"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Kaine’s Number One Issue: Smoking???
By Greg L | 8 January 2008 | Virginia Politics | 43 Comments
At the same time hundreds of bills have been introduced in the General Assembly that attempt to address the real priorities in Virginia such as transportation, immigration, and taxes, our latest recipient of the “Porchsitter Award” Governor Kaine has announced his top legislative initiative: banning smoking. While Kaine initially told voters he would buck the trend established by more “progressive” states that have decided to tell business owners what they can and can’t do in their businesses, Kaine has now backtracked on his campaign pledge. His primary goal now, in contrast to his campaign promises, is to force this socialist, nanny-state mandate down on Virginia businesses.
“SWAC Girl” dug up the details on this latest about-face:
Just over a year ago, on October 27, 2006, Michael Shear with the Washington Post reported:
Kaine said again Thursday that he does not support legislation that would ban smoking in private businesses, saying that would be a troubling expansion of government regulation.
“I don’t think the police power of the state should go that far,” he told reporters. [my emphasis]
Let’s see here. Kaine promised he wouldn’t raise taxes, and did so immediately after assuming office. He told Virginia businesses that he wasn’t in favor of this “troubling expansion of government regulation”, and reversed himself on this promise as well, although it took him far longer to cast aside his “convictions” this time than it took with taxation. Maybe he thinks this is the latest opportunity to retain some degree of relevance in Virginia politics, as an alternative to actually doing something about the issues that Virginians really care about. While the General Assembly is actually trying to craft solutions to what voters are most concerned about, Kaine’s absence from that effort is as complete this year as it was the last.
Fortunately, this nanny-state idea really looks like it’s going nowhere. The market can resolve this and will, to the extent it needs resolving. What market’s can’t fix are transportation, taxation, immigration and budget issues, precisely those issues which Kaine is not working on while he goes on the warpath against Virginia businesses.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
43 Comments
Views: 1149
Loading ...
Kaine needs to move to Maryland and be Governor of The People’s Republic of. Let the bars and restaurants sort it out. The patrons will let them know what they prefer. This guy is an idiot!
The delegates and senators have to educate Kaine on the free market system and tell him to leave business alone. Customers will pick the businesses that have or do not have smoking to their liking. This nanny state crap has to cease.
While I typically agree that this ‘nanny state’ is nonsense; I do really detest cigarette smoke. It’s hard to stick with what you think in situations like this. It’s so bad for the kids and I feel soooo bad when I see them trapped in cars with smokers.
But, will agree, it’s not up to the state. Sigh….
good
Glad to hear it
Kaine is an elitiest liberal proponent of the nanny state. why is anyone surprised ?
I expect too see the next headline in the Washington post to be-
” Gov. Kaine proposes helmets for all Virginia residents
while showering ”
If you voted for this guy you need your head examined.
Just say a little prayer for those kiddies that they don’t end up like Dana Reeves…..
Tobacco is still one our natural resources isn’t it?
Since most bars and restaurants ban cigars, which I and many others enjoy without addiction, I think the Guv is making the right move by banning cigs, which most others don’t enjoy but are addicted.
He’s still a goober, though.
It will be interesting to hear what those that say Kaine is on track when he, or others like him come after their druthers. How about no pets, or only two kids per family or you pay a huge carbon tax? Maybe we should have fast food chits so a family can only have one McDonalds a month. These kinds of nanny state initiatives only lead to more and more. If you don’t like smoke don’t patronize the place where smoking is allow. If the establishment decides to be non-smoking or smoking allowed, the market place will decide for the owner if he/she should change, not some pin headed jackass politician.
Conva. There’s a difference between the nanny state trying to interfere with your best efforts to kill YOURSELF with fast food and trying to protect ME from YOUR actions that might harm ME.
F’rinstance:
1. YOU eat yourself to death. YOU die. Tough luck for you.
2. YOU make ME and my SON smoke part of YOUR cigarette. I get cancer, He has an asthma attack. WE are harmed by YOU.
The difference is slight, but it’s there.
F public smokers!
But smoking is an inalienable Right! It’s right here in the Constitution..oh..wait…
Nevermind.
Turn PW Blue said on 8 Jan 2008 at 4:09 pm: But smoking is an inalienable Right!
Yeah, PW. Right there after a woman’s right to kill her child.
http://www.wctrib.com/articles/index.cfm?id=29330&freebie_check&CFID=81213723&CFTOKEN=59834087&jsessionid=883096586dc36b592541
Go Minnesota! Why can’t our Governor get on board!
