Virginia Smoking Ban

[Freddy4190]

Credit: Associated Press [Printed March 10]

The state is banning most smoking in restaurants and bars. Gov. Tim Kaine signed a bill that generally restricts smoking to separate rooms that have their own ventilation. It takes effect Dec. 1. Mr. Kaine had been working for years for a total ban on smoking in all restaurants, but compromised with lawmakers in the bill that passed last month. The measure also exempts private clubs and open-air outdoor areas of bars.

Under the law, owners may permit smoking on an outdoor patio or in a walled-off, separately ventilated area. Otherwise, they must throw out the ashtrays and put up "No Smoking" signs -- or risk a $25 fine.

I have to admit, being a resident of Virginia, the state probably most famous for tobacco. This shocked me at first. I personally hate being around someone smoking when eating somewhere. My parents smoke, and I beg them to stop. It's just annoying. Cigarettes at least, cigars.. and other.. things I don't mind. The smell of cigarettes just annoy me. People have been raising hell about this whole smoking ban. Restaurant owners, everyone. It's gotten a lot of heat around here. But it officially starts today. Thoughts?

 

[G3]

I personally don't like them banning smoking. I don't smoke tobacco and never plan on it. However, I smoke weed. When they ban tobacco in public places that doesn't help the public opinion on weed.( Not really public opinion but the government's) I feel if it bothers you, don't eat there. Stuff like smoking shouldn't really have restrictions on it, especially restaurants. I can only imagine how annoying it is to get up from eating and go outside for a smoke.

 

[X]

Lol Virginia is just now getting around to banning smoking indoors at bars and restaurants? That's been banned up here for years now, really it's been banned in most states for years now. When it first happened I was pissed, but now it's really no big deal at all. If I'm at a bar drinking, I actually like getting up and heading outside for a breath of fresh air along with my cigarette, it's nice. Too much smoke indoors can really take away the enjoyment of not only the non-smokers but the smokers as well, no one wants to hang out in a bar that stinks like 9000 cigarettes (just stale beer and urine damnit!), and too much smoke can just give me a headache.

Really it's no big deal, and that's coming from a smoker. I like heading outside for a smoke after a drink or meal, something about the fresh air actually makes the cigarette taste even better honestly. Shit at the bar I go to it's all locals and we just take our drinks outside on the back porch anyways.

 

[NSL]

It's only been since last September that this has been in effect in PA, and there was a ton of backlash when it first started. Not from smokers, but from bar and restaurant owners. The guests don't care, they'll smoke at home, in their car, or outside when they leave the restaurant.

The problem for the owners, is that the guests aren't staying as long, because they have to leave to smoke. At the bar at least, they would sit there for hours smoking and drinking, and then go home. Now they have 2 or 3 drinks, and then leave for another bar, because once they leave their stool, there's no need to go back.

I'm not a cigarette smoker, and the smell bothers me, but I understand that the owners have a business to run, and the smokers shouldn't have to stop now, when it was fine a week ago...

 

[Blade]

Yeah, X is right. There's something about going outside to have a smoke in the middle of a drink or a meal. It's much better than being in a place filled with smoke that makes you drowsy. Plus is has many other pros, it's easier to get away from a conversation that boring you or whatever. I know that sounds shallow, but I've gotten away from many a-boring conversation to go out and have a smoke, only to find more interesting people out side smoking.

I've heard Virginia is a big smoking state, but Ireland has had the smoking ban for years. We got over the initial anger, got used to it, and now we think it's a good idea. And this is the country with the highest percentage of smokers in Western Europe, so Virginia will be able to deal with it no problem.

 

[BladeRunner]

Firstly, the government loves to screw with smokers, because they're a minority that many hate. So the government taxes the hell out of them and forces them into small boxes to smoke.

Here in Atlanta you can't smoke anywhere. Anywhere. You can smoke in your house. And that's about it.

There's no smoking sections here. Smoking sections make sense, and are fair for everyone. You're lucky you even have those.

I don't smoke (cigarettes ) but I sympathize with the people who have to stand out in the 32 degree weather because some asshole thinks he knows what's best for everyone and is going to force everyone to live by his rules.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I don't smoke (cigarettes ) but I sympathize with the people who have to stand out in the 32 degree weather because some asshole thinks he knows what's best for everyone and is going to force everyone to live by his rules.

I love the irony of that last part - aren't people who smoke around everyone else deciding that I have to live by their rules and lifestyle by making me smoke with them? That's what's really horrible - The smoker who doesn't give a damn that you have asthma, or that you don't want to stink of his/her smoke, and possibly develop cancer, just so that they can go and 'calm down' for a second, or 'have fun' for a second.

I don't care about people smoking, it's your body, it's your choice. But when people force me to smoke with them, that's when I have a problem. I like banning smoking in places like this. It means I can stand in a bus shelter and not be coughing and looking for an inhaler, it means I can go for a drink in the pub with my friends and not spend the whole afternoon coughing.

 

[Ty Burna]

Smoking has been banned in public places in North Dakota for a few years now, luckily for me they still allow people to smoke in bars, but that's being challenged now, and has been for a couple years. What I don't understand is, if you are going to apply at a bar, isn't that basically saying: "Yes I understand I will put up with drunken idiots and people smoking in my vicinity". And yet I laugh at these commercials saying employees at bars should not have to put up with smokers. It's a bar, people will smoke damn it. If you don't want to be around smoke, then don't work at a bar, or find a job at a smoke free bar instead.

Otherwise I'm used to going outside and smoking. It's actually helped me cut down quite a bit from where I was at. Instead of sitting at a computer and damn near chain smoking for 3 hours, now it's cut down to 1 cigarette per hour roughly. At work I go about 5 hours between cigarettes and then have one immediately after my lunch break. So in a roundabout way I'm glad that they've banned it from public places, it helps me cut down. I just don't want to see smoke banned from bars, I'll be stuck outside constantly smoking because when drinking, the smoking increases quite a bit.

 

[BladeRunner]

I love the irony of that last part - aren't people who smoke around everyone else deciding that I have to live by their rules and lifestyle by making me smoke with them?

There's no irony to the last part because you didn't read everything that I said. I said there should be smoking sections for those who like to smoke.

Also, establishments should be able to make their own rules about what goes on. If they want to be a smoking bar, then so be it. If it makes people who don't like smoking not want to come, then so be it.

I believe in variety and options, not one set standard that we're all forced to go by because some asshole wants to rule your and my life.

 

[Remix]

There's no irony to the last part because you didn't read everything that I said. I said there should be smoking sections for those who like to smoke.

Yes, and unless that smoking section is blocked off, the smoke will spread around the restaraunt/bar anyway, rending it useless. Diffusion's a bitch.

And I dont have any problem with a smoking ban. Partly because I dont live in Virginia, partly because in the UK smoking bans are nothing new, and partly because if (after graduation) I can get tried under criminal law for screwing up, then other people should be able to get punished for something completely minor (even if me screwing up has a bigger punishment, and requires more inconvenience to avoid than stepping outside).

 

[Remix]

Before the smoking ban, most 'smoking areas' were just an area which was marked as an area where you could have a ***, with no walls or anything else to stop the diffusion.

And if the law required you to have an indoor smoking section (defined as a separately inclosed area within the building) to continue to have smokers indoors they wouldnt be common. This is because it's a more expensive and complicated to build a smoking annexe (you'd have to close off a section of the bar (if not the entire bar), pay the workmen, get planning permission if it affects the shape of the building, and other costs) to keep the fraction of the customers that will leave the pub if smoking isnt allowed inside, than it is to put up 'no smoking inside this bar' stickers. Which would limit the number of pubs with indoor smoking to those with separately inclosed areas already.

 

[The Dewbliners]

I really don't see a problem with smoking bans. You gotta look at it from the perspective of health officials. If they really believe that second hand smoke is detrimental to other peoples health, it's their responsibility to ensure that person doesn't have to be put at risk.

We have one in Ohio, and it's not that bad anymore. I mean, at first it was a little annoying, because I'd forget and light up inside. Once I got used to it though, all it boiled down to was a few extra steps. Now, there's always gonna be the bars that will completely disregard the bill, and swallow the fine. You'll find, they won't be that sparse, either.

Otherwise, no big deal. And remember, this is coming from a 3 pack a day habitual smoker.

 

[antfarm612]

I love the irony of that last part - aren't people who smoke around everyone else deciding that I have to live by their rules and lifestyle by making me smoke with them? That's what's really horrible - The smoker who doesn't give a damn that you have asthma, or that you don't want to stink of his/her smoke, and possibly develop cancer, just so that they can go and 'calm down' for a second, or 'have fun' for a second.

I don't care about people smoking, it's your body, it's your choice. But when people force me to smoke with them, that's when I have a problem. I like banning smoking in places like this. It means I can stand in a bus shelter and not be coughing and looking for an inhaler, it means I can go for a drink in the pub with my friends and not spend the whole afternoon coughing.

The bus shelter is one thing. You have every right to be in a bus shelter and not worry about smoke, because as a tax-payer, you helped pay for it. However, when it comes to bars, it should be up to the bar-owner. What gives the public the right to tell a bar-owner what is and isn't acceptable in HIS or HER bar? If you don't like it, find another bar, or start your own.

 

[Remix]

If the governemt can tell a bar owner when they have to stop selling alcohol (licencing hours) why shouldnt they be able to say that you cant smoke in bars? As I've said previously it doesnt take much effort to walk to the door, open it and stand outside to have a cigarette. Fuck it, if I could end up standing in front of a judge for a screw up, everybody else should be able to get a fine for something trivial.

 

[BladeRunner]

If the governemt can tell a bar owner when they have to stop selling alcohol (licencing hours) why shouldnt they be able to say that you cant smoke in bars? As I've said previously it doesnt take much effort to walk to the door, open it and stand outside to have a cigarette. Fuck it, if I could end up standing in front of a judge for a screw up, everybody else should be able to get a fine for something trivial.

It's in the government's best interest to have more power.

It's in the government's best interest to make new laws to make you pay fines for.

It's in the government's best interest to have a police state that tyrannizes the populace, watching everything they do, telling them what to say, how to act, what to drink, what to eat.

But is it in the people's best interest?

You yourself admit that you paid a fine or whatever for trivial bullshit.

Some of us are trying to protect your freedoms by speaking out when we can, so that you don't have the government breathing down your neck.

 

[HBK-aholic]

There's no irony to the last part because you didn't read everything that I said. I said there should be smoking sections for those who like to smoke.

I read your entire post, actually, seeings as the part I replied to was at the end, it'd make sense I saw the beginning first, yeah? The irony was that you called someone an 'asshole' for wanting it to be okay for non-smokers, especially those with breathing conditions, to feel comfortable when they go out. Yet the person who's causing all the problems doesn't get bad-mouthed?

Also, establishments should be able to make their own rules about what goes on. If they want to be a smoking bar, then so be it. If it makes people who don't like smoking not want to come, then so be it.

I believe in variety and options, not one set standard that we're all forced to go by because some asshole wants to rule your and my life.

But the problem here is, a huge majority of pubs would simply go back to smoking being fine in their pub, because that's seen as the way to make money.

 

[PEP3]

So let me chime in here. First of all, I'm from California, where smoking indoors has been banned for years. And I couldn't be happier -- even though I, too, smoke (and stop...and start up again). There's nothing nastier than leaving a place filled with smoke and feeling like you have a thin glaze of nicotine on you. Not to mention the way your clothes, hair, etc., stink afterward. Besides, even most smokers agree that having someone else's smoke blowing in your face is annoying at best and harmful/toxic at worst.

Every time I'm in Vegas, where people are smoking like chimneys in those casinos for hours on end, I always feel grossed out by it. Do I really want to walk through a fucking cloud of cigarette smoke to get to the bar, restroom or my room? Not at all!

The complaints that indoor smoking bans are harmful to business are falling on deaf ears with me, too. California businesses are doing just fine, more than a decade after this law was enacted, so in a couple of years people in Virginia will have forgotten all about it. Especially when some younger generations grow up never thinking twice about it because they've never had to even consider it as an option.

 

[BladeRunner]

I see a lot of smokers on here are for banning smoking in public places.

This could very possibly lead to the government banning smoking everywhere for good. It's already a step in that direction. Smoking is vastly unpopular. So unpopular in fact, that the government raised taxes on cigarettes and pretty much nobody cared but smokers.

But anyway, my question is, if cigarettes became illegal, would you still find a way to smoke them?

(this is a theoretical, I'm not saying it's going to happen)

 

[X]

Cigarettes will never be illegal, not in the United States atleast, ever. The amount of money the tobacco industry generates will solidify their position in this country for decades and decades to come. Sure, they'll raise the taxes (and have to a ridiculous amount---fucking eight dollars a pack if I'm lucky here in RI), but they'll never ban it, just like they'll never ban alcohol again. The amount of money the tobacco industry donates to political organizations should ensure their safety in this nation for the forseeable future.

If they were to ban them, which they wouldn't, I'm sure people would just import them from other countries and sneak them in, quite easily. We'd all be smoking Mexican cigarettes in a few days and now you'd have a whole new illegal smuggling ring to deal with. Really there's just no positive whatsoever to banning cigarettes.

 

[PEP3]

I'm sure some people would. Crack is also illegal, and some woman I saw on the street tonight just told me, "I'm just smoking a little crack. I'm kinda depressed."

My point is, I'm sure a portion of the people would find ways to continue their habit. Others might actually enjoy the opportunity to break a habit they have but acknowledge isn't either healthy, financially sound or even tasteful.

Personally, I vacillate between smoking and not smoking anyway. If it became illegal, which would make the cigarettes harder to find, buy and impossible to smoke publicly, then I'd probably stop for good.

 

[PEP3]

Tying this thread to pro wrestling, it was reportedly in part because of various Canadian bans and taxes on cigarettes that former WWF tag champ Dino Bravo was murdered a number of years ago. He got involved in some kind of smuggling ring/illegal cigarette-related activity and wound up crossing the wrong people. They allegedly shot him execution style in his own home.

Sorry. I'm just a bastion of worthless knowledge.

 

[Remix]

It's in the government's best interest to have more power.

It's in the government's best interest to make new laws to make you pay fines for.

That sounds slightly paranoid and governmentphobic, but I cant see any major errors with it.

It's in the government's best interest to have a police state that tyrannizes the populace, watching everything they do, telling them what to say, how to act, what to drink, what to eat.

at this point you sound like you're paranoid and think that the government acting for the health of the majority of the population. Which trumps the lazyness of those people who just dont want to walk a hundred yards to light up in the open.

But is it in the people's best interest?

Yes. now people can go to a bar and not have to smell stale smoke, inhale fresh smoke with its unfiltered carcinogens, or risk coughing their lungs up (if they have athsma or any other respiratory problem). sounds like its in the people's best interests.

You yourself admit that you paid a fine or whatever for trivial bullshit.

Except that a pharmacist's screwup would be completly nontrivial. let me just do a quick comparason between it and indoor smoking bans.

Indoor smoking

reasons for prevention

unpleasent for bystanders (including people not surrently having a cigarette)
unhealthy for bystanders

Punishment

Small fine and a slap on the wrist

How to prevent being punished

Smoke outside

Pharmacist screwups

reasons for prevention

...If I need to explain to you why giving patients the wrong drugs is bad, you're ******ed.

Punishment

Huge (£100,000 in the 80s) fine, criminal record, tried as a criminal (i.e. infront of a jury, judge and with a possibility of jail time), loss of job, struck off the register (i.e. can never be a pharmacist again), news of your tribunal published in the RPSGB's monthly publication (so every pharmacist in the country knows about it)

How to prevent being punished

get label checked by a technitian to make sure details on it match those on the box
get label clinically checked by a pharmacist or ACT (if the dispenser was the pharmacist) to make sure that it's correct, apropriate, and there are no interactions between it and other medication the patient is taking.
make sure patient knows about any potential side effects, counseling points, and how to report any adverce reactions (to a newly liscenced drug only) via the yellow card scheme.

So me screwing up is completely nontrivial. It just bugs me how I'm going to be held to a higher level of accountibility than any other profession.

Some of us are trying to protect your freedoms by speaking out when we can, so that you don't have the government breathing down your neck.

Oh yes, the right to smoke in bars. what a hugely important freedom. I'm glad you're speaking up for those who want to smoke in bars. Thank you so much. Back in the real world however, most people welcome this change as will improve the odour or the bar, and make it a more plesent environment in which to enjoy a drink. Now I think that's worth a few steps to the door before lighting up.

 

[BladeRunner]

I don't think I know what's best for everyone. I think everyone should get to decide for themselves what they think is best. Not you or the government.

If you don't like a place because it has alcohol, don't go there. If you don't like a place because it has smoking, don't go there.

I happen to like choices. I happen to like variety. I happen to think the government should stay out of my business generally.

Because not everyone's going to agree on everything it's important that people have options.

But yeah, that's about all I've got to say about this.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

but you guys are forgetting about ONE THING.... the fact that there are people who can't inhale the smoke from cigarettes... namely people with heart and lung conditions (I have a heart condition) so the smoking ban is a good thing

 

[SavageTaker]

I’m not a smoker, but I still think I could respond to this thread.

For starters, like X said, cigarettes will never be illegal just because of how much money they generate. There are people who will continue smoking no matter how expensive they get so that industry will always continue making money…and lots of it.

But let’s say they do get banned. One of two things will happen I think. Either people will bring them from other countries like Mexico and Canada since they are right besides us and use them secretly. And they might even become ‘cigarette dealers’. Or, people will use something else that still has the same effects on them that cigarettes do…maybe things like Marijuana. The reason for number two is because there will always be addicts to things. And once those things are taken away, they’ll find alternatives.

So I think people would continue getting them and smoking them because they just need them. Or they would find an alternative.