Secondhand Smoke Kills 600,000 in One Year

In the debate over South Dakota's new smoking ban, I've occasionally run across some dedicated pro-tobacco trolls who throw out pre-fab arguments claiming there's no evidence that secondhand smoke causes significant health harms.

Does 600,000 deaths a year sound significant to you?

Last Friday, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that finds 600,000 people worldwide died from disease attributable to secondhand smoke. The findings:

Worldwide, 40% of children, 33% of male non-smokers, and 35% of female non-smokers were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004. This exposure was estimated to have caused 379 000 deaths from ischaemic heart disease, 165 000 from lower respiratory infections, 36 900 from asthma, and 21 400 from lung cancer. 603 000 deaths were attributable to second-hand smoke in 2004, which was about 1·0% of worldwide mortality. 47% of deaths from second-hand smoke occurred in women, 28% in children, and 26% in men. DALYs [disability-adjusted life-years) lost because of exposure to second-hand smoke amounted to 10·9 million, which was about 0·7% of total worldwide burden of diseases in DALYs in 2004. 61% of DALYs were in children. The largest disease burdens were from lower respiratory infections in children younger than 5 years (5 939 000), ischaemic heart disease in adults (2 836 000), and asthma in adults (1 246 000) and children (651 000).

[Öberg, M., Jaakkola, M. S., Woodward, A., Peruga, A., & Prüss-Ustün, A., "Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries, The Lancet, 2010.11.26]

That data is pretty plain. Indoor smoking killed more people in 2004 than did al-Qaeda. Cigarette smoke is a deadly indoor pollutant. We can drastically reduce if not eliminate these 600,000 deaths with simple, common-sense rules that say, "You can't emit that pollutant in a confined space." We can save those lives without big military spending, fancy technology, or humiliating and unconstitutional patdowns at the airport.

Secondhand smoke was responsible for 1 in 100 deaths worldwide in 2004. Add those deaths to the 5.1 million annual deaths from direct smoking, and you get a clear picture of tobacco as a serious threat to mankind's health and welfare.

South Dakota perspective: run a straight ratio of deaths to population from the Lancet study, and you get about 70 deaths a year in our fair state from secondhand smoke. There are still some idiot parents out there smoking in their cars and homes with their kids present, but our new smoking ban in bars and restaurants should save at least some of those unlucky 70 from an early tobacco-induced death.

Don Rose and the other bar owners who tried stopping the smoking ban argued that the ban was really about freedom. They're right: banning indoor smoking is about freedom, the first freedom listed by our Founding Fathers: life.

Yankton Businesses Want Heat on Smoking Ban Cheaters

Someone's being naughty in Yankton: several local business owners attended Monday's city commission meeting to urge the city to snuff out cheating on the smoking ban. The business owners allege that somebody in town is letting patrons smoke, in defiance of the clear will of the Legislature and the good voters of South Dakota. The complainants were too polite to name any cheaters, but the Press & Dakotan's Nathan Johnson reports complaints of smoking on the premises at Yankton's Tobacco Road.

The business owners think the $25 fine imposed by the new state smoking ban isn't harsh enough to deter some hardcore devotees of tobacco freedom. They want the city of Yankton to pass an ordinance that would impose additional fines or revoke the offending business's liquor license.

The city declined, saying it already has rules that allow it to deny liquor licenses to folks who engage in naughty behavior, including violation of state law. That makes sense to me: I'm all about not passing additional rules when existing rules can do the job.

I am a little disappointed, though, with Yankton City Attorney Dave Hosmer's lack of enthusiasm for enforcing state law:

City Attorney Dave Hosmer told the commission he has provided some advice to police in regard to enforcing the statute, alluding to the confusion that may exist as to whether such an establishment can allow smoking.

“If they are caught smoking in an establishment, and the officer can establish that the person was actually smoking, they will get a ticket,” he said. “If the person says, ‘I’m standing in an establishment which is exempt because it is a tobacco place or a cigar bar,’ I’ve instructed law enforcement that they should prepare a report and give it to the state’s attorney, who will then decide whether or not to issue a ticket.

“I don’t think that we should take the fault for a poorly drafted statute,” Hosmer added. “I think the State of South Dakota needs some better interpretation” [Nathan Johnson, "Smoking Ban Rules Questioned," Yankton Press & Dakotan, 2010.11.23].

"Poorly drafted"? Actually, SDCL 34-46-13 through 34-46-19 look pretty darn clear to this layperson. No smoking inside public places. Clear definition of exemption for cigar shops and tobacco shops. Attorney Hosmer is welcome to not like the statute, but he's hard-pressed to demonstrate any poor drafting in the text. Instead of pretending the ban is complicated and defanging the local enforcement by providing lawbreaking bar owners with a pre-fab excuse, Attorney Hosmer and the city should provide the Yankton police with a list (surely a brief one) of establishments that meet criteria of the smoking ban exemptions and authorize them to do their duty on the spot.

Takings Clause Argument on Smoking Ban? Fire That Lawyer...

Gosh darn it! Mr. Powers over at Dakota War College appears to have misplaced a fun little post he had yesterday claiming that the indefatigable opponents of South Dakota's new indoor smoking ban would try using South Dakota's takings clause to sue the state for compensation for any business losses:

It’s in the South Dakota Bill of Rights that “Private property shall not be taken for public use, or damaged, without just compensation.” Well, certainly one’s business would be considered private property. And it’s indisputable that because of the passage of this law limiting the use of private property that they will, in fact, incur damages of an economic sort [Pat Powers, "I Think They Ought to Send Their Bill to Jennifer Stalley," deleted from Dakota War College, 2010.11.15].

Why the backpedal and delete? Perhaps the lawyers in the War College peanut gallery (I know at least one such sensible solicitor) pointed out that a takings-clause or eminent-domain suit on indoor air quality will go nowhere. The takings clause applies when the government takes private property for public use. The smoking ban takes no private property. It stops private pollution of public property, the air we breathe in public places (thanks, Bill, for the idea!). Banning smoking indoors is more like forcing a property owner to remove a sign that hangs over the public right of way or chop down a tree that has grown to obstruct the sidewalk or the view at the intersection. The takings clause has no application in such situations where the public use is already established.

Or maybe Pat's hypocrisy alarm went off. He's never stood up for South Dakotans or Nebraskans or Texans facing eminent domain at the hands of a foreign corporation. But let the Legislature and the voters of South Dakota impose an environmental rule that annoys his business pals despite no clear evidence of economic impact, and Pat's up in arms. I guess Pat backed down from exposing his property rights flank.

Smoking Ban Boosting Business... and Outdoor Heater Sales?

The anecdotes accumulate: Rookies Bar and Grill in Sioux Falls reports it saw an uptick in business this first statewide smoke-free weekend, as it saw more families coming in for dinner.

More families... at the bar. I think that's a victory for family values...

But let's be careful of the availability fallacy, forming a general conclusion (e.g., smoking ban won't hurt business!) on the basis of only those stories that get told more often, since surely South Dakota's notoriously liberal media only wants to tell pro-nanny-state stories, and since only liberals see any value in public health.

The smoking ban may boost some other market niches. Folks selling outdoor heaters (or barrels) may find South Dakota drinking establishments rushing to create some outdoor smoking oases. Some establishments are creating outdoor smoking shelters... but I'm not sure that's kosher. Review the text of the smoking ban:

1. "Enclosed area," any space between a floor and a ceiling that is enclosed, exclusive of doorways, on all sides by permanent or temporary walls or windows;
2. "Place of employment," any enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer;
3. "Public place," any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted. [See SDCL 34-46-13.]

• No person may smoke tobacco or carry any lighted tobacco product in any public place or place of employment. [See SDCL 34-46-14.]

Contrary to the apparent action taken in the above AP story, the new statute appears to prohibit any sort of enclosed shelter, like a shed or garage, for smokers. You could maybe put up a picnic shelter—pour a slab, put up a roof or canopy—but you can't allow smoking in a four-walled building, even an outbuilding.
----------------------
Update 08:13 CST: Rapid City Journal offers more detail on how businesses are coping with the smoking ban. Not griping and moaning, but coping. Heated patios, winter beach parties... opportunities await!

