Weaker smoking ban backed
BOB BROWN/TIMES-DISPATCH
Members of the Virginia House of Delegates voted on an amendment yesterday to the smoking bill, which later passed 61-38.
Rejecting a deal brokered by House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, House Republicans yesterday pushed through a weakened version of a statewide ban on restaurant smoking that Howell fashioned with Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.
Before voting 61-38 to give tentative approval to House Bill 1703, members added more exceptions to the compromise, which already made allowances for private clubs and restaurants with a designated smoking room that is separated and independently ventilated.
"The governor is glad the bill is moving forward, though the amendments run counter to the agreement that was made by the leadership," Kaine spokesman Gordon Hickey said. "We will continue to work on the issue."
Among the amendments proposed yesterday by Del. Terry G. Kilgore, R-Scott, and approved by the House, were to postpone the implementation until Jan. 1, 2010, and to allow smoking whenever minors are not allowed.
The House's version of the bill comes up for a final vote today, which likely is a formality. If the legislation survives both chambers, Kaine can make amendments.
The House also voted 59-39 to approve a matching Senate bill that already had cleared that chamber.
Other changes made to the House bill yesterday were to require either a door or a separate ventilation system and to allow smoking in an entire restaurant if it is rented out for a private party. Violations would carry a fine of no more than $25.
Del. John A. Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, patron of the House bill, was relieved to see the support, albeit with changes.
"I'm pleased that for the first time we've gotten a smoking-restriction bill that is very narrowly tailored off the House floor," he said. "Now we have to shepherd it through the rest of the process."
Anti-smoking advocates were disappointed with the House amendments.
"It's really not a smoke-free bill anymore," said Cathleen Smith Grzesiek, a spokeswoman for the American Heart Association.
The ramifications for Howell remain to be seen. The weakened measure's advancement could prove helpful this fall for imperiled GOP delegates in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.
Or the legislation could create an intra-party rift, warns a group of GOP party leaders and district chairmen who wrote a letter to Republicans in the General Assembly pleading for a "no" vote.
Among the letters' authors is Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick, R-Prince William, chairman of the state party.
"Supporting [House Bill] 1703 will discourage and demoralize the Republican base and confuse those that view us as the party of free market principles," the letter states.
The letter notes that Attorney General Bob McDonnell, the all-but-official Republican nominee for governor, "understands our principles and position in regard to the smoking ban, and we believe you should take heed of his position."
Del. William R. Janis, R-Henrico, spoke against the smoking measure on the floor, at one point saying that "it would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies."
Janis said that since September -- no matter what his constituents contacted him about -- they were most concerned about the economy and joblessness.
"Is this bill likely to create more jobs in your district, or is it likely to place more people on the rolls of the jobless?" he asked, adding that mom-and-pop restaurants particularly would be affected.
Del. David L. Englin, D-Alexandria, said that sometimes people who lose their employment consider restaurant work as an option.
"It's not fair in this economy to force a restaurant worker to choose between employment -- between keeping a job to support his or her family -- and being exposed to what we know is cancer-causing secondhand smoke," he said.
Contact Olympia Meola at (804) 649-6812 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
studebaker-I appreciate your very civil apology. It is certainly accepted.
One walks a very fine line in these forums and it is usually a mistake mentioning anything even remotely personal.
However in the interest of clearing up any misunderstanding:
my husband and I were part of a water pollution start up company in the early 60’s. This work included everything from taking samples at dawn from the Hudson to testing the same in some makeshift lab in a dinky hotel room. We were thrown out of more motels than I care to remember.
It was nitty gritty work and you really had to care and we learned the hard way.
We migrated down here and my husband worked on the James. I have always kept up with the journals and the science and many old friends in the field.
It was an easy segue to incorporate a lively interest in global warming/climate change.
My conclusions have little or nothing to do with either the political or the cultural. I simply do not believe that the science is credible.
Both the anti-smoking and pro global warming groups publicly announced their conclusions before their reports were compiled and published.
I happen to support the science that says the rise in CO2 levels ALWAYS follows the warming.
CO2 followed the warming out of the Little Ice age it did not precede it.
If James Hansen ever reveals his methods to the rest of the scientific community there might actually be room for some real debate on the issue.
He can’t keep “adjusting” his computer models forever…
As for your last question:
“Austen within the social,cultural and political milieu.“
Edward Said-Essay-Jane Austen and Empire.
That phrase was familiar because it is used frequently in reference to Jane Austen.
Apart from the health dangers of tobacco smoke (first & second-hand), the divisive issue of smoking in public eateries arises from the lack of respect amongst many smokers (& their corporate enablers) for the rights of others. One would hope that out of common courtesy smokers would refrain from lighting-up where tobacco smoke might cause discomfort to others. While all of this tobacco legislation is indeed very, very costly; and would not have been necessary if smokers and the tobacco industry valued the rights of others. The lack of accountability of smokers & tobacco interests is nothing more than to beg for government intervention.
Let’s get real about liberty:
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Thomas Jefferson
Sorry Gretta; Please accept my apology. I did not intend to offend you. I just wondered about your statement of being in the “envirnomental…water pollution business” since the 60s. You made a claim about “corrupt science” and I sought accreditation since you already revealed to us something about your profession…I didn’t mean to pry.
Nonetheless, and with all due respect, I still believe your point of view is of political and cultural origins rather than purely rational.
PS
I did not get the “Austen anyone?“ reference. Would you explain.
sincerely studebaker
Ok, let’s get this straight. Smokers have a right to kill themselves. What they DO NOT EVER have a right to is to take others down with them via second hand smoke or any other method associated with cancer causing cigarettes. And lest you have a tin-foil hat wearing moment that you think that cigarettes and 2nd hand smoke don’t cause cancer, tell that to my 5 relatives who died of cancer directly CAUSED by cigarettes. Or tell that to the millions of people who have illnesses DIRECTLY related to cigarettes. Or tell that to the cigarette companies, aka Philip Morris, B&W, and others who DELIBERATELY WITHHELD AND LIED TO the public about cigarettes. The documents uncovered DO NOT LIE. Yes, smokers have a right - to die. The rest of us have the priority of rights to LIVE.
studebaker-I found your critique when I was clearing out my spam folder otherwise I might never have read your
curiously angry comments.
I thought I was just voicing my opinion.
What a pompous overblown reaction.
Requesting my credentials as though we were writing in some scientific journal instead of puttering in a local newspaper.
“only your conclusions clearly arise from the cultural, social & political melieu” Austen anyone?
Greta:
“Corrupt science has two salient characteristics. First instead of starting with a hypothesis and data and drawing a conclusion from these it does just the opposite: starting with a desired conclusion, it then SELECTS data in order to support the hypothesis…”
You use the same tactic you accuse researchers of, only your “desired conclusions” clearly arise from the cultural, social & political milieu in which you find identity and comfort. Your obvious infatuation with Ayn Rand (but irrational rather that rational self interest), the talking-point-similarity of your arguments on climate change & second-hand smoke and your attempt to mimic writing a in professional report format (but loaded with inappropriate rhetorical barbs), place you squarely in one of the most prominent Politically Correct demographics in American popular culture these days.
The quality of your writing does not encompass the credentials you seem to want readers to believe you possess. You argue from rote ideology; not from reason. What personal pleasure you may get from the role you play in this conversation I do not know; but realize it or not you work as a proxy for interests that do not hold what is best for America at heart.
You tell us “I have been in the environmental and water pollution business since the 1960’s.” You don’t think or write as a scientist would. What are your credentials???
TheRightChoice-The “already written” quote was a paragraph that, when you have the time you will find repeated many times in reference to poorly compiled statistical studies.
I used it because it reflected my thoughts in a concise and I thought easily understood form.
I did not find it on the FORCES International site. The theory is not a matter of opinion it is a criticism of shoddy scientific data gathering methods.
The original WHO report found NO credible evidence of SHS correlation to diease. The EPA report that the quote referred to used the Meta Analysis method which is merely an analysis of existing studies.
That EPA study and the IPCC studies both used a PUBLIC pre-announced conclusion before their studies even started.
The EPA study was vacated by a Judge William Osteen because of the way the study was conducted.
To be fair the EPA faught the decision and had the study reinstated. This was done by the fourth circuit court of appeals because the court contended that the report was not an OFFICIAL POLICY document and Osteen’s court had no jurisdiction!
I have been in the environmental and water pollution business since the 1960’s. Long before it was fashionable or trendy. I have read the IPCC report several times in its entirety and I refer to it frequently and that is why I feel it is junk science that uses shoddy methods in gathering and selecting the data for James Hansen’s famous “computer models.“
The genesis for the “conclusion before research” in global warming is Dr. Keeling’s “Keeling Curve.“
The Double helix of global warming.
A device planted on the top of Mauna Loa with a pre-selected, arbitrary base point. The conclusion that CO2 was causing the planet to warm had already been determined. The data was manipulated to fit that conclusion. It still is.
That is why you may have noticed the drift from GlobalWarming/Climate Change
to Climate Crisis.
Conclusion before Research!
In both cases.
I do not expect that my opinion is going to sway anyone else’s stand. But I do do my homework.
Tobacco industry apologists have perfected the smokescreen of “individual rights” to distract the public from the real issue, which is the assault of smoking bullies on helpless victims (e.g. children, minimum wage workers, etc.). They would have us believe that we Americans are some sort of 18th Century pioneers, free to do what we will, when we want and the government be damned. They see government (which is US) as the bully. John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest minds in all of history, had it right. He was more afraid of losing his liberty to his boorish neighbors than a democratically elected and constitutionally restrained government.
Unrepentant smokers have no regard for their own health and well being so it is no surprise that they have little for others. They would have us breathe their filthy air in the name of freedom, when in fact they are the least free. They suffer the chains of addiction and delusion. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
In this discussion, advocates of “smoker’s rights” do not argue within the context of the Principled Liberty fundamental to free societies. If a nation is to be free, each individual citizen must be mindful of the dignity of every other—must consider others as one would have others consider oneself, to paraphrase Holy Scripture. How could a person expect Sovereignty (individual liberty) in a nation bereft of Civility (the act of showing regard for others)?
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Thomas Jefferson
greta - are you really trying to compare your “corrupt science” theories of Global Warming and Second Hand Smoke. Look I didn’t have time to read your already written comment from Forces.org again, but I can tell that I found this on your opinionated site. It CLEARLY states “All submissions to FORCES International may be subject to modification for clarity or brevity. All articles posted on FORCES International are the opinion of the writer and not of the organization. FORCES International (FORCES, Inc.) does not endorse or take any direct or indirect responsibility for any of the products or services advertised on its pages. Any and all responsibility and liability rests exclusively on the advertisers.“ I can also say that (when living in MD) it was nice to go home from a bar or resturaunt without the smell of someone else’s habit. Now I don’t know what your source “Forces.org” told you, but every night during college when I was bartending, I hated coming home with the smell of smoke and stuffed up sinuses. Today that bar is still doing well and the smokers just simply take 10 steps out of the building to enjoy their habit. I’m not hooting and hollering to tell smokers to quit, I would just like the same respect smoker have in what air I would like to breath, REGARDLESS of what the bogus Forces.org states.
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