Close the loophole
Smoking ban still doesn't apply to all casinos
Rocky Mountain News
Published June 9, 2008 at midnight
The 2007 legislature repealed the casino exemption in the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. As of Jan. 1, bettors could no longer light up in casinos. It simply wasn't fair that casinos had been given a break on smoking that was denied so many other establishments when the law was passed the year before.
Or at least we thought the exemption had been eliminated.
Instead, patrons at two of Colorado's gaming halls are puffing away, and it's possible other smoker-friendly casinos might emerge as well.
Last week, Bronco Billy's Casino in Cripple Creek became the second Colorado betting spot to openly allow smoking in its gaming areas - joining Black Hawk's Wild Card Saloon and Casino, which never observed the smoking ban to begin with.
How did this happen? Casino owners claim that their properties satisfy the legal definition of a cigar bar - where smoking is still allowed - and they're probably right. Any business that meets the cigar-bar standard, even if its primary revenue source isn't tobacco sales, can let customers light up to their hearts' content.
These businesses are exploiting a "loophole" that's big enough to fly a jumbo jet through.
State lawmakers tried but failed to fix this flaw in the closing days of this year's session. Tightening the definition of a cigar bar should be a priority for the 2009 General Assembly, or even more businesses may make a mockery of the smoking ban and tilt what is now a fairly level playing field.
When the 2006 legislature banned smoking in most places that accommodate the public, it allowed several reasonable exceptions, including enclosed smoking lounges at Denver International Airport, along with retail tobacco shops and cigar bars - typically small taverns or clubs that don't serve food but sell booze and smokes.
The threshold for becoming a cigar bar, however, isn't that high. A business that gets at least 5 percent of its revenues from tobacco sales or sells $50,000 worth of retail tobacco products a year qualifies.
Wild Card owner Ed Smith told Rocky columnist Bill Johnson he never obeyed the ban because the convenience store at the rear of the casino sold some $300,000 in tobacco products last year. The state Gaming Commission reviewed the books, consulted its lawyers, and concluded that Smith was right - the Wild Card met the legal definition of a cigar bar.
Lawmakers tried to settle the matter with Senate Bill 225, which would have outlawed smoking at cigar bars with gaming machines. The bill passed the Senate but failed in the House the day before the session ended.
Next year, lawmakers should try again with a measure that both affirmatively prohibits smoking at any gaming establishment and tightens the definition of cigar bars, so other businesses might not use that designation to evade the smoking ban.
Other states have set a threshold for cigar bars based on percentage of sales, rather than a dollar amount, which can be eroded by inflation over time. In New York and Connecticut, for instance, cigar bars must generate at least 10 percent of their revenues from tobacco sales; Arizona ups the ante by requiring cigar bars to get 10 percent of sales from cigars - cigarettes and pipe tobacco don't count.
Legislation based perhaps on Arizona's approach, coupled with an explicit ban on smoking in any business with a gambling license, should minimize the temptation to game the smoking ban.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Broncos-Jets Action
Visit our photo galleries for some hard-hitting action photos from Sunday's game.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's postgame rant on the Jets.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Stein's View
Editorial cartoons by Ed Stein
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
June 9, 2008
1:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Wonderful. The people who want to make the decisions for everyone, in their own best interest of course, now want to change their own rules because the businesses have discovered a way to regain their freedoms. How does the revenue from this casino compare to the revenue of others in the same area? Here's a chance for the anti-smokers to prove their rules don't affect revenues.
Why not leave the situation alone for a year and see if the casinos that allow smoking make more money or less money. Some of us believe that smoker friendly casinos will make more money than the ones run by managers who cave in to the smoking na>is.
Non-smokers will have a chance to prove that a non-smoking business is preferred by most customers. That's the best evidence they can have and it's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's all in the numbers.
Before you jump to a conclusion, I'm a non-smoker who never tried that activity. (I'm addicted to quilting, much more expensive and addictive too.)
Small businesses should be allowed to make the choice of being smoke free or smoker friendly. I'd support a ballot initiative that gives small bars and taverns the right to make an individual choice. I'd also allow any business that is taxed as steeply as the casinos to maintain separate smoking areas and non-smoking spaces. The business may be open to the public, but it is a private business. Smokers create a mess and odor. Let each business make their own business decision on smoking. That's the way businesses are allowed to operate in a free society. A legal product may be used in a legal way in a business if the business owner so decides. Give the bar owners the right to make their own choices. Or use the numbers from the casinos to prove the ordinance is not responsible for a business losing customers and money. Or have a hissy fit because you can't prove anything except that YOU want to make business decisions for others even though you know there is proof out there that the casinos lost money due to the smoking ban while those who defied it are making more money.
June 9, 2008
1:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
How about repealing the infrigement on property and business owners rights, and allow them to decide what behavior they will allow on their own property? They already pay rent (taxes) to the state. They have shouldered all the risks, and all the burdens of running a business, and then the holier-than-thou buttinskis come along and try to decree their own version of morality on places they never even frequent. If a non-smoking casino is what the public wants, then let someone open one. If the public truly believes in this overbearing usurpation of private property rights, then a non-smoking casino should flourish.
What I find kind of poetic is that the same people that are for abortions, under privacy laws, are the first to usurp property owners rights. They can kill their children for convenience, but cannot allow smoking because it is a health hazard. Go figure.
June 9, 2008
4:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
rellimpank writes:
--Clyde's last paragraph a good one .
Reminds me of a remark William F. Buckley made that many of the same portion of the political spectrum that wishes to legalize marijuana would make smoking tobacco a felony---
June 9, 2008
4:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Soon you won't have to worry about closing the loophole on casinos; the way things are going with te smoking ban, you will have more to worry about the closing casinos. Let the money talk; where is all this wonderful new revenue the non-smokers promised?
June 9, 2008
4:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
I bet these two casinos that allow smoking might actually out perform pecentage wise in profits than the non-smoking casinos. Let it go, lets see...
June 9, 2008
4:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
Clyde says "What I find kind of poetic is that the same people that are for abortions, under privacy laws, are the first to usurp property owners rights. They can kill their children for convenience, but cannot allow smoking because it is a health hazard. Go figure." Apparently Clyde conveniently forgot that the anti-smoking laws were passed when there was still a GOP majority - and signed into law by a GOP governor (Owens). This was an issue that the "nannies" on both sides of the aisle agreed on. By the way - they are now moving to get rid of the smoking lounge at DIA - which is separately ventilated, nowhere near even restrooms on the 2nd floor of Concourse B, and which one must intentionally enter and is CLEARLY labelled as a smoking lounge/bar - but of course, non-smokers are too stupid to stay out of places that cater to smokers - even if they have to go out of their way to enter them.
June 9, 2008
6:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pagen writes:
The reason there was an exemption in the first place is there were several "expensive" and "upscale" cigar bars that would have gone out of business, one of which is the one in the Brown Palace. They never dreamed that there would be bars that would become cigar bars and especially they never dreamed there would be casinos with that status. They tried to insure the status by adding the rental of the Humidor but that didn't work either. Now they are thinking of closing down the smoking bars in DIA, which incedentally are privately owned, and now more people will lose their businesses.
They should have left well enough alone and let businesses have their own choice and let the public have theirs. They have tried to justify it with the illusion of ETS and how if you are around it you will die, and they have lied to the public and created hate against a group of people. This needs to end. They need to allow businesses to make their own choice. Isn't this supposed to be a free market?
June 9, 2008
6:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
These are some excellent points made this morning. Refreshing and sane, go figure.
June 9, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWBushwacked writes:
I would be in favor of a separate area in casinos that are smoking/nonsmoking -as long as the air quality can be maintained. I like to gamble and there is nothing worse than someone's cigarette lingering in your face. Now, if we only had a way for every ounce of emissions from your cigarette to be inhaled by you instead of passively sent my way-then I am sure we could induce lung cancer and COPD and get rid of the lot of you all sooner. You may have the right to smoke, but nonsmokers have the right to not passively inhale it--I do not care if it is a bar. You can smoke outside, in your car and home and that should be it until the day they come up with a cigarette that you do not have to "share with the rest of the world". Cigarette smoking is not a right.
On a side bar, I work for the state and do you know how much tax money is wasted by people who take, in addition to their lunch break, excessive cigarette breaks that exceed the time by law allowed ?
June 9, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Holy my gosh!
We found an issue that Froward69 and Earl agree on.
This Rocky editorial is calling for a kind of notional perfection that isn't merely prissy but counterproductive. (Remember, small stakes casino gambling was approved by the voters as a revenue source for parks, historic preservation, open space, etc. Since the smoking ban, revenues have fallen dramatically ... )
Why not legitimize the loophole? There is obviously a demand for casinos where gamblers can smoke. Make it explicit. Casino A is a non-smoking establishment, Casino B is a smoking establishment. There are big signs informing the public. If the state MUST flex its regulatory muscles, maybe Casino B can be required to post a bond to indemnify against second hand smoke insurance claims. Casino A would provide an alternative to those casino workers who don't want to work in smoky Casino B. Nobody need go to Casino B who don't consciously want to be in a smoking environment.
Oh, that's right, we aren't smart enough to make our own decisions ...
June 9, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
GWBushwacked, you have a CHOICE to enter an establishment that allows smoking or not. You don't have the right to force your version of morality on others. Using your logic, I can say that you shouldn't be allowed to drive a vehicle because the emissions are harmful to the environment and to my health, and vehicles kill more people each year than smoking can even come close to. You better not BBQ outside either, because it emits pollution, and if you have a yard and don't have an electric mower, you're infringing on others' rights with your gas mower....... according to your views. This country was founded on freedom of choice, among other things, and you have the freedom to choose just like the rest of us. If you don't like something, stay away from it.
June 9, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
I suppose if a person is addicted to tobacco s/he can have a craving to also spend her/his money on gambling, but it is absolute nonsense that the smoking ban is causing casinos to lose money.
In case the smoking zealots here haven't noticed, we're in an economic slump, and gas prices are sky high.
Gee, could it possibly be that maybe sensible gamblers are deciding that their dwindling dollars are best spent on food for their familiy's table and fuel to get to work? As someone else said in a different thread, spend $10 in a slot machine, and chances are it will soon be gone. Spend $10 on groceries or gasoline, and you'll have food on your table, and gasoline to go to work and run errands with. We've had casino downturns before during economic slumps.
Clyde, many people who are for property rights would be the first ones to tell a woman she has no reproductive choices.
June 9, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Cwillyrun1, you have a choice only if the choice exists. Were there non-smoking casinos before the ban took effect?
June 9, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Colorado is not the only place having a revenue problem; the enonomy plays a part but not that large of a part.
The Illinois Gaming Board says casinos in the state experienced
a 17 percent revenue decrease in January this year compared with
January last year.
Most casinos also reported an almost six percent decrease in
admissions.
Many casinos already had non-smoking areas.
"Cigarette smoking is not a right." Neither is gambling.
June 9, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
I'd rather see an amendment that prevents the state legislature from passing laws which are exempt from being overturned by citizen initiatives. We the people should be the final judge of what is right or wrong, not a handful of elected officials.
June 9, 2008
12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Acemon, there is no law passed by the legislature that can't be overturned by citizen initiative. I'm not certain about the state budget. If you are talking about the clause that the legislature attaches to certain bills stating that this law is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of the people of Colorado, yes, that does prevent an immediate referendum. But the legislature is using that provision less, and even those laws can be overturned or altered by the citizenry through the initiative process at the next general election.
So, if you wanted to, you could put an initiative on the 2010 ballot repealing the no-smoking in bars or casinos legislation. Gather plenty of signatures, wage a public campaign to persuade voters to pass it, and be prepared for others to oppose your initiative through their own campaign.
June 9, 2008
12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
peterpi, it's a fact casino's have lost revenue since the smoking ban. That can't be disputed, and it was a big dropoff after the first of the year, when the ban went into effect. Many smokers have decided not to patronize the casinos because of it. Gas prices were already high at that point, but hey, if you can twist it to fit what you're saying, go ahead and try. Can you back up your opinion that casinos have had downturns during economic slumps before with something factual?
As far as non-smoking casinos...... if a business owner decides that he/she wants to cater to the non-smokers, then he should be able to do it and not worry about grumbling from smokers, just as a business owner should have the right to allow smoking patrons at his or her business in this type of example. If there weren't any non-smoking casinos, and you felt the urge to gamble, I'm sure you could write to any of the casinos and ask that they have a no smoking area. If the demand to have a non-smoking casino was large enough, it would've been available. It's up to the business owner to change it or not. You have a choice to go gambling, and if you know there's smokers around and you don't want to deal with it, you have the right to choose not to go gambling. You know what, in Vegas, all the casinos allow smokers...... guess it must be that Nevada believes the owner has a right to conduct his or her business, within legal limits, as he or she sees fit.
