As a former smoker, I guess I'll add my 2 cents.

What State did wasn't that bad, and I would be all for it, if it had just been written a little better. It's cool to ban smoking in front of doors, that should be a duh. They're already going outside, no big change. Some arbitrary 15 feet doesn't make much sense, but 100 feet makes far less.

In case this wasn't obvious, where you put the cig butt receptacles has more to do with where people smoke than anything, except for the places where there are none. Btw, the sand things are more work to clean than what they're worth, the cleaning people would rather you throw in on the ground and sweep it up.

Smokers congregate. It shouldn't be hard to get them to do somewhere where it's not a bother to everyone else. Anyone reasonable person should be able to do this, see: no one at Chapel Hill.

7/16/2008 10:40:27 AM

Quote :

"Smokers congregate"

We should use this for a 'Final Soultion' with these damn smokers. Round them up and put them into "Smoker's Camps". Maybe tatoo their brands on their arms.

The gov't must stop people from doing things that harm themselves. The go'vt must tell us how to live full and helpful lives. Politicians are the best people to show us how to live.

7/16/2008 10:53:09 AM

It has nothing to do with protecting people from themselves, it has to do with protecting other people. Cigarette smoke genuinely bothers/harms some people. This kind of ban doesn't bother me, as you have no right to harm others.

7/16/2008 11:53:34 AM

does it bother you when someone is made to stop an action when it is not harming others?

7/16/2008 12:18:43 PM

Yeah, but harm can be fairly subjective when dealing with things like this.

7/16/2008 12:42:09 PM

no, it really can't.

7/16/2008 1:19:44 PM

you know what this reminds me of? hitler

7/16/2008 1:46:15 PM

people, cant we all just agree

fuck unc

7/16/2008 2:12:15 PM

as we all know, Hitler was a non-smoking vegetarian, and a Christian.

therefore, the best Americans are red meat-eating, cigar chomping Atheists.

7/16/2008 2:15:27 PM

House passes bill to regulate tobacco

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that for the first time would subject the tobacco industry to regulation by federal health authorities charged with promoting public well-being. Its backers call the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 'landmark' legislation. While the bill appears to have enough support to pass this year, it's unclear whether the Senate will have time to act, and the Bush administration issued a veto threat Wednesday. The 326-102 House vote signaled solid bipartisan support for the measure, with 96 Republicans breaking with President Bush's position to vote in favor of the bill. Both presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., back the legislation."

Quote :

"The bill H.R. 1108."

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3305690/

FYI.

7/31/2008 12:18:44 PM

^ not knowing anything else about the bill other than what's in the link, it strikes me as "feel good" legislation without any clear goal or direction.

WTF is "healthy tobacco"? How can anything that your burn and suck in to your lungs ever be healthy? And you can ask any single person in the country that smokes if it's healthy or not, and they'll clearly say it's not, they know it's addictive, and they know there are treatment options. They should just accept that people like their drugs, and if they want to do something, just make sure they aren't marketing to kids or misrepresenting the dangers.

7/31/2008 12:25:48 PM

You guys know how political correctness has already changed a number of traditions in sports? ie the Red River Shootout game between Texas and Oklahoma is now called the Red River Rivalry and with the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party which is the annual football game between Florida and Georgia, they have been told to not mention the 'cocktail party' aspect in broadcasts (as if thats going to somehow prevent drinking)

How long until Tobacco Road gets a new name? Bubblegum Avenue?

7/31/2008 12:27:03 PM

^^ Well, if it really is "'feel good' legislation without any clear goal or direction," you can blame this guy:

Quote :

"Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., worked for more than a decade to get the House to pass tobacco regulation. 'This is truly a historic day in the fight against tobacco,' Waxman said. 'But it took us far too long to get here.' The bill would further tighten restrictions on tobacco advertising and impose new federal penalties for selling to minors. But its most far-reaching provisions would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco, from cigarettes to new kinds of smokeless products. While the agency could not outlaw tobacco or nicotine, it could demand the reduction or elimination of cancer-causing chemicals in cigarette smoke. The bill would prohibit candy flavored cigars and cigarettes, and would give the FDA authority to ban menthol - by far the most commonly added flavoring."

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3305690/

^ LOL--just as long as it's not bubblegum-flavored cigarettes!

[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2008 12:30:56 PM

^ I don't blame him, I blame what our political system has become.

7/31/2008 12:33:51 PM

^ Ah, so we're all to blame--which means no one is.

7/31/2008 12:40:50 PM

^ It also means I can blame you.

I accept no blame however.

7/31/2008 12:41:37 PM

^ How so? I'm neither a smoker nor have I introduced legislation to curtail smoking.

7/31/2008 12:45:10 PM

We must have different definitions of "all" then, i apologize for blaming you.

7/31/2008 1:07:39 PM

Quote :

"The bill ... would give the FDA authority to ban menthol - by far the most commonly added flavoring"

Ban menthol smokes?

WTF! That's Racist!

7/31/2008 2:49:49 PM

7/31/2008 4:30:54 PM

bttt by request

1/1/2009 7:45:23 AM

i want to go to unc and smoke a cigarette

1/1/2009 7:49:18 AM

Smoking ban in state cars among new N.C. laws

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. — Starting Thursday, North Carolina state employees can no longer light up inside state-owned or leased vehicles, as the new year brings more than a dozen new state laws into effect."

Quote :

"The smoking ban inside state-operated vehicles is the latest tobacco restriction within North Carolina's government. A year ago, thousands of state government buildings became smoke-free. Smoking also has been banned in recent years inside prisons and adult care and nursing homes. Despite North Carolina's tobacco heritage, state workers appear to be taking the latest prohibition in stride, said Jill Lucas, a spokeswoman for the Department of Administration, which maintains a fleet of more than 8,600 state vehicles. 'I don't know if the culture of smoking has changed so much in recent years that people (already) don't smoke in their private car or in their private home,' Lucas said. 'People who smoke are accustomed to these kind of expectations, and now it's going to be law.' Supporters argued the law will protect passengers from secondhand smoke and cut down on car cleaning expenses. City and county governments also will have authority to approve similar motor-fleet restrictions. The Administration Department ordered 20,000 'no smoking' stickers to place in cars. Violating the rule isn't considered a criminal offense."

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/4223819/

FYI.

1/1/2009 5:56:15 PM

Quote :

"It has nothing to do with protecting people from themselves, it has to do with protecting other people. Cigarette smoke genuinely bothers/harms some people. This kind of ban doesn't bother me, as you have no right to harm others."

But it's still not good policy to ban smoking outright. The correct way to deal with the issue is to punish people who actually harm others. For example: if I smoke and blow it in your face, then I should be fined. Banning smoking is a little like banning guns; it's the people who pull the trigger that are the problem, not the instrument.

(under your same theory we could probably conceive of banning gasoline-powered cars, because carbon monoxide emissions are inherently harmful to people)

Banning smoking doesn't solve any problem, because there never was a problem to begin with. Smoking is a minor vice in the grand scheme of human history. We are a society that is inflicted with a particularly bad strain of puritanism, which seeks to eliminate or ban anything remotely fun or bad for you. It's the reason our popular culture is so damned watered down, and that is worse for us than any amount of incidental second hand smoke.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 8:59 PM. Reason : foo]

1/1/2009 8:58:55 PM

it's 2009.

people still smoke?

1/1/2009 10:25:56 PM

^ Obama smokes.

1/1/2009 10:58:23 PM

^

On a related note -- when asked whether he'd violate the no smoking policy in the White House:

Quote :

""There are times where I've fallen off the wagon," the president-elect said when asked in a broadcast interview whether he has kicked the habit. "I've done a terrific job, under the circumstances, of making myself much healthier," he said. "And I think that you will not see any violations of these rules in the White House," he said on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC."

I love the response, it is so typically Obama. He didn't say he's actually going to quit completely. He "fell off the wagon" at "times," both completely ambiguous phrases about how much he actually does smoke. And I'll leave the interpretation of "you will not see" to the reader -- does that mean he won't smoke in the White House, or just that you won't see it when he does?

It's 2009. People, including our Serious Liberal President-elect, still smoke. And they even prevaricate skillfully about it!

1/2/2009 1:22:30 AM

^

I read more about this and found this very fascinating article from early in the campaign: http://www.slate.com/id/2157523/.

Quote :

"Sen. Barack Obama has the sort of voice that political consultants dream of: It's authoritative but comforting, rich and resonant and wise. Whether he's talking about the Darfur genocide or Monday Night Football, the man sounds like a leader. His voice helps account for why even hardened cynics go weak at the knees when they hear him. One of my friends prides himself on being strictly nonpartisan, but after listening to Obama's Dreams From My Father, read by the senator himself, he confessed to me, "I shouldn't say this, but I love him.""

Quote :

""Smoking over time transforms a person's voice by thickening and drying out the vocal chords. The vocal chords vibrate as your breath passes through them, so their texture and shape helps determine what your voice sounds like. David Witsell, who directs Duke University's Voice Care Center, notes that the nodules on Johnny Cash's vocal cords that stemmed in part from his smoking habit helped create his unique sound. "Many famous voices in history have pathologies that are part of their vocal signatures," Witsell says.""

Quote :

""Here's the problem: If he quits, Obama may lose that wonderful maple-syrup sound just as he begins running in earnest. Since smoking amounts to an irritant, stopping smoking altogether can help restore vocal chords to health. But it's unclear how long that takes, and whether a person's voice returns to its pristine state. "You can reverse the changes over time," said Vanderbilt University Voice Center Director Robert Ossoff, who treated Johnny Cash as well as a host of other country and western singers. "Whether you can get back to the 100 percent original voice, I don't know.""

Quote :

"Ossoff is well aware that some performers intentionally take a drag or two on a cigarette before crooning; he's witnessed it in local nightclubs, and has asked singers about it. But in general, his performing patients worry that smoking is damaging their voice."

What irony -- that Serious Liberal Obama was, in all likelihood, very much assisted in winning by his smoking.

[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 2:05 AM. Reason : foo]

1/2/2009 2:03:45 AM

^ On a somewhat unrelated note... why do you keep saying Obama is a "serious liberal"? A fair amount of the far left are getting a bit concerned Obama is much more centrist than they thought, and a good handful of the righties here expressed relief that he doesn't seem as left as they expected him. I would say, so far, he hasn't been turning out to be all that liberal, compared to the rest of our politicians.

1/2/2009 3:06:27 AM

eyah, he's looking like he might wind up being more of a Republicrat than Hillary.

1/2/2009 3:12:17 AM

^^

So the contention isn't whether he's Serious -- it's whether he's liberal?

Let me get this straight. Just so we're clear. If he indeed turns out to be as much of a "rightie" or a centrist as you project, then will that not in fact require him to break many of his major campaign promises? Such as, for example, the very liberal "'tax' cut for 95%" plan which is nothing but a prosaic redistribution of wealth from rich to poor?

Either he keeps his campaign pledges which he continued to make after the Great Big Crisis started, or he's a dreadful liar and the worst kind of demagogue. The people asked for what he was selling, I certainly presume he will produce it. And what he was selling was liberal in character.

Pardon me if I don't suddenly forget his senate record and the last year of elections just because he appointed some Clinton apparatchiks prior to his actual inauguration.

1/2/2009 4:21:22 AM

I think the smoke free campus is at Duke as well... that happened summer before last.

1/2/2009 2:22:24 PM

^^

I was reading "serious" in the context of meaning a more extreme form of something, maybe I should ask what you take the term "serious liberal" to mean? It's not one you hear very often.

In any case, the main thing that is causing the left to doubt his leftness is keeping the Bush tax cuts (which doesn't mean NOT still enacting his own tax cut) until they expire, and getting a gay-hater to give his inauguration speech (Obama never did talk much about gays, but Biden said they opposed Prop 8 in california). And I think some on the right were impressed with his appointing of some republicans in his cabinet and other positions. So he has earned this perception without having to go back on any of his campaign promises.

So Obama clearly is on the left side of things, but i don't see what evidence you'd have for calling him a "serious liberal" as opposed to just a "liberal."

1/2/2009 2:53:25 PM

^ Don't forget Obama's vote in support of NSA wiretaps!

I'm just here to help in '09! --hooksaw

1/2/2009 4:47:57 PM

^ yeah, that one's problematic.

1/2/2009 6:00:40 PM

Quote :

" I was reading "serious" in the context of meaning a more extreme form of something, maybe I should ask what you take the term "serious liberal" to mean? It's not one you hear very often."

From the OED:

Quote :

"1. a. Of persons, their actions, etc.: Having, involving, expressing, or arising from earnest purpose or thought; of grave or solemn disposition or intention; having depth or solidity of character, not light or superficial; now often, concerned with the grave and earnest sides of life as opposed to amusement or pleasure-seeking."

Note that this is the first entry which in the OED typically means it's the most basic meaning of the word.

Clearly I am referring to his demeanor and not to his politics with the adjective "serious"; it's a parallel to the term Limousine Liberal, and I would assume you know that doesn't mean someone who wants government to give limousine service to poor people ...

1/2/2009 8:20:05 PM

idk, I was in ohio at a bar (no smoking) and its so much nicer. It's been hard to readjust to NC

1/2/2009 8:29:40 PM

everywhere on teh West Coast is non-smoking.

even seeing a person on teh street with a cigarette is unusual. smokers look totally out of place here. going to NC is like culture shock for me now.

1/3/2009 2:00:57 AM

People smoke on the street all the time in SF.

1/3/2009 6:35:19 AM

According to our friends at the New York Times, we have a new menace to worry about "third-hand smoking." Apparently the smell that permeates the environs frequented by a smoker are just as toxic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html

Some highlights:

Quote :

"That’s (third-hand smoke) the term being used to describe the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room. The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor... The belief that second-hand smoke harms children’s health was not independently associated with strict smoking bans in homes and cars, the researchers found. On the other hand, the belief that third-hand smoke was harmful greatly increased the likelihood the respondent also would enforce a strict smoking ban at home, Dr. Winickoff said."

1/3/2009 5:38:06 PM

this thread makes me want to smoke

1/3/2009 8:02:54 PM

Quote :

"If memory serves, it's illegal to carry onto any school campus anyway. I believe federal law prohibits the carrying of firearms on educational premises. So any school-based policies doing the same are redundant; if you get caught with a gun on campus, you'll be charged with a felony in addition to violating university policy."

In NC, there is a state law banning carrying on educational premisis. There is NO federal law prohibiting it. It is LEGAL to conceal carry at colleges in Utah. I believe there is one other state where Conceal Carry is legal on campus.

1/4/2009 10:31:00 PM