So let's talk about smoking...

[Malkavian]

inb4: "Use the searchbutton!" I did, and the last two subjects wasn't really on the angle I'm going for.

So let's talk about smoking. I smoke. It's a recent habit of mine, but I love it. Friends of mine are either on the "cool, we can smoke together", "Damnit, it is my personal quest to make you stop" or "Don't care".

My government is with the second category of people.

Quite some time ago, a law was passed here in Denmark that made it illegal for people to smoke in establishments(we're talking pubs, discos, restaurents) that are larger than 40 square meters. Quite interesting, it was the liberal party here in Denmark, that spearheaded the law.
Right now, there are talks of expanding on the law, making it illegal to smoke in any public setting.
The reasoning is of course the smoking is bad for you. Noone can deny that. The long term medical dangers are there.
And the law has many supporters. The interesting thing is that being for or against the law, is not really a question of what kind of person you are political, whether you vote liberal or socialist, it's rather a question of smokers and non-smokers.

But I wonder...

Is it really right for a government to decide whether we smoke or not? I opposed this law when it was first proposed, and that was at a time when I wasn't smoking myself.
I believe that, if a man has opened his own establishment, it's for him to decide whether people smoke or not. Why should it be a government issue?

The frigthening thing here, in my oppinion, is the support non-smokers give it. Non-smokers have an option of going or not going to any establishment, and if they care enough about people smoking there, then they could go somewhere else. In fact, if it was so important to non-smokers to be in a smoke-free environment, I imagine the problem would have solved itself - there would have been plenty of smoke-free bars and pubs. But there wasn't. To me, it seems more like a matter of convenience, where people are like "Oh, well, it's nicer that poeple don't smoke, so yeah, of course I'm for a law, and oh, something about it being dangerous and stuff, passive smoking, blah blah."
In my oppinion, if you didn't care enough for it before, that it meant more to you being in "the right disco" than having a smoke-free night out, then you shouldn't start wabing your arms about and complain about the dangers of passive smoking.
When people start supporting governmental control out of convenience, something's wrong.

tl;dr: Should governments decide whether we smoke in private establishments? Should it be anyone's business except for yourself, whether you are destroying your body?

 

[Kiefer13]

As far as I'm concerned, people should be allowed to do whatever they like to themselves (yes, this includes hard drug use, if the individual is so inclined) without it being against the law.

However, I do agree with the smoking ban in establishments and the like, because while smokers should have the right to fill their lungs with all the rubbish you get in cigarettes if they so wish, non-smokers should also have the right NOT to have to put up with second hand smoke in such establishments. Now, if said establishmests have a seperate smoking section where smokers can go so that they are not bothering the non-smokers with their habit, then that is fair enough.

 

[Dys]

It's all a part of discouraging people from smoking, as there are more non-smokers than smokers and the cost of smokers on society is huge (all the time and money used in hospitals). Your government it simply trying to cut long term health costs, in time they will probably target drinkers similarly (although it's more difficult since a far greater portion of society drink).

*edit* I didn't actually give my opinion on whether I'm for or against it. I'm generally for it because it pains me how much of our (as in societies) money is wasted on irrelivent crap, and while I do love my drinking (and occasional smoke) I accept that it isn't necissarily fair on anyone else to suffer because of my lifestyle choices (as will ultimately happen when I buy my bed in a hospital, possibly taking the place of a poorer, sicker patient ). Just because I understand the consequences doesn't mean it's my right to choose, we don't allow suicide and I suppose smoking (and drinking, since I don't pretend it's any better for you) are just slower methods of it.

 

[Aerodyamic]

The law throughout most of Alberta (Canada) states that an individual cannot smoking in ANY public building, period. So yes, the government can steps in (rightly or wrongly) in any case where an individual may make a decision that has the potential to harm others. That said, I inhale tar fumes from roofing asphalt daily, so I'm unlikely to develop smokers cough before it MUCH TOO LATE to notice.

 

[Malkavian]

However, I do agree with the smoking ban in establishments and the like, because while smokers should have the right to fill their lungs with all the rubbish you get in cigarettes if they so wish, non-smokers should also have the right NOT to have to put up with second hand smoke in such establishments. Now, if said establishmests have a seperate smoking section where smokers can go so that they are not bothering the non-smokers with their habit, then that is fair enough.

But establishments are privately run, so why is it not up to the owner fo the establishment? See, I see no problem with Sam making Sam's Bar smoke-free, but even the pubs which, culturally, are almost meant to be smokefilled, have a ban against them, and that is regardless of what owner and clientelle may want.

It's all a part of discouraging people from smoking, as there are more non-smokers than smokers and the cost of smokers on society is huge (all the time and money used in hospitals). Your government it simply trying to cut long term health costs, in time they will probably target drinkers similarly (although it's more difficult since a far greater portion of society drink).

Oh, I understand why it's done, and I have no problem with the government discouraging people from smoking. But there are several other issues that can be adressed if what we wish to fight is selfinflicted disseases costing the population as a whole.
Yes, drinking could be next, and though I usually disapprove of slippery slope arguments, that really worries me.

 

[Schmidtzkrieg]

In Canada we have the smoking ban in any public setting, in Ontario at least. you can't even smoke in a vehicle in it is owned by a business. The governments position was not so much the customers complaining, but the employees who work in a smoke filled enviroment 10 hrs a day and are dying from lung cancer having never smoked a day in your life. The angle they used was that killing yourself is fine, but causing damage to others isn't. Also in Canada we have federal health care, so if you are killing yourself it costs the country, and the taxpayer money. So if Denmark has federal health care (I have no idea if it does) technically they have a right to tell you to stop

There was a lot of crying and moaning about it when it was first proposed about three or four years ago, but now everyones gotten used to it and no-one complains.

For the record I'm a non-smoker, but many of my freinds smoke and I'm in the "I don't care" category, and was personally against the ban

 

[Subzerowings]

I think the governement's just using the fact that smoking is mostly frowned upon by non-smokers to raise taxes on smoking. My father smokes and he'll probably die before my mother. But if he's happy, I don't see a problem for him. Though I'd like for him to live longer, I respect his decission.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Personally, I feel that a non-smoker's right to not have their lungs filled with crap seriously outweighs a smokers right to fill their own lungs with crap. People can do what they wish with their own bodies, but nothing gives them the right to inflict it on others. If a place is open to the public, then the risk of non-smokers entering is enough to justify banning smoking in said area.
As you can probably guess, I'm a non-smoker. I've been very anti-smoking since I noticed the wierd psycological affects the smell of it has on me. I don't the difference between smoking next to someone and punching them.

 

[Abedeus]

Smoking sucks and is bad for your health and has no good sides. Stress relief? I can play on my DS for that, and I don't spend $3-5 for a pack of smokes AND get a throat/lung cancer + yellow teeth + awful breath.

Oh, and your face and hair will thank you when you quit smoking.

 

[Faps]

I enjoy being able to go to a bar or club and not having to wash all my clothes twice because they stink of smoke. Smoking is a personal choice so you can bugger off outside if you need to feed your addiction.

 

[Jedoro]

I don't smoke, but I have friends who do. I don't mind the smell, and I'm healthy enough to not worry about it. I frankly support the bill, law, whatever, because as mentioned above, someone shouldn't be forced to breathe it. One of my friends breathes it in my face (she's cute and she apologizes when she realizes she is, so it's all good) and I don't mind. Others might, so they shouldn't be forced to breathe it.

 

[Gileseypops]

well i am entirely against smoking. not only does it kill people but unlike alcohol and arguably drugs, it can contribute to the death of everybody around them if they're exposed to second-hand smoke regularly. This has probably all been said before, but my reply is specifically to the idea of specific smoking and non-smoking bars. this wouldn;t work for several reasons. For one, i'm sure all of us have at least one friends who smokes, so on a night out, we'd be left with either deciding whether to go to a smoking pub for the smokers, or a non-smoking pub for the non-smokers. this will divide parties and generally make nights out crap if half the group are going in seperate directions depending on their habit.

But one thing that stands out about this is not the people who go to the smoking clubs/pubs/whatevers, but the people who work there. Now we are all aware that with the recession, fewer and fewer jobs are becoming available, and i don't like the idea of a non-smoker having to put up with working in a place where everybody smokes just to keep ahead in the world. you could say i suppose that smoking employees will only go to work in smoking clubs, but i don't like the idea that people should have to make that choice/ everybody should be able to work in a healthy environment and i remember in the old days, where smoking in establishments was ok, having to leave some clubs because i physically couldn't breathe.

oh, and lets not forget the asthmatics! xx

 

[Idlemessiah]

I started smoking when i went to italy this summer (?3 for 40g of golden virginia for pete's sake how could i not) and iv continued now im back at uni.

I feel better for it. Less healthy sure but it gives you something to do while you're walking and it gets rid of silent moments in conversations because you have an excuse to stop talking so you can take a drag.

I dont expect i'll keep it up. I see it as just a phase, and i relish the challenge of quitting later down the line to see just how hard its meant to be.

Theres my 2 cents.

 

[GDW]

Wow, really? We already have retarded multiple posts abot how bad smoking is when that's not the subject for conversation anyway?
Damn, there are some stupid people o n this board.

Anyway, I don't smoke (tobacco) but I agree that any government telling a privately run establishment that they have to bar something that is, in all fairness, a personal choice and not technicaly a crime, is completely fucking assinine.
Privately owned establishments being told they can't allow smokingin them any more is amoral, and I think the rights of personal freedoms and ownership laws greatly outweigh the non-smokers health concerns.

You don't like the smoke, stay out of the bars, asshole.

 

[razer17]

Non-smokers dont have an option to not go to certain places. Essentially if we want somewhere smoke free we have to stay at home, and that's hardly fair, is it? Passive smoking isn't good for you, theres a reason I don't smoke.

And pubs,clubs etc. wont ban smoking because they would lose a lot of customers, so they either ban smoking from all clubs, or none. I'm with that "ban them all" crowd, due to the aforementioned second hand smoking.Plus smoking stinks.

 

[Abedeus]

Yeah, and alcohol fucks your liver, but tons of people drink too.
It's a choice - perhaps a stupid one, but a choice nevertheless.

Yeah, but at least most of the time, they screw themselves over. They don't force others to drink or inhale fumes.

Sure, there are accidents with idiots being drunk, but even if they survive (drunks usually don't fasten seatbelts or even have the reflex to slow down in time to reduce damage) an accident, they are permanently labeled as outcasts.

 

[mysticite]

It should be the choice of the bar or the club- in restaurants they used to have smoking and non-smoking areas which suited everyone fine, now the law has just made the smokers unhappy and the non-smokers...no different, really. Smoking in pubs, bars and clubs should all be down to the owners- the customer is not always right.

I'm a smoker, so maybe I'm a little biased, but in restaurants I don't like to smell cigarette smoke the whole time so for a little while I thought the government were on to something, banning it everywhere public is just a little stupid. It drives drunk people on to the street to smoke and people out of clubs and bars alone.

You don't like the smoke, stay out of the bars, asshole.

 

[Eisenfaust]

yeah, i think it's really up to the owners of the PRIVATE establishment... and outlawing it seems a little stupid (in public settings i mean)... sure, if it was just a habit that people LIKED doing but bugged everyone else, i can kinda see it, but not with the whole addiction thing thrown into the mix...

 

[GDW]

Non-smokers dont have an option to not go to certain places. Essentially if we want somewhere smoke free we have to stay at home, and that's hardly fair, is it? Passive smoking isn't good for you, theres a reason I don't smoke.

And pubs,clubs etc. wont ban smoking because they would lose a lot of customers, so they either ban smoking from all clubs, or none. I'm with that "ban them all" crowd, due to the aforementioned second hand smoking.Plus smoking stinks.

I can't think of a PRIVATELY OWNED establishment that you couldn't avoid. If that's the case then maybe your daily routine is a bit different than most peoples, as I don't go to bars, pubs and clubs, daily.

For all you know, lots of pubs and clubs would ban it (I've seen several that have), either way, the choice is still on you as to whether or not you attend the clubs that don't, your choice to NOT fill your lungs with tar shouldn't affect others choice to do it in an enclosed enviorment if they so wish.