Smoking ban extended to bars and pool halls in Corpus Christi

[BacktoBasics]

The only thing these bans show is the that the majority of Americans feel they have a right to dictate their terms onto a business owner because they feel they have a right to go eat at Chilis or go have a drink at Billys pool hall and not smell like smoke. Sure, they could opt to simply not go and end up not smelling like smoke, but instead they use the fact that they represent a majority to override the rights of the business owner.

These are private establishments, and this is not public property. People use those terms incorrectly a ton here. Simply because a private establishment allows you in does not mean they are public.

As much as I agree with this and as much as I agree that they have no right dictate behavior in any establishment PERIOD I have to reconcile myself to understanding that its not necessarily a bad thing with places that cater to or have patrons that are minors and aren't afforded the same ability to choose like adults have.

Thats really the line in the sand for me. Even though the line should legally be much further back I'm willing to compromise because adults have proven they're inable to properly care for their own children.

[balli]

These are private establishments, and this is not public property. People use those terms incorrectly a ton here. Simply because a private establishment allows you in does not mean they are public.

Like I said though. In plenty of instances, with plenty of substances, the government has shown no qualms about enforcing bans, even within the confines of private property. So that precedent has been set.

And while you're right that a private establishment is not public, if it's open for business to the general public, it is at least a public venue, if still a private establishment. Which leaves me with questions pertaining to the whole private v. public dichotomy. And so choosing not to make this into a black and white matter, surely I concede the notion of being a public venue complicates things and leads this debate into more murky waters.

[MannyIsGod]

As much as I agree with this and as much as I agree that they have no right dictate behavior in any establishment PERIOD I have to reconcile myself to understanding that its not necessarily a bad thing with places that cater to or have patrons that are minors and aren't afforded the same ability to choose like adults have.

Thats really the line in the sand for me. Even though the line should legally be much further back I'm willing to compromise because adults have proven they're inable to properly care for their own children.

WTF - what minors can't choose where to go?

[MannyIsGod]

Like I said though. In plenty of instances, with plenty of substances, the government has shown no qualms about enforcing bans, even within the confines of private property. So that precedent has been set.

Gee - that must make it right. Nothing you just said contradicts anything I said, btw

And while you're right that a private establishment is not public, but if it's open for business to the general public, it is at least public venue, if still a private establishment. Which leaves me with questions and so choosing not to make this into a black and white matter, surely I concede the notion of being a public venue complicates things and leads this debate into more murky waters.

There's nothing murky. If you don't like smoke, then don't go in. Problem solved, right? Except you think you have a right to go into that place under the conditions you choose, right?

[MannyIsGod]

I think we should enforce a ban of saturated fats in the foods restaurants serve. its a public health hazard.

[BacktoBasics]

WTF - what minors can't choose where to go?

You used to be able to smoke in grocery stores, banks, office buildings and so on. I used to go the Frost building downtown when I was little because thats where my father worked. I hated to walk through the hallways of his floor filled with smoke.

A 5 year old can't choose to not sit down at Chili's with his parents who were seated right next to the smoking sections.

The toddler can't choose to not go to HEB with mom while she does the shopping.

I'm talking about kids here.

[T Park]

On the one hand, I agree with B2B because I feel like if I want to open a bar called "Smokey's Smoking Bar for Smokers" in downtown Dallas, I should be able to, and I should not have to cater to non-smokers if that's not my clientele. It surprises me that the anti-smoking sentiment is strong enough that these bans can be passed and supported, but it's apparently not strong enough for people to stay away from bars and pool halls where the smoking bothers you, causing enough demand for bar owners to voluntarily ban smoking to attract the non-smoking crowd.

On the other hand, I only smoke when I drink, and I should probably quit doing that, so maybe this will help. And to ChumpDumper's point, the net effect is pretty minimal. People will just smoke outside. But for argument's sake, I think it's still an unnecessary infringement of rights and further example that people need the government to protect them from they don't like and could voluntarily avoid if they really wanted to.

After they are done with smoking, the government will find a new avenue.


God bless bigger government.

[T Park]

I think we should enforce a ban of saturated fats in the foods restaurants serve. its a public health hazard.

Thats where that will start.

Then there will be a banning of red meat, cause its unhealthy and on and on and on.

Its the way the government works, and people that love government getting involved who will be pissed when it happens have no one to blame but themselves.

[MannyIsGod]

You used to be able to smoke in grocery stores, banks, office buildings and so on. I used to go the Frost building downtown when I was little because thats where my father worked. I hated to walk through the hallways of his floor filled with smoke.

A 5 year old can't choose to not sit down at Chili's with his parents who were seated right next to the smoking sections.

The toddler can't choose to not go to HEB with mom while she does the shopping.

I'm talking about kids here.

We should obviously ban sweets then. Because parents can choose to give their kids too much sweets and the kids get fat and unhealthy which is of course not their fault.

[BacktoBasics]

We should obviously ban sweets then. Because parents can choose to give their kids too much sweets and the kids get fat and unhealthy which is of course not their fault.

That would work if the sweets were given by total strangers in the form of air.

Obviously the parents have some control but I think its far fetched to have to wear a gas mask to shop for cabbage.

I think most are willing to compromise. I'm not completely negating your point though.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm going to go watch some porn for a minute. Hopefully Manny can keep up the fight.

[MannyIsGod]

That would work if the sweets were given by total strangers in the form of air.

Obviously the parents have some control but I think its far fetched to have to wear a gas mask to shop for cabbage.

I think most are willing to compromise. I'm not completely negating your point though.

If by some control you mean all control then yes I agree. Parents can choose to not take their children into a Chili's smoking section or Billy's Pool Hall. They're not required to go there.

There is a of an argument for a work place that sure as isn't present in this argument. In fact, the only legit arguement here would be to argue for the workers of the establishment and that hasn't even been mentioned in this thread because this isn't about people's actual rights.

Its about the majority having their way. Thats all.

[T Park]

If by some control you mean all control then yes I agree. Parents can choose to not take their children into a Chili's smoking section or Billy's Pool Hall. They're not required to go there.

There is a of an argument for a work place that sure as isn't present in this argument. In fact, the only legit arguement here would be to argue for the workers of the establishment and that hasn't even been mentioned in this thread because this isn't about people's actual rights.

Its about the majority having their way. Thats all.

I still see no reason why an establishment couldn't keep a well ventilated smoking section.

It makes no sense to just ban it outright.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Can we please stop calling it a health issue and call it what it really is; an annoyance issue?

[balli]

Gee - that must make it right.

You're right- two wrongs do not make a right. Here's the problem; and I admitted earlier to it being personal. I'm guessing that as an internet gambler, you're pissed about legislation that prohibits gambling. Consequently, you have taken the road in which you view this an outrage and unnecessary infliction that must be retaliated against. It is an issue analogous to smoking bans, which you feel are an unfair infliction on the rights of private establishments.

I on the other hand, am pissed about legislation that prohibits marijuana use. Consequently, I have taken the road where while I view it as an outrage and unnecessary infliction, I am wholly pragmatic about the reality that the legislation exists.

And while it sucks and I think it's wrong, I also think that it basically means the government can do whatever they want with our supposed rights. I am entirely cynical about the limits of personal and private rights at this point. And since that's the case, I'll gladly use such a precedent and argument in favor of

[having] a right to go into that place under the conditions you choose

when it benefits my health and clothing.

[MannyIsGod]

Can we please stop calling it a health issue and call it what it really is; an annoyance issue?

Exactly. If people were really concerned with health in this country would we all be a bunch of fat fast food eating s? No.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Exactly. If people were really concerned with health in this country would we all be a bunch of fat fast food eating s? No.

Yeah, that and the second hand smoke scare is complete bull .

[MannyIsGod]

You're right- two wrongs do not make a right. Here's the problem; and I admitted earlier to it being personal. I'm guessing that as an internet gambler, you're pissed about legislation that prohibits gambling. Consequently, you have taken the road in which you view this an outrage and unnecessary infliction that must be retaliated against. It is an issue analogous to smoking bans, which you feel are an unfair infliction on the rights of private establishments.

I on the other hand, am pissed about legislation that prohibits marijuana use. Consequently, I have taken the road where while I view it as an outrage and unnecessary infliction, yet I am wholly pragmatic about the reality that the legislation exists.

And while it sucks and I think it's wrong, I also think that it basically means the government can do whatever they want with our supposed rights. I am entirely cynical about the limits personal and private rights at this point. And since that's the case, I'll gladly use such precedent and argument in favor of

LOL @ you eating fighting for a smoking ban being the same as opposing bans on (allegedly) unlawful internet gambling. Do you see how this is so oxymoronic?

Just as long as you admit it has everything to do with what you want over the actual rights of a person. You don't give a about anyone's rights but your own. I don't smoke, I hate smelling like smoke. Guess what? I don't go to bars anymore. I don't sit in smoking sections. I avoid that . That doesnt' mean I'm going to support some bull city ordinances that are just about assholes wanting to have THEIR way instead of simply enacting a choice.

when it benefits my health and clothing.

Much easier to have the government enact your way instead of simply not going to these places. I mean , who doesn't have the right to go to Billy's Pool hall after dinner at Chilis and have the air the way THEY want it? Go home instead? that!

[balli]

You don't give a about anyone's rights but your own.

That's not true. You're completely missing the point that I challenge the notion of rights existing at all.

I think our rights are whatever the government say are our rights, in which case they aren't really rights at all, but imposed allowances... or dis-allowances. And philosophically, while I don't think it's right, I think it's the system we got. And under this system, in which it seems like the government can do whatever the they want, I see no reason on a legal or rights based line of reasoning, that would lead me to conclude that the government doesn't have the power or precedent to enforce smoking bans.

[ploto]

I am all for people's rights, but smoking is not a right and hence its exercise can be limited by the government. Driving is not a right and the government can tell you when you can and can not drive and under what cir stances.

[I Love Me Some Me]

I am all for people's rights, but smoking is not a right and hence its exercise can be limited by the government. Driving is not a right and the government can tell you when you can and can not drive and under what cir stances.

[balli]

I am all for people's rights, but smoking is not a right and hence its exercise can be limited by the government.

Exactly. It is an allowance.

[MannyIsGod]

I guess life is an allowance too because governments around the world take that away when they see fit - even the US government.

I don't think you guys understand the meaning of the word right.

[BacktoBasics]

No but the ability to allow smoking in your establishment is a right.

[balli]

We're at an impasse. This is what I meant about being entirely cynical.

I guess life is an allowance too because governments around the world take that away when they see fit - even the US government.

Yes. Pretty much. I think most of us are just pawns in a ed up world.

Peace out.