©
Several delegates want to kill a bipartisan compromise that would create a statewide smoking ban in most restaurants and bars, but they know that the measure is popular with voters. So, on Monday, they tried instead to peck it to death.
The result is a pock-marked bill that would do little to protect diners and restaurant workers from the dangerous health effects of second-hand smoke.
Delegates, working in sync with tobacco company lobbyists, eliminated a requirement that would have required restaurants with smoking rooms to install separate ventilation systems. They also carved out exceptions for private functions and for bars and clubs that don't permit minors.
Despite Monday's dispiriting development, there are still opportunities this year to win passage of meaningful public health protections.
First, the contortions delegates went through to avoid voting on a pure smoking ban are proof they know the issue has broad public support. No matter how much they squirm, if they continue to throw up barriers to such a popular measure, they will face angry voters in this fall's elections.
Second, the smoking ban proposal has the backing of Gov. Tim Kaine, House Speaker Bill Howell and a bipartisan group of delegates and senators who can seek to repair damage inflicted by the bill's opponents.
Unfortunately, Attorney General Bob McDonnell has failed to join that group and instead gave cover to the smoking ban's opponents last week when he spoke on a radio show.
In fairness, McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor this year, did not deliberately insert himself into the debate over the smoking ban. He merely responded to a question.
But McDonnell knew that many of his closest political allies support the ban. He also knows that in his hometown of Virginia Beach, most restaurant owners and the City Council are enthusiastic advocates.
McDonnell based his opposition on a principle opposing government interference in private businesses - a sentiment echoed in a letter sent out by the leader of the Republican Party of Virginia:
"This is not about smoking. This is about unnecessary government intrusion into the private sector. This unconscionable encroachment will cost those affected their ability to operate a free enterprise and further alienate our Republican base."
McDonnell had fewer qualms about tinkering with the free market back in 1996 when he authored a ban on smoking in private child-care centers. Perhaps his thoughts on the issue are grayer than he let on last week.
Public health is not a partisan issue. Polls show both Democrats and Republicans favor smoke-free restaurants. Any political party or candidate who fails to grasp that reality will have some explaining to do in the next election.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
smoking ban
People need to keep in mind that there are no bars in the state of Virginia-they are all classified as restaurants. I am a tax paying entrepreneur who signed up to purchase a smoking "restaurant" just a few short years ago. My square footage doesn't allow for the construction of a smoking room.
90% of my clientel are smokers. I am a small business owner who feels that if you don't want to be in the smoke, then stay out of smoking "restaurants." I have a business to run. These are hard times and this is not the time to put us small guys into bankruptcy.
you want no smoking allowed?
Then put a sign on your door and leave it alone. Gees, it is so simple, but everyone wants to make a big deal out of nothing.
Why do they need protection?
"The result is a pock-marked bill that would do little to protect diners and restaurant workers from the dangerous health effects of second-hand smoke." Please explain to me why anyone needs protection? Is anyone forcing these people at gunpoint into restaurants that allow smoking? The simple answer is NO!!! If I get sick because of chinese food, hey, I don't eat it nor go into a chinese restaurant. Quit the nannie state blathering about public health because that is as false a statement as it can be.
more blah-blah by the VP
The editorial staff at the VP is disingenuous and completely one-sided shedding any resemblance of objectivity. Journalism has an inherent responsibility to be objective.
“…but they know that the measure is popular with voters.” Really? I have not seen a ballot initiative related to this issue. How can you make that supposition? The majority of voters are not limited to 95% of the twits that work in your news room.
How about a poll that asks the voters if they prefer “freedom and liberty or health and oppression”. Ask the voters if they desire an intrusive government in all aspects of private enterprises and residence or a government that knows the boundaries and limits of its roll in our representative republic.
Also, how do you get off saying “Delegates, working in sync with tobacco company lobbyists…”? Do you know that for fact? Or is this another one-sided supposition? Is it really too much to ask our local “fish-wrapper” to be objective and responsible in their journalistic profession?
Tyranny of the majority
In the 1950's, Polls would have shown most Virginian's supported Massive Resistance. I guess that's an improvement over the 1850's when Polls would have shown most Virginians favored slavery. But Polls notwithstanding, both were deeply wrong as matters of principle.
Our Republic was constructed with limits to the power of government specifically to protect us against the tyranny of the majority. If we were only concerned with the momentary will of the majority, we wouldn't need a Constitution at all. The majority doesn't need limits on government to protect its rights.
But the Framers knew the history of the unfettered tyranny of the majority and wisely wanted no part of it. However popular the notion of banning smoking in private businesses might be, it does not outweigh the loss of the private property rights, which if surrendered on this popular cause, we would have reason to mourn in other contexts.
Polls show????
The only polls that claim a "majority" favor smoking bans are those conducted by and for the proponents of such bans and nanny-state loving editorial boards such as the VP.
An honestly worded survey/poll would show that the vast majority of folks support allowing business owners to make such a decision without government interference.
Comment from a pipe smoker
"Polls show both Democrats and Republicans favor smoke-free restaurants. Any political party or candidate who fails to grasp that reality will have some explaining to do in the next election."
No explanation needed. Tobacco companies make large campaign contributions to politicians who oppose smoking bans.
Charter Wells, Jr.
Spotsylvania, VA
compromise?
A compromise that is cost-prohibitive isn't much of a compromise.