Gov. Kaine said he will support another try to restrict smoking inside Virginia's restaurants.

What's your take on smoking in restaurants?

[Update 02/06/09: Gov. Kaine and lawmakers from both chambers of the General Assembly announced they have agreed on a compromise bill that would ban smoking in state restaurants. The bill makes exceptions for private clubs and restaurants that have separately ventilated smoking rooms.]

 There is no other issue that is more clearly a case of public health versus politics.  Virginia is lagging most states on this issue.  We should have long ago banned smoking in all public places.  It is time for our delegates to let the tobacco companies know that they no longer control the state and to approve a ban on smoking in restaurants.

 What are your concerns about the state telling businesses how to run it? What are the concerns even private clubs must not permit smoking?

These are my greatest objections. I have dined in restaurants which have well ventilated smoking areas for smoking customers. When you walk in the entrance you can not even tell it is a smoking establishment.

I think it is time for the delegates and the gov to get off the PC crap and let people run their business and live their lives as they wish.

In a couple cities I have visited, I see signs at entries, "Where are all the Non-Smoking customers?"

Good question.

 "PC crap?"  Well, I'll not let that bait me and directly address the issue.  To me it is simply a public health issue.  People are free to smoke in private (foolish, but free to do so); but nobody has a fundamental right to exhale foul and dangerous second-hand smoke into my face and my food in a public place.  A restaurant that serves the public is subject to various government laws and regulations for the sake of both constitutional rights and public health/safety: e.g., blacks cannot be banned, the kitchen and bathroom must be sanitary, alcohol cannot be served to minors.  I do not see why smoking cannot be included in the list of prohibitions.  If someone wants to take an exensive and deadly roll of tobacco, light it, and inhale the smoke, they can do it outside (away from the doorway).  It's not about "nanny government," it's about public health.  Smoking/non-smoking sections are a joke; the smoke does not respect the boundaries.  A smoker's rights end when he/she exhales in the presence of an offended nonsmoker.  If all smokers understood that basic principle of courtesy there would be no need for a state ban, but many do not.

 Well said Dave. 

Let's look at the experience of Pueblo, Colorado.  After banning smoking in public buildings, they saw a 41% reduction in heart attacks in 3 years while the surrounding areas that did not ban smoking saw no decline.  I am tired of having my health impacted because of someone else's bad habits.  Thirty-four states and DC have banned smoking in reasturants.  It is time Virginia stop lagging on this issue.

The tobacco lobby has a strong influence on the Virginia General Assembly, so I am not optimistic.  Tobacco saved the Jamestown colony 400 years ago and has been a deadly but profitable business ever since.

 The point of contention is not between smokers and non-smokers. Smokers do not have a "right" to smoke on someone else's property nor do non-smokers possess a "right" to demand that a property owner prohibit smoking. This is just another blow in the never-ending attack on personal property rights. Whether or not a restaurant or other business allows smoking should be at the sole discretion of the business owner. This is what entrepreneurs do. They weight the positives and negatives of a business decision. In this case, the decision is whether or not to allow smoking. Today, a smaller percentage of the population than ever smokes. Many eateries have made the decision to ban the practice as an appeal to customers who find the smoke offensive or unhealthy. But, its a choice not a mandate. Just like having televisions on every wall, allowing folks to throw peanut shells on the floor or giving free refills on soft drinks, it is another way to draw customers. If a restuarant gauges that a significant part of their clientele smokes, they should be free to allow them to light up. Again, they may lose business but they are willing to take the risk. You don't like that Diner A allows smoking? Then drive the wife and kiddies to Diner B. Problem solved. You don't have a constitutional right to tell Diner A's owner how to run his facility. Isn't that what the free market is all about? indeed, isn't that freedom, period?

 I agree that as a customer I do not have a right to dictate to a restaurant owner who he should or should not serve or whether or not  he should allow smoking; but I don't have a problem with society in general, through democratic government, doing that.  A private club is different; but a business that is open to the public must comply with various "rules" that curb the freedom of the business owner to operate however he likes.  There are many examples of this.  The restaurant owner must have a business license; he must allow health inspectors to examine his kitchen; he must have handicapped access; he must have a restroom for both men and women; he must have a safe exit in case of fire; he must meet electrical safety standards; he must have adequate ventilation; he may not exclude customers on the basis of race; he may not serve alcohol to a child....  Explain to me how a ban on smoking is fundamentally different.  Many parts of the country have a ban on smoking in buildings that are open to the public.  I predict that eventually Virginia will fall in line for the sake of public health.  The powerful tobacco lobby is the main obstacle for now, but that could change. 

 Dave, your thought process represents the very reason why the Founding Fathers rejected the concept of Democracy in favor of a Republic. You admit that you alone cannot dictate to a property owner, but you believe that a group of citizens voting in concert have the right to take away his property rights. You present a laundry list of government mandates with which  a business owner must comply as a defense for yet another burden on the entrepreneur. Most of the rules on your list are arbitrary and should probably be done away with as well. And, please, comparing a restaurant that allows smoking to one that would put up a "whites only" sign or serve liquor to children is absurd. A business license is simply a tax. Electrical standards involve the immediate safety of the workers and customers.

You are right that in many parts of the country such laws already exist. And, in addition, those are typically states with heavy regulations, high taxes, and higher unemployment. My hope is that Virginia will not join states where democratic government means that an individual's rights exist at the whim of their neighbor. The purpose of a republic is to protect the rights of the individual. In this equation, the only person who has any liberty at stake is the restaurant owner.

So, my "thought process" is bad and my reasoning is absurd.  Okay....  Well, yes, I do believe in democracy and the rule of law.  I make no apology for it.  Freedom to do as one pleases is great except when it theatens public health and safety.  Second-hand smoke is unhealthy (and obnoxious).  Smoking is banned in most public facilities, and many private businesses have banned it for the welfare of their employees.  Freedom to smoke in restaurants that are open to the public will one day be a distant memory, too.  Having a cigarette with dinner is unnecessary, stinky, and dangerous, so I don't see it as a "good fight" just for the sake of defending liberty in the face of tyranny.  Apparently you do, Craig, and so be it.  Part of a free country is freedom to disagree.

 I didn't say your "thought process" was bad. I merely stated that it is inconsistent with the notions behind this country's government. Liberty and democracy are natural enemies as people decide that they not only want the freedom to live as they please, but to compel others to live according to their rules.

Your "public health and safety" argument again ignores the fundamental issue. The second-hand smoke research is based on consistent exposure over long periods of time not occasional exposure.  As for obnoxious, I agree perfectly. Personally, I am a radical non-smoker and I find the habit disgusting and hate being exposed to it. I don't think a cigarette is necessary either, but why is that relevant? Do smokers need to run their decision by you or I?

Defending the rights of a property owner to allow a behavior you don't like may not seem like a "good fight." Of course, if you truly cherish liberty you cherish it for all people not just for yourself and your preferences. As you say, we are free to disagree. However, I am always disconcerted when people want to use "the rule of law" as an instrument to take fundamental freedoms away from others.

Keep the smoking sections as long as the stench of cigarette smoke doesn't spill into places where it shouldn't be.  If that doesn't work, the restaurant is going to feel the hit in their wallet when customers refuse to sit in a cloud of secondhand smoke. 

If restaurants start to dictate specific rights like the freedom to kill yourself while looking stupid, (smoking) then we should ban drinking in public establishments, too.  I don't want to die from secondhand smoke, and I don't want to be run over in the restaurant parking lot by some drunk who just got buzzed at that same restaurant where he was smoking.

What about burping and passing gas?! I don't want all that at the same restaurant where I'm eating.  Should we outlaw that, too?

I am very committed to defense of some liberties, Craig.  I think most people pick their battles, often on the basis of what seems practical to them and also what squares with their personal values and priorities.  The fact that I am not inclined to fight for smoking in restaurants does not mean I favor unlimited government.  I agree wholeheartedly that "the rule of law" should not be used to arbitrarily take away a person's freedom.  And you are absolutely correct that the founding fathers worried about the "tyranny of the majority" as a danger of democracy.  That is why majority rule must respect minority rights whenever possible; and sometimes minority rights trump majority rule (as in the case of unpopular court decisions such as Brown v. Topeka Board of Education).  I am more concerned about defending the Bill of Rights than I am with cigarette smoke.  Nothing in the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to smoke in restaurants or prohibits the states from banning it.

While I am an avid supporter of individual rights, smoking has always been an issue that has really riled me.  I understand the argument that our country's history of promoting personal freedom should allow smokers to smoke.  However, the point I always come back to is that if a smoker is infringing upon a non-smokers ability to breathe smoke-free air and is affecting their health, then that is a line that should not be crossed.  I've long been in favor of something very close to the bill that passed the Senate yesterday: one which would ban smoking in all restaurants unless they could physically separate the smokers and had separate ventilation systems to process the smoke and prevent its spread through the restaurant.  Smoking sections in normal restaurants are sort of comical, because crossing the magical line or passing a half-height wall does nothing to keep the smoke from infiltrating to the remainder of the establishment.  As of now, my wife and I will usually only frequent restaurants that do not permit smoking.  The small number of smoking-allowed restaurants that we do like, we go to on rare occasions and ask to be seated as far from the smoking section as we can.  We have occasionally left if the smoke is bad enough.  I would eventually like to see smoking completely obliterated, though I think the government stepping into people's homes and cars goes too far.  However, had such a ban been in effect while I was growing up, I might not have the asthma and chronic respiratory problems I now have as a result of growing up in a house full of heavy smokers.

 Being from New York and living in Vermont where smoking bans exist, I will say that it makes for a more pleasant experience when out and about. Working in restaurants, the business levels didn't decline and smokers accommodated by going outside.  Honestly, not a big deal and smokers that complain about that aspect can get over it.  That's not the issue here.

The issues comes down to the principal of the matter.  This is the government telling us what we can and can't do.  And that I don't agree on and don't believe in.   

It's scary.  First our rights are takin away.  Next our money.  Finally our security.  And we're slaves to the government.  The government should not be infringing on our rights and telling us what to do.

FYI:  Not a smoker.