"I think I’ll have a drink."—Elliott Ness’s alleged comment on being told Prohibition had ended.

   Is a discussion of Indy’s smoking ban, set to take effect on June 1, necessary? After all, as I was told by one person yesterday, any debate is "over because we won." Some would call such a claim hubris. Others, less polite, would characterize the claim as something else.

   The Volstead Act—the Nineteenth Amendment, Prohibition—banned sales of alcohol in the United States. There were—still are—many problems associated with consumption of alcohol. This country learned that whatever harm results from consumption of alcohol, the harm from its prohibition is far greater. Never has an amendment to the Constitution been repealed. The Nineteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment only 13 years after the Nineteenth was ratified.

   Statutes and ordinances are passed each day. Some would suggest we have too many statutes and ordinances in America. In 1976 I read there were over two millions laws—Federal statutes, State statutes, local ordinances—in the United States. With so many laws, one reasonably can question the legitimacy to claim "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If there is no sources that accurately tells us the number of laws we have, that itself is ignorance.

   Today we stream "live" at 11 a.m. from the Indy Cigar Bar to discuss Indy’s smoking ban.

   The people who want to ban use of tobacco want control on he matter. They do not want to "debate" the matter, having already won the point in the City-County Council. The purpose of The Show is to have civil discourse about matters of importance. I smoke a cigar in the evening. I like to go to bars to relax. There are bars in which smoking was not been allowed pre-ordinance. Those bars responded to market forces. Certain parts of the population wanted bars from which smoking was banned. Other parts of the population want to relax in a bar in which those persons can smoke. Why ban smoking in all bars? Studies indicate smoking bans have adverse impacts on local economies. We will discuss such studies today.

   As to Indy’s new ordinance, it left narrow exceptions. One is Cigar Bars.

   I now have read the ordinance. Patrons of cigar bars are not allowed to smoke cigarettes in cigar bars. The ordinance defines "cigarette" and goes on to say that cigarettes cannot be smoked in cigar bars.

   I have been in several cigar bars in the United States. Never have I witnessed a person, smoking a cigar, take umbrage with a person who had the audacity to light up a cigarette. Presumably each type of smoker has assumed or incurred the risks of smoking. There is no question of so-called second-hand smoke at play. If that were the matter, only one (1) cigar smoker at a time would be allowed in a cigar bar.

   The efforts to ban smoking will not stop with the latest ordinance. The aim is to ban smoking in all public places. The status quo was fine. Non-smokers could choose bars whose owners deemed smoking not to be allowed. Smokers could go to bars in which they could relax and smoke.

light up while they have a drink.

  "Civil Discourse Now" streams "live" on the internet on Saturday mornings at 11. This week our guests will be Indianapolis blogger and media personality Abdul-Hakim Shabazz ( a cigar smoker) and Lindsay Grace, spokesperson for Smoke Free Indy. Paul Ogden and I will discuss Indy’s new smoking ban with them. We will shoot The Show at Indy Cigar Bar, 3357 East 86^th Street. ANYONE AGE 21 OR OVER IS WELCOME TO ATTEND.  

   Join us Saturday for what should be a lively—and civil—discussion of this issue.