Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Fort Worth enacts half-assed smoking ban
FORT WORTH — Fort Worth joined on with Dallas, Plano, and probably every other city, eventually, by instituting a smoking ban on Tuesday. But the ban, which goes into effect on January 1, bans smoking only in limited locations including restaurants, bowling alleys, and business offices.
Smoking is still allowed in stand-alone bars, shopping centers, bingo parlors, private residences, private and semi-private nursing homes, hotel and motel rooms, retail and tobacco stand-alone facilities, hotel and motel conference rooms. That won't likely please the restaurateurs, who feel that it gives bars an unfair advantage, and it's definitely not pleasing the people from Smoke-Free Fort Worth who can't understand why the City Council ignored recommendations from an ad hoc committee to enact a comprehensive ban.
Posted by T.G.
Email
|
Print
|
25 Comments
|
Contribute
|
-
»Fort Worth Parks Department provides a history of and look at their best programs
-
»Fort Worth adds protections for transgender city employees
-
»Fort Worth police sanctions in Rainbow Lounge case called "absolutely inadequate"
-
»News of Fort Worth sewer overflow reported by Arlington officials
-
»UPDATED: Residents of Sycamore Heights in Fort Worth blast city about planned natural gas pipeline
|
an event
|
a restaurant
|
|
a garage sale
|
a drink special
|
|
a movie showtime
|
local music
|
a job
|
a house
|
|
a deal
|
a pet
|
littlekinder, says:
Gee they can't understand a comprehensive ban? Adults will be hiding behind the bleachers, lighting up. I don't smoke - but - private residences? Right. Hotel rooms would be nice, but that will take longer than it did to widen 75.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
Where in the world is smoking banned in private residences?
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Doyle, says:
Apartment complexes and condos come to mind. Plus, could be a provision in a homeowner's association if they were anal about it.
Enforcement is obviously the laughable part...but I wouldn't put it past people to include in a lease or association by-laws that there's to be no smoking.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Doyle, says:
I thought the homeowners association bit was the most farfetched, but it's already being done for condo associations. <a href="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:zcDVKXnAi6EJ:ccap.etr.org/base/documents/PasadenaCondoCC%26RAmendment.doc+smoking+regulation+homeowners+association&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us">Observe this HOA for condos in Pasadena</a>, and Jefferson County District Court in Colorado <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4667551">ruled in favor of a provision banning smoking late last year</a>.
I can only imagine the <a href="www.taa.org/">Texas Apartment Assocation</a> will incorporate language that follows suit in their promulgated lease forms to be used at the discretion of landlords/property owners. HOA's in single-family home neighborhoods will probably be in line right behind the TAA.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
I guess it's to help make sure that apartments are easier to re-rent, and houses easier to put back on the market? Seems like it would be a better idea to increase rents for smokers, or demand a deposit. After all, pet deposits are a standard thing, and I'm betting an average smoker's apartment smells worse than the average dog owner's apartment after a year.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Doyle, says:
Much more difficult to get rid of smoking odors than pets, me thinks. Deposit would have to be quite hefty and it would take that much longer to flip a unit once a lease is up...easier to simply ban it within x-amount of feet from buildings (fire risk too, btw) and designate smoking areas outside. This is how it's handled at most nursing homes / assisted living facilities these days.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
I didn't say it's easy. They could also designate some apartments as non-smoking, and some as smoking-only; it wouldn't be hard to convert a non-smoking apartment into smoking (flip a sign!), and if the smoking apartments weren't selling, that's what the hefty deposit would be for.
I'm perfectly fine, btw, with smokers paying extra to live there. They're already paying for their smokes, screw 'em.
Just seems like sort of encroaching on your right to inject deadly chemicals into your corpse.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
DC, says:
The whole thing is just stupid. It's simple - ban smoking in public - smoke like crazy in your own tent. In apartments - if people accept paying pet deposits, why wouldn't they accept smoking deposits?
It's always refreshing to get back to the non smoking parts of the world. It's like a free 45% off your hangover simply from canning the smoke.
Smokers don't like it? I don't care. Eat tobacco. I don't need to smell it or smell like it.
Don't make me bring out the cat again...
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Doyle, says:
I'm somewhat torn on the issue. Nobody cares if you smoke in a house you own, and any homeowners association for single-family homes that bans it won't be able to enforce it for the life of them.
But apartments I can understand, purely from a fire risk standpoint. Mine have 4 floors, and I'm on the 4th. Luckily we have a parking garage connected to the building so I could watch from a platform of concrete as all my worldly possessions burn in the night, but if we didn't it's a life safety issue.
Also, who smokes inside their own place anymore anyways? Disgusting.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Miller, says:
As a slave to nicotine I can say with some authority that a "half assed" smoking ban is preferable to an outright smoking ban.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
"Also, who smokes inside their own place anymore anyways? Disgusting."
Half the people we know who smoke, I'd wager. It's not like they can smell it, anyway!
And I agree with how refreshing it is to not smell cigarette smoke when you go out. One of the many reasons I love Austin.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
BrimstoneBroker, says:
I'll smoke my cigars where I'm damn well pleased.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
DC, says:
As long as that's your own damned bathroom, that's cool.
Otherwise, if we can't have a smoking ban, maybe we should have a punch in the face policy - smoke and just take it when someone offers your toxic face a nice re-adjustment.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
BrimstoneBroker, says:
Works for me DC, I've never met a cigar smoker that couldn't take AND deliver a punch; looking forward to the opportunity.
Next, we're going to "outlaw" fat-half-assed liberals. That will reduce toxins as well.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
DC, says:
Outlaw the fat and emphysema - I'll be happy - liberal has nothing to do with it. It's really sad what happens to the nicotine addicted.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
TealStrat, says:
Ummm - why is there an issue with a smoking ban? Why does ANYONE have an issue with saying NO to smoking? Actually, perhaps we should just create smoking dens to foster Darwinian Natural Selection...... Why is is that supposedly educated people smoke? How f stupid can one get?
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Rick Yost, says:
tealstrat: "How f stupid can one get?" Judging from your comment, pretty stupid.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
littlekinder, says:
Brimstone - a "liberal" would be more likely to defend your right to smoke. At least get your stereotypes right.
I don't smoke, and I don't like smoke. But I do like polite behavior. I'd never tell someone they couldn't smoke in their home, but I don't think anyone can argue that secondhand smoke in enclosed spaces (restaurants, theaters, offices) is really OK. It definitely crosses a personal space line.
I would also never tell someone they shouldn't smoke, because anyone born in the last 40 years knows the health risks and can make their own decisions. My good friend has tried hundreds of times to quit. Lots of smokers don't even want to smoke themselves. And if they do... well, hey, that is their choice. And I feel fine about that and do not resent them. But secondhand smoke, especially around kids and infants - we all know that's not ok.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
snowbird, says:
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend?
Should it take priority over someone else's rights? Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.
Thomas Laprade 480 Rupert St. Thunder Bay, Ont.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
"Why does ANYONE have an issue with saying NO to smoking?"
We should probably make drinking illegal, too. Why would anyone have an issue with that?
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
BrimstoneBroker, says:
Nicotine addicted? Hell, I'd rather be addicted to nicotine than ignorance. Enjoy your preferred addiction.
Anonymous
2 years, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
DC, says:
I guess you've shown you can have both. I'll pass on either, thanks.
Anonymous
2 years, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
BrimstoneBroker, says:
No one will be surprised to see you "pass" on the enjoyment of your preferred addiction. Ignorance does have its drawbacks, doesn't it? One thing is certain, at least I'm intellectually honest. Control freaks, such as yourself, are destined for a life of frustration and often fatal outcomes; see "Red coat." They were control freaks as well.
Anonymous
2 years, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
DC, says:
Fatal? Stay home and keep smoking -
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/con...
Anonymous
2 years, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
BrimstoneBroker, says:
Shocking. Democrats legislating morality. What will they adopt from the Republicans next? Of course, they don’t see it that way. They see it as saving people from themselves. Unfortunately, you can’t force someone to not be self-destructive. Nor is it the American way to do so.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/...
Get a life, DC. You're like a freaking "lab rabbit." I write a post, and you immediately respond for a pellet of food. {Check out the time stamps, folks, and see if it's not true; funny stuff.} There is a world outside of Pegasus News!
I will allow you to have the last word. (lol)
Anonymous
2 years, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal