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

Sounds wonderful, my place is in Diocletian's Palace, no chance of a beer garden. On the other hand, no worries about idiotic smoking laws as Split has opted out...


No one is forcing you into the pub. Unless you can disprove that, you're just complaining about the noise from the airplanes being too loud because you bought a cheap apartment in the flightpath of an airport.

Same way its not socially accepted for someone to deal with a drinker who is drunk. Ban one you should ban the other.

Oh, they do this over here too. :s

Of course the do. Here it's terrible. They modify traffic patterns for noise avoidance. Traffic patterns exist out of safety grounds. In quite a few European countries you have people that picked up houses cheap (BECAUSE THEY ARE CLOSE TO AIRPORTS), they complain, and now every airport in Germany has a separate traffic pattern built around noise reduction, and not safety. It's insane. Smoking bans, same thing. People refusing to exercise the rights and expecting someone to clean up after them for their bad decisions. It's the basis of selfishness.

Hey, if any of you want to pay my rent, I'll make my place in Split non smoking. Deal?

People have the choice to enter a smoking pub or not. Or are they really in the need for the government to tell them how and where to be?

we are talking about air... the last vestige of common wealth.

We are talking about air in a private establishment which you have chosen to visit. Not a public place. If there was a vote, and smoking was banned in public places, I could half way agree to that. Private property, no. Absolutely not. Property rights are what all other freedoms are built on, like it or not.

No you were talking about social reasons. But while ur talking about air, i guess we also have to talk about a persons personal space. the right to choice ect. Alcohol costs a government more and has serious health issues, plus I haven't even touched the crime issues. If you dont like smokers, then why choose to go into a smoking pub?

no, no, no, no. At the root of this issue is a very personal and human right, and that is what we BREATHE into our lungs. These other issues are superfluous or are less closely connected with one's health.

Smoking pub? Smokers made pubs "smoking pubs". The fact the most clientele smoked was inseperable from the fact that most people smoked. Thankfully, most people have wisened up.

Unfortunately for Poland you are still very much behind in terms of general public health messages. It's worked a charm here in Australia TEN YEARS ago, and i think everyone is enjoying the benefits.

Anything like this is difficult and ghastly to implement in Poland because of the layers of bureaucracy (evident here) which the poles are so famed for.

Who is forcing you to go to the place that does you harm? You are going there by choice. Living with the idea that going to a pub is your right. It's not your right. Entrepreneurs built those places with their own money. They took the risk. They invested their money, time, sweat. You aren't doing anything but deciding to walk into the door because of the atmosphere. You like it there, that's why you go there and not to a non-smoking bar. Now you want to tell the person who risked everything to open a place that he should run his business in a certain way. A business in which you have invested NOTHING. Who's the selfish one here?

Again, the challenge is open, why are there no takers? Because you're not willing to put in the effort. And if you;re not willing to put in the effort and make the sacrifice, you shouldn't have a say. You have the freedom to go wherever you want, in Poland, that includes non smoking pubs. You chose not to go there. Why won't you go there? Show me that it's a viable business model, and I will adapt.

lol, you don't care about smokers... you just care about having customers. Bars weren't open as private dens for smokers. And alcohol is NOT inseparable from cigarettes.

If imposing a ban on smoking proved to be good for business, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are just worried because there is a strong association between drinking and smoking - and frankly it needs to change. If you are so entrepreneurial perhaps you will see new opportunitites where this is concerned...?

Unfortunately "smoking bars" as you call them are in the majority strictly because it is not cometitive to have it any other way.

In these cases government intervention is required so that traders who are trying to do something responsible voluntarily, are not penalised. You need a level platform just so that entrepreneurial activitiy can remain intact and healthy.

You still have that right, but seem unable to make a choice to where u should be.


They are more connected with health, the burden on the tax payer is huge!


Again it is a decision of choice. Why would a non smoker choose to enter a smoking pub?


Tell that to the 40 pubs a day that go bust, 15 of which the landlords blame on the smoking issue.


