Debate:Tobacco
Silver Sloth (Talk | contribs) |
(nicotine suicide) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:::::::(EC) The thing with bars & clubs is that people often go with a group of friends, typically some of whom smoke & some of whom don't. So where there's a choice, most likely they would go to a smoking bar so that those who smoke can do so. That's why (in most places) few bars purposefullly opt to be non-smoking, because it has a huge impact on their business. Here in the UK, one of the things that was suggested when the smoking ban was being planned, & thankfully was scrapped, was to ban smoking only in pubs that serve food. This would have pretty much killed off the tradition of pub food, as those that chose to serve food & ban smoking would lose the drinking & smoking crowd, effectively making them restaurants in all but name, & those that wanted to allow smoking (which is extremely common in the UK) would not be licensed to serve food. {{User:Weaseloid/sig}} 18:55, 14 January 2009 (EST) | :::::::(EC) The thing with bars & clubs is that people often go with a group of friends, typically some of whom smoke & some of whom don't. So where there's a choice, most likely they would go to a smoking bar so that those who smoke can do so. That's why (in most places) few bars purposefullly opt to be non-smoking, because it has a huge impact on their business. Here in the UK, one of the things that was suggested when the smoking ban was being planned, & thankfully was scrapped, was to ban smoking only in pubs that serve food. This would have pretty much killed off the tradition of pub food, as those that chose to serve food & ban smoking would lose the drinking & smoking crowd, effectively making them restaurants in all but name, & those that wanted to allow smoking (which is extremely common in the UK) would not be licensed to serve food. {{User:Weaseloid/sig}} 18:55, 14 January 2009 (EST) | ||
::::::::With regards the UK's blanket smoking ban - well the Scottish version has resulted in [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6986554.stm 17% drop in heart attack admissions to hospital within the first year] and, I believe that, when the rest of the UK followed suit similar effects were experienced. OK, so there are freedom of choice issues but the same arguments could be made for heroine use. Would you want that freely and legally available. [[User:Silver Sloth|Silver Sloth]] 05:06, 15 January 2009 (EST) | ::::::::With regards the UK's blanket smoking ban - well the Scottish version has resulted in [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6986554.stm 17% drop in heart attack admissions to hospital within the first year] and, I believe that, when the rest of the UK followed suit similar effects were experienced. OK, so there are freedom of choice issues but the same arguments could be made for heroine use. Would you want that freely and legally available. [[User:Silver Sloth|Silver Sloth]] 05:06, 15 January 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | :::::::::Sir Chuck writes: "''because your rights as one of the majority (non smokers) does not trump the rights of the minority (smokers). You have the right to not inhale second hand smoke, but you do not have the right to dictate who can smoke and where.''" | ||
| + | :::::::::I disagree. I think that my right to breathe air which does not contain carcinogens ''does'' trump the right of people who want to put them there. Nobody should have the right to poison somebody simply because they enjoy doing it, and I think it's absurd to suggest otherwise. If smokers want to commit nicotine suicide then let them do it in the privacy of their own homes.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>bing up</sup>]] 06:10, 15 January 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
==Irrelevant anecdote== | ==Irrelevant anecdote== | ||
This is only an anecdote reported as having happened to a close friend. Some years ago she was acting as an extra in a BBC film starring Daniel J. Travanti (of Hill Street Blues fame) who was a notorious anti smoker. One scene took place in a meeting hall in the 50s(it was about Macarthyism I believe). All were fully costumed ''but forbidden to smoke'' as Travanti objected so vehemently. At the set time of the action at least 60% of the men would have been smokers, although it was the hallmark of a woman of low morals to smoke in public. As a consequence the verisimilitude of the scene was lost - the air at such a meeting would have been near opaque with smoke but was crystal clear on film. (Frolich's research: film was a BBC/HBO/BFI production: "'Fellow Traveller''" 1989.) [[User:Frohlich|fröhlich]][[User talk:Frohlich|<sup><small> "''gay''" '''and''' "''happy''"</small></sup>]] | This