wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Smoked out Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Smoked out" Watch "Smoked out" New topic
Author

Smoked out

Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
After the vote yesterday, it looks as if England will be smoke free in restaurants and pubs by next summer. The rest of the UK will most likely implement similar bans as well.

I can't wait, its really annoying coming home from the pub and stinking of smoke. It'll be nice to be able to go for a drink in my favourite pub without inhaling a load of carcinogenic fumes! A recent survey in the UK found that the majority of smokers want to quit, so hopefully this will be a step in the right direction.

This kind of ban is already in place in New York, Ireland, Sweden and several other places. For those that live there, have you noticed an improvement? Does it make going into a restaurant or pub better?

Perhaps you don't agree with a ban. Are there smokers out their who resent the idea of not being able to smoke in a pub or restaurant?


There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman. - Tony Banks
Vinny Menon
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 10, 2006
Posts: 62

Hey Dave
now that is a great news...

cheers
vinny m


Regards,Vinny M.
proud Fan of European Champion CHELSEA FC
"If you don't see the bug where you're looking, perhaps you're looking in the wrong place" -James Gosling
Gail Mikels
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 07, 2001
Posts: 634
We've had the ban in San Diego for quite some time now. It's TOTALLY better. I think it's funny now, when we travel out of the county & walk into a restaurant & smell all the smoke from the "smoking section".

Yes - it's definitely a good thing!!!


Gail Mikels
Angela Poynton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 02, 2000
Posts: 3143
I think the Smoking Culture is a bit different over here though. I know for many the idea of going down to the pub for a pint will not have the same attractiveness it once had if a person can't smoke.

I gave up last year and it was the best thing I ever did but I know other people have found it very hard and do see giving up as a sacrifice.


Pounding at a thick stone wall won't move it, sometimes, you need to step back to see the way around.
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
It's been banned in NYC for over two years now. A GREAT change. I used to smoke to, so I do understand smoking and smokers. My observation is that even the smokers agree with it. A small step outside for a second is not so bad, plus it makes for a great way to talk guy-talk when you're out with the babes.


"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Well, I hate to spoil the party, but here is the future. In a few years from now, somebody will say, "Why am I surrounded by all those drunk people when I am in a pub?". The government will listen and the drinking ban will be instituted in all pubs. You'll be surprised to see how many people would welcome the ban.

I think the real sensible thing to do is to leave the decision of "smoking" or "no smoking" up to the pub owners.

It is sometimes said that the goodness of a government is measured by how well it protects the minority, and not by how well it serves the majority. Over 200 years ago, one of the American founding fathers said, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for". It is unfortunate that some forms of that elective despotism (or the excesses of democracy, if you prefer) in the U.S. have been gaining strength ever since.
[ February 15, 2006: Message edited by: John Smith ]
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
John Smith, they tried that in this country and it failed miserably!! Don't worry about it. It sounds like a bit of a fallacy. They're banning smoking cause second-hand smoke kills. Nobody every got a bad liver from someone else's drinking... Besides DWI alone, is enough reason for someone to want to ban drinking, - forget about anti-smoking laws.
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1385
I don't like smoke; that's _one_ of the reasons I don't hang out in bars. But I see one big disadvantage, which people probably won't notice right away:

Many movies made during my childhood featured people smoking in bars; I fear that these changes will result in those movies seeming old and weird to future generations. I mean, I expect them to feel that way about movies made before I was born -- those movies _are_ old. But a movie cannot be old if I can remember its release.
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 624
Smoking in all indoor public places (and within 10m of any public doorway) has recently been banned here in QLD (Australia).

Bars are now much more confortable places to go and I think you'd struggle to find anyone who doesnt support the legislation (bar owners now seem to concede that the ban has NOT resulted in a downturn in their business - For every smoker who now refuses to go out to the pub, I'm sure theres a non-smoker who will stay in the pub now who previously would have left because of the smoke!)

I think its great that England can do this - it means next time I take my wife home to the UK we can sit in pubs for hours without her moaning about the smoke the whole time!
Jayesh Lalwani
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Posts: 502
Originally posted by John Dunn:
John Smith, they tried that in this country and it failed miserably!! Don't worry about it. It sounds like a bit of a fallacy. They're banning smoking cause second-hand smoke kills. Nobody every got a bad liver from someone else's drinking... Besides DWI alone, is enough reason for someone to want to ban drinking, - forget about anti-smoking laws.


Actually, the 1993 EPA study that proved a link between second-hand smoke and cancer was shown to be faulty, and the results were thrown out. A 1998 WHO study found "weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace Environmental Tobacco Smoke"

As of now, we can't say that second-hand smoke kills. We can say that we don't know whether second-hand smoking kills. Places like NY and other states in US (and I beleive Ireland too) are banning smoking in public places because second-hand smoke might cause cancer, not because second-hand smoke does cause cancer.
Paul Clapham
Bartender

Joined: Oct 14, 2005
Posts: 18541
    
    8

I think the real sensible thing to do is to leave the decision of "smoking" or "no smoking" up to the pub owners.
Which was the status quo. What was the percentage of non-smoking pubs? Was it as high as 0.1 percent?

That sounds like the economist whose book I read. (Can't remember his name.) He said that you don't need to ban smoking in restaurants, just leave it to the market and some restaurant owners will do it on their own to attract non-smoking customers. Obviously he couldn't be bothered to pull his head out of his, um, office and notice that the experiment had already been done and his hypothesis had been thoroughly falsified.

