NationStates Jolt Archive

SMOKING BAN BACKED IN
WESTMINSTER
-------------
British MPs have voted by a majority of
200 to ban smoking in all licensed
premises in England from mid 2007.

The House of Commons rejected
alternative proposals for a compromise
ban that would have exempted private
clubs and pubs which do not serve food.

The bill, on which there was a free
vote, will now pass to the upper House
of Lords for further debate.

Pressure from anti-smoking and health
groups was amplified by an influential
Labour-dominated committee, which said
total prohibition was the only
effective means of protecting health.


Looks like the UK is folling Irelands lead and banning the ciggies.Invasion of civil liberties of health protection?I would go with the latter and I am a smoker.

What's next?

Perscribed Menus for home cooking?
Black boxes placed on your private property that alerts authorities to your behaivor?
Banning steak knives?
Government notification for non perscription cold remedies?
A video record of everywhere you go?
Government records of how many cans of beer you purchased last time to the store?
A permit for a candle lit dinner for two?

At last! Our elected idiots have done something right for a change!!!

I long for the day I can go out and enjoy a pint (or eight) and come back home without stinking of someone else's vile smelling smoke

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!! :D

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm very happy about this.

At last! Our elected idiots have done something right for a change!!!

I long for the day I can go out and enjoy a pint (or eight) and come back home without stinking of someone else's vile smelling smoke

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!! :D

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm very happy about this.

What happens when they determine it is best for your heath that you not be allowed to drink period? That time is coming and it will be sooner than you think.

What happens when they determine it is best for your heath that you not be allowed to drink period? That time is coming and it will be sooner than you think.
While they're at it, I hope they outlaw liver. I mean...come on man...your breath is killing us!:p

I don't see what's with the overreacting. They're only banning it in pubs. That means that non-smokers don't have to breathe smoke every time they visit. It's not like walking out the pub door is so much effort. Well, maybe it is when your lungs are full of tar.

What happens when they determine it is best for your heath that you not be allowed to drink period? That time is coming and it will be sooner than you think.


No there is a big difference. They are not banning cigarette smoking, they are banning smoking around people who don't want to smoke.

It's perfectly in line with libertarian thinking - 'do no harm to others' is the first rule. After that, you're free to do what you want. Bar staff have to breathe in smoke. And when I go the pub, so do I. You could say 'don't go the pub' but I see why other people should be allowed to buy their happiness at the expense of mine.

Besides, when I go the pub, I don't harm anyone by doing so.

Personally I'd jump on the liver ban myself! That stuff gives a whole new meaning to disgusting. :D

In way as a non smoker it is good. But on the other hand for pubs this could be a problem, in the fact that alot of smokers are drinkers and just reckes of a problem. Poor old pubs.

John Stuart Mills is rolling over in his grave....

No there is a big difference. They are not banning cigarette smoking, they are banning smoking around people who don't want to smoke.

It's perfectly in line with libertarian thinking - 'do no harm to others' is the first rule. After that, you're free to do what you want. Bar staff have to breathe in smoke. And when I go the pub, so do I. You could say 'don't go the pub' but I see why other people should be allowed to buy their happiness at the expense of mine.

Besides, when I go the pub, I don't harm anyone by doing so.

Right, you go on telling yourself that and watch as they incrementally eliminate every degree of individual choice you ever had. You will not even notice it until all of a sudden they are taking hair samples looking for evidence of a Big Mac last month.

John Stuart Mills is rolling over in his grave....
I never understood how the dead could be so active. All the rolling they do...

This ban has already taken effect where I live...
And yes, it's a beautiful thing to come home not smelling of smoke.
Granted, some of the businesses suffered for a while, but people generally aren't going to stop drinking and going to bars. They just won't be killing the rest of us faster than the alcohol will. ;)

Right, you go on telling yourself that and watch as they incrementally eliminate every degree of individual choice you ever had. You will not even notice it until all of a sudden they are taking hair samples looking for evidence of a Big Mac last month.

Paranoid much?
Had to click back button to make sure you were American, cuz it sounded like it. :P I'll never understand why the USA is so paranoid about the gov't trying to do things to better the nation, but they're FINE with stomping into other countries and letting their gov't tell OTHER nations' people what to do.
Just because the gov't of some nations is interested in keeping people a little healthier, and stopping people from poisoning others doesn't mean they're going to take away everything from people.

It's really annoying being unable to go out and not encounter a waft of smoke in whichever building I go to.

I have no issue with smokers who smoke outside, but inside at restaurants, I'd like to enjoy my food: please wait until you are outside. Inside a pub, I'd like to be able to breathe, it's hot enough as it is and you can go outside to take your smoke, where it won't hurt anyone.

No, this shouldn't lead any further than to ban smoking, which is, in fact, a very stupid habit anyway.

I don't see what's with the overreacting. They're only banning it in pubs.

Clubs as well. I'm not a smoker but I'm opposed to a complete ban in pubs and clubs.

John Stuart Mills is rolling over in his grave....

Surely the harm principle put forward by Mill could be used as a reason for banning smoking in public places?

This ban has already taken effect where I live...
And yes, it's a beautiful thing to come home not smelling of smoke.
Granted, some of the businesses suffered for a while, but people generally aren't going to stop drinking and going to bars. They just won't be killing the rest of us faster than the alcohol will. ;)
The smoking ban in Edmonton, where I go to party, is WONDERFUL! And the bars are still packed. No one is losing money, because no one has an 'advantage' (of being allowed to have smokers inside). According to Liverbreath though, we will soon be lined up and shot for eating Big Macs...but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

No there is a big difference. They are not banning cigarette smoking, they are banning smoking around people who don't want to smoke.
Well if a private buisness wants to allow its patrons to smoke why should the government tell them what to do with their private property?

It's perfectly in line with libertarian thinking - 'do no harm to others' is the first rule. After that, you're free to do what you want. Bar staff have to breathe in smoke. And when I go the pub, so do I. You could say 'don't go the pub' but I see why other people should be allowed to buy their happiness at the expense of mine.
Yes libertarian's believe that the right to swing your fist extends as far as your neighbor's nose but I'm not sure if its their first rule. And when you smoke your not deliberately harming others in the sense that you aren't purposely breathing smoke into someone's face so they have to breath it rather its just a byproduct of the action of smoking. I assume when you say I see I think you mean I don't see? Because if thats the case then the irony is delicious.

Besides, when I go the pub, I don't harm anyone by doing so.
Depends on how healthy you are. All of that breathing you do could put out a hell of alot of germs and for all I know you could be getting me sick or putting nasty bacteria in my body....:rolleyes:

What's next?

[...]

The idea of a smoking ban is not to protect the smokers, but to protect the non-smokers. Smoking is poisoning to you (that's your right, if you're an adult, you can make up your own mind) but also to those around you. You're not allowed to poison other people, that's respecting their own freedom.

This ban has already taken effect where I live...
And yes, it's a beautiful thing to come home not smelling of smoke.
Granted, some of the businesses suffered for a while, but people generally aren't going to stop drinking and going to bars. They just won't be killing the rest of us faster than the alcohol will. ;)
That I agree with.

It isn't an invasion of privacy. If you want to look at it another way, there are many places where smoking indoors was already prohibited, the government just took one step further, so that all indoor workplaces can be smoke free, thus promoting a safer work environment.

One of the core arguments in favour of the smoking ban came from former employees of the service sector industry. They were exposed to second hand smoke on a daily basis that led to the deteriotion of their health, thus making them unable to work.

Well if a private buisness wants to allow its patrons to smoke why should the government tell them what to do with their private property?

Well, if a private buisness wants to allow its patrons to kill people, why should the governement tell them what to do with their private property ?

Private porperty doesn't give you any right to harm other people, even if they are in it.

If enough people don't like the smoke. Eventually someone will open a bar with no smoking allowed. If the idea is successful, more smoke-free bars will open. Eventually, all should balance out, and without any government interference.

If enough people don't like the smoke. Eventually someone will open a bar with no smoking allowed. If the idea is successful, more smoke-free bars will open. Eventually, all should balance out, and without any government interference.
While you hold your breath, waiting for that to happen, I'll continue driving in to Edmonton, where smoking is banned, rather than hoping my town is to be saved by the free market system.

The idea of a smoking ban is not to protect the smokers, but to protect the non-smokers. Smoking is poisoning to you (that's your right, if you're an adult, you can make up your own mind) but also to those around you. You're not allowed to poison other people, that's respecting their own freedom.
But this is being banned in privately owned restaurants too. If someone doesn't want to go into a restaurant that allows smoking, they can go ahead and not go in. If someone does go into a restaurant that allows smoking, they are consenting to whatever poisoning happens. If they didn't want it, they wouldn't go in.
What this new act is doing is forcing people to make accomadations on their own property for people who dislike smoking, whether or not they want to.

Well, if a private buisness wants to allow its patrons to kill people, why should the governement tell them what to do with their private property ?
Very nice strawman.

Private porperty doesn't give you any right to harm other people, even if they are in it.
1. Are people who are smoking deliberately harming other people in the bar?

2. No one is forcing you to go into the bar and breath in smoke. You could find another bar that decided it didn't want smokers in their establishment. As long as you have a choice in where you eat no one is forcing you to go their and breath in smoke. Hell if everyone is so against smoking I'd think a smart buisness owner would make a nice profit to make a non smoking resturant but I don't think the government should be telling buisnesses that people can't smoke in their property.

Paranoid much?
Had to click back button to make sure you were American, cuz it sounded like it. :P I'll never understand why the USA is so paranoid about the gov't trying to do things to better the nation, but they're FINE with stomping into other countries and letting their gov't tell OTHER nations' people what to do.
Just because the gov't of some nations is interested in keeping people a little healthier, and stopping people from poisoning others doesn't mean they're going to take away everything from people.

Watch out, you are making a little too much sense. The paranoid on the forum might come at you. :p

1. Are people who are smoking deliberately harming other people in the bar?
Taking it a step further, I don't think it matters if it is deliberate harm. If someone deliberately harms people who consent to that harm, why should I care?

Surely the harm principle put forward by Mill could be used as a reason for banning smoking in public places?

It is used as an excuse despite the fact that the only reliable long term study done over a period of years tears down the argument that 2nd hand smoke does harm, and the court rulings that the EPA's official positon was based on knowingly false information. Never mind the fact that the star witness in the states tobacco lawsuit was forced to admit during the appeal that he lied about not only being paid for his testimony but he lied about the poisonous ingredients that tobacco manufacturers put in them.

You can make a health or harm issue of anything on earth and like it or not, when the insurance companies are involved, alcohol is right up there at the top of their list of profit drains.

Taking it a step further, I don't think it matters if it is deliberate harm. If someone deliberately harms people who consent to that harm, why should I care?

Fan of S&M eh? :p

I'm a smoker and am pissed off about the ban, but understand the point of non-smokers, but i think the Government should have said that shelters should be made available for smokers outside of the pub/club etc.

I'm a smoker and am pissed off about the ban, but understand the point of non-smokers, but i think the Government should have said that shelters should be made available for smokers outside of the pub/club etc.

Why? It is just an added expense before the next step in their attempt to incrementally ban all tobacco. They are not looking out for anyone's rights and don't give a damn about anyone's health. That is just the only excuse they can use to do it. Watch and see.

