The growing trend of smoking bans

Casey Palmer5 said:Do you honestly think a fine like that covers the cost of lifelong medical treatment and rehabilitation? You have people who use their drinking to mask their own misery, only to end up ruining the lives of everyone around them. That kind of fallout costs society far more than lung cancer ever will.

That’s exactly right, but it’s strictly prohibited. Those who go around doing it are breaking the law. bluewolf4 keeps trying to pivot back to smoking, arguing that we should implement the exact same kind of ban there... once again, making comparisons that have absolutely no basis in reality. But since he lacks any actual arguments to support his side, I suppose anything goes. 🙄

Look, I’m all for the idea that people with unhealthy lifestyles should pay higher premiums for health insurance, but how on earth are we supposed to actually prove it? What’s the metric? A nicotine test? Weighing them? Or maybe just checking their driving record to see how many speeding tickets they've racked up...

Honestly, anything would be better than our current healthcare system where your coverage is determined by a percentage of your salary. It’s so frustrating—you work hard to earn a decent paycheck, only to have a massive chunk of it sucked away for insurance, and then you finally go to the doctor only to realize you've basically been paying for a piece of paper... because if you want any actual quality care, you still end up having to pay out of pocket for a private specialist anyway.

If you intend to enroll in a private health insurance plan, be aware that they will likely administer a nicotine screening as part of their process. They will analyze your bloodwork to uncover just about everything they're looking for—so, wouldn't it be wiser to simply tell the truth?

In the US, you basically need a pretty hefty annual salary if you want to afford private healthcare on your own (I can't recall the exact number right now, but I remember it being quite high).

And that’s not even counting any extra private insurance coverage...

Douglas Phillips4 said:Driving drunk is illegal. Period. 🙂
People who break the rules pay the fines. Cops pull them over. You're rambling again.

Caca is back at it again with that nonsense.
If it’s illegal, why am I still footing the bill through my taxes?
You honestly think they’re going to discharge someone from the hospital just because they broke the law? Please.
The money for these surgeries is going to come out of our pockets again. So, when people ask me why I’m paying taxes to cover lung treatments, I have every right to ask why I’m footing the bill for anyone else's medical needs at all.

Don't bring my mother into this 🙂

Of course you're talking nonsense! When someone gets drunk and causes a wreck, they pay a fine because they broke the law; insurance covers the damages, there are lawsuits, court dates, and so on—basically, they are held accountable for their mess. But what do I get if I somehow profit from passive smoking? What recourse do I have if the smoke bothers me and my right to basic clean air isn't respected? What does a waiter get for health issues clearly linked to working in a smoky room? Or what happens to a smoker if they decide to light up wherever they please? Absolutely nothing 😢
I actually hope they implement a ban 🙂

The True Price Tag of Smoking and Healthcare:

As of 2002, smoking imposes an annual cost of $157.4 billion on Americans. On an individual level, that breaks down to roughly $3,391 per person. Every single pack contributes to rising medical expenses, drives down workplace productivity, and fuels inflation. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the total economic impact per pack sits at approximately $7.18.

Looking at the same CDC data, the losses tied to alcoholism—including mortality, lost productivity, and treatment costs resulting from car accidents—total about $2.5 billion. To put that in perspective, that is barely 2% of the economic damage caused by smoking.

It seems those comparisons smokers cling to as a lifeline to justify their habit don't quite hold much water, do they?

At the end of the day, driving under the influence is strictly illegal, and you face prison time if you cause a fatality. Smoking, however, remains a socially accepted behavior, often even encouraged by one's surroundings, despite causing significantly more widespread harm. If you compare the statistics regarding alcohol-related accidents to the victims of secondhand smoke, the disparity is clear. The main difference is that "killing" via secondhand smoke isn't a criminal offense, whereas it certainly is for a drunk driver.

Casey Palmer5 said:I agree that staff in those types of establishments are exposed to secondhand smoke, but it isn’t any worse than people working in heavy industry with various toxic substances, or even my own situation where I'm exposed to intense non-ionizing radiation at work. At the end of the day, everyone chooses their own career path based on what they need.

Look, why compare secondhand smoke exposure to industrial labor? In every sector, without exception, there have to be baseline OSHA standards for workplace safety. That applies to manufacturing, and it should apply to the service industry just as much. No factory or plant can operate if they don't meet the minimum safety requirements necessary to protect their employees. Ignoring those basic standards carries heavy penalties and fines.

On the other hand, people working with hazardous materials often receive specific benefits—things like specialized pension credits, higher wages, hazard pay, and extra stipends. Does the staff working eight hours a day in a smoky room receive any of that? It isn't really a matter of choosing where to work; it's about maintaining a baseline level of health and safety standards for the work environment.

Douglas Phillips4 said:Don't you dare bring my mom into this.🙂

Of course you're rambling! When some drunk driver screws up, they pay a fine because they broke the law. Insurance covers the damages, lawsuits happen, courts get involved—basically, there's accountability for the mess they made. So what do I get if I make a buck off passive smoking? What can I actually do if the smoke bothers me and nobody respects the basic right to clean air? What does a waiter get for health issues clearly linked to working in a smoky room? Or what happens to a smoker who decides to light up wherever they feel like it? Absolutely nothing. 😢
I'm hoping they pass a ban. 🙂

sorry mat, but don't try telling me what to do. I answer to no one.🙂
Besides, a waiter knows what they're getting into before they take the job. Most of them smoke anyway; what kind of waiter doesn't smoke or drink?🙂
Anyway, I'm also hoping they ban smoking. Then our cigars will taste even sweeter than they do now. That's all from me. I'm out of this thread, and consider this a puff of smoke in your face through the monitor.🙂
good luck in the fight against us smokers.👋

bluewolf4 said:A server should know exactly what they’re signing up for before they ever take the job. Let's be honest—most of them smoke. What kind of waiter are you even looking at if they don't smoke or grab a drink? 🙂

In certain cities throughout South Africa, there is a local understanding that you shouldn't walk along the sidewalk, but rather stay right in the middle of the street to avoid being swallowed by the darkness. If someone were to act that way here in America, what would you say to them? Wouldn't you suggest they stick to the edge of the road instead?

You would likely say the same thing to that young woman from Columbus, too—the one who was brutally attacked by a maniac in her own apartment building hallway last Saturday night. He killed her for no reason, only to claim, "Why were you out so late? You should have stayed home; you knew you were putting yourself at risk."

Good luck in the fight against Nepusac.👋

This isn't some crusade against "non-smokers." This is about defending my constitutional right—our collective right—to personal health, a clean environment, and privacy. I intend to apply this same level of scrutiny to other issues too: whether it’s fighting against nonexistent filtration systems at a local cement plant, protesting the continued use of outdated leaded fuels, or challenging the safety standards of nuclear power plants in neighboring countries that fail to meet even the most basic regulatory benchmarks.

Brian Ortiz68 said:Look, why are you comparing staff smoking to industrial labor? Everywhere, and I mean everywhere, OSHA standards have to be respected. That’s how it works in heavy industry, and it really should be the same for service jobs too. No factory or plant can operate without meeting minimum safety requirements to protect their workers. Ignoring those basic standards comes with a massive price tag in fines and penalties.

Around here, though, those rules are often just words on a page. It's a shame, really.
Okay, so if that's the case, why not introduce air quality standards for restaurants and bars and make owners actually follow them? Whether they achieve that by implementing a total ban on smoking or by setting up dedicated smoking lounges with high-end filtration systems is entirely up to them. That way, everyone wins. Some might even invest enough to keep their smoking customers coming back, and I'm pretty sure it's technically possible to ensure clean air even in areas where people smoke...

bluewolf4, a waiter who drinks on the job is a bad waiter 😁 Real professionals don't drink while they're working.

Casey Palmer5, every single time I order something here in the States, I toss a shot of Jägermeister to the waiter, and every single one of them knocks it back. 🙂
But honestly, I don't get how people think they have a say in what belongs in a restaurant. These are private businesses; the owner has every right to host whoever they damn well please.
If a place doesn't allow smoking, they put up a "No Smoking" sign and everyone follows it. But apparently, that's not enough for some people. They act like toddlers—they can't just mind their own business, they have to force everyone else to behave exactly like they do.
Look at New York City. Ever since they passed those smoking bans, none of the clubs operate like they used to. A few non-smokers actually came out and realized they were much better off before. Now, you can't find a DJ willing to play in those kinds of spots. But hey, if you're the type who thinks it's fine to hear Britney Spears on a CD instead of John Digweed behind the decks, then go right ahead.
It’s a shame what’s happening in New York City, but it’ll be even worse if Europe starts acting all high-and-mighty about the rights of these "culturally vitaminized" kids.
All the owners in New York City are just packing up and moving to Ibiza or Cape Town. Nightlife in NYC isn't worth the trip anymore.
I'll probably get sick of going out and hitting clubs eventually, before someone goes and ruins nightlife in Europe too, but I feel bad for the next generation. They'll be heading out in suits and ties to places where they drink soda and play rummy all night long.🙂

It’s not even really about the guests; it’s about the staff working in all that smoke. They should be provided with some decent air quality through a solid ventilation system.

