news-record.com

NEWS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Smokers fret as House OKs smoking ban

Friday, April 3, 2009
(Updated 5:41 am)

RALEIGH — On the same day the House voted to ban smoking in most public places, Amanda Miller was having lunch at Ham’s on Friendly Avenue and was not pleased legislators want to keep her from lighting up.

“If you don’t want to smell like smoke, don’t go to a bar,” said Miller, 22, of Greensboro.

Although restaurants like Ham’s that allow children inside would have to kick smokers to the curb, some bars could be exempt under the proposed smoking ban as written.

But the measure is only halfway through its legislative journey. House members took the second of two votes on the ban Thursday, sending it to the Senate.

The measure is hailed by health advocates, who say secondhand smoke sickens thousands of people and costs the state hundreds of millions of dollars in health care costs every year. In particular, children and those who work in businesses that until now allow smoking will benefit, say its backers.

Eric Thomas, a server and bartender at Ham’s, said he was ambivalent about the possibility of a ban. Thomas, 21, of Greensboro acknowledged that a smoke-free restaurant would be healthier for workers and patrons. But health isn’t necessarily what drives people to go to a restaurant, he said.

“This restaurant, people like to come here to relax,” Thomas said. “And regardless of what medical experts said, smokers say it helps them relax. If we take away smoking, I think we’re going to lose a lot of customers.”

As it passed the House, the bill does have one major loophole. Bars could allow smoking if they post a sign saying that smoking is allowed and do not serve or employ those under age 18.

That change from the original bill, which would have excluded all bars, has earned the measure new opponents.

“We’re going to tell the Senate we’re opposed to House Bill 2,” said Paul Stone, who leads the N.C. Restaurant and Lodging Association. His group had remained neutral on the bill when it was a broad-based ban.

But Stone said that restaurants that stay open late mainly to serve bar patrons would be at a disadvantage if they could not allow smoking but adults-only bars could.

“There’s no longer a level playing field,” Stone said.

When the bill moves into the Senate, its future is uncertain but it has the backing of Sen. Marc Basnight, a Dare County Democrat and the chamber’s top leader.

“I hope we pass it,” Basnight said. “The reason for the bill is one of health. ... Smoke should not be in any building.”

Basnight is a restaurant owner and acknowledges the subject can be controversial, even within his family. His daughters, who run the family business, allow smoking in the bar area, something Basnight said he wouldn’t be inclined to do.

The bill has the backing of Sen. Katie Dorsett, a Greensboro Democrat who has sponsored similar legislation. Sen. Don Vaughan, also a Greensboro Democrat, and Stan Bingham, a Davidson County Republican who represents parts of High Point, have said they were undecided when asked in the past two weeks.

Sen. Tony Rand, a Fayetteville Democrat and one of Basnight’s top lieutenants, said the loophole that the restaurant association is objecting to may make the bill easier to pass the Senate.

“More people will feel comfortable with it,” Rand said.

Contact Sonja Elmquist at 373-7090 or sonja.elmquist@news-record.com

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

File photo (News & Record)

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

Firedog759

April 2, 2009 - 5:57 am EDT

I think the government need to stay out of business and let them decide if they allow smoking in their business. I think they should have areas that are for non=smokers but should have a smoking area too. Smoker pay billions of dollars in taxes and extra on the cost of their health care. We should have rights and privilage like non-smokers do that do not pay billions of dollars in taxes. If we did not smoke then all this non-smoker would have to pick up share in these taxes. I do agree that minor do not need to be around smoke but minors should not be in bars anyway. In work place there should be a area that are for smokers only and tell all non-smoker to stay away from that areas if they do not want to smell that smoke. Doctors keep say that smoking is the cause of all the health problems but I have not heard one of them explain why people who are not around smokers still have heart problems and get cancer. I have a sister who has the same health problems I do and she has never smoked or is never been around anyone that does smoke. I think health care providers need to find out what is really causing all these health problems and stop saying that smoking cause all illness. I went to the doctor with a joint pain and the first words out of the doctor was that if I did not smoke I would not have this problem. I think non-smoker should have right but think smoker should have rights too!!!!!.
Thanks

posylady

April 2, 2009 - 9:26 am EDT

I was in Florida a few years ago after smoking ban took effect. I asked a restaurnat owner about how it effected business. He said a bunch of restaurants closed up a few months after law took effect. Everything was turning to take out for the smokers. My brother owns a Restaurant in N.Y and he said the same thing, Our choices of restaurants will drop as they go out of business. Wait till the fines money starts comming in. This is really all its about. It amounts to alot of money for our state for income. Myself takeout is looking better as a choice. The business should be allowed to make their own choice smoking or not! Why do we need big brother telling them how to run their business.

