You are "FREE" to own property, and be safe in such. Bolivians for the most part are not. I think that trumps something so silly as restrictions on where you can smoke...
Smoking Ban - Fort Worth
#51
Posted 04 April 2006 - 10:13 AM
You are "FREE" to own property, and be safe in such. Bolivians for the most part are not. I think that trumps something so silly as restrictions on where you can smoke...
#52
Posted 05 April 2006 - 12:21 AM
Except for TRUMP.
Owning property is not a FORM OF FREEDOM. CHOICE is.
www.iheartfw.com
#53
Posted 05 April 2006 - 08:08 AM
OK, maybe not "jonesing", but the right to be safe in ones OWN property, is the ultimate freedom. That is right out of Locke, Hobbes, Smith, Madison, and Jefferson. Remember, "property" is more than just dirt. Without property rights, choice is irrelevant.
#54
Posted 17 September 2006 - 05:31 PM
OK, maybe not "jonesing", but the right to be safe in ones OWN property, is the ultimate freedom. That is right out of Locke, Hobbes, Smith, Madison, and Jefferson. Remember, "property" is more than just dirt. Without property rights, choice is irrelevant.
That's very profound, coming from property owners in the 18th century who grew tobacco and hemp and brewed their own beer while holding slaves, marrying 14yr old girls practically sold to them by parents, keeping mistresses and frequenting well-known brothels, and working their children at the family business as soon as they could walk. They were right to believe property rights are important, but these men believed the rights belonged to themselves only, and that property included human beings. Don't speak so hautily of our founding father in this thread; can you imagine that they would be FOR this kind of ban? Ridiculous! Regardless, they would also no doubt throw out of the restaurants the blacks and hispanics (not to mention those damned British).
I smoke, and I'm not going to stop no matter how much it annoys some of you. If you are serious about it, make it illegal. Until then, stop acting as if it's a "clear and present danger". It takes me some five minutes to smoke a cigarette, and probably thirty years to die from an innumerable amount of those. I wonder, how much noxious chemicals by volume are expelled in those five minutes? I don't, however, drive. Those of you who don't smoke probably do. How much noxious chemicals by volume do your cars put out in five minutes? Do you drive in a child-safe no-fuming zone of the road? Before you say that you need your cars, I remind you that I haven't for fifteen years. What's your problem, then, are you addicted?
So the next time you are in a bar or restaurant and contemplate forcing your will on another person because his smoke bothers you, I suggest you put your face up against your exaust pipe and see how much better that smells.
#55
Posted 17 September 2006 - 07:18 PM
(As I posted I noted my avitar... just a coincidence)
#56
Posted 17 September 2006 - 09:53 PM
I cannot speak to the sins committed by my forefathers, even though I sometimes feel we pay for some of them today, on occasion. I do believe “we all” reap the benefits of the sacrifices they made otherwise I seriously doubt we’d be having this conversation.
I for one do not wish to come between anyone and their smokes nor do I believe anyone wants to ban cigarettes.
Smoke all you want, just do it outside… and I’ll make sure to wave when I drive by.
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#57
Posted 18 September 2006 - 01:11 AM
#58
Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:39 PM
Someone may have already expressed this point of view, but ...I used to smoke, and I smoked well over a pack a day for about eight years or so. If you smoke that much, you're addicted, and depending on your body chemistry it can have a powerful hold on you. As much as I hated to be told where I could and couldn't smoke (when I was addicted to cigarettes) I look back now and kinda wish it was all that much more difficult.
I've heard that one strategy for involved parties to deal with someone who has an addiction (of course referring to alcoholism and narcotics) is to simply gang up on that person until they're left with little option other than to face the reality of their self destruction. With that in mind I kinda like the idea of employers being able to discriminate against smokers. Employers are afterall are little bit closer to being truly concerned parties than legislators.
#59
Posted 18 September 2006 - 09:40 PM
It does seem a bit 1984 though when you consider you may be subjected to blood or urine tests for nicotine. So if you spent the night out at a bachelor or bachelorett party would you have to worry about losing your job? I remember the days when tests were not as accurate and worked in fields that required testing, being given a list of foods I could no longer eat or run the risk of testing positive for opiates or whatever.
We could be getting closer to the Gattaca stage of things… as we walk into work we press our finger for a blood test and alarms sound off on anyone with altered blood, no pink slip, no severance package, you’re out of here.
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#60
Posted 19 September 2006 - 06:44 AM
I suppose what I'm trying to say is you do yourself and your community no good by poisoning yourself - this is coming from a former smoker. And I would hope that there would be truly concerned parties to push people toward better health...not big brother.
#61
Posted 08 August 2007 - 01:48 PM
By MIKE LEE
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
FORT WORTH -- A group of restaurant owners and public health advocates called on the city Tuesday to go completely smoke-free in all bars and restaurants, saying it's the best way to preserve public health.
Allowing smoking in bars and not in restaurants -- as the city staff has recommended -- would put restaurants in a difficult position, said Eric Tschetter, who owns The Pour House.
The Pour House is among several downtown Fort Worth establishments that sell enough food to qualify as restaurants but make much of their money off the late-night bar crowd.
"Anyplace down here that has food over a certain percentage is going to lose business," Tschetter said during a news conference Tuesday.
A committee appointed by the City Council to research changes in the smoking ordinance had recommended a ban in all bars and restaurants, as did the city Health Department. Council members are divided, though, and City Manager Charles Boswell has recommended allowing smoking in stand-alone bars to avoid putting them at a competitive disadvantage with bars in nearby cities.
Tschetter and David Rotman, owner of Cafe Aspen, were among the restaurant and bar owners who served on the committee that drew up the proposal for a complete ban.
The proposal, crafted over several months of public meetings, would have allowed only a few exceptions, such as for outdoor patios, retail tobacco shops and private clubs.
Rotman said the proposal would have put Fort Worth in line with 20 other Texas cities and 22 states that have passed total smoking bans.
"It's coming down the pike," he said.
It hasn't always been a smooth road. A group of bar and nightclub owners sued Houston on Tuesday, saying the city's smoking ban puts them at a competitive disadvantage. The ordinance bans smoking in most public places, with exemptions for cigar bars and outdoor patios.
Several public health groups -- including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and the American Lung Association -- were represented on the committee that drew up Fort Worth's proposal and have backed a smoking ban since the first meetings.
Their members have said the ban would not only help customers but also prevent health problems among employees, who have no escape from secondhand smoke. The U.S. surgeon general ruled last year that there is no acceptable level of secondhand smoke.
"The debate's over; smoking causes cancer," said Margie Peschel, a doctor who serves on the board of the Tarrant County chapter of the American Cancer Society.
The City Council is scheduled to discuss a draft of the smoking ordinance -- including the provision that would exempt bars -- on Tuesday.
Mike Lee, 817-390-7539
mikelee@star-telegram.com
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#62
Posted 08 August 2007 - 08:39 PM
I REALLY REALLY REALLY do think that Margie Peschel, a doctor, has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS advocating smoke free environments among private business establishments. She is right that their is no debate, but it (smoking causes cancer) is not up for debate. What's up for debate is business ownership rights, not public health concerns. IF smoking causes cancer then fine, it does. So go and use your little paper you earned over the years to TREAT PATIENTS with the disease, not eliminate choice or FREEDOMS by, of, and for WE THE PEOPLE. And definitely do not OVERSTEP your professional boundaries with involving such a premise with our local government. Can't be both DOCTOR and LOBBYIST, ESPECIALLY as a local county commitee figure who aides in drawing up a government clad proposal. Clear conflict of interest is quite evident in this situation. This is clearly more of a business debate, than a public health concern issue.
What's next, a physician who serves on the Southern Christian Coalition Board and advocates "zero tolerance" form of abstinence among teenagers, along with PRO LIFE initiatives concerning abortion.
Margie Peschel (excuse me, DR. Margie Peschel) gets my vote, for a BUMSTEER award.
What is this? The FW version of 'REEFER MADNESS'! These people are pushing irresponsible legislation for a certain group who HAVE ALWAYS HAD the FREEWILL or God-Given CHOICE to decide not only were to enjoy their next meal or libation, but also where to work. But little do they know that they are slowly unraveling yarn to the very fabric of CAPITALISTIC LIBERTY and FREE MARKET for existing and future business owners.
www.iheartfw.com
#63
Posted 09 August 2007 - 04:05 PM
I'm not one to dictate to local businesses how they should run their business, especially when they've run for decades in this environment. I don't think businesses need any more obstacles than they already have, but to be honest, I'm not sure how you could modify a smoking ban to make everyone happy.
Has it been proven that non smoking bars and restaurants lose patrons and profits to surrounding cities without a ban?
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#64
Posted 09 August 2007 - 06:51 PM
Too soon to tell you with supporting documentation. I will pose a question of the same vein in asking if a total smoking ban in dtfw will curb overall cancer rates. The ACA should be more responsible in advocating their notion that lung cancer is but one of the lethal types of cancer, but not THE MOST COMMON.
From the ACS website in 2005
"One of the major influences in cancer trends is tobacco control," said Elizabeth Ward, PhD, director of surveillance research for ACS and a co-author of the new report. "Continuing these efforts is important. We need to encourage cessation and help people have access to cessation treatments, SAFLY Note: ENCOURAGE, YES! Not penalize or LEGISLATE. which can greatly increase success. We also need to increase efforts to prevent smoking among young people, which in the long term will be very important in reducing rates of smoking-related cancers." SAFLY Note: Let's take away their DEADLY driving privileges while we are at it.
Progress has also been made against colorectal cancer, the third most common cancer among both men and women. SAFLY Note: If it ain't the smoking at the dtfw steakhouse that gets ya, then it will be their STEAK. It is expected to strike more than 145,000 people and kill more than 56,000 this year. However, higher screening rates have helped reduce the incidence rate by nearly 3% each year between 1998 and 2001. Screening can find and lead to removal of colon polyps before they become cancerous.
Breast cancer and prostate cancer remain the most common cancers among women and men, respectively, accounting for about one-third of all cases. Incidence rates of both these cancers are increasing, but slowly.
www.iheartfw.com
#65
Posted 18 August 2007 - 01:28 AM
There have been quite a few studies done on the economic impact (restaurant revenues, restaurant earnings, and/or tax revenues) of smoking bans. Results vary: some find a positive impact, some no impact, and some a negative impact. These studies are generally paid for by groups with an interest in the outcome and the results are about what you'd expect.
Obviously it's hard to tease out the impact of one regulatory change from the impacts of all other variables in an economic system. It is correspondingly easy to refute the results of a study by pointing out other factors that could have caused the observed data or to argue that the period of the study was too short or too long or that it started or ended too early or too late to show the real impact.
Having skimmed some of the studies (and rebuttals), my guess is that it would hurt some establishments, help others, and that it would have little direct impact on municipal tax revenues. That is based on the impact of any change in dining habits; I'll offer no prediction for the impact on public health and any economic impact of that.
#66
Posted 18 August 2007 - 07:40 AM
#67
Posted 19 August 2007 - 10:20 AM
First of all, I work for a Health Care Insurance Company. My company recently announced that that smoking is no longer even aloud on campus - not even in your car in the parking lot. You have to leave campus completely if you want to smoke. As a Health Care Insurance Company, I personally think that is the right message to send. Especially in this Michael Moore "Sicko" world. This is along the line of thought that McDonalds got rid of the Super Size option after the movie Super Size Me did so much damage to Mickey D's image. The company also offered free stop-smoking programs for employees and their families. I thought that was pretty generous of the company to offer that to entire families! My company also just sent out an e-mail to all employees this past week stating that beginning September 1st, employees who smoke, or who carry a smoker on their medical insurace will pay an additional $20 a month in insurance premiums to off-set the cost of insurance cost associated with smoking-related health coverage. The world is changing folks. Face it... a world where smoking is penalized more and more is right around the corner.
The Lobbiest in Washington. Honestly, IMO, they are the only reason that smoking isn't already illegal. The statistics surrounding smoking illnesses, addiction, deaths, etc. Far exceed the death rates for pretty much any other cause of death in the US. In fact, check out the numbers for Tobacco deaths related to Illegal Drugs. Or heck, look at the number of people who die versus the number who are murdered. For that matter, Tobacco kills more people annually than Homicide, STD's, Illegal Drugs, Car Crashes and Gun-related deaths combined. The following numbers on annual dealths related to the following "killers" are easily found by just doing a google search for "drug war facts".
Tobacco 435,0001
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,0001
Alcohol 85,000 1
Microbial Agents 75,0001
Toxic Agents 55,0001
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,3471
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,0002
Suicide 30,6223
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,0001
Homicide 20,3084
Sexual Behaviors 20,0001
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,0001, 5
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,6006
Marijuana 07
Not that I'm in favor of legalizing Marijuana, but let's look at the facts here. Marijuana kilss less than a dozen people a year and Tobacco kills over 400,000 annual... that's the equivelant of nuking a city the size of Kansas City every year. So, why is Pot illegal and Cigs are not?
I know from personal experience how addictive smoking is. A doctor once explained it to me this way. Everyone is addicted to air. Stop breathing for 60 seconds and see how easy it is to stop breathing... The same is true of cigarettes. People addicted to tobacco are so addicted that their bodies literally won't let them stop. Sure, there are ways to trick your body into letting you stop - we see those advertisements all the time. But, it's not an easy thing to stop and those who are unfortunately addicted usually can't stop on their own. I'm very sympathetic to those who are addicted to smoking. If your son or daughter were addicted to pot, crack, heroin, or any other illegal drug, you would do anything in your power to get them off those drugs. So, why is it that smoking is so socially acceptable in our society that we just all sit by and watch the people we love smoke themselves to death without ever saying a word to them about it? I'm as guilty of this as anyone.
Anyway, just my two cents on this topic. I'm not trying to upset anyone or anything like that. Just throwing out some basic facts. Do I thnk the government should step in and tell people what they can and can't do in public? Not really - but they do it all the time. The government tells us we can't drink and drive, smoke dope, have sex in public or with minors, or with people of the same sex. They tell us who we can and can't marry, that we can't kill anyone, and that we HAVE to pay taxes every year, along with a whole laundry list of other things the government tells us we can and can't do. They are called Laws and without them our society would be in even bigger trouble than it is today. Some of the laws I agree with, some of the laws I disagree with. Anyone care to sound off about which one's they do and don't agree with? ;-)
#68
Posted 19 August 2007 - 04:34 PM
Makes me think while putting on my seatbelt, twice as many people die each year of Toxic Agents compared to Motor Vehicle Crashes, seat belt’s on. So what can you do to protect against Toxic Agents, other than the obvious of course?
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#69
Posted 19 August 2007 - 05:04 PM
That’s an interesting list. Does it have a breakout of the numbers, leaves a lot of questions? Take “Toxic Agents” for instance, are those natural or man made agents, accidental or intestinal exposure, would executions be in those totals, would a Socrates type event be listed in multiple categories?
Makes me think while putting on my seatbelt, twice as many people die each year of Toxic Agents compared to Motor Vehicle Crashes, seat belt’s on. So what can you do to protect against Toxic Agents, other than the obvious of course?
I agree - there is some subjective terminology in that list... So, I personally define "toxic agents" as the three women (Karen, Kelly and Jennifer) I used to work with at my former place of employment. Trust me when I say they definitely contribute to the suicide rate in Dallas County! However, even the long-lasting, and far-reaching effect of those evil women pales in comparison to Tobacco-related deaths. But, they are climbing the corporate food chain, so that could change in the future. Either way, I don't recommending smoking cigarettes. Smoking Karen, Kelly and Jennifer on the other hand...
#70
Posted 20 August 2007 - 10:25 PM
To be honest, what this really comes down to is what group has the loudest voice many times. I could imagine that I could substitute smoking for many other things and it will rile people up to defend their stance. Smokers are having less of a voice nowadays and it is represented by the laws being established.
(I do work in Dallas and I love the fact that all restaurants are smoke free. Never have to worry about it at all)
#71
Posted 21 August 2007 - 08:45 AM
IF you don't like walking through resturants mixed smoking/non smoking areas.. why in the world do you go there? Vote with your pocket book by only going smoke free resturants. If enough people would do that.. then business owners would get THE clear signal because it affects their bottom financial line.
The City Government has stepped over the line. Stay out of local company business. Its either that or the city is risking being called into a law suit. AND that truely is poor use of city governement tax revenues.
Anyone remember laissez-faire (lĕs'ā fâr`) [Fr.,=leave alone], in economics and politics, doctrine that an economic system functions best when there is no interference by government. It is based on the belief that the natural economic order tends, when undisturbed by artificial stimulus or regulation, to secure the maximum well-being for the individual and therefore for the community as a whole.
Dave still at
Visit 360texas.com
#72
Posted 21 August 2007 - 10:10 PM
I think this is an issue about City Government telling Business how to run their companies. The City ought to stick to running the city core functions.
IF you don't like walking through resturants mixed smoking/non smoking areas.. why in the world do you go there? Vote with your pocket book by only going smoke free resturants. If enough people would do that.. then business owners would get THE clear signal because it affects their bottom financial line.
The City Government has stepped over the line. Stay out of local company business. Its either that or the city is risking being called into a law suit. AND that truely is poor use of city governement tax revenues.
Anyone remember laissez-faire (lĕs'ā fâr`) [Fr.,=leave alone], in economics and politics, doctrine that an economic system functions best when there is no interference by government. It is based on the belief that the natural economic order tends, when undisturbed by artificial stimulus or regulation, to secure the maximum well-being for the individual and therefore for the community as a whole.
So I guess not allowing people to smoke pot, crack, or shoot heroin at Chili's or TGI Friday's is a case of the the government interfering too? Let's remember that smoking kills more than 430,000 Americans a year --- Yes, you just read that correctly. MORE THAN 430,00 AMERICANS DIE FROM SMOKING EVERY YEAR! Let's put that in perspective, shall we?! Approximately 406,000 Americans were killed in World War 2... So, smoking kills more Americans on an annual basis than Japan, Germany and all our enemies in WWII combined over several years, yet we are expected to just sit back and act as if it's no big deal.
There are 24-hour telethons that raise millions of dollars to cure Jerry's Kids. We have special world-wide televised concerts to raise money to cure AIDs and relieve hunger. The former Vice President of America starred in a movie to raise awareness of Global Warming and the fact that the entire planet may be dying. We go war and destroy entire ancient civilizations because 2900 Americans were killed on 911... Police officers are killed on a daily basis in an effort to keep illegal drugs (that kill less than 30K people a year) off the street. But when 430,000 Americans are killed every year by tobacco products, we're expected to go somewhere else just so smokers aren't inconvenienced by having to not smoke in public? Drunk drivers kill someone and they go to jail. So, why don't smokers go to jail every time someone dies of lung cancer? Why? Because this is just one of the twisted and illogical ways we have been manipulated to believe something wrong is right all for the sake of big business making even more money. Why is it we arrest people who grow marajuana farms, but we don't arrest tobacco farmers? Anyone ever think about this sort of stuff other than me?
I know I'm coming off like some sort of massive prude, but I promise I'm not. I like a good party like the next guy. But, at some point our government has the obligation to protect our society from harm, not just from terrorist and evil empires, but also from things that threaten our health. If a Nuclear Power Plant was spewing toxic waste into our drinking water, we'd all expect the government to step in and take action. No one complained when the government stepped in and told the airline industry to create new safety precautions to guard against another 911 attack. And, I highly doubt anyone would argue that the FDA should be dismantled because it's not the government's place to regulate the medical, pharmaceutical, and nations food supplies.
As for laissez-faire, I personally believe that's a good theory. However, has anyone ever really believed that we've ever actually lived in a laissez-faire society? Lobbiest kill any such possibility. I also remember reading all about the separation of Church and State, but has anyone checked out the influence of mega-churches lately? I also can't help but notice that the same politicians who hold fund raisers at the Christian Coalition one day, are riding in a Gay Pride Parade the next. What makes you think for one second, those same politicians won't accept all sorts of "campaign backing" from tobacco lobbiest to vote for things in the best interest of tobacco compaies once they are elected. You could deduce that many of the same politicians who send our sons and daughters off to war also let over 430,000 Americans die every year for the sake of not upsetting the lobbiest who helped get them elected.
Hey, if people want to smoke. Fine by me. All I ask is that they kill themselves in the privacy of their own homes, not at the next table while I'm trying to enjoy my Awesome Blossom.
#73
Posted 22 August 2007 - 10:44 PM
#74
Posted 23 August 2007 - 11:32 AM
Hey, if people want to smoke. Fine by me. All I ask is that they kill themselves in the privacy of their own homes, not at the next table while I'm trying to enjoy my Awesome Blossom.
Gotta love the irony in that statement. I guess the next item on the agenda is banning your Awesome Blossom, as diseases of the heart is the leading killer.
Erik France
#75
Posted 23 August 2007 - 03:12 PM
#76
Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:59 AM
Hey, if people want to smoke. Fine by me. All I ask is that they kill themselves in the privacy of their own homes, not at the next table while I'm trying to enjoy my Awesome Blossom.
Gotta love the irony in that statement. I guess the next item on the agenda is banning your Awesome Blossom, as diseases of the heart is the leading killer.
I wondered if anyone would catch the irony of the Awesome Blossom. I thought it was funny when I wrote it. ;-) Of course, the difference is, my pending Fried Onion-induced heart attack doesn't cause anyone else harm. LOL... Now, if I decided to smoke the Awesome Blossom, that would be a different story.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users