No more smoky pubs!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3565899.stm
and the happy side effect is that crazy drink prices might drop.
Price drop? Sure, at first. Then half of them will close, and you’ll see the prices.
It’s sure easier than tackle other public health known issues, like gasoline, asbestos, tap water… Better sell “them” (us) more catalytic exhaust, pure placebo but they’ll feel both protected and responsible citizens. Stale water in plastic bottles makes biz too.
Why do I mention these? I shouldn’t care, since I quit smoking, right?
With an accelerating soar of asthma with our children in cities, and cancer generally, tobacco still takes all the rap. In France, state statistics count almost every lung cancer, and a few other diseases (notably among factory workers…) as tobacco-induced. The tricky part will probably be to keep a sizable population of smokers, so they can remain scapegoats.
I loved when so many New-Yorkers applauded the ban in bars. “Finally, we got fresh air”, they say. In New York–suuure. :roll:
The same day, one learns that Reynolds tabakeys could get sued for importing African slaves a century and a half ago. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola, MacDonald’s, get some nice arrangement so they can’t ever get sued for inducing diabetis or obesity.
First principle in politics: name one enemy…
Corollary: spare him–you need the wretch.
Two questions, now:
-
what’s the next ban? pork or alcohol first? Secular music, or bare-headed women?
-
What will the lawyers come with next? Sueing one’s parents for catechism (indoctrination), for bringing you to the beach (skin cancer) or for feeding you beans (greenhouse effect)?
Man, I would like to own stock in a company that made outdoor awnings and rugged outdoor dining furniture. Ireland’s a-goin’ alfresco.
30%. That’s a lot of smokers.
Alfresco - hummm only if the Atlantic winds stop blowing. But wait a mo, just the other day didn’t I read in the newpaper that with gobal warming besides eggs preboiled before they are collected the rising oceans will consume all of Ireland!
Okay, Toasty, you forced me to utter the unspeakable:
WATERWORLD!!!
Sorry, movie fans. I just imagined Ireland having to make do on a buncha rafts and see, there’s this one guy with a tomato plant and he…never mind.
Well said, Zubivka! 
Redwolf
PS they banned smoking on the beach somewhere down South today (Santa Monica or Malibu??). I swear, within five years, the only place to smoke will be huddled in a stormdrain. No wait, that empties to the sea, not there, would offend the fish.
It’s not a matter of “offending” anyone. Alot of people don’t appreciate having to suck back cigarette smoke just because they want to go to a bar. How is alcohol the same thing? When was the last time someone walked up to you, opened your mouth and threw a guinness down your throat?
But why do people assume that they have a right to go to whatever bar or restaurant they please and have it suit their preferences? Why not leave it up to the bar owner or restaurateur as to what the smoking policy will be? No one, smoker or nonsmoker, has the fundamental right to go into any privately owned establishment and have it suit his or her preferences.
Back before a total ban was imposed here, the community we lived in had a very sensible policy. Restaurants and bars had to post prominently in their windows whether they were all-non-smoking, all-smoking, or maintained both smoking and non-smoking sections. They also had to include that info in their print ads and employment ads. If you didn’t want to go to a restaurant or bar that catered in any way to smokers, no problem…you had plenty of others to choose from. If the restaurateur or bar owner found he was losing clients or couldn’t find employees because of his smoking policies, he was free to change them. Places that wanted to have both smoking and non-smoking sections had to keep them completely separated, and the smoking section had to have its own air cleaning device to prevent smoke from leaking into the non-smoking area. Now THAT’s sanity! Sure, there were some places people who were bothered by or concerned with cigarette smoke might choose not to go (just as there were places where people who wanted to have a cigarette with their coffee might choose not to go), but the vast majority of places had ample and completely smoke-free accommodations for non-smokers.
When California decided to impose a total ban, several bar owners tried to do what some have done in New York and turn their bars into “smokers’ clubs” (basically, you paid a $1 lifetime membership to patronize that bar, where you were free to smoke as much as you liked). The state decreed that even this fairly reasonable policy was illegal…if you owned a bar, you HAD to make it totally smoke free, even if it was technically a private club. I’m sorry, but that’s just insane. If a bar owner wants to make his bar a private club and allow smoking, so long as non-smokers know that this is the bar’s policy, why in heaven’s name does the government have the right to interfere? Who decided that nonsmokers have the exclusive right to have smoke-free access to any gathering place, public or private, that they saw fit, and to hell with what the owner or the regular patrons wanted?
Another thing that bothers me about this ban in Ireland is it includes home offices and the cabs of privately owned commercial trucks. So if I’m a writer who works from home, legally I can’t smoke in my office…even if I’m the only one who ever uses it! Or, if I own a commercial truck, I can’t smoke on a long haul, even if I’m the only one who ever drives it! Hello??? Doesn’t anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?
This whole situation is crazy.
Redwolf
Which is why I support smoking bans in public places. I would have no problem with “smokers club” if I was an American or Irishman (I don’t know what Ireland’s health system is like, but as a Canadian I pay medical bills for people who believe it’s their God-given right to smoke, call me a communist, but I don’lt like that, I think it’s a stupid habit). It’s alot easier for a government to pass a total ban than to get into every possible situation. I for one don’t believe you’ll hear anything about people being fined in their truck cabs or their own homes and I would bet the politicians knew that when they crafted the law. I agree that you can go to far, your point about smokers clubs is well taken and in the end it’s up to voters to decide their feelings on the issue. My impression was that the Irish were behind the ban from personal conversations and figures that I’ve heard (that I have conveniantly misplaced).
Ah, but you also pay medical bills for people who choose to do all kinds of self-destructive things. People who live in fast-food restaurants, or who think that if it isn’t fried, it isn’t food. People who choose to drink themselves into a stupor night after night. People who choose to participate in extreme sports (or heck…even just generally pretty active sports!). People who choose to drive when they’re just too tired, or who choose to drive vehicles that are not well-maintained. People who live near power lines or sleep in water beds (don’t laugh! That was the big health bugbear just a few years ago!). People who choose to eat way more than is good for them. People who prefer never to get off their couches. Where does it end? If the concern is only for second-hand smoke, then letting the restaurateur or bar owner…or for that matter, any business owner…decide what will and will not be done in their restaurant or bar (so long as the policy is posted) and banning smoking in indoor places where people absolutely must go (such as supermarkets, banks, government buildings, bus and taxi queues, busses, airplanes, etc.) should take care of the problem. If the concern is for public health costs, then it should not stop with smoking. As soon as something is identified as a major health risk, the government should immediately move to ban it. No more liquor. No more fast food. No more active sports. No more fried chicken and eggs benedict. Heavy fines for people who are overweight. Mandatory aerobic exercise programs. You get the drift? Smoking is the demon of today, but there will be another one tomorrow…quite possibly something most of us currently consider quite innocuous. Count on it.
Redwolf
Redwold wrote
. No more active sports. No more fried chicken and eggs benedict. Heavy fines for people who are overweight. Mandatory aerobic exercise programs. You get the drift? Smoking is the demon of today, but there will be another one tomorrow…quite possibly something most of us currently consider quite innocuous. Count on it.
Live chat? (oh wait, a lot of those are gone already)
Whistle Boards?
Comparing those things with smoking is ridiculous. Quitting Big Macs doesn’t give you cold sweats, they’re fine in moderation, I’ve played tennis for over a decade and basketball longer and I haven’t been to an emergency room since I was five, most people I know who drink are not alcoholics. On the other hand, 99% of people I know who smoke are addicted (80% of whom readily admit they would quit if they had the patience/motivation) and they are not “okay” in moderation, because in moderation you’ll most likely get addicted. Around 45 000 Canadians will die prematurely from smoking this year, sure more overweight people will probably die… but our chunky friends won’t take 1000 others with them.
Illinois (outside of Chicago, anyway) has banned smoking in public buidings but allows smoking in reastaurants and bars as long as they provide a discrete smoking area. One trend I find very interesting is the near cascade of formerly smoking-allowed establishments that are voluntarily going smokeless.
Managers I’ve talked to say that the impetus is purely economic. They have found that it is not to their advantage to have customers waiting in line or taking their custom elsewhere because the only available tables are in the smoking areas.
A former smoker myself, I am also one of those who will walk away rather than suck down the pumonary wastes of Joe Nicotine at the next table.
As for the “smokers’ rights” crap, I only have one response.
Your right to smoke ends at my nose.
I’m actually glad to see areas that are enforcing “no smoking in public places” laws. I’m a flute/whistle player and have suffered from second hand smoke for years because the only places that would have traditional Irish music were heavily smokey. I tend to get sick for several days after 2-3 hours of exposure, so I’m hoping that these laws will improve my health.
Here is a link to a summary of the smoke laws recently passed in the state of Oklahoma. They sound a bit more lenient than what was described above for California.
http://www.okswat.com/breatheeasyok/SmokeLaw.html
I believe that people should be allowed to smoke at home or in private if they choose to do so, but should not be allowed to if the smoke can be breathed by others.
Once again I’d like to point out that these bans aren’t designed for the benefit of the consumer. They’re regarding a workplace – to protect the people who literally have no choice but to breath secondhand smoke, the nice young man with the clean white teeth who serves your beer. Paulette who brings me my whiskey every Wednesday is in that bar EVERY NIGHT…ALL NIGHT. She has a right to a clean and safe workplace.
As an exsmoker myself, I am generally appalled by cigarette and cigar smoke…except sometimes when I absolutely go into raptures over the scent of burning tobacco…usually after a spectacular dinner over an exquisite cup of coffee. Even the tiniest wisp gets my hands trembling. This is now 20 years later. Not addictive my a##.
Respectfully submitted,
I had never really felt strongly about the issue until a trip to Ireland last summer. Ottawa has had a ban for quite awhile now and the smoke in Ireland just floored me. You don’t realize how bad it is until you experience what clean air is like in a confined space. Not to mention how nice it is to wake up after a night at the pub and not smell like cigarette smoke, makes the hangover slightly easier.
Redwolf, you have very sanely stated the flaws in the anti-tobacco arguments. I won’t repeat your statements.
The good old USA, and several other countries in the “free world” are revealing that in fact- we are not “free”.
I recently heard it pointed out that we do NOT own our land, homes, etc. We pay “rent”(taxes) for the priviledge of claiming, on paper, that we control a certain geographical area.
Just how much goverment control/involvment in our personal lives do we want? and at the cost of what percieved freedoms?
Right now smokers are the scapegoats, who’s next?
Not to mention how nice it is to wake up after a night at the pub and not smell like cigarette smoke, makes the hangover slightly easier.
I’ve gotta say that I can’t think of a lot of things that smell worse than a bunch of drinkers- smoking or non-smoking. Sorry, I couldn’t pass that one up. 
Well cigarette smoke doesn’t exactly make it anymore pleasant.
I do not smoke, nor did I grow up around it. My parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were nonsmokers, and I am not in favor of smoking, but I think the anti-smoking campaign has taken on an extremist nature.
When I was a child, there were ashtrays in grocery stores, and public places in general. This is mostly not the case today. When I go into a restaurant they ask, smoking or nonsmoking. I am fine with that. Legislation is making even smoking sections nonexistent. In the winter I see smokers standing outside their workplaces, stores, fastfood establishments, banks, and the like, smoking in the freezing weather. It’s sad. Smokers have enough troubles without having to get exposure to the elements, too.
What I am especially bothered by, in the anti-smoking campaigns of today, are the television ads, with the dehumanizing villifications. I do not think terribly highly of tobacco companies, et al, but it reminds me too much of a sort of negative propaganda campaign that might have been employed by some hate group in times past.