Do you agree with public smoking bans?

Forums: Health
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Following on from the upcoming ban in Scotland (A2K topic by Walter), the British government has announced similar anti-smoking measures in England. Link to BBC story.

I gather that we (Britain) are lagging behind many other developed countries in this respect, where bans on smoking in public places have been in place for a while. Link to another BBC article about smoking bans worldwide. But I wondered what the members of A2K think about the idea of smokers' rights vs. non-smokers' rights.

Do you agree, as a smoker or a non-smoker, that bans on smoking in public places are a good idea, and that they will eventually reduce the level of smoking-related diseases, or is 'the Nanny State' going too far?

I've split the poll into options for smokers (S) and non-smokers (NS) to hopefully highlight any differences in opinion between the two groups.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 8,293 • Replies: 71

No top replies

GD mate, we better give up - else life will be very difficult for us !!

0 Replies

NS, here. I prefer the use of zones for smokers. I don't have a problem with smokers but I can agree that it's nice to eat a dinner without it tasting like a cigarette. I don't see the merit in banning smoking at bars since cigarettes and booze are joined at the hip.

0 Replies

being an ex-smoker, I have to say no smoking in buildings...all buildings. now I remember what it is like to be a non-smoker in a room with a smoker. Yuck.

0 Replies

Nonsmoker here,too.
I would say,but not necessary, hence with cigarettes. Why need it? Just for money (government) and it destroy the health also of passive smokers.

0 Replies

I have mixed feelings on this one. I'm not a smoker, and I dislike smoke, and have greatly appreciated not having smoke in restaurants anymore for example. (Smoking ban hasn't reached all quarters of Columbus -- I think some, I'm not clear on that -- and was extremely unpleasant to have dinner with smoke wafting my way.)

But there are a lot of things I don't like that I wouldn't want outlawed. (If so, about 1/3 of the population would probably be on house arrest... heh...)

I tend to agree with FreeDuck about drawing the line between restaurants and bars. Restaurants, no, bars, yes. There were a whole bunch of very affecting advertisements in CA when I lived there by waitresses/ bartenders who worked in bars, but I still think that there is a certain amount of choice in that profession -- if you go into that line of work, it's with the knowledge that there will be a lot of smoke.

Hmm, dunno.

0 Replies

My city is going totally non-smoking as of June 2005. No smoking in bars, restaurants and all workplace envirnments. You cannot smoke in any outdoor arenas and people are pushing to make parks the same.
It will be a devestating blow to charities, as most tend to make their money off gambling - casinos and bingos - which must also follow the ban.

I'm of two minds on this subject. I believe any business should be able to choose their cliental is and meet their demands. So many bars are dreading the ban. I think we will see many establishments go under, all for the sake of people wishes who don't frequent them in the first place.

0 Replies

I don't smoke, but I didn't vote because I missed the option: "Depends on who does the banning". I'm fine when the government bans smokers from its own offices, airports, and other closed rooms it owns itself. I'm fine when restaurant owners imposes a smoking ban in their own establishment, seperates the smokers from the non-smokers, or comes up with some other arrangement they expect to be workable.

But when the government bans smoking from privately owned places, it interferes with a decision that isn't its business, and which it is incompetent to make. I oppose this kind of intervention.

0 Replies

Ceili wrote:

You cannot smoke in any outdoor arenas and people are pushing to make parks the same.

[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3758707.stm]BBC Article[/URL] wrote:

Smokers are now no longer be able to light up on Manly, one of Australia's most famous and picturesque stretches of surfing beach.

Other Sydney areas - including the world-famous Bondi Beach - are reported to be considering following the Manly ban, which came into effect in May.

[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3758707.stm#usa]BBC Article[/URL] wrote:

A ban on smoking inside or within one and a half metres of any public building [in California] came into force in 1993 - recently extended to six metres.

Now, this I find ridiculous. How can they justify banning smoking OUTDOORS? Can anyone explain this to me?

