Latest smoking ban proposal less restrictive. A group backed by Arizona liquor interests is making a last-minute push to get a limited smoking ban on the November ballot.
For newest articles see: AZ State Update Page 2
Smoking, eminent domain take hits from voters
But those earning minimum wage to get a raise
11/8/06
Arizona voters Tuesday banned smoking in bars, restricted government use of eminent domain, raised the minimum wage and defeated a proposition that would have amended the state constitution to ban same-sex unions.
… Proposition 201, Smoke-Free Arizona, won approval with more than 50 percent of the vote. Voters rejected Proposition 206, the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act, by a 3-to-2 margin.
Prop. 201 was backed by health organizations; Prop. 206 was bankrolled by the tobacco industry.
Prop. 201 prohibits smoking in any public places of employment such as bars, restaurants and airports. Private residences, retail tobacco stores and outdoor patios would be exempt from the law.
The measure also calls for a Smoke-Free Arizona Fund, accumulated through taxes on tobacco products and cigarettes. The state Health Department would administer the fund, which would go toward enforcing the no-smoking rule.
Read More
Broad ban beats out industry-backed plan
11.08.2006
By Andrea Kelly, Arizona Daily Star
Arizona voters spoke loud and clear Tuesday about smoking in public places: They don’t like it, so they banned it.
A little more than half of state voters said they want to restrict the places where people can light up, and they don’t want to go to smoke-filled bars, either.
Of the two smoking initiatives on the ballot, voters approved the more comprehensive one. It eliminates smoking in all indoor public places as well as offices and other workplaces.
Critics said the proposition took away private property owner’s rights. Supporters argued that the ban would improve public health. They also pointed to other cities and states with similar bans that suffered little economic impact after enacting them.
Supporters included the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.
Opposition included R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association and Tucson’s chamber of commerce.
The alternative, which voters rejected, with more than 55 percent voting no, was Proposition 206. That option would have banned smoking in all indoor public places and workplaces, with an exception: bars. If a restaurant also had a bar, it would have had to be walled off to separate it from the restaurant and would have to have a separate ventilation system.
The passage of Proposition 201 will still allow smoking in tobacco shops, casinos, outdoor restaurant and bar patios, private veterans and fraternal clubs, American Indian religious ceremonies and 50 percent of the hotel and motel rooms.
The ordinance will also add a 2 cent tax to each pack of cigarettes sold, which would pay for enforcement of the state-wide public smoking ban.
Contact reporter Andrea Kelly at 573-4243 or akelly@azstarnet.com.
Read
Ariz., Ohio key in smoking ballot battle
Oct. 30, 2006
Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic
There’s a new front in America’s smoking wars, and Arizona is one of two key battlegrounds.
Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic
There’s a new front in America’s smoking wars, and Arizona is one of two key battlegrounds.
Here and in Ohio, tobacco interests are spending millions of dollars on alternatives to anti-smoking measures rather than fighting them head-on.
The strategy has created lively if confusing campaigns as voters try to sort out which smoking ban does what.
“It’s never been done before,” said Joel Spivak, media relations director for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, which is supporting the broader smoking bans being pushed in Arizona and Ohio.
Accustomed to being the guys in the white hats who square off against the black-hatted tobacco industry, health groups find themselves staring down opponents who wear a slightly different shade of white.
Even the names of the initiatives sound nearly the same. Smoke Free Ohio, backed by health groups, is facing off against Smoke Less Ohio, backed by tobacco money. Smoke Free Arizona, supported by health organizations, is up against the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Committee, supported by tobacco money.
Both sides are pushing smoking bans but to different degrees. The outcome on Nov. 7 could be a turning point in the tobacco battles, which have been won overwhelmingly by health groups.
In Arizona, Proposition 201 proposes a statewide workplace smoking ban. Proposition 206 borrowed much of the no-smoking language but carved out an exception for bars. It’s a switch-don’t-fight strategy that gives voters a choice. Or, critics say, that sows confusion.
In Ohio, supporters of Smoke Free Ohio say it grew out of concern for non-smokers and the effect secondhand smoke could have on them. Supporters of Smoke Less Ohio use much the same language, describing it as balancing protection of public health with protection against an overly intrusive government.
Offering a choice
Most of the public doesn’t smoke, so the people tend to support smoking bans, said John Singleton, director of communications for R.J. Reynolds, the cigarette-maker bankrolling Arizona’s Proposition 206 and Ohio’s Issue 4.
But give them a choice of what type of ban and they may be persuaded that smoking is OK in places where they don’t have to go.
“Let’s draw the line at where, essentially, only adults go,” Singleton said. Thus the exception for bars and Proposition 206’s provision that children younger than 18 would not be allowed in bars, cigar clubs or other places where smoking would be allowed.
The widespread ban proposed by Proposition 201 is “too extreme,” said Chuck Coughlin, whose political consulting firm HighGround is working for Proposition 206. It could drive bars out of business, and it leaves little room for public gathering places for smokers, he said.
The 206 campaign, called the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Committee, was born out of frustration, he said, after the American Lung Association rejected a deal offered by the local bar industry to back a smoking ban that would exempt bars.
Coughlin said he is amazed that the health groups continue to push for smoking restrictions when, in his view, they’ve won 90 percent of the battle.
“They’ve won the debate,” he said. “We have a tobacco company acknowledging that people don’t want to be around smoke. And they’re spending their own money to keep people away from their product.”
R.J. Reynolds has put $8.45 million into the Proposition 206 campaign to date. Although it would permit smoking in bars, it would ban it in places that currently allow smoking, such as restaurants.
Coughlin dismissed speculation that Proposition 206 supporters would be happy to see both smoking bans fail. (If they both pass, the one with the most votes prevails.) They’re in this to win, and the amount of money poured into the campaign is proof of that, he said.
Still exposed to smoke
The sponsors of Proposition 201, known as Smoke Free Arizona, say the alternative smoking bans are a sham. They contend that people will still be exposed to secondhand smoke because measures such as Proposition 206 won’t have adequate enforcement.
Beverly May is in the thick of the smoking debate through her work with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.
She said the backers of broad smoking bans are sticking to their tried-and-true strategies, even as they are confronted with alternative proposals rather than the “no” campaigns that they have battled for years.
“We stay on task,” she said. “We certainly don’t respond to everything they throw at us.”
The biggest ace for campaigns such as Smoke Free Arizona is to point to the backers of the competing measures: The smoking bans in Arizona and Ohio are supported by groups such as the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association.
The more lenient bans are supported by R.J. Reynolds, a tobacco company whose name must be disclosed in every advertisement, as well as local bars and taverns.
The dueling smoking bans also differ in a key element: Proposition 201 would let municipalities set their own, stricter smoking regulations. Proposition 206 would set a statewide standard that local communities could not surpass.
If Proposition 206 succeeds, it could end the town-by-town battles over smoking bans.
R.J. Reynolds’ Singleton said that would be a hopeful outcome but far from certain. “I don’t know if any debate is truly ended,” he said.
With smoking, it’s hard to predict where the next battlefront will be.
Governor, challenger at odds over smoking ban
October 19, 2006
Mike Sunnucks
Mike Sunnucks
Gov. Janet Napolitano is backing a statewide smoking ban that would prohibit smoking in all state workplaces, while challenger Len Munsil opposes that ban as well as a more limited proposal on the November ballot.
Munsil said he opposes both Proposition 201 and Proposition 206 saying businesses and consumers should decide the smoking issue. Napolitano supports Prop. 201 and criticized the alternative proposal, which would exempt bars.
Prop. 206 is supported by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., bar owners and some business groups including the Mesa, Scottsdale, Chandler and Tucson Metropolitan chambers of commerce. They argue it is reasonable for bars to exempted from the smoking ban and have launched a major advertising effort supporting 206.
Public health groups, hospitals and the Tempe Chamber of Commerce support 201 saying the ban needs to be statewide and include all employers.
“Arizonans need to understand that Proposition 206 is funded by R.J. Reynolds and is an attempt to protect its tobacco profits,” said Napolitano, who is up for reelection against Munsil.
Munsil prefers the smoking issue be left up to the marketplace. “I prefer to eat in businesses that do not allow smoking. However, I believe patrons should make those decisions, not the government, so I oppose Propositions 201 and 206,” said Munsil Thursday.
Employers weigh in on smoking initiatives
By J. Craig Anderson, Tribune
October 13, 2006
A ballot initiative that would strip Arizona restaurants and bars of their right to allow smoking has found some unlikely allies: the state’s restaurant association and a small but vocal group of bar owners.
By J. Craig Anderson, Tribune
October 13, 2006
A ballot initiative that would strip Arizona restaurants and bars of their right to allow smoking has found some unlikely allies: the state’s restaurant association and a small but vocal group of bar owners.
Business groups back smoking ban that exempts bars
Oct 2, 2006
Mike Sunnucks
Mike Sunnucks
A quartet of business groups have come out in favor a smoking ban that exempts bars and restaurants but bars smoking in other workplaces and enclosed areas.
The Scottsdale, Mesa, Chandler and Tucson Metropolitan chambers of commerce Monday announced they support Proposition 206. That initiative is being bankrolled by the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. and the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association.
The ballot question is an alternative to an all-workplace smoking ban (Prop. 201) favored by health care groups and hospitals, including the American Cancer Society.
Prop. 201 would include bars and restaurants in its smoking ban, as well as all other workplaces.
In the event that both Prop. 201 and Prop. 206 pass in November’s election, the one garnering the greatest number of votes will become law.
“When people understand the difference between ours and theirs, they’ll trust the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society,” Corder said, referring to some of 201’s major backers.
Camilla Strongin, of the Proposition 206 campaign, said voters also need to consider that their measure would not raise taxes, while restricting minors from bars and allowing bar owners to choose whether to allow smoking.
Proposition 201 calls for a 2-cent-a-pack tax on cigarettes to pay for enforcement; Proposition 206 does not hike taxes, nor does it specify who should enforce the smoking ban.
Garnet Dawn
The Smoker’s Club, Inc.
Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter – http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights – http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net – Respect Freedom of Choice!
The Smoker’s Club, Inc.
Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter – http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights – http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net – Respect Freedom of Choice!
———-
Dueling smoking bans finding voter support
Sept. 29, 2006
Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic
Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic
It’s clear Arizona voters like the idea of smoking bans. In fact, they like both of the competing measures on the Nov. 7 ballot, according to the results of the Cronkite-Eight Poll.
The poll, released Thursday, shows 57 percent support Proposition 201, which would ban most indoor workplace smoking. Meanwhile, Proposition 206 drew 55 percent support. It, too, proposes a statewide smoking ban, but it would exempt bars as well as any restaurant bars that are separately ventilated.
Pollster Bruce Merrill said that the positive vote for both of the measures suggests voters are confused about the differences between the two. If both pass, the one with the most votes would become law.
Troy Corder, a spokesman for Proposition 201, said he was heartened by the results, since his group’s campaign has been outspent heavily by backers of the competing campaign.
“Unfortunately, we don’t have $8 million to spend,” Corder said, referring to reports that 206’s main backer, tobacco company R.J. Reynolds, was poised to pour $8 million into the Arizona campaign. As of Aug. 23, Proposition 206 had raised $3 million, while Proposition 201 had $850,000.
“When people understand the difference between ours and theirs, they’ll trust the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society,” Corder said, referring to some of 201’s major backers.
Camilla Strongin, of the Proposition 206 campaign, said voters also need to consider that their measure would not raise taxes, while restricting minors from bars and allowing bar owners to choose whether to allow smoking.
