Places such as fast-food chains and family restaurants have been banning smoking and that’s happening voluntarily, not by force. We have to provide a variety of places so that customers can pick places that suit them.

That comment might make sense if second-hand smoke hadn't been proven to cause cancer and other health problems among innocent people, like children. So sorry, public health policy isn't something that should be done "voluntarily" by corporations.

Every other OCED country and plenty of developing ones recognize this. Why can't Japan?

We have to provide a variety of places so that customers can pick places that suit them.

This is just stupid. If you don't ban it completely from all restaurants then you are limiting people's options, not providing them with choice. Easily half of restaurants I want to take my family to I can't because they are full of smoke that I don't want my kid exposed to. My options, and the options of the vast majority of the public who do not smoke are severely limited by this idiotic logic. And as a result, we eat out way less than we otherwise would.

The thing that really gets me is that there is no valid reason to be allowing smoking in restaurants in the first place. The need to cater to such a harmful habit - literally all this involves is asking smokers to refrain from putting cancer causing agents into the air for 30-60 minutes while they dine - at the expense of everyone else sickens me.

This is just stupid. If you don't ban it completely from all restaurants then you are limiting people's options, not providing them with choice. Easily half of restaurants I want to take my family to I can't because they are full of smoke that I don't want my kid exposed to. My options, and the options of the vast majority of the public who do not smoke are severely limited by this idiotic logic.

The converse being that if you ban smoking from all restaurants/bars, the options for those who smoke become limited. Your options are limited by half for the places you can go, and the options for places where smokers can go and smoke are also limited by half.

Now, with only 20% of the population being smokers, that ratio is a little skewed, but banning smoking outright altogether skews it in a different direction.

The thing that really gets me is that there is no valid reason to be allowing smoking in restaurants in the first place.

Sure there is. People who smoke enjoy a cigarette after their meal.

The need to cater to such a harmful habit - literally all this involves is asking smokers to refrain from putting cancer causing agents into the air for 30-60 minutes while they dine - at the expense of everyone else sickens me.

You're looking at it as purely a habit, and while you're entirely right that it's a habit, from the perspective of smokers, there is actual enjoyment that comes from smoking - even if it's enjoyment provided by a chemical.

I don't think everywhere should be smoking friendly. And I think that if restaurants do allow smoking, it should be walled off - simply drawing an imaginary line in a shop and saying that one side is smoking and one side isn't, is ridiculous. But I also find the idea of banning it in every restaurant simply because you don't enjoy it yourself as being oppressive.

Note - it's been years since I was a smoker, though I do probably have 5-6/year when out drinking with someone who is smoking.

Until and unless the law changes to a total ban on smoking in all public places, it will be too risky for most restaurants to unilaterally ban it, for fear of losing customers. That is the experience of every other country in the world and Japan is no different. The sooner we join the modern world in this regard, the better.

banning smoking outright

No one is 'banning smoking outright' (though personally I think that would be a darn good idea, it is a filthy habit with not a single merit); just banning inconsiderate people from spoiling others' dining pleasure.

People who smoke enjoy a cigarette after their meal.

People may enjoy all kinds of things after a meal, like undoing all their buttons and belching, or emptying their bowels, or having hot romantic sex. Just not in public. Go home (or back to her place) and indulge. What's the difference?

there is actual enjoyment that comes from smoking

There's actual enjoyment that comes from the things I mentioned above as well as a load of other 'habits', but there's a time and a place. A public restaurant is neither the time nor the place.

simply because you don't enjoy it yourself

We're not taking about people 'not enjoying' second-hand smoke. We're talking about people not being able to enjoy the meal they've paid good money for, because some fool is stinking up the dining area. We're talking about asthmatics spending the next few days off work struggling to catch their breath because some fool couldn't restrain themselves until they got home. (Been there, done that, the T-shirt stinks)

it's been years since I was a smoker, though I do probably have 5-6/year when out drinking with someone who is smoking.

You mean, you're a smoker.

The converse being that if you ban smoking from all restaurants/bars, the options for those who smoke become limited. Your options are limited by half for the places you can go, and the options for places where smokers can go and smoke are also limited by half.

Sorry but this is absolute nonsense. Banning smoking does NOT limit the options of smokers - they are completely free to go to any restaurant they want provided they refrain from lighting up while in the premises.

The logic of what you are saying is that my interest in not having my kid develop lung cancer (and, for that matter, the interest of people working in restaurants in not being exposed to harmful levels of carcinogens in their workplace) is the same as a smoker's interest in not refraining from smoking for a few minutes because, hey, they enjoy smoking so screw everyone else.

Its the most selfish and obnoxious form of false equivalence out there.

But I also find the idea of banning it in every restaurant simply because you don't enjoy it yourself as being oppressive.

Just to be clear, I am NOT arguing that it should be banned simply because I don't enjoy it myself. I don't favor banning things simply because I don't enjoy them. I am specifically in favor of banning this one particular activity because it has scientifically well established harmful health effects and I see no countervailing interest to be protected (sorry, "Hey, some people like to light up" just doesn't cut it) that would justify inflicting that harmful effect on people.

Pass laws ! Ban it ! Period. Non-smoking (or smoking) sections in a public space are NO different than peeing sections in pools !

No one is 'banning smoking outright'

Rainyday was talking about doing so:

If you don't ban it completely from all restaurants

People may enjoy all kinds of things after a meal, like undoing all their buttons and belching, or emptying their bowels, or having hot romantic sex. Just not in public.

Really? Other than having sex, and crapping all over the floor, I don't see that belching nor undoing buttons is banned anywhere. Socially not very acceptable, but not banned.

A public restaurant is neither the time nor the place.

Well that's your opinion, smokers would say otherwise. And seeing as restaurants do allow it, it actually is the place, and if the smoker decides to smoke, it's also the time.

We're not taking about people 'not enjoying' second-hand smoke. We're talking about people not being able to enjoy the meal they've paid good money for, because some fool is stinking up the dining area.

If you go into a smoking restaurant, and choose to eat there, you are as much to blame as the smokers. They are smoking in a place in which they are allowed. Complaining about it after the fact is stupid - if you don't want to deal with smokers, then don't go to places where people smoke.

You mean, you're a smoker.

Call it what you want. I don't call myself a smoker, you can if it makes you feel better.

Banning smoking does NOT limit the options of smokers - they are completely free to go to any restaurant they want provided they refrain from lighting up while in the premises.

By that logic, smoking doesn't limit your options either - you are free to go to any restaurant you want, provided you accept that people will be smoking at some of them.

Both smokers and non-smokers can choose to go to whichever restaurants they want, no one is banned from either of them.

The logic of what you are saying is that my interest in not having my kid develop lung cancer (and, for that matter, the interest of people working in restaurants in not being exposed to harmful levels of carcinogens in their workplace) is the same as a smoker's interest in not refraining from smoking for a few minutes because, hey, they enjoy smoking so screw everyone else.

Essentially yes. If you were required to go to these restaurants, there would be a big problem. But entering a smoking restaurant is as much a choice as having a cigarette is. If you don't want to do it - don't. No one is forcing you to.

I am specifically in favor of banning this one particular activity because it has scientifically well established harmful health effects and I see no countervailing interest to be protected

Well that's a difference between us. I'm a libertarian on matters when it comes to harming one's self. I've never done heroin, would never do it, and have zero interest in doing it. But if someone wants to do heroin to the point that they accidentally kill themselves, then I'm of the belief that that is their own choice, and no one should have any say in that. Same as I'm ok with smokers who want to smoke.

Just seeing people smoke annoys me.

Just ban it... don't make it voluntary. If people have the choice they will keep doing what they want to and sod everyone else.

Smoking is a choice.  so many worse things in the world to get all riles up about.  this bloke makes sense.  the virulent anti-smokers won't let go until it is banned.  in the meantime marijuana is becoming more and more legal.......

Well that's a difference between us. I'm a libertarian on matters when it comes to harming one's self. I've never done heroin, would never do it, and have zero interest in doing it. But if someone wants to do heroin to the point that they accidentally kill themselves, then I'm of the belief that that is their own choice, and no one should have any say in that. Same as I'm ok with smokers who want to smoke.

Are you also a libertarian about harming other people? This isn't about harming oneself, it is entirely about harming others. I don't care if someone wants to give themself cancer by smoking and wouldn't mind it if that was the end of it. As I have said repeatedly in my above comments, smoking produces harmful effects not just to them but to other human beings as well. The effects of second hand smoke is well established, it forms the entire policy basis for banning smoking in restaurants in every other developed country. Someone injecting heroin into themselves isn't by doing so increasing the chance that the person sitting next to them will get lung cancer. Smokers on the other hand do exactly that.

Essentially yes. If you were required to go to these restaurants, there would be a big problem. But entering a smoking restaurant is as much a choice as having a cigarette is. If you don't want to do it - don't. No one is forcing you to.

Actually yes they are forcing me to do something - avoid entering most restaurants because I don't want my family to get cancer. This isn't a choice that smokers should have the right to unilaterally force on the rest of the population.

When I'm in other developed countries I have the freedom to eat where I want without that concern. I like that. Therefore I am in favor of banning smoking in restaurants. End of story.

I went to an izakaya a few years ago, and when I got back to my hotel my clothes had picked up the smell of smoke. I washed a shirt three times and it still smelled like an ashtray. In the end I threw it away. Apart from the cancer-causing second hand smoke, it gets into your pores, your hair... it's disgusting!

Wow! The anti smoking brigade is out in force! How about also banning screaming, unruly kids and their parents from restaurants, deal? 

I am a non smoker, don't particularly enjoy the smell of cigarettes in restos/pubs yet enjoy even less having to spend 60-90min close to unruly kids and their obnoxious, unthoughtful parents. 

Most of the wonderful little izakayas I go to (where smoking is still permitted) are actually relatively smoke-free i.e we may get 1 perhaps 2 smokers every 4-5 visits. As an added bonus, the 'smoking permitted' sign (or absence of 'smoking not allowed' sign should I say) acts as a deterrent to ppl/families with unruly kids (reckon many are also part of the doggy-bag brigade), so we can all enjoy our dinner in an often smoke-free and ALWAYS screaming-kids free environment. Love it! 

Like most, I avoid restos/cafes where chain-smokers rule though, and am fine with that.

Are you also a libertarian about harming other people? This isn't about harming oneself, it is entirely about harming others.

No one is forcing you to go into a restaurant where there is smoking. If you were in a non-smoking restaurant, and the guy next to you lit up beside you, then I'd agree you have every right to be unhappy and complain. In such a case I would tell the guy right off myself.

Actually yes they are forcing me to do something - avoid entering most restaurants because I don't want my family to get cancer.

No, they are creating an environment, in which you choose to go not to go to those restaurants due to the fact that you could get cancer in them. No one is forcing you to not go to those restaurants, you are making the choice to not do so.

Like most, I avoid restos/cafes where chain-smokers rule though, and am fine with that.

Me too. I don't go to smoking restaurants. I don't like the smell when I'm eating.

Goldorak - re your comparison - unruly kids - I don't believe I've heard of such situations causing cancer and a myriad of other severe health problems - but I guess anythings possible - eh?

The difficulty with this debate is that one set of views agrees that it's the right of individuals to directly, physically pollute others; and another set of views that disagrees with the right of individuals to directly, physically pollute others.

The majority of Developed World opinion, both social and scientific, has already sided with the latter camp, so there's no turning back, no matter how much the agree-ers exhort the positives of smoking.

This discussion has long ago ended in most advanced nations and everyone has moved on - and the sun still rises. Here in Japan, strangely enough, many still don't get it.

The difficulty with this debate is that one set of views agrees that it's the right of individuals to directly, physically pollute others; and another set of views that disagrees with the right of individuals to directly, physically pollute others.

Not exactly. One says they should have the right to go everywhere, without having to be imposed to smoke, and the other side is saying that smokers should have a place to go where they can smoke, where non-smokers can choose to also go or not.

It's not just about customers having the option of going out to eat without having to chose between smoking and non-smoking restaurants, it's also about protecting workers from second-hand smoke. That's not a choice someone in need of a job should have to make.

Back to the first point though, not being able to smoke in a restaurant, may limit your pleasure but it is not going to ruin your meal or cause you any health problems. You can step outside between the meal and the dessert, for example, and have yourself a smoke. If you are a non-smoker, your meal is going to be ruined and your health affected by others smoking around you.

Stranger - thanks.

I haven't read or suggested people have the right to go everywhere without smoke.

The discussion is about indoor smoking, in particular smoking in restaurants/bar/food service establishments.

And as I hinted, the discussion has become purely "academic", as no amount of flag waving will see any long term gains by the pro-smoking fraternity.

It's over for public inddor smoking(or nearly over) so pro-smoking supporters should devote their time and energy to other less stressful pursuits.

I haven't read or suggested people have the right to go everywhere without smoke.

Ok, I'll rephrase my comment then.

"One side says they should have the right to go every restaurant without having to be imposed to smoke, and the other side is saying that smokers should have some restaurants to go to where they can smoke, and non-smokers can choose to also go or not."

Last week we went to a nice coffee bar, good tables big thick comfy chairs and a glassed off room at the end with its own exhaust ventilation for the smokers inside. Couldn't smell any of the nasty smoke. No need to ban smoking just make it illegal for employers to expose employees to second hand smoke.

Who would clean up or serve the patrons in that glassed off room? I wonder if smokers would get offended if staff who went into those rooms wore gas masks to protect themselves.

Maybe we need something more like a table-based smoke extraction. Place the cigarette in a tube which sucks out all smoke and ash from that end, and provide a mouthpiece to exhale into. That way smokers can drown out the taste of the food they just ate with ash flavor, and the rest of us can continue to enjoy our meals.

I wonder why we havent come up with a portable version of this system yet. Something to trap all of the smell and carcinogens while still letting addicts get their fix.

he is right give them a choice. I think everything should be based on laws of nature not laws legislation. If you want your place to have smoking everywhere fine, people who do not like it do not eat/drink there. See how it impacts your business. Everything revolves around money.

I know Japan likes to copy America on everything, but this they should not. I do not smoke but I believe in letting people do legal activities. If smoking is made illegal then you can ban it.

Who would clean up or serve the patrons in that glassed off room?

It would have to be employees who have agreed to work the smoking rooms. And clarifying that at the time of employment should be made mandatory. Anyone who is a smoker isn't going to care about that. And anyone already working in smoky izakayas is going to be used to it anyways.