• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

How do you feel about city smoking bans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Slappers Only

Junior Member
I enjoy the fresh air, but that's about it.

I used to play in a metal band back when laws changed in WA. We'd regularly pack 80-100 people into local dive bars for excellent shows. Shortly after people had to go outside to smoke, we saw crowds dip into the 20-30 range quite regularly.

Probably not as big of a deal in cities that have a lot of people going out regardless, but for a small town on the outskirts of Seattle where rowdy people love to drink, smoke, and thrash around to shitty music, this was a real buzz kill. The scene never came back.
 
S

Steve Youngblood

Member
Kaijima said:
On the side, I do find it interesting that despite the fact there are so many people who smoke, such bans still end up being widely supported and appreciated. It makes me curious about how the general opinion on smoking is changing.
Click to expand...
I smoked from Aught Two 'til about a year ago. Perhaps it was also a byproduct of getting older and being more mindful of people around me, but I can say that I definitely started to get more self-conscious of smoking around other people unless I was in the overwhelming majority. Not that I was ever confrontational, but with each passing year I started to feel more and more in the wrong about smoking in public and less of an entitled "it's a free country" attitude about it, and tried to stick to mainly smoking outdoors off the beaten path.

Sometimes, I'd head to a bar and grill-type place on lunch at work, sit at the bar so that I could smoke a cigarette while waiting for my food, and feel uncomfortable about doing so unless I noticed other people smoking around me. Whereas before when I got out of a movie I'd practically be lighting up with one foot out the door, I would either wait until I got home entirely, or at least walk practically to the side of the building if we were going to hang around and chat before going our separate ways.
 
C

C.Dark.DN

Banned
I support it.

I actually banned it from my house. heh. As in I convinced my dad and his girlfriend when she moved in to only smoke outside after living in a second hand smoking house most of my life. Then she had heart surgery and had to stop completely. Now it benefits me and her, and when my Dad ever wants to sell the house. And it seems like my Dad smokes less.
 
F

Flying_Phoenix

Banned
I was originally very opposed to it, but after half a decade or so of it I'm kind of glad.

One of the few exceptions where the "nanny state" works as intended.
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
There's nothing wrong with it. Besides the fact that it discourages smoking and most likely improves the general health of the city, it decreases the (small) chance of cancer due to second hand smoke.

Also, being around tobacco smoke gives me a headache, so I love these kinds of laws.
 
Surface of Me

Surface of Me

I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
alphaNoid said:
You don't have the right to pollute other people's lungs, sorry. Kill yourself slowly at home and let the rest of us bask in the fresh air, and thrive into old age.
Click to expand...

Business owners should be able to decide whether or not they allow smoking, if you don't like that don't go their businesses.
 
R

Raijin_Cain

Member
I honestly think its too much.

Dont get me wrong, I hate cigarettes, the smoke, the smell, etc. But I think city-wide is just too far.

Ban it on restaurants, hallways of buildings, etc. but let people do it in open spaces.

I think this fall under the "nanny state" mentality. a government who wants to "force" you to do the right thing.

They may have good intentions, but everyone knows the thing about good intentions.
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
I'm all for smoking bans. I think it should be outlawed in public in general, including in your car.

Raijin_Cain said:
I think this fall under the "nanny state" mentality. a government who wants to "force" you to do the right thing.

They may have good intentions, but everyone knows the thing about good intentions.
Click to expand...


It's not about a nanny state for me.. I don't give a fuck if you smoke yourself to death.. cigarette smoke is disgusting and irritating to eyes, lungs, etc.

Ban it for the sake of the non-smokers, not the smokers.
 
T

Tenks

Member
Slappers Only said:
I enjoy the fresh air, but that's about it.

I used to play in a metal band back when laws changed in WA. We'd regularly pack 80-100 people into local dive bars for excellent shows. Shortly after people had to go outside to smoke, we saw crowds dip into the 20-30 range quite regularly.

Probably not as big of a deal in cities that have a lot of people going out regardless, but for a small town on the outskirts of Seattle where rowdy people love to drink, smoke, and thrash around to shitty music, this was a real buzz kill. The scene never came back.
Click to expand...

Surprised they just didn't follow the ban. I know a ton of places around where I grew up that should not allow smoking but simply don't give a fuck.
 
B

BruceLeeRoy

Banned
bill0527 said:
My city just passed one. All bars, restaurants, and private clubs can no longer allow smoking. Only 1 business is exempt - the local casino and the only reason they got an exemption is because they provide about $5 million in tax revenue a year to the city.

I'm not a smoker. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. My nose is so sensitive to it, that I can tell if the car in front of me in traffic has someone smoking in it and I have to click the button the recirculates air inside of my vehicle instead of bringing fresh air in from the outside.

With that said, I find smoking bans forced onto businesses by the government to be the ultimate in hypocrisy.

You allow people to go into bars, restaurants, and clubs, and consume a product - alcohol, that can fuck up and end innocent people's lives hours after consuming it, but you can't allow smoking. The act of people smoking cigarettes typically doesn't start bar fights, cause property damage, or cause someone to hit someone head on in a vehicle.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked there was no second-hand deaths related to alcohol.
not counting that drunk driver that is careening toward a innocent victim as we speak
 
S

Steve Youngblood

Member
Raijin_Cain said:
I think this fall under the "nanny state" mentality. a government who wants to "force" you to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
I really think that these reactions are kind of hyperbolic. I'm sure maybe some effect on smoking reduction may be noticed, but personally the feared impact and the actual impact were quite a ways apart. I thought the smoking ban was bullshit, and was going to kill my good time. In practice, I still went to bars, and I still smoked. I just did so outside. It wasn't a big deal.
 
M

Menelaus

Banned
Hadn't thought about our ban here in Dallas until I spent Saturday night in Austin. People lighting up everywhere, haze of smoke in every bar, drunk girls begging for lighters, billboards warning of 2nd hand smoke, radio commercials offering addiction treatments.

I am so for bans it's not even funny.
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
BruceLeeRoy said:
Last time I checked there was no second-hand deaths related to alcohol.
Click to expand...

And it's illegal to become intoxicated in public, illegal for bars to allow you to become intoxicated, illegal to drive while intoxicated...

But those laws aren't enforced NEARLY ENOUGH, and bars who mostly care about their bottom lines certainly aren't going to stop the practice unless law enforcement actually starts revoking their licenses.
 
T

To Far Away Times

Member
California did this years ago and it was wonderful. It's selfish on the smoker's part to smoke in public. It smells terrible and other people can smell it on you hours later if you've been near a smoker. And of course I don't want to be exposed to the health risks related to second hand smoke.
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
Steve Youngblood said:
Well, there are alcohol related drinking and driving fatalities.
Click to expand...

But everything he listed, including becoming intoxicated in public, or serving an intoxicated people a drink is outlawed in most cities in the first place.

The lack of law enforcement is the problem there.

Not that it's similar for smoking bans.. I am constantly seeing people violate such bans.. just not indoors.. but rarely someone follows the "near doorways or windows" bans.

Smokers are by and large disgustingly rude people.
 
C

ConfusingJazz

Member
Menelaus said:
Hadn't thought about our ban here in Dallas until I spent Saturday night in Austin. People lighting up everywhere, haze of smoke in every bar, drunk girls begging for lighters, billboards warning of 2nd hand smoke, radio commercials offering addiction treatments.

I am so for bans it's not even funny.
Click to expand...

Hmm? Austin has had a smoking ban since 2005, and just recently expanded it to parks.
 
B

BeesEight

Member
There's been pretty much a country wide ban on smoking in public where I live for awhile now. I'm really glad for it and there's been very little resistance to the bans. It use to shock me when I went abroad that these regulations hadn't been put in place around the world.

I have no issue with these regulations and discouraging cigarette use in general. It's a pretty bad habit and anything that helps motivate people to kick it is good in my books.
 
B

bill0527

Member
Kaijima said:
Drinking alcohol can be done in a wide variety of ways. And the act of drinking alcohol doesn't in any way disturb people around one, unless you get rowdy. And it's already standard practice to evict people from most places if they get rowdy, so problem solved there.
Click to expand...

The first part I agree with. I don't have to taste others alcohol.

You lost me on the 2nd part though. Drinking alcohol to excess does in fact disturb everyone around you and people don't always get evicted in a timely manner. If that were the case, there would never be any bar fights, bar shootings, or bar stabbings. Even the ones that get thrown out sometimes come back with a chainsaw based on that video posted the other day.
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
bill0527 said:
Drinking alcohol to excess does in fact disturb everyone around you
Click to expand...

And it's illegal in most places to drink in excess in public.. it's illegal for the bar to serve them enough to get to that point too..

You are simply describing a bunch of illegal activities, and using them to claim another law is "hypocritical".. it's not an example of hypocrisy of both acts are illegal.
 
D

dudeworld

Member
BruceLeeRoy said:
Last time I checked there was no second-hand deaths related to alcohol.
not counting that drunk driver that is careening toward a innocent victim as we speak
Click to expand...

think of it this way:

if it's legal to: drink responsibly, smoke inside buildings, restaurants, etc.
The responsible drinkers affect no one but themselves. The smoker affects everybody around them.

drinking irresponsibly affects everybody, which is illegal (drinking and driving). Rowdiness/bar fights are frowned upon, and you'll be kicked out (illegal in some cases eg. public intoxication). Smoking also affects everybody and is now illegal is most places.

notice how once the action affects everybody, it becomes illegal?
 
R

Raijin_Cain

Member
nVidiot_Whore said:
It's not about a nanny state for me.. I don't give a fuck if you smoke yourself to death.. cigarette smoke is disgusting and irritating to eyes, lungs, etc.

Ban it for the sake of the non-smokers, not the smokers.
Click to expand...

They should ban it around you. But are you telling me that if they smoke in the middle of the street, a square and no one is around it is still gonna reach you?

Like I said, I think its too much.
 
D

dudeworld

Member
Raijin_Cain said:
They should ban it around you. But are you telling me that if they smoke in the middle of the street, a square and no one is around it is still gonna reach you?

Like I said, I think its too much.
Click to expand...

never walked behind a smoker? even at a good distance? smoke travels.
 
F

Fantasmo

Member
nVidiot_Whore said:
And it's illegal to become intoxicated in public, illegal for bars to allow you to become intoxicated, illegal to drive while intoxicated...

But those laws aren't enforced NEARLY ENOUGH, and bars who mostly care about their bottom lines certainly aren't going to stop the practice unless law enforcement actually starts revoking their licenses.
Click to expand...

Yes but that almost NEVER happens so you bringing it up is as good as worthless. As a drinker and smoker, I think drinking should be banned in public places way before smoking. Drinking brings out the worst in people. I'd rather liquor stores exist, and bars cease to exist instead. Shit is backwards. That doesn't mean I necessarily want smoking back everywhere, I don't, but I think the choice option is best. I can't say I've met too many people who've been in physical fights, or car accidents over a cigarette.

I'd rather enjoy a place where I can light up but not worry about being around asshole drinkers who are literally enticed to act like heathens. Where are MY options huh? Home?

But nobody agrees with me, because it's not their drug of choice. I know how much people would die without their alcohol but ooooooohhhhh god forbid I have a calm cool interesting convo with a nice smoker over a couple smokes in a comfortable place without us looking like we're devils. I might smell like shit to you, but unless I'm drunk, (keyword: drunk) I'm not burning the place down.

What pisses me off is how demonized smokers are, EVEN WHEN WE'RE FIFTEEN FEET AWAY FROM YOU, yet we're perhaps close to the least volatile vice. Funny how things change over the course of a couple decades. You know how many times I've seen drinkers forgiven? Holy crap, it's off the charts what people will accept when someone is drunk. It's totally cool to be drunk as a pig, but MAN, THOSE SMOKERS!!!
 
B

bill0527

Member
nVidiot_Whore said:
And it's illegal in most places to drink in excess in public.. it's illegal for the bar to serve them enough to get to that point too..

You are simply describing a bunch of illegal activities, and using them to claim another law is "hypocritical".. it's not an example of hypocrisy of both acts are illegal.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if one is illegal and the other one isn't. The end result of one of these is far different than the end result of the other. Bars don't stop people from drinking to excess. They don't stop people from getting behind the wheel of a car. If they did, there would never be bar or club shootings or drunk people slamming their cars into a family of 6 and killing every one of them.

Its kind of like speeding. Its illegal, but everyone does it and nobody thinks twice about it, until you get pulled over, or you have a serious accident because of it.
 
D

dudeworld

Member
Raijin_Cain said:
My problem is CITYwide.

There are always place in cities where you can be alone outdoors. Let them smoke there.
Click to expand...

when people say city wide, they're talking about inside buildings.

Even in the cities with the harshest smoking rules (IIRC, some of the harshest are in Canada) you can still smoke outside in the streets and side walks as long as you're X amount of feet away from doors to a building
 
S

Slappers Only

Junior Member
Tenks said:
Surprised they just didn't follow the ban. I know a ton of places around where I grew up that should not allow smoking but simply don't give a fuck.
Click to expand...
There's a few joints around that operate like speakeasys for smokers, but they are very few, and they're a sort of unspoken compromise. I don't know what the reality is, but I've been told that it's a pretty hefty fine for not complying with the smoking law, and there are plenty of non-smokers who would blow the whistle on it.
 
S

Steve Youngblood

Member
bill0527 said:
It doesn't matter if one is illegal and the other one isn't. The end result of one of these is far different than the end result of the other. Bars don't stop people from drinking to excess. They don't stop people from getting behind the wheel of a car. If they did, there would never be bar or club shootings or drunk people slamming their cars into a family of 6 and killing every one of them.

Its kind of like speeding. Its illegal, but everyone does it and nobody thinks twice about it, until you get pulled over, or you have a serious accident because of it.
Click to expand...
So, the legality isn't really a concern, then? Are you suggesting that more bars disregard the ordinances and allow smoking?
 
V

Vermillion

Banned
I don't want cancer. Secondhand smoke exists and can cause such problems for people you pass by, just as simple as that.

I support a public ban of smoking.
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
bill0527 said:
It doesn't matter if one is illegal and the other one isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, when you claim:

With that said, I find smoking bans forced onto businesses by the government to be the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

How can it be hypocritical when every action you listed is illegal?

Your argument was bad, get over it. You can't claim a law is hypocritical then incorrectly list a bunch of things that you actually aren't "allowed" to do by law.

Its kind of like speeding. Its illegal, but everyone does it and nobody thinks twice about it, until you get pulled over, or you have a serious accident because of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. and what you did would kind of be like claiming speed limit laws are hypocritical because people murder people. Actually, it would be more like claiming they are hypocritical because people are allowed to murder people, when they aren't actually allowed to do that.

Law enforcement of public drunkenness needs to increase, as does actually prosecuting and fining bars that essentially profit from rather rampant illegal activities.
 
W

Wthermans

Banned
Stet said:
Sure, great idea. Now when the single mother who has to choose between feeding her kid or feeding herself goes to get a job in a society where nearly 10% of people are unemployed and twice that many are having trouble keeping a job, she can make another easy decision between working at a venue that offers her a toxic work environment or not working at all.
Click to expand...

You act like people don't willing sign up for jobs with hazardous conditions all the time. You do what you have to do to make ends meet. As I said before, there are plenty of nonsmoking bars where said single mother could work.
 
D

dudeworld

Member
Wthermans said:
You act like people don't willing sign up for jobs with hazardous conditions all the time. You do what you have to do to make ends meet. As I said before, there are plenty of nonsmoking bars where said single mother could work.
Click to expand...

there's a difference between needlessly hazardous conditions (smoking in a bar) and hazardous conditions (mining). If you can make the conditions less hazardous quite easily... why wouldn't you?
 
R

Raijin_Cain

Member
dudeworld said:
when people say city wide, they're talking about inside buildings.

Even in the cities with the harshest smoking rules (IIRC, some of the harshest are in Canada) you can still smoke outside in the streets and side walks as long as you're X amount of feet away from doors to a building
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. But I still think that people should be allowed to do it in their homes, otherwise we just outlawed smoking without actually doing it.
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
junkster said:
Yes but that almost NEVER happens so you bringing it up is as good as worthless.
Click to expand...

He claimed the laws were hypocritical.. he did so based on false premises, which I pointed out.


I'd rather enjoy a place where I can light up but not worry about being around asshole drinkers who are literally enticed to act like heathens. Where are MY options huh? Home?

But nobody agrees with me, because it's not their drug of choice.
Click to expand...

Your options are the due process of law.. help get an initiative started if you live in a State that supports them, or contact your legislature.

That's how smoking bans were passed in Washington.

Which also makes the "hypocritical" claim obsolete. THE PEOPLE voted in the smoking ban, not the legislature.

I know how much people would die without their alcohol but ooooooohhhhh god forbid I have a calm cool interesting convo with a nice smoker over a couple smokes in a comfortable place without us looking like we're devils. I might smell like shit to you, but unless I'm drunk, (keyword: drunk) I'm not burning the place down.
Click to expand...

You make everyone and everything smell like shit. You irritate my eyes and lungs and give me a severe headache with your habit.

You are blinded by your addiction into being a rude prick IMO. Seriously, go blow your shit smoke in an abandoned field or something.

Most people where I live agree with me.. so in my State/City, expect even stronger bans.. and you and your rude habit can deal with it.
 
EYEL1NER

EYEL1NER

Member
LMAO at people acting like this is what it was like at places pre-bans.
irfan said:
Fuck yes, smoking should be banned altogether.
Click to expand...
And if that happens, I hope drinking goes to.
After all, people ITT have said that if one person can be spared the second-hand smoke, then the ban is good. And that incidents with alcohol that affect others are small and infrequent.
WELL NO MORE!
Even one alcohol-related incident that results in harm or injury is too much!

I also hope that country music, buttrock, and Kanye West get banned from restaurants and bars. And then that will hopefully extend to private vehicles and homes. This 'music' is as offensive to my sense of hearing as smoke is to your nostrils. My ears ring, my head aches, I get light headed...
And we all know sound waves travel further than the dreaded cigarette smoke. Assuming I ever tried to go out of my way to avoid this, it would be harder to do.

So hopefully these two things come to pass if smoking gets banned everywhere. Then I do not have to worry about something that is (potentially) dangerous to myself done by others and I have one less thing that offends my senses that I no longer have to hear.
 
S

Stet

Banned
junkster said:
Yes but that almost NEVER happens so you bringing it up is as good as worthless. As a drinker and smoker, I think drinking should be banned in public places way before smoking. Drinking brings out the worst in people. I'd rather liquor stores exist, and bars cease to exist instead. Shit is backwards. That doesn't mean I necessarily want smoking back everywhere, I don't, but I think the choice option is best. I can't say I've met too many people who've been in physical fights, or car accidents over a cigarette.

I'd rather enjoy a place where I can light up but not worry about being around asshole drinkers who are literally enticed to act like heathens. Where are MY options huh? Home?

But nobody agrees with me, because it's not their drug of choice. I know how much people would die without their alcohol but ooooooohhhhh god forbid I have a calm cool interesting convo with a nice smoker over a couple smokes in a comfortable place without us looking like we're devils. I might smell like shit to you, but unless I'm drunk, (keyword: drunk) I'm not burning the place down.

What pisses me off is how demonized smokers are, EVEN WHEN WE'RE FIFTEEN FEET AWAY FROM YOU, yet we're perhaps close to the least volatile vice. Funny how things change over the course of a couple decades. You know how many times I've seen drinkers forgiven? Holy crap, it's off the charts what people will accept when someone is drunk. It's totally cool to be drunk as a pig, but MAN, THOSE SMOKERS!!!
Click to expand...
Nobody agrees with you because your drug of choice has the passive ability to harm others.
 
W

Wthermans

Banned
dudeworld said:
there's a difference between needlessly hazardous conditions (smoking in a bar) and hazardous conditions (mining). If you can make the conditions less hazardous quite easily... why wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Because there are other options in the same line of employment that are less hazardous. Personally I like giving people the option to make choices for themselves.

Also, I'd argue that a job where you sit in front of a computer all day is hazardous to your health. It can lead to blood clots, obesity, and other illnesses.
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
Stet said:
Nobody agrees with you because your drug of choice has the passive ability to harm others.
Click to expand...

It's also fucking disgusting, and serves you no purpose other than to satisfy your own craving.

Seriously if I hear another cigarette smoker tell me smoking "calms them", I'm going to punch the throat.

It's a STIMULANT you dipshits. A very mild one with endless alternatives if you need a stimulant, ones that don't kill you, and make everything around you smell like shit, and irritate the eyes of lungs of everyone around you.
 
P

phosphor112

Banned
I was going to ask if it was Indianapolis, until I realized the Mayor vetoed it...

I approve. Just like cars have emission regulations to prevent crap ruining our air, there should be smoking bans to prevent such nasty crap everywhere, especially if we have to breath it in. I walked into a Walmart, doing some late night shopping, and there were EIGHT PEOPLE standing at the doorway smoking. A wall of smoke, only way to get in too since they close the other door that late.

It's disgusting. If you want to eat all day and become fat, go ahead, if you want to shoot crack into your scrotum, I don't give a fuck, I also don't give a flying shit if you smoke yourself stupid, but when you are being an inconsiderate fuck and polluting the air that I breath? Fuck you. There are millions of people that suffer from Asthma. That in edition to the cold winter air can really set off an attack.

Seriously, it's disgusting, MOST of the litter I see are cigarette butts. Just because it's biodegradable doesn't mean you can put it anywhere. I can take a dump on the sidewalk, doesn't mean I should. /angry rant
 
S

Stet

Banned
Wthermans said:
Because there are other options in the same line of employment that are less hazardous. Personally I like giving people the option to make choices for themselves.

Also, I'd argue that a job where you sit in front of a computer all day is hazardous to your health. It can lead to blood clots, obesity, and other illnesses.
Click to expand...

Yes, and offices are required by law to educate their staff on the dangers of sitting all day, as well as take steps to prevent those dangers through encouraging exercise. This is the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How do you deal with long term break ups?
2 3
102
4K
Woggleman replied
Cyberpunk 2077: Patch 2.0 Patch Notes
News Hype 2 3 4 5 6
250
17K
Sgt.Asher replied
Cyberpunk 2077 Patch 2.1 Patch Notes Released
News 2 3
117
8K
DanEON replied
Why do Gamers get a bad wrap?
2 3 4
163
7K
German Hops replied
Demonization of Smoking vs Alcohol
29
1K
Makariel replied
Top Bottom