[Southsider2k12]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/02/05/ap6013126.html

Panel hears bill on Indiana public smoking ban
By MIKE SMITH , 02.05.09, 11:09 AM EST
pic

A bill that would impose a statewide ban on smoking in enclosed public places in Indiana ignited sometimes emotional debate before an Indiana House committee.

The lengthy hearing Wednesday before the House Public Policy Committee pitted health advocates, business leaders and people who said their lives have been torn by secondhand smoke against opponents of the bill - primarily bar owners and casino advocates.

Proponents said the bill would save lives by protecting more people from the ills of secondhand smoke and would lower health care costs. Bar owners and those who testified on behalf of casinos said it would hurt their businesses and prohibit adults from using a legal product in their venues.

The committee could vote on the bill authored by Democratic Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, next week, and if endorsed it would be sent to the full House for consideration. The ban would apply to any enclosed places where the public is allowed, including restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and casinos.

Brown has backing from a coalition called the Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air, a group of more than 30 organizations that include the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"I hope you will open your minds to the fact that we have thousands of Hoosiers working in places that allow smoking," Brown said to those who filled the House chamber. "Many of those people have no other choice because they have limited skills or no other opportunity for employment. Those are the people I am worried about."

Bruce Hetrick of Indianapolis said his wife, Pam, never smoked but died in his arms of cancer in 2003 from what doctors tied to the secondhand smoke she had inhaled during her 25 years as a journalist. She was 49.
Comment On This Story

"On behalf of our sons, please pass this bill," he said. "Pass it without a single exemption that says any working person's life is expendable. Pass it today so we can start saving lives tomorrow."

John Crawford, a doctor who was on the Fort Wayne City Council when it passed an enhanced ordinance in 2007 that outlawed smoking in all buildings where the public is invited - including bars and restaurants - said studies in states with long-standing, comprehensive bans did not show an aggregate loss of business in those venues.

You will lose some smokers - we do not contest that," he said of those businesses. "But you will gain some nonsmokers and there are a lot more of those."

But the Indiana Licensed Beverage Association, which represents about 700 bars in Indiana, says local ordinances banning smoking in bars have forced some of them to shut down, and a statewide ban would put more out of business.

"At some point freedom of choice and personal responsibility has to come into play," said Brad Klopfenstein, executive director of the association. "There should be a place where adults can go to enjoy a legal product with other adults."

Mike Smith, president of the Casino Association - which represents 12 of Indiana's 13 casinos - predicted that banning smoking in them would put a big dent in their revenue. He said the approximately $1 billion in taxes the casinos pay state and local governments each year could be cut by 15 percent, or $150 million.

Lobbyists from Blue Chip Casino in Michigan City on Lake Michigan and Argosy Casino in Lawrenceburg on the Ohio River near Cincinnati also said that a smoking ban would cost them big money.

As of last October, 29 states, along with Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, had smoke-free laws in effect that cover either workplaces, restaurants, bars, or combinations of some or all of such places, according to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. Montana, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah had laws that were to take effect this year.

Some states with smoking bans in public places exempt casinos, although neighboring Illinois does not.

There are more than 30 counties or communities in Indiana with smoke-free ordinances of some kind, and several colleges and universities have smoke-free campus policies, according to the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation agency.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[Ang]

Where I live, for the moment, it is up to the individual owners to be smoke free or not. We have many many smoke free restaurants and bars and they are very successful. People still go there and the ban does not affect the business.

I think IN should allow the business owners to make the choice themselves. It is working here.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=46084.67

Passing smoking ban won't be easy in Indiana

Mike Smith

State Rep. Charlie Brown has a simple goal: ban smoking in enclosed public places in Indiana.

But Brown, a Democrat from Gary, knows getting his legislation through the General Assembly won't be easy.

The bill has been characterized as one that pits life or death against dollars and cents. But it's not nearly so black and white.

Bills that lend themselves to multiple arguments are often the most difficult to navigate successfully into law.

Brown's bill would ban smoking in all enclosed areas where the public is allowed, including restaurants, bars, casinos and bowling alleys. During a committee hearing on the legislation before a packed House chamber last week, proponents and opponents spoke out.

Here's a look at some of the pros and cons that came out of the meeting.

First, the life or death argument:

Several backers of Brown's bill were health advocates who said it would save lives. Former state health commissioner Richard Feldman said there is undisputed evidence that secondhand smoke causes heart and lung disease and other illnesses among many nonsmokers.

Bruce Hetrick, an Indianapolis businessman, said his wife, Pam Klein, never smoked in her 49-year life but died in his arms of cancer in 2005 from what doctors tied to secondhand smoke she had inhaled during her 25 years as a journalist.

"On behalf of Pam and our sons, please pass this bill," he said to a hushed audience. "Pass it today so we can start saving lives tomorrow."

Emotional testimony from average citizens can sometimes sway lawmakers to vote a certain way - and it could affect the fate of this bill.

Some argued that public places that allow smoking were subjecting nonsmoking workers to the ills of secondhand smoke. Brown said some people have no choice but to work in such places because they can't find other jobs, and they had a right to breathe clean air.

One businessman who has restaurants in places with smoking bans said the restrictions had made his restaurants easier to run and did not hurt business. Former state commerce secretary Michael Maurer said a statewide smoking ban could help entice some companies to locate in Indiana because their health care costs would be lower.

But others were adamant that they would see ill effects if a ban were imposed. Mike Smith, president of the Casino Association of Indiana, predicted that a ban would cost the state and local governments about $150 million of the approximately $1 billion casinos pay in annual taxes.

A bar owner in northern Indiana's Union Mills said 50 percent to 75 percent of her customers smoke, and a ban would probably put her out of business.

A lobbyist for the Indiana Licensed Beverage Association, which represents about 700 bars in Indiana, said local smoking bans already had put many bars out of businesses, costing jobs.

The arguments also veered into broader philosophical discussions of whether government had a right to impose smoking bans at all.

Michael Kole of Indianapolis said he doesn't smoke and won't go to places where it's allowed. But he said cigarettes are a legal product, and employers - not government - should decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments.

Other opponents of a ban noted that customers could choose which bars or restaurants to visit.

Feldman, the former state health commissioner, argued that government regulates many health issues and has a right to ban smoking in public places.

"Personal liberties have never been absolute," Feldman said. "Personal freedoms have always been balanced by the better public good."

The House Public Policy Committee is expected to vote on Brown's bill this week. If approved, it would go to the full House for consideration.

Bills with simple language don't always produce simple votes.

q

Mike Smith has covered Indiana's Statehouse and political scene since 1993.

[Southsider2k12]

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/200...NEWS02/90211013

INDIANAPOLIS – The House Public Policy Committee today approved a statewide workplace smoking ban, but the bill would exempt bars and casinos.

The measure also gives local governments a deadline for passing more restrictive ordinances.

House Bill 1213 means that most workplaces in Indiana, including restaurants that are open to customers under 18 years old and home-based day care centers, would be smoke-free.

But there would be a number of exemptions, including:

--Hotel rooms designated for smoking.

--Tobacco stores.

--A tobacco bar.

--Private clubs.

--Bars who have no customers or workers under 18.

--Casinos, although they would be required to have a least 20 percent of gaming positions designated as non-smoking.

The bill passed 7-5 and now moves to the full House for consideration.

Rep. Mary Ann Sullivan, D-Indianapolis, voted against the bill, saying she was disappointed in the exemptions and supports a ban on all workplaces.

But others said the exemptions made it possible for them to support the bill.

“You ought to be able to make adult decisions,” said Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City. “A business that caters specifically to adults, they ought to have some freedom in how they run the place and people ought to have freedom of whether they go in the place.”

The bill would also allow local governments to pass ordinances that are more restrictive than the state’s – but only if they are approved by Dec. 31.

Advocates of a statewide smoking ban said the exemptions mean the bill is virtually meaningless.

Tim Filler, chairman of the Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air’s grass-roots committee, said his group will work to have the exemptions removed and a stronger bill passed.

He said no law would be better than the legislation the committee passed today.

[Craig1971]

just another way of big brother taking away our rights.........

[IndyTransplant]

House Bill 1213 means that most workplaces in Indiana, including restaurants that are open to customers under 18 years old and home-based day care centers, would be smoke-free.

“You ought to be able to make adult decisions,” said Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City. “A business that caters specifically to adults, they ought to have some freedom in how they run the place and people ought to have freedom of whether they go in the place.”

