So let's talk about smoking...

[Gaderael]

I smoke. I'll get that out of the way. I don't smoke in my home. I step outside for a puff. As for the bar scene, or any privately owned establishment, I agree that they should be able to allow smoking, if they want to.

Now, I live in Canada, and you're not allowed to do that, and the establishment will receive big fines for allowing it. There's no way that this law is going to repealed any time soon, so I live with it, and it doesn't bother me all that much.

But, the problem I have with it is that you are not even allowed to smoke on the attached deck, or a roof deck, or anything that is open air attached to the bar. That is really dumb. You can stand by the fence outside the deck, even if the fence is only up to your waist, and smoke away, but not on the other side. Plus, technically, you're not allowed to smoke ten feet from a public entrance, which the police do not even bother to enforce, because it would be a colossal waste of time.

 

[Malkavian]

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.

See, this I diagree with. What you are saying is, that if the usual clientelle of the local bar consists fo 20 smokers, and one non-smoker enters, it is the RIGHT of the non-smoker that everyone should stop smoking in there. Even if the owner himself is smoking. I agree that noone should be forced to inhale smoke from someelses cigarette, especially since the dangers of passive smoking are far greater, but I rarely think that's the case.

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?

What really makes me angry at times are when non-smokers complain about passive smoking, and how it's dangerous, if they themselves would willingly place themselves in smokes way, as it is, if that meant they could go to the right bar or disco. If you prioritize going to a popular place over your own health, then in my oppinion, you have lost the right to use you health as an argument. Now, I don't think you should all be banned from having a social life, because you're non-smokers. And you do have an argument that it's really shitty to be a non-smoker, yet still be polluted by our smoke. But you can't willingly go to a smokefilled disco one day, and then claim that being smokefree is very important to you the next. I will gladly smoke outside, if I had the impression that you really meant it, but that kind of hypocrisy I won't bow to.
EDIT: And I'll just clarify, that the latter, ahrsher part of my post isn't directed at you, razer17, but more towards the attitudes I meat in general, even from some of my closest friends.

 

[CrysisMcGee]

Smoking is cool. According to the 1950's. As for the Law, I can see both sides. But I feel that a privately owned establishment is free to have smoking if they choose to.

 

[Aerodyamic]

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

The funny thing is that here in Alberta, immediately after smoking was banned indoors, all the non smokers started crying about the smokers being clustered around door ways, and leaving their spent butts on the sidewalks.

If we're saving money on health-care (which is already a DIFFERENT and very serious issue in Alberta) by lowering the strain caused by second hand smoke, why can't we spend a few of those saved dollars on a wind-shelter and some big concrete ashtrays for us poor schmucks that have to freeze in -30c to smoke? For now, we'll also ignore the fact that the Alberta government gets a major chunk of sin tax from each $10 pack of smokes sold, and isn't using that tax money for smoking-cessation programs, extra health-care for smokers, or anything but lining the government pockets.

Oh, and the city I live in has mandated that no smoking may occur within 5metres/~16' from any public door (including emergency exits), and you'll be fined $500 if you do so. We're ignoring the fact that in Old Strathcona (the hip arts/college district) you literally cannot go more than 5' without passing a public doorway. The only place you could ACTUALLY smoke along the main strip in Old Strathcona where you're not within 15' of a doorway is in the middle of the street. Dropping your spent butt on the ground is also a bylaw offense with a $250 fine, which is more than double the standard fine for littering.

So, yes, the government can (and sometimes SHOULD) say something when an individuals' bad habits have a negative impact on other people, but they need to be a little more realistic. And less greedy. On the plus side, I smoke less when I go out on Saturdays with my girlfriend, even though we consistently go to the same nightclub.

As to the argument about not arguing about your health if you're in a bar or nightclub, I completely agree. I have seen people ***** about how unhealthy it is to be in a smoky nightclub, then promptly drive away in a state that I certainly assumed was alcohol-impaired.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Smoking is banned from almost every public establishment, but the anti-smokers still complain. Smokers are being treated like Hitler, but anti-smokers still complain. Images of ciggerets have been removed from almost all media, but anti-smokers still complain. Are these people ever going to be happy in their miserable little lives.

OT: If you own a private bar or disco, you're allowed to decide wether your customers can smoke or not. And anybody who works there should respect the owners rules.

PS. If second hand smoke is as deadly as everyone claims, shouldn't the human race be extinct by now, after breathing it in for thousands of years.

 

[Wintermoot]

they already have the law in Holland but allot of small restaurants break that law or the go out of business and second-hand smoking is,nt that bad

 

[KeyMaster45]

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?

What really makes me angry at times are when non-smokers complain about passive smoking, and how it's dangerous, if they themselves would willingly place themselves in smokes way, as it is, if that meant they could go to the right bar or disco. If you prioritize going to a popular place over your own health, then in my oppinion, you have lost the right to use you health as an argument. Now, I don't think you should all be banned from having a social life, because you're non-smokers. And you do have an argument that it's really shitty to be a non-smoker, yet still be polluted by our smoke. But you can't willingly go to a smokefilled disco one day, and then claim that being smokefree is very important to you the next. I will gladly smoke outside, if I had the impression that you really meant it, but that kind of hypocrisy I won't bow to.
EDIT: And I'll just clarify, that the latter, ahrsher part of my post isn't directed at you, razer17, but more towards the attitudes I meat in general, even from some of my closest friends.

To start you're very passionate about your opinion this and I'm glad to see you're being a reasonable, rational person in your rebuttals; something that's a breath of fresh air(if you would excuse the un-intended pun) these days when people seem to be filled with nothing but zealous ignorance.

Secondly, I thought disco was dead? They still have discos in Denmark?

More on topic and in response to the above quote. Its a very valid point that it is rather hypocritical to go to a bar or club and then whine about it being filled with smoke; it is after all a bar/club where such a thing is part of the general territory. As for public places such as restaurants and the like; I have to whole heartedly agree with the outright ban of smoking in them. Being that I already suffer from chronic airborne allergies smokers do nothing to help my situation, and when I go out to eat at a restaurant with my girlfriend I very much enjoy making it through dinner without having to constantly blow my nose.

Outside of bars, pubs, and clubs you've got a much larger general population gathered in places like restaurants that means you've got people ranging from very young to very old. Even with smoking sections the smoke does drift all over the restaurant and make it unpleasant for anyone who doesn't smoke. I'm a reasonable person, since I know that bars and clubs are populated by lots of people who smoke I just don't go to them, just like I don't go them because I don't drink and find it rather pointless to go to a bar and not drink.

I don't like smoking, I think its a disgusting habit and do my best not to hang around people that do. Sorry if that seems harsh but that's just how off-putting it is to me. Do I think you should be forced to stop, of course not if you want to smoke then smoke its your choice. Do I think I should be forced to put up with it in a restaurant, no, as a matter of courtesy to those of us who don't smoke please take it outside.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Smoking is banned in public places in Canada.

There's one thing I hate when I casually smoke: People in the second category. Those "You're smoking! You SHOULD STOP NOW. In fact, I will keep harassing you until you throw your cigar away!".

Unless it's a pretty girl or someone who's allergic, I try to smoke in their faces and say "why should I obey you?". I have the right to smoke in some places. I want to smoke. Therefore, why not take a puff? (Yeah, I'm that douche). However, these pesky troublesome health nuts goes to public places too.

If i'm trying to get my diner and grab a smoke, I don't want to be troubled while I'm talking/eating/reading the journal/etc by the usual health speech. Therefore, It's basicly not worth it to bring something to smoke at a public place.

 

[Jerich0]

to put it bluntly, the law isn't to protect you. your government doesn't want to hinder you from damaging yourself by smoking, they want to prevent harmful effects on others it's a question of freedom of choice: you choose to smoke, so be it, no one's gonna stop you. but if others don't want to smoke, and you smoke around them, guess what?

so yes, the government is justified in banning smoking in public areas. not because they don't want to deny you the right to smoke, but because they want to allow others the freedom not to.

 

[bluepilot]

They made a smoking ban in pubs across England and now pub buisiness is suffering.

I think that there should be establishments for smokers and establishments for non-smokers.

The whole idea of a pub is that you can escape for a while and enjoy a quiet drink and cigarette. Pub culture has be overtaken by younger liberals who want to impose their `liberal` veiws on anyone. i.e. we should be tolarent but only on matters that are PC.

Why should the government have any say in our livestyles?

 

[GonzoGamer]

I live in NYC and Mike Bloomberg already jacking up prices to double with taxes and banning it completely in all establishments (except for those whose income is completely dependent on tobacco: Tobacconists and Hookah Bars) now wants to make it illegal to smoke in parks and beaches.

Now even non smokers are starting to think he's going a little too far.

 

[Schmidtzkrieg]

If we're saving money on health-care (which is already a DIFFERENT and very serious issue in Alberta) by lowering the strain caused by second hand smoke, why can't we spend a few of those saved dollars on a wind-shelter and some big concrete ashtrays for us poor schmucks that have to freeze in -30c to smoke? For now, we'll also ignore the fact that the Alberta government gets a major chunk of sin tax from each $10 pack of smokes sold, and isn't using that tax money for smoking-cessation programs, extra health-care for smokers, or anything but lining the government pockets.

So, yes, the government can (and sometimes SHOULD) say something when an individuals' bad habits have a negative impact on other people, but they need to be a little more realistic. And less greedy. On the plus side, I smoke less when I go out on Saturdays with my girlfriend, even though we consistently go to the same nightclub.

I Agree with you completely, in Ontario the Gov't forced all bars, coffee shops Etc. to construct "smoking rooms" enclosed and with seperate ventilation systems, then less than two years later they decided those were no longer legal and banned smoking inside altogether. I know businesses that spent over $100,000 only to have to tear apart the rooms the Gov't told them to build a year earlier. When the Gov't gets involved they're not out for the good of the people, they're out to line their own pockets.

And BTW I'm usually standing outside freezing my ass off with my friend while they're smoking so I agree a shelter or something would be great, but probably not likely

 

[Beastialman]

I don't personally smoke but if somebody wants to smoke around me I'm perfectly fine with it. Heck, if they are smoking cloves I might stick around if I had nothing better to do, those smell nice.


Fun fact: European's smoke more than American's do but American's have a higher cancer rate.

 

[silasbufu]

those rules are not applied to forbid you from smoking because it's harmful to yourself..it's because it can be harmful for the ones around you. If I go to a public place, i shouldn't be forced to inhale smoke..there should be a special room for smokers. and btw i have smoked for many years..i'm not one of those non-smoking fanatics on a quest to save the world..just sayin

 

[Agema]

people should be able to smoke in their own homes and cars and in other smokers homes because it should be their freedom to choose whither to or not, but they shouldn't be aloud to smoke in public places because that infringes on the freedom of non-smokers who don't want to breath in smoke.

Agreed.

I think the point about smoking bans is that it's about protecting the health of non-smokers from passive smoking, not about trying to stop smokers smoking. Although by and large, the average government wouldn't complain about the latter as a possible convenient side-effect: sick and dying people aren't productive workers making the country richer.

 

[LockHeart]

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?

Exactly. We have the same sort of attitude here in Britain and it's disgusting - a pub owner should choose whether they allow smoking in their establishment or not, it is not the government's place to stick their nose in and dictate as to how private property can be used. No one forces non-smokers to inhale the 'awful' fumes (carefully neglecting the fact that you'll inhale a similar amount of toxic chemicals walking down a busy street and that a study published in the British Medical Journal failed to find a significant link between health risks and third hand smoke) and its harming the pub industry to no end. I preferred it filled with cigarette smoke anyway, means I didn't have to smell BO whenever I went for a drink.

What scares me is that this government is now trying to do the same thing with alcohol - they have a policy of 'denormalising' people with habits that they don't like and the bastarding British Medical Association thinks it has the right to dictate how we live our private lives instead of doing what Doctors are paid to do and cure us of illness, for example publishing a document on why alcohol advertising should be banned (along with instating a minimum price on alcohol, tax rises above inflation on alcohol, reduction in licensing hours and the prohibition of any drinks deemed to appeal more to young people than adults) that is filled with lies and misinformation to push their own agenda.

It is not the government's place to dictate what people do or don't do to themselves.

 

[Collymilad08]

people should be able to smoke in their own homes and cars and in other smokers homes because it should be their freedom to choose whither to or not, but they shouldn't be aloud to smoke in public places because that infringes on the freedom of non-smokers who don't want to breath in smoke.

Agreed.

I think the point about smoking bans is that it's about protecting the health of non-smokers from passive smoking, not about trying to stop smokers smoking. Although by and large, the average government wouldn't complain about the latter as a possible convenient side-effect: sick and dying people aren't productive workers making the country richer.

Seriously? Not smoke outside? I mean come on do you really think that the amount of smoke being blown out by people, compared with the amount of air OUTSIDE - really makes a difference? Perhaps they should ban cars as well because I hate to tell you this, but they are damaging your lungs more than smokers when you're outside. I'm a smoker and as far as I'm concerned unless I'm blowing smoke in your face I can smoke outside if I like. I understand about smoking around non-smokers in enclosed spaces and I don't do it. It's also not the governments job to tell people whether they can smoke or not.

 

[El Poncho]

I support the British government with the no smoking in public places, I hate having to smell/breathe in other peoples smoke, sure smoke I don't care about you but I care about me and by you smoking around me I am breathing in that smoke.

 

[Soxafloppin]

That law is the same here in belfast, smokers cost money.

Smokers actually amaze me, i hate breathing in other peoples smoke, so the act of actually putting your mouth around it and sucking it in just seems undo-able to me.