Hot Topic-2 Sided Discussion of Smoking Bans in Major Cities

A humorously serious look at life’s trials & tribulations,
American politics, religion, and other social madnesses by Beth Isbell.

Moderator: roxybeast

Post Reply
User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Hot Topic-2 Sided Discussion of Smoking Bans in Major Cities

Post by roxybeast » April 9th, 2009, 8:08 pm

The City of Dallas, like other major cities, has passed legislation banning smoking in public places and any businesses open to the public. This discussion does not address smoking in public buildings, etc., as everybody needs to be able to go to government offices to conduct their business. It does, however, address the question of whether the majority should be able to restrict private business owners open to the public from being allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking or not on their own private property. This is a frank discussion of the issue taken from Facebook complete with heated exchanges on both sides.

P1: cough cough cough... last dance smoky...
P2: Why does everything think this is such a big deal? So you have to walk outside to smoke a cigarette. Why is that such an imposition? I've worked in clubs in LA, and I can assure you the majority of the crowd LOVES not having to deal with secondhand smoke. This is win-win, trust me. Business will go up, if anything. People aren't going to stop going out just because they can't smoke indoors.
Beth: The reality is that when they first banned smoking in restaurants in Dallas, but still allowed it in bars, lots of restaurants closed their doors and were unable to survive. Lakewood Cafe, which catered to smokers, was an example. Non-smokers will continue to come out in the same numbers, but smokers may not be inclined to leave their house and contribute to the economy nearly as frequently. So, P2, not sure it's correct to say "business will go up."
P1: wasn't aware it was a big deal, but I guess it would be for some... no, what's next? they go after the liquor ! no liver failure! My health costs are skyrocketing, because you're drinking ... & she's drinking and driving!
P3: smoking is not healthy but neither is McDonalds. What's next? 2 Big Mac limit per month enforced by TARP $$$?
P4: P3, the two big mac limit sounds like good policy. let's put a dent in morbid obesity in our lifetime.
P5: As a former smoker of 20 years who quit smoking 9 years ago, I gotta say I enjoy not having to deal with smoke anymore. On the other hand... if it's a bar bar... no food, no bands, just booze... then I really don't mind. Places like the Frolic Room or Frank n Hanks in L.A. should have a smoky haze about them, in my opinion. The Tiki-Ti is grandfathered somehow, and via family ownership can skirt the CA smoking laws, and it's never bothered me in there. But yeah, if a large crowd with a band is involved where the majority doesn't want smoke around, or there's food being served... it can get annoying. So go outside, light up, shoot the shit, and just look at it as an excuse to enjoy the fresh outside air. *cough*
P3: most other "major" cities across the U.S. have same ban so this clearly has national direction. my preference is to let the free market sort it out and not to govt step in where the should not. if one wants a smoke-free environment then you have your choices.
P1: P3, that is the most intelligent comment on the issue I have heard. good one !! If I understand correctly, one could not, easily, open a "smoking establishment" with the new legislation.
bar owner: when they ban alcohol in bars.....ahhh nevermind
P6: Only thing is, it's not fair until it's done state wide. After the original restaurant smoking ban, the little restaurant/bar we frequented just off NW Hwy./635 went out of business because people could drive three blocks to Garland and smoke their brains out. That's a horrible thing to do to a small businessman. Speaking of the food thing, I predict the escalating epidemic of diabetes will be the biggest scourge yet on our medical/insurance industry yet. I'm speaking from personal experience on the food addiction thing; if alcohol or cigarettes is your problem, you've got help in the fact that where it's sold and advertised is very controlled. If food is your problem you're f'd. Everywhere you look it's two cheeseburgers for a dollar. But if you want to eat healthy it's $5.95 for a chicken breast sandwich. Make mine sclerosis of the liver with onions.
P3: I just dont see where the govt has the right to restrict a private establishment's patrons from doing what is otherwise legal. If smoking and 2nd hand smoke are so bad then let's make it illegal.
P7: In CO, you have to be 15 feet from the front door of ANY establishment while smoking...and I'm just now headed back to Dallas...figures!
bar owner: I'm wth ya Matt! land o' the free....
P8: people who smoke have to go outside of confined areas with other people within them to have a smoke......it's a no-brainer to me. people aren't forced to eat big mac's at mcdonalds. and hopefully i won't be forced breathe smoke one day in any venue i sing at........ in fort worth they have the 30percent rule, but i long for the day when they ban the nasty stuff altogether!!!!
Beth: Should be up to the owner. Non-smokers can vote with their feet & pocketbooks; they shouldn't be given the power to impose their will on everybody else. Smoking is legal. If they don't like it - vote to make it illegal. What if the majority thought soccer was bad for your health or society and banned all outdoor soccer - after all there is all the second-hand noise & second-hand dirt kicked up in the air affecting our ears & lungs, etc. - where do you draw the second-hand line - do my taxes go up because you have medicaid and are being treated for obesity for eating too many MacDonald's Big Macs & fries - we can make everything second-hand bad for you illegal using the smokers' argument, ... but would you still want to live here? Voting with pocketbook-ok, imposing will-not!
P8: slaughtering cows, riding motorcycles, taking dumps, and refining oil are also all legal, but i would prefer to not have those done around me in a bar either. i just don't get the 'legal' argument. i think there's a time and a place for everything, and putting tobacco smoke out into the air is something best done outside away from confined spaces.
P6: Such a dilemma. People should have the right to jack themselves up however they please. People should also have the right to not pay excessive insurance premiums due to other people's choice to smoke, drink, do drugs, ride motorcycles without helmets, eat too much fast food or whatever.
Beth: Who died and appointed P8 boss? Of P8-land where there is apparently no oil or gas, or beef, or toilets/sewer system. If you go to the refinery, you have made a choice, the same choice you make when going to a non-food serving bar ... or one where the owner is allowed to choose smoking or non-smoking. Is it not enough for you that you can vote with your pocket-book or your feet, must you impose your will on the rest of us too? What else don't you like? What gives you the right to tell someone who owns property what legal activities they can choose to let other citizens engage in or not engage in on THEIR property - not yours, theirs! & a legal activity to boot!
P8: just because you go into a bar that doesn't serve food, i don't think that makes it right for people to be able to smoke cigarettes. i felt the same way back when i smoked. Beth, i'm not sure where you got the idea that there's no beef or sewer's in michael-land, i just don't want them around me while i'm in the bar, or any public place where people are in a confined area. there are lots of activities that the law states you can't engage in certain privately owned businesses.
Beth: P8 - is there some reason why you can't let the bar owners decide whether to be smoke-free or not, and if you don't like their decision, choose not to go there? After all, it is their property, not yours.
P8: sure, because it's a health issue. as per my earlier argument, what if a i wanted to open a slaugher-house themed pub, with actual cleaning of sides of beef going on. or open a club where you could ride your motorcylce around the dance floor, or pee in a cup there at the bar so you woudln't have to leave your seat to go to the bathroom. all legal activities, but not ones suited for doing in a confined area around other people. ... so what is being passed anyway? no smoking anywhere in any bars in dallas city limits?
P9: If smokers would absorb 100% of all the smoke, then it would be okay. As it is, they are blowing it out all over the place. About as pleasant as un-controlled farting.
Beth: I'm still at a loss to understand, and you seem to be avoiding the issue - why would you want to go to a place, owned by someone else, where folks engage in legal activities you don't like? A pretty simple direct question for you to answer ...
P8: i don't know how to answer any more directly than in my last post, sorry
Beth: Gosh, P8, you don't even know why you want to go to someone else's property - but you want the power to tell the owner & I what he/she/I can do on his/her/our property when you get there, when you could simply choose to vote with your feet or wallet and go somewhere else altogether--just don't go!
P8: beth, this is what i posted earlier, if you can't see my line of reasoning from this, then you never will .......if there was some debate as to whether or not cigarette smoke is harmful i might not think this way. sure, because it's a health issue. as per my earlier argument, what if a i wanted to open a slaugher-house themed pub, with actual cleaning of sides of beef going on. or open a club where you could ride your motorcylce around the dance floor, or pee in a cup there at the bar so you woudln't have to leave your seat to go to the bathroom. ALL LEGAL ACTIVITIES, BUT NOT ONES SUITED FOR DOING IN A CONFINED AREA AROUND OTHER PEOPLE.
P6: Can everyone feel the love in this room? We all have to bear the brunt of increased insurance costs because a bunch of morons want to engage in risky, though legal, activities. As I said before; smoking in excess, drinking in excess, riding motorcycles without helmets, eating unhealthy foods, whatever - these people enjoying their 'rights' are breaking the rest of us. Being self-employed, now in my mid-fifties, my health insurance is over $600.00 per month. And I've never had a health issue, am not on any meds, don't smoke, drink moderately, have normal blood pressure and cholesterol and work out regularly. But I sure wouldn't want to infringe on some free-thinkers right to share their filthy habit with me in a confined space. Yes, I have the choice to not go there, but I don't have the choice of whether or not to share the cost of taking care of these people when the whip comes down.
