Smoking ban in all public spaces

Ri§ said:What tribe were you visiting? 😉
They don't even have cash for smokes, let alone seen a smartphone...

A real tribe, one of those North American 😉. Honestly, the lack of people glued to their phones was such a breath of fresh air. A bit off-topic, but whatever 😁

Synodo said:blah ...
but honestly, claiming that smoke-free zones have better market potential than smoking ones—that they're actually more profitable and can just thrive on their own—is just plain absurd.

Non-smokers have spent their whole lives being forced to skip bars because everything is just so smoky. We really need to break away from that old image and get used to this new way of hanging out. Besides, people who don't smoke tend to be more active or into sports, so they usually have much better ways to spend their time than just sitting in a pub for hours on end. Smokers... well, they don't really have 😬

Jokes aside—around here, there’s such a massive concentration of bars downtown that a newcomer seriously needs a "hook" to actually draw a crowd. Most of the business comes from coffee shops, and let's face it, those crowds are almost entirely smokers. It’s a smoker’s game right from the jump. Unless...
that one spot over on Fifth Avenue pulled off that whole strategy of serving high-end coffee with a total ban on indoor smoking. I’m genuinely curious how they’re doing. Unfortunately, it’s not really on my route, so I haven't swung by. Has anyone been? I think it's somewhere near the Briton place.

Does anyone know of any other smoke-free clubs or bars anywhere in the NYT area?

dustycanyon6 said:That one little cafe on Fifth Avenue has this whole vibe going where they serve high-end coffee but have a strict prohibition of being total smokers inside. Honestly, I'm curious how it actually works out for them. It's not really on my way, so I haven't swung by... Has anyone been? I think it's near that Briton place.

The thing is, they only really do coffee. No sodas, no food... or at least that's what my roommate told me. And I don't smoke, and I don't even drink coffee... So now what? 😢

dustycanyon6 said:Does anyone know any other non-smoking clubs or cafes around CNN?

I'm interested too! Come on people, surely it's not just that one spot... As much as I can't stand McDonald's, if I absolutely have to eat something, I'd much rather go there than some fancy restaurant—at least there I won't have to breathe in damn cigarette smoke.

Scott Smith: What's up? Anyone else seeing this?

So far, nobody on this thread has managed to defend that totally hypocritical part of the reform, and honestly? I doubt anyone ever will.

Nothing about this is hypocritical!

I’d be all in on this reform if they actually stuck to their guns. But how can I back something that's so hypocritically handled?

Why all the hypocrisy? Is it because there isn't a total ban on these products, just a partial one? Give me a break. Are we really acting like kids here? Like, if I'm not allowed to walk into a convenience store with an ice cream cone, or if I can't use my phone during class, why do they even bother making and selling them in the first place?

Maybe that works for your moral compass, but I honestly can't stand it. I mean, we can all agree non-smokers deserve protection, right? But if you ask me... Not more, just stronger? From a smoker.

Smokers have always had some level of protection in public spaces—think buses, trains, schools, movie theaters, or hospitals... Is that just being hypocritical?
Just because smokers can't light up in certain spots doesn't mean we're all in danger, right?

Honestly, I haven't met a single smoker asking for smoking bans, nor have I seen anyone campaigning against smoke-free zones. Who would even want that?

Come on, give me a break. There's just no comparison here. You can try to draw those parallels if you want, but the conclusion...?

Smoking bans are just like banning drugs, cell phones, or drinking, right?
What even is that?

Then again, isn't it true that most non-smokers tend to act way more aggressive? You can definitely see it happening right here in this thread.

Non-smokers are the ones at risk here, not the smokers. Right?
Smokers can do whatever they want, old school or new school. Right?
Non-smokers just can't escape the secondhand smoke in coffee shops these days. Isn't that something?

Instead of finding some middle ground, they’re just out here demanding everything?

Is a compromise even an option here? Maybe letting smokers hit their habit on the sidewalk or in private spots is the way to go.
If we weren't looking for some middle-ground compromise, wouldn't smoking just be banned entirely?

total? prohibition

The ban isn't absolute. It’s only total in certain spots, which means it’s not actually total, right?

It honestly gets ridiculous when you realize that the "guys with beards" end up looking like the most tolerant ones in the room. Isn't that just wild?

Ever wonder why some smokers actually have some respect? If they’ve got even an ounce of tolerance for non-smokers, they aren't lighting up right in front of them. Wouldn't that be the dream?
Non-smokers can't really be "tolerant" or "intolerant" toward smokers, right? Since they don't smoke, they aren't putting anyone at risk, so there’s nothing to even be upset about. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Who's really voting? Is it anyone other than those fighting to make sure someone else's life choices don't mess with their own?

Nah, they aren't a threat. Not smoking doesn't hurt a smoker, right? And banning it isn't an issue either—people can still smoke as much as they want.

I think we really need to keep in mind what we're actually dealing with here. Total?And not just some half-baked ban on being partial?

It’s a bit biased, isn't it? You can't do it in public spaces, but once you're on a private street, it's fair game—unlike other things that are just totally banned everywhere.

It’s pretty obvious they're playing favorites here, right? They're totally boosting one group while basically labeling everyone else as the bad guys.

Nah. This rule is actually the perfect middle ground. Nobody is out here threatening anyone else. Right now, smokers are bothering non-smokers, but non-smokers aren't doing anything to threaten smokers (nor can they).

Honestly, I think splitting the space into smoking and non-smoking zones is the absolute best compromise between both sides. Shouldn't we have just pushed harder for that solution and focused on making sure it actually worked?

Look, I really think a move like that would totally screw over small local bars or those tight-knit clubs where everything is one unit. It’d be super unfair to anyone running a tiny spot where you can't even physically separate the spaces, right? Such a split would just...
Put her job at risk? Seriously?

P.S. Swinging a saw in the self-checkout lane is definitely against the law. But honestly, isn't that the real issue with this whole reform? They're still letting cigarettes stay legal.

Is that chainsaw even legal?

Check out these poll results: Should smoking be banned in all indoor public spaces?
Yes 37 68.52%
No 14 25.93%
Something else - check the thread 3 5.56%
Total votes: 54. You have already voted in this poll

Precisely.
If I find myself sitting in a coffee shop where someone else is smoking, that person becomes an immediate nuisance to me. Barring a complete ban on smoking, my only real recourse to stop the irritation is to simply get up and leave.

Sahara said:Yeah, but the real thing is that over the last few decades, everyone has just flocked to smoking, and nobody gives a damn about emissions. We barely even hear about the greenhouse effect or how plankton populations are dropping—I think I saw a documentary about it once—but honestly, long-term, those issues are way more serious than just smoking.

True, but I don't think a debate on that would really go anywhere—maybe if you started a thread, we'd see, but I doubt anyone would actually say, "Oh, the greenhouse effect is law, why would you tell me industry emissions are bad?"
Or something like, "Wow, it's so smart to indirectly reduce plankton numbers, who cares, let them move off the planet."

😕
Most of us can't really change this situation anyway. It took ages for nature to get this unbalanced, and we've been hearing about melting glaciers for decades now. You've got groups like Greenpeace and all these conscientious people trying to avoid plastic packaging and stuff... but since these problems build up so slowly over such a long time, it'll probably take just as long to fix them.

The point is, smoking is just the most direct and effective way to bother non-smokers. There are two sides to this, and I guess the negative side has been favored for no reason so far. It seems like a misunderstanding—just a failure to consider the basic rights of non-smokers who simply don't want to breathe in tar and other junk that's obviously terrible for your lungs and everything else...
And of course, they smoke because there are people who still want to indulge.

Again, I have nothing against smokers—go ahead and smoke if you want—but maybe they could just realize that some people are constantly being bothered by it. I kind of feel like if she were a smoker, she'd make an effort not to smoke around non-smokers or in their homes and stuff...

Anyway, the topic is about smoking bans and stuff.

I don't smoke, but I guess Scott Smith made some pretty solid points regarding his position. 👍
Take local bars, for instance; once you start interfering with their freedom to decide how to run their own business, you're basically undermining the core principles of capitalism.

Paul Lopez49 said:Look, I don’t smoke, but Scott Smith actually made some decent points here. 👍
It’s the same logic you’d apply to a local pub; if you start dictating how a business owner should run their establishment, you're essentially stripping away the very foundations of free-market capitalism.

Unless they start rebranding voters as "smoking lounges," I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with that premise.

But until then... well.

If you want to smoke in the pub, please take it outside.

Smokers are inconveniencing non-smokers with their habit, plain and simple. There is no other way to look at it. Let’s set aside discussions about secondhand smoke for a moment.

