|
|
||
Senate passes bill banning smoking Date published: 2/6/2008
RICHMOND --The state Senate yesterday passed a ban on smoking in public buildings, despite concern from some lawmakers that the bill would allow localities to take the ban much further.Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple's bill bars smoking not just in restaurants--which is what some other bills focus on--but in all public buildings. It has exceptions for private clubs, tobacco shops and hotels. The Senate passed the bill on a 23-15 vote, with one abstention. It also passed three other bills that ban smoking in restaurants--one that applies statewide, one that allows localities to pass their own ordinances, and one that applies just to Chesapeake. The bill from Whipple, D-Arlington, got the most debate, however, because of concerns about a provision allowing localities to pass broader restrictions on smoking. Sen. Steve Newman, R-Lynchburg, said localities could conceivably pass ordinances to prohibit smoking in private homes or cars. Sen. Steve Martin, R-Chesterfield, said the provision subverts the traditional relationship between the state and local governments, which is that the state tells localities how far they can go in crafting ordinances. Instead, he said, this bill gives localities authority to go as far as they like. "It says, yeah, this is what we're going to do statewide, but localities, do whatever you want," Martin said to fellow senators. "This bill does far more than has been represented and if you cast your vote for it you need to understand that." Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, voted for the bill; Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Westmoreland, voted against it. The smoking bans are expected to have a much harder time of it in the House of Delegates, where they've died in the past, killed by arguments that it isn't the government's job to tell private businesses how to operate. The House has a number of its own bills to ban smoking, which have been sent to the gaming and ABC subcommittee of the House General Laws Committee. Those bills are on the docket to be heard tomorrow. Chelyen Davis: 804/782-9362
I don't want to smell your ash, and if you don't want to smell mine, keep yours to yourself and away from me, otherwise you might just get a noseful of my ash. That's how I roll.
I'll tell you how. It's different in that a non-smoker isn't doing anything to harm anyone else, including the smokers by not smoking. As for the non-smoking sections. Give me a break. Are you that simple? Do you honestly think the fact that you are sitting in another section of a restaurant you are somehow not sharing the same air that the smokers are polluting? Good grief. I didn't think that was a concept you had to graduate college in order to master.
until they ban smoking completely. Then they will ban drinking alcohol. Then they will ban fast food. Then it is only a matter of time until they ban things that some of you "pro-ban" people enjoy. When it comes to that, let's see you come on here against banning things...if speaking your mind isn't banned as well.
I agree that non smokers should not have to be exposed to smoke. Which they have accomplished in several different way with non smoking sections and removing it from offices and public buildings. A non smoker has the option to not sit in a smoking section. They have been given a choice. However they want to take that choice away from a smoker. Skibum states a right is no longer a right when it infringes on someone elses rights. How is that different then the rights of a smoker?
Very good points
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
