Posted on 06/11/2010 6:54:43 AM PDT by laotzu
The effort to ban smoking in all workplaces across the city appears to be going up in smoke, as prominent advertising executive Lionel Sosa tonight will brand the proposal as racist.
"The proposed ordinance is economically discriminatory to members of the Hispanic community," Sosa will tell council, according to a text of his letter obtained by 1200 WOAI news. "When you look at the population of the small area bars, poll halls, and VFW halls that populate our community, you will see the overwhelming majority of those that will see their freedom of choice stripped from them by this ordinance are Hispanic-owned businesses."
Prominent Texas economist Ray Perryman has also written a letter to city council that blasts an Institute for Health Promotion Research Study which concludes that a smoking ban would have no impact on the operations of the businesses which now allow smoking, but would be forced to change policies under the proposed law.
"When laws are suddenly changed, winners and losers are randomly created through a process that has nothing to do with business acumen," Perryman writes. "Such capriciousness discourages investment and creates losses for certain enterprises as a result of the change even in a case where overall spending remains unchanged or even increases."
Perryman says 'capricious' changes in smoking policy would discourage investment, reduce the profitability of businesses, and lead to layoffs.
Both Perryman and Sosa say that the decision on whether to patronize a smoking or a non smoking establishment should be made by the customer, not by government.
"The basic theory of consumer behavior revolves around the actions of consumers in making purchasing choices to maximize their level of satisfaction within the constraints of their financial capacity," Perryman writes. "When the set of available alternatives is restricted, overall satisfaction is lowered. In addition to causing economic and fiscal losses to the City of san Antonio, arbitrary harms to existing businesses and potential reductions in local competitiveness, the ordinance has the effect of reducing economic welfare for local residents."
Sosa agrees.
"Expansion of this ordinance will erode sales tax income from the City's coffers," Sosa says. "Please let San Antonio be a leader, not a follower, of the erosion of our remaining freedoms."
The idea to ban smoking entirely inside all workplaces, including restaurants, bars, pool and BINGO halls, VFW and American Legion halls, and even cigar bars is clearly losing steam at City Hall, which Councilman Ray Lopez now opposing it.
"I think what we have in place now, is a pretty good ordinance," he said.
You might as well state....
It’s the right of business owners to decide if they will permit FORCE smoking inside their establishment.
Or San Antonio?
Show me one business anywhere which requires patrons to smoke.
If you don’t like the way someone runs their business, as long as they aren’t “The State”, you can go somewhere else.
Like the tanning salon tax?
If they allow smoking in the business, then they allow non-smokers to breathe in that second hand smoke.
Why can’t I and most other citizens pass laws to prohibit that? It’s still a free country.
My initial reaction is to let them smoke all they want. On second thought - we’ll be paying the hospital bills.
Ban tobacco then outright. If you are not permitted to use it in public or in your home or in your car, ban it outright.
That is the California standard. It’s all going that way.
How many people who receive federal welfare also manage to find money for smokes and alcohol?
I’ve always said that if you want to cut down on drug use legalize it, let goverment tax it, let them regulate it, and let the Post Office deliver it. Problem solved.
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas;
I read a study some time ago that when you factor in the savings on Social Security and other benefits that it’s a wash to a net positive.
Of course just plain RIGHTS and FREEDOM have nothing to do with it. Only RAAAACISM is important!! Jeeeesh!
Really? That’s interesting.
So the numbers work for now but wait till SS runs out of money. We’ll still have millions in need of health care.
You guys remind me of the telethon that was held on the old “Fernwood 2-night” show, which had a big sign in back of Martin Mull and his co-host, saying, “help stamp out death in our lifetime!”
Yeah, it’s (still) a free country, sort of, and you’re free to go to smoke-free bars if you so choose. You have rights, but so do other people. There’s enough room in the world, methinks, to accomodate everyone.
If you prefer that particular bar that has smoking in it, then you’re gonna have to make a choice, and that’s one of the important elements of life on this planet - making choices.
You make yours. You do not get to make mine.
End of discussion.
CA....
Why can’t I and most other citizens pass laws to prohibit that? It’s still a free country.
Ah, yes. The freedom to make everyone else act like you want them to.
Most of these pool halls are holes in the wall where people come to shoot pool, drink beer, and smoke. If enough of the people who frequent these bars say, "Hey, I'm sick of the smoke, someone will open up a pool hall and ban smoking. Then all the people who want to drink beer and shoot pool without smoke will go to that hall. However, a simpler method is to simply force everyone in the place to quit smoking, so you can enjoy your smoke free environment.
No one forces you into a pool hall, and you have the option of going to any pool hall you wish. However, you want to make everyone else conform to your norms, instead of choosing a place that makes you happy.
Yes we do. We are the majority. We vote.
< snort! >
So do I!
CA....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.