80th TX Legislature: Statewide Smoking Ban Proposed

Hello

Hurray, I'm so glad about this latest smoking ban.

It compares with Hawaii, lovely news!

Since the ban has been put into effect on Hawaii it means that I can vacation there without having to pre-book a room.

Now I just turn up and take my pick of any of the hundreds and hundreds of empty, lovely, sweet smelling non-smoking rooms I choose. In the past Hawaii used to be crammed full to bursting point with hoards of nasty, smelly tourists, but not any more.

Thing have changed for the better, the majority of tourists who used to visit Hawaii have changed destinations and are going to places like the Bahamas, where they can smoke as much as they like.

This island nation is obviously a very backward one, can you imagine this?

Who in their right mind wants to pay to stay in a place where adults are allowed to do whatever they feel like doing?

I say good riddance, glad to be rid of them, after all, we don't need them spending their dollars here if they are going to smoke those nasty cigarettes...... do we?

Another thing that makes me really mad is the fact that some people are actually trying to promote hotels who give their guests a choice between smoking and non-smoking rooms, this is a website where hotel owners can actually advertize to attract some of the 46 million people in the US who smoke cigarettes, see smokingwelcome.com

I think this is wrong and should be stopped, the government should ban any form of choice and freedom whatsoever, and effect total control over what used to be known as "personal freedoms".

Roy (the blatant advertizer....... tongue placed firmly in-cheek)

Freedom is not just the freedom to do the smart or healthy thing. That kind of freedom is no freedom at all.

Potential employees and customers that do not like smoke, can patronize the 99% of businesses that choose to be completely smoke-free!

Did you know that there are actually cost effective ventillation systems that can easily make buildings as safe as any air you breath in the outdoors? This is a fact. You have to look no further than facilties that deal with Antrax gases. You are being duped with the use of faulty science for a grand social re-engineering experiement.

The second hand smoke studies that they are basing all this legislation on do not make sense... especially as it relates to outdoor patios and parks...

....unless you want to also ban BBQ's, fireplaces, cleaners and degreasers, wet paint, aerosals and perfumes, and many other fumes and toxins that are more dangeous than second hand smoke.

Wake up America, this is crazy mass hysteria ! !

Never had a real problem with smokers until I developed asthma a couple of years ago...I just wanna enjoy a good band without choking...if they can't ban smoking require better ventilation!

Best not make it too comfortable for people to drink in bars. Alcohol has second-hand effects as well.

My impressive abdomen/neck-girth (physical proof of prosperity) isn't even on the top-ten list of reasons to ignore me.

And... who reposted my comment? Why people gotta be perpetrating? That's both creepy and awesome.

truecraig is FAT!

DON'T LISTEN TO truecraig. HE'S FAT! (kind of)

"The bar can't force you to come, you can't force them to change their policies."

Really? We can't make them serve only people 21 or older? We can't make them pay special liquor taxes? We can't regulate how many people can be inside at one time? We can't regulate that their employees have to be over a certain age and protected from meat cleaver accidents?

A brief list of items/activities ALSO NOT protected by The Bill of Rights or The Constitution, and therefore up for majority vote:

Fish as pets.

Undergarments made from Fruit Rollups.

Crochet, macramé, knitting.

Kitchen appliances that make noise.

Thanking a stranger for holding a door open.

Holding a banana so tight it bursts.

Apple pie instead of steak for dinner.

Turning red when drunk and/or embarrassed.

And that's just off the top of my head! It'll take us FOREVER to get voter referendums on EVERY ACTIVITY KNOWN TO MAN! We best get started immediately, lest all these potentially illegal activities stay legal for too long!

Don you are so wrong on so many levels. But that's ok, I'm here to explain.

a) the free-market is and never will be perfect or 100% foolproof. It doesn't admit to be the most efficient, effective or fair system. But it does protect everyone by allowing freedom of association. You have a right to be in a bar that accepts you, the bar has the right to kick you out. The bar can't force you to come, you can't force them to change their policies.

b) You are in the bar owner's domain, he sets the rules, he calls the shots, and a majority of bar owners want smoking in THEIR establishments. You don't have a right to breath smoke-free air when you are on someone else's property. Ban smoking in government owned buildings, schools, parks etc. but you or I didn't pay for the bar, we don't pay the employees, we don't pay for the lease, therefore we don't get to make the rules.

c) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are great ideals and every person should strive for these. With freedom and liberty we can reach these notions. THEY ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BASE THE BAN ON THAT! Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are in the Declaration of Independence.

Smoking is protected in the Bill of Rights through freedom of speech, and freedom of association. And yes, smoking is not specifically stated in the Constitution, that's exactly why people are able to. Rights not stated in the Bill of Rights are specifically delegated to the states and the people thereof.

(a) The "free market" concept will no apply here. History has shown that only "perfect markets," those in which supply and demand are perfectly aligned, can be trusted to follow predictable common-sense patterns. Such a market does not exist here.

(b) The "they're limiting our freedom" argument is seductive, because everyone likes to think they're daily lives are independent of "the government." However, you have to consider the other side of this argument. What about people who want to drink in their favorite bar without carbon monoxide being breathed all over them? Aren't you limiting their freedom as well? In each case, one party is being forced to deal with an inconvenience that they'd rather not deal with. The question here is, which side is in the majority, because majority rules.

And, yes, a precept of constitutional democracy is that the minority should be protected against the tyranny of the majority. But this ideal only applies to the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I.e, constitutional rights. It has been long-decided both by the courts and by society that THERE IS NO CONSTIUTIONAL RIGHT TO SMOKE. Smokers, you're in the minority, yes, but the difference is that you are not deserving of special protection because smoking isn't protected by the Bill of Rights.

You wanna look cool and destroy your lungs, do it on your own time. We don't want to hear about it. Or smell it.

Compromise is unacceptable when people are asking you to limit your freedom.

And I don't care if it's just smoking, it doesn't really matter what the product or purpose is. What they are limiting is a person's right to choose to use a legal substance.

Now you can say that we all have to incur the medical costs due to secondhand smoke through taxes that go to public health funds. And that is where they get you. The city, state, or feds impose an overarching tax that everyone pays that goes to "public-matters" and therefore they get to dictate matters that should be private.

The bars should all adopt guestlists and therefore it wouldn't be considered public place because the public wouldn't be invited because it would be a members-only organization. Bars could just indiscriminately charge everyone a $1 cover or give away free passes to make this official.

Stew,

The market decided that for airlines. Except it didn't; the government had to do it (after flight attendants sued).

Well, the market decided it for restaurants. Except it didn't; it took government action to get more than a trivial number of non-smoking restaurants even though most smokers were happy with the ban.

I'd like to see some smoking bars and some non-smoking bars. I'm not happy with them all being non-smoking either, but that's better than them being all-smoking. (No, we didn't have 'some' non-smoking bars before by market intervention; we had them because they were hooked on to restaurants or wanted to stay all-ages or were on UT property - i.e. from Previous Bans).

Problem is the smokers didn't want any compromise at _all_; they just kept bleating middle-school economics (never got to the more complicated stuff about how markets don't operate without friction in the real world).

Bottom-line argument:

Let the bar owner decide. If he believes he can make more money with a smoker crowd then let him do it, it's not like cigarettes are illegal (yet). If some entrepreneur sees a whole bunch of bitching non-smokers then he can open up a smoke-free bar, have the market cornered and rake in the cash. The free market decides this one easily...much better than paying cops to patrol bars for smokers, putting waiters/waitresses in harm by asking drunk "Bubba" to put out his cig, and it let's people make their own decisions (that sounds kind of familiar).

Smoking is healthier than Fascism.

Bottom-line argument:

Let the bar owner decide. If he believes he can make more money with a smoker crowd then let him do it, it's not like cigarettes are illegal (yet). If some entrepreneur sees a whole bunch of bitching non-smokers then he can open up a smoke-free bar, have the market cornered and rake in the cash. The free market decides this one easily...much better than paying cops to patrol bars for smokers, putting waiters/waitresses in harm by asking drunk "Bubba" to put out his cig, and it let's people make their own decisions (that sounds kind of familiar).

Smoking is healthier than Fascism.

I tell you this much, you sod-bustin' sons of bitches. I don't trust no media, no how. But The Austinist, why, now there's a fine news source. I reckon I'll keep on smokin', and that's the end of that. Smoking ban or no smoking ban. I'm a god-damned American, and that's that. I'll do what I please.

Hell yeah! If I knew it would grow back, I'd cut my wiener off and smoke it!

that's god damned right. fucking America! i'm very aroused!

Some assholes would say that tobacco addiction is a form of corporate slavery! Assholes.

We should just smoke up like nobody's biznass, let the surgeon general and his army of lung-poachers try and stop us.

Because everybody in the smoking chain is a winner: from the humble tobacco farmers that reap massive profits to the smokers who get that cool refreshment between every hour of work. USA! USA! USA!

Let me just say this. Smoking is super-bad, I don't care where you're from. Any asshole that wants to regulate it, well that asshole can kiss my ass. Yes. And another thing is, I don't trust the government anyway. I mean hell, look what they did with slavery.

I freakin' love rootbeer and I'd invade Iran just to make sure I still have the right to enjoy a cool, tall A&W. Kids suck, nuff said. I'm not touching the retardation thing. Bolshevikism has been known to breed seditious activities like intense cosmonaut admiration, but never homosexuality. Once you can furnish a link, then we'll talk. Regardless, the liberal, Zoroastrian-controlled media will keep us from knowing anything worth knowing. Soccer is a game for cyborgs, robots, Portugese-o-phones, Italians, and Brits that look like chimps (e.g. Rooney). Drinking the urine of flaming old people will keep us forever young and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the business of prisons.

I'll start us off, Adam. You get to counter-argue with your own wild-out hyperbole!

I do believe this legislation should necessitate the calling of more obviously important legislation which happens to be just a foot or two down the greased slope of the same logic:

Statewide bans for REAL threatening issues out in public, like the following:

1. Rootbeer (hurts my tummy sometimes, I'm pretty sure).

2. The mindless shrieking of [other people's] small children.

3. People with Mental Retardation or more than one improperly working limb.

4. Gays and/or communists, or anyone proven to be reasonably resembling either.

5. Soccer, because if you're not touching lots of balls, it ain't 'Merican. Plus they got no funny beer advertisements.

6. Old people (I hear they can spontaneously combust sometimes)

Obviously, if you want to change people's personal behavior(s), you simply make them illegal. Works so awesome that penitentiaries are a dividend-producing business.

It's sort of like the twilight zone when you walk into a bar or restaraunt in another city.

Legalize WEED man!

I think you should only be able to smoke at Wal-Mart. In Northcross.

god, this makes me miss cigarettes

I would really suggest just rounding up all the smokers in a giant WWII-style gas chamber. But they probably would actually like that.

Well I think that the Smoking Ban is _________.

Bring it! Inane argument comments can't be far off! Let's see how many stases of argument we can hopelessly pit against one another... let's see how many logical fallacies we can employ! Hurray! Smoking ban post!