Area officials fume about Virginia smoking ban

» 33 Comments | Post a Comment

Virginia is on its way to tighter regulation against smoking in restaurants, and local politicos and tobacco supporters are not happy.

With the stroke of a pen, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine will restrict lighting up in eateries to those with separate, ventilated rooms and to private clubs. The House and Senate passed House Bill 1105, and it’s headed to the governor’s desk for his quick signature, while an identical bill, House Bill 1703, seems destined for General Assembly approval as well.

But local delegates and an area state senator voted against the measure. They and tobacco-industry insiders say smoking strictures should be left up to restaurant owners and managers. Government has no business telling business what to do, and smoke-averse patrons can vote with their dollars by dining elsewhere, they said.

“It’s a freedom issue to me,” Delegate Danny Marshall, R-Danville, said Friday. “It’s taking the choice away from managers and owners of those businesses.”

For Delegate Donald Merricks, R-Pittsylvania County, the no-smoking issue is also an economic one. Some restaurants can’t afford to revamp their interior to accommodate smokers, he said. Restricting smoking should be left up to restaurateurs and their customers, he said. Merricks, a non-smoker, said many restaurants across the state have already banned the practice when their customers demanded it.

“That’s how the free market works,” Merricks said.

Chain restaurants will be able to handle the expense of upgrading their establishments, but the mom-and-pops will suffer or be forced to go non-smoking, Sen. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham, said. The Southside region has at least 10 percent unemployment and the prohibition will hurt already struggling small businesses, he said.

“Who’s going to be able to afford a separate smoking room?” Hurt said.

Hurt said he supports discouraging smoking and keeping children away from tobacco products “but this is not the way to go about it,” he said. The legislation was never about smoking, he said, but about government dictating what private-property owners can and can’t do at their business.

“I just don’t support that philosophically,” he said.

Harry Lea, a former tobacco warehouse operator and co-owner and former president of the past Danville Tobacco Association, said the government crackdown on tobacco has gone too far. Lea, who is retired, said he cannot believe how much money has been made off litigation, regulation and taxation surrounding a legal product.

“The whole situation has gotten totally out of hand,” Lea said.

Lea, a non-smoker, said if he’s in a place where the cigarette smoke is bothering him, he leaves.

The legislation will have a detrimental effect according to one local tobacco grower. Clarence Emerson Jr., a fourth-generation tobacco farmer in Dry Fork, said he will grow less tobacco in the coming years because of it.

“People are going to quit smoking; they’re going to quit buying cigarettes,” Emerson said. “That’s going to affect us.”

For Emerson, who grows a little more than 100 acres of the leaf, the anti-tobacco measure could sound a death knell for his livelihood.

“Tobacco is my main cash crop,” he said. “If I lose that, I have to get out of farming.”

The smoking ban law takes effect Dec. 1.

• Contact John R. Crane at or (434) 791-7987.

Advertisement

 
View More: No tags are associated with this article
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by feltco on March 15, 2009 at 8:51 pm

I was born and raised in Richmond and now live in Pennsylvania.  Don’t listen to all the hype of how business is going to suffer and people will stop going out to restaurants and bars.  It is all bull.  When PA’s smoking ban went into effect last year, smoker’s rights advocates did everything but claim that the state would go into bankruptcy because of it.  Business actually INCREASED because non-smokers who used to avoid establishments that were filled with smoke actually came out.  Smokers were saying, “I’ll stay home so I can smoke.“  That lasted about a week.  In the end, it was the best thing for the health and safety of Pennsylvanians..it will be the same for Virginians, too.

Flag Comment Posted by Rockit on February 27, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Okay, that’s a reasonable point.

Flag Comment Posted by yeti on February 27, 2009 at 12:44 pm

Sorry, poor wording on my part. What I meant to imply is that over 90% of the restaurant owners would support a statewide ban, not just a ban in their restaurant.
This way they would be spared the wrath of the smoking fringe that would crucify them on a board(and elsewhere) such as this one, because the restaurant owners could then blame it on the government.

Flag Comment Posted by Rockit on February 27, 2009 at 12:29 pm

yeti - We can disagree - fair enough.  But, I would just point out, before I go, that the 90% you refer to already have the absolute, unconditional, power to ban smoking in THEIR establishments now - no government intervention required.

Flag Comment Posted by yeti on February 27, 2009 at 9:34 am

Rockit: I guess we can agree to disagree. I don’t like the government infringing on my freedoms either, but when someone abuses a freedom to the detriment of others, sometimes it is necessary(e.g. noise ordinances, land use zoning, smoking bans, etc.).
I would be willing to bet you a quarter, that if you polled restaurant owners anonymously, more than 90% would want a ban on smoking in their restaurant’s too.
I guess the positive is; if you want to be seated immediately at a restaurant in Danville on a Friday night, you can always sit in the smoking section.#$%*

Flag Comment Posted by Rockit on February 26, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Yeti - Good comeback.  What I was referring to as ridiculous (and using as an example, just an example, the banning of kids from restaurants) is this notion that we have a right not to be irritated with anything or anyone. I just don’t know how we got to the point where we expect to never be aggravated; I mean really, that’s just not the way life is.  The reason I responded the way I did was because of the emotional nature of the post that I was responding to.  I mean this is a person who wants their rights to the exclusion of anyone else’s consideration.  No one need’s anyone else to tell them about the dangers of smoking—we’re all adults here. 

I agree with you about smoking being a choice - which goes to the heart of everything I’ve said on this subject:  Choice.  I just don’t understand the resistance from some to having the restaurants decide to either be a smoking establishment or non-smoking.  And please note, I’m not talking about to have or not to have a smoking section.  Either one way or the other completely.  That way, if smokers want to eat at a non-smoking establishment, they have no complaint because they know going in that they can’t smoke.  And, of course, vice-versa for the non-smokers.  If enough people do not eat at a restaurant because it allows or doesn’t allow smoking, then that restaurant has the option of changing their status.  That’s the way it should be—the market decides for the restaurant what its most profitable status should be, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

Flag Comment Posted by yeti on February 26, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Sorry Rockit, but I’m going to call you on this one. You honestly think that expecting clean air in a dining establishment, that serves the general public is “ridiculous”? I wonder why people don’t smoke pipes and cigars in restaurants? Better yet, why not carry around a bag full of cat dung and place it on smokers tables while they eat. If there is no, “No Cat Dung” section,  this should be alright,... right? Most smokers are polite enough to carry it outside, however all it takes is one to stink up the place.
By the way, I eat out at least 4 times a week and have rarely had a problem with children while I eat(once in the last 3 years), the same cannot be said for cigarette smoke.
Smoking is a choice, breathing is a requirement.

Flag Comment Posted by dawg on February 26, 2009 at 2:47 pm

inthespirit-cook for your kids at home.

Flag Comment Posted by Rockit on February 26, 2009 at 2:39 pm

InTheSpirit - Do you just want freedom of choice when it applies to something you want?  I don’t like little kids running all over the place when I’m at a restaurant; so, let’s ban them from coming in.  Wait, wait, I’m sure you’re kids are angels; but, many are not and so to guarantee my “right” to have a peaceful dinner, let’s ban all kids in restaurants.  See how ridiculous it can get when we talk about our “rights?“  Grow up!  By the way, just out of curiosity, who ever asked you for sympathy?  If you can’t handle smokey air, YOU leave.

Flag Comment Posted by beans on February 25, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Nice post Rockit. I was under the same impression as Yeti on the buy out. Thanks for explaining it.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

GoDanRiver: Place an Ad | Buy Photos | Subscribe | Email Us | Email Alerts | Mobile Alerts | Make Us Your Home Page | Site Search
Partners: GoDanRiver is a service of the Danville Register Bee, the Eden Daily News, the Reidsville Review and the Madison Messenger.
Regional Partner Links: Lynchburg News & Advance | WSLS | Winston-Salem Journal | Virginia News