New antismoking laws

[Lak]

Today the new antismoking law comes into effect in New Zealand. It goes like this:
No one can smoke indoors in any workplace of any kind. This includes bars, restaurants, smoko rooms, corridors, and so on. You can still smoke outside, and anywhere on private property.

Words cannot express my joy. It's about freaking time.

Now, I know smokers who agree, and non-smokers who disagree. What do all y'all think about it?

[maleficent]

Welcome to New York City - -it's been like this for a while now.

It's nice having smoke free restaurants. Even having a smoking section, left the restuarant pretty stinky. I like having a smoke free workplace, however, when the smokers troop out of the building every few hours for a 15 minute smoke break, I don't get equivelent time off, so it's not fair because they smoke they get extra time.

Bars - eh- I'm a reformed smoker, smoke in bars never bothered me... My clients office building in Chicago, has a designated smoking area outside the building -- you have to walk around to the back of the building - because people complained about having to walk thru the cloud of smoke to get in the front doors.

Giants Stadium and Yankee Stadium -- kinda silly to ban smoking there -- they are open air stadiums... the car exhaust is probalby more toxic than the cigarettes.

That said -- I really don't think it's the government's business to tell an owner of a business whether they allow smoking or not. If I am a bar owner, and I want to get business from smokers - I should be allowed to. If non-smokers don't like it-- don't come in... The owners should be able to decide what goes on in their establishments.

NOW__ I wish with every fiber of my being - they'd allow smoking on airplanes again... The air was so much cleaner on planes when that was allowed.. Now - -it's recycled air - -and I always end up with some form of sniffles.

[Master_Shake]

What a great idea! If only the government would pass laws regulating all undesirable behaviour. Then no one would drink liquor, eat red meat, listen to loud music, have anal sex, curse, or question authority.

Thankfully private industry is finding a way to replace the relaxing effects of cigarettes with the sedative effects of pharmaceuticals. Too bad the prozac is so much more expensive than a smoke. But hey, at least your medical insurance will cover it. At least, for the rich people, their medical insurance will cover it. The rest of us are shit out of luck.

[cartmen34]

Smokers have every right to give themselves lung cancer and die slowly from it. That does not, however, give them the right to give us lung cancer, smoke induced headaches, or reek of smokey death just because they want to light up indoors or anywhere else for that matter.

Originally Posted by maleficent

Giants Stadium and Yankee Stadium -- kinda silly to ban smoking there -- they are open air stadiums... the car exhaust is probalby more toxic than the cigarettes.

I'd disagree with this. What if I'm the guy sitting next to the smoker and have to sit through the sporting event while they smoke up the area? It disrupts my enjoyment of the game, because, well..... of all the reasons I mentioned above. I don't care how open-air the event is, if you sit next to someone who smokes, you get some of the second hand smoke in your face.

Just because a smoker has a nasy habit and "needs" to light up doesn't mean we have to join in his habit.

(Can you tell I don't like smokers or smoking much at all?? )

[Averett]

It is so nice to come back from an evening out with friends at a bar, go to sleep, and wake up not smelling like an ashtray.

[Lak]

Originally Posted by Master_Shake

What a great idea! If only the government would pass laws regulating all undesirable behaviour. Then no one would drink liquor, eat red meat, listen to loud music, have anal sex, curse, or question authority.

Thankfully private industry is finding a way to replace the relaxing effects of cigarettes with the sedative effects of pharmaceuticals. Too bad the prozac is so much more expensive than a smoke. But hey, at least your medical insurance will cover it. At least, for the rich people, their medical insurance will cover it. The rest of us are shit out of luck.

Whoa, you sound pretty bitter there mate. I beleive there are laws against drinking liquor, having anal sex etc.... at least in public workplaces...

EDIT: dunno about whereever else but you can't drink or be drunk in public in my city (hamiltron for kiwis who care)

[thrsn0730]

Congratulations. Having never really traveled abroad that much, I guess I kind of assumed that smoking laws were pretty much the same everywhere ... until I got off a plane and stepped into the airport in Germany. Only then did I truly appreciate no smoking in public laws.

[ShaniFaye]

Our county has this....I really wish we smokers could open a place that was for smokers only...it seems only fair...if you non smokers dont want us around smoking then we should be able to have a place we dont want you around not smoking

fortunately here in my county, county laws dont affect city laws so any rest/bar inside city limits is getting a LOT more business because we can still smoke there and franchises are looking to build inside city limits to cash in on that. I wont go to a bar where I cant smoke....if I find out its non smoking I will leave at once....If I want to go to a particular place (one that has locations everywhere) I will drive out of my way to go to a city or a county that hasnt banned smoking yet.

I can appreciate that a non smoker might not want to be around it but I really do think that things are a bit lopsided

[WillyPete]

It's funny that it all boils down to the government taking away our rights to enjoy ourselves.

And how unfair is it of the single mother who works in the pub as a second job to support her kid and provide a decent life for them, and then decides to go and give herself lung cancer and leave junior with either the misery of her death or the bills from her treatment when he's only 20 years old and in college?
God damn that government for taking away your 'fun'.

You wouldn't expect someone to work on asbestos without very strict health controls, yet we're happy to have someone work in an area that should need a breath filter just so we can get our bud light brought to our table.

435000 tobacco related deaths in the US in 2000 vs 29000 gun related deaths.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm
Hmmm, seems that pack of camels is more dangerous than a 'saturday night special'.

[asaris]

I think that it should be up to the owner of the business. I mean, I hear alot of non-smokers rant about how smoky bars are, but when we go out at night, we don't go to the least smoky bar in town. If it was that big a deal, wouldn't people open smoke-free bars on their own, to take advantage of the non-smoking crowd? Seems like just another example of the government getting over-involved in our lives.

[Willravel]

California has been like that for a while. I won't be surprised if it is banned completly and we see the "great L.A. exodus". Personally (as a non smoker who knows that second hand smoke actually kills more people than first hand smoke) I could care less. I don't think it is overinvolvement of the government. Smoking at best is natural selection, seeing as how it can make people impotent and give them cancer.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

I can appreciate that a non smoker might not want to be around it but I really do think that things are a bit lopsided

Um...yeah.
I guess from my point of view...if I can't smoke in public (and that's fine) then what right does that public have to demand tax dollars from me, as it relates to my "filthy" habit. Tit for tat.
And, not that it matters...but, you're breathing in more toxins driving in traffic thatn you're going to inhale sitting next to a smoker. No one ever wants to hear that, though.
Yes...I am a smoker. And as such, I am villified. Which is...ok. I'm used to it.

[Master_Shake]

Thank god for god-fearing Hamiltron! Finally a city that understands how important it is to prevent people from harming themselves and each other.

So when is your city going to get around to outlawing black men, the number one cause of death of other black men ages 15-34?

[lurkette]

There's a difference between drinking and smoking. The act of drinking doesn't hurt anybody but the person whose liver has to filter the stuff. The act of smoking necessarily produces toxins that are unavoidable by the people around the smoker. To the extent that otherwise legal activities like drinking harm other people (e.g., driving drunk) they ARE illegal.

[1slOwCD8]

Being that i dont smoke, i think that its a great idea. It may cause a lot of controvery if its brought to the states. I would be nice if that law exist here though.

[WillyPete]

Once again folks, this isn't about fun, but about providing protection for those that have to work to provide you with a place to have your fun and food.

[angeltek]

They are doing the same thing here as well. Soon you can only smoke outdoors and in private places as of January 1st. I am looking forward to it.

[Carno]

Hell yeah, I am glad stuff like this is happening.

Smoking habitually is one of the WORST things you can do to your body, and it boggles my mind that people do this to themselves. And to pay out the ass for it, no less.

[the_marq]

I'm a non-smoker, and on the surface I love the idea of people not smoking around me when I am; In a pub, at a cafe, at a football game etc...

Then I went to Ireland this summer, and my opinion changed.

It was great once you got into the pub and could enjoy a pint in smoke-free air, the trouble was getting into the pub in the first place. At nearly every pub I went to in the 17 days I was there, and I went to a lot BTW (all in all I drank 59 pints of Guinness in 17 days) there was a phalanx of gruff looking smokers loitering around the front door. In addition to the smokers themselves, there was of course a pile of stinky cigarette butts on the sidewalks. All Ireland has managed to do by outlawing smoking in workplaces is push the problem on to the street. So now instead of there being smokers inside your pub, there's a group of people standing around outside your pub scaring off customers. I don't think it was a good trade.

[Lak]

Well, smoking is a choice, it's a vice just like drinking and yes you're quite entitled to do it.
The difference between smoking and any other vice (and this is where I hold my objection to it) is that it automatically inflicts itself on other people. You can drink liquor around other people, but if someone chooses not to, then they aren't forced to consume alcohol by the fact that the person next to them is. When someone chooses to smoke, they are taking away everyone elses right to not smoke.

[Lak]

Also, a thought on establishment-based laws (ie: any bar-owner should be able to choose whether thier place it non smoking or not).

This sounds perfectly reasonable, but in reality, it's a poor business decision. You could have a non-smoking establishment, but your patron numbers would more than likely dwindle, especially if other bars in town allowed smoking. Eventually the owner would be forced to allow smoking to bring business back.

Or maybe that's not what would happen... just a thought.

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by Lak

Also, a thought on establishment-based laws (ie: any bar-owner should be able to choose whether thier place it non smoking or not).

This sounds perfectly reasonable, but in reality, it's a poor business decision. You could have a non-smoking establishment, but your patron numbers would more than likely dwindle, especially if other bars in town allowed smoking. Eventually the owner would be forced to allow smoking to bring business back.

Or maybe that's not what would happen... just a thought.

this is why you have demographics a business can tell if more of it's income is from smoker's or non-smoker's and adjust accordingly. If I have a business that makes more on the regular dining crowd then I'm not going to sweat going to non-smoking. However, if a large portion of my income comes from smokers then in the current state of affairs I'm going to be SOL. So I agree with the fact that a business (especially private) should have the final say so in whether or not to allow smoking in their establishment. It makes it easier on everyone. I think you'd find it's split down the middle if you allowed businesses to do that. You'd have 50% for non and 50% for smoking. Of course this is a dream but one's still allowed to do that right?

[Painted]

I smoke, and I don't care if they ban smoking in places of work. I can go a few hours with out a cigarette, it won't kill me. But if they ban it in public, then I will be kinda pissed off. If you walk past me on the street and don't want to breathe in my deadly smoke, then just hold your breath. Besides, the car exhaust is more lethal than stupid fucking tobacco smoke. Remember why people turn on their car in a closed garage to kill themselves? When's the last time you've heard of someone smoking in a closed room to kill themselves?

[denim]

Originally Posted by maleficent

That said -- I really don't think it's the government's business to tell an owner of a business whether they allow smoking or not. If I am a bar owner, and I want to get business from smokers - I should be allowed to. If non-smokers don't like it-- don't come in... The owners should be able to decide what goes on in their establishments.

Agreed. This is effectively my position. I won't go where there's smoke, but I don't want the government able to decide this. Influence it, maybe, but not decree it.

[Tophat665]

I smoke, but "I don't think it's a good idea" is the most massive understatement of all time. I think not allowing smoking in bars is one of the all time worst ideas ever.

That is all.

[AquaFox]

not to be rude to smokers.... but theres no reason to smoke.... your just killing yourself.... if you want to harm youself, i got a spare rope and cinderblock in my trunk.. i'll meet you at the bridge

smoking shouldn't be allowed in public at all

[splck]

Smokers are a dying breed and the quicker they realize it the better.

[Livia Regina]

Originally Posted by maleficent

I really don't think it's the government's business to tell an owner of a business whether they allow smoking or not. If I am a bar owner, and I want to get business from smokers - I should be allowed to. If non-smokers don't like it-- don't come in... The owners should be able to decide what goes on in their establishments.
.

Exactly. If I own a restaurant no one has any right to order me not to allow smoking in my establishment. If I want to let people have sex on the tables after they finish their dinners, that should be up to me. If you don't want to be in a place like that, don't come in.

[Fred181]

Originally Posted by Livia Regina

Exactly. If I own a restaurant no one has any right to order me not to allow smoking in my establishment. If I want to let people have sex on the tables after they finish their dinners, that should be up to me. If you don't want to be in a place like that, don't come in.

I too, do not like to see the government constantly regulating our behavior, however as an (obviously biased) non-smoker I do agree with these types of laws. The problem with allowing buisnesses to regulate themselves is that they will not do something that will cost them money.

I am not accusing you personally as I don't know anything about your buisness practices, however I know many buisness owners that would gladly spend less money on sanitation, reuse old food, etc so that they can save money. Luckily the govt regulates the health food industry in the intrest of customers.

The govt is not regulating smoking because they don't want you (anyone) to smoke, they are regulating it becuase I shouldn't be subjected to your (their) foul habit.

[Painted]

Originally Posted by AquaFox

not to be rude to smokers.... but theres no reason to smoke.... your just killing yourself.... if you want to harm youself, i got a spare rope and cinderblock in my trunk.. i'll meet you at the bridge

smoking shouldn't be allowed in public at all

People don't smoke because they want to kill themselves. Well, at least I don't.

I smoke because I enjoy it. I enjoy talking to friends (there's this hot redhead down the road who I smoke with) over a few cigarettes or a cigar. I enjoy buying some pipe tobacco, filling my pipe, sitting in an armchair, and smoking my pipe. And somedays, I just enjoy walking down the fuckin' street and smoking.

I know it's going to kill me, but thats my choice, not anyone else's. You know what else kills people? McDonalds. I don't see anti-McDonalds ads all over the place. You can still eat McDonalds in some restaurants. They don't tax the shit out of McDonalds.

[Carno]

McDonald's doesn't kill on the massive scale that smoking does.

And you can smoke if you want to, it's fine by everyone. Just don't inhibit everyone else's right to have clean air. My sister was asthmatic, and she would go into huge coughing fits and couldn't breathe when she breathed in cigarette smoke. Why should she be punished for someone else's dirty habit?

[Glory's Sun]

I was an asthmatic and I smoke. I'm not saying that we have the right to smoke in your face and blah blah blah. I just think that the government shouldn't <i>force</i> a business owner to ban smoking from his/her establishment. They need to focus on other things. Such as finding out ways to solve smog and other pollutants. If you live somewhere like LA I don't even want to hear shit about me smoking. You walk outside and you breathe more toxins in than you would standing next to me while I smoke a whole carton. Let's be honest here, instead of banning smoking, why not give business owners a choice. If they agree to allow smoking then they have to install new air ventalation systems the constantly recycle fresh air into the building. There are ways to please both sides. Putting one group above the other is wrong.

[Techno]

My sister was asthmatic, and she would go into huge coughing fits and couldn't breathe when she breathed in cigarette smoke. Why should she be punished for someone else's dirty habit?

Why the fuck do I have to breathe your exhaust fumes? I walk into the city centre (a small northern UK city) and can taste the shit in the air. Not smell, but taste. Lets put into perspective for all you non-smokers.

1. Look at the size of a cigarette. It's not going to make a massive volume of smoke, is it? You know, if you burn something that weighs a few grams, you only get a correspondingly small amount of smoke.

2. How much petrol do you put in a car? Litres and gallons. How many times more fuel are you burning? Therefore how many times more smoke are you producing?

3. A car is burning fuel a lot longer than a cigarette. Therefore kicking out still more smoke.

So there's my few cubic metres of smoke a day vs your double-digits cubic metres of exhaust fumes a day. Which of these do you really think does more damage to the people around you?

(and to briefly anticipate the "Transport is more important!!! I need my car!!!" response, I really don't see why citizens need a car. You should not be allowed unfettered access to an environmentally threatening machine.)

[frogza]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

And, not that it matters...but, you're breathing in more toxins driving in traffic thatn you're going to inhale sitting next to a smoker. No one ever wants to hear that, though.

This is an argument that comes up quite often, and not just when it comes to smoking, and each time it boggles my mind that anyone would actually consider this as a valid argument or even a point worth bringing up.

Let me see if I understand the "logic" of this argument. Since we have to inhale toxins when we drive, we should go ahead and add to those toxins with cigarettes? Maybe we should start adding Drano to each glass of water we drink, because, hey, our water isn't perfectly clean either. Given the fact that we are already being exposed to poisons on a daily basis, why can't some smokers understand when we non-smokers object to them adding their poison of choice to the soup?

In case you can't tell I am happy about laws that prohibit smoking in public places. I know that it's not fun when the government steps in and makes laws to dictate behavior, but when common decency fails, there is little recourse but to make a law to protect the public.

[Livia Regina]

Originally Posted by Fred181

I am not accusing you personally as I don't know anything about your buisness practices, however I know many buisness owners that would gladly spend less money on sanitation, reuse old food, etc so that they can save money. Luckily the govt regulates the health food industry in the intrest of customers.

And many business owners will go out of business when their customers find out that they are cutting costs like that. I think the customers and the business owners could regulate these things for themselves. Not all business owners are going to do whatever they can to cut costs and fuck the customers.

The govt is not regulating smoking because they don't want you (anyone) to smoke, they are regulating it becuase I shouldn't be subjected to your (their) foul habit.

If you don't want to be subjected to my foul habit (not mine actually, I don't smoke, nor do I own a business) then you should avoid frequenting places where people will be engaging in this habit. The government shouldn't enter into it at all.

[Techno]

Let me see if I understand the "logic" of this argument. Since we have to inhale toxins when we drive, we should go ahead and add to those toxins with cigarettes? Maybe we should start adding Drano to each glass of water we drink, because, hey, our water isn't perfectly clean either. Given the fact that we are already being exposed to poisons on a daily basis, why can't some smokers understand when we non-smokers object to them adding their poison of choice to the soup?

But our logic isn't that, in fact . It's why the hell are you hassling us, instead of dealing with the real pollutants? Why can't you car owners understand when we non-drivers object to you driving around creating the fucking soup? Where's your common decency now? I mean, you're poisoning the whole fucking atmosphere, whilst our area of effect is somewhat more limited.

[Master_Shake]

I don't know what everyone's so upset about. Don't you understand that the government know what is best for you? By smoking, you are showing that you are obviously stupid and need to be taken care of. I thank the government daily for letting me know that things like marijuana and cocaine are bad for me. Just imagine if I had to make those decisions for myself! I think my brain might explode.

Fortunately we all live in a wonderful, happy world where the government knows what is best for everyone.

Also, if it's not too much trouble, I would appreciate it if the government could let me know if I shouldn't have anal sex or question authority. There's a lot of conflicting literature on both sides, and I'm afraid that if I think too hard my head my explode. Thanks!

[filtherton]

I don't care if they ban smoking, as long as they don't pass laws prohibiting me from walking around punching and kicking the air randomly. So what if someone gets hit, they saw me coming. Why should my rights be infringed upon because someone else wasn't able to stay out of my way? I also really enjoy kicking back with friends and releasing small amounts of hydrogen fluoride gas into the air. I know its unhealthy, but i really can't summon the desire to stop doing so. It is just so enjoyable for me. I think i should have the right to do so without big government sticking its nose in my business.

Really, i don't buy the "businesses should be able to decide" argument. This is far from the first business practice regulated under the guise of serving the public good. How many of you "let the market deciders" would prefer the market decide whether booze and cigarettes should be sold to minors? Economically, i would have to imagine that such deregulation would be a boon to the booze, cigarette and healthcare industies, everyone would make more money. Let's do it. Or not.

I personally would shed not a single tear if i never smelled a cigarette or cigar again. I don't care if some smokers feel "oppressed", in my mind, if you lack the consideration for your fellow human being to not expose them to extra carcinogens, than you have no right to complain about anything.

[frogza]

Originally Posted by Techno

But our logic isn't that, in fact . It's why the hell are you hassling us, instead of dealing with the real pollutants? Why can't you car owners understand when we non-drivers object to you driving around creating the fucking soup? Where's your common decency now? I mean, you're poisoning the whole fucking atmosphere, whilst our area of effect is somewhat more limited.

So we are only to "deal with" the pollutants that don't inconvenience you?

I don't like the fact that the air is filled with toxins, which is why I moved closer to where I work so I could ride a bike when the weather permited and walk when the streets are too icy to allow safe bike riding. That's also why the next car I buy will be a hybrid.

When cleaning up a mess as big as the one we're in, you start where you can. To say "Shut down the factories and no more driving cumbustion driven vehicles." would be great, but impossible. To say "Stop blowing smoke at the person next to you." is a more realistic start.

[Fred181]

Originally Posted by Livia Regina

If you don't want to be subjected to my foul habit (not mine actually, I don't smoke, nor do I own a business) then you should avoid frequenting places where people will be engaging in this habit. The government shouldn't enter into it at all.

This isn't just about frequenting a place as a customer. There are people that work at all of these places as well. So your (and many others on this thread) response is, just don't go there... So now I must choose between breathing in smoke all day/night and having a job? Whst about if I were pregnant? I have to choose between working and the health of my baby?

OSHA (i.e. the govt) regulates all kinds of work place hazards like radiation, poisons etc, it is ridiculous to say that they also can't regulate such a workplace hazard as this.