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).
Ben if banning smoking in restaurants is the most encouraging move you've seen in a while, get out more.
Posted by: Nate de la Piedra | March 30, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Must be the next "most important issue facing the Commonwealth"
Posted by: Brian Kirwin | March 30, 2007 at 10:16 AM
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.
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2007 at 10:25 AM
"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.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | March 30, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Love the black lung graphic.
Posted by: | March 30, 2007 at 10:26 AM
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.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | March 30, 2007 at 10:28 AM
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.
Posted by: | March 30, 2007 at 10:30 AM
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.
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2007 at 10:31 AM
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.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | March 30, 2007 at 10:33 AM
I'm just commenting on your seeming universal knowledge of the state and each regions needs.
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I'm with you on this one, Ben.
Posted by: Riley, Not O'Reilly | March 30, 2007 at 10:41 AM
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?
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2007 at 10:43 AM
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.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | March 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM
I've lived in Richmond. My comments reflect your overall opinion, not just relating to traffic and this topic.
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2007 at 10:48 AM
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?
Posted by: Rowhey | March 30, 2007 at 10:48 AM
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.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | March 30, 2007 at 10:50 AM
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.
Posted by: Rowhey | March 30, 2007 at 10:53 AM
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...
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | March 30, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Are they going to ban cussing too?
Posted by: Rowhey | March 30, 2007 at 10:58 AM
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????
Posted by: | March 30, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Yes, and only libraries will be built in order to keep us all clean and pure.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | March 30, 2007 at 10:59 AM
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.
Posted by: William Jackson | March 30, 2007 at 11:00 AM
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.
Posted by: Rowhey | March 30, 2007 at 11:02 AM
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.
Posted by: Dirk | March 30, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I think we should start an online petition to get Nate and Jaime to butt out.
Double entendre? You make the call.
NJH
Posted by: Not Jack Herrity | March 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM