Thank You, John Warner

By: Lowell
Published On: 4/3/2007 6:18:21 PM

Hat tip to NLS on this story by the Daily Progress; John Warner endorses the ban on smoking in restaurants!

That isn't to prevent somebody who smokes from getting up out of their seat and walking outside and having a smoke and coming back in, so it doesn't bother me in the least," said Warner, whose father was a physician.

Apparently, unlike some people out there, John Warner gets this very simple concept:

*Second-hand smoke is a carcinogen.
*Restaurant workers are exposed to said carcinogens for many hours per day, and can't really do much about it unless they can find another job in another industry.
*Banning smoking in restaurants harms nobody, actually may help business, and protects workers' health. 

Unless you work for Philip Morris, this shouldn't be that difficult.  Thank you to John Warner for endorsing a measure that is all upside, no downside.

Comments



I'm with Jaime (DanG - 4/3/2007 6:25:23 PM)
This is a slippery slope, and I just personally feel this isn't a place where government needs to be sticking it's nose.  This is coming from a non-smoker, by the way.

I understand that you want to protect workers.  But for somebody to get cancer from working in a restaurant as a waiter is... well, that's just a very, VERY big stretch.  How many people do you know out of the hundred's of thousands in the restaurant industry who have gotten cancer from serving fried tunafish on whole wheat?  Not many.  Or else this would be a bigger deal. 

This is government invading too far into decisions that should be left to business owners.  I can't stress how strongly I disagree with this bill.



This is exactly why I won't comment here about this. (phriendlyjaime - 4/4/2007 7:48:56 AM)
Troll rating for having an opinion, huh?  Real democratic.


Protecting Workers (Nick Stump - 4/3/2007 7:02:12 PM)
Protecting workers is just the legal hook this ban is hung on. 
This is a bad precedent and it will come back and bite us on the ass.  There should be some room for smokers to go have a drink without it becoming a national health crisis.  If we want to really do something about public health, we should really do something about the air quality.  Here in Louisville, the air outside is probably more dangerous than air in a smoking bar with good HEPA smoke eaters working. 

I know I'm tilting at windmills here and I'm pushing a losing and unpopular position, but I'm very scared of this sort of governing by special interest.  It's not going to be just smoking that is banned.  This is just the first shot over the bow.  I find this a very scary proposition, as they're are plenty of non-smoking restaurants around to make people happy.

I believe this is something the marketplace could decide.  If people don't like a smoking bar--then go somewhere else.  Why legislate this.  This ban is the equivalent of one lying down in the road, being run over--then calling for a ban on cars.  The place I go, the Bristol has a non-smoking half and a smoking half. There are big air cleaners everywhere and a big one right in the hall connecting the two.  I'd say the non-smoking half has some of the best air one could breathe in Kentucky.  Last week I was sitting at the smoking bar, enjoying a nice Camel Wide and a big drink of whiskey, and a man sat down right next to me at a near empty bar, and complained about my smoking.  What a prick.  I put my cigarette out as I didn't want to cause a scene and I told him there was a non-smoking side to the bar just as nice as the one I was sitting at, but he wanted to flirt with the bartender on the smoking side.  I realize this guy is not the gold standard, but there is a certain foam at the mouth quality to this issue. 

Anyway, it's a done deal, nearly everywhere, and I'll be using chewing tobacco in bars and restaurants.  I can't wait for the return of the spittoon.  Nothing like a good hock and spit to make for an appetizing dinner experience.  Yee haa.



Again, the issue here is workers' health. (Lowell - 4/3/2007 8:03:32 PM)
By the way, the following states and cities ban smoking in restaurants. This is not a complete list:

Albuquerque, NM
Anchorage
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
Austin, TX
Bismark, ND
Bloomington, IN
CALIFORNIA
Cheyenne, WY
Chicago
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
Dallas, TX
DELAWARE
El Paso, TX
Fargo, ND
FLORIDA
Ft. Wayne, IN
GEORGIA (with exceptions)
HAWAII
Helena, MT
IDAHO
Laramie, WY
Laredo, TX
Lawrence, KS
Lincoln, NE
Lubbock, TX
Madison, WI
MAINE
MARYLAND (will take effect next year)
Minneapolis, MN
Minot, ND
MISSISSIPPI
MONTANA
Montgomery County, MD
NEVADA
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
OHIO
Omaha, NE
RHODE ISLAND
Scranton, PA
SOUTH DAKOTA
St. Paul, MN
UTAH
VERMONT
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON, DC



Lots of countries have partial or full smoking bans (PM - 4/4/2007 8:32:47 AM)
http://en.wikipedia....

The US is behind the moral curve on this.

But then tobacco is a big money maker in this country, and as we know, money=political clout.



COMMENT HIDDEN (MohawkOV1D - 4/3/2007 7:20:15 PM)


Freedoms (Susan P. - 4/3/2007 8:59:10 PM)
"People who yak, yak, yak about individual freedom, civil rights, freedom of speech etc. seem to be the first ones in line to support laws that limit those freedoms."

I don't think this is a Democratic or a Republican issue.  People from both parties are on either side of the issue.  I don't even think it's a freedom issue, since you could argue the freedom to smoke vs. the freedom not to be exposed to smoke.  The real divide is between smokers and anti-smokers, as opposed to nonsmokers, who are probably in the majority.  Some of the most vehement anti-smokers I know are also arch-Republicans; they simply have health problems such as allergies to smoke or asthma that make it difficult for them to be around smoke.  They are just about as cranky on this issue as the smokers, and not for any philosophical reason.
Given the wholesale retreat in smoker "rights" in the last two decades, it should be clear that even if the General Assembly does not uphold this ban, it is just a matter of time before it is implemented, incrementally or across the board.



When is a bar not a bar? (KM - 4/3/2007 9:44:03 PM)
What is this world coming to if people can't hang out in bars and smoke if they want to?  Just because they sell food at a bar,  it will now be labeled as a "restaurant".  I thought Virginia was the kind of State where people were free to make their own choices?  Smoking is not an illegal activity last time I checked.


Wait a minute (Nick Stump - 4/4/2007 5:08:42 AM)

You still get to smoke in a bar?  We had that rule for about 6 months and then the council went back and banned tobacco in bars too.  Hell, I'm moving to Virgina for sure now.  In Louisville, it's still OK to snort coke in the bathroom, but you can't smoke in any bar.  :)


Nothing generates more hot air than smoking bans (TheGreenMiles - 4/3/2007 11:10:06 PM)
As John Warner, that legendary supporter of intrusive government action, said today, this is not a big deal.  I've been to plenty of bars in DC, New York City and Massachusetts since their bans took effect, and smokers there are the opposite of riled up.  They step outside for a smoke for a minute -- not exactly cause for revolution.  In NYC I actually didn't even remember the ban until I got home and realized my clothes didn't smell like an ashtray.

If you think this is not a health issue, talk to President Bush's surgeon general, who says there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.  If you think privacy/property rights issues prevent government from having the right to tell bar/restaurant owners what to do, I encourage you to extend your crusade to food safety regulations, fire code and alcohol permits, those other horrendous violations of bar/restaurant owners rights.

And for all you smoking ban opponents who say, "If you don't like it, go somewhere else," I'll buy a beer for the first one of you who can tell me of a smoke free bar in Arlington.  There are exactly zero.  Yes, there are smokefree restaurants, but no bars.  And if you try to tell me they're the same thing, let's go to Applebees on Friday night and find you a date, shall we?