Bars, clubs included in Austin smoke ban - ordinance allows tobacco in billiard halls, bingo parlors

Austin American-Statesman ^ | June 6, 2003 | By Stephen Scheibal

[MeekOneGOP]

First Dallas, now Austin. How incredibly ridiculous. And I say that as a reformed smoker for over 20 years.

Council members also met a fresh lobbyist in Mike Sheffield, president of the Austin Police Association. He said he told some council members Thursday that the ban would be difficult to enforce and would throw police in the middle of a fight that's left strong feelings on both sides.

"I have an incredible visual," echoed Council Member Jackie Goodman, an opponent of the ordinance. "911, there's a smoker."

[MeekOneGOP]

Ping a few Austin Freepers. A rare ping.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Austin, Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[MeekOneGOP]

[jimt]

First Dallas, now Austin.

They just extended it in Austin. They've had the same thing in restaurants for over ten years, as I discovered on my honeymoon. Needless to say we left after one day to go where free people lived, and would never go there again.

[Just another Joe]

But health groups discounted the financial fears and said the proposal was needed to protect workers and patrons from secondhand smoke.

Lies, more lies, and damn lies.

[Hodar]

There has been some radio play here in Austin about this. One of the proponents of this, have been band members. The bands that play in "The Music Capitol of the World" (no, I'm not making this up; this is the title that Austin has claimed) say that they have no choice but to perform in bars and dancehalls. That is now their work venue; just like bartenders and waitresses. They work there, and have no choice but to work there. Thus, when smokers chose to smoke inside, they are involuntarily subjected to the 2nd hand smoke.

To ask them to simply work elsewhere, would be the same thing as asking cubicle dwellers to find work elsewhere because of a smoker.

I'm an ex-smoker; and am not fond of smelling cigarettes or cigars. I can see the argument for property rights, and the owner making the decision. However, the workers should have a voice in what they are forced to endure.

[Gabz]

"Almost 25 percent of the U.S. population now lives in places that already have ordinances like this in place," said Ken Pfluger, chairman of the Tobacco-Free Austin Coalition, a group of health organizations that has led the charge for a total ban. "All the evidence points to the fact that business does not deteriorate."

BS - talk to the wait staff that are now collecting unemployment in Delware because of the ban - or the workers at the race track in Dover and tell them business does not deteriorate after a smoking ban.

SHEESH - I despise liars.

[Hodar]

BS - talk to the wait staff that are now collecting unemployment in Delware because of the ban - or the workers at the race track in Dover and tell them business does not deteriorate after a smoking ban.

And these businesses went out of business because a minoritiy of the US population (smokers) can't smoke there? Not because of the downturn in the economy and the massive Reduction In Force that major employers have done? Interesting....

[Just another Joe]

However, the workers should have a voice in what they are forced to endure.

Here we go again.
A restaurant owner hires a hindu waiter. The waiter doesn't like having to serve beef to the patrons.
The owner should have to stop serving beef?

Saying that the employees should have a say in what the owner offers their patrons is totally wrong, IMO.

[VRWC_minion]

Another one down. The steam roller moves on.

[tbpiper]

I, for one, am glad governments have the foresight and concern to establish such bans. Since having completed my education in public schools, I find it nearly impossible to make my own decisions.

[Hodar]

A restaurant owner hires a hindu waiter. The waiter doesn't like having to serve beef to the patrons. The owner should have to stop serving beef?

Poor analogy. The waiter knew what the resturant offers before he applied for the job. Serving beef, although morally offensive to the Hindu; is not linked to lung cancer. A better analogy is the person who applies for work at an office. The some co-worker smokes, and the person is forced to deal with the 2nd hand smoke. It's not unreasonable to expect to breathe clean air.

[Just another Joe]

Not because of the downturn in the economy and the massive Reduction In Force that major employers have done?

Well, let's put it this way.
They were still employed until the ban went into effect.
After the ban, when business went down due to smokers, their friends, and family finding a different venue that still catered to their desires, the waitstaff was let go and businesses that were already on the cusp because of the economy went under.
When you're already teetering on the edge, it doesn't take much of a push to make you go over.

[Gabz]

They work there, and have no choice but to work there. Thus, when smokers chose to smoke inside, they are involuntarily subjected to the 2nd hand smoke.

That may be true in "RIGHT TO WORK" states, not everywhere. If the establishment permitted smoking prior to them taking a job there, they are not forced to work there, they made that choice.

I can see the argument for property rights, and the owner making the decision. However, the workers should have a voice in what they are forced to endure.

And what about the staff that smokes? Their choice to work in a smoking-permitted establishment has now been removed? Shouldn't they have a say?

[Just another Joe]

A better analogy is the person who applies for work at an office. The some co-worker smokes, and the person is forced to deal with the 2nd hand smoke.

Show me the definitive scientific link, that has not been debunked, between ETS and lung cancer. Then these lying anti-smokers might have a point.

[Just another Joe]

The waiter knew what the resturant offers before he applied for the job.

The band members knew that the owners allowed smoking before they took the job also.

[Hodar]

After the ban, when business went down due to smokers, their friends, and family finding a different venue that still catered to their desires, the waitstaff was let go and businesses that were already on the cusp because of the economy went under.

Do you insist on taking your family to smoking sections in resturants? Every smoker I know asks to be seated in the No Smoking section; then lights up as soon as they leave. From personal experience (and this is just MY experience) I usually have to wait for a table in the No Smoking section, but can get seated quickly (if not immediately)if I'm willing to sit in the Smoking Section

Granted, when you are teetering on the edge of going under, every penny counts. I just question whether the smoking issue in resturants hurts them at all.

[Hodar]

The band members knew that the owners allowed smoking before they took the job also.

Same argument can be made at 'the office'. It used to be accepted that smokers could sit in the cubicle and smoke to their hearts content. Now they are banished to 'smoke shacks' outside. The bands and waitstaff are now asking for the same courtesy.

[Just another Joe]

Do you insist on taking your family to smoking sections in resturants?

If I'm going out with my wife to a fine dining establishment that I know I'm going to be spending 100s of dollars at for the experience of the dining as well as the food, yes we do sit in the smoking section.
After the meal we will sit over desert and coffee and I'll smoke a cigarette with my coffee.
Other than that, sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on who's along and how many smoke.

[Just another Joe]

Same argument can be made at 'the office'.

That's exactly right. I think that it's BS that offices were made to go nonsmoking by the government also.
It should be up to the owner.