Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (Houston, Vega: house, find a job)

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by borat4eva

I guess smokers dont respect non smokers rights. Im not against people smoking at home or in their cars where they dont bother other people. Otherwise why not allow sex in public or take drugs?

It has nothing to do with respecting another's rights in this realm, and can't be framed that way. It could just as easily be said those in favor of banning smoking in restaurants and bars (or other privately owned establishments) don't respect private property rights.

I too quit smoking quite a few years ago, and don't like to breath another persons smoke. And even while I was a smoker, I never was into all that "smokers rights" stuff; I agree totally that many smokers can be very annoying and rude when it comes to their habit.

Further, I have no problem (if that is what the community wants) to prohibit/limit smoking in public buildings such as court houses, government offices, etc. Places where it is often necessary for everyone to go to conduct legal/lawful business.

BUT...to pass a law/ordinance which, essentially, tells a business owner how s/he must run their own establishements are out of line. Simply because they are NOT public places. They are places open to the public, but no one is required to patronize them. The decision should be up to the owner, not the government. If they want to ban smoking all together, fine. If they want to restrict it to certain areas, great. If they allow customers to smoke freely, then that should be their option as well.

In a nut-shell, if (one) doesn't want to be around smokers? Then the solution is easy. Simply don't give your business to a place that permits it! Go somewhere else to eat or drink or bowl or whatever.

The sex and drug examples are non-sequiters for the above reasons (for one thing, drugs are illegal, anyway). That is, a privately owned business is NOT a "public place" in the sense one may not always have a choice to enter it.

TXTwister (and some others) are right. This isn't California.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by eepstein

I think Texas is one of the few remaining states without this basic law passed in California back in 1996 and Utah in 1994. It's a shock because we all know how concerned Texas is with the overall health of it's residents!

Why should "The State of Texas" be "concerned" with "the health of its citizens"? In the sense of passing law restricting private property rights for "our own good"?

There is a big difference in public safety and public health. In the former instance, yes, government has a legitimate role. That is, protection against certain hazards the average citizen cannot be expected to discern for themselves (such as tainted meat, fire hazards, etc). But health is (or should be, at least) an individuall concern, not the business of government.

[FiddleDeeD]

I am all for banning in public, not private places. I would love to be able to walk down the city streets and not have to breathe in the smoke of everyone on the streets.

Smoke in your house if you want. If you own a bar and want it to be smoking inside, by all means do so. Get it away from the fresh air, walkways, fronts of buildings, etc.

[TXNGL]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

It has nothing to do with respecting another's rights in this realm, and can't be framed that way. It could just as easily be said those in favor of banning smoking in restaurants and bars (or other privately owned establishments) don't respect private property rights.

I too quit smoking quite a few years ago, and don't like to breath another persons smoke. And even while I was a smoker, I never was into all that "smokers rights" stuff; I agree totally that many smokers can be very annoying and rude when it comes to their habit.

Further, I have no problem (if that is what the community wants) to prohibit/limit smoking in public buildings such as court houses, government offices, etc. Places where it is often necessary for everyone to go to conduct legal/lawful business.

BUT...to pass a law/ordinance which, essentially, tells a business owner how s/he must run their own establishements are out of line. Simply because they are NOT public places. They are places open to the public, but no one is required to patronize them. The decision should be up to the owner, not the government. If they want to ban smoking all together, fine. If they want to restrict it to certain areas, great. If they allow customers to smoke freely, then that should be their option as well.

In a nut-shell, if (one) doesn't want to be around smokers? Then the solution is easy. Simply don't give your business to a place that permits it! Go somewhere else to eat or drink or bowl or whatever.

The sex and drug examples are non-sequiters for the above reasons (for one thing, drugs are illegal, anyway). That is, a privately owned business is NOT a "public place" in the sense one may not always have a choice to enter it.

TXTwister (and some others) are right. This isn't California.

I agree. But I'm a total hypocrite because I'm really loving the Dallas no smoking laws. LOL.

[getmeoutofhere]

The difference is that smoking affects not only the people doing, but people around. While someone may have the right to hurt themselves, they don't have the right to hurt other people.

Just because something is private property doesn't give the owner carte blanche. If it's a business for the public, then that gives government some right over what takes place in there.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Houston3

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...

It is not that simple.

Originally Posted by TXTwizter

What someone does in their own home or their business is just that, THEIR BUSINESS. If you don't like a place that allows smoking, it's simple....DON'T GO THERE.
I am sick of this nanny state mentality. This ISN'T California!

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?

Originally Posted by justme02

I detest ciggarette smoke and I hate being around it. I dont care if someone else wants to fill there lungs with tar, but I do like being able to go places and not be around it.

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.

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

The difference is that smoking affects not only the people doing, but people around. While someone may have the right to hurt themselves, they don't have the right to hurt other people.

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.

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Just because something is private property doesn't give the owner carte blanche. If it's a business for the public, then that gives government some right over what takes place in there.

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

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

BUT...to pass a law/ordinance which, essentially, tells a business owner how s/he must run their own establishements are out of line. Simply because they are NOT public places. They are places open to the public, but no one is required to patronize them. The decision should be up to the owner, not the government. If they want to ban smoking all together, fine. If they want to restrict it to certain areas, great. If they allow customers to smoke freely, then that should be their option as well.

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

[the old man]

they just enacted no smoking in all public places up here in S.D. the first 3 weeks cost the state $2.3 million just in tax revenue. many bars have laid off employees due to lost business adding to the unemployement problems, many businesses bottom line is down 30-35%-- The state of SD is just a drop in the water when it comes to population compared to the lone star state-- you better be carful for what you ask for for it might come back and bite you in the arse just like it has up here the ugliness of this no-smoking anywhere is just beginning to show its ugly face

[plwhit]

Turn Texas into a bigger California nanny state? no way.

I love it when I see do gooder statements like this:

Exposure to secondhand smoke kills 53,000 non-smoking Americans annually

Reminds me just how much BS these agenda groups can stretch anything to fit their needs.

Little by little our freedom of choice is being taken away.

America, Land of the imprisoned and Home of the wimps

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by the old man

they just enacted no smoking in all public places up here in S.D. the first 3 weeks cost the state $2.3 million just in tax revenue. many bars have laid off employees due to lost business adding to the unemployement problems, many businesses bottom line is down 30-35%-- The state of SD is just a drop in the water when it comes to population compared to the lone star state-- you better be carful for what you ask for for it might come back and bite you in the arse just like it has up here the ugliness of this no-smoking anywhere is just beginning to show its ugly face

Houston, San Antonio Dallas and Austin has had bans for years now. That accounts for 75% percent of the population already.

No one smokes like British people, and when the ban went into effect in the UK people were saying how the bars were gonna lose money. Guess what, the people who normally frequented the smoke filled bars still kept going, but the people who avoided them because of the smoke started going too, and guess what, the bars gained people instead of losing. The people would drink and just step outside to smoke.