Some hookah bars ignoring NC smoking ban

Some hookah bars ignoring NC smoking ban

www.wral.com

Most bars and restaurants are obeying North Carolina's new indoor smoking ban. But the Winston-Salem Journal reports some hookah bars are ignoring the law, saying they are exempt.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So here in North Carolina, we recenly had a smoking ban in all indoor establishments. The only way around it is to pay an extra fee and build a special smoking room. Fine, the law was passed and it has to be followed. The question is, if the entire point of said establishment is for smoking, isn't it already a special room for smoking? To me, despite the law change, isn't this basically a non issue as a hookah bar is meant soley for smoking? Your thoughts?

www.wral.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Finn1916


I live in NY and we also have the smoking ban as well as hookah bars. It seems to be a bit of a can of worms. Some establishments in my area tried to protest and just collected fine after fine until giving in. The reasoning was that no one is exempt because the ban is to ensure a smoke free work environment is available to all employees of any establishment. The hookah bars are still open, at least around here. Seems a bit of a contradiction to me.

reply to post by Lillydale



The way I see it, if you work at hookah bar chances are you know there is gonna be smoking and you are probably ok ith it, seeing as how people g there just to smoke a hookah.

In south carolina they have the smoking ban, but you can get a special permit if you own a smoke shop, cigar, hookah bar.

I Love My Hookah
I even named it

One other way around it is to charge membership and say it is a private club. They did that at a place near where I went to school so they could have beer, because it was a dry county.

No matter what laws are in place, there are ways to circumvent them to those who really wish to do so.

Originally posted by Finn1916
reply to post by Lillydale

 

The way I see it, if you work at hookah bar chances are you know there is gonna be smoking and you are probably ok ith it, seeing as how people g there just to smoke a hookah.

This is the way they put it here. It is not about you knowing where you are going to work. It is about business allowing that opportunity to all qualified people. They were saying that every business MUST offer the opportunity for a smoke free work environment. It did not matter if you wanted to work in a smoky room. They were trying to say the unemployed person next to you that needs a job but does not need lung cancer deserves the same opportunity as you for that job.

Yes, you would think working at a hookah bar you would expect to be around smoke. Unfortunately, many of us felt that way about bars and casinos too. If you go work in a bar, it is gonna be smoky. Too many people that need jobs showed up. It gets very convoluted in the details but I believe the original intention was truly a noble one.

When Lexington, KY voted to outlaw smoking in businesses, a cigar bar was forced to close. It does seem silly doesn't it? Noble reasons or not, anyone who goes into a cigar bar to work or enjoy the cigar bar is an idiot, as far as I am concerned, if they complain about cigar smoke.

reply to post by Finn1916


Once upon a time in the UK, the pubs would have dedicated rooms for smoking in many of the pubs (back in the old days when women weren't allowed in many pubs lol) are still around and the engraved smoke room signs on the glass can still be seen.

Now the inanity of this smoking nonsense today is smokers have to go outside instead of having their own room obviously the pubs/bars started loosing money .

Of recent bar owners have started erecting lean to's and smoking sheds, which don't require planning permission and are not regulated by insurance and fire legislation etc.

Quite a few of these "temporary" erections have been fitted out with heating and dart boards etc, so for all intents and purposes are an extenuation to the pub.

What is striking about these smokers sheds is the amount of non smokers that hang out in them with the smokers, which is no different to what happened to the dedicated smoke rooms of yesteryear.

At the end of the day people generally go to bars/pubs to consume alcohol which as we all know, the more we consume the less we give a crap about our health. So surely the nanny states are overdue in intervening by protecting us by banning drinking alcohol in public places.

reply to post by kyred


It was put like this here. The bar needs an employee. Jane Doe needs a job. Jane Doe could do the job at the bar but Jane Doe does not feel that minimum wage is worth the side effects of second hand smoke. The state decided that Jane should not have to voluneer to stay unemployed instead of working in a dangerous environment.

I am sure I will get flamed at some point. I am a smoker but I see their point. I know what they were trying to do and I cannot knock them for that when unemployment is so high and none of us really need to be smoking anyway. I would rather see some of these single moms have jobs that do not send them to iron lungs. We had a town full of unemployed people and bars with fewer and fewer employees.

Hey, we get by with the makeshift heated areas being attached anyway. Now my bartender can stay healthy and I get exercise before and after each smoke.

It really was more about providing jobs, not blaming people for not knowing it might be smoky in there. I am sure the local politicians explained it better than I am.

If you are going to claim that all employees have the right to a smoke-free environment....then you are also going to have to accept the fact that all qualified smokers have the right to the same jobs as non-smokers.

In fact - that is not happening. There are intensive anti-smoking campaigns to have employers hire only non-smokers.

So - if an employer can choose to hire only non-smokers, why can't an employer choose to hire only smokers?

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Further, OSHA and the Ministry of Labor have both declared second-hand smoke in the workplace to be well below any limits for exposure. Yes even in smoky bars and bingo halls. They refused to take action to ban smoking in workplaces.

That is why public health is spear-heading the smoking bans.

However, since we are talking about banning smoking in privately owned establishments, if there is a risk to public health, then the government has the responsibility of taking the least intrusive action.

Smoking bans are not the least intrusive action. Setting standards for ventilation is!

So how come they can set safe ventilation standards for mines and toll-booth operators where the contaminants involved would cause death within 1/2 hour but they can't set ventilation standards for smoke that may or may not cause disease only after decades of exposure?

Was depriving all smokers of their right to peaceful assembly with each other really necessary?

Tired of Control Freaks

Adolph Hitler, the original anti-smoking Nazi, would be so proud.

www.junkworthknowing.com...

Often associated with the Devil himself, most people would struggle to think of something positive Hitler contributed to society. Nevertheless, Nazi Germany did have its slight upsides even if for maligned reasons; particularly when it came to its anti-smoking campaign, which was the world's first.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
If you are going to claim that all employees have the right to a smoke-free environment....then you are also going to have to accept the fact that all qualified smokers have the right to the same jobs as non-smokers.

No because no one is born a smoker. That is a choice you can make. You are already born a non-smoker. It was about giving opportunity to people as they are fit and not how they choose to live their lifestyle. Smokers are not a race, it is not a religion or defect. It is a choice. If you choose to smoke, you choose to smell bad, have bad breath, and impair your health. I smoke and I would rather hire as few people like that as possible. If you chose to be a crack smoker, should I be forced to also treat you the same as anyone else? Smoking is a choice, a bad one.

In fact - that is not happening. There are intensive anti-smoking campaigns to have employers hire only non-smokers.

Yup, there is a big drive to get people to stop smoking. I am not sure I see the downside? Have kids?

So - if an employer can choose to hire only non-smokers, why can't an employer choose to hire only smokers?

Because you are making a really stupid argument here. You chose to smoke. No one is born a smoker. Smokers are not a dejected section of people in need of protection. We are people that choose to do something that has no real benefit to ANYONE whatsoever. We are people that make a bad choice, over and over and over again.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I was originally against the ban. I wanted to smoke in the places I liked smoking in. I also live in this community. It is hard for me to have my tax dollars feed a mom and her kids in a homeless shelter simply because she does not smoke and does not want to even though there is a job she could be doing but...it involves smoke.

Hmmm, her kids having food and a home or my right to smoke during karaoke....how selfish are you?

Further, OSHA and the Ministry of Labor have both declared second-hand smoke in the workplace to be well below any limits for exposure. Yes even in smoky bars and bingo halls. They refused to take action to ban smoking in workplaces.

Maybe you got me there. I do not really care. I know what I see. Yup, I know a 98 year old woman that still smokes. No cancer, no lunge trouble. I bet we all have all kinds of fun examples like that that prove smoking is just dandy! Unfortunately I already stated that I live in a community and I acknowledge the other people around me and I realized that I can smoke at home all I want and if that helps some kids get a meal, how can I protest that?

That is why public health is spear-heading the smoking bans.

Who cares who is spearheading it? Some of the women I know that belong to M.A.D.D. are just people. They have no education or stats or proof that their cause is the most noble on earth. Still, I think trying to stop drunk driving is ok no matter who is pushing it. Some issues speak for themselves and it matters not who gloms on to it.

However, since we are talking about banning smoking in privately owned establishments, if there is a risk to public health, then the government has the responsibility of taking the least intrusive action.

I get it. No one should be able to tell me that if I run a business, I cannot have smoking in it. Unfortunately, we live in societies here. Maybe you have a nice shack on the side of a mountain the the 'private business' there are patronized by goats and bears. Here we have people that live together. I can still smoke all I like. I can smoke all over my property and about 99% of public areas. Do I really need to demand I get the right to smoke in someone else's private business if I know the overall effect on the community as a whole is negative? I guess I am just glad we are not neighbors.

Smoking bans are not the least intrusive action. Setting standards for ventilation is!

How would that go? All you private business now need to invest XX thousands of dollars in ventilation or shut down. How is that better again? Seems even more intrusive as the loss of business due to smoking bans has force NO ONE here out of business. Installing all the new equipment would have.

So how come they can set safe ventilation standards for mines and toll-booth operators where the contaminants involved would cause death within 1/2 hour but they can't set ventilation standards for smoke that may or may not cause disease only after decades of exposure?

Hey, there are people that do jobs that are way more harmful than any second hand smoke will ever be. You are right. As soon as it actually becomes a community impacting issue, I will be worried about that too. Until then, we are talking about your option to smoke in my favorite restaurant. I do not feel your right to smoke should trump my right to enjoy a nice meal. Society is very complex.

Was depriving all smokers of their right to peaceful assembly with each other really necessary?

LOL. That should have been your first line so I would have known not to waste all this time. Smokers can still go anywhere they like. No one is stopping smokers from going anywhere. Let me guess, you think airport scanners prevent you from leaving your country too, right? Sad. really really sad.

My take on this is that it is a Hookah Bar...

Let me say that again.. This is a Hookah Bar... The very name implies that people will be smoking sheesha through a hookah.

The only point of going to one of these places is to smoke...

That is the only point of a hookah bar...

I say exempt!

Reply to Lillydale:

This may surprise you but the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed to all citizens in your constitution is NOT limited to the just the right to be present in body.

The right to peaceful assembly also carries the right to assemble FOR A PURPOSE. eg. You want to assemble a group of people who are politically opposed to the actions of the president. You want to have a peaceful debate of the issues. It is insufficient for the state to allow you to rent a hall and have warm bodies interested in the issues all in the same place. You must be allowed to discuss the issues you are interested in.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that private swingers clubs are legal. It is the right of people interested in swinging to actually assemble in one place and swing together or engage in consensual sexual activities in a privately owned club that extends an invitation to the public to attend.

Smokers want to socialize with smokers for the purpose of smoking TOGETHER. There are many bars and clubs that would like to provide a venue to smokers for the purpose of peaceful assembly. However, smoking bans prevent the peaceful assembly of smokers to come together for the purpose of smoking.

ERGO: Smokers are being deprived of their constitutional right to peaceful assembly for the purpose of engaging in a legal activity.

As for your assumption that non-smokers are more fit than smokers for any job. Please kindly remember your history. After World War II, the rate of smoking in the population was almost 75 % for men and just under 40 % for woman. And yet, during that same era, the workforce of both our countries entered into one of its most productive phases.

You dishonour your mother and father when you make the blanket claim that smokers are less qualified for any job than non-smokers Sir.

Tired of Control Freaks

Also in reply to Lillydale

You are falsely confusing two issues. One issue is the health and safety of employees. As I mentioned, regulations relating to the health and safety of employees is the jurisdiction of OSHA and the MInistry of Labor. Those organizations have declared that second hand smoke is a negligable risk to the health and safety of employees and have refused to establish regulatory standards on this issue.

An employee would be expected to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week and approximately 40 years being exposed to second hand smoke.

Public health however, is only supposed to address health and safety risks to the public. It is not expected that the public will spend as much time in a smoky environment as an employee. The poison, my friend, is in the dose and the dose is equal to exposure (concentration) X time.

So what justification do you have for denying smokers their guananteed constitutional right to peaceful assembly?

And if smokers can be denied this right...then of what value is your constitutional rights?

Non-smokers MUST be incredibly stupid. A smoker can read a sign that says no-smoking and either refrain from smoking or leave the establishment. Apparantly, non-smokers are unable to read and understand a sign that says "smoking allowed".

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by Lillydale



I completely understand the point you are trying to make about unemployment and how a on smoker should be able t get a job in a smoke free enviroment. The last thing we need is unemployment. Now, take away a cigar bar or hookah bars right to have smoking in them(whic is the entire point of said establishment) and not only are you gonna have more workers unemployed(the shop would have to close) but now you have the owner of said bar unemployed. All they will do is make a bigger unemployment mess. That being said, yes the idea works in theory, but if you don't want to be around soke then you are NOT qualified to work at a cigar bar or hookah bar.

Other than that i agree with you.

Honestly, I am surprised that we aren't seeing more Smoke-Easies (like the Prohibition Era Speak-Easies) than we are.

However, most of the States that have enacted such laws have not appropriated the funds for enforcement, so in many regions these laws are unenforced and go on the "honor system". Even in states that do heavily enforce this legislation, it is enforced through the use of fines which many businesses have decided to regard as an "Operating Expense". When the penalty for allowing smoking is a $500 fine, but by allowing smoking in your establishment brings in excess of an additional $500, then it becomes a no-brainer for business owners to disregard the law.

I've seen places that say "No Smoking" to comply with the law, but they do not deter, nor stop smokers. They will not put out Ash Trays to give themselves Plausible Denialability, but now serve drinks in Plastic (as opposed to glass) containers so that they can be used by their customers as Ash Trays.

