NC officially bans smoking in bars / restaurants

[buzzkill]

as a smoker,I hated the laws....now that I am a nonsmoker I say good. if you dont like it go outside and smoke! just like I had to!


cry me a river.

 

[Hugh_Jass]

I'm here to tell you that lots of businesses are open and hae trades people come in at all hours. Many business owners don't really care about the smoking ban. they just want uniformity and a level playing field. They don't want different laws for different cities.

They don't want to pay for separate rooms, filtration and testing.

Many of the bar owners I talked to after it went through in AZ were happy to tell their non-smoking patrons that they secretly supported the restriction. I'm sure they tell the smokes the complete opposite. In other words, they don't care as long as everybody else has the same rules.

Isn't this the way businesses use government to be their whipping dog? I mean, a business owner with a back bone would make a decision one way or the other. Instead, businesses allow politicians to ban something to "level the playing field" or in the name of public health. Businesses are actually allowing government to make the decision for them.

It's just like you wrote, ollllo. The owners speak out of both sides of their mouths. The last thing an owner wants to do is to piss off a patron. A bar owner and friend of mine used the Ohio smoking ban to not allow smoking in his bar. He hated smoking. He was the first to implement the smoking ban. His reply to his smoking patrons..."If it were me, I'd let you smoke, but it's not up to me anymore...." total b.s. He was happy to have the smoking ban because it took the decision out of his hands. The legislature was happy to be the whipping boy, after all, they were paid well to take the licks....

that owner was able to disallow smoking when ever he chose. He just didn't want to piss off his patrons, so he let the government do his dirty work and like you said, wanted a level playing field.

Fast forward a year and a half. He put the ash treys back on the bar. The ban he sooooooo wanted caused him a substantial loss in revenue and he is now struggling to keep his doors open.

If there was a screaming demand for a non-smoking establishment, there would already be one. At least in my area, that's not the case. My friend is case in point.

 

[moti_mo]

Wow, this thread has some longevity. I posted for a few pages back around 3-9 or so, but then I had to go get some work done (damn work always getting in the way).

Anyway, in reading back through several pages here, I still don't completely understand the adamant people who keep saying the people defending the ban are not coming up with any logical reasons for the ban. It's been said by multiple people, including me - this is a public health issue. To say that it just boils down to politicians picking on something they don't like (which was said) has no basis, and completely glosses over the fact that yes, one of the major roles of government is to protect the populace, and yes research suggests that second-hand smoke is detrimental to the health of that populace.

Second-hand smoke is a public health issue, so along with other public health issues, it goes into a public forum debate in which elected officials (yes, we live in a democracy despite what some have said in this thread) vote on the best way in which to address that public health issue. In this case, the majority ruled that it was best to ban smoking in bars.

Again, nobody has taken away smokers' rights to smoke, they've simply stated that you need to walk 10 feet outside of a door to go smoke that cigarette. We've had the ban in CO bars for years now, and my friends that smoke never, ever, ever, bitch about it. They just go outside, smoke a cigarette, then come back inside and have a beer with the rest of us. I fail to see how this is the red hand of socialism or nanny-state-do-goodery swooping down to control your lives - seriously, just walk the 10 extra feet.

I'm from NC, lived there 22 years, and my entire family is from Winston Salem. My great grandparents worked in the RJ Reynolds factory, as did my grandparents, as did my parents. Several people (3 that I know of) in my family in both my great-grandparents generation and my grandparents generation had serious lung issues that contributed to their death (one directly from a wicked case of emphysema). So I'm not sure how you can say that its not a public health issue. And yes, it isn't just the smoke you directly pull into your lungs from the cigarette attached to your lip that can contribute to respiratory illness, but that same smoke that gets circulated around the room can do the same things to others' lungs in the space you're occupying.

Anyway, I won't be able to post any tomorrow, since I'll be mountain biking in Fruita. So its not that I want to post and run, but my tent will have no computer access this weekend. I hope to see this thread at 40+ pages by the time I get back on Monday.

Carry on.

 

[Evan!]

Wow, this thread has some longevity. I posted for a few pages back around 3-9 or so, but then I had to go get some work done (damn work always getting in the way).

Anyway, in reading back through several pages here, I still don't completely understand the adamant people who keep saying the people defending the ban are not coming up with any logical reasons for the ban. It's been said by multiple people, including me - this is a public health issue. To say that it just boils down to politicians picking on something they don't like (which was said) has no basis, and completely glosses over the fact that yes, one of the major roles of government is to protect the populace, and yes research suggests that second-hand smoke is detrimental to the health of that populace.

