Smoking ban advances
Published: February 6, 2009
Updated: February 6, 2009
Related:
Tobacco companies brace for smoking cuts after tax hike - Feb. 5, 2009
Last year:
State smoking ban snuffed - Feb. 15, 2008
The Republican-controlled House of Delegates—the last barrier to a further clampdown on smoking in public—could vote as early as Monday to ban lighting up in restaurants and bars across a state built in part on the riches of tobacco.
Heralded by a bipartisan group of lawmakers as an advancement for public health, the proposed smoking prohibition—already favored by the Virginia Senate—would represent an expansion of restrictions enacted more than a decade ago that were written largely by tobacco interests.
The new rules, however, and their narrow limitations quickly drew fire from health advocates as weak and from restaurateurs as government meddling in the marketplace.
“This is a political issue, not a health issue,“ said Thomas Lisk, a lawyer-lobbyist for the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association.
The prohibition 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. It also would exclude any permanent outdoor patio area of a restaurant, any portion of a restaurant used just for private functions, and streetside mobile food stands.
Violators would be subject to a fine of no more than $25.
The new restrictions would be a breakthrough for Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat who unsuccessfully has sought additional regulations on smoking in public since he took office in 2006.
For Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, whose House is depicted by opponents as obstructionist, the measure could prove a vote-getter this fall for imperiled GOP delegates in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.
Kaine said, “This is a big step forward for public health in an environment where secondhand smoke effects concentrate and really cause serious health problems.“
Turning its back on the wealthy cigarette and tourism lobbies, the House Republican Caucus had come under pressure to appear in step with increasingly Democratic suburban voters. Roughly half of the GOP caucus signaled in a secret vote that it favored restrictions on smoking.
Those votes, paired with the bulk of House Democrats, could ensure passage.
In the course of a day, Howell and Kaine announced they had forged a compromise on a smoking ban, and by the afternoon, House Bill 1703 was approved 16-6 by a House General Laws Committee traditionally hostile to efforts to halt smoking in eateries.
In front of the panel, doctors pleaded for its passing; a restaurant owner from Hampton Roads called for its demise; the restaurant lobby threatened closures; and groups that have been pushing for a ban—the American Lung Association, among them—expressed grave concerns that it didn’t go far enough.
Some of those concerns were eased by amendments requiring that smoky air cannot be redistributed to the nonsmoking section, and that people not be forced to walk through the smoking area to get to the nonsmoking room.
. . .
High-dollar restaurants and chains may be able to meet all the stipulations, but new walls and air systems could push mom-and-pop shops out of business, critics argue.
Others argue that the one change would save lives. Secondhand 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 secondhand smoke.
A separate assault on tobacco—Kaine’s proposal to double the cigarette tax to pay for health care—has been thwarted, led by Henrico County-based cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA.
The company also opposes the restrictions on smoking. David Sutton, a Philip Morris spokesman, said every restaurant in Virginia currently has the right to limit smoking on its own without a government mandate.
“While this bill attempts to provide a compromise, we believe that some of the provisions go too far,“ he said.
“This bill would impose significant costs in a very difficult economy on business owners that would like to accommodate smokers in their establishments.“
Sutton declined to comment on the extent to which Philip Morris USA was involved in discussions over a compromise on the indoor-smoking issue.
“On this issue and all the others that are relevant to the company . . . we continue to make our views known to elected officials,“ he said. “It is something we want to continue to talk about.“
Howell said he thinks a compromise was forged this year because “both sides were willing to yield.“ In addition, state legislators, in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle, proposed 14 smoking-ban bills this year, according to Kaine’s office.
When asked yesterday if it had something to do with this being an election year—all 100 seats in the House are up for election—Howell gave a drawn-out “no.“
“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.
. . .
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.
Outside Capitol Square, the debate among politicians caught the attention of smokers and nonsmokers.
“If it bothered me I would sit someplace else,“ said nonsmoker Tommy Hicks, a defender of smokers’ rights. “It’s a conscious decision I make.“
Sitting at the bar at Richbrau Brewing Co., Hicks said of Kaine, “When he cuts down on emissions from vehicles and other stuff killing us, then he can tell us not to smoke.“
Down the bar from Hicks, smoker Heather Fletcher was surprised to hear about the restrictions.
“I think that it will help me quit,“ she said. “We’re conscious of other people. We don’t smoke if it bothers people.“
Among some of the Republican Party’s key conservative allies, there was dismay—a feeling that the GOP is surrendering to a big-government impulse.
“The activists [Howell] will depend on this fall, many of whom are members of groups like ours, will not be pleased that he has caved,“ said Ben Marchi of Americans for Prosperity.
Reader Reactions
WELL SAID Daisy!
It will be No Big Deal in the long run. I saw an owner of a restaurant/pub in Charlottesville interviewed & he said they had already adopted a NO Smoking policy and their business did Not suffer - just the opposite!
jouxster, please don’t call me condescending little nicknames.
I’m well aware that Virginia is not Florida; I lived in Lynchburg for a long time before coming here. There is no reason to think that the outcome of a smoking ban in Virginia wouldn’t be similar to that of Florida’s ban. Opponents of the ban here were every bit as angry and vocal as they are in Virginia, and they all predicted that restaurants would fail when, in fact, restaurant sales improved significantly.
Despite harleyrider’s many, many, many posts, there is a lot of scientific evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful. People who go out to restaurants occasionally may not be exposed to enough of it to make a difference—I don’t know—but restaurant employees are subjected to it constantly when they are at work. The cumulative effect of breathing in all that smoke may cause terrible health consequences for them.
Smoking is one of the few things that doesn’t just affect the person doing it. The fact that it’s legal doesn’t mean that non-smokers should be subjected to it. Are you saying that we should go back to allowing smoking everywhere? Airplanes, offices, public buildings, hospitals?
Anyway, my point is that, despite all the ranting about the ban, it will end up being not that big a deal.
We are not Florida Sunshine girl. Think about it this way, even Obama, would have to be relagated to the back rooms of restaurants.
Separate but equal for a ‘legal’ product? How to have separate rooms for Mudpuppies, Cavaliers, Bull’s Branch etc.
I live in a state that passed a restaurant smoking ban several years ago (under the leadership of Jeb Bush, not exactly a flaming liberal, harleyrider). For months, it was all anyone could talk about—the same arguments I keep reading here. Letters to the editor of our newspaper were overwhelmingly about this subject, mostly from people opposed to the ban.
The ban passed, and average restaurant sales actually increased 7% in the first year, statewide. Smokers complained for a few weeks, got used to it, and within a couple of months, it became a non-issue. Smokers, my husband included, adjusted to it the same way they adjusted to not being able to smoke on an airplane, and they don’t even give it a second thought any more. If they want to smoke, all they have to do is step outside for a few minutes.
Once a ban takes place, it turns out not to be that big a deal. I know quite a few smokers, and it’s been years since I’ve heard any of them say a word about not being able to smoke in restaurants. Restaurants did not go out of business because of the ban, and smokers’ lives were not ruined. All of the hysteria turned out to be completely unfounded—life goes on as usual.
At a time when restaurants are all ready hurting they do this? Way to go guy’s, you all are right on top of things as usual. What’s a few more people on unemployment. It’s not the smoking that bothers me so much it’s the people who bring in there little screaming kids in and let them run all through the place.
A restaurant downtown waits until after 9:00 before people can smoke. It’s nice, quiet but too small for separate sections. I don’t smoke, but eating there was fine.
Maybe that could work if.. oh wait WE DON’T HAVE A CHOICE.
It would be good if second-hand smoke actually didn’t cause any disease. I still do not want to be subjected to your stinking cigarette smoke while I’m trying to relax and enjoy a meal… which I am paying for same as the smoker, who doesn’t exhibit any courtesy to fellow diners by not waiting until he/she left the building.
Thank goodness for this ban. Now we the people need to take the next “baby” step and stop serving alcohol at these establishments as well. Last year several car accidents happened because people were drinking at bars and then driving off killing people. Not even secondhand but firsthand! People get in fights at restaurants from drinking too much. Heck, I know alcoholics who work at bars who sneak drinks at these places. For the safety of the workers, customers, drivers, and it will save countless money in future healthcare needs by preventing beatdowns by bikers at these establishments.
One more thing.. is it just me or do some of these restaurants put too much fattening butter into their mash potatos?
Its nice to actually spread the truth about second hand smoke. You see SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE….....the zealots behind the bans are political action workers for the American cancer society who got kicked out of tennessee last year by the state legislators for trying to get the excemptions repealed and trying to get smoking in cars with kids outlawed…..Tennessee went toally republican this last election in direct result of the ban forced down their throats by a liberal govenor.there was no debate or open forum from the citizens or tobacco growers only the ANTI-TOBACCO CONSPIRATORS…....Out to take away the rights of the people and business owners…..socialism doesnt work and it especially doesnt work on FREEDOM LOVING AMERICANS…....Fight and fight now before your liberal govenor and liberal rino republicans sell you down the river of OBAMAS SOCIALISM.
FOX NEWS ARTICLE
March 8, 1998
Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
THE world’s leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.
Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon , France , which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: “There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.“
A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings “seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases.“ Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.
A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. “If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.
“It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk.“ The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.
Advertisement