Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia
Do we need to stop smoking in Virginia Restaurants
I recently listened to arguments on Doc Thompson's show about a law being backed by Governor Cain regarding limiting smoking at all eating and drinking establishments. I come from a state (Massachusetts) that has already eliminated smoking in all public businesses with few exceptions. Doc Thompson was adamant in his defense of smokers rights as defending individual liberty. I take exception to that and I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I believe that people should have a right to do as they please up to the point where it begins to affect other people. I agree that there is a fine line that can be drawn as to where ones behavior begins to affect others and it is indeed a treacherous road. I do however believe in the right of states to decide as a people where that line needs to be drawn. I do not believe there is any argument as to wether I have the right to eat in restaurants as you all do. I also believe that I should be able to do so without you imposing on my space in that restaurant. As such I have no problem with restrictions on smoking in public spaces.
I understand the free market argument I just don't buy it here. In Massachusetts for years people would say that if restaurants were not allowed to have smoking people would just goto New Hampshire to eat. It was also said that if there was a market for smoke free restaurants then there would be smoke free restaurants. Of course there weren't any smoke free restaurants and to goto a restaurant one would have to suck up everyones smoke and deal with their clothes smelling like smoke as well. This is where smoker's "rights" were impeding on everyone else's rights. So Massachusetts finally passed a law eliminating smoking in restaurants and bars. It was particularly worded to protect the workers at these establishments. I find it ridiculouse to say that if you don't want to deal with the cigarette smoke you should get a different job.
When the law was passed in Massachusetts a funny thing happened. More people started going to restaurants and lounges. Public health has also made strides with reduced heart and lung disease in every state that has limited smoking in the work place and restaurants.
I believe there are possible compromises that could be made like allowing smoking at primarily drinking establishments but not in restaurants. Or in one state there was a cut off time where no smoking was allowed before 8pm. This allowed families to go out to eat without exposing there children to smoke.
To be honest I don't much care if this law passes or not as I don't eat out much and if I do I find the no-smoking sections just fine. My problem here is that I see the point of restricting smoking and it has a lot of merit. Doc Thompson framed his opinion as though defending smoking were some sort of conservative principle and while I believe conservatives should fight for individual liberty, that liberty ends when your smoke crosses my table.
I believe that people should have a right to do as they please up to the point where it begins to affect other people. I agree that there is a fine line that can be drawn as to where ones behavior begins to affect others and it is indeed a treacherous road. I do however believe in the right of states to decide as a people where that line needs to be drawn. I do not believe there is any argument as to wether I have the right to eat in restaurants as you all do. I also believe that I should be able to do so without you imposing on my space in that restaurant. As such I have no problem with restrictions on smoking in public spaces.
I understand the free market argument I just don't buy it here. In Massachusetts for years people would say that if restaurants were not allowed to have smoking people would just goto New Hampshire to eat. It was also said that if there was a market for smoke free restaurants then there would be smoke free restaurants. Of course there weren't any smoke free restaurants and to goto a restaurant one would have to suck up everyones smoke and deal with their clothes smelling like smoke as well. This is where smoker's "rights" were impeding on everyone else's rights. So Massachusetts finally passed a law eliminating smoking in restaurants and bars. It was particularly worded to protect the workers at these establishments. I find it ridiculouse to say that if you don't want to deal with the cigarette smoke you should get a different job.
When the law was passed in Massachusetts a funny thing happened. More people started going to restaurants and lounges. Public health has also made strides with reduced heart and lung disease in every state that has limited smoking in the work place and restaurants.
I believe there are possible compromises that could be made like allowing smoking at primarily drinking establishments but not in restaurants. Or in one state there was a cut off time where no smoking was allowed before 8pm. This allowed families to go out to eat without exposing there children to smoke.
To be honest I don't much care if this law passes or not as I don't eat out much and if I do I find the no-smoking sections just fine. My problem here is that I see the point of restricting smoking and it has a lot of merit. Doc Thompson framed his opinion as though defending smoking were some sort of conservative principle and while I believe conservatives should fight for individual liberty, that liberty ends when your smoke crosses my table.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Moore on -
No, restaurants are private property. They have OWNERS. Codes and administrative rules do not make them public. A restaurant owner can make you leave - as long as it is not because of your race or sex. For instance, if you cause a disturbance, they can call the police and the police will escort you off the premesis and arrest you as a trespasser. In fact, he can make you leave for NO reason - again, it cannot be race or sex based. Not so in a public library or courthouse. This is an important distinction when we are talking about the survival of our Republic.
So, a smoking ban in restaurants. Do you think it will stop there? What do you think of banning meat in restaurants? Animal rights groups would love that. Don't think it cannot happen.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Collins on -
I'm sure it could happen. Look at the article you posted on education. They are apparently already teaching our children it's OK to rebel against meat. You forgot handicap. If restaurants are private why do they have to make accomodations for Handicap people which cost them money. I agree that a restaurant owner should have the right to say who does or doesn't enter his or her business. They put the money up and took the risk.
I agree that it seems that the resaurants in Virginia do a fine job of legislating smoking on their own. I'm really not sure why people like Governer Kaine have decided that this is the issue du jour. I would say that judging from the opinions on this site its not very popular. But then this is a conservative site. I have only been in Virginia for one year. Maybe someone could clue me in as to how long people have been trying to get this through. It seems a common liberal tactic to continually bring up an issue (seat belts for instance) until the will of the people to fight against it is gone.
George . You'd like my dad I think. He was born in Massachusetts and grew up between there and New York but he only had two Civil War Heroes. Lee and Jackson. We have both studied the war and it was pretty clear that the south had the better of the generals for sure. The north just had more lives to waste.
-
Permalink Reply by Suzanne on -
Mark Collins said:Again I must reiterate that I do not believe this is not a personal liberty issue. Your liberties end where they affect the liberties of others. Comparing smoking to perfumes is apples to oranges as smoking is damaging to ALL who inhale it not just those with allergies. The argument should be whether smoking is enough of a hazard to justify protecting people from it. Since most people argue it as a liberty issue I believe it is because they know they would lose that argument on the public health basis.
Consider this. People argue against banning abortion saying that abortion is an issue of personal liberty. They do not want the liberty of the unborn child considered because in this case their liberty would infringe on the liberty of that child and would damage their argument. By successfully arguing this as a personal liberty issue they effectively used the courts to end the argument.
If you use Suzanne's perfume argument as a personal liberty issue I could go into a resaurant and put an incense stick on the table. Suzanne at the table next to me could find this extremely offensive and complain to restaurant management. Not the restaurant manager has to choose whose personal liberty he wants to respect. If you look at is a a public health issue you could say that burning the incense at my table is having a negative health impact on people at other tables. Since I clearly do not need the incese the public health decision would favor not allowing the incense at all.
I guess if you look at is as not personal liberty but the business owners liberty you would make more sense. The business owner makes the decision what he wants his establishment to smell like. A candle shop owner certainly would want people to smell the candles upon walking in the door. Someone allergic to those scents would know not to frequent that establishment. But then candle scents are not a public health hazard except to a select group of people with allergies.
Where do you draw the public health line. We inspect the kitchen for contaminents, we inspect the food at restaurants for contaminants yet you are suggesting that we cannot expect them to keep the air clean. It could be that all is necessary is for restaurants to isolate smoking areas or it could be that that still offers a health risk to other people in the room. It may be just a question of proper ventallation. I find this most likely as I have been in restaurants that allowed smoking where I could not smell the smoke at all and I've been in others where it wreaked of smoke.
I still contend though that this is NOT a personal liberty issue and that that is an argument used by smokers who know they lose the argument on a public health basis.
Well here is a case where an employer had to institute a no-perfume policy because of an employee's allergies. I would never go that route
"Severe allergies may rise to the level of a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). So the first thing you need to do is find out whether your employee has a disability. Apply the same principles you do to other disability accommodation requests.
Ask for certification that shows the sensitivity impairs a major life activity.
Discuss accommodation options with the employee.
Determine whether any of the options can be implemented without posing an undue hardship.
If an employee does have an ADA-protected disability, an employer might not have any choice but to ban fragrances and scented soaps and lotions. A no-perfume policy may seem unreasonable to other employees, but it's not; wearing perfume or cologne is not a need or a protected right. Some employees still may not like it, but they'll be less likely to argue with the law.
However, you do not have to go so far as to provide an absolutely odor-free environment, as one employee demanded. A court ruled that her employer met its ADA accommodation obligation by instituting a no-perfume policy. (Kaufmann v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 3rd Cir., No. 06-3019, 2007)"
From: http://www.legalworkplace.com/banning-personal-fragrances-ada-accom...
And then there's this:
Global Recognition Campaign for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
http://www.mcs-global.org/Fragrance-Free-Policies_Links.htm
Where does it end?
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Frashure on -
Mark, I've read what your post along with about three of your replies in the discussion. A) I'm glad you've finally figured out it's Kaine, not Cain and B) the term is de jure, not de jour.
"I agree with the personal liberty agument as long as it does not directly affect someone else. Seat belt laws for example. Whether I wear a seat belt or not has no affect on you or anyone else. It only affects me and then only in the very unlikely occurance that I get in an accident."
It's really simple:
Who makes the choice to walk into the restaurant, knowing there will be people smoking? You do. But you have that choice, do you not? No one makes you walk in there. Just as well, the smokers have the choice to smoke or not to do so. Your rights can't be infringed on if the so called infringement resulted from your choice of being infringed upon.
Think of it this way: You may do what you will until someone else walks in, and in their presence your rights are now limited because what they believe somehow trumps what you believe. Now tell me who's got the unfair advantage?
It is not the government's responsibility to tell a privately owned business how it may or may not operate. Furthermore, it is precisely what our government was intended to prevent at its birth.
Thanks for your opinion, welcome to Virginia. Politics down here is a bit different, so you may want to check out http://www.vademocrats.org ;)
-
Permalink Reply by George Daily on -
"Thanks for your opinion, welcome to Virginia. Politics down here is a bit different, so you may want to check out http://www.vademocrats.org ;)"
Ouch! That was cold. Let's not be mean to Mark. He's really a good guy and he's trying to get this one little thing sorted out. :)
And, I think Mark deserves credit for bringing up a topic that, when taken to the next level, brings up the very real issue of Consevative Republicans and the rest of the Republican Party, otherwise known, in my opinion, as RINOS. In my opinion, if the Republican Party is not the conservative party it has no purpose. In the smoking issue we have a matter of personal preference that some people feel very stongly about for personal reasons. The question is what is the individual Republican response to a conflict between principle and personal preference? I believe conservatives generally are going to support the principle and other Republicans are generally going to make an exception and support their personal preference when its a hot button item for them. Once that happens the individual's political philosophy loses integrity because one of its supporting principles has been violated. In other words, if one can rationalize their way into opposition to their principles they will stand for nothing and fall for anything.
Democrats have one overarching principle that they never violate even when taking opposing positions on an issue. That is their support for "collectivism" (otherwise know as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism, Liberalism, Progressive-ism, all horns on the same goat) imposed by government at the incidental expense of the individual.
Collectivist government is the antithesis of individual liberty, opportunity and justice. Once one absorbs that simple truth, everything else is easy.
-
Permalink Reply by John Moore on
-
No one was "mean to Mark." It is debate - If you want to see mean, go to a liberal website and argue. Not even your mother will be safe from insult.
George Daily said:"Thanks for your opinion, welcome to Virginia. Politics down here is a bit different, so you may want to check out http://www.vademocrats.org ;)"
Ouch! That was cold. Let's not be mean to Mark. He's really a good guy and he's trying to get this one little thing sorted out. :)
And, I think Mark deserves credit for bringing up a topic that, when taken to the next level, brings up the very real issue of Consevative Republicans and the rest of the Republican Party, otherwise known, in my opinion, as RINOS. In my opinion, if the Republican Party is not the conservative party it has no purpose. In the smoking issue we have a matter of personal preference that some people feel very stongly about for personal reasons. The question is what is the individual Republican response to a conflict between principle and personal preference? I believe conservatives generally are going to support the principle and other Republicans are generally going to make an exception and support their personal preference when its a hot button item for them. Once that happens the individual's political philosophy loses integrity because one of its supporting principles has been violated. In other words, if one can rationalize their way into opposition to their principles they will stand for nothing and fall for anything.
Democrats have one overarching principle that they never violate even when taking opposing positions on an issue. That is their support for "collectivism" (otherwise know as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism, Liberalism, Progressive-ism, all horns on the same goat) imposed by government at the incidental expense of the individual.
Collectivist government is the antithesis of individual liberty, opportunity and justice. Once one absorbs that simple truth, everything else is easy.
-
Permalink Reply by George Daily on
-
John Moore said:No one was "mean to Mark." It is debate - If you want to see mean, go to a liberal website and argue. Not even your mother will be safe from insult.
George Daily said:I was just kidding, John!
-
Permalink Reply by Sandy Cope on
-
John- If you read every comment on this site since it started, you would know that George Daily was in no way actually implying that anyone was "mean to mark", rather, he was deploying a little sarcastic humor. And, no one has insulted Mark, although your link to the VA Democrat site was priceless, and more in keeping with the opinion that if one personally does not like something, there are other parties which employ taking away the liberties of one to appease the so-called rights of another. That's called Liberalism Socialism Marxism, pick your ism.
John Moore said:No one was "mean to Mark." It is debate - If you want to see mean, go to a liberal website and argue. Not even your mother will be safe from insult.
George Daily said:"Thanks for your opinion, welcome to Virginia. Politics down here is a bit different, so you may want to check out http://www.vademocrats.org ;)"
Ouch! That was cold. Let's not be mean to Mark. He's really a good guy and he's trying to get this one little thing sorted out. :)
And, I think Mark deserves credit for bringing up a topic that, when taken to the next level, brings up the very real issue of Consevative Republicans and the rest of the Republican Party, otherwise known, in my opinion, as RINOS. In my opinion, if the Republican Party is not the conservative party it has no purpose. In the smoking issue we have a matter of personal preference that some people feel very stongly about for personal reasons. The question is what is the individual Republican response to a conflict between principle and personal preference? I believe conservatives generally are going to support the principle and other Republicans are generally going to make an exception and support their personal preference when its a hot button item for them. Once that happens the individual's political philosophy loses integrity because one of its supporting principles has been violated. In other words, if one can rationalize their way into opposition to their principles they will stand for nothing and fall for anything.
Democrats have one overarching principle that they never violate even when taking opposing positions on an issue. That is their support for "collectivism" (otherwise know as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism, Liberalism, Progressive-ism, all horns on the same goat) imposed by government at the incidental expense of the individual.
Collectivist government is the antithesis of individual liberty, opportunity and justice. Once one absorbs that simple truth, everything else is easy.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank McKinney on -
Haven't been on the site for awhile, but came across this debate. As the owner of a restaurant in Fredericksburg, I'm adamantly opposed to a cigarette ban. I'm a non-smoker and I don't allow smoking in my restaurant, but that is my choice (at least for now). I see this, not as a personal rights issue, but as a free-market issue and keeping government regulations out of business.
It goes back to the argument of the source of authority for government. Government's source of authority is "we the people". If "we the people" don't have the authority to do something, then we can not delegate that authority to our government. If I don't have the authority to go to my neighboring businesses and tell them they can not allow smoking in their establishments, then I can not delegate that authority to my government.
Governments that usurp their authority are, by definition, tyrannical. The problem is, our governments (local, state, and federal) have been usurping their authority for so long that we have all gotten use to it and don't even recognize it.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Collins on
-
Excellent point Frank about how numb we have become. Government intrudes into so many areas where it does not belong that we hardly even recognize it anymore. We draw a line in the sand and then step back, draw another line and then step back. There are soooo many examples where something unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago is very close to becoming reality.
Don't worry about being mean to me guys. I have learned a lot about Virginians in this particular thread. I'm used to being the only conservative in the room; here there are many.
I'm still having a tough time reconciling my supposed conservative former governor Mr Romney. Then there was Republican Bill Weld who led Republicans for Obama and he was a fiscal conservative back in the eighties when he was Governor of Massachusetts. I think Reagan is the only place I could have gotten my conservative views and he was a Californian.
How's the restaurant Frank. Anything I should check out??
-
Permalink Reply by Frank McKinney on
-
Mark,
The restaurant could be doing better. Of course, that can be said for many other businesses these days. We're still here. You can check us out at www.cafecamille.com and please stop in the next time you're in the Fredericksburg area. We're right off I-95 in Central Park.
Thanks for asking,
Frank
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Collins on
-
I'll surely check it out next time I'm passing through. I hope you got some good business off the the inauguration of the first African American President. Now he'll take it back and redistribute it.
About
Badge
© 2010 Created by O. P. Ditch on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
