Who has to deal with a smoking ban in their city? What are everyone's thoughts? I'm ENRAGED!!!!!

[billvon 3,063]

>Always the optimist. Id sell it now and just get an apartment.

Naah, I don't want an apartment. I bought the house I'm in now not as an investment, not as proof of wealth, but because I wanted a house and I liked this one. I don't really care if it's worth $50K or $500K - that would only be important if I wanted to sell it, and I don't.

[jumprunner 0]

Quote

>Always the optimist. Id sell it now and just get an apartment.

Naah, I don't want an apartment. I bought the house I'm in now not as an investment, not as proof of wealth, but because I wanted a house and I liked this one. I don't really care if it's worth $50K or $500K - that would only be important if I wanted to sell it, and I don't.

Now thats the attitude! My thoughts exactly, but I like my apt, jacuzzi right outside the front door, everything very convenient, and no more $140 electric bills in 120 degree hell.

But one last note on this discussion, there is a nice advantage to the housing boom, fad, or whatever you want to call it. Downtown, which is a dump infested with winos, druggies and bums, is being developed as a result of the housing market. So if this continues for long enough, the bum infested eyesore might turn out to be a cool place to hang out.
Little Italy is starting to look pretty decent. Now they just need to clean up the trolleys, last time I was on one this drunk scumbag pissed and threw up all over the car....then the trolley cops had to carry him off...NASTY! Its no wonder why La Jolla is keeping them from extending it to La Jolla...cant blame em.

[kelpdiver 2]

You're kidding yourself if you think the cost of living, particularly wrt real estate, is ever going to shift radically backwards. Prices spike when lots of people move to CA, but it rarely slides during the periods when people move out.

In the late 80s, California and esp Orange County had an unhealthy dependency on military expenditures and paid dearly during the base closures and cutbacks in R&D. That won't happen again, and was only a short term hit anyway.

[faulknerwn 38]

Quote

so your saying there are 400 bars in Austin where smoking is NOT allowed?

I don't believe that. The only bars that I've seen that are non-smoking are inside of restaurants. I can't think of a single bar downtown that is non-smoking, and places like LoveJoys definitely still allow smoking and don't have filtration systems (you can hardly see your hand in front of your face in that place.)

W

[faulknerwn 38]

Quote

[
Over 400 bars are smoke free. Only 200 allow smoking.
Over 150 live music venues are smoke free. Only 63 allow smoking.
.

I would love to hear some of the names of bars and live music venues. I've been in Austin for a long time and have never been in a single non-restaurant bar which banned smoking...

W

[faulknerwn 38]

Quote

I really don't think it will significantly affect your business.
Pub owners in Ireland thought it would, it turned out to have minimal impact, and even brought more people in in many cases.
.

What's really funny - my company has our main European office in Dublin. We have people traveling over there all the time. What's really funny is that even our chain-smokers here LOVE the non-smoking bars. They like the fresh air. I was really shocked to hear that from a couple of my big smoking friends but its true. I can't wait to get back over there to see the difference...


W

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

As someone else mentioned, I've also noticed the rapid rate in which Austin has been taken over by Californians... I guess it's because Austin is such a great place and the cost of living is so much less than in California. And here I am, an Austinite stuck in Cali at the moment... I just hope those bastards don't ruin my town before I move back!

CA puts up with all the out of staters flowing in when things are booming - you guys can deal with the backwash when business goes the other way. How did you think our cost of living got so high?

I was mostly kidding (except for the part about Austin being much more affordable)... I don't really mind Californians moving to Austin; usually they fit right in... Just as most Austinites seem to fit in in California... Both places are known for having lots of weirdos (which is why I like both places). But I have a certain affection for Austin that makes it my home, so I'll end up moving back there one of these days...

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Is there some sort of psychological mechanism that kicks in to distort reality and allows one to actually accept as unchallenged fact there is a health hazzard in you walking in a park or down a street where smoking is not banned?

http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30.stm

No distortion, Jen. Second-hand smoke IS bad for you. If you don't like my view, fine, argue your point. Why should I have to breathe smoke in when i'm in public places? But, don't try to play it off as if this shit is not a health hazzard.

-A

Nice spin. I'm asking what health hazzard exists in "walking in a park or down a street "? Not even the people drawing self serving conclusions from bad science go that far.

jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

A STUPID FUCKING SMOKING BAN WENT THROUGH HERE IN AUSTIN! I am really upset my money is going to definitely hurt as of September 1st when this ban goes in effect. I know all the arguments for why it will be better but I CHOOSE WHERE TO WORK AND I DO I KNOW WHAT IT DOES TO MY HEALTH. Last year here in Austin you had to get a certain air filtration system put in and get a permit to have smoking. Ok, Fine. My club did that along with 200 other bars & restaurants. THIS LEFT SMOKERS AND NONSMOKERS A CHOICE OF WHERE TO WORK OR PATRON. And if you know anything about Austin, 200 bars and restaurants is MAYBE a third of what is here. BUT NOW IT IS BANNED!!!!!

I had a plan this year to pay off my credit card, buy a new rig, pay off my car early and get Lasik surgery and perhaps next year take some trips and go to school. Now because of stupid do-gooders that think they know what is best for me I probably won't be able to get my eyes fixed, or persue my life in the way I had planned out for this year.

We lost by 2% or the vote. I think it was rigged. What right does the city have to even bring it to vote?????? THEY DON'T! I am going to fight this. It is smoking first, what is next alcohol??? This is prohibition all over again! So I guess if we have a vote that everyone should eat bananas on a Wednesday and it pass we need to eat bananas on a Wednesday. WTF?????

Our rights are slowly being taken away from us, everyone. We need to stand up and fight. This is America, Land of the Free!

Or maybe not so free.......

Are you serious? I can't find 1 argument to allow smoking in public places. Even from a utilitarian perspective, in fact especially due to utilitarianism (most good for most people), which the US is adopting and I dislike, smoking prohibition is long overdue.

Since when is it a person's right to disperse/disseminate toxic/carcinigenic vapors? It isn't just social behavior as many people make it sound, it's lethal gas. If someone threw an acidic, carcinigenic substance on you as you walked by you would at the very least call the cops and file an asault charge; at most you might physically assault that person and justifyably so. But some smokers want an exception for emmiting cacinigens from ciggs..... hmmmmm. That's like making society pay for your compulsions.

I know all the arguments for why it will be better but I CHOOSE WHERE TO WORK AND I DO I KNOW WHAT IT DOES TO MY HEALTH.

But you can't chose for others and when you smoke in their vicinity that is what you're doing.

Last year here in Austin you had to get a certain air filtration system put in and get a permit to have smoking. Ok, Fine. My club did that along with 200 other bars & restaurants. THIS LEFT SMOKERS AND NONSMOKERS A CHOICE OF WHERE TO WORK OR PATRON. And if you know anything about Austin, 200 bars and restaurants is MAYBE a third of what is here. BUT NOW IT IS BANNED!!!!!


I think the material facts are 2-pronged:

1. Thee is no way to ensure 100% of the carcinigens will be filtered.

2. The rights and safety go to the side of caution, which is to be less offensive.

I had a plan this year to pay off my credit card, buy a new rig, pay off my car early and get Lasik surgery and perhaps next year take some trips and go to school.

How does the ban cost you money?

Now because of stupid do-gooders...

Ya, protecting the health of nonb-participants is over the tiop.

...that think they know what is best for me ...

For you and the rest of the smokers? Screw that, you've chosen emphisema, cancer and what ever else, these lawmakers are chosing what's best for the other 80% that don't want those diseases. Do you really think the legislative intent was to protect smokers?

I probably won't be able to get my eyes fixed, or persue my life in the way I had planned out for this year.

HUH? WTF??? Quit smoking for a year and pay for your Lasik. Are you inferring that you are going to quit working so you can smoke yourself to death? If so........ HELP!!!!

What right does the city have to even bring it to vote??????

It's called the Democtratic process. Please, in this age of American Fascism (corps writing laws) don't dissuade the right to vote measures/props.

We lost by 2% or the vote. I think it was rigged.

Let's see, 20% of the people in the US smoke, probably higher in TX, so ya, the vote likely was fixed - it was propbably inflated on the side of the smokers.

What right does the city have to even bring it to vote??????

It's called the process of establishing city ordinances.

I am going to fight this. It is smoking first, what is next alcohol???

Just 2 or 3 years ago they had the 21st Amendment, so I think we're ok there. Of course they could declare the county dry. What you're doing is convoluting various "sins." A person can drink in their own home and not bother a person. People cannot smoke alone.

This is prohibition all over again!

Prohibition was absolute dissolution of all alcohol, whereas these public smoking measures are about smoking in public; they don't affect your right to smoke in private.

I am going to fight this.

By what, smoke in violation of this new ord and get cited so you can spend your next 20 years of life and pay taking this to the US Sup Ct?

So I guess if we have a vote that everyone should eat bananas on a Wednesday and it pass we need to eat bananas on a Wednesday. WTF?????

Eating bannanas, spreading carcinigens... same thing.

Our rights are slowly being taken away from us, everyone. We need to stand up and fight.

Now you really are making sense, but the right to smoke isn't even inferred in the any state or federal constitution that I know of. But our rights, as enumerated and detailed by the 27 Amendments, are being erroded. Please establish where theright to smoke is somehow even indirectly inferred in any doctrine.

This is America, Land of the Free!


If I knew what you were about I could probably list several areas where you are for prohibition of rights/activities and for the revocation of rights, so let's not use to wide of a paint brush here in regard to rights.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Smoke Ban history has proven that the smokers will always come back. I saw it here in California and other places.

Yep, Palo Alto isn't too sparse and they've had these bans since the early 80's.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

This is one of several issues that makes me a very hypocritical libertarian. I support smoking bans in general.

I cannot STAND coming home smelling like cigarette smoke. It really, really pisses me the fuck off. 'Go to bars that don't allow smoking Anvil, you dumbfuck!' you might respond, and I would reply 'which ones are those again?' because the majority do allow smoking, in order to cater to more patrons, knowing that those who detest cigarettes will come in anyway. The converse will hold true as well - the patrons that want to smoke will eventually come in anyway due to lack of options.

Going against my libertarian beliefs on this one. I support the ban. It's healthier for everyone.

Yes, I am a hypocrite and a real JACKASS. Sorry you're enraged and hope you don't lose business as you predict.

This might be more appropriate for Speaker's Corner.

Although I agree with you on this, aren't yopu being a little, "ends justifies the means?"

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Welcome aboard! We've dealt with this for years here in Cali. It's social engineering, make no mistake about it.

Back in the early 80's, airlines could not allow smoking on flights of less than two hours. I thought that reasonable considering planes are tubes. But then it went up to four hours. Then transcontinental flights. Then International flights. Then airports all together. Then public buildings. Then public parks and other areas.

Now it's moved to private businesses. Next step is on private property.

You must understand that this is done for the children. It is not about choice. After all, the system is set up so we all have to pay for people's "bad choices." That means that we, as a society, should ban these "bad choices" from occurring.

I'm shocked that you can care so little about society and about the children. Are you merely a paid tool of the tobacco companies?

Social engineering? Come on. That's reading quite a bit into it. It's simply legislation drafted by proponents of smoke-free environments who are members of the city council. The people voted and are for it. Remember, Austin is the liberal oasis of Texas, so who can be surprised?

... considering planes are tubes.

Damnit, I'm a tube mechanic. I thought I was as aircraft mechanic

Now it's moved to private businesses. Next step is on private property.

It would be horrible if smoking in the presence of children in confined spaces was considered child abuse (sarcasm).

You must understand that this is done for the children.

Not entirely. I think irt was an overzealous non-smoker on the city council. It is a city ban, right? Bless him/her.

Are you merely a paid tool of the tobacco companies?


This is funny. WHat cracks me up is when Fascist interests collide. Tobacco companies are for smoking everywhere all the time, HMO's are for the prohibition of smoking; see the collision of Fasism here? Of course they didn't really have a say here I woyuld surmise.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

You've made my point for me. While I do agree that the anti-smoking movement has a point with the whole not being exposed to a known carcinogen thing, I also think a bar/restaurant ought to be able to legally have a scotch & cigar night if they so wish. If you don't like cigars, you'd be a fool to go there that night.

Basically, it all boils down to fact that everybody wants everybody else to kowtow to their own position. Personally, I think everyone should be free to do as they wish. The best avenue for the anti-smokers to exploit is the OSHA angle. The law requires that employers put protections in place to prevent employees from being exposed to known carcinogens. I know of no exemption for tobacco smoke. Obviously, it would be unreasonable to expect waitresses/bartenders/dancers to wear HEPA filter respirators, but I think the potential exists for engineering controls, e.g. highly ventilated rooms with pass-through trays through which waitresses can deliver drinks.

Blues,
Dave

That's a good point from the worker perspective. Aside from the selective patronage perspective, workers would be limited to the places they could work unless they wanted to subject themselves to carcinogens.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Okay, now in all seriousness...

What you have described is the way things SHOULD be. I don't like cigarette smoke, and therefore I did not go to places with cigarette smoke. I found them to be pleasant places. Smokers had their joints, too. I'd go in those every now and then with some friends. My choice, you know.

Now the choice of whether to own, operate, work at or patronize a business that allowed smoking is gone. I find this to be a shame.

On the other hand - I've got an issue with the "deaths from second hand smoke" statistics. I've seen a few death certificates and I don't ever seem to recall seeing "second-hand smoke" listed as a cause. I even hear a commercial that talsk about the thousands of children exposed to second hand smoke who die every year. Well, yeah, they are exposed to it, but it doesn't mean that the second hand smoke killed them, does it? It comes out that way...

I'm thinking of taking up smoking. Second hand smoke is way worse than first-hand smoke, or so I'm told. I'll lower my risks and take that smoke straight from the filter!

edited to add: I physically appreciate the smoke-free environment. Ideologically, I am opposed to it, and shall stay opposed to it.

2nd hand smoke is cummulative and intangible as a cause of death, but certainly contributory, right counselor? Or do we call it 'comparative?'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Obviously you forgot the part about the 18th ammendment banning ALL forms of intoxicating liquors from ALL places..even at home. this is just not what this ban is about.

I suggest you look up the 21st Amendment....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Obviously you forgot the part about the 18th ammendment banning ALL forms of intoxicating liquors from ALL places..even at home. this is just not what this ban is about.

I suggest you look up the 21st Amendment....

I don't understand your point here. I made reference to the 21at in an earlier post too. The 21st undid the 18th in mirror fashion. The main theme here is that the author of this thread is using comparisons that are wayyyyyy out of line. I never see cigs being outlwed, but I do see them being relegated to use in your house or car with no children around.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Yea I agree with you.

I am an Ex-smoker but I think it is just stupid to ban smoking.

Unfortunately it seems are system is run by hype whatever gets the more hype seems to become law and get attention.
If you want to not smoke don't smoke or go to a place where there is no smoking. I get sick of people always-making people follow what they think is right.

People have different wants and opinions.
We should respect them all.

The idea here is that it (allowing establishments to allow smoking) not only restricts non-smokers from patronizing some establishments, but it excludes some prospective employees from working in hazardous environments.

Here's a thought. I'm an acft mechanic. At break time I go to the truck to get a bite and these inconsiderate asswipes are at the truck smoking. Maybe I should have prefaced this scheme by saying we are packed into the truck area trying to quickly get our food b4 we have to go back to work. Well, these inconsiderate jackoffs need to satisfy their drug addict behavior too, so they have cigs hanging out of their mouth while we are packed in.

Get it. These inconsiderate druggies put their compulsions b4 the welfare of those that wish to not engage in that activity. I think legislation that addresses smoking realizes that smokers will satisfy their drug addiction regardless of others, so they are just tired of it and clamp down. Mesa Community college has a zero smoking law on campus - you see it all the time.

One bright side, smokers generally age before their time and die much sooner than non-smokers.....

[base311 0]

Here's an interesting quote from our Governor Sonny Perdue here in Georgia, who signed a statewide smoking ban yesterday (05-10-05):

"There is no doubt smoking is one of the major contributors to the health problems of many Georgians," Perdue said. "Nonsmokers, typically the majority, do not want themselves or their children subjected to secondhand smoke."

But Perdue added, "Giving advice on how to be healthy and safe is one thing, but we don't want or need government to mandate for us what we eat or drink or how much exercise we get or whether we engage in dangerous activities, from skydiving to smoking." The governor chose to make his remarks at the National Museum of Patriotism in Atlanta.

Emphasis is mine,
-Gardner

[unformed 0]

Quote

Here's an interesting quote from our Governor Sonny Perdue here in Georgia, who signed a statewide smoking ban yesterday (05-10-05):

"There is no doubt smoking is one of the major contributors to the health problems of many Georgians," Perdue said. "Nonsmokers, typically the majority, do not want themselves or their children subjected to secondhand smoke."

But Perdue added, "Giving advice on how to be healthy and safe is one thing, but we don't want or need government to mandate for us what we eat or drink or how much exercise we get or whether we engage in dangerous activities, from skydiving to smoking." The governor chose to make his remarks at the National Museum of Patriotism in Atlanta.

Emphasis is mine,
-Gardner

Exactly, nonsmokers need to make their voice heard by their wallet, and stop going to places where smoking is allowed. If a business is losing customers because they allow smoking, well any worthwhile owner will immediately ban it. We don't need government intervention in shit like this, cuz then they'll go a step further.

A few people have already admitted that they're hypocrites when it comes to smoking bans. Personally, I feel hypocrisy is by far the worst trait anyone can have. I fucking hate hypocrites. I'm glad you're willing to go against your beliefs for what might make you feel a little better.

This ad space for sale.

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

A few people have already admitted that they're hypocrites when it comes to smoking bans. Personally, I feel hypocrisy is by far the worst trait anyone can have. I fucking hate hypocrites.

You really, really, really must hate a lot of democrats.

Quote

I'm glad you're willing to go against your beliefs for what might make you feel a little better.

Take out the 'might' and replace with 'definitely'. You could also state that 'I'm glad you're willing to go against your beliefs for what would make you a bit healthier'.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

You really, really, really must hate a lot of [insert party of choice here]

I can't stress how tiresome it is to read posts like this.

This was an interesting thread.

Step up, think - be insightful. Partisan hackery is boring.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[skymedic 0]

Quote

I suggest you look up the 21st Amendment...

I suggest you reread what I was talking about....she compared this ban with the 18th ammendment(prohibition)...I was stating that this is NOT like that at all in that this just ban's smoking in public places...

and yes..I know about the 21st ammendment...do you want me to expound on the language in that???

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[fireflytx 0]

Quick note: I am not arguing this anymore, but I don't smoke in case you were wondering.

Thanks everyone for positive reinforcement that my money won't hurt too bad. That is some of information and thoughts I was looking for. I still don't think it is fair since we had a choice of smoking and nonsmoking establisments. What was wrong with that?

www.keepaustinfree.com

"Well behaved women rarely make history"

[TheAnvil 0]

yawn

I am a sexy JACKASS

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

Nice spin. I'm asking what health hazzard exists in "walking in a park or down a street "?

When i'm walking on the street and many around me are smoking, i'm breathing that shit in. And, here in South Florida, where the air is normally very heavy with humidity, it doesn't dissipate quickly.

Quote

Not even the people drawing self serving conclusions from bad science go that far.

Do you really think that "Smoking is bad for your health" is a lie? Are you really telling me that you think that it is all bad science, and that you don't feel that this shit is bad for our health? You have GOT to be kidding me, right?

-A