smoking in public laws

[Motokid]

Here's a great thing that needs to be done in many, many more places:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4539313.stm

I can't stand the trash that smokers create, and this little artical puts things in a very nice perspective. Really amazing numbers.

Technically every time a smoker throws a butt on the ground it's littering.
Most cities, towns, and states have laws on littering, but for some reason smokers are never held accountable.

You Go Manchester !!!!!

 

[Motokid]

Wake up England - It's coming your way too...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4104088.stm

Should be interesting to watch the bru-ha-ha as it happens over there...

It has always appeared, from where I sit, that smoking in Europe, and overseas in general, is much more publically acceptable. Do you UK types think this type of law has any chance of becoming publically acceptable?

Are non-smokers as vocal over there as they are here in America?

 

[leckert]

Okay, I'm a smoker. Was an ex-smoker for over a year, and have been back on them for the last two years. (maybe more?)

My concern is not that the smoker's "rights" are being infringed upon, or that the health of others is threatened.

I absolutely agree that, in public places smoking should not be allowed. These are places for which my tax dollars pay.

My concern is from the viewpoint of the business owner.

A bar IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE!!!

A bar is a privately owned business. And what right does the government have to tell me who I can and cannot serve in my own establishment?

If a non-smoker wants a smoke-free environment for their family to enjoy, then find a restaurant that is smoke free. Don't make me run my paying, smoking customers out so that your kids don't have to smell cigarette smoke.

If non-smokers would boycott smoking bars and/or restaurants and only go to those who have a smoke-free environment, then we could all get along much better. I would go to my dark, seedy, foul-smelling restaurant, and you could take your family to the brightly lit, spring-fresh happy land.

I am tired of the government meddling in private business because they think it is good for us.

I must also say, that the inconsiderate and rude smokers of the world are really pissing off those of us who actually take others into account before we light up. Pitching butts out of the window, or flicking them onto a sidewalk is disgusting. When I see someone in a restaurant blowing smoke willie-nillie with no concern for those around them, I want to go and punch them in the neck. I apologize on behalf of all the idiots who smoke without regard for others, and I understand how frustrating this can be.

 

[Robert]

Smoking should be banned and yes, even in bars. It doesn't just protect customers, it protects wait staff as well.

I would be very happy if there was no smoking, period. Not that I care if others chose to ruin their health, but because it costs tax payers and anybody that pays health insurance a lot of money.

 

[leckert]

Smoking should be banned and yes, even in bars. It doesn't just protect customers, it protects wait staff as well.

I would be very happy if there was no smoking, period. Not that I care if others chose to ruin their health, but because it costs tax payers and anybody that pays health insurance a lot of money.

So what gives anyone the right to dictate how a person operates his business?

No one is forcing the waitstaff to work there, nor the customers to patronize. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere. If no one likes it, and no one comes in, then the proprietor will be forced by the economy to ban smoking, by his choice, not by the government.

There are a lot of ways to reduce the burden on the poor taxpayers other than socializing commerce.

 

[Robert]

So what gives anyone the right to dictate how a person operates his business?

No one is forcing the waitstaff to work there, nor the customers to patronize. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere. If no one likes it, and no one comes in, then the proprietor will be forced by the economy to ban smoking, by his choice, not by the government.

There are a lot of ways to reduce the burden on the poor taxpayers other than socializing commerce.

To begin with, states do have the right to determine how a business operates. Why or why not allow smoking is a debate that will rage for a long time to come and I’ll not be drawn into it except to post my views.

As far as waitstaff, most are just people that are looking for a job that pays a decent wage. Are you going to tell a kid working their way through college that they can’t work at a bar unless they’re willing to except the health risks? Or how about a since mother trying to earn enough money to feed her children and keep give them a nice place to live? Why don’t you ask airline attendants that have suffered the ill effects of second hand smoke how they feel about it? As far as customers are concerned, it works the other way, too. It wasn’t long ago when non-smokers didn’t have a choice. If you wanted to go to a bar to have a drink with some friends then you had to put up with the smoke. There wasn’t a choice. Now of course, if a smoker doesn’t like the fact that there isn’t smoking allowed in the bar, they can go elsewhere. Seems the shoe is on the other foot now.

Right now, everybody pays for health problems caused by smoking. Most Americans get their health insurance through their employer. The employer pays most of the insurance premium on a group health insurance policy, and the employee pays part of it. It’s the way it works. Now if people under that health policy are ill a lot and cost the insurance company a lot of money, the premiums are increased. Just like car insurance is increased if you have drivers on the policy that are high risk. The cost is passed on to the employer and to the employee. Now the employee has higher insurance premiums and employer has a higher cost of doing business and that cost is passed on in the price of their products, what ever that product might be. Look at the problems Ford Motor Company and GM are having right now; they were recently reduced to junk bond status by S&P. Part of their problem is that they incur huge costs to employee benefits, especially health care. That cost is of course passed on in the price of their cars so that every time someone buys a new car, part of the cost is increased health insurance cost because many people in the automotive industry smoke. In addition, studies have shown that smoking in the workplace reduces productivity and reduced productivity means higher costs and that is passed on the consumer as well. It’s just the way it works. Never mind what happens when people reach age 65 and go on Medicare.

 

[clueless]

There was I coffee shop near my workplace that made most of its trade at lunchtime, from people working in the area. Two thirds of the tables were non-smoking.
A year ago, it became a non-smoking shop. Two months later it changed to 'smoke wherever you want, mate', because the shop had lost its customers.

The owners had not realised that most of their customers were smokers. The only reason they went out for lunch instead of bringing their own or using the companies' canteens was because they worked in non-smoking buildings.

How did they managed to fill the 2/3 non-smoking tables before? Because smokers would sit at a non-smoking table (without smoking, of course) and move to a smoking table as soon as it was free.

 

[Robert]

There was I coffee shop near my workplace that made most of its trade at lunchtime, from people working in the area. Two thirds of the tables were non-smoking.
A year ago, it became a non-smoking shop. Two months later it changed to 'smoke wherever you want, mate', because the shop had lost its customers.

The owners had not realised that most of their customers were smokers. The only reason they went out for lunch instead of bringing their own or using the companies' canteens was because they worked in non-smoking buildings.

How did they managed to fill the 2/3 non-smoking tables before? Because smokers would sit at a non-smoking table (without smoking, of course) and move to a smoking table as soon as it was free.

Is that the rule or the exception?

 

[clueless]

Is that the rule or the exception?

Neither. Smokers are a minority, but not a negligible one.

I don't think non-smokers should suffer but, instead of a full ban why not allow restaurants and bars that cater for smokers only (staff included). That way, everybody is happy.

 

[Robert]

It's the exception. But like I said, it really doen't matter to me if people wish to shorten their life except for the money it costs me and my family to support the ill effects of smoking.

 

[clueless]

Ok, it’s the exception in the UK. In many other European countries, it’s the rule as there are more smokers than non-smokers and you’ll be surprised to know that lung cancer is not a major cause of death (in fact I never met anyone who had it or knew anyone with a relative, friend or acquaintance who had, but I knew several people with breast, stomach, bowel or testicular cancer) and heart disease is much less common than in countries with unhealthy diets. I am not denying the effects of smoking but there are many other things that people do to themselves that put more pressure on the health service. I have not heard anyone yet complaining about having to pay for those, although there was a doctor who threatened to de-register one of his patients if he did not loose several stones.

 

[Robert]

Ok, it’s the exception in the UK. In many other European countries, it’s the rule as there are more smokers than non-smokers and you’ll be surprised to know that lung cancer is not a major cause of death (in fact I never met anyone who had it or knew anyone with a relative, friend or acquaintance who had, but I knew several people with breast, stomach, bowel or testicular cancer) and heart disease is much less common than in countries with unhealthy diets. I am not denying the effects of smoking but there are many other things that people do to themselves that put more pressure on the health service. I have not heard anyone yet complaining about having to pay for those, although there was a doctor who threatened to de-register one of his patients if he did not loose several stones.

