Speaker Howell statement on smoking ban
As we broke last night, Speaker William Howell (R-Stafford) is set to join Gov. Tim Kaine’s effort to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. According to a Kaine press release, Howell believes this is a step forward for Virginians:
“I am pleased to join in announcing a reasonable compromise on an issue important to Virginians. 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. This legislation is all about finding opportunities for cooperation and compromise where possible. And, where state leaders can find and share such common ground, we should.”
The release detailed the legislation as banning smoking in nearly all restaurants across the Commonwealth, allowing narrow exceptions for private clubs and restaurants with a designated smoking room that is physically separated and independently ventilated from non-smoking dining areas.
Wow. Now there’s a free market solution for you.
As a conservative, this sucks. Let’s hope this is part of a larger strategy by Howell on a budget compromise.
Update: Howell just released a complete statement of his own:
RICHMOND, VA – Virginia House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford), joined by Governor Timothy M. Kaine and key Democratic and Republican leaders in the Virginia General Assembly, today announced a reasonable compromise on prohibiting smoking in restaurants with certain key exceptions. The legislation would prohibit smoking in restaurants throughout Virginia, allowing several exceptions. The exceptions include restaurants with a designated smoking room that is physically separated and independently ventilated from non-smoking dining areas, any permanent outdoor patio area of a restaurant, any portion of a restaurant that is used exclusively for private functions, any private club as well as street-side “hotdog” stands and other mobile points of food service.
Today’s announcement comes after Speaker Howell and other House Republican leaders reached out to Governor Kaine because they thought a reasonable compromise on prohibiting smoking in restaurants with certain exceptions was possible.
The bipartisan legislation will be carried by a Democrat in the Senate and a Republican in the House. The compromise bills will be considered this afternoon in the House General Laws Committee.
Speaker Howell’s remarks at today’s bipartisan and bi-cameral news conference follow:
“Good morning. I’m pleased to be here today and join in announcing a reasonable compromise on an issue important to Virginians.
“House Republicans have worked to find common ground with this Governor, whenever and wherever we can, for the good of our Commonwealth and those we represent.
“We are working cooperatively to resolve the current $3 billion budget shortfall in a fiscally responsible manner.
“We have worked across party lines to combat sprawl and meaningfully address land use and transportation issues through House Bill 3202 in 2007.
“We continue putting partisanship aside to safeguard our environment by pledging $500 million to help restore the Chesapeake Bay and expanding innovative financing options for land conservation and preservation.
“We came together to protect private property rights to limit the power of governments using eminent domain authority.
“Of course, there are other examples, too.
“Now, we have a bi-partisan and bi-cameral agreement on smoking in restaurants. It has been a thorny issue for a long time. But by listening to one another, and by reaching out to others with differing views, we have made real progress on this matter.
“When it comes to governing and legislating, timing is everything.
“Several years ago, Governor Kaine initiated efforts to completely ban smoking in restaurants. I know it is an issue that he cares about. And, because I understand how strongly he and others feel about smoking in restaurants, I thank Governor Kaine and his allies for being flexible, which has enabled us to reach today’s compromise.
“In 1990, through the Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act, the Governor and General Assembly prohibited smoking in several public places. That legislation passed the Senate of Virginia on a 33-7 vote and the House passed it 92-5 with my support. We later established designated “no smoking” sections in restaurants.
“The smoking in restaurants compromise we are announcing today is a logical extension of these earlier efforts, while also including a number of important and reasonable exceptions.
“In crafting this legislation, everyone has given something.
“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.
“This is the kind of balanced approach to resolving a tough issue that Virginians like to see their elected leaders seek to achieve. Also, it is a good example of bipartisan cooperation that people want.
“Of course, the Governor and I – like Democrats and Republicans in both chambers – do not agree on everything.
“But there are some times – on some issues – where opportunities for cooperation and compromise are possible. Where state leaders can find and share such common ground, we should.
“That’s what this compromise on smoking in restaurants is all about. And, that’s why I’m pleased to have played a part in bringing it about and moving legislation forward for a hearing and a vote.”
Category: Government
Loading ...
[...] Drift follows up with the Speaker’s Statement: Speaker Howell statement on smoking ban From the Speaker’s remarks: Now, we have a bi-partisan and bi-cameral agreement on smoking in [...]
Banning smoking in restaurants has been a 70% popular issue for several years now. For those who oppose smoking bans, they’ve done little to attempt to change public opinion.
To expect politicians to fight to remain on the 30% side of a 70% issue is a little naive.
[...] Hoeft over at Bearing Drift lays the House Republicans out on the “compromise” smoking ban: The release detailed the legislation as banning smoking in nearly all restaurants across the [...]
“To expect politicians to fight to remain on the 30% side of a 70% issue is a little naive.”
Reminds me of excuses for Jim Crowe laws back in the day. An alleged majority supported them too. Tyranny of the majority has supported all manner of evils beyond stripping property rights.
Yes, I do expect our elected officials to uphold the Costitution that ensures our individual freedom. 30% to 70% or not.
Virginia’s new smoking ban……
Well. *sigh* This is a difficult one. Bearing Drift reports that legislation banning smoking in Virginia restaurants has, effectively, passed. Speaking personally (and as a former smoker), I’m glad because I really really REALLY hate cigarette smoke, …
Britt, the fact that you’d equate allowing racial discrimination with a smoking ban in restaurants is sickening.
If you want to burn tobacco leaves and inhale the smoke so badly, then get off your ass and cook your own dinner. Smoke to your heart’s content.
Let me enjoy my dinner without smelling your inhalants.
Oh, please. Can the piety, Kirwin.
This is all about rights – the rights of the non-smoking patron and the worker v. the rights of the business, smoking patron, and tobacco grower and producer.
Because really good arguments can be made on both sides of the argument, I cannot in good conscience support the government interfering in this matter.
Or, as you say, you can “get off your ass and cook your own dinner” in the privacy of your own, pure, sterile home.
The argument, in other words, goes both ways. If a business wants to cater to smoking clientele…let them, and see if they continue to do a good business. If there is any alternative – even staying home – that the market would prefer (in other words, if the business realizes it can make more money as a non-smoking establishment), then the business will change its behavior to suit the market.
As conservatives, this is the right approach to this argument.
“Let me enjoy my dinner without smelling your inhalants.”
Get off your ass and cook your own dinner?
Or better yet… get off your ass and express your wishes to the restaurant owner. If 70% of her customers threaten to leave because she allows smoking, guess what? She’ll ban smoking in her restaurant. Successful businesses cater to their customers.
What happened to the conservative line about “you have the right to extend your arm until it hits my face” – basically, when your freedoms injure mine, the line is drawn.
While you have freedom of speech, you can’t start a riot in a theater. You can’t slander someone.
You can smoke all you want. While smoking in a restaurant, NOT your property, you have no more rights that those who want to avoid your cancer-ridden habit.
And JR, are you advocating no government interference in restaurants? If so, there’s an entire health code to abolish. Waiting for your post.
Brian,
Are you intentionally missing the point? You’re right… I have no RIGHT to force a restaurant to allow smoking. However, you have no RIGHT to force them to ban smoking. The restaurant owner has a right to decide for herself.
Government bans restaurants from doing lots of things. They can’t racially discriminate, either. They can’t sexually harass their employees. They can’t prepare food in an unhealthy or unclean kitchen.
I guess you think the restaurant owner should decide for himself.
The difference in public health concerns, Brian, is that you accept the premise that a small amount of exposure to second-hand smoke will kill you and I do not.
Whereas a bacteria-laced steak due to unhygenic practices will lay everyone out right away.
Public safety is a responsibility for government. I don’t feel this raises to a public safety level.
Like I said in the post, there are good arguments on both sides. I’m sure you’re prepared to come up with some defending your position. I just think that because there are equally good arguments on the other side, instead of going down the slippery slope of government regulation – which could create precedent for other government overstep – we should let the free market decide.
JR, health regulations don’t require death. “Unhealthy” is enough of a standard for government intervention in restaurants. That’s not just my opinion. That’s current law.
And slippery slopes bore me. I argue proposals on their merits, not on the fearmongering of what might happen in the future.
The difference here is that a nonsmoker in a restaurant doesn’t impact anyone, but a smoker who lights up impacts every nonsmoker nearby, and if the smoker is so selfish to light up in a restaurant, why should he not do so in a library, or an elevator, or the desk next to you in the office, or on a plane?
I agree with Chad and JR, it’s a private property rights issue. The owner of the restaurant should make the decision as to whether or not to allow smoking. Don’t like them allowing smoking? Don’t patronize that restaurant.
I have no problem with true “public” property, such as a library having government mandated smoking bans and I’m all for any owner of private property banning smoking for any or no reason at all.
But yeah Brian, it’s a slippery slope whether it bores you or not. What’s next?
Next, government might start forcing restaurants to get licenses.
TerriK, better start your movement to allow smoking on airplanes. After all, a right is a right, right?
Government banned that, and somehow smokers still find a way to fly.
Brian K said: “Britt, the fact that you’d equate allowing racial discrimination with a smoking ban in restaurants is sickening.”
Yet, later Brian said,”Government bans restaurants from doing lots of things. They can’t racially discriminate, either. They can’t sexually harass their employees. They can’t prepare food in an unhealthy or unclean kitchen.”
Comparing racialially discriminating to banning smoking are we Brian?
Brian, I attacked your arguement by attaching your logic of mob rule to the mob rule that supported past evils to yes, include racism.
Your arguement got pounded so, you resorted to attacking not my arguements but attacking me for comparing smoking to racism. In fact I was not. I was just pointing out the true emptiness of your arguement through example.
“If you want to burn tobacco leaves and inhale the smoke so badly, then get off your ass and cook your own dinner. Smoke to your heart’s content.
Let me enjoy my dinner without smelling your inhalants.” -Brian K
First, I don’t smoke, yet again you personalize it and indicate that I do smoke.
Secondly, as a competent party you have choice and the self-rule to engage in your own private risk assessment. You have the choice to not frequent establishments that allow smoking and lobby their owners for policy change. In a smoke filled restaurant the smoke didn’t hit you in the face. You willingly waded yourself in it. You decide to tolertate it or decide if there is more smoke than you find comfortable and leave. Want to require warning signs that indicate smoke may be inside, I would agree that to be fair. Informed consent.
Slippery slope “bores” you? That’s a method of attacking anyone as boring that dares to uses slippery slopes as an arguement. Again, ad hominem attack in place of a counter arguement.
Britt, if everything was a “slippery slope” then everyone who favors abortion will eventually favor killing 5-year olds. The sky isn’t always falling.
I have stopped going to plenty of establishments because of the smoking. It sucks. I’ve talked to the owners.
GUESS WHAT!
They favor a ban!
Yep. Every last one of these business owners I spoke to about smoking in their establishment said one of two things.
1) They are a national chain, and they can’t go smoke-free in their single establishment unless government mandates it or the entire chain does.
2) They don’t want to go smoke-free unless everyone does, mostly out of fear that they’d lose quickly. These have mostly been bar owners.
Each complained about the cost of vents and air-cleaners that they have to maintain and replace.
So, instead of your sanctimonious preaching about restaurant owners, why not go talk to some. The VB Restaurant Association voted to support a smoking ban in restaurants.
I’ll take their view over yours.
[...] like all will not be smooth-sailing for Speaker William Howell in his capitulation to Gov. Tim Kaine over the purported smoking [...]
Maybe I do “preach” the Constitution at times but, you get a bit sanctimonious yourself at times.
Talk to the owners? Years back when more people smoked, I as a non-smoker, worked in a bar. So, I talked to them then and I’m not oblivious to market share concerns now. Yeah, that smoke added nasty yellow stains to my white Tux shirt on a nightly basis. My co-worker, also a non-smoker, had to pay smoker rates after his health insurance insisted on test results for nicotine or something. We got plenty secondhand but, made an informed choice to stay. Good money-good fun.
