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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT