The V.A. legislature should support Governer Kain's inititive to band smoking in restaurants.

In my first argument for the negative, I will make the argument that no change is needed in the status quo, that no government regulation is required regarding smoking in restaurants. Instead, as I will show, restaurants as profit-seeking entities will continue to naturally provide for the needs of the whole spectrum of smoke lovers and haters. Before getting to my own argument, however, let me address my opponent's main points. My opponent asks, What if the only thing separating the smoking section from the non-smoking section is a three-foot barrier? Obviously, in such a situation, many or all of the people in the non-smoking section will breathe as much smoke as those in the smoking section. I will not pretend to argue that there is a good way to create smoking and nonsmoking sections in a small restaurant. However, what if the restaurant is larger, with high ceilings and good ventilation? Patrons in the nonsmoking section will in all likelihood still breathe some smoke, but it is far less likely to interfere with their enjoyment of their meals and, unless they are hypersensitive to smoke, they probably won't even notice it. A nonsmoking section where the air is fresh and sweet is workable in some restaurants, but my opponent asks us to assume the worst about all restaurants and ban smoking in all of them. This is the first example of what is, in his argument, an attempt to oversimplify reality so that it requires his proposal. Now, erring on the side of caution with our public policy might be justified if my opponent had offered proof that second-hand smoke kills 3,000 American adults annually. However, he did not. Therefore, for the purposes of this debate, there is no such proof. You might be confused—after all, he cited an EPA study, didn't he? That study, released in 1993, is famous for being a landmark that resulted in many state and local smoking bans. However, the study is just as famous for being thrown out by a Federal judge in 1998. The New York Times wrote: "Judge Osteen held that agency researchers, rather than rigorously proving their case, frequently shifted theories and selected the data they wanted in order to reach a preordained conclusion. " Frequently shifting theories, selecting data to reach a preordained conclusion . . . qualities of a good debater, but not of a good researcher. Judge Osteen ruled that the researchers had fixed the data to say what they wanted it to say, thus invalidating this study that had already effected so many public policy decisions. So, just to make clear, my opponent presented no reputable evidence that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. He throws out a figure of 10 million young people living with a relative who smokes, but please do not be swayed by this large number that has absolutely no demonstrated relevance to the topic at hand: a ban on smoking in restaurants. What takes place inside the home is a matter for another debate. My opponent says that young people model their behavior on adult behavior. I'm reminded of comedian Bill Hicks's line about how he would tell people who expressed concern about his smoking to shut up and look at the world around them. And, while abrasive, it's true: I'm far more concerned about children learning it's okay to drink and drive from their family, learning it's okay to steal or beg for money from public officials and corporate magnates, learning it's okay to shoot cops from video games, or learning it's okay to have profligate sex and live lives of fashionable apathy from Hollywood and TV sitcoms—than I am about children learning it's okay to smoke from some foul-smelling stranger in a restaurant. The question of children—and especially children with asthma, which my opponent also mentions—does merit consideration, however, and I will use it as the starting point of my own argument. In the 1980s, when I myself was a child, fast food restaurants had smoking and nonsmoking sections. Those are mostly gone today, replaced by entirely smoke-free establishments. Did the government have to enforce a ban to make this happen? Not at all. Rather, as public awareness of the dangers of smoking grew, each major fast food chain—with its millions of dollars invested in hooking toddlers on its particular brand of burgers and fries—realized that continuing to allow smoking would be economic suicide if allowing smoking would prevent parents from bringing their children. The restaurants banned smoking themselves, because banning smoking made them more money. People vote with their wallets. A restaurant caters (pun intended) to the aggregate desires of its customers. Fewer people are smoking each year, so the votes for smoking in restaurants are going down accordingly. Whenever a restaurant's proprietors realize that families, most of whom would rather be in a non-smoking setting, make up most of its business, they will ban smoking. Those people who must smoke while they eat will go to another restaurant that allows it. If a restaurant serves a profitable handful of smokers, it might keep a small smoking section, discreetly located and barely noticeable to most of its nonsmoking patrons. Meanwhile, some restaurants—mostly bars, which are considered restaurants under Gov. Kaine's proposal—will allow smoking throughout the building. People who don't like smoke will go somewhere else. I know from talking with friends who hate smoke that there are a lot of wallet-votes ready for the counting by every smoke-free bar that opens. I hope I have outlined to my opponent's satisfaction that restaurants can regulate their own smoking policies, ensuring that customers can choose from smoking, mixed, and nonsmoking establishments, far better than any government can. The burden is now on my opponent to show why the government is needed to do a job that I claim restaurants have done and will do themselves. I argue that the status quo is sufficient, and does not merit (inefficient) government intervention. Source: New York Times article on Judge's EPA ruling: . http://query.nytimes.com...