# General Discussion > Opinions >  Smoking Ban in Bars Right or Wrong

## Starship

Pros:

1. Its good for the health of non smokers and people who work there.
2. You can go home after a night out and not smell like an ashtray.
3. Nicer atmosphere if eating foods.
4. Helps to encourage smokers to quit a dangerous habit.


Cons:

1. Encourages people to stay at home, overindulge in drink and inflicts more smoking on the rest of the family.
2. Damages pub trade and destroys atmosphere.
3. An attack on peoples personal liberty.
4. Not enough options investigated, smoking rooms and better ventilation.


Please have your say, and if anyone knows how to set up the vote thingy then knock yourself out.

----------


## Maciamo

I am totally for. As a non-smoker and having no smokers at home, it's hard to have another opinion. 

It wouldn't be a bad thing to see a few pubs close down, especially the old, run-down ones with a clientele of working-class _habitu&#233;s_ who spend their evening at the pub rather than taking care of their kids and family or doing something more productive.

If you think that a ban on smoking in public places is an attack on peoples personal liberty, then you are an anarchist. Government should ban things that are harmful to people's health (I mean not just the person that is smoking but those around). The main reason for the ban in bars and restaurants is to protect the staff, more than customers, because contrarily to non-smoking customers the staff stays there for others everyday and they can't just leave when there is too much smoke.

----------


## Mitsuo

As a non-smoker I feel happy about the ban on smoking in bars. But I do believe that it should be the decision of the owner, especially if it's a privately owned bar/club. I just think about the VFW. They fought for freedom, but now one of the freedoms that they fought for is being taken away from them.

I'm with Maciamo when he says that the government should ban things harmful to the non-participating crowd. I think it should be the decision of the owner. Private or not. Perhaps a collection of non-smoking bars and smoking bars. It would give people a chance to hang out in a bar while enjoying themselves with the people that share the same bad or good habits....

----------


## Maciamo

> As a non-smoker I feel happy about the ban on smoking in bars. But I do believe that it should be the decision of the owner, especially if it's a privately owned bar/club. I just think about the VFW. They fought for freedom, but now one of the freedoms that they fought for is being taken away from them.
> I'm with Maciamo when he says that the government should ban things harmful to the non-participating crowd. I think it should be the decision of the owner. Private or not. Perhaps a collection of non-smoking bars and smoking bars. It would give people a chance to hang out in a bar while enjoying themselves with the people that share the same bad or good habits....


So do you mean that the owner should be given the right to play with his/her staff's health ?

----------


## Starship

I'm an x smoker and as such like all reformed smokers I am a far more fanatical anti smoker than your average non smoker.
Even still I do feel this is an attack on peoples liberty, I'm not suggesting that bar owners have the right to endanger the health of their staff but I'm sure a compromise or some formula could have been reached that would not have criminalized such a large sway of your average man/woman on the street. 

We who live in the cities where we are spoilt for choice for social opportunities often forget the lot of people living in a rural setting, where the pub, bar or cafe can be the only focal point for a generally older demographic. To be faced with a situation where, OK you sat there and had a drink and a smoke with your friends every weekend for the last 40 years, but if you do it tomorrow your a criminal, is outrageous for a state to interfere in this manner.

----------


## Maciamo

> I'm an x smoker and as such like all reformed smokers I am a far more fanatical anti smoker than your average non smoker.
> Even still I do feel this is an attack on peoples liberty, I'm not suggesting that bar owners have the right to endanger the health of their staff but I'm sure a compromise or some formula could have been reached that would not have criminalized such a large sway of your average man/woman on the street.


I would only agree with you that it is an attack on people's liberty if the ban was general, like for drugs, meaning that you can't even smoke at home or outside. I am in favour of people's freedom to ruin their health or kill themselves if they wish (you do what you want with your body/life), but against ruining other people's health.




> To be faced with a situation where, OK you sat there and had a drink and a smoke with your friends every weekend for the last 40 years, but if you do it tomorrow your a criminal, is outrageous for a state to interfere in this manner.


No, you won't be a criminal, just an offender. If you get a ticket for speeding, you are not a criminal either. Same thing.

----------


## Mitsuo

> So do you mean that the owner should be given the right to play with his/her staff's health ?



No, the staff has the right to play with their own health. They don't have to work there.

----------


## Starship

> No, you won't be a criminal, just an offender. If you get a ticket for speeding, you are not a criminal either. Same thing.


 

Well presumably if you take your civil disobedience campaign to the bitter end (continue to smoke and not pay the fines) you will eventually be criminalized.

----------


## Maciamo

> No, the staff has the right to play with their own health. They don't have to work there.


The problem is that the government (in many countries) has already tried to discourage people from smoking, and owners to voluntarily ban smoking in their restaurant, caf&#233; or bar, but it didn't work at all. So it was very hard to find a job in a place that was non-smoker. 

I have never seen a non-smoking restaurant in Belgium or France before the ban. Even after the ban (1 year ago in Belgium's case), about 1/3 of owners still resist it (eventhough they risk one or several fines) and want to change it back.

In some countries, smoking was banned in restaurants but not in bars. In others, smoking was allowed in restaurant provided that they had a special ventilated smoking room completely separated from the non-smoking area (with a door). This is because owners protested too much against the ban, claiming that they would lose customers.

So, without a strict ban, the staff has no chance of being protected just with the owner.

----------


## Mitsuo

I believe that, if given a chance, many people would love to jump on the chance to start and own a bar that is non-smoking. It would attract a lot of people that generally avoid smoke and love the bar scene. It would also allow the smoke intolerant staff members to work in a bar/restaurant/club without the second hand smoke.
There are of course other problems with this idea. Since, I'm sure, many people wouldn't 
want to compete with smoking bars.

My case with the staff is that they're not limited to only bars/clubs/restaurants. There are plenty of jobs out there where smoking is prohibited.

----------


## Minty

Well it is bad for business; I heard lots of restaurants gone bankrupt after they posed a ban on smoking inside of the restaurants.

Of course for us who don't smoke I feel much better when I do go to restaurants that I can put up with fewer smokers, almost everybody I know here smokes.

----------


## Maciamo

> Well it is bad for business; I heard lots of restaurants gone bankrupt after they posed a ban on smoking inside of the restaurants.
> Of course for us who don't smoke I feel much better when I do go to restaurants that I can put up with fewer smokers, almost everybody I know here smokes.


I know of a few cases of pubs or caf&#233;s that were frequently by all smokers. I couldn't even get in because of the smoke everywhere. I guess that these places were the worst it, unless they got a derogation to make it a "smokers only" place.

----------


## badboldie

I am thinking of going to France for a skiing holiday and would like to know if the smoking ban is enforced throughout france, as not sure of destination yet!

----------


## Maciamo

> I am thinking of going to France for a skiing holiday and would like to know if the smoking ban is enforced throughout france, as not sure of destination yet!


Smoking is now banned in restaurants and public places in all Western Europe (check the smoking ban map). There are sometimes exceptions allowed for small establishments or bigger ones that have well ventilated smoking rooms. The best way is always to ask if such facilities exist, wherever you go. You wouldn't want to pay a few hundreds euro in fine.

----------

