Smoking Ban

[asthmatic camel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smoking Ban

Do you think employers should be allowed to expose their workers to asbestos or nuclear waste in the workplace if they warn them it is there? If not, why should some carcinogenic materials be treated differently?

JB, please stop being so silly. If tobacco really is as dangerous as we are led to believe, then the government should ban it tomorrow and prosecute and imprison anyone who dares to burn a few leaves in public. It's the hypocrisy that really annoys me.

"Don't smoke, it's bad for you and costs the NHS lots of money. To make everyone healthier, we'll increase duty on tobacco to such high levels that no-one smokes filtered cigarettes anymore ( unless they can get them from the continent), and the average smoker, who really doesn't want to quit will be forced to smoke unfiltered roll-ups which are umpteen times more dangerous."

 

[chocolatepossum]

No, again, they sometimes the choice between working there or being out of a job and an income. And, yes, the non-smokers are choosing to drink there, but that doesn't necessarily m.ean that they want to be pestered by smoke.

The workers still have a choice, and I'm afraid that the non-smokers who don't want to be pestered by smoke will just have to put up with it or go to a non-smoking bar, just like I put up with/avoid bars with crap music e.t.c Merely being annoyed by something doesn't give you the right to expect it to be banned in a private bar.


The funny thing is that it never occurs to advocates of smoking that nobody (at least nobody that I've heard of) actually wants to ban smoking as such. They would just like to be free from having to inhale it themselves. If the so-called ban on smoking came into effect, it would just mean that the smokers could go outside (or home) to smoke.

It does occur to me actually. The point is nobody HAS to inhale the smoke, they choose to put themselves in that situation. As I have already said I would in no way object to there being vastly more non-smoking bars around. What I object to is the idea that there should be NO bars at all in which I can enjoy a pint and a cigarette.


You do know that people go there in order to drink, don't you? The drinking doesn't bother anybody else's liver. The fighting does harm others, however - which may have something to do with the fact that it usually isn't encouraged but banned.
Your logic is very strained!

People don't just go to bars in order to drink, I for one go there to smoke too. Incidentally I have never smoked in any of the shared properties I have lived in because I respect the rights of people not to have to put up with something that damages their health (however much) on their own or public property.

My logic isn't strained, if you are saying that workers should not be subjected to any health risks then alcohol related violence is a health risk that employers are irresponsible for exposing their staff to.


Ban music that is so loud that is impairs hearing, for instance? I wouldn't mifd! There is one difference, however. I go to salsa concerts and discos where the music is too loud for my own and many other people's tastes. Which is why we bring earplugs. I always carry mine in a pocet, but the bottle of oxygen is too heavy.

What if the earplug option wasn't available? Would you want to ban loud music then? Even in clubs specifically created for people who want to go out and listen to music really loud?


As far as I can see your argument rests on the premise that workers should not be exposed to any health risks even if specifically warned of these risks before being given the job. I'm afraid I just don't agree with this and if you were to apply that principle consistently it would mean banning a lot more than smoking in pubs.

Anyone have any suggestions as to why there aren't more non-smoking bars about without legislation? I'm genuinely puzzled. I wish there were.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smoking Ban

JB, please stop being so silly. If tobacco really is as dangerous as we are led to believe, then the government should ban it tomorrow and prosecute and imprison anyone who dares to burn a few leaves in public. It's the hypocrisy that really annoys me.

"Don't smoke, it's bad for you and costs the NHS lots of money. To make everyone healthier, we'll increase duty on tobacco to such high levels that no-one smokes filtered cigarettes anymore ( unless they can get them from the continent), and the average smoker, who really doesn't want to quit will be forced to smoke unfiltered roll-ups which are umpteen times more dangerous."

Please tell me what is so special about carcinogenic tobacco smoke that health & safety rules should not apply to it as they would to other carcinogenic substances?

Applying different rules to one product that do not apply to another could be considered hypocritical.

 

[dann]

What if the earplug option wasn't available? Would you want to ban loud music then? Even in clubs specifically created for people who want to go out and listen to music really loud?

