Bill Calls for Statewide Smoking Ban

[onehandle]

Source: NBC

Several Texas cities already have smoking bans in place, but one Texas state representative says it's not enough.

State Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, filed House Bill 5 Wednesday. The measure would ban smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants.

"We are not telling smokers whether they should or shouldn't smoke," Crownover said. "We are simply asking them to step outside."

If passed, the ban would force smokers to light up outside, either on a patio or at least 25 feet from the entrance of the bar or restaurant. The bill would need to be passed in both the Texas House and Senate.

Read more: http://www.nbcdfw.com/health/tips_info/Bill-Calls-for-Statewide-Smoking-Ban.html

[Trajan]

1. There goes that Bill again ....

I wish he would stop that !

[merwin]

2. I don't see how it's so hard to walk outside and smoke.

I do like the patio idea, as it gives restaurants and bars the ability to still have an option of allowing smoking somewhere. Here in WA it's something like 25 feet from all entrances. It just seems like common courtesy to me to go outside to smoke... along with not annoying non-smokers, your own body and clothes smell less like smoke and you get some fresh air.

[CreekDog]

3. Right to smoke inside is a lower priority than not exposing others inside to smoke

Good idea.

And where have they been?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

4. Good to see the repukes standing up for limited government

again. Wouldn't want "gumment" interfering in our freedoms.

[anigbrowl]

5. Hey, if they're trying to do the right thing maybe you should support it

Speaking as a Californian smoker, I have no problem with this. Our bar/restaurant industry hasn't died, far from it.

[razors edge]

7. When is the last time

Frisco had a -25 windchill factor at noon.

Yes I smoke, and yes I resent some of these laws. But I support the concept. Nobody should have to endure someones smoke if they don't want to.

But I must admit, when I go outside to smoke here sometimes, a little part of me says global warming is taking too long.

[WriteDown]

8. More like 110 heat index at noon. nt

[No Elephants]

21. It's not about whether you support the smoking ban or not. It's about their hypocrisy in

claiming to be in favor of small government.

Pubs are for government so small that it cannot stand up to a single corporation and can fit in Schiavo's IV, in a gay couple's bedroom and in our vaginas. However, if they want TV censored or a smoking ban or a teeth shattering bailout, suddenly, big government is no problem. Republicrites.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. Smoking ban bill introduced. Flood of angry DU posts follows.

What? Not yet?

[WriteDown]

9. For goodness sake!!!!!

Just make it illegal already. If its that bad for everybody, it should be banned. Politicians just can't seem to let go of that sweet, sweet tax revenue.

[Mojorabbit]

10. I prefer to make my own decisions.

I am an adult and do not need a govt agency to be my nanny. If I want to smoke tobacco or weed in my own home, I ought to be able to. Banning plants that are easily grown and that people want to use is an exercise in futility.

[WriteDown]

11. I agree...

but I see the slippery slope. Already some have posted that smoking in one's home with children present is child abuse.

[anigbrowl]

14. Ah yes, I fondly remember my asthmatic childhood, with Mom smoking.

It was great! I only go pneumonia twice and I'm sure my parents didn't mind spending a ton of money on inhalable medication. Let freedom ring!

[Mojorabbit]

17. Out of curiosity

as a retired nurse.
Were you born in the fall? I read an interesting study this week.
http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=9394944&nav=3w6r

Of course people should be careful smoking around children. That is not the point.

[anigbrowl]

18. I was, in August. Interesting article...

...though I really wonder why TV stations are so incapable of providing comprehensive news on their websites. More detail ehre if you're interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/health/research/09asthma.html

[quidam56]

12. ME TOO !

I would much rather smoke whatever I choose than to choose to breathe toxic CO2. Guess I have to live with both, when are the anti-smokers going to start talking about what's choking the globe ? http://www.wisecountyissues.com In California, they would shoot you if they could because you were smoking on the sidewalk... Then we find China is putting two coal fired power plants on line ever week, which takes 7 to 10 days to pollute California.

[anigbrowl]

13. I'm missing the 'in your own home' part of the legislation

It appears to refer to restaurants and bars. ~10 years after a similar ban in California, I can still smoke in my own house.

[WriteDown]

16. See post 14 too. nt

[No Elephants]

22. Ban it? Did they ever stop subsidizing it?

[Bake]

23. Yeah, dammit! And let's make Big Macs illegal too!

Pot, of course, should be legal.

Bake

[HopeHoops]

15. PA went that way - you see more chewin' tabacco now - like in the urinals and sinks. Gross.

[CarolT]

19. The Anti-Smokers LIE!

The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.

http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm

And that "ETS causes heart disease" garbage is all a lie, too. The death rates from AMI in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban. Those anti-smoker frauds only claimed that the rates of HOSPITALIZATION for AMI declined, not deaths! And, they could create a false impression of a decline merely by being too free with admissions (and raking in extra money for it) beforehand, and then magically reduce the admission rate by tightening up the policy.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html#Pueblo

[underpants]

20. TEXAS!?!?-the thing that is never discussed is the *reason* governments even consider these bans

and that is that smoking bans, in relation to their degree, cuts health insurance premiums for businesses operating in their jurisdiction.

Yes there is a MARKET reason for doing this.

[marshall]

24. While they're at it can they please pass a no farting ordinance?

People should either go outside or step into a restroom. There is no need to expose the rest of us to their flatulence.