Legislators sometimes face many conflicting pressures when deciding how to vote on an issue. We must consider our party platform or philosophical beliefs. Add to that the conflict of voting for the interests of our own district versus policy that may better serve the rest of the state. Finally, what seems to be the consensus of our constituents and how does this line up with our own personal opinion?
The tough votes are those where the legislator has considered all of these factors and there still seems to be no clear “yes” or “no” vote.
I find myself in such a dilemma when considering SF 236, a bill allowing cities and counties to pass more stringent smoking ordinances for public places than Iowa law currently allows. “Public place” is already defined in the section of the Iowa Code dealing with current smoking prohibitions (Section 142B). This bill expands the list to include private residences if used as a child care facility, a child care home, or a health care provider location. Local governments could also prohibit or limit smoking in factories or warehouses and other places of work not frequented by the general public, as well as rooms or halls used for a social function. The bill does, however, exempt fraternal organizations (i.e., American Legion Halls), which under the bill are not deemed to be public places.
Most workplaces and many restaurants have already made their own policy decisions to ban smoking in their businesses. Because private businesses have the most to gain and lose related to such a decision, I believe the decision should be left up to them. Particularly in the case of restaurants, customers have the opportunity to vote with their feet by frequenting restaurants that suit their desire for either a smoking or a smoke-free atmosphere. My preference is that governments not make this decision for private businesses.
However, if SF 236 or some version of it appears to be headed for passage, my decision becomes whether it is better to support a state-wide ban or to allow local control. Also to be considered is what, if any, entities should be exempted? The House version of the bill would exempt over age 21 bars and casinos.
In my view, the only argument that justifies governments making this determination for private businesses is the health aspect. If it’s true second-hand smoke causes cancer – and ultimately death – then the only fair and reasonable public policy would be to ban smoking statewide with no exceptions. It would not be fair to allow some workers to be subjected to second hand smoke while others are protected.
I have heard from quite a few constituents on this issue. Additionally, a survey on this question was recently conducted of the members of the Ankeny Economic Development Corporation and Ankeny Area Chamber of Commerce. Based on approximately 100 responses, 43% indicated they favored a state-wide ban while 34% felt local business owners should decide what is best for their businesses. Finally, 12% believed local governments should be allowed to pass their own ordinances, 9% felt a state-wide ban should be passed with some exceptions, and 2% cited “other”.
Now it’s your turn to tell me what you believe is the best policy for the Iowa Legislature to pass. I look forward to you contacting me in any of the following ways:
E-mail: carmine.boal@legis.state.ia.us
Home Address: 3301 SW Timber Green Road, Ankeny
Home Phone: 964-3335