April Fool’s Day: Choked Up In Washington

Columnists Corner

April Fool’s Day: Choked Up In Washington

By Norman E. Kjono, April 2, 2004

The final wording for Breathe Easy Washington’s statewide smoking ban Initiative 890, and that of associated Washington Breathe, was complete and posted at close of business April 1, 2004. Readers can confirm the Ballot Title and Ballot Summary wording for I-890 by going to the Web site for the Washington Secretary of State and scrolling down to that initiative number.

According to Revised Code of Washington RCW 29.79.035 , the ballot title and summary for initiatives in Washington are prepared by the Office of the Attorney General. The portion of RCW text that assigns that responsibility says:

“The attorney general shall specify the statement of subject and concise description for an initiative to the people, an initiative to the legislature, and a referendum measure. The statement of subject and concise description as so provided must be included as part of the ballot title unless changed on appeal.” (Underline added.)

To my layman’s understanding title and summary information is intended to describe an initiative for purposes of use with petitions to place it on the ballot and to accurately inform voters what they are voting for, should an initiative qualify for the general election. I-890’s title and summary say:

“Ballot Title

Initiative Measure No. 890 concerns amending the Clean Indoor Air Act regarding smoking prohibitions. This measure would prohibit smoking in buildings and vehicles open to the public and places of employment, including areas within 25 feet of doorways and ventilation openings unless a lesser distance is approved.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes[ ] No[ ]

Ballot Measure Summary

This measure would prohibit smoking in public places and in places of employment. Current laws allowing designation of certain smoking areas would be repealed, including current provisions allowing designation of an entire restaurant, bar, tavern, bowling alley, skating rink, or tobacco shop as a smoking area. The prohibition would include areas within 25 feet of entrances, exits, opening windows and ventilation intakes, unless shorter distances are approved by the director of the local health department.“

The first paragraph of the language in the Washington RCW statute that defines how initiative ballot titles and summaries must be prepared by the Office of the Attorney General of Washington says:

“1) The ballot title for an initiative to the people, an initiative to the legislature, a referendum bill, or a referendum measure consists of: (a) A statement of the subject of the measure; (b) a concise description of the measure; and (c) a question in the form prescribed in this section for the ballot measure in question. The statement of the subject of a measure must be sufficiently broad to reflect the subject of the measure, sufficiently precise to give notice of the measure's subject matter, and not exceed ten words. The concise description must contain no more than thirty words, be a true and impartial description of the measure's essential contents, clearly identify the proposition to be voted on, and not, to the extent reasonably possible, create prejudice either for or against the measure.” (Underline added.)

There was considerable discussion over the above wording for I-890’s Ballot Title and Ballot Measure Summary. I exchanged several E-Mails with the Solicitor General’s team in the Washington Attorney General’s office regarding how I-890 is being presented to the public. In a March 31, 2004 E-Mail to me Mr. Even with the Attorney General’s office said:

“After considering the matter, we remain concerned about the idea of mentioning an "exemption" for tribal establishments. The initiative doesn't provide for such an exemption, so saying that they are exempt is not a description of the initiative. An initiative, like any state law, applies only where state law applies. This is true of any initiative. Since it is not a description of contents of the initiative we are disinclined to mention it in the title.”

The above response was the essence of the reason why the Attorney General’s office also refused to insert the word “nontribal” when referencing where I-890 applies. Referencing the tribal issue in I-890 is important because it goes to the heart of several core issues about that initiative.

Well, it is the Attorney General office’s statutory job to make decisions about ballot title and description content, and the language of I-890’s description is uniquely theirs after considerable public input and comment. We the people necessarily rely on the in the Attorney General’s office to do their job. But in this case were the people’s views perhaps just a little more remote in the AG’s mind than what special-interest Breathe Easy Washington and Washington Breathe had to say?

I believe that the exclusion of any reference to the fact that tribal hospitality facilities such a casinos, restaurants, and taverns are exempt from the I-890 smoking ban is a principal defect in the above language. I believe that omission creates very misleading language because it crafts petition and ballot language that can lead people to assume that they are supporting or voting for an initiative that prohibits all smoking in all public places and all places of employment, “protects” all workers and patrons from the alleged dangers of Environmental tobacco Smoke, and does so without severe and potentially dangerous consequences in related areas. That is simply not the case, nor could it be when considering tribal sovereignty and important facts about Indoor Air Quality regulation.

