Smoking ban - what do you think?

Question

Personally, apart from the government having bigger fish to fry, I think that it's the nanny state going mad. I fully understand that not everyone likes to be in smoky atmospheres, so why not have non-smoking pubs? (Obviously, no-one would ever go to them and the landlords would lose money, but what does that tell you?) Clearly, family pub-restaurants should be non-smoking as children do not have a say in where they go and the need to be protected, but as far as I'm concerned, children don't belong in regular pubs anyway and any adult who goes in makes an informed choice to be there. Can you imagine the chaos that it will cause if night clubs are non-smoking - thousands of drunk and stressed-out people will be out on the roads at any one time - the fights will be uncontrollable.
I for one am sick of being patronised by New Labour liberalism - how about you lot?

A couple of people have suggested that smoking is inconsiderate. Please can I counter this by saying that, just as you can have considerate and inconsiderate drinkers, some of whom enjoy a few drinks with friends and go home happy, and some of who trash phone boxes and start fights, so too can you have considerate smokers. I never smoke around children. I move away if I see that people are eating and if someone asks me politely to not smoke around them then I will certainly go elsewhere. Smokers are not all selfish oiks who like to upset other people with their habit - people from all walks of life smoke - it is a habot which transcends all boundaries of class and education, and whilst it is true that there are some inconsiderate smokers who won't comply with good manners, most smokers are more than happy to oblige in keeping other people free from their smoke if that is what they wish.

Answer 1

I am a Canadian and live in a city that is literally divided into two different provinces. The East side of the city is in Saskatchewan the West side of the city is in Alberta. About 18 months ago Saskatchewan passed a law banning smoking in all places including nightclubs and bars. Many establishments around the province were hit hard when they saw numbers of patrons drastically decrease. Some argued that some non smoking patrons would now frequent bars more often if they did not have to endure second hand smoke but frankly the owners of these establishments are still waiting to see them. Smoking is permitted outside of the bars and it is not unusual to see literally dozens of people conglomerating around an exit to get their puff. Bars have had to hire extra security to deal with this situation as patrons wish to take drinks outside (which they can't) and as you suggested it is another area that must be monitored for fights. Frankly the extra security proved to be another financial burden when revenues were already decreased.
Interesting enough story for most of the province but particualarily interesting here where I live where only one side of the city was affected by the legislation. Saskatchewan bars were non smoking, Alberta bars were puffing as usual. And guess what... non smokers followed the crowds to the Alberta bars and nightclubs. They could have frequented the non smoking pubs in Saskatchewan and not had the second hand smoke but as so many of us will attest to, going out to a bar is a social occasion and we want to be where the action is.
If nothing else it has been an interesting experiment. Unfortunately an experiemnet that hurt the livlihood of many proprietors. I am certain most business owners across Canada or the states or anywhere would resist government intervention that would slash there profits by 30 to 50 %.

Answer 2

We are facing the same issue in the United States, and I share your opinion. This isn't something the government should be involved in.

The fact is, no one is forced into pubs, restaurants, or theaters. If those places allow tobacco smoke, people can just go elsewhere.

You can certainly make the argument that other forms of regulation are allowed, like health or building safety regulations, but those are supposed to protect the public from undetecable dangers with wider consequences. If I go into a restaurant, there is no reasonable way for me to tell if the meat is being cooked right or if the roof is going to fall on my head. And if I get sick from the food, I can spread that illness to others who never went near the restaurant. But smoking isn't anything like these dangers. Any sane person can tell within seconds of entering if a pub or restaraunt allows smoking. And the health danger of that smoking is limited to the confines of the pub.

I think the real motivation behind the smoking bans is that some people think they have the "right" to go to a pub or restaurant and have that place cater to their wishes. By that same logic, we could pass laws madating that all restaurants offer whatever dish happens to be the style of the time, or that they all decorate in the preferred manner, or that none of them play music that might be offensive or boring to a majority of the populace. Where does it end?

In my opinion, the owners of property should be allowed to use that property however they want, so long as it does not harm unconsenting strangers. Their right to control the business THEY PAID FOR is greater than some busybody's "right" to force themselves into their establishment and start dictating how the place should be run.

Let the market solve this problem. Smoking is becoming less and less popular, and restaurant and pub owners will start to realize how big a market there is for non-smoking places. Many restaurants and businesses in my town went non-smoking BEFORE a law was passed. It is selfish and bullying to use the law to make your dining experience more comfortable.

(P.S. I am not a smoker)

Answer 3

The bans are getting ridiculous, now some places are banning smoking outside. I don't smoke, but I sure wouldn't tell someone else that they can't smoke outside. Leftists are the ones that would infringe on people's rights.

As for bars, smoking should be allowed.... if a person doesn't like smoke, don't patronize an establishment.... that is a person's right. That person can even open their own bar as a no smoking establishment.

Illegal aliens are accomodated in many ways....
Two languages.... one for success and one for failure.... obey laws or break laws with no consequences for either.... drive with insurance or without... again no consequences.... and so on.

Why can't Americans be accomodated... in a way that makes sense.... Like you say, why can't there be smoking and non-smoking.... because that would make sense... and the left would feel like they had less power.

It is not thinking about others, all it boils down to is "control", more influence for lefties.

Answer 4

I think the smoking ban is the best thing to have happened in years. Now I can go out to eat or for a drink & know that I will not be subjected to someone else's second hand smoke. Also, I know my health will not be at risk. Also, my clothes will not stink.
I know that smokers bring in a lot of revenue through taxes etc but I, for one, would gladly pay a few pounds a week in Income Tax if cigarettes & tobacco products were gradually all banned.

Answer 5

I think the ban is ludicrous! Before it, non smokers had the choice of not going into a smoking section etc. But now, because smokers are going outside to smoke, the non smokers don't have a choice! The air is filled with smoke!! On top of thaty the government go on + on about polution in our atmosphere with car exhasts, etc... doesn't the smoking ban, meaning people have to smoke in open air, add to this problem?! One word:CONTRADICTION. It will backfire on them in a few years time when there are more recorded cases of childhood asthma and cancers. Then they will do what they always do - blame someone else. Smokers pay a hell of a lot of tax on cigarettes, they should be entitled to smoke where they choose. If it wern't for smokers, all our taxes would be extortionate! I live in Scotland where the ban is already in effect and it sucks, for smokers and non smokers.

Answer 6

It simply comes down to property. The property owner should be the sole person to decide what activities may or may not take place in or on their property.

If I open a bar, I might decide to have it non-smoking. Afterall I've spent a lot of money for tables, chairs, pool tables etc. and I don't want them ruined by ciggarette burns. On the otherhand I may decide that a non-smoking bar does not attract enough people to remain profitable, so I allow smoking because it is 'worth it' to me.

If I were to come visit your home, and you ask me to remove my shoes so I don't ruin your carpet. I have two choices. Remove my shoes as required by you (the property owner). Or leave. The same principle applies to a restaraunt. A smoker can enter a non-smoking restaraunt, and agree to not smoke. Or they can leave and go find a smoking establishment. Of course that works the other way around as well, people who do not want to be bothered by smoke at a bar,restaraunt etc. do not have to enter. They can go and find a non-smoking establishment.

The biggest mistake people make when discussing these 'bans'. Is the incorrect assumption that bars, restaraunts, movie theaters, etc. are 'public property'. They are NOT. They are 'PRIVATE property' open to the public.

Most people would agree that they can't tell others what they can and can't do in their own home (private property). But for some reason some people can't see that a 'private business', is just as sacred as a 'private home'.

Answer 7

I agree with you to some extent about the nanny state, however I think the smoking ban will be a good thing.

You could have made the same kind of arguments about wearing seat belts when law first forced you to wear them. That law has been successful in cutting down the number of death in motor accidents.

On a more selfish point i have just given up smoking (crossed fingers) and feel that i and many other people will be better able to stop when they break the connection of smoking when drinking.

Answer 8

I think they've (for once) hit the nail on the head. You cant stop people from smoking, nor would they want to, and nor would non smokers want them to because of the amount in tax they pay. Come on, to cover the huge hole left by banning smoking, all of hte other taxes would have to go up. Petrol, VAT, Council tax etc. But they've come up with a compromise, and said look, you can smoke, but you have to be considerate about it. I hate the smell of smoke and think its a disgusting habit. I'd like to go into a pub or club, and not come out smelling like a smoker. I'm trying to stay healthy and keep my lungs working nicely, why should my health be compromised because you want to smoke? Since my not smoking isnt harming anybody else, yea, you should go outside (before anybody says, 'well if you want ot breath air why not go outside like we'll have to')

Answer 9

As much as smoking is unhealthy. It's no ones place to ban smoking. The only exception would be like dont smoke next to the childrens playground or inside a building.

Answer 10

I don't think caring about the health of non-smokers makes this a nanny state. As a non smoker, being around smokers is a really unpleasant experience as well as being a health risk. Smokers who smoke around people who aren't smoking are selfish and a smoking ban would give the power back to those who have suffered too long.