NC officially bans smoking in bars / restaurants

[lehr]

Bring that law to Michigan :rockin:

 

[Brew-boy]

Bring that law to Michigan :rockin:

Yes I wish Michigan would pass the same law.

 

[Darwin18]

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.

 

[danorocks17]

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

 

[chucke]

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.

 

[Evan!]

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.

 

[lamarguy]

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!

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.

 

[Evan!]

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".

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".



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.

 

[the_merlin]

They can take smoking away, they can take guns away, they can even take homebrew away, but they will never take away my cheese!

 

[chucke]

I’m going to insert a few 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.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

Wisconsin also just bit the dust. I can't believe it. I am not intimate with many other states, but if any of those idiot politicians actually went and hung out with the people they claim to represent, they never would have passed this law. Milwaukee and Madison, our only two major cities, wanted it. So the rest of the public houses around the state where regular working people are just hanging out after work have to go outside to smoke?!!!???!!!!!

This makes me want to grab my representative and shake him. He voted against the ban but I don't care. He should have been more persuasive.

HOW IS IT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO?

I don't smoke. I don't like smelling smoke. If I want to avoid it, I GO TO A DIFFERENT BAR!!!!! How is that so hard. Damn it this topic pisses me off.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

I am going to push my local establishments to ignore the law. I am guessing I will not win the argument.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

The hypocrisy amazes me. This is generally a right wing forum that is ALWAYS spouting the creed "This is America, we do what we want" or "No government intervention"

Just like anywhere else, nobody has a problem with banning anything they don't agree with, but could easily avoid if they wanted to. In a real free market, surely there wold be an opening for voluntary non smoking bars?

edit: it seems that Boerderij, beat me to the same point. Now HE is a righty that I can respect!!

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

Who are you kidding. The US is more regulated than the EU in my opinion. At least for most of the activities I engage in regularly. The land of the free is a misnomer.

People will never see the logic in your argument Gnome. When you tell them it is your choice, they scream bloody murder and tell you how it is their right to live. yawn... Then don't go to smoky bars idiot!!!

I strongly dislike smoky areas and don't smoke myself, but I HATE the idea of taking that freedom away from anyone or even me. I have strongly considered taking up smoking because of all this nonsense.

 

[moti_mo]

Nobody is taking a freedom away from smokers. They can still smoke all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can smoke. Stay at home drinking your own homebrew - you can smoke. Smoke on the way to the bar. Smoke on the way home from the bar. Smoke any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-smokers having the choice to not go to the smoky bars...well now the smokers have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to smoke a cigarette or staying at home and smoking when and where they want.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

I have strongly considered taking up smoking because of all this nonsense.

That'll show 'em!

As usual, Evan and I agree on this issue. Ban smoking in public areas, no problem - but force private establishments to be non-smoking against the desires of the owner? I call BS.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Nobody is taking a freedom away from smokers. They can still smoke all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can smoke. Stay at home drinking your own homebrew - you can smoke. Smoke on the way to the bar. Smoke on the way home from the bar. Smoke any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-smokers having the choice to not go to the smoky bars...well now the smokers have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to smoke a cigarette or staying at home and smoking when and where they want.

But the problem there is that there are no bars where one may smoke. It's really that simple. I'm not against non smoking bars, I'm against no choice in the whole fricken state.

 

[moti_mo]

Yes, but you can walk outside of the bar and 10 feet away from the door and you can smoke. That is also very simple.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

Nobody is taking a freedom away from smokers. They can still smoke all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can smoke. Stay at home drinking your own homebrew - you can smoke. Smoke on the way to the bar. Smoke on the way home from the bar. Smoke any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-smokers having the choice to not go to the smoky bars...well now the smokers have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to smoke a cigarette or staying at home and smoking when and where they want.

You are correct on both counts. Just as non-smokers can choose not to go in an establishment that allows smoking, smokers can choose to not be made to go outside to smoke in a non-smoking establishment.

That's not the issue though. The issue is business owners being forced by the government to ban smoking on their private property in their businesses. It should be at the discretion of the property owner whether or not smoking is allowed.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

Nobody is taking a freedom away from gaseous people. They can still fart all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can fart. Stay at home farting while drinking your own homebrew - you can fart. fart on the way to the bar. fart on the way home from the bar. fart any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-farters having the choice to not go to the farty bars...well now the farters have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to fart or staying at home and farting when and where they want.

Yes it is ridiculous, but I think you see where the logic breaks down. Imagine smoking was anything else or any other activity and this becomes a ludicrous idea.

You can't tell private establishments how to do business. I don't understand how the government has the power to do this.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Lets get my point absolutely straight. I completely support the right of non smokers to enjoy a smoke free environment. I also support the rights of smokers to have a smoke FILLED environment. Let the market decide which will be which.

Nah, screw it. I can't argue this any more. I now support the right for everyone to use either the ladie's or men's rest rooms, regardless of gender.

 

[Evan!]

Yes, but you can walk outside of the bar and 10 feet away from the door and you can smoke. That is also very simple.

Hmmm...I never realized that the abrogation of property rights was okay so long as it didn't create too much of an inconvenience

Can you imagine if the Bill of Rights went something like this...

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless it's not too much of an inconvenience for the target of said law.

This kind of ignorance is precisely why the whole concept of negative rights is foreign to most people in this country today. For them, it's got nothing to do with principles, it has to do with pragmatism.

So, moti_mo, are you suggesting that you would oppose the ban if it were less convenient than just walking outside? What if, like some states/cities, they have banned smoking on the sidewalks and streets as well?

Ugh.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

Instant Classic!

Nobody is taking a freedom away from gaseous people. They can still fart all they want to, just not in a bar. Go outside the bar - you can fart. Stay at home farting while drinking your own homebrew - you can fart. fart on the way to the bar. fart on the way home from the bar. fart any-damn-where-you-please-but-the-bar.

All this talk of non-farters having the choice to not go to the farty bars...well now the farters have a choice on whether or not they want to go to the bar and have the extreme inconvenience of walking 10 feet out of a door to fart or staying at home and farting when and where they want.

 

[moti_mo]

Yes it is ridiculous, but I think you see where the logic breaks down. Imagine smoking was anything else or any other activity and this becomes a ludicrous idea.

You can't tell private establishments how to do business. I don't understand how the government has the power to do this.

It's precisely because smoking is what it is that passing this law is not ridiculous. Smoking cigarettes in a confined area produces airborne toxic chemicals that any and every other person in that confined area (who has chosen not to smoke) inhales, causing physical damage to their respiratory system. You compare it to farting, which, last time I checked did not have the same issues.

This is the typical way public health laws work - the government tries to act in a way in which the health of the majority of the populace is protected. Some of these decisions may alter previously held rights (in this case I use altered, because the freedom to smoke has not been rescinded, just altered so that you have to walk out the door of the bar to smoke), but it this is deemed acceptable in light of the fact that public health is being protected. Its not perfect, and sometimes 49.9% of the people may be pissed at it, but its part of living under a democratic government.

 

[lamarguy]

Just like anywhere else, nobody has a problem with banning anything they don't agree with, but could easily avoid if they wanted to. In a real free market, surely there wold be an opening for voluntary non smoking bars?

In a perfect "free" market, I would agree. Unfortunately, this is more of a goal than an reality. Look at the stock market for an analogy - people thought the "free" market could correct itself without the need for regulation. Unfortunately, regulation is necessary sometimes to expedite a common cause; in this case, the abolishment of smoking indoors.

That's not the issue though. The issue is business owners being forced by the government to ban smoking on their private property in their businesses. It should be at the discretion of the property owner whether or not smoking is allowed.

Businesses already abide by numerous federal, state, country, and city laws for everything from food handling, sanitation, maximum occupancy, etc. So, the "private property" argument doesn't really hold much water when it comes to business regulation.

Running a business is also a "choice", just like picking a non-smoking establishment. Businesses decide to fold all of the time when new regulations are passed by the government. Adapt, or die. That is the dilemma.

 

[springer]

problem with "Dont go to smokey bars"is before the ban no such thing existed. You rights actually end when they infringe on mine. Bars need to abide by 100's of laws in order to operate from health to safety codes to where they buy there beer and booze.So to say its the owners right to run the business as they see fit is well misguided. And every bars becomes a "public" place when they open their doors to the public.

Here Private clubs can still have smoking and also cigar bars where 20% of the business is cigar sales . Slesingers steak house in New Windsor NY has a cigar bar that is sealed from the eating area.

Smoking is legal so is drinking but if I walk out of a bar with a beer in my hand I can be arrested.

Most places have outdoor smoking area's now around here . They arent used much though I wonder if the 5$ a pack price here has anything to do with less people smoking.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

It's precisely because smoking is what it is that passing this law is not ridiculous. Smoking cigarettes in a confined area produces airborne toxic chemicals that any and every other person in that confined area (who has chosen not to smoke) inhales, causing physical damage to their respiratory system. You compare it to farting, which, last time I checked did not have the same issues.

This is the typical way public health laws work - the government tries to act in a way in which the health of the majority of the populace is protected. Some of these decisions may alter previously held rights (in this case I use altered, because the freedom to smoke has not been rescinded, just altered so that you have to walk out the door of the bar to smoke), but it this is deemed acceptable in light of the fact that public health is being protected. Its not perfect, and sometimes 49.9% of the people may be pissed at it, but its part of living under a democratic government.

Good point, we had better ban alcohol, salt, fats, acids, soda and all other harmful products before we the dumb innocents hurt ourselves further. For that matter, we had better take away all pointy objects, guns, sticks, and put pads on all our hands and feet and muzzles on all our mouths.

The world is fraught with danger. Get over it. Or live in a bubble. Personally, I don't think second hand smoke is nearly as dangerous as has been believed. I don't have any proof of that, its just my personal stance.

 

[Greenmutt24]

It's precisely because smoking is what it is that passing this law is not ridiculous. Smoking cigarettes in a confined area produces airborne toxic chemicals that any and every other person in that confined area (who has chosen not to smoke) inhales, causing physical damage to their respiratory system. You compare it to farting, which, last time I checked did not have the same issues.

This is the typical way public health laws work - the government tries to act in a way in which the health of the majority of the populace is protected. Some of these decisions may alter previously held rights (in this case I use altered, because the freedom to smoke has not been rescinded, just altered so that you have to walk out the door of the bar to smoke), but it this is deemed acceptable in light of the fact that public health is being protected. Its not perfect, and sometimes 49.9% of the people may be pissed at it, but its part of living under a democratic government.

We don't have a democratic government despite what schools are trying to teach we have a representative democracy. The government can't take rights away from any of its people. The free market should determine how a business runs not the government.

Don't get started on second hand smoke that is a load of bull**** in itself.

 

[mmb]

Yes, but you can walk outside of the bar and 10 feet away from the door and you can smoke. That is also very simple.

Do I have to use a different bathroom too? How about a water fountain?

What about the smoke "smell" on my coat? Do I need to sit in the back of the bus?

Smokers were already second class citizens in some respects while being hammered with taxes. Now they have to go outside to practice a legal activity?

 

[moti_mo]

Good point, we had better ban alcohol, salt, fats, acids, soda and all other harmful products before we the dumb innocents hurt ourselves further. For that matter, we had better take away all pointy objects, guns, sticks, and put pads on all our hands and feet and muzzles on all our mouths.

The world is fraught with danger. Get over it. Or live in a bubble. Personally, I don't think second hand smoke is nearly as dangerous as has been believed. I don't have any proof of that, its just my personal stance.

None of the things you just listed produces anything airborne that harms other people that are not choosing to consume them. And as far as alcohol goes, when it becomes a danger to public health, it is regulated - you're arrested if you've consumed too much alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car because you're putting other people in danger.