Smoke ban is a step closer

SOUTHLAKE -- Smokers wouldn't be able to light up in Southlake, unless they're at home or in a designated hotel room, under an ordinance the City Council approved 7-0 on first reading Tuesday night. Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Gregory

Wylie, TX

#1 Apr 5, 2007
Hasn't anyone done the research of the research? The second hand smoke causation results are not even statistically significant.

The second hand smoke debate is literally a smoke screen that appears to be designed to take away your individual freedom and property rights.

If we are to outlaw smoking, does that mean we should also legislatively ban restaurants with indoor grills that produce 4 to 12 times more carcinogenic fumes than second hand smoke? What about banning all airborne smells that people are physically sensitive to? These could easily include perfumes for sale at clothing stores and on customers, chemical odors from cleaning supplies, body odors and even flatulence. Should an establishment be legislatively ordered to close their business after re-painting until no odor is detectable?

What about the bans on outdoors smoking? That one is even simpler. No one can deny that a gasoline-powered engine produces much more carcinogens and pollution than a cigarette. Should our parks and business entryways be banned from these non-essential carcinogenic polluters? What about the many that suffer needlessly from allergies related to the unnecessary introduction of pollen into our parks, city streets, and business entrances? Does a Chrysanthemum or Bermuda grass ban in Texas also make sense? How about banning the carcinogenic fumes from hibachis and grills at the park, near your neighbors yard, and in front of businesses on hot dog day? I also suspect that gunpowder and magnesium from our cities fireworks display is just as toxic as cigarette smoke.

Since about 70% of the population does not currently smoke, I suspect that most businesses, on their own, will continue to keep their establishments smoke free.

If a business owner wishes to have a open grill restaurant, or a smoking OK restaurant, or even a members only club that allows smoking and posts it as such, why do the anti-smoking/anti property rights people care?

Business owners should decide what policies to use in their establishments. If we do not believe that, we are one step closer to fascism.
Colonist

Greenfield, MA

#2 Apr 5, 2007
""The EPA estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove smoke is twelve times greater than that from an equal volume of second hand tobacco smoke FROM:( The Health Effects of Wood Smoke, Washington State Dept of Ecology)

In researching the above data, the Family Campout at Bob Jones Park next month should be banned before any other smoking ban is taken into account.

BBQ and the Backyard fireplaces they sell at Walmart and Target should also be banned first.

Smoke is Smoke
Treat it as such
Volume for volume

“Time flies like an arrow...”

Since: Mar 07

"fruit flies like a banana"

#3 Apr 5, 2007
Gregory wrote:
Hasn't anyone done the research of the research? The second hand smoke causation results are not even statistically significant.
The second hand smoke debate is literally a smoke screen that appears to be designed to take away your individual freedom and property rights.
If we are to outlaw smoking, does that mean we should also legislatively ban restaurants with indoor grills that produce 4 to 12 times more carcinogenic fumes than second hand smoke? What about banning all airborne smells that people are physically sensitive to? These could easily include perfumes for sale at clothing stores and on customers, chemical odors from cleaning supplies, body odors and even flatulence. Should an establishment be legislatively ordered to close their business after re-painting until no odor is detectable?
What about the bans on outdoors smoking? That one is even simpler. No one can deny that a gasoline-powered engine produces much more carcinogens and pollution than a cigarette. Should our parks and business entryways be banned from these non-essential carcinogenic polluters? What about the many that suffer needlessly from allergies related to the unnecessary introduction of pollen into our parks, city streets, and business entrances? Does a Chrysanthemum or Bermuda grass ban in Texas also make sense? How about banning the carcinogenic fumes from hibachis and grills at the park, near your neighbors yard, and in front of businesses on hot dog day? I also suspect that gunpowder and magnesium from our cities fireworks display is just as toxic as cigarette smoke.
Since about 70% of the population does not currently smoke, I suspect that most businesses, on their own, will continue to keep their establishments smoke free.
If a business owner wishes to have a open grill restaurant, or a smoking OK restaurant, or even a members only club that allows smoking and posts it as such, why do the anti-smoking/anti property rights people care?
Business owners should decide what policies to use in their establishments. If we do not believe that, we are one step closer to fascism.
I agree. Let the consumers decide. If they want to spend their money in an establishment that allows smoking, fine. If they don't, fine. Go somewhere else.

Personally, I'd like to know where there's an eatery that bans children and cell phones. Those are much more disturbing to my epicurean senses than second-hand smoke.
smokinglobby_com

Yonkers, NY

#4 Apr 5, 2007
What really sucks is that an ordinance which will effect the ENTIRE city comes down to a council vote of 7 members, who all voted for the ban.
Where is the representation of the smoking citizens? They get no vote at all?
It is completely unconstitutional to ban a legal activity without giving lawful citizens a representation in the vote!

Since: Dec 06

New Jersey

#5 Apr 5, 2007
People really need an education on the effects of SHS, or lack there of. Most real Anti-smokers know there is no health issue, it is either an issue of smell, control, or pays off by the pharma companies. Adults should make choices, good or bad. Business owners should make choices on how to run their business. If all the non smokers just didnt go to a smoking bar because it was smoking, and the owner lost business, he would switch. Bar owners are in it for money (just like resturant owners) not to cater to the minority. These councilman have been duped. We can not expect them to know the science, they have other things to do. So everyone that knows, let them know. We are more educated on the subject then them. Calling and Writing works best, then emails. Do the research for them. Let them know how you feel. Get others involved. The people shouldnt be controled by its government, the government should be controled by its people.
John

Saint Paul, MN

#6 Apr 5, 2007
Of the 149 Studies done between 1981 and 2006 on ets including spousal, work place, and children, only 24 have shown some risk to second hand smoke. 2 of these 149 studies (1 for spousal, and 1 for children) have shown some BENEFITS to second hand smoke. The remaining 122 studies have shown no risk or benefits beyond the level of chance.

The level of statistical signifigance in science is 20%. Any risk or benifit below this level is not beyond the realm of pure chance.

The percentage of studys showing some risk is 16.1%, this falls well within the percetage that would be expected by mere chance!

Why do we let the health care community get away with flipping a coin to tell us what is good or bad for us?

http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm
Gregory

Wylie, TX

#7 May 11, 2007
What is really sad is that the city council was provided all of this information, agreed that the second hand smoke studies were "overblown", yet still opted to take away a business owners right to choose.
concerned ft worth res

Keller, TX

#8 May 12, 2007
Well put Gregory on the no smoking ban, just wish more people had a,"why should I care when it does not involve me," attitude.
Bill Hannegan

United States

#9 May 12, 2007
Gregory wrote:
What is really sad is that the city council was provided all of this information, agreed that the second hand smoke studies were "overblown", yet still opted to take away a business owners right to choose.
So why did they vote for it?
Nick Fitt

AOL

#10 May 12, 2007
Bill Hannegan wrote:
<quoted text>
So why did they vote for it?
Because the people who elected them into office wanted the smoking ban. They were elected to protect those people and enact laws on their behalf.
antianti

New Lenox, IL

#11 May 12, 2007
Bill Hannegan wrote:
<quoted text>
So why did they vote for it?
Because of the Whiny Anti Lobby
Nick Fitt

AOL

#12 May 12, 2007
John wrote:
Of the 149 Studies done between 1981 and 2006 on ets including spousal, work place, and children, only 24 have shown some risk to second hand smoke. 2 of these 149 studies (1 for spousal, and 1 for children) have shown some BENEFITS to second hand smoke. The remaining 122 studies have shown no risk or benefits beyond the level of chance.
The level of statistical signifigance in science is 20%. Any risk or benifit below this level is not beyond the realm of pure chance.
The percentage of studys showing some risk is 16.1%, this falls well within the percetage that would be expected by mere chance!
Why do we let the health care community get away with flipping a coin to tell us what is good or bad for us?
http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm
Can see we have a rocket scientist here. Looked at all the information and completely misinterpreted what was there.
Shirley U Kidd

New Lenox, IL

#13 May 13, 2007
Nick Fitt wrote:
<quoted text>
Can see we have a rocket scientist here. Looked at all the information and completely misinterpreted what was there.
And in your mind you have interpreted it all properly? ANY studies and ANY statistics can be read many different ways.

