It's not about the smoke; it's about giving up our free will

At least 9,000 restaurants in Virginia are nonsmoking, according to the state health department. That's out of about 14,000 for which the department has records on smoking or non-smoking status. I do believe the free market is working perfectly well and does not need the guns of big brother government to come into the discussion.

Please excuse my error and accept my apology for lumping you in with the majority of the "pro-smoking" crowd that are smokers and are addicted to nicotine. You may disparage my character if you wish, but momentum continues to build in support of "no smoking" rules in public places, including restaurants. The fact is that the majority of people are tired of being forced to breath someone else's tobacco smoke while enjoying a meal out, and tired of being forced to bring the stench of someone's else's tobacco smoke home on their clothes. Restaurants are not simply a private enterprise. They serve all the public, and all of the public provide through taxes the funds for government services to restaurants such as health inspectors, ABC regulators, police and fire protection, and so on. Smokers are welcome to do as they wish in private, but why would they want to intentionally force another human being to breath their unwanted tobacco smoke?

As I have written previously, all restaurants in Virginia should be required by law to conspicuously post a sign on the front door that either says, SMOKING PERMITTED IN THIS RESTAURANT, or SMOKING IS NOT PERMITTED IN THIS RESTAURANT. If smoking is permitted, it is permitted anywhere in the restaurant without restrictions.

How long do you think it would take before 99 percent of restaurants would be non-smoking?

Mellow in your own insolence myan. The truth at least that I speak has NOTHING to do with an addiction to nicotine. Such statements reveal more about your character, and at least in my mind, makes your statement null. Envy your ability to think freely and act freely.

Pot would be legal if the government had a mechanism to tax it. You can grow it in your house, smoke it in your room without Sam and his 50 little brothers and sisiters seeing a penny of it.

Please smokers, give it up so big brother can move on to bigger and better freedoms to take away.

The pot came up becasue of the shooting in SOuth Norfolk. Sheep? I digressed. Sheep?

If i go to eat where smoking is not allowed, I smoke a cig before I go inside...so undoubtedly I walk into the dining room...also reeking of tobacco..Maybe they ought to pass a law banning customers from smoking before they eat at one of these establishments..( I joked)

First you bring up the Pot argument then you say that the article is not about smoking pot. Then why bring up the argument in the first place if you knew it wasn't about pot? Seems your the same kinda sheep, just in a different color...

The point is that marijuana and cigarettes do not have the same impact on the mind and body. This is not a debate about smoking marijuana, it's about smoking in restaurants.

Ira, since you have brought up the marijuana issue several times in the past couple weeks, I thought I'd help you understand that pot and cigs are not the same. Not an inappropriate debate, mind you, but not relevant to Kerry's column.

As for the 'parrot' remark, I believe what I believe, and it's not based on anybody's opinion but my own. The fact that my views align with the views of others hardly makes me a parrot or propagandist. There is a good reason for my choice of user name on this site.

jmo

or anyone else for that matter be allowed to tell a private business owner how to run his business.

I do not smoke, I quit after 14 years, I do eat in restaraunts that allow smoking, if it ruins my meal due to inadequate seperation or ventillation I do not go back. When I first came into the navy we were allowed to smoke in berthings, in engine rooms and in lounges, now it's not allowed inside the skin of most ships, your taxes pay for those ships, they are public owned spaces so they should be run by legislature.

The point is, these are NOT public places, they are not public supported in anyway other than by consumerism, your taxes do not keep thim in business. What these are are private places of business that should have the right to run their business as they wish. If every restaraunt witning a 5mile radius allowed smoking, go greater than 5 miles, or even better, save some money and cook for yourself, restaraunts are a luxury, not a necessity.

We need laws to ban smoking in all enclosed public places, and restaurants are next. Society used to think it was alright to smoke in the workplace, in hospitals, in shopping malls, in airplanes, in buses, in trains, in movie theaters, in sports arenas, etc. Society no longer thinks so, and yet somehow life goes on for the "inconvenienced" smokers. It only makes common sense to add restaurants next. Why should non-smokers have to do a "smoking re-con mission" as part of the decision to eat in a restaurant? Why should anyone have to wonder if their sensory dining experience...enjoying the taste and aroma of delicious food...will be ruined by the smell of tobacco smoke? Why should anyone who eats out have to have their clothing absorb the stench of tobacco smoke, and have that tramsmitted to their vehicle and their home after they depart? No one is suggesting that smokers be denied the right to smoke. I think all smokers should be free to smoke in their own homes, their own vehicles (unless transporting children) and outdoors. All of these protest comments about freedom of choice and keeping the governmment out of our lives are codewords used by those who are addicted to nic

What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

I wonder how so many of us got through college with A's? Amazing set of dubious facts you have collected there. I should say it is not the first time I have seen these nonsensical studies touted. On the cancer front, you will not see many people smoking 10-40 joints a day. Yes, there are some I am sure but not many. Marijuana addiction only occurs to those people who would otherwise be addicted to anything(food, nail biting, ect.). So are your saying that a couple of puffs of pot equals a daily cigarette regime? The original topic is how the smoke affects others. Are you seeing a lot of pot smoking in restaurants? Seen any advertising to children? You should read Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer. However, most propagandist do not care for the truth. I think you are simply a parrot which repeats what it hears.

"Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens9,11. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke12. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells13. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco."

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

"The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for long-term marijuana abuse indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system5 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine6. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse."

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

"For those who say "go somewhere else", imagine if that was the case with all businesses. Need groceries and all the grocery stores within 5 miles allow smoking? Too bad non-smokers, go to hell!"

Wouldn't happen. At least one of the grocery stores in that five mile radius would recognize what was happening and go smoke free to appeal to non-smokers. That's the point - let the businesses decide whether to allow smoking or not. The consumers will decide whether the business owner made the right decision. Remember, WE decide where to spend our own money.

jmo

When you infringe upon my right to breathe clean air then you have lost your right to smoke. When you increase health care costs in this country exponentially because you are addicted to a filthy habit then you have lost your right to smoke. When you spout off about "go somewhere else then" you have lost your right to smoke. There are several restaurants in the area I will not frequent until they are smoke-free - and that is a shame as they are losing my $ and many more I'll bet. Looking forward to 03-31 when ORF becomes smoke-free. VB - just do it already.

I have always found it odd that marijuana is illegal for 'our own good' but smoking cigarettes is fine with everyone. Lesse, cigarettes are highly addictive and are usually smoked 10-40 times a day by it's abusers. It can be done in public and allowed to directly affect those who are opposed to it. Add the marketing we encounter from magazines tothe counter at the convenience store and it makes me ill. Are you people confused? I have read posts from some of you backing up "big brother" on other issues but balk when it affects you. It makes me ill that some of you would inflict damage upon your fellow man to proclaim your false sense of freedom.

Because people don't smoke when they bank or push a shopping cart, but they like to when they eat. Besides its not about the customer's preference, its about allowing a business owner to choose his own clientele and let the free market decide whether his choice is profitable.

I went to the Village Inn recently too. I'm asthmatic and allergic to cigarette smoke. They weren't a whole lot of people on either side but I opted to sit at the far side of the non-smoking section to try to avoid as much smoke as possible. The smell still affected my meal and I still left with a sore throat and stinky hair. On the other hand, the IHOP down the street has eliminated smoking and it's fantastic! For those who say "go somewhere else", imagine if that was the case with all businesses. Need groceries and all the grocery stores within 5 miles allow smoking? Too bad non-smokers, go to hell! I mean, come on... When common sense says you shouldn't allow smoking in grocery stores, banks, or daycares, why would you expect to be able to do it in restaurants?

Think about it folks, it may start here but I guarantee you that it won't stop here, not by a long shot. Smoking, use of fossil fuels, freedom of expression, freedom of information, et cetera ... what else will we fight to give up?

Meaning, that to broaden our thinking from an individual basis to a global scenario would better suit everybody! Smoking kills. Ok. Burnoff of fossil fuels kills the Earth AND us and the generations to come; should they HAVE that opportunity due to our actions today. Therefore, I propose we ban smoking and the use of vehicles. If you can't handle not being able to drive, we PRESS for alternative fuel sources that have been existent longer than you may know. Check it out, you'd be surprised what we're not told.

I used to smoke (9 years). Stopped for reasons of my own. Interestingly enough, I work part-time at a popular, local restaurant as a host who takes your name and smoking preference. I've seen multitudes of people leave because of the overall wait and/or inavailability of smoking than for the fact that it is even offered at the establishment. In fact, the number of those who have turned cheek is near 0. Also, there are few venues that a non-smoker HAS to subject themselves to second-hand smoke anymore. Besides, you have the freedom of CHOICE. You obviously can decline putting yourself in that "smoky" area.
Think about it folks, it may start here but I gu

Ok I give up you can have your smoke free places to eat, however when a restaurant opens for smokers only (private club)with membership at the door, don't say anything about not being able to go there. Because for your information smokers like to eat out too. This will happen inthe near future

I agree that people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking in their restaurants, which they own. But let's assume that the government was right to protect people from themselves. Ok, next they will ban chocolate mousse, then fanta soda, then all you can eat bar-b-que ribs. When will it end? Soon they will require restaurant goers to exercise 20 minutes before being allowed to order that huge cheesburger, only light ranch dressing will be allowed on salad bars, no more steaks cooked rare, only well done. There are plenty of things in a restaurant that will kill you quicker than second hand smoke. The government wants control, plain and simple. Protecting peoples' health has nothing to do with it.

Aldo's is one of my favorite restaurants as it is non-smoking. I wish Uncle Al's Hotdogs would go non-smoking. One person smoking can pollute the entire joint. I wont take my children there until the change thier policy.

Just yesterday, I went to the Village Inn Pancake House at the Pembroke Mall for a nice, relaxing breakfast. The no smoking section was fairly full, so I told the young man at the counter that the smoking section would be fine. I don't smoke, but I enjoyed my breakfast thoroughly. The people around me were not a skyline of chimneys, but did light up after their own meals. The venting system worked very well, and I had no problems. I agree that ultimately the decision to allow or disallow smoking sections should not be up to our legislators; they have much more important things to be concerned with. It should be up to the individual establishment owners, according to their clientèle.

Thank you Kerry. Once again you express your views with your foundation based on the proper role of government. Government exist to protect freedom - not take it away. While I do not smoke, I support the right of other adults to do so. If adults want to choose behaviors that are bad for their health, that is their right. Nanny-state Big Government advocates keep over stepping their bounds and meddeling in aspects of our lives - and our businesses - that are best left to our personal choices and the dictates of the free market. The notion of "concern for the health of the restaurant workers" is just the deceptive business lobby blowing more smoke to hide the truth of their real motives.

Of course those that agree that government should not interfere in this aspect of free enterprise should also agree that government should not force insurance companies to cover prosthetics and governement should not regulate payday loans. A few concepts we need to get back to are
1. Let the buyer beware.
2. The customer is always right.
3. The customer will always go to the better deal, and in case of like deals, they will gravitate to the better customer service.
4. You, not the government, are responsible for your own actions.
If these simple ideals could be adhered too, we wouldn't need the government to tell us what type of dish soap we are allowed to buy, and just how much fast food we are allowed to eat each week because, guess what, fast food in excess (just like everything else) is bad for you!