Dallas Smoking Ban

[kozzy]

I smoke...I don't have a problem taking my ass outside to do it either. Usually in the Winter, I enjoy it (I'm way cold-natured). In the Summer, I just smoke less. Thankfully, i don't own a business, because I believe the business owner should have a say in who they wish to cater to. I don't oppose the smoking ban so I can smoke, I just feel the business owners should have some say in this matter. I am a considerate smoker...so considerate that my non-smoking friends stand near me because I go out of my way to keep it blowing in the opposite direction. Perhaps if people had more manners, the over-exposure to smoke would not be such an issue. You'll never see a butt going out my car window or being tossed on the ground. That said, I hate getting smoke blown in my face (trust me, it's different when it is first-hand), and I can understand why that type of behavior bothers non-smokers. But for the rest of us who are considerate to others, we are being dragged through the mud with the inconsiderates.

[downtownguy25]

Why are smokers not punished the same as the guy who gave those women hiv in plano. Smokers are pretty much doing the same thing.

[LH_Newbie]

Several comments:

- If it weren't for the tax money generated by smoking, it'd be illegal.
- I don't care if people smoke outside.
- "Considerate" smokers - haha - you still stink!

My wife and I don't like to go to restaurants outside of Dallas, we enjoy the smoke-free eating experience.

[galore]

Why are smokers not punished the same as the guy who gave those women hiv in plano. Smokers are pretty much doing the same thing.

Well, I'd rather go to a smoky bar than be infected with HIV. I am sure so would you.

[Mballar]

Pretty soon, you won't be able to smoke on Earth! :2lol:

[trolleygirl]

It's only one small example of the laboratory of democracy, competition and survival of the fittest.

Ha! Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

I quit smoking exactly one year ago and I can say that I am certainly "fitter" and can "compete" much better. I run daily now. I have more energy. Face it people, smoking sucks.

And to add a comment, one that I've said many times before, the example of the free market prevailing and giving businesses the right to refuse service to anyone, etc., falls just a little short. After all, 60 short years ago, the market prevailed and businesses refused to offer service to black people. And that was okay then too, I suppose, until the big bad government had to get its greasy hands on the free market and start telling businesses that they had to serve black people too.

I just wish that people would quit whining and moaning about not being able to (cry, cry) smoke a cigarrette in a friggin restaurant!!! It stinks, it's a health hazard and it's not your god-given right any less than its your god given right to get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car. It's a public health issue, not a free right issue.

And, for the record, when I was smoker I was for the ban, I was serving on the City's Environmental Health Commission and we actually listened to the restuarants and we actually recommended seperate ventilation systems to the council and they chose instead to go with a total ban. I was for the latter option.

[AeroD]

Ha! Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

I quit smoking exactly one year ago and I can say that I am certainly "fitter" and can "compete" much better. I run daily now. I have more energy. Face it people, smoking sucks.

And to add a comment, one that I've said many times before, the example of the free market prevailing and giving businesses the right to refuse service to anyone, etc., falls just a little short. After all, 60 short years ago, the market prevailed and businesses refused to offer service to black people. And that was okay then too, I suppose, until the big bad government had to get its greasy hands on the free market and start telling businesses that they had to serve black people too.

I just wish that people would quit whining and moaning about not being able to (cry, cry) smoke a cigarrette in a friggin restaurant!!! It stinks, it's a health hazard and it's not your god-given right any less than its your god given right to get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car. It's a public health issue, not a free right issue.

And, for the record, when I was smoker I was for the ban, I was serving on the City's Environmental Health Commission and we actually listened to the restuarants and we actually recommended seperate ventilation systems to the council and they chose instead to go with a total ban. I was for the latter option.

I don't see how you can compare racial discriminatory practices with smoking. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Discrimination is not something the free-market created. Many discriminatory practices occurred because they were law. For example in Georgia, by law, a restaurant had to choose to exlusive serve whites or to serve blacks. This is not the free-market, this government meddling in the market. Governments had created the segrated institutions not the market.

A restaurant or bar owner has a right to serve a smoker or non-smoker. If you don't like a restaurant that caters to both a smoker and non-smoker, then simply don't go to that restaurant or bar. It is that simple.

Most places have voluntary banned smoking in their establishments, that is the way it should be done.

[trolleygirl]

I don't see how you can compare racial discriminatory practices with smoking. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Discrimination is not something the free-market created. Many discriminatory practices occurred because they were law. For example in Georgia, by law, a restaurant had to choose to exlusive serve whites or to serve blacks. This is not the free-market, this government meddling in the market. Governments had created the segrated institutions not the market.

A restaurant or bar owner has a right to serve a smoker or non-smoker. If you don't like a restaurant that caters to both a smoker and non-smoker, then simply don't go to that restaurant or bar. It is that simple.

Most places have voluntary banned smoking in their establishments, that is the way it should be done.

That argument works both ways. If you don't like a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking, then go eat at Cheddar's in Garland!

[AeroD]

That argument works both ways. If you don't like a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking, then go eat at Cheddar's in Garland!

That's the point you have the freedom to choose if you want to eat at non-smoking or smoking establishment.

Just as the owner has the freedom to choose to serve non-smokers or smokers.

For the record, I am a non-smoker.

[carousel]

Ha! Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

I just wish that people would quit whining and moaning about not being able to (cry, cry) smoke a cigarrette in a friggin restaurant!!! It stinks, it's a health hazard and it's not your god-given right any less than its your god given right to get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car. It's a public health issue, not a free right issue.


Spoken like an ex smoker.

[Random Traffic Guy]

Ha! Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

I quit smoking exactly one year ago and I can say that I am certainly "fitter" and can "compete" much better. I run daily now. I have more energy. Face it people, smoking sucks.

Congrats (really!), you made your choice and like it. Or rather, you realized your mistake and corrected it, thereby improving yourself. Don't try to force others into the same mould, it's not nice, no matter how much you think you are right. Educate, sure.

Since we're all making statements for the record, I've never taken a puff of tobacco, or any other smokable, and it would be news to me if any of my circle of friends or co-workers are active smokers. One dipper. I dislike smoking in restaurants and will go elsewhere, and tell the manager why. There's plenty of choices. If there wasn't, sounds like a business opportunity.

There's an interesting podcast on theories of discrimination on Econtalk (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/12/caplan_on_discr.html) with Bryan Caplan and Russ Roberts. It's aimed at job discrimination, but alot applies to businesses too. It's all good, but there's a good part at about 5:30 talking about competition between racists and non-racist organizations.

[galore]

"It Stinks" is certainly a matter of taste. I, for one, can't stand the smell of a cigarette but I like cigar and certain pipe smoke. I am sure other people like cigarette smoke while some think all smoke stinks.

[trolleygirl]

"It Stinks" is certainly a matter of taste. I, for one, can't stand the smell of a cigarette but I like cigar and certain pipe smoke. I am sure other people like cigarette smoke while some think all smoke stinks.

Okay, more than simply "it stinks", it is also an issue of public health. Agian, and agian and again, I served on the Environmental Health Commission for four years. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass or making emotional claims. We were treated to lots of studies and presentations about the health issues of secon-hand smoke. It's not a myth, it's not some made-up theory, it's fact. Second-hand smoke and places where smoke is not properly ventilated is a public health risk. The argument of making places of businesses safe for the public is valid. It's also an occupational issue- imagine if you applied to bartend at a Bennigan's in Garland and had a problem with the bar area being a smoking designated area, and you got fired because you couldn't do your job because you have allergies to smoke? Is it just, too bad, so sad for you, go work somewhere else? Or is it an occupational hazard? It is.

I used to go with the argument that if you don't like it, you can choose to frequent restarants that are non smoking. Back in the day, you could smoke on airplanes, in elevators, at work, and the thing that happened was that you were trapped in a elevator, you were trapped in a plane, you were trapped in your office. The point being that eating out is a matter of choice and one can choose to either go eat this hamburger here at the smoking joint, or this hamburger there at the non smoking joint. But the more I started to flesh out that argument, the more I started to realize that it's an issue of health. I have a right to go to any reaturant and expect to not expose myself to unhelthy conditions and put myself at risk for anything. That's not simply a matter of "choice". I've used this argument before- if Joe's Burgers wants to use rotten lettuce and spoiled meat, then why can't he? It's his choice, right? If you don't want to get e.coli then you should just go somewhere else, right? That's the free market in play, right? Well, no. We have health codes for that reason. You can't expose the public to rotten food, free market or no, you just aren't allowed to do it. The same should apply to smoking. It's no secret that smoking is a public health hazard.

[carousel]

Okay, more than simply "it stinks", it is also an issue of public health. Agian, and agian and again, I served on the Environmental Health Commission for four years. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass or making emotional claims. We were treated to lots of studies and presentations about the health issues of secon-hand smoke. It's not a myth, it's not some made-up theory, it's fact. Second-hand smoke and places where smoke is not properly ventilated is a public health risk. The argument of making places of businesses safe for the public is valid. It's also an occupational issue- imagine if you applied to bartend at a Bennigan's in Garland and had a problem with the bar area being a smoking designated area, and you got fired because you couldn't do your job because you have allergies to smoke? Is it just, too bad, so sad for you, go work somewhere else? Or is it an occupational hazard? It is.

I used to go with the argument that if you don't like it, you can choose to frequent restarants that are non smoking. Back in the day, you could smoke on airplanes, in elevators, at work, and the thing that happened was that you were trapped in a elevator, you were trapped in a plane, you were trapped in your office. The point being that eating out is a matter of choice and one can choose to either go eat this hamburger here at the smoking joint, or this hamburger there at the non smoking joint. But the more I started to flesh out that argument, the more I started to realize that it's an issue of health. I have a right to go to any reaturant and expect to not expose myself to unhelthy conditions and put myself at risk for anything. That's not simply a matter of "choice". I've used this argument before- if Joe's Burgers wants to use rotten lettuce and spoiled meat, then why can't he? It's his choice, right? If you don't want to get e.coli then you should just go somewhere else, right? That's the free market in play, right? Well, no. We have health codes for that reason. You can't expose the public to rotten food, free market or no, you just aren't allowed to do it. The same should apply to smoking. It's no secret that smoking is a public health hazard.

If you are allergic to smoke or do not like smoke, then simply do not apply for a bartending job in a smoking environment. Find a bar that does not permit smoking.

The free market should dictate whether an owner decides to allowing smoking on his/her premises, not the government. If Mr. Smith wants to permit his restaurant patrons to smoke, then simply go to another restaurant. You do have the right to go to whatever restaurant you want, and, perhaps, it will be a non smoking restaurant.

[gshelton91]

exactly and if you don't want to be hit by a drunk driver then stay off the highway at 2am

[Random Traffic Guy]

I've used this argument before- if Joe's Burgers wants to use rotten lettuce and spoiled meat, then why can't he? It's his choice, right? If you don't want to get e.coli then you should just go somewhere else, right? That's the free market in play, right? Well, no. We have health codes for that reason. You can't expose the public to rotten food, free market or no, you just aren't allowed to do it. The same should apply to smoking. It's no secret that smoking is a public health hazard.

It's an argument we've hit in the early pages of this very thread. It's a freedom thing versus a safety thing, the constant tradeoff that some people try to force on others. As before, I'll say it doesn't matter one bit to me if Joe's is serving bad meat as long as I know about it. You want to eat spoiled stuff (and I personally would put more than one thing that currently counts as "food" into this category), it's no business of mine. I don't need a government agency to tell me what's bad to eat, thanks. If someone can find a market to request it, more power to them. I'm not paying for the user's medical care [1], so it does not harm me.

At the risk of confusing things with a minor point, I could see a ban on smoking in public places (streets, parks, etc) as more ethically palatable than the present bans which are forced on private property. At least under our present form of government the public has some erstwhile ownership of the commons, and a smoker could (very arguably IMHO) be infringing on your rights in those spaces. Whereas on private property an individual is there by choice and has implicitly accepted the conditions that are offered by the owner.


[1] - this is one of my big worries about the push for socialized medicine. As the government is perceived to be paying for medical care, they will get more power over the activities of the users in order to reduce costs. Unlike when private insurance doesn't offer coverage due to lifestyle, there would be no alternative for people thus shut out. it is easy to see the anti-smoking effort leading to restrictions in coverage for smokers. Anti-obesity is heading this way. Other perceived risks like promiscuity, homosexuality, motorcycle riding, skydiving, contact sports, etc could easily be the next target of wrongheaded zealotry.

[galore]

Okay, more than simply "it stinks", it is also an issue of public health.

Yeah, it is. So is ozone, UV, industrial exhaust, car exhaust.

Personally, I think that everybody has the right for clean air and I won't argue with you about this, because I think we are on the same page.

I just wanted to comment that saying it "stinks" :rasta: is silly because this is in the nose of the beholder.

[AeroD]

exactly and if you don't want to be hit by a drunk driver then stay off the highway at 2am

Drunk driving is illegal.

Smoking is not.

[Quiz03]

Drunk driving is illegal.

That depends on who is serving on the jury.

[gshelton91]

the comment was made that if you don't want to inhale smoke go someplace else... to keep yourself safe...

i don't see a big difference in telling all the MAD Mothers to stay home if they want to remain safe.

[trolleygirl]

Where do I even begin???

[Random Traffic Guy]

Where do I even begin???
Easy, say "It's not right for me to force people to do things my way, especially with their bodies or private property. I will live my life to my standards, serve as the best example I can, and go on with a clear conscience. Let others pick their own path."

short form: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

or "An' ye harm none, do what ye will."

or "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Be cool :cheers:

[LH_Newbie]

Drunk driving is illegal.

Smoking is not.

If they taxed drunk driving it would be legal.

Remove the tax on smoking, it will become illegal pretty much immediately.

[galore]

If they taxed drunk driving it would be legal.

???

Sure, smoking is the cause of horrible diseases but let's keep things in perspective. Those analogies like "drunk driving" or "getting infected with HIV" are shrill exaggerations. Because they are a LOT more dangerous than actively smoking. And comparing those to passive smoking, just give me a break!

[LH_Newbie]

My point wasn't that drunk driving would be legal if they taxed it... it was a sarcastic statement toward the previous comment about smoking being legal.

The ONLY reason it is legal is because of money. Remove the government's tax stream and the Surgeon General would ensure it's illegal is a very short time. Then it wouldn't be allowed anywhere. Hmmm... didn't they start down that path in France and England already?

Brian

[galore]

The ONLY reason it is legal is because of money. Remove the government's tax stream and the Surgeon General would ensure it's illegal is a very short time. Then it wouldn't be allowed anywhere. Hmmm... didn't they start down that path in France and England already?


I am not so sure. Smoking has been around for centuries.
I think it is legal because a lot of people like to smoke and the hazards aren't big enough to take away that freedom where it doesn't affect other people directly (I am not talking about higher health costs because if you open that can of worms, then you'll have to question a lot of the American Way Of Life).

Sure, it is not healthy but neither is overeating (affects many more people in the US of course mainly actively, but apparently there is a case to be made that you tend to be fatter, if you are around fat people, because you'll more likely to eat more if your peers pig out a lot).
There are so many unhealthy habits that if you start making them illegal consequently, you start erasing freedom.

Almost all western nations are going down that path but I doubt that the end of that path is outlawing smoking altogether. It'll be illegal in public places where it bothers other people but I think it'll stay legal in people's homes or backyards.

[rantanamo]

Why don't people that smoke wear the patch when they know they're going to a populated area? You know that smoke bothers lots of people, so wouldn't it just be courteous to get some gum or a patch. I say this because a friend of mine actually did this during a recent road trip. She said she just thought it was polite.

[trolleygirl]

???

Sure, smoking is the cause of horrible diseases but let's keep things in perspective. Those analogies like "drunk driving" or "getting infected with HIV" are shrill exaggerations. Because they are a LOT more dangerous than actively smoking. And comparing those to passive smoking, just give me a break!

How do you figure that lung cancer is less "dangerous" than HIV?

[trolleygirl]

I am not so sure. Smoking has been around for centuries.

So has opium. And yet it's a controlled substance. Hmm...

[trolleygirl]

It's an argument we've hit in the early pages of this very thread. It's a freedom thing versus a safety thing, the constant tradeoff that some people try to force on others. As before, I'll say it doesn't matter one bit to me if Joe's is serving bad meat as long as I know about it. You want to eat spoiled stuff (and I personally would put more than one thing that currently counts as "food" into this category), it's no business of mine. I don't need a government agency to tell me what's bad to eat, thanks. If someone can find a market to request it, more power to them. I'm not paying for the user's medical care [1], so it does not harm me.

But see that's my pont- the government already interferes and regulates certain aspects of public health. Every restaurant, every spa, every hair salon, every manicure salon, these places are all inspected and regulated for health codes. You can't just throw open a diner and start serving food that's been improperly stored. The government won't let you. They will shut you down. So, no it's not really so much a matter of choice for you, as in, "Gee that restuarant serves spoiled food. I choose not to eat there", and much as it's the government's choice to padlock the front door. So, no, you don't get a choice when it comes to unsanitary, unhealthy conditions- i.e., public health issues. You do however get a a choice when the service is crappy- that's not a public health issue. It's not about me forcing my will onto others. If smoke causes some people to have an asthma attack, than that sounds very much like a public health hazard. I personally don't care if some stranger smokes for what it does to his own health, but I do care if some stranger smokes because of what it can do to my health, as well as the health of the people around me. It's not right for smokers to impose their unhealthy habit on me.

[trolleygirl]

If you are allergic to smoke or do not like smoke, then simply do not apply for a bartending job in a smoking environment. Find a bar that does not permit smoking.

Good point. I suppose you think this theory should also apply to every industry? So, if I don't want to work in an unhealthy environmnet, I should just assume that some Mexican will take the job for less pay? Because we don't have labor laws for any good reason......

[galore]

How do you figure that lung cancer is less "dangerous" than HIV?

Lung cancer isn't less dangerous than HIV. That was not my point. The point is that smoking is less risky for getting lung cancer than behavior that can spread HIV for getting infected with HIV.

If you engage in activity that can transmit HIV, like sharing needles or having unprotected sex, the chances are rather high to get infected.

With smoking, however, you can do this for years and if you quit, your chances of getting lung cancer are not that great. Even if you continue smoking in an abusing fashion (chain smoker), you aren't guarenteed lung cancer. The highest numbers that I found on the net are 25% of heavy smokers get lung cancer.

With HIV, however, the transmission rates are about 1:1000 for unprotected heterosexual intercourse and much higher, up to 1:10 for other risky behaviors.

I don't think that the chance to catch lung cancer is 1:1000 for smoking (or 1:10) so smoking is a lot less risky. Or do you think that for every 10 to 1000 cigarettes (1000 cigarettes are only 50 packs) that you smoked, you'll get lung cancer??? Because if that were the case, virtually ALL smokers will get lung cancer.

I really hope that you don't think that engaging in a risky behavior w.r.t. HIV is on the same level as smoking or passive smoking. Because that is severely underestimating the risks of HIV/AIDS.

[galore]

So has opium. And yet it's a controlled substance. Hmm...
Yeah, but opium has more severe effects on the body in a rather short time. Or have you ever heard of somebody overdosing and immediately dieing of cigarettes?

This is another of those exaggerated analogies. You can smoke for decades and not have any ill effects whereas with opium, if you abuse it, you'll become a wreck and die rather soon.

It also isn't as rooted in our culture as smoking.

[RayM]

With smoking, however, you can do this for years and if you quit, your chances of getting lung cancer are not that great. Even if you continue smoking in an abusing fashion (chain smoker), you aren't guarenteed lung cancer. The highest numbers that I found on the net are 25% of heavy smokers get lung cancer.

Does anyone have the numbers for the rest of the causes of smoking-related deaths? I was under the impression that COPD killed more smokers than cancer.

[kozzy]

I imagine anyone living near a freeway is destined for COPD :rasta:

[trolleygirl]

from Wikipedia:

A primary factor of COPD is chronic tobacco smoking. In the United States, around 90% of cases of COPD are due to smoking.[6] Not all smokers will develop COPD, but continuous smokers have at least a 25% risk.[7]

Urban air pollution may be a contributing factor for COPD as it is thought to impair the development of the lung function. In developing countries indoor air pollution, usually due to biomass fuel, has been linked to COPD, especially in women.[1]

[freewaytincan]

Someone want to explain what COPD is?

