UPDATED: Lewisville City Council considers May 13, 2008 election on smoking ban, instead of Nov. 6

stevehartwell, says:

There are at least 18 different restaurants, pubs, and bars, in the Lewisville neighbourhood, offering various kinds of food, drinks, and ambiance.

Why ?

Because different people like different things. There is enough choice that when you see a place that you don't like what they have to offer, you go to another one that you do like.

The population wants them, and the economy, the free market place, can support so many different venues.

How many people would like it if City Council passed an ordinance saying Taco Bell would be the only type allowed in Lewisville.

Anti-smokers say they will go to venues that are zero-smoke tolerance.

Fine. They do deserve that choice.

Sufficient numbers also want to go to a place that does allow smoking.

So, all this means that both difference wants can be accommodated.

And, both must be, in the world's most powerful democracy on the planet.

People are now going to places where smoking is allowed, have been for more than 100 years, and, do not drop dead from going there. Having a smoking venue up the street from a non-smoking venue is not going to cause people in the non-smoking venue to drop dead from the near-proximity either.

Also, consider this further.

If numerous generations for more than 100 years have been and still are patronizing venues that allow smoking, and, living full lives to tell about it, then it probably means that the claims anti-smokers propagandize about are a bunch of hooey.

The Poison is in the Dose, and there's just not enough dose in Second Hand Smoke to be scared to death by thinking about it all the time.

Second Hand Smoke is Not a Statistically Significant Health Risk.

1,000s of times more of the very same particulates in SHS are more than adequately handled by Ventilation in all kinds of situations, such as manufacturing plants and underground mines, and parking garages.

Furthermore, think about Motor Vehicles.

The average daily motor vehicle emissions are more than 1800 Times More than the daily Second Hand Smoke from even the heaviest smoker, and there are way more motor vehicles around than smokers these days, and, most of the car exhaust hugs the ground, to which we are all exposed to 24/7.

If all that Car Exhaust doesn't cause people to drop dead all around us every day, a little tobacco smoke is definitely not going to either.

PLUS, what you also don't know is that new types of cigarette filters are even now on the market that Reduce the alleged harmful particulates by more than 61 % ! Making Second Hand Smoke even Less Statistically Significant than it already is, which is Not Statistically Significant already.

Car Exhaust Risk has been Reduced by only 26 % since the 1960s.

Surely more than 61 % Reduction from Tobacco Smoke deserves the same acceptance as 26 % Reduced Exhaust Motor Vehicles are accepted.

Either also Ban Reduced Exhaust Motor Vehicles,

or also accept Reduced Particulates Cigarettes.

Steve Hartwell Toronto, Canada www.reducedriskcigarettes.ca

littlekinder, says:

Steve, no one really cares about the health issue. It's just for comfort. And if they do care about it, you won't change their mind.

I'm not worried about second hand smoke hurting my health, I don't want it to ruin my dinner.

I'm ok with smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants, as long as they are actually separated - like not by an imaginary line. Look at it this way: if someone was absolutely doused in perfume - STRONG perfume - you might prefer they kept their distance. Sure, it's fine for them to wear perfume. Obviously that is their right. But it is going to interfere with your comfort level. So what do we do? Just tell everyone to frequent restaurants NOT frequented by the perfume lady? Who's to go where? Who gets to decide? Surely there must be some way for everyone to be accommodated peacefully and politely.

DC, says:

It's sad how nicotine addiction leads to these bizarre justifications for smoking. Look, if smoking didn't make everyone else smell like ass, I wouldn't care, and probably most other non smokers wouldn't either.

There are all kinds of things you're not allowed to do in a restaurant or bar - spread lubriderm on road kill, go without pants and take a crap in the deep fryer as examples - smoking's just going on the list. Get over it.

littlekinder, says:

That is not what I mean by peaceful and polite, DC. You can't slam people and then expect them to care about your comfort level. I don't like smoke, but the comparisons you make are so over the top that it bothers ME to even read the posts. What in the world has happened to civilized behavior? Why can't people find a decent compromise?

sweetnsassy, says:

I am for smoking being banned everywhere. I think it stinks and nonsmokers are getting lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke. Personally, my eyes are dried out from it. I'm not opposed to the smokers (many of my friends) smoking outside in a patio area.
This comment makes no sense: "If you don't like smoking, "my answer is don't go to that restaurant," Mr. Durham said. "If there's a place called Joe's Fried Foods and you don't like fried foods, don't go there." What if you like Joe's Fried Foods and everyone is smoking there and it makes it less enjoyable to you? Most all restaurants allow smoking. . . does this mean that nonsmokers don't go to most restaurants? How fair is this? Smokers could go outside and smoke. . nonsmokers don't have the luxury of going outside to get away from it if we still want to enjoy our meal. It's not only a nasty habit but a smelly one and it isn't fair that the rest of the world have to smell it. There are a lot of bad habits out there but none nearly as annoying as cigarette smoke. I have dry eyes. . cigarette smoke irritates them very much. There are those who are allergic to it. I'm all for banning it and if it is something we can vote on, I'll vote for banning it.