Discussions
Should smoking be banned in restaurants?
Posted by kakashi • 4/06/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: smoking
I always hate people smoking. I think smoking should be banned in restaurants since it is very harmful to the community.
I would love to know what is smokers' opinion
and non-smokers' opinion.
fly2.ws/hatesmoking
User Comments
-
I can't stand to have the tv playing while I'm eating in a restaurant, but I'd never ask for them to be banned.
I do think the businesses will suffer if smoking is banned.-
NYC has banned smoking in restarants/bars and businesses did not suffer. It's much more pleasant going out and not coming home smelling like a wet ashtray. -
I can see restaurants not suffering, but places like bars and pool halls will take a hit I'm sure.
-
I'm pretty sure the television doesn't create emissions that give restaurant patrons lung cancer either. -
I have lived in several communities where smoking had been banned and restaurants actually received more business. It turns out that many non-smokers were avoiding the establishments, so when the ban went into place they gained new customers.
Also, many restaurants in one of the communities setup outside dining (smoking was allowed 15 feet from the doors) which attracted smokers and non-smokers.
-
-
In Illinois, smoking in banned in all public places including plazas, train platforms, public buildings, restaurants and bars. The only place you are legally allowed to smoke in inside private residences and in tobacco shops with special permits.
Now, there is legislation up for approval to ban smoking in vehicles and if any children are present (which means that you can be reported to child services if you smoke around your kid).
I think that the no-smoking laws have gone a little to far. I am happy that I can go to a bar and my clothes don't smell like smoke.
I am perturbed that now no smoking laws are reaching into private residences too.-
Having grown up as a second-hand smoker, I understand the concern over exposure to children. It must surely be obvious to the child's health provider that the child is exposed, being that they are sick an unreasonable amount of the time.
Here is WA smoking is illegal in places of business, and within 25ft of entrances. -
The law proposing that it be illegal to smoike in a car in North Dakota when anyone under 16 was present was withdrawn after the senate judicial committee recommended determined that it was unconstitutional. They said that it was a common sense issue and attempting to enforce such a law would be too intrusive. I cheered.
Smoking has been outlawed in restaurants for a few years, here, and I don't believe that business has suffered at all. Indeed, many people are more willing to eat out with their kids when they know that they won't be seated six feet from the smoking section. It's tougher on bars/clubs who were forced to either have people clustered about the main doors smoking or replace an emergency exit and build a "shelter" out the back door where smokers can go but not sneak beer out to underage kids in the parking lot. It's been a difficult balancing act for them and has resulted in some really ugly things getting built at great haste (and questionable safety).
-
-
i think smoking should be banned in restaurants and im a smoker. i dont really like smelling the tobacco while im eating. but they should definitely lift that ban on smoking in bars and outdoor areas. thats just ridiculous. -
I think it should be up to the owners. It's their restaurant, let each owner decide. -
Well, we don't have many pool halls here, but the bars have definitely not suffered. If anything - more people go out. And the smokers just go out on the sidewalk and smoke .
-
In India smoking in public places is against the law and that includes restaurants ... -
It is in ireland.. we were the first country that banned smoking inside public places... yaay -
I do not think that the government should be telling people where they can and cannot smoke, especially in private business. It should be up to the owners if they want smoking in their establishments or not. Public spaces is a little more tricky though, but I do not think that there should be an outright ban on smoking in these places. A designated area would be a more acceptable solution in my opinion.-
It is also to protect the people who work there from second hand smoke.
-
-
In NY it's banned everywhere indoors. Thanks Mr. Bloomberg -
No. I usually order the smoked salmon. Why are you trying to ruin my restaurant experiences?
But seriously, to answer your question: Yes, it should be banned. Along with tipping.-
whats do you mean by tipping? -
Exactly!
-
so you are the kind of cheap customer who want all the best service for free?
-
No, I pay for the meal.
Oh, and if it helps: I WAS KIDDING. Jeez...
-
-
in the uk its banned anywhere that is classed as a workplace, bars, workplaces, restaurants. The best bit is being able to go for a drink and not return stinking of smoke.
Worst bit is that smoke used to cover any body odour!! Smokers in England stand outside, whatever the weather. -
In Quebec, Canada smoke is banned for 3 years now in night club and restaurant and this is one of the best thing that ever happen to the industry.
-
I am a smoker. And I want smoking banned in resteraunts. I don't smoke in my house. why? because it smells disgusting, and my kids don't deserve to to be subjected to my my unhealthy habit.
I would love for it to be banned in all inclosed places. -
It was already banned in the city I went to college in an in my state, in bars, restaurant and private clubs. They've managed.It's a public health menace of course it should be banned.-
Public health problem or not, the government should not be telling owners how to run their businesses. If a restaurant, club, or bar wants to allow smoking then that is their choice.
-
Yes but non-smoking customers should be able to collect $50 from each smoker to cover lung damage. -
I've always heard it sold as occupational safety for employees
-
-
In California, smoking has been banned from restaurants and bars for years but they've still managed to stay in business. Smoking is offensive to non-smokers, so I accept that that we should not do it indoors. -
I am a smoker and yes I think the smoking ban was a good idea. I don't smoke in my house or my vehicle either. I only smoke outside and if I go to somebody's house where they are smoking inside it bothers me. Only time I smoke inside is in the casinos in Atlantic City. When they created that partial ban they did take away a lot of business which really did hurt NJ's economy. However that is the only business I can think of that is now hurting because of the ban. -
The smoking was banned here in all bars and restaurants. It DID hurt our businesses here, as the law was applied unevenly (certain private businesses and clubs were exempt. Plus where I live, you can hop the state line and go to bars that stay open later, and allow smoking, anyway without going out of your way.
Other businesses have extended their outdoor areas to draw the smokers back to prevent a loss of business, and now the non smokers are complaining abut the smoke outdoors, and the noise during the summer.
you can't win fer losin'.
The ban also hurt businesses that were already all non smoking. Coffee shops, bars, and restaurants were split fairly evenly here - with private owners making the decision on their own a bout smoking bans. The non smoking places had a great non smoking clientele, and the smoking businesses got the smokers.
Now the smokers go to the private exempt clubs and businesses to smoke (or stay home more than they normally would), and the rest are left to split the non smoking business between all of the remaining businesses.
More bars and restaurants here have closed since the ban then I care to think about. -
Smoking is banned in restaurants in CA....and I'm really really glad. I have asthma, and before it was banned and I went out to dinner I used to hate inhaling that stuff, which would always make my asthma worse. Plus second hand smoke is worse. -
Didn't any of the restaurants where all this is happening offer a real non smoking section?!
My God, we had restaurants where the smoking sections were in entirely different rooms - and completely separate floors for some of them!
We had restaurants that were entirely non smoking, and some that offered both sections. Some places only allowed smoking on patios, some not even there - some places were completely smoking.
Where is it that everyone is living that no one had any choices? Am I really to believe that every single restaurant subjected every customer to smoke? Every bar, every coffee shop? They made no efforts whatsoever to separate smoking and nonsmoking, or at least put in filtration systems? Every single business? Enough to warrant bans like this?
Seriously?-
Would you ban children from smoking sections?
-
Would I ban children from smoking sections? I don't know what that means, even.
Most of the smoking sections here prior to the ban were either outdoors, or in the bar - where children aren't allowed anyway.
As a parent, I would opt for the smoke free section if I was bringing my child along with me - that's my job as a parent. I don't need the state to dictate that, and, if parent opts not to because they smoke around their kids, then preventing them from smoking in front of their children in a restaurant is a day late and a dollar short.
For the record, I grew up in a house full of chain smokers. Out of 7 kids, I am the only one who smokes, and none of use have any health problems. -
I remember at first there were smoking sections and non smoking sections in restaurants. It was laughable because there was nothing to physically keep the smoke in the smoking section. Sometime it was in invisible line between two consecutive booths. Now restaurants have gone all non-smoking.
I never liked the smell of smoke. To me smoking was equal to too much bad perfume or needing a bath (badly) and quite a negative experience.
My daughter's best friend's parents both smoke. Whenever she comes over she just oozes stink. It's in her hair and clothes all the time. I have to open a window.
I do realize people get used to it but if you're away from it awhile and then exposed to it again it's quite a jolt. That's what happened to me, living in smoke free California, then flying into Newark airport NJ many years ago. The stink hit me in the head like a bowling ball as soon as I stepped off the plane!
The second hand smoke/lung cancer thing is what put this all in action. My grandfather died of lung cancer so I am opinionated on this. People have a right to clean air to breathe - patrons and employees alike.
Once I was in a diner ... There were three adults and a little baby in a carseat in a booth. All three adults were puffing away. Yes, they were in the "smoking section" but the fact that the baby was there just angered me like craxy. Luckily for them, I bit my tongue, or all hell would have broke loose! -
Where is it that *all* of these restaurants had "invisible" sections? I'm serious! Where are they? We had so many restaurants with very clearly separated areas* for so many years (includin gthe 80's) that I find it hard to believe that I have lived in the only cities in the world to have this ingenious sort of invention.
(*separate rooms complete with walls and doors, separate floors, or in large areas like the few places we have now are literally on opposite sides of a mile + long area with a buffer zone). -
Anok - where I grew up, restaurants were one big room. Your restaurants were fortunate in that they had separate rooms.
-
This isn't just where I grew up, though. I've lived in different cities, different states - all them offered you choices. Some places were big rooms, but not *all* restaurants by any stretch of the imagination. Many places in the cities I've lived in had all non smoking places, smoking places, places like you mentioned, and places were the smoking areas were completely separate/outdoors.
-
Actually, Anok, that was the situation in California for a long time.
My late husband and I were former smokers, his mother and brother never smoked. For a special occasion dinner, his mother booked a table for us in a pricey restaurant in one of the upmarket suburbs of San Francisco...this was definitely in the '90s as I married him in '91 and he died in 2000. She specifically booked a table in the non-smoking area (non-smoking sections in restaurants had been mandated by the state by this time) and we were duly seated at a table in this section.
The problem was, there was nothing...absolutely nothing separating the smoking and non-smoking sections and we were actually seated at a table right beside a large round table full of smokers...eight of them. We were in the non-smoking section...they were not.
This was the norm in California restaurants at least until I left the state in 2003. One of the things that amazed me about South Africa is how all restaurants are either smoke-free or there is a separate section, walled off (usually with glass walls) that has a separate ventilation system from the non-smoking section. Children under 18 are not allowed in the smoking section, by law, although a lot of places ignore that part of the law...just like a lot of places "forget" to closed the door between the sections.
The default condition of the planet is non-smoking. We are all born non-smokers and I don't think those of us who adopt the habit have the right to force it upon people who choose to remain (or return to) the default condition. I am all for public spaces being smoke-free. Private areas are a lot more tricky, but I think that providing clean air for your children to breathe is a parental obligation no less important than providing them with unpolluted water to drink. How to implement that, however, without trampling the rights of a smoking parent I have not really thought about, so can't extend suggestions. -
I was in California (San Diego) in the early 2000's - there were plenty of restaurants and places that were completely non smoking, or had separate floors and rooms/outdoor patios for the smoking section.
Plenty of them. I can't remember a single restaurant that didn't have some sort of real separation. The same held true for Florida, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island etc and so forth. All the places that I've lived and/or visit regularly.
Sure, back in the 80's some Friendly's chains had the "invisible" wall - as did some Ihops. But there were still more than a few choices of places to eat that didn't include Ihop or Friendly's that were non smoking, or smoke friendly without being intrusive.
I'm beginning to think that people are imagining this. Honestly.
It would be better to ask businesses to provide an appropriate barrier than to outright ban smoking. It's killed businesses here. -
Anok - regarding the imaginary barriers between the smoking and non-smoking sections...I moved from Ca to Pa in 1989. My references to restaurants is prior to 1989 when this whole thing was in it's infancy. As time went on, the "barrier" become more real.
-
I can't speak for the rest of Californin, but in Santa Clara County where I lived, and neighbouring Santa Cruz county, the "invisible line" was the ONLY game in town until at least 2000. And, as I recall, it applied only to restaurants...bars and clubs were smoking, and if you were a non-smoker you had just two choices: deal with the smoke or stay home. There were NO non-smoking establishments, either food or entertainment.
Trust me, nobody is making this up. I always thought the "smoking or non-smoking" question asked by the hostess to be a really bad joke because if you said "non-smoking," all you got was a table without an ashtray. You still had to deal with the smoke from the smoking section, which could be as close as the next table!
South Africa was a breath of fresh air, literally! Whereas in Calif, the owners of the businesses complained that it would bankrupt them to have to retrofit their establishments with separate ventilation and rooms for smokers, here, if you serve food, you have it or you don't can't open your doors!
I just wish the wait staff and management would do a better job of keeping the door between the sections closed...it's kind pointless to have a non-smoking section if the dividing door is open and the smoke comes in!
But remember, we are all born non-smokers...that is the default condition. To force another person to partake of your particular vice, even passively, is ethically wrong. -
Lizzy - yes, in the early 80's there were a lot less places that offered non smoking. Of course, smoking was extremely common. Our malls and businesses here went non smoking in the mid 80's, and restaurants went into smoking sections/non smoking places in the late 80's early 90's.
SV - the whole notion of bars being the place where the healthy go to play is a ludicrous argument, and I've never bought it. N o on goes to the bar to get a wheat grass shake - you are drinking alcohol - you are risking your liver, your heart, your weight, and your life if you drive after drinking. Drinking is bad for you - and people who are sitting a bar long enough to warrant a bar's profit on you - health is NOT a concern. So you care about your lungs, but not your liver or other body parts?
Lets be serious about it.
Again. I've lived in a lot of places or regularly visit a lot of places that offer real alternatives to the invisible smoking barrier. I don't know where you ate, I don't know if it was just your town, but a small experience in one town does not a consensus make.
We may not be "born smokers" but we are not "born anything' including car drivers (think of the pollution you are forcing others to inhale every time you turn your engine over) born drinkers of alcohol (every time you drink - you are engaging in irresponsible behavior that affects the people around you, particularly if you get behind the wheel of a car). -
Actually, Anok. I was not addressing clubs, I was addressing restaurants. I lived in Silicon Valley for 30 years...I left in late 2003...and believe me, when the non-smoking section was mandated, the only thing that changed was where people sat in the same big open room: all the smokers sat on one side, the non-smokers sat on the other, and ALL breathed the smoke, since there was no barrier to keep it on the other side of the room.
What I am wondering about here is why you are so adamant about forcing others to inhale your smoke. Why is it wrong for me to want to breathe air that does not aggravate my asthma and make my hair and clothing stink? You know, YOU can go to another place...like outside or to your car...to pollute your lungs, then come back and eat, drink, dance, play black jack, whatever is your choice. Why is it not OK for me to be able to eat, drink, dance, play blackjace and NOT pollute my lungs with your smoke?
The casino in my town has a "smoker's casino" where they have the machines and games as the rest of the place. The smokers actually have MORE choice in this place as the non-smokers, because assuming they choose to keep their smokes in their pockets, they can play on both sides of the casino. But if I want to play in the smoker's casino, I'd need to wear a mask and oxygen tank!
The greatest good comes when the most people are accommodated. By creating areas where smokers can light up, everyone is enfranchised, smokers and non-smokers alike. Nothing keeps the smokers from fraterizing with the non-smokers, provided they actually do their smoking in designated areas that keep the smoke from disturbing their non-smoking compatriots.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why you seem so adamant about forcing smoke onto non-smokers in public places, when both can be so easily accommodated. -
If you re-read my replies I am adamant about businesses making their own choices. I also suggested the requirement of real barriers. I have also mentioned more than a few times about places that were either entirely smoke free, or already had real barriers for smoking and non smoking sections without a ban in place.
Non smokers here had many choices and quite a few niche businesses that were entirely smoke free. We had bars, dance clubs, comedy clubs, restaurants, and coffee shops that were 100% smoke free. We also had restaurants that had real non smoking and smoking sections - divided by walls and/or floors. We also had bars that were entirely smoking places.
All restaurants that catered to kids and families went non smoking on their own years ago.
Every city I've been to - non smokers were in no way "subjected to smoke" unless they CHOSE to go to a place that didn't have a real non smoking section. When you have a real choice - you simply cannot complain that you are being "forced" to do anything. If they didn't want to sit in a smokey place, they should choose one of the many businesses that were smoke free.
It's just that simple.
When the smoking ban here went into effect, both the smoking AND non smoking businesses suffered financial losses. Many closed their doors for good. The smokers were angered that their places of enjoyment were no longer enjoyable, and simply stopped going out as often - and the non smokers are now splitting the business that's left.
Everyone lost - and out bar and restaurants here are going under because of it. -
On the other hand, I worked in restaurants in California and in North Dakota and none of them had a smoking section that was physically separated from the non-smoking section. Indeed, in one of them we would change the size of the section depending on how many smokers we had in the house on any given evening. The restaurants at which I've eaten where the smoking section was self-contained have been few and far between, and I've travelled pretty good swathes of the country in my day.
-
So you're saying there were no restaurants that were voluntarily smoke free or separated in any way beyond an invisible line?
I just can't possibly believe that - anytime past the 80's there were no restaurants, bars, or coffee shops, clubs, or anything else that didn't offer customers a real choice.
Have I really lived in such rare areas? Honestly?
-
-
Beginning March 31, 2008, virtually all enclosed public places and workplaces in BC (British Columbia, Canada) became smoke-free. This means that it is against the law to smoke in any indoor public place or worksite, including pubs, bars, restaurants, and shopping centers. In addition, there is a 3 metre non-smoking “buffer zone” around public and work place doorways, opening windows and air intakes. Designated smoking rooms are a thing of the past. And, public transit, transit shelters, taxis and work vehicles are also smoke-free.
-
I say "Good on you BC for that!"
-
-
Let the business owners decide. If there's a place with smoking and you don't like it, there will surely be another establishment that doesn't allow smoking in order to garner your business. Simple. -
no smoking inside public places i believe in but out side and in your own home or car is going way to far. -
BernieSandwich
Would you ban children from smoking sections? -
Should you be allowed to smoke while your children are in the car? Plenty do
-
Should you smoke while your child is in the car? My personal opinion is no, ad I don't.
However many people do, you're absolutely right. They also smoke in their home while their children are living there. They may also leave chemicals and cleaning agents unlocked in lower cabinets where children can reach them, serve their children nothing but junkfood and soda, and not use other safety items such as electrical plug stoppers and gates for stairs and locks for pools.
Do you plan on making all children the custody and responsibility of the state?
-
-
Is it a form of physical abuse and neglect. It is in my opinion.
-
Abuse is a seriously overused term these days, as I am seeing. So far, things categorized as "abuse" have included: Smoking near them, swatting or other forms of physical (but not abusive) punishment, time outs longer than one minute per year of the child, lying, introducing/teaching them about religion, making the child wait to find out their appropriate punishment, teaching comprehensive sex education, giving children medicine, not giving children medicine, homeschooling, not homeschooling, I've even debated with one group about the alleged abuse of telling a child "no", or implementing rules of any sort.
Smoking near a child is not a good thing to do. However, there are far more serious and real forms of abuse that do not need to be marginalized by activities that some people consider to be "wrong".
I've been told that raising my child in a politically active household (being what my political leaning are) homeschooling, and teaching comprehensive religion courses is "abusive". Which is a crock of BS.
So I am very happy to have a very strict, non opinion based definition of child abuse remain the law, because otherwise, we'd all have child services on our doorstep because someone somewhere would force their opinion about child abuse on otherwise good parents.
Like I said, I grew up in a house full of chain smokers. I was NOT abused.
-
-
We make adults responsible for children wearing seat belts in cars so why not make them responsible for ensuring a smoke free environmenmt while they are in the car.
-
Maybe we should have the state sanction what kind of food we feed our child, when their bedtimes should be, what programs we can let them watch and for how long, how we arrange our household cleaning products, disallow households with children from having pools or other dangerous items, what we can say to our child, what we can teach our child etc and so forth.
Sounds like a good old fashioned totalitarian state to me!! -
anok... i must respectfully say that's not the same thing. That is them regulating private behaviors in your home. But in a public place where everyone has freedom to be- you can't just do as you please... especially if those actions are physically harmful to others... secondhand smoke DOES cause lung cancer.
-
Bernie is asking for the regulation of people's behaviors in their private property - cars and homes.
-
I've got to side with Bernie on this one. Children exposed to tabacco smoke are much more likely to be sick A LOT. This should be obvious to the childs healthcare provider, being that they will usually visit more often (and smell like an ashtray).
Exposure to smoke also affects learning ability, in that a couple hours into classes, the brain starts craving nicotine. -
AGit8r - I was rarely sick growing up, same for all 6 of my other siblings - and we did not have nic fits in school. I had a mother, father, grandmother, and aunts living in the house who chained smoked - 4 pack a day smokers each.
In fact I am the only one of 7 children who even took up smoking later on in life.
Can it cause health problems? Yep. Should the government start regulating how otherwise good parents parent? Nope. It's a very slippery slope into the regulation of all of your activities simply because you reproduced.
No to regulation, yes to education. -
perhaps I was just a sickly child with ADD... In any case, I could defend it on Libertarian/Jeffersonian grounds as to how smoking intrudes on the equal liberty of the child in question.
Such interpretation should be based in science however, and it is possible that nicotine effect different children differently. For one it leaves them sickly, the other perfectly healthy. idk
-
-
Indeed... I did not read the entire thread. Please accept brazen apologies.
-
*Smootches* No problem.
-
-
I live in British Columbia where the smoking laws are super strict and I am so grateful for that! With everything we know now about the dangers of second hand and now third hand smoke I think banning it from all public places should be automatic. Starting today we have a law that prohibits people from smoking in their vehicle if they have someone under the age of 16 with them. It's about time!
-
What are you going to do when the government makes something YOU like to do illegal?
I honestly don't understand how people can applaud the regulation of LEGAL behaviors in the privacy of people's homes or cars. Why not just fight to make smoking illegal. And while you're at it, prohibit alcohol consumption, too.
-
-
Smoking is banned in KC restaurants and bars as well... and some businesses reported an uptick in sales.
Casino business is up from it's pre-ban numbers, although that may be due in part to the economy. Yep the recession has improved business at our casinos. -
here in Washington state smoking has been completely banned at restaurants and bars for several years now. some businesses did experience declines at first, but overall they found they did more total business and that even many smokers actually preferred smoke free rooms. -
Anok-I support the regulation of people smoking in their homes if they have minors living there as well! Cigarettes are a known carcinogen and a child does not have the option of moving out of the residence. Do you really believe that it should be legal for innocent children to be subject to lung cancer, asthma, bronchitis etc for something they have not done?
-
Good for you. What other parenting decisions do you think the state should regulate?
Food consumption? We all know what junk food does to a child's health - maybe the state should do a weekly cabinet sweep and BMI check up to make sure the parent is allowing Jr to eat too much candy or chips or hot dogs.
How about movies and video games? We also know what too much TV and video game playing does to kids - let's have the state regulate that too - they can hook up a recording device on your TV, and monitor your habits 24 hours a day.
I also think that the state should require mandatory locking cabinets for all cleaning materials - we know just how dangerous those items are to children. In fact, let's ban the use of certain cleaning agents in homes with minors to prevent them from inhaling the fumes, or being exposed to the chemicals altogether. Parents can use soap and water to clean, by law.
/end sarcasm
I am not looking forward to the day when the state takes over MY responsibilities as a parent. Oh, by the way - I grew up with chain smokers. I have 6 other siblings. NONE of us have anything you're listing even though we were exposed to very large amounts of second hand smoke every single day of our lives.
Generalizations are not facts.
-
-
i don't think it should have been a government-enforced ban. businesses should have had the ultimate say because they know their clientele better than a bunch of stick-up-their-ass policy-making suits. health is a concern, but not everyone's. that's a fact that the government should acknowledge and make peace with.
pretty soon they'll ban drinking at bars and dancing at clubs.
a non-smoker's pro-smoking views.-
I have no problem with people smoking as long as it doesn't affect others health. When someone else drinks it doesn't affect my liver. If someone else smokes in their own home, it doesn't make my lungs black. But when someone smokes in public and in common areas, it does. Health isn't everyones concern? I truly hope that comment doesn't come back to bite you.
-
When someone else drinks it doesn't affect my liver.
it won't affect you until they get behind the wheel of a car.
Then their drinking habit can KILL you dead, in just a matter of minutes.
-
-
No. Your business is a private venture and you can do on it what you like.
I'm not a smoker. If a restaurant doesn't have a non-smoking section, I'll go somewhere else.-
Have you ever come across a restaurant here in SA without a non smoking section? I've been here 5 years and I haven't...and we eat out often.
-
No, not that I can recall. It doesn't really bug me. I don't allow smoking friends to smoke in my place, but when I'm at their place, I don't feel like I have the right to ask them not to smoke. Same goes for restaurants.
-
-
thank goodness its banned in India... i cant stand that smoke! -
Blaming flaming vegetation is a good cover up for the harm that the deregulated chemical, biological, military dictatorship is doing to our population. -
.... not that I think that concentrating addictive chemicals for consumption is a good idea.... but there are far deadlier materials being manufactured and sold as ''food'', and as ''defensive weapons'' that need far more attention than cigarette do.
-
PS: I am not aware of anyone healthier than I am and I live in a forest where I breathe vegetation without a filter.
Note Also, that the people who live the longest on our planet, live in forests where they burn vegetation all day long for warmth and for cooking food. -
Anok. If you re-read my comment about drinking, you'll see I was commenting on liver damage, not drunk driving. Believe me I am aware of how alcohol can kill when someone gets behind the wheel drunk. My Grandfather was killed in an accident due to someone else's drunk driving, so believe me I've seen the devastation.
I think maybe this discussion has gone a little too far. My statement is simply that people shouldn't be subject to the horrible and potentially fatal decisions of others. Everyone is entitled to live a healthy life. By the way, I used to be a smoker, a very heavy smoker in fact and I had the same opinions then.-
My point about the drinking and driving, however is that when you consume alcohol - you are not just affecting yourself. It impairs your ability to function properly, ergo you become a danger to others - just as smoking does. Parents who drink more than one drink are impaired - should drinking in the home be banned for fear of the child's safety?
As I've stated way way up above - many places of business offered a real non smoking section - and many businesses where I live now were already entirely non smoking by choice. They had a great niche for non smokers, and smokers had businesses they could go to as well.
Government regulation and bans of private personal choices is never a good thing. The businesses here already offered customers a variety of options - there was no need to create a ban. If you didn't want to be around smoke - absolutely no one forced you to, and you could still get great meals, enjoy a hot coffee, or go dancing and have a drink in places that were entirely smoke free if that's what you wanted. -
shauna, i care about my health, that's why if i can't find a non-smoking area, then i can go elsewhere (i reckon you're capable of doing the same); the same principle can go for smokers, for those who practice a less than healthier lifestyle. smokers exert as much effort looking for a place to smoke as much as non-smokers look for non-smoking venues; the fact that the government has offset this balance is frustrating and intrusive.
furthermore, that you have a different outlook doesn't make you anymore right than the next person who may or may not smoke, drink, eat carbs, or lead a sedentary lifestyle. the second you start spouting off self-righteous bs for a cause you think is worthier than the other, then you're no better than those you fight against. i'm well aware of the evident contradiction of my statements, but i stand by them insofar as they shed light on the base perfidies of every universalizing trend.
to return to the original point, i don't understand why smoking bans should have to be imposed from above. businesses have every right to cater to whichever crowd they see fit.
-
-
nooooooooooooooooooooo
it shouldnt be banned.. every restourant should have 2 parts ! None Smoking area and smoking free area ! -
I think in most places in Canada, smoking is ban in any public place except the outdoors which they try to control as well. Initially, many thought businesses would suffer due to the change. Places like the bars and casinos did at first. However, it has been a number of years since the ban was put in place and I don't think it has made the impact that was initially thought. People still go out to eat, to the casinos and bars, etc. It has become routine to smoke outside...in the designated area of course. -
My take on this as a non-smoker is I am grateful that I don't have to endure smoke in public or work places as I once did, but I also think we have to be careful about overstepping the bounds of personal freedom. What people do in their vehicles or houses is a much different matter.
I understand the desire to prevent kids from being exposed to second or third-hand smoke but am not sure I am comfortable with telling someone (as per the law in BC) that they can't smoke in their own vehicle.
I do think that there has been a highly successful educational campaign over the past couple of decades that has done a lot to make people aware of the health risks associated with smoking and second-hand smoke. With each new generation the number of smokers is declining. That is where I feel the focus must continue.
Trying to persuade someone of the benefits of changing harmful behaviour may be a longer process but I feel it is far more effective than trying to impose punitive measures against it. -
the restaurant should have a smoking area where the customers can choose to stay i the aircon room where it is smoke-free or to be at the smoking area.
irene-whatsoever.blogspot.com -
I think it all has to do with the will of the people combined with an adult's right to choose. Business owners should have the option and clientel should have the option. Not every resaurant and bar is smoking. Employees should have the option. They make more money in a smokey restaurant than bagging groceries; It is called 'hazard pay.' Everyone has a choice and the right to exercise it. At least in a perfect world...
(In Oregon they just outlawed smoking EVERYWHERE except Reservation Casinos where they have no juristdiction) -
the restaurant should have a smoking area where the customers can choose to stay at the air-con room where it is smoke-free or to be at the smoking area.
irene-whatsoever.blogspot.com -
I am totally for banning smoking in all public places, sorry smokers but I don't want to walk around smelling like an ashtray let alone inhale those toxins.-
So do you also support the banning of all motor vehicles that emit even worse toxins that are even stinkier, and in greater numbers?
Do you support the banning of perfumes, chemical products, and cleaning products that you are confronted with that also cause asthma attacks, migraines, stink, or cause more serious health risks (try getting a waft of bleach - it hurts, and can blind you)?
Perfumes give me terrible migraines, triggers breathing problems, as it does for many people - should I become active in banning them entirely from stores, restaurants, and work places? -
@Anok, I never said I wasn't biased. To put it simply my mother developed kidney cancer and almost died as a result of sucking in years of my father's smoking so if I can ban cigs from places that I travel I would. Never said it was a logical argument.
-
But that's the problem. The problem is "where to draw the line".
For you it's smoking - for people like me, it's perfume. For others it's other allergies, irritants, and hazardous chemicals. There is already enough of a demand for perfume free products and work places that companies make perfume free products, and offices are going "perfume free".
How would people react if it became a law that all perfume was banned from public spaces?
-
-
As a non-smoker, I very much respect everyone's rights, however, I also do not want to inhale second hand fumes. As long as the smokers are distanced in a completely different section, and the smoke stays clear, they can light up all they want. -
I think we've become a bunch of whiners. We want it all now. used to be you chose your night out. if you wanted a clean, non smoking place you picked one with an adiquate air make up system. and we are drivin by special interest groups that are positioned to remove our freedom's every time you 'control" something your givin up freedoms without even knowing it.
common sense needs to kick in. soaps, shampoos, detergents, all the crap you put on your skin is soaking bleaches and formeldihyde into your pores at much greater rate than any first or second hand smoke could ever do. But because its not "in the news" its ok. The FDA is not your friend, a bit of simple checking would show that. but because you've been told to "ban the butt" your target is there. there are well over 60 chemicals added to Conventional tobacco, interestingly many of those same chemicals your eating in the processed foods your buying for your everyday meals. so your pullin back from all that nasty smoke while your suckin in much worse stuff through your mouth and skin. but by choice you'd rather ban that butt.
Cancers NOT goin away in your lifetime. If it did we'd have to dismantle the American cancer society and over half the hospitals that are now building additions every week. The ACS pays their Managers over 80 grand a year plus perks, just think of the good folks we'd pu out of work if a cure was found.
My wife is now in her 12th year with cancer. After countless treatments, and hundreds of thousands payed out She's dying. several times in all those years we asked the cancer folks for help, but they always were broke. wonder why. Must be all that research.\
it's time to get your head up and examine things for what they really are.
Think about that the next time you get to close to me n my all natural, chemical free tobacco ciggerette "stinks" on ya. just run home wash it off with that good smellin stuff you got in your bathroom. within seconds your skn is absorbin all that stuff into your lil body. is it any wonder our immune systems are failing us??
dont mean to be a smart ass here, but the big picture is much different, and much more deadly than that stinky ciggy. -
-
Spam
-
-
Anok- I agree with the general theme of your replies here. The state has no business dictating what people do in their homes, vehicles, or other private areas, nonetheless how to raise their children. The state should not be governing lifestyle choices of individuals or how businesses should be run. Certain limits may and should be in place (especially on businesses) but government can, and does overreach. If a restaurant or other private establishment wishes to allow smoking, then they should be allowed to do so. Likewise, if someone wants to smoke 5 packs a day in their home, they should be allowed to do that as well.
-
See we agree sometimes
I am all for education, and regulation of tobacco products to minors - and I would even support a regulation of some sort that required restaurants to either put up a real barrier or have a certain percent of businesses go smoke free - but outright bans in the name "health" is ludicrous to me.
People complain about smokers in privately owned establishments, even if the smokers are in a different room, so they have it banned - then complain about the smokers smoking outside. They say nothing about sucking up all the car exhaust as they walk down the street, but point at the smoker across the street as being bad for their health.
I mean, at some point we have got to be reasonable - there are so many things that are "bad" for us - I'm just tired of everyone harassing smokers.
My tobacco went up 200% in cost to help fund health care coverage for Obama's new plan. (Granted, for me, that means I pay $2 per pack now - which isn't much, but regular cigarettes went waaaay up). The taxes are directly used to fund the new health care (or will be as soon as it's implemented)
So we fund health care, but are then regulated into only being able to smoke at home, with the doors and windows locked, under the covers, and with the lights off. Honestly... -
Anok- I agree with the general theme of your replies here. The state has no business dictating what people do in their homes, vehicles, or other private areas, nonetheless how to raise their children.
Definitely not. Or whom you want to hire, or for whom you'd like to work, or how much you want to pay your CEO or your wage earners, or what you want to sell, or what you want to buy. None of the state's business whatsoever.
The state also has no business in banning tobacco or liquor advertising (which is the case here, not sure about there). The state has no business in telling you what you may put in your mouth or what not, or what you may or may not inhale, or from whom you may buy your pleasure. These are entirely different scenarios than driving under the influence.
The so-called sin tax hails from the mercantilism days. On the one hand, the state needs tobacco and liquor because they can tax it as much as they like and they'd still get their money. On the other hand, they have to look as if they're doing something about the social ills associated with these guilty pleasures, so they infringe on our private rights.
If it were really about clean air, they'd ban fossil fuels and work on cleaner energy sources instead of using secondary smoke as an excuse to get rid of liberty.
-
-
yup...i'd hate to have a meal that smells good get ruined by the smell of cigarettes-
I don't like having my meal ruined by the smell of nasty body odor or heavy perfume, which makes me physically ill.
Maybe we should ban all perfumes, and make it a law that all people must bathe, or not be allowed in public.
-
-
In Hawaii smoking is banned in all buildings (except homes of course).
Although if your area decides to do this make sure the tour companies know the laws right. In the case of Hawaii the tour companies miscommunicated with Japan tour companies, and told them that smoking is not allowed in hawaii (instead of just inside buildings).
We had a big dropoff in incoming visitors from that country since there are quite a bit of smokers there, and we get quite a bit of tourists from that area. -
Restaurants are a private enterprise and the owner of the establishment should have the right to choose if smoking is permitted or not. A smart owner if he or she chose to allow smoking they would also provide a separate area for non-smoking and ensure that it was smokeless. The government should keep out of this area of private business.-
Agree with you. What the government should be doing is ensuring lesser pollution. That is one area they can directly effect. I refuse to believe that smoking is more harmful then pesticide being sprayed on busy streets, exhausts spewing out fumes, and road constructions that churn out dirt and dust.
In trying to be righteous about health, people often forget that stress and pollution are right up there with any self harm through smoking. Also, it's a free world. If restaurants have separate smoking sections (which I support, noone likes to get a face full of smoke when they're not smoking), then why can't the others just drop it!
