By Mark Bennett
The Tribune-Star
November 29, 2008 11:54 pm
—
There is no debate over one aspect of Indiana lawmakers considering a statewide ban on smoking in indoor public places.
Their decision can’t possibly please everyone.
“No. Never,” said Charlie Brown, a state representative from Gary.
Despite the inevitable conflict, the General Assembly needs to tackle the issue when its session begins in January. If they can spend ample time crafting a logical and pragmatic law to protect workers and the general public from secondhand smoke, the legislators should follow through and do just that. Indiana risks cementing its reputation as an unhealthy state with high smoking, heart disease and cancer rates. Prospective businesses pay attention to health-care costs.
This state also has a hodge-podge of ordinances, with varying levels of restrictions, in 36 counties or communities. Vigo County has one of the least restrictive, while Bloomington’s is far more comprehensive. Some towns in between have no ordinance.
Brown, who tried unsuccessfully to introduce a statewide smoking ban with various exemptions in the short 2008, thinks Indiana needs a uniform law. “Look at the confusion as you travel from community to community,” he said in a telephone interview earlier this month.
He’s right. The difference in local ordinances and the state’s weak health status are two elements of a complex issue. Brown wants to introduce a broader statewide ban in the upcoming session with no exemptions for bars, bowling alleys, casinos and horse racing tracks. He asked House Speaker Pat Bauer, a fellow Democrat, to assign the smoking bill to the Public Health Committee of which Brown is the chairman.
If his bill gets traction and actually moves forward in this session, advocates for casinos, restaurants, bars, bowlers and pari-mutuel venues will quickly line up in opposition. Brown is aware of that. “My endeavor is to have smoke-free everywhere,” he said, “but in the Indiana General Assembly there is always the friendly art of compromise.”
It’s important that those compromises get a thorough review by legislators, and not get thrown into a diluted law. The session ahead features many difficult decisions. The economic crunch threatens local governments, libraries, schools and colleges, especially as lawmakers ponder the permanence of property tax caps. Those fiscal problems rightly merit lengthy discussion and analysis. Even though the 2009 session is a long one, a public indoor smoking law should not be dealt with as an afterthought. If funding problems facing the state and its municipalities dominates the session, then the bill on smoke-free workplaces may have to wait until 2010.
To be sure, the state is behind others on this health issue. According to The Associated Press, 29 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have smoke-free laws. Next year, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah will join that list.
The dangers of secondhand smoke are clear and costly. A common rationalization for no smoking restrictions is that employees can choose where they want to work. Brown, though, worries that especially in this tight economy, some workers have no other options. He also aptly points out that taxpayer-supported medical assistance often is needed to treat people with smoking-related illnesses and diseases.
“What percentage of smokers have commercial insurance coverage, and what percentage don’t and will have to rely on public support for their health care?” Brown said.
That dilemma deserves a full hearing in the Indiana Legislature. If Hoosier lawmakers can devote the proper amount of time to that debate in 2009, they should make that commitment and pass a smart, fair smoke-free workplace law. If they’re overwhelmed by economic issues, then it’s better to take up the smoking debate in 2010, rather than passing a half-hearted law now.
Mark Bennett can be reached at mark.bennett@tribstar.com or (812) 231-4377.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.