Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (sale, codes)

[SVTRay]

Originally Posted by WestPlanoDude

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

Interesting,

The remarks in my first reply "First They Came" is a famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

[deathpenalty03]

Once again texans having bias for things they are not in favor of!!!

smoking in restaurants and bars should be allowed!!! it should be up to the restaurant and bar to decide that NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

That is what is cool about free choice!!! if you dont like some place you go elsewhere i understand not having smoking in government buildings and such but in the places of restaurants it should be up to the restaurant to decide there preference. If they cater to smokers than that is there business and there decision.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by deathpenalty03

Once again texans having bias for things they are not in favor of!!!

smoking in restaurants and bars should be allowed!!! it should be up to the restaurant and bar to decide that NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

That is what is cool about free choice!!! if you dont like some place you go elsewhere i understand not having smoking in government buildings and such but in the places of restaurants it should be up to the restaurant to decide there preference. If they cater to smokers than that is there business and there decision.

Silly wabbit! This is not a free country!

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

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.

Quite true THL. But it's also quite true that we both know that such a compromise would be completely and totally unacceptable to the mainstream antismoking movement simply because it doesn't fulfill the prime requirement of denormalizing smokers. Providing comfortable and inviting places for smokers and their friends to gather simply can never be allowed in their bible, no matter how reasonable such compromises might seem to be.

And that shows the lie to all their nonsense about "protecting the health of the innocents" or "of the workers" etc etc. They'll line up 100% behind companies banning smokers from their workforce, but if a bar banned nonsmokers from their workers so that they could open a smoking bar then the Antismokers would scream absolute bloody murder.

[doctorjef]

I lived in Austin at the time that city became smoke-free (can't recall - it may have been a Travis County ordinance rather than city ordinance). Big relief for me, although at the time I felt that it was excessive to outlaw smoking in bars. The state where I now live has a statewide "Indoor Clean Air Act" law that prohibits smoking in all public indoor venues statewide. Works for me, but Delaware has a population of less than a million persons, is not quite 100 miles long north to south, and at its widest point is less than 40 miles across east to west. IOW, it's a small jurisdiction where a statewide law makes sense. Texas is so large that local ordinances seem more plausible. On the other hand, I was living in England when public indoor smoking was prohibited everywhere there and England has a much bigger population than Texas, and although it's geographically smaller than Texas, it is culturally diverse at the local and regional levels. Even so, a law at a national level works out ok there (Scotland's parliament separately enacted a smoking ban north of the border).

[kenshi]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

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!

It's a slippery slope alright. If we allow smokers to assault the lungs of others in public buildings, why not let people freely punch other people in the face? Why not allow rape and murder? It's only a matter of degree.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by kenshi

It's a slippery slope alright. If we allow smokers to assault the lungs of others in public buildings, why not let people freely punch other people in the face? Why not allow rape and murder? It's only a matter of degree.

LOL I am not TOTALLY sure, but fairly certain, you are being ironic here, correct? If so, incoming rep point. If not? Oh wow...

Regardless, just to reply to the latter possibility, for those who might take the irony literally? A truly public place is one in which that there may be no free choice but to enter and conduct business. It might be a courthouse, post-office, hospital, or police station. No problem at all -- and no one has said different -- on a smoking ban in these entities.

On the other hand? A private business is one in which the business owner bought/rents/pays for -- and takes all the risks as to success or failure -- should -- in a free society -- have the right to cater to his/her customers as they see fit. They are in business to make money and do things like pay the home mortgage and send their kids to college, not be subject to the zealots who presume -- whatever the cause celebre' of the moment may be (banning smoking or salt or fat or perfume) -- to tell them how to run the business better than they themselves do

But of course, that is the crux of the matter. The "health police" zealots, as individuals, pay no personal price for the regulations/restrictions they place on others. One righteous crusade "for our own good" only leads to another...

Rape and murder as an analogy? Again, some of the literal-minded might actually think you are serious!

So just to add, to be a bit silly in my own turn, wellll, if on the door of a private business, there was a sign that said "RAPE AND MURDER ALLOWED WITHIN"? Why would one want to go into such an establishment to begin with?

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by kenshi

It's a slippery slope alright. If we allow smokers to assault the lungs of others in public buildings, why not let people freely punch other people in the face? Why not allow rape and murder? It's only a matter of degree.

Kenshi's point may be reasonable ... if Kenshi can provide a list of places in our society where we've generally allowed physical assaults, rapes, and murders in the past and where people have gone, in their millions, to enjoy such pursuits.

Otherwise his/her point is simply silly and just a takeoff on a standard, scripted, antismoking sound bite.

EDIT: LOL! OK Tex! You're probably right. Ain't too often I get caught by a satire, but I think Kenshi may have gotten me!!! The problem is that over the last five years or so the number of truly psychotic nuts on this issue has grown to the point where it's become virtually impossible to satirize them without being taken seriously. :/

[kenshi]

Just to make it clear, it was satirical in that I don't really think that other stuff is actually going to be legalized. I was just demonstrating how ridiculous the slippery slope argument is. Either you think smokers should not be allowed to assault the lungs of others in public buildings or you believe the owners should choose who gets assaulted. Frankly, I think smoking is a nasty habit that you should keep to yourself, so I believe the former.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

LOL I am not TOTALLY sure, but fairly certain, you are being ironic here, correct? If so, incoming rep point. If not? Oh wow...

Regardless, just to reply to the latter possibility, for those who might take the irony literally? A truly public place is one in which that there may be no free choice but to enter and conduct business. It might be a courthouse, post-office, hospital, or police station. No problem at all -- and no one has said different -- on a smoking ban in these entities.

On the other hand? A private business is one in which the business owner bought/rents/pays for -- and takes all the risks as to success or failure -- should -- in a free society -- have the right to cater to his/her customers as they see fit. They are in business to make money and do things like pay the home mortgage and send their kids to college, not be subject to the zealots who presume -- whatever the cause celebre' of the moment may be (banning smoking or salt or fat or perfume) -- to tell them how to run the business better than they themselves do

But of course, that is the crux of the matter. The "health police" zealots, as individuals, pay no personal price for the regulations/restrictions they place on others. One righteous crusade "for our own good" only leads to another...

At no point in history has a private business owner ever been able to do whatever he or she wanted with regards to their business. It has always been subject to various laws and regulations. Always. You phrase your argument in such a way that it sounds like you think government regulation of businesses is something new and evil, and that private business owners used to be completely free, but the danged ol' liberals have just ruined that. That's a scenario that never existed in any way, shape, or form.

From fire codes to health and safety laws to laws about when you can serve alcohol...a private business owner has always had to abide by rules the government has put in place in order to protect the welfare of the general public.

According to TexasReb's theory of how to run the world, business shouldn't have to meet basic health codes, fire codes, or anything else. After all, that sort of stuff is just the nanny state running rampant, right? Who care if the kitchen has rats and roaches in it, people ate them for years so why shouldn't they be OK with it now?