Smoking banned in English restaurants and pubs

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The argument that you are doing this to cut down health care costs is even more silly. Why not stop bars from serving alcohol, which causes severe health care risks (probably more than smoking)?

You would think that the #1 target on the list for people who want to cut down on health costs would be sugar....

Maybe that's next.

[ISiddiqui]

When is that obesity lawsuit coming down the pike?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

When is that obesity lawsuit coming down the pike?

Sugar can boost a person's likelyhood of developing type II diebetes, increase your risk of colon cancer (and who knows what other cancers), not to mention all of the dental care required for people who eat a lot of sugary food (all of this is, of course, in addition to the obesity).

And then of course obesity can lead to heart attack or stroke, type II diabetes (again), high blood pressure, other cancers, gallbladder problems and gallstones, gout and the list goes on and on.

And what are the "we need to bring down health care costs" people focusing on? Casual exposure to 2nd hand smoke in a bar or resturant.

Wait, it's the future....I see the future and I see all of these bar and resturant bans on smoking not causing a dent in the health care costs. Nice try.

[MrBigglesworth]

These arguments are heading into fantasy land. Just because you think it's a good idea to outlaw one health hazard, doesn't mean you have to think it's a good idea to outlaw paper (to avoid paper cuts) to be intellectually consistent. Sugar is a food. We need food to live. Nicotine, not so much. There might be some merit to taxing empty calorie foods, but it ends up being a highly regressive tax so it would end up doing more harm than good.

[Klinglerware]

Banning either alcohol or smoking does not work and is not the answer. However, the opportunity for heavy taxation should certainly be considered. As was mentioned previously, $8 cigarettes and $12 cocktails are an accepted fact of life in places like Manhattan--due to the nature of the product, I doubt that taxes would really deter sales. The price inelasticity of tobacco and alcohol should be taken advantage of. In fact, the tax revenues generated could be (theoretically) be plowed back into subsidizing the health care costs resulting from smoking/drinking.

As for sugar, I've read that part of the problem is that corn syrup has taken the place of sugar in many processed foods. A return to sugar might be a healthier choice, though agricultural interests may not allow for its promotion.

[ISiddiqui]

What about alcohol, Bigglesworth? It isn't necessary to live (plenty of other drinks), and I'm sure it causes as many, if not more health problems than cigarettes or cigars.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Sugar is a food. We need food to live.

Complex sugars are good for us, the simple sugars found in soda, candy, cupcakes (and everything else we pretty much associate with the word "sugar") have no nutriitional value and in fact, do harm to our bodies.

Now I'll fight for anyone's right to ingest as much simple sugars as they want, but don't play them off as if they get a pass because they count as a food. They are harmful and not nutritious at all.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

As for sugar, I've read that part of the problem is that corn syrup has taken the place of sugar in many processed foods. A return to sugar might be a healthier choice, though agricultural interests may not allow for its promotion.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that sugar from sugarcane is a complex carbohydrate (= good for you (to a point)). High fructose corn syrup is a simple carb (= very bad)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What about alcohol, Bigglesworth? It isn't necessary to live (plenty of other drinks), and I'm sure it causes as many, if not more health problems than cigarettes or cigars.

I also believe that employees shouldn't have to do shots of tequila when working at a restaurant. Crazy, I know!

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that sugar from sugarcane is a complex carbohydrate (= good for you (to a point)). High fructose corn syrup is a simple carb (= very bad)

Complex carbs are starches, simple carbs are sugars. High fructose corn syrup has two problems. One, it doesn't do the normal function of fructose of telling the body that it should be full. Two, the subsidies we give to farmers make corn syrup super cheap, so it is replacing sugar in foods.

Originally Posted by sabotai

Now I'll fight for anyone's right to ingest as much simple sugars as they want, but don't play them off as if they get a pass because they count as a food. They are harmful and not nutritious at all.

I don't know why you quoted me, because I didn't pass it off at all. I said that a empty calorie tax could be feasible, but would have to be structured to not be regressive.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Complex carbs are starches, simple carbs are sugars.

My bad,

High fructose corn syrup has two problems. One, it doesn't do the normal function of fructose of telling the body that it should be full. Two, the subsidies we give to farmers make corn syrup super cheap, so it is replacing sugar in foods.

Can we all just agree that farm subsidies are evil?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Super Ugly

Daily Mail reader, by any chance?

Sorry, that was low ...

I'm surprised that this has gone through. I'm in agreement with you in that people ought to have a choice of how they want to enjoy a night out. Christ, there are enough pubs in England and Wales to get a decent split of smoking and non-smoking establishments.

That is low and in my opinion there are few bigger insults you could make. I appreciate it was in jest, but no: the Daily Mail is so anti Labour it goes OTT and loses any basis for the arguments it may have. And it is (not so subtly) racist, elitist - my folks read it and I wouldn't use it to wipe my arse.

My position is I quite like some of the ideas Labour promised, but don;t like the results that they have, and am 100% against any party that wants to go further into a united Europe: trade - fine, government - no way. Labour are untrustworthy (as likely would any of the others if they were in power), Tories are directionless, Liberals are a joke. All have some decent ideas, but all have more areas that I am opposed to. So that leaves me with protest vote: UKIP, etc to voice my opinion on the way we are moving to as far as Europe goes.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Dola.

A complete ban on cigarettes wont work. It didn't work for alcohol in the US back during prohibition and wouldn't work now. Just keep jacking up the price, like they have in New York. The cigarette ban and outrageous taxes work together as a good deterant on new/would-be smokers. This is a good thing. If you can't smoke in a bar and cigarettes cost $7.50 a pack there are not a lot of incentives to pick up such a nasty habit.

Dola

£7.50! We'd be lucky - over £5 here: the majority is taxed, so the health care costs argument, while it may still be valid, is contributed to more so in the UK.

My position is this: people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others: this is a principle which carries on into every walk of life: religion, music, TV, sexetc. With smoking, there is a passive risk, so yes: give pubs the right to choose if they are smoky or smoke-free. Do/don't something if you want to, as long as no-one gets hurt or prevented from doing what they also want to do, who cares if you agree/disagree with it?

Smokers and bar workers who wnat to smoke will go to pubs where they are allowed to light up, those who want smoke free environments will go to those banning it.

With a total ban, non-smokers are in effect infringing the right of smokers to have a cigarette.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Indeed... next these people will be trying to shut down nightclubs because the loud music causes hearing problems in their employees.

Double Dola,

This is the problem, the government is beginning to dictate how you can enjoy yourself, and it will get to the point where because you can;t do x,y and z, nobody will be able to enjoy anything.

Sports will be banned beacuse they cause injuries, or health problems (from stress, over excitement, etc) music because it can be played loud, drinking because people get sick/fighting, TV because it hurts your eyes, etc.

Taken too far? Yes: but it is a logical (over)progrssion, Who is to say it will stop at the right place?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'm glad we're starting to see these issues addressed worldwide and the healthcare issues are coming to the forefront. Too many nights has vile second-hand smoke impeded my full-on charge toward cirrhosis and driven me out of the bar and into my car before I am sufficiently wobbly and wasted.

Triple Dola,

The point is that why can't some places be allowed to be smoking places, and some places smoke-free? You go to the smoke free places, smokers go to the fuggy places. Simple. Everyone wins. Why should one group have the total market?

This law is dumb: it applies to pubs and restaurants, one the main reasons being dangers to non-smoking staff/clients through passive smoking. Fair enough. But it does not apply to prisons, nursing homes, etc - are the non-smoking elderly, careworkers or prison officers less important somehow?

And it applies to private clubs, who can decide membership on ethniticy, gender, height, weight, sexuality, whatever, but no-one can smoke. So you can have a wine club where they can drink wine, a gay bondage club where they can, well, whatever, but you can't have a cigar club where they can smoke cigars?

I repeat, I don't have a problem with making the majority of places smoke-free and would see a sensible solution is to give people a choice of environments, but if healthcare is the reason, be consistent and ban it throughout the entire public sector. And putting a ban on private clubs on a legal practice is very worrying.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Simple, poor blacks who weren't given anything after being freed and were purposely pushed down by government intervention. Nowadays, blacks have money, are educated, and can make their economic voices heard. That, and people don't like racism no more.

I really don't see how. What is the argument for banning cigarettes as restaurants and bars? It causes health problems in those that work there. Wouldn't the same apply to nightclubs and high decibel music? If your argument is that the health problems are more serious for those that work in restaurants, what about the people who work in, oh say, mining (and not because of cave ins) or other high risk jobs for disease or illness? Aren't their health risks serious? So why do waitstaff get special benefits? If your argument is that the miners signed on for the job, well didn't the waitstaff as well? They knew what it meant!

The argument that you are doing this to protect the workers fails on so many levels. The argument that you are doing this to cut down health care costs is even more silly. Why not stop bars from serving alcohol, which causes severe health care risks (probably more than smoking)?

First off, we tried stopping bars from serving alcohol. Didn't work.

As for the mine shaft analogy, that falls apart too. While I am not familir with them, there are a number of "mine safety laws." In fact, after the recent tragedy in West Virginia these laws were revised to make mines more safe. There are obvious risks associated with mining but the government has passed laws forcing (infrining?) owners of mines to take steps to make their mines more safe. Obviously they can't make mines 100% safe, but laws are there to make sure mines are reasonably safe, balancing safety of the miners and the burden on mine owners. This type of cost/benefit analysis is rather common when passing "safety laws." Certain jobs, mining, have more risks.

I really don't see this as restaurant workers getting any sort of special protection over oher types of workers. Chemical factories are forced to take steps to ensure that they don't expose their workers willy-nilly to poisonous gases. Why not restaurants? This isn't a case of special treatment/benefits.

It's a pretty simple equation.

Costs associated with harm of second hand smoke = Very high.

Negative effect on bars/restaurants after a smoking ban is put into place = Very small. (If this weren't the case and bars/restuarants were suffering economic harm from these laws, they would have been repealed in a New York minute. Do not underestimate the power of the almighty dollar)

Public benefit from smoking ban (lower health costs, not reeking of smoke, etc.) = Moderate.

Smoking ban makes sense. I am not sure banning sugar, alcohol, or the whole sound levle thing hold up under a similar analysis.

Property rights aren't inalienable. Private businesses don't have the right to ignore the minimum wage or health and safety regulations. Since the New Deal, the federal government has regulated private businesses in order to serve the public welfare.

As for the cry about civil liberties. I am more concerned that the government can arrest you/fine you for smoking pot in the privacy of your own home, than I am about a ban on smoking in bars/restaurants.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Double Dola,

This is the problem, the government is beginning to dictate how you can enjoy yourself, and it will get to the point where because you can;t do x,y and z, nobody will be able to enjoy anything.

Sports will be banned beacuse they cause injuries, or health problems (from stress, over excitement, etc) music because it can be played loud, drinking because people get sick/fighting, TV because it hurts your eyes, etc.

Taken too far? Yes: but it is a logical (over)progrssion, Who is to say it will stop at the right place?

It's not a question of "who" will stop it, but what will stop it. And that answer, my friend, is simple:

The Almighty dollar, pound, Euro, yen, rupee, etc, etc, etc.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Tiple dola, Jari Shorts Style!

As for that whole mining thing...

This is taken from Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

1.9.1 Smoking
Smoking shall be prohibited in all underground and surface coal mines and all other work areas associated with coal mining. MSHA currently prohibits smoking in all underground mines and in surface coal mines where fire or explosion may result [30 CFR 75.1072 and 77.1711]. In addition, NIOSH recommends that smoking be prohibited to prevent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, a potential occupational carcinogen [NIOSH 1991a].

Special benefits for waitstaff or just catching up with the times?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

First off, we tried stopping bars from serving alcohol. Didn't work.

This is pretty clearly the solution to smoking bans, too. If smokers will all get together and just agree to flout the laws at every opportunity (and who cares? -- in most places, it's the business that gets fined, not the customer who is smoking), smoking bans won't work either. Smoking bans only work as long as the smokers play along.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

And while I'm at it, although I will get slated for this, and it's probably because I'm angry, but this type of attitude

which can be easily be perceived as arrogance, is what gets people riled about America - I know it's only your comment, and not representative of the nation, but if I'm angry about my own government telling people what they can and can't do. you can probably imagine how my blood pressure is rising when the comment is made from thousands of miles away that the whole world should adopt the health legislation of the US, when somebody smoking or not smoking in a British pub affects you, oh, how about not in the slightest?

