No Smoking in Bars/Clubs?

Dean wrote:   The office I work in has been voluntarily smoke-free for 20 years, I've never smoked while people near me are eating, nor have I consciously smoked near infants and small children; until the ban I never smoked in the car and still don't if I have passengers - I don't need a two-bit law to tell me to behave responsibly, but now we have one I fully intend to be as irresponsible as the law permits and the more draconian that law becomes the more antisocial I shall become.

Edited by el dingo - April 10 2009 at 03:03

While I do agree that it is totally unnecessary to treat those who smoke outside as lepers, I disagree with 'accepting the law, then ignoring it'. In Italy it is forbidden to smoke in workplaces, yet in the office where I worked last at least three of my colleagues smoked in their room, without heeding the possible dangers (offices are full of papers and electrical equipment), or the fact that the smoke was a nuisance to other people. I often wear contact lenses, and smoke irritates my already sensitive eyes - not to mention that, if I happen to have a cold, even the mere smell is enough to get me coughing hard. I may not care a fig if, by smoking, you endanger your own health - it's your life, after all - but I don't see why you have to cause me any discomfort. 

el dingo wrote: ^   That's a very valid point - no smoker should inconvenience non-smokers and to work in an office full of smoke is disgusting, to my certain experience - and I'm a smoker!   I think what I meant about flouting the law is that some countries tend to take some aspects of the law in different ways to the good old UK - we just bow down to a whole series of petty laws.  The smoking regulations are not petty and i adhere to them 100 per cent, as I said previously.  I guess what annoys a lot of us in the UK is that sometimes the authorities tend to be keener to deal with (very) minor  traffic offences and breaches of council regulations than more serious crimes.   As a smoker I guess I just find it a bit of a naughty bonus to light up every time I'm in Spain - yet I would never smoke in a food area, which many Spaniards still do. Ther's even dedicated smoking rooms at Palma airport - unheard of in the UK - though you'd have to have a death wish to stay in one for more than 30 seconds!

I can very much sympathise with the bolded part. It's like, you get thrown into jail for stealing an apple, but not for robbing a bank (or the whole citizenship...).

they don't have designated smoking areas at Heathrow??....I thought they did... well  hopefully they did hahah.  I remember firing up many a Winston on my trips through there after flying across the ocean 

Heathrow is now smoke-free - you cannot even smoke on the concourse outside the main terminals, let alone inside.

Dean wrote: Heathrow is now smoke-free - you cannot even smoke on the concourse outside the main terminals, let alone inside.

ahhh... good to know...  no connecting flights to Italy through London anymore

Dean wrote: ^ first time I flew to San Francisco, after 13 hours without a cigarette I approached a security guard and asked him where I could smoke - he pointed east and said rather stoically "Nevada"

hahahhahhah  

Being in favor of forced smoking bans on privately owned business in nothing more than selfish and flies in the face of America's founding principals.  I don't smoke but I don't wish to see smokers punished by government decree (especially when its a government that wants it both ways: keep smoking and pay all our taxes but don't do it around anybody else).  If the owner of the bar/restraunt/club decides to ban smoking then fine, more power to him, but the government shouldn't be forcing anything on him/her.  This is another case of government not allowing citizens to make their own decisions.

Garion81 wrote: ^ Again you forget people who work there who don't smoke. Cigarettes have been proven to release noxious harmful fumes if someone inhales them.   What about their rights to work in an unharmful environment? With your line of thinking then any owner can subjugate their employees to whatever hazardous environment they please? Give me a break.  Liberty goes only so far as you don't tread on someone else's rights.  Don't give me the line they can go someplace else.  It means they can go anywhere to work and still have the same knowledge that their work environment is reasonably safe.

manofmystery wrote: Being in favor of forced smoking bans on privately owned business in nothing more than selfish and flies in the face of America's founding principals.  I don't smoke but I don't wish to see smokers punished by government decree (especially when its a government that wants it both ways: keep smoking and pay all our taxes but don't do it around anybody else).  If the owner of the bar/restraunt/club decides to ban smoking then fine, more power to him, but the government shouldn't be forcing anything on him/her.  This is another case of government not allowing citizens to make their own decisions. By the way, do those awful TRUTH commercials make anyone else want to start smoking?

Smoking is different than your typical suicidal drug abuse ... it harms others. Like Garion81 said: Even in privately owned businesses there are still employees who may not want to be injured by smokers. Sure, you can claim that it's their free choice. But in this case I'll say: to hell with freedom, let's save some lifes!

BTW: I'm really shocked to see how smokers create their own reality, where common sense doesn't apply. Quit smoking right now ... it might safe your life, it *will* safe you quite some money, and you won't be bothered by smoking bans anymore.