Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Smoking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves bill to limit smoking in state buildings after heated debate
Summary
The Utah House passed substitute House Bill 197 to restrict smoking in state‑owned buildings, citing public‑health studies and experiences in other states. Supporters said the measure protects workers and could mirror executive policies; opponents warned it should be an executive decision and raised personal‑liberty concerns. Vote: 47–23.
Representative Evan L. Olson, sponsor of substitute House Bill 197, told the House the measure would give state agencies the “tools necessary to control inmate problems before they become epidemic” and argued it is part of a broader policy to restrict smoking in state‑owned buildings. Olson cited other states’ executive orders and a 1991 Environmental Protection Agency study on secondhand smoke as context for the proposal.
The bill drew sustained debate on the floor. Representative James said he opposed making the restriction into state law and argued the governor could implement a smoke‑free policy by executive action: “But to mandate our governor … I just can't buy it.” Representative Olson and other supporters countered that legislative action would ensure consistent statewide policy and cited examples of local governments and public venues that had moved to smoke‑free rules.
Supporters framed the bill as a public‑health and fiscal decision. Representative Olsen referenced a Salt Lake County decision to prohibit smoking in government facilities and cited an estimate that the county avoided costs of roughly $50,000 by eliminating designated smoking areas; he also repeated published EPA estimates about deaths attributed to secondhand smoke to underline health risks.
Opponents emphasized individual choice and the proper role of the legislature. Representative Short and others said that, while they personally disliked smoking, they would defend smokers’ rights not to be regulated by statute in this way. Several members urged the body to leave the matter to the governor or to local policy rather than codify it within state law.
After debate, the House voted to pass substitute HB 197. The bill passed 47 in favor and 23 opposed and will be forwarded to the Senate for further consideration.
The House record indicates next steps: the bill will be transmitted to the Senate, where any further action or amendments would be considered.
