Smoking Ban

[chocolatepossum]

I may have some bad news for you...

Well at least you think it looks cool. Everyone knows it does really, they're just jealous.

 

[Kerberos]

Dunno. Probably not, because the rate of duty on tobacco is so very high.

However: [/B]

Interesting link, you really need to include the cost from smoking breaks and sick days as they do. On the other hand I don't think you can use the same cost for a fatality as for traffic deaths, since I suspect that traffic fatalities are generally younger, and therefore can be expected to contribute to society for a longer time, than people who die from smoking.

 

[dann]

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.

I'm not sure why this has to be pointed out, but 1) urinating is legal, and 2) this doesn't mean that you are entitled to urinate whereever it pleases you to do so - mainly because it would disturb other people. (And even people who tend to urinate where other people don't want them to often prefer to spend their time in rooms that don't smell of other people's urine.)
Therefore not only private homes but also public bars and restaurants have rooms particularly adapted for this purpose. Nobody forces you to use these restrooms, it's completely voluntary. You are entitled to keep it all bottled up and wait till you get home to give in to the call of nature, but for some reason only madmen would be insulted by being told to use these rooms, if they feel the urge, instead of poisening the air where other people are enjoying themselves and would prefer to be able to do so without the smell of urine.
Yes, I know, the smell of urine probably doesn't cause cancer. But at least urinating does have the bad smell in common with smoking.
I wonder why freedomtarians don't object to the ban on peeing whereever it pleases you ...

 

[Moliere]

I wonder why freedomtarians don't object to the ban on peeing whereever it pleases you ...

If a bar owner wants to allow his patrons to pee right there on the floor then that's his right. I have a feeling that he would lose a lot of customers and go out of business so he enforces the rule that customers use the bathroom. If they don't, they're thrown out. Your analogy fits perfectly with smoking. The property owner enforces the rules about what legal activities are conducted. Thank you for proving my point about private property and legal activities. Yes, the marketplace does resolve the matter nicely.

 

[chocolatepossum]

I'm not sure why this has to be pointed out, but 1) urinating is legal, and 2) this doesn't mean that you are entitled to urinate whereever it pleases you to do so - mainly because it would disturb other people. (And even people who tend to urinate where other people don't want them to often prefer to spend their time in rooms that don't smell of other people's urine.)
Therefore not only private homes but also public bars and restaurants have rooms particularly adapted for this purpose. Nobody forces you to use these restrooms, it's completely voluntary. You are entitled to keep it all bottled up and wait till you get home to give in to the call of nature, but for some reason only madmen would be insulted by being told to use these rooms, if they feel the urge, instead of poisening the air where other people are enjoying themselves and would prefer to be able to do so without the smell of urine.
Yes, I know, the smell of urine probably doesn't cause cancer. But at least urinating does have the bad smell in common with smoking.
I wonder why freedomtarians don't object to the ban on peeing whereever it pleases you ...

If there are a group of people who get some perverse pleasure from urinating all over the place then I don't see why it should be illegal for someone to open a bar where they can go and enjoy themselves. In fact there probably is one somewhere.

Please note that a "freedomtarian" (although I probably don't qualify as one) wouldn't want people to be allowed to pee anywhere, just on their property or on the property of someone who allows them to.

 

[drkitten]

If a bar owner wants to allow his patrons to pee right there on the floor then that's his right.

Never heard of "health codes," have you?

Or do you not believe in them, either?

 

[drkitten]

"Reasonable" is a very vague term, but I would say it was reasonable to allow some private premises to allow smoking and serve alcohol.

They do. They're called "houses." Or in some cases, "clubs."

A "pub" -- formally, a "public house" -- is by legal definition not private, since it caters to the general public. As such, it's required to follow local ordinances that are not generally applicable to "private premises." Check your local licencing board for the details.

 

[dann]

The property owner enforces the rules about what legal activities are conducted. Thank you for proving my point about private property and legal activities. Yes, the marketplace does resolve the matter nicely.

The property owner has to stick to the rules. Sometimes he perceives this as being in his own best interest, somtimes he doesn't, which is why he has all kinds of government people controlling him, not least the health authorities. He may for instance consider sloppy hygiene a way of cutting down on costs, but for the sake of public health he is controlled with regular or irregular intervals. Because his motives for cutting corners in the question of hygiene remain unchanged, so does the control, a permanent institution of market economy and free enterprise.
He may also have a vested interest in the question of clean air, allowing some of his customers to pollute the air at his pub or restaurant, which is why smokers, in the marketplace, can go on doing so until somebody puts a stop to it. That is the way business and health inspectors complement each other in this field, until they are both replaced by a saner way of regulating things. http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/chapter5.html

 

[dann]

Please note that a "freedomtarian" (although I probably don't qualify as one) wouldn't want people to be allowed to pee anywhere, just on their property or on the property of someone who allows them to.

Enjoy!

 

[chocolatepossum]

They do. They're called "houses." Or in some cases, "clubs."

A "pub" -- formally, a "public house" -- is by legal definition not private, since it caters to the general public. As such, it's required to follow local ordinances that are not generally applicable to "private premises." Check your local licencing board for the details.

It may be called a "public house" but it's still private property no? Anyway, no-one is debating whether pubs are subject to regulation, just what regulation they should be subject to.

What is the difference between a club (I assume you don't mean a nightclub) and a pub? Do you have to be member? If so, how does this make it any less immoral for them to employ people who will be exposed to smoke?

 

[brodski]

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.

The reason you "have" to keep repeating tehse points is that they are irrelivent to the debate.

Just beceasue an activity is legal in some situations does not mean that if must be legal in all situations.
There are allready laws and regulations which dtermine who can smoke and where (at least there are in the UK, I dont oftenb see 10 year olds sparking up in petrol stations).
What we aer discussing here is where the boundaries of legal smoking began and end. In UK law, and soceity at large, the debate over whether is it appropreate to limit smoking in some places is over (petrol stations, airoplanes, underground stantions etc) , the debate is actulay over which places smoking should be restricted in.

secondly, yes bars are (usuly) private property, howeaver allmost all busineses are pruivate property, that does not mean that the govermnt shoiuld never be able to restrict what activites go on inb tehse places, even if that practoie is legal in other places.
For instance gabeling for large stakes is legal in casinos and bookies shops, but not in pubs.
Furtehrmore it is well established that the govermenet can intervine in the running of a business (even on private property). Labor laws from the abolition of slavery and serfdom upwsards.
Only the most ardent Anarcho-captialists woudl dissagree that teh goverment shold inetrvine in the ways buisnses operate.


The questions we musta dress are
1) does ETS pose a risk to the wellbeing of employees
2) what is the best method to controll that risk.


It has been demonstrated throught history that teh market will not portect the health and safty of workers adequatley, and thereofre in order to protect those in soceity least able to economicly protect themselves, health and safty legislatrion is put in place.
Whtere a total ban is justified given eth evidence is debateable, but teh facts that "1) smoking is legal and 2) bars are private property" are irrelevent in this debate.

 

[brodski]

Let's take my local pub as an example. The licensee and her husband are smokers, as are all their staff. Is it realistic for a smoking ban to be imposed for the sake of their health? No, quite clearly, it is not.

The debate about the risks of passive smoking continues. It has continued for quite some time, normally a sign that no conclusive proof has been found which backs either side.

Nobody is arguing that smoking is healthy, full of vitamins, and leads to a long and happy life, but those who are addicted (and 30% of UK adults is quite a large minority), deserve to be treated with respect.

Ok, so a ban if brought in, with exemptions for those bars which employ only smokers. this will mean that
1) in order to have a carear in a large part of the hospitality industry you must firts take up smoking and
2) your job woudl become dependanent on you continuing to smoke.


perhaps DWP's slogan could be "Have a fag, get a job" ?



Also "The debate about the risks of passive smoking continues. It has continued for quite some time, normally a sign that no conclusive proof has been found which backs either side."

just because something is cotnrovertiol dosent mean that terhe is not overwhelming evidence for one side, homeopathy anyone?

(I am not trying to compare peopel who question the link between passive smoking and lung cancer to alt med supporters, I mjust use this as an example to show how overwhelming evidence is often irrelivant in ending a debtae)

 

[chocolatepossum]

Whtere a total ban is justified given eth evidence is debateable, but teh facts that "1) smoking is legal and 2) bars are private property" are irrelevent in this debate.

You may not think that the debate ends after these two points, but that is not to say that they are irrelevant. Do you not feel there is a difference between me sparking up in an enclosed public space, owned equally by all of those present, and me sparking up in a bar where the bar owner allows me to?

I would never do the former, for example, whereas the latter seems perfectly acceptable although I may choose to modify my behaviour out of deference to the wishes of those present.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Ok, so a ban if brought in, with exemptions for those bars which employ only smokers. this will mean that
1) in order to have a carear in a large part of the hospitality industry you must firts take up smoking and
2) your job woudl become dependanent on you continuing to smoke.


perhaps DWP's slogan could be "Have a fag, get a job" ?



Also "The debate about the risks of passive smoking continues. It has continued for quite some time, normally a sign that no conclusive proof has been found which backs either side."

just because something is cotnrovertiol dosent mean that terhe is not overwhelming evidence for one side, homeopathy anyone?

(I am not trying to compare peopel who question the link between passive smoking and lung cancer to alt med supporters, I mjust use this as an example to show how overwhelming evidence is often irrelivant in ending a debtae)

This is the reason I started this thread, because I genuinely don't know what the risks have been proven to be. What I've heard from the anti-smoking lobby tends to be "there is a definite and proven link between passive smoking andlung cancer etc." whereas from the pro-smokers I hear "the risk to passive smokers is tiny". Now these two statements aren't mutually exclusive, so should I believe that passive smoking does increase the risk of lung cancer, but by an amount that most people would consider to be insignificant? This is leaving aside the issue of children and those with respiratory illnesses because I heard it affects them more.

 

[dann]

Do you not feel there is a difference between me sparking up in an enclosed public space, owned equally by all of those present, and me sparking up in a bar where the bar owner allows me to?

Well, not to the people bothered by the smoke. (And remember: some people actually get sick, not just annoyed!)

I would never do the former, for example, whereas the latter seems perfectly acceptable although I may choose to modify my behaviour out of deference to the wishes of those present.

Why don't I ever see any smokers actually do that? In a restaurant that allows smoking they may ask the people at their table, but that's it. In Denmark we used to have a society, Henryg, pun on Henry and hensynsfuld (= considerate) and rygere (= smokers). They made suggestions along the lines of yours (modifying smoking behaviour), but smokers seem to think that they are considerate if they don't blow the smoke directly into someboby's face.
Henryg later turned out to be financed primarily by the tobacco companies ...

 

[dann]

This is leaving aside the issue of children and those with respiratory illnesses because I heard it affects them more.

Then why leave it aside?

 

[chocolatepossum]

Then why leave it aside?

I'm not trying to make a point about the risks of passive smoking, I'm genuinely curious.

So would it be right for me to say that there has been proven to be a link between passive smoking and smoking related diseases, but that, apart from in the cases of children and those already suffering from respiratory disease, this risk is so small as to be considered insignificant by most people?

Perhaps I shouldn't say insignificant, because if you are in a place that is partly or wholly owned by you or where you have no choice other than to be, any risk inflicted upon you without your consent is significant.

 

[a_unique_person]

Did I have too many words in my post?

 

[chocolatepossum]

Well, not to the people bothered by the smoke. (And remember: some people actually get sick, not just annoyed!)


Well then I suspect this is the root of our disagreement. If these people don't like the smoke in a private property then they can leave, whereas I have no right to expect them to leave their own home, public property, or a bar that doesn't allow smoking in order to avoid the health risk and annoyance presented by my smoke.


Why don't I ever see any smokers actually do that? In a restaurant that allows smoking they may ask the people at their table, but that's it. In Denmark we used to have a society, Henryg, pun on Henry and hensynsfuld (= considerate) and rygere (= smokers). They made suggestions along the lines of yours (modifying smoking behaviour), but smokers seem to think that they are considerate if they don't blow the smoke directly into someboby's face.
Henryg later turned out to be financed primarily by the tobacco companies ...

I would ask the people at my table in a restaurant but if the restaurant allows smoking, what do the other diners expect? That said, if somebody asked me nicely to not smoke because they were ill or something, I'd probably go outside. I could make the same complaint about non-smokers wrinkling their noses and generally treating someone who smells of smoke that they find unpleasant like scum in a way they wouldn't if that person was suffering from BO. I've even been sneered at when smoking in my own home, by a guest! But I won't make these complaints because they're irrelevant. Hang on.... oops!

 

[brodski]

You may not think that the debate ends after these two points, but that is not to say that they are irrelevant. Do you not feel there is a difference between me sparking up in an enclosed public space, owned equally by all of those present, and me sparking up in a bar where the bar owner allows me to?

I would never do the former, for example, whereas the latter seems perfectly acceptable although I may choose to modify my behaviour out of deference to the wishes of those present.

but the point is, if ETA poses an uncontrolled risk to the health nof the bar owners employees, he does not have the right to allow you to smoke.

As we are debating specific changes to UK legislation, the fact that soceity has moived on from the points which you raised indeicates to me that they are entirly irrelivent within the context of this debate