Legislators should keep
prohibition of gamblingThe issue: Pro-gambling interests
propose one casino be allowed in Hawaii.LEGISLATORS who have acted responsibly in past years to keep gambling out of Hawaii are being asked to put the question to the voters. This is a seemingly noble gesture in a robust democracy except that gambling interests are proposing it out of frustration, ready to bombard the public with propaganda to gain a foothold in the state.
Gov. Cayetano suggested putting the issue on the ballot last year after the Legislature rejected a proposal by Sun International Hotels to open a casino at Ko Olina. Sun International played host to Cayetano in December 2000 at its resort in the Bahamas. He was accompanied by Sun lobbyists Charles Toguchi, his former chief of staff, and Jim Boersma, a former Cayetano employee.
The Legislature is no more likely to approve the Ko Olina proposal this year, and Cayetano again is calling for a constitutional amendment that would allow a single casino in Hawaii. Hawaii has no provision for a referendum, but a constitutional amendment would be the equivalent. Asked if he would vote in favor of such an amendment, he said, "Yes, I would."
Just how many voters would join him is uncertain. A statewide poll by the Star-Bulletin and KITV-4 last year showed that 37 percent prefer gambling to raising taxes as a way to raise money for education, while 29 percent opted for raising taxes.
If a constitutional amendment is on the November ballot, gambling interests can be relied upon to inundate Hawaii voters with promises of growth in tourism and jobs. In Arkansas, gambling interests in 1997 spent $9.2 million on various referenda to allow casinos, lotteries and charitable bingo, while opponents spent $500,000. Pro-gambling outspent opponents in other referenda in recent years $10.5 million to $53,000 in Louisiana, $1.7 million to $12,000 in Washington state and $16.5 million to $1.7 million in Florida.
In Hawaii, Sun International would not be the only gambling concern supporting the single-casino amendment. Other casino owners are aware that a foot in the door can lead to expansion of gambling activity. The silly statement by Sun International's president that he would not mind if Hawaii residents were banned from its casino would be the first provision to be cast away.
The gambling issue has surfaced in the Legislature nearly every year for decades but is taken more seriously this year because of the economic slump associated with the national recession and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Legislators should recognize that Hawaii's success in tourism has been due partly to its image as a wholesome place that is ideal for family vacations. The risk that gambling would change that image is not worth taking.
Smoking ban intrudes
on business decisionsThe issue: The City Council has
given its preliminary OK to a
restaurant smoking ban.THE City Council appears to be on the verge of forcing restaurants to ban smoking, the only disagreement being the length of the fuse. Restaurant owners have pleaded with the Council not to interfere with their business operations, but Council members are convinced that a ban would be politically popular. Most voters don't smoke.
The Council had considered several other bills during the past four years, but they have been narrowly rejected. The delayed implementation in the current version was added to placate Council Chairman Jon Yoshimura, who voted against the ban in November. The city's interference with restaurant operations will be just as inappropriate, however long delayed.
The bill would ban smoking in all inside restaurant areas except in bar areas that are separated by floor-to-ceiling walls from dining areas equipped with a separate ventilation system. Smoking will be allowed only in bars with less than one-third of gross sales coming from food.
The City Council gave its preliminary approval of the ordinance this week and has scheduled a public hearing on Jan. 30. The action follows an $850,000 state-sponsored media campaign aimed at convincing people that secondhand smoke presents a health risk.
The amount of risk remains a matter of contention. Reports concluding that secondhand smoke significantly increases the risk of lung cancer and heart disease have been called into question. Opponents of smoking bans say the risk is below the level that scientists regard as significant and that the reports are more political than scientific, while those favoring a ban insist that the risk is serious.
Councilman John Henry Felix in November urged the Council to take advantage of the public's "heightened awareness" by imposing the ban. The urgency obviously was political, in the wake of the taxpayer-financed media blitz, and not for health reasons; Yoshimura suggested recently that the ban not be imposed until mid-2004.
Restaurant owners are worried that the smoking ban could hurt their businesses, since many of their customers are tourists from Japan, where smoking is more accepted, although a recent study on the mainland concluded that such concern is not warranted. What is not debatable is that the smoking ban will take away what properly has been a business decision by restaurant owners and place it in the hands of the politicians.
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, managing editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, assistant managing editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, assistant managing editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comRichard Halloran, editorial page director, 529-4790; rhalloran@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, contributing editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
