Iowa Casino Smoking Ban: Health vs. Revenue in Heated Debate
DES MOINES — A proposal to ban smoking in Iowa casinos is creating a firestorm, pitting public health concerns against teh potential economic fallout for the state’s gambling industry. House study Bill 148, wich would eliminate casinos’ exemption from Iowa’s smoke-free air law, passed a subcommittee hearing Tuesday, igniting a passionate debate.
Iowa’s smoke-free air law, enacted in 2008, prohibits smoking in most public places. However, a loophole allows smoking on gambling floors in state-licensed casinos and some outdoor bar patios. This exemption is now under intense scrutiny.
Supporters, including health organizations like CAFE (Clean Air For Everyone) and the Iowa citizens Action Network, argue that closing this loophole is crucial. They point to a significant drop in smoking rates, healthcare costs, and smoking-related hospitalizations since the law’s implementation.It is indeed beyond time,
they contend, to close what they see as a loophole and protect casino workers from the hazards of secondhand smoke, the same as other workers in the state.
Threase Harms, a lobbyist representing CAFE, linked the indoor smoking allowed in Iowa casinos to the state’s climbing cancer rates
and the deaths of over 2,700 Iowans. Iowa, she noted, has the fastest-growing rate of new cancers and ranks second-highest in cancer rates nationally. This alarming statistic underscores the urgency of the proposed ban for many supporters.
Conversely, casino representatives warn of potentially devastating economic consequences. They predict revenue drops of up to 30 percent, forcing gamblers to seek out tribal casinos in Iowa or neighboring states where smoking remains permitted. This argument highlights the complex economic considerations at play.
Traci Kennedy, Midwest states strategist for Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, emphasized the impact on casino workers.
“Casino workers in Iowa have been fighting for their right to clean air for far too long,”
“Eighty-six percent of Iowans are nonsmokers, and yet casinos still cater to the other 14 percent. Casino workers and patrons deserve to work, dine and game without putting themselves at risk.”
She also noted that surrounding states—Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska—all have smoke-free commercial casinos, suggesting a competitive disadvantage for Iowa.
Jackie Cale, a lobbyist representing the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), highlighted the link between tobacco and cancer.Tobacco use and exposure is the leading preventable cause of cancer, accounting for about one-fourth of cancer-related deaths in the state,
she stated. She further emphasized that casino workers face a 20 percent higher risk of lung cancer due to secondhand smoke exposure.
“There is no safe level of secondhand smoke exposure, making this an occupational hazard for casino workers, and no one should have to choose between their health and their job,”
“When smoking is allowed in the workplace, business owners’ costs are increased, with employers paying increased health, life and fire insurance premiums, high worker compensation payments and experience lower worker productivity,”
Mary Earnhardt, president and CEO of the Iowa Gaming Association, countered that a smoking ban would considerably curtail
the estimated $1 billion annual economic impact of Iowa’s 19 state-licensed commercial casinos. She cited studies from Delaware, illinois, and Colorado showing revenue drops of 9 percent to 22 percent following smoking bans in those states. However, opponents argue these studies, dating back to 2002 and 2009, are outdated and don’t reflect potential revenue recovery.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Shannon Lundgren, a Republican, shared a personal connection to the issue.Her family opened a restaurant in Peosta in 2007, and she also worked at the former Dubuque Casino Belle.
“So I am pro-casino, and I want to make that very clear,”
“Though, as a small-business owner, the state of Iowa decided that they could dictate to my small business that I couldn’t have made this decision on my own, but they gave the casinos an exemption. And I will tell you it is one of the reasons I ran. It is indeed a stick in my craw.”
She aims to repeal the casino exemption, a goal she’s pursued as her election in 2016.This year, her bill advanced to a full committee hearing after receiving subcommittee approval from Reps. Lundgren, Sami Scheetz (D-Cedar Rapids), and Austin Harris (R-Moulton).
While Scheetz called the bill great for protecting Iowa workers,
Harris expressed reservations about supporting it in committee. lundgren acknowledges the bill’s uncertain future, stating that its passage to the House floor is a toss-up.
Balancing Health and Economy: Navigating Iowa’s Casino Smoking Ban Debate
Q: Can we discuss the motivations and implications behind House Study Bill 148 and its attempt to close the smoking loophole in Iowa casinos?
A: The push to close the smoking loophole stems from a significant health concern. As Iowa’s smoke-free air law passed in 2008, smoking rates have declined, yet casino floors remain exceptions. This bill reflects a broader public health initiative to protect non-smokers, especially casino workers, from secondhand smoke exposure—a known occupational hazard. Critics argue that maintaining this exemption amounts to prioritizing industry revenue over employee health and safety, effectively putting workers at a 20% higher risk of developing illnesses such as lung cancer compared to others.
Q: What are the arguments against the proposed ban, and how might they impact Iowa’s economy?
A: Opponents of the ban posit that prohibiting smoking in casinos could lead to significant economic repercussions, possibly reducing casino revenue by up to 30%.They argue that Iowan gamblers might relocate to tribal casinos or neighboring states were smoking is allowed, thereby affecting local businesses and state tax income. Studies from other states, like Delaware and Colorado, suggest possible immediate revenue drops; however, these are often offset over time as consumers adapt. The economic debate centers around initially mitigated revenues versus the long-term sustainability promoted by protecting public health.
Q: How do nearby states factor into Iowa’s considerations for maintaining or lifting the smoking exemption?
A: Iowa faces a unique competitive challenge since neighboring states like Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, south Dakota, and Nebraska already enforce smoke-free regulations in casinos. This discrepancy places Iowa at a potential competitive disadvantage, as consumers visiting cleaner environments elsewhere might dissuade local patrons. About 86% of Iowans are nonsmokers, indicating a public leaning towards smoke-free environments, supporting an overall national trend toward healthier public spaces.
Q: what ancient context informs the current momentum behind efforts to prohibit smoking in Iowa casinos?
A: Smoking bans in the workplace have been gaining traction since the mid-20th century, especially with the recognition of associated health risks. The intention behind Iowa’s smoke-free air law and subsequent support for similar measures reflects changing societal norms and growing awareness of secondhand smoke hazards. Key legislative strides and declining smoking rates reinforce these efforts, illustrating a legislative trajectory aimed at safeguarding health in public settings.
Q: In your opinion, what are the essential takeaways from the ongoing debate over Iowa’s casino smoking ban?
A: Essential takeaways include the need to balance public health priorities with economic concerns. While there’s an imperative to protect workers and patrons from health risks of secondhand smoke, casinos argue for economic stability. Critical considerations lie in evaluating the long-term benefits of a healthier environment against short-term revenue losses. this call for a re-evaluation of workplace safety standards in entertainment venues echoes a nationwide commitment to reducing preventable health crises, posing a hard question: can Iowa support its gaming industry while also honoring its commitment to public health?
Engage with us in the comments to share your thoughts on the implications of this debate or suggest paths forward. Your insights could help shape a more health-conscious, yet economically sound future for Iowa’s casinos.