SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:18AM (41 children)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
They don't own the air inside the restaurant, therefore they should not be free to allow it to be *polluted*.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @11:11PM (4 children)
Idiotic statement. Were that the case, air compressors would be illegal.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by VanessaE on Saturday February 17 2018, @02:10AM (3 children)
...and your statement is an order of magnitude worse. Air compressors may be a bit noisy, but they don't generally pollute or cause breathing problems, cancer, or other maladies for those nearby but not using them. Cigarettes can and do.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 17 2018, @04:15AM (2 children)
No, they steal air you don't own. You can lead a noob to water but you can't make them think.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @02:58PM (1 child)
I never knew you were such a lowly capitalism troll fanboi.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 17 2018, @07:01PM
You must be new here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Friday February 16 2018, @10:15PM (2 children)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
And the taxes likely go to government general fund, not to offset the damage caused by smoking.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Second hand smoke, TMB just clinched the deal. Smoking bans remain, triggered libertarians please exit backstage.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @11:17PM
I think you need to look up the definition of triggered.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @06:41PM
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
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
If the workplace is a private institution, they can set their own rules regarding this.
I do not believe in the supposed value of public schools.
The example given in the summary is regarding the choice by private establishments:
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday February 16 2018, @08:05PM
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
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)
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)
> 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)
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 The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 17 2018, @04:16AM
How dare you assume bob's gender?!!!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday February 17 2018, @09:12AM
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
so what, you dumb whore. take your petunia smelling ass to another restaurant.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 16 2018, @07:08PM
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.