Reminder to anyone who still smokes: you smell like shit 100% to anyone you interact with.
And any place you still smoke in, whether your car or home, also smells like shit.
And to delivery drivers who smoke, the packages you deliver smell like shit, too!
Positive reinforcement works better for helping people quit :(
Especially when quitting smoking tanks a person’s dopamine levels. It takes weeks for the body to re-regulate production.
To anyone reading this who has quit/is quitting: congratulations! It’s tough, you have shown a force of willpower and should be proud of yourself.
Love, a fellow Canadian.
Edit:
As with other forms of punishment, aversive methods are generally less effective than positive approaches. It is more important to reward and praise desirable behaviors than to react negatively to unwanted ones. Encouraging a person’s ability to enjoy self-affirmation and self-pride will help them internalize healthy attributes and to become a person deserving of admiration…Shame doesn’t motivate prosocial behaviors; it fuels social withdrawal and low self-esteem.
Source: took some psych courses
&
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/longing-nostalgia/201705/why-shaming-doesnt-workPositive reinforcement is the act of adding either a reward for good behavour or a punishment for bad behavior.
It seems like both of you are doing that.
That’s not quite what positive reinforcement is but im not sciency enough to understand it either lol
I’ll paste Wikipedias explanation:In the behavioral sciences, the terms “positive” and “negative” refer when used in their strict technical sense to the nature of the action performed by the conditioner rather than to the responding operant’s evaluation of that action and its consequence(s). “Positive” actions are those that add a factor, be it pleasant or unpleasant, to the environment, whereas “negative” actions are those that remove or withhold from the environment a factor of either type. In turn, the strict sense of “reinforcement” refers only to reward-based conditioning; the introduction of unpleasant factors and the removal or withholding of pleasant factors are instead referred to as “punishment”, which when used in its strict sense thus stands in contradistinction to “reinforcement”. Thus, “positive reinforcement” refers to the addition of a pleasant factor, “positive punishment” refers to the addition of an unpleasant factor, “negative reinforcement” refers to the removal or withholding of an unpleasant factor, and “negative punishment” refers to the removal or withholding of a pleasant factor.
This usage is at odds with some non-technical usages of the four term combinations, especially in the case of the term “negative reinforcement”, which is often used to denote what technical parlance would describe as “positive punishment” in that the non-technical usage interprets “reinforcement” as subsuming both reward and punishment and “negative” as referring to the responding operant’s evaluation of the factor being introduced. By contrast, technical parlance would use the term “negative reinforcement” to describe encouragement of a given behavior by creating a scenario in which an unpleasant factor is or will be present but engaging in the behavior results in either escaping from that factor or preventing its occurrence, as in Martin Seligman’s experiment involving dogs learning to avoid electric shocks.
(These paragraphs are one after the other but I can’t figure out proper formatting)
If you mean formatting as one quote, you are missing the
on the empty line.> Line 1 > > Line 2Will show as:
Line 1
Line 2
I see
Thanks!
Interesting. I’ve never made that distinction between reinforcement and punishment.
Positive punishment is different from positive reinforcement. Shame is a punishment
Adding a shame or punishment is “positive” in the sense of the words positive and negative reinforcement.
Positive is adding to as a response:
- yelling at
- giving a thing
- shocking them when exhibiting a behavior
Negative is removing from as a response
- taking a thing
- removing a negative stimulus
- no longer shocking them for exhibiting the behavior
Punishment for bad behaviour is negative reinforcement.
In a non-technical sense, yes.
In a clinical/technical/literal/how words work sense, no.
Just looked into this, and yeah, you’re right. TIL. It’s pretty counterintuitive imo and I don’t think being told it’s wrong from a “how words work sense” is helping anyone, but you are correct and I was incorrect.
negative reinforcement is what punishment for undesired behavior is called.
positive reinforcement is rewarding when the desired behavior is exhibited.
edit: negative reinforcement requires forever conditioning and develops sick and twisted conditioners eventually. positive reinforcement takes longer to work but it doesn’t require forever conditioning. And rarely causes revolutionary acts.
