Collegiate Times

You must be a liberal. The government should not tell business owners how to operate their business. If they want to ban smoking they are able to, but it should be their choice.

More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began. www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban. www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

"Reeking clothes" seem to be the authors' primary annoyance, i.e., "nothing worse." Jeez - do you guys sleep in those clothes? Do you wear them the next day, too? How often do you bother washing them? In fact, how often do you shower? After an evening in a bar, do you find the smells of stale sweat or spilled beer or perhaps vomit on those same clothes more appealing? How about the urine on your shoes that you tracked through in the mens' room? Frankly, I'm surprised you can even recognize a smoke smell through all the other odors you picked up, or produced yourself...

Hmm, it seems to me that the managers who want to ban smoking but won't because it might hurt their business are more concerned with profit than public health. Shame on them! They should be willing to make less money so that their customers can be healthier! Those evil capitalists! -- Here's a novel idea, if you don't like going to a smokey bar, then don't go! Oh that's right, you desire to drown your liver in alcohol supersedes your desire to protect your lungs from second hand smoke.

What about the people that work at the bar, their health is not important?

It's a bar, not a hospital. I would hope the employees realize what conditions they'll be working in before they apply for the job, and they're obviously willing to accept some risk associated with their occupation or they'd leave. Should we legislate higher levels of oxygen in outer space to protect astronauts, or maybe they just accept the risks associated with their profession?

Its a BAR! Its supposed to be a dark, warm, musky, smokey, womblike haven for MEN to be MANLY! We come in, we drinking one bourbon, one scotch, and one beer, and then we want to light up one coffin nail! We are MEN we do MANLY things! Would the Duke cry about smokey smelling clothes? NO, he was a MAN! If you don't like it, you can get out...

At a time when other places (such as Colorado) are considering changing or getting rid of their smoking bans due to the terrible effects on business, why in the world would VA want to start on the path to destroying more businesses? If you don't like way someplace smells -- don't go.

Ireland (famous for its dark and musky pubs) was the first in the British Isles to implement a smoking ban. After an initial downturn in business, business has picked up and just as many as before are going to the pub. Great Britain and Northern Ireland have followed ROI's example and implemented similar bans. The reason I think it should be allowed there is because of the socialized healthcare systems in place. Since illnesses provoked by smoking can put unnecessary burden on the healthcare system, the government can and should implement a ban. Since the ban, more people are giving up smoking. The problem here is since US healthcare is not socialized, the idea of removing the smoking burden from the system cannot be used. I would love to see a smoking ban, but I do not think it will happen nationwide or in Virginia for that matter.

DK, The Dude - its restaurants too! I'll have a burger, fries, and a side of that guy's cigarette - really? Denny - Colorado banned smoking 2 years ago. NY banned it a few years earlier, and their bar/restaurant business has boomed... it takes a bit of time. CO doesn't even make sense, they have a very low smoking population. As for 'smelling smokey' comments - if I go out for dinner and come home smelling like smoke, you think its ok? And its only in my clothes? Most of us have hair. Finally, the health risks may be debated, but honestly, even if it's 'not as bad' as we've said, you think it'll ever be found to not hurt people? I hope you're smarter than that.

To Reality, anyone?: Businesses exist to make money. The government already imposes a laundry list of regulations, many of which impede this. Even if a ban would have a positive or negligible effect on business, why don't we let the owners, who have put up the money to provide you with a bar or restaurant in the first place, assess the best way to serve the public? They're the ones that too often get left out of the discussion. I understand if you personally want to clog your arteries while breathing clean air, but others prefer a more holistic approach to killing themselves. I understand that smoking affects others besides just the smoker, whether from the smokey smell standpoint or the debatable second-hand smoke perspective, but why should you be able to walk into a place where you're not forced to go and declare that you have more of a right to a certain environment than others? The owner dictates the environment, and patrons decide whether to accept it or not. Don't get me wrong; I'm the first to ask someone to put out their cigarette if they're smoking somewhere they shouldn't be (for example, while walking around a high school track), but when I walk into a bar, I know what to expect.

I would frequent places more often if they were non-smoking. Me and my husband both have allergies and asthma and have to limit our choices when going out due to the quality of the air we may have to breath. Addionally, most workers, regardless of occupation, work in smoke free environments. Someone who is waiting tables or bartending may be doing so because as a student it may be the only thing that fits their schedules. As such they should not simply have to accept the smokey situation, and they may not have the luxury of simply walking away especially in this weak economy. Smokers do not have to smoke everywhere they go. Smoking is not a right, it is a choice. And it's a bad choice at that.

Jason T, you make a fine point as always. The problem - businesses AREN'T doing it. AFAIK, only Hokie House has done anything to actively ban smoking in their business, and I know a lot of people who frequent there because of it. Yet anywhere else in town is still a smokehouse! But also tell me one thing, as your libertarian view seems misplaced here: isn't the argument "you do as you wish as long as it doesn't hurt others"? I don't see that applying here.

