Ban smoking in public?

[Sigurd]

Well, pretty straightforward. Scotland, England, Ireland and Norway have banned smoking in all public places, some other countries like Germany, Italy and Austria have limited the public places in which one can smoke, and we heard of Schiphol Airport going smoke-free at the end of last year.

Either way - do you support the idea of banning smoking in public? If yes, why? If no, why not?

[Sigurd]

Anyway, here goes my own opinion. Now, now, I may be a smoker at present and it will sound a little like the stereotypical smoker's rant to some, but I even held exactly the same views on this during my 6-monthly intermezzo as a non-smoker.

I believe that it should be banned in government buildings and the likes, with a smoking area maybe provided outside and at the back, as well as maybe a secluded one inside for the Staff. If you go to a courtroom or a parliament session, you expect to be in a formal, cleanly and proper atmosphere.

Local public transport should be non-smoking, usually ventilation is bad, and surely no one can be so addicted as to not be able to withhold the urge to smoke for half an hour. Long-distance public transport should however cater for smokers: Trains should have two smoking compartments, one at either end, and as regards planes the air was actually healthier when smoking was still allowed, because paradoxically clean air would be pumped into the cabin more frequently, as the rate of ventilation obviously needs to be higher to deal with the smoke.

For other public places I propose a compromise: Pubs, restaurants and other venues who have only a single room, or an area of less than 75 square metres should be able to choose whether they want their entire premises to be either smoking or non-smoking.

Those places that have multiple rooms, or an area of more than 75 square metres, should be obliged to install one smoking and one non-smoking area... many cafes, pubs and restaurants have multiple rooms/lounges separated by staircases, hallways or other passageways that prevent the smoke from evading, especially here in the UK.

The final concern will surely be that of the Staff that work at the place, and their health. Now I see where one would be coming from in a country like Germany, or Austria, where your drinks are brought to your table more often than not, but I cannot see the issue in the UK, where you are expected to collect your drinks from the bar: If you have a bar room and a lounge room - why not have people collect their drinks, and maybe even food, from the bar room (which would sensibly be non-smoking) and then move on into the lounge room if they wish to smoke.

Either way, with about 35% of all adults smoking, I find it important that a compromise should be met, as there are obviously the smokers, the non-smokers who aren't bothered, and the non-smokers who are bothered...and all groups being relatively equal in numbers.

I have also heard the argument by the way that it will improve the atmosphere in a pub, and maybe even get people to stop smoking, and it will finally make everything cleaner? Oh, really? Ever since smoking was banned in enclosed public places here in Scotland:

You are now able to smell the sweat and farts in a pub...surely not a pleasant smell either?
It has made smoking social again. Friendships are made whilst smoking outside because you meet random people you would have never talked to otherwise. Also, if you are the only non-smoker out with a group of smokers, you are more or less bound to head outside with them or be left alone at a table. Many people start that way...and are still passive smoking either way, if they don't.
Made everything cleaner? With the City Councils not seeing themselves responsible to clean sidewalks, a semi-blind person could tell where the entrances to pubs are: Cigarette buds all over the place that would otherwise have been deposed of in a


PS: And on a side note: If I walk down a busy road during rush hour for ten minutes I suppose I inhale more toxic smoke than by sitting in the smoking compartment of a train for an hour. So instead of bitching about how smoking inside adversely influences our health, people should rather look at the damage they are doing themselves by often driving cars that are anything but environmentally friendly.

[Loki]

Absolutely, ban smoking in all public places.

I can say that the UK smoking ban is one of the best societal changes that I have ever experienced in my life. All of a sudden it is more pleasant, and tolerable, to go to bars and clubs, and restaurants -- without having to be bombarded by that repulsive stink of tobacco smoke. I despise it, and feel smokers who smoke in public are selfish and rude.

:coffee:

[Thordis]

I too despise tobacco smoke and I don't see why I, as a non-smoker, should be forced to put up with the disgusting smell anywhere I go. But I think there should be places where smokers should be able to go and smoke their cigarettes too. So, I think it should be up to the owner of the building/bar/restaurant etc. That way the state wouldn't push either a pro-smoking or an anti-smoking stance on people and they would have options to choose from.

[WinterMoon]

I voted to ban it in all public places, simply because I don't feel that those of us who choose not to smoke should be forced to be subjected to something which can be a detriment on our health.

[Æmeric]

Nicotine stinks! It is inconsiderate of smokers to spread that smell. If you are downwind of a smoker you will end up smelling like an ashtray. Not to mention all of those cigarette buts that letter the landscape. So I'm in favor of banning smoking in public places & taxing the hell out of tobacco products. Btw, I'm also opposed to the chewing of tobacco in public. More disgusting then smoking.:thumb down2

[Lenny]

I hate smoking and I always move away when there's a smoker upwind. So I am hardly objective when I say it should be banned in public.

I also am in favor of it being ridiculously overtaxed to discourage usage in general. In my state (Virginia) the tax rate for cigerettes is the lowest in the USA, I'm told. :eek2:



PS: And on a side note: If I walk down a busy road during rush hour for ten minutes I suppose I inhale more toxic smoke than by sitting in the smoking compartment of a train for an hour. So instead of bitching about how smoking inside adversely influences our health, people should rather look at the damage they are doing themselves by often driving cars that are anything but environmentally friendly.Are you sure of this? I'd be very interested to see some proofs of that.

