Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (Austin: bars, ordinance)

[TexasHorseLady]

Austin, Texas, had a really great compromise, briefly. They had a ban on smoking in public places, including bars, etc. HOWEVER, if a bar owner felt that it would be in the best interests of his bottom line, he could apply for a smoking-allowed license, pay a heft fee (of course), and follow certain regulations, one of which was to post in big bold letters on the door of his establishment that it was a smoking-allowed establishment so that anyone who did not wish to be exposed to cigarette smoke could choose to patronize one of the myriad of other establishments in that fair city that were non-smoking.

Sounds great, right? Everyone's rights are respected, the business owner gets to decide what works best for their particular business, no one has to be exposed to cigarette smoke if they don't wish to be, they can vote with their dollar, and smokers who would like to have a cigarette while out drinking and listening to music can do so. The American way!

But, no. Nonsmokers simply absolutely could not STAND that someone might be allowed to smoke somewhere, even if they weren't going to be exposed to it, and threw such a hissy fit for so long that the ordinance was changed.

At that point, nonsmokers (and I don't smoke - tried it 40 years ago and it doesn't agree with me) who say that it's only because THEY don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke blew their cover and lost ALL credibility with me. It's clearly really about controlling what other people do because you can't bear that someone might make a different life choice than you. And that flies in the face of everything that this country, and Texas, were founded on.

As Benjamin Franklin said, (yes, folks, I'm pulling it out again, because it is SO applicable to this situation): "hose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And those of you who want to take away the rights of smokers? When someone comes along who disapproves of something YOU do because THEY wouldn't make the same choice, and takes away your rights, remember that you have already set the precedent that that's a hunky dory thing to do. No whining, then - you've given up the right!

[CptnRn]

I used to smoke years ago. But I'm all in favor or banning it from all public spaces and businesses that are open to the public. Smoking is a disgusting habit and smokers have no right to subject others to their second hand smoke, not to mention the stink of it.

It is amazing how smokers don't realize how much they stink. I went to a funeral a few months ago. A couple of smokers walked down the aisle and we could smell the the smoke as they walked by even though we were 10' away. Disgusting, I pitied the poor people they sent near when they picked a pew.

[PanTerra]

There is no right not to be inconvenienced. Just like there is no right not to be offended.

[Lindsey_Mcfarren]

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...

[Lindsey_Mcfarren]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Austin, Texas, had a really great compromise, briefly. They had a ban on smoking in public places, including bars, etc. HOWEVER, if a bar owner felt that it would be in the best interests of his bottom line, he could apply for a smoking-allowed license, pay a heft fee (of course), and follow certain regulations, one of which was to post in big bold letters on the door of his establishment that it was a smoking-allowed establishment so that anyone who did not wish to be exposed to cigarette smoke could choose to patronize one of the myriad of other establishments in that fair city that were non-smoking.

Sounds great, right? Everyone's rights are respected, the business owner gets to decide what works best for their particular business, no one has to be exposed to cigarette smoke if they don't wish to be, they can vote with their dollar, and smokers who would like to have a cigarette while out drinking and listening to music can do so. The American way!

But, no. Nonsmokers simply absolutely could not STAND that someone might be allowed to smoke somewhere, even if they weren't going to be exposed to it, and threw such a hissy fit for so long that the ordinance was changed.

At that point, nonsmokers (and I don't smoke - tried it 40 years ago and it doesn't agree with me) who say that it's only because THEY don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke blew their cover and lost ALL credibility with me. It's clearly really about controlling what other people do because you can't bear that someone might make a different life choice than you. And that flies in the face of everything that this country, and Texas, were founded on.

As Benjamin Franklin said, (yes, folks, I'm pulling it out again, because it is SO applicable to this situation): "hose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And those of you who want to take away the rights of smokers? When someone comes along who disapproves of something YOU do because THEY wouldn't make the same choice, and takes away your rights, remember that you have already set the precedent that that's a hunky dory thing to do. No whining, then - you've given up the right!

You really are as clueless as I remembered...

[ClarenceBodiker]

Originally Posted by PanTerra

There is no right not to be inconvenienced. Just like there is no right not to be offended.

I'd like to think that constantly being exposed to deadly carcinogens goes a little beyond being "inconvenienced," my friend.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by ClarenceBodiker

I'd like to think that constantly being exposed to deadly carcinogens goes a little beyond being "inconvenienced," my friend.

The inconvenience would be having to go to a different restaurant that is nonsmoking. Then there is all the carcinogens you breathe up and down Central Expressway. Perfumes are full of VOCs that are not good for you. Have you read an MSDS these substances? The problem might just be that it is a legal substance, as much as I detest it. Just need to go and make it an illegal substance instead of all this pussyfootin' around.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

You really are as clueless as I remembered...

What is she clueless about? As it is, she pretty much articluted the way these things go. The latent zealouts start out as reasonble in their presenation and emotional appeal to something like "the children" or some such...but eventually end up showing their true colors. Which is controlling others because -- it almost seems to be part of their makeup -- they truly believe they know what is best for others.

Believe me, THL and I have a history (on certain topics) of pounding the table type disagrements. But I totally agree with her on this one.

[Lindsey_Mcfarren]

Originally Posted by ClarenceBodiker

I'd like to think that constantly being exposed to deadly carcinogens goes a little beyond being "inconvenienced," my friend.

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...

[TexasHorseLady]

And your problem with having smoking venues for smokers THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ENTER AND IT SAYS RIGHT ON THE DOOR THAT SMOKING IS GOING ON is a problem to you how, exactly, Lindsey? Is it that other people smoking not in your presence in a building that you will never enter somehow causes your illness? Can you explain the medical science behind that? I'd find it fascinating.