It is also apparent that one consequence of I-890, a migration of hospitality business from nontribal to tribal hospitality establishments as already observed in Pierce County through the smoking ban that became effective in January 2004, will impose significant changes to worker safety protections and tax base revenues due to tribal facility exemptions from I-890 and other state laws. Voters are entitled to, and should, consider those broader consequences in their vote for or against I-890. Omitting reference to tribal exemption in the wording of I-890’s title and description removes information that may give rise to voters not considering the true scope of I-890’s impact when signing petitions to place it on the ballot before July 2, 2004 or when casting their vote in the November 2004 general election if I-890 qualifies for the ballot.

I believe that the principal issues about I-890 can be summarized as follows:

First: All tribal facilities -- including tribal restaurants, taverns, bars, and casinos, etc. -- are exempt from I-890. Tribal casinos, and restaurants or taverns housed within them, can, do, and will continue to permit smoking. That strongly tilts competition in the hospitality industry in favor of tribal establishments. It is highly unlikely that tribal establishments will voluntarily forego the competitive business advantage that smoking ban assure they have.

Second: In light of the tribal exemption I-890 DOES NOT and CANNOT prohibit smoking in all Washington public places and all places of employment, as has been incorrectly stated by Breathe, its point person and the press on several occasions to date.

Third: I-890 DOES not and CANNOT “protect” all workers and patrons from the alleged dangers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). In fact, we can reasonably expect that – due to the virtually exclusive franchise (military bases are also exempt from I-890) to accommodate patrons who choose to smoke as an integral part of their hospitality experience that is given to tribal hospitality establishments – many patrons and employees of tribal facilities could be exposed to more ETS than at present.

Fourth: I-890 does nothing about any Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) constituent other than ETS, nor does it provide for any ventilation standards or IAQ remedial measures. Improved ventilation standards, upgraded ventilation systems and maintenance, and genuine Indoor Air Quality assessment in Washington ARE NOT addressed by I-890. For example, particulates such as exhaust contaminants and pollens or fibers, biologics such as molds and bacteria that can cause Legionnaire’s Disease and other serious or deadly illnesses, and gaseous pollutants such as that caused by heat in food preparation or petrochemical product off-gassing are not addresses by I-890. The scope of genuine Indoor Air Quality is much greater than a mere fixation on tobacco smoke, and includes several other pollutants as well as operation and maintenance of ventilation equipment. So it cannot be said by any stretch of one’s imagination that I-890 is a “Clean Indoor Air” initiative.

Fifth: Under I-890 the exemption that nontribal hospitality establishments presently have under Washington ’s Clean Indoor Act will be replaced with a smoking ban that expressly targets nontribal establishments subject to the prohibition in I-890 and that will be required to prohibit smoking. In effect, I-890 grants an exclusive franchise – a monopoly – to tribal facilities to accommodate a unique and identifiable hospitality business segment of persons who smoke, by taking away the current right to compete for that business from nontribal business establishments. In that regard readers should note that applying Centers for Disease Control and Prevention smoking prevalence rates to U.S. Census Bureau adult population estimates it becomes apparent that we have as many persons who smoke today as there were at year end before the George H. W. Bush administration’s anti-tobacco $135 million Project ASSIST was announced in October of 1991. Under that first Bush administration anti-tobacco program youth smoking rates in Washington and nationwide skyrocketed more that 40 percent. The market segment of persons who smoke as part of their hospitality experience is therefore considerable -- much larger for taverns and casinos than restaurants -- and will remain stable for the foreseeable future.

Sixth: The difference in exemptions – tribal would be exempt and nontribal would be required to comply with I-890 -- sets up a migration of business in the Washington hospitality industry from nontribal establishments to tribal facilities that will predictably occur. Because smoking is an integral part of casino, tavern, and other hospitality experiences for persons who choose to smoke the impact of I-890 is particularly severe on the interests of nontribal hospitality businesses that are targeted by that initiative. The impact on worker safety and environmental issues can also be more severe than voters may expect because tribal establishments are also reportedly exempt from most inspection and permit requirements, many state environmental laws, as well as contributions to the state’s worker safety and unemployment funds.

