Smoking Bans

[Baby Tea]

Really, if the government wanted to make more money, they'd have their smoking indoors ban.
Then, they'd have a special yearly (Or even monthly) license available for businesses who wanted to allow smoking indoors. This license would cost a lot of money. There we go. If businesses really want it, they fork over the cash, and the government gets another source of revenue.
If the business can't afford it, then too bad.

I'd vote 'yes' on that bill.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Thing is, the Black White choice doesn't exist.

They won't ever ban smoking, because of those addicted and it's just hard too hard to realistically do. Like prohibition and controlled substances, it'll achieve nothing.

Then they really should shut up because every damn no smoking advert brings me closer to starting again.

The little one with the girl makes me want to smash something. Literally.

Only people who seem to dislike it are smokers who don't like the cold!

Funny, if it was any other group of people that you casually insulted, there would be uproar.

Guess its OK to hate people who bolster the economy, have to face abuse wherever they go and pay 90% tax on their luxuries. Not like those fine people who drink alcohol though. Salt of the earth that they are. Or those Motorists, helping our atmosphere degrade by the day. Selflessly.

 

[WickedSkin]

Smoking bans are fucking stupid. It should be up to the owner of the property as to whether or not people can smoke inside.

I'll quote this for truth.

 

[Player 2]

I really don't mind smoke, I don't get why so many people are bothered by it. My uncle owns a pub and his trade went down drastically after the ban was introduced, so the ban was pretty shit for him, he's allowed to sell one legal drug but not the other, it's stupid.

 

[DemonicVixen]

Smoking bans are fucking stupid. It should be up to the owner of the property as to whether or not people can smoke inside.

I do agree to some extent on that but to be honest, if i want to go into a bar and find everone smoking i would not like it. I hate smoking and hate my mother smoking. I love the inside ban idea. It isn't fair to be driven from your favourite pub e.t.c just because the owner does not mind smoking in their place. That and it makes everywhere equal so less trouble because no one can say 'oh well he lets us smoke so why can't you?'.

I have chest problems which are becoming more and more problematic and the doctor believes it could be down to being a passive smoker (which incase any of you 'i love smoking' escapists arn't already aware, is actually more dangerous then if i were to smoke the cigarette myself). I inhale more chemicals from my mother's smoke or other people's smoke. Not to mention that my clothes reek after being around smokers. I hate people turning their nose up at me for the smell of smoke on my clothes. No matter what i do i can't get away from it due to being around my mother's smoke all the time.

 

[TheMatt]

The ban will always win. Here in Ottawa a group of restaurant owners tried to change themselves from "restaurants" into "private clubs" because a loop whole existed where private clubs (i.e. the lions club, which for you non-Canadians is where our veterans chill, drink, and ***** about stuff)still allowed smoking.

Nothing ever came of it.

 

[Aerodyamic]

I love the smoking ban. It's the possibly the only thing labour have done well. I can breath without getting messed up on nights out now.
The right to not be poisoned outweighs the right to poison yourself in my books. Besides, most pubs have outside sections for smokers, so it's not like they've got to go completely without.

I wish that the local city council and provincial government had been reasonable enough to allow businesses to retain an 'outdoor smoking area'. All smoking in my province has been restricted to outside since January 1 2009, and the FIRST complaint was that people were smoking near doors, creating a 'gauntlet' that non-smokers have to 'run'.

Hmmm... considering it's MINUS FUCKING 20C, WHERE'D YOU EXPECT THEM TO GO?

That's besides the fact that any businesses is now a non-smoking environment, which means that bars have lost custom, because it's cheaper to buy some beer and visit at a friends place, where you can at least smoke in the garage. Let's forget about the fact that the friend you're visiting may have kids that are being exposed to the second hand smoke. That's obvously irrelevant, as is the fact that the sin taxes on cigarettes now comprise more than 70% of the cost of a pack.

Seriously, if you're old enough to decide to visit a bar or night club, you're old enough to decide to visit one that allows smoking. The laws should simply be changed to permit business owners to post a sign similar to what you'll find in front of a titty bar:

WARNING! SMOKING IS PERMITTED IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT! ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!"

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

Smoking bans are bloody fantastic. I'd be happy if smoking was banned outright, but I doubt that would happen. Too bad.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I love the smoking ban. It's the possibly the only thing labour have done well. I can breath without getting messed up on nights out now.
The right to not be poisoned outweighs the right to poison yourself in my books. Besides, most pubs have outside sections for smokers, so it's not like they've got to go completely without.

That's besides the fact that any businesses is now a non-smoking environment, which means that bars have lost custom, because it's cheaper to buy some beer and visit at a friends place, where you can at least smoke in the garage. Let's forget about the fact that the friend you're visiting may have kids that are being exposed to the second hand smoke. That's obvously irrelevant, as is the fact that the sin taxes on cigarettes now comprise more than 70% of the cost of a pack.

A lot of bars I know have actually gained custom since the bad. Several people I know (including myself) avoided going out much when the bars were full of fags (brit usage) but get out a lot more now, usually dragging many of the folks who don't normally get out.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Drinking - Self Harm Only, largely. Similar levels of Tax are paid on Alcohol compared to Smoking.
Driving
---- I wasn't aware people drove indoors
---- I wasn't aware smoking was required to transport food, drink and do business.

Drinking is a purely selfish activity that largely only generally affects the one person
Driving can affect many, but is useful
Smoking is selfish, isn't useful AND affects others.

Aren't being persecuted, and if anything allowing smokers to smoke indoors is persecuting everyone blood else.

Geddit?

I'm a non-smoker.

Drinking causes massive levels of violence, and I dare you to prove me wrong on that one. Oh, and sexual violence, which I really don't think you can blame on cigarettes.
Add in motorists, and we have passive exhaust inhalation as well. Oh, and drink driving, road rage, hit and runs. But at least it's useful.

And when have luxuries ever needed to be useful? You're simply generalizing points in order to push your agenda.

Smokers pay insane amounts of money for their habit, which they use in the manner intended, and, purely because the vote to ban it was defeated by less than 5 votes (in the UK), it has been demonised to the point that an adult choice on whether to buy them is met with fear, hostility, guilt-inducing and images that would require an ESRB 18 certificate.

That's not all. Retailers are being charged if they don't have the sign that says "SMOKING IS WRONG!" facing front on all packets of cigarettes at all times.

Now smokers are not asking to pollute others lives; what they're asking for is a place to engage in their perfectly legal habit without infringing on others rights.

That's being denied to them. That's why they're angry. And having people coming along and saying "It stinks so fuck them", isn't really going to make them back down, is it?

 

[Jarek Mace]

I find it funny that Smoking poisens you but who gives a shit that alchohol poisons you, and for alot of people makes violent.

...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Smokers have a place. Their homes. Outside.

Just like those bloody [insert racial epithet here]. Coming over here, propping up our Health Service with their 90% tax rates...

*sigh* I want a cig. now.

 

[iron codpiece]

Your situation sounds very similar to mine in Omaha Nebraska. I've recently become a fan of cigars and I don't see a problem with allowing smoking in certain establishments that produce X% income from tobacco sales.

The do have an issue with cigarettes. From my experience cigars are social and cigarettes are a constant addiction (IE multiple puffs per day).

I'll have one or two cigars on the weekends at most and my friends always bring it up in conversation by saying, "let's have a cigar," not, "I've GOTTA have a smoke."

That would be because I am in Omaha. So, it is the exact situation.

 

[willsham45]

I have mixed opinions I think the smoking ban is good in some places and not in others.
If it was made so a lisence was needed to allow people to smoke i think that would be ok, but make it more heavily inforced if smoking is not wanted my the place.

We have it in the UK it sounds ok dont smoke in public places but it is so much more, they say smoking ban in public places but if u work like in the goods transport indistry u are not ment to smoke in a the transport, a car is not a public place, nore is a lorry.

I will add i dont smoke but it is rediculus in what they say they are going to do and then what they do do.
It runs with most policies, they only tell you the basics the positives but not all the shit they dont really want people to know

 

[El Poncho]

I wouldn't mind smoking in bars, but in restaurants i'm there to eat and presumably so are they, so if they can't go without a fag for an hour(or less if you go outside between meals) then please don't go.

 

[Legion]

If smoking is bad, make it illegal.
If smoking is not bad, give the choice to the person who owns the area.

Black/White. Not strictly black.

Exactly. The problem is that they won't because the government gets an insane amount of tax on them.

It's funny how so many say that smoking should be banned but at the same time cry out for the government to stop turning our country into a 'nanny state'. They want things banned as long as they affect them in a negative way, but don't want to be told they can't do things that might affect other people.

My personal opinion is:

Smoking is banned inside as default. Pubs/Clubs/Whatnot can declare themselves as a place that allows smoking and have to explicitly state that they allow it on all entrances to the property.

 

[Biek]

Really, if the government wanted to make more money, they'd have their smoking indoors ban.
Then, they'd have a special yearly (Or even monthly) license available for businesses who wanted to allow smoking indoors. This license would cost a lot of money. There we go. If businesses really want it, they fork over the cash, and the government gets another source of revenue.
If the business can't afford it, then too bad.

I'd vote 'yes' on that bill.

I see your point. Im with the "let the barowners decide wether they allow smoking or not". Making the ones that do pay additional tax and perhaps supporting the ones that dont financially to cover their loss of customers a bit sounds reasonable to me. Numerous establishments are going out of business because of the smoking ban.

 

[Amnestic]

If you want to have sex, you've got to be inside.

Legally? I don't think so.

 

[fatessilence]

I used to smoke and I didn't mind going outside of a bar to light up a smoke. I found a few bars that allow you to smoke, they have a closed off area in the club where smokers could go and have a smoke with your beer. I felt no sympthay for the people that complained about having to go outside to smoke.

I don't smoke anymore (Stopped for 6 months now) and I still don't feel any sympathy for people that complain. Then again when I smoked, just becuase I was killing off my lungs didn't mean I have to have other people do the same. I had respect for people. But I suppose we don't have a lot of drunkards that can say the same thing.

There is a couple of cities where I live that you can't smoke anywhere in the city. Which I find stupid regardless if I smoke or not. You can't ban people from smoking.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think it's clever on their part, it's quite shrewed picking up on the political correctness whine angle and running with that!

Perhaps there actually is a problem and we're not using marketing angles?

If you want to have sex, you've got to be inside.

Really. You don't.

If you want to smoke, you've got to be outside. Some things just have a location requirement. I mean, what do smokers want, smoking rooms is that it? The reason that doesn't exist is because it makes it difficult to work out where it would be illegal to smoke. That's why!

And here I have to stop you. Japan.
Those "wacky" Japanese have banned smoking outdoors and it's only legal to smoke indoors. Why? With their population, lighting up outside would have a greater chance of burning someone with the end.

What smokers want, and what I still can't deny them as a non-smoker, is a place where they can smoke. Preferably with some of the accoutrements like heat, water and shelter that someone who drinks, pees or injects could.