South Dakota
South Dakota may have to wait until November 2, 2010, for their strong smokefree workplace law.
In 2009, South Dakota legislators passed a strong state law to make all workplaces, including restaurants, bars, video lottery establishments and casinos 100% smokefree. Before the law was scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2009, opponents filed a petition to keep the law from taking effect. Petition signatures were validated by the Secretary of State's office in June 2009. Unless health groups are successful in challenging the petition signatures, the law will go to South Dakota voters for an up or down vote on November 2, 2010. If passed, nearly every worker in South Dakota will be protected from secondhand smoke exposure. The law would still include limited exemptions for tobacco retail stores, 25% of hotel rooms, and cigar bars that made over 10% of sales from cigars.
The old statewide law (2002) covers only non-hospitality workplaces and public places, and will remain in effect. Municipalities in South Dakota are still preempted from passing local smokefree laws.
Read more about current tobacco-related legislation in South Dakota.
South Dakota's 2010 Legislative Session: January 12 - March 29
State Quitline Number: 1-866-SD-QUITS (737-8487)
American Cancer Society Quitline: 800-QUIT-NOW (800-784-8669)
| Smokefree News |
| Smoke Free Campaign Begins in SD PIERRE, S.D. - The push to ban smoking in all workplaces and most businesses in South Dakota is getting underway Tuesday, and voters in November will decide the fate of the referred measure. Opponents say it's a decision that should be left up to each business. Jennifer Stalley with the "Yes on 12! A Smoke Free South Dakota" campaign calls it a public health issue. "We don't let clean water, we don't let well-prepared food, we don't let hours of alcohol sales be something that's decided on a business-by-business basis, and we certainly don't think that clean indoor air should be something that a business gets to decide to use as a marketing advantage." ... Smoking ban debate centers on health vs. rights Both sides of the proposed ban on smoking in South Dakota bars and restaurants were heard Saturday at the Corn Palace in Mitchell. Jennifer Stalley, campaign manager for the It’s Time A Smoke-Free South Dakota ballot committee, and Don Rose, who owns bars in Sioux Falls and Tea and represents Citizens for Individual Rights, sparred on smoking and the financial and legal impact of a ban. Voters will decide if a ban on smoking in workplaces should be extended to bars and casinos. The 2009 Legislature approved extending the smoking prohibition, but it was referred to a vote. ... SD Residents Fight for Their Right to Light Up Larry Mann walks out of the Franklin hotel in Deadwood, South Dakota talking about those who would ban smoking here. "They're ridiculous," he says, calling smoking a "national pastime" in this traditional western town."If you look back over the history of Deadwood, smoking would probably be one of the safer things to do." He points out residents have been smoking in Deadwood bars long before Wild Bill Hickock was murdered here in 1876, and he calls it a "basic civil liberties issue." "We think it's an intrusion of government to tell business owners how to run their businesses." Mann is a longtime Deadwood institution and is now a spokesman for Deadwood's gaming industry, which is supporting a referendum that would preserve the right to smoke in Deadwood's bars and Casinos. Mann says smoking bans always hurt casino businesses. "They go directly to reduce revenue," he says as he walks with a reporter down Main Street. "[They] make operations difficult if not impossible to make a profit." The ballot proposal would exempt casinos from a law that bans puffing cigarettes in all places of employment in South Dakota. South Dakota actually passed a "no smoking" law 6 years ago, but up until last year Casinos had been exempt. ... Today's debate: Pro - Smoking at Southeast Tech Deadwood ponders smoking ban at city facilities Smoking falls out of favor If a recent Sioux Falls poll is any guide, South Dakota's bars, restaurants and casinos will be smoke-free by next year. Two-thirds of participants in a poll commissioned by the Argus Leader and KELO-TV said they would vote in November for the public smoking ban. However, opponents of the ban say the poll reflects people's personal attitudes toward smoking but does not show whether those people would vote to ban smoking if they knew it would cost the state and local businesses a significant amount of money. ... SD lawmakers reject 2nd smoking ban ballot measure South Dakota residents have known for months that they would get to vote this fall on whether to accept the state's new comprehensive smoking ban. On Tuesday, lawmakers on the House Health Committee rejected a proposal that would have asked voters to also decide the whether to instead back a weaker ban. Opponents of the proposed weaker ban, including House Republican Leader Bob Faehn, said it would have been confusing to voters to have to try to distinguish between two competing measures. ... County expands smoking ban The Pennington County Commission expanded its tobacco ban to the grounds of the City/County Alcohol Programs and the county Health and Human Services Department, both housed at 725 N. La Crosse St., as well as the Friendship House at 211 West Blvd. The City/County Alcohol Program includes both detox and treatment. The Friendship House is a halfway house for recovering alcoholics and addicts. The commission voted unanimously Tuesday to approve the expanded ban requested by Sheriff Don Holloway. ... Inmates sue for right to use tobacco in ceremonies A group of inmates at the South Dakota State Penitentiary wants the Department of Corrections to reinstate their right to use tobacco during religious ceremonies after it was taken away because of concerns over addiction and abuse. A federally recognized inmate group called the Native American Council of Tribes says the way the change was made constitutes a violation of their right to religious freedom, but it is unclear if the group's federal complaint will be allowed to proceed. "They would normally need to exhaust all the administrative remedies before a lawsuit can be heard," said Robert Doody, the American Civil Liberties Union's Director for South Dakota. . . . "Medicine Men and Spiritual leaders, who lead ceremonies at our facilities, have brought to our attention that it is too addictive to be used for ceremonies," Director of Prison Operations Douglas Weber wrote in a letter announcing the change. The letter also noted that inmates had been caught separating the tobacco from the rest of the herbs and selling it to other inmates. ... Lobbyist: Smoking Ban Could Cost Video Lottery $30-million Enacting the statewide smoking ban that voters will consider in November of next year could cost the state $20-$30-million in proceeds from the state's video lottery establishments. Lottery lobbyist Larry Mann says other states that have adopted public smoking bans have seen similar drops that in most cases are never recouped. "And in a tough economy, you're talking losing a key piece of revenue that state leaders can ill afford to do without," Mann said. Mann cited the frequent connection between smoking and video lottery as reason for the drop. Players who aren't able to 'light up' while they sit at the machines may not play for as long, or choose not to play at all, if the ban is made law. ... State won't appeal smoking ban ruling Attorney General Marty Jackley announced minutes ago that he and Secretary of State Chris Nelson have decided against appealing the decision of Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl in the smoking-ban referendum case. The American Cancer Society doesn't plan to appeal either. That clears the way for the ban to be referred to a statewide vote on the November 2010 election ballot. ... Pricey fight over ban expected Backers of a statewide smoking ban say they expect to be outspent by opponents in what's expected to be a hard-fought campaign after deciding Thursday not to appeal a judge's ruling. The decision makes the prospect of a November vote more likely. However, Attorney General Marty Jackley says he and Secretary of State Chris Nelson will meet today to discuss a possible appeal. A decision is likely within a week. Jackley said the American Cancer Society's decision not to appeal "is certainly a consideration" as he and Nelson decide the state's course. ... Voters React To Smoking Ban Heading To Ballot If South Dakotans want to snuff out smoking in the state they'll have to vote on it. The American Cancer Society announced it will not appeal last week's ruling that gave opponents of the ban enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot. The decision opens the door for the campaign to begin. At The 212 Boiling Point Bar and Grill in Brandon, opinions are already steaming about South Dakota's statewide smoking ban. "I'd like to see it go into effect now," smoking ban supporter Carla Lingor said. ... American Cancer Society Won't Appeal Smoking Ban Ruling The American Cancer Society says it will not appeal Judge Trandahl's ruling regarding the statewide smoke free law. Thursday, Judge Kathleen Trandahl ruled that there were enough petition signatures to refer the smoke-free law to the 2010 ballot. American Cancer Society South Dakota Government Relations Director Jennifer Stalley says, “It is appropriate that today, on the 34th annual American Cancer Society Great American Smoke Out—a day dedicated to helping smokers quit—the American Cancer Society, along with more than fifty diverse public health, business and medical groups, will begin in earnest our statewide effort to support the smoke free law on the November 2010 ballot and ensure that no one has to choose between their health and their job in our great state." “We are confident that the vast majority of South Dakotans support this law and that by this time next year –the 35th annual Great American Smoke Out—South Dakota will be a smoke free state.” ... Decisions on smoking ban appeals may emerge this week State officials should know this week whether they will appeal a judge's decision that paved the way for a public vote next November on a smoking ban in South Dakota. Secretary of State Chris Nelson said Monday the decision to appeal Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl's ruling last Friday "will happen sometime this week" once he and Attorney General Marty Jackley find time to sit down and discuss it. Jennifer Stalley, a spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society, said her group also hopes to decide on a potential appeal this week. ... Our Opinion: Smoking Ban Extension Decision Belongs To Us Based on a judge’s decision last week - and pending a possible appeal - South Dakota’s proposed smoking ban extension will go to a vote of the people a year from now. And that’s where the decision belongs. The law, which would ban smoking in bars, video lottery operations and Deadwood casinos, was passed by the Legislature last winter. The law, which is an extension of a ban that the state placed on most public places seven years ago, was to have gone into effect July 1. Shortly after the ban’s passage, a petition drive was commenced to refer the measure to a public vote. Petitions were submitted this summer, which postponed the July 1 implementation date. However, the secretary of state’s office discounted more than 8,800 signatures as invalid, thus causing the petition drive to fall short of its goal. Legal action ensued, and Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl last week ruled that enough signatures were eligible to place the measure before a vote of the people in 2010. While we would tend to look favorably upon a smoking ban, we also believe this is an issue the public itself should be allowed to weigh in on in order to validate the decision or place parameters on efforts to restrict smoking. After all, it is the public good that is the point of this effort. ... Smoking Ban Ruling May Impact Petition Process South Dakota voters will decide whether a statewide smoking ban should go into effect. That decision will impact hundreds of businesses in the state. But the judge's decision to put the issue to a vote may have an even greater impact on the petition process in the future. The petitions were accepted despite mistakes in notarizing the sheets, mistakes ranging from the wrong date to forgetting to write down the year. They are mistakes the Secretary of State and Attorney General's Office argue should not have been accepted. A statewide smoking ban may be the issue at the center of a court challenge in South Dakota, but Secretary of State Chris Nelson's part in the trial to put the ban on the ballot had nothing to do with smoking. "The court found that there were a number of areas where we had determined there were errors with the petitions that the court has the authority to find substantial compliance and essentially overlook those types of errors," Nelson said. Nelson plans to sit down with Attorney General Marty Jackley later this week to talk about the rules and laws regarding petitions and see if this ruling to allow these errors sets a precedent. "If a court says these types of errors are okay, where does that land us on the next petitions? What other things are going to be okay then, and then we get to a point of is there integrity left in the petition process?" Nelson said. Nelson is most concerned with the integrity of South Dakota's petitions and elections, rather than the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. ... VIDEO: Smoking Ban To Go To Public Vote In 2010 Smokers will have at least another year of smoking in the bars in South Dakota. That's because a circuit judge ruled yesterday that opponents of South Dakota's smoking ban have gathered enough petition signatures to put the measure to a statewide public vote. After testimony ended in a two-day trial, Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl found that opponents of the ban had collected 2,244 more signatures than they needed to force a public vote. ... Smoking ban trial begins PIERRE — Citizens have the right to refer South Dakota’s expanded smoking ban to a statewide vote, Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl ruled Thursday. Now it’s up to her judgment whether sufficient signatures are valid on the petitions to put the referendum on the Nov. 2, 2010, ballot. “This is not the type of case the court can piece-meal,” Trandahl said. She noted there are 26 categories of reasons that signatures were rejected by the secretary of state, and there are issues of fact that need to be heard. She spoke of time constraints, with the election less than one year away. “We only have time to do this case right once,” she said. The trial over those signatures heads into the second and presumably final day this morning at the Hughes County courthouse, with the petitioners standing 17 signatures short of the 16,776 minimum necessary to make the battle. In his Oct. 30 affidavit, Secretary of State Chris Nelson told the court he had determined the petitioners were 61 signatures short. But adjustments he’s made since then pared the number to 18 as the trial opened Thursday morning. After hours of grinding Q-and-A on the witness stand, Nelson added one more signature to the valid column Thursday, leaving the petitioners still 17 short. Under test is South Dakota’s doctrine of substantial compliance regarding election laws. More than 8,000 signatures were rejected by Nelson. Lawyers for the three sides in the case spent Thursday afternoon battling over why signatures were disallowed. ... Smoking Ban Signature Deficit Down To 18 The status of South Dakota's smoking ban does not constitute a medical emergency. That ruling came Thursday from Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Trandahl who put the wheels in motion for a trial challenging thousands of petition signatures needed to put the issue to a public vote. The latest signature count was shown in court Thursday and revealed that opponents of the ban are only 18 signatures short of what's needed to get the smoking ban on South Dakota's November ballot. Secretary of State Chris Nelson took the stand first and testified that his office has been doing some more research into the names that were considered invalid. Some of the people were registered voters on the county level but didn't show up in the state system, so more people validly signed the petition than originally thought. ... American Cancer Society Wants More Petition Signatures Rejected Talk of a state wide smoking ban being put to a public vote ignited in Pierre today. Before a trial began this morning the judge decided against a request from the American Cancer Society that smoking in public places is a public health emergency. She also rejected a motion by bar and casino owners to count petition signatures that were previously tossed out by Secretary of State Chris Nelson. That's when the trial began in Pierre, and petition organizers tell Action News tonight they wished they could have done things differently so a trial could have been avoided. ... Notary Questioned About Seal In Smoking Ban Trial South Dakota's smoking ban faces one burning question. Did the notaries who verified the petitions do enough to make them official? Several notaries took the witness stand Thursday and were questioned about how they signed and dated the petitions and if they did it legally. "It's hard to remember the date so I had my date printed right on it, thought I had all my bases covered," Wegman said. Smoking fight heads to court PIERRE The main event starts Thursday morning in South Dakota’s courtroom battle over whether the expanded smoking ban passed by the Legislature earlier this year will become an election battle next year. First up Thursday are arguments before Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl about whether the law can be referred, as well as a related argument on one piece of evidence and an argument regarding notary-public information on the petitions. Depending upon how Judge Trandahl rules on those questions, next up might be a lineby-line battle over the validity of hundreds of signatures on the referendum petitions. The latest affidavit from Secretary of State Chris Nelson shows the petitions are 61 signatures short of the 16,776 minimum necessary to qualify for the ballot. ... Second-hand smoke testimony banned from fight The state judge in charge of deciding whether South Dakota's new smoking ban can be referred to a statewide vote ordered Monday that the American Cancer Society can't call witnesses to testify on the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. The cancer society is attempting to show that the ban passed by the Legislature is necessary for the preservation of public health and therefore can't be subject to referendum under a provision of the South Dakota Constitution. "It is undisputed that the South Dakota Legislature passed HB 1240 without an emergency clause and did not declare HB 1240 to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health," Judge Trandahl said in her order released Monday. The judge plans to hear the cancer society's arguments on the public-health issue and the petition sponsors' rebuttals on Nov. 12. Her decision on whether the ban can be referred will determine in turn whether a trial should proceed on the validity of hundreds of signatures on the referral petitions. The trial would then start later that same day. ... Cancer society in fight for ban The American Cancer Society can join a lawsuit that will determine whether a smoking ban approved by the South Dakota Legislature will be referred to a public vote, a judge ruled Tuesday. That means the American Cancer Society can make the case that the smoking ban passed this year but never implemented is not even subject to review by the electorate and should immediately become law. "It takes us back to that threshold issue whether this is important enough that the law go into effect sooner rather than later," Jennifer Stalley of the society said. The society can intervene because the other parties, the state and opponents of the ban, will not adequately represent its interests, Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl said in her ruling. The society now can pursue its argument that the smoking ban cannot be referred to a public vote because it is necessary for the immediate benefit of public health. American Cancer Society Seeks To Join Smoking Ban Lawsuit It's the lawsuit that has smokers and some businesses joining forces to make sure South Dakota doesn't become smoke free. Now another group is getting involved. South Dakota's Legislature approved a ban earlier this year, Governor Rounds signed it into law...to go into effect July 1. But a failed petition to bring it to a public vote led to a lawsuit to stop the ban from taking effect. Tomorrow, the American Cancer Society will ask to join that lawsuit in hopes of making bars and restaurants smoke free. The American Cancer Society fully believes if it is successful in making South Dakota smoke free, the impact on people's health will be real and lasting. Erik Gaikowski is an American Cancer Society spokesman. "The more smoke free places there are the less likely people are going to be to smoke and you'll decrease your risk of lung cancer, heart disease and asthma." ... Smoking Ban Battle In Courtroom Tuesday The smoking ban legal battle could be decided as early as next Tuesday. Smoking ban opponents filed a lawsuit calling for a judge to decide whether rejected petition signatures should have been thrown out. A hearing is set for Tuesday in Hughes County. That's when a judge is expected to rule on several motions that were filed from both sides of the lawsuit. And because both sides are asking for a summary judgement, the judge could rule on the case that same day. For now, proponents and opponents of the smoking ban say they'll wait and see. Another delay in case unfortunate Will South Dakotans get to decide if the state should go smoke free? It’s disheartening to see repeated delays move this issue further from the hands of voters. ... Editorial: Challenges to smoking ban allow health risks to continue When students from other states came back to SDSU this year, they probably expected smoke-free bars and restaurants. But they quickly discovered when they saw someone light up in one of the downtown bars that much has changed with the smoking ban over the summer, and it's not for the better. This past session, the South Dakota Legislature passed and the governor signed an expanded smoking ban that would have made almost all bars, casinos and restaurants smoke-free. The bill was set to go into effect July 1 until a group of bar and gambling business owners turned in petitions to put the smoking ban to a public vote in the 2010 general election. After a challenge from smoking ban proponents, officials with the Secretary of State's office denied the petitions, ruling that too many signatures were invalid. This sparked a series of other legal challenges, and the issue is now caught in the court system. The smoking ban will not go into effect until these legal situations are sorted out, making this smoking ban saga not only confusing, but unhealthy. ... Trial delayed in SD smoking ban dispute The trial has been delayed in the legal battle over whether South Dakota's strengthened smoking ban should be put to a statewide vote next year. The trial originally was scheduled to start next Monday, but now has been moved to Oct. 26 in Fort Pierre, according to the state attorney general's office. Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl will hold a hearing on Sept. 11 to deal with some issues in the lawsuit. . . . The Sept. 11 hearing will deal with whether the American Cancer Society can intervene. ... Smoking Ban Case Gets New Judge (SD) A new judge will preside over the South Dakota smoking ban legal battle. Judge Mark Barnett has been removed from the case and Judge Kathleen Trandahl has been appointed to decide whether the ban should be put on the 2010 ballot. The American Cancer Society requested that Judge Barnett not be part of the smoking ban case. That's because he worked in the Attorney General's office just a few years ago, and the Attorney General's office will be arguing for the Secretary of State's office in the case. And now that that request has been granted, the American Cancer Society also wants to officially be part of the courtroom battle over the smoking ban. ... Smoke vote opposed The American Cancer Society wants a South Dakota circuit judge to declare the new smoking ban passed by the Legislature "necessary for the immediate preservation of public health" and throw out the request for a statewide vote. Sioux Falls attorney Richard Casey, representing the American Cancer Society, is claiming in newly filed court papers that South Dakota's expanded smoking-ban law can't be referred to a public vote because it would violate the state constitution. Casey is trying to use a provision of the constitution prohibiting referral of laws passed by the Legislature that "may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions." The South Dakota Supreme Court has never addressed the specific point regarding public health that Casey has raised, said Rapid City attorney Sara Frankenstein. ... SD smoking ban legal fight focuses