Is it true that you wont be able to SMOKE in any Houston's restaurant except bars starting Sept. 1st? I heard it from someone but can someone confirm this?
Wow.. I dont smoke, but is this really fair?? They already have thier own section what's the big deal?? They did this in College Station a few years ago, but raised "last call" around the same time they killed all the smoking in the restaurants
I'm afraid of the no farting ordinance that goes in effect Sept 2. Rock & Roll! F the no smoking in ALL bars.
Title seems to be a bit misleading. Are you talking about the steakhouse named "Houston's", or are you talking about all restaurants in Houston in general? I have heard nothing about this and i'm sure it would be publicized more if it were the case.
When I was in Orlando, the first restaurant we went to, we asked for the non-smoking section, not knowing they had banned smoking in restaurants...They looked at us strangely and said, "you're not from around here, are you?' I think there should be a designated "smoking state". Ban smoking in every public place in every state, except the smoking state. In the smoking state, smoking would be legal in every single private and public place. Restaurants, bars, public and private schools, airports, hospitals, government buildings...EVERYWHERE! It would be tough at first, but eventually all the non smokers would move. Then, as more and more smokers moved into the smoking state, the government could jack up the price of cigarettes to $10 a pack, then use all that extra revenue to balance the national budget. There, I just solved our country's economic crisis...
The day that a no-smoking ordinance is passed is the day I decide to piss off every non-smoker I ever see where I can smoke. Bad move... Smokers have given up too much, too long. Prepare, non-ers. EDIT: I'm fully aware that I'm not politically correct on this. You want Fatty as a politician??? Keep this up.
umm, whats the big deal?? no-smoking laws exist in NYC, LA, and Austin now... hey smokers, we are tired of going to bars and coming home and smelling like a f-n chimney... respectfully yours in good health, the nons
I'm still pushing for the day when smokers can be shot on sight. In the meantime, I'm stocking up on ammo.
You guys don't remember this??? The city banned smoking at indoor restaurants back in March. It takes effect on September 9. It is for ALL restaurants in the city of Houston. http://www.click2houston.com/news/4267207/detail.html
It's not just NYC, LA and Austin. It's also the state of CA, the state of RI (where I am) and several others. It's also the law in Ireland (and I think Italy too). Eventually, it will be the law all over the US. It'll take a while to pass in NC, VA, KY, etc. but it will pass eventually. Here's my take, as a smoker. I don't think non-smokers should ever have to be exposed to smoke indoors. I think it's fine to ban smoking in every existing bar and restaurant as long as you then allow one or two or ten bars to open that allow smoking. At those bars, never book live entertainment so the non's never miss out on anything. Just open a few places where someone can have a beer and a cigarette at the same time, particularly in times of inclement weather. I spend a lot of time in bars. In Providence, with the recent ban, I only go to bars with outside patios that allow smoking. Come winter, I'll stay home.
Virtually anything is okay in moderation. Considering that the lungs of a moderate smoker CAN regenerate itself, I can't seeing occasional exposure to 2nd hand smoke in healthy adults as a contributory factor to lung cancer. I absolutely see it as an infraction on civil liberties. If somebody can prove to me otherwise I'll concede. I've heard of children of smokers having problems. But I've never heard of somebody getting lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke when they did not live in the same household as a smoker. As it stands now, IMO there are plenty of options for non-smokers to get away from the smokers...if they so choose. I'm a non-smoker.
i am an ex-smoker, from my early teenage years until i wised up at the age of 21... my father smokes, his father died of lung cancer.. my dad had to quit because his arteries in his legs are 85 percent clogged. for me, my eyes have burned around secondhand smoke my whole life... http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/10_18.htm Secondhand smoke exposure is a known risk factor for lung cancer (1, 3, 4, 6, 7). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). Secondhand smoke is also linked to nasal sinus cancer (1, 4). Some research suggests an association between secondhand smoke and cancers of the cervix, breast, and bladder. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link to these cancers (3, 4, 8). Secondhand smoke is also associated with the following noncancerous conditions: * chronic coughing, phlegm, and wheezing (4, 6, 7) * chest discomfort (4) * lowered lung function (4, 6, 7) * severe lower respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis or pneumonia, in children (4, 6, 7) * more severe asthma and increased chance of developing asthma in children (6) * eye and nose irritation (4) * severe and chronic heart disease (4) * middle ear infections in children (4, 6) * sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (4) * low birth weight or small size at birth for babies of women exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy (4) Certain other noncancerous health conditions may also be associated with secondhand smoke. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link between these conditions and secondhand smoke. These conditions include: * spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) (4) * adverse effect on cognition and behavior in children (4) * worsening of cystic fibrosis (a disease that causes excessive mucus in the lungs)
The concern isn't generally for the patrons so much as it is for the workers. It's one thing if you sit in a restaurant for a few minutes and are subjected to smoke. It's another if you spend 8 hours a day there.
Of those 3,000 non-smokers that died of lung cancer, how many of them lived in a household with a smoker? I've never seen that statistic. Smoke is bad. People who smoke are not doing themselves a favor or those that live with them, for that matter. But that is a family matter. I'm happy with our current situation...as a non-smoker. I'm sorry to hear about your family problems due to smoking but all of you were first-hand smokers. That's not what we are talking about. We already know smoking is bad for your health. Regarding your allergic reaction to smoke. Yes, a FEW people do have physiological reactions. So I'm fine with allowing restaurants to build smoking sections with seperate ventilation systems. An outright ban is too heavy handed, IMO. That is legislating what businesses and individuals chose to do with themselves. This country is built on freedom. If somebody wants to smoke themselves into the ground, that's their business. Next are we gonna inact legislation about how much fat individuals consume?
i agree completely, they are free to go outside and smoke... when an obese person orders a quarter pounder with chee , large fries, and an apple pie, he isn't hurting those around him... and i was born with asthma, forgot to mention that. probably because my dad smoked around my mom when she was pregnant. i realize I am the idiot for ever picking up the habit in the first place...
Not to dive into the middle here, but this has no correlation whatsoever. The fat YOU consume has little to do with smoke you breathe created by someone else. Your analogy would be more in line with preventing smokers from buying cigarettes, which is not the case. They can still smoke. They just aren't allowed to do it in certain places. This isn't a ban. It's a restriction. A better correlation would be restriction on chemical refineries that release toxins into the air known to cause cancer.
Jeff and x110th: How do you guys feel about my idea of banning smoking in all public places but then allowing a few, select smoking bars to open? Again, no live entertainment so no non-smokers are missing out on anything. Just a place that smokers can go to have a beer and a smoke indoors. Maybe a law that says that those bars can't comprise more than say 0.5% of all bars. That way non-smokers have 99.5% of bars to enjoy smoke-free (including every bar that features entertainment) and smokers get one or two places to smoke. I'm seriously curious as to how those bothered most by smoking in bars (and I know you two are) feel about this proposal.
