news-record.com

HEALTH

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Will PTI become a no-smoking zone?

Monday, June 29, 2009
(Updated 5:08 pm)

GREENSBORO — Our airport was once known informally as having one of the more smoker-friendly terminals in the country.

It’s a title that would seem to make sense; Piedmont Triad International Airport is arguably in the epicenter of tobacco country. If you have business at two of the nation’s largest tobacco companies — Lorillard in Greensboro, Reynolds American in Winston-Salem — PTI is your destination airport.

But beginning today, a nod to the wealth that helped build this area — the airport smokers lounge — could be at risk of ending when Guilford County’s bBoard of health takes up a policy that would eliminate smoking areas in public buildings.

The health board will discuss banning smoking from municipal buildings in Guilford County, which most municipalities have done anyway. But PTI still allows smoking in its sports bar and an adjoining lounge.

“Airport authorities are listed under local buildings, local municipal buildings,” said Mary Gillett, coordinator of the Tobacco Use Prevention Coalition of Guilford County, a sub-unit of the Guilford County Department of Public Health.

A state law allowing municipalities and health boards to determine their own smoke-free areas gives the county health department power to regulate the issue.

Attempts to reach airport authority officials for comment last week were unsuccessful.

“North Carolina is following a sort of logical progression of protecting people from secondhand smoke,” said Elisabeth Constandy, director of program development in the office for tobacco prevention and control under the state’s Division of Public Health.

Similarly, the state will ban smoking in restaurants and bars Jan 2.

The moves to ban smoking in more public places is a jolt to some in the Old North State. Then again, there’s plenty of evidence showing the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke.

In 2006, U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona issued a report saying “nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.”

But just because the state is moving away from smoking in public doesn’t mean it’s moving from being tops in tobacco production.

In 2007, the most recent figures available, tobacco production in the state added $7 billion to the economy, according to the state’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences. In that year, the gross national product related to tobacco was more than $64 billion.

“To me, being from Reidsville, if it wasn’t for the area’s tobacco, there would be no Reidsville, no North Carolina,” said B.J. Slone, who sat in the airport smoking area recently with her grandson, puffing a cigarette. “It’s wrong to ban.”

Fewer people trot out that defense these days, but it’s more likely to still be heard in this part of the country, where tobacco produced money, jobs and corporations that brought arts and culture to the region.

In Winston-Salem, R.J. Reynolds has been a major employer, not to mention a supporter of arts programs and culture.

Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Reidsville, Mocksville and numerous other communities in the Piedmont are still home to cigarette manufacturing and corporate headquarters that continue to pump out smokes — and keep people in jobs such as farming, manufacturing, marketing, on and up to locally based corporate heads.

Both of the state’s U.S. senators, Kay Hagan from Greensboro and Richard Burr of Winston-Salem, recently opposed legislation that gave the Food and Drug Administration regulation over tobacco products. Their attempts failed.

Commissioner Linda Shaw, whose district includes PTI, once was a smoker and supports a ban on smoking in the terminal.

“I’ll just have to go along with what the health department advises,” she said.

Commissioner Steve Arnold is against the measure, on principle.

“I’m very opposed to government playing big brother and telling people what to do or not do and how to live or not live,” he said.

As widespread support for smoking erodes, so do the number of places outside your own home where you can still light up.

“I still smoke, and I probably shouldn’t,” said Lloyd Kelly of Pinehurst, who was at PTI one afternoon this past week, waiting on a flight to Houston.

“I’m not ready to quit,” he said.

 Contact Gerald Witt at 373-7008 or gerald.witt@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

Jerry Wolford (News & Record)

Photo Caption: Amanda Rose of Asheville in the smoking lounge at Piedmont Triad International Airport on Tuesday. 

RECENT SMOKING LEGISLATION

May 19: Gov. Bev Perdue signs legislation that bans smoking from all bars and restaurants in the state, effective Jan. 2, 2010 .

June 22: President Barack Obama gives regulatory authority to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over tobacco products, meaning the government has greater control over what goes into tobacco products and how they are marketed.

Today: Guilford County’s board of health will take up a resolution that would eliminate smoking areas from municipal buildings. Most municipalities here already have such regulations, but the airport, which has two public smoking areas does not.

 

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.

Lakeshia

June 29, 2009 - 8:10 am EDT

Cigarette users are nothing more than foul smelling druggies with bad breath who lack common sense, will power, and personal discipline - there is little difference between tobacco farmers and Latin American growers of the plant (coca) from which cocaine is derived - both cater to human weaknesses and make significant contributions to ill health and early deaths - tobacco sellers and marketers are actually nothing more than drug pushers- everytime I see someone using one of those personal portable oxygen tanks with the little plastic tubes running up their nose I approach them ever so sweetly & politely and ask them if they have a cigarette I can bum. Having a smoking section at PTI makes about as much sense as having a urinating section in a swimming pool -

bigwill

June 29, 2009 - 10:06 am EDT

Wow, I would hope you have never done anything bad in your life to make a comment like that. Funny thing is that even though I can't stand smoking, I know plenty of people that could run circles around you, would end up living longer than you, or could eat you alive on your intelligence anyday. Just because someone smokes doesn't mean they are any less of a person than you are. It seems you are the one lacking commen sense making a comment like that on here. So I guess you are a foul smelling druggie according to your definition.

sir william

June 29, 2009 - 10:08 am EDT

Lakeshia, I'm a smoker( by choice), but I am considerate about where and when I choose to light one up! I don't smoke around non-smokers,children, or in anyone's home.I agree it's a weakness of mine, one in which I am trying to eliminate. But, I would find pleasure in meeting you and blowing a big "smoke-ring" in your face! You need to find a real job, because I notice you spend an awful lot of time on the BLOGS! And BTW, Since you are more concerned about if a person wears a seat belt or not, and not concerned about if they survived an accident, I always wears my seat belt!! LOL!!

bigwill

June 29, 2009 - 10:20 am EDT

LMAO....She does have a seatbelt fetish.

123mlynn

June 29, 2009 - 8:35 am EDT

Gosh, show some compassion, please. Your message is vitriolic. I suppose you are virtuous, no vices, no flaws...oh, wait, judgmental is a flaw.

tonymo

June 29, 2009 - 9:57 am EDT

From the UK Telegraph

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.

The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

bigwill

June 29, 2009 - 10:17 am EDT

Next time before you post a one sided comment, make sure you research the subject. This is also from the UK Telegraph contradicting your story.

Tom Utley says if there were a strong link between passive smoke and disease, the much-debated study by Enstrom et al. in the British Medical Journal should have shown it.

In fact, our scientists (American Cancer Society) repeatedly told Dr Enstrom his study would not be able to identify such a link, primarily because of changing times.

Enstrom's study shows only that non-smokers who lived with smokers beginning in 1959 did not face substantially increased risk. Those with short memories may forget how ubiquitous tobacco exposure was until quite recently in the States. Had Dr Enstrom used data collected in the 1980s (our Cancer Prevention Study II, for example), he would have found what we and others, including the World Health Organization, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Surgeon General already have: that secondhand smoke is carcinogenic.

This is not about political correctness. It's about good science, and not being misled by studies paid for by the tobacco industry solely because they will keep this issue "controversial".

Panacea

June 29, 2009 - 12:55 pm EDT

Well said.

greywolf

June 29, 2009 - 11:47 am EDT

Okay, maybe Lakeshia's post was a little over the top, but, clearly the health department should step in and rid PTI of smoking.

And you've got to hand it to her... The line "having a smoking section at PTI makes about as much sense as having a urinating section in a swimming pool" is a really, really good one!!

Glad to see the smoke disappear!

milkman

June 29, 2009 - 12:42 pm EDT

As soon as this smoking issue is over, lets work on having flights that leave Greensboro, actually fly somewhere besides Charlotte, Atlanta, and a couple other cities. And lets take the "I" out of PTI, cause it doesn't stand for International. Maybe "Inconvenience, but not internationational

greywolf

June 29, 2009 - 3:12 pm EDT

I second that!!

DaveW

June 29, 2009 - 4:22 pm EDT

I agree. If you have any further comments or questions call me at 1-800-NO-SMOKE.

Michael J. McFadden

June 30, 2009 - 11:30 am EDT

So the antismoking official says banning a single small bar in the airport makes sense because “North Carolina is following a sort of logical progression of protecting people from secondhand smoke." . - .
.
Really? Think that truly makes sense? Think about this:
.
Protecting people from secondhand smoke... in an airport? An airport where hundreds of planes are freely spewing jet fuel fumes into the terminals’ air intakes?? . - .
.
Looking at just two of the emissions that jets and cigarettes have in common shows how ridiculous this is. According to the Surgeon Generals' 1986 Report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, a cigarette puts out a total of 3 mg of nitrogen oxide (NO) and 40 mg of carbon monoxide (CO). The 1995 EPA study on airplane emissions cites a single 747 takeoff/landing at about 115 pounds of NO and 32 pounds of CO: that's 52 million mg of NO and 14 million mg of CO if you do the math. . - .
.
Doing a bit more math for a typical 500 takeoffs/landings per day shows us that the nice clean smokefree air being pumped into those terminals has the CO equivalent of over 160 million cigarettes and the NO of Eight and a Half BILLION cigarettes. . - .
.
All of which is being shwooshed right into the lungs of travelers who supposedly need "protection" from a few cigarettes being puffed in a secluded and probably sealed off and ventilated sports bar and lounge.. This would be funny if it weren’t so sad. . - .
.
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

References:
1986 SG Report pgs. 129, 130, 136
EPA Report "Technical Data... Commercial Aviation" 09/29/95

Michael J. McFadden

June 30, 2009 - 11:33 am EDT

As for Lakeshia's comment that, "Having a smoking section at PTI makes about as much sense as having a urinating section in a swimming pool -" it's worth noting that this is a standard antismoking sound bite that has been used thousands of times on the internet and elsewhere.... and it's totally nonsensical.

A standard swimming pool changes its water about once a year. The PTI terminal changes its air roughly 50,000 times a year.

There's a difference.... even if it's too subtle for an Antismoker to understand.

- MJM

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: 64°
  • UV Idx: 1
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 66° L: 40°

User Tools

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

Search