The very first trip I ever took to the General Assembly was to accompany then-Delegate Thelma Drake to a committee hearing where I testified about the need to exercise control over credit card companies. I recall getting out of her car and lighting a cigarette. Upon reaching the doors of the building, I put my cigarette out. After all, I had been used to not smoking inside government buildings, having been a federal government employee when that ban was introduced. (That is a story for another day.)
Upon entering the building, my first stop was the ladies’ room. When I came out, I could smell smoke – in this case, cigar smoke. I asked Del. Drake about it and she said that smoking was indeed allowed in the building and that up until recently, members of the GA smoked at their desks during session! As Margaret Edds said in her column today:
By all rights, as a reporter covering the General Assembly over several decades, I probably
should be dead by now. Other than “bartender,” if there were a profession or a workplace more consistently draped in a canopy of smoke, you’d be hard-pressed to find it. Once, I remember counting the ashtrays in a committee room. Astonishingly, they outnumbered chairs.
However, it is not because of the history of Virginia being so intertwined with tobacco that I oppose the smoking ban. Nor is it because I am a smoker. Heck, I’ve had parties at my house and retreated outside my own home to smoke in deference to those who don’t smoke. No, I oppose the ban because it is simply the wrong thing to do.
People talk about personal responsibility and how the government shouldn’t interfere in our lives and then they turn around and support a ban like this. Where’s the consistency of thought? Either you want government to regulate behavior or you don’t.
I don’t.
Everyone has a choice. I choose not to go to outdoor baseball parks that ban smoking. (Of course these same parks allow folks to get rip roaring drunk and then get behind the wheel of a car. Hmmm.) I sometimes choose to go to nonsmoking restaurants because I happen to not like smoke around me when I’m eating. But I am unwilling to impose my choice on someone else. It’s kind of like what was said about gay marriage: don’t want one? Don’t get one.
Don’t want to be around smoke? Don’t go to a restaurant where it is allowed. Vote with your feet and your pocketbook. If enough people don’t want smoking in restaurants, guess what will happen? Restaurants will be smoke-free. We already see that happening.
But for those who want to have a cigarette, places like Greenie’s shouldn’t be put out of business simply because government is “protecting” us. If the majority of Greenie’s customers prefer a smoke-free environment, guess what? Greenie’s will either adopt a non-smoking policy or go out of business.
Government is not always the answer, folks. Business people who are afraid of being the first one on the block to go smoke-free have no guts. If you believe it is the best thing for your customers and staff, then do it. Grow a pair and stop relying on government to help you out.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Jim Webb and George Allen were both asked about chewing tobacco by–I believe it was Chris Matthews?–during a debate last year, and whether using tobacco made them good role models. George Allen hemmed and hawed for a few minutes about how he started when he was young and playing football and everyone else was doing it and he’s not proud of it but it’s tough to quit.
When it was Jim Webb’s turn to answer, he said something along the lines of “I use chewing tobacco because I like it.”
My guess is he’s anti-ban, but it’s largely irrelevant, as he doesn’t legislate at the state level and the 10th amendment is going to protect the GA and Gov. Kaine’s right as state lawmakers to enact whatever law regarding smoking that they see fit–provided it doesn’t interfere with individual constitutional rights and isn’t expressly prohibited by the Constitution as either a reserved legislative power of the Federal government or a power prohibited to the states–kind of like seat-belt laws, which were adopted because they save lives and because accidents which might otherwise be prevented by seat belts can burden emergency rooms and often run up medical expenses that go un-reimbursed and are passed on either to other consumers or to the state–and thus to the tax-payer.
Vivian, your thoughts on seat belts?
Once again, I can use that argument for the effects the obese have on the country. It affects children an overweight person may have (genetics), it affects the cost of heath care (I don’t need to remind anyone that more people suffer from heart disease related illnesses/deaths from obesity than smoking, right?), and it certainly affects people around the heavy person (it’s just as annoying to sit next to an obese person on a plane as it is for a non-smoker to “bat the air like a loon”).
You simply cannot use this health of the non smoker argument bc anyone who has done research on this knows that those polls, data, even straight up SCIENCE is skewed by both sides of the argument in order to make their point. Is there too much $$ in politics and tobacco? HELL YES. That’s why it would be better to make it illegal across the board than to ban it so others don’t have to be annoyed. If you can prove to me that ONLY second hand smoke from smokers caused the death/illness of the people you claim make the health case, then fine. BUT. YOU. CAN’T. No one can, or this would have been done everywhere, a long time ago. There is no way to test for JUST the second hand smoke. Period. This isn’t hard to understand, but the anti-smoking crusade makes it so to confuse/dilute the issue.
Oh, I just called Webb’s office to see what his views are, I suggest everyone do the same. I would love to hear this….
I think you need a cigarette, Jaime.
Hahahahahaha, I wish I knew some of you, actually. You would be surprised how little I smoke on a daily basis. Actually, by medical standards, I am not considered a “smoker” bc I believe 10-12 cigarettes a DAY makes you a “smoker”.
I am disappointed; I just rec’d a call back from Webb’s office in Richmond, and they do not know if Jim Webb will take a position on this. That’s strange, since Senator Warner already did (he supports the ban).
Oh, and you totally ignored my facts. 🙂
Jaime…does sitting next to an obese person affect their health? Not unless that obese person took the food they were eating, ate a portion of it, regurgitated it and spat it into your mouth. That would come as close as you can to second hand smoke. If someone did that, there would be serious consequences. Why not with smoking?
Obesity, smoking, drinking, have genes tht make a person more likely to become (fill in the blank). But let’s have a look at the medical argument… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_heart_disease
Notice that SMOKING is a huge risk factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiovascular_disease
Again smoking…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ischaemic_heart_disease
“Do not smoke”
I know in those links it talks about obesity…but you act as if smoking has NOTHING to do with heart disease when in fact it does.
Smoking is not going to be illegal but it will be in places where they will not affect others…indoor facilities.
Your facts? That because no one has isolated, to pin-point accuracy, the exact carcinogenic effects of second hand smoke, you’d prefer to ignore the mass of evidence out there? I’m not sure I can say anything to that that hasn’t been said to someone else with a similar view of science over here.
Or are you talking about the fact that you don’t like to sit next to fat people on airplanes? Because you’re right, I really don’t have an answer for that.
~
And you are welcome to buy me a drink any time. We can meet in Arl, er . . how about DC?
No thanks. Why should I buy you a drink? You clearly don’t respect my rights, and you’re ignoring the issue. And I must say, the anti-smoking crusade on the Virginia blogs is certainly sounding a little like the fringe wing of a party lately….
test
Did my other comments get caught up in a spam filter?
I tend to ignore facts with extraneous punctuating and capitolization, mainly because it gets under your skin. 😉
I think the government should frankly be more concerned about obesity and applaud any and all efforts to reduce it–although of course one cannot outlaw obesity, since you correctly point out that some have a genetic predispostion towards it, I’m a huge fan of anything that encourages people towards running more.
I actually don’t care one way or the other about a smoking ban, and if anything I’m against it. I’m against it because a girl can’t walk up to me in a bar anymore and ask if she can bum a cigarette or if I have a light. And I’m always opposed to anything the government might do to increase the difficulty of small talk with attractive members of the opposite sex in inebbriated circumstances.
Respecting others rights? *That’s* important to you? Because you sure wouldn’t know it, what with you saying others be damned, your right to blow smoke all over everyone else is what counts.
And ignoring the issue? What, exactly, is the issue? Your preferences and your rights only?
~
And you should buy me a drink for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that you’ll see DC is a city full of smokers who have somehow been shockingly able to continue enjoying their nights out without lighting up for a couple of hours.
MB, why are you getting so heated and frankly, rude?
I hate to do this, and I apologize in advance, but we are discussing this over at WOS as well. I am going to repost a comment with a few edits.
What about restaurants that have already spent thousands upon thousands of dollars to equip their restaurant with good ventilation systems? They should just be made to bite the cost? Well, I have news for you; that certainly isn’t aiding in the protection of someone’s job, now is it? Plus, every server I have ever asked has said they would rather work around smoke than lose their job bc the restaurnat loses $$ bc of an anti-smoking protest. Additionally, if you are going to use that argument, please explain to me how New Jersey justitifes the FACT that smoking is not allowed in restaurants to “protect” employees, but it IS allowed in casinos. What, casino employees don’t count? I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that a black jack dealer could find a job easier than a server. Bit of a difference in resumes and amount of places to choose from. Well, the reason is clear-the casinos would lose a lot of $$, and they lobbied the New Jersey govt. to allow them to have smoking indoors.
Love whoever asked Vivian for her view on seat belt laws!