Smoking ban in Houston.

I would love to know how many of you would also prefer the government to stop enforcing health inspections in restaurants? Shouldn't the owners be able to do what they like in the kitchen with no concern to the well being of the clientele?

A good friend of mine, a pool player, recently had a chest x-ray and her doctor was shocked to find out the only smoking she did was 2nd hand. She had the lungs of a moderate smoker! As far as non smokers getting cancer, you do not know that Gayle Sayers grew up in a smoke free environment?
Do you know how many times I have seen parents driving in their cars, with their kids, smoking with the windows rolled up?

It is ironic to me, that smokers like to turn these threads into a personal rights issue, when it is their lack of consideration to the rights of others that creates the issue in the first place.
 
cuechick said:
I would love to know how many of you would also prefer the government to stop enforcing health inspections in restaurants? Shouldn't the owners be able to do what they like in the kitchen with no concern to the well being of the clientele?

(snip)
Click to expand...

Yeah, a principle-related question!

I would like it if the govt would stop prohibiting private health inspections and relinquish the govt's monolpoly on "safety." Private inspectors would be much more diligent than govt "workers."

Resaurants aren't really into killing their customers. Customers aren't really into eating at places that are unsafe. These two concepts mean that both sides have a SELFISH interest in safe food and will act in that manner. Unless, of course, the govt says someplace is safe even though they haven't checked it out for over 3 months or more.

Jeff Livingston
 
xidica said:
How long until I have to wear a shark-proof vest into the ocean? Federally mandated to use rounded SAFE-T scissors and plastic knives only? State forced anti-depressant drug therapy? Will they urine test me to make sure I'm taking prozac and throw me in jail if I don't? Will I be unable to get a steak or burger which is cooked rare and a bit bloody?

This has gone to far. The state should not "protect people from themselves". In doing so, we are bypassing one of the most beautiful part's of evolution. Those who are reckless and have a high propensity to die because of that will have less probability of prolonging and continuing their genetic makeup.

Thanks to all you bleeding heart liberals!
Click to expand...

They didn't say you couldn't smoke!!!! They just said you couldn't smoke in public. It isn't because they are protecting you, it is because they are trying to protect the people that don't smoke. Unfortunately for all you smokers the trend in the US is leaning towards non smoking. There are more and more people out there that don't smoke. So they are trying to protect all of us non smokers out there. Most smokers feel like they should be able to smoke and inflict all of us non smokers with their bad habit. I mean if you dip at least your not spitting into other people's mouths. The only person your hurting when dipping is yourself. When you smoke all of us non smokers have to breath in your bad habit, and shouldn't it be my choice not to breath that nasty stuff in?

(When I walk into a bar I don't expect it to be smoke free, but if it is then that is great for me! If they step in and make all public smoking prohibited then so be it. I won't complain.)
 
Last edited:
when it is their lack of consideration to the rights of others that creates the issue in the first place.
Click to expand...

There's a fine line here, health inspections protect all of us from food safety issues, etc. Obviously second hand smoke has been brought up as a danger to others who may not smoke.

Why would you even subject yourself to the smoke if you don't like it or have such a big deal with it in the first place?

What about your consideration for someone's right to smoke a cigarette? I understand this is a real fine line here, and while I would agree that health inspections for restaurants are a good thing; the choice to make an establishment smoking or non should be up to the owner. If you do not like it, do not eat there.

Perhaps I'll pass a bill to outlaw alcohol because people get drunk and even though I don't drink they kill me. The point is it's nearly impossible to take something away from the American people which they have had(read about prohibition, might enlighten you a bit)
 
14oneman said:
I personally like to light up a good cigar when I shoot. It relaxes me. I won't shoot in a pool room that doesn't allow smoking, and the government should stop intervention into our personal lives. If you don't like smoke then don't go into a pool room that allows it, but don't take the choice away from those that do.:mad:
Click to expand...

If I avoided pool halls that allow smoking I would never play pool. All of them allow smoking here, so should I quit playing? You would have the choice to go outside if you want to smoke, I think it's rediculous to have to smoke while playing pool... especially in a place that serves food. It doesn't help your eyesight or breathing... that's for sure. I also despise people who hold the cigarette in their mouth while over the table shooting... absolutely hate seeing that. Tobacco is disgusting, no matter how you look at it.

There's a difference between the government imposing on your business and the government making your business more healthy and enjoyable for people who chose not to slowly commit suicide. It's simple. And the day the government makes prozac mandatory... I'm moving to europe.
 
txplshrk said:
They didn't say you couldn't smoke!!!! They just said you couldn't smoke in public.

YES they ARE saying I can't smoke!:mad: IN PUBLIC is for smokers and non-smokers alike, so they are telling smokers that they DON'T have a choice.:mad: I am also not saying that non smokers should be subjected to smoke against their will, simply that both sides should have a CHOICE!!! If you don't like smoke go to a non smoking establishment, but don't tell me I have no right to smoke, by making it ILLEGAL!!! That is not giving me any choice!:mad:
Click to expand...
 
xidica said:
Why would you even subject yourself to the smoke if you don't like it or have such a big deal with it in the first place?

What about your consideration for someone's right to smoke a cigarette? I understand this is a real fine line here, and while I would agree that health inspections for restaurants are a good thing; the choice to make an establishment smoking or non should be up to the owner. If you do not like it, do not eat there.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with this at all. I believe the line for this IS fine, but it's so obvious that it shouldn't be in question. You're taking two people, adding a cigarette to one, and smoke to both. I have more of a right to not smoke (2nd hand) than you have a right to smoke, PERIOD. When your activity affects my health, it becomes a community issue. When the activity that affects other people's health is so widespread as smoking it becomes a state government issue like it is. I can't wait for it to spread nation-wide, and I can't wait to play in an awesome place like Q-Masters without smoke. Smoke kills.
 
14oneman said:
If you don't like smoke go to a non smoking establishment, but don't tell me I have no right to smoke, by making it ILLEGAL!!! That is not giving me any choice!:mad:
Click to expand...

That's not giving me as a non-smoker a choice. All pool halls within 400 miles of me allow smoking. So wanna send me a 9-footer and 140k to buy a house big enough to put it in? :D Please? :o
 
Then petition some of those pool rooms to BECOME non smoking, or open one yourself, that will cater to non smokers. Apparently the pool halls by you have customers that want to smoke? Just exactly WHO is the minority here? Last time I checked, America was founded on free will.
 
I smoke, gamble, curse, hunt, fish, drive fast, and carry a concealed weapon legally, but I'm not 1/10th as dangerous as a liberal with a cause!

I also believe the world was created the second I was born and will end when I die. So my choices in life are not anyone's but my own to decide.

(got a light?) :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jon
Ruthless said:
I smoke, gamble, curse, hunt, fish, drive fast, and carry a concealed weapon legally, but I'm not 1/10th as dangerous as a liberal with a cause!

I also believe the world was created the second I was born and will end when I die. So my choices in life are not anyone's but my own to decide.

:D
Click to expand...

AMEN to you sir!!!;) :D
 
I choose not to smoke, and I don't want to experience your smoke. I'm forced to inhale other people's smoke because they're the 1/4 or so of the patrons who smoke. Most of the people I see playing aren't smoking... it's people who put up with it because that's how it's been for so long. Maybe 1/5 of the people there are smoking at any given time. Some places are different and most of the people smoke, but not at Q-Masters or Obelisk or any decent place in my area.

Like I said, I can't wait for a non-smoking establishment law to go into effect.
 
I'm an ex-smoker who believes that allowing smoking in a bar or restaurant should be up to the proprietor. If he or she wants smoking clientele it should be his privelege. Non-smokers can open up competing establishments and I will frequent those.
 
You people are missing the point of the law. It is not enacted into law to protect patrons. It was enacted to protect non-smoking employees that work inside buildings all day.

Employees that work inside a building have the right to work in a smoke-free enviornment, whether it's a clothing store, Chuck E. Cheese, or a pool hall.

Don't tell me that non-smokers should just find somewhere else to work.
Should we allow smoking at all businesses and then insist that non-smokers should just work outside if they don't like smoke? I don't think so.

Noone is telling you that you can't light up. You just can't do it where someone is working inside a building. Employees have the right to work in a smoke-free enviornment.:)
 
Only someone with an IQ of a fruit-bat would apply for a job at a bar or pool room expecting to be "protected" from smoke.

They have 100 times better chance of dying from a robbery, postal patron, or drunk driver on the way home at 3 am anyway.

Wake up :confused:
 
Ruthless said:
Only someone with an IQ of a fruit-bat would apply for a job at a bar or pool room expecting to be "protected" from smoke.

They have 100 times better chance of dying from a robbery, postal patron, or drunk driver on the way home at 3 am anyway.

Wake up :confused:
Click to expand...

Let's see if your qouted stats live in reality or Fantasyworld. 100 times better? Hmm...

FACT: Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year. -California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005.

FACT: Number of alcohol related traffic deaths in the US and Puerto Rico in 2005 was 17,102. - http://www.madd.org/stats/11088

100 times more likely? I would check my math if I were you. By the numbers, you are twice as likely to die from second hand smoke than a drunk driver.

BTW, insults don't help your side of the debate either.

TX Poolnut <---wide awake to reality
 
And Coal miners should be allowed work in an environment that does not cause black lung? People in the textile mills shouldn't have to worry about textile lung?

Second hand smoke is just another hazardous environment freely chosen by the worker. In a free-market system it's all a matter of personal choice. If non-smokers wish to set up a competing environment, I am all for it. I would prefer to shoot pool in a smoke-free room. I do not, however, condone government intervention into who a proprietor has chosen as customers.
 
Meh. I think if you're going to run a business it should be as healthy as possible without going overboard (safe-t-cut scissors, mandatory prozac, etc.), whether you run a textile mill, a coal mine, or a pool hall. It's not hard to tell when that line has been crossed and you've officially reached "overboard". We're nowhere near it.
 
RedGuru said:
And Coal miners should be allowed work in an environment that does not cause black lung? People in the textile mills shouldn't have to worry about textile lung?

Second hand smoke is just another hazardous environment freely chosen by the worker. In a free-market system it's all a matter of personal choice. If non-smokers wish to set up a competing environment, I am all for it. I would prefer to shoot pool in a smoke-free room. I do not, however, condone government intervention into who a proprietor has chosen as customers.
Click to expand...

Coal miners and their bosses are federally mandated by OSHA to do all sorts of things to protect themselves at the workplace. Is this a bad thing? No.

Textile workers and their bosses are federally mandated by OSHA to do all sorts of things to protect themselves at the workplace. Is this a bad thig? No.

Waitresses, bartenders, and their bosses are federally mandated by OSHA to do all sorts of things to protect themselves at the workplace. Is this a bad thing? No.

In reference to your last statement, I'll repeat what I've already said. The smoking bans are NOT about you and me (patrons). The bans are about employees. The gov't isn't intervening into who a proprieter has chosen as customers. Smokers can still patronize any business they want to. They just can't smoke while doing so. You're missing the point of the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top