Smoking Ban

[dann]

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.

How about a place that is not at all owned by you, where you are not more or less forced to be, but where you would like to be, but cannot, because your conditions doesn't tolerate tobacco smoke?

 

[chocolatepossum]

Did I have too many words in my post?

Errr, possibly. I did read most of it and possibly (or probably) this is due to my lack of scientific background but I didn't see anything like "you are x times more likely to contract disease y after being exposed to passive smoke for z amount of time".

Waht does "weak risk" mean?

 

[dann]

I've even been sneered at when smoking in my own home, by a guest!

Yes, why not? Smoking can be a nuisance, a health risk and so on to others, so why smoke when you are with non-smokers? Apparently you didn't ask your guest if he or she was bothered by your smoking.
You wouldn't kick him in the groin just because you thought that it would make you feel good and you had the right to do so since you were in your own home, would you?

 

[asthmatic camel]

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)

Oh belt up! A minority of active smokers actually become ill as a result of their habit, the danger posed by ETS must be far less. Nobody is forced to work in pubs which allow smoking, and it's ridiculous to argue that the health of smokers who do choose to work in such places is put at risk by ETS.

Around 20 million adults in the UK choose to smoke. Unless they are illiterate, they are perfectly well aware of the risks associated with smoking. Still, they continue to smoke and should be entitled to do so as long as tobacco remains legal and taxable.

When it comes to pubs, although the business is subject to regulation (quite rightly), the public do not have an automatic right to enter the premises or to be served. This is entirely a matter for the publican, who doesn't have to give any reason why he/she refuses access or service. I'm fairly sure that a publican would be within his rights to ban all non-smokers should he so wish. After all, he is licensed to sell tobacco for consumption on or off the premises.

If you don't like smoky pubs and clubs, don't go in them. The choice is yours.

 

[brodski]

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.

I would say that the ebidence for the harmfull effects of ETS is not what it could be. Where ill heakth effects present themsellves over long poeriods of time, and where exposure can come from a varity of sources, if is allmost impossible to say with any certanty that X exposure led to Y effect, howeaver there is some evidence that those exposed to ETS in the long term may be more likley to suffer ill effects.

 

[chocolatepossum]

How about a place that is not at all owned by you, where you are not more or less forced to be, but where you would like to be, but cannot, because your conditions doesn't tolerate tobacco smoke?

I think this is called "not having everything your way". It's like an epileptic expecting strobe lights to be banned because some raves use them and it means that they can't go. I have sympathy for anyone in this position, and this why there are places like non-smoking bars and raves without strobe lights to cater for these people. Not sure about the raves actually.

 

[brodski]

Oh belt up! A minority of active smokers actually become ill as a result of their habit, the danger posed by ETS must be far less. Nobody is forced to work in pubs which allow smoking, and it's ridiculous to argue that the health of smokers who do choose to work in such places is put at risk by ETS.

Around 20 million adults in the UK choose to smoke. Unless they are illiterate, they are perfectly well aware of the risks associated with smoking. Still, they continue to smoke and should be entitled to do so as long as tobacco remains legal and taxable.

When it comes to pubs, although the business is subject to regulation (quite rightly), the public do not have an automatic right to enter the premises or to be served. This is entirely a matter for the publican, who doesn't have to give any reason why he/she refuses access or service. I'm fairly sure that a publican would be within his rights to ban all non-smokers should he so wish. After all, he is licensed to sell tobacco for consumption on or off the premises.

If you don't like smoky pubs and clubs, don't go in them. The choice is yours.

I am not intersted in debating the health of the general public here, I quite agree that people can choosed which bars/ restreruants they patronize. Howeaver I do not agree that people are nto put under economic pressure to work in smokey enviroments, and it is these people who need protection. A customer may pe in a bar, wht a coupel of hours, however its not uncommen for bar staff to work 11-11, increasing their exposure.

This does not neccerly mewan that a ban is justified, just that bar staff, etc shoudl be protecetd from the ill effects of ETS.

Individuals are able to make judgemnst abbout the risks tehy put themselves to in theri private life, howeaver in the workplace your employer is crimminaly resposible for your health and saftey as it has been reconised sicne the victroains implemnetd the Factories Act that employers can put their workers under a lot of pressure to take risks with their heealth and safety.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Yes, why not?

Because it's my home and I decide what goes on there, if she didn't like it she could leave. Anyway, this is not really relevant, the fact is she was just rude about it and I didn't like her anyway.

 

[brodski]

I think this is called "not having everything your way". It's like an epileptic expecting strobe lights to be banned because some raves use them and it means that they can't go. I have sympathy for anyone in this position, and this why there are places like non-smoking bars and raves without strobe lights to cater for these people. Not sure about the raves actually.

there is a differnce, strobe lights may trigger seizures in some eplieptics. They will not casue a non epliptic to become epleptic.

 

[brodski]

Because it's my home and I decide what goes on there, if she didn't like it she could leave. Anyway, this is not really relevant, the fact is she was just rude about it and I didn't like her anyway.

I quite agree, in you are nto forcing anyone top be in your homeghen you shoudl eb able to smoke ther as much as you want, it may be polite to ask if other people mind but there is never a reason to be rude abbout it.
Also the risk to someopne helalth of being for a short timr in a room with one or two people smoking is negligable.
Yoiu only have to start gettign worried when you spend 6-12 hours a day 5 days a week in a room with cvonstant and fairly heavy smoke in the air.

 

[dann]

I think this is called "not having everything your way".

Not having everything your way, would be if a smoker felt like smoking - but had to go outside to do so.

 

[dann]

Because it's my home and I decide what goes on there, if she didn't like it she could leave. Anyway, this is not really relevant, the fact is she was just rude about it and I didn't like her anyway.

From your description so far I think that you were the one being rude. 'This is my home and I'll smoke even if it really bothers my guest(s).' That you didn't like her, well, good for you, but I don't really see the relevance.

 

[asthmatic camel]

I am not intersted in debating the health of the general public here, I quite agree that people can choosed which bars/ restreruants they patronize. Howeaver I do not agree that people are nto put under economic pressure to work in smokey enviroments, and it is these people who need protection. A customer may pe in a bar, wht a coupel of hours, however its not uncommen for bar staff to work 11-11, increasing their exposure.

This does not neccerly mewan that a ban is justified, just that bar staff, etc shoudl be protecetd from the ill effects of ETS.

Individuals are able to make judgemnst abbout the risks tehy put themselves to in theri private life, howeaver in the workplace your employer is crimminaly resposible for your health and saftey as it has been reconised sicne the victroains implemnetd the Factories Act that employers can put their workers under a lot of pressure to take risks with their heealth and safety.

I repeat, NOBODY, is forced to work in a smoky pub or club. Let's assume that an unemployed person, receiving benefits, is expected to go for a job interview in a pub that allows smoking. The person must turn up for the interview in order to continue to receive benefits. Will the person get the job? No, not if his/her concerns about ETS are made clear during the interview.

Being turned down by a potential employer does not affect benefit payments. I certainly wouldn't have employed anyone who would have disliked the working conditions. Who needs unhappy staff in the hospitality trade?

 

[brodski]

I repeat, NOBODY, is forced to work in a smoky pub or club. Let's assume that an unemployed person, receiving benefits, is expected to go for a job interview in a pub that allows smoking. The person must turn up for the interview in order to continue to receive benefits. Will the person get the job? No, not if his/her concerns about ETS are made clear during the interview.

Being turned down by a potential employer does not affect benefit payments. I certainly wouldn't have employed anyone who would have disliked the working conditions. Who needs unhappy staff in the hospitality trade?

And is every employer as ethical as you?
The situation you proposed could eb reporetd on in one of two ways either
The jobseeker wanted to work but was unwilling to expose thermselevs to ETS or
The jovseeker was not willing to work (everyoen knows that ETS is part of the industryso why where they wasking time pretending that tehy may be abel to do this job). If a pattern developed of a claimenet applying for jovbs in the hospitality trade which they could not accept due to theri conserns over ETS then the DWP would certianly start asking questions over whetehr the calimant is actually availble for, and willing to, work.


The otehr oissue is taht of cousre there is the fact that £40ish a week isnt sufficent for most people, should a civilised soceity expect peopel so sell theri health for eth sake of making a livign wage?
All i am advocatign here is that ETS is adaquatley controlled, this may mean a ban or it may not, that will eventaully be apolitical decision.l But teh argument that employees are best placed to manage risks to theroi own health and safty in the workplace is rediculious.

 

[asthmatic camel]

And is every employer as ethical as you?
The situation you proposed could eb reporetd on in one of two ways either
The jobseeker wanted to work but was unwilling to expose thermselevs to ETS or
The jovseeker was not willing to work (everyoen knows that ETS is part of the industryso why where they wasking time pretending that tehy may be abel to do this job). If a pattern developed of a claimenet applying for jovbs in the hospitality trade which they could not accept due to theri conserns over ETS then the DWP would certianly start asking questions over whetehr the calimant is actually availble for, and willing to, work.


The otehr oissue is taht of cousre there is the fact that £40ish a week isnt sufficent for most people, should a civilised soceity expect peopel so sell theri health for eth sake of making a livign wage?
All i am advocatign here is that ETS is adaquatley controlled, this may mean a ban or it may not, that will eventaully be apolitical decision.l But teh argument that employees are best placed to manage risks to theroi own health and safty in the workplace is rediculious.

Dear Sir,

May I applaud your tremendous level of critical thinking? Few Kniggots of the Skanda Lager persuasion can spell as badly as I. Smoking is a healthy habit which leads to increased desirability to members of the other gender. You kbnowe it's truthfull that piss-artists who smell like ashtrees are treemendoussslyee attractiveewe when they secrete secret hormones.

I love you.

 

[brodski]

Dear Sir,

May I applaud your tremendous level of critical thinking? Few Kniggots of the Skanda Lager persuasion can spell as badly as I. Smoking is a healthy habit which leads to increased desirability to members of the other gender. You kbnowe it's truthfull that piss-artists who smell like ashtrees are treemendoussslyee attractiveewe when they secrete secret hormones.

I love you.

and so we get to the customary point where the pretence of civilised debate goes out fo the window and we resort to personal abuse.

so my spelling and typing skills leave a lot to be desired, do you have a problem with my reasonaing, if so perhaps we can cary on a reasnoable (and reasond) debate, otherwise may I suggest that you go forth and multiply?

 

[Drooper]

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.

The reason they are called pulbic houses is because they are allowed to serve the public.

It is not because the "public" has any particular rights of access or usage.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Not having everything your way, would be if a smoker felt like smoking - but had to go outside to do so.

You mean like I do at home, in someone elses house if that's what they want, at work in the office, as I would do in a non-smoking bar in the states, as I do at the cinema.... In fact as I do or would do in any enclosed public space or space where the property owner does not want me to smoke?

That's fine, I have absolutely NO problem with that!

 

[dann]

You mean like I do at home, in someone elses house if that's what they want, at work in the office, as I would do in a non-smoking bar in the states, as I do at the cinema.... In fact as I do or would do in any enclosed public space or space where the property owner does not want me to smoke?

Yes, that's what I mean! I just wonder why you seem so obsessed with the question of property. If the owner of a place, be that the owner of a pub or you yourself at home, doesn't mind smoking, then everybody else seems to have to endure it. Apparently it's a question of power, the kind of power that ownership entitles you to.

 

[dann]

and so we get to the customary point where the pretence of civilised debate goes out fo the window and we resort to personal abuse.

Apparently your spelling and typing skills are more than OK if you take the time to check them!

So my spelling and typing skills leave a lot to be desired. Do you have a problem with my reasoning? If so, perhaps we can carry on a reasonable (and reasoned) debate, otherwise may I suggest that you go forth and multiply?

I agree with most of what you have said so far, which is why I think that the arguments that you present deserve the extra attention that will make them easy to read for everybody else.
And of course you are right: Spelling has nothing to do with the contents of the reasoning that you present.