I-901 Anti-smoking Initiative in Washington State: Everett Herald Position is Bad for Workers

The Herald in Everett, Washington champions the interests of business over the health of Washington workers in its Friday 10/14
editorial , opposing I-901 which would extend the Clean Indoor Air Act to ban smoking in public places and workplaces. They oppose the initiative as a good idea taken "a little too far" because it "over-reaches, affecting privately owned businesses to an unreasonable degree."
The Herald acknowledges that smoking is associated with a "huge host of health problems" and lists efforts to date to "create a smoke-free state". However, the Herald takes issue with extending the current ban to "Restaurants, bars, taverns, casinos and bowling alleys". It characterizes as uncompromising a provision that smoking must take place at least 25 feet away from entrances. It worries that unregulated tribal business will have a competitive advantage and that the law will be unenforceable.
I-901 would actually do much more. Under a different current law
(WAC 296-800-240) , the Herald’s office workers are protected against exposure to the cancer causing chemicals in second-hand tobacco smoke. But, non-smoking employees in their press room or warehouse are not protected if the employer decides to allow smoking. The same goes for any non-office work area in an industrial business. I-901 would extend protection to all workplaces.
The 25 foot rule simply clarifies and extends to all workplaces an existing requirement that smoking areas not be close to doorways or other openings where it could infiltrate back into an office.
The Herald would prefer to rely on market forces where "Customers and employees can choose whether to go to a smoke-free restaurant, bar or casino." That assumption about the range of options that an employee has reminds me of recent events in the Gulf coast. Authorities assumed that everyone had a car and gas to escape an approaching hurricane. The folly of that assumption or indifference to the poor was played out on TV to a horrified nation.
Here in Washington, a young single mom trying to make a living to support her kids may not have as many employment choices as the Herald assumes. Does the Herald really want to go on record as supporting by implication the ugly position that if she takes a waitress job at a restaurant, she must accept as a condition of employment exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke toxins likely to cause lung cancer and according the American Heart Association double the risk of heart attack? Unlike the Gulf coast, the folly of the Herald’s assumption might eventually be played out privately at the bedside of a sick worker or worse by a grieving family.
As for tribal competition, if they choose to expose their customers and employees to the hazards of second-hand smoke – well, shame on them. It should in no way diminish the determination of Washington citizens to assure that our customers and employees have a safe and healthful work environment.
Enforcement would not be the administrative nightmare the Herald fears. Once the law is in place, employees will have a tool to hold their employer accountable. As with all new laws, employers will respond by asking authorities what they need to do to be in compliance.
The Herald has a long record of advocating for the health and welfare of its readers and the community. The real health effects that tobacco smoke has on the lives of people is serious business and demands more than the Herald’s bottom line in opposing I-901 "that private business has the right to conduct business as it sees fit, without government interference and without unfair competition." I respectfully urge the Herald to reconsider its opposition and instead take a strong stand in defense of the health of Washington’s citizens and workers.
smoking