newsobserver.com projects - Jeff Barnhart - Comments

Re: House votes in favor of records bill

cicero01 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:37:11 -0400

The NC House has created "Big Brother" --Yes, an entity that will always let us know what we need to know.

NC HOUSE CREATES "NEW OPEN GOVERNMENT UNIT" WHO IF CHALLENGED LEGAL FEES SHALL NEVER BE AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF.

---- What a "chilling effect" on North Carolina's public policy of JUDICIAL REVIEW.

---- Bill elevates AG advisory opinions to equal status with law.

---- Discourages judicial review and creates a "pay to play game" in challenged cases.

Please know that Attorney General decisions [opinions] and crafted letters on transparency are merely advisory. Preexisting judicial orders and appellate decisions are however rule of law--and can be invoked as such. This bill elevates the AG advisory opinions to equal status with law.

Please know that judicial review is public policy. Yet, this bill discourages judicial review--for governments need never reimburse in most cases legal expenses even if judicial review is sought and won.

So, what was the N.C. Press Association thinking?

Re: House votes in favor of records bill

Isaac136 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:42:22 -0400

The reason the bill is necessary in the first place is that so many officials do not act with integrity. If Easley's administration hasn't been a stellar example of that fact then what would it take to demonstrate that more rather then fewer tools are needed to combat entrenched corruption?

The AG's office sees its role as supporting a state agency preference regardless of the legality or integrity of its position. There's not a soul in state government with any experience near the top of the food chain who isn't well aware of that, and there's not a soul who wants his or her job to remain secure who is going to step forward and say so.

Entrenched corruption in state government is the natural result of any one party's holding power for an extended length of time. If the Democrats aren't going to follow Rep. Deborah Ross' lead in cleaning it up, they're handing the GOP some mighty good arguments for unseating them.

Re: Health Plan narrowly passes key vote

johnmayer76 — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:00:30 -0400

If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California

Re: Health Plan narrowly passes key vote

mcmillf — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:03:25 -0400

Totally absurd. You must rally together to investigate and re-organize the planning and administrative handling of state health insurance. This plan is unacceptable, overpriced and minimizes healthcare for selective groups. I am retired and cannot afford continued increases each year, while insurance coverage decreases. If you keep on, no one will want to work for the State. Freezing longevity, adding monthly premiums, and increasing premiums, co-pays and deductibles add to the budget of families. Many of these families are trying to put food on the table, pay power bills, cloth kids and buy medicines. We cannot afford to pay these outrageous prices. You are pricing your health plans out of business, and also out of state employment. Many families don't have a 2nd partner working for the state, and many of those spouses are unemployed. And the government wants us to spend money to boost the economy. RIGHT? No longer does the state offer incentives to recruit good hardworking employees. You get what you pay for too. Those incentives, affordable incentives, are what draws the better employees. Could be you're killing it. Please reconsider other ways to re-write this before it is too late for the current employees who have given dedicated years of service and for the younger employees who may be considering other lines of employment because they see no future in the STATE.

Re: Health Plan narrowly passes key vote

beachbum474 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:04:11 -0400

So what will you do when you FIRE 700 TAX PAYERS from the State Government and the younger state employees who survive the onslaught get priced out of the health care plan and turn to private insurance? Are you counting on losing all that revenue going into the SHP in future years? How will that lost revenue be made up? Will you just raise the premiums and co pays again? THINK THINK THINK! Plan you know at least 3 or 4 moves ahead instead of getting stuck at the first move. I'm a state employee (if my bias has not given me away by now) and I am a young one with a family. I can not afford the SHP any longer and the state WILL be losing my premiums and co pays. I pay around ~$500 per month x 12 = ~$6000 per year lost revenue to the SHP from just 1 employee. On top of that because I am paid so little (college degree professional paid poverty wages), we qualify for state government programs which we will start taking advantage of. Now add that into your cost for your seemingly inability to plan.

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

MichaelJMcFadden — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:24:43 -0400

Aquaman was concerned about the toxic things in secondary smoke. If you go to the end of

http://www.antibrains.com/shs.html

you will see the near impossibility of building up anything like toxic levels of ANY chemical from smoking in any decently ventilated business. Aquaman talked about polonium in particular, which is radioactive and sounds scary until you realize that you eat polonium in almost every "healthy" fruit and vegetable on your plate and until you realize it would take millions, billions, or even trillions of years to be harmed from it in secondary smoke. For details see the Global Health Law site at:

http://globalhealthlaw.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/third-hand-smoke/#comment-52

And Aquaman, if NC was going to lose to VA because of the ban, then why are the Antismokers always yelling about the need for a "level playing field" ? If they're telling the truth then *Virginia* would be the one losing out because of their ban!

Of course they're not telling the truth and they know it. "Level playing fields" are needed because bans are so destructive to business, and unfortunately for businesses, even WITH level playing fields stretching across entire states their income is STILL seriously impacted. For details on that see the Stiletto at:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html

It's one-sided, but it's honest and accurate in every fact and figure and statement.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

SStahl — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:51:37 -0400

palesunflower asked, "Do you know of a non-smoking bowling alley?"

Yes. In Minnesota. Oh wait, no, after the ban went into effect, those businesses closed!

And what's this "just step outside" garbage? If that isn't a big deal to you, then do it if/when you're bothered by SHS/ETS. But you do not have the right to insist that others step outside, unless you are the owner of the establishment. Moreover, there have been many crimes commited on smokers who were told to "just step outside". In fact, one WWII veteran at a nursing home "just stepped poutside" in Canada....and he subsequently died of hypothermia. A Florida schoolteacher was mugged and killed when he "just stepped outside" for a cigarette break across the street (off school grounds). You'd have to be a homicidal maniac to insist that others "just step outside", especially when you have the choice of going to a smoker-friednly, smoking/nonsmoking choice or antismoking venue. As the Reps have already discussed, many establishments are completely smoke free.

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

jjsmith2 — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:09:02 -0400

I am still trying to figure out how someone is forced to go to an establishment that allows smoking.

Furthermore, this isn't about smokers rights. This is about property-owners rights.

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

palesunflower — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:53:17 -0400

The problem with the logic of just picking and choosing places that privately decide not to allow smoking is that there is not a non-smoking option for every type of establishment. Do you know of a non-smoking bowling alley?

I can live with people smoking outside, I can live with walking through the cloud of smoke as I hold my breath to get into a building. I can't live with a restaurant asking me "smoking or non?" when there is nothing but an invisible wall of air separating the two, and then my non-smoking seat is placed next to a table with an ashtray.

Smokers need to realize that people aren't telling them they CAN'T smoke. Just that you need to step outside. This isn't the crisis situation you are trying to make it out to be.

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

SStahl — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:23:42 -0400

"Rep. Jeff Barnhart, a Cabarrus County Republican, told the story of his father-in-law, who died of lung cancer brought on by working in a smoky office."

Rep. Barnhart (and the News&Observer) has no way of knowing what "brought on" anyone's cancer, including lung cancer. Nobody knows that. I have an aunt who died of lung cancer--as it happens, a nonsmoker in a nonsmoking environment. These smoking bans all rely on the fact that nonsmokers die of these so-called smokers' diseases. If all these nonsmokers have been dying of these diseases for all these years, then those diseases never could have become known as "smokers' diseases". Have all those antismokers--like in the Amercian Cancer Society and certainly in the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation--been lying to everyone about the fact that lung cancer is a "smokers' disease" for so many decades? The FACT is that lung cancer research and treatment has stalled thanks to the preconception that it's a smokers' disease. If only out of a love for his own father, Barnhart should be the first to hold accountable the people who have thwarted LC research and treatment. But, no, he votes with them? That's sick.

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

AquaMan — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 05:20:30 -0400

a smokers 'right' to smoke in a bar doesnt make it my duty to breathe carbon monoxide, arsenic, dioxin, polonium 210 and all ofthe other toxic stuff in ciggys.

Looks like NC is gonna LOSE on the tourist front to Virginia which passed its smoking ban recently

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

phil48 — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:23:27 -0400

STICK IT!
This excellent articulation of your argument has shown me the error in logic; thank you for setting me straight.

"I have a right to smoke wherever, whenever I want."

This is nothing more than a straw man. I completely support the choice of businesses to prohibit smoking on their property, but it should be a choice.

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

prestonsc — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:48:37 -0400

This will be my last post on this subject..thank god..because dammit...WE WON! Ludicrous and bogus arguments of rights of smokers. The "if you don't like it don't come in" argument." The "I have a right to smoke wherever, whenever I want." The "government is gonna tell me how to dress after this passes" argument. The "hey this doctor wrote this book that says second hand smoke is a myth and I know how the anti-smoker brain works" argument. That one really cracked me up MichaelJMcFadden. What a doofus!

I'm here to tell all of you..STICK IT! I'm sick and tired that you think I have no right to patronize a public place of any kind and suffer the effects of your smoke that is absolutely in the air with no recourse except LEAVE! "Go to another place that doesn't allow smoking and leave me alone" as you idiots like to advise. Look..I get it. Your ticked your smoking anyplace anytime is being inconvenienced. That's what bugs you. FACT: Your smoke makes my hair and my clothes smell the stench of an ashtray. FACT: My eyes burn like hell the whole time I'm around you smoking. FACT: Residue accumulates on the utensils, glassware, heck THE FOOD PREP! Here's homework for you..take a glass wipe with you to your bar of choice where everybody's smoking, and ask a bartender for a fresh glass hanging in the rack. Wipe it!! It'll blow your mind! Bartenders, waiters, waitress', and cooks have the right to work in the cleanest air environment as possible.

Look..what you do in your house, your car, whatever, is your business. But when the smoke off your cigarette and smoke expelled out of your lungs into the environment in a closed PUBLIC PLACE, where other people are, WHERE KIDS ARE!!...THAT'S WHERE YOUR RIGHTS END AND MY RIGHTS BEGIN!!!..PERIOD!

How in the hell a smoker (or those who claim they're non-smokers..yea right) thinks it's his RIGHT to smoke anywhere anytime is thankfully over. I travel all over the country and many states don't allow it to all's delight from what they tell me. I know I don't have to worry segregating smoke filled clothes with fresh ones on my business trips...how refreshing now NC is going to put a stop to this lunacy.

...i rest my case...;-)

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

phil48 — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:31:03 -0400

"No one has the right to cause such harm to someone else. So, if you want to smoke, do it where your smoke does not infringe on anyone else."

You're right that people don't have a right to smoke when it infringes on someone who does not consent to it. However, in this case we're dealing with people who are smoking within a private establishment. By entering an establishment that allows smoking, you are consenting to have people smoke around you. Take responsibility for your own actions; you, and all consumers, have the free will to decide what restaurants you patronize, just as private restaurants should have the free will to make their own policies on things life smoking policies. By banning smoking at all establishments you are taking away people's choices.

Re: Smoking ban passes second reading

MichaelJMcFadden — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:26:12 -0400

TooKatz asked, "Time to come clean, lobbyist. Who writes your PAYCHECK?"

No one TK. I've been doing this on my own for a good number of years as you'd have seen if you bothered to read the first two sentences of the preface of my book at www.Antibrains.com Having a book and being a smoker are my only two "competing interests" - unlike the team of professionals who push these bans and get their paychecks from either Big Pharma or Master Settlement Agreement "laundered" tobacco money.

carbon lib, again, if you're capable of reading more than three or four sentences, you'll find the answer to your first question right at the start of my book. Heh... I must have been psychic to know you guys were going to say this stuff, right? Nope. It's just that those are the things that are ALWAYS said when someone can't come up with a rational argument against what I've written.

And if you click on the "ETS Exposure" section of the book you'll see that no one is "poisoning" anyone else with their smoking.

betsyk, sanitary regulations are in place to protect people from hidden dangers that are very, VERY, real and immediate in their impact. There are many cases every year of death by food poisoning. There are virtually no cases where the cause has definitively been secondary smoke exposure.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"