Smoke 'Em Out

[eggwards]

Today Houston City Council voted down a total smoking ban for Houston's restaurants and bars. Instead, they chose to just ban smoking in restaurants, probably creating a whole lot of trouble of what is a bar, and what in one of our city's fine eateries. The original measure was proposed by one council member, a dermatologist, worried about the city's health. Still, as the city is constantly ranked as America's fattest, smoking is seemingly side health issue. Isn't smoking supposed to make you loose weight?

most of the measures opponents didn't oppose the heath ideal, although no-one has been known to actually stop smoking just because they can't smoke at the local Chili's, voted against the full ban stating that they were concerned about losing business, tourism and conventions. There was a worry that many conventions would skip Houston in their considerations if they were considered unfriendly to smokers, and had to make special accommodations for events.

Of course, what was more troubling was that officials with Alcoholics Anonymous, the National Retailer Federation, the National Convenience Store Operators and the National Tobacco Retailers Association already threatened to pull their conventions out of Houston, should the ban pass. There was no word on what would happen with a partial ban.

Houston joins Dallas in having the partial ban. Dallas bars are often very smoky affairs, and older ones, like the Dallas Eagle will always leave you feeling like you've been living in a chimney. The Houston Ripcord can be just the same, of course, the two bars I mention also have a heavy cigar element that most bars don't.

I guess I'm of two minds about the smoking ban. As a non-smoker, I like the thought of not being bothered by smoke, and not coming home afterwards smelling horrible needing to clean my hair and clothes. This doesn't happen often when going to a restaurant, but in a bar, here, sure.

On the other hand, there's something that rubs me the wrong way about making laws limiting people's freedoms. Sure, laws are passed everyday that do this, speeding laws, and regulations, but a smoking ban is closer to a morals clause in my book than actually regulating safety or commerce and such. Here you're making a law based on the opinion that you feel people will make a bad choice, or that they can't help themselves and will cause themselves harm.

Of course, there's also the claim that secondhand smoke causes others harm, and that's usually the biggest argument used tin the passing of non-smoking ordinances. I'm not really sold on that, and I think that most restaurants have done a pretty good job of offering smoking and non-smoking sections the last few years, that it isn't much of an issue there. Bars don't really do that.

From what I know, New York and California bars haven't really suffered from their ban, but heck, has smoking rates really gone down, or just moved elsewhere? Out to the streets? I don't know if they passed a law like we have here in Houston though, you can't smoke within 25 feet of the entrance of a public building. That matched with loitering laws might make it hard for diners to find a place to light up.

Perhaps it would have been better if the city did more that would encourage restaurants and bars to have smoke free options rather than forcing them to bow to anti-smoking advocates? It seems awfully heavy-handed, and short-sighted to think that taking away a venue for something will actually stop a behavior.

Comments

[garebear.livejournal.com]

The hazards of second hand smoke is well documented. Those who work in bars and restaurants have significantly greater health risks. All you have to do is google "secondhand smoke." You'll also find stories about the tobacco companies altering the results of studies.

But the effects are also well recorded in the homes of smokers. Spouses have a higher incidence of stroke and heart disease. Infants have a higher percentage of SIDS.

With smoke free bars and restaurants, California hasn't seen tourists fleeing from from it's shores. Most of the beaches are now smoke free. Disneyland is now smoke free (except for limited designated areas). If I remember correctly, California's smoking rate has dropped. Smoking isn't allowed on air flights, the trend is inevitable.

It's completely possible that tourist may avoid Houston because of the smoking laws. I've heard many visitors to California comment on how much they love it here... not because of the weather, arts, airheadedness, but because they don't have to contend with the smoke.

But I also believe in personal freedom. I think many things should be decriminalized, same sex marriage is a no brainer, that the FCC should go to hell.

But like Kip, I'd favor banning cell phones in public or while driving... simply because they're infringing on my space and irritating me. In the case of driving while using a cell phone, I believe it creates a hazard to those around them. Personally, I don' care if they loose concentration and kill themselves by crashing into a telephone pole--i'd feel sorry for those who lose their phone service, sure...

But then I'd also implement a health tax to help pay for the medical costs of caring for those who develop disease from smoking and second hand smoke; it would also include the cost of cleaning up the butts from the city, from the beach and oceans. But then I'd also tax Twinkies, Big Macs, French Fries and all the crap that I'm so fond of eating.

[cyph0enix.livejournal.com]

Those taxes already exist. Cigarrettes are the only product in the united states to be taxed more then 100% per unit in some states. In nyc it's at almost 180%. While alcohol is still the regular state tax whatever it may be.

The thing is i tend to agree with the idea of non smoking areas in restaurants and the fact that smoking in a business area is completly gone now days.

I do have a problem with a smoking ban in a bar. A bar is a place that was/is created mostly for drinking alcohol. It seems a bit strange that you would then ban cigarretes. Yes there is the second hand smoke issue. But i don't know the exact statistics but last i looked them up for a friend more people die of drunk driving acidents then from second hand smoking.

It's a very thin line between personal freedoms and the ideal good of the greater. In a restaurant setting your there to eat dinner and you have under aged people all around you. In a bar you go to socialize and well drink and there should never be anyone underage.

Just some food for thought.

Paul

[garebear.livejournal.com]

It was pretty shocking, here in California, when they banned smoking in bars. The bars and the patrons adjusted. Most have covered patios where people go to smoke.

Personally, I think it's up to the business to make the choice (in the case of bars), not the government. This would allow the consumer the ultimate say. In some cases I know of bartenders who are pleased with the ban.

While I'm aware of the tobacco tax, it doesn't cover the costs absorbed by non smokers in relation to covering health costs. Cancer, stroke and heart disease are all expensive illnesses; likewise death is an expensive proposition as well.

Alcohol is a bit of an enigma. When used in moderation it's good for you! The problems come with abuse. Most victims of drunk drivers have a quick death... then there's the dismemberment and disability. Victims of second hand smoke may also die a quick death, but more often will suffer from extreme disabiltiy and in the case of cancer, a slow and miserable death.

I have a tendency to feel that alcohol should be taxed to cover the cost cause by the havoc it brings. Unfortunately it's a case of the responsible taking care of the irresponsible.

Then, as I stated, zero nutrition foods should also be taxed. If you're light junk food consumer it won't make much of a difference. If you're a junk food junkie, like myself... I'd give a bit more thought about what I'm eating... and I'm a fat dude.

[oakleycub.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that from the standpoint of personal vices it seems odd to allow drinking at a location but not allow smoking, for that matter sex should be allowed in bars too. It's all about vices, right? *g*

However, if I am standing next to you while you are drinking, my clothes are not going to end up smelling bad and my health is not going to be affected at all unless you puke on me or hit me in a drunken rage or something. The use of the alcohol will have no direct effect on me.

You smoke and I am in the same room, I will end up smelling like smoke and get a headache not to mention the more nebulous long term health effects of second hand smoke. Your use of the product directly affects me, not only annoying me but making me ill, likely shortening my life span.

I am not arguing the part about choosing to be there and all that, I'm only pointing out the difference in how use of these products affects others nearby.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

I think we're of very different minds here. I'm not one who advocates a lot of government intervention when it comes to personal decisions, and that includes cell phone usage. I think that people, short sighted as they are, should be able to make their own choices and mistakes where they can, and you know, when it doesn't hurt others, that can include some really stupid things.

Now, yeah, that can really hurt them, and cause a lot of personal destruction, but you know, I'm getting really pissed off with the people who are trying to regulate whether I'm going to be able to eat a dobule-meat Whataburger with cheese right now, and also the people who want to prevent me from being able to fuck my boyfriend because it goes against their beliefs. Sorry, I should be able to make those choices for my life, not them.

That's why I support people being able to choose for themselves if they want to smoke or not...and that includes pot, even though I myself don't do it. In fact, I'm a prude about it.

You know, I could meet you study for study about second hand smoke, and we'd still not come out with a good answer. Lets just say it's not a good habit, but you know, to just try to take away the last places to smoke doesn't take away people trying to do it. See PROHIBITION. It didn't work. Strangely enough, we still have brothels, too.

One of the big problems, is when people get in trouble for choices THEY MADE, they don't take responsibility, or they didn't consider the consequences of those actions, and then they expect corporations or the government to bail them out later, and that's where I have the problem. There's no guarantee, and you shouldn't expect a bailout for your bad decision.

[garebear.livejournal.com]

I agree. GW Bush talks about government getting out of people's lives, yet he takes away rights with the homeland security act. He working to constitutionally ban gay marriage. He wants to stuff his religious beliefs down our throats. He's soft on tobacco. He's fucked up.

I believe that people should be allowed their freedoms. This includes drug use, smoking, drinking excessively, fornicating with animals, driving without a seat belt, prositution... I don't do any of these things; I really don't care. I care about the rights of individuals to live the life they deserve.

This means, being able to enjoy smoke-free public places and not breathing second hand smoke, not being killed or maimed by a drunk driver.

Studies that indicate second hand smoke isn't THAT harmful are mostly funded by the tobacco companies. The medical profession, universities and government find that there are hazards. Unless there's a conspiracy against big tobacco, I have a tendency to belive the medical profession.

What about personal rights? What about smoking at home when a child has severe allergies. What about figures that show that spouses of smokers have a higher incidence of strokes?... the rate of sudden infant death syndrome is higher? There was one study that found that the children of mothers that smoked had IQs 10 points lower than kids who had mothers who didn't smoke during pregnancy.

Ten IQ points! That's one standard deviation. If I remember my stats, if 50% is the norm, one standard deviation above the norm would be at the 82 percentile. 50% vs. 82%... Imagine the possibilities.

The study could have been bad science. Perhaps in households where mothers smoke, there's less attention to the development of a child. Perhaps there's a link between a gene that's prone to nicotine addiction and intelligence. What if nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide affected embyos in a way that affected the potential of the child?

I believe people have the right to do what they want in their home.... as long as they accept the consequences and it doesn't violate another person's rights.

I believe that those who choose to smoke should pay the estimated loss to social services, medical care and the economy through higher tobacco taxes.

I'm fat... I still had an In-N-Out double, double with fries and a shake this weekend. I know it's a health hazard and wouldn't mind paying a tax on it to make up for my gluttony. Perhaps it would be a reminder that I shouldn't be eating that shit. (BTW, I love the Whataburger double with cheese and bacon!). Yeah, I'm dumb; I can't control myself and a penalty is helpful.

Pot, prostitution and the like should be decriminalized and taxed. Less prisoners, safer prisons, fewer court cases... the police could spend more time on violent crimes... less violent crime because the power of the drug lords would collapse.

Higher taxes on alcohol... to pay for illness, the devastation and treatment programs. If you're a heavy drinker, it's going to hurt you. If you're a light drinker, it won't make that much of a difference.

I'll go further. If you have children, you should be able to pay for them... schooling, medical. Those who choose not to have children (or can't) shouldn't be penalized. I'd be in favor of tax breaks for two children (I'm family friendly!), but beyond that, taxes should be levied.

I believe in paying for what we take.

There's the alternative. If you smoke, develop heart disease, have a stroke, get lung cancer related to smoking, you forfeit your right to medical care. If you choose not to wear a seat belt, get in an accident - you get limited medical aid; perhaps pain killers until you die. I'm being faceitous, but the idea is clear. We have to be responsible for our actions.

And then, lower income and property taxes.

[garebear.livejournal.com]

And I did forget one important point... Businesses should be allowed to make the decision about allowing smoking or banning it. This way the consumer makes the choice. It's all about consumerism and choice.

[denminn.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you on this, Michael. I don't smoke and never intend to. I do think it's a bad health choice, ask my dad whose had a heart attack and two bypass operations. But in the end, people have to be responsible for their choices. I may not like what people do, but they have to have the freedom to do it, even if it might harm them. I don't want someone telling me what I can smoke or eat, or who I can go to bed with. That's nobody's damn business.

I also agree that the studies are on the affects of secondhand smoke are all over the map. It's not as clear cut as some would like it to be.