Smokers a big part of Players' business

That did a voice vote? And it passed so now it heads to the Senate?

Who votes for these people? *sigh* Alas, we do.

So, now, "public property" is legally defined as "any place the public is invited"--and not "any place owned by the public"? I'll have property to sell off in NC soon.

The last guy talking about economics made no sense. Smoking bans put hospitality venues out of business--so, the little waitress he was talking about would be less likely to HAVE that job. The idea that someone with 15 years seniority at a business doesn't really have the choice to get a job elsewhere didn't make sense--because that person had the choice all along! He/She could have changed jobs earlier or gotten a different job to start!

They say they'll be no overtime paid for investigations and that investigators would investigate only during normal daytime working hours. Are they willing to write that into the bill to guarantee it? Or to limit the ban JUST to those daytime hours?

To the representative who felt so strongly there'd never be more than $500 in fines statewide per year, would he be willing to back that up with his own pocketbook? Say to legally guarantee that he himself would cover any annual fines statewide once they went over that limit? Or, if he wanted to amend that $500 to something a bit higher, say $5,000, would he be willing to state firmly and make such a guarantee to cover it if fines exceeded even such a much higher amount?

Writing the bill as a "light-handed Velvet Glove" to begin with is a way to get it passed originally, but once it is passed and is being ignored then the antismoking lobby will come back and demand the "Iron Fist" of fines and even closures of restaurants, bars, and private clubs because, as they'll say, "We've already agreed to make this a law. Now we are bound by duty to enforce it."

The antismoking lobby is coordinated across many states, they are efficient, they are experienced, and they know that getting any sort of ban in the door to begin with will open that door to anything at all that they want to drive through it in the future.

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

This issue comes down to personal choice.

Gus owns his business - pays his taxes dutiful (I presume) and is a law abiding citizen.

Gus took a risk however many years ago when he invested the time and money into starting up this local hot spot.

Gus has prospered and evolved with the times in order to provide a setting in order to attract patronage.

Now the big government is going to tell Gus how to run his business.

Where is the Constitution does the government acquiesce this right?

NO WHERE!

We all have personal freedoms and the ability to be a patron at the facilities in which we desire. We understand the pros and cons of going there and duly make our decision with those in mind.

I have recently quit smoking and the smell does bother me and can at times lead me to have a cigarette, but I know it is my personal choice to be around those situations.

The "non-smoking" contingency says it is their right to not be around smoking in their public place - well consider the inverse - GO SOMEWHERE ELSE IF IT REALLY BOTHERS YOU!

This is being made an emotional issues because someone in someone's family died of smoking - well sorry, but they made that choice and thus have to live the repercussions of their actions'.

In terms of SIDS/CribDeath: The *ONLY* studies that even suggest a link between smoke exposure and this terrible thing are studies where children are heavily exposed to smoke up to 16 hours a day every single day of every single week for hundreds and thousands of hours during their first few months of life.

There is **NOTHING** in **ANY** of the research that has shown any significant risk to a child if their parents brought them into a decently ventilated restaurant (or even a poorly ventilated grungy bar) occasionally where people were smoking. Any risk from that kind of exposure is more of a superstition or politically motivated hype than science.

But even if you decided that this sort of thing was real enough to protect against, all the bill would have to do would be to prohibit parents from bringing infants under a year old into smoking establishments.

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

Private Clubs in North Carolina are primarily 21 and up locations so children wouldn't be allowed in there in the first place.

They're debating the private club and children thing right now. If parents took children to a private club that allowed smoking it's a pretty safe bet they're allowing people to smoke in their homes as well.

Would the NC legislature want to ban smoking in private homes? Or will that just be something the antismoking lobby can come back and get next year after they've tied up their first steps?

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

In hope of the Under the Dome actually running this story, I will post as many times as possible in hope of getting Ryan's attention to this story...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/65314.html