Whoah there, hotrod. I guess sarcasm doesn't translate into the King's english.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Whoah there, hotrod. I guess sarcasm doesn't translate into the King's english.

Ah - apolgies: scanned the post the first time and only got as far as the end of the first sentence - as I said I was steaming at the time.

Repeated apologies: now I've read the second bit it was a quality post

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I really don't see this as restaurant workers getting any sort of special protection over oher types of workers. Chemical factories are forced to take steps to ensure that they don't expose their workers willy-nilly to poisonous gases. Why not restaurants? This isn't a case of special treatment/benefits.

You just undermined your argument. Chemical factories take steps to prevent workers don't get exposed to gases, why can't a restaurant also take those steps? What if a restaurant did want to spend the cash to provide servers with oxygen masks? Or what if it only hired smokers to work a smoking part, enclosed from the other side? Chemical factories don't have the toxic chemicals banned, they have the ability to shield those chemicals from people. Why don't restaurants?

Public benefit from smoking ban (lower health costs, not reeking of smoke, etc.) = Moderate.

I consider personal liberty to be part of the 'public benefit', so I wouldn't go with moderate here.

Like Jari said, where does it stop? People say using a slippery slope doesn't work here, but when you start letting the government tell you to ban smoking in your restaurants for public health, what is next?

Hell, if the government said that all restaurants must serve diet sodas and ban regular sodas, that may be 'better' for the general public's health than a smoking ban (cardiac problems are the #1 killer of Americans).

In addition, NIOSH recommends that smoking be prohibited to prevent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, a potential occupational carcinogen [NIOSH 1991a].

NIOSH has also recommended that sandblasting be banned because of black lung disease problems (which is what I was refering to mining about). AFAIK, it hasn't been.

This is pretty clearly the solution to smoking bans, too. If smokers will all get together and just agree to flout the laws at every opportunity (and who cares? -- in most places, it's the business that gets fined, not the customer who is smoking), smoking bans won't work either. Smoking bans only work as long as the smokers play along.

Indeed. I hope smokers get together in certain restaurants and tell the government to screw off (and chip in together for a 'fine fund', just in case).

[st.cronin]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if anybody has said this or not, but, at least in America, smokers as a group use LESS health care than non-smokers (because they don't live as long, primarily).

[ISiddiqui]

So they are helping reduce health care costs! Oh yeah!

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if anybody has said this or not, but, at least in America, smokers as a group use LESS health care than non-smokers (because they don't live as long, primarily).

And pay more anyway.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if anybody has said this or not, but, at least in America, smokers as a group use LESS health care than non-smokers (because they don't live as long, primarily).

I call shenanigans. Can you provide a link to the study?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

And pay more anyway.

Isn't it ironic?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You just undermined your argument. Chemical factories take steps to prevent workers don't get exposed to gases, why can't a restaurant also take those steps? What if a restaurant did want to spend the cash to provide servers with oxygen masks? Or what if it only hired smokers to work a smoking part, enclosed from the other side? Chemical factories don't have the toxic chemicals banned, they have the ability to shield those chemicals from people. Why don't restaurants?


I consider personal liberty to be part of the 'public benefit', so I wouldn't go with moderate here.

Like Jari said, where does it stop? People say using a slippery slope doesn't work here, but when you start letting the government tell you to ban smoking in your restaurants for public health, what is next?

Hell, if the government said that all restaurants must serve diet sodas and ban regular sodas, that may be 'better' for the general public's health than a smoking ban (cardiac problems are the #1 killer of Americans).


NIOSH has also recommended that sandblasting be banned because of black lung disease problems (which is what I was refering to mining about). AFAIK, it hasn't been.


Indeed. I hope smokers get together in certain restaurants and tell the government to screw off (and chip in together for a 'fine fund', just in case).

Equipping waitstaff with oxygen tanks doesn't hold up under a cost-benefit anaylsis. It'd cost too much money and interfere with their tasks. That places too much of a burden on restaurant/bar owners. Banning smoking is easier on them. Like I said, if smoking bans really hurt these people they would have been reppealed a long time ago. The dollar rules the day.

When does it stop? Remember: The dollar rules the day. The diet soda thing doesn't hold up either. If drinking regular soda caused everyone around to inject the sugar then maybe we could start talking about it. Second hand smoke harms people who don't smoke. It's like the difference between seatbelt laws and drunk driving laws. The former pretty much effects only "you", while the latter is in place to protect others and "you".

Peronsal liberties? Again, I think a person's right breath clean, smoke-free air inside (excluding private homes, but including bars, restaurants, offices, hospitals, stores, etc, etc.) out weighs the right of someone to pollute said air. From a persona liberty stand point, IMHO, I see this as a gain.

Good luck with that collective strike/sit in.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I call shenanigans. Can you provide a link to the study?

Not sure if this is the exact one, but it does deal with the issue:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...ct/337/15/1052

ABSTRACT


Background Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.

Methods We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking on health care costs — one for a mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs over time.

Results Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.

Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if anybody has said this or not, but, at least in America, smokers as a group use LESS health care than non-smokers (because they don't live as long, primarily).

Actually this is true.

Smokers insurance premiums are higher because when they do get sick, the diseases they get are catastrophic. The net savings comes from the fact that they die earlier than non-smokers.

The malthusian in me still advocates heavy taxation on cigarettes and alcohol. Smokers (and drinkers to some extent) are more or less a captive population who will tolerate a very high price point--the increased tax revenues can help subsidize health care costs (again, theoretically).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Equipping waitstaff with oxygen tanks doesn't hold up under a cost-benefit anaylsis. It'd cost too much money and interfere with their tasks. That places too much of a burden on restaurant/bar owners. Banning smoking is easier on them. Like I said, if smoking bans really hurt these people they would have been reppealed a long time ago. The dollar rules the day.

ARGGHHH!! How is giving the restaurant owner a choice placing "too much of a burden on them"?! How is just banning it outright making it easier?! Are you on something?!

It's like the difference between seatbelt laws and drunk driving laws. The former pretty much effects only "you", while the latter is in place to protect others and "you".

You do realize that just about every state has a law requiring you to use your seatbelt?

Peronsal liberties? Again, I think a person's right breath clean, smoke-free air inside (excluding private homes, but including bars, restaurants, offices, hospitals, stores, etc, etc.) out weighs the right of someone to pollute said air. From a persona liberty stand point, IMHO, I see this as a gain.

It's like free speech. Is a person's right to not be offended by what he consideres harmful speach outweigh your right to say offensive speech? And before you say speech has no physical effects, ask a black guy who has just seen a burning cross in front of his house.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

...Peronsal liberties? Again, I think a person's right breath clean, smoke-free air inside (excluding private homes, but including bars, restaurants, offices, hospitals, stores, etc, etc.) out weighs the right of someone to pollute said air. From a persona liberty stand point, IMHO, I see this as a gain.

OK - your personal liberties may be infringed as a non smoker by passive smoke. Perfectly acceptable and sensible argument. But why should everybody follow this: the smoker is having his liberties restricted.

But no-one has come up with a sensible reason why those who wish to smoke and have a drink if they want, in an establishment specifically set up to do so. The only argument I have heard is that places have the choice at the moment, and many do not have smoke free environments. OK - lets say by default pubs and restaurants are smoke free: places apply for a permit to allow people to smoke: if 60% of people want smoke free places, you only give license to 40% of the total pubs. That way everyone wins, workers can choose to work in a smoke free or smoking place, whichever they prefer: as long as the percentages match the percentage of smokers, there should not be a problem.

[sabotai]

Anyone feel like they're listening to a broken record?

(Seriously, is there nothing new to discuss that we need to redo old threads?)

And BTW, how about that farm subsidies are evil? Can't I get an amen from anyone on that!?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Anyone feel like they're listening to a broken record?

(Seriously, is there nothing new to discuss that we need to redo old threads?)

