Jump to content

Mecklenburg County wants to Ban Smoking in Restaurants


monsoon

Mecklenburg County wants to Ban Smoking in Restaurants  

115 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Mecklenburg County ban smoking in restaurants?

    • No
      29
    • Yes
      86
  2. 2. Now that Mecklenburg has determined that it is unhealthy, will you go to restaurants that allow smokers?

    • No
      37
    • Yes
      78


Recommended Posts

Uhh, since the 60s all packs of cigarettes have required warnings that usage will give you diseases that will kill you. These are two of them.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, and Low Birth Weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think in time that cigarettes will be banned in the US. I think what we're seeing now is a slow evolution towards that with them being banned in workplaces, restaurants, etc. It is impossible to paint a rosey picture about cigarette use when they contain all of these toxins:

Here are just the 11 most toxic substances:

Acetone - A flammable, colorless liquid used as a

solvent. It's one of the active ingredients in nail polish

remover. The tobacco industry refuses to say how

acetone gets into cigarettes.

Ammonia - A colorless, pungent gas. The tobacco

industry says that it adds flavor, but scientists have

discovered that ammonia helps you absorb more

nicotine - keeping you hooked on smoking.

Arsenic - A silvery-white very poisonous chemical

element. This deadly poison is used to make

insecticides, and it is also used to kill gophers and rats.

Benzene - A flammable liquid obtained from coal tar

and used as a solvent. This cancer-causing chemical is

used to make everything from pesticides to detergent to

gasoline.

Benzoapyrene - A yellow crystalline carcinogenic

hydrocarbon found in coal tar and cigarette smoke. It's

one of the most potent cancer-causing chemicals in the

world.

Butane - A hydrocarbon used as a fuel. Highly

flammable butane is one of the key ingredients in

gasoline.

Cadmium - A metallic chemical element used in alloys.

This toxic metal causes damage to the liver, kidneys,

and the brain; and stays in your body for years.

Formaldehyde - A colorless pungent gas used in

solution as a disinfectant and preservative. It causes

cancer; damages your lungs, skin and digestive system.

Embalmers use it to preserve dead bodies.

Lead - A heavy bluish-gray metallic chemical element.

This toxic heavy metal causes lead poisoning, which

stunts your growth, and damages your brain. It can

easily kill you.

Propylene Glycol - A sweet hygroscopic viscous liquid

used as antifreeze and as a solvent in brake fluid. The

tobacco industry claims they add it to keep cheap

"reconstituted tobacco" from drying out, but scientists

say it aids in the delivery of nicotine (tobaccos active

drug) to the brain.

Turpentine - A colorless volatile oil. Turpentine is very

toxic and is commonly used as a paint thinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is not whether smoking is good for you. Whatever the health risks, cigarettes are a legal product for sale in this country.

Imo, the issue is where this legal product can be used. My contention is that it the government and non smokers are overstepping their bounds by trying to limit cigarette use to the degree that they are considering that cigarette are legal. .Its unnecessary. As a citizen I'm more than capable of demonstrating my personal preferences through my actions. I don't smoke - that's my choice. I am more than capable on my own of choosing a restaurant or bar on that basis. I will happily avoid places where smoking is accepted if I had that option.

If there are people who want to smoke in a social setting why should I care they have a bar, club or restaurant where they can do so? I don't have to go there. I still have not received a logical explanation (to me) for why there can't be smoking and non smoking bars, restaurants and clubs and then let the people decide which places they want to go instead of banning it in all these social places for everyone. Its not a plane, its not a sports arena, its not a work environment, its not public transportation - its a restaurant, its a bar, its a club. If you don't like the decor, the service, the atmosphere, the location, the guests, the dress code or any other thing about these kinds of places - most normal people go elsewhere. We can do the same when it comes to places that allow smoking when we don't smoke.

I believe restaurants should have to make the choice to be either smoke free or smoke friendly and then let the chips fall where they may. If Mimosa Grill decides to be a smokers restaurant and I don't like it then I won't go. Or am I supposed to be entitled to eat at Mimosa Grill in a smoke free environment if the owners & other patrons are fine with a smoke filled one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, Columbia City Council voted 4-2 yesterday to ban smoking in public places. There's one more vote to iron out the details. Bars are going to lobby to be exempt claiming it will hurt their buisness, but all eating establishments will be smoke free. Ultimately I think the bars will win, thus remain smoker friendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at it this way, yes, even now restaurant owners have the option of not allowing smoking in their restaurant. However, they are less likely to do so because they are afraid they will lose business if they don't allow smoking. This assumption is probably correct. I believe the only reason it is good for the government to ban smoking at ALL restaurants is because smokers won't get the choice to take their business elsewhere. If they can't smoke at one restaurant, they won't leave it to go to another restaurant that does, simply because none of them will. Thus, I believe that by banning smoking in all restaurants, the government is protecting business owners who may have wanted to ban smoking, but were to afraid to do it. Business won't decrease if there isn't an alternative to smokers.

The only areas that could possibly hurt by this are those along the county's borders. Restaurants on the Meck side of the border may lose a little business to those on the Cabarrus, Gaston, York, Iredell, etc side. Other counties may eventually adopt this law as well, however, I severely doubt Cabarrus (home of Phillip Morris) ever will. So, for example, restaurants in University will lose a fraction of their business to those around Concord Mills and Harrisburg. That is, if smokers are willing to drive an extra four miles just to smoke while they eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit ironic that one of the largest cigarette factories in the entire world is located right outside Charlotte in Cabarrus county. The Phillip Morris facility makes many popular brands that are favored by smokers all around the world. I wonder how much this factory contributes to the Charlotte metro GDP and how much of this money ends up in Charlotte banks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only areas that could possibly hurt by this are those along the county's borders. Restaurants on the Meck side of the border may lose a little business to those on the Cabarrus, Gaston, York, Iredell, etc side. Other counties may eventually adopt this law as well, however, I severely doubt Cabarrus (home of Phillip Morris) ever will. So, for example, restaurants in University will lose a fraction of their business to those around Concord Mills and Harrisburg. That is, if smokers are willing to drive an extra four miles just to smoke while they eat.

I believe this will possibly increase their business as non-smokers in the surrounding counties will simply drive to the county that prohibits smoking. As a resident of Cabarrus County very close to the Mecklenburg county line, I would have no qualms driving the extra mile to have dinner in a completely smoke-free environment at any restaurant I choose. If what you say above is correct then restaurants in surrounding counties closer towards Mecklenburg County will increase their smoking customers and the county may end up giving in to non-smokers. I really do think this is simply going to end up being a domino effect all over the country, we're just seeing the start of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

I dont' think its the job of local government to prevent competition btwn businesses like bars, clubs, & restaurants on the basis of smoke free or smoke friendly by making them all smoke free. If people aren't willing to vote with their pockets and their feet when given a choice then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's not the job of government to make laws that affect the safety and well being of its citizens?

There are countless laws on the books designed to protect people from other people. The people hurting the others generally did not want to give up their rights to freely do ____.

Environmental laws always come against this type of counter-argument. But the reason it takes laws to do this is that most people are apathetic or accepting of the status quo. But when they are told they are dying or are sick because of what someone else put in their air or food or water, they suddenly wish they had a do-over.

The right to pollute is becoming obsolete when most people in this country are getting seriously ill from the toxic nature of almost everything around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) Okay, I'll come on. Sorry for the condescension.

But seriously, I think this government is as slow as molasses. I only think this issue is coming up now (only at the municipal level) is because it has taken an entire generation to get public opinion to this point where they are ready to really expect another increment of social change in this area.

I am not strong on this issue, but I think its time has come where is society is beginning to expect this rule.

There will never be a prohibition of alcohol or tobacco in this country, but I think modest cutbacks in interest of public health are very reasonable. There are already age and locale restrictions on both. Incrementally, the locale restrictions have been expanded and positive results have been found. I think it is a logical next step to let certain progressive municipalities add restaurants to the locale restrictions. (I'm just shocked that Mecklenburg can be included in that description).

Also, there are also rules starting to come about to curtain the serious health problem in food, transfats. NYC is considering a ban in restaurants because of the serious health problems being attributed to them. I wish that ban were being proposed here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a big difference btwn the government requiring that restaurants be sanitary and clean to prevent disease outbreaks and the government telling restaurant owners that they can only serve healthy food on their menus.

So is creating a smoke-free environment in a restaurant not helping to keep that restaurant sanitary? You can't tell me with a straight face that pollutants from cigarette smoke don't affect the sanitation of the food in those restaurants. The particles land right on the food, even in non-smoking sections, without the non-smoking customer being aware.

I suggest you read the "Answers to Common Objections to Smoke-Free Workplace Laws" fact sheet from The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. It goes over many of the unrealistic expectations you expect non-smokers to follow. There are many other PDF's related to the issue of the smoking ban in NYC on the main website here:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/smoke/tc1.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is voting to ban smoking in public places, the real infringement on democracy..... or is this?

2006 Ballot Measure Contributions

Top 10 Corporate Donors Amount

1. Philip Morris USA Inc. $30,420,081

2. Chevron Corporation $30,250,000

3. Aera Energy (ExxonMobile & Shell) $24,620,838

4. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company $22,781,513

5. Ca Hospitals Committee On Issues, Sponsored By CAHHS $9,916,673

6. Occidental Oil And Gas Corporation $9,350,000

7. U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. $2,121,799

8. California Alliance For Jobs Rebuild California Committee $1,800,000

9. Plains Exploration & Production Company $1,250,000

10. Commonwealth Brands, Inc. $1,250,000

TOTAL $132,510,903

.... interesting how things really work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I used to work in the restaurant business and normally your full service type places that are kind of expensive tend to score lower on health inspections because there is more preparation.

But my thing is, if I were a non-smoker, I would probably rather eat some food that was a little bad for me, than suck in poison. Not sure, but not too many people die from their restaurant experiences (except for the processed poision that they're serving everyone nowadays (i.e., transfats which most definately need to be banned) , but most people die from smoking.

So in retrospect, you can eat spoiled food and you probably won't die or even get cancer. Exposure to cigarettes on the other hand kills you slowly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a non-smoker.

I have issues with the government passing laws that intrude upon private businesses. This isn't, to me, about the rights of smokers or the rights on non-smokers but the right for me to own private property, own a business in that property, and to be told I can't allow my patrons to engage in LEGAL activity (in the sense that you can buy them -- why not take the BIG step and just make cigarettes illegal -- then this whole "issue" would be a moot point). Make businesses that allow smoking to get permits for it, do something, but to not allow me to have the type of atmosphere I choose, within the law, is complete and utter intrusion and the Bloomberg trans-fats thing just proves to me that this can open doors to more Big Bro.

Again, I can't stand going into smoky nasty bars and restaurants. For that reason I don't go there. If and when that impacts those places and they choose to go smoke-free, maybe I'll become a patron.

To everyone that is so upset about smoking in private businesses, BOYCOTT them. At what point does the public gain a "right" to demand a private business conform to their liking? Does it stop at smoking or can I demand more veggie dishes at Sullivan's? Maybe some pizza at the Chinese Buffet. We do create change and make demands by spending or not spending our money somewhere...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the arguement that business owners should be able to make this decision without governmental intrusion to be a very weak arguement.

The EPA is in place to protect Americans from many of the very poisons that are in cigarette smoke. Should a business owner be allowed to store formaldehyde in open cannisters in his bar, even if people "don't mind" and keep coming back? (yes formaldehyde can be found in cigarette smoke)

All sorts of poisonous substances are in cigarette smoke, and the government should step in and restrict it as a health hazard, not just for the customers' sake, but for employees as well.

We look to the government to protect us from all sorts of things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have issues with the government passing laws that intrude upon private businesses. This isn't, to me, about the rights of smokers or the rights on non-smokers but the right for me to own private property, own a business in that property, and to be told I can't allow my patrons to engage in LEGAL activity (in the sense that you can buy them -- why not take the BIG step and just make cigarettes illegal -- then this whole "issue" would be a moot point). "

Would you then be in favor of the removal of health inspections? How about anti-child labor laws? Workplace safety regulations?

Owning a business does not give one carte blanche to do what they want with it. A business is only open as long as we, as a community, allow to be through business licences. Businesses are regulated in almost every aspect of their existence. Banning smoking is simply an extension of that.

The courts have ruled on several occasions that there is no "right" to smoke, but that people do have a "right" to clean air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving businesses a choice would result in very few places being deemed "smoke free" by their owners. I see this as an all or nothing issue. That is why restaurants have smoking and non smoking sections - they are trying to cater to both groups. I don't see restaurants voluntarily closing out one segment or the other if the place next door lets them in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is my business, I will do with it what I want within the confines of the law. I am of the camp that believes in freedom. If you take the smoke out of my mouth after working my fingers to the bones 10 hours a day than what next?

If people that do not smoke want to segregate than so be it. If smokers want to kill themselves slowly than so be it. It is all a matter of CHOICE !!! If you take away choice you have no freedom.

As for Cigs in the Bar harming others, why the hell don't you ban the booze too. It KILLS Innocent people EVERYDAY! There are two sides to everything. If a business wants to allow his/her patrons to smoke than so be it, if not, than smokers need to take it outside (oh, my bad ,they are trying to ban that too <_< )

As for people giving me a load of health reasons why we should ban smokes than refer back to my last mini paragraph about alchoholics putting me in danger EVERYDAY ! I have lost one friend to a drunk driver and my Step Father is now permanantly disabled because of one! He and my mother have spent thousands out of their very own pocket for rehab and lost time at work because the jerk off who hit him had no Friggin Insurance.

That is two close people in my life who have died or have been severly altered due to drinking, however I KNOW OF NO ONE WHO IS DYING SOLELY OF SECOND HAND SMOKE!

I find it truly amazing in the poll above. I am almost speachless. It is good to know that we are all about Gov't control.

A2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you then be in favor of the removal of health inspections? How about anti-child labor laws? Workplace safety regulations?

Owning a business does not give one carte blanche to do what they want with it. A business is only open as long as we, as a community, allow to be through business licences. Businesses are regulated in almost every aspect of their existence. Banning smoking is simply an extension of that.

The courts have ruled on several occasions that there is no "right" to smoke, but that people do have a "right" to clean air.

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.