Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (Houston: statistics, safe)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Who said anything about California? You prejudice is showing.

The first cases I found are from Georgia and Ohio.

And yes, what other states do is extremely relevant to how a court might rule in Texas. Despite your apparent desires, Texas does not operate in a vacuum.

yes, if the most convincing case law is that of the current state, but if there is none then another state's opinion carries weight.

it is even more important in federal cases. consensus is one of the fives major principles that good judges look at when deciding cases.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Point is, HTLove, assault -- whether a punch in the face or provotive behavior such as blowing smoke in someones face -- is a criminal offense. On the other hand, smoking per se, is not. Thus, a person who enters a bar/restaurant/bowling alley/Bingo Hall/ etc, is not subjected to assault for the very simple reason they knew ahead of time smoking was allowed. C'mon HT...you know that...

Actually, according to your Bible, the TPC -

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT.

(a)A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another,
including the person's spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury,
including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the
person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact
as offensive or provocative.

Notice that contact is not required for it to be assault.


And according to 22.06, consent is only a defense (and a defense doesn't mean you can't be found guilty) if the conduct didn't cause serious bodily injury. There is a very good argument that secondhand smoke does.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Point is, HTLove, assault -- whether a punch in the face or provotive behavior such as blowing smoke in someones face -- is a criminal offense. On the other hand, smoking per se, is not. Thus, a person who enters a bar/restaurant/bowling alley/Bingo Hall/ etc, is not subjected to assault for the very simple reason they knew ahead of time smoking was allowed. C'mon HT...you know that...

i am not the one who brought up assault, I already said it was a bad example. I was responding to you assertion that a bar or a restaurant are dangerous places. They are not. They only get dangerous when an idiot whips out his death stick. That is why I said you know very well a bar is not dangerous.

we have gone far beyond the original argument, which is smoking is a very dangerous habit, and that the public should be guarded against idiots who think they can just endanger people's lives by lighting up places of public accommodation

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

What does the TPC have to do with "if you don't like it, don't go in there"?

Nothing.

Sorry, this attempt to steer it in a ditch is just that. And it is obvious and the song and dance wont work.

It all traces back to your original attempt to compare someone spraying pesticides in someone else face as analogous to a business owner allowing smoking in their own establishments.

From that came the obvious discussions of criminal assault and consent.

Yep, botton line is:

1. Blowing cigarette smoke (or pesticides...hmmm..wonder who first said that? ) in somebody's face, public or private, is an assault.

2. If one enters a place -- of their own free will -- where they know ahead of time smoking is allowed or, hell, people within like to spray pesticides (LMAO) -- then there is no assault. They consented to it aforehand.

3. There is no "right" of a non-smoker who doesn't like to be around smokers that supercedes that of the business owner to make that decision for his/herself, according to what best serves their own private property and interests. And vice-versa with that of a smoker. Go some place else or open your own joint! Smoker or non-smoker.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

3. There is no "right" of a non-smoker who doesn't like to be around smokers that supercedes that of the business owner to make that decision for his/herself, according to what best serves their own private property and interests. And vice-versa with that of a smoker. Go some place else or open your own joint! Smoker or non-smoker.

the business owner has no right to decide that either. it is up to the government and sensible for them to prohibit smoking in places of public accommodations

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Yep, botton line is:

1. Blowing smoke (or pesticides...hmmm..wonder who first said that? ), public or private, is an assault

2. If one enters a place -- of their own free will -- where they know ahead of time smoking is allowed or, hell, people within like to spray pesticides (LMAO) -- then there is no assault. The consented to it aforehand.

3. There is no "right" of a non-smoker who doesn't like to be around smokers that supercedes that of the business owner to make that decision for his/herself, according to what best serves their own private property and interests. And vice-versa with that of a smoker. Go some place else or open your own joint! Smoker or non-smoker.

Wrong. You have a serious misunderstanding of consent.


Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT.

(a)A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another,
including the person's spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury,
including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the
person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact
as offensive or provocative.

Notice that contact is not required for it to be assault.


And according to 22.06, consent is only a defense (and a defense doesn't mean you can't be found guilty) if the conduct didn't cause serious bodily injury. There is a very good argument that secondhand smoke does.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

i am not the one who brought up assault, I already said it was a bad example. I was responding to you assertion that a bar or a restaurant are dangerous places. They are not. They only get dangerous when an idiot whips out his death stick. That is why I said you know very well a bar is not dangerous.

When did I say they (bars/restaurants) are dangerous places? Can you provide that post of mine you refer to?

Of course, they CAN be. Depends on the joint. And yep, back in my younger wilder stupier days, I was no stranger to those one would advise their worst enemy to keep away from! I have the scars to prove it...so you ain't talking to some knicker-bocker boy here! LOL But as it is, that itself sorta proves my point. I figured out those places were not conducive to a healthy lifeand decided to let it all be memories! LOL

In fact, on a tangent, any of you older Texans remember a place just across the Red River into Oklahoma, called the HillTop? Oh man...LOL

we have gone far beyond the original argument, which is smoking is a very dangerous habit, and that the public should be guarded against idiots who think they can just endanger people's lives by lighting up places of public accommodation

Agreed. Smoking is a very dangerous and filthy habit. Which is why I quit. But where we part company is that I don't feel it is the job of government to require others to protect me from my own bad choices.

You refuse to draw a line between public and private. I agree about public places banning smoking (courthouses, government buildings, ect)...but the PRIVATE business is that of the owner to make as to whether allow smoking or not. I or anyone else, is free to enter or not. Simple as that.

[TexasHorseLady]

I mentioned California because it is well known as the state that thinks the rest of the country should go its way, and as being the Nanny State Supreme - and what we're talking about here, what some of you are advocating, is precisely that, a state that treats its citizens as children who need nannies rather than adults that are capable of making their own decisions such as, for example, patronizing or avoiding privately-owned businesses that allow activities, whether smoking or drinking or stripping or whatever the current sin du jour is, without having Mommy step in and tell them what they can and cannot do in that regard.

So, if you think that the government needs to make all these decisions for us because we're all children incapable of deciding for ourselves, AND that you are incapable of avoiding an establishment that allows activities of which you disapprove, you're advocating a Nanny State.

Me, I prefer to be treated, and treat others, as an adult. Your mileage very clearly DRASTiCALLY varies in that regard.

I refer you, again, to prohibition and how well that worked out. Same idea.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Wrong. You have a serious misunderstanding of consent.


Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT.

(a)A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another,
including the person's spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury,
including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the
person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact
as offensive or provocative.

Notice that contact is not required for it to be assault.


And according to 22.06, consent is only a defense (and a defense doesn't mean you can't be found guilty) if the conduct didn't cause serious bodily injury. There is a very good argument that secondhand smoke does.

You are just digging yourself in deeper here. NOTHING you present here backs up your contention that an assault (according to the TPC) is committed by someone going into a place and breathing smoke they knew aforehand was going to be present.

Originally, you made the ludicrous analogy about people going around spraying pesticides in others' faces. Geez....

That's right. Contact is not required for an assault. Which is why, as I said, blowing smoke in someones face would be a legitimate grounds for an assault charge. On the other hand, going into a bar/restaurant where one knows ahead of time it is permitted? That is NOT an assault. And, if such a lucicrous charge were ever filed? Then the obvious defense would be that the "victim" consented to the "alleged force" ahead of time.

To bring this all down to some sort of earth? Anybody going into a bar in Texas and come out charging assault because they breathed smoke? Hell, they would be laughed out of the DA's office. This is just nuts.

As it is, you have a point in one very limited sense. That is to say, the consent defense might not apply. But ONLY because the whole assault charge would not apply. Which, as it is, you first suggested would be justified. good lord...

Got it now? Or are you going to keep on with this?

[getmeoutofhere]

You are completely missing the very first provision.

Causing bodily injury.

You could easily bring an assault claim based on that.