Smoking Ban and Taxable Sales: We'll Have That Data Shortly

South Dakota's smoking ban took effect Wednesday, expanding freedom for South Dakotans. My wife and I are already looking forward to smoke-free dinners at the Moonlite and other venues whose smoke previously would have sent us out the door without ordering.

The question remains: will the smoking ban hurt business? I still don't think so, based on various anecdotal and empirical examples and my own reasoning, and the fact that opponents of the ban, like State Senator Russell Olson, resorted to desperately stupid arguments. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis also agrees with me (another reason my cousin Aaron will want to "END THE FED!!").

But we won't have to guess. We'll get our first bit of hard data next month, when the state Business Tax Division publishes the State Taxable Sales Comparison for November. Last month, statewide taxable sales in eating and drinking places were up 2.7%, $2.5 million, over October 2009—rather slow, given October taxable sales across all sectors were up 8.7% over October 2009. We'll also be able to look beyond monthly snapshots and consider fiscal year comparisons. FY 2010 showed a measly 0.6% growth in taxable dining-and-drinking sales over FY2009, though that sector still outperformed the overall 1.5% decrease in taxable sales.

FY	gain in taxable dining and drinking sales	gain in overall taxable sales
2010	0.6%	–1.5%
2009	2.1%	1.8%
2008	5.5%	7.3%
2007	4.6%	4.8%
2006	5.3%	6.8%
2005	6.8%	6.0%
2004	4.7%	7.4%
2003	3.2%	3.3%
2002	5.7%	1.1%
2001	3.6%	4.6%
2000	5.5%	7.2%

Table 1: Change in South Dakota taxable sales by fiscal year

If we're really ambitious, we'll even be able to look at data city by city and look at eating establishments and drinking establishments separately. (Hey, Department of Revenue: any chance you could start posting this data in quick and easy HTML tables or Excel spreadsheets instead of those big honking PDF files?)

And even if I'm wrong, even if the revenue reports for the bar and restaurant sector show a decline in business that we can trace to the smoking ban and not to more people staying home to enjoy homemade rhubarb wine from their organic gardens while they watch movies on Netflix on their expanding broadband connections, any revenue decline will have to offset more than the hundreds of millions of dollars in health care cost savings as more people get the hint and kick the cancer sticks.

We'll also have to measure any revenue losses against some quantification of the freedom gained by more South Dakotans to relax and work in more places without smelling like butts.

Poll: SD Smoking Ban Looking Good, 63-34

The latest Madville Times poll finds strong support for Referred Law 12, South Dakota's smoking ban. Asked how you will vote on this November ballot measure, you, eader readers responded as follows:

• Yes: 116 (63%)
• No: 62 (34%)
• Undecided: 3 (2%)
• Not voting: 2 (1%)
  Votes: 183
  

I'm pleased to see we might clear some air at eateries and other public establishments around our fair state. I will be particularly interested to see if this bit of social rule-making can withstand the hot-and-heavy tea-party sloganeering about personal liberty various candidates are trying to ride to victory.

Vote Now in New Poll: Smoking Ban!

The latest Madville Times poll is up and humming! Scoot over to the right sidebar, eager readers, and answer this question: "How will you vote on South Dakota's Referred Law 12, the smoking ban?"

Referred Law 12 is House Bill 1240 from the 2009 session of the South Dakota Legislature. The top line of the law says "No person may smoke tobacco or carry any lighted tobacco product in any public place or place of employment." The law defines "public place" as any enclosed area (i.e., indoors, not just fenced) where you and I are invited or permitted. It excludes cigar bars, tobacco stores, and designated hotel rooms. The law also excludes private residences unless they host daycare. (Interesting: does that mean if you use the house for daycare, you still can't light up after all the munchkins go home?)

Inform your vote with these resources on Referred Law 12!

1. Read the full text of HB 1240 as passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor M. Michael Rounds.
   
2. The Secretary of State offers this ballot measure pamphlet in PDF, complete with the Attorney General's (not the Surgeon General's) explanation and statements from folks on both sides of the issue.
3. The American Cancer Society offers this website advocating the smoking ban.
4. The Citizens for Individual Freedom lay out the opposing case here.
5. Bar owner Don Rose leads the Citizens for Individual Freedom. I analyze his logical fallacies here... but hey! The fact that certain opponents of the smoking ban can't make a coherent argument doesn't mean opposition to the smoking ban itself is wrong.
   

The Madville Times poll runs through breakfast Thursday. Tell your friends, debate it over dinner with them, and vote now!

Smoking Ban Opponents Also Oppose Logic

Don't forget: along with all of the candidates, we have four ballot measures to vote on November 2. Among them is Referred Law 12, the smoking ban passed by our Legislature in 2009 but referred by bar owners and others who think their business model depends on the consumption of toxic chemicals.

Shenanigans Pub owner Don Rose provides the contra piece on Referred Law 12 in the Secretary of State's ballot measure pamphlet. Rose's text there, along with his anti-ban website, are chuckle-filled exercises in illogic. Examples:

Business owners enter into business ventures based on rules and regulations in place at the time they make significant investments in licenses, capital improvements, and personnel. The action taken by the legislature to change the rules in the middle of the game puts many businesses at risk of major losses or even closure of their establishments [Don Rose, 2010 Ballot Question Pamphlet, South Dakota Secretary of State's office, p. 4].

So, Don, by opening Shenanigans, you automatically prohibited the City of Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County, or the State of South Dakota from changing any law that affects your business? Your receipt of a business license or your hiring of a new barmaid means we can't change the sales tax rate or the legal blood alcohol limit? And is your business model really so un-nimble that you can't respond to changing market conditions? Come on, a good capitalist should be tougher than that.

The result of a ban will result in huge losses, not only to the business owners, but to the taxpayers of South Dakota [Rose, Ballot Question Pamphlet].

Wrong. Ask Bob Miller at the Brandon Steakhouse. He banned smoking and got more business. (And check that sentence: The result will result in...? So the ban will produce a result, and then that result will produce the subsequent results you talk about? Say what?)

Every state in the nation that has passed a smoking ban in bars (with only one exception) now has a state income tax! Why would South Dakota be any different? [CIF website]

Every state in the nation that has passed a smoking ban in bars has also seen the sun rise, but I'm not ready to argue a causal connection. Before making the above absurd claim, Rose and friends should (a) verify that the state income taxes in those places were indeed passed after their smoking bans and (b) establish that no other economic or policy factors influenced state lawmakers to pass their income taxes.

If Referred Law 12 passes, it will cost thousands of jobs, millions in tax revenues and reductions in government services [CIF website].

But the CIF website is all about rootin'-tootin' flag-waving freedom. Their home page opens with the bald and counterfactual assertion that "South Dakotan's [sic] overwhelmingly agree" that "The government is big enough and already controls enough of our lives." So wouldn't Rose and his patriotic pals like to see government shrink? Wouldn't they be thrilled if government had less money to spend on controlling our lives? By CIF's own argument, the smoking ban should produce governmental results they would celebrate.

If Referred Law 12 passes it will signal the willingness of South Dakotans to accept other controls such as how much salt can be consumed, what foods we can eat, etc. [CIF website].

Ah, the classic slippery slope. State Senator Russell Olson (R-8/Madison) cited this same alarmist nuttery when he cast his nay as a brave stand for the Big Mac. It is just as logical to assume that we might pass this law, see it has terrible impacts, and would thus decrease the chances that we would pass any future bans in unhealthy behavior.

And as usual, tobacco advocates forget that when people eat Big Macs and salt their fries, they are not belching chewed-up meat in the faces of the staff and other diners or spitting salt at anyone else.

Perhaps it is unfair to judge a ballot measure by the intellectual deficiencies of its supporters. But if the above are the best arguments the opponents can muster, then the proponents deserve to win.
----------------------------------------
Bonus Grammar and Orthography:

If the fund suffers significant losses, one option to restore the funding could result in an increase in local property taxes. A result which may include tax increases to cover potential losses [Rose, Ballot Question Pamphlet].

See that part I bolded? That's a sentence fragment! You had time to revise and vet this very important text, Don. Stop writing like KELO and connect that noun phrase to the preceding sentence with a comma. Two points off at the polls for sloppy writing.

CIF's mission statement also misspells devastating. Two more points off. Add that unnecessary apostrophe on "South Dakotan's" on the home page, and you've got three strikes. Job applications get rejected for this many errors.

