Del. Terrie Suit's favorite restaurant is already smoke-free.
The stench of smoldering tar no longer spoils her omelets at the Jewish Mother at the Oceanfront. She can linger over breakfast for a chat without her throat feeling scratchy.
Suit says she dropped her support for restaurant smoking bans this year because many eateries have already voluntarily prohibited cigarettes and cigars. Specifically, the Republican delegate recounts her delight when the popular Virginia Beach deli recently banned smoking.
We're very happy for her, but what about the rest of us?
Suit notes that her constituents have plenty of options when they want to dine out without inhaling someone's else exhaust. Many of the restaurants at the Beach already ban smoking.
But folks in Saxis, Big Stone Gap, Elkton and Montross aren't so lucky. The small towns that dot the Eastern Shore, Southside, Southwest and other rural regions typically have only a handful of restaurants to choose from, and the local establishments are often less mindful of public health concerns than their tourist-dependent cousins at the Beach.
Last week, a House subcommittee shot down the last of this year's bills calling for a smoking ban in restaurants. The six-member group, which includes Dels. Tom Gear of Hampton and John Cosgrove of Chesapeake, even rejected a request by Hampton Roads communities for permission to adopt local bans.
Because a majority of the House General Laws committee is unlikely to demand a full hearing, the bills are dead unless the chairman of the panel intervenes. Suit controls the General Laws gavel, but she refuses to use her power to revive the measure, even though she voted for a smoking ban last year.
A mother whose son suffers from a lung ailment asked subcommittee members last week, "Who exactly do you think you're voting for?"
Perhaps the $17,500 collected by the six delegates last year from tobacco companies might help to answer her question. But what about Suit? She collected no cigarette contributions in 2007 and returned a donation the previous year.
Whom is she representing? Not her constituents, more than 70 percent of whom favor a ban. Not her local government representatives, who are eager to embrace public health protections. Not Virginia Beach restaurants, who lobbied for a ban through their association.
Suit owes her chairmanship to Speaker Bill Howell, an opponent of smoking restrictions. She insists he has not influenced her decision, but she understandably feels an obligation to her leader. Even so, she must weigh his desires against the thousands of constituents asking her to give this important issue a fair hearing.
Until she does that, those smoke-free omelets at the Jewish Mother will never taste quite right.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
I have to add smoking vs fast food.
In all this hub bub about smoking, no one has mentioned the fact that fast food places were the first to go smoke free. Does that mean it is healthy to eat there? think of all the fried oil venting around the place and we have to inhale that crap. This is America a it should be about choice. Other wise the facist, communist and terrorist have already won the war.
Smoking ban is wrong for some places
As a smoker I find it offensive that everyone is on the ban wagon. I understand that smoking is offensive to some people but so is perfume and cell phones. Granted it has not been proven that cell phones cause cancer but the rumor almost got started years back. They are anoying never the less and should be banned at least from cars. Perfume should be banned altogether. It is obnoxious and animals and flowers are distroyed trying to come up with new scents. Never mind that I am allergic to half of them. But my real point is even though I am a smoker I have always sat in the none smoking section of a restaurant because I am the only smoker in my immediate family. I always considered it a dirty practice to smoke around food. ( Barbeques excluded.) However bars should alow smoking because most people who are in bars smoke. I still think the answer lies in smoke eaters. We have the technology to have clean air no matter how fine the particals so lets put this into pratice. Not only can we eat the cigarette smoke but mold, pollen and all other sorts of nasty things floating in the air. We could all breath a little easier. ( I have to remember never to get a ticket in Porthsmouth with the
Pilot Snobs
How dare the nose in the air elites of the VP insult the intelligence of those of us who prefer the rural life of the Eastern Shore. If, as the editorial board claims, there is little choice for non-smoking venues on the Shore it is because we value personal responsibility and the rights of the business owner to choose his/her clientele, not because of some perceived ignorance.
Contrary to the smugness of this column, there are far more non-smoking choices on the Shore than you would imagine. However we prefer you to stay on your side of the Bay and keep your smugness and snide attitude with you.
Pirate
My reference to "private property" was meant to apply to one's personal residence. OK, not one's personal business, got it.
The "private property" of a restaurant is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC... Nobody in the public is compelled to enter a restaurant, and I do believe they still have the right to refuse service.
...under government control There are govt regs that apply to your home, too. Should govt restrict smoking in the home?
I do apologize for confusing you, although I think you knew exactly what I meant. Not confused, just pointing out the contradiction in your argument.
...this ban is coming one day. When it does I'll honor it, until then I'd rather support individual responsibility and freedom of choice.
Thank you for playing.
jmo
Those who most need representation???
Well from your past statements Mr. Barrett that would look like the developers and those in the hotel and rental industry. So are these the ones that can least afford it? You play off the class warfare angle anytime you can by mentioning that it will only help the rich beach people. Well Mr. Barrett, 10% is 10%. Did you ever say no to a COLA in the Navy Reserves because the 3 to 4% that you got would equate to more dollars then an E-5 in the reserves? I mean, that COLA benefited you more. So the only ethical thing for you to do, by your own position, would be to give that money back or give it to the e-5s. Well, my wife is an E-5 and we will be waiting for your generous offer to give us the COLA that you never needed.
Blah Blah Blah Mr Barrett...
Once again you need someone to point out to you that this exemption would not hurt military families that rent in this area and why??? Because BAH will go up to take care of any increases in the cost of living...
Try again...
It has nothing to do with smoking
It's all about what YOU want and when you want it, and the fact that some restaurants and bars still allow smoking and many have chosen to not allowe it isn't good enough for you. After all what YOU want is more important. I love to use the example of the Granby North restaurant in Ocean View. A really nice place with very good food and HAD no smoking. Now after 4pm they allow smoking. Why? Because they could not compete by being smoke free. Where oh where were all you non smokers when Granby North was smoke free? You don't give a rats behind about going to a smoke free restaurant you just want to complain for complaining sake. You come up with the most dumb statements I've ever heard. If there is a sign on the door that clearly states smoking or not, then you know if you want to enter or not. How simple can anything be? People, there is more to life than all about YOU! Let folks have choices and options, for God sakes find something else to complain about, I know you can because that's all you really want to do. And get off your cell phone!
Reversal of Position
If the cost of leadership is the loss of credibility with your constitutients, Terrie Suit must be asking whether it is worth it. First she has reversed long held positions on smoking in restaurants, and now she has followed the orders of party boss and Speaker of the House Bill Howell and done all she could to pass the Homestead Exemption. This exemption will provide a benefit to rich homeowners paid for by those who rent homes, apartments, or condos. How could a delegate who has the past purported to protect the military families living in her district desert those who expected her to support them? Instead, she became a leader in the House of Delegates to pass this exemption which is neither fair, just, or equitable. If the price of rising into leadership in the party is to fail to represent those who most need representation, then Delegate Suit has some real soul searching to do.
Good try
There is no contradiction. My reference to "private property" was meant to apply to one's personal residence.
The "private property" of a restaurant is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC and under government control already relative to safe working conditions, minimum wage standards, business licensure, proper health standards regarding safe consumption of food, certain requirements for the serving of alcohol, etc.
I do apologize for confusing you, although I think you knew exactly what I meant.
Sigh all you wish, this ban is coming one day.
Sigh, here we go again
RiverParkPirate said "Those who like to smoke and eat and drink are free to do so on their private property where they do not infringe upon the rights of everyone else to breath clean air. It's really as simple as that."
So do private property owners have the right to allow smoking or don't they? You contradict your own argument, since restaurants are private property. I'm also not sure how smoking on private property infringes on anybody's rights, since nobody is required to enter private property where smoking is allowed.
So, you seem to support smoking on private property. Don't you?
jmo
This is far from the last gasp
My mother would be amused right now. She loved to smoke and she loved to go out to eat. She couldn't wait to finish her last bite and light up, regardless of the eating status and preference of others dining with her. Her attitude was that she was a smoker and she would do what she wanted. She'd be having a tougher time now, for sure. Of course, she died of lung cancer at age 72, five years after my father died of lung cancer at 69.
The six person House subcommittee may have quashed the no-smoking ban for now, but the momentum on the issue will not be stopped. Yes, the trend toward more non-smoking is NOT GOOD ENOUGH! More and more people prefer the convenience of being to dine whereever they choose without first having to do a re-con mission to determine the smoking policy and often the smoking configuration of the restaurant.
Those who like to smoke and eat and drink are free to do so on their private property where they do not infringe upon the rights of everyone else to breath clean air. It's really as simple as that.
The better service for the VP to offer until a ban is approved is to provide a list of restaurants that still permit smoking, for the convenienc
Please provide your evidence
Go ahead and speak your mind. It's a free country...still. But when you insert data and percentages, please provide your references to prove the credibility to your rant. I want to see the statistical data that shows 70 percent support the smoking ban. Make sure that it is credible and scientific. I want to know who you spoke to on the Eastern Shore for you to make simplistic platitudes. Please put some form of journalistic integrity into your opinions or refrain from using self-styled statistical data that does not exist.
The bottom line here is that, contrary to your narrow mind, people are fully capable of making decisions for themselves in their private lives. The government is not a solution...the government is a problem.
challenge to the pilot
Since the VP is so adamant in it's support of smoke-free dining, here's a challenge: Donate space once a week to provide local residents a list of smoke-free establishments.
Can you put your money where your mouth is?
jmo
Costs
Smoking is somewhat comparable to the seatbelt issue. There are huge economic costs foisted on the public when the seatbelt renegades among us opt to forgo buckling up. More so with smokers who put an enormous strain on Medicaid and other taxpayer funded programs, as well as raising the costs of private insurer plans. The "its my decision, butt out gubmint" position should be interpreted as "the taxpayers get saddled with costs resulting from the stupid decisions made by others".
Enough Already!
Enough already with this smoking issue. Let the grownups decide whether or not to smoke or stand in the smoking fumes. We all have options, choices and the freedom and intelligence (I hope) to know what it is that one wants to do to their bodies and where to do it at.
Now, being a non smoker...I still have the freedom to choose without government intervention...what a brilliant idea!
money talks
But folks in Saxis, Big Stone Gap, Elkton and Montross aren't so lucky. The small towns that dot the Eastern Shore, Southside, Southwest and other rural regions typically have only a handful of restaurants to choose from, and the local establishments are often less mindful of public health concerns than their tourist-dependent cousins at the Beach.
Doesn't this put the residents of these small communities in a position of power? Seems like it wouldn't take long for a local boycott by non-smokers to hurt business. But why put forth the effort when you can have your opinion legislated?
jmo
Novel Idea!
Maybe Terri Suit would rather let business owners and consumers make up their own minds in making decisions affecing their health and business rather than have the government run their lives What a novel idea! Hey, I'm a non-smoker.
Virginia Beach Restaurant Lobby
Biggest joke in the world! Newsflash to restaurants: You don't need the government to tell you it's okay to disallow smoking in your restaurant! It's YOUR restaurant! What these hypicrates really want is for their competition not to have an edge.
Won't you think of the children??
The Pilot's editorial staff is providing a lesson in accepting defeat as gracelessly as possible. Every time I think I've seen the worst of it, you dazzle me with new levels of histrionics. Can we can all agree that your use of the patronizing omelet metaphor is a journalistic first?
You detail the trend across the state towards smoke-free establishments, yet for reasons unknown you maintain that's not enough. Do you have actual evidence that there is nowhere to eat a smoke free meal in Big Stone Gap, or was that just a bit of name-dropping? Does it bother you that much that there are grown adults down the street having a smoke and enjoying themselves over a few beers?
Sorry folks, your pet issue died. Perhaps you'll drop the issue?