I'm hearing some disturbing news with regard to Governor Kaine and smoke-free restaurants - an issue on which he's been a champion the past few years. The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Smoke Free Virginia Now, and 71% of all Virginians all understand that smoking should not be permitted in bars and restaurants. They also understand the reasons for this: that second-hand smoke is a serious health threat; that bar and restaurant workers need to be protected from this threat; and that voluntary measures just won't cut it.
Here is a list of current smoking bans in the United States, both states and cities. As you can see, Virginia is one of a dwindling number of states where there are no restrictions on smoking. In April 2007, the Virginia General Assembly rejected Gov. Kaine's proposal "for a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants." Very unfortunate.
In January 2008, Gov. Kaine tried again, pointing out (correctly) that the "scientific evidence on the health risks associated with exposure to secondhand smoke is clear and convincing." That effort was killed by the Republican-controlled House of Delegates on February 14, 2008.
Now, as 2008 winds down and we move closer to the last General Assembly session of Tim Kaine's governorship, this issue is back. Unfortunately, this time around, I'm hearing that Kaine is going to push for a half-measure that's worse than doing nothing at all: no smoking in restaurants, but only before 10 pm. After that, you can light 'em up! What I'm hearing is that Health and Human Services Secretary Marilyn Tavenner is currently pushing for this utterly ridiculous approach, despite vehement opposition from public health advocates.
more after the "flip"
Why is Gov. Kaine, who's been excellent this issue, going this route? Sadly, what I'm hearing is that Kaine has decided that getting something is better than nothing on this issue. One source puts it this way: "This is as weak and mealy mouthed as you can get, but Tim Kaine wants to be able to say he accomplished something on this, because he certainly hasn't yet." The problem is that if this completely inadequate legislation goes through, it will most likely mean no REAL action on a comprehensive smoking ban in Virginia for many, many years. Essentially, the politicians will be able to pat themselves on the back and say, "hey, we accomplished something!" Except that they really won't have; I mean, what's the point if everyone can start smoking again after 10 pm? Stupid.
Also stupid is the fact that this will potentially give the Dave Albo's of the world political cover on this issue, while taking away an issue that Democratic House of Delegates candidates could use in 2009. Kinda like when Tim Kaine signed the "transportation monstrosity" in the spring of 2008 - complete with abusive driver fees and unconstitutional regional authorities that balkanized Virginia - instead of vetoing it or heavily amending it and letting the voters decide that November. Bad policy AND bad politics, what a combination (we saw how well THAT one worked out)!
Anyway, the bottom line is that Gov. Kaine should stick to his guns on this. Frankly, either smoking in restaurants and bars is a public health hazard or it isn't. If it is, it should be banned. I mean, would we allow asbestos in SOME schools but not others? Would we allow people to carry asbestos into schools after 10 pm, as long as they carried it out again in the morning? Obviously, that's absurd, but it just illustrates how ridiculous this "after 10 pm smoking ban" would be. Do. Not. Do. It.
The end zone is in sight on this one. Let's not pull a DeSean Jackson and flip the ball away on the 1.
I do wonder why Democratic politicians constantly find these phantoms and spectres to fight and surrender to, especially on issues where the majority of the population is with them. Very odd.
But I think it is a better solution to the problem than simply an outright ban of some content, or just allowing the same things on all the time on broadcast TV.
In the case of the smoking ban, I'd rather have it banned all the time, but I think that banning it some of the time is better than none.
While I'd rather have the full ban, I don't agree that it would accomplish nothing. While it won't be as good as not having smoking, having less smoking is still good.
Honestly, I can understand having a hard line, "we won't do anything if we can't get rid of smoking in restaurants all the time everywhere" position. But I think that stopping even some of the exposure of employees and patrons to secondhand smoke is a good thing.
Let's not have the excellent be the enemy of the good.