People Ban: VT State Update

By Jonathan On Jul 5, 2017

Vermont Update

IPCPR Urges Common Sense by Vermont Lawmakers
Montpelier, Vermont?? April 23, 2009 – The International Premium Cigar and Pipe Retailers Association today urged Vermont legislators to use common sense when considering an extreme tightening of the state’s current smoking ban which has been in place since 1987.
The proposal now before the legislature includes the banning of smoking in tobacco shops and other such adult oriented locations.
“No one goes into a tobacco store without expecting to encounter secondhand smoke,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of IPCPR. “These are adults-only workplaces whose air quality falls within the safe levels of air quality established by OSHA – the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.”
McCalla urged Vermont legislators to be reasonable in their deliberations of the issue.
“We believe no smoking ban should be legislated and that it should be left up to business owners to determine whether or not smoking would be permitted in their establishments. However, the Vermont smoking ban – which has served the state and its citizens for nearly a quarter-century – is strong enough to satisfy the demands of any reasonable employee who desires a smoke free workplace while respecting the rights of others,” McCalla said.
McCalla pointed out that most tobacco shops are mom-and-pop operations, small businesses that employ neighborhood workers and generate sales and income taxes for state coffers.
“If the right to smoke a cigar, pipe or other tobacco product in the controlled environment of a cigar store is legislated away, then these same lawmakers will be voting to eliminate these businesses and the jobs and taxes that go with them,” McCalla added.
“Premium hand-made cigars are celebratory and special. Pipes are calming and reflective. Both are more like hobbies than habits and use of neither is aimed at children. We are a unique industry enjoying the sale and use of legal products. As long as we respect the rights of others as they should respect ours, we should be allowed to stay in business instead of being deprived of our livelihood through unreasonable legislation,” he said.
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

IPCPR Stresses ‘Freedom, Unity’ for All Vermont Citizens
April 9, 2009
Montpelier, Vermont? – Contrary to its motto – ‘Freedom and Unity’ – the state of Vermont is one step closer to tightening its current smoking ban by prohibiting the use of tobacco and other smoking products in all workplaces throughout the state.??
The International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association says the freedom of all Vermont citizens – smokers and non-smokers alike – is at stake and state legislators should be spending their time on issues that truly matter – like jobs and the economy.
“The United States Constitution gives the right to employers to decide how to conduct their businesses, and that includes whether or not to allow smoking on their premises. The state of Vermont preempted that right by legislating a smoking ban in 1987 and would be adding insult to injury now by tightening those decades-old restrictions,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the IPCPR.
“Why is this important to the estimated 675,000 non-smokers and smokers who live in the state? They all should be concerned because their constitutional rights are being further tampered with and further deprivation of their rights would be in the offing,” he explained.
McCalla pointed out that, in contrast to what is claimed by pro-ban and anti-smoking forces, secondhand smoke in the workplace has been declared a virtual non-issue by the very federal organization that has been assigned the responsibility for wellness in the workplace – the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
“In the first place, OSHA has established safe levels for secondhand smoke in the workplace and, secondly, those safe levels are so high that the air quality in most bars and restaurants would not come close to reaching them let alone exceeding them,” McCalla said.
McCalla cited official documentation from senior officials of OSHA that states, in part, “It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that permissible exposure levels would be exceeded.”
Vermont’s current smoking ban plus on-going trends in the marketplace have led to an increasing number of business owners banning the use of tobacco in their establishments.
?“Legislated smoking bans are simply not necessary when the market is adjusting accordingly on its own. Why bother with something that’s already working when there are so many other more important issues to deal with such as jobs and the economy? ” he said.
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

Vermont Smoking Ban

March 31, 2006

Go all the way…or stop.

We’ve said it over and over again. Smoking is a personal choice. Tobacco is a legal product.

But both Vermont and New York tell businesses they can’t let people smoke. So much for freedom of choice.

And Vermont says “No” to smoking in private clubs….even if their own members say “Go ahead, light ’em up.”

At least one club…Hyde Park’s VFW…is fighting that. The vets say they ought to decide what goes on in their club. We agree.

