The oldest town in Texas joins the growing movement to prohibit smoking in most public places, including outdoor patios.
Effective Tuesday, July 1, smoking in all of Nacogdoches’ public buildings, workplaces, offices, bars and restaurants will be prohibited, punishable by a fine up to $2,000 in municipal court. With the new law in place, Nacogdoches joins other East Texas communities like Marshall and Tyler and at least 20 states that have banned public smoking in the name of health.
Private homes, fraternal organizations, tobacco retail stores and a percentage of hotel and nursing home rooms are excepted from the law, but all other businesses, including their outdoor patios and areas 20 feet from public entrances, must comply with the ordinance.
Ah, I can already breathe easier!
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
74 Responses to “Nacogdoches Goes Smoke Free”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Breathe easier, live less free.
I am a non-smoker and a non-drinker, but I feel sorry for the smokers. What’s next - can’t eat a hamburger in front of a child? Will that be too traumatizing or set a bad example? Maybe we’ll be forbidden to wear t-shirts with conservative messages on them, because EVERYONE knows how bad and evil conservatives are! Or maybe drinking outside the home will be forbidden. Just close the bars - can’t drink, can’t smoke, let’s just eliminate any personal pleasure. Oh - wait - unlimited sex and personal gratification without responsibility is allowed.
You can take little children to the big gay event in San Francisco, where men masturbate in public and sex is on display - that’s okay. Just don’t smoke while you do it.
/spits
I have mixed feeling on this. Being from Utah I am used to smoking being banned in most public places and I know for a fact that business in restaurants does not suffer because of it. As a non-smoker I do love not having to explain to the host at the restaurant that when I say “non-smoking” I mean sit me as far away from that foul odor as possible.
I’m of mixed feelings on this too. I hate smoking and smokers stink. I also have lung problems from the first Gulf War, so any bar/club/public place where smoking is allowed just kills me.
But I can ALSO see the other side, what will they “ban” next?
The other thing to think about is this. This IS a local issue and can and should be decided by each locality. I really hope the Fed’s don’t get involved, that will just ruin it for everyone. If a locality doesn’t like the no-smoking bans, then they can elect people who will make smoking legal again.
#3 is spot-on! This is a local issue and locals should decide it. Let’s all try to get the fed juggernaught back in control and lets use the constitution as the leash on the feds it was designed to be and that includes the courts.
Individuals have a choice as to whether to go into a place that allows smoking or not. Businesses should also be able to chose who they cater to. Any government that is perhaps currently controled by those who hold a strong view pass regulations that can restrict freedoms for other for years after those officials have moved on. Any law that states you cannot do something that is personal is bad law. These laws are liked being nibbled to death by ducks.
I don’t like smoking, either. It is killing my father slowly, and he won’t quit even though he has to keep oxygen close by. I don’t like sitting near smokers when eating, and I don’t allow smoking in my home or car because I hate the smell. I have family members who smoke, and I am fearful of their future.
However, I fear even more a government that takes away our freedoms.
5 Canuk
I agree, If I owned a business and they passed a law changing who I catered to, I would be enraged. I don’t smoke (maybe a cigar now and then) but have friends that do. We always end up at places that allow smoking. You don’t have to go if you don’t like smoke. It’s a choice.
tedtam, davewolfgang, Bonecrusher and crazy canuk,
My thoughts exactly. I’ve never smoked and I hated working in a Lab with two guys that smoked constantly. I had to change clothes and shower as soon as I got home or my wife wouldn’t get near me.
But a Bar Restaurant should be able to let the market decide the issue, NOT Big Brother. Same with adults and helmets/seat belts. I never ride a bike without a helmet and always wear seat belts, but it’s no ones business if I choose not to.
tedtam
That might be valid if the mere sight of a hamburger caused obesity. No kid ever got fat watching somebody else eat. Conversely, many people get sick and suffer as a result of someone else’s smoke.
Or not - it’s your choice. That’s not the case with secondhand smoke in public places.
BTW - I smoke about a pack a year plus the occasional cigar, but I do it on my back porch well away from the public. I support the right to chose and take the risk, but I don’t think it’s right to make that choice for other people.
helmets, seatbelts, transfats, smoking, guns, prayer in schools, gambling, beer on the beach, free speach (PC list), anything anti-green, tag at recess, dodge ball, dwarf tossing, naked mud wrestling …
quack,quack. Just think of the things you can no longer do that the government has restricted for your own good.
Tip you bartenders and bar workers well especially during the initial period of the ban. Many bars typically experience a severe drop in revenue, from 30% to 50%. Some never recover. I know, I know, that’s not what the “Studies” say, but it’s the truth.
#10 - The seatbelt law is good for everyone. It protects the person wearing it, and it protects other motorists as well by preventing the wearer from getting tossed from their car and causing other accidents.
Motorcyclists in Texas don’t have to wear helmets last time I checked - I agree with that because there should be no laws against stupidity unless it can hurt others besides the stupid. Adults who let their kids ride bicycles without helmets are idiots.
Seatbelts are there because the ambulance drivers are too lazy to look for the bodies.
Maltboy - my complete hamburger reference was this comment:
If you are going to quote me, quote me accurately. Many of our restrictions are being put in place “because of the children”. When children are being indoctrinated at school about certain evils, it may be possible that someday hamburgers will be the same evils as cigarettes are today. My comment was a sarcastic tongue-in-cheek (kind of) remark.
You missed the point entirely. Whether by accident or not, I may never know. Either way…
Also, my point about the gay event in SF, where little children were paraded about in front of people engaged in public sexual activity, was a poke at the hypocrisy of the left regarding our “welfare”, not at the freedom of choice issue. We must wear seatbelts for our safety. We must buckle in our children, for their safety. But we can let them watch gay sex in the street or public masturbation, and the libs “turn the other cheek”.
Again, you missed the point. On purpose or by accident, yada yada yada….
12. “good for everyone” Anytime I hear rules or regulations, procedures, policies or anything for the “common good”, I get very afraid. The common good results in some of us looking after or paying for those too lazy or incompetent to look after themselves.
Libs have edited the common good by replacing it with “for the children”. We will restrict everyone’s freedom for the children and thereby remove all personal accountability from parents who feed their kids the junk.
When Rita was supposed to stop by the wife went out to pick up a couple of things we were missing, rice, flour, staples. She laughed when she came home saying that there was lots of staples, but you couldn’t find a bag of chips or junk food anywhere in the store.
My view is you cannot legislate stupidity out of the population. Let natural selection take over and the rest of us will be better off.
BTW - I’m not voting in the poll - I agree with neither of the options available.
At least they had the sense to exempt ‘private residences’ So much for the independent. live-free attitiude of a Texan. The PC police have bit another ass.
#17 - yes, they need another set of Yes and No, but with the blurbs switched around.
but but but but it’s “for the children” aint it?
KOFFCHOKESPUTTERPUKE
Common good and liberals…a terrible combination. Be afraid…very afraid.
People with unpopular habits are easy prey for politicians and crusaders. They are few in number and have little defense to government oppression.
Everyone here knows smokers aren’t going to be the last targets. We already see cities trying to regulate the content of a hamburger and plaintiffs’ lawyers suing McDonalds because kids get fat.
By the way, fast food suits started as the cigarette suits did - people laughing at the plaintiffs, telling them this habit was their own choice and they had noone to blame but themselves, and the claims being summarily dismissed. But the passage of a little time, the right judge and jury, and enough do-gooders who want to tell us how to live will change this. Mark my word: the day is not too far off when, like tobacco, we will see multi-million dollar verdicts for those who developed heart disease because they were “addicted” to Big Macs. After that, state attorneys general will, as with tobacco, file their own class action suits to recover for the amount of money paid by the state in medical expenses for obese and diseased patients. The end result will be ruination of an industry and a restriction of choice of consenting and thinking adults - all of which equals a loss of economic and personal freedom.
There is no compelling reason why a restaurant cannot choose whether it will have a smoking section. The market place should decide. To me, private property rights should not be trumped by other customers who want a smoke-free environment: those folks are free to visit another restaurant with policies more to their liking. Same goes for workers: Noone is forced to work in a restaurant or smoking bar.
This is nothing more than the Nanny State at work.
As for the smell, well, I’ve been around too many folks who don’t smoke yet emit pretty noxious odors. After each visit to our favorite Mexican restaurant, the first thing we do is put the odorific clothes (taco redux, anyone?) in the hamper for the dry cleaners. And, on the wrong days, my sense of smell - and my lungs - are assaulted by our petroleum-rich Houston air.
Hopefully, though, the do-gooders won’t be banning stinky people, Mexican restaurants, and cars and oil refineries any time soon.
They’ll have to pry my cold, dead fingers from my taco al carbon and margarita!
Well said, RickG.
Well said RickG. Smoking is bad, but not as bad as stomping on the rights of property owners.
The nutrition enforcement division division of the nanny state is already hard at work.
I’m all for an informed consumer as a crucial part of a free market, but these proposals amount to an expensive disadvantage for even the smallest restaurant chain, while simply tell the consumer what they already know, that a half-pound chili bacon cheese burger dripping with tasty grease and mayo is not a good choice for couch potatoes.
#36 - You are defending your position on a specific subject (seatbelt requirement) by making broad generalizations about liberty that have little to do with the subject of road safety.
My point is this:
Seatbelts save lives. Sometimes they save lives of other motorists who would be involved in a secondary accident if the first driver wasn’t wearing one. Ergo, by not wearing a seatbelt, a driver is endangering the lives of other motorists. As soon as individual stupidity encroaches on the safety of others, individuals should be required, by law, to demonstrate reasonable behavior for the public good.
You have not provided one piece of evidence to support your position that seatbelts are not for the common good. Just lame arguments about being afraid. I’m afraid of people who confuse their liberty with lack of common sense and disregard for public safety.
I thought a half-pound chili bacon cheese burger dripping with tasty grease and mayo was good for you, as long as it does not contain transfats?
Oops! That was for #16
Maltboy!,
Sure, seat belts save lives. As do bike helmets (also on the nanny state list).
So would requiring life jackets for all swimmers. And training wheels for all bicyclists. Or banning public drinking. Give me a compelling reason not to ban these things as well.
tedtam - you missed my point too. There is a difference between easily avoidable (gay parades and bad food) and practically unavoidable (secondhand smoke). Secondhand smoke has to do with misuse and pollution of a common resource (the air) whereas the latter two don’t affect me if I look away. I have the choice whether to watch queers as I chow down on a footlong chili dog. I don’t have a choice whether to breathe while in public.
And I oppose any laws that infringe on my right to keep and bear Big Macs, but I would like to know how many calories is in one before I buy it.
RickG
Last I read, B.O./food odor wasn’t identified as a carcinogen, and cars/refineries were strictly regulated regarding emissions. Some evils (pollution caused by driving and manufacturing) are necessary and unavoidable in an industrialized society. Some (secondhand smoke) are unnecessary and controllable.
McDonald’s publishes the nutritional analysis of their products “voluntarily.”
#30 Your Big Mac has about 540 calories. Of course, if the pimple face teenager that prepares it puts on too much “special sauce” McDonalds could be sued by the food police.
#29 Let’s not play the bait-and switch game like our liberal friends like to do. I want to finish this particular subject first, then I’ll be happy to slice your argument to pieces. But not until you or someone else can provide a coherent argument that wearing seatbelts is a stupid law that does nothing but infringe upon individual liberty. You can’t do it.
