Today’s lead editorial on smoking recognize the growing popularity of smoke-free establishments, as well as the indisputable health benefits of smoke-free air. But it ends by asking whether smokers shouldn’t have a few places where they can still light up.

Apparently, for some the answer is no: Smoking is unhealthy, so people shouldn’t be exposed to smoke. Period.

The attitude raises an interesting question about the role of consent in a free society. Suppose—just supposing, now—someone were to announce plans to open the Barfupalung Restaurant and Lounge, where smoking was not only permitted, but required. Through prominent signs and heavy advertising, Barfupalung promoted itself as a smoke-filled environment and made plain the First Rule of Barfupalung: If you want to eat, you have to smoke. If you don’t want to smoke, then you can go someplace else.

Anyone who patronized such a joint clearly would be signaling his consent to inhale the foul fumes of the fumarists*. No one who walked through the doors would be surprised by the smoke. No one who applied for a job there would be surprised by what he or she was getting into.

Given all that, what would be wrong with permitting such a business? After all, we permit the existence of strip clubs and music clubs—even though lots of people find strip clubs repulsive and the music at some nightclubs can actually damage hearing—on the grounds that people who don’t want to be exposed to such elements don’t have to go to such establishments.

Here are some potential lines of rebuttal to the argument from consent: (a) Well, suppose Barfupalong wanted to discriminate against minorities. What about that? (b) Suppose Barfupalung wanted to let patrons smoke pot or shoot heroin. (c) Suppose Barfupalung wanted to host dogfights.

Here are some potential retorts to the rebuttals: (a) Smoking is a choice freely made, unlike skin color. (b1) Tobacco is legal. (b2) Exactly! What’s wrong with opium dens for consenting adults? (c) Dogs can’t express meaningful consent.

Your reproofs to the retorts to the rebuttals are hereby invited.

* Fumarist = smoker. From the Latin fumare, to smoke.

You’re right Bill—someone’s right to own guns (for protection) is a totally different bird than someone’s alleged “right” to be hedonistic. That was me just taking the cheapest shot possible—hey I’d like to be an Angel but doesn’t always work out.

I will argue the 2nd-hand smoke thing (concerning waiters in restaurants) though, on these legitimate grounds:

There is some data out there saying that 2nd-hand smoke can cause harm to an innocent individual. Ok, this ought to be common sense anyway. BUT there is no conclusive data saying just how much exposure, or, how close a person must be to get these negative effects.

In other words, there’s a ton of difference between (a.) a person stuck-in a 6 X 6 cube constantly breathing in thick smoke and (b.) a person who only transiently passes-by a smoker—who at most might catch the tail-end of a highly dissipated cloud. More often than not, the person in (b.) catches more odor than they do actual smoke.

There is no “proven”, clear line that distinguishes the above…but a basic knowledge of particulate matter, gases, vapours AND how human physiology copes in certain environments is all that’s needed to reasonably conclude that one would have to be in a situation closer to (a.), than (b.), to see harmful effects.

Based on this, I honestly do believe this anti-smoke push is more a matter of chronically-complaining Felix Ungers (HONK!) than it is any realistic health danger. Some people just hate the smell of the stuff and I don’t blame them. In fact I agree.

But its not good enough cause to warrant an edict from the freakin’ governor.

B: “The government sets all kinds of rules, including penalties, for “what goes on someone’s private business.”
L: So why not a whole bunch more, right? Since we have 5 rules why not just go ahead allow 10 or 20 more? Walk on me…I’m a doormat!

Not my point at all.  Not using this as justification for more laws.  Just that your argument seemed to be that if something was a matter of “private” business, the government shouldn’t stick its nose in and regulate it in any way.  My point is that just because something is a matter of private business does not prevent gubmint from regulating it.  The fact that something is a matter of “business” between consenting folks has never been and cannot be the answer as to the limit of legislative power.

L: The only thing that might come of this is that a few wimpy waiters won’t go home with irritated nasal passages.

I think there is sufficient data to reasonably conclude that inhaling tobacco smoke causes much more than “irritated nasal passages” and you don’t have to be “wimpy” to get cancer, or heck, even to just be annoyed by the stink of the stuff.

B: “Being that our government model is based pretty much on majority rule, the legislation that results will (in theory) reflect the will of “the people””
L: Just curious Bill…then why doesn’t that apply to the Iraq war also???

Uh… gotta admit I’m not sure where you’re going here.  Good question - why doesn’t it apply to the Iraq war?  I never argued that it doesn’t.  Problem is - what is the TRUE, objective “will of the people”??  No one can truly say.  Democrats say that majority of Americans want us out of there; Republicans say the majority of Americans want to “stay the course” and “get the job done.“  There isn’t a soul alive who can truly say with any degree of authority or veracity what the majority of Americans really want us to do Iraq.  The whole thing is such a political hot potato that lots of congresscritters on both sides of the aisle will likely not vote the way they would truly like to, so as not to (i) alienate their base and/or (ii) alienate the middle.  If the Dems really want to pull out the troops like they say, they control Congress, which means they control the spending power, which means they can de-fund the war.  But they don’t want to do that because that would look like they don’t support the troops.

Besides, running a war is a very different issue than social legislation like what we’re talking about here.  The President is commander in chief of the armed forces - there are various and different constitutional issues at play there that are not implicated in the least with social legislation like a ban on smoking in restaurants.

B: “Sorry if I’m having a hard time getting all hopped up over this one…”
L: You wouldn’t be so ladi-dah if the bill had mentioned your damn guns.

Well now you’ve found something we totally agree 100% on.  You’re abso-damn-lutely right I wouldn’t be.  Let’s see if we can figure out what the difference is.  Hmmm… no constitutionally protected right to smoke in restaurants; clearly and expressly stated constitutional right to keep and bear arms… hmmm….  the right to defend myself and my family; the inconvenience of having to go a whole hour or so without smoking and waiting until I’m outside the restaurant before I light up.  Yup - boy, it’s a close one - they’re so similar!

You’re right - but I would also be a hell of a lot more agitated if the bill in question in some way affected freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, due process rights, the right of the people to be free from unreasonable and unwarranted search and siezures, or any other fundamental, constitutionally protected right.  But this legislation has nothing to do with any of those things.  I’m sure there are hundreds of bills that get debated and even pass into legislation every year that you couldn’t care less about as well.  Sorry but I just don’t see this particular one as really affecting an issue that I hold dear.  You obviously do.  Isn’t it OK if we disagree on that?

They over rode the death penalty veto on murdering judges or witnesses, but not on accessories. That over ride failed by 2 votes.

Just checked the latest news on the Times-Dispatch site, and the smoking ban was defeated today in the house, so the senate doesn’t have to act on it. The original version, with the smokers signs being posted goes back to the Governor, who says he will veto it. Guess thats it for this year.

Hi again Bill, You’re a tough one alright. But please lemme open up a few quickies:

B: “The government sets all kinds of rules, including penalties, for “what goes on someone’s private business.“
L: So why not a whole bunch more, right? Since we have 5 rules why not just go ahead allow 10 or 20 more? Walk on me…I’m a doormat!

B:“ What I’m getting at is your stated justification for your position ...a business transaction between private citizens…“
L: The main thing I am attacking is the (stated) reason behind KAINE’S legislation: That this proposed law —which deals only with the very few restaurants which still allow smoking —  will greatly improve the health of Virginians. Baloney! The only thing that might come of this is that a few wimpy waiters won’t go home with irritated nasal passages. I’m sorry but that’s not a good enough reason to make such a forceful law.

B: “Being that our government model is based pretty much on majority rule, the legislation that results will (in theory) reflect the will of “the people”“
L: Just curious Bill…then why doesn’t that apply to the Iraq war also???

And finally, I’ve saved the best for last…

B: “Sorry if I’m having a hard time getting all hopped up over this one…“
L: You wouldn’t be so ladi-dah if the bill had mentioned your damn guns.

Well first of all, Larry, the governator won’t be doing what you’re saying - the General Assembly will.  IF (and this is a big IF) such legislation actually does pass, it will be an act of the state legislature, acting (supposedly) as a representative body of the people of this good Commonwealth.  Sure, Guv. Kaine is promoting the idea and pushing it, but if the GA says uh-uh, no-no, there’s nothing he can do to make it happen.  So let’s get away from the “governor is doing this” language.

I see you waving the Libertarian flag, there, Larry, and lean that way myself - government governs best that governs least.

The point I was trying to make is that sure, that’s a great general idea - let people do business with whomever they want.  But the question remains one of public policy: how far to you take that principle?  That cannot be the standard against which all legislation must be judged, else we’d hobble the government and pretty much have anarchy.

Using your rule - i.e., that the business owner gets to decide who he does business with, etc., etc. and the goverment should not interfere with that - contravenes all kinds of decades-old legislation and public policy - as I pointed out with the “devil’s advocate” example.  My point there is that the arguments I’ve seen thus far - i.e., just because the authority exists doesn’t mean you should use it; that the business owner should be able to decide who he does business with - could equally be applied to just about any piece of legislation; and in fact they WERE used way back in the `60’s when civil rights legislation started becoming a big national issue.

The government sets all kinds of rules, including penalties, for “what goes on someone’s private business.“  Your rule as stated is awfully absolute - is there no area in which the state can legitimately exercise power?  Just because it’s your “private business” does not, in itself, remove it from potentially being subject to regulation.  What it comes down to is, again, a question of public policy - what types of activities, businesses, behaviors, etc. (1) does the goverment have the power to regulate and (2) should the government regulate? 

Here, the power clearly exists - all that we’re talking about now is the policy question of whether this particular issue is one where that power should be exercised - and you’ve made your position on that point exceedingly clear. 

What I’m getting at is your stated justification for your position - just because something is a business transaction between private citizens does not mean it is or should always and ever be automatically immune from goverment regulation.

What it comes down to is that there are those who want to smoke in restaurants and those who want to eat in restaurants without smoke present.  Being that our government model is based pretty much on majority rule, the legislation that results will (in theory) reflect the will of “the people”.  If the sense of General Assembly is that a ban on smoking is good for the Commonwealth and in alignment with the will of the people we’ll get one; if the sense of the GA is that it’s bad and people don’t want it, we won’t get one.

Sorry if I’m having a hard time getting all hopped up over this one, but I just don’t see it as any horrible trespass against fundamental rights.  But I won’t be demonstrating outside the capital building with a “ban smoking” sign either.  As you say, there are certain establishments I just choose not to go into.

Allow ME to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment. Let’s assume that a major concern over smoking in restaurants are the tourists who come through our state —who don’t always have a clear choice as to where they can eat. We don’t want through-travellers being replused by any stop they make in VA, afterall. (Especially if they are rich.)

Ok….

....these tourists will inevitably stop at chain restaurants at the exits of the interstate: Shoneys, Dennys, McDonalds, Burger King and such.

I challenge any of you: Try going into a Shoney’s in Fairfax County and sparking-up a nasty ol’, smoky cigarette. You won’t get to finish it, believe me —most all these restaurants had effectively banned smoking years ago!

KAINE’S LAW IS NOT NEEDED. IT IS NONSENSE LEGISLATION.

Bill said, “Question is who gets the penalty if somebody smokes in there?  The smoker or the business owner?“

Bill, Bill, BILL…you just went in a huge circle, arriving back at the origin to (unwittingly) re-state the underlying problem! In my American opinion a state’s governor should not be in the business of setting penalties for what goes on in someone’s private business!

If I have a business I will like to decide who comes and goes and when or what they do; what they wear; if they smoke cigs or they don’t; whether or not they can bring their mother-in-law inside.  My business!!! NOT Gubbner Kaine’s.

Am I making contact?

How bout us hillbillys who have an aversion to shirts and shoes? I think someone should take up our cause. Maybe under pursuit of happiness? I’m very unhappy in shoes, being unable to feel the soil and commune with Mother Nature. This might even fall under interfering with my religious beliefs.

Seriously, because precedents have been set for this kind of governmental interference in commerce doesn’t make it right. And anything that people judge to be unjust can always be changed. The fact that authority exists does not justify extending or using it for the benefit of a particular group at the expense of another.

“I’m talking about the Guv dictating who a business owner can serve, and under what circumstances.“

Ya mean like how it’s illegal to sell cigarettes, snuff, alcohol, nudie magazines or firearms to a minor, notwithstanding the business owner’s desire to do so?  Isn’t that the gubmint dictating who a business owner can transact with?

Actually, a ban on smoking in restaurants does not tell the business owner who he can or can’t serve - it just says you can’t smoke in the restaurant.  You’ll still get service even if you’re a smoker.

Question is who gets the penalty if somebody smokes in there?  The smoker or the business owner?  Seems to me that the smoker is the one who actually breaks the rule and should therefore pay the penalty, rather than the business owner.  Of course, there is the possibility that the business owner knows of the smoking and allows it anyhow, which might could cause him to become liable.  Very much like underage drinking.

Howsabout this for playing devil’s advo:

The various civil rights acts make it a crime for certain type of businesses to refuse service to anyone on account of race.  Isn’t that the government imposing its will on the white supremacist restaurant owner (or the Black Panther restaurant owner) who would otherwise prefer not to serve certain people?  The government is dictating who he has to do business with.

Just tossing the concepts around and around here, like socks in a dryer…

Post Your Comments: