Smoke-Free: An Email Sent Regarding NC House Bill 2 : Prohibit Smoking in Public and Work Places
This is cross-posted from Bloviations.
The text of an email I sent to North Carolina House of Representatives members George Cleveland, Robert Grady and Russell Tucker in support of House Bill 2 (Prohibit Smoking in Public & Work Places).
I strongly urge you, dear readers that live in NC, to write your House representatives and support this legislation. Feel free to use my own email as a starting point.
I am writing to express my full support for Representative Holliman’s House Bill 2 (Prohibit Smoking in Public and Work Places).
Second-hand cigarette smoke is a leading cause in respiratory ailments for employees who work in businesses that allow smoking. Given that most of these workplaces are restaurants and bars, these same employees are low-paid and often are not provided health insurance. These employees have an increased level of absenteeism and a decreased level of productivity because of their working environment. Exposure to second-hand smoke causes nearly 50,000 deaths in non-smokers annually. It causes between 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory infections in children and up to 15,000 hospitalizations per year. Prohibiting smoking in restaurants would improve productivity, increase work attendance and provide a higher-level of overall health, while decreasing the already-too-high load on North Carolina’s straining health care system. It is estimated that exposure to second-hand smoke costs nearly $10,000,000,000 in direct and indirect medical costs.
Many legislators believe that smoking bans have a detrimental affect on local economies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly half of the states in the U.S. have established smoking bans without serious economic results. Smoking bans in New York and Pennsylvania have not only been shown to have not adversely affected the revenues of restaurants, but most businesses have seen an increase as families and non-smokers are more comfortable dining out in the cleaner environment. A smoking ban in North Carolina could provide a much-needed stimulus to local economies and would be inexpensive to implement.
The science, medical and economic, is clear: Smoking bans are healthier, create cleaner and safer working conditions and provide an economic boost. I strongly support this measure and hope that you will, as well. I urge you to work with your fellow legislators to get this much-needed bill passed.
Your constituent,
Thomas Brock
- Thomas Brock's blog
- 1185 reads











Where is your letter requesting we also ban alcoholic
beverages from consumption in public places? I'm not trying to be one, but alcohol harms or kills way more people than smoking...and certainly not just those who drink it. (DUI)
Stan Bozarth
Please provide evidence
Alcohol kills more people than tobacco.
Could be...but, love to see the documentation on that.
Thanks.
The best thinking is independent thinking.
tobacco users kill themselves
alky's kill others...
Stan Bozarth
Could be a long discussion here
Second-hand smoke?
DUI killers?
Next.
The best thinking is independent thinking.
Tobacco
Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the US. Smoking accounts for approximately 1 in 5 deaths, about 435,000 people per year.
By comparison alcohol consumption is directly responsible for about 85,000 deaths. All motor vehicle crashes are responsible for about 26,000 deaths, suicide 30,000 and homicide 20,000.
Exactamundo
A voice of truth.....thank goodness.
More and more, it's being proven that even people that haven't ever smoked are dying because of second-hand smoke.
The best thinking is independent thinking.
Your comparison fails the common sense test
You drinking a beer in the next booth does not harm me, and, as you've pointed out, driving while intoxicated or under the influence is already illegal.
Thomas S. Brock
www.brocknet.net
http://blogs.brocknet.net/bloviations/
What have YOU done today to make the world a better place?
Yep
Excellent post...and DEAD ON.
I hope the majority in our state understands that and supports this.
Thanks.
The best thinking is independent thinking.
Common sense? When is the last time you heard of
someone driving under the influence of tobacco running over/into someone and killing them? When's the last time someone under the influence of tobacco beat the bejeebers our of his/her spouse or his/her kids? When's the last time you heard about someone smoking too much, peeing their shorts and passing out? People using cell phones while driving do more harm than tobacco. Let's face it...you've got a burr under your saddle about tobacco and smokers.
Frankly, I don't really care...but you and many others are happy to tax 20% of the population to pay for SCHIP...but you're unwilling to acknowledge even larger problems and go after these folks too. Why? Don't want to pay an extra $1 per beer to support some other worthy cause?
Hypocrisy!!
Truth be told, I think all of this is BS. We have some REALLY big problems to deal with and this isn't one of them. But, if it's your hot button, go for it.
Stan Bozarth
Actually, my wife had a close friend...
who reached onto the floor to get her dropped lighter and veered into the next lane. Not that that matters.
I for one am against Hypocrisy and I would like to see alcohol treated as the dangerous drug that it is. Or, for equally dangerous drugs to be legalized, like cocaine.
Yeah, exactly, no one would legalize cocaine but alcohol can be just as bad.
As for Thomas' original post, I support the ban fully. Keep your stinking smoke out of my lungs and I'll keep my cyanide out of your chicken.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
McDonald! You are under arrest! You have right to a French Cook
The science, medical and economic, is clear: Smoking bans are healthier, create cleaner and safer working conditions and provide an economic boost.*TB
Not really! What's next? Denny's with it's loaded Fat Slam Breakfest or Ronald McDonald being force into a Fat Free Dentention Center by Homeland Security?
Rep Russell Tucker (NC House - 4) Refuses to Commit his Support
In an email this morning, Mr. Tucker has refused to commit his support for NC House Bill 2.
Says Tucker:
I'm pretty darned disappointed in Mr. Tucker. He has previously supported the smoking-ban effort.
Thomas S. Brock
www.brocknet.net
http://blogs.brocknet.net/bloviations/
What have YOU done today to make the world a better place?
you may be disappointed
But if you are not a voter in his district who will vote for his Republican opposition in the next election because of this your disappointment will have a limited effect.
You're full of good logic today
Tell that same sentiment to every GOP voter "disappointed" in a Democratic legislator's stance on a given issue.
Either both sides should quake with fear or both should stand up for what they beleive.
In truth, the PACs and the party funders have more "effect" than any potential voter - no matter the district.
I know you're smarter than this when it comes to electoral politics. Why are you trying to have Democrats quake in fear on issues discussed on BlueNC?
While there is truth about certain pac leaders
Having heavy influence, I can tell you both by working in elctorial politics for 25 years and once working in a congressional office that when elected officals treat out of district opinions. If one is going to try to bring Russell Tucker along they stand a better chance of getting his voters to respond than not. As for Tucker he himself lost a re-election in 2002 it was not because of Republicans in his district, because they are not enough to matter. It was because Democrats in his district voted for a Republican. My guess is he is licking his finger a checking the wind on this issue it has been known to happen. As for trying to get Democrats to quake in fear well I only wish I could do that, but when I have a chance to answer a question I speak what is on my mind, or am only supposed to do that when I agree with you.
Being less disingenuous would help
Tucker won without opposition last November and thumped his opponent in 2006.
So why is he "checking the wind" now?
Is there polling that says his district opposes this?
My guess is there is
Anti-tobacco legislation does not tend to go over real well in the rural eastern part of the state, for several reasons. Your average voter in that district, Duplin County, is problably a registerd Democrat, but can and will vote Republican is the need comes. Russell Tucker is one of those represenative who lost his re-election and got a second chance, my guess is when he campaigned to get his seat back he promised the voters of his district he would be more attentive the THEIR needs. While he is doing okay in recent elections my guess is he knows what his voters do ont like and he is going to try to avoid that place.