what businesses have cats and dogs running around threatening public health, t-Man? and for the record, I don't want to do any of those things you listed above. I don't want to kill my liver off, get cocky and violent with people, Blast my eardrums out, jump in my car and wipe out a few people on my drunken ride home. I just want to eat some food in a smoke free environment. And I don't want the option of avoiding my favorite restaurant when I am in Texas. seems to me that is how citizens handle issues that affect health/safety of the general public. how do the musicians here feel about the proposed ban?
That seems unfair to me. Anywhere that is 18+ should allow smoking, even though it is one thing I hate when I go to a bar.
Yeah, we aren't telling smokers whether they can or can't smoke, we are merely telling the owners of an establishment what they can or can't allow within their place. If it's legal, they should be allowed to choose.
Law of unintended consequences: Smoking Bans kill charity gambling operations like Catholic Bingo Halls. http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2006/12/ontario_smoking.html
I can name many examples of Cats and Dogs in business being a danger to others, but that was not my point. My point is where does it stop. When are we just letting the gov. run are lives. To name a few though. There are many people who are allergic to cats, yet I have been in many mom and pop shops where they had their cat, dog, or multiple cats and dogs running around. I have been to a bar in the last month that serves food that had cats running around in it. At this same bar, if you leave your window down on your car these cats will get in and spray that stink they spray. When younger, I read meters and in a repair shop when I walked over to read the meter the owner came running across the shop because his Pit was squatting in a corner ready to attack if I took another step. These Paris Hilton wannabees who walk into fastfood, stores, or wherever with their dogs in tow. What is the difference? Also, think about this. Why is it that these bans do not include bars or restaurants that sell cigars? Could it be because usually middle class and lower smoke cigarettes while the rich smoke the high dollar cigars? Are they really doing it because it is unhealthy or to appease people like you while not inconviencing themselves? The Whitehouse is a place of business. It has many employee's. Does anybody believe Obama will step outside to smoke? He was conducting business with employee's while campaigning. Does anybody believe He wasn't smoking on the plane or in meetings? He wasn't doing it in public. Anytime he is in a car he has aides, a driver, and Secret Service. Do any of you think he isn't smoking? What is the differrence? I have the choice to go to the Cat bar or the mom and pop shops. Nobody is forcing me. At the end of the day I can dirve to the next bar to drink or Wal-Mart to shop and they have the right to run their business as they see fit, Which is the way it should be. Everybody makes their own choice and everyone is happy. For me to say I don't like the way you run your busness, but I really do like it, so I will have the gov force what you can do on your property so I can be there, is comical and a little self-righteous. And in my post I said I can see the restaurant thing, but don't think the gov. should make that descision. I think restaurant owners should make the descision to remove smoking from their place, but it should be their descision. If you don't like their choice don't go. Order your food takeout. Eat on the patio. Go to another place. You have many choices, Why shouldn't they on their own property? This is about the bar ban. While I exaggerated a bit in my original post, my point was no good comes from a bar. And while that doesn't happen to every person everytime they go to a bar, it does happen everyday. And the employee's. Just like the people chose to work with Obama and his smoke, the people in these places made the same descision. There are many more places that do not allow smoke than do. Should pilots and flight attendants not be allowed to fly because the plane might crash? Should a cabbie not be allowed to drive because he might wreck? Should a firefighter not be allowed to fight fires because he might get burned? Their are risk with every job, but you know them before you decide to do it. Besides, How many barfolk workers do not actually smoke? This is the lamest excuse for this whole thing. Most of them work there because they like that life and they can puff away at their own free will. I even heard about strippers. Are you serious? You can get bucknaked, rub your naked body all over strangers while they rub you back, get coked up, high and drunk, while smoke billows from your smoke machine, but you can't work around cigarette smoke.
self -righteous? how can smokers say this and then demand the right to ruin other people's health like it was a God Given right? there is a sense of entitlement that comes with smokers that is completely selfish and that they just don't see it. you are ruining other's health and there is a direct solution: at least go outside to smoke, that's all we ask. as far as the White House theory- let's see how it plays out. I expect President Obama to quit smoking altogether, as he has already said he plans to do. I would be disapointed if I found out he was smoking in the White House during meetings or siuations where he affects the health of others. he wouldn't be so selfish. and as far as Cigar Shops, there is nothing in the law about cigars over cigarettes specifically. go ahead and open a Tobacco bar, T-Man, no ones stopping you. on the same coin of "If you don't like it, don't go there" the same could be said for the small percentage of the public that wants to smoke- "Go to a smoking bar if you don't like it" why is public health trumped by your personal/private/civil right to smoke? for instance, whenever I go to a restaurant I always choose the Non-Cat section. And I almost always avoid Dog Bars as much as I can...
I want to see one of these restaurants with dogs and cats running around in it. If it is in the city of Houston, it's a healthcode violation. This ain't Paris.
Yeah, I've noticed that in most of the arguments in this thread that go like, "So I can do ______, but I can't smoke?!!", the ______ is usually something that's actually illegal. examples: "get coked up" "get cocky and violent with people" "jump in my car and wipe out a few people on my drunken ride home"
Again, whether illigegal or not. Is this not what happens on a regular basis because drinking in a bar is legal? Are these not some of the regular side affects of drinking? Getting coked up is what a large majority of strippers do. Never did I say it was legal. I was stating this is what happens with 95% of these women, yet we are worrying if they breathe smoke. Show me the law that says a business cannot have an animal in or on property. I am not talking about restaurants, because as I have stated this is about bars. I agree smoking should not be in restaurants, but the owners should make that descision. Another example would be the sound man in a club. Would we not agree that these guys go deaf over the years? The music doesn't need to be that loud, but that is what people want. Is this not a side affect of his job? Did he know going in? Yes And finally just to put an end to this stupid argument. How many people's health have actually been affected by eating at a restaurant once or twice a month for an hour while a guy across the or in another room smoked a cigarette? None. This is just a reason for people to complain to get things their way. Go to another restaurant, eat on the patio, take it to go. Don't try to run other people's lives. Try running your own first, which you obviously can't do if you can't decide which restaurant or bar to go to that does cater to want you want.
I always end up in a cloud of smoke walking behind people leaving TC. It irritates my nose and makes my hair smell just in those few minutes walking to the car. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Supporting Evidence * Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack. * Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma. Link
for T-man's compelling argument above... http://www.supersoulfest.com/images/FOOD-ORD.pdf also, The White House has been smoke free since 1993. look it up. what else: the sound man wears ear plugs, the stripper stops snorting coke, and the violent drunk stops drinking. all of these they have control over with their own actions. I especially liked your conclusion. smoker?
Smoker? No. Have smoked in the past while having a beer in a bar and know many smokers, though. It is about the right of all to do on their property as they see fit. You should not have the right to tell me what to do on my property, because you want to hang out on it. What part of my question did you not understand when I said I am not talking about restaurants? Get yourself a new law. So you are to have me believe Obama will step outside? Let's be realistic here. Clinton was smoking cigars in the whitehouse well after 1993. Look it up. There was actually a story of some sort about an intern and cigars in the Whitehouse after 1993, if I remember correctly. I think I might have seen it on the news as some kind of minor story or something. Maybe someone else might have heard about it. Doubt it, though. Might have a little trouble finding that one. And for every study you show on secondhand smokes dangers, I can show you one from just as accomplished people saying the opposite. Hell, if you are over 30, we all grew up with second smoke everywhere we went as children and we turned out Okay.
It's simply not that simple. The governments overseas and here that have banned smoking in public places have done so on the grounds of public health concerns. You have the right to smoke all you want to...you don't have the right, necessarily, to enter an establishment that invites the public in (and is subject to govt regulation, otherwise) and do something that puts other people's health in jeopardy. Private property concerns fall away when you're inviting the public in...and the government regulates all sorts of things that happen in those sorts of establishments. Put simply, you have no inherent absolute right to smoke whenever and whereever you wish. As for your study...show me one from a respected medical group that says that second-hand smoke has zero health effect. The AMA and American Heart Association say otherwise.