I agree that unless a restaurant can provide a seperate ventillated dining-room, then smoking should be prohibited. I'm a smoker, and I don't like breathing smoke while I eat. I smoke after a meal, with the coffee. With bars, it's less clear-cut, but as many pubs here serve food, similar restrictions should apply. In this age of open-plan buildings, then it will only be establishments in old traditional buildings (like many British pubs) that might have a number of rooms, one of which could be kept for smokers.

But outdoors? How about forcing car drivers to switch off their engines when they sit at lights, to cut down on the carbon monoxide and other nasty stuff churned out by the ton every day in every city?

0 Replies

Thomas - I guess that pub & restaurant owners have had centuries to ban smoking in their premises, and very few (in Britain at least) have done so. Why? Because none of them had the commercial b@lls to try it, being too scared of losing (smoking) customers to other bars, without wondering whether they would pick up (non-smoking) customers in return. Maybe it needs the weight of government behind it to make it happen.

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

Thomas - I guess that pub & restaurant owners have had centuries to ban smoking in their premises, and very few (in Britain at least) have done so. Why? Because none of them had the commercial b@lls to try it, being too scared of losing (smoking) customers to other bars, without wondering whether they would pick up (non-smoking) customers in return. Maybe it needs the weight of government behind it to make it happen.

Maybe.

But consider your own observation of the preferences revealed by the behavior of the patrons: they show that smoking bans would harm smokers more than they would benefit non-smokers. If it weren't so, pub owners could increase their profits by declaring their pubs smoke free, thereby gaining more business from attracting non-smokers than they would lose from frustrated smokers leaving. When you tell me this doesn't happen, you are reporting experimental evidence that the average smoker values the freedom to puff much more than the average non-smokers values the freedom from being puffed at.

So even if mandatory smoking bans need the weight of government to happen, why ought they happen?

0 Replies

Good points, Thomas.

Perhaps we can explain it like this: Roughly a third of the population smoke, and therefore oppose a ban in most forms. Roughly a third of the population are anti-smoking non-smokers, and are vocal about banning smoking completely in public places. The remaing third are therefore non-smokers who don't really care about a ban. This last portion are the ones who have been preventing owner-enforced bans from taking effect by their lack of support for proposed bans in the past.

As to whether smoking bans ought to happen, I don't think they do. But as a smoker, I am fairly biased!

0 Replies

I have mixed feelings on this too.

I buy some of Thomas' argument about private business, but not fully, in that the public goes into these businesses and is exposed, sometimes, to air greatly permeated with smoke. Even a smoker in a bar is getting a cloud of more than his or her own smoke byproducts.
Thus all these people will possibly/probably have future health problems that at the least increase either our insurance rates because of all the med services needed, or our government helped health services.

On the other hand, as a non-rabid but long time ex-smoker, I remember liking smoking in bars as the natural order of things, so a part of me says, ok, that's an exception.

I'm not in favor of banning smoking outdoors. Though even there, I can see the point - I had a long time friend who had a lot of health problems be quickly overcome by the presence of smoke; his health was fragile and the smoke was a real threat to his ability to keep breathing at all.
So maybe in outdoor patios, for example, I could understand some kind of zoning.

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

As to whether smoking bans ought to happen, I don't think they do. But as a smoker, I am fairly biased!

Sure. But you needn't worry about your bias. This is one of those applications where (economically literate) liberals and (economically literate) libertarians agree that the market actually does yield the optimal outcome. It is the illiterate do-gooder wannabe tyrants of all parties, left and right, who refuse to listen to reason in this matter.

0 Replies

Quote:

Now, this I find ridiculous. How can they justify banning smoking OUTDOORS?

I recently (pre-election) watched a fim by a German correspondant in NY state.
In the big beergarden, he was sitting in, smoking was prohibited ... and this was observed by a deputy.

A couple of cars was waiting on the street, drivers obviously inside the restaurant for buying food, with motors running for minutes and minutes and minutes (people were eating in the beergarden just inches away).

I don't mind, if smoking is banned on/in public places.

However, everyone getting an alcoholic drink should hand over to landlord or ..(?) his driving license as well.

0 Replies

NS, no mixed feelings at all.

non-smokers have the right not to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke.

i hope someday cigarettes go the way of other illegal substances.

i'm proud of the folks on A2k who've kicked the habit...

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I buy some of Thomas' argument about private business, but not fully, in that the public goes into these businesses and is exposed, sometimes, to air greatly permeated with smoke.

I would have said that the public doesn't go into bars, people do. All those people knew they would get smoke blown into their faces if they entered, so those who did enter have, by doing so, volunteered to be blown smoke at. If they had gotten more displeasure from the smoke than by not being in the bar, they would have stayed outside.

ossobuco wrote:

Even a smoker in a bar is getting a cloud of more than his or her own smoke byproducts. Thus all these people will possibly/probably have future health problems that at the least increase either our insurance rates because of all the med services needed, or our government helped health services.

On the other hand, smokers die earlier, which saves the government a lot of pension money -- which, by your logic, would be just as convincing an argument against smoking bans, and even for mandatory smoking. (Kicky might remember this argument from an earlier discussion about obesity. Smile

)

ossobuco wrote:

I'm not in favor of banning smoking outdoors.

Totally agree.

0 Replies

My husband used to be a restaurant manager so I can view this from the employee side of things. If it was just a matter of the patrons being able choose non-smoking vs. smoking and there was adequate difference between the two areas (think you are in non-smoking when the table next to you is in the smoking area), I could understand not banning smoking in these facilities. The difference here is that as a restaurant manager you do not have the option of not working in the non-smoking area. This is a health issue that can effect more people than those just participating in the activity. We all understand the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke, but if you do not have the option and are forced to work in a unhealthy environment then it should be banned.

We now have smoking bans in Boston and in many towns and cities in the area and there has been no drop in people going to bars and restaurants. They simply step outside when they want a cigarette - similar to any other business environment. No thing they do have in Boston is cigar bars - those are not part of the ban as the business is basically smoking. The difference between that and any other bar is that the business of other bars is liquor.

As sozobe says there is a certain amount of choice, however, if your profession is a manager of restaurant - there usually is a bar associated with it and they do not have a choice of not entering the bar. When I entered the workforce it was widely understood that smoking was allowed where ever in the office, but after finishing college, I had the option of either working with smoke or not working at all - that really was not much of a choice.

As long as the ban on smoking does not take a right away; it does not prevent some one from smoking, just where they smoke and that location is not unreasonable - say just outside a restaurant or bar, I have no issue. As far as any outdoor facility - there should not be a ban as long as you are capable are getting away from the smoke. For example in an outdoor arena, you are assigned seats so even though it is outdoors, a non-smoker could be sitting next to a chain smoker without the option of moving away.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

1) I would have said that the public doesn't go into bars, people do. All those people knew they would get smoke blown into their faces if they entered, so those who did enter have, by doing so, volunteered to be blown smoke at. If they had gotten more displeasure from the smoke than by not being in the bar, they would have stayed outside.

and

2) On the other hand, smokers die earlier, which saves the government a lot of pension money -- which, by your logic, would be just as convincing an argument against smoking bans, and even for mandatory smoking. (Kicky might remember this argument from an earlier discussion about obesity. )

1) The volunteering part is why I might make an exception for bars, though
I am more for the ban than not. I used to like old fashioned bars, the comfort level of them, and avoided them after I quit smoking, not because I would start smoking again, but because of the smoke. Thus, I typified a part of the public that wants to avoid exposing selves to a toxin. (The fact that outside air has other toxins is a red herring, to me.) But, in California, I can go into one if I want to, sans smoke cloud.

2) smokers may die earlier, but often do it quite expensively, and that affects us all, as previously mentioned.

As a third point, somewhat off subject, I'd like people who now have to go outside their place of employment to smoke to have a comfortable place to go, heated shelter in the winter, benches, etc. in the summer.
Which brings up, why not a bar? Heh.

0 Replies

Smoking should be allowed everywhere. Period. These overzealous non-smokers are just whiney little crybabies who are finally happy because they get to piss all over the people who are actually out there enjoying their lives.

0 Replies

Do you agree with public smoking bans?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know