Posted on 02/07/2006 11:57:33 AM PST by SheLion
s the dispute over where people can smoke in Baytown heats up the opportunity for voters to decide on the issue in May is still uncertain.
The original smoking ordinance, passed by city council in 1999, is still in place and the current dispute is whether to strengthen the ordinance so Baytown is 100 percent smoke free or let the ordinance remain how it is currently. Advocates from the SmokeFree Baytown Coalition said they want a stronger ordinance because second hand smoke is a public health risk. Their opponents, who have not released the name of their organization, said they want the smoking ordinance to stay the same or rolled back. For them, the issue is not a health issue, but an issue of personal freedom and property rights.
Council has not discussed the issue formally, but several local business owners are already saying they prefer to have the people decide what to do about it during the municipal election in May.
Several council members said they couldn’t divulge whether they would support putting the issue on the ballot until they saw what the ballot proposition said specifically.
“It is hard to say what I support before I know what the option is,” Mayor Calvin Mundinger said. “I do think the people should decide.”
Currently, the only plans to put the issue on the ballot are coming from the two citizen advocacy groups involved with the issue. The SmokeFree Baytown Coalition said their goal is to educate people on the dangers of secondhand smoke and to pass a more restrictive smoking ordinance — either by lobbying councilmen and getting them to pass it or through passing a public referendum on the ballot in May.
“I think while we are certainly prepared to go (to citizen referendum), I think it is an unnecessary expense,” Dr. Richard Ehlers, spokesman for the coalition, said. “We as a group have called on council members to strengthen the ordinance — they did it before and they certainly have the political support to do it again.”
Ehlers said putting the issue on the ballot because of an outburst from his opponents, who he described as “a small minority of citizens,” would be a waste; he said the coalition would prefer council just take care of the issue before the election.
The opponents of the coalition said previously they want the issue on the ballot even if city council won’t put it there. They are already mobilizing supporters to get them to the polls in May. Local bar owners and opposition organizers were taking classes learning how to register people to vote Friday at Quality Inn.
Currently there are petitions in many local bars and other businesses people are signing to show support for the opposition’s cause, which is to defend the personal and property rights of Baytown citizens. Organizers of the opposition would not reveal the details of their plan Friday.
Second hand smoke "A health risk" ????
These people live in a bubble. Half of Texas has burned since Nov. and still is burning. Where are the bleeding hearts for all us poor ranchers who have no grass, and/or hay for our cattle? We've had first hand smoke enough to destroy an entire industry.
Ah, doin' the ever popular Side Step dance.
If Texas is as fortunate as Washington's smoke gnatzies were, anti-smoking busy bodies from all over will pour millions of dollars into the area to ensure their lifestyle is imposed on everyone else.
Never mind they won't start frequenting the failing businesses afterwards and Texas also will have to raise taxes on everyone to make up the lost revenue.
Won't be long until good old Texas Barbecue will be the object of the banning since it too is considered "hazardous to your health." Maybe complacent voters will wake up then, but it might be too late.
As far as that goes, when the Farmers on the Yucatan Peninsula burn their fields and the smoke blows over our state and makes everybody hack, shouldn't that be an act of war?
That being said, I believe this is as much a personal choice as any other argument Liberals make.
Most importantly, this is a personal choice of business owners.
If the anti-smoking lobby had real intent to clear the air, they would outlaw tobacco use 100%.
However when tax revenues are involved, they choose stomping on property and personal rights vs. taxes.
GOOD GRIEF.............the ONLY people who should be deciding this issue are the business owners, with or without input from their specific clientele......
Have these people lost their minds??????????
I love capitalism!
When my 50-year-old husband had a collapsed lung this November, his cardiothoracic surgeon told us that second hand smoke IS a VERY REAL health concern, and not just for little ones.
As for the fires, that alone should be reason enough for the ban. I smoked 20+ pack years and even when I did I always despised the carelessness of smokers and their [cigarette] butts.
Its home to some of the largest petro-chemical sites in the world - ExxonMobil Refinery, ExxonMobil Olefins Plant, Bayer Chemical, Chevron Phillips Chemical, Mt. Belvieu to the north and the all the plants in LaPorte, Deer Park and Pasadena just across the ship channel.
A small band of idiots are concerned about second hand smoke from cigarettes. Its hilarious.
Dad, stop smoking those Winstons! Your choking out the vapors from the ExxonMobil refinery.
Good for you.
My seeds are going to be started this week :)
You have that right. We suffer for months here when they're burning in Mexico.
What's really chaps me: these same people have roaring fires in the fireplace all winter, cook out on smoky grills all summer, and camp out over humongous bonfires.
Show me even a preponderance of proof that ETS is a public health risk to an otherwise healthy person.
The antis can SAY whatever they want to. Until they can show me a preponderance of scientific studies that say ETS is a health risk, they should be slapped down like any other socialist.
Ha!Looks like more than just products have slipped in from China!I think it would be wonderful if every city that enacted smoking bans had their economies collapse.
Too bad we live in a 'democracy.' If this were a Constitutional Republic and we had a document that provides for the protection of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property ownership), the rights of the least of our Citizens could not be over-ridden by the rest of the population regardless of how many referendums or council meetings were held.
Yes, this would be a great place to create a Sovereign Republic comprised of many Sovereign states -- governed by and inhabited by Sovereign Citizens.
Lessee, how would we word the opening line in the preamble to such a rationale -- and an accompanying mutual contract establishing that kind of a political system?
I got it! How about, "We the People . . . (etcetera, etcetera, etcetera)?"
Ya know, I just don't think simply holding a council meeting and voting on such a revolutionary idea would work.
Puff!
I've had to do some IT work in some of those places. Scary. Very Scary. The workers all buy old junker cars because the sulfuric acid particles in the air pit the paint after a few weeks.
Glad I got an office job now.
Bay Town is just across the ship channel from Stinkadena (Pasadena) where some of the more virulent plants are located. And these socialist little control freaks are worried about a little second hand smoke? BWAAAHAHAHAHAH!
What else do you propose be banned? Health risks are in nearly everything we have, so what else? Snack foods? Soda Pop? Alcohol? Motorcycles? Automobiles? Pets? Bicycles? Down home cooking?
If smoke gnatzies are so concerned over other peoples health, why isn't other "unhealthy" items and activities under assault for banning?
I'll keep on saying it, as the left keeps stealing our choices away from us, soon the only "choice" a person will have is to slaughter their unborn child.
Oh, that's a health risk also, does that get banned as well?
We'll always lose if it's put to a vote, especially in light of 35 years of steadily building demonization.
And letting people who will never come onto your property vote on what you can do on your property is like inviting the UN to vote in our elections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.