Tuesday, June 17, 2008 , Updated
Dallas City Council to try to ban smoking in bars
Drinking and smoking will no longer be kissing cousins, at least in public, if the Dallas City Council has their way. Legislation to ban smoking in bars is likely to be put before the council by August, and if approved, could go into effect by the end of the year.
Mayor Tom Leppert, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway, and Council Members Pauline Medrano and Ron Natinsky are quoted as being in favor of the ban. One possible piece of good news for smokers is that those who support the ban aren't sure yet if they will include pool halls, tobacco shops, cigar bars and hookah lounges in the legislation.
Posted by Alex B.
Email
|
Print
|
Comment
|
Tell us your story
|
- »Theater review: The Santaland Diaries
- »Photo gallery: 2009 Dallas YMCA Turkey Trot
- »Concert review: Puscifer at Palladium Ballroom in Dallas (November 24)
- »DISH at Ilume bringing chic dining to Cedar Springs in Dallas
- »Theater review: Port Twilight or The History of Science (A Chronicle of Folly, Wisdom and Madness)
-
»Dallas City Council member Ron Natinsky announces regional center
-
»Former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill and his wife are convicted in City Hall corruption trial
-
»Dallas City Council denies HIV/AIDS funding, opens door to higher infection rate
-
»Dallas council passes booting ordinance in favor of Deep Ellum community activists
-
»Dallas City Council members visiting schools on Monday, August 24
an event
|
a restaurant
|
a garage sale
|
a drink special
|
a movie showtime
|
local music
|
a job
|
a house
|
a deal
|
a pet
|


xdavidwattsx, says:
Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it!
Other cities, states and entire countries have gone down this road with success.
Anonymous
1 year, 5 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
James Scott, says:
I think it's obvious there would have to be a provision for hookah lounges (assuming, you want any hookah lounges to stay in business), but isn't "pool hall" a little generic? What exactly constitutes a "pool hall"?
Verified
1 year, 5 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
snowboard9, says:
Make it happen. It's a verifiable health hazard. Quit listening to businesses that cater to nicotine addicts. What do expect them to say? What is Dallas waiting for? Good grief.
These days you can't even eat at outdoor cafe's without a smoke cloud nearby. I'd get rid of that privilege too if it was up to me. Perhaps outdoor smoking when it's over 90deg or below 60deg. That's fair, right?
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
I don't believe this will happen, and I won't cry when I see someone light up in a bar. But it would be nice coming home and not smelling like grandma's ashtray. :(
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Tracy Yost, says:
Hiya all,
There is no logic in defense of banning smoking in bars, that when followed to all of it's natural conclusions, does not also lead to banning sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in public places, banning McDonald's, Krispy Kreme AND Starbuck's, television,automobiles...
There has to be a line drawn somewhere, to separate "what we want our city council to protect us from", from "what we would rather decide for ourselves, thank you very much".
I'm told that this "legally" comes down to mostly a right to work issue - that is, a person should be able to acquire and enjoy a job at any place that "hires people", without health hazards. But the legal reality is that there are distinct criteria for determining "job discrimination" and smoking status is not one of them. Neither is there a category for "alcohol consumer".
There are a handful of companies now that will not hire people who are smokers (and it would also legal for them to refuse to hire non-smokers). What do you think would happen if those same companies decided they would refuse to hire alcohol consumers ? (well besides that would be bad if they were a charter bus company ...) ... I'm pretty sure that idea would fly like a pig.
My points are these:
1) what we know from prohibition is that not only can we not prohibit it, we need to give the alcohol consumers a place to consume in the aggregate, i.e. a tavern.
2) the same logic applies to tobacco consumers.
3) smokers and non-smoker's alike deserve to be able to spend their discretionary time in places that allow or disallow smoking. (as per current ordinance).
4) I love northern CA, but would much rather see a good blues show in north Texas.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
Tracy - I don't think that banning fatty foods is a natural consequence. Me scarfing down a burger doesn't harm your health. (Alcohol might, if I decide to drive drunk and run you off the road, though.)
In regard to your points - the prohibition is not an apt comparison. They're not banning cigarettes altogether - only smoking in bars.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
ch0, says:
Smoking in bars is cool.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Tracy Yost, says:
wow u totally didn't get it Pavel.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
DC, says:
We're getting to the pot - kettle level interaction, here.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Doyle, says:
So DC, what's your wager on how many pool tables an establishment must have before it can be considered a pool hall?
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Rick Yost, says:
The point that you folks don't understand (obviously) is that when I smoke a cigarette in my bar, you are not affected at all.
You are only affected if you come to my bar. (are you still with me or should I slow down?) You have the choice to go wherever you want to go- you don't have to come to my bar- where we smoke. You don't have to be around cigarette smoke at all if you don't want to be. (are you still with me?)
However, even though you know you don't ever- EVER have to come to my bar- where we smoke- it still irritates the sh*t out of you that we still do it here. So you just can't help but penalize us- because you can.
Should I say that again- you never have to come to our establishment- but you still don't want us to be able to make the choice to smoke. How selfish is that?
What gives you the right to say what I can, or can't do in my own business?
YOU NEVER HAVE TO EVER SET FOOT IN OUR PLACE AND YOU STILL ARE DETERMINED TO MAKE US DO WHAT YOU WANT US TO. (yes, this time I was yelling)
Because you refuse or ignore your right to make a choice- you're depriving me of my right to make a choice. Amen!
Thanks for the memories folks, the memory of freedom I used to have of living in this society. Thanks for nothing!
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
I think we should also tell Rick what to wear. He seems to long for that kind of "guidance."
Hey - I hate smelling like smoke. I don't hang at bars generally. But people - where does this "good for you" crap end? Right at YOUR doorstep.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Clay213, says:
I never need to ride in your car either, but you still can't drive as fast as you want to.
I never need to go on your property, but you still can't dump oil all over the ground.
You never needed to open a bar!
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Doyle, says:
How 'bout them Cowboys?
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
xdavidwattsx, says:
I think what's lost in translation here is that because smokers are too lazy to walk 5 feet out the door of the establishment they'd just rather non-smokers not even patronize their establishment. Seems pretty logical. Then again, when were smokers ever logical?
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Rick Yost, says:
Sorry folks, I had to vent. Didn't mean to bring the thread down with so much common sense. "My bad!" However, no one's come up with an intelligent counter to my post. You won't!
Our bar won't fold because of a smoking ban. We Yosts are survivors.
It's all a matter of principle to me. Remember principles? Before the era of Enron, Iraq, and Katrina, they used to be a big deal in America. They still are to me.
Peace
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
xdavidwattsx, says:
How bout this for principle:
I'd like to be able to have a beer or see a show, in a bar or club, without increasing my odds of dying from lung cancer.
Really crazy, I know.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
snowboard9, says:
Yost, better to have given you last input as a courtesy to a losing argument but I like your spunk! Even though you appear to be be judging your own 'intelligent post contest' I submit the following:
Smoking is a verifiable health hazard for public places. Regulation of public places is a part of 'living in the big city' as it were. Regulators are doing there part.
I also support handicap access for businesses. Granted they can wheel themselves to a 'handicap friendly' places only but it's better the other way around.
I would agree, however, that society is exerting it's preference for a more healthful quality of life. If it's any consolation, you guys can smoke and pollute the air in all the outdoor areas - a bummer for us in the spring and fall. However, don't get too comfy with that loophole either. :-)
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Doyle, says:
Believe me, snowboard9, you're wasting your keystrokes.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
momzilla, says:
Personally, I worry more about nasty people who don't wash their hands after using the toilet. Smoke I can easily avoid by not going to places where it is permitted. But it is impossible to tell when I touch that doorknob if the last person who touched it transferred a virus or bacteria. And handshakes? Forget it! When are we going to start enforcing handwashing? We can have a whole city bureaucracy and undercover agents photographing perpetrators and issuing fines in public rest rooms.
It's in the interest of public health, y'all!
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
momzilla, says:
Come to think of it, while we're being healthy and all, let's ban children under, say, six from all public swimming areas. Good grief. I shouldn't have to swim in other people's kids' excrement.
Oh, and 80s music in public places and while waiting in a telephone queue ... just because it makes me sick.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
xdavidwattsx, says:
I'd be content just to ban children altogether.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
Dang it X*X! You're gonna wipe out my lawn service. I finally got the lower middle class to buy in here with mediocre education , but if you reduce the supply, it won't drive the price of unskilled labor down and my plans of affordable retirement - though short of world domination - will be foiled.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
momzilla, says:
I don't think we need to go that far. A leash law for the ones who aren't demonstrably obedienced trained wouldn't go amiss ... especially in Walmart today.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Clay213, says:
What's next?
Someone telling smokers they can't litter all over the place where ever their whimsies compel them??!?!?!
I would be content with smokers and their filthy behaviors being driven into underground smoke easies, as someone had mentioned around here.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Doyle, says:
I'd be content if they got this bitch over with and made a decision: To ban, or not to ban.
Doyle's patience is dwindling at an increasing rate. Won't someone PLEASE think of the horsie. =(
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
Dead horses only got one use, son.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
ch0, says:
We should ban you freedom-hating pinko libs from America! This great nation under God was founded on smokin tobaccy!
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Clay213, says:
ch0 Anonymous
We should ban you freedom-hating pinko libs from America! This great nation under God was founded on smokin tobaccy!
And don't forget the slaves growing it. I can't believe liberal government got in my business and said I can't do what I want to with MY slaves!
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Kevin Kunreuther, says:
Foists daze banns toe-bakky, nekst daze banns de al-key-hole, nekst daze banns sir-tanz lifes muse ick. Wisht we cudz banns daze wunz doo-in de banns in de foist playst.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Rick Yost, says:
I'm going to regret this but... XdavidX- "I'd like to be able to have a beer or see a show, in a bar or club, without increasing my odds of dying from lung cancer."
Then go do it dude! There's a thousand smoke-free places available to you.
Momzilla- "Smoke I can easily avoid by not going to places where it is permitted." One of the only intelligent things posted here. Thank you.
Clay213- "I would be content with smokers and their filthy behaviors being driven into underground smoke easies, as someone had mentioned around here." So would you frequent these 'smoke-easies'? Is that kinda like a 'speak-easy'- kinda like...a bar?
I love your posts man, they're always so whimsical.
One of these days you folks are going to lose the right to do something you care about.
I'm grinning now in anticipation.
I'm done.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Clay213, says:
Cue 'I don't care about anything comments'
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
jtmbls, says:
Whimsical or psychopathic? I'm going to have to take up Doyles "You're dead to me." approach.
Rick - It's your place, you pay the bills. No question you should be the one making the rules. Just like your home.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Clay213, says:
jtmbls: Please keep running your mouth.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
DC, says:
So, this thread has had pretty much the same run as all the others. Blah blah why is it I cannot spray compressed CO into your face, but it's ok if it comes out of a stick, etc etc etc, because then we'll have to ban flashlights and the terrorists win!
I love how the smoking contingent tries to pull the 'smoking ban is going to cost you your civil liberties' argument, but it's not like we've seen "Smokers Against the Patriot Act" or "Smokers Unite To Oppose Government Wire Tap Program." Convenient hypocrisy.
Cutting out the smoke could make Dallas a nicer place to be, but you can't reason with an addict.
Aaaannd now, for the coveted last word of the thread award: nominations?
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
jtmbls, says:
Oh and by the way Rick and Tracy - I've sent out the evite for the upcoming Shawn Pittman show (so excited!) and will be bringing a big group, none of whom will try to tell you how to run your business. I can't wait to meet you both!
Clay213 - Please walk into a busy intersection. Dead to me.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
xdavidwattsx, says:
DC, you can't reason with any sucker willing to spend 5 bucks a day to actually shorten their lives (and stink). Perhaps that's why 80% of the US decided it was pretty stupid to smoke and that their time, effort and money was better spent elsewhere.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
DC - I think the problem is that we keep appealing to platonic ideals, which have no place in the world. Rick and Tracy (to name the most vocal opponents) are speaking of the right to self-determination, pursuit of happiness, etc., without being oppressed by the government. Myself and others are talking about the government doing it's job - namely, protecting its citizens from harm. Take their viewpoint to the illogical extreme, and you've got drunk drivers dumping gasoline into rivers. Take my viewpoint to the extreme, and you have a nation of citizens locked up in padded rooms with a tiny window overlooking a drawing of a happy sun.
But none of us want the philosophies we're invoking to be carried anywhere near that far, so let's all quit clinging to them like bloody steak salesmen to a raft in shark infested waters.
Verified
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
jtmbls, says:
Ahhh…There’s that logic thing again…Pavel, you give mohawks a good name.
Anonymous
1 year, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal