Voters ban public smoking in San Angelo. Texas

[jimbo]

Election day this year saw a 30% voter turnout and a surprising (for both sides) 60% vote FOR Proposition #1, to ban public smoking in San Angelo, Texas.
This will include all businesses including bars, restaurants, indoor and outdoor sports arenas and workplaces with more than one employee. Also affected will be hotels/motels who will not be allowed to offer more than 20% of their rooms as smoking rooms, and all smoking rooms will be phased out after four years.
The ordinance will ban smoking in The Colonel’s Pipe Shop in Stadium Park shopping center. The ordinance says smoking is allowed in specialty tobacco stores only if they share “no common walls with other establishments”.
The shop’s owner, Mimi Staha, told City Council she would be willing to install a ventilation system to remain at her current location to meet the second part of the provision, but requested that her business be exempt from the ordinance so she could still allow her customers to smoke inside the shop without having to move.
Staha said she will ask the council to amend the ordinance if it’s passed.

“It would have a significant impact on my business as far as not allowing smoking in my shop,” Staha said.
When asked the exact impact she thought it would have on business, Staha said it’s unknown because “all of the other cities that have passed smoking ordinances have grandfathered in their cigar shops.” -local newspaper
I wonder if the voters were truly "informed" about the Orwellian reach of this Proposition they passed. The proposition itself says 'prohibit smoking in public buildings'. Nowhere does it say this mainly includes PRIVATELY OWNED businesses, which I think most people would agree that the owner should continue to have the freedom to set his/her rules regarding smoking on the premises.
I am shell-shocked that people can be that stupid and/or bent toward changing the world in their own image as the little Hitlers who brought this proposal up undoubtedly are.
Jimbo

 

[fred]

It's the tyranny of the majority...

 

[tanless1]

....even in texas, disturbing.

 

[nativeson]

How about we take a lesson from the NRA? They are pretty good at "pushing back". Why are smokers SO disorganized? Their opponents are very organized, and they arn't just regulateing their neighbors who smoke. They are turning them into social outcast freaks, child poisioners, and---well, we'll see what their next outrageous, insulting and belittleing effort brings, won't we? Me? I'm getting kind of tired of being pushed around!

 

[collindow]

This is pretty effin' ridiculous. How do people justify voting for things like this?

 

[hilojohnny]

I firmly believe that ignorance and lemming-type behavior is rampant in the population.

 

[cortezattic]

Well, let's see here... only 30% of the population turned out to vote.

And of those, 60% voted for the ban. Hmmm... that means the law passed

on the strength of only 18% of the population. Tyranny of the majority?

The only solace in a result like this is that perhaps the 30% who did

vote were representative of the entire population (which is possible.)

In that case democracy reigns. (I think it was either Aristotle or Plato

who equated democracy with mob-ocracy. Fred is probably right.)

 

[chuckw]

All I can say is I'm glad I live in No. Carolina.

 

[mlaug]

Iowa enacted a public smoking ban that included private business establishments.
No bar/tavern/pub smoking and no restaurant smoking areas allowed anymore. No smoking in any area defined by the state as a "public" place. Until they changed the language...it would have been illegal to smoke in your car travelling down the state owned highways.
The wisdom of the legislature did allow smoking at gaming houses and casinos.
Apparently, the dreaded second hand smoke there isn't as unhealthy.
It surely wouldn't have anything to do with revenues paid to the state would it?
Nope, I didn't think so either.

 

[jimbo]

nativeson said: "How about we take a lesson from the NRA? They are pretty good at "pushing back". Why are smokers SO disorganized? Their opponents are very organized, and they arn't just regulateing their neighbors who smoke. They are turning them into social outcast freaks, child poisioners, and---well, we'll see what their next outrageous, insulting and belittleing effort brings, won't we? Me? I'm getting kind of tired of being pushed around!"
My idea for going on the offensive is the NATIONAL PIPE SMOKERS DAY that I proposed. See my thread here "National Pipe Smokers Day" for a look.
As for why smokers are so disorganized, I think it is because we are such independent free-thinkers/loners. Not even looking at cigar venues, look at all the separate Pipe Smokers forums, chat rooms, blogs that are out here. Everybody thinks they have a better idea and start their own forum. The result: division instead of unity.

 

[kcvet67]

The NRA has been around for many years and built up a huge membership. Their initial purpose was to allow gun owners the chance to come together and share common interests long before the days of the internet and they targeted ALL shooters rather than to separate into groups of hunters, target shooters, skeet shooters, etc. They were already firmly established when efforts began in earnest to outlaw guns.
Smokers have always been divided. Pipe smokers have usually kept apart from cigar smokers and vice versa. BOTH groups have always tended to belittle cigarette smokers. When the push against tobacco began in the '60s it was directed almost exclusively at cigarettes, so pipe and cigar smokers told themselves "That's not my problem." Now it IS our problem and we've been caught with our pants down.
In the decade since 9/11 fear has driven Americans to allow the politicians to ignore the Constitution and whittle away at our rights and freedoms. I am not aware of too many politicians who were ever ready to relinquish power gracefully. I don't expect to see it happen just because we want it to. Freedom is, and never has been, free.
"If we do not hang together we shall certainly all hang separately." B. Franklin