©
 |
| Chris Nowitzky, 22, of Norfolk playing pool in the upstairs bar area of the New Belmont restaurant on Colonial Avenue in Norfolk on Tuesday evening. Nowitzky said in talking about the ban "I think it's a good thing."
(Bill Tiernan/The Virginian-Pilot) |
By Harry Minium and Richard Quinn
The Virginian-Pilot
NORFOLK
Norfolk and Virginia Beach took dramatic steps Tuesday night to ban smoking in restaurants.
The Norfolk City Council voted 7-1 to adopt Councilwoman Theresa Whibley’s proposal to ban smoking in all city eateries. But it came with a caveat – implementation of the ordinance will be delayed until March 31 , when city officials hope Virginia Beach also will have been empowered by the General Assembly to ban smoking.
Norfolk officials said their city charter already includes the police’s authority to ban smoking. Virginia Beach, a much younger city, has a different city charter with no such power.
 Alan Rankin takes a puff on his cigarette Tuesday afternoon at Kelly's Backstage Tavern on Granby Street in downtown Norfolk. "If Norfolk alone does it, it will push business to other localities.Michael Kestner / The Virginian-Pilot |
Several Norfolk council members had worried that, if the city acted alone, its restaurants would lose customers to Virginia Beach. After being approached by Norfolk City Councilman Barclay C. Winn, Virginia Beach officials agreed to work with Norfolk.
As a result, both cities adopted resolutions Tuesday asking their General Assembly delegations to cooperate this winter to give the Beach the power to ban smoking.
Norfolk’s council voted 7-1 in favor, with Councilman Paul R. Riddick voting no.
Virginia Beach voted 7-3 in favor, with council members Reba McClanan, Bill DeSteph and Harry Diezel voting against the move. Councilman Ron Villanueva was absent on business.
“We’re sending a strong message to the state with this,” Winn said, noting that Virginia Beach and Norfolk, the state’s two largest cities, represent about 10 percent of the state’s population.
“It’s my hope that by March 31st, we’ll have additional cities willing to take this step with us,” Norfolk Councilman W. Randy Wright said.
Restaurant owners said they hope so, too.
“If we do this as a region, if we do it with the other cities, then I support it,” said Kevin Blair, who has restaurants in Norfolk and Virginia Beach. But he said Chesapeake, Portsmouth and Suffolk need to be a part of any ban for it to work.
The Norfolk ban will apply to all restaurants. A group of downtown restaurant owners met Tuesday and voted to oppose the ban. They did so, said Baxter Simmons Jr., who runs a downtown sports bar, primarily because it will apply only to Norfolk.
Yet Dennis Doughty, who owns The Banque nightclub near the Virginia Beach border, said he favors the ban.
He’s owned the country and western dance club for 34 years and said he suffers from cancer and heart disease from “34 years of inhaling second-hand smoke.”
He allows smoking now because he is afraid of competition from other Norfolk night clubs. “I want the city to tell me I can’t allow smoking,” he said.
Riddick said he voted against the ban and resolution because “it borders on the infringement of free enterprise.” DeSteph and McClanan said they had a problem telling merchants how to operate their establishments. Diezel voted without comment.
“It should be a business owner making a decision,” DeSteph said.
Whibley, a physician, countered that “when we vote on the side of the health of our citizens and employees, we’re never sorry.”
Whether that’s the case in Virginia Beach remains to be seen.
Councilwoman Rosemary Wilson said there are more hurdles before a smoking ban can be enacted but was pleased to see South Hampton Roads cities work together.
“Unless the General Assembly passes laws that would allow us to,” Wilson said, “really this is all a moot point.”
Harry Minium, (757) 446-2371,
Richard Quinn, (757) 222-5119,
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Smoking Ban
I frequent the Norfolk area but will not go to a restaurant that bans smoking. If they do that why not ban drinking, it may not affect me while I am sitting in a restaurant near someone who is drinking but what is going to happen when they leave the establishment and get behind the wheel of their car and kill someones loved one. How about banning people who wear strong perfume or cologne, I personally cannot tolerate strong perfumes and colognes, they make me ill and I feel like I can't breathe. How about the person who comes in with the screaming child or the child running wild and we have to tolerate it, and the person who is talking loud and cursing.....I guess all of this is ok but don't light a cigarette.
No smoking more than okay
I was always taught that one persons rights stopped where my rights started... they have a right to smoke, and I also have a right to breath clean air in a public enclosed place. The past was a time when we did not know the effects of smoking on our health--never mind 2nd hand smoke, but now that we do know, we can not turn ourselves around we must move forward and continue to learn more to help all people. Believe me, there are more important things in this world than the concern that smoking will play in the pockets of businesses... like insuring all people for needed healthcare--no matter what the reason for your illness is!
The info is out there
Actually, there is plenty of proof that second hand smoke is dangerous. You can visit www.cancer.org for the American Cancer Society webpage and look for Second Hand Smoke. You can also visit the Ad Council page for info on kids and second hand smoke. It is a well proven fact that it does cause health problems for non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke.
If you want cancer, fine. Smoke. I don't want it and I don't smoke. I shouldn't be forced to inhale your cancer smoke. Even in a non-smoking section of a eating business you still smell that crap.
I tend to research cancer a bit since my wife currently has it.
Child Free Restaurants
Why do we not petition government for child-free eating establishments by crusading for noise pollution measures; for those of us that cannot be bothered with other adult's kids?
Blah, blah, blah .. cough, hack .. it's the law
Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves .. blah, blah, blah .. They'll be coming after your grandmother next and putting fat people in camps .. blah, blah, blah .. It's not really that harmful; it's just more junk science from the liberal/socialist/atheists who are destroying our country from within .. blah, blah, blah .. my rights trump your rights unless the law will prevent harm to others ... oh wait, scratch that one ... blah, blah, blah. Free markets and private business .. blah, blah, blah. All this high school logic and right wing paranoia and in the end what do you have? A new law and smoke-free restaurants in Norfolk. If you are a smoker, you should be getting the message. You are modern day lepers.
Who cares if it's harmful to smell it
It's still disgusting to have to go out and smell it while your trying to enjoy dinner. I for one will start going to places to eat that I never went back to after one visit because of it stinking so bad. I am sure I am not in the minority. The restaurants will survive....and my guess...some will do better !!!!
Ignorance
The ignorance displayed in these posts is staggering. There is no proven link that second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease or death, none whatsoever. None. Try and find it; it doesn't exist. You can save a ton of water by not visiting restaurants that allow smoking...not hard to figure that one out. People who claim second-hand smoke is bad but choose to allow their children to inhale it and then try to blame others...pathetic. The only thing the council's decision and the majority of these posts prove is that a substantial number of Americans refuse to think for themselves.
Smoke 'em if you got'em...
Do I care if they smoke? I don't care if they burn!
What is Libertarianism and what does it have to do with a ban
The philosopher John Stuart Mill, in his treatise "On Liberty," said it best:
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise."
It's not about you, it's about us.
Smokers view this ban as an attack on their right to smoke. That is not the case. This ban protects the masses from harmful carcinogens that they unwillfully are ingesting in public and private establishments. It is lawful to shoot a gun, but it is unlawful to shoot a gun into a crowd. It will remain lawful to smoke a cigarette, you just can't kill everyone else while you're killing yourself now.