How Effective Are Smoking Bans in Your Country?

[radou]

Well, as the title suggests, I'm interested if the ban of smoking rigorously arises in any form in your country, wherever you're from.

In my case, the most 'rigorous' thing that happened is that owners of bars and restaurants had to separate an area inside the bar/restaurant specially for smokers, which, of course, didn't work out in most places.

I support a complete ban of smoking in all public places. Concerns which owners of bars/restaurants may have about their profit being minimized because of the loss of a great number of customers (who are, of course, smokers), are basically idiotic, since there are a lot of people who actually don't visit bars/restaurants because of passive smoking. Also, a number of smokers wouldn't simply stop going to their favourite coffee shops just because they can't smoke anymore.

So, how's it working out in your country and do you have any oppinion on it?

 

[Evo]

Well, as the title suggests, I'm interested if the ban of smoking rigorously arises in any form in your country, wherever you're from.

In my case, the most 'rigorous' thing that happened is that owners of bars and restaurants had to separate an area inside the bar/restaurant specially for smokers, which, of course, didn't work out in most places.

I support a complete ban of smoking in all public places. Concerns which owners of bars/restaurants may have about their profit being minimized because of the loss of a great number of customers (who are, of course, smokers), are basically idiotic, since there are a lot of people who actually don't visit bars/restaurants because of passive smoking. Also, a number of smokers wouldn't simply stop going to their favourite coffee shops just because they can't smoke anymore.

So, how's it working out in your country and do you have any oppinion on it?

Here in the US it varies by state, and by city. The city I live in has a complete ban of smoking from restaurants. People cannot smoke in public places, they cannot smoke in office buildings. It's wonderful.

 

[ptabor]

Unfortunately, the citizens of my state (Ohio) recently passed a ban on smoking in all public places.

I feel it is reasonable to ban smoking in restaurants and other places where children frequent as the damage to their lung capacity could be considerable. I'd also be for banning smoking in homes in which children reside for the aforementioned reason.

What I cannot support is the ban on smoking in a bar. The people that go to a bar, in general, are there to get trashed. If you're drinking, health is not your primary concern and a little second hand smoke should be of no concern to you.

 

[cristo]

I agree that smoking should be banned in all restaurants, since smoke and food is a horrible mix. (edit: the fact that children are in restuarants is a good point too) However, I think that banning smoking in all pubs/bars is a bit extreme-- it should be up to the guy who owns the place whether he let's people smoke in his pub or not.

I don't know what will happen when our smoking ban properly kicks in, but most coffee shops have banned smoking now, and I still frequent them the same amount. But bars are different. Most smokers I know smoke more when drinking, and to ban smoking completely in bars seems a bit ridiculous.

 

[Kurdt]

The whole argument as I perceived it is based on rights. Those who support a ban say it is their right to clean air and those who do not support the ban say its their right to smoke where they please. I have to say that in my mind if someone lights up next to you they have removed your right to clean air without much opposition. So the only way to protect the rights of the majority of none smokers is to either ban it in all public places or set up designated places that are away from everyone else.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Hard to keep them out of the bars. They are such sneaky little suckers:

 

[mattmns]

I can't stand smoking; I am all for a complete ban of smoking in public places.

 

[Integral]

The town I work in has a complete smoking ban in all bars and restaurants. Now every bar has its clump of smokers standing on the sidewalk.

I personally think the ban in bars is a bit extreme. At least a bar owner outght to be able to choose for himself if smoking is allowed is allowed in his establishment. Since I am not a smoker or a frequenter of bars it does not effect me in the least.

 

[Evo]

People don't NEED to smoke. I however need to breathe without coughing and gasping for air.

I don't think smoking should be allowed in public bars. If I want to have a few drinks with a couple of friends, we shouldn't have to be gasping for air and tears running down our faces from the smoke burning our eyes.

I'm sure private smoking bars could be licensed. Then smokers could pack the place and smoke themselves to death without harming others.

 

[Cyrus]

They ban smoking even in bars at DC now starting this year. I don't smoke, but I think its STUPID. Its a freaking BAR!

If you don't like to smoke/drink, don't go to the bar.

 

[Evo]

They ban smoking even in bars at DC now starting this year. I don't smoke, but I think its STUPID. Its a freaking BAR!

If you don't like to smoke/drink, don't go to the bar.

Better to have bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers.

I don't mind cigar bars, cigarettes are nasty though.

 

[larkspur]

I like to have a drink but I don't like to have a smoke when I go to a bar. I also would like to go to a bar to hear a certain band play but cannot because of the smoking. Why can't the bars have non-smoking weekends every now and then...?

 

[Cyrus]

I think part of going to a bar is to be around the people drinking/smoking. Its a place to unwind. One time I was at a club and I came home smelling like I smoked an entire carton.

 

[scorpa]

Where I am there is a complete ban on smoking in all public places ie restaurants, bars, shops...ect.Which I LOVE! However they can still smoke outside the doors to these places. Last year my campus actually considered banning smoking on campus even outdoors - obviously it wouldn't have been very enforcable they were mainly going to do it by not selling tobacco products on campus. However all the smokers raised a big stink about how it is their right to smoke while the rest of us have to pay for their medical bills when the poor dears get lung cancer and whatnot. There are designated smoking areas away from all of the doorways so that non smokers do not have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get in or out of buildings but naturally the second it gets even almost cold the smokers congreggate near doorways so you cannot get anywhere without walking through a haze of smoke...definitely one of my pet peeves.

 

[Moonbear]

If you don't like to smoke/drink, don't go to the bar.

What if you drink, but don't smoke? I've visited cities where smoking is banned in bars, and I love it! I can actually go out and socialize in a bar and not be sick. I even will go to bars and not drink, just get soft drinks and play pool. Leaving smelling like cigarettes and knowing you've breathed in all that crap is awful. And considering those bars are all still packed, it doesn't seem to stop anyone from going out (if anything, they pick up business because all the nonsmokers start going back out to bars again instead of going other places). If I go to a bar for one beer, or am the DD for the night and just have soft drinks, and the person next to me would rather do shots all night, I'm not going to be forced to consume some portion of the alcohol he's consuming just by sitting next to him. It doesn't work that way with cigarettes. You're subjected to all the smoke in the air from every chain smoker in the place, even if you're a non-smoker, or a very light smoker.

That said, since bars are adult establishments (referring to any place that doesn't have a kitchen as a bar), and those of us who don't smoke can still choose not to enter one, I don't have a huge problem if they licensed them separately for smoking (with better ventillation systems) or as "cigar bars" type things. Given the choice between a smoking and non-smoking bar, I'd choose the non-smoking one, and I know a lot of other people who would too. In places that don't have smoking bans, I don't know why some bar owners haven't realized they could get a competitive advantage if they prohibited smoking and publicized that. Even when I did go out to bars in the pre-smoking ban days, we'd choose ones that had the best ventillation so you didn't smell it too much (there was one that attracted a lot of non-smokers for that reason...they had very high ceilings, and good air circulation that even if someone in the place was smoking, you hardly even noticed).

 

[Moonbear]

I think part of going to a bar is to be around the people drinking/smoking. Its a place to unwind. One time I was at a club and I came home smelling like I smoked an entire carton.

What does coming home with the stench of cigarettes all over you have to do with unwinding? You make it sound like you think that's a good thing. If I go to a club, I want to dance, and that's hard to do if you're choking and gasping for air. End result, I gave up going out to clubs because I couldn't stand the stench.

 

[hypatia]

Several non-smokeing night clubs tried to open here, they just didn't last. But one has a sectioned off{by glass} area for smokers. With smoke-eater machines, it works very well.

 

[Cyrus]

I think historically bars have been a place where people drink and smoke. To say people can't do that anymore goes against what a bar is.

 

[Evo]

It depends where you live, the percentage of people smoking in Kansas has dropped to 17.8%. Seeing people smoking has become odd. No smoking is allowed in bars and the bars are packed. There are some private bars that allow smoking for those that still smoke. But they aren't nice bars, they mainly cater to blue collar workers. I'm not aware of any upscale bars that allow smoking.

But I don't go out to bars anymore unless it's a forced afterwork deal.

 

[Ki Man]

I live in Southern California and thers a public places ban on smoking. Since elementary I've been drilled to tell people around me smoking is bad (you can thank the DARE program for that) so I find it hard to see why people would smoke to begin with.

I think a smoking ban is reasonable at: schools, public institutions (i.e. a library or a museum), restaurants, and major theme parks like disneyland that will attract kids.

Basically anywhere kids will be, they shouldn't allow smoking.

Places like bars maybe a bit more lenient but that doesn't mean a wall of smoke should descend upon the sidewalk every time someone opens the door.

In households with smokers that contain young children they should monitor how much they smoke or something to that effect.

 

[Ki Man]

What does coming home with the stench of cigarettes all over you have to do with unwinding? You make it sound like you think that's a good thing. If I go to a club, I want to dance, and that's hard to do if you're choking and gasping for air. End result, I gave up going out to clubs because I couldn't stand the stench.

I would imagine it would be hard to relax if you can't breath...

 

[Moonbear]

In households with smokers that contain young children they should monitor how much they smoke or something to that effect.

I know someone who is studying sleep disorders in children, and found that kids who are exposed to second-hand smoke more frequently wake up from their own snoring (I have to remember some time to ask if there's anything different about their snoring, such as louder, than in kids in smoke-free homes, or if this is a difference in sensitivity to the snoring or just that they generally wake up easier from disturbances), and this is also correlated to slower mental development.

Montgomery-Downs HE, Gozal D. Snore-associated sleep fragmentation in infancy: mental development effects and contribution of secondhand cigarette smoke exposure. Pediatrics. 2006 Mar;117(3):e496-502.
Right now, it's a correlation, but she's working on determining more definitively if it's the disruption of sleep, the amount of second-hand smoke exposure, or some other factor that's affecting development.

 

[Cyrus]

I know someone who is studying sleep disorders in children, and found that kids who are exposed to second-hand smoke more frequently wake up from their own snoring (I have to remember some time to ask if there's anything different about their snoring, such as louder, than in kids in smoke-free homes, or if this is a difference in sensitivity to the snoring or just that they generally wake up easier from disturbances), and this is also correlated to slower mental development.

Montgomery-Downs HE, Gozal D. Snore-associated sleep fragmentation in infancy: mental development effects and contribution of secondhand cigarette smoke exposure. Pediatrics. 2006 Mar;117(3):e496-502.
Right now, it's a correlation, but she's working on determining more definitively if it's the disruption of sleep, the amount of second-hand smoke exposure, or some other factor that's affecting development.

This is all true, but bars are not places for children. Besides, unless you live in the bar, your not going to get lung cancer from second hand smoke by going to a bar once a month. Most of them have people smoking, but you don't notice it (at least I dont).

 

[Moonbear]

This is all true, but bars are not places for children. Besides, unless you live in the bar, your not going to get lung cancer from second hand smoke by going to a bar once a month. Most of them have people smoking, but you don't notice it (at least I dont).

Did I mention bars in that post? This thread isn't only about children or bars, but smoking bans anywhere. I was responding to a comment about smoking around children in the home. However, I've seen some of her more recent data that suggests it's not just smoking in the presence of the kids that have this effect, but just having a parent who is a smoker living with them, even if the parent goes outside to smoke (i.e., they carry enough nicotine in on their clothing/skin/hair to expose the kids even if they don't smoke in their presence). If that's enough of an effect, then carrying that second-hand smoke on a non-smoker's clothing would likely have the same effect.

Smoke exposure effects on lung cancer ARE cumulative though, so I believe you are wrong in assuming that once a month is not enough to have a substantial risk of lung cancer. That's a lot of exposure on a regular basis.

 

[Cyrus]

Bars aside, smoking should be banned in any public place. This is not true in Europe. Its fun waiting for your airplane in the airport and people are smoking all around you.

Smoke exposure effects on lung cancer ARE cumulative though, so I believe you are wrong in assuming that once a month is not enough to have a substantial risk of lung cancer.

It is? At most, you are around people smoking for one or two hours. Thats not a long time. I guess I am willing to take that risk though.

 

[scorpa]

I *think* there have been studies that have proved second hand smoke can cause cancer, over a long period of exposure. Of course this scenario is more geared to a non-smoking waitress or bartender in a bar/club that is exposed to second hand smoke all day/night while they are working...so more long term than going for a couple hours once a month. Either way I was thrilled when it was banned in all public places including bars where I am...I am not a fan of breathing that crap in or coming home smelling like an ashtray.

 

[George Jones]

Many people in this thread have looked at smoking in bars from a patron's point of view. What about someone who works at a bar? Here in Canada, one often hears that everyone has the right to work in a smoke-free environment, and this argument is used to help justify smoking bans in bars.

Some might argue that, like patronizing a bar, working in a bar is a choice, but I don't think things are so simple. Suppose the only job opportunity someone on the dole finds is at a bar. Should they get off the dole by taking the job, thus exposing themselves to a smoky environment bar environment for eight hours a day, five or six days a week? Should they be forced to make this decision?

Radou, what about stores and malls? Is there a complete ban on smoking in these places in your country. When I lived moved from Ontario to Quebec eight years ago, I found that smoking in malls in Quebec was allowed. I think it was banned in malls in Quebec a year or two (only lived there 1 1/2 years) after this.

 

[whatta]

how about something like this for smokers? so that they would enjoy the smoke whilst all who hate it will be unaffected. that would solve the problem.

 

[J77]

I support bans in restaurants but not in pubs, bars and clubs.

