Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Delaware) Smoking ban fires up opponets
The Delaware Business Ledger ^ | August 2002 | Diane Cook

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."


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Delaware
KEYWORDS: antismokers; bans; delaware; nannies; propertyrights; pufflist; smoking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: nolajim
"...smokers...must be really bored..."

On the plus side, by staying at home, smokers don't have to endure the sight of gloating sanctimonious twits.
61 posted on 08/12/2002 4:42:50 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GoldMan
They are passing law with flawed arguments.

Yes they are. And Representative Stone's comment about breathing clean air is particularly funny for anyone who lives in or has ever visited Northern Delaware - the Chemical Capitol of the World!!!

But beyond the "rights" issue, the legislation itself was flawed just based upon the openning language which includes such doozies as:

WHEREAS, Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (group a carcinogen);

This was thrown out in Court.

WHEREAS, exposure to secondhand smoke by children leads to decreased lung function, asthma, pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis and even sudden infant death syndrome;

It MIGHT, there is no definitive proof.

WHEREAS, Delaware has the second highest lung cancer mortality rate in the country;

While this is true, there is no proof it is because of smoking - not one IOTA of proof. As I mentioned, Delawar is considered the Chemical Capitol of the World. additionally we have at least 2 world reknowned Cancer treatment centers here, and finally cancer is generally a disease of aging and Delaware has become a popular retirement area.

But my favorite of the WHEREAS's is :

WHEREAS, Prohibiting smoking in public places and the workplace increases public awareness of the negative health effects of smoking and reduces the social acceptability of smoking and protects children and other nonsmokers;

SPECIFIC proof this legislation is nothing more than pure social engineering.

62 posted on 08/12/2002 4:43:45 PM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: nolajim
In many areas I know it to be a fact and their non-smoking friends join them as well.

Did you ever think that great food does not have to eaten in a restaurant. There are lots of great home cooks.

I rarely go out to eat anymore, and it has nothing to do with smoking bans - and my friends all love coming here, smokers and non-smokers. I love to cook and there is never anything BORING about an evening in my house.

I have lots of friends in California enjoying the same pleasures.

63 posted on 08/12/2002 4:48:33 PM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: finnman69
That picture is soooo sexy.....NOT!

Oh so sorry. How about this one? Does this one look more like you?


65 posted on 08/12/2002 4:56:10 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
"Smoking ban legislation has been around for 20 years," Gilligan says. "It’s been debated for decades.

Slavery laws were around for centuries and debated even longer than that. That didn't make it right.

I'd like to ask the anti smoking police what happens to the eight hundred pound tax gorilla they created if smoking does go away. It's not going to disappear but will have to get it's tax dollar fix somewhere else. Most likely from something that will make the nico nazis pay throught the nose too. How does six dollars for a gallon gas sound to you?

66 posted on 08/12/2002 5:01:46 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
While I'm not advocating violating state dumping laws, it would be pretty neat if someone just happened to deposit 1000 cartons or so worth of empties cigarette packs right in front of that sign.
67 posted on 08/12/2002 5:11:00 PM PDT by Freemeorkillme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nolajim
Non-Smoking sections and non-smoking restaurants make more money

You are SO wrong!

Smoking Bans Bad For Business

Here's your proof!

68 posted on 08/12/2002 5:16:43 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: nolajim
The problem is that you apparently believe that that legislatures have a right to stick their lawyer noses into other people's lives.

And I find the stench of this Soviet-style legislation worse than that of cigarettes.

No, we should have no 'special accommodations', as you so charitably put it, for smokers.

We should have some 'special accommodations ' for the socialist b*stards who plot this sh*t!
69 posted on 08/12/2002 5:16:51 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: nolajim
The problem for smokers is that as their numbers decrease their power to positively impact legislation decreases

Not true. When the anti-smoker organizations came marching into Delaware they were very well funded with millions upon millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical companies and Foundations such as Robert wood Johnson.

One California anti-smoker organization, which gets much funding from these group, sent emails and letters to their memebers in Delaware telling them to contact legislators and the media - but to NOT mention their affilitation with the group.

The smokers in Delaware and everywhere else are people like me, just everyday citizens who try their very best to do what they can with what they have, which is what is in their own pocket. The power of the lies of the anti-smoker groups is such that people who have known me for years actually believed that I was being paid by a tobacco company. I'm a housewife with a 4 year old, and my sole source of income is my husband's salary.

Anti-smokers are very small minority, smaller than the smokers you so like to disdain. Yes there are more non-smokers than smokers, but in general this issue does not even register as a blip on their radar.

It is anti-smokers that are getting the special accommodations, at the expense of the business owners of this nation.

70 posted on 08/12/2002 5:34:35 PM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
OOOOOOOOOOoo That picture is so VILE.

The way I figure it, Teddy has depleated the coffers of old Jack bailing out all the Kennedy kin from one scrape or another with the law.

Well we know old Jack made the family fortune through bootlegging during Prohibition. I figure the reason old Teddy is so on the anti-smoker ban(d) wagon is that he needs to replenish the coffers and is going to further follow in Daddy's footsteps.

71 posted on 08/12/2002 5:39:07 PM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Freemeorkillme; SheLion
HMMMMMMMM, scratching head - you're giving me an idea for another graphic!!!!
72 posted on 08/12/2002 5:42:37 PM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
OOOOOOOOOOoo That picture is so VILE.

He sure IS vile. Not only to look at, but he put a bill in this week to have tobacco regulated by the FDA. He's a pig!

73 posted on 08/12/2002 5:44:03 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
HMMMMMMMM, scratching head - you're giving me an idea for another graphic!!!!

Yeaaaaaaaaa Bring it on, Gabz!!!

74 posted on 08/12/2002 5:44:48 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: antivenom; bobbyd; BurFred; BUSHdude2000; Ditter; dix; DrewsDad; Eaker; eastforker; Ellouise; ...
If I pay for an airline ticket from where ever you are to Houston will you allow me to pick you up at the airport??

I promise you will not be poked. However, the ticket will be one-way as that is all that you will need.

If you think I am kidding then try me, bitch. Anyone who wants to curtail other's rights IS a LIBERAL!!!!


Stay safe; stay armed.

If you want off of my Houston ping list please let me know by Freepmail.

75 posted on 08/12/2002 6:02:54 PM PDT by Eaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

76 posted on 08/12/2002 6:27:44 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
You're right he is a pig and his pet lap dog is the Senior US sInator from Delaware - Joe BiNLAden.

Is it any wonder I am working to get Ray Clatworthy elected???

77 posted on 08/12/2002 6:30:42 PM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
Heee Heeee!


78 posted on 08/12/2002 8:12:17 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
You want to know something? You are just plain rude.

I suspect you love to "conserve" trees, owls, insects. Too bad you can't understand the ramifications of conserving some of the rights of your neighbors.

And don't forget - When those smokers are forced to quit, you and your "perfect" friends will be expected to cough up massive amounts of tax revenue - to make up for the shortfall.

(And NO... I am NOT a smoker. Let's just say I have better manners than you.)
79 posted on 08/12/2002 10:15:13 PM PDT by Humidston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I don't smoke anymore, but give me a boozy smoker any day over the thin-lipped, tight-arsed anti-smoking zealots.
80 posted on 08/12/2002 10:36:47 PM PDT by avenir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson