☆ENGLISH ONLY☆コミュのSmoking in Japan

Sergio,

You have a valid point. The business owner should be able to choose how to run their business. It should be their right.

Having said that, I am still happy with the new law Washington State enacted a little over a year ago. It prohibits smoking in any business establishment - be it a restaurant, a pool bar or a health clinic. As a non-smoker, I find it relieving to be able to go anywhere without having to check whether or not smoking is permitted there beforehand.

The big driving force behind this law is the concern about the health of the employees working for those establishments where smoking is allowed. Yes, I can see what's coming from you. "You are old enough to be able to choose where to work." Yes, that is also a valid point. I still believe that making all businesses uniformly non-smoking gives more opportunities for all prospective employees.

I'm not a smoker, but I don't really like the idea of the government being able to dictate where people can smoke. I understand that it bothers people, but making illegal everywhere seems kind of totalitarian.I think if they are going to make smoking illegal, they need to have some kind of clause that allows business owners some kind of leverage. Maybe they could issues permits to establishments that want to allow smoking, and then say this is a smokers bar or something like that.

>だいはど

It just doesn't make sense to me. For me it sounds like going to a Cannabis club and complaining that the whole place smells like weed. What about people who work in a parkade or worse, at a highway toll-gate?

I found something interesting:

http://www.smintair.com/

Compared with California, Japan may be heaven for smokers. I think many restaurants and cafe have non-smoking area but I give up having clean air in izakaya...(I hate smoking and that smell.)

Now I live in the UK and I feel smoking rule is less strict here. You can't avoid smokers in pubs and clubs. When I went to a live house in a university, I saw a lot of people smoked. Although cigarette is very expensive, many people, especially young people smoke.

But new smoking law will start in July and smoking in public places even in pubs is banned. (If my memory is correct.) I'm very curious about what will happen after the law starts.

i agree 100%.
as with many habits humans have, its just another completely wasteful and useless habit to me.

>> For me it sounds like going to a Cannabis club
>> and complaining that the whole place smells like
>> weed.

One difference is that bars don't necessarily cater to smoking customers only. Yes, the majority will probably smoke, but I can see non-smokers intending to have some drinks and chat with friends at a bar. It is even more so for places like pool bars, where a lot of people go to play pool, not to puff cigarettes.

A case in point. I love playing pool. (Heck, I even have my own cue.) Whenever I went to the local pool bar, I had to put up with the smoke filling up the entire place. Not the case anymore - and better yet, the pool bar is still very popular. :)

Sergio> It is not about a choice. I like to go out drinking, play pool and I love food at izakaya. It is not about choosing a non-smoking establishment, because there are NONE. Maybe in Tokyo and Osaka, but I live in Shizuoka, believe me I've tried a lot of different places and have yet to find a non-smoking one. I even did a search from the link provided above for Shizuoka-ken. It came up with one izakaya in Izu. I live in Kakegawa, not a practical trip. And I know your response to this i like.. "well too bad". But the point I'm making is that it can be pretty fricking hard to find a non-smoking bar or izakaya in the non mega cities of Japan. So it's not just simple about making a common sense choice. This really is about do smokers have the right to puff-away wherever they chose and endanger the health of others, and since tobacco companies in Japan and the Japanese governement are butt buddies they aparentenly do. This is not about a gaijin not respecting or submitting to the culture, myself and a lot of other Japanese people hate the smoke. http://mixi.jp/view_community.pl?id=12151
http://mixi.jp/view_community.pl?id=787575
http://mixi.jp/view_community.pl?id=186709
http://mixi.jp/view_community.pl?id=75430
These are just a few of the, I'm betting, 10's maybe 100's of communites just on mixi. I think what would really be in line with Japanese culture would be the smokers realizing that they might be causing meiwaku for the non-smokers around them, and starting to respect that.

I agree with Andy.
It makes me uncomfortable, if I'm in the same situation. Besides, it is possible for second smokers to become a cancer.
And I also hate people are smoking with walking. Some of them seems not to care of other passengers....
For example, if the tip of cigarette towards outside when smokers walk on the narrow street. In that case, I have to care about it.
Because it is possible if the ash put my cloth or smokers flick the ash from cigarette.

