European Union mulls continentwide public smoking ban — If people want to smoke that is there business. I don;t smoke and in certain countries such as Denmark you simple cannot go out at night to a bar or restaurant since the ventillation is so poor and the places are gosh-awful smoky. So smoky that you cannot see across the room. It’s actually unbelievable. It does vary from country to country but it’s generally bad.
European Union legislators are due to meet with national authorities and consumer groups to discuss a proposed continentwide ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and public spaces.
EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou presented a discussion paper Tuesday calling for the ban.
As of Thursday, smoking in offices and public buildings will be banned in France. The country expects to extend the ban to restaurants, hotels and casinos by 2008. As of Thursday, smoking in offices and public buildings will be banned in France. The country expects to extend the ban to restaurants, hotels and casinos by 2008.
(Francois Mori/Associated Press)“Smoke-free policies are very popular with European citizens …,” Kyprianou said. “Every European deserves full protection from tobacco smoke.”
The whole planet needs to be smoke-free indoors publically.
There is no reason to make share in your vices. No one runs up to me on the street and sticks a needle full of heroin into my arm or blows cocaine up my nose. Why should I having never smoked a day in my life have to suck in their stuff?
There was an era where there were smoing rooms specially dedicated to people that shared that interest. Outside of that you wither went out onto the porch and smoked with the men and talked about the day’s comings and goings. Of course that was before people lost all sense of decorum in this country!
Honestly no one REALLY needs to smoke anyway and smokers will agree with that. Its the companies that make that crud keep upping the nicotine keeping these people hooked. It costs the taxpayers way too much money having to treat people after the smoking has had its way with them. Time to kill it and get over it.
Then we can work on caffeine abuse.
Cursor_
There’s no such thing as caffeine abuse.
Thank god the Europussies have the EU bureaucrats to look after them.
Here in Canada, smoke-free has been making headway for decades in many provinces. Smoking is banned in most public buildings. A few years ago here in BC, smoking was banned in BARS using an adaptive piece of logic: to protect the bar employees from smoke. Eventually, that got cancelled out (I think maybe the employees became shareholders or something like that). Anyway, as a non-smoker I’ve never been much of a bar-goer, but when I do go into a bar nowadays, there’s very little smoking and the ventilation systems are super. Last time I was in the aptly-named local bar “The Oxy” (short for its original name “The Occidental Hotel”), I had zero smoke-related discomfort.
One frequent annoyance here is that if you step outside for a breath of fresh air, sometimes you’re enveloped in a cloud of smoke, because outside is the only place denizens of public buildings can do so. OTOH, it’s better than having them smoke indoors, and you can’t prohibit it entirely because they are addicted.
Coffee, smoking …I wonder if North American society will ever live so easily with other addictions.
Europe is a far smokier place (or maybe you could say they’re a decade behind in smoke consciousness), and they’ll go through many actions and reactions before arriving at a balance / synthesis.
I don’t care if they ban smoking as long as I’m still allowed my two cubes of polonium-210 in my tea.
Odd. People get worked up (and rightly so!) over invasion of privacy, DRM, TSA, phone taps . . . even issues as silly as MS Vista, yet whenever the government targets smokers, these same people cheer the government on.
Do you people actually think that government (activists) will stop with smokers???
In principle this seems like a good idea. I myself am a smoker and have no problem stepping outside to have a square, but at times I would prefer not too. This anti-smoking movement, which seems to be a steadily increasing trend in developed nations, rings of governmental paternalism or “the new form of puritanism” as stated by Christopher Hitchens.
A thought experiment – Imagine two bars side by side where one allows smoking and another does not. Each establishment has signs posted stating their smoking policy and allows the consumer to be free to choose. The bar that allows smoking notices a decline in business as consumers prefer not to visit that establishment due to the air quality. Thusly the proprietor installs air scrubbers that improve the air quality along with their profit marings, as the demand increases.
Smokers are better off because they can smoke in this establishment, and non-smokers are better off because they can visit this establishment and not be overly bothered by the smoke. This outcome seems better as both groups, smokers and non smokers, are made better off.
#6. If you have the right to smoke around me indoors in a public place, do I have the right to spray you with the foul-smelling substance of my own choice? the effect is the same.
#6: adding to #8. You can still smoke at home, of course. You may not realize it, but your second hand smoke in public places is an invasion of non-smokers bodies, equivalent to an invasion of privacy.
Incidentally, I was in downtown Las Vegas last weekend. The smoke is way down there, which will ultimately be good for the casinos. I don’t know if smoke removal equipment has been added to the ventillation systems, or if the ban of smoking in public places other than the casino areas and bars is the reason the air is cleaner.
There are many more non-smokers than smokers out there, and many of them will be more willing to visit if the smoke is curtailed or scrubbed.
I’m getting really tired of these so called “do-gooders” who feel the need to force their ideas onto others (specifically, me and others that agree with me). What are they, health evangelists?
And banning smoking? wont that severly disrupt the weed economy of the neterlands? Just ban tobbacco (which is really ironic – it was the europeans that developed this part of the world becasue tobbacco & tobbacco products were so lucrative).
A few years back Californias were free to smoke in restaurants and I found myself going less and less to my favorites due to smoke and me being a smoker it made even less sense. I wasn’t one to smoke while eating, nor enjoy others smoke while I ate and I am a believer in a smoking section in a restaurant being as effective as a peeing section in a public pool. Then the proposal to ban restaurant smoking came out. I remember hearing many wait staff complain about how business would suffer. Guess what, it actually improved as many places saw an increase in family and larger groups that enjoyed eating out and offered better tips etc.. One of my favorite places the waitress remembered me asking and told me, “you were right, now I remember may of the smokers would hang out and drink coffee leaving only change as a tip. These new customers have full meals and tip better plus I don’t smell like an ashtray when I get home”. I agree, I quit many years ago.
Here in Scotland we’ve had a pretty comprehensive smoking ban in enclosed public spaces since early 2006, and it’s been just about all good. There’s very widespread public support, and smoking is generally in decline in this country now. No smoking in pubs and restaurants! It’s great! The only downside: how are we going to get cannabis cafes off the ground now??
#12. Here in Chicagoland, we have extensive smoking bans. However, people may still smoke in tobacco shops. I can see a cannabis cafes working the same way – unlike bars or restaurants, if you are there, you are there to smoke.
#7 “profit marings”
For Brit and European readers, that is an American spelling for “profit meringues”.
To limit public places where smoking is allowed, is a radical idea: the right to breathe. Your right to smoke ends where my lungs begin. This would never have become an issue if smokers didn’t impose their habits on the air that the rest of us breathe. Taxing tobacco, not selling to minors, anti-smoking ads, and health warnings: only those are the work of your “do-gooders”.
jbellies – I just misspelled margins. When I’m walking down the street and old pickup trucks drive by, I have to inhale that polluted air. So does their right to drive end at that point?
In Quebec, since last summer all bars are smoke free, to protect the public.
The bar association went to the supreme court to overrule the province law, and failed.
Hundreds of bars are in foreclosure, especially outlying areas.
Funny thing, as a non-smoker, avoided bars for 20 years. Now that’s nice to go there, I just don’t have a motivation to go to one.
The downtown ones are still doing fine because of the young crowd, but the bars catering to the older 30-something crowd are dying.
I don’t smoke, and never have. I hate the smell of cigarettes. I don’t ever want to have to walk through another cloud of smoke while entering or leaving work or a public building. I think smoking is a disgusting habit, and can’t imagine why otherwise rational people would be willing to risk death from cancer in this way.
Having said all that: I don’t think that there should be any smoking bans. It’s just stupid. Let the free market decide. I won’t go into a place full of smoke. If enough people do that, the business is free to ban smoking on its own private property to win back customers. It’s not the government’s job. If a business has a large client base of smokers, and the employees are free to stay or quit (as we all are in most countries), then have at it.
Come on, people! This is a no-brainer. You have to be intellectually honest. Make your decisions on what powers we should give the government based on what makes sense, not on your personal tastes this week.
Shawn Milochik
Shawn@Milochik.com
“When I’m walking down the street and old pickup trucks drive by, I have to inhale that polluted air. So does their right to drive end at that point?”
No, because that would be what is known as a straw man argument.
They have no right to pollute – in fact there are laws against it. There is legislation saying “your vehicle can’t output more than X amount of this crap”.
So in effect… you just provided the best point FOR a smoking ban. Smoking is air pollution, with serious social and potential health problems. It should be regulated the same as other pollution.
#17. again, I must ask, should it be against the law for me to spray some noxious substance upon you in public? even libertarians believe that your right to swing your hand ends where my face begins.
Or perhaps, given the lethality of cigarette smoke, a more apt analogy is this – should it be up to the proprietors of any given bar or restaurant whether they want to have gunplay? If you don’t want to be shot, don’t go there. And if the employees don’t want to be shot, they should just quit.
So a car that emits more pollutants is less dangerous than a cigarette?
Way to go!
I can’t stand smoking, and I’m completely in favor of a ban, but for obvious political reasons, businesses should be allowed to opt out if they want, for no other reason than its their business, and if they want to cater to smoking customers, they have a right to. Legislation like this actually shut down hookah bars. Hookah bars, please. Nobody goes to or works at a place like that without knowing what’s involved. There’s got a be an opt out.
A few restaurants, bar and offices have smoking areas in outside shelters. Around my office you can tell where the smokers smoke as there are usually a few hundred butts thrown all about, even if a can has been provided.
One of my pet peeves, after being in the service and having to “police” the butts others had thrown, now I get a bit off when I see a smoker toss it on the street or out a car window.
While at Chico State I was arrested after someone reported me putting butts into a car window. I had seen these two gals empty their car ashtray onto the lot and after they left I scooped up the pile and poured it into the open window. I was a hippy, so go figure!
@ #19:
Your arguments make no sense.
1. You can’t (and should not) make everything which is undesirable or potentially harmful illegal. For example, there’s no law against stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork.
2. Your question about spraying someone with a noxious substance in public is irrelevant, and shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. Allowing smoking in a privately-owned restaurant or bar is completely different than walking up to someone in a public place and exposing them to chemicals against their will.
3. Your comment about guns and shooting people just shows that you’re being silly or an idiot. I’ll assume you’re being silly, and point out that it’s illegal for most people to carry guns, illegal to fire them in most populated areas, and definitely illegal to fire them at other people. Have you ever heard of assault, attempted murder, and negligence?
In case you haven’t guessed, I really don’t care about what you think, and have no need to change your mind. I think you’re ignorant. I only bothered to reply so that some other people who may read this one day will see how meaningless your post was.
Shawn Milochik
Shawn@Milochik.com
#24. “I only bothered to reply so that some other people who may read this one day will see how meaningless your post was.”
funny, if my post was “meaningless” presumably that would have occurred to readers without your incisive (“you are ignorant”) commentary.
Doub (#17) – You have characterized libertarians completely wrong. We have no problem with your theoretical restaurant with gunplay. Why would we? Is it the only food source in the world? Are the patrons and workers clearly notified and give consent?
I might think people who race automobiles are crazy, but I do not deny their right to work in a dangerous en devour
I’m a former smoker, and hate going to smoking places, but I compeletely believe in the right that a retuarant can designate itself as smoking. You DON’T HAVE TO GO THERE OR WORK THERE!
How could a free society live any other way?
#24 – whats up w/ posting the email address at the end of your rant? Expecting to get some mail from us? Dont give up your day job, you’re not that important.
#6 – Odd. People get worked up (and rightly so!) over invasion of privacy, DRM, TSA, phone taps . . . even issues as silly as MS Vista, yet whenever the government targets smokers, these same people cheer the government on.
Do you people actually think that government (activists) will stop with smokers???
Comment by Smith — 1/30/2007 @ 11:37 am
Well, first… The government is the people… So let’s stop pretending we are the unwilling subserviant class to some foriegn occupying force…
And second, as a smoker (I’ve quit, but I don’t imagine I can earn the pious position of non-smoker just because I stopped) I have always supported higher taxes on cigarettes, and in the past few years I’ve changed my opinion to favor public smoking bans (except those that ban outdoor smoking, which is just going too far) because California’s results do show that business is not adversely affected, and is in fact improved, by the ban… (and frankly, if you can’t sit through a meal without lighting up, then good Christ, you’re a loser).
Cigarette smoking causes an additional burden on society that non smokers do not cause, but are victimized by. Our health care system is unduly burdened by smoking related illnesses and non-smokers are also affected by said illnesses. Simply put, there is a cost to smoking that non-smokers should not bear.
I don’t care that some anti-smoking activists are so because they see themselves as some sort of altruistic health crusaders, akin to missionaries bringing their version of God to the savages. These people are annoying, but if they help get the job done, so be it.
The trade off is this, for me.. Once you get smoke free public facilities and a tax (that SHOULD be dedicated to offsetting health care costs only) then leave the damn streets and cars and private residences alone…
Oh… and California… I know some of you are ultra sensitive, but the notion that an apartment complex can declare itself smoke free is absurd. A person’s home is a person’s home, and in that home they should be allowed to smoke if they choose. Don’t cross the line into private lives.
(Although, I do encourage all smokers to take steps to quit. It ain’t easy. In fact, it’s harder to kick than almost anything else.)
(Although, I do encourage all smokers to take steps to quit. It ain’t easy. In fact, it’s harder to kick than almost anything else.)
Comment by OhForTheLoveOf — 1/30/2007 @ 5:01 pm
Ah c’mon. Quitting smoking is easy. I’ve done it a thousand times. I confess, it has been almost five years since the last time I quit and I feel so much better for it.
Thank God for the Nanny State, where uncorruptible, all-knowing politicians decide for me what I should and shouldn’t do and can coerce me into compliance.
Shawn and lou, at least, understand what freedom is about, which sure-as-shit ain’t about telling free, mentally competent adult citizens what they can and can’t do on their own property, in the company of others who voluntarily choose to indulge in activities which, no matter how much they’re disapproved of, or by who, remain legal acts which are matters of individual choice.
It boils down to this: neither you nor the govt has the right to prohibit otherwise legal behavior on my premises, for that very reason – they’re my premises.
I have yet to read one rational rebuttal to that statement that doesn’t require the government depriving citizens of the basic human right to dispose of their personal private property as they see fit.
I challenge any of you nanny-staters to show why it is desirable for the people to have their rights abrogated by the government. You want to live in a society where the government tells you how you must live, at the point of a gun. Just like, say, Afghanistan. Or Communist Russia. Or China. Swell places, huh?
This is the course you have set America on, in the name of protecting people, in your infinite and infallible wisdom, from themselves. Prohibition – a disaster. The “War on Drugs” – another disaster. Since those demonstrations of the folly and futility of criminalizing private conduct were such costly failures, leading only to more injustice and erosion of American freedom, how do you sit there and try to justify more of the same?
Next, now that the camel’s nose is in the tent, is to outlaw the sale of alcohol (again), since some people don’t approve. Then comes banning the sale of meat. And on and on, until the government dictates every aspect of our lives. But, damn! We might become slaves of a neofascist dictatorship, but at least we’ll have clean lungs and clear arteries!