Advocates of a statewide smoking ban said the exemptions mean the bill is virtually meaningless.

Tim Filler, chairman of the Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air's grass-roots committee, said his group will work to have the exemptions removed and a stronger bill passed.

He said no law would be better than the legislation the committee passed today.

Ok since I am rarely on the same page as Scott Pelath, I thought I should admit this time that he and I are in agreement.
If the advocates of a statewide smoking ban and Tim Filler think no law is better than this law, then let them pass no law. Business owners should have the right to set policies for their own establishments.

[Dave]

[rambling]

Adrienne and I went out to eat at Capozio's, an Italian restaurant we like but haven't been to in a couple of years, up on the Red Arrow Highway in Michigan a few days ago. When the server asked where we'd like to sit, we said non-smoking (personally, I smoke like a freakin' chimney, but I prefer the smell of food at a restaurant to the smell of Marlboro's), and we were told the whole restaurant was non-smoking.

When the server was walking by during our meal, I stopped her and asked how long the place had been non-smoking, and was told about three years (like I said, we haven't been there in a while). I asked why they were non-smoking, and the server told me that the owner had the place redecorated a few years back, and noticed shortly after the remodel that there were cigarette burns on the custom-made table clothes, and apparently witnessed a patron grinding out a cigarette on the new carpet -- and the restaurant was non-smoking the next day.

I've been to places with smoking bans in workplaces such as California, and it doesn't seem to have cut down on restaurant or bar patronage there. Now, when smoking bans get silly, such as places where one can't even smoke in one's car, that's silly. But, on the other hand, I have no problem with ordinances telling me I can't fire up one of my Trashfire™ cigars on an elevator (and I'm old enough to remember smoking on elevators.)

I can understand the concerns about "Big Brother" as well, but "Big Brother" is also keeping dog meat out of my hotdogs. When I worked in a cigar store ages ago, people would occasionally tell me they were considering switching to cigars because they though it might be healthier. I would laugh, then start flatly, "Tobacco is a carcinogen."

I think I had a point to make when I started typing this, but I'm not sure what it was now....

[/rambling]

[IndyTransplant]

[rambling]

Adrienne and I went out to eat at Capozio's, an Italian restaurant we like but haven't been to in a couple of years, up on the Red Arrow Highway in Michigan a few days ago. When the server asked where we'd like to sit, we said non-smoking (personally, I smoke like a freakin' chimney, but I prefer the smell of food at a restaurant to the smell of Marlboro's), and we were told the whole restaurant was non-smoking.

When the server was walking by during our meal, I stopped her and asked how long the place had been non-smoking, and was told about three years (like I said, we haven't been there in a while). I asked why they were non-smoking, and the server told me that the owner had the place redecorated a few years back, and noticed shortly after the remodel that there were cigarette burns on the custom-made table clothes, and apparently witnessed a patron grinding out a cigarette on the new carpet -- and the restaurant was non-smoking the next day.

I've been to places with smoking bans in workplaces such as California, and it doesn't seem to have cut down on restaurant or bar patronage there. Now, when smoking bans get silly, such as places where one can't even smoke in one's car, that's silly. But, on the other hand, I have no problem with ordinances telling me I can't fire up one of my Trashfire™ cigars on an elevator (and I'm old enough to remember smoking on elevators.)

I can understand the concerns about "Big Brother" as well, but "Big Brother" is also keeping dog meat out of my hotdogs. When I worked in a cigar store ages ago, people would occasionally tell me they were considering switching to cigars because they though it might be healthier. I would laugh, then start flatly, "Tobacco is a carcinogen."

I think I had a point to make when I started typing this, but I'm not sure what it was now....

[/rambling]

First I have no problem with business owners deciding to go non-smoking or anything else they choose. It appears from your story that Capozio's chose that option themselves - it was not forced on them. I too smoke and eat often at non-smoking restaurants. I moved here from Indianapolis which has a non-smoking law similar to the bill in the General Assembly now. They exempted bars, etc that did not allow anyone under 18 to enter for any reason. In Indianapolis bars and other places that allow smoking also have to post a sign prominently on the front door that they are a smoking establishment and no one under 18 could enter. This allows customers the choice to enter or not with full knowledge of what they are going into. Now because I am a smoker, I did most often eat in pubs and other places that allowed smoking, but still ate in restaurants that did not. My preference still is to allow business owners to choose for themselves and perhaps a notification law stating what type of establishment it is (smoking or non-smoking) should be considered. That type of law would at least allow consumers the knowledge to make their choices to enter or not, but still allow the business owners the right to make their own business decisions.

BTW are you sure Big Brother is keeping dog meat out of your hotdogs? Considering the current snafu with peanut butter, I would not be able to seriously state that fact on anything.

[Southsider2k12]

http://www.post-trib.com/news/elections/14...ree-212.article

Smoking ban bill advances after changes
Recommend
Comments

February 12, 2009
By John Byrne

Post-Tribune staff writer

INDIANAPOLIS -- State Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary touted poll results Wednesday showing two-thirds of Hoosiers favor a complete statewide smoking ban like the one he hoped the General Assembly would adopt this year.

Brown's colleagues on the House Public Policy Committee nonetheless exempted bars and casinos from the ban on smoking in indoor public places before voting 7-5 to send Brown's bill to the full House for more consideration.

Committee members said the state's economic tailspin makes it the wrong time to limit smoking in places that have traditionally been associated with cigarettes.

"The president of the United States was in my region this week and declared it an economic catastrophe," said Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Lakeville, whose district includes Elkhart County, which President Barack Obama visited Monday. "We can't afford to lose one more job."

Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said he was troubled by the idea of regulating behavior in "adult establishments" like taverns.

Before the vote, Brown urged the committee to adopt the full ban.

"This is about whether Indiana should be a modern, 21st century state in terms of caring for people who don't smoke," he said.

"Aren't you tired of being the caboose?"

He cited a poll unveiled this week by the Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air, showing 64 percent of Indiana residents support a smoking ban in all indoor public places.

But Brown knew from the start he faced a tough fight, noting the smoking ban proposal was a "full employment plan" for lobbyists representing the casino industry and the bar and tavern association.

The bill passed Wednesday allows more restrictive local smoking ordinances on the books by Jan. 1, 2010, to supercede the state law.

The Campaign for Smokefree Air blasted Wednesday's bill.

"It not only leaves out the most exposed and least protected workers from protection from disease and death due to secondhand smoke in the workplace, but it also regrettably and unacceptably limits the ability of local cities and towns to adopt stronger laws that do protect workers," campaign spokeswoman Patricia Parrott said in an e-mail statement.

Contact John Byrne at (317) 631-7400 or jbyrne@post-trib.com. Comment on this article at www.post-trib.com.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=52429.76

Smoking
State ban in peril

Editorial

Efforts in the Indiana Legislature to ban smoking in public places statewide could be up in smoke, an Associated Press story reported Tuesday, and that's too bad.

While the legislation could be revived later this session, the bill already exempted casinos and bars, so it would not be the comprehensive ban on smoking in public places that progressive states are adopting.

South Dakota has become the 25th state to adopt a comprehensive ban, so now fully half the states have recognized that banning smoking in public places is good government policy.

Legally, it's an issue of employees having a right to work in a healthy environment, and second-hand smoke is almost universally believed to create health risks for non-smokers.

Fundamentally, it's about changing social norms, and laws have helped reduce smoking. The new 62-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes next Wednesday will be a big incentive for smokers to quit.

"Comprehensive bans have worked in 25 states already. We Hoosiers should be farther ahead," said Sandy Gleim, executive director of Healthy Communities of La Porte County. "I'm sure they all will eventually," she said of the 50 states.

Evidence has shown that smoking bans in taverns have not hurt their business, Gleim points out.

Casinos, however, are somewhat different, since the correlation between smoking and gambling is significant. For Michigan City's Blue Chip Casino, a ban could send smokers to Four Winds Casino just over the state line in Michigan, where even if the state adopted the ban, the Indian casino probably would be exempt.

While a smoking ban would be better for the physical health of everyone in Indiana, it might hurt the economic health of Blue Chip Casino and as a result Michigan City.

On the other hand, however, as smoking becomes less socially acceptable, a smoke-free Blue Chip might draw more customers than it loses.

The Issue:

Should Indiana ban smoking in public places?

Our Opinion:

It's the healthy thing to do.

[Tim]

just another way of big brother taking away our rights.........

Like the law against murder? "It should be up to the individual"

Okay - that's extreme. And while I understand your view I don't believe it's your right to put cancer-causing 2nd-hand smoke into the area I'm eating in. I know it goes back and forth - you might say if I choose to eat where there's smoke it's not your fault. But as long as 2nd hand smoke actually kills people I think the smoking ban is a good thing.

However I also kind of agree with Ang - that if a business decided to have smoking and its employees decide to expose themselves to 2nd-hand smoke what business is it of the gov't to tell them they can't? Now, if smoking were illegal it would be one thing - but it's not.

Maybe it's a thing of where 2nd hand smoke does kill people - and if a business can't govern themselves in a fashion as to keep a fatal element out maybe the gov't must step in.

Definitely a 2-sided issue with no easy answer.

[Southsider2k12]

Like the law against murder? "It should be up to the individual"

Okay - that's extreme. And while I understand your view I don't believe it's your right to put cancer-causing 2nd-hand smoke into the area I'm eating in. I know it goes back and forth - you might say if I choose to eat where there's smoke it's not your fault. But as long as 2nd hand smoke actually kills people I think the smoking ban is a good thing.

However I also kind of agree with Ang - that if a business decided to have smoking and its employees decide to expose themselves to 2nd-hand smoke what business is it of the gov't to tell them they can't? Now, if smoking were illegal it would be one thing - but it's not.

Maybe it's a thing of where 2nd hand smoke does kill people - and if a business can't govern themselves in a fashion as to keep a fatal element out maybe the gov't must step in.

Definitely a 2-sided issue with no easy answer.

With your second part of the answer, the employee health part, this is why I actually usually fall on the side of smoking bans. Normally OSHA regulates work place safety standards. You see this all over the place where they go in and measure the amounts of toxins in the air at various workplaces, and shutdown operations that are putting people in danger. Either that or they make the companies meet certain safety standards to mitigate those hazards. It has always amazed me that OSHA has stood completely on the sidelines in this case where a known cancer causing agent is being put into the air at will, and nothing is being done about it. There are plenty of legal chemicals the government tells employers that they can't put into a workplace environment. There are many more that they are told if they are going to, they have to take steps to ensure employee health. All though it might strike a chord with some people if all of the waitstaff at a "smoking" restaurant were wearing breathing apparatuses.

[IndyTransplant]

Maybe it's a thing of where 2nd hand smoke does kill people - and if a business can't govern themselves in a fashion as to keep a fatal element out maybe the gov't must step in.

and if people can't govern themselves in a fashion satisfactory to any current government in power, then maybe the government must step in..........and that is the demise of the form of government the USA has had for 233 years. But perhaps that is what the majority wants now.

My signature statement below defines my opinion very well. Enough said.

[Ang]

Have you guys ever been in Hammer's basement on a Superbowl Sunday? People are smoking all over the place but you don't see nor smell the smoke. He's got those ozone machine thingies down there that purifies the air and IMHO they really work.

Bar and restaurant owners who allow smoking should consider investing in those machines. They're a little pricey, but well worth it I think.

[IndyTransplant]

Have you guys ever been in Hammer's basement on a Superbowl Sunday? People are smoking all over the place but you don't see nor smell the smoke. He's got those ozone machine thingies down there that purifies the air and IMHO they really work.

Bar and restaurant owners who allow smoking should consider investing in those machines. They're a little pricey, but well worth it I think.

Hammer's has a basement? I have only been to Hammers a couple of times, but really liked it.

[Ang]

Oh yea. It's nice down there too. The stairs are back by the restrooms. It's not open every day. He usually opens it for private parties (you can rent the room and get your party catered) and large events, like the Superbowl parties.

[IndyTransplant]

Oh yea. It's nice down there too. The stairs are back by the restrooms. It's not open every day. He usually opens it for private parties (you can rent the room and get your party catered) and large events, like the Superbowl parties.

Thanks Ang - I am going to have to check it out. I learn something new about MC everyday

[Southsider2k12]

http://nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/articl...c0d508071b.html

House approves smoking ban

Legislation goes to House-Senate conference committee to work on differences


INDIANAPOLIS | The Indiana House gave final approval Thursday to a statewide smoking ban that includes all indoor locations except gaming facilities.

