I rather like the growing bans on smoking in bars and restaurants — it makes them much more pleasant places for those of us who'd rather not inhale poisons from acrid, burning weeds involuntarily. But maybe an exception should be made from places where the burning and inhaling of plant matter is the whole intent of visiting, as is being discovered in the Netherlands.
Millions of people flock to Amsterdam's "coffee shops" every year to legally buy cannabis and hashish over the counter and to smoke it without fear of arrest, as long as they are on the premises.
But the new law bans tobacco inside café and restaurants, meaning cannabis users are now forced to light up potent and heady pipes and joints loaded with pure marijuana.
So now visitors are getting toasted on extra-potent weed.
Hey, is this just a publicity stunt for the new "Harold and Kumar" movie?
- Log in to post comments
Well, from what I've read, marijuana is neither as addictive nor as much of a health risk as tobacco. So why not?
woot iowa went smoke free yesterday and its a whole new world.
I still don't understand why smoking tobacco should be banned from bars. Ideally there would be smoking and non-smoking bars, and people could choose which to patronize.
Then again, if one had to switch to marijuana in response, what would be the problem? At least in the Netherlands they get to smoke something else, while here we don't.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I would have to agree with Jason. Also, if an exception were made just for 'coffee shops', other cafés and restaurants would be livid. It would probably lead to a lot of places declaring themselves 'coffee shops' to subvert the ban. I say blanket ban on tobacco and let the 'coffee shop goers' adjust their caffeine intake accordingly.
I agree that smoking bothers non-smokers, but some cities are going a little too far firing employees for smoking on work breaks outside. I work at such a place and because I consider it such a huge infringment on my personal rights, I would not consider staying in such an environment much longer. I want control over my own body, (where have we heard this before?)I don't ask others to breathe my smoke, and I don't do it where others can, it's always outside no matter what the temperature is.
I remember - back in the day - much prefering a pipe of hash instead of a joint... Much less hassle to make, much less hassle to smoke, much less cost (no cigarettes needed), and a pipe can easily be made (macgyver-like) from many common and readily available materials :D
In fact I think I recall that we generally only smoked a joint when in public, to avoid visually offending those of a less 'liberal' persuation.
Tony
Glen D:
Well, one major reason is the health of employees. Second hand smoke is very hard on staff. Sure, one can argue that they could choose not to work in the restaurant, but that's not an option for everyone, and honestly, if you ran a factory and exposed your workers to that kind of toxic atmosphere without appropriate protection you'd be sued in no time.
Also, I hear that Starbucks is having finacial trouble, this might just be what the doctor prescribed for them.
(.)(.)
As a smoker, living in California, I don't understand how this isn't in every state everywhere. I couldn't even imagine lighting up indoors. I'm of the age where as long as I have been legally of age to smoke, this law has been in effect. I even have issues smoking outside if someones around (ESPECIALLY CHILDREN). Who wants to smoke inside anyway? That's just gross to me. And in restaurants? That's even worst. There are a few bars in town here that allow smoking (illegally) and that I actually agree with, if your in a dive bar, and the bar tenders got a cancer stick in his lips, then whatever, it's a bar. If your offended by that, then go to another bar. But don't do it where I eat.
"So now visitors are getting toasted on extra-potent weed.So now visitors are getting toasted on extra-potent weed."
And this is going to be a little off topic, but I hate the argument against marijuana about how "potent" it is these days, and how bad that is. Well, the way I see it, more potent weed doesn't mean you getting any more THC, but actually, you just smoke a whole lot less. I've heard stories from friends parents that they used to sit around and smoke a joint to themselves to get high. What do kids do today? They take a 'snap' which is about 1/16 the amount of matter. Which do you think is better? A huge amount of burning dry grass or a small 'shot' of smoke, both giving the same effect?
Let me start off by saying that I am not a smoker, but I vehemently disagree with the growing city and state-wide smoking bans across the US and now in Europe as well. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy going to bars these days and not smoking a pack of cigarettes worth of second hand smoke and smelling like an ash tray, but a straight ban is not the right answer. What is the right answer? License it. Just as a bar/restaurant must have a license to serve liquor, a bar/restaurant should be able to pay for the right to allow smoking on their premises. People than then choose whether or not to patronize that establishment and expose themselves to the smoke. This would also give employees the option to work for a smoking vs. nonsmoking establishment.
I'm willing to bet that we see a a lot of these draconian laws repealed within the next decade, and 100 years from now we will view this time in history the same way we view Prohibition.
As a big-time pot smoker, I find the idea of mixing tobacco with weed an abomination. It's also true that tobacco is much, much more addictive than cannabis and much, much more likely to give you cancer. So to a certain extent the law makes sense. But I can see going the other way, as long as cafe workers are OK with the secondhand tobacco smoke.
Unintended? It was known since march (National news service reported about this on the 23th) that this would happen. Several political parties even tried to exempt coffee shops but the minister of health refused and specifically stated that smoking pure cannabis is allowed.
Some shops are now selling pipes that you can smoke pure Cannabis with. Another thing is that might happen is the sale and smoking of 'old' versions of cannabis, that is with a THC content of around 3% to 5% instead of the level of Skunk that 12% to 15%, to stop people from getting sick.
Dude, wait. What?
I saw that "Harold and Kumar" movie today,and there is indeed a whole lot of weed smoking going on.
I know a certain HIV researcher was looking forward to watching it,I thought it was rather lame,despite the many a dangling genitalia and marihuana references.
How ironic is it that you have to smoke your weed pure because tobacco is banned in cafes? Hard to believe really LOL
Having separate smoking and non-smoking bars just doesn't work for some reason.
I suspect it's the following: when you're going to a bar, you're usually in a group including both smokers and non-smokers. The smokers, being addicts, pretty much refuse to go to a non-smoking bar. That's how it always seemed to happen before the smoking bans in the UK, anyway. I much prefer it now I can have a swift half without making my hair stink.
Smoke-free is the way to be.
England and Wales went smoke-free a year ago (Scotland having preceded us by several months) and it has certainly made a big impact on the Great British Pub. Now non-smoking borderline alcoholics beer connoisseurs can poison our livers without worrying about second-hand smoke.
"As a smoker, living in California, I don't understand how this isn't in every state everywhere. I couldn't even imagine lighting up indoors."
I live next to smokers who go outside to smoke - sometimes four of them at a time - and all their smoke blow into my house.
I want them to smoke inside their own house, with the windows closed, so that they will be subjecting their three kids to the stinking poisons they spew - and not me!
It's total bunk anyway - I know I guy who used to import Mexican red oil into the UK about 20-30 years ago, and that stuff's about 98% THC. All these articles about how weed today is so much stronger than it used to be only demonstrate one thing - everyone gets burned as a teenager. There's always been plenty strong dope out there.
A lot of the dope in Europe is hashish, and it's really hard to skin up with pure resin. Doesn't burn that well either...
I know the argument, Epinephrine (#7), but it seems to go against the entire ethos of the bar experience. Isn't it about being (relatively) free, and taking the legal drugs?
That it may be a problem for employees I don't doubt, but surely the bar exists primarily to serve its customers. Licensing (Ben might be right), regulation, and minimizing exposure for employees may well be in order. I just can't see why there shouldn't be any public place at all (no matter how voluntary attending it may be) that persons can't indulge in their favorite vices, and socialize with others who do the same. Besides, smoking and alcohol go well together.
I suppose if we think tobacco ought to be banned in public places, so should weed. But all of a sudden, most of the coffee shops of Amsterdam would have no reason for being. And again, should there really be no indoor place where smokers of either drug can't hang out with each other while indulging?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
@9
Boobie!
@12
"As a big-time pot smoker, I find the idea of mixing tobacco with weed an abomination"
I second that!
@16
"when you're going to a bar, you're usually in a group including both smokers and non-smokers. The smokers, being addicts, pretty much refuse to go to a non-smoking bar"
I completely disagree. Here in Santa Cruz, we have both smoking and not smoking bars (only a few smoking that are legal, including hooka bars, most are not legal) and I'm a smoker, with lots of non-smoking friends. This is not an issue. If I'm in a bar, and want a cigarette but can't, then guess what I do? I rally the troops of smokers and go outside, not too hard, eh? But here in Cali it's pretty normal to feel like you need to excuse yourself outside if you want a cig.
bbc article about millionaire evangelists
This is silly. Why don't they just cut the potent cannabis with the rope (hemp) variety which has negligible THC? Or just load the pipe up with smaller quantities of marijuana?
it stripped out the url to the bbc article about millionaire evangelists. click on my name it should take you there i hope.
"I rather like the growing bans on smoking in bars and restaurants -- it makes them much more pleasant places for those of us who'd rather not inhale poisons from acrid, burning weeds involuntarily."
Some people rather liked laws against sodomy: it makes the world a much nicer place for those who'd rather gay people just feel miserable.
Seriously: since when did people start "involuntarily" entering bars or restaurants that allowed smoking? Was this behavior the result of some sort of supervillian mind-control?
jj - well, that's maybe a cultural difference, or due to the fact that not being able to see across the room has been part of the UK pub ambience for generations. I've known smokers get tetchy about even sitting in the smoke-free room in a pub with smoking areas.
Maybe when people get used to the idea that drinking beer is more pleasant without the associated fumigation, it'll be possible to bring back smoking pubs under a licensing scheme.
Bad-
There's no law requiring you to brush your teeth, either. However, if you've got terrible breath, I don't want you breathing in my face, especially in a public venue.
I still don't understand why smoking tobacco should be banned from bars. Ideally there would be smoking and non-smoking bars, and people could choose which to patronize. Glen D.
To protect bar staff. While in theory I guess you could allow some staff to work only in the non-smoking areas, in practice, I don't think it would work.
I'm a non-smoker, and I really don't have much sympathy for the habit, but I'm in Minnesota, and I can actually understand how some people might object to being told to go outside to smoke. Try that in February.
So, a taxed and legal drug cannot possibly be consumed indoors because its just THAT dangerous. But the illegal drugs? Oh yeah, help yourself smoke all you want. Stupid hypocritical drugs policy at its best.
Whatever you do, don't smoke. Period.
Use your brain and think about what you are doing. Not only does it rob the body of any youth (this is worth looking in to) it might have, it potentially exposes it to the ravages of a relentless disease.
I guess if tobacco wasn't so addictive and quitting wasn't an issue, I might soften my attitude. We all act out in our youth - it's healthy, but acting out by getting addicted to nicotine ends up having that very unhealthy habit stick with you to the age where it no longer looks "cool". You turn into a smelly, out of shape, wrinkly, coughy, yellow-haired, yellow-skined, creature exposed to the risk of a protracted and painful struggle to not die from cancer. So not cool.
I'm an ex-smoker.
"This is silly. Why don't they just cut the potent cannabis with the rope (hemp) variety which has negligible THC? Or just load the pipe up with smaller quantities of marijuana?"
NO! no no. Just smoke the pot, man, there is no need to cut it! It's pot, it's not going to hurt you if it's potent, I swear. You can't overdose on pot, and the worst case scenario is you get paranoid and don't want to stand up. Seriously, legalize it! (We've semi-legalized it in my town [lowest priority crime] and you can't get busted for it. Guess what? Crime has actually gone down, mostly drug related crimes)
Well, the way I see it, more potent weed doesn't mean you getting any more THC, but actually, you just smoke a whole lot less. - jj
The only argument I've seen against that with even a hint of plausibility is that the new strains alter the balance of different psychoactive chemicals (THC vs cannabidiol I think), and that THC tends to increase paranoia while cannabidiol damps it down, without affecting the "high". Whether this is true or not, I don't know; UK epidemiological studies as yet have shown no increase in schizophrenia over the period when the new stronger strains have become common.
#29 Nick,
Bars can be, and have been, required to carry medical insurance if they allow smoking. Employees can choose to work there or not.
"But here in Cali it's pretty normal to feel like you need to excuse yourself outside if you want a cig."
Philip Morris thinks complete outdoor bans go to far, so you smokers have a champion for your cause - polluting our shared environment to satisfy your desire for a little nicotine.
"Smoking should be permitted outdoors except in very particular circumstances, such as outdoor areas primarily designed for children."
#36 CalGeorge,
"Philip Morris thinks complete outdoor bans go to far, so you smokers have a champion for your cause - polluting our shared environment to satisfy your desire for a little nicotine."
I suppose then, George, that you are against anyone driving a car to anywhere other than their jobs and the grocery store. Or maybe you don't think that people should burn wood in the winter to stay warm. Heaven forbid we grill meat in the summertime...
#32 Alex,
Whatever you do, don't eat red meat. Period.
"I'm a non-smoker, and I really don't have much sympathy for the habit, but I'm in Minnesota, and I can actually understand how some people might object to being told to go outside to smoke. Try that in February."
Well, PZ, I do smoke and I do do it outside, year round, but not in Minnesota (I don't think I'd want to be in Minnesota in February, no offense)... And I do not have sympathy for the habit either, it's gross, smelly and disgusting, but I love it! It's nice to be able, after a long day of work, to go home sit on my porch and smoke a cigarette. It calms me a bit (granted, it's a stimulant and the calming is more a calming of the addiction), and I think it's easy to control the amount I smoke, a pack a week aint too bad, I'll probably die of heart attack from all the fast food I'm surrounded by....
Hey Ben, whatever man. I only have red meat a couple times a month. But your comment misses the point. Red meat is not addictive. I thought I put the addictiveness caveat in my post. Oh wait, I did. I guess you must of missed it.
Smoke as much as you want then dude. Enjoy!!
"Bars can be, and have been, required to carry medical insurance if they allow smoking. Employees can choose to work there or not."
Actually no, there may be much choice at all. In the UK a lot of bar work is part time. That suits students and mothers. There is not a whole lot of other part time evening work around. It also important to note that since the smoking bans came into force in the UK the number of people who have stopped smoking has risen dramatically. That is no bad thing.
Alex,
Your post includes and specifically addresses the ravages of cancer, and red meat has been shown to have substantial carcinogenic qualities. It is the same thing. If you'd read my first post you would have noted that I am not a smoker.
"Or maybe you don't think that people should burn wood in the winter to stay warm."
No, they should not!
American Lung Association:
"In most areas of the country, woodburning from fireplaces and woodstoves is the largest source of particulate matter air pollution (PM) generated by residential sources. In some localities, fireplaces and woodstoves have been identified as the source of 80% or more of all ambient particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) during the winter months. A large body of evidence links PM with adverse health outcomes, including excess mortality, especially among those with preexisting cardiopulmonary illness."
http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.23354/k.100/Woodburning.htm
I live in Calgary (thats in Canada) and we have been non-smoking in bars since the first of this year and you still see people standing outside shivering in winter smoking. If we can do it i don't see why you guys can't do it too. :)
Scienceblogs actually has its very own second hand smoke causes disease denialist in its ranks. Kudos to the person who can name him or her. I would just add he/she has been very careful not to post about their denial on scienceblogs, but did so elsewhere. I imagine they knew they would get ripped apart by the resident medics and medical students had they done so here.
"The only argument I've seen against that with even a hint of plausibility is that the new strains alter the balance of different psychoactive chemicals (THC vs cannabidiol I think), and that THC tends to increase paranoia while cannabidiol damps it down, without affecting the "high"."
Depends on the strain, there are MANY different types, all with different ratios and concentrations of cannibinoids, and that will definitely change the 'high'. Some will give a more 'head high' and others a 'body high', the latter having less paranoia.
George,
I don't disagree, but I've spent time in areas of the country where they have no access to natural gas. What would you have them do, freeze?
Besides, "You can choose whether to work here or not" is no excuse for putting one's employees in danger. If you ran a building site without hard hats, or exposed workers to carbon monoxide poisoning, you'd get the book thrown at you and quite right too.
Ben,
My point about being addictive still stands. Red meat is not addictive. It's not a difficult idea to grasp. Your point about red meat causing cancer is a side issue. For one, meat is nourishment, smoking tobacco is not. For two, red meat is not addictive - oh wait, I said that already.
Depends on the strain, there are MANY different types, all with different ratios and concentrations of cannibinoids, and that will definitely change the 'high'. Some will give a more 'head high' and others a 'body high', the latter having less paranoia. - jj
I bow to your superior expertise ;-)
Ben Goldacre has a good post on all the "modern skunk 30 times stronger" nonsense. Although I'm sure theres been a number of reports around the world and I couldn't be sure what story you're referring to or where they got their information from, since this relates to the media coverage in the UK.
http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/
@27 "jj - well, that's maybe a cultural difference"
I think it is too! California has been smoke free in bars/restaurants for something like 10 years (1994 workplace ban [including restaurants], 1998 bar ban),and I think it's the way we look at smoking here these days.
I think Cali's pretty progressive with these kinds of things. As of yesterday, you can't drive and talk on your cell phone without a hands free (not too sure if thats anywhere else or not, but it should be)!
Who knew I was so concerned with smoking....
There are whole load of foods that contain carginogens. Most vegetables contain them, especially the brassicas. Are we going to tell people not to eat cabage because it contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer ? No, of course not. We know the benefits of eating cabage far outwigh the miniscule risk it poses.
JJ,
It has been illegal in the UK to drive and use your mobile, unless connected to a hands-free kit for about three years now.
"Are we going to tell people not to eat cabage because it contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer "
Ohh I'm waiting to see the sign in my local produce department "This product contain substances know to the state of California to cause cancer"
It actually says that on cans of TAB....
Alex,
You made several points and I addressed one of them. I am not arguing the addictive properties of cigarettes. I thought that was pretty clear when I didn't touch on that specific point.
"Your point about red meat causing cancer is a side issue." But it is an issue that you put forth for discussion.
I grew up in San Jose, CA. For the life of me I simply can't recall every seeing anyone smoking in a grocery store, library, hospital, church...of course, there was a lot of smoking in bars and restaurants (which always had "smoking sections"). When the anti-smoking promoters came out, the argument was "we have to stop all this smoking in grocery stores, libraries, hospitals, churches".
I have been living in Reno, NV. for almost 20 years now, and it's deja vu all over again. Anti-smoking measures have passed the ballot, and it was the same thing: we don't want people smoking in places where smokers never smoked in the first place.
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, if you don't want to be around smokers, and smoke, then go someplace where there is no smoke! How hard is this to fathom? These days, there are plenty of choices, thanks to rampant anti-smoking legislation.
Don't inhale smoke! Maybe both types of smokes should be banned in public. I have not seen data on second-hand pot smoke and its effects on "coffee shop" staff. But pot smoke appears to rattle the respiratory epithelium about as badly as tobacco smoke.
Goodman & Gilman (3rd or 4th ed, I think) used to have a chapter on cannabis, written in flowery prose, a part of which described the pros and cons of inhaling vs. ingesting. The latter requires preparation at cooking to baking temperatures, is slower in onset, with effects more protracted, and obviously without leaving smoke signals. Lore has it that at the time, Betty Crocker did brisk business selling brownie mix.
"There are whole load of foods that contain carginogens. Most vegetables contain them, especially the brassicas."
Actually, most organic material contains carcinogens. Some more than others.
"Are we going to tell people not to eat cabage because it contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer? No, of course not. We know the benefits of eating cabage far outwigh the miniscule risk it poses."
And the foods that have a higher risk? Should people been informed then?
Ben,
My discussion was about the addictiveness of smoking and how it robs youth and may lead to cancer.
Your logic lead you to a quip about not eating red meat because it also causes cancer.
I assert that the flaw in your logic can be found in the fact that red meat is not addictive.
Addictiveness of the substance is the crux of the matter, not the disease which may result. To clarify, if smoking did not rob youth or cause disease, I would have not problems with it. If smoking was not addictive, I would relax (slightly) my attitudes about it.
Nuff said already. There really isn't much to argue over.
The Guardian had a good article.
Quote:
The different effects of strains of weed are pretty significant. (I came across one called "Purple Haze" that was remarkably like low-dose LSD...) Is it all an effect of the THC/cannibidiol ratio, i.e. head high/body high, or are there other goodies having an effect in there?
Ah, the excitement of natural products. So many different metabolic products!
Also, why the hell would you ever mix tobacco with your hash? Unless, I suppose, you're putting the whole thing through a hookah, in which case you need a bit of padding. That's actually pretty nice -- the tobacco's far less acrid and lots of the nastier chemicals are stripped by the water, plus it cools it off.
On the weed potency issue: posters here are right, it's no added problem. Honestly, I find that mostly when people get to the point where they're stoned enough, they stop smoking it. It's not like alcohol where once you're drunk you want to be drunker (or N2O...!) -- there's a definite point at which most people just pass the pipe on. I don't think there's any issues at all from making people smoke straight weed instead of spliffs.
"At the risk of sounding like a jerk, if you don't want to be around smokers, and smoke, then go someplace where there is no smoke! How hard is this to fathom? These days, there are plenty of choices, thanks to rampant anti-smoking legislation."
So essentially you would tell people who do not want to be in a smokey environment to avoid going to the pub ? Unless of course there is a smoking ban in place. Nice to know you are so considerate of others.
Of course if you ate enough red meat to put yourself at risk of cancer then is it not also likely you would already have died of heart disease brought about from all that fat ?
Smoke 'em if you got 'em!
.
@58
"The latter requires preparation at cooking to baking temperatures, is slower in onset, with effects more protracted, and obviously without leaving smoke signals."
Ingestion does NOT give the same affect. Ingestion gives a way more 'body high' and takes up to three hours to feel the effect, and tends to be a lower grade feelign that lasts MUCH longer. This isn't bad, though (from the prospective of a user), as special brownies are quite tasty. The herb needs to be heated to get the affect too, and is often done wrong. Best way, melt a bunch of butter in a double boiler and toss in some shwag, let it boil for a few hours, and then you can put it in anything that uses butter (mmm green butter toast, also special spaghetti is quite good)!
Whereas you would tell people who do want to be in a smokey environment...what, exactly? To avoid going to the pub? Right.
I've always felt like a smoking ban was going way too far. Let business owners run smoking or non-smoking bars. If the people want non-smoking bars that one should be great. If you don't want to be around second hand smoke, don't take a job there. I'm allergic to gluten, I won't be working in a pizza shop and if I did I wouldn't insist they remove wheat based products from the menu.
Those who argue that people have a choice if they enter a smokey environment or not totally miss the point. No business is unilaterraly going to ban smoking if its competitors still allow it. A pub than bans smoking will loose custom to other pubs that do not. Thus there cannot be a choice. Before the smoking bans came into force in the UK no pubs had voluntarily banned smoking, yet if we follow the logic of the likes Alex we should have expected them to.
By the way,
I give this post a C for Cannabis.
.
Inevitably they will have a few anti-social scofflaws who try to sneak some tobacco in, pretending it's marijuana.
In the grand scheme of things, my position against smoking bans has less to do with smoking and its ill effects than it does with the limiting of personal freedom. America did that once, and we eventually came to our senses. America used to stand for personal freedom and liberty and in all honesty, I believe that we have lost sight of those lofty ideals and instances of limiting those aforementioned freedoms and liberties such as these grandiose smoking bans are just the tip of the iceberg. I have no doubt that if present trends continue that I will live to see the day when other freedoms are taken away as well. I will leave with a fantastic little monologue that while overly dramatic and quintessentially Hollywood (well, it is from a movie), has always sat in the back of my mind reminding me of the absurd reality of the state or city-wide smoking bans.
You see, according to [the plan] I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay? I've seen the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
I'm fairly sure that the practice of packing your bowl with 100% sticky nugs isn't exactly new.
Octopod @62
Ahh good old purple haze, good stuff! And I agree fully, you'll smoke until you get what you want out of it, and stop, seriously.
Also, I loved those anti-drug commercial about how if you buy pot your supporting terrorists. What? Yeah that's right, the hippie who lives down the street who's growing an 'afghan' strain and selling it to me is definitely a terrorist. I think not.
Another thing that changes the type of high, in regards to the strain and THC ratio is if it is a Sativa or Indica strain. Although I've been told that has more to do with when the herb was picked and how it is cured.
"Whereas you would tell people who do want to be in a smokey environment...what, exactly? To avoid going to the pub? Right."
I would tell them that when they want to smoke they can go outside. You it seems would have asthmatics and others effectivly banned from pubs. Really nice attitude that Nicole. Very unselfish of you.
Dunc @20,
A lot of the dope in Europe is hashish, and it's really hard to skin up with pure resin
Anybody who can't handle a one-hit bong or smoke it under glass shouldn't be smoking it at all.
Not that I'd know about that sort of thing.
Matt @ 69,
I was attempting to speak from a personal perspective. As far as legislating a smoking ban, there's much more to think about. I live in CA and, as an ex-smoker, am glad about the ban. It can go too far though. I agree with you that it would never happen voluntarily at pub establishments. Drinking and smoking go hand in hand.
"A pub than bans smoking will loose custom to other pubs that do not."
I don't see why. For all the people that proclaim they hate smoking...shouldn't they be flocking in droves to the non-smoking bar in town? It seems like a cash cow.
The original reason for banning smoking in pubs and restaurants in Ireland (was this the first place - certainly in europe - to ban it?) was that the government was afraid of legal challenges from staff at these establishments who developed problems due to second hand smoke.
While I think its been great most of the time I think its gone too far in certain circumstances. A friend of mine recently applied for a post at The Cleveland Clinic in the US and got the position. They were then told that the clinic has a zero tolerance policy for tobacco which they enforce by doing blood tests for nicotine!
Anyone who tests positive for nicotine will have their job offer rescinded!
How on earth is a Big Brother tactic like this justified?
I am all for keeping my weed tobacco-free, but, the second hand smoke thing is a load of crap. I can see not wanting to smell it, but, few people have ever been hurt from a wisp of smoke. If you don't like it you can go somewhere that doesn't allow it, but, why force the issue like a wannabe NAZI.
I see that more than a few of you commentators need a little more education on the "dangers" of marijuana. I suggest a visit to www.norml.org and do some simple research. If cancer and scizophrenia, etc. where affects of smoking pot, we would see a huge spike in the Boomers. Guess what, we don't.
Sure, I'm jaded. Evidence is still evidence, though.
Sigmund,
The simple answer is that there is no justification. And in the UK such a demand would not be legal. An employer can demand you turn up to work sober and with fresh breath, but they cannot prevent you drinking and smoking in your own time. Of course there are some jobs where being under the influence of alcohol would be dangerous, and the law allows for those in such jobs to be tested. It would not allow for the testing of an office worker though.
"I don't see why. For all the people that proclaim they hate smoking...shouldn't they be flocking in droves to the non-smoking bar in town? It seems like a cash cow."
If you cannot see why you need to you look into the economics of running a pub. Come back to us when you have.
#69 Matt,
"No business is unilaterraly going to ban smoking if its competitors still allow it. A pub than bans smoking will loose custom to other pubs that do not. Thus there cannot be a choice."
Except that studies done in cities here in the US have shown that there is not a statistically significant decrease in business since a ban has been instituted.
"I see that more than a few of you commentators need a little more education on the "dangers" of marijuana. I suggest a visit to www.norml.org and do some simple research. If cancer and scizophrenia, etc. where affects of smoking pot, we would see a huge spike in the Boomers. Guess what, we don't."
You hit the nail on the head! Marijuana laws (in the US) where put in place to harass the minority population (African Americans, especially Jazz musicians, and Immigrants from Mexico). Anybody ever see the movie reefer madness?
Many commentators at this blog value rational thouhgt, and hammer creationists for being irrational idiots. But here's the smoking issue, and rather than talking about whether smoking is rational or irrational, we talk about whether it's a right or not.
What's the rational argument for `smoking is good'?
And if it's irrational to smoke, why do you do it? And why do you argue that rational people (non-smokers) have to bend to the will of the irrational (smokers)? Shouldn't the irrational be told: "quit being so damned stupid and change your behaviour?"
Freedom means the freedom to be irrational. Never, ever forget that.
It (should) mean the freedom to smoke any substance, the freedom to frequent (or not) bars that allow smoking, and finally the freedom to run a bar allowing (or not) smoking.
Rationality is fine and good for persuasion, compulsion, not so much.
@#85
I don't think you can define smoking as rational or irrational, that's a slippery slope. That's to say that drinking is irrational, or anything that is somewhat unhealthy is irrational, like coffee. I disagree, it's a give and take thing. I smoke and I know that it isn't good for me, but what I get out of it is worth the opportunity cost. Don't say "change your behavior" because you don't know what some people get out of smoking. For me it's great to take an escape from my stressful job and take 5 minutes to relax ans have a cigarette. There's nothing irrational about that. The last thing I need is someone telling me what I should do with my own body. I'm well informed of the health risks, and choose to do what I want. Moderation is key here, folks. I like the smoking bans here in California, they work well, and have been in affect for over 10 years (see my post above for dates).
Smoking is good becausse it relaxes me. It is enjoyable. I like the smell. I like the taste, sometimes. I enjoy passing a bong around with my friends. I just like to get high, logical or not.
Appearantly, non-smokers will is more important than smokers will. All hail "Freedom".
At bad, #26:
Fallacy one: bad analogy - how does what two gay people do in private affect other people the way smoking affects people?
Fallacy two: before non-smokers "voluntarily" entered bars that allow smoking. Now smokers "voluntarily" will enter bars that ban smoking. How's one worse than the other, except that one benefits your group and the other benefits other people?
Most of the complaining about the smoking ban seems to come from smokers who just can't grasp the concept that many non-smokers are bothered by it when someone lights a cigarette an arm's length away.
"Freedom means the freedom to be irrational."
Yes, but there are many bounds that limit the levels of irrationality. Those bounds are called laws. Clearly this discussion is about where the frayed ends of public responsibility and personal freedom meet.
It may be that you have the freedom to be irrational, but you don't have the freedom to harm others, nor to endanger your employees.
I'm thrilled as a customer to eat somewhere without tasting smoke, but it's not really to do with me - it's to protect staff.
You couldn't allow welders to work without masks, roofers to work without harnesses, or chemical factory workers to work without WHMIS training and appropriate protections, yet apparently it was legal to have your employees work in the presence of airborne toxins, provided they come from cigarettes.
It's ludicrous, and the argument that "they can choose whether to work there" is hollow. You wouldn't apply that argument to other fields, in which we expect the employer to minimise risks to the employee.
"Except that studies done in cities here in the US have shown that there is not a statistically significant decrease in business since a ban has been instituted"
Here in the UK the data shows that for the first 12-18 months there is a decrease in custom. Since I was talking about the UK, UK data would be a better indicator don't you think ?
For the health risks I refer you to the EPA Draft Document on Second-Hand Smoke. It was state-of-the-art in the 90s and was about to be promulgated..then Bush hit the fan. Anyway, the data is in. Kill your own self..nobody else..including those who must work for a living.
One thing you Entitleds have not mentioned is the expense. Not to the addicts...everyone else. My dad has a rental that once held a pack/day smoker. I cleaned the apartment. Three times. Using Sodium TriPhosphate. That was just the drywall. All the carpets and curtains were discarded. Even smokers won't rent with that stench. The surfaces were doused with cleaner (think 409) and allowed to sit for four days. After the soak, I cleaned the surfaces again with cleaner and then with soap and water. Lastly, I rinsed with water. Since my labour was 'free', this was cost-effective for my Dad. With the current wage rates in NW Pennsyltucky ($5/hr) for unskilled janitors, it would have been way too pricey.
Expenses to business include the cleaning of smoking areas. There is actual data on the cost difference between no smoking (complete ban on all property), allowing smoking in certain areas, and no restrictions. Guess what? No smoking is the cheapest by far. No butts, no toxins, no extra stench removal. It takes very expensive chemicals to remove smoker stench. With asthmatics, you just replace everything down to the concrete, which you power wash with some nasty cleaners. The health aspects are why many businesses (and the mil) have taken to reduction programmes. If businesses still paid for health care, I believe more would ban smoking outright.
Another expense is the lost income to hotels that advertise non-smoking rooms. Ohhh smokers ask for NS rooms as they smell besser and are far less filthy. So, after traveling many kilometers, I find my NS room was not as advertised. So, I get upgrades, comped, and whatever else the clerk can find to make me happy. It adds up pretty quickly. And for those of us with asthma, it is life-threatening.
A observational test that one may apply to real life is to approach a smoker and discern their choice of direction. My own results are that 99% of smokers will choose to move UPWIND of a non-smoker. Yes, even allowing for crowd density, cultural preference (US vs UK roads), and weather; the smoker will literally step outside the bounds of polite and rational pedestrianship to be upwind. I have delighted in forcing smokers to walk into buildings to maintain their upwind position, forcing smokers to step downwind of me (I used to be very urban-scary), and pointedly forcing them to acknowledge their stench-spreading proclivities.
"Most of the complaining about the smoking ban seems to come from smokers who just can't grasp the concept that many non-smokers are bothered by it when someone lights a cigarette an arm's length away."
Never heard anyone complain about the bans here, from smokers (like me) or non. But once again, I think that has more to do with the fact that the laws been in place for so long, we're used to it. And we do have bars that allow smoking, legal and not, and they do no better than those that do not. Here there is the option to get a permit to allow smoking indoors as a 'smoking parlor'. In these places, there has to be a wall separating the smoking area from the bar, to protect the employees. Although, every bar I've been in that allows smoking, I've seen the bar tenders sucking down on them themselves (actually one just stopped allowing smoking, as the owner/bartender was recently diagnosed with lung cancer).
"Appearantly, non-smokers will is more important than smokers will. All hail "Freedom"."
Yes it is more important. Being subjected to second hand smoke can kill, both by long term exposure and in those with pre-existing lung disease, such as asthma, far more quickly. No one has died from being made to wait, or go outside, to have a cigarette.
What gives you the idea smokers have the right to kill others ?
I live in Pennsyltucky, just south of NY. When the ban was passed in NY we heard the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Woe was foretold for all the bars and restaurants in NY as the patrons would flock to PA.
Didn't happen.
After all the whine, the end result was inceased sales in NY because you could eat or drink sans smokerstench. PA started to push for a ban as many folks went to NY.
I am disappointed no one has worked out who the second hand smoke denialist is amogst the Scienceblogers.
Here is a link to the person claiming that the scientists were overblowing the claims it causes illness: http://www.positiveliberty.com/2005/12/secondhand-smoke-overblown.html
Mold,
Here in the UK the pubs suffered a loss of business for arounf 12-18 months. Then it began to pick up again, and is back where it was.
Adding tobacco, a dangerous substance, to sweet sweet marijuana seems odd to me. Yes it's a clearer high, but you've made your habit physically addictive.
My understanding is that vaporizers are available at the coffee shops these days, so there's no need to smoke anything to get baked. I recommend The Volcano.
"What gives you the idea smokers have the right to kill others ?"
Matt, this is perhaps a bit hyperbole. But I agree with the gist. For argument sake, substitute the word "annoy" in for "kill". Even if all smokers were doing was annoying people with their behavior, why should someone who likes to randomly annoy people have the right to do so? I'm not sure there's a good answer for that. Now, if non-smokers had a different but equally annoying behavior that they could subject smokers to at will, that would even the playing field. The fact is, typically, randomly annoying anyone without cause usually means you end up getting your ass kicked.
Jeff,
I cannot speak for the rest of the world but here in the UK a lot of cannabis comes in the form of resin. You cannot smoke resin on its own.
I own stock in a tobacco company (stock symbol VGR, annual dividend yield over 9%) because I like the dividend income. I appreciate my customers who shorten their lives so I can make money without having to work for it, but I don't respect them at all. Smoking is committing suicide. It's insane. I'm in favor of smoking bans. Let them freeze outside in the winter. My customers don't deserve any respect.
I don't have any problem with marijuana smokers. At least that smoke smells good, and at least it has a good purpose, getting high. If it was legal and if I could get the highest quality at a reasonable price, I would use it occasionally, but I would cook it and eat a small amount of it mixed with other food. I don't think smoking it is very healthy.
#62, Alex:
Caffeine, booze, and refined sugar are addictive substances too, yet I doubt you will rally against those (especially since caffeine is more addictive than most illegal drugs, including cannibis, yet consumed by a majority of the population on a daily basis)
But speaking as a Canadian, and a pot smoker (often those two things are synonomous, theres alot of weed up here): we're a little mad at you Americans (well your government, really), because a few years ago we were on the verge of decriminalizing marijuanna in Canada until the US basically bullied our [Liberal, at the time] government into abandoning the idea.
Hemp was originally criminalized because it was seen as a threat to the profit margin of the rope industry, and marijuana remains illegal today [in most places] because its a cheap effective drug, that would render half the pharmacutical industry's most expensive drugs obsolete.
I have to agree with Ben #72 (great quote). I at least want to smoke some pot when I dine at Taco Bell.
Afraid I have to disagree with you on the smoking bans in bars & restaurants. The smoking/non-smoking decision should be left in the hands of the proprietor, not the fed/state/local governments.
All that should be required of the proprietor is to post a sign outside their establishment stating: "Smoking Allowed Here: Enter at Your Own Risk". That eliminates the "involuntary" nature of the smoke inhalation...if you don't like the smoke, don't go in the door. Problem solved, and no one's rights get trampled on.
We absolutly need to have some way of allowing some sort of public, indoor space that allows smoking. The anti-smoking laws have pretty much killed off cigar bars. I don't smoke cigarettes but do occasionally smoke a cigar or a pipe (of tobacco). It's a wonderful experience to be able to go to your local cigar shop, wonder through the walk in humidor, select a nice Ghurka Class Regent or an RP vintage 1990 and then go sit on a couch in the store itself and smoke it while talking to other cigar fans.
That's a perfect example of an public, indoor smoking situation that doesn't effect any non-smokers at all. And yet, these laws are so short sighted that it's really difficult for a cigar bar or a cigar store to get an exception.
I agree with banning smoking from resteraunts. But we need to be smart enough to allow reasonable exceptions to the law.
Also, what the article doesn't mention, is that the new law allows bar owners and coffee shop owners to designate a separate space as a "smoking room". The room must be completely separate from the rest of the bar and must have an adequate air circulation system that is not connected to the air circulation of the main area. Most of all, employees are not allowed to serve there (not even to pick up empty glasses etc). This will allow people to get their smoking fix without sending them into the rain and into the cold. This can also be used by "coffee shops", using a large smoking room and service reduced to self-service.
Funny how that was left out of the article, right?
Interestingly, few bars and cafes have actually bothered to invest in such a room. In fact, the lobbyists for bars and restaurants have even tried using this self-caused problem as a reason why the smoking ban should be postponed. There have been more such stalling tactics, and they haven't even given up yet. Right now there's a lawsuit running by a group representing small bars, that claim unfair treatment as they can't afford a smoking room. They want to be allowed to choose to become either all-smoking or all-non-smoking. I doubt a judge will fall for that, as it essentially means the whole law will be rendered useless.
@99
"I recommend The Volcano."
I second that! Nothing better than a vaporizor, no smoke, better smell (kind of like pop corn) and WAY less harmful to the body (don't deny that smoking mary jane has no ill effects, we're still breathing in smoke)
"All that should be required of the proprietor is to post a sign outside their establishment stating: "Smoking Allowed Here: Enter at Your Own Risk". That eliminates the "involuntary" nature of the smoke inhalation...if you don't like the smoke, don't go in the door. Problem solved, and no one's rights get trampled on."
Bollocks.
As as been pointed out no business will voluntarily ban smoking so in effect you are banning those who either do not, or cannot, enter a smokey atmosphere. What is it that you have against those with lung disease ? What do you have against people who work in pubs and bars ?
I am an asthmatic. Before the smoking ban if I went into a pub that allowed smoking (which means ALL pubs) I would end up being rather ill. Why can you discriminate against me ?
We have bars which provide the occasion for many to drink and drive, proving a threat to the general public.
Rather than focusing on that rather serious threat to those who do not choose to either work or go to the bar, a number of puritans here are righteously condemning smoking in a place where no one has to either patronize or work (yes, circumstances do not make not working easy for some, but people take risks at work all of the time--or should we outlaw crab fishing?).
The fact is that many times there has to be some accommodation of others' freedom, including some risks to bystanders. If zero tolerance of risk is the aim of people, it's the bars that should be made illegal.
Sense rarely dominates discussions like these (though many have made sense on this thread), so this is likely my last post on the matter. Those who will not tolerate any smoke can just go on ignoring the risk to the general public that bars pose, because their real concern is not actually risk. They simply won't tolerate a certain freedom to which they are extremely opposed.
In parting I'll just note that I also am not a smoker.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Whether profits go up or down after a smoking ban is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a non-smoking bar would be profitable in direct competition with a smoking bar.
There were very few UK pubs that even offered a smoke-free room before the ban - even though only a minority of people smoke and nearly all non-smokers find smoke unpleasant. The problem is that smokers are addicts and thereofore far more whiny about their desire to smoke than non-smokers are about their equally valid desire to breathe real air.
#103, Jason:
The caffeine and sugar arguments seem silly to me. Generally speaking, caffeine isn't nearly the health risk as smoking tobacco. And sugar, I mean really? Is that a deadly heavily addicting drug? As an ex-smoker, those 2 don't compare to the addictiveness or unhealthiness of smoking tobacco. I'm arguing from a personal perspective, so clearly this is my opinion and anecdotal, but I think most could agree that those 2 are thin comparisons.
The alcohol comparison is better, but I find moderating alcohol much easier than moderating my smoking habit when I smoked. I'm not sure the health risks for moderate alcohol consumption are even near that of smoking tobacco. I would be interested in that information. All I have ever read is that moderate alcohol consumption poses no health risks (my physician is not concerned for me).
Glen,
So you favour discrimination of those with lung disease ? Why do they not have the right to go to the pub ? Why should some one with asthma be denied a job in the hospitality industry ?
@10!
"You cannot smoke resin on its own"
WRONG! You sure as hell can, you can take bong loads of hash all day (resin is not the correct term, resin refers to the black tar that sticks to the walls of the piece you are smoking out of, caused by THC and other oils in the smoke. Resin is also smokable, although extremely gross, and can be smoked on it's own or put on top of greenery).
Ever heard of a "Hash Pipe" (like the Weezer song).
"There were very few UK pubs that even offered a smoke-free room before the ban - even though only a minority of people smoke and nearly all non-smokers find smoke unpleasant."
Most UK pubs would not have a seperate room. Long gone are the days when most pubs had two bars, the public and the saloon.(The saloon used to be better furnished but charge a small bit more for drinks). These days the bars have been knocked through into one.
#104: "That eliminates the 'involuntary' nature of the smoke inhalation...if you don't like the smoke, don't go in the door. Problem solved, and no one's rights get trampled on."
What about the right of a person to eat at any restaurant he wants without having his life shortened and his meal ruined by insane people who intentionally shorten their own lives and don't care about anyone's else's life? Why should the number of restaurants I go to be restricted to accommodate drug addicts?
Also, what about the health of the employees? In today's economy it's not easy to change jobs. Why should a restaurant employee have his life shortened to accommodate drug addicts?
"What's the rational argument for `smoking is good'?"
Nicotine sharpens one's mental faculty, has a calming effect, gives a sense of well-being, increases motivation, counteracts depression, increases one's energy level.
It is a PERFECT neuroactive drug.
It just has a delivery system that will kill you twelve ways from Sunday.
JJ,
I was referring to smoking it as in a roll-up.
"The alcohol comparison is better, but I find moderating alcohol much easier than moderating my smoking habit when I smoked. I'm not sure the health risks for moderate alcohol consumption are even near that of smoking tobacco. I would be interested in that information. All I have ever read is that moderate alcohol consumption poses no health risks (my physician is not concerned for me)."
The data on moderate alcohol use shows that rather than being harmful it actually seems to offer some health benefits. There is some debate over the relative merits of various forms of alcohol, with red wine currently seeming to be the most beneficial, but the data suggests it does not make a lot of difference if you prefer beer, wine or spirits.
Matt - yes, that's one of the reasons! But a lot of older pubs have an upstairs, or a back room or whatever, and even of those very few had non-smoking areas.
My point is that, before the ban, non-smokers did not in reality have any choices other than breathing smoke or never ever going to pubs.
"Also, what about the health of the employees? In today's economy it's not easy to change jobs. Why should a restaurant employee have his life shortened to accommodate drug addicts?"
This is an important point. In the UK a lot of pub and bar staff are woman who are working whilst their partners take care of the kids. Husband works during the day, looks after kids whilst wife goes to work in the evening. Given that part-time evening jobs close to your home are in short supply, it seems rather harsh to tell these hard-up women that they must accept the health risks of passive smoking just to keep the baliffs from the door.
"My point is that, before the ban, non-smokers did not in reality have any choices other than breathing smoke or never ever going to pubs."
Absolutely. That applied to me. I used to smoke, until I became seriously ill and developed asthma. After that I had to avoid pubs. It really did cramp my social life. I was a member of a canoeing club and almost all the social meetings used to take place in the pub.
". And sugar, I mean really? Is that a deadly heavily addicting drug?"
Yes it is. Ever heard of diabetes? That will kill you, by the way, and it's pretty painful.
I wonder if those claiming that banning smoking is an infringement of people's rights would have been arguing that legislation requiring women to be paid the same as men for doing the same job was an infringements of the rights of employers. After all did those underpaid women not have a choice ? No one forced them to take a job with a company that paid men more than them.
Matt P:
Bollucks right back at you. I absolutely love when folks retort with this hypocritical pronouncement of discrimination! "We'd have no pubs to go to...but it's OK if YOU have no pubs to go to!" Sheesh! If there is a big enough market for non-smoking bars, then you can bet non-smoking bars will be appear.
And as far as this nonsense about employees of the bar, they have a choice as to where they are employed..if they are stupid enough to accept employment somewhere where smoking is allowed, then they can't really gripe, can they?
Again, a simple sign outside the establishment solves the involuntary inhalation problem for patrons AND employees. The free-market solves the demand for non-smoking bars. And AGAIN, no one's rights are trampled on.
Well, I'm primarily defending marijuanna here, which has proven to be neither significantly harmful, nor dangerously addictive.
From my personal experience caffeine has caused me more physical anguish than pot smoking (any coffee addicts out there ever have a caffeine headache for a week or longer- it sucks).
But the argument seems to be about thresholds: at what point does it become so harmful and addictive that it should no longer be legal (and, as an aside, even if you want to make it illegal, it should be treated as a public health problem, not a criminal problem, in the way pot is treated right now [that is, possesion nets you time in prison and a criminal record, whereas it should, at worst, be a fine - like speeding or j-walking]) - which is fine if you want to argue against cigarettes, but you'd have a hard time convincing me that your threshold is fair if it bans pot and allows booze/refined sugar [obesity is a much larger health concern than drug addiction or even lung cancer] then I'd say its an unfair threshold.
We all have thresholds [I'd have a hard time defending the legallity of heroine], some people want to draw their line in the sand further along the line than others... my argument is that, unless your threshold is in that ridiculous mormon level, pot falls in the 'safe and acceptable' side every time. (if you wanna make us smoke outside, or in private or whatever, thats a legitimate case to be made)
HC, nobody is stopping you going to the pub. We just ask that you go outside for a minute or so if you want to smoke. That's no more of an infringement on your rights than the fact that if I want to piss I have to go to the lavatory.
Most people prefer their pubs smoke-free, yet before the ban there were almost no smoke-free pubs. I conclude that whatever other wonderful things the free market may be capable of, it does not magically provide our citizens with their choice of breathing material on licensed premises.
@ Jason #125
"unless your threshold is in that ridiculous mormon level, pot falls in the 'safe and acceptable' side every time"
I second that.
"Yes it is. Ever heard of diabetes? That will kill you, by the way, and it's pretty painful."
Yes, excess sugar intake over prolonged periods can induce diabetes. Yes, the American diet is filled with way too much of it (refined sugar). Look at all the lard asses. But IMO your answer greatly exaggerates the "deadly heavily addicting" qualities of sugar in a false comparison to tobacco smoking. I don't think a reasonable person knowledgeable about the problems sugar can cause would characterize it as such.
I like smoking bans in restaurants and bars.
It's worked well in NYC. I used to come home smelling disgusting after a night of drinking in a smokey bar.
Now I just come home happy.
HC Grindon,
"And as far as this nonsense about employees of the bar, they have a choice as to where they are employed..if they are stupid enough to accept employment somewhere where smoking is allowed, then they can't really gripe, can they?"
A choice do they ? Really ? Every single person working in a pub is their out of choice, and could easily get a job somewhere else if they had to ? You are a liar.
"Again, a simple sign outside the establishment solves the involuntary inhalation problem for patrons AND employees. The free-market solves the demand for non-smoking bars. And AGAIN, no one's rights are trampled on."
But that sign would be outside EVERY pub. In the UK NO pub banned smoking before the legal bans came into place. What you are actually saying is that those who either cannot or do not want to be subject to other people's smoke should not go to the pub. Given in the UK a LOT of social events and interaction takes place in pubs you are saying you do not care if you deny the right to take part is those events and interactions to those who cannot or will not accept being subjected to other people's smoke.
I assume you also object to all safety legislation. A company produces contaminated food that is cheap ? Well the consumer did have a choice. Happen to be a woman and getting paid less than your male colleagues ? Well it was your choice.
Well duh,its not like you are exuding alcohol fumes that will harm the people around you if you drink in a pub,but obviously tobacco smoke will.As a smoker I have to say that after a period of denial followed by anger I have now accepted the wisdom of non-smoking pubs,and am perfectly content to go outside or use a smoking room,its actually nice to have clean air inside a pub.
As for bar employees,yes Im sure they knew what they were doing if they worked in a place where people smoke,but they didnt exactly use to have a choice did they?
So you are against all laws that force an employer to provide protection to their employees? Why should an employer have to make sure that you have the gear to protect you from the dangers of your job, you were dumb enough to take it! There should be no laws ensuring that workplaces are safe, since you accept the risk when you take the job.
The funny thing is how the double standard kicks in for those against the ban. They wouldn't stand for allowing workers to be exposed to radiation or dangerous carcinogens while working in manufacturing, but if it affects their right to smoke they are up in arms.
MissP:
Sorry, I still disagree. I like to have a cigar with my beer at a pub environment. That right is being taken away from me with smoking bans (as well as the proprietor's rights). Secondhand smoke from a night at the pub is not going to give you cancer...and if you are spending every night in a pub (and thus, continuous exposure), you best be worrying about your liver.
As for restaurants, I don't like smoke when I'm eating, which is why I always chose the non-smoking section before these ridiculous bans took effect. Imagine that.
Again, the hypocrisy displayed on this issue is stunning.
Sugar is a necessary part of the diet. Various forms of sugar are found in all sorts of foods. We cannot, nor should we, remove all sugar from our diets. Is there such an argument in support of smoking ?
Sigmund @79:
I would bet that it doesn't have to do with smoking per se, but with their bottom line. The employer pays most of the cost of an employee's health insurance, and the insurance companies charge a lot more for smokers because they're so much more likely to die early from diseases that are extremely expensive to treat.
Hello, kettle? This is pot. You're black.
They wouldn't stand for allowing workers to be exposed to radiation or dangerous carcinogens while working in manufacturing... - Epinephrine
Actually I'm not sure about that. Allowing this would be the standard "libertarian" view, I would have thought.
I like not to have to breathe in your smoke when having a drink in a pub. In fact I prefer not to run the risk of having to spend the night in A&E as the result of breathing in your smoke. Nice that you think your rights are more importatant than my life.
"Secondhand smoke from a night at the pub is not going to give you cancer...and if you are spending every night in a pub (and thus, continuous exposure), you best be worrying about your liver."
Cancer is not the only disease caused by exposure to second hand smoke. And cancer is caused by second hand smoke.
As you have seen fit to lie, there is little point in talking to you further.
Well, HC, the ban obviously caused a small deterioration in the pubgoing experience for you, and a huge improvement in the pubgoing experience for a whole lot more people. Sucks to be you, eh?
If you think health risks to employees are really the primary motivation behind these laws, then why isn't the debate one of air quality instead of smoking bans? Give businesses the option of installing industrial grade air filters capable of cleaning X cubic feet of air per square foot or ban smoking entirely. But the anti-smoking side never wants to discuss such options, exposing the lie that this is about health risks. These draconian laws are meant to curb behavior that the more puritanical have deemed unsavory. It's Prohibition all over again.
Don't believe me? Then ask yourself: How hard would it be to have a single self-contained room reserved for smoking in airports? Yet in every airport in America smokers must actually exit the premises to smoke a cigarette, often meaning they must wait through long lines at security checkpoints to gain reentry. And if you find yourself not giving a shit what obstacles smokers have to hurtle because you consider yourself above the vice, then I really hope you never so much as open your mouths when someone passes a law intended to curb a behavior you do care about.
And for the record, I'm a non-smoker.
- Nick Gotts
Maybe you are right... I may be mistaking the type of people who would argue this.
"What about the right of a person to eat at any restaurant he wants without having his life shortened and his meal ruined by insane people who intentionally shorten their own lives and don't care about anyone's else's life? Why should the number of restaurants I go to be restricted to accommodate drug addicts?"
I don't see any reason to assume that you have a "right" to force all restaurants to accomidate your desires. It seems like the person running the restaurant gets to decide what the place is going to be like and you are free to decide if you want to dine there or not.
I'm terribly allergic to gluten. Its a cramp on ones social life when most restaurants menu's don't denote which items are going to contain items that cause my autoimmune distress or when bars only serve beer thats toxic for me. Isn't it my responsibility to know and understand the risks when I go to these places, not force them to change to accomidate me through law?
Epinephrine: You are being ridiculous. Your comparisons are are unrealistic exaggeration and nothing but unwarranted second-hand smoke hysteria.
And to the rest of you, YES pub employees are there by CHOICE! Are you trying to tell me that there is no other industry in the UK but pubs for people to get jobs? More exaggeration.
"Actually I'm not sure about that. Allowing this would be the standard "libertarian" view, I would have thought"
Exactly. Your company refuses to put guards on dangerous equipment, or train you how to use it safely ? Well you chose to work for them! Your company not paying blacks or women the same as white males ? Well the blacks and women chose to work for them. This whole choice argument is flawed. Sure people have choice, but often nothing like the degree of choice the libertarians think they have. Want a social life in the UK ? How can you do that without going to pubs ? Want a part time evening job in the UK ? Most of those are in pubs, clubs, resturants etc.
To all the people who think that bars and restaurants would voluntarily choose to become smoke-free, I would like to point out the situation in the Netherlands before this ban was put in place.
For a couple of years already, we have a law that says that every employee has the right to a smoke-free workspace. A temporary exception was made for bars and restaurants. In fact, the bars and restaurant industry was offered a longer grace period, provided that sufficient bars and restaurants would provide smoke-free sections, or voluntarily go smoke-free completely.
Very few complied. So few in fact, that the government at some point decided that extending the exception was no longer justified, and it was time for bars and restaurants to be treated just like any other business. Much whining followed, but they have had their chance and they blew it.
Smoking is a non-essential, voluntary, unhealthy, disruptive act that contaminates the air everyone breathes. Who's rights are being trampled?
H. H. -
They are giving business owners the option to set aside an area with separate ventilation for smoking; staff are not peritted to serve in it. Isn't that proof that it's about protecting staff?
Airports are a different issue, I'm not sure why there aren't little rooms for smokers.
Hey, I've been forced to stand outside at -35 degrees to chat with my buddies who smoke. It affects me too. And I wouldn't open my mouth if they were to pass a law to curb a behaviour of mine, provided it was done to protect others.
The idea of a ban on drinking to protect against drinking and driving is a possible example; I'd of course rather see something more sophisticated - they're not banning tobacco after all; if they put a sensor into a car that wouldn't allow it to operate unless the driver breathed into a tube every few minutes to prove sobriety I would put up with the hassle, knowing that it's likely saving lives.
I agree. I always say basically the same but with farting.
A person with bad breath might not realize it (I know several at work, I can't even stand closer than 2 meters away). A person farting near you or in a closed space is full well aware. I was at my city library once on a computer and an older guy sat at the one next to me leaned to his right (I was at his left) and let out the worst stinker EVER. What the hell do you do in that situation? I didn't know whether to ask him to behave or just laugh my ass off. I just left.
Most people though have the decency, or maybe just to avoid embarrassment, to "save it for later." There are no law that says "Thou shalt not fart in closed spaces." Not so with smokers. What bothers me is that many of them think it's their supreme right to smoke wherever they please, and people who are annoyed at the smoke are just being obnoxious pricks. There is the caricature of the non-smoker who always "fake-coughs" when someone around him is smoking and is too cowardly to ask the smoker to stop.
As to second hand smoke,there is good evidence that it can cause cancer(Lung,breast) or heart disease if exposure is for a long enough time(Group A carcinogen as per the EPA) ,and the short-term effects include exacerbation of asthma,headache,irritation of the throat,respiratory infections that can lead to premature death in children,and decrease in blood viscosity potentially leading to heart attacks and strokes.
How anyone could dispute that is beyond me,quite frankly.
H.H., if you really are a non-smoker, are you a mole trying to make them look like whining twits? Because that's how your post comes across, especially the part about airports.
No, I don't give a shit about what obstacles smokers have to face to indulge their obnoxious addiction, in the same way that I don't give a shit about the same kind of obstacles faced by the wastoid heroin junkies who leave needles scattered around parks. In this context there's really not much difference, except that the latter have less direct effect on me.
And for the record, I have epilepsy and am not allowed to drive, so they have passed a law curbing a behavior I care about. I used to have to walk in to work every day, and would invariably end up stuck on a crowded sidewalk behind some asshole smoking. So as far as I'm concerned, smokers can go fuck themselves.
HC Grindon -
If your position can't hold up under reductio ad absurdum it's not a very valid argument.
Yes, I was pointing out the stupidity of your argument by extending it to other similar issues, protecting employees from the environment in which they work. Since the analogy holds and you find it problematic, there is a problem with your position.
You desperatly wish the ban to be wrong because you are a smoker.
>> Sucks to be you, eh?
Pretty much :^)
Also sucks to be one of small bar/restaurant proprietors in the city adjacent to where I live. Not long after that city's total smoking ban took effect, those small proprietors had to close up shop because all of their business (and sales tax revenue, much to the chagrin of the moronic city council) went to establishments in a neighboring city.
That confirms my point. Smoking should have been banned in the neighbouring city too, to level the playing field.
Thank you, Midnight Rambler, for having the courage to drop any pretense of false concern for people's health and verify that this issue really is about you just wanting to hurt an entire segment of the population you've decided are "assholes."
"So as far as I'm concerned, smokers can go fuck themselves."
The perfect totalitarian attitude. Really.
"Appearantly, non-smokers will is more important than smokers will. All hail "Freedom"."
Apparently, potential murder victims' will is more important than murderer' will. Apparently, potential rape victims' will is more important than rapists' will.
Face, not everyone will always receive absolute, perfect "Freedom" to do whatever they want, when and wherever they want, at all times.
"those of us who'd rather not inhale poisons from acrid, burning weeds involuntarily."
Okay, you're a hysteric. Are you saying that there are no establishments that ban smoking as their choice? Never mind because you're attitude is..
"I don't like it so ban it"
Is that it? Really?
What happened to freedom? Fascistic attitudes like this scare the crap out of me.
I haven't smoked it in years but I'm going to get my old pipe out of the closet and find a liberal who's face I can blow the smoke in.
I think a person's right to breath uncontaminated air trumps a person's right to voluntarily contaminate it. (indoors at public establishments).
"And as far as this nonsense about employees of the bar, they have a choice as to where they are employed."
In today's economy not everyone can get the job they want. So should their lives be shortened to accommodate drug addicts? I don't think so.
People who smoke in public places have to know they are threatening the health of everyone around them. They don't care. There is a 7 letter word for people who don't care about anyone else but themselves.
I'm Dutch and this ruling seemed to be a roundabout way to affect the weed smoking by our Christian leaders.
Balkenende said he couldn't allow an exception being made for coffee shops because people wouldn't understand that some establishments were allowed and some weren't. Clearly he thinks the population is functionally retarded. But we knew that when he said that people couldn't function without faith.
How the fuck did this country of 60% atheists get a fundie coalition? *weeps*
Argh! Preview, dammit!
Corrected: Face it, not everyone will always receive absolute, perfect "Freedom" to do whatever they want, when and wherever they want, at all times.
Banning smoking, in a place for smoking, gives me a chuckle. There probably are ulterior motives.
It's still an issue of concern for health. I'm just mad at the idiots who keep defending smoking as if their "right" to smoke has no impact on anyone else. That's no different from saying I have the "right" to punch you in the stomach, and that the government banning it is "totalitarian".
It seems that most of the smoker theories boil down to "I wanna be an @sshole and you can't stop me".
Oh my god! They're now smoking "potent and heady...pure marijuana"? Those poor souls! Before, they were just smoking for the delicious flavor and to look "cool" in front of their friends - but now, they are forced by society into the REEFER MADNESS!
News alert! Potheads Smoke Weed In Amsterdam, Get High!
There's clearly some sort of critical thinking off-switch when the media writes about drugs.
Epinephrine:
No, the analogy does not hold, and your appeal to reductio ad absurdum is not valid since you are making incorrect comparisons.
BTW, I do not consider myself a "smoker". I enjoy a couple of cigars a week, but sometimes go for months without having one...but HOW can that BE? Tobacco is SO addictive! The second hand smoke hysteria is just that...and as HH(no relation, lol) mentioned above, these ridiculous smoking bans are nothing but Prohibition all over again...and it seems legislatures and hysterical non-smokers have taken a page from the "Intelligent Design" playbook to hide that fact.
HC Grindon -
If that's the case, instead of trying to be dismissive*, why don't you show me where the problem is with the analogy.
I maintain that it's about protecting employees from hazards of the job. Please demonstrate where the logic fails.
*"You are being ridiculous. Your comparisons are are unrealistic exaggeration and nothing but unwarranted second-hand smoke hysteria."
At andyo, #148:
It's often not so much a matter of cowardice, rather than practicality. When people are smoking in front of an entrance in a large group, for instance, I often rather hold my breath and hurry past than stop and have a lengthy argument with them right in their smoke cloud about how much their smoke is bothering other visitors. You won't win the argument anyway, as they'll say it's their right to smoke there, and there won't be any rule on your side to help.
At ArgusEyes, #156:
If you'd do that to me, I'm going to use my freedom to punch you in the face.
What about the freedom to own a place and let the customers in you choose?
No one has the right not to be annoyed. Loud rock'n roll music annoys me, therefore I dont frequent bars that feature it. Doesnt mean all bars must never play rocknroll. Loud rocknroll could hurt peoples ears, make them deaf...so what? Doesnt mean other people cant enjoy it. Government is getting overweening here. Thankfully I live in Virginia where people are still treated like adults.
Argh, the block quote screwed up on me somehow... should of course be:
At ArgusEyes, #156:
If you'd do that to me, I'm going to use my freedom to punch you in the face.
Midnight Rambler, you were the one who said that asking for a single room be reserved for smoking in an entire airport complex amounting to "whining" and that you didn't "give a shit about what obstacles smokers have to face to indulge their obnoxious addiction." So, no, it seems you are not interested in merely limiting the effects of smokers on non-smokers, you're interested in punishing smokers by denying them any public venue whatsoever. They aren't the same thing. Don't use the excuse of public health to hide a more malicious motive. I found you more honest the first time.
I've got this old spray bottle. You know, the kind with a trigger and an adjustable nozzle. I just love to set it for fine mist and randomly spray a dilute hydrochloric acid solution into the air. It relaxes me and is very satisfying. They better not ban that in pubs. That would be violating my rights!
Here's a good example of the rudeness of smokers. Back when I lived in Chicago, while waiting for an elevated train to go to work, in the winter it was often extremely cold and extremely windy. Dangerously cold. On the elevated train platform there was a small enclosure with hot lights where people could wait to keep warm. Always in the small crowd under the lights there was somebody illegally smoking. The choice for everyone else was freeze or be forced to inhale an asshole's cancer causing smoke. I chose to freeze, secretly wishing murder was legal.
The other problem is cigarette butts are everywhere. Cigarette smokers are slobs.
btw, to PZ Myers, who started this post. You suggest an exception ought to be made for hash bars in Amsterdam? What kind of logic is that? That type of smoke is at least as harmful as tobacco? Why do you assert people have the ability to make a choice re: hash smoke but not tobacco?
Let people be free! I live in VA, there are numerous smoke free bars I frequent all the time, these came about as a response to demand for them. Go in smoking bars occasionally too...my decision and it feels real good.
H.H.,
If I understood correctly what Midnight Rambler said, is that plainly and simply, smokers don't have the "right" to demand that others please them in any way. An airport or a restaurant might of course give them a room if it's a good business decision, but smokers don't get to demand it more than I get to demand a PlayStation room in my hospital's waiting area.
At Niobe, #159:
The real reason he couldn't do this has already been pointed out earlier in this thread: then suddenly bars all over the country will claim to be a coffee shop. If you're going to put a ban in place, it better be a ban that actually could work.
Actually, that I wouldn't mind. I've never understood why tobacco smells fairly good, but cigarettes smell like burning excrement mixed with crude oil. Is that what they're actually make from?
Oh crap, tell me about it. At the hotel where I work, just outside the bar (in the hotel property) there are sometimes butts (there are ashtrays close enough, so not many butts on the floor, but still). The more disgusting thing, though is that when I come in, I go past that hallway, and there's a lot of spit, people just spit on the clean floor.
Posted by: ArgusEyes | July 2, 2008 3:17 PM
You missed the point. More accurately, PZ's point was "I don't like it, so I'm glad they banned it. And besides that, I think you have a flawed view, possibly deliberately so, of what Fascism actually is.
The whole liberal=fascist argument is ridiculous, and is borne out of the conservative tendency towards projection. Neocons favor government freedom of action, even if its in conflict with citizens' rights? No problem, just call the liberals "fascists" because their social program ideas want to alter some parts of our policies against our (the conservatives') will. There - problem solved.
Except that such criticism ignores the situation completely and submits to the campaign-style strategy of playing to quick fears for which they don't exactly have to prove as relevant or even true. Such criticism comically reveals the fact that the conservative doth protest too much about perceived totalitarian leanings.
But you asked what hapened to freedom? I hate to surprise you, but it's still around. You can still light your cigar or cigarrette, but simply not in places where it might infringe on others' rights to breathe, espcially while they're eating. How about the freedom of non-smokers working in those places to not have to worry about developing lung cancer? You discuss freedom as if it were a concept central to yourself. Your freedom ends exactly where it tries to end mine, in any form of the word, and vice versa.
And just for good measure, I'm a smoker. But I'm also addicted to critical thinking as well, which is a habit I recommend.
No, I'm saying they're being petty whiners if they expect everyone else to give them special indulgence the fact that can't go for more than a few hours without a fix.
FWIW, they don't even seem to have water fountains in European airports, which sucks now that you can't carry liquids through security. So be thankful for the basics.
#174
You're mistaken about it being as harmful as tobacco. THC appears to kill cancer cells, and studies have found that marijuana smokers don't increase their risk of cancer. In addition, tobacco smokers that also smoke marijuana have a lower cancer rate than tobacco-only smokers. Yes, inhaling smoke is stupid and can lead to disease, but marijuana smoke appears to be much safer than tobacco smoke. It's a lot more fun too.
Epinephrine:
>>...why don't you show me where the problem is with the analogy.
Sure, easy-peasy.
You are comparing inhalation of second-hand to this:
"Why should an employer have to make sure that you have the gear to protect you from the dangers of your job, you were dumb enough to take it! There should be no laws ensuring that workplaces are safe, since you accept the risk when you take the job."
First, you are painting with a pretty broad stroke here, so I'm left to imagine that you are comparing inhalation of second-hand smoke at a pub to say, the hazards of a welder not wearing a welders mask, or a machinist not wearing safety goggles. Are you trying to tell me that a waitress working in a smoky pub is facing the same amount of risk as a welder working without a welder's mask?
You are associating a clear and present hazard (welder) to a speculative and hysteria-driven perception of hazard (waitress). THAT is what's wrong with your analogy.
Strawman, anyone?
Read through about comments 1-77ish, skipping to here.
I think some of the UK/US back-and-forth on this issue stems from the fact that an American bar and a British pub are not quite the same sort of cultural institution. It seems in Britain that every neighborhood has its pub, which opens for lunch, then closes in the late afternoon, opens around 5pm, and closes again around 11pm. It's a neighborhood institution, a real social gathering place. There are very few genuine "neighborhood bars" in the United States, owing to the fact that the US mostly gave up on walkable neighborhoods post 1945. The closest thing the US today has to a classic neighborhood bar are campus bars near college and university campuses...often across the street, within walking (stumbling) distance of the dorms. There are a few neighborhood bars in inner cities in the USA, but in the inner cities the only people who live there and can walk to the bars they patronize are either the moderately to very wealthy or the very poor. Most bar-going Americans have to ideally have a designated driver to get them to their favorite watering hole or take a cab (or bus, if the bus line just happens to run near where the bar is located--pretty rarely is that so; and most buses quit running well before last call so you gotta budget to cab it home anyway).
US Bars are in general slightly more seedier, edgy, ilicit feeling than your friendly, neighborhood British pub. While most Brits see nothing wrong with banning smoking at a neighborhood pub, most Americans who visit bars (or work in them) frown at the notion and are likely to dismiss claims about protecting bar staff, their mental reaction being "dude, you work in a BAR, what do you expect?". US bars being what they are...more impersonal, rough and tumble, etc, a smoking ban is a tougher sell. There are some exceptions (as Californians have noted, but then again, California is sometimes like a country unto itself).
I've been in some British pubs that come close to the U.S. bar experience, but very few US bars/brewpubs that match the or come close to the average British pub experience.
I miss the cozy campus bars of my undergrad and grad school days--good beer and even better conversations. I detest U.S. "Sports bars"; Some U.S. Brewpubs (where the beer is brewed locally onsite) are nice, but those were mostly a 1990s phenomenon and there are not nearly as many still in operation today, unfortunately. But the fact that you mostly have to drive to American bars is a big reason I finally just gave up drinking alcohol altogether. Just not worth the associated health and legal risks. That and it's just too addicting for me personally. I might've disliked a smoky atmosphere at first when I got to a place, but after a few rounds in me I ceased to care.
Anyways, I just stick to Cafes now. Coffee & snacky things and good intellectual conversation. Most smokers take it outside, as there's usually plenty of tables out front for them to indulge. My Dad's a smoker but, bucking the trend, I never picked up the habit, in no small part because I would feel so sick and woozy in the car when dad would smoke in the car when I was a kid and not roll down the windows, or not enough to properly ventilate the car. I did experiment with smoking in college, but it just never appealed to me in any way. When I lived in Germany as an exchange student I did experiment with hash, smoked from a little wooden hash pipe. It was alright, but in the end I preferred getting moderately drunk to getting stoned.
For the record, I'm ok with smoking bans in Restaurants but not in Bars. If you want to be a bartender in a non smoking restaurant, work for a restaurant that has a bar. If you choose to work for a US bar, you know good and well that's not the nicest place to work in the world to begin with; sure, the tips can be great, but your patron's smoking is part of the occupational hazard of that particular workplace. YMMV, I understand the rationale for the British bans. The bans in Holland, though, that's just f*cked up (and hilarious).
Are the any examples of bars, pubs or resturants banning smoking unless forced to do so by law ?
We have been told that it did not happen in the Netherlands, and I know it did not happen in the UK. What about the US ? Did any bars in California ban smoking before they were required to do so ? I ask because it seems crucial to the argument of those who say it is a matter of choice. If no pubs or bars ban smoking unless required to do so, then what choice is that ?
So to all those who claim it is a matter of choice, can you produce the evidence to support your claim ?
I may be wrong on this, but I seem to recall that pot smoke is considerably worse on a volume basis, due to there being more oils and being unfiltered. The difference is that most people who smoke weed consume far less than those who smoke cigarettes.
HC Grindon, not to mention that if Epinephrine really thought his analogy was appropriate then he should be pushing to outfit employees in the proper safety equipment. Why isn't he asking for waitresses and bartenders to be equipped with ventilators, I wonder?
JJR,
Thanks for that. I did wonder if there was a cultural difference. You are quite correct in your assesment of British pubs, apart from the opening times. Most pubs now open all day, and have the right to apply to open for 24 hours a day. Very few have done so. Most have just gone for being able to stay open until midnight on Friday and Saturday. There is certainly nothing even slightly seedy about most British pubs either, except for maybe a few in rougher neighbourhoods. For example, suggesting to a colleagues that you go for a drink after work would not be considered at all odd.
@#5 Matt Penfold
I'm pretty sure Ed is one. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two others were, as well, so maybe I won't get the kudos.
HC Grindon -
No, of course not.
I'm saying they are both examples of the same thing, employees exposed to risk. That's how reductio ad absurdum works you see, you take the situation, and you argue the more extreme version of it. If I hadn't used a situation with more risk, it wouldn't be RAA. The more extreme situation makes the hole in the logic more obvious - you claimed "if they are stupid enough to accept employment somewhere where smoking is allowed, then they can't really gripe, can they?", which boils down to "if they are stupid enough to accept employment somewhere where they have a health risk, then they can't really gripe, can they?"
That's exactly the situation presented to a welder told to weld without a mask, etc. So the analogy holds fine.
Your second disagreement is clearly that you don't believe that second hand smoke poses a threat.
"You are associating a clear and present hazard (welder) to a speculative and hysteria-driven perception of hazard (waitress).
It's not speculative. Just like not everyone who goes without a hardhat into a building site dies, not everyone exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer. Nonetheless, both constitute a health risk, and the health risks associated with second hand smoke have been demonstrated.
I don't think you've gained an inch. I do think that you are either ignorant of the literature on second hand smoke, or a deluded imbecile who thinks that science conspires against him, labelling proven science with a "hysteria-driven" label so that your poor, cognitively dissonant mind can handle it.
On radio 4 this morning there was discussion of the situation in the Netherlands. The doctor who was interviewed pointed out that whilst it was true some of the health dangers presented by tobacco were much reduced in cannabis, there were also dangers that were worse with cannabis. He cited the emphysema as an example.
HH-
I'm fine with that.
More expensive for the businesses though. If you can provide protective gear for waiters and waitresses (and cooks, etc, or ensure that they are isolated from it) I have no problems. I'm even fine with a smoking section that is separately ventilated, that none of the employees may enter. Go in there to smoke.
You don't get to beat up that straw man.
@#174 (and #181)
I'd agree that cigarette smoke is way worst, granted anytime you are inhaling smoke and carbon dioxide, you can imagine it isn't going to be good for you. Cigarettes generally have many chemicals added during the curing/processing (not my brand though, organic American Spirits!), and I've heard they use things such as hexane to 'mellow' the flavor, and believe me, you don't want to be putting hexane in your system. Cannabis is almost without question sold as a dried bud and nothing added. I used to use Mary Jane quite often in college, and never did I feel an effect on my body. I picked up cigarettes a little over a year ago, and since I have noticed it physically. Never once after using MJ did I ever wake up the next day with a lung full of mucus, but with cigs, you'd better believe I do. I've also read many a article that MJ smoke in fact does help with the fight of cancer (I remember a Time magazine devoted to this subject a few years ago, they did a good job of being fairly unbiased).
Legalize it, don't criticize it!
Pough,
Correct, it was Ed Brayton I had in mind. I am not aware of any of the other sciencebloggers disputing the risks of second hand smoke, although that does not mean none have. I should point out Ed did so in another blog, and not the one he has here. I imagine if he did so here Orac, MarkH and PalMD would rip him to shreds.
Epinephrine,
Cancer is not the only risk posed by smoking, either first or second hand. There are other diseases that are either caused or seriously exacerbated by exposure to smoke. Chronic bronchitis, emphysema, COPD are all diseases either caused by or made much much worse by exposure. It is odd how those who object to smoking bans fail to acknoweldge smoking causes any others diseases other than cancer.
JJ,
If cannabis never had any effect on you, why did you bother using it ?
Perfect solution. Then everyone is agreed?
"Perfect solution. Then everyone is agreed? "
And for those premises that cannot be so adapted ?
Some smokers in previous comments want to allow exceptions for indoor smoking, by allowing bar owners to decide, if they allow smoking (and then post 'Enter at risk of smoke exposure'), or allow for separate smoking sections, and better A/C cleaning the air. However, a less than rather comprehensive ban on smoking does not work for many reasons:
- It endangers the health of employees who serve in smoker's compartments (with unemployment, food+rent to pay, are you really free to reject any job, even if it slightly endangers you?)
- Many non-smokers will be exposed to smoke, as customers or bystanders. (I remember from long times ago, when I + friends visited restaurants that had just non-smoking rooms, the waitress saying: 'there's a wait for 20 minutes, but you can have a seat in the smoking section right away.' With a limited lunch-time break, what do you do?
Or, you get seated in the non-smoking section, just at the edge to the smoking one, with the smoke drifting over to you [in a restaurant, or airplane, when there was still smoking on airplanes [that shows my old age!]
I remember airplane trips, and restaurant visits, with my then small children, sitting at the edge of the non-smoking zone, and getting a cough later that day. [We had to fly somewhere, or eat, after all; and can you ask someone in the designated smoking zone to stop smoking? Polite coughing doesn't work.]
My experience is that the A/C presumably keeping the smoke away will often just filter out the visible smoke particles, and recycle the still-smelly air, also to the non-smoking section.
I remember quarreling with a hotel about the smoke-free room, actually smelling of smoke,
(previous guest obviously was a smoker); another one having the A/C system apparently recycling air from smoke-filled rooms...)
- A comprehensive smoking ban is a useful public-health measure to discourage smoking. (when smoking was finally forbidden in my office building, it prompted some smokers to finally give it up, and stick with being smoke-free [there was now less temptation]; it may have saved the life of one of them, who had been a chain-smoker before.)
- The freedom to smoke affects the rest of us; the tobacco taxes do not make up completely for the larger health-care expenditures and other side costs [cleaning up room, mentioned in comment above]) I suspect that most smokers check the non-smoker box when they apply for life insurance, or private health insurance.
A has a very valid point (well more than one actually) about the effect smoking bans have on increasing the numbers who quit smoking. There was recently a report in the UK that estimated an addition 400,000 people had quit smoking since the bans came into force. That is in addition to the number who would normally have been expected to quit. In a country with a population of 60 million, 400,000 is not a small number. One medical organisation said it was probably the single most effective public health measure in the last 100 years.
Thank you #181, bang on: pot smoke is nowhere near as bad for you (or anyone) as smoking, or many other legal substances.
#185: Thats not at all true, most of the harm from cigarettes come from the variety of harsh chemicals found within. The only (debatable) harm from marijuana isn't from the drug itself, but the smoke and flame produced by the fire to light it. As mentioned elsewhere, eating it (as with brownies, say) or using certain smoking methods (the Volcano was one excellent suggestion) eliminates any harm from inhaling entirely.
Whether or not to allow it in bars/public/etc is a different debate, but the fact of the matter is that marijuana is safe, comparatively harmless drug, that should under any circumstance (unless you want to live in Mormon-land, where even coffee, beer, and cola are banned) be legalized. It's completely unfair to be for those things, but against pot: its safer and less addictive.
Matt:
I don't think I implied that cancer was the only risk, I was presenting it as a risk. My apologies if I wasn't more clear.
H.H.
I'm fine with it :) Smokers could choose to carry their own food and drinks into such an area 9though even smokers I know, such as my wife, tend to hate having smoke around while they savour food), or simply use it to have a smoke break, so long as the only people exposed to the smoke are those choosing such exposure.
Most restaurants and bars would find it cheaper to simply go non-smoking, but I don't see why establishments couldn't operate with no smoke risk to the employees in this manner.
Ugh, the blockquotes got messed up...
Matt wrote "Cancer is not the only risk posed by smoking, either first or second hand. There are other diseases that are either caused or seriously exacerbated by exposure to smoke. Chronic bronchitis, emphysema, COPD are all diseases either caused by or made much much worse by exposure. It is odd how those who object to smoking bans fail to acknoweldge smoking causes any others diseases other than cancer."
Which I was attempting to answer with:
I don't think I implied that cancer was the only risk, I was presenting it as a risk. My apologies if I wasn't more clear.
Well, as many of those arguing for provisions to be made for smokers have argued on the basis of FREEDOM and CHOICE, I expect that they will be happy to allow the bar owners to have the freedom to choose whether or not to build such a room.
"I don't think I implied that cancer was the only risk, I was presenting it as a risk. My apologies if I wasn't more clear."
You didn't. I was just using what you said to make a point to those who deny the link between second hand smoke and disease. I don't think I expressed myself as clearly as I might have. My understanding is that whilst cancer is a risk from second hand smoke, there are other diseases which are more of a risk.
Never get between the addict and his/her fix.
I've been smoke free for 8 years but I'm still a tobacco addict and, no matter what you say HC Grindon it is among the most addictive substances on the planet particularly in the form of cigarettes.
I smoked for 38 years, almost always hand rolled tobacco, and agree that 'ready mades' are the most revolting smelly filthy things. They pump out clouds of smoke filled with over 4000 chemicals and even as a smoker I found the atmosphere choking.
We used to allow smoking everywhere, cinemas, concert halls, planes, trains, even hospital wards. It was seen as completely normal for parents to smoke at the dinner table with their kids next to them. A mother would nurse her child at the breast with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth - I hear you say gross! Perception of what is acceptable changes over time.
We did the research, we learned the lessons and made some decisions which make it harder to smoke in public places, less acceptable to pollute our kids lungs and, hopefully, changed the way future generations will behave towards tobacco.
The banning issue has virtually disappeared off the public radar here in Wales after an initial burst of worry about profits. Every pub has a weather-proofed outdoor area for the smokers, some heat it in winter, they provide tables and chairs and generally look after their smoking customers well, but it is noticeable that many fewer people smoke. Many more people are giving up and support to do this is everywhere. There's a sea change and I welcome it.
Smoking tobacco benefits only the tobacco companies.
Smoking grass - ah now that's another story!
To those of you arguing that pubs do not voluntarily ban-smoking and that the pub/bar free-market is not "fair" to non-smokers:
It seems to me that the problem here is that you keep going to these pubs DESPITE the smoking. The non-smoking "market" has given pub proprietors no reason to ban smoking in their establishments (which SHOULD be their call).
How about banding together and boycotting the pubs? If the non-smoking crowd is truly the "majority" as most everyone here seems to claim, proprietors will notice a DRAMATIC decline in business and some enterprising person WILL open a non-smoking pub/bar...that's the way the free market works.
But no, it's easier to whine, exaggerate, and let the politicians keep chipping away at our freedoms.
Ok, work day is over...time to hit the pub and fire up my cigar while I still can.
(Note: the owner of my local pub installed some heavy duty smoke-suckers that sucks the smoke(and most of the air) out of the bar. He wasn't forced to do this, he recognized that many of his patrons were non-smokers and, gee whiz, made accommodations to keep their business. Most, with the exception of a few fundamentalists(yes, I chose that word...it applies), were perfectly satisfied with this. Those who weren't, took their business to one of the several brew pubs that have voluntarily gone non-smoking. Amazing how the free-market works, isn't it?)
Nos da, Kitty. Dioch for your comments.
"It seems to me that the problem here is that you keep going to these pubs DESPITE the smoking. The non-smoking "market" has given pub proprietors no reason to ban smoking in their establishments (which SHOULD be their call)."
Ah I get where you are coming from now. You think those who object to breathing in other people's smoke should stay at home and not go out. Never mind that they may be asthmatics and would put their health at risk, your right to smoke outweights their rights to go out of a night and enjoy themselves. Well, it is an argument but not one that can be made with coming across as a selfish bastard.
I note you have not yet withdrawn your false claim second hand smoke does not cause cancer. Do you still claim it does not, or do you now admit you lied ?
Matt @#194
I meant physical ill effects!
Epinephrine:
I am arguing that they are NOT the same, not even in the same ball park. You might as well be claiming that Atheism is a religion...it's the same ridiculous tactic.
I suppose we'll just have to disagree, but unlike you, I'll refrain from the childish ad hom attacks.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go consume a few pints, which studies show is very harmful to me...maybe we should petition to have alcohol banned...oh, wait, we already tried that, and boy, did that work out well.
HC Grindon clearly is not aware that numerous studies have shown modeate alcohol consumption far from being harmful is actually beneficial. I am also unaware of any Western country that has had a ban on alcohol other than the US.
Matt P, croeso,
You asked for an example of a pub which banned smoking before it had to - my local! They had a very tough time keeping customers - smokers can be very insistent about dragging their mates off to the next pub down the road so they can stay indoors. They had lots of couples out for a quiet drink but the big parties went elsewhere. Profits fell until everyone was in the same boat.
We had the ban in Wales before England and now it's no big deal. Attitudes change, it just takes some old fossils longer to catch on and I really do understand the panic of the truly addicted when the comfort of the next fix is threatened. It used to be me.
But now I'll say nos da, early start tomorrow.
Did you really think that it hadn't been considered to only ban smoking in restaurants? Then answer me this: what's the difference between a restaurant and a bar?
For instance, here in the Netherlands (and in the UK too, I've been told) it's quite common for a pub to serve food, and later at night the tables will be moved over to make room for dancing and such. Now suddenly a pub that serves food couldn't allow smoking, but a pub that doesn't could? Or if pubs that serve food would be allowed smoking, why shouldn't restaurants be allowed to have smoking too? Does that seem very fair to you? Or does that seem like a law that can be enforced? No, the only consistent thing to do is ban smoking throughout all types of businesses.
Example: when smoking was banned in cinemas, but there was still an exception for bars, there was at least one cinema that had a bar in the back of the theater (in the actual room with the projection screen, so you could get drinks and stuff while the movie was playing) and claimed therefore that they were exempt from the smoking ban. When I went there, not knowing in advance it allowed smoking in the theater, it ruined the movie for me. They only changed after a case in the small claims court made them. If they would allow all sorts of exceptions this time too, this sort of stuff will happen again.
