The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
The Virginia Senate revitalized a tough smoking ban bill Monday by rejecting several House of Delegates amendments that proponents felt would weaken the legislation.
Stripped out of the bill were House modifications to permit smoking in any establishment during hours that they did not admit minors or when the place is rented for a private function. Also removed was an amendment that required a separate smoking space in a restaurant to be divided by only a door, not a room with an independent ventilation system.
The Senate action came after several legislators met last week with Gov. Timothy M. Kaine in an effort to restore a compromise bill that would ban smoking in many bars and restaurants across the state.
The Senate and House versions of smoking ban legislation are expected to end up in a conference committee where the differences between the two versions can be resolved, said Sen. Ralph Northam, D-Norfolk.
"Everybody is still trying to come to one accord on this bill," said Del. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, who is the sponsor of the House version, HB1703. "We're trying to get a bill that's acceptable to all parties."
A proposed compromise would impose the smoking ban in many bars and restaurants. Private clubs and facilities with separate smoking areas equipped with independent ventilation systems would be exempt from the prohibition. Also excluded would be facilities that allow smoking in outdoor patios with retractable window flaps.
"The agreement that we've come up with is what 75 percent of Virginians have all asked us to do," said Northam, who is the sponsor of the Senate bill, SB1105.
The House amendments that were removed from his bill would "defeat the whole purpose" of the legislation, he said.
Del. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk; Cosgrove; and Northam were among the legislators who met Friday with Kaine to talk about a smoking ban compromise.
Efforts to get a smoking ban through the General Assembly have failed in recent years. Likewise, legislation to impose a ban in bars and restaurants seemed destined for defeat this year until Kaine, House Speaker William Howell, R-Fredericksburg, and other legislators crafted bi partisan compromise bills.
If passed by the legislature, the compromise would take effect Dec. 1, Northam said. The compromise would also allow employees at establishments that permit people to smoke to request assignment to a non smoking section without any professional penalty, he said.
"We're continuing to have discussions," Kaine said Monday when asked about the smoking ban. "We have a strong agreement that something needs to be done about smoking in restaurants," he said but declined to offer specifics.
Pilot writer Dave Forster contributed to this report.
Julian Walker, (804) 697-1564, julian.walker@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
twomiler2
Well good for you on your volunteer work. I stand corrected. Most people that I know don't hang out with people who are diametrically opposed to each other. However, as usual we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I believe that as long as smoking tobacco remains a legal activity and the commonwealth, cities, and counties benefit from the taxes collected from this activity, then an owner of a restaurant, club, or whatever should have the right to accomodate smokers as they see fit if he/she chooses to or not to do so. If smoking and using tobacco is so dangerous to the public health at large, then the commonwealth should ban its use and possession just as they would marijuana. The commonwealth wants to have it both ways. That is what is ironic.
You assume a lot Keith
I do spend time with people who hold views diametrically opposed to mine. I do spend time with heroin & other drug addicts, under bridges or elsewhere. I do quite a bit of volunteer work. I don't discriminate in my interactions with anyone. I'm no better or worse than anybody else, so I have no right to act as though I am. Do I wish people who practice things which I know to be harmful to them & others would stop? Of course I do. Yet that doesn't mean I cut them off completely. Smokers harm people outside of themselves. 3rd hand smoke has been proved to be toxic to drycleaners & launderers who have to deal with the clothing & linen of smokers. Barbers & stylists are also exposed to these toxins. Why should smokers have the right to endanger people just because they have no self control. It's an addiction, which unfortunately is legal. It's the only addiction, in & of itself, that endangers everyone who has even superficial contact with the addict. BTW, my lifetime best friend, is a smoker.
twomiler2
I can't disagree with you until you have posted something I disagree with. Once you have posted your comment, then that is usually the case, but I can't disagree with something I haven't read yet. We are not talking about discrimination against a race of people. Whether you realize it or not, you discriminate everyday. You don't hang out with people who have opposite interests or engage in activities that you find offensive. You wouldn't hang out with heroin addicts or spend the night under an underpass with them as you claim to be a former NARC. Same goes for restaurants that offer their patrons the option to smoke. You have the option to go elsewhere where it is smoke free. It is ridiculus to punish restaurant owner who wishes to accomodate a group of people who participate in a legal activity that you or others find offensive. Don't patronize restaurants or clubs that allow smoking. Take your business elsewhere.
