NC officially bans smoking in bars / restaurants

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
13,304
Reaction score
163
Location
Phoenix
http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/smoking_ban_heads_to_governor

The House narrowly agreed to the Senate version of a smoking ban, sending to the governor a bill that would ban smoking in bars and restaurants.
"This bill has come a long way," said Rep. Hugh Holliman, the House Democratic leader and champion of the bill. "It's had a much debate as any bill has ever had in this state."
Gov. Beverly Pedue is expected to sign the bill into law. It's a law that might have been unthinkable just a few years ago in a state built on the tobacco industry.
The bill was approved 62 to 56. The original House version allowed smoking only in businesses that prohibited anyone under 18 from entering the premises. That exception generally excluded all bars from the ban. Restaurants complained that the exception would give bars a competitive advantage.
But the version adopted by the Senate removed the section of the bill that applied the ban to all workplaces.
Holliman said the compromise was "probably as good as you're going to do on a bill that's as far reaching as this." He held open the possibility that he would take another run at all workplaces later.
Opponents said the bill was an infringement on personal rights.
"This is about the freedom and rights to do on your property what you see fit," said Rep. David Lewis, a Dunn Republican.
Update: In a statement, Gov. Beverly Perdue called it "an important and historic day for North Carolina."
"I have vigorously supported efforts to reduce and eliminate smoking and this bill will help more North Carolina citizens avoid the dangers of secondhand smoke," she said.
 
NY did it a few years ago also. All the bars were in a doom and gloom state of mind... There are more bars around here now than before and they have found it actually saves them money no nasty smell and no dingy walls. They don't have to ventilate air in summer and winter. And business increased
 
NC is the Tobacco state. It'd be the last place imaginable that I thought this would happen.
AZ has been smoke free for awhile.
 
That's true... I didn't even think of that.

Those closest to it know the most about it. I had a friend whose dad was the second largest tobacco farmer in the state and he said he would immediately cut off his kids if he caught them with a cigarette. He didn't smoke either.
 
Also domestic production of tobacco has fallen way off. More competitive foreign tobacco on the market . So even though NC is the tobacco state it's tobacco crops are not what they used to be.

"Total utilization of U.S.-grown tobacco has been declining since 1975, from
1.941 billion pounds to 1.121 billion pounds in 2001 (a 42% drop in the farm
weight)."

report
 
It's amazing how across-the-board repressive we feel it is necessary to be in this country- the legacy of those New England Puritans, whether it's on the right or the left, is alive and well.

We were in Spain when their smoking law went into effect three years ago, and I thought it was pretty well thought out. Of course smoking in the workplace was pretty much eliminated, unless you were out-of-doors. As far as privately owned public establishments, it's divided into places below and above so many square meters in area (I think it's 100). If it's above, it either has to be non-smoking, or divided according to very strict standards into smoking and non-smoking....this means with walls, separate ventilation, the whole enchilada......for all intents and purposes two distinct and isolated serving areas within the same business. The smaller establishments get to choose one way or the other, with what the place is posted unmistakably outside. We don't have that much sense, regrettably.

NB: I also feel obliged to point out that what we are doing in this country applies to a completely legal, government approved (and heavily taxed) activity, and in all 50 states.
 
It's good news for me. My fiancee refuses to go to bars where smoking is allowed because she is irritated by the smoke and dislikes smelling like smoke afterwards. This means she'll accompany me to any place now, including the flying saucer! Can you say designated driver!?
 
Well SH$T!!! I live in NC and have enjoyed our freedom from this ban thus far. I smoke. I love to smoke while I'm drinking out. Oh well. What's next? Homebrewers? Freedom... I guess.
 
While I quit smoking over a year ago, I feel that if I want to open a bar that caters to smokers who want to bring their pets I should be allowed to. We are way past half way down the slippery slope
 
NC is the Tobacco state. It'd be the last place imaginable that I thought this would happen.
That really surprises me. I never thought it would go through.

I moved to NC about 5 years ago, and they still allowed smoking in colleges. In the cafeteria there was no smoke free zone. People smoked everywhere, it was an odd sight.

I just finished at UNC in Pembroke, and just this last semester, they banned smoking in all buildings, how many years behind most states.
 
It's nice being able to go to a bar, a club, or a concert in NJ/NYC without smelling like one of you filthy, stinky, yellow teeth/fingered people. Now if only my office building banned it from the premises then I wouldn't have to smell it in the elevator or passing in the hallway...
 
It's amazing how across-the-board repressive we feel it is necessary to be in this country- the legacy of those New England Puritans, whether it's on the right or the left, is alive and well.

We were in Spain when their smoking law went into effect three years ago, and I thought it was pretty well thought out. Of course smoking in the workplace was pretty much eliminated, unless you were out-of-doors. As far as privately owned public establishments, it's divided into places below and above so many square meters in area (I think it's 100). If it's above, it either has to be non-smoking, or divided according to very strict standards into smoking and non-smoking....this means with walls, separate ventilation, the whole enchilada......for all intents and purposes two distinct and isolated serving areas within the same business. The smaller establishments get to choose one way or the other, with what the place is posted unmistakably outside. We don't have that much sense, regrettably.

NB: I also feel obliged to point out that what we are doing in this country applies to a completely legal, government approved (and heavily taxed) activity, and in all 50 states.

I wish this is how it was here in the States. It doesn't bother me either way, but I smoke when I drink. Not just one or two either, I usually smoke like a regular smoker while drinking and then cut it out of my life for 5 days a week.

I don't understand why it has to be so black and white here. If a bar wants to take the risk either way, by either cutting out their smoking or anti-smoking clientele they should be able to take that risk on their own.

I've been to bars before where smoking was allowed indoors in the winter and as soon as it got warm out it was only allowed on the patio.

Whats wrong with that, I ask?
 
Well SH$T!!! I live in NC and have enjoyed our freedom from this ban thus far. I smoke. I love to smoke while I'm drinking out. Oh well. What's next? Homebrewers? Freedom... I guess.

Well, I don't smoke but I think I am going to start taking a spit-bottle in with me if it is only marked "No Smoking" and not "Tobacco Free". :D

I think every place should have the right to decide for themselves, but one way or the other and not with a "smoking section". That is like having a peeing section in the pool in my opinion. If a restaurant or bar was either all smoking or no smoking, then people could frequent their preference and "vote" with their money. If a business banned smoking then found themselves going hungry, then they would know they made the wrong decision. But if me and the wife and kids all smoked, then we could still choose a smoking place. Know what I mean?
 
Everyone acted like the sky was falling in Oklahoma a few years back when they went this way. Although I think you can still smoke in the bars there. As far as eating out, I'd rather make the short drive across the border to eat smoke-free than stay here and eat smoke.
 
I'm a hypocrite on this issue. CA banned smoking years ago and I love it:ban:

However, I never could have voted for the ban if I were a legislator, and I don't agree with it.

But I love not smelling like an ash tray when I go out.
 
My smoking friends adapted pretty quick when the law was passed here. Now they smoke less and consider the outside smoking area as the cool kid's club.
 
I'm a hypocrite on this issue. CA banned smoking years ago and I love it:ban:

However, I never could have voted for the ban if I were a legislator, and I don't agree with it.

But I love not smelling like an ash tray when I go out.

Same here, I love being able to breath better in my favorite bars, but on the other hand it is going really far towards telling private businesses how to run themselves... Non-smokers like me always had the option of not going to smoking establishments - spending our money in non-smoking places instead.

But I have to say - the formerly "smoking" bars and restaurants are getting a lot more of my money now!
 
Wow, I'm from NC and have lived in CO for ~10 years now. Never thought I would see the day this would pass. It sure will make going back home to hang out with old friends in the local bars a lot more pleasant. The ban in CO has been in place for a long time now, but every time I go back to NC, I come back from the bar (almost any bar) smelling like an ashtray. I'm happy it passed.
 
San Antonio is the top 7th city in terms of population, but they still haven't banned smoking in bars. They banned smoking in restaurants a long time ago to much applause...

I mean, even Houston and Dallas banned smoking in bars/clubs a while back and people are very happy about it. Sure, the business owners were up in arms initially, but their business has largely increased since the ban.

I will be elated when SA bans smoking inside bars/clubs. :cool:
 
The smoking ban that surprised me the most was Mexico City last year. I go there a lot for work. They didn't even have smoking sections before the ban. Many of the nicer restaurants had cigar humidors under the desert cart!

It was glorious! A juicy corn-fed steak dinner followed up with a Cuban and some fiine sippin' tequila. This was normal. No dirty looks from the next table eating their soups and salads.
 
Well SH$T!!! I live in NC and have enjoyed our freedom from this ban thus far. I smoke. I love to smoke while I'm drinking out. Oh well. What's next? Homebrewers? Freedom... I guess.



Yep, nobody cares about rights infringed upon until its the right they want to keep, and by then it is usually too late.
 
You all can talk about freedoms being taken away and rights infriged upon, but it's tough to go out to a bar where I live, as a non-smoker, and have the freedom to breath without being forced to breath a bunch of secondhand smoke. What about the rights of non-smokers?

I have no problem with what people do as long as they keep it to themselves. Shoot heroine and keep it in private for all I care. When you force it on others though, it's a problem.

edit: One thing I should add is that I'm a professional jazz guitarist and have really started to notice the effects of having to work in other people's secondhand smoke lately. I don't even go out for drinks as much as I used to because of all the smoke. Luckily, I've found one or 2 smoke free bars 45 minutes from me that have decent beer. Kind of a long drive though.
 
I enjoy smoke free bars and restaurants, but I am definitely against it. Like it or not smoking is LEGAL. Ban it in public areas? Definitely. The government has no business telling PRIVATE organizations what they can and can't do when said activity is legal.

I'm not a smoker, and hate everything that cigarettes are. But the whole "slippery slope" mantra applies here. Just because it's something that you yourself don't enjoy, doesn't mean it's okay to take away that right from other people.
 
That really surprises me that it passed, I would have bet the farm that the bill would fail, living in NC all my life, and working tobacco part of it, I can say I never would have even thought a possibility could exist as banning smoking in public businesses much less a privately owned place, I dont smoke but like some of the others suggested, this is a travesty, and has to be against your freedoms. I just hope they dont want to ban Homebrewing:D
 
Yesterday Maine passed a law prohibiting smoking from public places like beaches etc. Our restaurants have been smoke free for a long time and it is great.

There was a diner whose clientele all smoked, drank coffee, lingered. The owners railed against the ban. Once it went into effect they found the smokers tended not to linger. The owner was pleasantly surprised to find the diner had a higher rate of table turn-over and their business increased substantially.
 
When I moved down from NY to NC last year, I wasn't too happy about the smoking in bars and restaurants. I absolutely hate going out to eat or to have a few drinks and all my clothes stink of smoke. It's really only a hassle on the few cold nights when I'd have to wear a coat to the bar, since it would need to be dry cleaned.

The same complaints were made in NY when they banned smoking in bars, but in reality it brought in more business and made going out more enjoyable. If I was working in one of these establishments I'd be happy too. You shouldn't have to breathe second hand smoke in a confined space for work.
 
I'm glad that Indy has a smoking ban, and I smoked when the instituted it! It's nice going into a restaurant and not having to deal with smoke. Plus my wife is pretty sensitive to it so I dont have to hear here gripe about it lol
 
This non-smoker is sad to see one more loss of property rights, aka, another smoking ban.

It’s not about non-smoker’s rights any more than it’s about smoker’s rights… the issue is property rights. The owner of the establishment should be free to set his or her smoking policy- then the customer is free to patronize the place or take their business elsewhere.

Think of it this way- James Olive, a fictitious non-smoker, walks into a bar that allows smoking. James notices the smoke right away and complains to the owner. The owner is apologetic but says that’s their business model, to allow smoking. James leaves the bar and comes back with 26 non-smoking friends. James tells the owner, starting next week, he better not allow smoking or the gang will beat the owner and burn down the bar. This is the essence of a smoking ban. Non-smokers enlist the police power of government to force businesses into changing their business model to suit their preference.
 
VA recently passed one of these too.

Chalk another mark in the "W" column for populist tyranny and nanny-state abrogation of property rights. I hate cigarettes with the passion of 1000 suns. My mom smoked for a long time until we made her quit, but her smoking was one of the best things she ever did to me, because she really made me despise cigarettes. I can proudly say that I've only had one cigarette in my life (and that was only because it was a bachelor party, at 3am, and I had enough Bordeaux, jefferson's reserve bourbon, and nose candy in me that you could have put a rolled-up newspaper in my hand and I'd have smoked it).

All that having been said, as much as I hate cigarettes, I hate, even more, people forcing their personal preferences on other people at the point of a gun because they're too lazy to simply vote with their dollars. One would think that, if smoking were that hated by the populace, then restaurants would be voluntarily banning it all over the place. But, apparently, smoking isn't quite bad enough, in the eyes of the consumer, to cause them to change their preference in restaurant in any meaningful way, or to perhaps arrange a boycott amongst this obviously large contingent of smoke-haters, in order to "force" restaurant owners to go non-smoking voluntarily.

The only thing worse than the smell of smoke is the torrid stench of self-satisfaction coming from nanny-statist do-gooders right after they take away yet another property right from the people.
 
Think of it this way- James Olive, a fictitious non-smoker, walks into a bar that allows smoking. James notices the smoke right away and complains to the owner. The owner is apologetic but says that’s their business model, to allow smoking. James leaves the bar and comes back with 26 non-smoking friends. James tells the owner, starting next week, he better not allow smoking or the gang will beat the owner and burn down the bar. This is the essence of a smoking ban. Non-smokers enlist the police power of government to force businesses into changing their business model to suit their preference.

Ha...+1 - worst analogy ever! :D

Society decides, as a majority vote, what it deems as "harmful". Then, our legislative body enacts laws to regulate said harmful "thing". As a whole, society says that smoking is a health hazard for everyone involved and smoking should not be forced upon non-smokers. Ergo, we create laws.

If you don't like the anti-smoking movement, feel free to create a pro-smoking movement. Raise a lot of cash and start advertising about how cool smoking in bars is and how it benefits society. Think hard, 'cause you might just be kidding yourself. ;)
 
Society decides, as a majority vote, what it deems as "harmful". Then, our legislative body enacts laws to regulate said harmful "thing". As a whole, society says that smoking is a health hazard for everyone involved and smoking should not be forced upon non-smokers. Ergo, we create laws.

What you describe is "pure democracy", wherein 50.1% of the people can ostensibly force whatever whims they want on the other 49.9%. As Ben Franklin said, pure democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. The idea of a constitutional republic is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority...so that, even if 50.1% of the people vote to outlaw green pants, they cannot use the force of government to make everyone bow to their preferences.

I love how people turn this into a "you're FORCED to breathe second-hand smoke!" Really? So someone dragged you into that smoky bar and chained you to the rail? Apparently, you have no idea what the definition of "force" is. When you voluntarily enter someone else's property, even though you know that there is smoke on the property, and stay there, even though you're free to leave at any time, that is not "force". That is "hey, look at that smoky bar, I think I'm gonna go sit in it for awhile, under my own free will". :rolleyes:

There are tons of harmful things that aren't illegal. I mean, hell, more people die every year from heart disease caused by poor diet and no exercise, yet there are no laws banning big macs.

If you don't like the anti-smoking movement, feel free to create a pro-smoking movement. Raise a lot of cash and start advertising about how cool smoking in bars is and how it benefits society. Think hard, 'cause you might just be kidding yourself. ;)

And thus it begins...someone is pro-property-rights, and they get painted as "pro-smoking". Yawn. What ever happened to "I disagree with what you're doing, but I will defend your right to do it"? That, apparently, has turned into "I disagree with what you're doing...and I'm gonna get the government to force you and everyone else to stop doing it". :mad:



First, they came for the marijuana users, and I said nothing, because I didn't smoke marijuana.

Then, they came for the pain medication doctors, and I said nothing, because I didn't need chronic pain meds.

Then, they came with a SWAT team for the innocent man who they mistook for a criminal, and I said nothing, because that could never happen to me.

Then, they came for the gamblers, and I said, nothing, because I don't play the slots.

Then, they came for the "assault" weapons owners, and I said nothing, because I don't own a rifle that looks scary.

Then, they came for the smokers, and I said nothing, because I don't smoke.

Then, they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up.
 
They can take smoking away, they can take guns away, they can even take homebrew away, but they will never take away my cheese!
 
I’m going to insert a few :D:);) so this doesn’t turn into a flame war. We’re just sharing our opinions.

…smoking should not be forced upon non-smokers. Ergo, we create laws.
Smoking isn’t forced on anyone entering a business that allows smoking. That’s the thing; when you enter an establishment that allows smoking, you make a choice. There’s no force being used. Force only enters the equation when laws are passed.

:):):)

If you don't like the anti-smoking movement, feel free to create a pro-smoking movement.
I’m actually very anti-smoking myself. My parents smoked, my grand-parents smoked… I hate smoking with a purple-passion. I do not allow smoking in my house and this sometimes causes family problems. While I am decidedly anti-smoking- I am against enlisting the police power of government to force businesses to cater to my smoking preference.

;);)
 
Back
Top