[The Brazil Times nameplate] Overcast ~ 51°F  
High: 64°F ~ Low: 43°F
Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Commission looks forward to passage of bill

Monday, January 16, 2012

Kandace Brown
INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana House Public Health Committee recently passed House Bill 1149 with a 9-3 vote.

The bill, also known as the Smoke-Free Air Bill, has a six-year history in the making.

The Tobacco Prevention Commission, formerly known as the Indiana Tobacco Prevention Commission, has worked for the past 10 years to reduce the number of Hoosiers exposed to second-hand smoke.

Each year, more and more exemptions have been added to the bill to keep it from passing. This time, however, the bill made it out of committee with a single vote.

"This is a solid move in the right direction," Clay County Tobacco Prevention Program Director Kandace Brown said. "The bill isn't perfect, but it's great to see it move through committee with such enthusiasm."

The Smoke-Free Air Bill was introduced by Rep. Eric Turner (Republican) from House District 32.

It prohibits tobacco use in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Private clubs will be required to limit patrons on premises to those who are 18-older, protecting the health of children.

Casinos will be required to limit smoking to gambling floors only. No one will be allowed to smoke in any other part of a casino in Indiana.

There is also a stipulation included for cigar and hookah bars, stating they must produce 85 percent of their annual revenue from tobacco sales in order to allow smoking in their facility.

Smoking will also be prohibited within 12-feet of an entrance to any building.

Gov. Mitch Daniels, in his State of the State address, encouraged lawmakers to pass a smoke-free air bill and bring Indiana into the fold of other states that protect the health of the public.

"In this Assembly, you too must set big goals," Daniels said. "We should, at long last, enact a law to protect workers and patrons across Indiana from the hazards of second-hand smoke.

"Public support has grown and so has the evidence of health risk to workers. It is time to move this long-sought objective to the finish line."

The bill could be voted on as early as Tuesday. If the bill is voted and approved, it will take effect immediately after signed into law.

"We want to encourage our legislators to pass this bill without adding any more exemptions," Brown said.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

How great it will be to go to any resturant in clay co. and not have to smell smoke,finally IN. will catch up in protecting people.

-- Posted by brzmm on Mon, Jan 16, 2012, at 8:08 PM

AMEN to that comment HERMOT!, not only Clay County...but anywhere in Indiana soon!

-- Posted by Take Action on Mon, Jan 16, 2012, at 10:03 PM

hello brazil times

-- Posted by BUSINESS on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 12:09 AM

another example of smaller government touted by the republican party, who pays the people of the Indiana Tobacco Commission and oversees them... another posiotion created by our government who wants to downsize or so they proclaim

-- Posted by brazil citizen on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 2:45 AM

BTW i am a nonsmoker so dont ruffle your shorts i dont think it is our right to enforce others believes on others because there are other places to go if you dont like that persons personal rights and beleives

-- Posted by brazil citizen on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 2:47 AM

there is only 2 resturants in brazil that i can think of still allows smoking. why cant they leave the bars alone. you have to be 21 to enter them. I go to non smoking resturant dont bother me repecting the non smoker. but drinking kills also. so if a non smoker wants to go into a bar and take their chance on drinking and driving then the smoke shouldn't bother them

-- Posted by pepsilady on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 3:26 AM

Yayyyyy!! Another small intrusion into our daily lives! Does anyone really think we need the government to protect us from ourselves? This is about loss of a freedom, even if it was trivial. Yet another thing we have to ask the government if we have permission to do.

-- Posted by almostfootballfree on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 7:25 AM

Evidently I need the government to protect me. I cannot breathe when I am exposed to smoke. I start coughing and my sinus mucus starts running. It is very difficult on me and people around me. Should I have to limit where I go because someone else ELECTS to smoke? I don't think so. My RIGHT to breathe supersedes someone's CHOICE to smoke. Sometimes it is all about the health hazard.

-- Posted by My opinion counts on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 9:03 AM

I hope this happens fast. I play music but dont want to play in bars because of the smoke. I chose not to smoke and shouldn't be forced to breath someone's smoke. We're not living in the 1950s and we know what smoking does to the human body now.

-- Posted by JimJim69 on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 9:30 AM

brazil citizen....the tobacco commission was created around 2000, when the tobacco industry was sued by several states for all the death they had caused ...due to their lying about their products. No state tax monies are used. All this information can be found at in.gov.

-- Posted by Take Action on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM

JimJim69...I hope it does too so maybe I can actually go out and enjoy locally played live music!!

-- Posted by Take Action on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 11:18 AM

almostfootballfree...this policy isn't necessarily protecting me from myself....but protecting everyone from secondhand smoke....even smokers.

-- Posted by Take Action on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 2:48 PM

Why is the Government in every aspect of the American People's personal choices!

Pepsilady, thank you for that demographic statement. This town is very small, there aren't many venues that exist in due to the economy. And now the issue at hand is "smoking"!

The government possed a law to be 19 to purchase tabaco and 21 consume alcohol.

JimJim69, If this does go into effect, you will have "slim pickings" to share your talents.

-- Posted by BUSINESS on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 5:58 PM

I've had my problems with smoking; but I've always respected the non-smokers and do not smoke in public places. I also feel bad for the smokers because their rights are being taken away piece by piece. I have been to four casinos in Indiana and the only place you can smoke in them is on the gambling floor (except the non-smoking floors) and your hotel room (except at the hotels that no longer allow smoking.) There is no smoking allowed in the park now. Pepsilady is right...there are 2 restaurants in Brazil that allow smoking. I'm wondering where the nonsmokers go and get so sick because of the smoke when I don't see it in public anymore? Are the nonsmokers saying that now those 2 restaurants in town are going to be so crowded with non-smokers that I won't have a place to sit? (Yeah right!)

-- Posted by peace22 on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 8:28 PM

Peace22, it's not the restaurants as much as the bars. When we play we are there for 5 or 6 hours so imagine how much second hand smoke you can inhale in that time and what about the staff at these places. Smoking does kill and I don't understand why some people don't see it or just don't care.

-- Posted by JimJim69 on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 9:37 PM

peace22 ...the rights of the smoker are not being taken away, they can still smoke, they just cannot smoke in a public place. We must remember everyone has to breathe.....it is a choice to smoke. It is makes more sense for a smoker to walk outside and smoke than for a non smoker to run outside and breathe....

-- Posted by Take Action on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 1:50 AM

"Yayyyyy!! Another small intrusion into our daily lives! Does anyone really think we need the government to protect us from ourselves? This is about loss of a freedom, even if it was trivial. Yet another thing we have to ask the government if we have permission to do.

-- Posted by almostfootballfree on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 7:25 AM".

Yep! You can make this a smoker vs non-smoker issue as most of you already have but this really is a right to choose issue as "almostfootballfree" posted. Independant business owners should hae the right to decide....for themselves....if thier establishment is going to be a "non-smoking" establishment.

Indiana....America....wake the heck up! oh wait....Uncle Sam may I get up now?

-- Posted by Proud of My Country on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 1:43 PM

Thank you all for the mature and respectful way the hot debate of a smoking ordinance is being discussed.

I have said this before and I will continue to take this stand; This is a health issue. The Center For Disease Control, in complete agreement with the Surgeon Generals Report states there is NO safe level of second hand smoke.

This conclusive data should be all that is needed for people to do the right thing and protect their employees. It is one of the easiest practices to put in place. If you smoke, take it outside.

However, owning a business and having the Government step in and mandate how your business is run triggers emotional explosions from many. I get that. I am married to a business owner. I am not a fan of big government and I am a conservative at heart. But when I hear this issue categorized using party lines I am always stopped in my tracks. The only agenda for a smoking ordinance is to protect all employees and general public from the toxic carcinogens found in second hand smoke.

Cigarette smoke is toxic soup of more than 7,000 known chemical compounds. Secondhand smoke is

composed of sidestream smoke (the smoke released from the burning end of a cigarette) and exhaled

mainstream smoke (the smoke exhaled by the smoker). Tobacco smoke contains thousands of different chemicals that are released into the air as particles and gases. The particulate phase of cigarette smoke includes nicotine, "tar" (itself composed of many chemicals)The gas phase includes carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein. According to a November 2001 report issued by the National Cancer Institute, there are 69 known or probable carcinogens in cigarette smoke.

What reasonable, compassionate, and rational person would not want to protect those whom they are responsible for while in their care of employment?

And yet...as stated by -my opinion counts- "Evidently I need the government to protect me"

Just because one knows better does not mean one will do better. Therefore the Government steps in.

The need for a smoking ordinance stands alone. It needs no comparison to drinking and driving under the influence, obesity and fast food, texting while driving, or pollution and water safety, to validate or discredit it's merit.

Validation comes from this undisputed FACT: Second hand smoke is toxic and makes people sick. Second hand smoke kills.

The majority of the population are non smokers. Why have we been compliant and allowed this toxic habit to affect us for so long? I think the answer lies somewhere between not truly understanding the risks, not wanting to ruffle relationships, and not wanting to be accused of telling people what they can and can not do.

I also wish to state I know many people who care for the safety of others around them by going outside to smoke. To market smokers as uncaring, self-serving addicts, would be most disingenuous.

-Take Action- said it best:

"We must remember everyone has to breathe.....it is a choice to smoke. It makes more sense for a smoker to walk outside and smoke than for a non smoker to run outside and breathe....


Kandace Brown

Clay County Tobacco Coalition

-- Posted by yestosmokefree on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 2:32 PM

There are many, MANY things which are bad for us that the government doesn't need to get involved with. If a restaurant serves big greasy burgers to an overweight heart patient, should the government step in and stop it? And before the argument is used that it doesn't affect others, stop and think what if that person is on medicaid, or medicare for that matter, doesn't it affect all of us in tax dollars that they aren't trying to be healthy? And their families, isn't it affecting them that this terrible restaurant is offering such harmful things? Now I know this case seems extreme, but it really isn't. Today, nobody wants to accept consequences for their decisions. If a business wants to allow smoking, it should be allowed to. Eventually, either the smokers would keep it in business, or it would fail. That's what the free market is. If you want to eliminate smoking at the library, or post office, or courthouse, go ahead, but the more intrusions we have into business, the more de-sensitized we become when it comes to having the government over-stepping it's bounds. I don't smoke. I used to, but I know that if I ran a business, I would want it to succeed or fail because of the business decisions "I" made, not the government.

-- Posted by almostfootballfree on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 6:36 AM

Eating a big greasy hamburger only hurts the person eating it. Smoke harms smokers, who have a right to smoke, but non smokers should not have to breath second hand smoke.

By the way, I feel the 2 restaurants will have more business because I know many people who will not go to these 2 restaurants due to second hand smoke. Texas Road house always had a long line waiting to be seated in the non smoking area but there was always seating in the smoking area, so no smoking does work for the owners.

People who smoke have a right to smoke, people who don't have a right not to breath second hand smoke.

-- Posted by Tracy Jones on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 4:08 PM

Do you enjoy a campfire? Do you drive a car? You choose to do many things that puts toxins in the air by using things, but the advocates of "tobacco prevention" wish only to tell business owners and patrons what they can do on private property. This bill is nothing more than government involvement in private affairs, one more step closer to the government what we can do or cannot do from cradle to grave.

As to the effect on business, it is not going to be the franchises that lose money. It will be the small businesses. This effect has been documented nationally in Ireland and Australia, as well as parts of this nation with smoking bans because if smokers have no place where they can smoke they just stay home.

A person has a right to breathe the cleanest air they can find, they do not have the right that someone else provide it for them. I raised a child who had a severe allergy to corn pollen but I dealt with it without demanding that no one grew corn.

This issue is not and never has been about "public health" or even health in general. It is about power and control. It is advocated by people who see what others do as a choice they want to stop while they choose to put just as much poison in the air by other means. Their choice is okay though. When they go live in a cave without fire, then I say they can gripe but very few will hear them. Until then choose to control your own body by avoiding the things you think are harmful but leave others to do as they will.

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 8:51 AM

ALMOSTFOOTBALLFREE said it in a nutshell. I completely agree with this post and I AM a smoker, but do not smoke inside my home (or businesses) because I don't like the smell of it on my clothes and in my hair.

I have to chuckle though, at the thought of the BINGO halls business once this is enforced. I used to love to play, but the chain-smoking inside caused me to stop playing all together.

-- Posted by Emmes on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 11:53 AM

I have to laugh at all of the people claiming business will actually increase in places like bars. If that is the case, you guys missed a golden opportunity.

This is suppose to be the land of the free. Instead of imposing your will on private business, why didn't you take advantage of it. According to YOUR own logic, you could have opened a non-smoking only bar and run all of the other ones out of business. However, now that you are opening up the doors to government controlled private industry, you no longer have that option.

See how that works?

-- Posted by olmedic on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 1:16 PM

Smokers just don't get it and never will.Keep up the good work Kandace.

-- Posted by brzmm on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 11:49 PM

My grandma smoked 3 packs of Viceroy a day. She died at age 88. Doctor's could have said if she didn't smoke, she may have lived to see 89.

-- Posted by Dagnabbitt on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 7:23 AM

Oh, one more thing. The article stated "It prohibits tobacco use in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Private clubs will be required to limit patrons on premises to those who are 18-older, protecting the health of children." How far behind is McSmokers Lounge, a private entrance to McDonalds for members only? Or Bill's Bar, MEMBERS ONLY? To obtain a membership, show us your cigarette pack. ANY bar can become PRIVATE! Either eliminate smoking all together or forget it.

-- Posted by Dagnabbitt on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 7:32 AM

I have a problem with the argument that going smoke free will increase business. Then why is the only smoke-free bar in town, the one that is struggling the most? I like timeout but it doesn't do near the business that the Alabama or Gooseneck does. Now I'm not saying they are busier specifically because they allow smoking. But so many people on here have said they would go out more if the bars were smoke free. Why don't they go to Timeout?

-- Posted by carnie0069 on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 12:33 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: