news-record.com

OPINION

Editorial: Plan now for new smoking rules

Thursday, November 12, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

 

Starting Jan. 2, it will not be business as usual for the thousands of restaurants, motels and even convenience stores in North Carolina that serve food. That's when the controversial statewide smoking ban takes effect.

Given the uncertainties of what lies ahead, Gov. Bev Perdue already has set up a Web site, www.SmokeFree.NC.gov, to answer questions, provide guidance and help smokers kick the habit.

But as the effective date looms closer, both state and local officials need to shed more light on what businesses that serve food and the public can expect in January.

Whether the state wrongly trampled on the rights of business owners in the name of public health is water under the bridge. Legislators who argued that the health dangers of secondhand smoke outweigh private property rights correctly prevailed in that debate.

Now the challenge is to clarify which establishments are covered and how the strict new rules will affect their customers. Initial confusion on exemptions could complicate what ideally should be a smooth transition. In addition, enforcement, which primarily rests with local health officials, could emerge as a gray area.

Patrons can report violations on the Web site, call an 800 number or tell business managers, who the law says should enforce compliance. If a disruptive customer ignores what the Web site calls a "common sense" request to stop smoking, the incident can be reported to local law enforcement. Hopefully, such confrontations will be rare. However, where alcohol flows, they can't be ruled out.

There's still plenty of time to anticipate and respond to potential problems. Yet, launching such a massive undertaking involving the state's far-reaching hospitality industry requires crossing t's and dotting i's.

The New Year's holiday already has enough fireworks.

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 report abuse.

harleyrider1978

November 12, 2009 - 6:14 am EST

SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor..................thats right water..........you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made......thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006........after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons.......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ........they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs as junk science......... Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

concludes that "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed." What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers.....

meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent " The results are consistent with their 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. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.' " And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)

The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978

Interested

November 12, 2009 - 7:01 am EST

Interesting articles. I just wonder, though. How many studies support your point of view and how many studies support the opposite point of view? I believe you can find studies supporting both sides of any argument. At that point, what often becomes relevant is which side gets the most consistent support.

dcolin

November 12, 2009 - 12:12 pm EST

Bull Shit

Unless your are an organic Chemist.

harleyrider1978

November 12, 2009 - 1:33 pm EST

its not bullshit........second hand smoke is 94% water vapor......any organic material that is burned releases as its major component the water or moisture it contains....whether its tobacco or wood,leaves all of natures products that burn....ever burned firewood.seasoned wood hardly smokes while green wood smokes to no end....The same goes for any green organic material. Tobacco is kept moist so that it burns at the right amount to produce a fine tasting flavor.....if tobacco doesnt smoke its so dried out it will literally burn your throat......Its quite obvious you have never raised tobacco or smoked it.......have you ever had a campfire.......same effect with the smoke. green smokes dry doesnt.......its still the release of water vapor from the organic material.........with second hand smoke its 94% approximatly.

dcolin

November 12, 2009 - 2:47 pm EST

Bull Shit

In case you did not understand the first time.

harleyrider1978

November 12, 2009 - 3:24 pm EST

But of course, why dont you just concede.......

dcolin

November 12, 2009 - 5:18 pm EST

If you can smell it can't be just water vapor.

Can it?

Again you are an organic chemist or just a smoker.

Panacea

November 12, 2009 - 9:55 am EST

Cigarettes are not made of coal, but tobacco, which makes me question much of your reasoning in this rant.

Here's the conclusion of the BMJ article you cite in its entirely, not just the bit you selected:

"Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

The authors don't conclude there is no effect from second hand smoke, just that their evidence doesn't support a direct link between 2nd hand smoke and death.

But regardless of whether or not secondhand smoke is dangerous, it just plain STINKS! I'm glad this law is about to take effect.

harleyrider1978

November 12, 2009 - 10:30 am EST

Heres what the smoke free groups did to try and prove a connection to heart disease and second hand smoke....

The "30 minute" experiments that the statement is based on have nothing at all to do with the exposures one might get on a park bench sitting next to a smoker or even with what one would normally get in any decently ventilated bar or restaurant.

The exposures in the supportive experiments involve smoke concentrations at levels of 400% to 2,000% as high as what used to be measured in the middle of the smoking sections of pressurized airplanes!! (Which used to be held up as one of the worst smoking environments.)

The experiments take nonsmokers who avoid smoke in all their daily home, social, and working life, force them to sign papers

acknowledging the "danger" they are about to be put in, and then sealing them in smoke-choked chambers that nonsmokers would run screaming from if they weren't being paid $100 to endure 30 minutes for science. . . . When the poor souls come stumbling out blood test measurement show small changes that could theoretically relate to heart disease.

The changes are like ones other experimenters find when they feed subjects a bowl of corn flakes and milk.... but in the kooky world of antismoking research those results get twisted into representing an unusual and deadly threat.

And remember: they only get those results in EXTREME conditions, nothing like normal restaurant/park or even decent bar/casino exposures. . . . The Antismokers today are lying just like Big Tobacco did back in the 1950s.
Antismoking extremism needs to be put to rest. Smoking is unhealthy like a lot of other things, but the smoke from burning smokers at the stake smells a lot worse than Newports. . . .

Cornflakes, White Bread Could Boost Heart Risk
'High-glycemic' carbs like these hamper blood vessel function, study shows.

THURSDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- Eating a diet rich in carbohydrates that boost blood sugar levels -- foods such as cornflakes or white bread -- may hamper the functioning of your blood vessels and raise your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, a new study suggests.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=627806

harleyrider1978

November 12, 2009 - 10:34 am EST

As with everything tobacco control does its always propaganda and hyped up radical science trying to prove something that doesnt even exist......thats why the american cancer society gave up om its california study because the preliminary results didnt show any harm from exposure to second hand smoke...so the tobacco companies picked it up thru a third party and ran it for another 7 years a total of 39 years...where no harm resulted to anyone....

jbcarper

November 12, 2009 - 1:19 pm EST

It's very obvious that you have worked hard at being informed on this issue. For myself, I don't care if second hand smoke causes cancer or not. I get upset by second hand smoke for the same reason that I get upset if someone pukes on my shoes: it's distasteful, dirty, and I didn't ask or agree for it to get on me.

harleyrider1978

November 12, 2009 - 3:28 pm EST

simply use your constitutional power of self choise and read the sign or follow your nose,if it has smoking allowed go some where else.......no law required. When the sign says no smoking....I go some where else..very simple plan.

dcolin

November 12, 2009 - 5:21 pm EST

Sometimes you can't.

Elmer

November 12, 2009 - 3:25 pm EST

"Yeah, I'll put it out, provided you're willing to let me stub it out on your eyeball." -- Ben Kingsley line in a scene from Sexy Beast

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ben-Kingsley-refuses-to-put-out-his-cigar...

DaveW

November 12, 2009 - 8:15 pm EST

Anything that burns (up to and including a cigarette) produces carbonmonoxide. Carbonmonoxide is a colorless,odorless gas that combines with blood hemoglobin 250 times faster than oxygen.This is the same gas that comes from automobile exhaust.People commit suicide by inhaling automobile exhaust. More people die in fires from smoke inhalation than from burns. Don't give me that water vapor horseshit!

dusenberry

November 13, 2009 - 6:50 am EST

Three packs a day for thirty six years @ Avg. $2.00 per pack = a brand new car. Thats enough reason to quit and eat the greasy hot dog.

Lakeshia

November 13, 2009 - 9:26 am EST

What kind of ignorant doofus would suck smoke into their respiratory system ???

Panacea

November 13, 2009 - 9:34 am EST

harleyrider1978

NoTobaccoNet

November 13, 2009 - 9:37 pm EST

I agree, as a smoker, that NOW IS the time to plan ahead for new smoking rules that will infringe upon your freedoms as a smoker. BUT, there is a simple solution to all of this!

If smokers embrace electronic cigarettes, then the issue of smoking bans will be mute. There is no second-hand smoke, no odor, no carcinogens, no CO2, and no mess like ashes, butts, etc. from electronic cigarettes. If smokers of tobacco cigarettes would switch their habit to a non-tobacco electronic cigarette, we would have no further need to further infringe on the personal freedoms of any one group. Whether you are a smoker, or a non-smoker, you should learn more about this technology.

If you are smoker, consider it as an option. You won't be inhaling all the chemicals and carcinogens that you currently do from your tobacco cigarette.

If you are a non-smoker, learn about the technology, and pass the information on to your friends who are smokers. The electronic cigarette is a win-win in so many ways.

You can learn all about this technology including the contents of electronic cigarette vapor and other information such as scientific studies fully documented at my informational website, http://www.NoTobacco.net/Blog

Thank you.

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

User Tools

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

Search