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

Smoke causes my allergies go wild. My eyes water and burns plus my nose dry out and burn. So if the city bands all smoking in public places I would be delighted.

The people who say second hand smoke does not affect people are wrong. For all heath concerns a band should have been in place a long time ago.

A smoker's rights end at my nose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

NY State banned smoking about 10 yrs ago in public restraunts, etc. It was nice to be able to go, and the sections for smoking and nonsmoking were completely split. The smoking sections would have walls and doors and would be isolated from the rest of the places. It was nice. I for one am not a smoker, not that I'm judging, but I also don't think it's fair for someone to be effected by something that is harmful if they don't have to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge difference in the government intervening in matters of eating unhealthy food and smoking. When one eats a triple layer burger, one is only hurting one's self. When one smokes in public, he/she is making it uncomfortable and unhealthy for others around them. It isn't so bad that it has long range effects, but there are lots of people that have respritory ailments and kids that have asthema, etc. These health problems are affected by cigarette smoke. As far as drawing the line, the government intervenes when citizens are not intelligent or considerate enought to act in a manner that protects the welfare of its citizens. Public smoking affects the health of citizens. Using the government interference excuse seems so desperate. For god's sake, modern cities of the world are banning smoke. You talk about Charlotte should be a progessive city, enhance that image by joining the banwagon and banning smoking in public. Let smoking be allowed in bars that only serve alcohol like in other cities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a restaurant wishes to continue smoking policies after an ordinance has been set in place, it can become a private restaurant or club. By being private, individuals know that there will be smokers. If it isn't, individuals will know they can enjoy a smoke free atmosphere. As I said earlier, London, Dublin, Stockholm, New York, San Francisco, and many other places can deal with their government siding with non-smokers, surely Charlotte can show some class too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean an online petition that garners enough signatures could show that the support is their by the public for a ban, which would hopefully convince the elected officials to make a change. They are there as our representatives and should make policies supported by the masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this rationale, can we not also ban driving in pedestrian areas? As a non-smoker and almost-non-driver, I'm pretty sure that I'm breathing a greater amount of toxin due to daily exposure to auto exhaust than from the occasional foray into a smoky bar. If nobody has the right to impose on my health in a public place, then we need to be focused more on cars than on cigars.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a restaurant wishes to continue smoking policies after an ordinance has been set in place, it can become a private restaurant or club. By being private, individuals know that there will be smokers. If it isn't, individuals will know they can enjoy a smoke free atmosphere. As I said earlier, London, Dublin, Stockholm, New York, San Francisco, and many other places can deal with their government siding with non-smokers, surely Charlotte can show some class too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read this over a few times and I just don't follow your logic... maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

1) A person makes the private choice to smoke a cigarrette, which is designed to emit deadly toxins to passers-by, in a public place. This imposes on their neighbor's right to clean air.

2) A person makes the private choice to drive a car, which is designed to emit deadly toxins to passers-by, in a public place. This imposes on their neighbor's right to clean air.

If we are saying that #1 is morally and legally unacceptable, it seems to me that #2 should also receive the same judgment. If #2 is a-ok, then so is #1... at least in terms of theoretical rights to toxin-free air in public places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(just following this up because I was a philosophy major in college... if this part of the discussion annoys you, you can stop reading now :) )

^ The analogy is a little off from my proposition, because I'm not arguing that drivers themselves should be banned; I'm only saying that people should be banned from pumping auto exhaust into pedestrian areas. Drivers (the people) would be welcome on any street they like, provided they are not piloting a vehicle that emits carcinogens into the lungs of everyone in the immediate vicinity. Similarly, smokers would be welcome in bars provided they are not holding a lit cigarrette at the time.

But this all depends on a hypothetical right to clean air that either does not exist or at least is not consistent with our behavior in arenas other than social interaction. The fact that smoking has become a great political football means our restaurants and bars are now smoke-free and healthy, yet 95% of the population sits behind cancer-spewing vehicles in deadlocked traffic on a daily basis. I imagine that most of us spend more time in cars than bars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with limiting freedoms, is that the nanny do-gooders always want to roll up the carpet further. I've seen articles about other cities trying to ban smoking in apartment complexes now, make it illegal to smoke in your car, etc.

I've never believed alarmist second hand smoke studies anyway. Maybe somebody that works every day in a smoke filled pool hall could get sick. But not most situations where you casually encounter some second hand smoke. It's like our never ending transit debates on here. Who paid for the studies? What was the bent of the researchers? It's a lot sexier to find some element of risk to a small minority than it is to say that most people will be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ i personally don't need a study. when i am in my office and am forced to breathe in second hand smoke - i get a pounding headache. that is enough for me.

look, i understand your concern that banning one thing might lead to a slippery slope and i agree that we should not let a ban go out of control into peoples personal freedoms... however, to totally dismiss "second smoke studies" as only alarmists - seems to equally be standing on a slippery slope.

there will always be some alarmism in passionate debates, but to throw the baby out with the bath water - is not a good practice. imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but comparing the situation with fumes from exhaust and smoking in restaurants is somewhat moronic. I am only asking that there be a vote in Charlotte to see if we can ban smoking in public places. If it will make those that compare vehicle exhause with cigarette smoking in public places happy, we can also vote on whether or not to ban cars. The analogy doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(just following this up because I was a philosophy major in college... if this part of the discussion annoys you, you can stop reading now :) )

^ The analogy is a little off from my proposition, because I'm not arguing that drivers themselves should be banned; I'm only saying that people should be banned from pumping auto exhaust into pedestrian areas. Drivers (the people) would be welcome on any street they like, provided they are not piloting a vehicle that emits carcinogens into the lungs of everyone in the immediate vicinity. Similarly, smokers would be welcome in bars provided they are not holding a lit cigarrette at the time.

But this all depends on a hypothetical right to clean air that either does not exist or at least is not consistent with our behavior in arenas other than social interaction. The fact that smoking has become a great political football means our restaurants and bars are now smoke-free and healthy, yet 95% of the population sits behind cancer-spewing vehicles in deadlocked traffic on a daily basis. I imagine that most of us spend more time in cars than bars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been many studies, government funded, state funded, etc. that show second-hand smoke is hazardous to our health, and it doesn't take much to have an effect. This is a fact, but I agree, me being around a smoke filled restraunt while I am trying to enjoy my food, making me and the nonsmokers around us is enough for me, and I don't even need the study to back me up. Other states have successfully allowed nonsmokers to be in public restraunts,bars, etc without being effected by smokers, at the same time, not forcing them to stop smoking. It's as easy as putting up a wall and filtering the smoke outside of the confined smoking areas, splitting smoking and non-smoking a little more protectively. That way you have a choice, the same choice that we have now when we enter a restraunt. There shouldn't even be a debate on this issue. There's already many success stories of solving this problem, and it's a small price to pay to protect the citizens of the state... Time for N.C. to get with the program and look at what other states have done some 5,10+ years ago (not like its some new technology or anything).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Paris is now smoke free in ALL public buildings (government buildings, offices, restaurants, bars, etc.).

The Observer listed out several "cool" places to get a drink that are smoke free in the downtown area:

  • Rustic Martini- 616 N. Tryon St.

  • Common Market- 2007 Commonwealth Ave.

  • Evening Muse- 3227 N. Davidson St.

  • Petra's Piano Bar and Cabaret- 1919 Commonwealth Ave.

  • Wine Up- 3306-C N. Davidson St.

  • Loft 1523- 1523 Elizabeth Ave.

  • Therapy- 401 N. Tryon St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lived in California for nearly eight years now and smoking has not been allowed in ANY public building (restaurants, bars, offices, etc. etc.) since before I moved hear. I'm not sure what year that was passed into law, but I sure am glad it was. No matter where I go or what building I enter, I don't have to breath in someone elses smoke.

The state of California just passed another law starting Jan. 1st that does not allow you to smoke in a car with a minor in it. More progressive common sense IMHO.

I was reading in the paper recently where more places across Europe are inacting smoking bans.

I think as time goes on, more states and cities across our great nation will be doing the same thing.

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.