Some places, such as Hawaii, there is not a single establishment that abides by the No Smoking laws!

Unfortunately where I live even the Hookah Bars have their smoking outdoors, which during the cold of winter, no one wants to sit around an outdoor table smoking shisha while freezing to death...but on the other token, no one wants to socially drink without being able to smoke. 9 out of 10 Nightclubs and Bars have permanently close after bankruptcy because of the Anti-Smoking Bans in our state. Restaurants have been hit hard, but not as hard as Nightclubs and Bars. Overall, the law as very bad for business and a bad idea.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
So what justification do you have for denying smokers their guananteed constitutional right to peaceful assembly?

Thank you for giving me this gem to skip right to.

There is NO BAN on smoker's rights to assemble anywhere in the United States that any other person is not allowed to assemble. Maybe if you can make some sense of that claim, we will have something to work with. It is just a nonsense statement right now.

And if smokers can be denied this right...then of what value is your constitutional rights?

You still think that smokers are a race of people that deserve rights? What about drinker's rights to drive? Are you out there sticking up for drinkers and their right to drive around?

Non-smokers MUST be incredibly stupid. A smoker can read a sign that says no-smoking and either refrain from smoking or leave the establishment. Apparantly, non-smokers are unable to read and understand a sign that says "smoking allowed".

It seems a little unfair to call anyone stupid after you have said things such as the above.

Your health issue nonsense is pointless. If you really want to debate whether or not it is healthy. Get in a closed room with your newborn baby and light up! Get back to me when you finished and tell me how many cigarettes you got through before it became apparent it was harming your new child.

Anyway, I am a smoker and I know that I can choose to go have a nice time in a private business or I can go smoke. I can choose. I can choose to get really drunk OR choose to drive.

I cannot wait to see you out there standing up for drinker's rights to drive.

I am sure that will come soon after you tell me where it is smokers are being banned from assembly.

p.s. you also might not want to call people stupid when you start a post with "also in reply to Lillydale" since that is what the reply to button is all about. Just saying.

[edit on 1/11/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Reply to Lillydale:

This may surprise you but the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed to all citizens in your constitution is NOT limited to the just the right to be present in body.

Really, so it also means what to a smoker? EXPLAIN.

The right to peaceful assembly also carries the right to assemble FOR A PURPOSE. eg. You want to assemble a group of people who are politically opposed to the actions of the president. You want to have a peaceful debate of the issues. It is insufficient for the state to allow you to rent a hall and have warm bodies interested in the issues all in the same place. You must be allowed to discuss the issues you are interested in.

Uh huh...how does this apply to smokers?

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that private swingers clubs are legal. It is the right of people interested in swinging to actually assemble in one place and swing together or engage in consensual sexual activities in a privately owned club that extends an invitation to the public to attend.

I am not Canadian. You can get a HJ in Montreal of 15 bucks too. I do not live in Canada. If there is some second hand sex disease spreading around, you might not want to go into those clubs then. I still do not get how that relates.

Smokers want to socialize with smokers for the purpose of smoking TOGETHER. There are many bars and clubs that would like to provide a venue to smokers for the purpose of peaceful assembly. However, smoking bans prevent the peaceful assembly of smokers to come together for the purpose of smoking.

No it does not. It prevents them from doing it in certain public establishments. I happen to be a member of a club in Niagara Falls, Ontario where I smoke rather freely. Yes, that is ONTARIO CANADA. Maybe you are not Canadian either?

ERGO: Smokers are being deprived of their constitutional right to peaceful assembly for the purpose of engaging in a legal activity.

Apparently you need to un-confuse some of your legislature then. It seems pretty stupid to tell me that smokers have no right to assemble because they are closing a hookah bar when I can easily go to the Sundowner and smoke ALLL NIGHT LONG. I do not pretend to understand Canadian politics. That is why I started off by stating I was in NY when responding to the post about another one of the states down here.

As for your assumption that non-smokers are more fit than smokers for any job.

You are going to have to quote me because either you read incorrectly or you did no understand. I did not say that non-smokers are MORE fit for any job.

Please kindly remember your history. After World War II, the rate of smoking in the population was almost 75 % for men and just under 40 % for woman. And yet, during that same era, the workforce of both our countries entered into one of its most productive phases.

Just amazing. Since I never made any such statement, that is just a cute little factoid to remember. How long did they all live by the way?

You dishonour your mother and father when you make the blanket claim that smokers are less qualified for any job than non-smokers Sir.

Tired of Control Freaks

I never made that statement. You are dead wrong on that. You also have no idea whether or not my father and mother smoke or ever did so you would be best not to refer specifically to anyone in my family.