Mass: Smoking ban hits a snag

MetroWest ^ | February 18, 2004 | Michael Kunzelman

[SheLion]

BOSTON -- The push for a statewide smoking ban hit a snag in the state Legislature yesterday when a senator successfully blocked the formation of a committee charged with drafting a compromise version of the legislation.

Late last year, the Senate and House of Representatives both passed slightly different versions of a statewide ban on smoking in the workplace.

Last week, House leaders appointed several state representatives who will meet behind closed doors with their Senate counterparts to hash out the differences between the two bills.

The Senate was poised to name three senators to serve on that "conference committee" yesterday, until state Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, objected to the move. Because the motion was made in an informal session, instead of a formal session, a single senator's objection was enough to block the move.

Tarr, who had voted in favor of the ban last year, did not return a telephone call seeking comment yesterday.

However, state Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge, attributed the "parliamentary maneuver" to Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, an outspoken critic of the bill.

"The real culprit is Sen. Lees," said Moore, one of three senators who would serve on the conference committee. "He has used every possible opportunity to delay consideration of this bill."

Moore, Senate chairman of the Health Care Committee, said the Senate could approve the creation of the committee during its next formal session, a week from tomorrow.

The House approved the ban by a vote of 126 to 25 in October. The Senate approved its version about a month later. Both bills would ban smoking in virtually all public buildings, including restaurants and bars as of July 5, 2004.

Smoking would be permitted, however, in private clubs, certain areas of nursing homes, hotels and motels, "smoking bars" and retail tobacco stores. Religious ceremonies and performers in theatrical productions also would be exempt from the ban.

Violating the ban would be punishable by a $100 fine for a first offense, $200 for second offense and $300 for a third or subsequent offense.

More than 90 cities and towns, including Boston and Framingham, already have banned smoking in the workplace.

Meanwhile, a total of 217 of the state's 351 cities and towns have passed local measures either banning or restricting smoking in bars and restaurants. Moore and state Rep. Peter Koutoujian, a Waltham Democrat who serves as House chairman of the Health Care Committee, both said the two bills are virtually identical.

"Nothing substantive. It's mostly semantics," Koutoujian said. Moore said the conference committee, which also would include state Sen. Susan Fargo, D-Lincoln, state Rep. Rachel Kaprielian, D-Watertown, and a Republican member of both the House and Senate, should be able to complete its work in a single day.

"I don't think there's anything to hold us up," he said. Koutoujian and Moore hope the compromise bill will reach the floors of the House and Senate by late March. "It's certainly historic for Massachusetts, but (many) (He calls "5 states" MANY?!) other states already have done this," Koutoujian said. "I think this state is ready for it."

[SheLion]

Yes, it has. And there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. As Claire Wolfe says, "It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b#$%^&*s."

Oh I sure know it, Carolyn! And the business owners thought it would never happen to them. Well......it did and it has. Everyone suffers.

And what I can't understand..all we hear about on the campaign front is about the economy, yet the lawmakers are choking our economy with these smoking bans.

[KC_for_Freedom]

When smoking is outlawed, only outlaws will have tobacco.

Fortunately, I am mobile.

[beachn4fun]

It, my friend, is all about money. You think the States care whether anyone smokes or not? Nah, they just want to pass a law that allows them to tax/fine something/someone so they get more money! If they were so concerned about smoking, I think the government would have a) banned smokes a long time ago, or b) forced the tobacco companies to make safer smokes!

[DumpsterDiver]

As Claire Wolfe says, "It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b#$%^&*s."

It's time for Claire to update her quote. ;^)

[swarthyguy]

Couple of Repubs with balls. What a nice change.

I can marry a man, and smoke a fag in private but can't smoke a fag in a bar.

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

[SheLion]

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

I hear ya.............

[swarthyguy]

America,

Land of the Whine, Home of the Nag.

At least in France you can smoke, gasp, even in restaurants after dinner.

Asbestos on!

[SheLion]

I know! Even in Italy: the smokers smoke right under the NO smoking signs. LOL And Germany as well. They are really lucky over there that the anti's haven't hit them hard like over here.

[monkeywrench]

That phrase caught my eye, too! I was thinking 'mime'. You could pretty well go about business as usual that way, without talking, of course. One finger would answer any pc critics you'd undoubtedly encounter as you mimed your way through life.

[Lurker]

I want to start the worlds first all smoking, all armed airline.

If you don't have your own pack of smokes and a handgun at boarding, you don't get on.

L

[swarthyguy]

It's starting to happen. The Irish are

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/18/ireland.smoking.ap/

...the ban would not apply in bed-and-breakfasts, hotel rooms, prisons and mental hospitals

Less draconian than say Texas and other states, where it's been banned in prisons and other places like CA where hotels ban it too.

And mental wards? Well, you know where to go to go mad and get committed.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I wonder how they define "theatrical productions".

Yes....like one of those dinner theatre murder mysteries that involves the whole audience.

Yep. Could go on for hours on end.

[harpo11]

Hey, what good are laws (San Francisco, ring a bell, er ah, wedding bells) when no one is left to play the game?

Laws are bs according to SF Mayor if you or he or anyone feels that their Constitutional rights have been violated. You know, equal protection under the law.

So why don't we just shut down state legislatures, et al, so everyone can enjoy what they believe are their Constitutional rights, including smoking, including driving without a drivers license, and I guess I could go on and on and on.

[boomop1]

Only butts approved by Barney Frank.