Cigarette Smoking Bans & Ordinances

[TheNiche]

man I see everyone's point in here. And God knows I am not for more governmental control. But dude is right it is a public health issue not a private rights issue.

How can you consider a publically accesible establishment a private one?

And it becomes a public issue the minute you exhale toxic fumes.

Just because the public can access such places doesn't mean that the public will access such places.

Choice.

Austin and NYC both have bans in place and those places are doing just fine.

Don't tell that to the person who got me tickets to ACL. We ducked into a bar on 6th to get out of the rain and they wouldn't let her smoke. Pissed her off to no end.

[Saddleman]

It's a public health issue.

[TOMIKA!]

This is fantastic! I shouldn't have to be subjected to cancer-causing smoke every time I feel like grabbing a drink with a friend. It's my personal freedom!

[sevfiv]

such a sticky issue -

part of me agrees that an establishment should say what goes...

(of course i think the people opposed to that are thinking, "what if i'm there first, then someone comes near me and smokes" - well, people have the right to choose which establishments to patronize, but they cannot control who comes in after they do...)

and then another part of me thinks, yes, it is a public health issue - just like vehicle emissions and so forth (although i don't see people putting a tailpipe that close to their faces...).

so, it comes down to compromising...what was so bad about having smoking sections in restaurants (or wherever)? even if they need to be ventilated more (to some better standard), i think it would be better to compromise than to piss off a segment of the population one way or another...

for the record, i live with a smoker, but could never imagine doing it myself

Edited October 5, 2006 by sevfiv

[RedScare]

It's a public health issue.

Perhaps, but I believe life is sweetened by risk. I also believe in subverting authority.

But, hey, that's just me.

[westguy76]

I suppose you are right. Can I count on all of your support when I propose to City Council that private automobiles be banned in favor of mass transit? Because, it IS a public health issue. It becomes a public issue the minute you leave your driveway.

automobiles ie., private transport do not kill people on their own. They require another factor in this case humans to make an error in judgement. by themselves they are not a public health issue.

ok so people have to smoke cigarettes.

I liken this arguement to "guns don't kill people, people kill people" do we ban guns in public places? or private if that is what you want to call a restraunt.

you can count on my support to ban Idiots from driving, yes!! and i get to pick out the idiots!! haha

Edited October 5, 2006 by westguy76

[RedScare]

westguy, I was refering to the tons of toxic fumes emitted by your personal vehicle on my street, an amount that far exceeds the amount of toxins in my cigarette.

[westguy76]

westguy, I was refering to the tons of toxic fumes emitted by your personal vehicle on my street, an amount that far exceeds the amount of toxins in my cigarette.

relative to each other and the effect on the human respritory system your arguement does not hold weight. In my opinion.

I don't start cars by sucking on the tailpipe either. And we are talking about confined spaces not the wide open sprawl i drive around in everyday.

^^^^look I used sprawl in a sentance^^^^

I belong!!!!

[TJones]

automobiles ie., private transport do not kill people on their own. They require another factor in this case humans to make an error in judgement. by themselves they are not a public health issue.

ok so people have to smoke cigarettes.

I liken this arguement to "guns don't kill people, people kill people" do we ban guns in public places? or private if that is what you want to call a restraunt.

you can count on my support to ban Idiots from driving, yes!! and i get to pick out the idiots!! haha

We already ban guns in public places where 51% of sales are contributed to alcohol. Even if you have a concealed permit.

Should we ban alcohol in bars, it isn't illegal for people to have a drink in a bar, or restaurant, but it IS illegal for them to operate a motor vehicle under the influence. That drunk driver may violate your personal space on the freeway, or the intersection when he runs a red light ?

[TheNiche]

ok then the problem is that it is a ban, not a law prohibiting smoking in public places, or privately owned and ran public places. semantics..

i'm in for a law that makes it illegal for someone to against my will damage my health along with there own in a place where i can not control it.

that to me is infringing on my rights. you say go somewhere else. i say that is discrimination,.

Where does it end?

Cigar bars would still be allowed under these ordinances. I take it that you wouldn't be caught dead in one, right? Why is that? Could it be that you CHOOSE not to go to one?

And are they discriminating against you or are you discriminating against them? If the answer is "both", then who is the most discriminatory? One who acts as they prefer to act, allowing you to be present or not depending upon YOUR sole choice, or the one who simply outlaws the acts of another?

Is discrimination by the institution of law not worse than discrimination by individual choice?

[westguy76]

We already ban guns in public places where 51% of sales are contributed to alcohol. Even if you have a concealed permit.

Should we ban alcohol in bars, it isn't illegal for people to have a drink in a bar, or restaurant, but it IS illegal for them to operate a motor vehicle under the influence. That drunk driver may violate your personal space on the freeway, or the intersection when he runs a red light ?

yes we should ban alcohol at bars where 51% of the crowd is not pedestrian.

Edited October 5, 2006 by westguy76

[TJones]

yes we should ban alcohol at bars where 51% of the crowd is not pedestrian.

Point is, I will bet dollars to doughnuts that more people are killed by drunk drivers coming from bars every year than people who die of secondhand smoke from going to bars.

The lawmakers think you sheep aren't smart enough to think for yourselves, and that they have to help you make the right decision, now they have taken away your choice. Isn't that a nice stepping stone to a Utopian society ?

[sevfiv]

many folks are socialized into it - i know that if i were to go into a bar, i would expect to come out stinky. i also know that when i was in san francisco, the couple of bars i went to were just...weird.

of course, also brought up was air pollution from automobiles - i think most people think that if they can't see it (or even if they can), since it doesn't have an immediate and personal effect, it isn't really happening.

'course we all ooh and ahh at the chemical sunsets by the refineries, too

again, i am a proponent for segregation in this issue (especially for restaurants). smoking is a choice, so there should be a choice of seating, so everyone can enjoy their favorite places how they see fit.

Edited October 5, 2006 by sevfiv

[Saddleman]

Perhaps, but I believe life is sweetened by risk. I also believe in subverting authority.

But, hey, that's just me.

I love to be quoted. My risks are along the line of jumping out of planes, not slowly killing others around me with my bad habits. Authority should be challenged and subverted if it is hurting people (not businesses). Please use quotation marks and 'kingkirbythegreatoftexas says/said' in the future.

[RedScare]

relative to each other and the effect on the human respritory system your arguement does not hold weight. In my opinion.

I don't start cars by sucking on the tailpipe either. And we are talking about confined spaces not the wide open sprawl i drive around in everyday.

^^^^look I used sprawl in a sentance^^^^

I belong!!!!

Ya think? Would your opinion change if you knew that the average automobile emits 9 grams of Carbon Monoxide PER MILE? The average cigarette emits 50 milligrams of carbon monoxide. It would take an entire pack of 20 to add up to ONE GRAM. How many grams of CO do you think are emitted if you are sitting in traffic for an hour or so?

The fact is, you are exposed to more pollution driving to the bar than you are sitting amongst the smokers. Further, city ordinances require air handling systems to replace the air in a building several times per hour. Much of that 50 milligrams stays in the lungs of the smoker. What gets into the air is sucked out by air handlers. What little is left is spread among all patrons. Like people in South Dakota being terrified of a terrorist attack, your fear is way overblown.

The city can easily rectify this situation by allowing bars with separate smoking and non-smoking areas to operate. This is another example of popular opinion trampling individual rights. But, since bad-mouthing smokers is all the rage, this will probably pass.

[westguy76]

Ya think? Would your opinion change if you knew that the average automobile emits 9 grams of Carbon Monoxide PER MILE? The average cigarette emits 50 milligrams of carbon monoxide. It would take an entire pack of 20 to add up to ONE GRAM. How many grams of CO do you think are emitted if you are sitting in traffic for an hour or so?

The fact is, you are exposed to more pollution driving to the bar than you are sitting amongst the smokers. Further, city ordinances require air handling systems to replace the air in a building several times per hour. Much of that 50 milligrams stays in the lungs of the smoker. What gets into the air is sucked out by air handlers. What little is left is spread among all patrons. Like people in South Dakota being terrified of a terrorist attack, your fear is way overblown.

The city can easily rectify this situation by allowing bars with separate smoking and non-smoking areas to operate. This is another example of popular opinion trampling individual rights. But, since bad-mouthing smokers is all the rage, this will probably pass.

Hey I ain't skeered.

I'm just joining in the discussion, but I gotta believe that the absortion rate in the tightly packed bars i go into(admittedly not very often any more) is greater on my lungs in the bar than in the great oudoors with the infinate atmosphere we all share to dissipate the pollution.

So I am talking about the inhaling not the emmitting. It's all about limiting the effects on your fellow man not controlling people because you never will

[TJones]

Ya think? Would your opinion change if you knew that the average automobile emits 9 grams of Carbon Monoxide PER MILE? The average cigarette emits 50 milligrams of carbon monoxide. It would take an entire pack of 20 to add up to ONE GRAM. How many grams of CO do you think are emitted if you are sitting in traffic for an hour or so?

The fact is, you are exposed to more pollution driving to the bar than you are sitting amongst the smokers. Further, city ordinances require air handling systems to replace the air in a building several times per hour. Much of that 50 milligrams stays in the lungs of the smoker. What gets into the air is sucked out by air handlers. What little is left is spread among all patrons. Like people in South Dakota being terrified of a terrorist attack, your fear is way overblown.

The city can easily rectify this situation by allowing bars with separate smoking and non-smoking areas to operate. This is another example of popular opinion trampling individual rights. But, since bad-mouthing smokers is all the rage, this will probably pass.

Now, you won't see those facts on www.truth.org now will you ?

I think smoking is a filthy disgusting habit, that I do not take part in, and never have. I don't beleive that those 15 to 25 smokers I may encounter at a bar I am patronizing are gonna kill me with their second-hand smoke though. I can walk away from them. AND, even if one of those smokers were in my group that I was partying with, I myself would probably tell them to take that deathstick over there. I also have no problem telling a smoker sitting at a bar with me to move his ashtray to the otherside so that the smoke doesn't drift my way. I do it all the time, and I have NEVER had one smoker challenge me on it. They usually apologize, and I tell them I don't care that they smoke, I just don't want it directly in my face.

Edited October 5, 2006 by TJones

[westguy76]

Now, you won't see those facts on www.truth.org now will you ?

I think smoking is a filthy disgusting habit, that I do not take part in, and never have. I don't beleive that those 15 to 25 smokers I may encounter at a bar I am patronizing are gonna kill me with their second-hand smoke though. I can walk away from them. AND, even if one of those smokers were in my group that I was partying with, I myself would probably tell them to take that deathstick over there. I also have no problem telling a smoker sitting at a bar with me to move his ashtray to the otherside so that the smoke doesn't drift my way. I do it all the time, and I have NEVER had one smoker challenge me on it. They usually apologize, and I tell them I don't care that they smoke, I just don't want it directly in my face.

And you know I feel the same way you do. I just find it interesting to feel out peoples opinion on a subject like this. I don't think about it often. It is mostly just when it is an annoyance. I do find myself judging people that I see smoking. We all have flaws.

I don't mind tighter restrictions is all. I guess I don't see it as a rights grab by authorites. maybe I am wrong. I have been wrong before. I think it was 19..... j/j.

[houstonfella]

I am not a smoker, but it seems that couldn't a law be passed that would allow bars to be smoking or non-smoking. That way, non-smokers could stay away from that second hand smoke and smokers would be able to congregate and non-smokers who didn't mind could go to either.

[RedScare]

I am not a smoker, but it seems that couldn't a law be passed that would allow bars to be smoking or non-smoking. That way, non-smokers could stay away from that second hand smoke and smokers would be able to congregate and non-smokers who didn't mind could go to either.

That law already exists. The proposal is to do away with that law.

[west20th]

I am not a smoker, but it seems that couldn't a law be passed that would allow bars to be smoking or non-smoking. That way, non-smokers could stay away from that second hand smoke and smokers would be able to congregate and non-smokers who didn't mind could go to either.

A bar called Jefferie's tried that. Smoking only on the patio. They lasted about a month.

[Kirzania]

This was a huge to-do in Lexington. Personally, I think it's a great idea because I don't smoke and it makes me pretty sick... I'm of the opinion though that the city should pass the ordinance giving any "public area" the right to be completely non-smoking and enforce it with fines or ejection from the premises.

I agree with TJones and the others of you who say that "smoking's a choice, restaurants should give patrons a choice to sit with smokers or be in a smoke-free area." I would think though, that most retaurants these days would go non-smoking with the hurry to cater to people who want to lose weight and eat/be healthy.

I do have to say, there was a hospital in Missouri (right?) who tried to make the entire campus non-smoking. "Entire campus" as in you can't smoke anywhere - not even outside, in the parking garage, on the grass, anywhere that is hospital property. The town was furious... I guess I hope that if Houston passed a non-smoking ordinance, that it would give the choice to be smoke free or not. That way people can't argue if a restaurant or hospital wants to be smoke-free.

Btw... I don't understand why people would be mad against a law prohibiting smoking on hospital grounds. At UK Hospital, I saw a small family, mother, father, and little boy who was maybe 12-13... They had taken him outside in his wheelchair with a nurse pushing respirator in tow. The kid had way too many pipes hooked up to him and the parents reason for taking him outside? Not for the fresh air... Because they wanted to smoke. Disgusting.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Kirzania

[heights_yankee]

Should've been a complete ban from the very beginning.

Austin and NYC both have bans in place and those places are doing just fine.

And the states of California and Massachusetts.

My smoking friends back east actually like it. They like not having to wash/dry clean everything they wear out on a Saturday night or feeling like they need to shower before getting in to bed. Also, my single friends swear it's a great way to meet people- all the smokers congregate at different times and it's like a mixer.

[Pumapayam]

This is fantastic! I shouldn't have to be subjected to cancer-causing smoke every time I feel like grabbing a drink with a friend. It's my personal freedom!

And maybe we can see less cigerette butts around town all over the floor

That is disgusting, use the receptacles peeps, quit flicking it on the floor after your done!

[musicman]

And maybe we can see less cigerette butts around town all over the floor

That is disgusting, use the receptacles peeps, quit flicking it on the floor after your done!

how is banning smoking in bars going to result in people NOT throwing their cigarettes on the ground? it'll probably make it worse now that they won't be able to smoke inside and use ashtrays!

[Guest Sebastian De La Ghetto]

Should've been a complete ban from the very beginning.

Austin and NYC both have bans in place and those places are doing just fine.

Very true. I go to austin once or twice a month to party with friends, and it's still packed as ever. I was in Toronto on business earlier this year, and they too have smoking bans for MOST of the club, they all have designated 'smoking' outdoor areas. It works out for both parties, go have a smoke with other smokers, then come back inside when your done, everybody wins. AND i dont smell like an ashtray after a nite partying

[Saddleman]

In Austin, butts on the ground outside of bars is now a huge problem. Come on people. Don't mess with Texas.

Edited October 6, 2006 by kingkirbythegreatoftexas

[Gary]

Am I living on Mars (don't answer that) or are we still talking about a smoking ban in bars? That's ludicrous. I've been playing in bars for 23 years and can't imagine one without people smoking, I means it's a bar for crying out loud.

[westguy76]

Am I living on Mars (don't answer that) or are we still talking about a smoking ban in bars? That's ludicrous. I've been playing in bars for 23 years and can't imagine one without people smoking, I means it's a bar for crying out loud.

What are you implying, that you have to be an idiot to go to a bar?

for crying out loud, you think i could go to a bar with out somone puffing tar on me! try to imagine it it's a pleasant place

[Gary]

What are you implying, that you have to be an idiot to go to a bar?

for crying out loud, you think i could go to a bar with out somone puffing tar on me! try to imagine it it's a pleasant place

I'm not implying anything other than what I said. People have been smoking in bars forever, it goes along with the territory.

I have no problem with banning smoking in work places etc, simply because it makes sense in those environments. I do however have an issue with it being implemented in bars for the reason I stated above.