The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 400

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


Olaf 6 | 956
13 Oct 2010 #31
Nobody ever killed anybody because they were driving after smoking a half pack of cigarettes.

- 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.

Nobody ever shoved a glass into anybody's face because they were feeling angry after smoking a half pack of cigarettes.

- you can do it without alcohol

Nobody ever beat their wife up because they were got home after smoking a half pack of cigarettes and she asked where they'd been.

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

Nobody ever got fired because they kept showing up to work after smoking a half pack of cigarettes.

- if it was during the time of work I'd fire that b@stard for not working.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
13 Oct 2010 #32
Non-smokers die every day.
Barney 14 | 1,472
13 Oct 2010 #33
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.

was a bartender at the time just across the river in New Jersey

Mulligans in Hoboken by any chance?
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,884
13 Oct 2010 #34
Barney wrote:

Mulligans in Hoboken by any chance?

haha, no, but i lived one town over from Hoboken for a while when I lived in NJ.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
13 Oct 2010 #35
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.
convex 20 | 3,978
13 Oct 2010 #36
3 years ago, Pizza Hut operated a segregation policy whereby one half could smoke and the other couldn't.

Seems like a good policy, wouldn't you agree? No need for rules in place further restricting what can be done on private property.
Olaf 6 | 956
13 Oct 2010 #37
one half could smoke and the other couldn't

- 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...
A J 4 | 1,088
13 Oct 2010 #38
Smoking ban in Polish bars and restaurants (AT LAST!)

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

:)

Childish ********
trener zolwia 1 | 940
13 Oct 2010 #39
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.
convex 20 | 3,978
13 Oct 2010 #40
Clearly these bans are designed to inconvenience smokers into stopping smoking.

That is the stated goal.
pgtx 29 | 3,159
13 Oct 2010 #41
and a decrease of money flow to the tobacco companies...
convex 20 | 3,978
13 Oct 2010 #42
Why? Grown adults making their own decisions on private property. No better than the church or anyone else telling people what to do.
trener zolwia 1 | 940
13 Oct 2010 #43
That is the stated goal.

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?
convex 20 | 3,978
13 Oct 2010 #44
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.
delphiandomine 85 | 18,266
13 Oct 2010 #45
As for the law itself, there are of course some caveats:

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!
pgtx 29 | 3,159
13 Oct 2010 #46
Why?

isn't it good?
trener zolwia 1 | 940
13 Oct 2010 #47
protect the workers (which is the point of such a ban, right?)

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

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

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?...
convex 20 | 3,978
13 Oct 2010 #48
a compromise like this doesn't protect the workers

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.

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?...

Both of them. Mandated smoking hours is not a compromise, you still have the exact same property rights issues.
dtaylor5632 18 | 2,007
13 Oct 2010 #49
Smokers are expensive to public health care systems.

Drinkers are more of an expense, let ban that too.
convex 20 | 3,978
13 Oct 2010 #50
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...
jonni 16 | 2,485
13 Oct 2010 #51
So somebody tell me again which side is against personal liberty?...

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.
dtaylor5632 18 | 2,007
13 Oct 2010 #52
Giving birth is also a dangerous thing, let make the world infertile and only have cloned babies.

The liberty of non-smokers to go to a public place without getting other people's smoke in their hair, clothes, lungs?

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...
trener zolwia 1 | 940
13 Oct 2010 #53
Both of them. Mandated smoking hours is not a compromise, you still have the exact same property rights issues.

Ok, so we fault the Righties for not standing up to the liberty-killing Libs.
convex 20 | 3,978
13 Oct 2010 #54
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...
dtaylor5632 18 | 2,007
13 Oct 2010 #55
The personal liberty of staff not to get cancer or COPD through passive smoking?

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.

The personal liberty of a pregnant woman to go somewhere without worryng about inhaling cigarette fumes?

Why would a pregnant woman be going to a bar??? Is said pregnant woman not capable of making a choice?
jonni 16 | 2,485
13 Oct 2010 #56
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...

Classic ;-)
trener zolwia 1 | 940
13 Oct 2010 #57
The liberty of non-smokers to go to a public place without getting other people's smoke in their hair, clothes, lungs?

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

The liberty of a pregnant woman to go somewhere without worryng about inhaling cigarette fumes?

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

The liberty of staff not to get cancer or COPD through passive smoking?

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.

It preserves and respects the liberty of others.

This is a lie you have been fed. Look at all the evidence...
jonni 16 | 2,485
13 Oct 2010 #58
This doesn't explain the resistance to common sense, free market solutions like smoking and non-smoking establishments, segregated smoking areas, smoking hours, etc.

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

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

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.

Many in the hospitality industry were against the ban and many are themselves smokers

And many are not.

Non-smoking areas should be only for smokers.

Ridiculous and of course illogical.

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

Shrill, hypersensitive nonsense. Show us some of your 'evidence'.
trener zolwia 1 | 940
13 Oct 2010 #59
Typical. I would have expected nothing less from a convicted dishonest Liberal hyprocite as yourself, Jonni. Why do I bother?...
jonni 16 | 2,485
13 Oct 2010 #60
convicted dishonest Liberal hyprocite

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

Why do I bother?...

Most people here wonder why you bother too.

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.

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

Why would a pregnant woman be going to a bar???

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.


Home / News / Smoking ban in Polish bars and restaurants (AT LAST!)
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.