Second-hand smoke is a public health issue, so along with other public health issues, it goes into a public forum debate in which elected officials (yes, we live in a democracy despite what some have said in this thread) vote on the best way in which to address that public health issue. In this case, the majority ruled that it was best to ban smoking in bars.

I know the quaint notion of the majority "ruling" seems to carry somewhat of a positive light these days, but how would you feel if the majority told you you couldn't brew beer anymore? Just because 50.1% of the populace makes a decision does not necessarily lend it credence or justify it.

As for it being a "public health issue", I have clearly laid out, earlier in this thread, why I believe this is much different than the typical "public health issues" that government has a role in addressing, because it is an obvious and knowable danger that is taking place on property that you are not forced to enter. In other words, it's not like food-borne bacteria (which is not observable by the casual customer). I believe you're stretching the concept of "public health issue" to such a broad definition that it could ostensibly be used to justify the government banning anything that is a health hazard. Cheeseburgers? Vodka? Skydiving? I know that your response will be that those are all things that we do to ourselves, but if you go back and look at my previous argument, I have asserted that it is frankly no different than voluntarily entering someone else's property and voluntarily remaining there, even though there is this obvious cloud of smoke on said property. Just like you make the conscious, deliberate choice to eat 3 monster thick burgers and chug a handle of Bowman's, you make the conscious, deliberate choice to voluntarily enter and remain on the premises of an establishment that contains second hand smoke.

Again, nobody has taken away smokers' rights to smoke, they've simply stated that you need to walk 10 feet outside of a door to go smoke that cigarette. We've had the ban in CO bars for years now, and my friends that smoke never, ever, ever, bitch about it. They just go outside, smoke a cigarette, then come back inside and have a beer with the rest of us. I fail to see how this is the red hand of socialism or nanny-state-do-goodery swooping down to control your lives - seriously, just walk the 10 extra feet.

This has never been about the rights of the smoker. As far as I'm concerned, a smoker who voluntarily enters someone else's property has about as much "right" to smoke there as he does to take a dump in the middle of the restaurant. The anti-property-rights crowd always uses this tired argument, though, as if this issue were about preserving the rights of the smoker...and in doing so, they deliberately shift the focus of the debate away from where it should be---the rights of the person/people who own the establishment.

I'm from NC, lived there 22 years, and my entire family is from Winston Salem. My great grandparents worked in the RJ Reynolds factory, as did my grandparents, as did my parents. Several people (3 that I know of) in my family in both my great-grandparents generation and my grandparents generation had serious lung issues that contributed to their death (one directly from a wicked case of emphysema). So I'm not sure how you can say that its not a public health issue. And yes, it isn't just the smoke you directly pull into your lungs from the cigarette attached to your lip that can contribute to respiratory illness, but that same smoke that gets circulated around the room can do the same things to others' lungs in the space you're occupying.

I have already gone over this. Smoking is bad, mmmkay? I hate it, mmmkay? But the reason it's not a "public health issue", at least when you're talking about smoke from restaurants and bars, is because it's an observable, obvious hazard that requires prolonged, voluntary exposure in order to manifest itself as any meaningful physical harm. Just like you have the choice as to whether or not you strap a parachute on your back and jump out of a plane at 10k feet, you also have the choice as to whether or not you enter (and remain in) a bar that has tobacco smoke billowing out the door.

Instead, what I think you have done is unfairly expanded the breadth and scope of the definition of "public health" to simply mean anything that's a hazard to your health. Unfortunately, the logical conclusion of that expansion is the government banning anything that they deem as "unhealthy". Beer would be one of the first things on that list, by the way. :cross:

 

[HenryHill]

Is it possible that the health insurance companies have a hand in this?

I know it is a right to drive, not a privilege, and now they tell you that you have to wear a seat belt, too. And motorcycles, c'mon, sure there are some catastrophic brain trauma injuries that cost millions to insure, but everyone knows that riding a bike is inherently dangerous, so why do they make you wear a helmet-Gary Busey was always a little like that.

And since when does the good of the majority outweigh the rights of the few? I think any election is just a popularity contest anyway, so to give the side with the most votes any credible right to dictate to others how to live longer is unfair, even if I am not smart enough to understand that. We have a right to be stupid, irresponsible, wild spirits, and just because others will have to pick up the pieces and possibly spoon feed us, and facilitate every bladder and bowel movement, that doesn't outweigh my rights as a free spirit to risk death, dismemberment or paralysis, or cancer of the lips, mouth, throat or lungs, just to keep someone else who doesn't even smoke from having the same tragedy befall them.

The financial burden to others doesn't matter. The loss of innocent life in the pursuit of my desires is tantamount and besides, it's not me that has to deal with that anyway.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

as as an African American,I hated the laws....now that I am white, I say good. if you don't like it, go outside and be African American! just like I had to!

cry me a river.

Funny how it is OK to shun some people in society...

And for the record:

The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

Democracy is a form of government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state.

The difference is huge. So can we stop making that ridiculous claim. The point of that argument is that I do not feel it is the place of out government to be a nanny-state and tell me I can't smoke in a Pub.

 

[Ego Archive]

You wouldn't decry that extra cost as a government imposed boon doggle? C'mon. Maybe if YOU liked the program you wouldn't.

I wanted to touch back on this. No I wouldn't, and I think anyone who would be, would complain about vehicle emmissions control, so you at least would have an even view of the issue.

My problem is that what is happening with tobacco seems an awful lot like the steps that were taken to reform alcohol in our country, and not like how other health issues have been dealt with in this country.


State mandated school instruction of the dangers of tobacco(alcohol). First you demonize it, check.
Then you link it to some way of harming others (Alcohol was linked to family abuse).
Then you tax it heavily "to pay for all of the social ill it creates"..
This has the benefit of creating a smuggling environment around the substance, further pushing it's association into criminal and undesirable elements.

Then begin the process of banning the substance by removing it from the public environment....then move to complete banning a la the Maine law.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Beer delivery guys, mailman, plumbers, refrigeration guys...

All of which have 100x more immediate hazard to their health just doing their normal everyday jobs (heck...even driving) than if they worked in the presence of second-hand smoke all day. And most of these guys do NOT encounter ANY second-hand smoke when they make their stop at a 'smoking allowed' restaurant. Most of them enter the back entrance and never even go into the dining area...and the restaurant usually isn't even open when they make their stop.

This is just another example of people seeing what they want to see at the expense of basic common sense. I mean, does anybody REALLY think the plumber or produce delivery guy is put at a health risk purely due to the second-hand smoke they encounter during their short visit to a restaurant? Srsly? Several notches below 'specious' imo.

 

[Irie5447]

Ohio banned this also about a year ago! I couldn't be happier with it being a non smoker but there are many people that hate it. U just see a bunch of people standing outside the doorway smoking instead of inside...

 

[Buford]

It was brought up earier in the thread that any business open to the public should be considered "public" (regardless of private ownership) for the purposes of things like this. Banning smoking in public places would therefore be extended to mean anything open to the public.

I don't buy into this. Taking that logic one step further into a whole different issue, if that was actually true I could not be prohibited by the owner of an establishment from bringing in my firearm as I have a CHP here in VA. That allows carry in public places (with a few exceptions spelled out in the code), but businesses can choose to allow it or not as they are private. If they were truly "public" then this would not be the case. Can't have it both ways. If a business owner who wants to ban smoking does so, fine. If they push for banning it in every business (so they're not singled out and avoided by smokers, instead using the line "the State makes me do it, not my fault" and the smokers have no actual choice to go to a freindly establishment) using the "open to the public = public" line of thought then they should also not be able to do anything that would prohibit things that are legal in public such as not wearing a shirt or shoes, or carrying a weapon.

The "places open to the public are actually public" thing would apply to EVERYTHING legal in public if you buy into that line. I doubt businesses would go for that if it was enforced that way.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Ohio banned this also about a year ago! I couldn't be happier with it being a non smoker but there are many people that hate it. U just see a bunch of people standing outside the doorway smoking instead of inside...

And if they were standing outside properly, they would be doing it 25 feet from any building. Not 24 feet, otherwise they wold be tripping over all the dead knife sharpeners.

 

[HenryHill]

And what of the requirement of a ceiling exhaust fan in bathrooms?

Not every patron has to use the bathroom. It is unnecessary governmental intervention and cost to every public business that is required to have a working exhaust fan in their bathroom. Everyone knows that it could be unpleasant to breath in a public bathroom or they should know it as soon as they enter and hit the wall of funk. It is the choice of the individual to use or not use that bathroom.

Why is this necessary at all? It is the slippery slope of government intrusion into private decisions, and should have been challenged and fought at the very beginning, since every business is forced to comply, and now the sky has started to fall.

How long before it is homebrewing, and we are legislated out of our hobby due to a government out of control?

Where were you Protectors of Human Rights when they legislated bathroom exhaust fans?

 

[lehr]

Henry I do love the way you sling it!!!

 

[olllllo]

Evan! second hand smoke is obviously not an obvious knowable danger because in this very thread there are those that maintain that second hand smoke is not a danger or they have preconceived notions about how much exposure constitutes a threat.

I mention tradesmen that come to restaurants to counter the argument that everyone has a choice about how much exposure they get when they voluntatily chose to work somewhere. that assumption is false. Any argument that minimized the "small number" of people that are affected should also review their own thoughts on the mythical 50.1%.

This particular law was not passed on referendum by the way.

 

[olllllo]

From the 2006 Surgeon General's Report:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

1. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.Supporting Evidence
   • Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
   • Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

 

[buzzkill]

waiter! can my kids get a order of black lung on the side?


:cross:

 

[menschmaschine]

Here is a question for all those who say this is a public health issue. Honestly, if environmental tobacco smoke was invisible and odorless, would you still say it is harmful enough to be a public health issue?

If so, in that case, then every business and residence should be tested for radon in the lowest level of the building. Then everytime someone needed a plumber or HVAC tech, for example, to do work in the lowest level of the building, one would have to produce documentation that the radon levels are below 4 pCi/L, or if higher, mitigation systems would have to be installed prior to allowing anyone from the public into that area. So, why don't we do that? Because radon is invisible and odorless and, therefore, not annoying.

Let's also just review once again, that this was not initiated as a public health issue. It was initiated as a worker safety issue. See how easy, with a few skewed statistics, it slid into being a public health issue and was accepted as such without question? If this was a public health issue, why doesn't everyone who lived in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s when smoking was allowed practically anywhere, have lung disease even if they didn't smoke?

Where are the numbers? And by numbers, I mean why have exposure limits not been quantified? Because they would disprove it as a significant public health issue, that's why... or, at minimum, it would allow public smoking to continue as long as establishments could maintain levels of ETS below the limits, and nobody wants that, right?

For the record, I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't enjoy breathing in other people's cigarette smoke in public establishments. And, although I do smoke cigars, I wouldn't fire up a cigar in a place where people didn't expect it. Public policy on privately owned businesses should not be driven by the personal agendas of lawmakers.

 

[histo320]

I've lived in ILL in college towns and when they banned smoking up there there was a big hubub about lost business. One of my friends was a bartender and there was a small decline for a month or so but then everybody started coming back.

I hate second hand smoke, and I am an occasional smoker but I can only smoke outside. Even if I'm in a bar where they allow smoking I still go outside and stand a ways from the entry way.

Personally, I don't think the government should intervene in this matter. For example in Asheville, bar/restaurant owners can decide whether or not to allow smoking. Some have smoking all day and night, some only allow it after 9pm, if a server doesn't like working around smoke, then they place that server on a shift where smoking is not permitted.

I think this is the way to go!!!!!

 

[olllllo]

If this was a public health issue, why doesn't everyone who lived in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s when smoking was allowed practically anywhere, have lung disease even if they didn't smoke?

If environmental tobacco smoke was invisible and odorless, would you still say it is harmful enough to be a public health issue

Lung disease is only one of the health issues associated with smoke.

For example, cited above -

Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.

Let me flip that question back. Is there an acceptable level of orderless tasteless urine that you would find acceptable in your beer? Of course not.

What evidence do you have that this is a personal lawmaker's agenda... in NC no less?

Bars are only one of the areas affected by the NC law. People should stop framing the issue solely around adults drinking in bars.

 

[menschmaschine]

What evidence do you have that this is a personal lawmaker's agenda... in NC no less?

You're right. It's not just the lawmakers. The majority of the public wants to be in a smoke-free environment too. But that doesn't mean that private businesses should be prevented from having smoking if they chose to do so. The bottom line is, there was a much better way of going about this than outright bans. Incentives for smoke-free establishments (business licenses), setting airborne contaminate levels and allowing air filtration systems to be installed, etc. are just a couple of ideas. It should have been made "uncooth" to have a smoking establishment rather than unlawful.

I just don't buy the SG's statement on ETS. Those are conclusions drawn from supposed experiments and data. I would have to see the data to believe it. Even if they are accurate and not hyperbolized, those same effects could be caused by many airborne contaminants to which we're exposed daily, yet go unregulated.

 

[olllllo]

Well mensch, you may be absolutely right about your skepticism about the SG's numbers and I would be hard pressed to convince a numbers guy. Would a negotiated system work in the interests of all parties? Possibly.

Unfortunately that's not often how it works. When a situation is unregulated and and resists regulation, an opposing interest often attempts a remedy that is adversarial, ie smoking restriction instead of filtration and testing. You 'll only see self-regulation when the threat of uncertainty and emminance of restrictions to the status quo is clear.