Why? It is just an added expense before the next step in their attempt to incrementally ban all tobacco. They are not looking out for anyone's rights and don't give a damn about anyone's health. That is just the only excuse they can use to do it. Watch and see.
I agree it's not really a move based on concern for people's health. But I can't imagine tobacco being totally outlawed. It's too profitable for government. They tax it to hell. They can only gnaw on the hand that feeds them up to a certain point before backing off.

I'm a smoker and am pissed off about the ban, but understand the point of non-smokers, but i think the Government should have said that shelters should be made available for smokers outside of the pub/club etc.
If enough people want shelters outside clubs for smokers, businesses will fork out the cash to build them.:D

Well, if a private buisness wants to allow its patrons to kill people, why should the governement tell them what to do with their private property ?


Because killing people is a crime, whereas smoking is not.


Private porperty doesn't give you any right to harm other people, even if they are in it.

So you would agree with a ban on smoking inside ANY private establishments, right? Even say, my house? I mean hey... just because it's my house, doesn't mean I should be able to say whether people can smoke in it or not, right?

For that matter, why isn't smoking a crime? It harms people.

Hey, driving cars pollutes! Pollution harms people. Why isn't driving cars a crime?

You better hurry up and start outlawing things quick! People are being harmed!

I move to outlaw Santa Barbara. His rants are harmful to my well being.

How are you, by the way?

Good Job MPs! New York City banned smoking a while back and not only do I feel better on the street and can enter more restaurants without being miserable or risking lung disease, but restaurants and bars have seen a SURGE in customers.

If enough people want shelters outside clubs for smokers, businesses will fork out the cash to build them.:D

True, but then non smokers will probably spit their dummies out and moan they cant walk past a pub/club without breathing in second hand smoke.

Thats why i think the Government should have said that shelters should be provided.

I move to outlaw Santa Barbara. His rants are harmful to my well being.


You've got a point, though. Studies show that stress causes serious harm.

And I try to cause stress.

I should be behind bars, honestly. But I'll have to settle for smoking a cigarette on my porch and killing some random people in Uganda.


How are you, by the way?

I'm fantastilicious. :)

No. No bloody way. Half the Tory party moke, and yet they vote for it.:mad:

Ho hum, a year and a half to give up now:p

True, but then non smokers will probably spit their dummies out and moan they cant walk past a pub/club without breathing in second hand smoke.

Thats why i think the Government should have said that shelters should be provided.
If you don't want the government saying you can't smoke, why would you want them saying there should be smoking shelters?

Hey, driving cars pollutes! Pollution harms people. Why isn't driving cars a crime?

In many countries, it is a crime to drive cars that pollute excessively. If the level of pollution is heavily degrading to the environment and pedestrians, then it may be banned. When I went to Zermatt over the winter, there were only electrically-powered cars on the streets. Anything else was illegal. And you drive cars outside. You are allowed to smoke outside. But you are not allowed to drive a car into a building and allow it to idle and pollute there. Same thing with smoking.

I'm a smoker and am pissed off about the ban, but understand the point of non-smokers, but i think the Government should have said that shelters should be made available for smokers outside of the pub/club etc.

yep

you're taking away one group's right, seemingly with no recourse...

so they'll go outside and smoke in Edmonton... hopefully nobody will freeze to death.

1. Are people who are smoking deliberately harming other people in the bar?

Actually, yes. See on the side of cigarette boxes is something called a warning. It shows some of the harmful affects of smoking. Not to mention that second hand smoke is more deadly than actually smoking. See, second hand smoke doesn't have a filter to strain out many of the chemicals.

See all that smoke coming out of the end of the cigarettes? Yeah, all of that is unfiltered chemicals. Like rat poison, arsenic, etc. etc.

In many countries, it is a crime to drive cars that pollute excessively. If the level of pollution is heavily degrading to the environment and pedestrians, then it may be banned. When I went to Zermatt over the winter, there were only electrically-powered cars on the streets. Anything else was illegal.

Yeah, well Switzerland also banned any fun that wasn't directly related to chocolate, cheese or banking, so that's not a surprise.

And you drive cars outside. You are allowed to smoke outside. But you are not allowed to drive a car into a building and allow it to idle and pollute there. Same thing with smoking.

In the vast majority of cases, you're not allowed to drive a car into a building anyway because of the damage it causes to the structure and any people that might happen to be in the way. ;)

But really, I don't see anyone enforcing a "no idling" rule in parking garages. Did you mean this rule applies to Switzerland again?

If you don't want the government saying you can't smoke, why would you want them saying there should be smoking shelters?

Because i knew smoking was going to be banned in pubs etc as soon as this bill was made public, so think if were going to have to go outside for a smoke by law, then provision should be made for us to be able to have a cigarette in some degree of shelter from the weather, like we did inside the pub/office etc.

Dream Magic']Actually, yes. See on the side of cigarette boxes is something called a warning. It shows some of the harmful affects of smoking. Not to mention that second hand smoke is more deadly than actually smoking. See, second hand smoke doesn't have a filter to strain out many of the chemicals. See all that smoke coming out of the end of the cigarettes? Yeah, all of that is unfiltered chemicals. Like rat poison, arsenic, etc. etc.
I asked if they were deliberately harming people. So how does any of what you've posted have to do with someone deliberately harming someone?

But really, I don't see anyone enforcing a "no idling" rule in parking garages.

But you're also allowed to smoke in parking garages. Name one place in which you can idle but cannot smoke. :)

But you're also allowed to smoke in parking garages. Name one place in which you can idle but cannot smoke. :)

Parking garages. In California it is illegal to smoke inside, and as far as I can tell that includes parking garages.

In fact, it's also illegal to smoke within X number of feet from a building in CA.

...I've never seen either of these laws enforced. I guess police might be too busy with something called "real crimes" involving "real victims" or some shit like that. :p

yep

you're taking away one group's right, seemingly with no recourse...

so they'll go outside and smoke in Edmonton... hopefully nobody will freeze to death.
:) We're having an unseasonably warm winter this year...perfect for smokers! (actually, some clubs are renting buses and allowing patrons to sit in them and smoke)

As for taking away one group's rights, seemingly with no recourse...welcome to living with a government. Sometimes you're going to like it, sometimes you aren't.

I asked if they were deliberately harming people. So how does any of what you've posted have to do with someone deliberately harming someone?

The warning on the sides of the cigarette boxes shows the harmful effects of smoking. So anyone who smokes knows what they are doing to those around them. Unless if the smoker is completely illiterate. So if they don't know if they are harming others, they really need to be more educated.

I asked if they were deliberately harming people. So how does any of what you've posted have to do with someone deliberately harming someone?

Does it matter if they are doing it deliberately? It is indifference to other people's welfare which is why there should be bans in public buildings at least. I certainly don't want to breath in anyones toxic fumes.

Dream Magic']The warning on the sides of the cigarette boxes shows the harmful effects of smoking. So anyone who smokes knows what they are doing to those around them. Unless if the smoker is completely illiterate. So if they don't know if they are harming others, they really need to be more educated.
Perhaps you can't seem to read the whole question. Its not wheter or not they are harming people. Its wheter or not their deliberately harming people. And when I say deliberate I mean

de·lib·er·ate Audio pronunciation of "deliberate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-lbr-t)
adj.

1. Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional: mistook the oversight for a deliberate insult.
2. Arising from or marked by careful consideration: a deliberate decision. See Synonyms at voluntary.
3. Unhurried in action, movement, or manner, as if trying to avoid error: moved at a deliberate pace.

So lets try this again how are they deliberately harming people?

Because i knew smoking was going to be banned in pubs etc as soon as this bill was made public, so think if were going to have to go outside for a smoke by law, then provision should be made for us to be able to have a cigarette in some degree of shelter from the weather, like we did inside the pub/office etc.
Smokers can choose to not smoke until they are back in the comfort and safety of their home. That's always a valid option if they don't want to be cold.

I guess police might be too busy with something called "real crimes" involving "real victims" or some shit like that. :p

Police...? Real crimes...? Never! You must be hallucinating! :)

Does it matter if they are doing it deliberately? It is indifference to other people's welfare which is why there should be bans in public buildings at least. I certainly don't want to breath in anyones toxic fumes.

Yes it does matter. If they aren't going out of their way to deliberately harm people then how are they doing something wrong? You don't have to stand near a smoker if you don't want to breath in the smoke and you don't have to go to a bar or resturant that allows smoking. If you don't want to breath it in either don't go in the smoking section or find a different resturant but I see no reason for the government to mandate what a buisness owner should do with his private property. If the bar owner wants to let people smoke in his building he should be able to.

Does it matter if they are doing it deliberately? It is indifference to other people's welfare which is why there should be bans in public buildings at least. I certainly don't want to breath in anyones toxic fumes.

However, do you demand a ban on pollutant engines due to the toxic emissions they compel into your lungs in a toxic place? I would contend not so.

Moreover, why does your moral perspective acquire precedence over that of a smokers in this case? For health reasons? If so, one could assert the need for prohibition in public places due to the compulsion it engenders in alcoholics.

Smokers can choose to not smoke until they are back in the comfort and safety of their home. That's always a valid option if they don't want to be cold.

The same can be said about non smokers, if they want to have a drink without breathing cigarette smoke then they can have a drink at home.

Perhaps you can't seem to read the whole question. Its not wheter or not they are harming people. Its wheter or not their deliberately harming people. And when I say deliberate I mean

de·lib·er·ate Audio pronunciation of "deliberate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-lbr-t)
adj.

1. Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional: mistook the oversight for a deliberate insult.
2. Arising from or marked by careful consideration: a deliberate decision. See Synonyms at voluntary.
3. Unhurried in action, movement, or manner, as if trying to avoid error: moved at a deliberate pace.

So lets try this again how are they deliberately harming people?

2. Arising from or marked by careful consideration: a deliberate decision. See Synonyms at voluntary.
They carefully considered to smoke, and everyone, except those few people who are uneducated, know the harmful side affects to the smoker and those around him/her.

Has anyone seen the South Park episode when Rob Reiner comes to the town and preaches anti-smoking? They really hit the nail on the head in that one. A great social commentary, anyway I know how it feels, I dont smoke since I know it's bad, but I would protest the banning of smoking. Second Hand Smoke may win the award for the most talked about disease/health thing that got overly hyped.
ATTENTION HEALTH PEOPLE:
YOU WILL NOT DIE OF SECOND HAND SMOKING, PLEASE SHUT THE F**K UP.


That is all.

Yes it does matter. If they aren't going out of their way to deliberately harm people then how are they doing something wrong? You don't have to stand near a smoker if you don't want to breath in the smoke and you don't have to go to a bar or resturant that allows smoking. If you don't want to breath it in either don't go in the smoking section or find a different resturant but I see no reason for the government to mandate what a buisness owner should do with his private property. If the bar owner wants to let people smoke in his building he should be able to.

I believe the arguement for the ban is more for the employees who have to spend their work hours breathing that crap in. What choice to they have? Smokers should have consideration for others and besides the non-smoker has to either deal or find someplace else? What about his/her rights to go to someplace he wants without smokers slowly killing him.

The same can be said about non smokers, if they want to have a drink without breathing cigarette smoke then they can have a drink at home.
Which is why I made the suggestion. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Dream Magic'] 2. Arising from or marked by careful consideration: a deliberate decision. See Synonyms at voluntary.
They carefully considered to smoke, and everyone, except those few people who are uneducated, know the harmful side affects to the smoker and those around him/her.

They considered to smoke thats different then considering to smoke to harm someone. If I go out for a smoke I'm not thinking gee I want to put poison into someone's lungs. I'm thinking man I could use a smoke right now. They consent to self harm if they read the label of the package but they are in no way forcing people to breath the air around them in order to cause them harm. I'm pretty sure if we followed your definition smoking would have been illegal a long time ago if people were smoking to deliberately harm others.

I believe the arguement for the ban is more for the employees who have to spend their work hours breathing that crap in. What choice to they have? Smokers should have consideration for others and besides the non-smoker has to either deal or find someplace else? What about his/her rights to go to someplace he wants without smokers slowly killing him.

Thats when these people rights cancel each other out, and the government promptly gets up and concentrates on spying on us. Nobody can be satisfied so screw it. That should be the US governments policy, it's a statement with balls.;)

I believe the arguement for the ban is more for the employees who have to spend their work hours breathing that crap in. What choice to they have?

I thought slavery was already outlawed in the UK?

Unless it wasn't, you see, the employees can apply and work for whatever job they want. There are plenty of jobs that don't involve being around smokers or, for that matter, drunken assholes.

I thought slavery was already outlawed in the UK?

Unless it wasn't, you see, the employees can apply and work for whatever job they want. There are plenty of jobs that don't involve being around smokers or, for that matter, drunken assholes.

That is supposing that everyone can simply quit their job for another. That may not be true for everyone.

I believe the arguement for the ban is more for the employees who have to spend their work hours breathing that crap in. What choice to they have? Smokers should have consideration for others and besides the non-smoker has to either deal or find someplace else? What about his/her rights to go to someplace he wants without smokers slowly killing him.

I'm not exactly sure if thats the reason or not, its not really stated. Does anyone have a link to an actual article for this thing?

Paranoid much?
Had to click back button to make sure you were American, cuz it sounded like it. :P I'll never understand why the USA is so paranoid about the gov't trying to do things to better the nation, but they're FINE with stomping into other countries and letting their gov't tell OTHER nations' people what to do.
Just because the gov't of some nations is interested in keeping people a little healthier, and stopping people from poisoning others doesn't mean they're going to take away everything from people.

well, of course we dont care if our govt owns other people, as long as life is good here we will continue to not care what our government does.

That is supposing that everyone can simply quit their job for another. That may not be true for everyone.

It's also supposing that if you're really opposed to working around cigarette smokers, you don't have to apply for a job at a pub where you know people smoke.

Both are good suppositions.

It's also supposing that if you're really opposed to working around cigarette smokers, you don't have to apply for a job at a pub where you know people smoke.

Both are good suppositions.
What is not a good supposition is that people would, of their own free will, with full knowledge of the consequences, choose to work in a place where exposure to smoke was likely to give them lung cancer. Other circumstances would likely influence this decision...not some sort of weird death wish.

I never understood how the dead could be so active. All the rolling they do...

They're not dead, you see. They want out of the damn box.

What is not a good supposition is that people would, of their own free will, with full knowledge of the consequences, choose to work in a place where exposure to smoke was likely to give them lung cancer. Other circumstances would likely influence this decision...not some sort of weird death wish.

Well, don't people make that choice every day when they wake up? We all know there is a likelihood of getting lung cancer just by breathing in our modern industrialized air. No death wish involved... just there's a risk.

As for how likely it is to get lung cancer solely from working in a place that allows smoking, I can't imagine there are any good studies on that. How would you isolate those who worked there, and got lung cancer from working there, from those who worked there, and got lung cancer from auto or industrial pollution?

A video record of everywhere you go?


Well, I judge by the signs everywhere here in central London that the government here has a picture of the hairs in my gluteal cleft.

I'm not kidding, the place is like a friendly version of the initial scene in HalfLife 2 - except that instead of a flying video camera that's spying on you, the cameras are static and EVERYWHERE. That, and signs making sure that you don't forget that you're being MONITORED.

I saw a TV that was constantly talking about the train I was on, and the BBC news broke in, and I felt that the only thing missing was some Victory Gin, especially with the backdrop of industrial ruin just outside the window.

The BBC seemed to be talking about some other place - a Britain where things were great.

Never thought of the BBC in that light before...

Ban smoking and I won't be coming back.

They should allow smoking, but just weed. Nuthin else. I suspect second-hand weed smoke is much more fun than second hand cigarette crap.

Ban smoking and I won't be coming back.

Oh god no!

Liasia']Oh god no!
Don't laugh - I seem to fit right in down at the Patricia.

Don't laugh .

HAHAHAHAHA! whoops.

So smokings been banned, good. About bloody time too.

If people want to smoke in the privacy of their own home, fine, let them kill themselves alone, no problem. But when I go down the pub I want to know that the only thing that's going to get damaged is my liver and that I'm causing that damage to myself.

Don't laugh - I seem to fit right in down at the Patricia.

Then you're probably not going to like Dublin much anymore either.....

if u smoke then u are stupid and u have no right to pass on your poisonous gas to people who dont want to breath it in. If u are against this ban then shame on u. I am right

if u smoke then u are stupid and u have no right to pass on your poisonous gas to people who dont want to breath it in. If u are against this ban then shame on u. I am right

Well shit, that destroyed all my arguments! Congratulations, you've ended this entire controversy. Thank God for you, man!

I think-

Oh, wait a second. Nobody cares.

Liasia']They should allow smoking, but just weed. Nuthin else. I suspect second-hand weed smoke is much more fun than second hand cigarette crap.
Suspect? Then you've never been around it because it is! I had a friend get high off my second hand weed smoke. That was funny.

Yay for the Brits! Last spring I visited Winnipeg and decided that their smoking ban was the best thing since sliced bread and I couldn't wait for the Twin Cities to start their own. Now I can go out to restaurants and not come home with headaches and sore throats.
Oh and back to that tracking OTC cold medicine purchases, we do keep track at the pharmacy I work at. We limit the amount of cold medicine that you can buy per month if it contains Pseudoephedrine.

at my favorite pub, nearly everyone smokes...

when someone comes in and complains, we all sigh... because, newsflash:

PEOPLE SMOKE IN BARS

if they don't like it, they may leave.

this should be up to the proprietor... whether or not to allow smoking in his establishment.

they could also, like restaurants, have a smoking section and a non-smoking section... so everyone would be happy.

at my favorite pub, nearly everyone smokes...

when someone comes in and complains, we all sigh... because, newsflash:

PEOPLE SMOKE IN BARS

if they don't like it, they may leave.

this should be up to the proprietor... whether or not to allow smoking in his establishment.

they could also, like restaurants, have a smoking section and a non-smoking section... so everyone would be happy.

After working for 5 years in bars, hotels and restaurants, the ban was a God send.

I don't smoke- never have. Yet I developed a rather nasty cough... stuck with me for 4 years until the last year I worked the ban was implemented.

My right to work in an environment that doesn't harm me overrides your as a smoker. The door is over there; smoke, come back inside a finish your drinks.

I don't know the specific wording of the ban in Britain, but when Ireland introduced it it was "No smoking in places of work".

My right to work in an environment that doesn't harm me overrides your as a smoker. The door is over there; smoke, come back inside a finish your drinks.

This is the first time I've heard that we have a right to work in an environment that doesn't harm us. I'm interested in hearing where you found this right of ours?

I live in Ireland and we have had a ban on smoking in the workplace ,including pubs for about two years.Nobody said it would work but it has.If someone lights up in a pub they are nearly assulted by the other patrons.On the bright side though there was a comradarie formed by smokers who stood outside of the pubs on the freezing nights.Relationships were formed.There was a bit of a baby boom as a result.As for the publicans/patrons who say that people will drink at home, not so people are social creatures.

So smokings been banned, good. About bloody time too.

If people want to smoke in the privacy of their own home, fine, let them kill themselves alone, no problem. But when I go down the pub I want to know that the only thing that's going to get damaged is my liver and that I'm causing that damage to myself.

That's all fine and good, but wait until you see the numbers of your pubs going out of business that they are not telling you about. Not to worry though, they are taking to heart your overall disregard for individual choice, and the gleeful joy professed by some for their health being watched over for them. Health officials are very concerned about the alarming rate of drinking also, and feel it is time to do something about that too. Today's Headline in the Wall Street Journal...

As Young Women Drink More, Alcohol Sales, Concerns Rise
Liver Problems on the Rise
British Drinkers Lead the Way

You are going to find that these sorts of incremental prohibitions never stop, they expand. There will be no stopping with just pubs, it will expand as it has done in the US, in some places it is now illegal to smoke a cigarette walking down the street.
You will also find that these sorts of laws are driven, and paid for by corporate interests, especially the insurance industry. With the UK's governmental health care and their inherient "good of the whole" attitude your liver will sooner than you think be no longer yours to damage as you see fit. Useful idiots against alcohol will still be in plentyful supply after tobacco is taken care of, and they shall then come out in force and eliminate your own personal vise for your own good, and you won't even see it coming.

I think-

Oh, wait a second. Nobody cares.

haha! That's right. But you will.

It's a pity.

Why? Because if smokers had the common courtesy not to smoke around other people, this wouldn't even be an issue. :p

I'm a non smoker but I don't think it should be comletely banned. You should be allowed to smoke in your private residence. Though I would agree with California and not allow smoking outside. (I think that is how they have if but I'm not sure.)

This is the first time I've heard that we have a right to work in an environment that doesn't harm us. I'm interested in hearing where you found this right of ours?

Ah, you see when I signed the contract to work in the bar- it did not say that I was liable to contract lung cancer or other debilitating diseases as a result of this.

I don't know about you, but my government enacts legislation for the benefit of its citizens.

My right to living a healthy life overrides the 'I don't wanna' right of the lazy, fat, arsehole who is not bothered to get up off of his bar stool and waddle the 12 feet to the door to light up

Sorry ;)

Ah, you see when I signed the contract to work in the bar- it did not say that I was liable to contract lung cancer or other debilitating diseases as a result of this.

I don't know about you, but my government enacts legislation for the benefit of its citizens.

My right to living a healthy life overrides the 'I don't wanna' right of the lazy, fat, arsehole who is not bothered to get up off of his bar stool and waddle the 12 feet to the door to light up

Sorry ;)

Didn't even occur to you that if the real issue was your lungs, there are easily affordable filteration systems that bars and pubs can use to make the air many times cleaner than the outside air. They were mandated here before the big push to eliminate smoking, but that was not even the real issue to begin with.
It really doesn't matter anyway. You are very likely to be out of a job soon anyway.

Ah, you see when I signed the contract to work in the bar- it did not say that I was liable to contract lung cancer or other debilitating diseases as a result of this.


Interestingly enough, I never seen a sign on the street that says I am liable to contract lung cancer or other debilitating diseases as a result of me being there.

I sure hope you're hounding your legislature to put signs like that... on every street... in every city.

;)

Ah, you see when I signed the contract to work in the bar- it did not say that I was liable to contract lung cancer or other debilitating diseases as a result of this.
Is this inherently due to your work at the bar or is it more because of outside factors such as patrons smoking?

I don't know about you, but my government enacts legislation for the benefit of its citizens.
Mine does too but the goal is that the benefit is supposed to be for all and not just a group that wants some other group to stop what its doing.

My right to living a healthy life overrides the 'I don't wanna' right of the lazy, fat, arsehole who is not bothered to get up off of his bar stool and waddle the 12 feet to the door to light up.
Remember rights deal with government interaction. Just because you have a right to life that does not mean people next to you are barred from smoking. The government can't take your life, but the people smoking aren't the government(Unless you work at a place where congressmen or government officals frequent).

Sorry ;)
Its okay your forgiven. :p

If enough people don't like the smoke. Eventually someone will open a bar with no smoking allowed. If the idea is successful, more smoke-free bars will open. Eventually, all should balance out, and without any government interference.


Should, but doesn't in reality. It's one of those pesky cases where reality doesn't conform to academic theory! Damn that reality !!!

Seriously tho, as a largely free-market type of animal, I'd be interested in hearing why the free market has not already created some smoking and some non-smoking pubs.

Has anyone any (plausible) thoughts?

Should, but doesn't in reality. It's one of those pesky cases where reality doesn't conform to academic theory! Damn that reality !!!

Seriously tho, as a largely free-market type of animal, I'd be interested in hearing why the free market has not already created some smoking and some non-smoking pubs.

Has anyone any (plausible) thoughts?

My thoughts: the people that like to complain about smoke-filled bars and getting toxic cancerous death diseases by going to them are not as numerous as imagined, or they do not care so much about their lungs that they would stop going to smoke bars and switch over to any nonsmoking bars.


It's like people who complain about high taxes, but vote Democrat.

Should, but doesn't in reality. It's one of those pesky cases where reality doesn't conform to academic theory! Damn that reality !!!

Seriously tho, as a largely free-market type of animal, I'd be interested in hearing why the free market has not already created some smoking and some non-smoking pubs.

Has anyone any (plausible) thoughts?

Well the first thought is that there isn't a market for it. People just grumble in silence but continue to go to bars that allow smoking. In other words they want change but don't facilitate it. That or there are just so many smokers that by banning it in your resturant/bar your alienating a significant portion of your customers.

Also I'm not sure if this has or has not been tried and to what success it would have achieved. I'm unsure of how many non smoking bars/resturants there are by choice of the owner so unless there have been some studies done I don't think we can find any numbers on this. I also can imagine that resturants would fare better with that plan then bars.

The frivolity with which people treat civil liberties these days is quite frankly shocking. We used to believe in freedom, once.

Should, but doesn't in reality. It's one of those pesky cases where reality doesn't conform to academic theory! Damn that reality !!!

Seriously tho, as a largely free-market type of animal, I'd be interested in hearing why the free market has not already created some smoking and some non-smoking pubs.

Has anyone any (plausible) thoughts?
Fears of lost revenue. Smokers do equate to a proportion of market share (in this case alcohol). If you ban smoking, and you are the only one, then you have immediately alienated a proportion of your customers who will, due to the allowance of other drinking establishments in the areas continuing to allow smoking, move to these establishments. These smokers are highly likely to have friends who don't smoke and will, in order to continue to socialise, go with their smoking friends to those areas that continue to allow for the formers habit. This means that not only do you lose the smokers from your establishment but also a percentage of those non-smokers who continue to socialise with their associates.
If all establishments, however, ban smoking then they are, as before, all competing at the same level.

The frivolity with which people treat civil liberties these days is quite frankly shocking. We used to believe in freedom, once.
I agree. Every time I get carded for buying a mature video game a small part of me dies inside.

1. Are people who are smoking deliberately harming other people in the bar?


Given the widespread knowledge of how dangerous second-hand cigarette smoke is, I'd say yes.

Even if you don't agree with that, then it is certainly 'reckless' within the meaning of UK law, which roughly means that, even if you don't intend to deliberately inflict harm, you do an act which you know will either certainly cause harm or will extremely likely cause harm but you absolutely do not give a damn whether or not harm occurs.

So If I stood in front of some windows and, not actually intending to break awindow, start throwing heavy stones all around me and I accidentally break one, then I would be guilty of criminal damage.

I think it's a good analogy to passive smoking with the result that, if the answer is 'no,' not deliberately harming then the consequent answer is 'yes,' to recklessness, with the further follow-on that recklessness is (for both civil and criminal law in the UK) equivalent or near equivalent to intent.



2. No one is forcing you to go into the bar and breath in smoke.
True ... but I do like a beer which leads onto the next point ...


You could find another bar that decided it didn't want smokers in their establishment.


Just about every bar over here both permits and encourages the sale and smoking of cigarettes.


As long as you have a choice in where you eat no one is forcing you to go their and breath in smoke.

But there is no choice. Not in the UK anyway. You could say 'don't drink in a pub then'. My answer to that would be: why should the injurious activities of some prevent me from a non-injurious activity or, to put it another way, why should they be able to buy their happiness at the expense of mine?

You could, in return, argue that I am buying my happiness at the expense of theirs. But then, I would say they haven't really lost anything ... I get to drink in a nice warm pub and so do they. All they have lost is the ability to pollute an enclosed space. No-one would argue can seriously argue for a right to pollute can they? That's like arguing that a factory has the right to pollute a river and if you don't like it you can move away. No-one's going to buy that argument. Why is it any different for smoking?


Hell if everyone is so against smoking I'd think a smart buisness owner would make a nice profit to make a non smoking resturant

I think a smart business owner would do that - I'd have certainly gone to a non-smoking pub if that was on offer. But, for some reason, market failure, there was no such option. And it's not like there's no demand. Go have a look at the BBC polls - something like 75% of respondents approved of the govt's action. I don't know why the free-market didn't provide a solution. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

but I don't think the government should be telling buisnesses that people can't smoke in their property.

Normally, I'd agree with you about freedom from govt intereference. And I do to some extent, even with this new law. For example, there are plenty of bar and club jobs. The general public does not go into private members clubs. Why should smoking be banned there? The general public does not go into PMCs or can go to pubs and bar staff can get jobs elsewhere.

It's a different case for pubs generally. None offer a clean atmosphere so neither the bar staff or the public can go elsewhere. So I think your, normally sound, argument is over-ruled in this case because there is no choice to go elsewhere and harm is being inflicted onto people who do not consent to it.

Speaking as someone who just came back from a pub in London, I both met and overheard a number of highly pissed off patrons who think that their individual rights are being trampled.

They sounded almost like US libertarians...

which made me feel quite at home...

Yes it does matter. If they aren't going out of their way to deliberately harm people then how are they doing something wrong?

Please see my earlier posts about recklessness.


You don't have to stand near a smoker if you don't want to breath in the smoke and you don't have to go to a bar or resturant that allows smoking.

You do in the UK. All bars & clubs allow smoking. Plus, you have to remember that bars and clubs in the UK have a 'public' character in that they are open to the general public.


If you don't want to breath it in either don't go in the smoking section

I don't. I sit in the non-smoking section. But the bar itself is in the smoking section. As are the entrances to the toilets. And smoke drifts. It's not too bright at reading 'no smoking' signs. You can't help but breathe it in. there is no choice if you want to go to the pub.

but I see no reason for the government to mandate what a buisness owner should do with his private property. If the bar owner wants to let people smoke in his building he should be able to.

by and large non-interference is a good philosophy. However interference is fully justified in cases of harm to those who don't consent and also in cases of market failure like imposing externalities. Which is the case here.

I think a more reasonable compromise would be to let private members clubs choose to be smoking or non-smoking.

And also require - either the physical partition of smoking and non-smoking (and not just sticking a sign up), a fully smoking bar or a fully non-smoking bars. That could be done by the licensing authorities - they could zone up the city into smoking and non-smoking zones and bars would have to comply as part of their alcohol selling rights. That way smokers could go to smoking bars, non-smokers to non-smoking bars and owners could chose where they wanted to operate a bar. Maximum choice for all.

However, do you demand a ban on pollutant engines due to the toxic emissions they compel into your lungs in a toxic place? I would contend not so.


We do. And we get it. Ship owners are slowly being forced to comply with MARPOL laws (marine pollution laws) relating to sulphur content in their emissions. The Baltic Sea, the North Sea (I think) and the Dover Strait are all SECA zones - Sulphur Emission Control areas.


Moreover, why does your moral perspective acquire precedence over that of a smokers in this case? For health reasons? If so, one could assert the need for prohibition in public places due to the compulsion it engenders in alcoholics.

Health reasons? No. Smokers are free to pollute their own bodies. It's for reasons of consent. No one has the right to pollute my body without my consent.

The same can be said about non smokers, if they want to have a drink without breathing cigarette smoke then they can have a drink at home.

Slightly off the point.

If non-smokers want to drink in a pub environment w/o breathing in smoke, they cannot do so. Smoke is harmful. Non-smokers do not consent to being harmed in this way. Yet they cannot smoke in a non-pub environment.

Of course, turn this around. Smokers who want to drink and smoke in a non-pub environment cannot now do so. So, in a small way, they have less freedom than before.

Is that justified though? I argue 'yes' because it comes down to the issues of harm and consent.

Smokers are buying their happiness at the expense of non-smokers' health. Non-smokers don't consent to that. So it is justified to require non-smokers to refrain from smoking in the pub.

Besides, it's not as if smokers can't smoke outside or in their own homes. Smokers are not being deprived of the right to smoke, they are being deprived of the ability to pollute other people. I say 'ability' because the ability to pollute surely cannot be regarded as a 'right', can it?

Given the widespread knowledge of how dangerous second-hand cigarette smoke is, I'd say yes.
But thats not deliberate. People don't go out and think that they feel like giving someone some cancer today so they are going to smoke. They read the label and consent to self harm if they smoke now due to the warning but they are in no way forcing people to breath in the smoke in a deliberate manner.

Even if you don't agree with that, then it is certainly 'reckless' within the meaning of UK law, which roughly means that, even if you don't intend to deliberately inflict harm, you do an act which you know will either certainly cause harm or will extremely likely cause harm but you absolutely do not give a damn whether or not harm occurs.
But the problem here is that just by sitting next to someone who's smoking you don't automatically get cancer or heart disease. You'd have to prove that by sitting next to that person they gave it to you. Unless you constitute just the smoke going into their lungs at that point as harm, in which case don't breath next to me or else your causing harm by breathing out all those germs.

So If I stood in front of some windows and, not actually intending to break a window, start throwing heavy stones all around me and I accidentally break one, then I would be guilty of criminal damage.
There is a difference between throwing stones at a window and smoking. I don't suppose the window can move away from the stone can it?

I think it's a good analogy to passive smoking with the result that, if the answer is 'no,' not deliberately harming then the consequent answer is 'yes,' to recklessness, with the further follow-on that recklessness is (for both civil and criminal law in the UK) equivalent or near equivalent to intent.
You'd have to prove the harm occured due to the person smoking and unless your constantly standing next to someone who smokes just standing next to someone at a bar who is smoking won't give you cancer so your going to have a hard time proving that they harmed you.



True ... but I do like a beer which leads onto the next point ...
I'm with you on the liking beer.



