No-smoking

[ylris611203]

The new law is being introduced to protect employees and the public from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

Key points are:

From 1 July 2007 it will be against the law to smoke in virtually all enclosed and substantially enclosed public places and workplaces. See below for definitions.

Public transport and work vehicles used by more than one person will also need to be smokefree.

No-smoking signs will have to be displayed in all smokefree premises and vehicles.

Staff smoking rooms and indoor smoking areas will no longer be allowed, so anyone who wants to smoke will have to go outside.

Managers of smokefree premises and vehicles will have legal responsibilities to prevent people from smoking.

If you are uncertain where you can or can't smoke, just look for the no-smoking signs or ask someone in charge.

With Tony Blair gone and the smoking ban almost here, England is beginning to smell sweeter already.

The down side is we still have reminders of both. Gordon Brown still remains and those that do smoke will appear to smell even worse

 

[Stewart]

With Tony Blair gone and the smoking ban almost here, England is beginning to smell sweeter already.

Still, it doesn't smell as sweet as Scotland.

The downside is that you can actually smell the sweaty people in nightclubs. The smoke used to mask that.

 

[SFG75]

I have no problem with anti-smoking regulations in public(i.e.-government owned areas) It only makes sense to have a good environment for all who are there, or at least, required to be there to some degree. In regards to private business, the private business owner should make that decision. The government doesn't run his business, they don't assume the risk, they are not the entrepreneur. We should go the way of Adam Smith and the "invisible hand" of the economy on this, but the favored route is more along the lines of Marx with excessive, growth stifling regulation.

Where this issue falls apart is when the rule applies to bars, nightclubs, and tobacconist shops. The people who go to the establishments, do so to smoke and have a good time themselves. If they don't like the smoke, they can leave and patronize another business. Ditto the people who work at those places. It has been my general experience that those who are employed at bars or nightclubs most generally, smoke themselves. If a non-smoker wants to work at a nightclub, I fail to see why they would be dumb enough to apply in the first place. Business owners of nightclubs and other establishments will tell you that most of their clientele smokes. Great, if you smoke, enjoy it. If you don't like it, then choose the place that caters to you. Don't have the government force that choice, thus not allowing the owner or customer a say. It is absolutely ludicrous that anti-smoking measures apply to tobacconist shops as well. It is preposterous that I have to stand outside a tobacco shop to smoke, while an entire family can enter a fast food place and gorge themselves on trans-fats.

 

[tartan_skirt]

We've had a smoking ban up here for more than a year, and since we flogged off Gordon Brown on you lot in England then Stewart is quite true in saying that we're sweeter.

Apparently the ban has encouraged people to quit, but I haven't actually taken notice of much because I don't smoke.

 

[Litany]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6252016.stm

I don't really see it getting very far as your civil liberties only extend to the point where they begin to infringe on other people's, and there's more people that don't smoke than do. But still, it's always fun to watch people bickering.

 

[Peronel]

I heartily disagree that banning smoking is an infringement of rights when it comes to nightclubs and pubs. Are we really going to continue to treat smoking as a publicly acceptable act? I understand that it is a right, that people can do to their bodies as they wish, but I do not accept that they have the right to infect me with their disgusting waste just because they can't go four hours without a smoke at the pub.

I live in a small town where there are no anti-smoking establishements (until July 1, that is). There's not a lot of choice at the moment; if you go out, you come home reeking of smoke and having to wash your hair. I also wear contacts, and it's hell trying to stop from rubbing my eyes after three hours in a smoke infested room.

I also don't think this equates to the obesity problem in this specific instance. In the case of smoking in an enclosed area, a smokers actions are directly affecting others around them. The obese individual who chooses to harm their body by ingesting ridiculous amounts of fast food is also partaking in a habit that should not be condoned, but they are not actively harming anyone else.

Nightclubs and pubs, while not publicly owned, are still major gathering places for people with many different requirements. It's too hard in a small town to find somewhere without a thick haze blanket constantly hanging around. Most establishments in this area are creating outdoor beer gardens (if they don't already have them) to accomodate for smokers after the ban.

EDIT: Oh, just to burst my own bubble, I can't see this law being enforced stringently. Boo.

 

[Stewart]

In regards to private business, the private business owner should make that decision. The government doesn't run his business, they don't assume the risk, they are not the entrepreneur.

I disagree. Private businesses still require customers and, in a shop for example, the customers (even if just browsing) will most likely not want exhaled smoke ruining their experience. The private business owner can't make such decisions because he would be putting the public at risk. The public are the government's concern and thus they must scoop private business into their remit.

Where this issue falls apart is when the rule applies to bars, nightclubs, and tobacconist shops. The people who go to the establishments, do so to smoke and have a good time themselves.

I would have thought that they go to bars to drink and to socialise, to nightclubs to drink, dance, and socialise, and to tobacconist shops to, er, buy tobacco. I don't go to bars and nightclubs to smoke and I would say 99% don't see that as the purpose of going to one of these places, given that the smoking is a secondary thing (for smokers, anyway).

If a non-smoker wants to work at a nightclub, I fail to see why they would be dumb enough to apply in the first place.

How about something as dumb as needing the money?

Business owners of nightclubs and other establishments will tell you that most of their clientele smokes.

I'm sure they'll tell you anything to ensure they don't need to spend profits on renovating the establishment to include outdoor smoking areas, investigating ways to grow the business as smokers vote with their feet, etc.

It is absolutely ludicrous that anti-smoking measures apply to tobacconist shops as well. It is preposterous that I have to stand outside a tobacco shop to smoke, while an entire family can enter a fast food place and gorge themselves on trans-fats.

An entire family can enter a tobacconists shop. Perhaps your own, just to get you some cigars for Father's Day. Would you be happy subjecting children to second hand smoke?

 

[SFG75]

Private businesses still require customers and, in a shop for example, the customers (even if just browsing) will most likely not want exhaled smoke ruining their experience

.

No one is "required" to shop at certain places, they choose to. As such, they can make a difference and the market will make a correction. If the non-smoking thing is so big, owners will do that on their own in order to make more money. But to ban smoking in a tobacoonist shop is not what the patrons want. Neither is it what the majority of people in a nightclub want.

The private business owner can't make such decisions because he would be putting the public at risk. The public are the government's concern and thus they must scoop private business into their remit.

Private business owners put us at "risk" every day. We have factories that spew out tons of "smoke" every day. Los Angeles is in a giant haze due to geography and industry. Companies dump chemicals in waterstreams. I guess it's o.k. if the "smoke" benefits the socialist nanny-state, then it's o.k. But if they can't make a buck off it........

[/QUOTE]

How about something as dumb as needing the money?

No one is required to work at a nightclub. There are other jobs. Vote with your feet and work elsewhere. Having frequented cigar lounges, I will tell you that the waittresses there are college girls who are just making some money. It isn't their life's vocation and they won't be doing if for fifty years.

I'm sure they'll tell you anything to ensure they don't need to spend profits on renovating the establishment to include outdoor smoking areas, investigating ways to grow the business as smokers vote with their feet, etc.

I do know of owners who have made changes, but only to be shut down due to unnecessary and burdensome laws. The city commisars..er.uh..council of Lincoln passed a city-wide smoking ban. The owner attempted to get around it by constructing an outdoor smoking "garden" area. That wasn't allowed. He ended up renting a tour bus in the winter time and the smokers would get on there. The city council got really upset and in a typical bolshevik fashion, tried to have the guy fined. Many of these laws are based on sound principle, however, they run amok in tyranny of the majority fashion.

Once again, keep in mind that when I dine out with my family-I'm thrilled that smoking isn't allowed. It's ridiculous that a cigar lounge or a tobacconist shop is held to the same standard. Yes, some tattooed worthless parent might drag their kid in, but that's a matter of neglect, not a problem with smoking.

An entire family can enter a tobacconists shop. Perhaps your own, just to get you some cigars for Father's Day. Would you be happy subjecting children to second hand smoke?

Perhaps we need to make a distinction. Cigar smokers are more curteous than that, at least, the ones I know who know what being a BOTL is really about. I admit that cigarette smokers are obnoxious and don't care who is around them. I have never taken my kids into a tobacco establishment, never had to. And yes, the wife has purchased a ton of smokes, but buying them online is the cheaper route to go. Not to mention that it's kid friendly.

