Dallas Smoking Ban

[mikedsjr]

I we talking about the same IDIOTS who think its their right to litter anywhere with their butts?

When i walk outside my building and their is even just one smoker there puffing away, I hold my breath. I can't stand the smell of smoke either.

And don't throw 'rights' around. We don't live in anarchy. Your rights go as far as the law goes. And Dallas's ban is a respectable law.

[dallastophoenix]

i agree...

I've often wondered why we allow people to smoke in enclosed places with non-smokers. You know, if I wanted to pass gas as freely as smokers smoke, we would all gag... oooh, God, the smell... However, we put up with filthy cig smoke all the time, and its deadly consequences... and I can't tell you the number of times that I've been in the "SMOKE DRAFT" of a smoker next to me somewhere... it's as though the cig smoke NEVER hangs around their face... it just blows to and surrounds bystanders...

btw, my grandmother died from this sickness - and took my grandfather (a non-smoker) w/ her... he died 8 years later b/c of second-hand smoke... hmmmm... if only the entire country could place a ban on smoking indoors...

oh, and there's a particular beach in san diego that has banned smoking there... thx to smokers "clean habit" of throwing their used nasty butts on the ground...

[bloodandpopcorn]

Just because you are morally opposed to it doesn't mean that it's good to make a law for it. Regulating morality is facism. I'd prefer not to live in a fascist environment, personally.

I find evangelism offensive. Should it be illegal? How about just in restaraunts? Drinking causes enormous numbers of deaths, directly and indirectly, and can cause people to be totall assholes and possibly be violent. Should it be outlawed in restaurants? Driving a car kills more people than cigarettes yearly. Should we outlaw driving to a restaurant? We don't want any nice, respectable, non-smoking family in their SUV suburban getting wacked by a 16 year old in his brand-new hummer and crushing them into a pulp, now, do we? How about red meat, that's horrible for your health. No more red meat in restaurants! But you can eat it in any public place you want.

Do you see how riduclous doing any of those things would be? It's the same for smoking. The majority of my family has died from lung cancer as a result of smoking. I probably will too. But that's our decision, not yours, and if a restaurant wants to let me smoke then who the hell are you to tell them that they cant? We have so many restaurants per capita, I promise you you could find a good restaurant with no smoking before this ban. This is just a case of "holier-than-though" people forcing their beliefs and opinions on others. Absolutly disgusting to me.

[psukhu]

B&P, what do you think about California since they banned indoor smoking statewide in not only restaurants, but also bars and nightclubs?

What are the details of the NYC smoking ban?

[Columbus Civil]

bloodandpopcorn, I would be on board with you if evangelism, drinking, driving a car or eating red meat made my clothes smell like smoke.

[mikedsjr]

B&P,
You sound like a smoker who is bitter he can't litter where he wants.;)

[evdallas]

Not wanting smoke in your face has nothing to do with morality.

[gc]

Originally posted by evdallas
Not wanting smoke in your face has nothing to do with morality.

Very true. I do think the Dallas smoking ban can be good for Dallas.

However, I have somewhat similar views as B&P.

- Car emissions are killing our environment and breathing air. What is the percentage of people who car pool, use transit, etc? pretty small. Should driving be banned in public places?

- Processed foods are making people fatter and more unhealthy. Should they be banned or is it your decision?

If you do not want to smell like smoke....then do not go to that restaurant, bar, etc or simply stay at home! If you do not want to get drunk, don't drink. If you do not want get fat, eat right and work out. It is about the decisions you make.

[Columbus Civil]

I only have a problem with someone else's decision when it affects me.

[evdallas]

I think that someone else smoking is a decision they make, its not your choice if you inhale air. Does it really kill smokers to not smoke while they eat? Eating processed food is your choice and doesn't really effect anyone around you. As far as polluting cars go, we don't have many options thanks to car manufacturers. Outside of Dallas and Tarrant county, public transportation is non existant for the most part.

[gc]

you guys missed my point. You have a decision too. Don't go to that establishment!

[evdallas]

If smokers want to smoke, why don't they do the same, go somewhere else or stay at home?

[TexasStar]

True that, true that.

[gc]

Originally posted by evdallas
If smokers want to smoke, why don't they do the same, go somewhere else or stay at home?

They do both of those. It doesn't bother them that they smoke and it does not bother them that you don't smoke! They have no problems.

[dallastophoenix]

I totally agree that non-smokers can go elsewhere if they don't like smoke... but our choices are slim, if we choose to dine at the bar (to watch the game), or head to a club or bar to have fun (w/o smelling rotten later).

I'm not attempting to convey a holier-than-thou attitude. It's just that cig smoke offends alot of people... and using my (somewhat lame) example of passing gas - that would offend plenty of people as well if I went around doing that in restaurants and bars at the pace a smoker smokes... of course, your skin, clothes, hair would not smell bad at the end of the night...

Regarding the issue of alcohol... I can go to a bar and not drink and have a good time... yes, the occasional drunk might cause a few problems, but their actions are not physically offensive to me - my liver is not rotting from the exhaled alcohol from their mouth... does that make sense??

[gc]

Perfect sense. In fact, I am not trying to stick up for smokers. (In fact, I can't stand getting into an elevator with someone who just had their fix....i hold my breath as long as possible). Anyways, I was playing the devil's advocate here so we could understand both sides of the argument and see how this type of legislation lends itself to more regulation.

geeeeeeeeessssshhhhhhhhh!

[freewaytincan]

Yes, GCarey, I am the same way with smokers. But you know, I'm not playing Devil's advocate. I'm speaking up for the free market.

[MustangMonkey]

Seems to me that smoking is just another form of polution, just like a lead smelter, only smaller ect...

What is the difference in a government regulating polution of industry, automobiles, itself, and regulating the location of people smoking?

[mikedsjr]

I love the fact that the restraunts are smoke free. But the work isn't done. We have helped with one of the health problems in Dallas. This needs to be adopted by every single city if not state. Indoor air pollution is one of the biggest causes of health problems and smoking is a huge contributor. 10 years from now i would like to see the law become more strict.

There is so much more to clean up. Outdoors we have polluted riverways, air polluting cars and trucks on the road, and factories that need to be more heavily regulated.

Indoors more cities need to adopt this.

[psukhu]

Was this also an issue when smoking was banned in:

-Malls
-Movie Theaters
-Airplanes
-Office buildings

And many other public places?

[bloodandpopcorn]

I would assume smokers were agrivated simmiliarly. It makes more sense to me on an airplane, since (it seems to me) it would be much harder to regulate so one person smoking could effect people over a (potentially) 12+ hour flight, and people would have no option of leaving once they got on board. Now a few special smoking flights would be good, in my opinion, but that's another matter.

The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that smoking has never really been related with a flight. Or a day at the mall. Or a cinematic experience. However, it is very relaxing to have a smoke over dinner (for some people, myself included), or with a later evening dessert or the like. That's routine, that's comfortable. Until its ripped away...

You mentioned me being bitter, mikedsjr... i know it was in a joking way, but, i guess maybe I am kind of bitter. I feel that the individual restaurant owner has a right to decide whether I can smoke in a restaurant. That I have the right to smoke if allowed by that owner. Just like, if you want to use the aforementioned example, someone has the right to flatulate in a restaurant. Or drive there in one car, causing far more pollution by not carpooling than one cigarette, or even a whole pack, or even a whole CASE. The smoking ban was pushing an issue that was absolutely unnecessary at the time. We had the worst crime rate, and whether it was publicised at the time, the City knew about it. Potholes everywhere. Decaying inner city. Gang violence everywhere. Speeders rampant. SUVs and Hummers endangering all those around them on the road. a HUGE scene for the real drug threats. Banning smoking in restaurants was a joke and an insult to the people of the city. Miller should have spent more time focusing on the things that really mattered instead of a petty moral issue.

If you don't like cigarette smoke, pick another restaurant. If a cigarette smoker wants to eat somewhere that's smoke-free, they have the same problem. Choose to not smoke, or go somewhere else. But in the end, you both make the decision. You decide which is more important to you, the restaurant, food, etc. or a smoke-free environment.

It really is that simple. We have SO many restaurants here. Anyone who threw a hissy fit because they smelled cigarette smoke is just plain lazy. A sensible person would a) have known before they went into the restaurant that it was not smoke free or b) asked if they were unsure and it meant that much to them or c) left at the first smell of it. You being offended by the smell of cigarette smoke is no different than me being offended by evangelists. You being upset by the health problems is no different from me being upset by the unhealthy junk that is available and encoraged at most restaurants. In the end, smoking is and should always be a personal choice. Back to the question on airplanes, as long as a few non-smoking planes are available (and barring any technical problems that smoking creates and which I am unaware of), then I think it should be allowed on planes. Malls are slightly different, but I think it should in the end be the malls choice (and truthfully I was unaware that there was any legislature that malls cannot have smoking. I've smoked in northpark before, at least in Wyatt's, I don't remember if i went out into the hallways, so maybe it's just not enforced?) to decide whethere smoking is to be allowed or not allowed in that particular mall. Same with movie theaters (again, is there an actual ban, or just a standard policy of movie theaters? As long as the theater or theater owning company makes the decision, I can accept it either way. If all restaurants in Dallas voluntarily became non-smoking ventures, I would have no problem with that). The same goes for office buildings... Legislated ban=BAD, individual office banning=acceptable.

I hope my stance is at least clear. Compromise is what is importnat, not one group dominating the other group. Reverse the situation, how about if smoking were forced to be allowed everywhere. Would you enjoy that? I assume not from the various statements on personal experiences with smoke in the air.

And because this is so long and the night is getting late, I must apologize for the misspellings, gramatical errors, typos, and redundencies that doubtlessly have snuck their ways into this post. Forgive me, please.

[boozo]

What about the workers in the restaurant that don't smoke?

Isn't this new policy mostly for them?

I thought last fall I would try pick up a part-time job at Pappaduex's in Oak Lawn to pay off some bills. When I went to the interview, so many people had shown up that they had to schedule a special time the next day.

What if the economy is bad and the only restaurant job you can find has a smoking section. You have bills to pay but should you sacrifice your health just because someone can't enjoy a meal without a smoke?

[TexasStar]

bloodandpopcorn you are such a great contributor to this forum. And we'd absolutely love having you around for the long term...

Of course, that's much more likely to occur if you would at least consider chucking that nasty nicotine habit. :)

[bloodandpopcorn]

Thank you TexasStar :) . I will say I am an extremely light smoker. And this is more about principle than its direct effects upon me. I can probably count the number of cigarettes that I've had this year on two hands. So don't be too worried about me ;) .

Boozo, yes, I would say that's when they have a decision to make. Of course, there are other part time jobs than working in restaurants. But if it had to be that way, then I liken it to the position of actors (like myself): if you have to work, but the only role available at a time is one that might not fit one's moral beliefs, or be a role that smokes, or a dangerous role, then you have to decide. Do I take the risk and do this job and make some money to live on, or do I stick with my principles and not take a health risk and find another place to earn money.

I don't really see the problem...

Anyway, I'm personally tired of this debate. Obviously most people on this board prefer this case of legislation of morality, and so I'll assume that most of Dallas does. So I doubt if a change back will ever come, and this point is mute and simply takes up space on this MB server.

[gc]

Well....maybe it is going to spread to Collin County and other northern cities...


Commissioners consider smoking ban on Collin County property
Officials weigh moving designated areas farther from government buildings or eliminating them altogether; some say they catch a whiff of extremism
09:30 PM CDT on Monday, June 7, 2004
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

Collin County District Attorney John Roach is a former smoker, and he hates smoking.

"Smoking is a vile, filthy and disgusting habit that is extremely dangerous to your health," says an anti-smoking policy he wrote for his department. Mr. Roach, who took office last year, prohibits his employees from lighting up anywhere on county property – even outside. Otherwise, they could be fired. He's the only county official with such a strict policy.

No employees have complained about the rule, said Mr. Roach, 58, a former state district judge. "Everybody seems to have complied very well," he said. "Of course, the nonsmokers all think it's great – and that's most of us." County commissioners, who set department-wide policies, are considering further restrictions on employee smoking. Currently, workers can't smoke inside county buildings but can anywhere outside.

One option under review is a total ban on county property for employees and visitors. However, commissioners say they're leaning toward setting up designated smoking areas away from entrances to county buildings. That would solve the problem of employees, jurors and visitors having to walk through a cloud of smoke as they enter county buildings. At the main courthouse on McDonald Street near downtown McKinney, smokers often gather at the west entrance by the parking lot, where many people enter.

"Every time you walk out the door, you get hit in the face with smoke," Commissioner Jerry Hoagland said.

Smokers are anxious about the possible changes in policy. Human Resources Director Cynthia Jacobson says she's fielded many calls from employees. "They've asked, 'How far is this going to go? Is it really fair to do this?"' she said. "We just indicated that it was being researched further, that a decision hadn't been made, and we would pass on their concerns."

Mr. Roach said there are no legal questions about imposing a smoking ban on county property. "It's a policy of operations – the way our office operates," he said. "Everybody who works here is an employee at will. "If I wanted to argue it legally, I'd say it's for the benefit of the health of all the other persons who work here who don't smoke." Commissioner Joe Jaynes says he's willing to "tweak" the current policy but doesn't want severe restrictions on smoking. He represents most of the county's rural areas, where many employees live. "It's a very big factor with me what [county] employees think because 90 percent live in my precinct," Mr. Jaynes said. "I've always viewed it as a special commitment because they're both employees and constituents.

"I don't think a total ban ever works. If people want to smoke, they're going to smoke."

Mr. Jaynes generated some laughs at a recent commissioners meeting when the smoking policy was discussed. He warned against a total ban on smoking on county property, saying it would force employees to smoke in their cars. "It'd be like a Cheech and Chong movie," said Mr. Jaynes, who is not a smoker. Three of the five commissioners are former smokers: Mr. Hoagland, Jack Hatchell and Phyllis Cole. Mr. Hoagland has pushed for a ban – even though his wife, who works in the district clerk's office, is a smoker.

"I think I may have some trouble at the house," Mr. Hoagland joked.

Ms. Cole wants employees and visitors to be able to smoke in designated areas. She's opposed to an outright ban on county property. "These are public buildings, paid for with tax money, but you can't smoke on the grounds?" Ms. Cole said hypothetically. "I think we need to make some accommodation for people who smoke."

County Administrator Bill Bilyeu said he's identifying outdoor areas that could be designated for smoking at all county facilities. Next month, he will present a report to commissioners, who could then approve changes in the smoking policy. "Most of us wouldn't mind if we moved a little further away from the door and had a designated area," said Jennifer Frazier, a courthouse employee who smokes. "But I think it's a tiny bit extreme to put us off the property completely."

E-mail ehousewright@dallasnews.com

[gc]

Council to review ban on smoking
Vote set Wednesday on easing bingo parlor, hotel rules; mayor rejects idea
08:49 PM CDT on Monday, October 25, 2004
By EMILY RAMSHAW / The Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102604dnmetsmoking.af81e.html

Was Dallas' strict smoking ban just a pipe dream? City Council members will vote Wednesday on whether to amend the nearly 2-year-old ordinance to allow smoking in bingo parlors and private hotel and motel meeting rooms. Proponents say these two industries have been unfairly affected by the no-smoking policy, which restricts every public venue except freestanding bars and outdoor patios. But critics say it would be a step backward for the council, which fought a tough battle to pass the ordinance.

"For me, it is completely the wrong direction, and most citizens agree with that," Dallas Mayor Laura Miller said. "In my opinion, the only way to go is to make the ban stronger, not weaker." Sandi Bailey, executive vice president of the Hotel Association of Greater Dallas, said this amendment has been a long time in coming. Four months after the ban went into effect, 11 downtown hotels reported a combined revenue loss of $1.5 million.

"This has been the No. 1 priority from the hotel community because it's in the best economic interest of the industry," she said. "This has hurt Dallas." But Dallas restaurateurs say the amendment leaves them behind. Tracey Evers, executive director of the Greater Dallas Restaurant Association, said she's interested in seeing what the council's vote will mean.

"It certainly might set a precedent," she said. Council member Sandy Greyson said restaurants aren't on the agenda. "I don't know what's going to happen in the future, but right now, nobody is moving forward with anything related to restaurants," she said. But the mayor said any amendment could be dangerous. "Opening this at all is not a good idea," she said. "I'm voting against both changes."

[Foucault]

I saw a study in a journal the other day about the economic benefits of smoking bans. Very interesting. I'll try to find it and post excerpts.

[freewaytincan]

I saw a study in a journal the other day about the economic benefits of smoking bans. Very interesting. I'll try to find it and post excerpts.

I still have my doubts.

[tamtagon]

I still have my doubts.

Ya, the industry and it's feeder industries generate a positive and substantial portion of our whole economy. If it were possible to itemize deduct the negative medical costs associated with tobacco consumption, we would still probably end up in a "positive" cash flow. But I dont know if it's worth it, either, when emotional consumption is compared to product comsumption.

It's probably impossible to assign value to the emotional components of treating a tobacco related sensation - e.g. pleasant head rush, smoking choice self awareness development, sore throat, dry cleaning bill, eyesore of litter, oncology expense.

I'm waiting for child endangerment to get added to the list of cigarette offenses, but it may be some time before anti-smoking advocates striving to improve our community reach too far.

[Random Traffic Guy]

I'm not a smoker, but I'm glad to see at least part of this crappy rule may get rolled back. It really should be a free-market decision to allow smoking or not in private establishments. If there are economic advantages to making a restaurant non-smoking, the owners should be jumping all over it.

At least the anti-smoking ordinance revealed Laura Miller's true colors and kicked her firmly from the "relatively cool investigative reporter and anti-ODB councilperson" category to the "authoritatian busybody 'I know what's right for you' " category.

[mikedsjr]

Nothing wrong with busybodies. It all depends on if your doing something wrong that you don't like busybodies.

It shows the true colors of the anti-busybodies, IMO.

[tgp]

The restaurants in Deep Ellum always let patrons smoke, they remind you though of the $250 fine if you are busted! I smoke, and if caught, I will pay $250!

[tamtagon]

Nothing wrong with busybodies. It all depends on if your doing something wrong that you don't like busybodies.

It shows the true colors of the anti-busybodies, IMO.

I agree with you mikedsjr. The busybodies need to be watched just as activily as they are watching others, occasionally the busybody is wrong although. I think busybodies are a natural and necessary occurance in our society just as the lion mauling occurs in antelope society.

[tamtagon]

The restaurants in Deep Ellum always let patrons smoke, they remind you though of the $250 fine if you are busted! I smoke, and if caught, I will pay $250!

A more effective route of civil disobediance may be to "pay" the fine by serving $250 worth of jail time. A better public smoking policy could come out of it, but probably no one really cares enough to spend time in jail for a cigarette.

[aceplace]

I'll continue in my rant against Dallas' municipal government...

Two ordinances passed by this body... the anti-panhandling ordinance and the anti-smoking ban.

Both of them help no one and hurt many. And neither of them result in a better world, just a more complicated and mean one.

[trolleygirl]

lol@ busybody..........I mean, she IS our only Mayor. What's she supposed to do? Stick her head in the sand?

Anyway, I was in NYC last week and you can't smoke anywhere in that whole state. Well, you can smoke outside on the streets, but that's it. Funny, all the restaurants in Times Square didn't seem to be suffering. So, what's the deal with all you opponents out there? I argued against the ban, saying that it should be left up to the free market- hell I'm on the Environmental Health Commission and our recommendation back to council was for seperate ventilation areas in restaurants but that was shot down. After I thought about it, saying "it's up to the free market" is sort of discriminatory. It's more like complaining about that stupid ADA for making every business be wheelchair accessible. Like saying this: "Why, it should be up to the free market to decide, and well, it's not my fault if you're stuck in a wheelchair, so your choices will be limited to only those places that are accomodating to wheelchair users. And look around, there's plenty of other accomodating places for you to choose to eat." If that were the case, we could all go back to not allowing blacks and other minorities into your establishment. The free market did so well back then, huh?

I know, I know, it's that "slippery slope". Once they take away our right to smoke, next thing those East Coast liberals will come after are our guns, right?

I think the chicken-little whiners are just against change. I seriously doubt that the smoking ban, after two years is the cause of the declining convention business, especially after the news article (another thread in here) Sunday explaing that we need a onvention hotel as one of the reasons for declining convention business. I think a bigger impact is the fact that we have one of the highest hotel occupancy taxes in the country. If you can't afford the hotel, the matter of smoking in it ceases to remain an issue.

PS- I am a social smoker.

[TexasStar]

... It's more like complaining about that stupid ADA for making every business be wheelchair accessible. Like saying this: "Why, it should be up to the free market to decide, and well, it's not my fault if you're stuck in a wheelchair, so your choices will be limited to only those places that are accomodating to wheelchair users. And look around, there's plenty of other accomodating places for you to choose to eat." If that were the case, we could all go back to not allowing blacks and other minorities into your establishment. The free market did so well back then, huh?


Your arguments border on absolute brilliance!

[mikedsjr]

ace,

I agree to some extext that neither ban makes this place a better world. I don't agree that it makes this place a meaner and more complicated one.

The reality is that people on their own volition make this a more complicated and mean world. Not these laws.

Making a difference is hard to do. It takes time away from the things you might enjoy and it may not be rewarding either personally. But getting involved in the community to give a moral fabric to society is what will make a difference.

[mikedsjr]

oops

[aceplace]

I seriously doubt that the smoking ban, after two years is the cause of the declining convention business, especially after the news article (another thread in here) Sunday explaing that we need a onvention hotel as one of the reasons for declining convention business. I think a bigger impact is the fact that we have one of the highest hotel occupancy taxes in the country. If you can't afford the hotel, the matter of smoking in it ceases to remain an issue.

PS- I am a social smoker.Trolleygirl, I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, so I can't have your perspective on the pleasures of the vice.

The real vice is not smoking, per se... or drinking, or overereating... the vice is to violate the separation of church and state and try to legislate morality.

I think that if the attempt is made to pass a law against a particular sin, it is especially absurd to try to do it on a municipal level. That just transfers the vice from one muni to another, and does not reduce the incidence of sin, only the location of its profitability.

London considered Shakespeare's plays as especially sinful, and banned playhouses in the city of London... so the players took their performances beyond the city walls... an Elizabethan version of suburban sprawl.

New York has a more appropriate response... ban it everywhere and there will be no shift from sinning in NYC to sinning in the suburbs. In this case, cigarettes instead of the stuff that dreams are made of.

The specific issue in DT Dallas, though, is whether to allow a hotel to offer smoking rooms, as well as nonsmoking rooms. I don't see that banning smoking rooms helps the profits of a Dallas hotel, or helps the health of a hotel customer... assuming he still chooses a DT Dallas hotel.

[trolleygirl]

[QUOTE=aceplace]Trolleygirl, I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, so I can't have your perspective on the pleasures of the vice.

The real vice is not smoking, per se... or drinking, or overereating... the vice is to violate the separation of church and state and try to legislate morality.

QUOTE]

No, it's a public health issue.

For more than 30 years, the U.S. Surgeon General's reports, based on strong scientific evidence, have identified tobacco use and exposure to second-hand smoke as serious public health hazards. In 1986, reports by both the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in adult non-smokers, and that children of parents who smoke have an increased frequency of respiratory symptoms and acute lower respiratory tract infections, as well as evidence of reduced lung function. A scientific consensus has emerged during the past 10 years that second-hand smoke is a major cause of lung cancer and respiratory disease in young people. More recently, evidence has accumulated of a causal link to heart disease. These facts have led to a growth in concern for the health of individuals not addicted to tobacco, but exposed to second-hand smoke.

Drinking alcohol and overeating have also been linked to health problems, yes. But, my drinking a few beers doesn't pass over into the realm of public safety until I get behind the wheel of car. Then there is a real danger. People should be able to drive around the streets without fear of being struck and killed by a drunk driver. People should be a ble to eat a meal at a restaurant without fear of being exposed to harmful second-hand smoke.

[Random Traffic Guy]

People should be a ble to eat a meal at a restaurant without fear of being exposed to harmful second-hand smoke.

Oooohh, and the people should take responsibility(1) for their own safety by choosing to patronize establishments where they are not exposed to second hand smoke. Not by getting the government to force everyone to their will.

And to expand on some of the comments above, yes I do think ADA requirements should not apply to private establishments, and the same for Jim Crow laws, Sunday blue laws, ERA, whatever you got. Now owners are really stupid if they do not try to accommodate all their potential customers, but as private entities they have the freedom to go to hell in their own way. If an owner doesn't want to sacrifice 10% of his floor area for an ADA ramp to accommodate 1% of his customers, he can take that risk and accept the consequences.

Public facilities are paid for by all(2), and should have all the legal protections that the public desires.



(1) - I know, it's a scary word. :eek: Sorry about that.
(2) - Well, all actual taxpayers, which is beginning to be an important distinction.

[Columbus Civil]

What's more dangerous: excessive drinking or excessive smoking?

[Lakewooder]

Everyone seems more concerned about a few cigarettes than SUVs spouting smoke and illegal aliens in jalopies that would never pass the air emissions tests with 'wink-wink' inspection stickers. I doubt a few smokers here and there are going to impact our air quality 1/1,000,000th as much.

Didn't you see the recent study that the pollution from sitting in traffic will kill you?

Besides, the Mansion Bar is now a mere shadow of itself...

[trolleygirl]

I used to agree with you all on the subject. But you know, even restaurants that serve rotten food get fined because A) you can't serve spoiled food, and B) because it's a public health issue. So what if Joe's Chicken Sack wants to serve chicken that's sat out in room temperature for 10 hours, it's a free market, if no one wants to eat spoiled food, then they should go elsewhere, right? Let the market handle it? Or suffer the consequences. We don't live in a third world country, people, where we have to die first from an exploding gas tank in our cars before we start testing them.

As far as emissions from cars killing you, yes I agree with Lakewooder. The world renowned neourologist Dr. Suzanne Ahn died last year of lung cancer at age 52, I think, lived in DFW all her life, never smoked. It was a tragic loss for all humanity and for North Central Texas. And I agree that both second hand smoke clouding up a restuarant while I'm trying to eat AND the poor quality of our outside air both should be addressed and need to be treated equally.

But this isn't the dirty air thread.

[LakeHighlands]

I agree with the smoking ban, but a more effect way to deal with it is to ban smoking in restaurants at a State level. Florida did it 1 to 2 years ago. Last time I was in Florida individuals cities were banning smoking at Public Parks or any place where there is children. Smoke is bad for the general public. I am also happy that the airlines in the United States banned smoking on planes. That was a serious health issue.

