Smoking ban passes second reading

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"

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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...;-)

"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.

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"

The government should not be legislating the smoking policies of private establishments. People decide of their own free will whether or not to go to (or work for) a restaurant that allows smoking. This legislation is little more than a poorly disguised restriction of people's liberties. If you want to require restaurants that allow smoking to post highly visible health warnings, then that is fine, but ultimately people should be responsible for themselves and make their own decisions about whether or not to go to restaurants that allow smoking. There are plenty of restaurants that do not allow smoking and that is great, but we shouldn't use government to make this decision for private businesses.

There is no such thing as "smoker's rights." Environmental tobacco smoke is carcinogenic and causes adverse health effects to those who are exposed, even if they do not themselves smoke. 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. And, in the meantime, God gave you an ashtray - keep your butts in your cars and stop flicking them out the window. Why are smokers such selfish slobs?

Just because some people choose to make and sell tobacco does not make it an honorable way to make a living. Making and selling a product that you know harms and kills people is shameful, not honorable. We don't need to honor the tobacco heritage of this state by continuing to put up with the adverse effects of it. And those who make money from the tobacco industry have such an obvious conflict-of-interest that they should have no credibility in the policy debate.

Right, and if you don't want to eat in a restaurant that serves food from a filthy kitchen, it's your choice not to go there. Sanitation regulations? Phooey! Let the market decide!

If you don't want to be around people who smoke, don't go to establishments that allow the patrons to smoke. It's as simple as that. We are adults.

If you don't want to work in a place that allows smoking, don't work there.

If you don't want to eat or drink at a place that allows smoking, don't go there.

There is not need for Orwellian legislation.

Can you take the same position about alcohol. Every has the right eat in a place with out smoke, but this a choice of the owner not our Reps., who can not even get this budget uncontrol or unemployment benefts.

Ban it, there is nothing worse than having someone come down and sit beside of you and light up while you are eating dinner. I mean they dont smoke while they are eating so why would we want you to smoke while we are? I've started walking by people's table and passing gas when they do this when I'm eating. I dont want to smell your nasty smell and I'm sure you dont want to smell mine. Hey when in Texas

Least ban alcohol in bars, restaurant, and homes when we have cook outs.

Yes, i agree. Why don't our Rep. find something to with their time like this "Short fall budget" that happen over night. Least call back Mike and ask him what happen to our money.

HOw come people want to point their finger at The President when it come to smoking or anything? No one point its finger at our exit President for all his faults. No one said hey Bush where are those weapons or how about this crisis we are in now.

EIBeachBum, what I am objecting to here is not the law itself, but the hypocrisy of the law! Our government wants to legally ban smoking inside businesses, while it continues to tax smokers at the checkout counter! Until we totally ban the sale of all tobacco products, then this law is definitely two-faced.

Its not about smoking, its about people wanting to control others life. If you as a adult walk into a bar and they are smoking then you have the right not to come in. This is a freedom of choice and if we take away this what is next on the stable. I feel that we have more important things in this country and State to deal with like our criminal justice system, police officers from tagetting one race or how about DA office the very people who has taken an oath to up hold the laws of this land. How about or health care system with unemployment at an all time high and the unemployed with out health ins.

fine.....let obama smoke all he wants.....just don't let him make ME smoke too.....and don't tell me to go to some other place just cause he's in there smoking...

EIBeachBum, good point. We can always agree to disagree, you agree?

Alaskan 1 wrote:


"Obama smokes. Democrats tell him not to smoke. The man is not disciplined enough to stop smoking is the man who is going to save us."


Precisely. President Obama is an adult who pays taxes on the cigarettes that he buys. I have no problems with the recent $1.00 federal tax on cigarettes, but I do have a problem on any law that bans smoking in a place of business, such as a restaurant or nightclub. I see that kind of intervention as government going too far across the line. If a person is old enough to buy alcohol and tobacco products, then the law should allow that individual the choice of smoking or not smoking inside a bar or restaurant. Only President Obama can stop himself from smoking, no law is going to do that for him. Remember what we read and heard about Prohibition? It failed miserably in its heyday, and it will not work in 2009....

OK, just to be fair and balanced, if I as a non-smoker with allergies to tobacco smoke agree that each business has the right to choose, will you agree that the choice will be either smoking allowed anywhere in the establishment or smoking not allowed anywhere in the establishment. That is, smoking and non-smoking areas are not allowed in the same establishment. And, the smoking/non-smoking status of the establishment must be clearly indicated and visible to patrons from the parking lot. That way everyone gets to make an informed choice and everyone can avoid the unpleasant surprise from the party at the adjoining table! Deal?

It is about time! I hear the “nattering nabobs of negativism” and invite them to visit along the NC coast and enjoy one of the many fine restaurants or martini bars that have already discovered that keeping tobacco smoke outside is great for business. The available evidence argues that even a total ban will not damage business, quite the contrary, non-smoking establishments are the popular trend and are thriving. Is it not time to stop obfuscating and move on?

May we get real for a moment? North Carolina used to be one of the top 5 tobacco-producing states in the country. As I see it, as long as our state (as well as Uncle Sam) continues to tax and allow the sales of tobacco products, then a smoking ban is an affront to the smoking privileges of all taxpaying smokers in our state! Many businesses depend on the patronage of smokers, especially restaurants, nightclubs, and motels. A more fair and sensible bill would be one that would allow each business to decide if smoking should be permitted on the premises, or banned completely. Individual choice is indeed an American (U.S.) thing, and any law that severely curtails this choice should be viewed with suspicion. I believe that the present system of businesses providing their customers with smoking and nonsmoking areas is sufficient, the practice of doing so is not broken, and should be left alone. By the way, I am a nonsmoker who believes in individual choice!

Obama smokes. Democrats tell him not to smoke. The man is not disciplined enough to stop smoking is the man who is going to save us.

michael, so...let me get this str8.....you're saying that smoking is NOT harmful? and that it should be the RIGHT of smokers to poison others with thier drug addiction?

??

The bill still contains the following language:

"allow local governments to adopt local laws governing smoking within their jurisdictions that are more restrictive than the State law."

so if Charlotte and Raleigh wanted to ban smoking in bars, taverns, pubs, dance clubs etc. they could.

A dozen or so municipalities in South Carolina have extended their smoking bans to bars. What do they know that NC legislators dont?

Michael J. McFadden: Whatever. All I care about is not being forced to breath somebody else's smoke. What's YOUR interest? Time to come clean, lobbyist. Who writes your PAYCHECK?

It should be illegal to smoke anywhere that it may come in contact with others.

While I understand why many might have voted for a limited ban like this, it's important to understand how the antismoking lobby will use this sort of vote if it passes on the third reading and ends up being passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor.

1) The passage of even a fairly "weak" bill will be used widely by the antismoking lobby in its efforts to steamroller resistant Free-Choice states by saying "See how many other states have bans? Don't be left behind! All the other kids are jumping off the bridge... YOU should TOO!" They'll use its passage to push much stronger bills elsewhere while ignoring the fact that such stronger bills would never have been approved by "all the other states that have passed smoking bans."

and

2) The antismoking lobby is an insatiable animal. No matter WHAT you pass or don't pass, they'll be back the following year hungry for more. The bill as it is currently looking will bring the restaurant industry over to the side of the Antismokers as the restauranteurs believe the claims that their interests are best-served by an enforced "level playing field."

That claim is not as clear as is claimed. See the economics section of the "Stiletto" available at:

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

for an easy to understand analysis of what smoking bans do to the hospitality industries of entire states over years of time. Note that the data used in the Stiletto is all from government sources and publicly verifiable... unlike a lot of the data used in studies to support smoking bans.

The amendments that were passed today are good amendments, but I believe that North Carolina would be better served overall by continuing to leave smoking ban decisions up to individual businesses and their patrons.

I thank the N&O again for providing a forum like this for rapid feedback and would encourage them to investigate whether a live webcast of future debates would be possible.

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