Judge weighs arguments in smoking ban case : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

HIGH POINT — A lawyer for Gate City Billiards told a district court judge Friday the state ban on smoking in bars and restaurants unfairly distinguishes between nonprofit and for-profit private clubs.

“All we’re asking is that similarly situated people be treated the same,” said Seth Cohen, Gate City’s lawyer.

Judge Jan Samet did not issue an immediate ruling in the case, telling lawyers he will try to rule by Friday.

The case is an appeal of a statewide smoking ban for bars and restaurants that went into effect Jan. 2. Gate City owner Don Liebes appealed two fines issued by the health department to the Guilford County Board of Health. The board rejected those appeals and Liebes brought his case to District Court.

The pool hall is organized as a for-profit private club for purposes of its liquor license. Such clubs are not exempt from the smoking ban. However, nonprofit clubs such as Elks clubs, VFW branches or nonprofit country clubs may allow smoking.

Cohen argued that the General Assembly did not have a rational reason for treating the two types of clubs differently. Gate City did not ask the judge to throw out the law entirely, but did say the judge should set aside enforcement of the law against Gate City.

Guilford County Attorney Mark Payne said lawmakers did have a rational reason for exempting certain types of membership clubs that exist primarily to serve social or fraternal organizations. Those groups, he said, may not want to exclude their members who happen to be smokers from certain activities.

Payne also argued that Cohen was inappropriately conflating the anti-smoking statute with laws that regulate alcohol. Should Samet rule in favor of the club, Payne said, businesses would rush to reorganize as private clubs so they could evade the smoking ban.

“The floodgates will be wide open,” he said.

Although there have been other appeals of the state smoking ban, the one in Guilford County appears to be the first one heard on its merits. A similar case is due to go before a Pitt County court in August.

Samet said he wants to pick carefully through the arguments offered by both sides, telling lawyers he was conscious whichever way he rules the case will likely be appealed.

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

mensareb

July 24, 2010 - 4:50 am EDT

The purpose of law is stated in the law as protecting the health of employees and customers. How does that happen based on whether it is a for profit or non profit establishment??

Tristar500

July 24, 2010 - 6:13 am EDT

I'm sure Bicycle rider1978 will be able to "enlighten" us all on the merits of heavy smoking in bars etc..

He'll be telling us how smoking actually increases your libido, longevity, and of course it's good for children to inhale the healthy second hand smoke.

Hold your breath and wait for the foolishness.....

hadit

July 24, 2010 - 12:02 pm EDT

I think owners who pay the taxes & buy the license to do business in NC should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they should be allowed to smoke or not smoke offer hambugers or steak, chicken or fish or salads. Individual CHOICE, then the customers could decide whether to go or not again CHOICE. and since when do children's health need to be protected in a bar? Their parents should have the sense to keep them at home, nothing worse then a boozing parent dragging along a child to a bar where they have no business being

Panacea

July 24, 2010 - 6:51 pm EDT

It's not just the health of children at stake; it's the health of work staff, who are exposed to second hand smoke.

The ban is intended to protect the public from the effects of second hand smoke. Allowing smoking in restaurants and bars removes the very choices you call for from non-smokers.

Your rights end where mine begin. Smokers do not have the right to push the effects of their deadly habit on me.

mike360000

July 25, 2010 - 5:48 am EDT

Odd how you high tail it out of the other related article's debates
when you post similar objections there and they were refuted.
Then you come here and start it all over again. Same ole asinine
diatribe.

In response to your assertion about 2nd hand smoke, just go to the
previous N&R article here and read Harleyrider1978's response
about the stats on 2nd hand smoke.
http://www.news-record.com/blog/53964/entry/95126
While you are at it, you can reread my articles about Rights also.

Also as for children in bars? Duh, why are children allowed in
bars/poolhalls where alcohol is served? Why should they be?

I am ABSOLUTELY NOT going to let you continue to get away
with the groundless postings you have continually written. Not without
an in-depth response.

Michael

Rayne

July 26, 2010 - 10:58 am EDT

You have a right to a non-smoking environment while enjoying in an alcoholic beverage. Go to a restaurant. I'm a bartender and have been since 1986. I now have to work 2 jobs since my tips are down drastically. My tips suffered horribly yesterday, because in Fayetteville we had a heat index of 118. My customers are mostly retired military men, who fought in Korea and Vietnam. They already served in hot, humid jungles. Why make them suffer all these years later when the only thing they are trying to do is enjoy a beer and a cigarette with their buddies? No children are allowed in a private club, that is not a public place as the law states to be smoke free. If an employee doesn't wish to be exposed to second hand smoke, be a server/bartender in a restaurant!

speakup2

July 24, 2010 - 7:38 am EDT

What is the difference in poisoning your Liver or Burning up your Lungs? If Big Brother is really concerned about the heath of the people why not ban Alcohol as well? Heck while they are at it, make sex with anyone except your lawful spouse illegal as well. That too is risky behavior.

nickolinka

July 24, 2010 - 7:53 am EDT

no difference, speakup2. not a terrible point, however i personally think the law is or should be in place for the health of others. i have chosen a career in the food & beverage sector because of my passion for food, wine and the interaction of others, not to have them blow smoke in my face. i work at a facility that has chosen to be smoke free 100% since we opened, before the ban, but not everyone had that luxury.

detranov

July 24, 2010 - 11:03 am EDT

Well said!!!

July 24, 2010 - 6:52 pm EDT

There is a huge difference.

There is no such thing as second hand alcohol intoxication.

worker ant

July 24, 2010 - 9:39 pm EDT

Being hit head-on by a drunk driver could qualify as a second hand effect of alcohol intoxication.

July 24, 2010 - 11:08 pm EDT

You must be kidding..I bet that more people have been harmed by alcohol than all the smokers combined. As a child from an alcoholic family...I can tell you personally that there is Definitely Second Hand Damage from alcohol..... If people want to be righteous about one unhealthy habit, they need to give the rest the same consideration. Not to worry though, Big Brother is working as we speak to put taxes on many other things. For your own good of course. For the record I gave it up years ago.

July 25, 2010 - 5:35 am EDT

"There is a huge difference.
There is no such thing as second hand alcohol intoxication."

Try telling that to anyone who has been injured by a drunk/intoxicated driver....

Brekka

July 25, 2010 - 12:32 pm EDT

I'm glad you didn't have a parent that was an acoholic. You might not be so high handed with that comment.

DonMoore

July 24, 2010 - 9:56 am EDT

I enjoy going to bars and restaurants now that the smoking ban has been in effect. The only problem I regularly run into these days is finding my server - in most cases, they are on a "smoke break."

Smoking and tobacco products are still legal. This should be a market decision.

July 24, 2010 - 6:53 pm EDT

Not everything needs to be a market decision.

The public needs to be protected from the dangerous effects of second hand smoke, since smokers are unwilling to refrain on their own.

Opportunity

July 24, 2010 - 2:03 pm EDT

Nobody has addressed the central issue. If smoking is allowed in Private Clubs, what does it matter if they are for profit or not? Private clubs require folks to *join.* If you don't care to be around smoking (and I don't, either) don't join. As for employees, if a private club partakes of *any* behavior you are not comfortable with.... move on and look for other employment.

You don't smoke, so your ox is not being gored. Let this sort of governmental intrusion continue and, sooner or later, someone will take a lance thrust at YOUR ox. I can think of a litany of things that should be prohibited for yours or the public's good: bicycling, boating, skating skiing, alcoholic beverages, viewing things "other people" don't think you have the right to view, whom and how you desire to be intimate.... the list goes on forever.

Judge, please use some (all too rare) common sense and keep us off that slippery slope....

July 24, 2010 - 4:24 pm EDT

i think it's a hard decision to make - the main part that i disagree with allowing the private, non profit clubs is it's not an even playing field for businesses. the local bars are probably losing some business to the 'non profit' clubs that serve liquor (i.e. country clubs, elks, etc.) personally, that was my second biggest reason to support the ban in clubs and restaurants - so that everyone had the same rules to play by.

July 24, 2010 - 11:12 pm EDT

Not to worry they are looking at the foods we eat right now, trying to figure out which ones to put the huge taxes on. For our own good of course.

mydogcleo

July 24, 2010 - 4:33 pm EDT

If the club in reference was the Gate City Cigar Club or Gate City Cigarette Club, and all its members shared that in common, the agrument would make sense. I watch pool tournaments on TV and the best players in the nation seem to do just fine without smoking. Smoking is not a requirement of the game or of its participants nor does it enhance the enjoyment.

Interested

July 24, 2010 - 5:34 pm EDT

Does smoking enhance the enjoyment of a round of golf or the enjoyment of veterans socializing? Is it necessary to smoke to participate in either activity? These are not the issues of this case. The issue is why the laws should apply to one group but not another. As a nonsmoker, I personally have reaped the benefits of this legislation, but I disagree with laws that our legislature passes that carve out "advantages" for particular groups: private clubs with special advantages (smoking privileges or alcohol sales in areas where no other businesses are permitted to sell alcohol), businesses permitted to prepare food with no health department oversight merely because they have been in operation for 75 years, etc.

July 24, 2010 - 9:43 pm EDT

I would be surprised if the judge isn't a Country Club member.

July 25, 2010 - 6:49 pm EDT

That's right, run the cowards off!
Spew your filth, your selfishness.
Throw your slants and then when
a decent rebuttal comes,
whimper off like a defeated dog!

news-record.com

NEWS