Seventh: I-890 would cause a change in the tax base for cities and counties statewide. Along with the predictable migration of hospitality business from nontribal to tribal facilities comes – as already observed in Pierce County -- a change in comparative taxes paid by hospitality businesses will occur. For example, a table of differences in taxation and other business or employee costs between tribal and nontribal hospitality businesses was recently published by the Entertainment Industry Coalition (which has sponsored I-889):

Cost or Regulation Nontribal Businesses Tribal Businesses

Taxes:

Labor and Industries Insurance: Yes Exempt

Unemployment Insurance: Yes Exempt

Business & Occupation Tax: Yes Exempt

Property Taxes: Yes Exempt

Business Costs And Compliance:

Minimum Wage: State $7.16 Federal, less tip offset

Building and Construction Permits: Required Exempt

Occupancy Inspections: Required Exempt

Food and Health Inspections: Required Exempt

Shorelines Management Act: Compliance Required Exempt

Growth Management Act: Compliance Required Exempt

State Environment Policy Act: Compliance Required Exempt

State Water and Utilities Laws: Compliance Required Exempt

More than 1 million citizens in Washington smoke and it is estimated that 50 to 70 percent of tavern and casino patrons choose to smoke as a part of their hospitality experience. In light of the foregoing comparative taxes and costs the impact of the migration of that segment of the Washington hospitality industry’s trade from complying to exempt facilities will be considerable and have a definite impact. That impact extends well beyond the important shift in the tax base and into worker safety regulatory compliance, building and occupancy inspections, as well as compliance with several important state laws.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s March 26, 2004 article “Light Rail Extension Studied in Tacoma,” by Jane Hadley, reports:

With Tacoma 's light rail line barely out of the gate, an effort already has begun to extend the 1.6-mile line. Under study is a proposal to extend the line east and south about 1.5 miles from the Tacoma Dome station to a $200 million casino resort planned by the Puyallup Tribe on the other side of Interstate 5. . . . Downtown Tacoma interests, concerned about the tribe's plans to build a large hotel at the resort, approached the tribe about extending the light rail line to the casino, he said. The extension would link the casino to downtown hotels and the city's new convention center. The tribe has dropped its plans to build the hotel, but is forging ahead with plans to build a three-story casino of 150,000 square feet with six restaurants and a dance club. The development also would have a 3,500-seat event center. The resort would employ up to 2,500 people.

In light of the competitive economic business advantages that tribal facilities enjoy it can be reasonably expected that the new $200 million casino in Tacoma that reportedly will employ 2,500 workers will displace many small neighborhood taverns, restaurants and other establishments due to migrations of patrons. While some of that migration could be accounted for by an attractive new facility, I-890 will provide a decisive competitive advantage to the new casino for many patrons who choose to smoke. The nontribal local neighborhood small hospitality businesses that will be displaced – closed – by that decisive competitive advantage currently pay taxes, state insurances, and other costs that the new casino will not. What is the economic loss to Tacoma , Pierce County , and the State of Washington in terms of losses of Labor and Industry plus Unemployment Insurance payments for 2,500 employees, Business & Occupation taxes on a multi-million dollar per year business, and property taxes on a $200 million facility?

Eighth: The alleged risks of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) are not as represented by sponsors and proponents of I-890. February 24, 2003 The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published its “Reiteration Of Existing OSHA Policy In Indoor Air Quality.” That document states, in part:

“Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.” (Underline added.)

That constituents of Environmental Tobacco Smoke do not exceed – in fact do not approach – Permissible Exposure Levels in normal workplace environments was recently confirmed by a large October 2003 study of Australian hospitality establishments, “Designated ‘No Smoking’ Areas Provide From Partial To No Protection From Environmental Tobacco Smoke,“ published in the journal Tobacco Control. To illustrate, OSHA publishes a Permissible Exposure Level for nicotine in its “Workplace Standards” statement of 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter. 0.5 milligrams (mg) = 500 micrograms (ug). That study of 17 social and gaming clubs – the same type of hospitality establishments regarding I-890 – clearly shows that ETS constituents do not exceed OSHA’s PELs in normal hospitality work environments.

The upper boundary NICOTINE exposure levels reported in that study are 100.5 micrograms per cubic meter in smoking areas and 41.3 micrograms per cubic meter in nonsmoking areas. The Australian study published by the journal Tobacco Control confirms that upper boundary ETS constituent nicotine exposures in social and gaming hospitality establishments range from less than one-tenth to only one-fifth of OSHA’s Permissible Exposure Levels. Given the very low level of exposure (1/10^t^h to 1/5^th of OSHA PEL) to an ETS constituent unique to tobacco smoke (nicotine) it is extremely improbable that PELS for other ETS constituents would be exceeded. That observation is buttressed by the fact that some of the ETS constituents, such as Carbon Monoxide and Formaldehyde, are not unique to ETS and would be a part of the background environment.

Finally, as to ETS it bears mention that OSHA withdrew its proposed indoor air quality regulations that included a nationwide workplace smoking ban in December 2001, with the support of tobacco control advocates. Please see “OSHA Withdraws Indoor Air Proposal With Support Of Anti-Smoking Groups” December 14, 2001, which reports:

“WASHINGTON -- Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health John Henshaw announced that OSHA is withdrawing an inactive indoor air quality regulation proposed in 1994. The decision was reached with the support of major anti-smoking public health groups including the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.” (Underline added.)

The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the American Cancer Society are members of the Washington Breathe coalition, an integral part of Breathe Easy Washington, and staunch and proponents of I-890. The fact that those three organizations have previously supported OSHA’s withdrawal of its proposed Indoor Air Quality regulations – in addition to considering the different scope of IAQ versus smoking bans as noted above --should preclude any representation that I-890 is an “Indoor Air Quality” or “Clean Indoor Air” initiative. The sponsors and/or proponents of I-890 cannot reasonably state that the initiative is a “Clean Indoor Air” measure without overtly misleading the public when “Clean Indoor Air” is a broader and different subject that a mere smoking ban and those sponsors or proponents have previously supported withdrawal of federal Indoor Air Quality regulations.

Ninth: It must be considered that for the past three legislative sessions our state legislature has refused to pass a statewide smoking ban. In light of the previous eight points perhaps we can understand why. It also becomes apparent that perhaps there are many good and valid reasons why the legislature has refused to do so, reasons that have nothing to do with the alleged influence of the tobacco lobby in Olympia . Legislators have both the resources and a duty to be informed on a subject for which they consider legislation. We therefore presume that current law represented the informed and collective will of our elected representatives, even if we may not agree with their vote. I-890 clearly circumvents that expressed will of our legislators, thereby turning a reasoned and deliberative legislative process into a sound bite popularity contest where voters who do not have access to resources that legislators do can be misinformed by an initiative’s proponents. I believe that the exclusion of any reference to tribal exemption from I-890 by Attorney General Gregoire’s office has a clear potential to mislead voters about an initiative which she clearly favors base her strong anti-tobacco position to date. But isn’t it the statutory job description of our attorney general’s office to provide initiative language that presents “a true and impartial description of the measure's essential contents, clearly identify the proposition to be voted on, and not, to the extent reasonably possible, create prejudice either for or against the measure.” (Underline added.) Is it reasonable to include tribal exemption language in I-890, when considering its broad impact on small businesses an the tax base in our state? I believe that it is.

Tenth: if qualified for the ballot and passed, I-890 would expand statewide the current migration of business from nontribal to tribal businesses that has already been confirmed by the smoking ban in Pierce County . The virtually exclusive franchise – a monopoly -- to accommodate persons who smoke in Pierce County restaurants, taverns, and casinos, etc. that was crafted by the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health’s January 2004 smoking ban will be enacted statewide, if I-890 qualifies for the ballot by July 2, 2004 and passes in the November 2004 general election. In addition, were I-890 to pass in November 2004 a simple ban of one indoor air constituent – tobacco smoke – for nontribal facilities only will become the permanent statewide inferior and dangerous substitute for genuine Indoor Air Quality ventilation and remedial measure standards. And cities and counties would experience a change – a reduction -- in their tax base through I-890.

