Smoking in Houston Restaurants

[Becca]

Since I do not smoke, I am for the ban on smoking in restaurants. I was
in Florida 2 years ago when they banned smoking in restaurants. It
seemed to go over well.

From what I recall, smoking is banned in Dallas restaurants. I wonder
why Houston is so slow to change.

Becca

[Rick Russell]

Post by Becca
Since I do not smoke, I am for the ban on smoking in restaurants. I was

I do not smoke, but I am for allowing private business owners to make
their own choices. As long as customers and employees are fully
informed of their choices, I have no problem with smoking-allowed
restaurants.

Rick R.

[jennie]

I'm for the ban. They simply can't ventilate well-enough for me---- I find
it vile, and it can absolutely ruin a meal for me. And I always find it
amusing that often the smoking section is simply the next table over from
the non-smoking section.

Seems to me I read some good research about how the ban was working in other
cities, but can't find it online. Maybe later if I have some time I'll look
it up.

As a matter of fact, we ate at Chimes last weekend on our way through Baton
Rouge, and as a college bar/restaurant, it didn't even have a non-smoking
section. Ugh. Food was great, but the smoking really ruined the experience
for me.

JMO.

[Frank F. Matthews]

Sorry Rick but employers should not be able to force a choice between
employment and health. A lot of miners died in the last century before
that became established.

Post by Rick Russell

Post by Becca
Since I do not smoke, I am for the ban on smoking in restaurants. I was

I do not smoke, but I am for allowing private business owners to make
their own choices. As long as customers and employees are fully
informed of their choices, I have no problem with smoking-allowed
restaurants.
Rick R.

[Rick Russell]

Post by Frank F. Matthews
Sorry Rick but employers should not be able to force a choice between
employment and health. A lot of miners died in the last century before
that became established.

No doubt. But should local governments make that choice? City
governments are ill-equipped to evaluate scientific data on workplace
risk. That's why we have federally mandated workplace safety
rules.

Along similar lines, local governments have a long history of pleasing
vocal minorities at the cost of the majority. OK, maybe that's all
governments. But in general, I'd like to see a clear mandate before
local government makes such a big change. Why not put it to a
referendum? I know Bob Lanier made referendum a dirty word, but it's
still the closest thing we've got to a real measure of city opinion.

Rick R.

[Zen Cohen]

Post by Rick Russell

Post by Frank F. Matthews
Sorry Rick but employers should not be able to force a choice between
employment and health. A lot of miners died in the last century before
that became established.

No doubt. But should local governments make that choice? City
governments are ill-equipped to evaluate scientific data on workplace
risk. That's why we have federally mandated workplace safety
rules.

It may be difficult to evaluate cutting-edge science, but I don't see how
it's so difficult to evaluate the unequivocal and vast amt of science that's
now out on the effects of smoking. And it doesn't take a scientist to
realize that smoking is just plain nasty. Also, legislative change often
comes from the ground up as state and local gov'ts are often viewed as
'laboratories' for change before more sweeping changes are made.

....

[Kelly Younger]

Post by Zen Cohen
It may be difficult to evaluate cutting-edge science, but I don't see how
it's so difficult to evaluate the unequivocal and vast amt of science that's
now out on the effects of smoking. And it doesn't take a scientist to
realize that smoking is just plain nasty. Also, legislative change often
comes from the ground up as state and local gov'ts are often viewed as
'laboratories' for change before more sweeping changes are made.

I agree. Just like the vast amount of science that's now out on the
effects of eating processed or fast foods, too much salt, high
cholesterol diets or diets low in fiber. But you damned sure can't
eliminate that from a restaurant.

Something's gonna kill everybody, but I think everyone should have the
opportunity to do it smoke-free.

I smoke occasionally, but smoking in restaurants is, well, sort of like
farting. It *may* not kill me, but, I don't want to smell it while I'm
eating. (I think this may have been stolen from George Carlin...).

Oh, by the way, the last time real, sweeping legislative change was made
at the state or local level, the South lost.

[Frank F. Matthews]

The South lost far before there was any sweeping legislative change. If
not the southern legislatures would not have approved the constitutional
amendment.

Kelly Younger wrote:
snip

Post by Kelly Younger
Oh, by the way, the last time real, sweeping legislative change was made
at the state or local level, the South lost.

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Kelly Younger

Post by Zen Cohen
It may be difficult to evaluate cutting-edge science, but I don't see
how it's so difficult to evaluate the unequivocal and vast amt of
science that's now out on the effects of smoking. And it doesn't
take a scientist to realize that smoking is just plain nasty. Also,
legislative change often comes from the ground up as state and local
gov'ts are often viewed as 'laboratories' for change before more
sweeping changes are made.

I agree. Just like the vast amount of science that's now out on the
effects of eating processed or fast foods, too much salt, high
cholesterol diets or diets low in fiber. But you damned sure can't
eliminate that from a restaurant.

Yep. But if you choose to eat stuff that's bad for you, I don't suffer ill
effects. You've got the right to make a bad decision for yourself, but
(IMO) not for me.

[Jeremy]

There is no valid evidence that SHS kills or even significantly harms
and with positive pressure ventilation, even any reason you should have
to sniff the stuff.
If you are going to have strong opinions on the subject and spray them
over the internet, it is better that you learn the truth about the oft
quoted SHS study that blamed it for killing thousands.

Although Hitt's site has errors, it does show the links to the actual
studies, more than the smoke nazis sites dare to try.

BTW, is his spelling bothers you so much, why does your site not lose
validity for your spelling mistake and two glaring errors in
punctuation? :-)

JJ

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Kelly Younger

Post by Zen Cohen
It may be difficult to evaluate cutting-edge science, but I don't see
how it's so difficult to evaluate the unequivocal and vast amt of
science that's now out on the effects of smoking. And it doesn't
take a scientist to realize that smoking is just plain nasty. Also,
legislative change often comes from the ground up as state and local
gov'ts are often viewed as 'laboratories' for change before more
sweeping changes are made.

I agree. Just like the vast amount of science that's now out on the
effects of eating processed or fast foods, too much salt, high
cholesterol diets or diets low in fiber. But you damned sure can't
eliminate that from a restaurant.

Yep. But if you choose to eat stuff that's bad for you, I don't suffer ill
effects. You've got the right to make a bad decision for yourself, but
(IMO) not for me.
--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Jeremy
There is no valid evidence that SHS kills or even significantly harms

I'm not going to get into this argument; there's plenty of evidence, and
smokers often dispute it.

Post by Jeremy
and with positive pressure ventilation, even any reason you should
have to sniff the stuff.

And yet I do, whenever I'm in a bar and often when I'm in a restaurant.

Post by Jeremy
If you are going to have strong opinions on the subject and spray them
over the internet, it is better that you learn the truth about the oft
quoted SHS study that blamed it for killing thousands.

Thanks for the helpful tips. I'll keep them in mind. Really.

[Jeremy]

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Jeremy
There is no valid evidence that SHS kills or even significantly harms

I'm not going to get into this argument; there's plenty of evidence, and
smokers often dispute it.

Post by Jeremy
and with positive pressure ventilation, even any reason you should
have to sniff the stuff.

And yet I do, whenever I'm in a bar and often when I'm in a restaurant.

Post by Jeremy
If you are going to have strong opinions on the subject and spray them
over the internet, it is better that you learn the truth about the oft
quoted SHS study that blamed it for killing thousands.

Thanks for the helpful tips. I'll keep them in mind. Really.

I can quote the studies, chapter and verse, whereas you seem to have
taken the oft quoted, erroneous and rewritten summary as the gospel. I
can refer you to Dr, Marc Schneiderman in Pittsburgh, who was involved
in the most often quoted study, and he will tell you personally how
wrong the summary was. If there is plenty of evidence, or even evidence
disputing the effects of SHS stimulating the immune response, please
direct me to where this is available.

A bar or restaurant is not a public place, it is a business catering to
the needs of the public. I do not like cigarette smoke when I am eating,
but do not mind cigar smoke, although I smoke both.


I am also about to start a bar and restaurant called Smokers Only. If
you do not smoke, you can sit on the patio, whatever the weather or
ozone watch level/

[Jack Tyler]

Post by Jeremy

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Jeremy
There is no valid evidence that SHS kills or even significantly harms

I'm not going to get into this argument; there's plenty of evidence, and
smokers often dispute it.

Post by Jeremy
and with positive pressure ventilation, even any reason you should
have to sniff the stuff.

And yet I do, whenever I'm in a bar and often when I'm in a restaurant.

Post by Jeremy
If you are going to have strong opinions on the subject and spray them
over the internet, it is better that you learn the truth about the oft
quoted SHS study that blamed it for killing thousands.

Thanks for the helpful tips. I'll keep them in mind. Really.

I can quote the studies, chapter and verse, whereas you seem to have
taken the oft quoted, erroneous and rewritten summary as the gospel. I
can refer you to Dr, Marc Schneiderman in Pittsburgh, who was involved
in the most often quoted study, and he will tell you personally how
wrong the summary was. If there is plenty of evidence, or even evidence
disputing the effects of SHS stimulating the immune response, please
direct me to where this is available.
A bar or restaurant is not a public place, it is a business catering to
the needs of the public. I do not like cigarette smoke when I am eating,
but do not mind cigar smoke, although I smoke both.
I am also about to start a bar and restaurant called Smokers Only. If
you do not smoke, you can sit on the patio, whatever the weather or
ozone watch level/

Nobody stinks a place like a bunch of non-smokers. If you let just ONE in,
20 more will follow and before you know it, you can't see the smoke for the
air.

Jack

[vonroach]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:07:35 GMT, "Jack Tyler"

Post by Jack Tyler
Nobody stinks a place like a bunch of non-smokers. If you let just ONE in,
20 more will follow and before you know it, you can't see the smoke for the
air.

snicker,,, but on a more serious note nothing smokes up a place like a
bunch of barbecueing whether the proprietor or amateurs. Why are dens
of carcinogenesis like barbecue places and steak houses allowed?

In the interests of even more common diseases why are sugar, salt, and
fats barred from the menu?

[Jack Tyler]

Post by vonroach
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:07:35 GMT, "Jack Tyler"

Post by Jack Tyler
Nobody stinks a place like a bunch of non-smokers. If you let just ONE in,
20 more will follow and before you know it, you can't see the smoke for the
air.

snicker,,, but on a more serious note nothing smokes up a place like a
bunch of barbecueing whether the proprietor or amateurs. Why are dens
of carcinogenesis like barbecue places and steak houses allowed?
In the interests of even more common diseases why are sugar, salt, and
fats barred from the menu?

I believe that the non-smokers in the group have left themselves open for
defeat in this debate by introducing scientific studies and medical
arguments into the mix. There are studies that vindicate smokers of the
crimes of attempted murder... and there are studies that indict them of it.
Neither side can win. Jeremy will even point out that the body removes
enough carcinogens from second-hand smoke to make the substance a perfect
vaccine which stimulates the immune system just enough to help your body
fight cancer (THAT'S a reach, in my opinion). However, the argument never
should have gone any farther than the subject of common courtesy.
Certainly, there are carcinogens in barbeque smoke. There are some who
can't stand the smell of curry. However, when we go to a barbeque joint, we
ASK for the smell. It's a matter of personal choice. We might STILL be
offended by the smell of a completely different stench at the table next to
us. When we eat too much salt on our food and it may affect our circulatory
systems..... but not those of the family sitting at the next table eating
salt-free food.

This debate has deteriorated into a food fight over whether or not
second-hand smoke is dangerous.... and whether, or not, there are worst
things for our health than cigarette smoke. What it's REALLY about is
personal choices. Our legal system exists today mostly to protect the
rights of those who are affected by OTHER'S personal choices. When a smoker
chooses to smoke in a public place, it forces those who find it offensive to
either leave, or suffer the effects. Those affects may or, may not, be
health-damaging.... but they DO include a diminution of the experience of a
stench-free meal.... movie.... park bench... car ride.... cocktail...
concert.... etc.... etc. The fact is that smokers, due to their inability to
stop the addiction, have put up "smoke screens" about the lack of credible
evidence of health affects of cigarette smoking and second-hand smoke.
Those non-smokers who kick the ball into that arena, or allow the ball to
stay in that arena are the smoker's rightful prey. What about the fact that
we just don't want to stink like a smoker?

Jack Tyler

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Jack Tyler
I believe that the non-smokers in the group have left themselves open
for defeat in this debate by introducing scientific studies and
medical arguments into the mix.

IMO the debate is entertaining but ultimately pointless. Smoking will be
banned in public places; it's just a matter of time. As the health risks
of smoking have become known, fewer and fewer folks smoke, and many of
those who don't find it a repulsive (as well as hazardous) habit. Smokers
are clinging to their current right to inflict their habit on others.

(I'm still waiting for smokers to allow others to pee in their beverages so
they can enjoy being on the other side of the issue. I've yet to have any
takers.)

Post by Jack Tyler
There are studies that vindicate
smokers of the crimes of attempted murder... and there are studies
that indict them of it. Neither side can win.

OK. I doubt murder would stick, but involuntary manslaughter might. ;-)

Post by Jack Tyler
Jeremy will even point
out that the body removes enough carcinogens from second-hand smoke
to make the substance a perfect vaccine which stimulates the immune
system just enough to help your body fight cancer (THAT'S a reach, in
my opinion).

That's a real stretch to justify the behavior that feeds an addiction, but
drug addicts are known to do or say all sorts of extreme things to be able
to feed their jones.

Post by Jack Tyler
However, the argument never should have gone any farther
than the subject of common courtesy.

AMEN! If all smokers had the common courtesy not to light up in an
enclosed space, we'd not be having this discussion, nor these bans.

Unfortunately, smoking tobacco is physically addictive, and many folks will
forget all manners and courtesy in order to satisfy their addiction RIGHT
NOW. IMO, that's why it's dangerous: Starting smoking is a choice, but
continuing is not for many folks.

Post by Jack Tyler
Certainly, there are carcinogens
in barbeque smoke. There are some who can't stand the smell of curry.
However, when we go to a barbeque joint, we ASK for the smell.

Yep.

Post by Jack Tyler
It's
a matter of personal choice. We might STILL be offended by the smell
of a completely different stench at the table next to us. When we eat
too much salt on our food and it may affect our circulatory
systems..... but not those of the family sitting at the next table
eating salt-free food.

Again, I'm with you. Smoking is one of the few habits that force its
byproducts onto bystanders.

Post by Jack Tyler
This debate has deteriorated into a food fight over whether or not
second-hand smoke is dangerous.... and whether, or not, there are
worst things for our health than cigarette smoke. What it's REALLY
about is personal choices. Our legal system exists today mostly to
protect the rights of those who are affected by OTHER'S personal
choices. When a smoker chooses to smoke in a public place, it forces
those who find it offensive to either leave, or suffer the effects.

Silly, isn't it?

Post by Jack Tyler
Those affects may or, may not, be health-damaging.... but they DO
include a diminution of the experience of a stench-free meal....
movie.... park bench... car ride.... cocktail... concert.... etc....
etc. The fact is that smokers, due to their inability to stop the
addiction, have put up "smoke screens" about the lack of credible
evidence of health affects of cigarette smoking and second-hand smoke.
Those non-smokers who kick the ball into that arena, or allow the ball
to stay in that arena are the smoker's rightful prey. What about the
fact that we just don't want to stink like a smoker?

Well said, Jack. Whether you belive the tobacco industry propaganda that
second-hand smokeis harmless, it's still disgusting.

I support a smoker's right to smoke. I completely oppose his right to
force the byproducts of the activity on anyone else.

[Kelly Younger]

Post by Albert Nurick
IMO the debate is entertaining but ultimately pointless. Smoking will be
banned in public places; it's just a matter of time.

Albert, you sound like a Nazi.


I've had enough of this. Please invoke Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law so this thread will end.
I promise to lose gracefully.

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Kelly Younger

Post by Albert Nurick
IMO the debate is entertaining but ultimately pointless. Smoking
will be banned in public places; it's just a matter of time.

Albert, you sound like a Nazi.

Probably so. I've got little patience for an industry that has added
chemicals to its products in order to take free will away from its
customers.

Both my parents died of smoking-related causes, and both wanted to quit,
but were unable to because of their addiction. I'm a touch bitter about
it.

[Jeremy]

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Kelly Younger

Post by Albert Nurick
IMO the debate is entertaining but ultimately pointless. Smoking
will be banned in public places; it's just a matter of time.

Albert, you sound like a Nazi.

Probably so. I've got little patience for an industry that has added
chemicals to its products in order to take free will away from its
customers.
Both my parents died of smoking-related causes, and both wanted to quit,
but were unable to because of their addiction. I'm a touch bitter about
it.

My father died from smoking related illnesses, and quit in his seventies
a year before he died. That you disdain cigars as equivalent to
cigarettes, although non addictive, and with the exception of the US
drug store variety, free from chemicals, shows your ignorance of the
subject. I smoke one a week or one a month, that is not an addiction.
My problem with your attitude, is that if someone is doing something
that offends you, it should be banned rather than allowed in its own
cultural subgroup. I do not like smoke on my planes, in my vehicles,
while I am eating, or before noon in my proximity, but if I wish to
indulge in a cigar I would like to buy a Armagnac to go with it while
out with friends. Should I be reduced to going to smokers only places,
equivalent to a speakeasy, fine, but do not try to justify your personal
viewpoint with fuzzy science and propaganda.

Next you can go after the cola companies :-)

[Jack Tyler]

"Jeremy" <***@dcnet2000.com> wrote in message news:***@dcnet2000.com...
I do not like smoke on my planes, in my vehicles,

Post by Jeremy
while I am eating, or before noon in my proximity, but if I wish to
indulge in a cigar I would like to buy a Armagnac to go with it while
out with friends.

You'd think that a guy who owns more than one airplane could smoke anywhere
he damn well wants to.

Jack

[vonroach]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:07:31 GMT, "Jack Tyler"

Post by Jack Tyler
You'd think that a guy who owns more than one airplane could smoke anywhere
he damn well wants to.
Jack

He can Jack, except where local law or proprietor's rules say
otherwise.

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Jeremy
My father died from smoking related illnesses, and quit in his
seventies a year before he died. That you disdain cigars as equivalent
to cigarettes, although non addictive, and with the exception of the
US drug store variety, free from chemicals, shows your ignorance of
the subject.

Thanks for your opinion. It's nice to know that you believe nicotine (a
natural part of tobacco) is addictive in one delivery system, but not
another. And don't bother to cite studies; the tobacco companies rolled
out study after study saying that cigarettes weren't addictive, either.
Now we know better.

Post by Jeremy
I smoke one a week or one a month, that is not an addiction.

Some folks react differently to nicotine. I have a friend who decided to
stop smoking, and who did so, just like that.

Post by Jeremy
My problem with your attitude, is that if someone is doing
something that offends you, it should be banned rather than allowed in
its own cultural subgroup.

I don't want to ban smoking, but only to avoid inflicting its byproducts
on innocent bystanders. By all means smoke at home and put only your
family at risk. Or smoke in a private club, and put only members at
risk. But don't hire employees; IMO workers are entitled to a safe
workplace, and shouldn't have to put their health at risk in order to bus
tables.

Post by Jeremy
I do not like smoke on my planes, in my
vehicles, while I am eating, or before noon in my proximity, but if I
wish to indulge in a cigar I would like to buy a Armagnac to go with
it while out with friends. Should I be reduced to going to smokers
only places, equivalent to a speakeasy, fine, but do not try to
justify your personal viewpoint with fuzzy science and propaganda.

Unfortunately, you've chosen a hobby that impacts others directly.
Something to think about.

Post by Jeremy
Next you can go after the cola companies :-)

No need. Your decision to drink a cola doesn't impact anyone else.

[Kelly Younger]

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Jeremy
My father died from smoking related illnesses, and quit in his
seventies a year before he died. That you disdain cigars as equivalent
to cigarettes, although non addictive, and with the exception of the
US drug store variety, free from chemicals, shows your ignorance of
the subject.

Thanks for your opinion. It's nice to know that you believe nicotine (a
natural part of tobacco) is addictive in one delivery system, but not
another. And don't bother to cite studies; the tobacco companies rolled
out study after study saying that cigarettes weren't addictive, either.
Now we know better.

Post by Jeremy
I smoke one a week or one a month, that is not an addiction.

Some folks react differently to nicotine. I have a friend who decided to
stop smoking, and who did so, just like that.

Post by Jeremy
My problem with your attitude, is that if someone is doing
something that offends you, it should be banned rather than allowed in
its own cultural subgroup.

I don't want to ban smoking, but only to avoid inflicting its byproducts
on innocent bystanders. By all means smoke at home and put only your
family at risk. Or smoke in a private club, and put only members at
risk. But don't hire employees; IMO workers are entitled to a safe
workplace, and shouldn't have to put their health at risk in order to bus
tables.

Post by Jeremy
I do not like smoke on my planes, in my
vehicles, while I am eating, or before noon in my proximity, but if I
wish to indulge in a cigar I would like to buy a Armagnac to go with
it while out with friends. Should I be reduced to going to smokers
only places, equivalent to a speakeasy, fine, but do not try to
justify your personal viewpoint with fuzzy science and propaganda.

Unfortunately, you've chosen a hobby that impacts others directly.
Something to think about.

Post by Jeremy
Next you can go after the cola companies :-)

No need. Your decision to drink a cola doesn't impact anyone else.
--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting

Well, I guess the Godwin's Law ploy didn't work.

[Jack Tyler]

Post by Jeremy
I smoke one a week or one a month, that is not an addiction.

I was once questioned by a good friend, who was a tee-totaler, about
drinking. I said that I drank from time to time and could always count on
drinking champagne on New Years Eve to toast the new year. He said, "EVERY
New Years Eve? Sounds like you need help. You're addicted to drinking every
new years eve."

Jack

[vonroach]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:43:31 GMT, "Jack Tyler"

Post by Jack Tyler
He said, "EVERY
New Years Eve? Sounds like you need help. You're addicted to drinking every
new years eve."

Judging by accident reports, you have a lot of company. That is
definitely a dangerous addiction. It's sometimes called amateur night.

[Chris Pando]

Post by Kelly Younger
Well, I guess the Godwin's Law ploy didn't work.

Some threads never end; they just smolder in the couch of
civilised discourse, waiting to erupt into flame.

Chris
--

Its okay to get jacked up and head out onto the highway, but
I've been there and I can tell you that the fast lane is
littered with countless smoldering wrecks.
H.S.Thompson

[Kelly Younger]

Post by Chris Pando

Post by Kelly Younger
Well, I guess the Godwin's Law ploy didn't work.

Some threads never end; they just smolder in the couch of
civilised discourse, waiting to erupt into flame.
Chris
--
Its okay to get jacked up and head out onto the highway, but
I've been there and I can tell you that the fast lane is
littered with countless smoldering wrecks.
H.S.Thompson

Yep. I think you are correct. ...and I think your sig is proof of it. I
wish I was going to Las Vegas. I hear the buffets are good and cheap.

[Chris Pando]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:18:00 GMT, Kelly Younger <***@nowhere.org>
wrote:

[Godwin's law, and flaming metaphors]

Post by Kelly Younger

Post by Chris Pando
Its okay to get jacked up and head out onto the highway, but
I've been there and I can tell you that the fast lane is
littered with countless smoldering wrecks.
H.S.Thompson

Yep. I think you are correct. ...and I think your sig is proof of it. I
wish I was going to Las Vegas. I hear the buffets are good and cheap.

Hell, I'd settle for somewhere around Barstow.

Chris
--
***@pando.org | Mama killed a chicken
www.pando.org | Thought it was a duck
| served it on the table
| with its legs stickin' up

[vonroach]

Post by Kelly Younger
Yep. I think you are correct. ...and I think your sig is proof of it. I
wish I was going to Las Vegas. I hear the buffets are good and cheap.

Gobs of second-hand smoke, with cheap food only when losing big at
tables.

[vonroach]

Post by Chris Pando

Post by Kelly Younger
Well, I guess the Godwin's Law ploy didn't work.

Some threads never end; they just smolder in the couch of
civilised discourse, waiting to erupt into flame.
Chris

Chris - a remote but definite hazard of smoking in both the home and
public restaurants and bars. A second-hand hazard to all but the
smoker.

[Jeremy]

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Jeremy
My father died from smoking related illnesses, and quit in his
seventies a year before he died. That you disdain cigars as equivalent
to cigarettes, although non addictive, and with the exception of the
US drug store variety, free from chemicals, shows your ignorance of
the subject.

Thanks for your opinion. It's nice to know that you believe nicotine (a
natural part of tobacco) is addictive in one delivery system, but not
another.

Albert,
When I met you, I got an impression of intelligence, why are you intent
on appearing otherwise in respect to this subject. If you are so
concerned, shouldn't you learn as much as possible about that which at
the moment you seem to have only under informed, but uncompromising
opinions.

If fact, you have become a smoke nazi.

JJ

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Kelly Younger
Albert,
When I met you, I got an impression of intelligence,

Thanks. I feel the same way about you.

Post by Kelly Younger
why are you intent on appearing otherwise in respect to this subject.

I've not cited any sources because I assumed that in 2004, an intelligent
individual would not deny the danger of tobacco to the smoker and to
others.

Post by Kelly Younger
If you are so
concerned, shouldn't you learn as much as possible about that which at
the moment you seem to have only under informed, but uncompromising
opinions.

<chuckle> I'll spend five minutes with Google to humor you. Let's see
what the three search terms "cigar smoking danger" (without the quotes)
turns up...

UCLA:
( http://tinyurl.com/4do63 )
Cigarette studies have shown that non-smoking spouses of smokers had a 30
percent higher risk of lung cancer than non-smoking spouses of non-
smokers."

[Always in good form to reduce the life expectancy of the one you love.
And it's safe to assume that a worker in a smoking area of a business
would be exposed to far more than a spouse's second-hand smoke.]

Penn State University:
( http://tinyurl.com/6bzfw )
"Some experiments with mice indicate there is a higher degree of cancer-
causing agents in cigar and pipe tars than in cigarette tars."

[That last one seems to imply that second-hand smoke from cigars is
*more* hazardous than from cigarettes, due to the higher concentration of
cancer-causing agents. Nice.]

The American Cancer Society says:
(from http://tinyurl.com/4wt2f )
Wherever smoke touches living cells, it does harm. Even if smokers don't
inhale they are breathing the smoke as secondhand smoke and are still at
risk for lung cancer. Pipe and cigar smokers are also at an increased
risk for lip, mouth, and tongue cancers.

( http://tinyurl.com/4ytxg )
Many of these individuals would never consider smoking cigarettes, and
seem unaware that cigar smoking poses a danger at least as great as that
posed by cigarettes.

The BBC reports:
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/644837.stm )
The risk of lung cancer was found to be five times higher for those who
smoked cigars, almost eight times higher for those who smoked three or
more a day and 11 times higher if they inhaled the smoke, reported the
Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Eric Jacobs, a senior epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society,
said: "We expected to find some increased risk of lung cancer, but we
found that cigar smoking is much more lethal than we thought."

Post by Kelly Younger
If fact, you have become a smoke nazi.

Hardly. I support your right to choose to smoke. I don't support your
right to inflict second-hand smoke on others, including workers in the
establishments you patronize.

You seem to turn a blind eye to the dangers. That seems to be SOP with
smokers; if you looked at the situation objectively, you might make
different choices. It's a habit that's hazardous to those around you.

[Jack Sloan]

Post by Jeremy
If fact, you have become a smoke nazi.

JJ

Jeremy, You will be happy to learn that I have been in Albert's home and
witnessed NO nazi paraphernalia.
Jack

[Jack Tyler]

Post by Jack Sloan

Post by Jeremy
If fact, you have become a smoke nazi.

JJ

Jeremy, You will be happy to learn that I have been in Albert's home and
witnessed NO nazi paraphernalia.
Jack

Nazi literature in Albert's home would make him a rather unusual Jew.

Jack II

[Jack Sloan]

Post by Jack Tyler

Post by Jack Sloan

Post by Jeremy
If fact, you have become a smoke nazi.

