NationStates Jolt Archive

...that some people don't want to have to breath it in.

No, seriously. All these arguments bring in long-term health risks are weak (though not completely invalid), and really obscure the issue. People want a choice. I want a choice. I want to be able to go to a bar that is non-smoking, so I can go home smelling of something other than an ash-tray. Bars with nice outside patios for smokers are ideal...keep the dance floor free from smoke, but don't crowd the smokers out, and don't force smokers and non-smokers to go to separate clubs. Have those big heat lamps in an outdoor smoking area at a workplace for those cold months.

Most smokers I know don't smoke inside their houses anymore ANYWAY...the step outside so their house doesn't reek. No one at my workplace minds getting the hell away from their desk to go have a drag outside. The real issue seems to be clubs and restaurants. So, health arguments aside, we should be making sure there are non-smoking and smoking options for patrons, rather than just banning one, or ignoring the other. Does that sound reasonable? Or is it just me?

It's reasonable, but that's not the same as "banning smoking." Banning smoking is a draconian government undertaking, what you describe is allowing private "public" places to make their own smoking rules... which is A-O-K with me.

Except you know government will subsidize the nonsmoking ones in the ongoing War on Tobacco.

I don't have a problem with people smoking as long as they don't foist the bills for their cancer surgery onto taxpayers.

SB: Why the hell would they do that? The tobacco industry is keeping them all in fresh supply of ivory backscratchers.

Government should respect the individual's choice to smoke, and it should respect the individual's choice to be free from smoke.

I don't have a problem with people smoking as long as they don't foist the bills for their cancer surgery onto taxpayers.

Why would they need to do that?

Considering how much the tax on tobacco is. Smokers cost the state far less then non-smokers, and smokers generate more revenue for the state in taxes then non smokers.

Maybe you should thank a random smoker the next time you use the NHS :)

I don't have a problem with people smoking as long as they don't foist the bills for their cancer surgery onto taxpayers.
they are taxpayers. they probably pay more tax than most people with the taxes on tobacco there are.

Being an ex-smoker myself, I'd have to say that there are only two ways to do this at all.

One: Recognize that people don't have to go to bars and nightclubs. If it is such a good idea to have smoke-free establishments why aren't there more smoke-free bars and restaurants that do it on their own? I'll tell you. I know of one place in particular that has been smoke-free since the day it was built, and yet it doesn’t bring the big crowds that the other places around it do, even on big dinning out nights. And that's a restaurant, not a bar/club. I can only imagine the small crowds that would go to a smokeless club if they have a choice. To recognize that fireplace smoke does the same thing and that vehicle exhaust is far worse a carcinogen and is much more widely dispersed in our environment and is more invasive. The tobacco smoke causing non-smokers health problems is just a farce of an excuse (as you already said in so many words).

The other option, option Two: ban the entire cigarette industry (leaving cigars, pipe and chewing tobacco alone). Make the whole thing illegal and be done with it already, it's a nasty disgusting and wholly unproductive addiction that serves no useful purpose, we’d be doing those people a favor, no matter how mad they are about it when we do it :p

...that some people don't want to have to breath it in.

No, seriously. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. So, health arguments aside.....blah blah BLAH! Or is that just me?
There we go.

I have to point this out --- people don't go to bars and clubs to smoke. They go to drink and be entertained.

Recently, I went across town to shoot pool, and I noticed one rather pleasant result of the smoking ban. There were less fights, less noise, and less underage MORONS wandering about and trying to cause trouble. It seems as if the local smokers were also the local troublemakers.

Well its called free choice if you don't want to go into a smoky pub or club thats your choice you can quiete easily go to one which has banned it to a certain area or whatever. Noones forcing it on you

I have to point this out --- people don't go to bars and clubs to smoke. They go to drink and be entertained.

Recently, I went across town to shoot pool, and I noticed one rather pleasant result of the smoking ban. There were less fights, less noise, and less underage MORONS wandering about and trying to cause trouble. It seems as if the local smokers were also the local troublemakers.

I always knew that smoking was a manly-man habit :)

SB: Why the hell would they do that? The tobacco industry is keeping them all in fresh supply of ivory backscratchers.

Well why the hell would they bombard public schools with antismoking propaganda if the tobacco industry is so close to their hearts?

Why would they need to do that?

Considering how much the tax on tobacco is. Smokers cost the state far less then non-smokers, and smokers generate more revenue for the state in taxes then non smokers.

Maybe you should thank a random smoker the next time you use the NHS :)
cool. then i don't have a problem with people smoking unless they blow it directly in my face.

Well its called free choice if you don't want to go into a smoky pub or club thats your choice you can quiete easily go to one which has banned it to a certain area or whatever. Noones forcing it on you

Actually, people are. Think about it. What if there are no bars in your local area that don't allow it. Then what are you supposed to do? Smokers should have to work around non-smokers. It is their choice to smoke, they deal with the consequences of it. I don't see any reason for it to be the inverse.

Yes, we really need the government to rule our lives, because we cant look after them ourselves. Smoking is bad for you, ban it. Alcohol is bad for you, make it illegal. Sports, what a menace to society, with all those who get hurt dropping out of the workforce, we cant allow it anymore. Freedom of choice? Everytime people had freedom it went downhill. Just think about the USSR, they had too little regulations and too much freedom and now they are gone!

This weekend my wife and I went to a friend’s graduation in another city and stayed in a Motel 6. I requested a non-smoking room. We literally walked into the room as the maid walked out. She had used a heavy amount of air freshener in the room. While my wife was cleaning up, I noticed an ashtray turned upside down on the table and it had a no-smoking sticker on the bottom. As the air freshener dwindled, we started smelling the smoking smell. By this time, it was to late to go find another motel, as we had to meet our friends for dinner.

I did complain in the morning and the motel's excuse for the ashtray was that way smokers would use it instead of putting their cigarettes on the furniture. My reply was that good hotels/motels do not rent non-smoking rooms to smokers, and they don't.

Moral of the story; If you want a non-smoking room don’t stay at a Motel 6 or any other budget motel.

Yes, we really need the government to rule our lives, because we cant look after them ourselves. Smoking is bad for you, ban it. Alcohol is bad for you, make it illegal. Sports, what a menace to society, with all those who get hurt dropping out of the workforce, we cant allow it anymore. Freedom of choice? Everytime people had freedom it went downhill. Just think about the USSR, they had too little regulations and too much freedom and now they are gone!


I don't think anyone is seriously recommending it be banned. Just that if they want to, they can do it elsewhere instead of spoiling everyone elses enjoyment of a bar/restaurant, etc.

It's reasonable, but that's not the same as "banning smoking." Banning smoking is a draconian government undertaking, what you describe is allowing private "public" places to make their own smoking rules... which is A-O-K with me.

I'm not totally against government bans on smoking...I'm just against stupid ones...the University of Alberta (ok, this was a UNI, not gov decision, but still) has made it illegal to smoke within 200 metres of any university building...which in effect bans smoking on the entire campus. I mean, in open air, who cares? Seriously! It's not quite the same as smoking inside (bans that I support in workplaces)...

I don't have a problem with people smoking as long as they don't foist the bills for their cancer surgery onto taxpayers.
What about obese people? Or alcoholics? They tend to need a lot of expensive medical care as well.

Government should respect the individual's choice to smoke, and it should respect the individual's choice to be free from smoke.
How do you find the balance between the two?

I don't think anyone is seriously recommending it be banned. Just that if they want to, they can do it elsewhere instead of spoiling everyone elses enjoyment of a bar/restaurant, etc.

We should outlaw children in restaraunts, for the same reason. They spoil everyone's enjoyment. Ever notice? Baby starts screaming, everyone sighs and either stares or purposefully avoids staring.

Or maybe we could let restaraunts and pubs make their own rules about who can do what on their premises. Imagine that.

Actually, people are. Think about it. What if there are no bars in your local area that don't allow it. Then what are you supposed to do? Smokers should have to work around non-smokers. It is their choice to smoke, they deal with the consequences of it. I don't see any reason for it to be the inverse.
Its not inverse if you relate the numbers of club/bar/pub visitors who smoke to those who dont. At least not here, where the regular guest in such places is a smoker, with a ca. 70:30 spread. The problem comes in when the government regulates private business to such an extent that a landlord loses a large part of his clientele. You should have no special right to be protected from risks at places you visit on your on volition.

Being an ex-smoker myself, I'd have to say that there are only two ways to do this at all.

One: Recognize that people don't have to go to bars and nightclubs. If it is such a good idea to have smoke-free establishments why aren't there more smoke-free bars and restaurants that do it on their own? I'll tell you. I know of one place in particular that has been smoke-free since the day it was built, and yet it doesn’t bring the big crowds that the other places around it do, even on big dinning out nights. And that's a restaurant, not a bar/club. I can only imagine the small crowds that would go to a smokeless club if they have a choice. To recognize that fireplace smoke does the same thing and that vehicle exhaust is far worse a carcinogen and is much more widely dispersed in our environment and is more invasive. The tobacco smoke causing non-smokers health problems is just a farce of an excuse (as you already said in so many words).
The only problem I have with the argument that people don't have to go to bars and nightclubs is this: I want to. But I don't want to be hacking up black gunk the next day. I shouldn't have to choose to never go out just because I don't want to inhale cigarette smoke. Which is why I like the bars that have recently opened up patios for smokers, banning smoking inside. It allows me to go out with my friends who smoke, and my friends who are allergic to smoke. It's a good compromise. I think requiring a smoking section that REALLY doesn't 'drift' into the non-smoking section is the best of both worlds...plus...these patios have a lot of great heat lamps so that smokers don't have to freeze their asses off to get their fix. I think it respects both smokers and non-smokers to do it this way.

The other option, option Two: ban the entire cigarette industry (leaving cigars, pipe and chewing tobacco alone). Make the whole thing illegal and be done with it already, it's a nasty disgusting and wholly unproductive addiction that serves no useful purpose, we’d be doing those people a favor, no matter how mad they are about it when we do it :pActually, what I'd like to see is an end to all the damn additives in our smokes. You look at rates of smoking-related illnesses in the developing world where the majority of tobacco products are JUST tobacco, and you start wondering why the rates are so much higher in smokers that get the 'additions'. Tobacco in Latin America, for example, tends to have a higher tar content...but that's it. No benzene, no arsenic, no extra crap that is probably more likely to give you nasty illnesses.

There we go.
Hey, no one asked you to participate.

I have to point this out --- people don't go to bars and clubs to smoke. They go to drink and be entertained.
Yes.

Recently, I went across town to shoot pool, and I noticed one rather pleasant result of the smoking ban. There were less fights, less noise, and less underage MORONS wandering about and trying to cause trouble. It seems as if the local smokers were also the local troublemakers.
*winces*

Drawing conclusions like this will get you no love. And little support.

This weekend my wife and I went to a friend’s graduation in another city and stayed in a Motel 6. I requested a non-smoking room. We literally walked into the room as the maid walked out. She had used a heavy amount of air freshener in the room. While my wife was cleaning up, I noticed an ashtray turned upside down on the table and it had a no-smoking sticker on the bottom. As the air freshener dwindled, we started smelling the smoking smell. By this time, it was to late to go find another motel, as we had to meet our friends for dinner.

I did complain in the morning and the motel's excuse for the ashtray was that way smokers would use it instead of putting their cigarettes on the furniture. My reply was that good hotels/motels do not rent non-smoking rooms to smokers, and they don't.

Moral of the story; If you want a non-smoking room don’t stay at a Motel 6 or any other budget motel.

This happens to me every time I go to a Motel 6. I've not yet witnessed the ashtray thing, but the rooms always have a hint of ash. Sometimes, the smell is quite strong.

Well its called free choice if you don't want to go into a smoky pub or club thats your choice you can quiete easily go to one which has banned it to a certain area or whatever. Noones forcing it on you
No. What IS being forced on me is this: if you actually want to go out, rather than stay in your house for the rest of your life, you are going to have to breath in smoke. Hardly a choice. I really don't want to have to start going to church just so I can have a social life :p

We should outlaw children in restaraunts, for the same reason. They spoil everyone's enjoyment. Ever notice? Baby starts screaming, everyone sighs and either stares or purposefully avoids staring.

Or maybe we could let restaraunts and pubs make their own rules about who can do what on their premises. Imagine that.

Fairly loaded example there. Children are children, not adults. Adults are aware of the consequences of what they do, and children are more prone to activity. Also, lots of children are perfectly fine in a restaurant.

I am in favour of these places making their own rules. I just think they should be encouraged to support ones that don't discriminate against non-smokers.

Its not inverse if you relate the numbers of club/bar/pub visitors who smoke to those who dont. At least not here, where the regular guest in such places is a smoker, with a ca. 70:30 spread. The problem comes in when the government regulates private business to such an extent that a landlord loses a large part of his clientele. You should have no special right to be protected from risks at places you visit on your on volition.

I don't think that smoker bars should be punished, I think that non-smoker ones should be rewarded. Non-smokers have a right to a social life without smoke as smokers have a right to a social life with their addiction.

Or maybe we could let restaraunts and pubs make their own rules about who can do what on their premises. Imagine that.
Sure. While we're at it, let's get rid of fire regulations, and other safety regulations. Let's forget about health inspections. Let's forget about liquor licences. I'm sure all the pubs and restaurants will make the best choices out of market savvy.

Its not inverse if you relate the numbers of club/bar/pub visitors who smoke to those who dont. At least not here, where the regular guest in such places is a smoker, with a ca. 70:30 spread. The problem comes in when the government regulates private business to such an extent that a landlord loses a large part of his clientele. You should have no special right to be protected from risks at places you visit on your on volition.
Do you have a problem with a smoking-section (where space allows) being required?

Sure. While we're at it, let's get rid of fire regulations, and other safety regulations. Let's forget about health inspections. Let's forget about liquor licences. I'm sure all the pubs and restaurants will make the best choices out of market savvy.

Yes! And, while we're at it, let's get rid of wage laws!

Fairly loaded example there. Children are children, not adults. Adults are aware of the consequences of what they do, and children are more prone to activity. Also, lots of children are perfectly fine in a restaurant.


Children are children. And they ruin my enjoyment. I shouldn't have to make the choice of either putting up with other people's smelly, noisy brats or not going out at all! ;)

The argument was, smoking spoils it for other people, therefore [should be banned?] Well, I'm pointing out how absurd it is to go around banning everything just because it spoils your fun. Especially when you DO have the choice of going somewhere or not. People need to stop resorting to legislating their lifestyle.

Do you have a problem with a smoking-section (where space allows) being required?
i think that is definitely the best idea

that way everybody gets what they want really. smokers can go to bars and smoke, and non smokers who are with them and dont mind can join them.

non smokers who do mind can go to bars and not smoke, and if a smoker who is with them really does want a smoke then they can go to the next room

Do you have a problem with a smoking-section (where space allows) being required?


Every restaurant I go to has a smoking section.
Every time -no matter how far away I am from the smoking section- I can still smell the smoke while I'm trying to enjoy my meal.

Why don't we just ban smoking in restaurants completely (some restaurants have already done this, but not most)?
If someone can't even go out to eat without having a smoke, maybe they should stay home.

Yes! And, while we're at it, let's get rid of wage laws!
THE MARKET WILL PROVIDE! ALL HAIL CAPITALISM!!!!!

THE MARKET WILL PROVIDE! ALL HAIL CAPITALISM!!!!!

*waves a flag*

HUSSAR!!!

Every restaurant I go to has a smoking section.
Every time -no matter how far away I am from the smoking section- I can still smell the smoke while I'm trying to enjoy my meal.

Why don't we just ban smoking in restaurants completely (some restaurants have already done this, but not most)?
If someone can't even go out to eat without having a smoke, maybe they should stay home.
yay for freedom! (but only to do what the government allows you to do)

i love this beautiful country our leader has provided for us, where we are free to go about our government approved pursuits. glory to the leader.


its simple really, the restaurant should build a wall

Children are children. And they ruin my enjoyment. I shouldn't have to make the choice of either putting up with other people's smelly, noisy brats or not going out at all! ;)
Except that there are MANY places that do not allow minors. So you DO have a fairly wide range of choices.

The argument was, smoking spoils it for other people, therefore [should be banned?] Well, I'm pointing out how absurd it is to go around banning everything just because it spoils your fun. Especially when you DO have the choice of going somewhere or not. People need to stop resorting to legislating their lifestyle.Not banned outright as in made illegal. Controlled. Allowed in certain places. Much as drinking out on the street is not allowed (though smoking in the street would be fine:)). And if we can allow both smokers and non-smokers to coexist without one totally imposing on the other, then awesome. I would suggest in pubs that have more than one floor (and no room to create an outdoor patio) that one floor be smoking, and the other not. The idea being, the HOW of creating a space for both smokers and non-smokers would be up to the individual establishments...but the requirement would be there.

If someone can't even go out to eat without having a smoke, maybe they should stay home.

Maybe they enjoy smoking on a full stomach (I know I did when I smoked) rather then being they (feel they) need one.

Saying that is like saying "If someone can't even going out to eat without having a drink, maybe they should stay home,"

Children are children. And they ruin my enjoyment. I shouldn't have to make the choice of either putting up with other people's smelly, noisy brats or not going out at all! ;)

The argument was, smoking spoils it for other people, therefore [should be banned?] Well, I'm pointing out how absurd it is to go around banning everything just because it spoils your fun. Especially when you DO have the choice of going somewhere or not. People need to stop resorting to legislating their lifestyle.


And my argument was, children don't choose to annoy you, but adults choose to smoke, knowing full well that it will cause people discomfort. Also, I'm not saying ban smokers. I'm saying that inside or preferably outside, it should be a smoking section where they go, instead of a non-smoking section where non-smokers go. It should be the cigarettes that are unwelcome inside certain bars, or outwith the smoking section. The smoker themself, of course, is not restricted.

Saying that is like saying "If someone can't even going out to eat without having a drink, maybe they should stay home,"

Not really.

The fact that someone is sitting two tables away while sipping a glass of wine wouldn't bother most people in the least. As a matter of fact, they probably wouldn't even notice.

However, it would be extremely annoying to have to eat next to someone who was puffing away on a cigarette, not only because I hate the smell, but also because I'm severely asthmatic.

And, no, smoking sections aren't helpful because unless the smokers are completely walled off into another section -and they often aren't- I can still smell it, especially if the waiter puts me in a seat that's close to the section.

I mean, in open air, who cares? Seriously! It's not quite the same as smoking inside (bans that I support in workplaces)...

It isn't the smoke in the open air, it's all those cigarette butts that people throw on the ground. Just about as bad as chewing gum.

Every restaurant I go to has a smoking section.
Every time -no matter how far away I am from the smoking section- I can still smell the smoke while I'm trying to enjoy my meal.

Why don't we just ban smoking in restaurants completely (some restaurants have already done this, but not most)?
If someone can't even go out to eat without having a smoke, maybe they should stay home.
I've become accustomed to restaurants that are completely non-smoking, but I moved into a town where that is not the case. I hate trying to eat with the smell of smoke insinuating its way into my palate. The smoking section is huge, and like you said, drift ensures that the non-smoking section is just the 'second-hand' smoking section.

My husband smokes. He has no problem smoking before and after his meal, outside. Even he doesn't like inhaling smoke while actually eating.

In Edmonton, smoking is banned in all establishments that allow minors. I support that.

Saying that is like saying "If someone can't even going out to eat without having a drink, maybe they should stay home,"
Except that, in drinking, you are not spilling the contents of your vice into the mouths of others (well, not intentionally:)).

Well as long as no one's seriously discussing banning smoking outright, then I don't have that strawman to bash. What am I gonna do? :) I basically just agree that:

1) Bars and restaraunts should be able to declare themselves nonsmoking, smoking, or a mutated hybrid, if they so please, without needing a special license or identifying badge. I don't think any government action to force any stance or accomodations universally on such places is a good idea, either practically or morally. If a restaraunt wants to have the whole place as a smoking section, it should be able to do so without being forced to have nonsmoking sections - and honestly, if you're going to that restaraunt and you don't smoke, you oughtta know better!

2) Smoking should be allowed in public open air places. ANY distance from buildings! (The 10 yard rule - or whatever it is in CA these days - is totally stupid, does no good, is unenforcable or at least, never enforced. I guess cops have better things to do than arrest smokers who don't walk into the middle of the street to have a smoke.)

3) People who deliberately blow smoke in nonsmokers faces are dicks. You should stand up to them when they do that. But I don't think there are very many of these people and that the rates and frequencies of these incidents are overblown. No pun intended.

We should outlaw children in restaraunts, for the same reason. They spoil everyone's enjoyment. Ever notice? Baby starts screaming, everyone sighs and either stares or purposefully avoids staring.

Or maybe we could let restaraunts and pubs make their own rules about who can do what on their premises. Imagine that.

Cell phones, ban cell phones from restaurants. I hate listening to one side of a loud conversation about nothing important while eating dinner or lunch.

It isn't the smoke in the open air, it's all those cigarette butts that people throw on the ground. Just about as bad as chewing gum.
Well, in a lot of cases, no one seems to have the foresight to put a suitable container for cigarett butts in places where people tend to smoke. There's usually a garbage can, but the majority of smokers tend not to want to be responsible for a fire:). Having a place to put your butts would be a good start...that and having people stare accusingly at other smokers who litter when a suitable container IS available:).

I don't think that smoker bars should be punished, I think that non-smoker ones should be rewarded. Non-smokers have a right to a social life without smoke as smokers have a right to a social life with their addiction.
No, you dont have such a right, same for you Sinuhue. You wish for such a thing, but its not a right. It is your right in your house/flat on your ground, where you make the rules. It isnt on the premises of others.
And regarding smoking sections, yes i have a problem with the concept if i am forced to use them. I never smoke in restaurant and go outside on my own, whatever the weather, favour smoking zones over annoying the non-smokers and never ever consider lighting a cigarette in someone else flat before asking them for their ok. But i abhor being forced into something. I want to be able to go to a pub and have a smoke along with my beer while sitting at the bar, not breaking conversation with my mates who might not want to smoke at the moment or at all and thus not come with me to the special area for the majority of visitors. I dont like the government forcing landlords out of business because they lose upt to 30% of customers as has happened in Ireland right after the smoking ban.

My husband smokes. He has no problem smoking before and after his meal, outside. Even he doesn't like inhaling smoke while actually eating.


Even when I smoked I thought that (as did a lot of my smoker friends).

Except that, in drinking, you are not spilling the contents of your vice into the mouths of others (well, not intentionally:)).

Meh, I got the wrong end of the stick. Apologies.

No, you dont have such a right, same for you Sinuhue. You wish for such a thing, but its not a right. It is your right in your house/flat on your ground, where you make the rules. It isnt on the premises of others.

Then I must ask: Why should it be this way, hmm?

No, you dont have such a right, same for you Sinuhue. You wish for such a thing, but its not a right. It is your right in your house/flat on your ground, where you make the rules. It isnt on the premises of others.

Alright, you've forced me into this: SMOKING SHOULD BE BANNED! IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE TO SMOKE ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME! EVER! Prisons sentences should be mandatory and severe. And capital punishment, which I normally do not support, should be reserved for smokers.

Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. It's just this "you don't have a right to a social life" line drives me a little insane. Well...more than a little. I'm okay now. Smoke on. Away from me.

However, it would be extremely annoying to have to eat next to someone who was puffing away on a cigarette, not only because I hate the smell, but also because I'm severely asthmatic.
You dont have the right not to be annoyed. If something is a health risk to you, dont go where it is. I dont go to clubs which use stroboscopic lights, because it is risky for me. But i dont lobby banning them so that i can visit any club i want. Its my own, personal problem and that of other epileptics.

Any non- smokers out there want to finish painting the middle bedroom for me? :D

...I thought not, tada...

Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. It's just this "you don't have a right to a social life" line drives me a little insane. Well...more than a little. I'm okay now. Smoke on. Away from me.
If your social life requires forcing people into line with your thoughts instead of taking on the inconvenience of visiting places who have a non-smoking policy on their own, then yes, that is my thought on it. As "right" implies a legal issue, well according to actual law you do not have such a right, that is what i really was talking about.

Then I must ask: Why should it be this way, hmm?
Because freedom of business and privacy of home are basic values in a democratic society, simple as that.

You dont have the right not to be annoyed. If something is a health risk to you, dont go where it is. I dont go to clubs which use stroboscopic lights, because it is risky for me. But i dont lobby banning them so that i can visit any club i want. Its my own, personal problem and that of other epileptics.

Comparing epilepsy to asthma is like comparing apples to oranges.
There aren't many public places that use strobe lights, but every single restaurant (and this is no exaggeration) that I go into has a smoking section. Should I just never set foot in another restaurant again?

I shouldn't have to leave every restaurant I walk into just because another diner is too rude to smoke outside.

I go to a restaurant to relax and enjoy my meal, and I should be able to do that. If everyone who was bothered by smoke didn't go to restaurants who allowed it, I think those places would be pretty empty.

Because freedom of business and privacy of home are basic values in a democratic society, simple as that.

This is incorrect. In a pure communist society, there would be no freedom of business, yet there would be democracy. Democracy doesn't mean capitalism. Not in the least.

If your social life requires forcing people into line with your thoughts instead of taking on the inconvenience of visiting places who have a non-smoking policy on their own, then yes, that is my thought on it. As "right" implies a legal issue, well according to actual law you do not have such a right, that is what i really was talking about.
I know, I get that, and I think I made it clear that my last post was intentionally unreasonable:).

No club had a non-smoking policy on its own before the current ban. Now accomodations have been made for both smokers and non-smokers. Clearly, non-regulation in this case was not going to make those accomodations. Regulation has worked. So yes, I support it.

Because freedom of business and privacy of home are basic values in a democratic society, simple as that.

What Jordaxia said.

