Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Blowing Smoke
On Monday, the Virginia Senate passed a bill that would ban smoking in public places and workplaces in this fair Commonwealth. The state that calls itself home to some of the world's biggest tobacco companies has struck a blow against tobacco.
Of course, it still has to pass the House of Delegates, and our new Governor doesn't seem to like it. But it's a step in the right direction.
I was actually going to write about this topic a little while ago, because Shelly and Ellie and I went out to eat. We went to Bennigan's in the local mall (shopping mall, not National Mall--we do still have the regular kind around here) because we love their onion strings. The nice hostess asks us, "Smoking or non-smoking?" and I roll my eyes at her and point to the baby.
As she says "Follow me," we walk straight toward the bar area, where there are a bunch of people blowing clouds of poisonous gas everywhere. I hold my breath and hold Ellie's carseat as far to the side as I can reach.
But then we stop. The hostess is pointing to a table not seven feet from the actual bar. On the other side of a three-foot high wall (a major obstacle for smoke) was a bunch of smokers. I tried to be as polite as I could, but I probably said something like "Um, no way. Can we go over there?" The hostess said, "It's a bit colder over there." "That's OK," I replied. "I'd rather breathe."
I wonder who was the person who thought that smoking sections and non-smoking sections could co-exist. I mean, that's like designating the left half of your cup a "no-water" section and then pouring water into the right half only.
In general, I'm not in favor of increased government regulation. Most of the time I subscribe to the mantra of "Let the market work it out." And one could make the argument that the market should work out the problem of smoking in public places. Some places will ban smoking of their own accord, and if people go to those places more often, then everyone will start doing it.
But this is a form of government regulation that even libertarian evangelist John Stuart Mill would approve of. He wrote: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
I mean, if you were sitting in a public place and a stranger came up to you and sprayed the room with a can of mildly poisonous gas for a sustained period of time, you could sue him. Why is it different when the poisonous gas comes out of the stranger's mouth?
It's not a matter of regulation; it's a matter of public safety. Eleven states and hundreds of municipalities have now passed smoking bans, and I suppose it's only a matter of time before all of them do.
There just aren't any good arguments against smoking bans. What, you're afraid the restaurants will lose business from smokers? Do you really think that people who smoke will stop going to restaurants just because they can't smoke there? They still go to the office, where they probably can't smoke. They go to the airport, where they can only smoke in designated Cancer Rooms. They'll still go out to eat; they'll just smoke in the doorway (and the rest of us will have to hold our breath as we open the door--the law against that is still a ways off).
I've even heard the argument that smokers will literally take their business to another jurisdiction that doesn't ban smoking. Even in a metropolitan area like mine that encompasses two states and a federal district, I can't imagine the following conversation happening between two smoker friends who want to go out:
* And if you think that's funny, imagine a smoker in, say, Denver, saying, "No way, man. Let's go to Wyoming."

I was actually going to write about this topic a little while ago, because Shelly and Ellie and I went out to eat. We went to Bennigan's in the local mall (shopping mall, not National Mall--we do still have the regular kind around here) because we love their onion strings. The nice hostess asks us, "Smoking or non-smoking?" and I roll my eyes at her and point to the baby.
As she says "Follow me," we walk straight toward the bar area, where there are a bunch of people blowing clouds of poisonous gas everywhere. I hold my breath and hold Ellie's carseat as far to the side as I can reach.
But then we stop. The hostess is pointing to a table not seven feet from the actual bar. On the other side of a three-foot high wall (a major obstacle for smoke) was a bunch of smokers. I tried to be as polite as I could, but I probably said something like "Um, no way. Can we go over there?" The hostess said, "It's a bit colder over there." "That's OK," I replied. "I'd rather breathe."
I wonder who was the person who thought that smoking sections and non-smoking sections could co-exist. I mean, that's like designating the left half of your cup a "no-water" section and then pouring water into the right half only.
In general, I'm not in favor of increased government regulation. Most of the time I subscribe to the mantra of "Let the market work it out." And one could make the argument that the market should work out the problem of smoking in public places. Some places will ban smoking of their own accord, and if people go to those places more often, then everyone will start doing it.
But this is a form of government regulation that even libertarian evangelist John Stuart Mill would approve of. He wrote: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
I mean, if you were sitting in a public place and a stranger came up to you and sprayed the room with a can of mildly poisonous gas for a sustained period of time, you could sue him. Why is it different when the poisonous gas comes out of the stranger's mouth?
It's not a matter of regulation; it's a matter of public safety. Eleven states and hundreds of municipalities have now passed smoking bans, and I suppose it's only a matter of time before all of them do.
There just aren't any good arguments against smoking bans. What, you're afraid the restaurants will lose business from smokers? Do you really think that people who smoke will stop going to restaurants just because they can't smoke there? They still go to the office, where they probably can't smoke. They go to the airport, where they can only smoke in designated Cancer Rooms. They'll still go out to eat; they'll just smoke in the doorway (and the rest of us will have to hold our breath as we open the door--the law against that is still a ways off).
I've even heard the argument that smokers will literally take their business to another jurisdiction that doesn't ban smoking. Even in a metropolitan area like mine that encompasses two states and a federal district, I can't imagine the following conversation happening between two smoker friends who want to go out:
Friend 1: Dude, let's go to Bennigan's tonight for dinner over at theI wrote to my Delegate and my Governor and asked them to support the Virginia smoking ban. In the meantime, I'm going to be careful about where I take my baby in public, and some establishments might lose MY business.
mall. They've got killer onion strings.
Friend 2: No way, man. You can't smoke there. Let's go to
Maryland.*
* And if you think that's funny, imagine a smoker in, say, Denver, saying, "No way, man. Let's go to Wyoming."
Comments:
Sadly, the VA House committee shot down the bill the other day. We will have to live to fight another day (if we can't avoid the second-hand smoke, that is)
Post a Comment