Opposition to Indoor Smoking Ban Probably Decreasing

Don't forget that once the Republicans get their house in order on Tuesday, we'll also have some yummy ballot measures to debate and vote on in November. Among them is Referred Law 12, the indoor smoking ban, which has been delayed for a year and a half since its passage by the Legislature.

The alcohol and tobacco lobby that referred this law to public vote may have bought their moneyed interests another year and a half to make more money on unhealthy consumption, but every day we wait for the vote appears to reduce the number of people who might oppose this law. The South Dakota Department of Health reports that the percentage of South Dakotans smoking dropped over two full percentage points in one year, from 19.8% in 2007 to 17.5% in 2008. The South Dakota QuitLine is also getting better at helping people kick the habit: DoH reports QuitLine's success rate over the same period jumped from 29% to 43%.

DoH cites CDC figures estimating reduced smoking has spared our state over 1800 early tobacco-related deaths and will produce health care cost savings of at least $325 million through 2018... and that's at current cost and smoking levels. DoH is still pushing: having met their 2010 goal of reducing smokers to 18% of the population, they now want to cut further to 15% by 2015.

Let's help them out: vote for the smoking ban in November.

--------------------------
Bonus Notes for Primary Voters! GOP House candidate R. Blake Curd voted for the smoking ban in 2009. His challenger Kristi Noem voted against it. His other challenger, Secretary of State Chris Nelson, simply followed the law and rejected the apparently improper signatures on the referral petitions.

In the governor's race, Senate leaders Dave Knudson of the GOP and Scott Heidepriem of the Dems both voted aye to ban indoor smoking. GOP candidate Dennis Daugaard's boss signed it into law, and I haven't heard Dennis say he had a problem with that. GOPer Scott Munsterman thought the ban was a good idea when the Legislature passed it. Senator Gordon Howie joined local Senator Russ Olson in keeping the world safe for Big Macs... then quickly got back to dodging his property taxes. Ken Knuppe probably doesn't like the smoking ban, but heck, he's a rancher, so he's outside all the time!

Bob Bans Butts, Boosts Brandon Business

Oh yeah! Amidst all the candidate wrangling, it's easy to forget there's a smoking ban on the November ballot. I wonder if maybe we should vote against it... to protect the competitive advantage of the businesses that have already banned smoking:

"Picked up some new business, and some old business, I used to have, but quit coming in because of the smoking,” [Brandon Steakhouse owner Bob] Miller said.

Miller's spoken out against a state-wide smoking ban in the past. He still believes a business owner should have the right to allow smoking indoors... But, he says, he knew it had to be done, to accommodate families. He knows now, it was the right decision.

"We do have a lot of families, family reunions, banquets, Easter, we were full, Brandon's a young family town, so is Luverne, we tracked business from Luverne, that we didn't have before too, because we are smoke free,” Miller said [Cherlene Richards, "Business Booms at Smoke-Free Restaurant," KELOLand.com, 2010.04.25].

There is an argument that Bob Miller's telling you to take your butts outside is less of an infringement on your liberty than Pierre's issuing the same edict. If the economy improves to the point that waitresses suffering in smoky workplaces have more freedom to work elsewhere, maybe we won't need the ban at all. Let's hope more businesses can make the right decision for their customers, their employees, and their bottom line.

Nelson Protecting Electoral Process, Not Playing Politics

Secretary of State Chris Nelson evidently has more than half a brain. Instead of listening to the mewling of the anti-nanny-staters, Sec. Nelson tells KELO he's concerned that allowing the smoking ban vote to go forward may weaken the integrity of the elctoral process:

"The court found that there were a number of areas where we had determined there were errors with the petitions that the court has the authority to find substantial compliance and essentially overlook those types of errors," Nelson said.

..."If a court says these types of errors are okay, where does that land us on the next petitions? What other things are going to be okay then, and then we get to a point of is there integrity left in the petition process?" Nelson said [Ben Dunsmoor, "Smoking Ban Ruling May Impact Petition Process," KELOLand.com, 2009.11.17].

Unlike some Republicans, I don't see Nelson playing politics with this issue. Unlike the editorial board of that Sioux Falls paper, which appears to believe a public vote is the quickest way to put the issue to rest, the Secretary and I share a belief that rules are rules. Our rules for referenda and other petition processes exist to level the playing field and keep monkey business out of the electoral process. Secretary Nelson is right to take a hard look at the lower court's ruling and determine whether this judicial activism (that is what you call it when a judge says the law means something other than what it says, right?) sets a harmful precendent worthy of appeal.

p.s.: By the way, Republicans, don't forget that your Tea Party candidate for U.S. House, R. Blake Curd, voted for the smoking ban in the House last winter... twice.

Uterus = Pre-existing Condition: Health Insurers Discriminate Against Women

Hat tip to Joe Bartmann (sometimes I actually learn something from Twitter)!

While Dakota War College groans about Rep. Herseth Sandlin trying to take action to prevent problems that don't exist, let's take a look at a problem DWC will have an even harder time denying: health insurers treating womanhood itself as a pre-existing condition. An updated report from the National Women's Law Center finds that the individual health insurance market (insurance folks obtain themselves instead of through their employer's group coverag) commits rank discrimination against women.

In South Dakota, every major health insurance plan available in the individual market practices gender rating—i.e.,charging women higher premiums, just because they are women. 60% of those plans charge non-smoking women 4% to 18% more than they charge smoking men. In other words, South Dakota's health insurers view a uterus as less of a liability than cigarettes.

And South Dakota is supposedly a pro-life state. Yeah, right.

The NWLC report finds Montana is the only state so far with the wisdom and decency to ban gender-rating from any insurance plan. With good health insurance so vital to economic stability, we should follow Montana's lead and end this discrimination against women.

No Smoking Signs Bring Record Business at Sturgis

Oh, what is the world coming to? The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally should be an event the anti-nanny-staters can celebrate: few rules, few clothes, real Americans reveling in freedom and drinking and smoking what they want (except for Bob Newland, who has to settle for taking pictures)! Yaarrr!

And then a bar/restaurant in the middle of the rally posts no smoking signs and blows the arguments against South Dakota's pending smoking ban all to heck.

Located right on Main Street, the Loud American Roadhouse is always a popular Rally restaurant, and managers say the switch to non-smoking hasn't changed that. In fact, they're not having problems filling tables at all.

"Actually, we're having a record year, by far. We are way, way up over last year," owner Dean Kinney said.

Kinney hung the non-smoking signs last November. Since that time, business has boomed, but the real test was the Rally. By the looks of things, his restaurant passed.

"In fact, it almost feels like so many of the guests are from out of state from places where it's kind of the norm so we have literally heard almost nothing about it whatsoever," Kinney said [Karla Ramaekers, "Switch to Non-Smoking 'Positive' During Rally," KELOLand.com, 2009.08.07].

Gee, did anyone else stop and think that folks who spend all day riding in the open air might actually enjoy fresh air indoors too?

The Rapid City Journal's Jessica Kokesh covered the Loud American's smart business move last week. Kokesh also notes management at First Gold Casino in Deadwood got similarly good responses from customers and employees on creating smoke-free spaces.

Maybe the nanny-staters are right: we don't need government to ban smoking. Businesses will just realize on their own that going smoke-free is just plain good for business.

Referendum or Not: About Those Petitions...

South Dakota's ban on smoking in most public places and work places (with exceptions for lodging and cigar bars) may go into effect tomorrow with a stroke of Secretary Chris Nelson's pen. Or maybe not. Smoking supporters are writing up a lawsuit to challenge the challenge that invalidated thousands of the signatures they gathered to forestall the implementation of the ban until a public vote 16 months from now.

I have no problem with either challenge. All parties involved are executing their rights under the law, and that's fine. And, as an added bonus, by spending their money on legal action, the smoke lobby and the health lobby are burning up money from their campaign coffers. I'd like to think that means that if we do get a public vote on this issue, we won't see as many ads or as much junk mail cluttering up our mindspace.

Speaking of money, all those invalid signatures could be a moneymaker for the state. Many of the 8845 bad signatures came from folks who either weren't registered to vote or signed more than once (anyone do both?). SDCL 2-1-6 makes such improper signing a Class 1 misdemeanor, one step shy of a felony. We could fine the bogus signatories the $2000 allowed by law for attempting to subvert the democratic process. If we fined even a thousand of these scribbling ne'er-do-wells, we'd have two million dollars—and that could fill a lot of potholes.

