VA smoking ban

[remaxjon]

for those who havn't heard they are trying to ban smoking in VA restaurants.

I of course am 100% aganist this and think its just another thing the government does to take away freedom.

I have yet to hear a good argument for the ban from anyone but I fear it will pass because people hate smoke.

for full disclosure
I used to smoke but no longer do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020501309.html

Really sad day for me

[akhhorus]

Under the plan, which represents a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation between the state's two most powerful leaders, smoking would still be permitted in private clubs, and other public establishments would be given the chance to construct enclosed, ventilated smoking rooms for patrons.


and

violating the ban would bring only a $25 fine for businesses

This doesn't seem like the oppression you're making it out to be.

[remaxjon]

and



This doesn't seem like the oppression you're making it out to be.

its an assualt on property rights

[BurgundyNGold]

Why can't government just mandate that establishments put big old signs out front that state whether they allow smoking or not and leave the owner of the establishment the right to determine if he/she wants to allow smoking in their establishment?

In any case, it's probably better to just give up smoking and take on nicotine via Snus. Same nicotine, far less health risks.

http://tobaccoproducts.org/index.php/Camel_Snus

[remaxjon]

Why can't government just mandate that establishments put big old signs out front that state whether they allow smoking or not and leave the owner of the establishment the right to determine if he/she wants to allow smoking in their establishment?

In any case, it's probably better to just give up smoking and take on nicotine via Snus. Same nicotine, far less health risks.

http://tobaccoproducts.org/index.php/Camel_Snus

for anyone that wants to quit

whyquit.com has a great cold turkey program. Its how I quit and imo the only way to go

[bfauble83]

I went to a Perkins in Va about a year ago and was shocked when they asked if we wanted smoking or non...I thought smoking was pretty much banned everywhere now. I agree though that it should be up to the owner of the establishment in all states.

[Ibleedburgundy]

This is a non-issue where I live. In Shirlington Village you can go to Bungalow billiards if you want to smoke inside or go to Capital City Brewery if you want a non-smoking bar.

The issue seems to have settled itself.

[akhhorus]

its an assualt on property rights

So, by your logic, no building or restaurant should have health codes?

[remaxjon]

So, by your logic, no building or restaurant should have health codes?

no thats not my logic

and one thing has nothing to do with the other.

[akhhorus]

no thats not my logic

and one thing has nothing to do with the other.

The reason they banned it was because smoke is a health hazard. If the state doesn't have the right to regulate health in public places, then they can't say whether or not a restaurant is allowed to put rat crap in their food or not. This has nothing really to do with property rights.

[remaxjon]

The reason they banned it was because smoke is a health hazard. If the state doesn't have the right to regulate health in public places, then they can't say whether or not a restaurant is allowed to put rat crap in their food or not. This has nothing really to do with property rights.

If a restaurant put rat crap on their food would anyone eat there? If people starting getting sick everytime they went to a restaurant would they ever go back? Your argument is silly

Lots of things are bad for you. Smoking is being banned because people don't like smoke.

[Fathead]

And people don't like smoke because it gives you lung cancer.


Smoking is a public health issue.

[PyroGenic]

The reason they banned it was because smoke is a health hazard. If the state doesn't have the right to regulate health in public places, then they can't say whether or not a restaurant is allowed to put rat crap in their food or not. This has nothing really to do with property rights.

Drinking's horrible for your health, too, and it's not being banned willy nilly.

[remaxjon]

And people don't like smoke because it gives you lung cancer.


Smoking is a public health issue.

you don't have to go to places that allow smoke

[Fathead]

Especially since the law is going to be that smoking in restaurants is illegal.

[Fathead]

Drinking's horrible for your health, too, and it's not being banned willy nilly.



When you drink, I don't drink just by sitting next to you.

[akhhorus]

If a restaurant put rat crap on their food would anyone eat there? If people starting getting sick everytime they went to a restaurant would they ever go back? Your argument is silly

As opposed to your usual Paultard nonsense? The non-smokers have a right to go to a public area without inhaling smoke if they want. How exactly can you pick and choose a place to go out to dinner without smoking anywhere in a state where anyone can come in and start smoking next to you?

Lots of things are bad for you. Smoking is being banned because people don't like smoke.

Thats not true at all. Smoking is being banned because non-smokers could be made sick from it.

Drinking's horrible for your health, too, and it's not being banned willy nilly.

If I drink next to you, you're not getting hurt from it.

you don't have to go to places that allow smoke

How exactly can you pick and choose a place to go out to dinner without smoking anywhere in a state where anyone can come in and start smoking?

[shally]

And people don't like smoke because it gives you lung cancer.


Smoking is a public health issue.
and it's a matter of courtesy-- or lack of it...

i cannot tell you how many times i was subjected to smoke that drifted from smoking into non-smoking areas.. as long as it was voluntary, there have always been smokers who didnt give a rat's rear end about non smokers.. owners response in most cases was to simply shrug and say there was little they could do about it.. yes, they lost customers but it was far easier than having confrontations with people.

now that it is banned, and frankly illegal, it takes the matter out of the hands of the owner or manager who simply has to say it is not permitted anywhere on the premesis...few smokers are that belligerent that they will risk that type of confrontation-- although i have seen people hauled off from the superdome
for smoking. at one time, even though it was not permitted in there, you could see a bluish haze over the field by the second half of a lot of saints games.. it took the league pressuring the team to get them to enforce their own rules..

frankly, i feel sorry for smokers. but not to the extent that i excuse behavior that forces me to leave, or breathe in their smoke

if it were up to me, smoking would be banned completely.. i think it is simply insane that we permit the distribution of a product, that when taken AS DIRECTED, will cause death and illness.. economics rules over public health

[Fathead]

For the record, I am allergic to cigarette smoke.

[remaxjon]

Drinking's horrible for your health, too, and it's not being banned willy nilly.

unless you like mike's hard lemonade and live in Utah.

[remaxjon]

people don't like smoke

is no reason to ban it


really really sad imo that people think this way. They could always go to the place that doesn't allow smoking.

I would never go up to an owner of a bar that doesn't allow smoke and demand that I be allowed to smoke in that bar. Just because its something the majority wants doesn't mean its something that should be done.

[Fathead]

No, its much more serious than not liking smoke. When someone smokes, everyone near that person has to partake in that smoke. In an enclosed building, everyone is subjected to it.

Smoking has well documented health risks, and its an activity that is always shared with everyone around.

[remaxjon]

As opposed to your usual Paultard nonsense? The non-smokers have a right to go to a public area without inhaling smoke if they want. How exactly can you pick and choose a place to go out to dinner without smoking anywhere in a state where anyone can come in and start smoking next to you?
good name calling
I don't know why you think you have the right to tell someone who purchased a restaurtant how to run there restaurant but then again you are smarter then everyone else.


Thats not true at all. Smoking is being banned because non-smokers could be made sick from it.
Lots of things make you sick and non smokers could simply not go near smokers. this isn't a hard concept. Smokers arn't running around poluting peoples bedrooms. You need to remember you don't own the restaurant


If I drink next to you, you're not getting hurt from it.
I might have to listen to you tell me how to live my life that would hurt a little



How exactly can you pick and choose a place to go out to dinner without smoking anywhere in a state where anyone can come in and start smoking

Many restaurants are non smoking you could simply choose to go to those. Velocity 5 down the street from me is non smoking great place you should stop by. Gary Clark is always hanging out there.

[remaxjon]

No, its much more serious than not liking smoke. When someone smokes, everyone near that person has to partake in that smoke. In an enclosed building, everyone is subjected to it.

Smoking has well documented health risks, and its an activity that is always shared with everyone around.

you can get up and leave

you don't own the building

[akhhorus]

people don't like smoke

is no reason to ban it


Thats not why its being banned.

really really sad imo that people think this way. They could always go to the place that doesn't allow smoking.


If the state doesn't ban smoking in certain areas, it'll be hard for anyplace to ban smoking on their own.

I would never go up to an owner of a bar that doesn't allow smoke and demand that I be allowed to smoke in that bar. Just because its something the majority wants doesn't mean its something that should be done.

Whether or not you wouldn't do that, it happens.

[Fathead]

Esentially, remax wants me banned from every restaurant in the world that allows smoking. Thanks buddy!

[remaxjon]

lots and lots of places don't allow smoking I don't know why this has to be a 100% all or nothing issue.

Just go to the places that don't allow smoking.

[remaxjon]

Esentially, remax wants me banned from every restaurant in the world that allows smoking. Thanks buddy!

you don't own the restaurant and I would say the same thing to someone who wants to smoke in a non smoking place. Don't go

[PyroGenic]

If I drink next to you, you're not getting hurt from it.


I understand that, but I don't understand why it can't be left to the establishment to decide whether or not they should be a smoke-free establishment. Plenty of places already do that. I'm not all too clear as to why
there needs to be legislature behind it. If being around smoke is an issue, go to a place where it isn't allowed. I'm missing the big issue here.

[akhhorus]

good name calling

I was criticizing your inane cult.

I don't know why you think you have the right to tell someone who purchased a restaurtant how to run there restaurant but then again you are smarter then everyone else.



*yawn* I guess you can't answer the question since you're reduced to trying to make me the issue?

Lots of things make you sick and non smokers could simply not go near smokers. this isn't a hard concept. Smokers arn't running around poluting peoples bedrooms. You need to remember you don't own the restaurant


Why should non smokers be the ones who have to yield to smokers? There's no constitutional right to smoke, nor should someone who chooses not to do something be forced to reap the long term consequences from someone else who chooses to do so. By your logic, if two people want to have sex next to me at the bar, they should be allowed to? Or if someone wants to play with a piece of plutonium next to me at a bar, they have to be allowed to?

I might have to listen to you tell me how to live my life that would hurt a little


*yawn* Thanks for being, yet again, unable to discuss the issue.

Many restaurants are non smoking you could simply choose to go to those. Velocity 5 down the street from me is non smoking great place you should stop by. Gary Clark is always hanging out there.

So, non smokers have their rights infringed on to let smokers smoke whereever they want? Why should they have their options limited so that smokers can smoke where ever they want to? Are you planning ever be consistent, or just whine about imaginary wrongs to your "freedoms."

[Fathead]

By that logic, then bans on smoking in medical clincs, hospitals, etc should be removed.



Hell why ban anything?

[akhhorus]

I understand that, but I don't understand why it can't be left to the establishment to decide whether or not they should be a smoke-free establishment. Plenty of places already do that. I'm not all too clear as to why
there needs to be legislature behind it. If being around smoke is an issue, go to a place where it isn't allowed. I'm missing the big issue here.

Because smoking is a public health issue. If i'm drinking someone that could eventually be harmful to my health, you don't suffer those effects sitting next to me. If I smoke next to you, you don't have a choice, you'll suffer because of that.

[akhhorus]

By that logic, then bans on smoking in medical clincs, hospitals, etc should be removed.

Hell why ban anything?

I hope so. I want to bring an assault weapon with me when I go out drinking.

[remaxjon]

Because smoking is a public health issue. If i'm drinking someone that could eventually be harmful to my health, you don't suffer those effects sitting next to me. If I smoke next to you, you don't have a choice, you'll suffer because of that.

Why don't you just not go to that restaurant or bar?

why is that so hard? Why do you need to tell others what they can and cannot do?

[Fathead]

I hope so. I want to bring an assault weapon with me when I go out drinking.

Make sure you bring some cigars.

[remaxjon]

By that logic, then bans on smoking in medical clincs, hospitals, etc should be removed.



Hell why ban anything?

no one is saying that

[akhhorus]

Why don't you just not go to that restaurant or bar?

why is that so hard? Why do you need to tell others what they can and cannot do?

But you're doing exactly that same thing by limiting where people who don't want their odds for lung cancer to jump up could go for a meal.

