Lewisville Council Mulls Restaurant, Bar Smoking Ban

Gilmore should move to New York City & be Bloomberg's "smoke, trans fat & sugar-boy", since they both have the same beliefs! They are "Smoke Nazis" for sure!
P.S.
Lewisville does NOT need a smoking ban in restaurants & bars unless the owner wants it!

I guess it was lost on you too. Gilmore doesn't really support banning Big Gulps. What he was trying to point out was how it's an invalid comparison to say that smoking is like soda (or fried chicken, at one point). You don't get secondhand carbs from someone else drinking a soda. You don't get secondhand fat from someone else eating fried chicken. You do get carcinogenic, toxic fumes from other people smoking.

Also, don't be so sure that bar owners don't want it. It's one of those things where an individual decision to ban it puts them at a disadvantage compared to the case where everyone is required to ban it. The Texas Restaurant Association supports a state-wide ban on smoking in restaurants.

Gilmore [whoever he is] won't have any choice about
banning big gulps, it won't be up to him anymore.
Pandra's box will already have been opened.

Have no fear, friend, "HELP FOR LEWISVILLE"
will certainly be on it's way very shortly,
beginning with "SODA-POP-COP-MOMS"

Simple as that!

PREVIEWS OF COMING ATTRACTIONS!
[and it won't end there!]

Please end it Steve. This is ridiculous!

James' account has been suspended due to continued violations of the rules, spamming the comments overnight again with numerous unrelated, argumentative, and frivolous comments.

I hate doing that, but I also hate cleaning up spam.

Readers and commenters are reminded to check the posting rules when in doubt.

Good!! I logged on this morning and wondering what in the world this guy was talking - typing - ranting about. Most of it made no sense to me at all.

THANK YOU! When he threatened to take down your site by posting all of his documentation about the illicit drug ring that a child can dial and get drugs, I was hoping this would be your next step. Now to prevent anonymous comments from him...

If you don't mind me asking... Are there specific restaurants in Lewisville that you would frequent if they were smoke free?

Howdy----if Lewisville passes a NO smoking ban I will either go to another city or town I can smoke in----or just stay home!

If you don't like smoking stay home with your "lovely" family!

Be nice. We can have disagreements here without being disagreeable. Everyone is entitled to dine out if they like.

I'll bet she's one of them that wears that
purfume that I'm so alergic to - reacts upon
me like bug spray.

Somehow I find the word "bug" so very appropriate.

You must be blind---ever since Flower Mound passed a stupid communistic smoking ban most of them are empty most of the time!

Communism relates more to an economic system, whereby the government controls means of production, so that goods and services are distributed "equitably". Maybe you meant "fascist"?

At any rate, do you have data about Flower Mound's restaurants and bars? I really would be interested to figure out how to quantify any impact on sales. If you have anything empirical, lets take a look. It's always smart to examine the data before making a move.

Flower Mound instituted a ban on smoking in its restaurants effective January 1, 2010.

According to the Texas Comptroller, in 2009, there were taxable sales of $72,947,305 for the NAICS category of "Accomodation/Food Services". In 2010, taxable sales were $76,228,411, an increase of $3,281,106 (4.5%) over the last year in which smoking was allowed in restaurants. Further, there were 144 establishments listed at the end of 2009, increased to 157 at the end of 2010.

By contrast, Lewisville in 2009 had $183,603,803 in taxable sales in this category. In 2010, Lewisville grew to $187,233,381, an increase of $3,629,578 (2.0%). The number of outlets in Lewisville was 329 at the end of 2009, increasing to 338 at the end of 2010. Flower Mound's growth that year was more than double Lewisville's. If as some suggest, Flower Mound lost a bunch of business as smokers fled for cities like Lewisville where they could smoke, then one would expect to see Lewisville's sales figures make a substantial jump. But they didn't.

The Census had estimated Lewisville's population in 2009 at 105,170, and Flower Mound at 70,202. Actual census figures for 2010 were 95,290 for Lewisville, and 64,669 for Flower Mound. Because the population estimates varied so widely, close to 10% overstated in 2009, it is hard to estimate what effect population growth may have had on sales, or if there was any population growth. But the bottom line was that businesses seemed to bring in more revenue.

What is interesting to note is that the number of establishments fluctuates throughout the course of a year, with the first quarter generally 5 - 10% lower than the last quarter of the previous year. Over the course of the year, it tends to climb back up to the previous number or higher. This did not hold true from 2007 to 2008, (economic crash) when the numbers of establishments dropped, but the sales figures actually showed slight growth. If you take the total yearly sales figures for Flower Mound, and divide by the number of establishments at year's end, (which is at best an estimation without longitudinal data on individual establishments) you come up with a $506,578 average taxable revenue per establishment in 2009, but $485,531 in 2010, an average drop of $21,047 per establishment, or 4.2%. But it is hard to know whether that is just low-volume newcomers diluting the average.

What I would say from looking at these numbers is that they are not definitive as to whether restaurants and bars specifically saw increased or decreased sales as a result of Flower Mound's ordinance change. But they do not seem to indicate a severe decrease in sales or conversely a huge upswing in sales.

Anecdotally, we'll have folks tell about the handful of restaurants they visit on occasion, and whether it felt more empty or more full, or whether their favorite haunt closed down or suffered, but those observations are very susceptible to confirmation bias, and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

What I would like to see is more granular sales data in terms of NAICS classification. I would also like to see specifically alcohol sales data (which is longitudinal), but I'm unwilling to spend the money to subscribe to one of those data services. If one of our readers wants to chip in on that, we might be able to dig a little further. I'm thinking $100 ought to get us that information, but maybe someone has a line on how to get it cheaper?

You got it buddy!

FM restaurants are rarely empty! If they are empty, they are either closed or their food or service ran people off...not the fact that you aren't allowed to sit at a table and smoke.

I find it hard to believe that someone can't make it through an hour long meal without smoking. You really have an addiction if you can't put the cigs down to enjoy a brief meal with friends or family. One poster wrote about having to hunt down the smokers in his restaurant that are hiding their smokes by cupping their hand around their cigs and also hiding them under the table. Just because smokers ruin their sense of smell doesn't mean that the rest of us can't smell it burning!

As a child of a heavy smoker, I saw the devastation that smoking since he was 12 did to my dad. While he lived to be 86 years old, I'm sure even he would tell you that he would have rather not lived the last 20 years of his life because of all of the medical challenges that he faced in those years...all of which were directly related to smoking. In the end, he was on breathing treatments multiple times a day. He took a large amount of meds and slept with oxygen on. Smoking cigarettes slowly and painfully killed him.

So when I see you unable to make it through a meal without smoking, I see him. I project his illness on you and wonder why in the world would you do this to yourself and your family and friends. Plus, I find it hard to believe that you are devoid of common decency to the point that you insist that your right to smoke at a table by me is more important than my right to enjoy a meal without your carcinogens.

LV, ban smoking in restaurants and bars. Save the lungs of the people that have made the healthy decision not to smoke!

Smoking is a choice with very real impacts on health. My health insurance premiums shouldn't subsidize that habit. I think all of that cost ought to be allocated to smokers.

Personal choices like smoking, diet, and behavior are the biggest things I think we would have to deal with if we ever moved to a single-payer health system, because it's not fair to externalize all that risk on the people who do the right things for their health.

Let's carry that premise further. I don't have children but if you choose to have children, my health premiums shouldn't subsidize that either. Or carry that even still further, I don't have children but own property.. I shouldn't have to subsidize the educational costs of other people's children. I really don't believe this but I didn't like your statement about personal choices.

Nobody "catches" Cancer from "anything,"
if begins with genetics. That just might
explain why "many people" have smoked cigarettes
for well into their 90's and even 100s without
"catching" Cancer, and why many who have "never
smoked" die of Cancer before age 50. Look, I in
no way am trying to say "smoking is good for you,"
we all know it is NOT. However, at the same time,
there are "OTHER TOXIC THINGS" that "WE" breath or
eat, each and every day, we could start with the crap
found in our super-markets and toxic poisons in the air
from gas well fracking.

That's the most absurd thing I've heard so far. Certainly there is evidence that genetics are involved in some cancers, but there has also been a lot of evidence of virus-caused cancers (such as cervical cancer caused by HPV) and substance-caused cancers (such as lung cancer, and mesothelioma). I'll grant that it's very difficult, if not impossible to say with certainty what caused any individual's cancer, but the empirical data is pretty strong regarding correlation with exposure and diagnosis. Saying that some folks have lived into their 90s or 100s while smoking is anecdotal, in much the same way that some people who play Russian Roulette come out just fine. While we believe that's true, we also know that the odds have a way of catching up.

To me, the issue is not whether or not smoking is harmful, but whether or not it requires an outright government ban. In many cases, industry WANTS to be regulated because they know they need to get to a certain point, but the market punishes a first-mover. I'm not convinced that this is or isn't the case here with regards to businesses. The strongest point for all of this is that the employees who have to work in these environments don't have a realistic ability to choose another employer.

Then you should find YOURSELF in complete
agreement that "FRENCH-FRIES CAUSE BREAST CANCER"
in women. That being the case, French fries should
be banned from McDonald's, Bugger King, and everywhere
else that sels them. Believe me, "we" working on
exactly that.

Lung cancer is not the only disease caused by smoking. My dad lived to be 86 but the last 20 years of his life were hell caused by disease directly related to his smoking. He had high blood pressure, COPD, emphazema, among others. He had a heart valve replaced in an emergency operation. He was on inhalers, oxygen and many drugs to combat these issues. Yes, he lived to be 86 years old but his quality of life quickly dwindled beginning in his mid-60s. So you might be able to smoke until you are 90 or 100 but no one says that you will have quality of life to those ages if you do.

Exactly. And if a person chooses to knowingly subject themselves to a slow painful death, they shouldn't just assume we all want to go that way too. Not to mention the kids that are exposed. And how selfish do you have to be to not care how your actions affect other people's health? You can't legally hand your child a cigarette but you can force them to breathe the secondhand smoke? No logic here. I grew up with both parents smoking, and I now have a pretty severe allergic reaction to it. Should I confine myself in my home because other people have an addiction issue?

If FM lost any biz after their ban it was because the crackhead smokers went to Lewisville. Now they'll just migrate someplace else that will have them. I highly doubt any bar owner WANTS smoking in their bar. It stinks the place up, and covers everything in the place with tar and funk.

Most sensible response I've seen yet.
Next, will come BBQ grills, soda-pop, twinkies,
hot dogs, and a whole host of the many, many things
that are really bad for us. Believe me, I could
probably ruin one's appetite here.

What If I were to say that; The main reason why
Marijuana was made illegal, didn't have much at all
to do with whether it was bad for us or not, but because
of big oil companies and Dupont Chemical. That might explain
why "TOXIC FACTORIES," like cement factories [Midlothian] keep
getting their "EPA EXTENSIONS." You guessed it; "BIG MONEY."

Now what you need to do is make sure the whole city council knows your stand on this. Don't just put stuff here. Put it where it matters. Email every one of them:

Dean Ueckert - dueckert@cityoflewisville.com
Rudy Durham rdurham@cityoflewisville.com
Leroy Vaughn - lvaughn@cityoflewisville.com
Neil Ferguson - nferguson@cityoflewisville.com
T.J. Gilmore - tgilmore@cityoflewisville.com
John Gorena - jgorena@cityoflewisville.com

Better yet, show up on Monday July 2nd at the council meeting and fill out a card saying you support the new ordinance. Take the time to make your position know where and when it maters most.

Either way, send a message to the ones who make the decisions, not just to those who read this blog.

Have done so repeatedly, beginning with this one:
[these guys just don't know what they're getting into!]

Lewisville City Council Mulls Smoking Ban

June 18, 2012 9:50 PM

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/06/18/le ... ouncil-mulls-smoking-ban/



LEWISVILLE (CBSDFW.COM) – Lewisville could be the next city jumping on the

no-smoking ban-wagon: The City Council is strongly considering banning lighting up

in restaurants and bars.



COMMENT: Unfortunately, as will be commented below, even any such most

benevolent action of the Lewisville Texas City Council, falls far short of

“truely protecting public health.”



If it ends up passing the ban, establishments like Frankie’s Sports Bar & Grill would

have to go cold turkey.



“That’s a bad deal,” Mike said with a freshly lit cigarette smoldering in his ashtray.

Mike is what you’d call a regular at Frankie’s. But, if he can’t smoke inside the

restaurant anymore, he said he’ll take his business elsewhere.

“I’ll find another town to spend my money in,” he said.



Lewisville City Council members were hammering out details of the ordinance in

a work session on the issue Monday. Councilman T.J. Gilmore supports the ban.

“It needs to happen. When we go into a restaurant and need to protect those servers.

We need to protect those folks who can’t deal with it and we most importantly need

to protect the public health,” he said.



COMMENT: As commented above, any such “smoking ban/s” simply stops

quite short, of what “we” could call; “TRULY PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH.”

In order to accoplish “true protection of public health,” “we” must also be

prepared to go after the “NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM IN AMERICA,”

that of “OBESITY.” If “we” are not prepared to do this as well, then “we” are

NOT in fact “truly concerned about public health.” You see, OBESITY leads

directly to Diabetes, which leads to things like festering sores, amputations,

and severe heart disease, all of which equates to long-term and very expensive

medical care. “WE NEED TO PROTECT THESE FOLKS WHO CAN’T DEAL

WITH IT.” True, obesity is not necessarily caused by cigarette smoke, but by

certain “other things,” which should at least fit into the same sort of category.

[further comments below]



Councilman John Gorena is very much against a ban.

“It’s not because I like smoking. It’s because it’s a rights issue,” he said. And

Councilman John Gorena doesn’t think it’s a city council’s right to make that

decision. “It’s up to the manager or owner, business owner to have smoking in

their facility or not,” Councilman Gorena said.



COMMENT: Who cares about “rights,” when it comes to the question of

“protecting the public health?” Obesity is caused by just one more form of

addiction, and “WE NEED TO PROTECT THESE FOLKS,” from WHAT THEY

CAN’T DEAL WITH, and that is “JUNK FOODS!” As a matter of fact, “we”

have already been in the process of “INVITING-DOWN SOME HELP” from

“certain interests” in New York, to offer whatever help to Lewisville, Texas.

[see further comment/s below]



Some think it’s a voter’s right.

“They should let the people decide,” a woman named Faria said. She and her

dinner companion were both smoking.



If you ask the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, it’ll say people prefer non-

smoking restaurants. It’s what they’re asked for the most.



COMMENT: Just like smoke-free restaurants, there should also be junk-

free super-markets, convenience stores, and even baseball parks, like

that big one in Arlington, Texas. This is all just so important, if we are

“truly” to protect the public from the NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM;

OBESITY. [see further comment/s below]



Destiny Rodriguez wishes she’d asked about Frankie’s before she went in.

“We came to eat and have a drink but I don’t know. Kind of makes you want

to not want to be here,” she said making a face.



The City Council is still hammering out details. But, they scheduled another

work session on it and plan to put the item on the Lewisville City Council

agenda for a vote during the next council meeting July 2nd.



NOTE: “We” should also envision banning those absolutely disgusting

===== hot dogs from the Arlington, Texas baseball stadium. These things

not only promote obesity, but are made from “processed meats”

that contain “certain nitrates,” which are known to cause cancer.

“We” know that such action might make many baseball fans very

unhappy, but THIS MUST BE DONE, in order to “protect public

health.”



Anyone with anything to say about it should contact the City Council or show

up to a meeting –– there’s one on every first and third Monday.



COMMENT: [PROPOSAL] In the very same manner as non-smoking

restaurants, “We” can envision so many “other things,” like even the

“OBESITY REDUCTION SUPER-MARKET.” “ORSM.” This, of course,

would require widespread modifications to all of our existing super-markets.

These such “ORSMs” would be basically divided into two major sections.

One section would contain absolutely no junk food at all, like NO SODA-POP,

NO ‘TATO CHIPS, NO FROSTED FLAKES, NO BAKERY ITEMS, NOTHING

CONTAINING TOO MUCH SUGAR. This is the ONLY SECTION of the

“ORSM,” into which obese people are allowed, and the doorway would be

made large enough for most any of them [fat people] to easily fit through.



The second section of the “ORSM” super-market will be strictly reserved

for “normal people only,” and will stock “ANY AND ALL PRODUCTS,”

even to include soda-pop, potato-chips, frosted flakes, etc. However;

and just in “our” efforts to “PREVENT FURTHER OBESITY,” there will

NOT be found any such 2-LITER SODA-POPS,” because, hopefully by

then, they too, will have been legislated illegal. Keeping obese people

out of this section is relatively easy, just make the doorway/s smaller.

Guards could be posted at “this” doorway, in order to prevent the FAT

PEOPLE from sending their little kids inside, in order for them to try and

smuggle-out “contraband products” to their obese parents.



“WE” also propose, that if the City of Lewisville, Texas is in fact

“truly concerned,” about their “public’s health,” then “they” will

also consider very seriously, a “CITY-WIDE BAN ON 2-LITER SODAS.”



Please to watch for “our” further UPDATES regarding this subject.

[PREVIEWS OF COMMING ATTRACTIONS]

BT















NNNN

You spent a lot of time commenting James. It seems that you feel threatened by someone taking away your "right" to smoke at a dinner table in a restaurant where I would hazard a guess 90% of the people don't smoke and at least half of the 10% that do smoke are kind enough not to light up. The funny thing is that you seem to think that that "we" are trying to totally outlaw your cigarettes. You know that's not true but you have to attack "fat" people to make your point and joke about relegating them to a different section of the grocery store. That doesn't even make sense! I agree that obesity can lead to diabetes but someone's obesity doesn't affect my health and pleasure of enjoying a meal. Your smoking during a meal at a table next to me does. If smokers were considerate of the people around them, they wouldn't light up in a restaurant. If they didn't light up in a restaurant, this wouldn't be an issue that needs to go to the council but people like you force the issue and it has gone to the council. Lewisville, ban smoking in restaurants!

I don't go to restaurants anymore. As far as
"attacking" fat people? - No, I'm just as worried
about "THEIR WELFARE," as should be the City of
Lewisville. Just like what is started in New York...
If "we" are ALL "genuinely concerned," then "WE"
should start banning EVERYTHING that is bad for us,
and that should even come down to the cancer-causing
ink on decorated toilet paper.

You seemed to have missed what the "editor" said in an earlier post about having to pay more in insurance because of the smokers. I don't know whether that guy (james?) is "attacking" fat people, but the same sure holds true for the insurance. Same goes for many other things as well. As for the harm from second hand smoke, they need to ban SUVs as well (look that one up- much worse than cigarette smoke). It is a RIGHT as a business owner and citizen. What the people who are "for" this unconstitutional ban don't seem to get is: YOU, yes YOU, have the "choice" NOT to patronize the bar or or restaurant that DOES allow smoking. Go to Flower Mound, or a different restaurant that DOESN'T allow it. See how simple this is folks! As for protecting the workers- they too have the "choice" to find a place to work that doesn't allow smoking. Even with the economy the way it is- there are TONS of jobs for servers-- look it up (even in Lewisville).

Quote:
I find it strange that so many of Gorena's folks are now swearing up and down that business owners have a right to do what they please, when just a few months ago he voted to redefine "nudity" in Lewisville to tell businesses how much cleavage they could show. So I guess according to Councilmember Gorena, you can tell a business what to do.
Quote:
According to whom? The Center for Disease Control has said "Smoke filled rooms, such as restaurant dining rooms can have six times the air pollution of a busy highway."
Quote:
No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't become true. To what part of the constitution are you referring? Have you taken a look at the tenth amendment lately?
Not only do legal experts disagree with you, but also the Ohio Supreme Court and the Kansas Supreme Court.
-BC

Sure, I can go to Flower Mound and eat in smoke-free restaurants and give them my tax dollars but I'd prefer to keep my tax dollars in Lewisville where I live. That is why I would like the ban. Eat a meal without a smoke just for an hour. You can do it! And everyone around you will appreciate your effort.

By the way, what is it with you and James and the "quotes". By putting the word editor in quotes are you questioning whether Steve is the editor? What about "choice"...do I not really have a choice? Why the quotation marks? It reminds me of the character on Friends that did air quotes when he spoke. He just seemed silly.

Also, by the way you write, I think you ARE James answering your own posts or adding to posts you make under your James account. If that is true, you have a very sad life posting from 1:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. and then pretending to be someone using a guest account.

And then THIS ONE:

----- Original Message -----
From: The Grand Woofus
To: <as sent>
Cc: <as sent>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:38 PM
Subject: WARNING: HOT DOGS CAUSE CANCER [and must be banned]


Hot dogs may cause Cancer,

Physician Committee for Responsible

Medicine [PCRM] erects billboard



http://www.tbd.com/articles/2011/07/h ... ects-billboard-64206.html



From the desk of the Grand Woofus

22 September 2011



Well, now that UTA has been able to ban smoking [smokers]

from their campus, and now that Baylor Medical of North Texas

now refuses to hire anyone who uses “nicotine products,” and

that airlines should be able to ban fat people, in the interest of

decreasing air pollution, then we absolutely must continue with

these very good works and just get on with what the next most

necessary step should be:



= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

HOT DOGS MUST BE BANNED

FROM ALL BASEBALL GAMES

AND ANY OTHER PUBLIC EVENTS

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

[AND HERE’S WHY]



By Kim Chi Ha

July 26, 2011 - 01:27 pm

www.tbd.com/articles/2011/07/h ... ects-billboard-64206.html



BEWARE: Hot dogs are as bad as cigarettes. That is, eating 50 grams of

processed meat per day — about one hot dog — increases your risk of

colorectal cancer, on average, by 21 percent. So, to remind NASCAR fans

that eating hot dogs will kill them, the D.C.-based Physicians Committee

for Responsible Medicine bought a billboard ad near the Indianapolis

Motor Speedway that reads: "Warning: Hot Dogs Can Wreck Your Health."



The billboard, a photo of four deliciously grilled hot dogs tucked into a

cigarette packet, is pretty benign compared to these. But the rhetoric,

alas, is not. “A hot dog a day could send you to an early grave,” PCRM

nutrition education director Susan Levin, said in a press release.

"Processed meats like hot dogs can increase your risk for diabetes, heart

disease, and various types of cancer. Like cigarettes, hot dogs should

come with a warning label that helps racing fans and other consumers

understand the health risk.”

And then THIS ONE [OUTDOOR BBQ GRILLS]
[the pictorials will not show up?]

================================

SMOKING BAN - LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

================================

21 JUN 2012



Ref: LEWISVILLE CITY COUNCIL MULLS SMOKING BAN

June 18, 2012 9:50 PM

[Carol Cavazos]

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/06/18/le ... ouncil-mulls-smoking-ban/

LEWISVILLE (CBSDFW.COM) – Lewisville could be the next city jumping on the
no-smoking ban-wagon: The City Council is strongly considering banning
lighting up in restaurants and bars. [etc.]

Depending upon their upcoming VOTE, scheduled for 02 JUL 2012, the

Lewisville, Texas City Council “MAY” have demonstrated their true and

genuine concern for their citizens. However, “they” will have overlooked

an EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM than that of “second-hand-smoke” from

cigarettes.



Of course “WE” all know, that Lewisville, Texas is comprised of a rather

“more affluent” class of citizens, when compared to most “other” typical

neighborhoods in the Country. For example, this is clearly depicted via

their very own website: http://eservices.cityoflewisville.com/citymaps



In the “screenshot” below, please to observe a “typical” [more affluent]

neighborhood in Lewisville, Texas. Below the “screenshot,” “WE” will

then go on, to fully describe the said “EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM,” than

that of second-hand-smoke from cigarettes.







In the above screenshot, one should be able to tell at a glance, that this is in

fact, a “more affluent neighborhood.” Anyone can tell, simply by the number of

swimming pools, even if only a few of them are visible from the large number of

trees. However, it is NOT the “swimming pools” that should be of “OUR” main

concern here. Although not visible in the above screenshot, “WE” can only

surmise, that practically every single one of the swimming pools, are parked

very close by, that of the “REAL PROBLEM,” that of “OUTDOOR BBQ GRILLS!”







That’s right - OUTDOOR BBQ GRILLS! These contraptions are potentially even

more dangerous than cigarette smoke, and they should be banned as well!

Here’s why:



1. "Charcoal, when it is burned, produces not only hydrocarbons but also tiny

particles of soot. These particles not only pollute the air, they can aggravate lung

problems and heart ailments. Unfortunately, the crispiness and blackened quality

of charcoaled meat that gives it that wonderful woody flavor can form two types

of potentially carcinogenic compounds: heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)."



2. "Scientists from Rice University conducted a study in 2003 that found that

microscopic bits of polyunsaturated fatty acids released into the air from grilling

meat on backyard charcoal grills were contributing significantly to the air pollution

in Houston, Texas. According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Air

Quality, the city’s low air quality levels rank it as one of the more polluted urban

areas in the United States, mostly because of motor vehicles and industry. But a

large part of the problem lies in emissions from barbecues. Texans have long

claimed that they "live and breathe barbecue," and unfortunately they are doing

just that."



3. "According to the American Cancer Society, when you grill meat and fat drips

down onto the charcoal, PAHs and HCAs form on the coal and rise along with the

smoke, where they are deposited on the food. As the food is charred, PAHs can

form directly on the food. The hotter the temperature and the longer you cook the

meat, the more HCAs are formed. These chemicals can also form on broiled and

pan-fried "muscle meats." National Cancer Institute research has shown that high

intakes of well-done, fried, or barbecued meats can increase the risk of pancreatic,

colorectal, and breast cancers. The risks of charcoal are well-known and documented;

the Canadian government even requires that charcoal sold in Canada must display a

warning label similar to the labels on cigarettes."



READ MORE AT:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/charco ... -bad-for-your-health.html



Look, these CHARCOAL GRILLS, are not just an “INDOOR PROBLEM,” but

that of an “OUTDOOR PROBLEM.” There is nothing more disgusting, nor

perhaps DANGEROUS AS WELL, than to be enjoying a nice big glass of

ice cold lemonaide in your own back yard. Then, some neighbor down the

street fires up his or her charcoal grill, and here comes that nasty smoke,

drifting through your very own back yard, and everyone else’s back yard.

Next, that neighbor must have thrown on his big fatty steaks, maybe pork

chops, and the air pollution then becomes so bad that you simply have to

go back inside! This is TOTALLY UNFAIR!



Those who actually “CONSUME” the “CARCINOGENIC PRODUCTS” from

these nasty CHARCOAL GRILLS, are unwittingly doing something that is

even “FAR WORSE THAN SMOKING CIGARETTES!” And that is:



1. "A 1.1 kilogram (2.4 pound) charcoal grilled steak contains as much cancer

causing chemical as 600 cigarettes..."



2. "The amount of cancer causing chemicals in 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of smoked

trout is the same as that contained in 250 cigarettes."



3. "If you were to eat 5 1/2 pound charcoal grilled hamburgers per month, you

would taking in the equivalent cancer causing chemicals to 600 cigarettes, or

1 pack per day. If you were to take in 2.2 pounds of smoked fish or meat in the

same month, this would be equivalent to 8 cigarettes per day."



4. "Charcoal grills are everywhere as are gas grills. Many people eat smoked

foods. Should we wonder why there is a cancer problem in the United States?"



READ MORE AT:

http://nutritioninstitute.com/?page_id=460



http://lewisvilletexan.com/xoops/modu ... /article.php?storyid=2798





COMING SOON:

[1] The “TWINKY QUEENS” - the adverse effects of Hostess Twinkies

and other similar products upon the human body. Causes obesity,

leading to Diabetes, ulcerated sores, long-term, and very expensive

medical care.

[2] The “NEW YORK SODA-POP BANS”

//END// [for now]

No one is actually wanting to totally outlaw smoking here. Most people would just prefer that smoking not be allowed IN a restaurant or bar. You are correct though, the law [like any other] is only as good as the enforcement. Your statement that non-smokers are "lucky enough to not have the 'monkey on their backs'" is incorrect. I made a conscious choice not to smoke just like smokers made a conscious choice to smoke. I don't want to be around drunks in a restaurant. Likewise, I don't want to be engulfed by smoke in one either.

However, I applaud you for quitting smoking. I know it is hard so kudos to you!

Thank you!!!

And you are correct. I, like others smokers, made the decision to smoke. I will say though, I had no idea how addicting it was until I was really into it. It took 4 times of trying to quit before I finally was successful.

I have quit smoking at least four times
in my life, and it didn't bother me that
much at all. Even in my own box, I don't
like being "smothered in smoke." That is
why I have two smoke eaters, just like many
of our restraunts, bars, bingo halls, etc.,
were forced to buy, but now "they" are told
"NO SMOKING ANYWAY!"
[after spending all that money]

i DO think smoking should be entirely outlawed. if it is so dang bad for us then outlaw it. what good does it do. it doesn't get you high, it has no medicinal benefits. If it so bad that it needs to be outlawed in public places then let's get rid of it totally. Big tobacco is the only reason it is still legal. Pot is outlawed but it does something more than just blacken your lungs.

OK, I had thought you were being facetious.

I hate to totally outlaw things that are bad. I think you tax them to a point where it covers all the externalities and strongly discourages regular use, while still allowing occasional use on a non-habitual basis. I'm not a smoker, but several times a year (usually on election night, or a vacation) I'll puff on a cigar. I think I pay $2 - 3 for a pack, and end up smoking 1 or 2 before they go bad. I think you could triple that price without hurting folks like me, but it would put a real incentive out there for habitual users to quit.

BTW, I had the same thought about the 100W light bulbs that Congress banned the import of. My preference was that they have a $2 per bulb tax, so that people who need them for technical reasons, or just feel like being rebels can still get them, but the incentive to buy efficient bulbs is still there.

CIGARETTE TAX [UNCONSTITUTIONAL]
ALSO HURTS THE ECONOMY
====================================
14 July 2011
by Guardian A. A******

According to recent statistics, only about 19% of the U.S. population smokes cigarettes, therefore that particular group becomes a minority group. For that reason, the cigarette taxation becomes unconstitutional, because it taxes a minority group without representation.

Ref: [1]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still- coming-down.aspx
Ref: [2] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/t ... .asp#13106969617182&close

If the total U.S. population is about 280 million, then 19% of that, equals about 53.2 million smokers. Well, lets just round that off to an even 50 million, just to resolve any potential arguments?

A "very heavy" smoker might consume as many as three packs of cigarettes a day. A "heavy" smoker would most likely smoke about two packs of cigarettes per day, and a "moderate" smoker only one pack per day. Well, just for the sake of "possible argument," lets just use the "average" of 1.5 packs of cigarettes per day for our mathematical computations below.

If our 50 million U.S. smokers consume just an "average" of 1.5 packs of cigarettes per day, that comes to [at least] a total of some 50.5 million packs of cigarettes consumed per day by United States citizens. Likewise, that particular figure becomes [50.5 x 30] at least some 1,515,000,000 packs of cigarettes consumed per month by United States citizens. Yes, that means the total of some ONE TRILLION, FIVE HUNDRED FIFTEEN BILLION packs of cigarettes per month. In similar manner, the "annual" total [1,515,000,000 x 12] becomes: 13,030,000,000 packs of cigarettes per year, consumed by a "MINORITY" of United States citizens! Yes, that is in fact, some 13 TRILLION, 30 BILLION packs of cigarettes per year, consumed by a “MINORITY” of United States citizens.

Now then, as recently as year 2009, the taxes per pack of cigarettes was most exorbitantly raised to:

*STATE [average] TAX: . . . . . $1.59 per pack
FEDERAL TAX: . . . . . . . . . . . $1.01 per pack
====
TOTAL [average] TAXATION: $2.60 per pack

*In New York, the government imposes $5.26 in "government fees" per a pack of cigarettes, and the cost of a pack of cigarettes there is at least $9.00 per pack.

Ref: [1]
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... -a-pack-in-new-york-city/
Ref: [2]
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2009/pr010-09.shtml

Once again, we can make use of a simply five-function calculator, to be able to figure out that the TOTAL annual tax, state and federal combined, collected on cigarettes becomes: [13,030,000,000 x $2.60] becomes that of a most horrendous $33,878,000,000 dollars per year, collected by that of the combined state and federal taxes collected on cigarette purchases. Yes, we are talking about THIRTY-THREE TRILLION, 30-BILLION dollars per year!

What this all translates to, in that of simple math, is that every year, at least some 33 TRILLION DOLLARS is "yanked-away" from our overall economy, by that of the state and federal [unconstitutional] taxation of cigarettes.

Ref: [1]
http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-t ... -of-tobacco/06222010-3345
Ref: [2]
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/t ... -03-31-cigarettetax_N.htm

NOTE: During year 2009, the entire [annual] Social Security budget was about $74.5 billion, and the entire [annual] Medicare budget was about $1.2 trillion.

Ref: [1] http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Ref: [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Well, if any and all of the above should not be at least "alarming," the "overall situation" becomes even much more worse than that.....

Today, in year 2011, the average cost of a single pack of cigarettes is about $5.50 per pack, or about $55.00 per carton. What that means, is that every year, that estimated 53-million smokers, will "actually" expend a grand total of some $291,500,000,000 on cigarettes! Yes, we are in fact talking about nearly THREE-HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS, that is being spent on cigarettes alone, as opposed to "buying anything else" from the "rest of the overall economy." You see, many, if not most smokers, are either "simply enjoy," or are otherwise so "completely addicted" to their cigarettes, that they will "buy their cigarettes first," and then worry about their groceries or new shoes. To that end, some of these “heavily addicted” smokers, just might even resort to cutting back on food and clothing for their children, including infants, in order to be able to “enjoy” their cigarettes.

Both state and the federal governments have always said how:
“We have to have these increased taxes, in order to cover for the higher cost of medical costs incurred by smokers.” Well, according to the above-described, the “taxes appreciated” by both state and federal, should be enough to “FUND MEDICARE ENTIRELY!” Then, at the very same time, these very same governments come out with all of their “CIGARETTE BANS,” as if they want to “BIGHT THE VERY HAND THAT IS FEEDING THEM?”

Well, for those who are already shaking their heads and thinking: “NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE?” Well, it gets even worse!

Perhaps contrary to common belief, “SMOKING” is “NOT” the “NUMBER ONE KILLER IN AMERICA,” but that of “HEART DISEASE,” immediately followed by “CANCER.” Of course, one might pose the immediate argument: “See there, smoking causes cancer and heart disease as well! But hold on a minute….. Much, if not most of the heart disease in question, is “NOT” brought about by smoking, but by that of diet. For example; eating too many potato chips or greasy French-fries, can cause cholesterol buildup in the arteries, leading to heart disease, perhaps the second most costly of burdens for the U.S. medical system. So, one might ask; What is the “MOST COSTLY” of any and all medical ailments in the United States? Well, what about the question of “OUTRIGHT OBESITY?” You see, this problem of “OUTRIGHT OBESITY in AMERICA,” is most commonly caused by eating too many of those greasy French-fries, or maybe too many potato chips, leads towards perhaps the most costly of any and all of medical [health] ailments in the United States; “DIABETES.” We say that “DIABETES” is the “most costly,” because of the “long-term medical care” as required. You see, a person with [acquired] DIABETES, can live [hang on] on-and-on for years, what with “appropriate [but very costly] medical care, as opposed to a “smoker,” who would most likely expire much sooner.
Ref: [1] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

When it might come to the question of “CANCER,” the second most leading cause of death in America, pursuant to Ref: [1]? Well, there are an awful lot of “other things” in America that cause “CANCER,” besides that of “smoking cigarettes,” at least one of which could in fact be that “BACKYARD BBQ GRILL!” Not to mention that of a virtual myriad of various other types of “HOUSEHOLD CONSUMABLES!”

Ref: [1] http://www.nutritioninstitute.com/cancerprevention.html
Ref: [2] http://dailyhubbub.co.uk/518/toilet-paper-causes-cancer/
Ref: [3] http://www.naturalnews.com/021761.html

When it might come to the question of “RESPIRATORY AILMENTS,” there are also comes the question of “THE VERY AIR ITSELF!” Yeah, like that of “CEMENT FACTORIES” and/or “NATURAL GAS WELLS?”

Ref: [1] http://www.nodirtyenergy.org/index.ph ... ion=com_content&task=view

Ref: [2]
http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/20 ... c-Air-Youre-Breathing.htm

Please not to overlook the three attachments to this message. If your email
system has been set to “REJECT ATTACHMENTS?” Well, if you wish, you
could just send an email request, and the attachments in question could be
sent do you in that of “HTML FORMAT.”

Signed: Guardian A. A******

[page 4 of 4]

Steve, at what point do you ban this a****** as a spammer? If he has something original to say, let him say it. If he wants to post a link, let him post it. But posting things written by Guardian A. A******, etc. needs to stop. No one cares what he has to say and his excessive number of comments covers up other comments on the comment list.

Ban smoking in restaurants and ban James!

So sorry for the duplicate postings.
I new here, and failed to see that "they"
actually became posted. In any event, I
knew it wouldn't be long, until someone
would try and censor me. Well, I don't
really have any right to be here, I don't
live in Lewsisville. I just can't wait until
"we" start getting after all the other things
in Lewisville [and elsewhere] that aren't good
for us. WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT HELP!

"Well, I don't really have any right to be here, I don't live in Lewsisville." That is the one single bit of sane logic you have posted. Please take your spam rants back to Ft. Worth and peddle them in your own backyard. Lewisville does not need you, not that Ft. Worth will want it either.

If I were into censorship, I'd have taken down a lot more. We like to have intelligent conversations here, based on facts rather than hyperbole. There is room for both sides of this argument, but we need to stick to topic at hand, and not try to "over-shout" each other.

But spamming with dozens of comments is only meant to irritate people, not have an intelligent conversation. If James were to present his case for not banning smoking in restaurants and bars in Lewisville in an intelligent manner I would be glad to read it. However, since I am the one that previously posted about watching my dad die from the effects of cigarette smoking his arguments won't sway my stance. I am not for banning cigarettes totally because that didn't work for alcohol in the '20s but I am for saying where it is appropriate to smoke. For those that say they shouldn't be told where to smoke, I say that they are already told where they can and can't drink alcohol. You can't drink on school grounds, while driving, in the parking lot of a liquor store, etc. Certainly, these are good laws and they protect the public. Have your smokes if you must but don't do it where I eat out then the public is protected from your second hand smoke.

Guardian A. A****** has his math wrong. Perhaps it is a consequence of posting blog comments from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m.

Lets start at the beginning - assuming your statistics are correct:

50 million americans * 1.5 packs per day * 365 days per year: 27,375,000,000 (27.4 Billion packs)

Taxes at $2.60 per pack * 27,375,000,000: $71,175,000,000 ($71.2 Billion)

(In your comment above, you kept reading billions as trillions.)

As for comparisons with the Social Security and Medicare budgets, it's a good way to put large numbers into perspective, but I think GAA* got his numbers mixed up. Social Security has a budget for operations of the program, which is probably where the $74.5 billion came from. Payments out of the trust fund that year were $669.7 billion.

Medicare is shown in the comment above as $1.2 trillion, but the Federal government's estimate of total healthcare expenses in 2009 was $989.6 Billion - which includes Medicare and Medicaid, as well as other government health programs.

So when he tries to make the point that cigarette taxes should be able to fund Medicare entirely, it's not only absurd on its face, but it relies on the incorrect reading of billions as trillions. Medicare was $430.1 Billion, so if ALL of the state and federal cigarette taxes went straight to Medicare (ignoring that some of the taxes are state taxes, and that Medicaid needs funding too) then you would fund about 16.5%.

Please don't post any more chain emails like this on the Lewisville Texan Journal.

Forget the math; his entire argument revolves around the fact that a smoking ban is unconstitutional because it's "taxation without representation". But smokers, like all other citizens, have a vote. They are taxed and they are represented in all levels of government. I stopped reading at that point. I didn't bother with the spam on the other articles.
-BC

Just wait 'till "we" start getting after BBQ gills,
soda-pops, twinkies, and all the other crap that
isn't good for us. "We" also working on a plan to
tax the Hell out of golf courses, golf tees, golf-
carts and even greens fees.

For the record, absolutely nobody on the Lewisville City Council has suggested any of those items.

Why don't you talk about the topic at hand, instead of trying to equate it with imaginary topics?

Is your use of the word "we" literal, or could there be a multiple personality issue here?

Oh BC, you made me laugh!!! I saw this guy on TV attributing everything under the sun to aliens. So funny that you would use his picture. Good one!

I gotta figure out how to post pictures on here,
I've got tons of some really good ones!

There is NO SOCIAL SECURITY "TRUST FUND!"
Our "trusted politicians" emptied that out,
about as soon as the program was ever
conceived.

How come our Texas school systems are always
broke? I thought the Texas Lottery was
supposed to take care of that.

The Social Security trust fund is full of U.S. Government securities. It owns much of the public debt. You wouldn't say a bank is empty when it holds U.S. securities.

Texas schools are under-funded because the Texas Legislature has failed in their constitutional duty to provide adequate funding. They've created a failed business tax scheme that builds in a $5 billion structural deficit. Rather than fix it, they've resulted to accounting tricks and flat out lying about the problem.

At any rate, this is off-topic.

Did my previous reply not post properly?
Maybe censored?

There IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND!
Any such "Social Security Trust Fund," as
it might have originally been intended,
became nearly immediately spent-away, by
greedy politicians and bureaucrats. That
is exactly why, each and every Social Security
check issued today, is actually a "GOVT. I.O.U."

You're original post about the social security trust fund is right above the post from the EDITOR [whosplayin] of this website. Stop being so paranoid. No one is censoring you and no one is trying to take away your cigs! They just don't want to sit in a restaurant next to you while you smoke them.

Does it make a difference as to what time of day
I post something? Please let me know, I didn't see
anything about that, but certainly will comply.

The documentation was done quite some time beforehand,
not for certain just how accurate it is, was meant to
have been only a modest estimate of just how much money
greedy politicians and bureaucrats waste-away, and it
just keeps feeding their "A D D I C T I V E" greed!

Seeing's how you mentioned "light bulbs?"
Well, those "curly-que" light bulbs don't
evend last much longer than the originals,
they only cost three or four times more.
Not only that, but every damned one of them
is made in China. So, figure it out.

Some last, some don't. I have some that are over 15 years old. They save me money though, so I'll never go back to the old-fashioned heat bulbs. Why aren't they made in America? You got two choices: 1) Americans are incapable of making such a complicated thing, or 2) American manufacturers made the conscious choice to off-shore them. I vote #2. Every time I'm at the store looking to buy these (or almost anything else for that matter) I try to find some that are made in the U.S.A., but so far, no luck.

Again, off-topic though. Lets have this discussion in one of the several light-bulb posts or in one of the open threads. I only brought them up because we're talking about taxing to cover externalities, and less-restrictive ways for government to reduce unwanted behavior (like smoking, or wasting energy).

I didn't bring up the subject of "LIGHT-BULBS,"
that other guy did. And then when "I" simply
respond to that, guys like YOU simply can't
stand it!

Hot dogw should also be banned -
especially at baseball stadiums,
where they are stuffed into our
unsuspecting citizens and children.

When I can get second-hand nitrates from someone else's hot dog, we'll talk.

You don't have to "breathe" second-hand nitrates
from hot dogs, in order to have to pay out of
everyone's taxes, for the medical care that will
become required, at such time as the "nitrates"
cause enough genetic mutations so as to "ACTIVATE"
a cancer. Meanwhile, latest research tends to
conclude that, dure enough, diesel fumes also
"cause" cancer. It might follow then, that even the
Trinity Railway Express [fumes] causes cancer.
I get back to the subject of OUTDOOR BBQ GRILLS...
If the Lewisville City Council IS in fact "genuinely
concerned" [enough] then BBQ grills should be banned
as well.

Look, this isn't just a joke! This sort of stuff is
actually on it's way!

It's a shame that your postings turn it into a joke.

Let me say one thing though [and it kills me to agree with you], there are a lot of things in the air as you have pointed out. So, why shouldn't we try to control the ones that we can for the betterment of everyone's health? Fumes from gas wells are regulated as are fumes of cars by way of the air pollution monitors. Just answer one simple question without posting 20 crazy responses...Why are you so against not smoking in restaurants?

Oh, is that right?

Well, what are we going to be doing
about THE PROBLEM OF FAT PEOPLE?

Quitting smoking is easy - JUST QUIT!

Oh, yeah - This one reopens the subject of
"CRAPPY AIR." Obviously comes from just one
more who has no idea of the kinds of toxins
he or she is breathing in the nice city air,
like from that of cement factories or gas well
fracking.

The point you seem to be making is that since other things are bad, or cause crappy air, we should give cigarettes a pass. Yet cigarettes are none of those things, and are not analogous to those things for a variety of reasons.

The "bottom line" is this:

Any and all restaurant and/or bar-owners that want to
make their establishments "SMOKE-FREE," should feel
perfectly free to do so, just like "THEY ALWAYS COULD
HAVE DONE IN THE PAST."

As a person who breathes air.....aren't we all, I make no allowances for others (fracking, factories, not properly maintained vehicles) to do the same thing to the air. It's not as though I'm in support of businesses that spew air pollution. Quite the contrary. Cigarette smoke is unhealthy. It is a fact. This is not a complicated issue. I do realize and have an idea about other toxins in the air. Why else would I want to minimize them? The preference to have clean air is not absurd nor impeding anyone's rights. Also, I no longer live in the DFW area, and live in an area with much cleaner air. We are not being fined by the EPA for our air quality. It's pretty nice to run here as opposed to there. I can say as a person that lived in Lewisville for years and recently moved to a city with a ban, it is better for all involved. If there's one molecule of pollutant, that's it? Just spew all the crap with no regard? Is that really your outlook on healthy air?

I AGREE! I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and my apt neighbors FILL my apt up with their smoking. I'm miserable in the one place you're supposed to feel comfortable and safe, HOME. Why hasn't smoking in apts been banned everywhere anyway? Not only for the health reasons, but it's just too big of a fire risk to innocent people.