News-Record.com

Could not agree more.
Now could we, get a law to keep fat people off planes, I paid for my seat, I want it all to myself.
I should also get my ticket for less money. It takes more gas for a fat person. Wonder how much gas we could save if we outlawed fat people. The extra gas they burn is polluting the air.
Also I want my seat at the movie, I paid for a whole seat.
Now, we can start on them fast food joints, they are killing people. They cause my insurance rates to go up.

well, beverly, i don't like loud obnoxious drunks so i don't go to nightclubs. i do go to a neighborhood service station/grill that is frequented only by regulars. the staff smokes and so do most of the customers. that's my choice and the choice of those who do not smoke. you stop whining because this is a "public place" and we like it. there need to be more limits on this law - such as "public places" with a capacity of x number rather than an arbitrary "all" because we too would like to sit, have a cup of coffee, and talk to neigbors some place where it's warm in the winter. i quite frankly think it's a shame when you patrons of nightclubs drive drunk and kill one of us smokers.

brenda,

The problem with your theory is not everyone has the luxury of knowing which convenience store allows smoking and which ones don't. I do my dead level best to avoid giving any of my money to support any restaurant, store, shop or any business that allows employees to smoke inside. But when I travel, and I do so often, many times I have no way of knowing as not all places of business comply with posting a sign. I find out when I open the door and smell the stench.

If I have the option, I turn around and leave. But with convenience stores, especially, if they have no "pay-at-the-pumps" option, you have to pay for your gas. I cover my nose with my blouse and get the heck out as fast as I can. Unfortunately my clothes, hair and skin pick up the stench and I smell it until I can get somewhere and shower.

A person can be in there drinking and I suffer no ill effects. That's like comparing apples to oranges (or apples to crap).

Smokers do not have the "right" to smoke. It is a privilege afforded them. But I, and other non-smokers, do have the right to clean air (health). So smoke away, just do it in your car, your home or away from the general public.

are you saying that when the "person is in there drinking" and then gets on the road while drunk and hits you, you'll "suffer no ill effects"?

It's not about health...it's about control. The smoke nazis want the state to ban smoking in privately owned businesses just in case one of these prudes decides to visit the facility and don't want to see anyone else enjoying themselves. The further their noses are up in the air, the more smoke they are likely to inhale. Poetic justice.

With nanny staters ruling the roost from DC on down, you smokers may as well prepare for the inevitable.

Then will come the push to ban smoking inside the home where hapless shillrun are subjected to these 'carcinogens'.

Then it will be the CO2 these 'carcinogens' add to the atmosphere.

brenda,

Speaking as one whose dad was killed by a drunk driver and who, myself, was almost killed by a drunk driver (separate wrecks 36 years apart), what I am saying and have said is, I can sit beside a drunk all night and not have my health adversely affected. However, if I sit beside a smoker and breathe, I am adversely affected. I am not talking about what might happen with enough "ifs", nor what might happen in the future. I am talking about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, in the present. I know of no harmful effects of smelling booze-breath, unpleasant yes, but no actual harm.

Using any type of tobacco is just plain dumb -

no one says you have to sit beside a smoker. if small businesses are allowed to have smoking, you have the option to leave.

yvonne, i don't think either of us will change the other's opinion so any further discussion is pointless.

Agreed Brenda.

Hi Brenda, did your hubby come back?

IMO, non smokers who smell smoke are now conditioned to think they are catching cancer.
What they are catching is an odor they don't like.
Smokers don't smell or find this odor offensive.
Bottom line, neither can win. However, both need to see the other sides point of view.

"However, both need to see the other sides point of view."

As a former smoker I know both points of view. When I did smoke I was very careful not to smoke where I thought it would bother others, especially indoors. If more smokers were like this then perhaps this wouldn't be such a problem, unfortunately many are not. I walked into a hospital in VA last month that had no smoking signs clearly posted, however there were clods smoking at the entrance right beside one of the signs!! The hospital should better enforce it's policies. I just hold my breath as I pass by in situations like this.

Now I cannot tolerate the smell of cigarette smoke so I do like Yvonne and try my best to avoid establishments that allow smoking.

I can't believe it but here I am agreeing with Yvonne again. And Dan I agree with you, except I have never been a smoker.

Aside from the fact that it is unhealthy, neither do I like the smell. As far as frequenting places that allows smoking, I have stopped going to many of them. I feel like I or any other nonsmoker has the right to go out to public places, such as a nice resturant or cafe without having to breathe second hand smoke or come out smelling like ?

Some in my family smoke but they are courteous to the ones that don't. The ones that have stopped are more like Dan, they can't stand the smell.

I think this is an issue that will be decided in Raleigh about where you can or can't smoke.
I think a lot of this could have been avoided if the smokers would have been a little more courteous and understanding of the nonsmokers and not "I have a right to smoke here and I'm going to no matter what".

I think enough or more than enough of our freedoms have been taken away and I hate to see any more taken but when there's a stalemate what can you do?

Maggie: "I feel like I or any other nonsmoker has the right to go out to public places, such as a nice resturant or cafe without having to breathe second hand smoke or come out smelling like ?"

Restaurants and Cafes are private business, not public places. The Library, Collesium, Courthouse are public places.

I agree with you, there are businesses I won't patronize due to smoke, which is their decision. I don't have a right to enforce my will upon them, I simply don't give them my money.

Hugh, I stand to be corrected. I agree with you.

Maggie said,
I think enough or more than enough of our freedoms have been taken away and I hate to see any more taken but when there's a stalemate what can you do?

There is no stalemate. There is already no smoking allowed in public places. As hugh said,
The Library, Collesium, Courthouse are public places. Smoking is not permitted in these places now. As far as restaurants and cafes, You have already said you do not support the ones that allow smoking. Where is the stalemate? What you are really wanting is even more goverment control over private businesses, like the restaurants that allow smoking. Face it, like neocon said The smoke nazis want the state to ban smoking in privately owned businesses...
There is no stalemate, its all about control.

hugh,

The fact that private owners operate businesses does not make that business private. Most private owners operate public places. If they want to make it private, they should post a sign stating it is a private establishment. But business owners WANT the general public to patronize their business. That is then reasonably inferred that it is a public place, meaning they serve the public. Many owners of bars and nightclubs declare themselves private.

Being private owners doesn't mean they can do what they darn well please. They are regulated by the state and local health departments. If they are following practices that endanger the health of their patrons, they are given a time to make corrections. If they do not, they are shut down. Allowing smoking in their establishments is a public safety hazard.

The nicotine nannies are not content to withhold their money from a private establishment that allows adults to make their own decision. They, like the nazis of Germany, first banned the advertising, then placed an age limit on the purchase of tobacco (25 years old), then they banned smoking in privately owned businesses altogether.

Sound familiar? The term 'smoke nazis' is not without merit.

"Being private owners doesn't mean they can do what they darn well please. They are regulated by the state and local health departments...."

While private businesses are subject to health regulations, they're only closed down after a certain point. I'd say the most important thing is providing information so that people can make their decision. Restaurants must display their health score. If it doesn't meet your standards, you can go elsewhere. Some restaurants allow minor infractions for various reasons. For example, an ex-girlfriend of mine waited tables at a restaurant that knowingly took a point deduction because company policy required all front-end employees to wear their hair down, which is deduction.

Similarly, the decision about smoking should be left up to restaurant owners. I could get behind legislation that required businesses to display a sign, preferably outside, that indicated their status as a smoking, divided-smoking, or non-smoking establishment. This would allow you to make an informed decision before ever setting foot in the door.

Yvonne is one of those "smoke nazis" neocon referred to earlier. Left wing liberal, big goverment, anti small business.
Yvonne should just refuse to patrionize those businesses that allow smoking and stay out of them. Problem solved, no big goverment needed. No one is forcing you to eat at any restaurant that has a smoking section. Smoking is still a legal product and if a PRIVATE business wants to serve smokers, no one is forcing you to go there. Again no big goverment needed. Where is the problem?
Yvonne should just admit neocon is right.
This is not about smoking, this is about control. And yvonne wants goverment to control every aspect of everyone's life.
Kinda sounds like SOCIALISM.

OMG SOCIALISM!!!

actually...I think control is more a fascist thing...thus this term 'smoke-nazis?' and I think fascism is typically considered more related to extreme and radical rightist beliefs than leftist ones, but whatev.

socialism is, like, more about everyone dedicating themselves to extreme sharing.

Damned typekey, wouldn't recognize my password and had to change it yet again. At least the name is the same.

"I could get behind legislation that required businesses to display a sign, preferably outside, that indicated their status as a smoking, divided-smoking, or non-smoking establishment. This would allow you to make an informed decision before ever setting foot in the door."

What an excellent, logical idea rahrah. People like myself and Yvonne could both make informed decisions. Problem is it's too logical, but there are factions who want to control smokers behavior and this wouldn't be satisfactory to them. I do believe there is a control element involved but wouldn't label it socialism.

The control element is definitely there. ABC newsman Charlie Gibson had a segment tonight about a group who proposes taxing sugar containing soft drinks a penny per ounce to combat obesity.

We already saw the results in the 1990s regarding the Big Tobacco settlement. Much of the money was supposed to be destined towards smoking cessation and education efforts. I've posted links prior that around 3% of this money was used for the above purposes.

So I'll go with rahrah, something simple like a sign would be reasonable, but govt. is neither reasonable nor logical.

Why are the folks that want a smoke free enviornment to have a good meal called "smoke nazis"? Why is all the fuss about us? Why can't you smokers go some place else just as easily as you're telling us to? Why does it have to be your way?

The states that have no smoking in "all" eating places haven't lost business because of it according to what I've read in the paper and on the net.

beachwalker

If you'll reread my statement you'll see that I said I've stopped going to many of the places that are not smoke free.

We do have some places that are smoke free and I see smokers there every time I go. Seems they have a little more constraint than some of you folks do. I don't hear them complaining and calling us smoke nazis. We sit together and enjoy ourselves. Wish some of you could do the same without all the complaining.

Before you write in and say something about that, I'll say it first. There's complaining on both sides
so who's going to give in first?

Will the smokers have to stop smoking in cafe's
and restaurants or do the non smokers have to stop going?

My one major problem is this. I quit smoking the day I found out I was pregnant. I make great efforts to avoid smoke friendly establishments, the problem is that even in the non smoking ones, there are always several people huddled around the entrance smoking. Walking in with my 3 year old, I have oft-times resorted to covering his head just to get in. Then I can usually expect some smart (you know what) answer from atleast one of the smokers. So I guess if I don't want my child exposed I have to stay home. I know there are more scary things out there, but as a mother, this one is the worst to try to control.

"I think fascism is typically considered more related to extreme and radical rightist beliefs than leftist ones, but whatev."

You are correct about it typically being considered more related to extreme right, however that is probably because of the crappy education system.

Fascism evolved out of socialism, as a matter of fact the Nazi party is "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Even Mussolini was a socialist before forming Italy's fascism party.