The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 400

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


Teffle 22 | 1,321
19 Oct 2010 #181
Yes, because they are forced at gunpoint to go into places where they know people will be enjoying cigarettes enjoying cigarettes.

No, because bar staff and restaurant staff etc have to work there regardless - obviously.
convex 20 | 3,978
19 Oct 2010 #182
Same argument, because they are obviously forced at gunpoint to work there.
Teffle 22 | 1,321
19 Oct 2010 #183
You don't sign up for things that may be detrimental to your health.

The above were just examples - contract caterers/cleaners? They don't have a choice where their work takes them.

And by the way, I am a smoker - I'm not condoning or condemning the ban, just commenting on the reasoning behind it, right or wrong.
convex 20 | 3,978
19 Oct 2010 #184
The above were just examples - contract caterers/cleaners? They don't have a choice where their work takes them.

So they could theoretically have to clean up at a mechanics garage, or at a coal plant?

People most certainly have a choice in where their work takes them. Seems like that freedom of choice is missing in the equation.

And by the way, I am a smoker

Ha, I quit nearly a week ago. I'm about to climb onto my high horse when I find it.
A J 4 | 1,088
19 Oct 2010 #185
Yes, you will certainly develop cancer and drop dead immediately if you inhale but a small amount of smoke from burnt tobacco leaves. Please. Oh, and could you stop using that air-refresher everywhere? It's even worse for your health than smoking, you dumbasses! Now, if you'll please excuse me, I'm busy trying to set an anti-air-refresher campaign in motion, and while we're at it I demand a full ban on air pollution! Know what? Here's a f*cking gassmask for you! Enjoy!

xD

Whiners.
Teffle 22 | 1,321
19 Oct 2010 #186
So they could theoretically have to clean up at a mechanics garage, or at a coal plant?

Theoretically I suppose yes, but it's highly unlikely.

They could however end up cleaning and/or catering in a wide variety of workplaces - many of which may involve smoking in an enclosed place.

People most certainly have a choice in where their work takes them.

Maybe it's different elsewhere but in Ireland, if you are part of a contract cleaning or catering company (and there are other examples) you could, theoretically, end up working in any number of random businesses. You don't have a choice - you work for the contract company, not the place where you are doing your job.
convex 20 | 3,978
19 Oct 2010 #187
Theoretically I suppose yes, but it's highly unlikely.

It's not that unlikely. Industrial areas need to be cleaned too and often have a huge janitorial staff.

You don't have a choice - you work for the contract company, not the place where you are doing your job.

You always have a choice.
Teffle 22 | 1,321
19 Oct 2010 #188
Industrial areas need to be cleaned too and often have a huge janitorial staff.

Of course, but usually - at least here - it would not fall to contract cleaners as employees would carry out this function.

You always have a choice.

If you say so.

Although I'm not in favour of it, on a personal level, the ban doesn't affect me anyway.

By the way, it's a little different in Ireland - the ban isn't on smoking in pubs/restaurants per se, the ban is on smoking in the workplace - just so happens that pubs etc fall under that.
A J 4 | 1,088
19 Oct 2010 #189
By the way, it's a little different in Ireland - the ban isn't on smoking in pubs/restaurants per se, the ban is on smoking in the workplace - just so happens that pubs etc fall under that.

Ah, but a pub is not a workplace for the customers, and since the customers aren't employed by the proprietor of a pub, I think I've just stumbled upon a minor technicality which will most likely facilitate further stretching of the aforementioned interpretations, which in this case, means I require the definition of a word to build a case. Savvy?

;)
Teffle 22 | 1,321
19 Oct 2010 #190
I think I've just stumbled upon a minor technicality

You wouldn't be the first.

There are people in my country who spend their entire lives exploiting loopholes and technicalities and living off the results ; )

but a pub is not a workplace for the customers,

Obviously not, but it is a workplace for the employees and their health must be protected by law in preference to the wishes of a smoker to indulge.The two cannot be physically seperated in this case. An unfortunate circumstance for smokers. Ah well.

(is what they will say)

Anyway, no loophole here AJ "smoking in THE WORKPLACE" is prohibited - it doesn't matter whose workplace it is, if it is a workplace, you can't smoke in it.

By way of an example, this applies also to taxi drivers as their car is a workplace.

He can't smoke in it and neither can you.

BUT, sorry, it's off topic - nothing to do with Poland.
convex 20 | 3,978
19 Oct 2010 #191
BUT, sorry, it's off topic - nothing to do with Poland.

But it has to do with the smoking ban.

So how about a one man operation, proprietor, but no employees?

Is it legal to smoke in your home office?
A J 4 | 1,088
19 Oct 2010 #192
Anyway, no loophole here AJ "smoking in THE WORKPLACE" is prohibited - it doesn't matter whose workplace it is, if it is a workplace, you can't smoke in it.

Ah, but if I would set up a private social-establishment, and would hand out membership cards upon entrance, to people who actually have no problems with smoking, and would make self-service possible, which doesn't include serving food, then you anti-smoke whiners can't play that workplace card anymore now, can you?

:)
Teffle 22 | 1,321
19 Oct 2010 #193
So how about a one man operation, proprietor, but no employees?

Probably still applies if there is a "workplace"

Is it legal to smoke in your home office?

Dunno. I'd imagine there would be a good case to be able to though.

Ah, but if I would set up a private social-establishment, and would hand out membership cards upon entrance, to people who actually have no problems with smoking, and would make self-service possible, which doesn't include serving food, then you anti-smoke whiners can't play that workplace card anymore now, can you?

:)

Yes, and this has indeed been done I think : )
Harry
19 Oct 2010 #194
Ha, I quit nearly a week ago. I'm about to climb onto my high horse when I find it.

Two weeks and two days myself. The bad news is that it's true what they say, you do get your sense of smell back when you stop smoking: I live in Warsaw, I don't want much in the way of sense of smell.
A J 4 | 1,088
19 Oct 2010 #195
Yes, and this has indeed been done I think : )

Good, someone who has the money to start should be able to run a couple of succesful businesses then.

:)
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
19 Oct 2010 #196
Hmmm, maybe I should open up "Zimmy's Proszę Palić Bar" in Warsaw. Of course the main attraction would be cigars.
pieknypies - | 2
20 Oct 2010 #197
Does anyone actually know the details of the ban? Or know where I can get the details? The whole seems confused at the moment.
Harry
20 Oct 2010 #198
The details are that all places below 100m must be entirely no smoking. All places above 100m can have a separate smoking area but those must be physically separate.

As you can imagine, this has not made the owners of places under 100m happy: they know that people will simply go to the places where smoking is allowed.
OP sausage 19 | 777
20 Oct 2010 #199
The details are that all places below 100m must be entirely no smoking

That's quite large really in pub terms
trener zolwia 1 | 940
20 Oct 2010 #200
As you can imagine, this has not made the owners of places under 100m happy: they know that people will simply go to the places where smoking is allowed.

Yep. Nannying over regulation always creates winners and losers.
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #201
The law as it stands is a indirect subsidy for big pubs and clubs. Or, if you want to put it another way, shooting small business in the leg. The problem with all these nanny regulations is that it increases the barrier for entry to a level which normal people can't afford. This is how you get a nation of chain pubs and clubs. Only the big boys will be able to comply, and they don't mind it because competition is being killed off. Economies of scale kick in, and the cost of compliance is way lower, especially when you take into account all the business that they're gaining.

Regulations distort economies. Easy as that. Soon people will be complaining that all the pubs and clubs look the same. Why don't people take into account the ripple effects?
trener zolwia 1 | 940
20 Oct 2010 #202
Why don't people take into account the ripple effects?

Because they're brainwashed into thinking all the regulation is somehow good for them and society. Anything can be made to sound reasonable and justified (think: Hitler) Just look at some of the folks here who are defending the smoking ban. They don't even realise the bigger picture of their freedoms being eroded; they've just heard the lame justifications and only consider how the ban will benefit them. Just wait to hear how these same peeps squawk when it is something dear to them that gets regulated away.
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #203
They don't even realise the bigger picture of their freedoms being eroded; they've just heard the lame justifications and only consider how the ban will benefit them. Just wait to hear how these same peeps squawk when it is something dear to them that gets regulated away.

I think that is something that is missing in debate today. Instead of yelling at each other, put forth the pros and cons of doing something like implementing a smoking ban. It's fairly simple on the surface, pubs and restaurants will be smoke free. Counter argument is property rights.

The discussion should take a realistic look at the repercussions of those regulations. At that point we can decide on whether it's worth making that trade off.
trener zolwia 1 | 940
20 Oct 2010 #204
But again, much like the gun debate, the smoking ban advocates do not want reasonable argument and counter argument. The last thing they want is rational discussion and debate. They have intentionally distorted the conversation by upping the emotion and their canned talking points. This dishonesty is by design, engineered to skew the debate in their favor.

This is the common Lib tact anymore in any number of topics. It is why Libism is so utterly dishonest at it's very core and most Libs are nothing more than liars or dupes.
Patrycja19 63 | 2,699
20 Oct 2010 #205
The discussion should take a realistic look at the repercussions of those regulations. At that point we can decide on whether it's worth making that trade off.

well from a non smokers point of view, former smoker,

I like the ban where I live, glad its happening, cause I didnt think I would be affected
by smoking, but now, I cant breath around it literally, second hand smoke is horrible
and now that I can smell again, when someone walks by me that has smoked, its very
irritating and they smell like ashtrays.. especially if they have been in a inclosed area
that is when they really reek of the smell of a old ashtray.

I know how hard it is to stop, been there.. but now, I realize how bad it is.
my cousin is hospitalized every fall and spring with copd.. I dont want to wear those
shoes...

those are my cons.
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #206
those are my cons.

So those are good cons for not smoking, I agree...ha, as a non smoker (one week down)!

Now the question is what sort of impact will the law have?

Are you willing to trade smaller pubs and restaurants closing down and more chain places opening up?

Are you ok with legislation targeting private property for health reasons?
trener zolwia 1 | 940
20 Oct 2010 #207
I cant breath around it literally, second hand smoke is horrible
and now that I can smell again, when someone walks by me that has smoked, its very
irritating and they smell like ashtrays..

Secondhand smoke is different than someone merely smelling like smoke.
I feel the same way about peeps' BO and most chick perfume. Shall we ban these from all indoor places too?
OP sausage 19 | 777
20 Oct 2010 #208
Shall we ban these from all indoor places too?

Only in premises less than 100m2
smurf 39 | 1,981
9 Nov 2010 #209
Smoking Ban in Bars in Poland

krakowpost.com/article/2421

Ok, so this means that a pub has to ban smoking unless they have at least 2 rooms and the 2 room have to be separated by another room?

What else am I missing?

Says it'll come in on Nov 15th.

I can't wait for it, pubs are so much better without smoke and for all you smokers, when you go outside to smoke you'll meet more people, go outside, forget your lighter and ask the nice girl beside you for a light, everybody wins
Ashleys mind 3 | 456
9 Nov 2010 #210
Good... cause the "iron curtain" didn't breed "iron" lungs!


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.