At this point it would be up to some other party of interest to come up with that solution as a response to the current pendulum swing.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

Let me flip that question back. Is there an acceptable level of orderless tasteless urine that you would find acceptable in your beer? Of course not.

In food manufacturing plants, there are government mandated (FDA)acceptable rates of insect 'parts' and rodent feces (among many, many other things) that one would likely find just as offensive as your urine example.

You've eaten those things without even knowing it. We all have at some point. They may be gross to you, but in such small amounts, they pose no health risks to you at all.

Quote all the medical journals you want with sentences using the words 'can', 'may' and 'might'. Those don't prove much of anything. While I can certainly understand why some do not want to be around any smoke at all, some tend to go a bit overboard and almost demonize it.

Show me a double blind study that proves a 15-30 minute stop in a bar or restaurant by a knife delivery guy causes any of the items that you listed, then I will believe.

, but slightly related. You know what *SHOULD* be banned? Smoking in a vehicle that has children in it. Everytime I see this I want to stop my truck, get out, and smack the hell out of these people. Adults can make a choice whether to enter an establishment that allows smoking, work in a job that requires entry to an establishment that allows smoking or to associate with people that smoke. Children are not able to make these choices.

 

[Dagatris]

Let me flip that question back. Is there an acceptable level of orderless tasteless urine that you would find acceptable in your beer? Of course not.

If they had a sign posted on the door that said "We piss in the beer", I'd be fine with whatever amount of urine they wanted to use. I'd be next door drinking.

It seems that we have 2 debates going on here, and the rebuttals are getting mixed up.

Debate 1 - Private Property. I own this building and the land under it. Can I do what I want so long as it doesn't hurt those people outside of my property line? (Please don't bring up rape/cockfighting/murder as examples in this. Those are acts where someone is forced into something.)

Debate 2 - Is secondhand smoke really dangerous? Is it more dangerous than catching a whiff of exhaust from the school bus in the morning?

 

[springer]

, but slightly related. You know what *SHOULD* be banned? Smoking in a vehicle that has children in it. Everytime I see this I want to stop my truck, get out, and smack the hell out of these people. Adults can make a choice whether to enter an establishment that allows smoking, work in a job that requires entry to an establishment that allows smoking or to associate with people that smoke. Children are not able to make these choices.

Rockland county in NY passed a resolution in June of 2007 banning smoking in cars with children

 

[SPLASTiK]

My city's been smoke free for a year and a half. The bar owners fought heavily against it because smokers makes up a very large portion of the clientèle. Some even had separate smoking rooms that were blocked off by doors and well ventilated but were forced to be closed down. One in particular that's in a hotel had built a room that connected to the bar but was in the zoning for hotel and they worded it so he would have to shut it down.

I'm a non-smoker (well beyond a cigar on special occasions like new years) and much prefer the smoke free environment but I think it's ridiculous.

 

[menschmaschine]

This has been a nice debate, even though it wasn't in the debate forum. Without going back and reading every single post, I think for the most part everyone has been respectful of each other's viewpoints and I appreciate that. I'm just shocked that I actually agree on something with both LGI AND Evan!.

 

[Synovia]

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.

Don't like it? It physically harms everyone around you.

I don't care if you smoke. I don't care if you shoot heroine into your eyesockets.

When you smoke in a restaraunt/bar, you're forcing everyone around you to smoke.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Don't like it? It physically harms everyone around you.

I don't care if you smoke. I don't care if you shoot heroine into your eyesockets.

When you smoke in a restaraunt/bar, you're forcing everyone around you to smoke.

The underlying theme here has been that those of us against this legislation have absolutely no problem whatsoever with establishments CHOOSING to be non smoking. If you don't want smoke, you go to a non smoking bar/restaurant and leave the smokers to go to the smoking ones.

 

[jezter6]

Don't like it? It physically harms everyone around you.

I don't care if you smoke. I don't care if you shoot heroine into your eyesockets.

When you smoke in a restaraunt/bar, you're forcing everyone around you to smoke.

That's been used way too many times.

You can always go to a non-smoking bar where you don't have to worry about it and it doesn't affect you. By CHOOSING to go into a smoking bar, you're no longer FORCED to endure the smoke - you chose to inhale the smoke by staying in the bar and having a drink. That's not force in any way of the word.

 

[Synovia]

The underlying theme here has been that those of us against this legislation have absolutely no problem whatsoever with establishments CHOOSING to be non smoking. If you don't want smoke, you go to a non smoking bar/restaurant and leave the smokers to go to the smoking ones.

Gonna bring it up agian: Where I lived at the time, there were no non smoking establishments. They didn't exist.