Op-Ed: Anti-tobacco lawmakers unresponsive to ban’s impact

The Colorado Licensed Beverage Association and bar owners’ Coalition for Equal Rights hosted a joint conference in Idaho Springs from Oct. 26 to 28. Members of the Colorado Legislature, lobbyists and a director from the Colorado Department of Revenue attended. Several topics of importance to liquor store and tavern business owners, including enforcement and proposed legislation, were discussed. During the conference I presented a consulting report for CER members about the $30 million economic impact of the Colorado smoking ban on tavern licensees, which included statistics from the Colorado Department of Revenue.

Adverse impact of the current statewide smoking ban on bars and taverns was discussed with legislators during a roundtable session. Legislators responded with a challenge to bar and tavern owners by making it clear that, regardless of significant adverse economic impact, no legislative changes to the smoking ban would be sponsored or passed.

The above events cause concern in light of an October Harris/Wall Street Journal online survey. Thirtyseven percent of respondents said it was fair to ask people with unhealthy lifestyles to pay higher insurance premiums; 35 percent felt that some should pay higher co-payments or deductibles. In a June 2006 survey, 53 percent of respondents stated they thought it was fair for those with unhealthy lifestyles to pay higher insurance premiums, co-payments or deductibles. A healthy lifestyle was defined as those who don’t smoke, exercise frequently and control their weight. Public support for a core part of anti-tobacco and anti-obesity agendas has sharply declined over the past 17 months.

Waning public support for specialinterest health agendas occurs as the public becomes aware of program details, while targeted citizens and small business owners feel the increasing bite that an agenda imposes. Legislator positions such as those experienced by the Coalition for Equal Rights last weekend — effectively, hush up and endure — are unresponsive and insensitive.

The October Harris/WSJ survey confirms trends identified in 2006 California Field Polls data regarding a $2.1 billion per year cigarette tax ballot measure. Revenues would have been used to finance expansion of health care in that state, including emergency care for illegal immigrants. An August 2006 survey showed 63 percent supported the ballot measure. By October, public support declined to 45 percent. The California cigarette tax ballot measure failed 48 percent to 52 percent in November. Again, it becomes clear that support declines when voters begin to understand the details and consequences of special-interest agendas.

The above polling data should be of immediate concern to Colorado legislators because it fires a warning shot across the bow of politicians who apparently believe that the agenda comes first and its consequences can be ignored. The implicit message from some legislators — to the effect that small business owners presenting their legitimate concerns to elected representatives is perhaps just a bit uppity — is not acceptable.

Voters have moved well past the zenith of public support for legislation that targets one group with punitive costs and mandates to benefit a voter majority who presumably will elect program sponsors. Concerned voters are beginning to acknowledge both their interdependence and the value of preserving personal liberties. It appears to me that the public is completing an important civics lesson about the true meaning of democracy with considerably greater success than their elected representatives. It is apparent that the majority who are incorrectly assumed to support specialinterest legislation get it: the target that one allows to be painted on a neighbor’s back today will predictably result in cross hairs on one’s own posterior tomorrow. That applies equally to individual citizens and small business groups with diverse interests.

Casinos in Blackhawk and Cripple Creek are building outdoor pavilions to accommodate customers who smoke when the casino smoking ban becomes effective in January 2008. Tobacco control advocates are now declaring the pavilions to be illegal. The $30 million adverse impact of the smoking ban on bar and tavern revenues reported by the Coalition for Equal Rights provides a clear indicator of what the consequences of a smoking ban for casinos will be. Coalition economic impact data strongly suggest that the smoking ban’s impact on casino revenues may prove to be far greater than previously estimated.

It is one thing for legislators to pass a smoking ban when its economic impact is uncertain. Perhaps that is a naive mistake. Legislators persisting with support of special-interest smoking bans despite clear evidence of its substantial negative impact is another matter, however. Principal among concerns for small business owners is the question of legislators blindly pursuing a ban agenda, despite survey data that shows sharply waning public support and economic data that reveals strong adverse impact. At what point does such behavior by elected representatives become a statement that public opinion and negative impact for small business owners do not matter to legislators?

Having been presented with a challenge by legislators, Coalition for Equal Rights members and other small business groups rise to a higher commitment. Their legitimate interests will be heard; they will pursue administrative and legislative remedies. The most important service CER members can provide for all Colorado small business owners is to publicly respond to the challenge presented by addressing the important issue of all citizens’ right to meaningfully petition government.

Kjono is a financial consultant and columnist for Forces.org