Re: Smoking Bans Come to College Station, TX


"Tex" <JessAlanFields@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:84cb03fa-6a8b-43e9-bfe2-2d88f0747930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Haven't posted in a while... hope all are well.

I won't give the "long" version of this story, at least not yet, but I
will be relatively brief:

Last week, my business partner and I found out about a "press
conference/announcement" at City Hall regarding a smoking ban ?
because the local news station called him. So, I jettisoned over
there, and sat through a grueling presentation hailing the evils of
second-hand smoke and featuring a Texas A&M girl who had once had
lymphoma (but it had nothing to do with smoke or smoking, and they put
her up there for pity ? it was sick exploitation, I thought).

Afterwards, I got into a nasty verbal altercation with the woman from
the American Cancer Society, who more or less told me that she wanted
to put my business out of business.

See, I own a cigar shop with a lifelong friend, and College Station/
Bryan Texas doesn't have much of a smoking ban (allowed in bars, and
in restaurants after 10pm). But what they were proposing is a
"Comprehensive Ban," which as we all know would seek to ban it
everywhere.

I just can't understand how someone can basically tell me to my face
that my three employees, my business partner and I, and our customers
"don't know what they're getting into" with second-hand smoke.

If anyone wants to help me fight this ban, let me know. Because of a
2001 agreement, both College Station and Bryan, TX (cities adjacent to
one another in Brazos County) would have to pass the same law to have
a new, more extensive ban. Hopefully, it will take a little while ?
and then, if it did pass, we would be carved out an exemption (we have
a 2000 sq. ft. lounge).

-Tex.

Part of the problem is the "aunty's"/nanies are thinking compartmentalized,
targeting only one thing that's an "easy" target given the mindset of a lot
of misinformed people. Plus the fact they don't want to lose the tax
revenue.

Not too many people pitch a fit when tobacco is the target. But what if they
targeted auto exhaust by raising taxes on gasoline 100%? Or, if they tried
to ban wood stoves, fireplaces and diesel / home heating oil fuel, etc. all
of which emit carcinogenic and "global warming promoting" SHS ( ask Al Gore
I guess ).

Obama already hinted he wants to put the coal industry under the bus. And a
lot of people don't even realize that won't just affect the mining towns and
employees, but that the electric rates all over the grid will skyrocket. And
his idea is that the emissions cause global warming. The increased rates
will ( or at least should) cause an uproar in the northern states where
people need electric to warm their homes. Or anyplace people need this thing
called light, or television, or refrigeration, or even an electric golf
cart.

The politicians won't be very popular then.

Recently there were broadcasts about how certain breeds of dogs are more
predisposed to getting cancer. I imagine it's the same with people. We
already see how certain races, ethnicities are predisposed to certain
medical maladies. You can't blame them for being born with a problem. But
they should know if they have asthma to stay off the streets, don't go to
Frisco, don't get near a bus, or keep their air filters clean in their own
homes.

And, we all know people who smoked for years and are still kicking. We also
know people who love burgers, fried chicken, and bacon. Should we ban
establishments from serving these foods because a percentage of the
population has a problem? Can we ban perfume because it causes some people
to choke up?

Let's not even get into banning fertilizers and such that cause second hand
water pollution(s). I don't use that crap and my lawn is fine. Anyone
remember Love Canal???

The best proposal is to let the business owners decide what goes on in their
establishments. Simply post a sign stating "smoking establishment", or
"non..." and let the smokers go to those that allow, non-smokers to those
that do not. I don't see the problem with that. Some argue it's to protect
the employees. You mean the ones that sneak a break out back to have a
smoke? Non smokers would be able to look for work at non smoking
establishments, and smokers at pro smoking establishments.

It's the nannies that are the problem. They are just plain bullies and
zealots. What will Big Pharma do if we solve all of these problems???? My
God. They'd be out of business.

Remember- 100% of all health nuts die.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Private Billiard Club.
    ... the smoking ban hurt poolhall business noticeably. ... The establishments argued that they are not the police and cannot be ...
    (rec.sport.billiard)
  • Re: Government Bans on Smoking
    ... I am here in California the first large area to ban all indoor smoking. ... The experience here is some bars and some restaurants closed, ... revenue across the state, which is tracked by kind of business, indicates ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • Re: For UK players...good news!
    ... Most cities in which smoking bans are in place show no significant overall impact. ... Some places are hurt, some gain business. ... I understand the Wisconsin ban will exempt those places that are currently "cigar bars" or tobacco shops, so I expect they will see a boom in business after the ban takes effect, as smokers pour in to light up. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: Private Billiard Club.
    ... the smoking ban hurt poolhall business noticeably. ... The establishments argued that they are not the police and cannot be ...
    (rec.sport.billiard)
  • Re: Chicago Pipe Show 2009 Question
    ... smoke, they are saying they do not care for your business. ... deep pockets elect to cover anyone's smoking fines. ... in lieu of the ridiculous ban. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)