Negative reinforcement is punishing for doing it rewarding for not doing
Positive reinforcement is rewarding for doing or punishing for not doing
I don’t think the person who started this was talking precisely though as positive reinforcement isn’t at all effective in getting someone to stop doing something
Negative reinforcement is removing a thing when a behavior is exhibited.
I’m not trying to convince someone to quit; that’s up to them to derive enough motivation to do so on their own.
I’m just pointing out that their disgusting habit affects everyone around them, if it’s not killing them through second-hand smoke.
I say this as someone who used to smoke 1–2 packs a day, and WISH that someone told me that I smelled as bad as I did. To me, smoking was never about impacting other people, so having known that, I would have at least been more mindful.
Positive reinforcement tends to work best, but people should never underestimate the power of “you smell like an old leather ashtray”
I know intellectually that’s true but in my cursed heart I really don’t want to be nice to people who are, like, barely approaching a reasonable standard of behavior. Not just with smoking. Like, littering, taking up too much space on the subway, whatever.
It’s just frustrating how everyone (including me some of the time, I’m sure) is just like an emotionally fragile toddler. Except if you’re not nice to them, they might shoot you.
edit: Thinking about it, my parents were always like “You don’t get rewarded for doing what’s expected of you”, so that’s probably why rewarding someone for doing the basics feels insane to me.
You don’t get rewarded for doing what’s expected of you
My parents said the same thing over 15 years ago, but this kind of shit just isn’t true. When you own your home or business, doing what’s expected of you results in your investments retaining or even increasing their value. That’s why the owner works 12 hours a day, and the homeowner fixes the broken windows.
When you’re just living or working somewhere but you don’t have a stake in it, what do you actually get out of your efforts? Communities of all types, big and small, are held together by the stake we have in them. If people have no stake, they have no reason to care. This is why you pay employees, and this is why parents should thank their kids for doing the damn chores.
Problem is so many people believe that you don’t deserve thanks for “doing what’s expected” while also refusing to allow young people the opportunity to become invested in their communities. This is why the social contract is destroyed and no one cares anymore. Why should they? The youth will never get to be part of their community the way we are. They will never benefit from it the way we do… Unless things change.
I guess what I took away from my upbringing is the rewards are intrinsic. You don’t get a cookie for cleaning your room, but now your room is clean. You don’t get $20 for passing your math test, but now you (hopefully) learned some math and don’t have to worry about it anymore.
The owner in your example is the same. His rewards are inherent to the action.
Covering someone with praise and rewards when they do stuff they’re supposed to do anyway I guess works, but seems unsustainable. If they’re only doing it for external validation, how are they going to feel when that’s absent?
Saying “thank you” for doing chores isn’t what I had in mind. It was an overly effusive “omg you did so good I’m so happy here’s a pony you didn’t throw your cigarettes on the ground! You’re such a good boy and very handsome!”
Hey, if you smoke in you car, involuntary discount is applied on the price of your car in case you ever wanted to sell it! Because nobody wants to buy your stinkermobile.
It fucking sucks to get rid of the smell. It’s possible, but it’s not sweet.
It’s so nasty when you get delivery and the food reeks of cigarettes.
One time it smelled of coppertone sunscreen which was wild and also off putting but in very different ways.
I got a coffee from Dunkin Donuts once that had been prepared by someone who had some kind of topical menthol cream all over their hands. That was the second most disgusting thing I’ve put in my mouth.
well what was the most disgusting thing you have ever put in your mouth?
Risotto with maggots in it.
Yup that’s pretty vile.
Yeah, I don’t tell that story very often.
I was born with a deviated septum, so I can’t smell much of anything, but cigarette is one thing I can smell… And I can confirm everything in your post.
My dad used to smoke. A lot. I once had to borrow his car for a week or so and couldn’t even drive it without flooding it with febreze and opening all the windows.
I used to have a co-worker who smoked so much that I (and others with more sensitive schnozzes) could tell if he’d been in a room in the past hour or more.
Even if you don’t care about your own health, you shouldn’t smoke for the sake of those around you.
Even more pleasant was being driven around in a car with dad smoking in the front seat while you’re behind him. Getting all that wind, smoke and ash in your face. Mmm. Or if it’s too cold he doesn’t wanna open the window really and basically just hotboxes me and my two brothers with nicotine. (This was 25+ years ago)
My eldest brother had asthma, so my parents were generally careful not to smoke around us. They had a dedicated room in the house for smoking so that the rest of the house would get less contaminated. Fortunately, this meant that they didn’t generally smoke in the car while driving us around. Also, my dad worked and/or commuted thirteen hours a day so I was mostly around my mom, who smoked a lot less.
The car borrowing I mentioned was years after my brother had moved across the country when my dad drove his car almost exclusively alone, so at least no one else (who wasn’t borrowing the car) was engulfed.
I’m sorry you had to suffer through that.
I agree but it is kinda nice being able to smell how stressed my boss is
For people too young to remember, a lot of people were against smoking bans. The argument was pretty simple: “Why not let the market decide? If you want to go to a bar with no smokers, go to one that doesn’t allow smoking.” This was persuasive to a lot of people.
But I recall that non-smoking bars were extremely rare and I would always end up smelling like smoke every time I went to the bar. The problem was basically that going to a non-smoking bar would exclude any friends that smoked, so bars that became non-smoking were limiting themselves to only those patrons who didn’t smoke themselves and had no one in their group who did.
In hindsight, it betrays a fundamental problem with the “let the market decide” argument: there are situations where a small number of consumers with uncommon preferences can end up altering the whole market such that the majority of consumers are forced into un-ideal purchases. In the case of smoking at bars, it was actually better to say “Hey you few people who smoke, you’re kinda fucking up everything and we do actually need big government to step in and stop you from doing that.”
In the UK, most places had a non-smoking section (even restaurants 🤮) which was just part of the same room. No barriers or anything. The whole place stank no matter where you sat
Same in the US. And it wasn’t hard to get seated at a non-smoking table right next to the smoking section since there was no space between the tables or anything.
Airplanes were even worse.
Opposite of how people with allergies changed the market. Sure maybe a group of people are without allergies but a very large group are with various allergies. If you broke them down they’d be smaller groups but it made more sense to just accommodate. And you can’t really tell someone with an allergy to just stop having the allergy. Though some restaurants will deny it should be part of their culture or unheard of.
I liked the no-smoking in bars even when i smoked. But pulling an archived post with 13 points and 100 comments to display prominent opinion is pretty fun times.
I actually started with the Dennis Miller rant on it because that’s what I thought of first, but then I realized Dennis Miller sucks and I don’t want to make people sit through that so I searched for someone else arguing it…
Dennis Miller’s downfall was swift and prophetic.
Cigarettes smell gross objectively but I get a wave of…nostalgia I think? when I smell it
My parents never smoked, but on the rare occasion of going to a sit-down restaurant the whole place smelled of cigs despite being in the “non smoking” section. You know because you’re still in the same room with them.
And when my dad would visit his fire department friends they’d all hang around and at least one of them had one lit up.
We do live in better times in some ways
My parents always used to sit in the smoking sections.
And they always smoked a few cigarettes during the meal.
I was so happy when they finally banned the cigarettes in restaurants. My parents were pissed.
The crazy thing about this is that I did too. Then I was old enough to go to restaurants on my own. I also smoked, but you know what I did? I fucking went outside like a godamn person. I don’t smoke anymore but the idea of subjecting everyone else to my bullshit isn’t okay.
As a non-smoker (cigarettes) who grew up as smoking was pushed outdoors, the one thing I feel like I truly missed out on is the social aspect of it. If you walk out front with a cigarette and/or a lighter, you’ve already got a conversation starter with literally anyone else standing outside (and then by extension, anyone else that they might be there with).
Just a massive tool for meeting people that I feel like I missed out on completely. Not sure if it’s enough to regret not smoking, but still…
As a smoker, I have had so many amazing conversations with fellow smokers. Back when they used to have those outdoor boxes outside of hospitals, I’d always meet someone interesting in there when I had a reason to be at a hospital.
I met an old dude one time that was nearly blown in half in Vietnam. He was so cheerful and joked about it, which blew my mind. We talked for three days. I was there with my ex for her uncle and he was there for his wife. He said, “It hurts getting blowed up, but not as bad as someone randomly puttin’ uh fanger up ya butt when you’re froggin’.” Then he looked around and said, “Lord, I better watch my mouth. My wife’s sister would drop dead if she knew her sister put her fangers in my butt and made her food with those hands. She’s one uh them Bible thumpers that would sleep on a pew if she thought it would make her look pious. She’d never leave the church. She’s on her way to hell like the rest of us but, bless her heart, she don’t even know it.”
Crude, I know, but he had me dying laughing. Had this real thick accent that made everything sound funny. He was also very insightful and intelligent. When it was just me and him out there he was so crude. The second someone else would show up he’d drop it. It’s crazy how you can make a connection with someone in such a short time and get to know their “at home” self.
Nowadays the smokers are all hiding behind a bush somewhere far away from each other.
I’m standing outside freezing right now for a cigarette because I don’t smoke in my home. I did when I was younger and it just ruined everything. It’s nice to repair something and it isn’t sticky inside when I open it up these days.
I gotta quit this crap. I really do.
You can do it, the first step to quitting is wanting to.
Same same same. My friend was bartending when they banned in New York and she smoked. I couldn’t believe how happy she was. She’s like, I’ll just go take a break, and not have to have this every second this whole bar.
As a non cigarette smoker who has tried them once or twice, the thought of taking a drag of a cigarette during a meal makes me want to vomit. It has to completely ruin the taste of whatever you are eating.
Afterwards, I understand. Maybe before if you’re trying to reduce your appetite or some shit. But during? That seems insane to me.
It has to completely ruin the taste of whatever you are eating
Smoking really destroys your tastebuds so it’s not like smoking while eating makes a huge difference anyway.
When you’ve been smoking for a few years, you lose a lot of your taste.
My mom used to pick the smoking section. I’ll never be able to empathize with that.
I remember this happening, and the smell went from just dirty and grim to a little bit of body odour. Many people complained, because they didn’t want to smell people’s BO, whereas 90% of others were just happy to not have clothes that stunk, or to be able to not have a sore throat after being at a club.
With that said, vaping is so much more commonplace today than smoking was. I’ve been to a few gigs in the last month or two, and people just vape wherever they want. Pretty much every venue, shopping center, and indoor area says you shouldn’t vape, but it’s just not enforced at all.
Believe me when I tell you vaping is not more common place today than smoking was then. Yes, vaping is the norm today. Smoking was so common then though, you couldn’t drive your car down the street without smelling cigarettes. At a red light you could play count the cigarettes hanging out the windows. Now I see a few vape clouds occasionally as I drive. Just know if you where alive in the early 90s or before and you think vaping today is more common place then cigarettes where then; you are simply remembering it wrong. Cigarettes were everywhere. Everywhere. The world was covered in cigarette butts. In front of every business was an ashtray that stunk, in every gutter of every sidewalk was butts. It was an aroma that was extremely difficult to find reprieve from.
True, my point (as a man nearly in his forties) is that indoors vaping is more common, especially in venues where smoking was never allowed. Outside, everyone used to smoke all the time, and it was grim.
Indoors people used to smoke all the time. Office workers had ash trays on their desks. Supermarkets had ash trays.
People smoked in pubs, clubs, arenas, events
There were nearly no limits on where someone may smoke
Near me the last indoor smoking was banned in the late 90s
Just wanted to say I like your name.
I find vaping way less of an offensive smell than cigarettes. To me, cigarettes smell just gross.
I also don’t mind the smell of weed too much usually but maybe that’s just me.
Vaping doesn’t negatively affect anyone else’s health though so wanting to prohibit it is just trying to control. It’s like banning scotch because you hate the smell of peat
I’m going to reinforce this by saying: the primary ingredients in vape liquid are also commonly found in fog machines. Vape devices use methods not dissimilar to fog machines to produce the “vape” that people inhale.
I’ll also point out that with vaping, enforcement is generally the problem. A lot of governments have previously, currently are, or will be discussing some kind of bans that affect vaping in a massively negative way. 90% of the time they’re going to claim it’s for the good of the children because thing makes kids want to vape. If the law was actually enforced as it currently stands, they couldn’t get access to the products by any legal means.
The lack of enforcement goes further than just nobody stopping vaping in places you shouldn’t vape.
Could they at least stop putting these things in packaging that makes it look like candy? Same for weed gummies.
Where I am, that’s already a thing.
There’s mandates for packaging to make it less colorful/fancy.
That’s good.
I’d almost say to mandate it down to brown paper packaging with the name of the product, dosage, ingredient list, and anything else pertinent to know.
One thing that I find as important on packaging for vape liquid is the flavor profile of the liquid.
Some brands use unique naming for their e-liquid. As an example, one popular brand illusions vapor makes products like Nirvana, taste of gods, and the prophet. None of those product names tell you anything about what flavor they are (illusions is by far not the only one, just one that I’ve seen most shops carrying).
For those curious, Nirvana is mango/peach, taste of gods is pineapple/coconut/black current, and the prophet is dragon fruit/berry/guava.
The names are nonsense, but the packaging will generally illustrate the flavors, by depicting the thing they’re based on for the art on the product. Taking away the ability to have any art on the product, having a short description of the flavor profile can seriously help with selections when considering a new to you e-liquid.
Back in the day, before vaping was subject to the same restrictions about indoor use as cigarettes, testers were common. Shops would have relatively cheap vape pens and hand out single use tips for them (where you actually put your mouth), and fill them with 0 mg (no nicotine) versions of the e-liquid so people can just try it.
Since that’s almost entirely illegal now, and every vape shop I know of is trying to abide by whatever laws are in place, the practice has gone extinct. Tragically, this opened the door wide for disposable vapes, which I really do not like.
Where I am there’s also child resistant packaging laws, which is designed to make it harder for children to get access to the liquid inside the vape. This also fueled a disposable vape movement, since it’s easier to deny access to the liquid if you have zero ability to fill, refill, empty, or otherwise access the liquid in the device. Disposables are a gigantic waste of resources and the single worst way to vape IMO. Juul was better, bluntly.
I’ll get off my soap box. The point is, all those that are trying to be legit and legal about their use are going to be the ones suffering from additional legislation. Those doing illegal shit and giving this stuff to kids or whatever, don’t care what laws are in place and will continue to do whatever the fuck they want. More legislation isn’t the answer. Enforcing the laws we already have, is.
deleted by creator
Uh, no? The first state to actually ban smoking was in 2002, minimum wage was already too low to get by and literally not a single person I know was able to buy a house on a single income. I graduated college then and it was a massive recession still happening from the dot com crash. Barbara Ehrenreich wrote Nickle and Dimed about how it is impossible to get by on a minimum wage in 2001 and was already calling for a 15 dollar minimum wage. The US made no progress.
Yeah, I made $6.75/hr in 2002 as a manager
And that only thanks to lung cancer
Between the massive corporate wealth at stake and the millions of people literally addicted to the product, it’s hard now to imagine governments being able to ban them (and I lived through it).
And now we have vaping.
😭
Infinitely better for health and can only be used in private spaces or outside in most countries, would rather have some rights than none
How dare you impose your right to a thing that impacts no one else. I use vapour to scent my hous but how dare you use it for whatever you want. Under the guise of “quitting smoking for the betterment of your health”. spits
The world and it’s people needs to be how I want them to be. Only then can people be as tolerant as me.
This is Lemmy, sir. Your sarcasm isn’t going to be recognized here.
And of those that didn’t recognise it, half of them will be upset at you for highlighting their lack of social awareness which made them feel dumb. A portion of that group will say they did get it and, “No, you’re dumb!”
I don’t miss Reddit for much, but the humorless pearl clutching was way lower there at least.
Fun fact, no one cares if they use incense in their homes. It doesn’t affect others. Shit, you can even vape back home and no one will bat an eye. But since it is at very least annoying as fuck to sit in vape clouds, you are not allowed to do that.
It’s either the right to vape or the right to breathe clean air. You can’t have both.
Nothing about that fact is fun. It’s barely even mildly interesting or even a fact. The deceit! You should be ashamed.
We usually say fun fact for little children, so they would learn ;)
Okay, Golem.
Which the Aussie government banned, yet didn’t even touch cigarettes.
Didn’t ban them, just restricted who could sell them.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-24/vaping-ban-watered-down-greens-support/104016012
Essentially banned, now requiring a prescription to obtain any components and destroying small business
i through they also stopped the sale of cigs to anyone born after a cutoff date?
That was NZ I think and I also think it ended up on the back burner for some reason (I assume lobbying)
In smoking areas or outside only.
Lol I’m a school bus driver and a number of my colleagues vape on the fucking buses. They imagine they’re being super-secret about it - they’re somehow oblivious to the giant cloud of smoke each hit creates. Never underestimate the power of nicotine addiction to force people to relentlessly push the boundaries of where and when.
Ah yes, the smoking section, and the second-hand-smoking section in restaurants
as a young person who hates cigarettes and recently went to las vegas for the first time, it was wild walking around the casinos thinking “this is what everywhere used to smell like, its incredibly disgusting!” I’m glad we managed to stop smoking indoors, probably one of the greatest advances of society.
There’s an enclosed area in the Las Vegas airport where people can smoke while using the slot machines. If you ever find yourself here and are curious what it’s like to live with parents who chain smoke, visit this awful little piece of hell and you will satisfy that curiosity.
I went to a casino for my 21st birthday and the stench of cigarettes in the non-smoking section was enough for me to never want to return. That and it was almost entirely penny slots and I got bored of those as soon as the novelty of actually gambling wore off
Just want to add that the biggest objection that I have heard from coworkers and friends about making recreational Marijuanna legal is the smell. Walk around a downtown in any state it is legal for recreation in and the smell is everywhere.
Non-users don’t want to smell burning weed or tabacco as they go about their day.
I’m with you, Marijuana smells just a awful to me (a non-smoker)
Much worse than the smell of cigarettes, imo
Yeah. I guess I don’t really gaf that my neighbor smokes weed however I do hate that as a person who doesn’t smoke weed I can’t go into my garage or anywhere in my back yard without feeling smelling hardcore weed smell and my garage just accumulates it.
I live in a legal state. You get whiffs once in a while, which is more funny than it is annoying to me.
There are times when the smell lingers, and that’s pretty gross.
But other than that, it’s not as choking/poisonous as the cloud of cigarette and car fumes.
The car fumes are causing more cancer than the smoking. And is non majority directed at the user. We’ve known that for just as long as cigarettes being bad, yet people turned their head because they had good lobbying.
Gas powered cars are worse than cigarettes. We could have switched to majority electric cars in the 70s, and all the gas stations would have just been electric chargers and the tech growth for batteries would have happened 50 years ago.
Then again cars cause further damages to society than just fumes, but a lot of people don’t care about the layout of towns/cities and access and accept deaths from cars as par for the course.
How practical were electric cars in the 70s really though? I feel like the technology back then would have meant much shorter ranges, less performance, and also more environmental damage than even modern battery technologies cause in manufacturing.
Batteries already existed that could range up to 100 miles. This would have pushed companies into the battery evolution earlier, pushed industry away from shipping fuels (50% of all shipping overseas) across oceans, and created energy independence for regions around the world, depleting that as a mechanism of war. Also means public transit in form of trains and buses would have been hopefully pushed more as well.
Not very practical. There were a few city cars, but all they had were lead acid batteries. I believe the Electrek was one such car but by God is it an abomination.
I get whiffs of it walking downtown in a non-legal state.
I live in a city where it’s not legal an it smells loud enough now. I do think it should be legal, but I don’t really care for the smell.
deleted by creator
Yeah I walk downtown in my favorite city now and it smells like losers. It’s a bummer.
I live in a state that legalized not too long ago, and I barely smell it. Almost never in public places. Sometimes, my older neighbor smokes in his garage but it’s not that strong. If it was, it still wouldn’t bother me.
And airplanes. People used to smoke in airplanes.
Also it was a freaking huge industry to kill all the whales in the sea.
Once upon a time it was common to mine ice.
The world can be changed.
Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.
– Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
a freaking huge industry to kill all the whales in the sea
One of the wildest aspects of this was that they did it from fucking rowboats. I’ve never understood why the whales didn’t just leisurely swim away from that bullshit.
Because they didn’t know how the harpoons worked until they had been harpooned.
Would you believe that they had a smoking section on airplanes? That is, you could smoke in the back of the plane, but not forward of a certain row number.
Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?
With how hvac works when setup correctly it actually does.
It still isn’t ideal and I’m very happy it isn’t a thing anymore.
“This is a non-smoking flight.” Yeah, fucking who doesn’t know that? It’s like saying this is non-highjacking flight.
You’d be surprised. Cuba’s state airline only banned smoking in the 2010s, and Chinese pilots were allowed to smoke in the cockpit until the 2000s at least even though it was banned for passengers in the 1990s.
Also, I guarantee you (considering people try to light up in the bathroom anyway) that if they didn’t say that, people would try to smoke on planes more often.
Aviation laws require the no smoking signs to be put there, and ash trays to be in the aircraft bathrooms even though smoking is of course never allowed. Sadly basically all the safety rules are because of some prior incident that cost lives. You would hope a reminder is enough but some think they know better than the rules.
I still find it funny that we used to just have smoking and non-smoking sections, as if the smoke would stay entirely on the smoking side of the restaurant when they’re not even physically seperated.
That shit sucked. I am a smoker myself and even I hate being in a closed room to smoke or be around others who are smoking. Casinos fucking suck for this. In California, the smoking ban doesn’t include the native American casinos. You can smoke indoors (and drink at 18+) at Jackson Rancheria.
Like in 2005 I worked in a restaurant with an smoking section that had an independent hvac systems for the two sections and a double door to enter the smoking section. It was expensive as fuck and the restaurant failed and everyone got laid off.
That’s excessive. You don’t need entirely separate HVAC systems. You just need a small pressure differential. Wall in the smoking area and add an extra fan blowing to exhaust. The pressure difference means air flows in when the door opens rather than out.
There was a restaurant in my area that did that once upon a time before the smoking section was abolished. It was actually pretty effective.
My guess is that regulations were pretty strict there. I was a waiter at the time and that was the only restaurant with a smoking section I ever knew about.
The first smoking bans were soft, some non-smoking bar and restaurant staff got lung cancer and sued their employers for not protecting them from smoke
Those sort of places banned smoking inside to avoid similar litigation
Some made more effective barriers between smoking and non-smoking sections, and only put smoking staff on the smoking side
It was a good idea, it was doomed from the start
