Should Smoking Be Banned in Public?

[SkinWalker]

Over the last few years, lots of restrictions have made their way into place with regard to smoking in public. It was made taboo in the military back in the 1980s (I think the restriction within government buildings was around 1984 +/- a couple of years). I remember a few old-heads who flat out refused to acknowledge this new (then!) regulation and continued to smoke in their offices, but by and large the regulation quickly took hold and outdoor smoking spots began to become popular break areas.

In more recent years, states and municipalities have banned smoking in public restaurants and even bars, which many business owners claim hurts their businesses.

While there is a scientific consensus that smoking is bad for you -causes various cancers, strokes are a risk, heart disease, etc., its also generally agreed by society that adults should be able to decide for themselves the extent to which they want to participate in harmful activities.

In my own fair state, a recent ban on smoking in public spaces went into effect in Arlington, TX just recently. Ironically, the ban extended to a private cigar club to which I'm a member (I'm old enough, btw) and they were worried that they might need to shut down or pay heavy fines. Luckily, the mayor apparently gets his cigars there as well, so some additional municipal legislation made some exceptions for private clubs which might be “grandfathered in.”

It looks like now a statewide ban will get the backing of the Texas Restaurant Association if brought before the Texas legislature again.

Honestly, I'm all for it even though I'm a cigar lover (I only smoke 2-3 a month and outside my own home). Hopefully it won't apply to my Cigar Club, where the big screen tv, free wifi, and leather couches are a wonderful get-a-way, but if all restaurants are required to comply, the economic effect won't be as bad since people won't simply choose to go down the street to a neighboring municipality for a smoke-friendly establishment.

[Ray Jones]

It is my right as adult to choose to go into places where it reads "smoking allowed" or "we have a smoker's lounge" on the sign over the door. What I don't like in any way is tons of cigarette stubs on the streets because people now smoke outside everywhere - bars, office buildings, restaurants. It's simply a huge mess.

[GarfieldJL]

The answer would be depends, there are times when it makes sense and there are times it's infringing on people's rights. So there isn't really a cut and dry answer.

[Vikinor]

This one is tough to call. I think we should think about the the health of others before ourselves in this case.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Vikinor

This one is tough to call. I think we should think about the the health of others before ourselves in this case.

Again it should really depend, smoking in bars is one thing, but a public building like a library is something else.

[SkinWalker]

What if that bar adjoins a restaurant? Would it be okay to allow smoke to drift into the restaurant? I'm thinking a place like TGI Fridays or Applebees.

What of the non-smoking waitress at that bar that can't afford the luxury of simply quiting and taking another job. Shouldn't work conditions be made as healthy as possible for workers? OSHA, after all, has a lot of say in this regard when it comes to unsafe or unhealthy working conditions in other industries.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

What if that bar adjoins a restaurant? Would it be okay to allow smoke to drift into the restaurant? I'm thinking a place like TGI Fridays or Applebees.

That's why there is a smoking and nonsmoking section.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

What of the non-smoking waitress at that bar that can't afford the luxury of simply quiting and taking another job. Shouldn't work conditions be made as healthy as possible for workers? OSHA, after all, has a lot of say in this regard when it comes to unsafe or unhealthy working conditions in other industries.

That's why there needs to be good ventalation in the restaurant. Again it's not a cut and dry place, if it was a non-smoking waitress that was that concerned I'd try to have her be a greeter to minimize exposure to the smoke.

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

That's why there is a smoking and nonsmoking section.

Because smoke obeys the rules of the sign and absolutely never drifts over into the nonsmoking sections.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

if it was a non-smoking waitress that was that concerned I'd try to have her be a greeter to minimize exposure to the smoke.

And if your entire wait staff is non-smoking?

[Tommycat]

I think it's pretty simple. The owner of the establishment should decide whether they allow smoking or not. I know a lot of bar owners here in Phoenix. Most of them smoke. A good 90% of their staff smoke. I miss being able to smoke in restaurants. it was a great way to ensure my meal would get there faster.. seems my meal would always get there as soon as I would light a cig. But I was ok with that. still it was nice to have the option of smoking or non. Sometimes it was better that way. Some places there were less smokers, so there was always a table available.

However bars were always a haven for smokers. I mean I shoot pool a lot. There is just something wrong about a pool hall not having smoke. Heck even in California the place that banned smoking in bars first, I went to a pool hall there. The place was smokey as heck. I asked the bartender where everyone got their ashtrays. the bartender reached behind the counter and pulled out an ashtray and said with a wink, "You brought your own." So regardless of the law, there will be smoking. I would prefer that the owner make the decision as to whether the establishment is smoking, or not. Perhaps with a tax break for those that go smoke free. Seems more fair to me.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

There's been a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants for years here in Norway, and no one seems to have a problem with it today, even those who used to be the most vehemently in opposition. The law has led to a cleaner work environment for the restaurant staff, a lot of people have quit smoking, and the dreaded loss of income... didn't take place.

As for a smoking ban in public, I'm undecided. Let's see what this thread brings in arguments for and against.

[mimartin]

I actually like the ban. I especially like the ban in bars. It is nice to come home at 2:00 am and not have to take a shower before going to bed. Is my opinion selfish and self-centered? Yes, but no more than those that cannot go to a bar for three or four hours without lighting up and sharing their smoke with the rest of us.

BTW: I am addicted to a Tobacco product. However, I can go to a ballgame, a bar or any other place for three or four hours without taking a dip of Skoal. Now if they decide to ban alcohol from bars, then I will get upset.

[Tommycat]

Well here in AZ when they instituted the ban of smoking in bars, there was a marked decrease in sales. however, most bars figured ways around the ban including patio areas, open air bars, and just serving people in the smoking area. Me personally, I just prefer to drink at a friend's house. With Sheriff Joe looking to lock up all drunk drivers, drinking at a friend's house seems the wisest choice. At least I can drink and smoke there(and the booze is cheaper haha). if I get drunk, I can stay there.

Note: if you drink in Phoenix, take a cab or have a designated driver. DUI means jail time here as well as an interlock device even for a first offence. It's a good idea anywhere, but the penalties here are really rigid.

At the topic: I don't mind not smoking in restaurants. I miss it, but I don't mind not being able to. I don't go to bars anymore because they don't allow smoking. Sorry, but I like to smoke while I shoot pool. I can't drink, shoot pool, and smoke. No point for me. I'd rather go to a buddy's house to do all three. Especially when it's 115 degrees outside. I'm not going to go to a bar where I can get heat stroke.

[Darth Avlectus]

Good one, Tommycat.
=============
I dunno. I'm not a smoker. While some cigars are nice smelling and tasty... I just don't know. On the one hand I want health in the forefront of concern.

On the other, I'd say establishments ought to make rules individually so that way individual liberties endure for places like bars and apparently vaunted clubs. We'll just hafta see where the thread goes, won't we?

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

Because smoke obeys the rules of the sign and absolutely never drifts over into the nonsmoking sections.

By certain considerations for laws of physics re: smoke, it can possibly be worked around. Not every case though. Staff? That's a good question. Though I doubt in most cases that restaurants make it a critical thing about whether or not employees are smokers. So I'd have smoker waiters go there I guess...I know, still that doesn't quite do it... 'Course if IN the restaurant included both inside and outside, and I owned my own restaurant, smoking would be relegated to the outside in that specific case. So it would not be much of a problem there.

I dunno. Then again I was just volunteering an answer and the question wasn't directed at me anyway. Just giving you a few answers, maybe not what all you were looking for, though.

Originally Posted by Tommycat

I think it's pretty simple. The owner of the establishment should decide whether they allow smoking or not. I know a lot of bar owners here in Phoenix. Most of them smoke. A good 90% of their staff smoke. I miss being able to smoke in restaurants. it was a great way to ensure my meal would get there faster..

Then you should visit CA sometime where they are more temperamental about it. Or vindictive. I can go into details if you'd like.

seems my meal would always get there as soon as I would light a cig. But I was ok with that.

Did you ever check your food for tampering, I wonder?

I have no problems personally other than I'd just rather not have to be all up in it--especially if I am theoretically wearing a leather jacket. (Sadly I had to sell that in order to feed myself one time). I don't smoke.

still it was nice to have the option of smoking or non. Sometimes it was better that way. Some places there were less smokers, so there was always a table available.

On the liberties side of the issue I am against the ban. On the health side I am for. If effective provisions can be made then it ought to be the choice of the restaurant owners. However, that isn't always the case. Sadly.

No ban means I make due. Ban means I don't have to smack someone around for smoking around kids. Since I'm a "surrogate uncle", I have to be protective when I watch them. Their dad is a smoker, but careful not to do it around the kids.

However bars were always a haven for smokers. I mean I shoot pool a lot. There is just something wrong about a pool hall not having smoke.

Casinos, more like. However, that's in NV. Which is a ways away.

Heck even in California the place that banned smoking in bars first, I went to a pool hall there. The place was smokey as heck. I asked the bartender where everyone got their ashtrays. the bartender reached behind the counter and pulled out an ashtray and said with a wink, "You brought your own." So regardless of the law, there will be smoking.

Especially true that last part and there will always be rebellious types...I'd guess a ban would wind up ineffective like the prohibition.

I can attest to that in here CA. It's actually an erratic mix here and there. OF both extremes in with middle of the road'ers on the issue everywhere.

I'd say, nobody really gives a flying monkey **** anyway. They want pot to be legal here in CA...so if those same people also wanted a ban on public smoking, they would be double speaking. What is a word for that? ...Oh right, hypocrisy. Far as that, what you do is your business. Don't drag me into it.

I would prefer that the owner make the decision as to whether the establishment is smoking, or not. Perhaps with a tax break for those that go smoke free. Seems more fair to me.

Now THAT sounds like a deal I could go for. A conditional tax code instead of a ban would work. Just like taxing marijuana. I hate to admit it but laws against weed are not working. Taxes through the roof would. It's being done similarly for sodas and energy drinks. People will bitch about it but it won't stop them from buying a six and crackin' 'em open. I'd say much is the same for any kind of smokes.

I live by the old saying about smoking at my living space or work:
If you smoke, you'll die; If you smoke HERE, you'll die SOONER.

I guess I am a wild card.

Originally Posted by mimartin

I actually like the ban. I especially like the ban in bars. It is nice to come home at 2:00 am and not have to take a shower before going to bed. Is my opinion selfish and self-centered? Yes, but no more than those that cannot go to a bar for three or four hours without lighting up and sharing their smoke with the rest of us.

Good point.

BTW: I am addicted to a Tobacco product. However, I can go to a ballgame, a bar or any other place for three or four hours without taking a dip of Skoal. Now if they decide to ban alcohol from bars, then I will get upset.

Well, just don't be spitting the Skoal on my furniture or in my house and you'll be fine. Uhh, well alcohol is okay in my book long as it is responsible. I don't drink anymore, though. Bars without smoking and alcohol? What's the point of THAT?!?!?!?

--Well, I suppose you could hold raves. Got any lasers I can fix for ya? I'll tolerate the "Poppers" stench if only to play with the device, and get paid for having a good time.

[jon_hill987]

I would just like to add that I love the smoking ban that was brought in in the UK. You can go out to the pub without ending up stinking of smoke.