NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.

Welcome to being Canadian. We've had smoking bans in place for a while.

Sure it's nice in a restaurant but it seems stupid in places like pubs.

Ours came into place on 30th April. It goes further than the one in Maryland; covers all enclosed public spaces and workplaces.

Even as a smoker, I like it.

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.

Here is the difference between liberal and libertarian.

The government has no place telling stupid people they can't kill themselves.

Yes I can feel the governments iron glove of oppression squeezing my life out of me. :rolleyes:


I welcome this ban. Hopefully more states will follow this example, Ohio did and my vote was a part of its success.


*nods*

got the same here in Hawaii, but it's much more extensive.

it includes parking structures, enclosed, semi-enclosed, and open malls, any and all public buildings, and no where within 20 ft of a door or vent.

The government has no place telling stupid people they can't kill themselves.

and they're not. they're just insuring that those stupid people don't take out others that don't want to die.

The government has no place telling stupid people they can't kill themselves.

But why should people who don't want to kill themselves have to breath in their smoke?

Minnesota is expected to go Smoke Free by October without exemptions

As a non-smoker, I applaud this. If you want to kill yourself, don't try to take other people out with you.

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.

Compared to the smoking bans in other parts of the country, this one is tame. You can actually apply to have the ban rescinded if you can prove it's hurting your business--I've never seen that included in a law.

The ban only bans in bars and restaurants, same as in New Jersey. If you ask me its the best thing that has ever happened to restaurants . For one you don't have have your jacket dry cleaned every time you go out.

Compared to the smoking bans in other parts of the country, this one is tame. You can actually apply to have the ban rescinded if you can prove it's hurting your business--I've never seen that included in a law.

True, if the ban only covers bars and restaurants than it really isn't that serious. Smokers can still light up in plenty of locations.

But why should people who don't want to kill themselves have to breath in their smoke?

If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, they can avoid going to a smoking bar. Shocking concept, I know. But frankly if people are so afraid that smoking is KILLING THEM!!! ZOMG, but they are choosing to go the bar ANYWAY and breathe it in, then it appears they don't really care too much about their own health, no? I mean if entertainment is more important to them.

Cthulhu-Mythos;12660656']Minnesota is expected to go Smoke Free by October without exemptions

Yup..October 1st.

I can see more restaurants having outdoor tables in the future.

If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, they can avoid going to a smoking bar. Shocking concept, I know. But frankly if people are so afraid that smoking is KILLING THEM!!! ZOMG, but they are choosing to go the bar ANYWAY and breathe it in, then it appears they don't really care too much about their own health, no? I mean if entertainment is more important to them.

it used to be that resturants and bars had a smoking and non-smoking sections.

however, the seperation of the two was only a wider space. Not much to prevent the chemicals from waifting from one side to the other. Also workers were often times forced to work in the smoking section against their will / without additional pay or benefits. (one casino dealer was reprimanded by the pitboss because she politely asked some smokers to please not blow the smoke into her face, an act that they were repeatedly doing whenever they lost their hand.)

If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, they can avoid going to a smoking bar. Shocking concept, I know. But frankly if people are so afraid that smoking is KILLING THEM!!! ZOMG, but they are choosing to go the bar ANYWAY and breathe it in, then it appears they don't really care too much about their own health, no? I mean if entertainment is more important to them.

You know, I couldn't care less about those who choose to go to bars and complain about the smoke. What I do care about is those who have to work in said bars. Banning smoking in bars helps protect them, the workers, and that's the most important thing.

If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, they can avoid going to a smoking bar. Shocking concept, I know. But frankly if people are so afraid that smoking is KILLING THEM!!! ZOMG, but they are choosing to go the bar ANYWAY and breathe it in, then it appears they don't really care too much about their own health, no? I mean if entertainment is more important to them.

Why spend the money on a smoking bar when you can just send smokers outside to smoke. And even if you think that bars should be smoking bars, surely it is sensible to ban it in restaurants, work places and other places of entertainment besides pubs and bars?

Yup..October 1st.

I can see more restaurants having outdoor tables in the future.
Might be a bit tricky here in Minnesota where it can get damn cold some wintery days.

If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, they can avoid going to a smoking bar. Shocking concept, I know. But frankly if people are so afraid that smoking is KILLING THEM!!! ZOMG, but they are choosing to go the bar ANYWAY and breathe it in, then it appears they don't really care too much about their own health, no? I mean if entertainment is more important to them.

And so the people who work there are just shit out of luck, I guess. Sucks that to pay their bills they have to suck up your emissions, right?

Let me guess--you're going to reply with "no one's forcing them to work there." True. And no one's keeping them from spitting on your food either, but we treat them nicely in hopes they won't do it all the same. If it bothers you that much, think of it as a trade off--you don't blow smoke in their workspace, they don't deface your food and drink.

You know, I couldn't care less about those who choose to go to bars and complain about the smoke. What I do care about is those who have to work in said bars. Banning smoking in bars helps protect them, the workers, and that's the most important thing.

Of course, of course, viva la proletariat etc. But they don't "have" to work in those bars either.

Why spend the money on a smoking bar when you can just send smokers outside to smoke. And even if you think that bars should be smoking bars, surely it is sensible to ban it in restaurants, work places and other places of entertainment besides pubs and bars?

Restaraunts, work places, other places of entertainment are all privately owned and as such I prefer less regulation, not more.

Restaraunts, work places, other places of entertainment are all privately owned and as such I prefer less regulation, not more.
I'll remember that the next time there's an e Coli outbreak. I can also phone your local health inspection unit and let them know that you'd rather there be less intrusion into the health and safety of food and beverage preparation, and that you'd prefer if restaurants can set their own safety standards. :rolleyes:

Why spend the money on a smoking bar when you can just send smokers outside to smoke. And even if you think that bars should be smoking bars, surely it is sensible to ban it in restaurants, work places and other places of entertainment besides pubs and bars?

Apparently if you want to take your family out for a bite to eat you have to allow others to cause you all to breath in their fumes. You will get to sit in a non-smoking section where the smoke from the smoking section floats over to you. But you will have to deal I guess.

Oh, and of course the employees will have to deal as well. Guess they don't matter either. Too bad. Luckily though the bans are spreading.

*cheers again for Ohio's ban*

Of course, of course, viva la proletariat etc. But they don't "have" to work in those bars either.

People don't have to smoke in them either. Their product hurts other people, I have no sympathy that they are no longer able to smoke in these places.

One more state down, several more to go. I, for one, am thrilled that my own home state of Ohio finally got one right in banning smoking in restaurants, bars, etc. The first time I visited a non-smoking bar was in NYC in 2003, and it was actually pretty nice. No smokers everywhere you turn (and some places are so crowded that smoking/non-smoking sections really matter little) and the air was actually breathable.

Give it time, and all 50 states will have smoking bans. I just hope the Supreme Court doesn't go declaring them unconstitutional. That would really hurt.

On the other hand, I suppose if an establishment wants to allow smoking and is willing to pony up some extra green to have a license to do so, and I do mean enough where they really have to want to allow smoking in order to pay it, then I suppose it's not a big deal.

Restaraunts, work places, other places of entertainment are all privately owned and as such I prefer less regulation, not more.

Why? I'd rather make sure that privately owned places that run services fore the public should at least be safe. And people shouldn't have to avoid places just because people smoke there. The smokers can go outside.

Also, I can't wait for the smoking ban to arrive in England. I think it starts on June 1st or July or something like that.

Of course, of course, viva la proletariat etc. But they don't "have" to work in those bars either.

Sometimes all people can get is bar work/waitering, for a multitude of reasons. I mean, they could very easily live off the dole and do a few odd jobs on the side, paying fuck all tax, and leeching off the state. Instead they take one of the few jobs they can get, and for their trouble they get lung cancer. Nice.

So yeah; sometimes people don't have much of a choice about where they work. Especially when there are no "non-smoking" bars. Until the law says they all are.

Also, everybody having to go outside for a smoke provides more opportunities for pulling.

Cthulhu-Mythos;12660768']Might be a bit tricky here in Minnesota where it can get damn cold some wintery days.


Oh I know. I don't think for one second that having them outdoors is going to work during the winter months..but the time in-between. One business pops up with an outdoor area..another will follow as to not lose some sales.

Sometimes all people can get is bar work/waitering, for a multitude of reasons. I mean, they could very easily live off the dole and do a few odd jobs on the side, paying fuck all tax, and leeching off the state. Instead they take one of the few jobs they can get, and for their trouble they get lung cancer. Nice.

So yeah; sometimes people don't have much of a choice about where they work. Especially when there are no "non-smoking" bars. Until the law says they all are.

Hey, let him play this game. If that attitude gets widespread enough, it's more likely that food service people will unionize and strike for better wages and treatment.

What I'm about to say I'm going to say as someone who hates cigarettes and second smoke (though I am a weed smoker)...

I know many of you are cheering but having lived through a ban for some time, I will tell you, it will start our small and it looks good. People generally accept it because they don't want to be surrounded by smoke while they eat. The anti-smoking lobby sees this as a message that is now fine to push their agenda down everyone throat.

In Ontario some of the places you cannot smoke in:
- restaurants
- bars/pubs
- patios
- within 6 metres of a door
- in cabs (even with the windows opened)
- in casinos
- offices
- any place of work
- outdoor bus platforms

They are even trying to push to make it illegal to smoke in one's car.

At one point it was fine for restaurants to have "smoking" patios. The provincial government allowed it then it took all the businesses that made the investment that they could no longer use it.

You may think it's good but this is just one more group trying to make more of a nanny state out of America. You give them a little slack and they pull your through the forest chasing after that squirrel because the leash was loosened slightly.

The anti-smoking lobby is going about all the wrong way.

Have you seen the average pack of smokes since this started? Health Canada is putting pictures of cancerous tumours on packs of smokes. Which is stupid because the people who are going to smoke aren't going to be deterred by that, and those who are disgusted by that are already non-smokers.

They are making smokers into pariahs.

Instead of trying to make a campaign based on awareness, they use scare tactics, which is the last thing this world needs. If you want people to quit you need to provide incentives and not employ scare tactics.

Some people are heavily addicted and have trouble quitting. But they are the ones being punished and not the companies.

If the anti-smoking lobby wanted to make a difference it would petition the government to lean heavily on the tobacco industry adn force them to change the product to remove the most addictive elements and chemicals from their filters and cigarettes.

Cigarette chemistry (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/chemistry.html)
Erowid Tobacco Vault (http://www.erowid.org/plants/tobacco/tobacco.shtml)

But the government won't lean on the industry because it makes a killing in taxes, while it punishes the end user.

That is the problem with a ban. It hurts the consumer and not the company who puts the additives in the product.

Hey, let him play this game. If that attitude gets widespread enough, it's more likely that food service people will unionize and strike for better wages and treatment.

Yeah, you guys really need to sort out the deal they get shafted with.

People don't have to smoke in them either.

No, but there's no hypocrisy involved there. When someone is so concerned about health viz a vz cigarette smoke, you would think that they would also be concerned enough not to go and hang out with smokers. But they aren't, for the large part. So obviously, health is less important to them than claimed.

Their product hurts other people, I have no sympathy that they are no longer able to smoke in these places.

Automobiles harm other people. Since harming other people is so awful I am certain you also support a ban on automobile driving?

Why? I'd rather make sure that privately owned places that run services fore the public should at least be safe. And people shouldn't have to avoid places just because people smoke there. The smokers can go outside.

Why would smoking outside help anything? Next thing you know, the anti-smokers will be demanding that smoking be banned everywhere so they are never once inconvenienced by the "icky" smell which they have hypochondriacally construed as the worst threat to their health since the tire iron.

Sometimes all people can get is bar work/waitering, for a multitude of reasons. I mean, they could very easily live off the dole and do a few odd jobs on the side, paying fuck all tax, and leeching off the state. Instead they take one of the few jobs they can get, and for their trouble they get lung cancer. Nice.

Was that example of irrational behavior supposed to get me to sympathize with them? And if someone can only get hired as a bartender or barmaid I am wondering just what kind of economy they live in where those are their only marketable skills in the world. Frankly, I have little sympathy for that either.

Hey, let him play this game. If that attitude gets widespread enough, it's more likely that food service people will unionize and strike for better wages and treatment.

Yeah right. The same people who apparently, are SO concerned about their health - but can't be arsed to do anything about it? The same people who are apparently are SO specialized that the ONLY jobs they can get are at a bar? These are the ones who are going to carry your workers revolution for you? I don't think so. That kind of sentiment is held mostly by unemployed college kids wearing Che t-shirts.

And so the people who work there are just shit out of luck, I guess. Sucks that to pay their bills they have to suck up your emissions, right?
Yup.

Their health is not sufficient cause to violate the sacred private property rights of business owners.

Individual rights trump everything else.

If it bothers you that much, think of it as a trade off--you don't blow smoke in their workspace, they don't deface your food and drink.

If it were a true trade-off, then it would be voluntary rather than mandatory. If I find it worth it, I will do so myself. It's not government's place to make the decision for me.

What I'm about to say I'm going to say as someone who hates cigarettes and second smoke (though I am a weed smoker)...

I know many of you are cheering but having lived through a ban for some time, I will tell you, it will start our small and it looks good. People generally accept it because they don't want to be surrounded by smoke while they eat. The anti-smoking lobby sees this as a message that is now fine to push their agenda down everyone throat.

In Ontario some of the places you cannot smoke in:
- restaurants
- bars/pubs
- patios
- within 6 metres of a door
- in cabs (even with the windows opened)
- in casinos
- offices
- any place of work
- outdoor bus platforms

They are even trying to push to make it illegal to smoke in one's car.

At one point it was fine for restaurants to have "smoking" patios. The provincial government allowed it then it took all the businesses that made the investment that they could no longer use it.

You may think it's good but this is just one more group trying to make more of a nanny state out of America. You give them a little slack and they pull your through the forest chasing after that squirrel because the leash was loosened slightly.

The anti-smoking lobby is going about all the wrong way.

Have you seen the average pack of smokes since this started? Health Canada is putting pictures of cancerous tumours on packs of smokes. Which is stupid because the people who are going to smoke aren't going to be deterred by that, and those who are disgusted by that are already non-smokers.

My thoughts on the matter exactly. I'm all for not letting the smoke in crowded restaurants/bars/the like. But I see a very real danger of this getting taken way out of hand because "smokers are addicted, they can't help themselves, so we've got to do it for them"

My thoughts on the matter exactly. I'm all for not letting the smoke in crowded restaurants/bars/the like. But I see a very real danger of this getting taken way out of hand because "smokers are addicted, they can't help themselves, so we've got to do it for them"

And the government says it's doing it for the people but if it was, it would lean heavily on the industry and not the consumer. The product is legal so the consumer buys it. If the government wanted to make itself look good, instead of making the smoking consumer out to be some kind of demon, it would regulate the industry to force it to use different preparation methods.

But it wants the money and the industry makes it and pays a huge amount in taxes.

Yeah right. The same people who apparently, are SO concerned about their health - but can't be arsed to do anything about it? The same people who are apparently are SO specialized that the ONLY jobs they can get are at a bar? These are the ones who are going to carry your workers revolution for you? I don't think so. That kind of sentiment is held mostly by unemployed college kids wearing Che t-shirts.

Can't be arsed? When I was a waiter/bartender, I did it because I was in school at the time and it had the most flexible schedule, and because I could make cash. I could have done other things, but that job helped me pay my bills and go to school at the same time. And most of my co-workers were the same way. I know that doesn't fit into your little "servers are dumbasses who deserve their lot in life" worldview, but it's an accurate view of the world.

And I'll tell you something--I had more intelligent conversations with my fellow servers than I've ever had with you, not that that's a huge bar to clear.

Greater Trostia, The Nazz, please keep the hostilities to a minimum.

Was that example of irrational behavior supposed to get me to sympathize with them?

What example of irrational behaviour? Actually getting a job instead of laying about sponging?

And if someone can only get hired as a bartender or barmaid I am wondering just what kind of economy they live in where those are their only marketable skills in the world. Frankly, I have little sympathy for that either.

The problem is not a lack of marketable skills, or even that bartending is a particularly marketable skill, the problem is too many people looking for jobs versus not enough jobs for them to fill. So you have to settle for what you can get.

Amongst students and young graduates, especially, this is a major problem.

And the government says it's doing it for the people but if it was, it would lean heavily on the industry and not the consumer. The product is legal so the consumer buys it. If the government wanted to make itself look good, instead of making the smoking consumer out to be some kind of demon, it would regulate the industry to force it to use different preparation methods.

But it wants the money and the industry makes it and pays a huge amount in taxes.
Which is why the anti-smoking lobby is doing the baby-steps approach--they know government won't take on the industry directly. I think they're making a mistake by treating smokers like pariahs too, by the way, as well as the whole shocking photos bit, but I support the bans for my own health.

And the government says it's doing it for the people but if it was, it would lean heavily on the industry and not the consumer. The product is legal so the consumer buys it. If the government wanted to make itself look good, instead of making the smoking consumer out to be some kind of demon, it would regulate the industry to force it to use different preparation methods.

But it wants the money and the industry makes it and pays a huge amount in taxes.

It's been my experience that most smokers know exactly what they're doing and resent the implication that they're some sort of helpless git caught in the talons of an evil corporation. I know I did, still do even after having given up smoking for about 4 years now.

People seem more than willing to demonize the smoker.

Greater Trostia, The Nazz, please keep the hostilities to a minimum.

When he stops saying ridiculous things, I'll stop pointing out how ridiculous they are. Deal?

Yup.

Their health is not sufficient cause to violate the sacred private property rights of business owners.

Individual rights trump everything else.

1850 just called, they want you home for bedtime.

If the anti-smoking lobby wanted to make a difference it would petition the government to lean heavily on the tobacco industry adn force them to change the product to remove the most addictive elements and chemicals from their filters and cigarettes.

The problem is not the addictive chemicals. The problem is the chemicals that are present in the tobacco itself. The problem is the smoke itself. The addictive chemicals aren't what kill. The tobacco is what kills.

Which is why the anti-smoking lobby is doing the baby-steps approach--they know government won't take on the industry directly. I think they're making a mistake by treating smokers like pariahs too, by the way, as well as the whole shocking photos bit, but I support the bans for my own health.

I support the concept of the ban in certain places but I oppose it in practice because of how it's handled. It's not right that smokers, who are still human, are treated badly yet are seen as cash machines by the industry. They're the ones caught between a rock and a hard place.

To me, the smoking lobby is just as ignorant as the tobacco lobby because of how it approaches this. They are treating smokers no better than the tobacco lobby is. Sure they both sing different tunes but the melody is the same under the thrash of death metal.

The biggest issue with the ban is that in a place like Toronto where I live, there are many restaurants on busy throughfares like Yonge Street, which are already up the the rafters in traffic yet we're told that someone smoking on a patio is more hazardous to our health than the plethora of cars and trucks that spew noxious emissions that sit idly during the summer...

The problem is not the addictive chemicals. The problem is the chemicals that are present in the tobacco itself. The problem is the smoke itself. The addictive chemicals aren't what kill. The tobacco is what kills.

Tobacco is a plant; what does it do, grow legs, get up and strangle you? :p

It needs a conduit to produce the kill, and get it it needs to be lit, and upon being lit the chemicals react negatively. So it would be the componants within.

Seriously, when was the last time a plant, not counting the Venus Flytrap, got up and ate you for breakfast? Mmmm.....Cthlu... *Drools*

Tobacco is a plant; what does it do, grow legs, get up and strangle you? :p

It needs a conduit to produce the kill, and get it it needs to be lit, and upon being lit the chemicals react negatively. So it would be the componants within.

Seriously, when was the last time a plant, not counting the Venus Flytrap, got up and ate you for breakfast? Mmmm.....Cthlu... *Drools*

What I'm saying is the real harm isn't in what is added. It's in what is already there. It's in what can't be removed. It's the smoke that does the damage, and you can't use a cigarette without smoke.

I like the smoking regulations that they've put in place here. Basically, the restaurant/pub has a choice - they can allow smoking, but if they do they cannot allow anyone under the age of 19 to patronize or work there. What this basically does is make the pure pubs smoking and the restaurant/sports bar type establishments non-smoking. If you want to smoke, you have a place to go. If you don't, you have your choices as well.

Hopefully more states will follow this example

I'll agree.

But it shouldn't be banned in bars.

What I'm saying is the real harm isn't in what is added. It's in what is already there. It's in what can't be removed. It's the smoke that does the damage, and you can't use a cigarette without smoke.

You are aware of what's usually added to cigarettes, right?

Yes, smoking tobacco is unhealthy no matter which way to slice it, but some of the additives in cigarettes make it much, much worse than it should be.

The real shame is that we can't get the government to treat smoking the way Bhutan does.

And for Ontario, good news -- you'd have to be Bill Gates to be inside a car without being within 6 meters of at leats one of the car's doors~

You are aware of what's usually added to cigarettes, right?
Yes. Nicotine, mainly.

Yes. Nicotine, mainly.

Not the best list, but it'll do:

list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes)

The government has no place telling stupid people they can't kill themselves.

They kill other people too. personaly I just cant stand the smell. I dont smoke, and I couldnt it makes me feel sick. Now pot...

What I'm saying is the real harm isn't in what is added. It's in what is already there. It's in what can't be removed. It's the smoke that does the damage, and you can't use a cigarette without smoke.

They do add stuff to the filter. It may not seem like much but they do add a touch of sugar to the filter for example. There are also harmful elements in the filter itself.

The type of plant they use is also the most potent. There are other grades but they use the most addictive.

I support this sort of thing, myself. There's lots of times my friends have wanted to go out to a bar or a club and wanted me to join them but I couldn't because cigarette smoke makes me sick. They would try to find alternatives because they didn't want me to be left out but everyone seems to think if it's a bar or club, you have to be able to smoke. There weren't a lot of non-smoking options that weren't lame places to visit so I usually ended up in the position of making my friends go to the place they wanted to go to at the start and leave me out. It sucked, but there wasn't much else to be done and I wasn't about to let them have an entirely disappointing night. Now there's a ban here and that doesn't happen and it makes socializing with friends a lot more fun and possible.

<--asthmatic

I love this bill :D

We've got some smoking bans going through here in Minnesota too. The supporters say that it won't hurt bars and restaraunts, that smoking is hurting business in those places. But if that were true then why can't those people set up non-smoking bars and restaraunts next to those that allow smoking? Why do they feel they have to impose their will on everyone else?

For the record, I've never smoked.

I'll agree.

But it shouldn't be banned in bars.

I don't see bars being any different from any other location. Enjoying getting a drink with friends shouldn't include sucking in other kinds of poison unwillingly.

Typical type of garbage the government pulls.
The only reason they get away with it is because so many people are more worried about what other people are doing, and totally unwilling to compromise their own comfort in protest.

If you don't like the fact that a restuarant has smoking section, then don't GO TO IT. My state doesn't have smoking bans, and I can still quite honestly say I can't remember the last time I set food inside a restaurant and smelled smoke.

Why? Because I don't go to restaurants where people smoke, and a lot of places up here don't have it because they know it can hurt business.

Problem solved. The smokers go where they can smoke, and people who don't like it go elsewhere, or don't go out at all. All that without federal involvement. I don't know where they think they get off telling private businesses that people can't smoke on their property.

We've got some smoking bans going through here in Minnesota too. The supporters say that it won't hurt bars and restaraunts, that smoking is hurting business in those places. But if that were true then why can't those people set up non-smoking bars and restaraunts next to those that allow smoking? Why do they feel they have to impose their will on everyone else?

For the record, I've never smoked.

The idea that smoking is hurting businesses is tripe. If that were true, they would be able to create non-smoking restaurants as you've said. Most people just aren't bothered enough to stop eating at a particular restaurant.

As for the part about imposing will: "They're addicted, we have to help them because they can't help themselves."

How horrible! Just another sign of the government intruding where it doesn't belong! It should be up to the owner of the resaurant, I think. Luckily, where I live in Kansas there you can still smoke in certain resaurants! I take full advantage while I can...

When I smoked I still liked indoor smoking bans. When I quit I liked them even more. I was happy that we had something like this pass in Vegas.

Oh, and to all those who believe second and smoke is dangerous: :upyours:

Come on! It's only dangerous if your around all day long. If your in a resaurant and someone smokes in the smoking section on the other side of the establishment your not in any danger. Now, if your in a smoke filling bar all day long, in the first place your probably and alcoholoic, then your in danger. If your walking down the sidewalk and someone lights up and you get a wiff, your not in danger. Your in more danger from inhaled exhaust from cars, semis, and busses.

When the British service people were arested by the Iranians and the first photos came out, the female navy person was photographed smoking a cigarette with a headscarf on. This was then sent by Iran to the world press. The first thing [u.k polotician] Patricia Hewitt said was "what kind of example does that show our young people?". She was being held by a foreign nation with questionable human rights records and she wants a ciggy! Just more proof that the anti smoking lobby and poloticians are not in fact human.

I'd be much more sympathetic to the anti-smoking lobby and their position if it didn't contribute to the demonization of smokers. This only deepens that resistance.

Your in more danger from inhaled exhaust from cars, semis, and busses.

Which is why we are tryng to cut down vehicle emissions more and more all the time. It's a new world out there, where health is becoming more important to more people; Personal health as well as environmental health. Had we known the dangers of smoking from the beginning, there would more than likely have never been places that allowed smoking indoors.

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.
Yep. I'm expecting Big Macs and cheese fries to disappear shortly after the mandatory participation in the government health care plan.

Yay for the ban :)

I propose all smokers in every country protest by lighting up wherever they want! (except hospitals, schools, and daycare centers, oh, and pet shops)

Yep. I'm expecting Big Macs and cheese fries to disappear shortly after the mandatory participation in the government health care plan.

Chicago and New York have already passed laws banning trans fats in restaurants.

Come on! It's only dangerous if your around all day long. If your in a resaurant and someone smokes in the smoking section on the other side of the establishment your not in any danger. Now, if your in a smoke filling bar all day long, in the first place your probably and alcoholoic, then your in danger.
So what about those who work in restaurants and bars, and have to work in a smoke-filled environment?

So what about those who work in restaurants and bars, and have to work in a smoke-filled environment?

Well, they chose to work there. Again, it should be up to the owners, and if the workers don't like it they can quit, or talk with the owner. Maybe if all the employees went to the owner they could change the owner's mind.

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.

This exactly embodies the difference between Liberalism, and Libertarianism.

So what about those who work in restaurants and bars, and have to work in a smoke-filled environment?

Hazard pay.

Chicago and New York have already passed laws banning trans fats in restaurants.
I guess I'm doubly disappointed...Next thing you know the government will want us to get a certain amount of sleep every night and demand that we quit drinking before we start driving!

So what about those who work in restaurants and bars, and have to work in a smoke-filled environment?
Paid up life insurance?

Chicago and New York have already passed laws banning trans fats in restaurants.

Good on them. Workers in restaurants need protected from trans fats.

Well, they chose to work there. Again, it should be up to the owners, and if the workers don't like it they can quit, or talk with the owner. Maybe if all the employees went to the owner they could change the owner's mind.

It wouldn't happen if it weren't for the law. It makes every place equal. No one barowner would dare to ban smoking first - or second for that matter - because they would fear loosing customers and money.

And even if they choose to work there (where else would they go, I wonder.), should not the workers be protected? They are in most other walks of life. It's not like a waitress could go to work wearing a protective mask...

Good on them. Workers in restaurants need protected from trans fats.

OK, the smoking thing I can agree with, but this?

"They don't have to work there" isn't the same thing as "They can bring their own food."

OK, the smoking thing I can agree with, but this?

"They don't have to work there" isn't the same thing as "They can bring their own food."

Man, I can't even be bothered thinking of a response. And that's rare; I usually go down absurd devil's advocate avenues at any given opportunity. People need to be better at picking up on sarcasm.

It wouldn't happen if it weren't for the law. It makes every place equal. No one barowner would dare to ban smoking first - or second for that matter - because they would fear loosing customers and money.

And even if they choose to work there (where else would they go, I wonder.), should not the workers be protected? They are in most other walks of life. It's not like a waitress could go to work wearing a protective mask...

I think they should get a pay increase, so they can pay for life insurance or something. When I think of a bar, I think of smoke and beer. That is the image of think of, and the image a lot of other people I know think of, even if they don't smoke. So, to me, smoking and bars go hand and hand. And about resauratns, I think their should be smoking and non-smoking sections on opposite sides of the resaurant. Smoking a cigarette after a meal is very refreshing and satisfying, and people shoudl be able to enjoy while sipping the last of their drinks before ordering dessert, if they want.

Man, I can't even be bothered thinking of a response. And that's rare; I usually go down absurd devil's advocate avenues at any given opportunity. People need to be better at picking up on sarcasm.

I've been on and off this board all day, my sacrasm radar is so shot just about everything blips. :p

I've been on and off this board all day, my sacrasm radar is so shot just about everything blips. :p

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/l/cbg.jpg
A sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention.

If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, they can avoid going to a smoking bar. Shocking concept, I know. But frankly if people are so afraid that smoking is KILLING THEM!!! ZOMG, but they are choosing to go the bar ANYWAY and breathe it in, then it appears they don't really care too much about their own health, no? I mean if entertainment is more important to them.

yes, all well and good. And what about the people that WORK in said bar?

I think they should get a pay increase, so they can pay for life insurance or something. When I think of a bar, I think of smoke and beer. That is the image of think of, and the image a lot of other people I know think of, even if they don't smoke. So, to me, smoking and bars go hand and hand. And about resauratns, I think their should be smoking and non-smoking sections on opposite sides of the resaurant. Smoking a cigarette after a meal is very refreshing and satisfying, and people shoudl be able to enjoy while sipping the last of their drinks before ordering dessert, if they want.
Don't worry; That image will change :)

If it was up to me you should be able to smoke as much as you wanted to as long as it didn't harm anyone else. As there are indications that second-hand smoking causes health problems, I will lay the burden on the smokers. So you will have to go outside and enjoy your cigarette. Common curtesy and all as far as I see it, as well as placing the hassle on those who create the risk.

I love smoke-free bars, and even my smoker friends are happy about the laws banning smoking. I almost never experience hangovers anymore, and my clothes don't smell like a tobacco-factory the day after either. None of us would ever want to go back to the way things were :)

I think they should get a pay increase, so they can pay for life insurance or something. When I think of a bar, I think of smoke and beer. That is the image of think of, and the image a lot of other people I know think of, even if they don't smoke. So, to me, smoking and bars go hand and hand. And about resauratns, I think their should be smoking and non-smoking sections on opposite sides of the resaurant. Smoking a cigarette after a meal is very refreshing and satisfying, and people shoudl be able to enjoy while sipping the last of their drinks before ordering dessert, if they want.

It just annoys me that some restaurants put their smoking section where the bathroom is, in such a way that I have to run through the smoking section in order to get to the bathroom. Then once I get to the bathroom it takes about a minute for me to catch my breath and stop coughing, and then after I use it I have to go back through that. I can't handle being around smoke. But that was when we were in another state that didn't have a smoking ban at that point (don't know if they do now or not, and can't quite remember what state it was).

I don't have asthma or anything but I choke whenever I'm around people who are smoking. We have left restaurants before due to smoke, but luckily Florida has a smoking ban in restaurants, so I don't have to worry about that anymore.

I don't really mind if people smoke outside. I mean, it's an inconvenience for me, because I have to hold my breath and run past them as quickly as I can so that I won't be stuck coughing for a while, but oh well. It does bother me when theme parks don't have specific smoking areas and I have to always be on the alert for people smoking so I can run away as fast I can. That's annoying. At least I can eat without having to breathe in smoke now. I think it's been a few years since the smoking ban started here.

I think they should get a pay increase, so they can pay for life insurance or something.

Medical insurance. Life insurance pays someone else when you die.

And, you know what's better than having medical insurance pay for the treatment of your cancer?

Not getting fucking cancer.

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/l/cbg.jpg
A sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention.
http://bsllabs.theumb.net/products/sm_113_sarcasm.jpg
Other: Sarcasm Detector

The sarcasmically challenged can now avoid embarrasing situations when everyone get's a joke but you. This unit will detect the slightest bit of sarcasm so when a friend tells you that he slept with your mom last night, you will know full well that he did no such thing!

http://bsllabs.theumb.net/prodlist.php?c=19

yes, all well and good. And what about the people that WORK in said bar?

As mentioned in an earlier post..alot of people think of smoke and booze when they think of a bar. Now..if a person is so worried about their health from smoking, then they wouldn't even TRY to get a job in a bar.

As mentioned in an earlier post..alot of people think of smoke and booze when they think of a bar. Now..if a person is so worried about their health from smoking, then they wouldn't even TRY to get a job in a bar.

and when that's the only option?

Frankly, we have tons of regulations for occupational safety, in every profession, the big grand daddy of them all is OSHA. Is it equally reasonable to say "hey, if you don't want to get your hand stuck in an unmaintained lathe, dont work in a factory?"

The idea that smoking is hurting businesses is tripe. If that were true, they would be able to create non-smoking restaurants as you've said. Most people just aren't bothered enough to stop eating at a particular restaurant.

As for the part about imposing will: "They're addicted, we have to help them because they can't help themselves."

However, the other side of that is true--the ban won't hurt restaurants or bars either. At least it hasn't hurt business in the places where the bans have been instituted. Smokers aren't suddenly just going to stay home because they can't smoke inside.

However, the other side of that is true--the ban won't hurt restaurants or bars either. At least it hasn't hurt business in the places where the bans have been instituted. Smokers aren't suddenly just going to stay home because they can't smoke inside.

Which is why using it as support for these bans is equally tripe. Most smokers don't care enough to not go to a restaurant that won't let them smoke, that's what parking lots are for.

Which is why using it as support for these bans is equally tripe. Most smokers don't care enough to not go to a restaurant that won't let them smoke, that's what parking lots are for.

There's a subtle difference between saying that smoking harms restaurants and that a ban wouldn't hurt. People saying the ban harms restaurants are full of crap--they can't prove it does or doesn't. What they can point to is the lack of effect on businesses in places where bans have gone into effect.

and when that's the only option?

Frankly, we have tons of regulations for occupational safety, in every profession, the big grand daddy of them all is OSHA. Is it equally reasonable to say "hey, if you don't want to get your hand stuck in an unmaintained lathe, dont work in a factory?"

That is a choice people have to make. People have to accept that there are risks involved in whatever job they have. Yes they can take precautions but that doesn't mean it won't happen. People who work in bars generally know that smoking is involved. If they do not want to work near smoke but that is their only option..nobody is forcing them to stay if another job opens up if it is more to their liking.

There's a subtle difference between saying that smoking harms restaurants and that a ban wouldn't hurt. People saying the ban harms restaurants are full of crap--they can't prove it does or doesn't. What they can point to is the lack of effect on businesses in places where bans have gone into effect.

When people say it will hurt business, they are referring to asinine practices like the government saying, "ok, you can't smoke inside the restaurant but you can build an enclosure or smoking patio for patrons who want to smoke." who then go on to change their mind and say, "well, you've invested that money, good for you, now you can't use it because we say so.". I believe this is what they are talking about when they say it'll harm business. I know this was a big factor here in Toronto.

The restaurants tried to accommodate both sides then got screwed in the end because the government was being pussy about it. They allowed for an exception then they revoked it.

If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, they can avoid going to a smoking bar. Shocking concept, I know. But frankly if people are so afraid that smoking is KILLING THEM!!! ZOMG, but they are choosing to go the bar ANYWAY and breathe it in, then it appears they don't really care too much about their own health, no? I mean if entertainment is more important to them.
How selfish, pardon me but your urge to light up means jack shit compared to people want to SPEND money but don't want to suffer from second hand smoke. At least that should be the restarunts POV.

So unless the only reason someone goes to a bar is to smoke they'll get MORE business.

Ours came into place on 30th April. It goes further than the one in Maryland; covers all enclosed public spaces and workplaces.

Even as a smoker, I like it.

You guys are late. We've had it for like a decade now.

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.

Good for Maryland. We've had one for the last year. Good stuff. I don't have to choke on some asshole's ashes, and he's free to smoke at home. As an asthmatic, I'm all for these laws. They save me a lot of misery.

You guys are late. We've had it for like a decade now.

Yup.

But as they say; better late than never.

I propose all smokers in every country protest by lighting up wherever they want! (except hospitals, schools, and daycare centers, oh, and pet shops)

It's a disgusting and flithy habit, yet you seem so hellbent on defending it for some reason. Smoking is the most inconsiderate thing you can do to the people around you without breaking the law.

It's a disgusting and flithy habit, yet you seem so hellbent on defending it for some reason. Smoking is the most inconsiderate thing you can do to the people around you without breaking the law.

Whateva, I think people talking loudly on cell phones is annoying but people that all the time. Smoking is a fun, social, activity, and a great way to relieve stress. I must admit though, I do light up sometimes just because I can and it will annoy people, but only if people are annoying me, haha. Real men smoke, and didn't you know that cigarettes=sex? :D

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.

Hurray for my health being protected.

*throws a party*

Now if we can add PA to that list...

*Excluding philly as philly banned smoking though I forgot precisely where*

Hurray for my health being protected.

*throws a party*

Now if we can add PA to that list...

I thought we already had laws like this? :confused:

I thought we already had laws like this? :confused:

Not statewide we dont. Hell, there's a few towns that do not allow for liquor licenses either.

Yup.

But as they say; better late than never.

I'm always surprised and a little put off when I travel and realize that in some places if I want to eat out I have to tolerate choking on tobacco fumes, since I'm so used to the way it is here.

I propose all smokers in every country protest by lighting up wherever they want! (except hospitals, schools, and daycare centers, oh, and pet shops)I AGREE! let's get those Fines outta the hands of smokers (who are paying God knows how much for cigs nowdays) and into the city coffers so that maybe they can be spent on more important things!

Not statewide we dont. Hell, there's a few towns that do not allow for liquor licenses either.

Mod bless NEPA!

The same people who are apparently are SO specialized that the ONLY jobs they can get are at a bar?

Speaking personally, my work is so specialised that about 99% of my work is in a bar. Welcome to the wonderful world of live sound, and I, even as a smoker, welcome NI's new ban.

I AGREE! let's get those Fines outta the hands of smokers (who are paying God knows how much for cigs nowdays) and into the city coffers so that maybe they can be spent on more important things!

They fine you for smoking? How retarded is that?! There's no way in hell I'd pay.

They fine you for smoking? How retarded is that?! There's no way in hell I'd pay.

they fine you if you're smoking where you're not supposed to be.
Hint, more than just hospitals, schools, and daycare centers, oh, and pet shops.

;)

They fine you for smoking? How retarded is that?! There's no way in hell I'd pay.

you um...you realize they don't exactly give you a choice much of the time

Mod bless NEPA!

I live in SW PA! *shrugs* At least I'm not in the city :D

They fine you for smoking? How retarded is that?! There's no way in hell I'd pay.
What did you think they do to enforce the ban? Smack you and yell "No!"?
I live in SW PA! *shrugs* At least I'm not in the city :D

Boo! SWPA! Boo.

Suburbia, eh?

Arizona's shit-for-brains voters recently passed a Nazi Smoking Law of our own, bans smoking in all businesses save for tobacco stores, and within 20 feet of the entrance of a business.

Why not allow individual bar and restaurant owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking? No sane person knows.

Why not allow individual bar and restaurant owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking? No sane person knows.

Two words: workers' protection.

Arizona's shit-for-brains voters recently passed a Nazi Smoking Law of our own, bans smoking in all businesses save for tobacco stores, and within 20 feet of the entrance of a business.

Why not allow individual bar and restaurant owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking? No sane person knows.

if you think that's NAZI like... move to Hawaii. you'll appreciate that law when you move back to Arizona.

I think the pub and restuarant workers would be happy. Don't have walk around through clouds of smoke.

All you folks that support this ban and others like it,
This is always how it starts but never how it ends. And they never stop the problem.

20 years ago nobody would have believed you if you told them that smoking would be all but totally outlawed throughout much of the nation. But today it is becoming reality.

20 years ago nobody would have believed you if you told them that fatty foods would be banned, yet it has begun.

If you told people in 1899 that in 20 years alcohol would be outlawed nation-wide they'd have given you strange looks. Then it happened.

The way things are going it won't be too long before all sorts of things are outlawed, before fast food is forbidden and the food police will be standing on every street corner tazing anyone they catch with anything but government issued MRE's, before SWAT teams will be called in to torch secret tobacco farms like they do to their hemp counterparts today, before meat consumption is rationed and meat production is regulated out of existance, etc. It always starts small, but they know from past failures that they have to go slow. A quick cut off gets backlash, a slow erosion of liberties goes by unnoticed.

Let the people live their lives. They can handle the consequences of their actions.

The only problem with the British smoking ban is that it's being introduced in England ages after the rest of the UK.

Let the people live their lives. They can handle the consequences of their actions.

But in your opinion you also want them to handle the consequences of others actions

Boo! SWPA! Boo.

Suburbia, eh?

Yep suburbia :)

We have just voted down the smoking ban in Virginia for the second time. But I am sure there will be a third and a forth. Until it passes.

We have just voted down the smoking ban in Virginia for the second time. But I am sure there will be a third and a forth. Until it passes.

I am surprised that local municipalities have not passed their own or is that illegal? Oh and it was killed in a House Sub-committe.

The way things are going it won't be too long before all sorts of things are outlawed, before fast food is forbidden and the food police will be standing on every street corner tazing anyone they catch with anything but government issued MRE's, before SWAT teams will be called in to torch secret tobacco farms like they do to their hemp counterparts today, before meat consumption is rationed and meat production is regulated out of existance, etc. It always starts small, but they know from past failures that they have to go slow. A quick cut off gets backlash, a slow erosion of liberties goes by unnoticed.


I was just reminded of Demolition Man.....

Sandra to Sly in a restaurant: "Salt is bad for you hence, illegal".

I was just reminded of Demolition Man.....

Sandra to Sly in a restaurant: "Salt is bad for you hence, illegal".

I think sex was illegal as well.

The sad part is, we know this can happen as some people, who've posted in this thread, have seen it happen. To far too many people, this isn't just a health issue, this is a "they shouldn't be doing it at all" issue. If they can't take down the tobacco companies, they'll go after the smokers. It doesn't matter.

The government has no place telling stupid people they can't kill themselves.
Britain's public smoking ban comes in on 1st June. I am a union rep and our management has used this to clamp down on our smokers (me) with threats of making up time lost to smoking breaks. Never mind if these breaks do not affect the level of work you complete. It was termed as a "carrot and stick " to get us to stop the evil weed. I am 44 and am too old to be treated like a child, and they have banned using the cane at school anyway!
But what really annoys me is that they are not banning Rugby/american football, motor racing, mountaineering, sky diving, sub aqua, all the dangerous passtimes that can kill you or are bad for your health. I was once told by a doctor that as long as the drugs are clean, that a heroin addiction is better for your health than playing Rugby!:rolleyes:

All you folks that support this ban and others like it,
This is always how it starts but never how it ends. And they never stop the problem.

And the problem stems from the back that the average politician doesn't know his own ass hole from a doughnut hole. They put bans in place but the bans generally do nothing because ambitious people will get around them bans and then we're back at square one.

In the process, the group that gets hurt the most are the ones who are buying the product because as in the case of cigarettes, the product is still perfectly legal but you cannot use it anywhere without the risk of being slapped with a fine and being subject to critical scrutiny.

The government sees the cash cow in this and cannot bear to slaughter it. In this case, it would be the tobacco industry. So instead of fining it, it goes after the consumer who is already paying.

At the end of the day, you haven't really addressed the problem You've just put a bandaide solution on it with placates those who want to pretend the government gives a flying fuck.

A moderate law, one that doesn't actually "ban" but places restrictions and regulations would have been a better approach, thus leaving private businesses to make their own judgements, while ensuring the public places follow government rules.

Britain's public smoking ban comes in on 1st June. I am a union rep and our management has used this to clamp down on our smokers (me) with threats of making up time lost to smoking breaks. Never mind if these breaks do not affect the level of work you complete. It was termed as a "carrot and stick " to get us to stop the evil weed. I am 44 and am too old to be treated like a child, and they have banned using the cane at school anyway!
But what really annoys me is that they are not banning Rugby/american football, motor racing, mountaineering, sky diving, sub aqua, all the dangerous passtimes that can kill you or are bad for your health. I was once told by a doctor that as long as the drugs are clean, that a heroin addiction is better for your health than playing Rugby!:rolleyes:

I don't think people particularly care about the effect of smoking on smokers. They care about the effect it has on non-smokers

I don't think people particularly care about the effect of smoking on smokers. They care about the effect it has on non-smokers

Indeed. It's getting somewhat old that people think smoking bans are about forcing people to live healthy lives.

I don't think people particularly care about the effect of smoking on smokers. They care about the effect it has on non-smokers

I think it's both. Look at how many "stop smoking" adverts there are, how many countries tried to do whatever they could to "get the warning across" up to and including putting pictures of tumors on the cigarette package, and how heavily cigarettes are taxed (that may be different for you folks on the European side of the pond, but here a good portion of the cost of a pack of cigarettes comes from "vice tax").

It's just as much about stopping people from smoking as it is about protecting those that choose not to.

I think it's both. Look at how many "stop smoking" adverts there are, how many countries tried to do whatever they could to "get the warning across" up to and including putting pictures of tumors on the cigarette package, and how heavily cigarettes are taxed (that may be different for you folks on the European side of the pond, but here a good portion of the cost of a pack of cigarettes comes from "vice tax").

It's just as much about stopping people from smoking as it is about protecting those that choose not to.

What I meant was in regards to smoking bans rather than smoking itself. Sorry I should have clarified that.

What I meant was in regards to smoking bans rather than smoking itself. Sorry I should have clarified that.

Fair enough, and for a large part of it, you're right. I still think there's an undertone of "help the smokers quit" however.

I wonder about grandfathered laws. We have a restaurant in Roanoke, VA that doesn't need sprinkler systems, and there employees don't have to claim taxes on their tips. I wonder about smoking laws if they could be protected under these laws?

Fair enough, and for a large part of it, you're right. I still think there's an undertone of "help the smokers quit" however.

That undertone is manifested in the form of health warnings on cigarrete packets, billboards, however.

What I tried (badly) to say in my last post was that you can't compare the banning of contact sports with the use of cigarretes because of the difference of who is affected. Smoking has the risk of second hand smoke damage. Rugby on the other hand isn't going to hurt the spectators

I wonder about grandfathered laws. We have a restaurant in Roanoke, VA that doesn't need sprinkler systems, and there employees don't have to claim taxes on their tips. I wonder about smoking laws if they could be protected under these laws?

To my knowledge, grandfathered laws really only apply to things like building codes (buildings being "grandfathered in"). But that's an interesting point, I wonder that too.

To my knowledge, grandfathered laws really only apply to things like building codes (buildings being "grandfathered in"). But that's an interesting point, I wonder that too.

This place only sits 10 people but you can smoke in there. I VA a restaurant has to be a certain size to allow smoking.

I think they need to start showing big fat ass people on McDonalds adds and a picture of a guy smacking his wife around on a bottle of liquor.

That undertone is manifested in the form of health warnings on cigarrete packets, billboards, however.

What I tried (badly) to say in my last post was that you can't compare the banning of contact sports with the use of cigarretes because of the difference of who is affected. Smoking has the risk of second hand smoke damage. Rugby on the other hand isn't going to hurt the spectators

True enough. But doesn't it seem like that if they can't successfully take out the source (the cigarette companies), then they'll go after the smokers (by banning smoking)?

And if Rugby doesn't stand a chance of injuring spectators as well as participants, then you're not playing it right :D

True enough. But doesn't it seem like that if they can't successfully take out the source (the cigarette companies), then they'll go after the smokers (by banning smoking)?

And if Rugby doesn't stand a chance of injuring spectators as well as participants, then you're not playing it right :D

Its a choice between banning cigarettes outright or banning where they can be used. You can only target the smokers, not the companies, when banning smoking locations. Seems fair to me since I wouldn't support a total ban on cigarettes

Its a choice between banning cigarettes outright or banning where they can be used. You can only target the smokers, not the companies, when banning smoking locations. Seems fair to me since I wouldn't support a total ban on cigarettes

Neither would I, but we've seen (some people firsthand) how this can easily lead down that road.

Neither would I, but we've seen (some people firsthand) how this can easily lead down that road.

Where first hand?

Where first hand?

Seems I wasn't specific enough this time :p

I was referring to this post:

What I'm about to say I'm going to say as someone who hates cigarettes and second smoke (though I am a weed smoker)...

I know many of you are cheering but having lived through a ban for some time, I will tell you, it will start our small and it looks good. People generally accept it because they don't want to be surrounded by smoke while they eat. The anti-smoking lobby sees this as a message that is now fine to push their agenda down everyone throat.

In Ontario some of the places you cannot smoke in:
- restaurants
- bars/pubs
- patios
- within 6 metres of a door
- in cabs (even with the windows opened)
- in casinos
- offices
- any place of work
- outdoor bus platforms

They are even trying to push to make it illegal to smoke in one's car.

At one point it was fine for restaurants to have "smoking" patios. The provincial government allowed it then it took all the businesses that made the investment that they could no longer use it.

You may think it's good but this is just one more group trying to make more of a nanny state out of America. You give them a little slack and they pull your through the forest chasing after that squirrel because the leash was loosened slightly.

The anti-smoking lobby is going about all the wrong way.

Have you seen the average pack of smokes since this started? Health Canada is putting pictures of cancerous tumours on packs of smokes. Which is stupid because the people who are going to smoke aren't going to be deterred by that, and those who are disgusted by that are already non-smokers.

They are making smokers into pariahs.

Instead of trying to make a campaign based on awareness, they use scare tactics, which is the last thing this world needs. If you want people to quit you need to provide incentives and not employ scare tactics.

Some people are heavily addicted and have trouble quitting. But they are the ones being punished and not the companies.

If the anti-smoking lobby wanted to make a difference it would petition the government to lean heavily on the tobacco industry adn force them to change the product to remove the most addictive elements and chemicals from their filters and cigarettes.

Cigarette chemistry (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/chemistry.html)
Erowid Tobacco Vault (http://www.erowid.org/plants/tobacco/tobacco.shtml)

But the government won't lean on the industry because it makes a killing in taxes, while it punishes the end user.

That is the problem with a ban. It hurts the consumer and not the company who puts the additives in the product.

Seems I wasn't specific enough this time :p

I was referring to this post:

Thanks. I personally see no problem with this though.

I think it's both. Look at how many "stop smoking" adverts there are, how many countries tried to do whatever they could to "get the warning across" up to and including putting pictures of tumors on the cigarette package, and how heavily cigarettes are taxed (that may be different for you folks on the European side of the pond, but here a good portion of the cost of a pack of cigarettes comes from "vice tax").

It's just as much about stopping people from smoking as it is about protecting those that choose not to.

Reason being (on this side of the 'pond') those with such dire health issues arising from smoking weigh on the alreadly overburdened health system, which our taxes pay for.

Time to start paying more for the product, that ends up putting you in a place where I pay to help you.

Why should I pay for your lifetime choice?

(You being the smoker, not particuarly 'you')

Life is about compromise.
Indeed. So continue to smoke all you want... Outside. :)

Revenue from taxing cigarettes is around £18billion a year. NHS spending on smoking related illnesses is around £7billion a year. So really smokers already pay for their treatment 2 and a half times over.
Who said anything about the NHS? You fail.

Your argument is the same mindless drivel spouted by most non-smokers who just don't have the facts.
And why do you assume I'm a non smoker? Or at least, I dunno, worked in environments for several years with and without cigarette smoke? You fail there too.

What will happen to our country if whinging lobby groups all get their cases heard and made into law?
Health of the population improves? *shrug*

No more contact sports, no more drinking, no driving over 20mph, no loud music, no protesting. Life is about compromise. The vitriol spouted by non-smokers puts me in fear for their blood preasure. They should try and relax, maybe have a smoke.

Nice arseways slippery slope analogy.

"smoking weigh on the alreadly overburdened health system, which our taxes pay for"

A health system that is payed for by taxes. What other health system would you be talking about?
What makes you assume I'm British? Is it because I use the English language?

Health of the population improves - yay - people live, then they die, the last bit of life is usually on a pension. Pension crisis anyone? We already have one.

No we don't.

"smoking weigh on the alreadly overburdened health system, which our taxes pay for"

A ealth system that is payed for by taxes. What other health system would you be talking about?

Health of the population improves - yay - people live, then they die, the last bit of life is usually on a pension. Pension crisis anyone? We already have one.
You aren't October3/HunterST, perchance?

This is the when the nonsmoking policies start going to far. Which continuing to happen everywhere. Getting fired from your job for smoking AT YOUR HOME!!!

http://www.alternet.org/story/21131/

?who?
I'll take that as a no for now. You make the same arguments, in the same way, as October3 and his/her HunterST puppet.

You said 'this side of the pond' and reffered to a health system payed for by taxpayers. That don't sound like America.

Also your use of the word 'arse' - very British.

Pension crisis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/business/2002/pensions_crisis/default.stm

or Irish perhaps

You said 'this side of the pond' and reffered to a health system payed for by taxpayers. That don't sound like America.
So, there's only one country in Europe is there?

Also your use of the word 'arse' - very British.
And? Cojones is Spanish - I use that word too.

Pension crisis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/business/2002/pensions_crisis/default.stm
Yeah? And?

Me thinks you doth protest too much.

Try looking through past posts. Psychotic Mongooses is Irish

What the hell is everybody bitching about? If people want to smoke and kill themselves they can. If you don't want to breathe second-hand smoke don't sit in the smoking section. Everybody needs to quit complaining about second hand smoke. You breathe in more car exhaust in one day than probably 2 months of second hand smoke.

Me thinks you doth protest too much.

It's not my fault that you put no thought or intelligence into your posts. *shrug*

Compromise could also intail allowing smoking in certain areas/establishments. As I beleive was outlined in the government's election manifesto.

Tell your idea of compromise to the pubs and bingo halls, British legion clubs and cigar clubs that will fold and have already folded due to bans.

Many major breweries are already selling off those pubs they feel cannot remain profitable after the ban. Those lease holders who make a living running these establishments have no say other than what bus they will catch to the dole office when they lose their business and (in many cases) their homes.

As one who live in a society where smoking has been banned in pubs and restaurants I'll just say... There is no need to worry. People will still go out and visit said places. You, the smoker, will get used to stepping out for a smoke. Only a very few (if any!) businesses will close due to any ban on smoking.

It's just a good idea all-around :)

What the hell is everybody bitching about? If people want to smoke and kill themselves they can. If you don't want to breathe second-hand smoke don't sit in the smoking section. Everybody needs to quit complaining about second hand smoke. You breathe in more car exhaust in one day than probably 2 months of second hand smoke.

You should read the thread. No, really!

You know, as a non-smoker I find cigarette smoke annoying.

As a Libertarian I see no reason why Government should have anything to do with it one way or another.

As an American I see no reason why people's rights are being stomped on.

It runs along the same vein as the cigarette tax. It's an attempt by Government to boost the prices of cigarettes to discourage their purchase. It's an utter load of crap. The Government dosn't do anything to help provide cigarettes. Why should it get a cut of the sale?

Health Care, you say? Because the cost of caring for lung cancer patients justifies the extra charge? Well then why doesn't some of that tax money go directly to Hospitals, HMOs and Insurance Companies? No, that isn't the real reason.

The real reason is control. It's about politicians enacting feel-good legislation in this bizarre attempt to do our thinking for us. Despite what Governor O'Malley said, it is NOT the role of the Government to ensure health and safety for the citizenry. We're all adults, we can handle that fine ourselves, thank you. It's Government's job to ensure that we have the FREEDOM to make such choices.

I don't smoke, like I said, but if I wanted to I don't need to check with Big Brother to make sure he's given me permission. I shouldn't need permission from the Government to do ANYTHING. It's not Government's place to grant or deny it.

And yes, non-smokers are annoyed by smoking and all that. But yanno... Nowhere is it written that we have the right to be completely and utterly unaffected by the fact that we share a country with other people who don't do things the way we do them. The same logic that says smokers should lose their freedom to accomodate non-smokers could also be used to justify:

-banning slow cars so that people in fast cars don't have to slow down for them
-radios that can play music through speakers. Headphones for all!
-loud motorcycles. Motorcysles should be SILENT!
-ugly people. Wear a mask for god's sake!
-Talk radio
-commercials (maybe that's not so bad...)
-theaters that seat more than 1
-lines ANYWHERE at ANYTIME!
-trafic lights. I should be able to go anytime I want, right?

Get the idea?

From your location I can tell you are obviously a pain in the arse for a man with no arms.

It may not be your fault there is no thought or inteligence put into your posts either. Your parents could be cousins or mentals for all anyone knows.

Intelligence has two L's.

-banning slow cars so that people in fast cars don't have to slow down for them
-radios that can play music through speakers. Headphones for all!
-loud motorcycles. Motorcysles should be SILENT!
-ugly people. Wear a mask for god's sake!
-Talk radio
-commercials (maybe that's not so bad...)
-theaters that seat more than 1
-lines ANYWHERE at ANYTIME!
-trafic lights. I should be able to go anytime I want, right?

Get the idea?

All of which are nuisances and not damaging to my health

As one who live in a society where smoking has been banned in pubs and restaurants I'll just say... There is no need to worry. People will still go out and visit said places. You, the smoker, will get used to stepping out for a smoke. Only a very few (if any!) businesses will close due to any ban on smoking.

It's just a good idea all-around :)

We shouldn't have to get used to going outside to smoke. Its not the governments job to ban smoking. It should be up to the owners. If the demand for non smoking bars and restaurants is so high then open non-smoking restaurants.

As one who live in a society where smoking has been banned in pubs and restaurants I'll just say... There is no need to worry. People will still go out and visit said places. You, the smoker, will get used to stepping out for a smoke. Only a very few (if any!) businesses will close due to any ban on smoking.

It's just a good idea all-around :)

And now instead of having smokers inside, you now have them standing outside the doors of the pub or restaurant, meaning that the patron now has to walk through a cloud of smoke in order to go inside. It is even more disgusting than dealing with smokers who aren't concentrated in a single area of a large open restaurant/pub.

And now instead of having smokers inside, you now have them standing outside the doors of the pub or restaurant, meaning that the patron now has to walk through a cloud of smoke in order to go inside. It is even more disgusting than dealing with smokers who aren't concentrated in a single area of a large open restaurant/pub.

...or you have a beer garden which attracts even more people - smokers and non alike. At which there are zero complaints. Why? Because it is outside in the air where the smoke can freely disseminate.

I have yet to meet a smoker that has been critical of the ban here - after over two years.

When the smokers themselves are happy with it, doesn't that tell you something?

And now instead of having smokers inside, you now have them standing outside the doors of the pub or restaurant, meaning that the patron now has to walk through a cloud of smoke in order to go inside. It is even more disgusting than dealing with smokers who aren't concentrated in a single area of a large open restaurant/pub.

I don't see the downside of this. My choice is walking past them for a few seconds or staying in a cloud of smoke for hours?

We shouldn't have to get used to going outside to smoke. Its not the governments job to ban smoking. It should be up to the owners. If the demand for non smoking bars and restaurants is so high then open non-smoking restaurants.

Actually, it IS the governments job to ban smoking. Protecting the working man and women from having to work in an unhealthy environment. Happens in every other industry, why not the pubs?

Why be so selfish that you have to risk other peoples health instead of just going outside for three minutes? It's really not that much of a hassle.

And now instead of having smokers inside, you now have them standing outside the doors of the pub or restaurant, meaning that the patron now has to walk through a cloud of smoke in order to go inside. It is even more disgusting than dealing with smokers who aren't concentrated in a single area of a large open restaurant/pub.

No, it really isn't more disgusting. Trust me on this. I wouldn't trade what I have now for what used to be for anything. And neither would my friends who smoke.

And there's usually no huge cloud of smoke I have to go through either. Some small ones, but I can live with that (Or simply hold my breath for a few seconds) :)

Cars and loud noises can be damaging to your health. Emmisions from deisel cars contain carcinogens and persistant or sudden exposure to loud noises can affect blood preasure and lead to premature deafness.

Damn - I'm going to start a crackpot lobby group!

Diesel cars are more of a necessity to modern life than smoking.

Sudden exposure to loud noises can raise blood pressure transiently

I'm generally not regularly exposed to noises loud enough to damage my ears more than normal.

One simple solution: Don't work there. I choose not to work in a hazardous environment. Don't work in the smoking section. Get a job at Wal-Mart, you can't smoke in there, and you will get paid more.

So, you're pro no smoking in some work areas, but not in others. Hypocrite.

Actually, it IS the governments job to ban smoking. Protecting the working man and women from having to work in an unhealthy environment. Happens in every other industry, why not the pubs?

Why be so selfish that you have to risk other peoples health instead of just going outside for three minutes? It's really not that much of a hassle.

One simple solution: Don't work there. I choose not to work in a hazardous environment. Don't work in the smoking section. Get a job at Wal-Mart, you can't smoke in there, and you will get paid more.

-banning slow cars so that people in fast cars don't have to slow down for themactually, if you drive too slow, you can get ticked for being an obstruction or a hazzard.
-radios that can play music through speakers. Headphones for all!playing music too loud will result in a ticket.
-loud motorcycles. Motorcysles should be SILENT!same thing as the radios.

We shouldn't have to get used to going outside to smoke. Its not the governments job to ban smoking. It should be up to the owners. If the demand for non smoking bars and restaurants is so high then open non-smoking restaurants.
Why not? Nobody has a right to smoke, just like you don't have a right to drive at 100 mph down the pavement, serve out of date food in a restaurant, or do other things that damage other people's health, and are illegal.

The British government, at least, already (and rightly) ensures the health of its citizens by running the NHS, banning junk food in schools and enforcing unleaded petrol. Is it not their job to do that, even when it is acceptable to the electorate?

One simple solution: Don't work there. I choose not to work in a hazardous environment. Don't work in the smoking section. Get a job at Wal-Mart, you can't smoke in there, and you will get paid more.

A simpler one: Send the smokers outside. It's really much, much simpler, and it even protects those who needs the jobs.

As I've said before: The smoker is the one who risks the hrealth of others by his or her behaviour, so the smoker has to endure the hassle of stepping outside for three minutes.

God, people! It's not the end of the world for you to be curteous and unselfish. It really does work well! This is not a problem at all, and if you wish to file legitimate grievances you shoukd rather attack the outdoor smoking bans that are in place in some countries - Those might be going a step to far.

This, however, is simply common sense.

One simple solution: Don't work there. I choose not to work in a hazardous environment. Don't work in the smoking section. Get a job at Wal-Mart, you can't smoke in there, and you will get paid more.
What about students who require the flexibility in hours? Or people who can't find another job? Would you rather fork out National Insurance to keep someone on unemployment benefits?

So, you're pro no smoking in some work areas, but not in others. Hypocrite.

I have no problems with smoking in Wal-Mart. The difference is you have never been able to smoke in Wal-Mart. People have been smoking in restaurants and bars for decades. Also that is Wal-Marts right not to allow smoking. Just like it is the bars owners if smoking should be allowed. Not the government.

What about students who require the flexibility in hours? Or people who can't find another job? Would you rather fork out National Insurance to keep someone on unemployment benefits?

Who has more flexible hours then Wal-Mart? They are open 24 hours a day. I never waited tables or worked in a bar when I was in school, but I still had a job.

No need to be selfish if there are seperate smoking areas indoors (with ventilation/extractor fans). The tiny amount of smoke that would drift accross is not going to have non-smokers on a respirator 15mins later.
Doesn't protect the worker well enough - which is basically what this is all about.


As for not being too much hassle - tell that to a British legion member, perhaps 80 years old, having to go outside for a cigarette a few times on a night out, in winter, in the snow/rain, with arthritis. Maybe it would be better for our war heros and the like to spend their final years getting their rewards for serving their country at home alone to avoid the hassle.
I'd be glad to tell him. :)
Experience tells me that reasonable old people get this and will adapt to the changes. Even in the winter. Even with arthritis. Even with a small smelly dog too ;)

Just because he's a war hero doesn't mean we'll give him the right to risk the health of others.

A simpler one: Send the smokers outside. It's really much, much simpler, and it even protects those who needs the jobs.

As I've said before: The smoker is the one who risks the hrealth of others by his or her behaviour, so the smoker has to endure the hassle of stepping outside for three minutes.

God, people! It's not the end of the world for you to be curteous and unselfish. It really does work well! This is not a problem at all, and if you wish to file legitimate grievances you shoukd rather attack the outdoor smoking bans that are in place in some countries - Those might be going a step to far.

This, however, is simply common sense.

All I'm saying is that there should be smoking restaurants and non smoking restaurants. Make it up to the owner. If you don't like cigarette smoke in a bar don't go into one that allows it.

No need to be selfish if there are seperate smoking areas indoors (with ventilation/extractor fans). The tiny amount of smoke that would drift accross is not going to have non-smokers on a respirator 15mins later.
Right. Because people are going to want to go into a pub and have an extractor fan rattling over their heads. In any case, that's what some (newer) pubs do. And, good lord, they are still just as full of smoke.

The simple solution is to stop smoking or go outside. If extractor fans would cut it, we'd have had them decades ago.

As for not being too much hassle - tell that to a British legion member, perhaps 80 years old, having to go outside for a cigarette a few times on a night out, in winter, in the snow/rain, with arthritis. Maybe it would be better for our war heros and the like to spend their final years getting their rewards for serving their country at home alone to avoid the hassle.
Appeal to emotion.

*Yawn*

All I'm saying is that there should be smoking restaurants and non smoking restaurants. Make it up to the owner. If you don't like cigarette smoke in a bar don't go into one that allows it.
I see what you're saying, but I disagree. :)

Private clubs are another matter, but to adequately protect the health of the workers in pubs, bars and restaurants, and to avoid the risks of second-hand smoking, this is the way to go. The owners won't act for fear of loosing business, but by enacting a blanket ban every place will be equal - and in the end very few (if any) will loose any customers.

Who has more flexible hours then Wal-Mart? They are open 24 hours a day. I never waited tables or worked in a bar when I was in school, but I still had a job.
Lucky you. But not every town in Britain has a supermarket open 24 hours. Most don't. When you've got a permanently impoverished population, you aren't often going to have the luxury of deciding to work in a non smoking establishment. So long as there are more people than jobs, you can't argue that 'have another job' is neither reasonable nor fair.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. :)

Private clubs are another matter, but to adequately protect the health of the workers in pubs, bars and restaurants, and to avoid the risks of second-hand smoking, this is the way to go. The owners won't act for fear of loosing business, but by enacting a blanket ban every place will be equal - and in the end very few (if any) will loose any customers.

Private clubs? So we should have to pay to be able to smoke in an establishment? So this just about the rights of a certain people. You have the right not to go in there and/or work there.

No, it really isn't more disgusting. Trust me on this. I wouldn't trade what I have now for what used to be for anything. And neither would my friends who smoke.

And there's usually no huge cloud of smoke I have to go through either. Some small ones, but I can live with that (Or simply hold my breath for a few seconds) :)

Sure it's not bad but when there is a group like that in front of almost every pub you want to go into, you really don't want to go in, and I can't even walk by because the cloud is so thick.

Plus the smokers tend to wave their hands around quite a bit so it sucks having to dodge them when you want to go in.

Lucky you. But not every town in Britain has a supermarket open 24 hours. Most don't. When you've got a permanently impoverished population, you aren't often going to have the luxury of deciding to work in a non smoking establishment. So long as there are more people than jobs, you can't argue that 'have another job' is neither reasonable nor fair.

Hell do what most college kids do anyway. Sell pot. Oh wait thats more second hand smoke.

Hell do what most college kids do anyway. Sell pot. Oh wait thats more second hand smoke.

Most of us do? Damn that passed me by

Hell do what most college kids do anyway. Sell pot. Oh wait thats more second hand smoke.
Oh, come on.

But its a choice between having them in front of every pub or inside every pub

Or having a smoking patio, which existed for a while before the government shut those down.

I've given up on bothering with supporting proprietors rights as far as smoking is concerned. It's a battle that can't be won, so I guess I won't bother.

Sure it's not bad but when there is a group like that in front of almost every pub you want to go into, you really don't want to go in, and I can't even walk by because the cloud is so thick.

Plus the smokers tend to wave their hands around quite a bit so it sucks having to dodge them when you want to go in.

But its a choice between having them in front of every pub or inside every pub

Private clubs? So we should have to pay to be able to smoke in an establishment? So this just about the rights of a certain people. You have the right not to go in there and/or work there.

Well, smoking in private clubs are banned here as well, but I'm not sure I agree with that was all I was saying.

And the right to not risk your health trumps your right to not go outside for three minutes, sorry.

The "right not to work there" also doesn't work, seeing as you do have a right to work in an environment that's as healthy as possible - which is why people in other professions are able to protect themselves.

At least when they're out front you know they're there.

This is the reason why there needs to be smoking and nonsmoking pubs. You wouldn't have to worry about it. Dammit I am calling them pubs now. See what yall are doing to me.

Or at least allow for smoking patios to exist. They are well ventilated and/or outdoors with a cover above it.

But its a choice between having them in front of every pub or inside every pub

This is the reason why there needs to be smoking and nonsmoking pubs. You wouldn't have to worry about it. Dammit I am calling them pubs now. See what yall are doing to me.

This is the reason why there needs to be smoking and nonsmoking pubs. You wouldn't have to worry about it. Dammit I am calling them pubs now. See what yall are doing to me.

I don't have to worry about it now when they have to stand outside. Holding my breath for a few seconds isn't a problem

I'm fairly sure most, if not all, smoking bans, would count that as outside.

Not the ban in Ontario. Outdoor patios were hit during the ban. It was working at first but the the government put patios on the list too.

Or at least allow for smoking patios to exist. They are well ventilated and/or outdoors with a cover above it.
I'm fairly sure most, if not all, smoking bans, would count that as outside.

I'm fairly sure most, if not all, smoking bans, would count that as outside.

Actually, in some places it doesn't. It's still part of the restaurant, therefore you can't smoke there.

Sure it's not bad but when there is a group like that in front of almost every pub you want to go into, you really don't want to go in, and I can't even walk by because the cloud is so thick.
Your choice - it's never stopped me before. And again, the health of the workers trump the comfort of the smokers.

Plus the smokers tend to wave their hands around quite a bit so it sucks having to dodge them when you want to go in.
Oh gods don't remind me! They do, they really do! So I'm glad they do it outside now (where I'll only pass them on my way in or out) onstead of doing it all the fucking time inside, no matter if I move towards the bar or the bathroom, or just sit as still as possible!

You make me even happier that smoking is banned now. Thankies :)
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

Oh, you poor naive fool.

I would love to see you tell someone who lost their business that they won't loose any customers.
*Looks around at all the local bars and pubs which are still open*
*Shrugs*
My empirical and anecdotal evidence tells me otherwise - so did a newspaper article some months back. So at least here it's working without costing any jobs.

Or having a smoking patio, which existed for a while before the government shut those down.
I would support outside smoking patios. :)

I feel proud to live in a state where I am allowed to choose if I want to smoke in a bar or not. There have been several times I have sat in the non-smoking section with friends that didn't smoke. I would walk up to the bar and smoke. With other smokers. Far away from the non-smoking section.

This is the reason why there needs to be smoking and nonsmoking pubs. You wouldn't have to worry about it. Dammit I am calling them pubs now. See what yall are doing to me.
Soon we'll have you brainwashed into smoking only wool, just you wait! ;)
I feel proud to live in a state where I am allowed to choose if I want to smoke in a bar or not. There have been several times I have sat in the non-smoking section with friends that didn't smoke. I would walk up to the bar and smoke. With other smokers. Far away from the non-smoking section.
Poor bartender... :(

I don't have to worry about it now when they have to stand outside. Holding my breath for a few seconds isn't a problem

This is all about personal rights. You have a right not to be around smoke, but doesn't the restaurant owner have the right to decide how is business is going to be ran.

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.

It is a ban on them in resteraunts and bars. Cigarettes are intrusive upon other peoples rights if in close distances. Second hand smoke and all that. I support the ban. We already have it like that here in California

This is all about personal rights. You have a right not to be around smoke, but doesn't the restaurant owner have the right to decide how is business is going to be ran.

Yes, but within limits. Just as a factory worker can't subject workers to undue dangers (he won't let them have protective clothing because it costs too much) the pubowner must also accept some restrictions to ensure the health and safety of the workers. It's really not unheard of.

Poor bartender... :(

Then don't be a bartender. Life is full of choices.

Then don't be a bartender. Life is full of choices.

I won't ask him to risk his health when I can rather ask you to step outside for a moment. You cause the risk, you loose the comfort. So simple. :)

This is all about personal rights. You have a right not to be around smoke, but doesn't the restaurant owner have the right to decide how is business is going to be ran.

I'll take my right over his. Selfish yes but it doesnt bother me

I'll take my right over his. Selfish yes but it doesnt bother me

If its all about your rights. You have the right not to go in. Nobody is forcing you to visit these places.

I won't ask him to risk his health when I can rather ask you to step outside for a moment. You cause the risk, you loose the comfort. So simple. :)

Whats to keep someone who goes outside to smoke from just walking away?

I thought this was worth sharing...

Smoking Bans (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/smoking/smokingbans.html)

This is a link from CBC that outlines the basics of a series of smoking bans across Canada. The strictest is in Ontario.


Retail behind-counter displays of tobacco are banned after 2008.

On June 1, 2006, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act prohibits smoking in all workplaces and enclosed spaces open to the public, except for private homes and hotel rooms.

In Toronto in 2004, all bars, pool halls, bingo halls, casinos, and racetracks became smoke-free, with fines ranging from $205 to $5,000. A plan to outlaw smoking rooms by 2005 was sent back to council for review.

The Northwestern (Ontario) Health Unit bans smoking in all public places and private businesses as of Jan. 1, 2003, with fines ranging from $5,000 to $25,000.

The city of Ottawa bans smoking in all workplaces and public spaces with no allowance for designated smoking rooms on Aug. 1, 2001.

It's illegal to sell tobacco at hospitals, psychiatric facilities, nursing homes, long-term care facilities and charitable institutions

The strange thing is despite the smoking ban, I have read about some casinos near the American-Canadian border are not being fined if they allow for patrons to smoke.

If its all about your rights. You have the right not to go in. Nobody is forcing you to visit these places.
Nobody is forcing you to smoke either. You want to force smoke on others though, when you can easily avoid it.
Whats to keep someone who goes outside to smoke from just walking away?
What's to keep someone who ges to the bathroom from just walking away?

Whats to keep someone who goes outside to smoke from just walking away?

The fact that the bar or restaurant is selling something they want: if they don't want it, so what? No real loss.

Could a restaurant ask a patron to leave because the waiter was allergic to their perfume?

Or what if you're offended by the person's b/o? :)

Could a restaurant ask a patron to leave because the waiter was allergic to their perfume?

*Snip*
What can I say? That's not my impression. I go out more than I used to because of the smoking ban, so I actually leave more money at the pubs, bars and restaurants.

And as I said before... Well, you know what I said before :)

Or what if you're offended by the person's b/o? :)

A good deal of the pubs around these parts have lists around the door giving out point by point reasons why patrons can be refused entry, along with those to be expected, such as offensive tattoos or excessive intoxication, there is very often an comment on poor personal hygiene.

Did they not have separate sections before the ban?

Yeah but apparently the smoke wasn't playing nice, so it had to sit outside. ;)

Could a restaurant ask a patron to leave because the waiter was allergic to their perfume?
You could use a different waiter... And it would be a one-in-a-million happening.
Or what if you're offended by the person's b/o? :)
Restaurants do have some discretion - dress codes etc - so maybe. But it's not a health-issue, so...

What can I say? That's not my impression. I go out more than I used to because of the smoking ban, so I actually leave more money at the pubs, bars and restaurants.

And as I said before... Well, you know what I said before :)

Did they not have separate sections before the ban?

Actually, in some places it doesn't. It's still part of the restaurant, therefore you can't smoke there.
I suppose it depends on which country and how strict it is. The British ones - which is what I'm going by - explicitly refer to indoor public areas.

Looking at the local bars and pubs does not show the real picture. At least here? - I'm alright Jack attitide is very humanitarian. The press is very biased when it comes to smoking (the BBC especially). It's a controversial issue and the papers don't like to be controversial. The true cost of smoking bans is lots of businesses close, people lose jobs and livelyhoods, homes and careers.

The smoking issue has been blown out of all proportion. Suddenly the smokers are teh ebil and want to kill everyone because they hate you. When the smoking ban came into force in Scotland SKY sports got 10,000 extra subscribers in 1 month for the upcoming sporting events. People were staying home,getting a few beers in and smoking in their own homes to watch the foorball instead of going to the pub. 10,000 subscribtions! Even with one person per T.V staying at home, with an average pint price of say £2, and maybe 3 pints per match, that's £60,000 lost in 90 minutes. That is alot of minimum wagers.
Uh, are you sure about that?

Did they not have separate sections before the ban?
Many places did. Didn't protect the workers though, which was the ultimate rationale behind a blanket ban.
Yeah but apparently the smoke wasn't playing nice, so it had to sit outside. ;)
Yeah! Damn drunken smoke!

*Shakes angry fist at drunken smoke*

You could use a different waiter... And it would be a one-in-a-million happening.

There for couldn't you use a different waiter that didn't have a problem with cigarette smoke? You didn't have to wear that perfume.

There for couldn't you use a different waiter that didn't have a problem with cigarette smoke? You didn't have to wear that perfume.

I've heard people whine if your deodorant is too strong...

Many places did. Didn't protect the workers though, which was the ultimate rationale behind a blanket ban.

You were talking about how you started going out more, spending more money because of the ban. You weren't talking about the workers.

It is rare that a non-smoking section actually smells like a non-smoking section.

I'd like to see you spend £60,000 in 90mins at a bar. The ammount of people who now go to bars because of the bans more than they used to is outwieghed by the number of people who now choose to stay at home. Hence more places closing. The selfishness of non-smokers is shown by excessive legislation (a bit like opening a walnut with a sledgehammer), and their total disregard for the employees they are trying to protect. They don't have to breath in other peoples smoke anymore because they don't work in a bar.

Can you prove this? I have seen the opposite in news stories covering this IIRC.

articles of interest perhaps:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/5396938.stm
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3016321
http://www.hooknortonbrewery.co.uk/news_2007/Marston_Magic/marston_magic.html
http://www.gpiatlantic.org/clippings/mc_smoke-free_dnews10-13.htm

It is rare that a non-smoking section actually smells like a non-smoking section.

We weren't talking about smell. Its not the smell that would kill you. Its the smoke. What soon they are going to ban smelling like smoke in bars?

There for couldn't you use a different waiter that didn't have a problem with cigarette smoke? You didn't have to wear that perfume.
Subjective feelings isn't relevant. The health perspective is. They shouldn't need to work in an unhealthy environment.
I'd like to see you spend £60,000 in 90mins at a bar. The ammount of people who now go to bars because of the bans more than they used to is outwieghed by the number of people who now choose to stay at home. Hence more places closing. The selfishness of non-smokers is shown by excessive legislation (a bit like opening a walnut with a sledgehammer), and their total disregard for the employees they are trying to protect. They don't have to breath in other peoples smoke anymore because they don't work in a bar.
Again, not as I've experienced it.

And who are you to complain about the selfishness of the non-smokers who try to keep the workers from risking their health? If smokers were the pinnacle of selflessness (which you seem to imply) they would long ago voluntarily have stepped outside for the short time it takes to smoke, both for the sake of the workers, the patrons, and society.

Since they didn't, legislation was needed.
You were talking about how you started going out more, spending more money because of the ban. You weren't talking about the workers.
Oh, I misunderstood you.

Yes, they had, but for my part I found the different sections to be ineffective. Many places did not physically seperate the smokers from the non-smokers so the non-smoking section would be pretty smoke-filled despite the different sections. Also, mostly restaurants and cafés had such sections. Pubs, bars, nightclubs... They were all smoke-filled places that I sometimes/often tried to avoid so I wouldn't get sore & watery eyes, a raspy throath, headaches and feeling hung over the next day.

People were staying home,getting a few beers in and smoking in their own homes to watch the foorball instead of going to the pub. 10,000 subscribtions! Even with one person per T.V staying at home, with an average pint price of say £2, and maybe 3 pints per match, that's £60,000 lost in 90 minutes. That is alot of minimum wagers.

And I take it that despite this alleged massive increase in off-sales, no off-licenses took on new staff to cover the increased demand...?

Yes I am. Not with issues such as this. Saying the smoking ban is a bit sily would be the equivelant of saying the pope reems arses for the 'Catholic Times'. The ammount of green biro ink that would be used in letters of complaint would deplete the world's stocks of green biro ink so much that 'Points of View' would never have enough material to air. And Mary Whitehouse would walk the Earth once again.
For heaven's sake, can you not give it a rest with the exaggerated hyperbole?

We weren't talking about smell. Its not the smell that would kill you. Its the smoke. What soon they are going to ban smelling like smoke in bars?

Thats true you weren't, but wouldnt it stand to reason that if you can smell the other people smokign then you are getting some of that second hand smoke?

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.

There was also an article here in our local paper about a county in Maryland where they have banned the use of foods with, or cooked in, Trans Fats. Or it was something to that degree.

I'm still waiting for the "Bubble-Wrap" legislation that will require all Americans to wear bubble-wrap clothing so we don't hurt ourselves while out in the real world.

Subjective feelings isn't relevant. The health perspective is. They shouldn't need to work in an unhealthy environment.

It is a health reason if you get migraines and have trouble breathing. I get it from certain scents.

And I take it that despite this alleged massive increase in off-sales, no off-licenses took on new staff to cover the increased demand...?

Which of course would have nothing to do with the continuous hiking of prices in bars/pubs being of great irritation to customers....

What's that? Oh. There's competition to the pub/bar industry you say? Dastardly.

Thats true you weren't, but wouldnt it stand to reason that if you can smell the other people smokign then you are getting some of that second hand smoke?

Probably not as much as you are walking through clouds of it as you walked in.

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007/05/08/313584/scotland-smoking-ban-leads-to-25-hospitality-closures-in-first.html

One of many, many sources showing closures.

If someone can provide me with evidence that the ban encourages MORE businesses to open and creates more jobs - feel free.


Hmmm, yes I have also heard that when smokign bans first take place it can be hard on businesses at first (first few months) as the article suggests. Now take a look at the long term effects on business:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/5396938.stm
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3016321
http://www.hooknortonbrewery.co.uk/news_2007/Marston_Magic/marston_magic.html
http://www.gpiatlantic.org/clippings/mc_smoke-free_dnews10-13.htm

In short, surveys consistently find that in the long run business gets better after a smoking ban because the vast majority (75%) of people are non-smokers and get used to the idea that they can go out and actually enjoy themselves in smoke-free environments.

Probably not as much as you are walking through clouds of it as you walked in.

Smoke doesnt collect into clouds in a small space outdoors

There was also an article here in our local paper about a county in Maryland where they have banned the use of foods with, or cooked in, Trans Fats. Or it was something to that degree.

I'm still waiting for the "Bubble-Wrap" legislation that will require all Americans to wear bubble-wrap clothing so we don't hurt ourselves while out in the real world.

AWESOME!!! Soon everything will have to be sterilized so no one catches a cold.

Selling a crate of beer does not take the same ammount of time as pouring 24 pints of beer. More off-licenses and supermarkets that pubs. They can absorb the increase without more staff.

What I really want to know is where you manage to find pints of beer at an average of £2.

It is a health reason if you get migraines and have trouble breathing. I get it from certain scents.

Yes. You do. Increased risk of health problems due to second hand smoking - everybody gets.

See the difference?

Smoke doesnt collect into clouds in a small space outdoors

All of these people were just complaining about walking through huge clouds of smoke when they walked into pubs. So obviously it does according to them.

All of these people were just complaining about walking through huge clouds of smoke when they walked into pubs. So obviously it does according to them.

What? Who are all these people you speak of? I was reading people saying that they would rather deal with the tiny bit of smoke for a few seconds to enter the place rather than the clouds of smoke for extended periods of time once having entered.

All of these people were just complaining about walking through huge clouds of smoke when they walked into pubs. So obviously it does according to them.

Small space outdoors. Is that magic fucking smoke? Smoke that hangs in the fresh air like some form of cigarette smog at head level?

Yes. You do. Increased risk of health problems due to second hand smoking - everybody gets.

See the difference?

Not everybody gets cancer from cigarette smoke. My girlfriends grandfather died of lung cancer, and never smoked a day in his life. He was Christmas tree farmer. Should we ban Christmas tree farming b/c someone might get cancer?

Not everybody gets cancer from cigarette smoke. My girlfriends grandfather died of lung cancer, and never smoked a day in his life. He was Christmas tree farmer. Should we ban Christmas tree farming b/c someone might get cancer?

That's why I (try to) always talk about the increased risk.

Not everybody gets cancer from cigarette smoke. My girlfriends grandfather died of lung cancer, and never smoked a day in his life. He was Christmas tree farmer. Should we ban Christmas tree farming b/c someone might get cancer?

Are you trying to say that smoking ciggs doesn't increase someones risk of getting cancer?


And if Christmas tree farming caused cancer then I say ban it in restaurants and bars!! Although I don't mind if they go outside to do it.

A smoking ban went into effect here July 06. All of the bigger clubs/bars already had rooftop patios that they now promote as smoking patios. Many big restaurants also had outdoor patios that they now use as the smoking section. These places did suffer some loss of business during the winter months. I have noticed higher prices and higher covers but I cannot say that it is specifically from loss of business due to the smoking ban.

Some places are exempt from the ban if they make a certain percentage of their income from tobacco sales. Most notably stripclubs, cigars and cigarettes being the only actual product they sell besides booze. Many small businesses such as diners and other small restaurants, neighbourhood bars and local pool halls, suffered big losses as they could not afford to build outdoor smoking areas. These are places where all the regulars are smokers. Many still go to their local haunts but they do not spend money while they are standing in the parking lot smoking.

I cannot support the idea that the ban is to protect workers. Nobody is forcing them to work as waitstaff/barstaff. If you do not like your job - go work somewhere that smoke is not an issue.

I am not denying the negative effects of second hand smoke but if you choose to go to a restaurant where you know there will be smoke live with your choice.

The idea of banning a legal activity in private businesses just seems bizarre to me. Why not just ban smoking altogether if it is for the good of public health? My guess is the 300 percent tax revenue on tobacco products that most states enjoy.

*Watches the "Slippery Slope" arguments pile up...*
:D

Ha
Yeah Right - If they ban smoking whats next?! No bubble gum on the street! No lipstick in cars! No selling alcohol on Sundays, oh wait.

:P

The idea of banning a legal activity in private businesses just seems bizarre to me. Why not just ban smoking altogether if it is for the good of public health? .
That's the point. You can do whatever it is you like in the privacy of your own home - but where you affect other people, that ceases to be your choice alone.

Winston Churchill smoked al the time and lived into his 90's. George Burns Smoked and lived to 100. Jim Fix - marathon runner and health enthusiast - died of a heart attack during a marathon.

It amazes me that people are so scared of smoking. They thing it is a literal cloud of death hovering above them. If they only want to complain about the smell then let them and carry on smoking. But the health risks are minimal. If you live by a main road, or drive in cities every day you are inhaling more harmful substances than going to a smokey pub. Try to ban cars. Drivers are selfish - an exhaust pipe is bigger than 20 cigarettes put together,and goes for more that 3 minutes, and in Britain there are 33million of the things.

But non-smokers will say that driving doesn't hurt othes because they do it.Smoking harms people because they don't do it.

Aren't a lot of people trying to reduce the effects of cars on the atmosphere?