I'm with you there. I also find it hilarious when I'm smoking outside and some guy arrives and is standing right beside me only to demonstratively coughs. Please don't give me that shit. You don't die from lung cancer from standing beside a smoker. People have become way too sensitive. I'm fine with people who don't like the smell and I really can live with a ban in restaurants, clubs etc. But I really don't like people who act, as if smokers were devils or something...
-
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?
- Thread starter bill0527
- Start date
- Status
I'm with you there. I also find it hilarious when I'm smoking outside and some guy arrives and is standing right beside me only to demonstratively coughs. Please don't give me that shit. You don't die from lung cancer from standing beside a smoker. People have become way too sensitive. I'm fine with people who don't like the smell and I really can live with a ban in restaurants, clubs etc. But I really don't like people who act, as if smokers were devils or something...
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
While I do recognize some of the bans concerns as related to infringing on personal freedom, I also recognize the way in which the act of smoking itself is also a form of imposition onto the health and well being of non-smokers( which could also be interpreted as an infringement on their rights as well), so overall, I'm not to concerned with it. I also recognize that as a non-smoker, I am personally glad that I don't have to deal with that disgusting crap when I go out, but at the same time acknowledge that this does bias my point of view.
As long as there's some sort of middle ground for compromise (in the sense that there still are places where smokers can smoke, most importantly including a smoker's own privately owned residence), my fears of overreach by authorities/politicians are slightly allayed. I also don't think a lot places go all-out gestapo on the enforcement of these laws and waste resources doing so in lieu of more important things to police, so there's that, too.
What I do know for sure is that I'd definitely be against a sweeping ban on the sale and manufacture of the product itself. Prohibition is not the answer, either.
Well said observations. The theorycrafting before the bill is passed compared to the actual reality 1, 2, 10 years later is an interesting experiment in civics and societal behavior. The debate on the impact of natural human resistance to personal freedom infringement over time vs. herd/tribal/group protection vs. public health concerns is a very interesting one. The results of these laws are easy to see before us, but there may be hidden repercussions (good or bad) that won't manifest for many years. I agree that I don't think it's so easy to make specific conclusions like "oh, the freedom to smoke was a stupid 'personal freedom' anyway", or "the sheeple always fall in line eventually", or "public health always trumps individual liberty" with 100% certainty.
If anything, I would attribute most of the ban's staying power due to that characteristic of all laws. The rest of it comes from the fact that the results of the law haven't been a complete disaster.
As long as there's some sort of middle ground for compromise (in the sense that there still are places where smokers can smoke, most importantly including a smoker's own privately owned residence), my fears of overreach by authorities/politicians are slightly allayed. I also don't think a lot places go all-out gestapo on the enforcement of these laws and waste resources doing so in lieu of more important things to police, so there's that, too.
What I do know for sure is that I'd definitely be against a sweeping ban on the sale and manufacture of the product itself. Prohibition is not the answer, either.
Well said observations. The theorycrafting before the bill is passed compared to the actual reality 1, 2, 10 years later is an interesting experiment in civics and societal behavior. The debate on the impact of natural human resistance to personal freedom infringement over time vs. herd/tribal/group protection vs. public health concerns is a very interesting one. The results of these laws are easy to see before us, but there may be hidden repercussions (good or bad) that won't manifest for many years. I agree that I don't think it's so easy to make specific conclusions like "oh, the freedom to smoke was a stupid 'personal freedom' anyway", or "the sheeple always fall in line eventually", or "public health always trumps individual liberty" with 100% certainty.
That's correct, but to put that into perspective, politicians love making laws but are much less likely to repeal them. Even the stupid ones, like red light cameras are still hard to repeal, despite the evidence that they are all a load of shit.
If anything, I would attribute most of the ban's staying power due to that characteristic of all laws. The rest of it comes from the fact that the results of the law haven't been a complete disaster.
OneEightZero
aka ThreeOneFour
One of those bans (smoking in public places) is working in a controlled fashion.
The others are not.
I don't think they can be lumped together.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
We're talking about blanket smoking bans, and they are one and the same with blanket drug prohibition.
Why are you shocked? Non-smokers dont want to smell cigarette smoke when they're eating their steak or drinking their beer. I think its pretty simple to understand.
OneEightZero
aka ThreeOneFour
Yeah, I agree then. I don't think smoking can be banned completely. It'd be NICE from a betterment perspective, but pretty impossible to enforce practically.
EYEL1NER
Member
Where are you from again?
Back in 09 they approved the smoking ban here, 6-1. It included bars and restaurants, but private clubs were excluded. So all the bars here decided they were then 'private clubs' and allowed you to pay a small fee to get in or purchase a membership for like $20. And by paying to enter, you agreed to abide by their rules. One of which is smoking is allowed. Nothing really changed financially for the bars around here and none of the non-smoking patrons care enough to stop going.
Is making a bar private not an option with the way the law is worded where you are? Or does no one want to do it?
England. It was introduced in 2007 across pretty much everywhere. There are very, very few exceptions. These are they (from wiki):
- bus shelters (provided they are less than 50% covered, some councils however assume no exemptions apply),
- phone boxes (but box types K2 to K8 are included, because they are completely sealed)
- hotel rooms (if they are designated as smoking rooms)
- nursing homes
- prisons
- offshore oil rigs (only in designated rooms)
- stages/television sets (if needed for the performance, except in rehearsals)
- specialist tobacconists in relation to sampling cigars and/or pipe tobacco.
Steve Youngblood
Member
That's dynamite. However, unless you're a staunch libertarian, I think most of us concede that the invisible hand of the free market isn't always perfect. As has been stated earlier, this is one of those cases.
People see the support of the smoking bans and conclude that, surely, there must have been support for non-smoking establishments to exist without the requisite interventions from the government. However, locally, before the ban, there was not one establishment that any of us knew of where my non-smoking friends were not forced to endure the smoking of myself and other smokers.
"Well, then there wasn't enough demand!" That's somewhat fair, I guess. But then why are so many people in support of the ban? The answer is that the premise that the free market was working just fine is clearly not correct.
EYEL1NER
Member
Well shit. I now feel really bad for you and Dave. That sucks...
No way around that I guess.
The problem was people don't want to self enforce. It was an annoyance, but not enough to stop them from going to their favored establishment. If people actually ACTED on what they believed in, bans would not need to exist. Personally I like people acting on their beliefs and as such disagree with the bans.
i love it. I love not coming home with my clothes and hair reeking of smoke.
I was in Austin when they were trying to get it passed. The jockeys on the local radio station 93.7 were all against it, whining that it was going to ruin business for bars and it was a horrible thing. Well it got passed anyway, and guess what, more people are going to bars because of the ban.
Also how is it hypocrisy that "the government pushes this on small business" if (from what ive seen) the locals vote on it and pass it?
I was in Austin when they were trying to get it passed. The jockeys on the local radio station 93.7 were all against it, whining that it was going to ruin business for bars and it was a horrible thing. Well it got passed anyway, and guess what, more people are going to bars because of the ban.
Also how is it hypocrisy that "the government pushes this on small business" if (from what ive seen) the locals vote on it and pass it?
Most smoking bans are put in place by city councils or state legislatures. I've not seen a single instance of a ban being placed on the ballot as a referendum.
you may be right, but those people still represent their constituency and from what i've seen and from this thread, more non-smokers appreciate it.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Our city passed a smoking ban a few years ago prohibiting smoking in or within 15 feet of a public building. People raised all kinds of hell for a few months but it quickly died down. Me? Not a single fuck was given. I don't smoke but I don't lose my shit if I catch a whiff of it once in awhile and generally stay away from places where people tend to smoke indoors frequently (bars, casinos, etc.). Can't say I'm sorry to see it go in restaurants, though.
BigBlue1974
Member
It's ridiculous because as has been pointed out, if just given the choice the majority of businesses would just choose to allow smoking still. Most businesses wouldn't want to risk limiting their customers by not allowing smokers. I get what you are saying about having some specific places that are *only* for smokers, but they are still public places. I don't have a problem with places that have outdoor areas to smoke at, what is wrong with just having that?
Steve Youngblood
Member
People did act on it. This proposed legislation for bans didn't just manifest itself.
And as far as taking the principled stance and not needing the intervention of the nanny state, again, I think this is just one of those things that sounds good on paper but shows little regard for the state of things. First of all, people want to go to the cool hangout spots. They don't want to have to go out of their way to find that one spot that's experimenting with the no-smoking policy. They want to go to the cool place their friends are at. Secondly, that out of the way place experimenting with the no-smoking policy didn't even exist to begin with.
Also, what about the types of places where someone couldn't just open up a competitor right next door? I want to play Let it Ride at the casino but the 1 / 6 of the casino gaming area that was dedicated as non-smoking doesn't have it. And I have to walk through dense smoke to get to that area anyway. There was no non-smoking gambling parlor to speak, and opening one up would be no trivial task.
That is just one example, and not meant to be the smoking gun.
TDLink
Member
A blanket ban on cigs is not the answer. If that happened people would find a way just like they did during prohibition with alcohol or they do today with marijuana and hard drugs. I have no problem with people choosing to smoke. It is their choice and I support that freedom to choose.
However, I do support the indoor smoking bans that have come about in recent years. When you light up in a restaurant or other establishment you are not just making the choice for yourself but also for all those around you. No one should have to inhale second hand smoke or endure the smell of it just because someone decided to have a smoke 10 feet over.
Honestly I think the way things are now are pretty good. People who want to smoke are still welcome to smoke outside or anywhere within their own property or vehicles while at public places of business and leisure no one else is forced to endure smoking unless they want to (in which case they go outside).
I don't see why we need something more at this point.
However, I do support the indoor smoking bans that have come about in recent years. When you light up in a restaurant or other establishment you are not just making the choice for yourself but also for all those around you. No one should have to inhale second hand smoke or endure the smell of it just because someone decided to have a smoke 10 feet over.
Honestly I think the way things are now are pretty good. People who want to smoke are still welcome to smoke outside or anywhere within their own property or vehicles while at public places of business and leisure no one else is forced to endure smoking unless they want to (in which case they go outside).
I don't see why we need something more at this point.
All elected officials represent their constituency. The only "locals" that voted for it are the local governments.
Businesses don't want to limit their customerbase because nonsmokers NEVER complained to business owners in the past even though they are "disgusted" from smoking indoors. If nonsmokers actually talk to the management about their disapproval of indoor smoking, stated they would no longer do business at that establishment, and actually stopped going there; eventually if the outcry was large enough they would change their policies. That requires these "disgusted" non smokers to actually act on their beliefs and stick to their principles, but I guess happy hour specials are too enticing for them.
ConfusingJazz
Member
I love it. I hated coming back from bars, restaurants, or concerts smelling like smoke. I really hated it when I forgot to shower and wake up to the smell of smoke in my hair. I like my eyes not watering when I go into a bar.
Just fantastic for my family and most of my friends.
We have the ban in Houston, and we have a referendum process.
For example, city council put up red light cameras, and they were immediately taken down the next election.
There have been no such movements to repeal the smoking ban.
Just fantastic for my family and most of my friends.
We have the ban in Houston, and we have a referendum process.
For example, city council put up red light cameras, and they were immediately taken down the next election.
There have been no such movements to repeal the smoking ban.
Speak to management about the problem, let them know you won't be using their facilities until the policy changes, and actually follow through with that. As far as the "cool hangout spot", it seems that people would rather hang out with friends or been seen at that cool place and deal with what they find "disgusting" rather than try to change it in a manner that doesn't strip business owners of their rights.
Houston's smoking ban was put in place by the city council. It was not a referendum placed on the ballot for the public to vote on.
Steve Youngblood
Member
First of all, yes, people prefer solutions to problems that are more immediate. I don't think that pointing out that non-smokers tolerating behavior they don't like because it beats the alternative of staying home somehow undermines the point that there's a legitimate reason for non-smokers to dislike being exposed to dense concentrations of cigarette smoke. I'm not saying your point is completely stupid and invalid, but it is rather one-sided and simplistic.
Furthermore, business owners don't just have the right to do whatever they want. Whether or not a business-owner should have the "right" do do Activity X is completely dependent on what Activity X is. As presented, that sentence is little more than a hollow platitude.
well, you're right, as a business owner I wouldn't want to limit my customer base either...
Except when the "limited" customer base increases my revenue as a result of said ban.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/04/state_smoking_bans_appear_to_p.html
http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2010/05/17/news/doc4bf1a65921cd2103748552.txt
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/n...rants-thrive-amid-smoking-ban-study-says.html
sixteen-bit
Member
I quite enjoy them, but I also do see how they impinge on others' rights.
Angry Fork
Member
Non-smoker here, I personally like the smell of some smoke/cigarettes, I don't know why. Not all brands, only 1-2 but I don't know their names. They give me the same feeling as smelling gas station fumes or a sharpie permanent marker. I know most people hate it though and find it repulsive. I've smelled repulsive kinds for sure but there are a couple that I like.
Anyway I don't like blanket bans everywhere like here in NYC. Smokers pretty much can't go anywhere without being hassled. I think confined places where people gather and stay for a period of time like movie theaters or libraries should ban smoking (but not places like bars because ...they're bars). But I don't think public parks should ban it. I wouldn't even be surprised if you can't smoke on a public sidewalk these days, it's kind of ridiculous.
I know kids play in parks and the majority of people there likely don't smoke, but it's really not fair imo to ostracize someone from an open (in terms of not being confined/under a roof) public place because of smoke which only travels like a 5-10 ft. radius around the person anyway. Bars should allow it for obvious reasons I have no clue why they're illegal in bars now. Restaurants should hopefully have separate designated smoking/non smoking sections but if they don't then it's the smokers job to find a different restaurant. A restaurant is a closed space where people stay, it's not right to fuck them up with your smoke if there isn't a designated area for it. If you can't find a restaurant with one then you'll have to go out to smoke.
I would agree with a ban on smoking in buses/train cars because of how confined it is, but I think the platform/station where people wait should be legal to smoke. I think public landmarks and monuments should have it legal, like statue of liberty or something. Not sure what other places I can think of. ninja edit - btw my opinion on this is all based on my little knowledge of 2nd hand smoking. I'm about to check wiki now to see what information there is on it, but if it's really serious then I might change my opinion on some of this. As of right now I have the assumption that it's bad if you're constantly around it like at home but every now and then it's not serious.
Anyway I don't like blanket bans everywhere like here in NYC. Smokers pretty much can't go anywhere without being hassled. I think confined places where people gather and stay for a period of time like movie theaters or libraries should ban smoking (but not places like bars because ...they're bars). But I don't think public parks should ban it. I wouldn't even be surprised if you can't smoke on a public sidewalk these days, it's kind of ridiculous.
I know kids play in parks and the majority of people there likely don't smoke, but it's really not fair imo to ostracize someone from an open (in terms of not being confined/under a roof) public place because of smoke which only travels like a 5-10 ft. radius around the person anyway. Bars should allow it for obvious reasons I have no clue why they're illegal in bars now. Restaurants should hopefully have separate designated smoking/non smoking sections but if they don't then it's the smokers job to find a different restaurant. A restaurant is a closed space where people stay, it's not right to fuck them up with your smoke if there isn't a designated area for it. If you can't find a restaurant with one then you'll have to go out to smoke.
I would agree with a ban on smoking in buses/train cars because of how confined it is, but I think the platform/station where people wait should be legal to smoke. I think public landmarks and monuments should have it legal, like statue of liberty or something. Not sure what other places I can think of. ninja edit - btw my opinion on this is all based on my little knowledge of 2nd hand smoking. I'm about to check wiki now to see what information there is on it, but if it's really serious then I might change my opinion on some of this. As of right now I have the assumption that it's bad if you're constantly around it like at home but every now and then it's not serious.
We just have a differing viewpoint. I'd rather see people act on their principles and not require the government to do it for them. Call me simplistic, the point remains that nonsmokers always had the power to entice an owner to change his policies, yet weren't disgusted enough to do so.
Also, I think a business owner should have the right to allow smoking in his establishment given that nonsmokers had the right to not visit that location. As long as people have the ability to exercise their choice, the government should not get involved.
Too bad nonsmokers wouldn't follow their beliefs and increase the revenue of nonsmoking establishments without the ban. But that would have required them working with the business owner to change his policy.
See, this is why I don't think the 'free market' angle is as clean cut as people assume. There's obviously a large number of non-smokers that want to drink and will not frequent a smoking establishment.
If we'd actually tried it, rather than leaping to a blanket ban, there'd be no need for assumptions.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
I love indoor smoking bans. They make the bar or even restaurant experience a much better one. Some clubs ban it, but a lot of the time they are exempt from the bans here, so smoking still happens there. To me the major difference is that when you are consuming alcohol you are not also ramming the alcohol down someone else's throat while you drink it, but in a bar with smokers you don't really have a choice but to breathe in the smoke. Personally, I get migraines if I am around cigarette smoke too much, although that has lessened in recent times.
Anyway, I don't care if people smoke out doors because the smoke is quickly carried away and I can give you wide berth, and I certainly don't care if you smoke in private. Banning it entirely is silly.
The big news around here though is that there is a healthcare organization in central PA has no taken up a ban on hiring smokers as employees.
Anyway, I don't care if people smoke out doors because the smoke is quickly carried away and I can give you wide berth, and I certainly don't care if you smoke in private. Banning it entirely is silly.
The big news around here though is that there is a healthcare organization in central PA has no taken up a ban on hiring smokers as employees.
ConfusingJazz
Member
I said we could have repealed it, like we did with red light cameras.
The red light cameras were repealed the very next election. There has been no such movement for the smoking ban.
It's far harder to repeal something that requires more signatures to even appear as a ballot option than it took to get it passed.
Best thing ever. Smokers usually can't smell it on themselves but you smell it when they walk past you. In their clothes, their car, when they talk it's like getting punched in the face with a smoke fist. I was out with a smoker the other night. They smoked, let it air out, then got in my car. Of course the whole vehicle smelled. If someone cracked a joke and they laughed the smell would become almost unbearable.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Your argument would have weight if the red light cameras weren't repealed the next election after the ordinance was passed.
Wiktor
Member
I have mixed feelings about this. One one hand I enjoy smoke-less clubs and restaurants, but on the other hand I think it's pretty invasive in personal freedom.
The best solution would be a general ban with some exceptions. If you would allow every business to choose all would be pro-smoking obviously, but it could be avoided. For example by introducing expensive smoking license or by just regulating it by city council - ie...giving out limited licenses for free, so that 10% of all locales would allow smoking.
The best solution would be a general ban with some exceptions. If you would allow every business to choose all would be pro-smoking obviously, but it could be avoided. For example by introducing expensive smoking license or by just regulating it by city council - ie...giving out limited licenses for free, so that 10% of all locales would allow smoking.
So glad to see my generation embrace these smoking bans.
The bans exist in part to protect people who work in bars and restaurants. That goal is defeated if the owners can opt out.
The bans exist in part to protect people who work in bars and restaurants. That goal is defeated if the owners can opt out.
Not really. Red Light Cameras and smoking bans aren't quite the same given that most people have a problem with the fines of red light tickets going towards private companies. It's more of a conflict of interest problem. Far easier to repeal something that is seen as corrupt.
BakedPigeon
Banned
Although I did enjoy smoking inside designated areas in clubs or bars, it's better off to have the bans. Besides, you can smoke an e-cigg anywhere you want so it does not really matter.
Steve Youngblood
Member
But then, why didn't the always efficient and never incorrect invisible hand attempt that on its own? My (potentially incorrect) take on it is that people didn't realize how much they wanted it until they got it. Why didn't business owners just try this on their own? I think it was because there was this image that smoking and drinking went hand in hand. Casinos and bar owners were terrified that the smoking bans would destroy their business overnight. As such, without prodding from the government, any one person trying it I think would have been met with disastrous results, or at least the perception of that happening was too terrifying to attempt. "We can't ban smoking. If we do, all the smokers will just go across the street to the smoking bar."
ConfusingJazz
Member
If an initiative can't get on the ballot because they didn't go outside of bars to get signatures from smokers, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Pretty much. Unfortunately in Pittsburgh they pussied out and provided too many exemptions making the smoking ban total crap.
Smoking is only banned in bars and clubs as long as less then a certain amount of your revenue doesn't come from food. All this did it make all the places that sold food get rid of it.
- Status