Holliman ready to fight second-hand smoke

This isn't about puritanism. This is about public health.

It's about politics. Pure and simple. A quick glance at Holliman donors will tell you that.

Either that or an awful lot of Pharmaceutical and Insurance companies happen to like this guys' looks.

Whatever. Winston-Salem will secede from the Tar Heel state before letting this lunacy go forward.

It's a simple reality, so maybe if you focus hard, really hard, you'll catch on.

Back at 'cha. Jobs still matter.

This isn't about puritanism. This is about public health.

No, I don't think government can provide a solution to every societal issue, but a prohibition against having cigarette smoke in an restaurant is just as sound as the prohibition against having rats scurrying across the food prep counters.

I certainly agree that there is great historical precedence for governments usurping property right and puritans of all stripes seeking to impose their preferences on others by force of government. I am tempted to propose a rule of thumb that any government policy favored by Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and National Socialists is worth avoiding, but that would perhaps be too hasty, although I cannot immediately think of something that would invalidate that general approach.

Edited to add: Regarding prohibition, that could become a factor in certain places under the proposed "remov[al of] the prohibition against local governments passing smoking bans more stringent than the state's."

There is great historical precedent for limiting certain activities to certain venues without resorting to misguided attempts to prohibit them entirely.

Free-market extremists would do away with every aspect of planning and zoning that interferes with the rights of individuals to do whatever they want wherever they want, but most citizens seem to take the more moderate view that certain enforced restrictions contribute to the common good.

I personally tend in the direction of Libertarian views on many of these fronts, but stop well short of the extremes you tend to advocate.

Employees trapped working in second-hand smoke environments suffer disproportionately. It's easy to say they should "get a job somewhere else," but the hard truth is, jobs are hard to find. Irresponsible employers threaten the health of their employees when they allow smoking.

Nope, a restaurant owner does not have the right to operate just as he or she pleases. For example, he or she does not have the right to refuse service to someone based upon skin color. A more pertinent example is that he or she does not have the right to poison the clientele. You guys keep brushing aside the fact that it's poison.

There are all kinds of building and health codes to which a restaurant must adhere, and no, the customer can't help the owner out by "waiving" his or her right to a safe environment.

It's called living in the real world.

Gosh, our budget will not suffer for this. People will still smoke in their homes, cars, and in the open air. But they won't be causing nearly as many heart attacks or cases of lung cancer and emphyzema for other people.

And there is great historical precedence for such an approach. Not to mention how successful government prohibitions have been against alcohol and drugs. This truly is a fight North Carolina should take up in the midst of an economic downturn.

Issac you can choose to dine and visit establishments that are "non-smoking" plenty of them exist. Smart business owners know who their clientele is and what they prefer. If a owner wants to allow smoking then all means he should be able to, and if he doesn't want to allow smoking then that is fine to. It is called the free market.

What you keep missing, poor Gosh, is the fact that I can choose not to eat butter or bacon whether or not you have decided to eat it at the table over. This isn't true with smoking. Your decision to smoke affects anyone who is sharing airspace. Unlike the exhaust from cars and multiple other sources of pollution you can come up with, smoking cigarettes cannot reasonably be considered a "necessary evil."

It's a simple reality, so maybe if you focus hard, really hard, you'll catch on.

Yes, by all means... good for all of us.

Smoking should be banned from restaurants and bars just like in NYC because God knows people should be able to cultivate their pancreatic cancer in a smoke free environment.

Pass the butter for my bacon cheeseburger please, and extra salt on my Margarita Garson. Chop, chop.

Good for Holliman. Good for all of us.

I thought we wanted to tax smokers to pay for everyone elses' child healthcare. I know we did to build the best hospitals and colleges in America.

Now we want to ban the source of the money?

That's not punishing smokers, it's punishing our budget. Not to mention our civil liberties.

Poll driven personal agenda idiocy.

Holliman's wife works for the Durham Health Office. Unfortunately, Holliman's constituents have not realized that Holliman simply does not reside in Davidson County.

are apparently able to chew gum and walk at the same time. I think they call it multi-tasking.

You would have been at a serious disadvantage had you had the misfortune of being elected!

Nanny state?

Are you kidding me? Second hand smoke is more important than our schools, mental healthare faciltities, probation system and the criminal enterprise known as DOT?

Heck, some Republican may stand up and support this and be told to shut up we do not want to hear from Republicans. Then he will realize what the person is saying and allow it LOL.

considering this report.