Yesterday Minnesota enacted a state-wide law banning smoking in pretty much every establishment, including bars, pubs, watering holes, holes in the wall, etc etc as well as 20 feet from any door or ventillation intake. I am not a smoker. I'll have a cigar on special occasions, but that's about it. But being a non-smoker I'd just like to say: Can we please leave the poor people alone now? Cigarrette tax is raised pretty much every year and gives us a pretty steady income and smokers hardly even grumble about that. (okay some really complain, but they all pay it) We took their sections in restaraunts away and they accepted it. Now we're basically telling them they can only smoke in the car or home because it's filthy and they're horrible people and should be ashamed. Is tobbacco a bad thing? Certainly. But how about we just leave the folks alone for a bit and let them catch their breath (badoom-tish) I went out for a drink last night just to see if the law was being enforced. It's strange now to walk into a bar and not smell any smoke at all. Except in the bathroooms. We've degraded smokers back into high school. (I really hope someone just started humming "Smoking in the boy's room") Does anyone go to a bar for a healthy wholesome experience? "C'mon honey, we're going out to the Rusty Rail. Bring the kids. They love pickled eggs. And vodka!" I've talked to several bar owners before the ban went into place and some establishments are figuring out what they can do. One bar in town is going to build a big shed on the roof of the building with heaters and ventillation, another is going to set up a big tent outside with the same, but some don't have the option. Several places downtown are basically screwed. There's no space to build additional facilities or have a designated area and they can't just have people smoke outside since there's another door within 20 feet. Plus this is Minnesota and winter is coming. The police would be picking up smoker-cicles every night. So because of this law some businesses are going to take a big hit and the ones who can come up with an alternative are being forced to spend a large amount of money. So again I'd like to say, as a non-smoker, we've done enough. Let's leave them alone for a while.
Well as a non-smoker who has had to give up going out with friends to bars and night-clubs because the amount of smoke in those places was making me physically sick, and who has had to avoid some wonderful restaurants because smoke and food together is just disgusting, I fully approve smoking bans in public places, not just for the punters, but for the people who work there. A lot of people find jobs as waiters or bar-staff, and there's no reason for them to be exposed to poisonous substances, especially when anyone working in industry gets protected from anything dangerous. Most of Europe already has various degrees of smoking bans, or restrictions, and it works fine so far. If people choose to smoke, then they can smoke, but there is no reason why other people who didn't make that choice should have to put up with the effects, be it the long-term medical ones or the simple discomfort of the stink. This always reminds me of that email that has been going around for years: "smoke is the residue of your pleasure, my pleasure is beer and the residue of that is urine, how would you like me to spray that all over you in a public place ?" Edit : That said, I do agree that that should be enough, people shouldn't get rounded up on the street for smoking or arrested or fined or whatever, unless they're doing it somewhere they shouldn't.
I couldn't care less about smokers' rights, even if I still smoked myself I'd be happy that there were less places to smoke. Like Katcal says, it's wonderful now that I can go to the pub with my friends and not choke myself half to death, and Marcia doesn't have to miss out anymore because of her asthma. One thing smoking bans have highlighted for me around here is just how ridiculous the addiction is. People can't argue now that they smoke to pass the time, "it's a social thing", when they're huddled outside in the cold dark corners behind their office like smack addicts every hour of the day. If anything it does emphasize just how much one actually smokes, how many cigarettes one gets through in a day, because you have to keep going somewhere special to do it. On the upside, all the walking to and from cigarette breaks might counteract, somewhat, the affects of all that adipose fat, that smoking releases into the blood, clogging up their heart valves.
The analogy is not a perfect one, but if the state was repeatedly bringing in measures to counteract drink/drug-driving, would you ask if we could leave those poor people alone? Bad enough that we imprison people for running over others while drunk, now we're trying to eradicate the likelihood of it happening! As I said, not a perfect analogy, but do you see my point? There is no reason why I should have to put up with somebody else's smoke. I recognise that it's a smoker's choice to abuse their body, but why should it be their choice to abuse mine too? A man tried to jerk off on me while walking up the road, some months ago. That wasn't acceptable, so why should it be acceptable for someone to smoke where it affects me? Pubs may lose custom from smokers - though, frankly, I doubt they'll lose a significant amount, since there's nowhere else for the smokers to go but home now - but what about the custom they stand to gain from those who've been kept away? Like Marcia, I'm asthmatic, and I'm also a singing teacher. Before, if I went in a pub, it affected my health and my ability to do my work. That's just from being inside the building. Since the ban came into effect here, I've been out a couple of times, and it's been brilliant. I was able to stay in the pub far longer than I could normally and I didn't have any ill-health afterwards. And I know many people who always avoided smokey atmospheres and can now go out. And regarding the steady income from cigarette tax... I don't know how it works in your country, but in our country, that tax covers the health bills caused by smoking. It's not just lung cancer and the many kinds of oral cancer, it's the emphysema, the chronic pulmonary obstructive disorders, the heart and vascular disease, the macular degeneration (did you know smoking doubles your chances of going blind from this?) and all the rest - and not just in smokers, but in passive smokers too. (Passive smoking is increasingly being recognised as being just as dangerous as smoking - although less smoke is inhaled, that which is inhaled is without a filter.) So I think it's a mistake to see these laws as harrassing smokers. They're about everybody's right to health and wellbeing. When smokers are leaving non-smokers alone by not afflicting them with their smoke, then it will be time to leave smokers alone.
I agree with Buzzfloyd. I get a heavy headache after about an hour within a smoke filled vaccinity, and in the past that used to damper the fun for me when I was out with my friends, as well as my ability to work as long as I was still doing service jobs. I am actually looking forward to the times when things like me getting my meal served in a restaurant, and at the next table six newcomers simultaneously light a cigarrette each, are memories of the past. More than enough people just didn't put manners before addiction. Even most smokers I know agree to that.
I really enjoy the Philly smoking ban. It's nice to be able to go out for an evening and only come home smelling of alcohol, not alcohol and smoke. The smoking ban has even spilled over to where even those limited establishments where smoking is still allowed (bars that make no money from food) smoking has decreased severely. That being said though, "Public houses" aren't exactly "public". They're private property, and private businesses. Potential patrons certainly have the right to not patronize an establishment. I do feel for employees, although I wonder how many bar employees were surprised when they found out that people were smoking at their workplace.
In the building where I used to work (New York City has had laws against smoking in public buildings for years), the smokers used to sneak and smoke in the outdoor stairways that were supposed to be used for escape from fire. The irony.
I don't think any were surprised, but sometimes it's one of the few jobs available with little qualifications, and there's no reason to make you breathe in smoke just because you can't pick a cushy office job.
As a smoker I fluctuate between every side of the argument. My main feeling is if the government feels that smoking is so goddamned bad, then they should outlaw it, enforce it, and this whole system would be better. If not, then just leave us the fuck alone. Either shit or get off the pot. The only establishment that I smoke in is a coffee shop. I don't smoke in my apartment because I don't like being confined with it, not to mention the damage it does to the walls and ceiling. I just wish that they would move wholly one way or the other on it.
Thing is, you move wholly one way or the other and you're going to get complaints from at least one side. Non-smokers will complain, with reason (as many posts in this thread have shown), if it's allowed just anywhere. Smokers will complain, perhaps also with reason, that to ban them from smoking in private is to interfere too much with their freedom and rights - after all, in private nobody is being affected (in theory) but the person choosing to smoke. While I see lots of health benefits to a complete smoking ban, I see the sense in aiming for a happy(ish) compromise, because there are issues of personal freedom involved as well as health. Nobody likes being badgered, but I don't think it's entirely fair to take the attitude of demanding either-or of the people who may object to public smoking just because you're sick of hearing about it.
We got in total indoor smoking bans last November and its been great. there are a lot more non-smokers than smokers, so now more people are going to pubs and clubs because the minority of smokers aren't going to make the majority stink, cough, or have your eyes close on a red streaming wave of eyeball irritation. the only places to that have suffered are those with pokies because now the gambling addicts who all appear to be smokers have to leave the machine to have a ciggie outside... This awful event means that the flow of gambling is broken and the gambling addict maybe less likely to blow their entire pay, mortgage or first born on a silly pokie. To give you some idea of how big a problem this is, one state of Australia NSW, has 20% of the world's pokies. Considering the size of our population thats just nuts.
I’ll be honest, we’ve had the smoking ban in this country for around three years now and as a pariah – uh, I mean, as a smoker, I think it’s great. Aside from them demolishing our smoking shed in work because it didn’t comply with regulations – now instead of being warm and dry, we get cold and wet standing in a glorified bus “shelter”. Going out is so much better. Your clothes only stink the next day if someone spills drink on you, your eyes don’t burn any more and you get to meet so many interesting strangers that you would never have met or talked to before. The only problem is if there is a group of smokers with one non smoker. Or, you are the only smoker with a group of non smokers. Someone is going to feel left out or awkward in a situation like that. The only downside is when the pubs / clubs / shopping centres / hotels don’t have a proper place to dispose of butts. I don’t like just throwing them on the ground, but plenty people do and it makes doorways an eyesore. There is nothing worse than a pile of cigarette butts lying on the ground outside a door.
Prohibition is never a good idea, but i'd like to see an ideal world where people are smart enough not to smoke. Problem is, while I understand that hash brownies can be rather tasty (never actually tried one, myself), I remember reading about a bar in New York that started serving drinks with a bit of nicotine extract in them in response to the smoking ban when they implemented it... no one complimented the taste.
Well, here in Sweden the smoking ban (in bars, pubs, resturants) has been in effect for about two years. No one was really surprised when the bar/pub/resturant owners didn't lose any money/customers. There had been some grumbling before the ban but it works okay now and personel working as waiters or waitresses don't have to risk their health any longer. Neiter does any of those non-smokers who really can't stand the smoke. Like me. Also, smoking is more dangerous to those around you than yourself. You've got a filter between the smoke and your lungs, we don't. And think of this; had tobacco/smoking been invented today it wouldn't be 'okay', health services and doctors and what-nots would stop it because of its dangers to humans. But it wasn't and is now 'socially acceptible... though a bit strange' to be smoking. That is why we cannot ban smoking or alcohol completly. And total bans have never worked. You just have to go back a little bit in history to see that.
When I went to Scotland a couple of years ago, I met several people because I moved from the regular car my friends and I were sitting in and moved to the smoking car for a while.* The two other guys I was with only met two or three people during the trip while I had some really good conversations with seven or eight. There again I really enjoy talking to people and they aren't quite as outgoing as I am. *In case you're wondering, yes we were on a train. I wasn't just jumping from one vehicle to the next until landing in one with a smoker while traveling down the motorway.
I knew what you meant, but in the UK we call train cars coaches or carriages. Funnily enough though, I was only asking Marcia and her sister a month ago what they call train carriages in America.
Personally I do like the smoking ban, and it has been good for me, I go out to sing and smoke does bad things to me. I haven't noticed any fewer people out and about and most smokers I know are okay with going outside and some are even taking this as an opportunity to quit. I call that a win-win situation. Though I do admit the reason I made the phone call to my state representaive in support of the smoking ban was to get back at my ex husband.
Well, thing is it works. The hospital admissions in Italy were lessened. BBC NEWS | Health | Smoking ban 'reduces heart risk'