[kozzy]

WOW! I was actually just kidding! Interesting stuff though.

[Lakewooder]

Driving SUVs is another unhealthy habit imposed upon the health of others...

[F4shionablecHa0s]

Ugh. This disgusting nanny state mentality makes me sick. I don't understand why libertarianism doesn't make sense to everyone.

[Lakewooder]

Well, I was just trying to be sarcastic!

[Hannibal Lecter]

Ugh. This disgusting nanny state mentality makes me sick. I don't understand why libertarianism doesn't make sense to everyone.Those with a vested interest in the current system tend not to be enamored with Libertarianism, for obvious reasons. One attribute of the current system is that politicians try to give something to everyone, so that everyone has that vested interest, such as a government contract or job, a farm subsidy, a military base nearby, a law that imposes their particular morality on others, money for silly bridges, etc....

[trolleygirl]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-smoking_02met.ART.West.Edition1.42caf7d.html

Dallas could make it tougher for puffers

Many council members now say they'd favor expanded smoking law


07:51 AM CDT on Thursday, August 2, 2007
By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News
dlevinthal@dallasnews.com

Smokers still enjoy some refuge in Dallas, where puffing away inside a bar or atop an outdoor restaurant deck is perfectly legal.

But interviews with members of the newly constituted Dallas City Council indicate most are willing to entertain an expanded anti-smoking ordinance, as Plano and Frisco recently have enacted.

And several, including Mayor Tom Leppert, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway and veteran council members Angela Hunt and Mitchell Rasansky, now say they'd vote for an outright smoking ban that included public places – such as bars – not included in the city's current ordinance.

Such sentiment represents a notable shift in the council's collective approach to the issue; three years ago, the body nearly diluted a partial smoking ban it passed just a year prior.

"I'm a big believer in the smoking ban. I view it as a health issue," Mr. Leppert said. "You got quality of air inside, and you've got quality of air outside, so I think it's an important one. I'm going to surprise some people on the environmental side."

Mr. Rasansky says he'd "vote for a smoking ban for everything, 100 percent, because it's for the betterment of the city."

Said Mr. Caraway: "I agree with the mayor."

Not everyone does, however, especially in a tavern industry already irate over contending with municipal laws that may dramatically vary, even among contiguous cities.

Plano, for example, features one of the area's strictest anti-smoking laws, while neighboring Addison's smoking regulations are comparatively liberal.

Both touch the northern city limit of Dallas, where people may not smoke in restaurants, bingo halls, bowling alleys and most other public buildings, but may light up on outdoor desks and inside pool halls, tobacco shops and bars. Dallas' current ordinance requires business owners to post no-smoking signs, and owners may be fined $50 to $500 if they don't comply. Individuals who smoke in no-smoking areas can be fined $25 to $200.

This year, Texas lawmakers briefly considered following the lead of California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington, which are among U.S. states that have enacted complete or nearly complete statewide smoking bans for public areas. The effort failed, however, leaving individual municipalities to regulate smoking on their own.

"If there was a statewide no-smoking ordinance, that'd be one thing. But if you're in Dallas, and there's a total smoking ban, all you have to do is drive to Addison," said Bill Katz, who owns Frankie's Sports Bar and Grill on McKinney Avenue.

"We certainly support a statewide smoking ban, which would level the playing field. But there is no level playing field now – you can drive five minutes and the laws change," said Jamee Green, executive director of the Greater Dallas Restaurant Association.

Ms. Green's organization, a vocal opponent of past Dallas smoking ordinance expansions, plans to meet Thursday to discuss the matter, she said.

For freshman Dallas City Council member Sheffie Kadane, Dallas has already gone too far by prohibiting smoking in restaurants, and he says he'd support retracting current anti-smoking laws.

"The ordinance ought to read that it's up to a business owner whether to allow smoking. The government shouldn't have a right to dictate what you do or do not do at your business," Mr. Kadane said.

