U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 08-09-2011, 01:56 PM
 
85 posts, read 94,016 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dementius88 View Post
Are you comparing smoking (legal) with whippets (illegal)? Really, that is not a comparison.
First of all, nitrous oxide isn't illegal - your dentist might use it - it's a controlled substance. But why should nitrous oxide be controlled, while second-hand smoke shouldn't? Surely a little nitrous oxide isn't as harmful as second-hand tobacco smoke.

Quote:
Do the employees have the right to work somewhere else if they do not like the working conditions? Maybe they work there because they are making more money which they are not skilled enough to make in other fields of employment. It is a decision they are making to work in that environment.
This is a very old, and very discounted argument. Historically, workers rarely have the freedom to choose their working conditions, because businesses have a profit motivation to keep working conditions at the lowest level possible (it is classic market economics - the first business-owner to realize that you save a lot of money if you don't purchase air filters when working with hazardous chemicals will make a big profit, and other companies will follow). Thanks to government regulations over the past 150 years, we have almost forgotten what it was like for workers when businesses could operate as they pleased. When you talk about an unregulated workplace, you are talking about the choice between poor working conditions and not working at all. How is that a fair decision?

Quote:
I also want the FDA to ensure accuracy in food contents, but I am not sure I want them saying we cannot eat sugar in excess because it is not healthy for you.
First of all, our bodies need sugar in one form or another to survive. We don't need second-hand smoke to survive, so it is a false equivalency. I don't care if other people choose to smoke - in fact, I smoke both cigarettes and cigars from time to time. I do care about protecting the air quality for those people who decide not to contaminate their lungs with tobacco.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2011, 01:57 PM
 
431 posts, read 198,543 times
Reputation: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah TX View Post
If 50% of austin bars went out of business in 2005, then they were quickly replaced by better businesses who seem to be very successful despite the smoking ban.



This is a convenient statement which absolves you from providing concrete evidence. The simple fact is that second-hand smoke is needlessly dangerous, and that the government has a vested interest in protecting employees (not patrons) from recklessly dangerous work environments if their employers do not have the will to do so.
you truly hate the small business man dont you.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:10 PM
 
85 posts, read 94,016 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by theeddie View Post
you truly hate the small business man dont you.
Of course I do, I am a Big Eeeevil Person with no feelings whatsoever. My father has two small business failures under his belt. They suck, but they happen.

The food/bar service industry is incredibly tough on business owners - more than half fail in the first 3 years anyway.

State and local governments have an interest in promoting business - it brings in lots of tax dollars, after all. But they can't let those tax dollars blind them to unsafe working conditions - otherwise, why regulate anything? Why enforce the drinking age when it's better for business to let anyone order drinks?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:46 PM
Status: "Head Like A Hole" (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: NW San Antonio
1,069 posts, read 849,532 times
Reputation: 667
Who cares anyhow? At the end of the day smokers will be outside while I will be inside drinking and breathing fresh air. Lungs will be okay, liver who knows? Sidenote-this Sarah TX makes me smile with her posts
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:49 PM
Status: "Head Like A Hole" (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: NW San Antonio
1,069 posts, read 849,532 times
Reputation: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsa210tx View Post
Hell ya! Seriously who rides the VIA bus? Last time I was on that POS was after NIOSA and it smelt like trash, urine, vomit, and this vato beat up his girlfriend for taking his beer.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:52 PM
 
4,773 posts, read 3,790,352 times
Reputation: 2836
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRedneck View Post
Discrimination by any name/description is still discrimination.....it's an ideal comparison, because you have a class of people doing something that is perfectly legal that yet another class has decided they don't like, and have banded together to make them pariah's in their own land - even to the point of restricting private property rights.

Don't worry - I don't expect anyone to "get it" other than a few - because folks have become accustomed to being more concerned with what they want rather than how they get it.
It's not legal anymore....at least in that context. No one is discriminating against smokers. The actual smokers can go anywhere they want and work anywhere they want. What is being made illegal is the act of smoking, not the smoker. Alcohol is legal, but you can't be drunk in public or drive while intoxicated. One could say, using your logic, that giving smokers the right to smoke at bus stops where non-smokers also have to stand is discrimination against non-smokers.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 03:01 PM
 
Location: San Antonio-Potranco/1604
179 posts, read 265,454 times
Reputation: 159
"First of all, nitrous oxide isn't illegal - your dentist might use it - it's a controlled substance."

Which makes its uncontrolled use (wait for it, wait for it)........illegal!!!

This to me is not a fight about smoking, if you smoke or not, I don't really care. This isn't about smoker's rights or if ciggarettes are healthy or not. They are bad for you, not really breaking news. This, to me, is about big brother jumping again and telling business owners what they can and can't do in thier establishments. I understand that it will happen. I even agree that it is necessary to some extent. I just believe we should not be so complacent when the government starts telling us how to live. Next it will be something else, then maybe not a business, but my home.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 03:07 PM
 
85 posts, read 94,016 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dementius88 View Post
This, to me, is about big brother jumping again and telling business owners what they can and can't do in thier establishments. I understand that it will happen. I even agree that it is necessary to some extent.
...and I think you have been applying this position inconsistently. If it is an undue imposition to state that people can not smoke in indoor bars, then it is an undue imposition to have health inspections which prevent bar owners from wiping down glasses with rags soaking in filthy water for weeks and weeks (can you tell I just watched Bar Rescue?)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 03:24 PM
Status: "Head Like A Hole" (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: NW San Antonio
1,069 posts, read 849,532 times
Reputation: 667
If you think big brother is going to leave you, or the public, alone anytime soon you are in a for a long battle. I say get used to it and just deal with it. Yeah that is being complacent I suppose but there are bigger things in life to be concerned about. Or the other option is to take to City Hall and protest the smoking ban. Which I don't see happening by concerned citizens or bar owners by August 19.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 08:55 AM
 
238 posts, read 102,968 times
Reputation: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by theeddie View Post
austin is easy, you can still smoke in some bars if you have a grandfathered license. I know ALOT of bar owners, and most of the original austin bar owners, id say 50%+ are out of business now. they couldnt handle the huge cut in happy hour sales.
There are no "grandfathered licenses" in Austin. If you see anyone smoking in a bar they are committing a criminal offense, punishable by a fine and up to one year in jail.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top