h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Firstly, I am a non-smoker

Now the rant:

What right has any authority to restrict the legitimate trade of existing businesses? As has been proven in NYC, the effects of a blanket ban on smaking on certain businesses can be disastrous. In a nation which prides itself on its trade this is a disastrous practice.

What I think can be done is that any new business that opens up (I'm thinking bars/cafés etc) should be non-smoking. That way, people know when they set up a business the restrictions/limitations imposed upon them. But to say to businesses you have to stop smokers lighting up is wrong.

I hear whinings about choice - people have a right to sit in a pub without smoke. But the landlord also has the right to say whether his pub is a smoking establishment or not. If you can't take the smoke stay out of the bar.

What about barmen? Smae thing really. If you're worried about smoke, find a job in a place that already has a no-smoking policy or another job. After all if the business you work in is suffering because there is a smoking ban, you may well have to look for another job anyway.

Hear, Hear.

The last time I was in Austin, Texas they were about to pass similiar legislation to outlaw smoking citywide. Anyone who's ever been to Austin will know that it has more bars and clubs per city block than almost anywhere else I know of. People drive across this state to Austin JUST to go hang out in the bars, drink, smoke and listen to some DAMN good music. This new ban will keep some (not all, nor even most) of these 'commuters' out of the city. A lot of the bars were very worried about this pending (now enacted I'm sure) legislation.
I am no fan of any legislation that tells me what choices I can or cannot make. I'm currently quitting smoking anyway, but for my own reasons, not because Big Gub'mint said so. If they want to enact some legislation to discourage smoking then try this: Give non-smoking establishments a break on their licenses. I have no problem with any establishment that bans smoking as their choice, but I do not like establishments being FORCED to make that choice.


Count Zero (Don't pick on us smokers, we're a dying breed).

First off, I am a non-smoker and I have never smoked. I even had a rule about not dating smokers (but now what I'm married the rule has changed to not dating anyone that I'm not married to). That was my choice. It was how I avoided being surrounded by smoke, along with avoiding smokey bars.

First of all I'm tired of seeing cigarette butts everywhere. I'm tired of driving down the road and the idiot next to me bounces a butt off my freshly waxed vehicle because he/she wasn't paying attention. If you want to smoke, dispose of your trash properly. That's more of a common courtesy than an enforceable law though.

I think that smoking should be banned in public places (public places being defined as areas maintained by government funds such as public sidewalks, public parks, and government buildings). I do not feel that the government has the right to ban smoking in private businesses though. I'm glad that restaurants don't have smoking anymore around here, but I'm infuriated that its because the government told them they couldn't have smoking. Before the restaurant ban was started, I simply did not go to restaurants that allowed smoking. It was up to each and every business owner to decide if smoking was allowed, and that's how it should be. You want to smoke, then avoid restaurants that don't allow it and vice versa.

The car pollution analogy is a bit tiring. Its not a valid comparison. Until vehicles that are powered by some type of non-polluting power source are available at a reasonable cost, then the majority of people require some type of polluting transportation to get to work. Quick example, I live 30 miles (roughly) from work. I could not afford to live closer because I work in a medium sized, but expensive, city and there are no buses that travel between my work and my home. Beside, there are regulations in most areas that limit the amount of pollution that is released by an automobile. There are no such restrictions on cigarettes.

Then there's the alcohol analogy. Most areas have laws that ban drinking in public! Not to mention that people who do drink in public (assuming they don't drive after drinking or start fights, both of which have there own set of laws in most areas) aren't harming those around them. Being near a drunk doesn't increase your chances of getting drunk, but being near a smoker does increase your chances for cancer.

Thanks for reading this long post.

Good idea, Count Zero, a tax benefit for non-smoking establishments. I like it.

That is a good idea...

BTW, if you want to register yur opinion, then here is the main page. Even if you don't live in London, you can register your voice:

http://www.thebigsmokedebate.com/

If I could smoke at my desk while I'm at work I would never leave the office!