According to this article in the Virginian-Pilot, Governor Tim Kaine would like to ban smoking in all restaurants in Virginia.
“I am actively looking at that,” he said. “I don’t know that there are any cons.”
Kaine said health care groups have asked him to add a statewide restaurant ban to legislation passed last month that merely requires restaurants to post signs if they allow smoking. The governor said he is gauging support among legislators for the idea before he proposes an amendment. He said he won’t make a push for a statewide ban unless lawmakers signal support for the idea.
I, for one, hope that there is little legislative support for the idea. Let the market dictate whether restaurants allow smoking or not.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
There’s a good discussion over here about smoking bans in VA. Of particular interest to me is the Alexandria program for voluntarily smoke-free restaurants.
I, personally, was* tired of smelling like someone else’s habit at the end of a night out. Yet I still think that bans are a bit of an overreach by gov’t (I’m not a big fan of mob rule). So whatever can be done to make places smoke-free w/o gov’t intervention, I’m interested.
*that’s was, and not am. DC has gone smoke free, as has NYC, SF, and pretty much any other place where I’m interested in the nightlife. So, thankfully, this is somewhat academic for me at this point. (We shall put aside the unreasonable smoldering hatred for smoking that briefly popped up during my time in Athens, in January . . .)
Having a smoking section in a restuarant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Isn’t this a reversal of his position from last year? Seems to me that he said he wouldn’t sign a bill that would ban smoking in public buildings. He was willing to do so in government buildings but he drew the line there. At least that’s the way I remember it.
On the surface, this only looks problamatic in that Virginia treats bars and restaurants as the same places.
Vivian, slightly off-topic, but did you see the recent presidential poll testing “personal flaws” to see what habit or trait would make a candidate most unelectable? Smoking was one of the top responses. What’s your take on that?
vjp — On this one we agree. Some people will always have bad habits that irk other people, but government does not need to become involved resolving every little irksome habit.
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050630.htm
Smoking cost the nation about $92 billion in the form of lost productivity in 1997-2001, up about $10 billion from the annual mortality related productivity losses for the years 1995-1999, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new lost productivity estimate when combined with smoking-related health-care costs, which was reported at $75.5 billion in 1998, exceeds $167 billion per year in the United States.
The report also finds that during 1997-2001 an estimated 438,000 premature deaths occur each year as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke. In comparison, approximately 440,000 smoking-related deaths were estimated to have occurred annually from 1995-1999.
Smoking, on average, reduces adult life expectancy by approximately 14 years.
Death — Virginia’s biggest industry
One more thing. Waiting tables is the job choice of many who are not well off, and need flexible hours. Allowing smoking in restaurants on a free market basis is akin to saying — “Gee, I won’t allow my workers to follow these OSHA rules because I can make more money in my logging business if they don’t use safety equipment.”
Imagine the liberal uproar if we made OSHA rules voluntary.
What are restaurant workers exposed to? From the Am. Lung Ass’n.:
What’s next? Banning unhealthy foods from restaurants?
A smoking ban *isn’t* addressing every “little irksome habit” and there’s no useful analogy to be had in banning unhealthy foods. The short of it is that smokers (that those that pee in the pool) impose their choices on everyone else.
MB – Does every smoker impose his choice on you? Are all smokers so rude?.
They are two ways by which we enforce behavioral standards. The first is by custom. Within each community, people reach a general consensus about the definition of good behavior. Peer pressure enforces that definition. The second way we enforce behavioral standards is by creating and enforcing laws. Because this latter approach is awkward and far more costly, wisdom dictates that we use it sparingly.
PM – Smoking costs our nation nothing — unless we volunteer to assume that cost. Otherwise it is the people who smoke who pay the bill.
Just because government insists upon paying the bill, should we allow government to dictate behavior (to reduce costs)? If we go that route, won’t we seriously endanger the concept of liberty?
Think about it. First we give government responsibility for our medical bills. Next, ostensibly to save money, we make government responsible for entertainment and diet decisions. Where does that stop? Do you want a government nanny who tells you how much time you are allowed to blog and how much time you must spend exercising?
Since government paid for your education, do you think government should choose your job for you? Sounds silly? Don’t you think the government wants you to pay as much as possible in taxes? Consider a recent decision from the Supreme Court. The Court said property could be confiscated (via eminent domain) and handed over to someone else just on the supposition the second party would pay more in taxes.
PM, your argument about job safety is a bit more difficult to refute. Nonetheless, I have two problems with it. (1) Where each of us chooses to work is our own choice. (2) Even when we can show the need for regulating job safety, we need something more significant to act upon than a mere statistical study.
Statistical do not show or prove cause and effect. At best, statistical studies infer cause and effect. This is particularly true when we use a statistical analysis on a problem like second hand smoke. How do we screen out unrelated factors?
Statistical studies about the dangers of second-hand smoke are speculative. Amongst a population of 300 million, the relatively small numbers you have provided do not show a strong relationship. We are guessing there is a relationship. In fact, what the study does show is that second hand smoke is not particularly toxic. If second hand smoke was truly toxic, people would dropping like flies and your numbers would be much larger.
Yes, Tom, in an enclosed environment such as a restaurant or bar, a single smoker imposes his choice on everyone else. I’m with you on preferring to use custom to enforce behavioral norms over the law. You’ll not get a strong defense of smoking bans from me, for precisely that reason. That said, the notion that smokers don’t impose their choices on everyone else seems only to make any sense, in my experience, to a small percentage of smokers. That’s all I’m arguing against, here.
Well, that and your slippery slope argument, if you take it any farther. It already looks a bit silly. First, OSHA regulates worker exposure to toxic chemicals, next stop – only 15 minutes online a day! Really.
MB – We are already descending down a slippery slope. I merely suggest we should be aware we are doing so and give the matter considerable thought.
Government nannies rarely regulate us directly or with naked force. Nonetheless, government nannies do regulate us quite extensively, and we really don’t have much choice in the matter. These nannies regulate us indirectly through our employers, the regulation of businesses, and as a condition for accepting “free” government benefits.
Even though most of us accept this regulation as quite reasonable, I suspect such regulation would have given previous generations of Americans the heebie-jeebies. Consider the nanny regulation with which you have already become accustomed. Here are some common examples:
1. Participation in the social Security system comes as a condition of employment. (Social Security is a rotten investment.)
2. Banks collect information on your finances to determine whether or not you are paying your taxes or laundering money. (4th Amendment issues anyone?)
3. “Free” public schools require the immunization of children. (For the good of the many, some have died from allergic reactions.)
Apparently, Tom, the idea of using the gov’t as a means of providing for the common good is equal to offensive nannyism. That’s your strange idea to defend, not anyone else’s. You want to argue that you should be allowed to be a freerider on society, have at it. But know that you’re the one (way way) out in left field.