It is available!!! If people, all people, want to go out and listen to music really loud, then I don't see any problem. I can even see how it might benefit - the people who have stocks in companies that produce hearing aids.

As far as I can see your argument rests on the premise that workers should not be exposed to any health risks even if specifically warned of these risks before being given the job.

Yes, my argument rests on that premise.

I'm afraid I just don't agree with this and if you were to apply that principle consistently it would mean banning a lot more than smoking in pubs.

I wouldn't mind if workers weren't exposed to health risks. I think it's a disgrace that so many are. And you're right: The willingness to expose workers to all kinds of dangers is the reason for a lot of banning - as you can see in any book of law concerned with this field. That is not something that we have to hypothesize about!

Anyone have any suggestions as to why there aren't more non-smoking bars about without legislation? I'm genuinely puzzled. I wish there were.

Apparently the owners are more afraid of losing the smoking customers, than of losing the non-smoking ones. From what I've heard, the banning doesn't seem to be a serious problem in the countries where it's happened. The owners of bars and restaurants even seem to benefit from it, because it cuts down the cost of redecorating rooms damaged by tobacco smoke.
I think that psychology is part of the problem: Unless the smoke makes you really ill, a no-smoking sign is not what you look for when you want to go out to eat or enjoy yourself. You tend not to think about the smoke, until you are there and it annoys you.
Likewise most smokers don't seem to have this as a priority when they go out. It occurs to them when they feel the need to smoke.

 

[asthmatic camel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smoking Ban

Please tell me what is so special about carcinogenic tobacco smoke that health & safety rules should not apply to it as they would to other carcinogenic substances?

Applying different rules to one product that do not apply to another could be considered hypocritical.

It's a matter of choice. I have absolutely no alternative other than to be exposed to traffic pollution, which is proven to be carcinogenic. The same cannot be said for passive smoking; the studies are far from conclusive.

Again, how far do you wish to go with a nanny state? Drivers kill thousands a year, the construction industry is dangerous, fishermen are at high risk of an early death, policemen have a risky occupation, blah, blah blah.

Walking out of your front door carries a risk. Staying in bed carries a risk.

On balance, I shouldn't think that death from passive smoking is a particularly high risk when working in pubs. Getting your head kicked in by football fans is enormously more likely.

Maybe we should ban football too.

 

[drkitten]

As far as I can see your argument rests on the premise that workers should not be exposed to any health risks even if specifically warned of these risks before being given the job.

Well, at least in the United States, that premise is specifically written into law. (I couldn't find relevant UK regulations quickly enough).

Title 29, Chapter 15, Section 654 United States Code
Sec. 654. Duties of employers and employees

(a) Each employer--
(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
(2) shall comply with occupational safety and healh standards promulgated under this chapter.

Merely warning employees about a risk is not sufficient under US law.

Under US law, the question is whether or not tobacco smoke, and specifically second-hand tobacco smoke, is a "recognized" hazard, which is why the tobacco lobby is fighting so hard to make the claim that second-hand smoke is not harmful. Because if second-hand smoke could be shown (judicially) to be harmful, it would immediately be required under the law above to ban smoking in any workplace environment.

Traffic pollution is not typically covered under the "workplace" category, so that's a red herring. In the context of chemical exposure at the workplace, if you have an unsafe condition (such as exposure to a carcinogenic or toxic chemical), the employer is not typically offered the choice of simply "informing" employees about the exposure and telling them to quit if they don't like that. The penalties for doing so would be substantial.

 

[dann]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smoking Ban

It's a matter of choice. I have absolutely no alternative other than to be exposed to traffic pollution, which is proven to be carcinogenic.

Is this an argument against pollution?

The same cannot be said for passive smoking; the studies are far from conclusive.

There's a study that compares the validity of studies of traffic pollution with those of passive smoking?

Again, how far do you wish to go with a nanny state? Drivers kill thousands a year, the construction industry is dangerous, fishermen are at high risk of an early death, policemen have a risky occupation, blah, blah blah.

The more, the merrier, seems to be the principle here.

Walking out of your front door carries a risk. Staying in bed carries a risk.

Any comparative studies? Some that aren't "far from conclusive"? Of course, there is no reason why we should look into how high a risk.

On balance, I shouldn't think that death from passive smoking is a particularly high risk when working in pubs. Getting your head kicked in by football fans is enormously more likely.

Is this a joke, or do you actually think so?!

 

[chocolatepossum]

It is available!!! If people, all people, want to go out and listen to music really loud, then I don't see any problem. I can even see how it might benefit - the people who have stocks in companies that produce hearing aids.

Yes, but if earphones weren't available would you still be happy for people to open clubs playing loud music or would you consider it to be too risky for the staff? Can't the staff decide what risks they want to run for themselves?


Yes, my argument rests on that premise.

Then you must object to people employing stuntmen for films, workers on oil rigs, pilots, roofers, builders...


Apparently the owners are more afraid of losing the smoking customers, than of losing the non-smoking ones. From what I've heard, the banning doesn't seem to be a serious problem in the countries where it's happened. The owners of bars and restaurants even seem to benefit from it, because it cuts down the cost of redecorating rooms damaged by tobacco smoke.
I think that psychology is part of the problem: Unless the smoke makes you really ill, a no-smoking sign is not what you look for when you want to go out to eat or enjoy yourself. You tend not to think about the smoke, until you are there and it annoys you.
Likewise most smokers don't seem to have this as a priority when they go out. It occurs to them when they feel the need to smoke.

I imagine they worry that heavy smoking and drinking go hand in hand and that they'll lose all their best customers. However, if a non-smoking pub opened in my town back in England I'm sure they'd make a killing. Maybe I should get in there.

Rats, just remembered I'm a penniless student.

 

[Bearguin]

I imagine they worry that heavy smoking and drinking go hand in hand and that they'll lose all their best customers. However, if a non-smoking pub opened in my town back in England I'm sure they'd make a killing. Maybe I should get in there.

One pub in town tried this and, despite me going there a couple of times, they lost customers.

In Vancouver (years back) I remember a story where a waitress in a non-smoking pub complained that non-smokers didn't tip as much.

Now, all of BC has a smoking ban unless a distinct, separate space can be provided (most pubs have glassed in smoking rooms now) so it's hard to tell what the impact of a voluntary non-smoking would be anymore.

 

[dann]

Yes, but if earphones weren't available would you still be happy for people to open clubs playing loud music or would you consider it to be too risky for the staff? Can't the staff decide what risks they want to run for themselves? [/B]

The reason why you have all this legislation (see new drkitten's post) is that people are sometimes forced to choose between an income (from a job) and their health. This is a very bad choice.

Then you must object to people employing stuntmen for films, workers on oil rigs, pilots, roofers, builders...

I don't object to people employing any of those. I just don't think that they should be exposed to health risks. How you remove those is different. I think that stuntmen are responsible for the safety of their own stunts. And I think that they take their precautions to make sure that the stunts are not as dangerous as they appear to be on screen.

I imagine they worry that heavy smoking and drinking go hand in hand and that they'll lose all their best customers.

This is one of the problems for owners of discos catering to salsa. The salseros go there to dance. Dancing the salsa isn't easy if you're drunk - and almost impossible if you are a beginner and drunk. So they mainly drink water - the penniless students sometimes from the tap in the bathroom. The people who order the big and expensive drinks are the ones who come mainly for staring at the dancers or maybe in the hope of picking one up. So a salsa disco would have a hard time making a profit if it catered only to the dancers.

 

[drkitten]

I don't object to people employing any of those. I just don't think that they should be exposed to health risks. How you remove those is different. I think that stuntmen are responsible for the safety of their own stunts. And I think that they take their precautions to make sure that the stunts are not as dangerous as they appear to be on screen.

I think there's also a recognition on the part of the law that some jobs carry with them inherent risks that are part of the job; the employer is required to minimize the risks to the extent practical while still getting the job done. So lumberjacks are inherently at risk because they're handling sharp objects -- but they couldn't chop down trees with dull axes. Deep-sea fishermen are at risk of drowning, but you can't catch swordfish from dry land. On the other hand, fishing boats do have to carry life jackets to minimize the risk of drowning.

However, it's still possible to "dance" or to "serve beer" without being exposed to tobacco smoke. So this exception wouldn't apply. Nothing about the inherent nature of a bar requires that it be smoke-filled.

 

[dann]

However, it's still possible to "dance" or to "serve beer" without being exposed to tobacco smoke. So this exception wouldn't apply. Nothing about the inherent nature of a bar requires that it be smoke-filled.

Couldn't agree more. It does look a little lame in movies, though.
(What exactly are you implying with your quotation marks: "dance"?)

 

[drkitten]

Couldn't agree more. It does look a little lame in movies, though.
(What exactly are you implying with your quotation marks: "dance"?)

Exactness of wording, as in job descriptions. As in, what an exotic dancer hired by a bartender is actually hired to do. I don't believe "put up with cigarette smoke" is a traditional part of a dancer's job description, although I'm sure there's some fool out there with insufficient legal counsel who will try it sometime, to his expense and chagrin.

 

[chocolatepossum]

However, it's still possible to "dance" or to "serve beer" without being exposed to tobacco smoke. So this exception wouldn't apply. Nothing about the inherent nature of a bar requires that it be smoke-filled.

What's all this about the inherent nature of a bar? Who decides what that is? As far as I'm concerned a bar is somewhere I go for a pint and a cigarette and there should be premises that are allowed to cater for me.

 

[drkitten]

What's all this about the inherent nature of a bar? Who decides what that is? As far as I'm concerned a bar is somewhere I go for a pint and a cigarette and there should be premises that are allowed to cater for me.

Not if by catering for you they put employees at risk.

You're welcome to do whatever stupid things you like in the privacy of your own home -- but you don't get to pay people to do something stupid and dangerous for you unless it's an unavoidable part of the job. For that matter, as long as a barman does all the work himself -- doesn't employ anyone -- he could probably get away with allowing hazardous conditions, because he doesn't have any employees to expose to risk.

But he cannot demand that employees submit to avoidable, recognized hazards as a condition of doing the job.

If you want a pint and a cigarette, you have a kitchen table at home, or a lawn chair out in the garden.

 

[asthmatic camel]

O.K.

Hello and welcome to my bar. All staff and customers are required to wear chemical warfare suits and sign a declaration that they will only drink distilled water through a tube.

Any person entering these premises is warned that drinking one of our many liquified, sterilised food products through a sterilised straw is a dangerous activity which can result in death.

Service in this establishment may be rather slow as nobody is legally allowed to work here. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

 

[dann]

You're improving! The joke is much more obvious now!

 

[dann]

Result of a survey at a citizens meeting in Copenhagen:
"92 % want to be able to visit restaurants and cafés without being exposed to passive smoking, whereas 5 % do not have this wish."
19,2 % of the participants were smokers.
http://www.astma-allergi.dk/regado.jsp?type=document&id=810

 

[chocolatepossum]

Not if by catering for you they put employees at risk.

You're welcome to do whatever stupid things you like in the privacy of your own home -- but you don't get to pay people to do something stupid and dangerous for you unless it's an unavoidable part of the job.

And if the job is serving beer to people who are smoking? Why shouldn't my staff make up their own minds about the risk? I believe there are more jobs than I have time to name where people are payed to do something that carries a risk. Whether smoking is stupid or not is a matter of opinion and the fact that you think it is, hints at the anti-smoker prejudice that surrounds this issue. I honestly think that for a lot of people, smoking is bad, therefore anything anti-smoking must be good.

 

[dann]

Whether smoking is stupid or not is a matter of opinion and the fact that you think it is, hints at the anti-smoker prejudice that surrounds this issue.

Whether smoking is dangerous is not a matter opinion.