13

5/14/2009 3:59:34 PM

Quote :

"thats a good way to get the shit beat out of you by strangers but you have the choice of whether or not to do it "

so is smoking in restaurants now....

5/14/2009 4:03:25 PM

There is nothing good that can come of this that is not purely selfish.

Will this ban reduce the number of cases of emphysema? Probably not.

Will this ban reduce the number of cases of lung cancer? Probably not.

Will this ban reduce the cost of health insurance? Probably not.

Will this ban reduce the income for bar owners and put hardworking people out of jobs (people that are at home smoking, aren't inside drinking)? Probably.

I don't think restaurants will be hit as hard as bars will. In the past, I have noticed that approximately 30-60% of bar patrons have been smoking. If I was still a smoker, I would opt to stay home and have people over instead of going somewhere I couldn't smoke. Those of you that feel like this will not have an impact on the bars, will non-smokers frequent bars more now that there is a ban in place? I doubt they will to the extent that smokers will be abandoning the bars.

So...bad for the economy and bad for personal liberties. What is the upside again?

5/14/2009 4:27:43 PM

it will in no way negatively impact the economy. There is not one rational reason you could come up with that could not be immediately counter with an equally unsubstantiated claim or an actual rebuttal.

it also has nothing to do with civil liberties since it is not outlawing smoking and does not further infringe on the business owners right to independent operation more than banning child labor.

5/14/2009 4:30:54 PM

Quote :

"it also has nothing to do with civil liberties since it is not outlawing smoking and does not further infringe on the business owners right to independent operation more than banning child labor."

Wow. Just... wow.

5/14/2009 4:37:17 PM

perhaps it would be better suited if you directly addressed that point instead of making derisive commentary

5/14/2009 4:38:12 PM

Why bother? Am I going to change your mind?
Do you honestly believe what you posted? Read it again. Do you honestly believe that?
Do you not already know what I or others would say to refute that?
Are you that clueless?

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 4:40:09 PM

haha willy is busy with two threads

5/14/2009 4:40:13 PM

Quote :

"Why bother? Am I going to change your mind?"

perhaps if you had anything of value to contribute, but instead you ignore all rebuttals and use extremes and half truths to make your point. If you plan on doing that again, then probably not.

Quote :

"Do you honest believe what you posted? Read it again. Do you honest believe that?"

Yes, i do. on many levels. smoking is a choice so i don't believe public smoking prohibition infringes rights. Similarly, given that the owner is in a contract with the state I do not believe his rights are being inflicted. He has 49 other states in which he can operate his business and the state is not preventing him from doing that.

Quote :

"Do you not already know what I or others would say to refute that?"

No because you never do. See above.

Quote :

"Are you that clueless?"

It would appear so, but you, my friend, appear to be much worse off than myself.

feel free to enlighten the masses and set us free from our sheepish slavery.

5/14/2009 4:44:27 PM

Quote :

"There is not one rational reason you could come up with that could not be immediately counter with an equally unsubstantiated claim or an actual rebuttal."

Exactly. There is not enough data to prove either side, for or against second-hand smoke. Since there is not enough data to prove that health will be improved, there is not enough data to prove that the cost of insurance will be lessened.

Quote :

"it also has nothing to do with civil liberties since it is not outlawing smoking"

Quote :

"smoking is a choice so i don't believe public smoking prohibition infringes rights."

It IS outlawing smoking on certain private properties. It is the business owner's discretion to allow a LEGAL activity to occur on his premises. Imagine the outrage if liquor or beer sales and consumption in restaurants and bars were outlawed, but alcohol was still legal.

Quote :

"does not further infringe on the business owners right to independent operation more than banning child labor"

Child Labor is illegal everywhere, and rightfully so. Name one other activity that is legal some places, but not legal others. No smoking or firearms in Government buildings do not count because the owners of the buildings made that decision.

Quote :

"Similarly, given that the owner is in a contract with the state I do not believe his rights are being inflicted"

Are you referring to a business license? A liquor license? When these licenses were agreed to, it was not a law. One COULD argue that all existing establishments could be grandfathered into exemption due to the fact that they entered into the contract prior to the law.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 4:58:28 PM

Quote :

"Since there is not enough data to prove that health will be improved, there is not enough data to prove that the cost of insurance will be lessened. "

i've never stated that health was an issue for me. Quite to the contrary i have repeatedly state that the health argument is ineffective, weak, and the lesser of ones that should be addressed. People continue to come up with this rebuttal as if they're making a point, when they're not.

Quote :

" It IS outlawing smoking on certain private properties. It is the business owner's discretion to allow a LEGAL activity to occur on his premises. Imagine the outrage if liquor or beer sales and consumption in restaurants and bars were outlawed, but alcohol was still legal."

I agree, but smoking indoors in these areas is no longer a legal activity, therefore its not up to their discretion. Children 15 and above are allowed to work, but they can't work in some restaurants or perform certain tasks. should this not be up to the discretion of the business owner? There are plenty of places where alcohol is legal and beer sales and liquor sales in restaurants are forbidden, see western north carolina.

Quote :

"Child Labor is illegal everywhere, and rightfully so. Name one other activity that is legal some places, but not legal others. No smoking or firearms in Government buildings do not count because the owners of the buildings made that decision."

drinking in my car. It is legal but i cannot, even when below the legal limit, have a beer in my car.

Quote :

"Are you referring to a business license? A liquor license? When these licenses were agreed to, it was not a law. One COULD argue that all existing establishments could be grandfathered into exemption due to the fact that they entered into the contract prior to the law."

Yes, a business license, and your statement about grandfather has merit.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM. Reason : tags]

5/14/2009 5:06:19 PM

Quote :

"If I was still a smoker, I would opt to stay home and have people over instead of going somewhere I couldn't smoke. "

So how many smokers work in non smoking offices EVERY DAY? How many instead choose to work from home instead so they could smoke inside? This will not stop people from going out to eat or to bars.

If cigarettes dictate someones life to that extent then they have way bigger problems than this smoking ban bill.

5/14/2009 5:11:13 PM

Quote :

"drinking in my car. It is legal but i cannot, even when below the legal limit, have a beer in my car"

I agree with you here. Statistics have shown that this is a worthy use of law, but due to the fact that there are no statistics proving the danger of second-hand smoke relative to other air pollutants, this law will more than likely not improve the health of North Carolinians.

Like my original point, this bill strictly shows favoritism to and the selfishness of non-smokers, therefore impeding personal liberties of smokers.

5/14/2009 5:12:43 PM

Quote :

"drinking in my car"

should be legal. It harms no one, and does not constitute an unreasonable danger. If I can drink X amount of alcohol in Y minutes and still be safe to drive, then it should not matter whether or not I drank it in a building or in my car.

Quote :

"Statistics have shown that this is a worthy use of law"

Oh really? I wonder how they cooked those...

5/14/2009 5:14:53 PM

Quote :

"So how many smokers work in non smoking offices EVERY DAY? How many instead choose to work from home instead so they could smoke inside?"

That is a horrible analogy.

5/14/2009 5:16:36 PM

Can't you legally drink in your car if the keys are not in the switch and the engine is not running?

5/14/2009 5:17:42 PM

only if you are sitting in your driveway at home

5/14/2009 5:18:24 PM

^^^how so?

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ...]

5/14/2009 5:18:41 PM

You're right, I should have expounded instead of just saying that's dumb.
I choose to go to a bar, I don't choose to go to work - I have to in order to pay my bills and live. The necessity of the two things you are comparing are not equivalent. You are exaggerating in order to make a point.

5/14/2009 5:26:49 PM

am i the only smoker thats for this?

5/14/2009 5:58:06 PM

Quote :

"I agree, but smoking indoors in these areas is no longer a legal activity, therefore its not up to their discretion"

This is the entire debate.

Quote :

"There are plenty of places where alcohol is legal and beer sales and liquor sales in restaurants are forbidden, see western north carolina."

Johnston County just reversed its dry status recently, as did Chatham. This issue is a holdover from Prohibition and is being reversed slowly but surely, as it should.

Quote :

"Children 15 and above are allowed to work, but they can't work in some restaurants or perform certain tasks"

How is a labor law relevant to this? Labor laws are set up to protect people. This issue is not about protection of health, as you have conceded.

5/14/2009 5:58:27 PM

not enough evidence???

http://www.bclocalnews.com/lifestyles/44926087.html

Quote :

"Secondhand smoke is a known cause of cancer in humans. There are 4,000 chemical compounds in tobacco smoke. More than 60 are known to be carcinogenic. Here are some other important statistics, courtesy of the American Lung Association. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700 to 69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the U.S. each year. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the U.S. annually. Secondhand smoke has been linked to a higher incidence of middle ear fluid and infection in children. In the U.S., 21 million children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis. Approximately 50 to 75 per cent of children in the U.S. have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood. Secondhand smoke immediately affects the heart and blood circulation in a harmful way. It also causes heart disease and lung cancer. Scientific evidence shows that there is no “safe” level of exposure to secondhand smoke. The best way to prevent illness from secondhand smoke is to avoid it."

5/14/2009 6:18:57 PM

I just want to say that I think this really sucks. Bar owners should be allowed to permit smoking in their own establishments, if they are so inclined; and people who don't want to inhale cigarette smoke are welcome not to go to bars where smoking is permitted.

It's great that we want to discourage smoking and save lives, but this is going too far, to the point of injustice.

5/14/2009 6:22:16 PM

I have a new roommate who moved in and the first thing he asked us was if he could smoke in the apartment. We all said no but its obvious he continues to do it in his own room and our place now smells like ass after a week. Does this mean I can now tell him its actually illegal? I think Im just gonna move the past 2 roommates we have gotten have just been ridiculous sometimes this saving money shit aint worth it.

5/14/2009 6:34:15 PM

unless you live in a bar or restaurant, i dont think its illegal, and even then the law doesnt go into effect until 2010

charge him extra rent or tell him not to smoke inside or open his fucking window and turn on a fan or deionizer

me and my roommate in college both smoked, but we didnt smoke inside

5/14/2009 6:43:52 PM

^^^^ You can't prove that the cancer was caused by second-hand smoke. There are hundreds if not thousands of other air pollutants that also cause cancer.

Even if all 3400 cases of cancer was caused by secondhand smoke, that is about 0.1% of the people that died in 2004.

Source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_in_the_US_each_year (Original link is broken)

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 6:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 6:50:14 PM

Now we're saying "this isn't important because only a small number of people died?" That's a really terrible argument. Plus, you're ignoring sickness.

[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 7:33 AM. Reason : .]

5/15/2009 7:32:26 AM

i win.

5/15/2009 8:01:27 AM

Quote :

"This is the entire debate."

Agreed, and this is the response i expected. You'll need to compose support that does not use a foundation of it being a legal activity in order for either sides comment not to be somewhat circular.

Quote :

"Johnston County just reversed its dry status recently, as did Chatham. This issue is a holdover from Prohibition and is being reversed slowly but surely, as it should. "

you made a comment and requested examples where there was a contradiction, which is what i provided. The fact that its being over turned is irrelevant as it will unlikely be overturned everywhere.

Quote :

"How is a labor law relevant to this? Labor laws are set up to protect people. This issue is not about protection of health, as you have conceded."

its relevant because its a matter of 'personal liberty', which is the basis for the argument of those who oppose this. Just as the health issue, since showing up to a bar is a choice, is irrelevant to that debate as should be the protection of children to the labor debate since work location is a choice and children even have the added consent of a guardian. Given that labor laws prevent the business owner from independently running his business as he pleases even though the employment of such young individuals does not necessarily create harm.



[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 9:27 AM. Reason : canes]

5/15/2009 9:26:28 AM

Quote :

"f I was still a smoker, I would opt to stay home and have people over instead of going somewhere I couldn't smoke. Those of you that feel like this will not have an impact on the bars, will non-smokers frequent bars more now that there is a ban in place? I doubt they will to the extent that smokers will be abandoning the bars."

I remember when King County, WA, instituted their ban, there was an initial dip in sales numbers but it soon went back to pre-ban numbers. If I wasn't lazy I would google an article about it.

5/15/2009 9:42:19 AM

That's the case everywhere, even in italy. Business will not be affected long term. It's been proven many times already.

5/15/2009 10:43:06 AM

ahahah, funny

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20090518/TOPSTORIES/905179965/1042?Title=Reaction-mixed-to-N-C-smoking-ban

Quote :

"Gisele Lanzetta, a manager at Hannah Flanagan’s, said she is certain that the smoking ban will hurt business. “I’ve talked to a lot of my regular customers, people whose face I see in here every day, and they have said that they will not come in here if they can’t smoke — they just won’t,” she said. “I’ve worked here for four years. I feel it will take away a lot of our bar customers and like many people, I like a cigarette when I have a drink, and that’s the only time I smoke. C’mon, this is an Irish pub.”"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3763471.stm
Monday, 31 May, 2004,

Quote :

"The Irish Republic has hailed a smoking ban as a success, with 97% of inspected premises complying with the law. A report on the workplace ban, by the Office of Tobacco Control (OTC), found one in five smokers now choose not to smoke at all on a night out. Since the ban was imposed on March 29, 96% of pubs and restaurants have complied - with 89% displaying the required no smoking signs. "

[Edited on May 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2009 1:41:11 PM

^ NAW SON.

I THINK YOU MUST BE CONFUSED ABOUT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW SON.





ARE YOU TALKIN TO ME SON?

WELL THERE'S NOBODY ELSE HERE SON..... SO YOU MUST BE TALKIN TO ME SON.

