From: "Norm" 
To: "Nixon, Rep. Toby"
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2003 
Subject: RE: Proposed Smoking Bans


Rep. Nixon,

Thank you for your response to my observations about smoking bans. I appreciate that you took the time to do so. Your position seems reasonable, as far as it goes. I believe that respect for private property rights of their constituents is an important commitment that any elected official should embrace. I respect the fact that you have a position that you are willing to commit to. That is at once of interest and value to your constituents.

I also note, however, that we are confronted with a Republican candidate for Governor of the State of Washingtrn, Mr. Cruz, who is leading a smoking ban assault on private property rights and persons who smoke in Pierce County. As I am certain you are aware from the news, at Mr. Cruz' urging -- and with him supported by paid activists who apparently use Tobacco Settlement money to lobby city and county councils -- Pierce County passed a smoking ban in all public places yesterday. That ban extends to bars, restaurants, taverns, bowling alleys etc. Not only does Mr. Cruz' new smoking ban show cavalier disregard for private property rights of business owners, but it also shows disrespect for current state law regarding preemption of the state clear air statute by local governing authority. So why should Pierce County small hospitality business owners pay through their lost revenue to involuntarily support a pharmaceutical special-interest agenda to boost sales of inferior "Smoke Free" nicotine delivery devices, and do so to comply with a local government mandate that challenges state law on preemption?

I also note with interest that The Seattle Times recently reported that where smoking bans are put in place smoking, and therefore tobacco consumption, reduces by about 5 percent. That phenomenon as reported by The Times was ostensibly a reason to support smoking bans. However, we have a Republican candidate for Governor who is also directly involved in state government undertaking an explicit action that it is stated will reduce sales of tobacco products. We are therefore confronted with a Republican candidate for Governor who has advocated and successfully lobbied for a mandate that can reduce and/or threaten tobacco settlement revenues. Reduced tobacco settlement revenues equals reduced funding to make tobacco settlement bond payments. Considering that timely interest and principal payments on $450 million in tobacco bonds issued by the State of Washington is on the line, that becomes of immediate importance to tobacco settlement bondholders under securities laws. Why should Washington tobacco settlement revenue bondholders subsidize a pharmaceutical special-interest agenda through losses on their bond positions? Why should Washington taxpayers subsidize in the future a pharmaceutical special-interest agenda, through higher interest rates and yields on state bonds?

So where to from here? While I do appreciate and respect your public position, perhaps we are well beyond the point of being able to accommodate passive state representatives. Considering the risks to private property rights, small business hospitality owners, Washington bondholders, Washington taxpayers, and lawful consumers of legal tobacco products, imposed by Mr. Cruz' clear agenda to impose smoking bans and to challenge state preemption, these issues effect a broad scope of Washington constituents. How much cost must the rest of Washington bear to accommodate Mr. Cruz' and tobacco control's special interest agenda? What will our state representatives do during the next legislative session to contain the unbridled expansion of tobacco control's agenda at the expense of the rest of the state?

Thanks again for your open comments about your position. We will see what develops in the next legislative session as to Mr. Cruz' challenge to state preemption, and regarding the inevitable next statewide smoking ban legislation (which Mr. Cruz' current ban in Pierce County is a transparent set-up to support.) Action speaks more clearly than words, even though your present words are appreciated. Presuming that you do believe property owners should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be done on their premises, then it seems that the present Cruz Republican smoking ban in Pierce County requires direct and affirmative remedial legislation at the state level.

Please see attached three reprint .PDFs for articles of mine about tobacco control and smoking bans that have been published in the lawyer's newspaper The Los Angeles Daily Journal. LADJ3.PDF "In The Balance" may be of particular interest because it addresses prospective impact of smoking bans on now $23 billion in tobacco settlement revenue bonds (counting California's recent series) that have been issued by 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement Settling States. Should the matter of Wahsington Tobacco Settlement Revenue Bonds become the subject of state or federal court litigation, at the least it could not be credibly represented to the court that the State of Washington and its legislature were unaware of risks to bondholders presented by tobacco control's special-interest smoking ban agenda.

Best Always,

Norman E. Kjono

From: "Nixon, Rep. Toby" 
To: "Norm"
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2003 
Subject: RE: Proposed Smoking Bans

Thanks for your email, Norm.

I believe private property owners should decide what can and cannot be done on their property. That includes any legal activity, including smoking. The government shouldn't be involved. I am steadfastly against any government ban on smoking in private establishments, and will continue to be so - but if the property owners want to ban it themselves, that's their business and we shouldn't stop them from doing that, either.

Toby

From: "Norm" 
To: Finkbeiner, Sen. Bill; Nixon, Rep. Toby
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2003 
Subject: Proposed Smoking Bans

Senator Finkbeiner and Representative Nixon,

I have been corresponding with my 45th District Representative Laura Ruderman regarding the next round of proposed and expanded smoking bans that reportedly will be introduced during the forthcoming legislative session.

I provide links to two rounds of such correspondence that are published at www.forces.org in my "Writer's Corner:"

1. Regarding the costs of smoking bans ot businesses such as restaurants and taverns: http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/files/ruderman-harrys.htm

2. Response to issues raised by Rep. Ruderman in her reply: http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/files/ruderman-harrys2.htm

Thank you for your attention to these matters. I thought you should have the benefit of the published views of your constiuent on these important issues. Why should Washington small business owners pay through lost revenues to support a $7 billion New Jersey private foundation's special-interest agenda? 

Norman E. Kjono