Smoking Ban

[chocolatepossum]

Remember that nobody, as has been pointed out several times, is arguing for a total ban. Smoke whereever you want to - as long as you don't make it annoying for other people to be there - and impossible for the ones who get really ill. (No, wait, asthmatics have a choice, too - they can stay at home, can't they? Or open a pub of their own!)
The point is that you don't really care who you bother with your smoking - guests at your home or people at a bar. They are all free ..... free to leave!

I shoud have been more clear, but when I said a total ban I meant a total ban on pubs allowing smoking.

All I want is for some people to be allowed to open pubs of there own that allow smoking. So do we agree?

 

[chocolatepossum]

Somehow this is impossible for smokers to see. Even the non-smokers don't argue for a total ban on smoking in bars. They just want the smokers to go to their own cubicle to smoke and not do so in the area where non-smokers are sitting, chatting, dancing, drinking, whatever.

Well it seems we do agree then. I promise never to smoke in a non-smoking area in future.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

 

[dann]

Well it seems we do agree then. I promise never to smoke in a non-smoking area in future.
PROBLEM SOLVED!

If you can persuade fellow smokers to follow your example, then, yes. It's getting late. I think I'll go looking for a salsa place with not too much smoke in it!

 

[chocolatepossum]

If ETS is a risk to the health of bar workers then it should be controlled, the alternatives are impracticable.

A total ban on smoking in bars may be the most effective (and cost effective) way reducing this health risks to tolerable levels.

Effective ventilation is costly to install, run and maintain, in some (possibly all) cases a ban may be preferable.

I just meant that, given the apparent level of objection to smoking bars, there should be a lot more non-smoking bars. I don't know of ONE. This strikes me as odd. Either the level of public objection to smoking in bars is fairly low, or bar owners are missing a trick. From what I've seen it must surely be the latter, but why? That's what annoys me.

 

[chocolatepossum]

If you can persuade fellow smokers to follow your example, then, yes. It's getting late. I think I'll go looking for a salsa place with not too much smoke in it!

Have a nice time, personally I will be sitting in and drinking beer and watching football.


And I can't even smoke

 

[asthmatic camel]

Ok, maybe I should explain my arguments again for the hard of thinking.

The general principles first.

Governments regulate the operations of commercial undertakings.
These regulations are for a number of reasons, usually to protect one group or another.
For instance trading standards laws protect business customers, laws on fraud protect consumers and other businesses, health and safety laws protect workers, any monopoly legislation protects competition in the marketplace.

The fact that the businesses are privately owned and often operated on private premises is irrelevant; the government can still regulate those activities to achieve ends which are decided politically to be societal goods.

Most regulation of business is designed to correct a failing of the market.
Workers health and safety is no more protected by the operation of the market than fraud victims would be in the absence of anti-fraud legislation.

The government intervenes in the running of businesses with regards to health and safety because without that intervention businesses in highly competitive markets which are forced to keep costs as low as possible, would begin to make savings by cutting corners on health and safety, there would eventually be “a race to the bottom” as all companies began to gut health and safety expenditure as “unnecessary” spending.

(For a real world example of this see the loss of final salary occupational pensions in the U.K.. As fewer and fewer companies offered occupational pensions, the was less and less pressure on other companies to offer their staff final salary schemes as their competitors where not trying to attract labour with offers of pension benefits.)

It is for this reason that many businesses actually welcome clear, proscriptive (as opposed to goal setting) legislation, they are glad not to have to wrestle with their morals over whether to compete effectively with their rivals or protect their workers.

If companies could transfer the responsibility (and therefore cost) of health and safety to the employees, then the market would ensure that all companies transferred the responsibility to employees, which would in effect mean that there where no health and safety controls.

The only exceptions to this would be where there was a shortage of people with the skills required by the business. Those in highly skilled jobs tend to be able to negotiate better packages with their employers, health and safety may become one of these benefits.

Were the work is unskilled, and where there is a large pool of labour available, then all of the bargaining power is on the side of the employer.

Regulation of health and safety at work is required to protect the most vulnerable (legal) workers in our society.
Understand so far?

Now, the specific argument.

If ETS does pose a risk to the health and safety of bar workers, then the employer has a duty to protect its workers from its ill effects, there cannot be an opportunity for health and safety responsibility to be transferred to the worker for the reasons outlined above.

The fact that smoking under some circumstances is legal and the fact that bars are private property is no more relevant than the fact that fireworks are legal and petrol stations are private property, I don’t think the government will be letting Shell put on any demonstrations come November.

There does appear to be some evidence that ETS damages the health of those expose to it long term. The evidence is not yet conclusive, therefore a political decision baked up with primary legislation (or not, as the case may be) is needed on this issue.


Of course I have just wasted my time trying to explain this to you, as all you appear to be interested in at this time are ad hom. attacks.

I'm afraid that you come across as an interfering, intolerant busybody of the first order who can't keep his nose out of other people's affairs.

FACT Smoking is legal.
FACT It is yet to be proven that ETS is a significant health hazard.
FACT Nobody is forced to work in smoky pubs/ clubs.
FACT Nobody is forced to patronise smoky pubs/clubs.
FACT Many pubs/clubs/restaurants already have no-smoking areas.
FACT Nearly 20 million UK adults smoke and pay a hefty premium for the privilege.

I really don't see what your problem is. No-one is forcing you or anybody else to inhale their tobacco smoke.

 

[brodski]

I'm afraid that you come across as an interfering, intolerant busybody of the first order who can't keep his nose out of other people's affairs.

FACT Smoking is legal.
FACT It is yet to be proven that ETS is a significant health hazard.
FACT Nobody is forced to work in smoky pubs/ clubs.
FACT Nobody is forced to patronise smoky pubs/clubs.
FACT Many pubs/clubs/restaurants already have no-smoking areas.
FACT Nearly 20 million UK adults smoke and pay a hefty premium for the privilege.

I really don't see what your problem is. No-one is forcing you or anybody else to inhale their tobacco smoke.

Did you actually read my arguments or did you have that post ready prepared?

Do you actually see why it is undesirable to put total responsibility for health and safety on employees? or are you just going to sulk and keep spewing out facts which do not further the debate, and are seemingly prompted by no external stimulus?

How I “come across” to you is irrelevant, find logical reasons to refute my arguments or shut up.

 

[dann]

FACT Smoking is legal.
FACT It is yet to be proven that ETS is a significant health hazard.
FACT Nobody is forced to work in smoky pubs/ clubs.
FACT Nobody is forced to patronise smoky pubs/clubs.
FACT Many pubs/clubs/restaurants already have no-smoking areas.
FACT Nearly 20 million UK adults smoke and pay a hefty premium for the privilege.
I really don't see what your problem is. No-one is forcing you or anybody else to inhale their tobacco smoke.

are you just going to sulk and keep spewing out facts which do not further the debate, and are seemingly prompted by no external stimulus?

He doesn't spew out facts:
1. Smoking is legal - and nobody is trying to ban it.
2. It is an established fact that ETS is a health hazard. I don't really know how big a hazard asthmatic camel would find significant.
3. Nobody is forced, at gunpoint, to work in smoky pubs/clubs. In fact, nobody is forced, at gunpoint, to work at all. However, since not everybody has stocks and bonds or owns a bar or restaurant or other kind of business, and since not everybody has an education as software developer, dentist etc., a lot of people have the choice of working in a smoky pub or not at all which would imply lack of income. (Of course, welfare might be an option, but not a very good one!)
4. Nobody is forced at gunpoint to patronise smoky pubs, but they may want to frequent bars where the smoke is forced upon them. It is not a question of their not minding the smoke. The alternatives are forced upon them: put up with the smoke or stay away. When I've had a couple of dances in a salsa disco full of smoke, I cough the next morning as if I were a smoker. (And I know from other non-smokers that I'm not an unusual case.) That would not happen if smokers smoked outside or in a separate room especially adapted for smoking. (And, no, nobody forces me to dance!)
5. No-smoking areas in pubs and restaurants aren't worth anything if the smoke doesn't stay in the smokers' part of the restaurant, which is not always the case. And it certainly doesn't help the people who have to work in the smoking area. (To avoid that problem completely, the smoking area would have to be a no-serving area, but it could be done.)
6. I don't consider it a privilege to smoke. I haven't paid the premium for 25 years since I haven't bought any taxated tobacco. That smokers "pay a hefty premium" appears to count as some kind of justification for exposing everybody else to tobacco smoke - whereever they are still allowed to do so.
7. FACT Smokers know that indoor smoking is a nuisance to most non-smokers and completely intolerable to a lot of people with diseases of the lungs - some of them not even caused by smoking in the first place.
8. FACT Smokers are forcing upon non-smokers the choice between inhaling their smoke or leaving the place where the smoking is going on.

 

[asthmatic camel]

All I'm trying to say is that as smoking is legal, and publicans are specifically licensed to sell tobacco, then logically smoking should be allowed in some pubs.

Britain now has many, many pubs which are struggling to survive; some publicans have chosen to ban smoking in an attempt to become more customer friendly.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/150/150813_smoking_ban_joy_for_pubs.html

Others have decided that smoking should be allowed as the majority of their customers smoke.

The argument that people are forced to take bar jobs because there is no other work available doesn't hold water. It's my experience that the majority of bar staff both drink and smoke, and choose to work in the trade because this is the case.

Pop into your local Job Centre sometime and see how many bar jobs are available as a percentage of the total. Not many.

As for nobody wanting to ban smoking altogether, this is absolutely not the case. ASH have a goodly number of fanatics who would gladly spray every nicotiana plant with glyphosate, and mutilate anyone who dares to light up within a hundred miles of them.

I'm an ex-smoker and ex-publican. I fully appreciate that ETS is found unpleasant by non-smokers. I'm well aware that smoking is harmful to health. I'm also well aware that our millions of addicted smokers need some spot where they can enjoy a smoke with their pint without being badgered.

In a perfect world, no-one would smoke. Unfortunately, this planet isn't perfect.

 

[brodski]

"All I'm trying to say is that as smoking is legal, and publicans are specifically licensed to sell tobacco, then logically smoking should be allowed in some pubs. "

- This is circular logic here, smoking is currently legal and therefore should not be banned? I am sorry I really fail to grasp your point here, just because something is currently legal doesn’t mean that it should always be legal. Also you can buy duty free fags on most airplanes, it doesn’t men you can smoke them their, and I can go into my corner shop and buy toilet roll but that doesn’t mean… well you get the idea?.

"Britain now has many, many pubs which are struggling to survive; some publicans have chosen to ban smoking in an attempt to become more customer friendly.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/150/150813_smoking_ban_joy_for_pubs.html

Others have decided that smoking should be allowed as the majority of their customers smoke."

- Fine, but the debate over smoking in bars is not framed around the wishers of customers, it is an occupational health debate.

"The argument that people are forced to take bar jobs because there is no other work available doesn't hold water. It's my experience that the majority of bar staff both drink and smoke, and choose to work in the trade because this is the case."

- there is a larger principle here, if employers are allowed to expose their workers to uncontrolled health risks on the grounds that the employee accepted the risk, then businesses would effectively be able to compete on price, passing on the “savings” of not implementing health and safety measures. Minimum working conditions are not something which can be left to the market, as this leads (especially in the less skilled sectors) to a race to the bottom, even those employers who wanted to offer their workers good working conditions would be forced through price competition with their rivals to drop their safety standards, regardless of the wishes of the employees.
Where people are “forced” or not there is economic and political pressure applied to people to work in any place they can find a job

"Pop into your local Job Centre sometime and see how many bar jobs are available as a percentage of the total. Not many."

- My partner, until recently, worked on the enquires desk in a Job Center, she has told me of a number of JSA claimants who had their benefits “reviewed” after refusing to take bar work due to concerns over smoking. The fact is that while work in bars/ clubs may be a very small proportion of the work available, workers in those industries still deserve protection, and whilst there is still unemployment (even if it is only frictional) there will be those who are forced to take whatever relatively unskilled work ther3e is available, bar work fits that category. Of course there are those other than bar staff who are exposed to large levels of ETS in pubs/ clubs- it is a real concern in many parts of the entertainment industry as well.

"As for nobody wanting to ban smoking altogether, this is absolutely not the case. ASH have a goodly number of fanatics who would gladly spray every nicotiana plant with glyphosate, and mutilate anyone who dares to light up within a hundred miles of them."

- true, there are many people who would like to ban smoking altogether, but this debate has not been framed in those terms, the only proposals currently on the mainstream political landscape are to restrict smoking, not ban it outright

"I'm an ex-smoker and ex-publican. I fully appreciate that ETS is found unpleasant by non-smokers. I'm well aware that smoking is harmful to health. I'm also well aware that our millions of addicted smokers need some spot where they can enjoy a smoke with their pint without being badgered. "

- fine, as long as their smoking damages only their health, I have always said that the evidence that ETS poses a significant health risk is not what it could be, and I have always maintained that a ban is only one of eth measures which may be needed to protect bar workers from that risk (if it is real), however many bar owners would prefer an outright ban on smoking (in bars) over a risk assessment based goal setting system, as a ban may actually cost the bar less than the alternatives

 

[asthmatic camel]

- My partner, until recently, worked on the enquires desk in a Job Center, she has told me of a number of JSA claimants who had their benefits “reviewed” after refusing to take bar work due to concerns over smoking. The fact is that while work in bars/ clubs may be a very small proportion of the work available, workers in those industries still deserve protection, and whilst there is still unemployment (even if it is only frictional) there will be those who are forced to take whatever relatively unskilled work ther3e is available, bar work fits that category. Of course there are those other than bar staff who are exposed to large levels of ETS in pubs/ clubs- it is a real concern in many parts of the entertainment industry as well.

My wife works in a Job Centre . It is the case that some people apply for jobs which they are never going to get in order to continue to receive benefit. Prostitutes, burglars and drug dealers fall into this category. They must remain within the system to qualify for housing benefit, free prescriptions, council tax benefit etc.

I'd also argue that bar work is not an unskilled occupation. It may not be rocket science, but keeping and serving good beer takes time and dedication. http://www.thepublican.com/jobs/training.html

 

[username]

What I meant was that if bars were publicly owned then the customers preferences would be a factor too

Bars in the US aren't private property. Well, they are, but they are a special form of private property known as public places.

A public place is a fuzzy type of property in that it is privately owned, but does not enjoy all the rights of private property not intended for use by the general public.

There are many laws which regulate public places that wouldn't fly for private property not oopen to the public. Regulations mandating handicapped access, a public restroom and others can only be applied to public property and public places, not private property.

I have no real issue with smoking regulations in public places (I am a smoker), but I believe it goes too far when bars and other places traditionally associated with smoking have smoking bans imposed. I get even more upset with bans on smoking that argue the air is public and smoking contaminates it. That is clearly an exagerration by those with an intolerant agenda.

 

[dann]

I'd also argue that bar work is not an unskilled occupation. It may not be rocket science, but keeping and serving good beer takes time and dedication.

I worked at the Hotel and Restaurant School of Copenhagen http://www.hrs.dk/ for seven years, mainly teaching waiters and hotel receptionists German and English, but also industrial relations and health and safety in the workplace, so I'm not unfamiliar with the skills required in this line of business. However, I also know that a lot of people working as waiters have no real training.

I get even more upset with bans on smoking that argue the air is public and smoking contaminates it. That is clearly an exagerration by those with an intolerant agenda.

The air is private and smoking doesn't contaminate it???!

 

[brodski]

I'd also argue that bar work is not an unskilled occupation. It may not be rocket science, but keeping and serving good beer takes time and dedication. http://www.thepublican.com/jobs/training.html

I would agree with you that keeping and serving good beer is a skilled occupation, but how many pubs do that these days?



I have worked in bars in the past and I know how low skileld bar work can be, especialy in city center bottle only places.

 

[brodski]

The air is private and smoking doesn't contaminate it???!

I think the argument that username is referring to is one that claims that the air on private property is still public, and therefore any smoking even in private places contaminates public air.

I would see this as pretty much a strawman, the only trouble with an issues as widely debates as this you will always be able to find at least one person in favor of banning smoking who is stupid enough to use such an argument.

My point is that once you employ someone on private premises it does bring that private property into the public sphere.

I don’t think that many people here would argue that the government has no right to legislate over conditions in the workplace.

 

[asthmatic camel]

I would agree with you that keeping and serving good beer is a skilled occupation, but how many pubs do that these days?



I have worked in bars in the past and I know how low skileld bar work can be, especialy in city center bottle only places.

Plenty of publicans work hard at serving good beer.here is a good pub. Smoking is allowed, most customers and staff are smokers. Nobody will frogmarch you through the doors and insist that you stay. Should you pay a visit, you will find the beer to be excellent and very reasonably priced. If ETS bothers you, it's possible to sit in the beer garden.

 

[Cain]

I apologize for the delayed response. I don't post much here anymore.

If you're going to go into name calling I'd prefer "freedomtarian". I'm not sure why this has to keep being repeated, but 1) smoking is legal and 2) bars are private property. Nobody is forcing you to go there. Nobody is preventing you from opening up your own non-smoking bar. I'm not advocating smoking in public locations. I am standing up for private property owners and the freedom of people to choose what they are willing to expose themselves to.

Fine. Equating freedom with property seems to show that you haven't thought about either for more than five minutes, but more power to you, I guess.

I can play along in your Orwellian fantasy if you so desire. "Freedomtarians" out here in California began crying about a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. They said it would destroy their businesses, etc. (Just as owners complained about anti-discrimination laws in the 60s. Who wants to eat a diner that serves black folks!) Of course, legislation has the nasty effect of changing norms and behavior (like with seatbelt laws). Regardless, the justification hinges more on employees working at the bar or restaurant. One might argue that they have a "choice" -- that that person can work anywhere he or she pleases. This goes back to a well-worn, irresolvable debate with "freedomtarians": they fail to realize that individuals seeking to sell their labor in the free-market are up against a background of coercion. People are not exercising completely "free" choices when they toil under dangerous and harmful conditions. (An excellent example of this is the Triangle Shirtwaist disaster, search for my previous posts for a fleshed out argument to this effect).

Earlier someone mentioned discharging waste in public.

One could argue that taking a sh!t in public represents a health danger. We know this is an ad hoc rationalization, however. Dogs take dumps on public sidewalks, on neighbors lawns etc, all the time. The owner of the dog is merely responsible for carrying a bag to pick it up. Now, perhaps an exception must be cases of... what Dave Chappelle has a fond habit of calling... mud butt. Mud butt violations should probably face significant penalties since it is difficult to adequately clean.

I have a feeling that it will make little difference to libertarian home owners if someone took a **** the brown edges of their outer lawn or smackdab in the middle of the sidewalk in front of their house. Neighbors across the way and even down the street might be upset as well. Prevailing norms do seem to a matter a little bit.

 

[brodski]

Plenty of publicans work hard at serving good beer.here is a good pub. Smoking is allowed, most customers and staff are smokers. Nobody will frogmarch you through the doors and insist that you stay. Should you pay a visit, you will find the beer to be excellent and very reasonably priced. If ETS bothers you, it's possible to sit in the beer garden.

