Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (Howe, Mart: condo, to buy)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

So should people be able to walk around in public spraying pesticide in people's faces?

only if the business owner allows it you can't tell a man in his own business if he can allow people to spray pesticides in people's faces or not. If the people who are getting sprayed in the face want to they can just go to a pesticide free business. Crazy liberals, going to a pesticide restaurant and then complaining when they get bugged.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

only if the business owner allows it you can't tell a man in his own business if he can allow people to spray pesticides in people's faces or not. If the people who are getting sprayed in the face want to they can just go to a pesticide free business. Crazy liberals, going to a pesticide restaurant and then complaining when they get bugged.

Well, yeah, if there's a sign on the door stating that spraying people with pesticide is allowed, and it is legal to do so, anyone, liberal OR conservative, would be crazy to enter if they didn't want pesticide being sprayed in their general area. And especially crazy to enter and then complain and throw hissy fits when, guess what, there's pesticide being sprayed on the premises.

You're really saying that they're not?

Or are you someone who would go into a business that has XXX and "Naked ladies" and such painted all over the front of the premises, and then be shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you!, that there's sexually oriented merchandise and activities going on inside? Or someone who would go into a bar and be shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you!, that there's alcohol being served?

So, shall we outlaw spraying pesticide or fertilizer, even the natural variety (you do know where THAT comes from,don't you?) on lawns outside because people might walk by or walk on the grass at some point? I can see that one coming, too.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

only if the business owner allows it you can't tell a man in his own business if he can allow people to spray pesticides in people's faces or not. If the people who are getting sprayed in the face want to they can just go to a pesticide free business. Crazy liberals, going to a pesticide restaurant and then complaining when they get bugged.

Sorry, HTlove...that fails the test. Spraying pesticide in someone face would be considered a violent crime. Assault at the least, perhaps even aggravated assault.

Just as would, far as that goes, if one were to enter an establishment and someone deliberately blew smoke in your face. That too would be a crime of assault on some level. It is illegal. Smoking in and of itself, isn't. (at least not yet...but remember Prohibition?).

The example is another hyperbolic, non-sequiteur.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

There's a very huge difference, and you know it, getmeoutofhere. Using hyperbole like that doesn't strengthen your case.

No one, that I know of, sprays pesticide in their own face, nor derives pleasure from being sprayed with or spraying pesticide (beyond the joy in not having bugs).

Might as well compare driving a car, or eating peanut butter (because some people are deathly allergic to peanuts), or wearing perfume (because some people claim to be sensitive to it), or using certain laundry detergents (because some people react badly to them) or eating beans (because, you know, bad for the ozone layer) or a myriad of other similar things to spraying pesticide on people. Which, of course, if the rabid anti-smokers (to distinguish them from nonsmokers, of which I, by the way, as a reminder, am one) get their way, will happen sooner or later.

The difference is the phrase "some people". Smoking and smoke is universally bad. It doesn't just affect a small percentage of the population, like a peanut allergy. Also, comparing secondhand smoke, a known and proven carcinogen, to an allergy to perfume is much worse than comparing secondhand smoke to pesticide. Both of those would kill you, not just annoy you.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

So should people be able to walk around in public spraying pesticide in people's faces?

As earlier stated, this is not about "public places" It is about private property rights.

And far as that goes, private or public, what you describe is classified under the Texas Penal Code as a crime against the person. Assault, as it is.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

The difference is the phrase "some people". Smoking and smoke is universally bad. It doesn't just affect a small percentage of the population, like a peanut allergy. Also, comparing secondhand smoke, a known and proven carcinogen, to an allergy to perfume is much worse than comparing secondhand smoke to pesticide. Both of those would kill you, not just annoy you.

Well, in that case, you shouldn't exist, because your parents and their parents and their parents should have died before producing children. Again, a LOT of people smoke with no ill effects whatsoever, and have pretty much since the discovery of tobacco. It's not universal, even if you'd love to think that (and various agencies would love for you to think that).

I've lived long enough to recognize the cycles that things go through and the "it's bad for you!" warnings out there that turn into "it's good for you!" advisories in a cyclical fashion.

Did you know that as recently as my childhood, physicians were recommending smoking cigarettes (unfiltered, mind) as being good for your health? Scientifically proven! And people were believing them just as unquestioningly and unthinkingly as people believe all the advisories and warnings we hear today. You'd think people would learn, but, no, apparently that's not a wisdom that can be passed down from parent to child, each generation has to learn it for themselves. Pity, that.

Of course, part of it is a strong desire to (a) live forever and (b) think that if you just make everyone else do what you think they should, you WILL live forever.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

The difference is the phrase "some people". Smoking and smoke is universally bad. It doesn't just affect a small percentage of the population, like a peanut allergy. Also, comparing secondhand smoke, a known and proven carcinogen, to an allergy to perfume is much worse than comparing secondhand smoke to pesticide. Both of those would kill you, not just annoy you.

Then to go back to square one? Why would you choose to patronize a place you knew ahead of time allowed smoking? What "rights" do you have which supercede those of the owner of the private property?

Hey, I totally agree with you about smoking. That is why I quit some years back. But if I don't want to be around it? Then I am always free to not go somewhere it is allowed.

Also, another point being made is that your distinction between the dangers of cigarettes and perfume definitely sound reasonable. I agree. However, there are zealots and lawsuit-happy people out there (whom THL has described dealing with in her profession) who will NOT make that distinction. Or else don't give a damn...seeing it as a cash-cow.

In other words, if one special-interest group (and that is polite terminology) will use the heavy-hand of government to intrude on private property rights in the name of "public health" as concerns smoking? Then there is absolutely no logical reason that another group will not use the same to ban perfume in privately owned businesses. And the precedent is there for it to be implemented.

Ridiculous? Of course it is. But that is the nature of this nanny-state beast....

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Well, in that case, you shouldn't exist, because your parents and their parents and their parents should have died before producing children. Again, a LOT of people smoke with no ill effects whatsoever, and have pretty much since the discovery of tobacco. It's not universal, even if you'd love to think that (and various agencies would love for you to think that).

I've lived long enough to recognize the cycles that things go through and the "it's bad for you!" warnings out there that turn into "it's good for you!" advisories in a cyclical fashion.

Did you know that as recently as my childhood, physicians were recommending smoking cigarettes (unfiltered, mind) as being good for your health? Scientifically proven! And people were believing them just as unquestioningly and unthinkingly as people believe all the advisories and warnings we hear today. You'd think people would learn, but, no, apparently that's not a wisdom that can be passed down from parent to child, each generation has to learn it for themselves. Pity, that.

Of course, part of it is a strong desire to (a) live forever and (b) think that if you just make everyone else do what you think they should, you WILL live forever.

Are you really trying to suggest that at some point they will go "Oops, we were wrong. Smoke all you want"?

That's insane.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Sorry, HTlove...that fails the test. Spraying pesticide in someone face would be considered a violent crime. Assault at the least, perhaps even aggravated assault.

Just as would, far as that goes, if one were to enter an establishment and someone deliberately blew smoke in your face. That too would be a crime of assault on some level. It is illegal. Smoking in and of itself, isn't. (at least not yet...but remember Prohibition?).

The example is another hyperbolic, non-sequiteur.

I am not saying smoking is illegal.

and see, you agree with me. they are assaulting people with their nasty smoke. I knew you would see the light

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Well, yeah, if there's a sign on the door stating that spraying people with pesticide is allowed, and it is legal to do so, anyone, liberal OR conservative, would be crazy to enter if they didn't want pesticide being sprayed in their general area. And especially crazy to enter and then complain and throw hissy fits when, guess what, there's pesticide being sprayed on the premises.

You're really saying that they're not?

Or are you someone who would go into a business that has XXX and "Naked ladies" and such painted all over the front of the premises, and then be shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you!, that there's sexually oriented merchandise and activities going on inside? Or someone who would go into a bar and be shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you!, that there's alcohol being served?

So, shall we outlaw spraying pesticide or fertilizer, even the natural variety (you do know where THAT comes from,don't you?) on lawns outside because people might walk by or walk on the grass at some point? I can see that one coming, too.

no offense, but I think you should stay away from those horses. Repeated concussions from falling off throws off logic