Restaurant smoking bill passes House committee
Bob Brown/Times-Dispatch
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine announced the legislation this morning with House Speaker William Howell.
A bill to ban smoking in Virginia’s bars and restaurants cleared the House of Delegates General Laws Committee this evening by a 16-6 vote.
The bill will now go to the full House.
The committee action came on the same day that Republican House Speaker William J. Howell and Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine reached agreement on the proposed legislation.
Flanked by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, Howell and Kaine discussed the legislation that would make exceptions for private clubs and restaurants with a designated smoking room that is physically separated and independently ventilated from non-smoking dining areas.
The bill would also exclude any permanent outdoor patio area of a restaurant, any portion of a restaurant used just for private functions and street-side mobile food stands.
Howell and Kaine cooperated to forge the agreement.
But legislators said the compromise did not include any guaranteed passage by the House, which has been hostile to anti-smoking bills. The bill will be carried by a Republican in the House and a Democrat in the Senate.
“The compromise strikes a fair balance between the rights of smokers who choose to enjoy a legal product and the rights of other individuals who want to enjoy a smoke-free environment when eating at a restaurant,“ Howell said this morning in a news conference.
Keenan Caldwell, director of government relations for the American Cancer Society of Virginia, said health groups had no role in crafting the proposed compromise. He said the groups were still reviewing the proposal.
“Our hope has always been something that protects the health of workers,“ Caldwell said. “At first glance, as you look at (the compromise), it doesn’t do that, and it is not really in the interest of public health, so that is a major concern of ours.“
But Sara Long, director of program services for the March of Dimes, said she was encouraged to see the state “taking baby steps to help the babies.“
David Sutton, a spokesman for cigarette maker Philip Morris USA, expressed skepticism.
“While this bill attempts to provide a compromse, we believe that some of the provisions go too far,“ he said. “It would impose significant costs in a very difficult economy on business owners that would like to accommodate smokers in their establishments.“
And some conservative grass-roots organizations were not happy with the deal.
Ben Marchi, with Americans for Prosperity, said about Howell, “The activists he will depend on this fall, many of whom are members of groups like ours, will not be pleased that he has caved to the advocates of big government, namely the governor.
“We feel it is unfortunate that the speaker has chosen to trust government to solve our problems rather than to trust consumers with the decision.“
If passed, the bill would make Virginia part of a growing list of states passing legislation to curb smoking in restaurants. Twenty-three other states, including Maryland, have passed bans on smoking indoors at bars and restaurants, as have the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
In Virginia, smoking was banned in all state buildings and vehicles under an executive order signed in 2006 by Kaine.
State legislators, in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle, proposed 14 smoking ban bills this year, according to Kaine’s office. In addition to that high interest, Howell said he thinks a compromise was forged this year because “both sides were willing to yield.“
The Senate backed total bans, including private clubs, Howell said, and the House was unwilling to adopt such a broad prohibition.
“You’re gonna tell a guy that fought at the Battle of the Bulge that he can’t have a cigarette with his coffee at the VFW club,“ Howell said. “You can’t do things like that.“
Under the legislation, violators would be subject to a fine of no more than $25.
The agreement follows the rejection earlier this week by legislators of a key component of Kaine’s budget-cutting plan involving tobacco—a 30 cent per pack hike in the tax on cigarettes. Kaine had hoped to raise $147 million with the tax, which he said would help prevent further cuts in Medicaid and offesty the $400 million or so it costs the state to treat smoking related illnesses under the program.
Second-hand smoke is responsible for an estimated 1,700 deaths per year, according to the Virginia Department of Health. In addition, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids estimates the Commonwealth spends $113 million a year on health care expenditures related to exposure to second-hand smoke.
How the bill will fare on the floor of the full House is uncertain.
“I’m never confident down here,“ Howell said. “I’m surprised very day.“
—Olympia Meola, Jim Nolan and Tyler Whitley,
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Will- You made the comparision because you believe that smoker’s reaction to this proposed law was extreme and as such did not derserve the same scrutiny as the suspension of habeas corpus. Perhaps because the effect was not to be upon all the people.
At a casual first glance you would appear to be correct but upon closer inspection the principal is the same.
Not a matter of degree of importance but in the pure sense of a suspension of citizens rights. Right now like it or not, approve or not, smoking is legal.
For the moment that is the bottom line.
Why in the world could an enterprising person not open a chain of restaurant/bars that catered to smokers with agreeable wait staff that smoked? Non smokers welcome of course.
I will tell you why because the burgeoning nanny state will not be satisfied with that solution.
OSHA is an important watchdog for the American worker. But frankly after dealing with them for many years I know that their methods and motives leave a lot to be desired a good deal of the time.
We are not talking about mere regulations here. We are talking about law that would regulate a legal substance in favor of one segment of the population over another.In public places where each have paid for space and time.
And I will say it again. I wish that everyone in the world would stop smoking voluntarily tomorrow. But I will not look with favor on a government mandate to force them to do so an inch at a time.
Zealots fired up with the fervor to force their will on addicts. I wish that everyone could be afflicted for a month or so with some intractable addiction. The holier than thou name callers would be on their knees thanking their personal diety for their deliverance from such misery. There is no moral superiority here just good luck. The ones that have been fortunate enough to escape the teenage temptations can be just one minor accident away from a lovely little pill for pain. It is very easy to fall off the end of the world.
Greta: “Comparisions, for the purposes of this particular debate are just stupid.“
The comparison was between the lack of outrage as a civil liberties issue of the gov’t depriving a US Citizen of his habeus corpus rights verses banning carcinogenic smoke from public restaurants. In Britain they enacted this ban because the workers in restaurants were inhaling as much smoke as a chain-smoker, and the science was convincing that this smoke was bad for health. This makes sense to me. Now you can say “They don’t have to work there” but that would be true as well about dangerous factories, asbestos-filled buildings, etc. Do you go the whole hog and oppose all government safety regulations for workers?
vagirl, I do it all of the time (In restaurants)because I know it can offend others, and I don’t sit in a restaurant for hours on end, but I do not want to HAVE to do it. I wish that people did not to get stinking drunk at bars, but I don’t want yet another law limiting us. According to the law now, if you are anywhere in public while drunk, you can be arrested, this includes your own yard! I think that is as ridiculous as arresting someone for smoking a legal cigarette in public. I still think the General Assembly and the governor should be concentrating on the budget and not this issue, there are 11 or 12 pages of comments on here, can you just imagine how much time and money the General Assembly is wasting on this issue?
Of course the owner of a restaurant will have to comply with the law when and if it is enacted.
What we are debating here is whether or not this particular law infringes on the rights of citizens who smoke.
The RTD fora have become nothing more than a venue for bashing anyone/anything the writer ccan’t abide. OK so be it but when it gets to the level of ignorance of post’s like this:
““Stinking Addicts,“ “fatties,“ “crackheads, drunks,“ “carpetbagging blob of poop,“ and more.“ it is time to move with life and stop reading these comments.
On war and upward to the next do-goody crusade.
Greta, sure the owner owns the restaurant,but he opens it to the public, and then he becomes subject to
laws enacted for the good of the public. Same as health department regulations. The restaurant owner is
required to comply because he is operating a public business.
Lloyd, I’d like to know where you go that people refrain from smoking in indoor public spaces to be polite. If
that were the case then this law would never have been proposed.
My recent history may be a little shaky here, but Didn’t Philip Morris move it’s Corporate Office from New York City to Richmond right around the same time New York started attacking the Cigarette Industry? I also believe that most (not all, but most) people do refrain from smoking in indoor public spaces simply as a courtesy, it is absurd to make a law for people to be polite. Please and thank you.
OK—lifelong smoker here, so my ox is being gored on this one, I’ll admit. I’m old enough to know that in 2009 the average nonsmoking person is exposed to a very small fraction of the amount of tobacco smoke that filled the air in 1999, ‘89, ‘79, ‘69, etc. So, believe me, if second-hand smoke were a significant threat, we’d have a really palpable body-count dating back over the generations. I suspect most right-thinking people realize this is more about personal dislike of smoke, and further stigmatizing tobacco use and tobacco users than it is about legitimate health issues.
As is, most newly-opened restaurants I’ve noticed banned smoking of their own accord. I can’t say I’ll stop eating in restaurants altogether if a ban goes through, but I can say I’ll do so far less often. I’ll bet I’m not alone.
But vagirl this PUBLIC PLACE does not BELONG to the public!
All patrons frequent the establishments in question at the pleasure of the OWNER.
I am an ex-smoker. Even when I smoked I always avoided smoking in areas where non-smokers were confined due to no choice of their own. The workplace, elevators, airplanes etc. But I had no problem in a place of relaxation and entertainment where people PAID to spend their time.
And you are wrong about these laws not reaching into people’s cars and homes.
The next step is banning smoking in ones private vehicle when children are present. (Which is only proper and sensible) however it is one more reach deeper into one’s personal space.
And a judge in California just banned all smoking INSIDE one’s own apartment in a building outside LA.
My fervent wish is that all people would stop smoking. And the issue is difficult because smoke travels. But the more important issue is what I see as the slow erosion of personal choices in the name of universal health concerns.
Think Mayor Bloomberg in NY. After getting smoking and trans-fats banned he has now targeted salt as the next “demon rum.“
Jeeze, we have had all the “what ifs” including fat people, nude people, cursing people, drunk people, people of a particular political party etc. How about we make a law that says you can no longer eat, be fat, drink, swear, vote, or smoke in bars or restaurants (we can allow the naked people in with a discount). We can then all sit around and fart. Until the General Assembly makes farting in public spaces illegal too.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement