Just shutup, Lance Armstrong

[Andrew-Austin]

http://www.star-telegram.com/elections/v-print/story/1174319.html

I kinda liked this guy before as an athlete, but then he had to get all political and whine for big government.

Armstrong revs up his campaign for a no-smoking law


By JIM VERTUNO
The Associated Press

AUSTIN — Pledging to take his anti-smoking campaign with him as he competes around the world, cyclist Lance Armstrong came home to Austin on Thursday to urge Texas lawmakers to ban smoking statewide in public indoor places, including bars and restaurants.

"This is something that is very, very personal for me," Armstrong said after a rally outside the state Capitol.

Oh well, that just makes me want to jump on the bandwagon to impose my personal preferences on others then.

"Having lived as a cancer survivor for the last 12 years, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how you go about defeating cancer."

And what government law helped you defeat cancer again? Fail.

Armstrong was successfully treated for testicular cancer that spread to his lungs and brain. He went on to win the Tour de France seven times. He recently came out of retirement to race again.

In 2007, a bill similar to the one filed this year passed the House but was never considered by the full Senate.

State Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, is sponsoring the House version of the bill. Crownover acknowledged that some lawmakers question whether the bill violates property rights and individual liberties.

She said the ban would protect the rights of employees not to have to work in an atmosphere filled with toxic smoke and is not an attempt to ban smoking altogether.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said it still faces an "uphill battle" and expects it to face fierce resistance from tobacco companies and bars.

Nearly half the states have enacted some kind of smoking ban, as have many cities.

Armstrong predicted that 20 years from now, Texans will wonder why there was even a fight over the issue.

According to the Smoke-Free Texas coalition, which includes the American Cancer Society and the Lance Armstrong Foundation, secondhand smoke kills 53,000 nonsmoking Americans every year and causes lung cancer, heart disease, low birth weight and chronic lung ailments.

Last week, College Station became the 28th Texas city to pass a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance.

In Mansfield, a final vote on a revised ordinance further restricting public smoking is on the City Council’s agenda for Feb. 9.

 

[smithtg]

they imposed this in Ohio a few years ago and really havent had many problems. Of course defining restaurants and bars as "public indoor places" is a stretch. A place of business open to the public is still owned privately, BUT of course the states will have you believe they are subject to their rules and regulations regarding 'public safety'. I think in Ohio they even came down on some truly membership only private clubs that allowed smoking after the ban was passed, but I dont know that for sure.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I know, I heard it last night. He lives in Austin, where I live.

 

[cheapseats]

How much money does Lance Armstrong rake in?

 

[decatren]

this is a very touchy subject. some people want to smoke and some can't stand it. second hand smoking affects those who don't want to smoke. as much as a smoker can tell a non smoker to go some place else, a non smoker can tell a smoker to do the same. both have personal liberties and both personal liberties are being infringed on by one another. one has a right to smoke, another has a right to breathe smoke free air and reduce chances of acquiring lung cancer through second hand smoking. its hard to resolve a situation like that since both groups have their rights. however, since smoking is damaging to a smoker and non smoker as well, I'd say that non smoker has the upper hand. I mean wold you not say anything if you lived next to a factory that spews out smelly fumes every now and then throughout the day that go into your house? So it's a very touchy subject and both groups can argue to death and it still will not solve the issue. So how do you solve the problem? Lawyers? Guns? Fists?

 

[gls]

this is a very touchy subject. some people want to smoke and some can't stand it. second hand smoking affects those who don't want to smoke. as much as a smoker can tell a non smoker to go some place else, a non smoker can tell a smoker to do the same. both have personal liberties and both personal liberties are being infringed on by one another. one has a right to smoke, another has a right to breathe smoke free air and reduce chances of acquiring lung cancer through second hand smoking. its hard to resolve a situation like that since both groups have their rights. however, since smoking is damaging to a smoker and non smoker as well, I'd say that non smoker has the upper hand. I mean wold you not say anything if you lived next to a factory that spews out smelly fumes every now and then throughout the day that go into your house? So it's a very touchy subject and both groups can argue to death and it still will not solve the issue. So how do you solve the problem? Lawyers? Guns? Fists?

You are missing the point. A bar or restaurant is private property. No one is forced to enter a smoke filled establishment if they do not want to. The state has no right to tell a business owner what he or she can or can’t allow on their own property.

 

[decatren]

You are missing the point. A bar or restaurant is private property. No one is forced to enter a smoke filled establishment if they do not want to. The state has no right to tell a business owner what he or she can or can’t allow on their own property.

Oh, I understand the point very well. I'm just saying that this is a very conflicting subject. The owner can set the rules, smoking or non smoking, but then if a smoker goes into a non smoking bar, lights up a cig and gets kicked out, would he then sue the owner for infringements on personal liberties? Or if a non smoker goes to a smoking bar and sues that owner for his personal right for clean air. maybe he like chicken wings there better then anywhere else. Point is that while state may not have any rights, it's still a conflicting situation any way you look at it. In other words, I am not arguing weather state has or doesn't have rights. I am not for big gov't either, rather want to get input as to what is the solution to this dilemma?

 

[gls]

The owner can set the rules, smoking or non smoking, but then if a smoker goes into a non smoking bar, lights up a cig and gets kicked out, would he then sue the owner for infringements on personal liberties?

The owner has the right to decide how he or she wants to run their own private establishment. The customer has no such rights; the only right of the customer is the right to decide which establishment to patronize.

Or if a non smoker goes to a smoking bar and sues that owner for his personal right for clean air. maybe he like chicken wings there better then anywhere else.

This does not invalidate the owner's private property rights. The customer has no right to use the force of the state to impose his or her personal beliefs on a private property owner. Again, the only right of the customer is to choose which establishment to patronize.

Point is that while state may not have any rights, it's still a conflicting situation any way you look at it. So what is the solution to this?

The solution is to allow property owners to run their businesses how they see fit and to allow individuals to choose for themselves - through their own free will - whether they wish to patronize that particular business or not.

 

[TonySutton]

~snip~ but then if a smoker goes into a non smoking bar, lights up a cig and gets kicked out, would he then sue the owner for infringements on personal liberties? Or if a non smoker goes to a smoking bar and sues that owner for his personal right for clean air. ~snip~ So what is the solution to this?

The solution in a truly free society is that the business is 'private property' as such the owner has the right to establish rules and exclude patrons who do not abide by the rules. Also, since customers own their own bodies, they have the right to not do business with a business owner who allows smoking or anything else they find offensive.

Does a vegan have a right to sue a restaurant which is serving steak? The simple smell of burnt flesh might be offensive to them. Of course not because no one is forcing them to patronize the establishment.

 

[tremendoustie]

Oh, I understand the point very well. I'm just saying that this is a very conflicting subject. The owner can set the rules, smoking or non smoking, but then if a smoker goes into a non smoking bar, lights up a cig and gets kicked out, would he then sue the owner for infringements on personal liberties? Or if a non smoker goes to a smoking bar and sues that owner for his personal right for clean air. maybe he like chicken wings there better then anywhere else. Point is that while state may not have any rights, it's still a conflicting situation any way you look at it. In other words, I am not arguing weather state has or doesn't have rights. I am not for big gov't either, rather want to get input as to what is the solution to this dilemma?

He could not sue, by entering the establishment he agreed not to smoke. Basically, the owner of a property always has the right to kick you off if you don't follow his/her rules, or even just because he/she wants to.

If you want to smoke, go somewhere where they allow smoking. If you want to not have to endure second hand smoking, go somewhere where smoking is prohibited. I think it's pretty straightforward. You do not have a right to act any way you please when you are on someone else's private property, you have to respect their rules, or leave.

 

[Dieseler]

..

 

[Zippyjuan]

More and more places are imposing smoking bans in bars and restauraunts. Even heavy smoking and drinking Ireland has passed similiar laws. The feared loss of business has not happened- in fact many reported better sales. Employee health improved and their insurance rates dropped. Studies showed that states which banned smoking in public places had their rate of heart attacks drop by as much as 40%. And people who want to smoke still can.

 

[devil21]

More and more places are imposing smoking bans in bars and restauraunts. Even heavy smoking and drinking Ireland has passed similiar laws. The feared loss of business has not happened- in fact many reported better sales. Employee health improved and their insurance rates dropped. Studies showed that states which banned smoking in public places had their rate of heart attacks drop by as much as 40%. And people who want to smoke still can.

So?

Does the owner own his restaurant or does the government?

 

[angelatc]

Oh, I understand the point very well. I'm just saying that this is a very conflicting subject. The owner can set the rules, smoking or non smoking, but then if a smoker goes into a non smoking bar, lights up a cig and gets kicked out, would he then sue the owner for infringements on personal liberties?

No, tavern owners already have the right to kick out anybody they want for any reason they choose, with the exception of race.

 

[angelatc]

The feared loss of business has not happened- in fact many reported better sales.

Even that statistic depends on which source you use.

And it is about freedom. If you support restrictions on private property rights, then you don't value freedom.

 

[lucius]

rant on: This smoke free texas foundation is pissing me off--just robbing the property owners of their liberties. Owners who are paying the leases or making the easy-360 payments and should be able to control their own businesses/destiny--what a bunch of f*cking statist, poster-children of leviathan, placing buku Delphi consensus building psyop-pr-pieces to fire up the rubes into surrendering their liberties in exchange for the illusions safety/increased-health [yet again].../rant off

 

[rekced]

You are missing the point. A bar or restaurant is private property. No one is forced to enter a smoke filled establishment if they do not want to. The state has no right to tell a business owner what he or she can or can’t allow on their own property.

The government has a role in protecting the property of people who don't smoke (i.e. their lungs) from people who do smoke. If people want protection from that, they have every right to seek it. People being forced to only go to restaurants with no smoking does hamper their freedom to do what they wish. However, if people are only advocating for this because Lance Whoever claims to be an expert, that is stupid... Yeah, he has talked to a lot doctors about his balls and knows how to ride a bike fast! YAY! He must be good for medical advice! People are most likely just jumping on the TV culture bandwagon. It's like people who make life decisions because an actor said to do it. They rent their face for living! They must have supernatural wisdom!

I am a smoker from Portland, Or. btw.

 

[rekced]

And it is about freedom. If you support restrictions on private property rights, then you don't value freedom.

If someone is unwilling to be around cigarette smoke and suddenly all business owners decided let people do what they want, that person would be forced to be around smoke to eat and survive. That person would have a case for government intervention to give them freedom. We know that cigarettes can pollute and cause health problems from second hand smoke. In a free society the individual comes before the majority.

 

[WRellim]

The REAL STUPIDITY of this is that Lance had Testicular Cancer, which is completely unrelated to smoking (there has never been even a suggestion of correlation between Testicular Cancer and smoking, first hand, second hand, or any other hand -- the biggest current suspect cause of Testicular Cancer is viral via complications from mumps orchitis -- but Lance is probably completely ignorant of this [besides, you can't earn any PC brownie points being against mumps you know.])

Indeed, it is also likely that any damage from Mumps was complicated and increased by his bicycle seat and riding too much... Perhaps we should get legislation passed that would make bicycle seats illegal and require Lance (and all other males) to ride on just the shaft?

If nothing else, that would decrease the number of men who ride bicycles, thus decreasing many of the other medical complications caused by damage to groin tissues by the seats -- not to mention the manifold other bicycling accidents and resulting injuries and complications -- saving us LOTS of wasted health insurance and government medical claims.

 

[WRellim]

If someone is unwilling to be around cigarette smoke and suddenly all business owners decided let people do what they want, that person would be forced to be around smoke to eat and survive. That person would have a case for government intervention to give them freedom. We know that cigarettes can pollute and cause health problems from second hand smoke. In a free society the individual comes before the majority.

The fallacy here is that "smoking" is being scapegoated as the cause of cancer in general.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
If this were REALLY about eliminating the PRIMARY causes of the most significant number of cancers, then they would be out pushing people to be abstinent and/or limit their number of sexual partners [in total], and the public health issue would be about stopping people from spreading STD's and other viral cancer-causing infections.

(The list of cancers caused by various STD's and other "intimate contact" viruses -- including the HPV, HTLV, Epstein-Barr, etc -- is growing every year. Seriously, as I have said many times, the sex is much more dangerous [cancer-wise] than the cigarette afterwards.)