The argument really doesn't have much to do with Libertarianism, actually. We aren't discussing a public smoking ban (such measures are fairly unlikely to succeed anyway), but rather a stipulation on private businesses. The problem here is that many individuals mistake the right to access an establishment with the right to access the establishment ON THEIR OWN GROUNDS. Think of it this way - you wouldn't go to McDonald's and demand that they serve you General So's Chicken (I don't eat much Chinese, so I apologiz e if I mangled the spelling), and you wouldn't go to the Olive Garden and get pissed off when they don't change the drapes to suit your style. While bars cannot turn you away for invalid reasons (ie, discrimination on a variety of bases. . .though I disagree with the validity of that as well), individuals don't have a right to demand that an establishment change it's way of doing business unless it's otherwise doing something illegal. If you don't like smoke, don't go to a bar. . . .it's pretty simple.

Tim Kaine needs to butt out of this whole situation. He's had it out for tobacco since day 1 (this, constantly raising taxes on tobacco even though its been shown that its not increasing revenue that much)to the point where I think he's probably just got some anti-smoking lobbist group in his ear. This is just an example of the government's ever growing trend of trying to control business and people's lives.

(word limit, are you serious?) If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, it should be allowed to have smoking. If you don't like smoke, don't go to where the smoke is. It's simple. There's smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. What's the big deal? Sitting in that non-smoking section isn't that hard. The people that support this bill aren't worried about health so much as they are their own comfort. Selfish might be too harsh, but it's close. They use "health" as a their battle flag so they go into the bar and not have smoke smell on their clothes. Tell me, you're at a bar. Are you concerned with your health when you've totally sloshed and being helped out to that Hooptie Ride? What about when you're making out with that random stranger that you're probably going to take home later that night? Yeah, didn't think so. You should have a choice of whether you want to be around smoking or not and business owners should have the choice if they want to allow it.

(250 word,wow) Or maybe, people just don't care about having the right to choose anymore and would just like the government to make all their decisions for them. I hope there's enough people in the legislature that understand what freedoms are and this bill keeps getting shot down. Perhaps Kaine should focus less on this unjust effort and more on how he's turned a Mark Warner million dollar surplus into a millions of dollars of debt despite massive budget cuts across the board (including at this institution).

I'm a libertarian and believe in both personal and business freedom, but you've overlooked my points, Kyle. The businesses are not banning smoking themselves, so non-smokers have few options - should I be forced to stay home and let smokers enjoy every place? The other point is that drapes and choice of food don't hurt me - smoke does.

Why not just state that every 5th bar or some ration has to be smoke free. I mean as is the government controls housing like that. This would solve both your problems.

I've noticed that many of the comments on here assume people are going to a bar to get "sloshed". Personally, I have maybe two drinks with friends before I leave. Just a small point.

Realities, Kyle summed up my sentiments on your question of harming others. As a point of interest, The Cellar's upstairs is non-smoking. Mike's Grill, Bogen's, Gillie's, and Boudreaux's are non-smoking as well.

The point, realities, is that you determine whether or not a business' methods of conducting its business is successful based upon whether or not you patronize the establishment. Clearly you don't like to deal with smoke - but it isn't the establishment's responsibility to cater to your desires specifically. Bars serve a fairly wide array of consumers, many who prefer nonsmoking environments and many who prefer to be able to smoke. The fact that you personally don't like to frequent bars that allow smoking doesn't really translate into a rational reason why bars should be prohibited from allowing smoking inside - remember, the business exists to provide a service; it does NOT exist on account of your desire to have that service provided. When you pay for the service, you don't really get to put a lot of stipulations down - and if you don't like the atmosphere, you go somewhere else more amenable to your tastes.

I just have to say that the concept of 'consumer rights' really galls me, from the point of view that the consumer only really has two fundamental rights. One is that the consumer is not required to do business anywhere he does not want to do business, and the other is that the consumer has a reasonable expectation that the product he purchases will be 'as advertised.' Beyond that, consumers really don't have a lot of sway - businesses adjust their models based on the collective demand of their customer base. What you suggest, Realities, would mandate (for instance) that Hookah Lounges become smoke free. It isn't a secret that bars tend to allow smoking more often than not - when you patronize one, you can't really legitimately claim ignorance on that count. Consequently, your recourse is to patronize another establishment.

I love debating with you guys (Kyle & Jason). You see things very clearly through a well-defined lens. Your values are impeccable, and you apply them very well to a variety of issues. However, I still disagree and in this case it doesn't sit well with me. What you're overlooking is that businesses are really driving "bad things" by forcing people to choose between staying home and being anti-social, eating at a handful of moderately-good restaurants, or sucking in smoke with dinner or when out for drinks. If those are the choices I have, then I can: be anti-social; eat out at a few places; move to another state w/ the ban; complain to my legislators. None of these are great solutions. In reflection, I think that there is something essential lacking in the incentives businesses have to ban smoking at their establishment, and perhaps there is potential there. But o/w, the ban is honestly about health of patrons and employees alike.