There aren't many public places that use strobe lights, but every single restaurant (and this is no exaggeration) that I go into has a smoking section. Should I just never set foot in another restaurant again?
Be honest, how many dance clubs do you know which use no strobes at all, never? Not constantly, for sure, but now and then. I know of two, out of 10 to 12 which i would consider visiting at all due to their music selection, in a city of a million inhabitants. On the other hand, i directly pass four non-smoking restaurants on my way from work to home, a distance of around 3 kilometers.
Of course i have sympathy for your problem, but that doesnt make it a right for you. Avoiding inconveniece for a few by cutting freedoms for many isnt a good base for law-making.

Because freedom of business and privacy of home are basic values in a democratic society, simple as that.
What freedom of business are you speaking of? Businesses are highly regulated....

This is incorrect. In a pure communist society, there would be no freedom of business, yet there would be democracy. Democracy doesn't mean capitalism. Not in the least.
Are we talking never going to happen theories here and imaginary smoke? Show me pure communism and i quit smoking, how about that?

Are we talking never going to happen theories here and imaginary smoke? Show me pure communism and i quit smoking, how about that?
Show me pure capitalism, and I'll START smoking:).

Are we talking never going to happen theories here and imaginary smoke? Show me pure communism and i quit smoking, how about that?

No, of course we aren't. it was an extreme example. I could go for a slight measure, and say Britain. Britain has nationalised industry and socialist policies, and I agree with them. I don't hold freedom of business to be our single inalienable right. I hold the fact that everyone is entitled to an equal life, with equal opportunities to be our greatest right. Businesses can help, but if I feel that if the economy has to suffer slightly to provide a greater standard of living, then I don't give a monkeys about the economy.

On the other hand, i directly pass four non-smoking restaurants on my way from work to home, a distance of around 3 kilometers.


Where do you live?

In my area (Rockdale, which is in suburban Illinois), the only "restaurants" that I walk into and see no one smoking are Burger King and McDonalds.

I really don't think that banning smoking in restaurants would be "Avoiding inconveniece for a few by cutting freedoms for many..."; it would make things more convenient and comfortable for many by cutting freedoms for a few.

So many people are bothered by smoke in restaurants (for health reasons and the fact that some people just enjoy their food less when there's an unpleasant smell in the air), but there aren't many people who can't even have a meal without smoking.

So many people are bothered by smoke in restaurants (for health reasons and the fact that some people just enjoy their food less when there's an unpleasant smell in the air), but there aren't many people who can't even have a meal without smoking.
An important point to highlight.

What freedom of business are you speaking of? Businesses are highly regulated....
Yes, in many ways you are right. Regulations are manyfold, most concerned with protecting the employees, ensuring the government gets its share and providing for public safety. But what remains is enough freedom to put up firms ranging from a single guys selling pencils out of his pocket to global players the size of General Electric. Its is not like every business is a completly cloned government franchise with each and every aspect being subject to regulations.

So many people are bothered by smoke in restaurants (for health reasons and the fact that some people just enjoy their food less when there's an unpleasant smell in the air), but there aren't many people who can't even have a meal without smoking.

They chose to become addicted. They carry the burden, and nobody else. That is their problem. I'm not against the NHS funding stopping smoking programs, however. I don't think a smokers rights are in any way superior to a non-smokers.

Yes, in many ways you are right. Regulations are manyfold, most concerned with protecting the employees, ensuring the government gets its share and providing for public safety. But what remains is enough freedom to put up firms ranging from a single guys selling pencils out of his pocket to global players the size of General Electric. Its is not like every business is a completly cloned government franchise with each and every aspect being subject to regulations.
No, but there is also no nebulous "freedom of Business". In many cases, it has been determined that workplaces should be smoke free for health reasons. The smoking ban is generally applied to clubs and restaurants for this reason, as they qualify as workplaces. It's not necessarily about protecting the patrons, but instead, the workers. Yes, you can say, well, they should work elsewhere. We could also say, "you can choose not to work at a place that does not comply with fire regulations".

Anway, the safety issue is still less of an issue for me than the simple fact that before regulations, common courtesy did not seem to cause people to smoke away from non-smokers. Now they do, and no one is unduly unhappy with this.

Where do you live?
<---
So many people are bothered by smoke in restaurants (for health reasons and the fact that some people just enjoy their food less when there's an unpleasant smell in the air), but there aren't many people who can't even have a meal without smoking.
If that really bothers so many people, why isnt there a single restaurant which does cater to non-smokers in your area? It should sell like the hottest thing since sliced bread, right? Like i said before, i completely agree with you on it being annoying and somewhat spoling the fun, which is why i dont do it, but i come to a completely different conclusion regarding how laws should regulate that.

If that really bothers so many people, why isnt there a single restaurant which does cater to non-smokers in your area? It should sell like the hottest thing since sliced bread, right? Well frankly, it's because smokers and non-smokers do not tend to segregate themselves from one another simply because of their habit, or lack thereof. I married a smoker, despite being a non-smoker. I have many friends who smoke. It shouldn't be a choice of "hang out only with smokers or non-smokers". It SHOULD be a choice between "be exposed to smoke or not" in the SAME place. Because that's how life is. It's compromise. You need to fart, do it in the other room to be polite. But I won't refuse to be your friend just because you ate some bad beans:).

The smoking ban is generally applied to clubs and restaurants for this reason, as they qualify as workplaces. It's not necessarily about protecting the patrons, but instead, the workers.
Which is why its a stupid strawman law, because it doesnt allow for an exception even if the landlord and all his employees are smokers and want the right to smoke at their workplace, or its a one-man place where there are no employees at all, making it the sole decision of the owner.

If that really bothers so many people, why isnt there a single restaurant which does cater to non-smokers in your area?

Because my area is crap.

There are some non-smoking restaurants in Chicago, but I'm too lazy to drive there, as it's about four hours away.

Which is why its a stupid strawman law, because it doesnt allow for an exception even if the landlord and all his employees are smokers and want the right to smoke at their workplace, or its a one-man place where there are no employees at all, making it the sole decision of the owner.
There's a difference between having a smoke yourself, and breathing in the smoke of hundreds of other people's cigarettes a night. Surly you yourself would not willingly smoke that much?

Well why the hell would they bombard public schools with antismoking propaganda if the tobacco industry is so close to their hearts?
so they get reelected moron. the tobacco industry doesnt appoint government officials (i hope). when a senator votes for anti smoking propaganda everyone says oh look what a great guy he is lets vote for him and donate money to him. and when he votes against it, hes out of a job.

By the way, smokers, check out the poll on this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422709

You need to fart, do it in the other room to be polite. But I won't refuse to be your friend just because you ate some bad beans:).
I do such, as mentioned before, out of politeness. But i want the right to fart wherever i want without being fined.