People thought that would be an issue in the states, but it never happened. Some smokers live with it because they can have a smoke later. Non-smokers go out more because they enjoy it more.

I've known a lot of smoking related illness and death. It isn't pretty. I've also seen my insurance rates and taxes go up becase of it. Smoking related issues are huge and preventable. As far as other causes, well I'm sure they exist, but studies that I've read don't support ideas the ill effects of an unhealthy diet increases health costs like smoking does.

 

[Zolipara]

In my country there is a huge tax on cigarettes. Its put there to discourage people from smoking, and to pay for the extra medical costs caused by smoking.

 

[Robert]

In my country there is a huge tax on cigarettes. Its put there to discourage people from smoking, and to pay for the extra medical costs caused by smoking.

Cigarettes are taxed on federal, state, and local levels in the US. We call a sin tax. I know some of the money goes into programs that are supposed to help prevent smoking, but I don't know that any of it goes into medical costs. I believe most of it goes into general funds.

 

[leckert]

It's the exception. But like I said, it really doen't matter to me if people wish to shorten their life except for the money it costs me and my family to support the ill effects of smoking.

(I edited this to insert this comment: I posted this before I saw your post on the "other causes of death", so it may be redundant...)

So, then, to continue that line of logic, we should also ban all pork products, pastries, and street-crossing, because, obviously, they affect the health of the general population, and increase our health insurance costs. Driving threatens the health of hapless pedestrians, so that, too, should be outlawed.

Then we pass legislation to make compulsory a 1hr state-sponsored daily work out regime. Employers must provide facilities for their employees to conduct their excercises, and will pay them for the hour each day. (Goose-Stepping must be part of each state's mandated routine.)

I know I am being extreme, but I am too narrow minded to see the difference. I just want the government to leave me alone, and all the "activists" to get a job and quit peeking in my windows.

 

[leckert]

Cigarettes are taxed on federal, state, and local levels in the US. We call a sin tax. I know some of the money goes into programs that are supposed to help prevent smoking, but I don't know that any of it goes into medical costs. I believe most of it goes into general funds.

Unfortunately, NONE of it (that I know of) goes to help re-train and re-employ the tobacco industry workers who are, or will be, out of jobs when their industry dissolves.

 

[Robert]

Unfortunately, NONE of it (that I know of) goes to help re-train and re-employ the tobacco industry workers who are, or will be, out of jobs when their industry dissolves.

Very true. I just hope peple have the sense to learn a new trade and move on before it becomes an issue.

 

[leckert]

Very true. I just hope peple have the sense to learn a new trade and move on before it becomes an issue.

It is a farming industry. People are born into it, and it is all they know. Their families' estates, and any wealth they may have been able to accumulate, are from the farms they have tended. How effectively can a 50 y/o man who has done nothing but farm tobacco all his life, as his father and grandfather did, learn new skills, and sell himself to an employer for enough money to replace a family's income?

Tragic.

I wonder if the tobacco farmer, and/or their employees, going on welfare would impact the cost to the public?

 

[Zolipara]

As far as other causes, well I'm sure they exist, but studies that I've read don't support ideas the ill effects of an unhealthy diet increases health costs like smoking does.

Here is a article showing some of the diseases where obesity is considered a risk factor.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1521-6918(04)00091-5

In addition obesity is recently linked to complications during pregnancy and birth and even to certain birth defects in children. It is thought to be linked to a disturbance in the "hormonal balance" in the obese women.

Any kind of health risk leads to a increase in health costs.

 

[Robert]

It is a farming industry. People are born into it, and it is all they know. Their families' estates, and any wealth they may have been able to accumulate, are from the farms they have tended. How effectively can a 50 y/o man who has done nothing but farm tobacco all his life, as his father and grandfather did, learn new skills, and sell himself to an employer for enough money to replace a family's income?

Tragic.

I wonder if the tobacco farmer, and/or their employees, going on welfare would impact the cost to the public?

I don't think it's something that will happen over night. When it happens, farms can always change to another crop.