Virginia, a state built on tobacco, goes smoke-free Dec. 1st

[Louisiana1976]

The US state of Virginia is poised to ban smoking in most restaurants and bars as of midnight on Tuesday, turning the page on 400 years of history that is tightly tied to tobacco.

"December 1st is an historic day in that we are enacting a smoking ban across the Commonwealth, which is a tobacco state," Gary Hagy, director of the Virginia Department of Health's division of food and environmental services, told AFP.

Outgoing Governor Tim Kaine has called on state residents to dine out on Tuesday, "when the daily special will be smoke-free air," said Hagy.

"A lot of people are very excited. They've been wanting to go non-smoking but kind of needed a little reason to go non-smoking and this has provided that for them," said Hagy.

snip

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Virginia_the_US_state_built_on_toba_11302009.html

[vadawg]

1. its gonna be interesting to say the least.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. What great news!

A true revolution.

And in Virginia, no less!

We did that in California a number of years ago, and it's such a relief to walk into a restaurant and not have to worry about second-hand smoke.

Hooray for Virginia!

[Warpy]

3. It happened a few years ago in central NM

and it is such a pleasure to be able to go to a restaurant now and be able to taste the food without getting a mouthful of somebody else's exhaled smoke with it.

It's a real shock to go to a place outside of town and have that wall of stinking smoke hit you at the door.

[mrbarber]

4. When can we ban fat people from restaurants?

Or alcoholics from bars?

After all, it's for everyone's own good, right?

And lord knows, it's impossible for someone who doesn't smoke not to avoid places that allow smoking. No, it's good the government is stepping in and telling us what to do. For our own good, of course.

[mullard12ax7]

5. Soon as we ban philistines from the suburbs!

I say we ban all musicians from concert halls too!

[oswaldactedalone]

6. Banning Republicans from

politics would be a positive step as well.

[StarfarerBill]

7. I believe a nonsmoker's right to continued good health trumps a smoker's privilege to smoke.

There's a big, wide world outside those doors; let them go smoke in it.

[mrbarber]

8. So it's impossible for a non-smoker to not visit an establisment that allows smoking.

There are many, many people who are allergic to perfume-should we outlaw the use of it to protect their health?

[misanthrope]

10. Not everyone is allergic to perfume while second-hand smoke is always dangerous**nm

**

[tsuki]

28. I am glad to see that your self-righteous concern does not extend

beyond your toes. Your health is IMPORTANT, mine not so much. Only an irritant, suck it up. Never mind the inhaler I must carry, or the trips to the emergency room, or the fact that I cannot go to restaurants, bars or theaters because people must douse with chemicals to stink to high heaven.

In the long run, I believe that it will come out that second hand chemical pollution is a lot more harmful. But the cosmetic industry is going to keep that one under wraps.

[dmallind]

16. Why should I choose between my health and my entertainment?

I lived in the Mpls area when they banned inside smoking in bars in 2005. "You can always go somewhere where they don't allow smoking!" meant I could have chosen between two out of many many hundreds of bars in teh metro area. One was a blood and guts dive in the inner city. The other was a tiny (25 people tops) suburban microbrew place which was just fine except for their strange tendency to put on caterwauling free form modern jazz acts (why I have no idea - the place was always busy anyway). Only 20% of adults smoke. Why should 20% get 99+% of the choices in drinking establishments? The fact that there were no or next to no viable options preban is what made the push for the ban both necessary and successful. It was the selfishness of smokers that brought these bans down on their heads - because they never wanted to give up any of THEIR options to accommodate some for nonsmokers. That way the majority will eventually decidde that they want THEIR options instead - and the majority prefer to eat and drink without foul acrid carcinogens.

[StarfarerBill]

18. I was going to respond to this this morning, but I see some good people have already done so...

...making the same rebuttals I was going to make. Thanks, folks. :)

[misanthrope]

9. As soon as the food that others eat...

...is forced down your throat from being in the same room with them. Or when the drinks that others consume are poured into your mouth every time they sip them.

[dmallind]

14. When second hand fat or booze kills 49K a year perhaps?

Bars are public accommodations - not smokers' accommodations. Everyone has the right to not be killed by choices others make in a public area.

If you don't drink, the fact that I do so in the same place won't make you drunk or increase the risk of liver failure.

If you are not fat, the fact that I am fat in the same place will not clog your arteries or put you at risk for diabetres and hypertension.

If I do not smoke, the fact that you do so in the same place DOES greatly increase my risk of cancer, heart disease and other conditions caused by ETS.

Smokers' (or their shills') attempts to find a parallel to smoking in shared spaces always fail miserably for the simple reason there is NO parallel. Nothing else at all causes harm to others directly and inevitably as a result of choices made by individuals.

And before you starts spouting MADD paranoia and drunken boorishness bear in mind these are not necessary concomitants to drinking. Millions of people drive drunk every day and kill nobody. Millions of people drink every day without starting fights or beating up their spouses. When people can smoke without exhaling second hand smoke - THEN you might have a point.

[Hannah Bell]

15. bars are private businesses; they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

they don't *have to* accomodate you; they might choose only to accomodate smokers.

looks like now they'll have to go the "private club" route.

[dmallind]

17. But as public accommodations, they are subject to laws governing their options

Bars are private businesses but cannot decide to serve minors.

Bars are private businesses but cannot choose to store fresh meat over desserts.

Bars are private businesses but cannot choose to not offer restrooms.

Laws like this are exactly what are needed, and of course are increasingly put in place, to allow them no choice to let a minority of their patrons and potential patrons poison the majority because they are too selfish to keep it outside.

There are hundreds of laws governing what private businesses can or cannot choose. All these laws exist to protect staff and customers. Why is it wrong to extend this to protecting them from unchosen expoosure to deadly pollutants?

[Hannah Bell]

19. that's right, now that the law is changed. which is why i mentioned the private club,

my bet is that the change won't shut the fanatics up.

[dmallind]

26. delete - dupe

nt

[dmallind]

27. Which fanatics?

Assuming you mean people who prefer to have fun and socialize without being poisoned why would they not "shut up"? I live in New York state now - one of the earliest tobacco free dining zones. I have never heard a single peep coming from anti-smoking groups about bars. Same in Minnesota when I lived there before and after their ban. Nobody cares that a couple of private clubs exist where smoking is allowed. The nonsmokers are not the ones who made it impossible for others to enjoy their evenings out, and if smokers want to gather in private clubs that are not open to the public then good for them. The goal is to give the vast majority - nonsmokers - viable entertainment options without having to be poisoned. I don't think any group is seriously pushing to make smoking actually illegal everywhere. There may be a few fringe groups out there but not for me either. If you want to poison yourself go right ahead - everyone has some self-destructive habits and choices and I have no interest in stopping people from choosing their own. I just want them not to be able to make that choice for the rest of us.

The fanatics who insist their right to posion themselves wherever they choose regardless of the choice of other people is too sacrosanct to put up with walking twenty or thirty feet to the door still make some noise from time to time in both places, but there are too few of them to ever make the states regress. Once the vast majority of people experience first hand the pleasure that being able to eat and drink without that noxious crap in the air provides, the support for public smoking in enclosed places becomes limited to the thoughtless addicts whose utter lack of consideration caused the bans in the first place.

Riddle me this - if smoke inhalation is just peachy, why did smokers NEVER - not once in my decades of frequent bargoing in the bad old preban days - hold that thing under their own face when they were not dragging on it rather than holding it to their side under mine on the next stool? Why did smokers never yield one iota on accommodating nonsmokers when the law was on their side? Now they yell and scream about compromise. Too late - you brought it on yourselves, inconsiderate addicts

[Hannah Bell]

31. the ones like you, who think the legislation is a blow against evil tobacco companies.

clue: they love it.

[dmallind]

32. please quote me or admit you made that up

I mentioned not one thing about tobacco companies in this thread, and think bar and restaurant smoking bans are at most a minor impact on them. I like the bans for their public health and comfort aspect, which of course means that I would be quite content and "shut up" when such laws are passed everywhere. it is the smokers and their shills who continue to whine as if walking a few yards so they only poison themselves not others too were a major blow to their freedom.

[Hannah Bell]

34. they absolutely love you.

[dmallind]

37. Now that didn't even make sense,

[Hannah Bell]

39. love, love, love. folks like you = their lifeblood.

[dmallind]

41. who exactly are "they" though?

[Hannah Bell]

20. wow, second-hand smoke kills more people than kidney disease & nearly as

many as diabetes.

powerful stuff, that second-hand smoke.

since there's about half as much of it around as there was in the 60s, besides half as much regular smoke, i wonder why death rates haven't dropped proportionally?

maybe obsessively narcissistic fanatics are just damned hard to kill.

[dmallind]

25. Your problem then is with the CDC, not me....

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm

But I'm sure your feelings are based on better science than their decades of peer-reviewed studies, and that a noxious cloud of 250 known carcinogens and poisons really isn't bad for you after all...

[Hannah Bell]

29. lol. i actually read the studies.

[dmallind]

33. ..so of course you will now tell me they are "estimates" based on YPLL right

as if that mattered. Very few causes of death come with a clear and single explanation. Unless you are shot or fall off a roof, chances are you will die of something that can have many causes. Heart disease does not come with a bar code siting the reason, nor does cancer.

So what do people who actually understand science do to work out mortality rates? They look at the difference in populations and apply those differences to determine how mortality rates are affected. Do you deny that weighing 600lbs increases your chances of dying from a heart attack? Do all people who die of heart attacks weigh 600lb? Do all 600lbers die of heart attacks? Do all 600lbers who DO die of heart attacks die in such a way only because they are so obese? No No and No. But 600lbers die of heart attacks much more than people of more reasonable weights, and a study can easily determine by how much, and therefore the amount of heart attacks being massively obese will cause can be derived. Not a single sane epidemiologist or statistician has any problem at all using estinates and YPLL. People subject to second hand smoke die more often of heart disease, cancer, and a whole host of other causes more often than those not subject to it. The difference is significant, and extrapolates to 49K deaths per year (I could haev looked at the max range if you preferred). Where exactly did they go wrong?

Does your self chosen ignorance extend to other cuases of death or just this one? Is it healthy to weigh 600lbs? Why or why not?

Oh the lengths of denial to which addicts will sink! I'm a big drinker (by US standards at least) but I'm not trying to pretend I'm not risking my liver and my heart by doing it. Only difference is I only risk MY liver and heart - not those of the vast majority who choose to drink less than me.

I just love denialists who think they can "debunk" solid science. LOL indeed.

[Hannah Bell]

35. fanatics wouldn't know science if it bit them.

[dmallind]

36. And claiming you know it better without clearly stating your objectioons

makes you ever so credible, sweetie.

[Hannah Bell]

38. i'm not your sweetie. i don't bother debating fanatics. the info in your posts

tells me everything i need to know about where you're coming from & your interest in science.

you don't give a damn about the actual science. you'd accept any bullshit stat that supported your pet hobbyhorse.

[dmallind]

42. So the CDC are not scientists? They are a pet hobbyhorse group?

they released that study incidentally under the BUsh administration - a major beneficiary of tobacco company donations.

Again - WHAT is bullshit and why? Put up or shut up, or be treated in the condescending manner you so richly deserve being just a facile one lining anklebiter without any even vague concept of how to defend a position, pumpkin.

[Hannah Bell]

45. CDC = science + politics. if you think i'm an anklebiter, walk away.

[dmallind]

46. No -it's fun to tease cute anklebiters who get all puffed up

Now about the science that you think is overtly political (depite of course Bush not exactly being Big Tobacco's biggest enemy); you tell me exactly what is wrong with it - how would YOU construct a model to determine mortality due to ETS?

Time to put up.

[sudopod]

21. Next thing you know

they'll be telling restaurants what temperature to serve food at and telling people how to drive.

on the road to FASCISM!!!111one

[LeftyMom]

30. I've never had problems breathing due to secondhand fat.

Secondhand smoke has the potential to kill me.

[ShortnFiery]

11. This should be real interesting ... to see played out.

:shrug:

[Zomby Woof]

12. Never thought I'd see the day

I lived in Virginia for many years, including the all-important high school years, when the tobacco habit is usually acquired. Tobacco was so much a part of the culture that even a substantial number of non-smokers were known to partake (some may derisively call them 'social smokers', but we saw all smoking as social), and many did smokeless tobacco too - those telltale rings in jeans' back pockets were nearly universal. It was just part of the landscape. With Virginia as the home of Philip Morris, and our neighbors in North Carolina the home of RJ Reynolds, Marlboro vs. Winston was like Coke vs. Pepsi.

It's a positive development though. I have lived in 2 states since then with restrictive public smoking laws, and no one's "freedom" is being curtailed. Anyone who says otherwise is just blowing smoke up your ass.

[FLyellowdog]

13. That's about the only good thing that can be said of FL.

We're smokeless...I think NC is going the same way at the first if the year. King tobacco is DEAD!

[mikeytherat]

22. As a musician in Virginia, I do quite a few club dates.

I did two smoky bar gigs last month, and have smokeless club dates scheduled for January and February. I, too, am curious what the effect will be, and I'll report back post-gig.

mikey_the_rat

[superduperfarleft]

23. And despite what some there believe, the sun will rise again on the 2nd. n/t

[Lex]

24. Same thing happens in North Carolina on Jan. 2nd.

Restaurants and bars and such spaces will be completely smoke-free.

[TheKentuckian]

40. I just don't get why you secular religious nuts won't allow for pro smoking

locations. For the love of God it would seem you Nazis could allow us a few reservations to go to and have a drink in peace without shuffling out the door every few minutes. I've been in places where almost the entire patronage, ownership, and staff are always running for the door.

Its nothing but pure douchebaggery to blanket rule like this. Smokers never banned non-smoking bars, it isn't our fault that the smoke free scene was inevitably lame. You know you're an asshole when you want to ban smoking in a cigar room or at a hookah lounge. Guess what if you hate smoking that bad you're a hypocrite for working at such a place and anyone that shows up in such a place is by definition coming in with their eyes wide open.

If you think 80% of the population doesn't smoke then only 20% of places should be able to acquire a license that allows smoking in their location in a given area. The reason you guys are sooooooo infinitely inflexible is you know that as soon as even a few places are allowed to have smoking that those places will be the ones where shit goes on by pure natural selection.

Be off to your own lameass bars and leave us in peace after you collect our money to pay for taxes you want to avoid.

[dmallind]

43. great projection

What compromise did smokerts ever offer the majority? Now it's all whining about having to walk a few feet and pretending that's an obstacle equal to being enveloped in stinking carcinogenic clouds agaisnt your will. It is smokers' utter inability to ever compromise that caused the bans to be supported in the first place. Were you offering an 80-20 split before the ban? No you didn't give a shit about nonsmokers then and wanted to exercise your "rights" in every single bar. Well tough shit - your attitude has come home to roost. Why do you think bars have to include smoking? Your strawman uis pathetic. Many bans already exclude cigar shops and hookah lounges, and nobody much has ever complianed. W hat you want though is to make 80% of the population have to choose between being able to socialize with friends over food beer and fun and being able to breathe, live a long life and avoid smelling like a decades-unemptied ashtray. Why? Just because you are too damn lazy or antagomistic to walk a few feet so it doesn't bother others.

And what the hell does "shit going on" have to do with smoking? Do you think smoking makes you cool and attractive and fun to be around? Is there anybody THAT stupid left alive?

[Ron Green]

44. We CAN get better as a society.

Despite the libertarians, the addicted, the misguided purveyors of "freedom," adult tobacco use has, little by little become socially unacceptable. Kids are still going to smoke, because that's what kids do. But adult smoking numbers, over 40 years after the Surgeon General's first warning, have substantially decreased.

It's not a "freedom" issue, it's a question of public health.