Smoking ban burns businesses

LAKEWOOD -- To see how well the smoking ban here is working out, join Tracy Willows at the end of her shift, when she is shaking her head at the 20 bucks -- if she's lucky -- in her pocket and wondering if her pay will be enough to fill her gas tank, much less put food on the table or buy gym uniforms for her two kids.

"I can't even pay my rent. My parents have been making my car payments for me, but they can't do that anymore," she said this week from a booth at the Grand Central Casino, where she is a waitress.

Grant M. Haller / P-I Blackjack dealer Eboni Campbell waits for customers at the Grand Central Casino in Lakewood, Pierce County. The casino has laid off 15 employees since the county's smoking ban went into effect, and more layoffs are threatened if a business slump blamed on the ban continues. This casino has laid off 15 employees since the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health's new smoking regulations went into effect in earnest Feb. 26. And managers say they will lay off 40 to 50 more if the business slump, which they blame on the ban, continues.

Other bar and restaurant owners say they have fired employees or cut back hours because of sudden drops in revenue.

"All the things that we have said might happen are happening," said Linda Matson, executive director of the Entertainment Industry Coalition, which sued the county health department.

The coalition is behind statewide Initiative 891, which seeks a less restrictive ban on smoking in public places where minors are allowed.

Matson said restaurant and tavern owners tell her business has plunged 30 percent to 45 percent.

Rick Porso, public health manager for the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, said the ban is already protecting employees, improving Pierce County residents' health and, possibly, saving lives.

The board of health voted in January to snuff out smoking in bars, bowling alleys, restaurants and non-tribal casinos. The ban was quickly halted by a judge, but then put back in place Feb. 25.

Since then, the area south of the neon freeway sign that announces "Welcome to smoke-free Pierce County" has become a battleground over smoking.

Smokers have lit up defiantly. Health inspectors working on overtime pay have written hundreds of citations and meted out $2,200 in fines. Opposing statewide initiatives have been filed, and lawsuits have delayed those initiatives' progress.

Gambling and cigarettes go hand in hand, say casino employees. And because tribal casinos still allow smoking -- tribes, which have their own sovereignty, are not subject to local smoking rules -- gamblers are going there instead, some believe.

The Grand Central Casino in Lakewood says its gambling take since Feb. 26 is down 35 percent from what it had projected. Its liquor sales dropped by 42 percent, and its food sales are down 25 percent, said regional manager Greg Bakamis.

In contrast, the company's casino in Tukwila, King County, which allows smoking, has met or exceeded projections during the same period.

"I used to have regulars come in for pai gow every morning, 10 of them, every day -- at least, the four days that I work," said Julie Crocco, who works at the Lakewood casino and has dealt blackjack for non-tribal casinos for seven years. "I've only seen two of them in the past month."

What's more, Crocco's mother is a blackjack dealer at the Puyallup Tribe's Emerald Queen Casino. And she says business there has been booming during the ban.

Whether tribal casinos are benefiting from the ban is unclear. Emerald Queen managers did not respond to requests for comment.

Porso said health officials hope to continue talks with the Puyallup Tribe and encourage the tribe to ban smoking inside its facilities also.

Proponents of the ban say business will return when non-smokers begin patronizing the previously smoky places they'd avoided.

A study released last month by the city of New York showed an increase in jobs, liquor licenses and business-tax payments one year after that city's ban took effect. It showed, for example, that patrons spent $1.4 million more inside New York City bars and restaurants from April 2003 to January 2004 than over the same period during the previous year.

The report has its critics, including those who note that Pierce County's situation is unique, with tribal casinos and neighboring counties luring smokers away.

Meanwhile, backers of two statewide initiatives that would make moot Pierce County's law are working toward the November ballot.

The gambling industry group Entertainment Industry Coalition has written Initiative 891, a smoking ban that would be less restrictive than the county's.

And Breathe Easy Washington, a political action committee formed in February, seeks to spread Pierce County's brand of ban across the entire state. The committee's state co-chairman is Tacoma City Councilman and Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health Chairman Kevin Phelps.

"We expect overwhelming public support for it," said Scott Peterson, a Breathe Easy spokesman.

Last year a poll commissioned by an alliance of anti-smoking organizations showed that nearly two-thirds of Washington voters surveyed favored a total ban on smoking inside public spaces.

Peterson also said Breathe Easy expects to soon receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions and a slew of high-profile endorsements for its initiative.

The group has hired Tacoma signature-gathering guru Sherry Bockwinkel to try to ensure the initiative makes it to the ballot.

Neither group has been able to begin gathering signatures because each has sued the other over the initiatives' proposed ballot titles. It's a tactic to delay efforts to get on the ballot, each group says.

The industry group is still appealing Court of Appeals Commissioner Ernetta Skerlec's Feb. 25 decision to let the health department impose the ban while its merits are hashed out in court. The legal battle over the smoking ban merits could take years.

In the meantime, Dawn Forsman, a card dealer at Freddie's Casino in Fife, says her job is on the line. She told the Board of Health this week that her pay has been cut in half during the ban.

"How many people have to lose their cars and their jobs and their homes before you see that trying to protect my health is endangering my livelihood?" she said.

I was just heading out to feed the horses and HAD to come back and post this... please don't be offended by what I said - it's from the heart. To you, Gabz & King's Dead -thanks for not launching a personal attack on my feelings as a dreaded non-smoker. You've changed my views a bit even though for me personally it's difficult. However, I'd rather forfeit my choices (of entering certain establishments) than see livelihoods drop out from under employees. I don't want to be "ruled" any more than you do.

The rude smokers I've met must be democrats (grin).

It's optional to enter the facility, but are you suggesting that those who do not smoke should have less choices than those who smoke?

If that's what the free choices of property owners lead to, yes. Why should smoke-avoiders get 'equality of choices' at the expense of property owners' rights?

And note that smoking bans do *not* equalize choices for smokers and nonsmokers; they restrict smokers' choices.

Non-smokers are people, too (wink again).

I should hope so ... I am one.

I think this whole issue is about something much bigger. Freedom. The idea that ANY group can come up with a conclusion and then gather facts to justify it(aka junk science) and then proceed to mandate law and public policy is very dangerous. The fast food industry is next. I can see Morgan Spurlocks new "documentary" is lined up as just that. They neglect to tell you throughout the film that while he is eating McDonalds 3x a day (which is unrealistic anyway) he cut down most all of his exercise and physical activity. When you look at it from a PURELY scientific point of view, it is a simple case of calories in vs. calories out. The same effect could be achieved by eating ANYWHERE for 30 days. Americans are free to choose what they want, and it is too bad that some cannot help but to become morbidly obese doing it. I guess we will have to drive fast food out of business too. But I digress...

Can someone please explain why something as flawed as the EPA study can be not only accepted as "fact" but used to mandate public policy? I am a smoker. I like to smoke. I try not to infringe on the rights of others while I do it. I am also a scientist. If someone can show me that I am actually hurting people by enjoying my smoke, then by all means I would stop. The problem is, you can't. What's worse is you don't have to. It seems that since I don't like, say, something like red shirts, there should be laws prohibiting people from wearing them anywhere where I might go. I will go gather data to support my "conclusion" and gather millions to lobby for this law. And while were at it, why not ban all colors altogether. That way we all wear the same thing, talk the same way, eat the same food(there will not be much left anyway). Sounds a bit silly and stupid to me. A wee bit too Orwellian, maybe good for a totalitarian regime, but for a democracy? I think not.

You make spot-on sense to me. Thanks for not biting my non-smoking head off even though I was wrong. When people take the time to express their views the way you do, you recruit like-minded people (logical, fair, freedom loving -something I hope I always am). Thanks for considering me someone "worthwhile" to share your views with. I honestly feel that I have emerged from this thread a "smarter" person.

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.