Smoking Ban/County Wide

[Spock]

A smoke free Thanksgiving to one and all...unless you're smoking the Turkey

[Nurvingiel]

Mmm smoked turkey...

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

No Nurv, Akron is included in the ban. The thing is though, they plan on making downtown Akron exempt from the ban because that area is booming with bars and restaurantes, but the rest of the city would be banned the same as others in the county. That is my point: If smoking is banned throughout the county, then all the people of the surrounding communities will come to downtown Akron to smoke and drink. So, who benefits here?

That's not fair, I don't think downtown Akron should be exempt. Personally I think it would be better (and businesses outside downtown Akron wouldn't feel gypped) to just go for it and ban smoking in all establishments. (Or at least everyone but what the current ban has exempted.)

In BC I believe the first ban was all public buildings except pubs, clubs, and bars. Then later, smoking was banned there as well.

I don't know why it has taken this long for a smoking ban. I hope it's not greed or a desire to be mean to smokers. Better now that later though IMO.

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

No it is not. There is no reason for the government to be involved. We have places that have banned smoking way before this, by choice. For instance: I can't even remember when the last time was that you could light up in a McDonalds here, but Burger King still allowed it with the exception of some franchises. To me, that is the way it should be, by choice, not force.

That is certainly a valid way to approach this. I think a lot of BCers felt (still feel) this way. The reason I disagree is because of the second-hand smoke issue, but voluntary bans are still not a bad idea. I would definitely support a business (especially a restaurant) who didn't have any smoking.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Tessar

in public that's actually worse for the people around them than it is for them.

This is completely wrong.

As for costs, here in the UK the government gets about £9bn a year from smokers. The total NHS budget is about £90bn. Over our lives, smokers have paid for our extra health care many times over. Also, we die younger so we don't draw our pensions or spend decades in nursing homes. Finally, the vast majority of health care costs incurred by an individual are in the first six months of life and the last six months, no matter how long you live. So, it is a pretty weak argument that getting rid of smoking would result in lower costs to society.

In Europe, the issue is framed in terms of workplace legislation: workers are entitled to work in an environment which doesn't harm them. Therefore, all workplaces should be smoke-free. Seems reasonable.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

I realize this. I was just useing it as an example. They allowed asbestos for ages. Once they found out how unhealthy it was, they banned it. What I'm saying is: they have known forever how hazardous smoking is to both smokers and non smokers and let it go til now instead of doing something a long time ago. Why do you think? I'd say:$$$$$.

Because politicians smoke too

People have smoked for centuries now and smoking has been accepted in society. Smoking is kind of a tradition. Therefore it's impossible to abruptly introduce a complete ban on smoking. If smoking was a new phenomenon, no way the health authorities would allow it today.

I say it's tradition rather than $$$$$ that is the reason for why they haven't really done anything about it until know. Or it might also be that until now, people didn't have a grasp of how much smoking actually costs society, or they just didn't know exactly how dangerous smoking really is.

[edit]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

As for costs, here in the UK the government gets about £9bn a year from smokers. The total NHS budget is about £90bn. Over our lives, smokers have paid for our extra health care many times over. Also, we die younger so we don't draw our pensions or spend decades in nursing homes. Finally, the vast majority of health care costs incurred by an individual are in the first six months of life and the last six months, no matter how long you live. So, it is a pretty weak argument that getting rid of smoking would result in lower costs to society.

I completely disagree. Besides carrying what I believe is a heavy load on the national health budget, think of all the sick days that are a result from smoking and how companies lose money when their employers become ill. Mind you that I don't have any numbers to back this up, I'll to come back if I find any

[Finrod Felagund]

Canada is slowly but surely banning public smoking in many major cities. I like it that way.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I completely disagree. Besides carrying what I believe is a heavy load on the national health budget, think of all the sick days that are a result from smoking and how companies lose money when their employers become ill. Mind you that I don't have any numbers to back this up, I'll to come back if I find any

I think it depends on the perspective taken. Health systems incur costs from smoking-related illnesses, but much of them would have to be incurred anyway. So they key thing is the extra, or "incremental" costs, which include, as you say, absence from work. But they also include not drawing your pension coz you're dead.

Here's a news report from 2001 which set the cat amongst the pigeons a bit in this debate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1442555.stm

So, as for $$$, you are certainly right: it's not about money. And if I launched a product that was highly addictive and had a 50% chance of killing the user, somehow methinks I'd be doing some jail time.

I think the major costs are paid by smokers, who die horribly, and their loved ones, who have to watch them die horribly. We should do all we can to help them to stop. And that might mean banning smoking in public places.

[Jonathan]

I guess a lot depends on the pension and healthcare systems of the country you live in. I know for sure that in Sweden, pensions and health costs don't benefit from smoking at all. Maybe in a country with a healthcare sytem like the one in the US, smoking doesn't hit economy as hard. However, vasts sums of money are lost in every country due to people calling in sick (because of sicknesses related to smoking) and production losses. Vast sums of money. In Sweden, these costs are like ten times bigger than the costs of giving sick smokers the healthcare they need (which already is expensive).

[Jonathan]

(Post to update thread)

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

This is completely wrong.

