BY MARTHA STODDARD
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN — Nebraskans should learn quickly whether public buildings and workplaces across the state will be required to go smoke-free.
Lighting up at lunch in places like the Hiway Cafe in Lyons, Neb., would eventually be just a memory if the Legislature approves a statewide ban on smoking in workplaces and public buildings this session.The Legislature is expected to resume debate on a proposed statewide smoking ban early in the lawmaking session that begins next Wednesday. Lawmakers could cast a deciding vote on Legislative Bill 395 before the end of January.
If the bill passes, Nebraska would join a growing list of states and countries with laws aimed at restricting exposure to secondhand smoke.
As of Tuesday, 28 states had passed laws prohibiting smoking in workplaces, restaurants, bars or some combination of the three. Six states passed their laws last year.
Both Nebraska and Iowa limit smoking in public places to designated areas. Nebraska prohibits smoking only in child care centers and state buildings and vehicles.
The World-Herald's annual pre-session survey of Nebraska lawmakers suggests that a vote on a statewide ban will be close.
Twenty-one state senators responding said they favor a ban on smoking in workplaces and public buildings across Nebraska.
Seven senators said they would support a ban only if local communities could opt for less restrictive measures. Five opposed a statewide ban.
The deciding votes will be cast by 16 senators who said they were undecided, who didn't answer or who didn't participate in the survey. It takes 25 votes to pass a bill in the Nebraska Legislature.
State Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney, chief sponsor of LB 395, said he wasn't surprised at the survey results. He said the survey reflected his own vote tally and the informal vote counts taken during last year's debate about the ban.
But Johnson said he is committed to pursuing a statewide ban with only minimal exceptions, even if he might get a few more votes by agreeing to allow local communities to opt for less restrictive smoking measures.
"Our plan is to have a good bill or no bill," Johnson said. "We want to just take an up-or-down vote, and if we fail there are plenty of people ready to go out and collect signatures" to put the question before voters in a statewide referendum.
Mike Salkin, vice president of the Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution, said an initiative petition drive is a "distinct possibility" if the Legislature fails to pass a smoking ban this year.
But he was cautiously optimistic about the chances of a statewide ban getting through the Legislature.
Where legislators stand on smoking ban
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are state legislators' responses to this survey question:
Should Nebraska law ban smoking in public buildings and workplaces?
Yes (21): Adams, Aguilar, Ashford, Avery, Cornett, Fulton, Gay, Hansen, Harms, Janssen, Johnson, Kopplin, Kruse, Louden, McGill, Nelson, Pankonin, Pedersen, Raikes, Stuthman, Wightman
Yes, if towns and cities can opt for less stringent bans (7): Carlson, Christensen, Flood, Howard, Pahls, Rogert, Wallman
No (5): Engel, Erdman, Fischer, Karpisek, Langemeier
Undecided (4): Burling, Friend, Lautenbaugh, Nantkes
No answer (5): Dierks, Heidemann, Hudkins, Pirsch, Synowiecki
Did not participate (7): Chambers, Dubas, Lathrop, McDonald, Preister, Schimek, White"The indications are, we believe, that a law will pass this year, a good law," he said. "I think if they don't pass it, there's going to be a lot of very unhappy people in Nebraska."
The legislative landscape changed some this past fall, when Sen. Mick Mines of Blair resigned his seat. Mines had led opposition to a proposed statewide ban and negotiated an amendment to allow towns and cities to opt out of a statewide prohibition.
LB 395, as amended during second-round debate last year, currently includes the opt-out provision. Speaker Mike Flood of Norfolk said he likes the current version of the bill because it preserves local control.
But the opt-out provision doesn't satisfy some senators, such as Phil Erdman of Bayard, who said he opposes a smoking ban.
"Workplaces and private businesses should have the responsibility to make the decision for themselves, their employees and their customers," Erdman said.
Other senators said they oppose allowing a local opt-out provision because it would leave Nebraska with the same kind of patchwork of local smoking regulations currently in effect.
Lincoln has a smoking ban that applies to bars, restaurants and workplaces, with exemptions for home-based businesses, some hotel rooms and laboratories used to study smoking.
Omaha's ban applies to restaurants and workplaces. Bars that don't serve food, keno outlets and Horsemen's Park are exempt until May 2011. Ralston's new ban is similar to the Omaha ordinance but also exempts private clubs.
Other cities have expressed interest in enacting smoking bans but have hesitated out of concern that the change might drive local smokers out of town.
"The amount of discrepancy has reached such a level that it is appropriate for the state to make a uniform decision," said Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln.
Johnson said he will drop LB 395 if he cannot get the opt-out amendment removed, thus killing the bill.
In Iowa, anti-smoking groups are pushing legislation to allow communities to pass local smoking ordinances that are more restrictive than state law. The legislation responds to an Iowa Supreme Court ruling that said current state law pre-empts local smoking ordinances.
Local control proposals died during last year's legislative session, but Iowa advocates are hopeful about the chances of passage this year.
Cathy Callaway, president of the Iowa Tobacco Prevention Alliance, said she would love to have a statewide smoking ban in Iowa but is not sure it has enough support. A proposed statewide ban died in the Iowa Senate last year.
In most states, support for statewide action has grown out of success with local bans, Callaway said.
She said 18 towns and counties have passed resolutions asking the Legislature for the authority to enact smoking bans. Among those communities are Des Moines, Ames and Iowa City.
17 comments:
I am against smoking. I think everything about smoking is disgusting but America is a free country and people can decide that for themselves. However, I think the individual businesses are the ones that should ban smoking. If you are concerned about second hand smoking go to a place that allows smoking. I am glade for the law but at the same time I don't think that is the governments job. I wish every business in American would ban smoking but that is not the way it works so I try to avoid the places with smoking.
Smoking is disgusting and should be altogether illegal, or maybe illegal when within something like 20 feet of other people. Here is my reasoning...
The U.S. Surgeon General stated in his report on the health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke that, "Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children." For adults it states, "Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer." The report goes on to say that there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to secondhand smoke, he says that "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke."
U.S. Law defines manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. So technically from what we know of secondhand smoke thanks to the Surgeon General, smoking should be illegal so that smokers aren't charged with manslaugher for killing the people they smoke around.
This is the United States of America. No matter how much I hate smoking, people still have the right to do what they want. It's their lungs they're screwing up.
As for this second hand smoking stuff, restaurants probably have enough vents in them these days to suck up and vent out clean air for the smoke stack coming out of a cruise ship. Personally, I'm not worried about second hand smoking and don't think anyone else should be either.
Government has no right to try to control something like that. They should allow people to make the choice. If you want to smoke, then go smoke. If you don't want to expose yourself to the so-called risk of second hand, then don't. It's that simple.
I disagree with san diego boi. While people certainly do have a right to make their own choices, they do not have a right to endanger and/or harm those around them.
Look, you can say that "most" restaurants have ventilation systems that are "good enough". But do you think that really holds up in legal rhetoric? What about the restaurants that aren't good enough? Like patriot said, it's a proven fact that second-hand smoking kills. You can fudge or downplay some parts of it, but that doesn't change the reality.
I mean, picture another potentially harmful action. If a man were to fire a gun in to the air in a public place, is the government justified in arresting him? Of course! Just because his actions may not harm people on one instance doesn't mean that they won't be harmful eventually.
Ban smoking in all public places. If people want to light one up, they can do so in the comfort of their own homes.
Alright Fervus. How does the National Government have the right to control us that much? I mean, second hand smoking is something a person exposes himself to. Are you going to ban the eating of chocolate because it's been proven the long terms of eating it show people gain weight and can die?
As for "good enough," our government is not dumb and if ventilation does not meet requirements, 1, the government is not doing the job they are paid to, or 2, that place will be warned/ticketed/whatever else. Our government is not working to try and ignore second hand, and they certainly are not going to allow "good enough" to still be a risk.
I'm going to move back to my point. The gov't does not have the right to do whatever they want. If a man wants to light one up, he has the right. Even if it puts others in danger, they have the right to step away. It's as simple as that.
How does the government have the right to control us? That's a pretty silly question for you to ask. It's an action that is harmful to those surrounding you. The government has this right to ban public smoking for much the same reason they have a right to ban public drunkenness, public discharge of firearms, etc.
I also find it amusing that in one breath you claim that regulating one thing (smoking) for safety reasons is unconstitutional; while in the next, you use another government safety regulation (ventilation) as an argument. Make up your mind please. Do you want the government to get involved with safety, or not?
Your chocolate analogy is completely invalid. When you consume chocolate, you make the choice for yourself. When you're exposed to second-hand smoke, it's because of someone else's actions.
Lastly, I find your "you can just get out of the way" excuse somewhat offensive. Why should nonsmoking citizens be inconvenienced at every turn, just to maintain their own good health? The rhetoric isn't even valid. When someone discharges a firearm in public, for example, you can clearly "just get out of the way"; but that doesn't make it any less illegal.
Im going to have to side with Fervus here... smoking does kill, and san diego boi for your info many restaurants dont change out their filters often enough, in fact these public paces are usually 2 months behind on average. and i think the government should ban smoking in all public and government places. im sorry but i dont like smoke going down into my lungs, that stuff is sick and gross, and smells. technically smoking hurts everyone around them, just like guns... the government banned guns in public places wihtout a permit, and therefore i think the government could ban smoking, and there no healthy way to smoke a ciggarette. and you should be lucky to have a governemnt like ours. a few years back i went to hong kong in china with my dad on a buisness trip, and if a policeman caught you spitting on the cement they fined you... so get over the idea of a government controlling your life, it's all around you. your money: taxed. your rights: limited to a degree. your lucky to even exercise your own religion... think about that
I think any way you look at it; this issue is really a hot one in today's society. I personally believe smoking is a disgusting and deadly habit, but it is the smoker's choice if he or she wants to ruin his or her own life.
It would be nice not to have to deal with the stench smoking leaves everywhere, as well as worry about second-hand smoke. This is why I believe the government should let businesses decide for themselves whether or not to ban smoking in their facilities.
On the other hand, if the statewide smoking ban is passed, it would mean cleaner air for everyone, as long as it can be enforced. Enacting something like that over a large area would make enforcing it a tough job, and even if it can be completely controlled, there are still those who believe they have the right to smoke and since there are so many of them, it could lead to some sort of protests, peaceful or not.
I agree with Fervus. You shouldn't have to live your live always watching your step because others want to make a poor choice. And as for the government regulations, Fervus is right. Why chose some things for them to regulate, but not others? Especially when a thing like smoking has killed WAY more people than poor ventilation in a restuarant.
You know, as long as we're allowing the government to ban things that can affect others in a harmful way, let's get rid of teenage drivers, that way the streets are safer. Let's get rid of cell phones, that way there's no distractions on the road. Let's get rid of those guys who have shotguns in their cabs, that way no one is scared. Let's get rid of guns, that way no one gets killed. Let's get rid of cleaning chemicals, that way no child can ever get sick or dies from accidents. Let's ban toothpaste, that way children can't swallow too much.
Let's stop eating cows, pigs, chicken, and shrimp, that way no animal is ever hurt. Let's stop producing carrots, that way people don't turn orange (j/k). Let's stop making fatty foods like McDonald's, Burger King, and Runza, that way people aren't able to create unhealthy diets. Let's get rid of under paid individuals who work those restaurants, that way no one feels discriminated against.
If we get rid of those individuals, we'd better get rid of Mexicans, that way they are never selected or assumed as "cheap work." Let's get rid of Asians, that way they don't feel like they should be smarter or should street race or should be from China. Let's get rid of Africans, that way they don't have to ever remember the slavery days. Let's get rid of Caucasians, that way they stop thinking they are the supreme Kai in such slavery cases. Let's ban going outside if you're beautiful, that way people who aren't as "gifted" don't feel like they have to look better.
You know, how about we ban life? That way no one ever feels like they have to be any better. My point is, if we start banning anything that can affect another person in a negative way, there wouldn't be much left. And smoking is one of those things. It's not 100% guaranteed to give you cancer. And if we ban smoking just because people don't like it, well then I've got a WHOLE nother list to make.
I agree with Emily when she says everything about smoking is disgusting, and i agree when she says America is a free country, but when it comes to letting people decide for themselves to commit harmful acts in public, that is where i draw the line. People can smoke all they want, but not when/where it's hurting other people. Similar to what Fervus said, there are other things that people do in public that are harmful and illegal, like shooting a gun. So why shouldn't we make smoking illegal in public? If you want to shoot a gun, you have to do it at a gun club, or at other locations approved by the government.The same should go for smoking. Just because some people want to smoke, that doesn't mean others want that risk. How can people be so selfish? Whether you are drunk driving, shooting a gun around, or smoking in public, you are putting others at risk. Two out of three of those are illegal, but all can produce the same result. Dead is dead. It doesn't matter how it happens.
i have to agree with san diego boi. it is the person's choice whether they want to put themselves at risk for serious health problems in the present and in the future. if this place that we call home ((the united states)) is as free as it comes off to be, people should be able to smoke whenever and where ever they feel like it.
i am not a smoker, but still. their choice. they are the ones that act careless and cause harm to themselves and others around them. warning labels are clearly printed on the outside of the cigarette carton. if that individual can read, then they know what they are doing to themselves.
it is great that everyone is willing to put their opinions out like this though. more power to you ALL. but this is mine. smoking is a choice and a right that is given to those that choose it.
It is up to you whether or not you want to smoke, not the government. That is why i believe the individual businesses should have the choice of whether or not they will allow smoking. Whatever they decide it should be posted for people to see. If businesses are worried about the decision and worried about what other businesses will decide. Theirs an easy solution GROW A BOCKBONE.
Bockbone? If that means testicular fortitude than I agree. People should just ask the dude/chick to take it outside or something. Why should the government be involved with something that the people can fix themselves?
Personally I think smoking is an unhealthy waste of money. I suppose you could claim though, that putting smoking bans on public places is helping the environment...Unless it just makes people smoke outside.
Hmm, the world may never know. But yes, I am for a state-wide smoking ban.
I am totally for the statewide ban on cigarette smoking. My mother was exposed to second-hand cigarette smoke her entire childhood and suffers allergies and asthma complications to this day. My grandfather smoked his entire life (1950's until 1990 when his father died of emphysema). He is 75 yrs old and in very poor health from being a smoker his entire life. We know so much more about the effects of second-hand smoke that we as a nation should do everything possible to limit exposure to the carcinogen. Many states have already done so. Nebraska needs to take action immediately! Colorado just initiated their statewide ban this past Jan 1 which my aunt and uncle who live there are very pleased as they love to gamble in the casinos and now can do so without being harmed by the smoke in the environement. My family loves to eat at Carlos O'Kelley's and find ourselves going out of the way (up to Omaha - Maple Street) to eat there to avoid the smoke that the Carlos O'Kelley's in Bellevue still allows.
If people have the right to do whatever they want(don't take this to an extreme people)in America, then why do we have seatbelt laws? Why are some drugs illegal and why is drunk driving an offense?
If the government can decide that something is harmful to the majority, shouldn't they protect us from it? I don't think smoking should be illegal per say. I am just advocating the right to walk down a street without gagging and choking on other people's nasty habits.
Post a Comment