or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Smoking Ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Smoking Ban - Page 2

post #31 of 109
I am not at all for this ban, I think it is wrong and I am a NON smoker. However, I feel there should be non smoking areas or smoking rooms in all public establishments, like bars and restaurants. There should be no smoking however, in places like stores. You could not have a smoking/non smoking section there, it would be to hard. I don't know, I have never had a problem avoiding cigarette smoke wherever I go. A bar is the only place that it seems difficult, because most, if not all, don't have any non smoking sections. You know what makes these bans so silly? I guess it would help somewhat, to protect non smokers from harmful smoke, but what it doesn't do, is protect smoker's children from smoke at home. I feel people have a right to smoke if they want, but yes, they need to realize just how bad the smoke is to a non smoker. But again, a ban isn't needed.
post #32 of 109
I don't know if anyone actually read the link I provided before about why seperate sections, etc don't work. It's not a good enough solution.
post #33 of 109
Ok, so I don't want this to turn into a brawl... but they just passed the smoking ban in Philly. It will go through next year, for 2007. And I was wondering everyone's take on it... or their opinions. The law goes like this: you cannot smoke in a public establishment, cigar/tabacco bars and outside cafe's are excluded. Now, keep in mind, that this has already taken effect in NYC, and businesses have not suffered (too badly so they say...).

IMO, it will be a perk for me. I am not a smoker and have never tried smoking. There are times when I've been out that it is SO smoky that my eyes burn. However, this has never deterred me from going out... Although I do not like the smoky smell on my clothes or in my hair, I have never felt the need to lobby against it. So while I welcome the fresh air I cannot help but wonder if this is taking away a freedom of smokers, and if maybe there is a better solution. I have seen in casino's they have smoking rooms, where there is a large filter that sucks all of the smoke out, this room is a great idea IMO. It keeps the smoke away from people who do not wish to breathe in the toxins, and still gives smokers a warm, indoor area to enjoy their habit.

What do you think?
post #34 of 109
We used to live in and still go to the nearest college town, Fayetteville. They passed a smoking ban in restaurants and it did, indeeed hurt business. Up until a few months ago, there was a 70/30 rule (70% alchohol sales/30% food)--you could smoke in those restaurants. Now, they have changed it to no hot food sales period. Many restaurants that had been in town for many yers went out of business because they were the places that college kids would go grab a bite to eat and stay at until closing drinking (and, of course, smoking.) Now people are flocking to the nearby towns so they can enjoy a smoke with their meal.
post #35 of 109
My idea from our last discussion of this is still what I think the best solution would be:
Smoking establishments should be required to obtain a liscense, much like a liquor liscense. They would be difficult to get, and suddenly a smoking establishment would be the exception and non-smoking would be the rule. They could also restrict the number of places that have them per capita or per area or whatever, and then a very few establishments would have the commercial benefit of people being able to smoke inside. I would venture a guess that only smokers would go there or work there, and anyone who was a non-smoker would have to fully expect to be exposed to secondhand smoke. It would be sort of a niche market, like when someone opens a hookah bar.

I have no problem with smoking outside. My next apartment is leased as a non-smoking apartment, and I'll just go right out my door.

They can't outlaw it totally until they solve the problem of addiction. You have to remember that most smokers started when they were very young and a vast majority of us would LOVE to quit and have been trying. It's not the same as using hairspray (polluting the environment) you're not addicted to hairspray. I would fully support programs that help people quit and prevent kids from starting, but just banning it in general just makes people feel like outcasts and then they stay home... and smoke more. It seems like people just want a quick fix for everything, and it doesn't work.
post #36 of 109
I am very happy with the ban. One thing that people have to remember is that Canada has a government run public health system and the less people who smoke or are exposed to smoke, the less burden on the health system.
post #37 of 109
As more and more nonsmokers learn that secondhand smoke could be fatal and they start to avoid establishments that allow smoking, I believe that legislation becomes more and more unnecessary.

Money rules. If more people leave instead of stay due to an establishment's allowance for smokers, then they would start to ban smoking on their own.
post #38 of 109
Germany's government is deliberating a public smoking ban. A letter written to our local paper's editor asked what was next - a ban on having cats, since so many people are allergic? That's food for thought, as schools where no cats are present show evidence of dander (yeah, believe it or not, that was the subject of a study).
post #39 of 109
Good point jcat.

Being allergic to a whole lot of stuff has made me realize that there is no reason that everyone should have to cater to a small number of people. I'm the one with the problem, and I have to deal with it, not everybody else. If everyone had to sacrifice for my comfort, nobody could have grass or perfume or meat. People need to be reasonable.

I am perfectly willing to smoke outside and do at home. If I am with someone and I don't know their feelings on it, I ask if they mind and actually pay attention to what they say, if they say it's fine but don't act like they mean it I won't do it in front of them. I don't insist on sitting in smoking sections if not everyone smokes, etc. And I'm trying to quit.

If I may shed some light on the "people working in smoking establishments" the great majority of people who work in restaurants with all smoking and no non-smoking section, or in bars, smoke. I've worked in a few. Places with separate sections often have the servers who smoke work in the smoking section. I don't know if that's true everywhere, but it seems like people have this idea that all the servers in smoking sections are only being harmed by their customers, and that is not true at all. Also, most people who are servers only do it for a while and are often part-time and can very easily work somewhere that is non-smoking. Jobs like that aren't as hard to find as good-paying full-time long term jobs. I've had many, and have never had a hard time finding one somewhere else. I really think it was more of a concern when you could smoke anywhere, like on airplanes and in offices and such. Some people do chose to be servers or bartenders their whole life, but not many.

Anyway, I do think there should be plenty of places for everyone that are non-smoking, since obviously there is a demand for it, but if that demand was so great why do you think so many places still allow smoking? If most people wanted all-non-smoking then why aren't most places non-smoking? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing to pass a law about. Although I still like the liscensing idea.
post #40 of 109
I just have to add a thought:

In my province the stats are that only 20% are smokers (legally) and the majority of smokers are underage. So why should the vast majority suffer through someone else's disgusting and health affecting habbit.

Note: Eating meat is an individual choice that doesn't affect another person's health and many restaraunts have vegetarian options and many places are banning anything that is scented, like in schools and work places, so it is not just non-smokers receiving attention and changes made for them.
post #41 of 109
But I live in a state that has the highest percentage of adult smokers in the US... so I think it's different here. Especially in a town where the percentage is probably even higher.

Actually, choosing to eat meat is an individual choice that you make just like smoking is. And one that might smell in a restaurant and make those who don't choose to eat it sick. And one that adds to the health costs and burden on taxpayers. And one that pollutes the environment more than smoking does. While I choose to not eat meat and other people choose to, does that mean I should pass laws about it or even comment at all on another person's decision to do so... NO!

And most if not all people have a disgusting habit.
I know you are more affected by it than some people, just like I actually suffocate on the air near someone mowing their lawn, but it seems like the fact that I don't support an all-out ban on smoking is a terrible thing. If you read my posts again, I think my idea of what should happen is quite reasonable and would not limit anyone non-smokers included freedom of going where they want whenever they want.
post #42 of 109
HEHE *sheepishly* You can sense my fusteration on the smoking thing hey. Sorry, I don't mean to take it out on all smokers, it's just that when it is affecting other people's health, it sort of seems selfish to continue in my opinion, but that's mainly due to my situation.

The thing I don't understand is if you can just go outside to smoke and still be allowed to continue to smoke, why don't you???? Why is it so important that you must be able to smoke in inclosed areas?????

p.s. I've also got a allergy to grass and the mold and such in grass that triggers my asthma, but not to that extent. You should see my backyard. If my dog sits down, she disappears.lol
post #43 of 109
It's not important to me to be able to smoke inside. Actually, my next apartment is non-smoking while my landlord does know I smoke and intend to do so outside. However, when I go out to a bar I like to smoke inside and so do all of my friends. If you've never lived anywhere with a huge bar scene, what happens is you stand outside in line and then you get in after a while. Well, if you're with 5 people who all smoke, and you have to go outside every time and then wait in line again... ummm, you can see how quickly that would get unpleasant. And if somewhere has a cover charge then how do they get around that? Doesn't that make the bouncer's job exponentially more difficult?