We think there’s a simple choice here. Protect private rights, or go all the way and make smoking in public anywhere illegal.

That’s what the city of Calabasas, California did. Go inside your house and seal it tight…then you can puff away. Roll up the car windows and smoke ’em.. But nowhere else…indoors or out.

If Vermont’s serious about all this, the state should do the same. Otherwise, butt out and let the veterans light up a Lucky.

That’s our opinion. What’s yours?

Smoking ban is opposed

June 1, 2005

I have been employed as a club manager and bartender of the Vergennes American Legion for the past 25 years. I have been a member of the Vergennes American Legion Auxiliary for 27 years.

I attended the smoking ban hearing held by the Senate on May 4 along with another couple of members from our post. We voiced our concern regarding the proposed smoking ban and its effect on private clubs.

We were told at that hearing that another hearing would be held before any action was taken. I was shocked to learn that the vote was taken and passed. Where was the second hearing that was promised?

When I became employed here I knew there was smoking. Never did I get up in the morning and say boy I hope the Legion will have to be a non-smoking environment some day. As far as I am concerned second-hand smoke is no worse than some of the exposure people get from chemicals and such working in factories.

I wonder how many members of the Legislature who voted against this ban are members of the American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars. For one thing, if they didn’t serve their country during a wartime period they couldn’t belong. Yet these same legislators voted to take away another privilege of the veteran.

For our club the smoking ban is going to have a negative effect on our revenue, which means contributions to schools, athletic programs, playgrounds and the like are going to take a real dip.

In our post alone nearly $85,000 in contributions were made last year. Multiply this by the 70 American Legion posts in the state and all of the other private clubs, and many of the organizations requesting funds are going to find themselves on the short end of the stick.

Our post, like most of the other private clubs in the state, has adopted house rules regarding smoking. At our post no smoking is allowed in any of our public functions. Smoking is allowed only in our lounge, and in that area we have very expensive and effective machines to remove the smoke.

I urge the governor not to sign this bill as it applies to private clubs. As many of our members say: “We call the post our post home. What’s the Legislature going to do next?”

ROXANNE McGUIRE
Vergennes
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050601/NEWS/506010304/1037

May 20, 2005
Indoor smoking ban close to becoming law
http://rutlandherald.com

Let people vote on smoking ban

May 16, 2005
?
attended the recent public hearing by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee regarding the proposed smoking ban and was taken aback by a couple of things during the hearing. One testifier brought up that the Chairman of the committee, Sen. James Leddy was quoted in the May 4 Times Argus as saying “I think the committee is unanimously in favor of what the House did.” Leddy said, “I don’t think there are a lot of changes that are necessary.” If Leddy and the committee members had already made up their minds about how they would vote, that would mean that the committee members (and I have a feeling many of the Senate members) would be voting their personal views.

These members were elected by the people in the State of Vermont. Where is the people’s view on this subject being represented? The Senate members should allow the people of Vermont to vote on this subject so that if the ban passes, we can truly know that it was due to the personal views of all Vermonters, not a few people who seem to have much differing views from those of their constituents. I would also suggest that we as a people seriously consider whom we elect into these offices in the future as it seems that the people in these positions now are not in the office to promote our best interests, but their own personal views.

Also, not once was the Committee willing to consider alternatives to the proposed ban, such as air filtration systems. Since when were choices made without all of the alternatives discussed and analyzed? Finally, I did not see The Times Argus reporting on the outcome of that hearing. The newspaper was willing to publish articles that suggest the general public supports the ban on smoking, but they did not publish any article on this hearing that clearly showed that the majority of people in that room were against the ban. Although there is a freedom of speech that allows a newspaper to print what they wish, wouldn’t the people be better off knowing both sides of the story in order to make their own informed opinions?

Sara Holub
Northfield
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050516/NEWS/505160357/1022

After emotional debate, House approves ban on smoking in bars

April 06, 2005
By ROSS SNEYD
Associated Press

MONTPELIER — After a long afternoon of debating whether smoking should be banned in the state’s bars and private clubs, Rep. William Aswad rose Tuesday and told his colleagues how his wife had died six years, three months and 14 days earlier.

The cause of death listed by the doctor was simply cigarettes. “I stand before this body in strong support of this bill,” Aswad, D-Burlington, said. “I respectfully ask this body to do likewise.”

But, demonstrating how the bill divided the House, largely along partisan lines, Rep. Linda Myers rose and told how her own husband — Martin, whom she replaced in the House — had died three years, eight months and five days before from cancer.

“He would have been appalled at this infringement of individual rights and the rights of our towns to choose their own path,” said Myers, R-Essex.

Ultimately, the bill won preliminary approval on an 81-48 vote, despite a series of parliamentary maneuvers by Republicans designed to derail the bill. The bill still must be considered by the Senate.

It was designed to end an exception in the state law banning smoking in most public places that allowed smoking in bars that get most of their revenues from the sale of liquor.

Private clubs, including such places as American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars posts, also have been exempt. And that’s what caused the strong and vocal opposition.

“What are we going to say to our veterans? Those veterans fought, were injured and died to secure the very liberties this bill is taking away,” said Rep. Brian Dunsmore, R-Georgia.

Supporters of the bill, though, argued that the bill was a health issue protecting patrons of establishments that currently allow smoking and those who work in them.

“My smoke from my cigarette should not be going into your lungs,” said Rep. Francis Brooks, D-Montpelier. “It is not a case of taking rights away from someone who once fought for this country.”

An amendment was proposed that would have banned smoking in all commercial bars but would have allowed it in private clubs where the membership voted annually to allow it. That failed by an 83-53 roll-call vote.

A number of towns around the state, particularly in Chittenden County, have adopted similar bans and many of them have faced the same issue and have the same kinds of debates about whether private social clubs should be included.

Opponents of smoking decided it would make better policy to make the ban statewide.

“I think the clubs will prevail and in many ways be better for it,” said Rep. Ann Seibert, D-Norwich. “I think this is the sort of thing that may bring more people into the clubs.”
http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~29953~2800934,00.html

House committee endorses ending smoking in bars, clubs

March 29/05

MONTPELIER, Vt. A committee of the Vermont House has endorsed a bill that would end smoking in the state’s bars and clubs.

Current state law allows private clubs and bars with a cabaret liquor license to permit cigarette and pipe smoking.

But a coalition of groups wants to end those exemptions and the House General Affairs Committee voted seven-to-one in favor of such a bill.

Opponents say that private clubs are not open to the public and therefore shouldn’t have to comply with the smoking ban.

Advocates say that gives the clubs an unfair advantage over commercial bars and pubs.

The bill still has to be considered in another House committee before it is debated by the full House.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3138778

The truth on bar smoking ban

March 1, 2005
?
In reference to the story “Smoking ban for bars on Legislative agenda” on Feb. 14 by John Zicconi, all I can say is “Hogwash.”

I own a successful bar in Greenwich Village. In 2004, we were voted the Best Lounge in New York by CitySearch. My business is down 30 percent since 2002. Since nothing has changed but the smoking ban, I can attribute this precipitous drop to nothing else.

It’s remarkable to read that “A New York City official on Thursday will travel to Vermont to testify that Big Apple pub receipts have increased 12 percent since the city’s ban went into affect in 2003” since not even Mayor Bloomberg has been able to wrestle the actual statistic for bars ONLY out of the state’s finance department. The information they’re peddling combines tax receipts for bars and restaurants – including places like McDonalds and Starbucks. This is like comparing a wolf to a Shih Tzu; anyone with any sense knows they’re completely different beasts.

New York officials are doing their level best to cover up the fact that for many small businesses the smoking ban is an unmitigated disaster. They say that compliance is at 98 percent. That’s such utter nonsense I don’t even know where to begin. They say that no one is hurting, using tax information that cannot possibly represent the truth, while fines for noise complaints and capricious health code violations slowly pick away at our sanity.

All I can say is this: I’m a life-long non-smoker and I hated the way my bar smelled. I, too, figured that I’d wait and see. That it couldn’t be THAT bad. I’ve had to cut eight staff, the ones left work fewer hours, and I haven’t taken a paycheck since August. It’s that bad.

