Mecklenburg County wants to Ban Smoking in Restaurants

[dubone]

A little public health ordinance is not making a big government. I will bet there won't even be that much enforcement added to ensure 100% compliance.

It is just the next tiny step in trying to make our living environments less toxic.

I'm not militant about smoking. I mostly don't care, especially in a bar setting. But I do believe it is good public policy to have smokers get their fix primarily in the outdoors.

I am really not getting the big government thing. I am against bloated government bureacracies that are ineffective and expensive. But an ordinance that will pretty much be self governed will not have an associated big government.

I mean, I understand the anarchy argument, that societies can solve most problems without systems or laws. But typically that is done by killing offenders. That was how the American West was before laws and legal enforcement took root. A civilized legal system helps solve the problems without all the killings.

[schmopperX]

At the very least (if you're a non smoker), smoking is annoying and it stinks. I have the same rights to go to any establishment I want to and enjoy myself. I can't do that if there is nasty polluted air around me.

It's the same thing with any annoyance that interrupts you're enjoyment of a place or an event. If you're around people being obnoxious at an event you have the right to call security and have them removed. It's like that, only we just want the smoke removed.

It's really simple. You don't even have to believe smoking is a hazard to your health. It's just obnoxious.

[PlazaMidwoodGuy]

Why can't businesses make the choice for themselves? Smoke free or Smoke friendly - no in btwn. And let the chips fall where they may in terms of public support of smoking and non smoking establishments. I'm not a cigarette smoker and I came from a city where smoking was banned in restaurants/bars and I thought the ban was ridiculous and an intrusion by government that is unwarranted.

[turbocraig]

How could the smoke-free/smoke-friendly scenario you quoted from lupitachica possibly affect your lungs? Don't smoke? Skip the smoking restaurant. Problem solved.

[reverbandwhiskey]

How could the smoke-free/smoke-friendly scenario you quoted from lupitachica possibly affect your lungs? Don't smoke? Skip the smoking restaurant. Problem solved.

[dubone]

Well, with the new Republican County Commission, you can pretty much consider this thread canceled.

[bgoo_man]

"BUT WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T KEEP COMMENTING THAT IT IS A HEALTH RISK, SINCE MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE IN THIS COUNTRY FROM DRUNKS, THAN EVER DID FROM CATCHING A WHIF OF A MARLBORO.......ALCHOHOL IS MORE LETHAL TO THOSE THAT ARE INNOCET VICTIMS OF ITS EFFECTS THAN SECOND HAND SMOKE EVER WAS !!!!"

Do you have statistics to back this up? I seriously doubt it, because researchers have only recently started to realize the negative effects of second hand smoke.

"My stepdfather did not drink, but is now permanantly disabled becasue of a Drunk Driver. I have lost a very close friend due to a drunk driver....If you say ban smoking in public than I say ban alchohol, since everyone knows that a bartender never shuts you off at two."

I sympathize with your losses from drunk driving and in no way am I condoning it. However, your argument doesn't hold water. The negative effects of alcohol effect others after consumption, not during. The exact opposite happens with second hand smoke. If you ban public drinking, folks can still get drunk and try to drive somewhere and put others' lives at risk. If you ban public smoking, people who want to smoke can only negatively effect themselves. If someone wants to smoke 20 packs a day at their home, then fine, I don't care. It doesn't effect the general public. But if someone drinks a case of beer or a fifth of liquor at their home, they can still get behind the wheel.

Bottom line, banning public consumption of alcohol will not eliminate drunk driving. Banning public smoking will eliminate the negative effects of second hand smoke.

[A2]

"BUT WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T KEEP COMMENTING THAT IT IS A HEALTH RISK, SINCE MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE IN THIS COUNTRY FROM DRUNKS, THAN EVER DID FROM CATCHING A WHIF OF A MARLBORO.......ALCHOHOL IS MORE LETHAL TO THOSE THAT ARE INNOCET VICTIMS OF ITS EFFECTS THAN SECOND HAND SMOKE EVER WAS !!!!"

Do you have statistics to back this up? I seriously doubt it, because researchers have only recently started to realize the negative effects of second hand smoke.

"My stepdfather did not drink, but is now permanantly disabled becasue of a Drunk Driver. I have lost a very close friend due to a drunk driver....If you say ban smoking in public than I say ban alchohol, since everyone knows that a bartender never shuts you off at two."

I sympathize with your losses from drunk driving and in no way am I condoning it. However, your argument doesn't hold water. The negative effects of alcohol effect others after consumption, not during. The exact opposite happens with second hand smoke. If you ban public drinking, folks can still get drunk and try to drive somewhere and put others' lives at risk. If you ban public smoking, people who want to smoke can only negatively effect themselves. If someone wants to smoke 20 packs a day at their home, then fine, I don't care. It doesn't effect the general public. But if someone drinks a case of beer or a fifth of liquor at their home, they can still get behind the wheel.

Bottom line, banning public consumption of alcohol will not eliminate drunk driving. Banning public smoking will eliminate the negative effects of second hand smoke.

[PlazaMidwoodGuy]

I am simply fighting this issue, since to me it is not about a health issue, it is about the right and freedoms for one bar to restrict smoking and another to allow it. A2

[Neo]

Do you have any to proove your case that second hand smoke has caused deaths? I can't.

And the proof from the Canadian Cancer Society (just one example):

"Second-hand smoke affects your body very quickly. Non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are at higher risk of getting cancer and other lung diseases. In fact, second-hand smoke is linked to the deaths of at least 1,100 Canadians every year, 300 of them from lung cancer."

Source:

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard...ngId-en,00.html

[lupitachica]

Simply because some of their patrons happen to have an addiction that can harm MY lungs and shouldn't be inconvenienced by being asked to indulge that addiction someplace else?

[jednc]

This post is not aimed at any one person in particular...but rather as I've read this thread over the past few weeks, I just can't shake my head and roll my eyes privately any longer.

Let's be honest here...choosing to smoke indicates a lack of intelligence and sound judgement. And please don't tell someone who knew better that many smokers start when they are young. I was young, just not so stupid apparently. I'd like to be able to enact laws that protect the intelligent. Trust me, this goes far beyond just banning smoking...so all these comparisons with alcohol and SUV's will fall on deaf ears. I'd shake things up far beyond telling Applebee's they can't allow smokers. Hopefully a ban on smoking is the first of many reforms down a very short road.

Oh, and FYI...implying some regulation to ban any destructive action is communist just shows a complete lack of comprehension of what that word means. It might be a bad ECONOMIC system, but last time I checked it had nothing to do with liberties one way or the other. That's just sloppy arguing. And, what a shock that kind of sloppy arguing is used in favor of not banning smoking. Hmmmm...I see a pattern.

Maybe a test before people vote isn't such a bad thing afterall...

[reverbandwhiskey]

This issue about whether 2nd hand smoke is harmful or not is irrelevant to me in regards to places like bars & restaurants because people have always had the choice to create smoke free environments or to avoid them.

[lupitachica]

I wouldn't compare private establishments denying service based on racial, gender or religious background to be in the same category as allowing these same establishments to make choices in terms of whether to be a smoker's haven or a suit & tie only bar or a place that won't serve pork. I see a difference, if you don't then so be it.

Besides, I never suggested or implied banning anyone from any venue. Nonsmokers could choose to avoid entering smoking venues if they were concerned about 2nd hand smoke or they could say "bump it" (as many of us do now) and take their chances for a few hours. By that same token, smokers would not be allowed to light up in a non smoking venue and would also have the choice to say "bump it" for a few hours and suffer their nicotine withdrawals. I see that as a fair solution for both smokers and non smokers.

As I've said numerous times before in this thread, the conversation to me is not about whether some government regulation of social/public practices are acceptable or currently tolerated. Its a given that is it. My question was how much & far should the government be allowed to intervene. THAT line is flexible - it moves and changes and what I was arguing is that this kind of ban is going too far, imo, particularly when the product is legally sold in this country.

Also, I didn't say the points about 2nd hand smoke were irrelevant because it weakened my argument - please don't try to suggest that I don't desire to have an honest exchange here. I clearly said it was irrelevant (to me) because the scenario that I suggest allows for both smoking and non smoking venues where people CAN CHOOSE whether to subject themselves to second hand smoke or not.

In regards to communism, I wasn't the one who made that comparison but for the record Communism as a political/social/economic system and in theory certainly does have plenty to do with concepts of liberties and freedoms and how they would be manifested within the general community.

[Charlotte_native]

I still don't see why the argument for keeping people from harming themselves with smoking (the less intelligent folks I guess) should preclude the government from taking, lets say Applebees, and forcing them to make their dishes less fattening. Obsesity kills also -- maybe not second hand, but if our goverment is to keep us happy and healthy, why are we serving food that we all know causes heart disease?

[PlazaMidwoodGuy]

I still don't see why the argument for keeping people from harming themselves with smoking (the less intelligent folks I guess) should preclude the government from taking, lets say Applebees, and forcing them to make their dishes less fattening. Obsesity kills also -- maybe not second hand, but if our goverment is to keep us happy and healthy, why are we serving food that we all know causes heart disease?

[monsoon]

I went to lunch at K&W Cafeteria yesterday and I noticed they had a sign on the door saying they were getting ready to go smoke free.

[cooperdawg]

I went to lunch at K&W Cafeteria yesterday and I noticed they had a sign on the door saying they were getting ready to go smoke free.

[Neo]

I went to lunch at K&W Cafeteria yesterday and I noticed they had a sign on the door saying they were getting ready to go smoke free.

That is great news! My question is this coming from the main office so will this happen in all K&W Cafeteria's or just this particular location? Cafeteria setups like this are notorious for allowing smoking areas which at the very best contain a 3 or 4 foot partition between them and the non-smokers. That really does no good but for people who enjoy the food at K&W there really is no alternative other than to just deal with it.

I'm glad restaurants are finally starting to realize that if smokers can't abstain from smoking for 45 minutes while they eat a meal then they shouldn't be a part of their restaurant. I would think the number of people who are turned off by smoking greatly outnumber those smokers who can't wait the 45 minutes to get another fix.

[dubone]

Does that mean that the last of their smoking customers has passed on?

[suburban george3]

I went to lunch at K&W Cafeteria yesterday and I noticed they had a sign on the door saying they were getting ready to go smoke free.

[dubone]

By 'passed on' I meant, um, died.

[cinco]

i could've sworn i heard on the news tonight... that meck co. was banning smoking in bars & restaurants, effective in july. i couldn't have heard that right, could i ??? the news was reporting that the bars & restaurants were petitioning an appeal. i haven't heard anything about this other than tonight.... i must have heard it wrong? i hope i didn't.

[PlazaMidwoodGuy]

No chance of Charlotte or Mecklenburg County getting a no-smoking ordinance for public places such as restaurants and bars. It's reported on Charlotte.com this afternoon that the NC House defeated the bill 61-55. Opponents argued it would intrude on the rights of business owners and penalize them instead of smokers. Give me a froggin' break. That's the same tired and worn-out argument they used in every place (be it a state, a city or county) that has smoking bans and it doesn't hold water.

The NC tobacco lobby wins again. Shock!

[queensguy06]

I don't understand why you can't have both smoking and non-smoking bars. If someone wants to go into a bar and light up I don't see how the government can say "oh no, you can't do that." Leave it up to the bars and let the market decide if people want to smoke or not. If the majority of people don't want smoking their business will dictate that. Even in Fort Mill there are smoking and non-smoking bars and both fair equally as well.