I used to go to the railway in Stockport occasionally when I lived up there, its also worth trying the Head Of Steam at Huddersfield station, you can have a bit of a real ale pub crawl on the train.


The railway at Greenfield used to be worth a visit as well, good live music too.

I'm just bitter at the moment because the only pub near me which even pretends to sell good beer is a bloody Wetherspoons.

Surly you admit that while there may be plenty of pubs/ bars which serve good beer, there are at least an equal number which don't seem to bother? or am I just unlucky in the pubs which I try out?

ETS doesn’t bother me too much as I am a smoker, my point has always been that if ETS poses an uncontrolled health risk to bar workers the measures must be put in place to control that risk. A smoking ban in all workplaces may be an appropriate step.

 

[asthmatic camel]

I used to go to the railway in Stockport occasionally when I lived up there, its also worth trying the Head Of Steam at Huddersfield station, you can have a bit of a real ale pub crawl on the train.


The railway at Greenfield used to be worth a visit as well, good live music too.

I'm just bitter at the moment because the only pub near me which even pretends to sell good beer is a bloody Wetherspoons.

Surly you admit that while there may be plenty of pubs/ bars which serve good beer, there are at least an equal number which don't seem to bother? or am I just unlucky in the pubs which I try out?

ETS doesn’t bother me too much as I am a smoker, my point has always been that if ETS poses an uncontrolled health risk to bar workers the measures must be put in place to control that risk. A smoking ban in all workplaces may be an appropriate step.

If you like Dave Porter's beer at The Railway, you'd also enjoy Beartown Brewery's beer at The Navigation, a stonesthrow away from me.

http://www.beartownbrewery.co.uk/

I've tried to make it clear that I don't disagree with smoking bans in general. I'm well aware that many people find smoke unpleasant. I'm not convinced that ETS poses a significant health risk to bar staff though. Even if it does, surely people who already choose to smoke should be able to run or work in a pub where smoking is allowed?

All I'm asking for is freedom of choice. No doubt smoking will eventually be universally banned. What will the health Nazis target next? Beer? Chewing gum? Perfume?

I apologise for being a bit snotty with you earlier, but the smoking issue has riled me for many years.

 

[brodski]

If you like Dave Porter's beer at The Railway, you'd also enjoy Beartown Brewery's beer at The Navigation, a stonesthrow away from me.

http://www.beartownbrewery.co.uk/

-unfortunately I don't get back to t'north much these days. I’m stuck in London drinking pints what wouldn't have a head on them if you used a whisk

I've tried to make it clear that I don't disagree with smoking bans in general. I'm well aware that many people find smoke unpleasant. I'm not convinced that ETS poses a significant health risk to bar staff though.

- I'm not yet convinced either, but the evidence does seem to be going that way, so it will probably be something we have to deal with in the very near future.

Even if it does, surely people who already choose to smoke should be able to run or work in a pub where smoking is allowed?

- On the face of it this seems reasonable, however I don't believe that companies should be allowed to put pressure on their workers to give up their right to a safe working environment, and I don’t believe that businesses should be allowed to compete on price by passing on to their customers the "savings" they have made by removing H&S controls from the workplace.
I don't necessarily think that a ban would be the only way to protect workers from ETS, but I think that if bar owners found that they had to protect their workers from ETS or face prosecution, many would find a ban on smoking in all workplaces the cheapest, most effective and fairest measure.

All I'm asking for is freedom of choice. No doubt smoking will eventually be universally banned. What will the health Nazis target next? Beer? Chewing gum? Perfume?

- Well three are already controls on where you can drink. But if the issue is dealt with as an occupational health issue, this slippery slope argument does not hold. I support the rights of individuals, in their private life, to take whatever risks they deem necessary (provided they don’t put others at risk without consent), however I believe that once at work, and market principles are involved freedom of choice is taken away from individuals, either through the operation of the market or though government regulation.

I apologise for being a bit snotty with you earlier, but the smoking issue has riled me for many years.

- Apology accepted. I have learnt my lesson about taking more care over my posts.