75 replies to this topic

[courtnie]

Its just another way to chip away at our rights..I dont smoke but I promise you it will hurt business...smoking sections are great..WHY?? because you can usually get a table faster and with out a wait..ahahhahaahha

[360texas]

City Government should stay out of companies business..

If Resturants want to accomodate folks that smoke.. then let them.

Companies can always post a 'No Smoking' sign on their entrance door. [Self Regulation Policy]

City Government can not police the issue anyway. They do not have the resources to do so.

Nuf Said.

[Sam Stone]

What about the right to work in a smoke-free workplace? It's a serious health hazard to waitstaff, bartenders, busboys, etc.

My casual observation from cities that have smoking bans is that business doesn't suffer a bit. Smokers still go out to eat and drink (with non smokers) and wait to smoke when they get outside. Not to mention the fact that Dallas, our nightlife competitor, already has a ban--so how does that hurt us? Also, if smoking is outright banned, then no more restaurants will have to invest in more costly ventilation systems.

But like I said, that's casual observation. Does anyone know what the real economic impact of smoking bans is? And does a city wide smoking ban affect insurance?

[Willy1]

I think it should be taken a step further. I think smoking should be illegal.

Yes - that's radical.... or is it?

The only reason cigs are legal is because the Tobacco industry is one of the largest and most powerful lobbying groups in the world! Why do I think it should be illegal? Because it's basically legal crack. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you that cigarettes are every bit as addictive as heroin or crack or any other hardcore illegal drug! Seriously! They are THAT addictive and the damage to the body is just as horrific...

If a teenager starts smoking pot at 15... and continues to smoke pot for the next 30 years everyone is horrified by that. He or she is branded as a drug addict by society. If a teenager starts smoking at 15, they have a little bit of a bad rep for a while, but that fades away with age and they just become "a smoker" which is somehow more acceptable just because it's not illegal. As for the pot-head... People won't leave their children with him/her, they won't trust him/her with their personal belongings, etc. But why? Is their bad habit really any worse than smoking cigarettes? Is pot really any worse than cigarettes from a health standpoint? Actually, many doctors will tell you that it's not as bad for you as smoking cigarettes... not that it's good for you, of course. Point is, cigarettes rank up there with pot and other illegal drugs in terms of health impact and addiction. It's just the label of being "illegal" that makes pot-smoking so wrong. If you remove the legality of it and just focus on the health issues it really isn't as bad as smoking cigarettes. Pot is just as illegal and crack and yet, it actually is less addictive than tobacco. And, tobacco is a bigger cancer-causing substance than pot. Pot has even been proven to have positive medicinal affects for some illnesses. I haven't seen any studies proving or showing that cigarettes have any positive affects on the body. So then, why is pot illegal and tobacco's not?

Answer: The Pot Industry doesn't have the political lobbiest pulling the puppet strings on the US Government the way that the Tobacco Industry does. Another thing... ever heard a pot-head's arguments for why they should be allowed to smoke dope legally? They have basically the exact same reasoning as cigarette smokers; It's my right... The govt should be allowed to tell me what I can and can't do to my own body... I'd rather die than stop smoking... I'll suffer the consequences, but it should be my decision.... Basically they have the same arguments I heard on the news last night when they were interviewing people at the Old South Pancake House on University about the smoking ban.

Okay, so back to reality... cigs are never going to be illegal, so back to the smoking ban in FW....

The ban in Dallas has basically had no affect in restaurant business. Think about it - what are smokers going to do... eat every meal at home for the rest of their lives? They may boycott for a little while, but they're not going to completly withdraw from society. The places that used to allow smoking in Dallas are still just as packed as ever. I for one, prefer to go out to eat in Dallas over FW because I don't have to deal with my meal being ruined by smoke drifting across the partition wall into the non-smoking area. The only bad thing that has resulted from the smoking ban in Dallas is that now, it's miserable to sit outside on a patio for dinner in Dallas because basically now the patio's in Dallas are the smoking sections. So, now when it's really nice outside all the non-smokers are stuck inside because the "cancer crew" has taken over every patio in Dallas.

The ban in Dallas also does not affect bars... you can still smoke in bars in Dallas so anything that is a restaurant/bar or bar/grille, the smoking ban does not apply. Snookie's is an example. I love Snookie's, but I hate going there sometimes because everything I wear in there has to go to the cleaners after eating there because all my clothes stink to high heaven after being locked in there with all the smokers.

Other cities have smoking bans and they are doing just fine. Most cities in California has complete smoking bans in all public facilities - including bars - and the businesses are thriving. El Paso - smoking bans in bars and restaurants... the last time I was there, it was so odd to walk into a crowded bar and realize that the air was clean. People were leaving the bar to go smoke outside. I left that night and didn't stink. It was awesome!

Now, I know I'm probably going to get a lot of heated comments from the smokers... And, I know it's your choice and the government shouldn't tell you what to do, yada, yada, yada.... But, if it's your choice to smoke and you're willing to pay the price for smoking then that's fine with me. But, are you willing to pay the price for my medical bills that are related to allergies and possible second-hand smoking related illnesses? No? Well, then are you at least willing to foot the bill for my dry cleaning so that I can enjoy the same rights to go out to eat and not smell like a frigging ash tray after eating dinner in the non-smoking section? Or, if I decide I want to eat on the patio too, are you going to respect my dislike of smoking enough to put out your cigarette while I eat?

And, for the record... I do not smoke pot or cigarettes. I think they should both be illegal.

[360texas]

For the record I do not smoke pot or cigarettes either.

Fort Worth business pays city tax to manage city services. Let Fort Worth business manage their own company. Let them put a big red NO SMOKING sign on their front door... because it is really

A fire hazard which affects customers health
Building is higher fire insurance risk and higher insurance costs
Higher HVAC maintaince costs

IF the city gets involved in a Smoking Ban.. its saying the private companies can not fully manage their own business practices.

[safly]

CHUCK SILCOX=BIG "OH Brother!"

This is ridiculous to even bring up to the city. I am sure there are plenty more topics of substance which actually affect our dear city. BIG waste o time.

It should definitely be up to the business owners to determine how to run their own business affairs. You can always place a split dining/bar/cigar/cigarette area from the other dining areas. Ventiliation systems are tax deductible, I think? So you might as well and invest in a certain clientele to attract your way. I can understand banning smoking at city mgmt. venues but in private business locations, "Give me a break Nel Carter!"

So what if cigarette lobbying groups have money to "burn", that shouldn't make a difference what the public (including business owners) truly want.

What about the right to work in a smoke-free workplace? It's a serious health hazard to waitstaff, bartenders, busboys, etc.

Though Texas is a "right to work state", owners are not going to change/challenge their client policy based on employee concerns, especially if the money keeps pouring in either way. Owners can simply fire somebody or choose not to hire them in many of instances. It's a definite Catch 22 with losing customers as a waiter/owner and gaining customers who smoke as a waiter/owner.

Pot (hemp) should not NECESSARILY be ILLEGAL, nor CIGARETTE SMOKING. IT should be taxed though. Can you imagine the possibilities. I know of and heard from many about top executives in Corp. America who "smoke and toke" at ease. It's just hypocritical to think that SMOKING a "J" is soooo TABOO in America. It truly is not. I would venture to say that about 30% of Americans who travel on to foreign soil (on marijuana legal land) will most likely smoke some during vacationing.

(Mayor) "Other than the constant smoking in our city's restaurant and bars. The State of FW is PHENOMENAL!".

[youngalum]

All for this ban and hope it will include bars after more discussion.

[pelligrini]

The ban in Dallas also does not affect bars... you can still smoke in bars in Dallas so anything that is a restaurant/bar or bar/grille, the smoking ban does not apply. Snookie's is an example. I love Snookie's, but I hate going there sometimes because everything I wear in there has to go to the cleaners after eating there because all my clothes stink to high heaven after being locked in there with all the smokers.

Other cities have smoking bans and they are doing just fine. Most cities in California has complete smoking bans in all public facilities - including bars - and the businesses are thriving. El Paso - smoking bans in bars and restaurants... the last time I was there, it was so odd to walk into a crowded bar and realize that the air was clean. People were leaving the bar to go smoke outside. I left that night and didn't stink. It was awesome!

Now, I know I'm probably going to get a lot of heated comments from the smokers... And, I know it's your choice and the government shouldn't tell you what to do, yada, yada, yada.... But, if it's your choice to smoke and you're willing to pay the price for smoking then that's fine with me. But, are you willing to pay the price for my medical bills that are related to allergies and possible second-hand smoking related illnesses? No? Well, then are you at least willing to foot the bill for my dry cleaning so that I can enjoy the same rights to go out to eat and not smell like a frigging ash tray after eating dinner in the non-smoking section? Or, if I decide I want to eat on the patio too, are you going to respect my dislike of smoking enough to put out your cigarette while I eat?

And, for the record... I do not smoke pot or cigarettes. I think they should both be illegal.

How about we take your arguement a step further. Maybe there ought to be some laws on crying babies and loud, obnoxious people, offensive perfume, people who don't bathe, and people who pass gas. That'll throw me off my meal more than smoke will.

[safly]

That's great that our military can come up with "solutions". But this is the same military that was passin em out during the past Wars. I understand that not only is smoking HABITUAL but it is also ADDICTING. Glad that our military can UNDERSTAND the human elements in certain situations.

I say you designate smoking areas. I patron a wonderful Chinese Restaurant near the 820 area and it is setup that way. There are times I will choose the smoking area just to get a quick seat or a lil privacy.

People that can't STAND people smoking in public places don't do it because of their health, they act like babies because they aren't used to the smell. Am I right here? Me, personally I like certain tobacco scents, it kinda reminds me of my LL days when I would smell parents lightin up at the park and watch me "mow the competition down".

Initially revenues did go down 10 to 15% but they bounced back and then some, possibly due those with serious allergies or breathing issues were now allowed access.

That's alot of "books" to handle out there in SUCKramento. How reliable is this info.?

Aren't judges allowed to smoke in their chambers?

[JBB]

That's great that our military can come up with "solutions". But this is the same military that was passin em out during the past Wars. I understand that not only is smoking HABITUAL but it is also ADDICTING. Glad that our military can UNDERSTAND the human elements in certain situations.

Back in the days when the military provided cigarettes, complacency toward and acceptance of smoking was a part of society. It was far from exclusive to the military. That was a completely different time.

Two common topics that will always start wars on message boards: religion and restricting smoking in one way or another.

[courtnie]

ok..so lets ban cigs...and then we should ban everything that offends us..including things that dont offend you. so if your ok with drinking you coffee in your car but it irritates the person in the next car..then it should be banned and you should get fined for drinking your coffee in your car..so are we gonna hire extra cops to make sure that all smokers are walking and not stoping while smoking? they dont do anything about the long traffic jams and breathing the fumes of other cars or how about the cars that seem to produce more smoke then a 4 alarm fire? C'mon people...get real...its a right and after all isnt that why millions of people come to this country each year? for rights that they dont have elsewhere..if you want to be ruled by a communistic state that tells you what you can do and when..move to Cuba...at least there you can get a Cuban cigar...

I would hope that our city government would have more to do then worry whos smoking and whos not...lets see...we have bird issues, smoking issues..whats next is it going to be that the grass isnt green enough around the court house? seriously..

[Redshirt]

I would have to say that the way the military handles smoking is probably the best way. As was stated previously the military uses designated smoking areas(DSAs) for those who smoke. Smoking is banned in ALL buildings and it seems to work out rather well; however, those who can't wait very long between smoke breaks tend to turn to the alternate...dip, chew, etc. So the downside to this is, especially in my workcenter, is drink bottles filled with people's spit which, by the way, emanates a wonderful aroma (thick sarcasm). If you haven't figured out I'm a non-smoker and I can't stand to smell smoke at all, it makes me gag. I think the military has the best idea to accommodate both parties.

As far as the city, state and/or local government telling businesses how to conduct themselves, those entities are there to do the will of the people. If a proposition is brought about and it passes/fails based on those votes of the people who participated then that is what the people wanted, roughly the same thing goes for a city council meeting. Whether or not the government should control smoking should based on what the populous wants. I personally would like to see smoking banned in all public areas at the very least, but I'm only a small part of the collective.

[DrkLts]

I guess, I suppose, I could tollerate smokers in a resturant. That is until I hear them hack up all that phlem. Thats when I get grossed out and lose my appetite.

[360texas]

Sure.. vote with your pocket book. If you don't like it.. go to a smoke free resturant. It is "your choice". Business owners will get the idea.

[safly]

I’m not saying make them illegal, just that it should be illegal to intentionally expose others to hazardous / offensive chemicals, because the facts are that second hand smoke can kill people.

Alcohol kills people too. As of last Saturday, our VP nearly killed a person. SUV's kill people in accidents with low hood height disadvantages. School buses have no seatbelts, and the taxpayers don't seem to mind one bit.

Gimme a break abot the second hand CRAPOLA. That's like saying that I go to a favorite bar/club every night of the week, but ther is too much smoke. I can't seem to go to another bar/club of choice in the area, it's too frustrating. I just can't leave this particular bar/club, I can't.

Pity Party anyone?

Smoke FREE areas only exist because society tends to slap on lawsuits left and right, like scratch and sniff stickers on a grade school folder. WORD.

I DO AGREE with 360's assessment on letting the market decide.

As far as the city, state and/or local government telling businesses how to conduct themselves, those entities are there to do the will of the people.

You mean like ol 50's Jimmie Crow LAW? Shewwwt.

[Yossarian]

The market will dictate this issue; more and more cities are adopting this stance as well as entire countries so you might as well stop whining and learn to deal with it, take a deep breath and enjoy it.

Could you please explain how a city or national government's legislative action is defined as "market" dictates...

[Sam Stone]

There is as much a market for governments as there are markets for other products and services. The transaction costs are lower the lower down on the totem pole you go, such that those with means (upper and middle classes and the businesses that serve/employ them) move to the jurisdiction that meets their consumer profile. "Smoking Ban" constitutes one feature among many that consumers of government (residents/businesses) receive when selecting a location or electing to remain in one. So, in the "city market" there are those with smoking bans and those without. As your competitors adopt smoking bans, it becomes less costly for you to do so.

I think this is what David meant.

[hooked]

Why do lawyers always nit pick the irrelevant?

Usually it's for the fees, but sometimes just for fun.

[hooked]

I remember my junior high debate coach would tell us, “If your argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on or your opponent is flat out right; nit pick the little stuff, spelling, diction, accent, hair cut, anything to discredit your opponent thereby discrediting his argument.”

That may have worked on the junior high debate team, but it's seldom effective in front of a judge. Heck, even juries (and most of us "architecture wannabes") see through that kind of stuff.

[redzeep]

I am all for a smoking ban. I don't smoke.

I do eat too much chocolate ....but that is not affecting the health and comfort of others.

[cjyoung]

Smoking is a nasty, filthy, terrible habit and I don't frequent any restaurant that has a smoking section.

[safly]

It's all good David.

I love smoking & non-smoking section restaurants equally. Personally, I don't smoke (unless I had too much drinkydrinky in a short period of time), but I would ALWAYS patron a venue that would allow people to exercise their legal drug of choice. Smoking is not illegal, so why ban it in a private business? If I am not in the mood for some semi-second hand smokeage then I will not enter it's doors. Perty simple. Case in point a well know Irish Pub in DTFW. Love it, but choose not to expose myself to it everyday.

Second hand smoke is soooo 80's. With all the NEW air flitration technology these days, those waitstaff lawsuits will not make the docket. I can understand if an owner refused to comply with smoking section devices for a cleaner public air, then a waitstaff was dignosed positive after a negative pre employment diagnose analysis. That of course after the employer had a consent waiver for access to certain medical history.

I am not saying that it is a civil liberty or right to smoke in a restaurant, but it is also not right for legislators to put their dirty lil thumbs on AMERICANS everyday and every election year. This is soooo obvious why it is being thrown out for the public to read up on or hear through the grapevine. POLITICAL AGENDA is a double edged sword.

As far as carcinogens go, can you imagine somebody walking up to Del Frisco's mgmt. and telling them that they currently have a lawsuit against them because of their delicious juicy 12 oz. rib-eyes were being grilled over an OPEN FLAME which had created a carcinogenic meat property in reaction to the high heat contact. Thus diagnosing the said plaintiffs colon (or some other) cancerous state. I wonder what that would do for our dear COWTOWN. Think about it and discuss.

If it does pass, should certain establishments be grandfathered in?

[vjackson]

The problem with the smoking ban is that's it's very difficult to enforce. If you go to many bar/restuarants in Dallas, especially doing the late hours, people still smoke and noone says anything. I don't smoke, but I was against the ban in Dallas, mostly because I thought it would hurt the restaurant industry, I don't t think it has. And it's funny how you become used to it...whenever I eat out in Addison or FW and they ask smoking or nonsmoking it takes me by surprise. One time I said "smoking" by accident.

[redzeep]

What reason did the powers that be have to make it illegal to drive without a seat belt?

If I remember correctly ... The right to choose was taken away because the society at large was paying the medical cost for all the uninsured drivers that were injured.

Seems to me the same argument could be used for smokers.

[Yossarian]

Seems to me the same argument could be used for smokers.

Except smokers by and large die younger and DO NOT actually put that much more of a strain on the medical costs "society" pays - in true dollars.

[cberen1]

What reason did the powers that be have to make it illegal to drive without a seat belt?

If I remember correctly ... The right to choose was taken away because the society at large was paying the medical cost for all the uninsured drivers that were injured.

Seems to me the same argument could be used for smokers.

Did you call or write into "Anything you ever wanted to know" on KERA today? Someone put forth that exact question with almost the exact same wording.

[heinzrx]

Hello all.

New member here. I don't smoke but I have friends that do.

Rant mode: ON...

All you anti smokers crying about secondhand smoke while you live in an urban jungle with poor air quality. How can you live in the DFW metroplex breathing this crap day after day and worry about secondhand smoke in a resaurant/bar one or two hours a week? Or do you eat all your meals at restaurants seven days a week?

Have you ever checked the air quality in your own home? Most people don't even think about it. You might be surprised how much crud is hanging around in your AC ducts.

And if you're worried about smokers costing society big $$ let's also pick on fat people, people who eat unhealthy foods, people who drink alcohol, people who don't exercise, people with genetically derived health problems, people who pile fertilizer and pesticides on their lawns that gets washed into our streams and rivers, people with children whose education is partially paid for by childless taxpayers, people who chose to live in hurricane zones, people who chose to live in earthquake zones, people who drive giant SUVs contributing to our dependence on foreign oil requiring us to send our troops to invade other countries and die by the thousands and costing the taxpayer hundreds of billions.....

I'm running out of steam, but I think you get the idea. People do all kinds of things that indirectly cost you and me $$. So what? You think banning smoking is going to save you a significant amount of money? When the government can't suck money out of the tobacco companies any more, they'll find more ways to get it out of the taxpayers.

Let the smokers have their vice. I'm sure we all have one or two of our own. Let restaurants choose whether or not to have a smoking section and let diners choose where they want to go.

Slightly off-topic but why do automobile drivers have to wear seatbelts while motorcyclists don't have to wear helmets? That one never made sense to me. I commute on a motorcycle and I always wear a helmet, jacket, boots, and gloves. But if Bubba down the street wants to ride his motorcycle in shorts, baseball cap and flip-flops that's fine by me.

And while I'm on the subject of motor vehicles. We're all probably in much greater and more immediate danger (compared to secondhand smoke) from bad drivers. Mostly drivers yakking on cell phones and elderly drivers who shouldn't be driving anymore. Why isn't there a requirement for elderly drivers to re-certify on an annual basis?

Rant mode: OFF...

Thanks for letting me vent. I feel better!

Heinz

[Buck]

This issue died weeks ago.

Smoke away.

[safly]

WELCOME HeinzRx.

It appears I have found my equal.

We can CONQUER this WORLD together.

[heinzrx]

David Love,

Was just cruising the postings regarding the demolition tomorrow. Beautiful view from your balcony. Just can't believe that you're willing to stand out on the balcony and breathe all that dust! Aren't you worried?

[safly]

No dust with this rain coming in. Plus the mote depth and the parking garage will block that spread.

For all of you people arguing for smoking bans.
I guess it's too late to consider banning air polluting IMPLOSIONS.

[redzeep]

What reason did the powers that be have to make it illegal to drive without a seat belt?

If I remember correctly ... The right to choose was taken away because the society at large was paying the medical cost for all the uninsured drivers that were injured.

Seems to me the same argument could be used for smokers.

Did you call or write into "Anything you ever wanted to know" on KERA today? Someone put forth that exact question with almost the exact same wording.

Yes, I did. Then someone walked in my sales office. So, I missed it if it was talked about.

Smokers don't really bother me ....but, paying these no seatbealt tickets at $150+ sucks!

[safly]

And Americans wonder why Team USA is not in the World Baseball Classic championship round.

Bunch of babies.

[ashivone]

When I lived in Bolivia I would occasionally come across people who had lived and worked in the United States (sometimes legally and sometimes not). When I would tell people I was an American (they always thought I was Argentinian or German) they would invariably say they liked America but that there were too many rules and not enough freedom. They would always say with pride "There, you are rich, but you are not free. Here, we are poor, but we are free". As a red-white-and-blue blooded American I always took some offense to that statement. I thought "We're America, WE ARE FREEDOM!" Now I come back to America and begin to live life as an American again. I go to Dallas and go to a bar, try to light up, and someone says "sorry, you can't do that here...oh, and watch out-- the TABC could arrest you for those two beers you just drank"; I go to a Rangers game and try to park in an empty parking lot and I'm told "sorry, you have to go closer to the stadium and pay $10 to park"; I go 7 miles over the speed limit and I'm told "sorry, you're going a little too fast, you owe us $100"; I still believe we are the land of the free and I don't believe these are outrageous violations of my rights, but I can see why a Bolivian would say "There, you are rich, but you are not free".