IBJNews

Indiana House panel backs statewide smoking ban

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana House committee has advanced a bill that would ban smoking in most public places statewide.

The bill endorsed by the House Public Policy Committee in a 7-5 vote on Wednesday would exempt casinos and pari-mutuel horse racing tracks from the ban. The bill now moves to the full House.

The House passed a similar bill last year, but it failed in the Senate and died during late-session negotiations.

Numerous communities in Indiana have smoking bans in public places, but they vary in forms. Proponents of a statewide ban say it would level the playing field across Indiana and help protect people from second-hand smoke.

Two bar owners testified against the bill, saying adults should be able to use a legal product with other adults.

Several communities in Indiana already ban smoking in public places.

An effort to broaden Indianapolis' workplace smoking ban stalled this fall after an indecisive City-Council Council vote. The measure would have expanded an existing law that prohibits smoking in most public places to include bars, bowling alleys and private clubs. An existing law already bans smoking in restaurants that serve minors.

Council members tabled the issue in late October when it fell short of the 15 votes needed to either pass or fail, then decided to sent it back to committee for revisions before revisiting the issue.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 1
    Smokers are drug addicts, hey lack the ability to make their own decisions in this matter.

    By the way, I drink beer, would you like the by product of my 'hobby' to be on you?
  • Really?
    Don't these people have more important issues to be working on? Let individual businesses decide what is best for their clients. Let ADULTS make their own decisions.
  • Government Offices
    If they want to ban the public from performing legal activities in public places, be sure they ban these activities for council members and law makers in government building(that would mean no smoking lounges in the buildings).

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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT