Smoking ban may pass this year

I am a Tobacco Prevention Health Educator in an Eastern county that is known for growing tobacco. I would like to take a few moments to respond to your previous post. It is great that you make a conscious effort to withdraw yourself from areas where people are smoking and that will benefit you to a certain degree. But I am sure that you do eat out or are on occasion in a location where being around courteous or uncourteous smokers can not be avoided. So, I would like to say that while no one you know may blow smoke in your face, you are still being exposed to secondhand smoke. And there is no ventilation system or non smoking section in any restaurant that will filter that smoke. Therefor, a smoking or non-smoking section does not matter. In the latest Surgeon General's report he makes reference and shows support of that claim. For every eight smokers that die from a tobacco related illness, one nonsmoker exposed to secondhand smoke will die. As for the government making the controversial decision for the county/state to go smoke free, as you and I both know, they have all the right in the world to do that. Because, after all they run the government. And while we may not with all of their decisions. That fact can not be avoided. Seeing as our state is in a surplus amount of debt regarding healthcare - they would be taking a step in the right direction to pass this bill.Lost productivity and healthcare cost related to smokers range anywhere from $1.92 billion to $2.82 billion. We as a state can not keep affording to watch these prices increase, because in the end, it only effects the tax payer just like you and me.

For Pete's sake, get a life, maybe an education and stop drawing conclusions based on personal conditioning and spurious logic. Many states have had smoke free environments in bars and restaurants for years and you can still get on your knees whenever you want. Bars and taverns have found that their business increased once they went "Smoke Free" since 75% of Americans don't smoke.

Restaurant sells actually increase when they go non smoking. No one wants to go to a restaurant/bar and smell like an ashtray after they leave. It is simple...If you have a habit that harms others, do that habit on your own property. If a restaurant/bar owner wants to be open to the public, then he/she has certain responsibilities to make sure that his establishment is safe for the public. That includes safety of the food/drink, adequate fire exits, and yes air quality.

"yet I only did what the government allowed me to do" So now the government ALLOWS you to drive drunk? I'm pretty sure it is illegal to drive drunk. Try thinking before you open your mouth.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Someone drinking has nothing to do with second hand smoke and the smell of smoke from someone sitting next to you. If the guy get's obnoxious, call a manager and let him deal with it. If I'm sitting next to someone smoking there is nothing I can do about it. Try to stick on topic

Sooooooooo...the government should be able to tell privately-owned businesses what they can / can't do? Wow. Based on your mind-bogglingly dumb statement, government agencies should not be able to mandate that exotic clubs are not allowed to engage in anything that could be construed as prostitution. Government agencies should not be able to tell those who import/export to not bring illegal drugs into this country. Government agencies should not be able to dictate certain codes of cleanliness for restaurants. It's on you, pal. My right to breathe outweighs your CHOICE to smoke. You don't like it? TOUGH. Go somewhere else and shut up your stupid mouth. You DO understand the point I'm making here, right?

Just got back from Ireland and Scotland, where smoking is banned in all pubs and restaurants. What a pleasant experience. You still have to hold your breath through a billowing cloud of toxins as you walk through the sidewalk crowd out front of the establishment, but non-smokers CAN hold their breath. Inside each pub was clean, bright, and even had some children inside during the daylight hours. I'm sure the pub owners appreciate not having to clean yellow smoke residue off of everything (look up third hand smoke - residue on furniture and clothes causes cancer too). Most smoker I come in contact with actually smoke outside their own homes, so I see no big deal in them smoking in front of or behind bars. The right for me to swing my fist ends with your face. The right for you to smoke in public ends with my lungs. Smoke em if ya got em, just not near me.

You kind of picked the wrong name didn't you. Or do you just want the government to step in when you think they should? Like, say for instance, when it's somebody else's rights that you have a problem with. what a hypocrite! We should fear the government taking away these kind of rights a lot more than how they spend our money.

If smoking is harmless lets light up everywhere. I like to smoke in banks, schools, hospitals, grocery stores, pharmacys,movie theaters, and lets not forget church. Or is that too much, does the bible say anything about smoking? Why dont you lazy slobs just take your nasty habit outside, oh yeah dont leave your butts lying around, or is litering okay with you too?

SHERRY I DONT KNOW YOU HOWEVER YOU ARE RIGHT - I CHOOSE NOT TO SMOKE AND IT DOES BOTHER ME. HOWEVER YOU ARE 100% CORRECT - THERE HAS BEEN ALOT OF "RIGHTS" TAKEN FROM US IN THE PAST TEN YEARS AND YOU ARE 100% CORRECT ON THE CHILDREN - I MYSELF AM ONLY 25 YEARS OLD HOWEVER CHILDREN IN THIS AREA HAVE HAD ALOT TAKEN FROM THEM AND ARE CASTED DOWN UPON QUITE A BIT FOR EXAMPLE IN SOUTHPORT, THE "HOME" OF THE 4TH OF JULY FESTIVAL. THERE ARE NO PARKS TO PLAY IN, NO SKATE PARK, NO BASEBALL FIELDS, NO FOOTBALL FIELDS, NO TENNIS COURTS NOR PUBLIC SWINGS. THIS BOTHERS ME BECAUSE WHEN I WAS GROWING UP THERE WAS A BEAUTIFUL PARK FOR THE KIDS TO ENJOY OFF OF 9TH STREET AND THERE WAS A TENNIS COURT AND PICNIC SETTING AT LEONARD & WILLIS BOTH BEING IN SOUTHPORT. WITHOUT HAVING A PLACE FOR THE CHILDREN TO GROW UP IN, THAT TRULY CARES FOR THEM, THEY ARE SET TO DEFAULT TO COMPUTERS AND VIDEO GAMES OR TO THE LATER BEING INVOLVED IN CRIME. I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN ALOT OF CHANGES IN THE PAST HOWEVER ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT HAS BEEN FOR THE WORST WAS ALLOWING JOE MEDLIN TO RETIRE, WITHOUT HAVING SOMEONE IN PLACE AS GREAT AS HE, THAT WOULD STAND UP FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE AREA AND PROVE TO THE CITY THAT THE CHILDREN ARE WORTH INVESTING THERE TIME INTO. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NOW A PARKING LOT AND A OVERGROWN FIELD WHERE ONCE STOOD 2 BASEBALL FIELDS, 1 TEE BALL FILED, A CONSESSION STAND, A FULL SIZE FOOTBALL FIELD NOT TO METION A FULLY EQUIPTED PLAY GROUND AREA WITH HANDMADE BY JOE PICNIC TABLES AND GRILLS FOR ALL TO ENJOY. NOT TO RAMBLE BUT PEOPLE COMPLAIN WHEN A CHILD IS SKATING ON THE SIDEWALKS AND PLAYING BALL IN THE STREETS BUT NO OFFENSE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, I WOULD RATHER THE CHILDREN PLAY IN THE PARKS OR ON THE SIDEWALKS FOR "FUN" THAN TO HAVE TO ARREST A "CHILD" FROM A HOUSE THAT THEY HAVE JUST BROKEN INTO FOR "FUN". AND THIS HAPPENS ALL TO MANY TIMES. THERE IS TO MUCH SMALL TOWN POLITICS INVOLVED IN TRYING TO KEEP SOUTHPORT OLD VERSUS ALLOWING SOUTHPORT TO GROW WITH THE CHILDREN THAT ONE DAY WILL LEAD THIS NATION. SO SHEERY I KNOW THAT I HAVE STUMBLED OFF OF THE SMOKING TOPIC HOWEVER I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE STIRRED UP A VERY VALUABLE POINT. SO THANKS IS TO YOU SHERRY RICHARDSON FOR STANDING UP FOR THE CHILDREN.