Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[jiggeryqua]

Does it matter, from a public policy point of view, if pubs "suffer"?

It matters from a social policy point of view. It matters if the pubs at the heart of working class communities can't survive. It matters less if bistros in smart metropolitan areas dispense with their smoking areas. I guess it depends on which of those groups matters to you.

 

[Francesca R]

there is absolutely no benefit to smoking whatsoever.

Incorrect. Your critical thinking skills appear to be lacking, or letting you down.

 

[23_Tauri]

Can you demonstrate that "adequate ventilation" is viable? I think most people laugh rather long and hard at that idea.

Laugh long and hard if you wish:

Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Nonsmoking Section of a Restaurant: A Case Study

I think that's because it isn't just about the rights of employees but of patrons. Private property based rights or priviledges take a back seat.

Patrons who don't wish to go to a smoking pub can go to a non-smoking pub. There is space in the market place to cater to both groups. Hey, you could even have smoking and non-smoking sections, how novel might that be? At the moment, smokers are the one's with no choice.

I think most people find these non-viable--from experience I might add; plenty of places had smoking and non-smoking areas before 2007.

And it worked, right?

I think the UK laws are about right as of now. I am wholly against banning smoking outside, or within X metres of a building etc. I agree that there should not be smoking in workplaces or establishments opened to the public. I don't agree with sponsorship or advertising bans though. Although the current position is "about right" I rather suspect there will be regulatory creep that takes it into illiberal territory from my POV.

What is "about right" about making smokers stand out in the freezing cold to have a cigarette? What is "about right" about continuing historically high levels of pub closures?

And yes, these closures are attributable to the smoking ban:
Smoking gun: is the smoking ban a major cause of the decline of the British pub?

 

[Francesca R]

It matters from a social policy point of view. It matters if the pubs at the heart of working class communities can't survive. It matters less if bistros in smart metropolitan areas dispense with their smoking areas. I guess it depends on which of those groups matters to you.

Seems like a "being anti smoking is socially regressive because poor people smoke more" twist.

Rather loopy if you ask me. If you want to socially-engineer, then outlawing smoking is more progressive in that sense. Count me out of that.

 

[23_Tauri]

It matters from a social policy point of view. It matters if the pubs at the heart of working class communities can't survive. It matters less if bistros in smart metropolitan areas dispense with their smoking areas. I guess it depends on which of those groups matters to you.

^ This.

Pubs really matter.

 

[Francesca R]

Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Nonsmoking Section of a Restaurant: A Case Study

Thanks. But I think most people's senses tell them that it is rubbish as a plan and no study will convince them.

At the moment, smokers are the one's with no choice.

Incorrect, smokers have all the choices that non-smokers have. There isn't any discrimination.

And it worked, right?

I disagree.

What is "about right" about making smokers stand out in the freezing cold to have a cigarette?

There's no workable market mechanism to compensate non-smokers (or even smokers who hate other people's smoke) for the extenality. (It would not be very easy to do an emissions trading scheme for cigarettes). This points to a ban or free-for-all being the only choices. The ban wins IMO because it corrects a market failure better than free-for-all smoking does.

 

[Ambrosia]

Can you demonstrate that "adequate ventilation" is viable? I think most people laugh rather long and hard at that idea.

Really. In the kitchen I work in at the moment I can boil a pan of cream over on my solidtop stove, which sends a HUGE cloud of acrid black smoke into the air. The ventilation system employed in the kitchen is good enough that the guy working across the kitchen with his back to me won't smell smoke, or notice what I've done if I mop up the cream fast enough that it doesn't burst into flames. We can engineer pretty good ventilation systems when we need to.

They're expensive, but we have no idea if smoking pubs would prove popular enough to pay for such ventilation because noone is allowed to even try it.

I think most people find these non-viable--from experience I might add; plenty of places had smoking and non-smoking areas before 2007.

A lot of the places I went to back then had ventilation that was a token effort at best.

I think the UK laws are about right as of now.

I agree for the most part. I just want to be allowed to smoke in a pub with like minded friends if I choose to. That's the only change to the law I am arguing for.

There are exemptions for designated rooms in hotels, hotel rooms in the UK typically only ever have ventilation that works via the opening of a window. Prisons are also exempt. What about the safety of prison officers, or hotel housekeeping staff??

The law is bonkers.

 

[Francesca R]

They're expensive, but we have no idea if smoking pubs would prove popular enough to pay for such ventilation because noone is allowed to even try it. [ . . . ] A lot of the places I went to back then had ventilation that was a token effort at best.

I can see the case for trying it (how much noise do those make though?). But I suspect the public view of this is irreversibly coloured by the token effort that people are used to, and that they probably overwhelmingly suspect would be the future outturn as well. (Can you imagine yellow-jacketed "ventilation wardens" policing city centres?)

I just want to be allowed to smoke in a pub with like minded friends if I choose to. That's the only change to the law I am arguing for

This is the part I think is not legitimate, because of the adverse impact on another member of the public who may want to visit the same establishment.

There are exemptions for designated rooms in hotels, hotel rooms in the UK typically only ever have ventilation that works via the opening of a window. Prisons are also exempt. What about the safety of prison officers, or hotel housekeeping staff??

There's usually quirky exemptions to many laws which do not mean "throw the whole thing out" except to those with the mindset that everything must be 100% consistent at all times and that perfection is the enemy of realism.

 

[Francesca R]

As the issue of the health and safety of employees has been raised I thought it would be helpful to link to this thread from last year, where we discussed the various issues around passive smoking at some length:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171114

Here's a four year old thread I remember participating in quite a bit.

 

[Ambrosia]

(how much noise do those make though?).

Depends on how expensive the fan part is. Usually noticably noisy when you first turn them on, but you tune the noise out surprisingly quickly as it's a constant type of noise.

(Can you imagine yellow-jacketed "ventilation wardens" policing city centres?)

Set a limit on acceptable ppm for the general air in the establishment and give trading standards people meters that can detect it. No extra yellow jackets required.

This is the part I think is not legitimate, because of the adverse impact on another member of the public who may want to visit the same establishment.

Hang a large sign on the door stating that this is a smoking establishment. Punter can choose before they step into the place whether or not to venture inside. Keep the majority of establishments as they are now. Surely it makes sense to allow some small fraction of pubs and bars to cater for smokers seeing as a small fraction of population smoke.

There's usually quirky exemptions to many laws which do not mean "throw the whole thing out" except to those with the mindset that everything must be 100% consistent at all times and that perfection is the enemy of realism.

I don't want to throw the whole thing out. I just want to be able to choose a pub I can smoke inside of. If it turns out that new smoking pubs don't make the landlord a good enough profit then they'll die out all by themselves. Let the market decide whether they are viable or not.

 

[23_Tauri]

Thanks. But I think most people's senses tell them that it is rubbish as a plan and no study will convince them.

As a critical thinker, you will understand the concept of confirmation bias.

Incorrect, smokers have all the choices that non-smokers have. There isn't any discrimination.

Only a non-smoker would make such an absurd statement. Non-smokers now have 100% of all the pubs in Britain. How is that having equal rights for smokers and non?

I disagree.

ok, let's put it another way. Why can't we amend the law so that publicans have the choice of whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments. If non-smoking pubs are so popular amongst the non-smoking pub frequenting public then clearly there will be sufficient room in the marketplace to cater to both groups.

At the moment, the pub industry is losing trade hand over fist because of the smoking ban. The anti-smoking lobby constantly say tell us that pub closures have nothing to do with the smoking ban. Ok, if that's the case then non-smoking pubs must be really popular, so changing the law to allow some pubs to allow smoking again won't affect all those successful non-smoking pubs from keeping their tills ringing.

There's no workable market mechanism to compensate non-smokers (or even smokers who hate other people's smoke) for the extenality. (It would not be very easy to do an emissions trading scheme for cigarettes). This points to a ban or free-for-all being the only choices. The ban wins IMO because it corrects a market failure better than free-for-all smoking does.

And what workable mechanism is there to compensate smokers for the fact that they no longer have anywhere warm to go to in order to have a fag and a pint with friends? Or a round of bingo and a ciggie?

There are many compromise solutions in between "free for all" smoking pubs where smoking is allowed throughout and a total ban. Unfortunately, the PTB won't look at them.

 

[23_Tauri]

Really. In the kitchen I work in at the moment I can boil a pan of cream over on my solidtop stove, which sends a HUGE cloud of acrid black smoke into the air. The ventilation system employed in the kitchen is good enough that the guy working across the kitchen with his back to me won't smell smoke, or notice what I've done if I mop up the cream fast enough that it doesn't burst into flames. We can engineer pretty good ventilation systems when we need to.

Although unlike you Ambrosia I have no first hand experience of working with ventilation systems, it occurs to me that factories handling and processing toxic chemicals also employ effective ventilation in order to protect workers.

They're expensive, but we have no idea if smoking pubs would prove popular enough to pay for such ventilation because noone is allowed to even try it.

Anecdotally speaking (my bad) I wager there's such demand for smoking pubs it would be worth someone's investment.

Prisons are also exempt.

And, famously, the bar at the House of Commons*.

*mind you, they're all such a bunch of expenses' swindling criminals it might well be a prison

 

[23_Tauri]

This is the part I think is not legitimate, because of the adverse impact on another member of the public who may want to visit the same establishment.

I don't like strip clubs, therefore I don't frequent them. Instead, I'll go to another establishment offering a different form of entertainment. Go figure.

 

[Limbero]

I'm sorry, but "annoying and bothersome" doesn't cut it for me to ban a product. Especially when one is in public. Might as well ban buses and cars for the exact same reason. There are people who live next to train tracks and have to deal with the annoying and bothersome sound of the train going by. There are people who find sex shops in the city annoying and bothersome.

It's borderline, I guess I really can't make up my mind until I know if it (smoking outdoors) is potentially dangerous to others or not.

Try telling that to a smoker who calms down after having a cigarette. Try telling that to the people who work for the tobacco industry.

That is an individual, not society. The second argument really isn't valid. A job is only as useful as what it provides society with, jobs have no inherent value, that would inflate the economy, we might as well just give people money for no reason.

Besides, why does something have to be "helpful to society" to be legal? Gambling is legal, is that really helpful to society? How is World of Warcraft helpful to society? How is masturbation helpful to society?

You must have misunderstood me. Dangerous things are the ones that have to be useful to be allowed, other stuff is fine. Gambling, masturbating and playing WoW may not help society, but they don't hurt the people who don't exercise these things. This is assuming they aren't exercised in excess.

We've established that smoking can be a social thing. (As evidenced by the smoker's area). It's a way that some people relax with, some people keep their weight down with it. How can that not be helpful to society?

The smokers' area is great, I have nothing against it, my problem is when non-smokers are affected. All of these are good things, even if they may come at a loss, but I don't see a need for any of this to be exercised among people who don't smoke, and thus I don't care about them.

What I mean by not helpful is that it's not a weighing situation like with a car, where it may release carcinogens, but it provides a lot of people with transport, and has proven to be hard to replace in rural areas. There is also no way to only use a car in a secluded space, as is possible with smoking.

ETA: By the way, I'm sure your post count will grow quickly. It did for me. And welcome to the forums.

Thank you, I'm already feeling very much at home here.

 

[Limbero]

There's a link between drinking water and fatality. That doesn't mean we should ban drinking water from public space. There is a link though!

Nice straw man you have there, mind if I touch it? Humans need water to survive, we don't need to smoke, next!

The main point is that inhaling *some* tobacco smoke will not cause health problems. We don't know what the value of some is for "How much smoking will significantly impact on my health"

You're not making sense here, how can you say that "inhaling *some* tobacco smoke will not cause health problems" when at the same time *some* is the value for which smoking is dangerous? I'm not being clever, I really don't get it.

There a a bundle of other health problems you can get as well, but those are the big 2. All of the health issues are caused by a long term exposure to smoke, so it's a question of degree. A very little smoke might annoy you, but thats about as much damage as it'll ever do

That's the problem, a lot of people go into public space every day, that would mean prolonged exposure. The people I'm "defending" here aren't the people who are exposed to smoking once every few days or weeks, but the ones who exercise their right to be in public space every day.

, and sorry but we shouldn't base the law on what is annoying to anyone.

Toddlers on public transport are annoying ....

Cool lets ban all children from public spaces.

Kind of, yes. I retreated on the issue in my last post, but I still think it has some validity.

TL;DR: Being in public space is a right, polluting public space or bothering other people in public space is not a right.

 

[Ambrosia]

Humans need water to survive, we don't need to smoke, next!

There's a link between drinking alcohol and fatality. That doesn't mean we should ban alcohol.

