Smoke 'Em Out
Mar. 9th, 2005 11:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsToday 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-11 09:46 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-11 10:00 am (UTC)