Despite a recent AG opinion (pdf) to the contrary, the Norfolk City Council is still planning to ban smoking. This time, they are relying on the City Charter as a basis:
One is through police powers ensuring the health and safety of citizens, which [City Attorney Bernard A. ] Pishko said has enabled localities in other states to ban smoking.
Another is a provision granting the city power to “compel the abatement of smoke and dust” in addition to other “nuisances within the city.” Pishko said the provision may have been originally directed at smoke related to coal, but it doesn’t expressly state a specific kind of smoke.
I have previously laid out my reasons for being against a smoking ban. And the state law proposing such a ban failed to pass. I don’t like this end around that Norfolk is trying to do. Should they pass the ban and it get challenged, I suspect we (the taxpayers) will be spending some money to defend it.
Here’s an idea: let the people decide. If Council is so determined to get a smoking ban that it will end up having to defend, put it to referendum. If the people vote to ban smoking, then defending it using taxpayer dollars makes sense. If the people say no, then it would be over and done with.
For that matter, I would support a referendum at the state level which would allow localities to impose smoking bans – provided the localities did so via referendum. I have no problem with the people making their own decisions about their bodies. My problem is the government making that decision for me.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I’d be fine with localities being allowed to make their own decisions about smoking bans, but would smoking ban opponents in the General Assembly support that? So far, they haven’t been willing to compromise, so we have our current all-or-nothing debate.
Vivian, the government makes decisions about our bodies all the time — what food we’re allowed to eat, what medication we’re allowed to take, where and when we’re allowed to drink. Heck, they already regulate who can buy and use cigarettes. It’s fine if you oppose a smking ban, but the weird “get big government out … only in this one case” argument makes no sense.
I’d be onboard with ceding a banning authority to local referendums. I’d disagree that there should be a statewide referendum on it, first. Local effect, local decision.
I’m onboard with that as a general principle. When someone else decides to light up at the table next to me, though, that person’s making a decision about my body, too. I’ve even less interest in them making than decision for me than I would have for the gov’t. . . . But we’ve been down this road 🙂
GM – it’s not “this one case.” I disagree with seat belt laws, helmet laws, sodomy laws and attempts to make abortion illegal. Those are four other areas that just come to mind in which I think the government should not be regulating adult behavior.
As far as getting the GA on board – as far as I know, there has been no consideration of a referendum. Or if there has been, I’ve missed it. Perhaps that is the out for the all or nothing stands of proponents and opponents alike.
MB – you’re right – we have been done this road before. And you can still avoid that problem by not frequenting places that allow smoking 😉
As for local effect, local decision – well, we can’t do that in VA. Got a little problem called the Dillon Rule which prohibits that.
Spoken like an unrepentent smoker who doesn’t give a damn about how much harm her self-indulgence does to others.
But it doesn’t matter, because this is Virginia, and Virginia will be one of the very last states to get sensible about tobacco.
Actually, if you bothered to read my previous post, you’d see that you are way off. Not to mention the fact that I’ve said if the people say they want a smoking ban, I’d support it.
Vivian, if we were debating someone’s right to light up in their home, the issues you mentioned would be good comparisons. You not wearing a helmet or seat belt doesn’t affect our health any more than someone smoking in the privacy of their home. But someone smoking a cigarette next to us in a restaurant DOES affect our health. This isn’t a question of personal choice, it’s a question of public health.
That is not what you said. You said I this was a single case where I supported government not interfering. I provided four quick examples where you were wrong.
I noticed that you conveniently left off the sodomy laws or abortion laws 😉
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: vote with your feet.
Look – this post was about whether or not the city council in Norfolk should be attempting to circumvent the law. You’re not going to convince me to support a smoking ban imposed by the government any more than I’m going to convince you to not support it. So let’s just look at the issue at hand.
We have the Dillon Rule which says that localities can’t do anything not expressly allowed by the GA. The AG has said that localities cannot impose stricter requirements than those allowed by the Clean Air Act. Norfolk is trying to get around this, and in doing so, will no doubt cost me money. I’ve offered a solution.
Now – how about some solutions from y’all? 😉
Vivian, polling shows smoking bans to be popular (as low as 59 to over 70 %), so I suspect the referendum results would be the same.
National studies show adult smoking to be under 30%.
No one who supports a smoking ban is exactly going to get thrown out of office with numbers like these.
Actually GM high emergency room fees for people brought in after being involved in a car accident while not wearing their seatbelts are often defrayed by the rest of the public. Non-mandatory coverage and higher-risk behaviors and lifestyles are two contributing factors to the high cost of healthcare in America.
Just in case you were wondering or have to make that argument again in the future. 🙂
In response to topic of the post, Vivian, I agree. The city charter of Norfolk cannot supercede state law and the Dillon Rule. Norfolk municipal government should be finding more-effective ways to spend its time, particularly since it’s not like Norfolk doesn’t actually have problems that are solvable at the local level.
Vivian, you seem a little comfused. First, you propose the local referrunda idea, “put it to [a] referendum.” Then you say, “I have no problem with the people making their own decisions about their bodies. My problem is the government making that decision for me.”
A referendum is simply a democratic government’s making that decision for you, rather than a republican government’s making that decision for you. Since the same people voting for the referendum are voting for the representatives, there’s really not much difference.
(BTW, abortion causes a LOT more harm to another human being than second-hand-smoke does.)
You are assuming that those elected to represent us vote the way we want them to. I make no such assumption and, in fact, have heard more than one elected official and candidate say that they first look to their own conscience before making a decision.
Therefore, there is a huge difference in my mind between the electeds making the decision and the people doing so. I’m not confused.
Did you not oppose putting the same-sex marriage referrendum on the ballot?
If you look back at all of my postings, I doubt you will find any reference to my opposition to it being on the ballot. I opposed the amendment.
Hey Vivian, since it’s come up again, a lot of us who care about you as more than just a blogger would be supportive and happy for you if you were to decide to quit smoking. I just thought I’d mention it.
Thanks – believe me, with the cost of cigarettes these days, I’m thinking about it 🙂 Of course, I’d still be against the ban, though 😉