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: 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.