One way or another we definitely need to eventually ban these polluting petroleum-fuelled cars, too.

[Skandi]

I'm very glad of the existing ban on smoking in enclosed spaces as I've had to work in such areas for many years, I don't think it should be banned everywhere though, as outside it is not normally to much of a problem, if I end up down wind of a smoker I simply move. However in the case of outside public displays I think it should be banned as then one can't normally move away from the disgusting smell!





You are now able to smell the sweat and farts in a pub...surely not a pleasant smell either?

But they don't cling to your clothes and hair and force your entire flat to stink when you go home as well, also I work in a night club and am very great full that I no longer get burnt by random fags and don't have to breath toxic fumes 8 hours a day.


It has made smoking social again. Friendships are made whilst smoking outside because you meet random people you would have never talked to otherwise.

Isn't that a good point??



Also, if you are the only non-smoker out with a group of smokers, you are more or less bound to head outside with them or be left alone at a table. Many people start that way...and are still passive smoking either way, if they don't.
No I don't head outside (as you well know) and the air outside is able to freely circulate so the levels of tar etc will be much lower




PS: And on a side note: If I walk down a busy road during rush hour for ten minutes I suppose I inhale more toxic smoke than by sitting in the smoking compartment of a train for an hour. So instead of bitching about how smoking inside adversely influences our health, people should rather look at the damage they are doing themselves by often driving cars that are anything but environmentally friendly.

Point is irrelevant if not totally nonfactual cars are useful, fags do nothing but harm those who foolishly think it's cool to smoke.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Government buildings should be left up to the local authority or whatever.

Private buildings (I don't consider restaurants, corporate office buildings, etc to be 'public spaces) should be left up to the owner. If it bothers you that much, don't go there.

[Vulpix]

I echo Loki's sentiments :).

Smoking bans are the way to go :thumbs up.


Absolutely, ban smoking in all public places.

I can say that the UK smoking ban is one of the best societal changes that I have ever experienced in my life. All of a sudden it is more pleasant, and tolerable, to go to bars and clubs, and restaurants -- without having to be bombarded by that repulsive stink of tobacco smoke. I despise it, and feel smokers who smoke in public are selfish and rude.

:coffee:

[Æmeric]

Government buildings should be left up to the local authority or whatever.

Private buildings (I don't consider restaurants, corporate office buildings, etc to be 'public spaces) should be left up to the owner. If it bothers you that much, don't go there.
The problem with smoking is that others have to inhale the smoke. And the smell. When smokers smoke in public they are intruding on the rights of others. It'd not the same as drinking in public, I'm not going to inhale the alcohol.

[Oisín]

We've had the smoking ban for so long now that when I go somewhere that doesn't have it I find it weird. I'm a social smoker myself, I only smoke when I'm drinking so the ban on smoking in public places has definitely helped me cut down on what I would have normally smoked on a night out, standing outside just to have a cigarette seems really pointless when it gets to autumn/winter in Ireland. Also I'm delighted with the ban on smoking in restaurants, having people smoke when I'm trying to eat makes me feel sick and the smell and taste of cigarettes can ruin a meal.

[Arrow Cross]

I echo Loki's sentiments :).

Smoking bans are the way to go :thumbs up.
What they said. Quit making offenses to one's body...let alone others'.

[Psychonaut]

Insofar as public building and spaces are concerned, since these areas are technically owned by "the people," this issue should be put up for a vote in each municipality. Ideally, this would take place on a city level, so as to be most representative of the desires of the local populace. However, when these bans begin to encroach upon the rights of property owners, I have to put my foot down. A piece of property that is owned privately, be is a home or a business, should be a sovereign as can be safely allowed. No one forces you to enter a private establishment, you do so of your own free will. If large numbers of people object to smoking taking place in a particular place of business, the owner(s) will usually adjust their policy accordingly. Placing outright bans on smoking on private property is a slippery slope. How long until people are banned from smoking in their own homes?

[Beorn]

I started smoking when I was twelve and gave up when I was 24.
Horrible habit, and expensive, too. Glad I gave up to be honest.

The smoking ban is a great law, and one which should be instigated worldwide. Although, I do agree that smokers should have designated areas within which to smoke.

Now, when will they implement the 'anti-drunk bloke at the bar chatting shit' law'

[DarkZarathustra]

Ban in all public places.

[Nastrander]

I've seen this debate tear up other forums, since passions tend to run high.

However, it's interesting to see how champions of individual rights and freedom jump on the "government needs to control everything to protect me" bandwagon when it comes to smoking.

In a publically funded venue (govenment office, airport etc) I can understand smoking bans, but on private property, the rights of the owner must take precident. The owner of the establishment must weigh smoking vs smoke-free, decide which will afford him maximum profitability and act accordingly.

Second hand smoke disease is almost as big a scam as man made global warming. There is no proof that occasional exposure to second hand smoke causes harm, and cancers caused by alleged exposure to second hand smoke can not be differentiated from the much larger number caused simply by living in an industrialized society.

smoking is kind of like slavery, once YOU decide it's wrong and quit, then everyone has to quit :D

[Loki]

Second hand smoke disease is almost as big a scam as man made global warming. There is no proof that occasional exposure to second hand smoke causes harm, and cancers caused by alleged exposure to second hand smoke can not be differentiated from the much larger number caused simply by living in an industrialized society.

smoking is kind of like slavery, once YOU decide it's wrong and quit, then everyone has to quit :D

Well, aside from the health concerns, I, as a non-smoker -- why should I tolerate that repulsive smell in public? Smokers force that on me. They always have, I could go nowhere without being bombarded by it. Smokers were traditionally selfish in that sense. Now the governments are banning it, and of course I welcome this. :)

[Nastrander]

Well, aside from the health concerns, I, as a non-smoker -- why should I tolerate that repulsive smell in public? Smokers force that on me. They always have, I could go nowhere without being bombarded by it. Smokers were traditionally selfish in that sense. Now the governments are banning it, and of course I welcome this. :)

It's a slippery slope when you ask the government to protect you.

I can imagine a Jew saying when they ban "hate speech":

Why should I tolerate those repulsive lies in public? Jew haters force that on me. They always have, I could go nowhere without being bombarded by it. Jew haters were traditionally selfish in that sense. Now the governments are banning it, and of course I welcome this.

Another thing, how will you feel when they ban all those horrible cancer causing cars, trucks and buses?

By the way, if smoking was eliminated tomorrow, not one life would be saved, and not one dollar in health costs :D

[Loki]

It's a slippery slope when you ask the government to protect you.

I can imagine a Jew saying when they ban "hate speech":

Why should I tolerate those repulsive lies in public? Jew haters force that on me. They always have, I could go nowhere without being bombarded by it. Jew haters were traditionally selfish in that sense. Now the governments are banning it, and of course I welcome this.

Another thing, how will you feel when they ban all those horrible cancer causing cars, trucks and buses?

By the way, if smoking was eliminated tomorrow, not one life would be saved, and not one dollar in health costs :D

Let's separate Jews from smoking bans here. :)

Can you answer this question: If the govt's didn't ban smoking, would smokers out of their own altruistic will stop smoking in public to consider others who don't like it? What is worse than something forced upon you? Smokers have been forcing this repulsive smell upon me since an early age. Life is so much better now without it. :thumbs up

[Nastrander]

Let's separate Jews from smoking bans here. :)

Can you answer this question: If the govt's didn't ban smoking, would smokers out of their own altruistic will stop smoking in public to consider others who don't like it? What is worse than something forced upon you? Smokers have been forcing this repulsive smell upon me since an early age. Life is so much better now without it. :thumbs up

I think we've already agreed that banning smoking in enclosed government funded places is acceptable to ensure their use and enjoyment by all people, however what else do you mean by public? If I'm sitting out in the open on a beach or a park and light up a smoke, then you come and sit 15 feet downwind and start wretching and coughing because you caught a whiff of my cigarette, am I expected to butt out to satisfy you?

Suppose I'm barbequing in a park or on a beach (charcoal smoke is at least as cancerous as cigarette smoke) and you object, should I pour water over my coals and go to McDonalds instead?

And, there is also the separate issue of private "public" spaces. If the owner permits smoking on his property, it is up to non-smokers to decide if they wish to endure second hand smoke or not, by staying or leaving

So I guess my answer is no, smokers would not and should not butt out in public to appease the sensitive anti-smokers.

By the way, for the record, I don't smoke, but I'll defend anyone's right to smoke in any non-enclosed public place. :D

[Loki]

I think we've already agreed that banning smoking in enclosed government funded places is acceptable to ensure their use and enjoyment by all people,

Uhmm ... I haven't agreed on that. :eek: A smoker may enjoy a fag, but I doubt the non-smoker would enjoy it.


however what else do you mean by public?

Essentially, I mean places where people go and mix with crowds, i.e. in restaurants, pubs, clubs, public transport, and anywhere people are packed together closely.


If I'm sitting out in the open on a beach or a park and light up a smoke, then you come and sit 15 feet downwind and start wretching and coughing because you caught a whiff of my cigarette, am I expected to butt out to satisfy you?

I would appreciate it, because you're spoiling the smell of fresh air that I am trying to enjoy. :thumbs up


Suppose I'm barbequing in a park or on a beach (charcoal smoke is at least as cancerous as cigarette smoke) and you object, should I pour water over my coals and go to McDonalds instead?

A barbecue's smell is pleasant. The smell of Camel is horrible. :speechless-smiley-0


And, there is also the separate issue of private "public" spaces. If the owner permits smoking on his property, it is up to non-smokers to decide if they wish to endure second hand smoke or not, by staying or leaving

Maybe ... but this should be the exception rather than the norm.


So I guess my answer is no, smokers would not and should not butt out in public to appease the sensitive anti-smokers.

By the way, for the record, I don't smoke, but I'll defend anyone's right to smoke in any non-enclosed public place. :D

We will agree to disagree. :coffee:

[Nastrander]

We will agree to disagree. :coffee:

agreed :D

[SwordoftheVistula]

The problem with smoking is that others have to inhale the smoke. And the smell. When smokers smoke in public they are intruding on the rights of others.


Well, aside from the health concerns, I, as a non-smoker -- why should I tolerate that repulsive smell in public? Smokers force that on me.

If you go out in public, you're going to interact with people you may or may not like. What's next, mandating the wearing of deodorant? Banning cell phones so that we won't be subject to these conversations? Nobody allowed to yell or even talk or play stereo/radio at all in public? Nobody can wear clothes that clash or are ugly? You can't make everyone around you conform to your desires.

[WinterMoon]

If you go out in public, you're going to interact with people you may or may not like. What's next, mandating the wearing of deodorant?

Sounds great to me. :thumbs up



Banning cell phones so that we won't be subject to these conversations?

Let's at least ban the use of them in public restrooms. :eek::rolleyes:



Nobody allowed to yell or even talk or play stereo/radio at all in public?

Sounds like a plan. I like quiet. :p



Nobody can wear clothes that clash or are ugly?

Exactly. And no obese people can wear tight fitting spandex, or horizontal stripes. Thin people are forbidden from vertical stripes and clothes that look like undergarments. Black bras under white blouses are also forbidden. All pants must be worn above the buttocks. Absolutely no white shoes after labor day. Hooker apparel must be thrown in the garbage immediately. Dreadlocks and mullets must be cut off. Hmmmm... what did I miss?



You can't make everyone around you conform to your desires.

Why not? I think it's a great idea. Let's also outlaw homosexuals from showing public affection. :thumbs up


But, back to the topic of smoking in public...... I personally do not like when I leave the clinic with my infant and I walk through a wall of smoke. This has occurred on more than one occasion in multiple clinic locations. Smoking is detrimental to health. An individual should not be forced to smoke through second hand means. I would not go sit next to a smoker in a public place, and I find it rude if someone comes and sits next to me then lights up. I have met very, very few smokers who are considerate enough of others to first ask, "Do you mind if I smoke?"

[SwordoftheVistula]

I personally do not like when I leave the clinic with my infant

Uh oh...crying infants are the scourge of restaurants, airplanes and other such places...better ban those too :D

[WinterMoon]

Uh oh...crying infants are the scourge of restaurants, airplanes and other such places...better ban those too :D

At least my crying infant doesn't have an ill effect on your health. ;) People just loooove babies. And if my infant was crying to the point where it bothered others, I would surely take it outside, not force them to endure listening to it while trying to enjoy a meal. ;) (I've never taken an infant on an airplane.)

[Alison]

I smoked for years, and am trying to quit. It's hard, but the one thing that makes me so determined is how repulsed I am when other people smoke. It stinks.

I have to carry an asthma pump with me all the time because of smoking. However, it's been over a month since I quit, and I can't believe how wonderful food smells and tastes. I can also breath easier and although I am coughing a lot, it's not as bad as a few months ago when I had chronic bronchitis where I coughed so hard that I tore muscles. Eina!

[The Lawspeaker]

I am a social smoker and I made a promise to myself to quit and I am down to my last package now (wish me luck).
About the smoking ban I find any intrusion of government into what is basically private territory (remember we are not a communist country- and restaurants and bars are still owned by entrepreneurs although our social-democratic/christian would like us to believe otherwise) abhorrent.

When they ban smoking in public transport, or in public or municipal buildings I can agree with it- although I think that it should be decided by referendum (but I know that our government has the fear of God for the voice of the people untill election time). Because those public spaces are the ones used by smokers and non-smokers alike.

But when it comes to banning smoking in pubs and restaurants- I am very much against it. Not because smoking isn't bad but because the government finds it neccesary to sit on the chair of the entrepreneur and decide in it's place. I think that any restaurant owner or pub owner should decide for himself. And I honestly think that when a governments acts on private soil then that is a dangerous precedent. A very dangerous precedent.

Leave it to the free market. The reason "we want to protect staff from smokers' is invalid since most staff smokes themselves and sales have plummeted since customers stay away. If non-smokers want smokefree pubs: put some money together, try to interest an entrepreneur for your plans and open up your own chain.

[Hilding]

I do smoke, some periods I smoke ALOT. Still I do not smoke when close to non-smokers, I don't smoke in other peoples cars unless they unprovoked say that it is ok to do so (or lit one themselves). Smoking is banned almost everywhere but outdoors in Sweden and I like it actually. Some pubs have special rooms for smokers and that is always welcome when it's cold outside or if the place is crowded at the door.
I do sometimes miss the cigarette that I used to lit directly after a fine meal at a restaurant, I sometimes miss having a smoke at the table in company of good friends at the pub though. That IS a special feeling.:rolleyes:

[Æmeric]

While we're at it, I think chewing gum in public should also be banned. Gum & cigarette butts are 2 of the biggest litter problems on the public sidewalks.

[Atlas]

As a smoker, I voted, yes ban it in every public places. I'm planning to stop cigarattes pretty soon and do not wish to be bothered by smokers anymore.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Maybe we should ban 'reformed smokers' from public spaces (and other anti-smoking crusaders). They are highly irritating, and often initiate public disturbances.

[YggsVinr]

I liked the system Germany had when I traveled there in 2006, but I returned there last summer for a short while and saw that they were starting to change it. I think that there should be designated smoking areas, but not a total ban on public smoking. I'm not a smoker myself but I find myself having an occasional cigarette or sharing a cigar with a friend whilst drinking. I don't see why bars or pubs should totally ban smoking, though I can agree why it would be in office buildings.

[Thorum]

No smoking in government, public type places.

Private establishments - Up to the owner.

[Silverfern]

They allow faggots, reds, leftwing uni students, race traitors, blacks, jews, drug addicts and all other scum into the buildings.

And they turn around a get high and mighty if a person smokes?

Yes I see the agenda playing out nicely here.

[Loki]

They allow faggots, reds, leftwing uni students, race traitors, blacks, jews, drug addicts and all other scum into the buildings.

And they turn around a get high and mighty if a person smokes?

Yes I see the agenda playing out nicely here.

"Faggots", "reds", "leftwing uni students", "race traitors", "blacks", "jews" don't pollute the air that I breathe, but smokers do. Unless of course the "faggots", "reds", "leftwing uni students", "race traitors", "blacks" & "jews" are smokers too. :chin:

I have no sympathy with selfish smokers. Ban it everywhere in public, even on the streets.

[SwordoftheVistula]

"Faggots", "reds", "leftwing uni students", "race traitors", "blacks", "jews" don't pollute the air that I breathe

Yeah? When's the last time any of them took a shower?

[Loki]

Yeah? When's the last time any of them took a shower?

Unfortunately, personal hygiene is not race-specific or political ideology-specific.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Joking aside, they are far more irritating than any bad smell could possibly be

[Silverfern]

"Faggots", "reds", "leftwing uni students", "race traitors", "blacks", "jews" don't pollute the air that I breathe, but smokers do. Unless of course the "faggots", "reds", "leftwing uni students", "race traitors", "blacks" & "jews" are smokers too. :chin:

I have no sympathy with selfish smokers. Ban it everywhere in public, even on the streets.


"Faggots", "reds", "leftwing uni students", "race traitors", "blacks", "jews" tend to smoke other things ;)

And not only pollute the air but the ground and everything they touch.

[Loki]

"Faggots", "reds", "leftwing uni students", "race traitors", "blacks", "jews" tend to smoke other things ;)

And not only pollute the air but the ground and everything they touch.

May be, but what has this to do with the smoking ban?

[Silverfern]

Yeah? When's the last time any of them took a shower?
They don't, due to the fact that activity is accepted by society.

[The Lawspeaker]

They don't, due to the fact that activity is accepted by society.

......

(sorry I wouldn't know what to say in the face of such nonsense).

[Silverfern]

......

(sorry I wouldn't know what to say in the face of such nonsense).
Personal hygiene you see as not acceptable :confused:..thank god I live down wind from you.

[The Lawspeaker]

Personal hygiene you see as not acceptable :confused:..thank god I live down wind from you.
Hehe. Nothing wrong with my personal hygiene (it's actually very good). There is -however- something wrong with the way in which you tend to address others here on this forum.

[Silverfern]

Hehe. Nothing wrong with my personal hygiene (it's actually very good). There is -however- something wrong with the way in which you tend to address others here on this forum.

I mirror my responses. ;)

If they don't like it, don't do it.

[HawkR]

I have a question; who are we to decide what other people should do? Why should we say: "No! You can't smoke in any public place!" Shouldn't this be up to the owner? IMO the owner should make the desission himself, but if yes, there should, just for being polite, be made a smokers lounge so that non-smokers didn't have to get the smoke in their face when eventually enjoing a beer. Or a dinner for that matter.

[SouthernBoy]

It should be restricted where it's unsafe or unclean.

[Absinthe]

Has it occured to most posters in this thread that there are people with genetic predispositions for respiratory conditions (e.g. asthma, bronchitis) and cancer?

Those are in great danger, if they are willy-nilly subjected to breathing the smoke of others.

It's not 'up to the owner', imo. It is a public danger and it should be banned in order to protect public health.
Smokers can smoke in their own homes if they like. Even outdoors (e.g., bus stop) is potentially harmful for passive smokers.

[HawkR]

Public places (like bus stops) should indeed be banned from smoking. But if the owner could fix it like on the local restaurants had before; You go in, say non-smoker or smoker, if non, you'll get a table in the first room. If a smoker, you'll get a table in the room further in the back, these two rooms are sealed of. If not, well, support the majority.

Oh! Is there a majority of non-smokers?

[Lenny]

But if the owner could fix it like on the local restaurants had before; You go in, say non-smoker or smoker, if non, you'll get a table in the first room. If a smoker, you'll get a table in the room further in the back, these two rooms are sealed of.You saying restaurants have total bans on smoking nowadays, no "smoking sections" exist anymore in Norway?

I'm not really sure if there are still smoking sections in the USA. Come to think of it, I haven't heard them ask "smoking or non" at a restaurant in years:confused:

[SwordoftheVistula]

Has it occured to most posters in this thread that there are people with genetic predispositions for respiratory conditions (e.g. asthma, bronchitis) and cancer?

Those are in great danger, if they are willy-nilly subjected to breathing the smoke of others.

That's a small number of people, and it's not reasonable to punish the entire rest of society just because a few people have this weakness.


It's not 'up to the owner', imo. It is a public danger and it should be banned in order to protect public health.
Smokers can smoke in their own homes if they like. Even outdoors (e.g., bus stop) is potentially harmful for passive smokers.

I can see possibly banning it from public (government) buildings and even semi-buildings like enclosed bus stops, but outdoors the smoke blows away and dissipates immediately. Places like bars/restaurants shouldn't be considered 'public' buildings since entry to them is not a need, and they are privately owned like homes are so it ought to be up to the owner. If you have some kind of terrible allergy, it's your responsibility to be aware of this and avoid situations where you will be exposed to whatever you are allergic too. Many people are allergic to pollen, should we cut down all the trees in urban & suburban areas?


I'm not really sure if there are still smoking sections in the USA. Come to think of it, I haven't heard them ask "smoking or non" at a restaurant in years:confused:

Yeah, I think most places have banned it for all bars & restaurants. It used to just be the eastern seaboard states, but now even appalachian/midwestern states like West Virginia and Ohio have passed these laws.

[HawkR]

You saying restaurants have total bans on smoking nowadays, no "smoking sections" exist anymore in Norway?

I'm not really sure if there are still smoking sections in the USA. Come to think of it, I haven't heard them ask "smoking or non" at a restaurant in years:confused:

Yeah, we've had that since 2006. When the "No-smoking" law were inniated. Worst law ever!

[Silverfern]

I heard they are or have made it illegal to smoke in your car and home in the US.

If that is the case, so much for your bill of rights :coffee:

[Ulf]

I find it amusing that people want to ban smoking in public while their nearest coal/oil plant rapes the air quality for hundreds of miles. My advice, if you see a smoker at a bus stop, stand upwind.

[Absinthe]

That's a small number of people, and it's not reasonable to punish the entire rest of society just because a few people have this weakness.

Did you just use those words? :confused: 'Punish' for smokers, and 'weakness' for non-smokers?

Are you therefore suggesting that smoking is a healthy, naturally occuring behavior that everyone should be entitled to, and that those who don't like the cancerous smoke blown into their faces for health or whatever other reasons, are society's weak? :D

Cause if so, then nature surely does have a sense of humor as "might is right" in this case is in favor of non-smokers rather than smokers! :D

Now seriously: by your choice of words I realize you're one of those people who don't realize the severity of smoking behavior on one's self and others.

Yes, it is your right to smoke if you like, just like it is your right to use drugs, have unprotected sex with prostitutes and use a public restroom in New Delhi. :D
But the moment we classify such behaviors as natural simply because others are doing it as well, is the moment society crosses the line that seperates reason and the absurd.

That is the point: it is absurd to classify smoking as a 'social right' because a lot of people are doing it.

It is an unnatural, counterproductive and self-destructive behavior with potetially harmful effects for others. Just like walking among healthy people whilst being infected with a contagious disease -sort of:p

And no I am not calling you a leper or suggest you have the smoker coodies. For the record, I was a smoker for 13 years myself. :D

I'm just sayin', we need to stop justifying harmful behaviors. Everyone should be free to engage in such, but at their own risk and, to use your own words, without punishing those who wish to stay healthy.

P.S. smoking is a weakness. :)

[SwordoftheVistula]

I heard they are or have made it illegal to smoke in your car and home in the US.

Some towns have tried to pass such laws, but been rejected as far as I can tell.


Did you just use those words? :confused: 'Punish' for smokers, and 'weakness' for non-smokers?

It's certainly a punishment, if you tell someone they can't do something. The 'weak' applies to the people you mentioned with special allergies and bronchial problems. The vast majority of people who want to ban smoking don't have any such problem, they only want to ban it because it adjusts their comfort level a tad higher, and are not physically weak, though perhaps mentally weak if they are so exercised by a minor irritant to seek to ban it.



Now seriously: by your choice of words I realize you're one of those people who don't realize the severity of smoking behavior on one's self and others.

Certainly on the person who does it, but that's no business of the rest of society. To the vast majority of non/anti-smokers, it is not a health hazard, but a minor annoyance, along the lines of sitting next to someone with BO the subway though not quite as bad.



That is the point: it is absurd to classify smoking as a 'social right' because a lot of people are doing it.

There's not actually that many people who smoke, at least not in the US, maybe 1/4 of the people smoke (the decline in smoking is also responsible for the increase in obesity here). If 'a lot of people did it', it wouldn't be under legal attack. The importance is to hold as a default position that people can't be forced to alter their behavior simply because another segment of the population is annoyed with them, as nearly all of us have some activity or another which is practiced by a minority of people and would be outlawed if we got in the practice of outlawing every activity which was not practiced by a majority of the people.

I actually don't even smoke or use drugs that much, my main concern is that the same people and rationale being used to ban smoking is also or could be used to ban or tax my computer games, alcohol, SUV, and any food which doesn't taste like cardboard.

[Silverfern]

Some towns have tried to pass such laws, but been rejected as far as I can tell.

.

Well that is good news at least some law makers have some common sense.

[SPQR]

I think it should be up to the owner of the facility, especially in the case of restaurants and bars.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Smoking stinks; it is a nasty part of our proletariat culture and smokers are following selfish desires in a way which directly affects other people.

It is a negative trend in society.

Yes, ban smoking in public.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Well then you can easily avoid them by not hanging out around the 'proletariat'

[Fortis in Arduis]

Well then you can easily avoid them by not hanging out around the 'proletariat'

Why should I have to make the effort to avoid smokers in my daily public life?

[SwordoftheVistula]

Why should I have to make the effort to avoid smokers in my daily public life?

Why should they have to make the effort to avoid you? It seems it is you that has a problem with them, rather than vice versa.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Why should they have to make the effort to avoid you? It seems it is you that has a problem with them, rather than vice versa.

Oh right, because I am 'weak' and should not 'punish' them.

Ok. :coffee:

[Ulf]

Why should I have to make the effort to avoid smokers in my daily public life?

You don't have to.

[Absinthe]

People! :D

The human being is born smoke-free. Non-smoking is the natural human condition, smoking is the unnatural human condition.

Those who follow the natural and healthy lifestyle should not be the ones making efforts to avoid the ones who don't.

Like, would you consider it natural that healthy people should be obliged to share toilets with Hepatitis carriers? And that they should be responsible in protecting themselves?

Therefore why should non-smokers be subjected to the public hazard of smoking, and they should also be shunned from socializing because they can't tolerate the smoke in pubs and bars?

See, if smoking is banned, smokers still aren't shunned from having a good time because they can always go outside and smoke.
Whereas non-smokers are shunner by definition since they can't do anything to avoid the smoke.
It's simple as that.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The human being is born smoke-free. Non-smoking is the natural human condition, smoking is the unnatural human condition.

Maybe we should make it mandatory to go around naked and incapable of using even simple tools as well!



Like, would you consider it natural that healthy people should be obliged to share toilets with Hepatitis carriers? And that they should be responsible in protecting themselves?

As far as public and business restrooms go, they are allowed to use these, and to exclude them would be a violation of their civil rights in most western countries.



Therefore why should non-smokers be subjected to the public hazard of smoking, and they should also be shunned from socializing because they can't tolerate the smoke in pubs and bars?

It's not any 'public hazard' aside from a minor annoyance (slight smell). If society chooses to shun these people, they shouldn't have special rights.



See, if smoking is banned, smokers still aren't shunned from having a good time because they can always go outside and smoke.
Whereas non-smokers are shunner by definition since they can't do anything to avoid the smoke.

They can go outside to avoid the smoke, or go to businesses that don't allow smoking.

[Ulf]

People! :D

The human being is born smoke-free. Non-smoking is the natural human condition, smoking is the unnatural human condition.

Those who follow the natural and healthy lifestyle should not be the ones making efforts to avoid the ones who don't.

Like, would you consider it natural that healthy people should be obliged to share toilets with Hepatitis carriers? And that they should be responsible in protecting themselves?

Therefore why should non-smokers be subjected to the public hazard of smoking, and they should also be shunned from socializing because they can't tolerate the smoke in pubs and bars?

See, if smoking is banned, smokers still aren't shunned from having a good time because they can always go outside and smoke.
Whereas non-smokers are shunner by definition since they can't do anything to avoid the smoke.
It's simple as that.

The same can be said of cars and microwaves and preservatives, etc, etc.

I'm born car-free, why should I have to avoid cars, just ban them already. They make me sick and pollute the air with their smoke.

You want the natural human condition, then it's time to throw away a lot of stuff.

[Absinthe]

Maybe we should make it mandatory to go around naked and incapable of using even simple tools as well!
Oh come on, that's a sophistry, if I ever heard one :rolleyes:


As far as public and business restrooms go, they are allowed to use these, and to exclude them would be a violation of their civil rights in most western countries.


Maybe that was a bad analogy since hepatitis is not something visible most of the times. I don't think there's something analogous to the public hazard of smoking.


It's not any 'public hazard' aside from a minor annoyance (slight smell).
It is a public hazard. It increases the risk for various kinds of cancer and respiratory conditions. Hardly a minor nuisance.


They can go outside to avoid the smoke, or go to businesses that don't allow smoking.

I am employed in a company that allows it, and I have to suffer the smoke everyday for 8 hours. Do you suggest I should quit my job and stay unemployed until I manage to find a company that doesn't allow it? :rolleyes:

[Absinthe]

The same can be said of cars and microwaves and preservatives, etc, etc.

I'm born car-free, why should I have to avoid cars, just ban them already. They make me sick and pollute the air with their smoke.

You want the natural human condition, then it's time to throw away a lot of stuff.

I would gladly! :thumb001: But that's besides the point of this thread. :)

[Lenny]

I'm born car-free, why should I have to avoid cars, just ban them already. They make me sick and pollute the air with their smoke.

I think most people would be For banning pollution-spewing cars in the near future.
(Replaced with non-petroleum-based automobiles and transit systems):icon_cool:

[SwordoftheVistula]

Source: UK Sunday Telegraph

Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.

The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."

Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk.

[jerney]

Hell yes. Smoking is a disgusting, nasty and unhealthy habit. If you want to stink and ruin your health that's fine, but don't subject me to it.

Another thing, I think smoking around children (and while pregnant) should be illegal in both private and public settings.

[anonymaus]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/274081716_37e95cc10e.jpg?v=0

[Kempenzoon]

Yes, smoking should be banned in official buildings but not bars/restaurants etc.

