Sen. Jerry Black, R-Shelby, is having a bill drafted to permanently exempt some 1,400 bars and casinos from a statewide smoking ban set to apply to those establishments on Oct. 1, 2009.
His proposal would apply to only those bars and casinos that sought an exemption from the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act by June 30.
Several business people, including one tavern owner, asked Black to submit the bill draft. Black said he isn't sure yet if he will actually introduce the bill and conceded it probably has “mixed to nil” chances of passing.
“We just feel the Indoor Clean Air Act is working the way it should,” Black said. “This still gives people a choice.”
As they can now, Montanans could choose to go to bars that already have gone smokeless or, if the bill passes, they could opt for bars and casinos where people could continue to smoke.
Darrell Keck, a Shelby tavern owner, said he asked Black to introduce the bill on behalf of a “little grass-roots movement” with 100 members that lack out-of-state foundation money of health advocacy groups. The Montana Tavern Association is not involved with the group.
“I think I have to do this,” Keck said. “I don't really believe this is a smoking issue. It's a property rights issue.”
Keck, who owns a steakhouse, lounge and casino, said he spent $18,000 putting up a wall to separate his dining room, when smoking wasn't allowed there, from the bar, where it is. Keck said he lost
60 percent of his dining business, while his bar business went up 300 percent.
Unless the law is changed, Keck predicted it will dramatically affect life in small towns, eliminate some bar and casino jobs, cut state tax revenues and deprive smokers of their rights.
“People don't go into a bar for their health,” Keck said. “If that were the case, I guess they'd be serving booze at the health clubs.”
Black's bill draft has fired up the same coalition of public health advocates who helped pass the Clean Indoor Air Act in 2005. It includes cancer, lung and heart association groups.
“This is a health care issue for Montanans,” said Kristin Page Nei, state government relations for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. “What's really important to note is Montanans understand that. We feel all workers, including casino workers, have the right to breathe clean indoor air.”
In anticipation of the fight, health advocacy groups commissioned a statewide telephone poll in September. It found 79 percent of Montana voters favor the Clean Indoor Air Act, while 20 percent oppose it. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
“We feel that four years, going on five years, is more than enough time for bars and casinos to comply,” Nei said. “Many are complying and seeing no effect or more business.”
She cited a study by two Helena physicians that found that heart attacks among Helena residents dropped by 40 percent during the less than a year that the city's ban was in effect before a court tossed it out. Nine other studies around the world have reached similar conclusions, Nei said.
Linda Lee, supervisor of the Montana Tobacco Use Prevention Program in the state Department of Public Health and Human Services, called secondhand smoke “so toxic it's three times worse than the poor air quality from wildfires.”
“There's a trend around the country and around the world to protect people from tobacco smoke,” Lee said.
Public health advocates will be joined by some unusual allies in their battle to preserve Montana's 2005 clean indoor air law - the Montana Tavern Association and Gaming Industry Association of Montana.
In 2005, the Montana Legislature passed the law that banned smoking in public buildings and workplaces starting Oct. 1, 2005.
A major compromise was reached then to delay by four years the implementation of the smoking ban in bars and casinos so they would have more time to get ready for the change.
Parties to that deal were public health advocates, the Schweitzer administration and legislators, along with the major groups representing bars and casinos, the Montana Tavern Association and Gaming Industry Association of Montana bars.
Mark Staples, lawyer for the Montana Tavern Association, said none of the “cultural and political imperatives” that led the association to agree to the four-year delay have changed.
“The tsunami of smoking bans has never stopped rolling,” he said. “Those places that thought they could withstand an initiative drive got absolutely wiped out. As far as we're concerned, the public has made its feelings about this issue very clear.”
A second reason for opposing the bill is “we gave our word,” Staples said. That's important to the association, just as it expects others who make agreements on licensing issues to keep their word.
“We've really tried to find a way that gave our members a reasonable amount of time to transition,” Staples said. “Many of them have and many more will.”
Staples acknowledged that the ban probably will financially damage those establishments with lots of smokers among their patrons.
“We made those arguments for years,” he said. “They may be hurt. It's just an argument that doesn't work anymore. When you've got
80 percent of the public that doesn't smoke and 20 percent that does, it doesn't bring much to the table in terms of bringing you leverage.”
The Montana Tavern Association board voted 47-2 to “affirmatively and energetically” oppose Black's bill, Staples said, despite its great respect for Black.
Likewise, the Gaming Industry Association voted 10-0 to line up against Black's bill, said Neil Peterson, its executive director.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer also continues to back the 2005 law as written.
“We signed the original legislation, and we continue to support that policy,” said Sarah Elliott, the governor's spokeswoman.
Montana has about 2,300 establishments with on-premise consumption licenses, ranging from all-beverage, beer, beer and wine, cabaret, veterans and fraternal groups, airports and golf courses, said Jason Wood of the Liquor Control Division of the state Revenue Department.
About 1,400 have applied for smoking exceptions since passage of the 2005 law, he said. Wood estimated that 900 establishments, which hold liquor license that may or may not allow gambling, are smoke-free.
Jon Ebelt, spokesman for the Montana Department of Health and Human Services, estimated that at least 125 Montana bars have chosen to become smoke-free before the 2009 deadline.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)
Lexi wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:56 AM:
" NO!!!! I quit smoking a little over a year ago and even before then, I hated going to bars that still allowed smoking! I have been excited for this to go into effect in Oct 2009 for the past couple years! I can't wait to be able to go out with my friends and come home and not smell like an old ashtray! Plus, I might as well smoke when I go into smoking bars, the second hand is so bad! Can't wait!!!!
Smokers can just go outside! thats what I used to do. Put a roof over your deck and a couple heat lamps if you want and they'll survive :) "
Smokers can just go outside! thats what I used to do. Put a roof over your deck and a couple heat lamps if you want and they'll survive :) "
Stephanie wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:18 AM:
" Exemptions in ANY clean indoor air law create exploited loopholes and leave a segment of workers subjected to breathing secondhand smoke.
Smells like lung discrimination when selected employees are exempt from clean indoor air laws.
We can sometimes choose where we work but we do not choose to breathe.
Breathing is not a choice. It is in fact, a biological need. "
Smells like lung discrimination when selected employees are exempt from clean indoor air laws.
We can sometimes choose where we work but we do not choose to breathe.
Breathing is not a choice. It is in fact, a biological need. "
Pete wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:40 AM:
" It really isn't that difficult for smokers to take their smoke outdoors. Considering how harmful secondhand smoke is, and considering that over 80 percent of adults don't smoke, smoking should only be allowed outdoors. That's the way it's done in the vast majority of the country these days. "
rights wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:10 PM:
" This is still really a property owner's rights issue when you get to the bottom of it. There should be no "us" against "them" mentality here. Regardless of a person's personal feelings or opinion about these issues we have no right to dictate how a tax paying property owner conducts his legal business. Get it? I can't believe this is even an issue in the great state of Montana. "
Kristin wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:23 PM:
" I am sick and tired of smokers worried about their precious rights being taken away! What about the rights of the NON SMOKER who chooses not to put herself or her children at risk by smoking. I am one of the people who would be going to the bar and restaurant once it is smoke free believe me, your profits will skyrocket from good people who choose not to smoke who at the time will not patronize the businesses that allow smoking today. "
Allen wrote on Nov 24, 2008 6:49 PM:
" This is a property rights issue, otherwise we would have made the ban to include all indoor places. That would include private homes as well. We don't have to level out the playing field every time someone can't compete. "
John wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:04 AM:
" The property rights assertion is a bogus one. If a bar owner indiscriminately fired a gun in his bar, would we argue his right to do so because he owned the place? If he put a little rat poison in the occasional cocktail? "Ah, he's just exercising his property rights." "
Not a smoker wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:51 AM:
" Listen folks the numbers don't lie. 80% of the population doesn't want smoke filled rooms even at a place that is less than healthy like a bar or casino. There are bars that are not supposed to have smokers but yet they "look the other way" while the rest of us suffer your dirty stinky habit. So why don't you have your smelly cancer killing smoke stick outside and than come in and enjoy a beer or two. "
Alison wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:24 AM:
" The argument that "we're just trying to protect the poor workers from the second-hand smoke" is a fallacious and sanctimonious one. I have worked plenty of jobs where the conditions were not only unhealthy but actually hazardous, and I don't remember anyone stepping in to try to protect me from dangerous chemicals and fumes. And can anyone show me just one person who has died as a result from second-hand smoke? I'd like to see it. "
dweezil222 wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:05 AM: