Dallas smoking ban decision delayed until December

WhitneyTM, anonymous:

Smoke em while you got em, folks. If it passes, you're welcome on my porch.

DC, anonymous:

Is that how long it's going to take to install the world class TV?

generalsn, anonymous:

The UK is finally admitting business losses and are considering rates to compensate business owners for losses due to their ban. The ban lobbyists are like snake oil salesmen, getting their bans passed, then moving on. They have absolutly NO concern about local issues or businesses. Will the ban lobbyists assist business owners? They should put their money where their mouth is.

generalsn, anonymous:

Once these lobbyist find gullible lawmakers and get a foot in the door, they will badger for years until total bans are in place. It's instructed on the last page of their guidebook. The best way would be to give them the boot BEFORE they get started. Here's their book. www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals...

DC, anonymous:

Hey, you every tried the dip?

generalsn, anonymous:

I'm in my mid 60s, and have many friends in their 80s who, like myself, grew up in the days of smoke filled homes, movies, restaurants and most places, cleaned flues and breathed coal smoke everywhere. All this "sky is falling" hype is really getting old.

generalsn, anonymous:

Most people I talk to have no problem with smoking not being allowed in most "really public" places, but having the government stomping all over business owners is really getting alot of people riled. Many restaurants were smoke free anyway, with no intervention. Had the ban fanatics stayed out of small bars and private vets clubs, they could have easily passed reasonable smoking guidelines. A lot of small bars here in Chicago ignore the ban with NO complaints from workers or customers. Strangely, the only registered complaints are for ash receptacles or smokers too close to the entrances of bars that actually comply.

DC, anonymous:

Tell me about it

chriss, anonymous:

Still at that one, huh? What junior high school do you go to???

chriss, anonymous:

Previous comment was for DC.

Scott Doyle obviously doesn't like smoking. I wonder what his reaction will be when they decide one of his pleasures (alcohol? food?) is ripe for demonization on the grounds of health-care costs.

The general is right--the longest-lived generation in US history grew up in an environment where people could smoke just about everywhere. And those people are living active lives to a greater age than before.

Alexander Troup--be proud of your Dutch heritage of tolerance and personal freedom. Bar owners and patrons in the Netherlands have organized to fight a recently-imposed ban. Sixty percent of bars are not complying and the antismoking officials don't know whether to defecate or wind their watches. Vrijheit moet er zijn!!

WestEndPubDallas, anonymous:

Speaking from the only legal smoke friendly bar in the West End, the current smoking ordinance in Dallas is more than sufficient to give non-smokers, smoke free bar and restaurant options in which to patronize and work. It gives you a choice.

On an addtional note, the ban that is being proposed, by City staff projections will cost the City an additional $1 mill+ per year to enforce.

momzilla, anonymous:

Hold on to your wallet, Scott. They're coming for you too: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/13/...

First it's sin tax, next comes prohibition.

littlekinder, anonymous:

Yeah, I'm never going to understand this. When people start comparing alcohol to smoking they just lose me completely. I sure know when there's lots of smoke in the room, but I have no idea what's in your glass.

Drew, anonymous:

I smoke. Not particularly proud of it, but neither am I ashamed of it. I completely agree that smoking should not be allowed in places like grocery stores, office buildings, Target, the DMV, etc. But for bars, restaurants, pool halls and the like, it should be the owner's choice. The owner can decide which way he wants to run the risk of losing some business.

Seems that many of the anti-smoking activists are of the new Repulican variety, which is odd since the party is supposedly for less gov't intervention and a 'get out of my life' policy.

I don't see a problem correlating smoking with food or alcohol. If you drink too much, it's a health hazard. If you eat crappy, fatty food all the time, that's a health hazard. Will it be coming down the pipe that if you eat a fast food burger more than twice a week (and not enough veggies) you'll get fined? High fat diets lead to increased risk of heart disease and diabetes. Too much imbibing could mean you'll need a new liver one day. That's expensive. I mean, why should I, who eats a balanced and healthy diet and consumes alcohol very moderately, have to fork over money to subsidize your increased medical bills due to unhealthy eating/drinking habits? Good thing there's a 'Crap Food Ban' and an 'Easy on the Partying' rule. Now if we only can get the gov't to pass a law whereby I can sue somebody if they say something mean to me, thereby damaging my self-esteem and requiring therapy and/or compensation for lost wages because I was too upset to make it to work...

momzilla, anonymous:

Well, littlekinder, that's the problem with using the grounds of health care cost to society as justification for these smoking bans.

Some of us (and I'm a nonsmoker, although my husband enjoys the occasional cigar) believe that it should be sufficient to have notification on the door: "This is a smoking permitted facility" or "This is a nonsmoking facility." I'm speaking, of course, relative to privately owned establishments such as bars, restaurants, pool halls, etc. Then the adult patron himself can choose his acceptable level of risk vs. his desire to patronize that particular establishment.

littlekinder, anonymous:

Drew - those are chosen health hazards. But what about those eating a lovely salad and drinking iced tea, and still sitting in a cloud of smoke? The lush at the table next to me is not affecting MY liver. Or the enjoyment of my meal. Smoke does.

However, I DO believe this choice should be made by business owners.

austinrebel, anonymous:

If the anti-smokers want to ban smoking on the basis that's it's bad for you, then they must surely support the banning of public drinking which would surely save lives. All banning smoking in bars does is result in healthier alcoholics.

littlekinder, anonymous:

Of course. That is one way of looking at it. On the other hand, if I don't care what other people choose to do, but just don't want it in my personal space, that's different.

I'm not talking about a health issue, I'm just saying that I can understand folks wanting to go out to eat and know that smoke will not be drifting onto them. What's that old saying - "your rights end when you reach my nose" or something like that. It wasn't even about smoking. But it seems applicable.

austinrebel, anonymous:

littlekinder,

I don't disagree. What I don't understand is why people who object to smoking just simply refuse to patronize bars and restaurants that permit smoking. All smoking bans on private property do is open the door for even more restrictions. One of the unexpected benefits of the Austin smoking ban is bars built outdoor smoking decks. The bands moved out there and now there is a noise pollution problem prompting the politicians to craft a more restrictive sound ordinance. I don't like loud music myself but I simply don't go to bars which crank the sound up too loud when I am in Austin. I don't need the government to save me from smoking in private establishments or save my hearing either. I can make my own decisions. Just don't go in there. It's that simple.

littlekinder, anonymous:

Yes, as I said earlier, I think this should be up to the individual business owners.

I just wanted to say that I think most people that want a ban are doing so because, for them, a lot of smoke in the room can ruin the evening.

I am also really thinking restaurants/families, not bars, etc. If you don't expect smoke in a bar, you've obviously never been to a bar. Those folks should stick to wine bars.

austinrebel, anonymous:

oh, there's a definite demand for non-smoking bars that smart business owners in Dallas could fulfill. But there's such a demand for smoking bars that "smoke-easies" will appear all over Dallas once this ban passes.

austinrebel, anonymous:

Yes, I agree. It is only a small minority of fanatical anti-smokers who object to smoking in bars. Unfortunately, that minority includes paid lobbyists with a lot of influence with politicians.

austinrebel, anonymous:

Self-righteous?

chriss, anonymous:

Is it too tough for YOU ladies to put up with a little smoke now and again or are you such delicate flowers you'll wilt?
In case you haven't been paying attention, the War on Alcohol has never stopped in this country (and the WHO is gearing up to take it to the next level). And food bans are starting to come into their own as well "for our own good." Companies are now mandating "wellness" programs for employees and their spouses, so take your head out of the sand or the world of enforced calisthenics a la Orwell's "1984" may not be too far down the road. Calling someone an "addict" is a way of saying they have no self-control and should not be listened to or taken seriously--it's the nicotine talking--and they need to be "helped" with some toughlove or whatever. This label is being applied to ever larger numbers of people and the growth of a "therapeutic state" is very much something to worry about. You smoke cigars, yet consider yourself superior to those who smoke cigarettes???

chriss, anonymous:

Thoughts for the day:

"The Puritans hated bear baiting not because it was cruel to the bear but because it was pleasurable to the spactators" (Forget who said it Ambrose Bierce, maybe??)

"I had more freedom as a parolee in 1962 than the average citizen does today" Merle Haggard

Discuss.

chriss, anonymous:

PS: Alex, the Therapeutic State can only triumph if we all keep our mouths shut and be good little sheep (like Scott). Baaahh!!!

DC, anonymous:

Apparently this Chriss person has problems not only with chaw and clean air, but ladies are a problem, too. tsk, tsk

ch0, anonymous:

Do what thou wilt.

jtmbls, anonymous:

My company just gave us a little “incentive” to turn over our blood work to an interested third party called a wellness coach. The incentive was that they would raise our premiums and deductibles if we chose not to participate. So now a group of people I have never heard of before know my cholesterol levels, my body mass index and how many vegetables I eat in a week. Hopefully that is the extent of it. It is a little creepy though. Sort of like finding out a bunch of strangers have been rifling through your panty drawer.

It does make you wonder - How long will it be before they’re telling me what I can and cannot eat?

chriss, anonymous:

DC--no problems with any of the above mentioned. My only problem is with walking anal spincters who take pleasure in denying other people theirs.

Scott--maybe, but not a GOOD shepherd.

Alex--"People with few vices tend also tend to have few virtues" Abraham Lincoln

chriss, anonymous:

See also Mark Twain on the subject twainquotes.com

DC, anonymous:

I didn't think anyone was propsing to deny this Chriss person his anal enjoyment...tsk, tsk, he's just so confused.

chriss, anonymous:

DC--Just because your enjoyment is anal, it doesn't follow that everyone's necessarily is. You'll realize I'm right when they ban buttplugs and Vaseline enemas!!!