News-Record.com

I am deeply saddened by this further infringement upon smoker's rights - I have invested heavily in companies that manufacture artificial larynxes, portable oxygen equipment, chemo used to fight throat & lung cancer, drugs used to treat emphysema, and radiation & surgical equipment used by clinics & hospitals to treat lung & throat cancer patients - the government should not be regulating legal activities -

The "sin" of smoking isn't ended. Smokers are free to smoke in their cars and homes.

Just not in bars and restaurants. This protects the health of non smoking workers as well as customers who don't want to be around cigarette smoke.

You are right, I could just not go in. I went to one place and really liked the food, but hated the reek of smokers. I never went back. Now maybe I will.

Before the ban, that restaurant lost what could have been a regular customer. Now with the ban, they gain one back.

Over and over, businesses benefit when smoking is banned. Some smokers may pout and quit going to their favorite places, but most won't. And the nonsmokers at last can go to places they enjoy without risking their health.

What is next?

I think perfume should be next. Perfume has cause many to suffer asthma atacks from the smell of it. My wife and I experience servere headaches when we are in the proximity of the smell of these caustic odors.

NO one has the "right" to wear perfume, so why should someone's privilage of smelling like they bathed in rose pedals override the health and well being of me and my family? And besides the asthma attacks and the servere headaches, no one really knows what long term damage these dangerous scents are doing to our lungs.

It is time to put the killers who work in the perfume factories out of business. Perfume should be banned from ALL public places. What you wear in your own home is you business. But when the stench of you perfume effects my health it is time for change. At the less, there should be perfume and non-perfume seating sections in resturants.

And don't tell me perfume is not the same. When it effects the health of me and my family, it most certainly is the same. Perfume effects me and my family much more than smoke.

NOTE: I AM NOT A SMOKER.

"Over and over, businesses benefit when smoking is banned."

So, why not let the business owner decide?

My concern isn't with "smoker's rights". I don't believe smokers have rights.

However, I have a big problem with property owners being told they can't allow smoking on their property. I think that's going too far.

If the business benefits, then it would be wise to ban smoking. But, I think it should be their choice.

I'm with you. I stopped going to JP Looney's and JR Butlers years ago because I could not stand the stench of old ashtrays that permeated the place.

However, I think they should have the right to allow their place to stink if they want.

I think it was a stupid law that sets bad precedent. I believe the restaurants were already making the decision to ban smoking and our politicians should have stayed out of it and let supply and demand take their course.

Course, this is literally "smoke" and mirrors. We've got Basnight banning plastic grocery bags, politicians worrying about studies about ticks, and all kinds of idiotic legislation in NC. Meanwhile, unemployment is drastically rising and the economy is going to shit.

Another misguided alarmist. Judy should have stopped to think how ridiculous her whining sounded. There are a few facts she failed to recognize:

1) No one is banning a smoker's privilege to smoke. The only restriction pertains to restaurants and bars. However, cigar bars and private clubs are NOT covered by the ban. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION ON SMOKING.

2) Fats, or fatty foods, pose a threat to the health of the individual consuming them, not the general public at large. If they become a health hazard to the person sitting next to them in a public place, I would support a ban. That, however, is not going to happen as fatty foods have no smoke that can be breathed by the public. They may contain an aroma but no carcinogenic smoke.

3) A smoking ban in restaurants is not to protect the health of the smoker but rather the health of those people inhaling their carcinogenic-filled smoke. So, no, NO "RIGHTS" OF SMOKERS HAVE BEEN INFRINGED UPON.

4) Almost every restaurant owner/manager I have spoken to welcomes the ban. They did not have the gonads to impose the ban in their establishments, but are glad the government took that responsibility. They can please the non-smoker without offending the smoker. Best of both worlds. They can also serve more people in the same amount of time as smokers are not lighting up, raring back and "visiting" for an hour after a meal.

5) NC tobacco growers still have a market for their product. Therefore, our state will not go bankrupt for lack of tobacco products. This myth is to produce hysteria. Hysterical people behave in irrational ways. (Reminds me of the talk of banning guns; total hysteria.)

6) It is now a done deal so let's move forward an see the ban as one less controversy to divide our state. It also shows lawmakers are responsive to the majority of their constituents, not just the smoking crowd.

Panacea nailed it:
Workplace safety is a right; smoking is a privilege. Nowhere in the constitution does it say "And the right to smoke em if you got em shall not be infringed."
But the right to a smoke-free environment is directly related to the right to life. I worked in restaurants to pay for college and I can tell you my lungs were often sore after a long shift. What right does a smoker have to inflict that on someone else? And don't give me that "they should get another job" nonsense. Workers have the right to a safe workplace. Banning smoking costs the restaurateurs nothing; no one's asking them for costly upgrades. If smoking is banned everywhere, then the playing field is level.
And as noted, private clubs are exempted. I disagree with the exemption IF the club has employees. No person should be forced to choose between livelihood and health.

"It also shows lawmakers are responsive to the majority of their constituents, not just the smoking crowd. "

I think that's less than accurate. Sure, nonsmokers outnumber smokers.

However, many non-smokers really have no problem with sitting in a non-smoking section.

It's the very vocal minority of anti-smoking purists that lawmakers are responding to.

My guess is that the 25% of adults who smoke really do outnumber the total number of nonsmokers who want to outlaw smoking sections in restaurants and bars.

Of course, idiot voters (smokers and nons) have selective memory and will continue to vote these same people in regardless of what freedoms they've taken away.

It's a stupid ban and should have been left up to the business owners. And if you are going to ban one, then you need to ban all. Having an exemption for cigar bars, country clubs, and private clubs is unfair. Although most bars fall under the private club exemption since they do not get more than 60% of their revenue from the sale of food.......so, according to NC law, they MUST BE PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS.

However, that won't be the case. Smokers are no longer allowed to smoke in public. And don't pull the whole "you can smoke in cigar bars". No, you can't. Cigarettes are not allowed to be smoked in cigar bars, never have.

My issue wasn't going outside to smoke at a restaurant. I did it when I lived in NY. That's not really a big deal. At a bar, it's a pain in the ass. Same with a club, since once you leave, you have to pay to get back in. My issue is the infringement on property owners rights and rights in general. When does it stop? It won't. It's already happening. The government is trying to limit the amount of salt in food because it's unhealthy. They are also trying to levy a 3-cent tax on pop and sugary drinks. Of course, it's all "for the children". Give me a f*&#*^@ break!

"No person should be forced to choose between livelihood and health."

Coal miners, Auto body painters.

whats next? alcohol?
absolutely! why should my children be endangered just because some restraunt owner can make a few bucks on booze?
the blue print has been laid. 5 years from now you won't be able to consume the evil booze beyond the confines of your home. thanks libs!