Now I've had some fun making fun of petition circulators who concentrated their efforts around bars, where it only stands to reason you're going to encounter a higher percentage of people who aren't in any condition to be operating complicated machinery like cars and pens. But about 2500 signers had their inky efforts rejected due not to their own misdemeanory but to mistakes by the notaries public, who did silly things like putting the wrong expiration dates by their seals.

One can argue (perhaps statutorily—see SDCL 2-1-11) that we should give petitions wide berth and not let technicalities nullify petitioners' honest intentions. I can sympathize strongly with that position: we rely on notaries to know their responsibilities and carry out their duties properly. To allow one misstroke of the pen by one official to negate the will of the people seems a dangerous allocation of accidental power. But the strict rules governing the authority of notaries public ensure that our documents and oaths are kosher, and they are part of the rule of law.

What should happen to petitions that are spoiled solely by an error of the notary public? That's a hard question, well worth the opinion of a judge... or maybe five.

Smoking Ban Prevails, School Funding Lawsuit Reborn...

...and Epp returns to journalism?

Boy, I go spend a day mowing and watching a play (Godspell! Boom chick! Good work, kids!) instead of blogging, and the blogosphere has a banner day of big news:

• Chris Nelson ruins Pat Powers's day by finding the smoking-ban opponents really did screw up by having bar owners circulate petitions. Our able election umpire discovered another 10% on top of the originally statistically estimated 25% of the gathered signatures were invalid. In other words, one in three signers were either too drunk, too lazy, or too blinded by smoke to properly provide their own voting registration info. Bar owners, break out those No Smoking signs!
• The South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously* overturns portions of Judge Lori WIlbur's April ruling and opens the door for parents and school districts to sue the state over inadequate funding for education. Seth Tupper plays pessimist and says even a lawsuit can't squeeze more money out of a budget our Republican legislature can't balance without Washington's help. I play pessimist and maintain that any suers face a hard climb to satsify the burden of proof that the state is not meeting its basic constitutional obligation. Still, at least the parents and schools can make the argument.
• Mr. Epp gets back to some quality citizen journalism, breaking the school funding story with a chance conversation, posting the full decision, and cranking out three posts on the smoking ban. Give that man some hits! (But dang it: just as I thought he might be getting back to form, he fouls the air with another tabloid "Today's Babe" feature. Todd! You're asking for another noogie!)

So many wonders... and now I'll be out today manning the Lake County Democrats bake sale table at Madison's Crazy Days festivities. Who knows what awesome news will break next? Hope springs eternal!

*unanimously overturns: Dang: I guess that means Senator Thune won't be supporting Judge Wilbur for any nominations.

Big Tobacco Fights in South Dakota, Loses in Washington

Might we call this a Pyrrhic victory?

On the same day that South Dakota bar and casino owners play stooges to Big Tobacco and submit petitions with 25,000 signatures to delay South Dakota's smoking ban and refer it to public vote in November 2010, President Barack Obama signs a federal anti-smoking law that could deprive Big Tobacco of the chance to brainwash millions of children into becoming addicts over the next couple decades. Among the highlights of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act:

• The Food and Drug Administration finally gets to regulate smokes and chew like any other drug-delivery system.
• The new law bans flavored cigarettes (the kinds that get kids hooked).
  
• No one can post tobacco ads at sports or entertainment events or within a thousand feet of schools and playgrounds* (here in Madison, that would include One-Stop, MDL, and the Four Corners—no Marlboro banners).

If this toughest federal anti-smoking law ever is more nanny-statism, don't tell Senator John Thune: he voted for it, right along with the Dems in our Congressional delegation.

Big Tobacco and its flunkies here in South Dakota may think they won a victory yesterday with the submission of their referendum petitions. Secretary of State Chris Nelson still has to certify the petitions... and with much of the petition drive conducted around bars, it will be interesting to see what percentage of the 25K signatures are thrown out as illegible drunken scrawls. If the petitions have enough valid signatures, the profiteers can celebrate the ability to keep making money off smokes for another year and a half... although I'm still waiting for someone to show me how a smoking ban that affects all bars and restaurants equally would cut into any bar or restaurant owners profits.

