The UK bans public smoking
You know, I am not a smoker (smoke Shisha but that's about it), but when I see things like that happening, I can't help but think that these are facist moves. If people want to have smoking in their private clubs, they should be allowed to have smoking in their private clubs. And If the people working there are so afraid for their health, than they shouldn't work there. End of Story! Freedom of choice and personal responsibility. They are not hard concepts.
posted by The Sandmonkey @ 2/15/2006 12:41:00 AM
15 Comments:
Well. I disagree. You can bet that except in asthma and pregnancy private clubs smokers will demand their right to smoke and deny the right of others to inhale fresh air :P
I do agree though that specific private clubs dealing with smoking (cigar clubs or whatsoever) should - doh - be exempted from any prohibition. And if other non-smoking-specific private clubs are willing to make an extra smoking chamber, that would be fine as well.
It's a big step. Especially for smokers. And I feel sorry for them that they became a victim of this addictive habit and drug. Any restrictive regulation will be like hell for them. But when eventually such a regulation came through, the majority of people is relieved. I guess, it's worth it. If only for the smoker's health (perhaps it would be a reason to try to quit harder) and that of mine, the non-smoker.
Suzanne,
You know, my apartment in Boston was the only place any of my smoking friends were allowed to come and smoke as they please. Their non-smoking roommmates would hve nothing to do with it, and since I didn;t have roommates (love living by myself),I never had to deal with anyone telling me what to do. They were glad for me, cause the only other choice was to stand outside, in the cold, or in the snow, like abused animals, so they can have their cigarette. And the nonsmokers didn't like that either, because they stood next to the doors, which meant they might be "exposed" to smoke for like a second, and even that was too much for their healthy lungs, which they only persevred to smoking weed.
I would like to start a bar that would only cater to smokers. Where the worlkers are smokers, and the guests are smokers, and non-smokers wouldn;t be allowed in. You wouldn't get IDed, you would have to show you pack of cigarettes in order to get in. The non-smokers would have to stay out. Let's see how they like getting discrimianted against.
Chances are, they will sue me for access to the place, cause god knows it will have all the fun people, who they wanna hang out with. Hmmm....
I don't know. I can just see them starting laws in a couple of yearsthat limit the number of alcoholic drinks a person can have in a bar, cause, u know, drunk driving kills as well. And soon we will all lead healthy sterile lives and go to libraries to have a good time.
Hmm...
Quote: smoking is gross but come one how many people really die of second hand smoke..They passed that dumb law here in Fl whare you can't smoke in resturants anymore.. Bored people all I have to say..
Well, in Denmark 11.000. people dies every year from smoking. We have a population of 5 million, so the figures kind of makes 9/11 look like a minor detail. Remember the US invaded two countrys because of 9/11.
So it is not a small deal. But the main issue is who the smoke kills - if cigarettes only killed/harmed the persons using it, then please go ahead - less Pensions to pay in long run. But smoke really doesnt care if you are the one who payed for the cigarette.. you get the damn smoke in your lungs, smoking or not smoking.
Why am I so pissed? I was running my own disco for 5 years, had a great time - but also managed to fuck up my lungs in the process (I am non-smoker). Now I get astma whenever I sit in a smoking enviroment, I sounds like god damn darth wader after a night out drinking.
And please dont give me the drunkdriving / drinking analogy.. it sucks.
If drinking alkohol, you harm your self.. please go ahead.
Drunk driving, you risk harming others.. so please fuck off
Ireland got the same law and weeeelll... we had that law here for a while... (Norway) and i must say that i believe people are adult enough to choose whatever they wanna smoke or not, and as for my self I enjoy my coffee with a ciggi...(i got no plans quitting though i know all the unhealthy stuff about my bad friend)
Anyway People are standing out in the cold snow smoking, and some restaurants and bars have made some kinda tents with a heating system inside so people can sit outside all year... tzzzzzz.... ( I'll try and take a pic one day)
OK... all in all I do accept they make smoke free restaurants where people are eating, but I do think they could let people have a free choice and make some bars "smoke free" and some "Smoked"
and nice site :)
Tobber,
if the argument was "let's have smoking bars for smokers and nonsmoking bars for non-smokers", then I would be all for it. I am opposed to non-smokers being exposed to smoke, the same way I am opposed to smokers not getting exposed to smoke. But that's not what the people who put up such bans advocate, which is why I am opposed to them.
The people who do advocate such bans have the attitude of "We are going to bans smoking cause we know what's best for you". I don't think there is anyone who is oblivious to the harm that smoking will cause at this day and age and there is no shortage in tools, support organizations and alternatives to help people to quit smoking. Yet some people continue to smoke anyway. Why? Well, they like it, and they are not very concerned about all the statitics and information on how harmful cogarettes are to them. They want to do it anyway. It's their choice.
But that isn't enough for the non-smoking population, because they don't like smoking period, and they want everyone to quit. So they go after the smokers everwhere. In Universities, in workplaces, in restaurants and now in all bars and private clubs, and that's not right. Let them have their own bars and restaurants, kinda like the little see-through cages in airprots they call "smoking quarters" and have them enjoy ruining their health. It may not be smart, but goddamn it, it's their right, and the government should not be allowed to take that away from them.
And the reason why I used the drinking analogy, it's because I can see that same concept being used (and no, this is not like the gun debate.)to limit drinking for helath reasons. Bceause, again, the government cares for you, and wants what's best for you, and what's best for you is not to drink lots of alcohol. Alcohol is bad too, right? I am sure we can get enough people to back that one up. After all, 3 drinks should be enough for anybody, right?
Anon, it sucks for you, it really does. But you ran that disco, and you could've made it a non-smoking disco, but you didn't. You know why? Cause you would've lost customers. You didn't want to lose customers, and now you have lost your voice. But sure, blame them.
angelsiiighs: Exactly my point. Me agrees completely!
Smoking in public buildings is forbidden in Ireland. I never heard that it was forbidden in private clubs.
Open a private club and you can smoke. Open a public house and you cannot. It's your choice.
Smoking at work places is forbidden and I am quite happy about it.
I never quite understood why everybody is forbidden from harming other people except smokers.
You can argue that second-hand smoke is no big deal, but why can you make that decision for me?
Let everybody who wants to smoke do so in their own house, or in private when allowed by the respective owner.
But my house and all public buildings are venues where I must have the right to be without being harmed, if it can be avoided.
Nope Prup,
*Shisha* is just flavored tobacco smoked in a hooka pipe.
Sam,
I smoked for 15 years and the public smoking ban here in Ontario really helped me quit. When Smoking is vilified everywhere (as it should) and there's no place to smoke but in the street (at least 15 feet away from any public entrance) people, like me, find incentive to quit :-)
Cheers,
AT
California has banned smoking at work, any bar, restaurant, club and within 20 feet of any government building as far as I know. Oh, and you can't smoke on the beach either. It has been this way as long as I can remember. Sucks to have to smoke shisha outside in the rain or when it like 40 degrees out. The shisha bars lose a lot of business.
SandMonkey, AhmedT's absolutely right, one of the greatest things here is that cigarette smoking's more stigmatized than pot smoking. So if you come from heavy smoking areas like europe and the middle east, most probably you'll have to quit eventually, somehow this doesn't work for the chinese and the koreans though.
> And If the people working there are so afraid for their health,
> than they shouldn't work there. End of Story!
Brilliant.
The same is valid for the chosen sqatters.
If they are afraid of their health, they should leave,
like the 130.000 "liberators" in Iraq.
NOTE: Looting, raping and robbing is dangerous for
your health.
Sandmonkey writes:
< if the people working there are so afraid for their health, < than they shouldn't work there. End of Story!
Funny that.
Any other professions you wish to subject to this "put up with this or get out!" policy?
Is there no obligation on behalf of the employer to provide his staff with as healthy a working place as he can?
What I'm saying aloud here is what no one else has said here so far because it's not PC.
I strongly support the ban on smoking in bars (would still make private clubs an exception) and why I support this is just because I hate getting home after a tour of local bars stinking like Hell and not being the owner of an Imelda Marcos size fashion collection, having to suffer from stinking coats and trousers the following day. That just adds insult to the hangover injury. Call me an egoist but at least I'm not trying to cover my selfishness with such terms as freedom, tolerance, economy and so on.
Where I live we have so-called non-smoking and smoking sections in bars which are big enough. The reality, however, is that if there's a group of both non-smokers and smokers in the bar, I'm yet to experience a night out where we'd be in the non-smoking section. It's always so that a mixed company caves in to the smokers, not vice versa. The same would apply even more in the situation we were to have non-smoking and smoking bars separately. A kind of dictatorship of the vocal stinking minority, so to say.
The ideal solution is what has been proposed: separate smoking, hmm, chambers in bars where you only go for a smoke with no alcohol or serving allowed.
Of course smokers oppose all of this and some bar owners are painting visions of bars going bankrupt en masse but we can easily laugh at this propaganda. In my case, I, a proud member of the moral majority, would go out more if bars were smokefree. And what is most important, think how it used to be. Smoking on flights, separate smoking compartments on trains, workplace, university, local transportation and so on used to be the norm. Anybody knows anyone who changed jobs or refrains from flying because one can't smoke there? I do doubt.
I hate smoking, hate the smell, hate what it does to the smoker's health and other people's health, but a business owner should have the right to say if smoking is allowed in his or her establishment. Non-smokers (like me) can go to a smoke-free resturant and spend our money there. The less government interfers in our lives, the better. sis from the usa
"a business owner should have the right to say if smoking is allowed in his or her establishment."
What about other things that harm people?
Should the business owner also have the right to say if shooting people is allowed in his establishment?
Perhaps the law should say whether we are allowed to physically harm other people in public places, rather than their owners.
Here in Ireland smoking in public spaces has been illegal for some time. And pubs are still doing well. People just smoke outside or in beer gardens.
Post a Comment
<< Home