NationStates Jolt Archive

So, if all restaurants and clubs were required to be non-smoking, but were allowed to have a smoking section (outside on a patio, or completely cut off from the rest of the building so as to prevent drift), would you feel terribly inconvenienced? Would you refuse to frequent these places simply because you would have to go to a specific section every now and again in order to smoke? Or would this be something you probably would have done anyway?

I'm really not sure it would bother me that much unless, so long as the smoking section wasn't ridiculously inconvenient.

You are presuming the people replying are smokers. I am an ex smoker. As it happens I could happlily stay in the smoking area (I did on Saturday), but there is no option here for non smokers who could not stay in the smoking area.

You are presuming the people replying are smokers. I am an ex smoker. As it happens I could happlily stay in the smoking area (I did on Saturday), but there is no option here for non smokers who could not stay in the smoking area.
That's 'cuz the poll is for smokers. Smokers only. Haha!

I don't mind if other people dont wanna inhale my smoke while eating.

I think it should be totally left up to the business owners. The market will decide whether completely smoke-free or smoking-segregated resturaunts succede or fail.

Personally, the local IHOP has a completely segregated smoking area (with it's own air conditioning and the whole 9 yards) and that's fine with me. Most of the time, though, I'll wait until after dinner and have a cigarette outside.

the pub I go to 80% of the people smoke so it have to be a pretty big non smoking area

I think it should be totally left up to the business owners. [B]The market will decide whether completely smoke-free or smoking-segregated resturaunts succede or fail.[/BI]

While we're at it, let's leave EVERYTHING up to individual business owners, because the market will always make the best choices based on the profit motive. :rolleyes: Goodbye fire, health and safety regulations! Goodbye labour laws! The market will provide! Hail!

the pub I go to 80% of the people smoke so it have to be a pretty big non smoking area
? We're talking about a smoking area...not a non-smoking area...

While we're at it, let's leave EVERYTHING up to individual business owners, because the market will always make the best choices based on the profit motive. :rolleyes: Goodbye fire, health and safety regulations! Goodbye labour laws! The market will provide! Hail!

You know, that's the second time you've likened placing a universal ban on smoking to regulations that already exist. No one's talking about removing any regulations already extant; you are talking about placing new ones. To suit your preferences.

And do you really think enforced nonsmoking areas for every bar and restaraunt has the same value to society as fire regulations?

While we're at it, let's leave EVERYTHING up to individual business owners, because the market will always make the best choices based on the profit motive. :rolleyes: Goodbye fire, health and safety regulations! Goodbye labour laws! The market will provide! Hail!
We are talking about smoking/non-smoking areas in resturaunts. If people want to patronize a smoke-free restruaunt, let them. If people want to patronize resturaunts with segregated-smoking areas, let them. The market will decide.

We were NOT talking about multinationals dumping chemicals in rivers and such, becuase I don't trust THEM either.

My GOD, you are a complete moron.

You know, that's the second time you've likened placing a universal ban on smoking to regulations that already exist. No one's talking about removing any regulations already extant; you are talking about placing new ones. To suit your preferences. So once a regulation exists, you no longer have a problem with it? Then once this one is universal, you'll be okay?

And do you really think enforced nonsmoking areas for every bar and restaraunt has the same value to society as fire regulations?
No, but I do think that a happy medium is possible, but only when regulations are actually in place. I do not support the idea that businesses will somehow regulate themselves if all restrictions are removed, which is something that many free-market capitalists insist would be the case. I support a ban with the provision that there be a smoking area because I believe it allows smokers and non-smokers to hang out together without UNDUE inconvenience on either side.

We are talking about smoking/non-smoking areas in resturaunts. If people want to patronize a smoke-free restruaunt, let them. If people want to patronize resturaunts with segregated-smoking areas, let them. The market will decide.

We were NOT talking about multinationals dumping chemicals in rivers and such, becuase I don't trust THEM either.

My GOD, you are a complete moron.
You know...I'd take you a lot more seriously if you managed to refrain from flaming when you don't agree with someone.

I wasn't talking about multinationals dumping chemicals either. What I was referring to are regulations which provide for a safe workplace. Regulations that require buildings to monitor CO levels. Regulations that require businesses to have capacity limits. Regulations that require a multitude of things much less serious than toxic dumping. Leaving all those decisions up to businesses is pure folly. It's like saying, "Hey, we have an electrical code which assures that we are installing services that are as safe as we can make them, but let's just let individual businesses decide to follow the code or not, because no doubt they'll make the right decision" (which is a slightly different argument than the whole smoking debacle...)

So once a regulation exists, you no longer have a problem with it? Then once this one is universal, you'll be okay?

No, but removing existing policies is just different from putting new ones in. Specifically the burden of proof is on you to show that this is a good idea... not me to justify or remove or discuss existing regulations, especially ones with no relevance.

No, but I do think that a happy medium is possible, but only when regulations are actually in place. I do not support the idea that businesses will somehow regulate themselves if all restrictions are removed, which is something that many free-market capitalists insist would be the case. I support a ban with the provision that there be a smoking area because I believe it allows smokers and non-smokers to hang out together without UNDUE inconvenience on either side.

All the same, you're controlling business from on high with grand sweeping gestures that assume business should have no real say about themselves. There should be, and ARE, smoking areas in places - patio ones even, as you've pointed out - even without regulations handing them down by mandate. So that shows that businesses DO regulate themselves regarding this. The ones that don't, obviously don't care about the issue as much as you do, and frankly it seems their patrons don't either or else they wouldn't put up with it.

I mean, to the guy complaining about restaraunts and smelling the smoke. If you didn't like it, and if lots of people didn't like it, the best thing would be to not go. But instead you wind up going, paying for the food, smelling the smoke (Even though you consider it gives you cancer - you would rather chance that than eat somewhere else, I suppose), keeping them in business!

Anyway, bottom line, not every place needs or wants smoking sections, and places should be allowed to make their own little bans - or not - based on the needs of their customers.

Let me use an example:
Lets say i have a workplace that over the time might dye the hair of all my employees blonde. And all those workers i employ know that and have no problem with that, indeed they are fully aware of the risk and choose to accept it, because it goes along with their own habits and vices. I even call for such people in my add when looking for employees. But now the government comes along, because it knows best. No more hair dyeing, even on a completely voluntary base by all those involved.
Does that sound right?

Let me use an example:
Lets say i have a workplace that over the time might dye the hair of all my employees blonde. And all those workers i employ know that and have no problem with that, indeed they are fully aware of the risk and choose to accept it, because it goes along with their own habits and vices. I even call for such people in my add when looking for employees. But now the government comes along, because it knows best. No more hair dyeing, even on a completely voluntary base by all those involved.
Does that sound right?
Yes. Because HAIR DYE EATS BRAIN CELLS!!!111 Just look at Sinuhue!

I KEED! I KEED! [/triumph the insult comic dog]

I'd be fine with that. What I am NOT fine with, is being told I cannot smoke anywhere in a restaurant club or EVEN PUB!

With restaurants I can sort of understand a total ban, but not quite agree with it being compulsory.

With clubs I think a restricted area is fine.

With Pubs they should have a restricted area for people who don't smoke, rather than making the entire area no smoking! They better not do that!

You know...I'd take you a lot more seriously if you managed to refrain from flaming when you don't agree with someone.

I wasn't talking about multinationals dumping chemicals either. What I was referring to are regulations which provide for a safe workplace. Regulations that require buildings to monitor CO levels. Regulations that require businesses to have capacity limits. Regulations that require a multitude of things much less serious than toxic dumping. Leaving all those decisions up to businesses is pure folly. It's like saying, "Hey, we have an electrical code which assures that we are installing services that are as safe as we can make them, but let's just let individual businesses decide to follow the code or not, because no doubt they'll make the right decision" (which is a slightly different argument than the whole smoking debacle...)
I might take you more seriously if you didn't make blanket, inflammatory statements, ala Chicken Little. :p

Also, electrical regulations protect property rights to a certain extent, while smoke regulations tend to be about people whining that they don't like the smell of smoke.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GO TO A/WORK IN A SMOKE-FREE RESTURAUNT.

You're the same kind of person that thinks we should ban everything but Little House on the Prarie from our televisions. :headbang:

I'd be fine with that. What I am NOT fine with, is being told I cannot smoke anywhere in a restaurant club or EVEN PUB!

With restaurants I can sort of understand a total ban, but not quite agree with it being compulsory.

With clubs I think a restricted area is fine.

With Pubs they should have a restricted area for people who don't smoke, rather than making the entire area no smoking! They better not do that!Most of the pubs in town have two or three levels...usually one level is smoking.

I might take you more seriously if you didn't make blanket, inflammatory statements, ala Chicken Little. :p

You're the same kind of person that thinks we should ban everything but Little House on the Prarie from our televisions. :headbang:
Hi pot. I'm kettle.

Yes. Because HAIR DYE EATS BRAIN CELLS!!!111 Just look at Sinuhue!


*raises eyebrow*

TEX:- Calm down a little OK. Sinahue can be irritating at times, but is generally reasonable. Make your points without the ad hominem additions and you'll find that she can be cowed into submission. :D

Sinahue: Pubs, clubs and retaurants are private establishments (no, don't bring the pub = 'public house' argument, we both know better). People enter private establishments at their own risk. Yes there are building and fire regulations, mostly because the average Joe on the street can not judge what is and is not safe in respect of these. The average Joe though is quite capable of judging if they want to eat or drink in a smoky atmosphere or not. There is no need for a general regualtion to be made for this. It is within the possibilities of our personal judgement to decide if we want to tolerate the smoke or not. If not, go somewhere where the owner does not want the smoke. If there is no choice, open your own joint and create a choice, as there is obviously a gap in the market. (If there is not, then this whole discussion is a storm in a teacup isn't it.)

Hi pot. I'm kettle.
My point was that smoking-banners and television censors (censoring sex and violence and other "offenseive" things) use the exact same logic in their arguments...and they're both wrong.

And you have to know I was kidding about the hair dye comment. :p

Most of the pubs in town have two or three levels...usually one level is smoking. Are you referring to proper Pubs or Bars? Proper British pubs are very smokey places and they want to ban smoking in them! Fair enough about multi storied bars in town centres, but traditional pubs! NO!

TEX:- Calm down a little OK. Sinahue can be irritating at times, but is generally reasonable. Make your points without the ad hominem additions and you'll find that she can be cowed into submission. :D Moi, annoying? Kiss me arse, matey! Cow me into submission will ya???

My point was that smoking-banners and television censors (censoring sex and violence and other "offenseive" things) use the exact same logic in their arguments...and they're both wrong.

And you have to know I was kidding about the hair dye comment. :p
I hope so...considering I've only dyed it once, and that was 10 years ago...if that rotted MY brain...just imagine what Pamela Anderson is suffering from....

I hope so...considering I've only dyed it once, and that was 10 years ago...if that rotted MY brain...just imagine what Pamela Anderson is suffering from....

What an assumption. Pamela Anderson and a brain occupying the same space!

Are you referring to proper Pubs or Bars? Proper British pubs are very smokey places and they want to ban smoking in them! Fair enough about multi storied bars in town centres, but traditional pubs! NO!
Hmmm...difference in terminology I guess. To me, a pub is a place where dancing does not happen. A club is dancey. But then again, our "pubs", "bars" and "clubs" are VERY different than European establishments. *sigh*...you know, I'd put up with smoke in a European pub, bar or club, just so I could oggle hot Spanish/French/etc guys.

What an assumption. Pamela Anderson and a brain occupying the same space!
Hey...just because it's made out of silicone....

I'd put up with smoke in a European pub, bar or club, just so I could oggle hot Spanish/French/etc guys. lol Not many in my part of Europe! Just Geordie lads from the North East of England!

It's the same here, you don't dance in a pub. You sit there drink and smoke and maybe eat. Then you have a few more modern family orientated ones where smoking may already not be permitted. But the ones that are hundreds of years old with a nice fire burning are the best!

You might have a small dance floor in a bar. Usually somewhere you go after a meal or before a club.

Clubs are totally decadent places where you get sloshed dance madly and kiss anything in site. At least in Europe anyway!

lol Not many in my part of Europe! Just Geordie lads from the North East of England!

It's the same here, you don't dance in a pub. You sit there drink and smoke and maybe eat. Then you have a few more modern family orientated ones where smoking may already not be permitted. But the ones that are hundreds of years old with a nice fire burning are the best!

You might have a small dance floor in a bar. Usually somewhere you go after a meal or before a club.

Clubs are totally decadent places where you get sloshed dance madly and kiss anything in site. At least in Europe anyway!

They have that "Irish" pub in North Shields now which is non-smoking. I can't really get my head around that. It being North Shields and all.

As long as the place has decent accommodations for smokers, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have seperate areas.

Apologies if this has been said. I have read the thread, but am a bit tired.

I notice there is no options for smokers who would like to sit in a non-smoking area (even smokers don't all like smoke in their face when eating :))






(I know I quit, but I still think of myself as a smoker, possibly for the same reason I still think of myself as Catholic. Despite not believing in God since I was about 15 years old. Though even when I smoked I held the above position)

I would. Why not? If it makes other people happy...

They have that "Irish" pub in North Shields now which is non-smoking. I can't really get my head around that. It being North Shields and all. It's no-smoking because it's Irish?! With no legal obligation here? Weird. Especially down the fish quay way!

It's no-smoking because it's Irish?! With no legal obligation here? Weird. Especially down the fish quay way!

Yeah, the guy who owns it wants it to be "authentic". So its totally non-smoking. Suprisingly it's pretty popular, but then it is up the bank, next to the new yuppie housing.

(Mind you, shields has changed a lot. I can remember the Magnesia Bank before it was the "best pub in britain".)