Anti-smoking bills pass in Senate, move on to House

$3702 was cost per smoker per year. You still owe $2424.50. You can make the check payable to PROGRESS IS GOOD. Thanks

Contrary to DBVB's comment, I am not controlled by the tobacco industry, I am a non-smoker that is against this ban.

Contrary to Barb's comment, I am not ignorant or in no way defficient in my intelligence, but way to resort to personal (personal as in against a person, not against me specifically) attacks to prove your non-point.

Basically we allow smoking now, then prohibition (that is the banning of serving alcohol) comes next, then fattening foods.

I also tend to agree that if you try and state that second hand smoke kills you, you cannot stop there, you must continue on to automotive exhaust, heck we should ban farm animals from farting due to that nasty methane stench we drive through when we pass a farm...

So vote for Barb and kill all cows...

I see the non-smoking whiners are still at it. It kinda breaks my heart this world isn't big enough for all of us.

Although it is said, that figures don't lie, the truth of the matter is, that liars can figure...

I don't think that you appreciate how much tax is collected on tobacco products. In 1975, when I was in the Navy, a pack of cigarettes at 7-11 was about 60 cents. When our ship was deployed (past the 12 mile limit, where no tax is charged) the same pack of cigarettes was 14 cents. 14 from 60 is 46, or 76.6%(tax). These days (I'm told) a pack of cigarettes is about $3.50. Let's say, for the sake of argument (and to be generous) that the average smoker smokes 2 packs a day, and the rate of tax is 50%. Thats $7.00 (total cost) - $3.50 (tax) x 365 days = $1,277.50 per year. In a little less than 3 years, the $3,702 you mention has been paid. In most cases (certainly not all), it takes 25 - 30 years of smoking before serious health problems start appearing - enough to pay that $3,702 back 10 - 12 times. Still feel like laughing? Do it now, because someday we non-smokers will be picking up a substantial piece of that tab...

You should look forward to a society like the one potrayed in 1984 they chain smoked throughout the book.

Use the alphabet as a measure of socialistic laws adopted by your government to wield greater and greater control over the population.

Let's say, we've already allowed passage of A through R. What's happening here is that the population's memory is short, and they forget about A through R (they're already law) while S is being debated. If you don't remember that A through R have already occurred, what harm is S you ask? It's just a SMALL thing that doesn't affect me. The harm is that it is one MORE step down the path, and government counts on the fact that you'll forget A through S once they move on to T. Do you see how that works?

Once the alphabet is complete (but it's much larger than the alphabet), you're living in George Orwell's "1984". You'll wonder how this happened, but you won't know any better at that point like the wild pig in another of my posts from yesterday - you missed the big picture, but the government is taking care of you. That, my friends, is socialism bordering on communism.

To DBVB,

Please don't try to coax me into a battle of wits with an poorly-armed opponent - I will prevail...

Case in point: Your vocabulary lesson missed one critical point. Control in your definition is modified by "political", not libertarian. There's a difference, so I'd suggest you didn't make your point. Would you like to try again?

Last, as for me getting upset, not a chance! I don't give folks that sort of control over MY emotions. Have a great day.

Looking over the posts from overnight, I have to laugh (and cry). There are only a handful of those posting here that can see the BIG picture, and you know who you are. Those that seem to giggle with delight (mostly whining about smoke in their hair, blah, blah, blah) really don't get it at all. It is terrifying that you can't see the dynamic at work over the long term.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT SMOKING OR NOT SMOKING... This is about further intrusion into your liberties by government. For those that don't know what liberty is, it is the freedom to make your own choices without control. Sure, murder is "controlled", but that is also against God's law and the commandments, so that argument (made earlier) holds no value.

Big Brother is another story, and you're allowing Big Brother to further encroach on the rights of ALL people. One day, and it will happen, they will encroach on a liberty that you care about (we care about all liberties by the way), and your precedent will allow it to skate right on through to passage as a law. You really should read the alphabet comment from yesterday - I think it's a great metaphor for what's happening.

"Asthma-smoking is ONE cause of asmtha but that unlike smog is something we can control. Unless you know how to stop smog?? " Quote offered by barbj

barbj, smog is a combination of smoke and fog, thus it is call 'smog.' It's primary causes are the byproducts of combustible motors such as automobiles. We all know how to limit this problem but the goverment does little to enforce the changes. Fortunately they are being proactive in protecting our air on the inside of smoking establishments. It will be so nice not to have to smell like stale smoke when on my way home after a night out. Overall, I would have to say that your comments put a spot light on the fact that smokers are not as smart as non-smokers. If you feel you are being forced outside as pariahs, that is correct. Ever heard of Darwanism? Survival of a species?

When your dangerous habits negatively impact the health of others around you then of course the government has no recourse but to take action to protect the public. That is why we have laws about shooting guns in residential areas, speeding, drunk driving, etc. Inconsiderate DANGEROUS behaviors that affect the general public should be banned.

If smoking had no health impact on other people, I would be the first to stand up and say that these proposed laws are ridiculuous. However, that is not the case and so the government is doing what it needs to do to protect the public from people who insist on inflicting their dangerous behaviors on other people.

I really enjoy the threats smokers make that they are going to boycott restaurants and that businesses will lose money do to a ban. Bans in other states have resulted in an increase in revenue because the 80% of Americans that do not smoke go out more frequently. This is due to the experience being more enjoyable with out the smoke.

To the person that said the state will lose tax money from people that quit smoking and no longer buy cigarettes. That is laughable, smokers cost the US $3,702 per smoker in health-care costs, mortality-related productivity loses, and in direct medical expenditures.

This ban would be a step in the right direction.

I still lived in Delaware during the debate of the smoking ban. One of the most compelling arguments I heard against the ban came from owners who had voluntarily gone smoke free. They argued, correctly, that they had created a market niche, risking their own capitol and the government should not be interfering with market forces.

These businessmen and women had chosen to cater to a certain segment of the population, and were being successful at it. Yet a very vocal minority were able to convince Dover those people and their livelihoods mattered not. Think about it folks, more eating places in VA are smoke-free than are not.

I saw someone wearing a tee shirt recently that stated: "Smokers quit because the rest of us hate you whether you know it or not." I think it is quite true. People are on edge these days due to economic uncertainly, job insecurity, policital upheaval, the war dragging on and on, fluidity of gas prices, high unemployment, and so on. If you smoke, at least don't blow your cancer crap in other's faces. You might just pluck the last never of the person in front of you.

Are you smokers really that backwoods that you are going to writhe in your own stubborness and complain that the government is taking over because you can no longer expose people to your carcinogenic smoke while they enjoy a meal?

You have entertained us with your conspiracy theories that this is the end, making references to 1984. If half of you even read that book you would see there is no correlation to being allowed to smoke in a restaurant and the subject matter in 1984.

You had years of exposing patrons and employees alike to your habit. Now it's time for the nonsmokers to enjoy a meal without your habit clinging to our clothing.

And..if you are boycotting restaurants, that's great. It just means the wait time at my favorite restaurants won't be as long. I will gladly take your place!!

I feel so sorry for you whiners it makes me want to cry. Of all the restaurants and bars that already don't allow smoking you continue to go to the ones that do. Why do you do that? So you can whine and complan, and for no other reason. I mean, you people really break my heart. I feel so sorry for you I think I will take up smoking just so I can blow smoke in your face. I love listening to the moan and groan of poor YOU!

Agree that patrons have the right to avoid establishments that allow smoking. And that Restaurant owners have a right to allow smoking or not. But to allow the gov't to dictate private establishments choice on the matter is wrong. So, here's the deal, this law goes into effect, I'll open a restaurant/bar and post signs at the door that this is a private establishment & we allow smoking & have the right to refuse to anyone that has a problem with us having a smoking section (cannot use the civil rights act on us). Live free or die.

Smokers seem to almost laugh at my coughing when I can't avoid their smoke even in the non-smoking section 20 feet away. I was so glad when the Funny Bone started doing smoke-free nights because I love live stand up shows. I used to go to the Thoroughgood Inn but the last time I went, my eyes swelled shut from the smoke and I've never been back since then. We'll be at the Funny Bone tomorrow night... Unfortunately, the selection as far as restaurants and general nightclubs go is hopeless. Of the hundreds of places to go in this area, only a small handful are non-smoking. It makes a non-smoker (and especially asthmatic's) life pretty boring around here. Do you notice that your car continues to stink of cigarettes even days after you've been to a venue with smokers? By the way, vehicle exhaust bothers me too but I'm never locked in a room full of it and therefore it doesn't cause me an allergic reaction or an asthma attack.

To robm

I'm sure that it's a comfort to us all, that you and your husband can enjoy each other in the shower, after your long labors at the restaurant...

My husband and I like going out to hang out with friends after work. Unfortunately, there are few places here in Suffolk. After 30 mins, people sit near us and immediately light up and blow smoke in our direction. It seems to be a POWER trip, as they are aware we don't smoke.
Also, a lot of the women hold their cigarette out to the side--and it drifts our way. After an hour, we drive home with the car windows cracked open, and once we get inside our house, we take our clothes off and throw them into the washer, jump in the shower to wash the stench out of our hair.
I CAN'T wait for all the restaurants to go NONSMOKING, so we can enjoy our evenings out with our friends. If you want to smoke, at least be considerate of others, rather than try to make a statement....."Nanie Nanei Boo-Boo....we're smokers and have the right to pollute the air."

My husband and I frequent a restaurant close to home. It's a "locals" place with TV's lining 3 walls. During sports events it is packed. The food is excellent and it has a large menu. Patrons come to eat, watch TV and hang out with their friends. It's not uncommon for people to stay for quite a while. It's a very small place and the entire restaurant is smoking. I think most of the employees there smoke as well. One of the reasons I like going there is because I can sit and light up without dirty looks, fake coughs and eye rolling. Non-smokers who can't tolerate the smoke are not going to go there. There's no place outside to smoke except in the parking lot. I'm sure that would go over really well with neighboring businesses. This is exactly why banning smoking needs to be up to the restaurant owner.

Imagine if I owned a restaurant, and found that cooking steaks with radioactivity resulted in the juiciest most tender steak. The patron had an option to order it-they were making a decision about their own risk to their health-right? Oh-and don't worry that the cook preparing it or the waitress serving it had a "little" exposure-it is my right as a restaurant owner to run my business as I want! How long before I got shut down?? Yet, in most restaurants in Virginia, the "rights" of a few nicotine addicted patrons results in a carcinogenic atmosphere for all who wish to dine out-and all who are employed there, and nothing is done. No law is passed because tobacco is big money in Va

I have returned from dinner out tonight. Our table wasn't ready, and we wished to have a pre-dinner drink. The only place to do that was the bar. Unfortunately, I will pay for that decision with a sore throat tomorrow from the cigarette-sucking lady beside me. I am so tired of having to walk through a cloud of smoke in a restaurant to reach the non-smoking section-knowing that when I am seated I am still breathing the carcinogens in the air.

These Bills are simply wrong! I am not in favor of big government telling everyone what they can and cannot do. Those of you who are in favor of it will some day soon find out how it feels when your cell phone is taken away from you and I'll be cheering from the sidelines. Leaving it up to the business owner is the right way to deal with the smoking issue, anything else is simply wrong. Anthing else I have to say about this will be to my elected officials.

I was not commenting directly at you, perhaps you may not have noticed but there are several others that have posted here who believe that both alcohol and tobacco ought to be outlawed.

I for one feel that others have the right to do to their bodies what they choose as long as it doesn't affect ME or my children. I don't care that someone else is smoking outside, I don't care that they are smoking in a restaurant. I have a choice, it is that simple.

I am not for or against either. I believe in NOT infringing upon the rights of others. PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!!!!!!!!

If you are referring to my post regarding the alcohol/tobacco connection, you missed my point. I don't have ultra conservative, puritanical beliefs. It's the contrary, for I too, drink, and of course I smoke. I don't favor a ban of either. The connection between the two is that tobacco and alcohol are both harmful and both have the potential of harming those around them. You can see me smoking and smell it, and you can choose to stay away. But if you are driving down the road, you may not know that the driver behind you has an alcohol content of .20. You can't choose to stay away. The 2 girls who were sitting at a light when they were killed had no choice. If you ban one substance because it's harmful to others, you need to ban them all.

I'm sure Whipple has our good health at heart (no pun intended). I don't smoke and don't like smoking around me. I respect the rights of others to enjoy their life as provided for in our constitution. Of course that enjoyment shouldn't be at the expense of others and smoking and second hand smoke is harmful to others. But we don't need another vacated law, vacated before it hits the books.

By now, the dangers of smoking and the mistatements made by tobacco company executives are widely known part of our democratic history. Living in a democracy demands its citizens stay informed and act responsibly.

Passing a non-smoking law may garner Whipple a few more votes but where were legislator's good intentions like this when before the tobacco hearings were going-on, precisely when we really needed them?

Fifty years ago, legislators were on the other side of this one. Why? Because it counts....votes that is. I'm for angels in heaven - how can anyone not vote for me? But don't expect me to lift my hand against the devil 'lest someone object.

Isn't there more pressing business to attend to? How 'bout adding another lane to the bridge tunnel? What too tough for you to work on?

this is almost funny. swdk2-you have to be the all knowing of all things!! Smoking is bad, just look at what is in them-read the ingredients. Asthma-smoking is ONE cause of asmtha but that unlike smog is something we can control. Unless you know how to stop smog?? I will never believe my freedom is at risk because the laws are placed to limit smoking. Murder is against the law, is that putting my freedom at risk?? You sound like people from the 50's, list in hand with who is stomping your freedom or limiting what you can do. I know I can enjoy my freedom for years to come; this is not the tip of the iceberg. The laws are in other states, and they seem to be doing fine!! You should write a script and maybe a sifi movie will be made. You sound that ridiculous!! To all have a nice evening, have to drive home in my car, on the highway, to my home and relax with my family!!! I will be doing this for years to come-freedom-great!!

But first...

I love this country, but what is happening daily scares me nearly out of my shorts. Short-sighted folks that are content with a government telling them all they can and can't do in the name of the greater good is SOCIALISM. Thankfully, we have a framework for liberty in the US Constitution, and a Declaration of Independence, but that framework is being eroded one intrusive law at a time.

Allow your neighbors' liberties to be trampled, and yours are not far behind - history is rife with examples of this sort of blind thinking. I may not like to listen to the preacher at Polar Plunge, and I might not agree with what he's saying, but I support his right to liberty and to speak his mind. It is about liberty!

I smoke, and I don't like the way it smells when I eat. I do however have the CHOICE not to smell it, just like I have the CHOICE not to breathe the fumes in the tunnels. Liberty for all is choice for all. You can't have liberty for all by infringing on the choices of some.

To Smoke or Not to Smoke - that is not the question. Giving the government the power to erode your rights is.

I used to smoke. I stopped 10 years ago. I didn't need the government to tell me to stop - I figured it out all by myself. I don't eat at Wafflehouse - why? Because it stinks - I figured that out all by myself, too.

Loud music damages your hearing (for example Pete Townshend of The Who) I believe loud music should be banned from every night club and concert in VA. It can hurt innocent employess and minors. Crazy idea? Why? How is it different? Don't like it? Don't go where the offending behavior is.

I think most restaurants would be better off if they banned smoking or only allowed it in outdoor areas. However, I believe it is the Owner's decision to make. I don't need government to take care of me from cradle to grave. I can handle the small stuff.

One more thing, I love when people like you get so upset about a comment posted on a website. I can see the smoke (pun intended) fuming out of your head!

Have a nice afternoon, I mean that.