Smoking Ban – Tough Decisions for House Republicans on Casinos, Veterans
Nathan Greene
in Statehouse Issues, Rants, Iowa Smoking Ban
|
7 Comments
By Emily Geiger
Last night, the Iowa Senate passed a version of the smoking ban. The only problem is that the Senate version of the bill differs from the house version in one huge way. Unlike the House version, the Senate version does NOT exclude casinos.
I think the senate has done the right thing. If this is really about public health, which it should be, the health of casino workers should not be quantified and deemed less valuable than the possible (though yet unproven) losses in state gambling revenues which may or may not occur.
The other interesting wrinkle in this story is that the Senate version of the bill, unlike the House’s version, also fails to provide an exemption to allow smoking at the Iowa Veteran’s Home in Marshalltown.
The Register quotes Sen. Larry McKibben (R – Marshalltown) as saying, “I would say shame on the Democrats for doing this to the veterans of Iowa. Frankly, I hope we don't have a whole bunch of wheelchairs barricading doors for what we've done here tonight."
Ok, so this is going to make me really unpopular with some people, but I have to say it. What the hell kind of quote is that from McKibben??? Shame on us for what we’re doing to the veterans? Yeah, it’s really awful that we’re helping them live longer, healthier lives. What are we thinking? Here’s a thought to keep in mind: because of their honorable service to our country, the taxpayers have agreed to pay for veterans’ healthcare. Is it really too much to ask that they cut back on something that has been proven to send an individual’s health care costs through the roof? I don’t think so.
And now for the really interesting wrinkle: unlike the first time the casino amendment was examined in the House, it’s looking like the House members are actually going to have to vote on the record (and therefore, be subject to public scrutiny) on the proposed ban’s applicability to casinos. Remember those 24+ casino lobbyists we talked about before? It’s going to be very interesting to watch Rants squirm as he tries to keep his caucus from defecting and voting against the casinos here. We might just get the chance to openly see how far up the casino-interest’s posterior Rants has crammed himself.
Of course, that’s only if Rants is actually honest with us, which he rarely is. My guess is that Rants will use the Veterans’ Home issue as a front for why he (and whichever other Reps are also firmly embedded in the casino-interest’s colon) will vote against the bill. Don’t kid yourselves… Rants doesn’t really care about veterans’ rights. What he does care about are the big, fat campaign checks he might miss out on from big tobacco and gaming proponents.
Reader Comments (7)
Here’s a thought to keep in mind: because of their honorable service to our country, the taxpayers have agreed to pay for veterans’ healthcare.
You have managed in one sentence to distill patriotism to a simple financial transaction. Lincoln's "last full measure of devotion" would never had been uttered if he saw sacrifice in such a materialistic light. The veterans in Marshalltown have demonstrated their devotions to all of us in ways you cannot appreciate and to deny them a simple pleasure as they see fit smacks of high-minded disregard.
a real rants bashing on here. i don't know if you paid attention to the debate in the House at all, but there as an amendment by boal which would have banned smoking in casinos, made it fair for everyone, and most of the Republicans supported that amendment. i'm guesssing he's not worred about his "caucus defecting"
Actually, I did pay attention to the debate, and the vote on the amendment was an un-recorded roll-call vote, so unless you were there, you don't know who voted how. The vote tally on Boals' amendment was 43 - 51. Given these numbers, "wow's" assertion that "most" Republicans voted for the amendment seems pretty impossible.
We'll just have to wait and see when the House votes on this again how "most" Republicans vote. If it passes this time when the vote is actually on the record, that will be very telling.
Wow, how anti veteran can your rhetoric become? The GOP is not supporting the troops and neither are its right wing fanatics. Im a conservative, but I vote pro-veteran first. And the only pro-veteran choice left is Barack Obama.
If wanting to protect the health of veterans is anti-veteran (not to mention their caretakers), then I'm guilty as charged.
Emily, first of all, grow up and realize that not everyone in this state needs to be told how they should live thier lives, nor needs the government to dictate how they live. It's obvious by your blogs that you don't feel that the people of this state, have the brains, or common sense, to make the choices that are clearly theirs to make, as far as our health, and well being. Let me ask you a question...have you ever been in a battle zone, where your life could end in a second? If not, then don't EVEN try to tell any of those people, or their family members who suffered with them, what's best for them. If you really give a damn about what they did, the sacrifices they and their families made to preserve YOUR freedoms, then back off! Emily, we ALL have choices to make...what's best for our situation is, and should be, up to the individual, not the government.It's so doggone simple...if you don't smoke, then don't go to a place that allows smoking!! And one other thing that bugs me alot...what about the bartenders, waitresses, owners and dealers (as per the casino debate) , that smoke themselves? What are they to do? Find another job? Just quit and get over it? Easily said, hard to do. Although not impossible, it just makes quitting harder to take, when you have a bunch of mother hens dictating to you what your gonna do and when. I for one want to quit after 20+ years of smoking. And it's not about the the tax increase, I drive truck and buy mine in Missouri. And it's not about the bar's and restaurants whose owners descided to go non-smoking. Although I was dissappointed about a couple, I respect their descision, it's the fact of having government dictate to us how we, as free people, will live. When we as a nation, get to the point where a special interest group can alter or control how we all live, and make our descisions for us, then this country and it's people are truely in trouble. You want the state to be smoke free, then do it right...ban the sale altogether. Then we can re-live the day's of prohabition.
Sounds like Scott is a child who doesn't like to follow rules or be told what to do. That's a really good reason to oppose the smoking ban.
Further, this is not about a "special interest group" trying to make decisions for us. 80% of people don't smoke, and only 20% do, so who is the "special interest group trying to impose its (minority) will on the majority?
As for the bartenders and casino dealers who smoke themselves, I guess they'll have to use their break time to go outside and light up just like the other 90% of smokers who don't work in a smoking environment. Gee, that was hard.