Anti-Smoking Laws

[Greenday]

I'm still not yet of age, but I've been in enough bars. My step-dad plays in a band and I usually go to watch him. He plays at all the local bars and they all allowed smoking until the law was passed. Thanks to the new laws, non-smokers are no longer SOL.

[Seshat]

If there is a market for a non-smoking bar, then they will come.

That doesn't seem to work, actually. Much of the market for non-smoking bars and the like is invisible - it's composed of people who don't go out to bars and the like because they can't, and therefore don't bother tantalising themselves reading ads for events they can't attend at places they can't go.

A club or bar that wanted to reach the smoke-intolerant would-be clubgoer market would need to be in a large enough city that the low percentage of smoke-intolerants who hear about it at first are a large enough number to keep it going while the news spreads.

[linguist]

The "businesses will lose tons of money" is an empty threat.

exactly. when they passed the smoking ban here, the club owners complained about the same thing. two years later, not a single bar has closed due to lack of smokers' business, and revenues for the majority of the bars in our bar district are actually up due to the higher number of nonsmokers who avoided going to bars and clubs because they couldn't stand the smoke.

[Norton]

Ok, I agree that all of you non-smokers deserve to have a night out without being forced to endure second-hand smoke. It creates an unpleasant atmosphere for you, and we smokers have no right to force you to smoke along with us.

Still, there must be some compromise we can agree to rather than outright banning smoking. My boyfriend and I recently went to PA. With the smoking ban here in NY, we were absolutely delighted to find ashtrays on tables in some restaurants there. In some restaurants, the smoking section was seperate from the rest of the dining area. In some, there was no non-smoking section. In others, there was no smoking at all.

In a case like that, everyone has a choice of where to patronize - smoker or not. I could choose to go to a place where every table has an ashtray, and a non-smoker could go to a non-smoking establishment, or we could go to the same restaurant and simply sit in different rooms.

To ban smoking in all restaurants and bars seems too extreme to me. Let it be the choice of the owners where smoking is allowed, and let it be the choice of the patrons whether to support the owner's decision.

[ebonyknight]

I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, I'm a staunch anti-smoker and DESPISE cigarettes with the fire of a thousand suns (try having asthma and allergies and growing up with both parents smoking and see how much fun that is). So I can't honestly say that I feel too bad about having nonsmoking public places (i.e., restaurants). I also don't mind rulings that say smokers have to keep a certain distance from the entry points of places like stores - I really dislike walking into a faceful of someone else's lung pollution.

I had parents who smoked and grew up with asthma and allergies. So I was in the same boat as you. But I firmly believe in the rights of others as long as it doesn't interfere. I even took up smoking and quit. I still feel that if people want to pollute their lungs, so be it. I don't believe in the BS about second hand smoke. You keep in most of what you inhale (which is WHY it's dangerous) and what you exhale is no more dangerous than car exhaust. Are we going to prohibit driving cars next?

The anti-smoking movement and sentiment is just another movement that wants to try to impose their views on others. This country has fallen too far away from it's libertarian roots that we are such facists now and don't even realize it.

But on the other hand, I do believe that smokers (being attacked as they are) do go out of their way to impose on others, by disregarding non-smoking signs and smoking where it really isn't appropriate, in order to maintain their rights. But I believe if it wasn't for the movements to ban things, then there wouldn't be the negative backlash. For hundreds of years this country has had far more smokers than non-smokers, and now that it's not fashionable, the witch hunts have started.

These bans are ridiculous and reflect on how this country has gotten too out of control. I have no doubt the founders would be disgusted with how we have destroyed the libertarian nature of this nation.

[Boozy]

But on the other hand, I do believe that smokers (being attacked as they are) do go out of their way to impose on others, by disregarding non-smoking signs and smoking where it really isn't appropriate, in order to maintain their rights.

I am sure that you meant to say, "SOME smokers"....right?

When I smoked, I never lit up in restricted areas, always stayed away from entrances, and took painstaking caution to avoid bothering others.

All smokers are not assholes, but some assholes are smokers.

[ebonyknight]

I am sure that you meant to say, "SOME smokers"....right?

When I smoked, I never lit up in restricted areas, always stayed away from entrances, and took painstaking caution to avoid bothering others.

All smokers are not assholes, but some assholes are smokers.

No you are 100% right.

I was one of the courteous ones. At my building, there are signs every 20 ft around the perimeter that say no smoking. 60 percent of the smokers ignore them. (When I smoked) my co-workers and I would make the conscious effort to go across the street to smoke.

Now, why was smoking banned around the perimeter of the building (no, not because of facism ), but because the building ran on window mounted air conditioners.

Smokers would smoke under the air conditioners and it would get sucked up by the second floor ACs (no windows on the first floor).

Did common courtesy stop them? No, even when a notice went out 2 years later to smokers, not one thing changed.

Funny thing, when I had the unit by my window serviced (I'm on the 2nd floor), the maintenance guy had no compunction about pouring the water out of the window there. Hope nobody was smoking when he did.

[Boozy]

Smokers would smoke under the air conditioners and it would get sucked up by the second floor ACs (no windows on the first floor).

I'm constantly telling my husband to get the hell away from our AC when he smokes.

I also had to be a bitch and ask my downstairs neighbour to not smoke directly under my open window. He suggested I close my window. I suggested he move five feet to the left. He then suggested that I perform certain sexual acts on myself and him.

He moved, thank god.

[DesignFox]

Non-smoking sections in restaurants do not work. The smoke wafts over and coats us non-smokers in an icky smoke funk.

As a non-smoker, I enjoy finally being able to go out to eat without coming home smelling like an ashtray. One shower was never enough to get that smell out of my super thick hair.

I also like going into a restaurant and smelling FOOD rather than smoke.

The fact is, there were next to no non-smoking restaurants before the ban was in effect.

Another point I bring up is the poor restaurant staff. Who wants to work all night in a smoke cloud? The poor non-smoking staff is given no choice but to work inside in the smoke for 8 hours? How is that fair to them?

If you want to smoke, that's fine. What's wrong with doing it outside where the fumes can waft away rather than settle around the restaurant?

One of you equated cigarette smoke to car exhaust. Well, we are taught pretty early on in our driver's education not to leave a car running in a closed garage. Why? Because the carbon monoxide in the exhaust is harmful.

While I think the concept of second hand smoke is extremely overplayed, I disagree that it is completely harmless. My BF has asthma and doesn't do well to be around cigarette smoke. I have extreme allergies to airborne molecules.

I like to breathe freely and not be forced to struggle. Thank you.

Also, there are certain places where smoker's CAN go... There are hookah/cigar bars that are exempt from the ban.

[digilight]

Living in Southern California I've seen Smoking bans come into existance, weather the storm and the contriversy, and survive. Now a days you don't even think twice about not being able to smoke in a bar or a restaraunt. Now mind you I quite smoking about 8 years ago. But I was a heavy smoker when the bans first took effect.

Everyone said how the owners and employee's would lose their jobs/business's/and the shirts off their back. It didn't happen. Like someone said, they have survived, and done it quite well.

There are some bars with outside area's also, you can smoke outside all you want, but keep it outside. Some of these places do better business then others, but not always. Hell if you get to choose between 2 for 1 drinks or being able to suck down a 4 dollar pack of cigs, most people choose the cheap drinks and sneak outside for a smoke (if the bouncer will let you back in).

I agree that bans are good. I do think that they can be fucked at places like universities where they make it harder then hell to find a place to smoke. If you make it to hard then people will just smoke in their units. And that defeats the whole purpose. Give the kids a spot thats close, covered, and has some seating. If the "Man" makes it easier, than the whole process will go easier.

[DesignFox]

I agree with that sentiment digilight- "the man" should make it easier.

There should be designated smoking areas at the very least.

Although really, I just think it should be banned indoors, but allowed outdoors. (none of this no smoking on campus at all attitude)

A covered patio so smokers don't have to get rained on would make it easier on everyone. I hate trying to get in the door and fighting through the "huddle" and cloud of smoke- but I also understand that people don't want to get wet.

[Sylvia727]

That doesn't seem to work, actually.

Really? That doesn't seem to be the case in my city. As I said previously, I know of at least two non-smoking pubs. This makes me wonder how they got started and maintained.

As far as the need being invisible, this is the sort of situation where savvy people make big bucks. They recognize a niche in the market that no one else has filled, and they fill it. When a non-smoking bar does go up near you, I'm sure its profits will skyrocket as all of your area's non-smokers head over there.

[Seshat]

Before the smoking ban in my city, there were none. There is now no smoking permitted inside almost every public building in my city.


As for smoking being allowed everywhere outdoors - that doesn't work. The considerate, thoughtful smokers move out of the main entrance ways and the handicapped entrances, but the ignorant or callous smokers make those places a smoke cloud. Smoke-intolerant people like me end up either having to avoid the buildings entirely, or if we must use them, we end up wheezing, suffering allergic reactions, suffering pain, or worse.

The assholes spoil it for everyone.


I'd be happy to compromise with the considerate, thoughtful smokers. You stay away from the places I must go, you don't smoke where the smoke will be trapped in places I must go or places designated for the smoke-intolerant or simply not-wanting-to-be-smoked-on.
I'll cheerfully take a wide berth around your covered smoking area with comfortable seating. I'll also cheerfully avoid your smokey pubs and clubs and restaurants as long as I have smoke-free ones, or shared ones with adequate separation*.

(* a single room with half of it designated as 'non-smoking' and half designated as 'smoking' is useless. The smoke doesn't care about the invisible barrier. I need separate rooms with separate air circulation, with closing doors between them. And I'd need to not be at the table beside those doors.)

[Colchek]

Non-smoking sections in restaurants do not work. The smoke wafts over and coats us non-smokers in an icky smoke funk.

Yep. A mall's food court that I used to frequent had a smoking section that was down lower than the non-smoking section. So the whole area was practically smoking. Most restaurants, the two sections are right next to each other, with little to no barriers between them. Why make a distinction?

Second hand smoke sends me for a loop, for I'm also asthmatic. Back in my high school days one kid thought it would be funny to blow a couple lungs worth of smoke at my face. Scared the hell out of him when I was coughing, hacking, and wheezing for nearly five minutes, tears running down my face from coughing so hard.

Overall, I'm in favor of bans. It makes many restaurants truly non-smoking, where I can go and enjoy myself without smelling the smoke, and places that have exemptions to the ban (usually bars, etc. Heck if I want a beer, I'll buy a six pack.), I avoid them. Smoking is truly unique in that it is a pasttime that is not limited to only the smoker but also to everyone around them to which the smoke travels. If it's inside a building where they can not escape it, then they're basically being forced to smoke, which isn't fair to them. If a place truly wants to have a smoking section, then I believe it needs to be truly isolated so that the smoke is kept within the confines of that area and doesn't affect those outside of it, much like the smoking areas I saw at the Louisville airport once. They were enclosed in glass with continual ventiliation that kept the smoke from leaving that room.

[miffed]

I see no problem with banning a frivolous nasty habit. The idea that it is someone's god given right to destroy their health and impose on others, is incredibly weak.

Is there any solid justifiable reason for people to smoke?