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 Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:13AM (63 children)
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?
(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
(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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @05:19AM (4 children)
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)
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)
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)
This is your saving grace, we're pulling for you to figure out the rest!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @11:19PM
Nothing to figure out. Liberty good, neo-puritan totalitarians bad. End of story.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Friday February 16 2018, @05:38AM (3 children)
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)
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)
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) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 19 2018, @03:05AM
Yes, you in fact will if you can be arsed to ask if you're booking over the phone or see the notice that it is a smoking facility on the webpage.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:38AM (5 children)
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)
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)
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:57AM (1 child)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @05:19AM (2 children)
The 'Smoking bans by country' map [wikipedia.org] say Austria implements the same level of smoking ban as:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Friday February 16 2018, @06:08AM (1 child)
And you forgot Germany, where there are still areas in airports where you can enjoy your sinful vice!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:14AM
You mean in Bavaria, Germany, where I have yet to see someone smoking inside a restaurant, but there are cigarette machines on almost every street corner?
Yeah, too many people smoke here. But at least they are not allowed to smoke in public places.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @05:24AM
An enthused *cough*!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:38AM
and for the public health. Any notions to the contrary are but schemes by the evil SJWs and those pesky scientists!
Why would the marketing department of Philipp Morris lie to you??
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jelizondo on Friday February 16 2018, @06:05AM (31 children)
Why the double standard? Carbonated drinks have been linked to a rise in diabetes; taxes on the stuff are raised but they’re not banned. Fats are linked to cardiovascular disease but not “sin” tax applies much less a ban. Lack of exercise is linked to several types of disease but no government decrees one must exercise.
Since tobacco was introduced to Europeans it has been deemed a “sinful” pleasure therefore it is easily targeted both for more taxes and as a public health issue.
So I can go to a restaurant (particularly in the U.S. of A.) and get myself a heart attack and diabetes but heavens forbid that I get lung cancer from smoking.
Either ban all harmful substances or let us decide which we ingest.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @06:09AM (2 children)
(let the cliche-s season begin)
Only a Sith deals in absolutes: the dose makes the poison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Friday February 16 2018, @06:11AM (1 child)
Fine, I'll settle for a little smoking in public places so that the dose is reduced according to your comment. :->
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @06:25AM
Cool - first step was made. One convinced, millions others ahead.
Patience (and tobacco) will be necessary on the way.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @06:15AM (2 children)
Yet.
We're already at the point where McDonalds has to badmouth and memory-hole its menu items. I think it is conceivable that in 10 years of time you may have to present a ration card to get a few ounces of a prepared sugary beverage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:53PM (1 child)
What I think is interesting is that nobody cares about other fast foot places. Everybody just beats up on McDonald's for no particular reason I can figure.
I'll grab breakfast there sometimes, maybe like once in two weeks. But when I stop by there for breakfast, I want a calorie-dense, greasy, buttermilk egg, artery clogging McMuffin.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 16 2018, @11:02PM
McDonald's did really market themselves to children and parents of children and it is children who have the least critical thinking skills and habits acquired in childhood are likely to persist.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @06:50AM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @07:25AM (2 children)
My experience tells me there's no relation between the health care cost of smoking and the excise the Australian govt imposes on tobacco. If any, there seems to be an actual inverse correlation: the less Australians smoke, the higher the excises.
More likely, the direct relation between the ciggies taxes is with the level of desperation of the govt of the day to reduce the budget deficit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @10:03AM (1 child)
They say that they use the proceeds of the ciggy tax to fund antismoking campaigns and support the additional load smoking adds to the public health system
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @10:16AM
LMFAO... That's bullshit and I know it. [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 16 2018, @11:05PM
There is also the problems of various perfumes that people wear, often in huge amounts as they've de-sensitived themselves to it, that make other people sick.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday February 16 2018, @07:11AM (7 children)
You drinking soda doesn't increase the likelihood of me getting cancer
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @07:31AM (6 children)
Me smoking my ciggies doesn't either. The Internet techs of the day don't allow one to download the smoke even if the one would want to. Just sayin'
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday February 16 2018, @08:04AM (5 children)
True, 'tis a long way from there, where you be, to here, where I be.
Not so far if you are the person smoking or who has just smoked where I am, however.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @09:56AM (4 children)
Ha! Here's an idea: send me the smokers and I'll keep them nearby, I'll send you the 90% or so of Melbourne who don't smoke for you to cherish them. Deal?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Funny) by MostCynical on Friday February 16 2018, @10:16AM (1 child)
We don't have enough laneways or coffee shops to handle that many.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @10:29AM
See what I have to put up with on a daily basis, then?
And you'd have the hearth to ask me to quit smoking?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Friday February 16 2018, @08:40PM (1 child)
I think a country already tried sending all of their undesirables to Australia.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:09PM
Obama made a VERY DUMB DEAL with Australia, I left it alone because I CAN'T STAND talking to Turnbull -- worst conversation ever. Now we're getting the WORST of their so-called refugees! But they're taking some of ours. Winning!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Friday February 16 2018, @07:13AM (2 children)
I have never heard that one person drinking carbonated drinks caused other people getting diabetes.
I have never heard that one person eating fat caused other people to develop cardioviscular disease.
I have never heard that one person not exercising caused another person to get ill.
Note that the smoking ban is only for places where others inhale the fumes you produce.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:56PM
I have never seen evidence of one person eating fat that caused them to develop cardiovascular disease.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:38PM
Parents who drink soda give soda to their kids! The soda must be banned!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stretch611 on Friday February 16 2018, @07:49AM
In addition to the other comments about how you only affect yourself with your choice of meals and drinks instead of the people around you that inhale your smoke, there is one other important difference.
While the excess of carbs can cause diabetes, a lack of carbs will cause you to die. There is a reason why diabetics take insulin... so that they can process enough carbs to survive.
And while fats are not needed as much as sugars are, proper diets do include them.
It is one thing to create a sin tax on items not needed at all for the human body such as cigarettes, it is something else entirely to tax something that is a requirement for human survival such as basic foods. While foods can get sales taxes in the US, many jurisdictions reduce or eliminate sales taxes on food items.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:34PM (2 children)
I think the difference is that you can enjoy your sugary drink without forcing those around you to ingest any of it. The same cannot be said of tobacco.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @11:59PM (1 child)
Snuff and chewing tobacco are taxed to the same level as ciggies.
That does tell something, I wonder if you can detect what.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:17PM
Smoking is a BAD & DISGUSTING habit. And so is TAXING!
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Friday February 16 2018, @04:03PM (3 children)
You can't get second hand diabetes or cardiovascular disease... No one says you can't smoke. You just can't do it where it would harm others that decided NOT to smoke. It's not rocket surgery.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @04:33PM (2 children)
Or, on the less authoritarian hand, you could simply not go somewhere when you know that there is going to be smoking allowed. You know, exactly like the majority of men don't go to male strip clubs because they aren't interested in seeing dong flopping all over the place.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:10PM (1 child)
Violating work safety laws, employees should not be required to breathe second hand smoke. Sorry but some authoritarian rules are necessary, like not polluting the environment or building industrial spaces in residential areas.
Anarchy is bad mmmkay?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @11:22PM
As I explained above, you're twenty years late with that argument. Even if allowing smoking in your business were legalized again, nearly nobody would. Most people do not smoke anymore. If you have to spend an entire day shopping around for something to piss you off, it is not a valid concern.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:08PM
Your heart attack and diabetes do not directly harm the health of other patrons. Apple meet orange.