I know it does affect other people's health, and I don't like smoking in front of people who I don't know smoke. And I don't usually smoke in restaurants. Anytime I can tell someone is having a problem with it I put it out.

I do realize that some people have serious problems, and you have done alot to avoid it including a non-smoking building (minus your stinky neighbors) and everything. But, like the kids who can die from having a half a peanut within a mile of them, should everyone throw out their Snickers?

And please remember most of us don't want to smoke. If you've never been addicted to anything, then I'm very happy for you, but smokers on the most part don't even want to be smokers. It's just that banning us isn't going to make us stop either. For real. I know people who can't go on an airplane cause they can't smoke.
post #44 of 109
Actually, in my city, especially places with children, have to be peanut free too. We do restrict a lot of things because of health concerns. A person related to me died of a peanut reaction at my highschool and is now a peanut free zone or anything that may even have a hint of any nut product must be labled(sp??)

I think all of these rules are fair, including the smoking ban.

I know we have a large bar scene here and the way we deal with smoking is:

The first time you go in, you get a stamp (at busy night clubs/bars) and then you can come and go freely, surpassing the lines. I've been out with people who smoke and its just a matter of going out and having your cigs.

I would think that the smoking ban would be more helpful to help people quit. I mean that's just means less palces where you can smoke.
post #45 of 109
Jumping in here late, the numbers of smokers in Canada are well known to be statistically wrong as a lot of people say they don't smoke as it makes their private health premiums go up in price and the estimated number of smokers is much higher, and that doesn't include the people who smoke dope mixed with tobacco.

Many bars do not want to do the stamp thing if they are busier bars as they have legal limits to the number of people allowed in the building by law (for fire codes etc) and it makes it harder to keep track as some people will move onto a new bar and the come back later and claim they were just out for a smoke.

Studies in countries that do have smoking bans have shown that it doesn't make a significant difference in the number of smokers (as much as we can trust the numbers) and once the restaurant and bar owners associations take the government to court, I can see Canada changing its laws to less stringent ones (allowing smoking rooms again and smoking on patios - not allowing smoking in the whole bar again)
post #46 of 109
I don't think Canada will change their decision. I mean they are paying for health care and it is a great push to have smoking bans everywhere, plus it's not a issue of individual rights because it doesn't just effect you when you smoke. I think it is fair people are still allowed to smoke in public outside and there are enough people supporting the smoking ban to keep it in place. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be one in the first place IMO.
post #47 of 109
Ah, but in politics the greasy wheel gets the oil. So if 100 people complain about smoking and decide that what they'll do with their life for a few years is campaign against smokers, the laws will be passed even though they are a small minority. Do not talk yourself into the idea that if there is a law it's because the majority of people think it's right. That may be true, I haven't seen any numbers for your part of Canada, but it isn't necesarily true.

The majority of people no longer support the war in Iraq, but well, we're still there aren't we? The majority of people no longer think gay marriage is wrong, but it's still illegal in most places.
post #48 of 109
Some times I really don't get the logic behind not supporting a good thing. If there are so many smokers who don't want to smoke, then they should be greatful. I know my Dh's parents have smoked for well over 25 years and they are quitting right now because they don't want to harm their health or anyone else's anymore, so it's completely possible. You just have to want to quit bad enough and get the help and support you need to do it.

I know that there is most definately more than 100 people lobbying for a smoking ban and I'm joining in. Btw, in over half the provinces in Canada have legalized gay marriage. I know Saskatchewan was the 7th of 13.
post #49 of 109
Originally Posted by IloveSiamese
I don't think Canada will change their decision. I mean they are paying for health care and it is a great push to have smoking bans everywhere, plus it's not a issue of individual rights because it doesn't just effect you when you smoke.
And what happens when the government discovers that revenues from tobacco and alcohol taxes actually drop? Casual smokers and occasional drinkers who smoke may quit smoking or stop going to bars/restaurants where they can't smoke. Alcohol consumption also affects others - just think of the number of people killed or incapacitated by drunk drivers every year. Will governments also ring in a new Prohibition era?
post #50 of 109
Yea... if you smoke a pack a day (which I most definitely do not) you are paying at least 1.50$ in sales tax just for that. Much much much more in New York or Chicago or lots of other places. In 1999, cigarette taxes generated 13 billion dollars in taxes when they cost only 2.50 a pack, and there's a dollar more tax added on now. (In the US). In 2001, it jumped to almost 16 billion dollars. Just the taxes. And that isn't counting the economic impact of tobacco farming or the taxes on the companies.