As for the segregation, i dont see where there should be a problem for the smokers to leave the restaurant to get their fix if they agree to go to a non-smokers place. They are in the minority, they adapt and accept the rules of the place, same as i expect from non-smokers if they absolutely have to go into pubs where the majority is smoking. They can have their little corner if they want, but the bar and the pool tables and whatnot are smoker areas.

so they get reelected moron.
Santa Barbara is anything but, so tone down the flames.

I do such, as mentioned before, out of politeness. But i want the right to fart wherever i want without being fined. Yes, but we're not just talking about your gasseous emmissions....imagine a club where half the patrons were extremely flatulent...how pleasant would that be for people who have not been made immune to the stench by their own farting?

As for the segregation, i dont see where there should be a problem for the smokers to leave the restaurant to get their fix if they agree to go to a non-smokers place. They are in the minority, they adapt and accept the rules of the place, same as i expect from non-smokers if they absolutely have to go into pubs where the majority is smoking. They can have their little corner if they want, but the bar and the pool tables and whatnot are smoker areas. The problem is, that tiny little non-smoking area is an impossibility. A smoking area that does not leak into the non-smoking area is not.

alright i think everyones missing the real point behind the health argument. people work at smoking bars. they do it for years. they get cancer because of it (this is disputable). now you say "lol!!!!1 cant they just work somewhere else? :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :p :fluffle: "
no. employees are entitled to a safe working environment. allowing large doses of carcinogens into the air isn't very safe. anyways, people can't always just get another job because they arent always available for anyone who wants them. this is for numerous reasons wage amounts, location, no job vacancies etc.
so you really have to prove that second hand smoke wont cause employees to get cancer. and im talking reliable scientific evidence not "my uncle worked in a bar all his life and smoked every day but never got cancer." thats anecdotal and doesn't prove anything.

By the way, smokers, check out the poll on this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422709
I voted yes. But it isnt exactly the same issue, going to a pub which has these policies or have any and all pubs, without exception, bow to unneeded laws and restrictions of freedom. Remember, every restaurant owner can make his place non-smoking. With the smoking ban no landlord may make an smoking place.

I voted yes. But it isnt exactly the same issue, going to a pub which has these policies or have any and all pubs, without exception, bow to unneeded laws and restrictions of freedom. Remember, every restaurant owner can make his place non-smoking. With the smoking ban no landlord may make an smoking place.
Depends. The smoking laws in Edmonton provide the opportunity for owners to have a segregated smoking section on the premises within certain guildlines. So it is the same issue. Regulations require a non-smoking establishment with a segregated smoking section.

you really have to prove that second hand smoke wont cause employees to get cancer. and im talking reliable scientific evidence not "my uncle worked in a bar all his life and smoked every day but never got cancer." thats anecdotal and doesn't prove anything.
to be perfectly honest, i would say the onus is one someone to prove that it does cause cancer, not to prove that it doesnt

What about when you go to a club and they pump artificial smoke it to the room? Thats gotta be harmful

Yes, but we're not just talking about your gasseous emmissions....imagine a club where half the patrons were extremely flatulent...how pleasant would that be for people who have not been made immune to the stench by their own farting?
If farting is part of their enjoyment of going to a club and for them really goes well along with dancing and drinking i still think they should have their clubs. Especially when the owner wants the farters as clients a/o is one of them.

The problem is, that tiny little non-smoking area is an impossibility. A smoking area that does not leak into the non-smoking area is not.
Why? As said before, the places i frequent have at least 70% smokers, often more. Thus the non-smokers can have the areas with no bar, no pub games, no toilet access, which is among what is denied from me when i have to use an outdoor smoking area.

to be perfectly honest, i would say the onus is one someone to prove that it does cause cancer, not to prove that it doesnt
It's always so difficult to prove a direct causal link between anything and cancer...but it hasn't stopped some products from being taken off the market. We shouldn't be experimenting on people until we know for SURE that something is harmful...when there are good indications that something IS, I'd like to err on the side of caution. But I really don't want to argue healthwise, so I'll keep it to:

I hate breathing smoke. :p

What about when you go to a club and they pump artificial smoke it to the room? Thats gotta be harmful
Considering artificial smoke is usually produced from dry ice, and contains mostly CO2, no, it isn't really all that harmful.

Why? As said before, the places i frequent have at least 70% smokers, often more. Thus the non-smokers can have the areas with no bar, no pub games, no toilet access, which is among what is denied from me when i have to use an outdoor smoking area.

You get addicted, it's your responsibility. Why should the people who have done nothing be the ones discriminated against?

Nobody is saying that smokers cannot use the non smoking area. Just that they cannot smoke at them.

Why? As said before, the places i frequent have at least 70% smokers, often more. Thus the non-smokers can have the areas with no bar, no pub games, no toilet access, which is among what is denied from me when i have to use an outdoor smoking area.
Uh-huh...despite the fact that they will spend almost all their time there while smokers will generally have their smoke, then go back to enjoy the rest of the bar. Not quite the same.

Depends. The smoking laws in Edmonton provide the opportunity for owners to have a segregated smoking section on the premises within certain guildlines. So it is the same issue. Regulations require a non-smoking establishment with a segregated smoking section.
I was thinking more along the laws of Ireland, with a complete ban in all public places, without any exeption possible. Which leads to the point of a landlord not being allowed to smoke in his own place to ensure the safety of workers he might not even have.

Uh-huh...despite the fact that they will spend almost all their time there while smokers will generally have their smoke, then go back to enjoy the rest of the bar. Not quite the same.
You arent used to a) heavy smokers, b) people who dont want to interrupt what they do right now, like playing a round of pool, to go outside or c) people having different smoking patterns, right? If i sit around with my mates i dont want to break conversation because i need to smoke more or less often than others.
The solution would be simple, allow for smokers&smoke-accepters-only pubs and dont force your way into those. Why the fuck should the majority bow to a minority in this case?

I was thinking more along the laws of Ireland, with a complete ban in all public places, without any exeption possible. Which leads to the point of a landlord not being allowed to smoke in his own place to ensure the safety of workers he might not even have.
Which is precisely what I don't support. An all out ban, with no compromises, is neither realistic nor useful. A smoking area does not provide the sort of ongoing exposure to second hand smoke that an entirely smoking establishment does, and it does not unduly inconvenience smokers (in my opinion, anyway). And banning smoking OUTSIDE as they have done at the U of A campus is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and is the kind of thing that makes people assume my smoking arguments are extreme and that I hate all smokers.

to be perfectly honest, i would say the onus is one someone to prove that it does cause cancer, not to prove that it doesnt
like i said in the very same post. it is validly disputable that second hand smoke does cause cancer

You arent used to a) heavy smokers, b) people who dont want to interrupt what they do right now, like playing a round of pool, to go outside or c) people having different smoking patterns, right? If i sit around with my mates i dont want to break conversation because i need to smoke more or less often than others.
The solution would be simple, allow for smokers&smoke-accepters-only pubs and dont force your way into those. Why the fuck should the majority bow to a minority in this case?
Because the point of a democractic system is not just to do as the majority wishes, but also to protect the minority. The minority of people who go to clubs don't drink. The drinking of the majority does not impact their enjoyment of the club (unless they just don't like drunk people). Smoking does not just affect those doing it. When one right infringes on the rights of another, compromises must be made, whether or not the infringers happen to be in the majority or not.

