Governor promises quick signature on smoking ban
Bob Brown/Times-Dispatch
Smoking bill sponsors Sen. Ralph S. Northam, D-Norfolk, (left) and Del. John A. Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake. listen to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine yesterday.
Virginia, which 400 years ago helped found a nation on the leafy cash crop of tobacco, yesterday took a significant step toward smoke-free restaurants and bars.
Lawmakers passed and sent to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine a measure that restricts smoking in restaurants to ones with rooms that are ventilated separately and to private clubs.
Kaine, who in 2006 had issued an executive order banning smoking in state government buildings, said he will sign the legislation.
"I think it will be signed quite swiftly -- in the quickest-drying ink I can find," Kaine said outside his office.
The Democratic-controlled state Senate voted 27-13 to pass Senate Bill 1105. The tally in the Republican-controlled House of Delegates was 60-39.
An identical piece of legislation, House Bill 1703, cleared a Senate committee yesterday and also is on track for approval.
Kaine lauded the legislature's bipartisan support for the bills, and the measures' sponsors -- Sen. Ralph S. Northam, D-Norfolk, and Del. John A. Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake.
"It's a very significant accomplishment."
Twenty-three other states and Puerto Rico have passed bans on smoking indoors at bars and restaurants.
"Historically it is a step, but one in which Virginia is in accord with a lot of other states," Kaine said. "We're never going to solve the nation's health-care challenges if we don't start off tackling the nation's health challenges."
Information released by Kaine's office suggested that Virginia's new ban would be the toughest among the nation's top five tobacco-producing states, which also include North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee. Among them, only Tennessee has a statewide ban, which exempts private clubs and any establishments that require proof of age to enter.
Over the years, legislative attempts to extinguish smoking in public have had little success in Virginia, headquarters of Philip Morris USA, the Henrico County-based tobacco giant.
"Every restaurant in Virginia already had the right to ban smoking on their own" and many did, said Bill Phelps, a Philip Morris USA spokesman.
Hilton Oliver of the Virginia Group to Alleviate Smoking in Public, or Virginia GASP, called it "a pretty good bill under the circumstances."
Speaker of the House William J. Howell, R-Stafford, had worked out the bill's details with Kaine.
Yesterday the House of Delegates passed the bill without debate. Thirty-two of the 53 Republicans, including House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, defied Howell and voted against the measure.
The legislation is "something whose time has come," Cosgrove said. "I voted against it last year. Even hard-core Republicans back home were telling me, 'We like what you're doing in Richmond, but you need to pass a smoking bill.'"
Del. Terry G. Kilgore, R-Scott, who had offered amendments to try to weaken the bill, said the public sentiment favors a smoking ban.
"One thing I have learned in politics is, don't get in front of a train," Kilgore said.
This year -- with all 100 members of the House up for re-election -- Howell sent signals that the Republican leadership might be willing to forge a compromise on the issue.
Howell met with Kaine, and along with Del. S. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk, and Northam and Cosgrove, began work on a compromise.
Dissident Republicans, led by Kilgore, attempted to filter the bill with amendments that would have allowed smoking when minors are not present and in areas separated by a door and without independent ventilation. But further negotiation convinced House leaders there was enough GOP support for the measure.
The governor has struggled with opposition in the House and with a deep national recession that has forced cuts to the state budget and tamped down many of his initiatives.
Yesterday, Kaine ranked the smoking ban with previous legislative successes such as last year's higher-education bond package; the expansion of pre-kindergarten programs; and reforms to the mental-health system following the Virginia Tech shootings.
More restrictive smoking bills that cleared the Senate earlier this year were killed in the House. Asked whether the restaurant ban could be the beginning of an expansion of anti-smoking initiatives, Kaine said momentum is building.
"I don't know," he said. "That's going to be another legislature and another governor wrestling with that."
Contact Jim Nolan at (804) 649-6061 or
.
Staff writer Tyler Whitley and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Wow, it seems like smoking is gonna be banned almost everywhere soon! I smoke a pack a day, but the smoking bans don’t affect me because I smoke an electronic cigarette. Things like this that make me glad I made the switch.
You can regain your freedom to smoke by just switching to an electronic cigarette. E-cigs are much, much, MUCH better for your health (and wallet), anyway!
For more info:
http://greensmokes.blogspot.com
Very well said bw.
Seems to be the typical method of getting controversial legislation passed. They get their foot in the door by watering down a bill to get it passed and each year in the Gen Assembly they come back with more restrictive legislation. And they are quite proud to annouce this. The same for defeated legislation. Again and again they bring up the same bills until able to persuade a few more legislators, usually based on their future election status, to surrender their votes.
monkeywrench-You are right on. You can bet if the smokeless tobacco users were not included this time, they will be part of future legislation. And I am sure you are already aware of the non-cigarette tobacco taxes increased a few years ago and again proposed by Kaine this year along with the cigarette tax increase. I know it affected cigars and assume same for smokeless. And of course most restaurants already banned cigars. But they wanted it to pay for child heath care. Are there that many kids smoking cigars?
MeToo:
My point is that in 95% of the states that have a bill like this one that gets a approved thorws smokeless tobacco users under the bus. No one has yet to see a final draft and I bet it includes smokeless tobacco.
monkeywrench: You don’t have the common sense to answer your own question? No it’s not about dip, it’s about the smoking in the air from cigarettes. Your choice to chew effects no one but yourself. There’s no “second hand dip”. Smoke directly effects everyone around it.
Just make sure you don’t confuse your spitty for your drink.
monkeywrench:
If the legislation is anything like non smoking laws in other states, it is in fact more lenient than in other states, then smokeless tobacco will not be affected. I can say as a supporter of the bill that I don’t really care what other people are putting in their bodies, especially in terms of tobacco, but I don’t want that substance forced into mine.
Here is question I have if anyone can answer for me.
So I should still be able to go into a restaurant and still be able place a big chew of Redman in mouth?
After all the point of the bill was about second hand smoke. Chewing tobacco last time I checked does not harm anyome else. I’m just sick of the smokeless tobacco users getting wraped into second had smoke laws. So hope this law does not include smokeless tobacco.
First, equating an PUBLIC (that’s the key word here) anti-smoking law with some sort of quasi-Nazi authoritarianism and, by extension, portraying smokers as some sort of renegade freedom fighters or oppressed minority is beyond ridiculous. And portraying smoking IN PUBLIC as some sort of sacred human right that must be protected at all costs is patently asinine. It is barely worth engaging somebody in debate whose views are so backwards that they can’t see that.
Why is it so hard to comprehend the fact that smoking in public areas involves an EXTERNALITY, while refraining from smoking involves NO externality? If I go to a bar and *not* smoke, nobody around me is affected in any way by my NOT smoking. But every non-smoker has to endure foul, noxious cigarette smoke in the clothes, hair, and lungs whenever smokers are nearby. For crying out loud….this law would even ALLOW smoking in public places where the smoking section are properly ventilated and separated from the rest of the place. So essentially all it’s doing is just flipping the “default” for every restaurant from smoking to non-smoking…making smoking the exception, rather than the rule…just like it is EVERYWHERE ELSE, (contrary to what some seem to believe). Newsflash, people: The majority of people DON’T SMOKE, and the majority of smokers WANT TO QUIT…it boggles my mind how people can oppose this ban. It’s 2009 folks, not the 40’s or 50’s.
Wikipedia is hardly a credible source! Anyone can write anything they want, truth or not. If you really want to write your argument in cement… choose a scholarly journal or government publication instead of a hack website. Go find a health sciences journal or something from the CDC.
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