Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (Austin, Plano: mortgage, living in)

[SVTRay]

Originally Posted by RockfordNativenowSeattle

I Agree 1000% Were not far from that turning that corner. That Bus is never Late!

I hate Smoking!! It's an awful, awful, awful bad habbit but banning smoking form outdoors and people's homes is crossing an imaginary line that indirectly effects us all...including non-smokers! Where does it end? This could open the flood gate on behavioral and home intrusive laws.

As much as I hate smoking, I refuse to vote for Outdoor and Home Smoking Bans!

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by SVTRay

I hate Smoking!! It's an awful, awful, awful bad habbit but banning smoking form outdoors and people's homes is crossing an imaginary line that indirectly effects us all...including non-smokers! Where does it end? This could open the flood gate on behavioral and home intrusive laws.

As much as I hate smoking, I refuse to vote for Outdoor and Home Smoking Bans!

Agreed. Even most Texans who dislike smoking aren't interested in giving up their own rights in the rush to trample on the rights of others. The latter is a very non-Texan attitude to have. (I recommend a study of the history of the state to understand this.)

It's already opened the flood-gates in other states. Note the laws regarding various kinds of foods that have already been passed or are being pushed, "for our own good". Last I heard, most adults are quite capable of making those decisions on their own, contrary to the deep-seated desires of those who think that THEY are the only ones competent to make such decisions for ALL adults.

The campaign that's going around now on radio and TV and such about smoking in Austin does little more than make me wonder just exactly WHERE the people pushing that agenda are from, really. And it makes me, a non-smoker, want to do nothing so much as counter it because of the overweening arrogance and disrespect for others that it displays. FAR worse than any disrespect that a smoker could possibly display.

In other words, it makes me sick, and raises my blood pressure (because it's not just about stopping smoking, and if you don't recognize that, you need to take your blinders off and/or go take a good, long look in the mirror), and I would love nothing more than for it to go away. However, I respect the rights of those who are putting it on, and would never, EVER stoop to trying to legislate that right out of existence. One could only wish that they had the same respect for their fellow human beings. A wish that is clearly doomed to be denied.

[ClarenceBodiker]

I didn't realize the conversation had evolved to laws against smoking outside. Well, if you're going to ban smoking outside and in private homes, you might as well ban cigarettes. There is nowhere left to smoke them. I agree that that would be taking it too far. There would be no point to such a law. And, no, I don't agree with banning tobacco completely either, just like I don't agree with laws against marijuana. People should be able to make their own decisions, even unhealthy ones.

However, that doesn't change my opinion that it should be banned in all indoor establishments, bars and elsewhere. There is no slippery slope to it. Smoking is a terrible decision, and one that affects others around you. Anyone younger than 35-40 who smokes made a poor decision in their lives to do so. You knew full well when you started that smoking not only hurts you but those around you and you decided to pick up a nasty habit anyway. I have no sympathy for you when a law inconveniences you in order to protect the general public's health against your lack of judgment.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by ClarenceBodiker

I didn't realize the conversation had evolved to laws against smoking outside. Well, if you're going to ban smoking outside and in private homes, you might as well ban cigarettes. There is nowhere left to smoke them. I agree that that would be taking it too far. There would be no point to such a law. And, no, I don't agree with banning tobacco completely either, just like I don't agree with laws against marijuana. People should be able to make their own decisions, even unhealthy ones.

However, that doesn't change my opinion that it should be banned in all indoor establishments, bars and elsewhere. There is no slippery slope to it. Smoking is a terrible decision, and one that affects others around you. Anyone younger than 35-40 who smokes made a poor decision in their lives to do so. You knew full well when you started that smoking not only hurts you but those around you and you decided to pick up a nasty habit anyway. I have no sympathy for you when a law inconveniences you in order to protect the general public's health against your lack of judgment.

Clarence? You make a lot of good points originally...but (IMHO) all falls apart when you don't acknowledge the slippery slope that you yourself almost describe!

For once thing, since when did it become your responsibility -- as you see it -- to presume some sort of duty to protect the "general public health"? What IS the general "public health? Do you realize how broadly such a thing can be defined and/or interpretted by a court? There is literally, nothing, that cannot be banned in the name of "public" health.

In fact, the very implications goes against your own (valid) concern that you think certain smoking bans in public places go too far. Hell yes, they do. But please explain at what stopping point, once smoking in a public park by a city ordinance (much less a state ban) cannot proceed to the next lunacy in the name of "public health" Or, oh lord, "our children." Having to get a license to smoke if one has children in the house?

Laugh now...and there was a time I would have too...but that is always the way it goes. Something ridiculous yesterday becomes a possibility today. It is pathetic, and people who don't see the historical pattern deserve it when when there own freedoms are the next to be attacked by the "health police." On this theme, I have talked with people -- some friends and co-workers even -- who freely say they have/would vote for bans on smoking in private businesses...but find it outrageous that there could ever be a ban on too much fat (or salt) served in foods by the said business as to their favorite food!

Some people just never see that Wahoo connection...and never will...

I quit smoking almost 10 years ago. And I really never did like to breath other peoples smoke, even when I smoked heavily. BUT? There is a simple solution. I either don't go into places where it is allowed, OR, I just figure I am going to take my chances if I go into them. In a free society, then the business owner should have the ultimate choice on whether or not to allow it within their establishment. It is my choice whether or not to spend my money in the said establishment!

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by ClarenceBodiker

I didn't realize the conversation had evolved to laws against smoking outside. Well, if you're going to ban smoking outside and in private homes, you might as well ban cigarettes. There is nowhere left to smoke them. I agree that that would be taking it too far. There would be no point to such a law. And, no, I don't agree with banning tobacco completely either, just like I don't agree with laws against marijuana. People should be able to make their own decisions, even unhealthy ones.

However, that doesn't change my opinion that it should be banned in all indoor establishments, bars and elsewhere. There is no slippery slope to it. Smoking is a terrible decision, and one that affects others around you. Anyone younger than 35-40 who smokes made a poor decision in their lives to do so. You knew full well when you started that smoking not only hurts you but those around you and you decided to pick up a nasty habit anyway. I have no sympathy for you when a law inconveniences you in order to protect the general public's health against your lack of judgment.

Yep, they are now banning smoking outdoors.....so what is next......no bonfires, no grilling, no backyard fire pits, no fireplaces?

And, yes, there are people who think wood burning fireplaces should be banned because it forces your neighbors to breath your unhealthy smoke..... smoke that can even seep into their homes.

Should that poor asthmatic down the street have their health put in jeopardy because YOU like a real fire in your fireplace? What about their RIGHT to breath clean air?

How long before you are not allowed to grill a steak in a park or at the beach because of that one person that has asthma that is triggered by your smoke?

Doesn't that asthmatic at the campground have a RIGHT to breath clean, healthy air? Your rights end where my nose begins......isn't that the mantra?

The next logical step is to ban ALL outdoors activities that produce unhealthy smoke that others will be forced to breath against their will.....isn't it?

When the day comes that bans like these are put in place {and it will}.....I will be LMAO.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by ClarenceBodiker

I didn't realize the conversation had evolved to laws against smoking outside. Well, if you're going to ban smoking outside and in private homes, you might as well ban cigarettes. There is nowhere left to smoke them. I agree that that would be taking it too far. There would be no point to such a law. And, no, I don't agree with banning tobacco completely either, just like I don't agree with laws against marijuana. People should be able to make their own decisions, even unhealthy ones.

However, that doesn't change my opinion that it should be banned in all indoor establishments, bars and elsewhere. There is no slippery slope to it. Smoking is a terrible decision, and one that affects others around you. Anyone younger than 35-40 who smokes made a poor decision in their lives to do so. You knew full well when you started that smoking not only hurts you but those around you and you decided to pick up a nasty habit anyway. I have no sympathy for you when a law inconveniences you in order to protect the general public's health against your lack of judgment.

So, how about the compromise law that bans smoking in indoor establishments, with the exception allowed that IF the owner of the bar or other establishment determines that, based on their clientele, it would be best for their bottom line to allow smoking, and IF the owner is willing to jump through a variety of hoops in order to become certified as a smoking-allowed establishment, and IF one of those hoops involves a large sign on the front door advising potential patrons of this fact so that they can decide to go elsewhere if they don't wish to be around smoking but can go to one of the myriad of non-smoking establishments also in existence? Can you get on board with that, as being a way to not have too great a nanny effect while at the same time allowing all the adult citizens to make their own choices?

Seems to me that that's the perfect compromise if, and only if, the actual problem is that some people don't wish to be exposed to smoke.

[SVTRay]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

There is literally, nothing, that cannot be banned in the name of "public" health.

Absolutely Correct!!

Hell, New York is possing a ban on Salt in the name of public health and Salt is an essential menieral.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by SVTRay

Absolutely Correct!!

Hell, New York is possing a ban on Salt in the name of public health and Salt is an essential menieral.

Don't forget, the EPA has deemed our exhale as a pollutant.

[WestPlanoDude]

I smoke. I think things are fine the way they are with individual communities being able to decide if they want to enact a ban or not.

Just a fun fact. The first major Anti-Smoking campaign was started by Adolf Hitler.

[dank]

Is Texas turning into another liberal nannystate like California?