody is no position at all, so they can make up their
own policy.”
But that was then. This is now. In the years during which the statewide ban failed, a number of cities, including Fort Wayne
and Bloomington, passed smoking bans.
“For a lot of our members, that changes the landscape,” Livengood said. “They’d just rather have
the same rules for everybody that they’re competing against.”
Consequently, “we will not be adamantly opposed to it as we were” in the past, he said.

















IBJ Conversations
43 Comments
Add Comment
www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv33n2/regv33n2-4.pdf
"A 2003 study that I also conducted
with John Dunham of Wisconsin bar and restaurant owners concluded that bar owners
lost business 50 percent more often than restaurant owners following adoption of a local smoking ban. Smoking ban studies
that disaggregate to the level of business in the United Kingdom,Scotland, and India also yield evidence of differential effects. . .
"Some might also worry that smoking bans in effect target specific locations for harm such as those catering to smokers and alcohol drinkers. That raises the possibility that bans are used to systematically target individuals who gather at bars, veterans associations, and fraternal organizations. It would appear that these individuals matter less in our definition of communities than those not targeted, when one accepts the validity of a â??community effectsâ?? methodology to
judge whether or not a ban causes economic harm. If true, it would be more ethical to simply state that targeting such locations
for harm is appropriate rather than pretending that no one suffers harm or that, even if there are more winners than
losers, that bans do not systematically penalize some in our communities more than others."
When NJ passed its full-scale smoking ban, I stopped going to bars because I no longer enjoyed it. A local tavern I used to go to called Chauncey's, which had been in business since 1946, went under a year after the ban was implemented because 95% of its clientele were smokers.
Your math is flawed because your logic is flawed. If smokers in Indiana do what smokers in NJ did, there will be 26% less business for everyone (or in any event) less business for everyone than exists now. All this law does is handicap businesses who cater to smokers. This is EXACTLY why Livengood identified a total ban as "leveling the playing field." He knows smokers patronize places that allow them to smoke.
I'm waiting for states with full-scale bans to wake up to the possibility that they'll have to enact legislation mandating a minimum number of times annually that smokers patronize smoke-free bars and restaurants because--if they don't--there will inevitably be a significant decrease in aggregate hospitality industry business.
In bad financial times, this is a really, REALLY stupid move.
http://ny.eater.com/archives/2009/11/the_return_of_smoking.php
In case you ever wake up, here are national lobbying instructions for smoking ban coalitions from country to country. Smoking ban lobbyists do nothing, except harass local and state lawmakers to incrementally increase restrictions on smoking every year(even if it takes years to accomplish it), until all exemptions are gone(even ultimately requiring 100% of a restaurant/bar's outdoor patio to be smoke-free):
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
And whoopityfreggingdoo that your workplace eliminated smoking in the past, since that was just a choice the owner of the business you work at made on its own. Your comment on those who take smoking breaks is pathetic, since you essentially stereotyped all smokers there as heavy smokers(most personal friends I know are not heavy smokers whatsoever, and are only minimal smokers). I have no problem whatsoever with smoking bans in privately-owned businesses, as long as the bans are being instituted by the business owner, and not one that some busybodies on a city council or state legislature selfishly imposed on all private businesses against their will. (and very quick before I say my next point, I'll add that I have nothing against smoking bans inside government buildings, public transit, and any other types of government-run facilities that smokers and non-smokers must use together) However, government-imposed smoking bans that are imposed over all private businesses(including bars and nightclubs) are very wrong for legislators and councilmembers to push for, due to the fact they don't respect the right of entrepreneurs to operate an establishment catering to legal adults who want to associate with smokers, and non-smokers who don't mind smoking. Any entrepreneur who owns a smoking establishment obviously knows the risks and costs with operating one, such as that they will lose the business of certain non-smokers that are anti-smoking minded, and that they have to spend money to ensure filtration systems they installed continue to properly work to minimize the amount of smoke staying in the air.
I will end my post by saying you really need to learn to stop stereotyping those who oppose smoking bans, and truly learn for once that once nanny state laws like this are passed, those same people rarely stop trying to get their tentacles into controlling the lives of others against their will. After smoking bans, these same nanny staters may eventually strike against a vice you may enjoy, and how is going down the slippery slope of nanny state laws good for anyone? The state of California has perfectly demonstrated what I long suspected would happen after their statewide smoking ban affecting bars and nightclubs passed 12 years ago, that many communities in that state pathetically compete to have the strictest ordinance possible. Many communities there don't even allow you to smoke in ANY OUTDOOR AREA of a park(including outdoor running/biking trails), in any outdoor sidewalk within a downtown business district(i.e. Calabasas), any bar or restaurant outdoor patio, beaches, the list goes on. Heck, if it wasn't for Governor Schwarzneggar's courageous veto earlier this year, a state park and beach outdoor smoking ban for all state parks would be in effect as of now. Finally, what is the point of a bar and club smoking ban, if it's only going to cost a major number of jobs, decrease wages for all employees working in smoking establishments(which btw from Save Indianapolis Bars' data, only consist of 1% of Indy-Marion County establishments), and are almost completely based on junk science?
Smoking is a nasty , disgusting, expensive habit. I know because I smoke. No argument here. However the "extra" tax money I am forced to pay "should buy me and fellow smokers some rights". Instead government bans are depriving smokers of their rights without due process. I am taxed far greater than someone in the same financial situation as I am because I choose to smoke. I pay about $4000 dollars a year more than a non smoker in taxes alone. Everything from my insurance to my cleaning bills is higher. However I chose this as acceptable for the enjoyment I get. However I don't see any non smokers volunteering to suddenly jump in to cover my tax burden.If you want to take away my rights and liberties under a ban then I should be compensated under eminent domain as part of due process. Non smokers should not expect me to be taxed higher and receive less, on the contrary non smokers should be taxed more to receive more.
Serious part:
I know firsthand because the same debate happened where I live. First it's a ban on smoking in "this type "of establishment. Then a year or so later it's on another group of establishments and restrictions on a third type. Then it's a ban on smoking in public establishments (bars, restaurants, etc) then in other public places (parks, parking lots,including so many feet from a structure, etc). Now the ban includes "at home" businesses (that is where someone converted part of their home into something open to the public), smoking is banned in peoples homes and autos. Once the flood gates open they will not stop.
Personal rights and property rights be damned.
Not so serious part:
Now some municipalities are looking at food bans under the same premise of "public health".
I hope they get it . Because quite frankly you cooking a cheeseburger on your grill released more radical hydrocarbons ( cancer causing agents) into the atmosphere than 5 CARTONS of cigarettes!!!
You eating it caused you to ingest more hazardous chemicals than 17 CASES (24 cartons each) of cigarettes!!!
It doesn't have to be meat either. Cooking any food changes the chemical structure of that food and invariably produces some cancer causing agents. If the food is "pre-processed" then the effect is worse and more chemicals become radicalized.
So in order to protect public health there should be a ban on cooked food, because the science PROVES it is bad for you and those around you. People are provably dying from second hand eating. Just the other day a man had a stroke behind the wheel of a car and killed 3 people including a child and seriously injured 6 others. Had he not been overweight (obviously an "over eater" of cooked food)with high blood pressure, those poor souls would still be with us today. If cooked food were banned then it would be much harder to digest and so obesity rates would definitely be lower. If people are forced to eat their meat raw , especially chicken, people would probably get downright skinny.
It is really the only way to protect the children.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_00db516a-f19f-11df-a35e-0017a4a78c22.html
11/16/2010 3:29:25 PM
As far as 25% controlling 75% of us - I have never seen such a "vocal minority" expressing themselves on a topic such as the smoking debate. I'm thinking more of the workers than patrons - and it's not easy to get a new job just because you can't breathe.
Our workplace eliminated smoking inside almost 20 years ago. Yes the walls no longer have tarry deposits all over them and the air quality is better. The odd thing is the "special treatment" that smokers get and take for granted. They arrive at 6 AM, take their first smoke break at 6:30 and repeat this trend every 30-90 minutes.
While you may be correct that bars that do go non-smoking may increase revenue that does not hold true on an aggreate level. Think of it this way - if all bars in a town allow smoking non-smoking customers have no choice. A single bar decides to go non-smoking. All the non-smokers who desire that atmosphere will now go there. They have now fullfilled a need in the market and probably will benefit. Eventually others will notice their success and follow. In the end there will be both smoking allowed and non-smoking establishments.
