Smoking ban in Polish bars and restaurants (AT LAST!)

Really? Well, it's not according to this new law. Paparazzi in Krakow became smoke free in a normal way.

Some places are doing this, but as I understand it - it's not legal.

Mind you, I've seen quite a few cases where the law is being blatantly broken anyway.

Yes, can't have a section for smokers and a section for non-smokers, can we! Non-smokers must have their way in every private space!

What?

So it's been a couple of weeks after introducing the smoking ban. I am curious how and if the opinions of some of us here changed at all? Especially how are the smokers coping. Maybe you got used to it by now? Or is it still a disaster? I'm not asking about angry opinions again, but the opinions (if any) that have changed in fact...

No problems at all. We now drink our beers at home, or organise a little party in our backyards whenever the sun shines! I also see a lot of people smoke outside the bar. Maybe this'll actually help some of the more hot-headed types to cool down? Or do you think that because of this, more fights happen outside of the bars and clubs?

The opposite has happened in Ireland with smokers getting all loved up and basically chatting each other up. Became known as smirting.

(Smoking+flirting)

Smoking for world peace?


You guys certainly have your way with words.. (Smirting it is then!)

:))

So basically, AJ stopped going out because of this ban?

No, AJ stopped going out because of his flat pockets, but he's working on that! (Really hard I might add!)

:)

Chapter 50..

Chapter 50? Are you writing some book?
Flat pockets, huh? That sucks.

Yes, chapter 50..


That too, but I was talking about the study book I'm currently wrestling with.. (And I'm beating it both hands down!)

:))


It actually helps. (Extra motivation, less distractions.)

;)

Well, come over here to Krakow when you will want to allow yourself some distraction finally, you in-house smoker you;).

It's a disaster in terms of enforcement - still plenty of places are completely breaking the law. I understand small pubs in the suburbs not paying much attention, but big-ish city centre pubs are doing the same.

The worst effect has been that a lot of places have buggered up their ventilation systems by installing fans to remove smoke from the smoking sections. As lots of people smoke in those places (in one of my regulars it is common to have three times as many people in the small smoking room as in the entire rest of the premises), they need very good ventilation systems but of course they aren't air-tight, which means that they suck kitchen smells out of the kitchen and into the restaurant/bar. Lovely. Thanks for that, you thoughtful non-smokers.

I really can understand your frustrations - and thanks for this input - it is very interesting. However I still won't agree that it is unfair to the non smokers if someone said it.


- imposing this law is supposed to be good, but generally imposing such a law, I can agree it is controversial. I treat it as a pro-health measure though.

Not controversial: just plain wrong. The choice of whether a place should be smoking or non-smoking should always rest with the person who takes the financial and legal risk in running the business: the owner.


Well in that case, let's ban alcohol as well: it is proven to cause cancer, it makes people more likely to be violent and nobody has ever killed another person in a traffic accident because they have just smoked a packet of cigarettes.

And while we're at it, let's ban unhealthy food too: at least smokers have always more than paid for the costs of their treatment, which is something that fat bastards can say.

What? Alcohol is just as harmful as healthy it is! Why then your own body produces small amounts of alcohol itself? And being violent? Half of the people are violent and the other half is is much more relaxed and friendly after a few shots. No pattern here. Except alcohol abuse. But normal consumption is different and does not affect anyone else - not like smoking!

Cancer? Could you elaborate on that please? And isn't this about cigarettes - the cancer king?


countless road accidents because of morons who dropped their cigarette on their pants just before a road crossing or were too busy with the fag instead of watching the road!

Harry, the rest of your arguments are not acceptable to me: the reason is that smoking affects the sorrounding harshly while alcohol - not, neither does the unhealthy food.

Are you sure? (Do you have any idea how many babies will be born after my visit??)

xD

There really isn't much point in having a discussion with somebody who just lies: the number of alcohol-related deaths in the United Kingdom has consistently increased since the early 1990s

statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

Alcohol abuse kills 75,000 people each year in the USA alone and shortens the lives of those people by an average of 30 years each msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions


Another lie from you. There is a direct link between the number of shops selling alcohol in an area and the violence occurring there news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8527806.stm

Why is it that non-smokers are so incapable of telling the truth when discussing smoking and related matters? Could it be because their position is so utterly built on lies?


Are you telling the truth there? Of course not: There is no doubt that alcohol can cause seven types of cancer. As little as 3 units a day can increase the risk of mouth, throat, food

pipe, breast and bowel cancers. Every year, alcohol causes about 6% of cancer deaths in the UK, killing over 9,000 people. info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/alcohol

Even small amounts of alcohol can increase your risk of breast cancer. Several studies have found that every alcohol unit drunk a day increases the risk of breast cancer risk by about 7-11%. For every 2 units a person drinks each day (less than a pint of premium lager) their risk of bowel cancer goes up by 8%.

info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/alcohol/howdoweknow


Interesting that I talk about what happens after people smoke and you reply with wild unsourced claims about what happens when they smoke.


And a lovely lie for you to end on. No study has ever found significant effects from ETS. But don't let truth get in the way of your lies: this is all about what you like and your right to force your views on other people.(

Well finally you got this! Now, my next demand will be... a shrubbery!!! ;)


Arghh, you naughty shagger:D

I'll be damned, there actually is a subject I fully agree with Harry! I'll be damned.
And while I have given up smoking years ago, I still think that this ban borders on fascism.

Well, Kondzior, although I think we agreed it can seem controversial (this ban), I treat it rather as a necessary public safety measure which limits the risks and harms to other people caused by smoking habits of some other, addicted people. You can object to imposing such a ban on private proprietors, and I do understand most of the basis of these objections, however, if you can suggest an alternative that would work similarly but also allowed the non-smoking majority of society to frequent bars and pubs and restaurants and children playgrounds (the ban is also about such places, mind you) and use freely bus stops and other public spaces - then I'll happily reconsider my views on that.

Well I, for one, consider all these risks and harms caused by somking to be blown out of proportion.
Anyway, if bars, pubs and such were obliged to put out a visible signs like: "Smokers come here" or "Smoking forbiden", everyone would be free to choose what establishment to visit. So if non-smokers really constitute a majority, non-smoking pubs would prosper, and the "harmul" ones would go out of business. Right?

This is a fact. According to different research about 21-27 % smoke.


I think it's not that simple. It's like for example putting some amount of Cl disinfecting agent to tap water. It is done to avoid potential water-bourne diseases etc. You don't want that in your water because it changes taste etc.? - Well it's lesser evil, that's all.

The problem is that the supporters of the smoking ban think that they should be able to dictate what happens everywhere. Their problem is that the majority of people either smoke or don't give a shiit about whether people smoke: that is why in countries where establishments can be smoking or non-smoking, the majority of places are non-smoking.

- fundamental rule of democracy. I'm not judging if it's good or bad (totally different topic) but here it works as usual: the majority dictates the minority...


I think the smokers have bigger problem;).


- That'd be ok, as long as the smokers didn't get the whole interior stink. Smoke if you will, but don't affect others. If you are unwilling to do so, we have a law for that now. That's how I see it.

By that logic you'd have been a supporter of the holocaust. No surprise there: you certainly seem to a supporter of at least some Nazi policy.


Yes, pubs now smell like roses. If you don't like the way a place smells because of what the owner thinks is best for his business, spend your money elsewhere.

You moved one step too far with this. I will poison your whole antfarm and crap on your door mat for this despicable insinuation. Go have your head check.

If we were to follow your logic, as you say, then all drugs would be free, and allowed everywhere, you hippie!

Yes, It is a great thing. I am happy about the smoking ban.

The world's first ban on smoking in public places was introduced by who? Nazi Germany in 1941.

Interestingly, Hilter, Franco and Mussolini were all non-smokers (with Hitler the most rabid of them), while FDR and Churchill both liked a puff.


No, they would be legal and taxed (so as to more than cover the cost of treating the problems which they cause) and their use would be permitted in places where the owner of the property allowed it.