London to Ban Smoking in Resaurants

[Scott]

Scott, please explain to me the "health risks" to you of being outdoors in the same street as someone smoking. There are none. And you won't find a single scrap of evidence to tell you otherwise.

The subject of this thread was smoking in restuarants and I can understand why a non-smoker may be upset if they are seated next to a table of smokers throughout their meal. Thats why i favour proper segregation, or only allowing smoking at the bar.

However, arguments such as yours and mogsob's smack of health fascism and an intolerance towards those people who choose to live their life in a different way to you.

James,

pay attention!!!! YOU compared big macs in the street with smoking.

My point was that they are not in any way similar!!!!

you don't like big mac's in the street - health risks none.

Smoking in Restaurants: health risks plenty, inconsiderate, rude & invasive.

as I said it's not about what you like, as difficult as this might be to your sensibilities.

[jamesmarsh]

Scott, my last word.

Just to re-iterate, I did not compare smoking in restaurants to eating big macs in the street. I compared smoking in the street (something you don't like and would like to see banned) with eating big macs in the street (something i don't particularly like). Rather different.

I have already stated that I favour segregation or smoking at the bar only and I am in no way advocating smoking throughout all restaurants.

I was genuinely interested as to why you and mogsob would like smoking to be banned everywhere outside the home (or even in the home in your case) - I asked Mogsob why it upset him so much and I asked you what you saw as the health risks involved with smoking in the open air - but you have both ignored my questions.

Hey ho.

[mogsob]

I was genuinely interested as to why you and mogsob would like smoking to be banned everywhere outside the home (or even in the home in your case) - I asked Mogsob why it upset him so much and I asked you what you saw as the health risks involved with smoking in the open air - but you have both ignored my questions.

Not to beat a dead horse, but unless someone has spat their Big Mac at you, your analogy is in no way on point.

I don't care about the health issues. I love alcohol, butter, cream, beef etc. That is simply not the point.

Smoking has an external component, namely the smoke. Now, GOD FORBID, a smoker walking down the street should exhale directly in front of them -- they would NEVER do this, of course, because the smoke would end up in their face. So, as I said above, they turn their head and blow the smoke to the side or behind them. And many, many times, it ends up in MY FACE instead. Which causes me to cough and my eyes to tear, none of which is pleasant, and due to the fact that I wear specially made contact lenses, somewhat dangerous. Any decent society would label that an assault and haul these people off to jail. And lest you think I'm joking here, I'm not.

If you want to keep up your replusive habit, fine. Just find a way to do so that the smoke doesn't end up in my face.

[CheGuevara]

So, as I said above, they turn their head and blow the smoke to the side or behind them.  And many, many times, it ends up in MY FACE instead.  Which causes me to cough and my eyes to tear, none of which is pleasant, and due to the fact that I wear specially made contact lenses, somewhat dangerous.  Any decent society would label that an assault and haul these people off to jail.  And lest you think I'm joking here, I'm not.

societies and social organizationn arose as the population growth increased beyond acceptable levels, in order for humans - animals competing for limited resources - to coexist and prosper as a species. a social contract was devised by which an individual exchanges certain freedoms for a degree of security, prosperity and again, coexistence in large numbers. at the heart of any social contract is a balance, like any democratic undertaking, a balance between differing needs and desires, opinions and ideals.

your position is just as fascist as the extreme smoker's - who does not care if he imposes his tobacco on others in any situation - and does not belong in the framework of democratic society. do you complain about co2 emissions, carbon monoxide fumes, and the like? or do you drive your car when you could walk or ride a bike.

smoking is - and has been for years - part of our societal habits, and should not be considered a criminal act. in fact, that belief is absurd when placed in the larger context of our society's problems and inequalities. both arguements on either side lack tolerance, and that's the problem with the proposed law.

on the specific issue of restaurant smoking - i would hope one day government realizes it should be up to the restaurant owner to decide on a smoking policy. and for the consumer to decide whether he wishes to dine there or not.

[mogsob]

your position is just as fascist as the extreme smoker's - who does not care if he imposes his tobacco on others in any situation - and does not belong in the framework of democratic society. do you complain about co2 emissions, carbon monoxide fumes, and the like? or do you drive your car when you could walk or ride a bike.

There is a difference. Smoking necessarily forces others to inhale their smoke. While smokers claim that nonsmokers have a choice, the reality is that nonsmokers have the choice to either smoke by proxy or stay home. That, simply put, is not fair. Oh, and one can eat at Rules only so many times.

I also don't agree with the analogy to automobiles, which for many are a necessary means of transportation. Smoking, by contrast, is not an essential activity. But, for what it's worth, the same condition that makes me unusually sensitive to smoke also prevents me from driving. I do not own a car, and have never owned a car. Moreover, I live (both in NYC and London) in areas that enable me to use mass transportation (which, by in large, are electric trains).

[Pollux]

A lot of driving is unnecessary, right?

[rjs1]

Useful article on this topic by Nicholas Lander in today's Weekend Financial Times. It's a "sinner who repented" piece, saying he didn't cater at all for the needs of non-smokers when he was a restauranteur but now believes a ban on smoking in restaurants is the way forward.

[bourdain]

The pubs are next. They said it couldn't happen in NYC. It did.