Texas Smoking Ban Sine Die

B

BeagleOne

Evolving Lead Gorilla
The two Smoking Ban bills were left to die due to the Texas Legislature adjourning yesterday. HB 9 actually made it to the Senate and was placed on the intent calendar for the second reading, but died at midnight with the close of the session.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB9

SB 368 died in committee.

What does this mean? Are we Texans free to smoke again for another two years or the next long session? NO! We need to keep up the pressure and continue to fight the local bans as they pop up. Be aware and prepared, otherwise our rights may be regulated out of existence. :cb
 
BeagleOne said:
The two Smoking Ban bills were left to die due to the Texas Legislature adjourning yesterday. HB 9 actually made it to the Senate and was placed on the intent calendar for the second reading, but died at midnight with the close of the session.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB9

SB 368 died in committee.

What does this mean? Are we Texans free to smoke again for another two years or the next long session? NO! We need to keep up the pressure and continue to fight the local bans as they pop up. Be aware and prepared, otherwise our rights may be regulated out of existence. :cb
Click to expand...




Is this a restaurant smoking ban or something? I can't stand looking at that legislature page.

I think smoking in restaurants is rude, I don't do it, and I can't stand it when others do either. However, I think that people should be able to declare an entire establishment as a smoking section or the whole thing as non-smoking, because they never do a good enough job of isolation.
 
I've only been to East Texas and I hated it but that aside keep fighting the good fight my brother. Don't let the bastards win.

I absolutely hate how our rights are being eroded away bit by bit and we need to fight these bans on every level, local, state and national. You give them an inch and they take 20 miles.

Don't let them get away with it and that goes for everyone BOTL in every state and not just Texas.

You guys know that this will come up again and again and again untill they hope they will win. We CAN NOT LET THIS HAPPEN or we will become second class citizens.

:sb
I don't remember where this particular suggested ban was introduced but basically they wanted to ban smoking in your personal car/vehicle.

You know that they would love nothing more than to make tobacco a controlled substance eventually. What they don't realize is that if they did that the U.S. Economy would fall on it's face because it the taxes we pay for cigars and cigarettes and snuffs and chews that contribute so very greatly to the countries economy.

That's not even mentioning all the tobacco growers that would be put out of business and all the folks they employ would be out of work.

The madness has to stop NOW!

Ok, I'll get off my :sb now.
 
Thank the maker this one died...I really didn't think it would die like this, but it's the beauty (and pain) of how the Texas state government works that bills can die even when they have a lot of vocal/public support, as these bans largely did. You're absolutely right that the pressure needs to stay up on legislators, but more than that, the pressure needs to go back on local government in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and elsewhere to ammend existing bans to provide establishments with more options than they have right now. If we can push back the tide some on the local level, it may help efforts in the next state session. This was much needed good news...the battle is won, but the war continues:gn
 
Very good news, indeed! :bl (hehe, always wanted to use that one)

RaiderinKS said:
I think smoking in restaurants is rude, I don't do it, and I can't stand it when others do either. However, I think that people should be able to declare an entire establishment as a smoking section or the whole thing as non-smoking, because they never do a good enough job of isolation.
Click to expand...
Not trying to pick on you, but the sentiments you express here are, in my opinion, emblematic of the problem with anit-smoking legislation. Why should it be up to you (or anyone for that matter) to make those business decisions for the business owner. If you don't like going to a bar or restaurant where people smoke, don't go there. Speak with your money (like I do--I don't give a dime to business owners who don't allow smoking :)).
 
croatan said:
Very good news, indeed! :bl (hehe, always wanted to use that one)

Not trying to pick on you, but the sentiments you express here are, in my opinion, emblematic of the problem with anit-smoking legislation. Why should it be up to you (or anyone for that matter) to make those business decisions for the business owner. If you don't like going to a bar or restaurant where people smoke, don't go there. Speak with your money (like I do--I don't give a dime to business owners who don't allow smoking :)).
Click to expand...


The problem is that many business owners, at least lots that I talk to, seem to think that simply declaring a section non-smoking makes it smoke free. As we all know, it doesn't work like that at all. Personally, I hate to inhale much smoke, especially cigarette smoke. Thus, the only legislation I support is one that forces a business owner to declare their entire establishment smoking or non-smoking, or install an actual air sealed barrier between sections.
 
The original proposal was an outright ban on smoking anywhere except your single-family homesteads. This was designed by Ellis out of Houston and meant for a equalization of the playing field. The original ban would have also included tobacco shops, private and non-profit clubs or anywhere that had employees (paid or volunteered) and was enclosed. The revised made several excemptions (tobacco shop amongst others), but would allow for business owners to make their declarations. It would have capped the number of tobacco shops that could be considered under it by the date of operations (the shop would have had to have been openned prior to May 15, 2007). Regardless of this, many local bans would have been able to supercede the ban if they were tougher than the proposed legislation.

I agree with Croatan when it should be left to the business owners descretion and not the nannies to designed the bills to determine whether or not to have the ban.
 
Well, I, for one, being a Texas resident, am going to light up a nice, big stogie tonight to celebrate. I encourage all others to do the same!

:al:cb:pp:ss:w
 
I concur, however, it is not the right of local government to intervene here. If the people want no smoking restaurants then demand will dictate that the proprietors provide smoke free restaurants.

Government has no place to dictate where/when we can smoke. It's ridiculous. Here in California they are banning smoking EVERYWHERE in certain cities. You can't even smoke in your damn yard without being harassed. The partial prohibition started by enacting the same type of small ban.


RaiderinKS said:
Is this a restaurant smoking ban or something? I can't stand looking at that legislature page.

I think smoking in restaurants is rude, I don't do it, and I can't stand it when others do either. However, I think that people should be able to declare an entire establishment as a smoking section or the whole thing as non-smoking, because they never do a good enough job of isolation.
Click to expand...
 
jdean33442 said:
I concur, however, it is not the right of local government to intervene here. If the people want no smoking restaurants then demand will dictate that the proprietors provide smoke free restaurants.

Government has no place to dictate where/when we can smoke. It's ridiculous......................... The partial prohibition started by enacting the same type of small ban.
Click to expand...

:tpd: As the Hog has stated, "Give them an inch and they will take a mile."
 
jdean33442 said:
I concur, however, it is not the right of local government to intervene here. If the people want no smoking restaurants then demand will dictate that the proprietors provide smoke free restaurants.

Government has no place to dictate where/when we can smoke. It's ridiculous. Here in California they are banning smoking EVERYWHERE in certain cities. You can't even smoke in your damn yard without being harassed. The partial prohibition started by enacting the same type of small ban.
Click to expand...

In the instance of where I live, that is not the case. No establishments (except 1 bar) in the entire city are all or none smoking. By all continuing the status quo, you are forced to choose between never eating out and never being bothered by the smoke.

I think they should dictate the all or nothing clause.
 
RaiderinKS said:
In the instance of where I live, that is not the case. No establishments (except 1 bar) in the entire city are all or none smoking. By all continuing the status quo, you are forced to choose between never eating out and never being bothered by the smoke.

I think they should dictate the all or nothing clause.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it is still the government dictating something and infringing on the property rights of the business owner. You don't have a right to eat out, you can choose not to frequent any of the establishments, if none of them completely disallow smoking. But the government has no place infringing on private property rights of business owners. You don't have to eat at Restaurant A, or B, or any restaurant at all.

If, hypothetically, the government did pass such a law, that a restaurant must be all-smoking or all non-smoking, and the restaurants decided to all go with all-smoking, you would still be in the same boat. Well, worse, because you wouldn't even have a non-smoking section in a restaurant. While an unlikely scenario, would you be willing to accept that outcome?

The regulation and dictation of rights is a slippery slope that is best avoided entirely. I'm glad these died and, once I move back to Houston, I can work on fighting the ban there. I'm thinking a little civil disobedience will be in order.
 
Being a native Texan, I applaud this whole heartedly. Time to load up a humidor, gas up the truck and go on a Luling sausage run.
 
what I don't like is when they allow cigarette smokers to light up and not cigar smokers.

RaiderinKS said:
Is this a restaurant smoking ban or something? I can't stand looking at that legislature page.

I think smoking in restaurants is rude, I don't do it, and I can't stand it when others do either. However, I think that people should be able to declare an entire establishment as a smoking section or the whole thing as non-smoking, because they never do a good enough job of isolation.
Click to expand...
 
BigVito said:
what I don't like is when they allow cigarette smokers to light up and not cigar smokers.
Click to expand...

Amen! Time and time again I am not allowed to smoke at resturants, even ones with outside patio's. Yet on those patios are cigarette smokers.

I pride my freedom to choose and I respect others rights to their personal freedoms. What there appears to be is less and less establishments that allow cigar smoking. Basically non smokers should be allowed to go any where and do anything with recourse. The world needs to revolve around them and the rest of us cower in the shadows. In short, more people should honor the request they so vigorously deny others.

If you don't like mexican food don't go to On The Border. If you hate cigars dont go to a B&M or a herf. Lets try and figure out how we can all live and work and play together.

Excuse me while torch this stick, I need to release some tension. This from a guy who lived in Nevada and the casino life for seven years. :cb

TT:cb:al
 
I was born in Trinidad, but I LOVE Texas. I'll celebrate tomorrow with a couple Shiner's and a great stogie.
 
davemo said:
The problem with that is that it is still the government dictating something and infringing on the property rights of the business owner. You don't have a right to eat out, you can choose not to frequent any of the establishments, if none of them completely disallow smoking. But the government has no place infringing on private property rights of business owners. You don't have to eat at Restaurant A, or B, or any restaurant at all.

If, hypothetically, the government did pass such a law, that a restaurant must be all-smoking or all non-smoking, and the restaurants decided to all go with all-smoking, you would still be in the same boat. Well, worse, because you wouldn't even have a non-smoking section in a restaurant. While an unlikely scenario, would you be willing to accept that outcome?

The regulation and dictation of rights is a slippery slope that is best avoided entirely. I'm glad these died and, once I move back to Houston, I can work on fighting the ban there. I'm thinking a little civil disobedience will be in order.
Click to expand...


I am perfectly willing to accept that scenario. See, to me it is worth it because it forces people to accept the fact that calling an area non-smoking is still every bit a nuisance. And as a sidenote, I eat out very rarely for this very reason. However, should I have my favorite american pasttime taken from me (gorging capitalism) because business owners dont have a freaking clue how to run a business?
 
We were not so lucky in Minnesota,,it made me sick to see the formal signing of the bill and these A holes laughing and high fiving,,they got their way,,now it will never change.. But on the bright side the law does say that it exempts private homes,,I want to thank the Minn legislature for that freedom..


Jerry (going to Iowa to have a stogie) in Minnesota.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top