To become grounded in comparative facts and representations about I-890 I recommend that readers go to the Washington Breathe Web site and read what it has already said about a statewide smoking ban. I also recommend that while in that Web site folks click on the Icon in the upper left corner and watch the video reproduction of Breathe’s television advertisement that featured former U.S. surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. That television advertisement was broadcast for about two months during the 2004 session of our legislature, while legislation for a statewide smoking ban was being considered. We can compare the above summary of realities about I-890 with what Dr. Koop and the initiatives’ press-identified point man, Kevin Phelps, have already said in public statements. Mr. Phelps was quoted in a March 15, 2004 Tacoma News Tribune article, "Smoking Battle Might Go To Voters," by Kenneth P. Vogel. That article compared the Breathe Initiative that is now known as I-890 with competitive I-889 filed by the Entertainment Industry Coalition. This commentary does not directly address I-889, though it should be mentioned that the tribal exemptions would apply to that initiative as they do to Breathe’s I-890. The March 15, 2004 Tacoma News Tribune article that compared the two initiatives said, in part:

“Board of health chairman Kevin Phelps said that, unlike the coalition's initiative, Pierce County's ban and Breathe Easy's initiative protect all hospitality workers from secondhand smoke. ‘Patrons have a choice of where they go. Workers don't,’ said Phelps, a Tacoma city councilman who is serving as point person for Breathe Easy. Mounting scientific evidence indicates that second-hand tobacco smoke poses a health risk, though some scientists dispute the extent. Roughly 20 percent of Washingtonians smoke. Phelps predicted that if Breathe Easy's initiative became law, that figure would drop by between 15 percent and 30 percent, as he said it has in other jurisdictions that have enacted comprehensive smoke-free laws. . . . Phelps accused the coalition of trying to scuttle a comprehensive smoking ban by tricking voters into supporting its weaker initiative. ‘Their initiative is a ruse, because they're not protecting their employees,’ said Phelps. ‘And I think this will be borne out when the two campaigns get going.’ Phelps said Breathe Easy plans to raise between $1 million and $1.5 million for its campaign, which has the makings of a well-oiled initiative effort.” (Underline, italic added.)

In short, Mr. Phelps accuses sponsors of I-889 of “tricking voters” with a “ruse” about what neither the smoking ban in Pierce County that he championed nor I-890 for which he is the press-identified “point person” do, either: to “protect all hospitality workers from secondhand smoke.” In fact, given the migration of hospitality business from nontribal to tribal establishments under I-890 and the expansion of tribal exempt hospitality facilities that will predictably occur should that initiative pass, it is reasonable to assume that an increasing number of restaurant, tavern and casino patrons and workers will be exposed to more Environmental Tobacco Smoke in those facilities than at present. Claiming that tribal facilities could have nonsmoking restaurants, etc. doesn’t solve that problem any more than it does without I-890 because patrons in a nonsmoking restaurant that is housed in a casino would still be exposed to the allegedly extreme hazards of even trace Environmental Tobacco Smoke that are so widely touted by anti-tobacco activists and their supporters such as Mr. Phelps.

When we consider the above facts about I-890 it becomes evident that the choice for voters extends well beyond a personal preference to patronize a Smoke Free restaurant, bar, tavern, or casino. With public buildings and about 80 percent of restaurants in Washington already reported to prohibit smoking those who prefer to have zero exposure to any tobacco smoke under any conditions at any time are accommodated for normal daily activities. In addition, as already indicated by the large number of “Smoke Free” dining establishments, the free market can and does present the opportunity for business owners to decide whether they will permit smoking in establishments that they have invested their personal resources in to provide. Responsible considerations for voters about I-890 include:

1. Can and does I-890 actually accomplish for the people what its proponents have claimed? I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal no. Due to the fact of tribal exemption I-890 does not and cannot prohibit smoking in all public places and all places of employment. The failure of I-890 to accomplish what its proponents have claimed also imposes several unfavorable consequences.

2. What is I-890’s impact on important Indoor Air Quality ventilation standards and remedial measures? It will permanently substitute statewide the prohibition of only one indoor air constituent – Environmental Tobacco Smoke – for genuine and comprehensive Indoor Air Quality measures.

3. With the migration of hospitality business from nontribal to tribal establishments what changes to the tax base that cities, counties and the state rely on to provide services does I-890 impose? As noted in the Seventh consideration above there will be several changes in the tax base, most of which result in lower tax receipts from hospitality establishments.

