Ames Progressive

Governor Chet Culver is set to sign a statewide smoking ban bill into law Tuesday after both houses of the Iowa Legislature voted in favor last Tuesday. House File 2212 is, to put it lightly, a decidedly strict piece of legislation that will outlaw cigarette smoking in bars, restaurants, workplaces, and most other public places on July 1. This includes, if I understand correctly, the campuses of the three state universities.

Some places — most notably casinos, whose interested parties strongly lobbied lawmakers — will be exempted. The Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown also gets a pass.

The bill comes after the Statehouse voted for a steep increase in the cigarette tax last year and has been praised by supporters as another important step toward better health for the state. It’s true; not many will argue that more prohibitive smoking regulations will do anything but decrease the amount of smoke people inhale. And studies have shown employees of establishments allowing smoking, if not their customers, are indeed harmed by the smoke in their environments (imagine that).

But the bill delivers a strong blow to those who believe in the freedom of choice in private enterprise (not to mention the choice of employees to decide not to apply for a job at a smoking establishment), and it’s going to take a toll on establishments that cater to smokers without giving them adequate time for adjustment.

A fellow Ankeny High School grad, Trevor Ray, wrote a good guest commentary in today’s Iowa State Daily criticizing the bill for its potential economic impact.

New York is one state that has a statewide smoking ban, and has seen severe drops in business because of it. The state’s ban was instituted in July 2003. In May 2004, an economic study was done to show the effects of the smoking ban, and the study found that $28.5 million in wages and salaries have been lost, 2,000 jobs in bar and taverns have been lost (10.7 percent of the employment of all the bars and taverns), and that New York’s gross state product had dropped by $37 million.

…

In other words, the state knows that its “cash cow,” the casinos, is going to get hurt, and it can’t afford to have its economic anchor lose 20 percent, like what happened to Illinois when it banned smoking in its casinos. The state Legislature knows the numbers, and they have seen the stats, but they feel they are fine as long as the casino empire doesn’t get hurt.

And the rest? Well, the rest can get thrown to the wolves. I understand most nonsmokers don’t like to be around smoking, but I always thought both smokers and nonsmokers should have a choice to go to a place that allows smoking or not - it’s like having the choice between Es Tas or Welch Ave. Station. I am disappointed and ashamed of our state Legislature for making consumption choices for me and for forcing small businesses to have to struggle even more.

But that’s how it goes. The power players flaunt their money and get exemptions that small business owners never would have had a chance at.

That said, there are certainly cases where I think government intervention in the interest of public health may well be merited. However, one of the most telling things with this piece of legislation, I’d argue, is how it shows how much influence the tobacco industry holds. Yeah, cigarette smoking is a very common habit and banning that outright would be absurd. But you don’t see lawmakers — including the mostly Republican minority voting against this bill, in many instances for the aforementioned economic reasons — raising much fuss over much less harmful nonviolent offenses that are completely illegal. One would think that if the state’s so concerned about not losing casino smokers’ revenue that it would reform sentencing laws and quit wasting so much taxpayer money on new prisons.

Wishful thinking.

From the Des Moines Register, here’s the roll call, first in the Senate:

SENATORS FOR THE BILL: 28
DEMOCRATS (25): Appel, Beall, Bolkcom, Connolly, Courtney, Danielson, Dearden, Dvorsky, Fraise, Gronstal, Hatch, Hogg, Horn, Kibbie, McCoy, Olive, Quirmbach, Ragan, Rielly, Schmitz, Schoenjahn, Seng, Stewart, Warnstadt, Wood
REPUBLICANS (3): Lundby, Noble, Ward
SENATORS AGAINST THE BILL: 22
DEMOCRATS (5): Black, Dotzler, Hancock, Heckroth, Kreiman
REPUBLICANS (17): Angelo, Behn, Boettger, Gaskill, Hahn, Hartsuch, Houser, Johnson, Kettering, McKibben, McKinley, Mulder, Putney, Seymour, Wieck, Zaun, Zieman

And the House:

REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE BILL: 54
DEMOCRATS (45): Abdul-Samad, Bell, Berry, Bukta, Cohoon, Dandekar, Davitt, Foege, Ford, Frevert, Gaskill, Gayman, Heddens, Hunter, Jacoby, Jochum, Kelley, Kressig, Kuhn, Lensing, Mascher, McCarthy, H. Miller, Murphy, Oldson, D. Olson, R. Olson, T. Olson, Palmer, Petersen, Reasoner, Reichert, Shomshor, Smith, Staed, Swaim, D. Taylor, T. Taylor, Wendt, Wessel-Kroeschell, Whitaker, Whitead, Winckler, Wise, Zirkelbach
REPUBLICANS (9): Anderson, Baudler, Clute, Jacobs, May, Rayhons, Schickel, Tomenga, Wiencek
REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST THE BILL: 45
DEMOCRATS (8): Bailey, Huser, Lykam, Mertz, Quirk, Schueller, Thomas, Wenthe
REPUBLICANS (37): Alons, Arnold, Boal, Chambers, De Boef, Deyoe, Dolecheck, Drake, Forristall, Gipp, Granzow, Grassley, Greiner, Heaton, Hoffman, Horbach, Huseman, Kaufmann, Lukan, L. Miller, S. Olson, Paulsen, Pettengill, Raecker, Rants, Rasmussen, Roberts, Sands, Soderberg, Struyk, Tjepkes, Tymeson, Van Engelenhoven, Van Fossen, Watts, Windschitl, Worthan
REPRESENTATIVES NOT VOTING: 1
REPUBLICAN (1): Upmeyer, who said she intended to vote “no” but had problems with her voting machine.