I AM NOT a smoker. In fact, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. That being said, I am appalled at the latest attempt by the Virginia Senate to act in loco parentis by banning smoking in most privately owned restaurants and bars. Smoking is a disgusting habit which has clearly documented health risks, but the government has no place forcing privately owned businesses to ban smoking outright.
The bill in question, which was recently passed by the Virginia Senate would amend the Clean Air Act to remove the right of business owners to determine if smoking should be allowed on their property. While the bill has yet to pass the House of Delegates and would face a likely veto from Gov. Tim Kaine, laws of this nature are a significant cause for concern.
Any time the government makes a law solely designed to protect its citizens from themselves we take a step closer to a system which controls our every move. Such laws remove fundamental notions of choice from our purportedly free society.
A business owner should be free to choose to allow smoking and other legal behavior within their establishment. A potential employee should be free to choose to work elsewhere if they are bothered by this policy.
A potential customer should be free to choose to take their business to another establishment if they are adverse towards smoking, the sort of food a restaurant serves, the clientel, or any other aspect of a business.
Fundamental laws of the marketplace must be the catalyst for change in this case -- not an edict from Richmond. When the demand for a smoke-free restaurant or bar reaches a high enough level, such establishments will no doubt respond by prohibiting such behavior, not in response to a law, but in response to market pressure. If this catalyst for change has not yet manifested itself, then the burden is placed on consumers and not the government to enact it.
This is not to say that ending smoking in public places is not a worthwhile goal. On the contrary, it is safe to say that many people would enjoy a bar without the stench of smoke. To that end there are many methods that we, as interested citizens, can employ without giving into the notion of a nanny-state.
It would be reasonable for student groups to coordinate with the bars on the Corner to create smoke-free bar nights to show bar owners that there is a market for a tobacco-free evening experience.
Students could show their support for such an idea by frequenting establishments which would voluntarily ban the substance. Voting with our wallets is a much more valid and personally responsible method of affecting change.
Additionally, there can be a place for government to encourage change for a healthier public, but not mandate it. If the legislators in Richmond would like to see eating establishments ban smoking, let them create incentives for business owners to take the initiative. Perhaps offering a tax credit to business owners who voluntarily ban smoking would get the ball of change rolling.
Maybe the ABC office could relax restrictions on drink specials for bars that prohibit smoking on certain nights or certain times. There truly are many methods for the government to encourage this change without taking away the fundamental right of a private business to control their establishment.
Tobacco is a legal substance, and it remains so despite documented health risks. Our society is certainly free to make certain judgments regarding smoking by minors and smoking in government-owned public places.
Nevertheless, these such limits should stop before they hit a private business owner, until such a time as our society is prepared to ban the substance outright.
Any time we as a society accept laws that tell us that the government knows what is best for us, we continue down the path of abdicating personal responsibility -- a trend that is unfortunately all too apparent in this country today. The litigious nature of our society encourages us to play the part of the victim. Obese people are victimized by the food industry; smokers are victimized by the tobacco industry; those affected by gun violence are victimized by the gun industry, and so forth.
However, we are not victims of secondhand smoke when we make the conscious decision to walk into a bar that allows smoking.
If the public finds the concept of sharing space with smokers to be so detrimental to their health, then the burden is on the public to make that change, not to run crying home to Richmond.
Daniel Bagley is a Cavalier Daily contributor.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
