Smoking ban in Houston.

[RBLilly]

Ban

Ok, for all you smokers out there that are on the bandwagon that we non smokers can go elsewhere.

Originally the restraunts and pool halls and bars, etc, etc decided to go smoker friendly in hopes to double their clients. In theory this was a good idea.

However, just like everyone is saying in here the trend has turned to non smoking. In an age where everyone is concerned about dieting, working out, etc they are also concerned about the issue of 2nd hand smoke. And should be with all the deaths and illnesses caused by 2nd hand smoke.

All you smokers out there that are pissed about it then I am sorry, but there is a simple solution that business owners aren't doing. Most smoking bans have a clause that says the business owner can close off a room, add a seperate ventilation system, and can use it as a smoking only room. I am sure you have seen smoking rooms in some airports. Some resturants are doing this to keep a smoking section open for clients.

Well here is the best part about it. Most resturants and other establishments have seen an increase in business due to the smoking ban, and most establishments are not catering to the smoking population. (I wonder why?) If my profits went up by being smoke free then why would I make a seperate room for smokers when the population of smokers is going down?

Right here in Corpus they got mad when city counsil decided to make all resturants none smoking. However when it got put to a vote the smoking ban passed with 75% of the voters wanting a smoking ban. That means only 25% of the voters turned it down.

Since most of your older population are the ones that turn out to vote I found this funny. Cause it is most of the older population that continue to smoke. My generation and younger are steering clear of the smoking, but yet we don't vote like we should.

The civilian population is pushing the smoking ban, and if you can't go without a smoke for a couple hours then you do have a problem. Look at California. They have banned smoking almost everywhere, and the smokers still find time to get their smoke in at the house or in the car, or the designated smoking area at work.

If you don't like the trend then how bout you move to a different country! LOL

Or better yet, read the warning label on the box of cigs and figure out that they are just costing you your life and money.

Oh and for the person that popped off about it being a liberal thing, I ain't a freaking liberal and I agree with all the smoking bans.

As far as keeping a business owner from catering to smokers, they still can, they just have to cater to non smokers as well. Unfortunately most business owners don't want to close off part of the business and put a seperate ventalation system. Mostly cause their profits are going up and they are smoke free! So why don't you get pissed at them and not at the voters? LOL How bout this, if you don't like that you can't smoke in a pool hall or resturant then you go somewhere else?

Have a nice day!

 

[RBLilly]

OMG, bingo halls make pool halls look like a pristine Colorado mountain.

And most bingo halls have two seperate rooms, one for smoking and one for non smokers. Both with their own ventilation systems!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe they are on to something. LOL

 

[nfty9er]

You Obviously Did Not Know

Ok, for all you smokers out there that are on the bandwagon that we non smokers can go elsewhere.

Originally the restraunts and pool halls and bars, etc, etc decided to go smoker friendly in hopes to double their clients. In theory this was a good idea.

However, just like everyone is saying in here the trend has turned to non smoking. In an age where everyone is concerned about dieting, working out, etc they are also concerned about the issue of 2nd hand smoke. And should be with all the deaths and illnesses caused by 2nd hand smoke.

All you smokers out there that are pissed about it then I am sorry, but there is a simple solution that business owners aren't doing. Most smoking bans have a clause that says the business owner can close off a room, add a seperate ventilation system, and can use it as a smoking only room. I am sure you have seen smoking rooms in some airports. Some resturants are doing this to keep a smoking section open for clients.

Well here is the best part about it. Most resturants and other establishments have seen an increase in business due to the smoking ban, and most establishments are not catering to the smoking population. (I wonder why?) If my profits went up by being smoke free then why would I make a seperate room for smokers when the population of smokers is going down?

Right here in Corpus they got mad when city counsil decided to make all resturants none smoking. However when it got put to a vote the smoking ban passed with 75% of the voters wanting a smoking ban. That means only 25% of the voters turned it down.

Since most of your older population are the ones that turn out to vote I found this funny. Cause it is most of the older population that continue to smoke. My generation and younger are steering clear of the smoking, but yet we don't vote like we should.

The civilian population is pushing the smoking ban, and if you can't go without a smoke for a couple hours then you do have a problem. Look at California. They have banned smoking almost everywhere, and the smokers still find time to get their smoke in at the house or in the car, or the designated smoking area at work.

If you don't like the trend then how bout you move to a different country! LOL

Or better yet, read the warning label on the box of cigs and figure out that they are just costing you your life and money.

Oh and for the person that popped off about it being a liberal thing, I ain't a freaking liberal and I agree with all the smoking bans.

As far as keeping a business owner from catering to smokers, they still can, they just have to cater to non smokers as well. Unfortunately most business owners don't want to close off part of the business and put a seperate ventalation system. Mostly cause their profits are going up and they are smoke free! So why don't you get pissed at them and not at the voters? LOL How bout this, if you don't like that you can't smoke in a pool hall or resturant then you go somewhere else?

Have a nice day!

I would move to another country but they just banned smoking in Hong Kong too. LOL

 

[Colin Colenso]

kudos to all of the governments enacting this legislation. Smoking is a proven killer. The lack of smoke would not make me enjoy the game any less.

If I smoked i'd probably feel differently thoughh

So is driving....and contacting other humans to pass on contagious diseases.

Simple fact....anyone who supports legislation prohibiting private properties from having the choice to allow smoking is ignorant of the rightful purpose of government. You are all a threat to liberty via your ignorance.

It's a logical step from these laws to complete tyranny.

For god's sake, study the history of your founding. And stop watching Mainstrean Government Loving Television.

Try spending 15 years studying the subject before you all are so ready to accept idiotic arguments for government telling people what they can do on their own properties.

Problem is, the great majority of the people are simply government propagating clones by proxy due to their government indoctrination (education).

Kudos to those who know this type of legislation is wrong. To the others....open your eyes!

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

I would move to another country but they just banned smoking in Hong Kong too. LOL

Ironically, Mainland China is one of the last bastions of relatively unregulated businesses. Almost all of the Chinese restaurants, bars and pool clubs are either free to smoke or have smoking sections.

Oh, and smokes have negligable tax here, so a pack of 20 ranges from US$0.30 to US$1.50. Some elite brands, (which are smoother than any smoke I've seen in the west) are around US$5.00 a pack.

Colin

 

[Ruthless]

I know that in Florida, smoking is banned in resturants and bars. However, a buisness can get around this law if a certain percentage of their profits are from alcohol sales.

I only know of one poolroom that's smoke free in central FL.

The Florida resturant and bar smoking ban is based on food sales % (approx 10% of total gross), not alcohol. I heard of some giving food away and charging for the plate/box to put it on

(I need a light again and I'll miss the Slick Willy's down by Hobby when I visit if they have a ban there )

 

[TX Poolnut]

Simple fact....anyone who supports legislation prohibiting private properties from having the choice to allow smoking is ignorant of the rightful purpose of government. You are all a threat to liberty via your ignorance. Agreed to a point. However, this is not the mission of this legislation. If the point of this law was to deny people the right to smoke in a private building, I would be in complete agreement with you that it is wrong. The purpose of this law is to protect the employees who work inside private buildings all day. That's what OSHA does. Coal workers, textile workers, and waitresses all have a right to work in a safe enviornment. Second-hand smoke is not safe. It has nothing to do with patrons, although that is clearly a side effect. It has everything to do with workers who have to live 8 hours a day in second hand smoke.

It's a logical step from these laws to complete tyranny. Very respectfully, I'm not as learned as you Colin, so I'll stick to the subject at hand.

For god's sake, study the history of your founding. And stop watching Mainstrean Government Loving Television.

Try spending 15 years studying the subject before you all are so ready to accept idiotic arguments for government telling people what they can do on their own properties. Your insults are unnecessary. I don't think the law is prohibiting folks from smoking on their own property, just not in the building where employees are forced to inhale toxic smoke.
Problem is, the great majority of the people are simply government propagating clones by proxy due to their government indoctrination (education). Agreed.
Kudos to those who know this type of legislation is wrong. To the others....open your eyes! Why do people keep telling me to open my eyes or wake up? It's kinda insulting.

Colin

I know you have a background in gov't studies or something like that, because I've seen your discussion on other topics before. You're very good at making points in a discussion. I was just a little taken back by the coarsness of your post.

 

[wayne]

So is driving....and contacting other humans to pass on contagious diseases.

Simple fact....anyone who supports legislation prohibiting private properties from having the choice to allow smoking is ignorant of the rightful purpose of government. You are all a threat to liberty via your ignorance.

It's a logical step from these laws to complete tyranny.

For god's sake, study the history of your founding. And stop watching Mainstrean Government Loving Television.

Try spending 15 years studying the subject before you all are so ready to accept idiotic arguments for government telling people what they can do on their own properties.

Problem is, the great majority of the people are simply government propagating clones by proxy due to their government indoctrination (education).

Kudos to those who know this type of legislation is wrong. To the others....open your eyes!

Colin

This has to be the dumbest post I've ever seen you make.

 

[Irish634]

FWIW... We've had a statewide (NY) ban on smoking in public places for a while now. By public places, I mean the work place as another poster has described. I think it has had both positive and negative affects.

I am a non-smoker. I and others just started going back into the pool halls (and other establishments) because of this. However, in the same token, 2 miles away is the Pennsylvania border where smoking in public places is allowed (for now) and most of the people from NY go to the bars in PA because they can smoke. In fact, our American Legion post has lost nearly 80% of its membership because the members can go a few miles down the road in PA to another Legion Post and smoke.

So it has had both affects on the local businesses. But, if you go further into the center of the state like say Syracuse, I believe there was a positive trend toward increased patronage.

I agree with both sides of the discussion. I agree with the smokers' right to light up, and I agree with my right not to have to breathe it in. But, I can choose not to patronize a "smoking" establishment just as easily as the individual that smokes can choose not to patronize the "non-smoking" establishment.

If someone chooses to work in either smoking or non-smoking work places, I believe (or would hope to believe) that he/she is intelligent enough to make their own competent decisions.

Just another 2 cents worth....

Craig

 

[cornerhooked]

I cant believe it. Im a smoker. While there are the few DIVES around here that can be very smoky and as a smoker it can be a little bad at times, I feel it should up to the individual business owners NOT city council! Guess I will just have to start my own team out of my house next session.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I know you have a background in gov't studies or something like that, because I've seen your discussion on other topics before. You're very good at making points in a discussion. I was just a little taken back by the coarsness of your post.

To TX Poolnut, Wayne and others,
Actually I was a little drunk when I wrote that, which is no excuse, but hence the vitriolic nature which I apologize for.

It is a subject which I am very passionate about.

It's not that I'm pro smoking, nor am I anti-education, I simply think niether should be any business of government.

People are free to choose whether they accept a work contract where risk of injury is involved. Some jobs are inherently more dangerous than others and a government body is not the most efficient way to reduce the risks of injury or health damage.

Also, some foods and lifestyle practices incur risks to health, smoking being one. But give the government the right to tell private businesses what their patrons can inhale, then it's just a matter of time until this argument extends to giving the govenment permission to control what foods we eat, how and when we should exercise or sleep.

If a business chooses to ban smoking of their own accord I absolutely respect their choice, but using government coercion to affect such measures is just a step towards the Nanny State, which in the end will enslave the people.

The essence of liberty is property rights, and this and OSHA are a clear infringement upon them.

The idea of a 'right to a safe workplace' is as specious as a right to a living wage or a right to equality. People put a value of health and safety, so the market has an incentive to reduce such risks. The government is no more effective in providing such protections as it is at providing the one key health benefit in life...that being food.

Whenever governments have taken over the roles of food producers and distributors the results were mass starvation. So why put them in charge of health?

