Bill to allow cigar bars in Montana spurs debate
Cigar in ashtray (Martin Vorel/Common Creative license)
If Montana allows cigar bars, residents and tourists will be able to enjoy a 'premium, hand rolled cigar' on their visits, one proponent argued.
'A lot of folks are looking for a particular hospitality experience when they come visit our state and other areas, and we believe Senate Bill 150 goes a long way in allowing for this unique opportunity in limited circumstances,' said Jessie Luther, on behalf of the Hospitality & Development Association of Montana.
But the bill, heard Thursday in the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs committee, would hurt workers who don't have a choice about the air they breathe, and it would undermine the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act passed in 2005, opponents said.
'I feel like it's like a step backwards in time if we allow this to occur,' said Mitch Bradley, who said he saw his father suffer the consequences of smoking.
Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, said he's been bringing similar legislation since 2017, and it's a heavy lift. But Galt said 12 other states exempt cigar bars from their clean indoor air acts, and he believes Montana can do the same with a narrowly crafted exception.
'We are not new in any of this,' Galt said.
A representative for the Cigar Association of America said the bill has 'pretty good sideboards,' and the group would support the bill with an unspecified amendment, although Galt said he wasn't sure he'd consider it friendly.
The bill would allow a cigar bar endorsement for businesses under certain conditions, including ones that hold an all-beverages license and gaming or gambling license, only offer cigars sold on site, and don't allow other tobacco or marijuana products, among other conditions.
Opponents at the hearing, including high school students and public health representatives, argued the bill would reverse progress in Montana and set a dangerous precedent that would open the door for marijuana bars and hookah bars.
Several other bills related to smoking and vaping also are under consideration at the Montana Legislature.
In a separate hearing on Thursday, Sen. Becky Beard, R-Elliston, pitched Senate Bill 98, which would tax traditional cigarettes and ones that are 'heat-not-burn,' or HBN, differently. Beard said HBN would be taxed at 85 cents a pack compared to traditional cigarettes at $1.70 a pack.
Beard said one-in-eight Montana adults smoke, most from lower income levels, and the bill would provide harm reduction and help people quit. The products heat tobacco, releasing a vapor as opposed to actually burning the cigarette.
Philip Morris International supported the bill and argued a product with less risk should also be taxed less.
However, representatives from the American Lung Association of Montana, Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Montana Academy of Family Physicians, and American Heart Association spoke in opposition to the bill.
Jackie Semmens, with the American Heart Association in Montana, said heat-not-burn cigarettes are a new area for the tobacco industry, which has 'historically and consistently' misled the public about the health impacts of its products.
'These products have not been around long enough to fully understand their dangers,' said Semmens, who also said HNB cigarettes are not approved cessation devices.
At the hearing about cigar bars, one opponent pointed to a poll that shows 89% of Montanans support the Clean Indoor Air Act. A 2021 study from New Bridge Strategy also found three quarters of Montanans were concerned about tobacco use.
Dr. Richard Sargent, co-author of a medical study that showed heart attacks dropped 40% in Helena when a local smoking ban was enforced a couple of decades ago — and ticked back up after the ban was overturned — said said cigar smoke is not special or different than cigarette smoke.
Sargent said the legislation would be a violation of the Clean Indoor Air Act, which protects employees and nonsmokers.
'We don't really think that anybody should be granted their own personal exemption from that law,' Sargent said.
Sargent also said the amount of ventilation that would be needed to ensure clean air indoors is cost prohibitive based on studies from engineers.
Sen. Bob Phalen, R-Lindsay, said people have to breathe in smoke during forest fires, but with cigar smoke, they can choose. Phalen also said he wears a nicotine patch to prevent disease.
'I see no problem with a cigar bar,' Phalen said.
Sargent said nicotine is a normal neurotransmitter in the brain but there is no benefit to the human body from excess. In response to a question, he also said an N95 mask will only filter about 5% of the particles in 'side stream' smoke, or smoke from a cigar or cigarette that goes directly into the air.
A fresh air supply through a vented suit would be needed to truly protect an employee from contaminants, Sargent said.
Chair Mark Noland, R-Bigfork, said if the bill passes, he would like to ensure health inspectors have access to full respirators, which he estimated at $275 apiece.
'We can do that to safeguard anybody going in so they don't have to be exposed,' Noland said.
Lisa Dworak, with the Confluence Public Health Alliance, representing nearly every health department in the state, opposed the bill, in part because she said the enforcement piece is confusing.
Dworak said it appears the Department of Public Health and Human Services would enforce the bill, but doing so would run contrary to its mission.
