Smoking ban in Houston.

[GTeye]

Do most businesses rent or own their place of business?

I'm thinking they rent it most likely so not sure how property rights applies to a renter but that's neither here nor there when it comes to the issue at hand which is that a business is a contract and an agreement to follow certain rules and regulations. Don't like them? Do what you can to get them changed and I wish you luck.

Imo, It's an issue of business rights, not property rights.

And, all those other things you listed btw:

ban drinking, eating high fat foods, driving, make daily exercise compulsory etc etc

Everyone one of them effects noone other than YOURSELF, except maybe driving but if you do something wrong while driving, YOU GET A TICKET or ARRESTED FOR DUI.

Hence the difference when it comes to smoking.

 

[wayne]

No, I asked YOU to explain why YOU think his post is the dumbest. Don't throw YOUR comment onto someone else's shoulders. Responsibility is what it is called.

Or can't you tell us why you insulted his post without evidence?

Oh, and I thought his post was the best he's ever had here, drunk or not. Why? (see, I give rational reasons for my "feelings") He stated the truth, mixed with righteous emotions, something desperately needed when the initation of violence is advocated.

YOUR turn,

Jeff Livingston

The vitriolic nature and screedishness of it.

 

[cuechick]

I haven't read all of his thread because it is so huge. However, in the parts I did read no one mentioned what I consider to be the biggest benefit of a smoke free room. In a smoke free room the equipment conditions are infinitely better in my view. I have spent considerable time in a room located in an area that banned smoking and the tables stayed in great condition with only a small amount of maintenance. In contrast, many rooms where smoking is heavy, even common and energetic maintence can not keep up with the dirt, tar, grime, etc. that is incident to smoking.

So those of you who are equipment whores (you know who you are and I am included) then there is at least one good thing about a smoke free room.

kollegedave

And you probably won't get any of the pro smokers to acknowledge your very good point. I have read the whole thread and noticed a few non-smokers who have chimed in on behalf of the other side but not one (so far) smoker to say, "hey yeah it is nasty and I don't mind taking it outside."
Because as I said, it is a self centered issue....on the smokers part.

 

[Colin Colenso]

personally i say ban it everywhere, hell ban cigarettes.

as far as i'm concerned, time breeds moral apathy (yes i composed that great line!).

the only reason we don't see smoking the same as snorting a line of cocaine or even punching somebody in the street, is because we've got used to being around it for such a long time. that doesn't make it right. you cant justify everything with the 'personal choice' argument i believe, there's got to be a set of rules for soiciety that work for the good of it. smoking in not one single way at all brings any good to society.

What your are saying is consistant worriedbeef....it will probably be tried.

Heck, they've already done it with alcohol before during prohibition.

The only problem is that there are significant economic and social costs to banning things that people want. Prohibition led to levels of violence never before seen in peace time. The drug war leads to gang wars, huge prison populations and the development of high potency dangerous drugs, and an expensive army of bureaucrats.

Government cannot even keep drugs out of prisons, they'll never be able to keep drugs, ciggarettes or alcohol out of the reach of the people.

As for smoking never bringing any good to society, one should consider that millions of people do it for the pleasure they receive from it. We don't question whether cakes bring any good to society. I guess they don't get into people's eyes and noses so much and bother them though.

Anyway, there are a list of proven medical and mental benefits attributed to smoking. Read if you dare:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/brimelow1.html

Colin

 

[catscradle]

...
It's our job to try to prevent them from enacting foolish regulations. Be them for businesses or in our own homes.

Colin

I haven't been paying too close attention to this thread because as I said earlier this topic has been done to death. However I feel compelled to respond, regulating smoking is most certainly not "foolish regulation", it is most assuredly good and wise regulation.
The only point worth debating is whether or not it is legal regulation. Since the government reserves the right to regulate via licensing it is legal. The only way it could be deemed illegal would be to eliminate the governments right to license, which may or may not be a good thing and is in any event a separate debate.

 

[Colin Colenso]

And you probably won't get any of the pro smokers to acknowledge your very good point. I have read the whole thread and noticed a few non-smokers who have chimed in on behalf of the other side but not one (so far) smoker to say, "hey yeah it is nasty and I don't mind taking it outside."
Because as I said, it is a self centered issue....on the smokers part.

I'll agree it was a good point in favor of keeping a room smoke free.

In fact, I believe their is definitely a market for some clubs to be smoke free in some areas.

But if I ran a club that was more like a bar / nightclub, I very much doubt my business would improve by not allowing smoking.

In fact, a great many business operators around the world have lost a lot of money due to smoking ban legislations.

Also many restaurants and clubs around the world have voluntarily banned smoking and done so profitably. Good on them.

Some don't seen to get my point so I'll repeat it...read my lips:
"Smokers do NOT have a right to smoke on other's properties"
"Government should NOT have a right to tell proprietors that their patrons cannot partake in otherwise legal activities"

Colin

 

[RedGuru]

Licensing is only another form of taxation. Professional licensing should be attained through acceptance by peers like the AMA and the local Bar associations. A license to do business is only designed to fill the coffers of the local government.

 

[cuechick]

Cuechick,

This is an issue of property rights. Not smoking rights.


Colin

This is where I disagree with you the most, it is not a property rights issue, it is a public safety issue. 2nd hand smoke is far from "displeasing", it is a legitimate health risk for anyone who is exposed to it. Many studies have shown, it is even more lethal than the smoke directly inhaled, 10 times more in fact.
Anyone operating a business should have to adhere to certain guidelines to assure the safety of the public. When I go to Disneyland, I expect the rides to be well maintained and safe...how is that different? Or a restaurant must follow certain health standards...so the food is safe.

There was a time when we knew little of the dangers of 2nd hand smoke
and smoking was allowed everywhere, even on trains and planes! When I see old movies with people smoking, I know that just had no idea of the danger. We know better now, there is just no excuse for allowing it in any enclosed space.

I would really love it if some one invented a little helmet that would enclose smokers in there own private world of smoke! I just wonder how long they would stay....

 

[cuechick]

I have to add, I think smoking would not bother so much if smokers were a little (maybe a lot) more considerate. Walking around the pool hall with their cigarettes lite, walking up to all the communal areas, like the bar or a tournament board, or smoking in the bathrooms....
I was playing in a tournament last year at Cues II and just as my match started this guy leans over my the railing with his cig dangling right over my head. I turned to ask him nicely (believe me I am a 'get more bees with honey' person) to move. He snapped at me before I even finished my sentence, "Well this is a pool hall." Does that mean you can use my head as an ash tray? It also frustrates me, cause when your in a tournament you can not choose where you play! Where as this guy, who was in a "pool hall" (and was not even playing), had plenty of options as to where he sat. So then he goes and finds 2 or 3 other smokers to come sit with him, directly behind me and light up.

The day Georgia bands smoking everywhere, I will be one happy girl!

 

[Colin Colenso]

This is where I disagree with you the most, it is not a property rights issue, it is a public safety issue. 2nd hand smoke is far from "displeasing", it is a legitimate health risk for anyone who is exposed to it. Many studies have shown, it is even more lethal than the smoke directly inhaled, 10 times more in fact.
Anyone operating a business should have to adhere to certain guidelines to assure the safety of the public. When I go to Disneyland, I expect the rides to be well maintained and safe...how is that different? Or a restaurant must follow certain health standards...so the food is safe.

There was a time when we knew little of the dangers of 2nd hand smoke
and smoking was allowed everywhere, even on trains and planes! When I see old movies with people smoking, I know that just had no idea of the danger. We know better now, there is just no excuse for allowing it in any enclosed space.

I would really love it if some one invented a little helmet that would enclose smokers in there own private world of smoke! I just wonder how long they would stay....

Safety is just one aspect of life that people place a value on. I do not believe the government has any business getting involved in safety, as I don't believe they should be in the food manufacturing and distribution business.

Government, when they have had a monopoly in areas concerning safety have done a terrible job of it.

The reason you feel safe going on rides at Disneyland is because such parks know they will go out of business if people get hurt on their rides. Same for aircraft and many other industries. eg. Try feeding me a salmonella surprise at your restaurant and see how long you stay in business.

You don't need government to monitor such things. Private rating companies do a much better job.

I also believe that the dangers of second hand smoke have been greatly exagerated. The science behind claims such as 50,000 deaths per year from second hand smoke are just ludicrously unscientific.

Here is a critique of their claims and flawed methodology.
http://www.forces.org/downloads/psaip.pdf
.....

Anyway, I doubt I've convinced you. We'll have to agree to disagree

I know one thing. That there are many like myself who have gone from holding your opinion and changed to a libertarian stance, as they study property rights as the key of a free society. I've never seen anyone turn the other way, once they recognized the harm in handing such powers over to government.

Such usurpations always begin as cries to save the children, protect us from monsters etc.

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

This blog goes into detail regarding the false claims of the anti-smoking groups: This guy is actually an honest anti-smoking activist and scientist who is blowing the whistle on the continual false claims of anti-smoking groups.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

This website also provides a ton of similar information:
http://www.forces.org/

 

[cuechick]

Skew what ever you want, a google search can always produce which ever BS you want to support...

So back atch ya.... this is direct from the American Lung Association:

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet

August 2006

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3
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.4
A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.5
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.6
Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.7 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.8
Currently, 14 states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have already passed strong smoke-free air laws.9
As of 2005, nine smoke-free states prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, including restaurants and bars (CA, CT, DE, ME, MA, NY, RI, VT and WA).10
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.11
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 700,000 to 1.6 million physician office visits per year.12 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.13
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.14 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.15
New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.16
The current Surgeon General's Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.17
For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

Sources:
1. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005.
2. Ibid.
3. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html: Accessed on 7/7/06.
4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005.
5. He, J.; Vupputuri, S.; Allen, K.; et al. Passive Smoking and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease-A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiologic Studies. New England Journal of Medicine 1999; 340: 920-6.
6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition 2002. National Toxicology Program.
7. Shopland, D. Smoke-Free Workplace Coverage. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2001; 43(8): 680-686.
8. Halpern, M.T.; Shikiar, R.; Rentz, A.M.; Khan, Z.M. Impact of Smoking Status on Workplace Absenteeism and Productivity. Tobacco Control 2001; 10: 233-238.
9. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: Secondhand Smoke Exposure in the Workplace. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet5.html: Accessed on 7/7/06.
10. American Lung Association, State of Tobacco Control: 2005.
11. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005.
12. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. September 1997.
13. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005.
14. Schuster, MA, Franke T, Pham CB. Smoking Patterns of Household Members and Visitors in Homes with Children in United States. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. Vol. 156, 2002: 1094-1100.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses. Second Edition. February 2003
16. Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M. The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? The Research Philip Morris Did Not Want You to See. Lancet. Vol. 364 No. 9446, 2004.
17. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html: Accessed on 7/7/06.

 

[worriedbeef]

to be honest that bloke with the blog setting out to supposedly 'put right' the 'false claims' of anti-smoking groups seems a bit mad. why do it? i mean, say even if the effects of passive smoking are exagerated for a minute, if these articles and claims mean less people smoke then surely that's a good thing? sometimes you have to overlook the means for the result.

in saying that that is hypothetically. somewhat ironically i do believe his claims to be exagerated a lot, but that's a different issue.

and while the first link you supplied Colin with the potential 'benefits' of smoking gave me a giggle, let's be honest it's a bit stupid. it's just a disease/ailement trade! Worried about contracting colon cancer? Have lung cancer instead! Fearful of prostate cancer? Smoke! And we'll just increase your chances of impotence instead! Not to mention a fair few of those examples were inconclusive.

seriously, this reminds me of the 'benefits' of smoking cannabis. yes it may well provide some small positive effect, but it'll also rot your brain away at the same time. hmmmm.

anyway, i was wondering the other day, what's the difference between kneeling down on the floor and eating a spoonful of dog turd 20 times a day? In one case you are injesting a load of crap and gunk and poison into your body regularly, and the other case, well it's the same.

 

[Colin Colenso]

And exactly what is "intelligent" about smoking? I'd really like to know how you personally feel? How do you justify exposing people who work in or patraonize a business to your 2nd hand smoke?

I wouldn't say that smoking is necessarily an intelligent choice. Any type of materialism for pleasure is basically unintelligent in nature. But that's human nature, to seek pleasure.

I justify smoking in some places on the account that 1. I don't believe I am putting people at any significant risk. and 2. That it is their choice to frequent that place.

I do not insist on having a right to smoke where it is not permitted, and I avoid polluting the air around people who are bothered by it. Clearly some smokers are rude and those who fight for rights to smoke whereever they please are totally wrong in my book.

If smoke were as dangerous as Serin gas, or even one fraction as dangerous, it would be a different issue. I believe traffic and other pollution sources pose much more threat to people's health than second hand cigarette smoke.

Convenient? Yes. Wrong? I don't think so, and I have spent considerable time looking into it.

Anyway, tons of pro and con opinions have been aired, ensuring many are confused and have wasted a lot of time

Colin

 

[havoc]

.........................

great post tx poolnut.

when civil liberties are involved ppl have a tendancy to get a lil paranoid.

i do agree with alot of what colin said but i don't think smoking,drinking,and drugs are a good platform to lobby for in securing them.

sure,maybe ppl should be allowed to put anything they want into there bodies they choose if and only if no one else is affected.and that can't be gauranteed.

smokers should be allowed to smoke,non smokers should be allowed not to smoke or their civil liberties are being infringed on.

i would vote against a ban on smoking,i will vote for limiting where ppl can smoke.

 

[zeeder]

...If smoke were as dangerous as Serin gas, or even one fraction as dangerous, it would be a different issue...

Colin

Actually Colin, cigarette smoke is a fraction as dangerous as Serin gas. What the fraction is I don't know but I can guarantee you that it is a fraction, or at least percentage!

 

[mnorwood]

This is a great debate. Both sides have good points. Ultimately I don't think the government should have this kind of power, but a part of me says that too much is known about the negative effects of smoking to allow it in a public place.

 

[Colin Colenso]

great post tx poolnut.

when civil liberties are involved ppl have a tendancy to get a lil paranoid.

i do agree with alot of what colin said but i don't think smoking,drinking,and drugs are a good platform to lobby for in securing them.

sure,maybe ppl should be allowed to put anything they want into there bodies they choose if and only if no one else is affected.and that can't be gauranteed.

smokers should be allowed to smoke,non smokers should be allowed not to smoke or their civil liberties are being infringed on.

i would vote against a ban on smoking,i will vote for limiting where ppl can smoke.

Hi Havoc,
Unfortunately, the first steps toward the usurpation of rights are usually targeted at politically unpopular activities, such as drugs, smoking, pedophilia, pornography etc etc.

These create precendents for further encroachments of state power.

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

Actually Colin, cigarette smoke is a fraction as dangerous as Serin gas. What the fraction is I don't know but I can guarantee you that it is a fraction, or at least percentage!

You got me there Then again, water is a fraction as toxic as H2SO4.

 

[zeeder]

You got me there Then again, water is a fraction as toxic as H2SO4.

That's true. It's quite paradoxical that the things we need for life ultimately contribute to aging and death, i.e. oxidative stress!