Your point about chain policy was something that never occurred to me. I don’t go to Hooters but, maybe that’s a concern there. I do know that Guadalahara in Town Center has a night club atmosphere at night and they don’t allow smoking. Three people in my dinner party had to go outside to satisfy their dirty habit. If they can remain successful others should be as well. In fact capturing that growing marketshare should be a selling point.
I understand the fear of losing customers and I get the notion of chain politics but, that to me does not trump property rights. I would much rather see tax incentives offered on a short term basis than a legislative ban. Perhaps a chain would be convinced by tax benefits for going non-smoking.
Perhaps, but it would have to be on a national level. The chains I spoke to aren’t headquartered here. The people I spoke to specifically said they can’t go smoke-free in their establishment unless government forces it, even if they wanted to.
[...] spread throughout the party. While Speaker Howell is very proud to have brokered this compromise. From Bearing Drift: “The compromise strikes a fair balance between the rights of smokers who choose to enjoy a legal [...]
Kirwin:
Speaker Howell is a good man, a decent family man, however, through the fog of compromise, Speaker Howell has thrown conservative principals under the bus for the sake of a solution. In so doing, Speaker Howell has:
1.) forsaken decreased regulation in favor of increased regulation;
2.) forsaken freedom of choice in favor of curtailing freedoms enjoyed in Virginia for over 400 years;
3.) forsaken lais·sez faire practices of Capitalism where the market determines new policies to adjust to market desires/conditions in favor of Governmental Dictation.
Who at the state level will enforce this new non Restaurant smoking policy of the Speaker and Governor Kaine? The Speaker does not tell us.
With public education and law enforcement being cut through the bone in this years budget, WHERE will Speaker Howell find the money to fund an Enforcement Program to support this ban? The Federal Bailout funds coming from the Obama Administration? If Speaker Howell does this, he would be diverting those funds from legitimate core functions of Virginia Government that are being cut or reduced due to the recession at the state level.
Is Speaker Howell’s ban on smoking really a core function of state government or just Nanny State Elitism gone wild? Under this Speakers watch, Maryland has now officially annexed Virginia.
For the uninformed, by definition, this is what Speaker Howell has really forsaken with his smoking ban compromise:
lais·sez faire also lais·ser faire (ls fâr, lz) KEY NOUN:
An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws. Noninterference in the affairs of others.
Maximus, you need a cigarette.
Anyone who thinks that smoke-free restaurants rises to the level of jeopardizing 400 years of freedom simply needs to get out more.
It’s a beautiful weekend, Maximus. Enjoy some of it.
Brian – It is government intrusion into private enterprise and decisions when individuals already have a choice as to whether or not to put themselves into that environment and situation.
Any laws based on allegations of harms of tobacco smoke are at serious risk of challenge. After all, no evidence regarding actual or expected harms of smoke from tobacco itself has been introduced to justify a Public Interest law.
What has been introduced is material that fails uniformly to so much as define or describe the smoking products in question. Some cigarettes may contain no tobacco at all. The target of law, tobacco smoke, is impossible from that. Other cigarettes may be highly processed and contaminated with:
* Numerous pesticide residues
* Dioxin-producing chlorine adulterants
* Added burn accelerants
* Radiation from certain tobacco fertilizers
* Any of about 1400 untested, often toxic, non-tobacco additives;
* Numerous kid-attracting sweets and flavors etc
* And, addiction-enhancing substances.
To call that “tobacco”, or the smoke “tobacco smoke”, is patently absurd and contrary to principles of medicine and science. To call that “tobacco” is to perpetuate the cigarette industry’s biggest deceit.
To blame the tobacco plant, and to also blame and legally burden smokers…the prime victims…and to burden non-complicit bar owners and the like… for the health effects is patent injustice.
