Indianapolis already has a limited smoking ban. For the most part, the only places you can smoke are bars which do not employ or allow entrance to anyone under the age of eighteen, smoke shops, and bowling alleys. Smoke Free Indy, an anti-smoking activist group, is leading the charge to strengthen the ban and remove pretty much all existing exemptions.
Proposal 371, which would extend the ban, passed out of committee on October 14. It will go before the entire City-County Council on October 26. Potentially adding some strength to their position, a report from the Institute of Medicine was released the next day which supports smoking bans as an effective tool in improving public health. The folks at libertarian-minded Reason published a response to the report on their blog which questions the strength of their conclusions and provides other good background material.
I think it's pretty clear that smoking isn't the greatest lifestyle choice to maximize longevity. Second-hand smoke (apparently also called "passive smoking") also has an adverse impact on health. We can all make our choices about smoking and, in today's anti-smoking world, spend most all of our time avoiding second-hand smoke if we choose to do so. Smoking is legal. Adults should be able to congregate in public places to smoke.
After spending a few hours of research on this subject, there is reason to be cautious in determining the magnitude of the health risk posed by second-hand smoke. But, to me, that's not really the whole issue. Owners of private property who operate an adult establishment should have the choice to allow smoking. A continuing escalation of smoking bans is an infringement on private property rights and personal liberty.
As an end note, the Marion County Health Department commissioned a report which was released in February 2002 on the economic impact of second-hand smoke in Marion County (Indianapolis). You can read the report here. It estimates that the health care costs due to second-hand smoke in 2000 were over $50M. I find it a bit amusing that in most economic studies, money being spent is equated to creating jobs and helping the economy. I guess there is a difference between good spending and bad spending.
2 comments:
Can anyone show or prove where a smoking ban has saved anyone any money in insurance premiums? Can anyone show me where anyones taxes have been reduced as a result of a smoking ban?
If the Heath care industry loses 50 million in business does it mean they will close hospitals, lay off workers or just raise their cost to offset their losses like utility companies do?
Billy,
I think you're questions and criticisms are valid. The evidence is spurious. It is also true that health care costs would likely just be shifted to others.
Post a Comment