The chairman of an Indiana Senate committee told a newspaper that he wouldn't call a critical vote on a proposed statewide
smoking ban, but later told another newspaper that he changed his mind.
Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, told the Post-Tribune of Merrillville that the bill was dead for the year, then changed
his mind.
"I'll retract what I said — that the bill is dead — and just try to continue to keep an open mind,"
Alting told The Indianapolis Star.
Alting said he might call for a vote on the proposal at the Senate Public Policy Committee's April 6 meeting, but that
he likely wouldn't allow any amendments. The bill currently includes exemptions for casinos, bars, fraternal clubs, smoke
shops and nursing homes, and conservative leaders say some of those loopholes are needed for the bill to pass the Republican-controlled
Senate.
Alting gave the smoking ban bill its first Senate committee hearing last week. At that meeting, he warned the ban's supporters
that they could kill the bill by lobbying for a comprehensive ban that doesn't include wide exemptions.
Alting told the Post-Tribune on Tuesday that lobbyists for groups such as the American Cancer Society and the American Heart
Association pushed too hard to remove the exemptions. Alting said the advocates would prefer to have "zero percent of
100."
The bill cleared the House of Representatives in a 68-31 vote in January, and Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels has said he would
sign it.
Health advocates want a bigger smoking ban that would protect all workers, even those who work in casinos and bars.
The exemptions for casinos and horse racing tracks were approved by the House after the nonpartisan Legislative Services
Agency said banning smoking there could cost Indiana's cash-strapped coffers about $190 million a year. The House later
voted to exempt bars that only admit adults over age 21 after some lawmakers argued it was unfair to exempt casinos and tracks
without exempting bars, because bars located near casinos could lose business if smokers decided to hang out at casinos instead
of at bars.
Exemptions for nursing homes and fraternal clubs were also added to appease those who said veterans and those living in nursing
homes should have the right to smoke in certain areas.

















IBJ Conversations
5 Comments
Add Comment
... that eliminating smoking in bars will cost them money.
If you were to eliminate smoking statewide and you were to monitor the bars in Marion county and determine they would lose money. They might do so at the beginning as a form of protest, but people aren't going to stay away from establishments for 2, 3, or 4 years. People will just adjust.
How is it other states are able to enact such legislation and have no problems - I don't think there have been legal acts against the state. We're not talking about
California, as loose as it seems, outlaws smoking. So does New York.
There doesn't seem to be an outcry there.
Just out of curiosity, how many people would be willing to cough up some $$$ to compensate lost revenue because Indiana permits smoking? I loved a TV story about this and one of the guys said, "if they (visitors) don't like it, they can go somewhere else."
I can just imagine visitors being told that Indianapolis expects them to do the legwork and find restaurants & bars which don't allow smoking. During the Big-10 tournament, someone with the city screwed up and assigned 3 teams to bars which permitted smoking.
"They didn't ask" Yeah, right. They expected being able to go anywhere without dealing with smoking. The city should have asked, "do you want smoking or non-smoking restaurants/bars?"
Why is the tail wagging the dog? Are politicians afraid of smokers?
Well written and well stated. Thank you for the insight.
Once those simple externalities are internalized for the business owner, how many business owners will still allow smoking? My guess is that some still would, but it would not be most.
That's not fair, you scream! That's taxing a businessperson for creating jobs! To that, I say that we are merely making the business owner responsible for the consequences of his business decisions.