The latest round in the Lungs vs. Lucre dispute went to Lucre.

Those seeking to derail House Bill 1269, which would extend the state's smoking ban to casinos, managed to tack on this amendment during preliminary passage in the Senate Friday: The bill won't go into effect until the smoking ban is completely statewide.

In other words, when it is also extended to Denver International Airport's smoking lounges and the so-called cigar bars that were exempted along with casinos by the original smoking ban passed last year.

That's not likely to happen this year. The casinos are delighted.

The amendment, which passed 18-17, could be stripped off on final passage next week. If not, the bill (whose passage seems certain) will go back to the House, which will either demand the Senate retreat or call for a conference committee.

I like the ring of Lungs vs. Lucre, but of course it's not that simple. True, state revenues would go down, possibly by a lot, if casino gamblers were forced to go outside to smoke. And that revenue loss motivated a few of the amendment's supporters.

But the amendment was actually sponsored by Sen. Bob Hagedorn, D-Aurora, the Senate's Mr. Health Care. He's pro-lung and believes the state should intervene even more than it already does in health matters. He once had a campaign button reading, "Republican Health Care Policy: Don't Get Sick."

He sponsored the amendment because he sees it as an opportunity to leverage a complete state ban. He was unhappy that the "haves" - casinos, DIA and posh cigar bars - finagled exemptions last year whereas "have-nots" like your neighborhood taverns could not.

But Hagedorn's amendment allies were an eclectic lot. In addition to smokers and those who fear revenue losses, there were a few stray libertarians who don't smoke, don't allow smoking in their homes - but don't believe in compelling other property owners to live like they do.

TABOR and casino taxes: If the state's take from casino earnings - about $100 million a year - drops because of the smoking ban, it's possible that the five-member Gaming Control Commission could make up the shortfall by voting to raise their taxes.

Indeed the commission reviews tax rates every year and occasionally changes them. They are stair-stepped, currently going from 0.25 percent on the first $2 million adjusted gross income up to 20 percent on the AGI over $15 million.

When voters approved gaming in three mountain towns back in 1990, they allowed the commission to tax as high as 40 percent. But 20 percent is as high as it's gone.

The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, requiring voter approval of all state and local tax hikes, was passed by the voters two years later. But for whatever reason, no one has sued to complain that casino taxes are, in effect, hiked not by a popular vote but by five gubernatorial appointees.

In 1993 the legislature asked the state Supreme Court if it could lower the casino tax rates, since it was afraid that the state was taking in too much revenue from casinos. (What a quaint concern!)

The court said no, declaring that setting the rates was the prerogative of the gaming commission.

But it didn't address the issue of whether TABOR applied, because nobody asked it too. Nor, apparently, has anyone sued since to demand a popular vote.

Perhaps the casinos are afraid that the people would be tougher on them than the commission.

But that could change if declining revenues tempts the commission to raise the rates at a future review.

By the way, the group of neighborhood bar owners who sued in federal court to overturn the statewide smoking ban would probably hope HB 1269 fails. That's because their main argument before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is based on equal protection of the law. It's a tough argument under the best of circumstances; if the ban is extended to casinos after all, their case gets even weaker.

blakep@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5119.