is only an anecdote reported as having happened to a close friend. Some years ago she was acting as an extra in a BBC film starring Daniel J. Travanti (of Hill Street Blues fame) who was a notorious anti smoker. One scene took place in a meeting hall in the 50s(it was about Macarthyism I believe). All were fully costumed ''but forbidden to smoke'' as Travanti objected so vehemently. At the set time of the action at least 60% of the men would have been smokers, although it was the hallmark of a woman of low morals to smoke in public. As a consequence the verisimilitude of the scene was lost - the air at such a meeting would have been near opaque with smoke but was crystal clear on film. (Frolich's research: film was a BBC/HBO/BFI production: "'Fellow Traveller''" 1989.) [[User:Frohlich|fröhlich]][[User talk:Frohlich|<sup><small> "''gay''" '''and''' "''happy''"</small></sup>]] | ||
Revision as of 11:10, 15 January 2009
This debate started out in the Saloon bar
I may move this to a debate if there is significant interest, but I was just wondering what others around here think about Tobacco regulation? This report got me thinking... It seems like hypcorisy from the left that so many people demand the freedom to live how they want (the so called alternative lifestyles) but are so quick to demand the government ban smoking... I understand the health problems related to smoking, but what about personal freedom there? Just seeing if it bugs anyone else. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 13:59, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- My opinion? It's the establishment's choice. If a restaurant chain or store wants to ban smoking from their premises, it's their choice. If the Government wants to ban smoking from their buildings, that is their choice. But the Government should not be allowed to say that a private business can or can't allow smoking. Several bars have taken a dive in attendance due to this, and many restaurants. Yeah, it's done wonders for public health and saves me 3 minutes by not having to answer "smoking or non-smoking?", but I don't agree with it.
- Then again, I don't smoke, so this doesn't impact me that much. ENorman 14:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- Meanwhile, the tobacco-junkies are screaming like someone was rounding them up in boxcars and shipping them to the Alaskan plutonium-mines. --Gulik 15:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- You don't mine plutonium, it doesn't occur naturally. Phantom Hoover 16:34, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- My take is that tobacco should have been made illegal decades ago, but powerful lobbying from tobacco-dependent states and tax revenues made it too difficult. Non-smokers pay a price in terms of health-care costs for the under-insured, and only in the last decade did healthcare companies start charging smokers more for coverage. The bottom line is that any other product that has been found to be cancer-causing and comparably dangerous has been banned. We don't let people buy anything else this deadly for human consumption. Despite the huge upfront tax & tobacco-business losses, we'd more than recover that and help our national debt if we cut this off now, but that will take more courage than most politicians have. Instead they try to tax it to death, which has the "virtue" of raking in easy money from addicts while claiming to fight the problem. --SpinyNorman 15:47, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- I disagree with almost all of your claims.... What about Alcohol? Alcohol is just as bad for you and dangerous as tobacco smoke (assuming and alcoholic drinks roughly the same as a nicotine addict smokes) but it's not illegal. On top of that, Alcohol had the added danger of being a driving hazard, something that tobacco doesn't. Not to mention all the substances that contain known cancer causing agents that are not illegal simply because there is no long term proof of danger (coffee is a great example). You say that non smokers pay a price in terms of health care coverage for the under-insured, but that assumes that under-insured smokers cost more than under-insured non smokers. I have no data to back this up, but I would argue that most people too poor to afford insurance probably don't blow fifty bucks a week on smokes. Also, most tobacco related problems really start to show up later in life, around the time that Medicare starts to step in, therefore, I would argue that smoking doesn't cost us much. Furthermore, I don't understand what you mean at all with "we'd more than recover that and help our national debt if we cut this off now" How would we make money by losing the tobacco tax?
- On a different note altogether, I don't think that it's the government's place to dictate that we shouldn't do something because it's bad for you. Drinking is bad for you, but the government doesn't ban it. skydiving and Bungee jumping can have fatal accidents, but the governemnt doesn't ban them. My bigger point is that people should have the freedom to make choices. I also agree with ENorman and don't think the government should have the right to infringe on the rights of others because of health dangers when there are alternatives. If you don't like the smoke in a restaurant or bar.... Don't go there... Much like I say if you don't agree with gay marriage, don't have one :-). Oh yeah, just for the record, I'm not a smoker, never have been and I actually badgered by sister until she quit. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 16:29, 14 January 2009 (EST
- First of all I'm a non-smoker and dislike the smell of stale smoke. My mother-in-law used to be a habitual smoker and after we visited her we had to wash all of the clothes we had taken even the ones we hadn't worn, because they were just impregnated with the stink. She eventually gave up following some breathless attacks and my wife's insistence that she would have to go outside if she wanted to smoke after she came to live with us. She's in a home now and just celebrated her 93rd birthday, although it will be a miracle if she makes he next one. If you're a non-smoker then kissing someone who smokes is like licking a dirty ashtray. Hoever, I do admit to compromising my principles for the sake of an incredibly attractive 21-year-old Colombian girl (think Sophia Loren crossed with Penelope Cruz) but it was never going to last. I think that pubs and restaurants have become much more pleasant since the ban in the UK but seeing people hanging around outside of establishments, especially the pregnant mums in their nighties at hospitals, does cause me some concern. Ultimately it is societal thing, in that it should be seen as uncool to smoke. I despair when I see teenagers smoking but the libertarian part of me does feel that people should not be forced not to smoke. As far as possible everyone should take responsibility for their own health and that includes not using recreational drugs or over-indulging alcohol (I admit to a weakness for the latter). One of the major points for me is how it affects other people. I believe people have the right to smoke but not all over me or my food. The same with drugs and drink - indulge if you like but don't go driving aftwards or stealing to feed the habit. In hotels, restaurants and bars there is often an imperative to accommodate the smoker in some way, but doing so does nothing to discourage people from giving up, so maybe this infringement on personal liberty is acceptable in the short term. I would hope that the problem will have gone away for future generations. When smoking was still allowed on planes it always amused/annoyed me that Lufthansa's policy was no smoking on the port side and smoking on the starboard, it made it very difficult to get away from the smoke. Nigerian Airways on the other hand would always ask if you wanted a smoking or non-smoking seat; whatever you wanted you were guaranteed that you would get your choice, your seat would be designated as no-smoking. The only problem was the guy next to you would have requested a smoking seat and got one. The segregation was all down to seat level rather than having smoking and non-smoking zones.
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:32, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- How would we make money by losing the tobacco tax? Because the taxes on tobacco don't come anywhere near to paying for the medical, social, and economic impacts of tobacco-related illness, from treating cancer, lung and heart disease, to lost productivity from people who are at the hospital instead of at work to dealing with the social mess that ensues when mommy dies from a tumour at age 38. Fuck smoking. TheoryOfPractice 16:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- I hate smoking, but didn't support blanket ban that's been brought in in the UK on smoking in public buildings. It's always been something I accepted that if I want to go to the pub, I'm gonna be in a smoky room. Now there's no smoking at all inside the pub, but to get in you have to walk through a bunch of smokers crowding around the door outside & a bunch of dropped cigarette butts outside. Plus you're still as likely, if not more, to walk through people's tobacco smoke on the street. I visited Japan a year or so ago & it's almost the opposite: smoking is de rigeur inside bars there, but is frowned upon in outside public areas, so the only people smoking on streets are in small designated smoking areas. I think it's better than way around.
- I think it's a nasty habit, & sadly the main reason people enjoy it is because of nicotine addiction. But I'm not sure that banning it altogether would be a wise move, or even one that a government could get away with. I agree with having a fairly high tax on tobacco, both to fund the resultant healthcare affects, & as some kind of deterrent. I also think children should be made well aware of the dangers during their education, as most smokers start young (often when they are too young to buy tobacco products legally) & don't manage to quit for years afterwards. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 16:59, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- How would we make money by losing the tobacco tax? Because the taxes on tobacco don't come anywhere near to paying for the medical, social, and economic impacts of tobacco-related illness, from treating cancer, lung and heart disease, to lost productivity from people who are at the hospital instead of at work to dealing with the social mess that ensues when mommy dies from a tumour at age 38. Fuck smoking. TheoryOfPractice 16:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- First of all I'm a non-smoker and dislike the smell of stale smoke. My mother-in-law used to be a habitual smoker and after we visited her we had to wash all of the clothes we had taken even the ones we hadn't worn, because they were just impregnated with the stink. She eventually gave up following some breathless attacks and my wife's insistence that she would have to go outside if she wanted to smoke after she came to live with us. She's in a home now and just celebrated her 93rd birthday, although it will be a miracle if she makes he next one. If you're a non-smoker then kissing someone who smokes is like licking a dirty ashtray. Hoever, I do admit to compromising my principles for the sake of an incredibly attractive 21-year-old Colombian girl (think Sophia Loren crossed with Penelope Cruz) but it was never going to last. I think that pubs and restaurants have become much more pleasant since the ban in the UK but seeing people hanging around outside of establishments, especially the pregnant mums in their nighties at hospitals, does cause me some concern. Ultimately it is societal thing, in that it should be seen as uncool to smoke. I despair when I see teenagers smoking but the libertarian part of me does feel that people should not be forced not to smoke. As far as possible everyone should take responsibility for their own health and that includes not using recreational drugs or over-indulging alcohol (I admit to a weakness for the latter). One of the major points for me is how it affects other people. I believe people have the right to smoke but not all over me or my food. The same with drugs and drink - indulge if you like but don't go driving aftwards or stealing to feed the habit. In hotels, restaurants and bars there is often an imperative to accommodate the smoker in some way, but doing so does nothing to discourage people from giving up, so maybe this infringement on personal liberty is acceptable in the short term. I would hope that the problem will have gone away for future generations. When smoking was still allowed on planes it always amused/annoyed me that Lufthansa's policy was no smoking on the port side and smoking on the starboard, it made it very difficult to get away from the smoke. Nigerian Airways on the other hand would always ask if you wanted a smoking or non-smoking seat; whatever you wanted you were guaranteed that you would get your choice, your seat would be designated as no-smoking. The only problem was the guy next to you would have requested a smoking seat and got one. The segregation was all down to seat level rather than having smoking and non-smoking zones.
- Meanwhile, the tobacco-junkies are screaming like someone was rounding them up in boxcars and shipping them to the Alaskan plutonium-mines. --Gulik 15:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Smoking is bad. It hurts the environment, it hurts other people, and, as everybody (I hope) knows, it hurts yourself. Let's just ban it and be done with it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor'is a puerile idiot' 17:02, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- Yeah, and the prohibition worked so well -- Nx talk 17:08, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- ToP you do have a point. However, in practice there would be a lag in the benefits versus the loss of revenue. I am largely against sudden changes in legislation as they can have unexpected consequences. The best way is to increase the incentives for not doing something while also as increasing the penalties for continuing with it. It's rather like fuel economy of vehicles. Europe and Japan have developed more efficient vehicles because of the higher fuel tax base. When the price of oil shot up it was moderated in percentage terms by the higher tax rate so didn't cause quite as much dislocation in the economy. However, in the USA where tax on fuel is much lower it caused all manner of economic problems which have probably been the main cause of Detroit's woes. Toyota is so far ahead of GM because they have had to deal with a tougher fuel taxation regime. Now the big three US auto-makers are asking for government aid to help them catch up. This is something that the likes of Andy and the right just can't comprehend, they automatically assume all taxation is bad but if it is targeted then it can be used as a smoothing filter. When global prices go up if you have a higher tax rate it is possible to reduce taxation to smooth the effect on the economy. Otherwise you end up at the total mercy of international picing. Conventional supply and demand forces can work if all other conditions remain constant but when natural forces are included they can throw up some unpleasant surprises.
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 17:18, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- ToP you do have a point. However, in practice there would be a lag in the benefits versus the loss of revenue. I am largely against sudden changes in legislation as they can have unexpected consequences. The best way is to increase the incentives for not doing something while also as increasing the penalties for continuing with it. It's rather like fuel economy of vehicles. Europe and Japan have developed more efficient vehicles because of the higher fuel tax base. When the price of oil shot up it was moderated in percentage terms by the higher tax rate so didn't cause quite as much dislocation in the economy. However, in the USA where tax on fuel is much lower it caused all manner of economic problems which have probably been the main cause of Detroit's woes. Toyota is so far ahead of GM because they have had to deal with a tougher fuel taxation regime. Now the big three US auto-makers are asking for government aid to help them catch up. This is something that the likes of Andy and the right just can't comprehend, they automatically assume all taxation is bad but if it is targeted then it can be used as a smoothing filter. When global prices go up if you have a higher tax rate it is possible to reduce taxation to smooth the effect on the economy. Otherwise you end up at the total mercy of international picing. Conventional supply and demand forces can work if all other conditions remain constant but when natural forces are included they can throw up some unpleasant surprises.
To me, I have no problem if someone wants to ruin their health in the privacy of their own home. When they bring that out into place such as resturants and bars, where it ruins my health, I have a problem. It's kinda like religion like that. And while I know that I could avoid smokey places if I chose, why should I have to? Current tobacco laws suit me, and making smoking illegal would be impractical at best. Though if I did have a choice, I would make alcohol illegal; nothing good comes from drinking, and while I am too lazy to look up stats, drinking causes far more deaths than any legal substance should.Z3ro 17:38, 14 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) To Genghis, Weasel and Z3ro, I read your points and I mostly agreed with them, more on that in a moment, to Theory, that kind of emotional response sidesteps the points I made above and to our own Scurvy CUR (that's just a joke, don't read into it) I just want you to know that you sound like a Conservative doing their impression of a Liberal... Just so you know. And Genhis, I too know the trouble of dating a smoker. Nothing kills the passion like tobacco breath. Anyway, I agree with those that say that stopping teenagers from smoking is a good idea. Many teens see smoking as something "adult" and therefore it makes them look slick and sharp (like driving a car and having credit cards). Forming lasting bonds with adults who actually care about them will do more for that than billions of non smoking programs and commercials though (Hell. some of those damn Truth commercials made me want to light up for spite) However, I am strongly against high tobacco taxes as a method of back door banning. How about a tax on violent video games to keep kids from playing them? I know Genghis brought up planes and such, and I think banning smoking on planes and buses was a great move, but only because there were no options. With restaurants, you have options. If I walked into a restaurant and it smelled like a Kentucky Tobacco field, I would leave. And I would be sure to tell the owner that I was leaving specifically because I dislike the smell of tobacco while I'm eating. If the owner had enough complaints and starting seeing his bottom line fall off because of smoking, he would ban it, or limit it to outdoor patios or whatever, but it would be his choice. Z3ro, you said that "I know that I could avoid smokey places if I chose, why should I have to?" and the answer is because your rights as one of the majority (non smokers) does not trump the rights of the minority (smokers). You have the right to not inhale second hand smoke, but you do not have the right to dictate who can smoke and where. I would also take the time to point out that you already make choices on where to eat based on food quality, service, ease of access, waiting times, etc. How hard is it to cross off smoking establishments? As to CUR and others calling for an all out ban, What good would it do? Everything that has been banned in America has simply led to a huge blackmarket. Tobacco is very dangerous to have unregulated because of the ease of cutting it with something else, possibly something very dangerous. A ban would simply rob the government of taxes and unleash some true dangers onto the street. We don't have the resources to control banned substances as it is, and now you want to add another one, one that's already deeply rooted in the country? What sense does that make? As to questions about health care and such, I will try to find some statistics (probably not from the Tobacco Institute :-P) on the true level of these things....I'm sure they exist somewhere. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 17:56, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- To SirChuck, I understand about choosing establishments that are smoke free to patronize, I really do. There is a problem, however; when everyone allows smoking, a bar or resturant will have to allow smoking or face pressure from the competition. It costs the establishment nothing to allow smoking, but will cost to ban smoking if there is not a level playing field. Where I live, before our smoking ban, there were no non-smoking bars to go to. It was inhale smoke or stay home, that's not a choice. If you wanted to tax resturants and bars extra to allow smoking, maybe that would help, but the system as it was did not work; I didn't have a choice. I understand that smokers no longer have a choice, but I don't harm their health without permission.Z3ro 18:08, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- I don't live where you do, so I can't really comment on the state of things pre ban, but I know here in Denver, we had tons of nonsmoking restaurants and bars (usually run by hippies... go figure). Your question assumes an unlevel playing field, but I think the opposite it true: All other things being equal (quality, service, all the crap I mentioned before) I would go to a restaurant that advertised "No smoking allowed" before one that did so and I'm pretty sure that there are many others who would do the same. Right before the smoking ban in Colorado, most smoking sections where tucked away in corners and had maybe 2/5ths of the total dining area. In fact, a lot of smokers I knew got non smoking seats because they didn't like the smell while they were eating (ironic, I know). SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 18:26, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- I live in Chicago, and we had no non-smoking resturants or bars. I, too, would go to a resturant that advertised no smoking than one which didn't, but resturants aren't even the real problem; bars and clubs were. Everyone likes smoking and drinking, so if you wanted to go dancing, you had to come home smelling like smoke. Now, things are much better.Z3ro 18:32, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- But it's the same idea, let a club open up and make their non smoking environment the crux of their advertising... If I didn't have an intense aversion to clubs, I would go. My argument isn't really for smoking perse, it's more against government using the power of the majority against the minority (it's kind of a theme for me.) SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 18:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- And I agree with the whole minority/majority thing, except when that minority is endangering my health:)Z3ro 18:40, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- There was a time where smokers probably were in the majority, it's only through government legislation including taxes that the situation has been reversed. And one wonders what "rights" smokers should have because it mainly involves social occasions. Cigarette smoke is such a pervasive thing that it really does impinge on others whether they like it or not. My having a glass of wine with a meal does not affect the remainder of the restaurant (although my drunken behaviour afterwards might), yet striking up a Cuban afterwards would most certainly impose upon my fellow diners. When I weant to school I had to travel by public trasnport for about 50 minutes each way every day, when I came home I stunk of smoke and had probably inhaled a goodly amount as well. In Singapore you are not allowed to carry durian on the sub-way because it smells so bad, but you are perfectly free to eat it at home.
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:52, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- (EC) The thing with bars & clubs is that people often go with a group of friends, typically some of whom smoke & some of whom don't. So where there's a choice, most likely they would go to a smoking bar so that those who smoke can do so. That's why (in most places) few bars purposefullly opt to be non-smoking, because it has a huge impact on their business. Here in the UK, one of the things that was suggested when the smoking ban was being planned, & thankfully was scrapped, was to ban smoking only in pubs that serve food. This would have pretty much killed off the tradition of pub food, as those that chose to serve food & ban smoking would lose the drinking & smoking crowd, effectively making them restaurants in all but name, & those that wanted to allow smoking (which is extremely common in the UK) would not be licensed to serve food. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:55, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- With regards the UK's blanket smoking ban - well the Scottish version has resulted in 17% drop in heart attack admissions to hospital within the first year and, I believe that, when the rest of the UK followed suit similar effects were experienced. OK, so there are freedom of choice issues but the same arguments could be made for heroine use. Would you want that freely and legally available. Silver Sloth 05:06, 15 January 2009 (EST)
- Sir Chuck writes: "because your rights as one of the majority (non smokers) does not trump the rights of the minority (smokers). You have the right to not inhale second hand smoke, but you do not have the right to dictate who can smoke and where."
