Smoking in pubs: I'm torn

[Angus McPresley]

So, Melbourne just implemented its no-smoking-in-pubs law.

I have nothing but cognitive dissonance over the issue. I believe people should have the right -- not just to smoke, but to own and operate a pub where are allowed to.

But man, it's nice to come home from a night out not reeking of smoke.

I so wish that market forces would have resulted in having some pubs that decreed no smoking, and that smokers could go off to their own pubs and mentholate their lungs to their hearts' content. In every city I've lived in, though, that never seems to happen. And so we get these laws.

A right has been lost here. And as horrible as smoking is, I don't want to say I'm glad about it just because I don't partake of that right.

Your thoughts?

[King of the Americas]

Dallas Texas implimented the same laws about 2-3 years ago under the direction of Laura Miller.

I am a free market guy, so I say if you wnat to allow smoking in 'your' business, then that's your business, not government's.

That said, I know a LOT of 'women' who are especially happy about their hair not reaking of smoke after going into a bar for 30 minutes.

I'd have made the law the same as you suggested,

"Every bar and or business has to clearly mark whether smoking is or is not allowed on its premises."

Then let the market decide who stays and who goes.

[MWare]

Went through it here in NYC. As a smoker I was pretty pissed off initially. Many friends who work in bars were quite concerned that many customers would stop coming and they would lose a lot of income. After a couple years of it (has it been that long?) those concerns don't seem to have panned out too much (can you imagine nobody going out in NYC?). However, I have now been trained and actually don't even remember what it was like to smoke in a bar. Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Anyway, I don't go out as much (though I think that is more a function of age than legislation), but when I do, I obviously smoke less. Overall though, the higher taxes, the smoking bans, the more smokers seem to be looked down upon; it hasn't really affected how much I smoke as a whole.

[Bob2038]

As a non-smoker I know I am biased. However, I couldn't be happier that this law came into effect in my city.

For those who say that could just make some bars smoking and others not, pictures this scene:

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.

Now I only looked up a few sources, but the all put the number of current smopkers in the US around 20-25% of the population. Considering that the majority of people don't smoke, it seems unfair to make all the non-smokers suffer.

[Darat]

...snip...

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.


...snip...

And this goes to show there are many issues that the "free market" cannot provide a solution to since not everything has a "marketable" value, in this instance your friendships.

[tkingdoll]

Don't be torn. Smokers are the minority and exclude many of the majority because of their habit. Businesses will adjust and in the long run potentially benefit. Two thirds of people don't smoke. Many of that two thirds will now be visiting pubs where previously they wouldn't.

I've already started going out more. Not that I'm the benchmark for anything (except awesomeness).

[King of the Americas]

I just want to make it so you can 'choose' whether to suffer or not...

If I am having a beer, and a friend of mine is having a cigarette...I'll have one.

If I am playing cards, I love toking on a cigar and sipping a nice brandy.

If 'most' people don't smoke, my law would eventually yeild a market where 'most' bars disallowed smoking, but still a quarter of the bars that DO allow smoking.

Let market forces decide these things.

If I owned a bar, I'd be pissed that some government stuffshirt made this decision for me.

[tkingdoll]

If I owned a bar, I'd be pissed that some government stuffshirt made this decision for me.

Yes, because owning a business means you should be able to do exactly what you want, even if it's to the detriment of other people's health, like your bar staff for example.

Hey, I wish my office building wasn't legally obliged to provide wheelchair ramps, no-one uses them and they cost money to install! Damn those government stuffshirts!

[Beerina]

For those who say that could just make some bars smoking and others not, pictures this scene:

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.

So...you enjoy using threats of violence and jail against all your friends to jam your ideas on how everyone should behave down their throats? This is not hyperbole -- it is a valid description of what's going on.

You, the only non-smoker in your group, have some magical right to overpower their freedom?

So few people realize it's freedom that makes this country great, not democracy.

[Beerina]

Yes, because owning a business means you should be able to do exactly what you want, even if it's to the detriment of other people's health, like your bar staff for example.

Hey, I wish my office building wasn't legally obliged to provide wheelchair ramps, no-one uses them and they cost money to install! Damn those government stuffshirts!

It's easy to be sarcastic when it's somebody else's hard-earned cash paying for somebody's feel-good wishlist.

Now try mandating every building, including private houses, have a wheelchair ramp and elevators. See how long people love the magnanimity of it all, and see how long said politicians keep blathering this brand of hot air.

What? What's that? They're all lining up suddenly to loudly huff how silly the law has gotten, to thunderous applause of the masses?

Golly. Imagine that.

[Bob2038]

Seems I hit a nerve with a smoker.

So...you enjoy using threats of violence and jail against all your friends to jam your ideas on how everyone should behave down their throats? This is not hyperbole -- it is a valid description of what's going on.

Apples and oranges.. tossing around violent analogies doesn't make your "point" sound stronger.


You, the only non-smoker in your group, have some magical right to overpower their freedom?


Not at all.

[Mashuna]

On a note entirely unrelated to the morality of legislating against smoking, I asked the landlord at our local pub what the financial impact had been (smoking ban came in April 2nd in Wales). This was a pub full of regulars, almost all of whom smoked.

He told me that profits were up, as they were selling much more food. Really not the answer I expected, but good to hear.

[King of the Americas]

tkingdoll,

Okay, I 'kinda' get your point about protecting worker's health.

However, there are a LOT of jobs located around or near 'dangerous' stuff. Alcohol for example, speeding cars along a highway, needles in a sewing factor.

I am no OCHA Official, but I'll bet that employers need only provide for 'reasonable' safety, and NOT 'absolute' safety.

So you have to prove that you 'could' get lung cancer from second hand smoke, in order to make that argument, as it refers to bar employees.

I think your comparing the Equal Access argument to this debate is comparing apples to watermellons, and is a separate issue to be debated in another thread.

(*Equal access shouldn't just mean the front door, but every door, espeically the bathroom. OR, not at all. Menaing that IF you want 'my' money, make ALL your doors passable. But if you DON'T want my business, then I'd have no problem with you putting a warning sign in your window, "NOT ADA COMPLIANT". Then I'd know to avoid yur place. MY problem is that 'I' don't know what I am getting myself into, when I role into a restaraunt. I 'might' be able to get int he door, but that is no guarantee that I'll be able to use the bathroom. I'd argue that you don't really need the ADA laws as they are written, but rather what you need are full disclosure laws, that demand ALL business say whether or not that are Equal Access Compliant or not.)

I guess the issues are more similiar than I thought...

[KingMerv00]

So few people realize it's freedom that makes this country great, not democracy.

"Freedom", at least in America, is defined by a combination of the Constitution and democratic vote.

[Bandersnatch]

For those who say that could just make some bars smoking and others not, pictures this scene:

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.

So...you enjoy using threats of violence and jail against all your friends to jam your ideas on how everyone should behave down their throats? This is not hyperbole -- it is a valid description of what's going on.

How do you extrapolate that from that?

[Senex]

I don't smoke and appreciate my clothing not smelling of cigarette smoke when I leave a pub -- but politically I would like to see the government decriminalize some drugs, not further restrict the ones that we are currently allowed.

I also have a variety of cigarette tricks that I no longer have opportunity to use to impress the smoking ladies.

[Iamme]

As a non-smoker I know I am biased. However, I couldn't be happier that this law came into effect in my city.

For those who say that could just make some bars smoking and others not, pictures this scene:

You are the only non-smoker in the group of your friends and you all want to go out. Now tell me, which bar are they going to want to goto? So you either goto a bar alone, go and breathe in everyone's smoke or go home.

Now I only looked up a few sources, but the all put the number of current smopkers in the US around 20-25% of the population. Considering that the majority of people don't smoke, it seems unfair to make all the non-smokers suffer.

What if 5 people wanted to go to the beach but one was afraid of algae blooms in the water and wanted to go to the city pool instead?

What if a bar had peanuts and one person was alergic to peanuts?

And on and on.

I luved to smoke and drink. They go hand in hand. I cant' see jsut sitingat a bar stool twiddling your thumbs without smoking inbetween gulps. Plus it was fun to see all the losers in the bar, smoking and drinking, which are both bad for you. But it was an interesting way of life at that ime in my life, as was living amongst welfare people. I miss some of that freedom of choice/diversity.

[MWare]

Don't be torn. Smokers are the minority and exclude many of the majority because of their habit.

We exclude non-smokers??? You are being excluded from something because you don't smoke??? I've felt it is ALWAYS the other way around. To my knowledge I have never not invited anybody to my apartment or anywhere because they do not smoke. I've never not done something because I couldn't smoke there. I've even refrained from smoking in my own home to accomodate non-smokes (rarely, but it's happened). Please give an example.

[tkingdoll]

It's easy to be sarcastic when it's somebody else's hard-earned cash paying for somebody's feel-good wishlist.

Now try mandating every building, including private houses, have a wheelchair ramp and elevators. See how long people love the magnanimity of it all, and see how long said politicians keep blathering this brand of hot air.

What? What's that? They're all lining up suddenly to loudly huff how silly the law has gotten, to thunderous applause of the masses?

Golly. Imagine that.

1) I own a business. I obey the law to protect my clients and my staff.

2) In the UK, the law says that "where a physical barrier makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service then that barrier must be addressed, or the service made available by other means". This can also apply to landlords of private dwellings.

3) Smokers are the minority.

4) I'm pretty sure nobody protested the Disability Discrimination Act with 'loud huffs'.

5) Smoker, are ya?

[aerosolben]

Now try mandating every building, including private houses, have a wheelchair ramp and elevators. See how long people love the magnanimity of it all, and see how long said politicians keep blathering this brand of hot air.
Holy hyperbole, Batman! Has someone banned smoking in private residences? Have the paralyzed suddenly gained the ability to stand up and walk as easily as a smoker extinguishes a butt?

Of course people wouldn't put up with that; however, they are putting up with the smoking ban(s), in part because it is considerably less ridiculous than your scenario.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Yes, there is a conflict between liberty and public health. Most societies have found that restricting people from hurting others, and to a lesser degree, hurting themselves, is desirable. I'll let you imagine the consequence of a society in which there are no restrictions to liberty: no health and safety laws, since you are free to accept an unhealthy and dangerous job, no road safety laws, etc., and ponder whether that would be a society you would find acceptable to live in.

[blndrhed]

So, Melbourne just implemented its no-smoking-in-pubs law.

I have nothing but cognitive dissonance over the issue. I believe people should have the right -- not just to smoke, but to own and operate a pub where are allowed to.

But man, it's nice to come home from a night out not reeking of smoke.

I so wish that market forces would have resulted in having some pubs that decreed no smoking, and that smokers could go off to their own pubs and mentholate their lungs to their hearts' content. In every city I've lived in, though, that never seems to happen. And so we get these laws.

A right has been lost here. And as horrible as smoking is, I don't want to say I'm glad about it just because I don't partake of that right.

Your thoughts?
As an ex-smoker with a thirteen year habit. I don't see the benefit of showing smokers any tolerance. I definitely empathize with smokers, but when society acts as enablers for such a hideous habit I don't see the benefit.

[davefoc]

I am one of those moderate libertarian types that is a bit troubled by this trend. Personally, I am better off. I can do things without being annoyed by smoking.

One of the things that is seldom made note of is the third party consequences of smoking. A lot is made of the consequences of second hand smoke but there are quite a few other consequences that go unmentioned. Some of these include higher fire insurance premiums, and substantially higher maintenance costs as a result of embedded odors and stains that require more painting to cover up.

Still part of me thinks that if people voluntarily are willing to assume the health risks of smoking they should be allowed to meet in public places and indulge their habits.

[blndrhed]

I am one of those moderate libertarian types that is a bit troubled by this trend. Personally, I am better off. I can do things without being annoyed by smoking.

One of the things that is seldom made note of is the third party consequences of smoking. A lot is made of the consequences of second hand smoke but there are quite a few other consequences that go unmentioned. Some of these include higher fire insurance premiums, and substantially higher maintenance costs as a result of embedded odors and stains that require more painting to cover up.

Still part of me thinks that if people voluntarily are willing to assume the health risks of smoking they should be allowed to meet in public places and indulge their habits.
Definitely, smoking must be considered a pox on society.

[Carnivore]

Speaking as someone who worked in restaurants, bars and hotels for over 10 years I am absolutely in favour of public smoking bans. It is very hard for me to see them in terms of limiting other peoples freedom, in fact it feels to me as if there is finally someone standing up for my right to not be attacked at work.

I have worked in family friendly hotels where you frequently couldnt see 5 meters through the haze of tobacco smoke in the public areas (not just the bars), particularly on weekends or big sports events. Working 8 hours in that kind of environment feels like smoking a pack of cigarettes. I never used to have the option of saying " please dont sit at the bar and spew vast quantities of poison into the air I have to breathe." I have had smokers decry smoking bans by telling me if I didnt like being poisoned by complete strangers I should work in another industry.

Going out to socialize was problematic as well. Cigarette smoke clogs my nostrils, gives me headaches and makes it harder for me to sleep. If I ever dared express any of this in a social setting, the cry would go up: "If you dont like it, leave."

As a non smoker I was treated as a killjoy puritan out to ruin the fun of people trying to relax and have fun, minding their own business. Except they werent minding their own business at all - I was. I was earning a living or enjoying a drink when some jerk would come along and invade MY personal space with THEIR reeking poison. They would in fact physically harm me and insist it was their right to do so.

It seemed to me that if smoking in public was truly just an issue of personal freedom, then surely it was acceptable for me to punch smokers in the head every time they lit up around me.

"What?" I could say, rubbing my knuckles. " I'm just trying to relax. If you dont like it, leave. Getting punched in the head by strangers is just part of going out. Deal with it. Go to a no punching bar or stay at home with no social life if you must but dont you dare tell me I cant punch you in the head whenever I want to."

I used to propose this as an honourable compromise to smokers, but very few of them seemed to think it a good idea, so I'm just as happy with the smoking ban.

[MWare]

Another thing I've noticed, bars that offer outdoor seating have become VERY popular with smokers. So, at least during the warm months, there is some reprieve. I don't know much about the climate in Melbourne, but at least most of the year outdoor seating would be possible, no? Did they mention anything about that in the legislation?

One other thing. There are some exemptions in the NYC law (at least there were at first). Cigar and hooka joints were exempted (I might be wrong about this) and I know I DJ'ed at least a few clubs where the owners had some sort of "in" with officials or police and smoking was either allowed, or at least the ordinance was never enforced in those places. In one case, the owner was married to a relatively high ranking person in the NYPD (or so I heard).

[tkingdoll]

Weird, there are people in this thread who seem to be unaware or in denial that the health risks associated with second-hand smoke are proven.

Newsflash, folks. Second-hand smoke is not safe. Fact. Particularly if you work in it.

[corplinx]

I don't think that smoking in bars is a serious public health issue.

This isn't a dirty river the whole town has to drink from, we are talking about a business voluntarily owned with voluntary employees and voluntary customers.

That said, this is one of those issues that seems to bring out the inner woo in many skeptics I've noticed.

[corplinx]

Weird, there are people in this thread who seem to be unaware or in denial that the health risks associated with second-hand smoke are proven.

Newsflash, folks. Second-hand smoke is not safe. Fact. Particularly if you work in it.

You are saying that inhaling carcinogens is not good for you? Well you win the "DUH" award my friend.

Where are the people in denial about this?

[pgwenthold]

Swimming pools are not safe. Yet, we allow them.

Fast food is not safe. Yet, businesses are allowed to sell it.

Why should I not be allowed to chose to go to a place that places my health/life at risk? No one is required to go to a restauraunt. As long as it is clearly indicated that it is a smoking establishment, then people have the option to chose (note that this is what distinguishes it from "food regulation" - when I buy food at a restauraunt, I don't know if it's healthy or not; when I walk into a smoke filled restauraunt, I am fully aware). I don't accept the "I deserve to be able to eat in a smoke-free environment" claim.

OTOH, I _DO_ accept the "I deserve to WORK in a non-harmful environment" argument, and therefore am supportive of smoking bans. Employers are required to take reasonable measures to ensure worker safety, and I can't see that prohibiting smoking is an unreasonable measure.

[tkingdoll]

We exclude non-smokers??? You are being excluded from something because you don't smoke??? I've felt it is ALWAYS the other way around. To my knowledge I have never not invited anybody to my apartment or anywhere because they do not smoke. I've never not done something because I couldn't smoke there. I've even refrained from smoking in my own home to accomodate non-smokes (rarely, but it's happened). Please give an example.

Never worked in an office where everyone except you goes off for a cigarette break? Heck, I even know people who have been told they cannot have several short breaks throughout the working day, because they do not smoke, but the smokers can.

My husband started smoking because he was tired of his colleagues going for 'free' breaks while he had to stay and work. He started going with them. Then he started smoking. Weak, sure, and he's since quit, but exclusion happens all the time.

Plus, there are many, many people who choose not to go to pubs and clubs because of the smoke. If it's a choice of breathing in second-hand smoke, which kills,stinks, and hurts my eyes and throat, or staying at home, I'll to stay at home. Now I don't have to.

[tkingdoll]

You are saying that inhaling carcinogens is not good for you? Well you win the "DUH" award my friend.

Where are the people in denial about this?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2828615#post2828615

[Charlie Monoxide]

I think a lot of the posters on this thread are missing a major point. It's not the choice of the owners or patrons, whether it should be smoking or non-smoking. It's a workplace safety issue. The ban is (usually) justified as a way to protect the health of the workers in the establishment.

That said, I too am biased. I don't smoke, but I certainly drink. It seems whenever I'm out in a casino, sitting at a hot video poker machine, a smoker will park their butt next to mine and share a smoke with me .....

Charlie (smoke magnet) Monoxide

[blndrhed]

I don't think that smoking in bars is a serious public health issue.

This isn't a dirty river the whole town has to drink from, we are talking about a business voluntarily owned with voluntary employees and voluntary customers.

That said, this is one of those issues that seems to bring out the inner woo in many skeptics I've noticed.
I take issue of your voluntary employment statement. It's not realistic to believe that people are forced into certain work environments. The days of "chosing where you work" is an antiquated notion. People tend to take what they can get in the job market. I oppose any prohibition. I just don't approve of the marketing of deadly drug's by the private sector, and their lobbying influence.

[fuelair]

Problem with the "you can have it, you just have to post it clearly" is that most (almost certainly all) pubs/bars would post "smoking allowed". No functional change, non-smokers still ******.
They would do it because the image of bars/pubs is a place to drink, smoke and BS.


My most fun with this was at a Medieval dinner/theater thing in Orlando - long ago - when due to a little error my wife and I were being put at a smoking table - as we were being seated, guy next to me pulled out cigar and asked "Mind if I smoke?" I responded "not if you don't mind me throwing up!". Smart waitress helped us find new seating.

[Ohmer]

That said, I too am biased. I don't smoke, but I certainly drink. It seems whenever I'm out in a casino, sitting at a hot video poker machine, a smoker will park their butt next to mine and share a smoke with me .....

I think one should be allowed to carry a squirt bottle full of water for this situation. When the smoker lites up, squirt them in face with water to put out the fire. If they don't like being squirted in the face, they can go someplace else.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I think one should be allowed to carry a squirt bottle full of water for this situation. When the smoker lites up, squirt them in face with water to put out the fire. If they don't like being squirted in the face, they can go someplace else.Have you ever been to Reno and seen the weird people that hang out in casinos there?

Charlie (especially me) Monoxide

[pgwenthold]

I think a lot of the posters on this thread are missing a major point. It's not the choice of the owners or patrons, whether it should be smoking or non-smoking. It's a workplace safety issue. The ban is (usually) justified as a way to protect the health of the workers in the establishment.


I really wish that were true, and supporters would stick to the worker safety issue. Throwing out carp like "smoke bothers me and therefore businesses shouldn't allow it" doesn't help the cause at all. And I am saying this as one who used to be adamently opposed to it, so I know how those opposed to it feel.

However, I could see that the workers health issue was a different situation from the simple "non-smokers are put out" claims, and hence have changed my position overall (who says these discussions aren't productive?).

[Bluegill]

I really wish that were true, and supporters would stick to the worker safety issue. Throwing out carp like "smoke bothers me and therefore businesses shouldn't allow it" doesn't help the cause at all. And I am saying this as one who used to be adamently opposed to it, so I know how those opposed to it feel.

However, I could see that the workers health issue was a different situation from the simple "non-smokers are put out" claims, and hence have changed my position overall (who says these discussions aren't productive?).

I completely agree. I tend to side with the anti-smoking-ban group, but my stance has been softened quite a bit by this argument.

Regarding the "I don't mind if you smoke if you don't mind if I punch you in the face/squirt you with water/whatever" comments, I think this analogy only really works if the owner of the establishment has made it known that punching in the face or squirting with water is permitted. If so, cut loose!

[Iamme]

Yes, there is a conflict between liberty and public health. Most societies have found that restricting people from hurting others, and to a lesser degree, hurting themselves, is desirable. I'll let you imagine the consequence of a society in which there are no restrictions to liberty: no health and safety laws, since you are free to accept an unhealthy and dangerous job, no road safety laws, etc., and ponder whether that would be a society you would find acceptable to live in.


You have to have a job.

You have to use the roads (to get to yor job..grocery store..doctor, etc.).

You DON'T have to go to the bar (or work in one). Let those who want to imbibe and ruin their liver and smoke and ruin their lungs, and those who feel the same way, do so!! And let anyone else who thinks smokeless bars will work to open one themselves then.

[Iamme]

I think one should be allowed to carry a squirt bottle full of water for this situation. When the smoker lites up, squirt them in face with water to put out the fire. If they don't like being squirted in the face, they can go someplace else.

Hmmm. I hate the smell of stir fry. So if I see (smell) you eating stir fry in the restaurant I am in, I'll squirt water on you and tell you to kindly go to some other establishment.

Ya. Quite the argument.

[Admiral]

Double post.

[Admiral]

I think a lot of the posters on this thread are missing a major point. It's not the choice of the owners or patrons, whether it should be smoking or non-smoking. It's a workplace safety issue. The ban is (usually) justified as a way to protect the health of the workers in the establishment.

Do you think it should be illegal to hire workers to work in a potentially dangerous environment?

If so, then do you want to tell the lumberjacks they're out of a job, or should I?

[pgwenthold]

See my other post about employers expected to do what is reasonable to minimize risk.

It's hard to work as a lumberjack without having to cut down trees.

However, it is not hard to run a bar without allowing smoking.

[Segnosaur]

Went through it here in NYC. As a smoker I was pretty pissed off initially. Many friends who work in bars were quite concerned that many customers would stop coming and they would lose a lot of income. After a couple years of it (has it been that long?) those concerns don't seem to have panned out too much (can you imagine nobody going out in NYC?).


Ottawa also instituted a smoking ban almost a decade ago. Some bar owners initially claimed it would drive them out of business. However, in the years following the smoking ban the number of bankruptcies for bars/restaurants actually went down, and in many cases, when one bar closes, another one opens in the exact same spot. Employment is also up in the field.

That said, I am curious about one thing... the number of people who smoke is a minority, and has been for some time. You would think that more bars/restaurants would be eager to institute non-smoking policies to cater to the majority, yet prior to the ban I can only think of one restaurant (out of hundreds or thousands in the city) that were specificially no smoking. Anyone have any thoughts about why that is? Do smokers, even though they are in the minority, have more influence in getting friends to go to pro-smoking places than their numbers suggest? Or were bar owners unwilling to risk making changes that might help business, or might harm it?

[Modified]

So, I so wish that market forces would have resulted in having some pubs that decreed no smoking, and that smokers could go off to their own pubs and mentholate their lungs to their hearts' content. In every city I've lived in, though, that never seems to happen.

It didn't/doesn't happen much here in America either, and I've often wondered why. Surely the first bar, and even more so the first casino in a particular area to ban smoking would make a mint, until some of the others caught on and things balanced out. It's kind of like how all the hardware stores used to be open M-F 9-5, so when you got out of work it was too late to get the stuff you needed to fix up your house. That persisted for a long time, and I suppose it was the big chains that first broke the rule. Now if only the same thing would happen with banks.

[Modified]

Segnosaur, you beat me by mere seconds.

[mumblethrax]

Anyone have any thoughts about why that is? Do smokers, even though they are in the minority, have more influence in getting friends to go to pro-smoking places than their numbers suggest? Or were bar owners unwilling to risk making changes that might help business, or might harm it?
My theory is selection bias: potential customers kept away by smoke weren't there to voice their interest in smoke-free bars, and the existing client base either smoked or didn't mind smoking. So the perception would have been, "Hey, I'm going to lose 5% of my customers!" rather than, "Hey, I'm going to lose 5% of my customers and then gain twice as many from the pool of potential customers!"

It's a natural kind of conservatism, I think.

[Segnosaur]

My theory is selection bias: potential customers kept away by smoke weren't there to voice their interest in smoke-free bars, and the existing client base either smoked or didn't mind smoking. So the perception would have been, "Hey, I'm going to lose 5% of my customers!" rather than, "Hey, I'm going to lose 5% of my customers and then gain twice as many from the pool of potential customers!"


Yeah that might have been the case, but you'd figure that with the hundreds of restaurants/bars in a city the size of Ottawa or New York, there'd be at least a few owners willing to try a smoke-free environment (either through foresight or desparation), and if their actions were successful, then other bars/restaurants would follow suit.

[Beerina]

Seems I hit a nerve with a smoker.

Incorrect. Though, since the vast majority of humanity never defends a position unless they have a stake in it, I can see how you'd think this.

Apples and oranges.. tossing around violent analogies doesn't make your "point" sound stronger.

You seem to enjoy the idea that the world is in a good and proper state with all your smoking friends being dragged down, under penalty of jail, to your non-smoking ways.

Or will they not be threatened with jail, and, resisting jail, violence, if they smoke in those restaraunts?

[corplinx]

I think a lot of the posters on this thread are missing a major point. It's not the choice of the owners or patrons, whether it should be smoking or non-smoking. It's a workplace safety issue. The ban is (usually) justified as a way to protect the health of the workers in the establishment.

That said, I too am biased. I don't smoke, but I certainly drink. It seems whenever I'm out in a casino, sitting at a hot video poker machine, a smoker will park their butt next to mine and share a smoke with me .....

Charlie (smoke magnet) Monoxide


Most casinos we own have non-smoking sections. But yes, a casino is where people gamble, drink, dine, dance, and smoke. Its one of the few places where someone can let their hair down.

Yet there are still people who want to ruin other people's fun....

[Beerina]

"Freedom", at least in America, is defined by a combination of the Constitution and democratic vote.

Politicians loudly bray the joys of democracy, while minimizing talk of freedom. This is because they derive their power from democracy.

Freedom, in this context, means freedom from their control under democracy. Since this undercuts their power, they minimize it.

Simple to understand.

[EvilSmurf]

Reminds me of an anecdote which happened back when I was in Australia (and smoking was legal in bars at the time):

A person seated next to me at the bar was doing the whole "fake cough" (you all know the one) seconds after I lit up. He'd just thrown $50 into a slot machine, he was on his 5th tequila shot in the last half hour or so and he was using the time he wasn't drinking to proposition a young lady that he drive with her (while definitely drunk) to his place for unprotected conjugal relations.

[Beerina]

1) I own a business. I obey the law to protect my clients and my staff.

Excellent! It's more than I've done here in America.

2) In the UK, the law says that "where a physical barrier makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service then that barrier must be addressed, or the service made available by other means". This can also apply to landlords of private dwellings.

But not the normal homeowners of private dwellings. There's far too many, who would rapidly un-elect the politicians who mandated tens of millions have to make tens of thousands of pounds worth of changes to their houses.

3) Smokers are the minority.

Yes, politicians historically beat up on minorities, by leading the majorities on angry cruscades against them.

4) I'm pretty sure nobody protested the Disability Discrimination Act with 'loud huffs'.

See above re: 2)

5) Smoker, are ya?

Nah! You're the second to think this. I'm also for drug legalization, but have taken fewer puffs on joints than Bill Clinton (1 vs. 2). I'm for legal prostitution, but have never hired, or been, one. I'm also for legal porn, but have yet to act in any.

[Beerina]

Yes, there is a conflict between liberty and public health. Most societies have found that restricting people from hurting others, and to a lesser degree, hurting themselves, is desirable. I'll let you imagine the consequence of a society in which there are no restrictions to liberty: no health and safety laws, since you are free to accept an unhealthy and dangerous job, no road safety laws, etc., and ponder whether that would be a society you would find acceptable to live in.

By the way, let's stop this one right here and now.

Let's not pretend laws against smoking in public (well, private, but open-to-the-public) businesses has anything to do whatsoever with protecting workers and/or patrons.

It's all about non-smokers not wanting smoke in their face in restaraunts.

Which is fine, but let's not lie that it's about protecting workers or asthmatics when we all know that, politically, that's not why politicians are mandating it, and not why the masses vote for them.

To put it in perspective, many on the left, properly, claim that Bush, even if he didn't actually claim Iraq aided in 9/11, that he knew much of the US population was supporting him because of the mistaken belief Iraq helped in 9/11. So recognize the above, as well, thanks. "It's about the workers" is regurgitated talking points that keep people with IQs above room temps busy in blabberboards like this, while the politicians sit back, relieved, knowing people vote for them because they don'ts wants no smoke in their face.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Do you think it should be illegal to hire workers to work in a potentially dangerous environment?

If so, then do you want to tell the lumberjacks they're out of a job, or should I?To your 1st question, no. But we must try to mitigate the chances for injury (as the next poster after your message indicates)

As for question 2, I think their jobs are secured. Lumberjacks mitigate danger by using many safety devices.

Charlie (and dress up in womens clothing) Monoxide

[mumblethrax]

Yeah that might have been the case, but you'd figure that with the hundreds of restaurants/bars in a city the size of Ottawa or New York, there'd be at least a few owners willing to try a smoke-free environment (either through foresight or desparation), and if their actions were successful, then other bars/restaurants would follow suit.
There were a few in New York prior to the ban.

I think reluctance to enforce a voluntary ban (for the same, essentially conservative reasons) is one problem: unless another customer complains, the owner is unlikely to ask a smoker to put it out. A bar that was strongly identified as non-smoking, meanwhile, would be seen as something of a destination, and wouldn't necessarily be regarded as a replicable model to neighborhood bar owner (and most bars in New York are neighborhood bars).

But I don't really know. I'm sure someone has done the research at some point....

[Iamme]

Ottawa also instituted a smoking ban almost a decade ago. Some bar owners initially claimed it would drive them out of business. However, in the years following the smoking ban the number of bankruptcies for bars/restaurants actually went down, and in many cases, when one bar closes, another one opens in the exact same spot. Employment is also up in the field.

That said, I am curious about one thing... the number of people who smoke is a minority, and has been for some time. You would think that more bars/restaurants would be eager to institute non-smoking policies to cater to the majority, yet prior to the ban I can only think of one restaurant (out of hundreds or thousands in the city) that were specificially no smoking. Anyone have any thoughts about why that is? Do smokers, even though they are in the minority, have more influence in getting friends to go to pro-smoking places than their numbers suggest? Or were bar owners unwilling to risk making changes that might help business, or might harm it?

Just a simple question, as your post is well put:

Why not bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers?

[Angus McPresley]

Another thing I've noticed, bars that offer outdoor seating have become VERY popular with smokers. So, at least during the warm months, there is some reprieve. I don't know much about the climate in Melbourne, but at least most of the year outdoor seating would be possible, no? Did they mention anything about that in the legislation?


Melbourne apparently underwent an outdoor cafe revolution ten or fifteen years ago, before I got here. There are already tons of them. And our winters are long and cold but never freezing. Still, the wife and I were just commenting the other night how most cafes, bars, and restaurants all keep their outside tables operating even at the height of winter. Very European, it seems -- people just tolerate the cold here. It was never like that in Atlanta where we came from.

Some good points being made here. I can see the point of it being a preventable workplace safety issue -- and to counter the lumberjack example, maybe lumber companies should also have to do everything they can to make their workplaces safer. I don't know.

Still, I just wish, as some other posters mentioned, that someone had broken the ice by making a smoke-free bar, and that the idea could have spread. It must have been tried, though. I just don't understand what force keeps that from happening...

[Iamme]

You can put up with the cold if you like what you are doing. I used to stand out on this deck for 45 minutes at a time, talking to this girl I liked. And I HATE cold!

[ClintonHammond]

"let anyone else who thinks smokeless bars will work to open one themselves then"
California, and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are full of them! Ontario has been for about a year, or more as well...

People made the same spurious cry about movie theatres and airlines when they banned smoking. We still have movie theatre, and airlines.

On the worker safety, if the pollutants coming off the lit end of a cigarette were present in the same quantites in say a mine-shaft or a foundry, no person in the civilized world would be allowed to work there, no matter what safety gear they were issued.

I'm on occasional, binge smoker (I'll go days or weeks without one, and then smoke nearly a whole pack in a good nights drinking...) and I for one LOVE the smoking ban. My local has a wonderful patio where I can go if I wish to smoke.... and I don't come home wearing clothing that aughta be burned to cover the stank.

Smokers?!?! Pfft! Intercourse 'em!

Right up their... you know...

[Dorian Gray]

Free market IS making the call. Smoking bans level the playing field, so if your business fails, the invisible hand has spoken.

There are laws against other legal activities in bars - masturbation, defecation, etc. - so what's the big deal if the vast majority votes to outlaw something that is harmful to everyone and results in lots of illnesses and death? Isn't that democracy?

Why do you hate America?

[ThunderChunky]

Yes, because owning a business means you should be able to do exactly what you want, even if it's to the detriment of other people's health, like your bar staff for example.

Hey, I wish my office building wasn't legally obliged to provide wheelchair ramps, no-one uses them and they cost money to install! Damn those government stuffshirts!

The question should be how far the government should go to protect the health of consenting adults. Nothing was preventing smoke free bars from existing, nothing was preventing customers from not going to a smoky bar, and nothing was preventing employees from not working at a smoky bar. Lots of jobs are a lot more hazardous than working in a smoky bar.

[Santa666]

By the way, let's stop this one right here and now.

Let's not pretend laws against smoking in public (well, private, but open-to-the-public) businesses has anything to do whatsoever with protecting workers and/or patrons.

It's all about non-smokers not wanting smoke in their face in restaraunts.

Which is fine, but let's not lie that it's about protecting workers or asthmatics when we all know that, politically, that's not why politicians are mandating it, and not why the masses vote for them.

To put it in perspective, many on the left, properly, claim that Bush, even if he didn't actually claim Iraq aided in 9/11, that he knew much of the US population was supporting him because of the mistaken belief Iraq helped in 9/11. So recognize the above, as well, thanks. "It's about the workers" is regurgitated talking points that keep people with IQs above room temps busy in blabberboards like this, while the politicians sit back, relieved, knowing people vote for them because they don'ts wants no smoke in their face.

Is it your contention that secondhand smoke is not dangerous or a health risk to employees who work in such environments? For the moment, let's concede to your point and say the only "real" reason for such legislation is because non-smokers do not want "smoke in their face". This does not minimize the detrimental effects smoke has on employees.

The fact remains that smoking is not simply a personal choice. A smoker cannot keep his smoke to himself. If I wished to carry around a machine that pumped out the smell of fecal matter or cat urine, should I be allowed to do so because it is my right. What if I like listening to loud music. Can I take a boombox to bar or restaurant and play it as loudly as I wish? If you do not like it, you are free to frequent another establishment.

Smoking is intrusive and unheathly to not only the smoker, but to those in the immediate vicinity. It is this combination of factors that causes people to seek its banning in places where non-smokers also spend time.



Santa

[Santa666]

The question should be how far the government should go to protect the health of consenting adults. Nothing was preventing smoke free bars from existing, nothing was preventing customers from not going to a smoky bar, and nothing was preventing employees from not working at a smoky bar. Lots of jobs are a lot more hazardous than working in a smoky bar.

As far as employees are concerned, it has nothing to do with preventing employees from working in a smoky bar. Employers should not subject their employees to hazardous or dangerous work environments without supplying them with proper safety equipment. Also, inhaling smoke is not actually part of any job. Can you provide a list of any jobs where employees are required to work in or with a hazardous or dangerous environment where they are NOT provided with safety equipment when necessary?



Santa

[ClintonHammond]

"Why do you hate America?"
Cause a lot of Americans appear to want to make it easy to hate them...

"Can you provide a list of any jobs where employees are required to work in or with a hazardous or dangerous environment where they are NOT provided with safety equipment when necessary?"
+1!

[zooterkin]

"let anyone else who thinks smokeless bars will work to open one themselves then"
California, and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are full of them!

England, too, since July 1st. The new law applies to all workplaces, not just pubs and clubs. Although I'm not a frequent visitor to pubs, I'm more inclined to go now, especially to eat. I generally go to the pub once a week, after badminton, and we used to sit in a non-smoking back room, but our clothes still reeked of smoke afterwards. It will be nice to enjoy the difference when we resume after the summer.

Thinking back, I now find it astonishing that it was acceptable, when I first started working, for people to smoke at their desks in an open plan office. Now it's not even allowed to have a smoking room indoors.

[zooterkin]

Reminds me of an anecdote which happened back when I was in Australia (and smoking was legal in bars at the time):

A person seated next to me at the bar was doing the whole "fake cough" (you all know the one) seconds after I lit up. He'd just thrown $50 into a slot machine, he was on his 5th tequila shot in the last half hour or so and he was using the time he wasn't drinking to proposition a young lady that he drive with her (while definitely drunk) to his place for unprotected conjugal relations.

Right, but in what way were his actions directly affecting you? If he had driven drunk, yes, he might have, but you're only guessing that he would have done it. Whereas, even neglecting actual harmful effects, you were filling the air around him with smoke.

[Iamme]

The question should be how far the government should go to protect the health of consenting adults. Nothing was preventing smoke free bars from existing, nothing was preventing customers from not going to a smoky bar, and nothing was preventing employees from not working at a smoky bar. Lots of jobs are a lot more hazardous than working in a smoky bar.

You make a good point. And better hang onto your pants because if national health care goes through, you can bet that the government, to help cut costs, will require we all have chips planted in us, in a similar way as prophesized in the Bible, and you won't be able to do or eat anything unhealthy or maybe even do risky things, unless you can prove you are self-insured. Just wait and see.

It HAS to be that way, if you think about it. Because without it being that way, it would not be fair to those who do things wisely and eat properly. People who live risky lives will have to go to the back of the line and wait for their health care (or should) then, IMO.