Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is it to me, merely sitting next to the party who is consuming alcohol at the table next to me?
If adults: It is not, however, just serving alcohol at even moderate doses as allowed by bars and restaurants can cause liver, stomach, intestinal, and pancreatic issues. Adults have a choice whether or not to attend that establishment.
If children: is there any question that exposing persons under 18 to copious scenes of excessive alcohol drinking would not encourage such drinking as adults?
The issue with the complete outdoor smoking ban are the limits of security of healthy environment for all patrons. Texas state law does not have a complete smoking ban. City of Austin ordinances cannot exceed Texas state law. The current smoking rules which smoking and non-smoking sections is based upon Texas state law which has no rules banning smoking on private property. The city of Austin simply dictates that most of the bar or restaurants usable space must be for non-smokers, the current Austin city ordinance is valid under Texas state law because it allows some space for smokers.
The new ordinance would invalidate the Texas state law protecting the right of private property owners to allow smoking on their property. Obviously, that is a problem because the Texas legislature (signed by the Governor) has never given any municipality that right.
If adults: It is not, however, just serving alcohol at even moderate doses as allowed by bars and restaurants can cause liver, stomach, intestinal, and pancreatic issues. Adults have a choice whether or not to attend that establishment.
If children: is there any question that exposing persons under 18 to copious scenes of excessive alcohol drinking would not encourage such drinking as adults?
The issue with the complete outdoor smoking ban are the limits of security of healthy environment for all patrons. Texas state law does not have a complete smoking ban. City of Austin ordinances cannot exceed Texas state law. The current smoking rules which smoking and non-smoking sections is based upon Texas state law which has no rules banning smoking on private property. The city of Austin simply dictates that most of the bar or restaurants usable space must be for non-smokers, the current Austin city ordinance is valid under Texas state law because it allows some space for smokers.
The new ordinance would invalidate the Texas state law protecting the right of private property owners to regular smoking on their property. Obviously, that is problem because the Texas legislature (signed by the Governor) has never given any municipality that right.
The Austin smoking ordinance already exceeds state law. There is no state law prohibiting smoking inside bars or restaurants or in parks. One is being proposed in the current Legislative session.
The Austin smoking ordinance already exceeds state law. There is no state law prohibiting smoking inside bars or restaurants or in parks. One is being proposed in the current Legislative session.
It is legal: the loophole in the Austin Parks and Recreation ordinance is that the COA claims that Austin parks are open space public facilities paid for and maintained by public tax dollars (not private properties) which cannot be safely regulated under a separate but equal clause for accommodations between smokers and non-smokers.
Drinking alcohol is far more immediately harmful in terms of liver, intestianal, and even pancreatic diseases.
CptnRn, following your logic (and those of this ordinance supporters), where is the reasoning for the smoking ban (with long-term) health risks, and not an alcohol ban with both (long-term and short-term) health risks?
In addition, how can a Texas municipal (city) ordinance surpass Texas state law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by austinrebel
By your reasoning, we should also ban outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, and fire rings on outdoor decks. And also, outdoor BBQ's in parks. These emit second hand smoke that is even more dense than cigarette smoke.
You agree, right?
For both of you, I made two separate statements. See how they are separate sentences.
This is a dialogue not a debate. The OP asked "How do you feel about the proposed patio smoking ban?". I feel fine about it. I'm expressing my opinion, which I am confident is shared by the majority of the citizens of Austin.
I did NOT say, "I'm all in favor of the smoking ban because the Health Department says that second hand smoke on patios is harmful."
I'm in favor of it for lots of different reasons.
For the people who claim there is no health risk involved I included the quote about the Health Dept. which says otherwise. I believe them, there is lots of research linking health risks to second hand smoke. If you want more specific data you can go look it up, its not my job to provide it to you.
Human beings must breath in order to survive. We have a basic, fundamental right to breath clean air. You have no basic, fundamental right to pollute the air I breath. Many smokers in the past have abused their freedom to smoke and polluted the air of the non-smokers. As a result that freedom is being curtailed more and more across the country. That is how a democracy works.
The alcohol and BBQ arguments are both non-sequiturs. The City could vote to ban either of those, but the majority of voters are not in favor of doing so.
The City of Austin has lots of ordinances that exceed anything written into State law. I don't see how that is relevant.
If adults: It is not, however, just serving alcohol at even moderate doses as allowed by bars and restaurants can cause liver, stomach, intestinal, and pancreatic issues. Adults have a choice whether or not to attend that establishment.
If children: is there any question that exposing persons under 18 to copious scenes of excessive alcohol drinking would not encourage such drinking as adults?
The issue with the complete outdoor smoking ban are the limits of security of healthy environment for all patrons. Texas state law does not have a complete smoking ban. City of Austin ordinances cannot exceed Texas state law. The current smoking rules which smoking and non-smoking sections is based upon Texas state law which has no rules banning smoking on private property. The city of Austin simply dictates that most of the bar or restaurants usable space must be for non-smokers, the current Austin city ordinance is valid under Texas state law because it allows some space for smokers.
The new ordinance would invalidate the Texas state law protecting the right of private property owners to allow smoking on their property. Obviously, that is a problem because the Texas legislature (signed by the Governor) has never given any municipality that right.
Your post is not credible at all. First and foremost, there is a vast amount of data that shows modest consumption of alcohol is correlated with positive health outcomes. Just one example below.
By your standards, children shouldn't eat anyplace where alcohol is consumed. I don't think children should be around "copious" alcohol consumption either - but the issue is probably not witnessing consumption of alcohol, but witnessing the behavior that comes from excessive amounts.
For both of you, I made two separate statements. See how they are separate sentences.
This is a dialogue not a debate. The OP asked "How do you feel about the proposed patio smoking ban?". I feel fine about it. I'm expressing my opinion, which I am confident is shared by the majority of the citizens of Austin.
I did NOT say, "I'm all in favor of the smoking ban because the Health Department says that second hand smoke on patios is harmful."
I'm in favor of it for lots of different reasons.
For the people who claim there is no health risk involved I included the quote about the Health Dept. which says otherwise. I believe them, there is lots of research linking health risks to second hand smoke. If you want more specific data you can go look it up, its not my job to provide it to you.
Human beings must breath in order to survive. We have a basic, fundamental right to breath clean air. You have no basic, fundamental right to pollute the air I breath. Many smokers in the past have abused their freedom to smoke and polluted the air of the non-smokers. As a result that freedom is being curtailed more and more across the country. That is how a democracy works.
The alcohol and BBQ arguments are both non-sequiturs. The City could vote to ban either of those, but the majority of voters are not in favor of doing so.
The City of Austin has lots of ordinances that exceed anything written into State law. I don't see how that is relevant.
I don't agree that most of Austin is so supportive.
The health department cited no data. And if they had, I bet it would have been data associated with regular exposure to second hand smoke. The kind that people see when they work in smoking environments. I bet there is NO data to show health problems for the tiny amount of second hand smoke experienced via occasional outdoor patio dining! The reason is the impact is likely undetectable.
Although I generally think the health department is looking out for us - in this case I think they are reaching because they (city council) likes the "feel good" nature of banning something ever so slightly not healty.
CptnRon, as I recall, you're one of the people who absolutely abhorred the wonderful compromise that the City of Austin came up with that allowed for venues to become licensed as smoking-allowed venues, where people who had no problem with tobacco smoke could eat, drink, and work (you don't really think that there are not enough smoking employees or employees who don't care about cigarette smoke in that industry to fill all the available positions in the few such venues there are likely to be if smoking really is a problem for the majority of citizens, right? RIGHT?), and which were properly labeled on the front as smoking allowed venues so that anyone who didn't want to be exposed to tobacco smoke could choose to go to one of the myriad of no smoking venues in the city. Isn't that correct? A wonderful compromise that allowed SOME rights to smokers while at the same time giving those who SAID their objection was that THEY didn't want to be exposed to someone else's cigarette smoke the vast majority of venues in the city as options. It became quickly clear that that was a flat out lie as to motivation, because of the hissy fit that occurred at the idea that someone might actually be ALLOWED to go to a smoking allowed venue and enjoy a cigarette after their meal or with a drink, even if the anti-smoking people weren't in any danger at all of being exposed to it and had plenty of options of their own, vastly more than the smokers, in fact. The real motivation was very, very clear even if they thought that we were all too dumb to see it, that it was a nanny state "we know what's best and we'll make your decisions for you" motivation, at best.
You DID support the hissy fit over getting rid of a very reasonable compromise that took everyone's rights into account, didn't you say here on this very forum?
For both of you, I made two separate statements. See how they are separate sentences.
This is a dialogue not a debate. The OP asked "How do you feel about the proposed patio smoking ban?". I feel fine about it. I'm expressing my opinion, which I am confident is shared by the majority of the citizens of Austin.
I did NOT say, "I'm all in favor of the smoking ban because the Health Department says that second hand smoke on patios is harmful."
I'm in favor of it for lots of different reasons.
For the people who claim there is no health risk involved I included the quote about the Health Dept. which says otherwise. I believe them, there is lots of research linking health risks to second hand smoke. If you want more specific data you can go look it up, its not my job to provide it to you.
Human beings must breath in order to survive. We have a basic, fundamental right to breath clean air. You have no basic, fundamental right to pollute the air I breath. Many smokers in the past have abused their freedom to smoke and polluted the air of the non-smokers. As a result that freedom is being curtailed more and more across the country. That is how a democracy works.
The alcohol and BBQ arguments are both non-sequiturs. The City could vote to ban either of those, but the majority of voters are not in favor of doing so.
The City of Austin has lots of ordinances that exceed anything written into State law. I don't see how that is relevant.
That does not make sense. You said second hand smoke is harmful and therefore smoking should be banned outdoors on patios. But if a bar has an outdoor fireplace or BBQ, it emits second hand smoke, too. Is that some kind of politically correct second hand smoke and is magically not harmful?
Your post is not credible at all. First and foremost, there is a vast amount of data that shows modest consumption of alcohol is correlated with positive health outcomes. Just one example below.
By your standards, children shouldn't eat anyplace where alcohol is consumed. I don't think children should be around "copious" alcohol consumption either - but the issue is probably not witnessing consumption of alcohol, but witnessing the behavior that comes from excessive amounts.
You are allowed to get intoxicated at businesses within the city of Austin as we are allowed to smoke. Both are unhealthy health practices practiced by consenting adults. However, smoking tobacco will not kill you no matter how long a smoke session. Alcohol can kill with one session which is authorized under Texas state law, however, businesses can be held liable ONLY if said person causes damage to others as a direct result of his or her alcohol consumption.
My argument is based on the legality of enacting a complete smoking ban on businesses which are private property owners. The law is meant to make whole our constitutional rights, it is not meant to make some people feel good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
