Lawsuit Filed to Stop Houston Smoking Ban

[Crystalline]

(8/07/07 - HOUSTON) - A coalition of bar, nightclub and cabaret owners has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a city ban on smoking in most bars that's scheduled to take effect next month.
Members of the Houston Association of Alcoholic Beverage Permit Holders claim the ordinance will create an unfair competitive environment for them to operate.
The law extends the city's smoking ban to most public places, but continues to allow smoking in outdoor patios and in bars that promote cigar smoking and derive significant revenue from tobacco sales.
The City Council approved the ban in October to protect bar patrons and employees from the health effects of second-hand smoke. The lawsuit claims the city does not have the authority under state law to create different regulations among businesses licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption.
"They're creating an unbalanced playing field by stating that certain types of operators, such as tobacco bars, who meet their arbitrary definition of what a tobacco bar is, can allow smoking while the guy across the street (who) doesn't meet that definition cannot," said Al Van Huff, a lawyer representing the group.
The lawsuit asks the court to stop enforcement of the ordinance and rule it invalid for alcohol establishments licensed by the state.
City Attorney Arturo Michel said Houston's ordinance is legal. Various bars are not being treated differently in terms of alcohol, he said.
"We're actually not just regulating this industry in terms of smoking," he said. "We regulate a lot of other public places, in terms of smoking."
Van Huff also argued that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. The ordinance allows smoking in "private functions." Some owners have wondered whether they could designate all or part of their establishments as private clubs.
Michel said the ordinance is modeled on rules from other cities and is not vague.
"We took care to look at that," he said. "We tried our best to make sure our terms were well defined for constitutional purposes."
Gregg Alston, the owner of two Houston bars, said the ordinance will make it harder for him to compete with nearby cigar bars. Alston's bars doesn't have a patio.
"It puts us at a disadvantage with cigar bars, or bars that sell tobacco, which are still allowed to have smoking because of the type of business that they are," he said.

[Cherub]

I actually like the ban. In dallas the clubs are so much cleaner and you dont smell like smoke when you leave......but this is coming from a non smoker

[mekrew]

+1 i favor the ban

[RACER X]

+2

[BigComfy]

+3 and I'm a smoker

[Romeo36]

+4

[Crystalline]

I am for banning it. I doubt that a club is going to lose their revenue do to the ban. If someone really needs to smoke then they can always go outside, or the club can build a patio. ****in money hungry people. The only problem is that there is going to be more ciggerettes dumped outside.

WTF is wrong with people?!?!?! So damn lazy to put their ciggerette in a ****in trash. I also hate when they ash their shit out the window. It's ****in discusting. LEAVE YOUR WINDOWS UP AND LEAVE YOUR BUDS IN YOUR ****IN CAR!!

[sbfuller]

I actually like the ban. In dallas the clubs are so much cleaner and you dont smell like smoke when you leave......but this is coming from a non smoker

same all over california, it was nice

[TxBritt08R1]

I actually like the ban. In dallas the clubs are so much cleaner and you dont smell like smoke when you leave......but this is coming from a non smoker

I used to smoke and drink, and I stayed in bars because thats where we played. I never realized how much I stank when I left there until after I quit.

I'm for the ban. If they wanna smoke, go outside.

Britt

[cashtown]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want a bar to be non-smoking because the government says so.

Take away one more right from the business owner.

If there is enough of a demand for non-smoking clubs then some entreprenuer will open non-smoking clubs. That's the way capitalism works.

Let's not let the government determine how we should live and what we should be allowed to do.

The very same argument that can be made for banning smoking in private establishments can be applied to banning sportbikes on public roads.

I actually believe that the argument for banning sportbikes on PUBLIC roads would be more substantive than the one for banning smoking in PRIVATE businesses.

We should regulate ourselves through expression of our own free will / choice rather than allowing the government to mandate it for us.

just my o-penny-on.

[Crystalline]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want a bar to be non-smoking because the government says so.
Take away one more right from the business owner.
If there is enough of a demand for non-smoking clubs then some entreprenuer will open non-smoking clubs. That's the way capitalism works.
Let's not let the government determine how we should live and what we should be allowed to do.
The very same argument that can be made for banning smoking in private establishments can be applied to banning sportbikes on public roads.
I actually believe that the argument for banning sportbikes on PUBLIC roads would be more substantive than the one for banning smoking in PRIVATE businesses.
We should regulate ourselves through expression of our own free will / choice rather than allowing the government to mandate it for us.
just my o-penny-on.

I think the reason that the government got involved is because people like you and me weren't and aren't capable of getting a word across to the business owners. Majority of these guys will allow as much as they can to make a few more bucks. Most really don't care about the health or safety of their customers. Look at some of the restaurants across town. They have inspection provded by the government to make sure that everything is acceptable to keep their restaurant running. I think this is a better comparison. But as far as the government determining how we live is being more controlled by the day. :gesture: Unfortunately, we can't change that.

