Posted on 08/12/2002 8:54:20 AM PDT by Gabz
Smoking ban fires up opponents
When State Rep. Robert F. Gilligan, D-Sherwood Park, had to make a "yes" or "no" decision on SB 99, the Clean Indoor Air Act, he didn’t have to think too hard or too long. Since both his parents were victims of cancer and his 46-year-old brother died of lung cancer, the beliefs of the minority leader of the House’s vote were clear.
"I have always voted anti-smoking, "he says. "No one needs to inhale others’ smoke. It’s a health issue, not an economic one."
Not everyone would agree with Gilligan’s view on health vs. economy. But agree or not, in November smoking in public places in Delaware will be illegal.
A bit of history
"Smoking ban legislation has been around for 20 years," Gilligan says. "It’s been debated for decades. I can remember when the Christiana Mall went smoke free people said it was impossible. But they did it. The same with state buildings, and they’re smoke free too."
"The bill was introduced into the Senate in 2001," says Donna D. Stone, R-Dover South. "After being tabled a couple of times with a couple of amendments that exempted casinos, taverns and bars, it got worked in the House. There was tons of controversy about it because the hotels weren’t happy and the restaurants weren’t happy."
During its legislative life, the bill went through numerous transformations. "People were looking for solutions," says Nancy H. Wagner, R-Dover. "And it wasn’t politics. I think we were really trying to solve this thing. Then there were the amendments. In one amendment, Joe Miro (R- Pike Creek Valley) said to post on the door whether it was smoking or nonsmoking. The legislation finally got put on the agenda with 17 amendments. We could not get a handle on the amendments in the House. It was such a mess that the House decided to take everything off and make it level. The House voted to send it back to the Senate so they could start again and level it all."
Stone says that the bill’s two sponsors, Rep. Deborah D. Hudson, R-Fairthorne, and Rep. Robert J. Valihura Jr., R-Talleyville, worked from June 2001 through March or April 2002 to achieve get a compromise accomplished. "A level playing field" seemed to be the biggest area of contention. That leveling ultimately meant not exempting anyone.
A grass roots effort
During the process, those in favor of the bill kept their wishes before their legislators.
"They kept working the bill and putting it off," Wagner says. Proponents of the bill "would put out big press things but it would die. People who belong to interest groups like the Heart Association and Cancer Society were extraordinarily active. We were getting these cards in the mail with people’s names and addresses supporting the bill. It was a tremendous grass roots effort."
Stone concurs. "I have to give a lot of credit to the grass roots organizations who took this up and ran with it," she says. "In my eight years in General Assembly, I have never seen a more focused or more active group of people who supported SB99. We received telephone calls, email, direct mail, and green postcards. I got those postcards for a year. We pay attention to that. It is very important to us as representatives to know what our constituents think of an issue."
Gilligan continues to receive feedback. "Delaware Park is in my district," he says. "People don’t seem to be too upset. Since the vote, I’ve received three phone calls and no mail in opposition to it. I have received more than 30 phone calls and many letters and comments in support the smoking ban."
Concerns
Now that the dust has settled, questions are arising about enforcement and economic impact.
"Massachusetts passed a similar law," says Wagner. (Pedestrians) got so tired of people coming out from bars onto the street to smoke, that the legislators repealed it. We don’t know all the ramifications of this law as we move forward. Given time, the marketplace is going to take care of it."
The Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce took a strong position against the smoking ban, says executive director Jeannette Wessel. "We are concerned about Dover Downs, but we’re just as concerned about the little taverns, bars, and restaurants. Once those businesses are gone, you are not going to get it back. I think they put the cart before the horse because no economic study had been done on this legislation."
Rich Heffron, senior vice president for government affairs for the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, concurs that the legislation’s impact remains unclear.
"We as a state chamber did not take position because we had members on both sides of the issue," he says. "There have been all sorts of numbers (connected) with impact. Any major change and restriction affects the business climate. Now we will have to sit back and see the real numbers. If the numbers are drastic, by the time we find out it will be too late to recover lost income."
Denis McGlynn, Dover Downs CEO, one of the legislation’s biggest opponents, has concerns about how he will enforce the law at the sports and gaming complex.
"We have security, so it’s not like we can’t enforce it. But the thought of the ‘smoking police’ dragging out customers is not appealing. The bigger question is how they are going to enforce it throughout the state and who’s going to pay for that enforcement. I don’t know how many bars and taverns there are across the state, but there are more than any current enforcement agency can man. So what do we do now? Hire a cadre of smoking police to make it work? I don’t think the whole thing was thought through very well."
Whose rights?
"When you ask folks if they support a ban, 75 percent of the people say yes and 25 percent say no," says Stone. "That’s the exact percentage of the smoking vs. nonsmoking population
The question ultimately centered on whose rights prevailed, those of the smoker or those of the nonsmoker.
"The person sitting next to you has the right to breathe clean air," Stone says. "What everyone has lost focus of on this bill in the end is that the discussion became focused on dollars. This bill was never about money. This bill is about health and in a state where we are all ashamed of our cancer rate and our cancer death rate. Perhaps this will help us with those numbers. "
There are two sides to personal rights, Gilligan says. "I have a right to have my insurance rates as low as possible," he says. "People smoking increase that cost. People should get their facts straight. The smoking ban is not an economic issue. Many have told me (non-smokers) will go to Delaware Park who did not go before."
The economics
Based on seven-month figures released by DEFAC -- $11 million into the general fund in FY 2003 – McGlynn says the real impact totals $20 million or as much as $57 million. This represents a fraction of the lost revenue his company will experience.
"The impact on the general fund is a reflection of the impact on our business," McGlynn says. "The general fund shares in our business. It’s because our business is likely to be impacted that the general fund is to be impacted."
More specifically, many gamblers smoke. Those who chose to smoke will most likely exercise their option to visit sites that will accommodate their desires.
"Half our customers smoke," McGlynn says. "And 84 percent of our customers come from out of state. If they can’t smoke here, they’ll go to where they can in West Virginia or New Jersey.
Passions run high on both sides of the issue as the bill’s November implementation date draws closer. But supporters say this new law serves a higher purpose in limiting people’s exposure to smoke from cigarettes, cigars, and pipe tobacco.
"If this (law) causes a person to lose an election, then it’s better to lose an election and to save people’s lives," Gilligan concludes. "I don’t think it’s going to affect people they way they think. A lot of people don’t go to bars and taverns because they don’t want to smell the smoke. It all opens up a new level of clientele."
You've been reading way too many press releases issued by the anti-smoking coalitions, who by the way, are paid to come up with those kinds of things.
If it was an "uncontrollable addiction" don't you think that there would be many less former smokers than there are?
If you take into account that the definition of "addiction" was CHANGED - JUST to accomodate tobacco, then maybe nicotine doesn't cause an addiction.
Anymore maybe the addiction is by the anti-smokers that are addicted to trying to control others lives according to their standards.
What about the rights of the property owner? I know, dumb question.
This is an interesting question, and there are at least 2 schools of thought on the answer.
If it is posed to the antis, they will tell you all the bars and restaurants will survive because all the non-smokers who have been staying away because of smoke will come flocking in and there will be no problem.
If it is posed to the bar and restaurant owners, they will tell you the antis do not come flocking in, and the smokers stay away along with all the non-smoking friends and family of the smokers. additionally they will tell you, smokers tend to stay longer, therefore spending more money, and tipping better.
It always comes right down to this: if the antis wre correct there would be a proliferation of smoke-free bars and restaurants everywhere and thus no need for these intrusive bans. But the antis are wrong, and they know it, but it order to cover up their insidious lies, they push for the all out bans under the guise of "levelling the playing field."
That phrase has become as nearly sickening to me as "it's for the children." It's got nothing to do with the children, because if they really cared about the children they wouldn't be seeking laws that have proven to put small businesses out of business and forcing those owners and employees to find another way to support their children.
Smoking bans are not about health, nor aboout children; they are about power and control. The antis want the power to control others. and the sooner people wake up to that, the better off everyone, smoker and non-smoker alike, will be.
sorry for my rant.
No truer words could be said.
I smoke, you can choke!
Well said
Every professional waiter I know prefers to work in the non-smoking section of a restaurant because smokers camp out and spend a couple dollars on coffee after dinner.
And every professional bartender or wait staff memeber I know says the total opposite.
Especially the ones I know who moved to Delaware after they lost their jobs in California. Two of them have already started making inquiries in another state in order to have a job lined up when the ban takes effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.