An amazing 70% of Northern Virginians support a smoking ban.  Just goes to show how out of touch Republicans are with NoVA.

I agree, Lowell, I can't wait to see the roll call.  Which 59 delegates are more concerned about the cigarette lobby than the health of their citizens?  We can't let voters forget that in November.  Anyone up for a "Thank You for Smoking" campaign at those 59 delegates' events?  :)

The General Assembly voted that way I wanted it to on every one of those issues.  But I won't rub it in.

I do think the smoking ban, however, could become an issue that benefits Democrats in the fall.  What say you there?

I don't see any party coming out of this with a big advantage.  Let's just hope that our strong candidates, and the general trend of Virginia in the "blue" direction, will help us take over the State Senate and pick up a few seats in the House of Delegates.  I remain cautiously optimistic on both of those goals, especially if we can get the message out that this election matters for redistricting in 2011, among other things...

Dan, I've argued that Dems can turn the tables on this one by making it about local control.  When Republicans cling to the Dillon Rule and insist on one solution for the whole state (no bans allowed, anywhere, ever), they sound like nanny staters. 

The opening for a smart Dem in a reddish district would be to say, "Why is Richmond deciding whether we can or can't ban smoking?  Why won't Rep. GOP let Hometown County decide for ourselves?"

legal activities is most likely why the democrats aren't in the majority right now.  Private property is still private.  It might also help if democrats removed the word, and deed, of banning from their list of things to do.  If it contains the word BAN, just don't do it.

The argument that this is about worker safety is BS as well.  If you really, really care about restaurant workers then tip 20% at dinner.  Adult men and women can decide for themselves if they wish to patronize a restaurant that allows smoking (technically there are no BARS in VA).

Or should we just let the government make all our tough decisions for us?  What to wear, where to eat, what house to buy, who to marry...That way life will be all rainbows, lollipops and unicorns.

My coal mine is private property and big government with its so-called "mine safety", "respirators", and "oxygen" can stuff it.  And my factory is my private property too.  So what if the buzz saw just starts randomly and I don't have any kill switches?  So what if my employees have to wash parts off with carcinogenic chemicals?  Why is it my responsibility to keep carcinogenic chemicals away from workers?  It's my private property after all.

Does any of that sound reasonable?  Then, why do you think it sounds reasonable when we're talking about restaurant employees.  Requiring a safe work environment is what the Democratic Party stands for.  It's what Virginia should stand for.

Your retort was excellent.  If you can get through the sludgy boring prose I wrote today on information economics, and get to the bottom, you'll see why I am so critical of people who make policy with slogans.  The shoot-from-the-hip "free market" "private property" types have not only hurt people and hurt our economy, but have ruined the Republican Party.

And requiring a safe working environment is what all moral people should stand for.

I may be mistaken, but it does not seem that the poster you replied to was advocating the repeal of OSHA requirements. 

On the topic, restaurants generally speaking are not a monopsony in the labor market.  Workers can choose to work elsewhere.  We are also talking about unskilled labor; so, they have the additional freedom of taking another unskilled job. 

Equally, restaurants don't provide an essential service.  Consumers can choose to not dine out or to avoid frequenting restaurants that permit smoking.  The law as it was passed would require restaurants to put up conspicuous signs telling all that they allow smoking.  So, if it wasn't easy to make that decision before, it should be now.

Finally, are ya'll really mad at restaurants that allow smoking or are you mad at smokers?  Ultimately, the source of this hazard is smokers.  Rather than banning smoking in restaurants, to really root out the problem, why not go all the way and make tobacco and tobacco related products a Schedule I Controlled Substance?  Then we can give smokers a five year minimum sentence to keep them from harming the public.

Well, then why does the commenter think that food service workers don't deserve the same protections as other workers?  That's all that anyone is asking for here, for tobacco smoke to be treated as the occupational hazard that it is.

Well, my point is that these workers can work at restaurants that do not permit smoking.  And if it is the only restaurant in town, they can work in another unskilled position.  They aren't indentured servants.  They are individuals and they are free to choose.

The original poster's argument seems equally valid to me.  Smoking like alcohol consumption is a legal activity.  Why should a businessman be denied the opportunity to create an environment where smokers can relax and socialize outside their homes?  Equally, why should smokers be denied a place to congregate?  Again, restaurants are a non-essential service, why shouldn't they be able to cater to whatever clientele they desire?

Finally, back to my final point, why not make tobacco and tobacco related products a Schedule I Controlled Substance?  Why not ban smoking outright?  The hazard is the smoker who produces these toxic emissions.  Why not address the hazard at its source?  No sense in beating around the bush, right?

And if they don't like the coal mine without safety equipment they can just go and work at the one with safety equipment, right?  Maybe you should watch this Frontline episode.  I bet there were a lot of people who would have rather worked at the safe foundry rather than the unsafe one.  But there isn't always a job where you want one.  That's why we need workplace safety laws and strong enforcement of those laws, so every worker can have a safe workplace.

isn't the role of government?  Doesn't that sort of all under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"  It's kind of hard to pursue those things if you're dying of cancer, ya know?

Hmmmm...  you mean like removing the ban on gay marriage?  Or the ban on abortion that this republican lead legislature would have passed if it had the chance? 

You do bring up an interesting question - which party is responsible for the most laws, rules, and regulations that ban "personal freedom" or "individual rights" type activities? 

And yes I do mean the Ban on gay marriage, flag burning, abortion, guns, tobacco, and so on.  All the nifty little side issues politicians and their Rovian/Feinswine zombies use to mislead the sheep.

If it wasn't for guns our streets would be safe, if there were no gay's our children could be GAY (happy), if there were no abortion all children would be raised by Ward and June Clever, no flag burning and every American would cheer for the war, no evil tobacco and everyone would live to be 205. 

Democrats and republicans are just a like.  Different pea, same pod.  For me it is always about the rights of the individual, not the political meme of the moment, or blind worship of a publicratian because he fought in a war (once) and wrote a fictional book about it or are a certified super skilled non practicing heart surgeon that can view 15min of a bad VHS tape and make a diagnosis.

There are only two places to put your faith:  God, if you believe, and the Bill of Rights.  Giving away your rights, for the good of all humanity, is very noble.  But one day you may want those rights back.

gets a vote banning any legal and protected activity, there must first be a bill passed that bans masturbation. 

Let's see how many ban's get passed then.

Yeh, right.  It's all abouot "priovate property.  That's why Richmond is hell-bent on finding new ways to insert themselves into citizens' private lives.  (We have a long list of real enemies of privacy and private property.  Let's route them!)

Yes, that's why this year the House of delegates voted 75 to 25 to subject women who miscarry to being criminal suspects.  Under the radar, their back-door anti-abortion attempt left gaping- hole language that meant not just those who took any drug or procedure (or did anything) to end a pregnancy would be felons.  And that's bad enough.  Those who have natural miscarriages (1/5 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage through no one's fault)would have ended up suspects as well. And guess what?  This was all happening as NOW and NARAL-Pro-choice America were congratulating themselves for killing the bill which would have given "inalienable" rights to a zygote.

Fortunately the Senate killed this bill, but 75 to 25, Virginia delegates voted for this repressive and outrageous bill sponsored by Chris Jones, R-Suffolk (route him!).

and I agree.

I actually agree with this, even if I disagree about the smoking ban. I think the Dillon Rule is about the worst thing in VA. Unfortunately, it's not just Rs that support it.

How the #2 tobacco moneyman on the House General Laws Committee, Delegate Dave Barfly Albo, voted.....

http://www.vpap.org/...

The alcohol industry is worried less cigs in bars = less alcohol consumed.....

It's one of the man-made exceptions some so-called Christians make to Christ's teachings.  He talked about love.  Including.  Forgiveness.  He never said "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do -- except the ones I don't personally like."

But 2,000 years down the road lots of people have twisted the message.

I am a Christian, but I admit that we live in a world where sometimes the Christian opiton isn't always the one that is best for the country.  During 9/11, would it not have been more Christian to turn the other cheek instead of attacking the Taliban?  That was not an option then.

When we find the resources, room, and compassion to halt executions without any kind negative impact on innocent citizens, then I would support ending executions.  However, the way I see it, that is not possible today.  Perhaps soon in the future.  But for now, I do not think so.

I think I'm anti-execution until I see some really egregious crime

But then could I pull the switch?

If somebody did something heinous enough, I could flip the switch. If we catch Osama, I'm declaring my candidacy for Osama's "switch-puller." 

The question is "Should I?"  I believe that God is the ultimate judge, and regardless of what we do with our short time on Earth, He makes the call for eternity.  And I'm all for eliminating the Death Penalty (except in extreme cases) when it becomes practical.  I just don't think it is now, nor can I see when it won't be.

And I refuse to believe that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent from crime.  Forgive me, but as a mortal, death has deterred me from doing a LOT of stupid things.

"Losing rights in smoking ban? Wrong!"

http://www.dailyprog...

Here's the right one.

http://www.timesdisp...

Folks:
  Remember...The LAW...THE TORAH (Old Testament). Does not say.. "Thou Shall Not Kill". It says, "Thou Shall Not Murder". A Big difference!! You can try to twist it to fit your anti-death penalty philosophy. But THE WORD is THE WORD.
Best regards,
OTO

Go to Leviticus Chapter 20, where the Lord commands Moses, among other things:

9  For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Numerous commands like this were all part of the old law. 

Here's a gem from Chapter 24 of Leviticus, another "commandment" from the Lord:

16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Hey, OTO, I regard what you say as blasphemy.  You think we RKers should stone you?

Don't quote the Old Testament out of context. 

And if you really follow the Old Testament, I hope you're not wearing mixed fabric shirts.

Omigosh.  Look at that haircut!  Stone him!

By blasphemy, it means only what the Torah defines as such.  You're argument with the beards and fabrics is much more effective. :)

I think I mean the forelocks or whatever they're called.

I'm still trying to figure out the one about boiling a lamb in its mother's milk (which is in the last set of stone tablets that God gave Moses).

Oy.

The tobacco and death penalty votes are connected: disgusting and un-Christian displays of callousness for the sanctity of human life. And I'm sure most Virginia legislators go to church and think they're Christians. What a bunch of hypocrites! In fact I find it interesting that the two states that do the most executions, Virginia and Texas have strong Christian evangelical factions.
As far as the death penalty, show me a country or some data where it actually works. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind! We have the largest prison population in the world and we put to death more people than any other country.  Get real. We're the most insecure, paranoid and hypocritical society the world has ever seen. And Virginia is simply an epicenter focued on issues from the last century. Where's Christian love, compassion, and non-violence? That's all considered a sign of weakness.

As I said, I have my moments when I think I'm for it, like when kids are sexually assaulted and killed.  But I know it is wrong. 

And this really is a different issue than self-defense, because when you execute you are killing someone who (absent rare circumstances) would in any event never be loose in the general population to threaten again.

Even as to self defense, any chance Christ had to defend himself, he avoided.  From Matthew Chapter 26:

51  And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

  52  Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

That to me is the central message of Christianity. 

What is not the message -- the countless times self-proclaimed interpreters of the Gospel have justified hurting Jews, Muslims, women, black people through slavery, and the current target, gays.  As someone once said, you could look it up.

(Boy, isn't this a great topic for Easter Week?)

When I got home today and checked my emails, I had this email in my inbox from the Virginia Interfaith Center (which sponsors the Richmond Sunlight Website):

"Many thanks to all of you who raised your voice against expanding the death penalty in Virginia!  Virginia Senators heard your concerns and upheld Governor Kaine's veto on SB 1288, which sought to eliminate the Triggerman Rule from Virginia's lawbooks.  As you know, eliminating the Triggerman Rule would have expanded the death penalty by adding accomplices of capital murder to the list of those elibible for the death penalty - a costly proposal whose exact fiscal impact is still unknown in Virginia.
The veto was upheld and SB 1288 defeated by a vote of 25 to 14 with 1 abstension.  Senators Edwards and Saslaw provided the winning votes, having been persuaded to change their original votes and support the Governor's veto.  Senator Potts abstained. 
Thank you again for taking the time to act.  We stopped an unnecessary expansion of the death penalty!"

Blessings to you,

Ann Rasmussen

Now I see that although the House overrode the veto on the triggerman bill, apparently the Sentate did not (what the email from th Virginia Interfaith Center said).

Everyone agree with Aprilac's analysis?

Virginians favor the death penalty.  Only Texas, my birth state, executes more people every year than Virginia.  And these laws would have been hard to justify voting against for Democrats outside the beltway.  Republicans would have an easy spin about how Democrats love judge killers or are soft on crime.

On the Smoking Ban, Altria (Philip Morris's parent) gives a good deal of campaign contributions, and they still have a receptive audience in the Republican General Assembly.  No surprise that something Republicans were unwilling to do when the bill was originally considered, they still rejected.  At least they are consistent.  =)

It would have been a real surprise if the vetoes were sustained and the Governor's smoking ban amendment been accepted.

Virginia has a sad moral history, too.

I hope God is not too busy with the "smite" button these days.  I was going to reprint the Far Side cartoon of the Smite Button, but Mr. Larson is very protective of his copyright even for very small uses.  So instead, here's the Biblical random curse generator.  http://ship-of-fools...

But on the bright side, Virginia is changing, and that change favors the Democratic Party. 

First, both the Bishop of Richmond, Francis DiLorenzo, and the Bishop of Arlington, Paul Loverde, supported Tim Kaine in his veto of the expansion of the death penalty and urged legislators not to override him.

Secondly, while the Torah does indeed allow the death penalty for many infractions, Jews have never been bound by a literal reading of the Torah. 

In fact, they are just as bound by the Talmud, which set an extremely high bar for actually executing anybody.

There had to be two witnesses.  One of those witnesses also had to have tried to stop the murderer and even warned him that he risked being executed if caught.

In other words, most of those on death row in Virginia never would have received the death penalty in a Sanhedrin (Jewish court).

And the Talmud also said that any Sanhedrin that actually gave the death penalty more than once in 70 years was considered to be blood thirsty.

The Catholic Church discourages the death penalty in modern times.  The Old Testament cannot really be used to justify its use today.  Interfaith Councils condemn it.

Only the religious right continues to support it.

I am of the belief that the Death Penatly is Secular.  You can't use religious officials condemnation of something to back one argument, like opposition to the Death Penalty, while ignoring the universal condemnations of things like abortion as well.

Just letting you know, a meaner person that myself could've tossed something like that right back in your face.

DanG, it's not mean at all to disagree and to dispute my argument.  And you have some good points.  Some people support or oppose the death penalty for secular reasons.

All I was trying to point out was that using the Old Testament to support it by citing an "eye for an eye" is not always accurate.  Most of the debate is couched in terms of Christian forgiveness versus Old Testament vengeance and that was the point I wanted to dispute.

I wanted to point out that non-Christians who use the Old Testament as the basis for their morality are no more vengeful and no less forgiving.  People in both religions oppose the death penalty using theological reasons.  And there are those in both religions who support it using a variety of reasons, including theological ones.

Also, abortion is not universally condemned.  Once again, in some religions it is accepted to save the mother's life or protect her health.  In others it is rejected categorically.  That's what makes it a sectarian issue.

Personally, my main reason for opposing the death penalty is not religious.  It is because there is a possibility that an innocent person could be convicted by a well-intentioned jury.  There is empircal evidence that this has happened in the past.  So, if you can keep a person in prison for life, I would opt for that. Then if a mistake has been made, at least, you can give the person back some of their life.

I don't disagree with either of you.  As I've said, personally I have a deep feeling that the death penalty is wrong, but that my visceral reactions sometimes support it.

(The death penalty may have been too good for the 9-11 perpetrators.)

I often cite Biblical references just for historical or literary purpose (it is as colorful as Shakespeare); at the same time I try to understand the history behind the writing of the Bible as a way to further understand how and why ethics have changed over time, and to understand how modern religious beliefs got to where they are now.

I don't like it when people cherry pick quotations.  You can find just about anything in the Bible.  (I diverge with those who think the Bible is a perfect document and represents some kind of telepathic highway into God's brain.  I need not get into all of that -- thousands of books have been written on the subject and there is vast disagreement within the scholarly and Christian communities on issues like inerrancy, divine inspiration, etc.)

I think I can safely say the following.  Ethics do change over time.  Think of the changing feelings about slavery.  Also, writers from the past educate us by revealing their own thought processes as they attempted to work out workable laws for society. 

To me it is helpful to read what Mosaic law tried to do, and evaluate whether it worked or not.  The same is true about this troubling fellow from Nazareth, who seemed to say -- "forgive, forgive, don't attack" -- without really describing whether there were any limits on his philosophy.  (There is a vast controversy -- which started with Jesus' contemporary supporters -- about how much of the "old law" was to be followed; again, Peter and Paul didn't agree so I don't think we can get any closer to resolving that little issue.)  And for a time Jesus' followers seemingly adhered to this "no defense" philosophy; there were a number of early Christian martyrs.

So I see ethics as an evolving concept.  Just as I think views on slavery changed, I feel we're seeing changing attitudes on sexual matters and the death penalty, aided by, of all things, science. Science, where DNA analysis is teaching us about wrongly accused criminals, and may lead us to understand more about why people behave sexually as they do.

I have always sensed in both of your writings the need to explore, and evaluate and reevaluate.  That, I think, is the best we can all do.  Correspondingly, I don't place much stock in the arguments of those who in effect say -- "that's the way we've always done it, and that's what my pappy taught me, and goldurn it, that's the way it is."

The wind of my speech could run a turbine large enough to illuminate a third world country (or about half a block of Las Vegas).

I've even gone back and reread the comments.  Great stuff.  Even the stuff I've disagreed with.

Put some silk robes on this bunch, beards on the men, and we're ready to pose for some 17th century Italian artist.