Smoking bans in Indiana

October 26, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Smoking bans in bars and restaurants always create a spirited debate between smokers and nonsmokers. Every time a city or county in Indiana moves to ban smoking in these establishments, people pipe up with their opinions.

Marion County may be the next one to expand its current smoking ban. The full City-County Council votes tonight on the issue. Currently, Monroe County, Greencastle, Zionsville, Plainfield, and a handful of other places ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Most cities and counties with bans exempt bars and restaurants, as is the case in Indianapolis if the restaurant admits only those older than 21.

What I always found odd about the legislation was that smoking is always banned in the workplace, but people work in restaurants and bars. Why should those establishments not count?

Should smoking laws and ordinances continue to be a piecemeal ban around the state, with some cities allowing smoking in bars and not in other cities? Would it be easier for residents and easier to regulate if we had blanket statewide legislation?

One co-worker referred to this type of regulation as morality legislation. Should it be up to city or county officials, or even the state, to tell businesses they can or can’t permit smoking or regulate where smokers are allowed to light up? Proponents of these bans argue nonsmokers don’t have to go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking, or people don’t have to work in these establishments. That’s true, but bartending or being a server in a bar instead of a restaurant has to be more profitable. Plus, at least in Indianapolis, I’m aware of only a few bars that don’t allow smoking.
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 Indiana Lawyer 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
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT