A Sea Of Red

http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Sate ... 2537&path=

Virginia Senate OKs broad public smoking ban


Associated Press
February 5, 2008


RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The state Senate has approved a ban on smoking in most public buildings in Virginia.

Senator Mary Margaret Whipple’s bill cleared the Senate on a 23-15 vote Tuesday. It now goes to the House, which has its own smoking restriction proposals still pending in committee.

I have to admit, it'll be nice to go to a sports bar and not smell like lung cancer when you leave. However, shouldn't the free market/business owner decide that? The answer is yes.

I agree

From experience, although this sounds stupid it is SOOOOOOO WORTH IT. When New Jersey passed it a while back it sounded wierd but then you could walk into a restaurant and eat and not smell the stuff. Its great, seriously.

and wasn't it awesome when we had Jim Crowe laws in effect? It really cut down on the lines waiting to get a table. If there was a demand for a smoke free bar, don't you think somebody would have opened one?

YES...finally! believe me, there are a lot more people who refuse to go to a place like Mudd Puppies b/c of the smoke rather than those who go b/c they can smoke...the business owners will be happy in the end

Smoking is not a right. You can do it outside and not ruin my meals. Most cities in Texas have the ban and it is awesome. You never have to wait for Non-Smoking ever again.

LUconn wrote:and wasn't it awesome when we had Jim Crowe laws in effect? It really cut down on the lines waiting to get a table. If there was a demand for a smoke free bar, don't you think somebody would have opened one?

You're a Libertarian, aren't you? Not knocking you...just wondering from some of your posts.

it will be nice, but I don't agree with it.

PS: I'm Libertarian.

bravo commonwealth. about time they got on board. the business owners will be fine. i do not see a lot of businesses crying about lost profits anywhere else.

It's not about lost profits or whether or not it's pleasent for the majority of people or if there's a right to smoke wherever you want. If this goes through, life won't be that different. It is about the right of the business owner to choose what he wants going on in the place that he owns. The government doesn't own his building. If he wants to cater to non-smokers, that sounds like a pretty good niche. If you don't want to put up with smoke, go to McDonalds. It's not allowed there. Transfat is next, it's already happening in places. And then what? A certain calorie count per dish (like CAFE standards for cars). Eliminating peanut products because of it's allergy danger? These all have "valid" reasons like a smoking ban. In short, just because you benefit from this personally, doesn't mean you should be celebrating the eroding of property rights.

Fumblerooskies wrote:

LUconn wrote:and wasn't it awesome when we had Jim Crowe laws in effect? It really cut down on the lines waiting to get a table. If there was a demand for a smoke free bar, don't you think somebody would have opened one?

You're a Libertarian, aren't you? Not knocking you...just wondering from some of your posts.

Anarchist. No, I don't know. I like the way capitalism and the free market works. Of course I've got mostly conservative social viewpoints as well.

So if a business owner wants to allow rabid rats & random murders in his facility then he should let the free market decide?

This is a public safety & health issue. Transfat doesn't affect anyone beyond the person consuming the product. Smoking affects everyone around the person.

Down here in Texas the ban has proven to be a boon to places that have built outdoor patios that have extended the amount of time customers stay on the premises consuming their goods.

Sly Fox wrote:So if a business owner wants to allow rabid rats & random murders in his facility then he should let the free market decide?

If it's the Rabid Rat N' Random Murder Emporium, absolutely.

Sly Fox wrote: So if a business owner wants to allow rabid rats & random murders in his facility then he should let the free market decide?

well, that violates other laws. But honestly, how long do you think that place would be open if they did?

Sly Fox wrote:This is a public safety & health issue. Transfat doesn't affect anyone beyond the person consuming the product. Smoking affects everyone around the person.

Except when they develop hundreds of health problems, and don't have health insurance so I have to pay their hospital bills when they have a heart attack every couple of months. It's the same as the seatbelt discussion we had one time. That's how they'll impose this on us. The fact is, smoke may affect those around them, but you don't have to be around them. Eat somewhere else. If you work there, work somewhere else.

The same could said for the smoker. Don't like it? Move somewhere else. You don't have to live in a state with a public ban on smoking.

LUconn wrote:

Sly Fox wrote: So if a business owner wants to allow rabid rats & random murders in his facility then he should let the free market decide?

well, that violates other laws.

My point exactly. How do you suppose those laws were created?

TDDance234 wrote:The same could said for the smoker. Don't like it? Move somewhere else. You don't have to live in a state with a public ban on smoking.

I'd say a government mandate and a decision by a private owner and their patrons is a little different.

actually quite a few business owners have complained if a law like this went through that they would eventually lose business, so yeah it is applicable. eventually the consumer would come back if the product is good enough.

so if i like mudpuppys and i do not like cigarette smoke i should find another place to go??....second hand smoke is proven hazardous to your health. smokers can go outside.

Look, I know there are lots of arguments for it, and I could sit here all day and try to refute them. They say 2nd hand smoke is dangerous, and I could see why it is. But I do know that my parents and their parents grew up with smoking allowed everywhere and their lungs are fine. I don't think it's a health crisis like it's being portrayed. I just think it's funny that we get all up in arms when the government starts to get rid of 10 commandment monuments because that's some kind of oppression against us, but when the government is being used to opress a business owner, because that makes us more comfortable we cheer.

If I am not mistaken somewhere in Ca, they are trying to ban smoking in apartments. So if you are a smoker you cannot smoke in your own place.

I think for a long time now the government is confused on what a "public place" is. A restaurant is not a public place, it is private. Smoking is not illegal. Therefore, a private restaurant should be able to decide whether or not to allow a legal activity, based on the business it receives.

Some have said "well if the smoker doesn't like it, he can go somewhere else" (and actually, no, if this is the law, he can't go somewhere else). Well, shouldn't that be up to the business owner? Why should the government be allowed to ban a legal practice in someone's private business? The government is pretty much deciding for the business owner what type of clientele they can cater to.

And honestly, has it been definitively proven that public smoking is giving people all over the country lung cancer? What about asthmatics, should we also ban the use of perfume and cologn in restaurants and malls and other businesses? I bet it's pretty annoying for them to deal with that. While we're at it, lets fine everyone who dares fart in a public bathroom, who knows what breathing in that stuff is doing to my body.

Someone with a peanut allergy is probably not going to go into Five Guys or Logans or Texas Roadhouse. It's not because the government told them not to, it's because they're looking out for themselves. If you are worried about second hand smoke, don't go into an environment that may expose you to that. It's not a difficult issue. And it's not the job of the government to baby us like that.

SOLID ^^^

Public vs. Private with Implied Consent. That's the true delineation.

I stand by upholding public health standards. The government isn't saying customers can't smoke ... they just can't smoke in enclosed areas. I guess I'm not much of a Libertarian after all despite my objections to imminent domain et al.

the government is run by morons no matter who is in office. they have lost complete sight of what the purpose of government is.