Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (West: military, eat)

[getmeoutofhere]

Lung cancer isn't the only malady that directly relates to smoking.

[eepstein]

It's BASIC knowledge to most of the country that you don't smoke in restaurants, bars, and any other indoor public place. Even heavily conservative states like Kansas, Ohio, and Kentucky have caught onto this.

Most metro areas in this state have already done something because the nations second largest state (in both size and population) refuses, which is fine by me!

We all know the states that lead, and which ones follow--wait, and which one's want to become their own country!!

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Lung cancer isn't the only malady that directly relates to smoking.

[TexasHorseLady]

CptnRn, to answer your question, yes, I have.

I've also had two dear friends die of cancer, and a sister who is a survivor of cancer. The two who died never smoked (well, I take that back, one smoked briefly in college but not in the 40 years after), were vegetarians, exercised regularly, maintained their college weight, did everything RIGHT except do a good job of choosing the genetics of the families they were born into. My sister, likewise, maintained her college weight, a 10% or less fat diet, competitive square dancer (which means LOTS of exercise), nonsmoker in a family of nonsmokers, again, did everything "right" by current medical theories, and still got cancer.

My mother in law, who was skinny as a rail, ate poorly, chainsmoked for 50 years and chain-drank nothing but black coffee for at least the same period of time, did not get cancer.

My mother, whose cholesterol was DOWN to 300 with diet and medication, died at 80 of complications of a broken hip that she got running from the shower to the phone because she thought, correctly, that it was her boyfriend calling. She was an awesome cook of fried chicken, chicken and dumplings, pot roasts, all the things that are supposed to be so bad for you. Of her nine brothers and sisters, except for the one who died at 26 in the 1918 flu epidemic, she died at the youngest age. (Several of the others were smokers.)

Both MIL and Mama evidently chose their genetics well.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS WE THINK WE DO (or as much as we'd like to think we do).

Many people have regrets in life and wish that someone had stopped them at the time. Could be smoking, could be drinking, what profession they chose, who they married, any number of things, some of which, for some people, turn out to be fatal. Shall we start regulating everything that anyone might either die of or have regrets about in order to protect them from themselves? There are countries and religions like that, you know. Some of them even are trying to convince us and everyone else, even to the point of blowing themselves up in order to blow others up that don't agree with them, to become just like them because they simply can't stand that anyone isn't. Think about it, and be very careful what you wish for in that regard.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Lung cancer isn't the only malady that directly relates to smoking.

No, and that's why I addressed that in at least two of my posts. The genetic study I mentioned only pertains to lung cancer, but it's entirely possible that we could find a genetic link to the other problems associated with smoking, as well, just like that one. Or, as I said, possibly not - the point was that we don't know diddly and pretending that we do and that banning smoking, as just one example, will solve the whole problem is one way to make darned sure that we NEVER know diddly, which could condemn a lot of people to death because we didn't acknowledge our lack of knowledge and stop searching because we have The Answer.

In the other post it was mentioned as an example of people who have an agenda very carefully not mentioning or, perhaps, even looking at, the much larger other side of the equation. One wonders how much sooner we would have been closer to a cure by discovering that genetic link if it hadn't taken so long for someone to look at it and acknowledge it and try to find out why the vast majority of people who smoke (never mind second-hand smoke, we're talking about people exposed to first-hand smoke) don't get the one kind of cancer that is the biggest bugaboo regarding smoking.

The point wasn't the lung cancer but ignoring the rest of the story.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

Here are my first two posts in this thread TexasReb. The second post was in response to one of yours. Now tell me what other points I am making other that

1. Smoke is not just an inconvenience like some one mentioned, it is an actual health risk.

2. It is within the scope of the governments duty to regulate.

As it is? ALL these points have been replied to...and numerous times. And you still miss the point; this in the sense of missing what others are saying.

1. We all agree that smoking is a health risk. So are, literally, a million other things a "health risk". Some of which have yet to be discovered because some politician/bureacrat/busy-body/ hasn't thought to regulate it yet. And further, it will NOT stop with smoking!

For the umpteeth time, there is a difference in public safety and public health. And if the lines ever become blurred or non-existent in the minds of "the public"? Then there is no logical stopping point.

Literally ANYTHING can be government regulated in the name of "public health." It will not stop with truly public buildings. It will not stop with places of "public accommodations" (i.e. privately owned businesses), and it will not stop until it intrudes into your own home.

2. See above. Did you say government's "duty"? Duty to do what? Protect someone from their own poor life choices when they have the choice to make alternate choices? Why don't you just say, flat out, government is the end all and be all?

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

you are repeating the same untruths over and over again.

why do you feel a need to keep repeating lies?

Please, prove I have lied.

The real problem here, you do not like facing facts.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

As it is? ALL these points have been replied to...and numerous times. And you still miss the point; this is the sense of missing what others are saying.

1. We all agree that smoking is a health risk. So are, literally, a million other things a "health risk". Some of which have yet to be discovered because some politician/bureacrat/busy-body/ hasn't thought to regulate it yet.

For the umpteeth time, there is a difference in public safety and public health. And if the lines ever become blurred or non-existent in the minds of "the public"? Then there is no logical stopping point.

Literally ANYTHING can be government regulated in the name of "public health." It will not stop with truly public buildings. It will not stop with places of "public accommodations" (i.e. privately owned businesses), and it will not stop until it intrudes into your own home.

2. See above. Did you say government's "duty"? Duty to do what? Protect someone from their own poor life choices when they have the choice to make alternate choices? Why don't you just say, flat out, government is the end all and be all?

Exactly. When, exactly, are adults supposed to be responsible for making decisions for themselves? Or is it the duty of the government to keep us children from cradle to grave? Because that's what's being advocated here, when you get right down to the bottom. Some people here either don't think that they, as adults, are competent to be responsible for their own life choices, or they think that anyone who doesn't share their world view and make the same choices they do surely isn't competent to make their own choices and thus "the government" must be in loco parentis to them and make those choices for them.

That's where we're headed, and that's what's being advocated by some on this thread.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

I have had my depressing days, but I have NO problem with a smoking ban inside the restaurants and some other indoor places. I will admit to have smoking a few cigarettes in my life. That being said, this was my reason for doing: stress and depression. I have quit smoking and never want to return to it. Cigarette smoke smells bad, and it gives me problems when smoked indoors. There is a club in Atlanta I used to go to. It looks like a lounge, but much louder, and oh yes, you can smoke in there. What do some people do? They would smoke there. Whenever I came out of that club, my clothes smelled bad, and I was congested from the cigarette smoke being stuck in one place. I say if you want to smoke, do it outdoors.

Pirate-Laffite? Main question is: Why did you go in that that joint to begin with??

I don't mean to be unsympathetic to any depression problems you may have had. Hell, probably most of us have had the same type issues in our own lives at some time or another. It comes with being human and etc..and dealing with the stuff of everyday life....

By your own words, a place in Atlanta allows smoking? So, yep, people smoke! Seems like a 2 plus 2 equals 4, to me.

So what do you do? You go to it -- spend your money -- knowing full well smoking is allowed -- but expect the rest of the crowd go outside to smoke????

C'mon... what kind of reasoning is that?

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Pirate-Laffite? Main question is: Why did you go in that that joint to begin with??

I don't mean to be unsympathetic to any depression problems you may have had. Hell, probably most of us have had the same type issues in our own lives at some time or another. It comes with being human and etc..and dealing with the stuff of everyday life....

By your own words, a place in Atlanta allows smoking? So, yep, people smoke! Seems like a 2 plus 2 equals 4, to me.

So what do you do? You go to it -- spend your money -- knowing full well smoking is allowed -- but expect the rest of the crowd go outside to smoke????

C'mon... what kind of reasoning is that?

I didn't know the place allowed smoking. I went because a friend of mine is a club promoter. I got in for free. Up to that point, I had never been to a nightclub, so I had no idea. When I went there, there was alot of smoking. I haven't been there in a while.

[TexasHorseLady]

There's another thread, started by the same OP in France, about how much obese people are costing the state of Texas. Note what was said upthread about as soon as the smokers were dealt with, it would be another group that it's politically correct to target? And after that, there'll be another one, ad infinitum.

Thing is, some humans really really really really need someone to be prejudiced against. As the number of groups that it is politically incorrect to be prejudiced against shrinks, they have to find another, and yet another, and yet another, group to feed that need and to justify taking away the rights of this group and that group in order to make themselves feel somehow superior.. That's really pretty much what's going on here. If it's not people of a particular race, or a particular gender, or a particular religion, then it must be people who drink alcohol, or people who smoke, or, heaven help us, people who eat, who are the problem!