I'm not speaking past tense
The loopholes in the compromise leave doors open to all types of discrimnation. This is the reason some entities, including eateries, have become private clubs, over the years. It enables them to legally discriminate as they please. I am in the 21st century. That's why I'm troubled that so many seem to think everything about racism & other forms of discrimination are passe. They are just a lot more covert. 1's rights end when they intrude opon the rights of others. 2nd & 3rd hand cigarette smoke has been proved, in multiple studies, to endanger those who are exposed to it's toxins. Just as our laws on women's rights & rights of minorities evolved, due to public outcry, laws on smoking can evolve, as the public outcry increases. I understand you're predisposed to disagree with me. That's okay. Have a good 1.
twomiler2
"Yet eatery owners were able to legally keep these persons out. Under the guise of being private clubs, some places still manage to keep these persons & other groups out."
You are using the past tense about these eateries. Besides this isn't about race, creed, or orientation. It is about smoking or non-smoking. A business owner should be able to cater to his patrons if they wish to participate in a legal activity (smokers in this case) without going bankrupt to do so. You and everyone else has the right NOT to patronize a restaurant that offers smoking and go to one that is smoke free. I don't smoke, so I go to restaurants that are smoke free. That's the free market and that is as it should be. Discriminating against smokers or non smokers is legal, where as denying a person service because of race, creed, or orientation is not. Clubs can be and have been busted for such a thing. That is the real world. You need to get out of the 1960's twomiler and join us in 2009.
Oh I do, indeed, understand
what the good Dr. has written. I don't live in the past. It's not illegal for private clubs to discriminate as they see fit. So, owners preferring to appease 1 group, smokers, over a larger group, nonsmokers, because it's his "right", can find "legal" ways to keep out other groups because it's his "right". Jews & sailors can be & are, of all racial groups. Yet eatery owners were able to legally keep these persons out. Under the guise of being private clubs, some places still manage to keep these persons & other groups out. This is the real world Keith, whether you & Dr. Tabor are aware of it or not. Look at what can happen when a public school allows a christian student group to use their facility for meetings. Any & all religions could legally request the same right, including satanic groups. Once a door is open, it's open. .
twomiler2
You have not understood one thing Doc Tabor has written. To discriminate patrons because of race, creed, sex, or orientation is illegal. To allow or NOT to allow smoking IS still legal. If an owner posts a sign NO SMOKING in his restaurant, he is discriminating against smoking because it is legal for him to do so, where the former is not. There is no more white and colored. Henceforth, to wit, towmiler, you are still living in the past sir. Perhaps you are living in abject fear? I am suprised as you have a minor in psychology. You still like to pick and choose which rights one should exercise. It's either all or nothing twomiler. Have a good one.
Dr. Tabor,
I'm old enough to remember signs on the doors of Tidewater eateries with the words,"No dogs, sailors, Jews, or N.....s, allowed". That was the owners practicing their "right" to operate their business as they saw fit. You seem to feel that owners should still have that "right". To what extent do you feel that "right" is valid? Allowing some to have certain "rights", can lead to a slippery slope. If you doubt this, just look at some of the attitudes of our fellow posters. Have a good 1.
Fisher, important differences
First, the requirement for a totally separate ventilation system was, by intent, so expensive as to have the effect of an outright ban, just a sneaky way of accomplishing it.
But there is also a difference between allowing smoking and food preparation regulation. It is a proper function of government to prevent fraud in the marketplace. A restaurant presents its food as being safe to eat, but there really is no way for the customer to determine that is true. Regulation allows us to know the food has been prepared safely and protects us from unseen fraud and danger.
There is nothing hidden when a restaurant allows smoking, you either choose to eat there knowing smoking is allowed, or you don't. There is no hidden fraud there to regulate.
Not a good argument
Actually I can serve undercooked food. All I have to do is place a warning in my menu that states that undercooked food (rare steak, eggs, poultry, shellfish) may lead to a food borne illness. It is up to the customer to make that choice for themselves. In fact there are several bacteria that illness that cannot even be cooked out of an oyster. Are they the next thing to go?
The fact is Applebees, Ruby Tuesdays, Lonestar etc will probably not be affected by this "ban". It is the smaller neighborhood places that will suffer. It's the places that have very small clientele with limited resources that will eventually go out of business.
And for those that suggest that places become "private clubs" it's not an easy task. Only 12 licenses are approved per year and they must be hosted by a national club. Oh, did I mention that there can be no members that aren't natural? Licensee Bulletin vol 56 part 4.