My happiness keeps getting infringed upon by yelling screaming kids. Let's ban them next.

^^^^ someone want to pull the thread for him discussing this.

Pull the thread? I was just pointing out how absurd it could be if you wanted to take each person's happiness into account. Some things bother people while they don't bother others. It seemed like a natural flow of the conversation.

Incorrectly worded on my part. There had already been at least one discussion thread on kids at restaurants which pretty much covered your point.

Dawale, if you disagree with anybody on here, you'll be called a troll and your comments voted down. Welcome to MyBCS.

TLIAC, do you know if CSPD or BPD has ever filed a charge for violation of the smoking ordinance?

quote:

---

I love the law. If other people could figure out how to smoke without me having to inhale and smell it then more power to them. Until then, yay, for the ordinance

---

You already know how

quote:

---

Now, I don't go to bars much at all but I will avoid (if at all possible) any bar that allows smoking.

---

TLIAC, you are probably the only one around here who has to involuntarily experience the smoke, and then only if you have to go into a smoking establishment while on duty. But you probably experience things more dangerous than second hand smoke.

quote:

---

You already know how

---

Yes, vote to elect a council that puts an ordinance in place that is for the benefit of the majority of the population.

As someone who has never smoked, hates the smell of cigarette smoke, and wishes a number of his friends would quit smoking before they develop something, I think the ban in CS (and other locales) is completely absurd as it ought to be left up to the individual establishment owners.

Having seen this path well worn in many other communities, the next step will be to make it illegal to smoke in public areas period. We are trying to mandate change on large segments of the population, not because we are worried about the effects of second hand smoke (which is the issue we use to pass the legislation), but because we simply dislike the personal choice others have made with their lives and want to segregate ourselves from that.

It's laughable, quite frankly, that such a conservative town as this one has large segments of the population adamantly clamor for more government regulation of their daily lives.

quote:

---

the next step will be to make it illegal to smoke in public areas period.

---

That would be ideal.

quote:

---

That would be ideal.

---

Not for the nearly 40,000 smokers in the B/CS area. Tyranny by the majority is no way to run a government.

40,000?

Sounds pretty inflated.

And believe me, I have no consideration at all for their feelings. For years they have had none for mine.

~20% of americans smoke cigarettes. 20% of the B/CS metro region is 40,000. Obviously it's not a perfect estimate but it's close to the truth. College aged kids also have the highest rate of smokers, so that would push the numbers even higher on the smoker side in this city.

quote:

---

And believe me, I have no consideration at all for their feelings. For years they have had none for mine.

---

Inconsideration does not give you the right to legislate away their rights.

[This message has been edited by Kampfers (edited 12/28/2011 12:37a).]

Last time I checked we had only written a couple of warnings for that violation. As far as me having to deal with things more dangerous than second hand smoke - they train me to deal with that, it is something that I have control over. They haven't trained me how not to breathe.

I still worry about the effects of growing up with parents that smoked - a lot. If businesses could truly separate smoking areas from non-smoking areas that would be great but they can't. Studies have proven that second hand smoke is dangerous and can be harmful so not only is the smell nasty, it can harm the health of people who chose not to smoke. A crying kid in a public place gets on my nerves but it doesn't damage my health. So, for me personally, I like the ordinance.

I guess I should add a disclaimer: Smoking has directly deprieved me of having my parents still with me. My Daddy died at 49 of a heart attack-smoking was a factor. My Mom died several years ago of a combination of COPD and lung cancer-yes, smoking was the cause. I will admitt that I am very biased when it comes to anything that involves smoking. Basically, I hate cigarettes.

[This message has been edited by TLIAC (edited 12/28/2011 12:28p).]

quote:

---

Studies have proven that second hand smoke is dangerous and can be harmful

---

not true, but unpopular to refute (much like climate change).

Scruffy you'll have to link a study or article on that claim. Don't believe you for a second unless you consider second hand smoke walking past someone smoking for 3 seconds

quote:

---

the next step will be to make it illegal to smoke in public areas period.

---

Personally, I think this makes much more sense than banning it in private bars and restaurants. I would like for them to ban smoking in parks and other places that my tax dollars go to pay for and that I like to enjoy smoke-free.

quote:

---

B/CS metro region is 40,000.

---

Yeah, sure it is.

quote:

---

Personally, I think this makes much more sense than banning it in private bars and restaurants. I would like for them to ban smoking in parks and other places that my tax dollars go to pay for and that I like to enjoy smoke-free.

---

I agree that for a city ordinance, there is more merit to such a ban than imposing one on bar and restaurant owners. I still disagree with the basic premise of the law.

quote:

---

Yeah, sure it is.

---

quote:

---

The Bryan–College Station Metropolitan Statistical Area is a metropolitan area in the Brazos Valley region of Texas that covers three counties: Brazos, Burleson, and Robertson. As of the 2000 census, the MSA had a population of 184,885 (The 2010 Census placed the population at 228,660).

---

Gives us 37k-46k smokers given that approximately 20% of Americans are smokers.

quote:

---

Scruffy you'll have to link a study or article on that claim. Don't believe you for a second unless you consider second hand smoke walking past someone smoking for 3 seconds

---

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5811

quote:

---

Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had "cherry picked" its data and had grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and scientific norms" in order to rationalize the agency's own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency's authority for disseminating its "de facto regulatory scheme" that intended to prohibit passive smoking. The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments.

---

http://www.data-yard.net/43/1057.pdf

quote:

---

The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

---

quote:

---

In a large study of Californians followed for 40 years, environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure

These findings suggest that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed

---

I guess the doctors that took time out of their schedules to attend the COCS council meetings and present their professional medical opinions also brought flawed and "cherry picked" data to have this ordinance put in place, even though it would not benefit them in any way according to what you just posted because there is no actual harm associated with smoke.

Because those doctors didn't do the research themselves and therefore believed the shoddy science published.

But whether or not secondhand smoke is harmful isn't the issue as far as I'm concerned. not allowing bar owners to run their business as they see fit IS the issue.

I can't cite any studies but I would guess that Health harm from having bars >>> harm from second hand smoke in bars.

we should definitely ban bars!

quote:

---

Because those doctors didn't do the research themselves and therefore believed the shoddy science published.

But whether or not secondhand smoke is harmful isn't the issue as far as I'm concerned. not allowing bar owners to run their business as they see fit IS the issue.

---

Bingo

I think that everyone would be very surprised to know how relieved and excited many bar and restaurant owners were when the measure passed.

Owners that are nonsmokers liked it while owners that smoked disliked it.

What was stopping owners who like it from just making their establishments nonsmoking?

quote:

---

bar and restaurant owners were when the measure passed.

---

Restaurant smoking has been banned--in both Cities--for more than a decade. CoCS Smoking ban dates from 1 Feb 2009. And, it bans all workplace smoking, too--'bars' just have a dispensation to allow smoking within 10' of doorways.

Here is a link to municode, section 7-9
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=15047
A person might take a close look at 7-9 C. (1) Designation.

biobio, I've often wondered that. I'll have to ask.

Carney's in Bryan is nonsmoking - owner's choice.

Changing anything is a risk. Perhaps these bar owners were not willing to test the waters alone. The ordinance reduced the risk by removing the "next bar"option and replacing it with the "bar in Bryan"option.

halibut_sinclair, and I've started going to Carney's more often because it's non-smoking.

quote:

---

But the "so-called conservatives" that govern the state of Texas love the nanny state.

---

FIFY

Capn-Mac...

Funny you mentioned the incredible vagueness of the rule. A friend once told me a story right after the rule passed about a bar owner that had recognized that vagueness and told all of his regulars to light up. He was ultimately issued a citation by CSPD, went in to plead guilty the next morning, and left with the charges dropped because no one could figure out how to charge him and what his punishment was!!!

Side note... I live in a small town in S. Texas these days. There are bar & restaurant combos here in town that do allow smoking, bars that allow smoking, one restaurant with a smoking section around the bar, one bar that only allows smoking outside, one bar restaurant combo that only allows smoking outside, and some restaurants that only allow it outside where they don't serve food. Every single one of those establishments are doing just fine with their respective business models! No government intervention required at all!

I also bet they don't call what they are doing a "business model".