News-Record.com

Right.
Most of the hundreds of laws on the books now, designed to restrict personal freedom, remove personal responsibility and make you a ward of the state were passed without your vote. What makes this any different?

Yes, by all means contact your state rep. and tell then g'boro is perfectly capable of creating it's own little nanny state without help from Raleigh.

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."-unknown Genious

Amazing! The GSO City Council wants Raleligh let them have jurisdiction over smoking. Yet, this same group seems incapable of rendering any formidable measure to censure one of it's own.

Anyone else consider the stupidity in this?

Shalom

I certainly hope Greensboro will be in the position to strengthen its laws regarding smoking in public places. I hope that the State allows Greensboro to make it own smoking rules. And if given this right, I hope Greensboro limits public smoking wherever it legally can.

It seems from some of the comments above that there are those who don't want the government to make laws to protect its citizens from a known toxin. I can't imagine why anyone would be against this.

"Most of the hundreds of laws on the books now, designed to restrict personal freedom, remove personal responsibility and make you a ward of the state were passed without your vote."

The next thing you know they'll want to pass laws stripping asbestos from schools, lead from paint, the accuracy of labeling and purity of food and drugs, regulate traffic.

This madness must stop!

sheep

Rufus,

You think the City of Greensboro made the determination that asbestos and lead was bad and should be removed or not used? I'd guess that was a federal act of some kind. Not a city led one.

Sorry, but the last thing the Greensboro City Council needs is more power.

Then again, I believe it should be up to the owner to determine whether to allow smoking or in their restaurants. And it should be up to the public to decide whether or not to eat in those restaurants.

Good news! Country BarbQ on Wendover is now complete smoke-free. So you can go eat your pork fat and trans-fat fries without breathing in second-hand smoke.

nitpicker,
Based on your logic above you would imply that you should be able to go to Harris-Teeter and drink a beer and smoke a cigarette while shopping as long as the store says it's ok.
That doesn't work.
Greensboro is asking for this exemption from state law is because of the 1993 "Dirty Air" bill that was passed requiring a 20% smoking area be established in public buildings.
This outdated law will probably be repealed state wide during this session.
I, for one, hope Greensboro gets the authority from the state that they are asking for and restricts smoking in public.
Pricey Harrison is sponsoring the bill. Please let her know if you are in favor of it.

The pro-smoking people tend to overlook a few facts concerning secondhand smoke.

First, there is no debate concerning the dangers of tobacco smoke, including secondhand tobacco smoke. For every eight people who die prematurely due to smoking, one person dies from their secondhand smoke.

Second, because some people refuse to believe or care about the risks to non-smokers, our lawmakers are obligated to pass laws to protect the non-smokers from the deadly pollution of tobacco smoke. This is analogous to the sanitation laws imposed upon restaurants, for the protection of our health.

As a group, our state and federal lawmakers are not yet doing their jobs when it comes to tobacco related issues. It looks like our local lawmakers may not be influenced by the monetary and political pressures of the tobacco industry and the ignorant.

Our imperfect Greensboro City Council, regardless of other issues, has members who care about protecting us from deadly tobacco smoke chemicals. Thank you, Greensboro City Council.

Stan Meyer

The anti-smoking people, as exemplified by the letter writer above, have borrowed a tactic from the "global warming" crowd with their "First, there is no debate concerning the dangers of tobacco smoke, including secondhand tobacco smoke."

That sounds suspiciously like "there is no debate about the scientific consensus on global warming" line that's now being thoroughly discredited.

Two points:

-- Correlation does not establish causation.

-- Mere exposure does NOT equate to toxicty....it's the DOSE that makes the poison.

For the record, I am a non-smoker.

Bubba,

You're correct. There is almost ALWAYS a debate.

Here's what most folks would let just slip through:

"Our lawmakers are obligated to pass laws to protect the non-smokers from the deadly pollution of tobacco smoke"

Yep, that makes sense in a public building like a courthouse where folks have no choice but to go. But to a restaurant? Sorry, but non-smokers have an obligation to protect themselves by not eating there. The government has no such obligation.

As far as supermarkets go, are they required to be nonsmoking or are they doing that voluntarily?

Let's take this a step further, though. WHen you say things like our lawmakers are required to protect people from second hand smoke, that opens a whole pandora's box. That simple statement would outlaw smoking altogether. Can't smoke at home because a minor could breathe the smoke. Can't smoke outside cause it might drift across the yard?

Those kind of statements sound all nice but it really just comes down to how much control you want your government (your LOCAL government) to have over you. That, and the fact that you don't like cigarette smoke. If we were talking about transfats, talking on the cell phone, driving age, etc, would you still prefer Greensboro's government to enact those laws?