Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Senate's tobacco bills burn both ways
While efforts to increase the cigarette tax died, bills that would restrict smoking advanced in committees.
Related
roanoke.com/politics
Related
Previous coverage
- Cigarette tax increase snuffed out in House subcommittee (Jan. 29, 2009)
roanoke.com/politics
RICHMOND -- There was good news and bad news for smokers out of the General Assembly session Tuesday.
The good news: A bill to double the tax on cigarettes died in the Senate Finance Committee. The measure -- a key part of Gov. Tim Kaine's plan to reduce a projected $2.9 billion shortfall -- died on a tie vote when Sen. Roscoe Reynolds, D-Henry County, broke from any party allegiance to Kaine and voted with the panel's Republicans against the bill.
The bad news: The full Senate passed a swath of legislation to restrict smoking, including one bill that would allow localities to ban smoking in cars and even in private residences. The Senate approved four different bills, each of which takes a different approach to restrict smoking:
-- Senate Bill 1057, which passed on a 24-15 vote, would ban smoking in most indoor public places.
-- Senate Bill 1105, passed 26-13, would ban smoking only in restaurants, bars and lounge areas.
-- Senate Bill 1002, passed 30-10, would give localities the option to pass their own ordinances banning smoking in restaurants, bars and lounges.
-- Senate Bill 870, passed 23-16, would give localities the option to pass their own ordinances banning smoking anywhere, up to and including cars and private residences.
All of the bills are likely headed to the House General Laws Committee, which for the last three years killed similar legislation. The committee's new chairman, Del. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk, has said he'll make sure the bills get " a full and fair public hearing," but he's not guaranteed they will be heard by the full committee instead of the subcommittee.
The advocates and opponents of the legislation have established well-worn arguments since 2006, when then-Sen. Brandon Bell, R-Roanoke County, helped shepherd a ban on smoking in public areas through the Senate for the first time.
Advocates of the bills cite a poll that shows 75 percent of Virginians support additional restrictions on smoking, and they argue that smoking is a health issue that affects not just the smoker but those around him or her.
Opponents, meanwhile, say the bills trample on the liberties of the owners of restaurants and other buildings that would be affected. They argue the free market is already moving toward more smoke-free restaurants and there's no need for a state-enforced ban.
The debate over the cigarette tax increase is fresher, as the General Assembly has not raised that tax since 2004.
Senate Bill 947, sponsored by Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax County, would have doubled the state's tax on cigarettes, from 30 cents to 60 cents per pack. She said increasing the tax would raise $147 million to help offset Medicaid expenses.
Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, questioned why the bill focused on taxing cigarettes instead of alcoholic beverages or fast food.
Reynolds, whose district includes a number of tobacco farmers, served as the swing vote to help doom the measure.
"I voted against the cigarette tax increase because it would have an adverse effect on the folks in my community who are involved in tobacco production," Reynolds said later.
Responding to the bill's defeat, Kaine spokesman Gordon Hickey said, "The governor continues to believe that raising the cigarette tax to half the national average is preferable to cutting another $150 million in services. He is interested in seeing where services will be cut by the General Assembly."
Later in the committee meeting, Reynolds voted with the committee's Democrats to secure a 9-7 vote against Senate Bill 1516, sponsored by Sen. Ken Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, which would have changed the tax on moist snuff from 10 percent of the manufacturer's sales price to 26 cents per ounce. Richmond-based smokeless tobacco manufacturer Swedish Match North America estimated the shift would have raised the tax on some of its products by as much as 233 percent, or 21 cents per can.
Staff writer Michael Sluss contributed to this story.