But when the South Dakota tobacco lobby woke up this morning and read the paper, they had to be kicking themselves. Instead of piddling around with a smoking referendum in South Dakota, they should have been pushing great anti-nanny-stater Senator Thune for some filibuster juice to stop this new federal law that will hit Big Tobacco where it hurts, in its nefarious youth-marketing strategies.

*I'm having trouble finding this language in the bill text; clarification and/or correction from eager readers is welcome!

Less Smoke, More Openness: Good Signs in South Dakota

And in happy news, South Dakota takes two more steps forward... or is that two big breaths of fresh air? Governor Rounds signs both the smoking ban and the open records law.

I don't get to pat the Governor on the back much, so let me do so here. SB 147 and HB 1240 are good laws that deserve passage, and Governor Rounds, you have done the right thing in signing them. Thank you, sir, for shifting freedom from those doing harm to those just trying to breathe. And thank you for giving all of us citizens a little more oversight of our government.

One caveat: as I look through the final version of SB 147, unless I'm misreading the amendments, I don't see quite the sweeping presumption of openness contained in the original bill. It's still better than what we had before... but there's still room for improvement.

Smoking Ban Won't Hurt Small-Town Businesses

Governor Rounds, as you consider whether to fix your name to the smoking ban (assuming the House agrees to the Senate's amendments), here's a thought:

One frequent argument against banning smoking in public places is that such a ban would put small-town bars and cafés out of business. But what business will we lose? Are smokers in Kimball going to load up the truck and drive to Valentine for supper and a smoke?

Smokers will adjust. They'll take their butts outside, as they've resigned themselves to doing in so many other venues, then come in to the same old places for dinner and music. And a whole bunch of us who currently don't come to the smoky places may spread our money around town a little more.

Nothing to lose, plenty to gain. Sign the bill, Governor Rounds.

HB 1252: Olson Votes to Take Funding from Education

Here's a bill I should've noticed sooner: HB 1252 proposes to eliminate the education enhancement tobacco tax fund. In 2006, we passed a dollar-a-pack increase in the cigarette tax. The 2007 Legislature then earmarked nine million dollars of that revenue for education programs, including the teacher compensation assistance program.

HB 1252 won't make that money disappear (sorry, smokers, no break for you); it would just go into the general fund to cover whatever the governor and Legislature see fit. But the education programs the earmark supports likely will disappear.

Senator Russell Olson (R-8/Madison) joined the majority on the Senate Education committee that gave HB 1252 a "Do Pass" today. The House has already given its approval, against the wishes of District 8 House duo Fargen (D-Flandreau) and Lange (D-Madison). Given that the tax increase was sold to voters in part as a way to help education, perhaps the full Senate should rethink the Education committee's reasoning.

But the short form: Russell Olson just voted to take nine million dollars away from education.

Tell me again: who's the real friend of education in our delegation?

HB 1240: Smoking Ban Awaits Governor's Pen

HB 1240, the house version of the ban on smoking in public places and places of employment, passed the Senate 21-14 yesterday. This a month and a day after the same Senate failed to pass its own smoking ban 17–18.

Who flipped votes? Not our man Russell Olson (R-8/Madison), who remains determined to keep the world safe for Big Macs and shifting externalities. Fortunately, Senators Vehle, Ahlers, Gray, Kloucek, and Peterson negated Senator Olson's intransigence by flipping their nays to yeas. Senator Bartling flipped the other way.

The Senate did make one change, knocking the penalty down from Class 2 misdemeanor to petty offense for bar owners who don't notify their patrons of the ban.

Governor Rounds is playing coy on this one, probably hoping he can find some form and style reasons to veto the bill and thus skirt actually answering the question.

Should the governor veto this law, those of us who have urged passage of a smoking ban will just have to resort to the very choice and free market principles that ban opponents have touted all along. Much as I'll miss steaks at the Moonlite, those of us who prefer not to have other people's waste crammed down our throat will just have to boycott every establishment that still allows smoking within its confines. We can settle for places like Buffalo Wild Wings in Sioux Falls, which realizes a smoking ban is both good health and good business.