News-Record.com

How far are these anti-smoking crusaders going take this? Banning people from smoking in their homes, cars, even outdoors within 50 feet of others?

Do they have a clue that NC and the Fed Gov. make obscene revenue from Tobacco taxes, which the State disparately needs?

I propose to move the Tobacco taxes onto Lattes, Chardonnay and Hybrid cars. It's the only way to fairly distribute the tax shift and do away with tobacco forever.

Edit: desperately

Hugh,

I think you hit the nail on the head. They will NEVER stop until smoking is outlawed.

I think this sentence says it all (emphasis added):

Therefore, smoking around nonsmokers puts those nonsmokers at risk, and NO amount of air filtration or DILUTION makes it safe.

If that is fact, then I'm still inhaling second-hand smoke from the cigarettes my grandfather smoked 20 years ago. If that is fact, I can't smoke on my front porch because, after all, no dilution will make it safe.

There is nothing quiet so gratifying to a smoker as to see the reaction on a young mother's face when fragrant secondhand smoke is blown into the face of her baby. They get the weirdest look on their face...

In a perfect world, where everyone made safe, healthy choices and nothing was bad for you, we could all live long lives.

You choose to drive to the store? Shame on you. You should walk. You are emitting dangerous fumes into the air that are causing problems for my 5-year old's asthma.

You eat meat? Do you realize that it takes over 100 pounds of grain to produce 20 pounds of beef? Do you realize the damage that is being done to the environment producing your meat?

Shoot off fireworks? Got to be some smoke produced there.

I agree that smoking is unhealthy and that second-hand smoke is unhealthy as well. But at some point, you got to accept that you can't make healthy choices for all people.

The ad hominem (circumstantiae)chorus is in full voice this morning.

Nitpicker,

Who is trying to make "healthy choices for all people"? It appears to me that the anti-secondhand smoke crusaders are trying to look after the health of themselves and their family that choose not to pollute their body with this particular filth. Why do you think the state of NC has already taken these measures?

And for hugh, here you go again, trying to turn this into an anti-smoking issue that it is not. It is an anti-secondhand smoke issue. There is a huge difference that you just refuse to understand. This will not harm the Tobacco Cartel's constant flow of blood money which you obviously rate higher than any health issue.

Can either of you justify how 21% of the population should be able to poison the other 79% just for the sake of their addiction? I didn't think you could.

About 20 years ago a buddy of mine stated that we should erect a sign at the state line that says, "Welcome to North Carolina, the only state in America where the link between tobacco smoke and health is an opinion and not medical fact."
Wow, that's still true 20 years later.

Tony Wilkins
Greensboro

Tony, I don't know anyone who has been poisoned by 2nd hand smoke. I don't like the stuff so I don't go to places that have it. I can't recall the last time I was bothered by smoke in a city/county/state building.

Tony, it was 21% of the population last year. It's down to 20% now.
Ooops- there goes that guy on oxygen in Delaware.
19.99999%.

What may be the scariest cigarette sight is seeing someone on oxygen actually smoking a cigarette while ON oxygen.

2 second-hand smoke letters in 2 days. Looks like the N&R editors are planning a new crusade.

Hugh,

The last time I was in the courtroom setting in HP, I almost died from all the smoke in that building. It triggered an asthma attack which turned into bronchitis and pneumonia. So don't tell me you can't get seriously ill from second-hand smoke.

There is absolutely no way a non-smoker can protect themselves fully from the effects of SHS. Even if you could stay in your own environment all the time (and how many of us can?), you are going to eventually have to have someone come into that space for repairs. Workmen, plumbers, electricians, gas personel, heating/air conditioning personel.

Even when I have been very specific about my home being smoke-free, I have had many to disrespect my right to have them refrain from smoking on my property. It is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. They are going to smoke or die trying.

I have thought about trying to have them arrested for assault (which I feel it is) but knew I would be wasting my money. Until the government puts some teeth into legislation to protect non-smokers, smokers will continue to abuse their privelege (it is not a "right") to smoke.

It is sad that some militant smokers have ruined it for the respectful ones. But it is a problem of their own making. I say to those who have brought us to this point, suck up the whining and take your lumps. You have earned every one of them.

Yvonne,

I would have MAJOR issues with someone smoking on my property after being told not to.

I have a no-smoking sign in my car and have considered putting one on my front door.

In my house, it is a no-no.

I will allow my friends who smoke to step outside but that's just my friends.

The next time a repairman lights up on your property, shoot them a few times with a fire extinguisher. That might get your point across and you might actually have a legal ground to stand on!

Yvonne,
I enjoyed your comments and the "assault" aspect is interesting. You may be the precedent case in the US on that one. Being forced to breathe secondhand smoke is the same as a stranger injecting you with a hypodermic needle with 43 toxic chemicals. I say go for it. You could compare it to a person's right to swing their fist. Their right to do so ends where your nose begins, just as cigarette smoke should be.
I've also wondered why wait staff has not pursued legal action against restaurant owners who force them to work in second hand smoke.
I'll be watching for that assault case. Good luck with that.

"who force them to work in second hand smoke"

Key word is 'force'. If they were forced to work as waitresses, I think that would be called slavery or indentured servitude or something. Now THAT might be a crime.

Point taken nitpicker.
Maybe I should have stated that one should not have to "choose" between keeping their job or being faced with exposure to secondhand smoke everyday.

Thanks for the rephrase. I can empathize with that position. For my own sake, I'd like to see all the restaurants go to nonsmoking. But I'm just not into forcing them to do so.

In the event that they did decide to ban smoking in 'public' places, I think they should exclude non-food serving bars. It's already a place for vices.