The Singaporean method would work... 6 cracks of the cane on your palm.

I prefer it to a fine, because it is equally harsh (or mild) whatever offender's financial status. But perhaps community service (e.g. a weekend or two of pavement sweeping) would do .

There are no indications (other than those invented by lawyers) that reasonable amount of second-hand smoke is harmfull..

What is a reasonable amount of second-hand smoke?

Hi.

I prefer it to a fine, because it is equally harsh (or mild) whatever offender's financial status.

Well, don't know wether the states have something like this in their laws, but in Germany, there is something called "Tagessatz", basically it is the (theoretical) amount of money someone has available each day (that is income+certain part of capital). I think something like a half of those would fit (or may be a whole), I guess.

cu,
sven

When you say publicly accessible buildings, do you mean government buildings? In that case, I think it would be reasonable.

If you mean any privately owned building that the owner wishes to allow public access to, then I think that is very unreasonable. If you don't like the smell of someone's building, don't go in- you don't have to accept their invitation to come in. You don't have to shop at their store. That would be like me coming to your house and telling you to stop smoking. You'd just tell me to leave if I don't like it. For many businesses, it is in their interest to create a smoke-free environment, so they do. But it should be the choice of the owner whether to allow it or not, not a government mandate. That's just wrong.

In California you can't smoke indoors. Not even in a bar. Makes sense. How would you like it if I dumped toxic chemicals in your backyard?

Calvin

How would you like it if I dumped toxic chemicals in your backyard


Uhhhh.... this is the same California with the bad smog problems caused by vehicle emissions, right?

Like I said, it should be the shop owner's choice. So if I chose to allow the dumping of toxic chemicals in my backyard, then obviously I wouldn't have a problem with it.

In California, the logic used for banning smoking in bars and restaurants is that while patrons may have a choice in where they go, workers must work day in and day out at their jobs. Anyone who claims you won't get enough seccond hand smoke to do damage working 40 hours a week in a smoky bar is deciving themselves.

Now, you could argue that the waitresses could find jobs elsewhere, but that's like saying people could find jobs in buildings without asbestos so companies shouldn't be required to remove it or seal it in.

Matthew

Except that there isn't even any real evidence that 2nd hand smoke even has a real impact. And yeah, you're right, the workers don't have to work there- they choose to. The difference between asbestos and smoke is the asbestos isn't obvious like smoke. Getting rid of asbestos is just standard safety. You can see and smell smoke, so if you don't like it, leave- it's not your building.

Besides, I done seen some show on people in japan that live to like 120 yrs and smoke everyday.

I don't have an issue with banning smoking in public places... I'm a smoker, I can deal with that, what really agitates me is the poor lady a few miles away in Maryland who's been banned from smoking in her own Townhome because the neighbors complained.... The court actually told this lady she couldn't smoke in her own home... I'm sorry thats just absurd...

Except that there isn't even any real evidence that 2nd hand smoke even has a real impact.

Just because you haven't bothered to look for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The very first hit I got from a Google search on the subject (read more about it here yielded the following information:

The Environmental Protection Agency firmly maintains that the bulk of the scientific evidence demonstrates that secondhand smoke -- environmental tobacco smoke, or "ETS" -- causes lung cancer and other significant health threats to children and adults. EPA’s report ("Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," EPA/600/6-90/006F) was peer-reviewed by 18 eminent, independent scientists who unanimously endorsed the study’s methodology and conclusions. Since EPA’s 1993 report which estimated the risks posed by ETS, numerous independent health studies have presented an impressive accumulating body of evidence that confirms and strengthens the EPA findings. It is widely accepted in the scientific and public health communities that secondhand smoke poses significant health risks to children and adults.

A U.S. District Court decision has vacated several chapters of the EPA document "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" that served as the basis for EPA's classification of secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen and estimates that ETS causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-smokers each year. The ruling was largely based on procedural grounds. EPA is appealing this decision. None of the findings concerning the serious respiratory health effects of secondhand smoke in children were challenged.

Tobacco is the only product sold to the general public that, when used as intended causes the death of the user. OK, so go ahead -- use it and die. Just don't use it anywhere near me.

tanstaafl.

So if I chose to allow the dumping of toxic chemicals in my backyard, then obviously I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Sure, go ahead and dump all the toxic waste you want in your back yard -- but be prepared to lose everything you own and spend some time in jail when your toxic waste finds its way into my water supply.

tanstaafl.

"-- but be prepared to lose everything you own and spend some time in jail when your toxic waste finds its way into my water supply"

It's an analogy, kemosabe.

"Tobacco is the only product sold to the general public that, when used as intended causes the death of the user"

So do greasy hamburgers.

Whether or not ETS is harmful or not is pretty irrelevant. The point is it's your building and if you want to inhale toxic fumes, then that's your business. If you want to smoke dope, then that's your business. And if someone else doesn't like it, then they don't have to go in your building. Nobody is misinformed about what they're in for and I think it's pretty clear cut. Don't come to my house and tell me how to run it. It's like a backseat driver. When some starts backseat-driving in my car, I stop the car and offer to let them walk. They usually stop.

I wonder if I complained about my neighbors noisy grandchildren if they would be banned

People should have the fricking right to smoke in their own homes for gods sake. Seems like that could start a mess of stuff being banned by neighbors if it bothers them. I'm surprised that held up in court. That doesn't bode well for anyone.

I'm surprised that held up in court.

why our legal system is a joke if you can sue a business for falling down in front of their store how can anything be surprising.

Well, notice he said townhouse, not house. Townhouses are (usualy) conduminiumized and known for their horrible homeowners associations. They can write just about anything into the documents that go along with the place. Another common example is satelite dishes, which are forbidden a large portion of the time... Without actual details, it's impossible to say what's really going on.

That being said, it's their house, and I agree it's outrageous...

Matthew

If any of you read the New York Times in the last couple of days, you might have noticed an article about a Manhattan co-op board requiring non-smoking in the building, related to something about the smoke going through the ventilation system. A day later, an architect wrote a letter to the editor saying that any building which allows smoke to waft through the ventilation system between rooms has some serious code violations...apparently such objections aren't that uncommon. I think that private residences shouldn't have rules about smoking though.
YZ, any place where it is a "work environment" already follows rules about workplace safety. Second-hand smoke is just another hazard. Do you find it ridiculous that the government regulates a dry-cleaner for the chemical fumes? Why not regulate a restaurant for the cigarette smoke fumes?

One more thing, I am a non-smoker and don't appreciate cigarrette smoking. I just spent a couple of months in Madrid, which may be the smoking capital of the world, and I was dreading the thought of all that smoke. I was chill though, and after a while, I just didn't care as much. Maybe living in CA has gotten me just a little too uptight about it...

There are no indications (other than those invented by lawyers) that reasonable amount of second-hand smoke is harmfull.]

Roy Castle's death was faked by lawyers? Now there's a conspiracy theory...

Peter

Because people enjoy smoking. They do it for the pleasure of it. It's an activity that many people partake in. How about this, instead of banning smoking in private buildings, the owners can choose to put up a sign outside that says, "If you don't like second hand smoke, you are not allowed in here."? That way everyone will be happy.

Correct me If Im wrong, but I think the whole point that Yz is trying to make is that, if the owner of a resterant or bar wants to ban smoking from his place, so be it, but the Government should not have any regulation over it, and I agree.

whereas I myself am a smoker, I dont like people smoking around me in a resterant while Im eating, and I can see where other people wouldnt either, but if they are a few tables away it doesnt bother me, but in a bar, when Im drinking I like to smoke and the only time it really gets bad is when there is poor ventilation in the bar, or its extremely crouded with a lot people smoking.

Exactly.

