News & Record, Greensboro, NC
,
°
Humidity: %
Wind: mph,
Market Place
TriadCareers TriadCars TriadHomes Triad Marketplace Business Directory Classifieds Newspaper Ads Featured Job Ads Archives Apartments Celebrations Obituaries Place an Ad Personals Print Advertising Ad Post Online Advertising N&R Store
ADVERTISEMENT
Special Sections
test
Letters to the Editor
Saturday, March 31, 2007

« Smoking ban violates property owners' rights | Main | Secondhand smoke poses real health threat »

Smoking ban violates property owners' rights

The N.C. General Assembly is considering a bill that would ban smoking on private property. From a property rights perspective, H 259, "Prohibit Smoking in Public and Work Places," is a radical proposal.

This proposed legislation takes an activity that is legal in North Carolina but makes it illegal on private property. The bill would actually make it illegal for business owners to smoke in their own businesses, even if they are there alone, even if they are the only employee.

As well as being a property rights advocate, I am a nonsmoker, an asthmatic and a parent. I often make the choice to not patronize smoky establishments. Choice is the key word in this important debate.

This proposal does not give the property owner any choice.

While our lawmakers certainly have the ability to ban smoking on private property, they also have the ability to pass legislation that would substantially decrease the amount of secondhand smoke that the general public is exposed to. Perhaps that would be a less-intrusive place to start.

Some say that this legislation is a step in the right direction. The more than 33,000 members of North Carolina FreedomWorks believe that instead, it is a door closing on private property rights.

Kathy Hartkopf
Hillsborough


The writer is the legislative liaison, North Carolina FreedomWorks.

Comments (1)

Kathy,

The state doesn't give the property owner any choice in many other health and work conditions that he must accommodate if he wants to do business in North Carolina. In this issue where property, health, and workers rights conflict the state has the obligation to arbitrate that conflict.

Kathy put me down on the "this legislation is a step in the right direction" camp.

Post a comment

Contact Us | About Us | News & Record Jobs | Terms of Use | Subscribe | Help
Print Advertising | Online Advertising | © 2004 News & Record
Subscription Services, Manage your subscription, Create a subscription

ADVERTISEMENT