North Carolina Bans Smoking In Bars, Restaurants

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

DURHAM, N.C. — In dozens of states, Gary Richards wouldn't have been able to light up a Marlboro before tucking into his meat-lover's pizza, as he did at Satisfaction Restaurant & Bar this week. But in North Carolina, the nation's leading tobacco producer, limits on indoor smoking have lagged behind those in much of the country.

That changes Saturday, when smoking in restaurants and bars is banned in the state that is home to two major tobacco companies and where the golden leaf helped build Duke and Wake Forest universities.

"There's smokers and there's nonsmokers. We've gotten along in the past," Richards, 52, said this week during a pre-meal smoke at the restaurant inside a former tobacco warehouse. "Why can't I come in here and have my beer and a couple of slices of pizza and a cigarette?"

The dangers of secondhand smoke to employee health and complaints from patrons about the smell finally won out when the Legislature approved the ban in 2009 after years of failures.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/01/north-carolina-bans-smoki_n_409024.html

[LouKneeLib]

1. I'm shocked

Common sense is alive and well in North Carolina.

[bbinacan]

4. And I'm pissed off. n/t

[LouKneeLib]

9. Why?

Tobacco regulation and restriction has been one of our finest victories. That stuff kills. Our society will be much better as a whole once it's banned from public display. Memo: Second hand smoke kills.

[bbinacan]

13. Look, you get more

noxious fumes on a street corner. Here is a very simple solution. If an establishment wants no smoking, then I say fine. You go there. If an establishment wants to allow smoking, then I go there. What's so damned difficult about that?

:smoke:

[Nye Bevan]

19. So an employer should be allowed to expose his employees

to unpleasant and toxic fumes in their workplace? DUers who want smoking to be allowed in restaurants tend to suddenly forget all about worker's rights. What if a chemical plant wanted to expose their workers to fumes? And please don't say they should just get a job somewhere else, if they don;t like it. That's not so easily done in this economy.

[bbinacan]

42. It seems you didn't

follow the thought through. By creating smoking and non smoking for customers, you create the same for employees. If the demographics hold up, it should work out fine. Having been a waiter and bartender, I can tell you that these folks smoke more than the average worker.

[jmowreader]

145. What about the WORKER's right to smoke?

I don't smoke cigarettes nor do I intend to start, but I have this feeling that if I were to open a bar that allowed smoking and made being a smoker a condition of employment, I could get all the workers I wanted.

(What if a smoker who worked for me wanted to quit? Well, that's why I would also open a non-smoking bar right next door. If you quit smoking, you go work over there.)

[Nye Bevan]

215. What about people who are so desperate to get a job

that they claim to be smokers so that they can get a job in your bar, when they are actually non-smokers?

This is the kind of thing that workers safety regulations exist to prevent.

[Jamastiene]

208. Down here, plants DO expose workers to toxic fumes

and lock workers up in a burning chicken plant and expect workers to work in conditions that are atrocious. There are no workers' rights down here. Give me a break.

[Zoeisright]

36. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

[bbinacan]

43. Clever

Who let the 3rd grade class in?

[Jax]

78. Nothing new from this one

you nailed it Zoeisright.

Me me mine mine!!! right wing 101.

Let them eat on the freeway or in a chimney flue, they love that.

[jgraz]

85. Dumbest. Argument. Ever,

Why does that fact that there are fumes on a street corner make it ok for you to pollute the air in an enclosed public establishment? Right now, it isn't practical to ban the combustion engine -- the economy would grind to a halt. But your "right" to pollute while you eat adds nothing of value to society.

[progressoid]

176. Wrong.

Objective To determine whether there was a change in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction while a local law banning smoking in public and in workplaces was in effect.
Design Analysis of admissions from December 1997 through November 2003 using Poisson analysis.

Setting Helena, Montana, a geographically isolated community with one hospital serving a population of 68 140.

Participants All patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction.

Main outcome measures Number of monthly admissions for acute myocardial infarction for people living in and outside Helena.

Results During the six months the law was enforced the number of admissions fell significantly (- 16 admissions, 95% confidence interval - 31.7 to - 0.3), from an average of 40 admissions during the same months in the years before and after the law to a total of 24 admissions during the six months the law was effect. There was a non-significant increase of 5.6 (- 5.2 to 16.4) in the number of admissions from outside Helena during the same period, from 12.4 in the years before and after the law to 18 while the law was in effect.

Conclusions Laws to enforce smoke-free workplaces and public places may be associated with an effect on morbidity from heart disease.

more: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj%3B328/7446/977

[SteveM]

57. At least 2 California cities ban public smoking, even outdoors. Agree?

[chrispeitel]

252. 2 Cities In California Ban Public Smoking Even Outdoors

Since I Lived in California for most of my life I can say this: California has always been the Land of Fruits & Nuts & Now the Land of SMOKE NAZIS !!! Oh come on California get a GRIP !!! They should worry more about crime, smog, unemployment & welfare, not smoking out doors !!!

[No Passaran]

62. It should be up to the owner

This is stupid. If you don't want to be around smokers, go to a restaurant that banned smoking and vice versa.

[LiberalFighter]

128. If you go by that logic then

it should be up to the owners:

if they can operate a restaurant that doesn't meet building codes?

if they can operate a restaurant that doesn't meet health board codes?

if they can hire workers that don't meet the age requirement?

if they can hire workers and not pay them wages or not pay them in a timely manner?

if they can allow patrons to drink alcohol that cannot legally drink?

if they can avoid paying taxes?

[Odin2005]

164. If it were up to the owner very few places would be smoke-free.

That's the reason for the bans in the first place, non-smokers couldn't find places that were smoke free.

[Mojorabbit]

186. And now that there are

it seems that that wasn't enough for them. Nothing less than a total ban will do.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

22. I live here and it's hard to believe.

I welcome it. Had lunch the other day at The Point in Raleigh and the place reeked from smokers at the bar. The waiter welcomes it. An older gentleman at the next table chimed in by saying that although he's retired from R.J. Reynolds, he understands it.

Good riddance!

[chrispeitel]

237. Smoking Ban In North Carolina

First of all I do not smoke but I can not understand why smokers are treated like 5th class citizens! Good grief drunks & druggies are treated better than cigarette smokers! Well I have never used this term before but now I see some of this country's hot heads have become "smoke nazis."

[muntrv]

2. Michigan is doing the same this May.

[noamnety]

23. I'm looking forward to it.

Even my libertarian friend, who I always argue politics with, is happy about it. It goes against his political beliefs, but he admits he's happy anyway because he's a musician and plays in clubs, and the club smoke makes him ill.

[WriteDown]

3. Just ban tobacco....

Wait, that would make too much sense. I remember when I lived in Wilmington 2 non-smoking bars opened up. They were hot for about 6 months and then both went under.

[bbinacan]

8. That should tell you something. n/t

[AlbertCat]

54. That should tell you something.

It does. I live in Wilmington now and I'd say over 50% of bars/restaurants that open up here go under in the 1st 2 years. Probably true everywhere. So it tells me that smoking has nothing to do with it.

Personally, bars should be able to pay a little yearly fee to be a smoking-friendly place. Let the state make some $$$ off of it. Banning tobacco will work just as "well" as banning pot or prescription drugs. But making the default position smoke free seems OK.

When I lived in Winston-Salem back in the 70's I remember the smell of tobacco wafting up from the RJR downtown plant. Ahhhh.... it was divine. But that wasn't burning tobacco, mind you.

All smokers should be required to prime tobacco one summer. NASTY!!!! That should cure a good portion of them.

[DWilliamsamh]

65. No it doesn't.

The default being smoke free doesn't seem okay at all. It should be up to the business. If they have enough patrons (smoking or not) they should be able to be smoke free or smoker friendly.

[DWilliamsamh]

64. That should tell you a LOT! (n/t)

This is one issue that seems tailor made for market forces. This is a legal product, and if a business works as a smoking establishment, why should it be the government's choice to change that? Makes no damn sense to me at all. Not even a little. Don't want to be around smoke? Don't go to bars or restaurants that allow it. If enough people feel that way the smoke free joints will flourish. But even if that IS the case there would still be room I would bet dollars to donuts for smoker friendly places as well.

[Odin2005]

166. Because there would never be enough places for non-smokers.

It's simple nearly all bars allow smoking, making it almost IMPOSSIBLE for us with sensitivity to tobacco smoke to find a bar to go to. I shouldn't have a night out ruined because I have an autistic meltdown from the smoke.

[supernova]

5. It'll be nice to go out

and not come home smelling of smoke.

[bbinacan]

6. This sucks!

It was bad enough when they banned it at RDU, but this is too much.:mad: :smoke:

[ixion]

7. More anti-human legislation from the anti-smoking nazis

:puke:

[kwassa]

18. Kill Smokers!

just kidding ... they'll do the job themselves. No help from healthy people needed.

It would be anti-human NOT to ban smoking.

It is STUPID to not ban smoking.

Nicotine, a legal addictive drug with major health risks.

[Suji to Seoul]

32. So, now we ban everything that is not healthy for you?

Chocolate?
Red Meat?
Soda?
Sugar?
Butter?
Not exercising?

When does all crap end?

Maybe this is the cynical misanthrope in me, let them smoke and let them die. It's not all bad news. . .cancer is a nice disease.

:sarcasm: on the cancer comment.

[katandmoon]

41. None of those things stinks up the environment of the consumer. Cigarette smoke STINKS.

And smokers stink. I don't care if you get lung cancer from it. That's up to you. But don't inflect your reek on me.

[AlbertCat]

58. But don't inflect your reek on me.

I suppose a law requiring people to not eat garlic and to bathe and wear only colognes you like is OK with you.:eyes:


BTW....it's "inflict" not "inflect"

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

83. You seem a bit irritable. Might want to dial back on the nicotine.

Just a suggestion...

[DWilliamsamh]

87. My irritation is at the advocacy of deciding for others .....

What they should or should not do legally with their own bodies. My irritation is at laws (and those who advocate them) that tell business owners what LEGAL behavior they can "allow" their customers to engage in on their premises. That has nothing to do with nicotine. It has to do with being sick and tired of people (including legislators) telling grown ass people what they can do to their bodies with substances of any sort, and where they can do it.





Edited for spelling

[jgraz]

89. You misunderstand several key points.

No one is banning you from doing anything with your own body. They're keeping you from doing things to *other people's bodies*. Do you not see the difference?

Suppose a restaurant owner allows customers to spank his employees if they're unhappy with the service? Is that not his right as a business owner? After all, spanking poses less of a health hazard than second-hand smoke.

No employee should be forced to risk cancer to earn a paycheck. And don't tell me it's their choice -- we have 10% unemployment right now. Should people be forced to breathe your fumes just because they need to feed their family?

[DWilliamsamh]

94. Not end of discussion....

No one is banning you from doing anything with your own body. They're keeping you from doing things to *other people's bodies*. Do you not see the difference?

Not when the parties involved aren't being forced to do anything they don't WANT to do - including those who CHOOSE to work in smoking environments.

Suppose a restaurant owner allows customers to spank his employees if they're unhappy with the service? Is that not his right as a business owner? After all, spanking poses less of a health hazard than second-hand smoke.

And what if during the interview process the business owner lets the potential employee know that patrons may spank them? Some will take the job, and some won't. Think an S&M themed club. Informed consent means everything.

No employee should be forced to risk cancer to earn a paycheck. And don't tell me it's their choice -- we have 10% unemployment right now. Should people be forced to breathe your fumes just because they need to feed their family?

No employee is FORCED to take a job in any particular restaurant. Non-smoking establishments operated and existed without the need of a law making all such establishments non-smoking. Why do you assume that all hospitality workers are non-smokers? This is a case of the market bearing both, and all those involved understanding the environment they are in. Why is it the government's job to "protect people from making that choice?"

A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class shit I bet you stopped reading like 10 words ago

Um no...I read through the whole thing, including this last incoherent sentence.

[jgraz]

98. A quintessentially Republican argument

Are you against other workplace rules? Should OSHA safety standards be optional? After all, an auto worker can just walk down the street and get a job at another plant, right? Just tell them before they sign up that they might die as a result of negligence and all is well, correct?

And, of course, plenty of other factories will choose to treat their workers better out of the goodness of their hearts. No one need force them to adopt safety standards.


Your problem here, besides your right-wing arguments, is that you are already faced with dozens of existence proofs. Many states have banned smoking in restaurants and they didn't immediately crash their economies. California restaurants and bars showed a 5% increase in sales the year the ban went into effect.

But the businesses needed the blanket ban. No individual owner was going to take the risk on their own. That's exactly what government should be doing: implementing programs to promote the General Welfare.

[DWilliamsamh]

101. OK. So since I am a "republican" now...we are done.

Makes no sense to continue if you are going to "go there."

[jgraz]

103. Wow, you roll out the "fuck you"s and the "idiot"s and then whine when I point out the obvious

Damn, maybe you really *are* a Republican. You certainly react the same way when you lose an argument.

[DWilliamsamh]

109. You think too much of yourself....and your "argument."(n/t)

[jgraz]

110. Being right does that to a person.

[Robb]

112. How exactly would you know? nt

[jgraz]

113. Ooh, good one.

:eyes:

[Suji to Seoul]

219. Spanking is already illegal. . .it's called simple assault

Your sophistry is amazing.

[shadesofgray]

126. And yet you smokers decide for others when you light your cancer sticks and expel your noxious fumes

in public.

The rest of us have no choice but to breathe in your stink - and maybe get cancer from it.

I will never understand why so many smokers expect to be treated any differently than any other toxic polluters. It's about time smoking was made illegal in every public place.

[WriteDown]

154. Not true...

Why have you never opened a smoke free bar? The demand should be through the roof.

[DWilliamsamh]

157. +1 My thoughts exactly...there are supposed to be choices in this life. (n/t)

[shadesofgray]

243. And I choose not to smoke. Smokers make others breathe in their noxious smoke.

God, you all are so fucking obnoxious and entitled.

[TommyO]

224. Nobody is saying that you can't smoke like a chimney

You just can't inflict your cancer-causing smoke on others while we're trying to enjoy a dinner, smelling the food, not your rank smoke.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ter]

143. Don't go to a smoking restaurant or bar

And there won't be a problem. Case closed.

[Odin2005]

168. Those are almost impossible to find without smoking bans.

THAT'S WHY THE BANS WERE PUT IN PLACE, GENIUS! It's not some puritanistic conspiracy, it's because without the bans it's damn near impossible to find an establishment that bans smoking because of basic economics.

[WriteDown]

205. Why didn't you open one up years ago....

You could have been a millionaire by now!

[Ter]

207. They are put in place to erode our freedoms like out of control fascism

And people like you go along with it quietly. I'm saying this as a non-smoker.

[Odin2005]

222. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

Left-Libertarians like myself recognize the social context of Liberty.

[Ter]

238. A restaurant owner deciding

is liberty at its purist.

[Odin2005]

246. Not when pretty much no owner will start a smoke-free business.

Resulting in the smokers' metaphorical fist going into our faces whenever who go out. Part of liberty is protecting a person's liberty from being infringed by others, either through direct behavior or indirectly by sociological forces (like the market forces that cause nearly all bar and restaurant owners to allow smoking). Liberty is Liberty, not Selfishness.

[Ter]

253. Offer incentives like tax breaks for businesses that are smoke free

Government intervention is a bad idea. It leads to tyranny.

[Name removed]

254. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flaneur]

146. Then stay the hell out of my bar!! It's really that simple.

There's a nice non-smoking fern bar right down the street. Have fun.

[provis99]

211. Diesel fuel stinks. and it kills more people than second hand smoke.

anti-smoking Nazis.

[Suji to Seoul]

218. So pass a law requiring showers everyday. Body odor stinks

When does it end?

Pass a law requiring people to brush their teeth. . .bad breath stinks.
Pass a law requiring people to wash their clothes. . .dirty clothes stink.
Pass a law requiring people to shower at strenuous work. . .sweat stinks.

If you justification is "cigarette smoke stinks," that is a lousy justification.

Steamed cabbage stinks. . .let's pass a law banning that in bars and restaurants too.

[ixion]

120. It is STUPID and INVASIVE to tell others how to live

if I want to start a business that caters to smokers, I shouldn't have to suffer zealots telling me how to run my business.

[Kurska]

137. It is STUPID and INVASIVE to go around spewing deadly gasses.

Stupid for your health and Invasive into my right to live.

[ixion]

141. my health is none of your concern...

and if you don't like it, don't associate with smokers. Trying to instill your beliefs on others is the mark of a zealot, pure and simple.

[totodeinhere]

170. But MY health is my concern.

I should be able to visit public places of my choice such as bars and restaurants without being exposed to second hand smoke. I know that nicotine is addictive, but are you going to tell me that they are so addicted to nicotine that they can't even wait until their meal in the restaurant is over before they have to have another smoke? If that's the case, it's pathetic.

[ixion]

183. In other words, you want to go wherever you want to go, and have everyone bow to your preferences

As I said: If a person wants to cater to smokers, they should not have to suffer busybodies telling them how to craft their environment.

The same is true, of course, about people who want to cater to non-smokers. The difference is CHOICE, which you see fit to take away because of your personal preferences.

[totodeinhere]

195. Yes, I want to go wherever I want to go without being exposed to a cancer causing substance.

And I make no apologies for that. You said "if a person wants to cater to smokers" but they should not be allowed to cater to people willing dispense a cancer causing substance. That's just common sense.

[ixion]

200. I've got news for you:

Life is a cancer causing substance. This is not a theme park. You can't remove all the nasties from life. You're living in a fantasy world, and trying to force others to do the same.

A zealot by any other name.

[Dreamer Tatum]

250. But I can remove YOUR nasties from my life

If you want to smoke your stinking cancer sticks, do it where I can't smell you.

Smoking and cell phone use should be undertaken in exactly the same way peeing and pooping is: out of the way of others.

[Flaneur]

147. Then don't go to smoking bars. Pretty simple.

[totodeinhere]

173. If you don't like going without a cigarette, don't go to bars.

Isn't that just as valid as the other way around?

[Suji to Seoul]

220. So outlaw body odor, burping and farting. . .car exhaust

my mother's allergic to perfumes. Makes her very sick. BAN THOSE TOO!!!

"Stupid for your health and Invasive into my right to live."

Stupid for your health - can't outlaw stupidity.
Invasive into my right to live - no one's forcing you to go to that restaurant or bar.

Why are smoker's second class citizens? BTW, I don't now, nor have I ever smoked.

[Lorien]

21. Considering how many humans tobacco kills

I'd say that the "nazis" are the ones peddling the crap.

[Suji to Seoul]

33. Remember, suicide is only a crime if you fail.

[ixion]

121. tobacco has been around far longer than tobacco companies, so

no, that is not the case.

It IS a case of one group thinking they have some right to tell others how to live their lives.

If you don't like smoke, don't hang around smokers. It's that simple. You have NO RIGHT to tell others how to live their lives.

[slay]

49. As a pot smoker who is totally banned, fined, jailed for using my substance,

you'll get little sympathy from me. I'd gladly smoke my weed outside if I was just allowed to do so. I'll go so far as to say that in a private club you should be able to smoke if that's in the rules, but not in enclosed public places. Sorry, but it's disgusting. At least you're allowed to use it. I can't even consume marijuana in my OWN HOME without fear of fines/jail/drug tests, etc.

[ixion]

118. Yes, and I believe it should be legalized

so you and I and others could smoke it wherever we liked. :smoke:

[totodeinhere]

175. That's a different issue.

We are not saying that smoking tobacco should be illegal, and I agree that smoking pot should not be illegal. But there should be restrictions placed on where either can be legally smoked. I say ban both tobacco and pot in public places, but allow either to be smoked at home.

[spoony]

68. wow, don't you think that's a teeny-weeny bit over the top? nt

[ixion]

117. No. What's over-the-top are anti-smoking zealots who think they have a right to tell

other people how to live their lives.

They are cut of the same fabric as religious zealots.

[Suji to Seoul]

10. This is where my liberality (if that's a word) ends

I am tired of laws trying to protect ourselves from ourselves. I am tired of victimless crime. I am tired of Big Brother telling us where we can smoke, when we can drink, how fast we can go in our cars and what we can put into our bodies.

It should be up to the individual restaurant to decide if they want to allow smoking, not the law. We are all adults.

And this is coming from a lifelong non-smoker.

[lazarus]

25. it's not victimless

the servers and staff at these establishments are forced to inhale second hand smoke. Unless you think worker protection isn't a necessary function of government?

[Suji to Seoul]

31. I'm the customer and it should be up to the establishment owner, not the government

At this point, I become very libertarian.

Soon, these child rights people will start working for laws to prevent people from smoking in their own homes if there are children in the house.

To quote you: "Unless you think CHILD protection isn't a necessary function of government?"

Keep government out of my decision. If the server does not want me, get another server. My money is just as green. . .and remember, I have never smoked.

[lazarus]

47. actually

there are cases of parents' losing custody because of their smoking around the child.

So there are no worker protection laws you support? OSHA should just go away? Child labor okay? No minimum wage? No right to unionize?

Interesting

[Suji to Seoul]

160. nice sophistry. IGNORED

[AlbertCat]

59. Also...we are not all adults in public places.

[DWilliamsamh]

70. Hey what about this..

When deciding on which bar or restaurant to patronize, check if they allow smoking. When deciding on which bar or restaurant to apply for a job in, ask the interviewer if they allow smoking. That way you can be an adult and decide if you want o eat/drink/work there of your own free will.

What is WRONG with you people?

[lazarus]

79. hey, what about this..

Ask before you apply for a job if the factory has any safety equipment.

What is WRONG with you people? Do you really think that the unregulated free market is going to protect workers? Did Upton Sinclair write in vain almost a century ago? Did union organizers fight and die for rights that you would simply discard on the altar of the Holy Free Market?

Do you think child labor is okay? Should the government really be telling people they're not old enough to work if they want or need to?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lazarus]

82. edited

On further thought, just in case you see this. If I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. Personal attacks lose arguments, they don't win them. This is a discussion board. We're having a discussion. If you can't handle it, fine. But personal attacks are just silly.

[Tunkamerica]

80. speaking as someone who worked in restaurants for years.

a good majority of my fellow employees smoked

[DWilliamsamh]

88. Oh.. you aren't allowed to say that....too much like reality

No you have to be protected because you are so tragically abused at work. How dare patrons smoke in your presence. You should only get your smoke when you step outside in the freezing cold or rain to smoke.

[Zoeisright]

37. What?

What 'victimless' crime? Secondhand smoke is deadly. If you don't get that you probably don't get out much. Or read much. Or understand science. At all.

[Hawkeye-X]

11. Colorado enacted this law a few years ago.

My wife and I can enjoy restaurants without the stink of smoke on our food.

[Endangered Specie]

12. Doesn't this law still allow smoking in private membership venues?

Pretty simple to make yourself private, have everyone fill out a membership card at the door.

I for one try to avoid places where I will reek of cigarettes afterward, you can always smoke outside too

[musicblind]

119. No it only applies to NON PROFIT clubs.

What is considered a private club for ABC laws in NC is not the same as a private club for the new smoking law. For the new smoking law you MUST be non-profit to qualify as a private club.

[Tunkamerica]

206. vfw halls and country clubs are exempt... country clubs.

so the rich can smoke wherever they like.

[SemperEadem]

14. well Gary

stay the fuck home if you need to drink and smoke. You're not supposed to be driving after ingesting alcohol anyway, stupid.

[SnakeEyes]

17. So tell me

Are they teaching the concept of designated driver where you live?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

15. Great. Now I can go out and not have to dry clean

my clothes. I dont hit bars as much as I used to but even in Chapel Hill that shit gets old. It stinks and in crowded places is overpowering. Nothing worse than trying to eat a meal and having to smell it.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Another stupid "nanny" law.

:thumbsdown:

[Nye Bevan]

20. Protecting workers from toxic and unpleasant fumes is a stupid "nanny" law?

Like those stupid nanny laws mandating safety guards on the machines in chicken processing plants. And those stupid nanny laws mandating fire escapes.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Yes, it is a stupid nanny law, akin more to the helmet laws than fire escapes.

But, I am sure you knew that.

[Nye Bevan]

28. I'm always disappointed when DUers take the side of the employers over the employees

I happen to think that employers should be required to provide a healthy and safe workplace for their employees. And that includes not being allowed to force your employees to breathe in toxic fumes.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. I am always disappointed when DU'ers use strawmen instead of actual logic.

Can't always get what we want, and therefore, are bound to be disappointed somewhere along life's highway.

[Nye Bevan]

30. Actually I *am* getting what I want

Namely, smoking being banned in restaurants and bars.

Too bad the smokers have to be so whiny about it.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Yes, all about you.

Too bad some people feel they should dictate what people do and don't do with their own bodies and choices, including going to a non-smoking bar as opposed to own which allows smoking...damn those tough choices. Thank G-d we have such a caring legislature which can think for us. :eyes:

[LynneSin]

40. Or support an industry that overwhelmingly donates money to republicans

I mean it's ok to rip healthcare and/or banking industries but we'll go out of our way to lamblast anything that affects their right to support the tobacco industry.

[DWilliamsamh]

72. I happen to think employees can dicide for themselves....

to apply for jobs in places they find it acceptable to work. Aftet all SOME employees actually smoke. Try using more than half your brain.

[Nye Bevan]

131. So a non-smoker working in a restaurant

does not deserve any kind of legal protection against being forced to breathe in toxic fumes? What if he can't find another job? I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there are not exactly a huge number of jobs out there right now. Or is it more important to allow people to satisfy their addictions in a bar or restaurant?

[provis99]

212. work at a different job.

[Nye Bevan]

214. There it is again! That fantasy economy that exists only in DU smoking-ban threads!

That fantasy economy where there are plenty of jobs for everyone to choose from! So those poor workers in smoky bars should just switch to one of the *many* jobs available in comfortable air-conditioned offices!

I guess the economy is better where you live than it is where I am!

[laughingliberal]

216. Well, I do think I saw the same arguements about the employees before jobs were

scarce.

[The Straight Story]

75. Your body, your choice - where to work, where to drink, etc - DU'ers who are anti-choice worry me

[Nye Bevan]

129. Yeah, let those workers get jobs somewhere else

No need to have laws protecting them. There are plenty of jobs out there in this *great* economy.

[jgraz]

132. We should probably get rid of all OSHA regs. After all, we all have a choice where to work.

Don't we? :shrug:

[The Straight Story]

182. Apparently you don't believe you do - did someone force you to work where you are now>

And don't you in the smallest way think that there is a bit of overkill in regulations? Or do you need a life where someone tells you how to live>

I suspect maybe you would do better under a dictatorship than a republic.

[jgraz]

188. Yes, the bank holding my mortgage.

And no, I don't think there's a general "overkill" with regulations. That's both wrong and too simplistic. Many areas, such as banking and health insurance, suffer from an *underkill* of regulations. Some areas -- such as our ridiculous drug policies -- suffer from far too much regulation.

The place where government can play a part is in evening the playing field between the powerful and the powerless. As a rule, employees are less powerless than their employers. Losing a job is a major life change, while losing an employee is usually a minor hiccup in your business. Having a government to enforce some minimal health and safety rules is a core liberal position.

I do love it, though, when smokers compare themselves to revolutionaries fighting a dictatorship just because their personal rudeness finally forced society to implement some restrictions on where they can light up. Sorry, you're not a freedom fighter. You're a drug addict. Quit making the rest of us pay for your addiction.

[jgraz]

194. D'oh.

Should read: employees are less powerful than their employers

[Nye Bevan]

221. What if the only job someone can find is working in a restaurant or bar?

Do you really think it is right that this person should have to choose between no job, or a job where they are forced to inhale toxic fumes?

Isn't this the kind of situation that OSHA rules are supposed to prevent?

Or are you going to invoke that fantasy-DU-smoking-thread-great-economy and deny that this kind of situation could ever exist?

[WriteDown]

231. What if the only job they can find is being a mechanic...

Do you really think they should be forced to inhale exhaust, and be covered with oil and grease?

[Nye Bevan]

235. OSHA rules require ventilation to protect mechanics from exhaust fumes

http://erd.dli.mt.gov/safetyhealth/brochures/dieselexhaust.pdf

[WriteDown]

236. And the grease, oil, anti-freeze, etc.

that you will inevitably be covered in?

Also, if you read the link that you provided, they allow for "general ventilation" which is akin to an open door.

[musicblind]

122. It's not just employees

I work at night clubs as a male entertainer (non-stripper) and I know bar owners who are thrilled they can finally go non-smoking thanks to these laws. The current set up, because gay clubs are so few and far between here, did not allow for non-smoking when it was tried two years ago after some employees were having issues. An even playing field does make a big difference. I detailed this down below. As well as how hard it is to go to the "non-smoking" gay club to work as a male entertainer when the next one is over 30 miles away and is also a smoking club. Honestly, the pro-smoking people in here don't seem to think any of this through before they make their arguments.

[LanternWaste]

63. One of these days...

One of these days, I'd love to hear a precise and relevant definition of "nanny state" without the later post-qualifiers and exceptions which seem to arise more often than not. So far, the consensus definition seems to be merely "those laws I don't like..."

[DWilliamsamh]

73. My personal definition....

A state (or country) in which there is a high, and growing number of laws regulating personal behavior, especially in the name of keeping an adult from "hurting themselves." I.E., the state is acting like your care taker or nanny.

[LanternWaste]

123. So fire and health safety codes would fall well within that definition, yes?

So fire and health safety codes would fall well within that definition, yes? (unless of course there are the usual suspects of additional post qualifiers and exceptions...)

[WriteDown]

152. No....

Those are laws. Smoking remains legal.

[LanternWaste]

213. Then one may smoke on an airplane?

Then one may smoke on an airplane? Or (and I find this a bit more likely), as with most things, there are restrictions placed on many legal activities with regards to place, time, and manner-- much like health codes. See?

[WriteDown]

230. Sure...

Depends on the airline though. As long as you don't land on American soil. I always assumed that restrictions on smoking on an airplane was more of a safety issue though. Pressurized cabin, liquid oxygen cannisters overhead, etc.

[Mojorabbit]

52. This IS a stupid nanny law

and this is coming from someone who quit smoking after 39 years. It should not be up to the govt to ban smoking if a business owner and it's patrons want to provide a smoking venue. I am very liberal but I also have a strong aversion to the govt deciding what is good or not for my health. As an adult, I can make my own decisions in that arena.
Safety regulation in poultry plants has nothing to do with the basis of the discussion.

[AlbertCat]

60. I also have a strong aversion to the govt deciding what is good or not for my health.

Uh.....how about SCIENCE deciding what is good or not good for your health? No one is stopping you from smoking. You just can't do it anywhere you want.

But, I'll bet it's OK to have a concealed weapon in bars! THIS is the most annoying thing about such laws. The legislature can get around to banning smoking in bars, but you can still just walk into a tent in the middle of Nowhere County and buy a gun and walk out with it.

[WriteDown]

153. Sure I can...

hookah bars and casinos are always exempt. I guess the smoke there is alright.

[Mojorabbit]

187. I no longer smoke

I quit after 39 years of the habit. Still, I am like you. I have a strong aversion as an adult to the govt making choices for me.

[liberal N proud]

24. I know a lot of hard core smokers in NC

I wonder how they are taking this?

I know for a fact, that here in Ohio the ban has been in place for a couple of years now. It is so nice to go into a restaurant and not have to hear smoking or non smoking or have to sit just across the row of tables from the smoking section and have the smoke drift across your table.

It is actually nice to go out and eat now!

[DWilliamsamh]

74. Yeah I'm sure you hated every meal you had out before the ban.....please. (n/t)

[jgraz]

86. And I'm sure you'll hate every meal you have out after the ban

Surprisingly, California restaurants and bars are not filled with weeping smokers. They step outside, light up, come back in when they're done. No whining.

[DWilliamsamh]

90. That's because we have become a nation of sheeple.

Have you ever wondered wear all the outrage at Bush's violations of our freedoms was? Did you ever wonder where the outrage was when religion started telling our students that "intelligent design" is just as valid as evolutionary theory? It's the same mechanism.

WHY do non-smokers get to tell smokers where and when they can light up when there were already plenty of alternatives for non-smokers, if they don't want to be around smokers? Why does the legislature get to tell a business owner he can't let employees or patrons smoke on site if they CHOOSE to? Because we have become a nation of sheeple and busy-bodies.

[jgraz]

92. Wait... you're comparing your noxious addiction to Evolution and The Constitution?

:rofl: Didn't you mention something upthread about a high horse?

The simple fact is that, if smoking is allowed in bars and restaurants, no establishment will ban it for fear of losing customers. A statewide (and, eventually, nationwide) ban is really the only way to handle it.

Funny you should mention Bush, because your arguments for smoking would fit in well with the Bushies: let the market handle it, it's my choice, I don't care if it hurts anybody else. That sort of selfishness is the foundation of Republicanism.

[DWilliamsamh]

95. Um no... I was comparing the acceptence of government regulation of what

people do of their own free will as adults in all those instances. try reading comprehension classes.

[jgraz]

100. I comprehend fine. You're trying to paint your personal selfishness as some noble cause.

Newsflash: it isn't.

You have no inalienable right to smoke in public. On the other hand, people DO have a right to be free of your personal pollution. Since you're the one with the addiction, why should others be forced to "choose" their workplaces and businesses to avoid it?

You made a choice to smoke. Now you get to live with the consequences -- which include not being able to pollute in public. I suggest you grow up and deal with it.

[DWilliamsamh]

102. Ummm...maybe because those people also smoke?

And might LIKE to be able to do so at work?

[jgraz]

105. Yeah, because waiters all smoke as they serve food. (Never worked in a restaurant, have you?)

Most people also enjoy masturbation. Should we allow that in restaurants as well? Come on, don't be a sheeple! We'll just seat you in the non-fapping section.

[DWilliamsamh]

107. Ok... Now you are just being ridiculous.

And I have worked in a restaurant. Of course we don't smoke when serving food...you need two hands for that. But that doesn't mean we didn't smoke at work...or that smoke would "bother" us.

[NashVegas]

96. Fear Loves This Place

no establishment will ban it for fear of losing customers

I'm happy that TN and Nashville's restaurant laws allow bars & restaurants to go 21+ and opt out of the smoking ban.

I don't smoke, but those places that chose to opt out went with what their clientele wanted, instead of going with what people who wanted to hang out in a certain place because it was where all the hipsters are - but didn't want to put up with the smoke - get all the respect in the world from me.

Those places that went smoke-free before the law was voted in, they also get all the respect in the world from me.

There were more than a few bar owners who supported the ban because they were afraid they'd lose customers if they went that way on their own, they are ruled by fear. I know who they are and try not to patronize.

[Flaneur]

148. Now that sounds civilized.

[laughingliberal]

217. Yes, we have one restaurant in town that went with a ban on children

and, thus, were able to continue to have a smoking section. That made sense to me as the bans in Nevada were based on protection of children. This particular restaurant is in a casino where smoking is still allowed in gaming areas. Children are not allowed in gaming areas, hence, no ban on smoking. This particular establishment went a step further and banned people under 21 in the restaurant as well.

Nevada businesses were not happy with the ban when it was up for referendum. Those citizens in favor of the ban kept saying that no area that instituted a ban had seen businesses fail as the result of it. Here, however, we have seen quite a few bars and restaurants that failed and stated that their business just dropped off too much after the ban went into effect. Seems some of the bars that failed had an afternoon crowd that included a lot of families and an evening night crowd that did not. They chose to obey the ban on smoking rather than ban children. They did not last a year.

[liberal N proud]

115. I hated having smoke blown in my face

Which makes me sneeze uncontrollably.

I bet you can't eat a meal without a cigarette. (40 minutes with out a smoke), its called addiction.

[DWilliamsamh]

162. Sure I can...you have no idea if I even smoke. Making assuptions doesn't win points(n/t)

[Bluebear]

181. 'to go into a restaurant and not have to hear smoking or non smoking =- hearing that bothered u?

Really??

[liberal N proud]

190. NO, it is just pleasant not have to have that greeting at the front door

[onehandle]

27. Common sense comes slowly, but surely. nt

[bertman]

35. Had an encounter at a seafood restaurant bar one evening when a man lit up a cigar

and began stinking up the place. The wife and I were waiting for a table and were seated about ten feet from him but the cigar smoke was making me sick. So, I went up to him and asked him to please not smoke his cigar. He looked at me and said "There's no rule against smoking a cigar in here." I said "You're right. And there's no rule that says I can't rip off a raunchy fart right here either." He put out the stogie.

No, I DID NOT do it.


But, I might have if he hadn't been cooperative.

[Alcibiades]

38. Durham is an appropriate place for them

to go to report this story, though the story really only hints at the tobacco history here. As a native North Carolinian, this is quite shocking. I think it's sensible, but it is really shocking that we have this law here, of all places.

Things really have changed. Now maybe less people will die.

[pettypace]

39. This state produces HALF of the tobacco in the country

Quite ironical.

Pork BBQ is next.

[supernova]

44. You can have my BBQ when you

pry it from my cold dead hand!!

:P

[Kurska]

45. Good, your right to inhale death gas ends at my right not to inhale your death gas.

[Mojorabbit]

53. You don't have to enter a smoking establishment

if you have an aversion to the habit. There are plenty of non smoking ones around. This preserves your rights and those of smokers as well.

[musicblind]

124. That is not true of gay clubs

If you'd read some of my posts about the struggle of a local NC gay club to go non-smoking that failed after 4 months because of the lack of an level playing field and the next gay club being 30 miles away which makes it near impossible for people who work there to just relocate to the next bar. I think I detailed this better in another post on this thread.

[Kurska]

133. We don't let people leak any other posions into crowded establishments.

It isn't a aversion to the habit, it is exposing yourself and everyone around your to deadly chemicals mostly without their consent. You don't have a right to smoke much less smoke in public., I don't even know why you are assuming you do

[NashVegas]

180. Ever Heard of Legionaraire's Disease?

[DWilliamsamh]

76. So don't go to bars or resaurants that allow smoking. Be an adult. (n/t)

[Kurska]

134. What about Workers? Small towns where there aen't any other options?

In this perfect world where there is a smoking and nonsmoking version of every establishment on earth right next to each other that works, but in the real world 80% of the population isn't going to let 20% of the population expose them to death gas because they are addicted to it.

[Mojorabbit]

185. Now you are stretching?

I am betting that most towns have more than enough smokers that would love to fill the positions. I am an ex smoker but I hate these nanny laws. I am an adult and am capable of choosing places I will be comfortable in.

[slay]

46. NC has a proud history of doing whatever big tobacco wants - and yet our #1 cash crop is marijuana

go figure. i hate the ass-backwards stupidity of the south. if you want to kill yourself with cigs, be my guest, but please don't do it around my food while i'm trying to eat k? i'll gladly do you the favor of going outside when i smoke a joint. what do you mean i can't it's illegal? even outside?!? well shiiiiit that ain't right.. :evilgrin:

[Kurska]

48. Cigs are much worse for you then Joints.

Sure they both give you cancer, but alot less marijuana does alot more so people almost never smoke a comparable amount of both.

[slay]

51. Actually, not only does marijuana not cause lung cancer, it MAY actually help with some cancers!

Yeah, smoking anything can't be good for your lungs, but marijuana doesn't seem to cause cancer the way tobacco does. And even better - it can help with some! Also, you can cook with it, getting the good effects for those who need it to treat AIDS or who just enjoy it without the risk of lung damage.

Marijuana Chemical May Fight Brain Cancer
Active Component In Marijuana Targets Aggressive Brain Cancer Cells, Study Says
By Kelli Miller Stacy
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

April 1, 2009 -- The active chemical in marijuana promotes the death of brain cancer cells by essentially helping them feed upon themselves, researchers in Spain report.

Guillermo Velasco and colleagues at Complutense University in Spain have found that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, causes brain cancer cells to undergo a process called autophagy. Autophagy is the breakdown of a cell that occurs when the cell essentially self-digests.

The team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in mice with human brain cancer cells and people with brain tumors. When mice with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor growth shrank.

more: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marijuana-chemical-may-fight-brain-cancer

[Kurska]

136. I did not know that, I'll be sure to spread the word from now on. n/t

[WriteDown]

155. Don't think the method of ingestion would be combustion...

Combustion is the bad part.

[bhikkhu]

50. Lots of angst upthread, but the ban works in my state

Oregon passed a similar law a few years ago and I never hear any of my smoker friends and co-workers complain. Its no big deal, and its nice to be able to go out to eat and drink without the reek.

[alp227]

55. This is practical - NOT "nannying"

Because it ain't useful just to walk away if someone's smoking in the table next to you and the law allows indoor smoking.

[DWilliamsamh]

77. Here's an idea...only go to non-smoking restaurants.

Nahhhh....that would require you to make your own decisions.

[jgraz]

84. Which is a lot easier when you only have non-smoking restaurants.

Your arguments on this thread basically boil down to "Waaaah! I smoke and I want to fill a public restaurant with my fumes!! Waaaaah!"

If you want to do something that poisons other people, do it at home. Simple courtesy.

[DWilliamsamh]

91. No...my argument is this:

If there are businesses that cater to smokers and non-smokers alike, and there are enough people who like that business to support it, the government shouldn't prohibit it from operating. The government shouldn't be in the business of telling anyone what risks they can take - especially with legal substances. I feel the same way about ALL laws of consent. That is my argument.

[jgraz]

93. So... your argument is ridiculous.

It basically boils down to... let "The Market" sort it out. But "The Market" didn't sort it out. Decades after we knew that second-hand smoke was poison, smoke-free bars and restaurants were still novelties. Restaurant owners weren't about to risk losing money one-by-one. A blanket ban put everyone on the same level, and allowed "The Market" to work on the real source of competition: who has better food and drinks.

And again, no one is telling you what you can or can't do to your own body. We're just saying what you can't do to *other people". Even then strongest libertarian agrees with that sentiment.

[DWilliamsamh]

97. Again... WHY?

Why shouldn't a business owner be free to do as he wishes in allowing his patrons to smoke if they wish? Isn't it your argument that smoke free is sooooo much better? Wouldn't that mean smoke friendly placed would naturally fall by the wayside or at least shrink to just a few places? You just argued against yourself.

[jgraz]

99. You may be surprised to hear this, but The Market™ does not always result in the best outcome

I'm not sure how any American can still think that after living through the last 18 months, but nothing persists longer than a bad idea.

Your anger at not being able to feed your selfishness has clouded your judgment. There are all sorts of workplace safety rules, and banning smoking is just one more. Business owners are not allowed to place their employees at risk whenever they feel like it. That's what government regulation is designed to prevent.

[DWilliamsamh]

104. Ok. You are determined to see it as you wish. I can't change that and won't try.

I will stop trying to convince you that there ARE such things as people who work and low and behold are smokers too. Have a nice Saturday.

[jgraz]

106. Yes, I'm determined to make reasoned arguments that you can't refute.

Sorry, sometimes it works that way.

[DWilliamsamh]

108. When you make an argument like that..... let me know.....

[jgraz]

111. Hint: they're the arguments you still haven't responded to.

To wit:

+ How is a smoking ban different from other workplace safety rules?

+ How is a smoking ban different from a masturbation ban?

+ How do you respond to the fact that restaurant business generally improves after a statewide smoking ban?

+ Why are you unable to distinguish between your personal choice and the infliction of your choice on others (e.g. secondhand smoke)?

+ Are you comfortable with making core Republican arguments to support your personal addiction?

[WriteDown]

151. Easy...

The things you cite are against the law. Smoking remains legal. I'm still waiting for them to shut down hookah bars.

[DWilliamsamh]

158. +1 My thoughts exactly...there are supposed to be choices in this life. (n/t)

[jgraz]

161. Then maybe you can explain "your thoughts" a bit. Which of the things I cited are illegal?

:shrug:

[jgraz]

159. Yes, it's easy if you don't actually read my post.

+ How is a smoking ban different from other workplace safety rules?

Unsafe conditions are now illegal? Are legally required to follow OSHA standards when you work on your car at home?


+ How is a smoking ban different from a masturbation ban?

Masturbation is illegal? I think a lot of us are in trouble, then.


+ How do you respond to the fact that restaurant business generally improves after a statewide smoking ban?

Now... which part of this is illegal? Restaurants? Or just improved business?


+ Why are you unable to distinguish between your personal choice and the infliction of your choice on others (e.g. secondhand smoke)?

Again, not clear on what's illegal. Personal choice?


+ Are you comfortable with making core Republican arguments to support your personal addiction?

Now, I'd be happy if we made Republicans illegal but, sadly, that is not the case.


So... you were saying the things I cited were illegal. Did you perhaps respond to the wrong post?

[WriteDown]

171. Easy again..

What worksplace safety rules? If you're a butcher aren't you still required to use very sharp, dangerous tools. What about a miner or a bomb expert.

Public indecency is illegal. Smoking is still a legal substance and people can smoke in public.

Begs the question of why you didn't open up a non-smoking bar years ago. Considering the demand that you cite, then you should have been a millionaire by now. Right?

And yet people can drink and then drive home from the bars? Maybe we should ban drinking in bars. So many people are killed each your by drunk drivers. Why are we doing nothing for these people? And why are hookah bars and casino given a pass?

Smoking used to be part of the counter-culture and was about as far away as you can get from Republican. For the record I am not a smoker. Maybe an occasional cigar.


Case closed.

[jgraz]

177. Yes, making zero sense is easy. Answering an actual question? Apparently, not so much.

What worksplace safety rules? If you're a butcher aren't you still required to use very sharp, dangerous tools. What about a miner or a bomb expert.

This makes no sense. What in hell are you trying to say here?


Public indecency is illegal. Smoking is still a legal substance and people can smoke in public.

Point? Public indecency is illegal because we made it illegal. It outlaws otherwise legal acts in certain places. Smoking in restaurants and bars is illegal because we made it illegal. It also outlaws otherwise legal acts in certain places. I guess that's "case closed".


Begs the question of why you didn't open up a non-smoking bar years ago. Considering the demand that you cite, then you should have been a millionaire by now. Right?

No, it doesn't "beg the question", any more than it makes sense for me to ask you why you don't open a smoking club in one of the non-smoking states. I've explained several times why the smoking ban required government support. Go back and read the posts. We'll wait.


And yet people can drink and then drive home from the bars?

No, they can't. That's illegal. Why? Because is jeopardizes the health and safety of others. Just like public smoking does.


Maybe we should ban drinking in bars. So many people are killed each your by drunk drivers. Why are we doing nothing for these people?

We've banned the dangerous alcohol-related behavior: drinking and driving. And we've banned a dangerous tobacco-related behavior: smoking in public bars and restaurants.


And why are hookah bars and casino given a pass?

Why does the fact that there are exceptions invalidate the current rules? I expect casinos were given a pass because they paid some politician to give them that pass. What country do you live in?


Smoking used to be part of the counter-culture and was about as far away as you can get from Republican.

Smoking was never "counter-culture", anymore than choosing Coke over Pepsi was "counter-culture". If you believe that, you're far too susceptible to marketing tricks.


For the record I am not a smoker. Maybe an occasional cigar.

For the record, I don't care.



Case closed.

Yes, but not the way you thought it was.

[WriteDown]

179. I'll speak slowly...

What public safety rules to you refer to?

But we didn't make it illegal in bars and restaurants. Casinos and hookah bars are still able to. So its not really about protecting anyone, just certain people I guess.

Still trying to figure out why you didn't open your non-smoking bars.

Drinking and driving is still a HUGE problem so "banning it hasn't proved effective." If we removed alcohol from bars then it should be much moer effective, right? Are you concerned with people's safety are aren't you?

Nothing like sitting in a smokey jazz club relaxing on a Saturday evening. Sorry if you've never experienced that.

[jgraz]

189. You mean you'll speak the way slow people do? Aren't you already doing that?

This conversation is pointless, since you don't seem to be able to hold a single thread of logic in your head long enough to complete a sentence.

But I will say this: I used to make a living playing in smokey jazz clubs, entertaining you while breathing your stink. I like it a lot better now that I don't have to spend an hour coughing after a gig.

[WriteDown]

193. Diversion. A time honored technique. Thank you. nt

[beevul]

184. Easier for YOU.

Fuck everyone else, right?

[jgraz]

191. Yes, I'm not a drug addict. We all have our burdens to bear.

Why should the rest of us pay for your addiction? Were you forced to start smoking?

[Odin2005]

169. SMOKE-FREE RESTAURANTS ARE ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND!

How many times do I have to repeat that fact!?!?!

[WriteDown]

172. Amazing people didn't open them up and make a fortune years ago. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

209. Hey, now you have the opportunity to practice what you preach and open a Hookah bar.

I've never heard anyone say "let's go out to the bar so we can have a smoke"

Now you and your smoking friends can hang around in your nationwide Hookah Bar franchises and stink each other up.

[WriteDown]

229. No, for two reasons....

One, if you had read the article you'd realize that hookahs are now banned. Two, where I live, there are numerous hookah bars.

Interestingly enough, I had a friend/alumni open a hookah and dessert bar in Charlotte called Crave. It's a really nice place with great atmosphere. You can make your own smores at the table while puffing on strawberry margarita flavored hookah. After its ban, I wonder if he'll be able to stay open.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

232. The article says ...

... "nonprofit private clubs and most cigar bars are exempt"

It doesn't address hookah bars but I assume they will group hookah bars with cigar bars - like they do here in chicago.

So now people who want to "go out for a smoke" can truly do so and wallow in their own stink with like-minded people.

[WriteDown]

233. Nope, hookah bars are banned as a knowledgable poster points out further down thread...

So much for that idea. Seriously, you should try Crave while its still around. May be 30 or more people who are soon looking for work.

As an aside, if pot ever becomes legal, I will be interested to see where it will be able to be smoked. Probably only in your home in a sealed basement considering the precedents that are being set.

From my old student newspaper:
http://www.dailytarheel.com/content/smoking-ban-hits-hookah-bars

[Hassin Bin Sober]

239. Hookah Bars are not banned. He can still remain open .....

If there truly is this market for people to sit around in a haze of their own tobacco smoke he should do just fine. The only establishments banned will be regular bars claiming to be Hookah bars.

Hookah Bliss could stay in business if 75 percent of the store’s annual revenue came from tobacco sales and it did not serve food or alcohol.

The law says 75% of his revenue has to be derived from tobacco sales. This is not unreasonable.

Smokers will get what they CLAIM they want - a place where they can go out and smoke it up to their heart's content. Everyone else can enjoy their food and alcohol without the stench. If smokers really want to hang out at the restricted bars and restaurants, all they have to do is step outside for a smoke.

The world isn't coming to an end.

[WriteDown]

240. It's a hookah BAR.....

It will be closed in 6 months. I think all bars should be required to have 75% of their sales come from food. I believe it will greatly reduce DUI's. And everyone wants that, right?

Here are some quick facts that people tend to ignore:

1.On average, someone is killed by a drunk driver every 40 minutes in US
2.Each day 36 people die and almost 700 more are injured in vehicle crashes that involve a drunk driver
3.The total cost of alcohol related crashes is roughly $51 billion
4.In 2006, out of 1,746 fatality that included children one out of six was killed by an alcohol impaired driver
5.Half of all teenage fatalities is due to drunk driving
6.About 30 % of Americans are involved in an alcohol related crash sometimes in their lifetime
7.In 2007 alcohol related fatalities were 15,387 which is 37% of all fatalities. Alcohol related fatalities are down by 27% as compared to 1982.
8.Top 5 states with highest number of alcohol related fatalities are Texas, California, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
9.About 81% of all drunk drivers are male drivers

[Hassin Bin Sober]

241. What the heck are you talking about?

According to the linked article, he is adapting and staying open:

“According to the law, as long as I’m not serving food and alcohol, I fall under that category of tobacco retailer, and I can stay open,” Bliss said.

Bliss said the change will be interesting, and the hookah bar will lose some revenue. To make up for this loss, he said the price of hookah will have to increase.

Your free market will have its chance to prevail after all. Heck, I figure the drinkingestablishmentss who feel so strongly about serving smokers can convert to true Hookah bars - they just have to derive 75% of their revenue from tobacco sales.

Sounds like a win win.

[WriteDown]

242. Not talking about there....

Talking about Crave. It remains to be seen whether either establishment can stay open.

Interesting that you are not for any restrictions on alcohol consumption in bars, but are vehemently against any type of smoke. Guess DUI deaths are just collateral damage.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

244. I'm pro anti-drunk driving laws.

If neither establishment stays open then I guess there really wasn't this huge market for people to "go out to smoke"

Smoke free drinking establishments are doing fine.

[WriteDown]

245. Smoking a hookah and drinking go hand in hand...

The same for many who smoke cigarettes. Like a tacos without cheese or cake without icing. The market is for people who like to drink AND smoke hookah. Guaging from the last time I was there, that market is BOOMING with a line at the door.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

247. Chicago has a BYOB policy. Do you know if NC does?

[WriteDown]

248. When I lived in NC 10 years ago, it did not.

Not sure if things have changed.

[David Zephyr]

56. Over two decades after California, but progress is progress.

Congratulations to all the lungs of North Carolina.

[SteveM]

61. Tobacco is the new prohibition...

First, bans in the workplace. Next, bans in public accommodations. Next, bans in non-food-serving bars & clubs. Next, bans of smoking outdoors in public (in at least 2 California) cities. Next (a prediction), moves to ban smoking in private residences where another adult might object, or where children may be present.

The taxes are high and growing, the restrictions are more and more confining. And where I live in Texas, a lot of folks I know smoke regular cigs ... smuggled in from the border by "cigarette traffickers" in much the same manner as dope traffickers, and from Indian reservations where laws governing tobacco are different. That trade is growing.

I don't like cigarette smoke anymore than others who have posted here, and I don't smoke tobacco. But the more you restrict the sale, transport and use of a substance, and the more you tax it, the closer you move to a prohibition regime -- and all the expense, corruption, and law-breaking prohibition comes with. Then smoking will develop the usual "rebel" cache other banned things have.

Prohibitionists would be wise to know when to stop.

[AsahinaKimi]

66. I would say the Tobacco companies don't care

They probably sell twice as much Tobacco to Asia as they do to the United States...

Tobacco-related deaths on the rise in Asia

New Delhi -- Tobacco will kill 6 million people annually by next year and cause an estimated 500 billion-dollar loss to the global economy, according to health conference in India Tuesday.

The 14th World Conference on Tobacco or Health in Mumbai revealed that China and India were the world's biggest tobacco users at 325 million and 241 million tobacco users respectively.

“Tobacco industry has shifted its marketing and sales efforts to countries that have less effective public health policies and fewer resources and by 2010, tobacco will kill 6 million people worldwide annually,” Judith Mackay, special advisor at World Lung Foundation which prepared the document with American Cancer Society, the Zee TV news network reported.

The economic costs were a result of lost productivity, misused resources, ineffective taxation and premature death, the study claimed.

“Because 25 per cent of smokers die and many more become ill during their most productive years, income loss devastates families and communities,” study author Hana Ross was quoted as saying.

The report said since 1960, global tobacco production had increased 300 per cent in low and middle-resource countries while declining more than 50 per cent in high-resource countries.

Public health advocates at the conference also said the tobacco industry in Southeast Asia was systematically obstructing the implementation of a global treaty on curbing smoking and tobacco use.

The alleged abuses of tobacco firms ranged from attempting to write tobacco control laws and blocking the passage of key legislations in the Philippines, Laos and Cambodia, and using so-called “corporate social responsibility” to circumvent laws and regulations in Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and the Philippines.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/regional-news/2009/03/11/199634/Tobacco-related-deaths.htm

[davidpdx]

67. Glad to hear NC do this, in this sense they may be more progressive

then other states who have failed to do this yet.

[Robb]

114. Stupid. If it's a health hazard, ban tobacco use at a federal level.

Anything else will continue these arguments about targeting one group over another.

Of course, there's all that tax revenue to consider. No one posting here hasn't benefitted from it in one way or another. It's a tough addiction to wean -- and I ain't talking about the nicotine. ;)

[musicblind]

116. As a night club entertainer in North Carolina. I am SO HAPPY THIS PASSED!

One of the clubs I work in regularly, the owner wanted to go non-smoking a couple of years ago. He tried it and it managed to last about 4 months because the other gay clubs in the area were still smoking so the 20% of smokers in the area went to those clubs cutting his business by 20% and because his club is a gay club it has a limited clientèle. There is generally only one major gay club per city in the triad area. Since smoking is addictive, people from Greensboro were willing to drive to Winston to smoke but people from Winston who did not smoke but would prefer a non-smoking bar wouldn't drive the 30 plus minutes to Greensboro... which makes sense. Even if it's unhealthy and makes them miserable to be in that environment in Winston it's a heck of a long drive to the next gay club in Greensboro. Without a crippling/life interfering addiction to fuel your motivation few people would make such a very long drive to go to a nightclub when they know they need to return home sometime after it closes around 2 or 3 am.

So even though the majority of patrons, the owner, and employees such as myself preferred the club to be non-smoking we had no ability to do this without a law making it an even playing field. This also isn't a case of "work somewhere else" because as I just pointed out... there is only about one gay club in the area and as a gay male entertainer I am certainly limited as to where my "home bar" can be located.

So it isn't always a case of "oh they can go somewhere else" or "oh they can work somewhere else" or "if an owner wants to run a non-smoking club/bar/restaurant then he can do just that" ... but the people who make that argument know their logic is filled with fallacies. People will do a lot of twisting and turning to justify their addictions and not just with cigarettes but with any drug.

Your rights end where another person's begins. People have a right to smoke, drink, whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of a person who chooses not to do those things. Considering how dangerous second hand smoke is, it is selfish for someone to suggest their right to smoke in a place where non-smoking employees need to be working in order to continue in their professional field trumps that person's right to live a long and healthy life.

One of the biggest lies I have read in this thread is someone actually tried to claim workers "choose" where they work. I can say first hand that while some people have the luxury of choice, such a statement is not by any means a rule of reality.


To quote the Winston-Salem Journal: "Secondhand smoke causes 46,000 heart attacks and 3,400 lung-cancer deaths a year, according to the CDC. The U.S. surgeon general declared in 2006 that no level of secondhand smoke is without risk, and smoking should be eliminated from all indoor areas.

Two recent scientific studies estimated that heart-attack hospitalizations on average dropped 8% to 17% the first year after implementation of a smoke-free law, according to the CDC."

And here is the link for that:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239016571912989.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

[Thor_MN]

125. Surcharge smokers to create smoking rooms. Air tight rooms that have a airlock to pass the food in

Separate entrance, separate restrooms. If they want to pollute, make them pay for it.

Also, create a dollar a filter deposit. If they love smoking so much, there should be no issues hanging onto the butts until they buy their next pack. It's not even a one time fee, as they get their money back. They lose the use of their money for the amount of time they have the cig/butts, but the much cleaner highways and intersections would be worth it.

[hughee99]

127. "complaints from patrons"? WTF

If complaints from patrons were all that significant the bars would have gone non-smoking themselves without the law. The legislature has the power to do this, but are they really going to pretend they're doing what a majority of the people who would be affected want?

[timo]

130. RIGHT ON!!!!!

I can't wait fpr a tobacco free world, that shits nasty!!!

[Kurska]

135. After this law went into effect in Florida the amount of cigarette buds littering the streets

drop off by at least a factor of 10. Best thing the Florida legislature has ever done.

[THUNDER HANDS]

138. not that i support this, but...

why would you smoke and eat at the same time? I never did that. I can understand smoking AFTER you've eaten, because that's when the cravings are at their height. But during a meal?

[THUNDER HANDS]

139. on a separate note - when do we get to ban children from public restaurants

I've been more annoyed by whiney loud kids when I go out to eat than I ever have at a smoker.

[Sultana]

140. Good!

[Ter]

142. More and more freedoms eroding every day

Police state fascism, here you come.

[skoalyman]

144. FDA is supposed to take nicotine down to were it wont be as addictive in couple years

FDA to require changes to nicotine yields and other chemicals in cigarettes and other tobacco products, although it could not ban nicotine.

So whoever's smoking now wont be in the future,or if you are, you'll be smoking a pack just to get a buzz lmao

[laughingliberal]

249. Yep, the low tar and nicotine cigarettes were always just a way to sell more cigarettes and enrich

the tobacco companies further. They weren't any safer but people did smoke twice as many. I like the new electric cigarettes. All nicotine, no tar, and no taxes. lmao.

[mokawanis]

149. Fuck the anti-smoking nazis

Going after smokers is an increasingly popular activity these days. I smoke where it's allowed and don't smoke where it's banned. Fair enough, but the one thing I don't tolerate is anyone lecturing me about smoking. My response to that crowd is "fuck off".

[jgraz]

178. Yeah, I hate the way they pack smokers into concentration camps and then gas them

Oh wait...

[laughingliberal]

251. Naziism was about more than just gasing people in concentration camps

That was, obviously, the most egregious legacy of the Nazis but there are many fascist Nazi style policies that damaged their country besides the holocaust.

[WriteDown]

150. If this doesn't include hookah bars than it is just hypocritical posturing. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

198. It does include hookah bars, unless they don't serve booze or food.

And this one in Asheville "to defy smoking ban":

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20091221/NEWS01/312210028/Asheville-Hookah-bar-to-defy-smoking-ban

[WriteDown]

202. Interesting. Looks like some people will be looking for a job soon..

Unless they figure out a way to open a smokeless hookah bars. I guess Crave in Charlotte will also be shutting down. Ashame, a nice place.

[NRaleighLiberal]

156. Great news indeed. Here's the scoop, smokers. You are addicted.

Smoking kills, it stinks, it is offensive, smokers toss their butts out anywhere and think that they magically vanish, I suppose.

Anyone who begins to smoke has given up their rights, because they are ADDICTED. Nicotine is an incredibly addictive substance. so you give up your own rights to be able to stop just by lighting up those first few smokes.

We are born non-smokers. You choose to smoke - and since it does impact your surroundings, smokers have no rights to light up around non-smokers, in my view.

[WriteDown]

174. Its a lot like drinking and drinking causes easily quantified deaths...

As a society, its about time we grew up and banned drinking alcohol in bars.

[jgraz]

196. And thanks for playing: Really Bad Analogies.

:eyes:

The day I get drunk from *you* drinking a beer is the day I think we should ban alcohol.

[WriteDown]

203. I don't have to get you drunk...

Just run into your car after I've had a few at the bar. You might want to look it up, amazingly, it happens all the time.

[musicblind]

225. Like he said before, bad analogy. Drinking and driving IS banned

just like the aspect of cigarettes that puts another person at risk, smoking in restaurants and bars, is slowly being banned across the country.

Drinking in a bar does not require drinking and driving. Smoking in a bar does require the spread of secondhand smoke in that bar. So the analogies don't work. The dangerous part of alcohol HAS been made illegal while keeping the substance legal. The same is happening with cigarettes. Now do people break the law? Sure, it happens often... some people will try and break this law as well.

[WriteDown]

228. And the ban is ineffective as witnesses by the numerous

dui deaths every year. Once you drink in a bar, you have to get home. The small minority use a cab or a DD.

[NRaleighLiberal]

197. So I take it you are too nicotine - addled to make real sense?

[WriteDown]

204. Not a smoker...

But I find that drinkers tend to be a heck of a lot more dangerous after spending some time at the bar than smokers.

[musicblind]

226. I know! It's almost like there should be laws against drinking and driving ...

n/t

[WriteDown]

227. They have proven so effective, right?

But if there was no alcohol available in bars then we might get somwhere.

[Odin2005]

163. Good for North Carolina!

People have a right not to have to inhale that shit secondhand, especially when they have sensory sensitivities like I do.

[w4rma]

165. Good! I'm tired of my coats coming out of bars/clubs/resturaunts stinking like hell.

That crap is gross on clothes.

[liberal N proud]

192. All the complaining here sounds like a bunch of republicans

all screaming that the GOVERNMENT is intruding on their lives.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[KillCapitalism]

199. LOL

Maybe they can call into Glenn Beck, he might be sympathetic to their plight.

[jgraz]

201. TobaccoBaggers!

:P

[laughingliberal]

210. Good for them. I smoke and fewer places that allow it means fewer places my money will be spent.

Saving enough to pay the new taxes! Lol!

[slackmaster]

234. Good - I'm by no means an anti-smoking Nazi, but your right to swing your fist ends at my nose

It's a vile, filthy habit. I was thinking about this last night - I have no close personal friends who smoke. A few of my best friends used to, but they all quit something like 10 years ago and they're all glad they did.

I can't stand the smell of it. I'd like to be able to drive around without smelling other drivers' smoke, or seeing them toss their butts wherever they feel like it.

And what's up with holding a lit cigarette outside of their car windows while driving? They don't mind polluting the air or their own lungs, but heaven forbid getting the shit in their precious upholstery.