Thread: TX: Letters To The Editor - Smoke in Cowtown/Farmers Branch

Smoke in Cowtown

Star-Telegram

Posted on Tue, Jan. 23, 2007

Last fall, the Fort Worth City Council received a recommendation from an ad hoc committee to implement a 100 percent smoke-free policy in all public workplaces. The committee included representatives of diverse viewpoints, including owners of restaurants and bars.

Some council members expressed concerns that such a policy would take away people's freedom. Freedom to do what? Poison the air that everyone breathes, including employees who work in public places?

Although the committee's recommendation was based on weeks of meetings, the council still wasn't able to decide, so public meetings are being held around the city.

What some council members fail to recognize is that this isn't an issue of public opinion -- it's a matter of public health.

As the most recent surgeon general's report said, there are no safe levels of exposure to secondhand smoke. That means that all the employees who work in environments and customers who patronize places where smoking is allowed are exposed to dangerous toxins.

Decisions on public health issues shouldn't be left to private citizens. Rather, the goal, indeed the duty, of our city leaders should be to protect the health of residents.

Council members also expressed concern that such an anti-smoking ordinance would be bad for business. Economic impact studies of 81 smoke-free cities in six states, including Texas, show that this is not the case. According to sales tax receipts, restaurants and bars in these cities haven't shown a decline in sales. Most cities have shown level sales, and some have even had increases.

The ban must be comprehensive and include bars as well as restaurants. Otherwise, it would create an uneven playing field for some businesses and wouldn't be fair. The decision to ban smoking shouldn't be left to individual business owners but instead to city leaders.

There are no good arguments for not supporting a comprehensive ban in all public places.

Linda Simmons, Smoke-Free Fort Worth
______________________________________

It's frightening to imagine that a city-appointed committee would have such power to change the way privately owned businesses operate -- i.e., whether to allow smoking.

One would hope that such a draconian ban would be put to the voters. But in fact, the consumers "vote" every time they choose where to spend their money.

Nonsmokers can simply choose not to go to a smoking establishment, and workers can choose not to work there. If this happens enough, the place will go out of business, and the "problem" will be solved.

Sweeping bans imposed from on high are just not good solutions. They reek of Big Brother and set a bad precedent. What's next? Burgers and fries?

R.H. Gruy, Granbury
________________________________

Two seemingly unrelated topics permeate the news: Fort Worth is considering ostracizing and vilifying people who enjoy a perfectly legal substance, and Farmers Branch is considering ostracizing and vilifying ... well, villains.

Some in Fort Worth don't want people to enjoy the after-dinner use of a product that is governmentally subsidized and grown in this country. They want those evil smokers to get out of the buildings and to stay far, far away. After all, there are studies to support the notion that secondhand smoke is bad.

Farmers Branch doesn't want people who have little or no regard for laws. Although studies have shown that ill-begotten money from criminal types is very green, many of the people of that town still want the crooks to get out of their buildings and to stay far, far away.

I will note with interest if the law-abiders lose while the lawbreakers win.

Jim Spradlin, Hurst

So true.

Though I am against smoking, being an allergy sufferer, I would much rather Fort Worth combat illegal immigration. We need a big city to step up!

The hypocricy of the liberal governments has no bounds. Here in my town we got the smoking ban except for big money Churchill Downs, that air on Millionaire's Row won't be a problem.

If you just go in and light one up and don't puff, is that smoking?

Your right, Fort Worth has a problem with priorities. They want to go play with all the simple and fun stuff and ignore the hard stuff.

Dixie

If they want to go after things like this AFTER they deal with illegal immigrants, FINE. But if they are going to go after smokers then I ask that they also go after drinkers who drive with just as much zeal. Driving under the influence should be reclassified as attempted murder. It took more than 50 years for society to turn against smoking. How long will it be before drinking and driving is pursued with the same gusto? Oops, getting off topic.

I don't know if the ACLU is too apt to pursue a city for cigarette bans. They would rather attack the cities for defending the law.

One of our esteemed legislators, here in TN, wants to stop cigarette companies from giving away free cigs on college campuses. She was on a talk show discussing this as if it were URGENT. When the host asked about illegals, you would think someone handed Superman a rock of Krptonite! She mumbled all the usual about "being a nation of immigrants" and basically said she wasn't "prepared" to discuss it, she only came to discuss 2nd hand smoke. The callers on the show when berserk. College students are adults and we are eat up with IA's and she wants to prioritize second-hand smoke????!!!

They have already passed laws here in Okla, almost no smoking anywhere in public. I am a smoker, a very considerate smoker, but I do feel I have rights to and I for dam sure feel that any businessman should be able to make that decision for his or her workplace. I found it rather amusing when Speaker of the House immediately declared smoking in the lounge or whatever they call it off limits. I didn't know the good ole boys were allowed to smoke in such a public place on the hill, I say they have helped pass these anti-smoking laws on to us commoners and it is good enough to see it now applied to them!