NC Smoking Ban

smoking is ban in resturants and bars, possibly ban in public place. I was smoker for 15 years and I quit six months ago. I am not against anybody who smoke, it their business. My habit was smoke outside of my house and business. Anyway I am glad to quit and breathe better.

Utah thinking about ban smoking in public place, example you cannot smoke at public park, or sidewalk near by business. I think that is really silly because it was outside. They said it was bad for the kids, well every kids see all of the adult who smoke outside.

 

Switch to skoal.

I like the smoking ban in Austin. Now when I go out I dont come home smelling like shit. But I can dip anywhere I want.

 

This is funny now. But how funny will it be when it becomes true? Don't think it can happen? Who, 15 years ago, thought north carolina would ever ban smoking in restaurants? The future isn't too bright. I guess it is ok to go to a restaurant/bar and drink it up then kill someone via drunk driving on the way home. But lets please not risk the chance of someone that is drinking the alcohol inhaling a little smoke. Jeeez. People have, or rather had a choice of eating in a place that allowed smoking...they did not have to patronize the business. It should have been left up to the business owner...not big government. By the way I do not smoke, but do drink. And I never heard of a vote on this.

 

I think there should be places where smoking is permitted & the people who are offended or don't wanna chance the dangers of 2nd hand smoke should just keep their asses out of them or assume the risk of going in. There should also be places where it is not allowed so non-smokers and children have places to go where it is not an issue. WE DO NOT NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL US WHICH PLACES THOSE ARE!!! Capitalism can handle it all by itself if frivilous lawsuits weren't allowed to force people or places to cater to people who don't like what goes on somewhere they don't need to go.

People should quit being thin weak asswipes about either type of places, understand each others rights to smoke or not, realize nobody has right to override anyone else rights, patronize places that suit their preferences, assume the risk of going to places where their particular preference isn't catered to and fuck off if they don't like how a certain place is run or what is allowed there (as far as smoking goes) & spend your money elsewhere.............

 

You can smoke in public. What has been banned is smoking in privately owned establishments.

Are you sure you're reading the same things I am?

As far as tobacco not making you act like an idiot, consider that cigarettes can cost a pack-a-day smoker between $2000 and $5000 a year and gain them nothing. Then consider the increase in their health insurance premiums and actual health care costs because of the many diseases that smoking causes, puts people at higher risk for, and slows healing of. I would argue this qualifies for "idiotic".

No, there's too much ruling going on that you don't agree with, which simply indicates you're in the minority opinion.

Your analogies are intended to be facetious but don't really work. Smoking is a public health hazard. The government won't let restaurant employees pee in the kitchen sink because it's a health hazard. Now they won't let people smoke in the establishment...because it's a health hazard.

I really don't see the harm. If you want to talk about loss of freedom, let's discuss the PATRIOT Act or the soon-to-be legislated mandated health insurance or the wall street bailouts.

Please stop acting like where people get to smoke is a real problem.

 

It is an issue though. If it isn't a real problem, then why was the State even discussing it? It all starts small then grows proportionately out of control. If said owner of said business wants to allow smoking in his establishment then so be it. If you don't like it then don't go in there. Period. What my post was supposed to show was that in this day and age everybody is scared to death of stepping on toes. There is no such thing as rights anymore. Freedom of speech is hindered by anyone who is offended by what is said and can/will sue over what you say/said. You can't look at someone without getting sued anymore. I realize that NC has not banned outside smoking however, how long before it becomes law there too?

You say spending money on tobacco is idiotic? It is a vise, one could also argue that spending unholy amounts of money on a truck is also idiotic. How about gambling? Your logic on this matter is striclty your opinion. My statement was pointing out that Crack, meth, heroine, Cocaine are all drugs that have crime connected directly to them. Where has tobacco been directly related to a crime? When is the last time you heard of a tobacco addict robbing, stealing, or killing someone to feed their Cig addiction?

My decision to smoke is just that, MY DECISION. In an earlier post of mine I said that if asked I would gladly put out my cig. But when you have the government telling you how to live it is not right. California has banned the use of trans fats in the food industry with exceptions given to bakers. Why? Because someone got fat from it? If I want to eat a greasy hamburger with trans fats I should be able to. In my mind there are plenty of other things to worry about other than what foods I can or can't eat.

There are plenty of reasons to not smoke, I understand this. In the end it comes down to this, if the business owner wishes to allow it then that is their perogative. It should be by choice of owner. How in this day and age of political correctness can they not allow me to smoke outside, eat what I want to eat? In an effort to make non smokers happy they tipped the scale too far and now have a different group of people upset by this. You can't make everyone happy and never will. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If not we will lose everything that makes us who we are. The sierra club will get what they want, Al Gore will have our Tacoma's running off of AAA batteries, and Napolitano will have cameras in everyones bathrooms.

 

X2 couldn't say it better myself I smoke but not inside anywhere other than my truck. Which stink's by the way but it's my choice and not the goverment's. By the way I'm trying to quit .

 

Good for you. During my 15 years I quit 4 or 5 times but smoke again after 2 months. So this year I have not smoke for six months. Had to quit because I had bad cough and hurt my chest.

Some people are stuck with smoking and I don't blame them. It was bad habit. I have been there and know what it feel likes.

 

Could you clarify? What exactly were they "discussing"? Pre-legislation debate? That's just a byproduct of how legislation works in the United States.

Agreed. Do you feel a business owner should be allowed to permit heroin use on his property if he so chooses?

The United States is overly litigous, I agree. How do you propose to change this by whining about it on the internet.

If you want to change the situation, go out and do something about it. Complaining about it on the web just comes off as petulant.

Once again, the only people who would care are those addicted to the drug.

If they banned reading, I might be incensed. The fact that they have made it illegal to use a toxic addictive drug in public places doesn't bother me.

Spending vast amounts of money on your truck will not potentially give other people cancer, give you cancer, or raise your health care costs. Your analogy is invalid, and you are not providing counters to any of my points. You are dodging them with ancillary shit that appears related to the conversation but isn't.

Please stop. I'm happy to discuss and debate this topic, but let's actually talk about this topic, not what you would LIKE to be the topic.

Once again, off topic, but I'll humor you: There is little/no crime to attain tobacco because it is LEGAL and can be CHEAPLY BOUGHT. Raise the price of tobacco to make it equivalent to marijuana and watch what happens.

Absurd. The government tells people how to live all the time - in fact, that's what a government does - sets and enforces rules for a society. In the US, these rules are established by a sizeable majority through their elected representatives.

If you have a problem with that method, I suppose you could always acquire citizenship in another country.

As a member of the armed forces, the government tells you, specifically, how to live more than most people.

This isn't about government intrusion on freedoms, it's a pet issue of yours because you smoke and now it's harder for you to do so in North Carolina. I suggest an alternative: quit smoking and then see if you care about smoking laws or not.

When you get diabetes, colon cancer, colitis, or any number of orthopaedic illnesses from your poor dietary habits, will you die quietly from these diseases or expect the health industry to ameliorate your condition directly caused by your poor health decisions?

If you want to smoke and eat poorly, by all means, have at it. But if you want TRUE sole discretion over your activities, you can have responsibility for the health consequences as well.

Just FYI, current research points to trans fats being a potentially larger health risk than smoking. May have something to do with Cali's legislation. Just sayin'.

You can both smoke outside and eat whatever you want. Your freedoms have not been infringed in any of the ways you are claiming with the above sentence.

There is a line. It's called the legislative process and representative government. It's not like this law was created and enforced by people who weren't elected to office. And since the NC state legislature doesn't have a supermajority of either party, this wasn't railroaded through by one political camp.

I always laugh when someone's pet issue is likened by them to the sky falling down and the end of society. This reminds me of people who, when their party is in power, essentially say "US LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!" and then when the opposing party is elected through the same process and starts heading the other direction go "OH MY GOD THE COUNTRY IS GOING DOWN THE TUBES." They should just admit it - they want their way and are scared to death of people who have a different world view. They are closed minded and not strong enough to weather unfamiliar situation. They're weak. Admission is the first step they would have to take to improve themselves.

Again, if you don't like the direction this country is moving in, there are options available to you.

There, look at what you did...made me digress off onto some tangent. I hope you're happy

Stop being dramatic. One state having regulatory laws regarding smoking does not equate to fascism. Once again, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. PM me to talk about the PATRIOT Act, the Health Insurance Mandate, the Corporate Run Government, or Cap and Trade if you want to talk about REAL problems this country is facing.

 

I wish texas had that law! I cant stand the smell of cig smoke. If you want to kill yourself do it at home or atleast away from everyone else

 

BURN!

 

Damn, jandrews... well done. +1 for you.

 

Props to Jandrews... well said sir! Couldn't agree with you more...

 

You said it wasn't a problem. So if smoking was not a problem why would the state spend the time and effort to ban it?

This is invalid. I can legally purchase and use Tobacco product. Heroin is illegal to posses and use. So to this I do not think it ok to allow an illegal substance to be used, any legal substance on the other hand, yes.

I actively write congressman for my state in regards to upcoming events and or bills to be signed.

Yes, this is correct. A perfect example of an elected official is Bill Owens, who within the first 4 hours of his term broke 30% (maybe more) of his campaign promises. How is an elected official supposed to work for the people when the whole basis of his being elected was a fallacy?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. As a member of the armed forces I have fewer rights than civilians. But this is an issue of government intrusion. I don't live in NC, so I have no reason to be upset because I can't smoke in a public building. What does agitate me is the fact that they have taken a decision that has traditionally been the owner's and stepped in where I don't think they should have. Again, I can totally understand not smoking in restaurants. No issue there. But I still feel that it is ultimately the owner's position to make the final decision in this matter.

I eat healthy, but sometimes I want to eat a fat, greasy, unhealthy burger. too much of anything is bad. Trans fat in moderation will not kill you. In excess yes. Drinking too much water can kill you.

Again, everything in moderation. What were the parameters of the research done? Did they pump mice full of trans fat? Did they moderate the intake? I don't know what they did to come to these results. If you go out and eat this junk for every meal then yes, I can most definitely see this, but for the occasional meal?

Some states have implemented a no smoking policy for public parks. This in my eyes does indeed infringe on my rights. I am outside, no one is forced to sit/stand next to me while I am smoking a cigarette. Granted, New York has been this way for quite some time. And New York typically follows closely behind California's law making decisions.

You are absolutely correct, I do not like it, but I vote and therefore reserve the right to complain and write to my senators/congressmen/women and I do so.

No need to PM about these as these infuriate me. I believe that a lot of our problems lie in the fact that whilst so many are looking at the forest, they miss the trees. And by the time you realize to missed the tree, it is too late. You watch the big picture and miss the defining detail that makes the big picture what it really is. A bait and switch if you will.

 

Ask them. I couldn't care less either way.

So now that it is illegal to use tobacco in restaurants and bars, are you against it's use in restaurants and bars?

I don't get it - are you against something's use because it's illegal, or do you believe it should be personal choice? The cookie doesn't crumble both ways. Either it's a personal decision, or you agree to abide by the law. Which is it? You're confusing your position.

I applaud you sir. Maybe you'll see some results then.

Welcome to the Corporate States of America. One of the scariest thoughts I have had to entertain over the past decade is that the government is now for the Businesses by the People. We are owned now. If you don't believe it, look at how much debt was added to each US citizen's national debt obligation by the Bush/Obama bailouts.

The United States government now exists to service campaign donor industries and subsidize their losses among the public. Serfdom is awesome.

And I don't disagree with you. I'm a proponent of personal rights. But I can also understand the opposition argument in this case, which is that this activity is a health risk to everyone in the vicinity.

For my own part, as noted in the PM, I'm not a smoker, and I didn't frequent establishments which allow smoking. In effect, before this law, I was living to your preference. I had no problem with life in that fashion. I wouldn't have noticed things have changed if not for the commercials on TV. If they ever changed back, I wouldn't notice then either.

I consider this a rather small problem compared to the big fish we need to fry, and really not worth getting in a tizzy about.

As do I, and nothing is preventing you from doing this in California. It may be harder to *acquire* a trans-fat containing burger, but if you happen to have one, you can munch away. There's a distinction there. No one legislated what you could eat, just what the restaurants could prepare. And that's nothing new - it is also illegal to offer a salad containing, for example, marijuana.

I'm too lazy to dig it up for you, but google around. There are many journal articles available noting research of high to low quality. Most of the stuff I've read is primarily observational study looking at people with diets high in trans-fats vs. not.

People may argue this doesn't prove trans-fat alone is bad. They would be correct.

The point is, high trans-fat consumption is correlated with health risks, just like high cigarette consumption is. What that correlation means to each person is different.

A state could outlaw smoking entirely and not infringe upon your rights. Rights are, in the US, defined by law. There's no article in the constitution noting the Right to Bear Pipes.

I hope you're not trying to convince me that minor smoking regulation changes in north carolina are a bigger threat to personal rights than the PATRIOT Act or a bigger threat to the economy than Cap and Trade. Have you investigated either of those items (P-Act or C/T) in depth? They are cancers, no pun intended, to a free republic capitalist nation.

 

I think what agitates me the most out of this is knowing that the state elected officials sat there and drafted this up, a mundane law about smoking no less, rather than tackle the things that are putting this country in jeopardy. Its like having a truck with no engine, but you put new tires on it instead of finding an engine first. When I see laws like this I sit back and ask myself why the focus is there instead of national security, or our economic condition, or health care. It is less of the actual law that gets me. But more the fact that the law is a small scale issue compared to issues staring them in the face. I guess that is why I get irritated by it.

Its like they sat down and said " What have we got today, big issue, big issue, bigger issue, huge issue..........ooooooooh a little guy. Let's do this one!"

 

x1000

Sweet Jesus... this is getting old now.

Un-subscribed.

 

I know most think the gov. shouldn't have any say so and I normally agree. But here I am allergic to smoke. I do avoid it. I also feel people should be allowed to do as they please. Here is my issue, you wanna smoke and enjoy yourself, but at my cost. I honestly don't mind this concept. I am all for people smoking outside, and in bars. Just not in a resturant, movie, Shopping center. Things of that nature where I go to enjoy myself. Now smoke at the bar if I wanna go then its on me. But for you to have free choice at my expense is taking my choice. You are the one doing the extra curricular activity at the resturant where we go to eat. If I were at a place where you went to smoke then it would be on me to leave.