• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Smoking in pubs: I'm torn

Yes, there is a conflict between liberty and public health. Most societies have found that restricting people from hurting others, and to a lesser degree, hurting themselves, is desirable. I'll let you imagine the consequence of a society in which there are no restrictions to liberty: no health and safety laws, since you are free to accept an unhealthy and dangerous job, no road safety laws, etc., and ponder whether that would be a society you would find acceptable to live in.
 
Angus McPresley said:
So, Melbourne just implemented its no-smoking-in-pubs law.

I have nothing but cognitive dissonance over the issue. I believe people should have the right -- not just to smoke, but to own and operate a pub where are allowed to.

But man, it's nice to come home from a night out not reeking of smoke.

I so wish that market forces would have resulted in having some pubs that decreed no smoking, and that smokers could go off to their own pubs and mentholate their lungs to their hearts' content. In every city I've lived in, though, that never seems to happen. And so we get these laws.

A right has been lost here. And as horrible as smoking is, I don't want to say I'm glad about it just because I don't partake of that right.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
As an ex-smoker with a thirteen year habit. I don't see the benefit of showing smokers any tolerance. I definitely empathize with smokers, but when society acts as enablers for such a hideous habit I don't see the benefit.
 
I am one of those moderate libertarian types that is a bit troubled by this trend. Personally, I am better off. I can do things without being annoyed by smoking.

One of the things that is seldom made note of is the third party consequences of smoking. A lot is made of the consequences of second hand smoke but there are quite a few other consequences that go unmentioned. Some of these include higher fire insurance premiums, and substantially higher maintenance costs as a result of embedded odors and stains that require more painting to cover up.

Still part of me thinks that if people voluntarily are willing to assume the health risks of smoking they should be allowed to meet in public places and indulge their habits.
 
davefoc said:
I am one of those moderate libertarian types that is a bit troubled by this trend. Personally, I am better off. I can do things without being annoyed by smoking.

One of the things that is seldom made note of is the third party consequences of smoking. A lot is made of the consequences of second hand smoke but there are quite a few other consequences that go unmentioned. Some of these include higher fire insurance premiums, and substantially higher maintenance costs as a result of embedded odors and stains that require more painting to cover up.

Still part of me thinks that if people voluntarily are willing to assume the health risks of smoking they should be allowed to meet in public places and indulge their habits.
Click to expand...
Definitely, smoking must be considered a pox on society.
 
Speaking as someone who worked in restaurants, bars and hotels for over 10 years I am absolutely in favour of public smoking bans. It is very hard for me to see them in terms of limiting other peoples freedom, in fact it feels to me as if there is finally someone standing up for my right to not be attacked at work.

I have worked in family friendly hotels where you frequently couldnt see 5 meters through the haze of tobacco smoke in the public areas (not just the bars), particularly on weekends or big sports events. Working 8 hours in that kind of environment feels like smoking a pack of cigarettes. I never used to have the option of saying " please dont sit at the bar and spew vast quantities of poison into the air I have to breathe." I have had smokers decry smoking bans by telling me if I didnt like being poisoned by complete strangers I should work in another industry.

Going out to socialize was problematic as well. Cigarette smoke clogs my nostrils, gives me headaches and makes it harder for me to sleep. If I ever dared express any of this in a social setting, the cry would go up: "If you dont like it, leave."

As a non smoker I was treated as a killjoy puritan out to ruin the fun of people trying to relax and have fun, minding their own business. Except they werent minding their own business at all - I was. I was earning a living or enjoying a drink when some jerk would come along and invade MY personal space with THEIR reeking poison. They would in fact physically harm me and insist it was their right to do so.

It seemed to me that if smoking in public was truly just an issue of personal freedom, then surely it was acceptable for me to punch smokers in the head every time they lit up around me.

"What?" I could say, rubbing my knuckles. " I'm just trying to relax. If you dont like it, leave. Getting punched in the head by strangers is just part of going out. Deal with it. Go to a no punching bar or stay at home with no social life if you must but dont you dare tell me I cant punch you in the head whenever I want to."

I used to propose this as an honourable compromise to smokers, but very few of them seemed to think it a good idea, so I'm just as happy with the smoking ban.
 
Another thing I've noticed, bars that offer outdoor seating have become VERY popular with smokers. So, at least during the warm months, there is some reprieve. I don't know much about the climate in Melbourne, but at least most of the year outdoor seating would be possible, no? Did they mention anything about that in the legislation?

One other thing. There are some exemptions in the NYC law (at least there were at first). Cigar and hooka joints were exempted (I might be wrong about this) and I know I DJ'ed at least a few clubs where the owners had some sort of "in" with officials or police and smoking was either allowed, or at least the ordinance was never enforced in those places. In one case, the owner was married to a relatively high ranking person in the NYPD (or so I heard).
 
Weird, there are people in this thread who seem to be unaware or in denial that the health risks associated with second-hand smoke are proven.

Newsflash, folks. Second-hand smoke is not safe. Fact. Particularly if you work in it.
 
I don't think that smoking in bars is a serious public health issue.

This isn't a dirty river the whole town has to drink from, we are talking about a business voluntarily owned with voluntary employees and voluntary customers.

That said, this is one of those issues that seems to bring out the inner woo in many skeptics I've noticed.
 
tkingdoll said:
Weird, there are people in this thread who seem to be unaware or in denial that the health risks associated with second-hand smoke are proven.

Newsflash, folks. Second-hand smoke is not safe. Fact. Particularly if you work in it.
Click to expand...

You are saying that inhaling carcinogens is not good for you? Well you win the "DUH" award my friend.

Where are the people in denial about this?
 
Swimming pools are not safe. Yet, we allow them.

Fast food is not safe. Yet, businesses are allowed to sell it.

Why should I not be allowed to chose to go to a place that places my health/life at risk? No one is required to go to a restauraunt. As long as it is clearly indicated that it is a smoking establishment, then people have the option to chose (note that this is what distinguishes it from "food regulation" - when I buy food at a restauraunt, I don't know if it's healthy or not; when I walk into a smoke filled restauraunt, I am fully aware). I don't accept the "I deserve to be able to eat in a smoke-free environment" claim.

OTOH, I _DO_ accept the "I deserve to WORK in a non-harmful environment" argument, and therefore am supportive of smoking bans. Employers are required to take reasonable measures to ensure worker safety, and I can't see that prohibiting smoking is an unreasonable measure.
 
MWare said:
We exclude non-smokers??? You are being excluded from something because you don't smoke??? I've felt it is ALWAYS the other way around. To my knowledge I have never not invited anybody to my apartment or anywhere because they do not smoke. I've never not done something because I couldn't smoke there. I've even refrained from smoking in my own home to accomodate non-smokes (rarely, but it's happened). Please give an example.
Click to expand...

Never worked in an office where everyone except you goes off for a cigarette break? Heck, I even know people who have been told they cannot have several short breaks throughout the working day, because they do not smoke, but the smokers can.

My husband started smoking because he was tired of his colleagues going for 'free' breaks while he had to stay and work. He started going with them. Then he started smoking. Weak, sure, and he's since quit, but exclusion happens all the time.

Plus, there are many, many people who choose not to go to pubs and clubs because of the smoke. If it's a choice of breathing in second-hand smoke, which kills,stinks, and hurts my eyes and throat, or staying at home, I'll to stay at home. Now I don't have to.
 
I think a lot of the posters on this thread are missing a major point. It's not the choice of the owners or patrons, whether it should be smoking or non-smoking. It's a workplace safety issue. The ban is (usually) justified as a way to protect the health of the workers in the establishment.

That said, I too am biased. I don't smoke, but I certainly drink. It seems whenever I'm out in a casino, sitting at a hot video poker machine, a smoker will park their butt next to mine and share a smoke with me .....

Charlie (smoke magnet) Monoxide
 
corplinx said:
I don't think that smoking in bars is a serious public health issue.

This isn't a dirty river the whole town has to drink from, we are talking about a business voluntarily owned with voluntary employees and voluntary customers.

That said, this is one of those issues that seems to bring out the inner woo in many skeptics I've noticed.
Click to expand...
I take issue of your voluntary employment statement. It's not realistic to believe that people are forced into certain work environments. The days of "chosing where you work" is an antiquated notion. People tend to take what they can get in the job market. I oppose any prohibition. I just don't approve of the marketing of deadly drug's by the private sector, and their lobbying influence.
 
Problem with the "you can have it, you just have to post it clearly" is that most (almost certainly all) pubs/bars would post "smoking allowed". No functional change, non-smokers still ******.
They would do it because the image of bars/pubs is a place to drink, smoke and BS.


My most fun with this was at a Medieval dinner/theater thing in Orlando - long ago - when due to a little error my wife and I were being put at a smoking table - as we were being seated, guy next to me pulled out cigar and asked "Mind if I smoke?" I responded "not if you don't mind me throwing up!". Smart waitress helped us find new seating.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Monoxide said:
That said, I too am biased. I don't smoke, but I certainly drink. It seems whenever I'm out in a casino, sitting at a hot video poker machine, a smoker will park their butt next to mine and share a smoke with me .....
Click to expand...

I think one should be allowed to carry a squirt bottle full of water for this situation. When the smoker lites up, squirt them in face with water to put out the fire. If they don't like being squirted in the face, they can go someplace else.
 
Ohmer said:
I think one should be allowed to carry a squirt bottle full of water for this situation. When the smoker lites up, squirt them in face with water to put out the fire. If they don't like being squirted in the face, they can go someplace else.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been to Reno and seen the weird people that hang out in casinos there?

Charlie (especially me) Monoxide
 
Charlie Monoxide said:
I think a lot of the posters on this thread are missing a major point. It's not the choice of the owners or patrons, whether it should be smoking or non-smoking. It's a workplace safety issue. The ban is (usually) justified as a way to protect the health of the workers in the establishment.
Click to expand...

I really wish that were true, and supporters would stick to the worker safety issue. Throwing out carp like "smoke bothers me and therefore businesses shouldn't allow it" doesn't help the cause at all. And I am saying this as one who used to be adamently opposed to it, so I know how those opposed to it feel.

However, I could see that the workers health issue was a different situation from the simple "non-smokers are put out" claims, and hence have changed my position overall (who says these discussions aren't productive?).
 
pgwenthold said:
I really wish that were true, and supporters would stick to the worker safety issue. Throwing out carp like "smoke bothers me and therefore businesses shouldn't allow it" doesn't help the cause at all. And I am saying this as one who used to be adamently opposed to it, so I know how those opposed to it feel.

However, I could see that the workers health issue was a different situation from the simple "non-smokers are put out" claims, and hence have changed my position overall (who says these discussions aren't productive?).
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I tend to side with the anti-smoking-ban group, but my stance has been softened quite a bit by this argument.

Regarding the "I don't mind if you smoke if you don't mind if I punch you in the face/squirt you with water/whatever" comments, I think this analogy only really works if the owner of the establishment has made it known that punching in the face or squirting with water is permitted. If so, cut loose!
 
Nick Bogaerts said:
Yes, there is a conflict between liberty and public health. Most societies have found that restricting people from hurting others, and to a lesser degree, hurting themselves, is desirable. I'll let you imagine the consequence of a society in which there are no restrictions to liberty: no health and safety laws, since you are free to accept an unhealthy and dangerous job, no road safety laws, etc., and ponder whether that would be a society you would find acceptable to live in.
Click to expand...


You have to have a job.

You have to use the roads (to get to yor job..grocery store..doctor, etc.).

You DON'T have to go to the bar (or work in one). Let those who want to imbibe and ruin their liver and smoke and ruin their lungs, and those who feel the same way, do so!! And let anyone else who thinks smokeless bars will work to open one themselves then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom