NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2702/hirotabanner.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/30626/page=display_nation/nation=hirota)

I'm perfectly aware that it is going to be difficult to establish a consensus on this matter....but I thought I'd try nonetheless :)

This proposal seeks to balance the rights of smokers and non-smokers - not the easiest of tasks!

The General Assembly:

Determined that no individual has the right to inflict passive harm upon another, and citing article 5a of “Universal Freedom of Choice” which forbids an individual harming another through their own actions;

Fully aware of individuals personal right to consume any toxins legal within their nation;

Aware that non-smokers generally do not want to experience second-hand smoke in the workplace;

Determined to balance these potentially conflicting rights of individuals;

Noting that the effects of passive smoking may have been underestimated*, and further noting that research does need to be continued within the field;

Resolves the following:

Resolved that smoking is not permitted within any internal place of work – including but not limited to: offices, educational establishments, bars, restaurants;

Resolved that Smoking within public locations (excluding those listed above) remains under the legislative control of member states, as does legislation on all external locations;

Urges member states to contribute to researching the health impacts of smoking and passive smoking;

Determined to remain seized on the matter.


*according to http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505779/

I like this proposal, but I would like to see a provision that would allow a workplace to be set up as a 'smoking area' by a unanimous vote of all the workers in said workplace. Once a workplace has been designated as a 'smoking area', the acceptance of employment by a non-smoker will be deemed as acceptance of the second-hand smoke.

Frankly, if a restauranteur wants to open a smokers-only sports bar, I think he should be allowed to, with the appropriate warnings at the entrance that anyone coming in is going to be subjected to second-hand smoke.

Frankly I'm happy to see proposals that also include a good statement of the problem and evidence of research.

[OOC: While part of the fun of the game is playing a diplomat, sometimes people don't think about things. A bit of research, such as a link is a great educational tool and IMHO brings more into the game than the lame invasions and yelling matches. Good job!]

I like this proposal, but I would like to see a provision that would allow a workplace to be set up as a 'smoking area' by a unanimous vote of all the workers in said workplace. Once a workplace has been designated as a 'smoking area', the acceptance of employment by a non-smoker will be deemed as acceptance of the second-hand smoke.

Frankly, if a restauranteur wants to open a smokers-only sports bar, I think he should be allowed to, with the appropriate warnings at the entrance that anyone coming in is going to be subjected to second-hand smoke.

I agree with this.

citing article 5a of “Universal Freedom of Choice” which forbids an individual harming another through their own actions;

Actually, it doesn't. It simply says that where decisions inflict physical or psychological harm on others, the nation's criminal law applies. E.g. if the nation in question had no laws against murder, “Universal Freedom of Choice” would not forbid murder in that nation.

Greetings sir! we appreciate your concern for others health and no we do not believe that smoking should be permitted in areas of work such as offices, educational institutions etc.. However, we do strongly disagree with you on banning this in public restaurants and especially BARS! People are drinking alcohol already and we would speculate most of them are not TECHNICALLY(breathalizer) able to drive legally by the time they leave the establishment. It makes no sense in banning smoking in bars as people are consuming toxins already. We love a good beer and are smokers as well. Unhealthy practices are already taking place in a bar so what is the point of banning smoking in them? If smoke bothers you that much but you want a beer then get your friends and drink cheaply at home. Bars, drinking, and yes, smoking are social devices. Should we ban alcohol? because in the hands of a real boozer it might kill someone? we tried that already and look what happned?(prohibition)
Should we limit sexual activity due to the fact that over 80million american males carry the papilloma virus which does not affect the male but when transmitted to a female is the #1 cause of cervical cancer in the U.S.? The s.t.d. is very common and many do not realize they carry it. It is no savage disease but has been proven to cause cervical cancer in women. You get our point? Lots of things are bad for us like red meat, transfats etc etc..even the air we breath in some major cities would cause most people to strap on oxygen masks for fear of health problems. Lots of things can cause health problems but moderation is the key to little or no permanent damage. We will only support this proposal if it does not include restaurants and especially bars because after all we ain't in California

The Empire of Strandorp values the health of it's citizens. However, some of those citizens are going to make decisions that may harm themselves. If the decisions do not impact other people, it becomes less appropriate to interfere with them.

In our opinion, any institution should be free to provide a separately ventilated area which is isolated in such a way as to prevent pollution of the "non-smoking" area. The ventilation of such an area should be effective enough that an employee whose duties include entering the area will not breath smoke produced in it.

[OOC: Since the subject of California was brought up ...

I visit dance clubs a few times a month. My favorite venue solved (legally) the ban on smoking in clubs by making a separate room (it has its own air system) where smokers can hang out. The remaining 95% of the club space is smoke free. At night, most folks actually go outside (since the venue is 18 and up) to smoke instead of using the room, because night clubs are by their nature hot and sweaty places.

There may be a way to work ideas like this into the proposal.

BTW: I sometimes drink while out, but I *hate* smoking. Though it seems most of my friends smoke, so sometimes I'll hang with them while they are smoking (say outside) or other times I'll keep my distance. But just because somebody will willingly take one medical risk (drinking) doesn't mean that another one is acceptable.]

Everyone: Thanks for the input...the idea of permitting workplaces to have a different room where smoking is permitted is something that would balance the proposal further....

And I'll think about how to include "Universal Freedom of Choice" in the preamble....although I suspect I might just remove that particular section entirely.

Should we limit sexual activity due to the fact that over 80million american males carry the papilloma virus which does not affect the male but when transmitted to a female is the #1 cause of cervical cancer in the U.S.? The s.t.d. is very common and many do not realize they carry it. It is no savage disease but has been proven to cause cervical cancer in women. You get our point?
I'd suggest that you draft a proposal perhaps urging member states to educate the public on this condition, and other STD's?