satyra

April 2, 2009 - 10:39 am EDT

I am sorry that some restaurants went out of business that posylady and other are connected to. But that it was due to the smoking ban is not clearly evident. There could have been many other reasons. In all the reading and research I've done, smoking bans do not affect businesses as described in these comments. It's prudent to consider factual data rather than rely on hearsay, especially when it comes to public health and the health of the employees serving you and entertaining you. Please check out these links:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/smokeban.pdf
"Almost all the reviewed studies reported, on average, no net loss and sometimes net increases in bar or restaurant sales after smoking bans went into effect.11 These estimates are for total sales and for the proportion of sales within a county."

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/26/news/mn-41205
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
http://www.boston.com/ae/food/restaurants/articles/2005/04/04/restaurant...

Fred

April 2, 2009 - 6:57 pm EDT

I am extremely disappointed in the watered down version the House is sending to the Senate.
I work for a company whose employee handbook states that smoking is restricted to designated areas---of which there are none.
I smoked heavily for 40 years but quit 10 years ago, but get the equivalent of a pack a day in second hand smoke at work. This bill will be of no help to me.

Beachwalk

April 2, 2009 - 10:58 pm EDT

"but get the equivalent of a pack a day in second hand smoke at work."
That is a bunch of BS and you know it. What do you do, Hold you face over an ash tray?

DellCry

April 3, 2009 - 12:27 am EDT

You claim to be a non-smoker, but your bias shows otherwise. Common sense says that he has a right not to gag on someone else's smoke and that right overrides the right of someone else to poison the air with that smoke. The smoker can step outside. Any argument otherwise is nothing but arrogance, rudeness, and a complete disregard for your fellow human beings.

And I am a smoker, but I am also a responsible human being. I do not smoke indoors and do not smoke around children or non-smokers.

Fred

April 3, 2009 - 9:21 am EDT

Thanks, Dellcry;
It's sad that some folks can't disagree without being disagreeable.

Beachwalk

April 3, 2009 - 11:28 am EDT

Businesses should be able to decide if they want to serve smokers or not. Or have smoking and non-smoking sections in their place of business. If these business owners decide to have smoking in their establishments, then people have the right to choose whether they want to support that business or not. Goverment needs to stay out of it.

crys2

April 3, 2009 - 9:52 pm EDT

Fred, I'm surprised about the smoking at work you mentioned? Do you work in a restaurant/bar? Most businesses with offices have outside places designated to go smoke. Why do you continue to work at this place if it bothers you so much? Hope you're looking elsewhere. As to smoking & work, many businesses are nonsmoking places now, even on property. So, as a smoker, I wouldn't apply for a job there. Seems that should go both ways - nonsmokers don't apply if smoking is allowed indoors, etc.

Fred

April 4, 2009 - 6:17 am EDT

When I joined the company I smoked, and smoked heavily. My doctor advised me that the best thing I could do was to stop and after 40 years I did. For a time I did not realize how harmful second-hand smoke could be.
Quit? Have you looked at the job market lately?
The company handbook states that snmoking shall be restricted to designated areas only. There aren't any.
Management is aware of this but as done nothing.
No--it's not a bar or restaurant and no minors are served or employed.
Hope this answers yur questions.

Panacea

April 2, 2009 - 9:53 pm EDT

Smoking bans have little impact on business. If anything, business improves because non-smokers outnumber smokers, and then feel free to go out more.

As for wanting "non-smokers to pay their fair share of the taxes," pal, I already pay more than my fair share to Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the cost of smoking related illnesses, and in increased health care costs--driven up by smoker's selfishness.

If anything, YOU should pay ME.

Beachwalk

April 2, 2009 - 11:05 pm EDT

Tobacco money has bought and paid for more schools, universities, churches, parks and businesses in the state than you could ever imagine. No one owes you anything. If you don't like what tobacco has done for this state, then you need to move. But as you go, leave everything you own behind, because most of it was paid for by the benefits of tobacco money in this state.
FYI. I am not a smoker and have never worked directly for a tobacco company. I'm just smart enough to know you don't cut off you nose in spite of your face.

Drew

April 3, 2009 - 3:09 pm EDT

Well said. Tobacco money and taxes from tobacco has paid for more organizations than any other company or factory in the state. I however do not smoke but it is ones right to do whatever they please when it comes to smoking. I talked with a Philip Morris representative last week and she informed me that PM currently had 8,000 law suits against them right now. She also said the suits were pretaining to deaths caused by cancer. It says it on the pack that cigarettes may cause cancer! To me thats like buying a new car, wrecking it, and then turning around and suing the car company. All of our great politicians want to ban smoking in public places, but yet and still want a piece of the pie by putting so much of a tax on it. Tax it and get on with it. The sooner this state can get Bev Purdue and Kay Hagen out of office the better, these two do not know enough about their state to represent it. Now let me say that I am a third generation TOBACCO farmer. I don't do it because of the eighteen hour days and the little bit of revenue that I bring in, I do it because its in my blood and I enjoy it. Isn't that what its all about, being able to enjoy your job? So the next time you visit a hospital, for example Duke Hospital just remember that the golden leaf that was put in the ground created Duke Hospital to rise into the sky. Thank you.

crys2

April 2, 2009 - 10:24 pm EDT

At age 51, I've smoked since high school. Regarding health insurance, medical costs, I've used my present health insurance twice in the last 12.5 years of my current job for medical reasons and were not related to smoking. Actually about same for previous health insurance coverages with other jobs too, none of my rare usage of medical insurance related to my smoking. Regarding smoking ban, I'm fine with it. But I don't smoke indoors anywhere, would always step outside to smoke or smoke while walking to car or later; don't smoke inside at my home. There are plenty of smoke-free restaurants, businesses so if a nonsmoker, would just avoid going to places where smoking is allowed inside. Personally, I think government is getting too involved with personal rights and also that business owners should be able to decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking in or outside or not at all. It's their business. Customers can choose where they want to go.

Fred

April 3, 2009 - 6:23 am EDT

No, "Beach"
I don't think it's bs and neither does my doctor. As for holding my head over an ashtray---I might as well.

Beachwalk

April 3, 2009 - 5:09 pm EDT

You and your doctor are wrong.
Fact, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems. In that review, researchers examined 106 studies conducted in those 15 years; two in three indicated secondhand smoke does contribute to lung and heart disease.

http://psyed.org/r/crit/crd/second_smoke.html

satyra

April 3, 2009 - 10:54 am EDT

So employees who work in bars should not have the same protection as employees who work everywhere else just because some people want to "relax"? That's ridiculous. What if my relaxing including picking my nose and rubbing it all over the bar? That's not illegal but it's disgusting and unhealthy. Same with smoking. Still, no one would suffer if I did it in my own house. Same with smoking.

Besides the businesses responsibility to create a safe work environment for employees, I wish they'd wake up to the revenue. The percentages of non-smokers outweigh smokers. We want non-toxic places to enjoy. There are many former smokers looking for the same thing. No one would force a recovering alcoholic to drink, but former smokers are constantly forced to endure smoke .

An example: My friend told me about a smoker was puffing away at a kiddies pool where she and her husband's children were swimming. They asked him to stop and he rudely said that smoking was allowed. Yeah, forget the health of the children. Forget the aerobic activities taking place. The establishment didn't do anything about it either. Where is the decency in people? I suppose the kids should just stop swimming to accommodate the smokers?

Another example: The Coliseum is "non-smoking" but sometimes you still get people sucking at their cancer sticks. It's one of the few places non- and former smokers can enjoy music without wheezing. It's not cheap either. We go there as a refuge but some smokers are still hell bent on their "right" to smoke.

Let's be clear. Smoking is not a "right", it's a privilege. Show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights smoking is listed as a "right"?

And if you think you have a right to stink up my clothes and make me too sick to go to work, will you take care of those expenses? I thought not.

Unless there is a ban on smoking in **ALL** buildings open to the public, the minority of smokers will continue to dominate the majority of people who simply want to breath non-toxic air and enjoy going out with their friends and families without getting sick just to do so. Make any cigar place and the like a club and that will take care of them. I have no problem with people smoking in places where everyone has agreed to the risks and the smell.

