Collegiate Times

As usual, this article overlooks one CRITICALLY important point. YOU eating a cheeseburger or having a drink does not hurt me sitting 2 booths down - SMOKING DOES. And having like 3 choices in town to avoid the smoke is hardly choice at all.

@ Overlooked, the vegetarians in town only have one restaurant choice. You non-smokers are already ahead. (Disclaimer: I am not a vegetarian, so don't tell me to get the veggie lasagna at Macados)

I frequent a bar in southwest PA. This bar is one maybe 5 in a small blue collar town. Until this October, smoking had been allowed in this bar. They are the only bar of the 5 that has banned smoking. As you can imagine, this upset the "regulars" a lot, sending them to the other 4 bars. However, giving people the opportunity to have a "smoke-free" watering hole, quickly allowed the bar to rebound and they have been turning record profits sense (mind you the state of our economy too).

Dear smokers, get some control over your own actions and decisions and stop smoking. Does it taste good? Or do you like the appearance of your lungs? What?!? I can't hear over your loud breathing.

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, which 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. 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. 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. smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

LOL, I bet the writer of this article thought this was such a thought-wrenching, convincing article. LOL, these are the same arguments that a 10th grader would present, with such unabashed hubris.

@CarolT -- how much does the tobacco industry pay you to keep repeating this garbage? And do you think people are only concerned with lung cancer when it comes to smoking? If you could tell me with 100% certainty that smoking does NOT cause lung cancer, it wouldn't change my position one bit. Hearing the hacking and coughing, seeing the yellow skin and teeth, seeing the addiction that runs people's lives, the residue on the walls of bars.... you can't talk these points away with 'bias' claims, so your words fall on deaf ears.

Ban smoking? You bet. Cigs are a proven carcinogen. They tend to kill people who don't even smoke. I don't care if you "like" to smoke. I shouldn't be subjected to your hot swirling breath. You want to smoke - go outside. Would you care if I carried a cancer causing plutonium pellet in my pocket? I suspect you would since it would kill you, too.

I think "Another Overlooked"'s comment was great. I'm not in favor of smoking bans because I think bars (or the property owners) should have the right to decide what goes on in their establishments (so long as people can choose to avoid them if they don't like what's going on, which they obviously can) but I would definitely switch to a smoke free bar! I'm not a smoker and I hate being surrounded by it, so I just avoid bars for the most part but if there were a smoke free option I would go and never look back!

Oh, and I went ahead and googled "smoke free restaurants blacksburg va" and got this link. http://www.dinesmokefreeusa.com/blacksburg.html It's not all the restaurants in town, but it's more than 3.

Where are the entrepreneurs and venture capitalists? Will nobody be the first to quench this town's apparently massive thirst for a smoke-free bar? Anyone who supports a smoking ban while still patronizing bars that allow smoking is a hypocrite. Too often we rely on change to come from legislation, when we should rely on public action. If the owners don't feel any consequences of allowing smoking, they won't change. Don't tell me that "non-smokers have no choice." There is a choice, and it's simple: refuse to go to bars until there are non-smoking options. Petition bar owners and tell them how many patrons they'll be losing this weekend because of their policies. Tell them that if they want to discuss it with you, you'll be downstairs at Hokie House, breathing clean air. One thing's for sure: by continuing to go to bars and merely complaining, you are demonstrating a degree of apathy that will never convince a business owner to change.

I hate cigarettes. Always have. They taste terrible and smell worse. I loathe coming back from a bar or nightclub and having to leave my smoke drenched clothes on my balcony for a few days to let them air out because if I put them in my hamper, then my whole hamper reeks of cigarette smoke for days. I have no problem with a little cigarette smoke here and there--but when it is so dense it clouds the air and makes my eyes burn, then I have a problem. But because these establishments offer things that I am not willing to give up (good music, opportunities for dancing, a favorite menu item, atmosphere, time with my friends, etc.) I will suck it up and deal with the smoking. The lost access to things I enjoy that comes with avoiding these establishments (and their smoke) is just not worth it to me. So since I am not willing to personally boycott these establishments to let the market work its magic, I would gladly take a smoking ban for bars and restaurants in Virginia. ADD DASH OF HYPOCRISY: My only concern with such a law is that I do frequent the local hookah bar, Shesha, as I myself am a fan of the whole flavored tobacco out of a water pipe thing. I can only image in the hoops Shesha is going to have to jump through to stay in business were such a ban to pass.

I hate when you walk behind someone that is smoking and puffing their beloved cancer stinks and know that it must be blowing right into your face! And what annoys me just as much is when you are driving behind somebody and they have to throw their cancer stick out, and it flies right towards your windshield! But I must agree with Jason T. If you are going to be in bar where smoking is allowed, then I'd rather not listen to compliants.

I agree with the first poster. Eating the cheeseburger is affecting only your body, but smoking around others affects their health as well. That's just a clear and simple point.

Second hand smoke is the problem. A patron is exposed to it in a smoking establishment even if there is a non-smoking section. Consider a case of odorous flatulence. There is a "second hand" effect caused by the foul deed. Second hand smoke is just as unappealing.

Let's bring this back into focus. Nobody, not even smokers, seems to be arguing that smoking is a habit with many consequences and is, at the very least, intrusive to those who choose not to do it. The argument is the degree to which the government should be allowed to regulate the actions of people who have put a lot of time and money into establishing and running a business. Believe it or not, there are many, with whom I must agree, who say that having restaurants and bars in your town is not a "right." Heck, there are some people who live mies away from the nearest McDonald's. Following that principle, it is even less of a right to specify the manner in which these businesses are run. Of course, the legislature often oversteps their bounds, as they have in MD. I would bet that VA has a slightly more sizeable tobacco lobby, so I wouldn't expect a ban anytime soon. So if you want change, start a grassroots movement and force their hand. As it stands, business owners know that most who complain about smoking are not willing to give up their weekends out, even if it does mean smelling like ash when they get home. Prove that you, and others, are so concerned about your health that business will suffer until your voices are heard.

Frankly, as a smoker, you are making me and the majority of the people at the bar at the very least uncomfortable (ahem, Sharkey's). Why not take responsibility as a smoker, not force your bad habit on others, and smoke outside yourself, instead of making the majority of people in a bar uncomfortable? Isn't this what we call being socially responsible. Lastly, its one thing if a night's worth of clothing is unusable until the next wash, but its awful that in cold weather if you walk into a bar with a coat you have to wash it before you wear it again. Smoking in bars is obnoxious.

So here we go 'round with the consumer rights argument again, forgetting that the rights a consumer has are actually very, very few. The principles are these: 1) The producer has an obligation to provide you a product for which you compensate him, 2) The product should be free of defect as per expectations, and 3) The producer cannot compel you to buy his product if you do not want to, for any reason. The bottom line here, though, is that consumers do NOT have (nor should they have!) the right to expect that a producer alters his product for their own sake. You can't walk into McDonald's and demand that they cook you a juicy steak; similarly, you can't walk into a bar and demand that all smoking cease. Unless the bar owner conceals the fact that smoking is allowed in his establishment until after you have bought his product, it's really not legitimate to complain about the smoke. You know most bars are going to be smokey - but you don't have an explicit right to expect shop owners conform to your expectations of what you want. If I don't want a book, I don't buy a book. If I don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, I don't go to a bar. Simple as that.

There is a solution. When you go out, use an electronic cigarette. No tar, no carcinogens. Real looking smoke that is actually a water vapor delivering nicotine. No risk to others at all and no odor. I use my Green Smoke at the grocery store while shopping. LOL You can check out the videos and info at: http://www.greensmoke.com/electric I know a lot of people who just smoke these because they get rid of most of the bad things about cigarettes. Some are even using it to quit.

Kyle, Jason, I agree with your view on freedom in private business... but there IS a line. For example, I can't come in to a bar and pull out a gun and start shooting. I also can't do that anywhere else in public. Why? It's an inherent risk to others. Is it allowable on my private property or at designated areas? Yes, and that's reasonable. Why is smoking any different? I just don't see it.

Quite simply, because a business is a private entity on private property. The fact that business owners use their property to provide a service to other people doesn't negate the fact that the business operates only because he wants it to operate, and that the costs he incurs of operating that business are his own. The point here is that we keep getting tripped up by two separate discussions. One discussion concerns whether or not bars ought to allow smoking inside - and I think the point has been fairly well settled that bars in Blacksburg would see a notable increase in CT Forum reader/commenter patronization if they were to voluntarily ban smoking. The other argument deals with whether or not it is ethical to suggest government to involve itself in otherwise peaceful business processes simply because a certain group of people would prefer the businesses to operate in a different manner. I'd love it if all the bars were smoke free - but that doesn't mean that it ought to be the government's decision.

Well, Kyle, I know that your business philosophy is in full effect here, but I've felt in both of these discussions that you've failed to recognize my argument. Imminent public risk IS of government concern as they are charged with protecting the people (in ways that work)! You don't really believe that we should be allowed to do dangerous things anywhere we go, do you? Listen...I have avoided bars for the past few years because of the smoke, but sometimes I'm out with friends and we end up going to one. The point of decision there is what "Someone who.." said: am I willing to give up my disdain for an hour? Yea, and besides the bar is not going to go "well Joe isn't coming in, I guess we should ban smoking!"

"Intelligence" wrote, " Would you care if I carried a cancer causing plutonium pellet in my pocket? I suspect you would since it would kill you, too." = = = Back a few weeks ago the NY Times made a big stink about the polonium 210 in "third hand smoke" killing babies. I did some research on it and found that to meet the levels they talked about a kid would have to assiduously lick floor tiles nice and clean for roughly three trillion years... over 200 times as long as the entire universe has existed. See: http://globalhealthlaw.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/third-hand-smoke/#comment-52 if you want the full details on the numbers. = = = Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

I loathe you people that crucify smokers. I don't mean to sound ignorant, but who the *$#@ are you! You people disgust me. Do not judge unless you are willing to be judged. Business owners should be allowed to run their businesses the way they want to. Do not compare smoking to shooting. People do not die instantaneously from inhaling cigarette smoke. It takes years and constant exposure (I am not considering anyone with pre-existing conditions in this statement) for second-hand smoke to have any affect. If you frequent establishments that allow smoking, and can't stand that your clothes stink, establish a bar coat or sweater, etc. I prepare myself to visit a non-smoking establishment. And, I do not complain on everyone that "upsets" me in a bar. Deal with it or move on, if you really like that establishment then look around and observe what it is that makes the bar fun. If its the people, and most of those people smoke, then what would the establishment be without those people? And, no banning smoking will not force everyone to quit smoking! We are addicted to smoking! Lastly, I'd like to ask you whining non-smokers this: What if someone came up to you and asked you to leave because your perfume/cologne was toxic or your conversation topic was stressful to the majority of the patrons?

But the imminent risk isn't a public one, and that's the point I'm getting at. Look at it another way - having perpetually icy roads is a public risk, because a vast majority of people have to commute to work, and even those who use public transportation would suffer. I understand what you're saying, but bars don't really fit into the category of 'public health risks' because you don't HAVE to go to a bar, for any reason ever. It's your option to go there or not go there, and beyond that it is your option to go to a smoke free bar or a non-smoke free bar. Ultimately, bars aren't concerned with the feelings of individual consumers - you have to demonstrate to them that they are losing a significant amount of business by permitting smoking on their premises. That having been said, though, it still ought to be up to the bar owner as to whether or not he cares about all the business he is losing. The only way a public health argument becomes compelling in this case anyway is if one argues in favor of a more comprehensive ban on smoking in general. . . banning smoking in bars isn't going to curb the secondhand smoke you inhale from walking around outside.

To "Overlooked": You're right; there is a line, and it certainly is drawn before we allow people to open fire on others in a private establishment. No bar owner can choose to allow murder to happen on their premises. Cigarettes are not illegal. Until they are, owners should retain the right to allow their customers to smoke. You can't pin second-hand smoking effects on anyone just like you can't accuse anyone of killing you from exhaust inhalation if you bike along the road. Above all, as Kyle says, if you know the rules of the game (namely that an establishment allows smoking), and you CHOOSE to enter anyway, you are responsible for the result. To take your example, if a bar had a sign that said "gunfights permitted," what would you do? Choose to avoid it. You can't force people to be healthy, and if second-hand smoke's consequences, whatever you believe they may be, isn't enough to overcome the urge to socialize, even if it's in a smokey environment, then apparently it's relatively unimportant.

There are a lot of stupid safety laws that infringe on my personal & business "freedoms" ...seat belts (if I or my kid want to go out the windshield that's our business), fire exits (so I don't have any...don't come in my restaurant), abestos removal (again, just let me post a sign saying there's abestos present), junkyard in my front yard (pain in the ass neighbors!), etc

The thing about seatbelts is that if a driver goes through the windshield, he becomes completely incapable of controlling his vehicle, making the situation much more dangerous for everyone on the road. Even during/after many accidents there is an amount of control that can be retained, sometimes even enough to get off of the road. Passengers are allowed to not have seat belts, as long as they are old enough to be considered capable of making an informed decision.

@Libertarian-Leaning -- if the driver goes through the windshield, the impact was violent enough where the vehicle wasn't going to be controllable anyway. Have you ever been in an accident? Wearing a seat belt is not an analogy for smoking, sorry.

Neither is eating cheeseburger...

To "Goddurn Government": Your point is well taken, but there is a difference. First, in an ideal world, I don't believe seatbelt laws ought to exist. If a person doesn't care to restrain himself, that's his business. The problem is that, in our society, we don't hold people accountable. He would fly through the windshield, end up possibly in a shock-trauma hospital, and be uninsured. He would get treated anyway, and the financial burden of his stupidity would be placed on the public. That's the practical problem with libertarianism: you can't half-heartedly adopt it; it has to be a complete paradigm shift. In the instance of a child, it's a little different, since the child wouldn't be expected to make an informed choice on whether to forego wearing one. For asbestos and exit signs, you're talking about aspects of the structure itself, not the choices of the people using it. Should we eliminate building codes, capacity limits, etc? I don't think so. These standards ensure that the structure itself is viable. That's very different than regulating the behavior of the clientele.

Wow, this person is blind AND dumb.

Yup, her name IS "Crysta", after all. She probably smokes "pall mall's" all day and speaks with a hoarse voice. Those dirty North Carolinians are sneaking in...

Bingo. We all wind up paying for other people's "free" decisions including their children. Just as I hope this single mother of octuplets (with 6 kids already) won the lottery....

In retrospect I wish I had found the space in my letter to include the fact that I only smoke very occasionally (usually a hookah at a party rather than a cigarette at a bar) and only go to bars a couple times a semester because I find the heavy smoke very unpleasant. If a smoke-free bar opened I don't know if I'd ever go to a smokey one again, but that doesn't mean I think the government should change them to suit my tastes.

Actually, tobacco has been classified by Phillip Morris as a vegetable, and their scientists have proven that it's full of essential vitamins, such as nicotine and tar, which are beneficial to the development of infants. Maybe you should all read up on the facts before you start debating something you know nothing about.

Tobacco - in non-smoking form does indeed have benefits. That, however, is not the discussion. Once you process tobacco, ad chemicals, and smoke it you have created a highly toxic, unhealthy material. One that is proven to kill millions of smokers and those who are passive inhalers of that smoke. Further, average health costs for every insured person have gone up due to the associated cost burden smokers put on the system. In cities where smoking bans have been adopted, bars and restaurants have seen an increase in income and visits because diners can now enjoy food without being "smoked out". With all due respect, the 'freedom of choice' to smoke is yours - do it in your home, your car, outside - but as with anything - the moment your behaviour impacts someone else, you loose your right - you have a social and moral responsibility to consider those around you. It's part of being a society. And, the fact remains - smoking kills!

There is no doubt smoking is bad for you. People who smoke know this Im sure, so get off of your surgeon general high horses. I do not smoke, but I think its ridiculous that we would have a campus-wide smoking ban, or that bars should either. If you walk through someones exhaled smoke going to class YOU WILL NOT DROP DEAD. If it bothers you that much, walk farther away from them. Secondly, think about how people who smoke act when they cant. Do you really want to have a professor who hasnt had a smoke all day? No. People who smoke a lot get very irritable when they cant, and I would rather not have to sit through a lecture with a pissed off professor.

You might as well defend the rights of those who sniff & inhale glue from plastic bags. Its perfectly legal and if the stink from a group of inhalers disgusts you just walk away....

Why is it illegal for me to kill myself quickly, but perfectly legal to prolong my death at the taxpayers expense?

i think we should ban smoking!!!!