Ban

[tackattack]

---

That would make more sense. Or, leave it up to the owner. The anti smoker movement, despite being well funded and coordinated, doesn't represent true freedom.

As an ex-cigarette smoker let me say that your right to enjoy that cigarette ends at my nose.

---

So those people who now can't smoke inside a restaurant in their own section, now have to stand outside and every man, woman and child walking in or out gets second hand smoke instead of those who choose to sit in the smoking section?

You're either being disingenuous or outright misinformed if you think that is actually how it works. Outdoors is not a closed environment. Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.

---

Or neither. Airports did it well if not on the ventalation, at least on the segregation. Now a smoker has to go outside to smoke in between stop overs and then process all the way back though security. That's a lot more than a little infringment on equal service. Here in VA we had some restraunts and clubs with excellently segregated and ventilated smoking sections. There was never any complaints to the management about smoking. On the othe hand we have applebees which had a bar in the middle of the restraunt with seating surrounding it and called that the smoker section. There are 2 extremes of accountability happening there for the buisness owner. And I feel that's where the accountability lay with the owner, not the gov. or zealous lobbiests. Now it's illegal to smoke anywhere indoors, and padriac was talking about banning everything except n your own home (which would include the outdoors). A few months ago I saw some people arguing outside a TGIF because ther was someone smoking near the front door (within 10 feet of a cigarette butt recepticle) and they had to walk through the smoke with their kids. If it'd been me I'd say they kicked me out of the restraunt for smoking, but you still have the choice not to come into this restraunt. I was merely commenting on the usefullness (or lack there of) of the law as it's applied where I am. I'm well aware of the detriments of second hand smoke. I wasn't even broching the subject of restrictions of personal liberties, air cleanliness, ownership accountability, historial effectiveness of bans or social politeness. I personally think it's extremely rude for a smoker to force others to smell their tobacco and would agree with a business owner's choice to responsibly segregate them (thus giving both equal opportunities for service, without infringing on anyone's rights).

[Godhead]

Some people don't want to be segregated.

[tackattack]

segregation in the sense I use it here isn't for some trivial social or political BS. Nor is it for an unreasonable purpose like skin color or beliefs. I'm talking about for saaafety's sake, similar to not allowing pedophiles to live near schools. It's not healthy for either and a recipe for disaster. If you had a buisness where you had 2 types of customers, both equally profitable, would you choose to cut your profts in half? If the 2 types of customers you had were people who liked to light themselves on fire and those that didn't wouldn't you see benefit in seperating them?

[Godhead]

Tackattack -

Segregation is fine if it's absolutely necessary, ie for safety, and in certain circumstances, I'm just saying in general, smokers and non smokers don't enjoy each other's company any less because of the difference between them, and some non smokers actually like a bit of smoke around them. Essentially I agree with you.

[Edwardo Piet]

Smoking does harm to non-smokers as well as smokers. That's the problem

[tackattack]

Banned? Wonder why? Anywho, I agree EvF ,and a lot of non-smokers are well informed of that fact and like stated previously your freedom stops at my nose (Love that line). I think the main proble isn't smoking or not, it's limiting of proprieters rights to serve whom and how they serve, and grossly limiting the freedoms of one group in favor of another.

[Facejacker]

Where I live a lot of the pubs have changed so much since we had a smoking ban back in 2007. The antismokers tried to make us all believe that most of the population were all for it, and they promised that hordes of nonsmokers would suddenly flock into pubs and that they would all thrive as a result of this new clintelle.

The reality is that it's been an utter disaster. When I walk past pubs, instead of seeing happy customers inside, enjoying themselves, what I see is people standing outside in all weathers, while the pub itself remains empty. It's just so pointless, pubs are for adults, grown ups to indulge in the legal vices of their choice. Smoking goes hand in hand with drinking (for smokers, of course) and if you force them outside to smoke (and yes it is effectively forcing them) it creates mass inconvenience and a tende atmosphere, you can't relax properly. If you smoke, you spend half your timeoutside, and if you don't, you spend half your time either waiting for your smoking friends to return, or you go out and join them and then when you go back in you've lost your seat. It's the most ridiculous setup.

The government originally promised that pubs would be exempt from the ban, and at the last minute they did a u turn. At first, the antismokers denied that pubs were suffering, and over time it's becoem clear that they have, what with 50 or so pubs closing down each week. And now they're saying that it's because of cheap supermarket booze or the recession or the weather, and those are all lies. Supermarket booze has always been cheaper than pub booze, and people are always prepared to pay a premium for a pub atmosphere just like with restaurant food. The recession is another excuse as pubgoers have always been able to manage to afford going to the pub no matter what the economy is doing. And the weather is the silliest excuse since the weather has always done what it's done and it has never dissauded anyone before.