Despite its high smoking rates, Japan is steadily clamping down on smoking. Companies are banning smoking left, right and center, and JR will remove all its ashtrays from April 1, 2009. Are you for or against smoking in public?
Who Voted
Related Posts
56 comments
As a smoker I have always tried to be respectful and aware of who might be affected by my smoking but that is often not the case with others.
If someone wants to do that to themselves then that's their right but non-smokers equally have the right to choose when they will put themselves into that situation. Because when you smoke you essentially force everyone else around you do it too (unlike drinking or doing a line) there needs to be rules about where people can smoke so that non-smokers can make that choice. (Don't even get me started on people who force their smoke on their children.)
It's not about banning smoking, it's about banning smoking in public places where it affects other people. No one is going to stop anyone from smoking in their home!
...
yet.
I have friends who smoke and many of then are considerate to non-smokers. It's the few that aren't considerate that spoil it for everyone else. Be annoyed at those people, not non-smokers.
I am so tired of smokers waving the freedom flag when they refuse to admit other people have the same right - what makes them "more equal than others"?
So you are a smoker as well?
Char your own lungs, not mine!
B) The issue is smoking not car fumes
C) Why are you pitting one against the other - they are not mutually exclusive?
D) Governments around the world have been regulating car emissions for years and plan to continue doing so more strictly - perhaps the same model should be used for smoking?
To make a comparison, if I had to cycle behind a bus the entire time, then that would be like walking behind a smoker on the street.
I think restaurant and bar owners should be able to choose whether to be a smoke free establishment or not and just have to put up signs saying whether they are or not. I'm sure it would be a huge selling point either way and they are private businesses - the only problem is the health of the staff but new staff could be warned and sign some kind of waiver maybe?
Outside, though, or anywhere that people go and won't be able to make that choice (like outside the entrance to their office buildings), I think smoking should be banned. Shane and Chris are right about some people ruining it for others - who knows what it would be like if more smokers had given a thought to others but the majority just don't seem to - one look at the litter on streets and storm drains where it's not banned in the streets and you can see how much of it is made up of butts.
Here's what it's like for a non-smoker where they don't ban smoking in the streets:
I'm walking down the street and suddenly I get a lungful of smoke as someone turns into my path and walks in front of me this causes me to choke a little (doubt it if you like but it's true - try to remember the first time you smoked, didn't you cough and splutter?). Then, I can't get away from it billowing out behind them as we walk in the same direction and when I start to cough - they turn around and glare at ME as though I'M being rude!
Twice now in Melbourne I have had hot ash land on my glasses from some thoughtless git ashing their cigarette in the air - if I hadn't been wearing glasses I might have been blinded.
I have had to throw out three loved (and quite expensive)pieces of clothing from holes burned into them from people waving their cigarettes around thinking they are cool - never once did they offer to try to have it cleaned or fixed or to replace it, it's always just "Oh god, sorry" and a giggle.
I choose to go to a bar I know will be smoky once a week to be with friends but getting the smell out of my hair, skin and clothes afterwards every time is a real chore. When all I want to do is crash into bed, I can't till I've triple shampooed and exfoliated all over or else it gets in the bed sheets. Now the weather is colder and I can't just hang my clothes outside to air them (smoke doesn't wash out, wetting it only settles it in the fibres) it is even harder and it will be a genuine consideration when I decide whether to keep going to the quiz in winter.
Smokers generally fob off this kind of thing as some kind of attack and focus on their RIGHTS to smoke but it's not an attack it's a description of the way THEY are impinging on the RIGHTS of non-smokers.
There is no such thing as pure freedom for all - it is literally impossible. As Shane and Chris point out, most smokers have proven themselves to be non-self-governing so regulation has to be put in place.
Most of it is just common sense and politeness which the thoughtful smokers like Shane naturally do anyway.
perhaps the cigarette companies who got their customers addicted in the first place should build enclosed, properly ventilated areas on the platforms?
Customer service.
The "smelling smoke will kill me gang" have science, medecine, rationality and proven experience on our sides.
There is no point arguing with addicts who cannot see straight.
My opinion is as follows: we all live in a society. Perhaps the mantra of 'being free to do your own thing' worked and was a good idea when the planet did not support 6 billion souls. But now it does, and we all have to make an effort to make all our lives bearable.
I could easily say "I enjoy stealing from people, why am I not free to do that?". Of course, this is not a comparison and is in many ways a ridiculous example to make a point. But that point is this: society has rules, and sometimes we will not often agree with them.
I find smoking to be smelly, unpleasant, and as DBR pointed out, it's forced on me whether I like it or not. I've studied Aikido for 20 years - but I don't walk down the street throwing everyone I come across about. Likewise, I don't want to have to walk in a busy area with people blowing carcinogenic fumes in my face when I take such effort to lead a healthy life.
Not trying to incite anything, I respect everyone's views. These are just my own.
I can't wait to be able to sit in any restaurant I choose and breath clean air. In Tokyo, Starbucks is the only true non-smoking choice in the whole city, save for the few random places that are totally non-smoking.
I am watching the U.S. television series MAD MEN, which is set in 1960. They smoked a lot then. Tokyo in 2008 almost looks the same as the U.S. in 1960.
And people wondering (freedomwv) why smoking is being banned in more places, well if you have to ask then you have no capacity to even understand the answer.
No one has any right to smoke anywhere other than in their own home with the windows closed or in their own car with the windows up, and even that I'm not sure of.
Otherwise, see my above comment about the street you live on. You feel me?
Not a threat of violence, just an assault for educating oneself.
Restaurants should absolutely have the right to make their own choices. If they want to be smoking restaurants, and they're privately owned, then it's breaching their rights to force them to be non-smoking. They'll just be limiting their business, as non-smokers can exercise their rights to not enter.
Just summarizing here I suppose.
I saw a great scene the other day. I was at a Mos Burger and it had a completely sealed smoking section with about 2 tables and 4 chairs. The smokers in there were surrounded by their own blue haze looking miserable. Perhaps breathing in their smoke plus their second hand smoke will help convince them to quit?
Japan is getting better fighting back against smoking in public, but still not up to acceptable levels.
Edit: Hmmm... can't find any proof that this is real.
Until it's illegal people will smoke wherever the law allows them. No i don't smoke, no I'm not a freedomwv fanboi, I'm just a normal guy living life and dealing with life's offerings. but thanks for the 10 minutes of interesting reading......
I take offense to that as I am fat and enjoy eating what I can afford, which is usually the best money can buy. You mean to tell me that's not fair? Maybe you should become a recluse.
The person who brought up pollution is very right to do so. No pollution is good, whether it is a smoker's cigarette or any other kind. But after the ban on smoking in pubs in the UK, once when I was smoking outside someone gave me a really stiff talking to on the basis of 'so, now you are polluting the f***ing streets with your smoke!!!'
I wasnt blowing it at people. I was tucked well away from anyone not smoking. The person then completely ignored any point I made in response, regarding the many other pollutants in the street outside the pub.
I have no choice but to suck the exhaust fumes churned out by millions of car-owners. I dont own a car. When are they going to ban cars from public spaces? The pollution from them is ruining all our health. Passive smoking? Yes, that is a bad thing to be subjected to health risks involuntarily. How about passive driving? Look at all the health risks involved in that.
When it comes to car pollution you are absolutely right - even though I am a bit of a rev-head and love to look at beautiful cars and follow car design, I avoided having a car of my own for as long as I could and walked and took transport everywhere - it was unnecessary in Melbourne, similarly to here. When I was 30 I got a job which was beyond public transport and finally got my license and a car because I had to.
I agree that cars need to be adapted to emit less pollution, use less fuel etc... I think everyone does
There are two things which make them very different issues, though:
1) Car fumes do not damage the body in as direct and immediate ways as cigarettes do, it takes a much longer, prolonged exposure to start destroying cells unlike the instant destruction of alveoli of the lungs when you breathe in cigarette smoke. Yes, in a healthy person the alveoli repair themselves when you are removed from the smoke but that is actually the thing that makes limiting exposure to cigarette smoke an effective measure - any illness developed from prolonged exposure to car fumes is unlikely to be fixed simply by removing the source.
2) I doubt that the issues of improving emissions from cars (as against banning them altogether) would spark such genuinely irrational protest - noone is addicted to car fumes (petrol sniffing aside) and so noone is going to be arguing against rational improvements on the effect their activity has on others.
"noone is addicted to car fumes (petrol sniffing aside) and so noone is going to be arguing against rational improvements on the effect their activity has on others."
But, as a self-confessed rev-head yourself, would you also be open to the suggestion that although people aren't addicted to the fumes cars pump out, they are addicted to cars themselves? For a long time the car was marketed to people as 'independence'. Look at the protest that follows hikes in petrol prices. When I lived in the countryside in the UK I had a car. There was no alternative; no reliable local bus service, no trains. It was a necessity. But protests obver fuel prices were not limited to the countryside, they occured in big cities too, where there are all alternatives to the car. I live in Tokyo. I dont need a car anymore and have got used to not owning one. I have effectively weened myself off the addiction that was owning a car.
I think a lot of people are genuinely addicted to the automobile; to the independence of being able to go anywhere, anytime. People clean and polish their cars lovingly. They customize them, call them 'she' or 'he', even have names for them.
I'm not suggesting banning the car but a solution will have to be found so that people can have some sort of personal transportation system that isnt compromising the future of the planet quite so much as the current, internal combusution engine variant.
People consider car ownership a right. With any right comes a responsibility. I excercise mine as regards my filthy smoking habit. Not sure all car owners recognise their responsibilities.
a) as I said when Nick first brought this up - why is it car pollution OR smoking in people's faces? In my mind they are two different issues and fumes were not the issue which began this discussion. If I am forced to compare the two the above is what I would say.
b) my point about addiction was not about something that is just a habit (like not using public transport) my point was that it is a physical, chemical addiction which effects the brain chemistry and so effects the ability for people particularly in thrall of it to think logically and rationally about the matter as is evidenced by people who seem unable to understand that smoke does not magically stay around or in the smoker but spreads to others. The cigarette companies have made their fortune for decades playing on this fact, deliberately adjusting their own chemicals to maximise addiction so that smokers will keep giving them their money and, in places like this, argue their case for them. Anyone who cannot wait till they are off a train station or out of the way of non-smokers is entirely under the chemical spell, those like yourself who are capable of being polite are also usually capable of admitting that it is an addiction and that the only "freedom of choice" actually going on is the choice not to go through the hell of quitting - something I can totally understand btw.
None of this is about banning smoking entirely, it is about allowing others the freedom of choice not to inhale toxic fumes by banning smoking in unavoidable areas - something perfectly logical and frankly just polite. We shouldn't need to legislate basic manners but this very thread makes it perfectly clear why it is, unfortunately, necessary.
All this vigourous debate is great. Time for me to step out onto my balcony for a relaxing smoke to contemplate it all, methinks
This seems to be the nature of the world these days. People want to control the actions of others. It gives a lot of people great pleasure in being able to make others do what they want.