what do you think of the smoking ban

talk about a health risk..LOL..used pacifiers..ewww .that was a very funny one liner !!!!(tu)

I am originally from North Carolina, where tobacco is a hugh agricultural industry, home of most of the large cigarette companies. I left NC many years ago, and don't keep up with the state's economy, etc. I know some of you regular posters are fellow "Tarheels". How is the non-smoking campaign overall, affecting NC (and Virginia)? I assume (and hope) they saw this coming, and have diversified. Some areas were just miles and miles of tobacco farms.

We were past dispassionate intellectual discourse when we touched on vegetarian smokers.

I'll just say that I promise not to stick a dead cow up anyone's nose whenever I eat a roastbeef sandwich, so long as they promise not to let their cigarette smoke waft up mine, or my familys' noses when they light up.

STXBob, i was wondering that too.
now back to the real issue. what smokers are doing right now is perfectly legal. we smoke where by law we are allowed to smoke. we dont smoke, where by law we are not allowed to. its really just that simple.
i just read yesterdays paper and they are saying they want to include any public beach that is a park ( correct me if i am wrong )
if they were to make ciagarettes illegal (IMO) i think you would have a bigger drug war on your hands than you do now. and lets not forget prohibition. liquor was outlawed liquor was made people were arrested, killed because of it and the kennedy's made a ton of money. i read once in readers digest, that it is harder to quit smoking than to quit using most drugs. most of the smokers today can still remember the glamour that the media portrayed by movie stars smoking and the fact that the government gave them free to the gi's.
i know i should quit and i have tried before, right now i kinda like it most of the time.

My point was that everyone would be better off if we respected each other a little more. In the case I mentioned, all we asked was that the owner of the establishment, during a busy, crowded time, ask that smokers be aware of how their cigarette smoke was affecting others. Maybe if we were more concerned about the effect our our actions on others, we'd need fewer laws.

linda, i actually agree with you . as a smoker if a place is terrible crowded or there are little children around i will go "outside" to smoke or refrain until we leave the establishment. i never ever smoke if i am near someone who is still eating ( at my table or the ones directly next to me) but i am not really going to be concerned if someone is 5 tables away. but if i am outside say at jump up or something like that, i will smoke where i want.
one time i was outside smoking a cigarette when a man walked by, crossed the street and put his shirt over his face. that was a bit much IMO.

without reading all posts....regarding tami and helicopter....i personally know a few people who have problems with the green chopper. a few i think even filed complaints......stirs up dust they have to breath on dusty days. second hand dust i think.....

and sean you are so right. i think if a business pays local taxes its there right to decide on the smoking ban. and post that they allow smoking in certain areas. then nonsmokers have the choice.

as far as chicken charlies they could have certain areas since alot of people are playing trivia in close quarters.

then lets ban drinking in bars. people have a few drinks and then go out and drive a "machine" at 50 plus miles an hour.

when tourists arrive on our island some are smokers....they get off plane and want a cig after traveling 6 hours or more. are we going to tell them they can't. in the states you can go outside of airport but what will they do here?

listen to hope gibson on radio now.

i agree to ban smoking in closed in rest. but in totally outside places.......oh pleaseeeeeeeeeeee

and back to the chopper after reading posts......yes the people i know who have complained....they had to breath the dust and sand it blew up..

The President of the United States smokes, if this bill is passed will he be exempt from the new law. When they are done with this law they can start on a ban for Sugar , Salt. and Trans Fat. Sugar and Salt Deaths out number second hand smoke deaths.:S

also meat lizard. not only is eating meat unhealthy but cruel....

i think if this bill does pass it opens the door for others. i despise someone telling me what i can and can not do.

still have not seen any proof where smoking on beach our outside causes second hand smoke...

There was one study done that Bombi posted, it said that you had to be downwind and 16" close to the person smoking frequently for it to have any adverse medical reaction. So how often do you think an non smoker is going to be 16 inches away downwind from a smoker.*-)

Seems to me that consuming salt, sugar, trans fats, meat, or anything else that one chooses to consure is just that ...a choice...by the person affected, and directly affects that person only. I think a non-smoker should not have to be exposed to second hand smoke in any "public" place or event. Some have said one can choose not to patronize a particular restaurant, etc., but that, in effect, takes away the person's right to dine where they want..... A little common sense and common courtesy can go a long way here. Kind of silly to ban smoking at someplace like Off the Wall, wide open, on the beach, or some of the other places around like that. But then who would decide which place meets the "open air" requirements? Another can of worms!

Well the current bill as written just doesn't apply to the enclosed restaurants, It's ALL public places, Parks, Beaches, Hotel balconies etc. There no worms left in the can regarding this bill.

Many would like to try to spin smoking as a individual rights issue. It is not. It is a public health issue of the worst kind. Not only does smoking adversely affect the smoker, it adversely affects everyone around the smoker.

I don't see how you can not see this as an individual rights issue as well as a public health issue. It's the right of an individual to control what behavior is allowed on his or her property versus public health. Its the right of an individual to determine what he puts in his/her body versus the possibility that someone near them gets some secondhand smoke damage.

The fact that you don't even acknowledge the rights of the individual who owns property or who wants to smoke a cigarette in private and away from anyone who would be damaged by it is surprising. It reminds me a lot of people who don't acknowledge your right to fly your helicopter in a safe and legal manner as proscribed by current law.

I see few people around advocating that we reintroduce DDT or Asbestos. They were perfectly good products which accomplished their designed goals. They were banned because of the health risks associated with their use. Smoking is no different.

Smoking is absolutely different. When one is in proximity of secondhand smoke they are keenly aware of it. It stinks, it's annoying. When one is in the presence of DDT or Asbestos they have no idea what they are exposing themselves to.

Based on your logic we should clearly ban alchohol as well. Alchohol is the biggest factor in fatal car crashes. At least with second hand smoke I know when I'm being exposed to it and can remove myself from the situation. In the case of Alchohol I don't know which car hurdling at me is driven by a drunk driver who is going to swerve into me head on at the last second ending my life in an instant.

As soon as they develop smokeless, harmless tobacco I will support it.

Electronic Cigerttes Kind of looks cool, they sell them at mall kiosks now.

Sean

the bill should read........banned from all closed rest. but allowed in rest. that has open air on at least three sides or something sensible.

😀 I'm totally with all of you anti-smoking people, and I'm very excited to see that I won't have to be subjected (as much) to other people's bad habits. And when I say "bad," I don't just mean annoying. I mean fatal. Literally fatal. (Have you ever watched someone die of lung cancer? I mean in those last moments when they're gasping for air and nothing in the world can help them? I have. It's not pretty.) I think that even though we think we know a lot about how harmful tobacco is, we don't have a full grasp on it yet. I just recently read an article on third hand smoke: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229105037.htm I also like the point that someone made about the idea that this isn't really a choice that anyone is making... it's an addiction. Sure, some people smoke because they enjoy it (and I think they're a case of ignorance is bliss), but a large number of smokers hate the fact that they smoke and want to quit. This law might be the extra nudge in the right direction that some people need.

i have road runner and in all cases not caused from smoking nor second hand smoke..

dixichick, i had heard that was the case and then i read yesterdays paper so now not sure what to think. roadrunner, it is an addiction, just like alcoholism is an addiction, the only thing i said about that was that i read where it was harder to quit smoking than to quit most drugs never did i say it wasnt a choice. picking up the first cigarette or the first drink or the first potatao chip ( whatever your vice is ) is always a choice.
i had a boss who was a 3 pack a day non-filtered smoker and he tried every method out at the time to quit. never did.

juanita i use to live in N.C. also and most of my relatives depended and still depend on the tobacco industry. they said they can not afford to change and grow different crops because of the money they have invested in tobacco pickin stuff. (whatever that is)

They have been farming tobacco for years .

some areas in n.c. have switched to cotton. (until the goverment bans that also):-X

Maybe they can switch to growing pot. the new cigaratte (lol)

speedy ....dont forget sex as an addiction. just ask tiger. maybe we should ban all habits.

put cig addicts, alcoholics and sex addicts in one room.,,,,wonder what you would get?:D

@ DixieChick..... What would you get ???? A bunch of little redneck hillbillies LOL I can say that cause I"ve got some BRIAR in my background...:D

Many would like to try to spin smoking as a individual rights issue. It is not. It is a public health issue of the worst kind. Not only does smoking adversely affect the smoker, it adversely affects everyone around the smoker.

I don't see how you can not see this as an individual rights issue as well as a public health issue. It's the right of an individual to control what behavior is allowed on his or her property versus public health. Its the right of an individual to determine what he puts in his/her body versus the possibility that someone near them gets some secondhand smoke damage.

The fact that you don't even acknowledge the rights of the individual who owns property or who wants to smoke a cigarette in private and away from anyone who would be damaged by it is surprising. It reminds me a lot of people who don't acknowledge your right to fly your helicopter in a safe and legal manner as proscribed by current law.

I will agree that individual rights will be lost with this bill. I am saying that those fighting smoking are not doing so based on simply not liking the smell of smoke. Smoking is a health hazard to smokers and non-smokers. Your idea of smelling second hand smoke and walking away if you don't like it assumes that exposure to small amounts of second hand smoke is harmless. Studies have shown just the opposite. The CDC and WHO both state that there are no acceptable levels of exposure to second hand smoke. Any exposure is harmful. So by the time you smell it you will already have been exposed. So the question is whether or not your right to smoke gives you the right to harm others.

You also assume that smokers who are addicted to tobacco can make informed decisions about whether or not they should continue smoking. And that they should be allowed to determine whether or not customers of establishments owned by them should be exposed to second hand smoke. Tobacco is the number one preventable cause of death in the US. Does the government have the responsibility to protect citizens from other citizens who would harm them? I think so.

If an adult smokes in a home with children should it be considered child abuse? Did the child choose to breath second hand smoke?

I see few people around advocating that we reintroduce DDT or Asbestos. They were perfectly good products which accomplished their designed goals. They were banned because of the health risks associated with their use. Smoking is no different.

Smoking is absolutely different. When one is in proximity of secondhand smoke they are keenly aware of it. It stinks, it's annoying. When one is in the presence of DDT or Asbestos they have no idea what they are exposing themselves to.

Based on your logic we should clearly ban alchohol as well. Alchohol is the biggest factor in fatal car crashes. At least with second hand smoke I know when I'm being exposed to it and can remove myself from the situation. In the case of Alchohol I don't know which car hurdling at me is driven by a drunk driver who is going to swerve into me head on at the last second ending my life in an instant.

You again assume that there are acceptable levels of exposure to this toxic substance and the studies say otherwise. I mention DDT and Asbestos because they were also banned for public health reasons. The damage done by tobacco is far worse that the damage done by both of the other two chemicals combined. CDC says that 440,000 Americans die from tobacco related illnesses annually. Historically the decision about when and where to smoke has been left up to the smoker, it's time for that to change.

We all know that smoking will be banned in public eventually. Even smokers can see the writing on the wall.

As for alcohol, you are not forced to drink someone elses second hand alcohol when you are around them while they are drinking and the act of Driving Under the Influence is already illegal. You do not have a right to expose others to this reckless behavior. Consumption of small amounts of alcohol have been shown to be harmless, no so with tobacco. Even small quantities of tobacco smoke are harmful.

consuming small amounts of alcohol still impair drivers and wether it is legal or not people are going to continue to drink and drive. if a non drinker is in an accident through no fault of there own and the driver of the other car is impaired with alcohol, yep thats where the drinker is forcing his drink on others and causing harm and death. drinker dont have a right to force their reckless behavior on those of us who do not drink.

consuming small amounts of alcohol still impair drivers and wether it is legal or not people are going to continue to drink and drive. if a non drinker is in an accident through no fault of there own and the driver of the other car is impaired with alcohol, yep thats where the drinker is forcing his drink on others and causing harm and death. drinker dont have a right to force their reckless behavior on those of us who do not drink.

Correct. What you just described is illegal.

At present smoking is legal!