Smoking bans in bars

[ninelives]

That's a horseshit law. The government shouldn't be allowed to just step on someone's rights to open a private establishment and allow smoking. Just because certain people don't enjoy people smoking in a bar does not mean that their will should force bar owners to stop patrons from smoking. Absolutely retarded law.

Viva la Liberty some say

If America had some....

The problem with that is smoking kills both people who smoke and via second hand smoke. A bit more complicated than talking about someone's right to do something. No one's prohibiting them from smoking altogether.

[ebk]

The problem with that is smoking kills both people who smoke and via second hand smoke. A bit more complicated than talking about someone's right to do something. No one's prohibiting them from smoking altogether.

This is always my problem with the people who try to equate smoking with eating too much. Smoking hurts you AND me. Eating too much only hurts you. (and I don't mean you personally, I mean you in the general populace sense of the word).

[Literally Speaking]

I quit smoking a month ago, cold turkey, but now I'm addicted to Slim Jim snacks.

Don't worry bout me getting fat, I'm 20 lbs under weight as it is.

My motivation for WANTING to quit came swiftly when I did the math, I smoked 2 packs a day and with the sin tax it would have cost me $3,650.00 a year to smoke, now I'll take that 3+ grand and spend some time in Disney World each and every year, or maybe a week in Maui.

[wanna be drummer]

The problem with that is smoking kills both people who smoke and via second hand smoke. A bit more complicated than talking about someone's right to do something. No one's prohibiting them from smoking altogether.

The don't go near smokers. Very simple. But you can't simply don't have the right to say to a bar owner "Well you'll hurt me if I come into your bar with all that smoke, so you're not allowed to have that privliege anymore," because you DON'T HAVE TO GO IN anyways

[wanna be drummer]

This is always my problem with the people who try to equate smoking with eating too much. Smoking hurts you AND me. Eating too much only hurts you. (and I don't mean you personally, I mean you in the general populace sense of the word).

You are very, very wrong here, economically speaking.

[Dzldoc]

I quit smoking a month ago, cold turkey, but now I'm addicted to Slim Jim snacks.

Don't worry bout me getting fat, I'm 20 lbs under weight as it is.

My motivation for WANTING to quit came swiftly when I did the math, I smoked 2 packs a day and with the sin tax it would have cost me $3,650.00 a year to smoke, now I'll take that 3+ grand and spend some time in Disney World each and every year, or maybe a week in Maui.

Not to mention some other good reasons Bro

[Mangani]

I think smoking should be banned inside anywhere. And I think it and alcohol are some of the best things to tax because they are not a staple. They are a luxury.

Take it outside so our children don't grow up with a higher chance of respiratory diseases and death.

Well I agree with you (and others) on the smoking ban in bars/pubs but I would also like to see a CHILDREN ban in pubs/bars too. I like to go out for a quiet drink in a pub without a sprog running around my feet.

There are plenty of places for parents to take their kids. Pubs shouldn't be one of them. Ever. It's kind of sad how a lot of even old pubs these days are now turning into semi restaurants full of families with kids. There's no damn escape from them now.LOL. Ironically it's a Catch-22 situation. The smoking ban in pubs has resulted in more children being taken to them.

[bouncing~ship]

When I smoked I just ignored everyone.

And the revenue is a definate. Do you have any idea how many fags we sell over seas. Millions of tons...American fags are very popular because the quality is good for the cost. Well unless you roll your own

Mary smokes bongs

[manderlyh]

^Holy. The allow kids in bars in the UK?

Kids aren't allowed in bars in the U.S.

I personally would like to see Idaho ban smoking in all bars. I say this because I'm allergic to smoke, and anytime I go to a bar, I pay for it--I get sick, even when I take allergy pills prior to showing up at the bars.

I can't simply "avoid" the smoke in a bar. I'm in an enclosed place, and the smoke lingers. In a building, the smoke doesn't go anywhere.

Also, I see ninelives' argument about secondhand smoke. JUST BEING AROUND SECONDHAND SMOKE can give someone health issues. Knowing what we know about secondhand smoke, I think smoking should be an outdoor only activity when in public. If you want to smoke in your car, fine. I won't be riding with you. If you want to smoke in your house, fine. I won't be visiting you.

Onto another rant: people who smoke in their cars with their kids in them! Freakin' child abuse, I say!

edit: BTW Magiani (or however you spell it), it's good to see you around!

[Mangani]

^Holy. The allow kids in bars in the UK?

Yes they do. While it was always up to the individual pub landlord if you could bring your child into them, nowadays they encourage families to come by providing more food with family menus etc. I don't mind if they stick to a certain eating area but these days a lot of pubs let you eat wherever you like inside.

The other day, to get to the bar, I had to do an assault course to bypass a lady with a baby in a pushchair and then when I sat down with my drink an approximately 3 year old toddler proceeded to walk up to me and try to stare me out.

I was about to offer him outside.

edit: BTW Magiani (or however you spell it), it's good to see you around! tongue.gif

edit.....oh thank you.

[manderlyh]

That's just crazy. I think of all the jackasses I've seen cause some major fights in bars, and I wouldn't EVER take my kid there. (not that I have kids, but yanno)

[Mangani]

That's just crazy. I think of all the jackasses I've seen cause some major fights in bars, and I wouldn't EVER take my kid there. (not that I have kids, but yanno)

I know what you mean, although they do tend to stick to the daytime to bring their kids into pubs. You don't really see it a lot in the night time. Unfortunately, I like to go to pubs in the day (afternoon), like if I'm doing a hike and I stop off at a country pub etc. But I guess I shouldn't really moan too much. Some kids are really quiet and don't cause any problems.

[longdistancewinner]

The don't go near smokers. Very simple. But you can't simply don't have the right to say to a bar owner "Well you'll hurt me if I come into your bar with all that smoke, so you're not allowed to have that privliege anymore," because you DON'T HAVE TO GO IN anyways

Well, that's not really fair, either. In Britain every pub was allowed to smoke, so where were the non-smokers supposed to go? Stay at home? Linger outside? They lose out because of someone elses decision - how is that fair?

Smokers who want to smoke, still can, but they have to do it outside. In the winter they're in heated little shelters, and in the summer they're in the sunshine and nice weather. They haven't lost out. I don't get their second-hand smoke (as much), and they still get to smoke. And as far as I've seen, it hasn't changed a thing.

As for children, yes, that is a problem. But then, I was always going in pubs as a kid, so I can't completely say children shouldn't be allowed. As far as I recollect, children are allowed in pubs, but they aren't allowed at the bar. So, in the summer, bambinos run outside, but in the winter, I've yet to see children in the pubs I go to.

[bigzepfan]

Most pubs that serve food in my area allow children up until about 9pm. After that it's over 21 only.

[wanna be drummer]

Well, that's not really fair, either. In Britain every pub was allowed to smoke, so where were the non-smokers supposed to go? Stay at home? Linger outside? They lose out because of someone elses decision - how is that fair?

Open up a non-smoking bar? Go to a restaurant where smoke is generally fair? Just because you don't get your way, you can't tell someone that opening up a smoking bar is illegal because you yourself want to go there and not catch secondhand-smoke

You're reasoning is flawed. For example, take all the people in the world with peanut allergies. Now let's pretend that the majority of them love roller coaters but are deathly allergic to even the smell of peanut products. They'd all love to get into Cedar Point but they know that most of the food there has something to do with peanuts or peanut oil so they can't get in. Should a law be passed that forbids the use of peanuts in theme parks?

That is exactly the same thing as what this smoking ban is proposing

Smokers who want to smoke, still can, but they have to do it outside. In the winter they're in heated little shelters, and in the summer they're in the sunshine and nice weather. They haven't lost out. I don't get their second-hand smoke (as much), and they still get to smoke. And as far as I've seen, it hasn't changed a thing.

Non-smokers who don't want to catch any smoke don't have to be around them. They just don't have to go near them.

[JimmyPageZoSo56]

(Note: sorry if this discussion has been posted before )

Several months back the city council in Dallas, TX took it upon themselves to ban smoking in all bars in Dallas (excluding the cigar variety). The ban takes effect this April 10th.

What is everyone's opinion about this? Personally I think that smoking and drinking sort of go hand and hand, and that the bar owner should make the decision about whether he wants to allow it or not.

Its been like this in Minnesota for a long, long time. I like it. I don't like tasting smoke in my food.

[longdistancewinner]

Open up a non-smoking bar? Go to a restaurant where smoke is generally fair? Just because you don't get your way, you can't tell someone that opening up a smoking bar is illegal because you yourself want to go there and not catch secondhand-smoke

You're reasoning is flawed. For example, take all the people in the world with peanut allergies. Now let's pretend that the majority of them love roller coaters but are deathly allergic to even the smell of peanut products. They'd all love to get into Cedar Point but they know that most of the food there has something to do with peanuts or peanut oil so they can't get in. Should a law be passed that forbids the use of peanuts in theme parks?

My reasoning is flawed? How so? Because I believe non-smokers shouldn't have to avoid public establishments? Allegies and smoking shouldn't even be compared - that's flawed. One is something you choose to take up, the other cannot be helped. And Cedar Point? I'm assuming that's a theme park.

Priorities have changed. If smoking is something that can be done in public, why should a non-smoker have to avoid the same place? Why should the smoker have the priority, when they're harming, not just themselves, but everyone around them?

[wanna be drummer]

My reasoning is flawed? How so? Because I believe non-smokers shouldn't have to avoid public establishments? Allegies and smoking shouldn't even be compared - that's flawed. One is something you choose to take up, the other cannot be helped. And Cedar Point? I'm assuming that's a theme park.

My apologies, I forgot you were from England. Yes, Cedar Point is a theme park.

Anyways, it doens't matter is something is chosen or not. The fact remains that if I want to open a bar and smoke in it when I want, then that should be my right. The consumer shouldn't dictate how I run things, I should. The business is private not public. Whoever wants access can have it and anyone who doens't want access doesn't have to come in.

Priorities have changed. If smoking is something that can be done in public, why should a non-smoker have to avoid the same place? Why should the smoker have the priority, when they're harming, not just themselves, but everyone around them?

You misunderstand. No ones getting priorities here. Allowing someone to smoke in a private institution is not giving them a priority. Non-smokers are still just as welcome. But to force people outside to smoke when the owner of a bar wishes to allow his patrons a smoke is Big-Brother Government crap.

[Dzldoc]

Having been a former smoker of 30 years I may sound a little biased but I think it's a bit of a grey area with the government forcing regulations on private businesses.

I always chose to sit in the non-smoking sections of restaurants because I never liked to mix smoke with eating either.

I always found it amusing though because a no smoking section inside a building was the equivalent of a no peeing section in a swimming pool LOL.

For those of you that want to or are trying to quit more power to you and I hope you can achieve that before you have a more serious reason to give them up

Eventually everyone quits smoking

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

[longdistancewinner]

My apologies, I forgot you were from England. Yes, Cedar Point is a theme park.

Anyways, it doens't matter is something is chosen or not. The fact remains that if I want to open a bar and smoke in it when I want, then that should be my right. The consumer shouldn't dictate how I run things, I should. The business is private not public. Whoever wants access can have it and anyone who doens't want access doesn't have to come in.

You misunderstand. No ones getting priorities here. Allowing someone to smoke in a private institution is not giving them a priority. Non-smokers are still just as welcome. But to force people outside to smoke when the owner of a bar wishes to allow his patrons a smoke is Big-Brother Government crap.

I guess I should've taken into consideration that most of the pubs in the UK aren't privately owned. Some are, but, even then, the ban is still enforced. From that respect, I understand where you're coming from, but I also believe that non-smokers would still lose out. I guess the 'open up non-smoking bars' argument could apply, but we don't really have them - if we ever did.

I'm biased. The way I see it is if you go to a pub and people smoke, everyone else inhales it too. And some of our pubs aren't just mundane commercial bars, some are are incredibly gorgeous and steeped in history. One of my locals (and where I used to work) is over 200 years old (quite a few are in the area). I was gutted when smoking prevented me from carrying on.

[wanna be drummer]

I guess I should've taken into consideration that most of the pubs in the UK aren't privately owned. Some are, but, even then, the ban is still enforced. From that respect, I understand where you're coming from, but I also believe that non-smokers would still lose out. I guess the 'open up non-smoking bars' argument could apply, but we don't really have them - if we ever did.