JJ

Jeremy, You will be happy to learn that I have been in Albert's home and
witnessed NO nazi paraphernalia.
Jack

Nazi literature in Albert's home would make him a rather unusual Jew.
Jack II

Exactly my point.
Jack

[ted matthews]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:45:44 GMT, Albert Nurick

Post by Albert Nurick
I don't want to ban smoking, but only to avoid inflicting its byproducts
on innocent bystanders.

I am an innocent. I work only 2 miles from my house so I ride my
bike. I am not poor, I just prefer to ride my bike since work is
so close.

Albert, do you drive your car to work each day? I am only asking
because the exhaust from cars is as bad or worse that cigarette
smoke and judging from your post you might be concerned about
what you are doing to me - an innocent bicycle rider.

Are you concerned about me?

"How Do Tobacco Smoke and Car Exhaust Compare?

Many of the known toxic compounds in tobacco smoke are also
emitted from combustion of petroleum hydrocarbons, so there is
significant overlap in the lists of compounds that have been
identified in these mixtures to date."

http://www.energyindependencenow.org/pdf/fs/EIN-TobaccoCarExhaust.pdf

Well, are you concerned about be? Are you concerned about what
you are inflicting upon me with your car?

Ted

[Chris Pando]

Post by ted matthews
Well, are you concerned about be? Are you concerned about what
you are inflicting upon me with your car?
Ted

You're not "forced" to live in Houston. Albert is regularly "forced"
into smoky bars.

HTH, Chris
--
***@pando.org | You know you've achieved perfection in
www.pando.org | design, not when you have nothing more
| to add, but when you have nothing more
| to take away. Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[ted matthews]

Post by Chris Pando

Post by ted matthews
Well, are you concerned about be? Are you concerned about what
you are inflicting upon me with your car?
Ted

You're not "forced" to live in Houston. Albert is regularly "forced"
into smoky bars.

If I want to care for my elderly parents and be around the rest
of my family then I need to live in Houston.

How exactly is one "forced" into smoky bars?

Ted

[Chris Pando]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:03:53 GMT, ***@nexus.com (ted
matthews) wrote:

[usenet bris]

Post by ted matthews
How exactly is one "forced" into smoky bars?

One is forced into a bar at gunpoint. I doubt anyone
here has ever been forced into a bar.

Chris
--
I see angels on ariels in leather and chrome
Swooping down from heaven to carry me home

[Albert Nurick]

Post by ted matthews

Post by Chris Pando
You're not "forced" to live in Houston. Albert is regularly "forced"
into smoky bars.

If I want to care for my elderly parents and be around the rest
of my family then I need to live in Houston.

Makes sense.

Post by ted matthews
How exactly is one "forced" into smoky bars?

No one is. It's safe to ignore Chris in conversations like these; he feels
very clever taking potshots that are ultimately meaningless.

[Jack Tyler]

Post by ted matthews
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:45:44 GMT, Albert Nurick
Well, are you concerned about be? Are you concerned about what
you are inflicting upon me with your car?
Ted

Good morning, Ted:

Just a comment to throw in regarding your analogy about the streets and
riding your bike on them. Unlike people going into restaurants to eat
(restaurants were built specifically for dining) and finding that you are
inhaling smoke, the analogy you offered isn't valid, as you are riding your
bike on a street (that was built specifically for automobiles). Anyone who
rides a bike on city streets or highways does so expecting to inhale
exhaust. Albert doesn't necessarily go into a restaurant expecting that
other diners are going to attack him with exhaust. I'm attempting to stay
out of this ongoing debate (not very well, I admit), but don't see where the
analogy works.

Regards,

Jack

[vonroach]

Post by ted matthews
Albert, do you drive your car to work each day? I am only asking
because the exhaust from cars is as bad or worse that cigarette
smoke and judging from your post you might be concerned about
what you are doing to me - an innocent bicycle rider.
Are you concerned about me?

Don't know about Al, Teddy, but I'm not really concerned about you
except avoiding running over you and messing up my car.

[Gregory Morrow]

Post by vonroach

Post by ted matthews
Albert, do you drive your car to work each day? I am only asking
because the exhaust from cars is as bad or worse that cigarette
smoke and judging from your post you might be concerned about
what you are doing to me - an innocent bicycle rider.
Are you concerned about me?

Don't know about Al, Teddy, but I'm not really concerned about you
except avoiding running over you and messing up my car.

Now that's just downright cruel and I'd even add churlish, Professor. Have
you no compassion for your fellow man?

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Gregory Morrow

Post by vonroach
Don't know about Al, Teddy, but I'm not really concerned about you
except avoiding running over you and messing up my car.

Now that's just downright cruel and I'd even add churlish, Professor.
Have you no compassion for your fellow man?

Mr. Vonroach is obviously the product of an inferior education, or perhaps
too much time spent obsessing about the seedier parts of town. ;-)

[Gregory Morrow]

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Gregory Morrow

Post by vonroach
Don't know about Al, Teddy, but I'm not really concerned about you
except avoiding running over you and messing up my car.

Now that's just downright cruel and I'd even add churlish, Professor.
Have you no compassion for your fellow man?

Mr. Vonroach is obviously the product of an inferior education, or perhaps
too much time spent obsessing about the seedier parts of town. ;-)

Our esteemed Professor rather reminds me of those conservative bible -
beater politicians who avidly "collect" pornography so they will "know it
when they see it"...

[Albert Nurick]

Post by ted matthews
Albert, do you drive your car to work each day?

Nope. I work out of my home office.

Post by ted matthews
I am only asking
because the exhaust from cars is as bad or worse that cigarette
smoke and judging from your post you might be concerned about
what you are doing to me - an innocent bicycle rider.
Are you concerned about me?

I am.

I promise never to drive my car in an enclosed space, like a restaurant
or a bar.

And FWIW, when I purchased my last car, I picked one that conforms to
ULEV emissions standards, which hugely reduce emissions.

What emission controls have you seen on tobacco products lately?

[vonroach]

Post by Albert Nurick
Thanks for your opinion. It's nice to know that you believe nicotine (a
natural part of tobacco) is addictive in one delivery system, but not
another.

Actually it's the tars that are incriminated in carcinogenesis. I know
of no real evidence that tobacco with nicotine selectively removed is
less satisfying to a smoker than just chopped leaves and their natural
tars (the flavor part). Nicotine has some cardiovascular effects -
I've seen no real evidence that the same is true of second-hand smoke.

[Albert Nurick]

Post by vonroach

Post by Albert Nurick
Thanks for your opinion. It's nice to know that you believe nicotine
(a natural part of tobacco) is addictive in one delivery system, but
not another.

Actually it's the tars that are incriminated in carcinogenesis.

Tar is a key carcinogen, but it is the nicotine that is physically
addictive. Thus the nicotine gum market.

[vonroach]

Post by Jeremy
That you disdain cigars as equivalent to
cigarettes, although non addictive, and with the exception of the US
drug store variety, free from chemicals, shows your ignorance of the
subject. I smoke one a week or one a month, that is not an addiction.

Humm...have you ever given this habit up for a few years?

[vonroach]

Post by Albert Nurick
Probably so. I've got little patience for an industry that has added
chemicals to its products in order to take free will away from its
customers.

Do you feel as strongly about governments who give money to those
addicted to sloth to take free will away from them? Are they enablers?

[vonroach]

Post by Albert Nurick
Well said, Jack. Whether you belive the tobacco industry propaganda that
second-hand smokeis harmless, it's still disgusting.
I support a smoker's right to smoke. I completely oppose his right to
force the byproducts of the activity on anyone else.

Then it is odd that you are not opposed to alcoholic addiction or the
fetid odor of stale beer, urine stained clothing, and body odor that
greets one in places where drinking is allowed. PS. Alcohol is also
very dangerous to both your safety and health - perhaps more so than
second hand smoke. Salt and sugar are two other addictions that one
encounters in restaurants that are between them probably a bigger
health risk than second-hand smoke or addiction to alcohol.
Finally, which is more important, a citizen's right to smoke or your
personal desire to regulate the behavior?

[Albert Nurick]

Post by vonroach

Post by Albert Nurick
Well said, Jack. Whether you belive the tobacco industry propaganda
that second-hand smokeis harmless, it's still disgusting.
I support a smoker's right to smoke. I completely oppose his right to
force the byproducts of the activity on anyone else.

Then it is odd that you are not opposed to alcoholic addiction or the
fetid odor of stale beer, urine stained clothing, and body odor that
greets one in places where drinking is allowed.

I've not noticed this; apparently I've not been in the same
establishments that you and your ilk frequent.

Post by vonroach
PS. Alcohol is also
very dangerous to both your safety and health - perhaps more so than
second hand smoke. Salt and sugar are two other addictions that one
encounters in restaurants that are between them probably a bigger
health risk than second-hand smoke or addiction to alcohol.

Last time I checked, I wasn't impacted by the person next to me eating
too much salt or sugar. As to my personal consumption, I decide for
myself.

Post by vonroach
Finally, which is more important, a citizen's right to smoke or your
personal desire to regulate the behavior?

IMO, your right to smoke ends when you're in an enclosed space with
someone else.

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Albert Nurick
I'm not going to get into this argument; there's plenty of evidence,
and smokers often dispute it.

I can quote the studies, [snip]

I'm sure you can. Interestingly enough, it's always those who suffer
from the addiction who go to great lengths to rationalize its safety,
while those of us who don't smoke don't need more evidence to understand
the obvious hazards and unpleasantries.

Here's an analogy: I'm sure someone could find studies describing the
harmlessness of drinking urine, but I doubt you'd like to frequent a
restaurant where folks could urinate in your wine if they wished.

Kinda seems disgusting when your mind isn't clouded by addiction, doesn't
it? Welcome to the world of the non-smoker.

A bar or restaurant is not a public place, it is a business catering
to the needs of the public.

If the public is welcome there, or if employees work there, smoking
shouldn't be permitted. IMO, of course.

I do not like cigarette smoke when I am
eating, but do not mind cigar smoke, although I smoke both.

Cigar smoke is perhaps even more disgusting, IMO.

I am also about to start a bar and restaurant called Smokers Only. If
you do not smoke, you can sit on the patio, whatever the weather or
ozone watch level/

I've learned to avoid novelty restaurants. When I go out, I'm most
focused on the food and the service, not some fetish.

[Jeremy]

I guess you are committed to your point of view without any recourse to
rationality.

What if the employees smoke and would prefer to have a jo, would you put
them out of work.

Where is the proof that cigar smoke is harmful? It is just burning
leaves, without all the chemicals present in cigarette smoke.

I have been both a smoker and a non-smoker, and never has my mind been
closed to reason like yours, Despite plentiful scientific evidence to
the contrary, you would prefer to believe the line of bullshit about SHS
that has been thrust upon the general population.

Now if they would just have bigot free restaurants, we would never have
to cross paths, as I do frequent non-smoking environments all the time,
but bigots are bad for my health and second-hand bigotry is a huge
killer of innocent non-bigots.

HH
]

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Albert Nurick
I'm not going to get into this argument; there's plenty of evidence,
and smokers often dispute it.

I can quote the studies, [snip]

I'm sure you can. Interestingly enough, it's always those who suffer
from the addiction who go to great lengths to rationalize its safety,
while those of us who don't smoke don't need more evidence to understand
the obvious hazards and unpleasantries.
Here's an analogy: I'm sure someone could find studies describing the
harmlessness of drinking urine, but I doubt you'd like to frequent a
restaurant where folks could urinate in your wine if they wished.
Kinda seems disgusting when your mind isn't clouded by addiction, doesn't
it? Welcome to the world of the non-smoker.

A bar or restaurant is not a public place, it is a business catering
to the needs of the public.

If the public is welcome there, or if employees work there, smoking
shouldn't be permitted. IMO, of course.

I do not like cigarette smoke when I am
eating, but do not mind cigar smoke, although I smoke both.

Cigar smoke is perhaps even more disgusting, IMO.

I am also about to start a bar and restaurant called Smokers Only. If
you do not smoke, you can sit on the patio, whatever the weather or
ozone watch level/

I've learned to avoid novelty restaurants. When I go out, I'm most
focused on the food and the service, not some fetish.
--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting

[Joseph]

Post by Jeremy
What if the employees smoke and would prefer to have a jo, would you put
them out of work.

They have a jo in a public place!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[vonroach]

Post by Joseph

Post by Jeremy
What if the employees smoke and would prefer to have a jo, would you put
them out of work.

They have a jo in a public place!

And they may end up handcuffed in the back seat of a police car,
jailhouse bound in Houston. Even cigarettes won't get you that.

[Chris Pando]

What if the employees smoke and would prefer to have a job, would you put
them out of work.

If the jobs are really that dangerous, we should do what we do with
other dangerous jobs. Give them to illegals.

Chris "como se dice 'gin' en español, por favor" Pando
--
***@pando.org | You know you've achieved perfection in
www.pando.org | design, not when you have nothing more
| to add, but when you have nothing more
| to take away. Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[vonroach]

Post by Chris Pando
Chris "como se dice 'gin' en español, por favor" Pando

Lo hace.

[Gregory Morrow]

Post by vonroach

Post by Chris Pando
Chris "como se dice 'gin' en español, por favor" Pando

Lo hace.

Well Professor as "Kemo - sabe" say:

"The finger having writ, moves on...."

[vonroach]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:22:58 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"

Post by Gregory Morrow

Post by vonroach

Post by Chris Pando
Chris "como se dice 'gin' en español, por favor" Pando

Lo hace.

"The finger having writ, moves on...."

`Kemo sabe' sounds to many like: `Qui no sabe' = Tonto's name for the
Lone Ranger meaning `he that doesn't know'. `Tonto' on the other hand
is a useful Spanish (Mexican) word meaning `stupid fool'. Writer's
subtle jab probably.

On the other, there is a large ranch between Houston and Freeport that
is said to have been won in a poker game, that helps with above
interrogatory. It is named `No lo hace' - he didn't make it.

Of course if you mean Gin as in Martini, the local beverage is
Tequila, and Gin is not a preferred adult beverage. My personal guess
is that raisins soaked a week in tequila will probably cure a lot more
arthritis than Teresa's raisin in Gin recipe. La Tanta better stick
to catsup.

[vonroach]

Post by Jeremy
Where is the proof that cigar smoke is harmful? It is just burning
leaves, without all the chemicals present in cigarette smoke.

chuckle...leaves become toxic when shredded? And are we talking about
cancer of lung, or should we throw in lip, gum, mouth, throat,
nasopharynx, ...?

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Jeremy
I guess you are committed to your point of view without any recourse
to rationality.

Rationality? I don't see workplace safety as being optional just because
the hazard in question is one that some folks choose to enjoy.

Post by Jeremy
What if the employees smoke and would prefer to have a jo, would you
put them out of work.

I'm sure some folks would rather work in an asbestos-ridden environment
if it meant a quick job. What's the difference?

Post by Jeremy
Where is the proof that cigar smoke is harmful? It is just burning
leaves, without all the chemicals present in cigarette smoke.

I've not read information one way or the other about cigar smoke.

Post by Jeremy
I have been both a smoker and a non-smoker, and never has my mind been
closed to reason like yours, Despite plentiful scientific evidence to
the contrary, you would prefer to believe the line of bullshit about
SHS that has been thrust upon the general population.

I guess I don't dismiss the evidence I've read as BS.

Post by Jeremy
Now if they would just have bigot free restaurants, we would never
have to cross paths, as I do frequent non-smoking environments all the
time, but bigots are bad for my health and second-hand bigotry is a
huge killer of innocent non-bigots.

<chuckle> I'm a bigot because I think second-hand smoke isn't healthy?
This seems like an irrational statement; I'll assume it's the addiction
talking.

[Jeremy]

Albert
Please direct me to the irrefutable source of your information about
the hazards of SHS. Referring to the "everyone knows" or "it is common
knowledge" lacks some veracity, especially when I know one of the key
people involved in the latest CDC study.

You infer that SHS smoke is as dangerous as asbestos. Even the
assumption you make about asbestos is erroneous. The three most common
types of asbestos are, chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite, although
they can be separated into two basic types.
The division between them is based upon the crystalline structure.
Serpentines have a sheet or layered structure, amphiboles have a chain
like structure. In the amphibole group, there are five types of asbestos
and only two of them are harmful, and then only if in the friable state.
Now would you like me to explain why diesel exhausts are less harmful
than the exhaust from a 4 cycle engine, despite the visibility of the
diesel particulate discharge?


If you do not know the difference between cigar and cigarette smoke,
you are not sufficiently conversant with the subject to hold an informed
opinion.

The irony is that people that smoke and work in an environment that
exposes them to SHS, are losing their jobs to accomodate an erroneous
precept.

Moderate levels of exposure to SHS has been proven to stimulate the
immune response to inhaled pollutants and there is some statistical
indication of long term benefits. The physiological analogy is that of a
killed virus antigen response, or inoculation.

There also seems to be a inverse statistical correlation between the
incidence of MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity) and people who smoke or
are exposed to SHS. MCS is thought to be triggered when normal levels of
bacterial, viral and particulate exposure are artificially suppressed.
Lacking the normal, constant, low level stress, the immune system
redefines a previously benign environmental factor, often with an
extreme hyper allergenic response. Exposure to SHS is thought to be a
significant factor in maintaining the normal, environmental immune
response.

JJ

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Jeremy
I guess you are committed to your point of view without any recourse
to rationality.

Rationality? I don't see workplace safety as being optional just because
the hazard in question is one that some folks choose to enjoy.

Post by Jeremy
What if the employees smoke and would prefer to have a jo, would you
put them out of work.

I'm sure some folks would rather work in an asbestos-ridden environment
if it meant a quick job. What's the difference?

Post by Jeremy
Where is the proof that cigar smoke is harmful? It is just burning
leaves, without all the chemicals present in cigarette smoke.

I've not read information one way or the other about cigar smoke.

Post by Jeremy
I have been both a smoker and a non-smoker, and never has my mind been
closed to reason like yours, Despite plentiful scientific evidence to
the contrary, you would prefer to believe the line of bullshit about
SHS that has been thrust upon the general population.

I guess I don't dismiss the evidence I've read as BS.

Post by Jeremy
Now if they would just have bigot free restaurants, we would never
have to cross paths, as I do frequent non-smoking environments all the
time, but bigots are bad for my health and second-hand bigotry is a
huge killer of innocent non-bigots.

<chuckle> I'm a bigot because I think second-hand smoke isn't healthy?
This seems like an irrational statement; I'll assume it's the addiction
talking.
--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Jeremy
Please direct me to the irrefutable source of your information about
the hazards of SHS.

Why? If the evidence you've read hasn't convinced you, I certainly can't
because it's obvious you don't want to be convinced.

Post by Jeremy
Moderate levels of exposure to SHS has been proven to stimulate the
immune response to inhaled pollutants and there is some statistical
indication of long term benefits.

It's foolishness like that that tells me this conversation is pointless.

Not surprisingly, I've never heard this sort of argument from a non-smoker.

[Jeremy]

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Jeremy
Please direct me to the irrefutable source of your information about
the hazards of SHS.

Why? If the evidence you've read hasn't convinced you, I certainly can't
because it's obvious you don't want to be convinced.

Post by Jeremy
Moderate levels of exposure to SHS has been proven to stimulate the
immune response to inhaled pollutants and there is some statistical
indication of long term benefits.

It's foolishness like that that tells me this conversation is pointless.

Let me help you learn if you could stand to be better informed rather
than just having an opinion. I will even send you a copy of the one
report on which much of the spin is based and the criticism by the
authors of the unreasonable assumption in the press releases.

Maybe you just would hate to find your pet peeve lacks scientific
substance.

JJ

[vonroach]

Post by Jeremy
Now would you like me to explain why diesel exhausts are less harmful
than the exhaust from a 4 cycle engine, despite the visibility of the
diesel particulate discharge?

Won't even try. But can we discount all the toxic gas, smoke, and ash
spewed into the air every day (and night) by all the volcanos of the
world?

[Jack Sloan]

Post by Albert Nurick
Albert
Please direct me to the irrefutable source of your information about
the hazards of SHS. Referring to the "everyone knows" or "it is common
knowledge" lacks some veracity, especially when I know one of the key
people involved in the latest CDC study.
You infer that SHS smoke is as dangerous as asbestos. Even the
assumption you make about asbestos is erroneous. The three most common
types of asbestos are, chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite, although
they can be separated into two basic types.
The division between them is based upon the crystalline structure.
Serpentines have a sheet or layered structure, amphiboles have a chain
like structure. In the amphibole group, there are five types of asbestos
and only two of them are harmful, and then only if in the friable state.
Now would you like me to explain why diesel exhausts are less harmful
than the exhaust from a 4 cycle engine, despite the visibility of the
diesel particulate discharge?
If you do not know the difference between cigar and cigarette smoke,
you are not sufficiently conversant with the subject to hold an informed
opinion.
The irony is that people that smoke and work in an environment that
exposes them to SHS, are losing their jobs to accomodate an erroneous
precept.
Moderate levels of exposure to SHS has been proven to stimulate the
immune response to inhaled pollutants and there is some statistical
indication of long term benefits. The physiological analogy is that of a
killed virus antigen response, or inoculation.
There also seems to be a inverse statistical correlation between the
incidence of MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity) and people who smoke or
are exposed to SHS. MCS is thought to be triggered when normal levels of
bacterial, viral and particulate exposure are artificially suppressed.
Lacking the normal, constant, low level stress, the immune system
redefines a previously benign environmental factor, often with an
extreme hyper allergenic response. Exposure to SHS is thought to be a
significant factor in maintaining the normal, environmental immune
response.
JJ

If you guyr think second hand smoke is bad fer ya...ya otta try second hand
terbakky spit.
Jack...who has (accidently) drunk from the spit cup.

[Jack Tyler]

Post by Jack Sloan
If you guyr think second hand smoke is bad fer ya...ya otta try second hand
terbakky spit.
Jack...who has (accidently) drunk from the spit cup.

I'm not an expert on this, but don't you have to be on your hands and knees
to reach that thing?

Jack II

[Jack Sloan]

Post by Jack Tyler

Post by Jack Sloan
If you guyr think second hand smoke is bad fer ya...ya otta try second hand
terbakky spit.
Jack...who has (accidently) drunk from the spit cup.

I'm not an expert on this, but don't you have to be on your hands and knees
to reach that thing?
Jack II

Now , Jack...I'm not talkin' about a spitoon here. I'm talkin' about a red
plastic throwaway 16 oz cup that ya wad up a paper towel and cram it in the
bottom so when ya spit into it the spit don't come back and hit ya in the
face. The cup has just about gotta be red too. Foam will work in a
pinch,though. Ya hold the spit cup in yer left hand and yer beer in the
right hand.
After a bunch of right hands ya might fergit and drink outa yer left hand.
Bad idea, but ya normally don't do it but once.
Jack

[vonroach]

Post by Jack Sloan

Post by Jack Tyler

Post by Jack Sloan
If you guyr think second hand smoke is bad fer ya...ya otta try second hand
terbakky spit.
Jack...who has (accidently) drunk from the spit cup.

I'm not an expert on this, but don't you have to be on your hands and

knees

Post by Jack Tyler
to reach that thing?
Jack II

Now , Jack...I'm not talkin' about a spitoon here. I'm talkin' about a red
plastic throwaway 16 oz cup that ya wad up a paper towel and cram it in the
bottom so when ya spit into it the spit don't come back and hit ya in the
face. The cup has just about gotta be red too. Foam will work in a
pinch,though. Ya hold the spit cup in yer left hand and yer beer in the
right hand.
After a bunch of right hands ya might fergit and drink outa yer left hand.
Bad idea, but ya normally don't do it but once.
Jack

Relax, you probably wouldn't even notice unless somebody told you.

[Jack Sloan]

On Wed, 2 .

Post by Jack Sloan
Bad idea, but ya normally don't do it but once.
Jack

Relax, you probably wouldn't even notice unless somebody told you.

Even you would notice mr. professor.

[vonroach]

Post by Albert Nurick
Here's an analogy: I'm sure someone could find studies describing the
harmlessness of drinking urine, but I doubt you'd like to frequent a
restaurant where folks could urinate in your wine if they wished.

Bit of a non sequitur, but can you find studies that describe the
harmlessness of drinking wine beyond perhaps a small glass or two per
day? Does drinking urine turn your liver into a rock hard mass of
fibrous tissue?

[ToLo]

Post by Jeremy
I am also about to start a bar and restaurant called Smokers Only. If
you do not smoke, you can sit on the patio, whatever the weather or
ozone watch level

When you open up, post it. I guarantee my patronage....

[vonroach]

Post by Jeremy
A bar or restaurant is not a public place, it is a business catering to
the needs of the public.

Are you sure? Law seems to think it is, and passes all sorts of laws
regulating it - including parking area.

Post by Jeremy
I do not like cigarette smoke when I am eating,
but do not mind cigar smoke, although I smoke both.

What is your position on snuff? chewing tobacco? pipe?
hookah?

[vonroach]

Post by Jeremy
There is no valid evidence that SHS kills or even significantly harms
and with positive pressure ventilation, even any reason you should have
to sniff the stuff.
If you are going to have strong opinions on the subject and spray them
over the internet, it is better that you learn the truth about the oft
quoted SHS study that blamed it for killing thousands.

Jer, that is a great secret of science, `valid evidence' is often just
strong opinions.

[ToLo]

Post by Rick Russell

Post by Frank F. Matthews
Sorry Rick but employers should not be able to force a choice between
employment and health. A lot of miners died in the last century before
that became established.

No doubt. But should local governments make that choice? City
governments are ill-equipped to evaluate scientific data on workplace
risk. That's why we have federally mandated workplace safety
rules.
Along similar lines, local governments have a long history of pleasing
vocal minorities at the cost of the majority. OK, maybe that's all
governments. But in general, I'd like to see a clear mandate before
local government makes such a big change. Why not put it to a
referendum? I know Bob Lanier made referendum a dirty word, but it's
still the closest thing we've got to a real measure of city opinion.
Rick R.

I don't frequent non-smoking restaurants. I am glad that there are some
for non-smokers to enjoy. I noticed that where they ban it in bars that
except for kids who were there for the exclusive activity of picking
each other up that most bars were empty. We travel and eat out most of
the year. Minnesota and Alabama got lots of my money this year. Ca got
very little of it. In fact, I moved 60 million bucks of business to
another state because of their rules which even banned smoking OUTSIDE
in many places..

The few places that tried a voluntary complete smoking ban in
restaurants all failed as far as I could find. In almost every case,
there were businesses that had to re-institute smoking areas because of
a major loss of business.

I don't like the state coercing me to go to restaurants that I don't
enjoy by forcing the owner of these establishments to not choose whether
to allow it or not.

In NY, they banned smoking in bars. The owner is responsible for
enforcement so they "rent" ashtrays for a $1 and save up the collected
money to pay the fines. I overwhelming majority of their customers smoke.

Most studies that I have read actually show that smokers eat out
substantially more often and spend more money. The reason they try to
ban smoking exclusively is to make sure that the restaurants don't lose
this lucrative segment of their business. Those lingering smokers are
usually buying high profit drinks and additional food items. They also
generally do NOT have a bunch of low profit kids with the extra cleanup
time and costs.

Unlike the other poster, I usually see smoking sections filled and with
non-smoking empty seats on the other side.

As I stated, I am glad non-smokers have places. I just don't want to be
forced to consort with their kind by the state...... <grin>

My family does not have predispositions to health problems from smoking.
The vast majority live to their 90s and many well past a hundred and
they smoked.. My great grandfather died at 108 and his wife at 106 a few
months later. He died of viral pneumonia. With the shot, who knows how
long he would have lived. My great grandmother obviously gave up after
he died. They were married over 90 years. This on my father's side. My
mother's parents both lived over 100.

The two oldest people recorded were both smokers, both male and female.
The lady, Jeanne Calment, 122 years old, gave up smoking at 120
because she lost her sight and was too proud to ask someone to light her
up!! Shigechiyo Izumi, the man, died at 120 years of age; he also
smoked. The Japanese have the highest life span on the planet and they
also have a very high rate of smokers, in fact, the majority of men
there smoke and a large percentage of women do also.

==================================================
Life Expectancy top 15
(years) Smokers Prevalence
(percentages)
1. Iceland 76.6 (1994) 31.0 (1994)
2. Japan 76.5 (1994) 59.0 (1994)
3. Costa Rica 75.9 (1994) 35.0 (1988)
. Israel 75.9 (1994) 45.0 (1990)
5. Sweden 75.5 (1994) 22.0 (1994)
6. Greece 75.2 (1994) 46.0 (1994)
7. Switzerland 74.8 (1994) 36.0 (1992)
8. Netherlands 74.7 (1994) 36.0 (1994)
. Canada 74.7 (1994) 31.0 (1991)
. Cuba 74.7 (1994) 49.3 (1990)
11. Australia 74.5 (1994) 29.0 (1993)
. Spain 74.5 (1994) 48.0 (1993)
. Malta 74.5 (1994) 40.0 (1992)
14. Italy 74.4 (1994) 38.0 (1994)
15. France 74.3 (1994) 40.0 (1993)

US added for comparison
... USA 72.6 (1994) 28.1 (1991)

[Ernie]

I think that if someone can't do without a cigarette for the, what 2 hours
time, that a liesurely dinner might take - just maybe they have some kind of
a problem.

eco

Post by Rick Russell

Post by Becca
Since I do not smoke, I am for the ban on smoking in restaurants. I was

I do not smoke, but I am for allowing private business owners to make
their own choices. As long as customers and employees are fully
informed of their choices, I have no problem with smoking-allowed
restaurants.
Rick R.

[Kelly Younger]

Post by Ernie
I think that if someone can't do without a cigarette for the, what 2 hours
time, that a liesurely dinner might take - just maybe they have some kind of
a problem.

In Louisiana many restaurants don't even have no-smoking sections. I've
seen people there smoke WHILE they were eating. How truly disgusting.

[Jack Tyler]

Post by Kelly Younger

Post by Ernie
I think that if someone can't do without a cigarette for the, what 2 hours
time, that a liesurely dinner might take - just maybe they have some kind of
a problem.

In Louisiana many restaurants don't even have no-smoking sections. I've
seen people there smoke WHILE they were eating. How truly disgusting.
--
Kelly Younger

I watched my former father-in-law (in Louisiana) eat corn on the cob at a
catfish restaurant, holding it with both hands with a cigarette between two
of the fingers on his right hand.

Jack

[vonroach]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:31:38 GMT, "Jack Tyler"

Post by Jack Tyler
I watched my former father-in-law (in Louisiana) eat corn on the cob at a
catfish restaurant, holding it with both hands with a cigarette between two
of the fingers on his right hand.
Jack

Hell Jack, I think I could do that with a little practice.

[Jack Tyler]

Post by vonroach
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:31:38 GMT, "Jack Tyler"

Post by Jack Tyler
I watched my former father-in-law (in Louisiana) eat corn on the cob at a
catfish restaurant, holding it with both hands with a cigarette between two
of the fingers on his right hand.
Jack

Hell Jack, I think I could do that with a little practice.

As I understand it (I've never tried a cigarette), "most" smokers smoke only
before, or after their meals. My ex-father-in-law was the only person I was
ever around who smoked all through the meal. I think, maybe, that's the
smoke vs. non-smoke rub in a nutshell. If we all started eating at the same
time in a restaurant.... and finished at the same time (like a banquet),
non-smokers would be offered the same courtesy that smokers allow
themselves..... no smoke during the meal.

As far as eating corn-on-the-cob is concerned, I could never do that without
serious injury, as my nose is too big.

Jack

[WT Stull]

Post by Kelly Younger
In Louisiana many restaurants don't even have no-smoking sections. I've
seen people there smoke WHILE they were eating....... How truly

disgusting.
-

Post by Kelly Younger
Kelly Younger

Stull exclaims: My kind of place!

and parenthetically (Spare me any invective or harsh language my comment
stirs. Reasoned rejoinder accepted as always, though.)

{/ begin off meds rant}
I am a Darwinist of sorts believing given the current state of reasoning
among the "safety at all costs" crowd, wolves and bears should be extinct.
I believe those who wish should be able to open a "Smoking Required"
business and hire only those who are not bothered by smoke and smokers and
tolerate only those customers who do not whine. The market will decide what
business survives.

The Dallas Cowboys do not hire me because I would be squashed like a bug
during the first 3 plays in practice. To require them to hire me because of
some egalatarian fiction of equal opportunity is ludicrous.

The current smoking wars are a specious attempt to legislate morality and
approved behaviour.

Next they'll be telling you you can't have a business in your home even if
there is no traffic impact locally; or maybe telling you what color to paint
your house and what plants are "approved in your Shepherd's neighborhood".
They say it is to protect property values but it is just another rule to
homogenize our culture.

Give me a mall with something other than a B Daltons , a Foley Bros outlet,
a Sears and a host of "Fast Food Du Jouor" cubicles.

I spend about $700-1000 per month on food outside my home and I try to not
patronize establishments without smoking sections and those who do not
relegate smokers to some outdoor patio. Why arent the fresh air lovers out
there getting the plates blown off their table.

I choose to not eat in the same place with whiny weasels with some sort of
entitlement fetish believing they must have the world their Burger King Way.
I won't eat in your places please don't eat in mine. There's enough room
for us all without you requiring me to accomodate you eventhough you might
not show up that particuler night. The staff could be segregated also.

I know! Howz bout MWF are smoking nights and TThSat are non smoking nights
and sunday smoking is tolerated alternate hours.

I want to sit in the "No Dynamite" section please. Pat those bastards down
in the corner. They have cell phones, 4 clove garlic breath and their momma
dresses them funny and I want to be protected from having to look at them.

If you want to stay away from smoke do so. Just give me a place to do my
thing. You are not entitled to attend my BBQ just because you heard the
food was good eventhough I'm charging $27 a plate plus beverages.

{/end off meds rant}

[vonroach]

Post by WT Stull
I am a Darwinist of sorts believing given the current state of reasoning
among the "safety at all costs" crowd, wolves and bears should be extinct.
I believe those who wish should be able to open a "Smoking Required"
business and hire only those who are not bothered by smoke and smokers and
tolerate only those customers who do not whine. The market will decide what
business survives.

I'll be damned before I let them force me to sit close to you -smoking
or not. You just sit with your wolves and bears.

[Jack Sloan]

Post by vonroach
I'll be damned before I let them force me to sit close to you -smoking
or not. You just sit with your wolves and bears.

And speaking of animals...this thread may have gone farther than the dreaded
"dogs in eating establishments" of a couple of years ago.
Jack

[Kelly Younger]

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Kelly Younger
In Louisiana many restaurants don't even have no-smoking sections. I've
seen people there smoke WHILE they were eating....... How truly

disgusting.
-

Post by Kelly Younger
Kelly Younger

Stull exclaims: My kind of place!
and parenthetically (Spare me any invective or harsh language my comment
stirs. Reasoned rejoinder accepted as always, though.)
{/ begin off meds rant}
I am a Darwinist of sorts believing given the current state of reasoning
among the "safety at all costs" crowd, wolves and bears should be extinct.
I believe those who wish should be able to open a "Smoking Required"
business and hire only those who are not bothered by smoke and smokers and
tolerate only those customers who do not whine. The market will decide what
business survives.
The Dallas Cowboys do not hire me because I would be squashed like a bug
during the first 3 plays in practice. To require them to hire me because of
some egalatarian fiction of equal opportunity is ludicrous.
The current smoking wars are a specious attempt to legislate morality and
approved behaviour.
Next they'll be telling you you can't have a business in your home even if
there is no traffic impact locally; or maybe telling you what color to paint
your house and what plants are "approved in your Shepherd's neighborhood".
They say it is to protect property values but it is just another rule to
homogenize our culture.
Give me a mall with something other than a B Daltons , a Foley Bros outlet,
a Sears and a host of "Fast Food Du Jouor" cubicles.
I spend about $700-1000 per month on food outside my home and I try to not
patronize establishments without smoking sections and those who do not
relegate smokers to some outdoor patio. Why arent the fresh air lovers out
there getting the plates blown off their table.
I choose to not eat in the same place with whiny weasels with some sort of
entitlement fetish believing they must have the world their Burger King Way.
I won't eat in your places please don't eat in mine. There's enough room
for us all without you requiring me to accomodate you eventhough you might
not show up that particuler night. The staff could be segregated also.
I know! Howz bout MWF are smoking nights and TThSat are non smoking nights
and sunday smoking is tolerated alternate hours.
I want to sit in the "No Dynamite" section please. Pat those bastards down
in the corner. They have cell phones, 4 clove garlic breath and their momma
dresses them funny and I want to be protected from having to look at them.
If you want to stay away from smoke do so. Just give me a place to do my
thing. You are not entitled to attend my BBQ just because you heard the
food was good eventhough I'm charging $27 a plate plus beverages.
{/end off meds rant}

Invective? Harsh language? No way! I'm on your side. And I always enjoy
your rants, be they "on" or "off" meds.

But, anyone who plays for the Dullass Cowgirls gets what he
deserves...squashed.

Oh, by the way it's "Acadia".

[WT Stull]

Mr. Kelly Younger correctly notes, eventhough he may have missed or

Post by Kelly Younger
Oh, by the way it's "Acadia".

Stull explains: My intention was a contraction of the term "Acadian" and
"arcane".
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Regards,

WT Stull ***@galvestonbay.net or ***@ev1.net

"We are, after all, professionals" - HST

Post by Kelly Younger

Post by Albert Nurick

Post by Kelly Younger
In Louisiana many restaurants don't even have no-smoking sections. I've
seen people there smoke WHILE they were eating....... How truly

disgusting.
-

Post by Kelly Younger
Kelly Younger

Stull exclaims: My kind of place!