This article also states there is no evidence that smoking bans hurt business. There have been several studies done be economist and published in economic journals that all show damage on some level. Even the Fed released a study that studied Columbia, MO and it concluded economic damage.
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher:
The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?
myth-of-second-hand-smoke
http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke
BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/bs-alert-the-third-h...
The thirdhand smoke scam
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/thirdhand-smoke-scam.html
Heart attacks Frauds and Myths..
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that heâ??s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic â?¦ compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They donâ??t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
Le Parisien
The closest big city to where I live is Chicago, and frankly the state smoking ban that started almost 3 years ago has totally killed my enthusiasm for going out to any bar or club in Illinois, and I know a lot of people(even smokers who are fellow infrequent/social smokers like myself) have given up on going to bars/clubs on the Illinois side, and greatly opt for either doing gettogethers at friends houses, or going to bars on the NW Indiana side nowadays, and/or the extremely few IL bars that are 'smokeasies' and look the other way on the ban. I know for sure I spend way more money in Indy bars, due to the fact I find them a lot more interesting than almost all NW Indiana bars, and at least that city has a decent middle ground between non-smoking and smoking bars, since I don't mind a non-smoking bar, but JUST ONCE in an infrequent while.
I also don't believe it'd be right to deny a bar owner the right to cater to smokers, just because of a movement that doesn't care how much they use junk science to further their agenda(and in states with complete smoking bans including bars, do heavy pushes to ban smoking on all bar + restaurant patios, get unnecessary bans in place requiring either a very high percentage or even all apartments to be smoke-free, etc.). Do Indiana residents really want their state to go down the slippery slope of taking away more personal liberties from entrepreneurs and individuals, just to appease a vocal minority of non-smokers? And not to mention(sorry to say this, but it is the truth as I've observed the Illinois ban causes, like it or not), most of those anti-smoking whiners don't even properly come out to bars/clubs and casinos, even almost 3 years into our state ban. Like I said in the last IBJ article about a smoking ban, why can't a common-sense measure suffice over a total ban? Requiring any business permitting smoking to post exterior signage and for that establishment to not allow and/or employ minors inside during any hours it's open, for automatic disclosure of smoking policies to potential employees, and for automatic opt-out on applications for sensitive employees to work in only non-smoking areas, plus penalties for employers that don't honor an employee's opt-out request would be a far superior alternative to a total statewide ban. Like I've said in past IBJ articles, a total smoking ban would be a very major mistake for Indiana lawmakers to pass in 2011, unless it had an exemption for any establishment that elects to be an adult-only smoking establishment(including restaurants that opt to go this way), clear exterior signage posted that they chose to be a smoking establishment, and clear disclosure to potential job applicants of whatever indoor smoking policy that establishment chooses to have.
The # of smokers is dropping (like fly's maybe?). In the early 40's it was 40% of adults. It is now down to just over 20%. I do not know why 75-80% of adults are trapped by 20-25% of a given population. Feel free to smoke, just not indoors at a public place.
I understand what you are saying and to an extend agree with your free-market logic. Unfortunately, your logic assumes that business owners behave with predictable and economically rational behavior. The reality is that they don't. Bars that have gone non-smoking do substantially better, yet so few bars have budged. It seems as though many bar owners smoke and therefore want to be able to smoke in their own establishment. Eventually new owners will take over and the "free hand" will make them non-smoking as you are suggesting. However, this is an excruciatingly slow process that prolongs social non-smokers to the negative externalities of smoking behavior. You will say that it's my choice to not go out and I would agree, but I don't think we want Indy to be a sleepy town in the Midwest full of homebodies. Do we? I typically oppose government intervention, but believe that even my fellow small government advocates will find smoking ban legislation to be a worthy exception.
In the example you cite neither the smoker or the non-smoker has a right to be in that PRIVATE business establishment.
But if john doe flower shop wants to smoke then smoke up johny i will go to FTD.
This is the slippery slope of government protecting us from ourselves. Listen legislature spend your time doing nothing stop making laws, stop using grant money (tax dollars) to fund officers to do nothing but catch smokers or saftey belt violators or some foolish sole without a helmut.
Last i checked the majority of schools are broke (due to a clever shell game by the state) my taxes are just as high as they have ever been and every year some politician makes a name for himself by protecting us from the evils that are free choice.