Cigar Bans

[oak]

I'm having a conversation on another board, and thought I would post some of it here and see if y'all had any opinions...

Basically, we were talking about the upcoming ban on smoking in Ireland public places (including all pubs) that is about to really launch. I've just posed the following question to the group, and was wondering what people here think:

Seriously though, we'll see how this goes for the next six months... if it is enforced even at all (there is a stiff fine) - then the culture will change dramatically over there... and the rest of Europe is watching...

Based on this and similar legislation in the states: In 20 years, we'll smoke outside (at our homes only - not outside in public areas), in our homes, or at specialized cigar bars and shops. This seems predictable to me - and could take much less time than 20 years.

However, along with this change - it is also pretty predictable that the instances of lung cancer in waiters, waitresses, and bartenders will likely go down and overall, the percentage of people that smoke in general will likely go way down. And yes - 3 per week cigar smokers will suffer along with 2-pack a day cigarette smokers.

Here's my probing question of the day: Does anyone on the board think this is an OK trade? Is anyone here a closet-supporter of the various smoking regulations and doesn't mind the loss in freedom and personal rights?

Cheers,

- Oak

 

[Fast4Dr]

I am against it!!! It is discrimination!!!!

 

[vewyphishy]

What exactly constitutes "high level opinions?"

Nevertheless, here's mine. Personally, I don't mind the smoking ban. Sure, it makes it a little more inconvenient to smoke when and where I want, but thats a sacrifice I make for choosing this habit. I remember thinking to myself how ironic it was that when smoking was openly prominent, I didn't smoke. Now that its openly restricted, I find myself in the midst of my new hobby/habbit.

When it comes down to the issue of health, if I choose to harm myself, I don't expect people around me to be forced to harm themselves as well. That's why we have protective laws against driving while impaired (and the like).

Now, here's a counterpoint. I do not agree with a blanket smoking ban that is applicable in 100% of establishments. So long as their as designated places that retain the right to smoke, then I'm good with that, even if it only means a fraction of what we were accustomed to. The patrons and employees of these set establishments know what they're getting themselves into.

In terms of personal rights... whereas we are concerned with our right to smoke, what about non-smokers' right not to be exposed to this? Keep in mind that non-smokers also include children. I know that I don't want my child exposed to this stuff unnecessarily. With that said, that also means I'm personally restricting my right to smoke when I have a child to respect his or her potential future health.

Having been a non-smoker for most of my life, I remember the disgust I had for people who were smoking in the areas around me. Many times, an enjoyable outing turned rather sour because of the smokers nearby. We all have the right to go out and enjoy ourselves, both smokers and non-smokers alike. If me having a cigar will cause someone else to have a bad experience, then I'm more than willing to put off the smoke until later when I can do it among peers (ie: sports bar, cigar shop), or at the very least... in a place of solitude (ie: at home) where no one else can be disturbed by it.

Times like this, I wish I were more eloquent. ???

[added]
I agree with Matt's post below as well. Especially the point regarding cigarettes vs. pipe/cigars. And the California thing... that's stupid.

 

[Matt R]

Personally, at places where they serve food, I have no problem with the no-smoking policies. For bars, clubs, etc. I find it to be a bit "stupid", for a lack of better wording.

I don't think you can classify it as discrimination, as it has to go both ways. If you are discriminating against smokers by banning smoking than it goes to the argument that if you allow smoking, it discriminates against those who choose not to smoke. With this we are talking about public places with no "real" seperation between the smoking locations and non-smoking locations. And, "real" seperation is not a half wall between two booths.

The only problem concerning smoking bans I have is when a place allows cigarette smoking, but will hinder a person from smoking a pipe or a cigar. Either allow all smoking or none at all.

Whether smokers want to acknowledge it or not, smoking is not healthy. This includes second hand smoke in confined places.

I'd agree that there needs to be some middle ground and that the smoking bans sometimes go to far. The proposed ban on smoking at beaches in California being one of the times that it is going to far.

