Prefiled bill in Texas (SB 87) would ban smoking (but not vaping) in all workplaces

[Bill Godshall]

Texas bill (SB 87) prefiled for 2015 would ban smoking (but not vaping) in workplaces
Texas Legislature Online - 84(R) History for SB 87
Texas Legislature Online - 84(R) Text for SB 87


If this bill is enacted into law, far fewer vaping bans will be proposed in Texas municipalities (as nearly all proposed vaping bans in Texas municipalities have been and will continue to be smoking bans that falsely define "smoking" as including the use of smokefree vapor products).

But just as occurred in 2013 (when a nearly identical smokefree workplace bill was nearly enacted in Texas), some right-to-smoke activists will also oppose this legislation, prompting even more municipalities in Texas to enact vaping bans (by enacting local smoking bans that also ban vaping).

Some right-to-smoke advocates have already started opposing SB 87 with silly straw man arguments (that were lobbied for by other right-to-smoke advocates).
Editorial: Put out the fire on smoking ban | Amarillo Globe-News

 

[DrMA]

Tough choice there: one the one hand you've got another smoker-demonization law fueled by anti-tobacco militant extremist hatred and lies. On the other hand, it would be great help to vaping by pre-empting murderous attempts to falsely define vapor as smoke...

 

[AndriaD]

I used to get really agitated about all the anti-smoking regulations, but now that I don't smoke, I totally understand them -- nevermind how dangerous it may or may not be, it STINKS, and nobody wants their hair and clothes to reek that way who doesn't smoke -- those who do smoke have no idea how much they reek to others, either. My ex-husband has never smoked, but when he came home from work, back in the 80s before all the nannies got going with all their anti-smoking crap, he smelled like he'd been hanging out in a bar all day -- and he didn't drink, either. When my son would go visit a friend whose parents both smoked, indoors, he'd smell that way too.

So I'd now have to support any anti-smoking regulations, especially if so doing helped the vaping cause -- because vaping is nothing like smoking, in terms of either its smell or its "hazard" to by-standers, and the sooner the nannies realize this, the better for everyone.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Hmm.... property rights are 'silly straw man' arguments. The founders spinning in their graves may also be a hazard to public health - earthquakes There is no reason why there can't be smoking/vaping restaurants and bars and non-smoking/non-vaping restaurants and bars and even non-smoking but vaping restaurants for Andria and people like her

 

[AndriaD]

Hmm.... property rights are 'silly straw man' arguments. The founders spinning in their graves may also be a hazard to public health - earthquakes There is no reason why there can't be smoking/vaping restaurants and bars and non-smoking/non-vaping restaurants and bars and even non-smoking but vaping restaurants for Andria and people like her

I totally agree with that; it SHOULD be left up to the proprietor and his clientele exactly what is permissible inside a private property business -- it is no damn business of the gov't's or the ANTZ either -- if they don't like the smell of a place, they're certainly free to leave; it's called "freedom" -- they should study that concept, they should be FORCE FED that concept, until it begins to penetrate their tiny little self-righteous minds.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

I totally agree with that; it SHOULD be left up to the proprietor and his clientele exactly what is permissible inside a private property business -- it is no damn business of the gov't's or the ANTZ either -- if they don't like the smell of a place, they're certainly free to leave; it's called "freedom" -- they should study that concept, they should be FORCE FED that concept, until it begins to penetrate their tiny little self-righteous minds.

Andria

IMO, it's the most rational and obvious solution. There are many types of restaurants with different cuisines and bars aimed at different customer bases. No reason that couldn't be applied to smoking and vaping on a practical view, but the true argument is the principled (rather than pragmatic) properties rights view as you point out and for the right reasons.

 

[AndriaD]

IMO, it's the most rational and obvious solution. There are many types of restaurants with different cuisines and bars aimed at different customer bases. No reason that couldn't be applied to smoking and vaping on a practical view, but the true argument is the principled (rather than pragmatic) properties rights view as you point out and for the right reasons.

It's no different at all from us having to leave a Longhorn steakhouse because there was a strong smell of some kind of mustard in the air -- my husband has a violent antipathy to mustard -- or having to leave a Mellow Mushroom pizzeria because the smell of sourdough rising, to me, is just vomitous. If you don't like the smell of a place, you leave, it's just that simple. Which illustrates AGAIN how stupid the ANTZ are; they seem to feel that their preference should be LAW in every business in the world, even in places they would never choose to go. What absolutely tyrannous arrogance! It positively staggers the mind, the arrogant certainty that THEIR way is the ONLY way. They're sociopaths, clearly, which shows very clearly in their absolutely brutal dismissal of anyone's rights but their own.

Andria

 

[Bill Godshall]

Kent wrote:

Hmm.... property rights are 'silly straw man' arguments

The straw man arguments were/are the exemptions from smoking bans (that were/are lobbied for by those who oppose the smoking ban).

The property rights argument was struck down by all (i.e. more than a dozen) state courts that have adjudicated litigation (that included a property rights claim) challenging smoking bans enacted by various state and municipal governments.

Besides, if property rights trumped legislation to protect the public from actual health threats, no federal, state or local health agency would exist in the US, raw sewage would still be rotting in city streets and alleyways, outhouses/privies would still be in many/most back yards, water and food would not be safe to drink or eat (including in restaurants), and smallpox, typhoid fever, malaria, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, pertusis, and many other diseases from a century ago would still be the leading causes of disease and death in America.

If legislatures didn't have the legal authority to regulate activities on "private property", it would be perfectly legal for any property owner to murder, rape or otherwise assault, poison or otherwise harm any person who stepped into or onto their "property", including any customer, employee or guest.

Besides, more than a decade ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal government (as the owner/operator of a federal prison) violated the US Constitution by forcing a federal inmate to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke in his cell because it was "cruel and unusual punishment".


While I strongly agree that the "property rights" argument should prevail (in many federal and state court cases) over unscientific, unwarranted and/or punitive legislation/regulation that is lobbied for and imposed by ideologues, corporate competitors and other selfish interests, the legislative and executive branches of federal, state and local governments have a legal "duty" to protect public health and safety (from real hazards and threats).

 

[Kent C]

The straw man arguments were/are the exemptions from smoking bans (that were/are lobbied for by those who oppose the smoking ban).

The property rights argument was struck down by all (i.e. more than a dozen) state courts that have adjudicated litigation (that included a property rights claim) challenging smoking bans enacted by various state and municipal governments.

Just because rights arguments are struck down by socialistic politicians, doesn't make them 'straw man arguments'.

As far as this goes: "Besides, if property rights trumped legislation to protect the public from actual health threats, no federal, state or local health agency would exist in the US..." and the scaremongering that follows. Here's a real 'straw man argument' - continuing to use the 480,000 deaths from smoking, esp. since 'all your work' to reduce smoking from 40 odd percent down to 17% with the number of deaths not changing So while reducing the number of smokers, you haven't put a dent in smoking related deaths? OR are you just carrying over that number to reinforce the scare mongering?

Bill, I'm not going to repeat (and this is not the place to argue it) the whole history of arguments between you and your Tobacco Control colleagues, and the smokers' rights groups going back to the 80's, but you really should have a good conversation with Jacob Sullum of Reason or read "Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman (or even "Free to Choose" by his father Milton) or "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard, to get a clue how free market economics solve those problems without the disaster that socialist propaganda promotes. You want to see the sewage in the streets? and coal dust ankle deep, etc., etc.? ... see socialist India before they found a hint of market economics and every other socialist or totalitarian regime in the far east and elsewhere.... or Poland (and now China) for the 'ankle deep in coal dust', before the fall of USSR. Yet the US 'solved' much of that before the progressive era and the New Deal that brought on all the agencies you seem to love and admire.

And this!* (I was replying as I was reading). You truly don't have a clue about the difference between vices and crimes ... and the difference between laws that protect individuals against attack and regulations that attempt to protect a person against himself - the latter was no part of the founding and only arose in the last 70 to 100 years by people that hated the Constitution and loved collectivism. And the reason why I've always considered BG and 'control' of individuals to be a bigger factor than money or BT, BP, etc.

*(Bill):"If legislatures didn't have the legal authority to regulate activities on "private property", it would be perfectly legal for any property owner to murder, rape or otherwise assault, poison or otherwise harm any person who stepped into or onto their "property", including any customer, employee or guest."

Sigh.... I actually can't believe that you even wrote this. The rule of law against harming others life or property is the bedrock of the Constitution, way before any regulatory agency came about. That you don't see that difference is stunning, and while despite our differences, I've considered you an ally in ecigarettes, but what you've said here, brings this into serious doubt - and the 'suggestions' above - Jacob Sullum and the books mentioned - I see now, might not really help.

 

[AndriaD]

Just because rights arguments are struck down by socialistic politicians, doesn't make them 'straw man arguments'.

And all the rest... absolutely.

There is a big difference between protecting someone from "actual harm" and "a bad stink they don't want to smell." BIIIIIIIIIIG difference. If we're going to outlaw all things that smell bad, then let's include 95% of perfumes and colognes. Let's also add that it's a crime to BATHE in the stuff to the point that someone standing 2 ft away from you can smell it. Sheesh.

Yes, there ARE those to whom 2nd hand smoke is harmful -- maybe 5% of the population, probably less. All the rest that object to it so vociferously that smoking a cigarette becomes a CRIME are just big whining babies.

Andria

 

[Lisa Belle]

Very interesting EXCELLENT DEBATE in this thread. Both sides scoring points, much to think and understand here.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND USE A LESS HARMFUL ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING.

 

[Jman8]

Here's hoping the bill(s) get defeated.

And/or that vapers stop throwing smokers under the political bus.