smoking ban

Editor's Note: Following a money trail that includes the Marion County Health Dept, Clarian Health Partners, the Indiana Academy of Family Physicians, and Smoke Free Indy 
 

Reposted from the Indiana Barrister blog written by central Indiana's leading political reporter and radio/television pundit, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz.

INDIANAPOLIS, IN -- Monday night the Indianapolis City-County Council may vote on a tougher smoking ban for the city. I say “may” because as I write this post this morning there is some serious question as to whether either side has enough votes for a clear victory or whether the matter will be delayed for another meeting or tabled indefinitely.

You all know my position on the current proposal, I think it’s unnecessary because the current compromise reached back in 2005 works fine. Less than 1% of the 40,000 odd businesses in Marion County allow smoking and two-thirds of the places that serve alcohol are non-smoking. There are ample choices for individuals to work or customers to patronize an establishment that is smoke free. No one is forced to worked in a smoking environment and many of those who do already smoke.

So with all that said, my big question regarding this entire process is “why”? I consider myself pretty connected into the pulse of this community and of all the issues I hear about, this one has been nowhere on any average citizen’s radar screen. The subject never comes up at the Mayor’s town hall meetings. And with the exception of local advocates I seriously doubt most people care whether a bar is smoking or non-smoking if they have a place to go that fits their needs.

So what’s the need? My journalist counterparts say Indianapolis should “join other progressive” cities and ban smoking in public places. I consider myself pretty progressive, and there’s nothing progressive about taking choices away from adults who are perfectly capable of reaching those decisions on their own.

By Mike Kole, Originally posted at Kole Hard Facts.

It seems like there is endless restlessness by those who wish to use the power of government to force businesses to involuntarily adopt no-smoke policies. From WTHR 13's report:

A City-County Council committee approved a tighter ban in a 4-2 vote. The measure is designed to further reduce health effects of secondhand smoke especially on non-smoking workers at bars and clubs.

City Councilor Christine Scales questioned the wisdom of expanding the current restrictions. "Why a total ban? We're talking about serious liberty interests at stake here. Smoking is legal," she said.

I happen to like no-smoke establishments. I choose to patronize them. However, I get hung up on the phrase "the pursuit of happiness". People define that in different ways. For me, playing hockey is one avenue to happiness. For others, it's smoking a cigarette in a bar. I no more want a group of busybodies to outlaw my ability to play hockey on the basis of safety and eliminating risky behavior than smokers or bar owners want this ban. It's the third parties, those who don't even participate in the ownership or behavior, who are driving this law. That makes their efforts very suspect to me. I don't trust little dictators.

By Evan Matthews, a Hoosier Libertarian.

INDIANAPOLIS, IN -- Smoking bans are onerous, misguided and dangerous. As Indianapolis lawmakers debate whether the Circle City requires more stringent smoking legislation, they should stop to consider the economic and realistic implications.

The owner of a private establishment, be it bar, bowling alley or barber shop, should be able to determine whether or not smoking is permissible on their property. Proprietors would display a sign on the door, reading either “Smoking” or “Non-Smoking,” both enforced with vigor. Individuals would then be able to make informed and individual choices, free from government coercion.

About three-fourths of the population are non-smokers. Establishments would be foolish to alienate this huge market. As a result, many will enforce their own bans in order to cater to clientele. Government intervention isn't needed to create non-smoking environments in private establishments.

Indianapolis, IN - (February 12, 2009) -- Pending legislation in the Statehouse, as well as anticipated legislation in Marion County's City County Council, seeks to limit choices for all Hoosiers. What is not clear is if these non-smokers are hoping to eventually ban tobacco altogether or if they think they have a right to enter a business and tell the owner how to manage his property. The Libertarian Party is a political party dedicated to individual and personal property rights, and opposes smoking bans in any form.

"Legislation like this will do nothing but erode the limited property rights we still have," says Timothy Maguire, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Marion County. "Non-smoking venues are already available to all Hoosiers and nobody is being forced to work for or patronize a business that allows smoking."

Former Libertarian candidate Mike Kole spoke to the State legislature earlier this year supporting business owner property rights. Look for more announcements from the Libertarian Party in the future as Indianapolis Libertarians plan events to raise awareness.

Richmond, Virginia -- Republicans are desperate to win back the suburban voters who lifted the party to prominence in the 1990s only to abandon the GOP for moderate Democrats in recent years.

Suburban voters have just one question for Republican lawmakers: What problem have you solved for us lately? That's a real chin- scratcher, but Republicans know they had better come up with an answer pretty fast or they could lose next year's gubernatorial election and forfeit their majority in the House of Delegates, the GOP's final toehold in state government.

There's a catch. Building roads and schools for fast-growing suburban communities takes a lot of money, and cash is in short supply now. There aren't many problems that can be solved gratis, but there is one.