2009.11.04
Countdown: 27 days until Virginia bars & restaurants go smoke-free
Wikimedia Commons
Come Tuesday, Dec. 1, all bars and restaurants in Virginia will be smoke-free except under a few limited circumstances:
1) Restaurants that have a walled-off smoking section with a separate ventilation system;
2) The outdoor cafe area of a restaurant -- the law wont prohibit smoking there (but a restaurant owner may);
3) In private clubs, including VFW halls, Elks lodges and American Legions (which are not considered public accommodations);
4) A restaurant on the premises of a tobacco manufucturer!
There are some other nooks and crannies in this law. You can read more details this handy sheet published by the Virginia Department of Health.
For this you ought to thank, or blame, former state senator Brandon Bell, a Republican who represented parts of Roanoke and Roanoke County for two terms in the state Senate.
Though Republican voters in his district had kicked Bell out of office by the time the General Assembly enacted the restaurant smoking ban, he is the guy who got the ball rolling on this legislation some four years ago.
His wife, Debbie Bell, had something to do with it, too. Here's a column I wrote about that back in March.
Best Christmas present ever! As I stood and waited along with another couple in Cracker Barrel the other night (we both refused the available seats in "smoking" section) the hostess advised that as of Dec 1 they would join the rest of Virginia and go "smoke free". We both said words of praise for that happy day. We owe a debt to Sen. Bell and his wife for the effort they made and the real possibility that it cost him dearly (although I sincerely hope not). The Republicans need more people with real values they will stand up for not less IMO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 4, 2009 @ 11:12 am
How great will it be when you go go into a restaurant and enjoy the environment, food, and company without being subjected to thoughtless actions of those around you! If people were just polite this is a bit of legislation that wouldn't have been neccessary.
Comment by Joey — November 4, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Are they gonna arrest you if you smoke anyway..I remember a guy years ago when the helmet laws first came in..strapped a helmit to his knee..he was ticketed but they had to change the law to be more specific..I think maybe 20 people ought to pick an upscale reataurant on Dec 1st..go in there AND FIRE UM UP LIKE THERES NO TOMORROW!
Comment by Tony — November 4, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Best news I've heard in a long time! Kudos to Brandon and Debbie Bell for all their efforts in making this possible.
Comment by Morris Fleischer — November 4, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Sure they will arrest you if you smoke, gives them an excuse to build more prisons. I have never smoked in my life, but it always amazes me when people cheer each loss of freedom in this country. I think individual restaurants have always had the right to be non-smoking. If enough people didn't want to dine around others who smoke, the restaurants would have all be non-smoking without a law. Keep cheering the loss of freedoms until there are none left.
Comment by VRWC — November 4, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
So much for not smoking in restaurants, but it's pretty sad that people can still go into a bar and drink too much and drive home. God forbid that they smoke in there though.
Comment by Kay — November 4, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Tony and VRWC,
The law gives the state Health Department the power to (nominally) fine restaurants that don't remove ashtrays or post "no-smoking" signs.
It does not give the department the ability to arrest smokers.
Seems unclear right now whether they may be fined.....
Comment by Dan Casey — November 4, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Driving drunk is already illegal.
Is there anyone who doesn't already know this?
There's no analogy to be made.
Comment by Kristen — November 4, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
What gives people the right to judge smokers as "second rate" citizens? Smokers are hard-working, tax paying citizens, just the same as the snooty, high-class prudes that think that "their rights" are more important than anyone elses (particularly the smokers). A lot of these "non-smoking" cheerleaders are also the ones that complain about restaurants, their neighbors, the homeless on the streets, and anything else that they don't view as being right or fitting into their "perfect world" and then they walk around with their noses turned up....as to say that they are better than all others!! Wake up people....every law-abiding, tax paying citizen has EQUAL RIGHTS!!! If smoke is such an issue to then non-smokers, then exercise YOUR RIGHTS and STAY AT HOME in your Perfect World!!
Comment by Carolyn — November 4, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
VRWC, it is beyond sad that we had to legislate manners and respect for others, I agree. However, you being the big supporter of the new Virginia lineup of people literally itching to take away "freedoms" strikes me as an odd pairing. Or are you like most Conservatives, in that some freedoms are better than others?
If they can make me wear a seatbelt or not use my cellphone in my own car, not being able to pollute the air (and ruin the meal) of the folks next to me seems like no big deal. I guess if we are going to act like spoiled children, "Nanny" is going to treat us like them.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 4, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Tell you a little trick theyve used in the past..A lady at Happys was smoking in a non smoking area..they charged her with a fire code violation..
Totally agree with VRWC..yall keep cheering while the "freedom" ship goes down..but understand..everyone and I mean everyone will go down with the ship!
Comment by Tony — November 4, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
It's interesting how smoking is considered a "right"...and smokers are always happy to place their "right" to pursue their "pleasure" over everyone elses physiological/biological right to breathe. Smoking is a luxury, not a necessity!
Comment by Morris Fleischer — November 4, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
VRWC, I'm not cheering a loss of freedom, as you would state it. I'm cheering a personal gain in freedom. Come December, I'll be free to enjoy a meal in a Virginia restaurant without someone else's lack of thoughtfulness lessening the experience.
Comment by Joey — November 4, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Joey is right!
Comment by Dan Casey — November 4, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
It's illegal to eat naked in a public restaurant, thank God...does this imply a diminishment of "rights"?
You can still smoke in the privacy of your own home. Having the right to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it wherever the heck you want.
Comment by Kristen — November 4, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
In my state it is illegal to smoke in your car with a child in the same car. It is child endangerment.
I agree that it negatively affects the child (and the car for that matter) and causes health concerns. What is amazing is that parents would not do this on their own. As a former smoker (almost 4 years now), I know I went outside after my kids were born.
The reason why they passed this law is because the smokers 1) erroneously thought it was a right, as our friend Carolyn appears to. 2) Would not do it on their own out of courtesy and respect.
While I am not sure that VWRC is incorrect about the establishments making the rules themselves, the public accommodations discrimination laws probably would have made it too much a liability for them to try it that way.
As for smokers being second-rate citizens... never really noticed that while I was a smoker. But I was courteous enough not to try any of the disrespectful tactics which seem so common.
The kind of thinking that led Carolyn to say "If smoke is such an issue to then non-smokers, then exercise YOUR RIGHTS and STAY AT HOME in your Perfect World!!" is the same kind of logic that causes christians to tell non-christians to leave the US and that led to them telling blacks they could go back to Africa if separate was not equal.
Perhaps everyone should keep their smoke and their religion to themselves and not inflict it up on the rest of the world.
Comment by VVarlock — November 4, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Sandi, sorry that you recognize that you need a "nanny", I don't need one. I'm a mature INDIVIDUAL who makes his own decisions and lives with the consequences.
If I don't like the atmosphere in a restaurant, I recognize that the owner has the right to allow smoking or not allow smoking. I can go somewhere else or I can stay there. For people like you who don't value property rights, you can whine to the politicians and take the restaurant owner's right away. You are pathetic.
Comment by VRWC — November 4, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Cough, hack, wheeze, it's my God given, hack, spit, snort, gag, right to smoke wherever I, choke, wheeze, cough, want to.
Comment by Blue John — November 4, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
You guys were always free to go to a no smoking restaurant.but you want to inflict yourself on everybody else..thats the bottom line..
Furthermore incrementalism is how this country is run.As of Dec 1,cant smoke in a bar..next week in your car,next week in your own home..after that when they whip this smoking horse to death..It may be something YOU like to do..your too stupid to realize your selling your own selves down the river..
Comment by Tony — November 4, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
I think its a good idea! Yeah I know smokers have rights but lets keep it real, its your choice to smoke and ours not too. I remember when i was 21 in 1998 and had just moved to San Francisco and they had just passed the ban on smoking in public places there!!! Granted it was San Fran and hard to enforce and most bars/ clubs still allowed it at their own discreation. But this is Roanoke and it can be monitored here easier and enforced easier,..it you wanna smoke wait till after your meal or drink or go to the assigned smoking area and kill yourself!
Comment by jason morgan — November 4, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
What about the business owner's rights. Seems like the poor old small business owner is left holding the tab again. I don't smoke and it has been years since I have had a problem finding a place to eat that has good food, a good atmosphere and a smokeless environment. Just don't see for another law telling the small business owner how to run his show.