Beth: P8 - I understand your point - you seem to be completely missing or avoiding mine! And P6, as to insurance, switch insurance companies! But more directly, as to smokers in particular, seems like the State of Texas made mega-billions off of the AG's lawsuit against tobacco companies on the claim that public health costs would rise due to tobacco related illness - so why isn't that money being used to pay those costs? Instead, it seems that the non-smokers are using almost all of it to fund other non-smoking related items, like public education, etc. - which I agree is important, but not if doing so is at the cost of not paying the damages the suit was intended to cover & not if your insurance cpsts still go up!
P8: i see your point as being 'why would you want to go to a place, owned by someone else, where folks engage in legal activities you don't like?' and my answer to that is that it's not a question of me not liking being around cigarette smoke. i don't think people should be allowed to smoke in confined areas where people are gathered. as far as insurance premiums, i'm self-employed too, and once my cobra runs out (which is just under 400 a month) i'll probably end up having to pay at least 600 from the prcing i've done, if i can even get insured at all. how about all the people who are so crushed by this law just move or go and hang out in a different city? or ***NEWS FLASH*** step outside and have a cigarette!!!
Beth: If the bar owner says its ok & he owns the property, why do you get a say in the matter? other than with your ability to leave or not go there to begin with .... use the tobacco settlement as it was intended and there would not be any increase in your insurance premiums - they might actually go down.
P8: what if the bar owner says it's okay for DIY customers to do their welding at the bar? what if the bar owner says it's okay to bring your chemistry set up to the bar and do experiments that emit toxic fumes? there are alot of people (obviously) that think that people shouldn't be allowed to do certain things that result in dangerous by-products to be engaged in within confined public places
Beth: not sure how any of those situations weaken your right to vote with your feet or pocketbook and simply go elsewhere, or why it gives you the right to tell a private business owner not to allow customers to smoke on HIS OWN PROPERTY! If they allowed smoking, wouldn't you (particularly you P8 ) just choose to take your business elsewhere? Frankly, I think P6's public health cost argument makes a lot more sense than you simply not wanting to exercise you're right not to patronize the business, and ordinarily I would even buy into the public health/insurance cost argument, except in this particular case the state made mega-billions from the tobacco industry for the express purpose of covering these very same anticipated public health costs!
P8: i don't believe that just because someone owns property, that they can do anything they want inside of the business on that property. for health and safety issues, i believe that smoking tobacco products should be illegal within confined public establishments. i vote with my feet/wallet on plenty of things. this just isn't one that i feel that way on. what if i owned a tattoo parlour, and wanted to quit sterlizing my needles in an cost cutting effort, and pass this down to my customers, giving them way cheaper tatooes. should this be legal, and then people who want sterilized tattoo needles can just vote with their wallet by going somewhere else? i mean, i OWN this building, and you can choose whether or not to come into my tattoo parlour that i own.
Beth: you're example has a faulty premise ... you don't have to go to the bar & you know of the risk IN ADVANCE of your decision & the bar owner is not putting poison in the drinks of those who do so choose - the tattoo customer has no choice about the tattoo needle and does not know the risk in advance of choosing to patronize that shop. And, if the tattoo customers did know in advance that the tattoo artist was using dirty needles, I fully expect that they all would choose not to go there & the business would eventually close - which sort of proves my point, don't you think? Vote with your wallet & your feet - don't impose your will on others when you know in advance what the risks are before you choose to even go.
P8: haha, no i think it proves my point that there needs to be laws to protect the general public from things like dirty needles and people bellowing dangerous smoke out into the air in a confined space!
Beth: yes, Michael R, and "assumption of the risk" is also apparently not a valid legal doctrine in your world - so the smokers should have actually won all their individual lawsuits against big tobacco ... anyway, I've got to leave for a gig tonight in a non-smoking establishment :) ... so have fun having the last word. I'm a usually a very polite smoker, but you are almost to the point of convincing me perhaps I shouldn't be.
P8: "i gig all the time in smoking establishments. destroys my throat. i have to do an extra hour of vocal warm-ups just to try and offset it. i'm not rude to people who smoke around me in places where it's legal. i just hope for the day soon when it's not an issue!!! :)"
P6: Beth - Are you freaking kidding me? Change insurance companies? It's amazing that you can be so flip not at just someone else's dilemma, but one facing everybody. You don't think I've checked every offer out there? And you accuse someone else of dodging the issue. This IS the issue! It has nothing to do with whether I like smoke or not. I played in smokey bars for about 25 years, I can handle it. The point is that smoking related disease has put a strain or our medical system and therefore the cost of insurance. Our government is trying to discourage people from smoking. Warnings didn't work, education didn't work, outrageous taxes didn't work. Now it's evident that second hand smoke is a major health hazard to restaurant and bar staff, building workers etc. and maybe other patrons. So it's putting even more of a drag on our medical system. Hence the more extreme measures of no smoking ordinances.
P6: Believe me, I want as little government in our personal lives as possible. I say let them smoke if they want to. We should keep the common sense stuff - no smoking in public buildings or airplanes, but certainly allow it in bars, pool halls, smoking areas in restaurants etc. But if people choose to ignore or not believe the health hazards, make it where if you smoke, insurance pays nothing for a smoking-related disease.
You're like the old joke that a liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet. I guaran-damn-tee you the first time you write a $600.00 check for health insurance you will think differently about this. I just hope some ill-informed person tells you to just change companies.
Beth: Give me a break ... the leading cause of higher medical insurance premiums is according to NCHC ... "our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud." and medical malpractice insurance ... smoking makes the list behind all of these direct cost factors. "the United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in comparison to Western European nations that have universal health insurance coverage." Should we also make doctors driving BMW's illegal? Why don't you blame/fix the real causes & not myths.
Beth: Once you invite this type of government intrusion into the rights of private property owners, you beg for more - where do you draw the line - if you don't like it, let's make it illegal. The reality is that the leading cause of death in this country is heart disease, 85% of which is totally unrelated to smoking, add in diabetes and other obesity and poor diet related illnesses, and the other excess cost items in my prior note, and smoking pales in comparison to the real causes of skyrocketing health costs - I'm not saying smoking is not a factor, but why don't we make them illegal in order of their real contribution to the problem? And why don't we actually use the mega-billion tobacco settlements to actually deal with smoker's health costs so that they don't have any affect on your health insurance premiums ... will you fight as hard or harder to do that? Or are you just blowing smoke? Picking on smokers when you don't smoke is easy, actually fixing the real causes isn't so easy!
P6: Holy crap. Thanks for the update from Smokers United. You can double-speak and justify all you want, but the fact is our medical industry is facing several major epidemics, and smoking-related disease is one of the biggest. Smoking contributes to about 20 percent of the deaths in the US, and as far back as 1995 it was shown that people who never smoked contributed $55 billion toward the health-care costs of cigarette smoking. I don't care if you smoke, I don't care if you set your entire head on fire. I just don't feel that I should have to pay for the consequences.
Beth: I don't want you to pay for the costs or consequences of my smoking or anyone else's - that is what the mega-billion tobacco settlement funds are for - and we should use them exactly for that purpose ... unfortunately, non-smokers have appropriated that money for other pet projects, so perhaps you could contact your representatives & tell them not to do so. And while you're at it, perhaps you could fight just as hard, if not harder, to have them address the causes which are more directly responsible as first priority. Eliminate the waste and fraud and overcharging, no more BMWs for Drs., pass universal health care, etc. If anyone eats a high-fat or high-sugar product in public, we should just shoot them, save ourselves all the future medical costs and lower your premiums!

So what do you think? Weigh in with your comments below - I'll try to refrain from commenting, but am curious about your views on the issues and any other arguments that can be made pro or con.

Peace,
Beth
Last edited by roxybeast on April 10th, 2009, 4:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » April 9th, 2009, 9:11 pm

Actually, there was a time where I thought smoking actually gave my voice the character necessary to sing the blues and certain types of rock songs. I think it did change my voice in the desired direction, but do realize that if I keep on smoking it's likely that the negative effects on my voice will eventually outweigh the positive ones.

Post Reply

Return to “The Pregnant Pope”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests