Hacker News Reader

Comment by barry-cotter | Hacker News Reader

I'm in favour of banning smoking in all enclosed workplaces and I can see why people are against public drinking. Cigarette smoke smells vile and triggers asthma attacks. From the Irish experience people go “outside” to the patio/courtyard. This means you can drink and smoke but people aren't forced to endure your pollution.

As far as public drinking goes, yes it is lovely but not all countries have as healthy a drinking culture as Germany. I loved going to the Neckarwiese with friends when I lived in Heidelberg and having some beers and a barbecue. But most countries have more Assis than Germany per head, more assholes who would start fights, be loud and obnoxious etc. Or just more binge drinkers. I'm pretty sure legal street drinking just wouldn't work in Ireland or Britain. Too many drunks.

I smoke in bars maybe twice a week and drink on the street or in a park pretty regularly.

View on HN

Perhaps allowing public drinking, in the long run, might actually foster a 'healthier' drinking culture though.

It's hard to predict, of course, but if you compare it to the 'legalization' of weed in Holland and the resulting 'healthy' weed culture, it might actually work.

Perhaps allowing public drinking, in the long run, might actually foster a 'healthier' drinking culture though.

Maybe in the very long run but I doubt it. And in the long run we're all dead. Personally I doubt drinking culture is really that malleable. In Europe the further north you go the more people drink, on average. Whether it's cultural or genetic drinking culture seems quite stable.

As to the Dutch I am not terribly surprised. If they legalise cocaine it will also generally be used more sensibly than in most countries.

How are the forced. There have allways been bars that allowed smoking and bars that didnt. Everybody gets what they want. I see no reason why owner should do what he thinks is best.

Have there really always been bars that didn't allow smoking? I never saw any in Ireland before the smoking ban. It's not a viable business model.

The rationale behind a ban is approximately thus: Smoking is unpleasant for non-smokers who are a majority. Due to co-ordination problems non smoker disutility from being exposed to cigarette smoke outweighs smoker utility from smoking and this is stable and bad. The government, in an attempt to increase total utility bans smoking in workplaces and total utility goes up.

Forced is perhaps the wrong word but I'm just hoping they bring in a smoking ban here in Shanghai. Going outside to smoke just isn't that much of a hardship and it makes things more pleasant for non smokers and many smokers.

> Have there really always been bars that didn't allow smoking? I never saw any in Ireland before the smoking ban. It's not a viable business model.

I dont know about irland but in Switzerland I was in a Non-Smoking Irish bars for years befor the smokingban came.

Also if it is not a viable buissness model it seams that most people just dont care. Why then do we need to regulate it?

As far as your argument goes for utility, it seems that most non-smokers simple do not really care but the smokers care a lot. Thats why the market is the way it is (or was). Also explain this, lots of resturants where non-smoking only partly smoking befor the smoking bans, so the market does not generally seam to have a problem with banning smoking where people dont want it.

My rational is that I dislick smoking in restaurants but I dont really care in bars that much.

It seams to me that the total utility is much better matched if you let the market do what it does. Also the market is able to change if utility changes much faster then the goverment can change law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com