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

Do you support a ban on smoking at public places?

  • I am non-smoker - YES

    Votes: 95 64.6%
  • I am non-smoker - NO

    Votes: 32 21.8%
  • I am smoker - YES

    Votes: 4 2.7%
  • I am smoker - NO

    Votes: 9 6.1%
  • I don't know/don't care

    Votes: 7 4.8%

  • Total voters
    147
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?
I probably mangled my sentence.

In a country where there is universal health care, health problems brought on by alcohol or fatty foods cost the public.
America is not one of those countries.

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.
Excuse me, but :lol: - "lessen the negative health effects of tobacco?" Well, sure, I guess the additives used that only increase the chances of cancer and addictivity could be regulated, but smoking is innately unhealthy regardless. Anyway, my reply wasn't directed to you, and I'm not in the mood to argue with you.
 
Excuse me, but :lol: - "lessen the negative health effects of tobacco?" Well, sure, I guess the additives used that only increase the chances of cancer and addictivity could be regulated, but smoking is innately unhealthy regardless.

It doesn't have to be. If the government would stop wanking while looking at its revenue charts and actually work with big tobacco corporations, maybe, just maybe they'd serve the public good. There's hundreds of things that are unhealthy that the government regulates, but it's unwilling to do the same thing for tobacco because they make such an obscene amount of money off it.

What is so hard for people to understand about this?

Your government doesn't care if you die from cancer.

They care about the pornographic amount of money that they make off tobacco taxation.

They would love to have every one of us to smoke so that they'd make even more.
 
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?

Its more than not liking to smell smoke, as you know. I understand what you're saying about heart disease, etc... you could also say the same for alcohol. To me the difference is that smoking is an immediate issue of comfort, cleanliness, and health, whereas the issue of regulating public diet to mitigate govt. health costs is a completely different type and level of policy discussion.

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).

You make 2 good points.

1. I agree that many (most?) smokers don't like it. My point was that I do know a few smokers who said this has helped them smoke less. They are also glad because they often feel bad for relatives/friends who they may be harming w/ 2ndhandsmoke (2HS). Also, even they appreciate not stinking like they normally do.

2. Agreed about Indian casinos and I can see how not taking that into account somehow is probably a bad idea. Not sure how they handled that here in CA. Wouldn't surprise me if some of the casino's themselves are non-smoking or have non-smoking areas. But, I've never heard or seen anyone in CA make that argument against the smoking ban(s). But don't get me started on Indian casinos. I'd nuke the whole lot of them.

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.

Well, all regulations "tread" on rights. You could say the same about building codes, liquor license laws, etc.... The bottom line, is this is in the public interest. Living in a state that has a lot of these type of bans/rules, its awesome and anytime I leave the state, I totally notice the difference. If only most of the rest of you just realized how much your states stink, you'd embrace these as well.
 
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.

But I don´t force booze down the throat on everyboddy who happens to be pressent when I take a sip myself.
 
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.
No offense intended, but is there a consensus that poor people are more likely to be obese?

Regardless, banning something because it increases health costs is quite different than banning something because it effects the health of someone who does not do the habit. Tobacco does obviously increase health costs as well - but while that may be an additional argument for banning it, it's a rather weak one by itself.

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.
Of course they didn't do it to make their fries taste better. They taste worse. :p Anyway, there's another reason: Unlike other fats, trans-fats are neither required, nor beneficial, to health. In this case it's a matter of increasing the general health of the society as opposed to a discouraging a habit. Banning trans-fats is ultimately quite different from banning fatty foots.

As for the lawsuits, well, my opinion on them depends on the intent of the lawsuit. Saying that "McDonalds deliberately hid the facts on tobacco" is quite different from "McDonalds made me fat", which the former is more akin to the lawsits toward tobacco companies, which was both true and justified, while thge latter is ridiculous and is the one that you usually see when it comes to the McD. lawsuits.
 
Well, all regulations "tread" on rights. You could say the same about building codes, liquor license laws, etc.... The bottom line, is this is in the public interest. Living in a state that has a lot of these type of bans/rules, its awesome and anytime I leave the state, I totally notice the difference. If only most of the rest of you just realized how much your states stink, you'd embrace these as well.

If my state stinks so much, why do so many M*******s insist on coming up here? :p

Edit: The first part of the word is "Mass" if that helps it make sense to anyone...
 
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.

Your comparison falls flat because committing violence or harming other people with an accident is against the law - whereas this is not in th case of smoking.
Harming actually means having a negative impact on someone´s health and not on someone´s wallet and insurance companies charge higher premiums for risk persons.

My suggestion: Smoke outside or in closed and ventilated rooms where only smokers are exposed to the harmful effects and no bystander gets hurt - would it be that difficult to accept or implement?
 
My suggestion: Smoke outside or in closed and ventilated rooms where only smokers are exposed to the harmful effects and no bystander gets hurt - would it be that difficult to accept or implement?
Segregated smoking sections are infamous for being poorly enforced.
 
Eh, Fort Wayne just passed such an anti-smoking law, due to take effect in June. I could really go either way on this one; my sentiments are more along the lines of banning small children from restaurants/cafes, etc.
 
If I walk into a bar that allows smoking, then I'm implicitly consenting to being around second hand smoke. If I don't want to be around it, I don't walk into the bar. Simple.

I find smoking obnoxious, I disagree with bans on smoking in privately owned businesses.

I agree with Sanabas 100%.

By the very act of entering the establishment, you implicitly accept whatever rules that establishment upholds.
If you don't like the rules, or the establishent, then you are free to leave.

And since there is such a large group that insists on non-smoking, surely a pub that is strictly dedicated to non-smoking will be doing better business than all those dirty, smoky pubs?
 
No offense intended, but is there a consensus that poor people are more likely to be obese?

Its a statistical fact. In that there is a definite correlation. However, correlation =/= cause. So, its not being poor per se, but something in common to being poor and being obese.
 
Eh, Fort Wayne just passed such an anti-smoking law, due to take effect in June. I could really go either way on this one; my sentiments are more along the lines of banning small children from restaurants/cafes, etc.

A law that would allow the mouthgagging of screaming infants would be enough, IMHO.
 
To that, I ask why so few non-smokers are taking matters into their own hands, and setting up their own pubs?

Shirley you can't be serious. Non-smokers can not simply go and open a new business every time they want a smoke-free one. This is a waste, and much less efficient economically than a law-enacted ban.
 
By the very act of entering the establishment, you implicitly accept whatever rules that establishment upholds.
If you don't like the rules, or the establishent, then you are free to leave.

unless you work there. and don't say get another job, they're hard enough to find in some places.
 
Shirley you can't be serious. Non-smokers can not simply go and open a new business every time they want a smoke-free one. This is a waste, and much less efficient economically than a law-enacted ban.

But if this thread is any indication, the sheer volume of people who would rather frequent a smoke-free bar than its smoky counterpart would cause it to be the most successful pub in the viscinity, and banks should be queueing up to loan and invest in such a lucrative business.

cthom said:
unless you work there. and don't say get another job, they're hard enough to find in some places.
The harsh truth of laissez-faire capitalism (which I'm against, BTW), is that you accept the terms of your employment/social contract, whether implicit or explicit.
 
unless you work there. and don't say get another job, they're hard enough to find in some places.

I will say it. If you, as a non-smoker, dont want to work in a smoking environment....then dont. Its your choice and no one is forcing you to work there.

I just noticed that I agree on this matter with both Sanabas and Noncon.....that got to be another sign that armageddon is near.
 
But if this thread is any indication, the sheer volume of people who would rather frequent a smoke-free bar than its smoky counterpart would cause it to be the most successful pub in the viscinity, and banks should be queueing up to loan and invest in such a lucrative business.


The harsh truth of laissez-faire capitalism (which I'm against, BTW), is that you accept the terms of your employment/social contract, whether implicit or explicit.

Okay. Let's take another approach. Suppose there are no regulations about smoking. You decide to open a smoke-free pub. Someone comes in and smoke. What can you legally do?
 
Top Bottom