Not quite totally smoke-free:
Some Indiana lawmakers are pursuing a statewide public smoking ban again this year, but it appears they will have to make an exception at least for casinos if the measure is going to win the votes of a budget-minded legislature.
[. . .]
More than a dozen people spoke at the committee hearing Wednesday, but input from the nonpartisan Indiana Legislative Services Agency might prove to be the biggest factor in the bill's fate. The LSA estimates that state government will lose as much as $190 million per year in gambling taxes if people can't smoke in casinos.
Those who pass this kind of selectively applied law usually say something like, well, that's politics for you. We get what we can when we can, and then we'll come back for something more later on when the atmosphere is more conducive.
But the result is an intellectual incoherence that is hard to defend. If secondhand smoke is that bad, isn't it as harmful in a casino as it is anyplace else? Are the employees of Blue Chip Casino less deserving of having their health protected as the employees of the neighborhood tavern? And the anti-smoking crusaders seem to disbelieve -- or at least ignore -- claims by businesses saying customers and money will be lost because of a ban. Why believe the claims of casino owners? Do gamblers need their nicotine hits more than drinkers?
But in a state that requires seaat belts but not motorcycle helmets, intellectual coherence is probably not a major consideration.
Comments
Dear Leo, Good editorial.You are right that once you start crafting such a law with exceptions you can't get off the slippery slope and you lose any semblance of logic and fairness.When we passed our first smoking ordinance in 1998 we did it for restaurants and workplaces. But new data came out from finland showing 30 minutes exposure to second hand smoke is enough to increase blood clotting to trigger a heart attack and the new Surgeon General report stated only total elimination of second hand smoke is correct.Then we changed our law to essentially a complete ban which was the only logically consistent position.As you know I usually vote toward the libertarian side of the spectrum and would vote against mandatory seat belts,motorcycle helmets,restrictions on salt,sugar,fat,etc because with those things you only hurt yourself. My guiding principle on regulation is government should only be involved if the action of one citizen hurts another person or their property. The smoking ordinances always caused me severe intellectual heartburn because I hated telling people or businesses what to do. But the scientific data absolutely proves second hand smoke hurts others so it crosses the line. You can only vote yes or no on a law not 51%for/49%against so i had to support a total elimination of second hand smoke in all indoor places John
Uhhh, Dr. Crawford states "But new data came out from finland showing 30 minutes exposure to second hand smoke is enough to increase blood clotting to trigger a heart attack ". Well, that settles it then now doesn't it?
No offense, but one would think if this data is accurate, the incidence of people keeling over would be astronomical, no?
Would somebody please produce for us a death certificate stating cause of death was "second hand smoke" please?