Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Republican districts see big jump in immigrant citizens
Next Post: Morning Shorts
Posted in:
First, the setup…
A week ago it won a narrow endorsement from a key Senate committee despite “no†votes from both Jones and Watson — a political rarity. A nearly identical plan has enjoyed similar initial success in the Illinois House where influential House Speaker Michael Madigan supports the plan and Gov. Rod Blagojevich appears to lean that way as well.
The suburban sponsor of one of the plans said he believes momentum is building and the start of the Cook County ban could prove crucial.
“It helps most definitely,†said state Sen. Terry Link, a Waukegan Democrat. “You know why I think the chances are better? Because of what Chicago and Cook County did, none of their senators and representatives has any reason to vote against it because it’s not going to do anything to them.†[…]
Similarly, a statewide ban would end a “scatter shot†approach across the suburbs where one community banning smoking sees cigarette-toting bar patrons flock to the next community over.
Sixteen states no longer allow smoking in public places. At least 42 Illinois municipalities, including nearly 20 suburban locations, have similar bans in place or about to take effect. There are more than 1,000 municipalities in the state. […]
Preliminary head counts by supporters show there’s not yet enough backing to get a statewide ban approved in the 59-member Illinois Senate. And it’s unlikely that it would be called for a vote unless success is all-but guaranteed.
We’ve already debated a smoking ban several times. Let’s not do it again. Today’s question is a bit different: Would it be better to just ban smoking statewide instead of allowing some towns to gain any economic advantage on others that have already banned consuming the brown weed in public?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 6:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Republican districts see big jump in immigrant citizens
Next Post: Morning Shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Let each town decide. No reason for the state to force this one. Given recent history they will then go down the transfat/foie gras trail because they are convinced they know what is best for us.
Comment by oechmd Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 6:44 am
Leave each town have local control. They need to decide how it would effect them economically, health wise and any other angle you care to look at. If a town wants to become the smoking capital, why stop them if they feel it is the right choice for their area. If a town can get the local votes to ban all smoking then go for it. If it is the wrong choice (both pro and con can lose business or be the wrong choice) the town can change later.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 7:06 am
I thought that the whole argument from the anti-smoking lobby was based on their “fact” that a local smoking ban would cause no economic disadvantage.
Is this a tacit admission that it does?
And if it does, do we want to reduce all municipalities to the lowest common economic denominator?
Aren’t home rule units separately exempt?
This must be a local matter.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 7:07 am
Before we all buy into the “bad for business” argument, lets look at how much money Pres. Jones gets from the tobacco lobby. That’s good for his business, thank you very much. Also, by not supporting this bill, Sen. Jones can satisfy his cigarette “jones.” I was recently in smoke-free NYC (the bastion of capitalism)and every bar and restaurant I was in was packed. The smokers smoked outside under an awning with no complaints. Get real, secondhand smoke kills eight Illinoisans a day. By the way, I read that Sen. Jones was smoking a Salem during the interview. Aren’t public buildings supposed to be smoke-free already? Where’s a cop when you need one.
Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 7:16 am
Any regulation is better off being uniform, given how mobile our society is. Allowing health and safety regulations at the local level invariably encourages a race to the bottom, with some desperate localities pretty much allowing anything to make a buck.
Of course, the people that pay for shoddy health and safety regulations don’t necessarily live in the locality that enacted them.
Specifically as to second-hand smoke: the state picks up a large chunk of health care costs, not municipalities. By engaging in a race to the bottom — a race to have the most smoky bars, if you will — the town hopes to draw out-of-town business. If these customers get sick, then the state (or, even broader, the health insurance industry), not the town, has to figure out how to pay for their health care.
More fundamentally, though, in this case it’s questionable whether a bar or restaurant gains or loses business by becoming a smokers’ haven. High end places, especially, tend to be more appealing when they are smoke free. It’s not only a race to the bottom, but it’s a losing race.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 7:33 am
TOA and Like a Duck –
Please come down from generakities and cite your sources “kills eight people a day” and about Illinois’s health care costs from second hand smoke. NYC laws are good for NYC, they apply to a locality.
The basic problem is that you do not trust the local voters to instruct their elected officials to do the right thing.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 8:01 am
It’d be better that the rules apply to all. But it’d be worse because this is more interference in privately owned businesses.
My question is what’s next?
Comment by Wumpus Moon Glampers Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 8:29 am
Be fair and just ban it statewide. Its a win/win situation and everyone will be healthier.
PS-Take your butts outside
Comment by scoot Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 8:39 am
A level playing field is the only way to make smoking bans effective. Period.
TJ - let’s not overlook the fact the NYC ban is effective because it is not easy to just move one town over to smoke. Most New Yorkers are not going to cross a bridge or tunnel to smoke with their dinner or coctails.
Comment by Bluefish Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 8:46 am
It would make it a level playing field for all. It is not fair when a bar is smoke free and a block away one is.
Comment by He Makes Ryan look like a saint Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 8:56 am
Ban it statewide.
Make them drive 100 miles for their Camels.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 8:58 am
“Level Playing Field”
You mean there is economic advantage to having one location permitting smoking?
As you will find out, home rule units will not be restricted…a quirk under the Illinois Constitution. So there will not be a level playing field. Tribal lands will per se be exempt.
But that is not the real purpose of a state law. You push everybody down to the lowest common denominator to fit your beliefs.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 9:13 am
The fact that people deny that smoking and second hand smoke is dangerous is fascinating. It has been established for about fifty years that smoking kills the smoker and those around, but people keep denying it.
Cigarette smoke is one of the few “bad habits” that kills not only the person who chooses to use the product, but those unfortunate to be around those who do. In that day, it is completely different from things like fatty foods or even alcohol.
This is a public health issue. The ban needs to be state-wide.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 10:10 am
Skeeter
Second hand smoke == “Established” “Fifty Years” Just give the cite for independent scientific evidence, instead of talking generalities.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 10:18 am
Truthful,
I don’t have time for nonsense.
Any study not funded by Big Tobacco has shown exactly that.
If you disagree, I strongly encourage you to sit in a room inhaling second hand smoke. In ten years, if by some strange quirk you are still alive, you can report on the impact.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 10:24 am
Ban it statewide but declare one, rural county the official “smoking” county. Get the tobacco companies to offer sponsorship deals: Union County brought to you by Marlboro Lights.
the smokers get to hang out with each other and we use the sponsorship money to pay for the lung transplants and health care. Meanwhile, the rest of the population breathes clean air. Win-Win.
Comment by Frank Booth Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 10:29 am
To Truthful James (AKA Mr. Contempt prior to investigation)
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0103.pdf
Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 10:31 am
Much as I detest second-hand smoke and recognize the health effects of inhaling it, I believe in local control. Government that is closest to the people governs best.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 10:38 am
Look, Truthful, even the Bush Administration says second hand smoke is dangerous:
“The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”
p. xvii, Executive Summary, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.” US Surgeon General, 2006.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf
Even the cigarette manufacturers say secondhand smoke is bad:
“Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.”
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp
It is unbelievable that anyone in this day and age is questioning the harmful effects of smoking.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 10:42 am
YES
Comment by Little Egypt Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 10:54 am
It should be about health and the exposure of many to health problems caused by smoking and second hand smoke. The economic issue, though real, should be set aside and a law put into place to restrict smoking in all public places statewide. Here we are again in a debate sparked by the Indians.
Comment by Justice Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 11:02 am
State-wide ban. State pays the Medicaid and Family Care programs, and those costs go up from all the ill health effects of smoking.
Comment by Ambulance chaser Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 11:15 am
If they are smoking in a restaurant, go somewhere else! It is really not right for them to banm this on private property. It is not a crime (yet). If they smoke in McDonalds, then go to Wendy’s. It is as much of someone’s “right” to smoke as it is for them to set many rules in theri own establishments.
If you don’t want to work in a smoking restaurant, get another job. It is not that difficult to comprehend. The state doing this is very disturbing.
