Revisiting the No Smoking topic

[AnneM]

I recently moved to Cary from NY where the ban on smoking had taken place. I miss that ban and feel strongly about it. However, now that I am here people are smoking in restaurants and the "no smoking" section are worse than they were in NY even before the ban had taken place. Has anyone noticed that? In NY, before the ban took place rooms for smokers had to be separated by a wall or glass. In there had to be a strong filtration system so the customers and the waiters wouldn't also have to suffer from the smoke filled rooms. That only worked as long as the rooms were completely closed in and no one left any open doors. A lot of bathrooms were still in the smoking sections which would make using the facilities very unpleasant.

Cary is a young town with a lot of young families and children. I feel that smoking really needs to be more of a concern. Unfortunately, a lot of restaurant owners would feel by enforcing a smoking ban in Cary would mean people will just head out to a near by town where smoking is not banned. The no smoking ban unfortunately would have to be state wide in order for restaurants to feel more comfortable. That's what NY did because just enforcing the ban in Nassau County was not working out well and restaurants were not taking the ban seriously in order to keep their customers. Now that the ban is in place, restaurants did not suffer because now both smokers and non-smokers are enjoying going out more.

My feeling on it is, I don't want to smell it when eating or drinking at restaurants. It makes the food taste bad, and I tend to sneeze and cough more. There are a lot of asthmatic people out there that can't go to restaurants that allow smoking because of the health issue and I find that unfair to them. It wouldn't hurt a smoker to be around any non-smoker. It's not a health issue from that view, but it is a health concern for a non-smoker to be around smoke. As far as children go, without the smoking in restaurants, families would feel freer to take their children to more types of restaurants and have a family night out is other establishements that they previously could not frequent. ASthmatics and other health conscious peopel would also frequent the restaurants that choose not to have smoking. Some already have decided ban smoking and that's great but some of my favorite establishments still include smoking and I don't always have the choice to sit far away from the smoking section.

I am new here and I don't want to be seen in a bad light. but I'm curious since it's been a year since the last poll had taken place here, has anyone changed their views about the no smoking ban and the possibility of having one here in Cary? Piedmont area? or the entire state of North Carolina?

[washere]

Anne-
I'm not a big fan of smoking myself. I think it's awful and am particularly sensitive to it (it gives me awful headaches, and frankly I don't much care for smelling like smoke). Having recently been pregnant, it was actually a very real health concern for me to not be around excessive smoke, so I understand the concern.

Personally, I'll just do my business with my feet. Some places are really bad about it (even allowing smoking in non-smoking sections) so I just don't go to those places. If they're chains, I'll call their corporate hq and tell them that the smoking situation was so bad that I won't be going back. If they're "mom and pop" joints, I'll ask to speak with the manager/owner and explain that the smoking situation is out of control and that I won't be going back.

But no, I don't think there needs to be a law over it. If enough of us quit eating out at places where there isn't good enforcement/separation of smoking/non smoking sections, then the owners of those establishments will make the no smoking rule on their own. :wink:

[AnneM]

Char,

I'm glad you do call the managers on it and the companies if it's that bad, but not going to the establishments unfortunately is not a big enough reason for the owners to stop allowing smokers unless they know what the protest is about. Also enough people do smoke or are not willing to abandon their favorite restaurants just to protest that the places may not care as much about the protest. At least that's my view on it. I think more needs to be done if enough people feel it's important for restaurants to ban smoking.

[Cathy]

AnneM,

I do have a question for you.

Tell me, where are these restaurants that you have been to where there are people lighting up with the level of abandon that you imply?
Die hard smokers might want to know.

From my own experience, I can't think of a single restaurant that I've been to lately where I have seen much smoking taking place, even outside. Yes, there are still places where you can smoke if you don't mind being seated in the bar area or outside, but even there, (and without enacting a smoking BAN), in most nicer places, I see few people who feel comfortable enough to light a cigarette in the middle of a group of people who may be bothered by it.

In light of this, I can't help but question the motivation behind your posting here. It seems disingenuous. If you just want to live where smoking is banned, why did you leave NY?

And I doubt that you actually care what "light" you are seen in, as long as you eventually get your way.

Cathy

[Wuptdo]

AnneM - like the aviator, who's the artist?

I was in Florida a few months ago, and they have a smoking ban in eating establishments as well. I believe that "pub-like" places you can still smoke. I agree with CharChar, I let my wallet decide the issue. For instance, we walked into the Hibertion Bar & Grill(sp) on Kildare Rd. one evening, and turned around a walked right back out. The young lady at the door, told us they did have a no smoking section, but the smell was just too overwhelming at the door. Another time, we had a coupon and were told that some Irish Pub over on High House Rd and (__ :roll: - CRS - Kroger Shopping Center) had great "Fish & Chips." We were early, so no one was at the bar. By the time we finished, the bar was packed with smokers. (But the Fish & Chips were great!) Bonefish Grill on Friday nite can be pretty bad too (realtors!). :roll:

Cathy has a good point. We need to use our collective heads and put togather a list of "smoker-friendly" and "smoke-free" joints, in and around Cary. :-D

Wuptdo B-)

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams

[AnneM]

Ok let me just defend myself on this one.

Cathy, I don't expect to be right, nor to have my way...just heard. My post was not made in any hostile intent, you read it that way because apparently you too feel strong about the issue. Great! I'm glad you feel that way, but I too feel strongly about how I feel. I will not tell you that your feelings and opinions are bad or wrong as long as you only intend for me to hear them. Please don't insult me as I have not done anything to you. I will argue my point if I disagree, but I do not expect those that feel strongly to change their minds. They are entitled to their opinions, and I don't hold anyone against theirs. My rebutle on what Char said is I actually see her point as I said. And her way of walking out of restaurants is one way to make feelings known. All I was saying though is unless the restaurants know why you are walking out, they won't take her leaving seriously. If she does say something when she leaves, then the point is noted and it was not made clear to me. I think what she is doing is great. If she thinks a law does not need to be made. That is her opinion. I disagree, but she is not wrong in her thoughts. They are her thoughts and she should stick with them if that's how she feels.

The rooms of smoke I was talking about were in NY before the ban was in place. I left NY because it is nicer here and less expensive not to mention I can actually get a job here and live off of what I make. Smoking in restaurants is not any reason to stay someplace or move someplace but to me is a large annoyance. Places like Champps for example don't have a good separation. They do have a bar separating smoking and non-smoking, which does help. I do however still inhale the stuff when it's crowded. Outback steak house in NY was forced to put up a glass wall to help keep the smoke in the smoking area, bathrooms were still in the smoking areas. The glass wall separation didn't always work but did help. The outback steakhouses here don't have those wall separators and nothing separating the smoking from the non-smoking. I feel like I'm going to choke in that place even when I'm seated far away. The fans really don't help. What sucks is, I love the food there so I can really only go during non-busy hours. I find this unfair. I, nor anyone against smoking for both comfort and health reasons, should have to worry about where to eat.

By the way, in "light" of this post here, I must say why is it I find that smokers tend to feel so threatened by us non-smokers expressing their concerns? Comments like "you [non-smokers] will continue this until you eventually get your way" is a stereotypical comment made by a smoker. Why do us non-smokers not get so threatened and upset when a smoker says why can't all restaurants have smoking? You smokers get so threatened because you can't light up for the duration of your dinner. Have shorter dinners if it upsets you so much. Don't force the unpleasant smells down our throats just becasue you need to feed your addiction.

[AnneM]

Wuptdo> I like that avatar too :) I found it in the list of avatars in the profile here. It's near the bottom of the huge list. :)

[Cathy]

AnneM,

For a non-smoker who does "not get so threatened and upset " you sure sound pretty defensive to me.

I don't smoke in restaurants.
And I will say this again,_ I don't go to bars to eat dinner and the restaurants that I go to, like Bonefish, do not smell like smoke and I have rarely seen anyone smoking in them. And I have been to Bonefish when it was quite crowded.

Most restaurants that I go to that have a choice at all, (it seems to be either you have a choice or there is no smoking) when they ask, I either say 'I have no preference' or I request the smoking section even though I don't smoke while I'm there. (It's a 'principle thing') I have not experienced a situation where there was someone smoking near me in a long time.

You weren't being hostile in your post and I did not read it that way or say that you were. I would say that you conveyed your point in a way that could be described as "sweetness and light". I said it was disingenuous, because what I DO read in your post is a very strong desire to see choice taken away from anyone and that the matter should be settled in favor of your desire to see it banned. I'm sure that if that was NOT your underlying feelings that you would not hesitate to set me straight.

And I do get upset when I see another group of fascist-minded, self righteous "citizens" trying to throw the weight of their 'moral superiority' around and use the law to force their opinion of how others should behave on everyone else around them, whether it is over smoking, or diet, or exercise, or choice of transportation, or housing, clothing, haircolor, or anything else.

So if you are not one of those people who thinks that the government should step in and regulate other people's behavior to suit you, then you should have no problem with what I am saying because it doesn't apply to you then.

You put your thoughts out there to be "heard" and you got to hear mine.

Okay?

Cathy

[johnb]

I'm a non-smoker, as is my wife. Last night we went to Red, Hot, and Blue.

There was cigarette smoke near the bar.

Can I sue someone? :wink:

[washere]

I'm a non-smoker, as is my wife. Last night we went to Red, Hot, and Blue.

There was cigarette smoke near the bar.

Can I sue someone? :wink:
How 'bout that time we sat in the Abbey Road for hours???

I smelled like smoke for a couple days (and through several showers!). :lol:

Anne-
I hope that you'll come back and continue to post here (even though we don't agree about the cigarettes thing)! We don't hate you, we just disagree :wink: .

[AnneM]

Cathy,

I'm only defending myself against the words you are using. If you don't want to put me on the defensive then use nicer words. Stop putting me into the category of (here's your words): "And I do get upset when I see another group of fascist-minded, self righteous "citizens" trying to throw the weight of their 'moral superiority' around and use the law to force their opinion of how others should behave on everyone else around them, whether it is over smoking, or diet, or exercise, or choice of transportation, or housing, clothing, haircolor, or anything else."

I was defending myself when you said in your first post, "And I doubt that you actually care what "light" you are seen in, as long as you eventually get your way."

:? You talk as if I had been dumping to people on here with my words of wisdom on the terrors of non-smokers in restaurants here for a long time when in fact that was my first post on here. I don't go around telling people what they should and should not do and I never have. I deal with what I can in person and don't make a big stink about it. Here, I figured I had a say in my opinion. I did want to bring up a tough topic for people because I wanted to know what people thought about this subject. People like you seem to take one person's opinion that seems strong and confident and try to knock them down by calling them names and putting them in categories just so you can feel safe from the opinions you find you don't like. Putting people on the defensive is only going to invoke angry responses and an argument online. It's hard to see if someone is actually being argumentative online because no one can read emotion only see it. The words you used were made in a bully-type way, and I feel I have a right to defend myself. Maybe if you get to know me you'd find I'm actually the last person to be holding up strike signs in front of some building because I disagree with something. I just like to state my opinion in places where it's appropriate such as a bulletin board (this one for example). The interenet does not need to be a place that has to be taken this seriously. You really need to calm down and try actually talking to me and with me and stop putting me in a place where I feel attacked. If I have some how offended you or anyone else here, I apologise but that was not my intention. I thought this place was friendly. My mistake. :roll:

Just to add something. I'm not saying this to put you are anyone on the defensive but it's food for thought. A smoker is not as sensative to other smokers around them as a non-smoker is. It's a smell you are used to and it's not as noticeable to you as it would be for a non-smoker. I am more sensative to the smell asn taste of smoke becasue I have neer smoked. Someone else in my position would also be sensative to smoke around them much more so than a smoker woule. I have been around non-smokers that don't mind as much but it is due to the fact that they hang around a lot of smokers and are less sensative but they too can smell it and be effected by it because they don't actually smoke. There are many levels of sensativity here and I thought I'd just point out to you that just because you don't smell the smoke doesn't mean others can't.

[dhyatt]

[snip]I thought this place was friendly. My mistake. :roll:

Nah - no mistake. We're all pretty friendly and we all have our hot buttons. You just happened to hit one on your first try :-) and, in my book, that deserves an award :lol:

I dislike smoking in restaraunts at least as much as you do but I think solutions have to be market driven. I've asked to be reseated at various restaraunts when the smoke seemed bothersome, I've left restaraunts altogether when smoke seemed unavoidable and I've sat and chatted with friends in smoke filled bars for a couple of hours. The only common theme was that it was my choice as to when, where, and how much smoke I chose to tolerate. That's a better approach, IMO, than having yet another restrictive ordinance placed on us.

I am much more interesting in seeing standards for air handling, cleaning, and quality put in place then I am in seeing an outright smoking ban which will certainly impact some businesses bottom line. I've been to restaraunts where people two tables away were smoking like chimney's and it didn't bother me in the least because of the environmental controls in place. The only reason I knew they were smoking was because I could see the smoke, I never did smell it. I'm told such air handling is becoming more routine for restaraunts as time goes by and I suspect restaraunt owners are going to the added expense of installing it because - surprise, surprise - it's good for business :-)

[Anonymous]

What sucks is, I love the food there so I can really only go during non-busy hours.

2 words - take-out

[johnb]

Anne,

Ah, you came back, make sure AdminHyatt issues you the required rhetorical brass knuckles and alligator hide skin replacement.

As an ex-smoker I can assure you I find the stuff distinctly unpleasant. The worst non-smoker is an ex-smoker. We have the zeal of religious convictions on the topic smoking virgins completely lack.

However, that has to be coupled with a certain degree of respect for the rights of others. I don't own Abbey Road nor do I own Red, Hot and Blue. I go to both frequently. I could either 1- complain to the owner about what he/she is doing with his/her own property/business or 2-go elsewhere. Either way it is his/her property, not mine. Bitching and moaning to the city council is a hideous idea. Do you expect they have some right to involve themselves in every matter that goes on on private property? I'm sure you don't want them telling you what you can or cannot do with respect to smoking on your property. You may think you'd be doing a good thing. But you are feeding a monster by dragging them into the matter. Fatty foods aren't good for you either. Should they have ordinances prohibiting you from cooking bacon or any having a pecan tree in your yard? Lots of kids have nut allergies and if you have a nut tree in your yard you are "threatening" the health of those kids. Be very careful about what you want government to do. They use these things as segues to increase their own power over people's lives and yes of course "they're only doing what they think is best." Stalin and Hitler thought the same damned thing. Every totalitarian does.

[AnneM]

Actually, I'm not the person who would go complain to the government about this. All I wanted were people's opinions on this.

The smoking ban in restaurants have worked very well in other states. Florida, California, New York...this is how it all started with people complaining about it but mostly to counsel. I do feel strongly about it but I'm not the kind of person that's about making public fusses. I'm more like charchar and wupto who will just leave if it bothers them and tell the owners or who's at the front desk why they are leaving. I probably should make some kind of fuss publically like I had hinted on earlier if I feel this strongly about it, but I'm not really the type that likes public confrontation. I just like knowing my opinions and thoughts are heard and taken seriously. So far everyone has. I just don't like being attacked and placed in to categories that I don't belong in. I'm a nice, calm, friendly person who does like to speak her mind every now and then. Apparently, I must have come on too strong, or touched on a subject that has too many hard feelings.

Btw, what do you mean I came back? I've never posted here before this thread? I promise you, I am new here. B-)

AS far as your comments on fatty food and what not. Smelling fatty foods doesn't kill you. Smelling second hand smoke does.

[johnb]

After your first couple of messages above, you came back. Kudos.

Most folks here are quite nice. Except me.

Don't expect anti-confrontationalists here though. Avoiding a subject because some folks find it "controversial" seems to be the dominant theme in public discourse these days.

On the smoking ban, yes it would be successful, for you, but not for the property owner who now has an 800lb gorilla screaming orders at him in the form of a government edict.

Before you praise government action too much ask yourself if it's worth it.

Is it worth it to you that a cop show up at Red, Hot and Blue or any other place, draw a gun, point it at the owner, cock it and order him to forbid smoking in his restraunt? Is it? No matter how you care to dress it up or deny it, THAT is the ultimate power that the state rests on to impose it's will on it's victims. Ultimately you pay taxes and do as they order for fear of retribution from their armed agents (police) and courts. Violence is the tool used to impose a government on society. All that crap about a social contract and a free people forming a more perfect union is all garden compost.

Every single law or ordinance on the books is enforced through the power of coercion. Sometimes that's good, catching murderers and rapists, in cases where the perp is willing to use violence against others, but that same power can be used to enforce matters that are none of the state's business as well all because "they think they're doing what is best". Bull, they do what they think they can get away with.

...oh, the smell of bacon might not kill you, but a diet high in fats and cholesterol will most certainly kill you. Obesity is the number one health problem facing the US today. It is so bad that last week at a medical symposium a prediction was made that US life expectancys were soon to dip by up to 5 years because of obesity. McDonald's is bad for you. Shouldn't we have cops monitoring the menus there? If that logic works for smoking it will be applied to food soon enough. And then we'll hear about all these politicians doing "what they think is best" with their "fat taxes" applied to fast foods and their zoning restrictions biasing against restraunts that don't serve what they deem to be a "healthy" cuisine. It sounds far fetched, but it's only a logical extension of the arguments used against tobacco.

[AnneM]

Ahh I don't like the idea of corporate bullying or from any agency or government but sometimes it's the only way to get people to get away from bad habits and try out a new one. It's like telling a kid to stop picking his nose because it's bad for him. Parents may actually have to ground him for it before he picks his nose to the bone and causes something more serious because nothing else is going to get the child to stop. This may be a humorous example but I think you get the analogy.

As far as your comment on eating fatty foods. the difference here is as I had said smelling fatty foods won't kill you, smelling ciggarette/cigar smoke will. Eating fatty foods may actually kill you but so will smoking. Smoking seems to do more harm here on both senses than fatty foods. I may not be the healthiest eater, but I know that if I surround my self everyday with the smell of macdonald's (not eating any of it), I will live till I see old age. However if I sit in a smoke filled room but not smoke anything, I will eventually get cancer just from the second hand smoke. My days would be numbered in that scenario.

I do believe that the idea of banning smoking from restaurants is not actually telling people to stop smoking. Encouraging to stop, yes, but no one is actually saying to anyone to stop smoking. In another point of view, it's just helping to keep those working and eating in a closed environment (such as in a restaurant) a healthier atmosphere and a more pleasant stay in a place they enjoy being in. There is no reason why a smoker can't wait until they've stopped eating and go outside for a smoke. Or they could go into their car or house when it's cold outside. It's also an etiquette thing. At home, alone, I might want to burp after I drink my glass of soda, but in a restaurant, I don't want to force anyone to hear my bad habits and so I wait until I'm alone at home or in my car. To me that's not a lot to ask. No, a burp won't kill anyone, but the idea of forcing someone else to hear or smell anything that I produce I think is rude. Smoking is something I find rude to force others to have to smell.

If I may be complimentary here... From reading your posts, I see that you, John, are a good debater. I appreciate your type of debating. You debate the topic and not call people names. Others should learn something from you and your diplomacy.

[AnneM]

[snip]I thought this place was friendly. My mistake. :roll:

Nah - no mistake. We're all pretty friendly and we all have our hot buttons. You just happened to hit one on your first try :-) and, in my book, that deserves an award :lol:

I dislike smoking in restaraunts at least as much as you do but I think solutions have to be market driven. I've asked to be reseated at various restaraunts when the smoke seemed bothersome, I've left restaraunts altogether when smoke seemed unavoidable and I've sat and chatted with friends in smoke filled bars for a couple of hours. The only common theme was that it was my choice as to when, where, and how much smoke I chose to tolerate. That's a better approach, IMO, than having yet another restrictive ordinance placed on us.

I am much more interesting in seeing standards for air handling, cleaning, and quality put in place then I am in seeing an outright smoking ban which will certainly impact some businesses bottom line. I've been to restaraunts where people two tables away were smoking like chimney's and it didn't bother me in the least because of the environmental controls in place. The only reason I knew they were smoking was because I could see the smoke, I never did smell it. I'm told such air handling is becoming more routine for restaraunts as time goes by and I suspect restaraunt owners are going to the added expense of installing it because - surprise, surprise - it's good for business :-)

That is a good step. NY did that before trying to attempt a smoking ban. They insisted restaurants install better filtration systems and put up walls to help keep the smoke in one room (with the filters in those rooms). For the most part, it worked better than nothing. I agree that would be a much better step than just simply forcing companies to make such a large leap of banning the smoking. Ultimately though, I'm sure you realized my stand on this, I just think there are better places to smoke than in restaurants.

I enjoy a good debate and I think I just touched on a really tough subject. I guess it seems I jumped into a pool of sharks, however. Good thing I can swim fast ;)! This is a good site and I'm very happy to find a site like this. I'm new to Cary and am getting to know the town and it's politics a little bit more. I'm liking it here and the people here as well. :)

[Cathy]

AnneM,

Yes, I admit, I did come on strong with my response to your post.
Maybe I shouldn't have, and maybe there was a time that I wouldn't have dreamed of responding harshly to anyone, but over the last several years I have seen a disturbing trend in this country.
Too many attempts to regulate more and more of what other people have and what they can do.
And I read something more underlying the message in your post that just set me off. I apologise for not giving you (and me) a chance to define where you truly stand on the issue. You've been doing a good job of it so far already.

I wouldn't declare the forum unfriendly just because I reacted strongly to the topic that you chose to introduce yourself here with. I don't "own" the forum, and I am certain that we ALL disagree with each other in some way on different topics. And we agree with SOME others on some issues.
I would venture to say that MOST of the people posting here lean toward less regulation and toward more free market solutions to problems.
I don't think I am alone in feeling that giving the government a bigger club is NOT the best way to get people to do much of anything, including getting people to be more considerate about their personal choices and habits like smoking.
I think people should be more cautious about buying into the latest crusade that may be going around. Lots of crusades to regulate other people's behavior start with opinion and then only after the fact of gaining momentum do they start arming themselves with the ammunition of studies and research and_ my favorite_consensus_ to validate their position.

And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the examples of the "slippery slope" that Johnb pointed out about regulating things that people do.
I considered making the suggestion that we discuss banning the use of perfumes and colognes in public places. This is a serious problem for many people with chemical sensitivities. If they spend time in a public place that exposes them to these perfumes, it can cause severe, debilitating headaches that can last for days. Why should these people suffer this way or be severely limited in where they can go in public just because some others want to smell like some designer fragrance?
If you want to talk about fixing a problem with other people's bad behavior, why not try to figure out how to change the rising incidence of discourteous driving behavior on the roads today. That is a SERIOUS threat to other peoples health!

Some studies say caffeine is bad for you. Some say it's good for you. Will caffeine be banned one day too? For years the medical establishment told everyone to eat margarine instead of butter. Now they tell us that the chemically altered fats in margarine are worse than eating butter or fatty beef. Some studies say that eating beef is bad. There are others that show that it is one of the few sources for some very necessary nutrients.

Lot's of studies say smoking is bad for you, that's true, but some studies show that nicotine has some positive affects on brain function. Has anyone studied the effects of tobacco separated from the chemical additives that are heavily used in cigarettes? If they haven't, how can we know if the chemicals aren't to blame at least some for the health problems?

Yes, I used some strong language to convey how I feel about this growing trend to regulate personal behavior. I also made it clear that if you were not "one of those people", it was not a direct indictment of you.

You talk about how smoking bans were successfully passed in other States because enough people "complained" about it to their elected officials. I know from paying attention that it doesn't take a majority opinion to have something banned because "enough people" complain. Vocal minorities can get their way too often lately and they know it and they do. Might does not make right and if you keep giving the government a bigger club, it WILL come back around and take a swing at you one day.

Lot's of progress has been made in regard to where smoking is appropriate and where it is not and much of that progress has been made with education rather than governmental regulation.

And why so defensive about whether anyone thinks you have posted here before? I don't see where anyone implied that you had.

Cathy

[AnneM]

OO I feel the love already! GROUP HUG! ;)

Ok I now see your point of view on smoking and I understand whre you come from. and thank you for understanding why I got so defensive. I hope we can put all that behind us ;)

Now on the the perfume. LOL you know it's something I have to actually remark on all those issues in my job. In most massage therapy offices, heavy perfumes, hygiene, and smoking are both something not allowed in the area. Same with body odor. It's so embarrassing having to tell someone they need a bath before I massage them....of course I say it with as much class and understanding as I can but it is difficult to massage a sweaty someone who just came from a long day of heavy labor in the hot sun who just wants to relax and enjoy a good massage. Yes I'm a massage therapist. I too am allergic to heavy perfumes. I wouldn't go as far as to say ban them from public places either but heavy perfume on sweaty bodies is not a pleasant thing to smell either. Off topic..sorry. From a massage therapist's point of view here, Smoking gets into your skin which is why we request someone not even smoke before they get a massage but we all know that that's impossible to ask. But because smokers sweat smoke out their pores, we can feel the thickness of the sweat and smell the stuff even on the cleanest of the bodies. We end up just massaging the stuff back into your bodies and the idea honestly grosses me out.

Well I'm way off topic here. Anyhoo, I feel I've gotten my point out and I'd love to hear more opinions. Thank you to everyone who's already giving me either their piece of mind or thoughts on this rather difficult/sensative topic. ;) B-)

Btw, I didn't get upset at all about the coming back thing John mentioned. I was just confused as to what he was referring to. It sounded like he thought I was was someone else named Anne that came back. I just wanted to clear it up in case that other Anne and he had some beef together and I didn't want to be in the middle of it or be confused with someone else. He cleared it up :).

[washere]

Anne-
We're all okay in real life. Except for me. I'm the one that always looks dreadfully tired and smells like baby puke.

Stick around atleast til our holiday party in December. We all get along much better when we're drinking. :wink:

[AnneM]

;) I actually do like it here! I hope to get to know everyone better, so I will be sticking around! The site is cool and so are the people in it. :)

[Wuptdo]

Anne -

Remember "Melrose Place" and "Cheers?" Combine the two, take out the sex, and you have Cary Politics! :-D :-D

And when you go to log off CP, always remember the ending theme song from the "Beverly Hillbillies."

Now its time to say goodbye,
to AdminHyatt and all his kin,
We would like thank you,
for kindly dropping in,
you all invited back next week,
to this locality,
for a ................

Wuptdo B-)

[dhyatt]

... take out the sex, and you have Cary Politics!

I sure wish I knew how to fix that... :wink:

[AnneM]

:lol: Cary 90210





*shiver*

[Brent]

:lol: Cary 90210

Beverly Hills 27511 :)

[Don]

;) I actually do like it here! I hope to get to know everyone better, so I will be sticking around! The site is cool and so are the people in it. :)

Of course we're cool!

You want a grasshoper?

[johnb]

Ahh I don't like the idea of corporate bullying or from any agency or government but sometimes it's the only way to get people to get away from bad habits and try out a new one.

So you do like the idea of government bullying people when it achieves your particular goals then.

Why is it okay for you and people who agree with you to use government as a club to beat the crap out of others who engage in a behaviour pattern you don't like, but stop right there? Why can't everyone get government to go beat the crap out of people engaged in behaviours they disagree with as well?

PETA would love for government to ban the consumption of meat.

EarthFirst! would love for government to ban the harvesting of trees for commercial purposes and basically all economic development to "save" the planet.

Physicians for Social Responsibility would love to ban fatty, high cholesterol fast foods.

They all are pushing an agenda slightly modified from yours, all in the name of getting people to do "what is best for themselves" or society supposedly. There is no shortage of politicians who love these types of issues, not because they agree with them (Algor, Kerry and their gas guzzling SUV's come to mind.) but because they give the politicians ever more power to dicatate the terms of other peoples lives.

Anne, no matter what you or I think this is true about all politicians, and you can take it to the bank, they may claim they "intend" this or that but the one thing every single of them intends is that they intend to be obeyed. That is ultimately their goal in running for office, everyone of them has an agenda they seek to impose on the rest of us. That agenda can be benign or malignant, but they intend to compel you to live your life according to the dictates of their agenda. Period. You want to open Pandoras Box a little farther to let another demon out in the hopes that that demon will do your bidding and nothing more/less. Well, there is a line of people behind you wanting to open the lid further and let more demons out using the same justifications you have, all for "our own good".

There is an old saying that fits your attitude from British Prime Minister Palmerston I believe, "Security is the call of tyrannts and the creed of slaves".

You want government to make your life safe for you. I don't know how you do that without a totalitarian government. It is a slope and it is slippery and as is said, the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance, especially against the creep of the leviathan.

[Cathy]

Governance of the people, for the people and by the people
http://www.freedom21.org/alternative-2/governance.htm

The Dangers of Rousseauian Governance

French economist, statesman and author Frédéric Bastiat (1801 -1850) calls the Rousseauian ideal legalized plunder. In order to attain the socialist "general will" of Rousseau, the government must take from those who legally own something and give it to those who don't own it. "The law," claims Bastiat, "has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense [of life, liberty, and property] into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense...."8 Sometimes the "law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim – when he defends himself – as a criminal."9 (Italics added for emphasis) This, as we will see, has been the tragic pattern for environmental law in America.

When command and control governance is forced on people, it "substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property."10

Rousseauian governance can devolve into communism and dictatorship where the people are but mere cogs in the ruling elite's self-created governmental machine. At any level Rousseau socialism stifles creativity and invention by destroying economic freedom and by skewing the economic system to make it benefit the regulators, not the people. It always inhibits the creative ideas or technology that can solve the problems of modern society and environmental complexities. Because there is little to no accountability of the elite and their cadre of regulators to the people, corruption is inevitable which further stifles economic prosperity.

At best Rousseauian governance is a democratic socialism, in which the elite are at least partially accountable to the electorate that results in a type of benevolent dictatorship. Nonetheless, the people are plundered and the government is used to take from some to give to others in order to achieve "equality." The people are given little opportunity for self-governance, and often become so dependent that they become fearful of any threat or of taking risk.

There is yet another natural tendency of men, however, when they believe they are being plundered unjustly. They fight back. "Thus," explains Bastiat, "when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law" and those who benefit from the law, "all the plundered classes try somehow to enter – by peaceful or revolutionary means – into the making of laws."11 After attaining the power they desire, these victims either "stop the lawful plunder, or they may… share in it."12 When everyone wants to share in the plunder, the democratic process devolves into a madness whereby "men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder.... As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. Instead they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests."13 Hence, in the United States, many believe it makes little difference whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power: Both parties propose laws that plunder particular constituencies without a second thought. They just do it differently.

Bastiat explains this degeneration further: "Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few – whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, [or the poor]. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so."14 As various factions grasp powerful political positions to plunder for themselves, the law becomes vicious and destructive.

As long as law plunders by violating property instead of protecting it, "then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Place, and the struggle within will be no less furious.... Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself?"15 (Italics added) Does this sound like twenty-first century politics in the United States? The eventual result is paralysis and finally self-destruction. America's Founding Fathers understood this gruesome truth. That is why James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers 10.21 and 10.22 that; "In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger..... [A] pure democracy can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of [the majority] and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal securities or the right of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." (Italics added)

James Madison clearly identifies why Rousseau's socialist model cannot work. It factionalizes an otherwise united people into special interest groups, each fighting to either take the other's rights or property for their own purpose, or defending their own rights or property from the other group. Instead of unifying the whole, as Rousseau postulates, his model invariably creates hostility and division within the whole, ultimately tearing itself apart – just as is happening in the United States at the start of the Twenty-first Century.

[Wuptdo]

This just in from the Socialist Peoples Republic of Minnesota (don't you know):

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S7326.html?cat=64

This is just info.

Wuptdo B-)

[AnneM]

:D

[Laurie]

http://www.wral.com/news/4535684/detail.html

House Committee Approves Bill To Reduce Restaurant Smoking

POSTED: 12:21 pm EDT May 26, 2005
UPDATED: 2:01 pm EDT May 26, 2005

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A House committee gave a favorable report today to a severely revised version of a bill that originally banned smoking in restaurants.

The revised version arrived in the House judiciary committee today as a bill that phases in changes, beginning with requiring restaurants to designate at least 75 percent of their seating capacity for nonsmokers.

When the bill left the committee an hour later, that figure was down to 50 percent.

The requirement would be effective January first, 2006. A year later, the bill requires restaurants with smoking areas to have those areas ``separate and apart'' from the main dining area.

The bill's sponsor, Representative Hugh Holliman of Davidson County, says that means the smoking area would have to be in a room separated from the main dining area by walls.

A lobbyist for the North Carolina Restaurant Association says the group can live with the bill as written now.

[StanN]

The NC Restaurant Assoc. brought you the Raleigh convention center - now its bringing you cancer. Wonder what they will do for an encore?

stan

[Laurie]

http://www.nbc17.com/news/4816479/detail.html

Proposed Restaurant Smoking Rules Reignited

POSTED: 6:13 pm EDT August 5, 2005

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Legislation to limit smoking in restaurants across North Carolina has caught a second wind after lawmakers modified a measure that was narrowly defeated in the House and made it part of a different bill.

The original measure died on a 58-62 House vote June 1. In a House committee meeting Thursday, a softened version was added to a bill that addresses standards for licensing substance abuse and addiction counselors.

"I've been told by six people (who voted against the solo bill) that they'd be willing to vote for it with these changes, and we only lost by two votes last time," Rep. Hugh Holliman, sponsor of the original measure, said Friday. "We've still got some work to do to line up some more votes."

Holliman's bill, as filed in February, would have banned smoking in restaurants. He argued in a May committee hearing that methods used to confine smoke to designated areas are generally ineffective.

Still, as it moved through committees, the measure was modified to restrict smokers to no more than 25 percent of the restaurant's dining space. That was expanded to 50 percent by the time the bill reached the House floor.

There, the measure's opponents prevailed by arguing that it should each restaurant owner should decide how much space to reserve for nonsmokers.

The amendment approved by the House Judiciary I committee restores the 25 percent restriction, but exempts facilities with 50 or fewer seats, Holliman, D-Davidson, said.

The exclusion of small restaurants was a key point in building support for the legislation, he said: "A lot of people felt there are a lot of very small restaurants around the rural areas that would have a difficult time segregating smokers from nonsmokers."

Holliman, a former smoker, has doggedly pursued the restrictions with a personal interest. He was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1999 after his sister, Nancy Griffin, found out she had the disease. She died about six years ago.

"I still feel the same way, I feel people who do not smoke have a right to go to a restaurant and be free from smoke areas. I think the (North Carolina) Restaurant Association could do a lot better job segregating smoking areas," he said. "I fully believe it's a serious health hazard."

Paul M. Stone, NCRA's president and chief executive officer, said the group opposes the amendment just as it did the earlier bill. Restaurant owners fear the loss of business and the expense of modifying their buildings to thoroughly segregate smokers and nonsmokers.

"They're forced to be less accommodating to their guests or spend quite a bit of money," he said. "We still believe it's an industry of choice and it should be up to the consumer whether they choose to go in that restaurant (that allows smoking), or whether they choose to smoke or not."

The measure also fell short for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which criticized the inclusion of any smoking areas and the lack of an effort to repeal the state's authority to override local laws restricting public smoking.

"The science is clear that 100 percent smoke-free is the only way to protect everyone from secondhand smoke," the Washington-based organization said in a statement. "North Carolina's leaders must immediately reject this bill for the health of its citizens."

[d4vendel]

We still believe it's an industry of choice and it should be up to the consumer whether they choose to go in that restaurant (that allows smoking), or whether they choose to smoke or not."

Amen. If enough consumers vote with their dollars by eating at smoke free establishments, more establishments will choose to become smoke free. This will occur naturally without the cost of government regulation and enforcement.

"The science is clear that 100 percent smoke-free is the only way to protect everyone from secondhand smoke," the Washington-based organization said in a statement. "North Carolina's leaders must immediately reject this bill for the health of its citizens."

Hmmm. Kind of hard to argue with, "The only way completely eliminate the risk is to be 100% smoke free." But why stop there?

The government could help the obesity problem reduce heart related illnesses by banning all junk food.

The government could prevent a lot of fatalities by limiting the maximum speed of all cars to 5 miles per hour.

The government could end a lot more injuries by banning all sporting activities.

The government could stop <fill in the blank> by banning all <fill in the blank>.

I will never understand people who want to live in a world were they expect the government to protect them from EVERYTHING. Have we completely lost all sense of personal responsibility?


- David