news-record.com

Holliman said "I don't think my bill will hurt cigarette producers one bit."

You are dead wrong. Tobacco has become cost prohibitive already and now that we will have these restrictions, some people will actually quit.

However, way more than that money leaving our state (and the taxes that are paid to North Carolina from tobacco products is substantial money), here are some other things that you will see:

Workers will take early retirement . Therefore, they won't be paying nearly as much in taxes.
Restaurants and bars will go out of business. Which will put many more folks out of work.
Hotels and tourist attractions in our state will suffer immediately. Folks on vacation do not want to be restricted.

I saw on the news last night that 60% of Americans breathe unhealthy air from pollutions OTHER THAN tobacco.
Let the bans begin !!

We need to track our state's income for one year of this. Then, we all need to get rid of the liberals who want to control everything in our lives. Ms. Perdue don't have too many more funds she can take from.

It should have been passed years ago.

Mr. Holliman is bitter because he chose to smoke cigarettes and got cancer. Here again the liberal congressional nuts lack taking responsibility for their own actions. I don't suppose he eats grilled meats (known carcinogen) or has ever had an x-ray (known carcinogen). He has probably in the past never painted anything (lead in paint--known carcinogen) or used a toilet bowl deodorant in his home (known carcingen). Cobalt Sulfate used as dying agents in ink (known carcinogen) and nitromethane used in special fuels and explosives (known carcinogen) has probably never been used my Mr. Holliman in his entire life so of course the cigarettes that he smoked was the only thing that could possibly be the culprit here. He probably never boiled an egg (which the chemical put out when boiling eggs at a high temperature are a known carcinogen) either. In January of 2005 the number of cancer causing agents was 246. The known to cause cancer list had 58 items and the reasonably anticipated list had 188. Cigarettes was on the reasonably anticipated list. With all of the preservatives and pollutants that we breathe daily it is ignorant to believe that cigarettes and cigarette smoke causes all cancer. Mr. Holliman is just a hater of cigarettes because he got cancer so he wants to dictate what free Americans can do. Under the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution I don't see how you can ban a legal product. Go ahead and ban smoking and when the restaurants go out of business, the tobacco companies who pay (along with their employees) BILLION$ of tax dollars per year go out of business, the tobacco companies' suppliers go out of business, the hotels shut down and people stay home and smoke and stop putting any money into the economy, NC can file bankruptcy. Hugh Holliman is an angry man who wants to force his bitterness on smokers. Hey if we are going to ban smoking from public places because it is an irritant, lets ban snotty nosed kids (their germs are a harm to me), perfumes (they contain propylene glycol--another health hazard), cell phones (the blue tooth has been proved to cause brain cancer) and every other thing that is considered a health hazard. In response to Mr. Holliman's comment pertaining to "its about people breathing clean air", smokers in restaurants choose to sit in the smoking side and non smokers don't have to breathe it. They are on the opposite side. As far as us breathing clean air, park all of the cars, stop all industries from operating, ground the planes, shut down the loggers industry as trees give oxygen for us and stop the transit authority buses. When you read these points, do you understand how stupid a smoking ban is?

Can there really be any reasonable argument against this? People will visit restaurants and bars just as they always have, and as they certainly have in California and New York where I doubt a single business can trace its failure to the smoking ban. This could have something the increased patronage of bars by those many, many non-smokers who have simply avoided smoke-filled bars. Most people, it turns out, don't smoke.
And, of course, there's the minor concern of heading off the tremendous social cost of long-term exposure to second hand smoke both by patrons of bars and restaurants and those who work in them. I might bet that whatever lost revenue the State may suffer will be just about covered by the avoided costs of cancers down the road.

I love it! I'm in full support!

This is great & good & welcome news - high praise to all those that voted to protect the health and well being of all our citizens - thank goodness this passed !!!

Thanks to the Committee. Now to get this into law! When we visit Florida, it is so nice to go into any restaurant and not have to deal with foul cigarette and cigar smoke. And my condolences to those who will lose that after-meal drag - but you stand a good chance of living longer, without cancer!

Unfortunately, this bill will not affect the tobacco industry enough to shake a stick at. It wil only affect people who want to breathe air without toxic tobacco smoke. If only it would kill the tobacco industry, an industry that deserves to die!

The Government will continue to monitor and control citizens behavior, because the few must deliver the many from their own poor choices. We shall soon ban/control poor diet, exercise habits, alcohol consumption, and any other activity deemed evil by the few in Power. No more choices!!!! Do As I Command.

Well, as usual the Orwellians among us rage their paranoid fears that passing a law that protects public safety is the same thing as thought control.

We need to tell corporate America that continuing to poison us is NOT OK. Banning smoking in public places does this.

I, for one, will go out more if there is a ban on smoking. I don't know how many times it seemed fun to go out to a bar except for the fact that you leave smelling like an ashtray...and not just for the night. Even after showering, I can smell it in my hair for a couple of days. Why should the non-smokers be the ones who have to choose to stay home if they don't want to be poisoned. Let the smokers be forced to choose between being social outside their homes and poisoning themselves.

As someone said, California and New York City are doing just fine without cigarettes.

Let's just hope it becomes a LAW!

I just don't like gov't deciding things like this. It should be up to the business owner, whether it's a mall or restaurant or dept store or convenience store.... Bans are fine (and I am a smoker) but I don't like gov't dictating to business owners (who may or may not smoke themselves) on this type issue as to how to run their business; it's their profit or loss. As a smoker, I do appreciate an outside area to step outside to or to feel safe to go out to my car, away from any main entrances. I don't smoke indoors (except for my car) anywhere. Back to government -- at age 51 now, I feel like the past decade or so that we are getting to that "Big Brother" point with gov't intruding. There are so many more important issues state and federal gov'ts need to address.

I just don't like gov't deciding things like this. It should be up to the business owner, whether it's a mall or restaurant or dept store or convenience store.... Bans are fine (and I am a smoker) but I don't like gov't dictating to business owners (who may or may not smoke themselves) on this type issue as to how to run their business; it's their profit or loss. As a smoker, I do appreciate an outside area to step outside to or to feel safe to go out to my car, away from any main entrances. I don't smoke indoors (except for my car) anywhere. Back to government -- at age 51 now, I feel like the past decade or so that we are getting to that "Big Brother" point with gov't intruding. There are so many more important issues state and federal gov'ts need to address.

mmmmm,,,North Carolina needs to remember that tobacco is what funded the state for many years