Comment by Joe — November 4, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Having grown up in a house full of smokers (I'm the only non-smoker to come from there), I can say that I am looking forward to the change. My dad and I always got into an argument over smoking and freedoms, because as much as he would fight over his 'right' to smoke, I fought over my right to breathe smoke-free air. I have no problem with smokers smoking in restaurants, but I've always had a problem with that smoke bleeding over to non-smoking tables. When we go out to eat, we try to eat in smoke-free places or sit as absolutely far from the smokey areas as we can. If it's still bad, we'll leave and won't return. One thing I really don't like, and there's no way to solve it, is people smoking in their cars in front of me when I'm driving or in a drive-thru line. If I don't roll up my windows and turn my fans to recirculate, they might as well be riding shotgun while smoking. The only thing worse is sitting behind an old diesel truck belching black smoke.
Comment by Other John — November 4, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote passionately about the right to dine out.
Comment by Jason — November 4, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
The next step is in any public space - period. Then in it will be in your own home or apartment. If the restaurant is smoky don't eat there. There are PLENTY of restaurants in Roanoke (most of the nicer ones are already non smoking. I can guarantee you will most likely still have smoke in the restaurant from the 5 - 10 people standing right out front smoking - I have seen in it NOVA and Maryland. It wont be as bad as it was but it will still be there. I used to smoke and it bothers me to be in a smoky atmosphere now - but I can always choose to leave and go somewhere else.
Comment by Walker — November 4, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
I always feel freer when people are banned from doing things that I don't like.
Comment by Henry — November 4, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
I've been saying this since this idea was first talked of........
I understand people not wanting to be around smokers. It is disgusting to smell and unhealthy to be around, even secondhand.
That said , tobacco is a legal product and one the state makes money off of in taxes.
So it just comes off a bit crazy how the state can ban a very much legal product they make money off of, and in a private place of business.
If John Q Public owns a building and he allows people to use a legal product in his privately owned building - it seems hypocritical for the state to ban this legal product that they make money from.
Again, I agree the habit is gross and a health hazzard for those who use it and are around it. I'm just sayin'......it's a legal product, the state who is imposing the ban makes money off this product, and it comes off as telling people what legal things can and can't be done in their private place of business.
Comment by Dylan — November 4, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Kristin #15,
Hmm. Does a restaurant owner have the right to allow patrons to dine naked in his/her establishment? What a concept!
I wonder if Morgan Griffith will put in the "right-to-eat-naked-in-a-restaurant" bill.
He certainly led the charge on restaurant owners "right" to permit smoking!
Comment by Dan Casey — November 4, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
I think they should Ban this blog....you talk about something that stinks....peeee yewwww
Comment by Tony — November 4, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Dan-
There might not be, but there should. Assuming it was a private establishment and wasn't viewable from the outside, why should anyone care?
Comment by Jason — November 4, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
Jason, No restaurant (or store) open to the public is a private establishment,
In order to operate to serve the public, they buy permits and licenses, agreeing to abide by the laws and regulations so as to be allowed to serve the public.
One would hardly argue the health department should be abolished and their inspections stopped would they?
Especially when one considers food borne illnesses are very unselective in who they kill.
Who could ever forget typhoid Mary?
The point is, that Restaurants (and Stores) can only operate without endangering the public (and ensuring public health and safety is part of the governments responsibility) if they agree to abide by the rules and laws.
Private establishments don't have this problem. But then they have exclusive clientele, and have less chance of endangering the public - which means they can have rats and roaches, dirty dishes and people handling food who suffer from all kinds of diseases.
Would you argue that your rights and freedoms are violated when that guy with hepatitis C makes your salad?
Or would you rather go to a Public restaurant monitored by the health department?
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 4, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I completely understand the argument over "rights". I just do not see smoking wherever you want as one of them. It is silly and childish to try and frame this as "property rights" or any other kind of "right" when it is not controllable and infringes on those around you no matter how "responsible" you try to be. If a restaurateur wants to have his "property rights" then do not open an establishment that CATERS to the public. You can still open a private club to my knowledge.
Just as seatbelt use saves lives...just as cell phone use and texting causes accidents...just as drinking and driving is regulated...Call it nanny state, call it government take over, call it silly and anti-freedom or any other charge you care to make. Since your "right" to smoke and stink up the place cannot be stopped before it reaches those with the "right" to breath non stinking, smoker's waste, it has to be contained. Like many other "nanny" laws, you have no one to blame but those among you who have no respect for others.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 4, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
I'm surprised this legislation came from a Republican. Republican law makers usually operate under the assumption that we are all smart enough to know right from wrong and give us the freedoms to make the appropriate choices. Democrats know better and usually try to protect us from ourselves!
I wonder if this rule applies to bars, as well? I'd love to be able to go out again and listen to a local band, without having to offer up my lungs as a door charge.
Comment by Lynda K — November 4, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
I don't take this law as protecting us from ourselves but protecting us from others. As I understand it, "bars" are included because they serve food too and are therefore designated as restaurants for ABC and health dept purposes. Only the exceptions Dan noted above will be "exempt".
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 4, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
BTW Lynda, good call on the election results, enjoy the book!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 4, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Lynda,
The link in the blog post can give you a little bit of the history behind the law. It's interesting, and Debbie Bell had a lot to do with it.
There were Republicans and Democrats that voted for the legislation and Republicans and Democrats who voted against it. The opponents' main argument was that a restaurant owner has the right to require patrons to breathe poisoned air -- because it's his property -- and that would-be patrons who don't like that policy should just go elsewhere.
Of course, none of those lawmakers was lobbying for that restaurateur's right to serve outdated, spoiled food to patrons, or unhealthy water. That seems like the same argument to me; I never got it.
Comment by Dan Casey — November 4, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
Dan, as usual you don't understand. A restaurant is NOT the government. The restaurant can't require you to eat there. If you don't like the way the restaurant owner does business you are free to go elsewhere. For some reason, libs can't understand the free market.
And the outdated, spoiled food argument is just as absurd. The free market takes care of those problems without the govt. getting involved. If a restaurant serves bad food, people won't go and the restaurant goes out of business. What is it about economics that liberals just can't understand?
Comment by VRWC — November 4, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
Dan,
Lawmakers often fail to see clearly when political boundaries are involved.
Especially if it makes a good soundbite at election time.
Is it still poison if it kills you in five years instead of five minutes?
I see no distinction between the two, but many politicians can only see as far as the next election.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 4, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Joe-
I meant privately owned.
Sandi-
"I completely understand the argument over "rights". I just do not see smoking wherever you want as one of them."
I don't see dining wherever you want as one of them.
"You can still open a private club to my knowledge."
You can still go to another restaurant.
Lynda K-
"I'm surprised this legislation came from a Republican. Republican law makers usually operate under the assumption that we are all smart enough to know right from wrong and give us the freedoms to make the appropriate choices. Democrats know better and usually try to protect us from ourselves!"
The standard line is that Republicans are for small government and Democrats are for big government is one of the greatest American political myths. Both parties want gigantic government, they might only differ in where and how they want government intruding into your life.
Dan-
"Of course, none of those lawmakers was lobbying for that restaurateur's right to serve outdated, spoiled food to patrons, or unhealthy water. That seems like the same argument to me; I never got it."
Did the public ever find it acceptable to eat poisoned food? Is there anyone in the public NOW that would find it acceptable? No. Are there adults, aware of the risks, who would prefer to smoke or don't mind being around smokers in restaurants or bars? Yes.
Comment by Jason — November 4, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
VRWC-
"And the outdated, spoiled food argument is just as absurd. The free market takes care of those problems without the govt. getting involved. If a restaurant serves bad food, people won't go and the restaurant goes out of business. What is it about economics that liberals just can't understand?"
And here is where I'll have to get off the libertarian train. I've seen way too many examples of restaurants who have been cited literally dozens of times for really bad violations, yet somehow stay in business. I don't think it's because the public thinks their food is so good that they don't care, I think it's because a typical city has so many restaurants that it's impossible to keep track of who is in violation. Now imagine if there was NO health inspection system. What little authority they have to answer to now would be gone. The problem isn't that an inspection system can't work, it's that we've taken too much of their power and funding away to do what they are supposed to do.
Comment by Jason — November 4, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
VRWC,
I'm not sure what state you live in -- perhaps it is one where there is no health department, or where the health department does not perform restaurant inspections. It cannot be Virginia, because just about everyone knows that here restaurants are inspected, and those inspections are posted online. Restaurants with repeated serious violations ay be fined or closed down. Any restaurant owner, and most of the workers, can tell you about this. The inspections cover all kinds of things, including whether the restaurant follows regulations to prevent food from spoiling.
What state are you in, anyway?
Comment by Dan Casey — November 4, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Why dont any of you address the fact that you dont have to patronize a smoking bar......But you want to make every bar smokeless....
Dan.your spoiled food comparaison is just stupid
Comment by Tony — November 4, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
I think we can use the same rules to shut down strip clubs. After all, patrons of the strip club are hurting themselves and their families by spending money on strippers instead of their families.
Comment by Henry — November 4, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
Dan, I know there are food inspectors and restaurant inspectors. If there weren't it wouldn't matter. Most people would eat in the clean restaurants that served clean, fresh food. The ones in the public who couldn't figure out which restaurants had clean, fresh food would join you in the Dem party.
I am starting to understand the liberal/Dem mindset. You libs believe that everyone is stupid except business people, and anyone who gets enough votes to be elected to office. You believe business people spend all of their time trying to poison the public with bad food and cigarette smoke. I don't know who you think they will sell their food to after they kill off their customers?
And for you libs, any politician who can get enough votes to be elected to office is your knight in shining armor. The person who protects you from yourself and the evil businessman. You believe, that if not for the politician you would repeatedly go into the restaurant and eat bad food in a smoke filled environment. Only if the politician passes a law making it illegal for the restaurant to serve bad food and allow smoking, will you stop making the same mistake.
I guess that is why there are Dems and Republicans. Republicans, for the most part think people are capable of determining which restaurant has clean food and which restaurant allows smoking. I'm sorry that you and a lot of others believe that you need politicians to guide your life. From what I have seen of most of them, they can't guide their own.
Comment by VRWC — November 4, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
I do not understand the argument that says I should stay home or eat elsewhere so you can have the right to smoke up the place. There are plenty of offensive (to me) behaviors and risks we all have to assume to go about our daily business. Naturally any restaurant wants all of the customers they can get so the idea of self limiting is sort of one of the problems with that whole "private property" and "rights" issues. It is perhaps unfair that you are asked to refrain from smoking in restaurants, but it is equally unfair for us to feel uncomfortable and have our meal ruined for you to do so.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 4, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
Sandi, you don't understand anything. Maybe that is why you are a liberal...
I have never smoked in my life, I hate it as much as you, but I don't like to see anyone lose a right. You have the right to find a smoke free restaurant, if enough of you do that, they would all become smoke free without a law.
Why can't libs understand the most basic economic principles? The person who owns the restaurant should decide whether people can smoke or not in his/her restaurant, not the government.
Comment by VRWC — November 4, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Vast Right Wing, you might want to loosen that straight jacket. If you think for one moment that it is only Dems/Libs that want to make laws for safety or meddle in private lives and businesses, you need to do some more research. Those blankets you are throwing around keep plenty of R's warm as well. The fact is that ALL pols will do what is politically expedient and doubly so if it serves their sponsors and friends. Neither side has knights in armor much less any that is shiny (I think it has something to do with the mud). I will claim the loony Liberal issues and candidates but I will not allow you to pretend we are the only side that has them. Paying lip service is not the same as respect and support.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 4, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Republicans think so highly of people's intellect and decision making abilities that they feel compelled to legislate bedroom and relationship matters to the public. Try again, they want to expand big government when it comes to religious/moral items, sort of like how the Dems seem to think people can't figure out healthcare or retirement issues on their own so they set up programs for everyone to use. Only thing is, at least the Dem programs wind up giving some value and payback to the public. Can you explain how telling a couple they can't legally be together is benefitting the public? I don't see it.
Comment by Other John — November 4, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
VRWC you apparently don't get it at all, sad to say.
Just because something may or may not be "privately owned" doesn't make them free of government regulation and oversight. Duh. Do you have any idea what OSHA is? Look it up.
Smoking in public is no more of a "right" than walking around naked is a "right". And, frankly, walking around naked is a lot healthier.
People will adjust to these new rules, the way they adjusted in NYC to them. NY is getting ready to move onto banning smoking in OUTDOOR public areas like parks, etc, and good for them! It would be nice to be able to enjoy Elmwood Park etc without wading through the sea of butts smokers also apparently feel it's their "right" to leave drop wherever they feel like.
People will get used to it and continue to go out as they already do everywhere ELSE these laws are in effect. And if you actually talk to the restaurant owners in this town, there's A) little resistance to the new law and B) recognition that it's all just leading up to an outright ban on smoking in their establishments.
Comment by Kristen — November 5, 2009 @ 7:57 am
Kristen, I get it, people like you just don't care about the rights of others or about property rights. If enough people wanted to dine naked, some restaurant would oblidge them. If enough people wanted smoke free bars and restaurants, they would all be smoke free without government intervention. Since you whiners had to get the government involved to get what you want, it is obvious that the market place did not demand smoke free bars and restaurants.
Kristen, this blog is helping me to understand liberals. You have no respect for property rights and no respect for freedom. The only thing you respect is government and government is just force. It is scary that people with no respect for freedom, like yourself have so much power in this country.
Comment by vrwc — November 5, 2009 @ 8:44 am
This is a matter of public health, plain and simple. Would anyone here support a restaurant owner's "right" to serve tainted meat?
Comment by pmac — November 5, 2009 @ 8:52 am
VRWC,
This is a bit off-topic, but I'm interested in your response based the theme running through many of your posts: How do you feel about trial lawyers, class action lawsuits, etc? And how does that view comport/not comport with your self-described free market, pro-freedom Smithian/Randian philosophy about "the way things oughta be." ???
Just curious, in case you'd like to share.....
And by the way, you haven't told us yet which state you hail from.
Comment by Dan Casey — November 5, 2009 @ 9:44 am
I was bummed yesterday. One of our favorite restaurants in the NRV, Texas Steakhouse, finally went totally smoke-free. We love their food, and the folks who work there are great. The only problem we ever had was that the smoking section wasn't very well separated from the non-smoking, and the big fans they run in the smoking area almost always slung smoke to the rest of the place. We generally got lucky and could get a seat by the fireplace, as far from the bar as possible. The reason I'm bummed is that after so many years of complaining to the owners and requesting to move when the host/hostess tries to seat us next to the bar, they finally respond and eliminate smoking entirely...and now they are closing because their lease is expiring. Ain't that the way it goes? Since they eliminated smoking, they actually looked busier than before and the bar was still as full as it always had been. In all actuality, my favorite restaurant in the state is a place called Keagan's, they're in Newport News and Virginia Beach. It's an Irish pub, and they are totally smoke-free in both locations, and it's so nice. They are always packed, and I can actually sit at the bar and have a pint, without coughing and hacking my way through it. Even several of the regulars there are smokers, but enjoy the smoke-free atmosphere they get to enjoy for a while.
Comment by Other John — November 5, 2009 @ 9:51 am
VRWC you get nothing and you understand nothing, and it's painfully obvious.
Comment by Kristen — November 5, 2009 @ 9:55 am
pmac-
"This is a matter of public health, plain and simple. Would anyone here support a restaurant owner's "right" to serve tainted meat?"
Would anyone in a restaurant consent to eating tainted meat?
Comment by Jason — November 5, 2009 @ 10:06 am
OtherJohn, I didn't invent this, but a "no smoking" section in a restaurant is like a "no peeing" section in a pool. There's no way to prevent encroachment.
Comment by Kristen — November 5, 2009 @ 10:16 am
I see where you're going here, Jason:
1) Nobody in a restaurant would consent to eating tainted meat.
2) But, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that some diner might not know they were eating tainted/undercooked/whatever meat until AFTER they got sick, because salmonella, e-coli, Hep A etc. are not exactly obvious on the food when it gets to your table.
3) Therefore, diners should be protected from (2) by the health department, but not from smoke-filled air, because the latter is perfectly obvious to any prospective diner who walks in.
But this gets us back to the business rights argument, and the freedom of business people. And that opens a can of worms into all sorts of regulations that maybe/maybe not they should have to abide by, all for the sake of freedom.
Kristen may have raised this question before, but are you against OSHA regs? After all, workers have the choice whether to work in a danger-prone place, right?
Comment by Dan Casey — November 5, 2009 @ 10:20 am
No Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, you do not seem to "get it" at all. It is because people like us do care about the rights of others and about property rights that we pursue many of the issues we do. Smoking is proved to be harmful and it stinks up the joint therefore since there is no way to satisfy the "right" you believe you have to smoke AND satisfy other's right to breathe cleaner air, the one achievable goal was met. Period. When society demands change that takes the onus and blame (if you will) off the property owner. Moe's Pub is not stiff arming any customer,Big Brother is (and who doesn't hate him?) so Moe stays in the clear with no "backlash" from the TEA bag mentality run amok. The market place would have EVENTUALLY demanded smoke free bars and restaurants, just like many other wrongs would have EVENTUALLY been righted, we just helped it along, that's all.
Sadly, you do not understand Liberals in any way. And that is your choice. We very much respect property rights and freedom, as long as they can be accomplished within the decency boundaries of our society. I would counter that the only thing you respect is yourself and those who agree with you. I agree it is sad when we have to force respect and decency but that is what happens when people misunderstand freedom and rights. I also agree it is scary that people with no respect for those they disagree with (no matter the evidence to the contrary), like yourself have so much power in this country. I pray that someday, you and others will realize that we are not the enemy of freedom you have been led to believe.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 5, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Dan, that is a broad subject, and it comes down to the situation. A civil remedy may be called for at times, but the civil sytem can/has been abused. I would certainly be in favor of a "loser pays" system in all civil matters. That should include the winner's time spent, money spent, and inconvenience in having to be in court.
Comment by vrwc — November 5, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Sandi, Who sets the decency boundaries that you want to impose on me? You and your friends? Maybe I don't agree with your "boundaries." Apparently, on Tuesday most of the voters didn't either. I think that if we all have property rights we won't have to worry about arbitrary "decency boundaries."
If I own a place and I let people smoke and you own a place and don't let people smoke, that gives individuals a choice. They can eat at the place where they are most comfortable or that has the best food or whatever. What is wrong with that?
Sandi, you say you value freedom and property rights, but your posts prove that you do not value property rights or individual freedom. It is obvious that you think everything belongs to the collective, to be used as you and the ones who agree with you think it should be used. It is scary to think that people who think like you are running this country and that you think that depriving people of rights increases freedom.
Comment by vrwc — November 5, 2009 @ 11:25 am
To put a finer point on it - we don't get to tell employees "Either deal with sexual harrassment or find another job!" "Deal with substandard hygiene facilities or get another job!"
There are plenty of minimum workplace standards that employees are obligated to maintain. I see no difference here.
Comment by Kristen — November 5, 2009 @ 11:28 am
I meant "employers" in that last bit.
Comment by Kristen — November 5, 2009 @ 11:29 am
The Americans with disabilities act for instance. It puts some pretty stringent requirements on both employers and places of public accommodation.
Comment by VVarlock — November 5, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
I'm more than sympathetic to most libertarian arguments. However, VRWC is missing something when it comes to elimination of regulation. No one can or wants to take the time to inspect the kitchen of each restaurant they consider eating in. One certainly couldn't eat out when traveling. I'm not a trained health inspector and I doubt VRWC is either. One meal at a restaurant serving tainted meat can mean death. Thus, not all regulation is the same.
In addition, if you feel that health inspection is a violation of your freedom and property rights, then the Republican party is probably not for you. I would also assume based on these comments that VWRC feels that the government should not sanction marriage of any type and individuals should be able to enter into any type of contract they wish, regardless of the gender or number of individuals involved.
Comment by NRV — November 5, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Kristen-
"To put a finer point on it - we don't get to tell employees "Either deal with sexual harrassment or find another job!" "Deal with substandard hygiene facilities or get another job!"
There are plenty of minimum workplace standards that employees are obligated to maintain. I see no difference here."
But we do recognize that many occupations have inherent hazards. We both are in favor of reasonable regulations regarding workplace safety. We differ on what represents reasonable.
Comment by Jason — November 5, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
All Roanoke bowling alleys went smoke free Sept. 1. Smoke doesn't much bother me, but my wife and son refused to come to the lanes because of it. Glad it's gone.
Comment by gdad — November 6, 2009 @ 11:52 am