Smoking

i'm a smoker and i support a smoking ban.

we don't have one in denmark yet, but some resturants and a few clubs do have a smoking ban.

i personally hate smoke when i'm eating and i have NO problem whatsoever of waiting until i leave or smoking outside when i'm in a resturant, and i wouldn't dream of smoking if i think it will annoy non-smokers


on the club note however, i can't really drink without smoking and a lot of people feel like me.
an example of this is a club that has a "smokers lounge" attached to the club, half of the guests will be there, and ruin the club experience for the non-smokers, wich has resultet in a lowering og the visitorts and a loss in revenue for the club

 

Yes. It's ridiculous to alllow an activity that we now know to be extremely harmful to go on unchecked, simply because it's been legal for a long time and it's highly profitable for some people. Those are not acceptable reasons to tolerate all the related ills.

To throw a wrench into the works, I'll add this: Tobacco and marijuana should be regulated to the same extent, whatever that may be.

 

Yes they should. Despite causing harm to themselves, they also affect others through passive smoking which is unfortuantely unavoidable for both smokers and non-smokers. -_- I think in Adelaide (can't remember where exactly) they have areas which are now totally smoke-free zones.

 

Prohibit? Hell no! It may not be the wisest choice to pollute the air you breathe, but if people want to smoke it's their decision. The government shouldn't ban everything that is bad for you; people know it's bad and the government should not protect people against themselves against their own will.

However, don't bother me with it. I don't care what people do in their own homes, but smoking in public places should be regulated. I don't want my dinner at a restaurant ruined by a smoker sitting at the next table. Restaurants (and other indoor places) should either make separated smoking zones or if they can't accommodate that, disallow smoking at all (possibly with the exception of pubs).

 

Due to the dangers of smoking, I believe the government has the right and responsibility to ban smoking in public places (bars, restaurants, malls, etc.) as it creates a danger to non-smokers.

However, the government has no right to ban smoking in private establishments. If people want to smoke in their own cars or homes that is their responsibility.

The question I have never been able to answer is "Is smoking around your children a form of child abuse?" If I follow the logic of my first paragraph it is and the children should be taken away by social services. If I follow the logic of my second paragraph it isn't. This has troubled me for a long time.

 

I agree with you even though I enjoy a smoke now and then if I go to a restaurant I don't want smoking there. However following the logic that if something is bad we should ban it, then we should begin to ban cars, industries that produce a lot of C02, Food that has high quantity of fat, sweetened drinks, hell even coffee can have negatives effect on the drinkers. I'd say C02 emission is a greater threat than smoking yet governments doesn't much. The problem is that every western nation has something we call ''freedom''. Banning something from the public that has been long legal could be considered an infraction of freedom.

 

That's an interesting point there. However, I think that the freedom of non-smokers to NOT have to breathe in smoke trumps the freedom of smokers who want to smoke.

I currently smoke, and I'm desparately trying to quit before my wife gives birth to our son. At this point, I've successfully reduced the amount of cigarettes I smoke, but I haven't stopped completely. I've stopped smoking in the car. I never smoked in the house, but I have greatly reduced the number of times I go outside to smoke in the evening. My downfall is work. I have periods of very busy activity interrupted by periods of slow activity, and it's easy enough to go outside and grab a cigarette then.

However, on the topic of banning cigarettes, I think the government has the right to ban cigarettes in any public area. I live in Maryland, and the legislature recently passed a law that when it goes into effect this fall will prohibit smoking in all indoor public places. So you can have a cigarette when you walk down the street, but not when you go inside a restaurant or shop.

The law has been met by stiff opposition from owners of bars, pubs, and clubs, saying it will hurt business. I don't quite understand why they say this - unless they think people will start to join private clubs and go there to smoke, but private clubs also charge fees for memberships that most people would prefer not to pay.

Having said all that I do not think the government should be able to ban smoking on your own property. I may even go so far as to say that they could even ban smoking while you are in a car - if cell phones are a distraction while driving, wouldn't smoking a cigarette also be?

 

Don't get me wrong my province passed a similar law and I'm not against it, in fact I support it. However my thought is that on private proprety government shouldn't ban it. All I said that it could be considered an infraction of freedom to prohibit a legal activites completely especially on private proprety. In restaurant, bars and other public place I can understand, but anywhere else it's a no-no.

 

How many people have seen Demolition Man?

Cigarettes now banned in public places. How long before alcohol is also? Fatty food? Contact sports? All dangerous. We know they're dangerous but we choose to do it. It's the individuals choice at the end of the day.

 

Ban? No; "when cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have cigarettes." And take America's alcohol Prohibition; that worked GREAT, didn't it?

Any parents reading this should think about how their kids sometimes seem compelled to defy them, even when they are otherwise sensible and understanding of rules and restrictions. Ban smoking, and you provoke that 'contrariness' in a larger field as well as add the caché of being taboo.

As well, people tend to resist sudden change, even if the change is sensible and in everyone's best interests. 'Bloodymindedness' has a place in the human psyche, like it or not. Heck, look at some of the posts of contrary opinion already - even I'm against outright prohibition, and I'd LOVE for smoking to die deader than disco.

But regulate (with some actual GUTS, no less)?

YES.

The trick would be to *wean* society off of smoking as even a remotely fashionable activity slowly. Encouraging - without alienating or being militantly strident - people to stop smoking would be key; if we get rid of the buyers of a undesired product, people will (perhaps grudgingly) give up making the product.

One thing to do would be to get even more strict on Big Tobacco's marketing - if you want to eventually get rid of smoking, you're going to have to ABOLISH any paid endorsement of cigarettes/cigars/snuff/pipe/chaw.

Essentially, my opinion on a 'grand strategy' for ridding the world of cigs would be:

1)End ALL tobacco marketing/advertising
2)Fund rehabilitation of addicts (I've heard it said that tobacco is harder to kick than heroin) and encourage in a positive way this rehabilitation
3) Redirect the tobacco industry's production into other markets and products (IIRC, Phillip Morris is already looking into this - dangle some gov't $$$ and everyone'd jump at even doing research)
4) THEN regulate out of existence the manufacture of tobacco products, which - by this point - almost no one would care about anymore.

But, this would take TIME - gradual efforts are accepted more easily than sudden - and time is the one resource most elected governments only have in a limited amount.

So, basically, this is yet ANOTHER problem with society and civilization that we have the (long-term) solution to, but will likely never implement because humankind as an 'hive' entity itself is just too short-sighted.


EDIT: I've thought about it, and I've also thought of why bar/pub-owners resist indoor smoking bans; tradition.

People tend to EXPECT a watering hole to be a place where you can't see the ceiling! It's something ingrained into our minds as surely as we expect an apple to be red (waitaminute, what about Golden Delicious? )

Often people smoke in bars because of HABIT - it's something they do...because it's something they do in bars. It doesn't make sense, but a LOT of things in human behavior aren't very sensible or logical.

*shrug*

Any behaviorist will tell you that long-term training is the answer to eliminating a bad habit; again, society is fixated on solving the problem NOW; the quick fix. That works about as well as a crash diet - you do get a short-term response somewhat to your liking, but beware the rebound!

So bans and laws aren't really going to help with a behavioral issue; government can't suddenly accomplish what it often takes parents an entire childhood (or longer, or never) to do - break someone else of a bad habit.

[ May 22, 2007, 16:16: Message edited by: jaded empath ]

 

I find it all to be preposterous.

Our very environment is saturated with toxins of our making, electrosmog and whatnot - but smoking has to go.

Come again?

 

Don't worry Barmy; the American government is alive and well, protecting all those "protected" industries, and anyone else who pays the price of admission. Our government wouldn't let all those CEOs down: Judges have been rolling back huge settlements against big tobacco; numerous laws have been passed to protect industry against the wraith of consumers, (which explains a lot of that pollution everyone is ranting about on these threads) disallowing them their day in Court. So not to worry, Barmy, big business is safe and sound - even if consumers aren't.

But banning smoking? Hell, I think Mary J. should be legal, (even though I don't use it myself), so I don't think it should be banned entirely, but no one listens to me. In Texas I'm better known as a liberal, hedonistic pagan -- I still don't know how they found me out.

 

Oops


In all seriousness the fear of bar/restaurant owners is all a load of crap. Here in MA we have banned smoking in bars/restaurants for years. The overall effect was an increase in meals tax which would seem to imply that now the non-smokers are actually willing to go out and enjoy a meal/drink without having to kill themselves. If anything the bars and restaurants now cater to the entire population whereas before they were neglecting the non-smokers (of which there are a lot of us).

 

I'm the daughter and granddaughter of tobacco farmers and went to graduate school at a tobacco manufacturing endowed school (Duke). And I say: ban tobacco. Period.

Can that be done? I doubt it. Too many wealthy contributors to political campaigns in the U.S. make their fortunes by tobacco.

So, next best: ban use of tobacco in public places. That includes smokeless tobacco. If you think sitting next to a smoker is bad, try eating dinner while in your line of sight is someone holding a paper cup and periodically spitting vile liquids into it.

And, yes, smoking around children, IMHO, is child abuse. I was abused in this fashion as a child and I have health consequences probably related to that.

You're a smoker? Fine, go kill yourself at home. Away from your kids, mind you.

Am I in a surly mood as I write this? Yes. I'm driving an elderly lady to Knoxville tomorrow to visit her companion, the last person alive who really loves and supports her, who is in the hospital dying of lung cancer. It's hard to be cool about it when such devastating human consequences are staring you in the face.

 

I see I'm going to be forced to be a little more serious this morning. The problem is that in some places (like here) the City of Houston passed a no smoking ban in restaurants, while Spring did not. A major road, which is also a huge hub for shopping and eating had one side - the Houston side with the ban, while the other side did not (promoting higher revenue for those from smokers). From the standpoint of the owners of those establishments on the Houston side that's a real problem. I can see why such bans can be unfair to some.

 

the complete ban in denmark would only affect pubs etc under 44square-meters, wheres the bigger bars could make smoking zones, the smaller would have to ban in completely. the main arguments was that rooms under 44square-meters contained to much smoke for the fulltime workers to endure. While the main argument against it was it would drive the costumers from the small pubs to the big.
Since it wasn't a complete ban, i thyink thier fear is justified.
imho i rather see a complete ban, then this.

that said, i dont think it should be illegal to smoke, just banned in public places, where it annoys non-smokers and might increase the healthrisk for the people working there.

 

Hear-hear; I've been putting up with the same annoying whining from bar owners here in Newfoundland (even though I'm kinda leaning in their direction, they still alienate me with their arguments), and I'll remember to point out this possibility to gov't/media when the issue comes up again - pass the ban and you will have new patrons that like being able to have a few drinks without needing a shower & to wash their clothes after coming home!

But again, my overall stance is unchanged - you're not going to win by telling or forbidding people not to smoke; you can do so by persuading and encouraging them not to, though...

 

I've found that only a small percentage of smokers are willing to be persuaded. Even if asked politely, most smokers will respond with something like 'I'll hurry and finish this.' Woa, talk about dense. Threats and laws are the only things that work with addicts who do not wish to change.

 

Agreed with both of these. I don't have a problem with people killing themselves in private, but I object to anyone else being affected by their addiction. Yes, this means that I don't believe children should be brought up with heavy smokers.

Fatty food and contact sports are fair enough- the only people affected by them are the people partaking. A sport like boxing isn't going to do any harm to me so long as I choose not to practice it. Similarly, I don't have a problem with someone eating a cake next to me. On the other hand, I object to having to sit next to someone lighting up a cigarette.

The key element to me is choice. In my opinion, people should be free to do activities that harm themselves, but only so long as they do not harm me or any others in the process.

Just because doing something won't totally eliminate the problem, we should do nothing? I apologise if I have misinterpreted, but that's how I read your post.