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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT