Kaine signs restaurant-bar smoking ban legislation
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine today formally signed into law legislation that will ban smoking in nearly all public restaurants in Virginia.
Seated in a Virginia Beach restaurant that has already made the switch to smoke-free dining, Kaine signed Senate Bill 1105 and its companion legislation, House Bill 1703. The law takes effect on Dec. 1, 2009.
The new law exempts private clubs from the ban, in addition to those restaurants that establish physically separate and independently ventilated rooms for smokers.
“This reasonable and necessary public health measure has been one of my priorities for several years,“ Kaine said during a signing cermony at Croc’s 19th Street Bistro, flanked by the bills’ sponsors, Sen. Ralph S. Northam, D-Norfolk and Del. John A. Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake.
“I am extremely proud to have been a part of the coalition that made this day a reality, and I am thrilled to place my signature on this monumental step forward for public health in Virginia.“
In 2006, Kaine issued an executive order banning smoking in all state buildings.
The passage of the bill this year by the General Assembly was a highlight for the administration, which had been frustrated on other policy fronts, including efforts to further montior firearms sales at gun shows, broaden the rules on who can vote by absentee ballot and advance green energy and conservation measures.
It was also the result of rare bipartisan compromise between the Democratic administration and leadership of the Republican-controlled House of Delegates, which has opposed Kaine on a number of public policy initiatives in the preceding three years of his four-year term in office.
This year, Republicans and Democrats alike would not support Kaine’s bid to close the state’s budget deficit in Medicaid by doubling the tax on packs of cigarettes. But citing mounting evidence of the risk to public health, lawmakers went along with the restaurant smoking ban, approving the measure by comfortbale majorities in the House and Senate.
Statistics compiled by the Virginia Department of Health show that second-hand smoke is responsible for an estimated 1,700 deaths per year.
The new legislation protects workers by stating that restaurant owners cannot compel employees to work in a smoking area. Proprietors must also provide at least one smoke-free entrance to their establishments.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Not every new law represents an inevitable “domino effect” of future laws. It’s very easy to assume what the future will hold, very easy to say, “Next thing you know…“
And it’s so easy because the argument can’t really be resolved one way or another, because it’s in the domain of the un-knowable.
In the cases of Ireland, Scotland, and Great Britain, in my view all of those countries’ business establishments and cutomers have generally coped well with the smoking ban. They have developed really nice four-walled heated patios for smokers. Smokers have told me they enjoy the pubs much more with clean air, and enjoy the fact that their smoking is cut in half while they are out.
And these countries have not banned smoking in their own homes, or outside. They have made their policy change and stuck with it—no more—no less.
As a smoker, I support the ban as a labor law. An existing or potential employee should not have to decide between their living and their health. And I’m not persuaded by the arguement that “they can work somewhere else then.“ In fact someone does have to work there, and those someones are Virginia citizens who shouldn’t be placed in such a bind.
Like Peter Brady said in his husky crackly voice, “It’s time to change.“
Wow, it seems like smoking is banned almost everywhere! I smoke a pack a day, but the smoking bans don’t affect me because I smoke an electronic cigarette, haha.
You can regain your freedom to smoke by just switching to an electronic cigarette. Besides, E-cigs are much, much, MUCH better for your health (and wallet), anyway!
For more info:
http://greensmokes.blogspot.com
Well, before long we will not be able to smoke in our homes!
I am a smoker and I am really stuck in the middle with how I feel about this. As a smoker that does not like to be smoked around when I am eating, I understand why non smokers want this. However, I am still not liking the idea of not being able to smoke AT ALL inside of restaurants. I guess I feel that having smoking and non smoking sections should be enough, given of course the size of the restaurant. There are going to be very few, if any places that chose to completely seperate their smoking area by building walls and adding ventilation systems. I guess I start to feel like my right to smoke is slowly being taken away. Before we know it, smoking will be banned outside altogether, banned while in your car and anywhere else that isn’t inside your house. (which I do not smoke inside my home anyways)
How can I be angry about the partial smoking ban, even though “my side won”? I can be angry because of all the manipulative handwringing that hobbles every effort for public good. I am angry at being called a socialist because I want a smoke free dining experience. I am fastener-biting mad at all the political capital spent on a lame measure that should have been handled twenty years ago: meanwhile hardworking waitstaff are dying.
I take some measure of comfort that indoor smoking is on the well-tractioned yet still downward (hardly slippery) slope out of fashion.
It took the feds years to get the stinky devil teats out of nurseries, elevators; off of buses, airplanes; out of govt offices, away from many churches, barber shops. Blocked at every turn by shameless hucksters, fronting for big tobacco, with a fake populist bent.
Restaurants are a natural extension of this health based decades long effort. There has been no smoking in kitchens for a long time. The restaurant ban was blocked effectively for years by hate, greed, and groundless fears.
There was a small victory yesterday that will benefit everyone.
Outside, smokers!
Well, not until December, and, well, really if you pay $25 you can finish your smoke inside as long as you don’t holler. Oh, private hour at 9PM? Light up! Did I say hobbled? You’ve got eight months to get real creative, I guarantee your sports bar will go private after 10PM.
Lame bill! Too little, too late.
RichGuy-
“fedup responded to barely a thing I said. Read it again. My posts in no way meant to ban everything. I thought it was obvious that I was making a parallel to the idea that the reason given for banning smoking indoors for public safety/ health is the same as banning drinking and overeating bc people that drink could get behind the wheel and over eaters could promote unhealthy diets.“
I read it several times. That is exactly the point that fedup and I both responded to in different words, and for at least a third time: The effects of these actions “indoors” are not “the same” because the smoke is invasive. Your drink and your food stay in your glass and on your plate. The 2nd hand problems associated with drinking and overeating are of a completely different and indirect nature and can’t simply be “sent outside”. Different problems necessitate different solutions. I think it is you who are ignoring the points we are making.
“Finally, I never intended and don’t think I succeeded in being sarcastic or patronizing. I’ve actively done my best to stay away from insults and anything resembling emotion. I don’t think legal subjects should involve emotion.“
You were not being sarcastic? You actually did “enjoy” the way he “skipped over dialogue, debate and civility”? Legal subjects will always involve emotion. His response was passionate, and whether it was “civil” is debatable, but it definitely did not skip over dialogue or debate. If he ignored everything you said, how did you even know his comment was in response to yours? The “high road” would be ignoring any perceived insults and addressing the points rather than devolving into a meta-discussion. Which is what this is, so I won’t continue it.
12 step- I didn’t put you off until last to show any lack of respect. You responded to me coolly and with respect and I thank you for that. I like your analogy and I definitely see your point. The one difference I see is that in this issue the city has way more public pools/ bars and there are a growing number of pools/ bars that have mandated showering before entering. Why can’t both pools/ bars exist publicly? I openly admit that at this time there is not an even number of clean pools/ bars to dirty pools/ bars but its growing quickly to reflect our society. I guess I just am having a problem coming to grips with why allowing the public will and dollar do the legislating is not an option. The cry of do it for the kids is fine and as far as I am concerned the idea of the compromise bill (not allowed if minors are able to be present) was ideal. No more ruining your steak or salad when you eat but why ban it when the establishment is clearly in bar mode? Many bars have a time when minors are not allowed in anymore and drinking is the main draw.
Ok here we go~
Jerry78linda- in that quote I asked a question and challenged you to refute me. That doesn’t constitute putting words in someone’s mouth, just asking someone to put words in their own mouth. I’ve never once crammed anything down anyone’s throat. I put my views on a public forum and left it up to others to choose to read them or not. I never said your response was gutter but that someone else’s response going straight to insult and anger was the equivalent of the gutter. Your issues with obesity are your own and I cant comment on that. I never once said EVERYONE anything. I am smart enough to know there is an exception to most every rule.
12 step- I would like to address you in the next post.
Pneuros- fedup responded to barely a thing I said. Read it again. My posts in no way meant to ban everything. I thought it was obvious that I was making a parallel to the idea that the reason given for banning smoking indoors for public safety/ health is the same as banning drinking and overeating bc people that drink could get behind the wheel and over eaters could promote unhealthy diets. Also, both have just as much of a negative impact on health insurance, as has been brought up in other comment sections on the RTD online. All are just as unsafe and unhealthy. My point was to simply show how you shouldn’t be able to ban one thing for being unhealthy and unsafe when other things are just as bad. Finally, I never intended and don’t think I succeeded in being sarcastic or patronizing. I’ve actively done my best to stay away from insults and anything resembling emotion. I don’t think legal subjects should involve emotion.
12steprevenge - I think it’s a decent analogy, and I agree that even if the effects of second hand smoke were not harmful in the long term, the mere fact that it is bothersome is reason enough to ban it (much like “disturbing the peace” laws). I do think there is real harm in inhaling second hand smoke though. To build upon your analogy, maybe one person’s grease in the pool won’t harm you, but if 25% of the people swim greasy, it’s not just likely that you will be swimming with a dirty person, but in some cases you will be swimming with many dirty people to the point that you emerge from an oil slick yourself covered in unknown substances, and in these cases it becomes even more likely that it will do you actual harm. I have been in places where enough people are smoking that the cloud of smoke is almost unbearable and has noticeable physical effects on me. It can be much worse than just being subjected to the second hand smoke of a single smoker.
RichGuy - ‘fedup’ responded exactly to your points. Your implication that other harmful vices should be similarly banished from the indoors is completely illogical. This is not about protecting you from doing harm to yourself indoors, it’s about the side effects of your vice harming other people. In no way does having a drink or eating a fattening meal directly harm those around you. Smoke is different in that it becomes a part of the environment that other people have to breathe in. How would sending a drinker outside to do shots of whiskey on the porch have any effect on whether or not he crashes into you while *illegally* driving home drunk?
I am baffled by where you were going with the whole “free speech” thing. Are you actually trying to compare smoking to speaking?
P.S. Your sarcasm and your patronizing comments about taking the high road put you in the gutter.
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