Proposition 201 calls for a 2-cent-a-pack tax on cigarettes to pay for enforcement; Proposition 206 does not hike taxes, nor does it specify who should enforce the smoking ban.
The other set of dueling ballot proposals, Propositions 105 and 106, deal with exchanges of state trust lands. Both drew less than 50 percent, although 105, backed by home builders and the Arizona School Boards Association, has a bigger deficit with only 35 percent support. Proposition 106, backed by teachers, conservation groups and others, got 49 percent approval.
But both trust-land measures showed a high degree of voter indecision: 30 percent said they hadn’t made up their minds which way to vote.
The biggest margin of approval went to Proposition 202, which would establish a state minimum wage of $6.75 an hour and adjust it annually for inflation. It drew 77 percent support.
The Humane Farms Act, Proposition 204, got 65 percent support, 16 percent opposition and 19 percent undecided.
First Things First, or Proposition 203, would raise the tax on a pack of cigarettes by 80 cents, to $1.98 to pay for early childhood programs. It drew 62 percent support.
The poll of 882 voters described as “most likely to vote” tested eight of the 19 measures on the ballot. It had an error margin of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.
The poll did not include Proposition 107, which would amend Arizona’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage, nor Proposition 207, which deals with eminent domain.
Big Tobacco’s bucks push weak smoking ban
September 1, 2006
J. Craig Anderson and Ryan Gabrielson
Backers of a statewide initiative to ban smoking in bars and restaurants fear Big Tobacco’s huge contributions to a competing measure will blow away their efforts like the wisp from a lit cigarette.
J. Craig Anderson and Ryan Gabrielson
Backers of a statewide initiative to ban smoking in bars and restaurants fear Big Tobacco’s huge contributions to a competing measure will blow away their efforts like the wisp from a lit cigarette.
Campaign finance reports submitted Thursday show that Missouri-based RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. has given nearly $3 million to promote Proposition 206, which would roll back smoking bans in cities such as Tempe and allow smoking in bars and restaurants statewide with certain restrictions to reduce secondhand smoke. Bars, restaurants and others have provided another $30,000 in contributions.
Proposition 201, which would eliminate all smoking inside bars and eateries, has received just over $850,000, more than $300,000 of which came from the American Cancer Society. Other contributors include the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association.
“It’s being entirely bankrolled by the tobacco interests,” Cancer Society lobbyist Michelle Pabis said about Prop. 206. “As a nonprofit health organization, we’re never going to be able to compete with that dollar amount.”
Prop. 206 spokeswoman Camilla Strongin, a partner at Phoenix-based political consulting firm The Symington Group, said the initiative is not a poison pill. Instead, Strongin said it’s a serious effort to protect those who don’t wish to endure secondhand smoke, while preserving the rights of adults to make their own decisions about exposure to smoking.
“I think we’ve been very forthright about the support from RJ Reynolds,” Strongin said. “Their involvement in this is certainly welcomed.”
Still, she would not explain why the tobacco giant was so interested in a serious antismoking effort.
“I don’t speak on behalf of the company,” Strongin said.
The committee promoting Proposition 203, which would increase funding for early childhood development programs through an additional 80-cent tax on a pack of cigarettes, has received the second-largest amount of contributions, about $2.8 million.
A broad base of contributors including banks, developers and investment firms, gave money through two campaign groups: “Yes on 203″ and “Arizonans for a Fair Beginning.” There is no organized opposition to the measure.
Three ballot measures that faced legal challenges will be on the ballot after rulings Thursday by the Arizona Supreme Court.
They are Proposition 106, a conservation and Arizona Land Department reform measure; Proposition 107, which would restrict marriage to heterosexual couples and prohibits the state from recognizing civil unions; and Proposition 207, which limits eminent domain powers and requires landowner compensation when government actions reduce property values.
Backers of Prop. 106, which would set aside up to 694,000 acres of state trust land for preservation and allow the state Land Department to use a percentage of the proceeds from land sales and leases to fund planning efforts, have reported contributions of about $1.3 million through three separate campaign groups.