Perfect example - SHS has 4 known carcinogens. Carcinogen A is also found in byproduct B. In cigarette smoke carcinogen A is found at a rate of 1 part per million. In byproduct B it is found at 10 parts per million. Neither level is one that would cause any type of problem to people under normal contact. But the battle cry is "carcinigen A is in SHS ergo SHS causes cancer" and byproduct B is completely forgotten about.
Tired

Columbia, SC

#14 May 13, 2007
Shirley U Kidd wrote:
<quoted text>
And in your mind you have interpreted it all properly? ANY studies and ANY statistics can be read many different ways.
Perfect example - SHS has 4 known carcinogens. Carcinogen A is also found in byproduct B. In cigarette smoke carcinogen A is found at a rate of 1 part per million. In byproduct B it is found at 10 parts per million. Neither level is one that would cause any type of problem to people under normal contact. But the battle cry is "carcinigen A is in SHS ergo SHS causes cancer" and byproduct B is completely forgotten about.
I love your name!
candid

AOL

#15 May 13, 2007
Smoking and smokers are so yesteryear.
candid

AOL

#16 May 13, 2007
Most smokers sure do litter a lot.They must litter because they are only second class people.
Pipe Phitter

New Lenox, IL

#17 May 13, 2007
Tired wrote:
<quoted text>
I love your name!
That's great but can you address mypost or do you chose not to?
History_Buff

United States

#18 May 13, 2007
Those that want to restrict the freedoms of others, deserve no freedom for themself.
Linda

United States

#19 May 13, 2007
KarenB

Haikou, China

#20 May 13, 2007
While the effects of 2nd hand smoke outdoors is certainly negligible (and thus ought to be permitted), I take issue with anyone who thinks that those of us in an smoke-filled enclosed room (such as a bar or restaurant)are not physically affected. Obviously the "research of the research" has been funded by the tobacco companies! I seriously question to intelligence quotient of anyone who STILL continues to smoke in this day and age, and that has been confirmed by some of the above posters.

And even though the consumer might choose to take their business elsewhere, the employees (waitresses, etc.) are entitled to a healthy and safe work environment. Furthermore, research in New York City has proven that massive smoking bans has enabled a signficant portion of the population to quit smoking or curtail smoking, improving the health of everyone. Thus, indoor smoking bans are for the benefit of everyone, even though it might inconvenience a few selfish and inconsiderate people.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Roanoke Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
If immigrants win under Obama order, does someo... 19 hr Who Guessed It 493
Paschal high School (Jul '14) 22 hr Rusty Fraiia 12
Videos capture Eddie Ray Routh rambling before ... Wed Cold Front 2
CPS had closed case of slain boy CRIME (Aug '07) Wed still thinking of... 75
accused child sex offender moves to Ft Worth (Mar '11) Wed concerned in Clin... 52
what happened to all the original labare dancer... (Jun '10) Wed Lilyth71 200
gangs of fort worth Tx (Sep '10) Feb 24 TheExampleOfADog 29

Roanoke News Video

Roanoke Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Roanoke People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:08 pm PST

Bleacher Report 1:08PM
Cole Beasley Contract: Latest News and Rumors on Negotiations with Cowboys
Yahoo! Sports 1:13 PM
Sources: Cowboys, WR Cole Beasley close on deal
Bleacher Report 6:15 AM
Texans' Best Options to Replace Andre Johnson
Yahoo! Sports 7:02 AM
Greg Cosell's Film Review: DeMarco Murray and his value to Dallas
Bleacher Report 9:23 AM
Report: Chris Canty Released by Ravens