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.
I reacted strongly because your assertion that non smokers just want to control smokers and force them to choose the kind of life that we do. That's a completely unsupportable assertion and could only be made by someone who is clueless...sorry that was not obvious but that is a YOU thing not a ME thing.
[+] Rate this post positively
Reply With Quote
I understand your point from a health perspective, but there are a lot of people who don't have a chronic condition irritated by smoke who DO just like to preach or tell people what to do.
I'm personally glad about what Austin and other cities are doing about this. I have asthma and frequently get bronchitis just by encountering cigarette smoke (along with other sources of smoke, like fireworks and fire) proving that smoking not only hurts yourself, but it hurts the people around you as well.
So in the same vein wouldn't it be just as easy to ban fireworks too? They are usually shot off in public areas where there are people sensitive to smoke.
minutes later... /Although with fireworks, you really could just watch them on tv instead.
Last edited by love roses; 02-04-2011 at 10:48 PM..
"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.
This young lady was recently ticketed by the police for wearing too much perfume in school. This was an absurd way to handle it, especially in a public school. But I agree it could be taken to an excess where it disrupts the classroom. //www.city-data.com/forum/austi...ed-system.html
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.
I don't have a problem with either of these examples, if the smoking activities are preventing other home owners from the safe and healthy use of their own property. It is unlikely anyone is going to sue unless it is seriously impacting their lives, and then the burden of proof is on them.
I don't have a problem with either of these examples, if the smoking activities are preventing other home owners from the safe and healthy use of their own property. It is unlikely anyone is going to sue unless it is seriously impacting their lives, and then the burden of proof is on them.
Sorry, I'm a former legal assistant, personal injury, and this is one of the more naive statements I've seen on C-D.
We used to get 300+ calls a month by people wanting to sue for one thing or another. We took maybe 5 cases a month, because upon investigation, they had validity. We explained to the others why, upon investigation, they didn't have a case, it was something that would have happened no matter what. Most were relieved, in a way, because it meant there'd been nothing they or anyone else could do to change the outcome, so they were relieved of guilt.
Quite a few, however, continued to "attorney shop" until they found someone who was willing to take their case on contingency in hopes that the insurance company would settle because it would cost more to fight a good case than to settle.
Anyone can, and will, sue anyone for anything. There's many people out there who feel it is their God-given right to decide how others live their lives, and they will go to court to try to make that happen.
Take a look at New York City, if you want to see some idiocy.
And that thing about the girl and perfume? We should be ashamed that that's happening in the State of Texas. I KNOW we know better than that, and our ancestors are rolling over in their graves right now in embarrassment at what their descendants have allowed to happen.
I quit smoking about twnety years ago, but I'm certainly not averse to anyone smoking outdoors. Indoors, I can understand the objections, but outside? In most cases, it is silly to object to it.
We do live in an overly litigious society, that's a fact.
Sorry, I'm a former legal assistant, personal injury, and this is one of the more naive statements I've seen on C-D.
We used to get 300+ calls a month by people wanting to sue for one thing or another. We took maybe 5 cases a month, because upon investigation, they had validity. We explained to the others why, upon investigation, they didn't have a case, it was something that would have happened no matter what. Most were relieved, in a way, because it meant there'd been nothing they or anyone else could do to change the outcome, so they were relieved of guilt.
Quite a few, however, continued to "attorney shop" until they found someone who was willing to take their case on contingency in hopes that the insurance company would settle because it would cost more to fight a good case than to settle.
Anyone can, and will, sue anyone for anything. There's many people out there who feel it is their God-given right to decide how others live their lives, and they will go to court to try to make that happen.
Take a look at New York City, if you want to see some idiocy.
And that thing about the girl and perfume? We should be ashamed that that's happening in the State of Texas. I KNOW we know better than that, and our ancestors are rolling over in their graves right now in embarrassment at what their descendants have allowed to happen.
I took all that into consideration when I wrote "It is unlikely anyone is going to sue unless it is seriously impacting their lives, and then the burden of proof is on them". Sure, lots of people want to sue for trivial stuff, but once they find out what it takes to do so they realize its often not worth the time, trouble and difficulties of doing so, in addition to the possible court costs if you loose. I assumed everyone was smart enough here that I didn't need to explain all of that.
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?
The City of Austin's enactment of the smoking ordinance was actually an exercise in democracy. The "very few bars and such" that you refer to included the majority of the live music venues in downtown Austin, around 200 establishments had chosen to allow smoking out of fear that they would loose their smoking customers. Forcing the majority of Austin's citizens to subject themselves to those smoke filled environments if they wanted to participate in the live music events in Austin wasn't fair or reasonable. Enough Austin citizens were dissatisfied with this situation that they passed petitions and collected enough signatures from registered voters in the City of Austin to get this put on the ballot so all of Austin could participate in making this decision. The smoking ordinance ballot was passed by a significant majority of Austin voters.
Most of the issues at the center of the campaign were largely health related.
1. An environment full of second hand smoke is not healthy for either nonsmokers or smokers and is a horribly unpleasant experience for nonsmokers.
2. This creates a workplace hazard for employees of the establishment, wait help, bartenders and musicians as well as a hazard to the customers. Most of these employees are not in an economic bracket that gives them the freedom to just walk away from the only job they have and readily find another job to replace it. Numerous employees and musicians were in favor of this ordinance.
3. Areas where smoking is allowed in our society should be as restricted as possible in order to protect the health and quality of life of nonsmokers.
4. Tobacco is bad for our citizens and is addictive. The tobacco companies, through advertising strategies, have lured folks into becoming addicted.
5. The compromise legislation that was passed previously gave the 200 places where smoking was allowed have an unfair business advantage.
The voters in Austin were asked to decide what they felt was most important for the community they live in and they approved the smoking ordinance. Democracy in action.
The ordinance that was passed included several exemptions, most notable are:
- businesses that had previously obtained a restricted permit.
- businesses are allowed to create a separate smoking and non-smoking areas with separate ventilation systems.
- outdoor areas such as patios.
- fraternal organizations and bingo establishments.
- dwellings, some hotel motel rooms, tobacco stores and some private or semi-private rooms in nursing homes.
The City of Austin's enactment of the smoking ordinance was actually an exercise in democracy. The "very few bars and such" that you refer to included the majority of the live music venues in downtown Austin, around 200 establishments had chosen to allow smoking out of fear that they would loose their smoking customers. Forcing the majority of Austin's citizens to subject themselves to those smoke filled environments if they wanted to participate in the live music events in Austin wasn't fair or reasonable. Enough Austin citizens were dissatisfied with this situation that they passed petitions and collected enough signatures from registered voters in the City of Austin to get this put on the ballot so all of Austin could participate in making this decision. The smoking ordinance ballot was passed by a significant majority of Austin voters.
Most of the issues at the center of the campaign were largely health related.
1. An environment full of second hand smoke is not healthy for either nonsmokers or smokers and is a horribly unpleasant experience for nonsmokers.
2. This creates a workplace hazard for employees of the establishment, wait help, bartenders and musicians as well as a hazard to the customers. Most of these employees are not in an economic bracket that gives them the freedom to just walk away from the only job they have and readily find another job to replace it. Numerous employees and musicians were in favor of this ordinance.
3. Areas where smoking is allowed in our society should be as restricted as possible in order to protect the health and quality of life of nonsmokers.
4. Tobacco is bad for our citizens and is addictive. The tobacco companies, through advertising strategies, have lured folks into becoming addicted.
5. The compromise legislation that was passed previously gave the 200 places where smoking was allowed have an unfair business advantage.
The voters in Austin were asked to decide what they felt was most important for the community they live in and they approved the smoking ordinance. Democracy in action.
The ordinance that was passed included several exemptions, most notable are:
- businesses that had previously obtained a restricted permit.
- businesses are allowed to create a separate smoking and non-smoking areas with separate ventilation systems.
- outdoor areas such as patios.
- fraternal organizations and bingo establishments.
- dwellings, some hotel motel rooms, tobacco stores and some private or semi-private rooms in nursing homes.
I quit smoking 336 days ago, but it's none of my business what someone else does....
People need to stop telling others what they can and cannot do, but that's the liberal way, isn't it!!!!!
And that's my opinion...
And telling a woman she cannot choose to have a baby or not? Or how about trying to force jesus down your throat and involve it with government affairs? And that the constitution has any remote thing to do with god? Why are we always meddling in other countries affairs to brink of wars that are fought?
yea that liberal way of doing things.....
Too bad that liberal way is the reason why your required to wear safety belts, kids wear helmets when playing football, regulating corporations from taking advantage of the consumer, racism and discrimination are not permitted, everyone has the right to vote(note just those "white" men), people do not have to work until they are 75, kids do not have to work in factories, for the most part we don't have poisons in our food and drinking water, I can keep going, but we know those liberal ways are just plain stupid right?
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 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.
/Although with fireworks, you really could just watch them on tv instead.
