General Forums

[Ailionora]

goes into effect Sept 1.

The city will have one (that's not a typo- ONE) officer to enforce this law. He will not work night time hours, during which most night clubs and bars operate. According to the Chronicle, the city is confident that bar patrons will self-enforce this regulation.

At least they used all the smoking ban budget on propaganda and commissions since they cant afford to hire anyone to enforce it now. Isn't govt efficiency a beautiful thing to behold? (Incoming bond referendum to strongarm PROPERTY owners into footing the bill for this shortfall.)

I'll link the article later - there's a poll on it and I'm waiting for it to update. The Chronicle is so fun to read. Highly recommend chron.com (scroll to the comments always!) if youre bored - our paper is VERY amusing.
_________________

[RBPierce]

A city-wide smoking ban? Gimme a break! If a bar or restaurant owner wants to let smokers in their establishment, why should anyone else care- much less the city!
_________________

[Powad]

im not sure how its enforced here in cali, but i can assure you i rarely ever see anyone light up in a restaurant and when they do they promptly are asked to stop or leave. im sure one of the penalities is suspension of the on-premise liquor license, as that is a coveted thing here in cali


as far as passing on the cost to property owners, why not band together and create your own referendum to prevent this type of thing from happening.

[Powad]

[Chamrox]

Smoking is always the first to go, isn't it?

Should smoking be banned? I don't think so, however I think establishments have the right to allow smoking if they want to.

Would I eat in a smoky restaraunt? No.
Would I drink all night in a smoky bar? No.

Give the property owners the right to enforce their own smoking rules, and make them inform the public. Simple shop owned signs on the front door should suffice. "This is a Smoking Permitted establishment, enter at your own risk."


What I would much, MUCH rather see legislation regarding drunk driving and businesses.

Restaraunts should have a 2 drink MAXIMUM allowed to their patrons, with 16oz being the largest alcoholic beverage you can serve.

Bars shouldn't be allowed to have parking lots. If they do have parking lots, they must have an attendant that immediately puts an arm band around the driver that signals the bartenders to not serve him/her alcohol.
_________________

[Darklace]

[Chamrox]

We're not Europe, we don't have public transit to-from drinking activities.

You want to go drinking, take a cab, or designate a driver.

Yes, I'm saying that if you drive to a bar, you shouldn't be served alcohol. Period.
_________________

[Darklace]

[Powad]

yea, drink at home.. its cheaper. bars make back their money on the wholesale value of liquor in less than 5 beverages.
_________________
Currently reading: The Wanderer's Tale (Book 1: The Annals of Lindormyn) by David Bilsborough

And: Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way by Bruce Campbell

[Darklace]

[Balor Gafdan]

This is hilarious.

Try a statewide ban.

That's what new york did.
_________________

[Chamrox]

What's unrealistic about it, and why do you find it so far fetched?
Otherwise your comments have no more value than name calling.
_________________

[RBPierce]

[Darklace]

[Ailionora]

The second hand smoke argument is not universally accepted nor is it proven (and that's an argument for another thread) - however, this is a city deciding what its businesses can do. Private ownership loses.

Obesity related health problems have just passed smoking related healthcare costs and issues (and that is for SMOKERS, not second hand) but do you see Houston telling Mcdonalds it has to do a fat check on its customers - I'm sorry ma'am, you're obese and your kids are fat. It would be irresponsible for me to sell you 15 double cheeseburgers. Hell no! In fact, Mcdonalds ASKS if you want cheese, and an apple pie with your order!

I don't care for rap music so I don't go hang out at rap bars. Should I compile all the research on the association between rap music and violence? or between hip-hop venues and crime? Then should I compel a city of 4 million people to ban it as a public health concern? No, I should just NOT GO THERE IF I DONT LIKE IT.

The whole smoking crap is political. I would rather see them make all tobacco products and production illegal across the board. This is about collecting ENORMOUS taxes and creating a whipping dog for everyone to spit on. Make it illegal and I'll quit smoking. Ban it in my city, and you'll just piss me off enough to find a way to bypass the taxes on the pack and spend MY money in places that generate LESS revenue for the town/state.
_________________

[Ailionora]

ok im stoopid and can't link...maybe

[/url]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5051515.html[url][/url]

dammit dammit dammit - someone fix that while i go smoke =)
_________________

[Darklace]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5051515.html
_________________


"Now I look back on those days and think I was a monumental tool" - Xalaten

[RBPierce]

Well said Aili
_________________

[Powad]

/me shrugs

the viable ways of policing drunk driving are probably more of what they do now.. driver checkpoints, more police visibility at night, etc.

you cant compare cigarettes and alcohol anyways. one is a primary source of income for bars and restaurants and another is not usually sold in bars or restaurants(and banned for sale in bars and restaurants in most east and west coast states, dunno about the more rural states though). on top of it, one directly pollutes the immediate vicinity with harmful airborne chemical byproducts and another does not. it creates both a public health issue and a health liability issue at the restaurant as well. fran the 60 year old waitress whos been workin in joe's smokey bar can certainly have a decent case at disability or a medical settlement when she gets lung disease and cant work anymore. alcohol, on the other hand, only directly effects the ingestor. anyone getting hurt by a drunk driver is only indirectly effected by the alcohol.
_________________
Currently reading: The Wanderer's Tale (Book 1: The Annals of Lindormyn) by David Bilsborough

And: Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way by Bruce Campbell

[TaisharTrueblood]

Loud music is as much a public safety hazard as second hand smoke (inleast a parallel one).

Ban loud music at concerts and clubs... yes?
_________________
If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare composed poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.’
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Fiat justitia, ruat coelum

[RBPierce]

"it creates both a public health issue and a health liability issue at the restaurant as well. "

Assuming that that is true, and we all know the science on second hand smoke is dubious, so what? Patrons DECIDE if they want to go to a restaurant which allows smoking. Employees DECIDE if they want to work at a smoking establishment.

I guess for some people (and cities) the notions of personal property and liberty are anachronisms. It's a big step from "American, land of the free and home of the brave" to "Houston, land of the regulated and home of the wuss", but they've made it.
_________________

[Powad]

[Powad]

[Ailionora]

There is simply NO way to quantify the data about the dangers of second hand smoke - you cannot extrapolate from a lab survey to a nightclub. In Houston, in any given nightclub - in addition to the smoke, there is also the smoke put out by the fog machines (ever inhale that stuff up close?), there is a TON of pollution in this city (hello, smog), and MANY of our hotspots are located in buildings grandfathered under health restrictions - built prior to health standards regarding construction materials including asbestos.

Thats why I wasnt going to debate the whole second hand smoke issue - even if you DO accept the theory (and a theory is all that it is), studies also indicate that the average bartender (nonsmoker) inhales less than 1/10th of one cigarette PER 40 hour work week. Even THAT is misleading as the "average" bartender works nowhere near 40 hours a week!

All of this "data" is just meaningless numbers drawn up to point to conclusions that we simply cannot support. There are a myriad of uncontrolled variables (including other pollutants, genetic predisposition to respiratory illness, etc) that cannot be controlled.

Hence - it's NOT about public health. It's about MONEY and POLITICS. These guys dont give a rats ass if you are healthy - if they did, tobacco would be GONE, not banned here or there - but GONE. It just makes me angry as hell that my city has the time and resources to spend YEARS and BILLIONS on this project, while our murder rate increases through the roof - we are up to about one per day, while our schools are falling apart, and our roads are in disrepair.

All that said, I sense a business opportunity. Open a bar, ban tobacco products and sell them inside (taxed out the ass but can probably still profit-turn) sell INDIVIDUAL cigarettes instead of packs. oh..my...god...

PS thanks for fixing linky for retarded me!
_________________

[Darklace]

[Chamrox]

Darklace, it seems that you just snipe and never really add any meaningful insight to any conversation. It seems you've got yourself a bad little VN habit. Remember, post count doesn't work here, you don't get a star for volume. When requested a thoughtful response, you produce drivel. Either contribute or stfu.
_________________

[Powad]

[TaisharTrueblood]

Powad, sorry, saying so doesnt make it true. There is NO scientific doubt that loud music on a regular basis WILL cause hearing loss just as there is little scientific doubt that second hand smoke on a regular basis may cause respiratory problems/cancer. They are a parallel example.

The fact is that if I go to a club or a concert, I KNOW there will be loud music there that will certainly damage my health. If I go into a bar or club that allows smoking, I KNOW there will be secondhand smoke there which (IMO) will certainly damage my health. Seriously, why are they different?

Keep in mind i have literally never smoked, I find the smell nausiating (literally), and I personally prefer to eat and go where smoking isnt allowed.. but not a single one of those things negates a property owner's rights.
_________________
If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare composed poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.’
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Fiat justitia, ruat coelum

[Soni]

heh.. if there's no Atomspheres fog fluid in the air, I don't want to breathe it... It's just glycol and water mixed together... i make my band guys breathe it every night.. .drink plenty of water, and you'll be ok.

the smoking ban will kill the bars for a few weeks, then it'll blow over once people figure out it's unenforceable.
_________________

[Otara]

"There is NO scientific doubt that loud music on a regular basis WILL cause hearing loss just as there is little scientific doubt that second hand smoke on a regular basis may cause respiratory problems/cancer. They are a parallel example."

My understanding is that efforts to put limits on sound output have been defended under freedom of speech arguments. No similar precedent exists for producing chemicals.

In Australia, sound limits are considered to be work hazards and employers are expected to protect employees from excessive exposure.

Otara
_________________

Science does not make it impossible to believe in God. It just makes it possible to not believe in God.

[TaisharTrueblood]

"My understanding is that efforts to put limits on sound output have been defended under freedom of speech arguments. No similar precedent exists for producing chemicals"

Link? The corollary is private property rights though. Tobacco, no matter what you think of it, is a legal substance and it is legal for a person to smoke it in thier car, their home, or thier place of buisness.. and to allow others to as well. The state has the power to ban smoking, the city does not (nor do the feds, constitutionally).
_________________
If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare composed poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.’
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Fiat justitia, ruat coelum

[Galadren]

[Corbijn]

That sounds a lot like the Dallas smoking ban, in that it holds no teeth. And while all the chains and whatnot uphold it here, most hole-in-the-wall places or bar/restaurant combos will let you smoke regardless of the ordinance because we all know no one will crack down.
_________________
Matt
http://www.myspace.com/lifewithoutamicrowave

[Darklace]

[Iryss]

There's one major difference in your parallel, Taish.

Losing your hearing doesn't potentially shorten your lifespan, or even reduce your quality of life a ton once you've adapted to it. You can't say the thing for the respiratory illnesses associated with smoking.

Take it from someone who occasionally smokes and lost her hearing.
_________________

[Rosaria]

[TaisharTrueblood]

[RBPierce]

[Powad]

[RBPierce]

[Powad]

that doesnt stop it from being a potential liability
_________________
Currently reading: The Wanderer's Tale (Book 1: The Annals of Lindormyn) by David Bilsborough

And: Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way by Bruce Campbell

[Balor Gafdan]

[RBPierce]

[Powad]

its been readily established that doing something that is potentially harmful to others can make you liable and that as a proprietor of an establishment that allows it to happen you can become liable.

the court system will allow for certain things under assumed risk, like getting hit by a baseball at a baseball game does not make the field liable. i would assume that people that step into a smoke shop would assume the liability of the smoke(in california, cigar shops and stuff can be allowed to smoke in controlled rooms like a humidor). walking into a bar or a restaurant probably wouldnt grant "assumed risk", but i would think there could be an arguement on a case by case basis. though i will say that assumed risk generally falls under the category of a physical activity(such as getting hit by a foul ball, spraining your ankle at the gym or on the paintball field, etc)

the only civil liberties being encroached on are the ones of the person being forced to inhale your poison at your convenience. polluting the air with dangerous substances is not a guarantee under the constitution
_________________
Currently reading: The Wanderer's Tale (Book 1: The Annals of Lindormyn) by David Bilsborough

And: Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way by Bruce Campbell

[Powad]

[Powad]

you know what rbpierce.. scrap all that. based on what you say, when i choose to drive down the road i give up any right to seek a civil suit if you hit me with your car by accident(or on purpose) because driving on a street is an inherently risky proposition and putting my car where other cars are moving at speed is akin to giving up my rights to seek civil judgement in the court system
_________________
Currently reading: The Wanderer's Tale (Book 1: The Annals of Lindormyn) by David Bilsborough

And: Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way by Bruce Campbell

[RBPierce]

[Powad]

thats what i mentioned about assumed risk, read what i said about that. i dont believe that second hand smoke would hold up in court as an assumed risk of an establishment that sells liquor and food.
_________________
Currently reading: The Wanderer's Tale (Book 1: The Annals of Lindormyn) by David Bilsborough

And: Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way by Bruce Campbell

[RBPierce]

[Powad]