June 9, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
You want totally free choice? Here it is and it preserves both the business owners' choice and the non-smokers'/smokers choice and it gets rid of nannyism: 1. The business can elect to be non-smoking or 2. The business can elect to be smoking with no restrictions (smoking areas). This is essential - no restricted areas.
Non-smokers can go to the businesses that do not allow smoking. Smokers can go to the businesses that allow smoking. If someone has no preference, they can go to either.
The result is that the marketplace will decide. If the smoking businesses can draw enough customers, they'll survive. If not, they'll die or their numbers will be decrease to the point where they can make a profit.
June 9, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Governmental intrusion in morals and everyday life, anybody have a history book or relative old enough to recall how well prohibition went? It's just another case of a vocal group (gasp) dictating PC legislation, and spineless politicians accepting thier bribes, er, donations in return. If a casino/smoking bar is open and you are so concerned, go across the street to a smoke free casino, better yet, dont go, the good folks that enjoy the casinos will have a better time without you moaning. I am a former smoker that defends the rights of smokers, they are citizens also, stop the "legal" discrimination against them.
June 9, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jack_Bauer writes:
mrfxx,
You may want to check your facts, the Democrats took over both state houses in 2004 - look it up. That would mean that you are wrong about Republican control of both houses and the Governors seat in 2006 when this bill was created and put into law.
You are correct that a republican Governor has his signature on the bill.
The House vote was 41 for the ban 24 against, In the Senate it was 21 for the ban and 14 against,
In the house 16 R and 8 D voted against a ban
vs. 14 R and 27 D voting for a ban - hardly an agreement
In the Senate 14 R and 0 D voted against a ban
vs. 3 R and 18 D voted for a ban - again hardly an agreement in the senate.
Please look it up, and next time investigate before spreading false information, you look pretty silly when you cannot get your facts straight.
June 9, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Itsjustme-one of the talking points used(a lot) in favor of making the smoking ban statewide instead of leaving it to local juridictions' discretion was that they didn't want affected businesses in non-smoking jurisdictions to lose customers to nearby businesses in nearby smoking-permitted jurisdictions.
Another talking point was that community health trumps individual rights.Those of us who are against the smoking ban would be well advised to let that issue lay for now and start pushing as roughly as possible for the Personhood Amendment,which is also health-related.After all,it's much healthier for the unborn if they are not cut into pieces.
June 9, 2008
10:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Peterpi Cwillyrun
This argument has factual evidence that we can access.
Fact, one casino has defied the ban since its inception.
Several others, including another casino, have jumped on the bandwagon.
Over this same time period all businesses have paid taxes on their revenues.
Pull the tax records of them and compare. Randomly pull the tax records of other businesses in the areas that are not able to meet the requirements and remain smoker friendly.
Why is no one using those records? Could it be that the records held by the government will show that, despite bad economic news and high gas prices, the casinos permitting smoking did better than their neighbors. Maybe the smokers just have more money to spend. Maybe they all drive smaller cars.
Pull the actual figures and end the guessing.
Wanna bet they stall until they can get rid of the loophole because it would be proof that the smoking ban has been responsible for a loss of revenue in both the bars and the casinos. Mom and pop businesses are suffering because they didn't ever believe that the government would pass a law guaranteed to cause a drop in revenue.
Let the numbers do the talking. the plain simple numbers before they get manipulated by "adjustments for...."
June 10, 2008
5:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pagen writes:
Pmyers,
Go to www.stopthebans.com and you will see that we have been putting together the numbers and already show the losses to the bars. The casinos we have not gathered data on yet but we will
June 11, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Correct me if I am wrong, wasnt a law proposed to ban smoking in a car with a child present, and it be considered child abuse? If so, you can talk on a cell phone, eat a donut, but not have a smoke? As a former smoker, I support the casinos that are exercising the cigar bar "loophole", and did so yesterday with a cash "donation".
June 15, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
generalsn1234567 writes:
The smoking ban people are really losing credibility as the rest of the world is watching their childish behavior.
June 15, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
generalsn1234567 writes:
the Denver ban being expanded makes a lot of sense. They didn't want anyone seeing all the business going to the areas surrounding Denver, as happens with all the other local bans. Colorado is a good place for this experiment, since nearly all the major population areas are not near any borders. Illinois gamblers are lucky in that most of the Illinois casinos have competing smoking casinos across the border, one being 1/4 mile from the Chicago city limits.