Smoking in pubs: I'm torn

[ClintonHammond]

"let anyone else who thinks smokeless bars will work to open one themselves then"
California, and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are full of them! Ontario has been for about a year, or more as well...

People made the same spurious cry about movie theatres and airlines when they banned smoking. We still have movie theatre, and airlines.

On the worker safety, if the pollutants coming off the lit end of a cigarette were present in the same quantites in say a mine-shaft or a foundry, no person in the civilized world would be allowed to work there, no matter what safety gear they were issued.

I'm on occasional, binge smoker (I'll go days or weeks without one, and then smoke nearly a whole pack in a good nights drinking...) and I for one LOVE the smoking ban. My local has a wonderful patio where I can go if I wish to smoke.... and I don't come home wearing clothing that aughta be burned to cover the stank.

Smokers?!?! Pfft! Intercourse 'em!

Right up their... you know...

 

[Dorian Gray]

Free market IS making the call. Smoking bans level the playing field, so if your business fails, the invisible hand has spoken.

There are laws against other legal activities in bars - masturbation, defecation, etc. - so what's the big deal if the vast majority votes to outlaw something that is harmful to everyone and results in lots of illnesses and death? Isn't that democracy?

Why do you hate America?

 

[ThunderChunky]

Yes, because owning a business means you should be able to do exactly what you want, even if it's to the detriment of other people's health, like your bar staff for example.

Hey, I wish my office building wasn't legally obliged to provide wheelchair ramps, no-one uses them and they cost money to install! Damn those government stuffshirts!

The question should be how far the government should go to protect the health of consenting adults. Nothing was preventing smoke free bars from existing, nothing was preventing customers from not going to a smoky bar, and nothing was preventing employees from not working at a smoky bar. Lots of jobs are a lot more hazardous than working in a smoky bar.

 

[Santa666]

By the way, let's stop this one right here and now.

Let's not pretend laws against smoking in public (well, private, but open-to-the-public) businesses has anything to do whatsoever with protecting workers and/or patrons.

It's all about non-smokers not wanting smoke in their face in restaraunts.

Which is fine, but let's not lie that it's about protecting workers or asthmatics when we all know that, politically, that's not why politicians are mandating it, and not why the masses vote for them.

To put it in perspective, many on the left, properly, claim that Bush, even if he didn't actually claim Iraq aided in 9/11, that he knew much of the US population was supporting him because of the mistaken belief Iraq helped in 9/11. So recognize the above, as well, thanks. "It's about the workers" is regurgitated talking points that keep people with IQs above room temps busy in blabberboards like this, while the politicians sit back, relieved, knowing people vote for them because they don'ts wants no smoke in their face.

Is it your contention that secondhand smoke is not dangerous or a health risk to employees who work in such environments? For the moment, let's concede to your point and say the only "real" reason for such legislation is because non-smokers do not want "smoke in their face". This does not minimize the detrimental effects smoke has on employees.

The fact remains that smoking is not simply a personal choice. A smoker cannot keep his smoke to himself. If I wished to carry around a machine that pumped out the smell of fecal matter or cat urine, should I be allowed to do so because it is my right. What if I like listening to loud music. Can I take a boombox to bar or restaurant and play it as loudly as I wish? If you do not like it, you are free to frequent another establishment.

Smoking is intrusive and unheathly to not only the smoker, but to those in the immediate vicinity. It is this combination of factors that causes people to seek its banning in places where non-smokers also spend time.



Santa

 

[Santa666]

The question should be how far the government should go to protect the health of consenting adults. Nothing was preventing smoke free bars from existing, nothing was preventing customers from not going to a smoky bar, and nothing was preventing employees from not working at a smoky bar. Lots of jobs are a lot more hazardous than working in a smoky bar.

As far as employees are concerned, it has nothing to do with preventing employees from working in a smoky bar. Employers should not subject their employees to hazardous or dangerous work environments without supplying them with proper safety equipment. Also, inhaling smoke is not actually part of any job. Can you provide a list of any jobs where employees are required to work in or with a hazardous or dangerous environment where they are NOT provided with safety equipment when necessary?



Santa

 

[ClintonHammond]

"Why do you hate America?"
Cause a lot of Americans appear to want to make it easy to hate them...

"Can you provide a list of any jobs where employees are required to work in or with a hazardous or dangerous environment where they are NOT provided with safety equipment when necessary?"
+1!

 

[zooterkin]

"let anyone else who thinks smokeless bars will work to open one themselves then"
California, and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are full of them!

England, too, since July 1st. The new law applies to all workplaces, not just pubs and clubs. Although I'm not a frequent visitor to pubs, I'm more inclined to go now, especially to eat. I generally go to the pub once a week, after badminton, and we used to sit in a non-smoking back room, but our clothes still reeked of smoke afterwards. It will be nice to enjoy the difference when we resume after the summer.

Thinking back, I now find it astonishing that it was acceptable, when I first started working, for people to smoke at their desks in an open plan office. Now it's not even allowed to have a smoking room indoors.

 

[zooterkin]

Reminds me of an anecdote which happened back when I was in Australia (and smoking was legal in bars at the time):

A person seated next to me at the bar was doing the whole "fake cough" (you all know the one) seconds after I lit up. He'd just thrown $50 into a slot machine, he was on his 5th tequila shot in the last half hour or so and he was using the time he wasn't drinking to proposition a young lady that he drive with her (while definitely drunk) to his place for unprotected conjugal relations.

Right, but in what way were his actions directly affecting you? If he had driven drunk, yes, he might have, but you're only guessing that he would have done it. Whereas, even neglecting actual harmful effects, you were filling the air around him with smoke.

 

[Iamme]

The question should be how far the government should go to protect the health of consenting adults. Nothing was preventing smoke free bars from existing, nothing was preventing customers from not going to a smoky bar, and nothing was preventing employees from not working at a smoky bar. Lots of jobs are a lot more hazardous than working in a smoky bar.

You make a good point. And better hang onto your pants because if national health care goes through, you can bet that the government, to help cut costs, will require we all have chips planted in us, in a similar way as prophesized in the Bible, and you won't be able to do or eat anything unhealthy or maybe even do risky things, unless you can prove you are self-insured. Just wait and see.

It HAS to be that way, if you think about it. Because without it being that way, it would not be fair to those who do things wisely and eat properly. People who live risky lives will have to go to the back of the line and wait for their health care (or should) then, IMO.