Imagine walking into a restaurant and having someone constantly pass gas right next to you. Now imagine ten people doing it in a circle while you're just trying to enjoy your meal.

That isn't acceptable, is it??

Scott Smith said:Those against the ban argue it won't actually improve national health; instead, it just gives people a platform to smugly lecture others on how to live. They claim bans just lead to more stigma and victimizing smokers, basically trying to make them feel guilty about their lifestyle choices. Opponents also expect bars to shut down and about 2,500 jobs to vanish. Most of all, they point out the hypocrisy of the government—condemning smoking publicly while still happily collecting cigarette taxes. A truly consistent approach would be to go all the way and ban tobacco entirely, or maybe even cars since exhaust fumes are bad for people and the atmosphere too. Critics say smokers will still pay massive taxes, just to be stigmatized in return.

Discuss.

That whole bit about closing cafes and losing jobs isn't true.
They used that exact same argument in Vancouver (Canada), and nothing happened.
Honestly, it’s just nicer to go to a cafe or a club without smelling like smoke or breathing it in.

the ambassador said:if you're worried about getting cancer from secondhand smoke, I'll give you my lungs. then you wouldn't have anything to worry about.
btw, I was talking about health consequences for consumers.

If that's the case, daycare teachers might as well light up while they work with kids, since it's apparently totally safe.🙄

the ambassador said:well, even if they actually pass it, nothing changes.
And what happens then? I guess some "underground" dive bars where smoking is still allowed will pop up, and everyone will just crowd into those.

You really think people are going to flock to those places?🤣
Trust me, that law is already in effect where I live, and honestly, the hospitality industry is thriving—better than ever.👍

John Perez85 said:Sure, absolutely, but we need laws that guarantee smokers have their own designated spaces. Someone mentioned an airport where they have specific zones with great ventilation—nobody gets poisoned, yet you can't say smokers are being discriminated against. Also, let the market decide which bars or restaurants are smoking, non-smoking, or mixed. Smoking should just die out naturally through educating the youth, rather than forcing it via legislation.

Why on earth would we need to "guarantee" smoking sections in cafes?
Should we also start guaranteeing smoking areas in doctor's offices, hair salons, buses, movie theaters, grocery stores, theaters, banks, and so on?

Sandra Hayes88 said:Why on earth should we provide smoking areas for smokers?
Should we also accommodate smokers in doctor's offices, hair salons, buses, movie theaters, grocery stores, theaters, banks, etc.?

Because smokers pay taxes just like everyone else, and they have the right to demand what matters to them. It's not just a handful of people that you can just ignore by force of the massive majority.

John Perez85 said:Because smokers contribute to the budget just as much as non-smokers do, they have every right to demand what they deem important.

That isn't quite the whole truth.

Through specific excise taxes, smokers actually pour more money into the treasury than non-smokers ever could. According to various studies conducted in several developed nations, smokers often pay enough into the healthcare system to cover not only their own potential medical bills but also a significant portion of the costs for everyone else. In other words, in certain instances, smokers' habits end up effectively subsidizing the healthcare of non-smokers.

John Perez85 said:Because smokers contribute to the tax revenue just like everyone else, they have a right to demand what matters to them. We aren't talking about a tiny handful of people that you can just ignore by force of the majority.

So, I guess by that logic, people who drink alcohol should be allowed to drink on the job since they pay taxes too?

Synod said:That’s not quite how it works.

Smokers pay extra through specific excise taxes, which means they contribute more to the budget than non-smokers do. Some studies in various countries suggest that smokers actually pump more money into the healthcare system than what it costs to treat any potential smoking-related illnesses. Basically, in certain places, smokers end up footing the bill for their own care and everyone else's too...

Maybe in some places, sure, but definitely not here in the States. I saw a report in the news recently—some high-ranking official, maybe even a Cabinet Secretary, I can't recall exactly...—stating that in America, the cost of treating smoking-related diseases outpaces those cigarette taxes by three or four times. Plus, as far as I know, those tax dollars don't even go straight to our healthcare system... they just disappear into the general federal budget.

talia said:So, should people who pay alcohol taxes be allowed to drink on the job since they contribute to the treasury?

Sure. But we aren't going to let them. 😁

Blue said:In most Western countries, excise taxes actually bring in some serious cash—but not really here in the States, since everyone just grabs their smokes from some guy at an unlicensed flea market instead.

Whereabouts in America are you from?
I don't know a single soul in my town who buys cigarettes from a smuggler!