People Ban: SD State Page 2

By Jonathan On Jul 5, 2017

Ban for bars where the kids are?

SD state revenue up slightly from projections
October 14, 2011
SD state revenue up slightly from projections 0 comments
PIERRE (AP) — State officials say South Dakota’s tax collections are generally running slightly higher than expected for the first three months of the budget year.
Legislative budget analyst Aaron Olson told the Appropriations Committee that sales tax revenue is up less than 1 percent from what was expected when the Legislature passed the budget earlier this year. But he says video lottery revenue is still running behind prior years because of a drop caused by the slow economy and the smoking ban imposed last year.
The state also got a $24 million one-time bonus related to the bank-franchise tax. That’s partly because one bank switched income from prior years to this year and because the state was able to give a bank a tax refund last year instead of this year.

January Gambling Dollars Down in Deadwood, SD.
Feb 26th, 2011
By Asociated Press
RAPID CITY, S.D. (AP) – Gambling dollars are down in historic Deadwood, a popular tourist destination in western South Dakota.
Figures show that revenues from slot machines and card games in January dropped 13% from the same month a year ago. Profits totaled about $6.5 million, compared to about $7.5 million in 2010.
Deadwood Chamber of Commerce Director George Milos tells the Rapid City Journal that he believes the state’s expanded smoking ban has had an obvious effect on business. He also cites a series of weekend snowstorms.
Tracy Island, general manager of Deadwood Gulch Gaming Resort, says the company has been forced to cut back on workers and adjust its hours. She says it’s the first time that’s happened in 12 years.
Island says February appears to be following the same pattern.

Letters: Ventilate, filtrate smoke
November 16, 2010
Thomas W. Laprade • Thunder Bay, Ontario • Comments (59)
If the public honestly and truthfully was informed about the effects of secondhand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in the United States.
A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?
There never has been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and nonsmokers can be reached through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.
Air ventilation easily can create a comfortable environment that removes not only passive smoke but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Lawmaker Doesn’t Anticipate Ban Loopholes
Nov. 5th, 2010
By Shawn Neisteadt
South Dakota lawmakers who helped pen the new smoking ban are aware that business owners in surrounding states looked closely for loopholes in their laws.

In Iowa, bar owners found that outdoor areas were not included in their original law. In Minnesota, bars created theatre nights, where everyone was said to be part of a play because smoking was allowed in theatrical performances. But at least one lawmaker who introduced the bill in February 2009 doesn’t expect similar shenanigans here in South Dakota.

The process of broadening the statewide ban to include bars, restaurants and casinos started with House Bill 1240 and came to its end with a statewide vote.

“The vote just reaffirmed what we already expected a year ago when we took up the smoking ban that the majority of people would like to see it in place,” Republican Representative Tim Rave of Baltic said.

Rave is one of twenty lawmakers who introduced the bill. While he recognizes there is still some opposition to the law, he doesn’t anticipate too many businesses will seek out loopholes or go a great length to keep patrons lighting up.

“I suppose there’s always, there might be one element that pushes here or there, but it’s been self-enforcing already. Ninety to 95 percent of businesses in the state are already smoke free,” Rave said.

If there is a loophole in the law, Rave say state lawmakers could again look at the law and make changes to tighten it. But he says if a problem arises, it’s more likely the majority of South Dakotans who supported the ban will be the ones who take action.

“If it does, I think it can be addressed, probably frankly on the local level probably could handle any minor enforcement issue that would arise,” Rave said.

In St. Paul, some smoke shops there have gotten around the law by allowing customers to sample tobacco products because their law says customers can’t smoke, but they can sample while inside a tobacco-based business.

===

Comment by The Smoker’s Club Member, Bill Brown:
?
Smoking Bans attempt to make the term public place synonymous with public property, and ignores the owners preferred use of his/her private property as an essential attribute of their ownership. The “Public” has invested nothing in this private property, and is accountable for nothing (including the loss of business that results from such bans, whether its Smoking, Trans-fats, or some other politically incorrect, but legal practice or legal product) as a result.

Smoking Bans attempt to criminalize the use of a legal product, by adults, on private property by presupposing that citizens are not of sufficient mental capacity to understand appropriate signage that would announce the Tobacco use policy for each individual business.”Smoking Permitted”, or “No Smoking”
It’s really no more difficult than that.

Are the people of South Dakota really too stupid to understand such signage? The crusaders behind these Bans, and obviously your legislators clearly believe you are. Well,…are you?
The gleeful anticipation noted here by some posters in forcing business owners to surrender their property rights indicates,..they’re right. You clearly don’t realize what you’re giving away, specifically because you don’t own or operate a hospitality venue. Short sighted?,..oh yeah.
Not very bright at all.

There is no “right to smoke,” just as there is no legally enshrined “right to breathe clean air.” These are not rights, but personal preferences. This is how small businesses grow. By catering to the personal preferences of the business owners PREFERRED customer base.

No one is compelled to be employed in, or to patronize any hospitality business that does not suit their individual personal preference. Where no coercion to enter exists, there is no logical, moral or ethical justification for such demands.

The hospitality and leisure industries are disproportionately affected by ordinances that arbitrarily assign responsibility for the choices made by the public to the owners of those businesses, rather than emphasizing personal responsibility required from the public themselves in the choice of venue they may patronize. Simple signage indicating smoking or nonsmoking status, specifically for hospitality based businesses, is all that was ever required.
?

Smoking Ban Fines
By Don Jorgensen
November 4, 2010

SIOUX FALLS, SD – Next week, South Dakota goes smoke free. But as business owners prepare for the statewide smoking ban, there are still a lot of questions over who’s in charge of enforcing the new law and the amount for fines if someone violates it.

As the state gears up for the new statewide smoking ban, some bar owners want to know who’s in charge of enforcing it.

“I’m not calling the police, absolutely not. That’s not my job. It doesn’t say that in the law that I have to enforce it. I just have to tell the people, ‘You are not allowed to smoke here,'” bar owner Don Rose said.

And he’s right. The law says if a person lights up a cigarette, it’s the owner’s responsibility to tell that person it’s a smoke-free establishment. If the person doesn’t put out the cigarette or step outside to smoke, they could be fined $25.

But if a business owner does nothing and refuses to tell people they can’t smoke, they too can face a $25 fine.

However, Sam Clemens with the Sioux Falls police department doesn’t anticipate many problems enforcing the new law.

“We might not see is a business owner or manager necessarily call, but there’s certainly going to be other patrons who aren’t going to be happy with the smoking and call police and when we arrive, we’ll take the appropriate action,” Clemens said.

Clemens says if customers continually have to call police about smoking in a certain business, one penalty that could come back to haunt the establishment will come in the way of more than just a fine.

“If we’re continually being called to say a bar or restaurant and they serve alcohol and that alcohol or liquor license is up for renewal, those past problems are going to be brought forward,” Clemens said.

Clemens says police aren’t planning to do any smoking checks at this time.

South Dakota has freedom on the ballot in November
August 05, 2010
Remember SD vote NO on Referred Law 12 expanding the smoking ban (SD already has a statewide smoking ban). We in Minnesota have a restrictive smoking ban which caused the closure of 400+ bars & restaurants and eliminated approximately 10,000 jobs.
Don’t be fooled by the Nicoderm funded lobbyists who forced this issue on South Dakota……Vote NO on Law 12 if you value Freedom, and let business owners decide what’s best for them and their customers.

Smoking Ban On Hold in South Dakota
July 28, 2009
South Dakota’s smoking ban is back on hold. Petition leaders, working to put the ban on the 2010 ballot, filed a motion to stop the ban from taking effect. A judge has now signed that motion.
???? This comes after the Secretary of State announced last week that petitioners were 221 signatures short. Challengers contend about 2,000 signature’s are invalid because the notary who approved them used an incorrect expiration date.
???? Petition leaders say it was a clerical error and it doesn’t change the intent of the signatures.
???? Petition leaders believe they will have a court date sometime in the next two to three weeks to decide if the signatures will be counted or thrown out.

South Dakota: “A National Model in the Making”
June 26th, 2009
By J. Glynn Loope, Cigar Rights of America Executive Director
I remember growing up, my parents took me on one of those cross country trips to see all of the sites that make this country so unique. I remember two things distinctively. One was the awe inspiring site of Mount Rushmore, and the other was the outright strange piece of real estate known as Badlands National Park, looking at dinosaur fossils and terrain like that of the moon.
A little over two decades later, South Dakota enters the mind (and soul) once again. What’s happening in South Dakota deserves the attention of cigar enthusiasts everywhere, and is a case study of democracy in action.
It’s a debate that began in the fall of 2008, and picked up in January of this year as State Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson – Republican of Sioux Falls introduced Senate Bill 83, and used a poll by the completely objective South Dakota Tobacco Free Network to justify smoking ban legislation. By February the legislation had sailed through a Senate committee on a 7-0 vote, but failed in its first full Senate debate on an 18-17 vote.
Following the Senate action, Jane Waiter, the manager of Phinny’s Pub and Casino in Yankton, South Dakota stated, “The government shouldn’t be able to control what everyone else does.”
Then, through a parliamentary action (or some called an “impromptu meeting”) of the House State Affairs Committee, a vote of 11-2 gave life to House Bill 1240, which subsequently passed that chamber on a 43-27 vote, which was a smoking ban bill that granted exemptions to cigar shops and certain gaming establishments. There were exemptions for cigar bars, if they already exist and forbidding others to be created. There are only two for the whole state.
The House action prompted Peter Hassenstein of Sioux Falls to write a letter to the editor which noted, “Government tyranny is lying at our doorstep.”
The House action gave the Senate another shot at a ban bill, allowing them to obtain some switched votes, and passage of the legislation by a margin of 21-14. It was off to the Governor’s Office. Republican Governor Mike Rounds signed the legislation on March 19.
Taking a Stand
Some places may accept such government action as a ‘done deal.’ Not in South Dakota . A coalition was formed under the banner Citizens for Individual Freedom.
Cornerstone members of the group included the Video Lottery Establishments of South Dakota, Deadwood Gaming Association, Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota, DeVitt Gaming Association, and the Music and Vending Association of South Dakota.
To address the action of the Governor and South Dakota legislature, the coalition needed 16,776 signatures to take the matter to a public vote, with bars, taverns, gaming establishments, concerned citizens about property rights and business interests joined in to gather signatures. Volunteers were assembled, and a mission was launched. They stand against 54 allied groups that supported the smoking ban legislation.
The effort is a great example to others. On June 22 they presented over 25,000 signatures to Secretary of State Chris Nelson for verification and placement on the November 2010 statewide ballot. More importantly, however, is that it delays the implementation of the policy passed by the legislature and signed by a Governor. Now that’s democracy in action.
Something tells me that Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln are peering down from Mount Rushmore with smiles on their faces. After all, Jefferson said, “The government is best which governs the least.”

Group to challenge SD smoking ban ruling in court
July 24th, 2009
By CARSON WALKER of Associated Press
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Bars and gambling businesses that filed the petitions to force a public vote on South Dakota’s smoking ban will ask a judge to reinstate some of the signatures that were thrown out, its representative said Friday.
State Secretary of State Chris Nelson on Thursday rejected the petitions because not enough valid signatures were submitted. The effort to put the law on the November 2010 ballot fell 221 signatures short out of 25,400 submitted, he said.
Larry Mann, who represents the petitioners, said Friday that 2,035 of the signatures were valid but were on petitions signed by a notary public who put down a wrong expiration date for his or her seal.
That technicality warrants a legal challenge because it easily puts the effort over the 221 signatures needed to have all South Dakota residents weigh in on it, he said.
“If they did everything else correctly and simply failed to put down an accurate date of their expiration, I think that is what the law defined as a mere technicality,” Mann said.
“When an honest clerical error is made, should we disenfranchise not only 2,000 petition signers but 400,000-plus voters over this kind of a technicality?”
Nelson affirmed Friday that 2,035 of the signatures rejected had no other issue with them, but state law requires all petitions to be properly notarized.
He wasn’t surprised the issue was headed before a judge.
“I don’t know what issue they might raise. But certainly any of these challenges that we upheld can be reviewed by a court,” Nelson said.
The judge’s ruling on the matter could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Attorney General Larry Long said Friday that the petition group will have sue the secretary of state to challenge the decision to reject the petitions and also ask a judge for a stay until the litigation is resolved, which would likely be granted.
“If they don’t do both of those things, the law will go into effect,” Long said.
The Legislature passed the law earlier this year to ban smoking in bars, Deadwood casinos and video lottery establishments. The measure, extending a ban that has outlawed smoking in most workplaces and public areas since 2002, was to have taken effect July 1.
The coalition representing bars and gambling businesses submitted the 25,400 petition signatures June 22 calling for a public vote, forestalling the ban until after the November 2010 general election.
But on July 2, the South Dakota Tobacco-Free Kids Network filed documents with the secretary of state’s office alleging that nearly 39 percent, or 9,891, signatures of the signatures are invalid.
Nelson’s office started checking all the signatures, which resulted in the rejection of the petitions.
Jennifer Stalley of the tobacco-free kids group said supporters of the ban merely exercised their right to challenge the effort in hopes of sparing people the negative health effects of secondhand smoke.
“Some would say it’s a technicality. But at the end of the day there are rules by which we have to play with in this process. And one of the rules is that the documents need to be properly notarized,” she said.
“We’re doing it because it’s impacting the health of South Dakotans.”

South Dakota-Petitions filed to put SD smoking ban to vote – News Wires – CNBC.com
22 Jun 2009
PIERRE, S.D. – Casino owners and others opposed to expanding the state’s smoking ban filed petitions Monday that could have enough signatures to require a public vote on the issue.
The law passed earlier this year by the South Dakota Legislature would ban smoking in bars, casinos in historic Deadwood and video lottery establishments. It extends a ban that has outlawed smoking in workplaces and most public areas since 2002.
The expansion is scheduled to take effect July 1. But the start date would be delayed until after next year’s election if opponents have enough signatures to call for a vote.
Petitions with an estimated 25,000 signatures were submitted to Secretary of State Chris Nelson by a coalition representing bars and gambling establishments. If the documents contain at least 16,776 valid signatures, the smoking ban will go on the November 2010 ballot for a statewide vote.
The ban’s opponents say it goes too far, would deprive business owners of the right to decide what happens in their establishments and could drive away customers who smoke.
“It’s tough to be in business and be locked away from 25 to 30 percent of your market. It puts them at a distinct disadvantage,” said Larry Mann, a Video Lottery Establishments of South Dakota lobbyist who heads the coalition that gathered the signatures.
Supporters of the ban said the health hazard posed by cigarette smoke takes precedence over business owners’ rights.
“This is about health. Everybody has the right to breathe free air and shouldn’t have to worry about their health when they walk into any building in this state,” said Dr. Allen Nord of Rapid City, chairman of the South Dakota Tobacco-Free Kids Network.
The ban’s supporters reserve the right to review and challenge the signatures if the secretary of state’s office certifies the measure for the ballot, Nord said.
But he also said he believes voters would approve the ban if it went to a vote because recent polls have showed about two-thirds of the state’s residents support it.
“We feel pretty confident we can win,” he said. “We will, however, fight this aggressively and not take anything for granted.”
The secretary of state’s office will check a random sample of 5 percent of the signatures to determine whether the documents include enough valid signatures to put the ban on the ballot.
Nelson said his office will try to have the checks done or nearly done by the end of this week.
“We’re going to give this obviously top priority this week,” he said.
Mann said getting the ban on the ballot would give opponents a year to try to persuade the Legislature to work out a compromise on the matter as well as to rally support for its defeat. Lawmakers declined earlier this year to discuss options such as allowing smoking in walled-off areas or in businesses that limit customers to those 21 and older, he said.
If the measure passed this year takes effect, it would be one of the most restrictive smoking bans in the nation, Mann said.
“We think that’s overreaching and that some reasonable accommodation could be made,” he said.

Groups Considering Referral Of Smoking Ban
03/25/2009

Groups representing South Dakota bars and casinos are discussing the possibility of referring a newly passed smoking ban to a public vote.

But officials of those organizations say no decision has yet been made on whether to go ahead with a petition campaign that would seek to put the issue on the general election ballot in 2010.

Governor Mike Rounds last week signed a bill passed by the Legislature that bans smoking in bars, Deadwood casinos and video lottery establishments as of July 1.

If opponents collect 16,776 valid signatures by June 29, the law would be suspended from taking effect until the 2010 election.

Senate kills ban on smoking in public places

February 04, 2009

PIERRE — The state Senate says South Dakota isn’t ready for a statewide smoking ban in public places.

The Senate voted 18-17 to kill SB83, which would have banned smoking in nearly all public places. An amendment to exempt hotel rooms passed before the entire bill died. Sponsors asked that the measure be reconsidered, perhaps on Wednesday.

Current law bans most public smoking but exempts casinos, bars and hotel rooms. Supporters of the tighter ban said second-hand smoke causes health problems for non-smokers. Opponents said government shouldn’t tell businesses whether to allow or ban smoking

IPCPR Challenges South Dakota Move to Tighten State Smoking Ban
PIERRE, South Dakota February 4, 2009 – When someone says ‘there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke’ they are simply unaware of the facts or refuse to accept the truth, cautions the International Premium Cigar and Pipe Retailers Association.
The IPCPR represents more than 2,000 retailers and manufacturers of premium cigars – mostly mom-and-pop small business owners – and is fighting South Dakota’s efforts to tighten its current statewide smoking ban.
Chris McCalla, legislative director for the IPCPR, says that misstatements are often made regarding secondhand smoke, especially about incidental secondhand smoke from premium cigars.
“The Surgeon General says more than 100 times in its report that evidence against secondhand smoke is ‘inconclusive.’ The problem is, most people only read the biased articles and summaries that make you think otherwise,” McCalla said.
“Based on the true facts of the report, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration – which is responsible for the health and welfare of the nation’s workers – established acceptable standards for secondhand smoke that are well outside of the range that might be found in a bar, restaurant or casino as confirmed by testing conducted by the independent and prestigious Oak Ridge National Laboratory,” he said.
“Therefore, there are indeed safe levels of secondhand smoke to be found in businesses everywhere.”
McCalla also cited the real danger of economic catastrophe that could hit South Dakota if the smoking ban is extended to include bars and casinos.
“When Iowa enacted its smoking ban, tourists flocked to South Dakota’s North Sioux City gaming areas. This definitely hurt Iowa business and tax receipts and helped South Dakota’s fragile economy. A tighter smoking ban will destroy that gain,” McCalla said.
“But don’t just take our word for it. The Federal Reserve Bank, using data generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has found statistically significant employment declines resulting from smoking bans, especially in bars and restaurants,” he added.
McCalla reminded legislators that much of the state’s employment and? tax revenues come from businesses who benefit from tourists who visit the state’s casinos.
“There’s no reason for a ban on smoking in the first place, but there is certainly nothing to be gained by tightening the current ban.”
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
tony@tortoricipr.com
678-493-0313

IPCPR Joins Deadwood Tobacconist in Fight Against Expanded South Dakota Smoking Ban
PIERRE, South Dakota January 30, 2009 – If South Dakota’s state lawmakers realized they would be laying waste to their state’s already rickety economy by tightening the smoking ban currently in place, they would never even consider such an action.
That’s the opinion of Deadwood, South Dakota tobacconists John and Vaughn Boyd. The husband and wife team own and operate the Deadwood Tobacco Company and Cigar Bar. They are members of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association that represents more than 2,000 small business owners, mostly mom-and-pop cigar store owners like the Boyds, and premium cigar manufacturers.
?“There is no doubt that most of the two million tourists we get in Deadwood every year would find someplace else to go if they couldn’t smoke in our casinos,” said John Boyd. “We have some 1,300 residents in this town and most of them work in those casinos or in businesses that depend on them. All of these jobs would be at stake with any significant downturn in casino business as would tens of millions of dollars in state and federal payroll, sales and other tax revenues.”
Boyd pointed to North Sioux City casinos which have enjoyed increased business since Iowa adopted its smoking ban. Data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics included in a report by the Federal Reserve Bank found statistically significant employment declines resulting from smoking bans, especially in bars and restaurants.
“The argument that a tighter smoking ban would better protect children from secondhand smoke is ludicrous because children aren’t even allowed in casinos, smoke shops and cigar bars,” said Boyd.
At the same time, Chris McCalla, legislative director of the IPCPR, questioned the quality of claims being made by anti-tobacco forces regarding secondhand smoke. McCalla said smoking bans such as South Dakota’s are usually based on false or misleading information about secondhand smoke.
“Read the Surgeon General’s report and not just the biased comments and summaries of the report and you will see that it is filled with what it calls ‘inconclusive evidence’ regarding secondhand smoke,” said McCalla.
“In fact, based on that report, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration established secondhand smoke standards well above the range which might be found in any bar or restaurant. And air quality testing conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory confirms that levels of secondhand smoke in most bars and restaurants are well within limits established by OSHA,” he said.
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

IPCPR Seeks to Use Logic, Truth Against Expanding South Dakota Smoking Ban
November 13, 2008
PIERRE, South Dakota? — If an opinion survey says a majority of South Dakotans believe in global warming, does that mean the state should ban backyard barbecues?? According to the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association, that’s the same kind of logic currently being used by anti-smoking forces to urge the state legislature to consider extending the current statewide smoking ban during its 2009 session.
“The anti-smoking people paid for an opinion survey that claims South Dakotans favor extending the current smoking ban.? They called the survey ‘scientific’.? Well, it’s just an opinion survey and there’s no ‘science’ in that survey.? Why?? Because there is no valid science behind their overreaching claims about the health aspects of secondhand smoke,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of IPCPR.
McCalla said smoking bans such as South Dakota’s are usually based on three things: false or misleading information about secondhand smoke; deprivation of smokers’ and non-smokers’ constitutional rights, and loss of jobs and tax revenues for state and local programs.? Extension of the state’s smoking ban will only exacerbate the situation, he emphasized.
“Owners of legal businesses should have the constitutional right to allow or not allow smoking on their premises just as employees and patrons should have the right to work or shop there.? When South Dakotans allowed their legislature to take away that right from individual business owners, they abrogated the constitutional rights of smokers and non-smokers alike.? South Dakotans are proud, independent people who shouldn’t let their government decide how to run their businesses or their lives,” McCalla asked.
McCalla also questioned the quality of claims being made regarding secondhand smoke.
“The Surgeon General’s 2006 Report has been misrepresented by anti-smoking forces who disregard the 108 times that the so-called evidence regarding the health aspects of secondhand smoke is called ‘inconclusive’ in the core report,” McCalla said.
McCalla further pointed out that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration wrote in 1997 that “field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that it would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that (it exceeded its approved levels).”?
Regarding jobs and tax revenues, McCalla said it has been reported that North Sioux City casinos have enjoyed increased business since Iowa adopted its smoking ban.? Tightening the smoking ban in South Dakota will likely result in a loss of that additional business, loss of the related jobs,? and loss of the taxes that revenue produces to fund state and local programs, he added.
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

Push For Smoking Ban At Local Level

December 10, 2007

Minnesota’s smoking ban at restaurants and bars has some people wondering whether South Dakota will adopt similar rules.

For that to happen, the American Cancer Society says local governments may need more power.

In Minnesota, the smoking bans began more than two years ago in the Twin Cities, then spread to other cities and counties throughout the state, before the legislature passed a state-wide ban this year.

The American Cancer Society would like to make a similar scenerio possible in South Dakota.

Inside a Sioux Falls pub that allows smoking, opinions on the possibility of a smoking ban are split.

“I think it’d be nice to go out and not have to come home with that smoke smell on your clothes,” says non-smoker Kristen Klaassen.

“I do not smoke in my house and one of my enjoyments is to go to the bar to relax, have a couple beers, and to be able to smoke,” says smoker Shuree Block.

But the American Cancer Society is fighting for cleaner air in restaurants and bars, and is currently having trouble in South Dakota.

“Right now the State is the only regulator of tobacco in the state of South Dakota,” says Erik Gaikowski of the American Cancer Society.

Local governments can’t regulate tobacco. Only the state legislature can. So the American Cancer Society is asking lawmakers to repeal that law, so local governments could pass a ban and a possible snowball effect can happen.

“A great example is Minnesota, where a lot of the cities started going smoke free and then the state just followed suit after that. Right now we can’t do that in South Dakota,” Gaikowski says.

If a ban passes, smokers will have to grab their coats and head outside where it can be pretty cold. That’s where some people see a problem with the smoking ban. But some bar owners say if just city-wide bans are passed, they’ll be the ones left out in the cold.

“If they stop it in, let’s say, Sioux Falls, the outlying areas are certainly going to gain some of the business,” says Shenanigan’s Pub owner Don Rose.

He believes a ban will likely eventually happen, but would only accept it if it’s state-wide.

“If it’s all across the board, then everyone’s going to take the same hit I do,” Rose says.

The American Cancer Society believes the best way to achieve a state-wide ban to begin at the local level.

This idea has been brought up in the legislature in the past and failed. But supporters believe the voters’ support in raising the cigarette tax shows than more people want to eliminate smoking.

Smoking ban earns broad support
71 percent say cities should make rules for bars, restaurants
October 15, 2007, By Megan Myers
Sioux Falls residents want local control over smoking in bars and restaurants, and with such power, most would favor a complete tobacco ban in the state’s largest city.

Lawmakers nix bill to expand ban

2/27/07

Black Hills area smokers praised the failure Monday of the apparent final attempt in the Legislature to expand the state smoking ban to businesses that serve alcohol.

“I’m tickled to hear that the bill was shot down,” Spearfish resident Linda Moffett said as she took her dinner break at Applebee’s Restaurant Monday afternoon.

“Smoking is just something that people do in a bar along with their drink,” said Erica Johnson, as she enjoyed a cigarette with her beer in Murphy’s Sports Bar in Rapid City on Monday afternoon.

They were happy to hear that the proposed ban and an amendment allowing cities and counties to regulate smoking in South Dakota — beyond state minimum regulations — failed in the Legislature.

The amended proposal was offered as a replacement for a bill that would have banned smoking in most restaurants and bars, but both measures were rejected in the end.

SB196, killed 7-6 by the House Health Committee, was supported by a various health groups.

The coalition offered an amendment Monday that would have repealed a state law that says only the Legislature may regulate smoking.

“Our objective is further reducing the exposure to secondhand smoke,” said Sen. Tom Hansen, R-Huron, prime sponsor of the bill.

It has been illegal since 2002 to smoke in most businesses and public places in South Dakota. Businesses that serve alcohol are exempt. SB196 would have removed that exemption for all bars except those in Deadwood casinos and those that offer video lottery.

But Hansen offered an amendment that instead would have allowed local governments to regulate smoking beyond those regulations set by the state.

“We all subscribe to the idea that the best government is that which is closest to the people,” he said.

Opponents, however, said allowing each city and county to adopt tobacco regulations would create a hodgepodge of tobacco regulations across the state.

“What kind of chaos are we asking for?” remarked Ron Olinger, lobbyist for the South Dakota Retailers Association. “This is a legal product yet.”

Yvonne Taylor, executive director of the South Dakota Municipal League, said allowing each city to determine tobacco regulations would be no different than the many other issues cities deal with across the state.

“The speed limit on Main Street is not uniform statewide. We do not have tree trimming ordinances that are uniform statewide. Each individual area makes up its own mind on what works best for its own community,” she said.

Tim Dougherty, lobbyist for the Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota, said businesses that serve alcohol should be allowed to decide if they will allow smoking or not. Local officials should not be allowed to interfere in those decisions, he said.

“We think that local control should be in the hands of the establishment owner,” Dougherty said. “The establishment owner is in the best position to determine the needs and desires of their customers.”

Jennifer Stalley of the American Cancer Society said South Dakota is among the few remaining states that do not allow local governments to set tobacco regulations. If local officials decide that a community should be smoke-free, they should have that authority, she said.

“What’s good for Sioux Falls is not necessarily good for Bison, is not necessarily good for McLaughlin, and those communities would be in a position to address their individual issues with tobacco,” Stalley said.

Rep. Larry Lucas, D-Mission, said local officials should be allowed to decide if a community wants tougher tobacco regulations than those currently established in state law. Most people want restaurants to be smoke-free, he said.

“If the smokers want to smoke, they can eat the meal and go outside to smoke afterwards,” Lucas said.

Other legislators, however, said smokers have rights, too, and current state regulations are sufficient. They also said that local bans on smoking in restaurants and bars could jeopardize the financial well-being of businesses that already find it difficult to make a profit.

S.D. Senate committee OKs bar smoking ban

2/12/07

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota should ban smoking in bars and restaurants that have beer and liquor licenses, a state Senate committee recommended Monday.

The bill originally also called for banning smoking in Deadwood casinos and video gambling businesses, but the Senate Health Committee changed the measure so smoking would continue to be legal in gambling establishments.

State law has made it illegal since 2002 to smoke in most businesses and public places.

The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Tom Hansen, R-Huron, said businesses with alcohol licenses should be added to the list of places where smoking is prohibited.

Many restaurants have obtained beer or liquor licenses so they can continue to allow smoking, and it’s time to ban smoking in those places where children can be exposed to secondhand smoke, Hansen said.

“I think it’s a bad deal to subject the kids, the infants in some instances” to secondhand smoke, Hansen said.

Opponents argued that the Legislature should let each bar or restaurant owner decide whether to allow smoking. A ban on smoking might cause some restaurant-bar combinations in small towns to lose so much business that they would have to close, they said.

“We believe the establishment owners will respond to the demands of their customers in most instances,” said Tim Dougherty, a lobbyist for the South Dakota Licensed Beverage Dealers. “It’s really a business decision that these establishment owners make because it affects their sales.”

The committee voted unanimously to endorse SB196, which next goes to the full Senate. If it becomes law, the only businesses where smoking would be allowed would be motel rooms, Deadwood casinos and video lottery bars.

Dr. Allen Nord of Rapid City, chairman of the South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids Network, said even brief exposure to secondhand smoke harms people.

“If we can limit places where people can smoke, fewer and fewer and fewer people will smoke,” Nord said.

Ron Olinger of the South Dakota Retailers Association said the bill would have the unintended consequence of encouraging more bars and restaurants to get video lottery machines so they can allow smoking on their premises.

Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell, a former smoker, said he sees no need to allow smoking in restaurants because people who want to smoke after eating can simply walk outside and light up.

Many business owners want the Legislature to ban smoking in their establishments so they can blame lawmakers when customers complain, Olson said.