 

[AVB]

I don't mind the regulations for places where you don't have a choice to be there or not, i.e. public areas. If you go to the ball game you can't control what the guy next to you will do.

However, for Bars, Pubs, Restaurants etc it is there choice to be smoking or not. If it is a smoking bar and you want to work there, that is up to you and not the government. The same for going to an establishment. If it is a smoking Pub it is your choice to go in or not.

Government should not take the place of common sense nor should it try to be parents to us all. JMHO

 

[thejollyco]

not in ireland....

awwwww...



i agree that there should be designated places, instead of just banning it outright.
crazy.

 

[PuroBrat]

All I have to say on the subject is this...

Proprieters of any establishment should be able to choose for themselves if they want a smoking environment, or a non-smoking one. If a Bar/Restaurant/Lounge owner decides to allow smoking, they should have to post a sign saying that it is a Smoking Establishment, so that Non-Smokers can decide if they wish to patronize said establishment. That way, we ALL get to decide for ourselves if we wish to live with smoke.

Regulations against smoking on private property, even if it is a Public Place, are just the sort of thing we speak of when we say "The Government that Governs Least, Governs Best"

As always, JMHO

 

[golfgar]

[Proprieters of any establishment should be able to choose for themselves if they want a smoking environment, or a non-smoking one. If a Bar/Restaurant/Lounge owner decides to allow smoking, they should have to post a sign saying that it is a Smoking Establishment, so that Non-Smokers can decide if they wish to patronize said establishment. That way, we ALL get to decide for ourselves if we wish to live with smoke.
QUOTE]

[/However, for Bars, Pubs, Restaurants etc it is there choice to be smoking or not. If it is a smoking bar and you want to work there, that is up to you and not the government. The same for going to an establishment. If it is a smoking Pub it is your choice to go in or not.
QUOTE]



I agree strongly with less government interference and letting the establishment choose and the patron know what they are in for. Let the market decide what they want.[/color]

 

[oak]

Ouch... OK - now that I've received 5 PMs telling me I'm a wussy for not posting my opinion up-front before asking for opinions... here's my take:

I support the smoking bans in any and all places that employ service people that are closed-in (anything with a ceiling).

Here's why, and possibly more importantly, why not:

1) I believe that second-hand smoking is bad for the people that work in bars. Non-smoking bartenders and wait-staff do die from lung cancer that appears to be caused by second-hand smoke. I believe that no one should have to change jobs because of safety or environment concerns. All places should reach a minimum standard in terms of safety and overall environment, whether a steel mill or a tavern. That means safe conditions and a professional environment (no harassment, etc).

2) I don't believe that second-hand smoke significantly effects other patrons. They have the right to move (to another bar or to the other side of the bar) and don't put in the same number of hours as the wait-staff (one would hope). The amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is related to your chances of taking on a tobacco-related illness (IMO).

3) I don't believe that we should agressively ban things that can be misused, but punish those that misuse them. I do believe in lightly regulating things that aren't good for you (cigarettes - by having an age minimum), regulating things that can be misused (alcohol, marijauna - which I think should have age minimums people who drive drunk should be punished), and outright banning things that are very difficult to use without misuse (such as crack, PCP, etc).

4) I don't think that it is appropriate for the government to attempt to change culture unless it is hitting fundamental issues. For example, slavery and equal rights were fundamental - no problem if the government implements laws there that we don't all agree with. It's there job to set the direction on big important things. Do cigarettes fall into this category... hell no, IMO...

5) I believe that good laws and regulations should cost less to enforce than the value they give.

What would I do if it were all up to me? I'd define a set of regulations that model out what "acceptable" ventilation is for health concerns. A beach would pass automatically, a bar might pass if it has high ceilings and a "good" (as defined by the regulations) ventilation system, etc. All bars, restaurants, etc - are all smoke-free unless the owners choose to conform to the air-flow regulations - at which time they can define part or all of the establishment to allow smoking.

The bartenders in the cigar bar I frequent (of whom several are not smokers) often comment that it is the most smoke-free place they've work... due to the high-end ventilation system. If the smoking bars need to charge more to make up the expense of putting in and maintaining the ventilation system, they can charge more... if smokers are willing to pay it - all is well.

The only problem I have with my own suggesion is: you might not be able to meet my 5th criteria by doing this. It might be impractical to enforce these "emissions" regulations (we'd need to expand the existing regulation agencies or create a whole new agency - on the order of magnitude with the Nevada gaming commission). We're also creating a whole new layer of management where none existed to date. Once that's taken into account, I probably prefer just outright bans.

The whole beach thing is silly. The real goal of this law is to outlaw smoking because it is unhealthy - not because anyone really believes that this is due to second-hand smoke or litter concerns (I think all that is just excuses and BS). This is the government attempting a social change, because they don't agree with my number 4. Do I disagree? Yes - I do. But with how many people die each day from tobacco related illness - the argument for saying it falls into the same category as crack and PCP isn't statistically all that crazy at all.

And lastly, anywhere that allows cigarettes... I feel free to smoke cigars. Stupid laws and policies should be fought at the social level... they have the right to throw me out - and I have the right to bitch and point out how hypocritical and stupid it is on the way (which has never happened... people normally comment how nice my cubans smell compared to the cigarettes...)

*whew*

- Oak

 

[lucasbuck]

My biggest problem is places that allow cigarettes but not cigars but I'm also against laws that ban smoking in bars and clubs. I've frequented clubs for many years before I started smoking. It was my choice to patronize these establishments. There are plenty of non-smoking clubs available for those that choose to avoid the smoke. That said I agree with most of the laws that protect people looking to avoid second hand smoke. I'm just afraid that very soon the only place I'll be able to smoke is in my garage where nobody can see me

 

[ShadMan]

I agree wholeheartedly with PuroBrat. The establishment should be able to choose. I don't have a problem banning smoking at a food service establishment. You go there to eat, not to hang out for three of four hours smoking. Clubs, bars, etc. are a whole different ballgame. These are social establishments whose sole purpose is for people to socialize and spend time in.

I don't smoke cigarettes, and don't appreciate it when someone at the next table in a restaurant does. On the other hand, I am considerate enough not to smoke a cigar in a restaurant as well. There is a time and a place, and IMHO, a restaurant is not the place, and while people are eating is not the time. Some people argue that they like to have a smoke AFTER dinner. Well, when you choose to smoke in a restaurant, you are forcing everyone else to have a smoke DURING dinner. I find it utterly inconsiderate.

On the third hand, if you choose to visit a bar or club, you are choosing to be in an establishment that is expectedly a smoking environment. It kinda goes with the territory. In fact, though not a cigarette smoker, I think the smoke in a bar somewhat adds to the environment. Until you walk out into the fresh air and take a good whiff of yourself!

Just MHO. But what do I know?

 

[benjiev]

Heres my thoughts for what its worth......

First and foremost, I would never force my hobby/habit on anyone. If anyone objects to my cigar smoke I would prefer to move and give them there space. Geez its only a cigar.

I do agree that it should be the right of the establishment to decide if they are smoke free or allow smoking not a blanket wide government sanction. People then have a choice. Treat us like thinking adults (and that may be hard for some) and allow us to make our own decisions instead of like cattle that need to be hearded. This would allow those workers (waitresses/waiters, bartenders etc. to work in the establishments of their own choosing. It just drives me nuts when I see these waitresses (or waiters for that matter...... wusses) cry how they have no options because the establishment that they work in allows smoking! Well then get the hell out of there and go find a job in a smoke free environment.

We are a market drivin economy let the market dictate what will survive and what will fail. All indications are that smoke free establishments will thrive ..... so be it. But don't force it down our throats!

Enough of the rambling....... ???

Oh and in Ireland prepare for fight the irish smoker will not let their exhalted pub go the way of non smoking without a major protest.

