Vote puts state close to smoking ban
The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly last night to extend the state's workplace smoking ban to all restaurants, nightclubs, and bars, moving the Commonwealth closer to becoming the sixth state in the nation to ban cigarettes from virtually all public venues.
The 125-to-25 vote appeared to make the ban immune to a veto from Governor Mitt Romney, who had said earlier in the year that he preferred to leave smoking laws
to individual cities and towns,
but whose administration now says it is willing to consider a statewide ban. Although the state Senate has yet to vote on the measure, senators endorsed a similar ban in May as part of a budget measure. But that initiative later died during House and Senate budget negotiations. The House vote was seen
as key because the House had been considered less receptive
to a ban until Speaker Thomas
M. Finneran declared his support Monday. Yesterday's vote occurred less than six months after Boston enacted its own smoking ban, a prohibition seen as a model and an inspiration for state lawmakers who had experienced only futility in a decade of battle with big tobacco and the hospitality industry.
"It's fascinating, the speed with which this has happened," said John Auerbach, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission. "Boston's passage of the tobacco ban was a turning point in the state because it meant that a very significant population in the state was suddenly covered."
The ban would eliminate smoking in virtually all workplaces in the state, including restaurants and taverns. California, New York, Connecticut, Maine, and Delaware have passed
such bans. The measure would provide only a few exemptions, with smoking still allowed in fraternal halls, such as the American Legion; in nursing homes, where designated smoking rooms would be permitted; and cafes specializing chiefly in the sale of cigars, so long as they can demonstrate that a majority of their sales derive from tobacco.
The law would impose fines as high as $300 for violators and would go into effect July 5, 2004. Though the ban was originally proposed to start in January 2005, that date was moved to allow the ban to take effect in the summer, allowing patrons desperate for a smoke to become accustomed to going outside before winter settles in.
Romney has not taken a public position recently on a statewide smoking prohibition, but his press secretary said last night that Romney is willing to examine the legislation. "We have not had a chance to evaluate the proposal, but we look forward to receiving it should it reach the governor's desk," said Shawn Feddeman.
Despite years of rancor over the idea of banning smoking, the House vote unfolded with little drama yesterday. In recent months, the reliable opposition had melted away, with the Massachusetts Restaurant Association abandoning its long-held stance against a statewide ban as dozens of cities and towns adopted prohibitions, deciding it was better to have a uniform law.
Lawmakers and advocates of the ban acknowledge that the tobacco industry has had a much lower profile this year as the ban was being considered.
At last count, 94 communities across the state had approved smoking bans, with Cambridge and Somerville among the latest. More than one in three Bay Staters now live in a municipality with a comprehensive workplace smoking ban.
"We have reached the point and time where this is the next frontier," said state Representative Rachel Kaprielian, the Watertown Democrat who championed the ban in the House. "There is a critical mass in the state. The most important thing about this bill is the public's health."
Tobacco use has been cited by federal health authorities as the single biggest preventable cause of death in the nation, responsible for 440,000 deaths a year from cancer, heart disease, and other ailments linked to cigarettes and cigars.
During yesterday's nearly three-hour debate, which stretched into early evening, House members opposed to the ban attempted to use several amendments to stymie the initiative. One, for instance, would have outlawed cigarettes in the state completely, making the bill essentially unpassable.
The advocate of that proposal, Representative George N. Peterson Jr., suggested it was disingenuous for lawmakers to eliminate smoking from certain venues while still permitting the sale of cigarettes.
"It's somewhat like the drug dealer. Gets you hooked. Makes a ton of cash. The difference is the drug dealer is illegal," said Peterson, a Republican from Grafton. "But we're going to continue to sell that tobacco product and continue to collect those taxes. But we're going to tell you where you can smoke it."
That measure failed, as did the other attempts to stop the ban.
The House minority leader, Bradley H. Jones Jr., a North Reading Republican, said after the vote that while he wasn't surprised by the outcome, he fears that the smoking regulation will spark problems. "I think there will be some unintended consequences," he said. "I think some of the provisions are too Draconian."
A Senate vote could come as early as today, although speculation on Beacon Hill last night was that the upper chamber may wait until next week to deliver the smoking ban to Romney's desk.
The House would need 120 votes to trump a veto by the governor, and last night's vote provided a comfortable cushion to assure the prohibition would survive, no matter the governor's decision.
"This is obviously a fabulous culmination of a decade of work on the local level in Massachusetts," said Lori J. Fresina, an advocacy representative for the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The expression about, `When the people will lead, the leaders will follow,' came true today."
Brendan McCarthy of the Globe staff contributed to this story. Stephen Smith can be reached at stsmith@globe.com.
