Smoking in pubs: I'm torn

[Iamme]

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.

Hmmm. I hate the smell of stir fry. So if I see (smell) you eating stir fry in the restaurant I am in, I'll squirt water on you and tell you to kindly go to some other establishment.

Ya. Quite the argument.

 

[Admiral]

Double post.

 

[Admiral]

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.

Do you think it should be illegal to hire workers to work in a potentially dangerous environment?

If so, then do you want to tell the lumberjacks they're out of a job, or should I?

 

[pgwenthold]

See my other post about employers expected to do what is reasonable to minimize risk.

It's hard to work as a lumberjack without having to cut down trees.

However, it is not hard to run a bar without allowing smoking.

 

[Segnosaur]

Went through it here in NYC. As a smoker I was pretty pissed off initially. Many friends who work in bars were quite concerned that many customers would stop coming and they would lose a lot of income. After a couple years of it (has it been that long?) those concerns don't seem to have panned out too much (can you imagine nobody going out in NYC?).

Ottawa also instituted a smoking ban almost a decade ago. Some bar owners initially claimed it would drive them out of business. However, in the years following the smoking ban the number of bankruptcies for bars/restaurants actually went down, and in many cases, when one bar closes, another one opens in the exact same spot. Employment is also up in the field.

That said, I am curious about one thing... the number of people who smoke is a minority, and has been for some time. You would think that more bars/restaurants would be eager to institute non-smoking policies to cater to the majority, yet prior to the ban I can only think of one restaurant (out of hundreds or thousands in the city) that were specificially no smoking. Anyone have any thoughts about why that is? Do smokers, even though they are in the minority, have more influence in getting friends to go to pro-smoking places than their numbers suggest? Or were bar owners unwilling to risk making changes that might help business, or might harm it?

 

[Modified]

So, 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.

It didn't/doesn't happen much here in America either, and I've often wondered why. Surely the first bar, and even more so the first casino in a particular area to ban smoking would make a mint, until some of the others caught on and things balanced out. It's kind of like how all the hardware stores used to be open M-F 9-5, so when you got out of work it was too late to get the stuff you needed to fix up your house. That persisted for a long time, and I suppose it was the big chains that first broke the rule. Now if only the same thing would happen with banks.

 

[Modified]

Segnosaur, you beat me by mere seconds.

 

[mumblethrax]

Anyone have any thoughts about why that is? Do smokers, even though they are in the minority, have more influence in getting friends to go to pro-smoking places than their numbers suggest? Or were bar owners unwilling to risk making changes that might help business, or might harm it?

My theory is selection bias: potential customers kept away by smoke weren't there to voice their interest in smoke-free bars, and the existing client base either smoked or didn't mind smoking. So the perception would have been, "Hey, I'm going to lose 5% of my customers!" rather than, "Hey, I'm going to lose 5% of my customers and then gain twice as many from the pool of potential customers!"

It's a natural kind of conservatism, I think.

 

[Segnosaur]

My theory is selection bias: potential customers kept away by smoke weren't there to voice their interest in smoke-free bars, and the existing client base either smoked or didn't mind smoking. So the perception would have been, "Hey, I'm going to lose 5% of my customers!" rather than, "Hey, I'm going to lose 5% of my customers and then gain twice as many from the pool of potential customers!"

Yeah that might have been the case, but you'd figure that with the hundreds of restaurants/bars in a city the size of Ottawa or New York, there'd be at least a few owners willing to try a smoke-free environment (either through foresight or desparation), and if their actions were successful, then other bars/restaurants would follow suit.

 

[Beerina]

Seems I hit a nerve with a smoker.

Incorrect. Though, since the vast majority of humanity never defends a position unless they have a stake in it, I can see how you'd think this.

Apples and oranges.. tossing around violent analogies doesn't make your "point" sound stronger.

You seem to enjoy the idea that the world is in a good and proper state with all your smoking friends being dragged down, under penalty of jail, to your non-smoking ways.

Or will they not be threatened with jail, and, resisting jail, violence, if they smoke in those restaraunts?

 

[corplinx]

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

Most casinos we own have non-smoking sections. But yes, a casino is where people gamble, drink, dine, dance, and smoke. Its one of the few places where someone can let their hair down.

Yet there are still people who want to ruin other people's fun....

 

[Beerina]

"Freedom", at least in America, is defined by a combination of the Constitution and democratic vote.

Politicians loudly bray the joys of democracy, while minimizing talk of freedom. This is because they derive their power from democracy.

Freedom, in this context, means freedom from their control under democracy. Since this undercuts their power, they minimize it.

Simple to understand.

 

[EvilSmurf]

Reminds me of an anecdote which happened back when I was in Australia (and smoking was legal in bars at the time):

A person seated next to me at the bar was doing the whole "fake cough" (you all know the one) seconds after I lit up. He'd just thrown $50 into a slot machine, he was on his 5th tequila shot in the last half hour or so and he was using the time he wasn't drinking to proposition a young lady that he drive with her (while definitely drunk) to his place for unprotected conjugal relations.

 

[Beerina]

1) I own a business. I obey the law to protect my clients and my staff.

Excellent! It's more than I've done here in America.

2) In the UK, the law says that "where a physical barrier makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service then that barrier must be addressed, or the service made available by other means". This can also apply to landlords of private dwellings.

But not the normal homeowners of private dwellings. There's far too many, who would rapidly un-elect the politicians who mandated tens of millions have to make tens of thousands of pounds worth of changes to their houses.

3) Smokers are the minority.

Yes, politicians historically beat up on minorities, by leading the majorities on angry cruscades against them.

4) I'm pretty sure nobody protested the Disability Discrimination Act with 'loud huffs'.

See above re: 2)

5) Smoker, are ya?

Nah! You're the second to think this. I'm also for drug legalization, but have taken fewer puffs on joints than Bill Clinton (1 vs. 2). I'm for legal prostitution, but have never hired, or been, one. I'm also for legal porn, but have yet to act in any.

 

[Beerina]

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.

By the way, let's stop this one right here and now.

Let's not pretend laws against smoking in public (well, private, but open-to-the-public) businesses has anything to do whatsoever with protecting workers and/or patrons.

It's all about non-smokers not wanting smoke in their face in restaraunts.

Which is fine, but let's not lie that it's about protecting workers or asthmatics when we all know that, politically, that's not why politicians are mandating it, and not why the masses vote for them.

To put it in perspective, many on the left, properly, claim that Bush, even if he didn't actually claim Iraq aided in 9/11, that he knew much of the US population was supporting him because of the mistaken belief Iraq helped in 9/11. So recognize the above, as well, thanks. "It's about the workers" is regurgitated talking points that keep people with IQs above room temps busy in blabberboards like this, while the politicians sit back, relieved, knowing people vote for them because they don'ts wants no smoke in their face.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Do you think it should be illegal to hire workers to work in a potentially dangerous environment?

If so, then do you want to tell the lumberjacks they're out of a job, or should I?

To your 1st question, no. But we must try to mitigate the chances for injury (as the next poster after your message indicates)

As for question 2, I think their jobs are secured. Lumberjacks mitigate danger by using many safety devices.

Charlie (and dress up in womens clothing) Monoxide

 

[mumblethrax]

Yeah that might have been the case, but you'd figure that with the hundreds of restaurants/bars in a city the size of Ottawa or New York, there'd be at least a few owners willing to try a smoke-free environment (either through foresight or desparation), and if their actions were successful, then other bars/restaurants would follow suit.

There were a few in New York prior to the ban.

I think reluctance to enforce a voluntary ban (for the same, essentially conservative reasons) is one problem: unless another customer complains, the owner is unlikely to ask a smoker to put it out. A bar that was strongly identified as non-smoking, meanwhile, would be seen as something of a destination, and wouldn't necessarily be regarded as a replicable model to neighborhood bar owner (and most bars in New York are neighborhood bars).

But I don't really know. I'm sure someone has done the research at some point....

 

[Iamme]

Ottawa also instituted a smoking ban almost a decade ago. Some bar owners initially claimed it would drive them out of business. However, in the years following the smoking ban the number of bankruptcies for bars/restaurants actually went down, and in many cases, when one bar closes, another one opens in the exact same spot. Employment is also up in the field.

That said, I am curious about one thing... the number of people who smoke is a minority, and has been for some time. You would think that more bars/restaurants would be eager to institute non-smoking policies to cater to the majority, yet prior to the ban I can only think of one restaurant (out of hundreds or thousands in the city) that were specificially no smoking. Anyone have any thoughts about why that is? Do smokers, even though they are in the minority, have more influence in getting friends to go to pro-smoking places than their numbers suggest? Or were bar owners unwilling to risk making changes that might help business, or might harm it?

Just a simple question, as your post is well put:

Why not bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers?

 

[Angus McPresley]

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?

Melbourne apparently underwent an outdoor cafe revolution ten or fifteen years ago, before I got here. There are already tons of them. And our winters are long and cold but never freezing. Still, the wife and I were just commenting the other night how most cafes, bars, and restaurants all keep their outside tables operating even at the height of winter. Very European, it seems -- people just tolerate the cold here. It was never like that in Atlanta where we came from.

Some good points being made here. I can see the point of it being a preventable workplace safety issue -- and to counter the lumberjack example, maybe lumber companies should also have to do everything they can to make their workplaces safer. I don't know.

Still, I just wish, as some other posters mentioned, that someone had broken the ice by making a smoke-free bar, and that the idea could have spread. It must have been tried, though. I just don't understand what force keeps that from happening...

 

[Iamme]

You can put up with the cold if you like what you are doing. I used to stand out on this deck for 45 minutes at a time, talking to this girl I liked. And I HATE cold!