IBJOpinion

State should go smoke-free

March 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

Less than a month ago, it seemed almost certain that Indiana would join the ranks of two dozen other states and the District of Columbia—including our neighbors Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin—in enacting a statewide, comprehensive smoke-free-air law.

It now appears that some lawmakers have been unwittingly influenced by opponents of smoke-free air and have succeeded in weakening House Bill 1018 to exempt bars, nursing homes, private clubs and casinos from protecting their employees from the devastating effects of secondhand smoke.

While the health effects of secondhand smoke are well-documented and can no longer be contested, opponents of smoke-free air are clinging to the waning hope that lawmakers will be convinced smoke-free air is bad for business. However, they couldn’t be more mistaken.

Numerous studies conducted by some of the nation’s top academic institutions and reports from state agencies have consistently shown that smoke-free-air laws do not harm business. One year after the state of Washington went smoke-free, bar and tavern revenue was up 20 percent. Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York and Florida, just to name a few, saw no significant impact in revenue, and employment in the hospitality industry was not affected.

Here in Indiana, communities that have adopted smoke-free-air ordinances have seen almost immediate benefits to the clear air. According to the Indiana Center for Health Policy, one month after Fort Wayne expanded its smoke-free ordinance to include bars and private clubs, bar and restaurant receipts increased 39 percent. Since Plainfield went smoke-free in 2006, the amount of money collected from food and beverage taxes continues to increase.  

Perhaps the most convincing bit of evidence that shows smoke-free laws do not harm business can be found in a Michigan Department of Treasury report released in December. In the months following enactment of Michigan’s smoke-free-air law, a comparison of year-over-year sales tax receipts showed that there was actually an overall increase of 0.11 percent in total sales tax collections from retail eating and drinking establishments.

This is particularly interesting when one takes into account that Michigan’s economy has been arguably the most affected by the recession, and Michigan was the only state to lose population, according to the 2010 census.

The next few weeks will be critical to the fate of the smoke-free-air legislation. Advocates of smoke-free air include some of the state’s most influential health care and business organizations. With more than $390 million spent each year on secondhand-smoke-related health care costs in Indiana, the Hoosier state simply can’t afford not to go smoke-free.

____________

Susan M. Rawl
Vice president, board of directors
American Cancer Society
Great Lakes Division Inc.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now

ADVERTISEMENT