Weaker smoking ban backed

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.

» 84 Comments | Post a Comment

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

 
View More: william howell,tim kaine,smoking,restaurant smoking ban,general assembly,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by Jay on February 11, 2009 at 8:50 am

What you all seem to be overlooking is the political segregation of one group of citizens in this country.  The have been singled out for special taxes, forced segregation in businesses.  If our political leaders can do this to one group of citizens, with our blessing then why not to other groups in the future.  Everyone’s rights to pursue happiness must be protected or none of will have rights.  Like to ski, hike mountain trails, swim in rivers and lakes; sorry too dangerous you might run into a tree, wild animals may attack, no lifeguards available. 
How would you like to pay 30, 40 or 100% tax on the things you like to do or products you like to use? Tell you what let us encourage our politicians to place a $1 tax on every gallon of gasoline.  The price is down and we proved this summer we could get by with $4 a gallon gasoline.  After all gasoline cause cancer and is a bigger pollutant than cigarette smoke ever thought about being and it is everywhere.  No more gyms, you use far too much oxygen pumping steel and walking treadmills and stair steps.

Individual rights and group rights, isn’t that what the civil-rights movement was all about.  You had better wake up or your rights will be the next to go. 

Jay, it is called the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in the constitution.  If you do not like cigarette smoke then go to and eatery that has voluntarily band smoking in its establishment.  You can pursuit happiness somewhere else, but to force your will on another is wrong.

Who is next?  I can assure you, it will not be politicians or their friends and family.

Flag Comment Posted by phillipb on February 11, 2009 at 7:45 am

Having grown up in a family of smokers (and never having tried one myself) what smokers don’t realize is how dull their sense of smell and taste have become. All it takes is one cigarette to taint the air in a very large restaurant. The only thing I can relate it to that maybe smokers and nonsmokers can understand is try eating your meal while while inhaling smells from a public restroom. The smell and the carcinogens travel much farther and are dispersed way beyond the physical smoke that is seen.  That is the problem.  Because smoker’s sense of smell is dulled, they think that the only smoke that is present is what can be seen. Therefore they don’t “see” the problem. People, if you can take a flight across country or a train ride for several hours or not smoke all day while in public places at work, you can certainly hold off for one hour while in a public restaurant. I am sure that I will die a grisly death prematurely because of second hand smoke - for which I had no choice.  I don’t want my children to suffer the same fate.

Flag Comment Posted by NRAHokie on February 11, 2009 at 6:00 am

What I don’t understand is, if smoking is so terribly bad for everyone, why not just ban the product all together?  Wouldn’t that make sense?  Oh, that’s right, the government is addicted to the tax revenue.  Forgot about that.

Flag Comment Posted by jerryb on February 10, 2009 at 11:55 pm

all I can say is that New York state passed a law outlawing smoking in public restaurants and business a number of years ago and it resulted in quite a number of restaurants, bars and night clubs which had been in business for year to close for most smokers decided to stay home and smoke. at least they will stay home to smoke until the state passes a law to ban smoking in your own home. I left NY state because of its taxes, laws such as this and it’s politics, I have lived her since 1985 and it pains me to see this state becoming more and more like NY and wonder how long before Virginia’s economy reflects New York’s; especially Western New York, all ready the Economy is causing businesses to close now the government is passing laws to assist in forcing other business to close. taxes, regulation and loss of rights sounds like paradise?

Flag Comment Posted by Will on February 10, 2009 at 6:39 pm

Great. So now you’re working as a waitress and you’re ordered to spend the evening in the smokers’ ghetto—or lose your job in the midst of the Bush depression.
I remember the old “smoking cars” on trains—the cloud came down to about two feet off the floor and I’d get an asthma attack trying to get to the club car to get a sandwich.

Flag Comment Posted by greta on February 10, 2009 at 4:35 pm

And I thought we had written a little document called the Magna Carta.
Thank you for the kind invitation to drop in for a friendly smoke but i gave up smoking years ago.
Personal choice.
I had one then.

Flag Comment Posted by Jay on February 10, 2009 at 4:11 pm

VMI, there is no constitutional right to smoke. That’s why we have smoke free public buildings. It’s not like this hasn’t been challenged time and time again in the courts.

It’s funny I’m being mocked for claiming to be a Libertarian by some here (not you) because they clearly don’t know what it means. I wouldn’t expect a lady named Greta from Europe to understand liberty though. Europeans never have and never will understand liberty.

I think it will save businesses money and laugh at those that think otherwise. How many times have you walked into a restaurant and have seen empty tables at the bar or smoking sections but the nonsmoking is full? Why do they always ask “first available”? They are really asking “will you take smoking because it will be the first available?“

Business not dare tread those nonsmoking only waters alone, they would alienate 25-30% of their customers! I would rather have them be able to say, “sorry it’s the law.“

Flag Comment Posted by MB83 on February 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Can you give me a citation for that statistic?  I find it very hard to believe that an hour in a diluted atmosphere is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes and the associated, concentrated smoke being directly inhaled into my lungs.

Flag Comment Posted by edolphs on February 10, 2009 at 3:44 pm

MB your logic about an hour is wrong.  For a non-smoke to breathe in second hand smoke, for 60 mins it equals 5 cigs.  So don’t say an hour isn’t harmful because it can be.

Flag Comment Posted by vmiwarrior on February 10, 2009 at 3:19 pm

Jay, you and I aren’t so far apart on this after all…I agree 100% with getting rid of 99.9% of “entitlements” too, and Miss Suleiman is fitting right into our modern day, do whatever you want and there are no consequences society - 14 kids, no job, unmarried.  So we agree on that, but why not focus our energies on correcting those government abuses of the taxpayers rather than creating new governmment burdens?  Because somewhere along the line, you’re going to like something that most people don’t, and you’ll be on the wrong side of the “government ban” argument then…

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.
Click here to post a comment.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement