I'm just saying that the small amount of time that a nonsmoker spends in a smoke-filled bar probably isn't going to be enough to cause cancer.
Small amount of time? People spend a lot of time in pubs and restraunts. If a person only goes to the pub for two hours at the weekend that still adds up to a lot of time over the months and years.
We've been living with a smoking Ban in Toronto for 2 years now, and I know first hand that it has seriously crippled the industry. EVERY bar has seen a drop in customers, as more and more smoker/drinkers stay home with booze so they can smoke. The only places that have had little drop off were the ones with large, heated patios. I have watched my local go from a place where you couldn't find a place to stand at the bar on a friday or saturday night, to a place where you almost never have trouble finding a table. The basic fact is that, for the most part, those who spend a lot of time in pubs also tend to smoke. Non-smokers tend to come in, order a cranberry soda, sit and chat for a half an hour and leave, with the bar being rewarded with a huge profit of $2.85 Meanwhile, the people who were spending 6 hours or so in the bar, and racking up $40 - $60 bar bills aren't there in the numbers they used to be. It's hurt the business to a great degree. These bans do not need to be outright. Allow the establishment to designate itself as smoking and non-smoking. This provides work for non-smoking wait staff who do not wish to work ina smoking bar. After the designation period passes, all new establishes that open will have to be non-smoking, or at least designate themselves. Hey, everybody wins!
having designated sections do NOTHING! The smoke doesn't look at the sign and say "Oh, damn, I'm not allowed over here.."
I'm talking about entire establishments having a smoking, or non-smoking designation. Not designated smoking areas.
Ok, I see what you mean there. But any bar will go smoking, as you pointed out because of the business it gets, thats the problem. There is one bar in my city that is completely non-smoking, and thas because it is connected to an arcade where children are allowed. That place makes 90% of their money from underage people playing the arcade.. A few bucks off drinks by guys who play the games drunk, and ocasionally they have a busy day in the bar, because people don't need to smoke to watch a stanley cup playoff game. My city is one of the only major cities in Canada not to have this smoking ban... Thank god most of my carreer oportunities are in places with this ban.
There were more than a few non-smoking establishments in this city before the ban, and they did well. They catered to people who did not want to sit in a smokey pub, fine. However, there are loads of pubs that had their main patron base ripped from them because of the ban, which wasn't necessary.
I'd go for sealed off and well ventilated smoking areas. It's simple really, everybody wins. If smokers want to sit in there all night then cool or they can just pop in for a quick *** and come back to sit with their non-smoking mates. No one has to stand in the cold or rain like a tit because of anyone else.
*applause* Phazer, I've rarely agreed with you about anything, but that post has earned my sincere respect. Thank you. Anyone who thinks nobody really has a physical problem with tobacco smoke is deluding themselves out of wishful thinking. Although my own problems with it aren't nearly as bad as some that have been described in this thread, I most definitely have an allergic reaction to the stuff. It's a pysical reaction, and it severely limits the amount of time I can spend in certain places and how much time I can even spend around some of my friends. Trust me, if I could "get over it", I would. I hate to think what it's like for someone who's more sensitive to it than I am, but there are many such people out there. Oh, you say city air pollution is as bad or worse? Maybe, but it's not about how much crap is in the air, it's about what kind of crap is in the air. Cars spew out carbon emissions, not nicotine. Telling someone who's allergic to peanuts that he shouldn't have any problem with food cooked in peanut oil because another dish could have far more olive oil in it wouldn't make any fucking sense. Anyone accusing victims of smoke allergies or other problems of only thinking of themselves needs to step back and think a little more objectively. What are YOU doing when you light up in an enclosed (or even an outdoor area if it's crowded. People don't think about that) area and start quite literally spewing poison around without knowing whether it's going to affect someone around you and how badly? Extremely few smokers ever consider this or even care, and I think it's specifically because of those attitudes that places have to resort to an unfortunate ban policy. If smoking only affected the people who smoke, and if more smokers were considerate of those who can't handle it, I'd be against such bans, but that simply isn't the case. You might not like it, but my right to breathe and not be sick from it supercedes your right to smoke around me. You can all do without smoking for a little while much more easily than I can do without breathing, and if you think otherwise, then it's pretty clear which of us isn't being objective.
