Thursday, October 25, 2012

Smoking Ordinance

In posting my view on this ordinance let me first state that I am not a smoker.  I grew up in a house where both of my parents were chain smokers and I hated the smell of burning cigarettes.  That being said I am not for approving additional restrictions on smoking in Arlington.  Here is the reason why. 

If Governor Perry wanted to make the state of Texas non smoking he would.  If any business owner in Arlington wanted to make their establishment non smoking they could do that tomorrow.  The Rangers did just that at the stadium.  There were people smoking near people eating food and they put up "No Smoking" signs in that area and then designated specific smoking area and posted the appropriate signs stating such.  They did this without additional restrictions imposed by the city.

Business owners have rights also and I will illustrate by using a cat.  If I own a business and I like to bring my cat to work in my building that is my right because I own the building.  Now if a citizen walkes into my building and has a cat allergy does he/she have the right to make me get rid of my cat?  NO.  The citizen has the right to not go into that business and can select another business to patronize.  That is their right.

I am not in favor of removing the rights of business owners or building owners or home owners, by imposing my standards on them.  In other words if I have a choice, I will not exercise my rights to remove the rights of others.  The current smoking ordinance was revised in 2007 and it leaves the choice of smoking or not to many business owners.  I don't believe that it is the place of the city to remove the rights of citizens.  We are regulated enough.

Now you will say, "what about the employees that work in bars."  They can exercise their rights also.  But a job is a temporary position.  Removal of that property owner's rights is permanent.  That is why I cannot support this ordinance.


  1. I agree with you! Let the market decide how it feels about smoking and let patrons vote with their wallets.

  2. There is a point of view in the community that there shouldn't be any smoking anywhere in public. The opposite of that view is that there should be smoking every where in public. Both of these scenarios sound extreme to me and neither one takes into consideration that we need to share this planet, and exist together. I have rights also, and I choose to exercise those rights in a way that doesn't remove the rights of others. That is my position and that is the way that I will vote on Tuesday evening concerning the smoking ordinance.

  3. Stop it Charlie. You're using common sense again.... jk

  4. Its good to see this was not passed!

  5. David (Arlington Citizens for Clean Air)November 8, 2012 at 11:24 AM

    Charlie, for such an educated man, you are very ignorant on the issue of tobacco smoke and the fact that we all have a long-standing right to smoke-free air!

    As to your comment about our illustrious governor, he sold out to the tobacco people a long time ago, so it's no wonder he wouldn't support our right to smoke-free air and work to protect the people of our state from tobacco and smoking.

    Regarding your comment that a job is a "temporary position," why don't you take that line to the pilots who are protesting against unfair treatement at your former employer, American Airlines and see how far you get. Perhaps if you explained that AA has the right to do as it pleases, they would drop their signs and get back to work?

  6. David thank you for taking the time to educate me on the airline industry and how it operates. You see AA can in fact do whatever it wants and there are certain rights that the employees have and certain avenues they can take in accordance with Labor Law. You see the law is very deliberate as to what the Unions can do in regard to actions imposed by the Company. They just can't strike because the Company does something against the contract. There is a process that has to be followed. I have followed that process for 32 years and I understand how it works. I have gone through 2 mergers and several bankruptcies. I have seen what can happen when a union respects the rights of another and what happens when arbitrary views are imposed without regard for others. I have lived under the egotistical rule and I have fought back. So respecting one's rights is very important to me and I understand what happens when rights are disregarded. I personally was never a member of the APA at American Airlines, because they would never represent the TWA pilots. So I will never side with the APA. The union I started with others is currently sueing APA and American for Duty of Fair Representation. TWA Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) sued National ALPA for 1.2 Billion dollars and won last year concerning a violation of Duty of Fair Representation. I am all about representation. I am not a single issue person ie. (Clean Air). I believe the rights of everyone are important and not just special interest groups.

    Again thank you for taking your time to educate me concerning the airline industry. How long were you in it?

  7. David (Arlington Citizens for Clean Air)November 8, 2012 at 6:40 PM

    If you honestly believe those who don't smoke and want smoke-free air are a "special-interest group," you obviously are not acquainted with the fact that smokers are only about 12.5% of the U.S. population, meaning that nearly 90% of Americans don't smoke and don't wish to breathe tobacco smoke. Further, numerous studies show that 90% of the minority who still smoke want to quit.

    Charlie, you continue to mislead and read into my comments ONLY what you desire. My comment about the airline industry implied that (given your experience) I consider YOU to be the expert in this area (especially where the pilots are concerned) and so I expected you to see the fallacy in my argument about, " Perhaps if you explained that AA has the right to do as it pleases..." It appears that you missed that observation.

    Will Rogers once said, "We're all ignorant, just on different subjects." There's nothing wrong with being "ignorant" (derived from the Latin for "we do not know"); the problem is when someone refuses to listen to the facts and/or care and remains ignorant. I've been working for smoke-free air for several decades and along the way, I've met more than one person like you. Nearly all have come 'round to join our fight and I hope that you will, too.

  8. Just seeing this blog post now, and I can't resist putting in my two cents. I'll begin with the cat issue. You're absolutely right, Charlie. As a business owner you can keep your cat, but know you risk losing a customer ~ not only that customer, but perhaps a dozen more as that unhappy patron tells everyone you are an "A" hole who runs a crappy establishment. That's basic Business 101. You will have better success if you adhere to the motto, "The customer is always right." (even if you know they are wrong)

    And regarding the tobacco issue, the Surgeon General's warning is on the label of each pack of cigarettes. Why would anyone be so careless to blow smoke in the face of a young child who has no rights because he or she is not yet old enough to vote? When our actions hurt another, it is best to abstain from that activity. Harm yourself in the privacy of your own home. That's just what good citizens do.

    And I do agree with that guy. David. I'd really like to meet up and collaborate with him sometime to discuss how we will clean up this North Texas air pollution over a drink sometime at a smoke-free establishment. ;=)


Thank you for your comment.