Latest Headlines
- Former Treasurer Indicted On 36 Felony Counts For Allegedly Stealing From NWE Little League
- Deputies Arrest Burglary Suspect On Chemstrand Road
- Escambia BOCC To Install Four Commissioners, New Chair And Vice-Chair
- Make Your Appointment Now To Let The Miracle League Fry Your Thanksgiving Turkey
- Four Takeaways From Tate’s 6A Quarterfinal Game At Nease (And 40 Photos)
- Here Are Road Construction Spots To Watch This Week
- Deputies Investigating Saturday Night Shooting
- UWF Argos Close Out Season In GSC Title Game Loss To No. 1 Valdosta
- Star Wars Night: Ice Flyers Fall To Huntsville Havoc
- EREC Members See Small Monthly Fee Added, But Rates May Drop In December
Amendment 9: Combining Vaping, Drilling Ban Draws Criticism
October 28, 2018
A move to expand the state’s 16-year ban on smoking in indoor workplaces to include electronic cigarettes and vaping is drawing opposition.
But unlike in 2002 when the smoking ban passed, the opposition is not coming from a campaign by Florida restaurants to kill the proposal.
Instead, the measure is facing criticism, including from some newspaper editorial boards, because of the process used by the 37-member Florida Constitution Revision Commission to put what is known as Amendment 9 on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Rather than allowing the vaping ban to stand on its own as a proposed constitutional amendment, the commission coupled it with a proposed ban on offshore oil drilling in Florida waters, describing the combination as an environmental amendment.
The Florida Supreme Court said the commission followed the rules, but the decision to combine the proposals might turn at least some voters against what otherwise could be popular ideas.
Constitution Revision Commission member Lisa Carlton, a key supporter of Amendment 9, is asking voters to reflect before possibly voting against the measure because of the process.
“For this election, look at all the amendments on the ballot. Study them and decide, based on substance, whether they fit into what you think Florida should look like for the next generation,” said Carlton, a former state lawmaker who was the commission’s primary sponsor of the proposed vaping ban and a co-sponsor of the oil drilling ban.
Carlton steadfastly defends the process and said the two issues were rolled into an amendment that addresses the environment.
She also noted that the Supreme Court sided with the commission and against opponents who tried to remove Amendment 9 and other amendments from the ballot because the proposals combined different issues. A lawsuit filed by former Supreme Court Justice Harry Lee Anstead and another plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that including various subjects in single ballot measures —- a practice known as “logrolling” — violated the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit.
Retired University of South Florida political-science professor Susan MacManus said, however, that of all the amendments, voters are most perplexed about the coupling of the issues in Amendment 9.
“It makes no sense to the average voter why they were put together,” MacManus told The News Service of Florida in an interview. “Yet the people who wrote it said it was logical.”
Questions about process aside, Amendment 9 — and other amendments on the ballot — could face an uphill battle, McManus said, because of voters skipping items at the bottom of the ballot. In all, voters will face decisions on 12 proposed constitutional amendments, which were placed on the ballot by the Constitution Revision Commission, the Legislature and through petition drives.
The amendments appear on the ballot behind several high-profile races, including races for governor and U.S. senator. McManus said that in past elections, voter “roll-off” — skipping items at the bottom of the ballot — has been as high as 15 percent, but it could be as high as 25 percent this year.
Constitutional amendments must receive 60 percent support from voters to pass.
Amendment 9, in part, would expand a 2002 constitutional amendment that overwhelmingly passed to ban smoking in most workplaces, including restaurants.
In addition to drawing a legal challenge, the way Amendment 9 was put together has drawn opposition such as in a Tampa Bay Times editorial that encouraged readers to vote against the proposal. That move caught Carlton’s ire, leading her to write a letter to the Tampa Bay Times and other media outlets, including The News Service of Florida.
Carlton said the editorial “shocked” her.
“I was completely shocked that a newspaper — which from the news side and the editorial side that has written so much about offshore oil drilling and how horrible it is for our environment and our state and our tourist economy and our sea life — would not look at this as an opportunity for Floridians to make a strong statement to the rest of the country on our thoughts on offshore oil drilling,” Carlton said.
But David Mica, executive director of the Florida Petroleum Council, said he’s not surprised the amendment has drawn criticism.
“It’s not rocket science these are two topics that are totally unrelated,” said Mica, whose group opposes the amendment and maintains that a current state law about drilling in state waters is sufficient. “This issue is the poster child with what was wrong with the bundling that was done. The court said it was legal, but it doesn’t make it right.”
The American Lung Association issued a statement last week supporting Amendment 9, with Chief Mission Officer Deb Brown saying the amendment “will protect Floridians from the dangers of e-cigarette aerosols in our state’s workplaces and public places where smoking is already prohibited.”
And while the restaurant industry lobbied against the 2002 smoking ban, the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association is supporting Amendment 9.
Samantha Padgett, general counsel for the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association, said the group thinks the ban on electronic cigarettes and vaping in workplaces should be added to the Constitution for consistency.
“That ship has sailed,” she said of the original opposition to the workplace smoking ban, adding “this is how they regulate now.”
by Christine Sexton, The News Service of Florida
Comments
16 Responses to “Amendment 9: Combining Vaping, Drilling Ban Draws Criticism”
Here’s the upshot:
The drilling ban will have zero impact. None.
Why that’s true:
Florida state waters are the only place where the drill ban will be in effect.
Florida state waters are 3 miles out.
Federal Waters are 12 miles out.
The United States Exclusive Economic Zone is 200 miles out.
Example:
This means that the federal government can lease an oil plot out over the Destin Dome south of Apalachicola, put the lease at four miles out, authorize it and the lease holder start drilling and there isn’t a thing Florida can do about it because it’s in federal waters outside of Florida jurisdiction.
And at 4 miles out, the rig will be *clearly visible* from the shoreline.
So the drill ban is useless.
As for being combined with a vaping ban…. it’s just another example of how the rest of the world thinks florida has lost its mind.
any business or restaurant or town can ban vaping. leave it up to the individual places. if you do not like it don’t go there, but putting it in the constitution just ruins it. those that vote for these amendments just do not understand what a constitution is.
bundling is the same reason a lot of needed laws do not get passed in congress.
VOTE NO ON ALL AMENDMENTS.
@retired; There is one US Senate candidate on the ballot that wants to implement term limits for congress, and it’s not the senator that has been in congress for 40 years.
I think bundling this amendment makes sense if you think about it. Health conscious people who recognize the harm caused by second-hand smoke/vapor are generally the same who would vote against drilling off the coast of Florida. Maybe not for the same reason, but the reasoning is very similar.
The benefit of satisfying the few who think they should be able to vape or drill where ever and whenever they please irregardless of the health/environmental consequences to others is similar in that both drilling and vaping will only benefit a few and potentially harm many.
Only someone who doesn’t vape would want to ban vaping! As someone who has a Loved one who Vapes to give up smoking I find it ridicules that people would want to ban vaping when the steam from vaping doesn’t even affect the people around them in any way. Yes I have read the negative B.S. put out by the cigarette companies, why anyone would trust BIG tobacco at this point is beyond me.
I am not in favor of “logrolling” or bundling several items in one amendment proposal, but if the Legislature fails to do its job to pass laws, the voters, through the review commission and signature process, must act. If you oppose oil drilling in state waters and oppose e-cigarettes/vaping in public places and workplaces, why vote NO just because you’re irked at the process and legislators can’t do their job?
NEED TO BUNDLE TERM LIMITS WITH SOMETHING ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL
Vote NOOOOO on Amendment 4. Then read carefully the language in the Greyhound ban. The unethical treatment of animals will be used by animal rights freaks to go after hunting and fishing. If you think that’s ridiculous then why didn’t they just say Greyhound Racing specifically ?
Jason you are right on. I vote no on all amendmenrs because it does make the Constitution a piece of junk.
These two very unrelated issues should not be enshrined in the State Constitution. Both issues should be handled by the duly elected legislature. It is very deceptive of this constitutional revision committee to bundle these issues together in the hope that they can combine enough votes to get this amendment passed. There may come a day when finding more sources of energy will be necessary, and having to repeal an amendment of the State Constitution could be difficult, and take a lot of time. There are more interests in Fl. than the tourist industry. All one needs do is look west to Gulf Shores Al. and you see the view of oil platforms doesn’t hurt tourism in the least.
These are legislative matters, not constitutional matters. Amending your state constitution over legislative matters rather than simply passing laws is a BIG mistake. A constitution is a basic framework guaranteeing citizens certain rights, not a set at laws, rules, and regulations. When a law is found to be unfounded, such as may be the case with banning vaping, it can be repealed. When new technology emerges that makes iffy shore drilling much safer, a law can be changed giving Florida access to a huge revenue source. Constitutional amendments are by definition somewhat set in stone. Constantly amending such a document cheapens it and makes it less a guarantee and more of a thing that can simply be changed on a whim.
When your politicians looses their common sense and continue to use logrolling tactics, kick their (descriptive noun) out of office.
We’ve been talking about this idea of “Bundling” of Proposals to the State Constitution. Most, like this one combine 2 or more proposals that just don’t seem to fit together.
Vaping should simply be put into the same category of smoking and to see someone’s mouth erupt in a huge cloud of smoke-vapor just looks Dumb.
Have heard the “Off-Shore Drilling” item also has its own issues and many are already covered.
We decided to protest the “Bundling” across the board and if there is more than one item in an Amendment Proposal we’ll be voting AGAINST that one.
AGAINST also the local proposal to have an Appointed Superintendent of Schools for the county. Over the years there have been School Board Members that we’d not trust to name a goldfish much less pick a Superintendent for our kids schools.
NO for “Bundled Amendments” and AGAINST the “Appointed Superintendent”.
This “amendment bundling” is manipulation, purely and simply. Several proposals that were unlikely to pass were combined with proposals likely to gain popular support as a way to get the weak and unpopular to pass. The same thing was done with combining Victims Rights and extending Supreme Court Justice retirement age to 75. Ridiculous! Maybe a change to the rules about “bundling” need to be changed!
The article is somewhat misleading when it comes to the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding logrolling. The ruling was based on the fact the state constitution permitted logrolling. However, there were several justices who agreed the practice was misleading and should be addressed in the future.
Coupled amendments. Vote NO! Send the signal to the commission and legislature that rolling amendments together is unacceptable. Each measure should be able to stand alone on its own merit and not get a free ride on a more popular measure.
Besides, most if not all of the 12 proposed amendments could be passed into law using the legislative process, and they do not belong in the state constitution.