Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
HB 1703 Indoor Clean Air Act
On February 10, 2009, the HB 1703 Indoor Clean Air Act was passed in the state of Virginia. The original intent of this bill was to ban smoking in all restaurants. However, when the bill went through legislation it was amended with several exceptions. The watered-down version passed, states that "smoking is permitted in restaurants with ventilation systems to reduce the smoke and also in restaurants that have a partition seperating smoking and nonsmoking areas." One of the intentions of the bill was to protect minors from smoking or being exposed to tobbaco smoke.
Tim Kaine and the democratic party were the sponsors of the total smoking ban bill. However, the republican party and tobacco lobbyists wouldn't except the total ban and watered down the original intent of the ban making it a partial smoking ban.
The partial ban is not going to have the overall effects that the total ban will have. The potential problems result in people still being exposed to second hand and third hand smoking (residual on clothing). For example, if a family goes to a restaurant and the parents chose to sit in the smoking section, the minors are still exposed to the smoke. With people still being exposed, the cost of healthcare will not decrease and cancer and lung disease could potentially remain the same or not make a dramatic difference as a total ban would.
In conclusion, the actual problem to this bill is that the partial ban will not have a dramatic effect as the preventative effects of the total bill. In addition, the circulation systems are expensive and have shown to not make a difference. The only way to not be exposed is to not be in the smoke environment all together.
Tim Kaine and the democratic party were the sponsors of the total smoking ban bill. However, the republican party and tobacco lobbyists wouldn't except the total ban and watered down the original intent of the ban making it a partial smoking ban.
The partial ban is not going to have the overall effects that the total ban will have. The potential problems result in people still being exposed to second hand and third hand smoking (residual on clothing). For example, if a family goes to a restaurant and the parents chose to sit in the smoking section, the minors are still exposed to the smoke. With people still being exposed, the cost of healthcare will not decrease and cancer and lung disease could potentially remain the same or not make a dramatic difference as a total ban would.
In conclusion, the actual problem to this bill is that the partial ban will not have a dramatic effect as the preventative effects of the total bill. In addition, the circulation systems are expensive and have shown to not make a difference. The only way to not be exposed is to not be in the smoke environment all together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