I'm biased. The way I see it is if you go to a pub and people smoke, everyone else inhales it too. And some of our pubs aren't just mundane commercial bars, some are are incredibly gorgeous and steeped in history. One of my locals (and where I used to work) is over 200 years old (quite a few are in the area). I was gutted when smoking prevented me from carrying on.

All I'm saying is that no government should have the authority to dictate whether the establishment you own can have smokers in it or not. It's the equivalent of the government banning smoking in your own home.

[Electrophile]

This is real simple; either enforce the non-smoking ban or lose your liquor license.

What is more important to these business owners? Losing all their business because they can't serve alcohol anymore (which is the point of a bar/pub/nightclub) or having to adapt their business because of non-smoking ordinances? The way I see it, one allows you to continue to make money the other doesn't. And in good ole capitalist USA, making money is the name of the game.

Smokers can still go to these establishments, they just can't smoke. Or they can go to the special area designated by the owners to smoke. So no one is telling them they physically must stop smoking, they are being told they must smoke in a different location on the premises than before. They can still drink, order bar food and have a good time. And the non-smokers who patronize the establishment can have a good time as well.

I live with 2 smokers who have no problem with this ordinance. They don't like smelling smoke when they eat either. When they smoke they go outside, or they have a smoke before we leave the house.

[ally]

I wish you luck next time you try to quit, ally. I know it's not easy for many people to stop. It takes a deep committment and a world of willpower. Nicotine is one of probably 100 other chemicals put in the cigarettes to make quitting so difficult. I respect you go to great lengths not to smoke nearby others. I don't think non-smokers are trying to get on people for the sake of it, however. As Longdistancewinner says, it drifts... and if someone doesn't smoke they don't want to smell like it or smell it, period. I'm in that group of people... and i have great hopes that everyone addicted to cigarettes will try to quit (and do it)!

I fully understand and appreciate that non smokers don't wish to be subjected to second hand smoke and it's well within their right , not to be. Sorry if it sounded like I feel every non smoker is a zelot. I know that is not the case. Most non smokers and people who wish to quit are on the same page when it comes to the subject. My only beef is that government has a habbit of sticking it's nose in too many places. When it does, some people take it upon themselves to act like agents of the government. It's those people that I have a real issue with and it's not just about smoking. I liken those types of people to flunky cops who've never been able to fulfill their quest. The Anti - Everything brigade are the same people who managed to get a laughing ban in taverns through out Whatcom County in Washington State. The Laugh Police exist because people in government empowered them. It's my opinion that too much of our lives are being dictated to us by these zelots. Smoking is a tough one for me to argue though. It becomes a shared experience when done inside and as I've stated, I support the ban in that sense. Outside and away from other's ? There is no way that is imposing on anyone but me.As long as it stay's that way then I don't believe I need the Smoking Police to stand in my way. I have plenty of reason to quit, their input is not required.

Thanks for the well wishes Tangerine. I shall be making another attempt soon. Hopefully it will be a successful one

[Jahfin]

I've been tobacco free since October of last year. I did it through a combination of willpower and nicotine gum but there's few stronger incentives than seeing a loved one slowly lose their life due to cancer. Different things work for different people; I tried Chantix and was unsuccessful. I just saw on the news that they've developed a nicotine substitute, maybe that'll help. The hugest struggle lies ahead as I still get very strong cravings for tobacco from time to time but I've come this so far after trying to quit many, many times before. Plus, it is so very hard trying to get yourself to a place where you're ready to quit, I just don't want to have to go through that again.

[ally]

I've been tobacco free since October of last year. I did it through a combination of willpower and nicotine gum but there's few stronger incentives than seeing a loved one slowly lose their life due to cancer. Different things work for different people; I tried Chantix and was unsuccessful. I just saw on the news that they've developed a nicotine substitute, maybe that'll help. The hugest struggle lies ahead as I still get very strong cravings for tobacco from time to time but I've come this so far after trying to quit many, many times before. Plus, it is so very hard trying to get yourself to a place where you're ready to quit, I just don't want to have to go through that again.

Good for you Jahfin. Glad to hear that your having success. My next attempt will be with that fake cig that Nicorette has come out with. Wait till I pull that out in the pub Continued success to you my friend