Smoking in Restaurants

Wednesday on the blogger conference call I got a chance to ask Governor Tim Kaine about his proposed smoking ban in restaurants, and whether he thought it would pass the General Assembly next week.

He described the vote coming up in the House of Delegates as "tight". 

In my estimation this is the most encouraging move in Virginia that I have seen since becoming politically active.  It's bold- it's supported by the citizens, and the Governor has crafted this in a way that we will get a full vote in the House of Delegates.

This is a very dangerous vote for Republicans who may vote it down.  Because it is unlikely to get out of committee in the future- anyone who votes "No" will be saddled with that vote for years.  I will go out on a limb and predict anyone with a "No" vote on this issue will not be elected statewide (this issue polls very well statewide), and if Northern Virginia Republicans vote against this, it may very well cost them their seats this year.

This is the issue to watch on Wednesday.  If there is anything I can do to help the cause, I hope someone will let me know.  Anyone working on this issue can contact me on my AIM screen name I have had since middle school (nonsmokr79).

Comments

[Nate de la Piedra]

Ben if banning smoking in restaurants is the most encouraging move you've seen in a while, get out more.

[Brian Kirwin]

Must be the next "most important issue facing the Commonwealth"

[not gretchen bulova]

I agree NLS. This is that important. For the big mistake Kaine made in giving in on Transportation, he scored major points for his amendment to this bill.

Bans on smoking in restaurants poll 70+ across the metro areas of the state.

[phriendlyjaime]

"Anyone working on this issue can contact me on my AIM screen name I have had since middle school (nonsmokr79)."

Oh, you're sooooooooooooo humble, Ben.

Love the black lung graphic.

[phriendlyjaime]

Yeah, I bet people are thrilled that they can sit in traffic still, but when they finally get to the restaurant (late, bc of traffic and no transportation plan), there won't be smokers there. Makes sense, definitely.

A smoking ban is a stupid idea. It intrudes on owners' ability to run their business as they like, and on customers' ability enjoy the dining experience they seek.

Why in the world isn't it enough to let the owner decide which clientel they seek to satisfy, and the customers decide which businesses they want to patronize?

I'm not about to leave the party over this, but it's utterly ridiculous, pop-culture, illiberal, nanny-state paternalism.

[not gretchen bulova]

I like how Jaime (from Richmond) is complaining about traffic.

Oh my heavens, the 10 minute long rush over is too much to handle for me.

[phriendlyjaime]

No, we don't have traffic in Richmond, but I have been to NOVA enough to complain about it as well.

But that's right; you all in NoVA are so much better than everyone else, I totally forgot.

[not gretchen bulova]

I'm just commenting on your seeming universal knowledge of the state and each regions needs.

[Riley, Not O'Reilly]

I'm with you on this one, Ben.

[not gretchen bulova]

If all Jamie's smoking did was make my clothes smell then I would be ok with it. But it actually slowly kills me. If the government can't protect me from Jaime then what good is it?

[phriendlyjaime]

WOW, really? Because I just re-read your comment, and it looks like you were actually just commenting on the traffic in Richmond and the fact that I mentioned it.

Nice try though.

[not gretchen bulova]

I've lived in Richmond. My comments reflect your overall opinion, not just relating to traffic and this topic.

[Rowhey]

Does anyone see the irony in how some factions in this country are seeking to ban cigarette smoking in restaurants while simultaneously pushing for the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes?

[phriendlyjaime]

Once again, you nor anyone else can prove that anyone died from someone else's cigarette. Why is science only good when it makes YOUR point?

But I really don't want to get into this again with all of you. This is the argument that makes liberals look like hypocrites and frankly, it's pretty funny to me to watch the same people that want freedom for all suddenly act like smokers should be brought to a secluded island and left there to rot. So, go for it.

Once again, I would be shocked if this passes.

[Rowhey]

My brother died from lung cancer -- he smoked for twenty plus years.

Yet, I would vote against the bill. If you don't like the smoke in your corner of the restaurant, leave.

[phriendlyjaime]

Has anyone ever seen the Eddie Izzard set where he claims that soon America will have bars that don't allow smoking, drinking, or talking bc we have such an affinity for making laws about what bothers one segment of the population over another?

Get's truer and truer all the time...

[Rowhey]

Are they going to ban cussing too?

I'm excited for Jamie to start arguing that the state should stop enforcing all restaurant regulations. Requiring that eggs be refrigerated is nanny state paternalism! Business owners should have the right to CHOOSE whether or not to wash forks between customers! Where or where will ever end????

[phriendlyjaime]

Yes, and only libraries will be built in order to keep us all clean and pure.

[William Jackson]

Definitely the act of a nanny state. At what point does personal responsibility play into it?
The second hand smoke in Capital Ale House can't kill you if you don't patronize that establishment for allowing smoking in the first place.

Has anyone ever been to a Hardees in Southwest Virignia at 6AM? Every senior citizen in the town is there with a cigarette and coffee.

[Rowhey]

Hell, I don't smoke unless I have a drink. In fact, that's the only time when I would ever smoke....which is maybe twice a year.

[Dirk]

I don't agree with over-regulation. I don't smoke nor like smoke but don't think it is the government's right to dictate a ban to citizens or businesses. If I don't like smoking at a restaurant, I don't patronize the place. We don't need the government intervening in its citizens' lives any more than necessary.

[Not Jack Herrity]

I think we should start an online petition to get Nate and Jaime to butt out.

Double entendre? You make the call.

NJH

[Not Larry Sabato]

Businesses are risk adverse, and are unlikely to do this by themselves. Most are grateful to do it together and at once.

[not gretchen bulova]

Haha NJH, love it.

[phriendlyjaime]

You're right, the few people who actually admit to smoking shouldn't talk about this with anyone here, bc we must be wrong.

Have a good one.

[not gretchen bulova]

You are just stupid for smoking and thinking that you smoking doesn't effect others.

[novamiddleman]

phriendly come be a libertarian with me

social issues get out of my bedroom

fiscal issues get out of my wallet

leave me the f*&% alone :-p

Oh wait that would kill the fundraising of both parties cant have that

Instead I align with the fiscal Republicans because the tax and spend Democrats would have a 100% tax rate if they could get away with it.

P.S. in NoVa land there are more fiscal Republican/social libertarians then you think

P.P.S. We are the margin of victory that gave Kaine and Webb their wins. Most of us stayed home but some of us crossed over and cast votes.

EARTH TO RPV SOCIAL CONSERVATISIM IS DEAD IN NOVALAND STICK TO FISCAL ISSUES UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT THE DEMS TO CONTROL EVERYTHING

ok feel much better now

That was at least two years of frustration. Gillespie actually gets it I think.

[Not Jack Herrity]

It's funny how otherwise "liberal" people become conservatives when their ox is being gored. Jaime and Nate need to understand that indoor smoking offends people. The reason smoking offends people is because it puts allergens and toxins into the air that can adversely impact people who are sensitive to those allergens. There are people who have asthma, or who are just plain allergic to cigarette smoke. Telling them to just "deal with it" so others can enjoy a quick recreational puff is silly.

I'm also intrigued by this line of argument that holds that a bar can't be a bar without cigarette smoke. Remember, we used to think the same thing about the smoke-filled rooms where the Byrd machine decided their nominees. Things change.

This argument is similar to the guy operating the big diesel dump truck with the bad head gaskets and black smoke spewing from the exhaust who tells everyone else to get a grip. Why should the rest of us endure your carbon emissions - whether it's a cigarette or a beaten-down diesel engine?

Why is it that the person who is not causing the offense is the one that Nate and Jaime want to yield to them so they can enjoy their cigarettes? To me, that seems to be contrary to everything that liberals stand for.

This bill doesn't say that you can't smoke in your own house, or outdoors. It says you can't smoke in restaurants or bars. I look forward to seeing that bill become law.

NJH

[Dannyboy]

I would vote against this bill. I personally think that it should be up to the owners of the restaurants/bars to decide whether or not they want to allow smoke. If you don't like the smoke in the bar or restaurant, don't go. Owners will either be doing enough business that they can continue to allow smokers, or they will be forced to change their policy to do business.

I have to agree with the comments above. Don't like going to places where smoke is present? Don't go. I agree that all public buildings should ban smoking. But Private Organizations should make that call on their own.

Just one man's opinion.

[novamiddleman]

NJH

Its called choice

Nobody is forcing you to go to a place that has smokers

Your argument actually attacks your own point. Using your own logic smoking should be banned outright

Once you do that then you cross the slippery slope of eliminating fast food and a host of other things because the government knows better

To combate this we should privatize health care

As a non-smoker who takes care of himself why should my health insurance be the same as some obese chain smoker?

[James Young]

While agreeing with phriendlyjaime might cause me to reconsider my position, I'm a little surprised that someone as reasonable as you would agree with this crypto-fascist (both substantively and procedurally) effort by Governor Timmy!, Ben, but shocked that someone who makes pretensions to defending freedom (Riley) would agree with you.

[notfat]

Why shouldn't obese people be villified like smokers?

Because it's not nice to berate fatties.

[Rowhey]

Smoking and drinking go hand in hand. If you are going to ban smoking in restaurants, you might as well ban alcohol too.

There's a strong argument that drinking impacts others in a more direct way than second hand smoke. Afterall, if a patron gets drunk and drives, he'll kill quicker than smoking will.

[Rowhey]

Didn't you get the memo? Fatties are victims of corporate greed.

I bet you were hall monitor of the year too.

[Not Jack Herrity]

Don't put words in my mouth, Middleman. I expressed my views because smoking in closed buildings adversely impacts the enjoyment and health of others in a real way. No such argument can be made about fast food.

I don't care what smokers do to their own lungs. It's when they want to do it to mine that I get a little upset. For you to refrain from a cigarette during dinner is an inconvenience, depending on your level of addiction. For you to smoke a cigarette during dinner when I am in the same room infringes on my health and enjoyment. What I am saying is that smoke-free indoor air ought to be the rule, not the exception.

You don't have to misrepresent what others say in order to debate a topic. This is not about government knowing better. It's about government regulating the nuisance of indoor smoking, which is a health hazard to others.

NJH

"Just one man's opinion."

Dannyboy,

For future reference, by virtue of the fact that you're posting on a blog, I think we'll all go ahead and assume that unless you have cosigners, anything you write is "just one man's opinion" and is also likely to be "your two cents."

[Not Jack Herrity]

Rowhey: That's why drinking and driving is already illegal.

Besides, I've never seen someone actually get drunk off someone else's fumes. I have been in the company of people who made that claim, but the officer didn't believe it either.

NJH

[novamiddleman]

ok last time

If smoking bothers you dont go to the resturant

If enough people started doing this resturants would get the picture and start catering to non-smokers to retain that market niche while others would stay smoking to retain that niche

Once again we dont need government intervnetion, we need people making their own personal choices and then the market takes care of it.

[novamiddleman]

ok last time

If smoking bothers you dont go to the resturant

If enough people started doing this resturants would get the picture and start catering to non-smokers to retain that market niche while others would stay smoking to retain that niche

Once again we dont need government intervnetion, we need people making their own personal choices and then the market takes care of it.

P.S. this is fun I don't mean to insult you NJH

[Kevin]

When I go to bars in Delaware, it's one of the most enjoyable experiences you can have. Why? No smoke. Are people still drinking and eating? Amazingly...yes. Business is thriving...no adverse effects.

[novamiddleman]

offtopic but important

Dulles Rail decision

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033001050.html?hpid=topnews

[DukieDem]

Even when there's a no-smoking 'section' in a restaurant, it's usually not a seperate room and it just spreads over. I'd vote yes.

[Proud Republican]

NLS, this is slightly off-topic, but what you wrote about the screen name you've had since middle school made me very curious. If you were born in 1979, that would have had you in middle school from about 1990-93, maybe give or take a year (I based my math on you being four years younger than me). When did AIM screen names first exist? I didn't think it was that long ago.

[Jason]

If you don't like smoking in a restaurant, go to another restaurant. The market has decided for some places to go non-smoking and offer that to their customers.

In urban areas there are PLETY of opportunities for employment for low to no skilled workers so the worker's health argument fails there. For rural areas, if businesses are barely staying afloat, this ban could very well shut them down, harming the entrepeneur, consumer, and employee by destroying the job.

This bill does nothing but harm and is an attempt by a very loud few to enforce it's positions on the ability of private citizens to do what they legally are allowed and for private businesses to legally allow people to practice this in their establishments.

This is a waste of legislative time and effort, would be a waste of enforcement powers, and continues to make people pariahs for doing what they are free to do anywhere else.

Kill the bill.

"we need people making their own personal choices and then the market takes care of it."

The market is taking care of it. You're making the assumption that people aren't staying away from bars *right now*. Well they are, and those people would be going to bars if it weren't for the incessant smoking. Having lived in NYC during the time they ended smoking in restaurants, I find this whole thread deja vu all over again. The fact is the NYC bar and restaurant scene is stronger now than before the smoking ban as more people enjoy going out and not stinking like smoke at the end of the night.

AOL was invented around 1992. I can say that going to restaurants in Chicago is terrific. No smoke. There are plenty of smoking lounges and outside patios where people can smoke. This is also about the workers not the patrons.

[Doug]

Jaime- I'm surprised at you. First of all, the science shows that second hand smoke does, in fact, lead to higher rates of cancer. As an anecdote, Mrs. Christopher Reeves (I forget her first name, my bad) never smoked but sang in bars for a large portion of her adult life. She has lung cancer.

So, the science is there and I'm happy to post link after link to the AMA, etc. that shows this. Now, that said, market forces my ass. What about people who have to work in bars? A bartender is not a bad above minimum wage job. So, they just have to deal with a huge increase in their rate of lung cancer? Sure. That's very progressive.

And, I go to DC all the time. I LOVE the bars there now- I liked them before. They are all still packed like before Jan 1. Maybe even more so from what I've seen. Oh, and I have been known to smoke when out drinking and I'd much rather have to get off my fat lazy ass and go outside to get a nicotine fix.

[Doug is Right]

This is not about customers who can choose to go wherever they want. This is about the people who are stuck working in those smoky bars and restaurants for low pay and minimal benefits. Including minimal health benefits when they get cancer from secondhand smoke.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Proud Republican-

I graduated HS in 1998 (December of 79 is when I was born) so I was in middle school until summer of 1994. That's about the time AIM started, although it could have been when I was a freshman/sophmore in high school. I'm pretty sure it was before that though. That was at the time when people were impressed that the Clinton campaign had a front page up on the internet. It was also the year I worked for a US Senator over the summer who had a bill to regulate the internet despite being the only Senator whose office still didn't have email.

Dana Reeve had lung cancer. Dana Reeve died of lung cancer in March 2006.

NJH said -> "For you to smoke a cigarette during dinner when I am in the same room infringes on my health and enjoyment."

Then YOU have the choice to not spend your money in places that allow smoking.

"What I am saying is that smoke-free indoor air ought to be the rule, not the exception."

And we have to have the government make that rule? Why can't restaurants make the rule for themselves? Many, many restaurants have such a rule.

I smoke on occasion, but I WILL NOT go to any restaurant that allows smoking anywhere inside (if I have a choice).

Who the hell do you think you are that you want the government to impose YOUR preferences on everybody else?

If a restaurant owner wants to have an establishment where smoking is allowed, and lots of customers want to spend their time and money there, who the hell are you to decide otherwise?

Keep the nanny state out of my life.

"This is about the people who are stuck working in those smoky bars and restaurants for low pay and minimal benefits."

Stuck? Are you kidding me? Anybody who works in the restaurant business can go to another restaurant and do the same job. And if you've ever worked as a waiter or bartender, you know this is true. Otherwise, you're just full of shit.

Quit hiding behind a waitress's skirt, and just admit that you want the government to control other people's lives.

[Doug]

somebody got their wheaties pissed in this morning I see. But aside from idiot anonymous posters, worker health is a very important factor in this argument that I do not hear enough about.

And thanks for the Dana Reeve post- I feel bad for forgetting her first name.

Anon 1:48 "oh, and another thing" at 1:50 -

Hey numbnuts, this is a preference that a majority of Virginians support, and *thats* what government is suppose to do. You want to eat and smoke at the same time? Stay home.

[Doug]

"Hey numbnuts, this is a preference that a majority of Virginians support, and *thats* what government is suppose to do. You want to eat and smoke at the same time? Stay home."

Heh, wish I'd said that.

[Anonymousisawoman]

I think when Jaime, Rowhey and James Young agree on something this must be one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

Seriously, Rowhey asked a good question: Why is it that people who are against smoking are often in favor of the use of medical marijuana.

The reason is that smoking is harmful and second hand smoke has been shown to cause cancer even in those who don't themselves smoke (sorry Jaime, the science actually is there and there are numerous solid studies that back it up). So, nobody is trying to tell a smoker not to do so. My feeling is you have the right to pick your poison. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't poison me in the process.

Medical marijuana is a different issue. It's apples and oranges. First of all, most people in favor of legalizing marijuana for this purpose also favor strict controls like those you would have for any narcotic.

It should only be available by medical prescription. Pharmacists who dispense it should have to keep records. Doctors should be monitored to ensure they are not over prescribing it or breaking laws. In fact, every precaution and control that is taken in prescribing any strong painkiller or narcotic should be taken for medical marijuana.

The reason for providing medicinal marijuana is to help very sick people, usually those dying of diseases like cancer, for whom other drugs have not worked. Many people, especially in the final stages of illnesses, do not respond to anti-nausea medication and marijuana has been shown effective in combatting this common and debilitating side effect of chemo.

Marijuana also is not more harmful than any other strong drug (every single drug has side effects and dangers).

Having said that, people using medical marijuana also should not do it in a restaurant because I don't want their contact high either.

As for the actual merits of banning cigarette smoke from restaurants, I'm for it.

I don't believe in a nanny state. If you want to get stumble drunk, be my guest. But don't get in a car and drive afterwards. If you want to smoke, go right ahead. I would oppose every law to criminalize cigarettes.

But don't smoke them in a workplace or restaurant where other people will be impacted by your behavior.

As for the objection that restaurant owners should decide whether they want to cater to smokers, I was the daughter of a restaurant owner and grew up in the business. I can tell you many of the owners would love to go non-smoking but they are afraid of losing customers.

If there was a general smoking ban, there would be less danger of their losing business to the competition. It would level the playing field as well as improving public health.

And by the way, your insurance rates and taxes go up because of other people's unhealthy lifestyles so people's actions are not without consequences for others.

On the other hand, there should be an out for those who truly want a smoking establishment. There should be a provision in the law for a place to be a private smoking club.

The bottom line is that people should have as much freedom as possible. But your freedom to wave your hand does stop at my nose. Your freedom to smoke in public, also, should stop at my lungs.

Interesting. So, you want to decide everything by what a "majority of Virginians" support? Let's see...

A majority of Virginians oppose gay marriage, and supported the marriage amendment, numbnuts.

You want to hold hands with your same-sex lover? Stay home.

A majority of Virginians oppose abortion. You want to kill that little baby you and your shack-up boyfriend made? Get a coat hanger and do it yourself.

Yeah, that's a great idea -- let's ignore the rights of private citizens to make their own choices. Let's get BIG BROTHER involved in EVERYTHING. Because we need the government to take care of our every need.

You only want the government to interfere with choices you disagree with, or only those that restrict the rights of other people.

Why can't you just choose non-smoking for YOURSELF and leave other people alone? Who gives you - or Tim Kaine - the right to make those choices for everyone else?

[Jason]

The only workers who may be harmed by second hand smoke and have no alternate jobs are rural restaurant employees. But if the smoking ban goes into effect and these establishments close because folks decide to stay home, what service are you providing them then?

Kill the bill.

[Not Jack Herrity]

Jason: I would like you to provide me the name of one restaurant in any state that lost enough business due to a smoking ban that they went completely under. One is all I need, along with its location so it may be verified.

NJH

[Dirk]

Yeah, let's ban fast food and alcohol too! Fatties keel over while driving from heart attacks and are dangers on the road. Alcohol is dangerous and should only be allowed in a person's home provided they give the government a detailed list of drinks taken. Alcohol directly affects people when drunks get on the road. If no alcohol is in public establishments, the public is much safer. Go Big Government! Yeah! What is the diffence again between illegal drugs and alcohol again?

Here ya go, pally. Enjoy.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html

Hurry up and read it so you can get back to helping Big Brother make decisions for Virginia citizens.

[Jason]

NJH - 255 anon wasn't me, but his info's what you were asking for.

Yeah! That's what I'm talking 'bout. Screw the will of the majority. Who cares what "the people" want? You think I care that 99% of government is decided by voters, or the people voters elect? Are you kidding me? That's no way to run a country!

I want to shove a fist full of potato skins in my piehole while takin' a drag off my menthol cig, and do it all in public! And no candy-ass, facist, nanny-state, non-smoker is gonna stop me!

We're missing the bigger issue here, folks. Namely, what is the invisible power that is FORCING non-smokers to eat in restaurants that allow smoking?

We must identify and destroy this evil creature. Somehow, I've been immune to its power. I have remained capabale of walking out the door when I discover that the restaurant allows smoking. But others aren't so lucky. They clearly are drawn into restaurants against their will, COMPELLED to breathe smoky air.

[novamiddleman]

humm I think this same effect is what causes people to vote for Democrats

sorry that was too easy to pass up :-p

NMM speaks truth.

[Fact Check]

Anon 2:24pm wrote:

"Interesting. So, you want to decide everything by what a "majority of Virginians" support? Let's see...""

No. Clearly, a public health issue is not just a question of popular support. Even if this bill WERE NOT so popular, it would still be the right thing to do.

"A majority of Virginians oppose gay marriage, and supported the marriage amendment, numbnuts.

You want to hold hands with your same-sex lover? Stay home."

A ridiculous point. Even if civil rights were comparable, even the most pro-gay activists or anti-gay conservatives ever suggested anything in the Marshall-Newman amendment banned same-sex partners holding hands in public.

"A majority of Virginians oppose abortion. You want to kill that little baby you and your shack-up boyfriend made? Get a coat hanger and do it yourself."

False. In fact, as of 2005, SurveyUSA identified about 54% of Virginians as "pro-choice" and only 39% as "pro-life" (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm). Perhaps this is why Virginia has two by-and-large pro-choice US Senators and a by-and-large pro-choice governor? Just a thought.

"Yeah, that's a great idea -- let's ignore the rights of private citizens to make their own choices."

That is such a false argument. This legislation regulate's people's behavior in PUBLIC, not in private.

"Why can't you just choose non-smoking for YOURSELF and leave other people alone? Who gives you - or Tim Kaine - the right to make those choices for everyone else?"

Okay, this sounds valid. As long as a smoker can ENSURE that none a bit of their second-hand smoke wafts over into my nose or mouth, he or she should have that right. In ANY other situation, it is the smoker that is making the choice for everyone around them.

PASS THE BILL AS AMENDED.

[Oscar]

The senator proposing this bill is a sellout to his self-adorned "conservative" label. He is a moderate at best, but a liberal at worst. However, one could not expect more from a Chichesterite!

After Bell saves us all from tobacco smoke (either first or second-hand), what will he tackle next? Will it be McDonald's Big Macs, or Krispy Kreme's jelly donuts? We don't need more government regulation,

[brimur]

I'll say it because it hasn't been said enough. This is also a LABOR issue. People who need a job often can't just NOT go to that restaurant. It's no more the business's RIGHT to make the decision than it is their right to set substandard wages, hire children, keep unsanitary conditions in the kitchen, or any number of terrible, awful "nanny state" protections.

[Dave]

Let consumers choose. Let workers choose.

"As long as a smoker can ENSURE that none a bit of their second-hand smoke wafts over into my nose or mouth, he or she should have that right. In ANY other situation, it is the smoker that is making the choice for everyone around them."

Smartest comment on the whole thread. The burden is on smokers to ensure that they aren't polluting the clean air of others.

"As long as a smoker can ENSURE that none a bit of their second-hand smoke wafts over into my nose or mouth, he or she should have that right. In ANY other situation, it is the smoker that is making the choice for everyone around them."

Stupidest comment on the whole thread. The burden is on non-smokers to ensure that they aren't putting themselves into a place where smoking is allowed.

Since many of y'all can't seem to get a clue, I'll spell it out for you in all-caps:

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND CIGARETTE SMOKE, THEN DON'T GO TO PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO SMOKE.

It's really that simple.

And IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND TOXIC WASTE, THEN DON'T GO TO PLACES WHERE COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED TO DUMP TOXIC WASTE WHEREVER THEY LIKE.

Oh wait...we do regulate that, don't we? There goes that pesky "Nanny State" again!

anon 10:10, if that's all you've got in response, you're an idiot.

oooooh, good comeback there anon. 7:04! did you stay up all night thinking of that witty reply?

govt. tells companies they can't discharge toxic waste in certain areas due to impacts on public health, now govt. is telling smokers they can't discharge toxic waste (cigarette fumes) in certain areas due to impacts on public health. how are these two in any fundamental way different?

I see. You actually ARE equating cigarette smoke with toxic waste. Wow.

Spare me the "public health" b.s. -- you know quite well that's a non-issue.

If this bill passes, a restaurant owner can make his establishment "private" and continue to allow smoking. If human safety was the real issue, that wouldn't be possible. Can a company dump their toxic waste in an otherwise forbidden location just by calling their company something else? Didn't think so.

This bill is just so that non-smokers can impose their preferences on smokers. Non-smokers are tired of being inconvenienced. It's a lot easier to just ban it everywhere and not have to deal with it, than to actually vote with your wallet.

Please tell me, why is it so hard for you to just not go to restaurants that allow smoking?

Cigarette smoke IS toxic waste. Pollution is pollution. Thank God for Tim Kaine.

[tom]

i live in richmond and enjoy going out to bars and seeing live music. many of the venues here are small and i often have to leave the establishments before i would otherwise simply because of the smoke.

tom -- then if enough people like you affect the bottom line of the establishment, they will change their rules and go smoke-free.

Owners should be allowed to set whatever policy they wish for their own business.

Vote with your wallet.

[e cigarette]

Smoking is gross.