Smoking Restrictions in Europe

wrote:

Oh, I'm not sure about that. I once knew an elderly couple - neither of
whom had, as far as I'm aware, ever been smokers - who would buy cigars at
Christmas and light them in an ashtray, simply because they liked the
smell. (It may have been an associational thing, of course.) And I
certainly liked the smell of fresh (ie not stale) cigar and cigarette
smoke long before I started smoking.

I've always rather liked cigar smoke (though for health reasons I
wouldn't want to be around it)- so I think there's something to the
aesthetic aspects of it. I've never liked cigarette smoke though- and I
come from a family of cigarette smokers.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

In article 1g3g63j.5vlhyw1ok2oruN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.co.uk,
(David Horne) wrote:

wrote:

In article ,
(Dave Smith) wrote:

wrote:


Compromise is required because realistically no UK (for example)
government in the near future is going to put a blanket ban on
smoking.
Some people will always break the rules. Most won't.

The local government did it here. They banned smoking in all
restaurants and
bars where there was not a separately ventilated room.

Actually I'd call that a compromise not a blanket ban!

It would be a compromise that would suit a lot of people (including me)
but doesn't take away all of the public safety issue- that is, the
people who work there.

Indeed -- that is the most compelling argument in favour of all-out bans.

But, in that case, my complaint is really with the jerks who smoke in
the train toilets.

Agreed. Give the rest of us a bad name.

In article 1g3g6bc.15t74e9ezfarrN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.co.uk,
(David Horne) wrote:

wrote:

In article
1g3cxkm.1pe9aunoowypeN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.co.uk,
(David Horne) wrote:


and in the
ones that _do_ have them, the smoke is often pervasive.

This is poor ventilation, though, isn't it? Good (and undoubtedly
hugely
expensive) systems can deal with that.

Yes, but it would seem easier in many cases just to ban smoking. What
about small restaurants?

In the proverbial ideal world, all restaurants would be obliged to provide
a certain amount of non-smoking seating (a percentage of their capacity,
probably) and it would then be their decision whether or not to allow
smoking in the rest. The smallest restaurants would thus become entirely
non-smoking by default. (Actually, I don't think this is too far from the
law in some places anyway.)

You may think this rather odd coming from a smoker! But really, I hate
places (cheaper UK Indians are frequent examples) where you can smoke
everywhere. I feel uncomfortable smoking because I can't be sure whether
people at adjacent tables mind; they feel uncomfortable because even if
they do mind, they don't feel entitled to ask me to stop, as smoking is
permitted.

Again, it's worth saying that good ventilation is essential for any scheme
to be successful. goes out and buys shares in Expelair

Hatunen wrote:

The local government did it here. They banned smoking in all restaurants and
bars where there was not a separately ventilated room. Local bar owners were
outraged and predicted a huge drop in business. Two bars in my town have gone
under in the short time since the law went into effect. My brother and his
wife are both smokers and refuse to go any place that does not have a smoking
section. I always figures that I had the right to decide not to go into any
place where the smoke bothered me.

California has a total ban and despite all the clamor at the
time, no one cited any bars or restaurants closing and blaming it
on the no-smoking law.

Restaurant/bars are notorious for their short lifetimes when
relatively new; is there any evidence that a no-smoking law was
the actual cause of their going under? Without some sort of
evidence you simply have post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Neither of them was new. One of them had been there for more than 10 years. It
was never terribly busy, but the smoking ban was the last straw.