It is biologically impossible for smoke from any plant, even tobacco, to cause many, if not most, so-called “smoking related” or “tobacco related” illnesses. For a knowing person to claim, under oath, that “tobacco kills” or causes such and such disease, may constitute criminal perjury. It may also constitute Obstruction of Justice and other violations if the intent is to evade charges and liabilities for the complicit industries.
It is also injustice…un-Constitutional, in fact….to allow judges and jurors in any smoking case to remain in decision-making capacity if they have economic links to any of the under-the-radar parts of the cigarette industry as indicated in the above list of non-tobacco cigarette components.
Other unacceptable links would be with insurers of, and investors in, cigarette manufacturing or ingredients, or with industries that compete with tobacco products.
And, it may further be a violation of Due Process if a judge or juror had a religious bias against “sinful” smoking.
What’s next? Bring back asbestos?
Even better, Asbestos filtered cigarettes colored with lead based paint.
I’m surprised this thread is still going.
“What’s next? Bring back asbestos?”
*points at Brian using the “Slippery Slope” arguement*
There is no way in hell your gonna tell a grown man, serving in the military, drinking in a bar, that he can’t light up.
FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS……..*lifts lit cigarette mockingly as if it were an AR22 ala charlton heston*
Whose gonna enforce this new law? Nobody….oops…maybe the mattress tag inspectors who secretly work out of the basement of the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs?
Britt, the difference is i was kidding.
Maximus, a restaurant owner can tell a grown man anything he wants, unless you are now arguing against property rights.
I finally saw the bill, and it really looks smashed together quickly. Is it possible that it is not constitutional? I’m no lawyer, but it doesn’t seem to offer “equal protection” to small restauranteurs who have single room restaurants, or to owners of “restaurants” that are for all intents and purposes cigar or hookah bars.
It would seem to me that Del. Cosgrove’s original bill from which this was fashioned considered the constitutional implications in a way the current bill hasn’t.
Kirwin:
the point is that smoking occurs in bars, that is the market, you don’t have to like it, it just is…and if you don’t like it, then don’t go into that bar, find another one who has a market for smoke free drinking…. The market dictates, not the government.
making bars, or restaurants that serve alcohol, smoke free is illogical, just as the following prohibitions would be:
1.) a government ban that prevents terds from entering toilets;
OR THIS….
2.) a law that says it’s sexual harrasement to smell a woman’s perfume when she walks by;
Freedom to smell or not smell, Freedom to dump or not dump….It’s all about don’t tread on me.
Maximus, if you drink, it doesn’t bother my liver one bit.
However, if you choose to light up your cancerous stick so I have to inhale the smoke, you’re violating my rights.
Offices are smoke-free. Airplanes are smoke free. Buses are smoke-free.
And if government wants to make restaurants smoke-free, except for walled-off smoking rooms, guess what? It doesn’t bother me one bit. I don’t smoke. My daughter doesn’t smoke.
Government makes a law that you can’t do cocaine. Guess what? I don’t care. I don’t do cocaine. Heroin is illegal, too. Guess what? I don’t care. I don’t do heroin.
You can whine all day about government, but I’m not gonna die on the hill of things that don’t affect me.
I like red-light cameras. Know why? I don’t run red lights. I don’t mind instant background checks for guns, either. I’m not a criminal.
I just never buy into the Chicken Little theories of the Libertarians that whether someone smokes in a public restaurant invalidates the Revolutionary War.
You want to smoke? Go outside. Go home. But next to me, my rights are as important as yours.
Today is a day to go down in the history books. The people of Virginia were heard louder than Big Tobacco, and great news for Virginia Bars and Restaurants, too. Bottom line is that smoking stinks and non-smokers don’t want to smell it when they’re eating out. Whether studies are considered skewed or not, 80% of the population are non-smokers, and we frankly don’t want to be exposed to it. Maryland saw a substantial increase in business when they went non-smoking. Which population would an owner rather cater to – 1 out of 5, OR 4 out of 5? Non-smokers can finally enjoy the bar setting without being forced out by smoke! The facts are in the numbers. I’m not one to deny anyone his or her right to smoke; I just don’t want it around me.