Dallas Smoking Ban

[Mballar]

Or cripples the hotel industry in its already decripit downtown.

and Mayor Miller is part of the problem there too. She helped cripple our entire convention/visitors bureau by running the chief of the organization (David Whitney) out of town because he wooed his clients at local gentlemens clubs and kept some bottles of city-funded alcohol at his house for entertaining purposes. In hindsight , I bet the Mayor is now starting to realize that Whtney needed those tools to keep Dallas competitve in a disadvantaged market to begin with. Loosing Mr. Whitney is a BIG reason why you're reading articles about Houston stealing convention business from Dallas. That man had 13 years worth of schmoozing, contacts, and friends in the game. . . and Laura Miller's short-sighted ________ ran him out of town. He's probably sitting back having a good laugh at Dallas' expense right now. I actually wouldn't be surprised if he is encouraging all of his contacts not to bring their conventions to Dallas.

What a dumb move Miller!!!

[sterling]

I LOVE the smoking ban in New York City. I feel in some establishments it's actually brought in a "better class of people". I like it that smokers have to brave the weather and NOT infringe on the comfort of ALL. Of course eventually someone should design tasteful smoking pavilions to solve the plight of smokers, but I don't care if it's anytime soon.

[mikedsjr]

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?

Maybe a ban on cookies. How about a ban on eating. How about a ban on breeding. How about a ban on living. Maybe a ban on oxygen. Or a ban on trees. Or a ban on water. Or a ban on paper. Or computers. Or maybe doctors and hospitals.

So 7th grade.

[aceplace]

Maybe a ban on cookies. How about a ban on eating. How about a ban on breeding. How about a ban on living. Maybe a ban on oxygen. Or a ban on trees. Or a ban on water. Or a ban on paper. Or computers. Or maybe doctors and hospitals.

So 7th grade.Let's get rid of this increasingly psychotic municipality... you know the one I mean.

Maybe the Fort Worth city council would be willing to take over downtown Dallas?

[tamtagon]

Let's get rid of this increasingly psychotic municipality... you know the one I mean.

Maybe the Fort Worth city council would be willing to take over downtown Dallas?

--or--

Maybe we can get more concerned citizens to take an active roll in politics and put some sense back into city government.

It's not the system which fails, it's the people running the system. If you have a delivery guy making the dough, a phone order taker assembling to-go boxes, and the janitor cutting up the toppings you're going to have a crappy pizza.

[TexasStar]

Actually, IMO the smoking ban is the one thing they've done right.

[Random Traffic Guy]

It's not the system which fails, it's the people running the system. If you have a delivery guy making the dough, a phone order taker assembling to-go boxes, and the janitor cutting up the toppings you're going to have a crappy pizza.

It's worse than that, at least in that case the pizza store will go out of business pretty soon. The city folks have an essentially inexhaustable source of money, and very little accountability to go with it.

More people do need to get involved. I was just looking over the sample ballot for next Tuesday and was disappointed to see so many unopposed incumbents.

[trolleygirl]

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.

You libertarians drive me crazy! The world worked oh so well way back during the industrial revolution and in the first decades of our last century. Workers didn't have any rights, worked in deplorable factories, died in fires on the job. You know that was back when people actually did die from living and working in squalid conditions. And everything was just peachy, right?

Okay consumenr reports; I don't subscribe to, don't have the time to, nor have the money to- and neigther do probably 85% of the American population, read every single publication available out there about how we should protect ourselves. So, if I didn't know that the Grandy's at Jim Miller and I-30 were fined last week due to unsanitary food conditions, then it's my fault when I land in the hospital with a parasite???

One last question: what exactly is your definition of "the public"?

[gc]

Smoking ban unaltered.

[trolleygirl]

Smoking ban unaltered.

Did you listen to the meeting? Did you John Zoza screaming about how we need a much stronger anti-smoking ordinance? That was hilarious.

[aceplace]

You libertarians drive me crazy! The world worked oh so well way back during the industrial revolution and in the first decades of our last century. Workers didn't have any rights, worked in deplorable factories, died in fires on the job. You know that was back when people actually did die from living and working in squalid conditions. And everything was just peachy, right?That's not the issue, Trolleygirl.

This is the issue:

Do we need the Municipality of Dallas in order to enforce Federal and State health standards?

If Joe's restaurant is dirty, we need a statewide enforcement agency to close him down. We don't particularly need a hundred municipalities in the Metroplex to try to do it, on a patchwork quilt of jurisdictions. We need a statewide body to enforce a common and predictable level of sanitation and public health on everyone.

The State of Texas already inspects automobiles. Why can't it inspect elevators, instead of us expecting the City of Squatney to be responsible for elevator safety?

The State of Texas enforces restrictions on underage drinking. Why can't it enforce smoking as well? Why does the City of Squatney HAVE to do it?

The one argument you are consistently avoiding is this one:

Why is a municipal government necessary to make the world right?

What is your evidence that a municipality is indispensable to do all these wonderful things?

Why can't we get along without one?

I don't see the people on the Las Vegas Strip dying of food poisoning, in spite of its lack of a municipal government. Or in Columbia, Maryland, or in Disney World, or in thousands of other communities that get along without a municipality dictating to them.

We all know there are problems. You need to prove that the Municipality of Dallas is the only solution.

[JSteffen]

You know..... A majority of the constituants in the councils district must be for the smoking ban..... OR THEY WOULDENT VOTE FOR IT.... That is how this society works.... the majority(or electoral votes sometimes) didctate how our society is run.... I agree with this smoking ban.... and restaurants in Dallas dont seem to be to shabby on buisiness either (we have more restaurant per person than any other city in the world).... If everyone had such a big problem just go to another restaurant outside of Dallas (ohh, but smoking doesnt mean that mush to you).... Or just plane move.. People in history do it all the time to get away from a government that they dissagree with. And if you dont like what the Majority of Dallas stands for... move to a municipality that you like...

[Foucault]

Do we need the Municipality of Dallas in order to enforce Federal and State health standards?

If Joe's restaurant is dirty, we need a statewide enforcement agency to close him down. We don't particularly need a hundred municipalities in the Metroplex to try to do it, on a patchwork quilt of jurisdictions. We need a statewide body to enforce a common and predictable level of sanitation and public health on everyone.

Let's go further than that. Past the state and federal governments. We should have the UN doing this. Or at least NATO.

[aceplace]

Let's go further than that. Past the state and federal governments. We should have the UN doing this. Or at least NATO.No, let's not.

The principle is this...that the government that writes the laws should have to pay to enforce them.

For example, the State of Texas passes a 21 and over alcohol law, the state (TABC) is responsible for hiring the cops that do the arresting. They hire and pay for the cops that give you speeding tickets on the highways.

Why shouldn't the state also hire the cops that police against murder and rape? Those crimes are also defined on the state level.

The law has to be statewide, in order to make it effective... otherwise it would be easily evaded. Second-hand smoke is an example. It needs to be a statewide enforcement, not municipal. otherwise, the problem is just redistributed from one municipality to another. It is effective in New York for that reason.

There are also Federal laws, crimes and police officers.

In the case of, say, insider trading of a corporation's stock, the Federal government writes and enforces that one. They hire the FBI to investigate, and Federal Attorneys to prosecute those cases. The State of Texas does not.

What is clear is that a municipality is not needed to regulate society, to ensure equaliy before the law, to guarantee civil rights.

What do we need municipalities for? In my opinion, nothing. They are an unnecessary encumbrance. Everything they do could be better served by a combination of private business, the local counties, metropolitan government, specialized authorities like DART, the state or the Federal government.

Metropolitan transit is a clear example of a non-municipal responsibility, as is a tollroad authority like the NTTA.

Town planning and zoning? Places like Legacy Town Center, West Village, Mockingbird Station, Southlake Town Center, are perfect examples of how a private developer can plan and build a neighborhood better than a municipality. You want non-Texas examples? Columbia, Maryland, Andres Duany's New Urbanist villages, even the Las Vegas Strip, all show how feeble a muni is in comparison to a private business.

Bottom line... we're better off by stripping the governmental powers and perogatives from municipalities. And if you join me in boycotting municipal elections, you'll help bring that about.

[utgf]

I hope everyone who is against the smoking ban will boycott City of Dallas municipal elections. You can be even more effective by not ever voicing your opinion to the council person respresenting your district. I am with you guys.

[TexasStar]

Bottom line... we're better off by stripping the governmental powers and perogatives from municipalities. And if you join me in boycotting municipal elections, you'll help bring that about.

That's nothing but a pipe dream, Ace. And counterproductive at that.
Whatever warts municipal government has can only be cured by increased participation.
Not by ignoring it.

[TexasStar]

I hope everyone who is against the smoking ban will boycott City of Dallas municipal elections. You can be even more effective by not ever voicing your opinion to the council person respresenting your district. I am with you guys.


:D Sounds like a plan!

[tgp]

People will do what they want. I don't agree with the jail time example.

[aceplace]

I hope everyone who is against the smoking ban will boycott City of Dallas municipal elections. You can be even more effective by not ever voicing your opinion to the council person respresenting your district. I am with you guys.I agree. Not only boycott, but make public speeches encouraging a boycott. Then, when the voter turnout is as dismal as it usually is, it will appear that the boycott has massive public support.

And then, it will be obvious that the municipality of Dallas no longr has, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the "Consent of the Governed".

And the bloated con game called "Dallas City Hall" will be seen for the sham it is.

[mikedsjr]

Smoking ban unaltered.

AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, cuz ......

[TexasTiny]

Actually, IMO the smoking ban is the one thing they've done right.

If it was only a regional effort instead of Dallas vs Ft Worth & Suburbs.

[trolleygirl]

I go back to the basics. Police, fire protection, and the one really important thing: zoning. A city with over one million people cannot rely on State regulations only. And a State with several cities of over one million cannot be expected to do it. Unless we set up little mini State Centers (City Halls) and mini State police stations (City Police) and mini State fire departments and instead of calling it the "municipality of Dallas", it would be the Texas City-State Number 2, and Houston would be the Texas City-State Number 3, and so on. The only thing that would change would be people's titiles. Regardless, it still takes the same amount of human capital to manage and make sure the trash gets taken out, the animal control catches stray dogs, the police department has cars that aren't exploding, the schools are educating kids, and the quality of life for the people is satisfactory. Managing these mundane things is much easier when it's broken down into smaller units. And what might work in Dallas, might not work in Houston because of simple topography- I mean, Houston has a bay and Dallas does not- so a state run entity wouldn't seem very practical, at least not to me. If the State of Texas ran every form of local government, then would every city essientailly be the same, like a model that we can just take out of a box and plop down in the middle of Anywhere, Texas? What choices would people have then for moving to or away from other areas? Why bother with all that since everything and everyone would be the same? In fact, we could remane the State of Texas to the State of Stepford.
Local governments, townships, etc., have bene around this country, as well as the rest of the world for centuries. While Ace points to the few examples of cities not governed by a municipal entity, by and large, the rest of the world doesn't accept it.
Just because some of the leadership at the local level are not doing their jobs very well, doesn't mean that it's time to scrap the whole thing. Dallas does an exceptional job of providing quality drinking water for it's citizens (and others, well sell our award-winning water to almost all the other cities in the metroplex), so why would we want to turn that job over to another entity? I seriously doubt the State could do a better job.
So, what about the State of New York? The have a state-wide smoking ban AND the municipal entity of New York City has a City Hall. I know because I saw it. There were a bunch of people there. They must have doing something useful for New York City. I'm pretty sure that FDNY and NYPD are run by that very municipal entity and not the State. They seem to be doing a fine job. And Times Square has never looked better!
And, what about the police? Yes they enforce State laws. They also enforce city codes. Like when I got a ticket from a Dallas police officer for parking my car facing the wrong direction, that's a city code. The State doesn't bother withit, doesn't need to. But I got a stinkin' ticket because a neighbor complained! Can you believe it?? Another thing that the police enforce, which is one of my favorites, is the loud noise ordinance. Like the time when my neighbors across the alley decided to build a stage in their back yard and hire a band and a DJ and have a big disco, rather than renting out The Czeck Club down that street. I sure was glad then that the City of Dallas had an ordinance on the books that the Dallas Police Department could enforce. I'm not real sure if the City San Antonio even has such an ordinance. But you go to places like Coppel and they have an ever stricter noise ordinance. So if you want an all night party, go to San Antonio and shut up if it's too loud. Or move to a boring, quiet place , like Coppel.
That's sort how I see some municipalities as being neccessary entities.
Oh and if you want to smoke, go to Garland, where you must have a special certificate in order to purchase alcoholic beverages.

[TexasStar]

If it was only a regional effort instead of Dallas vs Ft Worth & Suburbs.
Actually, it's Dallas LEADING Ft Worth & the suburbs toward where they need to be.
The dominant city in the region is simply taking the point on an important public health issue. Not a problem.

[gc]

Houston approves partial smoking ban
12:48 PM CST on Wednesday, March 9, 2005
Associated Press
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030905dntexsmokingban.120140cb1.html

HOUSTON - Houston on Wednesday joined a growing list of cities to ban smoking in restaurants. The City Council rejected a ban on all public smoking but voted 9-4 to prohibit smoking in restaurants and covered bus shelters. The measure, effective in September, still permits smoking in some restaurant bars and in stand-alone bars. Taxis also can ban smoking under the ordinance. "Council acted decisively to make Houston more smoke-free. It's progress," said Mayor Bill White, who proposed the partial ban.

Opponents argued the ban still endangers public health, while smokers' rights and restaurant groups worry the plan will infringe on civil liberties and hurt revenues. The council also agreed to revisit the issue in 18 months after studying the effects on public health and restaurants' bottom lines. Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, a physician who proposed the full ban, voted for the less prohibitive measure. But she added, "I'll continue to push for a full ban on smoking in all workplaces."

Elaine Jefferson of the American Cancer Society in Houston also pushed for the full ban. "The smoker comprises 25 percent or less of our population," she said last week. "When they choose to smoke, that choice becomes the choice of everybody in that establishment." The Cancer Society says secondhand smoke is the third-leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 53,000 deaths a year. Dave Pickrell, president and founder of Smokers Fighting Discrimination Inc., said the secondhand smoke threat is exaggerated.

"When you cook, a lot of ingredients go together to make a meal. It's the same with disease. To say smoking causes cancer is like saying sticking a potato in boiling water makes potato soup," said Pickrell, whose group is based in the Houston suburb of Katy. Richie Jackson, head of the Texas Restaurant Association, said the group supports smoke-free dining areas but worries businesses will be hurt. A study done for the Greater Dallas Restaurant Association showed that sales of alcohol at eating and drinking establishments in Dallas fell $11.8 million in 2003. The city's smoking ban took effect in March 2003.

But Dr. Andrew Hyland, a research scientist at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., said his review of 100 studies from eight countries showed no reputable studies concluded smoke-free regulations were bad for business. At least 13 Texas cities have smoke-free restaurants, according to the American Cancer Society and the Texas Department of State Health Services. The strongest ordinance is in El Paso, which bans smoking in all public places. Debate continues in other Texas cities. In Corpus Christi, several business owners have sued the city in federal court for its ban on smoking in restaurants, which took affect last month. Residents in Austin and Amarillo will vote May 7 on whether to ban smoking in most public places.

Seven states prohibit smoking in most indoor public places, though the effects of the bans are still debated. In New York, the number of jobs in restaurants and bars, as well as the number of restaurant permits requested, have climbed since that city's ban took affect two years ago. But some New York businesses say the ban has hurt their revenues.

[trolleygirl]

I wish Houston would stop copying us........

[Columbus Civil]

"When you cook, a lot of ingredients go together to make a meal. It's the same with disease. To say smoking causes cancer is like saying sticking a potato in boiling water makes potato soup,"

What a clumsy analogy.

It looks like the smoking ban train is gaining steam.


In New York, the number of jobs in restaurants and bars, as well as the number of restaurant permits requested, have climbed since that city's ban took affect two years ago.

That's interesting. I wonder if the same holds true for Dallas.

[trolleygirl]

What a clumsy analogy.

It looks like the smoking ban train is gaining steam.



That's interesting. I wonder if the same holds true for Dallas.

I had to read it a few times to understand it myself, but I think I get the connection. Why would smoking in NYC be any different than smoking in Dallas? I always get the picture that there are more smokers in the Northeast than any other area of the US. I don't know whay, I just think that.

[TexasStar]

I had a great time this morning sticking it to my Arlington co-workers when I saw that Arlington has passed a smoking ban that is even more restrictive than the one in Big D!
Like I said back in 2004, this was just Dallas assuming its role as leader of the MetroPlex.

[Tnekster]

How is it more restrictive?

[TexasStar]

How is it more restrictive?

The Arlington ordinance prohibits smoking within 50 feet of doors or operable windows at public buildings. I don't believe the Dallas ordinance does that.

[columbiasooner]

Here it comes...

Courtesy of the Quorum Report...

February 27, 2007 2:56 PM

RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION SIGNS ON TO STATEWIDE SMOKING BAN

Major opponent to state regulation decides now is the time

The board of the Texas Restaurant Association today unanimously endorsed a statewide smoking ban in all public places. Their endorsement ends the last major organized impediment to passage of a smoking ban bill.



To read the bill click the link.



http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=SB368

[St-T]

Nice!

[Random Traffic Guy]

It is inevitable that the organization would switch sides, once enough of its members are having to live under the local smoking bans. At that point the banned ones don't want the free ones to gain any advantage, so they agitate for all to be equally limited and now have enough pull to get on the bandwagon.

[trolleygirl]

Hooray! I am so glad for this. Now if only we could get the ban to extend to bars as well....

Soryy guys, but I quit smoking for good last June and I've turned into one of those militant ex-smokers.

[Spjz]

I would love the ban about 364 days a year. Then I want to smoke an occasional cigar and it sucks.

[columbiasooner]

Hooray! I am so glad for this. Now if only we could get the ban to extend to bars as well....

It Includes all bars and all restaurants in Texas.

[St-T]

That is awesome news!!! Although, now all of the patios will be full of smoke.

[columbiasooner]

Sec. 169.054. REASONABLE DISTANCE. A person may not smoke within a distance of 15 feet outside an entrance, operable window, or ventilation system of an enclosed area in which smoking is prohibited.

[carousel]

Here it comes...

Courtesy of the Quorum Report...

February 27, 2007 2:56 PM

RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION SIGNS ON TO STATEWIDE SMOKING BAN

Major opponent to state regulation decides now is the time

The board of the Texas Restaurant Association today unanimously endorsed a statewide smoking ban in all public places. Their endorsement ends the last major organized impediment to passage of a smoking ban bill.



To read the bill click the link.



http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=SB368

Whatever happened to the individual discretion of the restaurant/bar owner? People do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to attend / frequent any particular establishment. Owners should be able to make the independent decision whether they want a smoking venue, a non-smoking venue, a non-smoking venue w/ a smoking section, etc. Let the market dictate their decisions. Government intervention on this issue is unnecessary and intrusive. Land of the free?

[St-T]

Whatever... land of the free is the ability for the smoker to take their ass outside!!

[carousel]

Whatever... land of the free is the ability for the smoker to take their ass outside!!

go St-T

[St-T]

;)

xoxo

[Dr. Thunder]

This is GREAT news!!! I moved up to Dallas from Austin a little over a year ago and Austin banned smoking in everything and let me tell you, it is so nice to go to a bar or club and have it be smoke free inside. It actually makes me want to go out more and in the long run, everyone will benefit from this new law. Does anyone know when it goes into effect?

[AeroD]

This is GREAT news!!! I moved up to Dallas from Austin a little over a year ago and Austin banned smoking in everything and let me tell you, it is so nice to go to a bar or club and have it be smoke free inside. It actually makes me want to go out more and in the long run, everyone will benefit from this new law. Does anyone know when it goes into effect?

Well, a bill has to pass first in order to become law.

Ellis is the Senate author. Crownover is carrying the House companion.

[TexasStar]

...Government intervention on this issue is unnecessary and intrusive. Land of the free?

Land of the smoke-free!

[Hannibal Lecter]

Whatever... land of the free is the ability for the smoker to take their ass outside!!
So as long as it benefits you personally, it's OK for the government to run roughshod over the rights of others to do what they want on their own private property?

[VectorWega]

So as long as it benefits you personally, it's OK for the government to run roughshod over the rights of others to do what they want on their own private property?


I would personally be all for smokers being allowed to smoke. Allow that, and have everyone to pay for their own healthcare and I'm more than happy.

[carousel]

So as long as it benefits you personally, it's OK for the government to run roughshod over the rights of others to do what they want on their own private property?

My thoughts exactly.

[columbiasooner]

Well, a bill has to pass first in order to become law.

Ellis is the Senate author. Crownover is carrying the House companion.


Sept. 1, 2007 if passes.

[Random Traffic Guy]

Update with some anecdotal accounts from Plano's recent ban:
Plano smoking ban slows some restaurant business (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/plano/stories/072907dnmetsmokingban.2b9c9be.html)

The state ban talked about above thankfully didn't pass. I was interested to see the Plano managers saying business was going to Richardson. Hopefully we can keep a ban from happening here in Richardson and keep that advantage. If you can truly satisfy more people by not accommodating smokers, the restaurants will do it on their own. It's only one small example of the laboratory of democracy, competition and survival of the fittest.