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

- Oh no? What about morons who drive and smoke and put more attention to the latter and cause an accident? Cigarettes are nothing different than illegal substances we call drugs, only that they are legal now. And sometimes they're more harmless.


- you can do it without alcohol


- Don't limit yourself, now! I'm sure a lot people did, not only drunks beat thieir women!


- if it was during the time of work I'd fire that b@stard for not working.

Non-smokers die every day.

As a smoker I like that we have a ban in packed city bars. I do miss it on the occasional Saturday afternoon and in country pubs though. Smoking in bars is good if you are the only one doing it.


Mulligans in Hoboken by any chance?

Barney wrote:


haha, no, but i lived one town over from Hoboken for a while when I lived in NJ.

3 years ago, Pizza Hut operated a segregation policy whereby one half could smoke and the other couldn't. A smoking ban is not before time. Scotland introduced it 4.5 years ago and we are a nation of heavy smokers. Ireland too, they were even quicker off the mark. There is no reason why Poles can't venture away from Cancer Crescent too.

Seems like a good policy, wouldn't you agree? No need for rules in place further restricting what can be done on private property.

- actually everyone can smoke, the difference is that the ones who refrain are not forced to inhale. But I guess that is what you meant...

Yeah, just step outside and inhale the lead and the gasses. Have fun banning smoking.

:)

Childish ********

These bans are not really about smoking but about nannying controlling behavior and society. How do we know this to be so? Because the banning zealot refused to even consider things like smoking hours in bars and restaurants and segragated smoking/ non areas. Also, they ignored the fact that modern HVAC systems can exchange the air inside a place about every minute. On and on...

Clearly these bans are designed to inconvenience smokers into stopping smoking.

Now the zealots have moved on to banning smoking at outdoor places! How the F can they justify that based on their secondhand smoke lie?? They cannot.

Sure, ban smoking in closed offices and other public places. But leave peeps smoke in pubs and taverns -where people go to drink and smoke- as they have for centuries.

That is the stated goal.

and a decrease of money flow to the tobacco companies...

Why? Grown adults making their own decisions on private property. No better than the church or anyone else telling people what to do.

So the health of others -the argument on which they hang their calls to ban- are just a lie.

Who likes being lied to and manipulated for some nannying jerks who can't just MTOFB and leave others alone?

As for the law itself, there are of course some caveats:

Private establishments under 100m2 are exempt completely

It's up to the owner of spaces over 100m2 on how to segment the smoking and non smoking areas.

Idiotic caveats, at that.

They should just have had the balls to ban it completely - a compromise like this doesn't protect the workers (which is the point of such a ban, right?) at all!

And 100sqm is bigger than many pubs in Poland!

isn't it good?

Wrong. That's just the lie the banners hung it on.


Here segregated smoking/ non-smoking areas are out. This simple free market solution was not an acceptable option to the blind zealots.

I thought smoking hours was a good compromise; ban smoking in restaurants until, say, 9p.m., then let the smokers smoke the night away. But, again, the zealots weren't interested in compromises...

Oh, and it hasn't been mentioned here yet so allow me: All of these lying, nannying smoking bans have been pushed by, yep, you guessed it, Liberal zealots.

So somebody tell me again which side is against personal liberty?...

The point was to use the law to get the general public to stop smoking. Smokers are expensive to public health care systems. If smokers had to pay an additional amount for their insurance, like I do for my private insurance, this wouldn't even be on the table.


Both of them. Mandated smoking hours is not a compromise, you still have the exact same property rights issues.

Drinkers are more of an expense, let ban that too.

Exactly, and people that eat fatty foods, and, and, and.

It's an attack on property rights. There are already non smoking places you can go to.

I think my child banning idea is much more sensible. Wait until I link children to high blood pressure...

The personal liberty of non-smokers to go to a public place without getting other people's smoke in their hair, clothes, lungs? The personal liberty of a pregnant woman to go somewhere without worryng about inhaling cigarette fumes? The personal liberty of staff not to get cancer or COPD through passive smoking?

I like to smoke - but I'm happy to go outside to do it. It preserves and respects the personal liberty of others.

Giving birth is also a dangerous thing, let make the world infertile and only have cloned babies.


So don't go, make an informed choice not to go if you are that worried about inhaling other people's smoke. Go to a place where you already know that people won't be smoking. Make an informed choice and be adult about it. The same with people who don't drink alcohol, they can't enter a bar knowing fully that nobody else is going to be drinking there...

Ok, so we fault the Righties for not standing up to the liberty-killing Libs.

We fault the righties for voting it into place to placate "safe environment for me and my children" voters.

Lefty states like Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, Georgia...

So then it is up to the person, who very well knew what environment they would be working in before they took the job, to look for a different job.


Why would a pregnant woman be going to a bar??? Is said pregnant woman not capable of making a choice?

Classic ;-)

This doesn't explain the resistance to common sense, free market solutions like smoking and non-smoking establishments, segregated smoking areas, smoking hours, etc.


I think pregnant women shouldn't be drinking booze so we should ban them, along with kids, from bars anyway.


Many in the hospitality industry were against the ban and many are themselves smokers. Again, the free market could have settled this by non-smokers working at non-smoking bars and smokers working at smoking bars.

Another thing... Back when restaurants had smoking and non smoking areas, when the non smoking areas got full, peeps who didn't feel like waiting for a table there would instead get one in the smoking area. Funny how the smoking didn't bother them then. Smoking areas should be only for smokers.


This is a lie you have been fed. Look at all the evidence...

They've been tried in plenty of places without much elan.


So you're against personal liberty on the grounds of what you think. Not that bars only sell booze or that gestating women aren't capable of deciding for themselves whether or not they should go out or stay at home in purdah.


And many are not.


Ridiculous and of course illogical.


Shrill, hypersensitive nonsense. Show us some of your 'evidence'.

Typical. I would have expected nothing less from a convicted dishonest Liberal hyprocite as yourself, Jonni. Why do I bother?...

The voice of reason. Convicted of what, by the way?


Most people here wonder why you bother too.


So they can't stop smoking and keep their job? I see lawsuits brewing.


For a drink. Maybe bitter lemon, or if she's daring, she could heed the advice of some doctors and have a glass of red wine.