The rate of smoking people might be higher than the rate of non-smoking people. Maybe politician hesitate to settle a law to ban smoking in public......

But I think some place is better than before.
When I used to work a previous company, I have to stand smoke everyday.
During working time, all smokers smoked at the smoking place, but once working hours past they started to smoke at their desk..
I remember that I couldn't breath and open my eyes. And I was so surprised a woman was pregnant at that time. even so, smokers didn't stop smoking.

Slowly the situation is changing, I think many companies tend to have smoking places, even restaurant.
We might wait for someone to strike about this matter or avoide difficulities....... It seems to be national character of Japan.

りょうちゃん＞ I heard somewhere that 47% of the population in Japan smokes, don't know if it is accurate or not, but if so, that means the non-smokers are still the majority.

Mark star> exactly, it is really a problem in Subway, and ramen shops etc.. I like Subway and I like the small ramen shops. It is good stuff. I want to eat there, so it is really not fair that someone can smoke there. My eating isn't bothering the smoker.. Saying someone has a right to smoke in those small places follows the same logic of me having right to go piss in their ramen or take a dump on their sandwich. That we would both have the right to ruin each others meal. fair solution huh?

Just FYI
(from an article that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine)

It seemed impossible at first. But in 2004, Ireland made history as the first country to implement a comprehensive smoking ban in indoor workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Defying dire predictions, Ireland's policy has proved to be both popular and enforceable, with ready compliance, no decline in business, and improved health outcomes for hospitality workers. Overwhelming public support for the ban has come from smokers and nonsmokers alike, dispelling the belief that restaurants and bars should represent bastions of smoking and socialization. For a country traditionally known for its smoke-filled pubs, the new societal standard represents a breathtaking (or breath-enhancing) revolution.

Historians may someday view Ireland's bold move as a tipping point for global public health. Previous actions worldwide had stemmed from mounting scientific evidence, summarized most recently in the 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report, confirming that exposure to secondhand smoke leads to premature death and disease, including lung cancer and ischemic heart disease. For example, in 1998, California became the first U.S. state to adopt smoke-free policies for all restaurants and bars. South Africa passed national laws in 2000 making public places smoke-free, although exemptions for bars and restaurants were allowed. Most recently, the Bloomberg Global Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use has been funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with the aim of reducing tobacco use in low- and middle-income countries.

When Ireland enacted its smoke-free policy, startled observers wondered whether other countries would follow suit. The answer came within months, when New Zealand successfully implemented a comprehensive ban. Global momentum has since accelerated, with a host of additional countries enacting policies within a few years. Most smoke-free countries are in Europe (although a number of these countries allow for the possibility of a designated, enclosed, ventilated smoking room). But other continents have seen activity as well: Australia and Canada are poised to join the group, and a growing number of countries are considering legislation. Though the United States lacks a federal policy, 17 states and dozens of municipalities are recognized as having smoke-free public places.

Furthermore, the 2003 World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has galvanized commitment. This first international public health treaty calls for countries to adopt clean-air policies, as well as initiatives such as price and tax increases, advertising bans, and warning labels for tobacco packages. (However, since the FCTC's language regarding smoke-free places leaves room for partial restrictions that may not protect public health, Ireland's comprehensive approach should serve as a model.) To date, 145 countries have ratified this treaty, but the United States is not among them.

Policies requiring clean indoor air have already improved public health. Studies in the United States, Scotland, Norway, and New Zealand, like those in Ireland, demonstrate benefits such as improvements in the respiratory health of hospitality workers. Overall, indoor smoking bans have been associated with a 3.8% reduction in the prevalence of smoking. Popular support for smoke-free bars and restaurants increases after such legislation passes, because clean-air environments become viewed as those most conducive to leisure-time enjoyment.

In short, the world has begun to reclaim clean air as the social norm. For too long, the tobacco industry has spent billions to normalize, market, and glamorize a behavior that is now recognized as a tragic drug addiction. Industry marketing has fueled global consumption exceeding 5 trillion cigarettes annually, leading to 100 million deaths in the 20th century and a billion deaths projected for the century ahead. Furthermore, evidence points to systematic increases in nicotine yields from cigarettes marketed in the United States in recent years. Fundamental to industry success is the portrayal of smoking as a desirable way of staying "alive with pleasure." Now, however, entire countries have begun to deglamorize and denormalize this addiction.

Fundamental shifts in social norms never come easily, however. These gains have materialized only after decades of committed leadership in public health practice bridging the worlds of science, government, politics, advocacy, and other arenas. Examination of the inner workings of successful initiatives reveals some critical lessons. In Ireland, the ban succeeded with support from government and opposition parties, health care organizations, trade unions, public health advocates, and others. In New Zealand, the forces of science, public health advocacy, and public education also converged to advance legislation. In Bhutan, Buddhism was the cultural backdrop for a smoke-free policy that includes the world's only national ban on the sale of tobacco. In Uruguay, a national smoking ban was strongly supported by the president, an oncologist. In many countries, private businesses, including hotel chains, have instituted smoke-free environments for customers and employees alike.

Changing social norms requires perseverance. Some countries have passed partial smoking bans as part of a strategy for transitioning toward comprehensive bans. France, after partially restricting smoking in bars and restaurants in 1991 but not enforcing the law, is currently phasing in a ban to be completed in 2008, backed up by a social marketing campaign, an enormous cadre of agents for enforcement, and fines for noncompliance. Change also entails confronting unfounded economic arguments: although critics regularly assail smoking bans for hurting business, more than 20 high-quality studies have shown no negative economic effect of smoke-free policies on restaurants and bars.

Such fundamental social changes threaten the tobacco industry, which has a record of nimbly responding to market pressures. Over time, manufacturers have carefully cultivated market share by targeting children, members of minority groups, women, and increasingly, new customers in the developing world. To curry consumer acceptance, they not only have added chemicals to mask smoke's odor but also have instituted myriad design changes involving filters, ventilation systems, "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes, and "potential reduced-exposure products." In addition, they are now actively marketing smokeless tobacco products, no doubt partly in response to the increasing number of smoke-free environments. And all products are marketed in the complete absence of product regulation.

Given these developments, the world's nearly 1.3 billion smokers deserve heightened support. Studies indicate that most smokers want to quit but are unable to do so. Smoke-free policies remove the social stimuli that promote relapse, motivating smokers to decrease consumption and quit. But battling this addiction also requires better systems of care, including behavioral modification, counseling, pharmacologic interventions, telephone "quit lines," and other services. Providing access to such resources, a challenge in high-income countries, is even more daunting in the developing world. Furthermore, since the addiction disproportionately burdens those of lower socioeconomic status, tobacco control must rank as a prime focus of global efforts to eliminate health disparities.

The first few years of the 21st century have made possible what was once considered impossible. In the face of an escalating pandemic, a global haze may be starting to lift. We are witnessing a public health evolution in which the once-extraordinary is rapidly becoming the social norm. Making smoking history moves us closer to reaffirming the right to the highest standard of human health for all.

What I seriously do not understand is why in the hell tobacco is the only target in the CLEAN AIR bullshiet. I have never heard anyone say anything about their own VEHICLES that they drive EVERY freaking day or even try to help pass laws against it. Some people here even have SUV's and Vans (probably). I am pretty sure that the exhaust also emits carcinogenic properties. Do they not? Driving is also a choice in Japan. If you live in a big city, also, you should realize that you are at risk for cancer just from the bad air alone from YOUR carS NOT smoking.

In my opinion, people should be evaluated by their excuses. It smells bad? So does your breath after going to the bar. Have you ever smelled some of the people that come off the subways at night. It is NOT the smoke that bothers me, it is the stench of liquor. What about MY freaking right not to smell a drunk??

Basically, I don't think something merely causing cancer is a reason for banning it, unless there is action against other OBVIOUS cancer-causing agents (cellphones, cars, etc).

I agree with you guys like saying Japan is sanctuary
for smokers since tobacco tax is extremely cheap and
most people are generous about smokers.
However situations has been changing these days.
For instance, smoking in stations is banned during
commuting time or the number of smoking compartment
per long distance trains such as bullet trains are
decreasing and are going to be diminishing soon.
Maybe Japan follows USA in the long run.

リラックミル (#44),

--------------------------------------------------------
I have never heard anyone say anything about their own VEHICLES that they drive EVERY freaking day or even try to help pass laws against it.
--------------------------------------------------------

That was the excuse my father used to make all the time when I tried to talk him out of smoking. Guess what. He got an acute brain stroke. Luckily, he pretty much fully recovered. The doctor told him to quit smoking or kill himself. He quit.

If there are five things that "merely" cause cancer, banning one of them is better than banning nothing.

だいはど＞Exactly

リラックミル＞Wow, I think somebody needs a cigarette..
Yes you are right cars emit carcinogens. But like だいはど said what is the logic of saying, "we can't solve the problem completely so why try to at all".
And about the not smelling a drunk, well let me say this it is called a bar and not a tobacco hut for a reason. If bars didn't sell alcohol it would not be called a bar, and there would not be any drunks to smell. What right do smokers have to be in a bar then? that is not what it is for. And I'm not just talking about bars with this, restaurants and places that don't serve alcohol where there are no drunks for you to smell anyway. Where does you logic work then for "having a right to smoke because I have to put up with drunks?" the whole I have a right not to smell a drunk in public.. that makes no sense at all. Smelling a drunk doesn't give you cancer. Do you also think you have a right not to smell shit when you go to public restroom?

lol @ foreigners complaining about japanese people smoking in japan

I agree that some places should not have smoking. But I believe that smoking in bars should be permitted. You go to a bar to do bad things to your body. SMoking is one fo them.

I do not think Japan is going to go California anytime soon, and that is a good thing. It is a fascist trend that is going on in the States. If you feel that a certain bar is too smoky, then go somewhere else, or move seats.

If there is demand for non-smoking bars, then people will build them and then you can go.

cohiba>well not so much bars I guess, but places that serve lots of food and drink like izakaya. I can't find a non-smoking or at least separated izakaya for the life of me. I know what to expect when I go to a bar.

I understand both sides of it, I have been smoking since I was 14 and trying to stop, most people know that it is unhealthy but if you are not a smoker it is harder to understand why it is hard for so many people to stop smoking, it is a struggle I deal with daily, to be honest I do not really like it anymore but I wake up and my body says "you need a smoke" so I light up and feel a little more relaxed.

With that said I do have respect for non smokers, that is to say I ask people if they care if I have a smoke, if they say no I just don't smoke I also avoid smoking around children, I do smoke in my own apartment or outside on the street, most buildings and bars here have banned smoking so I have no choice most of the time anyway.

It is true that second hand smoke CAN harm others but there are plenty of other things out there in society which are just as bad, take this for an example:

Toronto ( see photo ), this is not smoke, this is raw polution caused from factories, cars and other things...take a good look at that and suddenly a cig does not seem so evil does it ? I am breaking in that air daily and it will only get worse with time and more cars, people etc, that smog is going to affect peoples breathing a hell of alot more than some smokers sitting around slowly killing themselves.

While I understand people have had to watch family members suffer from the effects of nicotine and dislike smoking, please try to keep in mind that people who smoke are human also, we are not evil we just made a stupid choice to start smoking, try not to judge people if you cannot look in the mirror at yourself too.

Incubus9> I think that is really all non-smokers ask. Just to be polite about it. And I totally think it is fine to smoke in your own place, nobody has a right to tell you what you can and can't do there. And I see no problem with smoking outside. Some people don't like the "down-wind" tobbaco thing, but it has never been a problem for me.

i don't know about canada as a whole, but vancouver has a law where you can't smoke in public buildings. most places end up having heated balconies where smokers can go, but i love that there's no smoking indoors. it's better business anyways, i always walk out of places that smell like smoke.

people should be allowed to smoke in their own place if they own it, not rent. the smell stays in the walls even after it's been painted, so less chance of the place getting sold. but that's totally up to the owners.

i get irritated with down wind smoke, but i can move out of the way, not like if i was seated at a restaurant. i think i'm paying for the ambiance as much as i am for the food in a public place like that.

