Smoking in Austin Bars?

[TexasHorseLady]

Just saw an interesting study mentioned on CNN where researchers were trying to figure out why the 80% of smokers who don't get cancer don't (which is a figure I'd never heard before - only 20% of smokers get cancer?). There appears to be a genetic link there, and if you have one copy of the gene, you're more likely to get cancer from smoking than if you don't. And apparently 34% of the population has one of the variants of this gene. And if someone has one of these genes, they can develop cancer even if they never smoke.

[love roses]

My grandfather smoked until the day he died at 78 years old and never got cancer. Dana Reeves would be an example of someone who never smoked and still got lung cancer. Wasn't there someone else (celebrity) who got it that never smoked?

[elduderino38]

Stop the silliness! Second hand smoke sucks. I smoke. I voted for the ban. I have no problem going outside to light up, just as I have no problem going to the bathroom to dump.

[Biscuits]

Originally Posted by elduderino38

Stop the silliness! Second hand smoke sucks. I smoke. I voted for the ban. I have no problem going outside to light up, just as I have no problem going to the bathroom to dump.

Well said.

[TexasHorseLady]

I don't smoke, and I would have voted against the ban, given the choice. Not because of the smoking (it doesn't matter to me whether someone else smokes or doesn't, especially if they are smoking in a bar that is designated as a smoking facility), but because of the slippery slope that it opens up. It's not "silliness" at all - it's a matter of what kind of country we wish to live in.

It's going to be interesting, really, when the next thing that a group decides they don't like and work to get banned turns out to be one of the civil liberties that they,l personally, hold dear. They'll have lost any high ground in protesting it because they took the low road of legislating their own prejudices for others.

As for second hand smoke being bad, see study above regarding why 80% of those who smoke don't get lung cancer (which would apply to those exposed to second-hand smoke, as well), and also see above regarding the compromise that existed until the anti-smokers who just couldn't stand the idea that someone was doing in a place that they did not have to enter or work something they don't approve of. Look at it in that context and insert your favored "vice" in place of smoking and see how it looks from the outside and why it's not "silliness".

[jwb123]

Stop the silliness! Second hand smoke sucks.

++ for you!!

[TexasHorseLady]

Interestingly, the compromise that Austin had WAS a smoking ban - it was simply a smoking ban that took everyone into account. Which seemed to simply enrage some people who insisted that NO ONE be allowed to smoke ANYWHERE IN PUBLIC - even places that were designated as such. It seemed that they took the idea that someone might be allowed to make choices that differed with theirs on where to do something legal that IS a matter of personal choice as a threat to their own choice not to smoke, for some reason. It wasn't enough for there to be "smoking ghettoes" where adults could make their own decisions to listen to music, have a drink, some food, and choose to smoke among other smokers, while most of the venues were non-smoking venues. That puzzles me, and it also makes me wonder what's next.

[elduderino38]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

I don't smoke, and I would have voted against the ban, given the choice. Not because of the smoking (it doesn't matter to me whether someone else smokes or doesn't, especially if they are smoking in a bar that is designated as a smoking facility), but because of the slippery slope that it opens up. It's not "silliness" at all - it's a matter of what kind of country we wish to live in.

It's going to be interesting, really, when the next thing that a group decides they don't like and work to get banned turns out to be one of the civil liberties that they,l personally, hold dear. They'll have lost any high ground in protesting it because they took the low road of legislating their own prejudices for others.

As for second hand smoke being bad, see study above regarding why 80% of those who smoke don't get lung cancer (which would apply to those exposed to second-hand smoke, as well), and also see above regarding the compromise that existed until the anti-smokers who just couldn't stand the idea that someone was doing in a place that they did not have to enter or work something they don't approve of. Look at it in that context and insert your favored "vice" in place of smoking and see how it looks from the outside and why it's not "silliness".

Oh please, its a matter of common courtesy. Let's take the cancer risk out of the equation. Cigarette smoke smells. It stinks up clothing and hair. I hate being in smoke filled rooms but I do like to smoke. I don't smoke in my house because it STINKS the joint up.

The civil liberties argument is ridiculous. It's about courtesy and common sense. Steve Martin has the best line. "Do you mind if I smoke? No, do you mind if I fart?"

[love roses]

Insert drinking into that. Alcohol spilled on clothing stinks. So does the breath of someone too close to me who's had a lot of whiskey. But prohibition didn't work. Oops, spilled hot coffee on my lap, now you can pretty much only get not quite hot coffee that cools off too fast before you can drink half the cup. Wait, ate too much fast food and gained too much weight, therefore fast food is to blame, not me because I ate it every day for every meal.

I just have to agree with THL again. Things do snowball, whether you think they do or not. I don't smoke, but I also value personal choice too much to want all of it legislated for "my own good". I could care less about smoking in bars. The only place I don't like smoke is in a restaurant when I'm eating.

Steve Martin may have a good line, but honestly I wouldn't try and legislate farting to be against the law. It may smell bad, but hey, It's your a**.

[TexasHorseLady]

Oh please, its a matter of common courtesy. Let's take the cancer risk out of the equation. Cigarette smoke smells. It stinks up clothing and hair. I hate being in smoke filled rooms but I do like to smoke. I don't smoke in my house because it STINKS the joint up.

How does this apply to not wanting consenting adults to have the option to choose to smoke in establishments that are clearly labeled as allowing smoking and to have such venues available to them as a minority of the establishments out there? (What, were the anti-smokers afraid that if the populace was left to their own devices that the vast majority of establishments that don't allow smoking would be put out of business by those that would choose to get licensed to do so?) You're warned ahead of time, you're not required to patronize those establishments if you don't care for the smell of cigarette smoke or places where people smoke. So the fact that you don't care for the smell of smoke doesn't really apply to this particular question.

I can quite understand someone not wishing to be around cigarette smoke or in places where people smoke, but just like you don't have the right not to be offended, you don't have the right to dictate that something you personally don't care for doesn't occur anywhere at any time, which is exactly the kind of right those that couldn't live with the excellent compromise crafted by the Austin City Council are demanding.