Its very easy to make it law, but the fact the Polish dont want to be told by a government how to live is different.


Again give me one reason why drinking alcohol should not be banned?

You're right. I run a business. I care about paying rent.


No we wouldn't, my place would already be non smoking.


Again, there are non smoking bars in Poland...business isn't exactly booming.


Then you go do that, why is it so difficult for you to change people's opinions?


Freedom of choice. No one is forcing anyone to go to a certain pub. Easy as that.


No it's not. That makes no sense whatsoever. If people wanted it, non smoking bars would be a booming business.

The fact of the matter is that this is a law that is being introduced by non smokers who do not make up the majority of the customer base. This law is being pushed by large superpubs looking to consolidate the market. It's also picking up support by people too lazy to support non smoking pubs with their wallet. It's sad. Hope you folks don't have anything against garlic, because I really like the garlic sauce on my kebap.

banned from pubs...? We are talking bout the rationale behind banning a substance which once lit has known effects on the cardiovascular and respiratory system of ALL who come into contact with it. And these are DIRECT EFFECTS. They do not discriminate between people, and are not based on emotional manifestations in the user, which, I assume, you are alluding to when you highlight alcohol as having a similarly detrimental effect.

You are comparing the effects of alcohol and cigarettes on society, and I am maintaining my argumant that pubs are public places and as such should offer an environment that is as free of direct health risks as possible. Including the unavoidable health risk of passive smoke inhalation with known carcinogens.

The causality between second hand cigarette smoke inhalation and health, and second hand alcohol consumption and health, cannot be compared my friend.

You can be as responsible a cigarette user as you like, but your smoke will still effect me if we are sharing the same public place. Pubs are still public places aren't they...? Let's put the PUBLIC back in PUB.

If they were public places, you couldn't drink alcohol in them. If they were public, the owner wouldn't be able to deny you entry.


Lets learn what the Public in Pub meant to begin with.

I guess what the government are saying is "your cigaratte smoke costs the tax payer too much in hospital bills and we need to ut a stop to it."

Just because there is an established cultural "norm", doesn't mean that norm shouldn't change. If, as you say, the majority of pub users DO frequent smoking pubs, well how much do we know about how many of these patrons actually smoke? or how much the "norm" of going to regularly frequented smoking pubs with smoking buddies plays a part in "non-smoking" pubs not getting a competitive edge?

Old city pubs (esecially in Poland) will always tend to be more popular then new establishments, especially when they offer the convenience of a predicatable social experience. How does this general cycle exacerbate this societal "norm" that links non smokers and the young to a life of smoking...? This can't be a good thing.

With the right reforms, this could work. And it needs to happen sooner or later.

Cigarettes need to be phased out, and this needs to start in places where smokers and potential smokers mingle. To break the cycle. Can't you see that? I'm sorry if you will struggle to pay your rent, perhaps providing slot machines or dancing girls will ease the burden...;)

And you just never know, you might find that non-smokers end up drinking more... i know i don't smoke, and that gives me more money for my Tyskies.

What if I like smoking cigarettes, just like I enjoy eating Big Macs? Pubs are private property, there's no debate on that. If I allow people to smoke on my private property, why would you feel the need to intervene? As an American, if you say it's because of tax payer funded health care which causes quite a bit of the world to live shorter lives than Americans, then I would have to say that you're a bit off. As a Brit, I would point out the same argument that has been presented earlier in this thread, it's cheaper for smokers to die young than to take their pensions. So what's you're argument exactly? You don't like your clothes smelling like smoke?

As a non-smoker who has lived in countries where i have seen these reforms work, it has helped me realise that there is life after "smoking pubs".

I'm neither an American liberalist nor a British cynic, but I am an optimistic Aussie who makes their argument on the basis that non smokers have a right to enjoy a beer without breathing in toxic smoke. And unfortunately this requires uniform reforms across the whole sector for it to work.

It would be nice if pubs weren't private dens for smokers. (Admittedly it works a little better here because we have a climate that you don't mind exposing yourself to most of the year to have a cigarette.)

Publicans run their business hopefully in line with responsible health reforms like these finally proposed by PL gov. Why should they be the cowboys of the service trade?

Unfortunately it's a sign of how entrenched smoking has become in our drinking culture. It's one habit that is filthy, unhealthy, expensive, and highly addictive, and you will never get consensus while there are smokers who need to smoke. I'm glad I gave up. I didn't understand until i did...

Cigarettes are more dangerous than guns and marlboro man is so yesterday...

The argument has nothing to do with smoking. It's about property rights. Scroll up in the thread to read my opinions on it.

Smoking kills people, so does saturated fat, stress, and pollution.

People have a choice, and they are free to choose. You are attempting to impose your will upon others because you either want to help those people, or you ant to conform them to what you think is best for them. Either way, do you think either of those options are fair to the guy that is paying rent?

Ashely, it has been proven many times over that smoking related diseases cost governments nothing. Not a penny.

The treatment costs are covered by the smokers via enormous taxes on tobacco products. The government makes money on smokers. As an example, In Canada the revenues from tobacco tax are on average twice as much as the cost of diseases deemed to be related to smoking (not all of the are). Give or take a % or 2, ratios are similar in other countries.

In short, if every smoker quit tonight it would mean a serious problem for public coffers, and that would translate into cuts in education, publicly funded medical care, cuts in many social services.

Nonsmokers need smokers more than smokers need nonsmokers.

Wheezes in agreement...as a previous smoker!

Not really mate... you make out as if cigarette revenue is holding up the public purse!

There are other things to tax, like the rich, use of water, carbon tax, transport etc etc.

You could ban smoking - it wouldn't mean that people still wouldn't smoke... there'd always be the hardcore.

Besides, then they could just legalise and tax other drugs... like marijuana.

You make out as if a healthy population somehow costs the public money. What about fit healthy people with active minds breeding healthy babies... surely this is good for any economy. Besides the money spent on cigarettes could always be spent on other goods, thereby contributing to public revenue.

So in a sense, smokers are very noble and charitable people, aren't they?

xD

You didn't get it. I am not saying a ban would result in all smokers quitting the habit. I'm saying that IF they all quit today, that would mean financial troubles.

Sure, cig taxes are only a part of national revenues, but then, would you really like your property taxes go up? I say, let them smoke.


Totally selfless.

It a socialist society...yes.

smokers pay a lot of taxes so let them smoke. We need income anyway we can get it. It is a choice.

In Croatia?
You're in Croatia?

Well, while I'd love to go there and enjoy a pint of Ozujsko with you I don't see how this Polish issue affects you.

Your argument is correct, but lacks a broader perspective. I must incline to Ashleys mind's argumenting;)
I'll repeat the opinion that a private place like a bar becomes somewhat public when it opens to customers. Hence the name pub (after all, in full it's public house).

When it gets cold in Poland :) PS, we're the only game in town if you like Czech beer on tap. Kozel every day and a mystery keg that changes up every delivery :)


Open to the public doesn't make it public. Granted, certain guidelines must be followed, that's fair enough, they are licensed establishments...But, this is just moving towards further regulation of anything that the masses think is bad, even if they're not taking part in it. In Germany for instance, there was a vote in Bavaria on the ban. The demographics for the "pro-ban" side were fascinating. Needless to say, small places are having trouble staying open, while large places with outside space (as Smurf mentioned) aren't having a problem. Those "no" voters never showed up like they were supposed to!


No doubt, it's win-win for you. It bans something that annoys you (not something which is forced upon you), and you don't have a connection to the fiscal downsides. Why wouldn't you support it?

Yes, this IS the nature of subjective opinion. But I can see the positives from where i'm standing.

It's a matter of weighing up health/ the environnment against other national priorities.

It's one of those "common good" approaches that ironically no-one individually supports.