technicality PIERRE, S.D. -- The legal battle over South Dakota's strengthened smoking ban focuses on a judge's decision about whether technical errors were substantial enough to toss out more than 25,000 petition signatures calling for a statewide public vote on the issue. Bars and gambling businesses that oppose the ban collected signatures to force a public vote in the November 2010 election, but Secretary of State Chris Nelson eventually rejected the petitions, ruling that too few valid signatures were submitted. The petitions fell 221 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot, he said. ... Sacred Breath fights commercial tobacco use Saturday's Sacred Breath Pow Wow at the Journey Museum honored those working to make South Dakota a smoke-free state. About 300 partcipants gathered to enjoy a noon meal and a the powwow. And despite the rain threatening to turn everything to a soggy mess, the honoring ceremony went on as planned. The purpose of the event carried an important cultural message, organizers said. "We need to teach the ceremonial use of tobacco, which follows and maintains our cultural protocol," said Big Crow, Study Coordinator/Research Assistant at Black Hills Center for American Indian Health. "In our culture, the use of tobacco is very sacred. But we also support tobacco-free legislation and don't promote the social use of tobacco." ... Court hearing set in smoking ban dispute Associated Press - July 31, 2009 9:55 AM ET PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - An Aug. 24 court hearing date has been set in South Dakota's smoking ban dispute. Bars and gambling businesses who want a public vote on the state's smoking ban want a judge in Pierre to overrule Secretary of State Chris Nelson, who ruled last week that not enough valid petition signatures were submitted to put the law on the ballot. After the Legislature passed a law expanding the smoking ban to bars and casinos, opponents submitted petition signatures seeking to put the issue on next year's election ballot. Supporters of the smoking ban challenged some of the signatures, and Nelson last week threw out more than 8,000 signatures for various technicalities. ... 29 Notaries had incorrect seal on smoking ban petitions Twenty-nine notaries public listed incorrect information on their notary seal expiration dates on petitions to refer a law expanding the state smoking ban to a public vote, South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson said. Nelson said a review of disallowed petition signatures by his office found problems with the way those notaries signed petitions containing more than 2,000 signatures to refer the expanded ban to the November 2010 general election. "The issue affecting a little over 2,000 signature lines are notary publics that put an incomplete or incorrect expiration date," Nelson said. "It's not just one person who made a mistake. It's a widespread issue of how things were being notarized," Stalley said. "It's obviously a wider spread issue. And it's not just one person holding things up. It's an issue with complying with the notary standards." ... Opponents of smoking ban gain a delay South Dakota's statewide ban on smoking is headed to a courtroom - probably within a month - as bar and gaming facility owners successfully won a stay Monday in Hughes County Circuit Court. The delay means smokers can continue to light up in bars, restaurants, Deadwood casinos and video gaming establishments. Ban opponents say the public should get to vote on the issue. A hearing date has not been set, but one is expected quickly, said state Attorney General Larry Long. "I can see a scenario where the judge has his decision within 30 days," Long said. "I think we'll see within two to three weeks, it'll go to trial." TRUCANO et. al. v. SOUTH DAKOTA APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Petitioners, by and through their counsel of record, Sara Frankenstein of Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP, hereby submit this Application for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to SDCL § § 21-29-2 and 2-1 -18 which requests that the court order Chris Nelson, in his capacity as Secretary of State, to certify that the referendum petition regarding House Bill 1240 has been signed by the required number of qualified electors pursuant to SDCL Chapter 21 and to place House Bill 1240 on the general election ballot on November 2, 2010. . . . ORDER THE COURT DOES NOW: Loophole opened way for smoking-ban petition dispute Circuit Judge Mark Barnett issued an order Monday preventing South Dakota's expanded smoking ban from taking effect until a legal fight is decided over whether there should be a statewide vote. That gap is a key in the dispute over whether there can be a statewide vote on the ban, which was passed by the Legislature last winter. . . Nelson agreed with Stalley's affidavit that 2,552 signatures are on petition pages showing incorrect expiration dates for the public notaries and, therefore, those signatures aren't valid. ... Smoking Ban Decision Challenged Bars and gambling businesses that filed the petitions to force a public vote on South Dakota's smoking ban will ask a judge to reinstate some of the signatures that were thrown out, its representative said Friday. State Secretary of State Chris Nelson on Thursday rejected the petitions because not enough valid signatures were submitted. The effort to put the law on the November 2010 ballot fell 221 signatures short out of 25,400 submitted, he said. Larry Mann, who represents the petitioners, said Friday that 2,035 of the signatures were valid but were on petitions signed by a notary public who put down a wrong expiration date for his or her seal. That technicality warrants a legal challenge because it easily puts the effort over the 221 signatures needed to have all South Dakota residents weigh in on it, he said. "If they did everything else correctly and simply failed to put down an accurate date of their expiration, I think that is what the law defined as a mere technicality," Mann said. "When an honest clerical error is made, should we disenfranchise not only 2,000 petition signers but 400,000-plus voters over this kind of a technicality?" ... Editorial: Smoking ban issue resolved; time to move on Though state officials are deciphering the legal technicalities about what's next for South Dakota's smoking ban, for most residents the issue is settled. They're ready for the ban to begin. Opponents of the new law - originally set to go into effect July 1 - have had their democratic say. They gathered thousands of petition signatures to put the ban - which incorporates bars and casinos into an existing smoking ban in public places - to a statewide vote. Then they filed those signatures, all 25,400 of them, with the secretary of state's office. It turns out, though, that many of the signatures were invalid. At least, there were enough invalid signatures to lead Secretary of State Chris Nelson to throw out the petition. Nelson and the state's attorney general expect that opponents will challenge that decision, however. Certainly, opponents still have a democratic right to continue pursuing all options available to them. But South Dakotans have been quite clear on the issue. Most folks want smoking banned in public places. ... Local Reaction To Smoking Decision Mixed News that petitions challenging a statewide smoking ban didn’t have enough signatures to be placed on the 2010 ballot was met with mixed reactions by Yankton residents Thursday. State officials have not determined when the ban on smoking in bars and casinos will go into effect. Nor is it clear whether petition organizers will challenge in court Secretary of State Chris Nelson’s finding that they were short by 221 signatures. Sen. Jean Hunhoff (R-Yankton), who is involved with the Yankton Tobacco Education Coalition and was a sponsor of the smoking ban in the Senate, said she hopes Thursday’s development will mean the legislation will go into effect soon. “It’s a day that we had planned for in the Legislature, and it’s what we believe the people of South Dakota have wanted,” she said. ... AG Researches Smoking Ban Startup The South Dakota Attorney General's office has been pouring over old court cases to determine exactly when the smoking ban goes into effect. The unusual nature of this petition challenge hasn't given the attorney general much to go on in setting a new timeline. South Dakota's smoking ban can't go into effect until after the Secretary