And honestly, if your waiter keeps lighting up five or six cigarettes every single night, he’s going to be an alcoholic within ten years...

Casey Palmer5 said:Around here, that’s often just a dead letter on paper. Unfortunately.
Well, if that's the case, why not introduce specific air quality standards for hospitality venues and require owners to comply? They could achieve this through a total ban on smoking, or by creating designated smoking areas where the air is properly filtered—that part is entirely up to them. It would be a win-win situation. Some might even invest enough to retain their smoking clientele, and I am convinced it is technically possible to ensure clean air even in spaces where smoking occurs.

But that is precisely the heart of the matter. I have absolutely nothing against smokers; it is their right to choose. However, that choice shouldn't jeopardize the health of others. As the saying goes, my freedom ends where yours begins. Our totally distorted perception of liberty—where one feels they can do whatever they want—leads to this kind of behavior from business owners, smokers, and arrogant types like bluewolf4 (no hard feelings).

A smoker has the right to smoke, and that is a right guaranteed by the state. Likewise, every resident of this country has the right to clean air and an unpolluted environment. It is up to the owner of a public establishment to facilitate the rights of both parties: the smokers and the non-smokers. On paper, the law regulates this perfectly, but in reality, nobody respects the law and nobody enforces it.

In truth, there are devices available that can purify the air in a smoking section so it doesn't bother those in the non-smoking area. Similarly, walls can be built to separate the rooms. It is obvious that if a single room contains both smoking and non-smoking areas, specialized HVAC systems are required. But unfortunately, our esteemed entrepreneurs aren't even thinking about spending money on expensive air conditioning units or new partitions. It's always, "Psh, so what? If the smoke bothers you, just walk away!"

Again, unfortunately, in America, the non-smokers are getting the short end of the stick because their rights aren't being respected. And that’s not even mentioning the arrogance of certain smokers who intentionally light up right in front of a "No Smoking" sign and then laugh about it. The waiter can't do a thing about it. In the last month, I've been to a restaurant three times—twice, guests at a neighboring table were smoking without question, and they didn't care at all that the adjacent table was loudly protesting or that a visitor angrily left the restaurant. That is the state of smoking in American restaurants.

If heavy fines were imposed on restaurateurs who allow smoking in inadequately equipped facilities, rather than implementing a total ban, you would see how quickly they would change their tune. And as for those arrogant smokers who light up on purpose—if the police or a 300-pound security guard tossed them out of a restaurant twice, they wouldn't think about doing it again.

bluewolf4 said:But I don't see how you can claim to have a say in what should or shouldn't be allowed in a restaurant. These are all private businesses, and an owner should have the right to host whoever they choose.

Don't "don't" me. That logic just doesn't hold up in the 21st century. You can do whatever you want in your own home—provided you aren't breaking any laws—but once you step into a public establishment, discrimination is strictly prohibited, especially when it comes to health issues. Try putting up a sign in America stating that your restaurant is exclusively for smokers; you'll find yourself shut down before you can even blink. It would be treated exactly the same as if you announced your venue was reserved only for white people, Black people, the mob, Chinese people, drug addicts, or KKK members...

The bottom line is that an owner does NOT have the right to discriminate on any grounds. If they try, they'll face a lawsuit, and the legal fees will hit them incredibly hard.

Someone who bans smoking puts up a "No Smoking" sign and everyone follows it, but even that isn't enough for some people. They act like little children, forcing their way into social circles and trying to coerce everyone else into behaving exactly like they do.

I use drugs. I want to use drugs in a club. Are you going to stop me? Don't try to force me to live by your standards.

The issue is that through your behavior, you are essentially forcing others to smoke. Your attitude is incredibly arrogant and condescending, and it’s honestly sad if you don't see that.

It's a shame what's happening in New York City, but it'll only get worse if Europe starts obsessing over the rights of "culturally vitaminized" kids.
All the owners from New York City are relocating to Ibiza or Cape Town, and the nightlife in New York City isn't worth going out for anymore.
I'll eventually get tired of going out and hitting clubs myself, but I'll feel bad for the new generation. They'll end up going to places where they wear suits and ties just to drink non-alcoholic beverages and play rummy all night long.🙂

Man, things were so much better back in the '60s. You could trip on LSD, smoke yourself silly, or snort cocaine; those clubs were incredible. Then new laws came along and banned everything. What a mess. And remember how great it was during the era of Caligula (back in the 4th century)? You could hack someone down with a sword and watch the blood spray everywhere while we all laughed our heads off. Or you could throw them to the lions. It's a tragedy they banned all that. This new generation will never know how good it was—the rush of driving a blade into fresh meat, or getting completely wasted. This new crowd will just dance, sip drinks, and chat. Man, where have the good old days gone?

(Don't get mad, I had to exaggerate a little for effect)

Honestly, I still feel like business owners should have the freedom to decide whether their cafes or restaurants are smoking or non-smoking. To me, it’s not even about discrimination—it’s just like having vegetarian versus meat-based restaurants. I’m guessing you’d actually prefer places where smoking is strictly prohibited and there isn't a single corner where someone can light up.

By the way, the kind of behavior you’re describing in that restaurant doesn't even have anything to do with smoking; it’s more about general etiquette. It's just arrogant, rude, and honestly pretty primitive...

And what's wrong with the sixties? 😁 Personally, I don't mind that people could do whatever they wanted back then, especially since we didn't have to deal with things like AIDS😬

Brian Ortiz68 said:Don't "me" you. That doesn't fly in the 21st century. In your own house, fine, do whatever—as long as it's legal. But in public spaces, discrimination is strictly forbidden, especially when it comes to health issues. Just try putting up a sign saying a restaurant is exclusively for smokers here in the US. You'll be shut down before you can blink. It’s the exact same thing as saying a restaurant is only for white people, Black people, mobsters, Chinese people, addicts, or KKK members...

Give me a break. You're exaggerating. In the US, there isn't a single public facility outside of a Police and Fire Station. Everything else is private property. If the owner doesn't mind guests smoking, that's his call and his alone. Take my word for it.🙂
Places built specifically for smokers, like Cigar Bars, exist everywhere. If you want to call that discrimination, then real discrimination is when a private company (like any other in the US) issues an internal policy that employees have to follow, such as a ban on smoking in the workspace.
There is a massive difference between a "Smokers Only" sign and "No Smokers Allowed."

Invader said:We’ve already had quite a few debates regarding smoking, but I felt compelled to reopen this discussion after reading an article in The Washington Post.
Starting March 29th, Ireland is going to implement a total ban on smoking in pubs, restaurants, and workplaces... Violators could face fines as high as $3,000!
Not a single other European Union member state has stepped up to oppose this legislation.
Only time will tell if this becomes a widespread trend across Europe.
What are your thoughts—should the US consider passing similar laws?

[SIZE=4 YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SIZE]
AS A DEVOTED Nepusac AND A TOTAL OPPONENT OF SMOKING, I AM ALL FOR IT!

Of course they wouldn't.

Let them try to ban smoking. They can swallow all the tobacco smoke (burnt 😁) they want until they choke. As if banning it would actually work... give me a break...

They should just stay home and keep their own habits to themselves instead of pushing these fascist tactics on everyone else. 🙂

So, I’m sitting down for breakfast this morning, still feeling pretty groggy, though I did manage to actually clean myself up properly for once...

I sit down in the non-smoking section, and there’s just this guy right there, puffing away... and honestly, I had this sudden, intense urge to just chuck my plate of semi-dry scrambled eggs at his head, followed by a half-eaten hash brown and a splash of milk for good measure...

Look, I enjoy all sorts of things in the morning, but the stench of cigarette smoke? Not really my thing, especially not while I'm trying to eat.

He ended up putting the cigarette out, though.

I guess I must have been staring him down for a little too long.

Oh, and one more thing... if you suddenly smell something funky in the dining area and it isn't a cigarette... then I'm probably sitting right near you, right after finishing a massive portion of chili.😁 😁 : D 😁