And BTW, how about that farm subsidies are evil? Can't I get an amen from anyone on that!?

The ban was only voted on yesterday!

But I guess you have had the debate before based on a US/state decision... TBH I wrote my initial post for a BBC website reply, and it got fired back because it was over 500 characters (I thought it said 500 words - still might have been over ) and I wasn't going to waste my typing, so pasted it here.

And for the record, I wouldn't call farm subsidies 'evil' but they do defy logic in a free market economy.

[Drake]

Bottom line is that non-smokers want to congregate where smokers congregate, because smokers are, and always have been, the cool kids. Non-smokers aren't cool, and they're going to be disappointed when they realize that they've taken over the cool kids' hangouts, but the cool kids have all gone elsewhere.


Tongue planted firmly in cheek.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

ARGGHHH!! How is giving the restaurant owner a choice placing "too much of a burden on them"?! How is just banning it outright making it easier?! Are you on something?!


You do realize that just about every state has a law requiring you to use your seatbelt?


It's like free speech. Is a person's right to not be offended by what he consideres harmful speach outweigh your right to say offensive speech? And before you say speech has no physical effects, ask a black guy who has just seen a burning cross in front of his house.

Smoking in a bar is like free speech? Are you kidding me? Free speech??? Weakest. Analogy. Ever.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Anyone feel like they're listening to a broken record?

(Seriously, is there nothing new to discuss that we need to redo old threads?)

And BTW, how about that farm subsidies are evil? Can't I get an amen from anyone on that!?

If your looking for the latest and greatest, I heard through the grapevine that some dude's edit button was deleted and that someone may not be dead. There may be a thread or two on that. Oh yeah, and Darko maybe traded.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Anyone feel like they're listening to a broken record?

(Seriously, is there nothing new to discuss that we need to redo old threads?)

And BTW, how about that farm subsidies are evil? Can't I get an amen from anyone on that!?

Amen. (You knew you'd get one from me.)

[Dutch]

Would it be illegal to create smoking lounges that sells tobacco and also serve alchohol? Maybe play a little music, serve some dinner....might catch on.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Smoking in a bar is like free speech? Are you kidding me? Free speech??? Weakest. Analogy. Ever.

Yes. Both are personal liberty interests. Both have harmful effects and arguments to limit them or take them away based on those harmful effects. I'd rather not take away someone's liberty (right to breath clean air?! Are you kidding me? In Manhatten? In LA?)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Would it be illegal to create smoking lounges that sells tobacco and also serve alchohol? Maybe play a little music, serve some dinner....might catch on.

Yes... I believe that would be illegal.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Would it be illegal to create smoking lounges that sells tobacco and also serve alchohol? Maybe play a little music, serve some dinner....might catch on.

This is how it is in NJ. In bars and resturants it is illegal to smoke, but if the place sells tobacco products (and not just cigarettes), they can still allow smoking inside. And you are still allowed to smoke in casinos.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but I don't think the tobacco stores can 'serve some dinner' .

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, but I don't think the tobacco stores can 'serve some dinner' .

I'm not exactly sure how the wording of the law goes. But wouldn't it be funny if all a resturant had to do was sell tobacco products and then be able to allow smoking?

Go to Denny's "Smoking or non?" "Isn't it illegal." "No, no, no. You can buy tobacco here, so we can still allow smoking in here."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, but I don't think the tobacco stores can 'serve some dinner' .

If they have a microwave, they can serve dinner.

[Cards4ever]

I will never understand if no-smoking is in such demand, why aren't there more non-smoking bars?

As long as smoking is a legal activity, bar owners should have the right to allow smoking or ban smoking.

Why don't cops sit outside bars and give breathalyzer tests? Smoking is just the witch hunt of the 21st century.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not sure if this is the exact one, but it does deal with the issue:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...ct/337/15/1052

Ah ha, exactly the problem with it that I thought there would be. It takes into account expenditures, but ignores revenues. For instance, health care costs may go up 5.5% for smokers, but since they would live 10-15 years longer they would end up paying 10-15 more years of insurance (give or take some years for medicare for some, no insurance for others, etc) into the sytem, more than offsetting the small increase in costs.