A stronger argument for smoking ban

Banning smoking in restaurants is just the first baby step. Then, all indoor places, then outdoor areas which are public such as beaches and parks until evenually innocent people can be assured they won't come in contact with cancer causing second hand smoke.

Amazing how many people are so ridiculous as to patronize places that allow activities they disagree with (but are legal) and then whine about it. Do you go to restaurants that serve food you don't like? Do you attend concerts that feature music you don't enjoy? Of course not. So why would you go to a restaurant or bar that allows smoking if you don't like smoking? If the owner of the bar or restaurant wants to allow a legal activity like smoking at his establishment that's his choice. Yours is to go in or stay out. On the other hand, as usual, it is amusing to read all the self-righteous posts that articles like this provoke.

Sorry, those of you who are saying it is your "personal right" to smoke..Nope. It's your privilege to smoke. By all accounts, that "right" should end when you are clogging the entrance to a store smoking in the faces of pregnant women, children, elderly, etc. In other words, when you are infringing on the health of someone, your "personal right" ends. Health and life should supercede your disgusting choice to smoke. Oh I know you smokers are going to say "well, they should go somewhere else and blah blah blah." Only in a tobacco driven state does this stupid argument still exist!!

katet43483 and all of you "crusaders" - thanks for being part of the problem of losing our rights. I don't want to be exposed to women breast-feeding in public; it might cause me to wreck my car, so please let's outlaw that. How about outlawing bicyclists on the highway - they don't have any right to interfere with my driving. Lets outlaw wings restaurants cause wings have lots of fat (plus in some of them, the girls wear really tight shirts and push-up bras - that's gotta be bad for my blood pressure). I think they ought to outlaw video games, WIIs, etc. - they only lead to fat kids. For that matter force all of us fatties to go on a diet - the one used in Hitler's prison camps worked really well. In other words, why don't you folks mind your own business? Don't like smoke in a restaurant don't go there; tell the owner that's why you don't go there but don't go creating more laws to infringe upon our freedom. Those are going so fast it makes my head spin.

Well said!

While the self professed crusaders of infringement on personal rights are on a roll, how about we consider banning everything that could easily be deemed to a be public health issue. Consider all of the bad diet choices, injuries and deaths now....We need to ban all fast food restaurants, we need to ban all alcohol, we need to ban all cars, we need to ban PETA pushers, we need to ban baseball, we need to ban apple pie, we need to ban IHOPs and breakfast restaurants, we need to ban air travel, we need to ban swimming, we need to ban all sports, etc...Oh why even live. Let's just ban humans and I nominate KT as the first to go.

this is. Drug addicts & their enablers, in full states of denial, offering variations of the same nonsense, used when business owners tried "private rights" arguments, to deny minorities a seat within their establishments. Why is it that smokers should have the right to practice their addiction in public, with impunity, while heroin addicts have to hide from the law & society? More people die as a result of tobacco use, yearly, than have died in a decade, from heroin use. It's monies, made by growers,(including govt supplements), manufacturers,(through sales), govt,(through taxation), & ins. cos.,(through higher premiums, paid by nonsmokers in group plans that also cover smokers). If 1 has so little self control that 1 can't keep from using a substance, for the time it takes to order & eat a meal, then 1 is an addict, plain & simple.

Smoking is a vile, cancer causing act. No good ever comes of it. Health care costs are sky high because of smoking and overweight people. When will America and Virginia wake up? I do not want to be exposed to people who smoke. If you smoke, I do not want you around me. Smoking is not even allowed in jails, prisons, or hospitals.

Are we back to banning all things "unhealthy"? We care about smokers' health but not drinkers? Please understand, part of being an American is that we MUST put up with things we don't like to keep what we DO like. I don't smoke, nor do my wife and I eat in restaurants which allow it (we have two young kids). That is pretty simple, huh? Kate, you are part of the problem with this country today. This is NOT a democracy we live in, it's a democratic republic. As Dr. Tabor mentions, there are plenty of things the majority of Americans have wanted in the past, but it's a GOOD thing that they didn't get them. Individual rights MUST rule. Unless, Kate, you want to be told what to eat, drink, and otherwise ingest, I suggest you rethink your stance. I would bet that most of you "ban smoking" folks could mix in a little more salad into your diets. That would lower my healthcare costs too, and it wouldn't infringe on the rights or our restaurant and bar owners.

