Ban on smoking in Va. restaurants passes key test

Ban on smoking in Va. restaurants passes key test

BOB BROWN

Members of the Virginia House of Delegates vote on an amendment to the smoking bill, which later passed 61-38.

» 51 Comments | Post a Comment

The House of Delegates voted 61-38 today to tentatively approve an amended version of a bill calling for statewide restrictions on smoking in restaurants.
The ban, a compromise between Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, and Speaker of the House William J. Howell, R-Stafford, would make exceptions for private clubs and restaurants with a designated smoking room that is physically separated and independently ventilated from non-smoking dining areas. It also would exclude any permanent outdoor patio area of a restaurant or any portion of a restaurant used just for private functions.
The vote in the Republican-controlled House marks a crack in the last barrier to a further clampdown on smoking in public. In past years, the Senate has passed restrictions on smoking, but the bills have not made it to the full House for a vote.
The House today supported several changes to the bill proposed by Del. Terry G. Kilgore, R-Gate City. Among them was to postpone the implementation to Jan. 1, 2010, and to allow smoking in any restaurant when minors are not allowed in.
The House bill will come up again tomorrow for a final vote. A Senate version of the smoking ban compromise is scheduled to come up on the House floor this evening.
—Olympia Meola

Advertisement

 
View More: latest news,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by robmo35 on February 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm

I’ve read a few of these comments, and I want to contribute some insight as former restaurant employee, someone who used to live in a smoke free state, and as a former smoker. This should be viewed as a boon to restaurant owners. The fear in the past was that if you went non smoking you would lose regular customers, but with a state wide mandate against smoking in restaurants, patrons who smoke will have little, and potential patrons who avoided certain places because of the smokiness could potentially become regulars. Regulars are where your money is.

As far as smokers complaining that now they have to go outside to smoke, I can tell you from experience that it is not that big of an big imposition, and can also say without question that it can enhance the social aspect of nightlife. I met more people standing outside smoking at bars and restaurants than I did inside. Potentially if you are a smoker you don’t care about the social aspect, but you can be as anti social or business oriented about your smoking outdoors, and you will get used to it to the point where it is second nature.

I’ve seen this argument that the government shouldn’t be able to tell business owners what they can and can’t do in their establishments, and how unfair this new imposition is. I can say unequivocally that this logic does not hold water. All businesses have to comply with government regulations and restaurants are no exception. There are regulations on the kind of food you can sell, meaning you can’t sell non FDA inspected goods. There are liquor laws that prevent bars from selling moonshine, or selling alcohol to underage drinkers. There are regulations on how many people you can have in a bar. There are copyright regulations that prevent competition from opening a restaurant across the street with the same name. There are regulations on the hours that you can sell booze etc…etc… Some of these regulations are implemented to protect owners, some for the public good, some I don’t agree with, but the point is that the government is already regulating what businesses do, and that this really isn’t that much of an imposition.

From a personal side as former smoker, and as a restaurant person who likes to go out, smokers have no idea how they are affecting non smokers. I say that because I had no idea until I quit how horrible second hand smoke is. I’m not trying to tell anybody what they can and can’t put in their body, but I don’t want to inhale carbon monoxide if I can help it, and I didn’t realize how bad second hand smoke was until I quit.

Finally on a side note glen allen your argument of seperating restaurants from bars is moot in Virginia. In order to serve alcohol you must serve food. It’s a policy I don’t agree with, but it is the law.

Flag Comment Posted by T on February 10, 2009 at 1:08 pm

To Glen Allen - likening a no-smoking section in a restaurant to a “no-peeing section in a swimming pool”???  Come on - are you really that crass and lazy that you won’t get out of the pool if you have to go to the bathroom?  Please let me know what pool you go to so I can be sure not to wade in.  In reading these posts, I see that you all are certainly a bunch of self-righteous, know-it-alls who believe your own opinion is the only one that matters.  Most people who smoke try to be considerate of non-smokers.  Yes, there are those who are not considerate of non-smokers - just like there are so many of you on this blog who are not being very considerate.  You know what they say about opinions ... and many of you fit the analogy.  It should be up to the individual business owner to decide what they want for their establishment - not the government.  Big Brother trying to protect people from themselves…..  I prefer to make my own decisions, thank you very much!  And, yes, I am a former smoker, but I do not condemn those who still do, and I certainly do not treat them like they are the bane of the earth.

Flag Comment Posted by Glen Allen on February 10, 2009 at 10:17 am

the 70% people are throwing around include all of the many fast-food locations. There are less than a hand full of smoke free resturant chains in Richmond.
ABC rules requiring the serving of food with alcohol in VA have blurred the line between Bars and Resturants.
VA needs to clarify the differences between Bars and Resturants. Bars should allow smoking to those who wish to slowly kill themselves and their family. Resturant-Bar Hybrids should be smoke-free until 7:00 pm. Resturants should be completely smoke-free. I wish more resturants would have the balls to voluntarily go smoke-free.
I dont see how you can complain that we shold not regulate businesses when we already prohibit smoking in other businesses (offices & public buildings).

Flag Comment Posted by 10krunner on February 10, 2009 at 2:47 am

There are plenty of restaurants that do not allow smoking. Some opened as non-smoking establishments and others made a choice to go non-smoking. Those places had to listen to some of their smoking patrons threaten to never come back. After awhile people get used to change. Is it really that hard to step outside for a smoke? When NYC went non-smoking, the sidewalks outside of clubs and restaurants became the best places to meet new people. Perhaps, the city needs to approve more outdoor eating and drinking areas. The world is changing - get used to it.

Flag Comment Posted by yeti37 on February 10, 2009 at 12:21 am

Oh, and Richmond-USA, you forgot to use the time-honored argument of “if it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?“ or let’s not forget the “if it was your child in that restaurant, would you want a smoker next to you?“ Those are both well worn comments that appeal to emotion rather than logical discussion, which is what you resorted to. Great, now you have brought me down to your level and I’ve had to resort to sarcasm.

Flag Comment Posted by yeti37 on February 09, 2009 at 11:55 pm

Richmond-USA—no i wouldn’t call that losing an argument at all, i would call it bowing out of one where the other participant uses hyperbole to prove a point. dumping asbestos into someone’s food and equating it with second hand smoke is as sorry as accusing me of grasping at straws wherever it is that you “come from”. At least my arguments use sound, economic and historical reasoning. Yours, well, have to use exaggeration to make their point. And as for Locke, I would trust his philosophy far better than anybody in the GA. Remember that a good portion of our government and Declaration of Independence is based on his ideas. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him because 250 years separate us. by the way, not sure how the cocaine reference fits into the discussion other than to use the well worn hyperbole argument again. And to say that asbestos is not very different than second hand smoke “biologically speaking”? Really? Where did you take biology because that would get you a failing grade on any Virginia SOL test.

At least avm and katzenjaammer put up good argument in this forum.

Flag Comment Posted by Susan on February 09, 2009 at 10:45 pm

katzenjammer, you’re the one who said ALL lung cancer afflicting those that never smoked, or lived with a smoker, is caused by second hand smoke.

duh.

Flag Comment Posted by fbplayer on February 09, 2009 at 10:43 pm

Richmond-USA, please respond to my comment… Thanks

Flag Comment Posted by zerro on February 09, 2009 at 10:42 pm

yea LARRY,,i did,nt mention any of that other stuff cause like CLINTON,,i never inhaled !or had ...;i do admit to eating PIZZA !,anyway people in big cities like nyc/la are 3 x more likely to have lung problems,,and it aint cigs,,its just plain dusty dirty city air,,and places like N.C. have a higher rate of lung problems and ,,and thats all the coal burning elec plants,,and more people have cancer from breathing dust from gravel pits and uranium mining,and more people die in central va. from cancer due to a higher rate of rayon gas,and back in the day of “leave it to beaver”,when 75 % of people smoke,all the drs. could say is that it was cigs that was giving woman breast cancer,,today with only 15% of woman smoking and breast cancer still at same rate as 40 yrs ago,,guess what it is,oh it runs in family,this i do know is that if you are born,,you will die,,so from birth til death,,just be happy !,if that is drink,drink;if thats cigs then smoke,if it las vagas clinton stuff,then smile,just as long as it dosent bother thou neighbor !

Flag Comment Posted by Richmond-USA on February 09, 2009 at 10:38 pm

Susan, death certificates aren’t that detailed, as you may know.  She died of lung cancer.  She lived with a smoker who smoked indoors.  The doctors all agreed that she died of cancer caused by inhaling secondhand smoke.  When you get a medical degree, let me know, and you will be qualified to disagree with their verdict.  Until then, I’ll go with the pulmonologists, mmmkay?

And as for pollen and ozone causing lung cancer, that theory is just idiotic.  Nothing much more I can say about that!

The fact that you equate lung cancer with “breathing problems” shows you are in FAR over your head here. You are probably thinking of emphysema.

Emphysema is also caused by smoking, but that’s where the similarities end.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Click here to post a comment.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement