NO SMOKING!

Since the U.S. Surgeon General reported the detrimental health risks of second-hand smoke in 1980, it has been a struggle of basic rights, between public health and personal freedom and a struggle between smokers and nonsmokers. The latter battle being more heavy-handed on one side in Bloomington, Indiana since 1987. There used to be joking about nonsmoker complaints about the smoke, but no one is laughing anymore. Second-hand smoke was a dangerous air pollutant, a carcinogen, and nonsmokers increasing didn’t want to be subjected to it. In California and New York, anti-smoking laws were going into effect, and the city of Bloomington and Monroe County were watching, but it was going to have to be done step-by-step, even though some nonsmokers wanted the action right away. There was a large question of who controlled the air in public places, and declaring that small business and big business alike were responsible for the environment in which they put their workers and patrons would ultimately become an issue of government interference in the free marketplace. Would anti-smoking legislation be economically risky, or would it enliven the economy in ways that had not been measured up until this time?

In 1987, the first baby step was taken to test the water, rather the air, around the issue. Bloomington’s City Council approved an ordinance which “bans smoking in common areas, except for shopping malls, and requires city restaurants to provide 25 percent of seating space for non-smokers.1” This is the start of the turn of tide, which was to come. This was a low risk decision by the City Council because it didn’t say many contraries to the County Municipal Code. In 1989, debate started within the Monroe County Board of Health (MCBH), and hospitals and other public buildings were taking the responsibility on their own to create no smoking policies. In 1990, the MCBH laid out a proposal to cut out smoking in Monroe County, set in three phases, to take place over a year. Within the first six months, restaurants and bars were to allow 50 percent of their seating for nonsmoking patrons, the next six months it was to be increased to 75 percent, then the final six months would be 100 percent nonsmoking.1 This caused an uproar in the business community and it did not pass in its original form.

In 1991, County buildings were declared smoke free, despite many complaints from public servants, but there were some exceptions to the rule, such as the Fire Department and areas of the Justice Building. In 1992, another stab was taken at the issue when board members Richard Owens, Dr. David Byrne, and George Hegeman proposed a strict county ordinance, saying that restaurants should ban smoking altogether, or allow smoking and not allow minors to enter.2 This did not pass, but, rather, the County decided to play it safe and stick with the 25 percent nonsmoking policy mentioned above. At this time, also, letters were being written to violators, instead of fines being issued for complaints from patrons to the health board. An ordinance that passed in 1993 said that most businesses that catered to the public in employment or patronage which were established after July 1, 1993, or relocated or changed ownership after January 1, 1996, were to be smoke free.1 There was a grandfather clause to exempt businesses already operating within Monroe County.

The county and Bloomington now began to shift gears as to who was leading who in anti-smoking legislation, when, in 1999, Dr. Anthony Pizzo, a physician and City Council member, makes his first attempt at a progressive anti-smoking policy, but is defeated.3 Dr. Pizzo is a former smoker during World War II who said that he diagnosed lung cancer at least once a week, and educated the City Council on the detriments of second-hand smoke.4 He didn’t give up this battle after this defeat, however.

By 2002, Indiana was leading the way in high excise taxes on cigarettes, standing at an average of 72 cents, but was still ranked next to last in “smoke-free worksite policy.5” Also, Indiana was rated 4th when it came to the number of pregnant women who smoked, and 1.2 million adults smoke cigarettes, and was rated 5th in the number of adult smoking prevelance.5 Dr. Pizzo had seen many other cities within the U.S. develop anti-smoking legislation that had not been detrimental to economic growth, and insisted that Bloomington take the lead to show the rest of the Midwest that it can be done here too. By this time, other health agencies within the state, county, and city were starting to see the reality of the Indiana’s failure to protect the health of its citizens.

Tobacco companies were made to pay settlements to the different states, and the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation was started. Monroe County Prevention and Cessation Coalition has emerged from this settlement also. Bloomington Hospital offered, and still offers, free smoking cessation classes. Dr. Pizzo had some more advocates on his side now, so, in early 2003 another anti-smoking proposal was brought to the table, looking to eliminate smoking in all public places in Bloomington. He used information from the Center for Disease Control, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institute for Occupational Health to strengthen his proposal.6 Indiana University also had changed its smoking policy, eliminating smoking within 30 feet of buildings.

Business owners, mostly restaurateurs and bar owners, again came running to the forefront to oppose the legislation, citing the fact that it was detrimental to their personal freedom as players in the competitive free marketplace, and that it could cause them to go bankrupt or lose their businesses, and cause other businesses not to come into Bloomington. There was an interest group formed called the Bloomington Businesses for the Preservation of Liberty, so that their voices of opposition would be unified and stronger. There was a push by bar owners, in particular, that this ordinance, if passed, needed to allow time for its implementation in places that smoking is a common practice. This issue had a two-way argument, in which business owners were split. One argument, of course, said that the proposal could drive them out of business, but another argument presented by others was that the proposal would help them save on the costs of health care and maintenance of indoor equipment. Andy Storms, Video Saloon bartender, spoke up during a debate on the proposal and said:

“‘This ordinance affects my livelihood, my business and the charities I donate to. Please think about this as you think about restricting the rights of adults using a legal product on private property. If you want to stop smoking, tax the hell out of it, but let me keep my job.6’”

The Libertarian Party in Indiana took a stand against this proposal, saying, “It’s not the government’s job to set cultural norms,” such as changing society’s view on smoking.7 The issue of personal freedom was also a double-edged sword. Smokers said the proposal limited their freedom to use a legal product anywhere they wished to, and nonsmokers said that the proposal protected their freedom to not have to breathe in the deadly second-hand smoke in an enclosed public place. Another objection to the proposal was the likelihood of enforcement, and how to get tourists, who often come into town for sporting events, to follow the rules.

Despite all of this rhetoric and debate, ordinance 03-06 was signed on March 27, and passed with an 8-1 vote, with only small changes to the original proposal. Restaurants would have until August 1 to comply with the smoke-free policy, and bars would have until January 1, 2005 to prepare for it.8 Restaurateurs did not like this change, however, saying that it created an advantage for bars to entice smoking customers, while they could not. This voice was not strong enough to deter the enactment of the ordinance. The bars took advantage of the situation while they could, and yet other eating establishments took action to become exempt from the smoke-free clause by eliminating service to minors. These acts to preserve a competitive advantage, however, is only temporary, and is fading fast. Meanwhile, Jon Macy, member of the Monroe County Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Coalition said that the group plans to help local businesses “transition toward a ‘smoke-free’ Bloomington.9”

Even though this ordinance is in place, the debate over personal liberty and public health remains. Who controls the air, and what happens when a harmful substance is released into it without the consent of the majority of citizens, but not the whole? How clean should the air be, and what substances should be eliminated? The government agencies have decided to protect the public from the menacing substance, nicotine, regardless of the hindrance this places on the personal freedom of smokers and business owners who cater to them. On the personal liberty side of the coin, the outcry of many is what will be the next thing the government decides to ban. Health practitioners, however, argue that letting the population slowly kill themselves with second-hand smoke, and smoking in general, would be irresponsible. As for what substances should be eliminated from the air, Roger Gardner of Ellettsville, a smoker, said the government is going after those who smoke and is not concerned about the more prevalent deadly emissions of carbon monoxide from cars, and also said, “when everyone decides to quit driving their cars, I’ll give up smoking.10” Although smoking in public places will be outlawed, smokers will still go outside and smoke, or choose to stay home and take pleasure in their addiction. Policymakers are hopeful that this ordinance will cause casual and social smokers to kick the habit.

The action taken by the Bloomington City Council has prompted Monroe County, and even Indianapolis to look closer at anti-smoking legislation. The studies of how it affects business in other cities across the U.S. who implement no smoking polices have been promising, so the Bloomington city officials believe that this will sweep the Midwest, and, most likely, the country.




1 Asher, Gena. “Smoking ban worries restauranteurs.” Hoosiertimes inc. 27 Feb. 1990. www.heraldtimesonline.com. Viewed on 25 Oct. 2004.

2 Dworkin, Andy. Hoosiertimes.inc. 3 Sep. 1992. www.heraldtimesonline.com. Viewed on 27 Oct. 2004.

3 Morin, Sarah. “Pizzo has support for smoking ban—but will it be enough to get passed?” Hoosiertimes, inc. 6 Jan. 2003. www.heraldtimesonline.com. Viewed on 13 Oct. 2004.

4 Holladay, Ruth. “Indiana cities are waking up and smelling the smoke.” Indianapolis Star. 08 Apr. 2003. http://www.no-smoking.org/april03/04-14-03-1.html. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Viewed on 15 Sep 2004.

5 “Indiana’s Tobacco Burden.” Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation. www.itpc.in.gov. Viewed on 15 Sep 2004.

6 Maidenberg, Micah. “City debates smoking ordinance.” Indiana Daily Student. 13 Mar. 3003. http://www.idsnews.com/subsite/story.php?id=15498. Viewed on 25 Oct. 2004.

7 “Bloomington smoking ban not worthy of imitation.” The Libertarian Party of Indiana. http://www.lpin.org/press/releases/1003b2003.htm. Viewed on 25 Oct 2004.

8 Ordinance 03-06. Bloomington City Council. 27 March 2003. www.bloomington.in.gov. Viewed on 15 Sep. 2004.

9 Von Rohr, Kathlyn. “Eateries mark smoke-free year.” Indiana Daily Student. 9 Aug. 2004. http://www.idsnew.com/story.php?id=24109. Viewed on 15 Sep 2004.

10 Gardner, Roger. “Hypocritical on issue.” Letters to the editor. Hoosertimes.inc. 10 March 2003. www.heraldtimesonline.com. Viewed on 25 Oct. 2004.