Rules on Smoking - Too Strict?

[coalesce]

AlBell:

I'm curious why you have yet to respond to my previous post. To wit:

And yet something may not happen.

I'm not naive. Leave the house and something bad is bound to happen sooner or later. I've been mugged twice—once on the subway (in Brooklyn, not Harlem) and once on 29th Street and 2nd Avenue in Manhattan. Both times by black guys. My house in Brooklyn was also robbed twice: once by white Bible salesman (no lie!) that my third floor tenant let in and never bothered to see if and when they left, and once by a former classmate of mine: a nice, white Irish-German boy who I went to Catholic school with. The only reason why I'm here typing this and not in prison for finding him and killing him is because he left my two cats alone. My TV, portable CD player and camera I could replace; Shemp and Murray (the two cats in my avatar) I could not.

Why did you single out Harlem? Why not say the Upper East Side or Turtle Bay or Murray Hill or Noho or Carroll Gardens or Sunnyside or Astoria or Jackson Heights or Flushing? Why Harlem?

Michael

 

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Modified
Originally Posted by shandyjan
Now that hit me with force, the word stupid came to mind.
When was the last time a cig butt killed a pedestrian? Carry on speeding, never mind.

They cause a lot of wildfires leading to a lot of property damage. We have brush fires almost every year here because of people tossing cigarettes out of cars on the freeway.

Not to mention that they can be very toxic—potentially fatal—to a small child who picks one up and swallows it.

Why would a small child pick up and swallow a speeding car on a freeway?


*must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved.... damn it!!!

 

[Stray Cat]

No, it's just tedious and annoying and wasn't particularly witty or amusing even the first time.

But until someone bans it, I'm afraid you're going to have to put up with it.
But thanks for providing another fine example of the intolerance of the self righteous.


*must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved.... damn it!!!

 

[Stray Cat]

Yet for folks like me it has made pubs much more convivial and social. ETA: And it's especially made dining out much more pleasant - being asked "non-smoking or smoking" for a table was really just saying "Do you want a lot of smoke or a bit less smoke with your meal sir?"

I completely agree with the restaurant/food establishments no smoking policies (they were introduced on common sense grounds long before the legal requirement). But if people had really wanted and supported non smoking pubs, they would have already been available. So pubs may be better for you, but you don't go in them all, in fact pubs are mainly frequented by smokers (there are stats to show this but I can't be assed find them, Tauri probably could though).

Despite the anti-smoking lobby claiming that once a ban was introduced the pubs would be full of all these non smokers who just didn't go out because of the smokey atmosphere, once the ban was introduced, the non smokers didn't arrive. Because people who didn't go to pubs just didn't go to pubs. Meanwhile, many smokers have now stopped going to pubs too and as a result, pubs are empty and closing down at record levels (stats show there has been a slight reduction in closures during the last wuarter of 2010 but still a reduction from 56 per week to 32 per week is still a lot).

If this was about a need to provide non smokers with social places they could go in comfort, why didn't any non smokers open their own non smoking pubs (they did and they both failed due to lack of customers). After all it was never compulsory to allow smoking in any venue.




*must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved.... damn it!!!

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I'm curious, do you have that saved to your clipboard, or do you manually type it out after every post?

 

[23_Tauri]

You mean other than as a tyranny-of-the-majority snit?

What other conclusion could there be?

 

[Stray Cat]

I'm curious, do you have that saved to your clipboard, or do you manually type it out after every post?

Copy and paste is easier, then I can still be holding my cig in my other hand.




Look no punchline....

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Copy and paste is easier, then I can still be holding my cig in my other hand.




Look no punchline....

That's probably the smart decision. I would have saved it to a text file and copy pasted, as well.

 

[fls]

Right

Warning: the above link will take you to a pro-tobacco lobby group website. Do not inhale or we may have to tax you.

But does it? See above link.

But you understand what I was getting at. We don't have workplace health and safety rules about air quality (I'm referring to OSHA). We have a general duty clause to provide a workplace free from those hazards which are already subject to health and safety standards. If a workplace exposes workers to these hazards, which a smoking section in a bar does with respect to respirable particles, then the employer has a duty to remediate this. The employer doesn't have a duty to the public or to remediate lesser hazards.

Once you pass laws banning indoor smoking, then it no longer matters whether air quality satisfies the general duty clause (which the point I thought you were making).

Linda

 

[23_Tauri]

Yet for folks like me it has made pubs much more convivial and social. ETA: And it's especially made dining out much more pleasant - being asked "non-smoking or smoking" for a table was really just saying "Do you want a lot of smoke or a bit less smoke with your meal sir?"

I completely agree with the restaurant/food establishments no smoking policies (they were introduced on common sense grounds long before the legal requirement).

Yes. Many pubs that did food had clearly demarcated restaurants and it's a long old while since you've been able to smoke in restaurants or restaurant areas of many pubs. Many publicans offering a separate restaurant room had already imposed no smoking rules in the places where food was served, demonstrating that self-regulation was working in favour of giving the consumer choice long before the draconian universal ban on smoking in indoor public places was imposed in 2007.

Similarly, Wetherspoons had already introduced a no-smoking policy in their establishments (I hesitate to call them 'pubs', they are no such thing) in May 2006 prior to the smoking ban and that company was doing very well as a result. Those people who wanted a smoker-free, family-friendly eaterie that also served some watered-down, mass produced lager on the side were provided for adequately before the smoking ban. On the back of Wetherspoon's success in providing for that market, no doubt some other, smaller players would have followed suit, making their establishments non-smoking throughout also. However, what happened in July 2007 is that choice was taken away. No longer were publicans allowed to cater for the market/community that they felt their premises was best placed to serve. That meant that thousands of wet pubs across the land, whose clientele had a much higher proportion of smokers compared to the general populations, lost out. It is these pubs, these stalwarts of small communities both urban and rural up and down this green and pleasant land who are being hit hardest by the smoking ban.

With respect Darat, and please forgive me if I am getting you wrong, I don't think that it is even these kinds of pubs, ones which not long ago had spit and sawdust on the floor for carpet, that you would frequent anyway. Pubs serving food are different breed entirely and it is not surprising that they are not affected by the smoking ban.

All we are asking is for freedom of choice. Let us have our smoky dens of iniquity back so we can plot the next revolution and play the kazoo badly in peace.

But if people had really wanted and supported non smoking pubs, they would have already been available. So pubs may be better for you, but you don't go in them all, in fact pubs are mainly frequented by smokers (there are stats to show this but I can't be assed find them, Tauri probably could though).

Do I have to do everything around here? Well, seeing as you're doing such sterling work over in the UFO section...
It's one-third, rising to 45% in Scotland, or at least it was pre-bans, so basically yes, smokers go to the pub more than non-smokers, because that rate is much higher than the % of smokers in the general population (roughly 21% in UK). When we look at class differences, then the proportion of smokers in the low socio-economic classes is higher, with 26% of men in manual socio-economic groups smoking.

So basically, we have a situation where the poor smokers who want to get away from the wife and kids for a quiet smoke and a pint are losing out and the middle-classes who want to eat sautéed scallops and confit of duck whilst still being able to look after baby are gaining. Of course, if your a health policy adviser in government, you probably think this is a Good Thing. Personally, I think it stinks of class war.

Despite the anti-smoking lobby claiming that once a ban was introduced the pubs would be full of all these non smokers who just didn't go out because of the smokey atmosphere, once the ban was introduced, the non smokers didn't arrive. Because people who didn't go to pubs just didn't go to pubs. Meanwhile, many smokers have now stopped going to pubs too and as a result, pubs are empty and closing down at record levels (stats show there has been a slight reduction in closures during the last wuarter of 2010 but still a reduction from 56 per week to 32 per week is still a lot).

Yes, and here's an article about the latest research that shows a clear corrleation between smoking bans and acceleration of pub closures in England, Scotland and Ireland.

 

[mikeyx]

What about NYC's proposed "no smoking outside" law? The law states you cannot smoke anywhere outside in NYC. It would have to be self regulated as NYPD is too busy with murderers and rapists to chase smokers puffing on 51st Ave. It has as much chance as the "no salt law" but jeez, isolate the cigs, offer new ways to quit like the e-cigs, not stigmatize the smokers. That won't get them to quit. Stigma will just generate anger as I'm beginning to see in this thread...

I'm a non-smoker BTW.

smoking should be outlawed EVERYWHERE, and once again, goon squads should forcibly take your cigs. Smoking is the same as assualting someone when your sick with the flu, you sneeze and the germs go everywhere, just like your chemical weapon of choice.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

smoking should be outlawed EVERYWHERE, and once again, goon squads should forcibly take your cigs. Smoking is the same as assualting someone when your sick with the flu, you sneeze and the germs go everywhere, just like your chemical weapon of choice.

You're really trying too hard. It's making you seem desperate.

 

[mikeyx]

So I was more on the money than I thought when I pointed the finger of blame for child deaths at Biros!

Think of the children - ban writing!

no that just brings up the need for a breeders license.

 

[mikeyx]

They came for the smokers, and nobody stood up to them.
They came for the drinkers, none cast a second glance.
They came for the obese, no one cared.
They came for me, none was left.

crap.

They took the smokers who couldnt run away.
The drinkers beat them about the head with beer bottles
The fatties sat on them
The drinkers and fatties ignored your pathetic whining.

 

[mikeyx]

Thank you Nosi. It's nice to know that some people who don't smoke have sympathy with how smokers are being treated. Imagine how you would feel if you were reported to the authorities if someone suspected you of eating high-calorie snacks in your apartment. All in the name of 'the health of the nation'.... and 'it's for your own good'

As a society, we have become too accepting of allowing the state into the private realm, IMO.

As for quitting, figures show that about a quarter of all smokers in the UK attempt to quit in any given year. Although they might feel peer pressure to do so, I don't think one should conclude that the majority want to quit. What many non-smokers sometimes forget is that smokers smoke because they enjoy it, and not just because (or only because) they can't stop. I'm a light smoker of what GlennB calls 'prison roll-ups' (with liquorice papers ) and I don't feel a need to quit, and nor do I want to.

Smokers deserve water cannons

 

[mikeyx]

You're really trying too hard. It's making you seem desperate.

I said water cannons, not camps, geez

 

[23_Tauri]

That's probably the smart decision. I would have saved it to a text file and copy pasted, as well.

Absolutely. I'd say it was smart to never put your cig down unless you absolutely have to. For example if someone is holding a gun to your head, as one poster* - not you I might add - put forward as a reasonable response commensurate to coming across someone smoking in public.

*oh, it was mikeyx, he's just popped up to remind me!

 

[23_Tauri]

Smokers deserve water cannons

Are you trolling? Because it sure as heck looks like it.

 

[Stray Cat]

Wow! restrictions on breeding and sending armed goon squads out to assault people for smoking all delivered with the attitude of intimidation.... sounds familiar.

Desperate indeed.


*must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved.... damn it!!!

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Are you trolling? Because it sure as heck looks like it.

He's trying very hard to, yes.