Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 16 2018, @05:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the all-those-in-favour,-please-cough dept.

Austria has one of the highest rates of smoking and youth smoking among high income countries, and that might not be changing anytime soon:

Many Western countries have banned smoking in bars and restaurants, but Austria is bucking that trend. Under a law passed in 2015, Austria was due to bring in a total ban this May, but now its new government of the conservatives and the far-right Freedom Party have scrapped the plans.

The move was spearheaded by the leader of the Freedom Party, Austria's Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, himself a smoker, who told parliament last month that it was about freedom of choice. He said restaurants should be free to decide if they want to have smoking sections, where "a citizen has the possibility to decide perhaps to enjoy a cigarette or a pipe or a cigar with their coffee".

The move has horrified Austria's medical establishment. Dr Manfred Neuberger, professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, says it is "a public health disaster".

"The decision is irresponsible. It was a victory for the tobacco industry. The new government made Austria into the ashtray of Europe."

Meanwhile, the country is considering buying more jet fighters, recruiting more police, defunding its public broadcaster, and examining its past.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:13AM (63 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:13AM (#638674)

    I hate smoking. Hate being around smoking. But I hate even more the idea that government has to come in and tell everybody what they can and can't do in restaurants. Why exactly can't that be up to the restaurant?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:18AM (41 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:18AM (#638676)

    Because one smoker can stink up the joint for everyone, but one non-smoker has absolutely no effect on other's enjoyment of their meal.

    Same reason as just one kid with a boom-box on the bus can make the ride miserable for everyone else.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @05:19AM (18 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 16 2018, @05:19AM (#638680) Homepage Journal

      That's the owner's problem if he loses business because of it. Capitalism, yay!

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Friday February 16 2018, @06:35AM (17 children)

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 16 2018, @06:35AM (#638711)

        I'd rather be able to go into any restaurant and know there will be no cigarette smoke, which means I go into more restaurants. I value that way higher than your right to smoke wherever you want, or the restaurateur's right to allow smoking. It actually ends up being a net-positive for business, revealing yet another contradiction of capitalism.

        Pure-capitalist simpletons are the short-bus riders of economics; blind to higher dimensions of profitability if they gave up their spiteful, prideful, behavior.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by kryptonianjorel on Friday February 16 2018, @08:19AM (2 children)

          by kryptonianjorel (4640) on Friday February 16 2018, @08:19AM (#638743)

          Or, you'd frequent the restaurants that do not allow smoking more often, and they'd profit, whereas the restaurants that do allow smoking, will be frequented more by those who do smoke. I don't see how this is a problem for anybody. But outright banning of smoking hurts smokers

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @11:18AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @11:18AM (#638774)

            Smoking hurts smokers. Anything else is just adding insult to injury. Fairly well deserved insults, considering how well known the negative affects of smoking are.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @02:05AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @02:05AM (#639169)

            Don't forget kids, the cigarette does the smoking. You're just the sucker.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @02:05PM (9 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 16 2018, @02:05PM (#638793) Homepage Journal

          Sorry but I value liberty over your non-existent right to not be offended. That is why I said "capitalism, yay"; not because it made the owner money but because it gives them the freedom to do as they like with what they own.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by VanessaE on Friday February 16 2018, @09:13PM (5 children)

            by VanessaE (3396) <vanessa.e.dannenberg@gmail.com> on Friday February 16 2018, @09:13PM (#639040) Journal

            freedom to do as they like with what they own.

            They don't own the air inside the restaurant, therefore they should not be free to allow it to be *polluted*.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Friday February 16 2018, @10:15PM (2 children)

            by dry (223) on Friday February 16 2018, @10:15PM (#639081) Journal

            There's also the argument about the workers, often people close to the bottom of the social structure with few choices for work. Ideally there would be enough work that it's not a problem but capitalism strives for unemployment as it results in cheaper workers.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @11:14PM (1 child)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 16 2018, @11:14PM (#639109) Homepage Journal

              That argument went out the window when most people quit smoking. Today it's not worth allowing smoking in your establishment (where it's even legal) unless you're looking to cater to a niche market. A prospective employee would have to spend quite a bit of time looking for somewhere to get lung cancer even if that were their goal.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 16 2018, @11:48PM

                by dry (223) on Friday February 16 2018, @11:48PM (#639126) Journal

                Yes, after years (decades here in BC) of smoking bans, high taxes, free stop smoking stuff and lots of other pressures on smoking, these laws are probably unneeded, at least here as the smoking rates have dropped a lot, perhaps the lowest in N. America. Not so much 25 years back when these laws were first considered here and it sounds like Austria is far enough behind that it may well be a factor to consider.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @04:22PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @04:22PM (#638871)

          The smokers actually subsidize as lot of stuff via tobacco taxes. Banning smoking in restaurants, bars and pubs is stupid and a lost opportunity.

          The government could do stuff like issuing a limited number of "smoking allowed establishment" licenses per area per period (e.g. 5 years) and have businesses bid for them with a minimum reserve price. That way you control the number of smoking places and you don't lose out on another opportunity for making the smokers pay for stuff.

          Then people like you can go to restaurants that don't allow smoking. While those who want to smoke in restaurants can go to restaurants that allow smoking.

          And rest like me can go to either depending on how our "cost-benefit" equation works out.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by julian on Friday February 16 2018, @05:53PM (2 children)

            by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 16 2018, @05:53PM (#638906)

            The smokers actually subsidize as lot of stuff via tobacco taxes. Banning smoking in restaurants, bars and pubs is stupid and a lost opportunity.

            This is a variation of the broken window fallacy. Smoking causes far, far, more costs than are recovered by taxes.

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 16 2018, @08:45PM

              by frojack (1554) on Friday February 16 2018, @08:45PM (#639026) Journal

              And the taxes likely go to government general fund, not to offset the damage caused by smoking.

              HOW MUCH MONEY?

              Massachusetts has one of the highest cigarette taxes in the country – $2.51 on every pack. Last year that meant $562 million in state revenue. The big tobacco settlement brought in another $315 million. However, out of the nearly $900 million the state took in from cigarette taxes and settlement funds, lawmakers dedicated only $4.5 million to anti-smoking programs this year.

              “Right now the program is funded at less than 1% of what the state brings in in tobacco revenue,” said Russet Morrow Breslau, the head of Tobacco Free Mass, a consortium of health groups.

              WHERE THE MONEY GOES

              Almost all of that revenue goes into the state’s general fund. Not a penny is earmarked for anti-smoking, so the state’s Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Program is funded at whatever level lawmakers decide.

              http://boston.cbslocal.com/2010/10/01/curious-where-cigarette-tax-money-goes/ [cbslocal.com]

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 16 2018, @10:21PM

              by dry (223) on Friday February 16 2018, @10:21PM (#639083) Journal

              How? By killing off people early when they could spend decades sucking on the healthcare tit, perhaps with Alzheimer's like my mom the non-smoker who seems to have had her brain dissolve about 20 years ago and needs full time care vs my smoking dad who died quite quickly of cancer at home, mostly consuming morphine.
              It's really not clear which group uses the most resources at end of life and I've seen studies arguing both.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @05:21AM (13 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 16 2018, @05:21AM (#638681) Journal

      but one non-smoker has absolutely no effect on other's enjoyment of their meal.

      I can't stand having dinner with a non-smoker, my enjoyment of the dinning experience is ruined.
      So long for your absolute!

      (grin)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:34AM (12 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:34AM (#638685)

        Kind of makes sense I suppose, when the non-smoke won't let you huff white plumes of smoke over his food and into his lungs. That might take away your immediate enjoyment of dinner while your mind is busily craving the next drag.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:40AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:40AM (#638692)

          I have the same position when it comes to flatulence. After all, it is just a gesture of appreciation of the meal! Outside of the microscopic bits of fecal matter.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by theluggage on Friday February 16 2018, @01:12PM (1 child)

            by theluggage (1797) on Friday February 16 2018, @01:12PM (#638784)

            I have the same position when it comes to flatulence. After all, it is just a gesture of appreciation of the meal! Outside of the microscopic bits of fecal matter.

            ...but then most civilised people do make an effort not to fart profusely while in polite company (and can expect not to be invited back if they do). Its also an unavoidable biological function - unlike shredding up leaves and setting fire to them, which is completely avoidable.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 16 2018, @05:50PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Friday February 16 2018, @05:50PM (#638904)

              Most restaurants are totally rude and do not let me operate my leaf shredder indoors. I keep telling them that the 50HP version is clearly the most efficient and therefore, in the end, the best solution for the planet and the fastest at getting me a nice pile to set on fire. But all thy ever answer is "WHAT? TURN THIS THING OFF!"