Opponents, led by the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona and the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, have raised about $770,000.
Campaigns for and against the anti-gay marriage Prop. 107 have received roughly the same amount of financial support, with supporters raising about $460,000 and opponents collecting just more than $570,000.
The campaign for Prop. 207, the property rights initiative, has received nearly $930,000 in contributions, while the anti-Prop. 207 effort has raised just $11,300.
The battle over raising Arizona’s minimum wage to $6.75 an hour also has received lopsided support, with most contributions going to supporters. Backers of Proposition 202 have raised nearly $550,000, and the measure’s critics have collected about $28,000.
Proposition 204, which would require farmers to provide larger pens for pregnant sows and feeder calves, has garnered more than $490,000 in support, while its opponents, led by the National Pork Producers Council, have raised about $720,000.
Alternative to smoking ban makes fall ballot
Aug. 24, 2006
Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic
Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic
The Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act has qualified for the fall ballot, officially setting up dueling proposals on how to curb indoor workplace smoking statewide.
The act, also known as Proposition 206, will go before voters at the Nov. 7 election along with Proposition 201, the Smoke-Free Arizona Act.
Proposition 206 easily passed the test for making the ballot.
Camilla Strongin, campaign spokeswoman, said the qualification was welcome news, but not unexpected.
“We had an overwhelming number of signatures,” she said, adding that the initiative’s supporters were confident they’d make the ballot. The campaign got a late start, hitting the streets in May with heavy funding from the tobacco company R.J. Reynolds and some aid from the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association.
Backers said they wanted to offer an alternative to what they see as the overly harsh provisions of Smoke-Free Arizona, which is backed by a variety of health groups.
Like Smoke-Free Arizona, Proposition 206 proposes a statewide ban on indoor smoking at workplaces, with the notable exception of bars.
For those bars located within a restaurant or other establishment, smoking would be permitted only if the bar area is walled off and separately ventilated.
Proposition 206 backers have already launched a publicity campaign, while Proposition 201 has not yet started one, citing its smaller budget.
Former AG backs health industry’s smoking ban
22 August 2006
Former state Attorney General Grant Woods has endorsed a health care industry-backed workplace smoking ban that will go before voters in November.
Backers of Proposition 201 hope Woods’ support will help it outduel a weaker smoker ban put forward by RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. and an industry group representing bars and restaurants. The rival measure also will be on the November ballot.
Prop. 201 would prohibit smoking in all workplaces and enclosed public areas. It also has the backing of the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association. Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano supports the measure as well. Her Republican rivals oppose proposed smoking bans.
The other ballot question, Prop. 206, allows exemptions for bars and restaurants with bars. It has the backing of the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association.
RJR also is opposing smoking bans and tobacco tax increases in Arizona, Ohio, Missouri and California.
“Proposition 206 is clearly designed to protect their profits,” Woods said on Tuesday. “There is only one real smoke-free initiative on the November ballot that protects Arizonans from the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, and that is Prop. 201.”
Smoking ban is owner’s prerogative
Aug. 19, 2006
Don Fllickinger
Don Fllickinger
An entrepreneur has expended considerable personal time, effort, money and other resources to establish a place of business.
What right does the government, or anyone else, have to dictate to the entrepreneur whether smoking will or will not be allowed within the walls of his or her privately owned place of business?
The owner has the constitutional right and freedom to decide whether smoking will or will not be allowed within the business.
If a perspective customer objects to secondhand smoke, then he or she is free to choose not to enter the place of business.
Smoking ban battle set
Aug. 14, 2006
Jahna Berry
Jahna Berry
Some Valley city leaders worry that a November ballot proposition that’s bankrolled by tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds would snuff out tough smoking ordinances in cities such as Tempe.
If passed, Proposition 206, which is called the Non-Smoker Protection Act, would replace home-grown local ordinances with a statewide rule that would allow some bar and restaurant patrons to light up indoors if seated in a walled and ventilated smoking area, something that’s prohibited or severely restricted in communities such as Tempe, Sedona and Prescott.
“It takes power away from the people. The people voted on a smoking ordinance,” said Tempe Councilwoman Shana Ellis. Tempe’s city attorney has not yet analyzed how the proposed ballot proposition and a second smoking regulation issue also on the Nov. 12 ballot would affect the city’s law.
Like Tempe, Peoria bans smoking in many indoor public places, but in Peoria, bars and restaurants that opened before 2004 may allow smoking.
“We would be very concerned,” said Peoria City Attorney Steve Kemp, who said that, if approved, the R.J. Reynolds-backed measure would roll back smoking restrictions that his City Council voted on in 2003.
Ellis and Kemp say they have fewer concerns about the health-group sponsored Smoke-Free Arizona Act, Proposition 201, which would spread statewide rules like the ones Tempe enacted in 2002 that bar smoking inside most public places.
This proposition closely resembles existing rules in their communities and it allows local leaders to add more restrictions later if they chose to.
The Non-Smoker Protection Act, on the other hand, doesn’t allow communities to enact stronger, local smoking rules, they say.
Establishments in Native American communities, such as casinos, would not be subject to either proposed state law.
It’s fairer for business owners and their customers to have a uniform rule across the state, Proposition 206 backers say.
Steve Goumas owns Rula Bula, an Irish pub that has managed to flourish despite the Tempe smoking rules. But Goumas says he’s likely to a vote for the less-restrictive smoking ballot measure.
A few weeks ago, one of Rula Bula’s regulars, Robbie Fox, was smoking on an outdoor patio in triple-digit heat and got sick. Employees put the customer into the beer cooler until Fox felt better. It’s not the first time that’s happened, Goumas said.
“Patios are not the answer,” says Goumas, adding that he doesn’t smoke, he doesn’t support smoking and 90 percent of his customers don’t smoke. That said, he’d like to serve his smoking customers in an indoor, well-ventilated room.
Business owners should be able allow smoking indoors if they have “a place and want to spend the money on a ventilation system,” said Fox, the Rula Bula customer.
Owners like Goumas have at least one supporter on Tempe’s City Council. Occasional cigar smoker Hut Hutson says that the small-business owners’ livelihoods are affected by smoking rules so they should be allowed to choose whether to make their shops smoke-free.
Other business owners have thrown their weight behind Smoke-Free Arizona.
Matt McMahon is a joint-venture partner in a company that owns 18 Outback Steakhouse restaurants throughout the state, including in Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Scottsdale, Glendale and Surprise. McMahon says that he agrees that smoking rules could hurt business owners in the short term, but he also argues that smoke-free businesses stand to gain new customers over time.
Several years ago, when Mesa was among the first in the Valley to impose smoking rules for public places, McMahon saw some of his Mesa restaurant’s business go to his Tempe location.
McMahon, who prefers Proposition 201, Smoke-Free Arizona, says he has created outdoor sections, at the request of patrons.
“We’ll lose some customers because people will go to the casinos to smoke,” McMahon said. “But they can’t get a great steak anyplace else other than Outback Steakhouse.”
In Tempe, the city’s smoking rules have won a few converts among business leaders.
Tempe’s smoking rules, which prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants but allow it on outdoor patios, was passed by voters May 2002. The restrictions took effect in the midst of an economic downturn in Tempe. There were 22 months of declining sales on Mill Avenue, and several bars and restaurants were shuttered, according to Downtown Tempe Community, a merchants group.
Now, Mill Avenue cash registers are flush — there have been 36 months of increasing sales downtown, said Rod Keeling, president and executive director of the business group, which opposed Tempe’s smoking restrictions at the time of the 2002 vote.
“From an economic standpoint, the district has economically prospered,” Keeling said, adding that there were some bars that were particularly vulnerable to the smoking ban and the economic downturn.
Councilwoman Barb Carter and Councilman Mark Mitchell argued that if voters approve the Proposition 201, which would spread Tempe-style smoking ban statewide, it could help benefit Tempe business owners who feel that they may have lost customers to neighboring cities with more lenient smoking rules.
“We are talking about the health and safety of our residents,” Carter said. “But we want that health and safety on a level playing field.”
Enforcement question
Which anti-smoking propositions comes down harder on offenders?
Which anti-smoking propositions comes down harder on offenders?
Smoke-Free Arizona Prop 201 supporters say:
The Department of Heath Services enforces the law and monitors compliance. Fines range up to $300 for individuals, and for a business, up to $500 for a single offense and up to $5,000 for repeated offenses. Many local ordinances – even ones that permit smoking indoors – have more teeth than the tobacco company-funded proposal, said Michelle Pabis, the Arizona government relations director for the American Cancer Society, which backs 201.
The Non-Smoker Protection Act, Proposition 206, is “vague” and has “loopholes,” she said. While there is a penalty for bar owners who violate the act, there are no penalties for other types of business owners, she said.
Non-Smoker Protection Act Prop 206 supporters say:
It’s tougher than Smoke-Free Arizona because it penalizes parents or business owners who bring children into the smoking section of a business.
A bar owner who allows smoking in an area where smoking isn’t allowed would be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, said Steven Duffy, an attorney who represents Arizona Licensed Beverage Association. A person guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor could be fined up to $500 and sentenced to 30 days in jail. A business guilty of such a crime could be fined up to $2,000, he said.
It’s likely that local law enforcement officials would enforce the act, he said.
Other offenses covered by the act, but without a specific penalty listed in the ballot initiative’s language, would be a petty offense under state statute, which carries up to a $300 fine for individuals and up to $1,000 for a business, Duffy said.
While the proposal doesn’t have separate funding for enforcement or designate an agency for enforcement, that’s not uncommon in ballot propositions, said Chuck Coughlin, a lobbyist and lead consultant.
Arizona smoking ban to be on ballot
Aug 6, 2006
PHOENIX, AZ, United States (UPI) — The first and more restrictive of two Arizona anti-smoking measures has been approved for the fall ballot, The Arizona Republic said Saturday.
The Arizona Secretary of State`s Office signed off on petitions gathered by the citizens group Smoke-Free Arizona, clearing the way for its proposal, Proposition 201, to ban smoking in virtually all indoor public places in the state.
A coalition of public health groups collected nearly 186,000 signatures for the measure, and roughly 147,000 were deemed valid, the Secretary of State`s Office said. At least 122,612 signatures are required for such a proposal to make the ballot.
First priority for his group is convincing voters not to side with a competing measure that promises less stringent regulations on public smoking, the newspaper said.
That proposal, known as the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act, or Proposition 206, would ban smoking in enclosed public places but allow the practice in bars. Largely backed by the tobacco industry, the measure also would strike down all local non-smoking ordinances that are more restrictive than the state standard.
That measure is awaiting verification of its petitions.
Latest smoking ban proposal less restrictive than others
May. 25, 2006
Mary Jo Pitzl
Mary Jo Pitzl
A group backed by Arizona liquor interests is making a last-minute push to get a limited smoking ban on the November ballot.
The Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Committee proposes a state law that would prohibit indoor smoking in many places. Exceptions would include bars, hotel rooms that are designated for smokers, tobacco shops and fraternal clubs that are not otherwise open to the public.
The measure is less stringent than a competing measure being backed by health groups, such as the American Lung Association of Arizona and the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association. Their Smoke Free Arizona initiative would apply to indoor areas, including bars and hotel rooms.
The group has less than six weeks in which to collect the signatures of 122,612 registered Arizona voters. Typically, such petition drives must also gather extra signatures to guard against invalid signatures.
The petition drive is being kicked off with an $11,000 contribution from the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association.
Bill Weigele, president of the trade group, said this measure would create a “level playing field” because it would prohibit city governments from enacting stricter limits without seeking their voters’ approval.
“There has to be a place for smokers to go,” Weigele said.
