'Ban smoking at outdoor restaurants in Sweden'

[Zeek Daniels]

might as well ban it. Its a really stupid activity. The health risks for what? I dont even know what smoking gives you that would make you want to start doing it. Yea if ur addicted i get it but why start?

[artemishunter1]

smoking is disgusting and it impacts my health when people near me smoke. So it should be banned everywhere IMO, except private residences, and even then not when children are present.

actually does not if smoked outside due to other pollutents being present already in the outside air. If that is still problem for you, then you should not drive either, because driving is number 1 cause of lung cancer right after smoking.

[Revi]

Should be up to the establishment imo.

[Donald Hellscream]

Depends on the size of the place, for example at busstops and train stations I think it is fair both because it really looks awful with cigarette butts littering the ground because people are too lazy to use the bin a few feet away and also because it can be bothersome for people at crowded busstops or trainstations who doesn't want people to blow smoke in their faces and I also do think it is alright to ban smoking at Restaurants.

But then again I don't even smoke inside my own residence.. Although thats more a matter of not wanting to paint the walls when I move out than anything else

[artemishunter1]

might as well ban it. Its a really stupid activity. The health risks for what? I dont even know what smoking gives you that would make you want to start doing it. Yea if ur addicted i get it but why start?

because to many people its relaxing and its easy. By the way if you smoke mariwana, you are giving yourself cancer as well.

[Lex Icon]

Should be up to the establishment imo.

Indeed i was a smoker for 20+ years and i don't really mind if people around me smoke now. especially not outdoors.
i had no problems either when i entered areas where smoking was not allowed when i did smoke.

[Deleted]

I think they can fuck right off until they have the balls and spine to prohibit tobacco products in its entirety. If you want us to quit smoking then help us instead of taking advantage of the situation. They want us to quit but they also want that sweet tax money. Goddamn passive pussies who can't even follow through on their own agenda. That's what I think about that.

[lonely zergling]

I think they can fuck right off until they have the balls and spine to prohibit tobacco products in its entirety. If you want us to quit smoking then help us instead of taking advantage of the situation. They want us to quit but they also want that sweet tax money. Goddamn passive pussies who can't even follow through on their own agenda. That's what I think about that.

Most studies say smoking is overall a loss of money for a society. So we pay for your dirty hobby. You could atleast be thankful.

[Alonos]

I smoke, and I would be completely A-okay with this. If i'm paying to eat out somewhere I don't want to be smelling cigarettes while I'm trying to enjoy a meal. If someone really needs a smoke that badly, they should go out to the parking lot where they wont bother other diners.

[Theinquisition]

This isn't USA, Swedish govt actually pays for the healthcare, when one of the smokers keels over from whatever, so they have an interest in butting into this. Also, since it's outdoors, the smoke can and will drift off the premises, so saying "business should dictate" does not cut it. However, I'm all for cigar and tobacco lounges/bars which are indoors and if you want to buy and puff your own, you can do it in at home or outdoors.

I can see where you're coming from, just sounds odd to me as an American. I'd leave the decision to the business, if they want to cater to smokers, fine but you will lose non-smoker customers and vice versa.

[Tojara]

I'm not sure what it's like in other countries, but just a quick search of a single province in Canada (Ontario) from about 10 years ago estimated that the total revenue from taxation on cigarettes was roughly 1.4 billion dollars, while the direct cost on the health care from tobacco related illnesses was 1.6 billion. Keep in mind that's the simplest comparison possible, if you actual factor in other economic values like lost productivity and secondary effects, the actual cost outside of the healthcare industry is even larger. Even if you take them at face value, from this one province in Canada, smoking, with the enormous tax that we put on them in Canada still doesn't break even with the burden it puts on the health care industry.

I would assume this probably applies to the rest of Canada as well, and I know full well the tax on cigarettes in Nova Scotia is insanely high.

So the myth that governments don't want to ban smoking on the grounds that it's a cash cow is pretty shaky (at least here, but it's probably the same in a place like the UK), and the search I did proves the absolute opposite. From an economic stand point, and from a public health stand point, it would be better for the entire country if smoking COULD be banned. However that's never going to happen because it's fairly unreasonable and you only need to look into the past to see how banning things like in the era of prohibition turned out. People would just turn to illegal needs of getting cigarettes, it wouldn't be taxed (because hurr durr it would be illegal) and because we live in a country with 'free' health care, the system would get slammed even more than it already does because of cigarette related illnesses (especially when you don't have the tax revenue from cigarettes to help curb the cost).

As to the actual topic, good. I have no issue with people actually smoking, but smoke does drift and it would be obnoxious to sit outside to have smoke drift my way while eating. There is such a stigma where I live with smoking that I can't really remember the last time I've witnessed people smoking at or around food, with the only place being outside on a deck at a bar or something in the summer lol.

[ComputerNerd]

As a non-smoker of course something i would applaud. But smokers would be pissed and scream oppression.

If they choose to smoke, they can deal with some inconvenience.
Us non-smokers are denied the option of avoiding it completely, which given how we have chosen not to smoke is something we should be able to do.

[Deleted]

Most studies say smoking is overall a loss of money. So we pay for your dirty hobby. You could atleast be thankful.

Gonna remember to be thankful for the government and society for enabling my premature death. Thanks, buddy! Now, why don't we stop behaving like children and take some responsibility and actually ban smoking instead of trying to find ways to increase tobacco income in the guise of caring?

[lonely zergling]

Gonna remember to be thankful for the government and society for enabling my premature death. Thanks, buddy! Now, why don't we stop behaving like children and take some responsibility and actually ban smoking instead of trying to find ways to increase tobacco income in the guise of caring?

Its still your choice to smoke or not, we just have to pay the bill of your bad decision. Increasing taxes actually has shown to reduce the overall smoker % of kids / young adults. If you ban something people will find ways to do it illegaly (like people smoke weed and do other drugz).

[Deleted]

Its still your choice to smoke or not, we just have to pay the bill of your bad decision. Increasing taxes actually has shown to reduce the overall smoker % of kids / young adults. If you ban something people will get it illegaly.

Yes it is and that is a choice because we as a society has decided that it is a choice even though we know full well how dangerous it is. And who the fuck are "we"? Am I exempt from being included in this "We" group? I pay tax too, a large portion of it for things I don't benefit from or want to pay for, and a large portion of it to fuel my habit. This isn't a you pay for me situation; We as a society pay for this and pay to enable it. I also guarantee you that I would never have started to smoke if it was prohibited and shunned as it should have been from the start. This is just as much societies fault as it is mine. I simply expect that when we decide to do something we don't half ass it and then pat ourselves on the back for accomplishing nothing as we do now.

[lockedout]

http://www.thelocal.se/20160607/ban-...ants-in-sweden



What do you think about smoking bans in public places?

Some are silly some make sense.

[May90]

It is a hard question. As much as I am for liberty and such, I know what it's like to have to breathe in cigarettes when you are a non-smoker (my dad smoked a lot, and inside too) - awful! I think a compromise would be to make it up to the restaurant owners to introduce smoking ban or not; then people who don't like the ones allowing smoking could always just pick another one. Free market in action.

Personally, I adore the smell of tobacco though, and electronic cigarettes do not seem to produce any smell at all, so, perhaps, those two should be allowed in public?

[Forgettable]

Good on Sweden. Screw smoke, and screw the tobacco industry. (Mind you I did not say "Screw smokers.")

[nonameelf]

So can bacon, according to studies this year. Do you still eat bacon?

In Australia, smoking has now been banned within 4 meters of any public commercial building. That includes restaurants, shopping centers, the platforms at train stations, pretty much everywhere that's not open public on the street.

Am I exposed to the harmful affects of bacon just because people near me are eating bacon? No? Then it's not the same.

[satimy]

Whats wrong with letting the market decide?