-
-
Archiegottlieb - I don't believe I am right and you are wrong, there really is no right and wrong here, just very strong opinions. I think I am right as much as you obviously think you are right. You want a free society right? Free speech? Free to smoke? Then don't I have the right to make my point as well? I am not a 'self-righteous BSer'. i am simply 'spouting' my opinion much the same as you are yours.
peace!-
hahaha! it's funny that you say "I don't believe I am right and you are wrong" then follow with this nonsense: "I think I am right as much as you obviously think you are right." if you're talking about opinions, then don't revert back to your contention against the existence of right and wrong and speciously re-employ it to bolster your argument against it; keep faithful to opinions; it's the strength of your argument and you lose it by abandoning it only to return later to it. by then, i already think you're an inconsistent liar.
in that sense, you are indeed self-righteous and self-contradicting at that. that you argue against yourself suggests to me that your convictions are not as strong as the manner in which you ostensibly "spout" them.
and as for your foolish rhetorical question of "Then don't I have the right to make my point as well?" in regards to free speech, is even more egregious and contradicting. you acknowledge your right to free speech, but you also find detestable people's right to smoke in common areas.
and don't "peace" exclamation point me. that's ridiculous.
-
-
Smoking should be banned in restaurants if there is no way to separate the smoking and non-smoking areas. Some restaurants are good at doing this while other restaurants are not as successful with their efforts.
madlabonline.blogspot.com/2009/04/5-ways-bootleg-dvds-make-you-poor.html -
archiegottlieb - Wow you seem quite angry inside. I'm not sure you're reading what I am writing accurately. I see you have made quite the judgements about me and as polite as I try to be it doesn't seem to get through to you that I am simply stating my opinion. I suppose that is one of the problems with not speaking face to face.
You can see from my posts that I haven't used hateful words towards you as you've used with me. Again, I am free to hold my opinions as are you, but I will not tolerate abuse, so I'd appreciate not being called names as it is rather childish don't you think?
there is nothing ridiculous about wishing another person peace. Again, I hope you find it. -
i merely pointed out what i saw. you may think i call you names, but it's only because i describe things how you express it; you may see what you call "abuse" as petty, childish naming-calling, i think of it as language. i couldn't very well call a black person white upon seeing him, right? after all, that would be wrong, unjust, and a flagrant display of ignorance.
and i haven't called you anything that in my mind is abusive. everyone is a liar, self-contradicting, and self-righteous. i admit it, i'm like that, but i don't hide my pretenses.
don't get into such a state about what i say. it's just a stupid forum anyway. just relax, maybe have a cigarette.
-
-
Smoking is a popular topic for me, because as a health risk factor I use it to do health teaching.
In Ontario, Canada smoking in restaurants, public places and workplaces was outlawed several years ago. Many residential buildings have done the same. -
If I am a smoker and I'm paying the bill my guests will sit in the smoking area. A parent will often smoke in their car with kids. Can you see them sitting in the no smoking area?
We haven't weven touched on whether passive smoking is dangerous. If I pop in a smoking restaurant once a week I might be doing my self some harm. If I work in the restaurant every day, it is more likely to do me harm. OK -only employ willing smokers.
Right - Accepting that we all agree that smoking is actually bad for you -I don't think there is anyone left in the world who argues it has positive health benefits - if an employee wants to stop smoking should they just leave?
I use public transport a lot. There are a lot of elderly ladies on those buses and I can pick out the smokers. Coughing, a marbelled appearance to their skin, deep wrinkles and a deep throaty voice. -
Smoking is already banned in restaurants in Chicago and all other public buildings. I think that some people who have health issues., i.e., asthma, cancer, etc., it is a real inconvenience to be in the presence of a smoker. Then again, my best friend is a smoker and if you don't like the smoke, stay away from it -
There are a lot of places in the United States that are banning smoking in public places. I am a smoker (trying to quit) and I am glad they are doing it. I hated going out to eat and not being able to enjoy my meal because of someone else's smoke. It does take some getting use to the fact that I can not have a cigarette while sit at a bar having a drink. But I guess it is better that way. The non-smokers are not as affected by second hand smoke.
Jeff
helpjeffquitsmoking.blogspot.com/ -
In Illinois, smoking is banned in all public places. That includes bars and restaurants.
-
Wow where do you live? There hasn't been smoking in restaurants up here for over 10 years -
"Yes but non-smoking customers should be able to collect $50 from each smoker to cover lung damage."
Did you fall from a very high ladder recently?
I am so tired of people complaining about us smokers causing all this damage .. It would be nice just once, if someone included chemicals, car fumes and an abundance of other things that polute our air when making such statements..
If we went with your idea, you'd make $50.00 bucks but I would make tripple that amount .. -
I smoke. (Actually for my health. It's like working out at the gym. The air is getting SO polluted only smokers who give their lungs a daily (hourly?) work-out will survive.)
But I understand the anti-smoker movement. History teaches us over and over every society needs an UNDERCLASS. Some person/group it can automatically single out as being...well, disgusting at best, evil at worst.
Look at socieities like India or Japan. They may have not had much of an ethnic mix, but that didn't stop 'em from creating lower castes - the untouchables for example - so as to satisfy society's need for an underdog.
Of course societies could always tag women as being automatically inferior. And where there WAS ethnic differences, ANY minority group could be tagged as inferiors. Blacks. Irish. Italians. Mexicans. Hillbillies, whatever...as long as it works.
As society has became more open however, here in the U.S. for example, measuring a person's worth by race, culture, gender, has became a NO. NO.
So...DAMN! Where are the underdogs! Ahhh...thank God. We have been able to single out smokers. Pure trash. Underbellies of the world. Downright satanic to be honest.
Whee...
No matter the problem, society, given time, always comes up with an answer.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
