RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Business » Local
Article rated a 0
by 0
users |
Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:12 PM CST
Smoking exemptions broadens under GOP plan
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
Smoking exemptions broadens under GOP plan
By WHITNEY WOODWARD
Courier Des Moines Bureau
Courier Des Moines Bureau
DES MOINES -- Republicans lawmakers said Tuesday they will offer exemptions for bars and most family farms to a proposed statewide smoking ban, even though House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy predicted the changes would be dead on arrival.
The GOP amendments would exempt bars and family farm corporations from having to go smoke-free, said House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City.
The public smoking bill, as written, prohibits smoking in almost all public places and businesses except casinos and private veterans' hall events.
House Democrats said a vote on the smoking ban could come as early as Thursday.
"The reason why the Democrats are exempting the casinos is because they know that if you don't exempt the casinos, the state is going to lose money," Rants said. "They don't want to see our revenue go down."
Rants predicted smokers would flock to casinos if the current smoking ban were enacted, destroying local taverns' sales in the process. The proposed exemption would protect local bar-owners' business, Rants said.
"I think it's terribly hypocritical, terribly hypocritical for these legislators to be doing everything it takes to protect the state's revenue, but say to (heck) with the revenue of the bar owner," Rants said.
The non-partisan Legislative Services Agency estimates $268 million in gambling revenue will be pumped into the state's coffers this year. That figure represents roughly 4 percent of the state's overall budget.
Republicans also will try to scale back the bill's current prohibition on smoking within 50-feet of a public building. In many cases, that perimeter extends beyond the property lines of the would-be smoke-free facility, Rants said.
While not all House GOP members support the exemptions, which were discussed during a closed-door meeting Tuesday, Rants said he thinks some Democrats will be supportive of the changes.
But House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, said the Republican amendments will almost certainly never see the light of day.
Democrats, so far, have not had trouble rounding up support for the ban, McCarthy said. As a result, the Republican exemptions --- which would theoretically make the bill more palatable to lawmakers --- would be moot.
"I don't think that we would need it to get to 51 votes," McCarthy said, referring to the minimum number of "yes" votes needed to approve a bill in the 100-member chamber.
Democrats estimate that 99 percent of Iowa’s workforce would be protected from carcinogenic second-hand smoke under the current proposal. Tacking on additional exemptions to the statewide ban would defeat the purpose of the bill, McCarthy said.
"That would put thousands of Iowa workers at risk," McCarthy said.
Contact Whitney Woodward at (515) 243-0138 or whitney.woodward@gmail.com.
The GOP amendments would exempt bars and family farm corporations from having to go smoke-free, said House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City.
The public smoking bill, as written, prohibits smoking in almost all public places and businesses except casinos and private veterans' hall events.
House Democrats said a vote on the smoking ban could come as early as Thursday.
"The reason why the Democrats are exempting the casinos is because they know that if you don't exempt the casinos, the state is going to lose money," Rants said. "They don't want to see our revenue go down."
Rants predicted smokers would flock to casinos if the current smoking ban were enacted, destroying local taverns' sales in the process. The proposed exemption would protect local bar-owners' business, Rants said.
"I think it's terribly hypocritical, terribly hypocritical for these legislators to be doing everything it takes to protect the state's revenue, but say to (heck) with the revenue of the bar owner," Rants said.
The non-partisan Legislative Services Agency estimates $268 million in gambling revenue will be pumped into the state's coffers this year. That figure represents roughly 4 percent of the state's overall budget.
Republicans also will try to scale back the bill's current prohibition on smoking within 50-feet of a public building. In many cases, that perimeter extends beyond the property lines of the would-be smoke-free facility, Rants said.
While not all House GOP members support the exemptions, which were discussed during a closed-door meeting Tuesday, Rants said he thinks some Democrats will be supportive of the changes.
But House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, said the Republican amendments will almost certainly never see the light of day.
Democrats, so far, have not had trouble rounding up support for the ban, McCarthy said. As a result, the Republican exemptions --- which would theoretically make the bill more palatable to lawmakers --- would be moot.
"I don't think that we would need it to get to 51 votes," McCarthy said, referring to the minimum number of "yes" votes needed to approve a bill in the 100-member chamber.
Democrats estimate that 99 percent of Iowa’s workforce would be protected from carcinogenic second-hand smoke under the current proposal. Tacking on additional exemptions to the statewide ban would defeat the purpose of the bill, McCarthy said.
"That would put thousands of Iowa workers at risk," McCarthy said.
Contact Whitney Woodward at (515) 243-0138 or whitney.woodward@gmail.com.
 |
More Stories from Business » Local
(return of) joe wrote on Feb 13, 2008 12:37 PM:
" Heck, the republican better find some exemptions! After all, their biggest contributors are the tobacco lobbies. Gotta make sure that they preserve the money train! "
g m s wrote on Feb 13, 2008 1:52 PM:
" (ro)j & others..
This is another example of the destruction of a capitalist market, as well as freedom in general.
I am not a smoker, and have no desire to be a smoker.. I love it when a restaurant or a bar is smoke free.. but I love the ability for that owner to CHOOSE even more.
Let the people decide.... please. "
This is another example of the destruction of a capitalist market, as well as freedom in general.
I am not a smoker, and have no desire to be a smoker.. I love it when a restaurant or a bar is smoke free.. but I love the ability for that owner to CHOOSE even more.
Let the people decide.... please. "
Anthony wrote on Feb 13, 2008 3:54 PM:
" prohibits smoking from all PUBLIC places. Aren't individually owned bars and restaurants, PRIVATE establishments? This is one decision that should be left to the owners, not forced upon them by the government.
Is PROGRESS the opposite of CONGRESS? "
Is PROGRESS the opposite of CONGRESS? "
JB wrote on Feb 13, 2008 4:18 PM:
" The nanny-state fascists are at it again. Apparently property rights mean nothing anymore. "
gendreaur wrote on Feb 13, 2008 4:52 PM:
" Let me start by saying that I am not a smoker and enjoy smoke free facilities, but the govt. has no right to tell me that I can not smoke on my own property. If I own a buisness this is waht they are doing. What next telling me that just because I need to loose a few pounds they are going to limit what I eat. The decision to not "protect" the casino employees just shows that the main concern is money. "
jcbr wrote on Feb 13, 2008 6:09 PM:
" im a democrat but i can assure u ill vote repub in next elections / anybody votes a ban ill vote against / guess us smokers have to buy a bar and charge 1 dollar membership to make it a privett place / you non-xmokers will still die from something else u breeze / think we should put a 20 dollar lic fee on bikes and 20 cent deposit on health drinks / all u do-gooders enjoy the increase in taxes a ban will cause and the bars that will lose bussness when people stay home / this isnt the home of the free anymore / what next we have to wear certain color clothes when it gets dark at night / if smokin is so bad what about booze it can eat your kiver out too / all us smokers should start chewin and spit on all the do-gooders / enjoy your better than tho non smoker frame of mind but remember tables turn then its your turn over the barrel buddy / tnks jcbr "
history101 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:16 AM:
" I personally smoke and think the public aspect is a great idea. Dont agree with the idea that you may not be able to smoke outside your own house however.
Just curious for the smokers pretending to be non smokers on here crying, have you ever been to a state or city that is smoke free? If not feel free to zip up to the Minnesota and see what they have to say about it. Initally just like you, a large number of Minnesotians were upset, however go up there now and ask them. As I was you will be shocked to find out how much of a non issue it has become to most people.
Talk to bar and restaurant owners and they will tell you that NO it has not hurt their bottom line. Some of you act like smokers are going to all of the sudden become shut ins, and not spend any money because they cant smoke every ten minutes. Simply has not been the case in Minnesota. "
Just curious for the smokers pretending to be non smokers on here crying, have you ever been to a state or city that is smoke free? If not feel free to zip up to the Minnesota and see what they have to say about it. Initally just like you, a large number of Minnesotians were upset, however go up there now and ask them. As I was you will be shocked to find out how much of a non issue it has become to most people.
Talk to bar and restaurant owners and they will tell you that NO it has not hurt their bottom line. Some of you act like smokers are going to all of the sudden become shut ins, and not spend any money because they cant smoke every ten minutes. Simply has not been the case in Minnesota. "
4bikers wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:49 AM:
" jcbr,
Put a $20 lic. fee on bikes?
Are you aware bikes are not allowed to be ridden inside bars/restaurants and for the most part, they are not allowed to be operated within 10 feet of most public buildings (no cycling on sidewalks). Although you rarely hear of someone dying from second hand bicycling, comparing the two makes perfect sense. Thanks for your input!
I personally like the idea of allowing city governments to decide wheter to allow smoking or not, this would level the local economic playing field. "
Put a $20 lic. fee on bikes?
Are you aware bikes are not allowed to be ridden inside bars/restaurants and for the most part, they are not allowed to be operated within 10 feet of most public buildings (no cycling on sidewalks). Although you rarely hear of someone dying from second hand bicycling, comparing the two makes perfect sense. Thanks for your input!
I personally like the idea of allowing city governments to decide wheter to allow smoking or not, this would level the local economic playing field. "
wcf reader wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:55 PM:
" JB, what makes you think the govt. doesn't control private property? try building whatever you want on your property and see what happnes. this isn't a loss of any freedoms that the state didn't take away a long time ago. its called police powers...10 amendment, nothing new. "
andy1 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:30 PM:
" If this is about protecting the health of Iowans, why exempt only casinos and vet halls? I don't gamble or smoke, but the concept of selectively taking away liberties concerns me. The same case they make for exempting casinos can be used for restaurants near the border. It's just a terrible argument. The only you could convince me to support this is to be consistent. "
Pavey55 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:50 PM:
"
I have yet to see the list published with all of the second hand smoke death list. That is beside the point, the media is the guilty one only focusing on the hot topics that will get people to read or pay attention to them. There has been very little if any coverage what this non smoking thing is doing to our lives. With each inch taken, when it has the word safety or health tacked on it it has to be the only thing to do. We were suppose to be a land of freedom of choice, now it only freedom of choice if we agree with you. I regret the fact that I served in the Army fighting for our freedoms. I find I have fought for freedom that restricts everything we do in our lives. Now it is entering our homes.
I know this is slanted but basic priciples are at stake here.
George "
I have yet to see the list published with all of the second hand smoke death list. That is beside the point, the media is the guilty one only focusing on the hot topics that will get people to read or pay attention to them. There has been very little if any coverage what this non smoking thing is doing to our lives. With each inch taken, when it has the word safety or health tacked on it it has to be the only thing to do. We were suppose to be a land of freedom of choice, now it only freedom of choice if we agree with you. I regret the fact that I served in the Army fighting for our freedoms. I find I have fought for freedom that restricts everything we do in our lives. Now it is entering our homes.
I know this is slanted but basic priciples are at stake here.
George "
Get Real wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:43 PM:
" I agree with no smoking in public places but would first like to see a ban on smoking while pregnant or within so many feet of children. While eating in Holland the other night I was so disgusted watching and smelling daddys ciggie as he smoked away at the table with his 2 children, not one not two but three cancer sticks, the youngest was flapping his hand through the smoke and rubbing his eyes. Poor kid and there set the mother oblivious to it all. Sickening and to think this parent is basically leading his kid to an early death because he's to lazy and selfish to take it outside. Better yet why don't you quit. We personally couldn't stand it either and were 2 tables away but it reeked like no other, my clothes etc smelled awful. Very Rude indeed, Holland go smoke free (except maybe the bar part) it will help the business. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
gmaro wrote on Feb 13, 2008 12:35 PM: