# The New Tobacco Law in Spain



## Anna Più

Hi,
In the 1rst of January will be a new law in Spain to ban to smoke in public buildings, work spaces, trains, bars and restaurants. (Information here and here)
I think the Spanish smoking citizens aren’t ready to face the law…
How is going in Ireland and in Italy? Do people respect the law? Have been reduced the tobacco sales? 


_Health!_
A+

Hola,

El próximo 1 de enero va entrar en vigor en España la nueva ley del tabaco, que prohíbe fumar en locales públicos, lugares de trabajo, trenes, bares y restaurantes. (Información aquí y aquí)
Yo creo que la ciudadanía española fumadora no está muy preparada para esto. .. 
¿Como les va en Irlanda? ¿Y en Italia? ¿La gente ha respetado la ley? ¿Ha bajado la venta de tabaco?

_¡*Salud*os!_
A+


----------



## Laia

Ya tengo ganas de ver lo que pasará... aunque tristemente creo que la gente se va a saltar esta norma a la torera.


----------



## Mei

Pues... yo hace dos semanas que no fumo...  es que hay mucha presión! 

¿No sería más práctico que no vendieran tabaco? A ver para el que fuma es una p*tada pero sería la solución definitiva... digooooo! Tengo entendido que el Estado gana mucho dinero con los impuestos del tabaco, ¿no?

Mei


----------



## Laia

Mei said:
			
		

> Tengo entendido que el Estado gana mucho dinero con los impuestos del tabaco, ¿no?


 
Por lo que yo he oído, hasta ahora el Estado ha ganado mucha pasta con los impuestos del tabaco, pero ahora se están dando cuenta de que les está saliendo más caro tener que asumir los gastos por problemas de salud relacionados con el mismo tabaco...

Ánimo Mei 

Laia


----------



## tigger_uhuhu

En México también tenemos una Ley que prohibe fumar en lugares públicos. Me parece que la gente se ha adaptado bien, cierto que hay quienes " de vez en vez" no la cumplen. 
La Ley tendrá algo así como 2 años de haber entrado en vigor y ha reducido notablemente el número de personas que fuman en sus oficinas (ahora fuera de los edificios, o en las azoteas se han instalado zonas de fumar), como en los restaurantes. Hay un par de discos y bares aquí en la ciudad que también tienen área de no fumar (es gracioso, siempre estan vacías) pero va bien el asunto.
He de confesar que nunca he sabido de nadie que tenga una multa por fumar en un lugar prohibido 
Saludos 
Tggr


----------



## Laia

tigger_uhuhu said:
			
		

> Hay un par de discos y bares aquí en la ciudad que también tienen área de no fumar (es gracioso, siempre estan vacías) pero va bien el asunto.


 
Este es el problema... en un grupo de amigos normal hay fumadores y no fumadores. Sólo con que haya un fumador ya tienen que ir todos a la zona de fumadores, porque claro, no se va a partir el grupo...

Está chungo, sí sí...


----------



## Roi Marphille

Thank God there is this law!!!
Last survey shows almost 91% agree with the Law. I am amongst them. It will be great to sit in a restaurant and eat only food instead of food plus smoke from the _f*_ _moron_ from beside table!


----------



## Phryne

Hola!

Por aquí, en Nueva York, la ley funciona muy bien. No sé si hay menos fumadores ya que yo jamás fumé, pero a mí me da la impresión de que sí. La gente tiene que salir a fumar a la calle, y con temperaturas bajo cero, a más de encontrar un momento libre para hacerlo, resulta que, al menos, se fuma menos veces por día. Eso es lo que observo pero puedo puedo estar equivocada. A su vez, considerando que un atado de cigarrillos cuesta aproximadamente $8 ó 9 dólares, la gente tiene muchos incentivos para abandonar el hábito.

Mucha gente hoy se queja de estar bajo las órdenes déspoticas de los no fumadores, sin embargo yo veo que la situación antes era al revés. Por ejemplo, mis amigos y familiares siempre fumaron en mi presencia sin siquiera percatarse cuando el humo iba derecho a mi cara. He fumado demasiados cigarillos ajenos toda mi vida sin que nadie tenga el menor respeto por mi salud o tolerancia al humo. Jamás me preguntaron si me molestaba que fumasen o se disculpaban cuando el humo iba derecho a mí. Y lo que es peor, nunca me había dado cuenta de estas actitudes intolerantes hasta que se aplicaron estas leyes y ahora noto cuán mejor aire se respira en los bares, en mi trabajo y en mi casa. 

En respuesta a la pregunta si los españoles están listos para nuevas leyes, supongo que siempre dependerá de qué actitud tienen respecto al fumar. En Argentina por ejemplo la gente se atiene a las leyes lisa y llanamente porque los bares y restaurantes están presionados para que así sea. Aquí es igual. Sin embargo, la diferencia que yo veo entre los estadounidenses y los argentinos es que la mentalidad de la gente argentina no está lista aún para tales leyes. Cuando salen de los bares, siguen fumando indiscriminadamente y sin pedir permiso o disculparse. Sin querer generalizar, mis conocidos y familiares actúan así.

Disculpen que ventile mis broncas.  Sucede que me enoja mucho darme cuenta de estas cosas y cómo en Argentina aún siguen siendo así. Cada vez que visito a mi familia, o ellos a mí tenemos algún problemita relacionado al tema.

Saludos


----------



## Like an Angel

En Argentina, tengo entendido, se aprobaron leyes que entrarán en vigencia en marzo y octubre de 2006, que prohíbe fumar en cualquier lugar público, creo que el único espacio en el que podrán fumar los adictos será en el patio de sus casas. Ahora bien, eso dice la ley, conociendo a mis compatriotas, dudo que sea tan fácil de aplicar, aunque ruego que así sea porque cuando vas a un restaurante, por más que haya sectores divididos el humo siempre se cuela, no lee el cartel y dice "ups, aquí no puedo entrar"   y es *muy* molesto para quienes no tenemos ese vicio.



			
				Mei said:
			
		

> Pues... yo hace dos semanas que no fumo... es que hay mucha presión! ¡¡Felicitaciones!!
> 
> ¿No sería más práctico que no vendieran tabaco?


 
No lo creo Mei, desde el momento en que están pensando en legalizar otras drogas, si ésta ya está permitida dudo que la dejen de vender. Como no fumadora, siempre me inclino a favor del aumento de impuestos sobre este producto, porque sí, significa vastos ingresos para la nación, aunque, lamentablemente, el consumo cede muy poco o casi nada.


----------



## Quebar

pienso que los indices de muertes por concepto de cancer apoyarian que esta ley se aplicara en europa, españa y porque no en cualquier lugar del mundo, creo que buscar la salud de la sociedad es bueno, creo tambien que al comienzo sera dificil pero antes de imponer una ley es necesario crear una conciencia  social para que la gente le vea un sentido a lo que estan haciendo, seguramente bajaran las ventas de tabaco y seguramente bajaran los indices de cancer en los hospitales españoles.

gracias


----------



## Gremli Skremli

In Norway the new tobacco law has been a great success, there you can basically only smoke outside and in your own home now. The only ones who have suffered are the owners of "brown" bars, where the alcoholics and chain smokers used to go. 
I must say that the unrespectful smoking in public places has been the one thing I have hated about Spain. When I moved back to Spain this time I was surprised to see that people smoke much less. I can actually take my two year old to a café without getting mad at someone or worry about his health.. But I'm glad I study at home and don't go to classes at the Uni here. It surprises me that people who are supposed to be so smart can be so ignorant when it comes to smoking (not to mention the respect part)..


----------



## Hakro

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> Thank God there is this law!!!
> Last survey shows almost 91% agree with the Law. I am amongst them. It will be great to sit in a restaurant and eat only food instead of food plus smoke from the _f*_ _moron_ from beside table!


 In Finland we have a similar law, unfortunately. In my opinion this law is a kind of dictatorship that leaves no choice to the restaurant customers nor the restaurant owners. There should be a possibility to have "smoking restaurants" and "non-smoking restaurants". Roi Marphille and other people could choose between them.
I have been smoker but I don't smoke anymore. I have been owner of a restaurant but I work in other branches nowadays. So this is not my personal problem but I think I know the situation from both viewpoints.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Gremli Skremli said:
			
		

> It surprises me that people who are supposed to be so smart can be so ignorant when it comes to smoking (not to mention the respect part)..


same here! it is amazing! Some people really don't give a sh*t about the others!  They can smoke in front of a kid or a pregnant woman and they don't care, they just don't even think about it! If you kindly ask them to focus their smoke to another direction, sometimes they are offended.  They use to say that there are many harmful things around, like polution from cars and stuff, ok, it's true but i'd be nice to choose to do all possible  to avoid dying of lung cancer. I guess that it's not nice to have a painful and long agony. Yes, maybe I die tomorrow as a result of a car accident or a serial killer or something, it is something you hardly can avoid, but it would be nice to have the right to *avoid* the f* smoke from the smokers. 
I have some friends who highly complain because I don't let them smoke in my f* apartment! it's mine and there are my f* rules! It's really *pathetic* if they can not stop smoking for a while, isn't it?.  
PS: sorry...and yes, I smoked when I was a teenager. I am not that dumb now .


----------



## Alundra

I was smoker, and I know how the smokers are feeling... 
I think they are treated nowadays like leprous by the society. 
When I was smoker, if any friend of mine didn't want I smoked in his/her marvelous home, merely, I didn't go.  

And I think the one that the government should do, is *not to sell* tobacco. 

How they pretend that thousands of persons leave that powerful addiction, if the smokers going on seeing tobacco everywhere they go???...

The government is very smart, jejje.. they want to have satisfied to the non-smokers citizens, but to going on collecting taxes from tobacco.  

The one that they will obtain is both kind of citizens are always faced.

Alundra.


----------



## Laia

Bueno, voy a desahogarme…



			
				Alundra said:
			
		

> I think they are treated nowadays like leprous by the society.


 
 
Esta frase me da un coraje… es la típica justificación para seguir echándote el humo en la cara. 
A los que se considera leprosos (tiquismiquis si os parece mejor) por la sociedad es a los no fumadores. 
Esta es la realidad: si le pides a alguien que por favor no fume a tu lado, lo primero que hace es decirte que la ciudad es muy grande, que te vayas tú a otro sitio. Resulta que es de intolerantes pedir que no te tiren el humo a la cara. Que se les trata como a leprosos. Venga hombre, ¡qué demagogia más mala!
 
Tengo que “aguantar” a mis amigos fumadores cada día (no es ironía, muchos amigos míos fuman) con miedo a decirles que me molesta el humo, para que no me miren como a una “leprosa”. Esto es triste.

Parece que los no fumadores han de aceptar incondicionalmente a los fumadores como que necesitan fumar, y los fumadores son incapaces de nisiquiera aceptar que hay gente que es sensible al humo y que no tiene porque soportar las consecuencias de que otro haya decidido ser fumador. Creen que les pides que no fumen porque tienes ganas de j*derles.

Creo que es necesaria esta ley porque así los no-fumadores no se verán obligados a estar en las zonas de fumadores para poder pasar un buen rato con sus amigos.

Laia

P.D.: perdona Alundra, releyendo lo que estoy escribiendo parece que me dirija a ti (porque te he citado y eso). No es así  , hablo en general.


----------



## Alundra

Of course... When I was smoker, I never threw the smoke of my cigarettes at the face from nobody.... specially at my friends face.

And usually, my friends don't "bear" me... they "enjoy" by me, (even when I was a heartless smoker... ) and they are my friends , I smoke or not smoke... 

My friends and me don't need any law to spend quite a while... we go to anywhere we all are comfortable, smokers and non-smokers.... and that's all.

Laia, sorry for the sentence of the leprous, but I think that the race to exterminate is the smokers... not the non-smokers... and thus I felt when I was smoker... 


Alundra.


----------



## Metztli

Yo soy fumadora, sin embargo, creo que soy de las personas que mas aprueban las leyes que restringen a los fumadores. Es una falta de respeto, un abuso y una peladez fumarle a la gente en lugares cerrados. 

En México entró esa ley apenas hace un par de años... no sé que tanto esté funcionando, pero sí sé que todos se quejaron como si se les (se nos) estuviera haciendo algun daño.

Cierto que se nos trata como leprosos, sobre todo aqui en US, y nos dan los peores lugares en los restaurantes y todos te ven con cara de "yo soy muy sano"... pero ni modo. Tenemos un vicio que hace mucho daño y ya no está de mas reconocer que entre mas nos restringan mas nos benefician.

Aunque tan poco es cosa de dejar de venderlo... no es para tanto  cada quien q' decida q' hacer, no?
(por no mencionar el mercado negro que se crearía)

Feliz año! y Felicidades a los q' dejaron de fumar!!!


----------



## mjscott

30 years ago my son was the victim of smokers. Each time he was exposed to cigarette smoke he ended up in the hospital. When traveling long distances, we had to choose which parent would get food and bring it out to the car so that we could all eat. We could not eat in a restaurant--even one where they had a "smoking section." Smoke would waft over into the other section, and we could be sure that we would spend the night getting inhalation treatments and epinephrine shots in the emergency room. For the first three years of his life my son didn't know what the inside of a grocery store looked like, because people in line would have a cigarette burning in their fingers--affecting his health.

Even after the law changed, it took about 5 years before people realized that what they did not only affected their own health, it affected the health of others. Just recently they passed a law to ban smoking in all public places in my state. For the first time in our lives, we went bowling during the Christmas holidays as a family. Although my son is long past his growing up years, he is still affected by tobacco smoke. It was nice to go to a public place as a family.

My grandmother and four uncles all died of cancer from some form of tobacco. My favorite uncle was 183 cm (6 ft) tall and weighed only 37 kg (about 80 lbs) when he died. If you are strong and healthy, tobacco will not kill you all at once. It will take part of your lung, then another, then your voice box, and then yet another part of your lung. You will have to buy shirts that are extra large--even if you are small--because your heart has expanded to pump oxygen to your body to make up for low-functioning lungs, or a circulatory system that has been constricted by the effects of tobacco all your life. You stay up all night afraid to sleep because you spend all your energy breathing, and are afraid if you go to sleep you won't keep up to keep your body alive. The saddest thing to see is a middle-aged man in a convalescent hospital begging that someone bring him cigarettes so that he can smoke them through a plastic hole in his neck.

"Joe Camel" (a cartoon-like character created by Camel cigarettes) has been taken off the market for some years, because he appealed to children. I tell students that American tobacco companies have just moved their market to other countries to make others victim to their ploys of getting more people to buy their product.

I know that the Almighty Dollar, Peso, Peseta and Euro run the economy--and that many peoples' livelihoods depend on whether or not the tobacco company sells its product. There has to be another means by which to make money, however. The fact that one of my sons knew this favorite uncle and grew up with his brother's asthma problems, and still smokes, just about tears my heart out. It has been recorded by heroin addicts that tobacco was, by far, the harder habit to break.


----------



## InmayHugo

La nueva ley antitabaco en España tiene dos caras. La primera es la bonita, ahora está prohibido fumar en el trabajo, en los lugares públicos... pero la mala es que en los bares y cafés de menos de 100metros cuadrados se puede elegir y obviamente, casi la totalidad de establecimientos ha elegido permitir fumar por miedo a perder clientela. Yo no fumo y me he tragado mucho humo y muchas rabietas. Los fumadores no entienden el asco que puede dar que te fumen encima mientras estás comiendo o cuando estás recién levantado. Yo a mi hermana le intenté explicar que para mí respirar su humo mientras comía era como si yo me tirara un pedo mientras ella estaba comiendo. Pero solo logré que me llamaran exagerada y se mosqueara conmigo. Cuando estaba embarazada la gente seguía fumando a mi lado sin ninguna vergüenza. En España no ha habido respeto hacia el no fumador. Lo que pasa es que los fumadores han estado siempre demasiado cubiertos, por eso ahora se sienten acosados.


----------



## Roi Marphille

mjscott said:
			
		

> The saddest thing to see is a middle-aged man in a convalescent hospital begging that someone bring him cigarettes so that he can smoke them through a plastic hole in his neck.


Thanks for your worthy post! hope many smokers would read it and realise that the best thing they can do is to quit smoking. I'd be very scared to smoke. It is so sad so see what many people is doing to their bodies!!! many of them had a lucky life, just living in certain countries make them lucky comparing to many other places in the world where you find wars, hunger..etc, why in the hell to risk their lifes in that stupid way? and why the in the hell to risk the life of the people around? to smoke in front of a pregnant woman should be punishable! the other day a friend of mine told me that some people had smoked in front of her even when she was breast-feeding her baby! can you believe that? this is amazing! what a shame!


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Alundra said:
			
		

> When I was smoker, if any friend of mine didn't want I smoked in his/her marvelous home, merely, I didn't go.  .



We have friends and family whom we love dearly ... who go outside our house to smoke.  We've moved through several stages in Canada; until the late 70's people simply lit up in your house without asking; in the 80's and early 90's they'd ask permission; now they simply light up outside unless they know you yourself smoke.

 Recently I have had 4 episodes of lung surgery and cannot breathe when exposed to smoke; my husband and son are asthmatic, although not to the degree mentioned in the previous posting.  A lot of Canadian cities are passing by-laws banning smoking in public places, and many restaurants have issued a voluntary ban or installed smoking areas with a completely separate air system.  I now go out much more often than I used to, and am grateful, not just for my new freedom, but because my smoking friends are cutting down (although it took them a while to get past their outrage).

When I was studying human anatomy, I got to spend a lot of time looking at different people's organs.  You could identify a heavy smoker before you got anywhere near the lungs.  After all the second-hand smoke I once enjoyed courtesy of my stepfather, it makes me wonder what my own interior looks like...


----------



## cirrus

It is interesting the restriction not applying to bars of less than 100 sq m.  This brings me to the first of my questions:  How can the smoke there is any less dangerous than it would be in a space one square metre larger?

In England smoking has gradually been curtailed.  You used to be able to smoke on the tube until the Kings Cross fire in the 80s which killed something like a dozen people.  Similarly on trains I don't think there are any left where smoking is permitted. These days at work it is practically unheard of to be able to smoke unless it is a bar or a restaurant.  Meanwhile the government is deliberating whether or not to follow the Irish example and ban smoking in all work places.  

The tobacco lobby is strong and is trying to get bars which only sell drink to still allow smoking.  This will mean that many of the people who are on average poorest and have the poorest health will be most likely to be exposed to smoke.  This seems madness.  Either the health argument about passive smoking is valid and it seems it is or somebody in power doesn't want to upset powerful lobbies.  What's more important keeping in with the lobby or people's health?

Reading Spanish papers today it seems the picture about respecting the new law is mixed.  It will be a big shift to go from a situation where sometimes it feels like smoking is compulsory to it being a private phenonemon.  The incremental shifts towards people giving up smoking in public in Spain have been nothing like as marked as they are in the UK.   Even without the law smoking has become less and less easy to do.  When nobody bats an eyelid at uniformed officials in Spanish airports smoking under NO FUMAR signs how can this start overnight? 

I wonder whether the attitude to respecting the law in different countries will also have an effect.  The posts on Argentina hint at an attitude that perhaps the law is for others rather than me.  This brings me to me to my second question do some Spaniards have an equally devil may care attitude?    

I am all ears for your responses and look forward to being in a smoke free Spain even if I still can't quite yet believe it possible.


----------



## clipper

I think Cirrus has a good point and one that I have wondered about with regards to the now current tobacco law and the incoming driving licence with points. My experience of Spain, well Madrid is that the respect for the law is low and that enforcement is practically zero. I have lost count of how many times I have seen police completely ignore drivers jumping red traffic lights and other offences which in the UK would be seriously chased up.

What good is the law without enforcement ? I don´t think this wiil work but I hope I´m wrong !


----------



## Laia

clipper said:
			
		

> What good is the law without enforcement ? I don´t think this wiil work but I hope I´m wrong !


 
Just read my first post in this thread (nº2)...


----------



## cirrus

I wonder whether the new driving licence model - permisos por puntos - will be the model?  The DGT reports something like 20 odd % fewer deaths on the road this year as a result of the changes here.  The ante is being gradually upped as people get used to the new law.


----------



## Alundra

Bueno, aunque hace ya algunos meses que dejé de fumar (y de momento lo llevo muy bien) y aún a riesgo de que no estéis de acuerdo conmigo, tengo que ponerme de parte de los fumadores, porque esta ley me parece absurda....

En primer lugar, 

mjscott, lamento muchísimo que tu hijo padezca esa enfermedad y que hayais tenido tantos problemas cuando la vida para la mayoría de la gente es mucho más sencilla.

Pero también quiero decir que no es justo que se culpe a los fumadores de que determinadas personas no gocen de lo que las demás hacen de forma cotidiana.
Yo también tengo y tuve familiares con asma (tenía una tía que se fatigaba muchísimo), y sé lo fastidiosa que puede llegar a ser esa enfermedad, pero las personas asmáticas no sólamente se fatigan y ahogan cuando tienen un fumador delante. Se pueden fatigar de muchísimas maneras sin necesidad de respirar el tabaco.

El niño de un vecino mío se ahogaba con muchísima facilidad, tuvieron que quitar todo tipo de alfombras y entelados en su casa, porque sólo con el polvo la criatura no podía respirar... y tenían que andar de carreras al hospital cada dos por tres, su vida también estaba muy delimitada y no necesitaba que nadie fumase a su lado para salir corriendo al hospital.

Por supuesto, los fumadores deben ser conscientes del daño que pueden hacer si no tienen cabeza, pero creo que tampoco se les puede culpar de todas las enfermedades de los demás. Eso también es injusto.

Yo fui fumadora durante muchísimos años, al principio fumaba muy poco, pero últimamente eran paquete y medio diario, siempre he tratado de ser considerada con la gente. No he fumado delante de niños (al menos de los muy pequeños) ni en lugares cerrados (salvo en mi casa, por supuesto). De hecho, cuando deje de fumar, hubo alguna que otra persona que cuando se lo dije me contestaba: ¿Ah, pero tú fumabas?.... y eso fumando paquete y medio diario.... pero claro, todo el mundo no es igual... creo que la tolerancia debe ser una de las prioridades en una sociedad, por parte de todos... no sólo de unos pocos. 

Sobre la ley, pues... no estoy del todo de acuerdo... y no lo estoy, porque creo que una adicción tan grande como es el tabaco, no la puedes dejar para cuando quieras, sino que tu cuerpo te pide nicotina y si no se la das, estás inquieto, nervioso y no te encuentras bien hasta que no consigues otro cigarrillo.

No es tán facil como... yo fumo de cinco a siete o de nueve a dos... y claro, seguro que más de uno va a incumplir la ley... pero es que yo eso lo veo de lo más estúpido. Se pueden tomar muchísimas medidas sin tener que recurrir al: Prohibido fumar en toda la mañana. (Además de que ningún fumador se va a tirar toda una mañana sin fumar...)

El caso es que el gobierno, por un lado quiere acabar con los fumadores porque realmente fumar es nocivo para la salud de todos, del que fuma y del que no lo hace, eso está claro....
Pero por otro lado, con los impuestos que recaudan, según un reportaje que ví en un informativo, entre otras cosas se sufragan los gastos de la Seguridad Social en toda España (esto es muy fuerte) y claro, ese dinero viene de perlas...

Así que, para que quitar los estancos... que los que quieran tengan donde comprar tabaco (aunque no se lo fumen cuando quieran, sólo cuándo y dónde el gobierno te diga)...
Eso lo veo de lo más absurdo, o sea, no dejan fumar, pero dejan comprar tabaco... totalmente incongruente...

Yo creo que deberían eliminar todos los sitios de venta de tabaco, así evitarían que la gente enfermase, que creo que es el principal objetivo.
Además, para los que piensan que con las subidas se dejará de fumar, también están equivocados, pues las tabacaleras ya tienen en el mercado desde hace bastante tiempo, otro montón de marcas nuevas que cuestan alrededor del euro, para captar nuevos y jóvenes adictos, y parece ser que recientemente ha aumentado el número de jóvenes fumadores con respecto a los últimos años.... o sea, ya tienen nuevos adictos...

Es como ponerle a un niño un caramelo en la mano y prohibirle que se lo coma...

Yo creo que eso es ser cruel también.

Alundra.


----------



## Anna Più

Alundra said:
			
		

> (...)
> Yo creo que deberían eliminar todos los sitios de venta de tabaco, así evitarían que la gente enfermase, que creo que es el principal objetivo.
> Además, para los que piensan que con las subidas se dejará de fumar, también están equivocados, pues las tabacaleras ya tienen en el mercado desde hace bastante tiempo, otro montón de marcas nuevas que cuestan alrededor del euro, para captar nuevos y jóvenes adictos, y parece ser que recientemente ha aumentado el número de jóvenes fumadores con respecto a los últimos años.... o sea, ya tienen nuevos adictos...
> 
> Es como ponerle a un niño un caramelo en la mano y prohibirle que se lo coma...
> Yo creo que eso es ser cruel también.
> Alundra.


 
Hola Alundra,
Si es ser cruel, porque si existe la adicción és difícil salir de este espiral. Pero ayer ví un informativo dónde se decía que la subida de los precios del tabaco reduce entre un 4 y 8 por ciento los fumadores... eso ya es algo no? Está claro que no estoy de acuerdo con este doble juego del gobierno, pero tampoco creo que la solución sea la prohibición de vender tabaco... ante una "ley seca" el problema no desaparece. O es que no hay adictos a otras drogas no legales?
mmm... es difícil... medidas represivas pueden más o menos ayudar... lo que cabe es mayor educación de base sobre el tema y fortalecer la fuerza de voluntad de cada uno... y eso último solo puede hacerlo uno mismo, aunque el entorno ayuda, claro.
A+


----------



## cirrus

Anna Più said:
			
		

> Hola Alundra,
> ayer ví un informativo dónde se decía que la subida de los precios del tabaco reduce entre un 4 y 8 por ciento los fumadores... eso ya es algo no?


 
Aqui cada paquete de veinte cuesta unas cinco libras o sea 8 euros.  Imaginense que haria el publico espanyol con una subida a este nivel. Incluso con un precio tan alto la gente sigue fumando - es un vicio muy arraigado.  El NHS, o sea el servicio nacional de salud introduce hoy una nueva norma - se prohibe el fumar en todos los recintos del NHS - y esto incluye los exteriores de los edificios asi que nisiquiera sera posible una caladita en las puertas ni en el parking, tendras que cruzar la carretera.  De todas formas la gente se va acostumbrando y por autoritarias que sean las medidas antitabaquistas no cabe duda que si se reducen las posibilidades para fumar resulta menos complicado el dejar de fumar como consecuencia.


----------



## Anna Più

cirrus said:
			
		

> De todas formas la gente se va acostumbrando y por autoritarias que sean las medidas antitabaquistas no cabe duda que si se reducen las posibilidades para fumar resulta menos complicado el dejar de fumar como consecuencia.


 
Hola Cirrus,
Estoy de acuerdo en este punto.
A+


----------



## Carlston

Yo soy ex-fumador, desde hace un año, y entiendo que surjan leches en contra de los fumadores, la prueba de que estas leyes son positivas esta en EEUU, o en los países nórdicos.

En cuanto a la doble moral del gobierno, estudios hay de los dos lados y con las estadísticas se puede jugar, seguro que también hay estudios que reconocen que al gobierno le cuesta en sanidad más dinero del que ingresan.

Por otra parte, la mayoria de las drogas están prohíbidas y el tabaco hasta donde yo se es una droga, lo que pasa es que esta tan arraigada a la sociedad que parece que simplemente es un hábito.

En mi caso, todos (casi todos) los fumadores que conozco les gustaria que se prohibiera, o que las leyes fueran más fuertes, porque la mayoria de los fumadores quiere dejarlo, pero no puede. Aunque hay que reconocer el esfuerzo en esta ley, queda manca por todos los lados.

Saludos


----------



## annettehola

I knew it would pop up at some point, this theme...I have this to say about it:
1) I am a smoker. 
2) I find the new law discriminating.
3) I can't see the purpose to the new law.
4) There exists no law - as yet - against the sale of tobacco.
5) I am going to break the new law.
Ad 1) This is my right because this is my choice. It is also my choice because it is my right. It's a simple yes or no question, Watson.
Ad 2) Because a majority orders a minority to act in a certain way. In this case to leave or stop.
3) Is there any? Is it this about being concerned about the dear health of your fellow humans? O, come on! 
4) Why, then, have you imposed one concerning the consumption of it? Restrictive Rubbish!
5) This is sure.

Fortunately the sun's out today. I can't imagine smoking in the rain.

Annette


----------



## Carlston

Hola Annette
1) yo fui, y no se si seré
2) La ley es para todos la misma (obviamente afecta a los fumadores), pero las leyes contra el robo, las violaciones o el asesinato solo afectan a los ladrones, violadores y asesinos, y no por eso son discriminatorias.
3) El proposito es que la gente deje de fumar, que no hayan miles de muerto cada año por culpa del tabaco, que la gente que no fume no se vea afectada por el humo ........, si tu lo único que piensas es que es una ley hecha por capricho sin ningún proposito, es tu opinión.
4)hay leyes en contra de la venta de tabaco a menores, en contra de la venta de tabaco en ciertos establecimientos... etc
y cada uno es libre de cumplir o no la ley, y de por ello ser castigado o no, si no te pillan, suerte con ello, pero por favor. si alguna vez te sientas al lado mio en un restaurante, no fumes, yo era de los que preguntaba si molestaba cuando era fumador. 

Perdona si algo lo he interpretado mal, no es mi fuerte el ingles

Saludos


----------



## annettehola

You have understood me well; Carlston, but our opinions differ considerably. I don't think the law is for all. Reason: It's so simple, that Watson went home: Not all are smokers. What would a vegetarian care if meat consumption was suddenly forbidden? Not much, man. 
And to those Golden Souls that I don't know personally but who are so concerned about my health....mind your own! Honestly, really, I can't see my health is supposed to be somebody else's business. I honestly find it nosy, and I don't like it. What is this? Some holy mission of salvation from the big bad smoking devil? On part of other people and in the name of their health? Aj, come on!
Yes, underaged children cannot buy cigs and other kinds of tobacco. That's alright with me, but I am an adult, because I am 35 years old. So I think I can buy and smoke away. But I can't, because of this law. It's a law of prohibition. It's negative. It tells a group - those that smoke; obviously - what they cannot do.
This I am against. Because it avoids verbal confrontation. It just says what somebody cannot do. I really disagree.
Annette


----------



## annettehola

By the way, Carlston: I am a respectful person. I would never light up in the company of someone who did not or couldn't tolerate smoke.
Rest assured.
Annette


----------



## Roi Marphille

I wish and hope that all people who breaks this Law and others are punished according to what it is stated in the Law itself approved by majority of the elected seats in the Parliament. 

I wish and I hope that my soon-to-be-born nephew will live in a society where he will not have to be exposed at the smoke of the long-time-ruling *Smokers Dictatorship* like we all had to suffer until now! 

Peace, love and understanding


----------



## annettehola

Peace, love and understanding? 
As long as it does not include smokers, is it?
Absurd!
Annette


----------



## ceann-feachd

We've had a law like this in Maine for a long time now. Most people here just learned to deal with it. It sure made eating in restaurants more enjoyable to me now that I don't have to smell someone's cigarette smoke while I'm eating. That gives me a headache.

In my opinion, what people do to their own bodies is their own business, but when what they're doing to themselves affects me, I take issue. Second hand smoke can cause cancer.

Now, I just wish we could do something about all the idiots that cannot figure out where the ashtray is in their car, so they throw the butts out the window.


----------



## Ratona

I smoke, I generally give up once a year (not at New Year, it's far too much of a cliché), and, on average, I smoke between 0 and 10 cigarettes per day, preferably less than 5.

I ask people if they mind if I smoke (and don't smoke if they do), I always try to avoid smoke going towards others and if it seems to not be working and bothering somebody I put the cigarette out. Smoking around children is a no-no, although I must recall that once when I was in Spain and my friend´s family found out that I smoked they constantly offered me cigarettes and would not let me say no; at one point their 20 day old baby was brought in to the room, they offered me a cigarette and I replied "No thankyou, the baby" pointing in his direction, to which they looked confused and lit a cigarette themselves whilst thrusting the packet towards me once again. I was very much taken aback.

As to a law on smoking in closed spaces, it really doesn´t bother me, if it happens it happens, so be it and I´ll abide by it. I don't like smoke when I'm eating and hate the smell lingering on my clothes, so if anything it is preferable to smoke outside and the law would not affect me.

However, I can understand franchises and chains/multinationals of pubs, bars and restaurants being smoke free but I do think that a Landlord who owns his own pub should have the right to decide whether it is smoking or non-smoking, afterall it is his "public house" and, especially if he lives there it seems absurd that he cannot smoke in his own "front room" with or without his guests.

Freedom of choice would be a nice idea too. How about having a general law that such establishments are smoke free, but it is possible to apply for a smoking license.


----------



## annettehola

That's an old and dirty trick, and stems from the fact that these idiots don't like emptying their ashtray, you see, so they don't fill it in the first place. It's a bit like the man who insisted on sleeping on the ground because his mum did his bed 40 years ago, and he is convinced he couldn't in any way do that as well as her. 
I think, it would be honest and straightforward to *ban the very sale of* *tobacco* instead of banning smoking. You can't smoke without tobacco, you know. Then people would get really upset! And start to demonstrate. But I still think only a hipocrate would ban people from using what he doesn't ban them from buying. I feel the same about those labels they started to decorate the packets with some time ago. You remember, I'm sure:"Smoking causes a slow and painful death." That one used to be my favourite. Because "Banning the sale of tobacco causes anger and frustration and can lead to a significant drop in the turnover of kiosks and other sales outlets."
Be either cold or hot. Not lukewarm.
Annette


----------



## mjscott

annettehola said:
			
		

> I knew it would pop up at some point, this theme...I have this to say about it:
> 1) I am a smoker.
> --_And if I am near you and helpless, I involuntarily become a smoker._
> 2) I find the new law discriminating.
> _--All laws are discriminating against the person who feels his/her freedoms are being given up._
> 3) I can't see the purpose to the new law.
> _--It is because tobacco companies are running out of money from lawsuits to compensate state health plans to keep smokers alive. It is the state's responsibility to keep people on respirators._
> 4) There exists no law - as yet - against the sale of tobacco.
> --_Ironically, tobacco companies still have $$ to lobby for the right to sell tobacco. It is such a health problem-gone-bad, that they thought it easier to target the "little guy," the smoker--rather than the big tobacco company. (If the demand goes down, the supply will diminsh.)_
> 5) I am going to break the new law.
> --_Then, in an effort to protect my health and the health of my family, I will sequester myself to my house and try my best not to go into public places._
> Ad 1) This is my right because this is my choice. It is also my choice because it is my right. It's a simple yes or no question, Watson.
> --_Oops--now you have also made up my choice for me if I choose to go to the market and you choose to continue smoking! Hmmm....I guess I could purchase a gas mask...._
> Ad 2) Because a majority orders a minority to act in a certain way. In this case to leave or stop.
> --_Maybe, instead of me being forced to restrict where I go, is it too much to ask that you be the one to restrict where you smoke?_
> 3) Is there any? Is it this about being concerned about the dear health of your fellow humans? O, come on!
> --_It cost 1.3 million American dollars to treat my uncle while he was alive. For the last 18 years of his life (his was a long, drawn out disease) he was on disability, with the State paying for his living expenses, including his medical bills._
> 4) Why, then, have you imposed one concerning the consumption of it? Restrictive Rubbish!
> --_You multiply my uncle times all the chronic smokers in all the towns, cities, and states--and my tax dollars go to treating a ton of a lot of smoke damage in society._
> 5) This is sure.
> _--Yes--not being able to even walk in a store to buy essential groceries because people are lighting up and it affects my health is restrictive rubbish. This is sure. The only alternative to such would be allowing smokers to shop on alternate days as the nonsmokers--but that was not proposed._
> 
> Fortunately the sun's out today. I can't imagine smoking in the rain.
> --_I love the rain. It clears the air of second-hand smoke._
> 
> Annette


 
_This is just a rebuttal from another viewpoint...._


----------



## Roi Marphille

For readers information: 
SMOKING *IS NOT* BANNED IN SPAIN. It is only banned to smoke in certain places. 
More than 70% of population agree with this Law.


----------



## annettehola

That's fine. I respect your opinions that I don't share.
No one is helpless, man. And if you don't like to be near me when I smoke, you can find another place to be in the meantime. I can't see why *I* have to go. Because all laws are discriminating does not make discrimination a good thing. Respirators for smokers, removal of fat from people who eat at McDonald's. There are various ways of contributing to the welfare of the state. Don't stay at home just because you might meet me puffing away in free - as yet - air. You shouldn't create some kind of frightening image of me nor any smoker. We won't eat you. Unless, of course, you start banning us from eating as well. (Ooh, Annette! They're gonna kill you now; man!!!) Yes, I object to people telling me where I cannot smoke. Look at it this way: What if a new law had come out, stating that the state was now building special places - I don't know, rooms or cafes - where smokers could go and enjoy a good smoke. That would have been a positive message to emit. But they did it the negative way. I don't want to tell you about the tons and tons of tax money that is the result of trading tobacco. It would be boring. I've never heard about people smoking while shopping in a supermarket before you told me about it. That's not smoking. That's addiction. 
No, man, I would like to tell you, that I_* like*_ smoking. Why are you taking my pleasure away? I haven't touched yours.
Annette


----------



## ceann-feachd

Because *your* pleasure is an assault on *my* good health. An attack on my right! It's one thing when your pleasure only affects you. You can ruin your own lungs all you want, makes no difference to me. But when you, with complete lack of common courtesy, start ruining *my* lungs, well, I'm sorry if you think I'm wrong, but I take a serious issue with it.

You enjoy your cancer sticks. But keep them away from me.


----------



## Alundra

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> For readers information:
> SMOKING *IS NOT* BANNED IN SPAIN. It is only banned to smoke in certain places.
> More than 70% of population agree with this Law.


 
Entonces... ¿Por qué sólo en mi ciudad (dentro de La Mancha) el 80% de los bares/cafeterías es todavía para fumadores??? Me gustaría saber el porcentaje de otras ciudades españolas.... 

No entiendo donde está ese 70%..  

Alundra.


----------



## Laia

Alundra said:
			
		

> Entonces... ¿Por qué sólo en mi ciudad (dentro de La Mancha) el 80% de los bares/cafeterías es todavía para fumadores??? Me gustaría saber el porcentaje de otras ciudades españolas....


 
No es más que otra prueba de la falsedad de la frase "los fumadores son considerados leprosos por la sociedad".


----------



## Carlston

Alundra said:
			
		

> Entonces... ¿Por qué sólo en mi ciudad (dentro de La Mancha) el 80% de los bares/cafeterías es todavía para fumadores??? Me gustaría saber el porcentaje de otras ciudades españolas....
> 
> No entiendo donde está ese 70%..
> 
> Alundra.


 
Hola Alundra, pues por la misma razón que a muchos fumadores les gustaria que se PROHIBIESE el tampoco, porque es una adicción y no puedes controlarlo, luego si tu no puedes, por lo menos que haya alguien que te obligue.

Pero mientras hayan bares donde se permita fumar, los fumadores iran a fumar alli, PORQUE NO PUEDEN CONTROLARSE (por supuesto no hablo de la totalidad), y los bares lo saben.

saludos


----------



## annettehola

_*I*_ enjoy my cancer sticks. And _*you*_ keep away from them if they are not to your taste. I think it too extreme to claim that smokers represent an attack on non-smokers' right, at least, if the other side of the same argument is not considered at the same time: That non-smokers could be seen as representing an attack on the right of the smoker...to smoke!
I'm not such a chimney! And if you ask me in a kind way to put my cancer stick out, I'll do that for you. And postpone cancer for a while.
Take your hat off; too, when you meet a smoker. We respect you. You respect us. We are not fuming monsters in a state of advanced and self-imposed cancer.
Man; I feel like a cig now. 
Annette


----------



## Alundra

Laia said:
			
		

> No es más que otra prueba de la falsedad de la frase "los fumadores son considerados leprosos por la sociedad".


 
No entiendo a cuento de que viene esto ahora... pero bueno... así no contestas a mi pregunta......



			
				Carlston said:
			
		

> Hola Alundra, pues por la misma razón que a muchos fumadores les gustaria que se PROHIBIESE el tampoco, porque es una adicción y no puedes controlarlo, luego si tu no puedes, por lo menos que haya alguien que te obligue.
> 
> Pero mientras hayan bares donde se permita fumar, los fumadores iran a fumar alli, PORQUE NO PUEDEN CONTROLARSE (por supuesto no hablo de la totalidad), y los bares lo saben.


 
Perdona pero tú tampoco respondes a mi pregunta...
Si el 70% estuviese de acuerdo con la ley, no habría tanto bar de fumador... digo yo que la mayoría habría permitido que fueran sitios vedados para poder controlar su adicción...
Alundra.


----------



## Carlston

Alundra said:
			
		

> No entiendo a cuento de que viene esto ahora... pero bueno... así no contestas a mi pregunta......
> 
> 
> 
> Perdona pero tú tampoco respondes a mi pregunta...
> Si el 70% estuviese de acuerdo con la ley, no habría tanto bar de fumador... digo yo que la mayoría habría permitido que fueran sitios vedados para poder controlar su adicción...
> Alundra.


 
Siento no explicarme bien ni siquiera en mi idioma:

http://www.informativos.telecinco.es/tabaco/prohibicion/fumadores/dn_17266.htm

y ahora te pongo un ejemplo, yo era fumador, ¿porque no se lo dije a mis padres?porque queria dejarlo, y sabia que asi cuando visitaba unos dias a mis padres, pues esos dias por lo menos dejaba de fumar, y así me sería mas facil dejarlo definitivamente

Me hubiera gustado que mis padres me hubieran dejado fumar en casa???
-NO (77%  de los españoles)
Si me hubieran dejado, hubiera fumado????
-SI (100 % de los españoles)

y aunque mi situación podria ser considerada de infantil por mis amigos,
-ASI CONSEGUI DEJAR DE FUMAR  

animo a los que lo intenteis, la comida sabe mejorrrrrrrr  

Saludos


----------



## annettehola

Maybe the food tastes better for non-smokers, but they don't know the immense pleasure of a cigarette after sex. Anyways; I just wanted to credit Alundra on her argument. It's a clever one. It spotlights the situation as it actually is: It's not the people who want to stop smoking. It's the government who wants people to stop. 
And as for Mr. Marphille's argument, I'd like to know his source. *Avui* is it?
Or _*Catalonia Today*_? And is he including all Spanish people in his statistics?
Annette


----------



## Laia

Annette,
http://es.news.yahoo.com/051216/44/4gvkn.html
Here you have your source.

3 de cada 4 españoles están a favor de la ley antitabaco.


----------



## Carlston

Hola Annette, no se de donde ha sacado la información Roi, yo lo he visto en la pagina de telecinco, y las estadísticas son del CIS.
... Y es verdad, he tenido que renunciar al placer del cigarrito despues del sex, lo cual es una P***da.  

Pero volviendo al principio del post, sigo pensando que esta ley tiene lagunas, y que debería ser más fuerte, ya que a la larga, nos favorecería ahora.

Existe un paralelismo con las leyes medioambientales, quizá ahora no corramos peligro, pero si se pueden empezar a aplicar ahora, probablemente el futuro sea mejor, optimista, no?? jejeje

saludos


----------



## annettehola

Laia,
  How the heck can they "know" that? I was not asked, for one. For example. I smoke. Maybe I was in a bar for smokers, and the statistician - aren't they called so? - just couldn't bring himself to enter with his scientific research? 
I don't give a fiddler's flying fart for statistics; Laia dear.
Annette


----------



## Alundra

> Siento no explicarme bien ni siquiera en mi idioma:
> 
> http://www.informativos.telecinco.es...s/dn_17266.htm
> 
> y ahora te pongo un ejemplo, yo era fumador, ¿porque no se lo dije a mis padres?porque queria dejarlo, y sabia que asi cuando visitaba unos dias a mis padres, pues esos dias por lo menos dejaba de fumar, y así me sería mas facil dejarlo definitivamente
> 
> Me hubiera gustado que mis padres me hubieran dejado fumar en casa???
> -NO (77% de los españoles)
> Si me hubieran dejado, hubiera fumado????
> -SI (100 % de los españoles)
> 
> y aunque mi situación podria ser considerada de infantil por mis amigos,
> -ASI CONSEGUI DEJAR DE FUMAR


 
Entiendo tu postura, pero según ella, lo lógico es que todos los bares hubieran respetado la normativa siendo para no-fumadores y así los fumadores habrían respetado las normas a rajatabla ¿no? y lo tendrían mucho más fácil para dejar de fumar... por no hablar de los muchos bares en los que los mismos clientes han sido los que han determinado (con votaciones y demás..) al dueño a dejarlo como bares de fumadores...


Alundra.

EDIT: De todas formas, me acabo de dar cuenta de que el 70% incluye a todos, fumadores y no fumadores... y yo pensaba que sólo se refería a los fumadores. Ahora me explico lo del 70%


----------



## Laia

annettehola said:
			
		

> Laia,
> How the heck can they "know" that? I was not asked, for one. For example. I smoke. Maybe I was in a bar for smokers, and the statistician - aren't they called so? - just couldn't bring himself to enter with his scientific research?
> I don't give a fiddler's flying fart for statistics; Laia dear.
> Annette


 
Dear Annette, nobody asked myself either.
That's why they are called "stadistics".


----------



## timpeac

I think that the onus is on the smokers not to smoke near non-smokers rather than the non-smokers to keep away from them because "not smoking" is the default human condition, it is a non-action. "Smoking" however is a conscious action that has an adverse affect on the health of others and I don't see why a non-smoker should have to go round to every smoker in a restaurant, for example, asking them to exstinguish their cigarettes, even if the smokers would be quite civil and comply.

So to the extent the law protects non-smokers I agree with it.

On the other hand I do believe that people should be allowed to do to themselves whatever they want (as long as it doesn't affect other people) therefore I feel sorry for smokers who would be made uncomfortable - but that doesn't change the fact that non-smokers have more right not to be exposed to smoke.

For this reason I don't think selling tobacco should be banned. It is people's option to buy it, and smoke it where they don't affect others. Similarly I would deregulate all drugs - it doesn't mean I would support people being able to shoot up heroin in their local kiddies' park though.

In terms of whether people obey the law or not - that's their option. I don't believe that everyone should obey a law just because it's been passed. If there was a law I disagreed with I would consider breaking it too. In this case, though, I think it would be selfish to break the law if others were inconvenienced. At the end of the day Spain is a democracy so people can use their vote to express themselves. Also, the law will punish people to some degree for breaking a law - how severely will depend on how grave the law views the situation. If the punishment for smoking was emprisonment I bet we wouldn't see many people breaking that law...


----------



## annettehola

Do you smoke, Tim?
Annette


----------



## Carlston

timpeac said:
			
		

> If the punishment for smoking was emprisonment I bet we wouldn't see many people breaking that law...


 
Annette, tal vez, 

Lo que es cierto es que siempre los no fumadores han estado en desventaja frente los fumadores, y ahora se iguala un poco, ya empiezan a haber bares de no fumadores, ..........es un principio


----------



## timpeac

annettehola said:
			
		

> Do you smoke, Tim?
> Annette


Used to - quite heavily, over 20 a day but I gave up thank goodness! The smell of smoke doesn't worry me though - I don't get cravings any more! Just more money in my pocket 

I don't think my above views are dependent on being a smoker though - I used to think the same thing when I smoked. I don't take heroin but I would support someone's right to.


----------



## annettehola

Then we agree. 
Tell me, did you find smoking to be a pleasure when you smoked? Or did you smoke out of addiction only? 
I think it's a mixture for me. I smoke because I like smoking and also because I now smoked for close to 20 years. 
I wish I could communicate the pleasure of smoking to non-smokers. I wish I could show them my little private tobacco dealer down on the corner with whom I always have a friendly chat when buying my weekly ration of tobacco, I wish they would understand that there are many, many kinds and qualities of tobacco, that there definitely is a difference between light - mmm a Virginia cigarette! Delightful! - and dark tobacco, I wish they could feel the difference between a lighter and a match, but I think they show too many signs of coldness.

I can't seem to stop being upset by a society that allows the sale of tobacco and at the same time bans the use of it. No, it's not right this.

Annette


----------



## timpeac

annettehola said:
			
		

> I can't seem to stop being upset by a society that allows the sale of tobacco and at the same time bans the use of it. No, it's not right this.
> 
> Annette


 
Yes - I did enjoy smoking. But then again I think I only remember the good cigarettes - the one with the coffee, with a glass of wine. Not the one when you have a cold coming on and it hurts your throat or the one in the pouring rain. But (and trying to keep this linked to the original question) I don't think that the enjoyment is the issue. It is a shame that a pleasure may be denied to smokers, but I can't help but feel it is more important that the non-smokers do not suffer the smoke of others.

As to the bit above which I've quoted - this is the bit I do understand. They are not saying you don't have the right to smoke (and therefore buy cigarettes) just not to smoke around other people. In other words the problem is the passive smoking of others not what you may or may not chose to do to yourself. I'm sure you're right that there may be some further ulterior motive for the government, but ultimately I would be much more offended by being told I couldn't buy something, than by being told that I could only use it where I didn't affect others. At least this way you can still enjoy your pleasure at certain times.


----------



## cuchuflete

ceann-feachd said:
			
		

> We've had a law like this in Maine for a long time now. Most people here just learned to deal with it. It sure made eating in restaurants more enjoyable to me now that I don't have to smell someone's cigarette smoke while I'm eating. That gives me a headache.
> 
> In my opinion, what people do to their own bodies is their own business, but when what they're doing to themselves affects me, I take issue. Second hand smoke can cause cancer.
> 
> Now, I just wish we could do something about all the idiots that cannot figure out where the ashtray is in their car, so they throw the butts out the window.



From one Mainer to another, I agree with you on all points. (Not that it matters, but I do smoke.)
Now let's take your good logic a little further, and ban cell phone use in restaurants.  Let's ban the loud voices that force me to speak loudly to be heard by my dinner companion.  Let's definitely ban the excessive use of perfume in confined spaces such as restaurants, Reny's, etc.
If we put our minds to it, I'm sure we can stop trusting people to be reasonable, sensible, and considerate, and legislate thousands of prohibitions.
SUVs driven by Mas__oles on your list?


----------



## srsh

annettehola said:
			
		

> I can't seem to stop being upset by a society that allows the sale of tobacco and at the same time bans the use of it. No, it's not right this.
> 
> Annette


 
They dont ban the use of it, they just tell you not to smoke in certain places, you talk about your rights... what about non-smokers rights? according to your point of view, non-smokers only have one right: run away from smokers, I think it doesnt make sense.

They are not banning the use of if, you may go home and smoke all you want there.

Think of the music you hate the most, then imagine I go into a restaurant and sit by your side, and I turn on my stereo all aloud with that music you hate the most, and ask you to go away if you dont like it, does that make sense to you? I think that even if I told you that that kind of music gives me pleasure, that would mean no difference for you.


----------



## timpeac

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> From one Mainer to another, I agree with you on all points. (Not that it matters, but I do smoke.)
> Now let's take your good logic a little further, and ban cell phone use in restaurants. Let's ban the loud voices that force me to speak loudly to be heard by my dinner companion. Let's definitely ban the excessive use of perfume in confined spaces such as restaurants, Reny's, etc.
> If we put our minds to it, I'm sure we can stop trusting people to be reasonable, sensible, and considerate, and legislate thousands of prohibitions.
> SUVs driven by Mas__oles on your list?


 
But you haven't extended the whole point there Cuchu - these things don't cause cancer, only short-term discomfort.

The mix of the items that you cite make up the ambiance of a place and this is different from restaurant to restaurant from bar to bar. You can pick the mix you like (type of music, type of clientele, busy or not), and if you misjudge you are not putting your health at risk you are just inconvenienced.

2 more points on your analogy (both leaving aside the health issue, which for me really is the major one) -

- smoking, for those who don't like it, is quite a large inconvenience in terms of the immediate discomfort it causes (comparable to extremely lound music being played or perfume so smelly you can't taste your food).
- also - and more importantly - without the ban the smoking is everywhere. If you go to a restaurant you will almost certainly not be so inconvenienced by someone shouting or someone's perfume and if you are you are unlucky. Without a ban you will almost certainly have people smoking, and it's inescapable.


----------



## Quebar

creo que esta ley es totalmente saludable, no hay que pensar mucho en la industria tabacalera, hay que pensar que la gente se esta muriendo de cancer, que cada vez mas niños estan empezando a fumar, y a esas empresas lo unico que les importa es enriquecerse, creo que estas leyes deben ser guiadas o sustentadas por campañas que ayuden a crear conciencia, el problema no es solo en donde fumas si no cuanto fumas, eso es lo que esta afectando realmente a las personas , incluso el cigarrillo esta dividiendo a una ciudad, en restaurantes cines o cualquer espacio publico, estamos en paises libres pero hay que tener respeto y reglas para saludables para una mejor convivencia.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Well, 
I may explain my point; 
I must say that I do understand the pleasure to smoke. I did experience it. I reckon as good to _enjoy_ a cigarrette with a good coffee, in a wintertime conversation in a bar or..._after sex  _. 
I also know that many smokers do respect the others. I did respect the other when I smoked. I was aware of other people and I did care not to bother anyone around me. We all know that many smokers do not respect the others. It's impossible to know the odds. 
I would not rate all smokers as unrespectful addicts who aim to kill the non-smokers, this is ridiculous! 
I guess no-one is willing to cause harm to the others. It's just that some smokers don't see the danger they bear to the other people, maybe because they don't care, maybe because they are not aware of it. They are not evil but they are, in my opinion, causing harm to other people so then there is this Law to protect the people who have chosen to be tobacco-free. This is one of the most accepted Laws ever. 
The percentage of acceptance is very high. I don't make up this data, it's the data from the surveys. 
Some people in this Forum may choose to be outlaw. Ok, it's their choice. Nothing to do with me, I don't care. If outlaw attitudes are punished, it's better for the society, because the collected money will be invested for the society (some of the money will be invested to help people who wants to quit smoke as well) I do care for my health and for the health of my relatives and friends. 
Regarding bar owners chosing to be smoking bars. I do understand them, of course, almost 80% made their numbers and realised that it was good for them to allow to smoke. What to say against them? nothing. They look for their business. Some might be right, some might not. Time will give'em the answer. 
Peace, love and understanding for everybody smokers and non-smokers!


----------



## Alundra

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> This is one of the most accepted Laws ever.
> The percentage of acceptance is very high. I don't make up this data, it's the data from the surveys.
> 
> Pero Roi, no te equivoques... el porcentaje de aceptación es muy alto, pero es de fumadores y no fumadores conjuntamente... yo creo que la real encuesta la deberían hacer sólo a los fumadores...
> ¿Cuántos no-fumadores de los que hayan sido encuestados habrán contestado que están en desacuerdo con esa ley?.... sinceramente, por favor... Yo creo que el 0% de los encuestados, y si en realidad ya hay más no-fumadores y ex-fumadores que fumadores... ¿Tú crees que ese porcentaje muestra la realidad de los fumadores?
> 
> Yo creo que la encuesta debería ir dirigida a los fumadores sólo, para reflejar si están o no contentos con la ley...


 
Y como tú dices: Peace, love and understanding for everybody smokers and non-smokers!  

Alundra.


----------



## Like an Angel

annettehola said:
			
		

> I wish I could communicate the pleasure of smoking to non-smokers. I wish I could show them my little private tobacco dealer down on the corner with whom I always have a friendly chat when buying my weekly ration of tobacco, I wish they would understand that there are many, many kinds and qualities of tobacco, that there definitely is a difference between light - mmm a Virginia cigarette! Delightful! - and dark tobacco, I wish they could feel the difference between a lighter and a match, but I think they show too many signs of coldness.
> Annette


 
With the due respect Annette, this kind of thinking is dangerous, I think. What about a killer trying to do the same about killing people, saying "I wish I could communicate the pleasure of killing to non-killers. I wish they could understand that there definitely is a difference between killing people with a knife and with a gun, Delightful!" hmmmmmmm, I would like that all smokers think like you in the sense that if you are ask to please stop smoking you just do it, but not all of them are that polite.

I remember a few months ago, I was in a meeting with some friends when one of them lighted a cigarette up, I silently went to another room, I stayed there for a while, a friend of mine came some minutes ago and said "what are you doing?" I said "well, you know I hate smoking, since none of you dislike it as me, I just decided to come here till she finishes her cigarette", my friend said "ok, so c'mon, she has already finished smoking" when I came to the living room the smoker-girl said "what happen with you? why did you leave us that way? you are so histerycal!", well, as you can see I left the living room because she bothered me, then she said I bothered her... as you can see not all smokers are that polite.

My father used to be a smoker, 3 years ago doctors found a larynx tumour, now he can't speak, the tumour was very advanced so doctors had to take his vocal cords away (total laryngectomy) even so, when my dad finishes dinner, he plays (to make me laugh) as he smokes... well, he doesn't make me laugh at all, this bloody adiction made him lost his social life, a lot of people can't understand when he speaks with his esophageal voice, and one of the things that he liked doing best was talking with people.

Don't take it as non-smokers go against smokers, for me, it's a law that tries to help non-smokers, but mainly smokers to fight with this horrible adiction.

I'm sorry for my English, I know I could express myself better in my mother tongue, but then most of you wouldn't notice about my post


----------



## Roi Marphille

annettehola said:
			
		

> No, man, I would like to tell you, that I_* like*_ smoking. Why are you taking my pleasure away? I haven't touched yours.
> Annette


Dear Annette, I really try to get your point but I can't understand you. You seem to be very frightened but I don't see any reason to be so. Maybe you don't have the clear picture of the new law . Maybe you think that you will be persecuted or something. Nobody is taking your pleasure away *unless* your pleasure is not smoking itself *but* smoking in forbidden areas. You have the same rights as other citizens living in society. 
There are some things we must do like paying taxes, use the belt when driving, respect the traffic lights...you know these kind of things which are ruled by many different laws. There are some things that we are not allowed to do like to smoke in forbidden areas, avoid taxes...we all know what we are allowed to do and what we are banned to do, that's how it works. 
*To smoke it is not banned*. *It is limited* to certain places.  You have the right to enjoy cigarrettes. You can smoke in 80% of bars in most of the cities. You can smoke in your home, in the street, in the park, in your car...I understand that this Law was set to protect the % of society who don't smoke, it's that simple. These people have now some rights that did not enjoy before. We all have rights in freedom societies, don't we?


----------



## Like an Angel

Alundra said:
			
		

> Así que, para que quitar los estancos... que los que quieran tengan donde comprar tabaco (aunque no se lo fumen cuando quieran, sólo cuándo y dónde el gobierno te diga)...
> Eso lo veo de lo más absurdo, o sea, no dejan fumar, pero dejan comprar tabaco... totalmente incongruente...


 
¿Y qué tal Alundra si en vez de tratarse de cigarrillos se tratara de preservativos? Supongo que debe haber leyes que prohíban tener sexo en espacios públicos, y no por ello se dejan de vender preservativos ¿También te parece incongruente la idea? Es una adicción, como lo pueden ser la comida, el alcohol, las drogas, etc. y desde el momento en que _el_ _derecho de uno termina donde comienza el del otro_ el estado debe regularlo de alguna manera. Prohibirlo no es solución visto está, confinarlo quizás ayude. Sé que para los adictos es difícil, pero creo que es cuestión de educación al igual que en muchos otros temas que no hacen a este hilo de conversación. 

Te felicito por el esfuerzo que haces en dejar el cigarrillo, te aseguro que verás los resultados positivos y te hará feliz el hecho de haber tomado esa decisión


----------



## ceann-feachd

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> SUVs driven by Mas__oles on your list?


Anything with Massachussetts license plates is on _*my*_ list. 
Although, I'll admit, I do often grin at the ones that go by me at 90mph only to catch up to them on the side of the road with one of those Crown Victorias behind them... you know, the ones with all the pretty flashing lights? Now _*that* _is entertainment.


----------



## Alundra

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> ¿Y qué tal Alundra si en vez de tratarse de cigarrillos se tratara de preservativos? Supongo que debe haber leyes que prohíban tener sexo en espacios públicos, y no por ello se dejan de vender preservativos ¿También te parece incongruente la idea? Es una adicción, como lo pueden ser la comida, el alcohol, las drogas, etc. y desde el momento en que _el_ _derecho de uno termina donde comienza el del otro_ el estado debe regularlo de alguna manera. Prohibirlo no es solución visto está, confinarlo quizás ayude. Sé que para los adictos es difícil, pero creo que es cuestión de educación al igual que en muchos otros temas que no hacen a este hilo de conversación.
> 
> Te felicito por el esfuerzo que haces en dejar el cigarrillo, te aseguro que verás los resultados positivos y te hará feliz el hecho de haber tomado esa decisión


 
Sinceramente....yo no veo en el sexo una adicción   pero supongo que dependerá del punto de vista, ejejeej....

Y creo sinceramente que no tiene nada que ver... yo sí lo veo absurdo, absurdo y abusivo por parte del gobierno... pero como tu bien dices... no me afecta.

Un saludete.
Alundra.


----------



## srsh

Alundra said:
			
		

> Pero Roi, no te equivoques... el porcentaje de aceptación es muy alto, pero es de fumadores y no fumadores conjuntamente... yo creo que la real encuesta la deberían hacer sólo a los fumadores...
> ¿Cuántos no-fumadores de los que hayan sido encuestados habrán contestado que están en desacuerdo con esa ley?.... sinceramente, por favor... Yo creo que el 0% de los encuestados, y si en realidad ya hay más no-fumadores y ex-fumadores que fumadores... ¿Tú crees que ese porcentaje muestra la realidad de los fumadores?
> 
> Yo creo que la encuesta debería ir dirigida a los fumadores sólo, para reflejar si están o no contentos con la ley...
> 
> 
> Alundra.


 
Hmm sería algo asi como hacer una encuesta para ver si debe ser castigado el homicidio, y la encuesta se aplica únicamente a homicidas, no tendría sentido. Las encuestas se aplican a todos, precisamente para conocer ambos extremos de las opiniones. Precisamente la democracia se basa en eso, en conocer el punto de vista de los que dicen que quieren al governante A como a los que quieren al gobernante B. Y si en base a eso, la mayoría de la población, independientemente de si fuman o no, deciden aprovar la ley, no veo donde está la polémica.


----------



## Like an Angel

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> ¿También te parece incongruente la idea? *Fumar  *es una adicción, como lo pueden ser la comida, el alcohol, las drogas, etc...


 
No hablaba de que el sexo lo fuera, pero te puse ese ejemplo para que veas que sí molesta en lo que a uno lo afecta, pero no para algo que no hacés.-

Unos amigos me comentaban de unas campañas publicitarias antitabaco que me parecieron perfectas. En una de ellas, los comensales en una fiesta al terminar de cenar, un par de ellos, encendían un cigarro, entonces el no fumador se metía el dedo en la nariz y luego en el vaso que aún contenía bebida del fumador, asqueroso, pero directo. La otra, parecida a la anterior, también un fumador terminaba de comer y encendía un cigarrillo, su acompañante se sacaba el zapato, ponía su pie sobre la mesa y comenzaba a cortarse las uñas, una de ellas caía dentro de la copa del fumador, nuevamente asquerosa, pero demuestran que no podés hacer lo que se te antoja, donde se te antoja, debés respetar a tu prójimo, y tener en mente que, como dije antes, _el derecho de uno termina donde comienza el derecho del otro  _


----------



## I.C.

I’ll say this: 

While I am deeply suspicious about any missionary undercurrents suggesting that smoking should be banned because it harms those who engage in it – after all being free _necessarily_ has to  include the right to make wrong decisions -, I see no reason at all why _I_ should be _forced_ to smoke passively myself, it’s a violation of _my_ freedoms. 

As far as I’m concerned the smoke is not a minor inconvenience, apart from being a massive nuisance it’s a real threat to my health. Unfortunately not even only in the long run. When exposed to smoke I get wheezy, my lungs feel and become constricted. Quite unpleasant, reduces the quality of my life significantly. Unhealthy, too. Otherwise my lung capacity if fine, by the way, I am far from being a frail person. 

In Germany, relying on people being reasonable has not worked so far and as bad as it is here, some places are much worse. 
Consequently I hail any bans of public smoking and smoking at the workplace. 
At the same time, while I would advise anyone against smoking if asked, I would _tolerate_ smoking completely as soon as those who don’t want to be exposed to smoke are spared of it. Even though I believe it’s a serious and dangerous drug.  

Bottom line: 
If you want to kill yourself with drugs – and nicotine is one -, that’s fine, it’s your life, but don’t drag me into it. 
This viewpoint is my acknowledgement of your individual freedoms. 
Please respect mine and spare me of the cancerous, lung-corroding smoke. 
I have no -  and I really mean _no_ - sympathy for anyone who wants to light up in my presence without asking.


----------



## Alundra

srsh said:
			
		

> Hmm sería algo asi como hacer una encuesta para ver si debe ser castigado el homicidio, y la encuesta se aplica únicamente a homicidas, no tendría sentido. Las encuestas se aplican a todos, precisamente para conocer ambos extremos de las opiniones. Precisamente la democracia se basa en eso, en conocer el punto de vista de los que dicen que quieren al governante A como a los que quieren al gobernante B. Y si en base a eso, la mayoría de la población, independientemente de si fuman o no, deciden aprovar la ley, no veo donde está la polémica.


 
En el caso del homicida, no es él mismo quien debe cumplir la ley... no creo que puedas hacer ese tipo de comparación... 

En el caso de los fumadores... les preguntan a todos, pero sólo los fumadores son realmente quienes deben acatar la ley. Los demás serán meros observadores.... así también quiero yo el resto de las leyes... que me afecten para bien, pero que no tenga que acatarlas  ....ejejejej...

Según la página que suministró Carlston sobre la encuesta:

47,5% son no-fumadores 
26,7% son ex-fumadores 

Nos quedan 25,8% de fumadores.

Si de un 100%, el 70% sale de acuerdo con la ley, teniendo en cuenta, que el 74,2% está prácticamente a favor... lo que yo no sé es para que hacen esa encuesta ... en mi opinión, la variación del 4,2% está en los ex-fumadores...



			
				Like an Angel said:
			
		

> _el derecho de uno termina donde comienza el derecho del otro  _


 
Pero por supuesto, no podría estar más de acuerdo contigo LaA , yo siempre pensé lo mismo, la libertad mía acaba donde comienza la de los demás... 

Que conste, que a mí me va a venir bien todo esto, porque me evitará ver a más de uno con el cigarrillo en la boca, y eso siempre ayuda, pero por algo siempre digo que soy defensora de las causas perdidas... 

Alundra.


----------



## fenixpollo

I agree with what annette is saying, but only if smoking is not harmful to others. 

Tim and Carlston and others are right on when they say that it's OK to do as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. The problem is that secondhand smoke endangers the health of non-smokers. Since it is a public health issue, the government should have the right to restrict smoking in public places, including privately-owned businesses -- but not in private homes.

The fact that cigarettes are dangerous to a smoker's health has nothing to do with it. Tobacco is not inherently evil, or no more evil than other legal drugs, such as alcohol and caffeine. The difference is that you can't be exposed to second-hand Coke from the person sipping a soda next to you, and you can't be exposed to second-hand Tequila unless there's some kind of freak barroom accident.

As a recently reformed smoker (Mei & Alundra -- solidarity!), I can attest that *smokers are not lepers* (not _leprous_... sorry ladies). And I think it's hilarious that both sides in this debate accused the other of treating it so.


----------



## Laia

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I can attest that *smokers are not lepers* (not _leprous_... sorry ladies). And I think it's hilarious that both sides in this debate accused the other of treating it so.


 
Siento haber llevado mal el tema de la "leprosidad" pero es que es una frase que estoy harta de oir (_los fumadores son considerados leprosos por la sociedad_) y que creo que es absolutamente falsa. En mi intento de apoyar mi teoría me he dejado llevar por la pasión que tanto me caracteriza y supongo que al final no he conseguido transmitir exactamente la idea que tenía en la cabeza... ¿o sí?  
De momento no tengo más argumentos que aportar... cuando la semana que viene vuelva a la uni, ya os contaré si se respeta o no la ley allí. 
De momento, esto es todo.

Saludos,
Laia


----------



## ampurdan

Are all of you sure that everyone should be entitled to smoke when at their own home? What about the children exposed to the smoke of their parents? Should they have to tolerate the smoke just because it comes from one or more of their ancestors? Isn't this parental behaviour similar to an abuse, a mistreatment, a subttle and stealth child battering?


----------



## Alundra

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Are all of you sure that everyone should be entitled to smoke when at their own home? What about the children exposed to the smoke of their parents? Should they have to tolerate the smoke just because it comes from one or more of their ancestors? Isn't this parental behaviour similar to an abuse, a mistreatment, a subttle and stealth child battering?


 
¿Pero tú por qué crees que yo dejé de fumar???  

Si no es por ellos seguramente todavía seguiría fumando...

Alundra.


----------



## I.C.

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Are all of you sure that everyone should be entitled to smoke when at their own home? What about the children exposed to the smoke of their parents?


 Bit of a dilemma, isn’t it? I thought of it when writing my above statement. Obviously I’d like to see smoke-free cigarettes or inhalers. 
But there’s also the issue of smoking during pregnancy…not exactly a joke.

The way I see it there is a collision of important freedoms which cannot be solved neatly as it is, but for practical purposes and because of some of the ramifications and given that nicotine is a highly addictive drug it would appear to me that it might be better to not ban the substance as such.

Before someone starts comparing nicotine to heroin and how my viewpoint would be a slippery slope towards the decriminalisation of all kinds of dangerous drugs (somehow I sense someone might want to), I’m for it. I’m for handing out heroin on prescription. Don’t waste time telling me about the damage heroin does, I’ve seen it. My views can be found here, summed up by Norman Stamper, former Seattle police chief: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002661006_sunstamper04.html 
Apart from the I  recommend the movie “Traffic”.


----------



## Alfry

Anna Più said:
			
		

> Hi,
> How is going in Ireland and in Italy? Do people respect the law? Have been reduced the tobacco sales?


 
as far as I can see, Italians are respecting this law.
As a "non fumatore" you can imagine my happiness

How long is this going to last?
I don't know but I'm a dreamer


----------



## fenixpollo

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Are all of you sure that everyone should be entitled to smoke when at their own home? What about the children exposed to the smoke of their parents? Should they have to tolerate the smoke just because it comes from one or more of their ancestors? Isn't this parental behaviour similar to an abuse, a mistreatment, a subttle and stealth child battering?


 I am 100% sure that everyone should be entitled to smoke wherever they bloody well please, as long as their smoking does not infringe on the rights of others.  "Others" includes non-smoking bar patrons who don't want to smoke second hand, and it includes children in the home as well as fetuses.  I'd be in favor of charging parents who smoke around their children with_ child endangerment_.


----------



## Metztli

> I'd be in favor of charging parents who smoke around their children with_ child endangerment._


 
Exactly, Fenixpollo, that's what authorities should do! If they don't care about their children's health, I'm sure they'll when it comes to the money.

Let's propose that to the Congress!


----------



## annettehola

I'm bloody happy for my own parents. They would never do that. I like my dad's pipe and the smell it emits. And why not start a cult? "The Guardian Angels of Children in Danger of Smoky Influence?"
Imagine them at the annual "We hate smoke"- meeting:"Fellow citizens! Brothers and Sisters! Welcome! Take a seat! Enjoy breathing! We have many, many things to be proud of! We have now effectively erased our common enemy: Smoke! (applause). We have banned it away! We have managed to purify the air! (more, much more applause) We are strong together. And now, on the plan for next year, we have, and I quote: 
Total banning of all that smokes, can smoke and will be likely to smoke.
This will mean: 1) Vehicles of almost all kinds. 2) Cooking. 3) Baking. 3) Arsonry. And 4) Languages will no longer contain any smoky words; such as: "fire," (strong signs of disgust are shown), "smoke," "light up," (bvaddrr!) "do you have a light?" etc. Light from now on, Brothers and Sisters, will be electrical. (Applause). 
We have a long year in front of us, Brothers and Sisters. Many things we shall change. Together we are strong. Now; go to your purified and sterile homes, open the window and enjoy the fresh and natural evening breeze coming in from North West. It's delightful. And should you spot an abandoned child, alone and freezing out there directly exposed to smoke, then take him in your arms and let him gently know that he can always find consolation in our Brother and Sisterhood of Eternal and Unforgiving and Spiteful Attitude towards all that smokes.
Amen."

Personally I'll always be of the opinion that there is a significant difference between "Having a light" and "Having the light," if you see what I mean.

Annette


----------



## Roi Marphille

annettehola said:
			
		

> I'm bloody happy for my own parents. They would never do that. I like my dad's pipe and the smell it emits. And why not start a cult? "The Guardian Angels of Children in Danger of Smoky Influence?"
> Imagine them at the annual "We hate smoke"- meeting:"Fellow citizens! Brothers and Sisters! Welcome! Take a seat! Enjoy breathing! We have many, many things to be proud of! We have now effectively erased our common enemy: Smoke! (applause). We have banned it away! We have managed to purify the air! (more, much more applause) We are strong together. And now, on the plan for next year, we have, and I quote:
> Total banning of all that smokes, can smoke and will be likely to smoke.
> This will mean: 1) Vehicles of almost all kinds. 2) Cooking. 3) Baking. 3) Arsonry. And 4) Languages will no longer contain any smoky words; such as: "fire," (strong signs of disgust are shown), "smoke," "light up," (bvaddrr!) "do you have a light?" etc. Light from now on, Brothers and Sisters, will be electrical. (Applause).
> We have a long year in front of us, Brothers and Sisters. Many things we shall change. Together we are strong. Now; go to your purified and sterile homes, open the window and enjoy the fresh and natural evening breeze coming in from North West. It's delightful. And should you spot an abandoned child, alone and freezing out there directly exposed to smoke, then take him in your arms and let him gently know that he can always find consolation in our Brother and Sisterhood of Eternal and Unforgiving and Spiteful Attitude towards all that smokes.
> Amen."
> 
> Personally I'll always be of the opinion that there is a significant difference between "Having a light" and "Having the light," if you see what I mean.
> 
> Annette


  funny orwellian view. It's good to have sense of humour nowadays. 
btw, do you actually reckon the harm that cigarrettes do to people? 

Ps: there are like billions of stories like... that guy who never smoked in his life and had a painful dead because of lung cancer. Reason: he worked all his life in a bar. True story.  *Is that urban legend for you?*


----------



## annettehola

Yeah, Roi, now you got me loosen the talktape..I'll tell you an authentic urban - no, actually it's from a village - tale. Listen! Every morning, at around 7 or thereabouts, I can be seen in the very village of B. It's so early that I only feel like a coffee and a cig. Now, I get off the train, you know, and head for the station cafe. I nod to people I see every day on the train, and Juan, the owner of the cafe starts mixing my café con leche. I don't have to say what I want, for I come there every morning, so he knows me. Oh, and that's routine for you. 
One fine morning the routine de siempre was broken by Juan. He wore a mask over his face! I mean: goddammit! What's with you, Juan? Oh, it was the smoke. He couldn't take it. It wasn't good for him. He had been to the hospital, and some doctor or nurse or I don't know had given him a mask to wear while working. I told him that I would suggest he found another job that would be better for him, but he said that he wanted the money.
This made me go outside with Juan's coffee and my morning cig. I really felt strange. I was close to crying and laughing at the same time. It is just so bloody ridiculous; really! A bartender with a white mask over his face, serving customers that dare not smoke in his presence. Juan has a son who assists his dad in the station cafe. I don't know why he doesn't take over. 
Aj, I could write and write and write and I really, really would like to...but I must work also....

Hasta Fuego!!!!


----------



## I.C.

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I'd be in favor of charging parents who smoke around their children with_ child endangerment_.


 So would I in principle.
Still, nicotine is a highly addictive drug, regardless of any rationalisations by some of the addicts, so punitive measures alone probably won’t work as desired. 
I’d like to think that people do care for their offspring, so increased education on the issue might help a bit in those cases where the parents are reasonable and not too badly addicted. Naturally I’d like to see a drug that suppresses the addiction quickly and I’d like to force pregnant women to take it.


----------



## Carlston

annettehola said:
			
		

> I'm bloody happy for my own parents. They would never do that. I like my dad's pipe and the smell it emits. And why not start a cult? "The Guardian Angels of Children in Danger of Smoky Influence?"
> Imagine them at the annual "We hate smoke"- meeting:"Fellow citizens! Brothers and Sisters! Welcome! Take a seat! Enjoy breathing! We have many, many things to be proud of! We have now effectively erased our common enemy: Smoke! (applause). We have banned it away! We have managed to purify the air! (more, much more applause) We are strong together. And now, on the plan for next year, we have, and I quote:
> Total banning of all that smokes, can smoke and will be likely to smoke.
> This will mean: 1) Vehicles of almost all kinds. 2) Cooking. 3) Baking. 3) Arsonry. And 4) Languages will no longer contain any smoky words; such as: "fire," (strong signs of disgust are shown), "smoke," "light up," (bvaddrr!) "do you have a light?" etc. Light from now on, Brothers and Sisters, will be electrical. (Applause).
> We have a long year in front of us, Brothers and Sisters. Many things we shall change. Together we are strong. Now; go to your purified and sterile homes, open the window and enjoy the fresh and natural evening breeze coming in from North West. It's delightful. And should you spot an abandoned child, alone and freezing out there directly exposed to smoke, then take him in your arms and let him gently know that he can always find consolation in our Brother and Sisterhood of Eternal and Unforgiving and Spiteful Attitude towards all that smokes.
> Amen."
> 
> Personally I'll always be of the opinion that there is a significant difference between "Having a light" and "Having the light," if you see what I mean.
> 
> Annette


 
El humor es la mejor adicción, aunque en este caso quizás lleves demasiado tiempo sin fumar  

De cualquier manera, una ley no tiene que complacer a todo el mundo,ni siquiera a la mayoria, debe hacerse con el propósito de una mejor y mas sana convivencia, y ese es el objetivo de esta ley, independientemente de que guste o no.

Saludos


----------



## annettehola

"Naturally I’d like to see a drug that suppresses the addiction quickly and I’d like to force pregnant women to take it."

The smoke from this post still lingers on in my mind. How awful; indeed! But I need to know: Is it that you yourself would like to force pregnant women to take a drug to liberate them from the drug they are addicted to, or is it that you wish this practice be applied in general? I just can't believe either. 
You post has made me sad. 
Annette


----------



## siljam

A very effective method for stop smoking is the one devised by Stephen King
in the short story "Quitters Inc.". A little rude, but you sure quit smoking.


----------



## Fernando

My two cents:

- I have not smoked. I mean NEVER.

- I do not feel disturbed for smokers but in the exact moment when they prefer to smoke: after lunch.

- I think this law has several flaws:

1) Restaurants under 100 m2 are allowed to be for smokers. This way you will be said when you ask a smoker to put its cigarette off: 'We are in a smoker area, dude'.

2) Companies are not allow to reserve smokers areas EVEN if workers and companies agree so. I simply think this is inconstitutional.

3) Law is to be enforced through pression on employers. It is the usual confortable new laws-enforcement: you are not to be punished by the State but by your employer or your workmates.

4) Law is not to be efficient: I have been said the fine is over 10,000 euros. That is crazy. I would be prefer to be seized while smoking crack rather than tobacco.

I agree with the protection for non-smokers but I simply think that those who prefer to smoke should be allowed to do this. Of course they are going to die because of lung cancer. It is their choose. My message: 'If you want to slowly kill yourself, go ahead'. I will inform you, but I will not avoid you to shorten your life.

I really love (I mean LOVE) meat. I mean RED meat. I know I will die maybe 5-10 years before because of my love. So what? The State should do nothing, but informing me about the consequence of my decision.

All ant-smoke laws (mostly very reasonable) are justified only by the harm on non-smokers. Right, but I feel the harm done to non-smokers is far less than to non-drinkers. Do we want another Dry Law?

And finally, I would like to found the Anti-noisy-motorcicle Association (ACMCEL, Asociación contra Motos con Escape Libre). No joke. I prefer to breathe polluted air rather than hearing another motorcicle.


----------



## Carlston

Fernando said:
			
		

> - -
> I agree with the protection for non-smokers but I simply think that those who prefer to smoke should be allowed to do this. Of course they are going to die because of lung cancer. It is their choose. My message: 'If you want to slowly kill yourself, go ahead'. I will inform you, but I will not avoid you to shorten your life.
> -_Supongo que entonces estas a favor de la legalización de la heroína y demás drogas, no sé porque, pero no me pareces de ese tipo de personas._
> 
> And finally, I would like to found the Anti-noisy-motorcicle Association (ACMCEL, Asociación contra Motos con Escape Libre). No joke. I prefer to breathe polluted air rather than hearing another motorcicle.
> 
> _En esto estoy mas que de acuerdo, no puedo con ellas y ellas pueden con mis nervios_


 

un saludo  
Carlston


----------



## annettehola

I'm currently studying for the motorcycle driving test exam, actually, and I got my mind set on buying a "Special." You know that make? They are solid, good and damned goodlooking. 
 "I really love (I mean LOVE) meat. I mean RED meat. I know I will die maybe 5-10 years before because of my love. So what? The State should do nothing, but informing me about the consequence of my decision.

All ant-smoke laws (mostly very reasonable) are justified only by the harm on non-smokers. Right, but I feel the harm done to non-smokers is far less than to non-drinkers. Do we want another Dry Law?"

With this I agree very much. It is obvious, that drink is harmful; too when consumed excessively. But it hasn't been forbidden by the Health Apostles
yet. Smoking a spliff? You Holy Guys of Total Air Clearance, have you never done that?
Annette


----------



## Ratona

Fernando said:
			
		

> And finally, I would like to found the Anti-noisy-motorcicle Association (ACMCEL, Asociación contra Motos con Escape Libre). No joke. I prefer to breathe polluted air rather than hearing another motorcicle.


 
Oh Fernando, if only I could make you understand the pleasure of hearing the powerful sound of a motorcycle can, it's almost on a par with that cigarette after sex!


----------



## Laia

Sobre la bebida...
Olvidáis algo... si yo me mato a beber, será mi hígado el perjudicado... aunque hayáis estado a mi lado en todas mis borracheras. 
Si yo me mato a fumar, todos los de mi alrededor están bajo mi nube de humo.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Fernando said:
			
		

> 2) Companies are not allow to reserve smokers areas EVEN if workers and companies agree so. I simply think this is inconstitutional.


smoking rooms were OK for me. I agree with you here. 
___

PD for all: My opinion is that no-one should take the leading as defendant or against the new Tobacco-Law, we have a lot of different opinions in this thread. I may not share the average non-smokers opinion or I may do so...Do you know what I mean? It's not these guys against these other guys. There are a lot of different attitudes and opinions. This is good for debate, isn't it?. 
So when I may say something, I may say it as a personal view, not as "we non-smokers think that" or "we smokers do this or don't do that". Does it make sense to you guys?


----------



## ampurdan

Annette, I know how you feel but I can't agree with you. 

I used to smoke but I quit eight months ago and now I still feel like a cigarrette sometimes, not particularly after sex but while taking coffee or working on a text and, above all, when I see other people smoking. Life without tobacco is not that great: I have not found better flavours in my food but I am more hungry than ever, and I have gotten fat (sure, some more sport would not do bad  ). Well, I don't have sore throat as often as I used to and if I have to run after the bus or whatever, I don't gasp for breathe as quickly. However, I guess if I knew that I was going to die tomorrow for sure, I would go and fetch a pack, gently remove the plastic cover, take one cigarrette, light it, puff at it making it crackle and let its smoke circulate from my mouth to my nose and flow out, even though I know that that would probably taste like ashes. This is the real taste of present-day industrial cigarrettes, when there's no physical addiction (maybe not the one of cigars, pipes and hand-made cigarrettes of tobacco, marihuana and hashish).

I used to smoke in pubs, discos, bars, cafés and restaurants, without asking anybody's permission if there were ashtrays on the tables and no "no smoking" signs around. I used to smoke at work also, in the brake room. I knew my smoke was not only hurting me, but the people around me whom I haven't asked permission most of times (of course I stubbed out my cig if they asked me not to smoke, begin to waving their hands to drive the smoke away from their noses or look anguishly at my cigarrette). I think this behavior was inconsiderate, at least, but was socially accepted, few people complainted. Now, I deem it better that smoking without asking permission is perceived by everyone as what it really is, an inconsiderate behaviour that exposes people to risks they don't have to bear. You have to bear the smoke of cars, as far as we don't find a better way of transport, but you don't have to bear the smoke of cigarrettes.

The fact that the passing of this law was sure induced me to quit smoking, since I didn't want to be somewhere wishing to smoke and not being able to do it. Now, I have no problem respecting other people's health.


----------



## annettehola

Your words are wise, ampurdan. 
I respect them. 
I would also respect people - especially those that believe in executing strict health regimes on behalf of others' health - if they answer my question.
Annette


----------



## annettehola

Well; silence speaks, guys. 
Are your words full of hypocrisy or have you never smoked a spliff?
Annette


----------



## I.C.

annettehola said:
			
		

> I.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally I’d like to see a drug that suppresses the addiction quickly and I’d like to force pregnant women to take it.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it that you yourself would like to force pregnant women to take a drug to liberate them from the drug they are addicted to, or is it that you wish this practice be applied in general?
Click to expand...

During pregnancy, compulsory for those who can't or don't want to quit. As I have stated before, in my opinion you should be free to shoot up heroin or smoke crack if that’s you want to do. But if reasonable measures can be taken to prevent this during pregnancy, then I think they should be taken.


----------



## Roi Marphille

annettehola said:
			
		

> Well; silence speaks, guys.
> Are your words full of hypocrisy or have you never smoked a spliff?
> Annette


I dont understand why you link to be hypocrite with having smoked...and being agree with the new Law..?  
many smokers and ex-smokers agree with the new Law.


----------



## Ratona

Annette, I'm not following your line of thought, why is it important whether anti-smoking-in-public-places-people have smoked a spliff or not? I suppose it may give an insight into how important taking care of themselves and not wanting to damage their health are but if it has only been a one-off or an experimental phase then it doesn't really matter, does it?


----------



## ampurdan

Sorry, I didn't know you were asking to everybody and I have to look up what a spliff was (because I thought it was a slang for cigarrette). Yes I've smoked a spliff, even though it is forbidden by the law. That's not the point, though. Nobody in this thread has proposed to forbid tobacco.


----------



## Laia

Yes I've smoked a spliff. I agree with ampurdan, that's not the point.


----------



## annettehola

You are wrong. But thanks for finally displaying your colour. You cannot be so holy when speaking about the serious dangers and bla-bla-bla of smoking when you smoke spliffs in your free time. It's not your arguments against smoking that limps around on one leg. It's your attitude.
Annette


----------



## Laia

annettehola said:
			
		

> You are wrong. But thanks for finally displaying your colour. You cannot be so holy when speaking about the serious dangers and bla-bla-bla of smoking when you smoke spliffs in your free time. It's not your arguments against smoking that limps around on one leg. It's your attitude.
> Annette


 
Well, I've smoked spliffs maybe 5 or 6 times in my hole life. 

He fumado porros muy pocas veces, y nunca en lugares cerrados, ni en el trabajo, ni en restaurantes, ni en centros comerciales, ni en hospitales ni en ningún lugar en dónde se aplica esta nueva ley.
No entiendo todavía que tiene que ver esto con el tema que estamos discutiendo. Creo que es un off-topic clarísimo.


----------



## annettehola

It's not off-topic. It's totally on-topic. If you can't bring yourself to being honest about things, then there is no idea in discussing them. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in knowing how many spliffs you've smoked in your life. I never asked you that, and if anything is off-topic, then it's this information you provide us with. I don't need nor want to know how hooked you happen to be on smoking. What's interesting, is 
that fierce enemies of smoking are people who enjoy a spliff now and then. I call that "conditioned honesty."
Annette


----------



## Laia

annettehola said:
			
		

> It's not off-topic. It's totally on-topic. If you can't bring yourself to being honest about things, then there is no idea in discussing them. *I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in knowing how many spliffs you've smoked in your life*. I never asked you that, and if anything is off-topic, then it's this information you provide us with. *I don't need nor want to know how hooked you happen to be on smoking.* What's interesting, is
> that fierce enemies of smoking are people who enjoy a spliff now and then. I call that "conditioned honesty."
> Annette


 
Well that's funny, you were the one who told us about the pleasure of your cigarrettes after sex, you provided that information without being asked to do it. 
I have the same interest on knowing about your sexual habits that the insterest you could have to know what I said (because you asked, actually).

Excuse my English, I do the best I can.


----------



## annettehola

Sorry, I don't share your humour. I adore a cigarette after sex. I wrote that in response to the one before me who wrote something about food tasting better for those that don't smoke.
Stick to the subject. Else make use of the PM service.
A.


----------



## Laia

annettehola said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't share your humour. I adore a cigarette after sex. I wrote that in response to the one before me who wrote something about food tasting better for those that don't smoke.
> Stick to the subject. Else make use of the PM service.
> A.


 
Ok, so we agree: I don't share your humour either.
My comment was also a response to your accusation of my supposed hypocrisy.
I'm going to stick to the subject, try to do it yourself too.
If we don't go off-topic, we won't need the PM service. I don't want to start a struggle by PM. 
I think that's enough.


----------



## annettehola

There are two currently: 1) The new law on tobacco in Spain. 2) Hypocrisy in relation to banning people from smoking while selfsame people, on the other hand, enjoy puffing away on spliffs privately.
A.


----------



## cuchuflete

Now and then, a conversation runs its course, and then people try to convince one another by repeating themselves. That doesn't work, of course, so the conversation degenerates, and begins to get a little personal.

So here is a suggestion:  For all those who have already contributed to the thread, please *do *feel free to add something new.  Please *do not* repeat ideas that you or others have already offered here.

If we can all do that, and argue with calm or vehemence, but always with courtesy, the thread will remain open to additional thoughts.

Thanks to all of you.

Cuchu


----------



## Laia

annettehola said:
			
		

> There are two currently: 1) The new law on tobacco in Spain. 2) Hypocrisy in relation to banning people from smoking while selfsame people, on the other hand, enjoy puffing away on spliffs privately.


 
Well, the main topic actually was your number 1.



			
				Anna Più said:
			
		

> Hi,
> In the 1rst of January will be a new law in Spain to band to smoke in public buildings, work spaces, trains, bars and restaurants. (Information here and here)
> I think the Spanish smoking citizens aren’t ready to face the law…
> How is going in Ireland and in Italy? Do people respect the law? Have been reduced the tobacco sales?



 
Anyway, this law doesn't ban you to smoke.



			
				Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> For readers information:
> SMOKING *IS NOT* BANNED IN SPAIN. It is only banned to smoke in certain places.


 


			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Please *do not* repeat ideas that you or others have already offered here..


 
I'm sorry Cuchu. Feel free to delete this post.


----------



## Carlston

Anna Più said:
			
		

> Hi,
> Hola,
> 
> El próximo 1 de enero va entrar en vigor en España la nueva ley del tabaco, que prohíbe fumar en locales públicos, lugares de trabajo, trenes, bares y restaurantes. (Información aquí y aquí)
> Yo creo que la ciudadanía española fumadora no está muy preparada para esto. ..
> ¿Como les va en Irlanda? ¿Y en Italia? ¿La gente ha respetado la ley? ¿Ha bajado la venta de tabaco?
> 
> _¡*Salud*os!_
> A+


 
A la pregunta si ha bajado la venta de tabaco:

En irlanda:
http://db.doyma.es/cgi-bin/wdbcgi.exe/doyma/press.plantilla?ident=37670

En italia:
http://www.el-mundo.es/elmundosalud/2005/02/03/tabaco/1107448019.html

saludos


----------



## annettehola

OK, before I go outside to have both of my lungs totally ruined in an absolutely selfimposed way, I'll add this: Any law or regulation is political. That's good. But bad if the politics is bad. We don't have the laws we have because of any socalled 'democracy.' No; we have them, because of some interest, usually money. The law in question is no exeption to this rule. I think, that smoking has its place in our society. Simply because people smoke. I don't know how much it costs to produce 20 cigarettes with filter and put them inside a packet. But it's clear, that it cannot cost much more than at the most 1 euro. A pack costs around 2,55 euros. We smokers pay more tax than all the decent guys put together.
I was also wondering; where did smoking originate? The Indians? I would very much like to know if anybody has a clue.
A fumar!!
Annette


----------



## srsh

annettehola said:
			
		

> We don't have the laws we have because of any socalled 'democracy.' No; we have them, because of some interest, usually money. The law in question is no exeption to this rule.


Y en el caso de esta ley, ¿cuál es el beneficio económico para el gobierno?



			
				annettehola said:
			
		

> I think, that smoking has its place in our society. Simply because people smoke.


Los asesinatos tambien tienen un lugar en nuestra sociedad, porque la gente asesina, las violaciones tienen lugar en nuestra sociedad porque hay violadores, so whats your point here?




			
				annettehola said:
			
		

> We smokers pay more tax than all the decent guys put together.


Con esta frase te contradices tú misma en cuanto a lo que dices de que el gobierno hizo esta ley por buscar un beneficio económico.


Uno de tus argumentos principales era que es ilógica una ley para prohibir fumar y sin embargo seguir vendiendo cigarros, ese punto ya quedó muy claro ya que no estan prohibiendo fumar, simplemente que lo hagas en lugares permitidos. ¿Ahora usas de argumento que son hipócritas quienes estan en contra de esta ley y alguna vez han fumado alguna droga? Simplemente no tiene sentido, aquí no se ataca el hecho de que fumes, sino que lo hagas a expensas de la salud de otros.

Annett, con todo respeto, estoy llegando a pensar que tus posts los haces no tanto porque en realidad sea tu forma de pensar, sino que lo haces por diversión, ya que tus posts cada vez carecen más de argumentos y cada vez tienen más forma de editorial en sátira.

Saludos!


----------



## Roi Marphille

Dear all, let's make an "everybody agrees" summary:
1) It has been said that smoking is bad for your health. 
2) It has been said that smoking may harm other people rather than the smoker himself/herself. 
3) very high percentage of Spanish population agrees with the new law. 
____

Then, Annette, honestly, I don't understand your personal crusade against...what? who?
Would you be so kind to tell us which are the clauses of the new Law you are against to? Then we may have a in-topic debate. ( No nos vayamos por la ramas please )
___

My personal view is: 
I agree in most of the clauses of the Law. 
I would not forbid smoking. 
I would not forbid the selling of tobbacco. 
I know "the pleasures" of smoking. 
I support attitudes to help people to quit smoking. 
I support attitudes which protect people from the smoke. 
I would not support any law which may be against the freedom of people to do whatever they want inside their homes if they don't hurt anybody. 
I would not support a law which may punish parents to smoke in front of their babies/children IN THEIR HOME *but* I think that it is disgusting and irresponsible anyway. 

Thanks and Regards, 
Roi


----------



## Lluna1977

A mi (soy fumadora) me parece que esa ley es tonta, falsa y muy mal hecha... con muchas contradicciones.
Por lo que a mi respecta (y mucha gente fumadora que conozco), nuestros hábitos no han cambiado en nada con ésta ley. Seguimos fumando en los mismos bares dónde lo hacíamos hace 5 días. Solo con la diferencia que ahora durante un tiempo tenemos algo nuevo de qué hablar.
El gobierno lo ha hecho fatal.... qué beneficio obtiene con ésta ley? Sigue cobrando los impuestos del tabaco (porque yo opino que puede que las ventas bajen, pero fijo que los impuestos subirán). Además obligan a todos los establecimientos con máquinas expendedoras de tabaco a no vender o a cambiarlas...  porque llevan publicidad???  vaya una tonteria... hacen que los bares se gasten un pastón en máquinas iguales pero sin dibujitos....
Y además ganan en el hecho de quedar bien con los no fumadores....  ya me diréis si el humo de tabaco que respiras cuando vas por la calle y alguien pasa fumando a tu lado no te afecta tanto como el de la mesa de al lado.

Vaya, que no estoy de acuerdo con ésta ley. Si el gobierno se preocupara de verdad por la salud de los ciudadanos debería prohibir no sólo el tabaco (del todo), sinó el alcohol y muchas más cosas. Qué me decís del humo de los coches, motocicletas y demás? Seguro que eso también provoca cáncer. 

Bueno, solo una opinión más....


----------



## Laia

Lluna, con todos mis respetos... ¿has leído este thread entero? Creo que todo lo que dices ya ha sido discutido.


----------



## annettehola

Fair enough. I'll try to explain: The state or government gets much of its money from taxes. Taxes on tobacco are very high. If you want to smoke you will have to pay them. It's the same for articles such as fx. alcohol, chocolate and perfume. But I think it's most heavily imposed on tobacco.
You're right in your second observation. I noticed it too, just after posting. My argument can clearly be turned upside-down, and then, whoops!, the argument kills itself with its own weapon. Argument suicide. My point is, that there are smokers here in our society. People work in big, very big, tobacco companies to produce cigarettes for them. And then add the tax they pay, when they buy it. Workers, owners of factories and the state profit from it. Then one day you wake up and decide to go and buy the usual pack. And then the pack is not usual anymore: Now it says on the pack that smoking is sure to kill you soon, and your death is going to be not only slow but also painful. I was a bit taken aback when first I saw such a text on the pack that used to be usual. Then I decided to like it and find it funny instead. My point is one of hypocrisy, simply. On part of society. Society is not going to ban things that are not good for people. Society bans, when the price to pay is too high in its own calculation. For this reason I don't think I contradicted myself saying smokers pay more in tax than those that don't smoke.
With my full respect: *I love writing. *
Annette


----------



## Carlston

Lluna1977 said:
			
		

> A mi (soy fumadora) me parece que esa ley es tonta, falsa y muy mal hecha... con muchas contradicciones.
> Por lo que a mi respecta (y mucha gente fumadora que conozco), nuestros hábitos no han cambiado en nada con ésta ley. Seguimos fumando en los mismos bares dónde lo hacíamos hace 5 días. Solo con la diferencia que ahora durante un tiempo tenemos algo nuevo de qué hablar.
> _Llevamos 4 dias con la ley, teniendo en cuenta que el 1 nos lo pasamos durmiendo, llevamos 3 dias, be patient_
> 
> s....


 
Saludos
Carlston


----------



## Lluna1977

Pues si Laia, lo he leído enterito.
No tengo derecho a dar mi opinión?
Además, srsh acaba de preguntar qué beneficios saca el gobierno con ésta ley, a lo cuál he contestado!


----------



## Laia

Lo siento, habré empezado a olvidar lo que se ha dicho y lo que no. Estoy muy cansada. No hace falta que te pongas a la defensiva porque yo no te he dicho que no tengas derecho a dar tu opinión.


----------



## Lluna1977

Laia, lo siento si me he puesto a la defensiva, pero me había sentido atacada.


----------



## cuchuflete

There is one more slice of economics that hasn't been discussed in detail here.  It is an argument that is used to support or help justify anti-smoking legislation.  It goes something like this--

Smoking causes health problems for the person who smokes.
Sick people, including smokers, require additional health care.
Some of this care is provided at a cost to the state.
All people, including non-smokers, pay taxes to the state.
The tax revenues from tobacco products do not cover the incremental health care costs incurred by the state to care for
illness resulting from smoking.

Therefore: smokers place an unfair burden on non-smokers.

I am a smoker.  I have been trained in and worked using economics.  I studied the numbers provided with this argument.   I am sorry to say that they appear to support the conclusion given above.  My own smoking, and the taxes I pay for tobacco (very high and increasing rapidly) do not, based on statistical averages, cover the likely incremental cost of healthcare required by my smoking.

Yes, these are statistical averages, and some of us will not require the expenditures, while others will.  That doesn't change the logic.

Annette's posts have got me thinking....how about substituting 
post-sex smoking with something else very pleasing...post-sex 
hugging and tickling and  (use your fertile imaginations!).


----------



## annettehola

I agree with all you say. Except the cig, sorry. Sex, then hugging and tickling and imagination. Then the cig. No, sorry! Imagination *all the time!*
*Annette*


----------



## Ratona

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> ...
> hugging and tickling and (use your fertile imaginations!).


 
Is that not what you do pre-sex Cuchu? 

Is it not true that we all do something that endangers our health and lives and will be a burden on the state who tries to repair us? The eating too much red meat, drugs and drinking, mentioned earlier, then there are extreme sports, not doing exercise and eating too much... So should we not all be banned, fined etc for such things?
Then again, as already said, these do not affect the health of others to the same extent as smoking appears to.

So the figures have forced governments to act and try to improve the health of others so it doesn't cost as much. Hypocritical or not, there are a lot of people who agree with it and are happy about it. 

Maybe if people were so altruistic and caring there would be no need for such laws at all!


----------



## Anna Più

Carlston said:
			
		

> A la pregunta si ha bajado la venta de tabaco:
> 
> En irlanda:
> http://db.doyma.es/cgi-bin/wdbcgi.exe/doyma/press.plantilla?ident=37670
> 
> En italia:
> http://www.el-mundo.es/elmundosalud/2005/02/03/tabaco/1107448019.html
> 
> saludos


 
Hola Carlston y gracias por la información.
A veces es difícil confiar en las estadísticas pero estas demuestran que las ventas han bajado... así...la salud de algunos seguro habrá "subido".... 

A+


----------



## Roi Marphille

annettehola said:
			
		

> For this reason I don't think I contradicted myself saying smokers pay more in tax than those that don't smoke.


This statement may be right because smokers do purchase a high-taxed product. Taxi-drivers, truck-drivers, food-importers,.. alcoholics...to name some,... do purchase high-taxed products as well. 
*BUT*, as Mr.Cuchu said, the balance contribution is negative in the society. Remember that. 

Another thing Ms.Annette, you are rushing people to answer your off-topic questions but you don't seem to be interested to answer my in-topic direct question from my previous post, here we go: "Then, Annette, honestly, I don't understand your personal crusade against...what? who?
Would you be so kind to tell us which are the clauses of the new Law you are against to? Then we may have a in-topic debate. ( No nos vayamos por la ramas please )"
Again, we are supposed to speak about this law. So, why don't we point which are the aspects of the law that suit us and which ones don't?
thanks for your understanding
Kind Regards, 
 Roi


----------



## Like an Angel

It seems I made a mistake about the dates when this law will start working in Argentina, it was October 2005 and it's going to be March 2006. The first step was forbidden smoking in work-places areas, and it is working (now I understand why there are many people in groups in front of some buildings ). The second step, the one that will take place in March, to ban smoking in pubs, restaurants, cafes... well, let's see what happens in March, I'll let you know about it.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Smoking causes health problems for the person who smokes.
> Sick people, including smokers, require additional health care. Some of this care is provided at a cost to the state.
> All people, including non-smokers, pay taxes to the state.
> The tax revenues from tobacco products do not cover the incremental health care costs incurred by the state to care for
> illness resulting from smoking.
> 
> Therefore: smokers place an unfair burden on non-smokers.


Eating junk food causes health problems for the person who eats junk food.
Sick people, including junk-food eaters, require additional health care. Some of this care is provided at a cost to the state.
All people, including non-junk-food eaters, pay taxes to the state.
The tax revenues from junk food products do not cover the incremental health care costs incurred by the state to care for illness resulting from eating junk food.

Therefore: eating junk food places an unfair burden on people with healthy diets.

_More than half of all Americans are overweight. Childhood obesity is now a huge problem. Should the government prohibit, tax and otherwise regulate greasy fast food and fatty snacks in the same way it does tobacco? By this rationale, it should._


----------



## nichec

Hello to all,
I think I'll start by pointing out that I don't want to offend anyone or getting involved in heated conversations, please.

I just want to say that I wish they could pass this law in France ( Paris ) too. I'm not a smoker, and it makes me cough seriously all the time. The problem is, in Paris, everywhere you go, you smell smoke and there's always someone smoking around you. I once saw a little girl, I guess she's not older than 15, smoking with her friend in front of "Monoprix" ( a chain supermarket in Paris ). And I don't know how many times I had seen pregnant French women or women with their very young kids smoking. And it doesn't help at all if you ask a non-smoking table in the restaurant coz you'll smell the heavy smoke anyway....

I'm all for the rights and freedom of every human being. But the second-hand smoke really makes me very uncomfortable.....And I really don't know what to think when I see very young kids using or being exposed to tobacco....

I used to live with my French boyfriend who smokes. I never asked him to quit or made an issue about it. But everytime when he went to the balcony to smoke, I would look at him from inside sadly, I felt like I should say something but couldn't....That's how I feel everytime when I'm exposed to somke, I would be coughing until tears start running out of my eyes, and through my unclear sight, I would look at the one who caused this painful coughing with this helpless feeling ( of course if I could go away I would, but most of the time I had to stay in that place for many different reasons ) , this feeling that maybe, maybe I should say something but I simply couldn't....


----------



## Laia

Well, fenixpollo,
I'd like to see it numbers before saying anything... how much costs to the goverment to treat smoking problems and how much obesity problems? Mmm... in Spain, because those problems are different in Spain that in USA, as far as I know...


----------



## cuchuflete

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Eating junk food causes health problems for the person who eats junk food.
> Sick people, including junk-food eaters, require additional health care. Some of this care is provided at a cost to the state.
> All people, including non-junk-food eaters, pay taxes to the state.
> The tax revenues from junk food products do not cover the incremental health care costs incurred by the state to care for illness resulting from eating junk food.
> 
> Therefore: eating junk food places an unfair burden on people with healthy diets.
> 
> _More than half of all Americans are overweight. Childhood obesity is now a huge problem. Should the government prohibit, tax and otherwise regulate greasy fast food and fatty snacks in the same way it does tobacco? By this rationale, it should._



We are only the girth of a fat population off topic, but, if the logic is valid for tobacco, why not apply it more broadly?

If government truly cared for the well-being of citizens, most fast food _(sic!) _would be highly taxed, if not outlawed entirely.
It does terrible things to children.

Those who have said harsh things about parents subjecting their children to second hand smoke...where are you on the issue of feeding sickening, as in sickness-inducing, crap to little people?  Would you charge the parents with a crime? Incarcerate them?


----------



## Laia

nichec said:
			
		

> I just want to say that I wish they could pass this law in France ( Paris ) too. I'm not a smoker, and it makes me cough seriously all the time.


 
The problem, I think, is that some smokers do not believe that your cough is real. Most of the times they just think that you want to annoy them when you ask to stop smoking in front of you.
That's one of the differences of having at your side a person smoking or a person eating junk food.


----------



## fenixpollo

For smoking: US$81 billion (source)
For obesity: US$78 billion (source)

In the U.S., these two problems affect society's pocketbook to the same degree (roughly).


----------



## Laia

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> For smoking: US$81 billion (source)
> For obesity: US$78 billion (source)
> 
> In the U.S., these two problems affect society's pocketbook to the same degree (roughly).


 
Thank you.


----------



## cuchuflete

The source for the obesity data has a wonderful, inadvertant, play on words:



> The state differences in obesity-attributable expenditures are        partly driven by the differences in the size of each state’s population.


----------



## timpeac

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> If government truly cared for the well-being of citizens, most fast food _(sic!) _would be highly taxed, if not outlawed entirely.
> It does terrible things to children.


I disagree. Adults know the dangers and it should be up to them. Fast food should be incrementally taxed just to the extent needed to pay for the extra health care of those that eat it. That way the rest of the population is not penalised for their folly. 

That's not to say people shouldn't get help if they consider they have an addiction and ask for help to deal with it.

Children are a different matter since they are presumed by definition to be too immature to make rational decisions. Perhaps age restriction on sales would be the answer.

I am finding these wider discussions hard to link to the original theme of the topic. The law is not purportedly to protect smokers from themselves but to protect non-smokers from the smoke of others and so I don't see the link to why the government should stop people eating fast food, there's no such thing as passive eating. However, if the reason is "why is the government worrying about smoking in public places when these measures don't cover everyone affected (kids where the parents smoke at home) and when there are other dangers out there (fast food) two things spring to mind -

- 1 Just because there are other problems out there it shouldn't mean we shouldn't embrace one solution to one (part) problem. Ok kids at home are not covered from smoke and others continue to eat themselves to death but it seems to me to be a non-sequitur to use that to suggest that we shouldn't protect non-smokers from passive smoking. Do we need to solve all problems in one fell swoop or not at all?
- 2 Kids being exposed to smoke in the home is just one thing that, to varying degrees of extension, can be viewed as child abuse (and many much worse than this). There are many other ways, both active and passive, to be a bad parent. I think the answer there is to review the parenting education people get before having kids.


----------



## cuchuflete

Of course you are correct Tim, in that it seems as if the topic is spreading wider than the waistline of a McDonald's patron.

The mention of other health issues is not totally off topic however.  It's a challenge to the underlying logic of the government's action.
I haven't been in Spain for quite a while, so I don't know if diesel powered buses continue to go, untuned, spewing enormous quantities of black particulate matter --clearly second-hand smoke--into the air of large population centers.
That doesn't require legislation...just maintenance.  But the political payback is small.

I happen to agree with the restrictions on smoking, but what's the harm in pointing out hypocrisy or questionable logic or inconsistent policy decisions?


----------



## timpeac

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Of course you are correct Tim, in that it seems as if the topic is spreading wider than the waistline of a McDonald's patron.
> 
> The mention of other health issues is not totally off topic however. It's a challenge to the underlying logic of the government's action.
> I haven't been in Spain for quite a while, so I don't know if diesel powered buses continue to go, untuned, spewing enormous quantities of black particulate matter --clearly second-hand smoke--into the air of large population centers.
> That doesn't require legislation...just maintenance. But the political payback is small.
> 
> I happen to agree with the restrictions on smoking, but what's the harm in pointing out hypocrisy or questionable logic or inconsistent policy decisions?


Yes - sorry cuchu my quoting you was just for my comment immediately below disagreeing that the government should use taxation to protect people from themselves.

The rest of my post was not aimed at you - or rather not directly - but against the recurrent theme seen many times above pointing out all the other ills in the world that the law does not cover.

Some people seemed to be suggesting that the fact that other problems were not solved was reason enough to reject the new law on smoking. Of course, discussing the fact that there are other _passive_ noxious influences out there that have not been addressed is certainly on-topic and interesting. Why has smoking in public places been banned before, say, polluting vans. Well as a guess at least vans and cars serve a purpose. They are keeping the country running. Passive smoke comes from people smoking which serves no useful purpose. Doesn't mean vehicle pollution shouldn't be solved but reducing passive smoking is probably easier and has less negative knock-on effects - and most importantly if we can reduce passive smoking I think the discussion should be around why not, rather than why should we.


----------



## Like an Angel

timpeac said:
			
		

> Ok kids at home are not covered from smoke.


 
Well, if my memory serves me well and I haven't heard it wrong, the Argentinian law contemplates this, and, as I said, the smokers could smoke just in their yards, not even inside the house.-


----------



## sean

hello everyone, 

not a lot of people have really touched on the rights of bar and restaurant owners. i mean isn't the bar or restaurant their property just as much as their house is their property? shouldn't they be allowed to determine if smoking is or is not permitted? and then allow the patrons to attend depending on whether or not they want to be in a smoky bar? i mean i dunno, seems a little unfair to me if i own a restaurant and i can't say if it's a smoking place or not. the owners shouldn't have that option taken away from them. from this thread, if i declared my restaurant or bar to be non-smoking, sounds like i'd have a real money-maker... 

if you smoke, how would you react if an establishment (not by government mandate, but by management's discretion) did not allow smoking inside? would you complain? would you not go? would you step outside to smoke if the place were worth being at? i think the last one. it's not that hard to step outside. it's where most of the cool people will be anyway right? 

the problem with both sides talking about their "space" at a bar or a restaurant is that it's not your space, and it's not my space. it's the owner's space. s/he just lets us be there because we're paying for drinks and food. 


best,

sean


----------



## nycphotography

Well on the original subject, I am currently in NY, although I have lived and travel extensively through the midwest, east coast, and south east US.

When NY banned all smoking in retaurants, I cheered.  Not because I want to punish smokers, or save them from their own suicide, but because I was good and tired of them ruining MY meal with THEIR smoke.  They would have the "decency" to wait until their party had finished eating (never mind that I, at the next table was just getting my appetizer, but losing my appetite) and they would politely hold the cigarette away from their party (nevermind that they were holding it behind their back but directly in my face).

Then, when NY banned all smoking in bars and clubs, I was...  stunned!  How could they?  Did they go too far?  I mean, a bar without smokers?  The place will be empty.  But, people adapted.  The bars and clubs weren't empty.

Some time later, on a return trip south, I stopped for dinner.  I asked for, and got, the non smoking section, but in North Carolina... really, is there such a thing?  The smoke is so thick you truly can't get away from it.  My eyes watered, my throat burned, but I wasn't even upset... I was just glad I didn't have to deal with it in NY.

And... to be able to stop in for a drink on the way home and not have to send all my clothes to the cleaners... I've come to believe NY actually got something right for a change.

Smoking really should be prohibited ANYPLACE where someone else MIGHT be subjected to YOUR smoke.  Period.

I think, by the way, that NYC outlawed boom-boxes on the subway under Guliani, and they require that dog owners pick up after their mutts.  Same premise, in my opinion.   

No thank you, I don't want to smoke your cigarette.  In fact, I don't want to listen to grandmaster flash while trying to read on the subway.  And I don't particularly enjoy stepping in your dog's boo boo.

On the subject of cell phones, they got it wrong.  The people who bother me on cell phones aren't the ones in their own car.  It's the ahh... ahem who's talking in my ear on the train on his stupid push*to*annoy speaker phone.


----------



## nycphotography

sean said:
			
		

> not a lot of people have really touched on the rights of bar and restaurant owners. i mean isn't the bar or restaurant their property just as much as their house is their property?


 
The fact is that once a restaurant holds itself open to the public, it becomes something of a public place, subject to local laws and regulations.

If it is truly private property, why have the health inspector checking on the kitchen?  Why have zoning and business permits?

If restaurant wants to become a "private club" (and not accept members from the public), they are more than welcome to do so.


----------



## fenixpollo

timpeac said:
			
		

> Why has smoking in public places been banned before, say, polluting vans.


 Because the public, as a whole, is not sufficiently angry at vehicular pollution to force lawmakers to take action.  There is not a significant segment of the population who are "non-drivers" clamoring to reduce pollution from cars.  Nobody in this forum has started a heated argument about whether or not to drive, or why driving is inherently immoral or detrimental to the environment and human health.  When I see that thread, I'll know that we're nearly ready for anti-car legislation.

And the point of debating obesity along with smoking is to debate whether "to protect the public good" is a valid reason to ban smoking.  If the government sets the precedent by banning smoking, what other freedoms (not _rights_, mind you), might the government decide to curtail, using the same arguments?


----------



## sean

i wasn't so much thinking of putting up a sign that says "private club" as much as a sign that says "no smoking."

good point about kitchen inspection, zoning, etc.


----------



## timpeac

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> And the point of debating obesity along with smoking is to debate whether "to protect the public good" is a valid reason to ban smoking. If the government sets the precedent by banning smoking, what other freedoms (not _rights_, mind you), might the government decide to curtail, using the same arguments?


 
But that's the bit I dispute - the aim was not to protect the health of smokers but the health of those affected passively by it. Smoking has not been banned, only the right to do it where it affects others.

If smoking did not harm others, only those who partook in it, I would be vehemently against any law banning it (as long as taxation paid for any cost to society for the smokers' choice to smoke).

Eating fast food harms only you, not others.


----------



## fenixpollo

timpeac said:
			
		

> Eating fast food harms only you, not others.


 To reiterate the argument, tim, smoking and eating fatty foods hurt all of society, to the tune of around 160 billion dollars a year.

But you are correct -- it's off topic since that wasn't the justification for Spain's new law.


----------



## I.C.

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> There is one more slice of economics that hasn't been discussed in detail here.


 From “Yes, Prime Minister - The Smoke Screen”:


> Sir Humphrey (Cabinet Secretary): “The only little problem is that the tax on tobacco is also a major source of revenue for the government.”
> Jim Hacker (PM): “It’s also a major source of death from diseases.”





> Jim Hacker : “It says here: Smoking related diseases cost the NHS £165 million a year.”
> Sir Humphrey: “Yes, but we’ve been into that.
> It has been shown that if those extra 100 000 people had lived a ripe old age they would have cost us even more in pensions and social security than they did in medical treatment.
> So financially speaking it’s better they continue to die at about the present rate.”





> Jim Hacker: “Humphrey, we are talking about 100 000 deaths a year.”
> Sir Humphrey: “Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the National Health Service.
> We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntarily lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors.”


----------



## cuchuflete

Greetings I.C.

I don't know whether your post is supposed to be fictional or factual, but, as a gross generality, what PMs and Cabinet Secretaries say in public often leans heavily towards fiction.

They have a habit of blowing smoke up our........intellects.


----------



## Quebar

despues que haya orden y justicia en la imposicion de una ley como esta podra traer grandes beneficios a los españoles y porque no si un pais toma este ejemplo podra tener mayor orden tambien, no piensen mucho en las empresas que producen este tipo de productos, hay que pensar en que si es beneficioso buscar la salud de un pueblo o por lo menos contribuir para ello.
esto no es quitarle libertad a los que fuman, esta es una ley que ayuda simplemente a una convivencia mas saludable.

gracias por sus opiniones amigos foreros.


----------



## Anna Più

Hi,
Gracias a todos y a todas para haber echo del tema, un espacio de debate interesantísimo!  No imaginaba que éste _thrade_ recogería tantas discusiones…  uf! 
 
A lo mejor es que cuando nos tocan las rutinas (y sobre todo las libertades) todos nos volvemos un poco susceptibles…  y la nueva ley nos las ha tocado.  
 
Para mí, la ley más equitativa para las libertades de todos seria que todos los bares y restaurantes fuesen para todos: fumadores y no fumadores, con espacios bien diferenciados para unos y para otros y que en el trabajo hubiera espacios habilitados para los fumadores…  (Un par de minutos uno/a los usa para fumar, otro/a para irse a comprar un bocadillo u otro/a para sacarse un te a la máquina de la oficina…así que no vale el tema de la productividad…)
 
Para mi cada uno es libre de respetar la salud de uno mismo, pero cuando actuamos socialmente debemos primar el sentido común y respetar siempre al otro (un otro que también tiene que primar el sentido común y respetar al otro…) _ecco_ el secreto y la dificultad! 
 
Saludos,
A+


----------



## I.C.

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Greetings I.C.
> 
> I don't know whether your post is supposed to be fictional or factual, but


 It's from a TV-series. A rather accurate and quite brilliant political satire, in my opinion.
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Critical_reception
A fan page:
http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm#YPM%201.3


----------



## srsh

Anna Più said:
			
		

> Para mí, la ley más equitativa para las libertades de todos seria que todos los bares y restaurantes fuesen para todos: fumadores y no fumadores, con espacios bien diferenciados para unos y para otros


 
Por ahí se dice que un área de fumadores en un restaurant es como un área en una alberca/piscina para quienes quieren orinar dentro de ella, ya que por más que la delimites, no puedes evitar que el agua de ambas se mezcle


----------



## ampurdan

Today I've discovered that the new Spanish Anti-tobacco Act does not ban the entrance of minors into smoking restaurants, bars, cafés etc.; but only bans minors when they don't go in with an adult... ¡Habrase visto tamaño despropósito! Quite a piece of nonsense. Children can be exposed to tobacco pollution when parents don't mind them to be?

Well, actually the owner of the restaurant will have less trouble expelling the minors when going by their own than were a complaining adult goes with them... I mean, supplies their lack of legal capacity.


----------



## Roi Marphille

I.C. said:
			
		

> From “Yes, Prime Minister - The Smoke Screen”:


hey, I've seen that episode and I actually wanted to quote it as well yeterday! That was a great serie!. BUT it's from 1986 or something and we are talking about Spain not Great Britain. I guess it is different.


----------



## annettehola

Roi, quit calling me Ms. Annette. I'm Annette, and that's how I like it. I have told you what I think and feel on the subject of smoking. I totally agree that there is a - as you call it - crusade going on here. Against smoking..or is it smokers? It is my view; too, that what society calls "health concern" and bla-bla-bla is nothing but a pseudo-thing to disguise what it's really about: Saving money on the health budget. If it was not like that, and if the concern was real and honest, many, many, many more harmful things would be prohibited.
Annette


----------



## Laia

Anna Più said:
			
		

> Para mí, la ley más equitativa para las libertades de todos seria que todos los bares y restaurantes fuesen para todos: fumadores y no fumadores, con espacios bien diferenciados para unos y para otros y que en el trabajo hubiera espacios habilitados para los fumadores…


 
mmm... Anna, Anna... I disagree.

Entonces pasaría como hasta ahora. Ejemplo: mi grupo de amigos. 30% son fumadores. Salimos a cenar. ¿Dónde vamos? Pues a la zona de fumadores, porque necesitan su piti... Partir a la gente en fumadora y no fumadora no sirve de nada, porque siempre acaba pasando lo mismo.

saludetes,
Laia


----------



## annettehola

I, on the other hand, agree with you; Anna Píu. Of course! That's just logical! Clearly and evidently: We respect others by treating them the way we would like them to treat us. If you, who do not smoke, are entitled to sit in a room with your dinner and your coffee, then I, who smoke, should be entitled to the exact same thing. The only difference between you and me in this respect is the cig. Your room and my room should be seperated because you do not like my cig.
Annette


----------



## Laia

Well Annette, I think that's not the way friendship works... Do you really divide your friends in smoking and non-smoking in normal life?


----------



## annettehola

I never ever make divisions when dealing with people. The law cares for that. My friends and me? We love each other. If not, we would obviously not be friends. Most of my friends smoke. That was not my point, Laia. My point was that the same rights should be applied to smokers as well as those that do not wish to indulge in the pleasures of smoking.
A.


----------



## Laia

Ok, I was giving just an example of normal life with division in smoking and non-smoking areas. An example of the fact that it doesn't work (it doesn't work for non-smokers, obviously). One of the reasons why I think the new law is good.
Lots of non-smokers have dinner in smoking areas. That was the idea. Nothing else.


----------



## annettehola

Sorry, I don't understand you.
Annette


----------



## Laia

Vale, no me explico bien en inglés. 
La idea era esta: un restaurante dividido en fumadores y no fumadores no complace a ambos por igual. 
Los grupos de amigos se forman por afinidades, por cariño, etc y no por ser o no fumador. Yo no voy por la vida diciendo: tú fumador, tú no fumador. Yo veo a personas. 
Cuando el grupo sale a cenar, y el camarero (o quién sea) pregunta: "¿quieren mesa en fumadores o en no fumadores?" enseguida alguien dice "¡fumadores!" y no te enteras y ya estás sentado en la zona de fumadores. ¿Qué le vamos a hacer? _Fulanito_ necesita fumarse un piti con el café después del postre... Esta suele ser la explicación.
Cuando vas a la zona de no fumadores, normalmente es porque la de fumadores ya está llena. O porque vas a cenar con 2 amigos y ninguno fuma.
Quizás no me entiendes porque no te pones en el lugar del no fumador. No te culpo, obviamente a ti te beneficia este sistema.


----------



## annettehola

I never go the non-smoking area in any restaurant or bar. It is not only because I adore smoking. It is also because of the people in the two areas. I don't know why exactly, but I find smokers to be more fun, more alive..at least for the moment..
And that's so. For me.
Annette


----------



## Anna Più

srsh said:
			
		

> Por ahí se dice que un área de fumadores en un restaurant es como un área en una alberca/piscina para quienes quieren orinar dentro de ella, ya que por más que la delimites, no puedes evitar que el agua de ambas se mezcle


 
Hola srsh,
Cuando digo espacios bien diferenciados estoy diciendo bien diferenciados. Dos espacios dentro de uno... pero la misma entrada para todos. Para mi no es equiparable el orinar con el fumar. 

Saludos,
A+


----------



## Anna Più

Laia said:
			
		

> mmm... Anna, Anna... I disagree.
> 
> Entonces pasaría como hasta ahora. Ejemplo: mi grupo de amigos. 30% son fumadores. Salimos a cenar. ¿Dónde vamos? Pues a la zona de fumadores, porque necesitan su piti... Partir a la gente en fumadora y no fumadora no sirve de nada, porque siempre acaba pasando lo mismo.
> 
> saludetes,
> Laia


 
Hola Laia,
No pasaría coma hasta ahora, si entre amigos entendieramos que tenemos todos el mismo derecho. La solución práctica sería... un dia a la zona de fumadores,otro dia a la de no-fumadores... es como todo en este mundo... hay que saber negociar bien con los amigos , y llegar a pactos lo más complacientes para todos... déjame creer que es posible!
Bon dia!
A+


----------



## Laia

Anna Più said:
			
		

> Hola Laia,
> La solución práctica sería... un dia a la zona de fumadores,otro dia a la de no-fumadores... es como todo en este mundo... hay que saber negociar bien con los amigos , y llegar a pactos lo más complacientes para todos... déjame creer que es posible!
> Bon dia!
> A+


 
Claro, no me matéis tan rápido. Envenenadme hoy sí y mañana no...  
Annette, no me creo que aceptes esta idea... un día comer con los muermos y otro con los cachondos... 

jajajaja   

Bon dia Anna. Perdona'm, però no he pogut evitar dir-ho...


----------



## Roi Marphille

Laia said:
			
		

> ¿Qué le vamos a hacer? _Fulanito_ necesita fumarse un piti con el café después del postre... .


wow! tus amigos son fantásticos si sólo fuman un piti con el postre!!!.

Mis amigos fuman: 
- uno, dos o tres antes de esperar el primer plato. Depende de lo que tarde. 
- inmediátamente después de SU primer plato, encienden uno. NUNCA miran si los otros han acabado pero no se lo fuman hasta que los no-fumadores han acabado si y sólo si se lo pedimos. 
- otro después del segundo, o entre el segundo y el postre encienden mas. 
- con el postre mas y mas. 
- con el café también.  

PD: entiendo que el placentero es el del café, los otros me sobran. Y creo que son los que sobran a la mayoría de la gente, sobretodo a la gente de las mesas annexas. 

Una pregunta: 
¿algún fumador ha notado la nueva ley? porqué yo no me he enterado. Continuo siendo un fiel fumador pasivo. Será que salgo poco.. 

saludos
Roi


----------



## Laia

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> wow! tus amigos son fantásticos si sólo fuman un piti con el postre!!!.


 
Obviamente no sólo fuman un piti con el postre, Roi. Era una manera de decirlo.


----------



## Alundra

Laia said:
			
		

> La idea era esta: un restaurante dividido en fumadores y no fumadores no complace a ambos por igual.
> Los grupos de amigos se forman por afinidades, por cariño, etc y no por ser o no fumador. Yo no voy por la vida diciendo: tú fumador, tú no fumador. Yo veo a personas.


 
¿A quién quieres engañar??? Tú no ves personas... tú ves gente que tiene tus mismas preferencias o no las tienes...

Laia, perdona pero, después de ver todos tus últimos mensajes, mi consejo es que te busques amigos que tengan todas tus aficciones... porque está visto que como no les guste lo que a ti... no son tus amigos... eso me lo has dejado bastante claro.

Si no quieres tragar humo yendo con tus amigos.... buscate amigos que no fumen, y se te acabo el problema, chica.

Yo gracias a Dios ya no soy fumadora... te puedo decir que la mayoría de mis amigos siguen siendo fumadores ¿y que? ¿no voy a ir con ellos porque fumen? Yo sí... porque son *mis amigos* y adonde no les dejen estar a ellos no podremos estar todos juntos. 
Tú con los tuyos haz lo que debas...

Ya dije yo desde mi primer mensaje que esta ley la veía absurda... y veo que la mayoría opinan como yo...

Alundra.


----------



## Laia

Alundra, la única afición que no comparto con algunos de mis amigos es el piti. Estoy siendo tan brusca con mis opiniones por varios motivos:

1- defensar mi punto de vista
2- el anonimato

¿Conoces el dicho "tengamos la fiesta en paz"? Por eso normalmente no digo todo lo que pienso, y por eso ahora lo suelto todo de golpe.


----------



## annettehola

Muy bien dicho, Alundra. Estoy de acuerdo con todo lo que dices.
Todo.
Annette


----------



## Laia

Alundra said:
			
		

> Ya me di cuenta en este hilo qué no-fumadores son tolerantes y no-tolerantes....


 
Hay gente que muere debido a esta tolerancia.
Siento que tengas esa opinión de mi.


----------



## Anna Più

annettehola said:
			
		

> I, on the other hand, agree with you; Anna Píu. Of course! That's just logical! Clearly and evidently: We respect others by treating them the way we would like them to treat us. If you, who do not smoke, are entitled to sit in a room with your dinner and your coffee, then I, who smoke, should be entitled to the exact same thing. The only difference between you and me in this respect is the cig. Your room and my room should be seperated because you do not like my cig.
> Annette


 
Hi Annette,
I'm with you only in a part... for me the tolerence in this point is also that an smoker could sit in a table without smoking, to respect the other... this is the pleasure of frienship... today I give you to you, tomorrow you give me to me...


> I never go the non-smoking area in any restaurant or bar. It is not only because I adore smoking. It is also because of the people in the two areas. I don't know why exactly, but I find smokers to be more fun, more alive..at least for the moment..
> And that's so. For me.
> Annette


 
Well Annette, ... a cigarrette doesn't make a character... a person is who is for a lots of things... is a reduccionist point to say that a smoker is funny and a non-smoker is boring...  wake up! I have a lot of interesting-funny and + + + + + + other incredible adjectives non smoker friends! 

Best regards ,
A+


----------



## Laia

Alundra said:
			
		

> (Y a esto que tu haces... no es a lo que yo llamo normalmente tolerancia, ejejejj pero bueno, cada uno lo llama como quiere no???


 
Dime que debo hacer para ser tolerante. Nadie me lo ha explicado.  
En serio, no es ironía. ¿En que fallo? Necesito una opinión sincera.

P.D: Por cierto, antes me has corregido "defensar". Pero está admitida por la RAE. Según ellos en desuso, pero correcto al fin y al cabo.


----------



## annettehola

I am fully awake. I have not said non-smokers are boring people. I have said, that I most often find smokers to be funnier and more alive. I maintain that. I have noticed that people that smoke often laugh more than people who don't. As I said, I don't know why that is. 
It's the same with singers. They sing better if they smoke, at least according to my taste. I like folk music. 
Annette


----------



## Carlston

Alundra said:
			
		

> ¿A quién quieres engañar??? Tú no ves personas... tú ves gente que tiene tus mismas preferencias o no las tienes...
> 
> 
> Si no quieres tragar humo yendo con tus amigos.... buscate amigos que no fumen, y se te acabo el problema, chica.
> 
> *Busco amigos que no fumen, no me llamen por tlf despúes de las 22, estén siempre de acuerdo con lo que yo diga, seán de mi equipo de futbol, vistan como a mi me guste y sean mas feos que yo!!*
> 
> *VENGA YAAAAA!!!! eso no lo  veo así Alundra*
> 
> Yo gracias a Dios ya no soy fumadora... te puedo decir que la mayoría de mis amigos siguen siendo fumadores ¿y que? ¿no voy a ir con ellos porque fumen? Yo sí... porque son *mis amigos* y adonde no les dejen estar a ellos no podremos estar todos juntos.
> 
> *Esto es muy bonito, parece una canción de Amaral, a mi hay en sitios y circunstancias que no me importan que fumen, pero yo no me meto en un restaurante a comer, si  a mis amigos les da por fumar más que por comer, a mi no me importa el cigarro con el cafe, lo entiendo, lo comprendo y jamas pondría pegas, pero durante la comida no!!!*
> 
> 
> Ya dije yo desde mi primer mensaje que esta ley la veía absurda... y veo que la mayoría opinan como yo...
> 
> _*¿Qué es la mayoría? La mayoría es un absurdo: la inteligencia ha sido siempre de los pocos. *_
> Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller
> 
> 
> 
> Alundra.


 
Un saludito

Carlston


----------



## Anna Più

annettehola said:
			
		

> I am fully awake. I have not said non-smokers are boring people. I have said, that I most often find smokers to be funnier and more alive. I maintain that. I have noticed that people that smoke often laugh more than people who don't. As I said, I don't know why that is.
> It's the same with singers. They sing better if they smoke, at least according to my taste. I like folk music.
> Annette


 
Hi Annette,
Laught and nice voice linked with to smoke... also to much reduccionist!

A+


----------



## Anna Più

annettehola said:
			
		

> True nonetheless, darling!
> Annette


 
Hi Annette,
I don't want to discusse to much on this because think that laugh and nice voice are linked with smokers is a point of view, subjective.

Smoke change the voice. that's a fact.  to Nicer? to uglier? 
But, Annette! laught has nothing to do with smoke or non smoke (only in the case that you smoke another kind of substances! )

A+


----------



## Roi Marphille

Laia, 
I'll be your friend!  
no kidding, our beloved-smoker friends do harm us without noticing it. Yes, they love us. Even we are cool or not. 
It is not their aim nor their goal to harm us, they don't say something like: "I'm going to kill him/her" or " I want for him/her the cancer I may have for me". I bet they would/will even visit us in the hospital. 
BUT, they should be more aware of the danger. It is real  . No kidding. 

 PS: May some forero seek for data reg. deaths as a consequence of second-hand smoke? I'm afraid I don't have time now but I happen to remember that there were 3000 deaths/yearly in USA. I don't know the data in Europe. 

cheers


----------



## Laia

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> Laia,
> I'll be your friend!
> no kidding, our beloved-smoker friends do harm us without noticing it. Yes, they love us. Even we are cool or not.
> It is not their aim nor their goal to harm us, they don't say something like: "I'm going to kill him/her" or " I want for him/her the cancer I may have for me". I bet they would/will even visit us in the hospital.
> BUT, they should be more aware of the danger. It is real  . No kidding.


 
Roi, precisamente por eso me callo y tengo la fiesta en paz. (Porque me quieren y lo sé, aunque según algunos foreros debería buscar otros amigos, la verdad es que no quiero a otros, sino a ellos).

Pero cuando me paro a pensar, es cuando me surgen estas inquietudes.

Gràcies per entendre'm

El tema de discusión en este thread no somos ni yo ni mis amigos, así que adiós, porque no creo que escriba nada más sobre el tema.


----------



## annettehola

"But, Annette! laught has nothing to do with smoke or non smoke...."

I think it does! Also when you're not high on pot.  Call it "reducionist," if you like. I have stated before, that I am not faithful to any -ism whatsoever. 

If you are so neat and correct and oh-so-clean and good and this is your opinion of yourself (Anna! Misunderstand me not:"you" is not you personally), you are closer to hypocrisy than those that dare take a risk and be frank about what they feel and feel like. This is my opinion.

Henry Miller once said "The good people, huh? Such people often cause more harm than all the bad guys together. Those that pretend to help others and be good are often assholes when it comes down to it. I like the charlatan, the trickster for he is much more honest."

This is my opinion; too.

The book is:"One life is enough. Conversations with Georges Belmont."

Annette


----------



## Anna Più

Alundra said:
			
		

> ¿A quién quieres engañar??? Tú no ves personas... tú ves gente que tiene tus mismas preferencias o no las tienes...
> 
> Laia, perdona pero, después de ver todos tus últimos mensajes, mi consejo es que te busques amigos que tengan todas tus aficciones... porque está visto que como no les guste lo que a ti... no son tus amigos... eso me lo has dejado bastante claro.
> 
> Si no quieres tragar humo yendo con tus amigos.... buscate amigos que no fumen, y se te acabo el problema, chica.
> 
> Yo gracias a Dios ya no soy fumadora... te puedo decir que la mayoría de mis amigos siguen siendo fumadores ¿y que? ¿no voy a ir con ellos porque fumen? Yo sí... porque son *mis amigos* y adonde no les dejen estar a ellos no podremos estar todos juntos.
> Tú con los tuyos haz lo que debas...
> 
> Ya dije yo desde mi primer mensaje que esta ley la veía absurda... y veo que la mayoría opinan como yo...
> 
> Alundra.


 
Hola Alundra,
Un poco de calma por favor! Gracias! 
Laia está diciendo que siempre va con sus amigos fumadores. Ella es más tolerante que nadie, porqué siempre acaba en la zona de fumadores, y siempre es ella quien da su generosidad a sus amigos.
Es normal que los no-fumadores quieran que sus amigos un dia se sienten a su lado sin fumar. A todos nos gusta recibir no?

Saludos, comprensión y sobretodo, respeto.
A+


----------



## annettehola

You; too, man, Anna! Alundra gave her heartfelt opinion. Show respect for that.
Annette


----------



## Anna Più

annettehola said:
			
		

> "But, Annette! laught has nothing to do with smoke or non smoke...."
> 
> I think it does! Also when you're not high on pot. Call it "reducionist," if you like. I have stated before, that I am not faithful to any -ism whatsoever.
> 
> If you are so neat and correct and oh-so-clean and good and this is your opinion of yourself (Anna! Misunderstand me not:"you" is not you personally), you are closer to hypocrisy than those that dare take a risk and be frank about what they feel and feel like. This is my opinion.
> 
> Henry Miller once said "The good people, huh? Such people often cause more harm than all the bad guys together. Those that pretend to help others and be good are often assholes when it comes down to it. I like the charlatan, the trickster for he is much more honest."
> 
> This is my opinion; too.
> The book is:"One life is enough. Conversations with Georges Belmont."
> Annette


 
Hi Annette,
World is full nuances... and fortunately I feel frank and free among them! 

Regards,
A+


----------



## annettehola

Good. Just don't limit yourself to the nuances that exclude smokers, smoke or tobacco. That would equal not wanting to see, feel and love all the nuances of the world.
Annette


----------



## Chipiron

Hola!!
 
Soy fumadora y estoy de acuerdo en que se debe proteger a los no fumadores, pero esta ley es una bazofia. 
 
1º. Estoy de acuerdo en que se prohiba fumar en los centros de trabajo.
 Hasta el viernes pasado fumaba en mi oficina y aunque ahora mismo me está costando no hacerlo, creo que es lo correcto porque mis compañeros no fumadores no tienen porque respirar mis humos. Ahora bien, lo que me parece intolerable y hasta dictatorial es que no se permita crear una zona de fumadores en las empresas (en muchas ya existia) para que aquellos que fuman puedan hacerlo en su momento de descanso. ¿Por qué ha de obligarse a la gente a salir a la calle?. 
Los fumadores sabemos que es malo para nuestra salud, pero considero que dejarlo debe ser una opción personal y no impuesta. Además, solo se consigue cuando uno está realmente convencido de que quiere dejarlo.
 
2º Locales con humo / sin humo. 
Lo de la hosteleria es la mayor cagada de la ley. Mientras que a un local de menos de 100.m la ley no le afecta para nada (ya que con seguir siendo de menos de 100 m asunto arreglado puesto que no creo que vayan a perder mucha clientela) a los de más de 100 m les obliga a decidir si quieren perder clientela o no, realizar reformas en sus instalaciones.... Esto no es justo. La ley deberia ser igual para todos. O se permite elegir en todos o se prohibe fumar en todos.
 
3º Según la ley, se realizaran campañas para que la gente deje de fumar. ¿Dónde están?, ¿Funcionan las campañas televisivas?. Por ahora la S.S. no te presta ninguna ayuda para dejar de fumar.  Si te presentas en el médico diciéndole que quieres dejarlo (por lo menos donde yo vivo) te dice que te compres los parches (y alguno hasta duda de su efectividad) pero el no te receta nada, ya que la S.S. no lo cubre. Tampoco se organizan terapias para fumadores.  Me prohíben dejar de fumar por que es malísimo para mi salud y para el que me rodea, pero no me ayudan a dejarlo.
 
Por último me parece que el gobierno está demostrando tener una doble moral con este asunto. Por un lado prohibe su consumo y nos trata como apestados pero por otro se enriquece con su venta. No te ayuda a dejarlo, solo lo prohibe.  Si tan malo es ¿Por qué no lo prohibe y deja de venderlo?. No hay ni prevención ni concienciación, solo prohibición.
 
 
¿Qué es lo próximo?, ¿El alcohol?.  Algo ya he oido....


----------



## clipper

Hola Chipiron,

Voy a adivinar que tu no eres funcionario...... no soy vidente pero puedo decir eso porque nadie te paga las ayudas para dejar de fumar, pero a los funcionarios si...... ¿porque valen más sus vidas que las nuestras?


----------



## annettehola

Because they work for the State, man!!!
Ah!
Annette


----------



## Roi Marphille

Chipiron said:
			
		

> Hola!!
> 
> Soy fumadora y estoy de acuerdo en que se debe proteger a los no fumadores, pero esta ley es una bazofia.
> 
> 1º. Estoy de acuerdo en que se prohiba fumar en los centros de trabajo.
> Hasta el viernes pasado fumaba en mi oficina y aunque ahora mismo me está costando no hacerlo, creo que es lo correcto porque mis compañeros no fumadores no tienen porque respirar mis humos. Ahora bien, lo que me parece intolerable y hasta dictatorial es que no se permita crear una zona de fumadores en las empresas (en muchas ya existia) para que aquellos que fuman puedan hacerlo en su momento de descanso. ¿Por qué ha de obligarse a la gente a salir a la calle?.
> Los fumadores sabemos que es malo para nuestra salud, pero considero que dejarlo debe ser una opción personal y no impuesta. Además, solo se consigue cuando uno está realmente convencido de que quiere dejarlo.
> 
> 2º Locales con humo / sin humo.
> Lo de la hosteleria es la mayor cagada de la ley. Mientras que a un local de menos de 100.m la ley no le afecta para nada (ya que con seguir siendo de menos de 100 m asunto arreglado puesto que no creo que vayan a perder mucha clientela) a los de más de 100 m les obliga a decidir si quieren perder clientela o no, realizar reformas en sus instalaciones.... Esto no es justo. La ley deberia ser igual para todos. O se permite elegir en todos o se prohibe fumar en todos.
> 
> 3º Según la ley, se realizaran campañas para que la gente deje de fumar. ¿Dónde están?, ¿Funcionan las campañas televisivas?. Por ahora la S.S. no te presta ninguna ayuda para dejar de fumar. Si te presentas en el médico diciéndole que quieres dejarlo (por lo menos donde yo vivo) te dice que te compres los parches (y alguno hasta duda de su efectividad) pero el no te receta nada, ya que la S.S. no lo cubre. Tampoco se organizan terapias para fumadores. Me prohíben dejar de fumar por que es malísimo para mi salud y para el que me rodea, pero no me ayudan a dejarlo.
> 
> Por último me parece que el gobierno está demostrando tener una doble moral con este asunto. Por un lado prohibe su consumo y nos trata como apestados pero por otro se enriquece con su venta. No te ayuda a dejarlo, solo lo prohibe. Si tan malo es ¿Por qué no lo prohibe y deja de venderlo?. No hay ni prevención ni concienciación, solo prohibición.
> 
> 
> ¿Qué es lo próximo?, ¿El alcohol?. Algo ya he oido....


Hola Chipirón!
que bien que alguien hable del tema del thread  
Estoy de acuerdo contigo con el punto 1. Referente al punto 2, estoy mas o menos de acuerdo también. 
Ref. al punto 3. Creía que la S/S hacía algo, estaba mal informado. Sí, debería hacer algo para ayudar a los fumadores a dejarlo. Creo entender que hay un plan para esto. 
Ref. a tu comentario: "Por un lado prohibe su consumo y nos trata como apestados pero por otro se enriquece con su venta. No te ayuda a dejarlo, solo lo prohibe. Si tan malo es ¿Por qué no lo prohibe y deja de venderlo?. No hay ni prevención ni concienciación, solo prohibición."
No estoy de acuerdo porqué el Gobierno NO se enriquece con la venta de tabaco, gana impuestos pero ya se ha dicho que el balance es negativo. La nueva Ley no prohibe fumar, sólo limita las zonas dónde se puede, tú misma estás de acuerdo con algunos aspectos de la Ley. Creo que no se prohibe para respetar la voluntad de los que quieren fumar, que entiendo que tenéis vuestro derecho. Sí creo que hay prevención y concienciación, almenos eso es lo que creo por lo que he visto en TV, anuncios impresos, etc..
 
El tema del alcohol lo veo diferente porqué no es malo en sí, es sólo el exceso el que lo hace malo. 
 
saludinhos
Roi


----------



## Chipiron

clipper said:
			
		

> Hola Chipiron,
> 
> Voy a adivinar que tu no eres funcionario...... no soy vidente pero puedo decir eso porque nadie te paga las ayudas para dejar de fumar, pero a los funcionarios si...... ¿porque valen más sus vidas que las nuestras?


 
Pues tienes razón. No, no soy funcionaria. Y la verdad, no me extraña enterarme de que se las pagan. ¡Si solo fuera eso!!!....


----------



## Carlston

clipper said:
			
		

> Hola Chipiron,
> 
> Voy a adivinar que tu no eres funcionario...... no soy vidente pero puedo decir eso porque nadie te paga las ayudas para dejar de fumar, pero a los funcionarios si...... ¿porque valen más sus vidas que las nuestras?


 
Bufffffffff,

Entonces permitirme una postura un poco demagógica:

Un NO-fumador tiene que pagar las enfermedades producidas por el tabaco de un FUMADOR y además cuando a este le apetezca dejar de fumar,los NO-fumadores deberían tambien costearle los gastos???

La balanza esta desequilibrada, yo soy Ex-fumador y no he necesitado ayudas del estado para dejar de fumar, lo que gastaba en tabaco lo reinvertí en caramelos y chicles, y al poco tiempo, ni tabaco, ni caramelos, ni chicles.

Saludos


----------



## I.C.

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> hey, I've seen that episode and I actually wanted to quote it as well yeterday!


 Evidently the whole issue of taxation and potential hypocrisy of governmental policies is totally irrelevant to the topic on hand, anyway, the justification or refusal of public bans on smoking. But as this unrelated issue has been brought up, I just couldn’t resist. 


> That was a great serie!. BUT it's from 1986 or something and we are talking about Spain not Great Britain. I guess it is different.


 In essence it will never be different. Which is not the fault of one particular class of people. The series “Yes Minister”, “Yes, Prime Minister” and the accompanying books (which do add something) convey universal truths. Most useful introduction into realpolitik and the mechanisms of bureaucracies I know of. Invaluable.


----------



## annettehola

"Evidently the whole issue of taxation and potential hypocrisy of governmental policies is totally irrelevant to the justification or refusal of public bans on smoking"

In what way is that evident, man? 

Would you care to explain?

Annette


----------



## Roi Marphille

I.C. said:
			
		

> In essence it will never be different. Which is not the fault of one particular class of people. The series “Yes Minister”, “Yes, Prime Minister” and the accompanying books (which do add something) convey universal truths. Most useful introduction into realpolitik and the mechanisms of bureaucracies I know of. Invaluable.


yes my friend, I really appreciate your valued contribution . It is true what you state reg. the essence and I consider your notes as valid. Nevertheless, I'd say that the data is different, just the data. I happen to remember that in the serie, they concluded that the money from taxes was well-worthy many deaths because the balance was positive...maybe I'm wrong. Sorry if I am, I've seen the episode like centuries ago.


----------



## Chipiron

Hola!



			
				Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> Hola Chipirón!
> que bien que alguien hable del tema del thread
> Estoy de acuerdo contigo con el punto 1. Referente al punto 2, estoy mas o menos de acuerdo también.
> Ref. al punto 3. Creía que la S/S hacía algo, estaba mal informado. Sí, debería hacer algo para ayudar a los fumadores a dejarlo. Creo entender que hay un plan para esto.
> *Tal vez en algunos sitios estén haciendo algo. Donde yo vivo desde luego no. Un amigo mio fue al medico porque lo quiere dejar y la respuesta de su médco simplemente fué que probara con los parches, (aunque el no confiaba mucho en ellos) y que no le podia recetar nada.*
> 
> Ref. a tu comentario: "Por un lado prohibe su consumo y nos trata como apestados pero por otro se enriquece con su venta. No te ayuda a dejarlo, solo lo prohibe. Si tan malo es ¿Por qué no lo prohibe y deja de venderlo?. No hay ni prevención ni concienciación, solo prohibición."
> No estoy de acuerdo porqué el Gobierno NO se enriquece con la venta de tabaco, gana impuestos pero ya se ha dicho que el balance es negativo.
> 
> *No estoy al tanto de las “finanzas” del gobierno. Por supuesto que puede ser que el balance sea negativo y lo sera mucho más de ahora en adelante. Tambien me gustaria saber que variables comtemplan en el gasto, que gastos sanitarios consideran directamente relacionados con el tabaco....*
> *Y de todos modos, aunque elimine el argumento del enriquecimiento, me sigue pareciendo una doble moral venderlo si tan malo es.*
> **
> 
> La nueva Ley no prohibe fumar, sólo limita las zonas dónde se puede, tú misma estás de acuerdo con algunos aspectos de la Ley.
> 
> *La limitación excesiva es prohibición: Se prohibe fumar en los centros de trabajo, en los aeropuertos, en los centros comerciales..... Sigo diciendo que hay que velar por los derechos de los  no fumadores pero ¿Por qué prohibir habilitar una zona especifica para los fumadores?*
> 
> Creo que no se prohibe para respetar la voluntad de los que quieren fumar, que entiendo que tenéis vuestro derecho. Sí creo que hay prevención y concienciación, almenos eso es lo que creo por lo que he visto en TV, anuncios impresos, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> El tema del alcohol lo veo diferente porqué no es malo en sí, es sólo el exceso el que lo hace malo.
> 
> *Totalmente de acuedo contigo. Es un tema distinto aunque creo que al final todo se reduce a una cuestión de educación y respeto a los demás.*
> 
> Pero por lo de pronto, la Ministra ya ha tirado el primer dardo:
> *La ministra de Sanidad, Elena Salgado, ha destacado la necesidad de lograr con el alcohol «un consenso parecido al logrado con el tabaco»*
> 
> 
> saludinhos
> Roi


 
Saludos,


----------



## Roi Marphille

Yep, estoy de acuerdo en que haya zonas explícitas para fumadores en aeropuertos, trabajo etc.. Lo he visto en algunos países y creo que está bien que existan.  
La ley no es perfecta


----------



## Chipiron

Carlston said:
			
		

> Bufffffffff,
> 
> Entonces permitirme una postura un poco demagógica:
> 
> Un NO-fumador tiene que pagar las enfermedades producidas por el tabaco de un FUMADOR y además cuando a este le apetezca dejar de fumar,los NO-fumadores deberían tambien costearle los gastos???
> 
> La balanza esta desequilibrada, yo soy Ex-fumador y no he necesitado ayudas del estado para dejar de fumar, lo que gastaba en tabaco lo reinvertí en caramelos y chicles, y al poco tiempo, ni tabaco, ni caramelos, ni chicles.
> 
> Saludos


 

¡Hay tantas cosas que pagamos y no utilizamos! 
Soy fumadora y en mi vida he pisado un hospital. Mi hermana,  su marido,  y mis sobrinos (*no fumadores*) llevan chupado más hospital del que en toda su vida laboral podrian pagar. Y no me quejo

Pero bueno, a parte de este comentario ridiculo que no sirve para justificar nada, creo que *el deber de la S.S. es velar por la salud de todos*.
Si empezamos a analizar las conductas de los individuos para decidir lo que la S.S. debe cubrir o no podemos llegar a miles de situaciones que serian discutibles y que en mi vida cuestionaria porque creo que son necesarias:

¿Debe cubrirle la S.S. los tratamientos de metadona a los toxicomanos?
¿Debe la S.S. cubrir los gastos de un conductor suicida?
¿Debe la S.S. cubrir los gastos sanitarios de un alcoholico?

No creo que se trate de que el No Fumador pague lo que hace el Fumador. Se trata de que la sanidad pública es pública y está ahí para todos. Yo con mi aportación costeo lo que me pueda pasar a mi, a ti y a cualquier ciudadano.

Saludos


----------



## Carlston

Chipiron said:
			
		

> ¡Hay tantas cosas que pagamos y no utilizamos!
> Soy fumadora y en mi vida he pisado un hospital. Mi hermana, su marido, y mis sobrinos (*no fumadores*) llevan chupado más hospital del que en toda su vida laboral podrian pagar. Y no me quejo
> 
> Pero bueno, a parte de este comentario ridiculo que no sirve para justificar nada, creo que *el deber de la S.S. es velar por la salud de todos*.
> Si empezamos a analizar las conductas de los individuos para decidir lo que la S.S. debe cubrir o no podemos llegar a miles de situaciones que serian discutibles y que en mi vida cuestionaria porque creo que son necesarias:
> 
> ¿Debe cubrirle la S.S. los tratamientos de metadona a los toxicomanos?
> ¿Debe la S.S. cubrir los gastos de un conductor suicida?
> ¿Debe la S.S. cubrir los gastos sanitarios de un alcoholico?
> 
> No creo que se trate de que el No Fumador pague lo que hace el Fumador. Se trata de que la sanidad pública es pública y está ahí para todos. Yo con mi aportación costeo lo que me pueda pasar a mi, a ti y a cualquier ciudadano.
> 
> Saludos


 
Hola Chipiron

No has entendido mi postura, porque probablemente no me he explicado bien.

Estoy en todo de acuerdo contigo, en que afortunadamente las personas que estamos sanas gracias a Dios no tenemos que gastar de la seguridad social (por ahora, toco madera), y por supuesto se ha de ayudar alas personas enfermas, sea por culpa del alcohol, las drogas etc....

Donde yo discrepo es en las ayudas "para dejar de fumar", ya que las veo innecesarias, salvo quizas casos extremos.

Si vamos a comparar las ayudas con tratamientos con metadona y las "hipoteticas" ayudas para dejar de fumar. comparemos entonces el TABACO con la COCAINA, Heroina,etccc y que lo PROHIBAN,   no??

Saludos


----------



## Chipiron

Carlston said:
			
		

> Hola Chipiron
> 
> No has entendido mi postura, porque probablemente no me he explicado bien.
> 
> Estoy en todo de acuerdo contigo, en que afortunadamente las personas que estamos sanas gracias a Dios no tenemos que gastar de la seguridad social (por ahora, toco madera), y por supuesto se ha de ayudar alas personas enfermas, sea por culpa del alcohol, las drogas etc....
> 
> Donde yo discrepo es en las ayudas "para dejar de fumar", ya que las veo innecesarias, salvo quizas casos extremos.
> 
> Si vamos a comparar las ayudas con tratamientos con metadona y las "hipoteticas" ayudas para dejar de fumar. comparemos entonces el TABACO con la COCAINA, Heroina,etccc y que lo PROHIBAN, no??
> 
> Saludos


 
Totalmente de acuerdo contigo en cuanto a las comparaciones. Pero, no estoy de acuerdo en que las ayudas sean innecesarias. No todo el mundo afronta las cosas de la misma manera y no a todos nos cuesta lo mismo hacer algo.
Soy fumadora, y lo he dejado en dos ocasiones. En ninguna de las dos ocasiones necesité ayuda, simplemente *profundo convencimiento* de que queria dejarlo. Sin embargo, conozco a gente que con el convencimiento no le llega, que necesita algún tipo de ayuda (parches, libros, terapias...). ¿Porque no proporcionarla?

Saludos,


----------



## Carlston

Chipiron said:
			
		

> Totalmente de acuerdo contigo en cuanto a las comparaciones. Pero, no estoy de acuerdo en que las ayudas sean innecesarias. No todo el mundo afronta las cosas de la misma manera y no a todos nos cuesta lo mismo hacer algo.
> Soy fumadora, y lo he dejado en dos ocasiones. En ninguna de las dos ocasiones necesité ayuda, simplemente *profundo convencimiento* de que queria dejarlo. Sin embargo, conozco a gente que con el convencimiento no le llega, que necesita algún tipo de ayuda (parches, libros, terapias...). ¿Porque no proporcionarla?
> 
> Saludos,


 
Por eso yo decia "salvo quizas casos extremos" 

Tu eres un ejemplo de que dejar de fumar es fácil, ya lo has dejado 2 veces, yo, íncluso lo deje más veces  

Un saludillo

PD:este foro es muy malo, me estan entran ganas de fumar,


----------



## Chipiron

Carlston said:
			
		

> Por eso yo decia "salvo quizas casos extremos"
> 
> Tu eres un ejemplo de que dejar de fumar es fácil, ya lo has dejado 2 veces, yo, íncluso lo deje más veces
> *¡Pues va a ser que no!. Lo dejé 2 veces, lo que significa que volví 2 veces.*
> Un saludillo
> 
> PD:este foro es muy malo, me estan entran ganas de fumar,


 
Si, pero que se le va a hacer. Por lo de pronto yo estoy con el chicle ¡que ya ni sabe a menta ni a nada! y aun me quedan 40 min.


Saludos,


----------



## GenJen54

This thread has wafted and fumed its way to many topics.  

I you wish to continue discussing about the current state of Smoking in Spain and smoking laws, you are welcome to do so. 

Criticism about fellow forer@s, whether they smoke, don't smoke, partake in other extracurricular activities will not be tolerated. 

Any future posts that do not comply with such shall be subject to deletion.   If forer@s in general fail to respect these guidelines, the thread will be closed.

Thank you and have a nice day.


----------



## I.C.

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> , I'd say that the data is different, just the data.


You’re right, the numbers may not apply . In this scene Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker also argue whose numbers are just statistics and whose statistics are facts.
Jim Hacker: "These figures are just guesses."
Sir Humphrey: "No, they are government statis..... they're facts."


			
				annettehola said:
			
		

> "Evidently the whole issue of taxation and potential hypocrisy of governmental policies is totally irrelevant to the justification or refusal of public bans on smoking"
> 
> In what way is that evident, man?
> 
> Would you care to explain?
> 
> Annette


If you want that, I can. But before proceeding any further, two questions to limit redundancy:

Do you think smoking is harmful?
Yes.
Yes, but not all that much. At least not on the average.
No.
Maybe.

Do you think passive smoking is harmful?
Yes.
Yes, but not all that much. At least not on the average.
No.
Maybe.


----------



## annettehola

To the person that smokes; yes. But it can be debated. There are people that live till they're 90 and more having been smoking heavily since their teens.

To me personally; no. To those that smoke that way - and thereby avoid paying for the tobacco they consume this way (...eh??? ha! ha!) that could be; yes.

Annette


----------



## timebomb

annettehola said:
			
		

> I have said, that I most often find smokers to be funnier and more alive. I maintain that. I have noticed that people that smoke often laugh more than people who don't. As I said, I don't know why that is.



I'm a smoker too and I'm with Annette on this.  I also find that generally, smokers are more generous people.  Smokers laugh more often and live more for the moment because they know life is short.  You become more aware of your mortality when everyone around you who's a non-smoker keeps reminding you how cigarettes damage your health :lol:  They are more generous people for the simple reason that if, in the first place, they are willing to pay a lot of money for their cigarettes, they won't think twice about spending extra on their friends.


----------



## Roi Marphille

timebomb said:
			
		

> I'm a smoker too and I'm with Annette on this. I also find that generally, smokers are more generous people. Smokers laugh more often and live more for the moment because they know life is short. You become more aware of your mortality when everyone around you who's a non-smoker keeps reminding you how cigarettes damage your health :lol: They are more generous people for the simple reason that if, in the first place, they are willing to pay a lot of money for their cigarettes, they won't think twice about spending extra on their friends.


   you are kidding right?
This can not be taken seriously. I bet you are joking, aren't you?


----------



## ampurdan

timebomb said:
			
		

> I'm a smoker too and I'm with Annette on this. I also find that generally, smokers are more generous people. Smokers laugh more often and live more for the moment because they know life is short. You become more aware of your mortality when everyone around you who's a non-smoker keeps reminding you how cigarettes damage your health :lol: They are more generous people for the simple reason that if, in the first place, they are willing to pay a lot of money for their cigarettes, they won't think twice about spending extra on their friends.


 
Sure. I'm going to call some friends. We will buy the booze somewhere (generously paying taxes) and will come to your courtyard to make a Carpe diem! party, we'll all get drunk and force you to get drunk, we won't care about what we brake or what we make filthy, because it is not our courtyard after all... See how "generous" and "fun" no-smokers can be?


----------



## cuchuflete

We are drifting into speculation....and the personality characteristics of smokers and non-smokers. This is not only off-topic, it's just silly.

We may just as well all go to a restaurant, sit in our respective smoking and non-smoking sections, or wander between the two, and invent government statistics

Shall we return to the topic of the thread, or just close it?


----------



## cuchuflete

Annette, Roi....Calmados

Yo me pregunto ¿Si intento dejar de fumar otra vez seguro que
voy a tener el mono...verdad?  Lógicamente hay que preguntar si el mono debe sentarse en el lado de fumadores o de no-fumadores.
Ahora bien....hay de los monos tolerantes y los que no.  A lo mejor no vengan una pandilla de estos que gritan....

Si Roi, hemos visto una colección de opiniones humanos, inclusive de las que yo, como experto en la materia tendría que clasificar como BS, y de muy buena cepa...pero en fin...


abrazos para todos,
cuchu


----------



## cuchuflete

Por si acaso....





> Hi,
> In the 1rst of January will be a new law in Spain to band to smoke in public buildings, work spaces, trains, bars and restaurants. (Information here and here)
> I think the Spanish smoking citizens aren’t ready to face the law…
> How is going in Ireland and in Italy? Do people respect the law? Have been reduced the tobacco sales?
> 
> 
> _Health!_
> A+
> 
> Hola,
> 
> El próximo 1 de enero va entrar en vigor en España la nueva ley del tabaco, que prohíbe fumar en locales públicos, lugares de trabajo, trenes, bares y restaurantes. (Información aquí y aquí)
> Yo creo que la ciudadanía española fumadora no está muy preparada para esto. ..
> ¿Como les va en Irlanda? ¿Y en Italia? ¿La gente ha respetado la ley? ¿Ha bajado la venta de tabaco?


----------



## srsh

Anna Più said:
			
		

> Yo creo que la ciudadanía española fumadora no está muy preparada para esto. ..


 
Yo pienso, al menos con base en los posts que he visto en este thread, que tienes toda la razón.


----------



## ampurdan

Yo sí creo que estamos muy preparados para eso. Se ha ido avisando con antelación de la entrada en vigor de la ley, así que la gente ha tenido tiempo para mentalizarse que en el trabajo se va a acabar poder fumar. Hay mucha gente que se está planteando seriamente y da pasos para dejar el hábito desde que se habla de la ley. La gente que fuma socialmente no suele fumar en el trabajo. 

No dejar fumar en el trabajo puede parecer coercitivo para la libertad de las empresas, pero es sólo una medida de higiene más. En respuesta a una observación hecha en este thread, dudo que sea inconstitucional: art. 33 de la Constitución: "1. Se reconoce el derecho a la propiedad privada y a la herencia. 2. La función social de estos derechos delimitará su contenido, de acuerdo con las leyes".

Por otra parte, en determinadas empresas es muy fácil saltarse la prohibición a la torera... Pero esto es como todo en esta vida nuestra bajo el querido y chapucero Estado de Derecho.


----------



## panjandrum

WOW!
I see that this thread asks about the effects of the limited smoking ban in Ireland. It applies in the Republic of Ireland - not yet in Northern Ireland. I have been there for several holidays since the ban.
I observed that the ban is, generally, observed with no problems. For most of us it is great. To visit a bar or restaurant and leave not stinking of stale smoke is welcome. To taste food and drink, rather than someone else's pollution, is great.
There is a new social milieu for smokers outside the enclosed spaces. The rest of us are happy - and indeed laughing - to leave them to it.

I see no sign of a ban on my own little vice. I am a natural-odoro-flavourist.
When I visit a bar or restaurant I spray extract of pig shit. I love it - it makes me feel at home and its so relaxing. The mist tends to fall on the other diners, and into their food. But as I say, they don't _have_ to stay.

Sometimes people point out that my pigs are reputed to carry active anthrax, but none of my family have died as a result of my natural-odoro-flavourism


----------



## Roi Marphille

For readers information outside Spain: 
The TV ads say: "en el fondo sabes que es bueno para ti" or something. Well, actually I think that it is very good! I'd say that most of my smoker friends agree with that and agree with the Law. Of course, it's hard for them to avoid to smoke in the job place. But they usually say: "_it's good because this way I smoke less cigarrettes a day, but it's hard. I need strenght and willpower_"
what do you guys think?


----------



## Anna Più

panjandrum said:
			
		

> WOW!
> I see that this thread asks about the effects of the limited smoking ban in Ireland. It applies in the Republic of Ireland - not yet in Northern Ireland. I have been there for several holidays since the ban.
> I observed that the ban is, generally, observed with no problems. For most of us it is great. To visit a bar or restaurant and leave not stinking of stale smoke is welcome. To taste food and drink, rather than someone else's pollution, is great.
> There is a new social milieu for smokers outside the enclosed spaces. The rest of us are happy - and indeed laughing - to leave them to it.
> (...)


Hi Panjandroum,
In fact, when I went to Dublin people tell me about this: no more stinking clothes, eat without smoke and smells... they explain it to me outside the bars, where we were smoking, and I feel this agree of people with the law...
It's very surprising, that the law in Spain isn't as hard as how is in the Republic of Ireland. However the reaction of lot of smokers in Spain is hard-non acord-and non happy with the new law.

Another thing: In Dublin exists big ashtreis in the streets. You can't see pieces of cigarrettes on the floor at there... is not like this in Spain... 

Regards,
A+


----------



## panjandrum

Almost all workplaces here are smoke-free.  Facilities for the addicted are provided at remote locations and our generous labour laws do not penalise them for the fact that they work shorter hours than the rest of us.  I expect the fact that they cost the company less in pension terms balances this.


----------



## virtdave

well, smoking sure does promote strong opinions--in part because of its insidiously addictive, and slowly poisonous qualities.  The fiercest anti-smoking  rants are often from ex-smokers, followed by those from people who have been (or think they have been) harmed by secondary smoke.  Eventually, smoking will be banned in all European and North American countries, based largely on the (now pretty much) incontrovertible evidence that secondary smoke is indeed hazardous, and that the costs of smoking to the government exceed any taxes that can be reasonably collected.  It may take a bit longer in China and Japan.

Sorry to post only in English, my Spanish is useless.....


----------



## GenJen54

My state has already implemented laws banning smoking in public places including the workplace, in schools and in all government buildings. As of March 1, a quasi-ban will go into effect in restaurants. Restaurants can either go completely “non-smoking,” or offer enclosed areas for smokers with separate ventilation and air filtration systems. Most restaurants are opting to go completely “smoke-free” since it will cost them less money. 

My state also recently implemented a 0.13 cent per pack tax which subsidizes state hospitals and trauma centers, one of which was on the brink of closing because of the high cost of caring for uninsured individuals who come in for cardiac care as related to smoking (and obesity). Thus far, the tax increase is not keeping smokers from purchasing cigarettes.

The issue with implementing smoking bans and laws, as has already been discussed, is not so much what smokers are doing to themselves, but what they are (intentionally or not) doing to other people.

Here are a few notable facts on second-hand smoke (in the U.S.). The link where the information is compiled can be found here: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

In the U.S., secondhand smoke can be attributed to approximately 40,000 deaths *annually* in non-smokers via cardiac and pulmonary disease;
Levels of “environmental smoke” in bars and restaurants are found to be 2-5 times higher than in residences with smokers;
Second hand smoke is responsible for respiratory problems in 150,000 – 300,000 children under the age of 18 months – annually;
3,000 – 7,500 children in the U.S. are hospitalized annually for respiratory problems as a result of second-hand smoke and causes up to 2,700 cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) annually in the U.S.
The bottom line? When a smoker chooses to smoke, that smoker is taking another person’s life in his or her own hands. The habit goes beyond his or her own boundaries. If I choose to overeat, while someone may be repulsed by looking at me, my over-eating is only doing *direct physical harm *to myself. When a smoker chooses to smoke, that smoker endangers my life as well as the lives of the others around them.

States and countries have laws regarding drinking and driving and its consequences. While someone else’s drinking may not *directly* affect me in the sense that I cannot get ill or die from a drinker’s bad breath, if said drinker elects to get into a car after a few beers and endanger my life by driving, then that decision has an effect on my life and the life of others.

How does that differ from others’ smoking and its effects on my health? 
As far as I see it, the choice is this: Would smokers rather have a “ban” on where they are able to smoke in public, or would they have a law indicting them for endangering the lives of others because of second-hand smoke?

For the record, I did smoke, notably during my years as a college co-ed when such a habit was part and parcel to my social integration into the college “experience.” I have long-ago quit, but still from time to time crave a cigarette, especially when in a bar enjoying a nice cocktail, or while enjoying a robust coffee after a particularly lovely meal.


----------



## JazzByChas

I grew up in the days when there was no ban on smoking in public places. So everyday, both at home and in public places, I, and other non-smokers were exposed to cigarette smoke. I believe the trend, here in America, has been that more and more states and municipalities are implementing no-smoking in public places laws, which are implemented in nearly every state of the union.

I will say that I, myself, have never smoked a cigarette (with the exception of marijuana on a couple of occaisions, back in my younger daze... ). But as GenJen has pointed out, there are consequences from second-hand smoke. I believe this is a _major catalyst_ in the laws banning public smoking. If only smokers were involved, these kinds of laws would never have been an issue in the first place. That, and the fact that you cannot deny the unfortunate consequences of smoking. Smokers and the major tobacco companies have tried to lobby these laws out of existence, but many class actions suits later, not only have the laws gone into effect with greater vigor, but Tobacco companies have had to support these laws, and even promote campaings that warn about the adverse effects of smoking.

This kind of law was passed a few years back in the Washington, DC area, and we have had a no smoking in any public place (indoors) law in Florida for a while, and it doesn't seem to hurt anybody, and is rather ironic, because most of the redneck southerners here do a lot of smoking...


----------



## Agnès E.

France has voted a law forcing companies to offer smokers a separate room (smoking-room). As we are allowed by law to have some regular 10-mn pauses during our working hours, smokers spend this pause in their pecular room. It is forbidden to smoke in any other areas.
Regarding other public premises, smoking is banned in all government buildings where the public is welcome.
It is forbidden to smoke in shops as well (but I think it has alwas been).
Restaurants and cafés must offer separate areas for smokers and non-smokers.
Planes are non-smoking nowadays, and trains tend to be (what I personnally find rather harsh for smokers; why not keep the idea of smoking passenger carriages?)

These laws are relatively well enforced. Besides the price of cigarettes which has been multiplied by almost 3 in 10 years, this has surely contributed to decrease the number of smokers (teenagers find difficult now to start smoking, cigarettes are so expensive that they cannot afford them; and smoking in a café is not that trendy anymore.)


----------



## cuchuflete

The thread starter question, as nearly as I can recall, didn't ask anyone's opinion about whether second hand smoke is good or bad for people.


----------



## cuchuflete

Quebar said:
			
		

> esta ley lo que busca es justicia, orden y equidad.



¿Justicia?

De ninguna manera.

¿Orden?

¿como?

¿Equidad?   No lo creo.

Lo que busca la ley no tiene nada que ver con las preguntas de Ana Più.



> Yo creo que la ciudadanía española fumadora no está muy preparada para esto. ..
> ¿Como les va en Irlanda? ¿Y en Italia? ¿La gente ha respetado la ley? ¿Ha bajado la venta de tabaco?


----------



## Quebar

lo que trato de decir con esto es que si se aplica o se sigue aplicando la ley con respecto a los fumadores, se puede desarrollar orden, justicia y equidad.

gracias por sus opinones amigos foreros.


----------



## Alundra

Pues yo creo que esta ley sí se va a cumplir. Yo no veo ahí ningún problema. De hecho, en España ya hace mucho que no se puede fumar en los edificios públicos como grandes almacenes, hospitales, muchos centros de trabajo... en muchos transportes públicos (si no en todos).... esto creo que no se había comentado anteriormente en el hilo... y todo hay que decirlo, aunque eso no se quiera reconocer.... la gente cumplía... porque yo no he visto nunca a nadie en un supermercado o en un centro público fumando... 

La ley lo único que hace es ampliarse un poco más, a todos los centros de trabajo y a los bares y restaurantes.
Quiero decir (creo que ya lo dije antes) que yo estoy de acuerdo en que no se fume en lugares cerrados, siempre lo estuve...
Por lo que yo la veo absurda es porque al final, y después de tanto revuelo, la diferencia entre antes de la ley y después, no es tan abismal y encima, los impuestos los han subido una barbaridad a los fumadores y seguirán subiéndolos (cosa que los no-fumadores les da exactamente lo mismo) ... y lo que es más importante... enfrenta fumadores con no-fumadores... 

Pero bueno... supongo que al final todos contentos de nuevo y a seguir con la rutina.



			
				Roi said:
			
		

> El tema del alcohol lo veo diferente porqué no es malo en sí, es sólo el exceso el que lo hace malo.


 

Yo creo, que si fumas un cigarro de uvas a peras tampoco es malo. Lo malo es la adicción. Y que yo sepa, el alcohol también crea adicción. Y en exceso también perjudica a los demás, no sólo al que lo toma, porque más de una persona (a decir verdad, demasiadas) a resultado muerta a consecuencia de un accidente de tráfico provocada por un conductor bebido. 
De hecho, el problema del alcohol en España tampoco es que sea pequeño... no sé yo cual causará más muertes...

Y sí, me parece que es la siguiente ley en la lista. Así que, a los que les guste tomarse una copita o un whisky de vez en cuando, que vaya preparando el bolsillo... que el gobierno saldrá con números negativos (a saber)... pero los impuestos siguen subiendo...

Alundra.


----------



## CrazyIvan

Recently, there is similiar situation in Taiwan, while the tabacco company and other NPOs are arguing over the establishment of this new law. And it is still in Parliment and expected to be passed soon within this session of parliment meeting.

The content of the law is similiar to spanish one. And the debating issue is about tabacco plant subsidy and smoking environment. We used to have government monopoly on tabacco and liquor, so the subsidy become anissue in this act as well.

Actually, people in Taiwan smoke, but mostly in open spaces. So, that will be fine for most of us I believe. As lots of people mentioned about this situation in Europe, I got the same feeling....while I am an exchange in Norway, I am so surprised that how many people do smoking and how many places they can smoke...same as spain. but I believe all this will change while I go back there next time.

I remeber a Norwegian slogan for non-smoking environment. I found it interesting and would like to share it with you all.

"The only thing we smoke here is salmon."


----------



## I.C.

annettehola said:
			
		

> "Evidently the whole issue of taxation and potential hypocrisy of governmental policies is totally irrelevant to the justification or refusal of public bans on smoking"
> 
> In what way is that evident, man?
> 
> Would you care to explain?


 Scenario:
There are serious concerns that a highly infective and very lethal variant of the flu may emerge in the foreseeable future. Assume a pharmaceutical company manages to develop a basis for a vaccination. It can be clearly shown that this basis could be easily and quickly custom-tailored into an effective vaccination against such a virus once it’s there.
The company could make a lot of money with this.
Pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money. They are no benefactors. This one might not care at all whether it saves a single life. The financial backers might have decided to invest in the development of new weapons of mass destruction instead if the likely revenue appeared to be better.
The vaccination as such would still be a good medicament, saving many lives. 

Same argument applies to bans on public smoking as far as the matter of potential governmental hypocrisy is concerned.
_If_ the official justification for a public ban was to protect smokers from _themselves_, then not raising the tax on tobacco sky high, so high that many would give up smoking, would hypocritical.Then adjusting taxation to a level where tax revenue is maximal would be hypocritical and justifying a ban on public smoking _with the argument of saving smokers_ from themselves would be, too*. 
But regardless of that, here people argue that a ban of smoking in public and at the workplace is justified as it protects those from damage from passive smoking who do not consent to it. This argument holds. 

___________________________________________________________________________
*: The way I see it, outright banning may be some kind of moral stance, but no useful policy. No ban on drugs has worked so far, different matter, though. And just by the way, if the goal was to cut or balance total costs of smoking to national economy, that’s an entirely different thing altogether.


			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> Do you think smoking is harmful?





			
				annettehola said:
			
		

> To the person that smokes; yes. But it can be debated. There are people that live till they're 90 and more having been smoking heavily since their teens.


No, it’s not debatable. 
Harmful: Causing or capable of causing harm; injurious. (according to Dictionary.com)
If some people do reach an old age despite heavy smoking, due to a combination of luck and constitution, it does not make this debatable.


----------



## Quebar

Hola,

El próximo 1 de enero va entrar en vigor en España la nueva ley del tabaco, que prohíbe fumar en locales públicos, lugares de trabajo, trenes, bares y restaurantes. (Información aquí y aquí)
Yo creo que la ciudadanía española fumadora no está muy preparada para esto. .. 
¿Como les va en Irlanda? ¿Y en Italia? ¿La gente ha respetado la ley? ¿Ha bajado la venta de tabaco?

¡Saludos!
A+


españa, irlanda, italia, alemania, son paises europeos que estan acostumbrados al orden, ahora nadie esta preparado 100% para las renovaciones, pero muchas veces las renovaciones son beneficiosas en base al concepto de beneficio que tengan los fumadores y los no fumadores, esta ley trata o intenta es de poner un poco de orden en los establecimientos publicos, para que los que fuman tengan su sitio adecuado y respetable, y los que no fuman tengan su sitio respetable y adecuado, al comienzo traera discuciones y un poco de incomodidad, pero al final la probabilidad de obtener buenos resultados es elevada, las empresas productoras procesadoras de tabaco no se van a quedar con los brazos crusados, este tipo de leyes pueden sensibilizar las ventas, por lo que preparan un plan de marketing masivo para que el cigarrillo no pierda posicionamiento en la mente de consumidor y asi el propio consumidor sea estimulado hacia su consumo a pesar de que se haya establecido una ley de esta indole.

otro punto importante para resaltar es que esta ley tiene la probabilidad de disminuir el indice de fumadores pasivos en los establecimientos publicos. 

gracias amigos foreros, por sus aportes y criticas.


----------



## ampurdan

And I would add, what is hypocritical is to force other people to breathe the venenous smoke of a cigarrette arguing that everyone is free to do what they want to do.

Alundra, this Act has not been aproved by the Government, it has been aproved by the Spanish Parliament by a majority which includes the two major parties. Anyway, I don't see why you say this law sets smokers against no smokers. When I've smoked in front of no-smokers that disliked my cigarrette, they could get understandably angry at my smoking: my smoking set us against. It's not the law what sets people against each other.


----------



## ampurdan

¡Ah! Se me olvidaba, tampoco le veo el sequitur a:

1. Se prohíbe fumar en locales concurridos.
2. Se prohíbe beber.

La razón del "non-sequitur" se explica en el post de I.C., pero me parece que es bastante evidente.


----------



## Alundra

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Alundra, Anyway, I don't see why you say this law sets smokers against no smokers. When I've smoked in front of no-smokers that disliked my cigarrette, they could get understandably angry at my smoking: my smoking set us against. It's not the law what sets people against each other.


 
Ampurdan... yo no voy a discutir eso.. y en cualquier caso, lo mejor es que sea como dices  ... mejor todos en paz que mirarse mal... 

Alundra.


----------



## Laia

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The thread starter question, as nearly as I can recall, didn't ask anyone's opinion about whether second hand smoke is good or bad for people.


 
Yo sí creo que era importante hablar de los fumadores pasivos. Se me ha llamado intolerante (e hipócrita) por admitir que en ocasiones voy a zonas de fumadores a disgusto (aunque no siempre me atreva a manifestarlo), léase, que soy fumadora pasiva a disgusto. Es decir, que ser tolerante implicaba ser fumador pasivo que acepta alegremente serlo.  Se me ha aconsejado cambiar de amigos, para no ser fumadora pasiva. No se ha tenido en cuenta que la vida social de una persona es algo más que sus amigos, sino también, por ejemplo, compañeros de trabajo o familia. No puedo cambiar de compañeros de trabajo ni de familia. Suerte que no he sido la única que no ha entendido dónde está la lógica del argumento.

En el momento en que la gente deja de fumar para no dañar a sus hijos, está admitiendo que no quiere que sus hijos sean fumadores pasivos, léase se da por hecho que ser fumador pasivo es nocivo.
Creo que la hipocresía está en decir "no delante de mis hijos" pero "sí delante mío". Claro que debe protegerse a los menores. Pero los adultos también tienen derecho a esa protección, ¿no?

saludos


----------



## Alundra

Laia said:
			
		

> Yo sí creo que era importante hablar de los fumadores pasivos. Se me ha llamado intolerante (e hipócrita) por admitir que en ocasiones voy a zonas de fumadores a disgusto (aunque no siempre me atreva a manifestarlo), léase, que soy fumadora pasiva a disgusto. Es decir, que ser tolerante implicaba ser fumador pasivo que acepta alegremente serlo.  Se me ha aconsejado cambiar de amigos, para no ser fumadora pasiva. No se ha tenido en cuenta que la vida social de una persona es algo más que sus amigos, sino también, por ejemplo, compañeros de trabajo o familia. No puedo cambiar de compañeros de trabajo ni de familia. Suerte que no he sido la única que no ha entendido dónde está la lógica del argumento.
> 
> Nadie sino tú sacó el tema de los amigos, y únicamente yo te contesté (cosa que lamento haber hecho) que si tan a disgusto estabas, buscases amigos con tus mismas afinidades... tampoco dije que fuese algo lógico
> Esta frase:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tengo que “aguantar” a mis amigos fumadores cada día
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dime por favor que refleja para tí, imagina que te dicen que la ha dicho de ti un amigo tuyo.... ¿Tu que pensarías de un amigo "que te aguanta"?
> 
> 
> En el momento en que la gente deja de fumar para no dañar a sus hijos, está admitiendo que no quiere que sus hijos sean fumadores pasivos, léase se da por hecho que ser fumador pasivo es nocivo.
> Creo que la hipocresía está en decir "no delante de mis hijos" pero "sí delante mío". Claro que debe protegerse a los menores. Pero los adultos también tienen derecho a esa protección, ¿no?
> 
> saludos
Click to expand...

 
Yo sí creo que esto es un off-topic clarísimo, pero bueno... te contesto....

Por los hijos.... Sí... dejé de fumar por mis hijos, y si a eso tu lo llamas ser hipócrita, pues seré hipócrita y lo que tu quieras que sea. No considero que su exposición al humo sea la misma sólo en la calle que continuamente en casa. Y te digo más... es casi la razón más fuerte por la que dejé de fumar... si no la única.

Ahora también me gustaría hacerte una pregunta, porque parece que la palabra tolerancia no la tenemos demasiado clara....

¿Qué es para los no-fumadores ser tolerante? ¿En qué crees que debería consistir la tolerancia de los no-fumadores?

Alundra.
PD. 
Perdona si en algún momento te ofendí, porque no fue mi intención en absoluto, yo también suelo ser impulsiva al contestar, y debería pensar dos veces antes de contestar un mensaje...


----------



## ampurdan

Nadie tiene que tolerar algo que le está haciendo daño físico gratuitamente. Se le puede llamar a eso intolerancia, si se quiere. Pero entonces permitidme que llame intolerante a quien se queje porque le echen unos miligramos de cianuro en la comida cada día, de manera que además le convierte la comida en algo más desagradable.


----------



## Laia

Alundra, tranquila, ahora zanjamos (almenos un poco) el tema y ya está, nos quedaremos más tranquilas las dos.




> Nadie sino tú sacó el tema de los amigos, y únicamente yo te contesté (cosa que lamento haber hecho) que si tan a disgusto estabas, buscases amigos con tus mismas afinidades... tampoco dije que fuese algo lógico
> Esta frase:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originalmente publicado por *Laia*
> _Tengo que “aguantar” a mis amigos fumadores cada día _
> 
> 
> Dime por favor que refleja para tí, imagina que te dicen que la ha dicho de ti un amigo tuyo.... ¿Tu que pensarías de un amigo "que te aguanta"?


 
El tema de los amigos era un mero ejemplo de que el sistema divisorio entre fumadores y no fumadores no complacía a ambos por igual. Era un ejemplo. Si no se estaba de acuerdo me hubiese gustado que se desacreditara el argumento, y no se me desacreditara a mí como persona y a mis relaciones personales.
Puse "aguantar" entre comillas porque no se me ocurría otro verbo que emplear. Creo que es normal que haya cosas que entre amigos nos aguantemos unos de otros. Mis amigos aguantan de mi algunas cosas o defectos míos y yo otras cosas de ellos. Normalmente usamos el verbo "aguantar".



> Por los hijos.... Sí... dejé de fumar por mis hijos, y si a eso tu lo llamas ser hipócrita, pues seré hipócrita y lo que tu quieras que sea. No considero que su exposición al humo sea la misma sólo en la calle que continuamente en casa. Y te digo más... es casi la razón más fuerte por la que dejé de fumar... si no la única


 


> Ahora también me gustaría hacerte una pregunta, porque parece que la palabra tolerancia no la tenemos demasiado clara....
> 
> ¿Qué es para los no-fumadores ser tolerante? ¿En qué crees que debería consistir la tolerancia de los no-fumadores?


 
Ok, 2 cosas:
Lo de los hijos no lo dije pensando en ti, sino en mi propia familia (hoy ha sido el día de Reyes...). Pero es cierto que lo dijiste. Perdóname. No me gusta tocar los temas personales de otras personas.  

Respecto a la tolerancia, no tengo la respuesta a la pregunta. Pero sí veo claro que la respuesta no debe ser "hacer como si nada, como si no me diera cuenta de que soy fumadora pasiva".



> Perdona si en algún momento te ofendí, porque no fue mi intención en absoluto, yo también suelo ser impulsiva al contestar, y debería pensar dos veces antes de contestar un mensaje...


 
La verdad es que sí me ofendiste, por el motivo que he escrito más arriba básicamente. Comprendo esto de la impulsividad, tranquila, a mí también me sucede. 
Estoy de acuerdo en no hacer una guerra de esto. No es necesario y es agotador. 

Buenas noches
Laia


----------



## Roi Marphille

It's been few days since the new law and I started to have some conclusions: 
- smokers can smoke as before. No problem at all for them
- the ban to smoke in the jobplace may be the most problematic clause.
- people speak about this Law all the time and this is good because: ALL smokers say that they avoid to bother people with the smoke. According to them all, they have been doing it since ever which is not true. From my point of view, many smokers did care to avoid to bother non-smokers BUT many of them didn't give a shit about it. Now it's different because since they are stating that they care for others, they have to be consequent now with their words, so THIS IS GOOD! I noticed that in many bars, restaurants and in a discotheque. 

The conclusion is that this Law is good for the moment. I went to a restaurant today and it was weird to eat without smoke, really, it was great! Smokers had their part of the restaurant to smoke and everybody was happy! 
yesterday I went top a disco and it was split. It was great, smokers could smoke in their place and there was a free-smoke place. Nobody complained, it was normal and I felt very happy. I spent some time in the smoking area and some time in the free-smoking one. Went I went out of the disco my eyes were ok, normally they are damaged by the smoke. 

Thank you for this Law!!!


----------



## Isotta

In Bhutan tobacco is illegal. You can't buy it, and if you're caught selling it, you're charged two months' wages, which is about 240 USD. Foreigners can import and consume it privately, but are be charged with smuggling if they are caught selling it to Bhutanese. Bhutanese health officials claimed that the law was in the interest of future generations and hope that other countries will follow suit. About four percent of the Bhutanese population smoked, as tobacco had to be imported and was expensive.

Interesting things to consider include Bhutan's dismissal of the "gross national product" concept in favour of "gross national happiness," which is relevant to previous posts speculating on profit/prophet (propfheit? oracular?) motives. I suppose the government dismissed notions of passive betel nut chewing, though I would be glad to see it go--does such awful things to your mouth.

I'd love to see McDo taxed for selling particularly unhealthy food. As a child I wasn't allowed to eat sweets. My mother had read studies that claimed a high sugar consumption inhibits growth and that mentioned obesity in children. Regardless of whether our household ban on sweets had an effect on my current tall/thin frame, I certainly don't hold it against her. Though as a real law, I could not argue for it with a straight face.

I could with smoking. Besides the cancer issue, more people have asthma than you think. And smoke triggers attacks. When you have an asthma attack, you feel as though your lungs fill up with blood or some liquid, rather slowly. And you wheeze. If you have bad asthma, you wind up in hospital. It's pretty awful. Thus was my most recent birthday, for a neighboring table full of heavy smokers. Not everyone you politely ask to stop smoking snites his cigarette. He might roll his eyes at your request. But he just might look mildly apologetic if you, gasping and wheezing, have to leave mid-meal to receive medical attention after his refusal. How unnecessary! Beurk, too dramatic for my liking.

I appreciate whenever someone at a neighboring table asks me if I mind if he smokes. But it's rare.

Z.


----------



## virtdave

Though I am completely convinced that smoking is very dangerous to the smoker, and fairly dangerous to his/her companions (voluntary or not), making tobacco illegal seems unwise.  To the extent that cannibis is dangerous, it's largely due to its status as an illegal drug (Spain, along with many European nations, has shown that decriminalising cannibis does not lead to social catastrophe).  Regulating both drugs (tobacco and cannibis) is a good policy, and again, Spain has behaved reasonably with respect to tobacco.  Bhutan's approach seems colossally heavy-handed; at least they have not proposed (as far as I know) the death penalty for tobacco smuggling, but this approach to drug regulation is not unheard of in Asia.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Well, 
Here we go!
This is the first guy to get arrested according to the new Law. His choice was to get arrested because he did not want to move some meters to the smokers zone. He was warned several times. *Well done policeman applying the Law!  *
Fee was 240 Euro. 
I must say that this guy is not representative of the average smoker!. Most of them agree with the Law and gladly follow the rules.


----------



## ampurdan

I wonder where you are at the moment, Roi.

As to your post. Wow. I never thought no one was going to be arrested to smoke where it is forbidden, but the law must be applyied by policemen and judges. I must also say that that guy was quite pigheaded.


----------



## Roi Marphille

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I wonder where you are at the moment, Roi.
> 
> As to your post. Wow. I never thought no one was going to be arrested to smoke where it is forbidden, but the law must be applyied by policemen and judges. I must also say that that guy was quite pigheaded.


Where am I?...what do you mean? I'm here.  
Reg. that guy, yes he acted very silly and pigheaded. I must admit that technically, he was arrested due to *disobedience* but the trigger was the new Tobbacco Law.


----------



## fenixpollo

> ha sido condenado a pagar una multa de 240 euros por un delito de desobediencia a los agentes.


 But he was fined for disobeying a police officer -- not for smoking.  The actual fine for smoking is 30 Euros (US$36.50) for a first offense.  This is the equivalent of 7 hours of work at the minimum wage in the U.S. -- that's "a pretty penny."


----------



## Roi Marphille

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> But he was fined for disobeying a police officer -- not for smoking. Correct?


yes, it is true. I noted it down in my previous post...but you know what happens in these cases, all media is going to say that he was arrested as a result of the new Law. 
Uncle Roi is predicting the future:
In two days we will have a million different stories about what happened. Probably some will say that he was beaten to be smoking or something like that..Hope I'm wrong. I'm afraid I won't.


----------



## ampurdan

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> But he was fined for disobeying a police officer -- not for smoking. Correct?


 
Yes, you and Roi are right... So they didn't apply the fine for smoking in a no-smoking area after all...


----------



## fenixpollo

I edited my post above to reflect your quick responses and to point out the relative cost in the US. Is 30 euros a lot of money in Spain?


----------



## Roi Marphille

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I edited my post above to reflect your quick responses and to point out the relative cost in the US. Is 30 euros a lot of money in Spain?


yeah, I'd say it's almost the same as in the US..?
To figure it out, a 10 trips Metro-ticket costs about 6.5Euro aprox. 
With 30Euros you may have a seat in the football Stadium. Not a good one though, at least in Barcelona.


----------



## fenixpollo

Thanks, Roi.  What about wages?  How much is 30 euros in terms of earnings? Or even better, let's put it into perspective... How many packs of cigarettes can you buy with 30 euros?

In my state, you could get 5 or 6 packs of Marlboro/Camel cigarettes for $36.50.


----------



## Roi Marphille

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Thanks, Roi. What about wages? How much is 30 euros in terms of earnings? Or even better, let's put it into perspective... How many packs of cigarettes can you buy with 30 euros?
> 
> In my state, you could get 5 or 6 packs of Marlboro/Camel cigarettes for $36.50.


I think a pack costs 2.70Euro ...?
Anyway, I like this famous BigMac index: check here.


----------



## ampurdan

You could buy 12 packs of Marlboro/Camel and 20 packs of the new supercheap brands.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thread topic is drifting away, like second-hand smoke in a bar....


----------



## fenixpollo

No, the conversation is not off topic.  We are discussing the new law in Spain, how much the fine is for violating the law, and how that fine compares to the cost of cigarettes.


----------



## panjandrum

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> No, the conversation is not off topic. We are discussing the new law in Spain, how much the fine is for violating the law, and how that fine compares to the cost of cigarettes.


Aha  
I was led astray by the first post in the thread - which asks about experience of the smoking restrictions in Italy and Ireland


----------



## Bonjules

Hello all,
For those who cannot read the entire thread (like me):
Is the law working? Are people comlying? Is it safe to visit Spain?


----------