They just recently passed a smoking ban in Chicago, so no smoking here. I don't smoke, but I can tell it annoys my friends. I never really had a problem with smokers, but I do get annoyed when I smell like cigarettes after going to a bar. I'm not really sure how the law works here in Chicago, because there are still bars where people can smoke.

My ideal view is that there could be smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments throughout a city. That way they could have signs that say, "smokers welcome" or "no smoking here." It would work if there relatively even amount of establishments on both sides. But this is just a pipe-dream of mine, I don't know how local governments could implement something like that, but I think business owners should have some options.

Bars and izakaya are equivalent in their function, ie they are both drinking establishments.

It is called a i-zaka-ya(居酒屋) and not a 居食屋 for a reason.

しんのすけ＞That is not what I mean. A bar to me serves minimal food and mostly drinks, izakaya serves sometimes more food than drinks. I like the food at izakaya, I could car less about eating at a bar. I'm talking Watami, Hyotan, Wara-wara, Jinpachi etc.. places that are large enough to be separated into smoking and non-smoking.
and you don't need to spell out the kanjis for me I know what they mean thank you.

sure i hear you.. just get a ozasiki reserved. then you are fine. i believe some of the watami, corowide izakaya may put you guys in the place. but don't bring it up to whether the smoking in the public restraunt should be prohibited it or not. the main purpose of sharing the type of place is for the Blues. find better place if it's nessesary. you may be able to find alot of different places rather than drinking beers.

Andy>

You may understand, but I think it is presumptious to assume that everybody who reads threads in this community does.

In any case, regardless of what _you_ may use it for, izakaya are the Japanese version of the traditional drinking establishment and thus are the equivalent of the pub or bar in terms of social function.

Anyway, shouldn't the choice to offer segregated non-smoking facilities be left in the hands of the business owner?

Shouldn't you be berating the business owners for not offering such facilities, rather than fellow customers who are just indulging in activities which they are permitted to engage?

Superficially, it may seem easy to offer dedicated non-smoking areas. But how much does it cost to build out and recoup the cost (if ever - this assumes that there will be a positive impact to their revenue, which by all means is not certain)? Will average spend per smoking customer be impacted due to people getting the urge to leave earlier than they might as they lose to their nicotine craving?

Izakaya owners, especially the big businesses who operate those nasty chains, don't want customers who order some food and sit around chatting without ordering alcohol as they are first and foremost driven by business.

So, should it be regulated? Regulation requiring segregation will drive many a real family-run izakaya out of business, as these are often small and segregation is impractical. That would be a tragedy, as all we'd be left with those bland and anonymous corporate izakayas.

しんのすけ＞ "You may understand, but I think it is presumptious to assume that everybody who reads threads in this community does." True but I assumed you were addressing directly to me.

>"Shouldn't you be berating the business owners for not offering such facilities, rather than fellow customers who are just indulging in activities which they are permitted to engage?"
I'm not questioning them, I'm questioning whether or not it is fair to other people for them to have that permission.

Anyhow do you really think any busness owner is gonna care what I think? My problem is I can't find a single place that at least segregates (that is large enough and should be). and to answer your presumptions about it being bad for business please see comment #43
So it seems to me there is a lot evidence that supports the exact opposite of what you are saying. And I've heard nothing but good things about places back home that have done the same thing.

Maybe you feel you have the right to smoke and not care what others think, but I disagree and see comment　#38 for just a start of a list of people JUST on mixi that agree with me.

だいはど,
I would say most people here are not complaining about the issue of cancer causing. Just READ! Everyone complains about the fact that they do not like the smell. Therefore, I am just saying also as you mentioned about the toilet that it is idiotic.

Also, people with corroded livers are also told by their doctors that they may not drink. So this as well corresponds, don't you think? Some smokers never get cancer or die of other causes. Just as some drinkers of liquor do or do not.

"If there are five things that "merely" cause cancer, banning one of them is better than banning nothing."

Yeah, if you are a hypocrite.

○リラックミル (#62)

I am not specifically addressing the issues most people here may or may not have with smoking. By your own agreement, smoking causes cancer. Whether or not you choose to smoke is your own business as long as you do so without infringing on other people's right not to smoke. Are we on the same boat so far?

With that in mind, I find it fairly sensible to ban smoking in all public places. Sure, the ideal solution may be to completely separate smoking and non-smoking sections, but that has been proven difficult, costly and ineffective.

Before Washington State enacted this "total smoke-free" law, opponents had argued that a ban like that would hurt businesses that relied upon smoking customers. As it turned out, many establishments are getting new customers who can now enjoy a smoke-free environment in such establishments. It agrees with what's described in comment #43.

>> Yeah, if you are a hypocrite.

You can call me anything you like. I happen to believe that banning cars is totally unrealistic, especially in the U.S. On the other hand, a lot of work is going into the current emission system in order to reduce the amount of pollution produced by cars. Several U.S. states are trying to create their own stricter emission regulation, which I fully support.

My point is that efforts are being made in the right direction in terms of vehicle emission problems. Adding smoking ban to that effort can only be a good thing in my opinion.

BTW, I drive less than 100 miles per month, so I don't think I am damaging the lungs of my neighbours too much. ;)

だいはど,
Why make more laws when they can just stop manufacturing of cigarettes??? Oh, I forget, the government and capitalists don't REALLY care about its people. People always want to put band-aids on a wound when something else is needed.

I'm not calling you a hypocrite per say, but many people are complaining about tobacco ignorantly. They should be concerned about real issues. If it is cancer-causing agents, then let's not allow some and not others, because in the end there are still cancer-causing agents affecting peoples lives.

◯リラックミル

Stopping manufacturing cigarettes would be ideal from my personal point of view, but that would prevent smokers from enjoying smoking, which, as I stated above, is their right. Laws that make sure the smokers' rights do not infringe on the non-smokers' rights are a legitimate solution in my opinion.

>> many people are complaining about tobacco ignorantly.

All you need to know is cigarette smoking is very likely to cause cancer, as you and I agree. I don't think one needs to know the details of all agents that can cause cancer in order to complain about one of them. Like I said before, four bad things is better than five bad things. I don't think there's anything hypocritical about it.

What we can do is go ask the establishments if they have non-smoking sections, and if they don't, we leave. If enough of us do it, they will realize that not all people are interested in inhaling other people's smoke, and maybe they will do something about it.

>If it is cancer-causing agents, then let's not allow some and not others, because in the end there are still cancer-causing agents affecting peoples lives.

Kinda reminds me of the book called "買ってはいけない"

I disagree about making laws because if you say no smoking in public where is there to smoke? And I would say MOST smokers don't smoke casually. Also, why is it not the business owners choice?? Now companies are FORCED to become nonsmoking. How is that fair??

Others take different stances on the issue of 4 is better than 5. I would say none are better than 4, but maybe you disagree.

リラックミル＞ Your house, outside. There is a hell of a lot more outside in the world than there is inside. You are not really seeming to get this. Some people don't like smoke blowing in their faces, and how it stinks up everything. I agree with them I'd rather live without it. I would put up with it however if it wasn't such a health hazard... and yes blah blah blah the other 4 things.. well the fact is, I guarantee you direct exposure to second hand smoke all the time is gonna give you cancer a lot quicker and more effectively, and be more directly identifiable as the cause than the other four.
I'm just asking for some sensible segregation that is all. It is not so hard to find in other countries nowadays, but in Japan it is pretty damn hard still. And that is my complaint, and my question because in Japan it is engrained as an important part of their culture to make efforts not to cause meiwaku (trouble or be a bother) to others, and second hand smoke is big time meiwaku. All smokers need to do is start to be polite about it and recognize that it is selfish for them to smoke if it bothers others present, that is it.

◯リラックミル

>> And I would say MOST smokers don't smoke casually.

If you're talking about the smokers in the U.S., then I would not disagree. It seems to me that the smokers here are a lot more polite about smoking than those in Japan.

Like Andy said, the public space usually doesn't include streets. If nowhere else, you could still smoke in your own home.

>> I would say none are better than 4, but maybe you
>> disagree.

No, I don't. None are definitely better than 4. It is by the same logic that 4 are better than 5.