[Random Traffic Guy]

I used to agree with you all on the subject. But you know, even restaurants that serve rotten food get fined because A) you can't serve spoiled food, and B) because it's a public health issue. So what if Joe's Chicken Sack wants to serve chicken that's sat out in room temperature for 10 hours, it's a free market, if no one wants to eat spoiled food, then they should go elsewhere, right? Let the market handle it? Or suffer the consequences. We don't live in a third world country, people, where we have to die first from an exploding gas tank in our cars before we start testing them.

Private citizens eating at a private establishment, I'm not exactly seeing alot of public in there somehow ;) Say a small group of people liked to eat spoiled food (sushi, kimchi?). Why can't someone sell it to them? :confused:

Without government inspection, Joe's is not going to serve bad chicken since it's not in their best interest to hurt their customers. If they advertise bad food no one will eat there, if they hide it they'll get protested and sued. In the short run some places will try to take advantage and will be smacked down because of it. In the long run such places will be eliminated.

There are plenty of private standards and testing organizations that do valuable service to consumers without costing an arm and a leg in tax dollars. UL, ISO-9001 certification firms, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Consumer Reports, your local restaurant review/guide to name but a few; all do checks and reviews and place their trusted mark on products and services. The standards orgs are usually not corrupt, since their reputation is everything. Consumer Reports is finding this out after the SUV-rollover BS testing, and Enron's accountants had to be broken up since they failed in their duty.

[Mballar]

The signs should read: "We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service To Anyone. . . Except For, Of Course, Those Persons That The City Of Dallas Forces Us To Reefuse Service To. Smokers That Means YOU"

Needless to say, I don't support the ban at all. It wasn't needed, and the people it affects directly (restaurant/bar owners) didn't want it in the first place. That should tell everyone something. Laura Miller should focus on other things other that following the crowd (eg. New York, California, Florida smoking bans). But if we have to accept it, can she muster up enough support to ban screaming/unbehaved children and people talking on cell phones in restaurants too? Now that would make me happy.

[frankchitown]

UV rays from the sun are dangerous and cancerous as well. Why doesn't Laura Miller push for an ordinance requiring anybody outdoors in the city limits to have SPF 45 sunblock covering 100% of their exposed skin, either that or just build a huge protective bubble over Dallas protecting us from harm. If she is so concerned for my health (how sweet of her), why stop with banning cigarettes?

[aceplace]

No, it's a public health issue.

People should be a ble to eat a meal at a restaurant without fear of being exposed to harmful second-hand smoke.It's not a public health issue. It's about whether a smoker can lehally smoke in his hotel room, and whether a hotel can legally sell a smoking-permitted hotel room. That makes it private health issue. Interference by the municipality of Dallas on that issue is about as appropriate as having the Dallas police do hotel bedchecks in the middle of the night to see if couples are legally married.

Or as appropriate as the sheer existence of this municipality of Dallas that writes ordinances without proper attention to unintended consequences.

The second-hand smoke issue is quite different, I agree... that does seem to be a health hazard for non-smokers.

I'd amend your statement to say that smokers and non-smokers alike should be able to get what they want, anywhere they want it.

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

It would seem to be another example, Trolleygirl, of this Municipality of Dallas you adore, as being ponderous, stupid, and destructive of the quality of life. Like writing an ordinance against panhandlers that inconveniences everybody except panhandlers. Or rewards cops for jailing innocent Mexican immigrants. Or cripples the hotel industry in its already decripit downtown. Or waiting for private developers to build downtown parks and shops. Or leaving vacant lots in its downtown for 50 years.

There's no magic bullet that will improve the system, because its problems are inherent to the very nature of a municipality. I just wish I had a magic bullet that would destroy the institution itself.

But I do. It's called disclosure of truth. As in, the pen is mightier than the sword, or even the magic bullet. The more I talk, that is how much more that our municipal staffers have to start justifying their existence.