Reguardless of if you're right about that fact, or if I'm right, the fact that no one can refute is that it makes a place stink after just a few minutes, the smell clings to everyone's clothing, and it can hang around for days and days even if no one else smokes there. So basically I have to smell terrible because someone else was smoking--not good.

[Spock]

gotta agree about the lingering odor, heavy smokers even if it´s one, can ruin the ambience of a room in no time and so I do support non smoking in restaurants...your taste buds will thank you.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

your taste buds will thank you.

taste is relative

[Lotesse]

I'm a light smoker, but I HATE smoking indoors, and I despise the smell of second-hand smoke, and the way it clings to clothes, gets into the PAINT on the walls & ceiling, permeates the furniture and drapes, and stinks up people's hair and fingers and breath. Nowadays, for the most part the habit of smoking is kinda frowned upon here in L.A., what with everyone being so into image and health and everything, but of course people still smoke like crazy in venues like private parties or on the patios of nightclubs & bars, which I don't see a problem with. What I find repulsive is indoor smoking, espECially smoking in restaurants!! BLEH! What a way to ruin a person's eating experience. But the ultimate grossness is CIGARS.

Someday I'd like to quit smoking entirely. I wonder how well the patch works. I read this novel once, and there was a scene in it where this guy got kidnapped by some mafioso-types, and they pasted nicotene patches ALL OVER his body, then forced him to go jogging, and the guy dropped dead from some massive heart attack I think it was. So Steven King, although it wasn't him that was the author. Wish I could remember the title of that book, it was really good. It was all about the dark side of the tobacco industry.

[Elanor]

I also support smoking bans, but I can understand why they would annoy smokers. Of course people will smoke in public anyway-- when do people always obey the law? But at least it will be less socially acceptable, and hopefully this will help break the "glamorous" image that teens get (I never quite understood why they get it, but the statistics stand for themselves). It's such a self-destructive and disgusting habit; we should do anything we can to help people get free of it.

As for Akron, Ohio, the government may or may not have its own agenda. But if the ban goes into place for the whole county, no part should be exempt.

[Nurvingiel]

You could talk to your doctor about quitting smoking Lotesse. They could tell you if the patch works well or not. Good luck to you if that's what you decide to do. *cheers*

About breaking the law, people don't smoke in restaurants that have banned smoking. There's probably the odd person that tries to light up, but I don't think it's a big deal. Banning smoking is way easier than you (general you) think it would be. It was practically a sinch for BC!

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

I live in Akron Ohio, in the county of Summit, which covers multiple communities. A "smoking ban" has been put into effect for the entire county with exemptions to bowling alleys and bars that are considered private clubs. Under the terms of the ban, you may not smoke in any public establishment or 10 feet from its entrance. In a smaller clause attached, you may not smoke outside of your residence if you are 10 feet from another residence that may choose to object. If you are found in violation of the new ordinace, you will be fined $150.00, your first offense.

It is my opinion that the government, be it federal, state or local, has no place in making this mandatory. Businesses should have the right to make that choice and not be required to conform to a decision that they believe will effect their revenues. Many owners that are non-smokers were against this, and find it to be unconstitutional.

I also find it to be quite a political play on the part of Akron. Akron is the largest community in the county, and they are discussing making the downtown area exempt from the law. In that case, Akron has everything to gain. All surrounding communities will flock here on Friday and Saturday night for a funfilled weekend of eating, smoking, and drinking.

There are smoking bans in effect in certian cities nationwide. This will be the first county wide ban in the U.S.

Thoughts?

I think everyone would be better if no one smoked tobacco products.

That being said, I think the gov't is being hypocritical. Gov't decries smoking as a health hazzard, yet gov't has no problem profiting from this health hazzard (primarily though taxes on tobacco products).

(On a cynical note: another side benefit to gov't-- in general many smokers die sooner from smoking related causes -- less burden on social security system -- smokers may cost less to gov't (not sure about complete health costs))

I think that private residences and private establishments should be exempt from this ban.
================================================== ==
I think that an individuals right to smoke in public ends at another person's nose. If they can find a way to smoke without infringing on anothers right to smoke free air then they can smoke in public, otherwise forget it.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

Gov't decries smoking as a health hazzard, yet gov't has no problem profiting from this health hazzard (primarily though taxes on tobacco products).

Worldwide, high taxes on unhealthy products is a common way of keeping the number of buyers down. Profitting comes secondary (and the profit the government makes is quickly consumed anyway to pay for the costs that smoking brings to society).

[Spock]

Well the Indians smoked and look where it's gotten them.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Well the Indians smoked and look where it's gotten them.

a multi-billion dollar casino empire... hmmm

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Someday I'd like to quit smoking entirely. I wonder how well the patch works.

Seems to work for some people, but not for me. Last time I used 'em I stopped smoking fine but got unpleasant side-effects (insomnia, anxiety) when I stopped using the patches. So I started smoking again. However, they do give you really vivid dreams, which was fun.

Currently am on about 5 a day and planning to go cold turkey in the not-too-distant.

[Spock]

hmmm, five a day.......goes and looks up stock portfolio, tells broker to increase medical stock share