Smoking Ban in Charlotte?

[Charlotteman]

The very idea that second-hand cigarette smoke is not harmful is absurd.

I like the former post that mentioned governments regulate how much clothing a stripper must wear etc. Does this offend these "small government" AM radio listeners as well?

Regulating how much a stripper wears professionally is absolute insanity. Protecting innocent people in public is one of the sane things our government is supposed to do.

[almondjoy]

From the original post:

"the Surgeon General has announced that second hand smoke, like the kind found in restaurants and bars, will kill you.... The findings found that no-smoking sections, do not protect the public from the effects of second hand smoke."

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/0...n-generals.html

Make sure to click the How and Why links.

[almondjoy]

The very idea that second-hand cigarette smoke is not harmful is absurd.

I like the former post that mentioned governments regulate how much clothing a stripper must wear etc. Does this offend these "small government" AM radio listeners as well?

Regulating how much a stripper wears professionally is absolute insanity. Protecting innocent people in public is one of the sane things our government is supposed to do.

Get used to the absurdity, because no one has proven that it is.

Hell yes the stripper thing offends me. It's a waste of time and resources and dammit, I like my strippers naked and of the loosest morals.

I'm going to assume you meant to say "not regulating..." A strip club is NOT A PUBLIC PLACE. Nor is a restaurant, bar, shopping mall, etc. When did everyone start thinking these are public places? They. Are. Not.

[kevinranders]

Get used to the absurdity, because no one has proven that it is.

Hell yes the stripper thing offends me. It's a waste of time and resources and dammit, I like my strippers naked and of the loosest morals.

I'm going to assume you meant to say "not regulating..." A strip club is NOT A PUBLIC PLACE. Nor is a restaurant, bar, shopping mall, etc. When did everyone start thinking these are public places? They. Are. Not.

From reading various citie's model ordinances (of which I completely agree)

"Public Place" means an enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including but not limited to, banks, educational facilities, health care facilities, hotels and motels, laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, shopping malls, sports arenas, theaters, and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place" unless it is used as a child care, adult day care, or health care facility.

"Restaurant" means an eating establishment, including but not limited to, coffee shops, cafeterias, sandwich stands, and private and public school cafeterias, which gives or offers for sale food to the public, guests, or employees, as well as kitchens and catering facilities in which food is prepared on the premises for serving elsewhere. The term "restaurant" shall include a bar area within the restaurant.

I understand your reasoning behind saying that a resteraunt is not a public place. I disagree with it as indicated above. When I go into a resteraunt I should not be forced to sit through second-hand smoke when the smoker merely has to wait 30-45 minutes to smoke. IMHO it is not an unreasonable request that a "smoker" wait untl they leave a public place to light up.

For my own clarification - if a chain resteraunt or shopping mall (chain meaning a national company owns the mall) is open on the stock market for the public to buy stocks and invest in, does this not intrinsically make it a public place?

[reverbandwhiskey]

You said you would reply with studies. You replied with two blogs picking out snippets from major studies, while ignoring other parts of them. It is a typical defense when trying to distort facts. They love to attack the methodology of the study rather than the study itself.

It also distorts the "facts" that they claim:

That page claims that "Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year."

But when you actually go to the study itself, instead of reading the slanted bullet points. You'll find that people who live/work in smoke filled environments would potentially inhale between 32 and 46 cigarettes per year.

It also relies on authours such as Michael Fumento, who will say anything as long as companies pay him to. He was caught taking secret payments from Monsanto to write favorable articles about them. He has also taken money from tobacco lobbyists, chemical companies, and drug companies to attack studies that they didn't care for as part of his work for the Hudson Institute.

You claimed it wasn't harmful, but then the pages you link to interchange harmful exposure and smoking related mortality. Second hand smoke doesn't have to kill you to cause you harm.

Here is an excellent piece on the subject matter.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7413/502-a

Here are more peer reviewed studies available for your browsing.

Enstrom JE, Kabat, GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98. BMJ 2003;326: 1057. (17 May.)

Lam TH, Leung GM, Ho LM. The effects of environmental tobacco smoke on health services utilization in the first eighteen months of life. Pediatrics 2001;107: e91.

Peters J, Hedley AJ, Wong CM, Lam TH, Ong SG, Liu J, et al. Effects of an ambient air pollution intervention and environmental tobacco smoke on children's respiratory health in Hong Kong. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25: 821-8.

McGhee SM, Adab P, Hedley AJ, Lam TH, Ho LM, Fielding R, et al. Passive smoking at work: the short term cost. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000;54: 673-6.

McGhee SM, Hedley AJ, Ho LM. Passive smoking and its impact on employers and employees in Hong Kong. Occup Environ Med 2002;59: 842-6.

Eisner M, Smith AK, Blanc PD. Bartenders' respiratory health after establishment of smoke-free bars and taverns. JAMA 1998; 280:1909- 1914.

Now of course most of THOSE studies won't be found on your pro-smoking blogs, because they simply choose to ignore studies they don't like.

"Anyone can concoct a study to say whatever he/she wants or to fit any agenda you can imagine."

As the two blogs you linked to clearly showed.

"You are in the fringe minority. Zoning ordinances, mandatory recycling for businesses, how much clothing a stripper has to wear, etc etc are egregious examples of government overstepping its bounds and are exactly what I'm referring to. Thanks for bringing them up."

Well the Courts have ruled time and time again that the government is well within their rights to do such things. And the general public hasn't exactly been rallying behind the idea to change that. Therefore it would appear that it is you who are in "the fringe"

Your Ad hominem attacks won't negate that your arguments are flimsy and based on two websites run by people with no scientific background in the subject matter at hand. I gave you a dozen peer reviewed studies as an example of the overwhleming amount of data that we have in regards to secondhand smoke.

" A strip club is NOT A PUBLIC PLACE. Nor is a restaurant, bar, shopping mall, etc. When did everyone start thinking these are public places? They. Are. Not."

I have also cited clear legal precedent in regards to the Government's right to regulate smoking in restaurants, bars, and workplaces. As to your argument that a bar is not a public place, and therefore should not be regulated, I will point you to the case of Marsh V. Alabama. In Marsh, the Supreme Court stated:

"the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

[Charlotteman]

Another point I find worthy of discussion here, is the inevitability of marijuana's legalization. Maybe no time soon, but believe you me the whole world is moving in that direction.

So when MJ is legal, do you "small government" folks think restaurants/bars/shoppes/offices should be able to craft their own policies about smoking MJ in their establishments? Or should the government step in and regulate all public smoking--tobacco and marijuana?

Of course this is all hypothetical:) But worthy of discussion. I believe in legalization of drugs, but I do not think they should be used in public places. Same with cigs. Keep 'em legal, just restrict public use of it.

[cinco]

EDIT:

You are in the fringe minority. Zoning ordinances, mandatory recycling for businesses, how much clothing a stripper has to wear, etc etc are egregious examples of government overstepping its bounds and are exactly what I'm referring to. Thanks for bringing them up.

i understand your point about the government overstepping it's bounds and i appreciate "freedom" fanatics for pointing out examples... however, sometimes the overstepping is warranted. i mean mandatory recycling for businesses... thats not as much as overstepping its bounds as it is controlling a problem of waste management... which effects everyone. i think some people get defensive when the government actually appears to be smarter than them. like the law of wearing seat belts. common sense (and a dash of physics) would tell you that being restrained in a car crash will more often than not help save your life. just like breathing in smoke of any kind would be counter intuitive to common sense.

[Pillsbury]

^ Yeah, but, as smoker I understand that my right to smoke a cigarette (or a joint) should not infringe on another person's right to breath clean air. No one is trying to take away your right to smoke at home. It's a health code issue. The government would not let a food establishment serve spoiled food. Why? Because that food would harm whoever ate it. Even the most conservative of people support health inspections because it protects them, even if it goes against a free market economy. It's the same in this instance, the government has a duty to protect its citizens. I'm sorry, but smoking at TGI Friday's is not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

[Charlotte_native]

But if the owner of TGI Fridays wants to allow smoking and his patrons do too, then why does the government have a right to not allow it. Those that dislike smoke and smoking can boycott the business owners that choose this legal option for their business.

[Pillsbury]

^ I see your point and it's a good one. But it's not merely a matter of liking or disliking cigarette smoke. This a health issue plain and simple. Cigarettes cause you to die. They cause the people around you to die. When you open your business to the public then you bring yourself under the scrutiny of the government. The government mandates that all citizens have a right to enter your business and not be subjected to excessive harm--a restaurant that allows cigarette smoking is not fulfilling that duty to its government, and a government which allows it is not fulfilling its duty to its citizens.

[Charlotte_native]

^ I see your point and it's a good one. But it's not merely a matter of liking or disliking cigarette smoke. This a health issue plain and simple. Cigarettes cause you to die. They cause the people around you to die. When you open your business to the public then you bring yourself under the scrutiny of the government. The government mandates that all citizens have a right to enter your business and not be subjected to excessive harm--a restaurant that allows cigarette smoking is not fulfilling that duty to its government, and a government which allows it is not fulfilling its duty to its citizens.

Alcohol can cause you to die. You might wreck your car, yes it is illegal to drive and drink but it is quite commonplace. You could die from liver damage from drinking. People lose control and fight when drunk. The government still allows this in "public" places.

Killing someone else by drinking and driving is more immediate than a slow death by inhaling second hand smoke for years. How long must one be exposed to second hand smoke to die from it? It is quite a long time, long enough for even a non-intelligent person to leave the smokey area and save themself.

My point is simple --where do we draw the line from government intrusion into our personal lives? I still say if I choose to open a business and want my patrons to be able to choose, it is wrong to not allow it. We can agree to disagree (and I'll say again, I don't smoke so I really don't care personally).

If the government needs to regulate anything that might be a health issue i think triple layer burgers from Wendys need to go. Obesity kills too.

[Pillsbury]

I'm with you on most of that okay. Again, I smoke. But cigarettes, unlike are alcohol, are the only products on earth that when you use them properly you and those around you die.

[Charlotteman]

People that clamor for the right to light up anywhere they see fit exhibit the worse form of self-centeredness.

An absolute disregard for their own health, as well as the health of those around them.

All public smoking bans do is inconvenience smokers!! The right to smoke would still be there---you would just have to do it in your home or car. Is that really so much to ask?

[Charlotte_native]

People that clamor for the right to light up anywhere they see fit exhibit the worse form of self-centeredness.

An absolute disregard for their own health, as well as the health of those around them.

All public smoking bans do is inconvenience smokers!! The right to smoke would still be there---you would just have to do it in your home or car. Is that really so much to ask?

I only think it is when you tell businesses owned by private individuals that they can't allow it. If it is my business it is mine -- I personally feel this is quite an intrusion and wonder where it ends. If you don't like to smell smoke or risk your health with smoke, don't go to places where people do it. I don't. I avoid smokey crowed bars all the time without begrudging the yellow teethers that choose to go there and light up.

To me this isn't about the smoker being inconsiderate or self-centered, it is about the government taking one more step to dictate parts of our lives that should be left up to us. Nothing more. If so many people want non-smoking environmenets, why are they not opening non-smoking businesses?

[Charlotteman]

Folks here on UP that are opposed to smoking bans frequently mention they are opposed to oppressive governmental intrusion into the affairs of private businesses.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the anti-government folks here pick and choose what they support big government regulating....like topless dancing mentioned before. Like the government regulating when bars must close, when booze can and can't be sold.

If the govt can regulate these basic things, why is it so outlandish to think govt should regulate public smoking as well?

[almondjoy]

I only think it is when you tell businesses owned by private individuals that they can't allow it. If it is my business it is mine -- I personally feel this is quite an intrusion and wonder where it ends. If you don't like to smell smoke or risk your health with smoke, don't go to places where people do it. I don't. I avoid smokey crowed bars all the time without begrudging the yellow teethers that choose to go there and light up.

To me this isn't about the smoker being inconsiderate or self-centered, it is about the government taking one more step to dictate parts of our lives that should be left up to us. Nothing more. If so many people want non-smoking environmenets, why are they not opening non-smoking businesses?

Exactly. Reverband and I could go round and round with endless studies, but the point is exactly that. The fact is, most people don't care, and those facilities do not survive.

A ban should be left up to business owners, not imposed by big government. If its what everyone wants, it will happen anyway. Ahh...the beauty of free market economies.

[Charlotteman]

Many municipalities throughout the States have enacted smoking bans, and bars and restaurants in those cities typically report an increase in business. So I don't see any potential disruption to businesses, if a ban were enacted.

This has been a very enlightening thread, but I fear we strayed off course from the original spirit of the thread. Most of us here have focussed on the political/governmental/health aspects of this question.

The original question was would a public smoking ban fly in Charlotte. Charlotte's proximity to cigarette production and tobacco farming might seem a roadblock to a public ban. I think this was the intent of the original question, not all the ramifications of a smoking ban in general:)

Personally I think Charlotte can tactfully remove itself from the allure of big tobacco and do the wise thing--enact a public smoking ban.

[Charlotte_native]

Folks here on UP that are opposed to smoking bans frequently mention they are opposed to oppressive governmental intrusion into the affairs of private businesses.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the anti-government folks here pick and choose what they support big government regulating....like topless dancing mentioned before. Like the government regulating when bars must close, when booze can and can't be sold.

If the govt can regulate these basic things, why is it so outlandish to think govt should regulate public smoking as well?

Government regulates theses other things (strippers, alcohol) by providing public places where they CAN be done. You aren't confined to your home to drink or watch topless dancing. If a business wants these things they can have them with restrictions and permits.

[cinco]

dear abby,

well, i finally got a new office @ work. right down the hall from the ceo of the company - i was a happy man. that lasted about 2hrs.

let me explain: my job requires alot of audio/visual review - so i tend to keep my door shut as to not bother others. the problem with the new office is that i don't have a vent - so it gets super hot in the office. no problem - i figured every hour or so i'd open the door for a few minutes to let in some cool air. here is the kicker: the ceo of the company smokes like a chimney with his office door open - and a f@%king fan blowing the smoke out of his office into everybody elses world. what the holy hell??!!

just last year this place built a nice new smokers lounge so, everyone could kick back in nice new chairs, catch 15 min. of springer and slowly kill themselves... and i have no problem with that. but, this is crazy.

the first thing i did was look up the north carolina laws on this type of situation. i assumed this was a no-brainer, that surely my health was protected @ work for chrissakes... i mean SMOKERS are the one who are having their liberties trampled on, right? screw that!

of course, no law exsists (@ least that i can tell) in this tobacco, pimped-out state. don't get me wrong, i like my job just fine and the ceo is a swell guy... i just find it OUTRAGEOUS that this kinda thing is legal.

i like to drink ocassionally... does that mean i can walk up to people with a mouth full of alcohol and spit it in their mouth... not much difference - if you ask me.

any insight would be apprectiated??

sincerely,

smoked out in charlotte

(btw, my immediate boss isn't in this week - so it looks like i'll be dealing with this until then. at which time i will ask to be moved)

[Larryfla]

Die hard countries with smokers, I.E., the U.K. and Ireland have banned smoking in public places. They thought it could never be done. Charlotte has less smokers than any city in the U.K. or Ireland, surely banning smoking in public places (restaurants, clubs, etc) is the destiny of the near future. Come on, there is nothing positive about breathing cigarette smoke. IN cities like San Francisco and other major cities that thought that there maybe a detrimental affect on business found the opposite. My wife and I were in Charlotte a few weeks ago. We love it there. The only bad thing is that it is smoky in too many places. It is the 21st century, lets protect our health and keep smoking outside.

[mad_park]

Denver and Toronto are 2 cities I've visited that banned smoking in restaurants and I thought it was great. Certainly didn't hurt business in either. Charlotte should follow suit.

[Charlotte_native]

We hopped in a cab last Wednesday night to go to a friends condo in 1st Ward (it was raining, normally I'd walk). The cabbie was smoking A CIGAR with the windows rolled up. I rolled mine down and he asked "is the smoke bothering you...". It was unbelievable that he would even think it wouldn't bother someone.

[mad_park]

Once had a cabbie light up a cigarette while taking 5 of us (3 in the back and 2 in the front w/ him) to a rehearsal dinner. Everyone was in evening attire and the boor didn't even consider that we didn't want our clothing to stink when we arrived.

[jfuptown]

Die hard countries with smokers, I.E., the U.K. and Ireland have banned smoking in public places. They thought it could never be done. Charlotte has less smokers than any city in the U.K. or Ireland, surely banning smoking in public places (restaurants, clubs, etc) is the destiny of the near future. Come on, there is nothing positive about breathing cigarette smoke. IN cities like San Francisco and other major cities that thought that there maybe a detrimental affect on business found the opposite. My wife and I were in Charlotte a few weeks ago. We love it there. The only bad thing is that it is smoky in too many places. It is the 21st century, lets protect our health and keep smoking outside.

[Raintree21]

I wonder if an online petition would do anything to influence the city leaders?