Non- and former smokers are taking preventative steps with health. We're trying to lessen the health burden for this county, this state, this country, not to mention our families. Smoke if you want to, but stop placing your addictive burden on everyone else!

Beachwalk

April 3, 2009 - 12:03 pm EDT

Why do you think you have the right to tell a business owner; they have to cater to you more than he does to smokers. If a business owners wants to serve smokers and have smoking and non-smoking areas in their establishment, then you have the right to decide to support or not support that establishment.Goverment needs to stay out of it.
As far as the smoker at the pool, I think your friends were the rude ones. This is an outdoor area. Even if your friend's kids caught a little snif of the gentleman's smoke, it did not take one second of life away from anyone except the one who was smoking.You would be in more harm smelling the smoke from a barkyard BBQ gril. (On no, I shouldn't have said that, you'll want to band that as well) I would tell your friends to join a pool that does not allow smoking. They have that right, but they do not have the right to dictate who the owner of the pool wants to cater to.

satyra

April 3, 2009 - 3:16 pm EDT

Government makes many laws for business owners to follow that protect citizens. This no different.

Your assumption about the pool was incorrect. It was an indoor pool.

And this is not just about how smoke can kill - though it can and does do that particularly in the case of elderly people who are exposed. Second-hand smoke destroys the quality of life. You can really feel okay, even good about causing discomfort, expense and even illness in others just so you can enjoy a smoke? Wow.

Beachwalk

April 3, 2009 - 5:03 pm EDT

Your assumption that I smoke is incorrect. I do not smoke. And I have never worked directly for a tobacco company. And you still have the right to NOT support businesses that cater to smokers. You can choose establishments that do not allow smokers and if you are so afriad of smokers you should stay away. But you and/or the goverment have NO right to dictate to business owners who they can cater to. Only if you want to live in a dictatorship country. You might want that, but I will continue to fight against it. Smoking is still a legal product and I'll bet you want to tax cigarettes to pay for childrens healthcare (which makes NO sense, to count on tax money from a product you want to do tax out of exsistance). But you need to think about all the benefits tobacco money has brougth to this state. NO other industry has paid for as many jobs, schools, churches, universities, parks, sports venues,etc. as the tobacco industry.

crys2

April 3, 2009 - 9:44 pm EDT

I pretty much agree with Beachwalk. Regarding other comments about rude smokers (pool), doesn't mean all smokers are like that. I wouldn't have smoked near children at the pool or even other adults that are nonsmokers, would have gone someplace where I felt nonsmokers would not be bothered, even out to my car. There are just plain rude people, smokers and nonsmokers. As to healthcare costs and smoking, I posted an earlier comment. No one is funding my healthcare costs due to smoking, referring here to someone's comment. Government should look at cost of alcohol abuse and addiction if they want to look at healthcare costs. Sorry, I was married to an alcoholic and, at age 51, have known lots of drinkers, not all alcoholics. I'm not against drinking responsibly. But - alcohol drives up healthcare costs. Think driving drunk, wrecks, mental health issues with abuser and family/friends, seeking help for abuse, which insurance or state funds pay.... So taxing cigarettes to fund healthcare, well, alcohol should be equally taxed in my opinion if gov't wants to go after sin taxes. Obesity will probably be next.

Fred

April 3, 2009 - 6:45 pm EDT

BRAVO!

Fred

April 3, 2009 - 6:51 pm EDT

My "BRAVO" was for Satyra! Not Sir Beach!

Beachwalk

April 3, 2009 - 10:27 pm EDT

BRAVO!
My BRAVO is for crys2. Not Satyra or Fred.

cnoguy

April 9, 2009 - 10:56 pm EDT

Look at MD, DC, and CA....They have ALL adopted a smoking ban and it has not affected the businesses negatively. This issue is smoke, plain and simple. If you want to smoke go outside. We don't pay to eat a meal and smell like crap when we leave. Doesn't matter that the smokers are at the bar, they sit you so close to the bar areas, it still moves throughout the restaurant.

We need a bill just like those states that bans it in ALL public establishments. Time to be proactive and protect those that care about their health. Obviously, smokers don't so kick them to the curb.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: FAIR
  • Current Temperature: 55°
  • UV Idx: 2
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 60° L: 36°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search