How do you feel about the proposed patio smoking ban? (Austin: to live in, dangerous)

[austinrebel]

Originally Posted by mm57553

Honestly, I'm not a big drinker, so I'm not going to defend alcohol out the wazoo. But my point is that alcohol is not banned, but behaviors associated with it are. Likewise, smoking is not being banned, but behaviors associated with it are going to be, just as they are with alcohol.

All this talk about, "Then we should ban alcohol," doesn't make sense. No one is suggesting that we ban smoking. It is being banned from certain places - just as alcohol is. People are saying that if we do this with smoking then we need to do this with alcohol. But the fact of the matter is that we have already done that with alcohol by restricting it's use.

As smoking is already restricted to outside.

Now you want to restrict outside, too, because it's healthier.

In the same way, further restrictions on alcohol will be healthier and save lives.

An increase of taxes on alcohol, for example, to say $20 for a glass of wine in a public place would discourage drinking excessively outside of the home. Lowering the BAC rate to 0% so that any alcohol in a person's system is a DWI (which is done in progressive countries) would save many more lives. Getting undercover cops inside bars to bust people for public intoxication would help, too.

No one is suggesting banning alcohol, just further restrictions.

I don't agree with the idea that just because drinking alcohol is politically correct or socially acceptable, it should get a pass.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by austinrebel

As smoking is already restricted to outside.

Now you want to restrict outside, too, because it's healthier.

In the same way, further restrictions on alcohol will be healthier and save lives.

An increase of taxes on alcohol, for example, to say $20 for a glass of wine in a public place would discourage drinking excessively outside of the home. Lowering the BAC rate to 0% so that any alcohol in a person's system is a DWI (which is done in progressive countries) would save many more lives. Getting undercover cops inside bars to bust people for public intoxication would help, too.

No one is suggesting banning alcohol, just further restrictions.

I don't agree with the idea that just because drinking alcohol is politically correct or socially acceptable, it should get a pass.

I never said we should restrict it outside because it is healthier, we should restrict it because the smell is offensive and annoying to a large number of people. They should have the right to go out and enjoy their patio too. Trust me, if you live in an apartment or condo above a smoker, every time they smoke on their patio, it's going to drift up to yours. Chances are you are only a few feet from the person smoking, so pretty darn close (people aren't even supposed to smoke less than 15 feet from a doorway in a public building). And even if you are not outside, if you want to open your windows or screen door for some fresh air, you are more than likely going to get a big whiff of smoke. How is that fair to the person who doesn't smoke? What are their rights? Are they just supposed to deal with the smokers choice and/or not enjoy their patio?

And BTW, I agree with you about stricter alcohol laws, but that is really not relevant to the smoking discussion.

[blueskies85]

we should restrict it because the smell is offensive and annoying to a large number of people.

I think this is the crux of the issue, and the main reason why one side is not going to see the point of view of the other. Do we outlaw something because we are personally annoyed by it? To me, that idea is offensive, on both a political and moral level. I am annoyed by countless things others do on a daily basis. I'm sure I annoy other people at times. I chalk this up to being part and parcel of living in a society with other humans.

Let the business owners decide. If you don't like it vote with your dollars. A temporary annoyance is not reason for legal action. We are supposed to be the land of the free. Not the land of the free...unless I'm kinda annoyed by it.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by blueskies85

I think this is the crux of the issue, and the main reason why one side is not going to see the point of view of the other. Do we outlaw something because we are personally annoyed by it? To me, that idea is offensive, on both a political and moral level. I am annoyed by countless things others do on a daily basis. I'm sure I annoy other people at times. I chalk this up to being part and parcel of living in a society with other humans.

Let the business owners decide. If you don't like it vote with your dollars. A temporary annoyance is not reason for legal action. We are supposed to be the land of the free. Not the land of the free...unless I'm kinda annoyed by it.

(where's the icon for wild applause?)

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by austinrebel

Ha! My money says those "alcohol is healthy" studies were paid for by the beer companies, who are just as deceitful as the tobacco companies. Big Tobacco pulled the same stunt back in the day, with advertisements that "9 out 10 doctors recommend Camels."

And those studies were all talking about drinking at home, not in public, where every drink served costs society a dollar, according to studies.

MADD has done studies that found that even one drink affects one's ability to drive.

Alcohol was once banned everywhere in the USA. The reason was the harmful effects on health, society, and public safety. Those are solid reasons to ban it. They didn't ban apple juice, because it never hurt anybody. And they didn't know about the connection between alcohol and cancer, as we do now.

The truth is, alcohol makes people fat, mean, and stupid.

There's another reason to clamp down on alcohol. Drinking makes people fat. We are in a Obesity Crisis, after all.

The alcohol ban didn't work so well.

Americans do many things that aren't healthy. Most of them are generally legal, though often regulated. You seem to have a particular slant against alcohol.

Those studies that show modest use of alcohol has health benefits were done by public health groups, who are genuinely interested in the pros/cons of alcohol. It took just seconds to find the articles below. Not one of them has anything to do with an industry sponsorship.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024
Harvard School of Public Health » The Nutrition Source » Alcohol
Alcohol And Health
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicatio...24-1/05-11.pdf

You statement of "truth" only applies to alcohol abuse.

[austinrebel]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

The alcohol ban didn't work so well.

Americans do many things that aren't healthy. Most of them are generally legal, though often regulated. You seem to have a particular slant against alcohol.

Those studies that show modest use of alcohol has health benefits were done by public health groups, who are genuinely interested in the pros/cons of alcohol. It took just seconds to find the articles below. Not one of them has anything to do with an industry sponsorship.

Alcohol use: If you drink, keep it moderate - MayoClinic.com
Harvard School of Public Health » The Nutrition Source » Alcohol
Alcohol And Health
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicatio...24-1/05-11.pdf

You statement of "truth" only applies to alcohol abuse.

Google the words Alcohol and Cancer

Again, those studies all assume you are drinking at home, not in public. They don't factor in drinking and driving.

Nobody is suggesting banning alcohol. But if we are restricting tobacco to save lives, then obviously more restrictions on alcohol will save lives, too.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by austinrebel

Google the words Alcohol and Cancer

Again, those studies all assume you are drinking at home, not in public. They don't factor in drinking and driving.

Nobody is suggesting banning alcohol. But if we are restricting tobacco to save lives, then obviously more restrictions on alcohol will save lives, too.

I don't think Austin is trying to save lives by restricting tobacco further than it already is. Austin instead is doing it for other reasons. They may SAY it is to save lives, but I don't think eliminating smoking on patios will have an meaningful effect on mortality of anyone in Austin.

According to the American Cancer society website:

"While alcohol use has been linked to several types of cancer and other health risks, this is complicated by the fact that low to moderate alcohol intake has been linked with a lower risk of heart disease. Still, reducing the risk of heart disease is not a compelling reason for adults who currently do not drink alcohol to start. There are many ways of reducing heart disease risk, including avoiding smoking, eating a diet low in saturated and trans fats, staying at a healthy weight, staying physically active, and controlling blood pressure and cholesterol."

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by blueskies85

I think this is the crux of the issue, and the main reason why one side is not going to see the point of view of the other. Do we outlaw something because we are personally annoyed by it? To me, that idea is offensive, on both a political and moral level. I am annoyed by countless things others do on a daily basis. I'm sure I annoy other people at times. I chalk this up to being part and parcel of living in a society with other humans.

Let the business owners decide. If you don't like it vote with your dollars. A temporary annoyance is not reason for legal action. We are supposed to be the land of the free. Not the land of the free...unless I'm kinda annoyed by it.

We outlaw things because people are personally annoyed by it all the time. Loud music, for example. If your neighbor's yard smells like trash or dog waste, it's not allowed and they can be ticketed. Many people in certain areas aren't allowed to operate businesses out of their homes because it can impact their neighbors. Panhandling is outlawed in many places. Etc., etc.

[blueskies85]

We outlaw things because people are personally annoyed by it all the time. Loud music, for example. If your neighbor's yard smells like trash or dog waste, it's not allowed and they can be ticketed. Many people in certain areas aren't allowed to operate businesses out of their homes because it can impact their neighbors. Panhandling is outlawed in many places. Etc., etc.

You're confusing the public and private sphere. As an aside, I have never had to call the police for any of the above in my life, but if you had bad luck and a neighbor that blares music until 3am, who refused to turn it down, there are no reasonable alternatives to avoid it. If you go to a bar and call the police because the music is too loud, you would and should be laughed at. Reasonable alternatives have been made, if you'd like to eat, drink and be merry, free of smoke, you already have that. If you're dead-set on going to a smoking allowed patio, ask to be moved if it bothers you. You are free. Allow others to be too please.

[austinrebel]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I don't think Austin is trying to save lives by restricting tobacco further than it already is. Austin instead is doing it for other reasons. They may SAY it is to save lives, but I don't think eliminating smoking on patios will have an meaningful effect on mortality of anyone in Austin.

According to the American Cancer society website:

"While alcohol use has been linked to several types of cancer and other health risks, this is complicated by the fact that low to moderate alcohol intake has been linked with a lower risk of heart disease. Still, reducing the risk of heart disease is not a compelling reason for adults who currently do not drink alcohol to start. There are many ways of reducing heart disease risk, including avoiding smoking, eating a diet low in saturated and trans fats, staying at a healthy weight, staying physically active, and controlling blood pressure and cholesterol."

So is the City lying when they say second hand smoke is just as dangerous outside as it is inside?