Smokeless Tuesday: Gov. Kaine kicks off smoking ban

dish-eppes-kaine-hamilton-webDr. Thomas Eppes, Governor Tim Kaine, and Hamiltons' co-owner Kate Hamilton Tuesday.

For 400 years, smokers in Virginia have been able to light up in bars and restaurants, but all that came to an end on Tuesday, December 1, when the state’s smoking ban went into effect. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine celebrated the historic event at Hamiltons' at First & Main, one of only three restaurants in the state where Kaine spoke.

“Bill and Kate Hamilton have been real leaders. Their restaurant has been smoke-free for 14 years," said the governor, adding that he has always enjoyed eating at Hamilton’s.

Indeed, when Hamiltons' opened in February 1996, the idea of a smoke-free restaurant, especially in a tobacco state, was rare if not unique.

“We actually turned heads being a full service restaurant without smoking,” says Bill Hamilton. "Many folks," said his wife, Kate, "bet against our ability to maintain it for long.”

Over a decade later, smoke-free restaurants in Charlottesville are hardly unique, a trend that may have made the ban possible. As Kaine, and others in the decidedly anti-smoking crowd gathered at Hamilton’s said, decades of growing evidence of the harmful effects of smoking, particularly second-hand smoke, has created a sea change.

In 2006, Kaine successfully banned smoking in public buildings. The following year, he amended a watered down bill designed to affix what amounted to a Surgeon General’s Warning on restaurant windows with an all out ban on smoking in restaurants.

news-fellinis-smokeLisa Hulse and Ann Branhan light up for the last time at the bar at Fellini's.

However, like so many bans introduced in the home state of Richmond-based tobacco company Philip Morris, the bill joined the legislative scrap heap. But Kaine kept pushing, and in February 2009 the General Assembly finally passed a compromise, which would allow smoking in private clubs, on outdoor patios, and in restaurants with separately ventilated rooms. The ban also comes with a tame fine for smokers and restaurants who defy the law, just $25.

“This has been a dream that we thought would never happen in a tobacco state,” said Dr. Thomas Eppes, a past president of the Medical Society of Virginia, who said that second-hand smoke kills 1,700 Virginians every year.

Meanwhile, over at Miller’s, where smoke from people lighting up on the front patio wafted toward Governor Kaine and his handlers as they strolled by, Dr. Eppes' dream is a big pain in the butt.

While Miller’s manager Anna Harris was busy putting up a no smoking sign on the front door, the wording hardly embraces the ban: "Miller’s Downtown will be non-smoking until further notice (It won’t be long)." Harris says Miller's plans to build out the second floor, which has a separate entrance, and make it non-smoking, which would allow the downstairs to retain its smoke, a renovation that should be complete in January.

“For us it’s tradition; its part of Miller’s 30-year history,” says Harris. “The laws will probably change, and we’ll be forced to stop, but for now we’ll try to keep things the same.”

Besides, Harris asks, looking around the classic, dimly lit bar and stage area where Dave Matthews and countless other musicians got their starts as the beer flowed and the cigarettes burned late into the night, “What kind of non-smokers are going to come here?”

Last call: Smoke 'em if you got 'em, nevermore

On the Sunday night before smokeless Tuesday, Fellini's was packed with fans of the Hogwaller Ramblers, who were notified on Facebook that it would be the last time to enjoy the band and a smoke at the same time, according to manager Steve Nottingham.

"It's disappointing," says Nottingham, who appreciates the appeal of a drink and a cigarette. Yet even as a smoker, he acknowledges that it can be a relief to not work eight hours in a smoke-filled room. "Some nights, yeah," he says.

"I don't care either way," said Miller’s bartender Jenna Carter. "I only smoke when I'm drinking." With the smoking ban, she was poised to quit, but if Miller's maintains a smoking section, she says, "I don't have to."

Carter has lived in California and New York, both of which have banned indoor public smoking for years. "At least in Charlottesville, we don't have three feet of snow if you've got to go outside," she points out.

On Blue Light Grill's last smoke-allowed night at the bar, no one was smoking amid a crowd of men with name tags, and hostess Kristen Bowden welcomed the prospect of no longer dealing with complaints from diners seated at tables nearby.

"We get a lot of people from New York," said Bowen, "and they say, 'You can still smoke here?'"

–-night-before-ban content by Lisa Provence



What you call a discussion on craigslist was a bartender with firsthand knowledge. The math also makes sense. Some restaurants and bars didn't survive in other jurisdicitons and some thrived. So in effect, the government propped up some restaurants by closing others thru new rules. Patently unfair.

Why all the sudden attack on drunk drivers. It IS already illegal to drink and drive. Some comments on here are sounding like the legislators are now only picking on smokers, when in reality they are issuing a NEW LAW and focusing on that. They are not focusing on OLD LAWS (IE drunk driving) while trying to start this new one. Get a grip.

The argument that the smoking ban will ruin the local economy is completely bogus:

There is a simple solution to all of this!

If smokers embrace electronic cigarettes, then the issue of smoking bans will be mute. There is no second-hand smoke, no odor, no carcinogens, no CO2, and no mess like ashes, butts, etc. from electronic cigarettes. If smokers of tobacco cigarettes would switch their habit to a non-tobacco electronic cigarette, we would have no further need to further infringe on the personal freedoms of any one group.

If you are smoker, consider it as an option.You won't be inhaling all the chemicals and carcinogens that you currently do from your tobacco cigarette. If you are a non-smoker, learn about the technology, and pass the information on to your friends who are smokers. The electronic cigarette is a win-win in so many ways.

You can learn all about this technology including the contents of electronic cigarette vapor and other information such as scientific studies fully documented at my informational website,

Thank you

Sherry, there are already laws about drunk driving.

rebuttle anyone???

christopher reeves wife never smoked a day in her life but played piano in a smokey bar for 20 years and died of lung cancer....tobacco is not like it was 400 years ago....the tobacco companies add unknown substances that increase its addictive properties for obvious reasons....smokers are addicts plain and simple

So the Government is telling me that it is ok for me to clean out poropottys all day with all the fecal matter but it is ILLEGAL for me to get a job where someone may be smoking?

What about my rights to try and feed my family?

This is BS. The market place would solve it.

Also... the reports about it not affecting businesses is bogus. There were businesses that closed directly because of the customer loss and business that thrived because of the reduced competition. So the gross sales may have not dropped significantly but familt businesses were still ruined.

It is like telling the widow that its a shame her husband drowned crossing the river because the "average" depth is only two feet.(even though it was twenty feet in the middle)

What you call a discussion on craigslist was a bartender with firsthand knowledge. The math also makes sense. Some restaurants and bars didn’t survive in other jurisdicitons and some thrived. So in effect, the government propped up some restaurants by closing others thru new rules. Patently unfair.


Just b/c it is the bartender's firsthand knowledge does not make it generalizable. This is still insufficient proof that the law directly causes harm to the local economy.

Are you saying that all laws that cause a business to close are automatically unfair? What if I wanted to open a store that sold heroin across the street from a school? Since that is illegal it is automatically unfair?

Also”Š the reports about it not affecting businesses is bogus. There were businesses that closed directly because of the customer loss and business that thrived because of the reduced competition. So the gross sales may have not dropped significantly but familt businesses were still ruined.

It is like telling the widow that its a shame her husband drowned crossing the river because the ââ?¬Å?average” depth is only two feet.(even though it was twenty feet in the middle)
Show me some evidence of this that is not entirely speculative or anecdotal. Just because you heard of some businesses that closed at the same time does not mean they are directly related; do you have any evidence that shows causation between these events?

By the same token, this law has helped "REAL LIVING PEOPLE WHO RISKED MONEY AND THEIR FUTURE OPENING A RESTURANT (sic)". There are many restaurants that will now be patronized by people who didn't before due to their atmosphere.

Are you saying that just b/c a law has some negative impact then it shouldn't exist? Where do you draw the line? So far you have only "proven" that one business has closed as a direct result of the law. Is that not a small price to pay for the positive impact on other business and and the overall health of employees and patrons of all restaurants.

Your litany of hysteric and hyperbolic scenarios are completely unrelated to this law. There are substantive differences between SHS and perfume or between addicts and smokers.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert

OMG . You may not have a lot of detective experience but you have solved a mystery for a couple of friends who were griping last weekend about their cigs going out . They were saying they must have got some moisture in the cartons or something . LMAO they like to wear out a couple lighters that evening . I just called one and acted like I knew why all along , of course :). Being the news junky I am , I cannot believe I missed this was happening . I remember my friends saying they were going to have to find somewhere that didn't have moisture in them to buy the next carton .

Too funny now that I know this .

Man , I wished I would have planned my typical onery self better .I would have called them and told them I heard on the news there are smokes laced with anthrax and are difficult to keep lit and to stop use immediately . Man I would have loved to see how fast they headed for a fresh carton LMAO .

Why didn't I think .

Oh. Hell. Yeah! I can finally go back to South Street and actually ENJOY my Satan's Pony! And possibly a breathable round of pool or two at Miller's. Oh happy day!

I'm a smoker and I dont think it is a big deal. If I didn't smoke I wouldn't want to be around it either. The one's that complain are the one's who are inconsiderate and feel that they have been stripped of a piece of thier freedom. I just look at it like this, We all have to blend together and it's a great compromise. At least they haven't banned smoking and throw cigarrets out all together. Right? LOL I should quit anyways. This might help.

I suspect a lot of people will be quitting anyway after the first of the year. As of New Year's Day 2010, any cigarette sold in Virginia will have to use the new "fire safe cigarette" paper during production and distribution.

In addition to being virtually impossible to keep these new Fire Safe Cigarettes lit, the added chemicals contained in FSC cigarettes have proven to be more toxic than regular cigarettes and cause increased health related problems for smokers. To supposedly make cigarettes safer, they have actually made them more harmful to the consumer.

Manufacturers will also be required to display the letters "FSC" in the code bar on individual packs, and also on the cartons in the bar code.

cant believe anyone would be against the indoor smoking ban...i think this gives credence to the idea that the reason that we find no signals from the universe is because any advanced civilization eventually destroys themselves due to being stupid idiots!!!!ha ha ha!


.... yepper.... and some of them won't be working at all once the customers leave and the jobs dissapear...

Taliesin likes to whip out his Orwell, but he's missing a point: Comrade Napoleon says you can kill yourself all you want in the privacy of your own home. But you don't get to kill other people out in public. Infringing on other people's rights to a healthy workplace is always the wrong decision.

If positive effects are the measurement for a compelling law, then this is clearly a compelling law. It improves the health of employees and patrons by reducing the SHS in the restaurant. It also has the benefit of increasing the likelihood of people patronizing a restaurant and has no effect on the revenue generated from bars and restaurants ( These are all positive or neutral outcomes from the law.

Your claim that SHS would increase in the home as a result of this law seems to be a stretch. Can you provide ANY evidence that this would be the case?

I'm not ignoring the negative effects of the law (which you have not been able to provide any evidence for, except one anecdotal case), but I am saying that the benefits from this law greatly outweigh any negative results. For this reason it is a good law.

Infringing on any rights no matter what is a curse to this country.

The decision should be up to the property owner, if you don't want to be around smoke, go somewhere else. I don't smoke but I don't support this ban at all. Plenty of businesses were already smoke free, why do we need to take away the power of the owner to run his business as he wants?

There is also no scientific evidence second hand smoke is harmful. I'm not saying isn't, there is just no accepted peer-reviewed data saying it is or isn't. They need to start researching facts before they make laws, but too bad the law isn't based on reason.

MC- There is a side of me that agrees. I am far too much a Libertarian. OTOH, it doesn't seem like I could go anywhere and not fight dealing with smoke on some level in a public space. it's stupid to think you can have a smoking or non smoking section.I allow guests to smoke outside my house, yet no matter what, they always track the ash in when they come back, and my house smells for a day or so.

I agree with MC about property rights. That's the only thing holding me back on this law. I hate smoking, however, it is my choice.

I do not enjoy bars that are filled with smoke, so my business goes to the ones that have clean air; so I think. Who knows what I'm actually breathing in anywhere I go?

Anyway, I'm against this smoking ban. I'm sure I'll enjoy the clean air though, at the impediment of another citizen's right to enjoy and do as he/she please on his/her property.

yepper said: "re: ââ?¬Å?Nobody makes anybody work in a smokey restaurant/bar, let alone makes them work at any job, period.”

True enough. You can always go on food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc, etc, etc.

no one is ââ?¬Å?forced” to get a job in the US. you have the right to starve to death if you don’t want to die of lung cancer!

In all seriousness, it’s interesting to read the opinions of those who are obviously so privileged. Many people DO have to work at whatever job they can get and they have just as much right to clean air as those that are living off of their trust fund."

Obviously reading comprehension is not a strong point of yours, as you missed the point entirely of what I was saying.

"Mom" originally said: "If your child had to work in a restaurant where he/she was exposed to smoke all day...."

And then MY point was, nobody "HAS" to work in a smokey restaurant. Yet the way she worded things implied that the imaginary kid in question has no FREEWILL to get a job in a SMOKE FREE environment. I don't come from a privileged background, and I've been working since I was 13 because I had to, period, and I helped raise my younger sibling with the money I earned. So save your "privelaged people who don't have to work" rant that completely misses the point. If second hand smoke and lung cancer was such a concern to me then I would take responsbility for my own life and get a job in a smoke free environment. Why? Because I have freewill to make that choice. There is no such thing as "HAVING" to work in a smokey environment. None. If someone can't handle smoke then there are bezillions of other jobs out there in smoke free environments. Find them, and take personal responsibility.

If your child had to work in a restaurant where he/she was exposed to smoke all day, and consequently ran a far higher risk of cancer, and other illnesses--how would you feel ? It amazes me we have tolerated this for so long.

can ya tell i am bored.....anyone????

I just want to comment on the no smoking ban. I cant understand why people can sit in bars eat and drink and then drive home. People that smoke is not likely to have a accident and hurt someone.But what can happen if your drunk?

"compelling" means that the law will have positive effects.

The law does not reduce smoking it only sends people elswhere. This may protect some people from the second hand smoke. (mainly the workers) but neglects that it may increase second hand smoke in peoples homes, often where children and old people are. So the success of the law is not entirely measureable in either direction.

Some negative effects on people that are trying to run a business should not be ignored. It is ridiculous to assume that no one will be hurt by this. They opened their business with certain asumptions. The government chasing away their customers with new laws was not one of them.

This is an example of politcal correctness gone too far. Smoking is bad therefor it is ok to stop it. ,..... well move it out of the restuarants and back into the homes.

Will the next stop be to stop it in apartments because your neighbor can smell it? It has already happened elsewhere.

This law is a giant law that benefits only the workers in these establishments. An awful drastic law to protect such a small segment of the population.

This is the government throwings its weight around on the populace.

next up....snow blowers too noisy?

The Government should not be allowed to favor one business over another unless the issue is truly compelling. My opinion is that this issue is not"compelling" The courts have thus far agreed with the Government. I accept defeat on this particular issue but think a point needs to be made about how far the government can reach. This is to me dangerous precedent and a slippery slope.

THere are NOT substantive differences between smoking and perfume. THey both can directly affect the health of an employee of the resturant which is the governments legal case when challenged in court. Second hand smoke may cause cancer and perfume may cause someone to have an asthma attack and die on the spot. Same same.

Also the courts have ruled that smoking is an addiction and mandated smoking breaks for federal employees.

There are jurisdictions trying to outlaw smoking in public in incorportated townships (friendship heights maryland)(google it).

Sneezing and spreading the flu KILLS more people than second hand smoke since virtually every flu death is the result of someone catching the flu from another person. Should we outlaw sneezing in public? Issue tickets to anyone that sneezes without covering their mouth?

I don't smoke, I like smoke free establishments but I also don't like the government running my friends out of business because you want to be able to go into a smoke free restuarant of your choice which by default means a smoker can't go into somewhere that wants him there unless he lives up to your particular set of values.

Where did you stand on the dress code issue when Jabberwocky didn't want gangster style dress to "protect" its customers? Did you boycott them out of business or did you support their rights to protect their customers?

Don't blame me if your IP address gets banned here. :)


If you don't want to patronize a business because it offers smoking then don't and say so. If you want to patronize a business because it believes that people have the right to choose their own risk level in life then you can do that too.

People boycott stores who sell cosmetics that use animal testing or sell clothes made by children. That is their right.

This is the government going too far on trumped up charges. They win in court by citing small harm to the local economy for the "greater good"

That should not absolve them from responsibility for RUINING businesses because they want too. In my mind eminent domain comes in to play. To use your example.. if the government needs to close an existing strip joint in order to build a school then they are required by the constitution to buy that business.

The government in the name of "public safety" ended smoking. Well like I said.. what would happen if a really rich person sued and forced them to close all the ice cream stores or Mcdonalds because of obesity and diabetes? Is that next? They are already proposing taxes on soft drinks.

TOO FAR. This law goes too far.

I wonder what accomodations have to be made for smokers who are "addicted" under the ADA (Americans with disabilities Act)?
Businesses must accomodate handicap people. Why not addicts?
What about waiters who are allergic to cologne and perfume? Should we outlaw perfume in Restaurants too?

The Government does not have the right to stop people from smoking so they are trying to squelch it with jail time(thats what you get when refuse to pay the fine)using businesses to do the dirty work (or go to jail themselves)

It is Wrong on all counts. Nothing can be done, but still worth noting so that when they come for your lawn mower because it pollutes you can't say you have not been warned.

(did anybody else notice they just passed a law that says that you cannot make any noise that can be heard 100 feet past the property line? (most A/c units can be haerd at that distance)

re: "Nobody makes anybody work in a smokey restaurant/bar, let alone makes them work at any job, period."

True enough. You can always go on food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc, etc, etc.

no one is "forced" to get a job in the US. you have the right to starve to death if you don't want to die of lung cancer!

In all seriousness, it's interesting to read the opinions of those who are obviously so privileged. Many people DO have to work at whatever job they can get and they have just as much right to clean air as those that are living off of their trust fund.

Is Anna Harris planning on installing a separate HVAC system for the second floor?

You are correct Shawn but legal addicts. Legal addicts that pay for many more government projects than non addicts.

The cash cow is drying up and a new cash cow will need to be found. I certainly hope the new cow sets its sight on something that effects you.
If I remember correctly the sights have already been set on alchohol (again), soda, chips, and even internet usage down to the byte.

Best wishes,

yes its not fair that smokes have been taxed to death...but this is about smoking inside hun.

re:ââ?¬Å?privelaged people who don’t have to work”

dude, don't be dissing my reading comprehension when you can't spell for squat.

you are right, no one has to work in a smokey environment anymore. Thank you Tim Kaine!!

"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"

i appreciate your taxes and have no prob with smokers...but i gotta eat to live and when i go somewhere to eat dont force me to smoke witch is not required to live!!!

this is fun

i really do love chics that smoke though!!!cause if they smoke least thats what my player friend used to say!!

Mooo i like you for rebtting girlfriend smokes and we debate this issue sometimes!!!

i need to take a typing class!!!

Is there anyway they can make a "safe" bottle of alcohol, to keep drunk driver's from killing innocent people?

I want the choice to be my own, whether to buy the "safe" cigarette. I know about the harmful chemicals that have always been in cigarettes and still chose to smoke. To now make my cigarettes even more harmful by adding the "safe" outer wrapping, is taking away my freedom of choice.

I do not mind the new rules about smoking in bars and restaurants. I can abide by that and not complain. If I want to smoke in my own home, I would rather have the choice to smoke a safe cigarette that contains MORE harmful chemicals or a cigarette made without the "new paper." That should really be MY choice.. This new law says if I choose to smoke, I must now consume MORE harmful chemicals.

I still wish that more attention was paid to the driver's that insist on driving while intoxicated; to make their lives even more difficult, without endangering mine. Maybe I should offer them one of the new "safe" cigarettes.

1) These businesss signed ten year leases based on certain assumptions... one was that the government wouldn't chase away half their customers with a smoking ban.
2) Many of these same restuants and bars count on the profit from the sale of cigarettes and that will disappear too.
3) There are a lot of jobs with worse risks than second hand smoke. People take those jobs because they come with the territory. Taking away a busineess owners rights is unfair on its face.
4) A better way to deal with it would have been to offer tax incentives for businesses to ban smoking along with a public relations campaign to encourage customers to patronize them.
5) The city and county WILL see a loss in revenue as these folks stay home. The fallout is significant at first but will come back after a few months.
6) There will be at least a few bars that never recover and are literally being put out of business by this new law. (just check DC)
7) What happens when they decide ice cream causes diabetes and close all the ice cream stores?
8) What happens when they decide cosmetics attack sensitive noses.. will they close all the department stores?

I don't smoke, I like non smoking restuarants, but it is UNFAIR and a shame that the courts allow it. (so far)

Dakota, it's not moisture in the cigarettes, it's the Fire Safe Cigarette paper being implemented to meet the Jan 1, 2010 deadline.

It was some coalition that wanted to prevent accidental fires and senseless deaths from cigarettes falling into sofas and bedding. They have successfully had this legislation passed nationwide without the consumer even seeing it coming.

One of the new chemicals in the cigarette paper, ethylene vinyl acetate, is being sucked into the consumer's lungs. Bad stuff.

Why the attack on tobacco. Is alcohol not also a very significant problem. How many lives are lost to DUI driver's how many homes,marriages, and families ruined by alcoholics. When will alcohol be banned in public, lets be fair and really protect children and the public from real danger.

People should be aware about the risk they pose to others when they smoke. If you crave for a smoke around others an electronic cigarette like VirtuSmoke can be used. It is not covered by the Clean Air Act because harmful substances in cigarettes is not present.You inhale only vapor instead of smoke.

"There is also no scientific evidence second hand smoke is harmful....there is just no accepted peer-reviewed data saying it is or isn’t."

That's one of those sentences that sounds all learned and rational, but there's one little word in there that makes it all slippery: "accepted."

Accepted by whom? By tobacco companies? Excuse me, I have to go laugh really hard at the idea that we're going to wait around for tobacco companies to "accept" peer-reviewed scientific research that draws a conclusion that threatens their bottom line.

But if you mean accepted within the medical and scientific communities, then yes, there is peer-reviewed research that supports the claim that secondhand smoke has harmful effects on nonsmokers. That's not to say that there is no debate within the community over the extent of the harmful effects; there is debate, of course. But that is NOT the same thing AT ALL as saying "there is ... no scientific evidence second hand smoke is harmful." That statement, MC, is simply confused or deceitful.

Mom said: "If your child had to work in a restaurant where he/she was exposed to smoke all day, and consequently ran a far higher risk of cancer, and other illnessesââ?¬â??how would you feel ? It amazes me we have tolerated this for so long."

Playing devil's advocate here, but nobody "HAS" to work in a smoke filled restaurant. You make it sound as if people don't have the free will choice to go out and seek a job in a healthier environment that's a better fit for who they are. Nobody makes anybody work in a smokey restaurant/bar, let alone makes them work at any job, period. If an environment isn't a fit for who I am as a person, and what my needs are, I seek work elswhere. I don't stay there, and then cry "victim." Learn the art of self responsibility.

That said, I myself am glad that I won't have to breathe smoke in restaurants when I'm trying to eat. It's nasty.

I'm so excited that this ban is now in place. I have bad asthma and smoke makes it act up. I can finally try a couple of restaurants in town that use to allow smoking.

What a joke " separate smoking rooms"

Thats like ruling that children can only pee in the shallow end of the pool :-)

A discussion on craigslist? How scientific.

quote: " one has to work in a smokey environment anymore."

Sorta off topic, or is it? The same should be true of colognes and perfumes. It very detrimental to those who have respiratory problems. Colognes and perfumes invoke asthma attacks nationwide EVERY day.

It is in the governments interest to skew the numbers. Anybody that thinks different has been smoking something other thsan cigarettes.

anoymoose, here is a link to this discussion on the DC craigslist forum.

However, seems to me that common sense would dictate that out of the thousands of businesses affected there would be AT LEAST a few that would be destroyed by this. Ask any bartender who the bar makes the most money on.. the person who sits there and smokes and drinks for three hours after work or the girls that order one drink each friday night before they go clubbing.

I guess if they outlawed fixing your own car so that you don't hurt yourself Advance auto parts shoudn't complain?

My issue is that I have a right to work where I want so long as I know the risks involved. If they want to claim health then second hand smoke is WAY down the list. Ask anyone that works in an ER and I am sure they can tell you about some more dangerous jobs.

Its too late now, but it still isn't fair.

It would seem that way

So what is your definition of "compelling"? B/c from a medical standpoint this is certainly a "compelling" issue.

The substantive differences b/w perfume and smoke are in terms of the frequency that they accumulate to a harmful concentration. One clearly has a much greater impact than the other.

Sneezing is an involuntary rxn. Concocting hyperbolic scenarios that have no relation to the original argument does not help prove your point.

Also, b/c a person is a smoker does not mean he "can’t go into somewhere that wants him there unless he lives up to your particular set of values". They are free to go outside and smoke as often as they want. You characterize the law as being much harsher than it really is.

I have nothing better to do than argue on comment boards

Stop using my user name.

Seems you have nothing better to do.

I quit smoking some months back. I used herbal blends as a substitute to other smoke. Thanks for your post.


THe evidnce I offer about second hand smoke in the home is that cigerattes sales do not decline with the enactment of the law. So they are being smoked SOMEWHERE. Since alcohol sales at bars goes down and alcohol sales in sors goes UP. I asume that people are smoking and drinking at home.

I assume that at least a few homes in Va have children in them that maybe, just maybe, some of them are getting second hand smoke.

It is called common sense. You cite a government report that is from the tobacco prevention office. Would it be ok for me to cite reports from the cigeratte lobby?

The positive results may outweigh the negative results from some angles.

This does not change the premise that this is law INJURES REAL PEOPLE.

If they passed a law that says that we don't need to build any more wheelchair ramps and use the money to feed poor children, from some angles the positive outweighs the nagative. A child should eat before a wheelchair bound person goes to the library. But, it is not positive to the guy in the wheechair;and he has been protected by the courts because of his disability. So to me the courts should protect the person that invested their life savings in a business and then is thwarted MIDSTREAM by the government.

Suppose they decided that compact cars were too dangerous on any highway with semi trucks and elected to ban small cars from route 29 in the interest of public safety. The day AFTER you signed a 5 year car note amd the only way to get to work was via 29. Would that be fair? THey are looking out for YOU after all.

The way they should have done this law was to phase it in so that with any new resturant there would be no smoking. Exisitng restuarants could be given a tax credit to "attempt" a no smoking rule to see how it affects them and pase a full law in over 5 years to give leases a chance to adjust. Perhaps they could have mandated a no smoking evening to see how it worked out.

The law has unintended consequences that you will read about soon enough in this very paper I am sure.

The principle applied here to justify the law is weak and is a slippery slope.

Your need to have studies done instead of using a little common sense scares me. It is people with that mindset who have tossed business owners to the lions for the sake of your opinions.

This argument is obviously going nowhere. If we cannot agree on a method of evaluating each other's claims, this discussion will never progress.

If I believe in a standard of empirical, scientific evidence and you believe in a standard of anecdote and assumption, we will never reach a better understanding of this topic.

Your insistence on using assumption, imagined scenarios, and "common sense", leaves us no common ground on which to continue debating. By offering arguments of that type, based on your personal definition of "common sense", all I have to do is appeal to my own personal definition of "common sense" to deny them. My repeated requests to have you provide any shred of verifiable evidence is so that we can have a way to evaluate the veracity of each other's claims and, hopefully, reach a conclusion.

Dude, Google "smoking ban damage" and spend the afternoon reading for yourself.

Your BS remarks claiming scientific evidence are just that, BS.

No one in their right mind thinks that a no smoking law will cause every resturant affected to either make more money or the same money. That is a common sense conclusion based on a normal education and basic deduction. If you believe this then that is your choice. I am not trying to convince you, I am trying to get my point of view out to fellow voters so that the laws don't get even crazier.

They have enacted nanny state laws all around the world and it is more than I want in my life. there are documents out there showing faked numbers about global warming, there are articles out there showing massive fraud in the European cap and trade. There are articles out there showing the government going through peoples trash and fining them if they don't recycle.

I am all for balance in the world, but if someone gets a hundred dollar fine because they (or someone else walking by) through a glass bottle in the trash, and this person can't afford the hundred bucks so they go to jail for not paying the fine and lose their jobs or kids.. it has gone too far. Just because the resuls haven't happened does not mean we should not consider the possibility before we go all nazi on recycling.

I find it ironic how people who will go CRAZY over the thought of one innocent person ever being sent to jail will leave a business owner and his family out in the cold because "statistically" the losses are minimal.

Thats fine unless it is your family that is the statistic.

My Scientific evidence will show up in this paper within six months, of that I am sure. I may not still be unemployed, but when the proof comes in I am sure you will remain anonymous.

I just quit a while back and think its utterly discuting when I smell like smoke three four days latter.

nasty smokers need to hurry up die and go yo hell where they belong.



Your gonna goto hell for sayin that....
ahhhh .. just lit another.. mmmmm mmmm goood.

Yaa its really a good idea which a Smokeless Tuesday could be generated which Gov. Kaine kicks off smoking ban.