Jump to content

Smoking Ban in Charlotte?


monsoon

Smoking Ban in Charlotte?  

80 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the city/county Ban Smoking in Restaurants and Bars?

    • No - Property owner should decide
      17
    • Yes - there is nothing good about smoking
      61
    • No Opinion
      2
  2. 2. Is this possible in a North Carolina city?

    • No - this is still tobaccoland
      7
    • Yes - Charlotte sings to a different tune
      73


Recommended Posts

If they wish to ban smoking from restaurants and bars, this takes away the "right" of the business owner to run their business allowing something THAT IS LEGAL from being done there. Why are the rights of the non-smoker more important than that of the smoker? If a ban is to be implemented, then there should be a measure or permit for a business to opt-out. Call these "smoking bars" or "cancer restaurants". Those that don't like smoke can avoid these and there likely will be few of them -- but those that actually do like to smoke can band together and enjoy themselves.

I don't smoke and think it is nasty as hell. It stinks, it makes the smoker stink, obviously is bad for you, and nothing says sexy like yellow teeth. But I also don't care if someone chooses to do this to themself. I do understand that others should not be subjected to wafting smoke in their environment. Make places like the airport -- with their little aquarium cubicles that look like a smoky paradise if you really must get a nic-fix. I would imagine in those you really don't have to smoke to get the same pleasure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Why are the rights of the non-smoker more important than that of the smoker?

...or those of the business owner?

Well said. They aren't! Yet in an incredible display of arrogance, non-smokers everywhere can't wait to walk all over the LEGITIMATE rights of business owners, in favor of imaginary rights like "the right to breathe clean air". Unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...or those of the business owner?

Well said. They aren't! Yet in an incredible display of arrogance, non-smokers everywhere can't wait to walk all over the LEGITIMATE rights of business owners, in favor of imaginary rights like "the right to breathe clean air". Unbelievable.

From the thread on UP regarding the pollution in Charlotte, I think the "right" to breathe clean air is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...or those of the business owner?

Well said. They aren't! Yet in an incredible display of arrogance, non-smokers everywhere can't wait to walk all over the LEGITIMATE rights of business owners, in favor of imaginary rights like "the right to breathe clean air". Unbelievable.

Almond Joy: Rights are granted by Statute, as interpreted by Judicial review. IN the case of nonsmokers' rights, the courts have been incredibly clear.

Please see my ealier reply where it was cleared explained that property rights do not supercede public health. The courts have ruled numerous times in favor of allowing the outright banning of smoking in public places.

And actually the courts HAVE ruled, in hagan Vs Axelrod for example , that a person does have the right to breathe clean air. At the same time they had this to say about the "right" to smoke:

"there is no more a fundamental right

to smoke cigarettes than there is to shoot-up or snort

heroin or cocaine." A right is fundamental "if it is

deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition or

so ingrained in concept of ordered liberty that neither

justice nor liberty would exist if it were impaired."

Courts have consistently held that protecting people from exposure to secondhand smoke is a valid use of the State's police power, thereby furthering a legitimate government purpose.

The rights of business owners themselves have been clearly defined in relation to smoking bans through cases such as Justiana v. Niagara County Department of Health.

"Businesses dependent in whole or part on patronage

by smokers, and those who invest in such businesses

and seek to make their livelihoods from them, have

long been on notice that the value of their investments,

and implicitly, the ability to profit from such businesses,

may be affected adversely by continuing governmental

efforts to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke."

"The restaurant and bar business is regulated from

door to dumpster. Those who do business in [a]

regulated field cannot object if the legislative scheme

is buttressed by subsequent amendments to achieve

the legislative end."

SO in the end it is in fact the smokers, not nonsmokers, who do not rights. Business owners are also subject to regulation, in whatever form the Government deems necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reverbandwhiskey, I totally get your point but this part is interesting

"there is no more a fundamental right to smoke cigarettes than there is to shoot-up or snort heroin or cocaine."

Cigarettes are a legal product - the comparison to heroin or cocaine is bizarre to me. There seems to be a contradiction in attitude about this product that I can't rationalize. If its so bad for the public that people shouldn't even be in the vicinity when its used then why allow the sale of the product at all? By allowing its sale I think that that's a valid reason for allow some kind of medium - like Charlotte_native said - allow businesses like bars & restaurants to opt to be either smoking or smoke free and let the consumer make the choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reverbandwhiskey, I totally get your point but this part is interesting

Cigarettes are a legal product - the comparison to heroin or cocaine is bizarre to me. There seems to be a contradiction in attitude about this product that I can't rationalize. If its so bad for the public that people shouldn't even be in the vicinity when its used then why allow the sale of the product at all? By allowing its sale I think that that's a valid reason for allow some kind of medium - like Charlotte_native said - allow businesses like bars & restaurants to opt to be either smoking or smoke free and let the consumer make the choice.

The legality of an item does give its own carte blanche to do whatever they please with it. You can't let your 10 year old drive your car. You can't waive a handgun over your head in a movie theater. You can't blast your stereo at three in the morning in an apartment. You can't convert your house into a rendering plant. etc etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point. But I think the efforts to limit the ability of legal purchasers of this particular legal product to use it in a private establishments -particulary in regards to restaurants, bars, dance clubs - is over the top. What would be the reason for not giving these kinds of businesses the option of choosing to be smoking or smoke free and letting the consumer make the choice? Someone like Arlyn15 would surely take their business to the smoke free bar.

No property rights do not supercede public health but in the case of cigarettes if they are so bad for the public health then why allow their sale at all? Clearly these decisions are made on a case by case basis. I just don't see the case for banning cigarette smoking in every public place as being strong. If health is the concern then ban the sale of this dangerous product. The government has the power to do that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does one find this "right" codified?

It's amazing how many "rights" people are willing to make up to support their cause....I guess they fill in for property rights, which seem to have somehow vanished into thin air.

I honestly believe that smoking should be made illegal if not for the simple fact that it causes great health concerns both sides of the fence, the ones who smoke and the ones who do not. There have been countless times where I've pulled up to a stop light only to notice that in the SUV next to me the windows are up, there is a baby in a carseat in the back, and one of the individuals in the front is smoking. Who has the right? The smoker or the baby who has no choice? Unfortunately the baby stands a great chance of picking up a cigarette just because he/she has grown up with the outlook that it is ok to do so since his parents have done so.

I do try to stay away from restaurants who allow smoking. Just this past Sunday I ate lunch at a great locally owned mexican restaurant that has "NO SMOKING" printed in large text on the entrance doors. I applaud this move but the problem is that most restaurants, especially chains, do not follow this trend. If the government were to enforce it, it would create a level playing field for the entire industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to interpret the logic of "a legal product being used in a restaurant" etc

Booze is legal, but it is not allowed to be consumed just anywhere~~~a business owner can't decide one day that since booze is legal, he will sell it in his dress shoppe for instance.

Gambling is legal---in Las Vegas, state lotteries, etc, but a business owner can't just assume he can put slot machines in his store because gambling is legal.

Just because cigarettes are a legal product doesn't mean that there is absolute freedom to use it or sell it anywhere.

Employers of all stripes are not allowed to put employees at risk with chemical poisons, chemical contamination, unsafe worksites.....second hand cigarette smoke is highly dangerous. As dubone said earlier, this is a no brainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to interpret the logic of "a legal product being used in a restaurant" etc

Booze is legal, but it is not allowed to be consumed just anywhere~~~a business owner can't decide one day that since booze is legal, he will sell it in his dress shoppe for instance.

Gambling is legal---in Las Vegas, state lotteries, etc, but a business owner can't just assume he can put slot machines in his store because gambling is legal.

Just because cigarettes are a legal product doesn't mean that there is absolute freedom to use it or sell it anywhere.

Employers of all stripes are not allowed to put employees at risk with chemical poisons, chemical contamination, unsafe worksites.....second hand cigarette smoke is highly dangerous. As dubone said earlier, this is a no brainer.

I think the freedom issues comes from not allowing bars or restaurants to choose or have an option. You can apply for, and if you qualify get, a permit to sell alcohol. Other businesses can actually give alcohol away if they don't sell it, and to people of age, without a permit. Many salons and spas do. So do many dress shoppes actually -- stop by Lotus on the corner of Central and Pecan or on East Blvd.

As for gambling, it is simply illegal in most states (we won't get into the state lottery) so it is simply off limits and is different.

If they don't want smoking, just make it illegal. If it is legal, allow me to allow it in my place of business if I choose and if my business qualifies (I stated earlier I think they should have the ban, but make establishments get permits and be clearly "smoking optional" if the business owner wants to run that risk of losing non-smoking clients). Your employees would choose or not choose to work there. I'm not advocating second hand smoke is good, the mixed message of legal activity slowly being, shall we say, choked out is tacky at best. Just make the cancer sticks illegal (so the criminals could then provide them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A smoking ban is essentially only a mild inconvenience for smokers. They can still puff their lungs into smitherines, just not in public places.

People have to wait til they get home to have a drink (if they're driving), people must wait until they get home before getting passionate with a lover, people must wait til they get home to use the bathroom (if no decent one can be found in public)

So what is the big deal about smokers enjoying their cigs at home, or in their car if they so choose?

Why should smokers have carte blanche to pollute everyone else's air~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely not. I'm not a smoker, and I hate smelling like smoke when I leave a restaurant or bar, but that's not what this is about. Government has no business whatsoever invading property rights like this. Open market forces decide things like this, not lobbyists and career politicians.

If you don't like the smoke, DON'T GO THERE.

I completely agree. More Government is NEVER the answer. Our already bloated bureaucracy has grown without cessation since WWII. That is a mighty long time. More regulations and rules and so forth stifle innovation and the entrepreneur spirit. There are other answers to this. Smoking sections don't do much, that is true, but an entirely seperate section closed off, or a smoking room or lounge would suffice I would imagine. Perhaps we will see the same buildings divided up into a smoking/non smoking sections in the future. I do think non smokers' rights must be protected, as I am a non smoker, but if people are going to smoke, and they are, and we are going to allow it, which it seems we must, then we cannot force them into a hole. We're going to have to make room for them somewhere, they can't be imprisoned in thier own homes. Funny how some on the extreme left wing want to ban smoking almost everywhere, yet support legalizing Marijuana. Kind of like the "don't hurt the whales!" outcry, yet they wouldn't think twice about aborting a baby. That's Berkeley style logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I believe in legalization of all drugs AND a ban on public cigarette smoking.

I hate cigs with a passion--the smoke makes me so ill. But I don't want to make cigarettes illegal. I just don't want to be exposed to the smoke when I'm in public.

The same with other drugs---legalize 'em all, just don't smoke weed in public, don't shoot up on the sidewalk (do it at home along with cigarette smoking!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for less regulation, the private enterprise, and less government, but smoking bans are a good thing.

I liken it to making driving while intoxicated illegal - bystanders can get hurt. If second hand smoke hurts others who are not smoking (that's what second hand smoke is by definition), it shouldn't be permitted in public. Period. Consumption of alcohol is legal, but not without its limits. Smoking should be treated similarly.

Certainly, I'm biased. I just plain hate the smell of cigarettes, and I hate going to a restaurant and having some teenagers chain smoke the next table over. :Suffocation:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for less regulation, the private enterprise, and less government, but smoking bans are a good thing.

I liken it to making driving while intoxicated illegal - bystanders can get hurt. If second hand smoke hurts others who are not smoking (that's what second hand smoke is by definition), it shouldn't be permitted in public. Period. Consumption of alcohol is legal, but not without its limits. Smoking should be treated similarly.

Certainly, I'm biased. I just plain hate the smell of cigarettes, and I hate going to a restaurant and having some teenagers chain smoke the next table over. :Suffocation:

First, there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is detrimental to one's health.

Second, do you really want government to legislate against things people hate or find annoying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is detrimental to one's health.

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you're wrong.

Second, yes.

What a well-thought out rebuttal! For every study you point to saying second hand smoke is bad for you, I'll point to one saying it isn't. The sad truth is that no one knows, and the Surgeon General's word is NOT gospel.

Second, thank god you're in the fringe minority and have no idea what you just said really means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the biological response to second hand smoke is coughing, and therefore our own body is telling us it is bad for us.

Also, I still recall in 6th grade science class, when we were disecting cow parts, that the teacher took a syringe, lit a cigarette, sucked smoke into the syringe and then put it into a cow lung. Then he cut it open to reveal the results of just a single breath of cigarette smoke. In the lung that received the smoke, there were blood red spots all throughout, and some cells turned black. In the lung that did not, everything was a uniform pink.

Cigarette smoke is harmful to health after long periods, regardless of first or second or third hand. I don't think it is the biggest health crisis, but it is certain worth limiting the amounts of smoke indoors in places where people crowd near eachother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a well-thought out rebuttal! For every study you point to saying second hand smoke is bad for you, I'll point to one saying it isn't. The sad truth is that no one knows, and the Surgeon General's word is NOT gospel.

Second, thank god you're in the fringe minority and have no idea what you just said really means.

Says the person who chose to ignore my point by point rebuttal several posts ago.

We as a society regulate almost every aspect of property ownership. Please see my earlier post for more details. Please do nto insult me by implying that I don't know what I am talking about. Since the public has gone along with zoning ordinances, noise laws, pet restrictions, mandatory recycling for businesses, restrictions on the serving of alochol, how much clothing a stripper has to wear, etc etc it would seem that I am not in the "fringe minority."

As to the effects of second hand smoke, please actually READ a few studies on the matter:

A good starting point would be:

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2003. Atlanta, GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Current Intelligence Bulletin 54: Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace - Lung Cancer and Other Health Effects. 1991.

Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; 1992. (Report # EPA/600/6-90/006F)

Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, Brody DJ, Etzel RA, Maurer KR. Exposure of the US population to environmental tobacco smoke: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991. JAMA. 1996;275(16):1233-40.

Steenland K. Passive smoking and the risk of heart disease JAMA. 1992;267:94-99.

US Department of Health and Human Services. 10th Report on Carcinogens. Public Health Service - National Toxicology Program. 2002. Available online at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc10.html. Accessed November 2003.

US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 1986. (Publication # HPS 87-8398)

Or how about how the tobacco industry themselves say that it is harmful to certain segments of our population:

"Secondhand Smoke and Adults

Considering all of the evidence, in our opinion, it seems unlikely that secondhand smoke presents any significant harm to otherwise healthy nonsmoking adults at the very low concentrations commonly encountered in homes, offices and other places where smoking is allowed.

We recognize that exposure to high concentrations of secondhand smoke may cause temporary irritation, such as teary eyes, and even coughs and wheezing in some adults. In addition, there is evidence that secondhand smoke, like other airborne irritants, or allergens such as pollen and dust, may trigger attacks in asthmatics. Given the potential for these effects, we believe that people who don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke should avoid it and should have little difficulty in doing so.

Secondhand Smoke and Children

Many studies have reported that young children in smoking households have an increased incidence of respiratory problems, such as bronchitis, asthma and middle-ear infections. Some studies have also reported that secondhand smoke is one of many factors that have been identified as possibly contributing to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Based on the overall body of scientific evidence, common sense dictates, and we believe, that parents and others should avoid exposing infants and young children to tobacco smoke and other airborne irritants."

That was taken from RJR Tobacco's own website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: anyone know why the quote function isn't working here?

We as a society regulate almost every aspect of property ownership. Please see my earlier post for more details. Please do nto insult me by implying that I don't know what I am talking about. Since the public has gone along with zoning ordinances, noise laws, pet restrictions, mandatory recycling for businesses, restrictions on the serving of alochol, how much clothing a stripper has to wear, etc etc it would seem that I am not in the "fringe minority."

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.

Pet and alcohol restrictions make sense as they actually serve to protect the general public from something potentially very harmful (drunk youths/drivers, rabid rottweilers, etc).

As to the effects of second hand smoke, please actually READ a few studies on the matter:

Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; 1992. (Report # EPA/600/6-90/006F)

Would that be this study? Hmm...so much for that.

If you can point me to online versions of the others, I'll be tickled to death to debunk them as well.

For now, here's a good start for you to open your eyes:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Make sure you read thoroughly, and try not to get too angry about your precious big government failing you again.

There's too much juicy goodness there to post here, so I'll just link them.

Or how about how the tobacco industry themselves say that it is harmful to certain segments of our population:

"Secondhand Smoke and Adults

Considering all of the evidence, in our opinion, it seems unlikely that secondhand smoke presents any significant harm to otherwise healthy nonsmoking adults at the very low concentrations commonly encountered in homes, offices and other places where smoking is allowed.

We recognize that exposure to high concentrations of secondhand smoke may cause temporary irritation, such as teary eyes, and even coughs and wheezing in some adults. In addition, there is evidence that secondhand smoke, like other airborne irritants, or allergens such as pollen and dust, may trigger attacks in asthmatics. Given the potential for these effects, we believe that people who don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke should avoid it and should have little difficulty in doing so.

Did you even read that before you pasted it? The first paragraph is contradictory to your point. As for the second...well, I'm allergic to cats, should we ban those too? Or MAYBE, just maybe....wait for it....

I should avoid places that have cats? *GASP!* The horror!

Want to ban it because of temporary irritation? Riiiight. The end of Friday Night Lights gave me teary eyes, let's ban that too! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Secondhand Smoke and Children

Many studies have reported that young children in smoking households have an increased incidence of respiratory problems, such as bronchitis, asthma and middle-ear infections. Some studies have also reported that secondhand smoke is one of many factors that have been identified as possibly contributing to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Based on the overall body of scientific evidence, common sense dictates, and we believe, that parents and others should avoid exposing infants and young children to tobacco smoke and other airborne irritants."

That was taken from RJR Tobacco's own website.

RJR was required as part of a lawsuit settlement to post that on its site. "Many studies have reported...Some studies have also reported...." Anyone can concoct a study to say whatever he/she wants or to fit any agenda you can imagine.

The only reason to keep your kids away from it is so they don't become FIRST-HAND SMOKERS.

Unfortunately, with all that effort, you've really said nothing of substance. Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.