Frisco

In the Smoky Drinky Bar last night, Brigitte drew my attention to a strange report:

Frisco ordinance amended to include smoking lounges

Smoking lounges are now a part of Frisco’s smoking ordinance after a local business owner approached the city about adding one in her restaurant.

Frisco City Council approved amendments to the smoking ordinance during the March 5 meeting. The amendments include defining a smoking lounge, which is a room in a retail establishment provided for patrons to smoke. The ordinance was also amended to include hookah and other non-tobacco substitutes under the definition of smoking.

Dee Lincoln Prime, an upscale steakhouse at The Star in Frisco, is planning to add a smoking lounge. Owner Dee Lincoln said the smoking ordinance amendment is an important step to help Frisco businesses remain competitive.

“I really feel like as a new business owner in Frisco and all the competition that’s been around us, this speaks loud and clear to how much you all care and how you want to attract businesses here,” she said.

Under the amended ordinance, smoking lounges cannot take up more than 15 percent of the floor area of a business and must have a barrier to prevent smoke from escaping the establishment.

This isn’t the sort of thing I expect to read about San Francisco (aka ‘Frisco). SF is the antismoking capital of the USA.  You’re more likely to read that

San Francisco mayor launches drive to evict smokers from public housing.

or maybe

San Francisco issues permits to allow smokers to be shot on sight, in “self-defence”.

So what’s going on if smoking lounges are now appearing in San Francisco? Has there been some weird outbreak of tolerance there? Has Stanton Glantz died or been sent to prison?

There’s actually a very simple explanation, which only occurred to me when I started writing about it.

And it’s that Frisco is not ‘Frisco. It’s not the same as San Francisco. There’s a town in Texas called Frisco. And there’s also a town in Colorado called Frisco. Maybe there’s a town called Frisco in every state in the USA. And in one of these little towns, in some tolerant backwater which hasn’t yet been invaded by the bullies from Tobacco Control, local ordnances have been amended to allow businesses to include smoking lounges – which is the sort of thing that happens in tolerant, civilised societies.

Here’s what’s happening in the real San Francisco right now:

San Francisco voters banned all flavored tobacco sales last June, and full enforcement of that law began on January 1st. But what happens when small businesses have to pull these products off their shelves, and how is the city helping with the transition?

Janine Young, one of the Senior Environmental Health Inspectors from the Department of Public Health, arrives at a gas station in the Sunset District one chilly winter morning. She’s here to conduct one of the department’s flavored tobacco compliance checks.

As part of the transition away from flavored tobacco, the city plans to visit every store selling these products before the end of February to make sure they’re complying with the law. Today, Young is checking up gas stations, corner stores, and smoke shops.

During each visit, Young verifies that there are no longer any flavored products in the business. That includes everything from flavored nicotine vape liquids to sweetened hookahs, and even menthol cigarettes. As of January first, every tobacco retailer in San Francisco selling any of these products risks suspension of their permit.

So while in Frisco people are being given choices, in ‘Frisco choice is being taken away. And most likely when they’ve taken away all flavour choices from tobacco, they’ll probably start on removing all flavours from food and drink as well. And they’ll have Senior Environmental Health Inspectors to ensure that it happens.

I suppose that if there are Senior Environmental Health Inspectors in San Francisco, there must be Junior Environmental Health Inspectors as well, and various ranks in between, and a whole army of these busybodies patrolling the streets, on the look-out for anything menthol-flavoured or vanilla-flavoured.

But maybe in the town of Frisco, Texas, there are no Environmental Health Inspectors at all. And maybe not even any Inspectors. Because the town is probably very small, and only has a single part-time mayor, who looks exactly like James Stewart, and who runs the gas station on the edge of town.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Frisco

  1. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Nasty place California for smokers. Why would you ever live in such an intolerant place !

  2. I left San Diego, California, two days ago, and am now in Mexico. The anti-smoking laws are almost the same here as in California, but the hotel owners are smarter. Most hotels are 100% non-smoking, but they find ways to accommodate smokers when possible.

    The first hotel I stayed in was non-smoking, but said I could smoke in the courtyard. When I went to the courtyard to smoke, I asked where the ashtray was. There wasn’t one. The manager was sweeping the courtyard and had swept some cigarette butts into a small puddle. I jokingly asked if the puddle was the ashtray, and he laughed and told me I could smoke in my room. Luckily I’d brought along an ashtray.

    The second hotel was also 100% non-smoking, but when I asked where I could smoke, they directed me to an outdoor swimming pool that has umbrella tables, electric sockets for charging laptops and cell phones, and is within their wi-fi area.

    I’d guess that smokers stay in California because they don’t know of any place to go that allows smoking, can’t afford to leave, don’t want to be far from family or friends, or are unaware that when a state removes legal rights from a group it is usually a prelude to genocide.

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    And another crack in the antismoking persecution in Arkansas: “ARKANSAS LEGISLATOR’S BILL WOULD ALLOW FOR SMOKING IN PRIVATE BUSINESSES” https://halfwheel.com/arkansas-legislators-bill-would-allow-for-smoking-in-private-businesses/296671

    • Joe L. says:

      It’s sad that we now need to rely on politicians to propose and pass legislation like this in order to restore common sense, civil liberties and a free market. I certainly hope this bill passes. Any momentum in the right direction is positive, and this could be the catalyst for a sea change.

    • jaxthefirst says:

      Interesting. However, from the agenda for the meeting on 12th March at http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/Lists/Meetings/Attachments/50907/2558.pdf (page 2, sixth item from the end) the item reads: “TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT OF 2006; AND TO ALLOW PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES THE OPTION TO PROHIBIT SMOKING.” (my emphasis). Which is a bit surprising. Didn’t private businesses have the option to prohibit smoking anyway? Haven’t they always had that option, even before bans were imposed?

      And further inspection of the actual law (with changes) at http://staging.arkleg.state.ar.us/ftproot/bills/2019R/public/HB1696.pdf , if I’m reading it right, seems to be removing exemptions from the ban, rather than repealing any. But I bow to the better understanding of these things by the writer of Halfwheel, who I think is American and thus more familiar with the details of State laws and all that kind of stuff. I just hope his interpretation of this amendment is right and mine is wrong!

      • Joe L. says:

        Thanks for linking the text of the actual bill, Jax. It does seem a bit confusing. I’m not a lawyer, but from what I gather, the amendment proposes removing existing specific exemptions for private business owners who meet the criteria, and would instead allow any and all private businesses to determine whether or not to allow smoking. The bill would still prohibit smoking in publically-owned businesses, without exception.

        The current ban, without this amendment, only allows private businesses which meet the criteria in section 2 (the long list which has been striked out) to allow smoking. Private businesses which do not meet any of that criteria are currently forced by law to prohibit smoking.

        Here’s another article from a local website which also discusses the bill:

        https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/mar/06/bill-filed-to-lighten-state-smoking-ban-1/

        • Joe L. says:

          I’d like to add that the list of exemptions in Section 2 is so specific and restrictive that hardly any private businesses currently qualify for exemption. Here’s my attempt at translating that list from Legalese to English:

          A business with fewer than 3 employees which is not open to the public
          A tobacco shop (as long as “secondhand smoke” doesn’t “infiltrate” [wording from the actual bill] into areas in which smoking is prohibited by the law)
          Nursing homes can have indoor smoking areas
          Outdoor places of employment (I assume that includes construction sites?)
          Workplaces of tobacco manufacturers, importers, and wholesalers
          Restaurants and bars which do not admit minors under 21 years of age (again, as long as “secondhand smoke” doesn’t “infiltrate” into areas in which smoking is prohibited by the law)
          Horse racing tracks

          A pitiful list, but sadly it’s actually more relaxed than many other states’ current smoking bans. :(

        • Joe L. says:

          Note to self for posterity’s sake: HTML lists don’t render nicely in WordPress comments.

  4. Joe L. says:

    Slightly OT: The founder of Greenpeace Canada, who has since become estranged from and critical of the organization, was interviewed by Breitbart a couple of days ago:

    Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore described the cynical and corrupt machinations fueling the narrative of anthropocentric global warming and “climate change” in a Wednesday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak.
    Moore explained how fear and guilt are leveraged by proponents of climate change:

    “Fear has been used all through history to gain control of people’s minds and wallets and all else, and the climate catastrophe is strictly a fear campaign — well, fear and guilt — you’re afraid you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and you feel guilty for doing that. There’s no stronger motivation than those two.”

    Well said and simply put. And one can substitute “smoking” for “climate change” and “cigarette smoke” for “carbon dioxide” and the article would hold true about the fear- and guilt-based Antismoking crusade and the “secondhand smoke” hoax. The only difference is that nobody is speaking about this in interviews.

    Full article here: Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’

  5. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    Disgraceful. Yet more gutless bullying of smokers. I walked past the Australian federal Health Dept HQ in Woden, Canberra this morning. Every 5 metres or so were signs banning smoking within 15 metres of the building, in the open air, a totally arbitrary figure plucked from the fundamental orifice of dictatorial unelected unaccountable prodnose collectivist bureaucrats, handsomely paid in public funds stolen from smokers. These are the same arrogant bullies who commissioned the loaded sham consultation survey linked below (I knew nothing of the survey until lifestyle freedom devotee Chris Snowdon from the UK told me. Maybe the so called Health Dept, who run no hospitals, only asked fellow brainwashed cultists, to confirm their preconceived bias).
    I commend this survey to all free choice independent thinkers of Frank’s fine blog. An Australian address might be obligatory but I’m sure you all have sufficient intellectual acuity to flood the survey with opinions the curtain twitching capnophobes wish to ignore. An email address is also provided, for direct relentless flaming, as they do to us. 🚬🚬🚬
    https://consultations.health.gov.au/population-health-and-sport-division/review-of-tobacco-control-legislation/

  6. DP says:

    Dear Mr Davis

    It’s almost that time of year when I have to dig out a cigarette from my battered pre-plain pack of 10 B & H Gold to celebrate no Tobacco Day – this year it’s Tuesday March 12th.

    DP

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.