And neither I nor this law is telling others what to do with their lives. People can still smoke in bars and in designated smoking areas(that have to meet ventilation requirements). They're just not allowed to smoke anywhere they want to. And if you're going to say that this infringes on their rights, then non-smokers' rights are being infringed on also.

[shally]

No, its much more serious than not liking smoke. When someone smokes, everyone near that person has to partake in that smoke. In an enclosed building, everyone is subjected to it.

Smoking has well documented health risks, and its an activity that is always shared with everyone around.

absolutely true !!! right on the head with that comment

[shally]

lots and lots of places don't allow smoking I don't know why this has to be a 100% all or nothing issue.

Just go to the places that don't allow smoking.

private clubs. that is what they are for... enjoy the smoke there...

[shally]

But you're doing exactly that same thing by limiting where people who don't want their odds for lung cancer to jump up could go for a meal.

And neither I nor this law is telling others what to do with their lives. People can still smoke in bars and in designated smoking areas(that have to meet ventilation requirements). They're just not allowed to smoke anywhere they want to. And if you're going to say that this infringes on their rights, then non-smokers' rights are being infringed on also.


complete bans are in effect in many bars/rests in a lot of states.. virginia is behind the curve already

[remaxjon]

But you're doing exactly that same thing by limiting where people who don't want their odds for lung cancer to jump up could go for a meal.

And neither I nor this law is telling others what to do with their lives. People can still smoke in bars and in designated smoking areas(that have to meet ventilation requirements). They're just not allowed to smoke anywhere they want to. And if you're going to say that this infringes on their rights, then non-smokers' rights are being infringed on also.

no I'm not!

Let me be clear. I do not think there is a right to smoke in a restaurant bar or anywhere else. I think the owner of that business has the right to decide what is allowed and the government does not have the moral authority to take that right away.

Smokers and non smokers have the same rights but under this law the business owner has less rights and choice is taken away. Thus more freedom is lost.

edit
its always about freedom with me and we keep giving it away over and over again and people cheer.

[akhhorus]

no I'm not!

Let me be clear. I do not think there is a right to smoke in a restaurant bar or anywhere else. I think the owner of that business has the right to decide what is allowed and the government does not have the moral authority to take that right away.

The government has the moral authority to ban things that are inherently bad for your health-especially if they can make people around you unhealthy. Thats why they ban smoking or why you can't play with Ebola in your home.

Smokers and non smokers have the same rights but under this law the business owner has less rights and choice is taken away. Thus more freedom is lost.

Thats not true at all. The business owner can set up a smoking room for smokers. And this isn't a freedom issue at all. A smoker can go to a bar and smoke, or step outside and smoke.

[shally]

no I'm not!

Let me be clear. I do not think there is a right to smoke in a restaurant bar or anywhere else. I think the owner of that business has the right to decide what is allowed and the government does not have the moral authority to take that right away.

Smokers and non smokers have the same rights but under this law the business owner has less rights and choice is taken away. Thus more freedom is lost.


business owners have many "rights" regulated by the government anyway.. cleanliness. salaries. worker safety. selling liquor to underage or intoxicated patrons.. etc..
this is simply another public safety issue.. it is not a matter of civil rights. that argument is bogus

[remaxjon]

The government has the moral authority to ban things that are inherently bad for your health-especially if they can make people around you unhealthy. Thats why they ban smoking or why you can't play with Ebola in your home.
Why would you compare ebola and smoking? They not on the same level. Unless I'm missing something I havn't seen an epidemic of waiters dropping dead from 2nd hand smoke. How many people die from drunk driving each year vs how many people die from 2nd hand smoke each year?


Thats not true at all. The business owner can set up a smoking room for smokers. And this isn't a freedom issue at all. A smoker can go to a bar and smoke, or step outside and smoke

So the business owner gets to spend thousands of dollars it normaly wouldn't have to because you don't want to have to research what restaurants you go to. Akh's stimulus package gouge local restaurnts

[akhhorus]

Why would you compare ebola and smoking? They not on the same level.

It was a joke.

Unless I'm missing something I havn't seen an epidemic of waiters dropping dead from 2nd hand smoke. How many people die from drunk driving each year vs how many people die from 2nd hand smoke each year?

Drunk driving is something completely different than long term exposure to smoking. As for the stats:
13,000 people died in 2007 due to drunk driving(probably most of them being the drivers who were drunk): http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2008/08/29/93188.htm

As for 2nd hand smoking(from the American lung association):
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39858
"Secondhand smoke has been estimated to cause 46,000 (ranging from 22,700 to 69,600) deaths per year from heart disease in adult nonsmokers"


So the business owner gets to spend thousands of dollars it normaly wouldn't have to because you don't want to have to research what restaurants you go to. Akh's stimulus package gouge local restaurnts

Your usual nonsense aside, for the fifth time: non smokers shouldn't be limited to where they can eat or drink. Thats infringing their rights to stay healthy.

[Chief Seeway]

No, its much more serious than not liking smoke. When someone smokes, everyone near that person has to partake in that smoke. In an enclosed building, everyone is subjected to it.

Smoking has well documented health risks, and its an activity that is always shared with everyone around.


I agree with what I bolded but second hand smoke has yet to proven harmful. Owners should have the say whether their establishment allows smoking or not.

[shally]

I agree with what I bolded but second hand smoke has yet to proven harmful. Owners should have the say whether their establishment allows smoking or not.


disagree about the latter.. any more than individual owners should have a say on issues like cleanliness, minimum wage, workers comp, safety, fire codes, etc.. all are too large issues to be decided by someone who is concerned with only the bottom line

[remaxjon]

Your usual nonsense aside, for the fifth time: non smokers shouldn't be limited to where they can eat or drink. Thats infringing their rights to stay healthy
There is no infringment they can go where ever they want for the 5th time its about choice and you don't want owners to have any. Thats your opinion less freedom more laws hip hip horray.

[BurgundyNGold]

Thats not why its being banned. .
That's part of it too. Maybe the larger part. I guarantee you that if I lit up a clove cigarette in a MoCo restaurant, I'd get fined, tossed out or both.

[akhhorus]

There is no infringment they can go where ever they want for the 5th time its about choice and you don't want owners to have any.

1. They can't go to places people smoke if they want to avoid the health problems. Thats infringement.
2. The owners are free to set up smoking areas. Or they can set up a patio outside for people to smoke(which is what they do in DC).

Thats your opinion less freedom more laws hip hip horray.

And you want to deny people the freedom to go where they want unless they want to raise their risks for heart disease and cancer. Some freedom you believe in. But thats the usual hypocrisy from a paul cultist.

[akhhorus]

That's part of it too. Maybe the larger part. I guarantee you that if I lit up a clove cigarette in a MoCo restaurant, I'd get fined, tossed out or both.

They don't like Ka-weers in Moco ;) lmao

[BurgundyNGold]

I agree with what I bolded but second hand smoke has yet to proven harmful. Owners should have the say whether their establishment allows smoking or not.
This is too often overlooked. Most of the second hand smoke reports (including the EPA report) cite as foundational evidence a WHO report whose evidence shows that the risks of second hand smoke is statistically insignificant.

I understand that people don't want to be around smoke. I also understand that as long as there is a statistical possibility that is could be affecting one's help, they shouldn't be forced to work in such an environment. My problem is with the iron fisted application of the law. There should be establishments that allow smoking because everyone involved -- the ownership, the workers and the patronage -- want there to be smoking allowed. The current law denies them that basic freedom. That's BS.

[BurgundyNGold]

They don't like Ka-weers in Moco ;) lmao
That's all that's in MoCo lmao. That and them met-ra-sek-shuls lol.

[Chief Seeway]

I've used one of the designated, ventilated smoking areas in a public restaurant/bar overseas... it was pretty nice. Loud because of the heavy exhaust fans blowing but convenient and from the out side you couldn't smell the smoke at all.

[akhhorus]

That's all that's in MoCo lmao. That and them met-ra-sek-shuls lol.

The only way I would question your sexuality more if you broke out a clove would be to smoke a gauloise with that backwards hand thing.

[remaxjon]

]1. They can't go to places people smoke if they want to avoid the health problems. Thats infringement.
2. The owners are free to set up smoking areas. Or they can set up a patio outside for people to smoke(which is what they do in DC).

There is no law that says people get to go to bars and restaurants they don't own.

And you want to deny people the freedom to go where they want unless they want to raise their risks for heart disease and cancer. Some freedom you believe in. But thats the usual hypocrisy from a paul cultist
I've had enough of the cultist bullshit. Don't be a keyboard cowboy and hurl inslults you can't and could never backup. Just because you have 80,000 post doesn't give you the right to say things no one else could get away with.

[akhhorus]

There is no law that says people get to go to bars and restaurants they don't own.

Except that the owners of said restaurants have to follow state rules regarding health. This is no different.

And bars will still be allowed to have smoking, so they're irrelevant.

I've had enough of the cultist bullshit. Don't be a keyboard cowboy and hurl inslults you can't and could never backup. Just because you have 80,000 post doesn't give you the right to say things no one else could get away with.

I'm insulting your political movement, not you. Its false shallow movement completely divorced from reality led by a hypocrite. The fact that you come here and try to create straw men when you're clearly totally uninformed when it comes to the basics of US and global politics has moved from funny to sad. I've told your fellow cultists in person what I think about their movement and their leader. Its hilarious to gauge their reactions.

[BurgundyNGold]

The only way I would question your sexuality more if you broke out a clove would be to smoke a gauloise with that backwards hand thing.
Clove cigarettes are worthless. Unless you want to make a point in MoCo. Apparently, it *is* the smoke they don't like. People dying from cancer is the marketed cover.

[remaxjon]

Except that the owners of said restaurants have to follow state rules regarding health. This is no different.

And bars will still be allowed to have smoking, so they're irrelevant.



I'm insulting your political movement, not you. Its false shallow movement completely divorced from reality led by a hypocrite. The fact that you come here and try to create straw men when you're clearly totally uninformed when it comes to the basics of US and global politics has moved from funny to sad. I've told your fellow cultists in person what I think about their movement and their leader. Its hilarious to gauge their reactions.


oh my god what in the hell does us and global politics have to do with a smoking ban. I swear to god you are the most pompous self important person walking the earth. I have not mentioned Ron Paul 1 time that is all you. Your an ass get a life get off the computer.

We are talking about a smoking ban asshat. US global politics go f yourself

[akhhorus]

oh my god what in the hell does us and global politics have to do with a smoking ban.

I'm talking about all the other times you've trying to lecture people on the gospel of Ron Moron.

I swear to god you are the most pompous self important person walking the earth.

Pointing out when you're wrong, clueless and cribbing off of Ron Paul's websites doesn't make me self important or pompous at all. All it is, is pointing out when you're wrong, clueless and cribbing off of Ron Paul's websites.

I have not mentioned Ron Paul 1 time that is all you.

You don't have to. Whining about a smoking ban that really doesn't ban anything costing people their freedoms is part and parcel of this false philosophy.

Your an ass get a life get off the computer.

We are talking about a smoking ban asshat. US global politics go f yourself

Grow up child.

[smoak]

So, by your logic, no building or restaurant should have health codes?

Exactly!! So smoker's rights are more important than those of non-smokers?? I am so tired of smokers being on of the single most self absorbed demographics in the world. How many cigarette butts do you see on the ground at a stop light? I literally almost got in a fight one time b/c I had the nerve to politely ask a guy to pick up his discarded butt and throw it in the trash can NOT 10 FEET AWAY FROM HIM.

Smokers for the most part (I don't know about anyone here so feel free to correct me) don't care about anyone but themselves and getting their nicotine fix. Could there be a better solution like the one BNG mentioned? Maybe, but I don't see why I should have to choose between going to the best burger joint in the area OR having a smoke free dinner. :rolleyes:

[Keino]

people don't like smoke

is no reason to ban it

Are you going to continue to ignore the public health points? It is more than dislike.


really really sad imo that people think this way. They could always go to the place that doesn't allow smoking.

That argument works both ways and frankly, go to a private club that allows smoking.

I would never go up to an owner of a bar that doesn't allow smoke and demand that I be allowed to smoke in that bar. Just because its something the majority wants doesn't mean its something that should be done.

The issue is that people who don't want to kill themselves by inhaling smoke should not be subjected to it by people who don't care one way or the other. It's that simple.

And full disclosure.....I smoke.

[RedskinsDave]

It's not a public health issue. If the patrons want to smoke and the proprietor allows it, others can choose to go or not to go. If they serve rancid meat, that is something the health department can be concerned with.

My biggest beef in all of these smoking bans is they NEVER ask the people who own the businesses. They should have some say.

Like IBB mentioned, there are places where the bars have made the decision and sane people can choose which place they want to drink at.

I am also quite sure most of the whiny people who cry about smoking eat out less than once a month. I don't care what they do to restaurant only places. I don't know anyone who minds not smoking when they eat. It's the bars that is the issue. My friends shouldn't have to build a special smoking room because Governor Eyebrow got one of the wusses in the Va GOP to play game. I would let my patrons still smoke and tell Virginia to lick my ash tray.

[PyroGenic]

Because smoking is a public health issue. If i'm drinking someone that could eventually be harmful to my health, you don't suffer those effects sitting next to me. If I smoke next to you, you don't have a choice, you'll suffer because of that.

You don't HAVE to be there. If there are options of places to go where you can and cannot smoke, then go to a place where smoking isn't allowed. Again: I don't see what's up everybody's butt with this.

[akhhorus]

You don't HAVE to be there. If there are options of places to go where you can and cannot smoke, then go to a place where smoking isn't allowed. Again: I don't see what's up everybody's butt with this.

But its not that simple. You could be at a place, then someone comes up and starts smoking next to you. I just reject the argument that smokers' "freedoms" are being infringed because if you allow smokers to smoke anywhere, that infringes on the "freedoms" of the non-smokers. Its just easier to have smoking/non-smoking areas.

[PyroGenic]

But its not that simple. You could be at a place, then someone comes up and starts smoking next to you. I just reject the argument that smokers' "freedoms" are being infringed because if you allow smokers to smoke anywhere, that infringes on the "freedoms" of the non-smokers. Its just easier to have smoking/non-smoking areas.

I don't disagree with your principle idea, I just think it should be up to the establishment, which is already happening in Virginia. There are already options for people that don't want to subject themselves to smokey atmospheres.

The thing with me is that when I drink, I sometimes smoke. That's the only time I smoke now. I know some places, like Velocity 5, don't allow smoking, so I don't go drinking there. Those specified areas seem like an interesting solution, but I'd rather not leave my spot at the bar, go to a room to smoke a cig, and then come back to my drink. Making it an option for the owners seems pretty simple to me.

[shally]

It's not a public health issue. If the patrons want to smoke and the proprietor allows it, others can choose to go or not to go. If they serve rancid meat, that is something the health department can be concerned with.

My biggest beef in all of these smoking bans is they NEVER ask the people who own the businesses. They should have some say.

Like IBB mentioned, there are places where the bars have made the decision and sane people can choose which place they want to drink at.

I am also quite sure most of the whiny people who cry about smoking eat out less than once a month. I don't care what they do to restaurant only places. I don't know anyone who minds not smoking when they eat. It's the bars that is the issue. My friends shouldn't have to build a special smoking room because Governor Eyebrow got one of the wusses in the Va GOP to play game. I would let my patrons still smoke and tell Virginia to lick my ash tray.


of COURSE it's a public health issue..there is no difference between rancid meat, bad liquor, or tobacco smoke-- just one of degree and timing

and i go out to eat anywhere from one a week to 3 or 4 times a week. i go out to live entertainment venues, at least once a week

and finally, in new orleans, which was the epicenter of smokey bars, now ALL are smoke free... nobody has lost any business that i could see because they are ALL smoke free. it is a level playing field and if you want to smoke, you simply go outside.. last month for the first time, when i came back from going out i didnt reek of smoke. i have guitars that still smell of smoke from years past..

no one needs to smoke. it is a personal choice for those who do. let them smoke outside where they arent forcing me or others to breath in their toxins..

[Fathead]

I eat out about once a week. Cigarette smoke literally makes me vomit and break out in hives. I have a documented allergy to it.



Even without the allergy, its still a Public Health issue.

[RedskinsDave]

Let the owners decide, not Daddy Guvment. It's a choice issue. Non-smokers don't have any right to go to a certain establishment. I have friends who won't go to my favorite bar because it is too smoky. That's their choice. Clarendon Grill made an outside area for smoking and banned it inside. That was their choice. It seems that businesses can make these decisions just fine without Big Brother making it for them. That's my biggest beef.

[Keino]

But its not that simple. You could be at a place, then someone comes up and starts smoking next to you. I just reject the argument that smokers' "freedoms" are being infringed because if you allow smokers to smoke anywhere, that infringes on the "freedoms" of the non-smokers. Its just easier to have smoking/non-smoking areas.

Precisely. If I am at a restaurant with my family, my kids shouldn't have to be exposed to someones Cig smoke. I take great care to not expose them to my own smoke.

of COURSE it's a public health issue..there is no difference between rancid meat, bad liquor, or tobacco smoke-- just one of degree and timing

and i go out to eat anywhere from one a week to 3 or 4 times a week. i go out to live entertainment venues, at least once a week

and finally, in new orleans, which was the epicenter of smokey bars, now ALL are smoke free... nobody has lost any business that i could see because they are ALL smoke free. it is a level playing field and if you want to smoke, you simply go outside.. last month for the first time, when i came back from going out i didnt reek of smoke. i have guitars that still smell of smoke from years past..

no one needs to smoke. it is a personal choice for those who do. let them smoke outside where they arent forcing me or others to breath in their toxins..

Thank you. How one could argue, given what we know about inhaling cig smoke (or hell what common sense tells you, since people die from smoke inhalation) is not a public health issue. It most certainly is.

[Keino]

Clove cigarettes are worthless. Unless you want to make a point in MoCo. Apparently, it *is* the smoke they don't like. People dying from cancer is the marketed cover.

Cause and effect. People don't like the cause because of its well documented effect.

[akhhorus]

Cause and effect. People don't like the cause because of its well documented effect.

And clove cigarettes are a bad example since 95% of people don't know the difference between them and real ones.

[dj_stouty]

I'm a selfish bastard when it comes to my politics....so as a non-smoker, I'm ok with the ban.

[The_Sonny_Of_Sammy]

http://www.dmv.state.va.us/images/plates/tobacco.gif

[smoak]

It's not a public health issue. If the patrons want to smoke and the proprietor allows it, others can choose to go or not to go. If they serve rancid meat, that is something the health department can be concerned with.

My biggest beef in all of these smoking bans is they NEVER ask the people who own the businesses. They should have some say.

Like IBB mentioned, there are places where the bars have made the decision and sane people can choose which place they want to drink at.

I am also quite sure most of the whiny people who cry about smoking eat out less than once a month. I don't care what they do to restaurant only places. I don't know anyone who minds not smoking when they eat. It's the bars that is the issue. My friends shouldn't have to build a special smoking room because Governor Eyebrow got one of the wusses in the Va GOP to play game. I would let my patrons still smoke and tell Virginia to lick my ash tray.

Translation (in an ogre voice):
"I will belittle anyone who doesn't agree with my POV. So Grrr."

I feel for your friends b/c I know it must be a pain to be compliance by asking people to smoke outside, but the reality is that if society left it to the bar owners to decide, you can imagine how fast consumers would have a choice. :rolleyes:

Oh and I heard all these arguments when DE went smoke-free, and now all you hear (from both smokers and non-smokers) is how great it is... Once you get past th initial shock of it all, it really isn't a significant effort to usher in great change.

[smoak]

You don't HAVE to be there. If there are options of places to go where you can and cannot smoke, then go to a place where smoking isn't allowed. Again: I don't see what's up everybody's butt with this.

But in the old world there were not options. For example, say I wanted to see Dave Matthews @ The Stone Balloon... Where are my smoke-free alternatives? So if I wanted to go have the area's best cheeseburger at a local pub, what are my options? It is easy to say just avoid going to the places that allow cigarette smoke, but the owners won't move (they don't care about your health) and sometimes there are not equitable alternatives.

[BurgundyNGold]

Cause and effect. People don't like the cause because of its well documented effect.
Well documented and well supported regarding direct inhalation, no doubt. Well documented yet not so well supported (not supported at all, really) for indirect or second hand smoke.

If folks want to say that they don't like smoke or are allergic to it, that's fine. Just don't A) try and say it's because of documented health issues when the facts in the studies don't support that argument, and b) take away the proprietary liberties of the restaurant/bar owner to run their establishment how they see fit. Come up with a sign system that notifies consumers before they enter the establishment that there likely will be smoke -- of whatever kind -- inside.

And pursuant to my clove cigarette example, there are no health risks (aside from smoke particulate inhalation) but they're still banned. Don't kid yourself; it's about the smoke. And if they want to do that, that's fine -- just don't try to propagandize me like some cloven idiot.

[BurgundyNGold]

I eat out about once a week. Cigarette smoke literally makes me vomit and break out in hives. I have a documented allergy to it.

Even without the allergy, its still a Public Health issue.
Is this just cigarette smoke or any kind of smoke? Are you asthmatic, as well?

[BurgundyNGold]

And clove cigarettes are a bad example since 95% of people don't know the difference between them and real ones.
How is that a bad example? Why would it be reasonable to assume that all smoke causes cancer, low birth weight and the like?

[BurgundyNGold]

Translation (in an ogre voice):
"I will belittle anyone who doesn't agree with my POV. So Grrr."

I feel for your friends b/c I know it must be a pain to be compliance by asking people to smoke outside, but the reality is that if society left it to the bar owners to decide, you can imagine how fast consumers would have a choice. :rolleyes:

Oh and I heard all these arguments when DE went smoke-free, and now all you hear (from both smokers and non-smokers) is how great it is... Once you get past th initial shock of it all, it really isn't a significant effort to usher in great change.
This would seem to imply, against the direct evidence of numbers in this very thread, that there are only a handful of people who are pushing this. If that wasn't the case, then there would be an economic reason for the bar owners to change.

I don't agree with that. I think the majority of people are fine with the smoking ban. I also think that, if you let the establishment owners/workers decide, while there would be bars that allowed smoking, there would be more than a few dedicated non-smoking establishments to pop up, perhaps even more than 50%. At that point, the consumer would have the choice -- much like they have the choice to wear or not wear a helmet on their motorcycle in many states. As a bar owner, it should be your right to decide if you want to offer a smoking or non-smoking establishment. As a worker, you should have the right to choose which place you might want to work in. As the patron, you should have the right to choose which establishment you would like to frequent -- one that offered indoor smoking or one that doesn't. It's that simple

It seems pretty clear to me that personal freedom is being overlooked here because there is an anti-smoke agenda. You could have smoke-free establishments without resorting to all of this strong arming.

[Fathead]

Is this just cigarette smoke or any kind of smoke? Are you asthmatic, as well?


I don't have asthma. Its just cigarettes, as far as I can tell. Haven't hung around with cigar smokers, but I have no problem with a regular campfire, or "other" things that people could possibly smoke, perhaps medicinally.....

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't have asthma. Its just cigarettes, as far as I can tell. Haven't hung around with cigar smokers, but I have no problem with a regular campfire, or "other" things that people could possibly smoke, perhaps medicinally.....
Well, there are some 3,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. It's pretty good odds that one or more of them (or some combination in the cocktail) is irritating your lungs. It is just your lungs, no? Or is it your throat, as well?

I'm interested because you are the first person I've ever met who has had such an immediate and acute reaction to cigarette smoke.

[Fathead]

Well, there are some 3,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. It's pretty good odds that one or more of them (or some combination in the cocktail) is irritating your lungs. It is just your lungs, no? Or is it your throat, as well?

I'm interested because you are the first person I've ever met who has had such an immediate and acute reaction to cigarette smoke.

I immediately start coughing terribly, my nose, throat and lungs start burning, I start vomiting, and within about 45 minutes I start getting hives.


I can tell if someone has been recently smoking in a room within about 5 seconds.

[BurgundyNGold]

I immediately start coughing terribly, my nose, throat and lungs start burning, I start vomiting, and within about 45 minutes I start getting hives.

I can tell if someone has been recently smoking in a room within about 5 seconds.
Jeesh. It goes without saying that it would be better to get the hives *before* vomiting. That's messed up. No other kinds of smoke have this effect, huh? You should try to see if cigars have the same effects. Not that it matters too much, but I would want to know if it was me.

Oh, and you should come to the next tailgate and stand beside Keino for 30 seconds or so to see if, um, other types of smoke affect you, lol.

[Fathead]

Well, I generally prefer not starting it. Hence not knowing about cigars.


I know that hanging out with Michael Phelps wouldn't be a problem.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, I generally prefer not starting it. Hence not knowing about cigars.

I know that hanging out with Michael Phelps wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, I guess that makes sense. If I was allergic to peanuts (odd one, that) I doubt I'd start eating all other sorts of legumes to find of which ones made my throat close, causing respiratory arrest, and which ones just tasted good, lol.

[shally]

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. If I was allergic to peanuts (odd one, that) I doubt I'd start eating all other sorts of legumes to find of which ones made my throat close, causing respiratory arrest, and which ones just tasted good, lol.

depends upon whether or not you could get high off of them legumes, ..lol

[RedskinsDave]

Translation (in an ogre voice):
"I will belittle anyone who doesn't agree with my POV. So Grrr."

I was talking about the people who scream and yell from their houses they never leave but if the shoes fits.....

I feel for your friends b/c I know it must be a pain to be compliance by asking people to smoke outside, but the reality is that if society left it to the bar owners to decide, you can imagine how fast consumers would have a choice. :rolleyes:

Sorry you keep missing my argument being that I don't like the government telling a business owner how to run their business.

Oh and I heard all these arguments when DE went smoke-free, and now all you hear (from both smokers and non-smokers) is how great it is... Once you get past th initial shock of it all, it really isn't a significant effort to usher in great change.

When Delaware matters, I will care.

[RedskinsDave]

Bacon is next.

[PyroGenic]

Bacon is next.

down with bacon!

[csquared]

down with bacon!

As long as they leave Turkey Bacon alone im fine.

[smoak]

I was talking about the people who scream and yell from their houses they never leave but if the shoes fits.....

Sorry you keep missing my argument being that I don't like the government telling a business owner how to run their business.

When Delaware matters, I will care.

A) You're still using a broad brush to disparage anyone who doesn't agree with your POV. I assumed you were smarter/better than that, but apparently I was mistaken.

B) I'm not missing your point... In my mind it is a valid argument in the case of establishments that do not serve food. That said I don't agree with your POV... But at least I respect it.

C) Of course Delaware doesn't matter to you... Becasue when people don't agree with you, your only resort is to belittle and bully others. I'd tell you where and how far to stick it, but it is pointless to have such unintelligent exchanges over the internet.... In the meantime I'll only discuss the subject matter with people who are at least a little more mature than, "my daddy can beat up your daddy".

[RedskinsDave]

A) You're still using a broad brush to disparage anyone who doesn't agree with your POV. I assumed you were smarter/better than that, but apparently I was mistaken.

B) I'm not missing your point... In my mind it is a valid argument in the case of establishments that do not serve food. That said I don't agree with your POV... But at least I respect it.

C) Of course Delaware doesn't matter to you... Becasue when people don't agree with you, your only resort is to belittle and bully others. I'd tell you where and how far to stick it, but it is pointless to have such unintelligent exchanges over the internet.... In the meantime I'll only discuss the subject matter with people who are at least a little more mature than, "my daddy can beat up your daddy".

You're the one who went personal so don't cry about it now. Please go back and read my post and then your response. I was referring to the namby pamby's who always cry about everything even when they are almost never effected by them. YOU chose to claim I was belittling others views. Either brush up on your reading comprehension, ask before you accuse people of things or simply don't respond. Don't be a dick when it's YOU who started stuff and tried to be a bully, hypocrite. It is rather comical that you are doing all the things you're accusing me of though. Thanks for the laugh.

[shally]

Bacon is next.

probably next week in NYC

[RedskinsDave]

I kind of thought Smoak would apologize for the false accusations, but I guess not.

[remaxjon]

Bacon is next.

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/392.html

Amid the hustle and bustle of downtown Los Angeles, there exists another world, an underground world of illicit trade in—not drugs or sex—but bacon-wrapped hot dogs. Street vendors may sell you an illegal bacon dog, but hardly anyone will talk about it, for fear of being hassled, shut down or worse. Our camera caught it on tape. One minute bacon dogs are sold in plain view, the next minute cops have confiscated carts, and ordered the dogs dumped into the trash.

Elizabeth Palacios is one of the few vendors willing to speak publicly. “Doing bacon is illegal,” she explains. Problem is customers love bacon, and Palacios says she loses business if she doesn’t give them the bacon they demand. “Bacon is a potentially hazardous food,” says Terrence Powell of the LA County Health Department. Continue selling bacon dogs without county-approved equipment and you risk fines and jail time.

Palacios knows all about that. She spent 45 days in the slammer for selling bacon dogs, and with the lost time from work, fines, and attorney’s fees, she fears she might lose the house that bacon dogs helped buy. She must provide for her family, but remains trapped between government regulations and consumer demand. Customers don’t care about safety codes, says Palacios. “They just want the bacon.”

In "Food Fight: Battle of the Bacon Dogs," reason.tv host Drew Carey takes a long look at the human cost of trying to prohibit trade in oh-so-tasty treats.

[shally]

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/392.html

storm troopers at the gates.. how does wendy's get away with selling their BACONATOR burger ?

re -reading the article, is this about bacon, or the way it is handled and prepared ? it sounds more like it is the latter ???

[remaxjon]

storm troopers at the gates.. how does wendy's get away with selling their BACONATOR burger ?

re -reading the article, is this about bacon, or the way it is handled and prepared ? it sounds more like it is the latter ???

they would say the latter but you should watch the video. Drew Carey is the man.

[akhhorus]

storm troopers at the gates.. how does wendy's get away with selling their BACONATOR burger ?

re -reading the article, is this about bacon, or the way it is handled and prepared ? it sounds more like it is the latter ???

It has to be preparation. LA is cracking down on taco venders who don't get licenses and such. If any city had a rule that you're not allowed to put bacon on a hot dog, they would have to explain that one to a judge fairly quickly.

[CNYSkinFan]

on another note, bacon wrapped hotdogs sound delicious!!!!

[remaxjon]

It has to be preparation. LA is cracking down on taco venders who don't get licenses and such. If any city had a rule that you're not allowed to put bacon on a hot dog, they would have to explain that one to a judge fairly quickly.

just an example of the nanny state making sure it takes care of you

[remaxjon]

on another note, bacon wrapped hotdogs sound delicious!!!!

Now that is something we can all get behind

[remaxjon]

It has to be preparation. LA is cracking down on taco venders who don't get licenses and such. If any city had a rule that you're not allowed to put bacon on a hot dog, they would have to explain that one to a judge fairly quickly.

also forgot to add lots of foods are banned around the country so hot dogs wrapped in bacon would not be a surprise and the idea would be championed by many

see
Foie Gras
raw milk
trans fats

[shally]

also forgot to add lots of foods are banned around the country so hot dogs wrapped in bacon would not be a surprise and the idea would be championed by many

see
Foie Gras
raw milk
trans fats

you are CLEARLY mixing issues here

raw milk is a potential source of pathogens, and a health issue for certain

foie gras is mostly an animal cruelty issue

trans fat is a POTENTIAL health issue because of it's association with heart diesease.. it is really the only true example of the nanny state

let me say this much-- i dont eat street vendor's food anywhere.. i have had enough cases of food poisoning in my life that i dont need any edicts from the city/state to convince me otherwise...

[remaxjon]

you are CLEARLY mixing issues here

raw milk is a potential source of pathogens, and a health issue for certain

foie gras is mostly an animal cruelty issue

trans fat is a POTENTIAL health issue because of it's association with heart diesease.. it is really the only true example of the nanny state

let me say this much-- i dont eat street vendor's food anywhere.. i have had enough cases of food poisoning in my life that i dont need any edicts from the city/state to convince me otherwise...

Of course your right good thing the gov is looking out for us.

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/466.html

I love reason and Drew Carey if you havn't noticed. Smoking is a slipery slope to VA turning into New York or California. Maryland and DC are already there and they both started with smoking or was it guns I forget
Saggy pants, fire places, plastic bags, light bulbs, poker—it's all been banned somewhere. Same with owning swine or fowl, feeding pigeons, owning pit bulls, and chomping on trans fats, a naughty little substance that makes food taste better.
Of course, smoking's been banned in all sorts of places—indoors, outdoors, near doors, beaches, casinos, even private homes. America's smoking ban craze began in California. So many bans start there.

"But is New York City the new California?" asks Carey? Smoking, trans fat, aluminum baseball bats, straddling a bike, wearing in-line skates or drinking coffee on a subway—the Big Apple bans them all.
Even if we don't particularly like something we should be wary of banning it because every ban is backed up by the force of law. Plus, would you want to live in a nation that bans everything that offends someone?

Carey wonders when so many of us turned into "ban-happy busybodies," and compliments the British on their more civilized approach to bans.

[shally]

Of course your right good thing the gov is looking out for us.

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/466.html

I love reason and Drew Carey if you havn't noticed. Smoking is a slipery slope to VA turning into New York or California. Maryland and DC are already there and they both started with smoking or was it guns I forget


i lived in new york city for 2 years... that was more than enough for me...

[RedskinsDave]

Like I mentioned back in this thread, you give a nanny state an inch and they will take a mile. I don't smoke anymore and I find this nonsensical.

http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/05/smoking-ban-begins-at-new-york-citys-parks-beaches/

[Ibleedburgundy]

That is waaaaay over the top IMO.

At the same time I get annoyed that smokers somehow think they have the exclusive right to litter. Those butts are small but they add up and eventually the place looks like crap. If it were up to me I would step up enforcement of litter laws against people who toss butts on the ground.

[RedskinsDave]

The cigarette butts around NYC are insane. I cannot believe how many people still smoke here when a pack is over $10. I really think they enjoy being taxed.

[Keino]

The cigarette butts around NYC are insane. I cannot believe how many people still smoke here when a pack is over $10. I really think they enjoy being taxed.

You know as well as anyone that it's an addiction.

Honestly, I am on board with you. If people want to kill themselves, so long as they aren't harming others, let them. There are far more important issues to deal besides trying to regulate personal behavior.

[RedskinsDave]

It's not THAT much of an addiction. I quit pretty easily. The worst part is the people who do smoke are most often the ones who can least afford to.

[Keino]

It's not THAT much of an addiction. I quit pretty easily. The worst part is the people who do smoke are most often the ones who can least afford to.

Just because you were able to quit easily that doesn't mean it's easy for others. We all handle these things differently. I've seen people get the shakes while trying to quit smoking cigs.