C.B. Pearson, who has worked on tobacco disease prevention for 45 years including in Montana, said the state's act was a compromise in 2005. He said one concern at the time was that the legislation never be penetrated.
'Today, we're seeing that, and we have seen that before, but I think this is a more serious challenge,' Pearson said.
The American Heart Association, Montana Medical Association and Association of Montana Public Health Officials also opposed the bill.
The committee did not take immediate action on the cigar bar bill, and Galt said he will bring an amendment for minor changes, including to drop the amount of gross income businesses need to generate from cigars to operate to be more realistic.
The bill to assess taxes differently for heat-not-burn cigarettes also had not been voted on Thursday, according to an online legislative status update.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Down 25%, but I think this high-quality FTSE 100 stock will bounce back
InterContinental Hotels Group (LSE: IHG) has lost a quarter of its value in just four months. However, the FTSE 100 stock is still up more than 100% over five years, even after the sharp pullback from 10,880p to 8,240p since February. Here's why I think it's just a matter of time before the stock gets back to winning ways. IHG, as it's known, is one of the world's biggest hotel companies, operating across more than 100 countries. The group's brands span budget (Holiday Inn) to luxury (InterContinental, Kimpton, and Regent), but it has a very strong mid-market presence. What's important to understand is that IHG doesn't typically own the hotels outright. Instead, it earns revenue through franchise fees, which are based on a percentage of room revenues. Or management fees for running hotels on behalf of owners. It also generates value from its IHG One Rewards loyalty programme, which has over 145m members. Many hotels pay IHG a fee to be part of this loyalty scheme. This asset-light, recurring revenue model means the company is very profitable. Last year, the operating margin was a healthy 21%. In Q1, IHG opened 14,600 rooms across 86 hotels, more than double in the same period last year. Global revenue per available room (RevPAR) grew 3.3%, with strong performance in the Americas (+3.5%) and Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa (+5%). However, the firm's fortunes are obviously still closely tied to ongoing travel demand. In China, Q1 RevPAR fell 3.5%, with occupancy at 52.8% versus 63.4% for the US and 66.7% for Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Global occupancy growth was pretty anaemic, at just 0.6%. Meanwhile, tariff uncertainty has led to fears of a US recession. International travel to America has slowed recently. The US is IHG's most important market, so this is arguably the biggest risk here. A slowdown could impact near-term growth, while any escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict might put people off travelling to the Middle East at all. Another issue worth highlighting is IHG's decision to launch a hefty $900m share buyback programme in February. With the stock trading near record highs at the time, some investors questioned whether the cash would have been better spent reducing the group's $2.7bn net debt position. While the rest of the year looks uncertain, I'm bullish on IHG's long-term prospects. It currently has a global pipeline of 334,000 rooms in 2,265 hotels, with emerging markets like India, Southeast Asia, and Africa offering massive expansion potential. We may be living in a world of Airbnb and hostel-dwelling digital nomads, but branded hotels still rule the roost in business travel, groups, and loyalty programmes. And anything involving a decent breakfast! According to Airports Council International (ACI), global passenger traffic is projected to nearly double by 2053, reaching 22.3bn. This will be driven by a rising middle class in emerging markets and increasing demand for air travel. A wide selection of IHG's hotels will be waiting for them across the globe. After its 25% haircut, the stock is trading at around 20 times forecast earnings for 2026. At this valuation, I think it's well worth considering as a long-term addition to a diversified portfolio. The post Down 25%, but I think this high-quality FTSE 100 stock will bounce back appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Ben McPoland has positions in InterContinental Hotels Group Plc. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Airbnb and InterContinental Hotels Group Plc. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Sign in to access your portfolio
4 hours ago
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. 'What sense does that make?' she asked. 'What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?' The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. 'It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,' said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. 'If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping.' Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. 'Should I expect the government to take care of him?' he asked. 'I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity.' About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. 'It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it,' she said. Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with 'serious or complex' medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in 'gig' jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. 'I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,' she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. 'There's no way I could have afforded that,' he said. 'I would have lost my foot and probably died.'
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. 'What sense does that make?' she asked. 'What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?' The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Benefits can be difficult to navigate even without a work requirement Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. 'It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,' said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. 'If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping.' Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. 'Should I expect the government to take care of him?' he asked. 'I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity.' There's broad reliance on Medicaid for health coverage About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. 'It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it,' she said. Some people don't if they might lose coverage with a work requirement Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with 'serious or complex' medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in 'gig' jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. 'I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,' she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. 'There's no way I could have afforded that,' he said. 'I would have lost my foot and probably died.'
