HB 1213 is the statewide smoking ban. Plenty of words have been, will be, and should be spent discussing whether this is good public policy or not. But I just wanted to take a second to point out a bizarre bit of statutory drafting in the bill. IC 7.1-5-12-0.5 would be added to the Indiana Code to make this part of the law of the land:
Sec. 0.5. Abstaining from tobacco use is preferred, encouraged, and supported over the use of tobacco. The dignity and value of an individual are not diminished if the individual chooses to use tobacco.
First – nice use of the passive voice. It’s very difficult to tell who is doing the preferring, encouraging, and supporting here. Second – “the dignity and value of an individual?” Really? What is this doing in the bill? Is the General Assembly doing some motivational speaking? “Just because you smoke, we don’t think you’re a bad person. You’re good enough. You’re smart enough. And, doggone it, people like you.”
This language was inserted on a voice vote on a second reading amendment offered by Rep. Thompson.
My main problem with the provision is that I don’t think it has any place in the legislation. Laws should primarily express the idea of who gets to do what to whom and under what circumstances. For this bill: “You don’t get to smoke and you don’t get to let others smoke in these places. If you do, consequences x, y, and z will follow.” As to the sentiment itself, I suppose I agree with it. The dignity and value of an individual aren’t diminished when they choose to use tobacco. The diminishment occurs when it stops being a choice and starts being an addiction.
Totally agree. While I personally agree with the statement, this type of language sounds eerie in legislation. Our legislators have no business expressing opinions on behalf of the collective constituency.
So the implication, then, is that other violators of Indiana law are lessened in dignity and personal value, unless the law states otherwise? Smoke a little weed, take a drink of spirituous liquor before your 21st birthday, drive 40 in a 35, you’re ostracized? Will I be required to respect the personal worth of smokers, or is that just before the bar? This sort of thing can be tough to keep up with. How I am supposed to feel about gays? I now honor and respect the dignity of lotto scratchers and horse race players, but not somebody who bets football is loathsome? I’d be happy to do my bit, really, if the Republicans in America’s Third Worst State Legislatureâ„¢ would, say, begin respecting the dignity and value of women who chose to terminate a pregnancy and the medical professionals who help them, legally. But I’ve got a feelin’ it’s not supposed to work that way.
Meanwhile, it’s obviously still legal to try to repopulate the prairie all by yourself, and to burden the resulting progeny with monikers straight out of Children of the Corn. Guess it takes all kinds, whatever the law thinks of ’em.
Nah, no one’s dignity is diminished by lacking free will and being forced to compulsively feed their addictions every waking hour of their lives.
And certainly their value isn’t diminished. Yet for some reason insurance companies want them to pay higher premiums for the same amount of coverage.
I thought there are usually a bunch of “Whereas” and “Wherefor” etc.. in those type of proclamations.
Did a mayor declare Feb 22nd “Hug a smoker” day?
Resolutions tend to have the “whereas”s and flowery language. They usually do a pretty good job of keeping that crap out of the Indiana Code.