Smoking ban

[SuzySunshine]

Smoking bans are SO nice. My DH and I were so spoiled when we lived in CA that we hated coming home and going out with our friends. We would do the exact same thing, we wouldn't wear our good coats in the winter, etc. because of the smoke. I hope it passes Chicago would be so much nicer to go out in.

[Vanquisher]

I grew up in Utah, one of the first places to have a smoking ban. It happened while I was a waitress in about 1993-94. We converted to all non-smoking, and it was bliss. I loved it. I never worked the smoking side, and that was fine, but you would still smell it.

When we moved to NY, the smoking ban ws not in place, but took hold part way (half or less?) through our stay. Heaven. It is so nice to go out to a restaurant and not see the smoking section with plenty of seating and have to wait for a table in the non-smoking section. I love not having to smell smoke everytime I am out.

In South Carolina, I don't even know that it's being talked about. I expect that we, along with a few other states in tobacco country will have to wait a long, long time, for any legislation like that. Nortch Carolina will be last if it becomes a sweeping legislation, guaranteed.

I hope it passes for you!

[Sheherezade]

When they passed the smoking ban in Boston and Cambridge, the reaction was similar to what you describe in NYC. Lots of complaining up front, followed by business as usual on the other side. We also noticed an added bonus -- more outdoor seating and sidewalk cafes sprung up as a concession to bar and restaurant owners. They honestly weren't that smoky (I don't remember even seeing smokers that often) and I love sidewalk cafes.

Personally, I don't have a problem with smoking bans but I have never been a smoker. From what I have read, the most serious complaints arise from bar owners. There is some fall of in business there, and I also heard that they had problems with people leaving without paying (at least at first) by using the "outside for a smoke" excuse. I'm sure they can work around that, but some bars probably do lose business permanently if there is no smoking allowed. Some areas have smoking bans only on specific business types ... I think. What does the smoking ban in your area propose? No smoking in any public building?

I can sympathize with smokers that feel they are currently being hunted by government legislation and anti-smoking groups. After the smoking ban passed, I remember advocacy groups proposing no smoking in publicly owned parkland and increasing the number of feet away from a building in which smoking was allowed. Clearly, at some point they are just trying to make smoking impossible - not clear the air in an establishment. I think that tactic has worked to decrease smoking rates, but I'm not sure I feel that kind of social pressure is the right way to get people to take care of themselves.

( Getting off topic, but is that really government's job? Of course, with medicaid and medicare paying to care for smoking-related illness, the government does have a financial stake in the matter.)

[SueC]

I've never smoked, so I only see it from the non-smoker, parent of small children perspective, but I'm completely for the smoking bans. Several of the suburbs have passed these ordinances and I have to say if I'm headed to a chain restaurant, I'll drive an extra 10 miles to a smoke free restaurant. I haven't heard that it really affected business, especially since bars were excluded.

I agree Angie, that smokers are being hunted down in some cases and that it might be excessive government intervention (if there was really enough demand for non-smoking establishments, owners would establish them as such).

BUT, as a mildly asthmatic non-smoker with two young kids, I love the bans. I love being able to go out at night and not feel horrible the next day from the amount of smoke I inhaled. In Portland, bars don't have to be smokefree but I think restaurants do. There are some smoke free bars that I would much rather go to but also some really smoky bars that I end up having to avoid. I do think it is a public health issue because of second hand smoke and employee and patron exposure.
Denver has talked about smoke bans with bar owners complaining that bars on the edge of the city line will get screwed because people will drive just a bit further to smoke. A statewide ban would solve that!

(edited: that made no sense! )

[DCJenn]

We're having the same debate here- one of the counties over the DC line in Maryland has enacted the ban and it's been great. Here in the city the bar owners are all freaked out- but as a former smoker with a husband who turns in to a crazy person around smoke, and a one-year-old- I love going to the non-smoking restaurants in the city.

I have no problem with people going outside to smoke- I used to have to do it- it's only a problem when it's freezing- and really, it's not that big a deal.

Russia was awful- everyone smokes- all the time.

Jenn

[Auspicious]

Yeah, my father smoked for 35 years before quitting three years ago, and he never complained about having to go outside anywhere.

I don't think we need to step on smokers' necks just because we can, but I don't think sending them outside is that big a deal--it's certainly worth the benefit to the rest of the group. I agree that since it's working out in places that have already implemented it, it will eventually spread almost everywhere.

Can you imagine if smoking didn't exist and someone invented it tomorrow? "Hey, I thought up a new hobby, and it fills the room with smoke, leaves an odor, is definitely carcinogenic to me, and is somewhat carcinogenic to everyone else present--do you mind if I do it in the middle of your business establishment?"

Can you imagine if smoking didn't exist and someone invented it tomorrow? "Hey, I thought up a new hobby, and it fills the room with smoke, leaves an odor, is definitely carcinogenic to me, and is somewhat carcinogenic to everyone else present--do you mind if I do it in the middle of your business establishment?"

Sounds grrreat! Let me have one of those!

ok..here's the response from the extremist:
I despise smoking. If smoking were invented today it would be an illegal substance frowned upon just as much as any other drug such as heroin.
It IS a drug, a highly addictive one that is in fact more phsyically addictive than heroin.
I love living in California simply because of the smoking ban. My mother smoked while she was pregnant with me and smoked around me my whole life. Result = mild asmtha and terrible allergies
When we lived in Chicago both my DH and I didn't go out as much as we wanted to because of the smoking. We hated coming home stinking and feeling congested from being exposed to respiratory irritants. For every smoker that these bars/restaurants lose there are non-smokers to take their place.
The truth is too many people downplay the dangers of second-hand smoke and these bans are put in place to protect non-smokers. They are not put in place to force smokers to take better care of themselves.
I am tired of smokers acting like I should just suck it up and breath in their toxic crap, get sick and stop complaining. Being near a smoker makes me miserable.
I hope you get your smoking ban in Chicago!! I love that place and would honestly consider going back there someday IF there were a smoking ban!

[PrincessFiona]

Go Lori, Go!

[SuzySunshine]

I agree with Lori 100%. If smoking wasn't harmful to people who have nothing to do with it then yes I would say we're over stepping our bounds. However it is harmful to anyone within a rather large radius of the smoke and it does cost the government and hence us a lot of money. I have lived in places with both and I SO prefer the locations that have the ban. It doesnt' mean we don't go to smoking establishments we just go to them less.

[SueC]

They were running some commercials here recently to get support for a ban on smoking and they compared smoking sections to having a "peeing" and "non-peeing" section in a swimming pool. Some guy was in the peeing section with a very relaxed look on his face while the little girls in the neighboring non-peeing section were squealing and trying to swim away as fast as they could. It was a pretty funny commercial.

[Rapunzel]

I was soooo glad when Boston banned smoking in restaraunts. I have asthma and two of my children have it (one severly). I also saw THREE of my grandparents die from smoke-related medical problems including lung cancer (they were all long-term smokers). Tobacco products are addictive. Smoking does cause major health problems both for the user and those in the vicinity of the smoke.

I guess I'm in agreement with Lori on the subject.

Jennifer

The truth is too many people downplay the dangers of second-hand smoke and these bans are put in place to protect non-smokers. They are not put in place to force smokers to take better care of themselves.
I am tired of smokers acting like I should just suck it up and breath in their toxic crap, get sick and stop complaining. Being near a smoker makes me miserable.

Go Lori!!

btw, this is a tangent....but I couldn't believe it when last winter I took the baby for an ear infection check and the pediatrician REEKED of smoke. I had to come home and change my clothes and her clothes. Blech.

Also....I don't think it should be all out banned in public places (parks, etc) but I think it is fine to have designated areas, esp away from kids.

[Vanquisher]

I agree with Lori, 100%. When my sister was a bit younger she used to run past smokers , hold her breath (visibly), and say" minutes off my life, minutes off my life."