<snip>

[vonroach]

Post by Kelly Younger
In Louisiana many restaurants don't even have no-smoking sections. I've
seen people there smoke WHILE they were eating. How truly disgusting.

True and drink that vile coffee all at the same time!

[Jack Tyler]

Post by vonroach

Post by Kelly Younger
In Louisiana many restaurants don't even have no-smoking sections. I've
seen people there smoke WHILE they were eating. How truly disgusting.

True and drink that vile coffee all at the same time!

Community Dark Roast is the ONLY real man's coffee (unless you want to
consider French Market Chicory)..

Jack

[vonroach]

Post by Ernie
I think that if someone can't do without a cigarette for the, what 2 hours
time, that a liesurely dinner might take - just maybe they have some kind of
a problem.

Any thoughts on what it might be?

[Jack Tyler]

Post by vonroach

Post by Ernie
I think that if someone can't do without a cigarette for the, what 2 hours
time, that a liesurely dinner might take - just maybe they have some kind of
a problem.

Any thoughts on what it might be?

I do. If they are ever extremely ill and have to be on oxygen, they will
only have two hours to live.

Jack

[Jack Tyler]

Post by Becca
Since I do not smoke, I am for the ban on smoking in restaurants. I was
in Florida 2 years ago when they banned smoking in restaurants. It seemed
to go over well.
From what I recall, smoking is banned in Dallas restaurants. I wonder why
Houston is so slow to change.
Becca

I was in Dallas months ago for a Texas Restaurant Association function and
had the opportunity to see that one in action. It is different from a lot
of others around the nation, in that the restaurateur is not ticketed or
punished for his non-enforcement... the patron gets the ticket. Most
owners/managers will not say anything to offend the smoking customer and
leave it up to other patrons to complain.... and even call the police. I
believe the fine for first offense is around $100.00 and the second offense
is around $250.00 (I'm not sure of those fines... it's been a year).

The only way for a ban to work and to have the support of both the patrons
and the restaurants is:

1. The restaurant MUST be responsible for enforcement. Otherwise there
is no incentive to comply.

2. The law MUST be for the entire greater Houston area, including
Sugarland, Woodlands, Kemah, etc. Restaurateurs will not support any bill
that drives diners to a nearby bedroom community.

Jack Tyler

[K. Collier]

Post by Jack Tyler

Post by Becca
Since I do not smoke, I am for the ban on smoking in restaurants. I was
in Florida 2 years ago when they banned smoking in restaurants. It seemed
to go over well.
From what I recall, smoking is banned in Dallas restaurants. I wonder why
Houston is so slow to change.
Becca

I was in Dallas months ago for a Texas Restaurant Association function and
had the opportunity to see that one in action. It is different from a lot
of others around the nation, in that the restaurateur is not ticketed or
punished for his non-enforcement... the patron gets the ticket. Most
owners/managers will not say anything to offend the smoking customer and
leave it up to other patrons to complain.... and even call the police. I
believe the fine for first offense is around $100.00 and the second offense
is around $250.00 (I'm not sure of those fines... it's been a year).
The only way for a ban to work and to have the support of both the patrons
1. The restaurant MUST be responsible for enforcement. Otherwise there
is no incentive to comply.
2. The law MUST be for the entire greater Houston area, including
Sugarland, Woodlands, Kemah, etc. Restaurateurs will not support any bill
that drives diners to a nearby bedroom community.
Jack Tyler

Well seeing how Houston cannot impose a law on other cities, I see this one
not flying as you envision Jack.
I smoke cigars, but not while eating. Otherwise I consider cigarette smoking
to be vile and unhealthy. I frequent restaurants where there is a true
separation between smoking and non-smoking sections.
However, I support the right of the establishment owner to do as they wish
with regard to tobacco. As for employees - if you don't like the smoke, get
a job somewhere else.

Kevin

[Albert Nurick]

Post by K. Collier
As for employees - if you don't like the
smoke, get a job somewhere else.

I think the coal mine owners would have loved this mindset. :-/ IMO, one
of the great strides we've made in human rights is in the area of workplace
conditions, and that should apply to hospitality workers as well.

[Bubba]

Post by Becca
From what I recall, smoking is banned in Dallas restaurants. I wonder why
Houston is so slow to change.

Houston, more than most large cities, seems reluctant to enact restrictions
which would impact the bottom line of ANY business.



Depending on how the smoking ban is written and implemented and what sort of
coverage it includes, it could chase away a few customers.



I stopped smoking fifteen years ago. However, when I was smoking, I would
have driven an extra 20 or 30 miles if it took that to find a place where I
could smoke during a meal. I wasn't fussy about what I ate . . . or what I
smoked for that matter. I was willing to puff on whatever my wife bought
when she did the shopping. (It's an interesting experience being the only
guy on an offshore drill rig smoking Virginia Slims.) Today, I would take
the additional mileage if that is what it would take to eat at a place that
serves alcohol.



I personally find smoking disgusting (I don't like kids in restaurants
either), but remember when it was a priority issue. Expect smokers to
become very vocal on this issue.

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Bubba
However, when I was smoking, I
would have driven an extra 20 or 30 miles if it took that to find a
place where I could smoke during a meal. I wasn't fussy about what I
ate . . . or what I smoked for that matter. I was willing to puff on
whatever my wife bought when she did the shopping. (It's an
interesting experience being the only guy on an offshore drill rig
smoking Virginia Slims.)

It never ceases to amaze me how powerful the addiction can be, yet people
still take up smoking voluntarily.

[Jeremy]

Post by Becca
Since I do not smoke, I am for the ban on smoking in restaurants. I was
in Florida 2 years ago when they banned smoking in restaurants. It
seemed to go over well.
From what I recall, smoking is banned in Dallas restaurants. I wonder
why Houston is so slow to change.
Becca

One of the major reasons is the economics. People who smoke, often
linger and drink after a meal when smoking is allowed. When it is banned
they tend to go home and have their coffee, brandy and a cigar at home,
where they are comfortable and allowed to indulge.

With modern technology, airwalls, positive pressure systems and smoke
eaters, there is only the economic aspect of installing the equipment to
consider. Where it has been made mandatory instead of a citywide ban,
the non-smoking restaurants tend to complain very loudly that it is
unfair.

I smoke, a couple of cigarettes a day and a cigar or two a week. I do
not like smoke while I am eating, but tend to go to a place where I can
smoke for dessert, coffee, a couple of ports or brandies after a
nonsmoking dinner environment. As this revenue is lost to the
non-smoking place, and a very high mark-up, the net effect is to
financially hurt the non-smoking place. Not being able to afford to lose
their high revenue sales, it makes sense to push for a ban.

The myth that there is this huge pool of nonsmokers sitting at home
ready to flood the restaurants when the bans are enforced, is so
hilarious that complaints from the thousands of service industry jobs
lost are lost in the laughter.

JJ

[Jack Tyler]

"Jeremy" <***@dcnet2000.com> wrote in message news:***@dcnet2000.com...
<snip>>

Post by Jeremy
The myth that there is this huge pool of nonsmokers sitting at home
ready to flood the restaurants when the bans are enforced, is so
hilarious that complaints from the thousands of service industry jobs
lost are lost in the laughter.
JJ

Agreed.... however, results of the ban in other cities anso point out that
it's a myth that smokers will stop eating out if they cannot smoke during
their meal. They DO, however, not linger and spend money on after dinner
drinks.... they jump into the car and light up.

Jack

[Jack Tyler]

Post by Becca
Since I do not smoke, I am for the ban on smoking in restaurants. I was
in Florida 2 years ago when they banned smoking in restaurants. It seemed
to go over well.
From what I recall, smoking is banned in Dallas restaurants. I wonder why
Houston is so slow to change.
Becca

While smoking is banned in Dallas restaurants, it is "disallowed with a
"wink and a nod". The police department and District Attorney have admitted
that they will be slow to enforce it and that prosecutions will be rare.
The main problem with it is that enforcement is left up to offended patrons,
not the restaurant owner or manager. Since the restaurant owners are not
fined for allowing the offences, most have admitted that they would probably
not turn in a customer who is not offensive in any other way. The only
calls to the police, with very few exceptions, are from other customers....
and they have admitted that they were hesitant to do so. The only way that a
smoking ban can work is for the restaurant to be fined for not enforcing it.
There were two people smoking in a restaurant that I dined at in Dallas
earlier this year and they continued all evening. They were in the bar,
which was separated from dining tables by a four foot tall wall.

Jack

[Albert Nurick]

Post by Jack Tyler
While smoking is banned in Dallas restaurants, it is "disallowed with
a "wink and a nod". The police department and District Attorney have
admitted that they will be slow to enforce it and that prosecutions
will be rare. The main problem with it is that enforcement is left up
to offended patrons, not the restaurant owner or manager. Since the
restaurant owners are not fined for allowing the offences, most have
admitted that they would probably not turn in a customer who is not
offensive in any other way. The only calls to the police, with very
few exceptions, are from other customers.... and they have admitted
that they were hesitant to do so. The only way that a smoking ban can
work is for the restaurant to be fined for not enforcing it. There
were two people smoking in a restaurant that I dined at in Dallas
earlier this year and they continued all evening. They were in the
bar, which was separated from dining tables by a four foot tall wall.

The Dallas regulation is worthless. Typical bureaucracy, typical Dallas:
Form over function.

[vonroach]

Post by Albert Nurick
Form over function.

But..but..bureaucracy and socialist control and regulation are so
fashionable these days.