I considered voting for this, but I have trouble with treating bars and restaurants the same way.

The traditional "volkscafé" as we call it here, will die out if smoking becomes illegal in bars.

In restaurants it should be STRICTLY forbidden though, since it's disgusting to eat while some dick the table just beside you is lighting a pack of cigarettes and filling the air with his smelly fumes.

I like our current law which says that smoking is illegal in those places that serve food. It means the traditional bars don't go bankrupt, while keeping our food clean at least.

Even if the volkscafés still remain their smoking culture, I think there's definitely a market there for non-smoking bars also, but I think in this case the government shouldn't be fucking with it, and leave it up to the business owner.

[The Lawspeaker]

In restaurants it should be STRICTLY forbidden though, since it's disgusting to eat while some dick the table just beside you is lighting a pack of cigarettes and filling the air with his smelly fumes.
This could be solved by having either smoking and non smoking sections or smoking and non-smoking restaurants as depending on the owner.
It used to be a good custom to light a cigar, cigarette or pipe after a meal (for men).
It seems to be good for digestion...

[Luern]

I'd ban public places too.

[richard william]

Well I don't know about banning but definitely towards an ethical side one should avoid smoking as it irritates non smokers and practically it is more dangerous to the non smokers than smokers themselves so why should others be a target of passive smoking.......

[Kataphraktoi]

Yes, the only thing upon which I agree with liberals. It is a disgusting habit, I am glad cigarettes are heavily taxed, they should even be taxed more. If a person wants to fill their lungs with toxicity then fine, but I do not want to be afflicted by both the smell and the second hand smoke.

[HungAryan]

I'd ban smoking all together.

[Treffie]

I don't see why it requires legislation - I don't know it could be enforced anyway. I think educating the masses is probably the best way to stop it - make people feel guilty that they're doing it in front of their children etc.

[Amapola]

Smokers get the nicotine, but the carcinogen substances are for both, the smoker and the passive smoker, who swallows the smoker's smoke. In reference to the pong, being in a smoking-allowed premises for 5 minutes is enough to get it all stuck to your clothes; it's a lost cause.

Smoking should remain as an exceptional activity, as it could be drinking an alcoholic drink. But smoking as a daily habit (or hourly habit for some), just like drinking everyday all the time, should be considered something unhealthy.

In the meantime, it's only fair that the smoke has to be suffered only by the producer.

[The Lawspeaker]

I am a social smoker and I made a promise to myself to quit and I am down to my last package now (wish me luck).
About the smoking ban I find any intrusion of government into what is basically private territory (remember we are not a communist country- and restaurants and bars are still owned by entrepreneurs although our social-democratic/christian government would like us to believe otherwise) abhorrent.

When they ban smoking in public transport, or in public or municipal buildings I can agree with it- although I think that it should be decided by referendum (but I know that our government has the fear of God for the voice of the people untill election time). Because those public spaces are the ones used by smokers and non-smokers alike.

But when it comes to banning smoking in pubs and restaurants- I am very much against it. Not because smoking isn't bad but because the government finds it necessary to sit on the chair of the entrepreneur and decide in it's place. I think that any restaurant owner or pub owner should decide for himself. And I honestly think that when a governments acts on private soil then that is a dangerous precedent. A very dangerous precedent.

Leave it to the free market. The reason "we want to protect staff from smokers' is invalid since most staff smokes themselves and sales have plummeted since customers stay away. If non-smokers want smoke-free pubs: put some money together, try to interest entrepreneur for your plans and open up your own chain.

This is still my view on the matter and I have been a non-smoker for some time now.

[Damião de Góis]

The law is fine as it is now, it's banned on indoor public places.

[Sikeliot]

Only indoors should it be banned.

[dawur]

Smoking is for losers, you dont only damage your self, but the others around you aswell.
The goverment, is really just being pathetic.. they make us addicts, and than they raise the taxes and say it's bad for you, instead of just banning the whole thing.

[Mark Trail]

I'm glad I don't have to smell cigarette smoke when I go out.

[Aurora]

I voted to ban it in all public places, simply because I don't feel that those of us who choose not to smoke should be forced to be subjected to something which can be a detriment on our health.

I agree.
Every time I walk out of the grocery store there is someone smoking and I hate it. I am thankful there is no smoking aloud in restaurants in my area.

[Han Cholo]

Simple: in Mexico you can smoke in open places. School gardens, open air concerts, streets, parks, flea markets. You can't smoke inside classrooms, government, transport, malls, theathers, cinema. Many restaurants have open air smoke areas. In bars, it depends on the owner, most allow it but some don't, and usually have smoke areas outside too.

If you don't like the smell of me or my cigarrete in a open air place then just move the fuck out of my way. It's not like I'm moving towards your way to exhale my smoke in the face of you non-smokers. I can understand this concern in a closed place like a bus but not in a regular street where you pass quickly through other persons at a moderate distance.

[Sikeliot]

I said it should be up to the owner of the building. But I think in that case there should be designated smoking areas.

[Smaug]

Well, here in São Paulo smoking was banned indoor. No more "Smoking Area". You can only smoke outside, but people look down on who smokes in public, it is considered "impolite", so what happened is that the number of smokers are decreasing, which is good.