Ban smoking at Coffee Shop n pub = worst?


Status
Not open for further replies.

BBTM

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2004
2,209
6
38
BB West
#1
In my own view, it is like making thing worst than ever before if there are ban on those area.

Why? No rest place for smokers to smoke and so, they smoke while they are walking and so, those non-smokers will be getting more 2nd hand smoke while they walking. Don't tell me that non-smokers will go to coffee shop and pub to siam those smokers?

Therefore, ban smoking at those rest place (open air) is not that wise. It might cause more problem in the end. Hope they wouldn't ban else non-smokers will be suffering more. :think:
 

dkw

New Member
Dec 10, 2003
1,051
0
0
CCK
Visit site
#2
BBTM said:
In my own view, it is like making thing worst than ever before if there are ban on those area.

Why? No rest place for smokers to smoke and so, they smoke while they are walking and so, those non-smokers will be getting more 2nd hand smoke while they walking. Don't tell me that non-smokers will go to coffee shop and pub to siam those smokers?

Therefore, ban smoking at those rest place (open air) is not that wise. It might cause more problem in the end. Hope they wouldn't ban else non-smokers will be suffering more. :think:
I think smokers will continue to smoke in the open whether or not there is a ban on smoking in the pubs.
 

Clark75

New Member
Jun 27, 2004
134
0
0
42
Leith Road
#3
David Marshall once said... "Smokers are the persecuted minorities in Singapore."

Of course this was said with tongue in cheek. :bsmilie:
 

Benign

Senior Member
Jan 30, 2004
494
0
0
Melbourne
gallery127599.fotopic.net
#5
Just reminded me that my last puff was six months ago :sweat:

The reason for me quiting was one pack a day...$8 x 365 = S3pro each year ;(



Fight the urge....buy more cameras and lenses :sticktong
 

kegler

Senior Member
Dec 25, 2003
2,329
0
0
38
myhobbieseatdrink.blogspot.com
#7
Benign said:
Just reminded me that my last puff was six months ago :sweat:

The reason for me quiting was one pack a day...$8 x 365 = S3pro each year ;(



Fight the urge....buy more cameras and lenses :sticktong
iirc.... now $10+ liao... :bsmilie: not s3pro liao...is 1ds mk2...:bsmilie:
 

sbs99

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 17, 2002
2,024
0
0
#8
i think they should ban it altogether rather than procrastinating bout it...raising prices then citing health/social problems...then dropping price...up and down, up and down.

Don't think they will ever ban totally since it does bring them a large amount of revenue. :bsmilie:

i do smoke socially...i rather quit totally than to take note all the time where to smoke....kena fine... give $ for nothing. :nono:
 

tao

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,770
1
38
Beach Road
#9
the BBB syndrome in Singapore....


BAN! BAN! BAN! :bsmilie:
 

mr_jason

Senior Member
Jul 22, 2003
1,081
0
36
Singapore
www.pbase.com
#11
It's very easy for all the non-smokers to just come out and shout 'Ban it totally', but please spare a thought for those of us who are smokers.

While banning smoking in a public place is justifiable, as to spare a thought to the non-smokers who inhale the secondhand smoke, an outright ban is not feasibly possible. Smoking in part of social culture and, in more extreme terms, a 'way of life' for many of us. Do not equate smoking with consumption of chewing gum.

It may not be the best of habits, but it's our choice to smoke or not. Quit? Which smoker hasen't thought about quitting before. Ironic isn't it? You also have the choice to chose what camera system to buy into.

Banning smoking in public places (bus stop, coffeeshop) or in pubs/night clubs may reduce a slight number of smokers (social smokers maybe?), as will increasing the tax on nicotine, but this is only combating the existing smoking issue, not as a means of solving it. The only way to solve it is through education, and that takes time since it's a program which Singapore has only recently started in the past few years.

The gahmen knows they can't totally ban smoking outright, so they are trying their usual 'banning' by reducing the number of 'smoking areas'. I wonder when the next cigarette price hike is going to be, don't you? More tax dollars from our pockets to the nation's coffers vs. smoking deterrent? Oh no wonder recently COE prices drop. You make the decision.

On another note, check this out .
 

Hommie

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2004
925
0
0
Singapore
#12
mr_jason said:
It's very easy for all the non-smokers to just come out and shout 'Ban it totally', but please spare a thought for those of us who are smokers.
You'll be surprised, those shouting for total ban are mostly smoker themselves. Non-smokers like me have never push for such to happen because it never will. Why? Because smoker dare the garment to ban it totally instead of increase the tax constantly, spare their addiction and pain.

mr_jason said:
While banning smoking in a public place is justifiable, as to spare a thought to the non-smokers who inhale the secondhand smoke, an outright ban is not feasibly possible. Smoking in part of social culture and, in more extreme terms, a 'way of life' for many of us. Do not equate smoking with consumption of chewing gum.It may not be the best of habits, but it's our choice to smoke or not. Quit? Which smoker hasen't thought about quitting before. Ironic isn't it? You also have the choice to chose what camera system to buy into.
Actually I'll equate it to a individual choice rather than putting it as a social culture. Which part of social culture is it that encourages smoking? Or is it peer/social pressure? But you got it there when you mentioned that its your choice, your choice.


mr_jason said:
Banning smoking in public places (bus stop, coffeeshop) or in pubs/night clubs may reduce a slight number of smokers (social smokers maybe?), as will increasing the tax on nicotine, but this is only combating the existing smoking issue, not as a means of solving it. The only way to solve it is through education, and that takes time since it's a program which Singapore has only recently started in the past few years.
I can't remember the time when the smoking packages didn't label slogons like "smoking kills or smoking causes lung diease or thinks about your children/ spouses". Nowadays, graphic images are displayed instead on the box and commericals running on the TV showing that its baaaaaad! Its been as long as I can remember, what do you mean by 'only started in past few years'?

mr_jason said:
The gahmen knows they can't totally ban smoking outright, so they are trying their usual 'banning' by reducing the number of 'smoking areas'. I wonder when the next cigarette price hike is going to be, don't you? More tax dollars from our pockets to the nation's coffers vs. smoking deterrent? Oh no wonder recently COE prices drop. You make the decision.
Its a sin tax, they have a guilt free time collecting it in the name of detering more smokers to smoke and decreasing the health issue of lung diease. No rights or wrongs.....
 

Clark75

New Member
Jun 27, 2004
134
0
0
42
Leith Road
#13
I heard from my colleague that in Germany, the government has increase the tax on cigarettes slowly just as in Singapore. As a result, there is actually a significant decrease in smokers these days. Compared to years ago, the tax collected from tobacco sales dropped drastically recently. This shows that price hike does help reduce smokers.

Of course, if a government is taxing just to maintain their revenue, then they will have to start thinking of other ways of replenishing the decrease. Maybe imposed other forms of taxes? Increase tax on alcohol?

Fortunately, Singapore is not like that. It is the concern for the health of the nation that drives the taxes up. We see the government promoting healthy lifestyle etc.

A bit out of the point... but if there is no COE, there might be too many cars on the road, and the emission from exhaust might cause lung cancer. Then health warning labels must be placed on the vehicles etc.
 

Clark75

New Member
Jun 27, 2004
134
0
0
42
Leith Road
#14
I used to work in Jurong Island and once attended a Health and Safety talk. The guy presenting said that actually, the exhaust from the chimneys of some of the plants there are very toxic, more than second, third or fourth hand smoke of cigarettes. And they run 24-7, having shut downs only once every few years. Of course, having a tall chimney and having a favorable predominant wind direction reduces our contact, but it's still not enough. Some of the workers there are required to go for medical checkups every six months due to their exposure.

Is there an acceptable casualty figure pegged to getting foreign investors?

What choices do the people staying in the west have?

Tobacco ban? I think we don't know what bigger problems actually exist.

Granted, there are non-smokers who prefer fresh air and their rights should not be breached.

So I suggest that an area for smokers be set aside. Not those separated by small pots of plants as seen in some other countries, but actually separated areas with installed vents that exhausts cigarette fumes effectively.

Just my thought.
 

mr_jason

Senior Member
Jul 22, 2003
1,081
0
36
Singapore
www.pbase.com
#16
Hommie said:
You'll be surprised, those shouting for total ban are mostly smoker themselves. Non-smokers like me have never push for such to happen because it never will. Why? Because smoker dare the garment to ban it totally instead of increase the tax constantly, spare their addiction and pain.

Actually I'll equate it to a individual choice rather than putting it as a social culture. Which part of social culture is it that encourages smoking? Or is it peer/social pressure? But you got it there when you mentioned that its your choice, your choice.

I can't remember the time when the smoking packages didn't label slogons like "smoking kills or smoking causes lung diease or thinks about your children/ spouses". Nowadays, graphic images are displayed instead on the box and commericals running on the TV showing that its baaaaaad! Its been as long as I can remember, what do you mean by 'only started in past few years'?

Its a sin tax, they have a guilt free time collecting it in the name of detering more smokers to smoker and decreasing the health issue of lung diease. No rights or wrongs.....
Smokers only dare to ask the gahmen to ban it totally out of frustration at constantly having to pay more and more for cigarettes. But in actual fact we know that they will never ban it. So far, I think only Bhutan has banned public smoking, something to that effect. There will most definately be a social uproar if the gahmen banned the sale and consumption of tobacco products.

Which part of social culture encourages smoking? Product placements and actors in movies and tv shows I'd say. People pick up smoking or get 'interested' in it through these avenues. True it is an individual choice, but what influences that choice can be put down to social culture, what's seen as 'cool' and mature. Like that might as well censor the parts where people are smoking (not serious)?

The warning and labels on the boxes have been around forever, yes. But how many people actually will bother with it if it's only text? Ask any smoker, would they care? Every country has these. Would you ask the shop vendor to change the cigarette box because it said 'Smoking Causes Cancer' instead of 'Smoking Harms the Family'? Now that the new and graphic boxes are out, yes people are taking a look and having second thoughts. Many smokers would try and get the vendors to give them the 'Family' pack instead of all the other more graphic pictures. These shock tactics will work.

The tax issue isn't one of right or wrong, it's just what they have to do to further deter existing and young smokers. Same reason they eliminated to 10 stick packs, pricing reason. Combating the situation on both fronts which is increasing education and prices will lower demand, but as you can see there are 'cheaper' cigarettes out there like Limos, Texas, More which target the pricing problem, while incrasing the supply of cigarettes more.

Maybe a fixed tax to all cigarettes charged on a per stick basis instead of amount/weight of tobacco per stick will solve this problem right? Or fix a price floor on the price per pack, so no more 'cheaper' and 'more expensive' brands. Even though the increase in tax led to price of the Marlboros, Kents and Dunhills increasing, thus leading to a drop in demand for those brands, supply of the newer cheaper brands which use less tobacco per stick (Limos, Texas, More) has fufilled the 'shortage'. So the only outcome of constant increases in tax has led to new and cheaper cigarette brands emerging, utilising the loophole. Instead of constant increases in the price, why dosen't the gahmen plug this loophole?
 

Hommie

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2004
925
0
0
Singapore
#17
mr_jason said:
Smokers only dare to ask the gahmen to ban it totally out of frustration at constantly having to pay more and more for cigarettes. But in actual fact we know that they will never ban it. So far, I think only Bahrain has banned the sale of cigarettes and locals smoking, something to that effect. There will most definately be a social uproar if the gahmen banned the sale and consumption of tobacco products.
Something to think about....

mr_jason said:
Which part of social culture encourages smoking? Product placements and actors in movies and tv shows I'd say. People pick up smoking or get 'interested' in it through these avenues. True it is an individual choice, but what influences that choice can be put down to social culture, what's seen as 'cool' and mature. Like that might as well censor the parts where people are smoking (not serious)?
I dunno, I have seen even more cooler A-list hollywood and sport celebrities promoting for anti-smoking campaign to little effect. People see what they want and lastly the decision making still comes down an individual choices. We respect that.

mr_jason said:
The warning and labels on the boxes have been around forever, yes. But how many people actually will bother with it if it's only text? Ask any smoker, would they care? Every country has these. Would you ask the shop vendor to change the cigarette box because it said 'Smoking Causes Cancer' instead of 'Smoking Harms the Family'? Now that the new and graphic boxes are out, yes people are taking a look and having second thoughts. Many smokers would try and get the vendors to give them the 'Family' pack instead of all the other more graphic pictures. These shock tactics will work.
This is the education I am talking about, it has always been there. I doubt the effect is as strong as some will it to be. As usual, people see what they wanna see....

mr_jason said:
The tax issue isn't one of right or wrong, it's just what they have to do to further deter existing and young smokers. Same reason they eliminated to 10 stick packs, pricing reason. Combating the situation on both fronts which is increasing education and prices will lower demand, but as you can see there are 'cheaper' cigarettes out there like Limos, Texas, More which target the pricing problem, while incrasing the supply of cigarettes more.

Maybe a fixed tax to all cigarettes charged on a per stick basis instead of amount/weight of tobacco per stick will solve this problem right? Or fix a price floor on the price per pack, so no more 'cheaper' and 'more expensive' brands. Even though the increase in tax led to price of the Marlboros, Kents and Dunhills increasing, thus leading to a drop in demand for those brands, supply of the newer cheaper brands which use less tobacco per stick (Limos, Texas, More) has fufilled the 'shortage'. So the only outcome of constant increases in tax has led to new and cheaper cigarette brands emerging, utilising the loophole. Instead of constant increases in the price, why dosen't the gahmen plug this loophole?
You have good suggestion and I hope you succeed in quitting the habit! :thumbsup:
 

dolpjki

New Member
Aug 21, 2004
344
0
0
#18
there's no need for the govt to ban. the rise in the tax and those latest horrifyin pics on the cigarette boxes have significantly deterred a number of smokers to cut down on their smoking. :p
 

Clark75

New Member
Jun 27, 2004
134
0
0
42
Leith Road
#19
dolpjki said:
there's no need for the govt to ban. the rise in the tax and those latest horrifyin pics on the cigarette boxes have significantly deterred a number of smokers to cut down on their smoking. :p
That's why I always choose the packs with the 'family' and 'man on hospital' bed' ones. Some of my friends have switched to using cigarette holders too. :bsmilie:

But it's true lah, the high taxes have forced some to switch to cheaper brands and some to quit altogether.

For me, I'm alternating between cigarettes and nicotine gums (which are actually quite expensive).
 

poohbear

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2004
1,163
0
0
Sengkang
#20
cut down ?? chey .. I always limit myself to 1 pack of cigerettes when they used to sell those small packing at 10 sticks/pack. Now I'm still limiting myself to 1 pack per day , just that it's a 20 sticks now ..... and pls dun tell me it's about self control ...... if we have self control , kaverment no need to come up with all these price hikes liao lah .. :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom