Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (Atlanta: college, nightclub)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I think you miss a point, HTlove.


Anyway, I don't believe our (me, THL, Annie, etc) argument is so simple as that government has "no right" to regulate smoking in certain places because they are privately owned.

All my point was from the beginning is that the Government has a right to regulate public safety in places of public accommodation.

do you disagree or not? I know the horselady disagrees I know she thinks nothing should be regulated

[HtownLove]

Here are my first two posts in this thread TexasReb. The second post was in response to one of yours. Now tell me what other points I am making other that

1. Smoke is not just an inconvenience like some one mentioned, it is an actual health risk.

2. It is within the scope of the governments duty to regulate.

Originally Posted by HtownLove

It is not that simple.



Smoke affects people in ways you don't know.
I have an intolerance (like a mild allergy) to cigarette smoke. I remember waiting for the train before the ban. I was seating on a bench and someone sat next to me and lit up. I moved to another bench and the same thing happened. someone started to smoke next to me. I got up and moved to the very edge of the platform, and yep two more smokers pulled up. It was raining so I could not move any further. I had to cross the street and enter a building to get away from the smoke.

so no. it is not just a matter of not liking the smoke and wanting to control people who do.

saying go somewhere else is just stupid. Why can't the smokers go somewhere else and smoke? why do I have to stand in freezing rain because someone wants a fix?? why does their nasty habit supersede my health?




yeah, it doesn't hurt the smokers to step out of the restaurant or wherever to smoke, so it is a very stupid argument to say that non smokers can go somewhere else.




exactly. I start turning all sorts of colors. My stomach starts to lurch, I get monster headaches, sometimes I puke. Why should I have to feel so horrible because some fat arse is too lazy to go outside and smoke.


exactly, they need licenses so that public will be protected, so what is so wrong about the government regulating poisonous air too

Originally Posted by HtownLove

You make very strong points but they are not actually grounded in fact.

1. It has long been established that business places are not private places. Places of business are semi- public in that you may enter without permission, but you may be charged a fee or be asked to leave for a variety of reasons.

2. Because it is more public than private the government can place regulations on things concerning the public good. One of the most widely known limitations on freedom of speech is the Oliver Wendell Holmes example: "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" if there is no real fire.
there is nothing illegal in the words themselves. They are not vulgar words. You can use it in your home, but you can't in a crowded theater because of the harm that MAY be caused.

Thus if the government can regulate speech, something that is constitutionally protected, then sure they can regulate smoking- something that is already regulated and has no specific constitutional protection

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by csdynamicfan

I smoked socially and I still can't stand it.
Yes, it's non of my business if people want to or don't smoke, but I should be able to enjoy my food without a side of second hand smoking.
I am Pro ban. thank you.

You're welcome.

As I said earlier, I quit may years ago, and do not like to be around too much smoking (even back when I smoked)...so this is not some "smokers rights" agenda.

To the point, are you saying there are not countless places where you cannot go to enjoy your drinks/food without being around smoking?

As a very related aside here, my own experience is that more and more places -- and didn't need a government ordiance/law to do it -- simply changed their policies because many customers complained. That's fine and dandy, and problem with that. Boycott, etc, petitions, whatever, is a perfectly legitimate way to get a private business which formerly allowed smoking to switch over to a non-smoking environment.

But this seeming attitude (in bold) speaks volumes. Translated? It is all about me; I don't like (this or that), so it ought to be banned in places where I might choose to go...even if there is no law which says I have to go there.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Annie53

In case you haven't noticed, anti-smokers are not happy with people smoking outdoors either. They are now passing legislation that prohibits smoking outdoors in whole cities. Look at what they are doing in New York City.

You anti-smokers won't be happy until no one can smoke anywhere. But, please remember this, smokers pay A LOT of taxes on tobacco, and when that tax is gone, the government will tax something you use to make up for the loss.

I'm not happy with smoking period, but if one must smoke, I suggest doing it outdoors where there is ventilation. Indoors it is just trapped there.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

CptnRn, I'm sorry, but you made it quite clear in an earlier post that you're all about imposing your will on smokers and not allowing any compromise whatsoever.

Where did I say either of those things? I never said anything of the sort. You are constantly going into these ridiculous rants claiming people said and mean things that they did not say or mean. I'm not going to waste my time defending myself against absurd untrue accusations. What do you call someone who repeatedly says things which are not true?

So forgive me if I don't take you particularly seriously from a "it's for the public good" perspective. This is NOT about charts and statistics and those things you so love, this is about people and their rights and the very things this country is built on.

Don't you hate it when facts contradict uninformed opinions? Non-smokers are people too, and they have rights too. In the Austin example, voters expressed their will and it was in favor of the smoking ban. Why should the non-smokers rights, which are in the small minority, have the right to impose their desires against the non-smokers, the vast majority? The non-smokers have rights too.

Now, I'll take you seriously as a threat to all of those things. Things that I consider to be very important for my children and my grandchildren and my great grandchildren to have, things that I will work to protect against those who would turn this into a Nanny Country, not just Nanny State. Perhaps it's because I can remember when freedom actually meant something, and when it was something to work for for those who didn't already have it, and to protect for those who have it. What the heck happened to this country?

Since I have never expressed a desire to do any of these things, that would seem to make your paranoia delusional at best.

Disgusting. Just disgusting, and so much more dangerous than cigarettes will EVER be. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!

No thanks, I don't smoke. And besides, this is an non-smoking forum, you will have to go outside to do that.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by CptnRn
It wasn't a small group of citizens it was a large group of citizens who collected thousands of signatures on petitions to put the issue to vote. Which was then approved by thousands of voters. The vast majority of the community approved of the ban on indoor smoking in most establishments. Smokers still have options, they can smoke outdoors, in their homes and numerous other establishments.

If smokers really wanted a place of their own where they can smoke indoors they can form a fraternal organization specifically for that purpose, like the Oddfellows or the Woodmen of the World, they are exempt from the law. Call it the Fraternal order of the Black Lung, and rejoice in the freedom of group smoking. Maybe they could even get a group hospital insurance rate that pays for a smoking room in the hospital while they are being treated for lung cancer.

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

CptnRn, you cannot regulate everyone to do what you think they should do. Not in this country - or not in a country founded on what this country was founded on and for.

Shame on you. You should be deeply embarrassed to admit in public that you are all about turning Texas into a Nanny State and the United States of America into the Nanny States of America.

Oh my more ranting and claims that I said things that I did not say. Where did I state that I wanted to do anything of the sort? I did jokingly say "No, 17 states still do not have any kind of regulation on smoking in public places. But we are going to change that. " Which was a sarcastic joking comment and a far cry from any of the things you are accusing me off. Neverthless I do believe that all of those 17 states will eventually have no smoking in indoor public places laws in place, because many if not most smokers don't respect the rights of non-smokers and insist on smoking in places where it is inappropriate.

Note that NYC has passed a law against smoking outdoors. Do you REALLY think, in spite of the fact that each step of this progression has been predicted before it happened, with people just like you saying, "Oh, no, no, no, that'll NEVER happen, THAT's not what we want, we just don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke", that it's not blatantly obvious what you are after and, as a result, exactly what kind of person does that?

I never expressed an opinion on the NYC law and only read about it this morning. What gives you the right to tell me what I think or what my opinion is?

That you are opposed to the compromise shows that the true goal is not to avoid cigarette smoke for yourself, but to control others. Listen, again, people ARE NOT the charts and statistics that you love so much, nor can they be forced into them.

Where did I say I was opposed to the compromise? That is a paranoid assumption on your part. The charts and statistics are simply a reflection of the people, not the other way around. Don't you hate it when the facts don't support your opinions?

I refer you to Egypt. And to the founding of this country. That's the kind of thing that happens when someone decides that they get to say what others do, when they think that they are the only ones that know what decisions others should make.

The citizens of Egypt rising up to change their country, and the history of the founding of this country are very much the same things a the majority of the registered voters in Austin rising up to vote in favor of a smoking ban. The will of the people expressing it self.

Annie53 is right, you know. Next it'll be fat people. After that, architects, maybe? Don't count that out. The control freaks will keep going every time they've managed to bring one group "under control", because the bottom line goal is not the various "sins" (like I said, it's a religion, that much is obvious), it's the control that is the real addiction, and it's an addiction that has to be fed continuously with new food as each "fix" of another group is under control.

Architects, LOL, I'm shaking in my boots. We are already heavily regulated in our practice, nothing new there. Do you froth at the mouth when you write this stuff? Geez, take a chill pill.

This discussion as framed by the Original Post is about how the majority of Texans polled are in favor of a statewide smoking ban in indoor work and public places, including restaurants and bars.

No one is threatening to put smokers in the gulag labor camp, calm down before you have an stroke.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Don't you hate it when facts contradict uninformed opinions?

No, actually, I hate it when people are so dependent on statistics that they think that statistics actually provide a true and accurate picture of the world. When they lose sight of the fact that statistics can be manipulated to push an agenda, when they lose sight of the fact that the very questions that are asked when gathering the statistics and deciding what information is to be gathered can skew said statistics, and most importantly when they lose sight of the people behind those statistics. Or, for that matter, the statistics on the other side of the equation - for example, in proclaiming that smoking causes lung cancer, for a long, long time, until very recently you never heard the statistic that 80% of smokers do NOT get lung cancer - the other side of the statistic that 20% (not all, not even a majority, do). This doesn't speak to other issues regarding smoking, it's a simple example of one statistic that was ignored because it didn't fit the marketing campaign to ban smoking that depended on the claim that smoking causes lung cancer.

Also, I hate it when people forget this very accurate, albeit humorous, statement:

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'" - Mark Twain

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

I'm not happy with smoking period, but if one must smoke, I suggest doing it outdoors where there is ventilation. Indoors it is just trapped there.

It does not matter if people smoke outdoors. Anti-smokers do not want people to smoke outdoors either. More and more legislation is proving that. What anti-smoker's want is total control over others......they want to stop people from smoking, period. Why not just admit it?

And don't forget, once the smokers are all gone.......YOUR taxes WILL go up.

There is not a state in the US that could take the loss of its tobacco tax money without raising taxes elsewhere.

So, I think that anti-smokers had better learn to compromise, or they will be paying the price, LITERALLY.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Annie53

It does not matter if people smoke outdoors. Anti-smokers do not want people to smoke outdoors either. More and more legislation is proving that. What anti-smoker's want is total control over others......they want to stop people from smoking, period. Why not just admit it?

And don't forget, once the smokers are all gone.......YOUR taxes WILL go up.

There is not a state in the US that could take the loss of its tobacco tax money without raising taxes elsewhere.

So, I think that anti-smokers had better learn to compromise, or they will be paying the price, LITERALLY.

you are repeating the same untruths over and over again.

why do you feel a need to keep repeating lies?

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

No, actually, I hate it when people are so dependent on statistics that they think that statistics actually provide a true and accurate picture of the world. When they lose sight of the fact that statistics can be manipulated to push an agenda, when they lose sight of the fact that the very questions that are asked when gathering the statistics and deciding what information is to be gathered can skew said statistics, and most importantly when they lose sight of the people behind those statistics. Or, for that matter, the statistics on the other side of the equation - for example, in proclaiming that smoking causes lung cancer, for a long, long time, until very recently you never heard the statistic that 80% of smokers do NOT get lung cancer - the other side of the statistic that 20% (not all, not even a majority, do). This doesn't speak to other issues regarding smoking, it's a simple example of one statistic that was ignored because it didn't fit the marketing campaign to ban smoking that depended on the claim that smoking causes lung cancer.

Also, I hate it when people forget this very accurate, albeit humorous, statement:

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'" - Mark Twain

What about the 53,000 non-smoking Americans who die each year from second hand smoke, don't they have rights too? Why don't they count in your assessment. Why should any one focus on the 80% of smoker who luck out and don't get lung cancer when 440,000 people a year die from it? So 20% of them DO get lung cancer, there is a good reason to encourage them to keep smoking!

Seems to me that you are the one loosing sight of these people behind the statistics. There are faces, individuals and families who suffered with those deaths behind each of those numbers.

Have you ever watched someone close to you die from lung and other smoking caused cancers? I have, its was a horrible experience for them and their families and friends. First the cancer attacked their mouth and tongue, progressively bits and pieces of their lips, cheeks and tongue were removed by surgery in an effort to keep the cancer from spreading and save their lives. Eventually he couldn't talk anymore and had to resort to writing notes to his wife and children and us when we visited him in the hospital. We tried to pretend like his disfigured face didn't matter, we loved him and spent what time we could with him, giving him what support we could, reminiscing about the good old days before cancer ruined his life. Sadly, over a period of 3 years the cancer spread and appeared in his lungs and eventually killed him.

Did he have a right to do that to himself? Or subject his family to that horrible experience and the loss of their beloved father? He did not think so. In those later years he said several times that he hated what his family was having to go to during all of this. As usual he thought more about them then himself, but he wished he had never smoked, he wished someone would have stopped him.