JOHNSON: 'Vindictive' legislation singles out casino owner

By Bill Johnson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, May 2, 2008

This one was a first for me. Over the years, I have witnessed laws being passed that you just knew could only benefit one, maybe a couple of large, big-moneyed corporations or interests.

Until this week, I had never seen two houses of any state legislature, the session clock fast ticking down, so feverishly work together to pass a state law whose sole aim and purpose was to shaft one, single small businessman.

The shaftee, in this case, is Ed Smith, who you may remember or, perhaps, have seen walking his pet pig in front of his tiny Black Hawk casino in his early morning TV commercials.

I wrote of Ed Smith back in January, shortly after the state smoking ban was extended then to include all non-reservation casinos. It was in that moment of time that Ed Smith realized his Wild Card Casino was not what he had thought he had been running all these years.

What he was operating, it turned out according to state law, was a cigar bar.

That his cigar bar just happened to have 216 slot machines in it, he realized, well, who was he to argue with legal definitions?

"Keep smoking," he told his patrons.

It worked.

The city attorney promptly studied Ed Smith's financial books and the $300,000 a year he was pulling in from tobacco sales, finishing up with an inspection of his humidors. Cigar bar, the city attorney ruled. The state Division of Gaming, soon enough, arrived at the same conclusion: cigar bar.

It all came crashing down on Friday afternoon when Senate Bill 225, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, D-Denver, which would outlaw gaming devices in cigar bars, sailed through a final House committee hearing ahead of deliberation on Monday before the full House.

Someone, Ed Smith believes, has it in for him, and gamed the system to get the legislature to do what it almost never does: target a single individual.

You would figure the culprit to be every other casino in Black Hawk and Central City, who for five months now have watched, envious, as customers poured into and smoke poured out of the Wild Card.

In the minutes after the committee hearing, a forlorn Ed Smith quickly discounted the theory, saying every other casino, with the possible exception of two, had cheered him on, wished him the best of luck.

No, he blamed Stephanie Steinberg, head of Smoke-Free Gaming Colorado, who attended the hearing and later did not deny having Ed Smith in her laser-like, anti-smoking sights.

"Look, she's thrilled to death," he said, standing not 50 feet away from the woman in the basement of the Capitol. "Her comment to me was, 'I'm going to get you.' "

Stephanie Steinberg, whose group has worked to outlaw smoking in casinos across the nation, denied saying any such thing to Ed Smith.

"His wasn't a cigar bar," she said. "It is called the Wild Card Casino. He runs a convenience store in the back. By his rules, every 7-Eleven in this state would be a cigar bar."

She said her group tried every avenue to get the Wild Card into compliance, pleading with local and state enforcement to ticket the casino.

"They would just hang up on us," she said. "We had no recourse with him, except to come here to the legislature."

Sadly, Ken Gordon and Rep. Anne McGihon, the bill's House sponsor, bit.

It has been the problem with the state Clean Air Act since its inception, a bad and poorly written law that has only led to more of the same.

Ed Smith and his casino should have been nothing more than a law enforcement issue. For months now, it has been. And then, Senate Bill 225 arrived.

This was clear in the nearly two hours of committee testimony, a spectacle that put Ed Smith on trial more than it did any perceived threat to the general populace of Colorado.

It was a sentiment that was not lost on several members on the committee.

"It feels to me that this legislation is solely in the business of enforcing the law against one single business. Here is our chance at the end of the session to save a small business from going under," said an impassioned Rep. Don Marostica, R-Larimer County.

"This clearly looks like one special interest is trying to do something against one small businessman," said Rep. John Kefalas, D-Larimer.

"He is being targeted. I just can't see it any other way."

Should the law pass, Ed Smith figures he will be forced to lay off at least 15 to 20 of his 55 employees.

"This will hurt. And that is honest," he said.

What he doesn't understand, he said, now standing in the Capitol rotunda, is why he has been singled out. Everyone, from the cops, the city attorney, and state regulators said he was in compliance.

"I was exempted under the same rules as the Brown Palace, the airport and every other business that was exempted. Yet they picked on me.

"They say, 'Well, you are a casino.' Well, the Brown Palace is a hotel. I'm not, of course, trying to pick on the Brown, but let's be consistent.

"And will someone tell me," Ed Smith said, flinging his arms in the air, "why is it so important to pass legislation against only me when there are 200 other issues out there.

"It is vindictive is what it is. That is all it is."

johnsonw@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2763.

• May 3, 2008

  8:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  tiero writes:

  Go figure. Why don't our lamduck legislators attack the illegal alien problem instead of a little guy trying to turn a $. I'm a non smoker & he has a cigar bar. That is Legal

• May 3, 2008

  9:32 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Eagle5 writes:

  -I was taught that the people and their elected representatives were in charge of the laws on the books.
  -Obviously, in the State of Colorado, this is not even close to being true.
  -Apparently. Stephanie Steinberg and her group run this state.
  -Casinos are an issue that the voters in Colorado should have a say-so about.
  -Smoking, limits, and use of revenues for historical development are casino issues that should be on the ballot since we, the voters, approved of their existence in the first place!

• May 3, 2008

  11:38 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Brain writes:

  Ed Smith should stop dragging people into his casino/cigar bar; it is just wrong to force them in there.

  I thought the smoking ban was going to increase business? This is a perfect example of how consumers decide what they want from businesses; this casino should have banned smoking on its own since that would give him more business, right?

• May 3, 2008

  2:07 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Citizen_Kane writes:

  Ken Gordon ought to be ashamed of himself. Sponsoring a bill that has one entity in its crosshairs is the ultimate in arrogance, and is nothing but blatant pandering to one special interest group.

