actually, if Houston;s proposed ban is anything like Baytown's...you can smoke outside as long as you are 15 feet away from the entrance. I really doubt they will attempt to outlaw smoking outside in the open air.
if you could show me where i said it's the same that would be super. i'm guessing you're looking at the same source that tells you that you have a right to smoke that supersedes the city's ability to say you can't in certain places. thanks in advance.
correct....its actually funny to drive thru manhattan and see the swarms of people standing outside smoking in the pouring rain
Yeah, for now. To Jeff, MadMax, et. al.: My Dad could smoke whenever and wherever he wanted at a time. Then they started restricting... That's right Max, restricting places you could smoke. I have no idea in what order it happened, but one by one, places were designated Smoke-free zones. Schools, Airports, Airplanes, Work, Directly outside office buildings, etc. Now they "just" want to get it out of ALL public places. Hmmmmmm. Well, the whiny few weren't satisfied by the removal from every other place, but I guess NOW they'll be completely satisfied, right? Give me a break! Next, it'll be no smoking unless you are 50 feet away from any establishment. Then it will be no smoking during the day. When does it end exactly? If y'all want to make everyone happy, and an anti-smoker at work suggested this, don't BAN smoking in bars and restaurants. Make bars and restaurants have much better ventilation systems. Hell if the food has to be at a certain temperature (thank you Marvin), Certainly there could be an ordinance passed that made the air a certain quality. Banning smoking altogether is like cutting cheese with a hammer. It'll get the job done, but not well.
Ridiculous. The simple fact is that the number one reason there are not more non smoking establishments is that non smokers are lazy. There's a small contingent of 'public health' nazis that make enough noise to get this crap on 'ballots, and lazy non smokers vote to ban it all so they aren't 'inconvenienced.' If the market doesn't work the main reason is because nonsmokers are too lazy to let restaurant's and bars know they won't be coming in if there is smoking and then not coming in (ie a boycott). You can be damned certain that many of these restaurants, especially the droves that are corporate, would change their policy if they saw their bottom line affected. Instead lazy nonsmokers will wait for it to come up and ban it. The science: yes, smoking can be bad for you. It can also not be bad for you. Many of you seem to think there is a scientific consensus on this issue, but there isn't. Please explain how smoking rates in Western Europe (first hand) are higher, with more potent tobacco, and disease rates are lower than in the US. The worker: First, you don't have to work in a smoking establishment. Second, take my example of my bar - 'Smokers.' Let's say I only HIRE smokers. Please explain why I'm a unique health concern to an employee. Air pollution: I'm assuming that those who justify this ban to decrease pollution we must breathe also support banning cars (that pollution really gets to a lot more people), and barbques (that thick smoke coming from your backyard into mine) and all other manners of intrusive pollution.
I mean the air in a restaurant could have an air quality requirement. Hell, If they have a ventilator at MarquisII, it can't be that expensive.
So what's wrong with the current smoking/non-smoking setup in restaurants? Is every non-smoker extraordinarily sensitive to a whiff of smoke from clear across the restaurant?
Fatty, you're wasting your time. I've posted in quite a few threads about this over the past few years and you'll never convince the non-smoking nazis that (a) the science they cling to is not that good, (b) they could have more non-smoking places if they USED the power the market gives them, or (c) that the since they couldn't get smoking itself banned, they're using ETS as an end-around to ban smoking. For years they tried to get smoking banned in the courts but because of 'our individual rights' (Max) the courts wouldn't do it. It IS a rights issue.
Nope, but they have a 'right' to go into ANY establishment and NOT be inconvienenced by that nasty smoke. You know, when restaurants cut onions it makes my eyes water - its an irritant. I don't think they NEED to use onions. We should ban onions. Or at least onion cutting in restaurants and bars. btw: Jeff, I'm not unsympathetic to your phlegm problem, and as I recall the last time this came up there was someone else who has a severe reaction to smoke, but this is not normal, and as such shouldn't be used as evidence of a 'public health' concern. Neither, may I add, people's outrage at smoking being 'stinky' or making their 'clothes smell all smoky.'
I am pro-life. As in pro-life and a big middle finger to cigarrete smoking. I am pro-life and I feel life after birth is too valuable to allow smokers to abort it at will. Smoking, like abortion, kills in one way or the other. Yeah while I am on it, the death penalty kills too. I am pro-life and I am for the proposition to ban smoking not just in Houston but in the entire America. I am also pro banning divorces (husband and wife variety), and I am damn doing something about all of this. You will hear about me soon.....I guarantee it.
Few? Two-thirds of Americans polled said they would prefer their restaurants and bars to be non-smoking. Who's the whiny few? We're lazy??? That may be the funniest comment you've ever made on this subject. Look, you can believe whatever science you want, but if I walk over to you and start spitting in your face, you have every right to tell me to back the **** up because I could potentially be endangering your health. If I do it to enough people, I get booted out and possibly arrested. That is just on the POSSIBILITY of a health hazard and on the reality that what I'm doing it an inconvenience to those who don't want to be spat upon. But, we could go round and round all day on this (I guess we have) so I'm done. Enjoy your smoking. Just don't blow that **** in my direction.
I hate being in smoke-filled bars. I don't smoke. But I am also enough of a liberal in a sense that I would have to say a total ban in all restaurants and bars takes away too much of people's freedoms. A rule like that would be too much of an intrusion and restriction, in my opinion.
Why don't they just make a schedule....say Friday is smokers' nite and Saturday is non-smoking....separate, but equal
Damn! I was going to suggest that Chance move there. Seems like it might have been a good fit. Oh well, New Caney it is, then.
I explained why but I guess you've got no answer. Is there a solution to the problem? Absolutely. All you vehement non smokers unite and I guarantee you can change restaurant and bar policies without banning smoking. But I know you don't want to be inconvenienced, so just enforce your tastes on the rest of us. Nice side step. I gave a good example of why your supposed 'consensus' is false (ie Western Europe) and you just ignore it and say 'well I know I'm backed by good science.' That's convincing. Spitting in my face is not the same as smoking in the same room. Terrible analogy. Aside from your particularly weak lungs, second hand smoke also has only a POSSIBILITY of being a health hazard. I dare to say most medical authorities would say there is a far greater health hazard as a 'spitters' bar than at a smoking one. Go to the Oxygen bar and stick a tube up your nose.
yeah and it friggin sucks. back when in was in atlanta i lived in dekalb county which passed a smoking ban in public places. i remember waking up one morning going to the first ever waffle house in the country located in avondale estates, georgia because i wanted my usual plate of bacon and coffee. anyway... walked in, sat down, got ready to light it up, and bam... "sorry man you can't smoke here anymore." after remembering the smoking ban, i said nothing and got up and left. just took my business to fulton county (main atlanta county). something's just a tad bit friggin odd about that. coffee and no f'ing cigarette? makes no sense whatsoever. it's like peanut butter and jelly... red beans and rice... saltines and easy cheese. yep it's inevitable... esp if crap like this has already been done in cali and ny. when i visited ny a while back i went out of my way to stand next to the outside door (though not supposed to i think) and blow the smoke indoors after another customer entered. ha! take that. ffb, you're the shizzle.
the "choice" is simply changing... OLD: non-smokers had the choice of either tolerating the stench of smokers or not go to/work at the business establishment NEW: smokers have the choice of either going outside to smoke or not smoking at all. We've had to be tolerant for many, many years. Now it's your turn. What's funny is... You tell me who's whining -- droxford
This is a good example of the problem. Your focus, and the focus of many non-smokers, is the 'stench.' That's not a reasonable rationale to remove the choice from the person who OWNS the business (remember life liberty and property?)! I walk across a cow pasture. 'Man this cow **** stinks! Let's ban beef production because I want to stand on this other person's land and NOT smell cow poop!' You don't have a 'right' to be at that person's (the owner's) business. They allow you to be there.