The pub owners in Vermont need to pull their heads out of the sand in time to save themselves. Or, like us, they’ll be fighting for their livelihoods while their plight is actively ignored by those who might help.

This includes, by the way, the media, which seems to have jumped onto the no-smoking bandwagon with both feet and no regard for journalistic integrity. Frankly, I’d be surprised if an opposing viewpoint ever sees the light of day.

Amy McCloskey New York, N.Y.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050301/NEWS/503010357/1022
?

Total smoking ban heats up

March 23, 2005
By MIKE KALIL
Reformer Staff

BRATTLEBORO — Rex Sheldon smoked for 26 years and quit a decade ago. No problem.

His first attempt to quit, on the request of his young son, was successful. As a bartender, he resisted the temptation to grab a cigarette from a patron. He knows he’s unique.

Sheldon is still a bartender at Sportsman’s Lounge on Canal Street and the smoke doesn’t bother him. As a bartender and a non-smoker, he rejects the idea of a smoking ban. His boss agrees.

“I just think it’s a choice,” Sheldon said. “If people want to go someplace where smoking isn’t allowed, there’s plenty of places to choose from.”

Vermont lawmakers are poised this year to ban smoking in bars and clubs. A Senate bill includes private clubs; a House bill does not. Bar owners, who think a ban may be coming, want the law to apply across the board.

Supporters say it’s a health issue: People shouldn’t be forced to work, drink or eat around secondhand smoke. They point to statistics showing that those exposed to secondhand smoke have a greater chance of getting heart disease, lung cancer and other problems.

“There are people out there who would really like to go into these bars or cabarets who can’t, or won’t, because of the smoking,” said Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, the Senate bill’s lead sponsor.

Opponents say the move would be an intrusion and it should be up to the business owner to determine what’s allowed. They say business would be adversely affected, especially if the law is limited to public bars and clubs.

“Our position is that the state really should not mandate how businesses accomodate their customers,” said Kathy Sweeten, president of the Vermont Restaurant and Lodging Association. “However, if the Legislature decides to ban smoking, then it should be banned in all public places, restaurants and private clubs.”

All sides recognize that smoking is unhealthy. Opponents of an anti-smoking measure say the customers and employees are adults who know they’re walking into a smoky environment. And those people, they say, have a choice of where to go.

The American Cancer Society estimates that secondhand smoke causes between 35,000 and 40,000 heart disease deaths, 3,000 lung cancer deaths and between 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections among non-smokers every year.

Barbara Faridoni has owned Sportsman’s for 31 years and has never been a smoker. But the bulk of her customers smoke and she thinks her business will be affected by a ban.

Most of her customers are familiar with the bar, she said, and they know it allows smoking. She only sells cigarettes to people age 21 and older, even though the legal smoking age is 18. So, she said, she’s dealing with adults who know that smoking is bad for them.

“Nobody put a gun to their head and said, ‘You need to smoke that cigarette,'” she said.

If lawmakers create a smoking ban, she wants it to apply to everyone; otherwise she may lose customers to private clubs. She’s even looked into turning her bar into a private club.

“It’s not a health issue for me,” she said. “The issue is it’s not a level playing field.”

In Brattleboro, many more restaurants prohibit smoking than allow it. At McNeill’s Brewery on Elliot Street, customers aren’t allowed to smoke. Right next door, Mike’s Restaurant advertises itself as smoker-friendly.

Ray McNeill, the brewery’s owner, remembers when he allowed smoking about 10 years ago and doesn’t want to go back; he said it was like a “gas chamber” at times. The move didn’t have a negative impact, he said, but rather new people started drinking there and some smokers went elsewhere.

“On a Friday night, the place was just a cloud in the old days,” recalled McNeill, standing outside his brewery an hour before it opened Tuesday.

He, too, believes a smoking ban should apply to everyone, but said his bar wouldn’t be affected at all. He has many customers who smoke, but they go outside to do it.
?
http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~2777477,00.html