As the City-County Council takes up a proposal to close loopholes in its anti-smoking ordinance, it seems like Indianapolis
is one of the last large cities to ban smoking.
It isn’t, of course. Cincinnati, Detroit and Milwaukee continue
to allow considerable latitude. Yet—still close to home—Chicago and Columbus, Ohio, are smoke-free in work places,
restaurants and freestanding bars, according to Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. So is Louisville, the largest city
in the tobacco haven of Kentucky.
If Indianapolis is considered a model on fronts ranging from downtown revitalization
to fiscal responsibility, why is it so late to ban smoking?
George Geib, who has been observing Indianapolis as
a Butler University historian for 45 years, has a theory. To understand the reluctance, Geib says, one must understand Indiana
migration patterns and ultimately the coalitions and political movements arising from those patterns.
Indiana may
be pretty white-bread when it comes to immigrants, but Geib points out that the state actually is quite diverse when domestic
migration is considered. New Englanders, mid-Atlantic people, northerners and southerners all have put down roots here.
As a result, leaders of movements and political parties have struggled to build coalitions since at least the 1830s.
The few coalitions that do get traction tend to focus on moral issues (Prohibition and bans on package liquor sales on Sundays)
and economic matters (both unions and chambers of commerce maintain strong presences).
Geib thinks smoking bans
have been slow to take hold because people pushing other causes worry about offending smokers who might be needed to help
them get traction with their own pet issues.
“When you have a diverse state, there’s a lot of pressure
on you to build coalitions,” he says.
Further complicating the turbulent political landscape is Indiana’s
own role in the tobacco industry. The state’s allotments aren’t what they used to be, but Hoosiers in southern
counties have long cultivated some of the most sought-after tobacco in the nation.
Both the ideological fractures
and tobacco heritage are reflected in Indianapolis politics and smoking bans, says Geib, whose parents died of illnesses he’s
certain resulted from smoking two packs of Camels a day.
What do you think of Geib’s ideas? Do you buy them?
Is it harder to bring change here than in other places?








IBJ Conversations
25 Comments
Add Comment
The ONLY condition nicotine appears to alleviate is Parkinson's. Period. Anything else is just PR, courtesy of dupe Marbee.
As for why Indy is not following the bandwagon? My guess is that it is simply because Indy is a business friendly city and less oriented than other cities towards the nanny-state. Hoosier common sense, I guess.
Truth is all this money could and should go to to research to find a cure for all cancers. The poor and the rich, even Congressmen will continue to die from cancer well into the future if we foolishly continue to only focus on tobacco use as the sole cause of cancer. It may contribute, but non smokers as well as smokers will die from cancer. I lost a loved one to cancer, not lung cancer, a non smoker.
Stop this insane waste of funds and start demandng the drug companies and the health charities we all donate money to use our donated funds for research and stop chasing smokers, until and unless government outlaws tobacco use, it is a total waste of this precious research dollars.
The ONLY condition nicotine appears to alleviate is Parkinson's. Period. Anything else is just PR.
And, I don't even smoke. Nor, do I want to hear the Poor Oppressed Employees who have to work there. 99% of them enjoy smoking. Once again, It's about Freedom, you Pinko Commies!
While making restaurants non-smoking and hotels might make perfect sense, a bar needs some leniency. A leniency that allows the ownership who knows their clientele best to make a decision. So if a bar is completely limited to customers and employees 21 and above, then the ownership should have the ability to buy a premium smoking license, for $*,*** per year. So an over 21 establishment with a working liquor license could add a smoking license. This is already the case for the sale of tobacco products in these establishments. They pay an extra fee for the ability to sell cigarettes on the premises.
It is such a small and obvious step to allow an owner to decide whether it is worth passing the cost of that premium on to his customers. I am betting that, many establishments, would take a pass on the premium license. Thus those establishments that find it worth the cost will continue to serve their smoking clientele and the likely majority of establishments would not. It seems a simple answer based in supply and demand economics. Far fewer customers and employees exposed would seem to be a win for the anti-smoking advocates too.
I am guessing that state legislation would be in order for it to work. Such license is no doubt outside the realm of the City-County Council. But I would like to see the fiscal prediction of the funds that could be raised and perhaps directed to smoking cessation programs from such a premium license program.
What happens when the next thing they want to ban is something near and dear to YOUR heart?
You want economic impact? How many taxes have we put on cigarettes to pay for stuff we donâ??t really need but it was the way our idiotic politicians could sell it? If we donâ??t provide any place for people to smoke, they wonâ??t buy the cigarettes and we will end up paying all those taxes ourselves.
I say be careful what you wish for because you just may get it!
Stopping someone from CAUSING cancer will dramatically decrease cancer rates--which would go down far more dramatically were it not for our still-high smoking rates.
There's no argument about smoking's contribution to many cancers. Plus, science increasingly shows that smoking (and nicotine) contribute to _all_ cancers. And it's not just cancer. Smoking contributes to many other major diseases--heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and others--all massively costly.
Scientists will tell you it's far, far cheaper to _prevent_ disease than to cure it. (So long as you don't have fools or tobacco-stooges fighting against preventive efforts.)
And THAT's why monies are given to tobacco control.
Your argument would make as much sense if you said we should stop wasting money with hospitals and operations and things, and just have an massive all-out initiative to cure death.
Smokers have the right to smoke, but I also have the right to breathe clean air. Just because you choose to decrease the capacity of your lungs doesn't mean I want to do the same.
In conclusion, our study provides the most precise available
estimate of the effect of ETS on lung cancer risk in western
European populations. We found no increased risk for childhood
exposure, a result consistent with most of the available data. The
risk from ever exposure to spousal ETS was consistent with the
combined available evidence from European studies, but it was
lower than some previous estimates.
We also found an association of similar strength with
workplace exposure. Doseâ??response relationships were more
consistent and risks were higher, although in most cases they
were not statistically significant, with combined indicators of spousal and workplace ETS exposure. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/19/1440
If this was all really about health, and not about big brother telling people what they can and cannot do, then the air filtration system would make everybody happy. Or is this too obvious?
Back to the issue of smoking bans, Indianapolis' existing ban requires smoking establishments to post exterior signage stating they allow smoking, and follow the provision that NO ONE under 18 can be allowed to enter or be employed at all times. This provision is NOT very different from smoking bans already in effect in Owensboro/Daviess County, Wichita(KS), and the states of Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas. I think Indy's current smoking ordinance does not need to be tinkered with further, not to mention many private establishments that don't cater to minors have already moved to prohibit indoor smoking, as it is!