Differences over details doom smoking ban bill
2:10 PM
By Todd Dorman Journal Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Thursday, April 12, 2007
DES MOINES -- A bill allowing local governments to ban public smoking has been snuffed out by differences over details, Democratic legislative leaders said today.
House Speaker Pat Murphy said legislators have been unable to reach a compromise between differing House and Senate versions of the bill. The Dubuque Democrat said it’s unlikely the impasse will be broken during the final two hectic weeks of the legislative session.
"Because of the amount of objections, I don’t think, this year, we’ll probably have a debate on that," Murphy said. "I think that’s something we might do an interim study on and come back next year."
A bill that cleared the Senate 30-20 last month would give local governments the power to enact tough new smoking restrictions. But the Senate measure shielded fraternal groups -- such as the American Legion and VFW -- from any new rules.
A bill that cleared a House committee earlier this year went even further. It included exemptions for several businesses, including cabarets, taverns and casinos.
The fight over who to exempt -- or whether to shield any businesses -- doomed the bill.
"If we’re going to turn this back to the cities and local governments, shouldn’t we be giving them some of those decisions instead of taking them right off the top?" Murphy said.
Backers of the bill argued that tighter restrictions are necessary to protect business patrons and workers from the proven dangers of second-hand smoke. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that local officials currently lack the authority to ban public smoking. The bill would have given them that power.
Opponents of the bill argued that business owners, not government, should decide when establishments go smoke free.
Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, the bill’s lead Senate sponsor, said he hopes to return to the issue next year.
"This is an issue that will take a lot of education of people. We continue to build support for local control. It’s the right way to go," Quirmbach said.
House Speaker Pat Murphy said legislators have been unable to reach a compromise between differing House and Senate versions of the bill. The Dubuque Democrat said it’s unlikely the impasse will be broken during the final two hectic weeks of the legislative session.
"Because of the amount of objections, I don’t think, this year, we’ll probably have a debate on that," Murphy said. "I think that’s something we might do an interim study on and come back next year."
A bill that cleared the Senate 30-20 last month would give local governments the power to enact tough new smoking restrictions. But the Senate measure shielded fraternal groups -- such as the American Legion and VFW -- from any new rules.
A bill that cleared a House committee earlier this year went even further. It included exemptions for several businesses, including cabarets, taverns and casinos.
The fight over who to exempt -- or whether to shield any businesses -- doomed the bill.
"If we’re going to turn this back to the cities and local governments, shouldn’t we be giving them some of those decisions instead of taking them right off the top?" Murphy said.
Backers of the bill argued that tighter restrictions are necessary to protect business patrons and workers from the proven dangers of second-hand smoke. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that local officials currently lack the authority to ban public smoking. The bill would have given them that power.
Opponents of the bill argued that business owners, not government, should decide when establishments go smoke free.
Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, the bill’s lead Senate sponsor, said he hopes to return to the issue next year.
"This is an issue that will take a lot of education of people. We continue to build support for local control. It’s the right way to go," Quirmbach said.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 2 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
Gregory wrote on Apr 20, 2007 9:52 AM:
LM wrote on Apr 12, 2007 4:53 PM: