Indiana-Why Indy's behind the pack

November 2, 2009

With all the thousands of dollars antismoking advocates have spent on all the hundreds of surveys and polls in these ban fights, there's one survey you will never, never, NEVER see them conduct:

A survey of the workers they're claiming to be acting on behalf of.

Given the IndyStar's editorial position, I challenge it to stand by its beliefs and show its dedication to the truth with two acts:

1)  Conduct an unbiased secret-ballot survey of all bar workers whose jobs would be affected by a ban to see what they REALLY want.  Have the survey designed, vetted, and overseen by representatives from both sides with whatever oversight is necessary to ensure its validity.  Ensure that any pre-vote lobbying/advertising/education of the affected population be evenly funded and presented. Have it paid for out of the $14,000,000.00 SmokeFreeIndy is spending every year to push things like this down people's throats.

and .....

2) Challenge SmokeFreeIndy, both the organization and its leaders in person, as well as any councilpeople voting for a ban, to stand by the truth of their claims that it will not hurt affected businesses.  Do this by authorizing an unbiased accounting to determine the relative growth or loss of the affected businesses under the ban as compared to nearby areas without a ban during at least the first three years of the ban's implementation and legally binding SFI and those leaders and councilpeople to cover the losses they claim will not occur *IF* they occur. Most of the business opposition to the ban would immediately dissolve and the ban would pass.
 
If the smoke-banning folks are telling the truth they should be happy to immediately agree to such legal binding since they believe they'll lose nothing.  If they're lying they'll run faster than greased lightning.
 
IndyStar, you're the voice of the people in Indianapolis. You're in support of a smoking ban.  You're the only one with the power to make these two things happen.
 
If you, the IndyStar editorial board, believe in your stance you should advance these two challenges and if you're right in your beliefs then the ban will come about.
 
Stand by your words.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

-------------
Why Indy's behind the pack
Streak of individualism, lack of a health culture block smoking ban
November 1, 2009
Read

---

Star indulges tyranny of anti-smoking health police
February 22, 2009
The Star's Feb. 18 editorial supporting a statewide smoking ban in virtually all workplaces is one more signal of how far wrong the paper has gone ("Workers deserve tougher smoke ban"). Like most self-appointed health police, the anti-smoking crowd ignores every other criterion in order to promote its objective -- the end of smoking.
The health police ignore economics, blithely brushing aside concerns over lost income for bars and casinos by saying, in effect, "They'll get used to it." But even more troubling is that The Star is ignoring the right that each of us has to enjoy, or not enjoy, a legal product. The Star also ignores the rights of business owners to operate their businesses to maximize revenue.
Read

A Hoosier smoking ban? What for?

BY JOHN NOTHDURFT
February 12, 2009

While Indiana's legislature and citizens debate the merits of a draconian statewide smoking ban, business owners are already taking steps to balance the wishes of the smoking and nonsmoking populations.

Government intervention is not the only way to protect citizens from the nuisance and claimed health hazards associated with smoking in public places.

Personal choice, market forces, and business logic already have made the proposed statewide smoking ban nothing more than another heavy-handed government regulation that will hurt the state's economy.

Many businesses have already gone smoke-free or otherwise tailored their establishments to attract nonsmokers, and many more will undoubtedly follow suit as smoking rates continue to decline in the state. Most Hoosiers -- nearly 76 percent -- are not regular smokers, and businesses want to attract them as customers.

The increase in nonsmoking restaurant, bar, hotel, and gambling spaces in Indiana over the years clearly indicates the marketplace is adapting to Hoosiers' decreasing willingness to be around tobacco smoke. Making the state government a de facto nanny is neither wise nor necessary. Just as homeowners have the right to decide whether to allow smoking in their private homes, businesses should have the same right.

Implementing a smoking ban will unquestionably drive down state and local tax revenues. Hoosiers need only look to their neighbors to the north for a glimpse of things to come. Since Illinois' smoking ban took effect in January of last year, the cumulative adjusted gross receipts of the state's casinos calculated up until November were down a whopping 20.28 percent from the same time frame prior to the ban. In addition to lower receipts -- and therefore lower tax revenue for the state and local governments -- Illinois casinos were forced to lay off 12 percent of their employees.

While some of this can be attributed to the sinking economy, casinos in Indiana and Iowa -- two neighboring states without smoking bans -- continue to perform well. The real culprit is clearly Illinois' statewide smoking ban. In addition, research shows businesses in states with relatively colder climates, such as Indiana, are harder hit by smoking bans than warmer states.

At stake for the Hoosier state are not only tax revenues, tourism, and jobs in a sluggish economy, but also the state's attitude toward basic property rights. A respect for property rights requires leaving business owners free to make decisions on their own, with the marketplace rewarding or punishing them for their choices. Respecting property rights is crucial to making Indiana attractive to businesses and high-productivity workers.

Indiana's adult smoking rate is continuing to decline, reaching a low of 24.1 percent in 2007. That's why businesses are steadily making their establishments more nonsmoker-friendly -- without additional government intervention.

Further harassing the smoking minority -- who are using a legal product, after all -- and the businesses that cater to them is wrong and will hurt the state's economy. The marketplace, not government, is the best and fairest mechanism for accommodating Hoosiers' wants and concerns.

John Nothdurft ( jnothdurft@heartland.org) is a legislative specialist for The Heartland Institute. He can be reached at (312) 377-4000. The opinion expressed in this column is the writer's and not necessarily that of The Times.
John Nothdurft
The Heartland Institute
Legislative Specialist, Budget and Tax Policy
19 South LaSalle Street #903
Chicago, IL 60603
Ph: 312-377-4000 x122
Cell: 662-801-2707
www.heartland.org
Read

---

IPCPR Casts Doubt on Need for Statewide Indiana Smoking Ban
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana January 20, 2009 – Proponents of a statewide Indiana smoking ban should take another look at the so-called facts on which they are basing their opinions, said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association.
“Reasonable doubt by fair-minded people is being cast on results of surveys that are based primarily on anti-tobacco spin rather than scientific evidence,” said McCalla who represents more than 2,000 premium cigar manufacturers and retailers – mostly mom-and-pop operators of cigar stores.
McCalla said that the studies showing lower rates of health issues in areas impacted by smoking bans represent coincidental factors that should not necessarily be attributed to the bans.
“The anti-tobacco people are grasping at straws when they flatly credit such results to smoking bans. So many factors are involved in such unscientific studies that it is impossible to confidently claim such health benefits from smoking bans,” McCalla said.
For example, McCalla said, more businesses than ever are declaring themselves smoke-free. He emphasized that that’s the way it should be and that legislated bans are not the way to go.
“Business owners have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their premises. And no one is forcing employees or patrons to go into a place of business where smoking is allowed if they don’t want to. Let the market decide, not government legislators. These are not times to be putting more businesses in jeopardy,” he said.
McCalla was referring to information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics included in data available from the Federal Reserve Bank that found statistically significant employment declines resulting from smoking bans,  especially in bars and restaurants.
Those who claim negative health factors associated with secondhand smoke should also check their information, McCalla said.
“Read the Surgeon General’s 2006 report and not just the biased comments regarding the report and you will see that the report is filled with what it calls ‘inconclusive evidence’ regarding secondhand smoke,” said McCalla.
“Based on that report, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration established secondhand smoke standards well above the range which might be found in any bar or restaurant. In addition, air quality testing in such workplaces conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and even the American Cancer Society confirms that results of air quality testing of secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants was well within limits established by OSHA,” he said.
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

