Smoking ban in Va?

[Gatorbassman]

They started a smoking ban in my county two years ago and the restaurant's revenue actually went up. It's been a good thing so far.

[Olebiker]

Well, I don't care about smoking in a restaurant, but a bar?

Gimmie a break...

I guess I must be missing your point. Why would a bar be any different than any other enclosed place? I would love to be able to have a beer without having to endure cigarette smoke.

Last time I checked, tobacco was still a legal substance.

So's farting, but you wouldn't want me doing it while you're trying to enjoy a beer.  Oh, wait, they have ventilation fans for that.   ;D

[Glenn]

My state has been smoke free for a few years now and it's been great!  I only wish they did it sooner in my younger years when I was club-hopping.  I would've gone out more often, but hated the stench on my clothes, plus I spent the next day clearing out my lungs.  

Now if only Vegas would follow suit.  :

[tyrius.]

Fact is, cigarettes do not cause cancer. They accelerate cancer cell growth.

Sweet!!!  Sign me up for some of that!!!

I don't like how people always pin cancer on tobacco use.

You may not like it, but tobacco has been known to contain carcinogens since the 30's.  Using tobacco (and even breathing in second hand smoke) greatly increases one's risk of developing various cancers.  This is scientific fact.

However I don't think it's cool that the government is trying to take away more of our freedoms.

They aren't taking away any of the smoker's freedoms.  They are protecting the non-smokers freedom from the smoker's smoke.  Why is the smoker's "freedom" to smoke worth more than the non-smokers "freedom" not to be affected by tobacco smoke?

[Catt]

Scientific fact no doctor has ever diagnosed a patient's sickness as caused by second hand smoke.

Scientific fact no death certificate has stated the cause of death was due to second hand smoke.

An athlete charged with marijuana use, his defense was he was in a car with 3 other people smoking, lower supreme criminal court ruling it is scientifically impossible for some one to inhale enough second hand THC to show up in a blood test.

Now this is not saying second hand smoke will not affect sinus; I don't smoke in our house because of this.

The more freedoms you give your government the more freedoms they will take so be careful what you ask for.  

[frogtog]

I smoke and I think they should outlaw tobacco period. Nothing good has ever come out of smoking or drinking. They use these to keep the population in check with, just think how many people would still be alive if it weren't for tobacco and alcohol. :

[roadwarrior]

What's next?

How 'bout banning fat girls from wearing spandex at Wal-Mart?

There's got to be several health issues involved.

:

[daviscw]

I smoke and I think they should outlaw tobacco period. Nothing good has ever come out of smoking or drinking. They use these to keep the population in check with, just think how many people would still be alive if it weren't for tobacco and alcohol. :

NASCAR, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem.....

[moby bass]

My point is, smoking did not affect my health.

Wait 50 years before you say that dude, you never know. Both my grandparents smoked but quit before I was born, so they have been smoke free for over 20 years. Last week we found out my grandmother now has lung cancer and my grandfather has had 2 battles with it in the past 3 years. Watching someone slowly die of cancer and breathing troubles should make just about anyone quit. It's what got me to quit.

Edit: I could care less if somone smokes. Your life, do whatever you want. Just don't go blowing smoke in my face.

My father and his 3 siblings all smoked. The story is that the house used to be blue with smoke.  Poor grandma, she lived til she was 99. Dad died at 90. Go figure.

Personally, I like a non smoking restaurant, and I used to own a pipe and cigar store.  Tobacco paid for a chunk of my house.  I agree it should be up to the business.  But there is a much greater issue and RW alluded to it.  When the gov't starts banning this and that, here and there, what's the next thing to go?  Little by little your freedoms disappear.  If you don't think smoking can be banned in your own home, think again. They can do it, and it will be under the guise of protecting your children or something like that. If bars want to permit smoking, non-smokers will stay away. Either the bar will do enough business without them or the bar will change its policy.  Or, non-smokers can go find a non-smoking bar.  Anyway, a free market works, and banning legal activities, that's a slippery slope.

[Dan:]

The decision should be left up to the business owners.

Agreed. This is America. It is the market's job to influence the business' decisions, not the government's. If enough people decide they don't like it, they can get a business to ban it once they realize they are losing money by allowing smoking.

besides, in Virginia I think the rural and urban populations will greatly out vote suburbia on this...

[drmnbig]

Dominion Dan, I sure hope you are wrong and this goes through.  I grew up with a father that smoked and I'm scared of what I have to look forward to but I darn sure don't want to see my kids have to hear something like they have cancer when they're older.  I say ban tobacco, alcohol and idiots and the world would be a much better place. (the idiots probably outnumber them all)   ;D

[Dan:]

I really don't think second hand smoke is that big of a deal in terms of the probability of getting cancer. MAYBE if you work in a bar or restaurant for decades....but if you are only exposed when you go out to eat every once in a while or when you go to bars for a few years when you are young then that is just paranoia.

People do stupid stuff all the time, but it isn't the government's role to ban it.  I'm not too fond of outlawing personal choice, even if it is about something harmful like smoking. IMO, as long as it doesn't unreasonably affect other people negatively then leave it alone.

[slomoe]

The decision should be left up to the business owners.

The more freedoms you give your government the more freedoms they will take so be careful what you ask for.  

x2

[tyrius.]

I really don't think second hand smoke is that big of a deal in terms of the probability of getting cancer. MAYBE if you work in a bar or restaurant for decades....but if you are only exposed when you go out to eat every once in a while or when you go to bars for a few years when you are young then that is just paranoia.

The EPA actually classifies tobacco smoke as a Group A carcinogen.  It is one of 15 in the group shared with the likes of asbestos, radon, benzene, etc.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

Phillip Morris' own (shockingly unpublished) research revealed just how bad it is.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/6/396

[tyrius.]

Scientific fact no doctor has ever diagnosed a patient's sickness as caused by second hand smoke.

Where's the proof behind this statement?  

The more freedoms you give your government the more freedoms they will take so be careful what you ask for.

I'll ask this question again.  Why is the smoker's "freedom" to smoke more important than the non-smoker's "freedom" to not be subjected to that smoke?  Why should the smoker trump the non-smoker?

[Dan:]

Scientific fact no doctor has ever diagnosed a patient's sickness as caused by second hand smoke.

Where's the proof behind this statement?

The more freedoms you give your government the more freedoms they will take so be careful what you ask for.

I'll ask this question again. Why is the smoker's "freedom" to smoke more important than the non-smoker's "freedom" to not be subjected to that smoke? Why should the smoker trump the non-smoker?

Because the non-smoker already has the freedom not to be subjected to smoke; they can just walk away from the smoke or refuse to patronize smoky establishments.

[grimlin]

Scientific fact no doctor has ever diagnosed a patient's sickness as caused by second hand smoke.

Where's the proof behind this statement?

The more freedoms you give your government the more freedoms they will take so be careful what you ask for.

I'll ask this question again. Why is the smoker's "freedom" to smoke more important than the non-smoker's "freedom" to not be subjected to that smoke? Why should the smoker trump the non-smoker?

It's not a question of who's freedom.It's a question of rights.

Some poeple smoke= Their rights

Some people don't=Their rights

Those men and women who serve military time.That's what they fight for...our freedom of rights.

8-)

[fathom]

Scientific fact no doctor has ever diagnosed a patient's sickness as caused by second hand smoke.

Where's the proof behind this statement?

The more freedoms you give your government the more freedoms they will take so be careful what you ask for.

I'll ask this question again. Why is the smoker's "freedom" to smoke more important than the non-smoker's "freedom" to not be subjected to that smoke? Why should the smoker trump the non-smoker?

we're missing the point here...this has nothing to do with smoker vs. non-smoker...neither has the right to tell someone else how to run their business...nor life.

the trump here is about the right of the business owner having the right to decide what is best for his business...it is not a far stretch here to the right of the individual having the right to decide what is best for his home.

if you give up what rights you have in one place, you will soon give up what rights you have in the other.

[tyrius.]

Because the non-smoker already has the freedom not to be subjected to smoke; they can just walk away from the smoke or refuse to patronize smoky establishments.

Again this is saying that the smoker has more importance than the non-smoker, that his "freedoms" are more important than the other person's.  Why shouldn't the smoker have to go to a designated place to smoke?  Why must the non-smoker leave?

[tyrius.]

the trump here is about the right of the business owner having the right to decide what is best for his business...it is not a far stretch here to the right of the individual having the right to decide what is best for his home.

I agree.  I stipulated to that earlier in a response to burley's post.

[firefightn15]

I'm a smoker.  Used to have a pack gone by 10 am.  Not proud of it, but that's the way it was.  I still smoke a pack a day.  If an establishment wants to allow smoking, it needs to be their right.  In essence what they are saying is that as a non-smoker, they don't need your business.  Why would you want to patronize a place that really don't care if you don't like the smoke.  This is what it comes down to.

As a side note, I understand where the non-smokers are coming from, and I personally try to be very conscientious of who I am blowing smoke around.  If I were a non-smoker, I wouldn't like it either.  I also bar tend and when I have a customer who is a non-smoker, I don't smoke or at the very least, stay at the very end of the bar.  Respect for others isn't that hard.  Life was much easier as a kid when my choice was candy lucky strike or chesterfield.  Other than cavities, no health issues with them.

[Long Mike]

I think this thread should be closed.  The non smokers are snobs and the smokers are defensive.  It's a lose/lose situation.

[Glenn]

Just to be clear - in my state, "the gov't" had nothing to do with law passing. It was an initiative started by the people, voted by the people, and passed by the people.

"The Man" had nothing to do with it.  Keep in mind a lot of laws and regulations are created and passed this way.  So let's refrain from the negative comments about gov't regulations and gov't "oppression" please.

[fishinfiend]

I feel it should be the right of the business to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their premisise. There have been businesses in my area that have suffered drastically because of smoking bans.

Some people act like the entire restaurant is blanketed with smoke because people in the far end are smoking. This has not been my experience. I will acknowledge that second hand smoke can be detrimental but I SERIOUSLY doubt that inhaling trace amounts of smoke for a short period of time will have any significant affect. To my knowledge their have not been any studies that assert the dangers of frequenting dining facilities with smoking areas.

Maybe you would agree that they should ban the double cheeseburger from the menu since it poses a greater risk than the second hand smoke :

For the record, I do not smoke.

[tallydude]

I'm glad to see that Virginia is catching up with the rest of the country and banning smoking in restaurants. I can live with the smoking in bars- I'm a realist. But when I go to places like Kentucky or Virginia for dinner and I'm asked "Smoking or non smoking?", I just want to laugh.