Bill Preempting Local Smoking Bans Shelved

Realizing that he lacked support, a lawmaker pushing a bill that sought to preempt local government from banning smoking decided against putting the measure to a vote this session, apparently scuttling it for this year.

The surprise action by Assemblyman Curtis Tucker Jr. (D-Inglewood) came as players in Sacramento’s tobacco wars resumed their fight after the monthlong summer recess. Tucker’s decision appeared to be a boost for a competing bill that seeks to ban smoking in virtually all enclosed workplaces.

Tucker’s bill, backed by the tobacco industry, would have invalidated the City of Los Angeles’ smoking ban. The bill would have imposed some statewide restrictions but would have allowed most business owners to set their own smoking policies.

“He finally got the message: The votes weren’t there,” said state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), who chairs the Health and Human Services Committee and was among Tucker’s most formidable foes.

But Watson added that “nothing ever dies around here.” Provisions of Tucker’s bill could resurface in the final hours of the session as an amendment to other legislation, or it could be revived next year.

“I’m going to be watching very closely to see that nothing surfaces at the 11th hour,” Watson said.

Tucker was unavailable for comment, but his aide, George Wiley, said the bill was pulled from consideration because “we were counting heads and (a majority vote) is just not there.”

Wiley said other efforts to impose statewide standards on smoking may continue through the end of the legislative session next month. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is pushing one proposal that would increase cigarette taxes by 17 cents per pack and prevent cities and counties from regulating smoking. Los Angeles County would get almost half the estimated $300 million that would come from the increased cigarette tax.

Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood), who is pushing a bill to ban smoking in virtually all public places, called the apparent demise of Tucker’s bill “another huge defeat for the tobacco industry.” He said it was “further evidence that the tide has turned and the anti-tobacco forces will win.”

Friedman, meanwhile, dropped the American Lung Assn. as a sponsor of his legislation. He took the action to placate a key senator, Democrat Bill Lockyer of Hayward, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee--which is set to consider Friedman’s bill next week.

The tempest was stirred when a Lung Assn. representative was quoted as suggesting that Lockyer might be siding with the tobacco industry. Lockyer became so enraged that he threatened to vote against Friedman’s bill.

Friedman’s action was heavy with symbolism: The Lung Assn. remains a supporter of the bill, but by dropping the association as a sponsor, Friedman appeared to allay Lockyer’s anger.

“I was just jotting (Friedman) a little note complimenting him on his tactical skill and his principle and integrity,” Lockyer said Wednesday. “I don’t think I’ve ever experienced a fuller defense from a colleague in 20 years, and I am very appreciative of his efforts to set the record straight.”