Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was shocked when I moved here from FL that people still smoked in restaurants. FL passed that law several yrs ago and I assumed most other states had as well.
Having to sit in the same building as a smoker makes for a disgusting eating experience, that's for sure.
This is the south though, you have to expect the area to be at least a decade behind the rest of the country.
Last night, we walked into the Galway Hooker. The smoke about knocked us out when we walked in the front door.
Used to live in Huntersville, really wanted to go to the GH, but just could not. Was in a fishing club that for a while rented the top floor for monthly meetings. Literally had to make a dash for the stairs, while holding my breath. One night, they moved us downstairs, had to leave, we never went back.
I have found that many, if not most, non smoking sections are still filled with smoke. The local OUTBACK has one terrible non-smoking section..the senior people there now know me, and have directed the hotesses that seat you, to move me to the other side. Before I asked!
Let the voters decide...Chances are smoking would banned...It's banned in Columbia, SC, banned in Greenville, SC, banned in Lexington and Louisville, KY..
Really has nothing to do with being in the south...
I smoke when I'm drunk and enjoy it, but could probably deal with having to go outside...I'd smoke less and do when I'm back home in Ohio where its also banned.
I am not writing this to attack the smoking crowd, I have a puff every once in awhile when alcohol gets the better of me, but I am hugely in favor of non-smoking facilities. I have had this exact discussion with friends on multiple occasions and the debate always follows the same path: smokers scream that a) I have the right to smoke, b) restaurants have a non-smoking sections and c) if a restaurant wants to move to non-smoking no one will stand in their way.
In my opinion, these arguments are crap and here's why:
a) The Right to Smoke
Your right to smoke not only impedes the rights of those around you, it actually contributes to potential health risks of non-smoking employees, patrons, etc. I can’t think of any other “right” that we have in this country that allows personal satisfaction to trump public health, can you?
b) Non-Smoking Sections in Restaurants
Let’s face it, the fact of the matter is that you are typically divided by either a small aisle or a half wall or some imaginary separation. With most restaurant layouts, we both know that you end up with a smoking section and a second-hand smoking section. I waited tables in college and regardless of the section I worked in a given night, I always came home smelling like smoke.
c) Restaurants are free to become Non-Smoking establishments
Arguing that a restaurant is free to go non-smoking is like an open invitation to unilateral nuclear disarmament. If it isn’t unanimous, it is a ridiculous decision for a single entity to make, especially bars. It is an intentional false choice masked as a “freedom of choice” or even better a “free market” solution. Once implemented, it is typically agreed (restaurants and patrons alike) that this is a far better experience for all. I have lived in several non-smoking areas and I can’t say that I have ever met anyone who refused to go to a restaurant or bar when the area was switched to smoke-free. It is also worth noting that, believe if or not, restaurants actually tend to do BETTER financially after making these changes. One major reason is due to the fact that it reduces the idle time at tables following meals. Look it up, it's true.
Currently, it is estimated that only 20-25% of Americans are smokers. So I ask you, why should the VAST majority of Americans be exposed to an obvious health risk in order to pander to such a small group?
Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related.
Between 1960 and 1990, deaths from lung cancer among women have increased by more than 400%—exceeding breast cancer deaths in the mid-1980s. The American Cancer Society estimated that in 1994, 64,300 women died from lung cancer and 44,300 died from breast cancer.
Men who smoke increase their risk of death from lung cancer by more than 22 times and from bronchitis and emphysema by nearly 10 times. Women who smoke increase their risk of dying from lung cancer by nearly 12 times and the risk of dying from bronchitis and emphysema by more than 10 times. Smoking triples the risk of dying from heart disease among middle-aged men and women.
Annually, exposure to secondhand smoke (or environmental tobacco smoke) causes an estimated 3,000 deaths from lung cancer among American adults. Scientific studies also link secondhand smoke with heart disease.
I'm an ex smoker and I personally cannot stand smoking. However, the owners of establishments should be allowed to make the decision to allow smoking or not. You as a consumer have a choice to go there or not. No one forces you to go to an establishment, you go by choice. I have no problem with smoking areas in restaurants and I don't think the government should be regulating an individuals right to run his business the way he wants! I'm sure you would have an equal amonut of places that would allow smoking and that wouldn't allow smoking. The clientele will dictate wheteher it will be smoking or not.
One thing for sure, ALL OF US have our own opinions! But, talk to any doctor and he will tell ANYONE what smoking can do to a person and the results of years of smoking, but ultimately it's up to the Voters to stop it all. I use to work for a healthcare company and it always amazed me to see some of our senior asthma patients smoking a cig while a respirtory/oxygen tank was sitting just to the left of them! By the way, they were outside having their smoke.
No one forces people to eat at McDonalds, but they sure get the "slack" for what they serve!
For the people who state "I cannot stand smoking"......why in the "H" are you condoning smoking and establishments to make the "no smoking" rule themselves??? As stated BEFORE, if this is left up to establishments, most places in NC will rule "in favor" b/c NC is a tabacco State and these businesses don't want to lose their clients!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRKLYN2CLT
I'm an ex smoker and I personally cannot stand smoking. However, the owners of establishments should be allowed to make the decision to allow smoking or not. You as a consumer have a choice to go there or not. No one forces you to go to an establishment, you go by choice. I have no problem with smoking areas in restaurants and I don't think the government should be regulating an individuals right to run his business the way he wants! I'm sure you would have an equal amonut of places that would allow smoking and that wouldn't allow smoking. The clientele will dictate wheteher it will be smoking or not.
I'm not a smoker, but an employee in the restaurant industry. Sorry, but an outright ban does kill business. It might increase family business (as it did when a restaurant I worked in banned smoking), but why would restaurants want to discourage some of the highest paying customers? Oftentimes the smokers are the liquor drinkers, and liquor drinkers make a restaurant 60% of its profit. We lost a lot because they couldn't kick back and smoke.
And while I may not smoke, it just isn't going to a bar (especially a pub) without the smell of smoke. It is each person's individual choice...there's non-smoking sections for a reason, and no one is forcing you to go to a restaurant. Get on the pollution caused by city buses and your gas-guzzling SUVs, and then maybe you can talk about those cancer sticks the guy in the section across the room is puffing.
Ban cars first, because that argument makes just about as much sense.
>It is time for Charlotte to do as other great cities have done, stop smoking in public places.
Charlotte isn't a great city. But there are plenty of other threads on that.
>Laws are created to protect citizens from anything that is harmful and smoke is.
Only if it harms others. The "Nanny" state is just the latest symptom of a government (Federal, State, and local) that acts like the Roman Imperial Senate, oblivious that there are legal constraints on what they can and can not legislate.
Incidentally, EVERY bogus "Second-Hand smoke" study has been discredited, but people like the American Cancer Society still drag them out (talk about professional ethics - but that's the way fanatics are). The most damning study was done by none other than Harvard, and no, it was not funded by cigarette companies.
>It would be great if restaurants and other public establishments took the incentive to put an end to public smoking on their own
Whenever these laws are impending, retail establishments fight to defeat them. That's because a lot of establishments go out of business when such laws are passed. My sister-in-law's sister owns a restaurant/bar in MA. and experienced a permanent 20% loss of business when the law when into effect 20 years ago. That's why I don't typically go out to restaurants anyway. I stay at home, make a sandwich and smoke. Sometimes I don't make a sandwich and just smoke.
> elliminating the government from having to step in, but in some cases, intervention is necessary.
It is not and should not be the Government's business.
>That is why we have laws of the road, sanitation rules, laws against crime, noise restriction, etc.
Because that harms others. Smoking is legal in this country.
>Most cities, states and even countries with educated, intelligent populations have banned smoking in public places,
One implication is that you are saying smokers are dumb. I smoke, and am brilliant beyond belief. Is smoking potentially harmful to me? Yes. But you see, I understand that I am mortal and going to die. I suppose I could be a Spartan and eat breanspouts, pursing my lips and wringing my hands because those damn smokers don't share my world view and that I have decided the proper way to live. I suppose I should think of my dead mother, WHO CHAIN-SMOKED CONSTANTLY FOR 59 YEARS AND DIED AT AGE 80 OF A NON-SMOKING-RELATED ILLNESS.
The other implication is that intelligent, civilized societies ban smoking. Not in Europe (although the beansprout brigade is starting to make rumblings). Not in Africa. Not in Asia. This is an entirely US phenonemon.
Do you remember Wang Dan, the student at Tiananmen Square who was scapegoated and imprisoned for 10 years? On his release, Clinton invited him to the US. He had a press conference at the airport, and his first words were "You call this a free country, but people can't smoke where they want?
>I constantly hear people claim that by passing such an ordinance would kill bars and restaurants. This is absolutely false and only claimed by die hard smokers.
See above. This is a statistical reality. The weaker places go under. The survivors permanently lose about 20% pf their patrons. And that's why these businesses fight so hard against it. What is so hard to understand about that? Smoker's smoke. If you tell them they can't they leave and don't come back. Why would they?
>Smoke is especially hard on old people, children, people and with respritory problems.
Can you cite a single credible study to that effect?
>I feel it is time for smokers to be a little more considerate of others and support the majority of people in Charlotte that want to go to the local for a drink and be able to breath fresh air.
Fresh air in Charlotte? You would be better suited asking them to ban SUVs, and put a moritorium on future "growth".
>So, lets grow up and end smoking in public.
I actually have no problem with public smoking bans. Now that I am down South, I still go outside to smoke on those rare occasions I am out in public.
But here's the problem. It started with "People have to go outside to smoke". Then it became "People can't smoke near the exits". Now its becoming "You can't smoke at all". I went to the BC/UNC football game a few weeks ago at UNC. IT's NOT ALLOWED ANYWHERE ON CAMPUS GROUNDS. So, I pay taxes for this public institution, and yet am not allowed to perform a legal activity ANYWHERE on campus?
Speaking of taxes, 12% of all taxes collected in this country are cigarette taxes.
Here's a fun exercise:
Go to Google. Type the following: nicotine "health benefits". Start reading.
Nicotine goes by various names: Nicotinic Acid. Niacin. Vitamin B3. It's one of the healthiest things there is for the human body. I fully admit that the transport mechanism isn't the healthiest.
Time to burn one.
Last edited by wsobchak; 11-29-2008 at 08:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
