Kaine's Amended Va Restaurant Smoking Ban Fails

[Buford]

I haven't posted here in a while, haven't been smoking the shisha much for the past few months. However, a piece of info that may be of interest to VA folks:

Del. Griffith's smoking in restaurants bill that passed the House and Senate here in VA would have required restaurants that allow smoking to posts a "smoking permitted" sign - but it would have also done away with the requirement that a non-smoking section be in place. The competing bill that would have banned smoking outright died in a House committee after passing the Senate. Griffith's bill would alter the status quo, in possibly a good fashion due to leaving it as a business decision and doing away with the no smoking requirement although smoking permitted signs would have to be posted (considering that no-smoking ones must be posted now anyway by smoking establishments due to the required no-smoking section, it's not that big of a deal). Overall it wasn't a bad bill, and made a lot of good sense. It would have made no-smoking the default, but the business owner could choose to allow it and not have to accomodate non-smokers although they could if they so chose.

However... the Griffitth bill was altered by Gov. Kaine to effectively outright ban smoking whereever food was served - and that extended beyond restaurants. ANYWHERE food was served. No exceptions. It would have killed shisha bars in VA that serve food. Heck, it would have made smoking at a catered reception illegal.

Yesterday, the Kaine amendments failed. He is expected to veto the original bill, which would leave things as they were for another year... until it comes up again (which it probably will). Virginia narrowly skirted a smoking ban this year, which is as far as one has ever gotten in this state. It was a VERY close call. Edited April 5, 2007 by Buford

[web250]

These smoking bans are ridiculous. If I really care that much, I'll go to a restaurant that decides for themselves. Why force bans state wide?

[ghostofdavid]

Because people are crybabies and sheep and no longer want to make decisions for themselves. Give us bread and circus!

[Buford]

A locality in NoVa has gotten the bright idea to try and ban smoking by not issuing or renewing business licenses to businesses that plan on or currently allow smoking until they go smoke-free.

Here's to hoping the General Assembly gives them a big fat legislative punch across the chops next session if they carry through with this plan. Localities in VA can't do more than what state law explicitly allows (Dillon rule). There are no restrictions on this sort of thing at the state level... yet.

[Hookah_Bob3]

I really don't understand all the hate. It's morally presumptuous for the government to make these decisions for us. Next thing you know, they'll ban cookies and butter..After all, the leading cause of death in the US is cholestorol, right?

Now, I hate cigarettes, but I am NOT going to tell someone they can't do it just because I'm around. That's just plain silly, and quite frankly, pointless. I can just move away.

People need to pick up their balls and quit relying on the government to ban things that don't need to be banned. It's a legal substance and needs to be treated as such Edited April 5, 2007 by Hookah_Bob3

[mgcsinc]

I really don't understand all the hate. It's morally presumptuous for the government to make these decisions for us. Next thing you know, they'll ban cookies and butter..After all, the leading cause of death in the US is cholestorol, right?

Now, I hate cigarettes, but I am NOT going to tell someone they can't do it just because I'm around. That's just plain silly, and quite frankly, pointless. I can just move away.

People need to pick up their balls and quit relying on the government to ban things that don't need to be banned. It's a legal substance and needs to be treated as such

Many of these bills are designed (in part, at least) to protect workers from secondhand smoke, which is a legitimate government goal. It is no different from protecting factory workers from mercury exposure. That aim is not morally presumptive. If you don't buy the link between secondhand smoke and negative health outcomes, you need to do some research on the subjects.

That said, these bills should have limited scope, and should apply only to places where smoking is not understood as the primary business. Where smoking is clearly the primary business, workers can make a choice about whether to expose themselves to that environment. Hookah lounges fall into this category, and there should be effective methods of protecting them from closure, rather than half-assed exceptions that are impossible to actually meet the requirements of.

[Scheetz]

Many of these bills are designed (in part, at least) to protect workers from secondhand smoke, which is a legitimate government goal. It is no different from protecting factory workers from mercury exposure. That aim is not morally presumptive. If you don't buy the link between secondhand smoke and negative health outcomes, you need to do some research on the subjects.

Yep, but how about we dont ban smoking and the dumb fucks who complain about working and getting second hand smoke pick a different fucking job. Honestly, thats basically becoming a bartender but then complaining about second hand smoke all the time. Not my problem now is it. It's there dumbass idea to pick a job which smoking is always around.

Meh, whats next after smoking? Are the sheep going to allow the herders to take away our gun rights? Some states are already trying to pass a law to make you pay $10 per gun you own each year. This also means its registered for the government.