Smoking in restaurants

Re: Smoking in restaurants

Angie P. — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:43 GMT

Do you know how many people drink irreponsible everyday? More than you can count.. I think at this very moment, there is a child out there is being abused by her drunk father/mother. or how many people got DUI?

And yes, you can smoke responsible.. you go outside like many smokers do (or ventilated room) Smoking irresponsible is just as high as drinking irresponsible. Except I wonder how many people died of DUI, abuse from alcoholism, etc. than people who died of lung cancer and other lung disease.

But anyway.. I just see smoking and drinking in the same category, that's all. Except drinking does cloud your thoughts. Personally, I feel that if people really have a problem with smokers in a ventilated room or anywhere in general.. just banned the thing.

Re: Smoking in restaurants

Dave Hanson — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:15:54 GMT

Good comment, Sandi. Dan Casey wrote a nice piece on this that was published in today's paper. There is no constitutional right to smoke cigarettes in a public place. And I don't buy the slippery slope argument one bit (what's next, drinking, eating too much, talking too loud?). Smoking is sui generis. Even a "responsible" smoker cannot help exhaling noxious smoke that drifts into the faces of nonsmokers. The act of smoking is something I've never understood, but if people want to do it in private, fine. Just not in my face, thank you. Applause for the General Assembly for finally getting into the 21st century on this issue.

Re: Smoking in restaurants

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:42:12 GMT

There are plenty of laws on the books regarding the abuse of alcohol and the punishment is meted out when you get caught doing it or if it causes you to commit another crime. Too many people do not drink responsibly and there is no such thing as smoking responsibly. We have become a nation of whiners about 'our rights' to do this or that but the truth is that smoking is a choice, maybe a privilege, but not really a 'right' in the legal sense. Even if you viewed it as your right, how then does your right to smoke trump my right to not breathe your fumes? I do not advocate banning alcohol, tobacco, or guns, I just wish people would realize that limits and regulations are for the betterment of society (meaning everyone) not to punish you. I am very thankful that in December I will no longer have to consider if a restaurant is smoke free and I am looking forward to the day!

Re: Smoking in restaurants

Angie P. — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:53:53 GMT

downs.judy31:

As I previously noted in my Letter to the Editor, the State of Virginia purposely releases their "pit bulls" on smokers and the establishments that would have to undergo very expensive transitions to meet our honorable governor's new law.

However, the state turns a blind eye, apparently, to the alcohol consumers who are far more obnoxious in public, and dangerous I might add, than any second-hand smoke. If the state conferred as much about deaths and maimings from DUI's (and the effect the alcohol consumers have on health-care costs) they would still bury their heads in the sand since they own the sales and revenue from alcohol sales. Alcohol is viewed as a drug, like nicotine. Thus, our state is condoning the sale of drugs by the Commonwealth, while slapping, as usual, at the "gnats" who are smokers. This law will surely meet the honorable governor's real design.................there will be no where for smoker's to dine out, so he'll basically confine us to our homes and vehicles.

As long as these drum-beaters push the fight against cigarettes, while even their own DUI's and those of their families are hidden from the public, smokers and non-smokers will remain at risk from those driving drunk, and having their rights ignored. Which would you rather be labeled: A smoker, or a DRUNK? Which frightens you most when you leave your home, family in tow, in your automobile?

Sadly, alot of people don't know that when a man is "drunk" he is more likely to kill (more likely to shoot his wife out of anger. Being drunk make you get angry easily) or rape or even molest. a relative of mine was physically abused by her drunk father. When he was sober, he was the sweetest man on Earth. I think this sort of behavior was the reason alcohol was banned (DUI wasn't a concern back then). Smoking does not cloud a person's judgement as drinking does.

Re: Smoking in restaurants

downs.judy31 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:20:14 GMT

As I previously noted in my Letter to the Editor, the State of Virginia purposely releases their "pit bulls" on smokers and the establishments that would have to undergo very expensive transitions to meet our honorable governor's new law.

However, the state turns a blind eye, apparently, to the alcohol consumers who are far more obnoxious in public, and dangerous I might add, than any second-hand smoke. If the state conferred as much about deaths and maimings from DUI's (and the effect the alcohol consumers have on health-care costs) they would still bury their heads in the sand since they own the sales and revenue from alcohol sales. Alcohol is viewed as a drug, like nicotine. Thus, our state is condoning the sale of drugs by the Commonwealth, while slapping, as usual, at the "gnats" who are smokers. This law will surely meet the honorable governor's real design.................there will be no where for smoker's to dine out, so he'll basically confine us to our homes and vehicles.

As long as these drum-beaters push the fight against cigarettes, while even their own DUI's and those of their families are hidden from the public, smokers and non-smokers will remain at risk from those driving drunk, and having their rights ignored. Which would you rather be labeled: A smoker, or a DRUNK? Which frightens you most when you leave your home, family in tow, in your automobile?

Re: Smoking in restaurants

Angie P. — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:27:02 GMT

http://www.ksfy.com/news/local/39825487.html <---- thought I would share this article. They are actually thinking about lowering drinking age because of smoking ban?????

Re: Smoking in restaurants

drsutphin — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:18:00 GMT

Alcohol is a legal substance, too. However, you can't walk around in public with a beer can in your hand drinking it. Some things have to be regulated because of abuse by non-caring, selfish morons.

Re: Smoking in restaurants

bluesguy62154 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:16:14 GMT

Its sorta like making blacks drink from other fountains..Pure facism..You can buy a legal substance.taxed to the nines.but you cant use it any where....They wont make it illegal...too much money involved.so just harrass the users...Just remember folks.....overweight folks,alcohol users,elderly...your all next...Whats the old saying.when they came for my friend in another town..I said nothing,when they came for my neighbor.I remained silent.when they came for me .it was too late!!

Re: Smoking in restaurants

jeffrey.franklin1 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:41:59 GMT

I agree with you a hundred precent. I have lived in both Washington State, which passed the smoking ban in 98, and Arizona, whihc ban smoking in '02. We are behind, and people are so small minded to say people will stop going out if the ban was passed. Wrong yet again smokers, everyone in Washington and Arizona go out and party still.

Re: Smoking in restaurants

astronomer — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:59:07 GMT

It's better late than never to have this life-saving legislation. The tobacco cartels in Richmond and Winston-Salem are responsible for more blood on their hands than either Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Saddam, or any other mass killer you could name. The numbers speak for themselves:

Smoking KILLS as many Americans EVERY DAY equal to TWO JUMBO JETS filled with people crashing and burning. If that calamity were to happen just once from willful intent - and it is willful when it comes to killing individual addicted smokers - this country would be outraged. The tobacco cartel kills more Americans in a week than Al Qaeda killed on 9/11. These are facts. You can argue against opinions; but you can't argue against facts.

Here are the facts: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf

Every American family has been, or will be, critically harmed by these killers who hide behind "legality," "jobs," "free enterprise," and any other sleazy excuse they can find to keep the profits flowing. Enough! Lock 'em up, and throw away the keys. Short of that, this restaurant bill is a modest start.

Re: Smoking in restaurants

John Holst — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:11:10 GMT

mrgrimm2, I sit here in amazement after reading your posts. Diesel soot is indeed a carcinogen, and most people are exposed to it for extremely short durations. If they are exposed to it for long time periods, such as auto mechanics, they must have ventilation equipment in place to remove the soot and fumes to prevent the negative health impacts while they are working within a closed building. Ever go to an auto shop or bus maintenance facility and you'll see the large fans in place in their shop areas. For the smoke from fireplaces and BBQ pit smokers, take a look at those too while you're at it. Heat rises, and smoke is hot, so, smoke rises through their stacks and goes outside to the great volume of air known as our atmosphere where it is dissipated into that much larger volume of air. However, I will agree that the lady wearing too much perfume is often enough to also set me into a coughing fit about as bad as having smoke blown in my face. As the kid of a family of smokers and the only non smokers to come from my house growing up, I live with chronic resperatory problems and asthma thanks to my parents refusal to quit smoking or to simply smoke outside. I was forced to breathe that smoke for almost 19 years because they were too selfish to stand on the porch and smoke, to wait until they stopped the car to fire one up, or to sit in the non-smoking section at Denny's while we ate. I will forever live with the fact that my parents poisoned my lungs, and I can only hope that I don't develop lung cancer as a result of that exposure. I am extremely thankful that the smoking ban has passed, and I look forward to going to a restaurant again and not worrying about whether or not I'll be able to breathe while I dine.

Re: Smoking in restaurants

mumbles — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:27:29 GMT

No matter how you spin or rationalize your argument, the bottom line is when this product is used as directed, it will kill you - period.

Re: Smoking in restaurants

mgrimm2 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:43:46 GMT

Where do you get the right???????? what planet are you from that you can tell a business owner who he can serve in his business, he has the right not you or the gov't, then I have the right to tell you what you can do or cannot do in your house. You have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, end of story. When you cost someone their livelihood it is a privilege not a right.

Don't go there, go to a non smoker business, what is the problem.

Re: Smoking in restaurants

mgrimm2 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:11:06 GMT

Remember when your kids are at the bus stop and the dew is falling and that smelly diesel pulls up and the are inhaling that smell and that smell enters the bus and they breathing that exhaust all the way to school, OH cigarette smoke is the only bad smoke for you

You goto your favorite smoke house and eat some BBQ and you breath in the carcinogenic oak smoke and think how good it smells and your mouth starts to water.

You lite your fireplace and the carcinogenic smell, smells so good, it smells like Christmas.

You goto the restaurant and a blue haired lady is wearing the most obnoxious orange blossom perfume that everyone has to endure

You are a bunch of hypocrites

Re: Smoking in restaurants

mgrimm2 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:35:39 GMT

Remember when you are on your high horse about smoking and how you don't like the smoke when we cannot patronize these places you have to go out of your way to help them out because you told them who they can serve and who they cannot. I am from FLA, after the smoking ban all of the bowling alleys went out of business, the Wreck bar at the river and main street has a blue haired lady and an elderly man eating in a resturant that holds 200 people and 100's smokers are sitting out on the deck. the smoking ban devastated the restaurant/bar businesses. we do not have the luxury to sit on the deck in the winter here.

We are in hard economic times are we in a position to limit the clientele of a business???? I found that 2/3's of the restaurants in this valley are smoke free as a non smoker "just say no" and go to your smoke free restaurant. Don't forget the Feds are promoting smoking to support the SCHIP bill, they will need 22,000.000 more smokers by 2017 to support it and the new taxes in VA are dependant on use so if we are taxed out of smoking you have to foot the bill.

Make sure you support these businesses that cater to smokers because your arrogance is going to put them out of business

Dave Hanson:

"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.