Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLucifal
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.1)
    Humbug! I found the article all very childish. But then I'm an ex smoker of almost 20 years. And, throw me out of the forums if you will, but I DO find smoking offensive. But then aren't we all hypocrites?
    •  
      CommentAuthorChrisSick
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.2)
    You can find smoking offensive all you want, I find vapid celebrity to be offensive. You don't see anyone outlawing Paris Hilton, do you?
    •  
      CommentAuthorcurb
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.3)
    You can find smoking offensive all you want, I find vapid celebrity to be offensive. You don't see anyone outlawing Paris Hilton, do you?


    This cuts to the heart of the issue for me - there seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether smoking should be banned in public on grounds of public health, or simply because it bothers people. I currently smoke, but that doesn’t mean I want to contribute to a barman getting cancer in 20 years time as a result of secondary smoke inhalation . I also feel that it's a lot easier to quit smoking when you can go for a pint without being in an environment that facilitates your addiction. Those, I would say, are two good reasons for banning smoking in pubs and restaurants.

    But smoking in bus shelters? On train platforms? The only harm being caused here is to people's increasingly delicate sensibilities. Sure, you may find the smell of a cigarette unpleasant, but guess what? There are a whole lot of things people may find unpleasant about you. As a grown up, I'm able to distinguish the difference between two people discussing something offensive or annoying nearby, and them deliberately insulting me personally. By the same token, non smokers should learn to appreciate the difference between me lighting up in their general vicinity and me blowing a stogie right in their face.

    If there's one thing that I find increasingly disturbing about Britain's national psychcology, it's the inability to distinguish between actual harm and mere offense.
  1.  (1077.4)
    Here in Japan the law is getting tougher on smoking too. This year they're bringing in security cards to stop kids buying cigarettes from machines on the street, which they can now. But not after dark, because the machines turn off. During the daytime I believe that eagle-eyed bystanders stop the young and foolhardy from purchasing their early deaths.
    •  
      CommentAuthortekende
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.5)
    Those, I would say, are two good reasons for banning smoking in pubs and restaurants.


    That ought to be up to individual proprietors of such establishments. If I own a restaurant or bar or whatever, it ought to be up to me, and ME ALONE, to decide whether smoking is allowed there.

    Anyone who doesn't like my decision can go somewhere else that caters to their preferences.
    •  
      CommentAuthorcurb
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.6)
    That ought to be up to individual proprietors of such establishments. If I own a restaurant or bar or whatever, it ought to be up to me, and ME ALONE, to decide whether smoking is allowed there.


    That's fair enough for the customers, but would you not agree that your staff should have some form of protection from secondary smoke? 'If you don't want an increased risk of cancer, go work elsewhere' seems a little harsh to me.

    Where I live, there were a couple of bars and restraunts that went smoke free before the ban, and they both folded pretty quickly. As a whole, it seems that the pub trade has suffered as a result of the smoking ban. Allowing individual proprieters to choose whether they allow smoking or not means that those who wish to protect their staff's health will lose out to those who want to make a profit.

    So, a fair compromise might be to allow proprieters to choose whether or not they make their venues smoke - free, while at the same time making the 'pro smoking' proprieters pay a proportion of his or her staff's national insurance contributions as compensation for the increased risk the staff are exposed to. That way, employers don't get to compromise their employees' health in the persuit of profit, and non smoking venues will be able to compete on a level playing field with smoking venues.

    Of course, I'm expecting someone with a basic knowledge of economics to tear this argument a new asshole...
    • CommentAuthorPhro
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.7)
    MagicSword!

    security cards!?! the travesty. how will cigarette companies continue the 100% smoking population in japan?

    (I miss me some death serving vending machinese...)

    personally, i like the private owner choosing approach, but i think curb has a good point...

    i quit smoking about two months ago, and, personally, i didn't really mind going outside to smoke. what i do mind is the heavy handed nature of how governments are trying to deal with the problem. i would assume that the exhaust from cars is significantly worse that second hand cigarette smoke. but i may be mistaken...
    •  
      CommentAuthorjdack
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.8)
    Unless something has changed in the past 3 months, chart is inaccurate. There are still lots of places in Oregon where you can smoke indoors. Bars mostly, but even the local Sheris restaurant still has a smoking/gambling section. Was there in January, puffing away.
  2.  (1077.9)
    The chart's not accurate for Alaska these days. No statewide legislation, but as of last June you can't smoke in bars, restaurants, etc in Anchorage.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.10)
    Unless something has changed in the past 3 months, chart is inaccurate. There are still lots of places in Oregon where you can smoke indoors.
    The chart includes legislation through 2011-- OR goes non-smoking January of next year.
    •  
      CommentAuthorkittydoom
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.11)
    See that chart? That's why I love living in North Carolina. They'll never take away smoking here because this is where all the tobacco comes from. We don't have retarded high taxes on cigarettes here, either. I get really confused whenever I go into a restaurant that doesn't have a smoking section or has recently removed it. (I'm looking at you, Ihop.)
    • CommentAuthorgrenacia
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.12)
    I've never smoked, and I hate being in smoky places, but still I think its stupid the way smoking bans have been handled. Instead of preventing a bar/restaurant/whatever from having a smoking section, just make incredibly strict rules for a smoking room:

    Require a separate ventilation system so smoke doesn't escape into the main area, with exhaust fans to evacuate the smoke from the room out to the alley. When necessary, staff can kick everyone out and vent the smoke out so they can go in and clean. Make it a room that you can bring a drink into, but that the waitstaff won't serve directly, so they won't be required to enter it when its smoky.

    Businesses that don't want to go to the trouble can just be non-smoking. Businesses that do will have happy little smokers in their own special room, and happy little non-smokers in the rest of the place.

    Instead, here in Minnesota we now have a total ban on indoor smoking areas at bars/restaurants. Businesses have been constructing elaborate outdoor smoking porches, but that's not pleasant on days like today (-1 F, -18 C).
  3.  (1077.13)
    The truly ridiculous aspect of these bans is that even if you create a place solely for indoor smoking you are subject to more oversight than a damn gun-dealer.

    There's a "smoking lounge" here in Chicago that I (as a non-smoker) actually liked going to before the ban, Marshall McGearty. I believe it's run by one of the big tobacco companies. It was actually a very pleasant place to hang out. They had some massive air purifiers running, so it was never smoky at all, actually unless you were right on top of someone you'd never notice the smoke at all. They served decent food and drinks and had comfortable seating. I'm used to pubs, so sitting on a fucking bar stool at most clubs and drink establishments is not nearly as nice as a proper chair or booth. It was a solid hang out place for grown-ups, no kiddies coming in like at the coffee shop and shitting on the floor or eating the walls or whatever it is children do.

    But now they can't serve food or drink since by law only 15% of their income can come from non-tobacco purchases. So a place that no one would enter unless they were either a smoker or someone completely fine with smoking has to be buggered up so politicians can feel a sense of accomplishment instead of the usual howling void they have where their hearts once beat.
  4.  (1077.14)
    That's fair enough for the customers, but would you not agree that your staff should have some form of protection from secondary smoke?

    Yeah, because that's absolutely the most dangerous element in bar work.
    • CommentAuthorBenny
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.15)
    You know what the worst thing I've discovered ever since I quit smoking?

    It is so. fucking. boring. Everything is god. damn. boring.

    This wouldn't have bothered me before I picked up the nail, but once I've witnessed the fun world of smoking, coming back into sobriety blows.

    It is so miserably boring.

    And don't bother about Texas, various city legislatures are pushing for a state wide ban. I don't know why, probably has to do with the dicks and cunts that's ruining the fun for everyone under "hyperactive protectionism" realizing that the smokers are having all the fun, and well, they just can't have any of that now, can they?
    •  
      CommentAuthorZ
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.16)
    <blockquote>That's fair enough for the customers, but would you not agree that your staff should have some form of protection from secondary smoke?

    <blockquote>Yeah, because that's absolutely the most dangerous element in bar work.</blockquote></blockquote>

    And no one in the restaurant industry smokes. Couldn't possibly have the smokers serve the smokers and the non-smokers serve the non-smokers.

    As for the 'clean air' bar.. spare me. That's just trading one vice for another. Neither one is healthy, everything in life'll kill you (is bad for you, causes cancer, etc). I'm with Bourdain's view on smoking in eating establishments.

    "[..]as New York City's smoking ban went into effect, whom did CNN book as their anti-ban guest? Bourdain, of course, who said, 'We're in such a headlong rush to become the next Singapore, I find [it] horrifying and completely, well, un-American." His solution was a simple one, and libertarian at that. Let restaurant and bar owners decide whether to permit smoking or not in their venues."

    - Z
    • CommentAuthorGrimnir
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.17)
    Ummm, I'm in Oregon right now. Smoking is allowed both in bars that serve food and bars that don't serve food. There's one diner I go to that allows smoking because they have a bar attached. THE place to go at 4am.

    Fuck smoking nazis. But that's just my opinion.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMike Black
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.18)
    I miss smoking and eating hash browns at Waffle House at 3 AM after a night of partying. Florida has failed me.

    Although I see more and more workplaces every day that have employees smoking away in doors.
    •  
      CommentAuthorZ
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.19)
    There are a number of things at Waffle House more unhealthy than cigarette smoke. For instance, <em>it's Waffle House</em>.

    - Z
    •  
      CommentAuthorcurb
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2008
     (1077.20)
    Yeah, because that's absolutely the most dangerous element in bar work.


    Sure, there are more dangerous elements than smoking. That doesn't mean employers should profit by declining to prevent an unnecessary risk to their employees' health.

    And no one in the restaurant industry smokes. Couldn't possibly have the smokers serve the smokers and the non-smokers serve the non-smokers.


    Works fine as long as restaurants and pubs have equal provision for both smokers and non smokers. However, if the prevailing economic situation means it's more profitable for establishments to cater entirely to smokers, then more venues will do just that. More jobs in the industry for those who smoke, fewer for those who don't. I'm not saying that proprietors shouldn't have the right to allow smoking, just that it's not fair to allow a situation that makes workers choose between a job and better health.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.