Group Wants Smoke Free College Station
Group Wants Smoke Free College Station Save Email Print
Posted: 6:43 PM Nov 5, 2008
 Last Updated: 11:02 PM Nov 5, 2008
 Reporter: Destaney Sperry
Email Address: sperry@kbtx.com
87 comments
A | A | A

A local advocate group called Smoke-Free College Station is rolling out a plan for a 100% smoke-free College Station.

The group wants the city council to expand the current ordinance and ban smoking in all indoor public and work places, including restaurants and bars.

The coalition is made up of local organizations, A&M students, and other community leaders.

The group will meet tomorrow at noon at the city council chambers.

Today, the council discussed possible changes to the smoking ordinance, but no action was taken.
More Stories
Governor Palin Announces Resignation

Governor Perry Not Invited to Tea Party

Average Fuel Prices Fall Across Texas

Texas A&M Athletic Department Eliminates 17 Positions

Former President Bush To Visit Small Oklahoma Town for 4th of July

Texas Woman Sentenced In Death Of Infant Granddaughter

Man Gored by Bull at South Texas Rodeo

Galveston Police Baffled by Burnt Palm Trees
Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Karla Location: College Station on Dec 15, 2008 at 08:34 PM
The past few year I have not be able to go out with my friends for fear of a hangover... I don't that much I'm talking about from smoke in the bars. I enjoy going out and spending time with friends playing pool or just hanging out. However, I cannot take the smoke, the next day I can hardly breathe and I feel like I am sick. I have friends who smoke and I would wan to take away their rights, but what about mine? By people smoking I am denied the right to go out with friends and have a drink. If bars could make a separate room for smokers I would be happy. One time I went to play pool in College Station and I could hardly see across the table....it was only 10pm. By 11 I had to leave. It is not taking a person's rights away to ban smoking and this practice has not hurt business for the bars in Austin. You are still able to smoke on a patio where the smoke will dissipate away and not be trapped.
Posted by: Brandy Location: Bryan on Nov 14, 2008 at 07:13 AM
I find it funny that nonsmokers think they have the "right" to make decisions for the rest of the world. Read the rest of these posts before replying to mine and griping. The "non-smoking majority" can't even agree on the ordinance! Some say that smokers should be able to smoke in public. Some say that it should absolutely be BANNED! Then there are the one's that say it should be banned except for outside! So which is it? Should smokers be able to go to bars and smoke if they go outside? Or should smokers just not be able to smoke in public at all? I do agree with everyone that says it should be up to the owner. Everyone is worried about their "right" to smoke or not have to "deal" with smoke in public. What about the right of a business owner to make an honest dollar! If there is really a majority of non-smokers in college station, then they should get together and open a non-smoking bar where smokers won't "infringe on their rights!"
Posted by: Katalin Location: San Antonio on Nov 13, 2008 at 03:07 PM
I disagree based on Constitutional Right to have any forbidding laws! Specially foolish things like Smoking Ban! But I would support ALCOHOL BAN in public places! Drunk drivers cause more death, than any cigarette smoke. In moderation Nicotin healthy. Alcohol is deadly in public places, but in moderation Alcohol has many health benefits. Drink at home and stay home! Never give up your freedom from nothing, specially for neurotic propaganda!
Posted by: anon Location: CS on Nov 10, 2008 at 04:21 PM
How far is the government going to enter our lives? Sure let's band smoking....let's make it illegal to sell..to grow...to tax..that should help our economy. While were at it let's get rid of cheap purfume....that will save our sensory glands ...and God forbide let's also include after shave. If your worried about your lungs ...ban cars, trucks, farm tractors etc. and please don't forget the refineries for our heating oil and gasoline. Pretty soon we will have a ban on guns...that only law biding citizens will comply with... I'm all for banning alcohol...history shows the best clubs and parties were during the roaring 20's Ban cellphone use in all p-public buildings...I'm tired of eating next to an idiot having a fight with his wife..or kids Don't worry we have voted for CHANGE...and change it will be. College Station will have a rude awakening under extreme liberalism. You'll exchange smoking and banned gun control for abortions and gay marriage.
Posted by: to anon at 225 n Andi Location: cmonplz on Nov 8, 2008 at 09:53 AM
I'm a smoker. but what you said is ridiculous. Some like to drink alcohol, but that doesn't give them the right to get behind the wheel and drive. I'm all for a ban on smoking in public places. Others should not have to endure my privileges if it endangers them and smoking does, plain and simple. If you want to smoke..smoke on your own time, in your own private space. However, I do not think it would be fair to say 'no smoking anywhere outdoors'. If you are about on your own, others do NOT have to be by you. But if you go to a public building, you should be considerate of others and their health. By the way, to Andi, I'm a also a parent. I now only wish my kids bothered the heck outta you. I have great kids. and sometimes their antics are bothersome. But people who don't like kids are selfish fools. Get over yourself Andi. You are not that important.
Posted by: Teresa Rutherford Location: Southlake, TX on Nov 7, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Please vote for a 100% smoke-free College Station. You will have a cleaner, healthier city and save so many lives!
Posted by: Andi Location: HEY ANONYMOUS on Nov 7, 2008 at 04:44 PM
I'll leave my smokes at home, WHEN you leave your brats at home. They affect my health!
Posted by: Smokeless Cigarette on Nov 7, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Here's a link to one of the smokeless cigarette companies: http://smokelesscigarettes.co.uk/
Posted by: JIM on Nov 7, 2008 at 04:20 PM
come on smokers , lite em up,puff,puff that cigarette.luv that smoke!!! here'S smoke in your face.smoke, smoke that cigarette !!!!OH THATS GOOD !!!!
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 7, 2008 at 03:59 PM
The government already has rules in place to dictate what can and can not happen in a public place, so let's not pretend that the business owner's currently have absolute control. This is nothing new. A full-scale smoking ban won't affect business as some indicate. A PARTIAL or VOLUNTARY smoking ban would hurt those who volunteered. If it was an across the board smoking ban, people would still go out. Smokers are not going to ALL stay home because they can't light their cigarettes inside the bar, club or restaurant. That's just silly. People can adapt their addictions to new circumstances. That's why they are called addictions. You may see an unfortunate increase in smokeless tobacco. There are new smokeless cigarettes in Europe (who is now implementing smoking bans) that you may want to consider selling in your establishment if you're concerned. Businesses might actually see an increase in business from non-smokers.
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 7, 2008 at 03:44 PM
I don't recall a right to smoking in our constitution. I do recall a right to "life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness". Smoking inflicts second hand smoke on non-smokers (including children) which has been proven to be worse for your health the smoking itself. There are a number of diseases that are aggravated by smoking. A person should be able to go to work knowing that they are not putting their health at risk. If you choose to put your own health at risk, that's one thing. When your choice starts to impact my health and - more importantly - my children's health I have a problem with it. I think smoking should be banned in public places, the entrances to public places, and places where children gather (i.e - parks, playgrounds). Personally I would go further, and ban smoking in homes where children are present. They don't deserve to suffer both short-term and long-term effects for the poor choices of the adults around them.
Posted by: dg Location: cs on Nov 7, 2008 at 03:11 PM
well said JB!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 7, 2008 at 02:25 PM
I think smokers should have the right to smoke anywhere they darn well please. smoking products are sold in public places all over the world,thus smoking should be allowed in any public place. if non-smokers dont like the smoke ,go some where else. non-smokers are infrenging on my god given right to do what i want,so get a life
Posted by: BCS Location: BCS on Nov 7, 2008 at 01:41 PM
This decision should be left up to the Owners of the establishment. If they do not want smoking taking place in their bars, they should have a No Smoking policy. if, need be, it should be an ordinance to be left up to the owner NOT an Ordinance to ban all together. this is where a government should support what the Owner wants in their establishment and not Dictate what takes place in their establishment--of course all within reason
Posted by: J.B Location: BRYAN on Nov 7, 2008 at 01:39 PM
LET'S SEE...PEOPLE WHO DRIVE BELOW THE SPEED LIMIT, IDIOTS WITH OBNOXIOUSLY LOUD STEREOS,MAILMEN WHO DELIVER YOUR MAIL AFTER 5PM,PEOPLE WHO DRIVE EXPENSIVE CARS BUT BUY GROCERIES WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS,THE MAINTENANCE GUY WHO WON'T MOW THE ROUGHS AT THE LOCAL GOLF COURSE SO I CAN FIND MY BALL(OR MY CLUB),OVERPRICED GIRLSCOUT COOKIES,PANHANDLERS WHO WERE NEVER IN THE MILITARY, KIRBY VACUUM CLEANER SALESPERSONS, KIDS(AND ADULTS)WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY WEAR A PAIR OF JEANS, PEOPLE WHO PASS GAS IN PUBLIC,DRIVERS WHO STOP...IN A MERGE LANE!,HUMANS OVER THE AGE OF 5 THAT WON'T OR DON'T KNOW HOW TO TIE THEIR SHOES...THESE ARE JUST A FEW THINGS IRRITATE ME, BUT I WOULD RATHER SPEND MY TIME ENJOYING LIFE THAN TRYING TO RUN OTHERS LIVES...
Posted by: Maggie Location: Bryan on Nov 7, 2008 at 01:28 PM
It's the losers who sit in restaurants and allow their brats to cry and scream and ruin everyones meal. I will call the police from now on, and file a complaint of disturbing the peace. Keep your screaming, crying brats at home, or take them outside when they can't be quiet!
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 7, 2008 at 01:22 PM
If every group out there got there way we could see a group wanting to ban alochol at Northgate...
Posted by: american Location: thought the land of the free on Nov 7, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Ok anonymous at 8:19 I don't smoke and I hate the smell.But your post made my day..so true and FUNNY! If someone is smoking and I don't want to be around it, I just go sit someplace else..really people need to stop attempting to control others, it's crazy. Let the business make the decision. If smoke bothers you go to another place to eat, etc...do we really need to ban what we don't like? I don't like looking at girls and boys whos pants are dropped down past their rear ends, lets ban that. Really now.
Posted by: Sally Motl Location: Bryan,Tx on Nov 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I am very much for the 100% ban on smoking in College Station in every establishment.Second hand smoke is as dangerous as first hand,and it is so nice to go somewhere,and not worry about the smell of smoke.I have enjoyed going to places in Bryan,and not have to worry about smoke.I have quite a few members of my family who have died because of smoking and related smoking products.So count me in as a person who supports the ban on smoking.
Posted by: lbj on Nov 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
ban text messaging everwhere while driving. followed by a $1000.00 fine if caught.....
Posted by: Anonymous Location: bryan on Nov 7, 2008 at 09:12 AM
I am severely allergic to smoke, I get an asthma attack even breathing it. That being said, that's my issue. I dont think we have the right to tell other people what they can and can not do. If they want to destroy their lungs, let them. This would be a total waste of time and money to try to enforce this. Isn't there more important stuff we could be focusing on.
Posted by: Brenda Location: Bryan on Nov 7, 2008 at 07:44 AM
Ok, I want to see a ban on screaming kids and crying babies. I hate to try and enjoy a nice dinner out, while some baby momma sits and lets her kid scream. A 90 second law shoud be put into place. You have 90 secs. to get the kid out, or pay a fine hefty enough to cover the tickets for everyone's meal. Screaming babies make me nervous, and I cant enjoy my meal.
Posted by: j.b Location: bryan on Nov 7, 2008 at 07:26 AM
i'm so glad that i am a non smoker, BUT it troubles me that i'm the only one with more to worry about than who might be smoking in a bar...this is a prime example of some people not having enough to do with the extra time on their hands..it's real simple if you don't like it don't spend your money in these places until the owners choose to ban smoking..if you wanna sit and have a few drinks do it at home where YOU have a right to make the rules. plus it's cheaper than a dwi.....
Posted by: To David on Nov 7, 2008 at 06:59 AM
"As far as I know, nobody has ever been harmed by someone else’s food consumption or child crying. WOW how self-centered. That is just ridiculous. We all have the right to breathe the same CLEAN air." You're absolutely right; the babies can stay, but ALL the cars (and trucks and motorcyles and the #@$%#$ lawnmowers they start up at 7 am on a Saturday morning) have to go. I'll sign on to ban smoking as soon as you sign on to ban all internal combustion engines within the City limits.
Posted by: LC Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 09:15 PM
The point of passing the ordinance is not to take away the rights of smokers but to protect the rights of all citizens. If you choose to smoke, that's fine, but by allowing smoking in public places you are putting other people's health and lives at risk, infringing on their rights as citizens of our country. People should be able to go to bars and restaurants without putting their health at risk. Second hand smoke is known to cause several different types of cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death. Plans like this have been enacted in 21 different cities in Texas, in several states across the nation, and in Ireland. The bars did not suffer economic losses, and in some places bars actually saw an increase in revenue.
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:19 PM
Hummmmmmmm... smoke is what stinks in a bar? Have you visited the restrooms of a bar? That is what stinks! We should should ban peeing. And nose picking... you can't drive without seeing some jerk nuckle deep. We should also ban bra-less large breasted saggers. And the men need to stop playing with their nuts. Good heavens, go wash or buy better drawers. With all the above mentioned stuff going on in public why do you think we smoke?
Posted by: Mary Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 07:38 PM
I am a non-smoker and I have a choice as to spend my money at a smoking or non-smoking place of business, it should be up to the owner of the business to offer smoking or non-smoking. Not any goverment agency, be it local or state or federal. After all the owner is the one paying taxes on his business, and all his utilities are much higher than a residence. The next thing they will try to do is ban smoking in your own home.
Posted by: Ignorant Bleeding Heart Liberal. Location: Obamaland on Nov 6, 2008 at 07:29 PM
The thing that offends me most is the color orange. I don't like red either. I really like blue. Lets make orange and red illegal. I want to see every building in this town painted blue. We could even ban red and orange cars. We need to paint those ugly red stop signs blue. The public will never go for my plan. I think I will try to get my liberal buddies at city hall to push this through in the form of a city ordinance. If they wont do it I will sue because I'm offended. We all know that NOBODY ever has the right to offend anyone. We can settle out of court for an "undisclosed amount" and I might compromise and allow the red in a few places, but never orange. I just hate orange. Don't you agree with my radical, left wing, liberal plan to control every aspect of your life? Oops, I didn't mean that last part. I'm not really trying to control you. Like a city official recently said, "I have your best interest in mind". Don't you believe me? Liberals don't lie. Well OK, sometimes we don't.
Posted by: David Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 06:42 PM
I am a non-smoker and I am not against smokers but I do object to having to breathe in their secondhand smoke, and don’t tell me that I should just sit at home or not go out to the bars. I have just as much right to go out with my friends and fellow Aggies as anyone (including smokers) has. I believe that everyone should have the right to treat their body how ever they want but they cross the line when their behavior infringes on others. And this whole thing about “what are they going to ban next, food, crying babies” that is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. As far as I know, nobody has ever been harmed by someone else’s food consumption or child crying. WOW how self-centered. That is just ridiculous. We all have the right to breathe the same CLEAN air. You can smoke yourself to death, that is YOUR right but don’t force your secondhand smoke on me and don’t tell me that I can not patron a public place because I DON’T smoke. Remember NON-SMOKERS ARE the Majority!
Posted by: Trey Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 06:24 PM
I am a non-smoker. Last time I checked, smoking was still legal and people are taxed excessively for this habit. Additionally, I thought restaraunts and other service establishments were privately held enterprises that had the right to determine the best path forward for their business. That is, they should decide, based on projected profit or loss, how to operate their private business. Similarly, people should be capable of making their own decisions as to what establishment they will support; if they want a smoke-free environment, they should choose a location that supports that atmosphere. They will vote with their wallets and that will have an impact on the businesses that supply various services. The Government does not need to be "big brother" and protect people from themselves. We are not all as stupid or incompetent as our City Council or other government entities believe we are.
Posted by: Chris Location: Bryan on Nov 6, 2008 at 06:20 PM
The more you try to ban smoking/smokers, the more you ban/isolate members of your town. It sounds like history is repeating itself. Next thing you know, smokers will have to use a different sidewalk and drink out of different water fountains.
Posted by: Michael Location: Bryan on Nov 6, 2008 at 06:14 PM
I believe that it is a gross violation of the rights of the establishment to legislate what can or cannot take place in their establishment. Leave it up to the owner/manager! If you don't like the smoke, then you do not have to go there! But do not force business owners to inconvenience their patrons which actually can hurt the bottom line of those businesses, thus reducing taxes paid, thus hurting the very body that implemented the ban in the first place! I have the choice to smoke or not smoke. I have the choice to choose weather or not I allow smoking in my place of business. Those choices are my RIGHT to choose, and 'Big Brother' has NO GROUNDS to tell me what I can or cannot do in these circumstances!
Posted by: Dusty Location: CS on Nov 6, 2008 at 06:09 PM
I first experienced this when I went to California a few months ago. IT'S AWESOME. I smoke 1 or 2 (only when I drink) and had to go out on the porch to smoke. It made the inside of the bar totally better and was not an inconvience at all. Why is anyone fighting this?? It allows both groups to do what they want without infringing on others.
Posted by: James Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 06:06 PM
What's next? A ban on trans fat? Freedom. Don't go where smokers are if you don't like smoke. I don't.
Posted by: Linda Praytor Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 05:01 PM
Our young service workers should not have to breath the second hand smoke.
Posted by: Smoke-free Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Why should I be exposed to second-hand smoke when I don't smoke. I should be able to go out to eat or to Northgate and be able to enjoy myself in a clean environment! I'm not telling anyone not to smoke--that's a personal decision, but why do you need to cause harm to others because of your choice? Research has shown how harmful it is!
Posted by: David Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Yes I do. Second hand smoke is so unhealthy. It's about time our city government helps protect our health and our childrens health.
Posted by: Brian Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Finally! We nonsmokers, the majority of people in CS, have had to put up with secondhand smoke for too long. This isn't about taking away people's right to smoke. They can. We're just asking that they not do it where other patrons and workers have to breathe it. Yes, customers can leave, and I usually do. But someone that needs the job waiting tables or bartending doesn't have that option. They have to suffer through the smoke, go home stinking, suffer more upper respiratory infections, and take more sick days. Bars & restaurants pay more in insurance costs, pay for employees off sick, pay for furniture and carpet damage from burns, pay extra for cleaning. Economically, it's a win for them not to allow it, as EVERY study nationwide has shown. Yes, we all support freedom, so let's not trot out that old line. This is about the health of patrons and workers, not freedom. You want to smoke, take it outside, where it belongs. That's all we're asking.
Posted by: If we had a choice Location: CS on Nov 6, 2008 at 04:36 PM
The whole if you don't like it go somewhere else is the issue in this city. There is no where else to go. All the bars are smoke pits!!! IF there was a bar that didn't allow smoking that would be wonderful. Since the council is so "involved" maybe they should try to find a bar to open that is smokeless and see what happens?!
Posted by: observer Location: college station on Nov 6, 2008 at 02:28 PM
I honestly hope they go through with this. Houston, Austin, tx bars have this in effect and it makes the enviornment more enjoyable. As a costumer at any bar or club, if it is too smokey I will leave immediatly. When the place is not smokey, I stay and buy more drinks. Think about it.
Posted by: Kev Location: CS on Nov 6, 2008 at 02:24 PM
I don't smoke. I am against the city limiting where you can smoke. I am not going to infringe on a smokers rights, just b/c I don't like it. I am free to go somewhere different if I choose. Next thing you know they are going to ask me not to own a gun in the city. Personal liberties and personal choice are important even if they don't apply to you at the time. People need to remember that!
Posted by: Aggie_Girl2006 Location: CS on Nov 6, 2008 at 01:52 PM
I think this is a fantastic idea. Going out in non-smoking places such as Houston, it is so much nicer, because you don't come out smelling like smoke. It doesn't impose on smokers because all they have to do is walk outside the bar, smoke, and come back inside...not a big deal at all. Plus, not everyone wants to inhale that second hand smoke and put their own health at risk just because someone else doesn't have any regard for theirs. Anyways, this is a great idea and I hope College Station passes this ordinance and moves in the right direction!!
Posted by: val Location: bcs on Nov 6, 2008 at 01:37 PM
i agree with david!
Posted by: driller Location: college station on Nov 6, 2008 at 01:05 PM
I smoke from time to time and the way i see it if you dont like to go to bars and smell smoke get the H%@@ out and dont come around
Posted by: Maggie Location: Bryan on Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Don't really know why it's so difficult to let business owners decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking. There appears to be plenty of people who would frequent an establishment that didn't so it would survive. Is there an organization forming to work AGAINST this? I want to get involved. In the meantime, I'll stick to my haunts in Bryan.
Posted by: Me Location: Bryan on Nov 6, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Hey,allforit, name ONE of those TOWNS you've been to.....
Posted by: James Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Considering how most smoker's don't even think of their fellow citizens, like smoking in front of a resturant waiting on a table or walking around someone on a sidewalk through the smoke yes it should be band.
Posted by: Against more government Location: Here on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Well said, Aggie. It's heartening to see that there are still rational people who understand that freedom includes the right to make decisions about your own property, including businesses. When everything is government owned, (as it will be under the new socialist government you just elected), then the government will tell you when and where you can do everything. Orwell was right, but the government in the story is coming from the left!
Posted by: l Location: C/S on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:06 AM
oh wow!.. so does that mean if there is a fireplace we need to remove it too?..I am a smoker.. but i smoke outside.. so i go to places where i can smoke outside..I am not in agreement with this..too much control..we already have places that do not allow smokers in businesses and restaurants.. so i think if you dont like it find a place that doesnt allow smoking!
Posted by: Erin Robison on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:53 AM
I just wanted to say that I am a non- smoker, have worked in the rest/ bar industry and I think that untill if ever ciggarettes are no longer sold...how can you ban them in places where alcohol is sold. Alot of people won't even smoke unless they are drinking. But, I do agree resturants and places w/ children it may be well rude to smoke where someone wants to have a meal w/ their family...but a bar atmosphere is for adults who probably are doing things just as unhealthy to their bodies. It should be our own choice.
Posted by: Free Choice Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:27 AM
I don't smoke and never have, but it is not for the government to legislate our lives. It should be up to the owners of the establishment as to what their place allows. Don't go if you don't like it - patronize a place that you do like. The old addage - give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile - is so true. Start with one thing and then it's what to eat, what to wear, what to think, etc. This country was founded on just the opposite philosophy!
Posted by: Shannon Location: Bryan, TX on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Second-hand smoke puts everyone around in danger, especially in a closed, unventilated area. I have had numerous occasions where the smoker standing/sitting next to me in a restaurant/bar purposely held their cigarette as far away from their table or friends as possible, while it is inches from my face. If you are a true smoker, not a poser like most are, then revel in your cloud of cancer. Don't hold it in my face. I can handle smoke, but keep it out of my face.
Posted by: hatenhaters Location: cs on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:21 AM
To--Anonymous on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:05 AM If you don't want to put yourself at risk of being around smoke, YOU STAY HOME THERE GUY!! Freaking dumb**'*!!!
Posted by: John Location: Carlos on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:18 AM
The issue here is not about smoking are not smoking. Sounds like The Hitler movement is tighting up. People, WAKE UP...
Posted by: Domaco34 Location: bcs on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Actually, uninformed "allforit", Austin tried to do this when I was living there, 8 Years. The bars kept letting people smoke there and just paid the joke of a fine. After the "smart" city council members realized it was not going work, they allowed the bars that wanted to allow people to smoke to pay for a yearly permit that allows it to happen. THIS WILL NOT WORK. And, that argument of going someplace else is not weak, and it is smart. I don't like country music, so I don't go to the country bars/dance halls. Thats not weak, that son, is smart. Should I get with the city and puke my displeasure about country bars and try to have them changed to rock and roll bars?? No, why, because that would be STUPID!! I don't like it, I don't go. Use your brains people. We all have rights. I don't like bumper to bumper traffic. Thats why I don't live in Houston. If you don't like it, instead of whinning like my 10 month old, FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!Grow up and stop needing something to complain about
Posted by: jr on Nov 6, 2008 at 09:30 AM
just more city of cs socialism
Posted by: Fedupwithrichamerica Location: here on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:44 AM
So, smoke bothers some people. So do crying babies, music, colors, the smell of certain foods, the smell of auto exhaust.............I have an idea, lets all board up our doors and windows and just stay inside of our boarded up homes so we don't have to be around anything that might bother/offend us. This seems like the SMART thing to do. Like one post said below, lets ban the drunk people that REALLY do kill people. That, would be smart. I enjoy going to the bars still, so I am not saying that because I am against alcohol. Second hand smoke has been proven to NOT be as bad as was originaly reported years ago when the "second hand smoke" became so popular. You might not like the smell but to walk past someone who is smoking and smell it for a short time? Babies. Do a poll on people who drink. Most of them smoke. The poeple trying to ban this should find a non-smoking bar. Oh yeah, they don't go to bars, they are to good for our common bars. Leave us who understand life alone. Idiots.
Posted by: TEX-MEX Location: BRYAN TX on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:38 AM
WE WONDER WHY AMERICA IS SO SCREWED UP YOU GOT GROUPS NOW TO STOP PEOPLE FROM SMOKING THE REASON WE WANT SMOKING PLACES IS TO KEEP PEOPLE LIKE YOU FROM HANGING AROUNG THESE JOINTS. YOU ARE THE PEOPLE WE DON'T WANT TO HANG OUT WITH IF YOU CAN HAVE IDIOT GROUPS WHY CAN'T WE HAVE SMOKING GROUPS IF YOU DON'T LIKE PLACES THAT HAVE SMOKING AREAS STAY AWAY GO FIND CHUCK E CHEESE OR SOMETHING THAT IS SUITABLE FOR YOU PEOPLE. LIFE IS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE WITH WINERS LIKE YA'LL GET REAL PEOPLE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET KILLED DON'T GO TO WAR IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A WRECK DON'T DRIVE A VEHICLE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET DRUNK DON'T DRINK DO YOU GET THE IDEA LEAVE EVERY BODY ELSE ALONE AND WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN LIFE AND STAY AWAY FROM WHAT YOU DON'T WANT IT'S YOR CHOICE SOCIETY IS GETTING TO CROWDED WITH RULES THE MORE YOU MAKE UP THE LESS WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO. LOOK AT OTHER COUNTRIES THAT'S HOW THEY LIVE BY RULES AND WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THEM LIVE OUR STYLE OF LIFE GET REAL.BORN AND RAISED TEXAN
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:37 AM
Have any of you been out in Austin or Houston? They've enforced this ordinance, and it's awesome! You can go out and not smell horrible when you come home. They've got my vote!
Posted by: DJ Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:31 AM
I totally agree with Aggie at 9:28PM. I am not a smoker either, but if you start taking away those rights, what DOES come next. Leave the smokers alone and choose to go where there is less smoking.
Posted by: allforit Location: cs on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:28 AM
I've lived in other towns where they did this, and it's great. I agree that people have a right to smoke where they want, but the argument "if you don't like it, don't go" is weak. Just like people have a right to smoke, people have a right to go somewhere and not want to be surrounded by it. This ordinance would just mean smokers would have to smoke outside of the buildings; what's wrong with that? I promise that in places where they already do this, it has been better for everyone, smokers and non-smokers.
Posted by: David Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:18 AM
I'm a non smoker and I think you are going a little too far with this one. If there are that many people going to bars that don't like smoke then open a non smoking bar. Smoking in bars is about the only public place left for smokers to go and have a good time. It's their business if they want to harm their bodies even more by somoking. Too many rules being forced upon us in our "free" world.
Posted by: TB` Location: BRYAN on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:18 AM
Very well put Aggie.
Posted by: KLH Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:17 AM
And don't forget cell phones! It is SO irritating to be out eating, etc and someone is having a full-blown, loud conversation next to me.
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 6, 2008 at 08:05 AM
yes ban smoking in public you want to smoke, smoke in your house
Posted by: Crazy Location: cs on Nov 6, 2008 at 07:43 AM
Ok, then I want to see them stop serving food to fat people. And lets not allow perfume either, because some of it offends me. Hey, No children either, they make too much noise. And while they're at it, old folks too, they are too slow.
Posted by: Dawn Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 07:36 AM
Sounds great to me! I am all for a smoke free public environment. If you want to smoke do it at home or in your car with the window rolled up! (after all I want you to really enjoy it so make sure you are in a closed environment getting every penny out of that cig!!) You cant smoke in public in plenty of other states, cities or airlines. Nebraska has a full no smoking ban, even Tennessee has a partial no smoking ban. California has a no smoking ban.. and this state isn't losing tourists or business in the restaurant or club industry. The commonwealth of Puerto Rico has a no smoking ban and many of the cities in Texas(gasp!)already have full or partial public no smoking bans, including El Paso(2002) and San Antonio(2003).It almost appears as if College Station may be behind the curve in promoting a healthy clean public environment that reduces public exposure to known carcinogens.
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 6, 2008 at 07:36 AM
[I would actually go out to the bars again if it was for all that disgusting smoke.] Then why don't YOU open a bar where smoking is not allowed; OWNERS CAN prohibit smoking if THEY choose to, and if this "group" thinks that there enough nonsmoking drinkers around to make it pay, they SHOULD be able to pack the place without forcing EVERYBODY else to adopt their views. And if (as I suspect) they are just a noisy nosey minority of busybodies trying to make the rest of us dance to their tune, they can just hit the liquor store, wings to go, and supermarket and go home to watch the game while eating wings and drinking...
Posted by: LW Location: BRYAN on Nov 6, 2008 at 07:34 AM
This group needs to go to CUBA where freedoms are already regulated by the GOVERNMENT. IF they succeed, soon all of us will wear the same colored clothes, live in identical houses, have the same number kids,..... We NEED a CONSTITUTION PARTY, to come back and put us on the FREEDOM TRAIL again.
Posted by: Ken Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 07:15 AM
A ban on smoking city wide would be one more step towards the complete "pansification" of this town as well as the US as a whole. If you want to be a california pansy, then by all means, ban smoking city wide. Next up - banning all youth sports because kids get hurt too!
Posted by: Snoopy Location: Doghouse on Nov 6, 2008 at 06:46 AM
Aggie, I am very happy to see that common sense still exists. I sometimes feel like a modern Diogenes, but with my lamp, I've been looking for people like you, who are intelligent, as well as honest. Thank you for your comment.
Posted by: CS mom Location: College Station on Nov 6, 2008 at 06:33 AM
I was recently enjoying an evening outside at a local restaurant and suddenly my air was invaded by the noxious smoke of a cigar. There was no escaping the smell and smoke! The gentleman was puffing so much billowing smoke that it completely swallowed up the entire patio. I was not the only guest disgusted. Our dining experience became stressful and unpleasant. Soon we were unable to even see this polluting source due to the dense smog.
Posted by: cs on Nov 6, 2008 at 06:20 AM
I am not a smoker. I completely agree with the previous poster. The government needs to quit trying to control every aspect of our lives. Aren't there more important decisions/policies, etc. to discuss??? If I am somewhere that has an overabundance of smoke then I am perfectly capable of leaving. Likewise for everyone else. What the heck is going to be banned next??? Kids in restaurants??
Posted by: smoke Location: second hand on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:31 PM
ah the wonderful smells of the bar/restaurant/bowling alley with the smoke lingering. i am not a smoker never have been but sometimes just get that good taste feeling when in that environment. if you dont like it go somewhere else(preferably home). another case of lefty liberals trying to enforce there views(stupidity) on every one else. next we'll be told not to breathe its bad for you. dont drink,dont smoke,dont cuss, youre still gonna kick the bucket some day
Posted by: me Location: texas on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:59 PM
why don't they take away our food as well. I'm sick and tired of non-smokers thinking that they are the only ones with rights. Of course, they probably voted for NOBAMA as well.
Posted by: Guess Who? Location: Bryan on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:12 PM
It is my constitutional right to be able to smoke as long as I do not put any one else in danger. So if I go out side of my work place to smoke that is my right. Start taking everything away and this nation is going in the wrong way direction. What will be next?
Posted by: Anonymous Location: College Station on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I would actually go out to the bars again if it was for all that disgusting smoke. Can't stand coming home with all my clothes and hair reaking or cigs.
Posted by: KLH Location: College Station on Nov 5, 2008 at 09:36 PM
Don't forget to include colognes and perfumes. They make me sick.
Posted by: Aggie Location: Aggieland on Nov 5, 2008 at 09:28 PM
I'm not a smoker and I hate smoke. However, if you invest your savings and your time in a bar or restaurant I believe you should have the right to allow smoking. By the same token I have the right to go to other places of business that are more suited to nonsmokers, like myself. If you can keep your doors open and turn a profit while allowing smokers, than more power to you. Too many people, including this bunch of cry babies, look to government to solve problems. That is exactly how America got in the mess it is in today. If smoke offends you, don't go in the place. If enough of you stay out, they will either accommodate your desire for a smoke free environment of they will go out of business.
Posted by: Stopwhining Location: cs on Nov 5, 2008 at 09:27 PM
Why dont you move to Cuba?
Posted by: Marlboro Man Location: College Station on Nov 5, 2008 at 09:03 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Funniest and stupidest thing brought up to date. I can see it now! City giving tickets to smokers lol I wouldn't be surprised lol. Get a life for Christ sake!
Posted by: kim Location: cs on Nov 5, 2008 at 08:38 PM
OMG Get a life! Oh wait! You want to control my life and the lives of others. If this group has their way with this what is next? Going into the homes of smokers and banning them from smoking in their homes for fear that they may breathe in some of the smoke seeping thru the walls, no smoking in your backyard for fear that the neighbors can breathe in the smoke. Where will it end?
Posted by: me Location: cs on Nov 5, 2008 at 08:30 PM
leave us alone, you babies
Posted by: BJ Location: College Station on Nov 5, 2008 at 08:28 PM
You mean I would be able to go out and not smell like an ashtray when i come home?? Lets do it!
Posted by: Old Timer Location: Bryan on Nov 5, 2008 at 07:46 PM
I long for the day of a "DRUNK" free society, but that's not going to happen. I am sick & tired of the so called "DO GOODER's" pressing issues, such as this one. They are more scared of getting a whiff of second hand smoke than they are of a drunk driver running into them, perhaps killing them and/or their family's. With all of the alcohol related problems in College Station, maybe all of you need to rise in support of a total ban of alcoholic beverages in your great city. I would support that nationwide. That would be a far more beneficial use of your time and legislation in the interest of mankind!
AP Video
KBTX Active Stories
JobSearch Recent Listings
The following list shows the 5 most recent jobs posted on the Job Board at KBTX.com. View More Jobs.
Digital TV
Backyard BBQ