I hope these points are more useful than my earlier screed

Colin

 

[chefjeff]

(snip) 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. (snip)

You left out one important person in your equation. Know who it is?

It is the guy who OWNS THE PROPERTY and PAYS THE BILLS...Should not that OWNER have a say in how HIS PROPERTY is used and by whom?

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

I choose not to smoke, and I don't want to experience your smoke. I'm forced to inhale other people's smoke (snip).

So you are forced to go to someone else's place and inhale smoke? Just who forces you to do that?

Jeff Livingston

 

[xidica]

I'm forced to go to the bar, and watch people drink while I don't. Then when they get drunk they have a higher chance of killing me, someone else, or starting some outrageous fight, knocking my cue over, etc. Should we outlaw that too?

 

[chefjeff]

This has to be the dumbest post I've ever seen you make.

explain why.

Jeff Livingston

 

[IbeAnEngineer]

[All Fast Eddie's- FM 1960 and Fuqua are both on the Olhausen/Fast Eddie's Texas Tour.

Now that I think about it, the only high profile pool hall around Houston that won't be affected is Legend's in League City (home to the Houston Open). There are some Slick Willie's and Barney's locations around the outer suburbs that won't be affected also, but I don't count them as high profile.[/QUOTE]


TX-Poolnut,
I believe the fast Eddie's on FM 1960 is not in the city limits so it will not be affected by the smoking ban.

 

[TX Poolnut]

It's not that I'm pro smoking, nor am I anti-education, I simply think niether should be any business of government.
I think you, me, and everyone in the free world would agree with this. I've never met anyone who was pro-smoking, although I have met a few teenagers who were anti-education. lol The issue here is neither. The issue is workplace safety and on this, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The involvment of the gov't via OSHA has dramatically reduced the incidence of workplace injury and death since 1970.

People are free to choose whether they accept a work contract where risk of injury is involved. Some jobs are inherently more dangerous than others and a government body is not the most efficient way to reduce the risks of injury or health damage.
I just can't get this statement thru my thick skull. The fact that people are free to choose where they work, shouldn't give employers a free pass to unsafe air quality in buildings. Since 1970 and the inception of OSHA, workplace injury and death in the US have dramatically decreased. If there is a better way, I'm all ears.

Also, some foods and lifestyle practices incur risks to health, smoking being one. But give the government the right to tell private businesses what their patrons can inhale, then it's just a matter of time until this argument extends to giving the govenment permission to control what foods we eat, how and when we should exercise or sleep.
The gov't isn't telling employers what anyone can or can't inhale, just where they can/can't inhale it and for good reason. Are you suggesting that there should be no laws prohibiting smoking at any private business? Teachers should have the right to smoke in private schools? Doctors should have the right to smoke at private hospitals? Day care providers should have the right to smoke at Day Care centers? I think the last statement in your paragraph is a bit of an Orwellian stretch. The difference between cigarettes and food, exercise, and sleep is that the former 3 don't adversely affect anyone but the consumer.

If a business chooses to ban smoking of their own accord I absolutely respect their choice, but using government coercion to affect such measures is just a step towards the Nanny State, which in the end will enslave the people.
Again, this isn't about banning smoking altogether. Business still has the ability to set up smoking areas that will not infringe on the employees' health. There is nothing wrong with this. Your choice of wording (coercion) sure is inflammatory. Noone wants to be coerced into anything, but we do want to be protected by law from uncaring business.

The essence of liberty is property rights, and this and OSHA are a clear infringement upon them.
Property rights do not mean soveriegn rights though. When I become a property owner, I submit to the laws of the city, state, and country. I don't lose liberty by that submission, I become part of the system that provides me the ability to live out that right. My employees that work for me become part of this system the day they pay local, state, and federal taxes and expect to be protected by it as well.

