Richmond's Carytown & Museum District news events in Richmond Virginia

Awesomer than The Fan.

google
yahoo
bing

January 7, 2008

Statewide smoking ban proposed

Posted by Sam @ 2:09 pm |

35 Comments.

Completely unnecessary legislation that harms ones ability to do business. Smoking is legal and if a business owner wants to allow smoking they should be free to do so, understanding that customers who prefer a smoke-free environment may choose to go elsewhere. The market has worked for years in creating smoke-free restaurants and will continue to do so. For the government to legislate this at the expense of small business owners is simply uncalled for.

Jason @ January 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I totally agree with you. The main reason I don’t go out is because I have asthma which is triggered by smoke. An added unpleasant bonus is smelling like smoke when I come home. It may be a person’s choice to smoke, but non smokers shouldn’t have to face possible bodily harm (in my case) just because someone else wants to kill themselves slowly.

Brandy @ January 7th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I hope this passes.

But I am not holding my breath what with certain lobbies in the state and all.

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool. Moreover, it affects the health of the people who work in restaurants.

Will await and hope …

Melanie @ January 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Jason makes a valid point about the market dictating smoky vs. non restaurants, but misses the point most essential to this bill: workplace safety. It’s not about taking away the choice of smokers, it’s about protecting the workers whose workplace is being polluted. And don’t think for a minute the state doesn’t pick up the tab for those medical bills…

Matthew @ January 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
If this is important to you, contact your state reps. Find them with contact info here: http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform

Pass on this link. If we don’t tell them what WE want, the lobbyists get their full attention.

Amy @ January 7th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Workplace safety most applies in rural environments where there are not other jobs available to workers. But in an urban area where there are plenty of work places one can choose from that can pay the bills and provide a smoke free environment, this bill fails. You are putting an undue restraint on the ability of a small business owner to run their business by banning a legal activity from occurring in their establishment.

Also, Gov. Kaine himself was against a restaurant ban a year and a half ago, calling it a troubling expansion of government regulation and saying that “the police power of the state should go that far.”* Now it should?

This is bad legislation and does nothing but harm businesses. Alternatives already exist for consumers and employees, don’t hurt small business owners.

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102600820.html

Jason @ January 7th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Why should workers have to seek out other employment simply because it exists? They don’t have the option of escaping a smoky environment where as smokers have the freedom to step outside and practice their habit.

Smoking is a personal freedom – sure – but others have a right not to be exposed to it. Drinking is legal as well but there are restrictions on it to ensure public safety.

libby @ January 7th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I moved here a year ago for Arkansas, which just passed a ban on smoking. One argument against the ban was that it would harm restaurants/bars. The opposite happened, tax receipts from restaurants/bars increased after the ban.

I went out more often. Haven gotten used to a smoke free environment I don’t like to go out in Richmond, so I rarely go out. I hear a new bar, Infuzion, will be smoke free. Looking forward to this.

You are right about free market. Perhaps a letter campaign to restaurants would be effective.

Gary @ January 7th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Some research I found doing a quick google. Of course you have to wade through tobacco supported websites to get to unbiased studies.

“To summarize, numerous studies using objective measures of economic activity have been done over the past 10+ years looking at the impact of local, state, or national smoke-free policies on restaurants, bars, and tourism. From small towns such as West Lake Hills, Texas,52 to large cities like New York,38,53,54 in states as diverse as Arkansas,55 Oregon,56 and Texas,57 the vast majority of studies find that there is no negative economic impact of clean indoor air policies, with many finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses (see Scollo and Lal58 for a comprehensive review of studies published through mid-2005). While the early evidence is mixed on the impact on gaming establishments, the recent expansion of smoke-free policies to cover these venues will provide new natural experiments for researchers to examine.”

Gary @ January 7th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I’m pretty sure Kaine only made that statement against the ban because he was initially anti-smoking all together, but when he realized it wasn’t going to pass, he settled for the idea to give restaurants the option of having to say “smoking allowed.”

I wrote to him just now thanking him for proposing and letting him know that I will continue to support such legislation.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn about smokers’ “rights” or the ability for the business owners to decide. One has a right to pollute one’s own body, but not to do it in public in shared spaces. It is unfair to say that everyone can just choose to go to or to work in another place when nearly all bars/restaurants are full of smoke.

Holly @ January 7th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Although it may ruffle some of my liberal friends’ feathers, I think Jason is right about this one. A statewide banning of smoking in restaurants goes too far.

There are just too many other poisons being put in the air all the time by chemical companies, etc., to justify banning tobacco smoke in public places as a health measure.

By the way, I’m not a tobacco consumer.

F.T. Rea @ January 7th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
So, this law would put more money in the hands of our bars and restaurants, because people would go out more?

That in itself sounds like a great reason to pass the bill.

Justin @ January 8th, 2008 at 1:39 am
I don’t consider this a liberal/conservative issue in the least. I have friends who are on both sides of the political line and none want to be exposed to someone elses harmful personal habit.

I also don’t think that there’s any merit in comparing a smoking ban in restaurants to the pollutants chemical companies produce. This is the measure up for legislation, there for it is something that our delegates have an active opportunity to change. When the opportunity comes up for them to challenge chemical companies then yes, address those damaging effects. But saying that we should not bother providing a safe and enjoyable environment where we can simply because other pollutants already exists is ludicrous.

libby @ January 8th, 2008 at 8:19 am
libby: I choose not to work in a coal mine because I understand there are health issues related with such work (as well as the fact that I’m in no way capable of working in a coal mine). I choose not to work at McDonalds because it looks like a horrible job. I’ve been able to make these decisions my entire working life and have never had to work in a smoking environment because other jobs exist out there. There is absolutely nothing that forces anyone to work in a smoking environment.

On revenues, no study has shown an increase in restaurant and bar revenue beyond that of overall economic growth in the industry as a result of any smoking ban.

The health argument especially falls flat when you try to argue that the government will eventually have to pay the medical bills as Matthew does because that’s simply inviting any number of other state intrusions into personal and business matters.

Jason @ January 8th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Will it pass? Richmond is headquarters for Phillip Morris – does that play a roll? I hope it does pass – because I am a non-smoker. But to be honest it has been a long time since my dining experience was ruined by a smoker. It seems like more and more Restaurants are going smoke free. Also, we had an awesome time at Toads Place Last week — the place is smoke free. Watching a live band – smoke free – in Richmond. It was great!!

Eric @ January 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Jason,
I thought you were a republican, not a libertarian??? There are all sorts of intrusions by the gov’t into personal and business matters: how about decency laws (a republican favorite), drug laws (show your ID when you buy Sudafed!), seat-belt laws, utilities regulation, farm subsidies, Terry Schiavo’s case… Most of these restrictions and regulations are ostensibly passed to promote individual and collective welfare.

So I’d say there’s nothing “simple” about government “intrusions”- there should always be a robust and thoughtful conversation about whether the potential benefits of new regulations outweigh the potential costs.

In this case, I think it’s an easy one.

Matthew @ January 8th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Jason, it has not always been the case that non smoking workplaces have been so widely available. It is because of measures like this one that they now exist.

libby @ January 8th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Matthew: I’m a Republican with strong Libertarian leanings.

Libby: The market has helped create those environments. Look at Strawberry St. Cafe, a fine example of them looking at the market and allowing it to help them move to non-smoking. They asked for a public response, got one, and made the change. Kudos to them and that’s exactly how things like this should work.

Speak with your dollar and your own voice, it is not the responsibility of the gov’t.

Jason @ January 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
What is the responsibility of the government, if not to promote the general welfare- which this bill does?

Matthew @ January 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Are you saying the government has a responsibility to ban smoking outright? Wouldn’t that promote the general welfare? Or force people to buy health care. Or ban fatty foods.

General welfare has its limits when personal responsibility comes into play. An individual has the choice of whether or not they enter a smoking establishment, whether to dine or work. An individual has a choice as to how to run their establishment and how that will end up impacting their bottom line.

The free market is working on this, the government has no need to enter into this type of legislation.

Jason @ January 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
The government does have a duty to do what is reasonable to protect the health of the citizens it serves. I want the government to curb air and water pollution. Likewise, I want the government to regulate all sorts of enterprises that have an impact on our health. But it must have priorities and try as it might, the government can’t take all the health risks out of life.

How much of a threat something poses to the population must come into play when setting those priorities. In my view, secondhand smoke is probably much less of a threat to non-smokers in the same building than a whole lot of other things in the air we breathe.

On the other hand, I think it is entirely proper that governments ban smoking in publicly-owned buildings.

So this isn’t about nasty habits. It’s about how the power of the government ought to be used.

F.T. Rea @ January 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
F.T., according to the Health Dept., food service workers have a 50 percent greater risk of dying from lung cancer than the general population. Is that enough of a threat to compel gov’t action?

$124.9 million a year is spent by the state on health issues related to 2nd hand smoke exposure.

Jason and I have fundamental philosophical differences, but F.T.- I think you should research a bit more.

Again, for me, it’s not about the gov’t telling people what to do (I’m for decriminalizing drugs) or regulating nasty habits, it’s about protecting workers and creating healthy workplaces. It’s not about the restaurant customer- it’s about the workers.

Matthew @ January 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Matthew, but then you get into the question as to whether or not the gov’t should be in the business of providing health care. Is that an institution that should exist?

Ultimately, if other jobs are available, no one is forcing anyone to work in a smoking environment. There are plenty of alternatives for consumers as well as employees.

Jason @ January 8th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Matthew,

My thinking was that politicians are overstepping here, in part because they think they can score points with the current perception that most voters truly want smoking banned in restaurants.

Maybe that’s true, I don’t know.

Beyond that, I was saying if those same politicians really wanted to do something meaningful to be good to all the voters’ lungs, they’d go after the monster-sized corporations that routinely poison our air, water, food, etc.

But, politically, the price of that sort of heath-minded move might be too scary.

Alas, I suppose you’re probably right — my venturing into a discussion of the politics of secondhand smoke, without having read the same report you quote, and then accepted it as the absolute last word on the risk posed by secondhand smoke, was a fatal blunder.

Suffering succotash: I have no ax to grind and I’m happy to say no statistics are being offered here to prove it.

F.T. Rea @ January 8th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I hope the smoking ban passes. My preference is to have a variety of places to patronize, not just one or two. Until a year ago, there were no bars that were non-smoking that were within walking distance of where I live in the city. I don’t call that a choice. Now, that there is one, it’s my favorite bar. In fact, it’s the only favorite bar that I have ever had due to the smoking issue and I have given them quite a bit of my money. Why cater to a minority of the population who smokes? Let the majority in on the fun.

pjpink @ January 8th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Legal or not, anyone who smokes where
people are eating and drinking is a scumbag.

80% of taste is smell

bit o' nut @ January 9th, 2008 at 11:30 am
[...] statewide smoking ban has been proposed (again); I hope it has better luck this time. I have nothing against smoking, [...]

it’s a cheerocracy « parasol party @ January 10th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Good grief! Has anyone been to New York lately? Are the restaurants and bars there empty because of the smoking ban? Do you think New Yorkers (New Yorkers!) are actually crossing the river and patronizing New Jersey establishments because they can smoke there? You’ve got a perfect, real-world example of a smoking ban that has had NO effect on business, but oddly, the keep-your-hands-off-that-death-inducing-
cigarette-pack crowd chooses to ignore it.

I think everyone needs a reality check here. My rights are infringed the moment someone (who smokes by choice!) exhales smoke adjacent to me. Bottom-line, it’s a health risk. I simply can’t choose not to breath, whereas the smoker to my right can limit their stupidity to their own body by hauling their lazy butts outside.

Anyone who’s come home from a smoky bar with a sore throat and red eyes knows that smoke isn’t exactly enhancing the quality of their life–and they know this in a real and immediate way. As my dad said, “We didn’t ‘know’ cigarettes were bad for you, by why did we nickname them as coffin nails?”

If it looks like a duck, smokes like a duck, and dies very sloooowly and painfully of lung cancer like a duck, it’s time to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

Brandon @ January 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
This time last year, I would have said that a bar/restaurant smoking ban was a terrible thing. Having been to NYC many times in the past two months, I can REALLY appreciate the difference after a long night out. And, I’m a social smoker. I find it is not at all inconvenient to step out the door.

That said, it’s not the government’s responsibility to make these changes. If a bar in town widely announced their non-smoking status along with other qualities, they would find wild success. This is a market-driven question. Would you as a bar owner, want the government to REQUIRE smoking in bars?

Dan @ January 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I live in NYC, where there’s no smoking in bars or restaurants. It is the best thing ever. Going to bars in other cities is a painful experience. I may move back to Richmond one day, and I hope for it to be a smoke-free Richmond. I’m skeptical that it will happen anytime soon, though.

Arguing that the rights of business owners and the rights of smokers are more important than the health of employees and patrons simply demonstrates a poor sense of priority and a frightening lack of compassion.

I’m sick of the abused claim that the free market will eventually provide the ideal situation for everything. That works with the price of toothpaste; it doesn’t drive businesses to abandon harmful practices. If smoke-free bars were a huge success, then they would be on every corner. They are not profitable because too many people don’t give a shit if they’re forcing their habit on other people. They don’t want their local watering hole to operate morally, so it doesn’t. The question isn’t whether the free market will create smoke-free bars. The question is whether the government should step in and end the unhealthy and antiquated practice of indoor smoking since the free market never will any time soon. And the answer is “Yes”.

Brian B in Brooklyn @ January 12th, 2008 at 2:47 am
Why shouldn’t the government regulate smoking in public places the same way it regulates factory pollution (very badly so far) and auto carbon emissions (even worse)? What’s the government for anyway, if not to help us collectively straighten this stuff out so we don’t get sick and die from the air we breathe? What are we living in, Victorian England?

Brandon @ January 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am
is there a list of bars that are non smoking? i’d like to spend my money there.
thanks.

smoke on.

Frank Beylotte @ January 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
The govt should focus on pollutants people are unaware of and cannot avoid. You can avoid a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. Just require them to post a sign outside that they allow smoking. Workers have choices where to work too. Bar and Restaurant owners are not required to allow smoking and if they feel their business would perform better by not permitting it than so be it.

This entire campaign against smoking is almost Orwellian.

Less to the point:

Since smoking bans have begun and tobacco taxes increased, the cost of govt funded health care is still growing at an alarming rate. I thought we were supposed to be saving money?!

Brad @ February 4th, 2008 at 10:53 am
It will be a sad day when an American can’t go to a bar and enjoy a beer with a cigarette. I like the non-smoking places and hell I’m even up for a tax break for places that elect to go smoke free but don’t regulate everyone. There is something great about sitting down at a bar, smoking a cigarette, and discussing current events with the local bartender. Even though I hardly ever smoke I don’t want that right taken away from me, limit the places I’m allowed to go, that is fine, but don’t eliminate it entirely, its part of our culture.

Jason @ February 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Wouldn’t it make as much sense to ban transfat in food products? After all, it’s dangerously unhealthy, having lead to 60% of American adults being overweight, and 30.2% being deemed clinically obese.

Transfat causes a slew of medical conditions many of which are shared with those associated with smoking (the notable exception being lung and oral cancer), and contributes a great deal more to the number one killer in America – heart disease.

Employees who work in fast food restaurants are repeated exposed to foods high in fat, often leaving at the end of the day smelling of grease and with a high level of fat on their skin and clothing gathered from the air. And they have little options other than to eat at said restaurants.

Beyond that, social studies have shown that people who are socially associated with overweight people tend to become overweight themselves. Certain nutritionists have begun to call this “secondhand fat.”

So, since we’re mandating one way that businesses are allowed to operate, why not ban transfats as well?

It sounds like a slippery slope, but the fact is fatty foods are a bigger danger to America than smoking.

Bars and restaurants who wish to adopt non-smoking policies should be welcomed, even encouraged to do so with the likes of tax incentives. If the non-smoking crowd is such a desired demographic, court them with advertising. As evidenced by this thread, there are non-smokers who prefer smoke free bars, just as there are smokers who prefer bars which they can smoke in.

As another commenter pointed out, banning smoking has not statistically had an impact on the revenue which bars make. What it does have an impact on is:

Littering – most bars do not provide an ash tray outside of their establishment, which leads to a high amount of littered butts in the street.

Decrease in gross tax revenue – Maryland saw a significant decrease in the number of smokers after they passed their ban. This leads to falling tax revenue, as cigarettes are heavily taxed and that is money which states depend on to provide other services. Pennsylvania is currently considering legalizing video gambling to recoup the money they have lost in tax revenue after they went “smoke free”.

Increase occurrences of “tab jumping” – with people going out to smoke, or pretending to go out to smoke in order to avoid paying a bar tab.

Bradley @ February 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm