Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,007 posts, read 15,360,720 times
Reputation: 2463

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Oh c'mon...these examples are non-sequiturs to the max.



Correct. And that is what many of us are very concerned about.



No, I havent. You got me there. I need to. But I am really just discussing/debating it in a larger context. But yeah, you are right, I need to go actually read it.

1) How are they non-sequiturs? Alcohol ties directly into business and the argument at hand. It's a legal product that is highly regulated and banned from general public consumption, and many restaurants. Just like cigarettes.

2) But government has always had a regulatory ability. From the times people first organized a system of government, it had the ability to protect public health and administer and enforce the laws of the land. This is nothing new.

3) The HB designation is wrong, but the SB one is correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,794,105 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Oh c'mon...these examples are non-sequiturs to the max.
doesn't sound like a non sequitur to me at all. It follows completely that there are many things that are legal to possess but regulated by the government. In fact it is harder to find things that are not regulated than things that are. It sounds scary to someone who thinks the world is out to get them, but I feel more comfortable that way.

used to be pain relievers and many other non prescription medications came in containers with no seal. Someone went into stores and dropped pills laced with poison into various containers. Many people died. The mean old government then told the medication companies that they need to seal these containers. Thank God the Government is able to regulate my non prescription medications, if they didn't I would be scared to swallow tylenol when I got a headache.

Again the mean old government isn't trying to get you by protecting the health of others
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,207,663 times
Reputation: 24738
getmeoutofhere, did you click on the links I posted earlier that I said were "interesting". You might want to read something beyond the propaganda that you're reading about second-hand smoke being a hazard to public health. Those were just two, from reputable studies, that tend to contradict what "everybody knows" about second-hand smoke. There are lots more where those came from - the jury isn't out on it at all no matter what you think. Actual smoking, now, that's another matter, but that's also a matter of personal choice as to the risks one chooses to take for oneself. Or should be - there are those (looked in a mirror lately?) who would love to be the arbiters of all decisions for everyone because They Know Best, and that's a danger that's even worse than the effects of direct smoking.

Again, getmeoutofhere, a simple question, please either point me to where you actually answered, straightforwardly, this question, since you say you answered it and I "just don't like the answer" (you're right, I don't like invisible answers), or answer it clearly and simply now:

If you say that you do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke, for reasons of your own personal health or your own personal preferences, how is a business that allows smoking, which posts clearly before you enter that it allows smoking, of any concern whatsoever to you? How does it infringe upon your ability to choose not to enter and to spend your money elsewhere at a business that does not allow smoking?

Answer that clearly, simply, with no references to "public health" red herrings, because we're not talking about "public health". We're talking about how someone else making a choice other than yours that does not require you to make the same choice impacts you in any way, shape or form to such a degree that it must be legislated against anyone making that choice other than yours.

Please answer the question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,007 posts, read 15,360,720 times
Reputation: 2463
Of course we are talking about public health. You want it to be about personal freedoms, but it's not. It's about the government exercising their right to regulate businesses in order to protect the health of the public. There are all kinds of arguments to be raised in favor of a smoking ban, but the only one you seem to be able to raise is that it somehow infringes on some made-up "right".


As far as those studies go, shall I post 100 links to studies that prove the exact opposite? I think your position that "smoking and secondhand smoke really isn't that bad for you" is ludicrous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 12:03 PM
 
573 posts, read 967,372 times
Reputation: 500
It's amazing to me that people still have no idea just how bad smoking related illness's get. Many people still have the 'not me' attitude thinking that they themselves will not get lung cancer or emphysema. You should talk to lung cancer and emphysema patients to see just how bad these diseases are.

And yes, I am a former smoker and I know people who have died of smoking related illnesses. Knowing just how bad these diseases are, I can't imagine why anyone would want to risk their health that way.


Quit now. Just think of all the money you will save on smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products.

Where would you rather have your money?

In your pocket?

In the big tobacco corporations pocket?

In some doctors pocket that just told you you have lung cancer and it is terminal and you have less then a year to live?

Is smoking really worth that? We already know just how addictive smoking is and how so very hard it is to quit.

I say quit now and let the state help you out by banning smoking in public places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 12:04 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,521,461 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
That is not the issue at hand, but I already gave the answer to Horselady.
No offence, but if you DID give an answer, I missed it.

Quote:
1. Even though it is their own premises, they do not have a carte blanche right to do anything, regulation occurs in every area of life even in privacy (which you have a specific right to). Smoking is not a right, it is not protected, why should it not be regulated being so dangerous.
Oh lord, will you cease this mantra? This ridiculous red-herring/strawman? Yes, nobody disagrees that reasonable regulation is necessary in the interest of clear and present dangers and public safety. I mean, even in ones own home, you can't store hazardous chemicals in your garage.

This is NOT the same thing. If you think it is, then just tell me ONE reason why government does not have the right to ban smoking in a private home if children are present? Please do this. If you see no reason why not? Then I respect your honesty. If you do? Then tell me what are the differences?

You are correct. Smoking is not a "right". I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it says "The right of the people to smoke shall not be infringed." At the same time, I can't find anything which justifies intruding on private property rights (in fact, the 4th ammendment may kinda prohibit it...but that is another debate) to the point you are advancing.

Quote:
2. The right to regulate where public matters are concerned (and businesses are public places you keep acting like it is private asking why can't they do this in their own premises- show me one governmental document that shows that a business is a private place and I will fully support your view) cannot be left to business owners because left with the choice members of the public will suffer.
Sorry, I am not going to allow you to steer this argument into a ditch by bringing up an obvious truism which is non-applicable. NO place (as stated in my reply above) is totally private and free of any restriction whatsover. We all know this, no one has said different, so this one fails. If you cannot discern the obvious difference in a truly public place (i.e. taxpayer/government owned) and a privately owned business that serves the public on a mutually volunatary basis, then there is really, nothing more to talk about. We will just have to agree to disagree. And nothing wrong with that either...

Quote:
Look what happened when business owners were free to decide who could eat at lunch counters.
Ah yes, the Southern variation of Godwins Law. That is to say, instead of Hitler, it is Jim Crow laws. Sorry, that fails. No one is being denied service nor discriminated against.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is Reb, you and Horselady have no case. A bank, a restaurant, a candy shop, a hotel, a shoe store, etc are just as public as City Hall. Once you invite the public to patronize your premises (and I am paraphrasing from an actual supreme court case I read), your premises no longer remains private and you are responsible for the welfare of those patrons.

a bar is not your bedroom. The government won't tell you that you can't light up in bed watching Matlock, but they can tell you that smoking in closed quarters is dangerous, and that since you invited customers to come patronize your place then you better ensure that these customers are not subject to that harmful smoke.
See above. I answered most of these points.

Quote:
Again, you cannot tell customers to go somewhere else to eat because they are allergic to smoke. That is pushing the discrimination boundaries. Unless the primary business is smoking (a smoking shop or something that happens to sell food also) then that argument is pure BS.
Yes, I can. If I own a business and post a Smoking Allowed sign on my door, then I am telling them, in affect -- if they have a health issue -- then they need to go up the road to the place which says "NO SMOKING."

And if they can't read simple signs, then I would be afraid they couldn't pay the bill...

Quote:
You can fault a non smoker for going into a smoking shop to buy a burger and not wanting to be assaulted with smoke but you can't fault a non smoker from wanting a meal at his favorite restaurant and not wanting to be assaulted with smoke. Posting a sign on the door of a restaurant does not change it into a smoking house, its primary business is food.
My gawd, HT! Do you realize how ridiculous, childish and self-centered this sounds??? I (or whoever) cannot fault a non-smoker for wanting a meal in his favorite restaurant and not be assaulted with smoke???

Go back and READ this, fer gosh sakes! For ONE thing, if the person is a non-smoker, why would his/her favorite restaurant be one that allowed smoking to begin with???

I am not trying to overwhelm you with ???? marks, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

*lightbulb over head* Hey, why not just approach the owner in this "favorite restaurant" the non-smoker has been patronizing all these years in spite of the fact they know the place allows smoking and just say to the owner "Hey, I love your food but I really wish you would stop allowing smoking. If you don't" Well, I am going to have to take my business elsewhere..."

Naw. THAT could NEVER work, could it? Because the business owner might decide that your demands and business are not worth the cost of him/her losing money because most their clientle like to smoke (or else they would have banned it a long time ago)

Better for some to go crying to Nanny State to get them to wipe your nose and tell you "It's ok, sweetheart, of course you are not responsible for your own life choices...."

I am sorry, HT...and I hope you know this is nothing personal (cos I consider us friends), but this stuff makes me sick to my stomach. It is hard to see and witness how many people today have no concept whatsover of classical notions of freedom. Like THL said, the Founding Fathers must be doing summer-sawlts.

Ipods, Reality TV, cell phones and Woohooo girls. And its all about me. It truly is becoming a nation of crybabies and useful idiots.

Last edited by TexasReb; 04-03-2011 at 01:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,794,105 times
Reputation: 7752
70% of Texans support a ban on smoking in public places (fewer than those who support a ban on sex in public places- which is already illegal in Texas)

29 states have already banned smoking in public places- more than enough for a consensus argument to prevail in the Supreme Court, but smoking in public falls under a state issue so it is up to the state to act.

34 Texas cities have already passed bans on public smoking- A statewide ban is more than overdue.

And FYI the sponsor of the House Bill is republican Myra Crownover from Denton, not a democrat from Austin. Horselady seemed to try and make it out to be a bunch of liberals trying to get this done.

Yes there are more democratic supporters for the Bill, but the republican support is not that far behind either. So far, 34 republicans and 41 democrats support the bill.

The House Bill bans smoking in public places, places of employment and in sports venues.

It does not ban smoking in homes, except those being used as daycares. It does not ban smoking in hotel rooms, and in smoking/ tobacco shops.

Clubs are exempt if they have no employees and the event is not one which the public was invited.

The outdoor areas of bars and restaurants are exempt too. I don't see why smokers are so lazy they want to seat and endanger the lives of others with their nasty habit. Get y'alls lazy arses up and go outside
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 12:09 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,521,461 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevebri View Post
It's amazing to me that people still have no idea just how bad smoking related illness's get. Many people still have the 'not me' attitude thinking that they themselves will not get lung cancer or emphysema. You should talk to lung cancer and emphysema patients to see just how bad these diseases are.

And yes, I am a former smoker and I know people who have died of smoking related illnesses. Knowing just how bad these diseases are, I can't imagine why anyone would want to risk their health that way.


Quit now. Just think of all the money you will save on smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products.

Where would you rather have your money?

In your pocket?

In the big tobacco corporations pocket?

In some doctors pocket that just told you you have lung cancer and it is terminal and you have less then a year to live?

Is smoking really worth that? We already know just how addictive smoking is and how so very hard it is to quit.

I say quit now and let the state help you out by banning smoking in public places.
Are you for real? If so?

ROFLMAO

Let the state help me? (actually, I quit many years ago no thanks to the state).

Do you work for the state or a company which sells "stop smoking" products...such as nicorette gum or something? Are you a professional lobbyist?

What do you do for a living. Do you own a business that actually provides a real service for the voluntary public.

And by the way, while you contemplate and answer the above questions, please tell us all your credentials for lecturing on the dangers of smoking...?

Hell, as it is, I agree with a lot of what you say. I am a former smoker myself and quit because it is a dangerous and filthy habit and I didn't want my own kids to be exposed to it.

So it is not so much what you say, as how you say it and what you advocated in the name of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,794,105 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
No offence, but if you DID give an answer, I missed it.



Oh lord, will you cease this mantra? This ridiculous red-herring/strawman? Yes, nobody disagrees that reasonable regulation is necessary in the interest of clear and present dangers and public safety. I mean, even in ones own home, you can't store hazardous chemicals in your garage.

This is NOT the same thing. If you think it is, then just tell me ONE reason why government does not have the right to ban smoking in a private home if children are present? Please do this. If you see no reason why not? Then I respect your honesty. If you do? Then tell me what are the differences?

You are correct. Smoking is not a "right". I don't see a

I am sonywhere in the Constitution where it says "The right of the people to smoke shall not be infringed." At the same time, I can't find anything which justifies intruding on private property rights (in fact, the 4th ammendment may kinda prohibit it...but that is another debate) to the point you are advancing.



Sorry, I am not going to allow you to steer this argument into a ditch by bringing up an obvious truism which is non-applicable. NO place (as stated in my reply above) is totally private and free of any restriction whatsover. We all know this, no one has said different, so this one fails. If you cannot discern the obvious difference in a truly public place (i.e. taxpayer/government owned) and a privately owned business that serves the public on a mutually volunatary basis, then there is really, nothing more to talk about. We will just have to agree to disagree. And nothing wrong with that either...



Ah yes, the Southern variation of Godwins Law. That is to say, intstead of Hitler it is Jim Crow laws. Sorry, that fails. No one is being denied service nor discriminated against.



See above. I answered most of these points.

[QUOTE} again, you cannot tell customers to go somewhere else to eat because they are allergic to smoke. That is pushing the discrimination boundaries. Unless the primary business is smoking (a smoking shop or something that happens to sell food also) then that argument is pure BS.
Yes, I can. If I own a business and post a Smoking Allowed sign on my door, then I am telling them, in affect -- if they have a health issue -- then they need to go up the road to the place which says "NO SMOKING."

And if they can't read simple signs, then I would be afraid they couldn't pay the bill...



My gawd, HT! Do you realize how ridiculous, childish and self-centered this sounds??? I (or whoever) cannot fault a non-smoker for wanting a meal in his favorite restaurant and not be assaulted with smoke???

Go back and READ this, fer gosh sakes! For ONE thing, if the person is a non-smoker, why would his/her favorite restaurant be one that allowed smoking to begin with???

I am not trying to overwhelm you with ???? marks, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

*lightbulb over head* Hey, why not just approach the owner in this "favorite restaurant" the non-smoker has been patronizing all these years in spite of the fact they know the place allows smoking and just say to the owner "Hey, I love your food but I really wish you would stop allowing smoking. If you don't" Well, I am going to have to take my business elsewhere..."

Naw. THAT could NEVER work, could it? Because the business owner might decide that your demands and business are not worth the cost of him/her losing money because most their clientle like to smoke (or else they would have banned it a long time ago)

Better for some to go crying to Nanny State to get them to wipe your nose and tell you "It's ok, sweetheart, of course you are not responsible for your own life choices...."

I am sorry, HT...and I hope you know this is nothing personal (cos I consider us friends), but this stuff makes me sick to my stomach. It is hard to see and witness how many people today have no concept whatsover of classical notions of freedom. Like THL said, the Founding Fathers must be doing summer-sawlts.

Ipods, Reality TV, cell phones and Woohooo girls. And its all about me. It truly is becoming a nation of crybabies and useful idiots. [/quote]

sorry Reb but I would advice you to read the bill and then pull out a Con Law book. You have weird ideas of the law. My arguments came directly from Con law and The Bill itself. If you think they are silly and ridiculous that is your opinion but it is not shared by 70 percent of Texans and 200 years of constitutional law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 12:16 PM
 
89 posts, read 202,427 times
Reputation: 92
HtownLove & getmeoutofhere,

We asked for answers, and you didn't disappoint. Thank you. Y'all are putting out some good points and arguments for us to think about.

Getmeoutofhere, for the record, I HAVE read the bill. The bill itself defines enclosed businesses, restaurants, and bars as "public places". Like many things the government does, I do not agree with that definition. Also, I do not listen to Glenn Beck or any political talk show person. My opinions are mine.

HtownLove, you called me paranoid. Well, I am not. I don't even smoke cigarettes or like to be around smokers. My big point, which you disagree with, is that personal freedom & responsibility is being eroded. We have fundamental differences on how we define "public places" are and on how big the government's role should be in running our lives.

I am glad we have not gotten too nasty on this debate. It has been fun to read each post. Honestly, I take into consideration everything that HtownLove, getmeoutofhere, and ObamaRama write about this issue. Every opinion is valid and worthwhile. The moment I automatically dismiss a view in conflict with mine is the moment I become a close-minded fool.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top