Ever noticed how many "The Sky is Falling Global Warming" people smoke? Unnecessary carbon monoxide a slew of other gas are emmitted by plant, harvesting, manfacturing, distributing, smoking, and disposing (if they actually dont throw it out the window).

Smoking is dumb. I choose not to be around it. But, I cant always make that come true.

This whole debate majors in minors and picks at pettiness.

If the state wants to ban smoking in public buildings, fine. But restaurant and bar owners and managers should be allowed to set their own rules. Nothing prevents them from posting a "no smoking" sign if that's their preference. If an owner wants to permit smoking, he could post a "smoking allowed" sign. Customers, upon seeing the sign, would choose accordingly. If one wants a smoke free envirnment while eating and drinking, choose a no smoking establishment.

You are absolutely correct in so succinctly stating my stance on the eradication of tobacco use. I am proud of my quest and don't see it as a threat to civil liberty. I am a proponent of individual rights, but not when they adversely infringe on other's health and well being. If you wnat to smoke, do it in your own home and own car and please remember that carelessly tossing your cigarette butts out of your car window constitutes littering. For more info on the dangers of cig. butts, google "ButtsOut." These butts leach chemicals into our waterways for years. Smoking is so passe'. Get a grip, people, and give it up. There are myriad treatment options available. And for goodness sake, please don't smoke around your children. My siblings and I have asthma and bronchial disorders thanks to our parent's selfish smoking.

The Mass. study citd here does not state what this editorial claims it states, in fact what is available for review states the opposite. The study does not look at smoking bans at all, just at prevalence of smoking which is an entirely different issue.

But facts never seem to get in the way of the push for such proposals. Heart attacks in Mass had been on a steady decline long before the statewide ban went into effect, thus negating such a claim that the decline was caused by the ban.

Science by press release is not science. The study is under peer review and has not yet been published, I doubt the VP will correct its error once it is released.

When are our legislators going to stop wasting our tax dollars on trivial matters that can be regulated by the choices of the business owners? Many restaurants are already smoke free because their owners choose to be that way. We have real problems in this state that are real government responsibilities. Fix the roads, schools, access to health care, treatment and housing of the elderly and infirm, crime, and job creation and growth. After these real issues are taken care of then they can fiddle around with minutia such as smoking bans, bailing out non-profit entertainment venues, the new state anthem, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Why is the Pilot beating a dead horse. We can't even stop smoking in Resturants and now you want a state wide ban!! All the Pilot really want's is a controversial BLOG!!!

Kate says "Smoking should be banned in ALL public places"

This is the real agenda of the anti-smokers. Restaurants are NOT public places, the are private property. What people like Kate really want is a ban on indoor smoking, then a ban on smoking near any entryway, then a ban on smoking in parking lots, then a ban on smoking where others may smell your smoke, etc. SO, I continue to recommend that all of the anti-smokers end their hypocrisy and call for what you really want: A ban on the sale and use of tobacco products. If govt wants to infringe on a legal activity the best way to do it is make it illegal. And if health is the issue then restaurants are only a start. Come one, Pilot editors, Delegates, Norfolk Councilmembers, and all you other anti-smokers - start a drive to end smoking in the Commonwealth, along with all the accompanying jobs and tax revenue. Anything less would be hypocitical.

If they spent as much time worrying about the budget as they worried about somebody else's business, we might not be looking at an economic crisis.

Another editorial asking the government to take more rights away. I've said it before and I'll say it again-- a restaurant is a business. It is not public property, it is private property. As long as smoking is legal, the government has no place telling the owner of a business that he cannot allow his or her customers to smoke. If people REALLY wanted a smoking ban, they could achieve it by boycotting smoking restaurants and making it clear to management why they are not eating there. Clearly people are not willing to do that, so they whine once again to the government. Someday you'll get this legislation pushed through, and then we'll see what the government goes after next. The way people are willing to throw smokers under the bus is just going to make the government more eager to try again with something else.

We're facing a nearly $3 billion deficit, ZERO leadership at the top level and a crumbling infrastructure and our lawmakers are concentrating on a smoking ban?

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Dr. Northam (he cared for my autistic son through a series of seizures), but he needs to hang up the stethoscope and become a senator first.

katet43483 wrote:

>>>Thanks for sharing you opinion, Tabor, but many folks, like me, disagree with you. We all have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us and certainly this would be children.<<<

You are correct, Kate which means you don't have to patronize resturants that allow smoking. I won't bore you with the rights of private ownership as you care more for a police state than one with civil liberties.