Many of you have seen both arguements for and against an indoor smoking ban. Proponents of a ban say that we need it to prevent people from being subject to second-hand smoke while opponents point to property rights and the rights of business owners to make their own decisions.
I would like people to compare this to another social issue. President Clinton once said something to the effect that in a perfect world abortion would be legal but no one would choose to have them. I think there are a good number of people who would conditionally agree with that statement (even though in reality it would never happen). Why not apply the same concept to the smoking ban?
What if every restaurant banned smoking, but it was still legal? Yet again, this isn't practical and would never happen; but it shows what could happen.
As you can probably guess, I am not a proponent of an indoor smoking ban, b/c I am a very business minded person and believe in the free market. I think a smoking ban could hurt any number of businesses if it were passed; simply b/c it would eliminate the ability of a restaurant owner to create a "niche" market. In fact, restaurant owners who have already banned smoking in their establishments would probably be the ones hurt most from a bill like this; due to their clients being able to frequent any restaurant they choose after a bill like this passed.
I fully realize that one day Virginia will have an indoor smoking ban, simply because people (more specifically voters) all too often put their own wants and benefits ahead of the public good. Even so, that doesn't mean its the right thing to do.