Posted on 06/11/2004 9:14:25 AM PDT by SheLion
PROVIDENCE -- A bill to ban smoking in restaurants, bars and virtually all public places, with a few notable exceptions, won unanimous approval in the House of Representatives Thursday.
But unanimity was not achieved until several provisions were plucked out so opponents -- mostly Republicans -- could register specific objections while supporting the bill as a whole.
While the bill states that "Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places within the state of Rhode Island"after March 1, 2005, it allows some exceptions.
Perhaps the most controversial exemption is the state’s two video lottery terminal (VLT) parlors at Lincoln Park and Newport Grand.
The House originally wanted to eliminate the exemption after Oct. 1, 2006, but Senate negotiators insisted that the exemption be permanent for fear the state would lose money if smokers went elsewhere to play video slots.
Exemptions for small clubs (with Class D liquor licenses, defined membership rolls and fewer than 10 employees) and neighborhood bars (Class C liquor licenses, no food, fewer than 10 employees) were also made, but those exemptions will expire on Oct. 1, 2006.
Nearly 45 minutes of debate and two attempts to make floor amendments on the bill were needed to ensure that the fly-fishing club to which North Smithfield Rep. Robert Lowe belongs would remain exempt from the smoking ban.
Legislators finally solved the problem by changing the requirement that a club with a Class D liquor license would be exempt only if it is a "non-profit charitable corporation" to a "non-profit or charitable corporation." Lowe’s club is non-profit but not a charitable organization.
Cities and towns are forbidden -- "pre-empted" in the argot of the lawmakers -- from passing stronger anti-smoking measures until Oct. 1, 2006.
A number of communities have what are called "cancer clauses" in their labor contracts with firefighters and, less frequently, police officers, that say anytime one of the workers is diagnosed with cancer, it is presumed to be a work-related injury entitling the worker to disability. Because of that, some of the municipalities negotiated a provision in contracts that prohibits smoking by those employees even when they are off-duty.
The smoking bill passed by the House Thursday would forbid employers from imposing such a requirement on off-duty employees.
Raising the question of overriding those "cancer clause" contract provisions, Rep. William Enos asked, "Are we going to repair this or pass it as it is?"
Fox answered, "Pass it as it is."
Noting that one object of banning smoking is to help prevent cancer caused by second-hand smoke, Republican Rep. Nicholas Gorham said, "The problem with this bill is that it is suffering from a cancer itself; the cancer of special interests."
Majority Leader Gordon Fox, who sponsored the House version of the bill, called it "a good, progressive piece of legislation." He acknowledged that it was the product of compromise and that people would oppose some of its provisions, but he said it protects "99 percent of the people of Rhode Island" from second-hand smoke at work or indoor public places.
The bill voted on Thursday was the product of long negotiations among the leaders in the House and Senate and the sponsors of the slightly different bills that arose in each chamber so it is not likely to change as continues down the often-winding path of legislative procedure. A Senate version of the smoking ban, sent over to the House several weeks ago, will now be amended to conform with what was passed Thursday and both versions will go back to the Senate. If, as expected, the Senate in turn approves both, they will then go to Gov. Donald L. Carcieri for his signature or veto.
While Carcieri has been generally supportive of smoking bans in past public statements, he could not be reached for comment Thursday on the specific legislation passed by the House.
Well, I'm not going to get into an argument with you here, but drugs kill a lot of people. Especially young people.
Have to keep in mind here: cigarettes are still legal. Drugs are not and probably never will be.
"Are firemen prohibited from breathing all smoke? Are they forbidden to enter burning buildings? How can they prove what smoke that entered the lungs "caused" the work related illness?"
That's exactly the point. Firemen fought for the right to claim under their worker's disability plans to be covered for lung diseases that might have been caused by smoke inhalation on the job. In previous cases where they tried for this, it was often pointed out that these guys were also smokers and thus their lung diseases might have been caused by that. I would guess that some state or municipality lost on a case like this, and thus implemented these no-smoking rules for their firemen so that they wouldn't be on the hook for disability payments to smokers with lung diseases caused by smoking. The article above aluded to this.
"Have to keep in mind here: cigarettes are still legal. Drugs are not and probably never will be."
I've got to agree with you there, with the profits that are generated from sales it will probably be a long time before they become legal. One can only hope, or at least certain elements of society, that cigarettes will go the same way.
And I too do not particularly want to get into an argument either but yes drugs do kill some people, automobiles kill some people also. But to take a look at the comparisons; you might start with the CDC (Center for Disease Control) to see how cigarettes, and alcohol for that matter, stack up against drugs. There are even stats on some of the government web sites that validate my claim if you drill down deep enough.
Nice post,Pondman88 . I live in Mass and feel exactly the way that you do.
I live in Newton,Mass----I smoke----I'm consevative.
Don't ask!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oops---conservative!!!!!
Well, I'm not on drugs, and I stopped drinking. I'm not doing to bad by smoking. I started when I was 16. I had my complete yearly physical two weeks ago. Lungs are clear as a bell!
While I agree with the sentiment of BT pulling their products out of the states that have banned smoking......they can not do it because of the MSA. and because of the MSA no state is going to ban the sale and use of tobacco products because that would be biting their noses to spite their faces. MSA payments are tied completely and totally to the sale of cigarettes.
That is the reason the states are fighting alternate sources for cigarettes......the less the big 5 sell in a state, the less money the state gets......
Greed - pure and simple.
I totally agree.....they kept their mouths shut here in VA regarding a huge cigarette tax increase on smokers.......because they were getting a HUGE tax exemption from the state. Utterly disgusting.
"Well, I'm not on drugs, and I stopped drinking"
And neither am I and I also stopped drinking about 17 years ago.
"I'm not doing to bad by smoking"
Well that's still a tough one for me but I keep trying to work on it. And I also have good ex-rays on my lungs but my cholesterol is too high, I have now become mildly diabetic, and I just don't have a lot of energy, all things the medical papers say is aggravated by smoking.
I am a 30+ year smoker and I am real protective about my smokes. But at the same time I also am honest with myself and there is just no way that I can construe an argument that says smoking is good for me. But the facts are clear, between 400k and 500k die each year from smoking related diseases. Something like 150k alcoholics die each year. The numbers for all drug use combined does not equal those facts.
So why is it, do you suppose that the government prohibits a line of products that, although not good for one, clearly is not as harmful as the two main products, cigarettes and alcohol that are legal?
Oh! I'm almost sure the stink from Mass and Maine will soon rub off on that state!
So! The best thing smokers can do to stick it to the states, is roll their own, buy from Reservations or off of the Net. This way, the state will pull NO revenue from smokers. Sounds like a plan to ME!
Smoking, like most things in our lives is not good for us. We that are fighting for smoker's rights would never claim that smoking is a healthy habit. But it's legal, and a habit we truly enjoy. People who are obese die much sooner then smokers.
Just how old ARE these 400K and 500K that die from smoking related diseases each year? I'd really love to see the proof. I know I have been following the obituary in Maine for quite some time now.........every one is over 70 and most are in their mid 80's and even 90's. So, surely, even if they never smoked in their life, they were subjected to second hand smoke. So, how do you suppose they are living this long?
So why is it, do you suppose that the government prohibits a line of products that, although not good for one, clearly is not as harmful as the two main products, cigarettes and alcohol that are legal?
Gosh, I don't know. Maybe because I was never into drugs. I like living on "this" side of the law. Cigarettes and Alcohol are still legal.
The facts are not clear....in fact they are VERY far from clear. Be careful of tossing around those numbers, which originally come from the CDC and get bastardized by every anti-smoker organization on the planet.
Those numbers are used as the "premature" deaths that are "smoking related" - even though the CDC's own numbers show that most of them are over the age of 70.
Is smoking good for us? I don't know anyone that claims it is. But guess what, there are lots of other habits, pass-times and things lots of folks do that aren't either.
And I won't even get into the bunk about "smoking related diseases"......as far as I am concerned most of the stuff is not believable. I will not deny that there are some diseases that can be related to smoking, but they have totally gone over the edge when they claim that even zits are smoking related, and learning disabilities in children of smoking parents.
I had zits long before I ever started smoking and my brother had them worse than I did and he never smoked. My daughter graduated kindergarten on Tuesday....she tested at 95% on a 4th grade reading level. so much for the learning disabilities in child of smokers.
But at least buy from a company that has not signed on to the MSA if buying from a reservation or the net, unless it is overseas.
"but they have totally gone over the edge when they claim that even zits are smoking related, and learning disabilities in children of smoking parents."
Well yeah all that junk along with the second hand smoke stuff is just that junk. It still doesn't change the core facts, smoking kills people.
"Gosh, I don't know. Maybe because I was never into drugs. I like living on "this" side of the law"
Perhaps then you should take a look at what goes on, on the other side of the law sometime. You might find it quite surprising.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
