Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (sales, schools)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by migee

I can understand people not being around smoke (if it is actually drifting in their faces). But what bothers me is the cowardice of our public officials to deal with the problem of pet owners.

I work in an office, and all day my nose runs, my eyes and skin itch - because about 1/3 of the people have animals at home, and do not bother cleaning their clothing before coming to work.

This is not an exageration. As soon as I step outside, it all stops.

I actually like dogs and cats - But, like many non-owners of pets, I get a bad reaction to them.

And if anyone suggest my getting shots - Thanks, but no thanks - I'm not the one that should sacrifice anything.

Add to that about 1 million bites per year (many hurting children severely), and the crap that's all around the streets and parks - it's time to start laying some laws down to protect the rights of others.

Why aren't these laws attached to the smoking laws? To protect everyone from all inconveniences, medical threats and damages.

Have you been tested to verify what you are allergic to? It could be something else in your work environment. Most people put on clean clothing every day before going to work, so I'm skeptical that could be the problem. It might be worth it for you to get some allergy tests and shots to reduce your allergic reaction.

[TexasHorseLady]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect that post of being an exceedingly well-crafted example of the kinds of laws that could be required on down the road, just like the ones being demanded now regarding smoking.

If I am wrong, then it absolutely makes the point that once you've gleefully given up rights for one group (be that based on smoking or race or gender or whatever) because YOU don't like it, it's very likely to come around and bite you in the derriere on down the road and you won't have a thing to say about it because you've already said that it's okay to do so.

Laws restricting pet ownership or requiring the wearing of special clothes to work (or changing at work into special pet-free clothes) aren't really all that far-fetched, given the current atmosphere.

I particularly love this line:

"Why aren't these laws attached to the smoking laws? To protect everyone from all inconveniences, medical threats and damages."

[getmeoutofhere]

The above post is snark, but yet again, like so many of you fail to grasp, it is not accurate.

There is a distinct difference between being irritated, and being poisoned.

[love roses]

I think it is accurate. Like I said before, we're not allowed to wear any scented products to work because it may irritate some people.

[TexasHorseLady]

It's very accurate. Don't think it can't, and won't, happen to you, getmeoutofhere.

Someone, sometime, is going to decide that something you do irritates them, and then they're going to go on a campaign to "prove" that it's bad for everyone because they don't like it, and then they're going to get it legislated against, all because they were irritated.

If you haven't seen this happen, and more than once, you just haven't lived long enough or you haven't been paying attention.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

It's very accurate. Don't think it can't, and won't, happen to you, getmeoutofhere.

Someone, sometime, is going to decide that something you do irritates them, and then they're going to go on a campaign to "prove" that it's bad for everyone because they don't like it, and then they're going to get it legislated against, all because they were irritated.

You are really very amusing. I love how you dismiss decades of scientific and medical research as to how bad smoking is for you. It's not like they are claiming the world is flat or that gravity doesn't exist. They are claiming that sucking 150-degree, carcinogen and toxin laced smoke into your lungs is harmful. It doesn't take a lot to get to that conclusion.

And yes, yes, I know doctors used to claim it was healthy for you. They also used to claim that there were no such things as microscopic organisms that infected surgical instruments and killed patients, and that using leeches was the best way to cure a sick person. It's called progress.

Secondhand smoke isn't simply an "irritation", it's pure poison.

[love roses]

Smoke of most types is poison, so why isn't it all banned? I'm just playing devil's advocate and I know that cig smoke isn't good, but neither is car exhaust, smoke from brush burning, bonfires, burning trash....Someone somewhere will also go after that, I'm sure. I don't think irritants would be untouched and in some cases people have complained about them and had them be removed from a place, although I'm sure noone has gone through the court system to do this. The recent thread about the girl being bullied and then getting a ticket for too much perfume is one example I can think of.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

You are really very amusing. I love how you dismiss decades of scientific and medical research as to how bad smoking is for you. It's not like they are claiming the world is flat or that gravity doesn't exist. They are claiming that sucking 150-degree, carcinogen and toxin laced smoke into your lungs is harmful. It doesn't take a lot to get to that conclusion.

And yes, yes, I know doctors used to claim it was healthy for you. They also used to claim that there were no such things as microscopic organisms that infected surgical instruments and killed patients, and that using leeches was the best way to cure a sick person. It's called progress.

Secondhand smoke isn't simply an "irritation", it's pure poison.

Actually, doctors have gone back to using leeches, and maggots, for medicinal purposes (they do a better job than some of our current techniques, with less harm to the organism - that would be us).

And my point was that what you "know" to be a fact today was just as definitely "known" to be the opposite 50 years ago, and what you "know" to be Absolute Truth could very well be disproven 50 or even 10 years or 5 years from now.

lovesroses, yes, if we're really going to ban something that's bad for you in this way, cars would be WAY up there on the list, and we would go back to using horses for transportation. Because, after all, if we're honest about it, cars aren't necessary, they're a luxury and a pleasure that kills 40,000 annually just in vehicle accidents, never mind the fumes they put out (so right up there with second-hand smoke, in fact), and we certainly don't need them, we can adjust our lives and get rid of the addiction to them.

By getmeoutofhere's reasoning, anyway, that would make perfect sense.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

wow, I have never heard of this before. I don't know of anyone with pet allergies so I have never heard complaints.

what sort of regulation would you suggest and how should it be enforced?

That is a good question, HTLove, but here is one idea that might perhaps be a start. That is, before people can enter a privately owned bar/restaurant/bowling alley, a law/ordinance be passed that mandates customers are subject to being scraped down with one of those "lint brushes" to remove pet hairs and such...

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

That is a good question, HTLove, but here is one idea that might perhaps be a start. That is, before people can enter a privately owned bar/restaurant/bowling alley, a law/ordinance be passed that mandates customers are subject to being scraped down with one of those "lint brushes" to remove pet hairs and such...

Visions of TSA folks set up at entries of every shop in town popped into my mind. Instead of grope with a metal wand, they grope with lint brushes