Smoking in pubs: I'm torn

[Angus McPresley]

So, Melbourne just implemented its no-smoking-in-pubs law.

I have nothing but cognitive dissonance over the issue. I believe people should have the right -- not just to smoke, but to own and operate a pub where are allowed to.

But man, it's nice to come home from a night out not reeking of smoke.

I so wish that market forces would have resulted in having some pubs that decreed no smoking, and that smokers could go off to their own pubs and mentholate their lungs to their hearts' content. In every city I've lived in, though, that never seems to happen. And so we get these laws.

A right has been lost here. And as horrible as smoking is, I don't want to say I'm glad about it just because I don't partake of that right.

Your thoughts?

 

[King of the Americas]

Dallas Texas implimented the same laws about 2-3 years ago under the direction of Laura Miller.

I am a free market guy, so I say if you wnat to allow smoking in 'your' business, then that's your business, not government's.

That said, I know a LOT of 'women' who are especially happy about their hair not reaking of smoke after going into a bar for 30 minutes.

I'd have made the law the same as you suggested,

"Every bar and or business has to clearly mark whether smoking is or is not allowed on its premises."

Then let the market decide who stays and who goes.

 

[MWare]

Went through it here in NYC. As a smoker I was pretty pissed off initially. Many friends who work in bars were quite concerned that many customers would stop coming and they would lose a lot of income. After a couple years of it (has it been that long?) those concerns don't seem to have panned out too much (can you imagine nobody going out in NYC?). However, I have now been trained and actually don't even remember what it was like to smoke in a bar. Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Anyway, I don't go out as much (though I think that is more a function of age than legislation), but when I do, I obviously smoke less. Overall though, the higher taxes, the smoking bans, the more smokers seem to be looked down upon; it hasn't really affected how much I smoke as a whole.

 

[Bob2038]

As a non-smoker I know I am biased. However, I couldn't be happier that this law came into effect in my city.

For those who say that could just make some bars smoking and others not, pictures this scene:

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.

Now I only looked up a few sources, but the all put the number of current smopkers in the US around 20-25% of the population. Considering that the majority of people don't smoke, it seems unfair to make all the non-smokers suffer.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.


...snip...

And this goes to show there are many issues that the "free market" cannot provide a solution to since not everything has a "marketable" value, in this instance your friendships.

 

[tkingdoll]

Don't be torn. Smokers are the minority and exclude many of the majority because of their habit. Businesses will adjust and in the long run potentially benefit. Two thirds of people don't smoke. Many of that two thirds will now be visiting pubs where previously they wouldn't.

I've already started going out more. Not that I'm the benchmark for anything (except awesomeness).

 

[King of the Americas]

I just want to make it so you can 'choose' whether to suffer or not...

If I am having a beer, and a friend of mine is having a cigarette...I'll have one.

If I am playing cards, I love toking on a cigar and sipping a nice brandy.

If 'most' people don't smoke, my law would eventually yeild a market where 'most' bars disallowed smoking, but still a quarter of the bars that DO allow smoking.

Let market forces decide these things.

If I owned a bar, I'd be pissed that some government stuffshirt made this decision for me.

 

[tkingdoll]

If I owned a bar, I'd be pissed that some government stuffshirt made this decision for me.

Yes, because owning a business means you should be able to do exactly what you want, even if it's to the detriment of other people's health, like your bar staff for example.

Hey, I wish my office building wasn't legally obliged to provide wheelchair ramps, no-one uses them and they cost money to install! Damn those government stuffshirts!

 

[Beerina]

For those who say that could just make some bars smoking and others not, pictures this scene:

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.

So...you enjoy using threats of violence and jail against all your friends to jam your ideas on how everyone should behave down their throats? This is not hyperbole -- it is a valid description of what's going on.

You, the only non-smoker in your group, have some magical right to overpower their freedom?

So few people realize it's freedom that makes this country great, not democracy.

 

[Beerina]

Yes, because owning a business means you should be able to do exactly what you want, even if it's to the detriment of other people's health, like your bar staff for example.

Hey, I wish my office building wasn't legally obliged to provide wheelchair ramps, no-one uses them and they cost money to install! Damn those government stuffshirts!

It's easy to be sarcastic when it's somebody else's hard-earned cash paying for somebody's feel-good wishlist.

Now try mandating every building, including private houses, have a wheelchair ramp and elevators. See how long people love the magnanimity of it all, and see how long said politicians keep blathering this brand of hot air.

What? What's that? They're all lining up suddenly to loudly huff how silly the law has gotten, to thunderous applause of the masses?

Golly. Imagine that.

 

[Bob2038]

Seems I hit a nerve with a smoker.

So...you enjoy using threats of violence and jail against all your friends to jam your ideas on how everyone should behave down their throats? This is not hyperbole -- it is a valid description of what's going on.

Apples and oranges.. tossing around violent analogies doesn't make your "point" sound stronger.

You, the only non-smoker in your group, have some magical right to overpower their freedom?

Not at all.

 

[Mashuna]

On a note entirely unrelated to the morality of legislating against smoking, I asked the landlord at our local pub what the financial impact had been (smoking ban came in April 2nd in Wales). This was a pub full of regulars, almost all of whom smoked.

He told me that profits were up, as they were selling much more food. Really not the answer I expected, but good to hear.

 

[King of the Americas]

tkingdoll,

Okay, I 'kinda' get your point about protecting worker's health.

However, there are a LOT of jobs located around or near 'dangerous' stuff. Alcohol for example, speeding cars along a highway, needles in a sewing factor.

I am no OCHA Official, but I'll bet that employers need only provide for 'reasonable' safety, and NOT 'absolute' safety.

So you have to prove that you 'could' get lung cancer from second hand smoke, in order to make that argument, as it refers to bar employees.

I think your comparing the Equal Access argument to this debate is comparing apples to watermellons, and is a separate issue to be debated in another thread.

(*Equal access shouldn't just mean the front door, but every door, espeically the bathroom. OR, not at all. Menaing that IF you want 'my' money, make ALL your doors passable. But if you DON'T want my business, then I'd have no problem with you putting a warning sign in your window, "NOT ADA COMPLIANT". Then I'd know to avoid yur place. MY problem is that 'I' don't know what I am getting myself into, when I role into a restaraunt. I 'might' be able to get int he door, but that is no guarantee that I'll be able to use the bathroom. I'd argue that you don't really need the ADA laws as they are written, but rather what you need are full disclosure laws, that demand ALL business say whether or not that are Equal Access Compliant or not.)

I guess the issues are more similiar than I thought...

 

[KingMerv00]

So few people realize it's freedom that makes this country great, not democracy.

"Freedom", at least in America, is defined by a combination of the Constitution and democratic vote.

 

[Bandersnatch]

For those who say that could just make some bars smoking and others not, pictures this scene:

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.

So...you enjoy using threats of violence and jail against all your friends to jam your ideas on how everyone should behave down their throats? This is not hyperbole -- it is a valid description of what's going on.

How do you extrapolate that from that?

 

[Senex]

I don't smoke and appreciate my clothing not smelling of cigarette smoke when I leave a pub -- but politically I would like to see the government decriminalize some drugs, not further restrict the ones that we are currently allowed.

I also have a variety of cigarette tricks that I no longer have opportunity to use to impress the smoking ladies.

 

[Iamme]

As a non-smoker I know I am biased. However, I couldn't be happier that this law came into effect in my city.

For those who say that could just make some bars smoking and others not, pictures this scene:

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.

Now I only looked up a few sources, but the all put the number of current smopkers in the US around 20-25% of the population. Considering that the majority of people don't smoke, it seems unfair to make all the non-smokers suffer.

What if 5 people wanted to go to the beach but one was afraid of algae blooms in the water and wanted to go to the city pool instead?

What if a bar had peanuts and one person was alergic to peanuts?

And on and on.

I luved to smoke and drink. They go hand in hand. I cant' see jsut sitingat a bar stool twiddling your thumbs without smoking inbetween gulps. Plus it was fun to see all the losers in the bar, smoking and drinking, which are both bad for you. But it was an interesting way of life at that ime in my life, as was living amongst welfare people. I miss some of that freedom of choice/diversity.

 

[MWare]

Don't be torn. Smokers are the minority and exclude many of the majority because of their habit.

We exclude non-smokers??? You are being excluded from something because you don't smoke??? I've felt it is ALWAYS the other way around. To my knowledge I have never not invited anybody to my apartment or anywhere because they do not smoke. I've never not done something because I couldn't smoke there. I've even refrained from smoking in my own home to accomodate non-smokes (rarely, but it's happened). Please give an example.

 

[tkingdoll]

It's easy to be sarcastic when it's somebody else's hard-earned cash paying for somebody's feel-good wishlist.

Now try mandating every building, including private houses, have a wheelchair ramp and elevators. See how long people love the magnanimity of it all, and see how long said politicians keep blathering this brand of hot air.

What? What's that? They're all lining up suddenly to loudly huff how silly the law has gotten, to thunderous applause of the masses?

Golly. Imagine that.

1) I own a business. I obey the law to protect my clients and my staff.

2) In the UK, the law says that "where a physical barrier makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service then that barrier must be addressed, or the service made available by other means". This can also apply to landlords of private dwellings.

3) Smokers are the minority.

4) I'm pretty sure nobody protested the Disability Discrimination Act with 'loud huffs'.

5) Smoker, are ya?

 

[aerosolben]

Now try mandating every building, including private houses, have a wheelchair ramp and elevators. See how long people love the magnanimity of it all, and see how long said politicians keep blathering this brand of hot air.

Holy hyperbole, Batman! Has someone banned smoking in private residences? Have the paralyzed suddenly gained the ability to stand up and walk as easily as a smoker extinguishes a butt?

Of course people wouldn't put up with that; however, they are putting up with the smoking ban(s), in part because it is considerably less ridiculous than your scenario.