        • (Score: 5, Troll) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @06:10AM (8 children)

          by Arik (4543) on Friday February 16 2018, @06:10AM (#638703) Journal
          I don't smoke, I don't like the smell of smoke, in fact I'm an ex-smoker and extremely sensitive to it, I always pick up that stench and start making faces and looking around for the source before those around me. So I'd rather people not smoke at all, hands down, that would really just be great.

          Also I have to say that people who smoke while eating are just disgusting; even when I was a heavy smoker I wouldn't do that. One should eat first, then smoke, and one should either wait for everyone else at the table to finish eating or else excuse oneself from the table and step outside if one simply cannot wait.

          That said, as uncomfortable as I am with people smoking around me at any time, and particularly when I'm eating, I'm still less comfortable with the idea that the legislature has any business making laws about it.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:23PM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:23PM (#638832)

            Are you also uncomfortable with the government making laws about attending public events nude?

            How about laws preventing people from exposing themselves to people at work? If they work at a school?

            The point is, that government has always had laws about public conduct. That is kind of the point of government. That and providing for the public defense.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @04:27PM (2 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 16 2018, @04:27PM (#638873) Homepage Journal

              Frankly, yes. We got by for thousands of years without puritans and I think we could get by just fine without them again. If you're not actually harming anybody (yourself excluded), the government has zero business telling you what to do. Ever.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:01PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:01PM (#638947)

                If you're not actually harming anybody (yourself excluded), the government has zero business telling you what to do.

                Second hand smoke, TMB just clinched the deal. Smoking bans remain, triggered libertarians please exit backstage.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @06:41PM

              by Arik (4543) on Friday February 16 2018, @06:41PM (#638929) Journal
              "Are you also uncomfortable with the government making laws about attending public events nude?"

              I'm not too far from TMB on that one either. Definitely there are plenty of people I'd rather not appear in my field of view nude *but* guaranteeing my comfort (or anyone elses) is NOT a legitimate use of force. And please, let's get away from this inane and inaccurate assumption that just because something is not illegal that there's no other way to stop it either. That's just not true.

              With apologies to Dave Barry, this is fundamentally what he calls the 'sex with dogs' argument. We have to make sex with dogs illegal, you see, because otherwise people will be having sex with dogs and that's really nasty. While it is really nasty, it does not follow that it must be illegal or people will do it. I'm not going to do it! Are you? So what makes you think we need a law? To stop you from doing something you aren't going to do anyway?

              I reckon making a law about something like that is going to mean it happens more often, not less. Because now people have a reason to talk about it, and people that had never thought of the possibility and likely never would have suddenly are forced to contemplate it. Most of them are going to go yuck but like with anything some small percent will have a different reaction. So it's actually the law, whether actual or proposed, that creates the very problem it's supposed to address (a very common theme when you analyze the effects of laws btw.)

              If the idea is to reduce or prevent bestiality, then a better approach would be to forbid mention of it, rather than the act, but that would obviously fall afoul of the first amendment. And it wouldn't really work either. Nothing motivates people to discuss a subject like forbidding discussion of the subject.

              "The point is, that government has always had laws about public conduct."

              A private restaurant is not really a public space, though the state of course prefers to pretend they are. But the public square and the public roads are public in a strong sense - there's not really any reasonable way to avoid them or find alternatives. Restaurants are nothing like that at all. If you don't like one there's another, and another, and another.

              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:16AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:16AM (#639220)

              Are you also uncomfortable with the government making laws about attending public events nude?

              Absolutely. Why should the government force people to wear clothing just because some people are offended by nudity? You posed this question without even once stopping to think if the laws you're referencing are valid to begin with, as if you just implicitly accept the status quo. Wearing particular articles of clothing is an act of expression, so I don't see how wearing no clothing is not. Prohibitions on public nudity violate the first amendment and basic ethical principles.

            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:24AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:24AM (#639222)

              How about laws preventing people from exposing themselves to people at work?

              If the workplace is a private institution, they can set their own rules regarding this.

              If they work at a school?

              I do not believe in the supposed value of public schools.

              The point is, that government has always had laws about public conduct.

              The example given in the summary is regarding the choice by private establishments:

              He said restaurants should be free to decide if they want to have smoking sections, where "a citizen has the possibility to decide perhaps to enjoy a cigarette or a pipe or a cigar with their coffee".

          • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday February 16 2018, @08:05PM

            by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday February 16 2018, @08:05PM (#638999)

            (Score: 5, Troll)

            Congratulations, sir, you have have achieved the holy grail of comments.

            --
            "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 2, Troll) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @05:41AM

      by Arik (4543) on Friday February 16 2018, @05:41AM (#638693) Journal
      "Because one smoker can stink up the joint for everyone, but one non-smoker has absolutely no effect on other's enjoyment of their meal.

      Same reason as just one kid with a boom-box on the bus can make the ride miserable for everyone else."

      In my experience there are usually several restaurants to choose from in a given area (and in areas where there isn't unreasonable red tape facing new entries eateries literally pop up everywhere,) so there's no reason why some can't permit smoking and some forbid it. There's no reason that some of the larger ones couldn't even have separate spaces to cater to both.

      Well, no reason aside from the fact that the government decided to forcibly forbid it a few years back. Before they did that, restaurants did just those things in fact.

      But buses are a bit different. You're lucky to find ONE bus to go somewhere you need to go, let alone several, so it doesn't lend itself to that sort of solution in the same way.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by driverless on Friday February 16 2018, @09:28AM (4 children)

      by driverless (4770) on Friday February 16 2018, @09:28AM (#638753)

      I work part-time (contracting) in Austria. It really is the ashtray of Europe, I've been to restaurants and bars where every part of me ended up reeking of second-hand smoke after I left. Having to wash your hair and clothes out every time you go out for dinner gets old really fast. Introducing segregation in restaurants was a first step, but all that did was move the smoking elsewhere. You only notice it when you spend time outside Austria and then have to move back into the ashtray for a period of time, it's quite gross.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 16 2018, @05:54PM (3 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday February 16 2018, @05:54PM (#638908)

        > Having to wash your hair and clothes out every time you go out for dinner gets old really fast.

        How often would you otherwise take a shower ?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @11:34PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @11:34PM (#639120)

          Bob, you're clearly a man.

          Women and men with long hair don't wash it daily. That destroys it. Instead it gets a rinse most days, a conditioner rarely, and a thorough shampoo about once a week. Shampoo daily and curly or kinky or even wavy long hair becomes one a frizzy 'fro.

        • (Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday February 17 2018, @09:12AM

          by driverless (4770) on Saturday February 17 2018, @09:12AM (#639278)

          How often would you otherwise take a shower ?

          Once a month, whether I need it or not.

          Having to scrub myself down after I've been to see Katya (An der Oberen Alten Donau, Kagran, Mondays to Fridays, weekends by appointment) is one thing, but having to do that and burn my clothes every time I go out for a schnitzel is ridiculous.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:56PM (#638850)

      so what, you dumb whore. take your petunia smelling ass to another restaurant.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 16 2018, @07:08PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday February 16 2018, @07:08PM (#638953) Journal

      It's not even about the customers anyway. It's about the employees.

      In this country employees have the right to not be exposed to carcinogens.

      In the states I'm familiar with you can still have businesses like cigar clubs where people can smoke. They just need to install exposure controls, first, as they should.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @05:19AM (4 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 16 2018, @05:19AM (#638678) Homepage Journal

    Yup. I'm against any law that treats adults like they're children.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by quacking duck on Friday February 16 2018, @02:28PM (3 children)

      by quacking duck (1395) on Friday February 16 2018, @02:28PM (#638806)

      I assume you're against laws restricting and even outright prohibiting cannabis, then?

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @03:13PM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 16 2018, @03:13PM (#638827) Homepage Journal

        Yup. To (possibly mis)quote one of the few politicians I genuinely like: I want gay married couples to be able to defend their pot farms with their guns.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:04PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:04PM (#638950)

          This is your saving grace, we're pulling for you to figure out the rest!

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Friday February 16 2018, @05:38AM (3 children)

    by Mykl (1112) on Friday February 16 2018, @05:38AM (#638690)

    Exactly!

