Tobacco initiatives to be decided in six states

Anti-smoking initiatives are on the Nov. 7 ballot in Arizona, California, Ohio, Nevada, South Dakota and Missouri. Tom Briant, executive director of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, told NPN MarketPulse, “NATO’s been very active in each of the states,” campaigning on behalf of tobacco retailers’ interests.

Among other activities, Briant said, NATO printed hundreds of thousands of “alert cards” – cards the size of business cards that identify the ballot initiatives in each state and advising smokers which way they should vote.

“We had our retailers hand them out to customers who can put them in their wallets to... remind them which way to vote,” Briant said. That effort has been ongoing for about the past month, he said.

In its October issue, Tobacco Retailer, a sister publication of NPN Magazine and NPN MarketPulse, featured a rundown of the tobacco initiatives in the respective states. It was written by Kathleen Cantwell, managing editor of Tobacco Retailer, with input from Briant and Retail Tobacco Dealers Association Director of Legislative Affairs Chris McCalla. Here is a slightly condensed excerpt that includes a description of the initiatives in each state:

Arizona
There are three questions, 201 and 206 are bans, the third, 203, would raise the cigarette tax by 80 cents a pack and would raise taxes on other tobacco products proportionately.
It would increase tobacco taxes on cigars by 62.5 percent. The funds go to early childhood development programs.

Proposition 201 would ban smoking in all public places and places of employment except tobacco shops, veterans’ and fraternal organizations, hotel rooms and outdoor patios. Proposition 206 is less restrictive, also allowing smoking in bars, restaurants and hotels that have rooms that are separately ventilated.

California
Proposition 86 imposes an additional 13-cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products, including premium cigars by a projected 89 percentage points, bringing the OTP excise rate to 135 percent. “Most of the money goes to hospitals except for 40 percent that’s supposed to go to schools,” McCalla said.

As summed up by California Resources for Attorneys, the Proposition 86 tax increase will provide funding for hospitals for emergency services, as well as for programs to increase access to health insurance for children, expand nursing education, support various new and existing health and education activities, curb tobacco use and regulatetobacco sales. What voters don’t know, Briant said, is the dark side of the proposition,which was put together primarily by the large hospital corporations that will be receiving about a billion dollars annually of the $2.1 billion the new taxes are estimated to raise.

They want the money for emergency room services and other hospital uses,” he said. “They’ve also written in an exemption from federal anti-trust price-fixing laws.” Federal anti-trust law prohibits price fixing for emergency room and other services by hospital corporations, Briant said. What the hospital corporations have written into the 30-page initiative means “they can set any price they want and use this money to pay for it.” Moreover, he said, if the proposition passes it will be locked into the state constitution for practical perpetuity.

Missouri
This initiative would amend the state’s constitution to create a trust fund for health care, raising the cigarette tax rate by 80 cents per pack to $.97, and increasing the OTP excise tax from 10 percent to 30 percent.

Ohio
There are two initiatives, both bans, one far more restrictive than the other. The Smokefree Workplace Act would ban smoking in all public places and workplaces, except retail tobacco stores, outdoor patios, private clubs and some hotel rooms. The Smoking Limitations Act would prohibit smoking in all enclosed public places. Exceptions, in addition to those in the other act, include any retail establishment that is primarily for the sale of tobacco and tobacco accessories; any privately owned facility open to the public; designated, completely separate smoking areas within restaurants; places that sell alcohol and do less than 60 percent of their business in food service; and anywhere people play bingo or bowl. If this one is passed, it could actually undo more stringent county or municipal bans that are currently in effect. (This could also happen in Arizona.) Both Ohio initiatives are amendments to the constitution.

Nevada
Following a Sept. 8 Nevada Supreme Court decision, there are now two bans on the ballot, State Questions No. 4 and No. 5. Question No. 5, also known as the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, is the more restrictive choice. It would essentially ban smoking everywhere in public places except casino floors and hotel/motel rooms. Question No. 4—of less concern to tobacco forces— would increase the list of exemptions to include bars, taverns and saloons; restaurants where people under 21 aren’t allowed; retail tobacco stores; gaming areas within grocery, drug and convenience stores; and other businesses that hold a Nevada gaming license, among others.

South Dakota
Measure 2 proposes to increase the OTP excise tax from 10 percent to 35 percent. Monies would be dedicated for tobacco prevention and cessation programs, property tax reduction, education enhancement and health care, and to make an annual appropriation for these.

Both NATO and the Retail Tobacco Dealers Association are contributing time, money and effort to work with the corporate and local efforts to defeat the initiatives and/or support the less punitive bans, and to help member retailers in their efforts to
educate customers on the issues and get out the vote.

The RTDA is providing a countertop poster and 4-inch by 8-inch postcard-type pieces that explain the initiative(s) in question on one side and give voter registration information on the other.

The “alert cards” that NATO distributed boil down the issues for quick understanding. One side of the alert card for California’s Proposition 86, for example, gives the economic argument against the proposition; the other side explains the unfairness of it. Members also receive a plastic card holder to display the cards on their counter.

Briant and NATO are also providing commentary letters to editors of California newspapers.

One news source described these various initiatives as an “end run around the state legislatures.” Briant agrees – and has been doing some research on the process, which he says “nullifies any interest of the minority.” He says about half the states allow for initiatives, where petitions are submitted to get a question on the ballot.

“A referendum is different,” he said. “A referendum is a question that a legislature approves to go on the ballot. Initiatives are what we’re looking at here.”

Proliferation of these initiatives, Briant fears, could lead to a “tyranny of the majority where majority rule will always rule to the total exclusion of minority interests.”

“Smokers are a significant minority of the adult population – about 25 percent of the adult population,” Briant said, “and those people’s rights have to be addressed as well.”