They banned smoking in restaurants and pubs where I live too. But not out of any concern for the customers. It was strictly for the protection of the people working there. About 50% of my income comes from the sale of cigarettes but I'm not at all opposed to bans like this.
marc weber
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 11343

Originally posted by Jayesh Lalwani:
... Actually, the 1993 EPA study that proved a link between second-hand smoke and cancer was shown to be faulty, and the results were thrown out...

By whom?

(See EPA response.)


"We're kind of on the level of crossword puzzle writers... And no one ever goes to them and gives them an award." ~Joe Strummer
sscce.org
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by John Smith:
I think the real sensible thing to do is to leave the decision of "smoking" or "no smoking" up to the pub owners.


I second it.

Let pub owners decide what would give more business to them, after it is Govt which is making money out of ciggerette.

For me, I go to pub to relax and have 2-3 ciggerette with a mug of beer.

If Govt is that much concerned about health of public then why not it simply ban the cigerette ?


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Just to throw more confusion into the effects of the second hand smoking, here is one unexpected result of a well conducted World Health Organization's study:

Children of smokers are 22% less likely to get lung cancer than the children of non-smokers. So, if you are a nonsmoker and care about your child health, you may want to bring him/her to a good old-fashioned bar to get some exposure to the smoke.
[ February 16, 2006: Message edited by: John Smith ]
Stefan Evans
Bartender

Joined: Jul 06, 2005
Posts: 1016
One issue that comes up with a smoking ban.
With the lack of smoking in bars, other smells previously masked by cigarette smoke have come to the fore.

It seems that body odour and flatulence are becoming issues ;-)
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Originally posted by R K Singh:
I second it.

Let pub owners decide what would give more business to them

This idea has been put forward in the past, and has been proven not to work. There are a lot of people out there who would like a smoke free pub, so standard theories of market forces would imply that there would be smoke free pubs. There are also people out there who don't want to work in smokey pubs, so again market forces would imply non-smoking pubs.

The thing is that market forces don't always work. There are often social peer pressure to go to pubs even if you don't like the smoke.

Another factor (in the UK at least) is that many pubs are owned by large "chain" companies. These companies can offer much cheaper products through economies of scale, so smaller independent pubs struggle to compete with them. This means that many smaller pubs would not want to risk banning smoking until the larger pubs do as well. While it may work for them, the risk is too big. The larger chains could afford to experiment with banning smoking in some of their pubs, but don't want to because they may alienate current customers.

The other half of the issue is to do with people working in pubs and restaurants. In theory they could all say that they don't want to work in a smokey environment, and there would be pressure upon employers to ban smoking. In reality it doesn't happen. People who work in pubs and restaurants are often at the lower end of the pay scales, and because of this are often more desperate to find work then a richer person. They may often feel that they can't afford to turn down a job opportunity because of not liking the smoke.

Another problem is that a large number of people simply do not understand or have not accepted that smoking is dangerous. For every dozen studies showing that first and second hand smoking is bad, one dodgy report comes out saying its not so bad and addicts eagerly jump to accept it. Even despite these reports, there's a large number of people who either don't understand or don't want to understand the evidence that smoking is bad.

So what? Some may say that its up to them if they want to kill themselves. Its not that simple though. Sick people are a burden on society both functionally and financially, so we should help to encourage them to stop. Additionally there is a large group of smokers who are addicts, but want to quit. Encouraging an environment which helps them quit has got to be a good thing.


, after it is Govt which is making money out of ciggerette.

It'd be interesting to see if the money lost in tobacco tax is saved or not in reduced health care costs. I suspect not.
If Govt is that much concerned about health of public then why not it simply ban the cigerette ?
I wish it would, smoking seems to me to be one of the most pointless activities known to man. Obviously the problem isn't that its pointless (otherwise most sports would also fall into the same category), but that it causes a large number of problems in society. In the UK more then 100,000 people die every year from smoking related diseases. That's a completely avoidable tragedy happening every year. Unfortunately there's a large number of people who smoke and vote, and no government wants to annoy them too much. I'm surprised that the UK is getting a ban at all, even just a partial one!
[ February 17, 2006: Message edited by: Dave Lenton ]
Paul Sturrock
Bartender

Joined: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 10336

Speaking as an ex-smoker, the single hardest part of giving up smoking was my first foray into a pub after stopping. There is so much presure to have a cigarrette: some alcohol plus everyone else doing it is very hard to resist when you are already fighting your own cravings. The smoking-based culture of Scottish pubs was pretty instrumental in me starting in the first place. I had several abortive attempts to give up till I finally managed. When I did, I basically avoided pubs entirely for four months. There was no other way I'd have managed.

I whole-heartedly applaud the outright ban. I can't see any justification for smoking in the presence of non-smokers. Its just not fair on them.


JavaRanch FAQ HowToAskQuestionsOnJavaRanch
Vishnu Prakash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 15, 2004
Posts: 1026

Originally posted by Paul Sturrock
I whole-heartedly applaud the outright ban. I can't see any justification for smoking in the presence of non-smokers. Its just not fair on them.


Well said.


Servlet Spec 2.4/ Jsp Spec 2.0/ JSTL Spec 1.1 - JSTL Tag Documentation
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Smoked out
 
Similar Threads
Smokers ranchers
City-wide smoking ban
right to be good
smoking
Ireland bans smoking in pubs