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.