Also, have you considered that restaurants LIKE the idea of a ban? In NY, many (quietly) supported it because they wanted to end the smoking but didn't want to look like THEY were responsible for pushing out patrons who wanted to smoke. They let the legislators be "the bad guys" and guess what.. it worked.

Not crazy about government intervention (libertarian), but after seeing an uncle and an aunt die from lung cancer (both heavy smokers)...well..I'm all for it. Everything else is trivial after you see a relative hooked up to a ventilator..

My grandfather died of either mesothelioma or lung cancer, we'll never know which. I, too, am a libertarian, but know that when one person does something OF IMMINENT RISK to people around them, it is not covered under 'freedom.' If second-hand smoke is really only an inconvenience like smelly clothes, then I'll shut up. But for every wrinkly skinned, lung hacking, yellow skinned, brown toothed smoker I've ever seen, I have no desire to submit that smoking is not bad for the body, first or second hand.

Then the truly viable solution for you is to rally your fellow anti-smoking compatriots and petition the bars of your choice to voluntarily ban smoking (at least partially). The problem with legislative action, in this case, is that it invites an awful lot of government into the private sector. I mean, if we approach this generally from the standpoint that government always acts in the best interests of the majority of its citizens (think Utilitarian ideals), then perhaps we ought to do away with private business and simply let the government create and operate businesses. If it troubles you so much that there aren't many smoke-free bars, I encourage you to open and operate your own. I bet you could find a pretty sizable clientele as well. But it's quite dangerous to invite the government to compel businesses to operate according to your desires. Again, I need to point out that businesses exist to turn a profit. Bars don't exist because YOU want to drink and be social, they exist because someone wants to make money. The fact that you don't agree with his means of making money isn't really a valid reason for making him change.

"An awful lot of government into the private sector". Kyle, that would be great if the private sector paid for all treatments caused by first hand and second hand smoke. The "people" should have some say since we all pay for lung cancer treatments from MEDICAID and MEDICARE (a big part of the national budget) even if you never visit a bar. Yes, I'm familiar with the argument "next you'll ban restaurants from serving unhealthy foods" because of heart disease. The difference being other patrons & employees don't need to share (smoke) in your unhealthy choice. Patrons may choose another restaurant or bar but low wage employees (tips) have fewer choices. As for numbers, you figure over half your patrons (non-smokers) will be happier and the smokers will be inconvenienced...for what...maybe two hours. Its working out in Maryland...

To "Happy with Ban": Good point, and I recognize the conundrum. However, we do still share the burden for other people's personal, unwise choices like eating poorly (even people who have never eaten fast food pay for others who have). Conclusions about second-hand smoke are not unanimous, and even if they were, the fact remains that if it is bad, non-smokers are still free to avoid such places. If they knowingly enter a private establishment and subject themselves to second-hand smoke, that's their choice. As for workers, I doubt that many of the bartenders raking in tips, which occurs when bars are at their smokiest, are low wage employees. They could easily forego money and find a retail job if health is that much of a concern. There seems to be a fundamental difference of ideals here. You are willing to adopt the policy since "it's working out in Maryland," and I'm not willing to support legislation simply on the fact that it will probably work out. Interestingly, to use the argument you mentioned, if the government chose to ration everyone's diet and feed them a particular concoction of food, that would probably "work out" also. Extreme, yes, but the underlying theme is the same.

No, I'm not advocating regulating everyone's diet....anymore than I would charge by the pound for an airline ticket (hehe). There are some difference between food and tobacco consumption aside from they are all supported by our tax dollars...oops, forgot to add that. You start getting overweight you can diet and exercise. If you get lung cancer, at a minimum you'll lose part of your lung or die a slow lingering death I wouldn't wish on anyone. In the end, smokers might cost MEDICAID and MEDICARE less per capita because they die younger...whatever cause you give it. Most of my friends who smoke WANT to quit, but like any addict they are like a turtle on its back...

Understood, but I would argue that people with systematically unhealthy eating habits are about as likely to shape up as smokers are to quit. For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of Medicare/Aid in the first place, but like any other social benefit program, it will redistribute its resources based on need. Sort of like a tax on those rich with health. Of course, the federal government could choose to use all the money it collects from tobacco taxation to augment the medicare/aid trust, but they're too busy spending it on god knows what else.

Less government control! A business should be free to operate how they choose...there are options for both non-smokers and smokers alike, so leave it be. Is this really such an issue...why not tackle our failing economy, job loss, poor education, etc.

This Guy is an idiot, its a bar, people smoke and drink there, if you dont like it dont go there.