Do you think a smoking ban would be a good thing in Polish restaurants and Bars?

Coz there's an economic downturn and booze is much cheaper in shops?

Coz pubs are less popular than they once were?

Maybe the smoking ban was a contributory factor, but it's not the whole picture is it?

Having just spent three days going round those of my former bozers which haave managed to stay open, the consensus opinion from staff and landlords is that what has hit them hardest is the smoking ban. As several landlords pointed out, booze has long been cheaper in the shops than the pubs and the UK has had far worse economic downturns before, but there has never before been such a massacre of pubs and there has never before been a smoking ban. I really don't think that is is a coincidence that nearly all of the bars which had no outdoor smoking area other than the pavement have now gone. I just now got back from my village local: there were more people sitting outside under the electric heaters than were sitting inside.

Maybe you're right then?

I haven't frequented pubs for about 15 years, so I don't really mourn the loss. It seems a cultural pity though.

I see your point, but what then is a democratic republic?


Yes, I've checked:). It is very interesting, thanks.
BTW: the name spells with either f or v, more often f I guess, but there are also other spelling versions of it.


I don't think so. 70.000 people die every year of smoking-related deseases.

I agree that it's possible to manipulate statistics/surveys. But I also wouldn't undermine this one. I assume it was done professionally i.e. objectively (just my hope).

And about fatty foods and alcohol: both these things are not affecting other people as smoking is. Paraphrasing the perfect metaphore put before in the thread: Cigarettes create smoke, beer creates urine. If someone smokes, and this smoke gets to some non-smoking bloke sitting in the cafe and drinking his beer, should he then go and **** on you? Silly, brutal, shocking but gives a perspective, doesn't it.


I can try but do some hard work first:
1. When was the ban imposed?
2. Is it a total ban or similar to the one passed yesterday evening in Poland (a "ban" that gives even more freedom than now actually, e.g. smoking in schools, hospitals etc.)?

3. 50 pubs in England? If you count how many there are being opened at the same time then maybe there's a balance.

Why would smokers stop going to pubs? Why should they?? They will just go out every now and then for a smoke, that's it. Not much harm and the non-smoking company is happy too.

The figures I'm talking about are post-ban.


Total ban. No smoking inside apart from in private homes.


52+ is the net loss (i.e. number of losses less number of new ones).


Why have to go outside every 15 minutes when you can just invite your mates over to your place, spend less on booze and be able to smoke inside?

Ok, but when was it really? >2008? Do you think that the global economic crash started in the US that has hit Europe around fall 2008 did not have bigger impact on the fact you are mentioning?


- well that's a serious addiction!

Where did I say that it was closed down due to smoke, Olaf? At most, I implied it but there were other material concerns at play.

thefreedictionary.com/segregate, not so harsh if you read it naturally. Segregation or separation, take your pick.

Also, the logic hasn't changed throughout the years. If it was harmful then, then it is harmful now. Also, many in Poland smoke strong cigs so passive smoking is more of a factor. They even put Scots, the nation with the highest rate of coronary heart disease, to the sword!

According to everybody I've spoken to, the crash has been milder than those of the 90s, the 80s or the 70s but far far far more pubs have closed. The only big difference is the smoking ban. Really, I was just down my local and I remember a couple of years ago it would be packed on a friday night: tonight it was maybe a quarter full and more people outside than inside. I noticed that even some people who I know are not smokers were sitting outside so as to be with mates who do smoke; also, smokers don't go out for a fag and then come back inside: they just put on a big coat and sit outside, only going back inside to warm up while getting a drink.

Listen, I'm not always trying to prove my point, this being an example. You implied it and that was what I concluded from your post, bearing in mind the relevancy to the topic. And I was asking further that's all. Where did I say you are wrong etc. :))


Maybe it was a perticularly clear sky and they wanted to see the stars. Every country has its customs. I wouldn't be sitting outside in freezing cold, anyway not when I went out to have fun. Or maybe it wasn't so cold. But that's just me:)

Most Poles don't speak out much against passive smoking so why would it be closed down for that reason?

Alcohol also causes dysfunctional households, crime, injuries, and death...Not to mention the economic effects of drunks. Second hand smoke has been proven time and time again to have a trivial affect on peoples health. You are just annoyed by it, which is fair enough.

who.int/whosis/mort/profiles/mort_euro_pol_poland.pdf - Lung diseases are a distant third on the list


This is exactly what you're going to get. You want to go out with friends that smoke, you mentioned that earlier. They're going to spend a lot of time outside. Now you're not really spending much time with them anymore, and you might as well have gone to the non smoking place to begin with. Seriously, try it out. Go out with your smoking friends to a non smoking bar here. Just see what happens. Report back to us and let us know how it went.

Well, this report puts smoking on the 3rd position, but it is one that is caused deliberately. Sure ischaemic heart diseases can be caused by bad cholesterol levels but ALSO by smoking. That elevates smoking in that ranking. I could go on, but I know that you know smoking is bad:) for health and there's no point in arguing it is not actually so bad, don't you think?

I'll give you a final argument: it stinks! :))


Tried that. Well, not my problem to have to stand in freezing weather in order to smoke. I'll be waiting inside and having funn in meantime. Way better than having them blow their smoke on me.

It is bad, Olaf, yes. However, it just goes to show how powerful tobacco giants are (or were). The logic of passive smoking doesn't change through time. I should have written effect and not affect, oops.

It's trivial if exposure is minimal, of course.

If.

Ok, but when you're at a pub it's far from minimal.

I'd really be more supporting of private rights of bar owners, but can anyone suggest a better solution? Since I don't see one, I am for this one. I don't feel I should only have an option to stay at home (this would contribute to lower income of pub owners:)! ) or stay in thick smoke. Maybe it'll be best to install a good, efficient ventillation where possible.

But you posted a link to places that you can go which are completely smoke free.

I have no problem with installing ventilation. In fact, we went well past the required minimums because we don't want to drive anyone away because of the bar being smokey. I spent my own money to make my establishment appeal to as many people as possible. I think that you should come to my place and reward me for that investment. My neighbor can't afford the investment, and it's an old man bar anyway. All of his patrons smoke. He has no want, need, or desire to spend money on ventilation. He's happy because he knows his clientele, I'm happy because I know my clientele, and the place around the corner is happy because they know their clientele. Everyone is making money, neither the customers nor the owners are being forced into doing something. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

The problem is that Olaf, like most non-smokers who support a 100% ban, thinks that he has a god-given right to go any place he wants and to make it as he wants it to be. When other people don't agree with him, he's happy to just force his views on everybody. He's as bad as the smoker who deliberately goes to non-smoking venues and then smokes in them.

Have a Camel, or be around people who smoke Camels

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cKMn-_aQoPk

An overall ban?...Absolutely no...If an individual bar owner wishes this, then it is an individual choice.

Check this out:
buzzfeed.com/henrymichel/new-french-anti-tobacco-ad-2n6
It subconsciously changes the perspective of how smokers are percieved:))


- well I do have such right. Gods-given actually:)). I am only not allowed to enter Area 51 as far as I know.


Am I really THAT bad:)).
Not quite - I don't go to places where people smoke and then demand to clear the atmosphere and stop smoking. I agree to that when I enter a place! I only wish they were more civilised i.e. not smokey, and you can do it by putting good smoke absorbers or this unpopular ban. I see your points, really. But since smokers are very subjective I'll keep my right do do the same and be subjective too. So do not imply such things, ok?

Following your logics, smokers do invade my rights when they smoke in private areas. Can non-smokers do that? Nope. So not to abuse ANYONE'S rights it is reasonable to me to regulate by law (to some extent) the places where people can and cannot smoke.

...or I can be around people who smoke Camels, Z_Darius :))) - that's a good one. Check my link - there is Lucky Strike ad too.

cheers

And people who drive cars with large engines or who take the car when they could reasonably take public transport invade my rights when they drive in public areas. Can people who don't drive stupidly large cars do that? So as to not abuse anybody's rights it is reasonable to regulate by law what cars people can and can not drive and how they can use their cars.

I really do not see a reasonable point here, sorry. At what point they invade your rights? What rights? Breathing your air?!
It truely is ridiculous to use so large cars (usually carrying one person inside), [b]but [/b]I guess that the petrol prices will regulate that sooner or later...

They infringe on my right to breathe clean air, precisely the same right which you complain about smokers infringing on.


So you support letting the market decide about the engines which people pollute with? Good, now perhaps you could be so kind as to let the market decide whether smoking should be allowed everywhere or nowhere or only in some places.

- only the scale of it is different. Looking at a bigger picture you should go and sue heavy industry companies. Don't compare traffic and using cars to smoking in this context as this makes the argument illogical.


- illogical conclusion, sorry. I know you can make a real argument for smoking so stop making wrong conclusions.

Indeed: somebody driving a car with a three litre engine is going to be putting out far far more in the way of pointless emissions than a smoker does.

My 7.5 litre Rangerover can destroy the ozone layer entirely by itself...just by running the engine for three minutes...!

I'm sure that the average Polish household in the country (or yours come to think of it), probably manages to do more in a single winter of burning brown coal than the range rover will over its entire lifetime....

NOOO..its very economic actually...i can get over 9 miles to the gallon if i take it easy...on the road...

Off road it uses fuel faster than the space shuttle at take off...!

Even more, smokers are destroying our health everywhere... in clubs in restaurants and in cafes.

I would go even more, and create a jail for smokers, 1 cigarette smoked = 1 day of jail for them

Smokers are destroying our health on private property, places where you can choose to go. Cars are destroying our health in public areas.

As a smoker, i support the smoking ban. I have no problem with going. My problem is with the proposed 15m rule. It could ruin places!