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, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,207,663 times
Reputation: 24738

Advertisements

If your wife is a nurse, then she should know the basics, as this from the Epipen site (I assume you'll accept that they know about these things, right?):

"If you, your child or someone you're caring for shows signs or symptoms of an allergic emergency, inject the health care professional-prescribed EpiPen or EpiPen Jr. immediately, then promptly call 911 and seek immediate medical attention."

It's to be used for a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction, and only as a way to prolong the length of time you have to get medical attention. Why on earth someone would deliberately choose to risk a potentially life-threatening reaction rather than leave a restaurant or anywhere else where they were unexpectedly exposed to the allergen, boggles the mind. (Surely no one with such a serious condition would deliberately court it.) Especially a medical professional who would presumably know better. I know I certainly would value my own life over staying unnecessarily in a situation where I risked that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2011, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,794,105 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
First, 70 percent and 20 percent come to 90 percent, according to the math I was taught in elementary school. Also, people can be for the ban and smoke, and not for the ban and not smoke.

Second, you'd be surprised what "podunk" people live out in the country, your obvious prejudice notwithstanding. Some of them could give you lectures on Constitutional law in the classroom or the courtroom if you were qualified to be there. Among other things. Where someone chooses to live, country or city, has little to do with intelligence, level of education, or plain old wisdom, come to that. That you find yourself reduced to such canards shows that you've reached the point of not having a substantive argument to produce so you're reaching for the argument ad hominem in hopes that someone, somewhere, won't recognize it for what it is.

Third, your response is no response at all to the point made - it's a clear (and thus sloppy) attempt at a red herring. If 70% of Texans truly object to smoking in bars, then the bars would not allow smoking because it would be a financial disaster for them - they'd be throwing 70% of their potential income out the window. And legislation such as you so dearly desire would not be necessary. Since you apparently think it is necessary, it's clear that you don't like the results of the natural poll of the market place which tells you something you don't want to hear, and want to override the clearly-expressed wishes of the majority of Texans demonstrated by where they do and don't spend their money with legislation that requires what you want them to do.

this post clearly shows that you don't know whats going on.

First I said 70 percent is for a ban and that 20 percent are smokers so I dunno what math you are trying to pull out from combining them.

secondly, you have not put out ANY argument yet, other than the mean ole government is gonna get me nonsense.

Third, again that point is nonsense. You can't leave decisions like this up to business owners. Their object is to maximize profits not to look out for the good of the public. Any idiot would have figured that out
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 06:43 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
I got them and replied. But the credentials you present are no valid than mine are in terms of being a constitutional law expert.
you would like to think so, but that is not reality

Quote:
The difference is, I didn't call into question yours. I am not going to violate a DM trust by getting into specifics, but I think it obvious that we are at a stalemate in that regard (and again, I didn't bring up to begin with)
show me where I did.


Quote:
I said earlier I agree I need to go and actually read the bill. However, in another sense, it is really not necessary. I can pretty much glean ahead of time what it entails. And Derek confirmed it.
I would serve you well if you actually read it, then you would have valid points to argue because the bill has some major flaws.

Quote:
You must have a very high opinion of yourself to say that the case opposite yours will not pass muster in the legal world. What legal world are you talking about? SCOTUS? The 5th or 9th Circuit Court? The legislature?

You are building mighty castles in the air, it seems....
It is not a case against mine, it is a case against The majority of States in the Us, It is the case against 34 cities in Texas and 70% of the state's residents.

Go read the Bill
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,794,105 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
The world does not revolve around smokers and their inability to control their addictions either,dear.And yes,my wife now carries an epipen.Sad that she has to resort to carrying a life saving device to deal with the discourtesies of smokers who can only rant about THEIR rights to pollute everyones air without regard to the folks next to them.
THis ^^^^^

why can't smokers understand this^^^^^

smoking is not some Constitutionally given right. Why does someone have to be be in fear of their life for a nasty habit?

Why must they inconvenience themselves just because they are too lazy to simply get up and go outside where they won't be endangering others?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
You two crack me up.If you cannot offer anything else but"I don't believe you" then why bother?.
I should ask myself the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,207,663 times
Reputation: 24738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
this post clearly shows that you don't know whats going on.

First I said 70 percent is for a ban and that 20 percent are smokers so I dunno what math you are trying to pull out from combining them.

secondly, you have not put out ANY argument yet, other than the mean ole government is gonna get me nonsense.

Third, again that point is nonsense. You can't leave decisions like this up to business owners. Their object is to maximize profits not to look out for the good of the public. Any idiot would have figured that out
Yes, you can leave decisions like this to business owners. It was done quite successfully for quite a long time in this country, and quite a longer time than that in many other countries. It's only very recently that the Nanny Brigade has decided that they are the arbiters of all things Good And Right And Decent (well, except for Carry Nations, and we all know how that turned out, right?) and that their beliefs about how things should be are the only ones that count and should be enforced legislatively because, gasp!, other people might disagree with them and not "behave properly"!

As for arguments, I, and TexasReb, and others, have, indeed, put forth arguments. That you don't like what those arguments mean about you, personally, doesn't make them not arguments, it simply means that you have to try to pretend that they don't exist lest someone else notice what they actually mean.

You, sir, do not get to decide what other people do and do not do just based on your personal prejudices and fears. And that's exactly what you're trying to do, and trying to set a precedent for. If you succeed, don't be at all surprised, and don't go crying to Nanny, when it comes back around to bite you in the derrierre.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 06:54 PM
 
243 posts, read 277,757 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
Nowadays I do not if I know the policy of the place.Which limits some of our activities.Occasionaly we got caught,such as the time we went into a restaurant in a small town while on the road w/o realizing that it didn't have a non smoking policy.While waiting for our meal already ordered another couple came in,sat at the table next to us,and lit up.Our choices then became get up and leave,or deal with it and use the epipen.She chose to use the epipen even though I was for leaving,as there was not another place to eat for a while and everyone was starving.So yes,PLEASE get back to me on the personal responsibility shown by the smokers.The people who lack it are the ones unable to keep from ruining others air because they have an addiction they cannot or will not control.So don't try to convince me that they are exhibiting any responsibility at all for dealing with others personal space and possible medical conditions.

To be quite honest,I don't care about the rights of smokers anymore.I lost that when I was sitting in a restaurant next to an elderly couple with my wife and 2 small kids.The woman lit up,sending smoke straight at us.When I mentioned it to the lady that she was smoking out my kids,her response was "the law says I can smoke sweetie.If you don't like it,change the laws".Well then,lookie here now.I wish I had her name so I could ask her how she liked it now,as the town I lived in then passed a strong smoking ban last year.

Some smokers are polite.My dad was one,and he never smoked in a house with others present,not even his own.Never in a car with others.When outside he would make sure he was downwind from others.But many smokers are inconsiderate a-holes with the same attitude as the elderly lady above,and their attitudes have ruined it for other smokers.The people smokers should be mad at are the inconsiderate fools with the arrogant attitudes that led non smokers to react to their arrogance and insensitivity with these laws.I for one have zero sympathy for their plight in finding legal places to light up.They should have thought of this when they were being inconsiderate jerks over the past 5 decades.As they say,payback is a b*tch.
Simply requiring all businesses that permit smoking to post a sign would solve your problem easily and would not be too much of a burden on businesses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,007 posts, read 15,360,720 times
Reputation: 2463
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekTant View Post
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.

It doesn't really matter what your opinion is, the fact is that by any bit of the law, they are public places.

How many of you arguing that restaurants are private places are versed in the law, or functioning attorneys?

Restaurants are classed as "places of public accommodation", meaning they are neither wholly private nor wholly public. They have more flexibility than truly public property, but nowhere near what a home or similar has. By inviting people into the place of business, they assume responsibility for those people. They must comply with things like the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, whereas a truly private property does not.

Moreover, they require a license to function, and they city can set pretty much whatever conditions it likes in order for them to be able to have a license.

This bill does not affect private property, but instead places of public accommodation.

Last edited by getmeoutofhere; 04-03-2011 at 07:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,794,105 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post

You, sir, do not get to decide what other people do and do not do just based on your personal prejudices and fears. And that's exactly what you're trying to do, and trying to set a precedent for. If you succeed, don't be at all surprised, and don't go crying to Nanny, when it comes back around to bite you in the derrierre.
Oh I certainly get to decided what people do. The people have been deciding for centuries, and we will continue to do so whether you like it or not.

And I have no fears or prejudices. Some very dear people in my life are smokers- Fiancee, Best Friend, Grandfather, closest cousin, tons of other friends and family members, and just because I tell them that their habit is a dirty nasty habit doesn't mean I am prejudiced. I would advise you to refresh yourself on the meaning of the word.

On the contrary I think you are the one who has shown constantly in this thread and the other one on smoking that you have unjustified fears. You are the one running around crying that the government is out to get you and that they are gonna ban your fatty foods and salty snacks. So don't come here talking about fears. You are the one discussing looney ideas here not me
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 07:10 PM
 
243 posts, read 277,757 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
THis ^^^^^

why can't smokers understand this^^^^^

smoking is not some Constitutionally given right. Why does someone have to be be in fear of their life for a nasty habit?

Why must they inconvenience themselves just because they are too lazy to simply get up and go outside where they won't be endangering others?



I should ask myself the same thing.
The Constitution does not say that people can have sex with their spouses either, but it is their right.

Just because something is not listed specifially in the Constitution does not mean it is not a right. You have a misunderstanding of the Constitution.

No one on here is talking about any "right to smoke" anyway. The discussion is whether a bar or a restaurant can permit smoking inside.

And you are grossly exaggerating the dangers of second hand smoke. There is no need for anyone to be in fear for their life just because you catch a whiff of smoke. You want it to be true in order to justify smoking bans but it is in fact not true.

You are in far more danger sitting next to someone drinking alcohol given the violence and accident rates associated with alcohol use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,007 posts, read 15,360,720 times
Reputation: 2463
Quote:
Originally Posted by austinrebel View Post
The Constitution does not say that people can have sex with their spouses either, but it is their right.

Just because something is not listed specifially in the Constitution does not mean it is not a right. You have a misunderstanding of the Constitution.

No one on here is talking about any "right to smoke" anyway. The discussion is whether a bar or a restaurant can permit smoking inside.

You have a misunderstanding of the Constitution. It does not grant rights to people, but instead restricts the government.

To say you have a right to do something is incorrect. In reality, "rights" are those prohibitions placed on the government.
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