BenjieV

 

[oak]

Oh and in Ireland prepare for fight the irish smoker will not let their exhalted pub go the way of non smoking without a major protest.

I'm 1 generation away from the boat, and based on time spent with family - I can attest to that. The irish pub-smoker won't put up a fight... he/she will just laugh and ignore it... but god help the copper that has to enforce this law... it will be almost as difficult as taking away their whiskey or beer...

- Oak

 

[BACCHUS]

This thread is a call to arms.

VIVE LA REVOLUTION!

 

[nic]

Puro nailed it when he said:

Regulations against smoking on private property, even if it is a Public Place, are just the sort of thing we speak of when we say "The Government that Governs Least, Governs Best"

I tend to get a tad bit more emotional about it though, and say:

How dare the government tell private property owners what the can and can't do with thier private property so long as what they are doing isn't illegal. No body is forced to be a bartender - no one. Don't like working in dark, loud, smoke filled bars? Perhaps one should choose a different profession. Can anybody honestly say they didn't know working at a bar ment dealing with smoke?

Perhaps next we'll have a law past saying music performances are too loud and are causing excessive damage to the hearing of the staff.

 

[oak]

No body is forced to be a bartender - no one. Don't like working in dark, loud, smoke filled bars? Perhaps one should choose a different profession.

Forced to be? No - of course not. But I do think that many bartenders, and perhaps more relevantly - waitresses, waiters, and busboys - often can't pick and choose their jobs. I'm not saying this applies to all people working in bars, but in areas of high unemployment - it might be work somewhere smokey or don't work at all...

I do see the point though - and agree there has to be a line in terms of safety (you might draw yours at not allowing faulty machinery that chops off fingers periodically) - it's just I think that's the one line that should get drawn aggressively. What about waitresses that are working during their pregnancies (and don't say they just shouldn't work during the pregnancy or find another job pronto - as maternity leave is nonexistent or very short in many of these jobs - and changing jobs when pregnant in the service industry...? Forget about it)? Still have the same opinion...?

Viva la worker...

Also, just so I don't come off as being too far to one side (which I am not) - I do have mixed feelings on this issue and am playing devil's advocate a bit. I have worked as both a waiter and in a place where fingers went flying on a daily basis and, ironically, I never felt put-upon - but was just happy to be working. That's kind of one the points of the government though - they look out for those that need it, including those that don't know it or can't risk opening their mouth to complain. It was never supposed to be that they be our parents or dictators, but our champions and representatives...

Cheers,

- Oak

 

[Muley]

Inside establishments - Owners choice.

All other public places (private or otherwise) ban it in the presence of people who may take offense to it (and all children.) Including beaches.
(read: if you're alone or there are only known smokers around on the beach, in the park or wherever you are outside - go for it. If there's people around that you aren't sure whether they smoke or not (within, say, 50 feet) NOT ALLOWED.)

i.e. If you own a parking lot and it's adjacent to a bus stop, too bad - unless you can be at least a minimum distance (set by law) away from people waiting for the bus, you can't smoke there.

I love to smoke a pipe and cigars - but I hate walking into or through a cloud of smoke (inside or out) when it's not my own - I shouldn't have to choose not to go to a beach to avoid it. And even at fifty feet it still sucks!

Someone above said that the government shouldn't be able to regulate what you do unless the activity is illegal.
2 issues with that:
A. That's the definition of regulation - it regulates, you abide or it's illegal.
B. If you slowly add arsenic to a persons food so that over a period of a few years they finally die from the poison or develop a medical condition from the poison, you are guilty of a number of crimes. (It's happened several times in recent history) It may not be intentionally harming anyone, but by subjecting others to second-hand smoke, you do the same thing - endanger their lives. That should be illegal.

In a clearly marked establishment that is designed to cater to smokers, people have the option to avoid participation. Don't enter - the building contains the smoke, so it won't get out and do harm to passersby.

Out in the open, it is a violation of a persons rights to force them to alter their plans or lifestyle because of a choice I make. It is not a violation of my rights to tell me I can't endanger the lives of those around me with smoke.

Using "the right to smoke anywhere I want in the open" logic is akin to saying it's my right to drink alcohol and drive anywhere I want in public. The end result is the same, it just usually takes longer with second-hand smoke.

 

[vewyphishy]

Just wanted to say that this has been a great discussion thread. I've very happy to see that no one has openly attacked another for different views.

:thumbs: to all of you.

Btw, I agree with everyone's views on this issue. There are multiple sides to everything... this is no exception. PB made a great point about less government regulation. Each establishment should regulate itself and be accountable for their decisions. It's a shame our habit/hobby has a corollary effect of secondhand smoke. Because of that, regulations of any kind are sure to step on someone's toes. As I mentioned above in my first post, I acknowledge that... and I am willing to make sacrifices for the my fellow non-smoker.

 

[sibernation]

Ill warn you now. If you read this it will be full of spelling , punctuation, and other mistakes. It is also an opinion You know what that means :0
First of all. Constantly comparing ourselves to other countrys is rediculas.. Wether it be in education, smoking, medical, or what ever. ??? We have to constantly eveluate ourselves, but on our own merits,and we
eakness.
Asia has been ahead for yrs in education. But do you want the gov to dictate how many children you have (yes, I know this is not all of asia. But I dont have time to pick out each thing,sorry). But do you want that type of pressures on you? ??? Esp since this may dictate how many children you have, or how much time you spend with them. And despite building cost, is there a reason that most inventions come from here and are only made cheaper elsewhere? ???

Oak, is definitly more knowledgeable than I in this area. So I am asking. In Ireland, smoking, drinking , are more of a communal activity. Are these laws being imposed in both north and south? Who is imposing them? And is this part of the brits plan to stop folks from large public meetings?

I realize that this may sound bad. Or maybe what I have heard has just set the preconcived notions , and everyone has knowledge and understands what I mean ???

 

[oak]

First of all. Constantly comparing ourselves to other countrys is rediculas.. Wether it be in education, smoking, medical, or what ever. ??? We have to constantly eveluate ourselves, but on our own merits,and weakness.

Very valid statement... direct comparisons are probably a bad move, especially if you get too detailed - but I think a high-level comparison shows trends - especially as the world becomes "smaller" and when comparing two similar countries (Ireland to the US isn't near as big a stretch anymore as we might think).

Oak, is definitly more knowledgeable than I in this area. So I am asking. In Ireland, smoking, drinking , are more of a communal activity. Are these laws being imposed in both north and south? Who is imposing them? And is this part of the brits plan to stop folks from large public meetings?

I wouldn't bet on me being more knowledgable than anyone else in this area. Actually - I'm a total newbie on this issue - and pretty much ignorant of current events as a rule... I was just wondering what folks thought on this. My opinion is still pretty weak (I'm still on the fence - and my opinion will probably change by the time the thread has run its course).

However, as I understand it, this started in the south - and was largely driven by various cancer and health-related nonprofits in combination with the Irish Minister of Health (Micheál Martin). In fact, I have read that this may actually not get accepted by the north (though I'm not sure if this is up-to-date - I've been reading the articles in a random order), which I find somehow ironic. I really have no idea of the real politics behind this - I'm much too far removed to really understand who the drivers are (and don't know if there is really a central point of pressure on this issue or not). Here's a couple links for you:

March, 2003 Article from CNN

February, 2004 Article from CNN

Article from Today's Irish Times

Official Dept. of Health Site

and here's the kicker:

Article from ABC Oz... quote from the Minister of Health... alcohol is next...

Hell of a thing. I didn't notice his proclamation on "making alcohol next" until today... Here's one last thing of note - a quote from another Irish official:

Last August his Cabinet colleague, Mr Martin Cullen, publicly criticised the ban while Mr Martin was on holiday, saying: "I hate the importation of this American political correctness into Ireland."

:lookup:

Pardon my language... but Jesus, Mary, and Joseph... WTF?

- Oak