If bars were no longer able to allow their patrons to smoke, I suspect a whole lot more people would be going to Canada

in my city, we are no longer allowed to smoke in public places: no bars, shopping malls, restaurants, and a ban on smoking with minors in the car has just been passed as well.  People tried to get away with it the first couple of months but with hundred+ dollar fines for the individual and a 5 thousand dollar fine for first time owner offenders and growing fines for repeat offenders it all stopped pretty quickly. 

The bars are just as full.  Outdoor patios are all the rage. Life goes on. 

As a smoker, I do miss it.  But the non-smokers are pretty happy. As a smoker, I'm not that selfish to admit that my addiction is damaging to others. I'm all right with it that way, but I am bitter when I have to bundle up and go outdoors in the winter time every single time I want a smoke. It's easier to quit, so I've heard. I know a lot more non-smokers now, than before the ban.

Nicky

I'm not a smoker, but I don't like the governments fingers in the pie either. I think if the bar or restaurant want to cater to smokers they should prominently display a sign near the entrance. People that don't like smoke don't have to eat/drink there, they have a choice. I would also advise employees of the working conditions and have them sign an acknowledgment to that fact. If it's a public place (library, office) then I'd err on the safe side and not permit smoking. Most of these places do all ready.

I'm with WT on this one. I think the gov. is killing its cash cow. What hypocrisy it is to discourage smoking then tie social spending programs to it. He's right the government will try to find alternate "sources" of revenue in the name of your health and well being. Think about it,: a drivers tax (because you can kill yourself/others behind the wheel), Internet usage tax (to prevent vision issues) Automobile tax (because I'm breathing your second hand exhaust).

The possibilities are endless. They might even sound ridiculous, as crazy at it would have sounded about tobacco and alcohol here in the early 1800's. It's all part of the coming nanny state designed to take care of you cradle to grave. Some folks won't be happy until we are all tucked away in our plastic, germ free bubbles.

I don't see that as an option at all. I don't see why I have to work around other people's harmful actions when I could simply rely on my right not to be harmed against my will.

I could also wear a bulletproof vest and never speak up against violent people, but I prefer laws against shooting people or beating people up.

It's the law here. The free market can solve most problems. And I am even sure that it can solve this problem. But I do not want a "free market solution" for the violation of my rights. Even if violating my rights is a bad policy, economically, and hence the free market would eventually (perhaps tomorrow) make sure that it doesn't happen, I _still_ insist that I won't be harmed REGARDLESS of the market situation for such actions.

Most bars don't have loud music. Before the smoking ban ALL bars had smokers.

The music thing violated my freedom, but not much. I don't care about loud music played in a few bars that much.

Shooting is legal. Shooting people isn't legal.

And that's the same way I see smoking. _Smoking_ is and should be legal. But smoking where others are harmed by it should be illegal.

I come from Germany. In Germany, until last year and certainly when I lived there, smoking was legal anywhere and everywhere. It was only a year ago that they prohibited it in hospitals and raised the legal age to buy cigarettes to 18. (I think they are still discussion whether raising the drinking age to 18 would be a good idea too.)

When I worked in a German office, colleagues smoked. They always asked if it bothered people and probably wouldn't have smoked if it had. But there was no law against it and no company regulations either. Perhaps ironically, given your position on this, they did perceive their habit as harmful to others and didn't seem to think that a specific law is required to keep them from harming others without their permission. Smoking and harming me was NOT their right, it was a privilege that, at least theoretically in a polite society, required my permission. You are arguing that it is an "American right".

Occasionally American film stars would appear on German television and smoke a cigar, telling everyone that they always enjoy coming to Germany because of the German pro-smoking attitude.

I don't see American rights as different from anybody else's rights. _I_ have the right not to be harmed against my will, and so do Americans. On the other hand NOBODY, not I and not an America, has the right to perform an action that WILL harm others against their will.

Yes, that's exactly what happened here in Ireland when they prohibited smoking in pubs.

How many Irish pubs in Dublin have you heard of that prohibited smoking before the general ban?

Peeing is a legal activity but the law prohibits it in public places and in most businesses even if no sign specifically mentions it to people.

And peeing on the street is arguably less harmful to others than smoking next to them.

What this really boils down to is:

Does the government really care about your your health?

Answer: ONLY if it will cost them money. Otherwise they can careless if you fall over dead. They will care if too many fall over dead because that reduces the tax base.

Ordinary people have an opinion based on their self-interest, for good or bad, because at the end of the day it what "I" think should be or not, regardless of what "they" think. And so far in this society (for now at least) the "I's" have it.

I don't see that connection at all.

That's a subjective opinion.  There are plenty of studies that show the damage loud music can do.  The point is, if you start with smoking, why won't music be next?  Drinking is dangerous not only because of drinking and driving but people get drunk and fight or stumble around and break things or injure people.  Why not ban drinking next?  Sure, they tried it before but that doesn't mean that they won't try it again.

I have an example of where the ban would be a problem, what about VFW halls?  I grew up helping out at my the VFW hall that my grandpa (WWII vet) belonged to. That place was always a fog of smoke but you know what, most of those guys, my grandpa included, got hooked on smoking during the war that they were fighting for our freedoms.  Should the government be able to go in and tell them they can't smoke in their own place now?

Leauki

Gonna have to disagree with you on your comparison to shooting ranges and smoking. You see, they have laws that don't allow you to shoot at people but that would be purposely aiming a gun with the intentions of causing harm and if done my accident, it's still a weapon that was used inproperly with full knowledge that if pointed incorrectly it could kill. Smoking on the other hand is not done with the intentions of hurting other people, people who chose to be around smokers are chosing to harm themselves with a substance that can not be controlled as to where it goes (cigarrette smoke). Smokers would tend to assume that if you are around them, that you don't have a problem with the smoke so they are not intentionally or accidentally harming you unlike a shooting range where aiming on porpuse or by mistake is still your responsibility.

Subjective opinion is always involved, but for some reason the subjective opinion of smokers ("smoke doesn't bother anybody") is worth more than the subjective opinion of those bothered by smoke.

It is objective fact that there are still fewer pubs with loud music in Dublin than pubs with lots of smoke before the ban. And that's why loud music doesn't bother me that much. I can go to a pub next door. It's not a problem.

I have the same opinion about accidental shootings.

If someone happens to shoot at a wall in a bar and accidently harms someone without meaning to, I would still want that to be illegal (despite the fact that I have no problems at all with shooting per se be illegal).

I don't like smoking, I avoid it at all cost but there are times I can't because I must be around it for a short period of time. But if it's legal to smoke and the location I am at chooses to allow people to smoke, who am I to tell them otherwise and who is the Gov't to tell them otherwise?

Not everyone is harmed by breathing in some smoke.  EVERY SINGLE PERSON gets harmed when shot.

You are you, a human being with rights. One of those rights is that other people may not harm you without your consent. Being you is enough. Anyone has the right to tell those who want to do them harm otherwise.

And the government is the agency that is supposed to enforce those rights.

You shouldn't have to avoid being near smoke at all cost. Smokers should avoid smoking next to you at all cost. The responsibility not to cause conflict lies with the person who want to do something that is or can be harmful to others.

A smoker's right to smoke ends where somebody else's nose starts.

I used the shooting example to see how far it goes with the right to harm people. I realise getting shot is worse then breathing in some smoke.

But "some smoke" is also quite a term for the atmosphere in a smoker's pub.

(It is possible to bet shot at without getting harmed. It happened to me. But I nevertheless demand that people please shoot at something else and not me, even if I happen to be where they want to shoot, even if I could go somewhere else, and even if I might not be harmed at all but only risk harm.)