I’d like to know what will happen in the case of cannabis ‘speakeasies’. There are pubs at the moment where a blind eye is turned to customers smoking cannabis - will we have the absurd situation where a landlord is fined for allowing a legal drug (tobacco) to be smoked while mixed with an illegal drug (dope) which was being ignored? Or will this new band of paid informants be tackling drug use, black marketeering and tobacco use at the same time?
I have pondered whether by design or not I can’t say, but anecdotally the real effect of smoking bans in the US seems to be a decline of smaller, “mom and pop” establishments, as they are poorly positioned to absorb the vagaries of running a retail establishment in the 21st century. This trend may well be inevitable anyway for a number of those reasons - taxes, permits, inspections, liability/dram shop law, etc. But tobacco as contraband could possibly be the final stake through the heart. Your post even if in jest illustrates why.
I disagree (also anecdotally).
Personally, my own decisions on which establishments to patronize are made mostly on the basis of how comfortable I feel there, how friendly and welcoming they are.
There is a small family-owned place very close by that I go to regularly, and an establishment further away that is part of a ‘chain’, but whose manager and wait staff do an excellent job of making you feel at home. But there is another place, very close to my home, that I pass every day. It’s a small, family owned and operated place, but I never go there any more – the first few times I was there, I didn’t find it friendly or like the way I was treated, so I go elsewhere.
Most of my friends do the same – they patronize places where the staff treats you right. Frankly, I’d think a ‘mom and pop’ establishment would have a better shot at this – those places generally have a definite feel & spirit, as opposed to the sterile atmosphere of many chain establishments.
I believe we are not too far away from the day when smoking pot will be legal and tobacco will be ILLegal.
To be honest, I don’t mind the smoking ban. I hardly ever smoke, and when I do, it usually isn’t inside or anywhere too close to any building. I do, however, play music with and run sound for a band that plays at bars. I usually open for them, set up the PA for a full band after I’m done, get it to sound ok, then slip outside for a cigar. Since I stay sober at these things, the cigar usually takes my mind off of any urge to drink. I don’t believe that if I do this, people should be allowed to follow me home to issue me fines and such. I don’t think they should take secret pictures of me because I’m honestly not hurting anyone when I go outside to do this - since I usually stand in the parking lot by my car. I know people smoke in places they aren’t supposed to, but it is veyr easy to avoid these places. I also know I will sound like one of those smokers who says “but I am always polite…blah blah blah” and I believe I am when it comes to smoking. Mostly because I might smoke once a month, so it is a little easier to be away from people for twenty minutes then instead of those who smoke every 10 minutes or so everyday.
I do know of several places that don’t always stop smokers indoors. They will wait until someone makes a verbal complaint until they say anything, then it is all business about the new Ohio law. I also know that these establishments don’t need my money, or at least aren’t getting it. There are at least 7 bars in this town and only one or two that don’t fully enforce the new law. It’s pretty easy to find something to do at the other 5 if I really want to go out. I’m not trying to be snarky or anything, and I’m sorry if I come off that way. I’m also not trying to turn this into a debate, I just want to state what I believe about this. I am not happy about the idea of secret police who follow and photograph people who are using a still legal substance. Honestly, if these measures are going to be taken, why sell it at all? Why not outlaw the sale of any tobacco products completely? I don’t see that as an answer, but I don’t think Gestapo tactics are either.
Brendon
New thread on smoking bans - same threadbare arguments. In short:
Enforcing a law based on popular demand is not equivalent to Nazism.
When rigorous studies are done (as opposed to anecdote), bar and restaurant business does not suffer due to smoking bans - sometimes revenues increase.
Banning tobacco outright does not work, just as alcohol Prohibition was ineffective. Governments and the people who elect them find it justifiable to recoup some of the health-related cost of tobacco usage through taxes.
Concern about secondhand smoke-related death and illness does not mean that one isn’t concerned about general air pollution as well. The counterpart to this type of argument is saying “How can you fuss about smokers’ rights when there are massive human rights violations in Africa?”
So if I suspect my neighbor of dumping used oil in his backyard, leaving pets out in the cold without food or water, or abusing his kids, I shouldn’t report him because I’d be a snitch to the Gestapo?
I wouldn’t argue against the ban, I actually don’t mind it at all. My problem was the following of citizens and such. That is somewhat irrelevent, but I want to respond to this last part. Abusing animals, as well as children is illegal. It is probably illegal to improperly dispose of oil and such as well. I’m not actually sure. Smoking in public places is illegal in some places, but stalking those who break the law without actually being a regular policeman is a little far. How would you feel if some guy followed your car around and wrote down everytime you drove 60 in a 55. Then he cites you for it and gives you fines, even though he isn’t a police officer, just a government official. I’m saying that having secret police is a lot like this. I don’t argue that something needs to be done, I just think this is the wrong solution.
Brendon
First, I’d like to see a cite for the “following people around” claim.
There is precedent for non-enforcement personnel monitoring compliance with the law in areas where scofflaws have been a problem - for instance volunteers photographing cars illegally parked in handicapped spots and reporting them to the police. I’m not too fond of that practice, but it came about in some areas because of persistent violators.
Given that violation of anti-smoking and anti-littering ordinances has been a continuing problem in the smoking population, the uproar over public smoking bans and the stated intent of denying the law among some smokers, it doesn’t seem unreasonable for enforcement agencies to plan ways to assure compliance with a smoking ban.
I suspect this will turn out to be something less than a Giant Nazi Invasion Of Our Personal Lives. People will find out that they can live with the ban and the measures to enforce it will eventually become unnecessary.
If I could get a pair of snappy leather boots, a belted trenchcoat and '30s fedora, I might be willing to volunteer as an Anti-Smoking Nazi.
I guess I’m missing something. Why would photographs need to be taken? Why follow people home? Why not just issue tickets like they do for parking violations? I actually think it would make more sense to issue fines to the establishment that is allowing smoking to continue, instead of fining individuals, but whatever.
Well it works like this:
Owner of premises that ignore the no smoking ban and permit patrons to smoke are liable of fines up to £5000. Smokers can be fined around £80.
The following home bit, as I understand it, is in case that the smoker refuses to give proof of identity and/or address.
The photos are taken to prove that the smoker was breaking the law.
In all honesty the whole business pisses me off large.
We are living in a pigging nanny state, how long before we are forbidden to smoke in our own homes?
I will go ahead and say that I went off what was said here without researching. I couldn’t find a cite saying that following them would be involved, but I could only find two stories about the snooping officials involved with the smoking ban, but I also will keep looking.
According to the article linked upthread, these are not volunteers who are alerting the police. These are non-police who are able to cite and fine other non-police. Call them half-police if you will, or mini-police. According to this article, these public people who are allowed to fine people are being asked to do so because they don’t want enforcing the ban to “consume police time.” So now, it is a law, but the police shouldn’t be troubled with enforcing it? Something about that sounds odd. Also, you say that it is important in cases involving persistent violators, only the law has not been in effect yet. They are having officials spy on the public because of a possible problem with persistent violation. Seems like they are spending a lot of money (and time) on a problem they aren’t sure they even have yet.
Brendon
Wow, that’s almost a U.S. attitude.
Count me in as another who approves of the ban but thinks it’s ridiculous to train snitches.