Comment by Wumpus Moon Glampers Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 11:18 am
To Wumpus Moon Glampers : Let’s see, Illinois has 19.9% smokers, 80.1% non-smokers. When the few dictate to the many, it’s an oligarchy. When the many dictate to the few, it’s a democracy (I swear, look it up). I take equal offense to somebody’s smoke as I do the neighbor’s dog pooping in my yard, THEY BOTH STINK and CAUSE DISEASE.
Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck... Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 11:48 am
There is not much chance of getting even close to a passing vote in the Senate; so, smoking seems to be a moot point as far as banning or whatever.
Given that the same brand of nit-wit who gushed over the goose-guts ban in Chicago is lock-goose-stepping behind a universal smoking ban, most of our lawmakers will side with common sense and common decency. The last great Say No to Smokers had a funny mustache and killed tens of millions of people - and he was worried about second-hand smoke too.
Comment by Pat Hickey Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 12:27 pm
I would ban leaf, tree limb and trash burning above all else. My neighbor has had a smokey,smoldering stinking fire of wet, molding leaves and fresh green trimmings going for 3 days and nights. The fires of hell will not smell like brimstone; it will smell like this.
Comment by i d Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 12:39 pm
How about this cunundrum ??- S.B. 2568
Will the medical marijuana bill go up in smoke as well?
Not to worry - common sense will dictate - now let’s hear froma Dictator!
Comment by Pat Hickey Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 12:41 pm
Banning will not actually resolve the issue. Again, outlawing tobacco can. Otherwise leave it alone or at least to local jurisdictions. The home rule provision would seem to make a statewide ban problematical. Making the substance illegal would solve that issue.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 12:46 pm
In terms of home rule, the bill sets the floor but allows home rule municipalities to pass even tighter restrictions. Home rule towns will not have the ability to opt out.
Comment by Bluefish Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 12:50 pm
No statewide ban. Let the businesses decide whether or not to ban smoking. And let those who don’t want to be around smoke to open their own establishments. Especially if you’re looking at economic advantages.
Comment by Levois Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:23 pm
Levois,
Do you favor a blanket repeal of all workplace safety laws?
Should we repeal OSHA and the mine safety laws and just let the people decide if they want to work in safe conditions?
What is your view on this?
Do you not care about restaurant workers, or are you against all government laws for the safety of workers?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:29 pm
Why don’t we try banning guns….oh wait a minute….why don’t we try banning cars too.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:42 pm
The nanny type regulations in this country are leading to a population lacking in common sense. Take a trip to the Carribean and you may well be startled at the safety measures that are just not there. Really wakes you up and puts you on guard. Some of these protections, not all, simply go too far and weaken us from our own innate sense of safety. Let’s leave room for the excersize of common sense and self choice.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:44 pm
Rich, your server is still on standard time. Obviously a nanny state failure.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:47 pm
Tru Dat, Citizen!
Comment by Pat Hickey Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:47 pm
To Anon:
Actually, we do ban people shooting people, and we ban cars from running over people.
At the same time, people have suggested that we ban smoking from areas where innocent people will be forced to inhale.
Got any others?
By the way — I hear smoking causes dementia. There appears to be real evidence in many of the posts on this topic.
To A Citizen:
Are you advocating that we adopt Carib. standards of living?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:49 pm
Well at least their weather.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:50 pm
And, Skeeter, a similarly clever question for you, dear sir.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:51 pm
See that Skeeterian logic? Flawless as always; Der Skeeter is calling for a ban on dementia - like that poor woman in the news. Skeeter, really ban the metally challenged? Now, that’s a sword that would cut two ways on you, Skeeter. Stay out of the beer halls and be a little les Putschey. Now, wait a Munich!
Comment by Pat Hickey Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:54 pm
TJ,
I am not clear on your point.
My question was not “clever.” It was directly on point. If it was not, please point out how the question was improper.
A.C.:
Would you like to work construction in Antigua? Think that would be safe? Do you advocate that we adopt those same rules here?
It is easy to complain about the “nanny state.” It is much more difficult to tell ironworkers that we should repeal OSHA.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 1:56 pm
Repeal OSHA ? I did not suggest that. I simply called for the excercise of common sense. Sorta like continuing to allow playgrounds to have teeter totters (sp?) and jungle gyms and swings. Letting workers be aware of toxic substances e.g. asbestos or radium are very reasonable regs. Common sense seems to be rather uncommon in government regulatory activities of late. And before you ask that is all I have to say on the subject, simple common sense guy that I am.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:03 pm
Pat,
Comparing Hitler to people who want to ban smoking?
What can I possibly say to that? I don’t have to point out the pure lack of coherence of Hickey any longer. He does it perfectly itself. Res Ispa.
Ramble on my friend. Keep digging.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:03 pm
Are you smart or are you stupid?
Of course you are smart. But the choices you presented were not completely either/or. On the or side there was a ton of dreck.
It was a clever question, trying to intimate there were no more than two choices.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:03 pm
A.C.,
Actually, you said that on an issue of workplace safety, the owners should make the decision.
Have I misstated your position?
If not, then I am confused:
Why should bar owners make decisions as to exposure to toxic gas (allowing employees to pick and choose among safe and unsafe bars), but mine owners should have the decision forced upon them by the government (i.e., why shouldn’t mine owners have the option of running mines that allow exposure to toxic gas and allowing mine workers to pick and choose among the mines?).
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:08 pm
TJ,
If you think my question is unfair, please point out how it is unfair.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:10 pm
I agree, flatulence in bars and restaurants should not be allowed by the owners, patrons, nor the government. Seeing eye dogs of course would be exempt. As a smoker or purist on the other hand you would be aware before entering the establishment as to what you may encounter. That’s where the common sense comes in - for both the patrons and the owners - Govt should butt out, pun intended.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:18 pm
I didn’t say unfair I said “clever”
Are you smart or are you stupid?
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:20 pm
A.C,
You still have not addressed the issue.
First, your last post makes no reference to employees. Those are the people that I care about. I really could not possibly care less about any bar patron who makes the decision to go into a smoke filled bar. The legislation was designed with the employees in mind.
That being said, why should government butt out of a bar owner’s decision to expose his employees to gas that will kill them, but a mine owner should not be allowed to do the same thing? Should government butt out of keeping employees safe from toxic fumes or not?
Show me the difference.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:22 pm
One of the arguments made against a smoking ban in DeKalb was that it should be decided at the state level, that a city was overstepping its authority to declare a ban. I wonder what the same people would say about a state ban, now that it’s being discussed.
Comment by yinn Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:23 pm
TJ,
I don’t quite understand your last post.
If you would like a response, feel free to flesh it out what you are getting at. If you are simply trying to insult me, then nice work! I will consider myself insulted if that makes your day. However, if you were actually trying to debate, then your last post was not exactly a success.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 2:25 pm
The primary toxic “gas” in a mine is methane and allowing workers into a mine with known hazardous concentrations is ILLEGAL per mine safety laws. Their is no level of concentration of tobacco smoke that is illegal. If you intend to truly protect then make tobacco illegal . . . for all.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 3:30 pm
AC,
Let me understand your logic.
According to you, because it is illegal to expose mine workers to noxious gas, we should bar mine owners from exposing mine workers from noxious gas.
However, because there is no law prohibiting bar owners from exposing bar employees from exposure to noxious gas, we should not have laws prohibiting bar owners from exposing bar employees to noxious?
You have got to come up with a better argument than that.
With regard to your comment about banning it at all times: If somebody wants to sit at home and inhale methane, I would feel bad for that person and would hope that the person would first seek psychological help, but I don’t think the government should bar it. Similarly, if somebody wants to sit at home and inhale all the chemicals in a cigarette, I would hope that the person would first seek psychological help, but I don’t think the government should bar it.
People should be able to do what they want in their own homes as long as innocent people are not impacted.
But businesses should not force people to inhale dangerous fumes just to earn a paycheck.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 3:38 pm
Ah this is where common sense comes in. If you want to work at a bar choose one that is smoke free if you want to avoid the legal substance. If you aren’t averse then work where ever you wish. There is NO illegal level of tobacco byproducts in the air, anywhere. And the air cleaners and “smoke eaters” have evolved to a quite efficient state. Clean air of an acceptable level is easily achievable. But of course it would not obviate the need of nanny stater types to mess with such mundane issues.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 3:49 pm
Public health dictates both - you need local control and a statewide minimum. Government should set a standard of health policies - prohibit smoking in all indoor public places and workplaces. Every local hearing has a bar owner saying they want a state law - a level playing field, yet they never tell their legislators that. They are all talk and no action.
Comment by Janet Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 3:55 pm
The smokescreen (pun intended) this issue provides also serves to divert attention from more pressing issues such as corruption in government and business, fair taxation(read eliminate Property Tax) delinking campaigns from the funding sources of Pay To Play. Feel free to add to the list of much more important issues - education for example, or heck why not affordable health care - how’s that for providing a setup?
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 3:56 pm
Skeeter –
No insult intended. The smart/stupid question I posed to you was precisely the questioning style you used.. Which is why I appended the first time that of course you are smart
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 3:58 pm
Hmmm. This post seems to have turned into a pi$$ing match between some posters.
Big Brother should calm these folks down. It is not interesting to read and it is unnecessary. There should be some easily accessed chat rooms where people can go and “argue”. Leave the baloney off the thread - its boring and non-productive.
Thanks
Comment by Papa Legba Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 4:04 pm
PL, you’re right. Let’s move on, people. Get back to the question at hand, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 4:07 pm
A statewide smoke-free law would protect all workers and make a level playing field for all business.
Comment by ChiDem1 Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 4:11 pm
In response to AC:
“Ah this is where common sense comes in. If you want to work at a [mine], choose one that is smoke free if you want to avoid the legal substance.”
You keep trying to distinguish mines from bars, and all you can say is that government previously made the decision that mine workers should be protected.
So, now Illinois wants to protect bar workers also. If the government is going to protect mine workers, please provide some reason that bar workers should not be protected.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 4:21 pm
The state should grant each municipality 3 licenses to be auctioned off at the municipalities’ desire.
Comment by DuPage Indy Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 4:54 pm
I don’t enjoy second hand smoke and I don’t like smoke filled bars. I appreciate non-smoking sections in eateries. But it is not the states business. This state is becoming the nanny capital of the world. Come to Illinois, we will tell you what to do, what you can’t eat, we will give you healthcare free after we take away from the nasty bad business people. I have a brain, most people do, how about if the government works on the things it is suppose to be doing.
Comment by leigh Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 4:57 pm
From what? I’ve made my point about legal vs illegal several times. If you find it beneficial to be obtuse then feel free just leave me out of it. I have enough common sense to know when I am discussing an issue with someone who . . . . !
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 6:19 pm
I am sick and tired of the government telling me what I can do, eat, etc. The General Assembly needs to concentrate on solving budget problems instead of all the frivolous bills that consume time away from making real decisions. Ooops, I forgot—they don’t know how to make real decisions.
I live in a county where there is a big push on each community to enact a smoking ban. So let it be done on a local level. We have not seen anybody close up as a result of losing business. We now frequent a restuarant that used to reek of smoke and we had quit going there because of it.
Comment by Firebelle Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 7:13 pm
AC,
“Legal v. illegal” is circular. According to you, we should outlaw what is illegal and allow what is legal. If I am mistating or misunderstanding your position, then feel free to show me where I am wrong.
The chemicals from mining are legal. The government just says that mine operators cannot force mine workers to breathe them.
By the same logic, cigarette smoke is legal. Under the proposed legislation, bar owners would not be able to compel bar workers to breathe them.
As a result, the “legal v. illegal” distinction does not hold any water.
Either we think that business has a right to expose employees to harmful emissions or we don’t. I just ask that people take a consistent position on the issue.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 7:30 pm
Let’s just cut to the chase and ban the production, sale or possession of cigarettes in the State of Illinois. I mean if they’re that freakin’ dangerous and costly to the public health system, lets see some politicians with some ‘nads here! A little testicular virility as the guv would say…
(and then I’ll set up a Tobacco Road in West Terre Haute and make a mint off of all the “illegal” traffic from Illinois… gotta luv it!)
Comment by HoosierDaddy Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 10:59 pm
Thus enduth the lesson. Thankyou HoosierDaddy !
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 14, 07 @ 11:15 pm
To HoosierDaddy
Indiana is heading down the same “slippery slope.”
* Allen County, 2007 banned in all places, except for bars, and any establishments prohibiting minors under 21 from entering. Similar to the Cook County smoking ban, muncipalities are allowed to opt out of it, such as what New Haven decided to do.
* Avon, September 1, 2006, banned in all public places except bars.
* Bloomington, January 1, 2005 banned in public buildings including outdoor dining areas. Smoking is allowed only outside at a “reasonable distance” from doors, vents, and windows - measured by whether smoke can drift inside. Also banned in bars and private clubs as of 2005.
* Carmel, March 5, 2006 banned in all workplaces, enclosed areas and common-use areas (i.e. restrooms, lobbies, etc.), nursing homes and retirement facilities, condos, and restaurants. Exempts bars that don’t employ or serve people under 21, tobacco stores and bars, private vehicles, private and fraternal clubs, and hotel/motel rooms, providing that 20% or fewer rooms are designated for smoking.
* Columbus, February 1, 2006, banned in all public places, except bars and private clubs.
* Delaware County
* Evansville, January 2, 2007 banned in most public places, except in establishments with physically separated smoking rooms prohibiting minors under 18.
* Fort Wayne, banned in January 1999 in all restaurants, except in separate, fully enclosed area(s) within a restaurant with a ventilation system. Exempted bars and bowling alleys. Effective June 1, 2007, a ban will expand Fort Wayne’s ban to include all restaurants, bars, and private clubs. It will except retail tobacco stores, and hotel rooms that are specifically designated for smoking. [7]
* Franklin, August 1, 2006 banned in all public places, except bars and private clubs.
* Greenfield, March 1, 2006 banned in all public places, but exempts bars.
* Greenwood, April 22, 2006 banned in all places, except bars.
* Indianapolis, March 1, 2006 banned in all workplaces, day-care facilities, sports arenas, and restaurants and bars serving or employing minors younger than 18. Exempts bowling alleys, tobacco bars, tobacco stores, and private clubs.
* Jeffersonville, June 15, 2006 banned in almost all public places, including restaurants. Exempts bars and private clubs.
* Kokomo, October 6, 2006 banned in all public places and workplaces, except bars, private clubs, nursing homes, and any establishments serving alcohol and not serving patrons under 21.
* Lawrence, July 1, 2006 banned in all places except bars.
* Madison,
* Morgan County, January 1, 2005 banned in all restaurants, except ones that have separate smoking rooms.
* Muncie, July 15, 2006 banned smoking in restaurants and bowling alleys, except those with attached bars that were closed off from the rest of the building. Exceptions were also made for bars and taverns.
* Plainfield, February 1, 2007 banned in workplaces, restaurants, and bars. Exempts private clubs and nursing homes.
* Seymour, July 30, 2006 banned in public places except bars and private clubs.
* Shelbyville, August 1, 2006 banned in all public places, but exempts bars.
* Speedway, September 1, 2006 banned in all indoor public places except bars.
* Valparaiso, April 1, 2007, banned in all places except bars and private clubs.
* Vanderburgh County
* West Lafayette, July 1, 2007 banned in all workplaces except homes, some hotel rooms, retail tobacco stores, tobacco bars, private clubs and outdoor areas in the city, including Purdue University’s main campus.
* Zionsville, August 10, 2006 banned in all indoor public places, including workplaces, restaurants, bars. Also banned in private clubs, like Bloomington’s ban.
Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck... Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 6:51 am
Still don’t see Vigo County on that list. Woo-hoo! LOL.
Comment by HoosierDaddy Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 10:31 am