[MadseasoN]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want a bar to be non-smoking because the government says so. Take away one more right from the business owner. If there is enough of a demand for non-smoking clubs then some entreprenuer will open non-smoking clubs. That's the way capitalism works. Let's not let the government determine how we should live and what we should be allowed to do. The very same argument that can be made for banning smoking in private establishments can be applied to banning sportbikes on public roads. I actually believe that the argument for banning sportbikes on PUBLIC roads would be more substantive than the one for banning smoking in PRIVATE businesses. We should regulate ourselves through expression of our own free will / choice rather than allowing the government to mandate it for us. just my o-penny-on.

I agree to a certain extent. I'm a big-time capitalist and I believe in Free Enterprise.

However, Bars and restaurants are considered public places not private businesses. You cannot allow owners of a public place to determine what is in the best interest of their patrons (the public). Otherwise we wouldn't need fire codes, building codes, health regulations, occupancy limits, etc. I believe that non-smokers (and the bar employees) have the right to breathe clean air. This ordinance protects that right and protects people who wish to visit a public place and not have to inhale someone else's smoke.

[cashtown]

I think the reason that the government got involved is because people like you and me weren't and aren't capable of getting a word across to the business owners. Majority of these guys will allow as much as they can to make a few more bucks.


You're right.

The almighty dollar determines business owners' actions, and rightfully so. If you don't like the smoke, don't go there. If there is truly a POPULAR demand for non-smoking establishments, then they will open up. If not, then the non-smokers, those who don't tolerate smoking, are the minority.

Governmental interdiction is not the answer. We are grown-ups and can make our own choices.


FWIW I smoke, but would LOVE to quit. If I'm trying to quit and I go to a bar for a drink, I lose my no-smoking will power the moment someone lights up. Do I think it would be easier to quit if I didn't smell other people's cigarettes? Hell yes.

Will I sacrifice another of my rights in exchange for facilitation of my quitting? Hell no.

[cashtown]

I agree to a certain extent. I'm a big-time capitalist and I believe in Free Enterprise.

However, Bars and restaurants are considered public places not private businesses. You cannot allow owners of a public place to determine what is in the best interest of their patrons (the public). Otherwise we wouldn't need fire codes, building codes, health regulations, occupancy limits, etc. I believe that non-smokers (and the bar employees) have the right to breathe clean air. This ordinance protects that right and protects people who wish to visit a public place and not have to inhale someone else's smoke.


Don't go there then.


Don't work there then.

There's a big difference between a fire code that is designed to prevent a circumstance that would be agreed upon by all as being unwanted - a deadly fire - and a smoking ordinance that some willingly oppose.

There are all kinds of things we could ban because some people don't like them, while others are perfectly happy with them.

I just propose that governmental limitations on our freedom are bad.

[Crystalline]

You're right.
The almighty dollar determines business owners' actions, and rightfully so. If you don't like the smoke, don't go there. If there is truly a POPULAR demand for non-smoking establishments, then they will open up. If not, then the non-smokers, those who don't tolerate smoking, are the minority.
Governmental interdiction is not the answer. We are grown-ups and can make our own choices.
FWIW I smoke, but would LOVE to quit. If I'm trying to quit and I go to a bar for a drink, I lose my no-smoking will power the moment someone lights up. Do I think it would be easier to quit if I didn't smell other people's cigarettes? Hell yes.
Will I sacrifice another of my rights in exchange for facilitation of my quitting? Hell no.

Okay let me be honest now... I personally don't give a **** about banning smoke in a night club. People do 3 things; dance, drink, and smoke. You must be a certain age to get in which means you (hopefully) have reached a certain responsibility level and know the consequences of your actions. I DO want smoking banned in restaurants and I want bigger fines for litering (sp). I hate going to a restaurant with my nieces or just with another friend and having some douche bag not having respect for other people around him and lighting up his cigerrette. Also, if you see a no smoking sign outside, it was put there for a reason. Buildings will have it by doors because they don't want that smoke flowing into the building. Also throw your bud away. ANY of your trash for that matter. "Someone gets paid to do that", is not an excuse for your laziness. HAVE SOME RESPECT! If you want to damage your lungs, by all mean, go for it. Don't ruin mine. I don't like going to night clubs for a few reasons, but this is pretty much number 1 on my list. I also just don't like crowded spaces. The clubs most likely will not win against the Federal Court. Just my .02. [:

[MadseasoN]

Don't go there then.


Don't work there then.

There's a big difference between a fire code that is designed to prevent a circumstance that would be agreed upon by all as being unwanted - a deadly fire - and a smoking ordinance that some willingly oppose.

There are all kinds of things we could ban because some people don't like them, while others are perfectly happy with them.

I just propose that governmental limitations on our freedom are bad.

My point is that the city does have the right to create and enforce ordinances for public places. We all know that tobacco smoke is harmful to your health (it's printed right there on the label).

There may be a handful of business owners that are against this but I would bet that most would be happy. I spend between 4-8 hours every weekend in bars (working) and most of the employees there would be happy to spend a workday without breathing toxic fumes.

It's not about 'banning' something that people don't like. It's about protecting individual rights - the right to breathe clean air. You're still free to smoke, just not at a public place where everyone else has to indirecty smoke another's cigarette or cigar.

EDIT:
And ... the 'Don't go there' can apply to people who want to smoke but aren't allowed. Don't go there. Keep it at home or in the car. Works both ways.

[cashtown]

It's not about 'banning' something that people don't like. It's about protecting individual rights - the right to breathe clean air. You're still free to smoke, just not at a public place where everyone else has to indirecty smoke another's cigarette or cigar.

EDIT:
And ... the 'Don't go there' can apply to people who want to smoke but aren't allowed. Don't go there. Keep it at home or in the car. Works both ways.

Protecting individual rights - exactly - like the right of a business owner to determine whether or not they will allow smoking and the right of the customer to decide whether or not they will patronize certain establishments.

If a business owner says, "My bar will have smoking," then people who don't want to breathe second hand smoke will know not to go there.

If a bar owner says, "My bar will be smoke free," then smokers will know not to go there.

The government can lay claim to all kinds of rights. Do we really want them to?


Oh, and Crystalline, you keep saying to throw your "bud" in the trash.

Please don't do that, bud is expensive.

[Crystalline]

My point is that the city does have the right to create and enforce ordinances for public places. We all know that tobacco smoke is harmful to your health (it's printed right there on the label).

There may be a handful of business owners that are against this but I would bet that most would be happy. I spend between 4-8 hours every weekend in bars (working) and most of the employees there would be happy to spend a workday without breathing toxic fumes.

It's not about 'banning' something that people don't like. It's about protecting individual rights - the right to breathe clean air. You're still free to smoke, just not at a public place where everyone else has to indirecty smoke another's cigarette or cigar.

EDIT:
And ... the 'Don't go there' can apply to people who want to smoke but aren't allowed. Don't go there. Keep it at home or in the car. Works both ways.


THANK YOU!!!

I always say that! I argued and argued with this old hag FOREVER about that and told her to re-read the 1st amendment... Stupid people, I swear. I have rights too damnit!

[cashtown]

THANK YOU!!!

I always say that! I argued and argued with this old hag FOREVER about that and told her to re-read the 1st amendment... Stupid people, I swear. I have rights too damnit!



1st amendment?

[Cherub]

.

However, Bars and restaurants are considered public places not private businesses. You cannot allow owners of a public place to determine what is in the best interest of their patrons (the public). Otherwise we wouldn't need fire codes, building codes, health regulations, occupancy limits, etc. I believe that non-smokers (and the bar employees) have the right to breathe clean air. This ordinance protects that right and protects people who wish to visit a public place and not have to inhale someone else's smoke.

+1 very well said

[Crystalline]

1st amendment?

Sorry. It's an infringment of my rights.

[stlal]

Im for the ban..

I hate when I get all that smoke in my eyes and I stink and shiat

I use to smoke and dont care if its just a couple people but I hate when a place is all smoked out

[MadseasoN]

Protecting individual rights - exactly - like the right of a business owner to determine whether or not they will allow smoking and the right of the customer to decide whether or not they will patronize certain establishments.

If a business owner says, "My bar will have smoking," then people who don't want to breathe second hand smoke will know not to go there.

If a bar owner says, "My bar will be smoke free," then smokers will know not to go there.

The government can lay claim to all kinds of rights. Do we really want them to?


Oh, and Crystalline, you keep saying to throw your "bud" in the trash.

Please don't do that, bud is expensive.

I understand your POV but it just doesn't work that way. Public means Public. If it's a public place then the owner has no right to determine what's in the best interest of it's patrons.

And don't forget about the bar employees. They have a (Federal) right to work in an environment that is not hazardous to their health. Walk into the Humble Sherlocks on a Sunday morning after the place has been close for a few hours. The smoke will still be lingering. And if you're smelling it ... you're breathing it.

[Crystalline]

Oh, and Crystalline, you keep saying to throw your "bud" in the trash.

Please don't do that, bud is expensive.

Never that bud!!

[lilmckee]

Stupid.

My view: (not that crystal cares, I mean I did know there was more then just one swastika)

POV = allowed
Home = allowed
Within 30 yards of an entrance to a business = not allowed

Businesses that serve alcohol hold the right to decide to allow smoking or not.
The workers have a CHOICE to work there.

We don't need any more laws.

[lilmckee]

You have a choice to NOT go into the smoke filled club. When / If theres more non-smokers then smokers that go to the clubs, the club will change its own rules.

Im sure there will always be both kind of clubs smoking and non.

This goes for bars as well.

[Crystalline]

You have a choice to NOT go into the smoke filled club. When / If theres more non-smokers then smokers that go to the clubs, the club will change its own rules.

Im sure there will always be both kind of clubs smoking and non.

This goes for bars as well.

If this was a perfect world, maybe. We had the choice to not go in a smoke filled restaurant, but one thing that needs to always be mentioned.. It's a public place, and second hand smoke is dangerous. Would you feel comfortable with someone walking in with a gun? You'll die faster and won't have to worry about getting lunch cancer and taking all sorts of therapy... Less money. [:

My point is, they are most likely going to lose.

[Cherub]

If this was a perfect world, maybe. We had the choice to not go in a smoke filled restaurant, but one thing that needs to always be mentioned.. It's a public place, and second hand smoke is dangerous. Would you feel comfortable with someone walking in with a gun? You'll die faster and won't have to worry about getting lunch cancer and taking all sorts of therapy... Less money. [:

My point is, they are most likely going to lose.


? try again

and whats lunch cancer............is someone still hungery

[lilmckee]

If this was a perfect world, maybe. We had the choice to not go in a smoke filled restaurant, but one thing that needs to always be mentioned.. It's a public place, and second hand smoke is dangerous. /FONT]

Ya so....don't go in.
Resturant food is bad for you anyways, ya you might not die of lung cancer but you have a heart attack from an artery being clogged, you either die or have brain damage.

Sh*t now lets ban restaurants, there just as bad, if not worse.
But why do we not ban them, because its that persons CHOICE to eat shitty food, just like your choice NOT to go somewhere that causes you harm.


[FONT="Georgia"]Would you feel comfortable with someone walking in with a gun?

You do know you live in texas right? I'm pretty sure where ever you are going someone is probably going to have one.


You'll die faster and won't have to worry about getting lunch cancer and taking all sorts of therapy... Less money.

No but you sure are going to get fat so now you either have to pay for a gym membership, or get fat, have high cholesterol, etc etc

[lilmckee]

? try again

and whats lunch cancer............is someone still hungery

shes saying you can get cancer (lung) from smokeing
You cant get cancer (lunch as a psyedo- pun on the word lung)

shes right you cant

you can get heart attacks

[Crystalline]

? try again

and whats lunch cancer............is someone still hungery

I didn't want to use that as an example(my first one was way better), but they are both dangerous. Second hand smoke has been proven to cause more damage than someone smoking their stick. People who smoke a lot literally stink. When I was @ Sam's Boat, I would leave smelling horrible! I would ask to wait outside because I didn't want to be stuck in all that smoke inside. Ugh!

I meant lung cancer... I was probably still eating when I typed that.

[Cherub]

shes saying you can get cancer (lung) from smokeingYou cant get cancer (lunch as a psyedo- pun on the word lung)

shes right you cant

you can get heart attacks

thanks inspector obvious

[lilmckee]

I meant lung cancer... I was probably still eating when I typed that.


haha i thought u meant it


Second hand smoke has been proven to cause more damage than someone smoking their stick.



WHAT! Where did you hear that one.
Some one directly inhaling a cigarette gets less damage then some one to inhales it second hand?!

The studies that say second hand smoking is harmful at all aren't even 100% conclusive. (even thought I believe it is, but then again if it isnt it still smells)

[lilmckee]

thanks inspector obvious

i hate you:BangHead:

[Cherub]

I didn't want to use that as an example(my first one was way better), but they are both dangerous. Second hand smoke has been proven to cause more damage than someone smoking their stick. People who smoke a lot literally stink. When I was @ Sam's Boat, I would leave smelling horrible! I would ask to wait outside because I didn't want to be stuck in all that smoke inside. Ugh!

I meant lung cancer... I was probably still eating when I typed that.


so i guess its time to start smoking then huh


BTW i agree with what your saying. but just for different reasons

[Cherub]

i hate you:BangHead:

:keke::keke::keke:lub you too bro-sif

[MadseasoN]

Stupid.

My view: (not that crystal cares, I mean I did know there was more then just one swastika)

POV = allowed
Home = allowed
Within 30 yards of an entrance to a business = not allowed

Businesses that serve alcohol hold the right to decide to allow smoking or not.
The workers have a CHOICE to work there.

We don't need any more laws.

Restaurants also serve alcohol, does this apply to them too?

If the choice is left to them then the owners are at a disadvantage if they choose to ban smoking in their establishment and their competitor does not. You might say that's an example of supply-and-demand but I don't think it is because one smoker costs that particular business multiple customers. It's not a one-for-one swap. In fact, most of the people that I see in bars are not smokers. This is an example of the 'Few' causing a problem for the 'many'.

[Crystalline]

Ya so....don't go in.
Resturant food is bad for you anyways, ya you might not die of lung cancer but you have a heart attack from an artery being clogged, you either die or have brain damage.
Would you think it is okay for someone to blow their smoke right in your face? No, probably not. Why? Because it's very disrespectful. I have plenty of times been in a restaurant and I sit in the NON SMOKING section and smoke will drift. I have sat outside and have had people sit right next to me and light one up. You bet I say something. I'm not going to move from where I'm at because someone else later on decided to sit next to me. I don't want to be around it, and believe me I avoid as much as I can.
Sh*t now lets ban restaurants, there just as bad, if not worse. But why do we not ban them, because its that persons CHOICE to eat shitty food, just like your choice NOT to go somewhere that causes you harm.
No, we don't need to. We already have had the government tell us that certain restaurants are okay to eat at. :keke:
You do know you live in texas right? I'm pretty sure where ever you are going someone is probably going to have one.
So then I should never walk out the house because someone wants to smoke, somewhere?
No but you sure are going to get fat so now you either have to pay for a gym membership, or get fat, have high cholesterol, etc etc
All restaurant food is smothered in grease? Look at all your fast food places. Smoking is not allowed and plenty of people who smoke eat there... They just wait to smoke later...:nod: They are still doing good business.

[Crystalline]

haha i thought u meant it




WHAT! Where did you hear that one.
Some one directly inhaling a cigarette gets less damage then some one to inhales it second hand?!

The studies that say second hand smoking is harmful at all aren't even 100% conclusive. (even thought I believe it is, but then again if it isnt it still smells)

It's been proven..... by sponsers.... I was just putting that out there. Supposedly (sp) wine is healthy for you..... Thanks wine sponsers for proving money to conduct these studies!:laughing6

[lilmckee]

Restaurants also serve alcohol, does this apply to them too?


Not to sound sarcastic but yes a restaurant is a business.


If the choice is left to them then the owners are at a disadvantage if they choose to ban smoking in their establishment and their competitor does not. You might say that's an example of supply-and-demand but I don't think it is because one smoker costs that particular business multiple customers. It's not a one-for-one swap. In fact, most of the people that I see in bars are not smokers. This is an example of the 'Few' causing a problem for the 'many'.

Therefore they would choose THEMSELVES not to allow smoking. Because they would not want to loose "many-for-one"

[Crystalline]

so i guess its time to start smoking then huh


BTW i agree with what your saying. but just for different reasons

That is not my reason.

[Cherub]

That is not my reason.

didnt say it was................the space between statements means a differenet thought, thanks.

[Crystalline]

didnt say it was................the space between statements means a differenet thought, thanks.

You're weird. Go eat some chocolate. :keke:

[lilmckee]

Would you think it is okay for someone to blow their smoke right in your face? No, probably not. Why? Because it's very disrespectful. I have plenty of times been in a restaurant and I sit in the NON SMOKING section and smoke will drift. I have sat outside and have had people sit right next to me and light one up. You bet I say something. I'm not going to move from where I'm at because someone else later on decided to sit next to me. I don't want to be around it, and believe me I avoid as much as I can.

So don't eat there! Soon the restaurants will know there loosing customers!


So then I should never walk out the house because someone wants to smoke, somewhere?

No, therefore it SHOULD be banned, where people dont have a choice to walk, i.e. 30, 40, 50 yards from a business entrance

All restaurant food is smothered in grease? Look at all your fast food places. Smoking is not allowed and plenty of people who smoke eat there... They just wait to smoke later...:nod: They are still doing good business.

Are you trying to argue my point? Im not sure what your getting at.
Those places choose not to allow smoking, they still have good business, smokers still eat there. WITHOUT having a law.




I'm not for smoking, hell I dont even smoke. I am for peoples rights to make there own decisions

[cashtown]

Restaurants also serve alcohol, does this apply to them too?

If the choice is left to them then the owners are at a disadvantage if they choose to ban smoking in their establishment and their competitor does not. You might say that's an example of supply-and-demand but I don't think it is because one smoker costs that particular business multiple customers. It's not a one-for-one swap. In fact, most of the people that I see in bars are not smokers. This is an example of the 'Few' causing a problem for the 'many'.

It's a simple problem of economics.

I keep seeing the argument that the smokers are in the minority and that they are keeping non-smokers away from businesses where smoking is allowed.

If this is the case then other businesses that forbid smoking will flourish.

Business owners are not going to continue to allow smoking if it is harming their business.

And yes, I've already ceeded that various municipalities and governmental bodies can exercise their ability to enforce laws such as smoking ordinances, but do we really want the government to start legislating every aspect of our lives to keep us safe from ourselves?

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.

Mark my words.

[Crystalline]

Would you think it is okay for someone to blow their smoke right in your face? No, probably not. Why? Because it's very disrespectful. I have plenty of times been in a restaurant and I sit in the NON SMOKING section and smoke will drift. I have sat outside and have had people sit right next to me and light one up. You bet I say something. I'm not going to move from where I'm at because someone else later on decided to sit next to me. I don't want to be around it, and believe me I avoid as much as I can.

So don't eat there! Soon the restaurants will know there loosing customers!


So then I should never walk out the house because someone wants to smoke, somewhere?

No, therefore it SHOULD be banned, where people dont have a choice to walk, i.e. 30, 40, 50 yards from a business entrance

All restaurant food is smothered in grease? Look at all your fast food places. Smoking is not allowed and plenty of people who smoke eat there... They just wait to smoke later...:nod: They are still doing good business.

Are you trying to argue my point? Im not sure what your getting at.
Those places choose not to allow smoking, they still have good business, smokers still eat there. WITHOUT having a law.




I'm not for smoking, hell I dont even smoke. I am for peoples rights to make there own decisions

I don't think you are.

[Crystalline]

It's a simple problem of economics.
I keep seeing the argument that the smokers are in the minority and that they are keeping non-smokers away from businesses where smoking is allowed.
If this is the case then other businesses that forbid smoking will flourish.
Business owners are not going to continue to allow smoking if it is harming their business.
And yes, I've already ceeded that various municipalities and governmental bodies can exercise their ability to enforce laws such as smoking ordinances, but do we really want the government to start legislating every aspect of our lives to keep us safe from ourselves?
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.
Mark my words.

That has already happened. We are already ****ed.

[lilmckee]

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.

Mark my words.

Exactly.

Laws ARE needed.
Freedom of choice is needed more.

[sbfuller]

haha i thought u meant it




WHAT! Where did you hear that one.
Some one directly inhaling a cigarette gets less damage then some one to inhales it second hand?!

The studies that say second hand smoking is harmful at all aren't even 100% conclusive. (even thought I believe it is, but then again if it isnt it still smells)

yes, the person smoking it has a filter, that filters out some of the carcinogens. the person breathing in the smoke from the actual cigarette gets exposed to stuff that has not been filtered

[lilmckee]

I don't think you are.

I'm a MasterDebater.


say it real fast :keke:

[lilmckee]

yes, the person smoking it has a filter, that filters out some of the carcinogens. the person breathing in the smoke from the actual cigarette gets exposed to stuff that has not been filtered

very little smoke comes out the end of the cig

MOST comes through the filter, in to the USERS lungs, THEN back out before it even gets to another

[Crystalline]

I'm a MasterDebater.


say it real fast :keke:

Quit whoring my thread.

[lilmckee]

Quit whoring my thread.

your just jealous

[Ulric]

I think it's kinda of funny...considering the pollution in the air from the local processing plants and industries. ...as a matter of fact I had an interesting and somewhat enlightening discussion with a a City environmental inspector earlier this morning. In short, our mayor IS trying to clean up the air...and is running into some difficulties with the local plants/referineries... (big surprise).

..to me, a business owner should have the right to decide if they will allow smoking or not.
Yes it may be a 'public' place, but a customer is not forced to use that eastablishment, nor are people forced to request employment there. However, it should be stated somewhere at the front wether the establishment is a 'smoking' establishment or not.

[lilmckee]

Yes it may be a 'public' place, but a customer is not forced to use that eastablishment, nor are people forced to request employment there. However, it should be stated somewhere at the front wether the establishment is a 'smoking' establishment or not.

+1

[Crystalline]

I think it's kinda of funny...considering the pollution in the air from the local processing plants and industries. ...as a matter of fact I had an interesting and somewhat enlightening discussion with a a City environmental inspector earlier this morning. In short, our mayor IS trying to clean up the air...and is running into some difficulties with the local plants/referineries... (big surprise).
..to me, a business owner should have the right to decide if they will allow smoking or not.
Yes it may be a 'public' place, but a customer is not forced to use that eastablishment, nor are people forced to request employment there. However, it should be stated somewhere at the front wether the establishment is a 'smoking' establishment or not.

Write a letter then.

[lilmckee]

Write a letter then.

Man your grumpy when people don't side with you!:icon_bigg

I'm just happy your opinions are formed from facts and evidence, in stead of an intial response.

Unlike other people, that just follow the status quo, or whats seems "popular.

[Crystalline]

Man your grumpy when people don't side with you!:icon_bigg
I'm just happy your opinions are formed from facts and evidence, in stead of an intial response.
Unlike other people, that just follow the status quo, or whats seems "popular.

No I'm not. I agree with you guys. I don't think businesses should be controlled by government. Like one guy said before, pro capitalist. It would be so much better if things were still that way but if I remember correctly, a democrat was elected into office and ****ed everything all up. :angry7: But I would really love it if people were more respectful of others.

Also, there is no sense in arguing the unchangable.

[lilmckee]

No I'm not. I agree with you guys. I don't think businesses should be controlled by government. Like one guy said before, pro capitalist. It would be so much better if things were still that way but if I remember correctly, a democrat was elected into office and ****ed everything all up. :angry7: But I would really love it if people were more respectful of others.

Also, there is no sense in arguing the unchangable.

why is it unchangeable?

Crystal for govenor!!

[Crystalline]

why is it unchangeable?

Crystal for govenor!!

I would love to, but I would never be elected. It's because I'm a double minority.... Pieces of shits....:angry7:

[lilmckee]

I would love to, but I would never be elected. It's because I'm a double minority.... Pieces of shits....:angry7:

hahahahah stupid
Don't play the race card.

Only people that doubt there abilities do that.

Not that I like him, but look at obama may not gonna be president, but he went far.

[Crystalline]

hahahahah stupid
Don't play the race card.

Only people that doubt there abilities do that.

Not that I like him, but look at obama may not gonna be president, but he went far.

It was a joke homo!!!
By the time I'm wrinkly enough, an asian would have been president. LoL!
One day, it's a plan.:icon_thum

Obama, and presidency is a a completely new thread!

[lilmckee]

It was a joke homo!!!
By the time I'm wrinkly enough, an asian would have been president. LoL!
One day, it's a plan.:icon_thum

Obama, and presidency is a a completely new thread!

ahahhahaah true true

I think right out of college you could become a Councilwoman. Your a pretty smart woman.

I only say pretty smart, cause, well you are a woman....








just kidding dont kill me

[Ulric]

Write a letter then.


Oh... I'll be writing a couple letters.
...it's the city to whom I owe my morning
adventure too.:laughing6

[Crystalline]

Oh... I'll be writing a couple letters.
...it's the city to whom I owe my morning
adventure too.:laughing6

Sweet!!

[MadseasoN]

I keep seeing the argument that the smokers are in the minority and that they are keeping non-smokers away from businesses where smoking is allowed.

If this is the case then other businesses that forbid smoking will flourish.

Business owners are not going to continue to allow smoking if it is harming their business.



But smokers ARE the minority. And, in a public place, they should not be allowed to impose their smoke on other people. One smoker affects multiple people. 'No smoking' sections are a joke ... if one person pees in the pool then it ruins it for everyone. I dont' feel like anyone's Civil Liberties are being violated with this. If it comes down to the government siding with someone then I want them to protect MY rights, not the business owner's purported rights.

For all we know the restaurants and bars probably pushed for this ordinance. It would be alot less work and headache on their part and it would level the playing field.

[sbfuller]

it's really Al Gore saying that all that smoke is raising the earth's temperature... j/k but would be funny if it was true. There is no harm in making the people go outside to smoke. if all of the non smokers decided not to go to place where there is smoking then we'd all be stuck at home. It is a choice that we make to go be in that smokey atmosphere, and that is why i don't go out much. the owners don't know that though... for all they know business might actually go up because more people are going to their business. this may not be something to take away "rights" but to instead boost the economy a little. and on a second thought, i don't give a damn if it pisses off the smokers but, it's not healty. you know it and i know it, so just stop smoking

[busa5225]

smoking does not kill you as much as that drunk that leaves the bar what is the diffrent smell like smoke than alcohol imean some one says some thing and were all like ok i'll agree but what would you say if the left smoking and baned alcohol.i mean it just goes together like peanutbutter and jelly.

[Crystalline]

smoking does not kill you as much as that drunk that leaves the bar what is the diffrent smell like smoke than alcohol imean some one says some thing and were all like ok i'll agree but what would you say if the left smoking and baned alcohol.i mean it just goes together like peanutbutter and jelly.

WHat??

[Azylum]

i say stop the ban.

[ArturoC]

Tobacco should be illegal.

[Azylum]

then so should aspirin.

[Crystalline]

Tobacco should be illegal.

It just stinks! Out of all the facts people know about what is held in a cigerette and they still smoke... :puke:

[lilmckee]

WHat??

you never hear of a girl being raped because she had to much to smoke (as in ciggerrettes, not crack....)

Now we have to outlaw drinking!!

[Crystalline]

you never hear of a girl being raped because she had to much to smoke (as in ciggerrettes, not crack....)

Now we have to outlaw drinking!!

Open a history book... That didn't work... Stupid.:angry7:




BAAHAHAHAA!!!

[lilmckee]

Open a history book... That didn't work... Stupid.:angry7:




BAAHAHAHAA!!!

It was sarcasm, im the last person on this earth that wants to outlaw alcohol


You dont think if they outlaw smoking the samething wouldnt happened as it did to alcohol.


Dont tell me to open a freakin' history book.....
I already have one open....

[Crystalline]

It was sarcasm, im the last person on this earth that wants to outlaw alcohol
You dont think if they outlaw smoking the samething wouldnt happened as it did to alcohol.
Dont tell me to open a freakin' history book.....
I already have one open....
Who is talking about outlawing smoking cancer sticks?
And you shut yout mouth when you're talking to me!

[lilmckee]

Who is talking about outlawing smoking cancer sticks?
And you shut yout mouth when you're talking to me!

whoaa demanding


....
....
....


kinky:icon_bigg

[Crystalline]

whoaa demanding


....
....
....


kinky:icon_bigg

Please keep that in MH chat. Thank you.

[ArturoC]

It just stinks! Out of all the facts people know about what is held in a cigerette and they still smoke... :puke:


+1 I don't get it. It's a filthy, nasty habit. But punks think it's a cool image. :angry7:


But smokers ARE the minority. And, in a public place, they should not be allowed to impose their smoke on other people. One smoker affects multiple people. 'No smoking' sections are a joke ...

I was at Aranda's a while back and didn't realize I was seated next to the smoking section. The divider was a 2 foot tall glass and the guy at the table on the opposite side lit one up. He might as well have been sitting at my table. :angry7:


At my favorite place, it's sectioned off, but there's a wide open door and open windows in the wall, and the ceiling fans just circulate the smokey air. :angry7: I talked with the owner about it, he knows it's stupid, but doesn't care all that much. He's a smoker. :BangHead:

The sad thing is that there is never more than 1 or 2 smokers there even during the busiest hours. :BangHead:

It's outside of the City of Houston too.. bummer. I used to go 2 - 4 times a week.. Now it's just once ever other month. Oh well.

[Ulric]

..ban too many places and I'll start having to smoke while on the ride again.

[Pat]

I do not support the ban. I do not support it because it is not the right reasoning nor method that should be used. Banning is merely attempting to jump on the band wagon -- without studying the effects. CA lost around 2-4M in revenue during the first few years of their ban.

Banning smoking -- has to be enforced by law enforcement in some way, has to have some sort of penalty system if the ban is not met, is likely to have lots of court time over interpretations of establishments. I'm sure there are more costs than just these.

Bans are very costly. Taxes and licensing are the opposite of costs (they are revenue -- income -- the silly idea that more tax money coming in means they might tax me less).

Now, to "ban" smoking in restaurants (or anywhere), require the establishment to have a license for smoking. Charge them money for it, have them put it on their windows.

Less interpretations needed -- if the smoking license is missing, they are breaking the law.

Performing a smoking ban in this manner increases revenues, allows those that wish to continue the behavior the choice to continue the behavior (make it cost more to deter more), and becomes easier to enforce.

This is just like requiring establishments to have an alcohol license. Placing more of the burden of cost back on the establishment rather than on the public.

They did at least attempt to do this a bit better, recently. To discourage/deter smoking, they raised the taxes on it (about $1 - 1.25/pack -- that is a very significant increase).

Licensing and taxing in this way allows a ban, allows establishments to do whatever they want (they probably would anyway), and most importantly -- means cops don't have to do another dirty deed of going into an establishment and saying, "you're smoking, you're breaking the law".

Then again... now that I ride... maybe this ban is agood idea -- get the cops off of the road and having to ticket establishments.

Which brings up another piece of this topic... if someone lights up, who gets the ticket? The smoker? The establishment?

[ArturoC]

CA lost around 2-4M in revenue during the first few years of their ban.

2-4 million across the state of California over a few years? That's what, about 0.15 cents per establishment? :keke:

[Azylum]

+1 I don't get it. It's a filthy, nasty habit. But punks think it's a cool image. :angry7:


methinks youve been watching a few too many afterschool specials.

[houseofpaint]

i feel bad for the club owners......

i can guarantee a loss in business if the ban sticks. maybe not forever, but for a while.

and what's next.......no smoking at all? and then after everyone stops smoking....then what? sooner or later, "THE MAN" is gonna tell us what/when/where to eat/shit/sleep/work.

it's all a game......we're becoming the stupid sheep now.

[RogerT]

Suit is a waste of time, its going to happen, plenty of people drink who don't smoke

[Crystalline]

i feel bad for the club owners......

i can guarantee a loss in business if the ban sticks. maybe not forever, but for a while.

and what's next.......no smoking at all? and then after everyone stops smoking....then what? sooner or later, "THE MAN" is gonna tell us what/when/where to eat/shit/sleep/work.

it's all a game......we're becoming the stupid sheep now.

We already have.:eh:

[Crystalline]

Suit is a waste of time, its going to happen, plenty of people drink who don't smoke

:nod::hello:

[lilmckee]

:nod::hello:

you mean you wouldnt know:confused2

[ArturoC]

methinks youve been watching a few too many afterschool specials.


You know you wanted to be like the other 'cool kids'. Don't lie!! :laughing6

[lilmckee]

You know you wanted to be like the other 'cool kids'. Don't lie!! :laughing6

posing of the cool kids FTW

[isoplus]

i feel bad for the club owners......

i can guarantee a loss in business if the ban sticks. maybe not forever, but for a while.

and what's next.......no smoking at all? and then after everyone stops smoking....then what? sooner or later, "THE MAN" is gonna tell us what/when/where to eat/shit/sleep/work.

it's all a game......we're becoming the stupid sheep now.

+1 on that.
I personally think alcohols are more dangerous to public safety that 2nd hand smokes, but... God forbid... *knocking on wood* :eek3:

[ArturoC]

+1 on that.
I personally think alcohols are more dangerous to public safety that 2nd hand smokes, but... God forbid... *knocking on wood* :eek3:


Smoking and driving is still legal I think. Feel free, just leave the windows up and put the butts in the ashtray. :happy3:

[cashtown]

I wait for a motorcyclist to get behind me and then see if I can hit 'em with my butt!

[Azylum]

Suit is a waste of time, its going to happen, plenty of people drink who don't smoke

ok fine. no problem with that. so go to a club or a bar that the private owner does not allow smoking. i know, there arent any. well thats life. i just dont think its right to tell people how to run THEIR business. people that dont smoke have a right NOT to go into those places.