U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2011, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,806 posts, read 39,868,675 times
Reputation: 24326

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
You just hit the nail on the head, HTLove, even if from an opposing directions.

You are right. Bar owners (or at least most) permit smoking because, apparently, it is good for their business. Which is the reason any privately-owned business starts and remains in business to begin with. To make a profit and do what is best toward that end. What is wrong with that? It does such things as pay bills required to exist.

But as I mentioned earlier, there is always the option to open one's own which shuns smoking and smoking. That is what free enterprise and competition is all about. What is so wrong with that?



If you are still talking about bars/restaurants/etc of which a large percentage of patrons choose to smoke (because it is permitted to do so according the aforehand understood business policy)? Yeah, I gotcha. They should all empty out so a few others can enjoy a smoke-free environment. Never mind that the owner might suffer an eventual loss of his regular customers -- and by extension, his profit and livliihood -- because of such. After all, who cares about that when "my rights" are at stake...

As I said earlier, I agree that many smokers (which I used to be) can be very obnoxious about it. I don't like that either. Never did. I never was one of that "smokers rights" crowd. To me, they can be just as unreasonable as the anti-smoking zealouts. To wit: If you smoke and a place doesn't allow it? Then go someplace else. And yes, be considerate of others. If you don't smoke? Then don't go to places that allow it.

Unfortunately, as TexasHorseLady said, it is usually the latter bunch which are the biggest problem in terms of reaching reasonable compromises. They remind a lot of those old stiff-necked New England Puritans a century or so back. That is, they were always obcessed with the concern that somewhere, somehow, some people out there was having a good time. LOL
Bingo. You've hit the nail on the head regarding a lot of the more obvious and loudest members of the nonsmoking contingency. (Which is generally, I acknowledge, in the minority, but the squeaky wheel and all that.)

That, and that someone might threaten their world view by making decisions that don't fall into line with it. Because it's not strong enough, evidently, to stand on its own.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2011, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,257 posts, read 2,293,980 times
Reputation: 1139
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Part of what this country was founded on was protection of the minority from the majority. But that's really irrelevant here, just mentioned it because you brought it up.

Did you read my post about the compromise that the City of Austin had, before the nonsmokers threw such a fit that it had to be gotten rid of? Where smokers had a (very few) bars and such licensed as smoking establishments where they could go where smoking was allowed, and the nonsmokers had the (vast majority) rest of the venues in town to patronize, where smoking was not allowed?

What would you think about that kind of compromise? Could you get behind it out of a sense of fairness and the foundation upon which this country was built?

I think the city of Austin compromise sounds fair and is something I would go along with. However, I'm not from Austin and it's something that I have never heard of being attempted anywhere that I have ever lived.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,257 posts, read 2,293,980 times
Reputation: 1139
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
As it is, I haven't been to a bar-bar in over ten years! LOL But at it is, there IS a choice (see more on this below). But you are the one who has to make it.



Where is anyone "not allowed" to have a nightlife? This is one of those (ever frequent in our day and age) that, "it's all about me" oyutlooks. To wit: If "I" don't like something, then government should take steps to assure I should not be inconvenienced, even if it mean intruding on the private property rights of others (in this case, the business owner).

Majority rule? Such a concept has a noble history in this country...when it applies to public affairs and such. However, in a free-society, "the majority" have no rights when it comes to telling someone else how to run their own business. Might as well just say the business ultimately belongs to the "government" and not the owner.

This is something that many do not seem to be getting.



As I said initially, I quit smoking some 8 years ago, for precisely those reasons. It is a filthy and dangerous habit, and I don't like be around too much smoking myself. BUT...that doesn't translate into that I have the right --thru government -- to tell someone else it must be banned in their bars or restaurants or whatever, simply because I think I have a "right" to have a good time without breathing smoke. I am always free to go somewhere else.

You asked the rhetorical question earlier of "what bars are smoke-free?"...suggesting a choice is not there simply you feel they are unfair and infringing upon some self-definined right of yours. As to the question itself, I don't know since, again, I don't frequent them much anymore.

But hey, if you don't like the choice facing you, then create your own? That is, open your own bar and make it clear smoking is not allowed. In fact, advertizse that you cater to a non-smoking crowd. That is free-enterprize and perfectly acceptable and legal. Or boycott/petition bars which permit smoking and get them to change their policies thru private action. Nothing wrong with that either.

Instead though, it seems all too many expect that their "rights" supercede those of anybody elses, particularly those who run the business.

On a closely related tangent, the bars and such you mention are there to make money. If the person who runs the establishement felt they could do better by banning smoking, then chances are they would have, or may in the future, do so. Since many don't (i.e. they still allow smoking) then it stands to reason they have a good reason for doing so, right? Who is anyone to use the heavy-hand of government to intrude into their livlihood because the policy within offends their all-important personal sensibilities?

You keep using the word "inconvenience." I think you misunderstand that this isn't about being inconvenienced or selfish. This is about the overall health of our society. It's not so much an inconvience for me to be around smoke. I grew up with two smoking parents in the house. I'm used to it. It's about health.

I understand that you're looking at this from the standpoint of the rights of business owners. Regulating where people can and cannot smoke would obviously step on their rights as to how they choose to run their business and so on. Okay. Well, what about safety regulations for food? Do you also argue we should do away with those such things? Afterall, isn't it just stepping on the rights of private business owners who could turn a better profit if they didn't have to comply with so many pesty regulations? I mean, people can technically make a choice as to whether or not they buy food from companies that cut safety corners or not. Who are we to criticize China for putting lead paint in their toys that they send to us? We have the freedom to not buy those toys. If we're going to say regulating a health risk is an afront to the rights of private business, then let's just go all out and say anything goes in this country.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 05:16 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,852,533 times
Reputation: 5780
Thanks for a reasonable and civil reply...even in disagreement!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarenceBodiker View Post
You keep using the word "inconvenience." I think you misunderstand that this isn't about being inconvenienced or selfish. This is about the overall health of our society. It's not so much an inconvience for me to be around smoke. I grew up with two smoking parents in the house. I'm used to it. It's about health. [
No, if you look back over the history of the posts, I did not initially bring up the concept of personal inconvenience. I simply replied to the whole premise -- first advanced by others -- that their so-called "right" to not be, supercedes the right of the private property owner to run his/her establishment the say they see it. It doesn't. In that the alternative is that government has ultimate control in this realm...which is anethema to the essence of our freedoms.

To take up the latter part of your position? That is, the overall "health" of "our society" is of a governmental concern and rationale for control? To repeat it for the umpeenth time, there is a distinction between public safety and public health. If that line ever becomes non-existent? (which ever more it is). Then? Well, there is no logical reason why, that -- given such a premise -- government cannot require business owners to restrict those who choose to wear too much colonge/perfume.

Quote:
I understand that you're looking at this from the standpoint of the rights of business owners. Regulating where people can and cannot smoke would obviously step on their rights as to how they choose to run their business and so on.
Actually, I am looking at it from the larger consideration of private property rights, but ok...

Quote:
What about safety regulations for food? Do you also argue we should do away with those such things? Afterall, isn't it just stepping on the rights of private business owners who could turn a better profit if they didn't have to comply with so many pesty regulations? I mean, people can technically make a choice as to whether or not they buy food from companies that cut safety corners or not.
Did you read anything I (along with some others) wrote in this regard? I stand solidly that government (on reasonable levels, as required) have a legitimate role in realm of public safety. I stated that clearly. But the all-important distinction between the regulation of public safety concerns and that of "public health" comes down to an issue of personal responsibility.

Serving tainted meat clearly neglecting reasonable fire-codes and such? Of course they are applicable. But these are of which a reasonble person cannot be expected to discern for themselves. In other words, if a joint is busted because it serves catmeat as a sub for beef...then fry the guy. Also, if s/he saves money by faulty wiring that creates a fire-hazard no one knows about. Hell, fry them in their own tainted grease! LOL

That is NOT the same though, as entering a place where it is clearly known ahead of time smoking is allowed. Why should the business owner pay the price (LITERALY) for your self-interest/agenda?

Let's bring this down to a personal level. What if I put up the money to buy my own business. By extension, I take all the risks. It is my means of support and all those who depend on me. I think it best to allow smoking.

Upon what right -- and predicated upon what basis -- do you feel you can overule my decision to allow it? Do you pay anyreal personal price for my bad business decisions?

On the other hand, if a person knows ahead of time they are taking chances with their health by entering a place which allows smoking? Then it is not the business of government to protect them from their own poor choices (as you mention that term), especially when it involves intruding on the rights of others.

Quote:
Who are we to criticize China for putting lead paint in their toys that they send to us? We have the freedom to not buy those toys. If we're going to say regulating a health risk is an afront to the rights of private business, then let's just go all out and say anything goes in this country.
That's right. We do (have the choice). Don't buy them. You back up my point, as it is.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,249,063 times
Reputation: 2824
"public health regulation isn't new. It is something that has been around from the beginning, and arguable in a number of clauses. As for perfumes, that may make some one sneeze, but they don't flair up emphysema and they are not connected to cancer."

They can cause asthmatics to have a reaction, but I'm not gonna take my daughter out in public and start complaining about people wearing perfume. I also don't take her to places with a lot of smokers unless it is an outside event and the smoke is not near her. I imagine someone will bring perfume causing problems to a court sometime soon. I don't think a lot of things are safe anymore. I heard there is a case pending now where a man in a loft/apartment building smokes on his patio and the neighbors have complained and taken it to court to disallow smoking in that entire building. If this is succcessful, what's gonna stop someone in a neighborhood with close together housing, complaining about their neighbor smoking a cigarette in their backyard.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,249,063 times
Reputation: 2824
"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."

Did you try asking them to stop? Most people I know who are smokers are sensitive to people who really have a reason to avoid the smoke and will put it out.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,249,063 times
Reputation: 2824
"Yes, I agree that is stupid. But do you not see the point here? There is no logical reason, if government begins to get into the arena of "public health" in a way which resticts private property rights, that it cannot ban the use of perfume. After all, the "evidence" of harmful affects is there..."

As odd as it may seem, we are not allowed to wear perfume or any scented body products such as hairspray, lotion, body spray.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,249,063 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren View Post
Why don't smokers use the new way where the only thing that comes from the cigarette is a vapor, they still get their nicotin but there aren't the chemicals for the smoker and no smoke for the rest of us.

I don't care if people want to pollute their bodies, I just don't want to deal with the smoke. I sat at the dinner table and had a nice meal with family, two of which were smokers, they used these vapor cigarettes and they were happy and I was happy.

I think this is the way of the future...
I was thinking this too, but (I may be wrong here) I've been hearing that the FDA wants to ban them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:23 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,249,063 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarenceBodiker View Post
I'd like to think that constantly being exposed to deadly carcinogens goes a little beyond being "inconvenienced," my friend.

There are carcinogens in a whole lot of things, so lets start banning them all now. The black char on bbq has them. Car exhaust, pesticides, plastics. We're all exposed to them, everyday, by lots and lots of things. Even my energy efficient light bulbs contain mercury which requires me to take them to a recycler instead of putting them into regular trash.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,249,063 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren View Post
Exactly...I think they should have to take care of someone like me the next time I get sick because of their so called inconvenience...

My asthmatic daughter gets sick from the cotton and whatever else gets kicked up by the farmer across the way when he plows. Should I go to the City to ban farming and make the farmer provide my daughter with albuterol? She is allergic to smoke, cigarette and also wood burning if the smoke is blowing directly AT her). Do I tell the City that they cannot burn underbrush to prevent fires because of it? No, I keep her inside until they are done. Yes, it's unfair that a kid has to have these issues, but it is not someone elses fault. In her case it's genetic, but I don't tell my mom that she's hers to take care of for it.
Rate this post positively 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:01 PM.

© 2005-2020, 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