We will only support this proposal if it does not include restaurants and especially bars because after all we ain't in California
Actually, it is bars and restaurant employees who suffer the most....

"Bar staff are being warned about the health dangers of passive smoking while they work, following a scientific study in London's pubs.

Public health expert, Professor Martin Jarvis, from University College London, found that bar workers suffer "extremely high exposure" to environmental tobacco smoke, over ten times higher than the average nonsmoker.

They were about 40 times more likely to have a high exposure than nonsmokers from nonsmoking households, and nine times more likely than nonsmokers who live with a smoking partner.

The study was carried out by taking saliva samples from the bar workers, to detect the levels of the compound cotinine, which indicates exposure to nicotine. The level of cotinine in saliva also indicates the general exposure to toxic particles, smoke and gas coming from cigarettes. The average cotinine levels of these bar staff puts them in the most heavily exposed 5% of all adult nonsmokers.

Professor Jarvis said: “Previous studies have found direct links between cotinine concentrations and a number of diseases. Since cotinine-based exposure in bar staff is much greater than in domestically exposed nonsmokers, it must be anticipated that bar staff’s occupational exposure to tobacco smoke will result in significant adverse effects on their health.” "
Source:Here (http://www.smokefreelondon.com/media/display.php?id=49)

I'll add another, more balanced source, as that last one was a tad bias (check the URL- it's pretty obvious).

"Passive smoking kills one bar worker a week

Secondhand tobacco smoke kills at least 3600 people a year in the UK, according to a new study, including the death of one pub or bar worker every week.

Konrad Jamrozik at Imperial College, London, UK, says exposure to secondhand smoke in all workplaces leads to the deaths of around 700 people a year.

He examined all deaths in 2002 from lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and stroke in British people under the age of 65, and combined this data with data on exposure to smoking at home and work.

The study is the first to calculate deaths as a result of secondhand smoke in bar staff, says Jamrozik. But it "is a conservative estimate" he toldNew Scientist. The findings, presented at a conference at the Royal College of Physicians in London on Monday, have led to renewed calls for a public smoking ban in the UK.

"The estimates look very much in line with what other studies have shown," says Robert West, director of tobacco studies at University College London. "They add more weight to what is now pretty much an overwhelming argument in favour of a public smoking ban."

Deborah Arnott, director of campaign group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) UK agrees: "These are truly shocking figures. They show the urgent need for a new law to end smoking in the workplace."

Active and passive

Jamrozik's mathematical analysis used an epidemiological model to combine several sets of data. Death figures came from the UK Office for National Statistics for 2002 and information on what proportion of the population are exposed to smoke at work and at home was provided by ASH.

For example, about 30 per cent of the UK population smokes, while 42 per cent of under 65s are exposed to secondhand smoke at home. Eleven per cent of under 65s are exposed to other people's smoke in their workplace.

Combining this data with information on the relative risk of disease among, active smokers, passive smokers and non-smokers allowed Jamrozik to calculate estimates for the number of deaths caused by passive smoking.

People working in pubs and bars are especially at risk as they are exposed to three times the levels of smoke that a non-smoker living with a smoker experiences. As a result, these workers are almost twice as likely to die from related diseases than those exposed to smoke at home.

Factory Fumes

Pro-smoking group Forest dispute the figures. "Once again we are presented with estimates, calculations and 'likely risk'. Where is the hard evidence that passive smoking is killing people?" says director Simon Clark.

But West says that even allowing for a margin of error in Jamrozik's study, the figures are "pretty horrific". He told New Scientist: "If factories were putting out fumes that caused that level of death, they would be closed down."

He adds that the public smoking bans in Ireland and New York did not lead to "mass insurrections" as feared.

Carol Black, president of the RCP notes: "Making these places smoke-free not only protects vulnerable staff and the public, it will also help over 300,000 people in Britain to stop smoking completely.""
Source:New scientist - can take a long time to load (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994998)

Well then realize that risk if you are to work in an establishment such as a bar and look for gainfull employment elsewhere. We would support perhaps having a bar 1/2 smoking 1/2 not. But these tiny smoking rooms may work fine in an airport which we use fequently when we travel and when the opportunity presents itself but in a bar? Nonsense. We should not have to sacrifice any of our rights as smokers to anyone. That should be up to individual discretion. I will not smoke near a baby, I will not smoke when someone else is eating and hell, I will even sit in non smoking if the majority w/ me are non smokers. We do have manners and practice respect and social tact in these situations but forcing us not to smoke at all in these establishments is heavy handed and way too one sided. Perhaps none of us should drive cars because when we are in traffic jams carbon monoxide output is heavily increased. This is discrimination due to someone telling us how to live our lives or merely "strongly suggesting" we seek alternative habits by making a whole place non smoking. We also will not be caged like some leperous side show freak behind a glass wall and put on display for non smokers. We cannot smoke in airplanes fine(really sucks if on a trans atlantic flight for 10+ hrs) we cannot smoke w/in 20 ft of buildings eventhogh the ashtrays are right next to the freakin door fine, we cannot smoke in open air stadiums eventhough cigarette smoke is hot and since heat rises it is going waft out and up into the air; definitly not going to adversely affect anyone here. We tire of ultra liberal tripe affecting our rights no offence to you Mikitivity as we appreciate your intelligence even if we vehimintly disagree w/ you. And to you proposal boy, a good proposal but do not be too heavy handed against the smokers. It seems when we give an inch the non smokers will take miles from us.*panting feverishly and stumbling off his soapbox* Thankyou!