Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (buy, restaurants)

[TexasHorseLady]

No, I'm not suggesting that. I am suggesting that a blanket "smoking is bad for everybody and so everybody MUST be protected from themselves" approach is equally insane.

They've recently discovered that there's a genetic component that explains why 80% of smokers don't get lung cancer and 20% do. This is important not because it says "go ahead and smoke all you want" but because that discovery could be a significant step towards coming up with a cure. As far as I know, nobody has as yet done testing (or completed and announced it, anyway) for something similar for the other illnesses that are "caused" by smoking, which might just as easily turnout to be explained by genetic factors, as well. Or not - the point is that we claim that we know so much about how these things work, just like the folks in my childhood did, when in fact we STILL don't know diddly, and that's a pretty important thing to keep in mind when making absolute pronouncements like you seem to be fond of doing.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

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....

I understand the distinction you are trying to make with respect to bar owners, etc., being allowed to decide for themselves.

But we (the people, the government) already regulate when it comes to public health, and this is squarely a public health issue. I'm all for people being allowed to do whatever they want to themselves in the privacy of their own home, but that ends when it puts other people's health at risk.

I don't care if someone wants to smoke 20 packs a day in the privacy of their own home, while drinking Everclear and dropping acid. But that doesn't mean I want him to go out in public after he does it.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

I don't care if someone wants to smoke 20 packs a day in the privacy of their own home, while drinking Everclear and dropping acid. But that doesn't mean I want him to go out in public after he does it.

and that is the power right there.

Humans are flawed idiots. yes we should have our rights, but not Carte Blanche rights. we are a danger to ourselves and others and it is irresponsible for the government to leave us to our own devices because we will carelessly harm someone eventually

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

I understand the distinction you are trying to make with respect to bar owners, etc., being allowed to decide for themselves.

But we (the people, the government) already regulate when it comes to public health, and this is squarely a public health issue. I'm all for people being allowed to do whatever they want to themselves in the privacy of their own home, but that ends when it puts other people's health at risk.

I don't care if someone wants to smoke 20 packs a day in the privacy of their own home, while drinking Everclear and dropping acid. But that doesn't mean I want him to go out in public after he does it.

Not all that long ago, people just exactly like you were saying that they didn't care if smokers smoked outdoors in public, as long as they didn't smoke in public buildings. That's one of the arguments they used, in these and other forums and in the legislature, to get smoking banned in public buildings. I didn't buy it then (nor did a lot of other people), and I've been proven right. Once it was banned in public buildings (and this was predicted, not just by me), the attempt would be to ban it outdoors - it actually started with, "You can't smoke in public buildings" and then "you can't smoke with 15 or 20 feet of the entrance of public buildings" and now it's "you can't smoke outdoors". Next will be you can't smoke in the privacy of your own home (and if your home is a condo or apartment, that is already under attack). Do you really think that people are so naive as to buy the statement above as fact, given the evidence?

Again, it's been made ultimately clear, for anyone with an eye to see, that it's not about public health. It's about control.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

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

Good try...but no cigar (pun intended! ).

If someone goes into a place where they know ahead of time smoking is allowed? Then they take the responsibility for their own bad decisions as concerns their personal health. There is no "assault" involved.

Actually, as a relevant aside here, matter of fact, according to the Texas Penal Code, it is an affirmative defense to being charged with assault if the victim "consented" to the degree of force used aforehand.

That is to say, it is one thing to have somebody blow smoke in your face in a provocative manner; that is considered criminal assault (and should be!). On the other hand? If you go into a place where, you knew ahead of time smoking was allowed? Then you "consented" to it aforehand. You cannot claim you were assaulted simply because you breathed the second hand smoke from another patron simply smoking the cigarette.

Bottom line? Go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. Get away from those nasty smokers (and I agree many are), fer gosh sakes!

[Annie53]

2009 Sept. 7: NY Elmira: Wood smoke illegal, fire marshall says: email comments | woodsmokenuisance

..........and then they came for me.

No More Campfires For You!

..........and it all started with smoking bans.

Ban this, ban that......I sure have come to HATE that word.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

I understand the distinction you are trying to make with respect to bar owners, etc., being allowed to decide for themselves.

But we (the people, the government) already regulate when it comes to public health, and this is squarely a public health issue. I'm all for people being allowed to do whatever they want to themselves in the privacy of their own home, but that ends when it puts other people's health at risk.

I don't care if someone wants to smoke 20 packs a day in the privacy of their own home, while drinking Everclear and dropping acid. But that doesn't mean I want him to go out in public after he does it.

I am not really "trying to make" that distinction...so much that I would expect any people who appreciate classical notions of freedom would embrace, themselves. Unfortunately, it appears many don't. They think "it is all about me" and "my rights"...even if they cannot articulate those so-called rights and where they come from...if they do at all (and most don't).

Yes, you are correct that "government" already regulates "health." But as I said earlier, those who do not see -- or respect/appreciate -- the distinction between "public safety" and "public health" are inviting the disasters which will inevitably follow.

Whoever it was who wrote the classic lines "If the law says this, then the law is an ass.." hit the nail on the head when it comes to this type of intrusion...

Anyway, finally, you still seem to be refusing to accept (or, ok, maybe you truly see it this way), the distinction between public and private and the examples you provide. I fully agree with that there is a legitimate reason to ban smoking in public buildings and such. But the operative word is "public>"

On the other hand, a privately owned business is just that. The public (in the sense of any one individual) has the choice NOT to enter it. I don't know how much plainer it can be expressed.

If I own a place...or hell, YOU own a place? Or we are business (lord forbid, LOL) business partners. Shouldn't the right or not of smoking being my/your/our decision to make?

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Annie53

2009 Sept. 7: NY Elmira: Wood smoke illegal, fire marshall says: email comments | woodsmokenuisance

..........and then they came for me.

No More Campfires For You!

..........and it all started with smoking bans.

Ban this, ban that......I sure have come to HATE that word.

Ah, yes. Love that poem (and try to live by it, which clearly quite a few people don't - they prefer to be on the side doing the coming for, it appears, not realizing what that really means for them ultimately):

They came for the Communists, and I didn't object -
For I wasn't a Communist;

They came for the Socialists, and Ididn't object -
For I wasn't a Socialist;

They came for the labor leaders, and Ididn't object -
For I wasn't a labor leader;

They came for the Jews, and I didn'tobject -
For I wasn't a Jew;

Then they came for me -
And there was no one left to object.

Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor,

1892-1984

*****

Something to think about when rushing to legislate the rights of others out of existence, or watching someone do so, isn't it?

[buzzpost]

I'm a smoker and I totally respect non smokers rights. I would NEVER subject someone who doesn't smoke to my infernal habit. I won't smoke with a non-smoker even in my own car and refrain from smoking in restaurants even if it is allowed.

I do think it is rude of smokers that subject others to cigarette smoke. Having said that, I do believe it is my right to decide if I want to smoke or not. But imposing my second hand smoke on a non-smoker is something I will never do.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Actually, as a relevant aside here, matter of fact, according to the Texas Penal Code, it is an affirmative defense to being charged with assault if the victim "consented" to the degree of force used aforehand.

That is to say, it is one thing to have somebody blow smoke in your face in a provocative manner; that is considered criminal assault (and should be!). On the other hand? If you go into a place where, you knew ahead of time smoking was allowed? Then you "consented" to it aforehand. You cannot claim you were assaulted simply because you breathed the second hand smoke from another patron simply smoking the cigarette.

Bottom line? Go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. Get away from those nasty smokers (and I agree many are), fer gosh sakes!

actually, you are half right my friend.
Assault is the apprehension of dangerous or offensive contact.
It is an affirmative defense only if the contact was offensive because surely you were not offended if you consented. But if the contact was harmful, rather than merely offensive then consent is no defense.

soooo (sorry to steal your pun), but close but no cigar

using consent will not work in the smoking example because not only is smoking offensive, it is harmful.