The idea of a 'right to a safe workplace' is as specious as a right to a living wage or a right to equality. People put a value of health and safety, so the market has an incentive to reduce such risks. The government is no more effective in providing such protections as it is at providing the one key health benefit in life...that being food.
The right to a safe workplace is what the gov't strives for by having OSHA around. Although some may think it is specious at best, it is a goal to strive for. Reduced workplace injury and death since 1970 is a clear sign that OSHA works. Again, what is a better solution?
Whenever governments have taken over the roles of food producers and distributors the results were mass starvation. So why put them in charge of health?
The two things have nothing to do with each other. The gov't has screwed up many things it got it's hands on. Living on the Gulf Coast, Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. Employee health and workplace safety isn't one of these things. The statistics are proof of this. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I hope these points are more useful than my earlier screed.
This is probably the best discussion I've had with anyone on AZ ever. Wish I could give you more good rep.

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

 

[TX Poolnut]

I believe the fast Eddie's on FM 1960 is not in the city limits so it will not be affected by the smoking ban.

Thanks for the heads up. I was going by their street address, so I assumed they were in the city limits.

Fast Eddie's
5020 Fm 1960 Rd W
Houston, TX

 

[GTeye]

There are responsibilities that come along with running a business.

There are responsibilities that come along with being a US citizen.

There are responsibilities that come along with being part of a town or community.

Noone's rights are being restricted anyway. Smoking is still legal, people just aren't being allowed to do it where it can negatively effect the health of other people however you still have the right to do it whenever you like.

People keep telling us that if we don't like the smoke go elsewhere. Well let's apply that in a more realistic way, If you don't like the laws then you go elsewhere.

Move to a state/city without the smoking ban, keep running away from what a majority wants.

Move to a another country if you so choose.

 

[Colin Colenso]

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

TX Poolnut,
I appreciate your efforts to address each of my points. Hence I'll make an effort to address them...

Let's see if I can edit / insert effectively It's a little tricky when responses are placed inside a post.

It's not that I'm pro smoking, nor am I anti-education, I simply think niether should be any business of government.
I think you, me, and everyone in the free world would agree with this. I've never met anyone who was pro-smoking, although I have met a few teenagers who were anti-education. lol The issue here is neither. The issue is workplace safety and on this, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The involvment of the gov't via OSHA has dramatically reduced the incidence of workplace injury and death since 1970.

Here's one of dozens of good articles that demonstrates the inefficiency of OSHA
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=436&sortorder=articledate

Search OSHA on www.mises.org for more info.

People are free to choose whether they accept a work contract where risk of injury is involved. Some jobs are inherently more dangerous than others and a government body is not the most efficient way to reduce the risks of injury or health damage.
I just can't get this statement thru my thick skull. The fact that people are free to choose where they work, shouldn't give employers a free pass to unsafe air quality in buildings. Since 1970 and the inception of OSHA, workplace injury and death in the US have dramatically decreased. If there is a better way, I'm all ears.

Correlation does not prove causality, hence such humorous articles such as the Gloabal Warming is caused by a decrease in Pirates http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php

But to get more to the point...we aren't so much free to choose whatever we want for work, but we volutarilry choose according to our options, and there is no way that all occupations can ensure equal, let alone optimal conditions regarding health issues.

Deep sea welders receive high pay due to the intrinsic risks of the occupation...as does policing etc. When perceived risks are involved in a job, then the demand for that job by employees diminishes, hence the rewards must be increased.

Eg. Would you rather deliver pizzas in a prime Beverly Hills suburb for $15 an hour or in a dangerous ghetto for $20 an hour?

Also, some foods and lifestyle practices incur risks to health, smoking being one. But give the government the right to tell private businesses what their patrons can inhale, then it's just a matter of time until this argument extends to giving the govenment permission to control what foods we eat, how and when we should exercise or sleep.
The gov't isn't telling employers what anyone can or can't inhale, just where they can/can't inhale it and for good reason. Are you suggesting that there should be no laws prohibiting smoking at any private business? Teachers should have the right to smoke in private schools? Doctors should have the right to smoke at private hospitals? Day care providers should have the right to smoke at Day Care centers? I think the last statement in your paragraph is a bit of an Orwellian stretch. The difference between cigarettes and food, exercise, and sleep is that the former 3 don't adversely affect anyone but the consumer.

No, I'm not suggesting anyone has such rights to smoke wherever they want. What I'm saying is that it should be up to the property owners to decide what people can do within their premises.

So if a hospital or bar owner wants to stop smoking on their premises, it is their right. Just as, if I enter your home, and you request that I do not smoke, it would be unethical for me to do so.

If a business chooses to ban smoking of their own accord I absolutely respect their choice, but using government coercion to affect such measures is just a step towards the Nanny State, which in the end will enslave the people.
Again, this isn't about banning smoking altogether. Business still has the ability to set up smoking areas that will not infringe on the employees' health. There is nothing wrong with this. Your choice of wording (coercion) sure is inflammatory. Noone wants to be coerced into anything, but we do want to be protected by law from uncaring business.

Maybe the law as it has been enacted in some areas allows the business to set up some smoking areas. There are places where similar legislations does not offer this compromise.

But, I believe the government should not have any right at all to tell the business owner that they should make a smoke free area available. That is just a step towards the removal of one's rights to run their business as they see fit.

If it did turn out that 90% of pool clubs did better business by either banning smoking or partitioning smoking areas then I would absolutely support it, but I'm sure businesses have tried such measures volutarily and failed in most cases.

The assumption that governments know more about what would work for businesses better than the business owners is ludicrous. Even the dumbest business owner is usually degrees more advanced in knowing how to satisfy his clients than a bureaucrat.

The essence of liberty is property rights, and this and OSHA are a clear infringement upon them.
Property rights do not mean soveriegn rights though. When I become a property owner, I submit to the laws of the city, state, and country. I don't lose liberty by that submission, I become part of the system that provides me the ability to live out that right. My employees that work for me become part of this system the day they pay local, state, and federal taxes and expect to be protected by it as well.

This is generally called the 'contractarian theory'. Which means that by living within a state, we give acceptance to the laws that oversee it.

That's a complex issue and I could point you toward myriad references that discuss it, but perhaps the most succinct answer I can give is that because the staus quo works in X way, doesn't mean that that way is the intelligent way for the advancement of society.

The idea of a 'right to a safe workplace' is as specious as a right to a living wage or a right to equality. People put a value of health and safety, so the market has an incentive to reduce such risks. The government is no more effective in providing such protections as it is at providing the one key health benefit in life...that being food.
The right to a safe workplace is what the gov't strives for by having OSHA around. Although some may think it is specious at best, it is a goal to strive for. Reduced workplace injury and death since 1970 is a clear sign that OSHA works. Again, what is a better solution?

We have similar private companies that do what OSHA attempts in other areas. Some include Choice magazine, various hotel and restaurant ratings systems, product safety ratings / analysis companies etc etc. When such organizations have gone into competition against similar government agencies given the same task, they have kicked their butts. I have seen this in China having worked with one such private company. Basically the government testing / rating service for textile contaminants was so corrupt and innefficient that international buyers gave little value for their ratings.

What tends to happen is that some of the successful companies gets into bed with the government to form a monopoly, as has been seen with the FDA and the major pharmaceutical companies.

Whenever governments have taken over the roles of food producers and distributors the results were mass starvation. So why put them in charge of health?
The two things have nothing to do with each other. The gov't has screwed up many things it got it's hands on. Living on the Gulf Coast, Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. Employee health and workplace safety isn't one of these things. The statistics are proof of this. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Well, in my experience with studying government agencies, I guess I see a correlation, in that when government aims to achieve X+1 it normally achieves X-1. And I don't think it's a big stretch to compare food provision with health condition provision.

Government is the best at providing force. In all other areas it is at best an irritant imho.

As for your stats, I'm interested but dubious. Maybe the article above I linked to and the various other articles that can be found their might shine some light upon this.

I hope these points are more useful than my earlier screed.
This is probably the best discussion I've had with anyone on AZ ever. Wish I could give you more good rep.

Cheers mate, you're a gentleman and I appreciate that
Colin