Smoking ban going to the governor
SB 1105 – the smoking ban – has passed the Senate 27-13 and the House 60-39.
The following members stood for liberty:
NAYS–Cuccinelli, Hanger, Hurt, Martin, McDougle, Newman, Obenshain, Reynolds, Ruff, Smith, Stosch, Wampler, Watkins–13.
NAYS–Abbitt, Athey, Byron, Cline, Cole, Fralin, Frederick, Gear, Gilbert, Griffith, Hall, Hargrove, Hogan, Hugo, Ingram, Janis, Kilgore, Lewis, Lohr, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Massie, Merricks, Nichols, Nixon, Nutter, O’Bannon, Peace, Pogge, Poindexter, Pollard, Putney, Saxman, Scott, E.T., Sherwood, Shuler, Ware, O., Ware, R.L., Wright–39.
Not a single Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Portsmouth, or Chesapeake senator or delegate voted “Nay.”
Here’s the key part of the bill:
A. Effective December 1, 2009, smoking shall be prohibited and no person shall smoke in any restaurant in the Commonwealth or in any restroom within such restaurant, except that smoking may be permitted in:
1. Any place or operation that prepares or stores food for distribution to persons of the same business operation or of a related business operation for service to the public. Examples of such places or operations include the preparation or storage of food for catering services, pushcart operations, hotdog stands, and other mobile points of service;
2. Any outdoor area of a restaurant, with or without roof covering, at such times when such outdoor area is not enclosed in whole or in part by any screened walls, roll-up doors, windows or other seasonal or temporary enclosures;
3. Any restaurants located on the premises of any manufacturer of tobacco products;
4. Any portion of a restaurant that is used exclusively for private functions, provided such functions are limited to those portions of the restaurant that meet the requirements of subdivision 5;
5. Any portion of a restaurant that is constructed in such a manner that the area where smoking may be permitted is (i) structurally separated from the portion of the restaurant in which smoking is prohibited and to which ingress and egress is through a door and (ii) separately vented to prevent the recirculation of air from such area to the area of the restaurant where smoking is prohibited. At least one public entrance to the restaurant shall be into an area of the restaurant where smoking is prohibited. For the purposes of the preceding sentence, nothing shall be construed to require the creation of an additional public entrance in cases where the only public entrance to a restaurant in existence as of December 1, 2009, is through an outdoor area described in subdivision 2; and
6. Any private club.
Perhaps it is moot, as the governor is sure to sign this bill, but much of Virginia already is “smoke free” and the free market is working.
From a Longwood University study:
According to the data from OEHS, of 134 Virginia localities, the majority of restaurants in 101 localities (75.4 percent of all those in the Commonwealth) do not permit smoking. Those localities account for nearly seven million Virginians or 90.1 percent of the total population. Of the localities where the majority of restaurants already are smoke-free, forty-three (32.1 percent of all localities; 4.3 million Virginians) attain a level of smoke-free restaurants that exceeds sixty-five percent. Therefore, over half (55.7 percent) of Virginians reside in localities where over two-thirds of the restaurants currently do not permit smoking. Only thirty-three localities (24.6 percent of all localities) fall below the fifty percent mark for smoke-free restaurants, affecting 772,112 Virginians (9.9 percent of all Commonwealth residents).
So much for the free market.
Category: Government
Loading ...
[...] HOD, GOV/AG/LG, General Assembly, Party politics by Craig Orndorff on February 19th, 2009 UPDATE: The Smoking Ban has passed both the House and the Senate. The final tally in the House: 60-39. Since two Dems and two Indies voted against the bill, that [...]
As a smoker I can live with the smoking ban in public places. I think none smokers have the right to not be subjected to second hand smoke against their will.
What I can not live with are the efforts (and these have been successful) to force smokers to quit smoking even in their private homes by increasing tobacco taxes.
Have you heard about just how ridiculous the anti tobacco lobby is getting? There is a whole lot of truth about “second hand smoke” but now they are talking about “third hand smoke”. It is not enough that smokers go outside. When smokers come back inside their clothing smells of smoke, and this too, the anti tobacco lobby says is hazardous to none smokers.
David, I’m sometimes a victim of fourth hand smoking. You know, when a non-smoker comes out of a bar and smells like an ashtray and then the young lady greets your wife/girlfriend with a hug and transfers smoke smell and then you hug and kiss your beloved and think……ew…….you smell like an ashtray.
Ok, I never really experienced that but, I’m sure somebody has. My nose probably isn’t senstive enough to really pick up on 4th hand smoke. Still, we must put an end to fourth hand smoke before it’s too late. Global warming and all that.
On a serious note:
I just said something positive recently about Iaquinto. Now, I see he’s voting against property rights. A bit disappointing. Reminds me of the whole eminent domain thing.
Ok, this isn’t a deal breaker for me but, it will count on the final exam.
Britt, you honestly compare protecting the health of non-smokers in a public restaurant with taking someone’s home by force?
Sometimes I feel like the far right wing are the crazy uncle that needs to be kept in the attic before the neighbors see him.
[...] this year to ban smoking in restaurants and bars in Virginia. His response is instructive as to why no legislator in southern Hampton Roads voted against the smoking ban. This bill is now en route to the governor’s desk for signature. “I have voted against [...]
Actually Brian, I’m comparing Eminent Domain to property rights. This IS a property rights case.
Besides, I thought YOU were the “Far Right Wing” guy. I’ve seen people on here call you that. Seen others call you “Far Left” and “Socialist” as well. All the name calling gets confusing.
I ignore namecallers.
And smoking bans in restaurants are no more a property rights case than segregation was. Are you going to argue that a restaurant owner should be able to have a whites-only restaurant too, or is it just smoking that violates his “property rights.”
JR & the BD crew,
THANK YOU for listing the names of those “who stood for liberty.” I’ve been looking for this list for a while. Great work bringing attention to this issue.
Little by little our liberties are taken away, and I say that as a complete non-smoker.
Instead of a private business being able to run their establishment as they wish, the government is going to tell them how to run it.
Instead of adults being given the choice to live their lives as they choose, the government is going to tell them how to live it.
Slowly but surely, liberty in Virginia slips away.
I’m sorry, im just reading these comments again,
Mr. Kirwin, you as a conservative are saying the smoking ban being imposed by force is a good thing?
Steve, do you want me to list all of the things “imposed by force” on restaurants? Are you advocating eliminating all of them?
“Are you going to argue that a restaurant owner should be able to have a whites-only restaurant too, or is it just smoking that violates his “property rights.”” -Brian K.
Who was it that admonished whom for comparing racism to an issue in a previous thread posting and is doing it now? Oh, that would be Brian admonishing me then for what he’s doing now.
Yes, it is a property issue.
1)No individuals are prohibited from establishments allowing smoking
2)There is no discrimination in commerce either
3) Your pretending not to know the difference between apples and oranges will continue to allow for your endless arguements until we tire of pointing out said differences.
4)What would you “point out to Steve” as to govt. dictates forced on restaurants? Taxes? Child labor laws? Reasonable Health regulations? The purpose of government is to protect the idividual from Force and Fraud. When you go to buy a steak that is infested by bacteria, the restaurant has made a representation that his food is not going to cause you a bad case of botulism/hepatitis etc. etc. If it does cause you harm, that amounts to fraudulent representation and damages for which the restaurant must pay. THAT is why there is laws and regulation. NOT tyranny of the majority and NOT “might makes right”, the govt. being the mighty.
5) Yes, you do consent to risk upon entering a smoke allowed facility. You also take risk standing at the bus stop as car/truck/semi/bus exhaust spews by you, the pedestrian, as they drive by.
6)As smoking is becoming less common (due to market forces!) and the possibility of a smokey enviornment might not be as expected, I would agree that the posting of a sign out front, as to state smoking is permitted, would be reasonable regulation. The public must be able to reasonably make informed consent.
since the govt is so concerned about our health why don’t they ban trans fats in Virginia restaurants. more people die from heart attacks than second hand smoke.
and they do have “whites only” restaurants. I think its called Cracker Barrel
By your logic, Britt, if a restaurant owner wants to sell beer to 19 year-olds, it’s a violation of the Constitution to tell him he can’t.
it is a violation of the US Constitution to tell a restaurant owner not to sell beer to 19 year olds. Regulating alcohol consumption is a right left to the States not the Federal govt.
Then all the constitutional complaints against the smoking ban are spurious.
Spurious, Brian?
Does the fact that Obama is hiring tax cheats to high profile positions make tax law arguements spurious since, it obviously doesn’t seem to be a problem?
I’m not sure I want the answer to that.
Ok, let’s try again.
Spurious, Brian?
Just because the drug war is losing badly and…….nah….hold on.
Spurious, Brian?
Just because only some speeders violating the law are caught, does that make the speed limit law spurious. The law being being spurious, really it is just one of the legalized forms of gambling where the best you hope for is to break even “except paying gas taxes” and otherwise the “House always wins” (tickets). Should we just have no laws on the road? Or is it not a law at all but, a form of taxation?
Much like “Squatters Rights” , if we can prove that smokers continue to smoke at bars and restaurants despite the ban, would that make the ban and agruements to not smoke in restaurants due to said ban, spurious?
I would echo Amit but, also put forth the question as to at what age in the US, does a person become a true adult or “competent party” capable of entering into contracts. If 18 is that age then I would agree that to be unconstitutional on those grounds. If 18 is the age where one gains an incremental responsibility/rights then it gets blurry and perhaps not. Then I would have to yield to Amit’s agruement for unconstituitonality.
Well, many Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, city councils, and even the Supreme Court in Kelo vs. New London have proven that there is a spurious relationship between property rights mentioned in the Constitution/Bill of Rights and real life. At least the Commonwealth of Virginia got something right and disagreed. THANK God for the Dillon Rule!!!!!
Rule of law? What is that? We don’t live under that! Might does make right here. We get tyranny of the majority powersharing with elected feudal chieftains.
Perhaps you are right, Brian. However, in my “La-La Land” “Pie in the Sky” vision of America, I will insist that we SHOULD be living according to the Constitution/Bill of Rights and the “Rule of Law”. We’re not but, we should be in my idealistic reasoning.
Well, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of *****Happiness*****.”
I will at some point today drink a beer. I will also borrow a cigarette. Since I’m a non-smoker, I will likely cough profusely and experience a strong niotine buzz. Perhaps I’ll ask my future bride for what used to be a “Bob McDonnell” felony…even return the favor.
After being forced to reckon with the fact that we are not protected by the Constitution and Rule of Law, I have become stressed I must find SOME way to “pursue happiness”!
Yes, spurious. It is a state law, and if Amit says the states can infringe on restaurant owners on serving beer, then the claims against a smoking ban are spurious.
If you’d like to talk about Obama’s appointees, the “drug war” for which legalization as an answer is akin to giving terrorists a tax credit for bombs, or your constitutional attack on Ronald Reagan for raising the drinking age to 21, be my guest.
And I doubt the founders thought the “pursuit of happiness” meant blowing smoke in my face.
Oh, Brian. Baloney.
As I pointed out in the post, Longwood University did a study that clearly showed the free market was well on the way to marginalizing smoking in restaurants.
The natural course of economics was well on its way to working. There were and are more than enough non-smoking alternatives for the consumer.
Instead, with no real political reason, Republicans handed Gov. Kaine a gift.
Methinks you are “representing” special interests with your comments rather than your own personal opinion.
Reason dictates that this was a non-issue.
Jim, what special interests would they be? Oxygen? I tend to favor that.
Staying free of cancer or emphysema? Guilty.
In fact, maybe you can visit some victims of those in the future and tell them the free market was well on its way to solving the problem.
Good angle on the states. However, just because powers not given to the Feds should be reserved to the states does not mean that the states may withdraw individual creator given rights under the Bill of Rights.
I was under the false impression that Amit had switched things to the Federal level. I guess the “Constitutional” question made me think he was going state rights vs. Federal exercise of power. You did take advantage of the confusion. Points for that one. I Disagree that the states can superced creator given rights. Not that we really live in a constitutional republic anymore. Everyone seems to disregard it.
While causing other problems, legalizing drugs would NOT help terrorist. Legalization would destroy the profit in the drug trade. If anything you just argued FOR legalization!
I adore Reagan. However, I don’t agree with EVERYTHING he did. I do maintain he was exceptional and was good for the country. (waiting for Democrats to jump in and change the subject to Reagan)
Lastly, pursuing freedom does not entail blowing smoke literally in your face. That would possibly be assault even in a smoke filled bar. If you were to immerse yourself in after entering a smoke allowed business, that is you consenting to the conditions. The circle continues.