Think about this. If you really want to make people stop smoking, the best way to do it is by raising taxes. This benefits everyone. States and the fed get more tax revenue, and people quit of THEIR OWN VOLITION because they don't want to pay so much or can't pay so much. So people decide to quit. And it actually works. So, if you want to go on your crusade then why not focus it on raising taxes, since it helps offset the health costs and encourages people to quit.

What you want to do, which is ban it everywhere, does not. It just makes people mad and it hurts businesses. So why not go the more productive route?

The best way to make someone who has already said they are trying to quit mad is to tell them how easy it is if they really wanted to. Do you tell that to people who are addicted to heroin? Which is just as addictive? Do you know that a stupid decision I made when I was 14 to start smoking has changed the chemistry in my brain so that I actually get physically ill if I don't smoke? I know some people don't but I actually start fainting.

And I don't use that as an excuse. I will quit. But it's not going to be because I'm not allowed in restaurants smoking (which I already don't do) it's going to be because I finally did it myself.
post #51 of 109
In Saskatchewan, a pack of ciggs cost over 10 dollars. The Canadian Government pays for almost all health care and smoking definately drains that money.

I mean right here in Saskatchewan, the government is talking about taking out all the vlt's because it has such a negative affect on the community.

Maybe the difference between the U.S. and Canada is that the Canadian Government isn't willing to sacrifice it's people for the sake of money (all the time anyways).

I was in no way suggesting that quitting was easy at all, only that it is possible to do if you seek out the support and help.

I also have young sisters who are smokers who started at 14 and they get mad at me whe I talk to them about it and they also say they do not want to smoke, but do anyways. I think that instead of getting mad at people like me, get mad at the tabacco companies who suck 14 year olds into the smoking addiction in the first place.
post #52 of 109
So are you discounting the proof that raising taxes is far more effective than banning indoor smoking in public places?
If cigarettes are 10$ a pack and you have such a lower percentage (supposedly) of smokers, then isn't that a clue that it might be working?
post #53 of 109
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
So are you discounting the proof that raising taxes is far more effective than banning indoor smoking in public places?
If cigarettes are 10$ a pack and you have such a lower percentage (supposedly) of smokers, then isn't that a clue that it might be working?

I don't have a problem with the taxing thing. It's not my money, but it will never hinder smoking completely. We have a lot of smokers here in Saskatchewan, it's just that the majority are underage smokers and they aren't included in stats.

I really enjoy the smoking ban and so do a lot of other people. I don't understand what the big inconvience is about having to smoke outdoors only in public.
post #54 of 109
I think we've all explained everything at least once, including the difficult aspects of having to smoke outside in certain situations, and you've made it pretty clear that smoking is wrong because it affects other people.

Just remember that the bans do not decrease the number of smokers and that most of us are willing to smoke outside usually. An absolute ban is simply overkill. Perhaps you should take your campaign to the owners of restaurants and bars that you like the best and try to convince them to become non-smoking?

And expecting that nobody will smoke in your entire city is an unrealistic expectation even if tobacco becomes a totally illegal substance. Imagine the american Prohibition (sorry, I don't know if there was one in Canada or not) but with smoking instead. Convincing people they don't want to smoke works, telling them they can't makes people defensive and mad.

I think you feel so strongly about it because of personal reasons, and I respect that. But please remember that most non-smokers don't actually mind it that much if they are in a public place where they can reasonably expect to be exposed to smoke (like a bar).
post #55 of 109
Actually, I do not mind a little smoke(like outside), but if its allowed in bars and such, it isn't just a "little" smoke. It's like chain smoking everywhere and it's hard to breathe. I can not go to places like that and if there wasn't a ban, then every bar would allow smoking. I like to go out to the bar with my friends to dance and why should I just "expect" to be exposed to smoke. If smoking is that important, just waltz outside. I, unlike smokers and their cigs, actually need my oxygen to live.

