Public Smoking Ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
Most of you will know that I happen to live in Germany. In this particular country, there are currently debates about a possible public smoking ban. This is probably nothing special to some, as there are such bans in other countries like Ireland, Italy and (at least partially) in the USA.

Now, I am a non-smoker. I have never smoked and I doubt I ever will. Most of the people I know and hang around with are smokers. I grew up in a smoker household (both of my parents smoke, quite a lot actually), and somehow I always end up hanging out in the smoker's area with other people. I got used to it, and now I couldn't care less if the person I'm with smokes... apparently, I am actually more tolerant of that than many smokers are. I don't mind if people smoke in my room, or if they're sitting in a car with me... the only condition is that, in the car, a window is open. I don't even care if I'm sitting in a restaurant, still eating and somebody else puts on a cigarette. Of course it's polite to ask, and that is actually what I care more about.

Let's get back to the original subject. With the current public discussion, there's lots of talk from radical anti-smokers who try to inflict a bad conscience in smokers by publically listing, in every gruesome detail, how non-smokers are threatened by passive smoking.
Somehow, I always end up reading or hearing that. I know that most smokers simply ignore that kind of stuff. I love it when people try to tell other people that I am going to die if they carry on. I don't want to hear that shit.
So, that was the first thing... the next may even be worse.

As I said, I always end up hanging around with smokers. And as I said, that's no problem for me. I know out of experience that when I'm together with them in any building in which smoking is prohibited, they end up running out every half hour. That's annoying, but if we're talking about a youth hostel, university or anything else, fine, so what. That's part of it all. But what if smoking is banned from bars? I don't want to run out every half hour to join someone, I don't want to witness somebody running out every half hour. It's just ridiculous. I know, it's supposed to protect me, but seriously... I can protect myself if I want to. I don't need a law to protect me. I just don't care. I don't want to be annoyed, and I can tell now already that I will be.

Now, you could argue that I'm being egoistic, and that I'm the only one who feels that way. But I'm pretty sure my sentiments are shared by many others. The thing is, smoking is actually not a big deal... it is only being made one by over-protective mothers or people with weak egos that need to push themselves in the public. I'm quite sure that if there wouldn't be such a big fuss about it, nobody would care... and less people would be attracted to it.
 
I’ve been smoking for years but I stopped years ago. I’m not sensible to smoke but I do agree with the idea that smoking should be banned from public areas or at least that there must be non-smokers areas in public places like bars or restaurants. I do believe that smoking is dangerous for health and that passive smoking is dangerous too. I’m sure that tobacco is a danger for everybody and that it would be better if nobody would smoke. However, I’m strongly against too much laws, rules etc… Therefore I think that it’s good to have obligatory non-smoking areas inside each public place.

To end up on a funny note, never forget that passive smoking is more cost-effective!

:-[
 
Perun said:
I don't want to run out every half hour to join someone, I don't want to witness somebody running out every half hour. It's just ridiculous. I know, it's supposed to protect me, but seriously... I can protect myself if I want to. I don't need a law to protect me. I just don't care. I don't want to be annoyed, and I can tell now already that I will be.
Click to expand...
Personally, I disagree with you.  Yes it does look ridiculous for a smoker to run out every now and then.  But,  you say that you can protect yourself if you want to.  How is that?  If you don't like people smoking around you,  then you're the one who's going to run out every thirty minutes.  Also,  when you come back the place will smell bad and you won't like it.  When smokers go out,  it's in the open air.  When someone smokes next to you,  you might also have problems and that is not fair.  I think public smoking ban is fair.
 
Here in Sweden, there are not public smoking ban, but it's against the law to smoke in restaurants and bars. When Sweden Rock Magazine about a year ago asked what Motörhead thought of it, Lemmy and Mikkey came up with an idea, that the owner of the bar/restaurant should decide if it would be a smoking or non-smoking restaurant/bar. Well, that's not the point, but the point is that the Swedish government banned it because they wanted to protect the employes from second hand smoking. It's the same reason here. It doesn't matter if you don't mind that other people smoke but it's a matter of protecting us from each other, just as SneakySneaky summed in so well. You might perhaps not mind, but others do, and there are people with medical conitions such as myself, who suffers from a mild form of astma. So it's a matter of protecting you from each other, in places where you can't just go away sometimes.

In other words, I agree with public smoking ban.
 
In the Province of Nova Scotia (that's in Canada, for you who aren't sure), it's illegal to smoke anywhere except in your own home or outside (but you must be 10 metres from the entrance to a building) You can't smoke in bars, restaurants, shopping centres, private clubs, work places (both indoors and out), or ANYWHERE else someone might unwillingly inhale your smoke. Second-hand, or passive, smoking is just as harmful as doing it directly (or so I've been told by people much smarter than I. They wore white coats and everything!)

Here we have government (taxpayer) funded health care. When someone gets sick, it costs ME money to look after them. We are one of the most economically depressed parts of the Western world, and we shouldn't have to foot the bill for people who deliberately poison themselves.  Smoking costs millions of dollars to be wasted on treating people for related diseases (heart problems, cancers, emphysema, etc.) which could have gone to helping others who didn't bring on their illnesses themselves. Cigarettes are, thankfully, taxed through the roof (CDN$9.00 for a pack of 25), but they should be banned completely. For every dollar in taxes the government loses, I bet they'd recoup three in savings to the health system.

Smoking has got to be one of the most retarded things about the human species. It's somehow a status symbol to spend a lot of money on poison. Anyone who took up smoking after 1980 or so (when it became incontrivertibly evident that it was dangerous) is a complete idiot. I don't care what the reasons were (yeah it relieves stress, but so does a run around the track, sex, or knitting - deal with your s**t people!); it is completely moronic.

Any other kind of company that killed so many people would be shut down by governments around the world faster than you can say "Union Carbide."

*breathe*


(with both lungs, because I don't have to be around Smokey McSmokerson)
 
In England and Wales (Scotland has had this for a while now) we will soon have a complete ban on smoking in public places. I for one am so glad. Glad I can go to a pub and not come home stinking of smoke (bit of a bug bear with me, is that). Already, pubs are starting to introduce a smoking ban (mostly when the pub has had a refit) and some restaurants try to discourage smoking (like my local Indian) by not putting ashtrays on tables.

Like Canada, the UK also has a government funded health care system and although I can't comment on the state of Canada's health care coffers, here in the UK it is pretty stretched and any reduction in self-inflicted illnesses would help. But, the government here gets so much money from taxes on tobacco, it does make you wonder what effect that will have when it subsides (more than £5 for a packet of 20, apparently)!

And yes, I know there are so many other ways of doing harm to oneself other than smoking (sport, for example) before anyone picks on that, but (I am making an assumption here) possibly more smokers are in hospital for smoking relating illnesses than sports injuries.
 
It has worked well in Ireland.

That's all I can add to this conversation :P
 
In Quebec, since May 31, there's a complete public smoking ban.
 
I Denmark we don't have a real banning yet, but it is discussed heavy.

I don't smoke, and i don't really care, if one oy my freinds to it. If they want to smoke to their dead, then they are welcome  :wacko:

Back to the serious: I'm against a ban in private owns restaurants, bars and so on. The state shouldn't decide, if the owner of the bar most allow smoking. It is only the owner, who should decide that. The other thing is a violation of the private right of ownership.

(Sorry for my bad english, i try to do my best :) )
 
The ban on smoking in-doors in public places in Sweden has been going for about a year now and I think it's good. I've been smoking since I was 11 (getting close to 30 years of smoking now) and I really don't mind. My clothes don't stink after a night out, I smoke less and that, incidentally, reduces hangover. So, it's good for all. Except that outside the bars and restaurants, it looks like hell because some restaurants haven't put ashtrays out :rolleyes:
Anyway, as a smoker, I don't oppose a public ban as long as I can smoke outside.
 
Oh good lord, I guess I'm the only one that agrees with you Perun. I think what you are driving at goes a little deeper as well, as in having a nanny state. Like making wearing a seat belt a law or a helmet if riding a motorcycle or smoking. Why whould we be told what to do or not to do by the state? In the United States they love doing that and on top of that it is THE CITIZENS responsibility TO FIND OUT what those laws are!!! So they can tell us what to do and not to do, but they don't bother making sure we are well informed, that they leave up to us.

If a person is dumb enough not to wear a seatbelt, a helmet or to smoke, I say they deserve the consequences. Also, SneakySneaky, what Perun meant by he can protect himself was, if he knows that people smoke in a certain bar he can choose not to go to that bar and go to another social gathering hole of his liking. My father smoked (he doesn't anymore), when he had reunions at our house or whenver we went to other social gatherings plenty of people smoked, like Perun I got used to it and frankly I could care less. Why is it ok to bash, discriminate and start rounding up smokers like jews to concentration camps (Denny's in the U.S has glass rooms where smokers are caged up), but it is NOT ok to do the same with other minorities like homosexuals? It is "narrow-minded", "bigotry", etc to deny gays, blacks, hispanics, etc rights, but it is "progressive", and "healthy" to ban smokers rights? I don't get it, either rights and freedoms for EVERYBODY or for nobody.
 
Onhell, whilst I see your point I just can't wholly agree. It is not that a smoker is doing damage to themselves (unless your medical bill because of the smoking cost me money), it is more what they inflict on others. And this is not down to the passive smoking, it is also the smell. Are we not forgetting the choice that I have to want not to go to a public place and smell or smell like or even breath in other peoples smoke?

Believe me, I am not an anti smoker, if that is what people want to do, but I just really prefer to go down a pub and enjoy a beer without the smoke once in a while. Is that not unfair?
 
So there should be pubs that prohibit smoking and those that don't, smokers should be able to go to a pub and have a drink as well.
 
Yeah OK - maybe I am been a bit partisan about it, but I would choose a non-smoking pub over a smoking pub any day. And I could not care less if that is dictated by the publican or the government.

A point of note, I have smoked in my past (very distant past), so I know what a smoker feels like after a meal or whilst having a beer.
 
Onhell, your point is well taken, and if the entire world operated in the same way as the Land of the Free (©George Bush, 2001) it'd be perfectly valid. But when somebody gets a disease from smoking in Canada, it costs ME money. I have to pay for their treatment. I don't want to pay for another person's stupid choices.
 
IronDuke said:
But when somebody gets a disease from smoking in Canada, it costs ME money. I have to pay for their treatment. I don't want to pay for another person's stupid choices.
Click to expand...

Duke, that is a tired argument. It doesn't cost you extra money. The government is taking the tax money you're paying anyway and uses it for that. If they raised an extra smoker's healthcare tax, then your argument would be valid.

I'm off to bed now.
 
Per, that money could be spent doing other things. For every smoker with lung cancer who gets treated, that's X students who can't get government loans to go to university. It's X fewer dollars which can fund libraries, go to foriegn aid, or retaining doctors. It's money which could be put to much better use, is what I'm saying. This is quite simple: The more people who smoke, the less money can be spent on other stuff. Your own argument aove states just as much.
 
IronDuke said:
Onhell, your point is well taken, and if the entire world operated in the same way as the Land of the Free (©George Bush, 2001) it'd be perfectly valid. But when somebody gets a disease from smoking in Canada, it costs ME money. I have to pay for their treatment. I don't want to pay for another person's stupid choices.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about that.

I still have that opinion, that the owner of the restaurant, bar and so on, should decide if smoking is allowed in his restaurant. Or else the state is violating the private right of ownership. Actually i think, that the private right of ownership is the most importent right we have in a civilized country. 
If the owner not allow smoking, then the state can do nothing about it. Or he not allow jwes, muslims, Christians, red-haired people and so on.

Actually i don't like taxes at all, but that discussion can we take in an other topic :)
 
Perun said:
Duke, that is a tired argument. It doesn't cost you extra money. The government is taking the tax money you're paying anyway and uses it for that. If they raised an extra smoker's healthcare tax, then your argument would be valid.

I'm off to bed now.
Click to expand...

Almost happened in Quebec x_X
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top