Consider all factors in smoking ban vote

Published/Last Modified on Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009 - 12:39:07 am CDT

Last Thursday afternoon, the South Dakota Secretary of State’s office announced a statewide smoking ban in all bars and restaurants scheduled to take effect July 1 would be pushed back, as people across South Dakota petitioned to have the measure referred to the 2010 general election ballot.

Though we have mixed feelings about a statewide smoking ban, we’re pleased it will be voted on by the people in South Dakota and we encourage everyone to consider a couple of major factors when deciding their votes.

Of course this is a public health issue. There’s no question that smoking and secondhand smoke is bad. Eliminating smoking from establishments would help those who don’t smoke and don’t want to be around smoke. But those people also do have choices about where to go and spend their money. If they do not want to be around smoke, they could choose to go to places that don’t allow smoking. Even locally, there are several restaurants and even a couple of bars that do not allow smoking.

Though we recognize the importance of better health across our state, we also have reasons to oppose a smoking ban.

The first of those is the business-owner rights argument which has been raised again and again by people who do not want the government telling them how to run their businesses. We will always stand behind the freedoms deserved by U.S. citizens. These are freedoms fought for and won by people who recognized the grave need for a free nation. It seems to us the more the government becomes involved in private enterprise, the further we get from that ideal of freedom.

It’s difficult to say whether or not a business owner having the right to allow smoking infringes upon the rights of free citizens to go where they choose without being in danger. But it is easy to say those free citizens choose where they go. If there are enough people who won’t patronize an establishment because it allows smoking, we have to believe a shrewd business owner would do what he or she has to do to get those customers back.

But aside from the arguments in semantics about who is infringing upon whose rights, we think there is another big issue to consider: the potential loss of video lottery revenue from those who choose to stop going to establishments where they can’t smoke.

There have been studies and reports from across the nation about the positive and negative effects of smoking bans. A simple Internet search of the topic returns more than 10 million results, which seem to go back and forth as you scroll down the list. The problem with basing this decision on the results of bans in other states is South Dakota is unique. No one knows for sure what the outcome would be if a ban was enacted.

But we strongly believe that South Dakotans will be making up the difference in millions in taxes if places with video lottery no longer allow smoking.

According to lottery officials and state reports, in 2008, South Dakota’s video lottery net machine income — the total amount of cash put into machines after prizes have been deducted — was $224,661,209. Presently, 50 percent of that income goes to the state and 50 percent goes to private entities.

The state’s share of net machine income is currently transferred to the Property Tax Reduction Fund with a small amount kept by the Lottery for operation costs — just 0.5 percent.

Licensing fees for video lottery operators, establishments, and machine manufacturers and distributors are transferred to the state Lottery Operating Fund. The average number of active video lottery machines in 2008 was 8,952 and the average number of licensed establishments was 1,478. In 2008, that total was $1,194,150. And $45,000 in fees from machine manufacturers was put in the state’s General Fund.

Revenue from video lottery has raised more than $275 million state since video lottery’s inception in 1989.

Those are big numbers, and though we don’t know what the effect of the smoking ban would be on video lottery revenue, we do know the state will get that money from somewhere if the revenue falls. And somewhere usually means taxpayers’ pockets.

Print this story Post A Comment

WARNING:

• Comments are not verified for accuracy nor have we verified the identity of any person’s name accompanying a comment, so please consider this as you weigh any statements made or opinions offered.

NOTE:

• Comments will not be posted if submitted in all caps, or all lower case, or do not show a reasonable attempt to follow basic rules of grammar and punctuation, nor will text-message like abbreviations be accepted, like ur for your.
• Postings must stay on the issues related to the thread and not veer off into personal comments about others. The tone of the post must be civil. For example, you can say someone’s ideas are stupid but you cannot say another poster is stupid.
• Postings must deal with matters of public concern.

Comments

26 comment(s)

Could Not Say It Better wrote on Jul 14, 2009 5:03 PM:

" I love and totally agree with this "Quit being a bunch of sheep, look out for yourself and think for yourself." Soooo well put!!!! "

Non Smoker wrote on Jul 14, 2009 11:56 AM:

" I think it should be left up to the business owner. If non smokers dont like the smoke they have the option to go elsewhere. Every time legislation is passed, a little more of our freedom is lost! "

Waiting wrote on Jul 13, 2009 1:27 PM:

" I have been waiting to see if this passes. If it does, I will NOT start a businessin SD, I want control over my business, I DONT want the government to control my business! There are other states! "

The other side wrote on Jul 13, 2009 12:50 PM:

" As a matter of fact I tried to frequent the casino on the bypass that has a non-smoking section but what a joke. The entire place smells horrible and when it is time to cash out guess what you have to go into the bar and get your money. So give me a break if you think the non-smoking casinos are an option. I do applaud them for trying though! "

Dave wrote on Jul 13, 2009 9:07 AM:

" Benefits...first off, i'm concerned with the rights of the business owners, not the smokers. Secondly, what are the benefits of booze? You can make the same arguements against drinking. Booze causes health problems and is also a factor in many traffic accidents, crimes, and abuse situations.
Non-smokers have the RIGHT to choose what businesses they go to, make this change with your cash, not with a law. Stand up for what you believe in and stop giving those that allow smoking your money.
What ever happen to people following their morals and ethics? "

We Will See wrote on Jul 13, 2009 8:53 AM:

" With all the non-smokers going to the establishments like they have promised there should be no taxes increased. The non-smokers will support us all. I want to see the waiting lines outside all the businesses! "

To benefits wrote on Jul 13, 2009 6:39 AM:

" Again, this is not about smoking. This is about over restricting business. Read your labels. Your food,clothing, and everything else has been restricted right out of the country. We have all seen the news of late about how caring the foreign countries are about our health and safety in products. Health Insurance and costs? If 80% of us don't smoke, or can't smoke in most places for 10+years, why aren't we seeing a DECREASE in healthcare and insurance costs? Hmmm Quit being a bunch of sheep, look out for yourself and think for yourself. "

Ellen Lee wrote on Jul 12, 2009 11:46 AM:

" Good news - the Pub at View 34 went smoke free already! Thanks guys! "

benefits wrote on Jul 10, 2009 1:09 PM:

" All these comments posted by smokers or people concerned about "smoker's rights" and one thing is missing. The benefits of smoking. Can anyone give me ONE, other than those to tobacco farmers, tax revenue (offset by health insurance increases) or just giving the smoker his nico fix? One person smoking has an impact many people around them. This ban will take affect. If not this year or next year.....it will eventually take affect. So even if our November measure is approved....smokers better take deep drags and enjoy it while they can. "

my thoughts. wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:39 PM:

" why do we tax, and put such a heavy burdon on those that smoke, yet do nothing about those that drink alcohol. why is attention so forth coming to the amount of money spent for smoking health problems but nothing is mentioned about the billions of dollars this state pays every year because of alcohol? we all know someone who has died because of alcohol, or the heath costs alone, or how about the outragous amount of foster children that we pay med. bills and schooling and parents to raise because of alcohol, step up and cure those problems first. "

The Name of the Game wrote on Jul 8, 2009 10:35 PM:

" Good grief, Mike, all states need funds. You can either hit groups a little harder while they are enjoying themselves and pay willingly, or you can hit everyone unwillingly. One way or the other, it has to be done. "

Mike wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:03 AM:

" Wow what a State we have become where we are all dependent upon our video lottery funds. We have to keep the smokers all smoked up so they can play video lottery to help fund our govt. "

curious wrote on Jul 7, 2009 5:49 PM:

" Someone said that ND has a smoking ban which Fargo does in all establishments other places like Bismarck there is a ban but bars are free to make up their mind. If a certain percentage of sales is food then there is no smoking, but if a certain percentage is alcohol then it allows smoking. I was just there a couple weeks ago so if this is something new i would like to know how you would know if it works? "

To the other side wrote on Jul 7, 2009 3:49 PM:

" Isn't there a casino on the truck route or somewhere that is non smoking? If so, do you patronize it? "

grassy wrote on Jul 7, 2009 10:23 AM:

" these zealots have us paying their taxes. maybe it's time to let them pay ours. If smokers stay out of the bars and casinos then these people can play to pay part of our taxes.
Everybody does NOT know the damage smoking or second hand smoke cause. European studies show no harm from second hand smoke. This is like saying global warming is killing us but if we tax it enough the problem will go away!!!!!
Those who would give away our freedom so easily should study the governments of Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. "

Other side wrote on Jul 7, 2009 7:45 AM:

" You forget about the people who would play video lottery if they could breath in some of the establishments. Currently, I just won't fight it and stay home. Also, it would be great to have non-smoking bars but without the ban or the release of new liquor licenses that is not going to happen in many communities. The liquor licenses are all sold and it is difficult to get one. "

Throw it out the window wrote on Jul 4, 2009 3:40 PM:

" Common sense that is. Ok let's just go back to where the smoking ban originated in this state, a clever way to reduce video lottery play to eliminate it. Ok would not be sad to see smoking and video lottery go away if it was the choice of an informed general public, but, the fact is I don't like the fact that this is the first step in to a state income tax and an increase in propery taxes. The budget is tight the way it is. South Dakota will become the first state with a sales and income tax "

Disapointed wrote on Jul 3, 2009 10:48 AM:

" Even if the ban takes effect, the bars & casinos still smell like an ashtray. "

Good Grief wrote on Jul 3, 2009 7:47 AM:

" Suppose your employer requires you to attend a meeting in a private business and you have a severe peanut allergy and they have bowls of peanuts everywhere? Suppose you go to your mandated pool league at a bar and an intoxicated person whacks you in the head with his pool stick? Shall we make the business totally ban peanuts and liquor? How far do you want to go?? Enough of expensive, restrictive laws for the ever increasing whining population. Good grief, if you are not mature enough to look out for yoursellf, stay home where it's safe. "

To Sorry wrote on Jul 2, 2009 11:39 PM:

" You have a point. Suppose you are required to be on your company pool or bowling league. Not in a non smoking building I'm sure! Your company has a meeting at the Ramkota, VFW, or Legion meeting rooms you are required to go to. They aren't non smoking buildings. If you are a veteran and belong to the DAV, VFW, or legion. They don't meet in a non smoking building. Elks don't either. So you see, there are many ways non smokers end up in non smoke free buildings "

To Sorry wrote on Jul 2, 2009 8:22 AM:

" What manditory functions do you have to attend to in a bar? I don't buy it.
No one has to go to a bar, and if the people that didn't like smoking in the bars would STOP GOING, and inform the bar owners of their choice, you'd see more bars become non-smoking. You don't need more laws to enact change, you just have to stand up for your values. When did we lose that idea? "

well written wrote on Jun 30, 2009 11:08 PM:

" It's nice to finally see some common sense......I have already had enough change to believe in. We are over the top in restrictions and have already driven most businesses down or out of the country from the mom and pop places to our national industries. For someone to not LIKE somebody else's addiction while they practice their own addiction is totally assinine. Maybe while we impose even more regulations on these businesses, we can get the unemployment deficit higher than the 36 mil it is standing at now on top of everything else. "

well well wrote on Jun 30, 2009 2:00 PM:

" It seems like every state surrounding SD has already successfully enacted smoking bans. I have lived in ND and saw no negative effects on bar patronage after the bans went into effect. These bars still have smoking "sections" in a closed off area outside the bar which seem to suit smokers just fine. I know there are some business freedoms being taken away, but people need to realize the benefits to the population as a whole. "

This is a huge disappointment. wrote on Jun 30, 2009 1:22 PM:

" I was so excited to go into a smoke free bar in this town, and now we're sitting while the wheels of justice get stuck in another ravine where politicians are heavily influenced by the bar owners and other nicotine addicts.

Sad, sad day. "

Concerned citizen wrote on Jun 30, 2009 1:01 PM:

" I'm completely in favor of keeping the government out of peoples' lives as much as possible. However, there are times when the government has to take action to protect the health and welfare of the people. We don't allow the market to determine the appropriate age to allow people to smoke or drink alcohol because the government needs to protect young people. Likewise, the government shouldn't allow the market to determine whether or not smoking is allowed in public places because it affects everyone - even those that consciously choose not to smoke and young people. "

Sorry wrote on Jun 30, 2009 12:26 PM:

" I don't agree with you--my health and the health of South Dakotan's is more important than video lottery. Yes, I know I can choose to go or not go to certain establishments, but many times there isn't a choice--functions that a person must attend are often times held in smoking areas--for you smokers, go ahead and smoke, please just don't share the health impairing habit with me. Step outside--it is only courteous. I don't care if you smoke or not--that is your choice. But I do care about the health of offers , which you must not. "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comments must be approved by an editor before appearing on the Web site. Editors review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.