State-wide smoking ban (HB 670/SB 355) (Dallas, Abilene: allergy, to eat, activities)

[lifertexan]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Yes, contact your legislators about any pending legislation that you think contradicts what Texas (and the United States, for that matter) stands for.

Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. They expected the populace of this country to respect the freedoms of others and to take personal responsibility for their own problems, not expect the government to nanny them so they wouldn't ever have to grow up (or, apparently, ever have to die).

The only problem with your stance comes when my loved one has to be taken to the ER for treatment because some inconsiderate person lit up beside her.Watch my wife wheeze and try to breathe from an allergic reaction because someone else can't control their own addictions and get back to me on the concept of personal responsibility

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

well the podunk country folk were obviously the ones left out because they are the ones that still have not had bans passed. all the major cities in Texas have this law in place already

and the second part of the post is pure silliness. if 70 percent is in favor of the smoking ban what is to stop the less than 20 percent of the Texans who do smoke from killing us with their nasty habit?

First, 70 percent and 20 percent come to 90 percent, according to the math I was taught in elementary school. Also, people can be for the ban and smoke, and not for the ban and not smoke.

Second, you'd be surprised what "podunk" people live out in the country, your obvious prejudice notwithstanding. Some of them could give you lectures on Constitutional law in the classroom or the courtroom if you were qualified to be there. Among other things. Where someone chooses to live, country or city, has little to do with intelligence, level of education, or plain old wisdom, come to that. That you find yourself reduced to such canards shows that you've reached the point of not having a substantive argument to produce so you're reaching for the argument ad hominem in hopes that someone, somewhere, won't recognize it for what it is.

Third, your response is no response at all to the point made - it's a clear (and thus sloppy) attempt at a red herring. If 70% of Texans truly object to smoking in bars, then the bars would not allow smoking because it would be a financial disaster for them - they'd be throwing 70% of their potential income out the window. And legislation such as you so dearly desire would not be necessary. Since you apparently think it is necessary, it's clear that you don't like the results of the natural poll of the market place which tells you something you don't want to hear, and want to override the clearly-expressed wishes of the majority of Texans demonstrated by where they do and don't spend their money with legislation that requires what you want them to do.

[bluescreen73]

The real culprits behind all the "nanny government" laws are loving the infighting, it takes all the focus off them.

Who are they? Insurance companies. Smoking, obesity, driving without seatbelts, distracted driving, and excessive drinking cost insurance companies untold amounts of money. They are the ones who push much of the legislation banning things "for the public interest."

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

I will DM you my credentials sweetheart.

I got them and replied. But the credentials you present are no valid than mine are in terms of being a constitutional law expert. The difference is, I didn't call into question yours. I am not going to violate a DM trust by getting into specifics, but I think it obvious that we are at a stalemate in that regard (and again, I didn't bring up to begin with)

Edit: Sent. After reading it I would advise you to go read the bill. Then explain it to Horselady. It will save the people whop actually have read the bill and know about this stuff a lot of time. The two of you are arguing things that won't past muster in the legal world

I said earlier I agree I need to go and actually read the bill. However, in another sense, it is really not necessary. I can pretty much glean ahead of time what it entails. And Derek confirmed it.

You must have a very high opinion of yourself to say that the case opposite yours will not pass muster in the legal world. What legal world are you talking about? SCOTUS? The 5th or 9th Circuit Court? The legislature?

You are building mighty castles in the air, it seems....

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by lifertexan

The only problem with your stance comes when my loved one has to be taken to the ER for treatment because some inconsiderate person lit up beside her.Watch my wife wheeze and try to breathe from an allergic reaction because someone else can't control their own addictions and get back to me on the concept of personal responsibility

I am sure I speak for others in expressing sympathy for your wife's health condition.

With that said, have you noticed that no one here argues against public hospitals being smoke free? I have no problem with that at all. Nor in a courthouse, library, etc.

I am not trying to be cruel, but at the same time, I am not going to let this personal argument go unanswered, either. So yes, I WILL get back to you on the point of personal responsibility.

Do you take your wife into places where it is clearly stated/understood that smoking is allowed? If so, then the blame rests upon you, not anyone else.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

You all like to keep throwing that out, but there is a gigantic and glaring difference - the fat guy sucking down fried chicken may be disgusting, but he is not actively damaging my health.

Why do you go into places where your health might be damaged?

I understand that Glenn Beck likes to stir you people into frenzies with his scare tactics, but that comparison simply doesn't work. This isn't them banning something because it's harmful to the person doing it. It's because it's harmful to the people around that person.

See above.

But you keep asking where the line is...well, the same question back at you. Smoking is a danger to public health. There is no "right to smoke". The government has a right to enact laws that make public places and restaurants free of danger to the health of the public.

See many of the above posts.

This is just an arbitrary line you've drawn in the sand because you want to take a stand against the government.

Yep, you figured it out. My real agenda is SECESSION! YEEEEHAWWWW!

The entire basis for your argument is that, as private property, the business owner should be able to do what they please and expect people to deal with it. But it is not private property, it is a highly regulated business. They do not have the right to do whatever they want.

See many of the above posts.

[TexasHorseLady]

I carry an epipen with me everywhere. In part because I want to live, and also because I take personal responsibility for my own condition.

I therefore have empathy with people who have true allergies, rather than the social/bandwagon/control others kind that are all too prevalent these days (the reactions are not fun and in some cases terrifying and potentially life-threatening, and the ambulance can cost a pretty penny, too, even if they don't have to take you anywhere). However, the world does not revolve around those of us with life-threatening allergies, nor should it.

[lifertexan]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

I carry an epipen with me everywhere. In part because I want to live, and also because I take personal responsibility for my own condition.

I therefore have empathy with people who have true allergies, rather than the social/bandwagon/control others kind that are all too prevalent these days (the reactions are not fun and in some cases terrifying and potentially life-threatening, and the ambulance can cost a pretty penny, too, even if they don't have to take you anywhere). However, the world does not revolve around those of us with life-threatening allergies, nor should it.

The world does not revolve around smokers and their inability to control their addictions either,dear.And yes,my wife now carries an epipen.Sad that she has to resort to carrying a life saving device to deal with the discourtesies of smokers who can only rant about THEIR rights to pollute everyones air without regard to the folks next to them.

[TexasHorseLady]

She doesn't have to carry it for that reason - she has to carry it because she has a condition that is specific to her (I know, I have one myself and I don't expect anyone else to take responsibility for it because I'm a grown woman.)

There are many, many, many, MANY restaurants and quite a few bars that do not allow smoking, even without a ban, because there is a market for it. She's perfectly free to patronize those. A prohibition on smoking in truly public buildings like post offices, other government buildings, hospitals, buildings that people MUST go into at some point or another, is fine. Such a control on how a private individual chooses to run their privately owned business is not, because someone with such a condition can make the choice not to patronize such a business.

Why is that so very, very, very, VERY hard for some to get? The business owner has a choice to allow smoking, or not, in their privately owned business. The customer has a choice to patronize said business or not. In that scenario, everyone has a choice. In the one you prefer, nobody has a choice, really - or, rather, everyone is forced to make YOUR choice. Which, the more the discussion goes on, would seem to be the real point, rather than smoking or not.

[lifertexan]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I am sure I speak for others in expressing sympathy for your wife's health condition.



I am not trying to be cruel, but at the same time, I am not going to let this personal argument go unanswered, either. So yes, I WILL get back to you on the point of personal responsibility.

Do you take your wife into places where it is clearly stated/understood that smoking is allowed? If so, then the blame rests upon you, not anyone else.

Nowadays I do not if I know the policy of the place.Which limits some of our activities.Occasionaly we got caught,such as the time we went into a restaurant in a small town while on the road w/o realizing that it didn't have a non smoking policy.While waiting for our meal already ordered another couple came in,sat at the table next to us,and lit up.Our choices then became get up and leave,or deal with it and use the epipen.She chose to use the epipen even though I was for leaving,as there was not another place to eat for a while and everyone was starving.So yes,PLEASE get back to me on the personal responsibility shown by the smokers.The people who lack it are the ones unable to keep from ruining others air because they have an addiction they cannot or will not control.So don't try to convince me that they are exhibiting any responsibility at all for dealing with others personal space and possible medical conditions.

To be quite honest,I don't care about the rights of smokers anymore.I lost that when I was sitting in a restaurant next to an elderly couple with my wife and 2 small kids.The woman lit up,sending smoke straight at us.When I mentioned it to the lady that she was smoking out my kids,her response was "the law says I can smoke sweetie.If you don't like it,change the laws".Well then,lookie here now.I wish I had her name so I could ask her how she liked it now,as the town I lived in then passed a strong smoking ban last year.

Some smokers are polite.My dad was one,and he never smoked in a house with others present,not even his own.Never in a car with others.When outside he would make sure he was downwind from others.But many smokers are inconsiderate a-holes with the same attitude as the elderly lady above,and their attitudes have ruined it for other smokers.The people smokers should be mad at are the inconsiderate fools with the arrogant attitudes that led non smokers to react to their arrogance and insensitivity with these laws.I for one have zero sympathy for their plight in finding legal places to light up.They should have thought of this when they were being inconsiderate jerks over the past 5 decades.As they say,payback is a b*tch.