I-901: Diverse Opposition
By
Washington’s statewide smoking ban Initiative to the People 901
is on November’s general election ballot in our state. As the
election approached we observe attempts to beat down opposition
approaches that are apparently not “approved of” by some powers
that be. That unfortunate situation has created diverse – some
would say polarized – views from different camps fighting the
same issues.
I thought readers might find a little inside scoop about what’s
going on in
Norman E. Kjono
From:
norm kjono [mailto:normkarl@earthlink.net]
Vito,
Thank you for
sharing your views as stated in the below text received today.
Dialog is always a good thing. On occasion it even produces
positive results.
I write to you
after watching Robert Mack’s “Upfront” review of I-901 this
evening. King 5 projects I-901 to win by 67 percent and also
broadcast the “statistic” that its polls show 72 percent of the
public believes smokers are treated fairly in
Please count
the times that I said to Dave in the many E-Mails you reference
that I appreciate and support his efforts. Please also
re-read our September 26 and 27, 2006 E-Mail correspondence, as
provided in full text below the content of your most recent
E-Mail. What began as my following up on calling in to KVI
Talk Radio and SUPPORTING Dave Wilkinson’s efforts (with
comments John Carlson said he agreed with) within 24 hours
became a declaration that you didn’t need my “B.S.” and that
“Snapping at the campaign” form my “Ivory Tower.” Those
sentiments were also expressed by Dave in his most recent e-Mail
to me:
From:
DW0057@aol.com [mailto:DW0057@aol.com]
Norm,
If your intent was to piss me off to the point of no return
you've done it! Please do me a favor and don't email me or
communicate with me in any fashion anymore. I have better things
to do than attempt to work with people like you that
intentionally shit on everyone else's ideas other than your
own. I wanted to be more blunt but because you like to go on and
on and on and on I thought you would understand it better this
way.
Your pigheadedness and unwillingness to provide me with some
simple information will slow me down but hopefully I-901 will be
defeated without your help. If it passes part of the reason will
be because of people like you. You love to blame everybody else
for this mess but the reality is part of the problem is
YOU. This is reality. Have a good life.
Dave
Well, OK, you
and Dave have expressed your opinions. Folks have a right to
comment as they choose. But none of the above addresses a few
simple realities that we all face. So let’s set the acrimony
aside for a few moments and get down to the important business
at hand that affects all of us:
1. I-901 can
and should fail on its own merit as a fatally flawed initiative,
for several reasons:
a.) That
initiative will not and cannot “protect all workers” as it
claims;
b.) has
received better than 90 percent of its financial support from
special-interests, most of whom are out-of-state;
c.) mandates a
monopoly for tribes to accommodate patrons who smoke;
d.)
precipitates a revenue – and therefore tax base – migration from
taxpaying small business to tax-exempt tribal venues;
e.) threatens
and diminishes hospitality trade small business owner and
employee legitimate interests;
f.) virtually
guarantees future tax increases for all taxpayers to cover lost
revenue;
g.) vastly
expands unsupervised county health department prosecutorial and
enforcement legal powers;
h.) includes a
25 foot outdoor “No Smoking” zone that wipes out the current
benefits of outdoor smoking areas for many “Smoke Free”
restaurant, tavern and bar owners;
i.) expressly
gives county health departments the tight to preempt state law,
thereby creating regulatory anarchy in our state subject only to
the whims of the most agenda-driven county public health
officials;
j.) advances
itself based on demonstrably false claims about Environmental
Tobacco Smoke that are refuted by OSHA, the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute and other highly credible occupational
health sources;
k.) utterly
fails to consider actual onsite testing regarding ETS that has
been conducted on at least seven occasions in
l.) fails to
even remotely provide for Indoor Air Quality measures that could
and would address “as-yet-unidentified carcinogen(s)” that
publications of the National Cancer Institute say “play an
important role” in lung cancer among nonsmokers;
m.) directly
discriminates against the legitimate interests of nearly 1
million
n.) puts in
legal jeopardy smoking bans in place under current state law
that works just fine.
