During a recent interview with Governor Tim Kaine on WRVA, host Jimmy Barrett played a tape from January in which Kaine said, regarding a smoking ban,

I just feel like, you know, so many businesses are just—a small businessman or woman who’s sunk their life savings into doing something and they just—you know, they have a place and I don’t know that the state ought to be telling them everything about what they do and just saying under no circumstances can you allow smoking.

Barrett asked Kaine if he had changed his mind (given that Kaine is now “proposing a restaurant smoking ban as an amendment to a far-less-sweeping bill the General Assembly passed in February”).

Kaine’s response:

Ah, no, actually, ‘cause I think on that same show, Jimmy—I certainly know in many instances in the last year I have always said I, I do think the restaurant case is a different case. Uh, the Senate had a bill before it that would have banned smoking in every business of any kind where the public was invited and I, I’ve always thought that bill was too broad and pledged to veto that bill if it got to my desk. But a narrower bill just for restaurants in places where so many people congregate, where the health effects on the employees are so significant if smoking is allowed—I felt like that is a different case.

But wait a second. Just why is the restaurant case a different case? How is it different from another business where people congregate, such as a nail salon or a tattoo parlor? Why should employees of restaurants receive protection from second-hand smoke while cosmetologists don’t? Why should restaurant patrons receive protection while patrons of a barbershop don’t?

Or, to take the governor’s point from January as a launching pad, aren’t there any restaurants that are small businesses into which the owners have sunk their life savings? Doesn’t that actually define most restaurants that are not chain restaurants? Why should the state be “telling them everything about what they do and just saying under no circumstances can you allow smoking”?

Continuing his response to Barrett on Tuesday, Kaine said he had been talking to restaurateurs and

they would like one rule to apply to all because that way they’re not going to be disadvantaged, you know, if they are no-smoking and then their next-door neighbor or a restaurant down the street allows smoking they’re worried that they’re disadvantaged, or vice versa. The restaurant owners have told me a—one simple rule that applies to everybody would—you know, not diminish their business but would also not push people around to different businesses. I talked a lot to the restaurant association in the course of working on this.

But again, hold up a sec. Is this really government’s job—to impose uniform rules so businesses don’t face a backlash from customers who might take their consumer dollars somewhere else? Restaurants that want the state to make everyone go smoke-free aren’t interested in competing for customers, they want to avoid competing for customers. Businesses that want to avoid competition seem like the last ones the government should help—don’t they?

Like I say: nit-picky stuff. But fun to bat around all the same.

So King Kaine has his priorities
Killing witnesses   OK
Killing judges     OK
Murder for hire     OK
smoking         HELL NO

Only in the liberal mind does this make sense

As long as, you know, we’re nit-picking, you know, I believe that politicians, you know, should, you know, be able to, you know, articulate a point, you know, without sounding like a high school freshman failing English! 

(By the way, this is not a partisan dig, because I have the same criticism of Pres. Bush.  It makes me cringe every time he opens his mouth.)

(My validation phrase is “student92” for this post.  Damn, this system has good karma!)

All of these issues have one common thread. If we, as citizens hadn’t abdicated our responsibility to politicians in return for treats and vendettas, there would be no issue of nannyism.

We allow politicians to decide who can enter into a contract instead of correctly using them only as arbitrators when a contract is broken so, we have politicians deciding who can and can’t get married.

We surrendered responsibility for our medical care in return for some populist rethoric and supposed free care and now we have the bloated whore we call medicare and medicade.

Social Security? I can’t believe Mexico is going to private accounts while we continue to nurse our bankrupt ponzi scheme.

It’s nice to see Wilder is finally bringing some dignity back into the City Gov’t. Before long, some of the citys “employees for life” might actually be expected to do something for their pay checks.

Thanks, Larry, and I admit to getting swept up in Churchhillian pomposity. But I’ve only smoked a few cigars in my life!

Smoking/non-smoking sections were a joke there. Tables side by side, one with an ashtray, one without. There you go. I am a chain- smoker, veteran of more attempts to quit than I can count, but in a resturant, I would be more comfortable in a separate room, door closed and ventilation system adaquate. I don’t deal well with guilt, but have a terrible habit of associating coffee and cigarettes. I would not willing frequent a non-smoking resturant. There should be a choice, made by the resturant owner.

As for service work, if I had a serious objection to being around smoke, I would find a job in a resturant that did not allow it. Viewing the trends, that will soon be most of them, with or without this bill. I remember years ago when people smoked in grocery stores and department stores with impunity.

Margie, great comments. Thought it was Churchill (til I saw your name): “It is a foolish person who never changes his mind about an issue after further thought and digesting other opinions.“

So, are you saying that President Bush and Mayor Wilder are fools?

2. Don’t waste your breath. Pretty soon we’ll all be goose-stepping into Shoneys together—single file—and ordering exactly what the Governor says we must eat.

It is a foolish person who never changes his mind about an issue after further thought and digesting other opinions. But some things should be bedrock. Respecting property rights and the rights of businesses to make their own decisions are two. The Governor has obviously been listening to the wrong people and should rethink the seriousness of this intrusion as far as setting a dangerous precedent goes. He is to be commended for not allowing the threat to his career to influence him in not supporting further additions to the death penalty. That took guts in this state.

Hats off the GA for their work this session on eminent domain.

Patrick, well I also view the rationale behind ‘madatory’ smoke-free restaurants in pretty much the same way I do those fire & brimstone global warming manifestos. That is…

Forcing all restaurants to be 100% cig-free will merely result in some smokers not going out to eat. I am not (at all) convinced that the cost of healthcare will plummet—as a result of the new restriction—or that everyone’s life-expectancy will suddenly increase, as a result. I am not convinced of this at all.

And if there’s not gonna be positive results, then why the hell should government bother with it?! Let’s strive for big things instead.

Larry, don’t laugh. Look for the dress code within 20 yrs. Remember that the Kaine type of thinkers do not believe that you can pick out a tie of which they approve.

A lawyer relative laughed when I said the McDonalds coffee decision was a dangerous one for us all. Tobacco is another precedent that puts any legitimate business one-step away from the capricious likes of Tim & Cronies.

I sort of hate taking a stance embraced by the lackadaisical Libertarians, but I think government should focus on things other than* writing minor rules FOR businesses. Businesses are capable of writing their own policies— especially these issues of minor importance.

Here’s what’s next: Richmond-area restauranteurs can’t decide on a ‘uniform’ dress-code policy which won’t give the impression of discrimination. (Remember the Richbrau turban controversy?) That’s ok. No worry…the state will set a dress code for ALL the restaurants.

A State Dress Code. Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

* “Things other”: Brand new ‘n’ state-of-the-art schools, effective police departments…HellOOOO??!

Well, this is the same guy who based his campaign on not raising taxes and then, 9 minutes after swearing in, suggested raising taxes. Mark Warner might have gotten away with that but, Tim Kaine won’t.

As for smoking bans…I remember when all the anti smoking stuff first got rolling and people warned that it would lead to even more retrictions “for the public good”. Now we have Kelo, local gov’t's stealing land so private developers can heft up the tax base…for the public good. New York is banning food that tastes good…for the public good….it’s really a shame but, we just aren’t the same people our parents were. Americans today are domesticated eunuchs stumbling around in a self obsessed fog looking for ways to inject ourselves into other peoples business in a pointless attempt to add some flavor to our tasteless lives.

For the public good.

Post Your Comments: