Japan's smoking rate hits record low

And if your world involves as much cigarette smoke as it seems to from your posts then I'm certainly glad we live in different worlds and am happy to keep it that way.

I don't know where that came from! I looked back over my posts and found nothing that would indicate I lived in a world full of cigarette smoke. Quite the opposite actually. Were you reading MY posts??

My reason for taking part in this thread is simple (check my posts!).
I support the right of businesses to make their OWN rules regarding smoking in their establishments.

And FYI...
I DO care about my health enough to avoid secondhand smoke, and I'm far from "young" but thanks anyway.

A word of advice. Take a little more care when you read people's posts, and don't make assumptions based on minimal information.

 

central: Because you can't tell people what to do with their lives just because you don't like what they do?

Seriously? People can and do all the time. Why can't gays get married in most countries? Why can't factories be built where ever they want and spew whatever pollution they want? Why can't you walk down the street naked?

Bogi: No, perhaps your world doesn't involve a lot of smoke and I incorrectly assumed it did. My apologies. But if you're going to accuse me of making incorrect assumptions it would behoove you to not do the same. First, you're assuming that people choose Starbucks and Tully's simply because they are fashionable. Perhaps that's your experience but it's not been mind. You've assumed that most people don't care all that much about smoke. Again not by my experience. And you've assumed that their eikawa teachers have told them about the dangers of smoking and that's some reason for their avoidance of it. Again from my experience your first two assumptions are incorrect, though I'd certainly not be able to give you any numbers on the amount of people who choose those places because they are non-smoking, I've not yet seen any proof from you or anyone else that the opposite is true either and I've said repeatedly this is from my experience. Your last assumption, and perhaps the most bizzare one, about eikawa teachers is quite insulting as it assumes Japanese are unable to come to conclusions about the dangers of cigarette smoke on their own. Again, I don't hang around with Japanese who are so unintelligent that they are influenced merely by what a language teacher says. Clearly we're hanging around with a different crowd.

Bogi: You are a whining bunch, aren't you!
You CHOOSE to live in the city, you CHOOSE to live near factories that spew out dangerous chemicals everyday, you CHOOSE to stand at traffic lights while thousands of cars drive by covering you and your surroundings with "deadly" scum, and you have the audacity to demand bans on smoking saying it's the secondhand smoke that's "killing" you - and not the above things that you all seem to be in harmony with.

In truth, you are demanding bans on smoking simply because you don't like it. Can you imagine what society would be like if everything that some people didn't like was banned?

What, so people who live in cities are not allowed to try and change the things there that might be bad for their health? If you live in the countryside and your groundwater is becoming unsafe to drink because of fertilizer run-off from farms are you not allowed to complain about that or do you just put up with it? Because people are concerned about the dangers of cigarette smoke or just the damn unpleasantness of it doesn't mean they aren't concerned about the dangers of emissions too. People are perfectly capable of being concerned with more than one thing.

Plenty of cities have regulations on cars driving into the centres in order to try and cut down on pollution. Many countries have bans on leaded gasoline, emissions from cars and factories or where factories can be built in order to protect the greatest number of people. People who've choosen to live in these places should not be forced to be subjected to these dangers if they are able to be changed - at least not in democracies where people can vote for officials who support their beliefs and proposals which back them up. I haven't seen any posts here proposing total bans on smoking but rather those regulating where people can and can't smoke. That is no different than regulating emissions, safe levels of chemicals in drinking water, noise pollution etc. I can't understand the logic of saying you chose to live there so shut up and put up with it. You pay taxes, you obey the laws, you are a citizen of a democracy so it is your right, indeed your obligation to try and make positive changes in your environment.

 

I agree with some of your points. But I think that your examples of "people can and do all the time" are a little messed up. You use two examples of things that hurt nobody and one example of something that hurts everybody.
You're right though. People can be concerned about more than one thing. It helps if you can put some perspective on things, doesn't it? You have to prioritize your concerns, and people smoking is pretty low on my list.

 

basically agree. unless I am in the same room, as them or downwind. then its very high on my priority listing.

 

id like to go to a restaurant in japan just once and not have to breath in cigarette smoke while i try and enjoy my meal, which, only has the taste of cigarette now.

ban smoking indoors, and also make private businesses have non-smoking areas (that work). if business owners enjoy public customers they also have a responsibility of care for these customers. i am a non-smoker and sick and tired of people smoking. its filthy and disgusting.
ive seen poeple eat a 10,000yen main course at an expensive restaurant, surely the meal was delicious, only to spoil the taste with a rotten cigarette not 2 minutes after they swallow the last piece. smokers are filthy pigs with no regard whatsoever to other people's health.

 

central: You and I may think that walking around naked outside and gays being allowed to get married harms no one but there are plenty of people out there who disagree with that. Though it's true the other example is about actual physical harm rather than societal harm my point is simply that people do regulate things because they think they are wrong.

As for prioritizing things, smoking may be relatively low in the scheme of things but since attempting to avoid it is a daily concern for many, myself included, it is still an important issue for me.

 

I agree with Bogi on this point -
"I support the right of businesses to make their OWN rules regarding smoking in their establishments."

I suggest all the people who are really concerned about passive smoking talk to the owners of the places they frequent. Most of the restaurants/ cafes I go to are completely non-smoking.

I hate my clothes sticking of smoke but as for passive smoking being a serious health risk -
I`d love to see some evidence of this.

Surely people heard that Japan was a `Smoker`s Paradise` before coming here, or maybe your just `off the boat` - in which case - Welcome! and good luck changing this society more to your liking.

 

I guess our definition of "harm" is a bit different. I guess now I understand why all of the other posters have been talking about the harm that second-hand smoke causes. If it's similar to the "harm" that's caused by gays marrying or people seeing the human form in its natural state...well, we've got to ban it ASAP don't we. We can't have anyone offending our puritanical sensibilities.

 

central: You're original post said Because you can't tell people what to do with their lives just because you don't like what they do? which I disagreed with because people have banned things they don't like. I agree that walking around naked and gays marrying are not harmful, I disagree that second hand smoke is not harmful but even if it were proven beyond a doubt not to be harmful, I and I'm sure many others out there would like it to be limited not out of some sort of misguided puritanical beliefs but because it stinks, makes your clothes and hair stink and your eyes water. Again - no one is calling for a ban on smoking but a limitation on where you can smoke. Would that be something limited because people don't like it? Yes, it would.

 

Anonymously: I suggest all the people who are really concerned about passive smoking talk to the owners of the places they frequent.

Already done it and some places have changed their policies.

Surely people heard that Japan was a `Smoker`s Paradise` before coming here, or maybe your just `off the boat` - in which case - Welcome!

No, not fresh off the boat and no I didn't realize it was a smoker's paradise before I came. I think I was too young at the time for that have been a concern.

and good luck changing this society more to your liking.

I am part of this society so why shouldn't I try and change things for the better?

 

it is not second hand smoke, but direct in the face when guy is walking next to you or in the same room. The concentration is the same since if the air is recycled it's not going anywhere. Do we have to assume the cigarette has to be smoked via the mouth since I have seen plenty of people light up and leave the cigarette to burn to a singe without ever actually smoking it becuase the forgot it was even there.

 

Once all the smokers are dead then that'll be enough smokers for me. Don't pollute my air, don't give me, my family and friends cancer.

 

order at a sushi place, some guy sat down next to me and lit up his stinking cigarette. I said, "Koko sono kusai yatsu suimaska?" ( You're gonna smoke that stinkin' stuff here? )
He promptly put it out.

 

-

I think you should. My sarcasm is in recognition of the difficulties involved.

Some non-smoking izakayas in Shibuya would be welcomed.

 

anonymously: Add to that some more non-smoking people!