5/18/2009 1:42:44 PM

^step out the bar, son.

and smoke

5/18/2009 1:49:24 PM

bttt

9/23/2009 10:47:28 AM

so only about 3 months away now.

There really isn't much smoking in bars now at this point anyways. most bars, at least the ones i go to, have converted to non-smoking by this point so that the transition isn't so abrupt.

9/23/2009 10:51:26 AM

my anecdotal evidence doesn't agree with yours

9/23/2009 10:53:02 AM

hoo boy

9/23/2009 10:54:26 AM

Quote :

"so only about 3 months away now. There really isn't much smoking in bars now at this point anyways. most bars, at least the ones i go to, have converted to non-smoking by this point so that the transition isn't so abrupt."

i know im LOVING it



[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 10:58 AM. Reason : dsfs]

9/23/2009 10:54:43 AM

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/60487852.html

Quote :

"There's growing evidence that smoking bans like those in Nebraska and Iowa are reducing heart attacks. Studies from around the world have examined the data and determined that heart attacks decline 17% within a year of the smoking ban taking effect in the community. Researchers looked at smoking bans in Europe, Canada and the United States. Iowa and Nebraska were not part of the study. Omaha went smoke-free in October 2006. The rest of the state along with Omaha bars followed two years later. "It's a better time when you don't come home stinking like cigarettes," says Bryan McVay who was enjoying his Tuesday night with his wife and son at the smoke-free Dundee Dell Researchers wanted to know the impact of secondhand smoke so they compared communities with smoking bans and those without and published the findings in the Journal of the American Heart Association. "We've known for a long time that second-hand smoke will increase ones risk of a heart attack by 25-30%," says Dr. Scott Shurmur, UNMC Cardiologist. "Now we've proven the reverse essentially - take the second-hand smoke away and heart attack rates begin to drop." Studies have shown over the years that when someone quits smoking their risk of a heart attack drops. Dr. Shurmur says he wouldn't be surprised to see lung cancer rates drop once the smoking bans have been in place for 5-to-10 years. "What's great about this study is it proves the individual effect of smoking bans because it was communities compared where smoking bans are in place and where they are not in place." Not only is a smoking ban cutting heart attacks by 17% the first year, the benefits continue to grow often doubling that amount by year three. It's likely the studies will become exhibit number one for other cities looking to enact a smoking ban. Iowa's smoking ban went into effect last year but there's one big exception: casinos. Dr. Shurmur says heart attack rates have also been dropping in Omaha and Nebraska but there hasn't been any studies looking at a direct connection with the smoking ban. The National Cancer Institute funded the study. "

9/23/2009 10:55:54 AM

Quote :

"Can't you legally drink in your car if the keys are not in the switch and the engine is not running?"

as long as you are not drunk, if the keys are in your possession you can get a dwi

we have had clients "sleep it off" in there cars with the engine running/ and some with it not running and get dwi's

9/23/2009 10:59:23 AM

I thought I remembered hearing back in driver's ed, or alcohol classes, or somewhere, that you can pretty much do anything you want in your car as long as you don't put the keys in the ignition...what if you are some drunk homeless dude who sleeps in his car? gonna give him a DWI for sleeping?

last I checked, the 'D' in DWI means 'driving' not "sitting in your car with the engine off"

[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2009 11:01:25 AM

well our dwi clients who were alseep and didn have the keys in the ignition were asleep in the drivers seat with the keys in the passenger seat

i dont make the laws i help people get around them

9/23/2009 11:02:30 AM

i guess it depends on if they are in a parking space, or if they drove a ways then pulled over to sleep? i dunno

9/23/2009 11:03:20 AM

CPCC wants the City of Charlotte to ban smoking on a few blocks of a particular street near / through campus

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/1013210.html

10/22/2009 2:08:02 PM

Me personally i'd be concerned that the gov't is trying to regulate a personal choice even if i wasn't a smoker. after all where is it gonna stop? right now its something that non smokers can get behind. but what if they were trying to do away with alcohol again? or a public dress code or something else. if you give them an inch they will take a mile.

10/22/2009 8:36:00 PM

bttt

I believe the ban goes into effect January 2 at 12:00am...ie, you can smoke January 1st but thats it

12/31/2009 4:49:11 PM

^^ that wouldn’t happen because enough people would be against it.

It looks like there just weren’t enough people against the smoking ban to stop it from happening. It’s never too late to have it reversed too, if you really wanted to.

you know… democracy

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ]

12/31/2009 5:07:46 PM

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A407760

12/31/2009 5:18:17 PM

democracy

lol

12/31/2009 5:22:12 PM