Ask Your Question today
State if you think smoking should be allowed in bars/clubs/pubs (with or without smoking and non-smoking sections) and your status as a smoker or non-smoker.
| I'm a non-smoker; it should not be allowed. | 48 | |
| I'm a non-smoker; it should be allowed. | 29 | |
| I'm a smoker; it should not be allowed. | 9 | |
| I'm a smoker; it should be allowed. | 27 |
I'm a non smoker, I'm okay with smoking allowed in some bars. if it bothers me, then I have to choice to not go to that bar.
Almost everyone who goes into bars regularly smokes anyway so I find the ban stupid.
My main issue with this law is more about property rights, though. It's scary that we can be forced to obey such laws on our own private property. This can and will lead to BAD things. What's next? The property owner should be able to choose these types of things, it's a BAR for God's sake, it's a choice to go in there, if you don't like the smoke, then don't go in.
I 100% agree with you on property rights. Our personal freedoms are slowly being taken away. Wait until some jurisdictions start banning the sale of soft drinks or food with trans fat.
With freedom comes the responsibility to make personal decisions. With decisions come consequences. Too many people today are happy letting the government make those decisions for them. Thinking for one's self is too much work.
As a frequent smoker of crack and meth, I feel highly discriminated against and would like to voice my dissent.
There are pretty strict rules in Canada regarding smoking - I will have to take the side of the employees on this one: every employee has the right to a safe workplace.
There were several court cases where employees had suied bar owners for getting lung cancer because the air was so thick with smoke - they were non-smokers btw. The employees stated that the owner would not ventilate the building properly because 'it was too expensive'. Under the most Health and Safety Acts there are 2 things:
The employer must provide a safe working environment up until undue hardship ($).
Every employee has the right to refuse unsafe work.
Now before someone tells me that 'the employees could just work someplace else' dont.... because some people do not always have a choice. In my opinion you should feel safe no matter where you work ~ no owner should get away with anything else.
I'm a non-smoker; it should be allowed.
however keep in mind it may not be allowed even if the bar wants it to be, depending on the state's laws.
I think there should be smoking bars and non-smoking ones. Im tired of the government sticking their noses into everyday life. It should be up to the descrestion of the bar owner. If a non-smoker goes to a smoking bar and complains, he or she can have their drink outside.
It is banned here and should be banned. It's better for everyone. The non-smokers don't have to breathe smoke, and the smokers find themselves socialising with other smokers just because they share a sense of exclusion.
The non-smoker can choose not to visit an establishment that allows smoking. This is what I did before the smoking ban in my area. Just because smoking in a bar is legal doesn't mean the property owner has to allow it.
It's not "better for everyone". If you think turning over private property rights to the government is better for everyone I feel bad for you. How about when the government decides you shouldn't be allowed to eat potato chips or drink soft drinks because these things are bad for you?
With freedom comes responsibility and choices. It's sad that you are happy to turn these things over to the government. I would prefer to make these decisions myself.
I believe in personal freedom but when that freedom involves activities that may endanger the lives of others, there needs to be some level of governance.
Adopting a laissez-faire approach doesn't work when you're talking about life and death. Following your argument further, you'd decriminalise drunk driving and allow companies to tip whatever they want into a river (as long as they tell us). All three are variants of the same argument.
As a smoker when the ban came in, myself and fellow smokers noticed our cigarette consumption halved overnight. It was better for us as well as the non-smokers. So on one hand, lives saved. And the downside? People have to walk ten yards to a door in order to smoke instead of sit where they were. Personal freedom is one thing but weighing people's lives against that ten yard walk? I understand the principle involved but sometimes pragmatism is the best approach.
Nope, drunk driving is different. Driving occurs on PUBLIC roads, not in a private establishment. The government is responsible for the roads, different situation.
I do disagree with EPA standards. The market can also sort that out. If a company pollutes water/air/land, other landowners effected can sue the company. This would likely get more expensive than disposing of things properly and would fix the problem.
Roads here are both publicly owned (maintained by the Highways Agency) and privately owned. I'm pretty sure the same drink driving laws apply regardless of public/private ownership. As for pubs, the word "pub" is short for public house and implies a social meeting point for the public which just happens to also have the provision to sell alcohol. However, the question was about bars not pubs, so I can't really argue that. Bars are not pubs. I just translate bar to pub in my mind because of my culture and in this case I was wrong to do that.
As for pollution, we have a diametrically opposed ethos. Market forces encourage pollution rather than prevent it. With your model, people die, their relatives sue (maybe successfully, maybe not). With good regulation, people don't die. I know business hates regulation or anything which makes it less competitive but no business should be trading lives against a balance sheet.
True, some roads are privately owned. Drunk driving is an entirely different public safety issue than smoking in a bar though, the two aren't really a fair comparison. If I don't like smoking I can visit a different establishment. If I don't like using a road there isn't really an alternative.
We are never going to agree on the environmental stuff, so I don't see any reason for taking that discussion any further.
Let em smoke,let em smoke,let em smoke-it's part of all the enjoyment espesially with good music.
This should be banned.
I really like the property rights argument. I understand you 100%. You are right, to a degree. The issue is that if there was some other smell that was an undisputed contributor to bad health there would be no argument that should be banned outright.
Let me make my argument this way:
Should a person who reeks of gasoline be allowed in? I mean to the point that they smell like they took a bath in the stuff, that their clothes and they just stink terribly of it. The gasoline stench is so thick that when they walk by the smell of gasoline brings tears to your eyes? The kind of smell of gas that you think just one match would set them ablaze like the burning bush.
Or what about this one?
What about the smell of skunk? It is so strong it smells as though they got sprayed in the street with a skunk and they have tracked that scent into the bar?
How about this one:
The smell of Sewer gas?
Gasoline fumes have been found to give some lab animals cancer. I am not sure about skunk musk.
Sewer Gas contains Hydrogen Sulfide. Very small PPM doses can lead to acute poisoning and death. One would agree that for the comfort and the safety of the others in the bar and restaurant that The person reeking of Gasoline, skunk or Sewer gas would have to leave the bar, right?
To those who hate the smell of smoke, they hate the smell as much as Gasoline, skunks or sewers. And there are studies which suggest it is at least as dangerous to health as gasoline.
Let me make the point another way:
Should someone be allowed to perform surgery, or someone who is bleeding be allowed to bleed all over the bar?
No. There are health laws which already govern the health and safety of the guests. Bloodborne pathogens are a health risk.
Should a bar be allowed to serve you drinks in dirty glasses? Not clean their bathrooms? the bartenders not wash their hands? Pee in your drinks etc?
No. These are already health laws which are in place.
Adding a smoking ban to a restaurant and bar is just another health law regulation.
True it is private property but when your private property is used to provide products, services and entertainment to the public, the health of the public is what should be taken into account.
Lastly, I also think it is really rather rude of the smoker to light up after finishing their meal. They wait to eat all of their food, taste it completely for themselves before they have that smoke for themselves. Why not extend the same courtesy to the others who have also paid their hard earned money to pay for a meal or a drink out? shouldn't they enjoy their meal or their drink without the taste and smell of smoke interfering?
I've noticed a great change for the better since the no-smoking ban. A lot of people have given it up and the rest of us don't go home with our clothes and hair stinking of cigarette smoke at the end of the night. A lot of my friends smoke and have to go outside, but it's no different than popping to the bathroom for a few minutes.
In the UK, smoking inside a public area is illegal. The law is unpopular for most people, but smokers now have to step outiside to have a smoke. As a non-smoker, this is no bad thing to me. I think it shows how the atmosphere is becoming more family orientated.
I can see both sides on this sort of debate, but it's too close to call for me.
How the fuck is a bar/pub a 'family orientated' place? People go to pubs to: get trashy, get laid, drown their sorrows, pick fights or gamble. None of those are associated with family or children. Conclusion - let them smoke inside the pubs.
A lot of pubs in the UK serve food, and that's where they do a lot of their business. Food attracts families, families do want that sort of atmosphere. Ban smoking, more families, more money.
I work in a Sydney bar and our laws would be very similar compared to London's. I can't imagine every pub having a bistro - serving food. The pubs I'm talking about are the ones where smoking allowed or not, families wouldn't go there if they were paid. I'm just saying, that the law shouldn't force itself upon businesses to decide how they make money (legally of course). The law should let the pub owner decide wether more profits will be generated if smoking was banned or allowed. It is fair to say that some pubs in London [or Sydney] would profit more under the current 'smoke-free' laws, BUT I am sure there are also many venues that could profit more from allowing smoking in their bars and pubs through: retained customers who spend more time inside and the cigarette machines which operate within them.
The main reason for the law in the UK is because of our tax-payer funded health system. If smoking is reduced, then illnesses caused by smoking are reduced, which saves governments money. The NHS here in the UK is very important to the government, and if the government does not give in to the demands of health workers, who are predominantly anti-smoking, then worker's Unions could strike, which the goernment obviously wants to avoid. For most people isn't a very good reason, but it is the reason why the laws in the UK are as they are. I don't know about the situation in your part of the world, but the situations are not really comparable because the health system in your country works in an entirely different way.
The reason why the law does not allow for choice would be because this would not solve the problem, because people would just move to establishments where smoking was legal, and smoking would not be reduced.
I will admit that most businesses do suffer under these laws. Pubs and bars close down every day because of lack of business caused, in part, by the laws against smoking. It depends of what we value more, public health or economic growth. Both of them are admirable causes, but we can't have both.
Its not a matter of money. In Australia, the government taxes cigarettes by 150% and rising. We have the exact same public health system... NHS is our MediCare - same thing. Not being allowed to smoke inside the pub wouldn't convince me to quit, and if I did quit, the government would be making LESS money on their precious tobacco tax.
Smoking should be ILLEGAL everywhere.
1. its a gross, unhealthy addiction
2. when and if smoking around others your second hand smoke from a cig can be highly toxic bcuz there is no filter like the one inside the cig
3. it makes you,your car, and your house smell like shit
4. If you ever kissed a smoker it's like kissing an ash tray-gross
5. cigerrets kill thounds of people every year
6.cigerrrets contain over 60 cancer causing agents, including rat poisen
7. IF UR A SMOKER GTFO OF HERE BCUZ U R LITERALLY KILLING YOURSELF