U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:16 AM
Status: "Back to work!" (set 16 days ago)
 
9,785 posts, read 10,812,460 times
Reputation: 4969
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
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.
I explained how it was a non-sequitur. You can accept or reject it/them (argument).

The only way alcohol ties into it would be in a way which goes against your own argument concerning smoking in a private business. That is to say, if you don't want to be around drinking, drinkers and drunks? Then don't go into places which allow the sale of alcohol to voluntary customers.

You are right. The public consumption of alcohol is illegal in many places. Just as is smoking restricted in many PUBLIC places. We are not talking public here though, but private.

Quote:
) 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.
All this has already been addressed. You are just beating a dead horse. There is a difference in public safety and public health. If you don't see the difference (same as with public and private instutions) then no point in going on any longer. We will just have to agree to disagree!

Quote:
3) The HB designation is wrong, but the SB one is correct.
I will have to read both.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
16,183 posts, read 21,827,299 times
Reputation: 12280
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
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
70% of what Texans? Exactly what Texans were polled to get this result? If I recall correctly, someone also posted on another thread from the polling company's own website that blatant statement that they go one step beyond those "regular" polling companies in that they figure out how to help the entity paying for the poll get the desired result.

Real reliable figures you're leaning your argument on there.

If 70% of Texans are opposed to smoking in public places (including bars and restaurants), then there should be no need for legislation to get rid of it. If there is need for legislation to get rid of it, then clearly the free market is not voting in the most accurate way possible, with its dollars (now, there's a poll you can depend on to be an accurate reflection of what people , to get the result you desire. Apparently that's just too difficult for some to accept, so they seek to legislate their own personal preferences which are not, based on the evidence, not polls, shared by the majority of their fellow citizens.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,516 posts, read 15,495,785 times
Reputation: 7254
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekTant View Post
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.
when I say you I may not necessarily mean DerekTank personally. I don't mean to say you are paranoid, but many Texans seem to have the Dale Gribble from King of the Hill mentality where they think the government is spying on them and everything is out to get them.

While I tend to agree that personal freedoms are less today than they were 100 years ago, I think it is for the greater good and health matters are a right and thus they supersede things like smoking which is a privileged not a right.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:25 AM
Status: "Back to work!" (set 16 days ago)
 
9,785 posts, read 10,812,460 times
Reputation: 4969
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
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.
LOL

I am not trying to be condecending but, sweetheart?

My major was pre-law and my degree in political science and I took two years of Constitutional Law. So don't pull that one out of your hat. In fact? From where I am typing at this very moment, I could turn around and find on the bookshelf several volumes on Constitutional Law (Goldman...Cases and Essays).

No, that doesnt make me an expert by any means in constitutional law...and I don't claim to be. All I am saying is you might want to step down off that prima-donna attitude when speaking about the law and presuming to lecture me and give advise.

Now, what are YOUR credentials for advising me.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,516 posts, read 15,495,785 times
Reputation: 7254
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
70% of what Texans? Exactly what Texans were polled to get this result? If I recall correctly, someone also posted on another thread from the polling company's own website that blatant statement that they go one step beyond those "regular" polling companies in that they figure out how to help the entity paying for the poll get the desired result.

Real reliable figures you're leaning your argument on there.

If 70% of Texans are opposed to smoking in public places (including bars and restaurants), then there should be no need for legislation to get rid of it. If there is need for legislation to get rid of it, then clearly the free market is not voting in the most accurate way possible, with its dollars (now, there's a poll you can depend on to be an accurate reflection of what people , to get the result you desire. Apparently that's just too difficult for some to accept, so they seek to legislate their own personal preferences which are not, based on the evidence, not polls, shared by the majority of their fellow citizens.
well the podunk country folk were obviously the ones left out because they are the ones that still have not had bans passed. all the major cities in Texas have this law in place already

and the second part of the post is pure silliness. if 70 percent is in favor of the smoking ban what is to stop the less than 20 percent of the Texans who do smoke from killing us with their nasty habit?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,516 posts, read 15,495,785 times
Reputation: 7254
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
LOL

I am not trying to be condecending but, sweetheart?

My major was pre-law and my degree in political science and I took two years of Constitutional Law. So don't pull that one out of your hat. In fact? From where I am typing at this very moment, I could turn around and find on the bookshelf several volumes on Constitutional Law (Goldman...Cases and Essays).

No, that doesnt make me an expert by any means in constitutional law...and I don't claim to be. All I am saying is you might want to step down off that prima-donna attitude when speaking about the law and presuming to lecture me and give advise.

Now, what are YOUR credentials for advising me.
I will DM you my credentials sweetheart.

Edit: Sent. After reading it I would advise you to go read the bill. Then explain it to Horselady. It will save the people whop actually have read the bill and know about this stuff a lot of time. The two of you are arguing things that won't past muster in the legal world
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:33 AM
Status: "Back to work!" (set 16 days ago)
 
9,785 posts, read 10,812,460 times
Reputation: 4969
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
again no one is trying to stamp out smoking. You can smoke anywhere you want, just not anywhere in the public. Just like you can shoot of guns as much as you like, just not in a public place where people can get hurt.
You just don't get it, do you? If ANY private business wants to ban smoking? Then fine and dandy. This is NOT about smoking. Hell, I quit years ago and don't like to be around it. I will whip my grandkids butts (pun intended) if I ever catch them doing it before they are adults (operative word here...by the way! )

So tell me, will you, what DO you consider to be a private place? I want to know the difference, if the name of the game is "public health" why the government, if they can restrict it in my own place of business, cannot also restrict it in my private home. I await....

And by the way? The gun thing? No cigar (pun intended again) There is no law against shooting guns in a public place if the circumstances justify it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,516 posts, read 15,495,785 times
Reputation: 7254
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
You just don't get it, do you? If ANY private business wants to ban smoking? Then fine and dandy. This is NOT about smoking. Hell, I quit years ago and don't like to be around it. I will whip my grandkids butts (pun intended) if I ever catch them doing it before they are adults (operative word here...by the way! )

So tell me, will you, what DO you consider to be a private place? I want to know the difference, if the name of the game is "public health" why the government, if they can restrict it in my own place of business, cannot also restrict it in my private home. I await....

And by the way? The gun thing? No cigar (pun intended again) There is no law against shooting guns in a public place if the circumstances justify it.
a private place is a place that is privately held AND does not invite patronage for a fee from the general public.

No they CANNOT restrict it in your home under the health rule unless you invite the public to patronize your home for a fee. The law specifically exempts homes unless it is being used as a day care or old folks home or something like that. SAVE US TROUBLE, GO READ THE BILL

as for the gun point you are adding things to my example. Yes there are laws against shooting guns in the public for your pleasure. Stop conveniently forgetting the last part. My post was not about justifiable purposes. You can kill someone if it is justified.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:48 AM
 
89 posts, read 101,901 times
Reputation: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
a private place is a place that is privately held AND does not invite patronage for a fee from the general public.

No they CANNOT restrict it in your home under the health rule unless you invite the public to patronize your home for a fee. The law specifically exempts homes unless it is being used as a day care or old folks home or something like that. SAVE US TROUBLE, GO READ THE BILL

as for the gun point you are adding things to my example. Yes there are laws against shooting guns in the public for your pleasure. Stop conveniently forgetting the last part. My post was not about justifiable purposes. You can kill someone if it is justified.
Many here are not arguing the fine points of the bill. We are arguing against the whole concept.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,516 posts, read 15,495,785 times
Reputation: 7254
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekTant View Post
Many here are not arguing the fine points of the bill. We are arguing against the whole concept.
But isn't that a crazy point to argue? Just about every major city in the country has such a bill. The Entire United Kingdom has a similar bill.

34 cities in Texas has such a bill- that is almost 90 percent of the population of the State.

29 other states have similar bills.

70% of Texans are in favor of the bill. It seems to be odd to be arguing over the notion of the bill itself when it is so common and widespread. I would think it is the fine points that someone would have problems with.

The statement that smoking is hereby banned in all public places is overly broad and that is something I could see people taking issue with being so broad
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.


 
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:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 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.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top