Smoking in restaurants

[Philthy]

Things appear to be getting a bit personal.....

Speaking as an ex-smoker and a sailor I despair at whining such as this. You have the good fortune to be able to cruise in a yacht when others in the world are under threat of their very existence. Even in UK there are people in dire circumstances and fighting to keep a roof over their heads and maintain a little dignity. But on this forum we have people getting upset about smoking in restaurants.

Just goes to show how blinkered and divided our so called sophisticated Western Societies have become. Get a grip, look at the bigger picture and think how lucky you are to be able to partake in such a wonderful lifestyle. Don't sweat the small stuff....cos that's what this is.......drivel.

Very true. Excellent post.

 

[VO5]

THe no smoking ban is only the beginning of NANNY STATE INTERFERENCE, which presupposes they think they have4 the right to treat all of us as if we were children.

There are rumours that the planners have the idea that flu sufferers will have to wear muzzles in public places. Contravention would attract a fine.

Soon licences will be required to even sneeze.

My advice to you all is to ignore the nonsense and just carry on.

 

[capnsensible]

I reckon the decision whether to allow smoking in a restaurant should be up to,,,,,the owner of the restaurant.

The decision whether to go in it or not is up to, well, er, everyone.

What is the problem??

 

[BrianH]

I reckon the decision whether to allow smoking in a restaurant should be up to,,,,,the owner of the restaurant.
The decision whether to go in it or not is up to, well, er, everyone.
What is the problem??

You capn sir, are living up to your name, I entirely agree. Whilst welcoming the smoking ban I cannot defend it.

When most restaurants were full of smoke I didn't go in them, now I do. I can just as easily exercise my choice whatever the case. I saved a lot more money before - there are always advantages and disadvantages with every situation. Even restaurant staff who are being protected from second-hand smoke by legislation can choose to not work in a smoky environment.

The only stipulation should be is that smoking is restricted in areas where there is little or no choice - public transport comes to mind where the old smoking/non-smoking areas could not work in these days of overcrowding.

 

[Csail]

Just an observation but the pubs here that do allow smoking inside are the only busy ones (even thogh its illegal) Last night at swmbos party there were 6 customers all night on a saturday!

 

[saltwater_gypsy]

Just back from Spain and Italy. Smoking rules are very variable . For examole ,you get non-smoking areas with ashtrays on the tables.
It seems to be a case of "Make firm rules and stay flexible"!!!!

 

[PLEIAS]

''It seems to be a case of "Make firm rules and stay flexible"!!!!''
You 've just described Greece.Now as for my filthy habbit, i've answered above and these are my thoughts and point of view and if some don't like it maybe they should re-read it to find out what i really mean about civil liberties and so on.But apparently this is the problem nowadays people will only listen as long as you agree with them and they'll never stop for a moment to think.Oh yes i'm a smoker and i'll enjoy it for as much as i can but that was never the pont READ ABOVE.Thanks in advance.

 

[jimbaerselman]

Since when does a goverment has the right to tell a grown adult wether he can smoke or not?
- Since it costs the state a fortune in medical support - not nearly met by the additional taxes on the pack of cigs.

Now that's an interesting statement.

I'm not sure that those who smoke cost more in medical support than those who die from other causes. 100% people die . . . and probably the most expensive ones are those who need full time care for a long period - the Alzheimers group - a group increasing as life expectancy increases.

It's when you look at pension support that smoking becomes cost effective from my point of view. Since most states in the EU don't fund pensions, current tax payers fund them. The fewer pensions paid, the less tax has to be raised.

I say Hurrah for Smokers! many of whom volunteer for shorter life spans to keep my tax bills down! As long as I'm able to escape the fumes . . .

 

[JamesFrance]

Also aren't most laws introduced to protect the innocent from the unpleasant and harmful activities of others?

I gave up 15 years ago after smoking for 40 years and my only regret is that I didn't stop sooner and save such a waste of money.

 

[BrianH]

I'm not sure that those who smoke cost more in medical support than those who die from other causes.

I suspect not but can only make assumptions from my own friends and family. A beloved aunt with circulatory problems and resultant gangrene - warned to stop smoking when she had a leg amputated or the other would be at risk. She didn't and my last photo of her before she died of emphysema shows her in a wheel-chair minus both legs - and a fag in one hand, making me admire her feisty spirit despite the sadness. A dear friend with one lung removed and apparently cured, which caused much rejoicing amongst her family and friends - until four years later diagnosed with metastasis of the bone from her original tumour. She died a rather unpleasant death on her 52nd birthday while I was visiting her in her Antwerp clinic. I could cite some others but that will do as examples of illnesses caused by smoking that were not quick and required a lot of intensive care.

On the other hand, I have to agree you have a point here:

It's when you look at pension support that smoking becomes cost effective from my point of view. Since most states in the EU don't fund pensions, current tax payers fund them. The fewer pensions paid, the less tax has to be raised.

'The Smoke Ring : Tobacco, Money and Multinational Politics' by Peter Taylor, published in 1984, reported, amongst many other relevant topics, on an earlier UK government closed consultancy project by the Office of National Statistics , that investigated the economic benefits of introducing an intensive, nation-wide, anti-smoking campaign. The author claimed that the findings of early, tobacco-related deaths with the resultant shorter pensionable years, plus tobacco taxes, outweighed the financial benefits to the NHS and the campaign was quietly dropped.

Of course, the parameters used were particularly crude and discounted many other factors, but it illustrated the cynical calculations used at that time. More enlightened attitudes slowly took effect in most developed nations, to the point that governments now universally encourage a reduction of smoking in their populations.

There is a current, highly acclaimed TV series based on the 1950s New York advertising world called Mad Men. Just about everyone discussing it comments on the incongruous constant smoking by everyone in just about every scene, remarking how shocking that seems today - so we are slowly getting there. I am sure that there will come a time when smoking in general but especially in public places, will be looked back on with the same incredulity that we now reserve for other outdated and unacceptable practices - such as when children were sent down the mines to work the smaller seams.