- I disagree. I think that my right to breathe air which does not contain carcinogens does trump the right of people who want to put them there. Nobody should have the right to poison somebody simply because they enjoy doing it, and I think it's absurd to suggest otherwise. If smokers want to commit nicotine suicide then let them do it in the privacy of their own homes.--Bobbing up 06:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)
- With regards the UK's blanket smoking ban - well the Scottish version has resulted in 17% drop in heart attack admissions to hospital within the first year and, I believe that, when the rest of the UK followed suit similar effects were experienced. OK, so there are freedom of choice issues but the same arguments could be made for heroine use. Would you want that freely and legally available. Silver Sloth 05:06, 15 January 2009 (EST)
- (EC) The thing with bars & clubs is that people often go with a group of friends, typically some of whom smoke & some of whom don't. So where there's a choice, most likely they would go to a smoking bar so that those who smoke can do so. That's why (in most places) few bars purposefullly opt to be non-smoking, because it has a huge impact on their business. Here in the UK, one of the things that was suggested when the smoking ban was being planned, & thankfully was scrapped, was to ban smoking only in pubs that serve food. This would have pretty much killed off the tradition of pub food, as those that chose to serve food & ban smoking would lose the drinking & smoking crowd, effectively making them restaurants in all but name, & those that wanted to allow smoking (which is extremely common in the UK) would not be licensed to serve food. Wèàšèìòìď
- There was a time where smokers probably were in the majority, it's only through government legislation including taxes that the situation has been reversed. And one wonders what "rights" smokers should have because it mainly involves social occasions. Cigarette smoke is such a pervasive thing that it really does impinge on others whether they like it or not. My having a glass of wine with a meal does not affect the remainder of the restaurant (although my drunken behaviour afterwards might), yet striking up a Cuban afterwards would most certainly impose upon my fellow diners. When I weant to school I had to travel by public trasnport for about 50 minutes each way every day, when I came home I stunk of smoke and had probably inhaled a goodly amount as well. In Singapore you are not allowed to carry durian on the sub-way because it smells so bad, but you are perfectly free to eat it at home.
- And I agree with the whole minority/majority thing, except when that minority is endangering my health:)Z3ro 18:40, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- But it's the same idea, let a club open up and make their non smoking environment the crux of their advertising... If I didn't have an intense aversion to clubs, I would go. My argument isn't really for smoking perse, it's more against government using the power of the majority against the minority (it's kind of a theme for me.) SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 18:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- I live in Chicago, and we had no non-smoking resturants or bars. I, too, would go to a resturant that advertised no smoking than one which didn't, but resturants aren't even the real problem; bars and clubs were. Everyone likes smoking and drinking, so if you wanted to go dancing, you had to come home smelling like smoke. Now, things are much better.Z3ro 18:32, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- I don't live where you do, so I can't really comment on the state of things pre ban, but I know here in Denver, we had tons of nonsmoking restaurants and bars (usually run by hippies... go figure). Your question assumes an unlevel playing field, but I think the opposite it true: All other things being equal (quality, service, all the crap I mentioned before) I would go to a restaurant that advertised "No smoking allowed" before one that did so and I'm pretty sure that there are many others who would do the same. Right before the smoking ban in Colorado, most smoking sections where tucked away in corners and had maybe 2/5ths of the total dining area. In fact, a lot of smokers I knew got non smoking seats because they didn't like the smell while they were eating (ironic, I know). SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 18:26, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Irrelevant anecdote
This is only an anecdote reported as having happened to a close friend. Some years ago she was acting as an extra in a BBC film starring Daniel J. Travanti (of Hill Street Blues fame) who was a notorious anti smoker. One scene took place in a meeting hall in the 50s(it was about Macarthyism I believe). All were fully costumed but forbidden to smoke as Travanti objected so vehemently. At the set time of the action at least 60% of the men would have been smokers, although it was the hallmark of a woman of low morals to smoke in public. As a consequence the verisimilitude of the scene was lost - the air at such a meeting would have been near opaque with smoke but was crystal clear on film. (Frolich's research: film was a BBC/HBO/BFI production: "'Fellow Traveller" 1989.) fröhlich "gay" and "happy"