Smoking ban in effect; enforcement is delayed

Any other property rights that you folks would like to see stripped by government?

Any other piddling responsibilities you'd like to assign to the police while home invasions, armed robbery, and homicides go largely unchecked?

All I want is to eat in peace without smoke in my face or a potentially uncomfortable confrontation. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Ditto, I have to agree aussie. If an establishment allows smoking in "their" establishment and people don't want to go there because of the smoke then they are free not to go. So simple. Why make a new law? If it is a place owned by the government and the government wants to ban any activity then so be it. Privately owned places should not have to ban an activity if it is legal. The last I heard smoking is still legal. If the majority of people want it to be illegal then vote for it. As long as it is legal then privately owned businesses should have the right to allow it if they want to.

Linda J why don't you just go to the owner of Off the Wall and tell her that you have been a patron for years and that you will no longer go there unless she makes her establishment smoke free. It is called free enterprise. If she loses the majority of her business because her patrons don't like smoke then she will change her rules. It is "her" business. If she allows smoking and it offends you then it is "her" fault. If she doesn't ban smoking it is because she doesn't want to lose the smoking customers.

dougtamjj...

In a perfect world these ideas would be outstanding but without this law, there would be the one or two smokers who have no concept of being polite. They would ruin lunch/dinner/drinks for everyone else because it would be their right to do so.

And yes, there probably is one or two more property rights that should be stripped by the government.

Uttica,
What other property rights should the Government take?:S

Another old law adage: Good government is that which responds to majority rule while respecting minority rights.

Rand Paul notwithstanding, many Americans believe the government is correct to deprive businesses of the right to deny services on the basis of race.

Nearly every person in the VI believes the government is correct to deny individuals to throw their litter on the streets and roads.

Property rights are not absolute.

Public places that are privately owned are always under gov. rules. They control sizes of doorways, steps, fire codes, lighting, cooking equiptment, and the owners are responsible to keep their patrons safe from harm, (if a floor is dangerous or wet and someone falls is it not coming back on the owner?). But even private homes have rules about what you can do on your own property due to the fact that some folks can't be trusted not to infringe their personal rights on to others, (want to live next to someone who has created a auto junkyard on his lawn?). There was a lot of noise in other places that created smoking laws and after they were in place most said they liked them and biz was up, I just don't see how they will enforce it if the biz owners don't try to comply unless they are going to start a harrasment style campaign and honesty I would rather the police were working on more violent crimes, perhaps this should be left to the health dept or zoning to enforce.

Rand Paul notwithstanding, many Americans believe the government is correct to deprive businesses of the right to deny services on the basis of race.

Physical assault? Racial discrimination? Uh...yeah....

The principles you cite are sound enough but the comparisons you're trying to draw are a real stretch.

I'm much more worried about being killed by a drinker then a smoker on this island. Enforce the laws you have and then worry about making new ones.

No, you are advocating the property owners right to run his/her business to suit themselves. Who to serve would certainly fall into that category.

No, you are advocating the property owners right to run his/her business to suit themselves. Who to serve would certainly fall into that category.

Uh...yeah...

Perhaps I missed something. Were non-smokers being denied service? And...LOL...are non-smokers a protected class?

Overall, smoking bans tend to have a positive affect on businesses, and are self enforced by the public and business owners. They just take getting used to. Time and again as more jurisdictions enact such bans most smokers have altered their behavior to conform rather than face confrontation. Like the "pooper scooper" laws, we will one day look back in amazement that they didn't exist sooner.

I should probably have stopped at the last period, but... (Soap box please.)

What smokers need to recognize is that smoking of tobacco is a filthy habit. It turns your teeth and fingers yellow, robs the addict and those regularly exposed to their practices of health, and pollutes the environment.

Offended? Well, legal or not, how do you think the majority of non-smokers feel when smokers elect (need?) to light up in their presence? Why do you think many property owners would rather not rent to smokers? Why does smoking in it negatively affect the value of an automobile? Why do so many smokers feel it is okay to flick their butts to the ground?

If you were at a restaurant enjoying a dinner with your family and the people at the next table got loud, cursing or discussing their sexual conquests in great detail what would you think? What would you do? Certainly their behavior is rude, and you'd likely feel uncomfortable and want them to stop or go elsewhere. Would you hesitate to say something to them and/or the management? Probably not. But what law(s) are they breaking that don't violate their rights? Don't they have a right to free speech? Are they "harming" you beyond offending you? Will you leave the restaurant with even an ever so slight increased risk of real physical illness?

Smoking may be a right, but non-smokers have rights too. Smoking is so bad for you and those around you that each package of tobacco products carries a mandated warning that it can kill you. People who do not smoke, the majority, need to be protected from people who do smoke. I'll give you your pound of flesh Shylock, but "no jot of blood." If you want to harm yourself, well I suppose that is your right, but as Edward pointed out, it stops before my nose.

On a personal note, I'll tell you my mother smoked, and it killed her. I tried to get her to stop long before it got bad, but she was hooked. By the time she quit it was too late. I got to see a once strong woman struggle for breath, loose the ability to walk up stairs, and finally end up on a medical respirator. Then, after she was gone I got to paint the ceiling above the recliner she'd sit in and smoke as she watched t.v. or read-scrubbed it, then applied four coats of stain sealing primer before the smoke residue stopped bleeding through. So smokers, think about what you are doing to yourselves and those around you. Oh, and one more thing about my mom, worst of all, she didn't get to hold her grandchildren.

I miss her.

Peace, and thanks for your time.

My apologies to William S. for perverting his metaphor

Every comparison made here is about an activity that is illegal. Racial discrimination is illegal. Littering is illegal. Having a junkyard without proper zoning is illegal. Drunk in public and drunk driving are illegal. Smoking is Legal. If a place of business wants to allow it they should be able to. If a person does not want to work there because of it, they don't have to. Nor does the public have to patronize any establishment that allows smoking. If the majority of people disagree then vote to make smoking illegal.

I will agree to disagree on the subject.

There may be a business opportunity however. Since the police and government have an extremely difficult time enforcing laws already in force here maybe a fellow capitalist like myself can start a private company to enforce this new law. Sort of like meter maids for smoking. They can issue tickets for smoking. It will make it a lot easier on business establishments to have a non smoking enforcement officer on premises. I cannot imagine trying to get a police officer to come if someone is smoking where they are not supposed too. Then if you do call a police officer by the time they get there the smoker will have already finished the offending action. If a police officer issues a ticket will witnesses have to appear in court to testify about seeing the smoker actually smoke or will the criminal be tried and convicted without testimony. Wow. A lot to think about! I guess business could all install security cameras to help enforce this new law.

Redeyesadie, I am watching my mother die from smoking related illness as well. Heartbreaking. This subject is about government control for me. Smoking just happens to be the new topic. I also hate being forced to put my 70lb 7 year old in a car seat or making him wear a bike helmet.

Smoking may be a right, but non-smokers have rights too.

No such rights exist. The only "rights" we're talking about here are property rights.

Smoking is legally permitted or it is not.

Every comparison made here is about an activity that is illegal. Racial discrimination is illegal. Littering is illegal. Having a junkyard without proper zoning is illegal. Drunk in public and drunk driving are illegal. Smoking is Legal. If a place of business wants to allow it they should be able to. If a person does not want to work there because of it, they don't have to. Nor does the public have to patronize any establishment that allows smoking. If the majority of people disagree then vote to make smoking illegal.

This new law is doing just that, making smoking illegal in many places. You are still allowed to smoke however restrictions have been placed on where you are allowed to smoke. None of the things that you mention were put to public vote, our representatives vote on our behalf, why should smoking be any different? Smoking is not a constitutionally protected right any more than littering and the two things share many of the same disgusting traits.

It is time for the whole smoking/non smoking paradigm to change. At the moment you are allowed to smoke except in designated non-smoking areas. The next step is to make smoking illegal except in designated smoking areas. Even smokers know that smoking is an unhealthy activity for themselves and everyone around them, but they are addicted. While you might argue that you should be able to make that decision for yourself it is indefensible to force your smoke on others, especially children. Smoking in a home with children should be considered child abuse!

Smoking is not a property rights issue, it is a public health issue. That is why the FDA took over responsibilty for tobacco this year.

Rotor, I will respectfully disagree. To me it is a property rights issue and government control. The government won't make smoking illegal because they make too much money from peoples' addiction but they will control it by infringing upon the peoples' right to choose. Ban any activity that you want if it involves government owned public places but government should not have the right to ban a "legal" activity on private property.

Owning a car is legal, not a junkyard, having a drink is legal not driving drunk or being publicly drunk, smoking is legal not when it is infringing on others in a public place.....see?

Doug- I suspect you are correct about smoking remaining legal because of the money it generates. However, I also think there may come a time when the burdens on the health care system too greatly outweigh the tax benefits of tobacco sales. A prohibition on tobacco might generate some "bootlegging," but I doubt the long term demand for tobacco would be problematic on the scale that alcohol was. The tobacco high is too limited, and I doubt there would be many new users willing to pay or risk much for it if it was not legal and readily available. My street used to be littered with spent firecrackers on the Fourth of July; it took a few years, but now that they are illegal here in NYC, not a one. My kids can't fathom the idea of children running around with books of matches and miniature explosives.

Also, for what it is worth, I can think of many legal activities you can do in/at home or certain specialized places that are banned on private property such as restaurants, theaters, and super markets, et cetera. Knife throwing was the first to come to mind. 🙂

Actually owing a junkyard is perfectly legal, as long as you go about the same proper steps to have one as you would a car. People infringe on me all the time. Much rather have a quiet smoker then an ass sitting next to me but that's life. Try living in CA where everything is so over regulated it's ridiculous. What I like about the VI is the live and let live attitude.

Anyways this law will be a joke just like the others. Remember the new noise law from a year ago? They still don't have the equipment to read the decibels. It's going to be extremely if not impossible to enforce this law. We are arguing about nothing.

I hate it when the government intrudes into our lives. Unfortunately it is necessary at times. Is it necessary for restaurants to have health inspections? Of course not, if someone gets sick they can simply avoid that restaurant in the fuure. Are fire alarms and fire exits necessary, of course not, the surviving relatives can simply sue the owner after the fire. Food inspections? Not necessary.

Enforcement should be easy. Simply use your cellphone camera to take a picture of the smoker in an establishment. Then email the photo to DLCA along with a description. DLCA can then levy a fine against the business, just like a traffic cam. What could be simpler?

You are right , of course junkyards can be legal, as well as being drunk and smoking. It is all about the where and when. I actually enjoy drinking and junkyards and don't really care much if folks smoke but it does seem a bit lame and agree it should not infringe on others. But really enforcement probably won't be much of an issue if it goes like it has in the states, people just for the most part just stopped smoking in public places.

The law, as written, is an absolute mess. The 20' rule should prove interesting. The police commissioner has already stated that the law will not be enforced on Main St on St Thomas. People can still legally light up in the middle of a crowd yet could be ticketed for smoking within their own cars. What a joke and an absolute waste of resources. 60 effin' homicides so far this year - SIXTY - yet the police will be issuing smoking citations. WTF?

http://virginislandsdailynews.com/how-to-comply-with-smoking-ban-nobody-s-sure-1.1063459

"Four days after the Virgin Islands smoking ban went into effect, businesses and government agencies still are trying to figure out how to follow the law."

Very volitile issue...

Government intrusion??

"WE" are the government .....