• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

For or against the smoking ban?

T

typerlowly

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
52
Location
brighton, UK
Personally, I think it's a breach of civil liberties. Why target smokers and not drinkers - both are bad for your health. There are "legal limits" for alcohol yet it's not enough that cigarettes are given a designated area. Government mandated smoking bans are not justified - especially when it breaches personal lifestyle. Let's remember, bars are not exactly "health clubs" and you could argue that you would save lives by a prohibition of alcohol (which didn't succeed). It's gone too far in my opinion.

Curious what you think?
 
pro, but only for one reason: Cigarettes stink.

If people were to get a pipe and moke proper tobacco, then I'm all for it :)

It is not your civil liberty to make my world smell like shit just because you have theurge to suck on artificial stinkhorn phallic-replacement ;)
 
We had a smoking ban come in place here a few years ago and I was for it then and am for it now.

I mean, who the fuck wants to go to a club and come home reeking of smoke? You'd wake up and your bed sheets and clothes etc would be stinking of smoke but now it's fine cos anyone that wants to smoke has to go outside.

I am totally for it.
 
jam uh weezy said:
I think it should be up to the bar owner whether or not they want to allow smoking inside.
Click to expand...
Word. This is the best solution. You don't like it, don't go there. You do like it, go there. Everyone is happy.

This topic might do well in Drug Culture, I think it will get more responses than SO.
 
Personally I think smokers are getting treated like second class citizens and the government is helping condemn them because they smoke. Its still a "free" country right? I agree it should be up to the bar owner if they want to allow smoking or not.
 
Since we're talking smoking bans, what do you think about banning smoking inside a car where there are children present? This is currently being tabled for Ontario. Anyhow, do you think parents have full right to subject their kids to second hand smoke in such closed spaces as cars?

Where bars are concerned... I think it is unfair to compare second hand smoke to alcohol, as was done in the first post. If I frequent a bar for ten years and enjoy the company of a group of people who drink vodka cocktails, simply being in their presence for three hours a night for three nights a week is likely not going to kill me. If those people chain smoked, on the other hand, I'd be playing russian roulette with lung cancer, among other things.
 
jam uh weezy said:
I think it should be up to the bar owner whether or not they want to allow smoking inside.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think that it is a breach of civil liberties because tobacco is legal. I don't think the government has any right to regulate the consumption of legal substances in privately owned homes or establishments.

Personally though, I hate smoking in restaurants. I love smoking bars tho.
 
as a 'reformed' smoker, I personally don't want to smell it, anywhere...
in regard to the drinking...that has no effect on me (other than the fact I can't stand drunks-no matter how funny anyone thinks they are) Bar owners were a bit worried about how the ban would affect business, and there was a drop. Then all the non-smokers, who avoided bars and restaurants that had smoking, started to emerge again...it is a free country (so to speak-as long as you color within the lines), and your free to smoke,,,,, outside...:)
 
I definitely don't think it's ok for parents to subject their children to second hand smoke. I'm not sure why any parent would want to in good conscience, it's not like the dangers of smoking are a big mystery.

As far as public smoking, I think that it should be up to the manager/owner of the establishment as to whether or not smoking is allowed on their property. If someone doesn't like smoke then they just won't go to that bar/restaurant.
 
Smoking laws are complete bullshit

it should be the property owners legal right to be able to choose whether smoking is allowed inside that bar/restaurant/

If somebody doesn't want to work in a smoky environment then they shouldn't get a job at a bar and if someone doesn't want to be subjected to smoke they should go somewhere else...

Nowadays they are trying to make you feel like a scumbag for smoking a cigarette, its my bet that these nazi's will outlaw smoking within the next 50 years....
 
As has already been said, there is nothing worse than going out to the bars and coming home totally reeking of smoke. You practically have to buy a shitty jacket just to wear to the bars or you'd have to wash your coat every time you went out drinking. Even as a former and still occasional smoker I love this law whenever I go somewhere that has it.

I do tend to agree with the statements in regard to the bar owner. In some towns on state lines where the ban is put into effect, all the bars patrons just go to the next town across the state line and visit those bars so they can smoke.
 
typerlowly said:
Personally, I think it's a breach of civil liberties. Why target smokers and not drinkers - both are bad for your health. There are "legal limits" for alcohol yet it's not enough that cigarettes are given a designated area. Government mandated smoking bans are not justified - especially when it breaches personal lifestyle. Let's remember, bars are not exactly "health clubs" and you could argue that you would save lives by a prohibition of alcohol (which didn't succeed). It's gone too far in my opinion.

Curious what you think?
Click to expand...

Because I can sit next to a drinker and not come away with a second-hand buzz.
If you sit next to a smoker, you inhale second-hand smoke - whether you want to or not.

You have to breathe, but you don't have to breathe in someone else's nasty cigarette smoke.

Breaching personal lifestyle? Pleeeease!? The price of filet mignon at Ruth Chris breaches my "personal lifestyle", but I don't don't complain about.
 
I agree that it should be up to whoever owns the establishment. Regardless of what the patrons of the establishment prefer, the owner's rights trump those of the patron, because the patron can choose to go somewhere else.

People who complain about inhaling second hand smoke in bars, or smelling like smoke...why did you choose to go in that particular bar, knowing ahead of time that there will be the issue with smoking? No one forced you to go in there. Would you go to a gay bar and then say "god, I am so offended by all these gays! someone should outlaw being gay so that I don't have to put up with it when I go to this bar."

I don't have any problem with them outlawing it in public buildings, places like classrooms, airports, etc. But they should make a concession to smokers. It's not all that difficult. I have been to airports that have a smoking lounge that is closed off from the rest of the airport. No one has to be bothered by second hand smoke, and the smokers can still have their cigarettes.

Anyway, there seems to be this mentality that because it is unhealthy and polluting, anyone who does it is automatically in the wrong and has no rights whatsoever. That isn't correct though. It's not our responsibility to get out of your way and watch out for you all the time, it's your responsibility to take care of yourself and avoid something that you have an aversion to. Take some responsibility for yourself and your choices about where you go and what air you breathe.

I can think of lots of things that are unhealthy and polluting that don't get nearly as bad of a rap as smoking. Cars, people who drive with their high beams on, loud concerts, public drunkenness.

Think about it. If I go to a concert, and the music is too loud and it damages my hearing, whose fault is that? Is it the concert promoters, or mine for going to the concert knowing there will probably be loud music, and then staying even though I knew it was bad for my ears? Should we make a law restricting the volume of music at a concert?

What about all you drunk people at the bar who get so wasted that you end up pissing all over the floor in the restroom? Do you think I like stepping in piss whenever I need to use the bathroom? I think that people who are too drunk to piss straight should be made to piss somewhere outside the bar, just like people who smoke have to take it outside.
 
typerlowly said:
Personally, I think it's a breach of civil liberties. Why target smokers and not drinkers - both are bad for your health.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting one key part to this. Second-hand smoke is supposedly more dangerous than actually smoking. Drinking on the other hand pretty much only affects the individual who's doing it. I have no problem going out to a restaraunt with friends or family where lots of people are drinking, but coming out of the place smelling like an ashtray is something I wouldn't mind avoiding.
 
Most smokers are incredibly rude and insensitive about their smoking and don't realize it. There is no other activity that compares to smoking in that a small percentage of people can so adversely affect everyone else. Wake up, smokers - your "rights" don't include making others breathe your smoke or stink like you do. (And you do really stink, most of the time.)

The best compromise is that smokers smoke outside, away from the door, and that inside is smoke free. EVERYWHERE. And no smoking at music festivals, etc., except in designated areas. As far as rights and civil liberties, that ends where others' rights begin.

As far as bar owners' rights, you can't own a bar and say no black people, no gay people, no women, no men, etc. You can't serve unsafe food. You can't operate a firetrap. If you run a business that's open to the public, there are certain laws you are subject to, there's no 100% freedom anywhere. Get with the program.

You should be grateful that this compromise even exists, because otherwise your drug-of-choice would be illegal entirely.

And wake up to your rudeness. WAKE UP!
 
Johnny1 said:
As far as bar owners' rights, you can't own a bar and say no black people, no gay people, no women, no men, etc. You can't serve unsafe food. You can't operate a firetrap. If you run a business that's open to the public, there are certain laws you are subject to, there's no 100% freedom anywhere. Get with the program.
Click to expand...

Yes, any business that is open to the public is subject to certain laws, but it also has certain rights.

Allowing people to smoke isn't excluding anyone. Just because the environment created by smoking may be perceived as unpleasant by some people, and just because it isn't healthy to be in there, doesn't mean that the owner is violating peoples rights by allowing that environment.

And there is a difference between unsafe and unhealthy. Unsafe is going to kill you or seriously harm you right away. Unhealthy is going to kill you after a long time, with extended exposure. Unsafe is illegal, unhealthy isn't. Hell, McDonald's serves food that is not only bad and unpleasant (at least by my standards), but is totally unhealthy. I think it might kill you quicker to eat every meal of the day at McDonalds than it would to eat every meal of the day in a restaurant that allows smoking. But you can't tell McDonalds that they have to make food of a higher quality, or that they can only serve healthy food. If one doesn't want the bad experience and negative health effects, they don't go to McDonalds, just like they avoid should avoid those particular bars for the same reasons.

Allowing people to smoke doesn't exclude people, they exclude themselves by choice. A biker bar doesn't have any rules against gay people going in there, but they avoid it anyway, because they don't like the atmosphere. The air is full of homophobia and violence rather than cigarette smoke. But it's not illegal to have a bar that caters to bikers.
 
SA said:
Since we're talking smoking bans, what do you think about banning smoking inside a car where there are children present? This is currently being tabled for Ontario. Anyhow, do you think parents have full right to subject their kids to second hand smoke in such closed spaces as cars?
Click to expand...

I thought I read/heard that California was doing this. I could be wrong.

About the OP: We've already had smoking bans put into effect where I live. No smoking in restaurants unless it is an 21+ establishment, and the bar owner had/has the choice in putting the policy into effect.

Most of the bars here still allow smoking, as I think many owners were afraid that they would lose valuable clientele.

As a smoker, I think it's a good thing. However, I do wish that the places that do allow smoking used proper filtering systems and ventilation in the building.
 
Despite my mostly pro-smoking stance, I have to say that anyone who exposes their kids to their secondhand smoke because they are too lazy or whatever to keep it away from their kid is a total scumbag.

I try to be polite about my smoking. I'll move away from a group of people or an entrance of a building to smoke. But if someone has a whole parking lot to walk through, yet still chooses to take a path that passes within a few feet of me, then has the nerve to give me shit because they can smell the cigarette smoke or because they got a breath of it, fuck them. I didn't ask them to bring them and their shitty self-righteous attitudes near me and my cigarette.

But when it's a kid that doesn't have that choice, and the person that is supposed to be taking care of them exposes them to it and there isn't anything that they can do about it, and they end up coughing painfully all the time to get the shitty mucus and crap out of their little lungs, the person who caused that shouldn't have been allowed to.

Whether that necessarily applies to smoking in the car...idk. If the windows are all down, the kid isn't going to be getting any smoke, it will all go out the window. But if they are one of those people who for some reason like to hotbox the car with their cigarette lit and their kid in the car, then it would definitely be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top