4. Are all hospitality workers really “protected” from the alleged hazards of Environmental Tobacco Smoke by I-890, and could more hospitality workers be exposed to ETS by I-890? All hospitality workers are not “protected” from ETS smoke through I-890. We can reasonably expect that the migration of smokers from non-exempt to exempt hospitality establishments will lead to more hospitality workers being exposed to more tobacco smoke in exempt facilities.

5. Is granting an exclusive franchise – a monopoly – to accommodate patrons who smoke as part of their hospitality experience to tribal authorities a desired outcome of I-890? I do not believe so. Not only is granting a monopoly to accommodate a large segment of the hospitality trade a bad idea on its face, but that monopoly would be given to establishments that are exempt from any requirement of I-890 that they “protect” their employees or patrons from Environmental Tobacco Smoke.

6. If Environmental Tobacco Smoke does not present the health risks as represented by I-890 proponents, why impose the other consequences of that initiative on city and county tax bases, impair genuine Indoor Air Quality Measures, fail to provide equal air quality facilities for both tribal and nontribal hospitality workers, and grant a monopoly to tribal establishments for a large segment of the hospitality trade that chooses to smoke? I do not believe that we should do so.

People should vote and have every right to vote as they choose. Having said that, however, an equally important issues presents itself: what is one actually voting for? The foregoing realities, their implications, and how we got here to begin with, about I-890 should be of concern to citizens and voters in Washington . It is often true that what proponents do not say about proposed regulations or new laws is more important that what they do say. In the case of I-890 that problem is compounded. Not only do sponsors of I-890 fail to disclose that their initiative sets up a monopoly for tribal hospitality establishments to accommodate patrons who smoke, as well as failing to address important Indoor Air Quality ventilation issues, but those issues are clouded by affirmative misstatements about the true scope of where I-890 does apply and what it will actually accomplish. And along with the predictable migration of hospitality from nontribal to tribal hospitality establishments comes a material change in tax revenues to city and county governments.

In light of the fact that most public facilities and about 80 percent of Washington restaurants already prohibit smoking, careful consideration of I-890 to remove the alleged menace of Environmental Tobacco Smoke is not necessary to assure that nonsmokers have wide choice of “Smoke Free” facilities to enjoy. Careful consideration of I-890 is very important, however, to examine how out-of-state special-interests may be hijacking Washington public policy to further an undisclosed private agenda at the expense of all citizens, workers, small business owners, and hospitality patrons.

Considering that Mr. Phelps’ false statement echoes what Dr. Koop has been proclaiming in television advertisements over the past several months that becomes an extremely important issue that not only addresses the merits of I-890 by also extends to the veracity and credibility of what I-890 proponents say. Since proponents’ statements to the public would be intended to influence folks to sign a petition to put I-890 on the ballot and to vote for it in the November 2004 general election, should that initiative gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, they are worthy of close scrutiny.

Issues regarding tobacco control and its claims about Environmental Tobacco Smoke are contentious and complex. They therefore merit careful consideration by citizens in general as to public policy and those who promote changes, and in particular as to I-890 as an extension of special-interest agendas. As pointed out above, a mere smoking ban does not by any credible measure equal a “Clean Indoor Air” initiative. In addition, an initiative than DOES NOT and CANNOT do what its proponents claim is misleading. Perhaps there are credible, valid, and important reasons why our legislators have shown the legislative restraint of refusing to pass a statewide smoking ban for the past three legislative sessions. And those reasons could include important considerations that have nothing to do with the alleged influence of tobacco companies in our legislature, such as fundamentally changing the competitive rules for the hospitality industry in our state.

As the facts come out it will become apparent that as presently drafted I-890 is a special-interest initiative sponsored by policy advocates who are beholding to out-of-state interests. The facts say that I-890 will impose a hidden mercantile agenda on the people of the State of Washington , at the expense of Washington small business owners and consumers, while granting a monopoly to accommodate a large segment of the hospitality business market – persons who smoke – to tribal authorities.

We can and should do better than that for small businesses, consumers, and people in the State of Washington .

Advertisers | Media contacts | General contacts