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

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

Well, that's just the non-smoker you remember because he/she was being obnoxious. Just like some non-smokers will tell you smokers will have no regard for non-smoking areas because they once saw one smoker smoke there.

Bottomline, there's jerks everywhere.

 

[MobBoss]

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.

The compromise should be peoples choice to go to either smoking or non-smoking establishments.

Anyway, there are a virtual host of other things that are bad for us that we indulge in as well. Should we 'compromise' on those also? Perhaps we should do away with alcohol, and fatty foods since they are bad for you as well?

Bottom line, unless you want to ban a product entirely, the government should stay out of peoples lives. If Pub Owner Joe wants his place to be smoking and cater to the smokers who also want a good beer, then whats the harm in that? And if Pub owner Al wants to cater to a more refined crew and have a non-smoking pub, then more power to em.

Bottom line, its all just tyranny of the majority. And since most people dont smoke, then its viewed as being ok to tell people what to do with their own property, since it doesnt affect us in the least.

 

[Masquerouge]

The compromise should be peoples choice to go to either smoking or non-smoking establishments.

Anyway, there are a virtual host of other things that are bad for us that we indulge in as well. Should we 'compromise' on those also? Perhaps we should do away with alcohol, and fatty foods since they are bad for you as well?

I do not directly hurt other people when I drink alcohol or eat fatty food. I do hurt other people when I smoke.

Bottom line, unless you want to ban a product entirely, the government should stay out of peoples lives. If Pub Owner Joe wants his place to be smoking and cater to the smokers who also want a good beer, then whats the harm in that? And if Pub owner Al wants to cater to a more refined crew and have a non-smoking pub, then more power to em.

Bottom line, its all just tyranny of the majority. And since most people dont smoke, then its viewed as being ok to tell people what to do with their own property, since it doesnt affect us in the least.

Mmmh smoking does affect non-smokers.

 

[GenMarshall]

Bottom line, its all just tyranny of the majority. And since most people dont smoke, then its viewed as being ok to tell people what to do with their own property, since it doesnt affect us in the least.

However Second Hand Smoking does affect us non-smokers .

 

[IglooDame]

The compromise should be peoples choice to go to either smoking or non-smoking establishments.

Anyway, there are a virtual host of other things that are bad for us that we indulge in as well. Should we 'compromise' on those also? Perhaps we should do away with alcohol, and fatty foods since they are bad for you as well?

Given your opposition to legalizing currently-illegal drugs on the basis that "they don't just harm the user", this argument of yours seems specious.

Bottom line, unless you want to ban a product entirely, the government should stay out of peoples lives. If Pub Owner Joe wants his place to be smoking and cater to the smokers who also want a good beer, then whats the harm in that? And if Pub owner Al wants to cater to a more refined crew and have a non-smoking pub, then more power to em.

Bottom line, its all just tyranny of the majority. And since most people dont smoke, then its viewed as being ok to tell people what to do with their own property, since it doesnt affect us in the least.

Kinda like rules about gay marriage...

 

[thetrooper]

I do not directly hurt other people when I drink alcohol or eat fatty food. I do hurt other people when I smoke.

You* do the day you end up in hospital because of your bad habits. Then people pay to keep you there for neglecting your health.

* generic 'you', not directed at Masquerouge.

 

[Masquerouge]

You* do the day you end up in hospital because of your bad habits. Then people pay to keep you there for neglecting your health.

* generic 'you', not directed at Masquerouge.

Hey that's why I specified "directly" Because we can also talk about drunk drivers...

 

[Mr. Blonde]

You* do the day you end up in hospital because of your bad habits. Then people pay to keep you there for neglecting your health.

* generic 'you', not directed at Masquerouge.

How can anyone compare paying taxes with getting asthma or lung cancer? How is your health affected when you pay taxes?
I saw my father´s cousin fighting and dying of lung cancer and there is a substantial difference to getting mildly upset from a look at the paycheck numbers before and after taxes.

 

[ummmm........]

But you do not directly hurt other people when you smoke either. You only hurt the ones who choose to be around you.

 

[REDY]

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.

So will be state rules about morality? Wow. Just wow.

 

[De Lorimier]

So will be state rules about morality? Wow. Just wow.

It's about healthcare wow boy. You're free to chain-smoke in an asbestos-filled building if you want. Here, our government decided, with the will of most people, that we need to make some changes.

 

[REDY]

It's about healthcare wow boy. You're free to chain-smoke in an asbestos-filled building if you want. Here, our government decided, with the will of most people, that we need to make some changes.

Yes majority often opress minority. Its interesting how many people supporting ban on smoking using 3 cars even the bus station is near.

 

[.Shane.]

Anyway, there are a virtual host of other things that are bad for us that we indulge in as well. Should we 'compromise' on those also? Perhaps we should do away with alcohol, and fatty foods since they are bad for you as well?

I disagree.

If you smoke you are affecting the health of people around you simply by smoking. If you want to eat 2 helping of cheesecake, that has no bearing on me, sitting next to you.

---

Are people being obtuse or disingenuous or deceitful when they conveniently ignore the obvious difference between smoking which harms, potentially, anyone in the area, vs. things that harm only the user?

Just curious because there seems to be a lot of them in this thread.

---

What those of you who are knocking this are completely missing or not realizing is that in those places that have this, the public OVERWHELMING LOVES IT. Even smoker friends of mine like it.

 

[MobBoss]

I do not directly hurt other people when I drink alcohol or eat fatty food. I do hurt other people when I smoke.

Sure you do. Alcohol is directly attributed to increased violence, accidents, death, various diseases - all of which affect other people to some degree. Fatty foods create tons of health problems, and often that health care cost is reflected back upon the public - which means it affects you as well.

 

[MobBoss]

Given your opposition to legalizing currently-illegal drugs on the basis that "they don't just harm the user", this argument of yours seems specious.

Not in the least...thats why I said they should make tobacco illegal if they are going to go to such extent.

Kinda like rules about gay marriage...

Actually, you are entirely correct. I never said it wasnt the majoritys right to make such a law - they most assuredly do. And as a non-smoker, I would rather see them totally make tobacco illegal than implement such half-measures that infringe upon the property rights of an individual.

 

[Masquerouge]

nevermind.

 

[Bill3000]

Sure you do. Alcohol is directly attributed to increased violence, accidents, death, various diseases - all of which affect other people to some degree. Fatty foods create tons of health problems, and often that health care cost is reflected back upon the public - which means it affects you as well.

I can understand Alcohol, but saying that fatty foods offer a problem is really pushing it. There's a huge difference between something which gives a negative health effect to other people (second-hand smoke) versus a health effect to the self. Besides, the health care cost not only applies to smoking as well, but doesn't make as much sense for a relavent analogical argument for fatty foods unless there is a public health system.

And in the end, while alcohol does offer increased violence, diseases, and accidents - accidents can be prevented through education, violence can be curtailed through law enforcement, and the diseases only affects the alchol user. The negative health effects that second-hand smoke has, such as cancer and the like, cannot be so easily checked.

 

[MobBoss]

If you smoke you are affecting the health of people around you simply by smoking. If you want to eat 2 helping of cheesecake, that has no bearing on me, sitting next to you.

What of the responsiblity of the people who dont like smoke? If they dont like it should they not avoid establishments that allow smoking? Sure.

And if that two helping of cheesecakes leads to heart disease and medical care you cant afford...who foots the bill?

What those of you who are knocking this are completely missing or not realizing is that in those places that have this, the public OVERWHELMING LOVES IT. Even smoker friends of mine like it.

Well, a measure like this was passed in Washington last year. I have yet to find a smoker friend who actually liked it. And yes, a lot of small individual owned establishments (mom and pop pubs) went out of business because their regulars just started going to the Indian casinos which were not affected by the law (you can still smoke in those places on reservation land).

As I have mentioned, it is well within the rights of the vast majority to implement such a law. But I think it directly treads upon the property/business owners toes in doing so.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I can understand Alcohol, but saying that fatty foods offer a problem is really pushing it. There's a huge difference between something which gives a negative health effect (second-hand smoke) versus a health effect. Besides, the health care cost not only applies to smoking as well, but doesn't make as much sense for a relavent analogical argument for fatty foods unless there is a public health system.

This makes absolutely no sense. In a country where there is universal health care, how do health problems brought on by alcohol or fatty foods not cost the public?

And in the end, while alcohol does offer increased violence, diseases, and accidents - accidents can be prevented through education, violence can be curtailed through law enforcement, and the diseases only effects the alchol user. The negative health effects that second-hand smoke has, such as cancer and the like, cannot be so easily checked.

Sure they could. If governments would work with tobacco corporations, legal entities, to find ways to lessen the negative health effects of tobacco, a legal substance, it would go a long way. But the governments have such a sweet deal going on: they get to demonize tobacco, its users, and its producers while still reaping billions off it, effectively keeping many governments in a surplus. They have no desire to change the status quo, and that is the bottom line.

That anyone actually believes their government wants to reduce smoking is absolutely laughable.

 

[MobBoss]

I can understand Alcohol, but saying that fatty foods offer a problem is really pushing it. There's a huge difference between something which gives a negative health effect to other people (second-hand smoke) versus a health effect to the self. Besides, the health care cost not only applies to smoking as well, but doesn't make as much sense for a relavent analogical argument for fatty foods unless there is a public health system.

Not true Bill. In the USA, where there isnt really a public health system, I do believe that obesity is more a poor persons problem that someone with money, in that the lower your income, the more likely obesity is going to be a problem for your health. Poor people with no health insurance are directly subsidized by the public when they have health issues. The cost is merely passed on to the taxpayer, thus even in non-universal health care countrys like the USA, the general public still absorbs the cost.

Also, there are lawsuits and measures on the books right now to ban so called 'trans-fats' from restaurants all over America. Its the direct reason McDonalds just recently changed their fry recipe. Not to make their fries taste better - but most likely to avoid future lawsuits.