Comments on: RPV Executive Committee Takes A Stand On Smoking, Has Some New Members?

By: RPV Executive Committee Bucks Howell « On the Western Banks of the Shenandoah

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:33:32 +0000

[...] efforts of Speaker Howell to compromise with Governor Kaine on a ban on smoking in public places. From Bearing Drift: As members of the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia, we wish to remind you [...]

By: Darrell

Darrell — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:46:36 +0000

Yep, and why those places that card you charge ten bucks for a plate of greasy wings a dog wouldn’t eat. What’s amazing is that they are open maybe six hours a night, manage to keep the crowd below fire safety standards, and are still able to meet the ABC 55/45 ratio week in week out. Perhaps Obama needs to pick some of them to run his bail out crew.

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:53:00 +0000

Oh, that’s why some “restaurants” card you at the door and some “restaurants” don’t, huh.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:26:14 +0000

No such thing as bars in VA. The liquor-to-food sales ratio makes all establishments a restaurant.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:51:46 +0000

As long as he’s not texting in the process he may be alright.

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:40:23 +0000

Mark, if you trip into so many bars, perhaps you shouldn’t be driving.

By: mack

mack — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:37:44 +0000

Brian, are you trying to be obtuse? Let me take you through this slowly, so I don’t lose you. The point is not that you have to drive to Arlington to get a beer in a smoke-free venue. The point is that if I can trip into that many smoke-free bars without trying on a five-mile drive in Arlington, you ought to be able to find at least one in 20 years of living in a sophisticated, urbane area like Hampton Roads, especially since you appear to regard a whiff of smoke in a bar as the physiological equivalent of nerve gas. Sheesh!

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:10:12 +0000

Mack, I’m not driving to Arlington for a beer.

JR, of course I’m arguing for the sake of arguing. I’m amazed that this is what people want to comment about.

By: John Harvie

John Harvie — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:43:11 +0000

Smoking is becoming more of an outmoded practice and there are valid reasons to restrict it even though this may run contrary to the most libertarian of positions. Very few restaurants will go out of business; I submit the majority of those smoking folks wishing to eat out will not suddenly go to the trouble of cooking and eating at home. Logical, yes/no? Restaurants needing/wanting to accommodate smokers will spend to upgrade ventilation, etc. If they succumb economically, a new check-cashing enterprise will likely sublet their location!

First, as in the case of the old buggy whip analogy, Altria and some of its jobs may disappear but new jobs and industries seem arise to supplant those which have disappeared since over the long haul the population and economy grow. The new jobs may not directly replace Atria’s but new jobs will come from somewhere.

Second, analogous to the mandatory seat belt and texting while driving issues, health insurance rates (as do auto insurance rates) reflect the overall statistical usage/costs of our insurance, be they health or auto (… and I’m using the word insurance loosely here …).

To paraphrase, let’s not “win the battles and lose the wars”. November ’08 is coming.

By: mack

mack — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:02:50 +0000

Brian, your contention that you have never seen a non-smoking bar strains credulity. In the People’s Republic of Arlington, I drive by at least five on my way home from work every night that I can think of off-hand – Liberty Tavern, Clarendon Grill, Thirsty Bernies, Eventide, and Ireland’s Four Courts. The free market is remarkably efficient, really.

By: J.R. Hoeft

J.R. Hoeft — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:45:12 +0000

That doesn’t mean if someone didn’t start a non-smoking bar that it wouldn’t become popular.

Or…do market forces dictate that a majority of people who frequent bars WANT to smoke there?

I get the impression you’re arguing for argument’s sake…at least, you’re about 180 out on conservative, free market principles.

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:28:56 +0000

Jason, no one forces me to get on an airplane, either, but federal law says no one can smoke on it.

No one forces me to take a job, but every office I’ve ever been in has been non-smoking.

Yes, I have a right to frequent another establishment. Ever try to find a non-smoking bar? In 20 years, i have yet to find one.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:04:58 +0000

Brian – You CHOOSE to go to that restaurant where you KNOW that someone may be sitting next to you and smoking. No one forced you to go to that establishment, in fact, you have every right to choose to frequent another establishment that better suits your own tastes.

In a down economy you support forcing your beliefs on an industry in a manner that could cost Virginians many jobs merely because you don’t want to simply go to Panera over O’Charlie’s or any number of other alternatives available to you.

By: Britt Howard

Britt Howard — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:45:10 +0000

Even most Libertarians agree that there is a need for laws and regulation. The function of government is to “Protect the Individual from Force and Fraud”. That’s why we have laws that prohibit murder, theft etc.

There are a multitude of reasons for regulating abortion. This is true whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. If you are pro-choice you STILL want the woman to be able to make an informed decision. There ARE health consequences and risks involved with any procedure let alone something of this magnitude. If you argue from the Pro-Life side, then you maintain that the baby is regarded all rights as a human being and therefore due protection of life ending force.

On the other hand, if smokers want to congregate in a place of business that allows it and if non-smokers join, then they are making willful informed decisions to take on risk in order to gain entertainment value or what ever. That risk is not put on other non-consenting people. If you enter, you consent.

Although, the watered down version of Cosgrove’s bill is still distasteful in that it is an intrusion and still doesn’t even give benefits of a smoke-free setting, I do have an appreciation for part of it.

Yes, I made all kinds of “do it for the children” jokes elsewhere but, rhetoric aside, children are not competent parties. Children therefore can not make informed consent and an obvious arguement for regulation can be made. If I read correctly, smokers will still be allowed to smoke where minors are prohibited (bars for example).

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:36:59 +0000

Well, opposing the smoking ban and the marriage amendment are at least consistent positions.

I favor both. I’ve said it before. Smoking can be a tradition that goes back for thousands of years and it might have been the only economy in this state for generations, but I’m not going to waste my time fighting to preserve it.

If anyone wants to smoke, they can. If anyone wants to smoke next to me at dinner, I have a problem with it.