Do you support a ban on smoking in bars/restaurants/cafés etc.?

[GinandTonic]

Its a lot more mixed up over here. People live in the centre of town, and there is almost always a pub within 300-400 yards except in the most anemic of suburbs.

Does anyone have any light to shed on this?

 

[cthom]

the ban in Scotland is coming up for it's first anniversary. effect on bars where i live seems to be nil. however, effect on where i work (Bingo hall) is 20-30% loss of revenue. i'm a non-smoker (so are most of my colleagues) so the ban is a double edged sword: good for health, bad for business. our company has closed 2 halls, and other companies have dropped their loss-makers. when the ban hits England (in June?) watch the fireworks. if it's anything like the poll tax (Scotland first, England year later) the ban will be repealed overnight.

 

[GinandTonic]

the ban in Scotland is coming up for it's first anniversary. effect on bars where i live seems to be nil. however, effect on where i work (Bingo hall) is 20-30% loss of revenue. i'm a non-smoker (so are most of my colleagues) so the ban is a double edged sword: good for health, bad for business. our company has closed 2 halls, and other companies have dropped their loss-makers. when the ban hits England (in June?) watch the fireworks. if it's anything like the poll tax (Scotland first, England year later) the ban will be repealed overnight.

Scotland has pubs in residential areas, and are not known to be quiet drunks - what has been the deal with outside spaces and noise?

 

[cthom]

@ ginandtonic. afaik no 'nuisance' issue has arisen. most nip out for a smoke for 2 or 3 minutes then back in for their drinks. like i said, there doesn't seem to have been much impact on bars/clubs in my area. the winter was supposed to have really proved the bans downfall, but Scotland hasn't had a bad winter in years.

 

[pboily]

Cheeky. You are not speeding in your car. Your speed inside your car is about 0 mph

Everything is relative, my dear Ziggy, everything is relative.

I prefer to think of it as the highway speeding underneath my wheels.

 

[bhsup]

Dang it, I hate it when the question in the thread title is totally different than the actual poll question. "Public places" could be a boat on the middle of a big lake while fishing or it could be a sports arena owned by the city, or it could be a sidewalk, or a park. That's totally different than asking if we should ban them in bars and restaurants. So which question should I answer, the "public places" or the threat title?

 

[REDY]

It is a statistical fact that tens of thousands of people die as a result of passive smoking.

Usually those who work with smokers or often stay in places that are affected by smokers.

People should finally realize, that you don't have any right to screw other man's health.

I dont dispute that it shouldnt make damage, I am not againist ban in bars (but not for), I reacted because I had heard anti-smokers hysteria in thread. Sorry if I insulted especcialy you. The smoking is something like decide drive car when you should go by tram/bus/train.

For Czech friends:
Bez kundy a tabáku není radost v baráku! (Bohumil Hrabal)

 

[Swedishguy]

Semi-hand smoking isn't hazardous. No ban needed.

 

[classical_hero]

As an Asthmatic, I am glad that here we do have a ban, unfortunately the ban was not in place when I watch Australia vs Brasil ine WC and as a result I was sick as a result of all the smoking.

 

[ummmm........]

I agree completely that the government shouldn't interfere with a business owner's decision as to whether to allow smoking.

That said, I fully support smoking bans because I'm a selfish bastard.

 

[De Lorimier]

I agree completely that the government shouldn't interfere with a business owner's decision as to whether to allow smoking.

That said, I fully support smoking bans because I'm a selfish bastard.

You're not the only one saying that and it makes not godamn sense. The governemnt interfers all the time in private business. If there's a selfish bastard in this story, it's the cancer-stick-smoking people forcing everyone around them to get intoxicated for no good reason at all. Not the one going, "excuse me, could you go kill yourself seomwhere else".

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I hate smoking. Ban all smoking.

 

[REDY]

You're not the only one saying that and it makes not godamn sense. The governemnt interfers all the time in private business. If there's a selfish bastard in this story, it's the cancer-stick-smoking people forcing everyone around them to get intoxicated for no good reason at all. Not the one going, "excuse me, could you go kill yourself seomwhere else".

Its like deciding about to enforce firmas to use only products regardful of nature.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Lots of binairy opinions. It seems it's either 0 or 1. I thought we'd be more creative than this.

 

[MobBoss]

As a non-smoker, I advocate property owners doing what they want and letting the consumer decide if they want to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment.

 

[De Lorimier]

Its like deciding about to enforce firmas to use only products regardful of nature.

Actually no, it's not. It's like telling people who want to get their nicotine fix to do it to themselves alone, not everyone around. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is simple stuff people. If you can't show good sense and common courtesy, and it hasn't been the case with most smokers, then something has to be done. Go outside.

 

[MobBoss]

Bottom line, people have the right to smoke if they so wish. It is a legal substance. People either choose to be around it or not. If you do not wish to be around smokers, you do no have to be. Period.

If tobacco is so bad for you, then why not just outlaw the substance alltogehter? Problem solved.

Dont get me wrong....as a non-smoker, I benefit from such laws.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Ha! Smokers are much more courteous than non-smokers. The real jerks are self-righteous anti-smokers who make a point to cough loudly and tell a smoker how disgusting they are when they pass one on the street or in a bar.

 

[Masquerouge]

Bottom line, people have the right to smoke if they so wish. It is a legal substance. People either choose to be around it or not. If you do not wish to be around smokers, you do no have to be. Period.

If tobacco is so bad for you, then why not just outlaw the substance alltogehter? Problem solved.

Dont get me wrong....as a non-smoker, I benefit from such laws.

I have to agree with your statement that if government really thought tobacco was bad, they should outlaw the substance.

However I see the ban as some sort of compromise. It's not outlawed so that tobacco companies (and nations) can still earn money, but it's banned from public places so people don't have to put up with it.

 

[ummmm........]

The governemnt interfers all the time in private business.

Yes. But they shouldn't.