Have you ever walked past a coat you had hanging on a hook or draped over a chair and been hit with the reeking, stale smell of tobacco? If you're a smoker, you're out of luck. But if not, you might be interested in a piece of legislation that went through in Virginia.
The General Assembly just passed a bill banning smoking in most public bars and restaurants in the state. The ban will go into effect on Dec. 1. The ban does not extend to private establishments or places with enclosed smoking rooms. Everywhere else in Virginia, though, will be smoke-free at the end of the year.
Negative reactions to this bill have come (largely from smokers) in the form of arguments that this law infringes on people's right to smoke in bars. But what about non-smokers' right to not inhale secondhand smoke? What about asthma sufferers' right to be able to socialize without experiencing shortness of breath? What about anyone's right to not be suffocated by smoke when they're out and stink of it long after they've left the bar?
It's been scientifically proven that cigarettes are not only addictive but that they also cause multiple deadly diseases. In fact, the World Health Organization estimates that smoking tobacco killed 100 million people in the 20th century.
Smoking isn't just fatal to smokers, either. Secondhand smoke has been proven to significantly increase the risk of heart disease and sudden infant death syndrome in those exposed to it.
The judicial system has repeatedly upheld the idea that you can engage in almost any unbecoming, irresponsible, life-shortening activity you are inclined to partake in as long as it has no bearing on anyone else. Once you intrude into territory that puts the quality of life or safety of others at risk, though, you will be regulated.
That's how societies work. You have to give up some freedoms in order to enjoy the benefits communities provide. If you want to be able to do absolutely whatever you want whenever you want, then you should stake out a nice little plot of land in the Marie Byrd section of Antarctica (the part so desolately inhospitable that not one single country has wasted time claiming it). It's likely that you could smoke in whatever igloo you like out there.
Unfortunately, though, company and amenities might be limited.
The editorial board is composed of David Grant, David Harries, Laurel Colella, Alexandra Kaufmann and Jenna Marson.
Leave a comment 18 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
finally! take your cigarettes somewhere else!
Reply to this Top
If non-smokers and astham-sufferers don't want to be offended by smoke then they have the options to go some where else to eat. It's that simple. Many restaurants in Virginia were already smoke free, to begin with. This is also not about the rights of non smokers and smokers, but about business owners rights.
Reply to this Top
Thank you again, CT editorial board. This time for (1) writing this piece with an "in your face, smokers" tone, and (2) completely missing the boat on the larger issue of bar and restaurant owners' rights, as anonymous says. Where has the conviction gone in this country? If we don't like something, no longer do we stage protests and boycotts to instigate change, even in this age of networking websites, when it is easier than ever to coordinate a movement; instead we sit back and whine to our legislators until they create laws about everything.
Reply to this Top
By the way, your statement that "you have to give up some freedoms in order to enjoy the benefits communities provide" could just as easily be used in a pro-smoking article to demonstrate the point that non-smokers' choices are limited to certain bars and restaurants if they choose to avoid smoke. I still haven't seen mention of this apparently inalienable "right" to go out to a bar or restaurant, much less the right to dictate the environment inside.
Reply to this Top
Jason, try not to be so idealogical! The CT editorial board rights from their liberal perspective, and hence you get what we have here: perpetuated liberal values in college.
Reply to this Top
How are smoking bans a liberal issue? I consider myself to be liberal and I am against state mandated smoking bans. Liberals generally want more freedoms for more people; bans don't do that. Also, in the 20th century, it can be said that cigarettes prevented 100 millions deaths from non-tobacco related causes. And Virginians will still be able to smoke in their own homes around infants, so that whole point is moot. If you are bringing a baby to a bar, you got more problems than this ban.
Reply to this Top
I consider myself fairly conservative, but I respect my health and those of others. Smoke all you want, just not where it has a negative affect on others. Over 80 percent of adults an all kids don't smoke and their health is more important than causing a small inconvenience to smokers.
Reply to this Top
If the state legislature can pass a law like this, what is stopping them from passing a law requiring all restaurants to provide vegetarian, vegan, and trans-fat free items on the menu? The same argument about having the right to go to a restaurant and stay healthy can be made. There are restaurants now that ban smoking flat out right now. If you are so concerned about second hand smoke, go to one of those restaurants. Here is where to find them: http://www.vahealth.org/netwebforms/TUCP/SmokeFree/
Reply to this Top
The CT misses the point- the debate isn't about smoker's rights. It is about private property rights- it should be up to the owner of the restaurant/bar to set the rules in his establishment, NOT the government. As someone noted below, there are many establishments that ban smoking on their premises- if non-smokers (I am a non-smoker btw- I just love freedom more than I hate smoking) gave their business to smoke free restaurants, then other establishments would quickly follow suit. No one was forcing you to sit in second-hand smoke. With this new law, however, the majority is forcing its will on the minority. Now all we've done is set further precedent for the government to ban whatever it doesn't like and eroding property rights at the same time.
Reply to this Top
It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political. As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology. Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.
Reply to this Top
Your editorial approves "banning smoking in most public bars and restaurants in the state... The ban does not extend to private establishments..." What is THAT supposed to mean? What "private establishmentd" are supposedly exempt? If I smoke, hire ONLY smokers (just as some businesses hire only NONsmokers), and only invite smokers & friends into my bar, will that be allowed? I don't know the VA details but I'll bet such would NOT be allowed. So much for the distinction between "public" and "private." -=-=- Nonsmokers have every right in the world to patronize only nonsmoking bars and restaurants. Their ability to avoid traces of smoke will actually be HURT by a ban as smokers won't be sitting peacefully inside smoking establishments but will now be filling the sidewalks in front of all the newly NONsmoking establishments. And then of course the antismoking lobby will propose banning smoking OUTdoors and then in condos and apartments. -=-=- If you don't stop them at the start they'll simply move on to grab everything they can: "Tobacco Control" is getting over $800 million/year and will spend it to get the most extreme measures possible. Remember Mussolini's quote: Freedom is like a salami. If you can't steal the whole salami at once, just take it one small slice at a time and no one will ever notice till it's gone. -=-=- Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Reply to this Top
Eric, that's because you are a CLASSICAL liberal (in at least the governmental interventionist sense). Unless you believe that the government exists to PROVIDE rights, in which case you're just a standard 'progressive.' Remember, governments can only ever RESTRICT your rights - since rights are things you have by virtue of being alive.
Reply to this Top
Michael, I believe that "private" in this sense means "not open to the general public for business." Perhaps a place with a membership fee or selective membership.
Reply to this Top
I understand what the authors mean by "private" vs. "public", but I have to say that I think they're dangerously wrong on it. Public property is supposed to mean property owned by the state, over which the state does have full control and no one person can stake any individual claim to. It's terrifying that we have now set another precedent that the government can take private property, owned by an individual person, and start treating it as public and exerting the same kind of controls of it. What makes my private home all that much different from my private business? Is it that I let people come into my business and therefore have a responsibility to provide a healthy atmosphere? Does that mean that if I let people come into my home I have a responsibility to keep it smoke free too? I don't make anyone come into my business and I don't make anyone come into my home so it sounds pretty similar to me. The division used to be state-owned vs. privately-owned. If the line has moved once (and I know it's actually moved more than once) I don't trust that it won't move again.
Reply to this Top
Crysta and Jason, I think you're right, and I think you're also right in saying that it's terrifying in some ways. I was rocked back on my heels several years ago when I first saw a smking ban law that allowed an "exemption" for "private homes." Since when in history would such laws ever NOT normally exclude private homes? The very fact that they noted the exemption highlighted the idea that they felt the law COULD be regulating inside your own home. - = - = - Then about five years ago John Banzhaf was talking about Belmont California and said "Here we are, reaching into the final frontier. No more can a man say 'My Home Is My Castle' " That quote struck me so forcefully I used it in the closing segment of the Stiletto booklet at http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html - = - = - Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Reply to this Top
The state and federal government can stick their hand wherever they want to just by getting a judge to say some law looks like it could be used for that. Health boards can control business owners, so can the local inspectors....they lost the right of deciding what is safe about their businesses a long time ago.
Reply to this Top
Smokers should overturn these state bans just like prohibition. Oh, that's right they are in the minority (21%-Gallup), it saves the state $$$ (taxpayers) on health costs and most smokers want to quit anyways (74%-Gallup). That all may be irrelevant to private rights, but this bill passed in the home state of Philip Morris and a similar bill is in the works in NC. The tobacco companies see the writing on the wall and are investing in non-smoking products and expanding overseas (China)...the money grubbing traitors!
Reply to this Top
If you have a JPEG image and want to know if it's PSed. Go to <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Detector</a>, put in the URL to the image, and hit submit. The system will analyze the image for you. If the image has been edited, detailed info will be shown.
Reply to this Top