 

[Rien]

Personally, I really hate tabacco. I think it's a disgusting waste. It smells, it kills, and it's very addictive. So I've never understood the point. It would be very nice to have a ban on it, in my opinion, but this one is taking it too far. The aim of it is probably to forceably make smoker's want to quit, but the pushiness of it seems a bit annoying.

I don't go out much; I'm not social enough to want to. But my basic understanding of nightclubs is that, like SFG75 has said, they're a place to unwind. For smokers, that means smoking. Why should they have to go somewhere else? Maybe if parts of nightclubs and other places of relaxation were restricted, that would work, but the entire thing shouldn't be completely smoke-free.

Also, this isn't exactly the same topic, but my sweetie, Glenn, was telling me about this, and I figure it's related. Seems interesting to me.

 

[Litany]

No one is "required" to shop at certain places, they choose to. As such, they can make a difference and the market will make a correction. If the non-smoking thing is so big, owners will do that on their own in order to make more money. But to ban smoking in a tobacoonist shop is not what the patrons want. Neither is it what the majority of people in a nightclub want.

If the majority of people in nightclubs are smokers it's because smoking is allowed in nightclubs. Over here it's around 70% of the population that doesn't smoke. And in all the polls it's a similar or higher majority that are in favour of the ban. You ban smoking and the demographic in the clubs will change. I know that I, and the vast majority of non-smokers that I know, avoid smoky establishments because they're so disgusting to be in.

Pub and club owners have had years of warning about this. They've been told to clean up their act and they haven't because it costs money to put in ventilation and separate smoking areas. So now there's a blanket ban instead. If you want to blame someone for the ban why not start with them?

And the factories you mention. They do spew out all sorts of crap, and they'd be churning out a whole hell of a lot more if it wasn't for the government legislation that orders them not to because again it costs money to clean it up and the companies don't want to spend that money unless they have to. Are you against the clean air legislation there too?

And again, factories and cars that are producing pollution are also doing something useful. Cigarettes don't deliver products to your door. Cigarettes don't produce food. It's not a valid comparison.

I don't really see the argument. People have been asked, the majority favour a ban so there's a ban.

Come election time, the people are asked, the majority vote for a particular party, that party gets to boss us about for 5 years. It's called democracy. The nanny-state argument is what people always fall back on when they get called on doing something stupid.

 

[ylris611203]

I think the next move now is to have just one type of low tar cigarette in a plain box (no branding) and put on prescription only.

 

[Litany]

Snuff and chewing tobacco.

My friends who smoke are switching to those fake plastic cigarettes with the nicotine cartridges. They get their fix, they don't have to go outside and they aren't filling their bodies with all the crap that goes along with cigarettes.

 

[ylris611203]

Snuff and chewing tobacco.

My friends who smoke are switching to those fake plastic cigarettes with the nicotine cartridges. They get their fix, they don't have to go outside and they aren't filling their bodies with all the crap that goes along with cigarettes.

....................thats what I call positive thinking.

 

[mehastings]

. But to ban smoking in a tobacoonist shop is not what the patrons want. Neither is it what the majority of people in a nightclub want.

I have to disagree here. I can't say much about tobacconist shops, as I've never been in one. In fact, I've never even seen one. Maybe its a mid-west kind of thing. If it were me and I was into fancy tobacco, I don't think I would want smoking in there either. I wouldn't want my expensive cigar or bulk tobacco being exposed to cheap cigarette smoke. Doesn't it effect the flavor or something?

I can say something about the nightclubs though. The majority of patrons do not want smoking allowed in nightclubs or bars. The entire state I live in is smoke free (in enclosed workplaces), but before that, the town I went to college in went smoke free. There was so much bitching and crying from bar owners about how the ban was going to put them out of business. They assumed people would actually take the bus to other towns to drink elsewhere. Funny thing is, it didn't put them out of business at all. In fact, most of the college bars got more business. I have a friend who was managing a bar when the ban happened. He now owns it and another bar as well. He admits that his business didn't drop and he finds it easier to get quality bartenders, bar backs and doormen.

It seems that more and more, smokers aren't smoking in their homes because they don't want to expose their spouses, kids, parents, pets, etc. Why then, should those same smokers expect to expose me just because I want to go out and get a drink with friends?