Just about every bar over here both permits and encourages the sale and smoking of cigarettes.
Then thats the bar owners decision. If you don't like it then either find a bar that doesn't do it, don't go to the bars, or try to open your own thats non smoking.



But there is no choice. Not in the UK anyway. You could say 'don't drink in a pub then'. My answer to that would be: why should the injurious activities of some prevent me from a non-injurious activity or, to put it another way, why should they be able to buy their happiness at the expense of mine?
But what your doing then by prohibiting them from smoking is buying your happiness at the expense of those people. By stating that as your opinion your taking a hypocritical stance where you say that people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy something at your expense but then you go and enjoy something at someone elses expense.

You could, in return, argue that I am buying my happiness at the expense of theirs. But then, I would say they haven't really lost anything ... I get to drink in a nice warm pub and so do they. All they have lost is the ability to pollute an enclosed space. No-one would argue can seriously argue for a right to pollute can they? That's like arguing that a factory has the right to pollute a river and if you don't like it you can move away. No-one's going to buy that argument. Why is it any different for smoking?
See here is the thing not only have they lost the right to the pursit of happiness(because they are no longer allowed to smoke) your taking away the bar owner's right to do what he wishes with his property. Its not just the smoker who's getting hurt here but the buisness owner too. You take a hypocritical stance this way.



I think a smart business owner would do that - I'd have certainly gone to a non-smoking pub if that was on offer. But, for some reason, market failure, there was no such option. And it's not like there's no demand. Go have a look at the BBC polls - something like 75% of respondents approved of the govt's action. I don't know why the free-market didn't provide a solution. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Because too many people just grumble about it and then go to the pub. No one decided to take the initiative and make one themselves because either its not profitable(beacuse not enough people would go to it due to not wanting to change or that there are a majority of smokers in the pubs in the first place) or they just suffer in silence wanting to change but not doing so because of any number of reasons.



Normally, I'd agree with you about freedom from govt intereference. And I do to some extent, even with this new law. For example, there are plenty of bar and club jobs. The general public does not go into private members clubs. Why should smoking be banned there? The general public does not go into PMCs or can go to pubs and bar staff can get jobs elsewhere.
Well if the government can not interfere with a members club why can it interfere with a regular club? Whats the difference between telling an owner of a public club what they can or can not do with their property and telling an owner of a private club what they can and can not do?

It's a different case for pubs generally. None offer a clean atmosphere so neither the bar staff or the public can go elsewhere. So I think your, normally sound, argument is over-ruled in this case because there is no choice to go elsewhere and harm is being inflicted onto people who do not consent to it.
Of course you consent to it. You consent by CHOOSING to go into that pub and get food or drink. Your not being forced into these places to breath in the smoke your making a conscious decision to do so and by making that decision your consenting to what happens in the bar. If you don't want to consent to that you go somewhere else. Its as simple as that.

Has anyone seen the South Park episode when Rob Reiner comes to the town and preaches anti-smoking? They really hit the nail on the head in that one. A great social commentary, anyway I know how it feels, I dont smoke since I know it's bad, but I would protest the banning of smoking. Second Hand Smoke may win the award for the most talked about disease/health thing that got overly hyped.
ATTENTION HEALTH PEOPLE:
YOU WILL NOT DIE OF SECOND HAND SMOKING, PLEASE SHUT THE F**K UP.
That is all.


Now now, that's not necessary (incidentally, I reduced the size of that quote)

Consider this ...

"There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks."
Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, quoted by BUPA (a British for-profit hospital and healthcare business). See the full article at http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html

Even if you don't agree with that, then it is certainly 'reckless' within the meaning of UK law, which roughly means that, even if you don't intend to deliberately inflict harm, you do an act which you know will either certainly cause harm or will extremely likely cause harm but you absolutely do not give a damn whether or not harm occurs.

Would driving a car qualify as reckless?

Studies show that being around smokers may cause health problems. Studies also show that breathing in automobile pollution from the air may cause health problems.

Neither is a certainty or extremely likely. I've breathed cigarette smoke AND auto pollution (who hasn't?) and yet, I've no health problems at the moment. So what harm was caused me? What harm was CERTAINLY caused me?

You see it's nowhere near as clear-cut as your analogy of throwing rocks at windows.

It's also supposing that if you're really opposed to working around cigarette smokers, you don't have to apply for a job at a pub where you know people smoke.

Both are good suppositions.

It really does depend. I'm from Liverpool, which in the UK is a byword for chronic unemployment. If you get offered a job there, you take it and you hang on to it. There really is no other way.

Slightly off the point.

If non-smokers want to drink in a pub environment w/o breathing in smoke, they cannot do so. Smoke is harmful. Non-smokers do not consent to being harmed in this way. Yet they cannot smoke in a non-pub environment.

Of course, turn this around. Smokers who want to drink and smoke in a non-pub environment cannot now do so. So, in a small way, they have less freedom than before.

Is that justified though? I argue 'yes' because it comes down to the issues of harm and consent.

Smokers are buying their happiness at the expense of non-smokers' health. Non-smokers don't consent to that. So it is justified to require non-smokers to refrain from smoking in the pub.

Besides, it's not as if smokers can't smoke outside or in their own homes. Smokers are not being deprived of the right to smoke, they are being deprived of the ability to pollute other people. I say 'ability' because the ability to pollute surely cannot be regarded as a 'right', can it?

Non-smokers can wear an Advantage 1000 mask.

W
As for how likely it is to get lung cancer solely from working in a place that allows smoking, I can't imagine there are any good studies on that. How would you isolate those who worked there, and got lung cancer from working there, from those who worked there, and got lung cancer from auto or industrial pollution?

Check out ...

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html

Well, I judge by the signs everywhere here in central London that the government here has a picture of the hairs in my gluteal cleft.

I'm not kidding, the place is like a friendly version of the initial scene in HalfLife 2 - except that instead of a flying video camera that's spying on you, the cameras are static and EVERYWHERE. That, and signs making sure that you don't forget that you're being MONITORED.






We've had a lot of terrorism here.

So smokings been banned, good. About bloody time too.

If people want to smoke in the privacy of their own home, fine, let them kill themselves alone, no problem. But when I go down the pub I want to know that the only thing that's going to get damaged is my liver and that I'm causing that damage to myself.

DAMN RIGHT !!:D

Check out ...

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html

Yeah. And I saw that the study was criticized by some, advocated by others. I see nothing clear cut about it.

Not to mention the study was concerning being married to a smoker for 38 years, not just attending a pub occasionally.

Also note the conclusion in the article:

They say there's overwhelming evidence that shows that secondhand smoke is dangerous and they recommend that non-smokers limit their exposure to it as much as possible

As in, not going to a pub where smoking is prevalent. OHNOE! That's not "possible," apparently, for those in pursuit of the healthy activity of poisoning your liver.

at my favorite pub, nearly everyone smokes...

when someone comes in and complains, we all sigh... because, newsflash:

PEOPLE SMOKE IN BARS

if they don't like it, they may leave.

this should be up to the proprietor... whether or not to allow smoking in his establishment.

they could also, like restaurants, have a smoking section and a non-smoking section... so everyone would be happy.



After working for 5 years in bars, hotels and restaurants, the ban was a God send.

I don't smoke- never have. Yet I developed a rather nasty cough... stuck with me for 4 years until the last year I worked the ban was implemented.

My right to work in an environment that doesn't harm me overrides your as a smoker. The door is over there; smoke, come back inside a finish your drinks.

I don't know the specific wording of the ban in Britain, but when Ireland introduced it it was "No smoking in places of work".

PM - Agreed. Work is an economic necessity. Smoking aint. Your right to work in a smoke-free environment definitely over-rides that of a smoker.

This is the first time I've heard that we have a right to work in an environment that doesn't harm us. I'm interested in hearing where you found this right of ours?

Don't know about the US, but in the UK we've had it since at least the 1950s with the Shops & Factories Act, then later re-affirmed in the 1970s with the Health & Safety at Work Act.

To quote Greg Proops "You cannot smoke in a bar in California. Now I am not mad, I understand that smoking is vaguely inappropriate in some situation...like an orphanage or a cancer ward or whatever but a bar? Your in a bar, grow up. You are drinking poison. You may be trying to have sex with someone you don't know. Is second hand smoke really the cheifest of your health concernes? 'Dude I've been doing tequila slammers since noon, I'm trying to shag this chick I just met I don't even know her name, Could you put that out?'"

That's all fine and good, but wait until you see the numbers of your pubs going out of business that they are not telling you about. Not to worry though, they are taking to heart your overall disregard for individual choice, and the gleeful joy professed by some for their health being watched over for them. Health officials are very concerned about the alarming rate of drinking also, and feel it is time to do something about that too. Today's Headline in the Wall Street Journal...

As Young Women Drink More, Alcohol Sales, Concerns Rise
Liver Problems on the Rise
British Drinkers Lead the Way

You are going to find that these sorts of incremental prohibitions never stop, they expand. There will be no stopping with just pubs, it will expand as it has done in the US, in some places it is now illegal to smoke a cigarette walking down the street.
You will also find that these sorts of laws are driven, and paid for by corporate interests, especially the insurance industry. With the UK's governmental health care and their inherient "good of the whole" attitude your liver will sooner than you think be no longer yours to damage as you see fit. Useful idiots against alcohol will still be in plentyful supply after tobacco is taken care of, and they shall then come out in force and eliminate your own personal vise for your own good, and you won't even see it coming.


OK, I take the 'slippery slope' argument. But that's another fight for another day. And the arguments against alcohol lack the benefit of argument against smoking - namely lack of consent

Don't know about the US, but in the UK we've had it since at least the 1950s with the Shops & Factories Act, then later re-affirmed in the 1970s with the Health & Safety at Work Act.

I'm unsure if they have any such legislation like that here in the US so I can't quite say if we do or don't.

It's a pity.

Why? Because if smokers had the common courtesy not to smoke around other people, this wouldn't even be an issue. :p


Aha! Common sense! Quick catch him and shoot him!:p

Didn't even occur to you that if the real issue was your lungs, there are easily affordable filteration systems that bars and pubs can use to make the air many times cleaner than the outside air. They were mandated here before the big push to eliminate smoking, but that was not even the real issue to begin with.
It really doesn't matter anyway. You are very likely to be out of a job soon anyway.

Never been in a bar with effective filtration systems.

Likely to be out of a job? What with the way the Brits and Irish drink? never.

Interestingly enough, I never seen a sign on the street that says I am liable to contract lung cancer or other debilitating diseases as a result of me being there.

I sure hope you're hounding your legislature to put signs like that... on every street... in every city.

;)


It's slightly different scenario - employment to walking down the street. Logical fallacy (strawman) for the following reasons ...

Sere are air emissions laws etc to reduce the effects of toxins in the air.

The issue is second-hand smoke in a confined space. Not pollutants from vehicles or second-hand smoke in a non-confined space.

There is no contractual relationship between the state and the citizen in the same way that there is between an employer and and employee. In the latter the the employee is supposed to have rights, duties, compensation and protection from hazards (health & safety at work act).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic Mongooses
Ah, you see when I signed the contract to work in the bar- it did not say that I was liable to contract lung cancer or other debilitating diseases as a result of this.
Is this inherently due to your work at the bar or is it more because of outside factors such as patrons smoking?


Inherently due because under the current system - patrons smoking - are not outside factors. Working in a smokey atmosphere is implied in the contract.


Quote:
I don't know about you, but my government enacts legislation for the benefit of its citizens.

Mine does too but the goal is that the benefit is supposed to be for all and not just a group that wants some other group to stop what its doing.

My govt enacts legislation for the benefit of itself and its supporters:rolleyes: All govt action is inherently partisan.


Quote:
My right to living a healthy life overrides the 'I don't wanna' right of the lazy, fat, arsehole who is not bothered to get up off of his bar stool and waddle the 12 feet to the door to light up.

Remember rights deal with government interaction. Just because you have a right to life that does not mean people next to you are barred from smoking. The government can't take your life, but the people smoking aren't the government(Unless you work at a place where congressmen or government officals frequent).

This doesn't follow. Rights deal with govt interaction and also interactions between private citizens. The classic examples of this are contract and tort.

PM has a right to life and health that does override the right of other people to smoke (health & safety at work act). The smokers are not barred from smoking, they are just barred from exercising their right to smoke in a way that pollutes other people.

My thoughts: the people that like to complain about smoke-filled bars and getting toxic cancerous death diseases by going to them are not as numerous as imagined, or they do not care so much about their lungs that they would stop going to smoke bars and switch over to any nonsmoking bars.



I disagree. Numerous people in Britain support smoke-free workplaces. The number of non-smokers in Britain far outnumbers the amount of smokers.

They do care about being made ill, which is why a majority support this legislation.

Well the first thought is that there isn't a market for it. People just grumble in silence but continue to go to bars that allow smoking. In other words they want change but don't facilitate it. That or there are just so many smokers that by banning it in your resturant/bar your alienating a significant portion of your customers.

Also I'm not sure if this has or has not been tried and to what success it would have achieved. I'm unsure of how many non smoking bars/resturants there are by choice of the owner so unless there have been some studies done I don't think we can find any numbers on this. I also can imagine that resturants would fare better with that plan then bars.


i think that there is a market but one that has not been supplied owing to (a) distortions in the market place (suppliers - pubs - make a killing (literally) from selling cigarettes when other venues are shut) (b) some kind of psychological factor - pub owners afraid to take the first step etc ...

No studies you mention than I'm aware of.

It's slightly different scenario - employment to walking down the street. Logical fallacy (strawman) for the following reasons ...

Sere are air emissions laws etc to reduce the effects of toxins in the air.

The issue is second-hand smoke in a confined space. Not pollutants from vehicles or second-hand smoke in a non-confined space.

Au contraire, both are matters of employment! It's pretty much impossible to work without being near automobiles, streets and cities. And unlike with the pub issue, it's not just people who work at pubs - it's people who work anywhere.

Yes, there are laws to reduce emissions... but they don't eliminate them. Dying of toxins in the air is a risk everyone takes when they go to work. A risk we accept.

And I grant you that confined vs non-confined means the analogy does not fit 100%. But the point remains - if health is the sole issue, and you would need a statement from an employer saying you COULD get lung cancer from working here, why does not anyone need a statement saying you COULD get lung cancer just by living?

There is no contractual relationship between the state and the citizen in the same way that there is between an employer and and employee. In the latter the the employee is supposed to have rights, duties, compensation and protection from hazards (health & safety at work act).

But I have a right to not have to work near polluting cars and filthy streets! ;)

Also the article you earlier pointed out still did not address the specific issue of working in a pub where smoking is allowed, and the relative certainty or not certainty of health problems resulting from that. It only addressed living (that is, sleeping and eating, every day) for 30+ years with a smoker. I think the two are different and can't be reduced to "smoking in a confined space."

If I work for 6 months at a pub where people smoke, it's not the same risk as being married to a heavy smoker for half my life.

After working for 5 years in bars, hotels and restaurants, the ban was a God send.

I don't smoke- never have. Yet I developed a rather nasty cough... stuck with me for 4 years until the last year I worked the ban was implemented.

My right to work in an environment that doesn't harm me overrides your as a smoker. The door is over there; smoke, come back inside a finish your drinks.

I don't know the specific wording of the ban in Britain, but when Ireland introduced it it was "No smoking in places of work".

i trust there are other work environments... that don't have smoke in them. It's just expected pretty much everywhere I've ever been... that if you go into a bar, there will be smoke/smoking.

my real point is that it should be up to the owner... whether or not to allow smoking.

Inherently due because under the current system - patrons smoking - are not outside factors. Working in a smokey atmosphere is implied in the contract.
Depends on where you are.

This doesn't follow. Rights deal with govt interaction and also interactions between private citizens. The classic examples of this are contract and tort.
But the smoker in a bar is in no way in a contractual obligation with you are they?

PM has a right to life and health that does override the right of other people to smoke (health & safety at work act). The smokers are not barred from smoking, they are just barred from exercising their right to smoke in a way that pollutes other people.
And in order to do this you deprive people of their liberty instead of just allowing this to happen in a free market atmosphere. As long as you have the freedom to go to different resturants/bar, the ability to open own establishment according to your wishes, or the ability to not go to one I see no reason that the government should come in and force people to act in a certain way.

i think that there is a market but one that has not been supplied owing to (a) distortions in the market place (suppliers - pubs - make a killing (literally) from selling cigarettes when other venues are shut) (b) some kind of psychological factor - pub owners afraid to take the first step etc
Well then thats up to the private citizen to do not the government.

No studies you mention than I'm aware of.
I didn't mention any specific studies...

I disagree. Numerous people in Britain support smoke-free workplaces. The number of non-smokers in Britain far outnumbers the amount of smokers.

They do care about being made ill, which is why a majority support this legislation.

Erm, I didn't say that smokers outnumbered nonsmokers. I said it was either that the anti-pub-smoking crowd is not so numerous as to have a market impact, OR that the people who complain about having to drink in smoke filled bars apparently don't care enough about the issue to... stop going to the smoke filled bars.

If as you say, numerous people support smoke-free workplaces, why not start a smoke-free pub or bar and watch the non-smoking, anti-smoking-in-pubs, health-concerned crowd flock to them?

...because this wouldn't happen. That crowd would still go to the smoke filled bars and the smoke-free bar would not have an advantage. Because the anti-smoking-in-pubs crowd don't care enough to alter their own behavior. If they don't care, why should anyone else?

Interestingly, I read that the legislation would exempt the Palace of Westminster, where many of the MPs (many of whom smoke) attend. So perhaps the message is that the MPs can STILL get to smoke if they want in their own pubs, while the nonsmoking and smoking proles alike can live in government-enforced smoke-freeness.

Look, for all the people losing sight of the reason for this law, think about this. When smokers do their bidding, they're not only killing themselves (at a higher number than any other preventable cause of death), they are also affecting the health of millions of other people who have to inhale the products of their cancer sticks.

When you drink, you only hurt your own liver. The main way people hurt others when they drink is by drunk driving. There are only rudimentary measures to prevent this, and even those are rather poor at discouraging drunk driving because they treat the symptoms (driving poorly, accidents, manslaughter) with tickets and fines, but do not prevent the disease, which is 'drunk driving.' What should really happen to stop drunk driving is that there should be breathalyzers on every car (which is done now for repeat offending drunk drivers) to stop people from drunk driving. The prohibitive step here is the $1-2k pricetag it would cost to implement these devices on all new cars. However, this pricetag could easily be offset in a state's budget by the decreased amount of accidents, jailtime, and lawyer fees that drunk drivers eat up when they get into accidents and kill people. Just something to think about.

But thats not deliberate. People don't go out and think that they feel like giving someone some cancer today so they are going to smoke. They read the label and consent to self harm if they smoke now due to the warning but they are in no way forcing people to breath in the smoke in a deliberate manner.

People cannot ignore the fact that second-hand smoke is highly toxic. The act of going out and smoking in an enclosed place, knowing that you are exposing another to a toxic substance and not caring about the result is reckless. Reckless is as good as deliberate. You'll read that in any criminal or civil law text book.

And, if they breathe smoke in an enclosed place they are forcing other people to breathe in smoke.


But the problem here is that just by sitting next to someone who's smoking you don't automatically get cancer or heart disease. You'd have to prove that by sitting next to that person they gave it to you. Unless you constitute just the smoke going into their lungs at that point as harm, in which case don't breath next to me or else your causing harm by breathing out all those germs.

You end up with a greatly increased risk. That risk is compensate-able (hey! I made up a word!!!) because of the formula ...

Duty of care (i.e. not to be reckless about exposing people to toxic substances) + breach of duty (exposing people to smoke in a manner that cannot be avoided) + consequential harm (developing an injury) = liability.

Harm from second hand cigarette smoke has been proven by numerous studies. http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html
I may not be able to prove that you, EA, gave me lung cancer, but I can prove that exposure to second hand smoke gives rise to lung cancer generally. And for reasons of harm/consent, that gives rise to an ethical duty to ban smoking in enclosed places

As for the germs issue, we all have to live with the trivialities and minor injuries of life. Nothing can be done about that. You can't say the same about smoking. If it is serious disease then the public authorities have every right to quarantine you.


There is a difference between throwing stones at a window and smoking. I don't suppose the window can move away from the stone can it?
Not in the context of illustrating the concept of recklessness, no. And, in any event in Britain, you can't move away from a smoker if you want a meal or a beer.


You'd have to prove the harm occured due to the person smoking and unless your constantly standing next to someone who smokes just standing next to someone at a bar who is smoking won't give you cancer so your going to have a hard time proving that they harmed you.
You end up with a greatly increased risk. That risk is compensate-able (hey! I made up a word!!!) because of the formula ...

Duty of care (i.e. not to be reckless about exposing people to toxic substances) + breach of duty (exposing people to smoke in a manner that cannot be avoided) + consequential harm (developing an injury) = liability.

Harm from second hand cigarette smoke has been proven by numerous studies. http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html
I may not be able to prove that you, EA, gave me lung cancer, but I can prove that exposure to second hand smoke gives rise to lung cancer generally. And for reasons of harm/consent, that gives rise to an ethical duty to ban smoking in enclosed places





I'm with you on the liking beer.

Good! *pours a pint of lager and passes it to EA* Cheers!:p




Then thats the bar owners decision. If you don't like it then either find a bar that doesn't do it, don't go to the bars, or try to open your own thats non smoking.
Oooo - good point. yes, I could go and open my bar! but I don't have the cash sadly.

Bar owners decision - please see earlier posts as to why this is not so. Can't find alternative bars - none available. Don't go to bars - I don't see why the tortious acts of a smoker should limit my freedom. They should stop committing tortious acts (i.e. smoking in an enclosed space) because, after all, it is they who are in the wrong.




But what your doing then by prohibiting them from smoking is buying your happiness at the expense of those people. By stating that as your opinion your taking a hypocritical stance where you say that people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy something at your expense but then you go and enjoy something at someone elses expense. See here is the thing not only have they lost the right to the pursit of happiness(because they are no longer allowed to smoke) your taking away the bar owner's right to do what he wishes with his property. Its not just the smoker who's getting hurt here but the buisness owner too. You take a hypocritical stance this way.

In our society certain rights come into conflict. But some rights override others. The right not to be harmed without your consent without lawful authority under due process is right at the top of the 'tree of rights'. So, yes, my right not to be harmed does conflict with smokers 'ability' to smoke (I still maintain no-one has the 'right' to pollute my person or my property - there is a considerable body of law to support that view) and the ability of the business owner to do what he wants.

Yes, there is conflict, no, there is no hypocrisy as the right to not be harmed is superior to the right to smoke inside a pub (if such a right exists, which I maintain it does not) or the right of the pub owner to do what he wishes.


Well if the government can not interfere with a members club why can it interfere with a regular club? Whats the difference between telling an owner of a public club what they can or can not do with their property and telling an owner of a private club what they can and can not do?

What I was really getting at was this ... rather than providing an outright ban (thereby removing some freedoms from the smokers) the govt should have provided for a mixed option - some smoking venues, some non-smoking venues. Then the whole argument disappears. As it is, what I am saying is this - in the event that it has to be one or the other, 'smoking or non-smoking, then non-smoking is the preferred option owing to the absence of any real choice and the harm that results from passive smoking.



Of course you consent to it. You consent by CHOOSING to go into that pub and get food or drink. Your not being forced into these places to breath in the smoke your making a conscious decision to do so and by making that decision your consenting to what happens in the bar. If you don't want to consent to that you go somewhere else. Its as simple as that.

Not simple, no. Yes, on a basic level, I choose to go into a pub. If I don't like it, go somewhere else. Where? All pubs and clubs in England are smoking pubs and clubs. There is nowhere else to go. There is an absence of any really choice If I want to get a poured pint, I have to go to a pub. I'd say that negates the element of choice. By smoking, the smokers deprive me of my right to drink in a smoke free environment. I certainly don't consent to what else happens in the bar - I resent it most dreadfully and would much rather there was not smoking. As for consenting to what happens else where in the bar, i refer you to the forumla for tortious liability ... the smokers are committing a wrong - it is they who should have their freedom restricted rather than me, who is committing no wrong.

Would driving a car qualify as reckless?

No, not if it does not hit the following formula
Duty of care>recklessness leading to>breach of duty>leading to consequential harm


Studies show that being around smokers may cause health problems. Studies also show that breathing in automobile pollution from the air may cause health problems.

Studies also show that being repeatedly exposed to second hand smoke in a confined environment increases the risk of lung cancer.


Neither is a certainty or extremely likely. I've breathed cigarette smoke AND auto pollution (who hasn't?) and yet, I've no health problems at the moment. So what harm was caused me? What harm was CERTAINLY caused me?

Breathing in second hand cigarette smoke is harmful. It's a widely accepted fact. See my earlier links. Either you believe it or you don't. I won't enter into any further correspondence on this point.


You see it's nowhere near as clear-cut as your analogy of throwing rocks at windows.
My windows analogy is very clear-cut for the purpose of illustrating recklessness. You are suggesting that, very clear-cut example, is being used to illustrate a different point. Let me give you an analogy more suited to passive smoking.

I know that passive smoking is harmful (yes it is, don't bother saying its not or blather on about risk - we've dealt with that). I walk into an enclosed space knowing that the smoke is toxic. I do not intend to make anyone ill or develop cancer. I light my cigarette either not thinking that I am exposing someone to the risk of harm or not caring that they have been exposed to harm. That is recklessness - regardless of whether they go on to be harmed.

RECKLESSNESS IS EQUIVALENT TO DELIBERATE ACTION

Yeah. And I saw that the study was criticized by some, advocated by others. I see nothing clear cut about it.


there were many studies referred to. See esp the quote by Dr V.

Anywho, I'm not getting into this point anymore.


they recommend that non-smokers limit their exposure to it as much as possible


Which (a) proves second-hand smoke is dangerous (damn, sucked into that argument once more!!!) and (b) which we did by getting it banned :D

To quote Greg Proops "You cannot smoke in a bar in California. Now I am not mad, I understand that smoking is vaguely inappropriate in some situation...like an orphanage or a cancer ward or whatever but a bar? Your in a bar, grow up. You are drinking poison. You may be trying to have sex with someone you don't know. Is second hand smoke really the cheifest of your health concernes? 'Dude I've been doing tequila slammers since noon, I'm trying to shag this chick I just met I don't even know her name, Could you put that out?'"

I self choose all those poisons as is my right to do so. and, alcohol in moderation, is good for you. Whereas second-hand smoke is imposed on me and is in no meaningful way good for me.

snip

I love you. :) To be honest you are putting it into words I probably could never do without flaming!


i trust there are other work environments... that don't have smoke in them. It's just expected pretty much everywhere I've ever been... that if you go into a bar, there will be smoke/smoking.

my real point is that it should be up to the owner... whether or not to allow smoking.


Other work enviroments? Like what?

And now, if you go into a bar you can't smoke INDOORS . This has lead to a massive rise in 'beer gardens' and bbq's in nearly every pub/club.
You can smoke all you want outside in the fresh air. Just not in an enclosed area where staff work. By smoking indoors, the staff are being forced to breath in toxic and lethal fumes.

As for the 'OMG LOSS OF TEH JOBS!!' comment, it has found to be absolute bullshit. No statistical evidence in Ireland has shown to back that up whatsoever.

@ another poster: Bars with filtration? What the hell type of bars are you talking about?! Filtration= window. Doesn't work.

Bottom line: it all depends on the wording of the legislation.

Here, it merely states that you cannot smoke in the place of someones work in an enclosed area. Period.

I don't see how that infringes on anyones legitimate rights.

Au contraire, both are matters of employment! It's pretty much impossible to work without being near automobiles, streets and cities. And unlike with the pub issue, it's not just people who work at pubs - it's people who work anywhere.


Being in the street for an hour or two each day is nowhere near as bad as being near continuously in a completely smoke filled room for up to nine or ten hours a day five or six days No-way.


Yes, there are laws to reduce emissions... but they don't eliminate them. Dying of toxins in the air is a risk everyone takes when they go to work. A risk we accept.
Yes, there is a risk in everything we do. Yes, there are risks we accept. No, working in smoke filled environments are not risks we should have to accept.


And I grant you that confined vs non-confined means the analogy does not fit 100%. But the point remains - if health is the sole issue, and you would need a statement from an employer saying you COULD get lung cancer from working here, why does not anyone need a statement saying you COULD get lung cancer just by living?
It's about not being forced to work in an evironment hazardous to health. I believe you are arguing that, just because the streets may be dirty (they may or may not be generally) then you should have no right to work in a clean atmosphere (which smoke filled pubs are generally not) i.e. you are saying that just because we have a bit of dirt we should have lots of it? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.



But I have a right to not have to work near polluting cars and filthy streets! ;)


Yes you do. Which is good, yes?


Also the article you earlier pointed out still did not address the specific issue of working in a pub where smoking is allowed, and the relative certainty or not certainty of health problems resulting from that. It only addressed living (that is, sleeping and eating, every day) for 30+ years with a smoker. I think the two are different and can't be reduced to "smoking in a confined space."
If I work for 6 months at a pub where people smoke, it's not the same risk as being married to a heavy smoker for half my life.
I feel you're picking at straws here. Breathing in passive smoke is dangerous. There is no argument against that. No further corres on this point.

i trust there are other work environments... that don't have smoke in them. It's just expected pretty much everywhere I've ever been... that if you go into a bar, there will be smoke/smoking.

my real point is that it should be up to the owner... whether or not to allow smoking.

Some people are only qualified for bar work. For some sectors of the population, students, bar work is the only feasible option.

I'd largely agree that it should be a matter of free choice, but this is an area where the free-market has not provided choice as it would normally and externalities are being imposed on lungs of those who frequent pubs. When externalities are present there is a case for govt regulation.

now govt may have gone too far in totally banning smoking - it could have required local authorities to draw up non-smoking zones in the cities and those pubs/clubs in a non-smoking zone can't allow smoking - but there is a clear ethical case for forcing the market to provide non-smoking venues of some description.

Depends on where you are.
in relation to this post we were talking about psychotic mongoose working in a pub as a bar worker


But the smoker in a bar is in no way in a contractual obligation with you are they?


This doesn't follow. Rights deal with govt interaction and also interactions between private citizens. The classic examples of this are contract and tort.
No, but they are in a tortious relationship


And in order to do this you deprive people of their liberty instead of just allowing this to happen in a free market atmosphere. As long as you have the freedom to go to different resturants/bar, the ability to open own establishment according to your wishes, or the ability to not go to one I see no reason that the government should come in and force people to act in a certain way.

I think we've done this point to death. You either accept that some rights are superior to others or not. You either accept that externalities require govt intervention or not. You obviously don't for various reasons. I obviously do for various reasons. There is no point debating this further.

Well then thats up to the private citizen to do not the government.

For the reasons given above, there is sometimes a case for govt intervention.


I didn't mention any specific studies...
Apologies

People cannot ignore the fact that second-hand smoke is highly toxic. The act of going out and smoking in an enclosed place, knowing that you are exposing another to a toxic substance and not caring about the result is reckless. Reckless is as good as deliberate. You'll read that in any criminal or civil law text book.
No one is denying that fact. What I have been denying is the fact that by smoking in an area you are deliberately harming others ie your intent is to harm. And in order for it to be reckless you have to show a carelessness or disregard for others. Now what I want to know is how going into a pub where smoking is allowed can be considered reckless? You've already entered into an area where smoking is allowed. So the onus is on the person who does not want to smoke to either consent and enter in there or not consent and go somewhere else.

And, if they breathe smoke in an enclosed place they are forcing other people to breathe in smoke.
As long as people can leave that enclosed space then no they are not forcing others to breathe in smoke.



You end up with a greatly increased risk. That risk is compensate-able (hey! I made up a word!!!) because of the formula ...
Risk of harm is different then cause of harm.

[/Quote]Duty of care (i.e. not to be reckless about exposing people to toxic substances) + breach of duty (exposing people to smoke in a manner that cannot be avoided) + consequential harm (developing an injury) = liability.[/Quote]
Is this dealing with employee employer relations only or are you trying to apply this formula to patrons as well? The problem I find with your forumla is that the bar owner isn't exposing the worker to anything. The patrons are the ones smoking here. So the owner is not exposing the worker to anything. Not only that but the owner is not in breach of duty if they aren't doing the exposing. Also the employee must weigh the harm of the job against actually working there when the go to consider taking it. If they feel that they would suffer from working in an area where smoking is allowed then they are free not to work there.

Harm from second hand cigarette smoke has been proven by numerous studies. http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html
I may not be able to prove that you, EA, gave me lung cancer, but I can prove that exposure to second hand smoke gives rise to lung cancer generally. And for reasons of harm/consent, that gives rise to an ethical duty to ban smoking in enclosed places
Except for the fact that when you enter a bar that allows smoking you consent to breathing in the smoke or you can go somewhere else if you don't consent. As long as you have the choice then your consenting.

As for the germs issue, we all have to live with the trivialities and minor injuries of life. Nothing can be done about that. You can't say the same about smoking. If it is serious disease then the public authorities have every right to quarantine you.
But once again just by going to a bar and sitting down next to someone I will not automatically get cancer. I may be breathing in toxins but I breathe in toxins all the time from things other then smoke.


Not in the context of illustrating the concept of recklessness, no. And, in any event in Britain, you can't move away from a smoker if you want a meal or a beer.
If I am going into a resturant where smoking is allowed I have consented to that policy. It is not reckless for me to smoke where a person says I can is it? And you can move away from a smoker if you want a meal or a beer in britain. Its called go home, make your own dinner, and crack open a cold one. Your not being forced into the bars now are you?

Good! *pours a pint of lager and passes it to EA* Cheers!:p
Cheers




Oooo - good point. yes, I could go and open my bar! but I don't have the cash sadly.
Get a lone or find buisness partners to finance your operation. With all the people who seem to be against smoking in Englad you shouldn't have a problem.

Bar owners decision - please see earlier posts as to why this is not so.
See earlier response to your formula.



Can't find alternative bars - none available. Don't go to bars - I don't see why the tortious acts of a smoker should limit my freedom. They should stop committing tortious acts (i.e. smoking in an enclosed space) because, after all, it is they who are in the wrong.
If you go into a bar where smoking is allowed you consent to it. If you don't want to then you don't have to go to a bar. I see no reason why if an owner of private property specifies that smoking is allowed in their establishment that the rights of the smoker and that of the owner should be infringed upon to satisfy you when you have a number of other options you can consider.





In our society certain rights come into conflict. But some rights override others. The right not to be harmed without your consent without lawful authority under due process is right at the top of the 'tree of rights'.
Except you consent when you enter the bar. You wave your right when you enter into a facility that has allowed smoking, and if you don't wish to wave your right you go to somewhere else.


Yes, there is conflict, no, there is no hypocrisy as the right to not be harmed is superior to the right to smoke inside a pub (if such a right exists, which I maintain it does not) or the right of the pub owner to do what he wishes.
Except you consent so you've waved your right.



What I was really getting at was this ... rather than providing an outright ban (thereby removing some freedoms from the smokers) the govt should have provided for a mixed option - some smoking venues, some non-smoking venues. Then the whole argument disappears. As it is, what I am saying is this - in the event that it has to be one or the other, 'smoking or non-smoking, then non-smoking is the preferred option owing to the absence of any real choice and the harm that results from passive smoking.
I'm all for this being a private matter. I see no reason for the government to step in when you have the choice to go to other places or not go at all.




Not simple, no. Yes, on a basic level, I choose to go into a pub. If I don't like it, go somewhere else. Where? All pubs and clubs in England are smoking pubs and clubs. There is nowhere else to go. There is an absence of any really choice If I want to get a poured pint, I have to go to a pub. I'd say that negates the element of choice. By smoking, the smokers deprive me of my right to drink in a smoke free environment. I certainly don't consent to what else happens in the bar - I resent it most dreadfully and would much rather there was not smoking. As for consenting to what happens else where in the bar, i refer you to the forumla for tortious liability ... the smokers are committing a wrong - it is they who should have their freedom restricted rather than me, who is committing no wrong.
You could go home or go to a resturant that doesn't have smoking or has a non smoking area. You assume that you have no other choices when you still do. And when you go into an establishment that expressly allows smoking then you've consented to that practice. No one has forced you into the bar and no one has made you breathe in the smoke. You do so of your own free will.

Erm, I didn't say that smokers outnumbered nonsmokers.

Ooops. Apologies.


I said it was either that the anti-pub-smoking crowd is not so numerous as to have a market impact, OR that the people who complain about having to drink in smoke filled bars apparently don't care enough about the issue to... stop going to the smoke filled bars.

If as you say, numerous people support smoke-free workplaces, why not start a smoke-free pub or bar and watch the non-smoking, anti-smoking-in-pubs, health-concerned crowd flock to them?

God knows, some kind of market failure I guess, as stated above.


...because this wouldn't happen. That crowd would still go to the smoke filled bars and the smoke-free bar would not have an advantage. Because the anti-smoking-in-pubs crowd don't care enough to alter their own behavior. If they don't care, why should anyone else?

Hmmm. Good point. Mostly because of market failure. When markets fail (externalities, asymmetric info), that entitles the state to step in. I think the state has been a little heavy handed - it could have left some bars smoke free and others smoke allowed (with a quota system or something?)

Anyway, I don't know about anyone else, but I have altered my behaviour. I don't go the pub anywhere near as often as I would like because of smoking.


Interestingly, I read that the legislation would exempt the Palace of Westminster, where many of the MPs (many of whom smoke) attend. So perhaps the message is that the MPs can STILL get to smoke if they want in their own pubs, while the nonsmoking and smoking proles alike can live in government-enforced smoke-freeness.

Typical :p

I love you. :) To be honest you are putting it into words I probably could never do without flaming!

Now just 'cos it's near Valentine's Day, don't go all mushy on me!
Unless you're a cute girlie, in which case send me a telegram :fluffle:

Okay, I'm going to petition the government to stop people from drinking in pubs. Every year hundreds, if not thousands of people are injured by people who have been drinking in pubs. Therefor drinking is not only bad for the health of the people who drink, but for the health of non-drinkers near-by.

No one is denying that fact. What I have been denying is etc etc etc

You make lots of interesting points which I feel are capable of rebuttal ... but tomorrow. It's way past my bedime :eek:

Thanks for the debate - it's been challenging.

G'night

CDA ;)

Okay, I'm going to petition the government to stop people from drinking in pubs. Every year hundreds, if not thousands of people are injured by people who have been drinking in pubs. Therefor drinking is not only bad for the health of the people who drink, but for the health of non-drinkers near-by.

Yer too late. The insurance industry and health care industry are way ahead of you. They just don't know it yet.

Okay, I'm going to petition the government to stop people from drinking in pubs. Every year hundreds, if not thousands of people are injured by people who have been drinking in pubs. Therefor drinking is not only bad for the health of the people who drink, but for the health of non-drinkers near-by.

Good for you! Hope it works out for ya :p

Good for you! Hope it works out for ya :p

So do I. People who drink alcohol annoy me

As a person living Ottawa (We have had a smoking ban for a while, and a province-wide one came into effect with the New Year) I have to laugh. If the weather here were as warm as it is in Britain, we probably would have brought in a ban even earlier. It is perfectly accptable here to ban indoor smoking out of concern for the health of bystanders. A similar ban came into effect this January in my old city. Before then, only 25% or less of any bar or pub could be smoking, and it had to be in a separately ventilated room (There was one huge bar which had an entire smoking floor, but that was still within the 25% rule). I have to admit, I am not sure if my favourite bar there could be the same without the smoking area. Personally, I favour either option, a total ban or a restriction to rooms with their own air system. There again, practically the only time I ever smoke is when I am out partying, so having the ban is a good incentive for me not to dally in the dirty habit.

Being in the street for an hour or two each day is nowhere near as bad as being near continuously in a completely smoke filled room for up to nine or ten hours a day five or six days No-way.

How would you know? Besides, 14 hours a week might not seem like much compared to 50 or 60, except the entire working population gets the 14. That's a lot more person-hours-exposed-to-toxic-pollutants.

Yes, there is a risk in everything we do. Yes, there are risks we accept. No, working in smoke filled environments are not risks we should have to accept.

And we don't. Unless we want to work at a pub.

I'm really not buying the indentured servant can't get a job anywhere else in the entire world story.

Prostitution may be unhealthy as employment too, but even hookers have a choice to do what they do, and really shouldn't complain if they happen to get fucked.


It's about not being forced to work in an evironment hazardous to health. I believe you are arguing that, just because the streets may be dirty (they may or may not be generally) then you should have no right to work in a clean atmosphere (which smoke filled pubs are generally not) i.e. you are saying that just because we have a bit of dirt we should have lots of it? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

No, I'm saying we have a lot of dirt, and the anti-smoking crowd is opting to force the removal of a little of it. (While perfectly happy to wallow in the rest. And indeed, generally giving excuses for not changing that). It's inconsistent as far as health is concerned, which leads me to believe it's NOT an issue of health, but rather one of taste.

A majority of people pollute the air through their habits. Driving, the products they use, whatever. But we reserve self-righteous indignation on the nasty smokers. Not because smoking is qualitatively worse for the environments we live in. But because smokers are a minority and the nonsmokers consider it "icky." Look at the positive responses on this thread - sure, some will offer some reasoning, as you have. Most just say, "Good. Smoking is icky. I'm a nonsmoker." And THAT is the issue. Not worker's rights or health.

Yes you do. Which is good, yes?

If I have the right, who do I sue for having to breathe in radiation particles from past atomic testing?


I feel you're picking at straws here. Breathing in passive smoke is dangerous. There is no argument against that. No further corres on this point.

I'm not picking at straws. Look, throwing a brick at a window in a crowded pub is dangerous. It'll hit someone. Glass will shatter. Bones break. You don't need a scientific study to say this is likely. But if breathing in passive smoke, no matter how much, or how long, or why, or who, is always dangerous, how come is it so many - the vast majority - of people have survived it COMPLETELY UNHARMED?

And shit, if you think it's just unequivocally dangerous, to the extent that I am "deliberately causing harm" by smoking indoors, why bother with THIS kind of weak-ass law? I mean, a FINE for lighting up in a pub? I should be charged with ASSAULT... right? Right? Maybe even Murder, right? And if not, why not?

How would you know? Besides, 14 hours a week might not seem like much compared to 50 or 60, except the entire working population gets the 14. That's a lot more person-hours-exposed-to-toxic-pollutants.


Sorry, but there is a fundamental difference in the scenario you are trying to portray. The 14 hours a week of 'car' fumes that the general public is subjected too is different for one very important reason:

The toxic particles disseminate in the air outside much more rapidly and are helped to diffuse in the air by even a gentle breeze. This negates a massive percentage of their possible damage.

Working in a bar, the air gets clogged with smoke. Opening a window does not create enough air movement to effectively clear the smoke. That and you'll have every patron bitch at you until you close it. No bar has air conditioning to tackle that sort of job.

I'm really not buying the indentured servant can't get a job anywhere else in the entire world story.
Fine. No one is asking you too buy into it. Problem is- if the staff ain't kept happy- the bar closes. I have seen it (partaken in it too) happen. It is surprisingly hard to find experienced and trustworthy bar staff- owners need to know their staff can be trusted with large amounts of money as well as being able to do the job effectively.

The customers happiness is in direct correlation to the amount of drink the bar has..... not the amount of cigarette machines it has.


Be aware, this isn't about the 'anti-smoking crowd'. This is coming from a worker perspective. Our health is more important then your comfort.

SMOKING BAN BACKED IN
WESTMINSTER
-------------
British MPs have voted by a majority of
200 to ban smoking in all licensed
premises in England from mid 2007.

The House of Commons rejected
alternative proposals for a compromise
ban that would have exempted private
clubs and pubs which do not serve food.

The bill, on which there was a free
vote, will now pass to the upper House
of Lords for further debate.

Pressure from anti-smoking and health
groups was amplified by an influential
Labour-dominated committee, which said
total prohibition was the only
effective means of protecting health.


Looks like the UK is folling Irelands lead and banning the ciggies.Invasion of civil liberties of health protection?I would go with the latter and I am a smoker.Actually, both Wales and Scotland have introduced Smoking Bans, in fact Scotland's becomes effective within a month or 2