Smoking in Bars/Public Places? Yea or Nay? (house, jazz)

half_baked87 · 01-18-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

I'd leave it to the discretion of the owners of the establishment, rather than giving away even more personal liberties to the government.

If a dude wants to start up a smoker-friendly restaurant, so be it. Who are we to say that that's illegal? If you don't like second-hand smoke, then go some place where they don't allow smoking.

In any case, I recognize the fact that a lot of people don't want to drown in the "stench" of smoke, but the whole second-hand smoke kills thing is vastly blown out of proportion. You'd have to be living in second-hand smoke for it to kill you.

brilliant, but good luck. personal discretion is all but a thing of the past, at least here, can't do **** without offended someone, then there has to be a law made to make sure no one's feelings are hurt.

~~bungalow~~ · 01-18-2006, 05:23 PM

I remember hearing this somewhere but...

What was said was

Howcome it is perfectly ok to publicly admonish people for their very unhealthy smoking habit. Even going so far as to ban smokin in public places, yet it is rude to scorn an obese person for eating too much.

I think that is hypocritical. We can verbally tell a smoker that they are ruining their life, but telling this to an obese person, we run the risk of hurting their feelings.
I dont understand

Barnard17 · 01-18-2006, 05:37 PM

Oh trust, I tell fatties that they're fatties

And if the person is smoking in enclosed public spaces, it's fine to admonish them due to the damage it can cause people.

Also be aware that while passive smoking takes longer to cause cancer, the cancer it causes is generally more lethal.

A pub landlord will probably not ban smoking, because the smokers would just go elsewhere losing them custom. It's important that the Government sets the standard as a requirement, to ensure that there will be smoke free places for people to enjoy.

cardboard adolescent · 01-18-2006, 05:45 PM

If there's so many people desperate for "smoke-free places," then they can go ahead and start them. Then all the non-smokers can have their smoke-free bars and sit around and talk about how great it is that their lungs aren't being corroded by second-hand smoke.

That way, everyone can continue to enjoy their personal liberties without the government stepping in and setting regulations on what we can or cannot do.

Barnard17 · 01-18-2006, 05:49 PM

It would not be evonomically feasible, because the concentration of people specifically going there would not be enough to maintain the shop. If the Government steps in and says no smoking in pubs, cafes, restaurants it means that the actual loss of custom is minimal while the risk of passive smoking is greatly reduced. People are still free to step outside for one.

cardboard adolescent · 01-18-2006, 05:53 PM

If there's such a minority of people who would actively search out another place to avoid smoke, then why is it even necessary to punish smokers by enforcing regulations? It's this kind of mentality that just leads to more and more constricting government control.

It's not even the fact that you have to step outside to smoke that bothers me, it's just the mentality behind the whole thing, where you're punishing a certain group of people for doing something that makes YOU uncomfortable, when you should be the one responsible for coping.

babakeatwix · 01-18-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fal

Oh trust, I tell fatties that they're fatties

And if the person is smoking in enclosed public spaces, it's fine to admonish them due to the damage it can cause people.

Also be aware that while passive smoking takes longer to cause cancer, the cancer it causes is generally more lethal.

A pub landlord will probably not ban smoking, because the smokers would just go elsewhere losing them custom. It's important that the Government sets the standard as a requirement, to ensure that there will be smoke free places for people to enjoy.

I agree with you Fal. I believe that people shouldn't ignorantly be able to give young children the chance to second hand smoke.

half_baked87 · 01-18-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

If there's such a minority of people who would actively search out another place to avoid smoke, then why is it even necessary to punish smokers by enforcing regulations? It's this kind of mentality that just leads to more and more constricting government control.

It's not even the fact that you have to step outside to smoke that bothers me, it's just the mentality behind the whole thing, where you're punishing a certain group of people for doing something that makes YOU uncomfortable, when you should be the one responsible for coping.

i totally agree. but it's a rarity to see someone take responsiblity for themselves instead of trying to change their circumstances so they don't have to. everyone's always pointing the finger, but they don't excercise their right to do something about it for themselves.

half_baked87 · 01-18-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babakeatwix

I agree with you Fal. I believe that people shouldn't ignorantly be able to give young children the chance to second hand smoke.

what are young children doing in a bar?

Barnard17 · 01-18-2006, 05:58 PM

If it were punishment, then it would be more than just a ban on smoking in public. It's not an issue of comfort, solely, it's also an issue of health. It is the duty of the government to protect the health of it's citizens, while still allowing them to kill themselves.

For the record, I am not a non-smoker - people smoking around me causes me no discomfort (though I'm aware that it is still damaging my health).

View Poll Results: Smoke in public?
Yea	37	28.46%
Nay	70	53.85%
Don't Care	23	17.69%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

01-18-2006, 05:37 PM	#13 (permalink)
Barnard17 My home? Discabled, Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 204	Oh trust, I tell fatties that they're fatties And if the person is smoking in enclosed public spaces, it's fine to admonish them due to the damage it can cause people. Also be aware that while passive smoking takes longer to cause cancer, the cancer it causes is generally more lethal. A pub landlord will probably not ban smoking, because the smokers would just go elsewhere losing them custom. It's important that the Government sets the standard as a requirement, to ensure that there will be smoke free places for people to enjoy. __________________ Vita brevis, Occasio praeceps

01-18-2006, 05:49 PM	#15 (permalink)
Barnard17 My home? Discabled, Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 204	It would not be evonomically feasible, because the concentration of people specifically going there would not be enough to maintain the shop. If the Government steps in and says no smoking in pubs, cafes, restaurants it means that the actual loss of custom is minimal while the risk of passive smoking is greatly reduced. People are still free to step outside for one. __________________ Vita brevis, Occasio praeceps

01-18-2006, 05:58 PM	#20 (permalink)
Barnard17 My home? Discabled, Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 204	If it were punishment, then it would be more than just a ban on smoking in public. It's not an issue of comfort, solely, it's also an issue of health. It is the duty of the government to protect the health of it's citizens, while still allowing them to kill themselves. For the record, I am not a non-smoker - people smoking around me causes me no discomfort (though I'm aware that it is still damaging my health). __________________ Vita brevis, Occasio praeceps

01-18-2006, 05:23 PM	#12 (permalink)
~~bungalow~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hot-lanta Posts: 3,140	I remember hearing this somewhere but... What was said was Howcome it is perfectly ok to publicly admonish people for their very unhealthy smoking habit. Even going so far as to ban smokin in public places, yet it is rude to scorn an obese person for eating too much. I think that is hypocritical. We can verbally tell a smoker that they are ruining their life, but telling this to an obese person, we run the risk of hurting their feelings. I dont understand

01-18-2006, 05:45 PM	#14 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	If there's so many people desperate for "smoke-free places," then they can go ahead and start them. Then all the non-smokers can have their smoke-free bars and sit around and talk about how great it is that their lungs aren't being corroded by second-hand smoke. That way, everyone can continue to enjoy their personal liberties without the government stepping in and setting regulations on what we can or cannot do.

01-18-2006, 05:53 PM	#16 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	If there's such a minority of people who would actively search out another place to avoid smoke, then why is it even necessary to punish smokers by enforcing regulations? It's this kind of mentality that just leads to more and more constricting government control. It's not even the fact that you have to step outside to smoke that bothers me, it's just the mentality behind the whole thing, where you're punishing a certain group of people for doing something that makes YOU uncomfortable, when you should be the one responsible for coping.