[amit]

We still don't know what the law says.

The staff said that because the inside is a bar it's a smoking area. Is that what the Indian law says? Do the law books say that if alcohol is served in a certain area you can smoke in there?

From what I know smoking in public places is also banned in India. You can't smoke on the railway stations am i right? When the staff asked me to shift to their outside non-smoking area, I asked them how it was their non-smoking area because the outside is part of the mall and by rules you can't smoke in a public place and the mall is a public place. Secondly if they had a non-smoking area why wasn't I asked where I want to sit when I entered?

A few weeks later when I went to Sagar Restaurant in Vashi, I was asked if I wanted smoking or non-smoking seating area.

This isn't about smokers or non-smokers. And neither is it about finding faults with me or what I did. I chose to walk out because of the attitude of the staff. Yes, I have personally asked people to stop smoking and each time the smoker agreed to stop it. I have nothing against the smoker. The problem was the attitude of the staff who came across as being supportive to smokers and who stubbornly refused to accept that they had no idea about what the law says. An excuse like "this is a bar and hence is a smoking zone" is the most ridiculously stupid excuse I have come across. Of course if the law says so, then there are no arguements.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by serious_maniac

Well it seems that the smokers are being rubbished here..... you can say that they have a habit which is not entirely desirable, but remember they may find it harder to find places where they can have a smoke with some drinks and food...they need to have a choice too..

I know that the habit is a health hazard but that does not make smokers an outcast, where people who do not smoke can come and shut them off from any place even though it has been classified as a smoking zone. They have rights too and it needs to be understood by non-smokers as well.

my 2 cents

~maniac

Smoking and tobacco usage was in prevalence long before the health hazards of smoking were conclusively proved (1950s onwards) not only amongst smokers but also passive smokers (I am an ex-smoker). This is the reason why despite nicotine/cigarettes/tobacco (the key ingredient of cigarettes and all forms of tobacco) being the most addictive substance known, is not banned like other illegal drugs such as heroin, cocaine. But things could change with pressure in the US to put tobacco and cigarettes under regulatory jurisdiction of FDA, which would then classify cigarettes as drugs (which they are) and ultimately eradication of the tobacco menace.

For your information, there are also definite health risks from passive smoking, also called environmental smoking or second-hand smoking. Second hand smoke (SHS) has been designated as a known human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). SHS is composed of mainstream smoke exhaled by the smoker and sidestream smoke from the smouldering cigarette, both diluted in ambient air. The chemical composition of secondhand tobacco smoke is quantitatively different from the smoke inhaled by the smoker during smoking, but it also contains several known carcinogens, nicotine and other toxins. At least 250 chemicals in SHS are known to be toxic or carcinogenic. In fact, some well-established carcinogens are present at higher concentrations by unit of volume in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke. In 2002, the IARC estimated that involuntary smoking increases the risk of an acute coronary heart disease event by 25-35%, and excess risk of lung cancer due to exposure to a spouse’s SHS is approximately 20% for females, and 30% for males. Never-smokers exposed to SHS at the workplace have a 16–19% increase in risk to develop lung cancer. In the US, exposure to SHS annually kills more than 3,000 adult nonsmokers from lung cancer.

Risk for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and coronary heart disease associated with exposure to tobacco smoke also increase rapidly with relatively small doses of nicotine and cigarette smoke, such as those received from SHS or from smoking just a few cigarettes a day.

[vasudeva]

A follow up: Tobacco is a consumer product that would not have been permitted to be introduced into the market today under any known consumer regulations if it were not already established worldwide among a variety of substantially addicted people. There is no consumer product that would be approved, if it were known that such a product prematurely ends lives or leads to the death of the consumer when used as intended by the manufacturer.

Cigarette smokers should have no right to smoke anywhere near a human being simply because what they consume endangers the health of others.

For people interested in knowing what second handsmoke does, here is the IARC mongraph (see pages 9-12) that resulted in it declaring SHS as a known carcinogen to humans.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monogr...3/volume83.pdf

[khanak]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

. But things could change with pressure in the US to put tobacco and cigarettes under regulatory jurisdiction of FDA, which would then classify cigarettes as drugs (which they are) and ultimately eradication of the tobacco menace.

This is probably never going to happen because

1. The Tobacco companies are too powerful and have lobbyists working overtime.

2. The government makes a LOT in taxes from the sale of cigarettes

3. Smokers would never agree and protest that their liberties are beign challenged.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by khanak

This is probably never going to happen because

1. The Tobacco companies are too powerful and have lobbyists working overtime.

2. The government makes a LOT in taxes from the sale of cigarettes

3. Smokers would never agree and protest that their liberties are beign challenged.

The lobbyists are getting slowly weaker, and govts. are realising that health costs and lost economic lives are much more expensive than taxes. What governments do is to raise cigarette prices, which reduce consumption (tobacco has a price elasticity of around -0.7 in India) but increase tax revenues.

[khanak]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

The lobbyists are getting slowly weaker, and govts. are realising that health costs and lost economic lives are much more expensive than taxes. What governments do is to raise cigarette prices, which reduce consumption (tobacco has a price elasticity of around -0.7 in India) but increase tax revenues.

I dont see it happening in the next 10-15 years atleast. But then again if Cigarette Advertising can be taken out of F1, anytihng can happen.

[Bass&Trouble]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

The lobbyists are getting slowly weaker, and govts. are realising that health costs and lost economic lives are much more expensive than taxes. What governments do is to raise cigarette prices, which reduce consumption (tobacco has a price elasticity of around -0.7 in India) but increase tax revenues.

If those who die of smoking were to live to an advanced age, then it has been proven that they would cost the Treasury more in terms of pensions and benefit payments than it currently pays out in medical expenses. So in financial terms, it makes sense that they "continue to die at about the present rate.

From Yes Prime Minister.

[GTO]

There is also something known as a "smokers courtesy". If I am smoking, and someone around politely tells me that it is bothering them, I will put out my cigarette. Or go smoke outside.

Breakfast at hotel coffee shops always have small kids in them. And I'd never smoke if kids / babies are seated around my table.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Now that there is so much clamping down on smoking in many other countries, and growing awareness of the risks to health among consumers, India is among those countries that still offer, through lack of education; lack of political will to do other than make money from MNCs; etc; etc, a lucrative potential market to the tobacco companies, who will certainly exploit it to the full.

On a personal level, I have grown used to the smoke-free environment of Chennai eating places, and was surprised to be bothered by smokers in a Pondicherry hotel!

To me, it just seemed wrong. I can enjoy my Rs40 veggie 'meal', in relatively lowly surroundings, completely free of this nuisance --- but when I am spending several hundred rupees I have to put up with it! For the tourists, it was just life as normal, I suppose --- as it would have been to me when I was a smoker.

[humyum]

Originally Posted by khanak

Boss its a BMC rule, every single eating house in Mumbai has to follow it. Its upto the BMC and the restaurant owners to make sure the rule is followed.

Also theres a lot of difference between pollution on the road and a smoker sitting on the next table to you. The smell really irritates some people. This has been identified as an issue by governments all over the world including India and there is legislation in place to prevent it from happening.

As for the 'dont go to restaurants that dont follow the rule bit' thats like saying dont go to restaurants that dont have hygenic kitchens. As per the law any restaurant in Mumbai has to follow all the BMC standards including hygene and setup standards and every Mumbaikar should be assured of this minimum standard in every restaurant in the city.

Accha so if the hotel owners are not followin the rules which states that there should be different smoking section and non smoking section people who have a problem with that should not encourage the hotel and go to that hotel right?That will solve all the problems of the people who dont smoke and have a problem with someone smoking(which is very very less).

This way hotel is happy.you are happy and the smokers are happy.
And as someone said if u smoke in a non smoking area in a hotel no one will let u and similarly if u are not allowed to smoke in a smoking section people who smoke will object too.Guard your interests and not try to change the world for it.

Originally Posted by GTO

There is also something known as a "smokers courtesy". If I am smoking, and someone around politely tells me that it is bothering them, I will put out my cigarette. Or go smoke outside.

Breakfast at hotel coffee shops always have small kids in them. And I'd never smoke if kids / babies are seated around my table.

GTO that is a must and a right thing to do.But a place like a pub or a bar which serves drinks and does not have a smoking and non smoking area it is not right for a non smoker to object to anyone smoking right??

[esteem_lover]

OT : i have never seen humyum this active in any of the threads.

GTO, you are bang on about the smokers courtesy, in fact i get very uncomfortable if i do smoke in front of non-smokers, women & kids. I just put it out when there are women & kids.

[khanak]

Originally Posted by humyum

Accha so if the hotel owners are not followin the rules which states that there should be different smoking section and non smoking section people who have a problem with that should not encourage the hotel and go to that hotel right?That will solve all the problems of the people who dont smoke and have a problem with someone smoking(which is very very less).

No they should still be able to go to any restaurant and not have to smoke second hand smoke if they dont want to as that is the law in Mumbai.

[GTO]

GTO that is a must and a right thing to do.But a place like a pub or a bar which serves drinks and does not have a smoking and non smoking area it is not right for a non smoker to object to anyone smoking right??

Well, I have never had anyone object to my smoking in a pub / club yet. Since people know what to expect when they go in there.

[maddy42]

Well lots of people are talking about the west. In the west they follow traffic rules, They pay the fine when the poice issues a ticket, They dont honk on endlessly, They stick behind the white line in signals, they dont spit on the road, they clean up their doggies poop, they dont try riding their bikes on footpath, they follow one ways 24 hrs a day etc etc.
Do you do it??

If yes you got a right to compare else you DONT!!

Agreed its the moral responsibility of a person to care for people in his surroundings but its upto him.
Rules are meant to be broken and people love that.

Banning smoking is not a solution coz once you ban an item then the demand for it increases. Look at the liquor ban in gujarat or the ban of drugs. The demand for them is more.
So simple solution is to select your location while you sit so you can eiither smoke or not do so depending on what you are(Smoker or not)

Dont just compare with the west. We love india and dont need evry rule to be copied from the west

[humyum]

Originally Posted by esteem_lover

OT : i have never seen humyum this active in any of the threads.

GTO, you are bang on about the smokers courtesy, in fact i get very uncomfortable if i do smoke in front of non-smokers, women & kids. I just put it out when there are women & kids.

Well just starting to get active with this one.Nice openin eh Anway i rest my case