32 - I was speaking loosely. I would also like to know how many calories are in other restaurant food as well. I don’t buy the crap about this being a huge burden either. There are standard caloric content tables for every basic food ingredient, and all the restaurants would need to do is add all the calories for all the ingredients that go into a particular menu item and divide it by the number of portions in a batch. One person could do an entire menu, compile the list, and post it in less than a day. It should be (and is) easy enough to do.
26 Maltboy: The larger topic is who decides what is the common good. Some local elected official with a favorite beef, somebody who had something bad happen so wants to restrict everybody (Brady Bill), MADD, Greenpiece, PETA, QX, DDAM, the Shave the Whales group, Al Gore… My point is a small vocal minority speaking for the common good, usually theirs, expects everyone else to KowTow to them and remove our freedom to chose. If I want to bigmac, smoke, get fat, wear spandix (OK, getting carried away there) as long as I only affect myself it should be up to me. I know as many non smokers with cancer as I do smokers and at the risk of seeing upteen pages of research will state that there is still decension as to whether second hand smoke is hazardous. Life is hazardous.
22: I agree, nibbled to death by ducks. Who is next?
Just for info: having a drivers license to be able to drive on State/City/County roads is NOT a “right”. You have to prove you have the ability to drive following the law and rules of the road (yeah, yeah…I know some need to go back to this course!!). They “may” set any rules they want that a majority of the public deems appropriate.
If a majority of the public doesn’t like any restrictions of this, they may elect other officials to change this.
The only “right” you have to get from one place or another is your two feet. Peroid.
#34 Maltboy, I agree, and nothing is stopping a restaurant from doing it.
The food police are mandating very expensive nutritional analysis of the end product, not the ingredients.
#35 - If you choose to believe, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that secondhand smoke is not harmful, then that is your right. You also probably believe that smoking isn’t harmful either. However, you are in the minority on both issues, and last I checked, the majority of the people think it’s harmful and don’t want to breathe it.
I think we can chalk this one up to what I call the “Law of Annoyance”.
Basically, it states that if you annoy enough people long enough, they are gonna pass a law on your annoying butt in an attempt to stop you from being annoying. They may rant about safety, or health, or taxes, or whatever, but it’s about annoyance.
When the first facts hit the public about smoking’s dangers, a LOT of people quit. As more and more bad effects were found, like links to heart and vessel disease, more people quit, and more people didn’t start.
After a decade or so, all you have left are the kids that think they know better and hard core smokers, people either so addicted or so convinced that it’s “their right” to smoke that they have almost no consideration for themselves or others. And here’s where we hit the gravel.
I’ve been seated in a non-smoking section, gotten served my food just in time for some low-brow to light up behind me, smoking like a marsh fire, thumping ashes into his empty plate or glass. When asked for some consideration, these people are usually quite eloquent, mostly tell you to “F.O.”, or something more provocative, often involving some homo-erotic fantasy they are dealing with.
Point being, not all smokers are like this, but enough of them were, and they annoyed enough people that they are now finding themselves legislated against. Have fun smoking outside all you bung-holes, you did it to yourselves. You don’t have a right to force others to smoke. Be glad Big Tobacco has a lot of your money to spend, or tobacco would be outlawed, and you’d be jonesing and driving down to Mexico to get a fix.
Now, on to the *boom* stereos . . . .
I know smokers that won’t smoke in their own homes or cars. They won’t light up in a restaurant, they’ll wait until well clear of anyone they might offend. I don’t agree with their choices, but I respect them. In short, they were responsible with their habit, and didn’t impose on others.
And I can promise you, if all smokers had been this way, there would be no movements, no laws, no restrictions. Lack of responsibility breathed life into movements like MADD and the no-smoking groups, and once they get started, there’s never any end.
#37 - I oppose having to do an analysis. Cooking oils is cooking oil. Beef is beef. Flour is flour. You can get a result that’s accurate enough by doing the calculations. I’d bet there’s some labs with paid lobbyists advocating the analysis route. What a crock.
“practically unavoidable (secondhand smoke)”
It’s easy to avoid. Have the owner of the bar/restaurant post a sign, smoking or non.
If it says smoking, then don’t go in there.
39 Slash: I like your definition “The Law of Annoyance”. I also agree smoking bad, seatbelts good.
I also agree that smokers have brought a lot of this on themselves. I also sit in the no smoking section for meals. I also know that I should quit, alas the mind is willing, but the sould is weak.
The original conversation was the general concept of a bunch of little laws restricting freedom in little ways until our freedom is restriced in a large way. We can argue our own specific annoyance laws all day, but hopefully, agree that unless we remain vigilant one day we may wake up with no freedoms at all.
Change enough of the little pictures and eventually you will change the big picture.
#38, actually the SHS smoke issue is not so concrete as the anti-smokers have lead you to believe. Like a lot of science these days, the SHS studies have politicized to fit an agenda.
#41 - What about the wait staff and kitchen help. Don’t they have the right to a safe and healthful workplace free of recognizable hazards under OSHA law?
#42 - I agree with that. We need to be careful. We can have laws that promote the public good without banning the fun stuff outright. There is a right time and place for everything, almost.
#43 - There is obfuscation on both ends of the spectrum. The truth lies somewhere between. I do know for sure what’s in cigarette smoke because I’ve seen the analyses. I do know some of the substances are extremely toxic. There is debate whether they are in significant quantity to increase risk of illness. My education and my observations tell me they do.
42 crazy, I agree that the “attack of the Legislative Ducks” WILL and has eroded our freedoms, but politicians are gonna respond to the “squeaky wheel”, gonna go for the votes, and be able to say next election they are “sensitive to my constituent’s needs and values”. That reads “I’ll kiss your booty for a vote, right or wrong.” They have to look like they are doing something, or someone will get their job, and they’ll have to work in the real world again.
So, if you don’t want your liberties to be whittled down, be responsible, and teach your’s to be the same. Because if we aren’t considerate and responsible, someone will be for us.
44: The problem again with doing some things in the name of the common good, carbon emition laws, is that we end up paying for it whether we want it or not. The UN is trying this, Universal health care is another, Trans Texas corridor…
As to Wait Staff they can chose to work in a non smoking environment.
and… who decides what is the fun stuff?
Time to go or I’ll be chatting on my own time, can’t have that
#44 Actually, Second hand smoke falls below the standards set by OSHA. http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html
What’s the big deal here? All my ammo uses smokeless powder. Has for years. If I light one up, it’s gonna hurt alot more than tobacco, lol.
There, that should get noodlehead and gadboy going.
Why is this news? Most people in Nacogdoches CHEW tobacco, not smoke it!
On today’s poll, I wonder how many no votes included non smokers? I fall into that category. I hate cigarette smoke. But I choose where to go, and I don’t want the govt interfering with our lives down to that level.
At Pearl Harbor a couple of weeks ago, my buddy Joe (the one that lost his house in New Orleans and was given a home in a ritzy part of Chicago) and I were walking from the Arizona Memorial building out to our car. I smelled a pipe and located the person smoking it within seconds. I had forgotten just how good pipe tobacco could smell.
Big, me too. I hate cigarette smoke, especially the smell on my clothes.
But…I always sit in the smoking section at my favorite restaurant because there are no screaming kids and I like the people better.
And I love live music, so I go wherever the music is. One night at Katie’s in Bacliff requires a strip in the driveway - can’t even go in the garage for that one!
BigJ, when I was working the clubs, I always put my clothes in the wash as soon as I got home. Had to clean my car regularly too. Still don’t want govt lording it over smokers. Either make the product illegal or leave it alone.
#51 LOL.Then they have to contend w/ 2nd hand spit. In highschool worked as a cashier in a place like Walmart. Had a customer spill his spit cup on my register belt. Disgusting!
I’m a die hard smoker (and fully understand my death will be hard). But I try to be considerate of the non-smokers around me and understand their distain for us. Don’t blame ‘em a bit.
There is a confusion of issues and questions here.
If I own a piece of property and decide to open a business serving food, I have every right to dictate what kind of habits, healthy or otherwise, my customers may wish to indulge. I should be able to state my restaurant is a smoking restaurant and customers are free to smoke anywhere they want to light up. I might also restrict tobacco to cigars only - no cigarettes and no pipes.
By the same token, I may decide to prohibit tobacco use of all types. It is my right to do so and it is also the right of anyone to decline to patronize my establishment. No one forces people to come to my restaurant, least of all me. Therefore, I should have the liberty to moderate what happens on my premises as long as those behaviors are not criminal in nature.
I also, as an eating establishmant may choose to cater to the clientele who are very conscious about their calorie, fat or cholesterol intake. In that case, I will make every accomodation to provide detailed data on the chemical content of each of my dishes. However, I may decide to serve nothing but steaks and fried seafood to customers who could not care less what the caloric intake will be for any dish served. It is my right, and not the government’s, not a nanny state’s, to determine what I will provide my patrons in terms of information. If Maltboy wants detailed nutitional analysis of my menu and I don’t want to provide it, he is free to choose another place to eat.
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege with all the requirements employed by authorities to guarantee drivers are capable and qualified to operate machinery on open public thoroughfares constructed on publicly owned land with public monies. Operating a motor vehicle does not enjoy the same rights to private behavior and control of private property encoded in our constitution as does the operation of a business. Many people see their vehicles as some extension of their home and assume some sort of castle doctrine protection there. Sorry, it just ain’t so.
Comparing restrictions on safety requirements in a motor vehicle to tobacco use in a private establishment is not a valid debate. The barrier to the invasion of your privacy and the moderating of your behavior in a motor vehicle is very low from a constitutional basis. The bar for invading my private sphere of choices and control on my private property in my business should be much higher than what the public currently finds acceptable.
Amen Texpat!
Texpat, those laws vary from state to state. I don’t know if it still holds, but in Louisiana, your car was considered an extension of your domicile. So you used to be able to carry a firearm anywhere of any type in your car. Now that’s 30 years ago, and I don’t know what’s changed, and Louisiana IS different. But I do wonder how other states view it.
Big45 - as far as smoking, they can’t stop you from smoking in your car, but to operate it on Public roads, that’s what he’s talking about.
Again, comparing the seat belt law to smoking laws is comparing apples to oranges.
#60 BigIron45
Again, I don’t want to confuse the issues here. A Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for personal protection is a separate thing from safety restraints in automobiles or the exercise of liberty in operating a business on private property. Each of those three can be debated and even correlated, but not compared on equal footing.
I know from personal experience how much fun running a business is. Building out a new location is even more fun. There are:
Plumbing codes
Building codes
Fire codes
Handicap accessibility laws
and if you are really lucky:
Zoning Codes.
All of these laws restrict your free use of your business. It effects everything from floor plans to lighting to what kind of door knobs you can use. Every one of them comes out of your pocket.
If you have a restaurant, food temp, kitchen habits, storage, all the way down to employment posters and “Wash yer damn hands” signs are all required by law, and if you don’t comply, they’ll fine you or shut you down.
How is this any different? If a code is passed by the local government saying “No smoking in a business” any different from saying “You can’t butcher your chickens in the kitchen”?
Guys, I’m all for micro-gov, and I also believe that seatbelts and helmet laws are counter-Darwinian, but I’m sticking with my Law of Annoyance: annoying smokers brought this on themselves. Most non-smokers hate eating other people’s smoke.
Well, personally I’d like a perfume ban. I’d also like all bars and restaurants to be chemical-free. And a strict sound level ordinance for live music and jukeboxes. Restaurants should only serve organic foods with a menu approved by nutritional experts. Plus a ban on fat people in restaurants. And more severe restrictions on alcohol consumption in public. And anything else that’s not good for you. All these are justified in terms of Public Health. Other things are regulated in businesses, why not these?
Once we do away with private property rights by calling private businesses “Public Places,” it opens the door to all sorts of restrictions.
This issue with smoking bans is easily resolved: Require businesses to post a sign: Smoking or Non. If you don’t like smoking, simply do not enter. This will save the anti-smokers from going into a Cigar Bar and then having to glare at the smokers.
#63 slash
Like I said, you don’t have to come into my restaurant if I allow unrestricted smoking. If you don’t like smoke, come to my tobacco-free restaurant down the street. If you don’t like fat, ugly people and demand certified chemical analysis of every bite of your food, come to my Nanny State Anally Retentive vegetarian salad bar across the road with the front door bouncer who will determine whether you meet the aesthetic minimum to enter.
Texpat, as far as Louisiana goes, the 2nd Amendment was not the point I was making. The point I was making was the Louisiana law considerer your car an extension of your domicile.
“Nanny State Anally Retentive vegetarian salad bar”
Say, do you mind if I use that name for my new restaurant in Austin?
for some I think they might want to live in Amsterdam. Why isn’t prostitution legal based on all these arguments? Marijuana? Gambling? OK, maybe Nevada is the place to move…
#68 - Nothing should be banned as long as it can be reasonably practiced in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights or safety of others. This includes smoking, drinking, eating, fornicating, shooting guns, and indulging in any illicit substance you so desire. Like I said earlier, there is a right time and a right place for *almost* anything. Slash is right. It’s the idiots who think it’s their right to do whatever they want whenever they want who ruin it for everyone. Thank them for the laws you hate, not the people who were compelled to pass them because a too many people lack common sense, common courtesy, and personal accountability.
Texpat - As I stated above, I think food analysis is a load of crap. But I do know that accurate calorie/fat content can be calculated from existing food data, and it can be done easily. Compared to some of the expensive and time consuming regilations food establishments must follow, this would be a drop in the bucket, and it would also be very useful to people whose health require them to monitor their intake. There’s a good reason why restaurants fight this, and it’s not because of the hassle. They don’t want to tell you because if people actually knew how many calories were in that 12 ounce steak dripping with butter, the side of onion strings, and the huge helping of garlic mashed potatoes all jacked up with margerine and cheese, they might make a decision to eat something less, or even worse, somewhere else.
That being said, I think I’ll go to Whataburger for a double meat and fries.
#69 - I agree with you. I appreciate the no smoking law where I live as I personally am allergic to it. However, I appreciate it as much when a smoker simply shows respect for others rather than just infringing on my rights as a non smoker. If everyone did the same the law would be pointless.
Common sense, common courtesy, and personal accountability - you just cut out a large percentage of the population unfortunately.
#69 and #71,
Smoking bans are not born out of some grassroots movement. Politicians are not compelled to ban smoking out of kindness and because of rude smokers. Politicians are persuaded by lobbyists paid by very well financed anti-smoking groups, mostly based in California. It’s another example of social engineering.
#72 - ah yes, because the tobacco lobbyists are weak and underfunded. Actually, I live in New Zealand and the law changed because more people did not want smoke where they went than did the ones who wanted to smoke.
#73,
Well, that makes sense. Smokers are in a minority. Here in Texas, a referendum to permit Gay Marriage was turned down by the photos, because Gays are a minority.
I watched a public hearing on Texas on a state-wide ban in Texas. The anti-smokers had flown in people from all over the US to speak. There was no evil tobacco lobbyists to be found. The only people speaking against the ban were the independent bar owners, who of course stood to lose a lot of money. I don’t think the tobacco companies fight these bans very hard. Smoking bans don’t cut into cigarette sales very much, if at all. The ban hasn’t passed (so far) because Texas is very strong on private property rights.