SMOKERS RIGHTS BILL DRAWS CONTROVERSY

JEFFERSON CITY - Smokers rights are at the heart of a bill in the Missouri General Assembly that would require most public places to designate areas for non-smokers.

But the bill, as amended in the House, also provides some rights to smokers.

Rep. Joe Driskill, who does not smoke, and Rep. Dennis Ziegenhorn, who quit last month after many years of smoking, both agree smokers ought to be entitled to some rights.

Driskill, of Poplar Bluff, had a hand in amending a bill by Rep. Tommy Macdonnell, D-Marshfield, to protect the rights of non-smokers and insure that smokers are not discriminated against because they smoke.

Driskill offered an amendment to the measure, referred to as the "Clean Indoor Air Act," to require state office buildings to set aside space inside for smokers.

"I don't smoke and don't necessarily agree with those that do, but those that do at state buildings ought to be accorded some respect by allowing them someplace in the building to smoke instead of sending them outside," said Driskill.

Driskill said his amendment is a move toward "common sense and a little dignity for smokers."

Ziegenhorn said he strongly supports providing indoor smoking areas at state buildings. "It looks tacky having employees standing around outside smoking," said Ziegenhorn.

He said many smokers feel they are in a minority and there is no need to "red flag" smokers by forcing them to stand outside.

"I don't have a problem if you want to smoke in my office," said Ziegenhorn. "In my office you can smoke, but I don't."

Driskill said the bill also requires the indoor smoking areas to be properly ventilated, although it does not mandate the size of the room.

Macdonnell, a doctor who has devoted much of his legislative time to championing rights of non-smokers, said the room would be nothing more than "a gas chamber."

But Driskill said, "My aim was to give them a little, decent treatment to keep them from being kicked out on the pavement."

Another provision of the bill broadens smokers' rights so that employers cannot discriminate against employees on the basis that they smoke. The bill also prevents employers from charging employees who smoke higher health insurance premiums. That provision drew some criticism when the House-passed bill made it to the Senate, and the bill was returned to a conference committee.

Rep. Ollie Amick, D-Benton, said there are a lot of things to consider in discussing rights of smokers.

"Not only are you protecting your own health, but also the people around you," said Amick. "People will be healthier because of the bill.

"I hate to affect people's lives, but this goes back into the cost of health care. If I want to abuse my body, should I have to pay more for health care than those that do not? That is something we have to deal with at some point."

As for smokers' rights, Amick said, "I don't think any employer should be able to tell an employee what he can and can't do when it comes to smoking."

Amick said it is proper for the employer to require smoking in designated places or not in the workplace, but whether a person smokes should not be a condition of employment.

An organization that works on behalf of non-smokers, Missouri GASP, has expressed opposition to the parts of the bill that prevent discrimination against smokers.

Martin Pion, president of the group, contends the bill is an improper attempt to give smokers the same protected status as those given to individuals on the basis of race, color or gender when it comes to employment practices.

"This is the price being exacted by the tobacco lobby for allowing passage of a relatively weak clean-indoor-air bill," said Pion.

Pion said: "For years the tobacco lobby has been diverting attention from the tobacco health-and-welfare issue with the bogus claim that smoking is a right and smokers are being unfairly discriminated against. If this legislation passes, they will finally have some legitimate legal grounds for that claim."

Rep. David Schwab, R-Jackson, said the bill is a compromise because it offers some protection to both sides.

"I did not hear a lot of opposition from either side in the halls," said Schwab. "I think the tobacco lobby pretty much signed off on it."

But Sen. Jerry Howard, D-Dexter, a former cigarette smoker, said he is not happy with the discrimination provision. He voted to send the bill back to the House. The House declined to remove the provision, which sends the bill to a conference committee.

"I think employers ought to have the opportunity to hire only non-smokers," said Howard. "I think employees ought to be able to smoke if they want, but if an employer wants to hire only those who don't smoke he should have that right. I think an employer ought to be able to tell a person up front that he won't hire you if you smoke."

Howard said he sees a very distinct difference between protecting the rights of smokers in employment and protecting the rights of minorities as required by federal law.

Howard said it has been proven that second-hand smoke is harmful, that it raises health insurance costs, and even can be a factor in automobile accidents.

"There is still considerable support for the bill, based on the fact we need some initiative toward clean air and a smoke-free environment," said Howard.

Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett, said the debate over employment discrimination is more philosophical than anything else.

"I don't think smoking is an issue in hiring," said Thomason. "Smoking is not the point; you should not be allowed to discriminate on anything that does not impact on your ability to contribute to the workforce."

Thomason said the U.S. Supreme Court, if it chose to rule on the issue, would decide that employers cannot discriminate against smokers.

Thomason, who smokes cigarettes, said there are some jobs where it might be unacceptable to smoke, but not many.

"I don't condone smoking; it is not something anybody ought to do," said Thomason. "But, if something is branded good or bad, it should not be deemed a hiring practice."

Although the bill requires non-smoking areas, especially in restaurants, it recognizes that in some places it is not possible to have non-smoking areas, including in bowling alleys and large public buildings such as VFW halls. In those places a sign must be posted stating that there are no smoke-free areas in the building.

Another part of the bill prevents the sale of tobacco products to minors.

Thomason said the bill has been discussed for several years. He said he believes this year it will pass.