24 replies to this topic

[Willy1]

I heard about this yesterday on the radio... here is the article. What do y'all think - good or bad? I for one welcome the ban. I hate dealing with other people's smoking! Since Dallas adopted the smoking ban, going out to eat is so much more enjoyable!
****************************************************

Fort Worth Considering Smoking Ban

Joel Thomas
Reporting

(CBS 11 News) FORT WORTH The Fort Worth City Council is edging toward debating a fiery issue that still has other city governments smoldering: a smoking ban.

The council voted to look at ways to tighten smoking regulations in bars and restaurants.

"I want to balance the two from a personal perspective and make sure we're not protecting one person's rights and stepping on another person's rights at the same time," said council member, Jungus Jordan.

And just what are those rights? On one side, people say they have a right to be in a building with no smoke whatsoever.

"I think that's fine," says smoker Nickie Perry. "Indoors is a problem for other people so they accommodate the smokers outside, that's fine."

Perry says the law should require accommodations for smokers, such as having an awning for rainy days.

On the other side, there are smokers who say they're already segregated and shouldn't be kicked outside.

"If you have a choice between smoking inside and hanging out with everybody or you have to go outside it’s -- I'm going to choose inside," says Aubrey Austin as she smokes a cigarette in a Fort Worth restaurant and bar.

As it is now, larger restaurants have smokers in a separate section and use air circulators and purifiers.

In fact, city health department workers say 118 businesses have bought the expensive ventilators this year.

And that's another area of contention. Business owners say they've invested money to meet city ordinances.

The arguments have all played out before in bitter fights in other cities. Fort Worth is eyeing similar ordinances to those in Dallas, Austin and El Paso.

And Fort Worth businesses are eyeing the fall-out from those ordinances.

Will losing smoking privileges mean losing customers? "Austin passed that smoking ban and it’s horrible," said Allison Albright, a smoker who grew up near Austin. "A lot of people don't go to certain bars and it’s different to go outside and smoke."

That's the sort of talk that worries restaurant owners and managers in Fort Worth who say they'll stay quiet for now but will oppose any ordinances banning smoking.

The council hasn't set a time frame for the public hearings or for considering any possible ordinances.

[RD Milhollin]

I can see some merit in the civil liberties arguments in favor of public smoking in certain venues. But as a former smoker I personally don't want to be placed in a situation where I have to be in the presence of second-hand smoke, like at a musical or sports entertainment event in which I paid money to be there. Are there some bars where smoking should be permitted, yeah, a patron can choose to go there or not, there are or would most likely be plenty of non-smoking bars available.

I would vote to allow smoking at/in certain public spaces, when the sign and advertisements specifically say "smoking allowed", "smoking friendly", or "smoking permitted"; something along those lines. This would sort of place smoking like topless dancers; it is there if you are so inclined, but you have the benefit of knowing in advance what you are in for.

[Now in Denton]

I get really angry from thos in the far right (Mark Davis WBAP) talking only about civil liberties. No one is telling thos that dip to stop? Because thier dip does not go into my nose. But smokers smoke DOES goes into others peoples noses. I look forward to cleaner air in Fort Worth. I support the ban.

[Bernd]

I think there's no question the ban is the right thing to do. Not only would it be good for the public health-wise, but it would also probably improve business for most restaurants and bars. (They always yell when a city plans to ban smoking, claiming it will hurt business, but very few, if any cities that have banned smoking have reported a loss of restaurant/bar business. Pardon the run-on sentence.)

I consider it a little unfair, though, that they plan to exclude "adult" businesses from the ban. One of the major arguments for the ban is that employees deserve a healthy workplace. Don't dancers and waitresses in topless clubs deserve the same, regardless of their career choice?

[cberen1]

Because thier dip does not go into my nose. But smokers smoke DOES goes into others peoples noses. I look forward to cleaner air in Fort Worth. I support the ban.

It's interesting how many people are really only interested in protecting their own rights.

I for one would like to outlaw public flatulence. Not only does it go into my nose, but it's disgusting and I can prove that prolonged methane production is harmful to my lung tissue. Plus, unlike smoke, you never know when it's going to happen and you can't see it either. At least you typically know what types of establishments have a lot of smoke (Bars, and restaurants that have smoking sections). Farts can happen anywhere. I have no way to dodge them, but the offender should be able to hold it in until he/she can reach a designated outdoor flatulence pavillion. I say make squeeze their cheeks together to keep me comfortable.

I say once you get flatulence taken care of, then you can further ban smoking (you see, it's basically already banned almost everywhere: offices, most restaurants, most lobbies, most public buildings).

So, I'm pro smoking (even though I don't smoke), but I can't remember the last time I noticedsmoke anywhere besides a bar or Old South Pancake House.

[Wildcard]

I see smoking every week at restaurants when I'm forced to walk through the smoking section to get to the nonsmoking section located in the back of the restaurant. I'm in favour of the ban, but in the meantime how about putting the nonsmoking sections of businesses closer to the front door so I don't have to walk through the stench of cigarette smoke?

[safly]

Because thier dip does not go into my nose. But smokers smoke DOES goes into others peoples noses. I look forward to cleaner air in Fort Worth. I support the ban.

It's interesting how many people are really only interested in protecting their own rights.

I for one would like to outlaw public flatulence. Not only does it go into my nose, but it's disgusting and I can prove that prolonged methane production is harmful to my lung tissue. Plus, unlike smoke, you never know when it's going to happen and you can't see it either. At least you typically know what types of establishments have a lot of smoke (Bars, and restaurants that have smoking sections). Farts can happen anywhere. I have no way to dodge them, but the offender should be able to hold it in until he/she can reach a designated outdoor flatulence pavillion. I say make squeeze their cheeks together to keep me comfortable.

I say once you get flatulence taken care of, then you can further ban smoking (you see, it's basically already banned almost everywhere: offices, most restaurants, most lobbies, most public buildings).

So, I'm pro smoking (even though I don't smoke), but I can't remember the last time I noticedsmoke anywhere besides a bar or Old South Pancake House.

Taco Bell may have something to say about that^^^.

[seurto]

I can see some merit in the civil liberties arguments in favor of public smoking in certain venues. But as a former smoker I personally don't want to be placed in a situation where I have to be in the presence of second-hand smoke, like at a musical or sports entertainment event in which I paid money to be there. Are there some bars where smoking should be permitted, yeah, a patron can choose to go there or not, there are or would most likely be plenty of non-smoking bars available.

I would vote to allow smoking at/in certain public spaces, when the sign and advertisements specifically say "smoking allowed", "smoking friendly", or "smoking permitted"; something along those lines. This would sort of place smoking like topless dancers; it is there if you are so inclined, but you have the benefit of knowing in advance what you are in for.

The voice of reason! Well said P-Pup!!

[Now in Denton]

I say once you get flatulence taken care of, then you can further ban smoking (you see, it's basically already banned almost everywhere: offices, most restaurants, most lobbies, most public buildings).

So, I'm pro smoking (even though I don't smoke), but I can't remember the last time I noticedsmoke anywhere besides a bar or Old South Pancake House.

You have just posted the most stupid post ever.

[RD Milhollin]

... how about putting the nonsmoking sections of businesses closer to the front door so I don't have to walk through the stench of cigarette smoke?

Agreed!

[cberen1]

You have just posted the most stupid post ever.

I believe the superlative of 'stupid' is 'stupidest'.

And I'll agree that it may be the stupidest post on this forum in a while. Just a poor attempt at satire, much like a disussion of eating children (think back to English Literature).

I just think a smoking ban is silly. Leave it to economic forces.

Essentially the argument for banning smoking is that other peoples' smoking keeps me from doing what I want to do (excluding the employee's health argument, which is, admittedly, compelling). I can't go eat in restaurants I want to eat in because someone else is smoking, and that smoking endangers my life.

You might argue that this is the city's fault for allowing smoking to go on in private establishments. So your issue goes to the city. But the way I see it is that you won't go eat in that restaurant because of management. Management allows people to smoke in the restaurant. I say you've got a problem with management, not smokers or the city. You can vote with your dollars. Just don't go to restaurants where smoking is allowed.

Another way you could vote with your dollars is to promote a smoke consumption tax. If an establishment allows smoking, charge it a tax to cover the additional burden to the healthcare system. The establishment will either eat the tax, pass it on to the smokers, or disallow smoking. You'll find out which establishments truly value their smokers.

I just generally (but not absolutely) disagree with the idea that because public smoking keeps me from doing one thing I want to do, I should be able to keep other people from doing something legal that they really like to do.

[JBB]

Flatulence humor is never stupid.

[RD Milhollin]

I just generally (but not absolutely) disagree with the idea that because public smoking keeps me from doing one thing I want to do, I should be able to keep other people from doing something legal that they really like to do.

Maybe therein lies an alternative approach to the question of smoking.

At one time in the US alcohol consumption was virtually unlimited. It is now severely taxed, access to it is limited, particularly the "hard stuff", and laws governing its use in many arenas of daily life (like walking down the street, driving, etc) are implemented and strictly enforced.

Maybe the same approach should be accorded tobacco products. It can be argued that the negative economic effects of tobacco outweigh those of alcohol, it just depends on whose figures you choose to quote. If a parallel regulatory agency to alcohol was set up, or perhaps a combined bureaucracy to avoid duplication of effort, and tobacco was to be dispensed from specially licensed retail stores (maybe liquor stores only) and consumption was limited in the same way alcohol is, ie at home, in a specially licensed tavern, etc. perhaps the threat to health could be better mitigated.

I would go a step further and place tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis in the same category of regulated but not restricted substances. I don't believe that a "prohibition" on any of these substances would work, witness the "Prohibition" of the 1920's. But most members of society recognize that these are potentially harmful substances, especially when the use of them is abused, and there should be some means to limit their availability, especially to the young.

Alcohol, like tobacco, is not an illegal substance. Both are dangerous when abused. Both are recognized means of relieving the feelings of stress, although both are also addictive. Marijuana fits the same category except it is felt by some to be not (as) addictive. Perhaps a federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis (ATC), and state equivalents, could help to create a more streamlined and less capricious way of controlling these substances.

[Willy1]

I heard not that there is a bill being introduced at the state level now to ban smoking in all public places state-wide.

[DFW]

Why not just let the restaurant/bar owners decide whether or not to allow it? Instead of the government deciding, just help the bars enforce their anti-smoking decisions.

[David Love]

Because thier dip does not go into my nose. But smokers smoke DOES goes into others peoples noses. I look forward to cleaner air in Fort Worth. I support the ban.

It's interesting how many people are really only interested in protecting their own rights.

I for one would like to outlaw public flatulence. Not only does it go into my nose, but it's disgusting and I can prove that prolonged methane production is harmful to my lung tissue. Plus, unlike smoke, you never know when it's going to happen and you can't see it either. At least you typically know what types of establishments have a lot of smoke (Bars, and restaurants that have smoking sections). Farts can happen anywhere. I have no way to dodge them, but the offender should be able to hold it in until he/she can reach a designated outdoor flatulence pavillion. I say make squeeze their cheeks together to keep me comfortable.

I say once you get flatulence taken care of, then you can further ban smoking (you see, it's basically already banned almost everywhere: offices, most restaurants, most lobbies, most public buildings).

So, I'm pro smoking (even though I don't smoke), but I can't remember the last time I noticedsmoke anywhere besides a bar or Old South Pancake House.

Until they develop a non flatulence producing human this argument doesn't hold much merit, and I'd love to see how they'd enforce it.

[David Love]

I heard not that there is a bill being introduced at the state level now to ban smoking in all public places state-wide.

It's coming, I think some just wish to put it off as long as possible.

I know when they enacted the ban in Sacramento the Graduate was a big hangout for UCD, it did not look as busy post ban, but then I realized that I’d just never been able to see to the other side before. They did create a special smoke room, with glass and a vapor barrier, double sets of doors but very few people used it, mostly cigar types, speaking of flatulence.

[DJASONMILLER]

Why not just let the restaurant/bar owners decide whether or not to allow it? Instead of the government deciding, just help the bars enforce their anti-smoking decisions.

Agreed, If they allow smoking, non smokers do not have to go, if they dont allow smoking, smokers dont have to go.. very simple without adding new laws!

[Willy1]

Why not just let the restaurant/bar owners decide whether or not to allow it? Instead of the government deciding, just help the bars enforce their anti-smoking decisions.

Agreed, If they allow smoking, non smokers do not have to go, if they dont allow smoking, smokers dont have to go.. very simple without adding new laws!

That's exactly what is in place now. I personally want to see the ban because second hand smoke is harmful to people who do not have the choice. It's not fair for people who do not smoke to be subjected to harmful substances such as cigarette smoke against their will. Plus, smokers - in general - are just completely inconsiderate of others and I don't (and shouldn't have to) walk through clouds of smoke to go into or out of any public building. I know that's a harsh statement that is going to make alot of people mad, but I have some seroius pet peeves about smokers. Both of my parents smoked and it always drove me nuts.

First, it hacks me off the way smokers throw the butts all over the ground, out car windows, or on sidewalks.
Second, I think smoking and driving is just as dangerous as talking on cell phones - not to mention the grass fires it causes when they throw them out windows of cars. I've seen way too people in the fast lane driving 10 mph under the speed limit just gingerly enjoying a smoke with their head up their rear!
Third, if you're a non-smoker in Dallas, it's impossible to enjoy a dinner on a patio anywhere anymore because it's the new unofficial smoking section.
Fourth, it kills as many people as illegal drugs every year. Why it's even legal still is beyond me.
Fifth, it stinks horribly and there is nothing more nauseating to me than going somewhere and leaving only to smell like an ash tray.

I could go on forever. I normally hate it when the government steps in and tells people what they can or can't do... But in this case, I'm all for banning smoking. I'd actually love to see it become a state-wide ban.

[youngalum]

The ban cannot come soon enough for my tastes.

[Fort Worthology]

Personally, I am against the ban (as well as the ban in Dallas).

[David Love]

Fourth, it kills as many people as illegal drugs every year. Why it's even legal still is beyond me.

Kills a lot more, read not too long ago, their advertising is as such due to the need to replace the 1000 smokers a day that die.

[cberen1]

Fourth, it kills as many people as illegal drugs every year. Why it's even legal still is beyond me.

We should also outlaw tanning booths and alcohol for the same reason. They don't help anyone, and they kill people. For that matter, recreational flying is really dangerous, but then again it only kills a few people. Does something have to kill a lot of people to get outlawed, or is it ok to outlaw things that kill a relatively high percentage of the few participants involved? At some level, isn't it the job of the government to make sure that nobody takes any risks at all with their own bodies?

What about really loud clubs? Some people like it, others do not. There is a health risk involved since there has clearly been a medical connection between hearing loss and continued loud music. The workers at the loud clubs do not really have a choice. They are subjected to the noise regardless of how they feel about it. Should really loud clubs be regulated?

I don't buy the argument that 2nd hand smoke in a restaurant is sufficient grounds for banning smoking. You don't have to go to that particular restaurant. Moreover, you don't have an actual right[b] to go into that place. But, the owner has the right to refuse to allow you in. You are an invited guest of the owner. If you don't like it, don't go there.

[Willy1]

Fourth, it kills as many people as illegal drugs every year. Why it's even legal still is beyond me.

We should also outlaw tanning booths and alcohol for the same reason. They don't help anyone, and they kill people. For that matter, recreational flying is really dangerous, but then again it only kills a few people. Does something have to kill a lot of people to get outlawed, or is it ok to outlaw things that kill a relatively high percentage of the few participants involved? At some level, isn't it the job of the government to make sure that nobody takes any risks at all with their own bodies?

What about really loud clubs? Some people like it, others do not. There is a health risk involved since there has clearly been a medical connection between hearing loss and continued loud music. The workers at the loud clubs do not really have a choice. They are subjected to the noise regardless of how they feel about it. Should really loud clubs be regulated?

I don't buy the argument that 2nd hand smoke in a restaurant is sufficient grounds for banning smoking. You don't have to go to that particular restaurant. Moreover, you don't have an actual right[b] to go into that place. But, the owner has the right to refuse to allow you in. You are an invited guest of the owner. If you don't like it, don't go there.

This is a laughable post to me.... So, I guess then we should also legalize crack, heroin, methamphetamine, and a laundry list of other illegal drugs that all kill far fewer people a year than cigarettes? Great logic. You know, I believe carrying a gun in Texas is legal, if you are licensed to do so. But, if I go out and spray a crowd with bullets, I'm sure some folks would have a problem with that... What if I just aim for their legs and don't kill anyone... wouldn't that make it acceptable?

Seriously folks, we're not talking about banning smoking completely... just in public places. We're not talking about taking someone's rights to smoke away, just restricting it to doing so in a manner that minimizes/elliminates the harmful effects to others. If someone wants to smoke, fine... let them die a slow, painful, miserable, terrifying death by chosing to inhale cancer-causing cigarette smoke all they want... And if they want to live in complete denial about what their destiny is, that's fine too. I'm not saying they should not have the right to do that to themselves if they want! Just don't ask me to be subjected to it every time I walk in to/out of my office building, a restaurant, or any other public place. Drinking and driving is illegal -you can and should go to jail for that... and, if you do kill someone from drinking and driving, even the bartender who served you can go to jail. If I sold you a pound of pot, I'd be facing serious jail time. If people were firing up marajuana joints or crack pipes in the bar at Chili's at 2:00 on a Sunday afternoon... people would be freaking out about it, it would make the 6:00 news and the CNN crawler. But, people will fight for their right to smoke an even more dangerous drug (cigarettes) anywhere they please. And, the dealers (Phillip Morris, etc) don't go to jail... they just spend billions on lobbying and putting Presidents in office who will back their right to sell what should be an illegal substance!

If I walked up to a smoker and shot them in the head, I'd go to jail for life, or until my death sentence is carried out. But, if I walked up to a 19 year old girl and hand her a carton of cigarettes which starts her in a 20 year addiction that results in her dying from lung cancer... not a dang thing happens to me. Oddly enough, the bullet to the brain would be less painful and a more humane way to kill someone.

And, you're right about one thing... I have a right to not go into places where people smoke. I also have a right not to walk through the middle of a mine field or play Russion Roulette. And????

[safly]

I think shows which feature "operating chainsaw" jugglers should be banned too.


Way too much room for error there.