Smoking Bans????

[ph4ever]

Smoking is being banned in Houston resturants, but not bars.

Trying to ban smoking in bars is almost as outrageous as trying to ban drinking in bars. Oops, too late.

it's being done in Washington, except on tribal casinos. the really sucky thing about it is that now some of the bars actually STINK more. Those that serve food and don't change their grease as often as they should smell like dead fried food.

[springparrot]

Smoking is being banned in Houston resturants, but not bars.

Trying to ban smoking in bars is almost as outrageous as trying to ban drinking in bars. Oops, too late.

I believe that is wrong...you can drink in bars in TEXAS, just not get drunk.

[Jahfin]

And I think the analogy (as noted in the above post) is way way way out there too. Ever driven after consuming alcohol? Not the same as driving after smoking tobacco is it?

What about the occaisonal idiot that drops the head of a cigarette between their legs and drives into oncoming traffic because they're more concerned with keeping the car's interior looking pretty?

I'm talking about the effects of smoking tobacco vs. those of drinking alcohol. What you're referring to doesn't have anything to do with that.

[st.somewhere]

This whole argument is effen' retarded! The bottom line is this... Smoking is a dirty, disgusting, filthy habit that effects every single person that's around it when it's done in doors. If you want to smoke, go outside and STFU. End of story...

[Tiki Bar]

Not to mention, another "residue" of drinking is puking. No, not a good analogy at all.

I think you're way way way out there on this one. I drink often enough, but I don't puke with any regularity. But as CaptainP implied, my irrigation is definitely increased.

And I think the analogy (as noted in the above post) is way way way out there too. Ever driven after consuming alcohol? Not the same as driving after smoking tobacco is it?

Yes... but that doesn't mean I drive drunk.

No, it doesn't, nor did I even imply that you did. I asked if drinking and smoking tobacco could favorably be compared. The answer is no, they can't. Therefore the smoking vs. drinking analogy doesn't work at all.

OK. My husband chews tobacco... does the analogy work if he spits tobaccy juice on smokers?

Just kidding! We seem to be taking things to extremes, thought I'd join in!

[Tiki Bar]

This whole argument is effen' retarded! The bottom line is this... Smoking is a dirty, disgusting, filthy habit that effects every single person that's around it when it's done in doors. If you want to smoke, go outside and STFU. End of story...

I see the wink, but still, please remain civil. Thank you.

[Tiki Bar]

Smoking is being banned in Houston resturants, but not bars.

Trying to ban smoking in bars is almost as outrageous as trying to ban drinking in bars. Oops, too late.

I believe that is wrong...you can drink in bars in TEXAS, just not get drunk.

Seriously???

[springparrot]

Smoking is being banned in Houston resturants, but not bars.

Trying to ban smoking in bars is almost as outrageous as trying to ban drinking in bars. Oops, too late.

I believe that is wrong...you can drink in bars in TEXAS, just not get drunk.

Seriously???

seriously.

[springparrot]

Tiki
http://travelnewsblog.latimes.com/daily ... in_a_.html
http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives ... sts_d.html

[ph4ever]

Smoking is being banned in Houston resturants, but not bars.

Trying to ban smoking in bars is almost as outrageous as trying to ban drinking in bars. Oops, too late.

I believe that is wrong...you can drink in bars in TEXAS, just not get drunk.

Seriously???

seriously.

yea just last month the Irving police dept got a lot of national attention for arresting people IN HOTEL BARS on the premise that they would be driving later.

[flyboy55]

I am a smoker, but I prefer to eat in Non-Smoking restraunts. I don't like the smell of smoke while I am eating, and in general. We don't smoke inside our house, or in our cars.

That said, I think smoking bans are crocks, just one more law limiting a person's freedoms. Let people (restraunt patrons) vote with their money. If someone does not like a restraunt that is a "smoking" restraunt, don't go there. Don't spend money to support it. Don't tell the restraunt owner he has to go non-smoking... Myself, as a smoker, am the first person to suggest going to a non-smoking restraunt, and rather spend my money at one...

A smoking ban was recently defeated in New Hampshire (the Free State), and it was defeated on the principals. The Senators were not focused on whether or not a ban would be good or bad for business. The Senators were focused on the real issues: property rights, personal choice, and economic freedom. There is some really good info on the link below, but just a word of warning to you left wing pansies, it is a site dedicated to personal liberties (Free State Project), that I am a part of....

http://freestateblogs.net/node/378

"Let the market decide" has been the rallying cry of libertarians and free-marketeers for a long time.

I used to have long philosophical discussions with various thinkers about personal freedom, government regulation and "letting the market decide".

As an example of where logic will sometimes lead you, consider this:

The airline industry is one of the most heavily regulated (ie controlled by government regulations) in the world, most of the regulation having to do with safety. It is not for nothing that the FAA is sometimes known as the "Tombstone Agency", as almost all of the safety regulations that govern commercial aviation are the result of airliner crashes.

Of course, the "market" argument can be advanced in the following manner: let airlines decide for themselves who they will hire to fly and what their qualifications must be, how often they will perform maintenance on aircraft, how quickly they will fix broken components, etc. If an airline proves unsafe by crashing too many airplanes and killing too many people, folks won't fly on them and they will go broke. The market will have issued its judgement - Q.E.D.

This doesn't work for me personally. I like to have a reasonable expectation that when I board an aircraft as a passenger (or pilot), I will get to where I'm going in one piece. In return for that expectation, I think it's a reasonable tradeoff of my personal liberty to have a third party regulate safety.

I don't smoke, although over the years I've had many friends that have done (none currently). It was a small annoyance. Although I did support their efforts to kick the habit, ultimately if folks want to do that to their own health who am I to say no? However, with mounting evidence that second hand smoke causes disease in innocent bystanders, maybe it's time to tell smokers "do it in your own space on your own time".

I'm glad smoking is no longer permitted on commercial flights. That second-hand cigarette smoke was rough on lots of precision components and meant increased maintenance costs. More importantly, it's better for everyone's health - smokers and unwilling non-smokers alike.

Cheers.

[Caribbean Soul Man]

This whole argument is effen' retarded! The bottom line is this... Smoking is a dirty, disgusting, filthy habit that effects every single person that's around it when it's done in doors. If you want to smoke, go outside and STFU. End of story...

do y'all REALLY think fed, local and state governments want to get rid of tobacco??? The fed gov alone raised over $20 billion last year from fed excise taxes on tobacco and that doesn't include any of the state / local taxes collected. They are addicted to the revenue and are in fact balancing state budgets on the backs of smokers - in effect balancing future budgets on a revenue stream that theoretically should dwindle. What sense does that make?

Let's say they just banned it toworrow...do you actually think government would just write off all that revenue??? My guess is they'd start tagging other products or industries with rediculous taxes to make up the difference and at that point, the chances are likely that it will be something that is near and dear to a lot of non-smokers

It's just not that simple

[RinglingRingling]

This whole argument is effen' retarded! The bottom line is this... Smoking is a dirty, disgusting, filthy habit that effects every single person that's around it when it's done in doors. If you want to smoke, go outside and STFU. End of story...

do y'all REALLY think fed, local and state governments want to get rid of tobacco??? The fed gov alone raised over $20 billion last year from fed excise taxes on tobacco and that doesn't include any of the state / local taxes collected. They are addicted to the revenue and are in fact balancing state budgets on the backs of smokers - in effect balancing future budgets on a revenue stream that theoretically should dwindle. What sense does that make?

Let's say they just banned it toworrow...do you actually think government would just write off all that revenue??? My guess is they'd start tagging other products or industries with rediculous taxes to make up the difference and at that point, the chances are likely that it will be something that is near and dear to a lot of non-smokers

It's just not that simple

liquor and tobacco... prices on beer and liquor here surged in response to a budget deficit the last two years. The Repubs in OH ran on a platform claiming their opponents were going to raise taxes once they were in office and scared everyone... of course, within a couple weeks of the election (after they were no longer in danger of being held accountable), talk about raising taxes on liquor, beer and wine, and cigarettes started and then the talk became reality. Evidently "sin taxes" are ok, and don't count against the "no new, and a lot lower taxes" crowd.

[7lords]

You have a pleasure you like to partake in....smoking.
The residue from your pleasure is smoke.
It gets in my hair and my clothes, not to mention my lungs.

I have a pleasure, also.
I like to drink beer.
The residue from MY pleasure is urine.
Would YOU like it if I stood on a chair, and p*** on your hair, clothes, and up your nose?

Love it.

Madison has been completely smoke free for a while now and I love coming home at night not smelling like an ashtray

[7lords]

Not to mention, another "residue" of drinking is puking. No, not a good analogy at all.

Like I said, I understand respecting non-smokers and am not suggesting those rights being disrespected but folks have the right to smoke if they so chose as well.

They don't have the right if it's against the law in those places. I have the right to drive as well but there are certain places I cannot drive be cause it is illegal.

[RinglingRingling]

Not to mention, another "residue" of drinking is puking. No, not a good analogy at all.

Like I said, I understand respecting non-smokers and am not suggesting those rights being disrespected but folks have the right to smoke if they so chose as well.

They don't have the right if it's against the law in those places. I have the right to drive as well but there are certain places I cannot drive be cause it is illegal.

technically, driving is a privilege.

[7lords]

As to the comparison between second hand smoke and beer, I can't recall the last time a smoker crossed the center line (because of a cigarette) and crashed head-on into traffic and killed innocent people. Some may claim long-term health risks from smoking but we all know that one drunk idiot can kill you tonight God Forbid

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes:

At the end of an emotional sentencing hearing Tuesday, Dane County Circuit Judge Steven Ebert sentenced James M. Sharp, 60, to six years of probation with a year in jail as a condition of probation. Sharp pleaded no contest in December to two counts of homicide by negligent driving for the Aug. 17, 2004, crash that killed Peggy Hanson, 51, and her 4-year-old granddaughter, Lilyana Thomas. (This paragraph backs up and supports the lead and is part of the top of the story.)

"This is the first time I've ever seen a picture of Lilyana," Sharp said in court. "Every day when I see my own daughter, I think about her. She's a very beautiful child. My heart goes out to her family." (This third paragraph, which is a quote, supports both the lead and the second graf. Together, the first, second and third grafs make up the top of this story. The top part of the story should answer most of the basic news questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How?)

(The middle part of a news story provides the reader with more details and other additional information about the subject of the story and also background information for readers who are not familiar with the subject.)

Hanson and Lilyana were killed when the semitrailer that Sharp was driving crashed into the back of Hanson's car as it was stopped in backed-up traffic on the Beltline. Hanson's husband, Dennis Hanson, was severely injured. (This graf and the next graf are part of the middle of the story. They provide background information about the subject to the reade who may not recall earlier stories about the subject.)

Sharp had bent down to pick up a pack of cigarettes from the passenger side floor of his truck and failed to notice the slowed traffic in time to stop.

[Caribbean Soul Man]

liquor and tobacco... prices on beer and liquor here surged in response to a budget deficit the last two years. The Repubs in OH ran on a platform claiming their opponents were going to raise taxes once they were in office and scared everyone... of course, within a couple weeks of the election (after they were no longer in danger of being held accountable), talk about raising taxes on liquor, beer and wine, and cigarettes started and then the talk became reality. Evidently "sin taxes" are ok, and don't count against the "no new, and a lot lower taxes" crowd.

unfortunately you are right on the money

[Jahfin]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

[7lords]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

Um, once again, you're wrong. I directly answered the statement that was brought up. It was an accident caused by cigarettes.