Jeez, I'm never going to get out of here.
MattP wrote:
"I note you have not yet withdrawn your false claim second hand smoke does not cause cancer. Do you still claim it does not, or do you now admit you lied ?"
I never said it doesn't cause cancer. I said it isn't likely that you'd get cancer by going to a pub a few times a week and inhaling some second-hand smoke.
"Can" prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke cause cancer? Sure. So can exposure to exhaust fumes for people who work in busy downtown areas (and, laughably, those who jog downtown and inhale the fumes) Does second-hand smoke cause cancer in every case, or even in the majority of cases as you imply? No. I've read enough about the subject to know better.
And please, stop calling me a "liar". I'm expressing an honest opinion here. A proper example of me telling a lie would go something like:
"I think MattP's stance on second-hand smoke is smart and well thought out."
:^)
I am a smoker and I a completely agree with a complete ban on smoking in bars / pubs / clubs / restaurants. We should go and find other places to smoke where we do not disturb and harm non smokers, like outdoors or at home.
Having said this, I think governments should allow two exceptions :
a) they should allow on a limited basis special licensed places for smoking purposes only
b) they should not have eliminated those small delimited smokers corners in airports. This is fucking nasty. When you are on a connecting flight from Cape town to New York via Frankfurt, you can't even find a place to smoke a cigarette, this is nonsense, and it didn't bother anybody, these places were perfectly delimited and already existed, and they demolished them. That's just crazy.
Your opinion may be honest, but it's still not worth more than mine, nor less. Also, honest does not equal well thought out. Even if you argue that second hand smoke is only a slightly increased health risk, rather than a significantly increased health risk, who are you to decide that non-smokers should just take the risk?
"Secondhand smoke from a night at the pub is not going to give you cancer...and if you are spending every night in a pub (and thus, continuous exposure), you best be worrying about your liver."
There you go. Since no one has claimed a single night in a smoky pub will give you cancer I assumed you were making a more general claim. Either you were knocking down a stupid claim no one made (which in itself would be dishonest) or you were trying to claim there is no link between second hand smoke and cancer. If it was the former I withdraw my claim you lied, but instead claim you are intellectually dishonest. You may think you are being honest. You are simply deluding yourself.
Beowulff,
It is not even all about cancer. There are a significant number of asthmatics around today, and smoke is known trigger of asthhma attacks. Whilst most attacks do not require hospitalisation, some do, and some will prove fatal. I guess HC Grindon would rather asthmatics stayed at home rather than sit wheezing in the pub he uses.
If it hasn't already been mentioned, smoking has been banned in most indoor public places in New Zealand.
HC Grindon
Oh, I assure you, my ad hominem wasn't childish.
And you engaged in ad hom as well, I'll note, suggesting that I have a "hysteria-driven perception of hazard," for example.
Had I said, "you are a poop-head" or some such, it might have been infantile; if I had resorted to foul language or some bizarre list of imporobabilities, "son-of-a-bitch, take-it-in-the-ear-for-a-beer, rat bastard!", it would have been childish.
The ad hominem is actually sometimes an appropriate tactic in argument, particularly when one wishes to cast a light on the opponent's failings - you expressed the view that concern about risks caused by second hand smoke is "unwarranted second-hand smoke hysteria." My reaction was disbelief - you either aren't aware of the compelling evidence for danger in second hand smoke exposure, or are arrogantly or delusionally dismissing the work of countless scientists.
So I threw some light on your stateent - you are either ignorant about the research, or somehow feel that YOU know more than the researchers who have actually studied second hand smoke. If you are ignorant, it's not much of an ad hominem, but it does make your criticism of my analogy a little questionable, hence it's a good use of the ad hom, since it throws doubt on your ability to criticise the science behind a statement. If instead you are a deluded imbecile who thinks that science conspires against him, (or "wackaloon", as I think is the proper term?) then you probably don't have the rational perspective to criticise the logic of my argument, again a pretty handy bit of ad hominem.
I'll admit that I did present a false dichotomy; you may be neither. There are probably infinitely many explanations for why you can dispute the science behind second hand smoke studies, but most of them are rather negative. But you must admit that my ad hominem wasn't simply childish.
I am an ex-smoker myself. When my smoking friends complained about Kansas City's proposed (now enacted) smoking ban in restaurants, I had this compromise: Smokers can continue smoking in restaurants, but non-smokers get to spit in the smokers' food. OK?
And as for having smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, I loved the local ad campaign that ran this: Would you go to a swimming pool that had peeing and non-peeing sections?
@215 (plus Others!)
"who are you to decide that non-smokers should just take the risk?"
I think the point is that no one is forcing you to go into a smoky bar. And the "oh well then non-smokers should just stay at home" isn't an good argument (to me), there are plenty of places where you can't smoke. Don't get me wrong, I am an avid supporter of the bans, and I am a smoker. And I also don't go with the "Well if one bar allows smoking and one doesn't then the one that doesn't is going to fail" (or whatever that argument is), as I've noted above, the bars here do not allow smoking, unless a permit is purchased, and some do allow against the law. They do no better than non-smoking facilities. Maybe that's just the culture in this town, I cannot say.
I used to smoke (two years without as of this past Memorial Day). Actually liked the bans in bars when I was smoking because my clothing and hair (and pillow) didn't stink after a night at the bar, and I smoked fewer cigarettes if I had to go outside.
Now, as to the other kind of smoking, here's tonight's dinner: Cherry and Dried Chili-Mango Soup, Seared Vindaloo-rubbed pork chops, asparagus tossed in ajwain and mustard seeds, and spicy basmati rice. I feel fat now, but in 15 minutes I'll be ready for more.
As a chemist I wish to add my two cents. If I had to breathe air with the equivalent carcenogicity of second hand smoke my employer would require that that I be tethered to an airline supplied respirator all day. It is simply too dangerous not to require proper Personal Protective Equipment when in an atmosphere that may prove injurious. That being said, smokers have shot themselves in the foot too often to reverse smoking bans in the near future. First, they forgot that my rights as a non-smoker take precedence over their right to smoke half way between them an me. If they wanted to smoke is restaurants and bars, they should have pressed the owners for proper ventilation to ensure that their smoke does not bother other people. But that could be quite expensive to achieve, as the cost of heating/cooling goes up dramatically with just a one-pass air system. Filtration could allow some recycle, but carbon filters cost money. Secondly, smokers don't pick up after themselves. I saw a smoker toss his butt out the window of his vehicle on my way home tonight. He should have put it in his ash tray. Multiply this by all smokers, and what comes across to non-smokers is that smokers are just plain litterbugs. Smokers need to change the perceptions on both observations before any change will occur. I do agree that smokers should have a place to light up beyond the security inspections in airports. It may require a room with several hundred cubic feet per minute air flow, to protect the rest of us, but it could be done. As a side note, the redhead and I go out to eat more frequently than before, since we aren't hassled with second hand smoke at the local eateries.
I remember sitting in my favorite restaurant at the edge of the non-smoking section because it was the only table left. Not more than 5 feet away sat a chain smoker in the smoking section. I politely complained and the smoker continued smoking. My expensive meal was ruined. I can give hundreds more examples of the rudeness of smokers. They just don't care about anyone but themselves.
One more example, at work at a meeting in an office building there was one person smoking, making everyone else inhale her pollution. She was 8 months pregnant. What a stupid asshole.
I found that premise quite amusing, it seems silly to ban smoking of tobacco and not marijuana given it's the smoke that's the problem. While I'm all for the legalisation of marijuana and the outlawing of smoking in public places, this double standard seems to defeat the purpose.
No. 44 - Calgary is almost tropical. Try standing outside in Saskatoon at -40 C.
As someone who's never been to Amsterdam, I have to ask two questions: First, is it legal there to serve cannabis in food (e.g., hash brownies) in coffeeshops as well as in smokeable form? Second: If the answer to question 1 is "yes", are there places where one can consume edible cannabis in a totally non-smoking environment?
I'm just askin'. :-)
BobC, # 224, wrote:
"My expensive meal was ruined. I can give hundreds more examples of the rudeness of smokers. They just don't care about anyone but themselves."
"They" actually include considerate people, too. I can give you hundreds of examples of rude, sanctimonious antismokers, too, but I won't brand all nonsmokers as "they." You were, after all, in a restaurant with a smoking section, and the other diner was in that section. I certainly understand why many people don't like cigarette smoke, but your comments illustrate why so many smokers are frustrated by antismokers. The few dwindling places we have left to legally light up are always in your sights - you feel entitled to demand no smoking even in spots where it's still legal.
I would never ask to smoke in anyone else's home, in their car, or stand right next to people when I'm smoking. I don't throw my cigarette butts on the ground, and I go out of my way to stand downwind when I'm outside at an airport or some other public gathering. I find that antismokers often don't return the courtesy. They glare, they "fake cough" (really, if you were just to say, "I'm sorry, but your smoke is blowing on me, would you mind moving?" I'd gladly do so), and then they have the nerve to complain when they voluntarily enter one of the few spaces left for smokers to legally light up.
Consideration works both ways. I won't infringe on your space, as long as you're reasonable enough to concede that I might be allowed even one small spot of my own. Trouble is, that's never good enough for many; they don't stop until they've stamped out smoking even in places they don't have to be, and don't frequent anyway.
I'll continue to try to be as considerate as possible, and I'd appreciate being given the courtesy of not being lumped in with a "they", with all its moralizing undertones.
Ok, back from the pub and its vile smoke. :^)
Epinephrine:
Ok, I retract the "childish" characterization, but will opt for "unnecessary" instead. I often get frustrated when debating obstinate theists and resort to ad frustratium insults. :^)
But I stand by my "hysterical" characterization of your views of second hand smoke (not intended as ad hom). I've read plenty of studies on the hazards of SHS, as well as car exhausts, cell phone usage, and so on, and so on; and I certainly believe in science. But science can get it wrong in some cases, and I happen to think the whole second hand smoke issue is blown way out of proportion by those that "just don't like the smell". Constant exposure to second hand smoke in a poorly ventilated area, sure, I can buy that. But in a relatively well ventilated pub, not likely. Thats where the "hysteria" comes in to play. Folks in this discussion make it sound like they are breathing in mustard gas and are going to immediately keel over...again, hysteria. You're more likely to get mugged on your way into the pub.
My main issue is with smoking bans in pubs and the rights of pub owners to run their establishments as they see fit. Our governments can't possibly protect us from every single risk out there. What's next, banning cell phones and loud music in bars/pubs? Fatty foods? Noxious body odors? Where do we draw the line?
Hysteria about second-hand smoke? If a trailer load of cigs catches fire...you can look up the NFP,EPA, or your local state guidelines on how this material is to be treated. It actually is more toxic than the 'welder' example.
Oh, this is pre-Bush science-based regulation. You can use Google or pdf. files from the regulators.
"Michael says: Bad- There's no law requiring you to brush your teeth, either. However, if you've got terrible breath, I don't want you breathing in my face, especially in a public venue."
Was that supposed to be an argument? Because I think you forgot the part where you supplied, well, the argument part.
No one forces you to walk into a bar or restaurant that has rules you don't like. If I want my little bad breath club, why should you, who aren't even interested in coming to it, have any say over whether or not I can have it? You really think it makes sense to base legislation on pure spite?
Mold:
Let me get this straight: you are comparing a truckload of burning cigarettes to a smoky pub? That's like comparing a load of TNT to a firecracker, another poor RAA example.
And for the record, I can't stand cigarette smoke. If I am around too much of it, I go elsewhere, imagine that.
Josh:
Great post, couldn't have said it better myself :^)
Julie #227,
I lived many years in Amsterdam and used to frequent those damned coffeshops, and the first question is yes, you can find cannabis in edible form quite often being sold in coffeeshops, as well of course in all its diverse forms (haschish, marijuana,...), that you may either take away, or consume on location. The second question, if you wanted to be able to sell edible products that are cannabis based, you'd need a coffeeshop license anyway. So as the owner, you may decide to make it only a selling outlet for cannabis and degustation of pastries, and skip the smoking bit, but I'm not sure how profitable that would be. Obviously I don't think many coffeeshop license holders have made this choice (I don't know of any, but I don't know all coffeeshops in Amsterdam there are a few hundred).
But what you would definitely not have are hash brownies being sold in a normal cafe or salon de thé. Cannabis is legal for sale in the Netherlands, but its sale is still controlled.
At least there are a few people left who don't feel the need to use the government to enforce their personal choices on everybody else. Funny me, I thought that patrons and business owners still had rights.
Bans and prohibitions are one of the few areas where mainstream liberals and I part ways. There are plenty of workable compromises, but I have yet to meet an anti-smoker who is willing to try any of them. I live in California, and
thanks to useless liberal bullshit, I can't even smoke in the fucking discount cigarette store or the local cigar shop, places where every patron, owner, and employee are smokers!
I would love to argue it out, but I'm going outside for a smoke. All the fucking smug in here is killing me!
The smokers here, instead of complaining about losing their right to be assholes in public, should consider trying to recover from their drug addiction. It's a fact that smokers die younger and get sick more often than non-smokers. It's not normal to intentionally shorten your own life.
Just quit. Substitute your fix with something else like coffee if you have to, but just stop smoking. You will be in a lot of pain for one week but that's a lot better than the disease you will get that will slowly kill you.
And those rights trump the rights of other guests and employees? Why?
What you and other smoking zealots like HC Grindon keep ignoring in their talk about freedoms and rights, is that as soon as you light a cigarette near a non-smoker, you are limiting their freedom, by limiting their choices to two unattractive options: suck it up or leave. Sucking it up (pun intended) of course means dealing with the stink, the irritation of throat and eyes, and any and all health risks. Leaving could mean interrupting your meal, your dance, or getting out into the rain or cold. And it's all just because you need your nicotine fix, the non-smoker doesn't get anything in return for it. Is it our fault you're addicted to the stuff? Than why should non-smokers be punished for it?
Really, is it that unreasonable to want to turn it around and require the smokers to bear the disadvantages of their habit, instead of non-smokers? If you want to smoke, fine, step out and leave the non-smokers their clean air.
The idea that smokers should be allowed to smoke whenever they like, wherever they like is simply entitlement thinking. It may have been the norm for years, but that doesn't make it right.
And in the end, this particular smoking ban is just a matter of having a consistent law. All business are required to offer smoke-free working environments in the Netherlands. They have been for years. Until recently, an exception was made for bars and restaurants and such, and all that was changed is that they stopped the special treatment.
And if you argue that a smoking ban for all business wasn't necessary either, and some compromise would be possible, well, I remember all the public add campaigns of "We'll work it out together", when the government was exactly promoting the sort of compromises people here have talked about. They didn't work. So much so that the government reluctantly started the process of putting the smoke-free workplace laws in place, knowing full well how difficult a process it would be, and how unpopular among a large portion of society. They didn't just start this process because they thought it was fun, they did it because it turned out non-smokers needed better protection from smokers, despite their best efforts to promote compromises. It's that simple, people.
BobC, #236 wrote:
"The smokers here, instead of complaining about losing their right to be assholes in public, should consider trying to recover from their drug addiction. It's a fact that smokers die younger and get sick more often than non-smokers. It's not normal to intentionally shorten your own life."
OK. I tried to be civil and take the high road. But like many conversations with antismokers, Bob couldn't let it stay reasonable and nice; he had to pull out the asshole card and get all sanctimonious and "caring." Bob, it's not normal to spend your life turning your nose up at a group of people while pretending you're doing it because you "care." No one's fooled - you're a self-righteous dick. Oh, and go fuck your self.
It was nothing personal, Joshs. I feel the same way about all smokers who don't care about all the nicotine they force everyone else to inhale, and who throw their butts everywhere, and who stink up every place they visit.
And you have to admit trying to give yourself a terminal disease is not normal behavior. I know all about your addiction because I had the same problem. I quit 35 years ago and it wasn't easy. After one week the pain goes away. It's worth it. You're dead forever. There's no heaven, remember? Why not live as long as you can, and at the same time not have other people think you're a disgusting slob.
If you don't quit, not to worry. You will die a terrible slow death, but I will continue to make lots of dividend income from the shares of a tobacco company I own.
Yes - right here in Edinburgh, many restaurants were non-smoking even before the introduction of the ban. And they didn't seem to have too much of a problem as a result.
Anybody who can't handle a one-hit bong or smoke it under glass shouldn't be smoking it at all.
Sure - but joints are nice. Don't get me wrong, I like to smoke in other ways too, but I like to smoke joints. The fact that I'm a tobacco smoker anyway probably has something to do with that.
Dunc @#240
Awright, pal? I'm in Leith myself. I have to say that before the smoking ban, the Roseleaf here, just off the Shore, was non-smoking for a year or two, and was always dead empty. It was cunning that they introduced the ban in Spring, because standing outside in the Winter is sheer hell. The first place I encountered a smoking ban was in California eight or so years ago; in the winter up in the high Sierras. Minus 10 or so, but dry, just put a hat and jacket on! In Edinburgh in February it's above freezing (just) but with horizontal rain. Luckily my local was right next to a pend, so there was some shelter, most pubs here are just straight onto the street.
I agree about the pleasure of a nice hash/baccy joint, but that's how I got addicted to nicotine in the first place! Never let them tell you it's not a gateway drug.....
Hey, does anyone else have a Grey rectangle on the screen blocking a section of Beowulff's post #237?
Okay, this is my first posted comment on this great blog.
I admit I haven't read all 242 comments, but I think I've read a sufficiently representative sample to get a good idea of the general sentiment.
I'm going to bravely posit a minority view that I strongly oppose any sort of regulation or ban of smoking on private property, including in bars and restaurants. I say this as a non-smoking musician (never smoked) who regularly plays gigs in small (formerly) very smoky bars. And yes, I dislike secondhand smoke as much as anyone.
However, that's irrelevant. Neither are the bad health effects of secondhand smoke relevant. Bars and restaurants are *private* property, regardless of whether the owner(s) allow anyone (i.e. the public) on premises. The owners should properly decide what behavior is allowed on their property, provided they are up front and non-fraudulent about it. If they are offering a toxic, smoky environment, then don't enter their property. Anyone who enters an establishment which allows smoking is giving consent to those terms. You have no "right" to dine in a smoke-free restaurant if nobody is willing to offer that service.
If I want to avoid secondhand smoke, I can simply not consent to enter property where smoking is tolerated. However, if I want to avoid the oppressive hand of the nanny-state, that, unfortunately, is apparently much more difficult. The latter ultimately represents a much greater threat to my health and well-being.
I wish the commenters would stop asserting that people have the choice to go into bars or not. It is not related. This was started as a workers' rights issue. While you may choose to work at a smoky bar you still maintain the right to a healthy work environment which means that the bar has to be smoke free to comply with workers' rights. So while it is private property, it has to comply with government regulations and provide a smoke-free work environment. Also the best way to enact this regulation without completely failing is to issue a smoking ban in bars.
I believe generally in free choice but when there is an obvious harmful choice or a choice that obviously benefits society, society is going to pressure individuals to some extent to chose a certain way. Sometimes local legislation is a fine way to do that.
Matt,
I can't speak for anywhere else, but before they passed the smoking ban in Albuquerque, NM (and then statewide), there were quite a few bars and restaurants that voluntarily went non-smoking. As a smoker, I chose to patronize those establishments that still allowed smoking, while many others chose to go to non-smoking places. And, as I believe you pointed out, in Virginia, which still allows smoking in bars and restaurants, there are a number of bars and restaurants that are completely non-smoking. As a matter of fact, it's hard to find a smoking restaurant in NOVA these days. It's easier to find a bar that allows smoking, although many now have separate sections (which I find perfectly fine).
As a smoker, I have no problem with bans in places where the market is not offering up options. Where the market is making it possible for customers and employees to chose, I think the decision should be left to the owner of the establishment in question (and for those of you who are going to complain that in the state of the economy today, people won't be able to get a job at a different bar or restaurant, I hate to break it to you, but turnover at these places is usually pretty high. As someone who worked as a waitress to pay my way through college, there were always service jobs available).
I think the loud music analogy is a good one. There are places that play extremely loud music, which can seriously damage the hearing of workers who are constantly exposed to it. If ALL establishments were playing loud music, then, for the sake of the safety of employees, it would be alright to pass regulations. But if some places are playing really loud music, and others are not - that is, if the market is taking care of it, and people are capable of choosing - then why should the government step in.
I'd also like to say to those who seem to think that ALL smokers are assholes, you have to realize taht some people are jerks and some aren't. Some smokers are jerks and some aren't. I don't smoke around children. I make an effort to move away from groups of people and stand downwind from them if I am going to light up. If I go outside a place to smoke, I try to stand away from the door. I don't litter my cigarette butts. If there isn't an ashtray around, I put the cigarette out completely and then toss the butt in the nearest trash can. If I'm around people (particularly if I don't know their feelings about it), I'll ask if it's okay to light up, and if someone asks me to put a cigarette out or move away, I do so. I recognize that many people don't want to be annoyed by my habit, and I make an effort to accomodate them. Most of my smoker friends are the same. So please don't demonize all smokers. Some of us do our best to kill ourselves without hurting you.
Lots of commentary here that seems to indicate that smoking tobacco is way more socially divisive than pot/grass/weed/hash
There is the ultra-libertarian viewpoint of HC which is essentially to have no limits - just a little notice: 'abandon hope all ye who enter here' or somesuch. Of course, HC wants to have his cake & eat it too - so he only eats in the non-smoking section of restaurants! Funy how libertarians only ever want it their own way regardless of consistency!
Then there is the more liberal viewpoint of 'the greater good' - I especially liked Matt Penfold's analogy (and I paraphrase) - we don't allow smoking in pubs anymore - neither do we allow pissing on the floor - both are something smokers want to do while at the pub of an evening - but neither is particularly socially acceptable.
All told, it's been pretty clear that most folks here are perfectly OK about the use of pot.
It's alos obvious that most folks are less sanguine about second hand cigarette smoke (if it were just tobacco it would be less worrying - but all those additional chemicals add significantly to the toxicity of the smoke).
Personally - I like weed - but would prefer to ingest it, or any other substance, at a time and place of my own choosing - not second hand at someone else's behest.
I used to be a smoker, and (like Matt) I basically had to cancel my social life when I stopped smoking - or accept that I would still smell like an ashtray (as well as suffer more extreme addiction pangs).
I chose to cancel my pub life. I got so much out of the habit, that I find it really strange to go into a pub/bar these days. I've lost the habit in more ways than one!
I'm happy that smoking is banned in public venues. I just wish there was more consistency in our approach to substance abuse - personal and public. I don't care what you do in your house -- just don't inflict it on me (I'm with CalGeorge 100% on that)
I can't defend smoking against the health complaints, but I'm glad I was a smoker before all the draconian restrictions were put in place. Lighting up on an airplane - oh, the luxury...
For all the people rejoicing about smoking being banned, I'd like to complain about all the non-smokers coming to pubs and leeching them of atmosphere. You're a bunch of joyless, self-righteous, smug gits - your effect was largely neutralised when smokers were allowed inside, but alas, no longer.
Am I generalising too much? Only to the extent that people seem to imply that smoking or breathing second hand smoke is 100% fatal.
I find it strange that someone would complain about a Libertarian espousing freedom of choice. Whether or not I choose to smoke I will allow you to make your own choice in the matter. I believe it is the business owners choice in the matter of cigarette smoking on their premises. I still choose non-smoking areas when given the choice. I find no contradictions in my stance on this issue.
My views on second hand smoke were greatly influenced by a recent Skeptic Magazine article pointing out that the EPA(?) study most cited only delt with the possibility and not the certainty that there was any significant affect at all.
I find it disheartening that people will choose to regulate the hell out of everything based more upon emotion than fact. Most of the reaction to smokers is complaint about their personal displeasure at being subjected to the smell of smoke. Tough, get over it and go somewhere else.
I suppose that at my next party, you should have the right to tell me that my guests should not be allowed to smoke in my home because you don't like it. I am allowing a group of people onto my property, so, I should be subject to the same restrictions as the bar owner when they invite people onto their property. Next, any casual visitor to my house has a say. Next, any salesman, delivery driver, girl scout who comes to my door can demand a smoke free enviroment. "To Hell with freedom" is what you might as well be telling me.
http://www.cigarettecentury.com/
fatherdaddy #247 contributed the following pearls of wisdom:
And you have no emotional stance on the subject at all? Right... Let me know when you have an objective reason why non-smokers should "get over it" when you feel like exposing them to irritating and stinking smoke, and why smokers shouldn't have to "get over it" instead if they have to postpone their nicotine fix for a couple of hours, or go outside for a few minutes to get it. Why is one group's discomfort less important?
And do I really need to point out how little what you decide to do in your private home has to do with a law that provides all employees a smoke-free workspace?
Good points, fatherdaddy.
Let's pose specific hypotheticals. I'm going to list a number of scenarios, and I'd like those in favor of smoking bans to indicate which of the following you think it's proper for the government to forbid. Assume none of these scenarios breaks any other laws (such as zoning) nor disturbs any neighbors (due to traffic or noise, etc):
1. Alice, who lives alone, smokes in her house.
2. Alice invites her friend Bob to her house, and they both smoke.
3. Alice invites her friends Bob and Charlie to her house. Alice and Bob smoke, but Charlie is a non-smoker.
4. Alice, Bob, & Charlie invite their friends Ed, Frank, and Geena to regularly join them at Alice's house. Ed and Frank smoke, but Geena does not. Charlie and Geena attend as non-smokers because they enjoy the company.
5. Alice hires Henry to cater the regular gatherings at her house. She makes it clear to Henry that these parties are attended by a number of smokers. Henry doesn't smoke, but takes the job anyway.
6. Alice & friends send out mass e-mails to all their other friends inviting them to Alice's catered parties. The e-mails indicate all are welcome, but warn that many smokers attend.
7. Alice has regular parties as described in #6, but charges guests to have Henry serve them food & drinks.
8. Alice has regular parties as described by #7, but allows anyone off the street to attend, provided they are not disruptive and they understand many people will be smoking. She names her gatherings "Alice's Restaurant" and hosts them every evening.
Okay... so which of the preceding should be illegal (due to smoking)?
At BlueBassist, #251:
Ooh, the discussion is degrading to hypothetical arguments! They tend to be rather lame arguments, as I will show below.
However, I will first answer your question regardless, but I'm answering it with some questions of my own: at what point should Alice be required by law to conform to food health and safety regulations and commit to FDA inspections? At what point should she be required by law to get extended liability insurance? Required to have clearly indicated emergency exits? Required to pay minimum wage to her employees? Get a liquor license? Etc, etc, etc.
Are you going to say that all these laws and regulations are bad, because they infringe on Alice's freedom to take shortcuts with hygiene, or her freedom to underpay her employees? Or do you understand that these laws don't exist to annoy Alice, but to protect her guests and employees? If we accept as a fact that it was democratically decided that non-smokers need protection from smokers, why is smoking regulation so much different?
In case you are now considering setting up an argument why this protection is not needed, let me thank you for showing us your entitled attitude and thus pointing out why we would need laws protecting non-smokers in the first place. You see, in a world where such laws are not necessary, your hypothetical situations would look more like this:
3. Alice invites her friends Bob and Charlie to her house. Alice and Bob smoke, but Charlie is a non-smoker. To make Charlie feel welcome, Alice and Bob decide not to smoke in his presence.
4. Alice, Bob, & Charlie invite their friends Ed, Frank, and Geena to regularly join them at Alice's house. Ed and Frank smoke, but Geena does not, because she is mildly asthmatic. The snokers promise to go onto the balcony if they want to smoke, and assure Geena that they'll make sure that no smoke is blown inside.
And so on. I hope you see the difference in attitude. Really, I'd be opposing the smoking ban as unnecessary regulation if all smokers behaved like this, in all circumstances. Some do, but not nearly enough.
I'm not a smoker (asthmatic), but the smug "our rights take priority over yours' attitudes of the other non-smokers here have only confirmed my dislike of the smoking bans. Your right to have clean air is JUST as important as a smoker's right to kill him/herself by lighting up. Public transportation is the only place I'd make an exception (people 'have' to be able to move from point to point and running different 'smoking' or 'non-smoking' busses/trains would be stupid).
I choose to go to clubs that I know have tobacco smoke (I bring my inhaler just in case it gets bad), and I set where the smoke doesn't bother me too badly. I understand that if I want to hang out with my friends who are smoking that there'll be smoke around. I could chose to have different friends, but I like to hang out with these friends. I'm coming into their hangout, when I do that I chose to set aside my 'right' to clean air. If I started complaining about the smoke I'd just be acting like an asshole.