When it comes to people's health, it most certainly is the role of government to regulate how businesses may operate, said Linda Nichols, a regional vice president for the American Lung Association.

Dallas, she said, should pursue an expanded smoking ordinance, "and we'd be ready to work with the city on it. There is no risk-free level to second-hand smoke. Eliminating exposure is the only effective way to eliminating risk."

Since Dallas officials have not formally written an expanded smoking ordinance, several city council members say they'll reserve judgment on whether they'd support it until they see it – even if they back more stringent smoking bans in principal.

Mr. Leppert says he'd like to address the issue with his council colleagues this year, although no concrete timetable exists.

"The city right now has a good ordinance," Mayor Pro Tem Elba Garcia said. "We need to educate the council before we just go ahead and do something else."

[warlock55]

Ugh. This disgusting nanny state mentality makes me sick. I don't understand why libertarianism doesn't make sense to everyone.

I think at its basic level it's a difference in how people view individuals in relation to society. It's a continuum from complete individual freedom to complete societal stability.

I too see public smoking as a public health issue and don't have a problem with it being regulated in public gathering areas, including businesses. Any time a person opens his or her property to the public, certain responsibilities to the public/customers follow along with the ability to make money off of them. That covers everything from complying with fire codes, to truth in advertising, to smoking bans. It's the government, having passed laws wanted by consumers, looking out for the public's interest.

Everyone has justifiably mentioned that people can chose whether or not to patronize a restaurant based upon its smoking status, but isn't it also the case that business owners can chose whether or not to open a business based upon the laws that will affect their enterprise? They can chose whether or not to stay open as well. Changing laws are an inherent risk to business ownership, just as weather, crime, or changes in popular taste - and unlike many other factors, business owners can have an effect on the laws that affect them.

[warlock55]

"The ordinance ought to read that it's up to a business owner whether to allow smoking. The government shouldn't have a right to dictate what you do or do not do at your business," Mr. Kadane said.


Hmm...I wonder if Mr. Kadane was comfortable with the industrial fire and explosions last week.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Hmm...I wonder if Mr. Kadane was comfortable with the industrial fire and explosions last week.If that silly, irrelevant remark is the best you can do, I'll have to assume that you don't have anything meaningful to support you position.

[UrbanHope]

I think that in the next Texas lege they will do a ban and all of the local laws will be rendered moot.

Plus, there's no timetable on when this will be discussed by Council. Dave at the DMN could've just surveyed 5-6 councilpeople that were milling about. It wasn't any type of formal discussion as far as I know.

It does make me remember going out to eat with a friend in Arlington and the amt of crazy amount of smoke you had to endure just to hear your name called for your table (in and out) was ridiculous. Sometimes, non-smokers feel imposed on as well when people are constantly blowing smoke in your direction. It's not like when you're at a club where you know almost everyone will be drinking. Just a thought.

Not being a smoker, it doesn't effect me personally (other than second-hand smoke), but I'm curious. Do people really drive to Addison restaurants just to be able to smoke? Help me out folks....

[TexasStar]

...Not being a smoker, it doesn't effect me personally (other than second-hand smoke), but I'm curious. Do people really drive to Addison restaurants just to be able to smoke? Help me out folks....

I can tell you that since Dallas enacted the smoking ban in restaurants, I ONLY eat at establishments inside the city limits. Haven't been to an Addison eatery in years.

[ericthegardener]

If that silly, irrelevant remark is the best you can do, I'll have to assume that you don't have anything meaningful to support you position.


That "silly, irrelevant remark" is obviously NOT the best Warlock55 can do. Try reading the 3 paragraphs above that remark as they seem to support Warlock55's position pretty well.

[trolleygirl]

I can tell you that since Dallas enacted the smoking ban in restaurants, I ONLY eat at establishments inside the city limits. Haven't been to an Addison eatery in years.

Why would anyone who lives in Dallas want to go to Addison for any reason at all? I don't get it.

Some bars to have really good ventilation systems but even the good ones are still way too smokey.

Also, I read somewhere last week that the reason Maguire's closed was because he lost all of his business after the smoking ban started. I don't know though. I'm skeptical about that claim. No business has ever survived in that location........