Was in Belguim the other week, strange having to search for a bar in which you can have a ciggy after a meal.

Can't see them banning smoking here in the Netherlands. People smoke everywhere, even in shops and while working behind bars - plus it'd probably have a big effect on tourism w.r.t. coffeeshops etc.

 

[radou]

.. or set up designated places that are away from everyone else.

Which is too expensive, and actually incorporates itself into things that essentially have nothing to do with smoking! I mean, why would and architect, when 'planning' a building, have to think about smokers and their stupid little rooms/areas?

So, the former option is more reasonable.

With smoke-eater machines, it works very well.

Huh? I'd like to see what these look like.

It depends where you live, the percentage of people smoking in Kansas has dropped to 17.8%.

Wow.

Did I mention bars in that post? This thread isn't only about children or bars, but smoking bans anywhere. I was responding to a comment about smoking around children in the home. However, I've seen some of her more recent data that suggests it's not just smoking in the presence of the kids that have this effect, but just having a parent who is a smoker living with them, even if the parent goes outside to smoke (i.e., they carry enough nicotine in on their clothing/skin/hair to expose the kids even if they don't smoke in their presence). If that's enough of an effect, then carrying that second-hand smoke on a non-smoker's clothing would likely have the same effect.

Well, about the issue of smoke exposure in the context of the parent/kid relation, there is one interesting thing that I noticed, i.e. most of the smokers I know actually are children of parents non-smokers, while there is a big number of non-smokers I know whose parents are smokers! I find this interesting. Btw, that's one benefit of having somking parents, after all.

Radou, what about stores and malls? Is there a complete ban on smoking in these places in your country. When I lived moved from Ontario to Quebec eight years ago, I found that smoking in malls in Quebec was allowed. I think it was banned in malls in Quebec a year or two (only lived there 1 1/2 years) after this.

No, there is no ban of smoking in malls, although no one actually smokes much there, since there are bars in malls, so people mostly smoke in these bars, and not when moving around the mall, as far as I've noticed. As for stores, you can't smoke in stores, of course.

Can't see them banning smoking here in the Netherlands. People smoke everywhere, even in shops and while working behind bars - plus it'd probably have a big effect on tourism w.r.t. coffeeshops etc.

Depends on what kind of smoking they ban.

 

[vanesch]

Well, as the title suggests, I'm interested if the ban of smoking rigorously arises in any form in your country, wherever you're from.

Here in France, last month a law was passed which strictly forbids smoking in confined places open to the public (like shops), and at (even private) work places (that is, you can sue your boss if he doesn't forbid co-workers to smoke and fails to enforce that). Bars and restaurants got a delay of 1 year, so it is still allowed to smoke there if it is in a specific place, with ventilation and all that in such a way that it doesn't hinder non-smokers (this was already in place since a few years). Next year, smoking will be totally banned from bars and restaurants too.

You're essentially allowed to smoke on the street, and in your own home or car. That's about it.

 

[russ_watters]

Some might argue that, like patronizing a bar, working in a bar is a choice, but I don't think things are so simple.

In the US (and I suspect in Canada as well), there are specific health regulations that employers must follow. These regulations arose during the sweat-shop era of the early industrial age, but the same logic still applies.

Choice is not a factor because supply and demand alone will not create a healthy working environment.

I'd be curious about the actual air quality in a crowded, smoky bar - I'd be surprised if they actually met the health/building codes.

 

[russ_watters]

Which is too expensive, and actually incorporates itself into things that essentially have nothing to do with smoking! I mean, why would and architect, when 'planning' a building, have to think about smokers and their stupid little rooms/areas?

There are all sorts of things an architect has to take into account when designing a building. There are specific regulations on the number, size, and location of bathrooms, for example - this could be something that would go next to the bathrooms in every building.

I'm not saying I think it's a good idea, but it certainly wouldn't be a big deal.

 

[radou]

There are all sorts of things an architect has to take into account when designing a building. There are specific regulations on the number, size, and location of bathrooms, for example - this could be something that would go next to the bathrooms in every building.

I'm not saying I think it's a good idea, but it certainly wouldn't be a big deal.

I know, I get your point, but the fact is that number, size and location of bathrooms, for example, are normal and necessary things, unlike the ones related to smoking.

Perhaps I didn't give a good example, but my point is that the issue about 'rights' (as mentioned in a post before, I think Kurdt's) has to stop somewhere when talking about smoking. If someone wants to smoke, he can do that in his home or on the street, I think that's fair enough.

Also, in my previous posts I forgot to mention another benefit of rigorous smoking bans: the number of smokers will definitely be reduced, I'm sure about that.