of State notifies petitioners by mail that they didn't submit enough valid signatures for a statewide vote. "We don't think it will take effect until after the Secretary sends out that notice. The question in our mind is how many hours or days after that notice is sent out does the law become effective," Attorney General Larry Long said. Because this type of petition challenge is a first for South Dakota, Long says state law doesn't give clear guidance about when the smoking ban can take effect. "Hopefully, the Supreme Court of South Dakota will, in some prior situation, have given us some guidance, and failing that, we'll go and look for guidance from courts in other states," Long said. Another complicating factor is the potential of a lawsuit challenging Nelson's rejection of the signatures. Long says if a challenge is filed, a judge could suspend the smoking ban until the matter is finally settled in the courts. ... Smoking ban challenge rejected South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson on Thursday rejected petitions calling for a statewide vote a law that bans smoking in bars and casinos because not enough valid signatures were submitted. Out of 25,400 signature lines, the referendum effort failed by 221 valid signatures, he said. Nelson said he would likely formally notify the petition sponsors Monday. In the meantime, Attorney General Larry Long will research when the law will take effect. However, either side can appeal the decision to a judge and eventually to the state Supreme Court. That means opponents of the smoking ban, who sought the vote, could still obtain a judge's order to overrule the secretary of state and put the measure on the ballot… Review Of SD Smoking Ban Petition Complete By Friday Tonight South Dakota's Secretary of State Chris Nelson, tells Action News he expects to finish reviewing all of the signatures on the ballot petition challenging the smoking ban by the end of the week. . . . Officials still checking petition challenges PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - South Dakota Election Supervisor Kea Warne (WAHRN) says the secretary of state's office has reviewed more than half the challenged signatures on petitions that seek to put a statewide smoking ban to a public vote. The Legislature passed a law expanding the smoking ban so it would outlaw smoking in bars and casinos. Opponents then submitted petitions that were certified by the secretary of state's office to put the issue on next year's election ballot. But supporters of the smoking ban have challenged 9,891 of the petition signatures as being invalid. ... Petition challenge creates 'tedious process' for state State workers are about 40 percent of the way through a list of disputed signatures on the smoking ban petitions, and after eight days on the job, there's still no telling when they'll be done. Secretary of State Chris Nelson and three workers are checking the validity of 9,891 signatures on petitions that would force a 2010 vote on banning smoking in South Dakota bars and restaurants. On Wednesday, Nelson wouldn't speculate on when the job will be done or comment on how many signatures have been invalidated so far. "This is a very tedious process," he said. If the challenge is successful, Nelson said he assumes smoking in bars and restaurants across the state will become illegal. "Hypothetically, the law would go into effect immediately," Nelson said. ... Progress Report On Smoking Ban Petition South Dakota's state-wide smoking ban is getting closer to either becoming law or going to a vote. The Secretary of State's office has now spent six days going through signatures after the Tobacco Free Kids Network questioned whether enough of the signatures collected by ban opponents are legitimate. Four workers are going through 383 pages of questionable signatures. They're about a quarter of the way through. ... Supporters of smoking ban seek to stop public vote But Jennifer Stalley of the American Cancer Society said she spent the past week checking petition signatures and claims nearly 39 percent are invalid because they do not come from registered voters or contain other flaws. State election supervisor Kea Warne said the secretary of state's office will consider Stalley's challenge. No one has previously used the state law that allows such a challenge to be filed with the secretary of state because prior challenges of petition signatures for ballot measures have been handled in court, Warne said. Larry Mann, a lobbyist for video lottery businesses who also heads the coalition that gathered the signatures, said laws dealing with certifying signatures and challenging them seem to conflict. Mann said he would not be surprised if the issue winds up in court. Signature Challenge First Of Its Kind In SD Thursday was a historic day in South Dakota. For the first time a group is challenging a petition to put an issue on a statewide ballot. Supporters of a statewide smoke free law filed paperwork with the Secretary of State's office claiming opponents did not collect enough signatures to put a smoking ban on the 2010 ballot. The South Dakota Secretary of State's office says checking the signatures smoke free supporters are challenging will be a top priority for them. The Secretary of State's office will start reviewing the nearly 10-thousand challenged signatures Monday to determine whether they are, in fact, invalid. It previously took three people, three days to go through 13-hundred signatures. At that rate, it would take the staff working on the challenge until the middle of August to finish the review. But no matter how long it takes a challenge of a petition this size, on a statewide level, is history in the making. State vote no longer certain on smoking ban for bars, cafés Opponents of South Dakota’s new state law banning smoking in bars, casinos and restaurants that serve alcohol might not get the chance to put the issue to a statewide vote after all. That’s because the leader of South Dakota’s anti-tobacco movement filed a lasthour challenge to their referendum petitions Thursday. The referendum petitions had prevented the ban from taking effect July 1 at the same time as most other new South Dakota laws passed by the Legislature last session. If the petitions survive the challenge, a statewide vote would be held as part of the November 2010 general election. But if Jennifer Stalley of the American Cancer Society is right, there won’t be a vote at all and the ban would kick in when the legal dust settles. Stalley delivered a thick binder to the office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson, whose staff oversees election compliance, challenging the petitions at about 4 p.m. Thursday. . . . Smoking Ban Supporters Say 10,000 Signatures Invalid The American Heart Association is crying foul over nearly 10,000 signatures gathered to put the issue on the ballot. Darrin Smith with the American Heart Association said, "They do not have the minimum number of legitimate valid signatures to qualify for the ballot and that is precisely that challenge that we're using today." But one of the people who helped get the issue to a public vote believes the signatures will stand. Larry Mann of Video Lottery Establishments of South Dakota said, "I feel confident that the law, the statute that the secretary uses to validate those signatures was complied with." But Darin Smith disagrees and says the discrepancies are big enough to overturn the petition right now. "The most common reason for the nearly 10,000 invalid signatures were very simply, several thousand people who signed the petition sheets were not registered voters," he said. Larry Mann counters, "Politics is a strange thing and I can't imagine this would be overturned, but if it is, we'll have to discuss it at that time." Signatures challenged A coalition of health advocates on Thursday claimed that almost 10,000 signatures collected by opponents of a statewide smoking ban are invalid. The coalition of anti-smoking groups, which had five days to challenge the petition drive, claims that more than 4,000 signatures are from people not registered to vote. Another 3,800 were signed on petitions that were not properly notarized. "These are black and white issues not necessarily open to interpretation, so we feel very good about the prospects for our challenge," said Darrin Smith, senior director for the American Heart Association and a steering committee member for the South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids Network.
Supporters of South Dakota's new smoke-free law are challenging a petition that could force the law to go to a statewide ballot in 2010. The South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids Network has filed the challenge arguing nearly 10,000 of the 25,000 signatures turned in by a group that opposes the recently-passed smoking ban are invalid. After reviewing nearly 1,000 pages of signatures, the group says many of them do not belong to registered voters and as many as 39 percent are not valid. Jennifer Stalley, project director for the Network, personally signed the affidavit challenging the signatures and says her group believes that 9,891 of the 25,400 signatures submitted to the secretary of state are invalid. The network believes the petition also contains problems with the way some of the signatures were gathered. "We have respected the rights of the opponents to partake in this process, and this is the next step in that process. We think it is only fair to ask the secretary of state to review the signatures in total, given the law's impact and the immediate need to have it go into effect to preserve the health of those folks who are working in an environment where smoking is currently allowed." EDITORIAL: State smoking ban all but certain Smoking ban proponents have a sure knockout on their hands if they can only wait for the public to weigh in the state's proposed smoking ban in November 2010. But they're not waiting. Earlier this week, Jennifer Stalley of the American Cancer Society, was in the Secretary of State's office photocopying some 25,000 petitions so her group could check their validity firsthand. Maybe they're not confident it's a sure thing? It's more likely they're simply taking a precautionary first step in what will be a months long battle over the future of the state's health. . . . Exceptions exist only for some smoke shops and hotel rooms and that is exactly what the people will be voting on in November 2010. At this point, we're not sure what the opposition to the ban hopes to gain by this delay. Is it simply to give the state a chance to weigh in on the matter? Or could it be they see another Legislative session as an opportunity to introduce other legislation that would circumvent the current proposal? One thing seems clear: Unless Stalley's group finds insufficient signatures to force a recount at the Secretary of State's office, we can expect 16 months of robust and spirited debate, again. And then on one day, in November 2010, we'll put the issue to rest. ... Petitions get OK in smoking fight Opponents of an expanded smoking ban that was to begin July 1 have enough valid signatures to delay its implementation and put the issue on next year's November election ballot, South Dakota's secretary of state said Thursday. But neither side is convinced that it's headed to a vote yet. Secretary of State Chris Nelson said his office randomly sampled 5 percent - or 1,270 - of the roughly 25,000 signatures turned in Monday. Based on that review, some signatures were thrown out. But the percentage that passed muster, extrapolated out for the entire number turned in, led them to certify 18,320 valid signatures, Nelson said. Ban supporters to review petitions "The secretary pulls out 5 percent and samples them to determine an error rate," Stalley said. "We're not doubting the secretary of state's work. We're just putting the signatures through a more rigorous review. "I know the percentage of bad signatures found in the cursory review was higher than expected for this type of effort. We want to look at each and every signature to make sure they were circulated by people qualified to circulate them. We want to make sure people didn't sign twice, which is a common error in the referendum process." ... Validating Smoking Ban Petition Signatures Time is tight for the South Dakota Secretary of State's office. With barely a week until the statewide smoking ban is set to take effect, the office needs to sift through 25,000 signatures from petitions to put the ban to a public vote. If 17,000 are legitimate, the ban will be delayed and the issue will go to a public vote. Before validating a single signature, Secretary of State Chris Nelson's office had to enter all 25,000 names into a database. "The first thing we have to do is identify a five percent random sample of the petition signatures," Nelson said. The computer makes that selection. Since the timeline is so tight, that took place on Monday, the same day the signatures arrived in the office. ... Petitions Filed For Public Vote Casino owners and others opposed to expanding the state's smoking ban filed petitions Monday that could have enough signatures to require a public vote on the issue. The law passed earlier this year by the South Dakota Legislature would ban smoking in bars, casinos in historic Deadwood and video lottery establishments. It extends a ban that has outlawed smoking in workplaces and most public areas since 2002. The expansion is scheduled to take effect July 1. But the start date would be delayed until after next year's election if opponents have enough signatures to call for a vote. Petitions with an estimated 25,000 signatures were submitted to Secretary of State Chris Nelson by a coalition representing bars and gambling establishments. If the documents contain at least 16,776 valid signatures, the smoking ban will go on the November 2010 ballot for a statewide vote. Smoking-ban foes play game of delay Opponents of a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants say they have collected enough signatures to put the law on hold for at least 17 months and send the issue to voters in November 2010. If the petitions are certified by the South Dakota Secretary of State, the controversial ban will not take effect July 1. Instead, powerful lobbies on both sides of the issue will begin a 16-month campaign culminating when voters finally decide the issue. "We're already substantially over the necessary number," said Larry Mann, coordinator of the petition drive to refer the ban. State law requires the signatures of 16,776 registered voters. Citizens for Individual Freedom, the group opposing the ban, on Monday will deliver the petitions to Secretary of State Chris Nelson to be certified. Mann said most of the signatures collected in the months since Rounds signed the ban into law were collected by volunteers, and while some Deadwood casinos and area bars used employees to collect signatures, a few others were paid to carry clipboards. . . . referring the ban to voters would give bar and restaurant owners a long reprieve. "We're disappointed primarily because of the lives that will be unnecessarily lost and the tens of millions of dollars in health care savings that will not be realized because of a 17 or 18 month delay," said Darrin Smith, a senior director for the American Heart Association and a steering committee member for the South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids Network. Smoking Ban Under Study Residents of South Dakota may have to wait until January 2011 for a statewide smoking ban to actually take effect. According to an Associated Press story, enough signatures have been collected for a petition to allow voters to decide whether they want a smoking ban or not. The petition needs at least 16,776 signatures in order to make it on the ballot for voters on November 2010, and Larry Mann, coordinator of the petition, said even more signatures would be collected. “We’re in good shape as far as signatures needed. Now we’re just trying to build a buffer,” said Mann, who leads the petition on behalf of the Video Lottery Establishments of South Dakota, the Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota, the DeVitt Gaming Association and the Music and Vending Association of South Dakota. The smoking ban is supposed to take effect July 1 and would make it illegal to smoke in public places such as bars, restaurants and video lottery establishments. ... Smoking ban opponents optimistic about drive to put issue on 2010 ballot Opponents of a law to extend a state smoking ban to include bars and casinos expect to have the needed number of petition signatures to refer the law to a public vote. And they're planning on turning them in a week before the June 29 deadline. Larry Mann of Rapid City, who coordinates the petition drive for Citizens for Individual Freedom, said the ballot-issue committee plans to turn in petitions to the secretary of state in Pierre on June 22. . . . The South Dakota Legislature approved HB1240, which would expand a state ban on smoking in businesses and public places to include bars and casinos. Gov. Mike Rounds signed the bill into law, which would take effect July 1. If the required 16,776 signatures are verified, however, the law would be suspended pending the next general election vote in November 2010. ... Governor hopes to decide whether to sign or