Banning tobacco around Europe

[punisa]

Pretty sure this falls into politics : )
Well, as I'm a smoker and quite enjoy it, I can't discuss the subject without a certain degree of bias, so join the discussion : )

There is "hip" trend in Europe - banning smoking from all closed areas (bars, clubs, schools, trains, airports).
In many countries here people have an age old tradition (somewhat different from the US) to drink morning coffe in a local hood bar with cigarettes n newspapers.
Majority of people who visit these small bars are smokers (trust me). When the law comes into force, these small owners will be even forced to fire extra bartenders or close the whole place down.

Is this stuff ok? I'm very against restrictions. Personally I believe restaurants n bars should/could have separated spaces - smokers n non-smokers. But no... total ban is happening.

Whats funny is that state is pumping tax payers mones into financing tobacco industry ! Can someone please shed some light here?

Propaganda is strong. I don't follow stats, but I do follow real life. I've seen 90 year old smokers, but these fat folk who eat exclusively fast food drop like flys (even in their 20s)!

[Vendetta]

You can smoke at schools?

lucky

[Socialist Scum]

You can smoke at schools?

lucky

He might mean behind the bike sheds at lunch hour.

[BobKKKindle$]

The ongoing trend of banning smoking in certain environments such as bars and pubs is an unacceptable violation of individual freedom. We have the same system in Hong Kong, but most bars have been able to successfully apply for an exception under the plan put forward by the government, which means they have the legal right to tolerate smoking until the ban comes into full effect with no exceptions whatsoever in a few years time. There is currently a lack of scientific evidence to conclusively show that second-hand smoke poses a real danger, including a higher possibility of lung cancer - and in fact, in Hong Kong, it has consistently been proven that walking down a busy street in the middle of the day poses a greater risk than spending the entire evening in the company of someone who is smoking continuously. In addition, there is also no evidence to show that the ban will allow the government to achieve its stated objective - reducing the prevalence of smoking, especially in younger age groups. The Health Survey for England shows, has seen an increase in cigarette consumption among males aged 18-34, from 23 to 24 percent. The negative effect of the ban with regard to freedom is especially acute for senior citizens due to the strain of having to get up from the bar/table and go outside whenever one wants to have a cigarette and ultimately forces these individuals to remain at home instead of being to enjoy themselves and socialize with others.

[duffers]

So those of us who don't smoke nor want to emulate it by second hand smoke, our opinion on the matter is moot?

[Bilan]

^^ Yes. Fuck off.


But seriously. As the OP said, there should be separate smoking and non-smoking areas, not a total ban.
But if your opinion is that smoking should be banned from everywhere, then yes, you're opinion really is moot.

[RaiseYourVoice]

He might mean behind the bike sheds at lunch hour.

In Germany you were able to smoke on most school yards from the age of 16. Officially that is. In practise it was everyone was alowed to smoke.

While i see the banning of smoking practially everywhere to be an attack on our freedom, i do see some advantages. First an most important working at a bar gets a lot nicer. Second when going to a bar i can actually breeze and can use my clothes next day too since they dont stink like shit. Especially for my girlfriend its really nice, rooms full of smoke keep her from breezing properly so in that case SHE has to go outside all 20-30 minutes. I find the best solution to be a special smokers room, but in my city you are good of if you can afford a 1 room bar, 2 are unaffordable. In the end i dont like moralistic bans (school yard? in train stations (the ones outside, not underground)?) the smoking ban in bars is certainly nice though.

That said, in my state we have the hardest smoking laws in germany... with one exception: Smokers Clubs with a members list. The smoking ban held on for 2 weeks, nowadays i am member of around 10 Smokers Clubs, though being a non-smoker.....

[duffers]

That's not my stance at all, however I don't wish to compromise with areas in places; that just results in a somewhat smoky place, as opposed to a very smoky place. My clothes still stink, I still feel like shit, and I don't see why a simple smoke outside is huge grief, considering it's fucking horrendous to be near someone smoking if you don't do it yourself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm of the opinion that the decision of whether or not to allow smoking should be up to the establishment in question. Even before the smoking ban in the UK, there were plenty of places that prohibited smoking.

The stupid thing is that the smoking ban even prevents establishments setting aside a well-ventilated room purely for smokers if they have the desire and means to do so.

I wonder if French airlines still have smoking bars?

[RedSonRising]

To me the real problem is the aspect of addiction in smoking. Tabacco is hazardous for ones health sure, but banning many of the other ingredients and chemicals in the average company cigarette is much more important. One may choose to smoke and live a certain lifestyle, but the nicotine aspect takes away that so called autonomy of the individual, and im sure much of that tar and other crap is not necessary. To me such a practice in cigarettes represents the most evil of capitalism, kiing costumers for profit. Without the aspect of addiction, I think smoking and non smoking sections are fine.

[Josef Balin]

I don't follow stats, but I do follow real life. I've seen 90 year old smokers, but these fat folk who eat exclusively fast food drop like flys (even in their 20s)!

Then you don't follow anything at all and just typed an extra paragraph to try to insinuate that the bourgeois are using propaganda at their own behest.


Smoking is the direct reason 26% of all people in the developed world die. It is a cancer on humanity that should have as much legislation put against it as possible, except restricting the sale of it, because it's not my right to choose what you can and cannot put in your body.

[Angry Young Man]

I hope I can trust myself to manifest my opinion in a totally unbiased and rational manner. There was completely no point in completely outlawing smoking in enclosed areas. Using the example of pubs, a large contingent of customers smoked, and this was accepted by non-smokers. As for train stations, they're not even enclosed and had specific non-smoking lounges for people who were nazis/asthmatic.
Bastards

[Angry Young Man]

Everyone join the facebook group 'I bet we can find 1m people who DO want smoking back in pubs'

[lombas]

Smoke is very unpleasant. Smoking (also passively) has a substantial effect on the chances of getting cancer, lung diseases, &c.

It's no game people.

[butterfly]

Maybe they'll realize at some point that the health of the community would be improved to a greater extent were they to ban coal-fired power stations.
Because the shit we breath in that we can't see is not doing us any harm...right?

[Vanguard1917]

I'm of the opinion that the decision of whether or not to allow smoking should be up to the establishment in question.

But that would be giving grown men and women -- people who are regarded by the government as being incapable to make decisions on such trivial matters as whether they want to smoke or go to a place where people smoke -- the freedom to choose for themselves.

Perish the thought.

The ongoing trend of banning smoking in certain environments such as bars and pubs is an unacceptable violation of individual freedom. We have the same system in Hong Kong, but most bars have been able to successfully apply for an exception under the plan put forward by the government, which means they have the legal right to tolerate smoking until the ban comes into full effect with no exceptions whatsoever in a few years time. There is currently a lack of scientific evidence to conclusively show that second-hand smoke poses a real danger, including a higher possibility of lung cancer - and in fact, in Hong Kong, it has consistently been proven that walking down a busy street in the middle of the day poses a greater risk than spending the entire evening in the company of someone who is smoking continuously. In addition, there is also no evidence to show that the ban will allow the government to achieve its stated objective - reducing the prevalence of smoking, especially in younger age groups. The Health Survey for England shows, has seen an increase in cigarette consumption among males aged 18-34, from 23 to 24 percent. The negative effect of the ban with regard to freedom is especially acute for senior citizens due to the strain of having to get up from the bar/table and go outside whenever one wants to have a cigarette and ultimately forces these individuals to remain at home instead of being to enjoy themselves and socialize with others.

Yep. Smoking bans are an affront to liberty and an expression of our rulers' paternalistic desire to control public behaviour. The modern state is interfering in our lives in ways that in previous periods would have been thought unthinkable, even for the most authoritarian of governments. And while the 'science' behind such bans are no doubt frequently flawed, which we should expose, that is still somewhat besides the point, which is one of defending freedoms.

[ComradeOm]

But that would be giving grown men and women -- people who are regarded by the government as being incapable to make decisions on such trivial matters as whether they want to smoke or go to a place where people smoke -- the freedom to choose for themselves.

No, that would be be giving employers the freedom to choose for themselves

It never fails to amaze me that every time this topic comes up good and honest Marxists start bleating on about "personal liberties" like some middle class liberal. In most countries, and I can refer first hand to Ireland, bans on smoking in the workplace have been introduced as part of health and safety legislation in order to make working conditions more tolerable. Now I have no doubt that neo-puritans are pleased with the developments but frankly I don't give a damn if it means that bar staff are not spending eight hours in such an unpleasant environment

And it is very unpleasant to do a shift in a small pub where there is a permanent cloud hovering just above your head. I'm only sorry that this legislation wasn't in place during my time behind the bar and the feedback I've had from friends still on the job has been uniformly positive

I mean, come on. Reading some of the reactions in this thread you'd think that health and safety legislation - perhaps property developers should be allowed decide if their workers wear hardhats, or have "hardhat" and "hardhat-free" sites? - was the first step on the road to fascism. Let's look beyond our own habits and at the people that this really affects

Everyone join the facebook group 'I bet we can find 1m people who DO want smoking back in pubs'

You won't find them in Ireland. The vast majority of the people (smoker and non-smoker) approve of the ban. In fact the only group that has consistently lobbied against it are the publicans

[punisa]

What about alcohol?
- it makes you live significantly shorter
- kills huge amounts of people (drunk driving)
- destroys families (use your imagination)
Let's ban it then.

What about industrial zones?
- pollutes the air (and land and water)
- cause numerous diseases to workers and people living in the areas
Let's ban it then.

You'd probably find tons of other stuff worth of banning.
Hey, the pc monitor permanently hurts your eyes people - let's ban it !

In this day and age when we are stuffed with chemical substituted manure that some call "food", people are worried about 2.hand smoke.

Economies in African countries, like Ghana, are suffering because EU won't import products such as bananas. Why? Because they're not the same shapes and sizes.
Who'll ban that? Who'll ban the shit they sell you in the shopping mall which you must eat in order to survive?

Number of sick and dying of cancer is hugely increasing in the couple of past years - something NEEDS to be done. Ok, let's ban the tobacco (and wait to for the numbers).
What about ASPARTAM, a cool chemical substitute for sugar in your Coca Cola "Zero" which is proven to cause dementia?

Hey, we could do a race. I'll smoke a pack a day, and you drink two bottles of Coke. First one who dies loses !
Oh.. yeah, I'm addicted and I need my smokes, whille you can live without your favorite beverage (yeah right)

BTW, I'm not propaganda/conspiracist, I'm just laying down my arguments as to why this action is direct attack on one's liberty and freedom.
No backslash and no protests on tobacco ban mean one thing - state(s) have become so powerful and mastered slick manoeuvring that soon (maybe in a few years) they'll continue to practise such fascist methods.

Think about it. If there is 60% of smokers in a country, and not a single person argues when the state changes his/hers lifestyle by force - this is scary part.
Half a century back there was a same thing, virtually no-one argued, but the government was not banning tobacco, it was banning people - jews.

Have a nice day : )

[Vanguard1917]

And it is very unpleasant to do a shift in a small pub where there is a permanent cloud hovering just above your head. I'm only sorry that this legislation wasn't in place during my time behind the bar and the feedback I've had from friends still on the job has been uniformly positive

The primary motivation behind the ban had very little to do with improving workplace conditions. The ban was motivated by the government's desire to attack smoking itself, in line with its other policies of increasing taxation on tobacco, restricting tobacco advertising, putting "health warnings" on tobacco products, pictures of dead and deformed people (see), etc.

If the motivation was indeed to improve working conditions for bar workers, there are various other measures which could have been implemented, such as installing more advanced ventilation systems and prohibiting smoking by the bar till. An outright ban was merely a sign of the government's opposition to the practice of smoking itself.

Also, it should be added that bars aren't meant to be centres of health and safety. A bar is a place where people often go to get drunk, smoke, and wind down. Bars are places where people shout, swear, flirt, and sometimes act like pillocks. Bars are adult environments, and this is generally recognised by the staff who work in them. If you can't tolerate the environment of a bar, then you're simply not fit to work in it.

But the smoking ban came from above, not below. It was a government-led initiative, an expression of government disapproval of public behaviour, and an attempt to dictate it. In that, it was successful.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To me the real problem is the aspect of addiction in smoking. Tabacco is hazardous for ones health sure, but banning many of the other ingredients and chemicals in the average company cigarette is much more important. One may choose to smoke and live a certain lifestyle, but the nicotine aspect takes away that so called autonomy of the individual, and im sure much of that tar and other crap is not necessary. To me such a practice in cigarettes represents the most evil of capitalism, kiing costumers for profit. Without the aspect of addiction, I think smoking and non smoking sections are fine.

The same argument could be made for alcohol.

Smoking is the direct reason 26% of all people in the developed world die. It is a cancer on humanity that should have as much legislation put against it as possible, except restricting the sale of it, because it's not my right to choose what you can and cannot put in your body.

What about my right to associate with other smokers?

Smoke is very unpleasant.

That's your opinion. Nobody is forcing you to go to a bar or pub where smoking is allowed.

Smoking (also passively) has a substantial effect on the chances of getting cancer, lung diseases, &c.

In the case of someone choosing to smoke, that's entirely their business. In the case of passive smoking, let's just say the evidence for significant harm is somewhat lacking.

I mean, come on. Reading some of the reactions in this thread you'd think that health and safety legislation - perhaps property developers should be allowed decide if their workers wear hardhats, or have "hardhat" and "hardhat-free" sites? - was the first step on the road to fascism. Let's look beyond our own habits and at the people that this really affects

And that somehow justifies a complete and total ban, not even allowing for seperate ventilated rooms which members of staff enter at their own discretion?

Bullshit.