Brian_in_Charlotte

Oh, maybe you mean smoke-free public buildings. I thought you were including bars/restaurants.

I agree that I do find it amusing/disappoining when we walk into a Charlotte restaurant that doesn't even have a non-smoking section.

It's only a matter of time until we catch up with the rest of you lucky folks.

calitexan

I live in CA too. It's just so much nicer to concentrate on your food without inhaling something that totally distracts you from something that could be enjoyable. When we go to Vegas and end up eating in their "smoking or non smoking?" type places, we long for the good food but back home.

ncgrrl

Before 93 for Chapel Hill/Orange County and I guess around then for Durham. I remember when it was enacted about how a town founded on tobacco wouldn't allow smoking.

Some restaurants and businesses had banned smoking on their own before then.

But remember, when dealing with CH, you're dealing with the tree-hugging environmental hippie types. CH (and Carrboro) are usually ahead of everyone in environmental issues.

Now, if we could get the idiots from smoking while filling the gas tank. (Kaboom)

virginia

i don't like it one bit. i don't feel that the government (which by the way does not supply health care to me) has any legal right to tell me what to do. i'd like to see what you all would have to say if they decided to make drinking illegal. and don't even try to tell me that the cost of treating the issues related to alcohol doesn't vastly exceded the cost of dealing with smokers. think liver disease, heart disease, general alcoholism, drunk driving incidents, fights, teen age alcoholism (and pregancy that goes with), physical abuse to family members not to mention mental abuse. lost hours at work, and to keep this travel related the hotel rooms destroyed by drunks require costly repairs upping my bill.

Scarlett

I love it. My town is smoke free and my apt building is smoke free. No smoking in apts even by guest. No smoking in front of the building or the outdoor spaces.
It always smells good.
I never hear anyone complaining about non smoking areas anymore, I guess everyone is wising up..

razzledazzle

Even outdoor dining is affected in
San Francisco:
From SF Chronicle-
"San Francisco supervisors voted(January 2005)to ban smoking in all parks, public squares and other outdoor spaces that the city owns, joining a handful of other California municipalities that have gotten even tougher on tobacco users.
In an 8-3 vote, the Board of Supervisors agreed that the health and environmental risks associated with discarded cigarette butts and second-hand smoke merited extending existing indoor bans to outdoor spaces.

People caught smoking in any of the places where the new law applies can be fined up to $100 on first offense, $200 for a second violation and $500 for each additional violation.

Based on enforcement of similar bans in Pasadena, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and elsewhere, city officials said little oversight would be necessary. Most smokers voluntarily comply with signs preventing them from lighting up, they said.

The ban will apply to well-known open spaces such as Golden Gate Park and popular tourist destinations including Union Square and Pier 39."

I rarely see it in outdoor dining venues in Sonoma or Napa as well-
I like it !!
R5

Fraggle

Virginia you have a point. I have thought of this before too. Though, the obvious difference is that one must choose to drink in order to "take in" alcohol. As I'm walking out of the Port Authority Bus Station every morning here in New York, I often have to walk through a throng of smokers milling about outside. Short of holding my breath, I'm forced to inhale a substance that I would rather not put into my body. I'm all for a free society, but I think that includes having the right to as clear air as possible. I do choose to drink, but I'm responsible, and if I'm out with friends that don't drink, my drinking does not affect them. The same can not be said for smokers.

bennnie

Fraggle - the flaw in your argument is that nobody chooses to get killed in a car accident by a drunk driver. No child chooses to have to deal with a alcoholic parent. No corporation chooses to take on the expense of having an ineffective or worse a dangerous drunk employee. Do we not have the right to drive or walk down a street without getting hit? Do we not have a right to ride on a bus, train or plane without worry that the driver, engineer or pilot is drunk?

And you may believe you are being responsible but by its very nature alcohol impairs your judgement. So can we really trust individuals to make a valid judgement that its okay for them to drive after having a few?

Its a slippery slope that government has choosen to balance on. Where will the slide end?

Not saying I want to smoke in public places or workplaces but you do have to wonder what's next.

Fraggle

All of the circumstances mentioned above are dealing with the abuse of alcohol. We have several laws in place to create consequences for those that make decisions (like driving while drunk) that affect others in a negative way. My point is that cigarettes don't need to be abused for them to negatively affect others. My reasoning definitly has its flaws, but I still say there's a difference.

travelgirl_67

I lived in CA and loved the smoke-free environment and was so thrilled to find it in MA when I moved there. I moved back home to Charleston, SC 2 years ago and still can't get used to smoking in restaurants again. I so miss sitting in a restaurant and actually tasting my food and not the cigarette of the person across the room.

JJ5

Exactly, bennnie and virgina, so truthfully said.

It's amazing how human nature can pick/ choose and rationalize what should be forbidden to others because at some level it affects them for some scores/issues and totally ignore others-because they are "rights". It is a very, very, very slippery slope. I hate smoke- but I just don't think it is a good thing to legislate.

JJ5

Alcohol is far most costly in health issues actually, regardless of not counting the mental health issues. And with just Fetal Alcohol Syndrome alone- well- they have NO choice about being "in the room."

And that isn't "abuse" per se, as NO amount of alcohol is good for the fetus.

Fraggle, there's a lot more than just a few flaws in that argument.

LLindaC

Okay- didn't mean to get off the subject here, LOL. I've worked in thick smoke as a musician and now can't tolerate it at all. I cannot go out any more to hometown clubs for music or dancing! We choose to travel to other places and it doesn't seem like they are hurting. Still waiting to hear from people who say their business is down, closed, etc and how it's changed their towns.

nytraveler

Sorry - the situations are not analagous.

Drinking a small amount does not impair people's judgements - and for many people is even healthful. It is the abuse of alcohol that is a problem - that is being taking more and more seriusly in terms of consequences. Drunk drivers are fined, have their cars impounded and go to jail. Drunk employees lose their jobs. And eventually drunks lose their families (I know this from personal experience).

But the essence - if a drunk driver kills someone they go to jail. No one sends a husband to jail because his secondhand smoke gave his wife lung cancer. Or did the same to the waitress in the bar/restaurant - or his coworkers. (And smokers still have the right to damage their own health by smoking in their homes or cars - or on the street.)

And based on how addictive nictoine is (which alcohol is not) I can;t imagine how anyone can justify not regulating it at least (on the way to baning it entirely I hope).

Based on your thinking Virginia there's no reason to ban marijuana, cocaine, crack, heroin or anything else - since people have the right to do whatever they want.

jorr

Justifiy smoking by comparing it to alcohol use is strange. Nobody forces booze down other people's throats. Smokers force cigarette smoke down the throat of everyone around them who is breathing.

Smokers should have no right to light a smoldering fire in any building accept in their own home. Since when did smokers think they have the right to light smoldering fires inside buildings whenever they please? They have always Assumed that they had that right. No more.

virginia

alcohol not addicting?

nytraveler

Alcohol is not addicting. Certain people have a genetic make up that results in their bodies reacting to alcohol differently - and they are much more likely to become alcoholics - if they don;t abstain.

To most people alcohol is no more addicting than any other food or drink.

Hazelmn

Minneapolis is smoke free, and it is great. I can't speak for others, but patronize bars and music venues about twice as much now that they are smoke free.

Underhill

Davis is smoke-free: no smoking within 20 feet of a commercial establishment and no smoking while walking on the street or sitting outside a business. Spoils me for everywhere else.

Alisa

Alcohol not addictive? What defintiion are you using?

Alcohol, like many drugs, is additive.