Smoking Bans

Generally, i'm in favour of them as long as they aren't ridiculous.

Even before the ban came in to place in the UK, I always smoked outside and reasonably out of the way so I wasn't causing any discomfort. I accept it stinks and can cause havoc to someones breathing.

I just don't agree with how draconic some people can be with it, especially when they seem to think i'm smoking just to annoy them. Doubly so when i'm nowhere near them and they still scowl.

I'm all in favour of smoking bans, since I absolutely can't stand being in the presence of smokers.

However, I'll have to agree with most people on this thread; you can't force people to stop smoking completely. As long as they've gone somewhere where there's no non-smokers around, then let them do what they want.

edited 25th Nov '11 1:41:47 AM by ArlaGrey

I'm cool with smoking bans in bars, restaurants, etc... Non-smokers should be able to take barman jobs without smoke jeopardizing their health. Same goes for public enclosed spaces with employees on'em. And I say that as a smoker.

I'm fully against smoking bans in places of residence, however temporary: Hotel rooms, dorms, that kinda thing. And I'm 200% opposed to smoking bans in open spaces: Smoke fucking dissipates in the atmosphere, it's not going to kill y'all non-smokers.

The problem with public residences like hotel rooms is that smoke frequently lingers. Some fabrics are very good at retaining it, which can cause issues. Less of an issue with dorms, one assumes, because they'll be occupied for a decent length of time and the summer break is significant (granted, many universities lease their dorms as though they were hotels during such breaks), but hotel rooms have a very fast turn around.

Smoke frequently lingers... But there won't be any meaningful quantity of second-hand smoke in a coupla hours if the hotel room is properly ventilated.

You're going to change and wash the bedsheets anyway, after all. As for the smell, there's air fresheners. If you rent or own the room and there's no employees working there, you should be fully entitled to smoke there: Nobody else's business.

edited 25th Nov '11 12:53:27 PM by SavageHeathen

It isn't the secondhand smoke that's the problem. A lot of people don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, and it tends to cling to everything: fabric, furniture, wood . . . I've checked out books from the library that still smell strongly of cigarette smoke.

I'm not saying that all hotels should ban smoking in the rooms, but if they want to do so, I don't blame them. (Why pay for extra cleaning costs when you don't have to?)

Although, I do remember that smoking is banned on aircraft for economic reasons. Using 100% pure air allowed people to smoke like they would do on the ground; the smoker's air would just go outside of the craft.

When they realised it was costing them too much, and reduced the air content from 70% recycled, 30% pure, smoking on a craft would be unfeasible.

Of course, that's a very cynical view, considering that you wouldn't want to sit in second-hand fumes for a long-haul flight.

Anyway, I'm fine with bans on smoking in publicly accessible buildings, e.g. restaurants, shops, etc.

Banning in public places? No, not really. The fumes will dissipate into the air, and it's not going to affect anyone unless you're going to actively going out of your way to walk near every smoker. Or alternatively, you could just hold your breath when walking past one, if you need too. Not hard, that.

Oh, this is one of the topics I really have a solid opinion on. In our country about half of the population is smoking and it is almost impossible to find a non-smoking bar - and partially smoking ones don't separate areas properly, I have seen non-smoking tables surrounded by smoking ones... So I'm in favour of a complete ban in bars, restaurants or workplaces in general. Smoking is harmful for everyone near the smoker and I also hate having to wash my hair and change all my clothes after grabbing a single beer. Of course it should be allowed home or smoking rooms of hotels and dorms. I also have no problem with smoking in outdoor public areas, as long as people are civil about it.

Junk food costs this country billions more, but you don't see as many campaigns against that. For the simple reason that their lobby is better funded.

I advise against turning this into a "right vs. wrong" argument, because when it comes to government efforts in these fields, they respond to whichever lobby pays them more.

I also take issue with people who say "lol ur stupid smoking is bad for u" while guzzling Monster and wolfing down Mc Donalds or what-have-you. In the long run they're both just as unhealthy. Yet you don't see bans on bad food, because that would be "intrusive on people's choices".

The difference is, smoking harms other people, so it's not just an individual choice - it's one that causes issues for those around them. Those other things don't. Not directly.

^ Indeed. I've seen smoky bar rooms (and other places) with such a level of smoke that it literally became extremely difficult to breathe. (Naturally this was before the Colorado smoking ban)

It's very possible to fill up a room with cigarette smoke that it can cause others to pass out from anoxia. At the very least you can make people sick. Eating greasy cheeseburgers doesn't do that upon others.

That was exactly why I was pretty much forced to not enter a large number of pubs here before the ban. It's also why one of our biggest pub chains - Wetherspoons - introduced the ban a year early so they could use it as a selling point. Their business massively benefited as a result.

There's enough demand for, and thus, enough potential money in, smoke-free environments that mandatory bans are rather superfluous and stupid, as well as an infringement on those businesses/punters who prefer nicotine cloud aromas.

Smoke infringes upon the right of employees to work in an environment that won't affect their health, and there is no way they should be forced to find a job elsewhere because of it.

Actually, it could be argued that the prevalence of junk food is detrimental to others. For example, HFCS and soy byproducts are found in every sort of prepared food. As someone that is sensitive to those, I find it detrimental to my health that your addiction to soy and corn has become mainstream.

Edit: Not to mention that obesity causes more long-term health problems in the US than smoking, thus raising medical bills and insurance rates, once again affecting those who choose not to participate in your greasy habits.

edited 26th Nov '11 1:29:11 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

I'm pretty sure you can't compare breathing second hand smoke to most prepared foods having soy/HFCS in as well if someone eats a prepared meal say at the table next to you the very act of them eating it doesn't trigger your sensitivities.

There are long term problems, individual and societal, associated with smoking as well, like the increased cancer risks. But there's nothing in junk food that bears direct comparison to the issues of second hand smoke, that immediately affects those around the smoker.

@Ian: Ah, but I can. You see, soy and HFCS is in everything, which means that I can't eat out at all if I want to be diligent in avoiding it, much like the nonsmokers with asthma who complain about the prevalence of tobacco smoke everywhere.

If we're going to be taxing tobacco into the ground and putting regulations on it, then we need to do the same to junk food, since it's just as harmful.

@Cassias: Actually, junk food puts consumers at risk for cancer as well. Anything that tobacco does, junk food can do too, plus making you fat.

edited 26th Nov '11 1:42:27 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Yes but the sheer act of someone eating the food on the next table will not itself cause the health problems, whereas if someone smokes on the next table you inhale the smoke due to their action of lighting up.

Drunk, you do have to at least accept that yours is a rather rare condition, and not something faced by the vast majority of people, as is the case with things like nut allergies. Junk food generally does not have an equivalent to passive smoking.

@Ian: True, but it also means that I cannot work fryers that use soy oil, due to particulates in the atmosphere, much like staff that cannot work at smoking-allowed establishments.

@Cassias: Actually, since soy affects the uptake of thyroxine, it affects every single person who is obese or has a slow metabolism. Thyroxine is the hormone that regulates metabolism, and I just happen to already have a deficiency in it.

@MRDA 1981: Not necessarily. For example in our capital, Budapest, it is very hard to find a non-smoking pub. Honestly I'm not really sure while - perhaps as smoking is fairly widespread here owners think that the loss of income from smoking people and tobacco sales wouldn't compensate for non-smokers.

Recently a city ordinance, passed last year, went into effect in this city. It bans smoking in a lot of places like bars, billiard halls, etc. Good for health reasons, I suppose. I don't really like it, because it always helped the mood for me to light up while playing pool with my friends (FD: I used to smoke on occasion, always when I'm with friends. If I had to put it into numbers, probably about a pack every three or four months before the ban? Haven't really lit up since it went into effect). It seems silly that they have to demand all establishments ban smoking inside buildings, just to meet some criteria set up by a lobbyist group. It should be left to the discretion of the individual establishment.

Still, while I don't agree with banning smoking I do think smokers need to exercise consideration for non-smokers around them. It just sucks that this consideration has to be made into law for people to follow it.

I am personally biased on this topic, as I have violent and adverse reactions in the presence of tobacco (and I don't even have asthma or anything), so, I personally support the right of private entities to ban smoking, and the banning of smoking in any public spaces (because as I understand it, secondhand-smoke is worse than straight smoking; is this true?).

I would say that hotel owners and such should be allowed to ban it in the rooms because it actually does cause significant damage to the room in the form of staining wallpaper and causing irremovable oders to cling to everything, which is important for a service-centric industry like a hotel. And man does it get bad; my friend's dad runs a few hotels out by the freeway, and they have to work their asses off to keep it smelling fresh and the walls and ceilings clean.

Australia now planning to produce plain cigarette packs

More change towards a smoke free future?

edited 15th Aug '12 5:11:59 AM by MCE