Kaine backs smoking ban
Gordon Block, CT news reporter
Thursday, January 24; 12:00 AM
In an effort to protect citizens from secondhand smoke, a newly proposed piece of legislation may create a statewide ban on smoking in all restaurants, bars, and public and private clubs.
Genevra Rhein / SPPSDanielle Robinson, a freshman in pyschology, smokes in the Burger King on Turner Street.Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine insists that the ban would protect people from the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke.
"The scientific evidence on the health risks associated with exposure to secondhand smoke is clear and convincing," he said at a press conference in Virginia Beach. "Recognizing the negative health effects and high public costs of secondhand smoke, Virginia must act to protect the workers and consumers in its restaurants."
The proposed legislation has sparked debate from Richmond to Blacksburg, and has been met with mixed feelings from many of the downtown businesses in the Blacksburg community.
"I don't smoke, so I really wouldn't mind," said Peter Jacobs, a bartender at Champs Sports Bar & Café.
Others, however, feel differently about the issue.
"I don't support laws about my body and what I can do with it," said Brandi Morris, who bartends at The Cellar.
Some estimates put the percentage of people smoking as high as two-thirds of customers, spurring worries that a smoking ban would hurt downtown businesses. However, not all bars are fearing the economic impact of a potential smoking ban.
"The majority of people that smoke here are social smokers, so I don't think it will hurt business for us," said Ryann Fowler, who works at Sharkey's.
Jacobs suggested that customers should go outdoors to smoke.
"Just go outside," he said. "There are at least twenty people out there who are smoking."
Others feel that the ban is unnecessary, and that decisions should be left to individual businesses.
"The owner of the business should be the one to make the decision on whether to allow smoking," said David Meyer, vice president of the Cigar Association of Virginia, who noted the high percentage of businesses that had voluntarily become smoke free.
"Seventy percent of restaurants have voluntarily gone smoke free, so there's no reason to make this into law," Meyer said.
Other opponents of the legislation have noted that the bill may not have as much a difference on air quality as hoped.
"It will harm customers and employees, like when smoking was banned from airplanes, which allowed for fewer changes to the air in the cabin, resulting in more toxic air for passengers," said Maryetta Ables, member of the board of directors for Forces International.
Non-smoking advocates disputed those findings.
"Experts in the field as well as the Surgeon General have both acknowledged that no ventilation system can provide a safe environment from smoking," said Claire Mullins, vice president of communications for the American Lung Association of the Atlantic Coast.
Mullins also pointed out the dangers of being in contact with secondhand smoke.
"(Secondhand smoke) has been linked to asthma, lung cancer, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). It can be very dangerous to be around smokers," Mullins said.
Also recognized was a smoking ban's ability to get people to quit smoking.
"In Oklahoma City they passed a no smoking ban in restaurants and bars, and six months after the law's passing, over 30,000 people had quit smoking," Mullins said.
If the legislation is passed, Virginia will join 28 other states that have banned smoking in restaurants.
Posted by: Emily at Jan 30
I'm not sure one can argue that businesses will lose significant revenue from a smoking ban. Smokers will still hang out at a favorite local bar and smoke outside or even sneak one in the bathroom. A lot of social smoking goes on in a bar, so the number of people who actually feel the need to chain smoke is probably much smaller than one would imagine--most people are smoking simply because they smell the second hand smoke or because a friend is smoking next to them.
Who knows, maybe bars would make more revenue from a smoking ban. Without a cigarette, a smoker eats more peanuts, pretzels, or other common bar snacks. After all the extra salty food, they are thirstier and thus buy more to drink. In addition, many friends, along with myself, dislike the bar scene because of the second hand smoke alone. I know if I found a smoke-free bar, I would be far more likely to hang out there instead of mixing drinks myself in my smoke-free apartment.
Some argue that it isn't constitutional to outlaw smoking in a public establishment because it should be up to the establishment. I feel that it IS constitutional based on the argument that the government does regulate businesses to an extent in order to protect the consumer. We have FDA laws, USDA regulations, and health codes prohibiting many potentially undesirable food preparation practices and additives. Any consumer worried about their health can be reassured that their food (while maybe not their food choices) should not give them adverse health affects. Shouldn't we also be reassured that we won't be inhaling unwanted fumes and carcinogens simply because we want to go out to eat and have a few drinks?
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Jan 28
Senator Barry Goldwater apparently voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating that "you can't legislate morality." Both segregation and smoking would most likely decline without government intervention, and the legislature shouldn't intervene in the first place. After all, is it not political suicide for legislators to vote in such stark opposition to their constituents' desires? This suggests to me that in both instances, the proposed legislation merely reflects an already changing social attitude.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: KarynK at Jan 26
OSHA, a federal agency, has never issued regulations against second hand smoke because it is 25,000 times lower than their permissable levels of exposure. This is just typical liberal fascism by the Democratic party. Kaine campained against a smoking ban in 06, now he has changed his position, it must be because of all the campaign donations by Big Pharma and the insurance industry. What has happened to free enterprise in this country?
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jim Blogg to Governor Kaine at Jan 25
Think about what you're going to say in a Federal Court during a lawsuit filed by a class of thousands of angry business owners seeking compensation from the state for their losses of revenue and rights because you failed to do any research to determine whether the health risks associated with secondhand smoke claimed by the frauds from the pharmaceutical industry funded anti-smoking crowd are actually scientifically valid. The best source for the truth is http://forces.org . Your best course of action is to drop the issue right now and let the good people of Virginia live and let live. No charge for the political advice, it's free just like Virginia will continue to be if you act sensibly.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: nickm at Jan 25
" The government already regulates businesses. Chemical factories and coal mines have air quality standards and their workers are protected. Bar and restaurant workers deserve the same benefits of clean air."
If coal mines and chemical factories can have clean air, then there should be no problem for bars to allow smoking and provide adequate ventilation, but anti-tobacco won't settle for anything less than total prohibtion.
Nobody is saying that Ken - this is about the right of private businesses that wish to permit their patrons to use a legal product. There are very few places left in Virginia where one can smoke anywhere. If you want to talk about biased research, all the anti-tobacco research on secondhand smoke is biased.
"Seriously, the rest of society should not have to suffer because of your addiction"
Society suffers too because of obese people, alcoholics, and people who have STDs. In order for society not to suffer, there will need to be a totalitarian level of behavioral control which is exactly what pulic health is pushing these days.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Jan 25
And those regulations ought to be controlled by the stockholders of those publicly traded companies. Keep in mind, companies that do stuff that their consumers generally don't like usually go out of business. If I opened a store and said "White People only will be served," I doubt my store would last very long - not because of your supposed 'civil right' to shop at my store, but because of yours (and everyone else's) right NOT to shop at my store. If you don't like a store's policy, just don't go there. . . if you convince enough of your friends to do the same, the store will go out of business and you will have won.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Lee Hawkins at Jan 25
"This is very different than a business putting up a "Whites Only" sign in the front window. Refusing to serve someone based on their skin color infringes on their civil rights."
-- That is the only thing the situations have different. But the point is the rights of the store owners and should they have the power to do whatever they want. When you have a restaraunt owned by a publicly traded company, then there ARE and NEED to be restrictions on how they run. One may be able to argue that point with respect to privately and/or "mom and pop" owned type of places.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken S. at Jan 25
It doesn't surprise me how many smokers come out to defend their "rights" when they may be changing. Seriously, the rest of society should not have to suffer because of your addiction. You think your freedom extends to infinite ends, and then refute the health hazard of smoke with biased research.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: bxl at Jan 24
Oh, Puh-leeze. You don't honestly think that this is about public safety, do you? How quaint. This is about the insurance industry getting tired of paying for people with lung cancer. This is about a fight between the tobacco lobby and the insurance lobby... and the insurance lobby is winning.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Maryetta Ables at Jan 24
No matter how many times you "claim" health dangers from second hand smoke, it simply isn't there and you are less than a responsible Citizen if you don't check it out for yourself at www.forces.org. You can claim personal objections to second hand smoke, you can claim lots of "reasons" to do smoking bans, but "health hazard" to others is NOT a legitimate claim. As for no harm to business, look at this page... http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm
Why do you think Applebees offers curb side service, why is there still smoking in 15% of Marriott rooms, why are the lawyers lining up to sue employers who discriminate smoking employees or fire them? What do "insiders" of the anti tobacco movement have say about the extremists who are in control of the "movement" at this time? Look here to see: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Bill at Jan 24
"How come then in Massachusetts, one of the first states to enact a total ban on smoking, cigarette sales are up 3-5% from before when the ban took effect in 2003"
That's a stupid question. There are more people in Mass. and thus more smokers.