veto smoking ban soon Gov. Mike Rounds said Tuesday the potential loss of state revenue from gambling taxes will play no role in his decision on whether to sign a measure that would ban smoking in casinos and bars. "Once they've given me their analysis of some language in the bill, I'll make a decision on it," Rounds said at a news conference held to discuss budget issues. "Hopefully, it won't be much longer." Smoking ban opponents get petition signatures MITCHELL, S.D. (AP) - People upset with the Legislature's decision to strengthen South Dakota's smoking ban say a surprising number of non-smokers are signing their petition that could put the ban to a statewide vote. The law, which would force smokers to step outside casinos, bars and video lottery establishments if they want to light up, takes effect July 1 unless 16,776 valid petition signatures are gathered by June 29. Larry Mann, who represents the Video Lottery Establishments of South Dakota, says it's too early to estimate the number of signatures collected but that the process is going well. ... Bars tackle smoking ban Some members of the Mitchell City Council wonder if the state's new, stricter ban on smoking will prompt bar owners to create outdoor beer gardens. A Mitchell business called Signatures received approval from the council to establish an outdoor beer garden on one side of its building. A representative told the council that smokers wanted an outdoor smoking area. "I think it's something we're going to be seeing quite a lot of," said Councilman Marty Barington. ... South Dakota’s smoking ban petition drive could go up in smoke AT ISSUE: The opponents of the recently passed smoking ban legislation,mostly bar and casino owners, swear they are going to kill the ban with a state-wide election. Even if they are successful with the petition drive and election, I feel about all they will have accomplished will be delaying the smoking ban until after the 2010 General Election. The proof of the pudding here is the vast majority of South Dakotans favored the ban when it was working its way through the last session of the Legislature. I suspect that same support will be reflected in the ballot box. THE JOURNEY of the smoking ban legislation through the recent session of the South Dakota Legislature was most interesting. When the smoke finally cleared, the bill passed both houses and was sent to the governor for his signature. Governor Rounds let it sit on his desk until just before the legislators returned to Pierre for their final day. Was he or wasn’t he going to sign it into law? That was the big question. Another question here was if he did sign the legislation into law, would it be referred to a vote of the people? ... Smoking ban petition heats up in Rapid City Petitions aimed at putting South Dakota's strengthened smoking ban to a statewide vote have arrived in Rapid City, and some residents say they're fired up to refer the measure to the November 2010 general election ballot. "I was furious" when the ban was passed and signed into law, said Shelly Miller-Gotschall, a bartender at the Time Out Lounge in Rapid City. "To me they were taking away our freedom of choice." The law, which would force smokers to step outside casinos, bars and video lottery establishments if they want to light up, takes effect July 1 unless 16,776 valid petition signatures are gathered by June 29. . . . Petitions are available at local bars and casinos at the owner's ... Smoking ban may be left to voters A group of liquor establishment owners took out a petition Tuesday to force the newly signed smoking ban to a public vote in 2010. Don Rose, co-owner of Shenanigan's Pub in Sioux Falls, is one of four people listed on the petition. Others are Mark O'Neill, Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota president from Henry; Pete Thompson of Tinner's Bar and Grill and Tommy Jacks in Sioux Falls; and Mike Trucano of Deadwood. Rose said a coalition of 850 to 900 liquor dealers is behind the effort, claiming they will lose business. They said bans have hurt bars in surrounding states. He said that wholesale retailers of cigarettes also will lose sales. Groups mull seeking public vote on SD smoking ban Groups representing South Dakota bars and casinos are discussing whether to refer a newly passed smoking ban to a public vote, officials of those groups said Wednesday. But the organizations have not yet decided whether to start a petition campaign to put the issue on the general election ballot in 2010, the officials said. ... South Dakota to Join List of States with Strong Smokefree Restaurant and Bar Laws Rounds Signs Smoking Ban Governor Mike Rounds has signed into law a measure that bans smoking in South Dakota's bars, video lottery casinos and Deadwood gaming halls. The new law extends a ban that has outlawed smoking in most public places since 2002. Beginning July 1, smoking will be allowed only in motel rooms and a limited number of cigar bars and smoke shops. “We all recognize the health hazards of smoke and secondhand smoke. After serious deliberation, the Legislature decided to create a smoke-free environment in restaurants and lounges,” Rounds said. Rounds Studies Smoking Ban Gov. Mike Rounds said Tuesday the potential loss of state revenue from gambling taxes will play no role in his decision on whether to sign a measure that would ban smoking in casinos and bars. The governor said his staff is reviewing the language and details of the smoking ban passed by the South Dakota Legislature to make sure it is written correctly. "Once they've given me their analysis of some language in the bill, I'll make a decision on it," Rounds said at a news conference held to discuss budget issues. "Hopefully, it won't be much longer." Rounds said he and state lawmakers have known that revenue from Deadwood casinos and video lottery establishments will drop if smoking is banned there. South Dakota: Smoking ban goes to governor's desk A bill to ban smoking in nearly all public places in South Dakota is on its way to Gov. Mike Rounds. The House voted 46-23 on Monday to accept a Senate amendment to HB1240, which had passed the House earlier. Agreeing to the Senate change was the last legislative act needed for the bill to go to the governor's desk. Rounds has a general policy of not signaling how he'll react to any bill. He said last week that he doesn't like smoking or second-hand smoke. He also said he will read the language of the bill headed his way before deciding whether to sign it into law. If the bill becomes law, it will mean smoking is banned in all public places except motel rooms and a limited number of cigar bars and smoke shops. Smoking Ban Up For House Vote Monday The South Dakota House is scheduled to vote Monday whether to ban smoking in bars, video lottery businesses and Deadwood gaming halls. Representatives must decide whether to accept an amendment to HB1240, the bill that bans smoking in nearly all public places. If they agree to the change, the bill goes to Gov. Mike Rounds. Lawmaker: Cigar Loophole Not Available A smoking ban backer says restaurants, pubs or casinos thinking of becoming cigar bars to get around the ban - if it's enacted - won't be able to do it. As it passed the state Senate earlier this week, the ban would exempt existing cigar bars making at least 10 percent of their gross revenue from cigar sales. That applies to just two businesses in the entire state: Stogeez Cigar Lounge in Sioux Falls and the Deadwood Tobacco Co. and Cigar Bar. SD governor silent on signing smoking ban bill PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds, who says he's no fan of smoking, refused Friday to say whether he would sign a bill banning the activity in most public places in South Dakota. Smoking ban OK'd Several state senators switched their votes Wednesday on a controversial smoking ban, paving the way for South Dakota to join a growing list of states that ban smoking in virtually all businesses. It was one of the most-watched votes of this legislative session so far, and it came one month after an almost identical bill died on the Senate floor by one vote. But in that one month, a second bill that started in the House passed there by a comfortable margin. That put the issue - and the pressure - back in the Senate, where lawmakers were deluged with thousands of e-mails and phone calls on the issue, most coming from people who wanted the restrictions. The state House still must agree to changes in the bill made by the Senate, or the two chambers could sort out the differences in a conference. State Physician's Group Supports Smoking Ban While the Legislature debates a tougher smoking ban, the South Dakota State Medical Association has devoted a 72-page special issue of its monthly journal to the hazards of smoking. Articles in the journal, "South Dakota Medicine," call second-hand smoke a public health hazard. In an editorial, the journal says health-care providers have an obligation to urge lawmakers to pass smoke-free legislation. Editorial: Pass smoking ban Lawmakers in that chamber again will get a chance to extend the state's smoking ban now that the House has passed its version of the bill. The bill in all likelihood will go to the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which handled the measure on the first go-round. Since it passed that committee unanimously, there's no reason to suspect there'll be any hang-ups there this time around. However, the legislation failed by one vote when it reached the full Senate. That means there's at least one senator who needs to take a stand on behalf of South Dakota's workers. Just one. It's time for that one person to do the right thing. South Dakota House passes wide-ranging smoking ban The bill would exclude motel rooms and businesses that sell mainly tobacco products. Monday's vote was 43-27 to send the measure to the Senate, which earlier defeated a different version of the smoking ban by one vote. Kranz: Chamber takes pulse of members Committee sends smoking ban to SD House floor The House State Affairs Committee voted 11-2 on Wednesday to pass the bill, which would expand the current state law limiting smoking in public places. The committee amended the bill to exclude motel rooms, businesses that sell mainly tobacco products and Deadwood gambling halls from the ban. Supporters of the ban say it would reduce second-hand smoke, which causes serious health problems. Opponents say business owners should make their own decisions about smoking and predicted loss of revenue from video lottery establishments if smoking is banned. The bill goes next to the House floor, where supporters of the ban may try to remove the Deadwood exemption. Rep. Bernie Hunhoff, D-Yankton, suggested that would be a worthwhile floor fight because of the statistics shown about the ill health effects of second-hand smoke. Senate kills ban on smoking in public places The state Senate says South Dakota isn't ready for a statewide smoking ban in public places. The Senate voted 18-17 to kill SB83, which would have banned smoking in nearly all public places. An amendment to exempt hotel rooms passed before the entire bill died. Sponsors asked that the measure be reconsidered, perhaps on Wednesday. Our Opinion: SD Smoking Ban And The Face Of Reality When you consider the South Dakota smoking-ban issue currently making the rounds at the state capitol, it would be wise to view the matter in terms of its societal momentum. The smoking ban has an unmistakable sense of inevitability attached to it. During the past few decades, the concept of smoking in public has been on the decline. Most businesses now prohibit smoking in their buildings. Many eating and lodging establishments have divided their business areas into smoking and nonsmoking sections; increasingly, the smoking sections are being done away with altogether. Since smoking rates have dropped among the general population — according to the Centers of Disease Control, the state’s smoking rate in 2007 had dropped down to 19.8 percent — smokers are finding themselves increasingly in the minority and are encountering more people who aren’t pleased with them belching out secondhand smoke into their immediate environment. You might say smokers are becoming outcasts; then again, with more people making stands to safeguard their own health from the effects of secondhand smoke, perhaps smokers are casting themselves out by clinging to their health-threatening habit. This tide suggests that a smoking ban in all public places is inevitable. It may not be this year or next year, but it is coming. The legislation currently being considered in Pierre hit a speed bump last week when the state Senate defeated SB83, a bill that would have implemented a general smoking ban in all public places, by an 18-17 vote. The arguments used against SB83 were familiar, and they included a timely new bullet point that a ban would hurt video lottery revenues at a time of global economic problems. The stubborn entrenchment was the same that has been seen whenever and wherever this topic has come up, either in the Legislature or in casual discussions across the state. South Dakota smoking ban shifts to House YANKTON, S.D. (AP) -- A legislative effort to ban smoking in most public places statewide was snuffed out in the state Senate but still smolders in the House, where lawmakers expect supporters of the measure to focus their energy. By a vote of 18-17, senators defeated SB83 and it wasn't brought back for reconsideration. One of the sponsors of the House version, HB1240, Rep. Bernie Hunhoff, D-Yankton, said the arguments generally fall into two camps. "The opponents of the ban have done a good job of making the Libertarian argument that we shouldn't tell others what to do in their own businesses. They also warn of a dire downturn in video lottery revenues in a year when the state is already short of funds," he said. "The proponents are arguing that it's a public health issue that involves us all, and that it's also an employment issue. Should anyone have to work in an unhealthy environment?" Anti-smoking bill goes down in defeat He said customers and employees “can vote with their feet” about whether they want to do business and whether they want to work in places that allow smoking. “I'm not going to get into how they want to run their business,” Vehle, R-Mitchell, said. “I still feel firmly that is the proprietor's decision.” The vote was 17 yes and 18 no. South Dakota panel votes to expand smoking ban Smoking ban backed by legislative leaders High-ranking members of the state Republican and Democratic parties expect a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars will be passed in this year's Legislature. And if they don’t decide favorably for a smoking ban between now and March, the legislative leaders expect South Dakota voters will make the decision on their own in a statewide vote later in the year. "Overhanging this all is the likelihood of a ballot initiative, if this bill fails. The smoking cessation groups feel very passionately about this issue, and if this fails to pass in 2009, I think it's virtually a given it will be on the ballot, in substantially the same form it's been introduced, with no exceptions," said Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, who not only is this session's Senate majority leader but also is an early candidate for governor in 2010. "The prevailing sentiment is that it is likely to pass relatively easily ... and I think it colors a lot of legislators'views that they should just adopt this to avoid putting the people through a ballot issue." Lawmakers mull anti-smoking bill; voice your opinon on the issue SB 83, introduced late Friday in the South Dakota Senate, would strike exemptions to a 2002 law that prohibited smoking in most public places and work sites except for restaurants with alcohol licenses, bars, video lottery establishments, Deadwood casinos and hotel sleeping rooms. Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill along with Rep. Bob Faehn, R-Watertown. Is a Smoking Ban in SD's Future? In 2006, South Dakotans voted to raise the cigarette sales tax, intending to cut back on smoking. And one day we could see a smoking ban without exceptions... and that one day could be very soon. The motto - it's time for a smoke free South Dakota. And many groups and voters in South Dakota hopes that becomes a reality for all businesses in South Dakota during the 2009 Legislative session. 24 states across the country, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico have banned smoking in all public places - with no exceptions. Now a legislative push in South Dakota could follow suit. Jodi Radke with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says, "No South Dakotan should have to choose between their health or their paycheck. And a workers' health is no less important than the workers' health in Wyoming, in Nebraska, Iowa or Minnesota." Today Tobacco-Free advocates from across the state launched their campaign with poll results to back up their efforts. Smoke if you got 'em, - but don't do it here In case you missed it, earlier this week large parts of South Dakota went smoke-free. Permanently. Visitors to state government facilities across the state, for example, will now see signs noting that the buildings and offices are tobacco-free zones. The change went into effect Wednesday, May 31 - World No-Tobacco Day - as part of a joint initiative of Gov. Mike Rounds and the state's largest health systems, Avera, Regional Health, and Sioux Valley Health. The executive order signed by the governor prohibits the use of all tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco, on properties under the direction and control of the governor.
|
Media |
State Resources |
| Healthy South Dakota Tobacco Free Initiative |