AG McDonnell’s legislative agenda re illegal aliens:
Combating Illegal Immigration
Prohibit State Contracts from Being Issued to Illegal Aliens
Patron: Senator Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax):
Requires state contractors to certify that they have undertaken immigration status verification on all of their employees, and that all employees are legally authorized to work in the United States
Establish a Presumption Against Bail for Illegal Aliens Who Commit Crimes
Patron Tom Rust (R-Herndon)
Adds a presumption against bail for any person who is charged with a crime who is an alien and not lawfully present in the United States .
Judicial officers would also be required to verify with the Law Enforcement Support Center of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the United States Department of Homeland Security whether a person is a citizen.
Cross-Check Info on Inmates Arrested and Currently in DOC and Jails Against NCIC/LESC Illegal Alien Databases
Patron Tom Rust (R-Herndon)
Require the Central Criminal Records Exchange, probation and parole officers, and correction facilities to notify the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement if someone in custody appears to be an alien and allows agreements to be made for the transfer of any alien to immigration authorities.
diversion from the real issues.
My son had terrible asthma as a child. We did not assume that we could go to any resturant and avoid smokers. Therefore, we slected resturants that chose to restrict smoking from the entire resturant. Many returants made their resturant smoke free as their non-smoking side was packed, smoking side almost empty and long lines waiting with folks leaving.
That is the way to take care of it. And I DETEST cigarette smoke more than the average bear.
These are the silly laws that tie legislators up longer than it takes to decide to go to war.
and PS — (I really feel strongly about silly laws)
We don’t need laws to stop people from having bad manners. Those that smoke (and my husband used to), know it bothers many. To do so in a crowd is simply bad manners. We don’t need laws for that. We need people to improve their manners.
Legislating bad manners is a way to avoid doing important work. Although, I always thought there ought to be a law about chewing food with the mouth open
One voice,
It’s more than “bad manners”. It’s a well recognized public health issue. The difference is that if the patron at the bar farts next to me - that’s bad manners. It might smell, but his ass gas isn’t going to cause me physical harm.
Smoking on the other hand does cause health consequences for people other than the smokers. That’s the problem.
For those of you who still don’t get it, perhaps you would understand if you werre eating at a restaurant and someone sitting next to you sneezed onto your plate of food. That’s sort of what it’s like walking outside amongst smokers.
AC - agree. But they haven’t tried to outlaw sneezing.
No one agree more than I that smoking is a dirty, disgusting, addictive and lethal habit. I am just not a fan of making laws about it.
Hey anonymous coward, if you don’t like cigarette smoke then don’t take your kid to a bar or place that people smoke. You make it sound like the evil smokers are just looking to cause someone physical harm. There are more important things that Kaine should be doing (did I mention that he opposed this earlier). You have a choice where you eat you know, you don’t HAVE to go to a place where the smokers are lurking and looking for someone to blow their somke in the face.
in their face.
RFU,
Why should I have to avoid public places?
Is that more fair than allowing people to smoke in them?
Your reasoning is off. Perhaps you have been reading too much of Greg’s blog.
AC - my point is that I think there are more pressing needs that need to be addressed than smoking in a bar/restaurant especially since he was so opposed to it earlier. Why the flip-flop now on a smoking ban? Plus, the ban would not be for “public places” it would be for bar/restaurants if I’m not mistaken. If an establishment has a smoking section and that bothers you, go to another place. It’s that simple, you don’t have to avoid “public places” just the bar/restaurants that allow smoking. What is the big deal? If your that worried about being in the same building as someone who is smoking than just don’t go into that building.
I suppose those that want us to adhere to the demands of nanny oriented idiots regarding smoking are also going to invade Buddha sanctuaries and make them extinguish their incense. Maybe they also can get the Catholics to do away with their smoking lanterns (or what ever they call them) as they walk down the aisle. It won’t stop until they get total control of every facet of our life. A sort of truncated sharia law.
Next thing will be perfume.
If you are against a Smoking In Restaraunt Ban, well, then, you must just be uneductated.
It is PROVEN that second hand smoke is harmful
It is PROVEN that second hand smoke can trigger asthma attacks
Why are you so against this? Obviously, you must not travel to other states where they have already banned smoking in restaurants - business has increased! Patrons are happier, and more come out, and bring their children.
Some of you act like something is being taken away from you if smoking is banned - do you feel the same way with the airlines?
Next take away alcohol.
Conva - smoking lanterns!!! I love it. We call it an incense burner. Just that. My altar server son stayed far from that, but we didn’t change religion over it or write the Pope or make any demands. Just dealt with it.
Obit,
I would love to have perfume banned in the work place. However, I think it is up to the company to do that, not the govt.
Obi-One,
What’s the difference? cigg. smoke, perfume, body odor…it all can make you sick and or kill. Let’s cut out alcohol served at the restaurant. A family may be enjoying the dinner and met on the road by the drunk that was sitting at the bar the same time their kiddies were consuming Shirley Temples as a reward for doing good in school or the basketball game.
http://www.casadice.com/signs/pages/outside_sign073.htm
http://www.casadice.com/signs/pages/outside_sign041.htm
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/5416-Individual-Liberty-erodes,-one-little-trans-fat-molecule-at-a-time.html
“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” Plato
Is it really such a big deal for a smoker to not be able to smoke in a restaurant. I know many smokers who will not smoke in their own homes, or in their own cars. Usually smokers do not even smoke while they eat, they smoke after their meal - so why should I have to eat their smoke while I am eating my meal.
I really do not see this as giving up a ‘right’. You do not see people smoking on the Metro do you, VRE, Airplanes - why not a restarant.
It has suceeded in other places.
It is not to punish the smoker, it is to let the non smokers of the world enjoy their meal without hacking.
Resturants should just make their own decision about not permitting smoking in their establishment. Why do they need to wait for a law to do so? Many already have due to the demands of the non-smoker. We, citizens and business owners, can make our own decisions without government intervention, which is, I believe the point of this whole discussion.
Most smokers that I know go out of their way not to annoy non-smokers.
I don’t see this as about rights I see it as tying up our legislators with more moral or nanny issues as so aptly described here. They need to get to their mission without the easy distraction of telling citizens how to live. I like to make choices and am willing to put up with some things I find unpleasant or even dangerous for the right to continue to have choices.
Sorry that you feel that it’s unecessary to “tie up” our precious legislators with frivolous concerns like public health policy.
Many smokers do go out of their way not to bother us, but there’s plenty that don’t give a crap. Death to smokers. I declare jihad.
Commence uulating!
Many here seem to be missing the point. If you simply cannot bear to go to a restaurant that has a smoking section, then DON’T. Pretty darn simple if you ask me.
Being stuck in a car with a bunch of smokers is a choice (abeit a bad one). Here’s a thought… don’t catch a ride with people who smoke or are unwilling to forego smoking while you are in the car. (yes there are rude smokers, but most at least try to smoke courteously and there are plenty of rude non-smokers too!)
Smoking is ALREADY banned in public places. These places (restaurants) are NOT PUBLIC. Let the business owner decide for themselves to go smoke-free or not to, and let the consumer make their own decisions on who to patronize and who not to. Can anyone say “free market”?
If this passes we are well on our way down the slippery slope. What will be next? Caffeine? Salt (sodium)? Sugar? Red-meat? Will we eventually be relegated to consuming nothing but bland slop provided by our almightly government because “Big Daddy” knows what’s best for us?
Is tomorrow solyent green?
It’s fun to watch the smokers in their glass enclosed cages in the smoke free airports. A perfect place for them.
Advocator -
Wasn’t that about running out of food? I am not pretending as you mentioned elsewhere…. honest!
Yes, many smokers are polite.
But it does not matter how polite that smoker is, the smoker cannot prevent the smoke from entering my nostrils.
The facts are that most smokers do not smoke while eating. There are restarants that I do not go to, for the one reason, that it is always smokey in those places, and I do not like eating smoke. And, there is an upside - more business.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE2D91E30F93AA15750C0A9629C8B63&sec=health
I agree with everything you say about smoking - I just simply think that this should be self-selected rather than imposed. Resturants that choose to ban smoking likely attract larger crowds. Eventually, this will be a self-selected ban and that is better than one more law on the books.
Believe me, I would LOVE to make it a law, but I am not a cafeteria style of person when it comes to my convictions. So, as I said the first day, this is a REALLY tough one but, I have to stick to my beliefs regarding kinds of laws.
If you wish to make a law, then you should look at eliminating the tobacco industry. Those who wish to use tobacco would have to grow their own and it would not be chemically altered to harm others. One might suggest a similar policy for all herbal “drugs”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951966/posts