Anyway, 28 states ban smoking and the restaurants are doing well with the same or improved revenue. The government already regulates businesses. Chemical factories and coal mines have air quality standards and their workers are protected. Bar and restaurant workers deserve the same benefits of clean air.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: at Jan 24
Smoking is disgusting. It serves no purpose in life and I don't see why anyone would try and defend smoking. It's like trying to defend your right to drink and drive.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: nickm at Jan 24
"Also recognized was a smoking ban's ability to get people to quit smoking."
Really? How come then in Massachusetts, one of the first states to enact a total ban on smoking, cigarette sales are up 3-5% from before when the ban took effect in 2003.
This has nothing to do with the "dangers" of secondhand smoke. If it does kill 55,000 non-smokers each year, as tobacco control freaks claim , then we should all know at least several people who have died from exposure to secondhand smoke, since this is roughly the same number of people who die each year in car and motorcycle accidents. This is all about making smoking socially unnacceptable "de-normalization" as a first step towards making tobacco illegal. Al Capone is stirring in his grave I'm sure...
Flag Abuse
Posted by: eric at Jan 24
Kaine is a kommunist. He wants to ban guns and now cigarettes. Tax the cigarettes...make smokers pay. As for guns enforce the laws on the books.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Eric at Jan 24
As much as the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke have been proven, it is a necessary evil. The tobacco industry is one of the top sources of revenue for Virginia, if you eliminate smoking, the tobacco revenues decrease, leading to higher taxes, what would rather do, smell bad when you out to a bar, or pay a few thousand dollars more every April 15th
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris at Jan 24
This is very different than a business putting up a "Whites Only" sign in the front window. Refusing to serve someone based on their skin color infringes on their civil rights. There is no "right to smoke" therefore a business can prohibit smoking in their establishment if they wish. The government shouldn't take away the private property rights from a business any more than a business owner should infringe on the civil rights of potential customers. To reverse Kyle Minor's french fries analogy - This bill would be like the government saying Chick Fila can't cook their fries in peanut oil anymore because someone might have a peanut allergy. They would say that person with the allergy shouldn't be forced to be around food cooked in the allergen (even though they aren't being forced at all - just go somewhere else that doesn't use peanut oil).
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Stephanie at Jan 24
No doubt or debate about the dangers of secondhand smoke? Two World Health Organization studies showed either no effect of a statistically significant correlation to resilience AGAINST cancer. The Enstrom/Kabat study showed no effect--and that study was primarily funded by the American Cancer Society until the results went the "wrong way" and the ACS began a smear campaign against the researchers. The results of the CRC report were actually reversed in the press just to abide by the wishes of the antismoking lobby. The laundry list of the other most rigorous, long-term studies have shown the same results time and again.
On the other hand, the EPA report on which the Surgeon General based his over-the-top assessments was thrown out by a federal judge who had a history of ruling unfavorably toward tobacco companies; on appeal, the ruling was overturned because the EPA is not a "final action agency,", which did not vindicate antismoking science but laid the legal groundwork for dismantling the EPA. The only fact about which there is no doubt or debate is the fact that pharmaceutically-funded research is more tainted than tobacco research ever was. Another indisputable fact is that ban damage is extensive economically, socially and in a myriad of other ways. Then again, Maryetta Ables aptly noted one of the dangers of smoking bans regarding airlines, which the article incorrectly stated is "disputed" because there's nothing to dispute; airlines downgraded their ventilation systems after they became antismoking and passengers are now paying the price for it. The retort from Mullins is both irrelevant and incorrect.
The so-called dangers of SHS/ETS are hypothetical in antismoking studies, unlike the serious damages caused by smoking bans.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Blake at Jan 24
I think It should be up to the establishment to decide to ban smoking or not....this is some BS!
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Phil at Jan 24
In the medical and scientific communities there is no longer any doubt or debate about the dangers of second hand smoke. The strong consensus is that the harm is real, and that there is more heart disease, more emphysema and more cancer in non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke. And if you don't believe doctors and the medical community, check the Philip Morris site on second hand smoke. I see some smokers are still posting old tobacco company propoganda on their own sites, but the tobacco companies themselves are starting to admit the truth. http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Lee Hawkins at Jan 24
I relate this to television in a sense. I was reading where it said they wanted to ban it in "private clubs" also and I thought, well, thats kinda of foul. I understand public areas but Private areas are places that people usually pay MONEY to belong to. Therefore, if a private club allows smoking and you pay to belong, then ... it speaks for itself. On TV... cursing and "nakedness" is allowed on Pay channels like HBO, your "private" channels, in addition to no commercials. I feel like its telling me that if someone pays for HBO, then they now have the right to lobby for an outright BAN on cursing and "nakedness" on a channel that Im paying for!!!
BTW... i put "nakedness" is quotes because some GENIUS at the CT decided that the word "n-u-d-i-t-y" was an inappropriate word and wont let you post if you use that word!
"Your comment contained an inappropriate word: n-u-d-i-t-y."
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Lee Hawkins at Jan 24
To beat him to it... Hell NO they shouldnt discriminate based on race, lol. I guess the main reason i DONT have a problem with the law, even though i may enjoy a black and mild occasionally, is probably because laws like this encourage me NOT to smoke. I only smoke rarely when Im drinking (increasingly inebriated) which is usually, these days, at a bar. So if I cant smoke there, then i wont be smoking. Kinda like forcing me to do something that i WANT to do but cant BRING myself to do on my own, which is to NOT smoke at ALL!
make sense?!
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at Jan 24
I tend to agree that business owners can do what they want with a property, but I'll play devil's advocate and ask what the difference is between the government trying to rid smoking in a restaurant (in theory to protect others' health), and the government creating laws to eliminate discrimination in hiring and serving at those businesses (in theory to protect minority rights)? Where do we draw the line between government intervention in private companies, and the idea of the common good? In other words, should a company be able to discriminate based on race? (I'd love to hear McGlumphy's response to this.)
Flag Abuse
Posted by: TG at Jan 24
Please direct me to a voluntary smoke-free restaurant because I don't know of any, especially in Virginia. Also, the comparison of ordering fries at a Chinese restaurant is a little out there. So because the govt is infringing upon owners rights it's not right? I don't see any of the owners in D.C. complaining when their bars are packed solid Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. None of the smokers or non-smokers are complaining and it's smoke free. It will be passed eventually.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Jan 24
NJHokie, you don't have that right, and I don't know what makes you think you do. It's as silly as asserting that you have the right to a gourmet meal at McDOnald's. Simply put, you have the right to be able to make the choice where to go. If you choose to go somewhere where smoking is permitted, you run the risk of smelling bad among other things. You don't get to take away other people's rights because you feel entitled to dine or hang out at a private establishment which has policies you don't like. I don't like not being able to order French fries at the Chinese food place, but that doesn't mean that I need to get a law passed saying that Chinese food places have to add French fries to their menu. You aren't entitled to 'the best possible choices' by the law - you are entitled to that based upon the business practices of the business owners. If you don't want secondhand smoke, go to a voluntary smoke-free establishment. That's about as easy as it gets.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: NJHokie at Jan 24
Finally. After being here at Tech the last 4 years they are finally doing this down in VA. NJ did this years ago, and it is great. I have the right to go to places and not come back smelling like a pack of cigarettes, and this law will protect that right.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: TG at Jan 24
Ha, I am not going to argue with you Lee because that is an EXCELLENT point! Too much power is never good and that's a great case in point. And, I'm sorry I just do not see the problem w/ passing this bill. It will not hurt business, people will just go outside to smoke, thus most likely smoking less cancer sticks. California, NY, Florida, NY all seem to be doing fine w/ it...
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Lee Hawkins at Jan 24
Wow... honestly, I am hopelessly divided on this issue. Interestingly, i may smoke a cigar (when i drink) very seldom but i still strangely do NOT have a problem with them passing this law. Then again, I am also not a budding entrepreneur.
Im sure had i some experience in owning something id feel more obliged to disagree with the smoking ban. I must make something clear though. As a black man, i cannot in good conscience agree with giving owners COMPLETE autonomy with their rules because that USED to be the case and when it WAS, black people were barred from restaurants or portioned to the 'coloreds only' section because these owners had too MUCH say in what went on in their stores. I HOPE someone argues this with me...
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Maryetta Ables at Jan 24
Kyle, your point of "Rights" is well taken, but does any hospitality industry business have the legal "Right" to serve food tainted with e-coli? As long as second hand smoke is fraudulently treated as if it were as dangerous as e-coli or worse, no business owner or private citizen will have the "Right" to expose the public to a "health hazard", and I guarantee you will lose public and political support trying to use the "Rights" platform to fight the smoking ban, I use the history of fellow business owners and private citizens of 28 states to make that statement... Until the scientific FRAUD is exposed and stopped by the public the smoking bans will march on across Virginia and our Country.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Jan 24
Smoking bans of this sort provide a fairly twisted view of the nature of rights in American society. I have a right to own and operate a restraunt, but I don't have the right as an owner/operator to determine what can and cannot be done in my building? Ludicrous! Just as you can't walk in to an ice cream parlor and demand under punishment of legal action that they serve you a hamburger (you knew going in that they didn't sell such things!), it is wholly unreasonable to walk into someone else's establishment and simply declare that all smoking will cease. Let's suppose for a second that the push to end public smoking really is as big as the movement claims it is. If people simply stopped going to restraunts, bars, etc. until a voluntary no-smoking policy was emplaced, then we would have a win-win situation. Businesses respond positively to their customer bases out of necessity. Smoking bans simply represent government run amok. Regardless of the science behind it, the ultimate decision in private establishments needs to be left to the private establishment's owner.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Maryetta Ables at Jan 24
"The scientific evidence on the health risks associated with exposure to secondhand smoke is clear and convincing,"
What is the "scientific evidence" Gov. Kaine refers to? I doubt he knows, as like most politicians he only listens to his advisor's or the lobbyists. That is a core problem that is the status quo for most politicians unfortunately. Once elected, they seem to instantly lose their own ability to think or reason, and they defiantly oppose the notion that they, as a politician, should exercise any sort of "Citizen's Responsibility" to the public or our Country.
These studies are not "science" - they are questionnaires that ask the interviewees to "recall" how much second hand smoke they were exposed to over their lifetime, memories that are at least decades old! And if the targeted interviewee had passed on, then the interviewer accepted the answers from who ever answered the phone or door. That is what the government is labeling as "science". Those questionnaires are what our government is using to base smoking ban laws, tax increases (for their financial gain...) upon.
Using these highly questionable "studies" and calling them "science" is fraud in and of itself, using them for the government's financial gain is yet another issue of great concern, by simply turning public opinion against a specific product, they are able to implement not only social behavior control laws, but also, by falsely swaying public opinion, they are also implementing excessive taxation with little resistance from the general public, all based upon lies fed to the public by the government... Please go to www.forces.org and see for yourself what the truth is based upon the original studies.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: at Jan 24
Just can't win... fight for the smokers rights! They have a right to pollute the air and give others in restaurants lung cancer. Go join the ACLU or something.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Lisa at Jan 24
Chris - GMTA.
I do not smoke. I do not like cigarette smoke and avoid places that have heavy smoke, but it is not the job of the government to tell private businesses what they can and cannot do.
I have heard people use "it is my right to breathe fresh air in a restaurant." No, it is not your RIGHT to go to a restaurant. It is your choice. Pick one that is smoke free or eat at home and save money.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Maryetta Ables at Jan 24
A few unprinted points from this phone interview:
a) every "study" done on second hand smoke is at www.forces.org for anyone to review to see for themselves that there is no danger from second hand smoke.
b) institutional fraud is a critical problem in our country, which is why FORCES, Inc. chose to become an Educational 501c3 organization to expose this to the public.
c) Carmona was fired within a month of his "personal opinions" about second hand smoke being released to the media.
d) the media is just as much to blame for this problem as the politician as they consistently refuse to expose the problems, to show the readers BOTH sides of the story.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: amanda at Jan 24
LOL henry! kudos for poking fun at this ridiculous puritanical law. peer pressure has smoking on its way out anyway. no need to persecute people. tobacco is a legal substance, after all, and quitting is hard.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris at Jan 24
This isn't about smoking. It's about the government telling businesses what they can and can't do. What ever happened to private property rights If a restaurant owner doesn't want smoking, then they have every right to ban smoking and vice versa. For what it's worth, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life - but I still think it should be left up to the restaurant owners.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Henry at Jan 24
Wow. 30,000 quit smoking cigarettes after the ban? Imagine what would happened if we banned marijuana smoking in bars and restaurants
Flag Abuse
