Smoke Free Is Good, But Compromise Is Better
The good folks over at Smoke Free Indy have proved something I have maintained for quite a while, the current smoking ban, which was the result of a compromise, is working and smoking should still be allowed in bars and restaurants that don’t allow anyone under the age of 18.
According to a survey released today of more than 600 Marion County residents, nearly 70 percent would support an ordinance that bans smoking in all workplaces, but nearly 81 percent support the current anti-smoking ordinance that bans smoking in most public places, but exempts certain bars, restaurants and bowling alleys.
The poll also shows what is pretty much common sense; most people who work indoors work in a smoke-free environment and most people are aware of the dangers of secondhand smoke.
However, I think a fair interpretation of the poll is that most people think there should be places where adults can go and enjoy a perfectly legal product. And that consumers, workers and businesses can all make the choice of whether to patronize or work in a smoking or non-smoking workplace.
You can download a copy of the Executive Report below.
And before I forget, you can forget about any smoking ban in Marion County. The votes are not there, so any proposal won’t be surfacing any time soon.
May 12th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Abdul, if S.F.I. is aware of all this then, what in your opinion, is their ultimate goal for going total ban?
May 12th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
And now on to things that matter…
May 12th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
All due respect (your blog and all) but did we read the same report?
Why is compromise better if more than 80% think “all Marion County workers, …should be protected from secondhand smoke in the workplace”
and again more than 80% “feel that rights of customers and employees to breathe smoke-free air are more important than the rights of smokers to smoke in those areas”
Daw-g – SFI ultimate goal? protect customers and workers. That is what the majority wants.
Conclusion
-Recognition by the public of the hazards of secondhand smoke
-Majority support for an ordinance that would prohibit smoking in public places like
restaurants, bars, and bowling alleys in Indianapolis.
-No indication that passage of such a law would have a negative impact on restaurants,
bars and bowling alleys in Marion County; if anything there is evidence that business
might increase.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Maybe there are adults who want to go to bars and bowling alleys to smoke…but there are many more who would like to go to bars or bowling alleys and not have their health impaired, put at risk for cancer and to be able to leave without stinking like stale cigarette smoke….here like on all issues there are two sides….there are already 2 or 3 bars that I will not go to because the ventilation is so bad that it is like a smoke chamber…others have better ventilation systems and it is not so bad.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:29 am
You may have inadvertently made the point, Greg, that one has the right not to frequent an establishmment that allows smokers. Where’s the problem, and why is more governmental intervention necessary?
I can’t really figure out the bowling exception, however.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Now that there is a very concerted effort to take smoking to 0%, where are they going to get the replacement money for the lost tobacco tax.?? Suggestion – legalize marajuana use and tax the hell out of it. Probably would bring in more revenue and not create as many health problems. I am kidding !!! Just goes to show the “washington street rocket scientist club” doesn’t have a clue. They can’t agree on anything unless it is a raise for them or some extended benefits. Let’s just vote all of them out and try a new batch and see if it does any good.!!!
May 13th, 2009 at 5:51 am
This is a tough issue. All around.
Here’s the rub: smoke is harmful, and that isn’t open to debate. Government regulates harmful workplace issues…via IOSHA. And the Department of Labor and Dept. of Health.
Bars, specifically, operate as a granted-right by the state, via license. The license is intended to monitor multiple issues, such as sensible alcohol consumption, public safety of the particular establishment, and payment of those God-awful-important state taxes. If you want to oppose a liquor license, precedent and public law are on your side if you can prove any of the above issues cannot be adequately met by the permit applicants. And that right to hold a license is up for renewal, thus subject to regulation and oversight, every one or two years.
I’ve got two close friends with long-term lung problems. Neither ever smoked and both worked in restaurants/bars for long periods of time. Both grew up in homes with two heavy smokers. One is now chronically unemployed and guess who’s paying her health care costs? Us, that’s who. At 52 years of age.
It’s a public safety issue. It’s a public budget issue. Smokers have rights–so long as they can guarantee their smoke only harms them. That’s a dicey proposition once they exit their cars or homes.
I’m sympathetic to smokers. There’s a reason tobacco companies don’t market 100% tobacco cigarettes–they put an addictive drug in them for a reason. Also multiple other lethal additives, most of which go up in smoke.
Over 40 cigarette additives are there precisely to produce more smoke for the “romance” and “atmosphere” of it all. It’s a sick and twisted industry.
The second scary part of this is, that if enough folks quit smoking, we’re in huge trouble budget-wise. Cig taxes are a huge state budget infusion. Like gambling money, we cannot live without it.
It is a proven fact that states or communities which ban public smoking altogether, are healthier. Ask any actuary. California did it in 1978, and there’s ample evidence that Californians have better lungs. That typically leads to lower health care costs. If we had a health care system that wasn’t ridiculously broken.
And those states have ample evidence that business isn’t affected once everyone is on the same level playing field–smoking is banned in all public spaces, thus no one establishment has an advantage over another.
I am a civil libertarian to the core. I don’t like rights being taken away. But I have a difficult time understanding how anyone has the right to enter a public space and spew carcinogens and harmful chemicals into the air for all to breathe. I wish smokers would voluntarily confine their smoking to their own private spaces. But that’s not going to happen.
And while I’m at it–sorry for this diatribe, but on the way home from downtown yesterday, I saw four smokers throw butts out the window. Since when are our streets a public ashtray? Small point given the monumental public health argument. But it’s symbolic, I’m afraid, of an attitude that is, at best, intolerant.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Abdul,
I think you missed the boat on this one, the point of the survey is that a majority of Indianapolis wants a law that covers all workplaces including bars, bowling alleys and private clubs. Its great and all that people support the current ordinance but they also want everywhere to be smoke free. Ignoring this fact is the same as us catering to the 25% of smokers in the county instead of the majority who do not smoke.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Think Again,
Excellent thoughts. Indiana’s statistics for poor health are atrocious because of a lack of political will. Individual cities and counties such as the cluster surrounding Indy are having to take action on their own to lower their health costs. There is a moral imperative here to save lives that may supercede rigid libertarianism.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Lsump,
I didn’t miss anything. Smoke Free Indy’s own survey said 81 percent of Marion County residents are satisfied with the current compromise. What’s wrong with that picture?
May 13th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Respective disagree with much of the article and postings. First, accurate scientific studies do not support entirely all the “facts” stated. Almost all “research” was conducted with less than scientific method applications. That is, the end result was sought to be proven rather than the facts discovered. Second hand smoke is a problem for many but whether it is responsible for all the cancer concerns is still open regardless of some ascertions.
The issue of banning smoking every where is a point that does raise issues of personal rights. No amount of spin on the issue will take that away. Question is where is the limit on the right of others (including through laws) to impose regulations on others. Example, as a skinny person what would be wrong with others like me to seek to impose heavy taxes or other restrictions on over weight persons who end up with a large number of health issues that cost me as a tax payer and in some cases are a visual problem.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Think Again, this issue has nothing to do with the right of smokers to enter a private business and smoke. There is no such right, just as there is no right of someone to enter a private business and be free of smoking. Even though you refer to it as a “public place” these are still PRIVATE businesses. You do not have somoe sort of right to go into those private businesses.
.
The issue has always been a private business owners right to control what goes on his or her property.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Jack, the skinny-fat argument is a Trojan horse. Your weight does not inflict any harm whatsoever on anyone else, nor does the ongoing practice of your particular eating/exercise habits.
So don’t go there. It’s a little sophomoric.
Your assertion regarding individual freedoms is correct. I wish there were another way. Anyone got any ideas regarding individual freedoms, and keeping smoke entirely confined to the smoker’s airspace?
Paul, I thought you were a lawyer. Surely you understand the age-old legal concept of “public accommodation.” When your private bar asks for gifts from the state, i.e., a Registered Retail Merchant Certificate and a liquor license and proper zoning, certain controls are imposed for the public good.
I.E., you must have crash bars on doors. You must have clearly-marked exits. You cannot grow creepy bacteria in your kitchen.
Or, in some jurisdictions, smoke. Because the toxins released into general airspace are proven harmful, regardless what Jack says…the National Academy of Sciences disagrees strongly, Jack…science has weighed in firmly and without credible contradictory evidence. That ship has sailed.
Tobacco industry talking points don’t cut it.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Think again, we seem to disagree again—obesity is my concern when health related costs are so high and many people are dependent upon government paid health care—then as a tax payer it does directly impact me. The loss of days of work raises the cost of products thus as a consumer I pay for it. Yes, the issue is only personal choice but when any action has a direct economic impact on me then I can rightfully see it as an issue of concern to me personally.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Second hand smoke dangers—interesting point is that while would be difficult to defend any pollution this issue is not as clear as most often presented. IF the source of such pollution could not be taxed as easily as smoking, if issue was less visible, etc. etc. would there be as much buy-in as there is. Smokers pay a large portion of the income provided for many governmental (and non governmental) bank accounts. Strange that many studies make by variety of groups does not support the strong statements made by some groups as to the dangers of second hand smoke—but the papers that do not support the dangers are dismissed as “pro smoker” findings and are pasties to the tobacco industry. Question who are the major financial benefactors of “bad news” “research” and thus who gains and who loses with each project. Scientific method requires that research must seek to find the truth not simply prove someones thesis.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I do not support any type of smoking ban that tells owners of private property what they can and cannot allow on their own property. I include business owners in that category. It is not a matter of public safety to me – it is a matter of my personal freedom.
.
If the government wants to ban smoking in government-owned buildings, that is fine. I absolutely support that. If a private company wants to ban smoking on its property – great. But if a business owner wants to allow smoking in his or her own establishment – why shouldn’t that be allowed? If the public doesn’t want to breath in that second-smoke, I am sure there will be a non-smoking competitor that will be willing to take the business.
.
We justify the idea that we can ban smoking in public because of the dangers of second hand smoke – an idea that seems to be attractive until you realize that it is just the first step in losing our freedom to choose for ourselves. I would love to believe that the erosion of our rights would stop at public smoking, but the facts don’t support that rosy outlook. What was the justification for requiring seat belts? How does my not wearing a seatbelt endanger anyone else? But we are told it is a matter of “public safety”. We have had cities outlaw certain types of transfats – even though I have never heard of second-hand eating. We have had a New York governor introduce taxes on non-diet soft drinks – another “public” issue since obesity costs the public money. Where does it end? Let’s ban motorcycles – do you know how much gets spent on taking care of people involved in motorcycle accidents? How about outlawing pregnancies for anyone considered to be at high-risk? An extremely premature baby can cost a million dollars to care for in just the first year of life. Where do you draw the line?
.
For me, I draw it at the government telling someone that they cannot do something that is legal. It is completely legal to buy and smoke a cigarette, assuming you are of age. If cigarettes are such a dangerous product that harms the health of anyone not only using it, but those near them – then why is it legal to buy it? It couldn’t possibly be because of the huge amount of tobacco taxes the government takes in, could it?
.
For the record – I am a non-smoker. I have lost people close to me (smokers) from both lung cancer and emphysema. I happen to think that smoking is a disgusting habit and I really don’t understand why anyone would do that to themselves. But that doesn’t mean I am willing to give up my personal freedom to get rid of it.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Jack, I don’t know what literature you’re reading, but multiple credible studies have concluded without doubt, that second-hand-smoke is harmful.
I only used the obesity argument for illustrative purposes. Sure, obesity costs us all. But when an obese person enters a public establishment with his/her condition, there are no inherent public health risks to those surrounding him/her.
Not true for smokers.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Think again,
If it is your legal position that you have the right to go into and remain in any restaurant or bar you want, regardless of the wishes of the owner, let me assure you you are not correct.
.
Your argument about those private business having to comply with some regulations is a wide open invitation to any and all regulation of private business. I think most people would find that argument goes way too far in allowing government to stick its nose into the operation of priate businesses.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:44 am
The Smoke Free Indy folks are either pushing a politically motivated agenda, or their simply ignorant.
.
Why?
.
Because while they complain about the effects of second hand smoke, they ignore the fact that nearly every single business that serves snacks or beverages is serving food that’s filled with aspartame – a known killer. They’ll finish their campaign, pat each other on the back and say “Mission accomplished”. And when they leave, customers will continue ordering Diet Cokes, filling themselves with known carcinogens.
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/
May 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I’m sorry Shorebreak…when credible sources actually come forward and call aspartame a “killer” and provide some scientific proof, I might be inclined to consider it. Until then there is no way I’m putting asparatame on the same level as nicotine.
I’ve looked into the claim that asparateme is a health danger and never could find any credible source to confirm that. At the best (or worst), I’ve seen some documentation that it may actually cause you to crave sweets more thus offsetting the zero calorie nature of the product. But even that is not a health danger and certainly does not make it a killer.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I would note there was some medical evidence asparatame can cause cancer, but only in extremely large quantities that no human being could ever consume. Equating drinking a diet coke with smoking is a stretch to say the least.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Paul, I’m not buying that. First, let’s look at industry studies of Apspartame. We immediately know that there’s bias when we see that 100% of Serle sponsored studies (74 studies in total) show no harmful effects, yet 92% of independent studies (total of 92 iindependent studies) show harmful effects.
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
.
So we know right away that the aspartame folks are hiding things. If there’s nothing wrong, why is there such disparity between industry sponsored results and independent results? Of all people, I would expect you to have the skills to recognize the disparity and understand that a deeper level of scrutiny is required.
.
Take a look at this independent study, published in March 2006. Read the blue highlighted section – it’s a two minute read. It concludes with the following:
“The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake. On the basis of these results, a reevaluation of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent and cannot be delayed.”
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf
May 14th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Paul: please don’t pout words in my mouth.
It is a completely reasonable conclusion, that when businesses obtain government approval for operation, i.e. liquor license, zoning laws, health laws, that the appropriate agencies with jurisdiction can and should intervene when the evidence is overwhelming.
It’s really not a huge leap. Smoke is dangerous, to workers and patrons. It is the result of a completely active choice made by patrons. It is not the result of something oozing out of the walls in a passive manner.
In fact, it is not beyond reason to argue that is is the obligation of the appropriate govt. agencies to mitigate public health issues which they can reasonably address. It’s not overreaching by government. It’s their job when something this clearly causes harm. Some things are harder to track down…but this one really is a no-brainer. It’s not about the bar owner’s “right” to allow smoking when smoking so clearly damages lungs. It’s something we can change and should. And we will.
Old habits die hard. In ten years we’ll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I couldn’t agree with Think Again’s last statement, “In ten years we’ll look back and wonder what the fuss was about.” It’s sad when Elkart, Franklin and Hancock County (to name a few) all have comprehensive laws but the “big city” does not. It’s shocking for people to visit here from the 25 other states that are smoke free and they go, “wow, you can still smoke inside workplaces in Indianapolis?”
Secondhand smoke is a legitimate health hazard and the government has an obligation to regulate it. I can’t wait until that day!
May 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Lindsay: I meant we’ll have a total ban within that timeframe.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Shorebreak,
I’ll look at the website you provide. However, I would note that I have looked at many. I have never found a credible, scientific source that said asparamente is a health hazard. You make it sound like that it is only industry studies saying asparamente is not dangerous. That is not true. Certainly you wouldn’t equate drinking a diet coke with smoking a cigarette.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Paul – you’re right – I wouldn’t equate the two, but neither would I recommend playing with a .22 calibre pistol just because it’s not nearly as effective as .50 calibre. Both can be deadly.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:01 am
[...] under a rock you know I am not a big fan of expanding the current Indianapolis smoking ban because, like 81-percent of the rest of Marion County, I think the current compromise works just fine. Adults can [...]