They are not taking away anyone's ability to smoke, but limiting as to where. People should not have to expect to be exposed to cig smoke when it is not needed.
post #56 of 109
BANS do not work and they are wrong!! I am sick and tired of goverment officials and dumb laws designed to so called "protect us". I am a non smoker and I wll never smoke. I have always been able to avoid second hand smoke on my own WITHOUT any laws or bans. If you keep supporting these ban laws, we will lose every freedom we have. If you go to an establishemnt that allows smoking, ask that you be seated in a section that is non smoking. If they do not have such a place, then leave. It is as simple as that. I understand no smoking in places of employment, because you just cant get up and walk away from it. There, smokers just have to realize they can not smoke until they get a break or it is time to go home. Good FAIR regulations work, but bans do not.
post #57 of 109
I totally agree with AmbertheBobcat, if we walk outside we are polluting our lungs with the emissions of thousands of cars, they aren't going to ban cars. Healthcare costs a considerable amount for alcoholics who not only suffer the medical consequences of ruining their livers etc but also get into bar fights and have to be stitched up, fall over drunk and split their head open etc - but you don't see them banning alcohol.

As a non smoker I want to proect my lungs, but I was happy with the 'smoking rooms' part of the legislation and think they have taken it too far. Yes people complained that they could 'smell smoke' off of people leaving the smoking room and that some drifted out when the doors were opened, but really, how much smoke is that compared to when you are queueing outside a bar waiting to get in and there are 20 people standing outside smoking and a load of cars driving by?

The nanny state that is being evolved by governments bringing in laws like this are rediculous, its about time that people remembered that we can actually decide things for ourselves. I personally do not mind a bar that has light smoking but will leave a bar full of smoke. If I eat I will always go somewhere that has a non smoking section because I don't like people smoking if I am eating - that is my choice.
post #58 of 109
I think that smoking sections just do not work!!!

What's a smoking section do??? Think about it. There is no magical power to prevent the smoke from going into the non-smoking section. Like you said, seperate rooms don't work because as soon as someone walks out, cig smoke escapes the room and having a seperate room wouldn't even matter if the place used the same venhilation for both rooms.

Why should I have to leave some place because of smokers???? I don't think so. The smoker's do not have to leave if it is non-smoking. They only have to go out side for a couple of mins if they need one and come right back in.

When there was no smoking ban, there was not a single bar that I can remember that didn't allow smoking. So where are people like me supposed to go?

I think that for sure, any place that has minors under the age of 18 should be completely non-smoking.

This isn't just some government plan to become our "nanny". They are many many people lobbying for this and will continue to. Oh and maybe if so many people didn't act like they need a nanny, then maybe our government would not have to act like a nanny.
post #59 of 109
I think Florida is doing it right. Smoking is banned everywhere indoors that there are employees EXCEPT for private clubs and "stand-alone" bars that serve less food than 10% of their total sales. Smokers still have somewhere to go and there are plenty of bars that don't allow smoking indoors. Also, service staff have their options.
post #60 of 109
my BF's parents live in FL, I would say 75% of the bars they used to go to have decided to go the 'private club' route to allow smoking.
like you said, seperate rooms don't work because as soon as someone walks out, cig smoke escapes the room
I also said that the amount of smoke coming out of a separate room was minor compared to standing outside a bar waiting to get in with 20 people smoking outside it.

Personally I think that it would be a better idea to use the 'smoking rooms' as non smoking rooms so they are well ventilated and have a separate entrance to each part (as most of the bars here did when they had smoking rooms) so you don't have to walk from one part to another.

To be honest, some of the bars here are still using their smoking rooms because their sales went down when they stopped, they would rather risk the fine at least for the first time.

But regardless, they could make smoking illegal and people would still do it, so you will never be completely free from second hand smoke, and there are much worse things in the air out there that don't come from a cigarette
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Smoking Ban