Smoking: Ban/No-Ban?

Apparently here in Houston the City Council is looking into a further increase on the current smoking ban.

Smoking is currently banned in restaurants but not bars. The revision being considered is a ban on ALL smoking in enclosed areas (except designated hotel rooms and cigar bars) and within 20 feet of a building entrance.

I am not a smoker (except the very occasional cigar) and I particularly don't care for cigarette smoke. However, for the life of me I can't figure out the need for this revision.

I frequent several bars. Two have particularly good air-handling systems (I'm sure they weren't cheap) and regardless how many people are smoking, I've never been bothered.

Another bar in particular has no air-handling system... actually very poor ventilation. I know if I go there, there's a good chance it will be smoky... so there are many times I've decided not to visit that bar because I just wasn't up for the smoke (and it's my favorite of all I frequent).

Believe me, if you are going to half of these places, you know what you are in for... these aren't family places or anything.

I just don't see why governments feel such a need to be so intrusive.

I don't necessarily see an issue with banning it from inclosed spaces. There are alot of people who for one reason or another really cannot be around smoke for any length of time (primarily asthmatics). Why should they essently be forced to seek out the few places are not going to harm them medically? I could almost see someone making an argument under the Americans With Disabilities Act since businesses are required to make accomidations for those with medical conditions. And nearly everyone I know of knows that the smoking/non-smoking sections sometimes mean absolute jack. Does it really help having a waist-high wall between the smoking/non-smoking sections? Nope. not it the slightest!

In Ontario we have had very strict non-smoking laws for a while now. If I remember correctly, I think we have the strictest non-smoking laws on the continent.

It is great! Smokers whine and complain at first, but now it is routine for them as they go outside (not on a patio either) and have a smoke instead. As a non-smoker I think this is great. Apart from the health concerns, my clothes no longer smell like smoke once I get home from a restaurant, etc. Also, an outdoor patio is no excuse to light up either as if you are sitting near them smoke still "invades" your area if you are a non-smoker. Remember, this isn't trivial for the smokers as it gets really cold up here and going "outside" to smoke can be a chilly ordeal in the winter. As a result, smoking is in steep decline here!

The only problem is now smokers hang around the front door of the restaurant, movie theater and smoke there. You have to walk throught a gauantlet of smokers (and smoke) to get in or out of the building. Most places now have a non-smoking area around the doors on the outside to solve this problem. They are also working on laws to prevent this hanging around the doors problem.

This is really a non-issue though and is just plain common-sense. Smoke affects people around the smoker, put them in a place where it doesn't bother me. It is also becoming culturally unacceptable to smoke in cars and your home with children present. Again, common-sense.

I frequent bars and I don't like it when people are smoking there because it interferes with my cologne. How can women appreciate the nice cologne I'm wearing with all that smoke?

One of my good friends is allergic to smoke. The other day we were eating, on a only partially enclosed patio, and someone was smoking somewhere nearby. Even though I could only just smell it, he was really having a rough time of it.... Eyes bright red, watery, the works.

So it really can make life hard for other people....

This issue comes up quite often in North Carolina. Tobacco was our state's top cash crop for several decades. However, like everywhere else, tobacco use in NC is in decline. I see this as a good thing but we're probably behind the curve when it comes to curtailing smoking in public areas.

I have always held the opinion that the business owner should make the decisions as to allow smoking on his premisis or not. There are several good restaurants in my area that used to allow smoking. Since the public preference has shifted to preferring non-smoking eating establishments, many of these same restaurants have severely limited their smoking sections, installed high quality air filtration systems or banned smoking to keep their enterprise competitive. Additionally, many new restaurants have disallowed smoking from the get go since this is in the best interest of THEIR business.

Personally, I can't stand to be around cigarette smoke. However, is this the government's place to institute yet another regulation? I can't see that it is.

moses said:

One of my good friends is allergic to smoke. The other day we were eating, on a only partially enclosed patio, and someone was smoking somewhere nearby. Even though I could only just smell it, he was really having a rough time of it.... Eyes bright red, watery, the works.

So it really can make life hard for other people....

Click to expand...

I was eating on a covered patio last Thursday and someone was smoking behind us... the way the fans were blowing, the smoke was coming right to our table.

We moved to an inside table.

PS: In Houston, even with the revised proposal, smoking will still be permitted in outside areas of restaurants (where it is already prohibited).

I'm all for it for two reasons:

1. (least important). I loathe the smell of smoke on my clothes. A trip to a smoky bar always costs me an extra few bucks in dry cleaning, or makes me go through dryel quicker.

2. (Very important). I only get hangovers when I am exposed to smoke the prior evening. Unfortunately, I didn't make this connection until after I graduated from Tulane

I live in CA, where we have pretty strict smoking laws. It's always strange to me when I go to a bar in a different state and smell smoke.

My work, in an attempt, to force healthy on people and therefore cut health insurance costs, has outlawed smoking on any corporate campus throughout the entire world (we're in many states and countries). There used to be a "smoking hut" in the courtyard, but that's not allowed anymore either.

I'm fine with the general state ban as it's good for me as a non-smoker. The company ban is a little different. I wasn't ever exposed to smoke prior to the ban due to the smoking section in the courtyard, but I also understand that it's best for the company, and indirectly my bank account, that people are forced to be a little healthier. However, I'm all for letting people make their own decisions and living with the results.

Dont EVEN get me started !!

In San Francisco they started with the restaurants, then the offices, and then the bars. The legal premise was that employees of those establishments should not be exposed to second hand smoke (thus allowing a handful of owner-operated bars to still allow smoking). Now smokers are huddled out on the cold sidewalk, where some office buildings are kind enough to provide an ashtray; other buildings post signs asking people to smoke away from the doorway. Now the City Supervisors are openly musing whether there is some lawful way to keep people who live in highrises from smoking in their own homes. While I understand the general good behind getting people to stop smoking, I have to wonder whether, to accomplish this bit of social enginnering, is it really necessary to ostracize smokers and turn them into second class citizens? In SF, I'd say that heroin addicts get better treatment, in the form of social services, than smokers. Somehow, smokers are to be held responsible for their addiction, and have to pay for increased health care costs in the form of tobacco taxes, while crack users who knock over grocery stores or pimp out their girlfriends to pay for their next fix receive sympathy and public handouts.

On a somewhat related note, I smoke the occasional cigar on my walk to work, in my car, and in my home -- on my way to work the other day some busybody actually crossed the street to say to me "enjoy your cancer!"

letterk said:

The company ban is a little different. I wasn't ever exposed to smoke prior to the ban due to the smoking section in the courtyard, but I also understand that it's best for the company, and indirectly my bank account, that people are forced to be a little healthier. However, I'm all for letting people make their own decisions and living with the results.

Click to expand...

Here's one to wrap your head around. How about the extra time off that smokers get for thier extra breaks? The chart below shows a simple calculation based upon 250 work days per year and 8 hour work days. The results are in DAYS rather than hours. The sad thing about this is that a lot of smokers at my office take far more than 4 breaks a day. The worst case in the chart is a whopping 41.67 days of cumulative time off.

____10______15______20
1___05.21___07.81___10.42
2___10.42___15.63___20.83
3___15.63___23.44___31.25
4___20.83___31.25___41.67


I'm really not anti-smoking, and don't really count these types of computations too much. As long as they don't get me smoky and get thier job done, oh well.

However, it does justify in my mind the *$%^-ing off I do on this board

I personally find the idea of the government telling a private business owner what legal activities can and can not be permitted in their business to be absurd.

Let's face it, the majority of people who frequent bars also smoke. Why pass laws that will hurt that business owner's business and income?

I am against this whole nanny state mentality. There is a perfectly reasonable compromise. It was even proposed in Boston and the council wouldn't even consider it, perhaps because it makes too much sense for a government body to comprehend it.

Simply order those establishments that permit smoking to post a sign on the entrance informing patrons that it is a smoking establishment. Then leave it up to the patrons to decide whether to go there or to a place that does not permit smoking.

Some bars would be smoking, some would not. But it would be up to the business owner to make that call based upon his/her preferences and the customers he/she wishes to accomodate. Everyone wins and no-one is put out.

But I suppose common sense and political correctness have very little to do with each other.

I travel through many of the PC anti-smoking states and I make a point of not spending a dime in those states. They don't need my business or my sales tax money as I am a smoker.

Aaron I completely agree. I work in a college town. VERY pc and all against evil smokers and the tobacco companies. So the city commission passes an outright public smoking ban. Results? A number of student favourite hangouts ceased to exist. Their business got hammered by loss of customers. When they folded up then the letters to the editors started with all the lamenting of lost hangouts. These were mostly little dives that were popular because they were well...smoky little dives. You knew exactly WHAT AND WHERE you were going when you went in there. Another fine example of pc police saving people from themselves. BTW for those who are bound to respond "what about the non smokers?" If that buisness segment is really that strong then it will survive. A good number of the really entrenched places did. It was the quirky little night spots that took it on the chin. You know the ones that the kids hang out in at night... when they smoke.

Regards, Todd

MasonM said:

I personally find the idea of the government telling a private business owner what legal activities can and can not be permitted in their business to be absurd.

Let's face it, the majority of people who frequent bars also smoke. Why pass laws that will hurt that business owner's business and income?

I am against this whole nanny state mentality. There is a perfectly reasonable compromise. It was even proposed in Boston and the council wouldn't even consider it, perhaps because it makes too much sense for a government body to comprehend it.

Simply order those establishments that permit smoking to post a sign on the entrance informing patrons that it is a smoking establishment. Then leave it up to the patrons to decide whether to go there or to a place that does not permit smoking.

Some bars would be smoking, some would not. But it would be up to the business owner to make that call based upon his/her preferences and the customers he/she wishes to accomodate. Everyone wins and no-one is put out.

But I suppose common sense and political correctness have very little to do with each other.

I travel through many of the PC anti-smoking states and I make a point of not spending a dime in those states. They don't need my business or my sales tax money as I am a smoker.

Click to expand...

Well put Mason. I only smoke on occasion and it's usually pipe tobacco. However, what in the heck is wrong with your suggestion? Nothing, that's what. The very city I alluded to is so pc it's not even funny. The very kids who were all for this ban were the LOUDEST bitchers when their favourite dives went under. The ones that survived were out TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars adding smoking porches, sprinklers systems over them(yes it was required), insurance costs, and building permits. Why did they do this? As you said, a HUGE portion of their business IS smokers. They made it plainly clear that they would be happy to drive 20 minutes to another locale for their Saturday night entertainment. If it hadn't of hurt these little guys so bad I would laugh out loud at every nitwit I now hear lamenting the loss of their favourite dive. BTW, a number of bars tried the non smoking approach before this ban was enacted. They all dropped it pretty quickly from what I gather. Now it's mandated at a huge cost. Whatever.

Regards, Todd

rustyblade said:

...In Ontario we have had very strict non-smoking laws for a while now. If I remember correctly, I think we have the strictest non-smoking laws on the continent...

Click to expand...

Richard, like waste management, the non-smoking laws here in ON are behind those in Nova Scotia both in terms of being strict and the amount of time that they have been around.

I'm a reformed smoker (who still enjoys an occasional cigar) and as far as bans are concerned, well, I support most of them. I don't like for there to be smoke when I'm eating (I hated this even when I was a smoker) or having a coffee... even if I am sitting on the patio... and the smoke doesn't bother me in any physical sense, so I can't imagine how bad it must be for people who are physically bothered by the smoke.

But hey, if you feel that the anti-smoking laws are too repressive, then rise up against the oppressive government. After all, you (well, many of you) do have that constitutional right to "[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

LOL! I can't believe what i'm hearing. You non-smokers are such babies. Ok you got your bans on indoor smoking but nooooo that wasn't good enough! Now you want a perimeter set up outside every place of business so for the 2 seconds it takes for you to enter you won't smell smoke. I'm sure I could find some stuff that you do that bothers me. I think I'll take notes and start a petition.

Tom,

Personally I couldn't care less about that two seconds. It can be a rather guantlet walking feel threading through the crowd of smokers at times, but hey, no problem really. I don't mind a wiff now and then.

Although one thing that I do think is EXTREMELY rude, is when out hiking, enjoying the fresh air, reaching the destination - waterfall, overlook, whatever. And then having someone light up nearby, where the smoke blows my way. This is at least as rude as whipping out a cell up there on the mountaintop and shouting a conversation. The least a person could do is make sure they are downwind of anyone else.

As for outside a building, though, for me it is a whatever. If you wanna make that choice, well, hey it doesn't bother me if I don't have to breathe if for that long. But really, that is enough to cause someone with serious allergies several minutes of discomfort. Not sure about how I feel on this. On the one hand, I feel kinda bad for the smokers, stuck outside, getting moved to more and more uncomfortable and inconvenient places. On the other hand, the basic rule is "do whatever you wanna, as long as it doesn't impact anyone else." And if it is causing people with allergies discomfort, well....

I dunno.

-Mo

OKOKOKOK..

NON-Smokers.
Grow a set.
Whatever happened to "freedom of choice"?
If a business owner wants to allow smoking in his establishment, WHO should have the right to tell him what he can and cannot do?
If there is a sign telling you smoking is allowed YOU, and ONLY YOU, have the option of frequenting that business.
I am a Smoker !
Pipes and cigars...no ciggies anymore.
I dont like to have any smoke around me when I eat.
I dont like to have smoke around me when Im not smoking.

BUT..
I would like the option of being able to go out and have a cocktail and enjoy a stogie with some buddies every now and then.
This, I am afraid, will be impossible to do anywhere very soon.

For God's sake, FRANCE is imposing sanctions against smokers.
(for all that is holy..........

Rick,

I guess I tend to agree that noone should be able to tell an owner whether or not smoking will be allowed in her/his establishment. And then the rest of us just have to decide whether to go or not. That said, it does seem rather unfair to those who simply can't go to a lot of places for health reasons.... A little too easy to just say, "Well, they can choose not to." But still, I do not like the goverment telling anyone what they have to do.

But frankly, speaking of growing a pair, I think a lot of smokers (not all, mind you), need to grow a pair and own up to the fact that making someone else breath your smoking is really bloody rude. I'm tired of hearing about how it should be your right, etc. Yes, sure, fine. But that has nothing to do with civility. Remember than line I posted in another forum, stating that "A gentleman is someone who cares more about another's feelings than his own rights." A gentleman sure as hell does not fire up a cigarette in a public place where others will have to breath it. That is basically akin to talking loudly on a cell, or wearing colonge that is too strong, or eating tuna sandwiches and chinese food in your cubicle, or blaring your music loudly on a crowded beach, or any number of other behaviors that impose obnoxiously on other people. (Note: I am NOT talking about smoking in a bar where smoking is accepted and par for the course - because it is accepted and expected, it is not rude in that situation).