Why not just outlaw it all? Smoking ban talk is another control movement
By KELLEY CURRAN, Local Columnist
July 29, 2008
— Today marks the beginning of a new movement. Its goal is to save thousands of lives, including innocent children with no choice in being subjected to risk of injury and death.
Many heroic movements to save lives have come before. This movement is different due to its scope. If successful, the one proposal at the heart of the movement will reduce the risk of injury or death in this area, not by a fraction, but completely. Everyone interested in protecting lives must join together to prevent the deaths of more than 40,000 Americans annually.
Some will argue big government is dictating our lives. Some will say such a move will cripple the economy. What are such concerns in comparison to lives saved? Regardless of the concerns and consequences, driving must be banned immediately before the next needless death.
The principle behind this proposal is well established and accepted. Statistics drawn from studies show a risk of harm from an activity, therefore, the activity should be restricted or banned, or if it is shown a particular behavior can decrease the risk of injury or death it should be required by threat of arrest or seizure.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tells us: “In addition to the 15,383 lives saved in 2006 by seat belts, 2,796 lives were saved by frontal air bags, motorcycle helmets saved 1,658 lives, 21-year-old minimum drinking age laws saved 890 lives, and child restraints (child safety seats and lap/shoulder belts) saved 425 lives. An additional 5,441 lives would've been saved in 2006 if all unrestrained motor vehicle occupants involved in fatal crashed had worn their seat belts; and if all motorcycle riders had been helmeted, then an additional 752 lives would have been saved.”
The combined number of deaths claimed prevented by both already-in-place and proposed precautions only equal approximately 50 percent of all traffic fatalities. This strongly suggests that regardless of safeguards in place, a significant number of deaths will occur if the activity continues. If driving was eliminated, traffic fatalities would decrease by 100 percent!
The superiority of the argument for banning driving altogether is even more evident when considering many of the saved lived cited above are estimates. In the case of saying seatbelts or other measure did save lives, NHTSA is really counting times that it appeared, after an incident in which someone did not die, that if a precautions had not been taken, the individual maybe would have died.
In order to get to that 50 percent of traffic fatalities prevented, you must include those cases when lives would have been saved. This is similar to those saved, but takes an extra leap. The cited lives saved are only numbers, projects of what might be the case if some actions were taken, but they weren't, so we can only estimate.
“Eliminating driving would prevent all driving-related fatalities” is clearly more straight-forward than even these noble prior arguments to save lives with laws.
Our embracing of smoking bans further illustrates our grasp on the correctness of this thinking. The risks related to and deaths caused by tobacco smoke are even trickier to estimate, the science shakier, than traffic fatalities. The illnesses associated with smoking, such as cancer and heart disease, have many potential causes and many sufferers will have more than one risk factor. There is only so much certainty that can be had about which risk factor was the actual cause or contributor to the illness that caused the death, and again, when you get to how many people will or will not die from smoking in the future, those lives only exist on paper.
The risks of second-hand smoke are even less solid. All the cause-of-death complexities apply as above, only since there was less exposure to the smoke, even greater consideration must be given to the long list of potential risk factors as well as the possibly exponential effects of their interactions with each other. Virtually all lives saved by eliminating second-hand smoke exist only on paper. Last year's traffic fatalities were real people, every one.
Though we rightly embrace anti-smoking measures, and the connection between the smoke and death is more questionable, the enforcement of these measures is more difficult than enforcing a driving ban would be. Eliminating smoking requires telling the owners of private businesses and property what they and their guests can do. To prohibit indoor, private activity, it is necessary to enter the property and see if the activity is occurring.
Driving occurs primarily on public property. No violation is required to see if it is going on. Some helicopters, maybe some cameras, are about all you would need. One person smoking a cigarette is hard to pick out at a distance. A vehicle with noise and lights is harder to hide. It isn't practical to eliminate all buildings that smoking could occur in. Roads really wouldn't be that hard to demolish.
Gun control advocates have helped blaze the trail all those of conscience must now travel. These groups have long cited the numbers of gun deaths that would not have occurred if the right laws were in place. They've had the vision to understand highlighting child deaths would be particularly effective. These tactics are appropriate and the logic solid. However, some statistics show more young U.S. children die driving each year than from guns. Outlawing driving is the clear priority.
Together we can.
Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran always writes her columns while safely buckled into her desk chair, wearing a helmet. Write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com
Read

Indiana bill on statewide smoking ban in public places dies

January 23, 2008

INDIANAPOLIS — A bill that would impose a statewide smoking ban in most public places in Indiana has died.

The House Public Policy Committee heard only brief testimony on the bill today before its chairman, Rep. Trent Van Haaften of Mount Vernon, said there was no more time to consider it.
The deadline for House bills clearing that chamber's committees is Thursday, and the time consumed considering the session's top issue — property tax relief and reform — has caused a backlog of committee action.

The bill would have banned smoking in most public places, with exceptions for bars, bowling alleys and casinos. The bill's author, Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary, pledged to push the legislation again next session.
Read