  Ms. Steinberg is apparently making it her personal mission to snuff out every last cigarette in this state. I wonder if Mr. Gordon has taken into account that for every cigarette snuffed, there will be less tax dollars for him to spend. Any halfway intelligent person understands that revenue from vice taxes such as gambling and cigarettes will go down when that activity is restricted.

• May 3, 2008

  8:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  arby writes:

  I don't smoke and even when I did I couldn't stand the smell or tast of cigars. So I'll just stay away from the Wild Card. But if you want to go and have a cigar while losing your hard earned dough that is up to you and not my business or the business of some dogooder. This whole anti-smoking thing has gotten out of hand just like prohibition did.

• May 4, 2008

  6:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  arby writes:

  I'm currently on a business trip to Dallas, FTW. They run things a little differently in Texas. Each municipality makes it own rules, (what an odd concept). So in some towns smoking is allowed in public places and in others it is not. I admit I was surprised to see people smoking in a restaurant. I'm already trained like one of Pavlov's dogs. I got over it. I think.

  California is considering passing a law to make it illegal to smoke in your home or car if there is someone under 18 present. Sheesh.

• May 4, 2008

  8:30 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Froward69 writes:

  the choice to smoke (or not) for patrons inside any business should be up to the owner of that particular business.

  NOT the legislature!

  now that it is spring, all of the establishments I frequent are in compliance with this stupid Nazi law. when it gets cold outside, freedom will ring again all across this state. as the non smokers who targeted a select group. Actually never patronize businesses where they imposed their draconian (republican passed and republican signed) law.

• May 4, 2008

  8:33 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Brain writes:

  The reason Colorado is state wide is because Denver didn't have the courage to ban it in their city fearing it would drive customers to the surrounding cities; so they "lobbied" the state legislature to pass a state wide law.

• May 4, 2008

  10:37 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Jimminy writes:

  So,under the aegis of Ken Gordon,the Legislature targets Ed Smith to put him out of his entirely legal business.Under the aegis of the same Ken Gordon,the same Legislature tanks a law that would remedy Clarence Moses-El's entirely illegal imprisonment.
  I can think of a more appropriate place than the Democratic Convention for Re-create '68 to set up shop.

• May 5, 2008

  7:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  sheepherder writes:

  I'm sick of the govenment trying to protect me! I'm a big boy, and can make my own decisions! Does there really have to be a law for everything? Free society...hummmm....

• May 5, 2008

  9:18 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Marshdale writes:

  Unfricken beleivable! I'm a democrat but, Ken Gordon can take a hike.

• May 5, 2008

  10:28 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mfas writes:

  Unfortunately, this is an old one for you: an inaccurate column that benefits one person. The casino isn't a cigar bar -- it's a casino and under state law it can't allow smoking. You didn't just make up the story, you even made up quotes from a legislator. If you're going to invent quotes, why not invent a legislator too so you're not dragging a real person into your special interest spin job.

• May 5, 2008

  11:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ManginoTorreta writes:

  I don't smoke and hate the smell, but I'd happily take up the habit if it meant I could blow smoke in Stephanie Steinberg's pompous mug for an hour a day, minimum.

  The worst part about this whole stupid law is that it left the decision out of the hands of private business owners. If non-smokers don't want to go to a smoking establishment, well gee, guess what? They find other places to go! If the business owner decides they will make more money by making their establishment non-smoking, they will. They certainly don't need coercion by the insufferable nanny-state and neo-Carrie Nations like Steinberg.

• May 6, 2008

  12:40 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  tam5851 writes:

  So much for "Let freedom ring". Let's outlaw buffets for over-weight people too while we are at being Draconian

• May 6, 2008

  4:30 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  NotYours writes:

  MFAS: Really -- accusing the author of fabricating legislator quotes? Which ones? By who? Be specific. Generalized accusations reek of hidden agendas. Are you Stephanie? A member of her PAC? Don't just call someone a liar --> PROVE IT.

  By State Law, the $300k annual revenue from cigar sales vs. his declared gambling/food/alcohol revenues makes him a cigar bar. It's not opinion, it's a legal classification standard based on business revenue source percentages and the associated taxes collected and paid as such.

• May 6, 2008

  8:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  MichaelJMcFadden writes:

  mfas wrote, "The casino isn't a cigar bar -- it's a casino and under state law it can't allow smoking. "

  mfas, if that's the case, then can you explain why the legislature passed a whole brand new law? Obviously the original law did NOT cover the Wild Card or it simply would have been enforced. Or are you implying that all the minions of the State's enforcement apparatus were in on some grand conspiracy to allow one relatively small business to flagrantly violate a law and get away with it?

  Sheeeesh.

  Michael J. McFadden
  Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
  http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/1...

• May 7, 2008

  6:01 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mwernimont writes:

  Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

  http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2...

  http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2...

  http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2...

  http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2...

  http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2...

  All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.

  But why should those air quality facts interfere with the Nicoderm (RWJF) funded smoking ban activists?

  http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2...

• May 7, 2008

  10:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  alcambell_9 writes:

  This only goes to prove that the tobacco control zealots don't care about health, the only thing they care about is the Big Pharmaceutical companies and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grants they made to them, over $400,000,000, to promote smoking bans that increases their non smoke nicotine delivery devices profits.In 2008 they made $4 billion dollars from those devices that are 3% effective in stopping people from smoking and put more nicotine in your system than any ETS can do. I don't know when the legislators are going to get their heads out of their butts and investigate the money trail that caused the corruption of government and the legislators who benefited from the ban and investigate the real truth about ETS by testing the idoor air in bars, taverns and casinos like OSHA did that proved there is no danger from ETS in a normally air ventilation establishment

• June 15, 2008

  9:03 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  generalsn1234567 writes:

  The smoking ban people are doing themselves more harm than good as the rest of the world is watching this childish behavior.