    I hate that the gubmint has to force restaurants to use actual beef instead of horse-flesh, not use MSG if they advertise as "MSG Free", keep the kitchen roach free, etc. Caveat Emptor right? Let the market decide!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @02:08PM (2 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 16 2018, @02:08PM (#638794) Homepage Journal

      Poor examples. There is no consumer deception in allowing smoking in a business. Everyone in the world knows that smoking isn't healthy for you. You're talking about taking away their choice to do as they please when they know the risks not about protecting them from shady practices. Which is treating grown men and women like children.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday February 18 2018, @11:25PM (1 child)

        by Mykl (1112) on Sunday February 18 2018, @11:25PM (#639851)

        When booking dinner there, I won't know whether I'm going to be overcome with cigarette smoke or not. I also don't know whether my requested seat in the 'non smoking' section will in fact be right next to the 'smoking' section.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:38AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:38AM (#638691)

    Your'e obviously not sensitive to tobacco fumes. Some of us are. Having one smoker is tantamount to having someone dust the place with peanut dust, and those sensitive to peanut are expected to just take it.

    One can wear earphones if they want to listen to their music in public, and I would go for having a smoker bring in a SCUBA rebreather if he wanted to smoke in public, so he would rebreathe his own fumes and not expect everyone else at the table to tolerate it.

    Some people seem to accept breathing other people's exhaust quite easily... yet they get so upset if I sneeze and splatter. And the ladies? So prim and proper. With their face smelling like an old ashtray. Geez. What if I began making public expositions of visibly discharging contaminants, like pee? Emit a mist of pee while you are trying to enjoy a meal.

    Maybe the old diesel bus manufacturers should take a fashion statement from Philip Morris and mount the exhaust pipe so it points forward before the bus, pipe held by two finely manicured fingers as a fashion statement... so the bus will project the same initial impression of a smoker entering the place.

    Or, maybe, we keep both peeing and smoking a private matter.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @06:10AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @06:10AM (#638704)

      Your'e obviously not sensitive to tobacco fumes. Some of us are. Having one smoker is tantamount to having someone dust the place with peanut dust, and those sensitive to peanut are expected to just take it.

      I remember back in the 80s when people en masse fell off their chairs in convulsions, because someone opened a can of peanuts. I remember how sickened all those non-smokers were in the non-smoking section of a restaurant for being within 10 feet of smokers.

      I remember when people weren't snowflakes.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @07:16AM (2 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 16 2018, @07:16AM (#638729) Journal

        I remember when people weren't snowflakes.

        I remember when the airplanes had a smoker section at the back. As late as about 1998, in Europe.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:57AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:57AM (#638738)

          I remember how people in the back of the plane would let others from the front sit in their seats, so they could have a smoke.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:16AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:16AM (#638742)

            And I was a vindictive bastard who'd book a seat in the smoking section of the plane just so I could deprive a smoker from getting the seat. Not everyone lit up back there, but Jesus, if you are sensitive to smoke and was unfortunate enough to be stuck in that section because the plane was full, God help you. And just as bad if your seat was just on the other side of the curtain between the smoking and non-smoking sections. Those disgusting fumes could still be smelt half way up into the next section.

            And fuck all smokers in restaurants and the horse they rode in on.

      • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday February 16 2018, @01:31PM

        by theluggage (1797) on Friday February 16 2018, @01:31PM (#638786)

        I remember how sickened all those non-smokers were in the non-smoking section of a restaurant for being within 10 feet of smokers.

        I remember the sonic fold technology that prevented carcinogen-laden air from the smoking section mix with air from the non-smoking... oh, wait, no, that's science fiction.

        I DO remember when an evening out left your clothes smelling like a bonfire for days afterwards (...and I wasn't in the habit of filtering 10 litres/minute of air through my jacket, so god know what ended up in my lungs). I guess, soon, it'll be reeking with a miasma of the top-10 vaping liquid flavours, but fortunately that doesn't mean that there are tiny particles of not-normally-inhaled substances embedded in the fabric that will also have been accumulating in my lung... oh, wait, no, yes - it does.

        I remember when I had a 20-year-old cardio-vascular system that could tolerate a bit of smoky air.

        Still, its good to see the nicotine junkies bravely trying to rationalise themselves the right to inflict their filthy and 100% avoidable habit on others.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday February 16 2018, @07:13AM (5 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Friday February 16 2018, @07:13AM (#638726) Homepage Journal

    Why exactly can't that be up to the restaurant?

    As part of her business, my wife has a small club room or restaurant. She was incredibly relieved when the law finally passed, prohibiting smoking in all restaurants. Doing it herself was almost impossible, for lots of reasons:

    - Lots of people are entitled. You can't realistically designate your whole restaurant non-smoking, because you will piss off a significant fraction of your customers. So you designate smoking and non-smoking areas, which doesn't really work, because...

    - ...people are still entitled jerks. You designate a smoking room, but that's not where they want to sit. Or they want to sit with their non-smoking friends, they pop out for a smoke break, and breathe out that last lungful into your non-smoking area.

    - And anyway, smoking and non-smoking areas rarely work, because they are connected. We even installed a special ventilation system, but the smell still drifted across. And then someone lights up a really pungent cigar and the whole place stinks for days.

    When the government finally said "no more smoking", it was a huge relief...

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday February 16 2018, @10:52AM (2 children)

      by TheRaven (270) on Friday February 16 2018, @10:52AM (#638771) Journal

      In the UK, when they introduced the smoking ban pubs said that they'd all go out of business because people wouldn't smoke in them anymore. I'm not sure what the statistics are, but in the months immediately following I found that several of the pubs I liked were full when I wanted to go, when previously they'd had empty tables, and the couple of landlords I spoke to said they'd sold more beer on average after the ban.

      I suspect the economics are similar to restaurants serving vegetarian or gluten-free food. People with gluten intolerance may be only 5% of the population, but if you don't serve anything that they can eat then there's almost a 25% chance that any group of 5 people won't be able to eat there, which is a significant percentage of your potential customer base. The difference is that no one is negatively affected by a gluten free option on the menu, whereas everyone is negatively affected by someone spewing carcinogenic burning hydrocarbons into the air that they're trying to breathe.

      Also anecdotally, just after the ban came in in France (where my mother now lives), she spoke to a waiter who had managed to give up smoking after almost 10 years of trying. It's really hard to quit smoking when you constantly have to be around smokers and the job market for waiters is such that it's hard to refuse to work in a smoking establishment. To me, this is one of the biggest arguments for the ban: the balance of power is such between employers and employees that the employees were being forced to endanger their health or lose their jobs. If you want to eliminate the ban, then you need to make employers liable for any medical care that their employees and former employees need that is related to smoke inhalation. If you have socialised heath care, then a hefty tax on smoking establishments that goes straight into the heath budget would do the trick.

      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @10:12PM (1 child)

        by Arik (4543) on Friday February 16 2018, @10:12PM (#639078) Journal
        "To me, this is one of the biggest arguments for the ban: the balance of power is such between employers and employees that the employees were being forced to endanger their health or lose their jobs."

        And that's a truly awful argument. If there's something fundamentally wrong with the game on that level then that needs to be addressed directly at the root, not with some sort of tangential band-aid.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 16 2018, @10:58PM

          by dry (223) on Friday February 16 2018, @10:58PM (#639095) Journal

          Unluckily unions are out of fashion and the captains of industry have a lot more power then the average person, little well the bottom quintuple and capitalism strives to keep things this way as cheap labour to produce a cheap cup of coffee is more important then peoples well being.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @10:07PM (1 child)

      by Arik (4543) on Friday February 16 2018, @10:07PM (#639072) Journal
      "You can't realistically designate your whole restaurant non-smoking"

      Yes, yes you can. Many, many did. What you're telling us is that she's happy because they gave her an excuse to do what she wanted to do while still dishonestly deflecting responsibility for it.

      "When the government finally said "no more smoking", it was a huge relief..."

      I can see it being a huge relief for someone that wanted to ban smoking in her establishment but was not willing to do so.

      However for people that preferred to allow smoking, it obviously was not.

      And for people the preferred to ban it, and had in fact already banned it? Not a good thing at all. You see, just as it drove away many smokers it attracted those who were particularly bothered by the smoke, so that gave them a niche, a market that rewarded them for their choice. No longer! No smoking anywhere!

      So, I'm sorry, your wife may be a very nice person and you may love her very much, but we should not screw all the people that are doing it right just to make her happy.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 16 2018, @10:55PM

        by dry (223) on Friday February 16 2018, @10:55PM (#639092) Journal

        Around here, before the smoking ban, a few establishments tried the smoke free experience and none of them could make a go of it, even with the free advertising from the news.
        Perhaps now, a quarter of a century later, with many less smokers and people used to having none smoking establishments they could, but whether things would have got to this state without the law is open to question.