I totally think smoking has its place, and people have a choice to do it. In fact, sometimes it's alright with me. But the regulations about smoking in restaurants don't have as much to do with the restaurant goers as they do with the waiters and waitresses. Second-hand smoke creates a hazardous work environment and it is for that reason the gov't is justified to regulate it. For restaurant goers, the "choice" argunment is totally fine (diners can "choose" not to go to a smoking restaurant). However, for employees, it has long been standard that the concept of workplace "choice" does not outweigh the need to eliminate work hazards. There was a time in this country when owners of businesses could justify unnecessary workplace hazards by saying that their workers "choose" to work there. Now, only countries like Thailand and the Philippines are able to pull off policies like that.

It is often stated that non smokers can choose to go to a non smoking restaurant, but this doesn't work in practice. I don't know of any non smoking restaurants in Cambridge (apart from McDonalds type places but they don't count) yet I'm sure a large percentage of the population here would prefer to eat in a smoke free environment. I only know of two smoke free pubs here, out of - umm - hundreds probably!

This is an instance where consumer demand is not influencing business.

I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who doesn't mind smoke in pubs/bars/clubs but who doesn't enjoy eating in a smokey environment. I'm not a tobacco smoker myself, unless I've had way too much ale!

Rob

I would advise that you open a smoke-free restaurant and make a load of money!

I think there's a difference between work place hazards that can be easily prevented and work hazards that just come along with the job. For instance, being a soldier in the army can be dangerous, yet you don't see any countries outlawing militaries, do you? Many businesses cater to a smoking environment and many people enjoy a smoking environment. That being said, it should be understood that smoking is a hazard (if it even is) that naturally comes along with certain jobs.

Warehouses don't want asbestos- the asbestos doesn't serve any purpose. It's just toxic waste. Smoking is different. It's something that some people enjoy. Outlawing it means that those people who enjoy it can't do it. If you don't like the smoke in a restaurant- don't go in/work there. You don't have a right to go in to/work at a privately owned business- you can go in/work at only if the owner allows you to. These people want to smoke in a building that is owned by someone who wants them to smoke in their building and the owner may or may not also want you in their building, so you saying that they can't smoke there is just wrong. It's just none of anyone's business except for the owner's.

Exactly, Yz33d. All those pansy waiters who want to live to see 60 can just move to states that have non-smoking restaurants. What right do they have to trample the liberties of the good-hearted smokers of the world, and what right do they have to eliminate the freedom of smokers not to have to walk 50 feet to smoke outside? Outrageous, those cretins!

Similarly, I'd like to see a movement to do away with those odious government regulations that prevent car-owners from drinking the alcohol of their choice freely in the protected environment of their own moving vehicles. Those who say drinking and driving causes accidents can just choose to drive on non-drinking roads!

The nerve of some people. Sheesh.

If you read my post again, you will notice that I said something aboout either allowing it explicitly in the whole building or in a secluded area inside the building would be ok. I just meant that the default is that smoking is not allowed, but can be allowed by the owner. I just would like to make sure that smoke from the smoking areas (pun intended) can't get to the non-smoking areas.

cu,
sven

"Tobacco is the only product sold to the general public that, when used as intended causes the death of the user"

So do greasy hamburgers.

Nope. They do not cause permanent damage to the body like smoke does. And don't say it is an analogy: If it where so, you could sure give a real example.

Oh, and tobacco isn't really the only good that causes medical problems to those that use it "as intended". Alcohol fits in there as well, just not to the extend of causing cancer.

cu,
sven

"Tobacco is the only product sold to the general public that, when used as intended causes the death of the user"

"They do not cause permanent damage to the body...."

Uhh, dude, I'm jumping in here but, neither do cigarettes, IF, you only had one a week I'm sure you'd be pretty much ok. But if you take them over a long period of time several times per day they'll kill you..

Hamburgers, several times per day, over a long period, will also kill you (most likely via congestive heart failure)

"I don't smoke in houses or cars or around people who don't like it."

WHOHOOO!!! I aplaud you! No one has a right to complain. Thanks for being cool to the non-smokers out there.