AP - RICHMOND, Va. - Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt.

The state's House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday authorizing a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner."

Del. Lionell Spruill Sr., a Democrat who opposed the bill, had pleaded with his colleagues to remember their own youthful fashion follies.

During an extended monologue Monday, he talked about how they dressed or wore their hair in their teens. On Tuesday, he said the measure was an unconstitutional attack on young blacks that would force parents to take off work to accompany their children to court just for making a fashion statement.

"This is a foolish bill, Mr. Speaker, because it will hurt so many," Spruill said before the measure was approved 60-34. It now goes to the state Senate.

The bill's sponsor, Del. Algie T. Howell, has said constituents were offended by the exposed underwear. He did not speak on the floor Tuesday.

Spruill and Howell, also a Democrat, are both black.

You know, there is nothing more inappropriate than displaying your underwear as part of a daily fashion routine. But why stop there? Panty lines can be distracting also! How about pants so tight that your religion is showing? Or maybe inappropriate fabrics that display your fat index? Golly, if they are going to tackle one problem, maybe they should rap up all the fashion faux pas' in one bill.

While not a huge fan of saggin' (dangerously low pants) and flaggin' (hung out shirt tails), I never really wanted to consider my licensed peace officers as the "fashion police".

Besides - what about the stereotypical plumber? Does he just stop wearing undergarments - - gross!!

If they are taking orders, I want to outlaw whites shoes before Easter or after Labor Day, and those ridiculous knit hat that teenagers wear in warm weather that make them look homeless, visible peircings other than ears and tacky tatoos.

Now, now, we have all missed the point. What an excellent and perhaps entertaining way to allow a legal way to contact a citizen, which will of course result in the finding of narcotics. Say, the Pretextual Panty Law?

Let us not forget the unspeakable crime committed by many "mature" gentlemen of wearing shorts with black dress socks and white tennis shoes in the summer months! Usually these suspects may be found milling around golf courses and family reunions, and often with some sort of light blue-odd shaped hat to further complete the outfit!

Don't forget the ever popular combination of white athletic socks and a nice blue or black suit with brown or black dress shoes. One local defense attorney is often seen attired in this manner whilst wearing suits. Funny thing is, when he doesn't wear a suit and wears slacks or jeans, he wears brown or black dress socks with his shoes, and yes, including tennis shoes. Since his pants are somewhat high water, the white sock/business suit effect is fairly obvious to all.

Hey, hasn't a "mature gentleman" earned the right to wear whatever he chooses, even black socks with shorts? Besides, whose problem is it anyway: his or yours?

As to the low-flung trousers, might that not be a fashion for folks who might want to expedite an emergency alcohol enema?

Droopy-Pants Bill Dropped in Va. Senate

RICHMOND, Va. - Virginia lawmakers dropped their droopy-pants bill Thursday after the whole thing became just too embarrassing.

The bill, which would have slapped a $50 fine on people who wear their pants so low that their underwear is visible in "a lewd or indecent manner," passed the state House on Tuesday but was killed by a Senate committee two days later in a unanimous vote.

Republican Sen. Thomas K. Norment said news reports implied that lawmakers were preoccupied with droopy pants.

"I find that an indignation, which dampens my humor," Norment said.

Republican Sen. Kenneth Stolle, the committee chairman, called the bill "a distraction."

The committee hearing drew a standing-room-only crowd that included about 75 government students from Surry County High School.

"If people in Florida can wear bikinis, a little underwear showing isn't going to hurt anybody," 17-year-old Elvyn Shaw said.

The bill's sponsor, Democratic Delegate Algie T. Howell, declined to answer reporters' questions Thursday but issued a statement saying the bill "was in direct response to a number of my constituents who found this to be a very important issue."

He has said the constituents included customers at his barber shop who were offended by exposed underwear.

You know the legislative process can be irritating, but isn't good that not every brilliant idea developed in the barbershop lands directly in the Penal Code.

COMMENTARY: JOHN KELSO

When plumber's cleavage is outlawed, only outlaws will have plumber's cleavage

Hey, you, pull up your pants.

That's what lawmakers in Virginia were saying until they came to their senses and killed a bill that would have made it illegal to wear your pants so low that your underwear shows.

This was a bad bill. An infraction would have come with a $50 fine, meaning if the bill had been passed, it would have eliminated a popular American male style: plumber's cleavage.

Imagine how much a plumber would have to charge if he had to pay $50 to the court every time he bent over to work on your kitchen sink. Have you priced plumbers lately? Aren't plumbing bills high enough as it is without throwing in a $50 fudge factor for a pants violation? What's this country coming to, anyway?

The pants flap started Tuesday when Virginia's House of Delegates passed a bill that would have made it an offense for anyone to display his or her underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner." After being embarrassed over the stupidity of the bill, a Virginia Senate committee dropped it like a pair of pants.

The bill was aimed at the teens you see walking around the mall with their Jockeys above their jeans to make a fashion statement.

Hey, at least these Virginia kids are wearing underwear. I'm not sure you could say that about West Virginia.

It's time we stopped picking on our children for their silly clothing choices. It's an American tradition for youths to wear nonsensical attire. In the '60s, hippie kids wore bell bottoms, pants adopted by the Navy to make it easier for a man overboard to take them off so he could swim better and not drown.

Hippies had no logical reason to wear bell bottoms, since most of the time when they got in the water they were skinny-dipping.

The odd thing to me about this bill is that anyone would think that a male teenager wearing his pants a couple of inches below his underwear is lewd. That's not lewd; that's laundry. Besides, women these days traipse about in public with their tummies hanging out, and nobody complains about that. At least none of my guy friends complain about it ? unless there's a loose beer gut involved. And at Wal-Mart, there often is.

That's where I draw the line. If the area exposed by the woman who is wearing lowriders is convex in nature and ample enough for display advertising legible at 10 yards, it ought to be a $50 fine. If there's enough space to advertise, say, Schlitz Malt Liquor, take her downtown and book her.

But you young guys, don't let your pants hang down, because, trust me, there will come a day when your pants will rush to your ankles on their own, whether you want them to or not.

Ever since I hit 50, I've become progressively more pear-shaped, which means my pants have an urge to slide off and race toward my shoes unless I wear suspenders. Which means when I wear a belt instead of suspenders, I have to walk around, say, Central Market pushing the grocery cart with one hand and yanking up my pants with the other.

And if I lose my grip and get fined $50 for lewd behavior, I'm taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.