You're not making sense here, how can you say that "inhaling *some* tobacco smoke will not cause health problems" when at the same time *some* is the value for which smoking is dangerous? I'm not being clever, I really don't get it.

Ok think of it in numbers of cigarettes smoked. Assuming that second hand smoke is exactly the same smoke that the smoker is inhaling (it's not exactly the same but close enough) we could put a value on how much SHS is inhaled in a given volume of space, in a given volume of time and say that xSHS=smoking 1 cigarette.

If I smoke 1 cigarette in my entire lifetime will I suffer from any smoking related health problems?

Answer: No, none at all.

If I smoke 1 million cigarettes in my lifetime will I suffer from any smoking related health problems?

Answer: Hell yes.

You can describe both 1 and 1million here as "some". The more cigarettes worth of SHS you inhale the greater the chance of developing smoking related illness. Somewhere on the sliding scale there is a value between 1 and 1 million which means you are at significantly higher risk of smoking related illness. We don't know what this number is.

That's the problem, a lot of people go into public space every day, that would mean prolonged exposure. The people I'm "defending" here aren't the people who are exposed to smoking once every few days or weeks, but the ones who exercise their right to be in public space every day.

I am a smoker (yes really ) I don't have any problem at all with smoking being banned in public spaces indoors. I like public spaces being smoke free if I'm honest, and going outside to smoke isn't a major inconvenience most of the time. However UK law presently goes too far and bans me and my friends from our enjoyable past time of going to the pub for a few drinks, and enjoying a cigarette indoors along with our drinks and our conversation. It's not just an inconvenience thing either. Pubs where the majority of patrons smoke are seeing a sharp decline in trade and some are being forced to close.

Especially in low income areas these pubs/working mens clubs/bingo halls are social hubs where people meet and get to know the neighbours. If these places close entirely then local communities become more insular as there is nowhere to both smoke and drink, more people buy cheap alcohol from supermarkets and meet with smaller groups of friends in their own homes rather than go out to socialise.

I'm not arguing that we go back to how things were, or that smokers ought to be able to smoke in any public space, far from it.

I'm arguing that there ought to be some provisions in the law for smoking in some small fraction of pubs/clubs/bars. Also that banning smoking outdoors is almost as stupid as banning it altogether.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Are you implying that because I am a smoker I lack critical thinking skills?

Are you implying that because someone wants smoking banned that they lack critical thinking skills?

 

[Dorian Gray]

It's pleasurable. There are many things in life that carry risk whilst serving no other purpose but pleasure. But we don't stop consenting adults from doing them if they so wish.

You mean, besides drugs, prostitution, public defecation, masturbation and urination, owning weapons of mass destruction.....?

Oh, and humans don't need candy and soda and ice cream sundaes to survive.

No secondhand soda.

How about we confiscate the Playstations from all the parents who have fat kids then?

No secondhand Playstation.

 

[Noztradamus]

It is a form of assault through poisons inflicted on your fellow man. It kills others slowly, but still kills them, ad kills the smoker itself. Assualt and suicide are already illegal so the precedent is already there.

It's not enough to publicly ban it, it should be probable cause for the law to enter your house take the cancer sticks from you. You know I'm right.

Well, let me tell you something - this is exactly how Nazi Germany started!

 

[Dorian Gray]

Empathy seems to be lacking. Most of the persistent, unapologetic smokers in the UK are, I understand, in the 'lowest' stratas of society. It's certainly still popular at the sink estate youth club I volunteer with. People whose 'quality of life' is so negligible that 'not smoking' actually decreases it, as they struggle to withdraw from the addiction and their behaviour impacts on those around them. Have you never heard working-class people say 'But it's my only pleasure?' People in jobs that do more physical, mental and social damage than smoking don't have the quality of their lives improved by being obliged to follow your preferences.

I am increasingly convinced that the legislation's primary purpose is to punish dirty, smelly poor people. I wouldn't dare suggest what relatively recent social upheaval might have led to a greater emphasis on punishing dirty, smelly poor people. Which demographic were the law-makers pandering to? Whose votes did it win?

So your answer to making their lives better is "Smoke up, Johnny"? My, but you are a veritable font of solutions for improving the lives of the less fortunate, aren't you. If only Mother Teresa had met you.