...that some people don't want to have to breath it in.

No, seriously. All these arguments bring in long-term health risks are weak (though not completely invalid), and really obscure the issue. People want a choice. I want a choice. I want to be able to go to a bar that is non-smoking, so I can go home smelling of something other than an ash-tray. Bars with nice outside patios for smokers are ideal...keep the dance floor free from smoke, but don't crowd the smokers out, and don't force smokers and non-smokers to go to separate clubs. Have those big heat lamps in an outdoor smoking area at a workplace for those cold months.

Most smokers I know don't smoke inside their houses anymore ANYWAY...the step outside so their house doesn't reek. No one at my workplace minds getting the hell away from their desk to go have a drag outside. The real issue seems to be clubs and restaurants. So, health arguments aside, we should be making sure there are non-smoking and smoking options for patrons, rather than just banning one, or ignoring the other. Does that sound reasonable? Or is it just me?

Completely unreasonable.

I hate the way babies cry in public places. I say we should ban that.

Completely unreasonable.

I hate the way babies cry in public places. I say we should ban that.

You feel the baby is being unreasonable by crying. Does this mean that you concede that you are being unreasonable by forcing your smoke on other people? Not to mention that there is a distinct difference between something that is barely sentient compared to an adult in full control of what they do.

Completely unreasonable.

I hate the way babies cry in public places. I say we should ban that.

I already said that. No go. :(

And babies cause stress. Stress causes heart disease. Heart disease is the number one killer in America!

Because the point of a democractic system is not just to do as the majority wishes, but also to protect the minority.
Yes, but not under any and all circumstances. If a minority does place itself in a situation it feels uncomfortable with and which is unhealthy to it, like say cramping 12 people into a telephone booth which resides shakily at the edge of an canyon, it is not the governments duty to protect them. Of course it is their right to do such a thing, but they should not enter "Fred's Adventure Tours, complete with shaky telephone booth" and then complain about the experience, when most people want exactly that from good ole Fred.

When one right infringes on the rights of another, compromises must be made, whether or not the infringers happen to be in the majority or not.
And where exactly is your right to go to pubs written down? Morally you are right, legally you have nothing.

I already said that. No go. :(

And babies cause stress. Stress causes heart disease. Heart disease is the number one killer in America!
I have to agree with that. Unfortunately, kids are necessary to propogate the species. I just did my damn duty!

Completely unreasonable.

I hate the way babies cry in public places. I say we should ban that.
Ah, the rabid smoker arrives! I was waiting just for this moment in order to duck out into another topic:) Cheers!

And where exactly is your right to go to pubs written down? Morally you are right, legally you have nothing.
I'll take the morality over the legality every time:)

You feel the baby is being unreasonable by crying.

Absurd. Its one of the only things they know how to do. They have no concept of reason yet; calling an infants actions 'unreasonable' is like saying 'babies are stupid.'

Does this mean that you concede that you are being unreasonable by forcing your smoke on other people? Not to mention that there is a distinct difference between something that is barely sentient compared to an adult in full control of what they do.

Please re-read the first post. At the end Sinuhue says something like "does this sound reasonable?" I'm just answering it.

Yes, but not under any and all circumstances. If a minority does place itself in a situation it feels uncomfortable with and which is unhealthy to it, like say cramping 12 people into a telephone booth which resides shakily at the edge of an canyon, it is not the governments duty to protect them. Of course it is their right to do such a thing, but they should not enter "Fred's Adventure Tours, complete with shaky telephone booth" and then complain about the experience, when most people want exactly that from good ole Fred.


And where exactly is your right to go to pubs written down? Morally you are right, legally you have nothing.
as i recall people have a right to a safe working environment

I'll take the morality over the legality every time:)
And i take freedom of choice over forced regulations everyday.

Absurd. Its one of the only things they know how to do. They have no concept of reason yet; calling an infants actions 'unreasonable' is like saying 'babies are stupid.'

gah, you know what I meant.They can't be expected to take responsibility for trying to get attention the only way they know how. However a smoker is perfectly aware that to a non smoker that they render the air around them practically unbreathable.

Please re-read the first post. At the end Sinuhue says something like "does this sound reasonable?" I'm just answering it.

What would you feel is reasonable, then? It's all well and good to shout down someones opinion, but if you can't constructively counter it, you don't do any good.

Well why the hell would they bombard public schools with antismoking propaganda if the tobacco industry is so close to their hearts?

Simple, because if they didn't then the government would be accused of supporting the tobacco industry, and it seems to be working for people like you. The government loves tobacco, it generates a lot of money for them, but that doesn't mean its citizens care for it.

And i take freedom of choice over forced regulations everyday.
I'll take that about 75% of the time.:)

gah, you know what I meant.They can't be expected to take responsibility for trying to get attention the only way they know how. However a smoker is perfectly aware that to a non smoker that they render the air around them practically unbreathable.

Ummm... I think you're assuming that I do actually want to ban having infants in public places. Sinuhue wanted to drop the health stipulations associated with ETS exposure and discuss it as a matter of personal taste. The baby example, in this context, is meant to illustrate that we cannot possibly outlaw all the things in life that irritate us. I'm surprised you didn't make that connection.

What would you feel is reasonable, then? It's all well and good to shout down someones opinion, but if you can't constructively counter it, you don't do any good.

And if you don't even understand it, we're still back at square one.

Ummm... I think you're assuming that I do actually want to ban having infants in public places. Sinuhue wanted to drop the health stipulations associated with ETS exposure and discuss it as a matter of personal taste. The baby example, in this context, is meant to illustrate that we cannot possibly outlaw all the things in life that irritate us. I'm surprised you didn't make that connection.

No, I did, I just argued in spite of it because it's something I tend to do. I know that you don't actually want to ban babies in public. Though the difference I find in the baby example is that a baby doesn't actually cause you physical discomfort. I gag and choke when I breath in smoke, and I've been surrounded by smokers all my life. A baby, on the other hand, doesn't really irritate me at all. Besides, nobody is proposing a ban on smokers. Just that if they choose to become addicted, then they have to deal with the consequences. As it stands, they take their addiction, and then shift the consequences on the people who choose not to. Right without responsibility.




And if you don't even understand it, we're still back at square one.


Now I'm confused too... or were you implying I was in the first case? Either way, I'm still confused.

No, I did, I just argued in spite of it because it's something I tend to do. I know that you don't actually want to ban babies in public.

Then why are you challenging the comparison? As I said before, this issue is being debated minus the health rammifications. Essentially, what it comes down to if we don't consider health issues is one minor annyoance versus another.

Though the difference I find in the baby example is that a baby doesn't actually cause you physical discomfort. I gag and choke when I breath in smoke, and I've been surrounded by smokers all my life. A baby, on the other hand, doesn't really irritate me at all.
It depends on your personality. Babies crying in public for more than a minute or two gets me pretty furious.

Besides, nobody is proposing a ban on smokers.
Funny, we're not allowed to smoke in public in my city. I'd say lots of people are.

Just that if they choose to become addicted, then they have to deal with the consequences. As it stands, they take their addiction, and then shift the consequences on the people who choose not to. Right without responsibility.

Here you're getting into the health issue again, in absence of a credible argument for banning smoking if it didn't cause these problems. Your 'rights without responsibility' supposition is flawed because it seems to assume that the smoker himself won't actually have to pay any of the consequences of his habit. Even if ETS does cause cancer [and it might, I'm not arguing that. Current data, however, is insufficient], the smoker himself still stands an incredibly higher chance of getting it than the people he walks past on the street or sits next to in a bar. "Shift of consequences" my ass.

OK well this topic is definately a tricky one. I'm a smoker and I enjoy smoking after a good meal; at the same time i have no desire to ingest smoke with aforementioned good meal. Personally I have no problem with using a well maintained well segregrated well equipped (with heaters etc if outside) smoking area. Bringing babies into the debate is slightly redundant as, though I agree they are a very annoying pollutant, they are an entirely different and non- health threatening pollutant.
If something else needs to be raised it is the point that why shouldn't I be able to walk into the city without being suffocated with traffic fumes pumped out of automobiles that are being used in most cases for needlessly short journeys? Noone deliberately wants to inhale traffic fumes, not even smokers. Why shouldn't we do something about this first?

OK well this topic is definately a tricky one. I'm a smoker and I enjoy smoking after a good meal; at the same time i have no desire to ingest smoke with aforementioned good meal. Personally I have no problem with using a well maintained well segregrated well equipped (with heaters etc if outside) smoking area. Bringing babies into the debate is slightly redundant as, though I agree they are a very annoying pollutant, they are an entirely different and non- health threatening pollutant.
If something else needs to be raised it is the point that why shouldn't I be able to walk into the city without being suffocated with traffic fumes pumped out of automobiles that are being used in most cases for needlessly short journeys? Noone deliberately wants to inhale traffic fumes, not even smokers. Why shouldn't we do something about this first?

The solutions is thus:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/proMonkey/smoking.png

The solutions is thus:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/proMonkey/smoking.png

LOL ok you sold me- I want one. stylish and practical!

That some arrogant people want to tell other people how to live their lives because they know best.

-Tom Steele

Yes.


*winces*

Drawing conclusions like this will get you no love. And little support.

Note I used the word SEEMS --- in other words, this APPEARS to be happening. I'm not saying that it's true.

Well as long as no one's seriously discussing banning smoking outright, then I don't have that strawman to bash. What am I gonna do? :) I basically just agree that:

1) Bars and restaraunts should be able to declare themselves nonsmoking, smoking, or a mutated hybrid, if they so please, without needing a special license or identifying badge. I don't think any government action to force any stance or accomodations universally on such places is a good idea, either practically or morally. If a restaraunt wants to have the whole place as a smoking section, it should be able to do so without being forced to have nonsmoking sections - and honestly, if you're going to that restaraunt and you don't smoke, you oughtta know better!

2) Smoking should be allowed in public open air places. ANY distance from buildings! (The 10 yard rule - or whatever it is in CA these days - is totally stupid, does no good, is unenforcable or at least, never enforced. I guess cops have better things to do than arrest smokers who don't walk into the middle of the street to have a smoke.)

3) People who deliberately blow smoke in nonsmokers faces are dicks. You should stand up to them when they do that. But I don't think there are very many of these people and that the rates and frequencies of these incidents are overblown. No pun intended.


The distance rule should be enforced on college campuses and such --- there are comfortable designated smoking areas on my campus, and people STILL want to smoke while leaning against the doors, forcing everyone who exits the building to walk through a cloud of smoke. I'm allergic to cigarette smoke, and such inconsiderate individuals have more than once caused me to miss class from becoming ill. There's no reason to lean against the damn door. There's a wall not 4 feet from the door that people can lean against, and the smoke doesn't create such a cloud in that area. There is also a very large covered porch on the next building that even the faculty uses as a smoking area. No one requires access to the porch in order to get to class, so it's an idea area for the smokers to gather. There are even areas that are out of the wind, but ,for some reason, people refuse to use them.

...that some people don't want to have to breath it in.

No, seriously. All these arguments bring in long-term health risks are weak (though not completely invalid), and really obscure the issue. People want a choice. I want a choice. I want to be able to go to a bar that is non-smoking, so I can go home smelling of something other than an ash-tray. Bars with nice outside patios for smokers are ideal...keep the dance floor free from smoke, but don't crowd the smokers out, and don't force smokers and non-smokers to go to separate clubs. Have those big heat lamps in an outdoor smoking area at a workplace for those cold months.

Most smokers I know don't smoke inside their houses anymore ANYWAY...the step outside so their house doesn't reek. No one at my workplace minds getting the hell away from their desk to go have a drag outside. The real issue seems to be clubs and restaurants. So, health arguments aside, we should be making sure there are non-smoking and smoking options for patrons, rather than just banning one, or ignoring the other. Does that sound reasonable? Or is it just me?
The govt should tax-incentivise no-smoking pubs, restaurants and bars and leave people to make their own decision.

I'm SO over the whole smoking issue... :D

I don't have a problem with people smoking as long as they don't foist the bills for their cancer surgery onto taxpayers.

It's cheaper to pay for someone's cancer surgery, than to pay for someone's Social Security benefits, prescription drugs, diabetes, heart problems, osteoperosis, other chronic disease, and God forbid, Alzhimer's treatment, for another 20 years, and still have to pay for their cancer treatment.

People getting sick from tobacco lowers aggregate healthcare costs. I agree with the person who made this thread: the only reason to restrict tobacco is because other people have a right not to breathe it in public places.