In short,
I-901 cannot and will not accomplish what it claims; imposes
draconian consequences for taxpayers, small business owners,
local government, and consumers; does so based on false claims
about public health; and is dangerous to taxpayers and the
public from fiscal, medical and regulatory stand points.
So what’s the problem with No On I-901 beating an initiative
like that?
Given No On I-901’s demonstrated access to Talk Radio, editorial
boards, media, and sponsored debate forums, it seems to me that
whuppin’ up on I-901 should be a slam dunk (particularly so if
No On I-901 had formed a meaningful coalition of business
owners, consumers and tax payers working together.) But it is
also clear to date that opposition such as No On I-901 has
refused to competently address the subject of Environmental
Tobacco Smoke (ETS), promotes the idea in print and broadcast
media that persons who smoke have no rights, and essentially
presents the voting public with a choice between business owner
“rights” OR permitting “deadly” air quality in
hospitality trade venues. How do you expect voters will respond
to that extremely limited and vastly simplified choice?
Then again,
2. Whether
I-901 passes or fails there will be legislative, legal and other
actions regarding smoking bans in 2006. We both know that
and WRA has already said so on its Web site August 15, 2005.
Should I-901 fail on its lack of merit there can be little or no
doubt that the Washington Restaurant Association will put up
during the 2006 legislative session yet another “negative
pressure” smoking area segregation bill that directly imposes
unwarranted costs on mom and pop hospitality small businesses,
thereby providing a clear anti-competitive economic advantage
for WRA’s large franchise chain members to gain market share at
their independent small business owner competitor’s expense.
2006 will be an interesting year. I suspect that more voice than
are presently being heard will speak quite forcefully.
Independent small business hospitality owners face a continuing
threat to their livelihoods from both sides of the smoking ban
aisle: anti-tobacco activists and their own restaurant
association.
3. From
anti-tobacco the response to I-901 failing will be tobacco
control advocates using their virtually unlimited money to
initiate another rolling wave of smoking ban legislation and
initiatives, as is has done for the past several years. To
date, between Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Legacy
Foundation grants to advance the smoking ban in Pierce County,
the costs to defend that unsuccessful ban, contributions to
failed I-890 and I-332 in 2004, and now about $800,000 to get
I-901 on the ballot, more than $2 million in special-interest
cash has been committed to mandating a statewide smoking ban.
That will continue unabated. Under the present circumstances
hospitality trade small business owners and their employees will
face that threat annually and in perpetuity.
4. The
objective is not only to stop current the smoking ban initiative
but to also permanently halt anti-tobacco’s rolling wave of
unending legislative bills and initiatives. Recounting
ballots and persisting with legislation or initiatives until
things work out the way the powers that be on both sides want
seems to be an engrained cultural phenomenon in
5. The
rolling wave of anti-tobacco’s legislative bills
will not be stopped
by refusing to address Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
because doing so leaves the provably false core premise of a
bona fide threat to public health in place. So Long as that
false premise is there the legislative bills and initiatives
will be there.
6. The
rolling wave of anti-tobacco’s legislative bills
will not be stopped
by asserting property and business owners rights as an
independent issue because to do so becomes a statement that
hospitality businesses and property owners consider their
“rights” and profits to be above public health.
No responsible legislator could
or should support such a position. Property rights
becomes an extremely valid
and very potent issue once it has been credibly
demonstrated that the risks from ETS do not exist as alleged by
anti-tobacco according to OSHA, Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, and other credible sources,
in addition to actual onsite
tests of ETS in Washington small businesses, such as ETS data
from my company.
7. The
rolling wave of anti-tobacco’s legislative bills
will not be stopped
by proclaiming persons who smoke do not have rights, as No
On I-901 has said publicly in effect on at least three occasions
to my personal knowledge. Let us assume that what No On I-901
has said about smoker’s rights in the past to be true: what does
that position of smokers not having rights possibly have to do
with the fact that, until the issue of ETS is competently
addressed, according to anti-tobacco bar, tavern, restaurant
owners are permitting those “rightless” “addicts” to spew deadly
carcinogens that kill thousands of innocent nonsmokers each year
around their business establishments? I respectfully submit that
were that to be credibly true hospitality business owners have
no more right to do so than to serve tainted food or
contaminated water. Given the alternatives of permitting
hospitality trade members to expose nonsmoking patrons to
allegedly deadly carcinogens so they can stay in business or
banning the allegedly deadly carcinogens the only plausible and
politically sustainable choice is to ban the allegedly deadly
carcinogens regardless of the business consequence to the
hospitality trade.
8. The
rolling wave of anti-tobacco’s legislative bills
will only be stopped
by credible facts that demonstrate ETS does not present the
risks claimed by tobacco control advocate, provides reasonable
and certain ventilation alternatives within OSHA guidelines for
worker safety, and includes responsible measures that are
sensitive to the hospitality trade’s legitimate financial
concerns as well as political issues. I cooperated with you
and Linda Matson during the 2005 legislative session by drafting
precisely such a solution – at your personal request -- that can
and will work to stop the rolling wave of smoking ban
legislation and initiatives, HB1559. WRA’s response to that bill
was to oppose it and present their own segregationist approach
with negative pressure smoking areas. HB 1559 was cast in the
light of an “extremist” bill to which the WRA bill was a
“reasonable” alternative. You and Linda Matson were directly
involved in facilitating that response by WRA. Consequently,
hospitality small business owners, employees, taxpayers and
persons who smoke now face yet another smoking ban initiative.
So where to
from here? The choices are clear: we make peace or you can
continue to distract yourself with the War On Norm and Forces.
It’s your choice.
Here are the
basic terms on which peace can be productively discussed:
First:
We must acknowledge that citizens in the State of
Second:
We must acknowledge that we are not competing against one
another for “rights,” we stand together as a people on the
simple premise that protecting out neighbors legitimate
interests and rights is the best way to protect our own. Public
policy that affects everyone cannot be responsibly defined based
on a popularity contest.
Third:
We must acknowledge that property rights are sustained only by
demonstrating that a genuine threat to public health
does not exist as
represented by anti-tobacco activists, and that responsible
ventilation solutions are readily available that can be brought
to bear.
Fourth:
We must acknowledge that each group adversely affected by
statewide smoking ban initiatives – at the least, small business
owners and their employees, taxpayers, local governments, and
persons who lawfully consume legal tobacco products – have equal
standing in addressing regulatory issues that affect them.
Fifth:
All parties who agree to the foregoing premises must share equal
participation in defining strategy, policy and public
statements. Other parties who are aversely affected are not
merely subordinate consultants on demand who must provide their
work product into the black hole of a few insiders who do with
it as they will, then hope that those insiders do not so abuse
their work product it cannot be effective.
Sixth:
Those most qualified to present different aspects of this
complex equation must be included the public presentation. It is
offensive and frightening that many folks who have been in the
anti-tobacco wars, including myself and people from other
organizations, have now been asked to provide a few sound bites
about ETS so a person who admits he does not understand the
subject can be the media spokesman on the subject.
So there you
have it. Do with it as you will. We proceed independently.
Regardless of your decision I know with certainty that we’ll be
addressing these issues in 2006, whether I-901 passes or fails.
Perhaps this E-Mail provides a constructive guidance about how
we can productively cross paths in the future.
Be Well,
Norman E.
Kjono
The Below E-Mail received from you today is what I responded to
above:
-----Original
Message-----
From: Vito
Chiechi
Subject:
Nuts...
Norm,
I HAVE BEEN
READING THE VENOM AND H.SH--- YOU HAVE BEEN SPEWING FOR THE LAST
I FIND IT
AMAZING, IF YOUR FORCES PROGRAMS APROACH IS SO DAMN GOOD, THEN
WHY
Vito
BEFORE YOU
MAKE STUPID STATEMENTS ABOUT WHO IS BEHIND NO ON 901 YOU
-----Original
Message----- NORM TELL ME HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THESE
GET OUT OF
YOUR IVORY TOWER ND GO AROUND THE STATE AND WORK THE ISSUE ON
IF IT IS SO
SIMPLY TO EXPLAINE.IWOULD YOULOOK IN THE MIRROR BEFORE YOU CALL
The written record speaks for itself.
Here are the September 26 and 27, 2005 E-Mails between us (for
chronology, please note my computer clock was set at one hour
earlier than yous.)
1. The
E-Mails begin with me writing Dave Wilkinson late on September
26th to follow up on my calling into the John
Carlson KVI Talk Radio show to SUPPORT Dave Wilkinson. My
primary reason for doing so was that Carlson said he AGREED with
my comments, which I felt could open the door to additional air
time to address OSHA and ETS.
-----Original
Message-----
Dave,
Hoped my
comments on KVI this afternoon helped you out. It seemed to me
that it took the “bite” out of many callers’ comments and
refocused the issue.
Now, let’s get
Carlson to do a show about the regulatory implications, OSHA and
ETS. I would be happy to take on all comers from the I-901
crowd.
Best,
Norm
2. Late on
the 26th you responded to my E-Mail addressed to Dave,
on which you were copied as a courtesy. You indicated that you
would try to set up more time on KVI.
From:
Vito Chiechi
norm thanks I willtry and setthat up...dave missedit he could
have nailed himon the oshaandets
3. I
responded to you the morning of the 27th by saying
thanks, then added comments about the focus of the next
segment and the alleged noble goals of I-901.
From:
norm kjono [mailto:normkarl@earthlink.net]
Vito,
Thanks! Another segment on KVI about I-901 would be very, very
good. The business migration and consequent tax angles seemed to
resonate with Carlson, as did the idea that I-901 will not and
cannot do what it claims. I can cover OSHA, EPA, and other ETS
issues with ease. Considering that Carlson let a planned 30
minute segment go for two hours this appears to be a hot topic.
I
think that we focus the additional KVI segment – if it can be
arranged – on a simple thrust:
Does one person’s alleged right to have a 100 percent choice all
the time to go anywhere they want and never encounter anyone
smoking supercede other citizens’ rights to continue their
existing business and livelihoods, their employees right to a
job, and normal citizens’ rights to not have unnecessary tax
increases imposed on them to make up for lost revenue?
Many anti-tobacco supporters often proclaim: “Your right to
smoke ends at the tip of my nose!”
The obvious response is: “Your right to mandate “Smoke Free”
air ends at the opening of my wallet!”
In charging full steam ahead on what we allegedly want to
accomplish it is equally important to consider how we go about
getting it done. Too often the noble goals are so laden with
special-interest agendas that the action mandated cannot
accomplish the goal. Such is the case with I-901, then adding
the negative effects of lost businesses, jobs, and tax revenues.
Norm
4. You
responded to me shortly thereafter on the 27th with
an apparent misunderstanding of my E-Mail, characterizing my
previous E-Mail as “B.S.” and saying you don’t need me “Snapping
at the campaign” form my “Ivory Tower.”
-----Original
Message-----
your
e-mail09/27-11:07
. Too often
the noble goals are so laden with "special-interest agendas"
Norm
norm: I would
like to know what you mean when you say"we allegelly" and
5. I
replied to you on the 27th providing clarification
that neither my wording nor my intent was provided to attack you
or No On I-901.
From:
norm kjono [mailto:normkarl@earthlink.net]
Vito,
I deeply
regret your sentiments about me as you expressed in your below
E-Mail, which included in part:
“I would like
to know what you mean when you say "we allegelly" and
"special-interest agendas". . . . I sure as hell do not need
some one spreading these kinds of innuendos. . . . I do not need
some one snaping at the campagin from his ivory tower, I need
help and money.. not this kind of B.S. P.I.T.A.”
What you
characterize as my intent was not my statement, nor could that
reasonably be so construed in light of what I have been writing
about for the past several years. “We allegedly” in my previous
E-Mail (see below) refers to we the people of the State of
Washington, as I have made reference to in many previous
commentaries and is tied to I-901 in the following sentence. My
reference to “noble goals” and “special-interests” was clearly
and unmistakably directed at I-901, not against you or your
efforts:
“In charging full steam ahead on what we allegedly want to
accomplish it is equally important to consider how we go about
getting it done. Too often the noble goals are so laden with
special-interest agendas that the action mandated cannot
accomplish the goal. Such is the case with I-901, then
adding the negative effects of lost businesses, jobs, and tax
revenues.” (Underline added.)
As I have
written many, many times in the past, I-890, three years of
attempts to legislate a statewide smoking ban, the
So do we
believe that the pharmaceutical RWJ foundation put $998,000 into
Since the goal
of tobacco control is, indisputably at this point,
to replace cigarettes with
nicotine inhalers and other pharmaceutical nicotine
products, its alleged
goal to ‘protect worker’s health’
becomes a special-interest sham
that cannot be realized because that is not the true focus of
its policy, nor can that initiative do so in any event in light
of tribal exemptions.
As so graphically illustrated by the debacle in Pierce County
anti-tobacco and its supporters will predictably and with
certainty pursue its goals for a smoking ban to “reduce
opportunities to smoke” regardless of the disastrous
consequences imposed on nontribal bars, taverns, casinos, and
hospitality business suppliers. Nontribal small hospitality
business owners in the State of
Tobacco
control’s allegedly noble
goals are therefore presented in their true light as
a sham perpetrated on
taxpayers, consumers, and small business owners in
irresponsible pursuit of their own pharmaceutical
special-interest mercantile goals.
It cannot be more simply stated that that. Neither the text of
what I wrote nor my past commentaries support any view that I
have attacked your efforts. I have supported your efforts on
many occasions in the past. To the contrary of attacking you, I
am the writer who published on Forces.org “The Little Group
that Could” in support
of your efforts and others in
We at Forces
want to win on I-901, too. We have been at this game for nearly
a decade, quite successfully when folks understand the issues we
are fighting and embrace counter strategies that truly work.
Finally,
consider where we would be today in the fight against I-901 if
HB 1559, for which I wrote the text, had received a Senate
sponsor and passed during the 2005 legislative session. I-901
would not have a leg to stand on today from either a political
or regulatory standpoint. Moreover, it’s current pitch to
support I-901 would have no merit at all because those issues
would have been previously addressed by legislators. Rather than
go after passing HB 1559 as a coordinated effort by all of us I
was cut off and precluded from testifying before the
legislature, Linda instructed folks such as Dave Wilkerson to
signup for supporting the RWA bill as I stood there and watched
outside the hearing room, and the only course of action left was
to oppose RWA’s segregation “separate but equal” negative
pressure rooms for patrons who choose to smoke. The battle
against I-901 and other smoking ban efforts will not be won
until those negatively affected comprehend the true nature and
goals of our opponents and work together to oppose that. The
battle against I-901 will indisputably be lost by dumping on
those such as me who can substantively support your efforts
about things they did not say and that are not supported by past
writings.
Having passed
up the opportunity to lay a winning foundation against I-901 in
the legislature with HS 1559 earlier this year we now find
ourselves confronted with bickering about what I did not say on
the eve of the vote.
The antis love
it. RWA expects to expediently stand aside with no opposition
and profit from it. Divide and conquer works. Enjoy.
Fortunately,
there is a better way. We only need to grasp it and move on it.
If you want me to butt out of your opposition to I-901 and stop
supporting your efforts please just say so, that’s all it takes.
There are several other avenues that can be productively pursued
independently.
If there are
any “Ivory Towers” I respectfully submit that they exist in
Norman E.
Kjono
| |