Lawmakers in the Indiana House say they'll exempt casinos from a proposed statewide smoking ban — a move
that could give the legislation its best shot at becoming law while preventing the state from potentially losing millions
of dollars in gambling taxes.
Casinos have long argued that a smoking ban would hurt business, and the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency recently
estimated in a fiscal note that the state could lose more than $180 million a year in taxes if gamblers couldn't light
up. The high price tag in a time of slumping state revenues meant there was no hope for a comprehensive ban, said Rep. Charlie
Brown, a Democrat from Gary who has pushed for such a ban for several years.
"That fiscal note killed us," he said.
The House Public Health Committee discussed the bill Wednesday but didn't take a vote on it. However, Brown and Committee
Chair Rep. Tim Brown, R-Crawfordsville, said they would vote next week to amend the bill to exempt casinos.
"In this budgetary environment we're talking about — with every penny tight and any dollar taken away is a
dollar taken away from K-12 education — it's our obligation to maybe minimize the impact," Tim Brown said.
Statewide smoking bans have passed the House before but have stalled in the Senate. Senate President Pro Tem David Long,
R-Fort Wayne, said Wednesday that he would consider giving the smoking ban bill a hearing this year — if it exempts
casinos. Otherwise the ban would hurt casinos and reduce the amount gambling brings to the state, he said.
"That's just shooting ourselves in the foot," Long said.
Mike Smith, executive director of the Casino Association of Indiana, said the loss in gambling revenue wouldn't just
harm the state — it would also affect employees, contractors, nearby businesses and others who depend on casinos.
"All those things are part of this multi-billion-dollar industry in Indiana," Smith said. "It's all about
the opportunity for people to have jobs."
But advocates of a comprehensive smoking ban — one that would ban smoking in all public places in Indiana — said
it wasn't fair to exempt casinos.
Karena Walker said she worked at Hollywood Casino in Lawrenceburg for more than 14 years before quitting in March. She said
she suffered from health problems from secondhand smoke, and said her doctor told her she had the lung capacity of someone
who smoked three packs a day. She said casino workers deserve the same protections as office workers and others who don't
have to work around smokers.
"It's not fair. I don't understand what makes someone who works at a hospital any more special than I am,"
she said. "I had to choose my health over my job."
Some bar owners also want an exemption from the proposed smoking ban, but Charlie Brown said he was against giving any other
exemptions. He said only casinos, horse racing tracks, off-track betting facilities and some other places like cigar bars
should be exempt.
Supporters of the legislation report growing support for a statewide ban. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce supports it, and
Gov. Mitch Daniels has said he will sign the bill into law if lawmakers approve it.

















IBJ Conversations
29 Comments
Add Comment
That said, this compromise for one exemption will likely allow the Senate and House to see their way clear to get this done. And, Gov. Daniels has already said he'll sign the bill if it reaches his desk.
Memo to smoke free air supporters...you need to take this deal as this is as good as it's going to get for you.
FUTHER MORE, what does his money have to do with the smoking ban??? His money is his money and any bar owner with smoking that's opened in the last 2-3-years KNEW FULL WELL THIS WAS COMING (ps that includes the cigar bar)!!!!!!! We dont want to die from SECOND hand smoke and don't say stay away from the entire center.
How do we tell the public, "we passed the Smoking Ban today, and oh by the way Cigar bars are exempt". That is not a smoking ban so therefore we failed my friends.
I also question the validity of the cigar smoke infiltrating the entire strip mall. I think a more likely cause is the fact that several of the employees at the other businesses have employees/owners that smoke out front or back and then re-enter the business, thereby introducing smoke into the establishment. I have personally seen employees smoking cigarettes out front of several of these businesses, so it canâ??t necessarily be blamed on the cigar bar.
Yes, at times if there are a lot of cigar smokers in the cigar bar at one time it can become overly smoky and the doors may be opened to clear the air out quickly; however I highly doubt that it is ruining business in the strip mall because of this. If anything, I would think that at least a few of the businesses in the strip mall have benefited from the more affluent clientele of the cigar bar frequenting their establishments.
One could argue that a carâ??s exhaust is much more dangerous than a cigar, and I would rather take a long drag on a cigar than a tailpipe. Wouldnâ??t you? Whatâ??s next, legislation to ban cars from parking lots that have a business near them?
Letâ??s all be adults about this and make reasonable decisions as it pertains to smoking bans. If you donâ??t like a cigarâ??s smoke, stay away from it. If you do like it, please pull up a bar stool next to me and letâ??s talk about your favorite cigars.
No? Why not? Here's why: because there are some areas where personal freedom must take a backseat to the public welfare. We know that chemicals dumped on private property can disable and kill children throughout the local water table. We now know that the health effects of being near cigarette smoke is no different.
And unfortunately, smoke can find its way into the lungs of innocents whether they smoke or not. For example, part of this legislation would ban smoking within 12 feet of a door into a public place. Why? Because air coming into a building circulates, and the chemicals in that smoke can travel far beyond the smoker himself. Other locales have banned smoking near air intake channels into a building for the same reason.
The costs of public smoking are too high, and the infringement on personal freedoms too low, to allow this bill to die.