The House voted 54-44 to send Senate Bill 175 back to the Senate with the smoking ban included. A House-Senate conference committee likely will be called next week to decide whether to keep the smoking ban in the legislation.

State Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, said he hopes the Senate will accept the House-approved smoking ban. A smoking ban with additional exemptions cleared the Democrat-controlled House earlier this session but never got a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

"This is something that we should have done three years ago. I don't think we can wait another year," Brown said.

Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said earlier this month he'd prefer to wait until 2011 before taking up a smoking ban proposal.

But Brown argued Thursday it is urgent Indiana approve a smoking ban as soon as possible.

"Why is it that we want to deny that this is something good for our constituents, to say you can go to any place, including your workplace, and not be affected by secondhand smoke?" Brown said.

Several Republican lawmakers challenged Brown, arguing that a smoking ban should not be dictated by state government, but decided in each community.

"We ought to let communities do as the communities choose in this effort," state Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, said.

Brown quickly fired back, asking, "Why did we not take that same position when it comes to guns?"

"My community would rather not have guns, but we made the decision that everybody can carry a gun wherever they want to," Brown said.

The smoking ban likely is headed to a House-Senate conference committee where legislators will work out the differences in the separately approved versions of Senate Bill 175. Any compromise reached by a conference committee still must be approved by both chambers before being sent to the governor.

[Tim]

"INDIANAPOLIS | The Indiana House gave final approval Thursday to a statewide smoking ban that includes all indoor locations except gaming facilities."

WTF?? Why are gaming facilities exempt? Fear of loss of the tax revenue they generate?

Edited to add:

"Mike Smith, president of the Casino Association - which represents 12 of Indiana's 13 casinos - predicted that banning smoking in them would put a big dent in their revenue. He said the approximately $1 billion in taxes the casinos pay state and local governments each year could be cut by 15 percent, or $150 million."

Oh.

[Ang]

http://www.heraldargus.com/articles/2011/0...83130308608.txt

Local bar owners not keen on smoking ban

By Matt Fritz
Staff writer
Published: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 5:03 PM CST

LA PORTE — “If we quit smoking in bars it would probably put me out of business,” said Ron Smutzer of Smutzer’s Club Tavern in La Porte about a proposed statewide smoking ban.

The Republican-led House voted 68-31 last week to approve a statewide smoking ban the same day that nearly 300 anti-smoking advocates gathered at the Statehouse to urge lawmakers to support the bill. Advocates in the House balcony applauded as the vote was taken, and clapped when House members said they wanted to tighten up the bill.

The proposed ban, which exempts casinos, clubs and nursing homes, also includes an exemption on bars only serving customers 21 years of age and older.

But some of those exemptions might not stay in the bill if it passes through the Senate.

Bill sponsor Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, said he hopes some of the exemptions are removed as the bill moves through the legislative process.

And Mara Candelaria Reardon, D-Munster, said people who work in smoke-filled environments shouldn’t have to choose between their job and their health.

“The time has come,” she said. “It is 100 percent about workplace safety.”

The exemptions for casinos and horse racing tracks were approved earlier in January after the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency said banning smoking in gambling establishments could cost the cash-strapped state about $190 million a year.

The House later voted to exempt bars that only admit adults over age 21 after some lawmakers argued that it was unfair to exempt casinos and tracks without exempting bars. They said bars located near casinos could lose business if smokers decided to hang out at casinos instead of at bars.

La Porte bartender Jack Trottier said a ban without exemptions would affect bar business because a lot of people coming to bars go there to smoke.

“People come to a bar to listen to music, play pool, play darts, drink alcohol and smoke,” he said. “If you don’t like to be around smoke, don’t go to bars where you could be around smoke. I‘m hoping people could have common sense. Why would you complain about it?”

Smutzer, who has been in the business for 43 years, and whose bar only serves those 21 and older, said it’s up to individual choice.

“If people don’t want to smell smoke they shouldn’t be in a bar,” he explained. “Most of our patrons smoke, and the ones that don’t aren’t bothered by it. They’re mostly older guys.”

Trottier pointed out that voters in La Porte previously shot down a smoking ban, so he didn’t think it was right that the state would force one on them. It also wasn’t good for business.

“I see a lot more smokers in bars than non smokers,” Trottier said. “So there’s more money right there.”


The Associated Press contributed to this report