PA Senate Stubs Out Compromise Smoking Ban

June 5th, 2008, posted by RobHop

The Pennsylvania state senate has rejected, for the time being at least, a compromise bill that would have banned smoking in most workplaces and public spaces across the commonwealth.

The chamber voted 31-19 against the measure after Democratic senators complained that it does not allow Allegheny County and Scranton, which had approved local bans, to enforce stronger ordinances (see previous story). But a court struck down Allegheny County’s last year, and Scranton never enforced its own, fearing a similar fate.

The bill would have barred every county and municipality, with the exception of Philadelphia, from enacting its own smoking ban. It would let stand Philadelphia’s year-and-a-half-old ban, the only active local smoking ordinance in the state.
Source Link

Filed under:

Silliness

On June 5th, 2008 Anonymous said:

I oppose a smoking ban on property-rights grounds, but from the opposite perspective, this is just silly. The perfect really is the enemy of the good for the Democrats in the state senate.

I think the govenment doesn’t have a clue on what is good for this country, so they find try to satisfy a small group of complainers, and avoid the real issues in this state. How about dealing with real problem such as real estate taxes (absolutely outrageous in this state), other tax issues, health care, here is one, cutting govenment spending. Quit spending time on petty issues (we call them wasting our money issues)and do some real work. Do what you were hired for…solve important issue, and quit taking away our rights…

Silliness

On June 5th, 2008 Anonymous said:

What? It is difficult to understand your point if you are going to leave out every other word.

All or Nothing

On June 5th, 2008 Anonymous said:

As a Pub owner, I’m not opposed to a smoking ban. However, under the latest proposal, not all taverns would be subject to the ban. As it stands now my competitor, who is located less than 1 block away, would not be subject to the ban because the food he serves sucks and he falls into one of the exclusions.

The private club directly accross the street,or the other 5 in town, would also not be subject to the ban.

Make it fair…No one smokes or everyone smokes.

Truly, if I thought I could make more money by making my establishment non-smoking, I would have done it years ago. All the Republicans who think the market’s invisible hand would regulate these kinds of decisions are the very ones voting for the ban. It should by my decision. However if it’s not, at least the leglislation should maintain a level playing field.

If you read the ban you

On June 5th, 2008 Anonymous said:

If you read the ban you will have the option to wall off your business into a restaurant area and a drinking establishment area if they can both have separate outdoor entrances. There should be no law but at least you do have an option… (see starting at line 10)

“Drinking establishment.” Any of the following: 30 (1) An establishment which:

20070S0246B2099 – 3 – 1 (i) operates pursuant to an eating place license, 2 restaurant license or retail dispenser license under the 3 act of April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the 4 Liquor Code; 5 (ii) has total annual sales of food sold for on- 6 premises consumption of less than or equal to 20% of the 7 combined gross sales of the establishment; and 8 (iii) does not permit individuals under 18 years of 9 age. 10 (2) An enclosed area within an establishment which, on 11 the effective date of this section: 12 (i) operates pursuant to an eating place license, 13 restaurant license or retail dispenser license under the 14 Liquor Code; 15 (ii) is a physically connected or directly adjacent 16 enclosed area which is separate from the eating area, has 17 a separate air system and has a separate outside 18 entrance; 19 (iii) has total annual sales of food sold for on- 20 premises consumption of less than or equal to 20% of the 21 combined gross sales within the permitted smoking area of 22 the establishment; and 23 (iv) does not permit individuals under 18 years of 24 age.

Preemption must go!

On June 5th, 2008 Anonymous said:

Preemption means a local communiy cannot enact a law more restrictive than the state law. Pa included preemption in its outdated Clean Air policies. Big Tobacco spends a lot of money and effort to have states adopt preemption policies. It is less expensive and difficult to have to fight tobacco control laws in numerous communities than to have to fight them only in the legislature. The smoking ban was defeated in the Senate due to the clause that exempted Philadelphia from preemption. Other communities such as Allegheny County, which wanted to enact smoking controls, could not due to preemption. Scranton could not enact smoke-fee laws due to preemption. Legislators rightly fought allowing only Philadelphia to be an exception to preemption. Preemption must go, so all communities are treated equally. It’s time our “omniscient” legislators realize they do not hold a monopoly on intelligence. Let local communities decide what is good for their constituents. Preemption must go!Perhaps then, PA will finally enact a true Clean Air Law.