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.
The N&O article doesn't describe the House bill, but it does say that there was an attempt to add an exemption for private clubs including membership bars to the Senate bill but it failed.
Smoking ban wins Senate approval - Local & State - News & Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1523666.html - broken link)
Maybe WRAL got confused on which was which? It's hard to tell.
Well, WRAL might not be the only media outlet confused here. I just re-read the Senate Bill and I can't find anything that says that the law doesn't apply to Country Clubs as your linked N&O article suggests. Maybe there's some other law that applies here that isn't part of the bill itself? Who knows??? I am glad the amendment to include other types of private clubs in the supposed "exemption" failed.
Thanks for the link to the N&O story. Rep points coming your way! :-)
don't know how old your kids are, but why are you taking your children to pubs/bars in the first place?!
I did not post that, but I will respond....I have long taken my often take my kids, 7 and 10, to what many would consider "bars", such as Times Bar, for lunch or dinner or a snack before a show. My husband and I will get a drink and we all will eat. Is there something inherently wrong with places that serve alchohol that I should not be taking my kids there (other than smoke)?
I did not post that, but I will respond....I have long taken my often take my kids, 7 and 10, to what many would consider "bars", such as Times Bar, for lunch or dinner or a snack before a show. My husband and I will get a drink and we all will eat. Is there something inherently wrong with places that serve alchohol that I should not be taking my kids there (other than smoke)?
I agree. There are many nice pub type places that are more social gathering places than they are "adult" type establishments. For instance, Hibernian on Glenwood has a terrific brunch on Sunday's. They also allow smoking. Don't children eat brunch with their families?
Back to the Bills....
The only things I read in the House Bill that make more sense to me than the Senate Bill are the exclusions for Cigar Bars (after all, this is what the business is for) and smoking on set for actors in movies where their character smokes. I don't think private country clubs and fraternal organizations should be exempted as proposed by the House Bill. But, if they were, I wouldn't lose sleep over it because I don't belong to any and will almost never find myself in one.
Regarding children, I keep hearing that children are protected specifically in the House Bill by distinguishing between adult only establishments but cannot find anything in the actual bill (version 8) posted online that says so. Does anyone know where this is actually stated?
I don't know how old your kids are, but why are you taking your children to pubs/bars in the first place?!
My children are 2 and 4. These are pubs I am talking about (not night clubs or straight up bars). They are often irish pubs or brewpubs (there are many in the area). They have great pub-grub. Unlike clubs and bars, they are open for lunch and dinner. There are many families in them. As the nights get later they turn more into "bars".
I saw an article a while back that many of the owners were upset with the house's bill. Not so much that they limit smoking, but that they have to choose if they are a restaurant or a "bar". I imagine they make a fair amount of money during the day (more restaurant-ish) but more at night (more bar-ish). But if they no longer have the lunch/dinner crowd, it might be harder for them to justify the kitchen staff.
Actually, the word WRAL used was "broader" not "stronger." And I don't think that's a value judgment; it just means the House bill is written in more broad and less specific terms, which it is. It just has a couple of general rules, while the Senate bill covers more specific cases. As you've pointed out, the Senate version is probably stronger, and the quotes in the story support the idea that it may be stronger than what the House wants to pass.
I have read and re-read these bills over and over and I still don't see how the House Bill could even be considered broader. It has more exemptions than the Senate Bill. This would make the Senate Bill both broader and stronger than the House Bill.
The House Bill is VERY specific when it comes to defining and exempting private clubs, cigar bars, movie sets and even assets (premises, buildings and cars) of tobacco processors, manufacturers, farmers or dealers.
While the both bills say that local governments may make laws restricting tobacco use further beyond that of the state, the House Bill even gives a list of places that are exempt to stronger local laws.
I think the House's version makes the playing field uneven for establishment owners. They need to pass the Senate bill as is in order to keep one establishment from benefiting over the next. While I am completely for the smoking ban, passing a bill that would hamper one establishment over the next is wrong of our government.
I have read and re-read these bills over and over and I still don't see how the House Bill could even be considered broader. It has more exemptions than the Senate Bill. This would make the Senate Bill both broader and stronger than the House Bill.
The House Bill is VERY specific when it comes to defining and exempting private clubs, cigar bars, movie sets and even assets (premises, buildings and cars) of tobacco processors, manufacturers, farmers or dealers.
While the both bills say that local governments may make laws restricting tobacco use further beyond that of the state, the House Bill even gives a list of places that are exempt to stronger local laws.
At this point, after reading both articles and all your analysis, I think the articles should have said "Many different options were discussed, and by the time a vote was taken no one, including the reporters, knew what exactly they were voting on."
Let's hope they take the time to hammer out a combined bill that is fair to existing businesses.
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.
