"The bill has exemptions for country clubs, other private clubs operated on a nonprofit basis, cigar bars, and 20 percent of the guest rooms in a hotel."

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=326319

I think wxii is just stupid and got the facts wrong, unless west end opera house is really nonprofit....

Quote :

"Good By smoking .............HELLO DRUNK DRIVERS.....People keep your families home cuz the drunks are going to be on the srteets since they cant smoke in their favorite bar anymore, they are goin to drink their beer, liquor or whatever their flavor is and they are goin to get in the car and drive to have their smoke......THANKS NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNMENT"

haha wat? comments from
http://www.wxii12.com/news/19452640/detail.html

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 12:10:57 PM

5/14/2009 12:13:18 PM

Willy, you're ridiculous, and obviously this is trolling, but in case anyone is retarded enough to take that seriously:

1.) Smokers are not born smokers, and can choose not to smoke
2.) Smokers are allowed everywhere, they just can't smoke in some places now
3.) They can still smoke outside and in their own homes

5/14/2009 12:14:47 PM

Lilly's & Cafe Luna aren't bars. Cafe Luna is a damn expensive restaurant.

I'm happy that I can finally go to Champions and play pool, or the place on Hillsborough, or damn Flying Saucer in the winter. Yea, it's anti-capitalist and businesses should be able to choose for themselves, but hey -- Cheerios is illegal so there we go

5/14/2009 12:15:00 PM

WillyNilly: Bullshit! Walking to class on campus is not consenting to be around smoking! Shopping downtown is not consenting to be around it. But everytime I'm doing either one, there's someone ahead of me subjecting me to their smoke.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 12:15:55 PM

nm

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 12:16:27 PM

^^and it's still legal for them to smoke there. funny, no?

5/14/2009 12:17:19 PM

^Her point was WN's stupid-ass segregation pic.

5/14/2009 12:18:09 PM

Quote :

"Except that's 100% irrelevant. Any adult around second-hand smoke is consenting to be around it, therefore they aren't being legally harmed. If you consent to a harm, (smoke, loud music, a boxing match, etc.) then the harm isn't illegal or immoral -- you consented to it."

i agree with this- I say no smoking on planes, because you can't get up and walk out of a plane (well you could, but that would just be stupid)- if you are at a bar (which you knew was smoking to begin with) and you decide you don't like the smoke, then leave....

I do agree that there should be smoking and non smoking sections, but you have a choice people!

5/14/2009 12:19:13 PM

^^no, her point was to a post on the last page. but good try.

5/14/2009 12:19:32 PM

^^^^ actually I was referring to the last post on page 5

^^^ Maybe that will be the next move.

^^ So, just because someone can't be around smoke means theyI don't get to go to the bar anymore? I don't think so.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM. Reason : i so misread that!]

5/14/2009 12:20:13 PM

Ah... yea, I agree with her.

5/14/2009 12:22:28 PM

i'm allergic to peanuts. i make a special point of not going to the steakhouses that give out complementary peanuts, because the amount of peanut dust in the air makes it hard for me to breathe.

do y'all get the analogy, or do i need to spell it out?

5/14/2009 12:24:40 PM

A lot of things:

1. I'm curious what will happen to places such as Smoking Times. It seems to me that bar is centralized around smoking. will the name be changed?

2. Anyone who is equating this move to socialism either has no clue what socialism actually is, is operating with cognitive dissonance, or is being entirely disingenuous. Socialism is not a system that dictates to the public with an iron first the rule of law. Socialism and fascism are not synonymous.

Outlawing behaviors that are viewed as reprehensible by many does not make socialism or fascism. Would one consider the issue of child labor to be socialist or fascist since it removes the business owners ability to hire whom they please? If this bill provided a social safety net or collective ownership I could see the socialism connection, likewise, if this bill was being forced without legislation or support of the public I could see an argument for fascism; however, these circumstance not existing makes the anti-lefitst rhetoric not applicable or appropriate.

When issues are broadly labeled as socialism when not appropriate it erodes the true meaning, clouding the issue and distracts from the real potential dangers of socialism, which are serious.

2.1 Comparing us to China is out of line as well as from some perspectives the business owners have many more freedoms i.e. lacking child labor laws and aren't strangled with as much regulation i.e. no functioning FDA equivalent or other such similar organizations.


3. To jackleg's comment about not seeing why a supporter of state's rights would be for this bill. I'm for state's rights and I am for this bill. If the Federal government would have enforced this law I would not be for it, however, the state promoting this bill on its own accord is an example of state's rights in action. Just as I feel the state should be able to address the legality of narcotics at its own discretion I also feel that they should be able to legislate against items at their discretion. To only believe the state should be allowed operate in one fashion would be inconsistent and on the verge of hypocrisy. If people truly want to smoke and its that important to them, they have 49 other states from which they can choose.

3.1 This bill will not be repealed on a federal level. Primarily based on the afore mentioned issues of state's rights. The lack of repeal for NYC is highly illustrative of this point. To wish for the repeal of this law on a federal level shows nothing but contempt for state's rights.

3.2 On another note concerning the state. Most business owners do not own the building in which their business resides. The especially goes for bars and retail space. When you rent a home or an apartment you are forced to abide by the rules of the landlord by consenting to the contract that allows you to reside there. Similarly if the owner of the building in which the bar or restaurant existed wanted to ban smoking in building whose rights are to be valued here, the building owner or the business owner. Does the landlord's desire for a smoke free building violate the rights of the business owner to run their business as they see fit? Presumably no, as they are in a contract with the landlord. In this same fashion when you receive a business license from the state you are in a contract to abide by the rules of law of the state, just as you would your landlord. No smoking is now one of those rules.


4. Bars will not lose revenue due to this. Just as non-smokers continued to frequent places that allowed smoking, smokers will continue to patron places once smoking is prohibited inside. People will still buy cigarettes at bars because they will be allowed to smoke those cigarettes outside of the bar or may choose to purchase some so they do not have to stop on the way home. The revenue lost from the passing of this bill will be negligible at best. If one wishes to espouse unsupported hypotheticals it could be stated that bar revenue will actually increase due to the wave of non-smokers who will now feel more comfortable patroning these establishments out of a sense of new found freedom and a perceived increase in options. Of course this outcome cannot be substantiated but it is just as reasonable an assumption as smokers no longer contributing to the revenue of existing establishments.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : 3.2]

5/14/2009 12:26:00 PM

Smoking is far more prevalent than peanuts in businesses.

V exactly.

and ^=win. /thread.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 12:26:14 PM

^^^ I can't think of a single bar where smoking is banned already. At least not any bar that is still fun. You still have the option of another steakhouse. It's not like there's a Comedy Zone for smokers and an equally fun one for non-smokers.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 12:27:07 PM

you still have the option of not going to a bar. and if enough non-smokers did, then i PROMISE you, the almighty dollar would prevail.

think about it, if 80% of the population couldn't be around peanuts, what kind of fucktard business owner would give out free peanuts?

the fact that they've still turned a profit means one of 2 things: smokers provide the most business, or non-smokers don't let it bother them nearly as much as they let on.

5/14/2009 12:29:47 PM

this is awesome because when i left my favorite bar last night i smelled like an ash tray.

Too bad it doesn't start till next year .

5/14/2009 12:30:37 PM

Quote :

"4. Bars will not lose revenue due to this. Just as non-smokers continued to frequent places that allowed smoking, smokers will continue to patron places once smoking is prohibited inside. People will still buy cigarettes at bars because they will be allowed to smoke those cigarettes outside of the bar or may choose to purchase some so they do not have to stop on the way home. The revenue lost from the passing of this bill will be negligible at best. If one wishes to espouse unsupported hypotheticals it could be stated that bar revenue will actually increase due to the wave of non-smokers who will now feel more comfortable patroning these establishments out of a sense of new found freedom and a perceived increase in options. Of course this outcome cannot be substantiated but it is just as reasonable an assumption as smokers no longer contributing to the revenue of existing establishments."

5/14/2009 12:31:15 PM

You see it as still having the option to not go to a bar, but the option to not go is more like no options TO go. I'm restricted from going if the smoke bothers me, but I should be able to go. It is a private business, but in modern parlance, that doesn't mean the owner gets to do what he wants.

He can't restrict people of a certain race or sex, he can't sell rotten meat, and he can't sell alcohol to minors, and now he can't allow smoking. It's very simple, really.

Joseph, where did you hear it didn't start until next year? Last I read, it becomes law when signed by the governor and goes into effect immediately.

SECTION 3. This act is effective when it becomes law.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H2v8.html

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:33 PM. Reason : ,]

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ;]

5/14/2009 12:32:07 PM

Quote :

"I can't think of a single bar where smoking is banned already"

i can think of a lot of them

maybe you're not trying

Quote :

"he can't sell alcohol to minors, and now he can't allow smoking. It's very simple, really"

except, when you become 21 years old you can legally purchase alcohol and drink alcohol. When you turn 18 you can legally buy cigarettes and smoke them. You're banning something thats legal, whereas not serving underage people is upholding a law

5/14/2009 12:32:43 PM

^^ said it best

^ I'm not in Raleigh anymore. So, our lists would be very different. And those bars may suck.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 12:33:04 PM

Quote :

"It is a private business, but in modern parlance, that doesn't mean the owner gets to do what he wants."

and that is a fucking PROBLEM

5/14/2009 12:33:57 PM

Well... businesses aren't giving out free cigarettes. They're just allowing smokers to smoke, to increase their revenue -- I understand that.
There are laws, however, that restrict the sale of alcohol, such as to someone who is clearly drunk.

Tobacco has proven itself time and again that it has health hazards. IRSeriouscat hits it on the nose - states have the right to impose their own laws and regulations.

Sorry, smokers. But you're doing something borderline deadly in the first place. Same with binge drinking. Same with texting while driving ---which is ALSO banned in NC.

5/14/2009 12:34:36 PM

so when are they gonna ban fat girls from the bar? because i get sick and tired of them hitting on me and me smelling like them the next day? BAN them, because when i take them home, it is bad for my health

5/14/2009 12:34:53 PM

5/14/2009 12:36:05 PM

Quote :

"Walking to class on campus is not consenting to be around smoking! Shopping downtown is not consenting to be around it. But everytime I'm doing either one, there's someone ahead of me subjecting me to their smoke."

You should be able to walk in public (not private, public,) and not be exposed to long-term second-hand smoke. If you're outside, and smokers don't block walkways and building entrances, then they are not unreasonably exposing you to second-hand smoke, and it certainly isn't long term exposure. I don't like when a large vehicle emits gas or noise and pollutes the air next to the public sidewalk I'm on, but the vehicle is outside and not blocking the walkway, so I can simply move away from the smoke and noise. If I choose to stand right next to the vehicle for a prolonged time, then I am consenting to being around it. Otherwise, the small amount of smoke and noise I'm exposed to is so minor and brief as to clearly not count as an unreasonable danger or harm. Same with cigarettes.

Quote :

"Sorry, smokers. But you're doing something borderline deadly in the first place. Same with binge drinking. Same with texting while driving ---which is ALSO banned in NC."

Apples and oranges. Smoking and drinking only harm or endanger those that do them, or in the case of second-hand smoke, those that consent to be around it. They do not represent an unreasonable danger or harm to society in general. Texting while driving, however is clearly an unreasonable danger to society in general. Apples and oranges.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 12:37:50 PM

maybe the winston-salem journal is wrong?

5/14/2009 12:38:26 PM

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/PDF/H2v9.pdf

Jan 2, 2010. *sigh* I wish it was today. I love me some pool.

5/14/2009 12:44:19 PM

Quote :

"Texting while driving, however is clearly an unreasonable danger to society in general."

BUT DON'T YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO JUST NOT DRIVE???

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM. Reason : these things aren't black and white like y'all make them out to be]

5/14/2009 12:45:55 PM

^
fail

(roads = public, bars = private)

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 12:46:27 PM

Quote :

"Anyone who doesn't think these smoking bans will be overturned by a federal court are only fooling themselves."

by your definition, then, i suspect i'm fooling myself...i'm not going to sit here and swear up and down that it would never be overturned, because it might, but your comparison to segregated water fountains is outright idiocy

5/14/2009 12:47:59 PM

MOTHER FUCKING NANNY STATE

5/14/2009 12:49:04 PM

so when you go to a smoking bar you are consenting to being around smoke, but you're saying even though its a smoking bar you shouldn't have to deal with the smoke because it harmful to your health...ok so when I or someone else come to TWW and posts something like "GO SABRES" and get flamed and criticized to hell it could be harmful to me, it could cause depression, i might kill myself...BAN THE WOLF WEB. You don't like smoke don't subject yourself to it, plain and simple, just like me I only have how many posts, i don't spend too much time on TWW.

Okay not the best analogy but this whole thing is stupid. E-cigs for everyone!

5/14/2009 12:49:24 PM

Quote :

"Smoking and drinking only harm or endanger those that do them"

WAT.

So why do we have drinking and driving laws? B/c deep down we don't want the poor drunken slob to hurt himself? Please.

5/14/2009 12:49:50 PM

Quote :

"Okay not the best analogy"

at least you're right on that account...comparing emotional state (which is widely variable) to the definitive and proven negative health effects of smoking is pointless

5/14/2009 12:50:35 PM

Quote :

"and that is a fucking PROBLEM"

It's a problem that people can't do anything they want just because they have a business license? A business license should allow you to decide who you serve based on race, etc? Should allow you to sell rotten meat? Should allow you to beat people up? Where, if anywhere, do you think the line is?

I'm sure you think there should be one, and I do too. I just think the line extends past allowing people to smoke, and you don't. It's merely a matter of degree.

^^^ No, it's an awful analogy

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 12:50:48 PM

Quote :

"Smoking and drinking only harm or endanger those that do them" WAT. So why do we have drinking and driving laws? B/c deep down we don't want the poor drunken slob to hurt himself? Please."

Please try harder.
drinking ≠ drinking and driving.
I said "drinking". (As is, "drinking, in and of itself")

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 12:53:00 PM

but its all about consent, you put yourself in a situation where there is smoke, hence you're putting yourself in a harmful situation

5/14/2009 12:53:13 PM

Quote :

"Such irrelevance and bigotry has no place in this issue. It matters not that smoking isn't an endemic feature of a person -- smoking isn't even really the issue. The issue is private property rights. Second-hand smoke is not relevant at all because those around it are consenting to be around it."

lol, no. silence does not imply consent.

if you ask and are told no do you ever NOT smoke anyways?

Quote :

"sure ya will"

yes, yes i will. or rather punch you in the throat. and you won't see it coming.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:00 PM. Reason : s]

5/14/2009 12:57:40 PM

I knew you'd go there, WN. Not everyone drinks to retardedness and then stays at the place or has a DD to get home. PLENTY of people choose to drive drunk.
And so there are driving drunk laws.

Your point was that drinking only hurts the one drinking. Yea...until he/she decides to either become belligerent (emotional or physical damage ensues), or he/she decides to DRIVE.

5/14/2009 12:58:32 PM

Quote :

"Well... businesses aren't giving out free cigarettes. They're just allowing smokers to smoke, to increase their revenue -- I understand that. There are laws, however, that restrict the sale of alcohol, such as to someone who is clearly drunk. Sorry, smokers. But you're doing something borderline deadly in the first place. Same with binge drinking. Same with texting while driving ---which is ALSO banned in NC."

ACTUALLY, some business do allow the cig people to come in and give out free packs...i scored 2 free packs this weekend. Also, most bars and clubs (that allow) sell cigarettes at a huge mark up.

Quote :

"Tobacco has proven itself time and again that it has health hazards."

as have lots of other things; matter of fact i would say that the lives of non alcohol drinkers are effected more much by drunk drivers than those who dont smoke but are around second hand.

Quote :

"Sorry, smokers. But you're doing something borderline deadly in the first place"

but its legal and its OUR choice. who are you to tell me how to live MY life. i do find it very funny and actually hilarious at the conservatives ITT that are all for more government interfering in the lives of the free especially when it is in regards to something that is LEGAL. hypocrites...

5/14/2009 12:58:39 PM

If I'm out with someone that doesn't smoke, I ask them if they mind, and if they do I don't smoke, to me its not that big of a deal

5/14/2009 12:59:48 PM

Liv ya life

Oooooooh Oooooh Oooooh

5/14/2009 1:00:07 PM

Quote :

"but its legal and its OUR choice. who are you to tell me how to live MY life. "

there's a law against drinking and driving. they aren't saying you can't drink, they're saying you can't drive after you drink, because you could harm others (and yourself).

now there's a law against smoking in a public place. they aren't saying you can't smoke, you just can't smoke in public places, because you could harm others.

it's fairly easy to understand. unless you're a smoker, then apparently it's downright impossible to understand the logic because you're too busy screaming ITS MY RIGHT DAMNIT

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 1:00:59 PM

^^^ Do you ask everyone at the bar? If you had to ask everyone within range if they minded, that might be ok. Impossible to enforce and completely silly, though.

Quote :

"but its all about consent, you put yourself in a situation where there is smoke, hence you're putting yourself in a harmful situation"

This has been addressed. Whether you agree with how I responded to it, it doesn't help to just repeat the same arguments.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ,]

5/14/2009 1:02:07 PM

Look, I'm all for pure capitalism and letting private companies do what they want. But it's not gonna happen. We're stuck with the crazy ass government we have, and unless you wanna take up arms against Washington or the NC General Assembly, bitching that you can't have your cigarettes is pointless.

The non-smokers are happy b/c now they can enjoy burgers, pizza, sports, and beer without burning leaves and paper.
The smokers can either get some nice exercise and go stand outside, or they can put the carton away until after being out somewhere.

5/14/2009 1:02:31 PM

Quote :

"MOTHER FUCKING NANNY STATE"

This is another pejorative that people throw around tirelessly without actually considering the meaning or evaluating the point they are attempting to make.

The fact of the matter is we live in a great country and we have a lot of rights. There are freedoms which are afforded to us that other countries wish they had. However, as with any privilege, this freedom comes with a responsibility, and this responsibility, sadly, is what a lot of people (especially those in the crying about a mother fucking nanny state crowd) choose to ignore. Its a contract, a social contract, that allows us to have freedoms as long as we are responsible enough to not abuse them. Plain and simply if smokers would have operated with more regard to the social contract as opposed to abusing it for the purpose of their selfish desires then this legislation would never be implemented. If smokers acted with any sense of consideration and reserve there would be no problem. Unfortunately, as a result of their excess smokers chose not to act responsibly and thus the state had to intervene. Drinking and driving laws are a fine example of this.

If you wish to complain then don't complain about a nanny state complain about a people not living up to the standards that would prove they were responsible enough to maintain course without the need for legislation.

Quote :

"but its legal and its OUR choice. who are you to tell me how to live MY life."

Don't be so pedantic. No one is telling you how to live your life as you are still allowed to smoke. Its not being outlawed. You are allowed to urinate but there are law that dictate locations where that is not acceptable, is this considered being told how to live your life? If cigarettes get banned entirely, i'd be right there with you complaining about the stupidity of it all, but right now you really have no leg to stand on.

Quote :

"silence does not equal consent"

exactly. in fact I would like to hear this man's position on rape charges based on the way he concludes implicit consent.




[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM. Reason : sTUFF]

5/14/2009 1:03:00 PM

^

5/14/2009 1:03:48 PM

Quote :

"1. I'm curious what will happen to places such as Smoking Times. It seems to me that bar is centralized around smoking. will the name be changed? "

aren't the morning times, raleigh times, and "smoking times" all one in the same? so since the morning times and 2 main raleigh times parts non-smoking already, i'd assume they'd just make that one last part (the raleigh times is adjacent to) non-smoking as well? just a little part of it allows smoking. and i don't think it is actually called the smoking times (maybe i'm wrong) but i think "the times" encompasses all 3 places and the smoking times is just what it has become known as. so i guess it would still just be called "the times" and there would be no smoking in that last little piece of it. i think, i don't know. and i don't know if i'm even talking about the same place as you

Quote :

"Liv ya life Oooooooh Oooooh Oooooh "

i loled

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 1:04:14 PM