PDA

View Full Version : Smoking Ban



labrat
15-02-2006, 11:54 AM
FUCK THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
smoking in pubs is what made Britain GREAT!!

john eden
15-02-2006, 11:58 AM
I fully support the smoking ban because I don't think workers should be exposed to cancerous fumes as an integral part of their jobs.

It seems I am not alone in this.

Grievous Angel
15-02-2006, 12:03 PM
No, smoking in pubs is not what made Britain great.

And I'm getting a bit sick of nicotine addicts selfish self righteousness.

john eden
15-02-2006, 12:13 PM
Having recently given up myself, I'm getting a bit sick of nicotine addicts' selfish self righteousness.

;)

droid
15-02-2006, 12:13 PM
Have to say - it works very well here in Ireland... apart from nearly killing our tiny reggae scene - and reducing dancefloors to wastelands when everyone heads en masse to have a smoke outside - plus no more sneaky spliffs behind the deckles... :(

I cant believe smoking in the workplace in the UK is still legal!!! Thats appalling.

john eden
15-02-2006, 12:20 PM
I cant believe smoking in the workplace in the UK is still legal!!! Thats appalling.

Are clubs and bars in Ireland now staffed by robots? (I mean, I know it can feel like that when it takes ages to get served, but...)

blunt
15-02-2006, 12:21 PM
I just read that the House of Commons bar(s) are, of course, exempt from this ruling, because the Houses of Parliament count as a royal palace.

I think that's what makes this legislation a bit too difficult to swallow for me. Whatabunchofcunts.

Rambler
15-02-2006, 12:36 PM
I was in Dublin earlier this year, it was bliss with no smoke.

IdleRich
15-02-2006, 12:36 PM
I don't smoke that often but I don't think this is a good move. Yes, there should be smokeless bars so that people have the choice but that's all. I just think that this government passes too many laws telling us what we can and can't do instead of concentrating on more important things. How much time was wasted on fox hunting?

Rambler
15-02-2006, 12:39 PM
I think you're basically right, IdleRich (on the meddling govt question), but why should it be the non-smokers who have to chose to go to another pub, rather than the smokers having to chose not to smoke? The choice cuts both ways, and the clincher is that not smoking doesn't fuck you and everyone around you up.

bassnation
15-02-2006, 12:46 PM
;)

lol, theres nothing as self-righteous as a newly converted non-smoker.

having said that, a ban is good because it will give me extra motivation to finally give up. i can't really see myself nipping outside the pub every half hour for a cigarette.

good point about the reggae thing droid, wonder how thats going to affect soundsystems here? weed has always been illegal mind, and that never stopped people.

droid
15-02-2006, 12:57 PM
Are clubs and bars in Ireland now staffed by robots? (I mean, I know it can feel like that when it takes ages to get served, but...)

:o I was thinking more of the office environment, as someone on another forum mentioned that they were allowed smoke at their desks...

Pubs and clubs in ireland are either served by a)Underage kids b)The extended family, or increasingly c) Immigrants and gap year students.*



*This a purely facile analysis as I dont drink and rarely go to either unless Im DJng or there's some very good music to be heard... :)

IdleRich
15-02-2006, 01:01 PM
"why should it be the non-smokers who have to chose to go to another pub, rather than the smokers having to chose not to smoke?"

If there are smoking and non-smoking pubs then the smokers will have to "choose to go to another pub" when they are in the wrong type just as much as the non-smokers. I just don't see why this choice shouldn't be available to bar patrons and bar owners, if there is such a demand for non-smoking pubs then more people should open them and everyone would be happy.

john eden
15-02-2006, 01:13 PM
If there are smoking and non-smoking pubs then the smokers will have to "choose to go to another pub" when they are in the wrong type just as much as the non-smokers. I just don't see why this choice shouldn't be available to bar patrons and bar owners, if there is such a demand for non-smoking pubs then more people should open them and everyone would be happy.

Whether or not bar workers are exposed to toxic fumes as an integral part of their work should not be a choice FOR ANYONE - especially not their managers.

bassnation
15-02-2006, 01:18 PM
Whether or not bar workers are exposed to toxic fumes as an integral part of their work should not be a choice FOR ANYONE - especially not their managers.

its pretty much unjustifiable - the argument has moved on and peoples attitudes have changed, so i feel - even as a smoker - that this is democracy actually working for once.

IdleRich
15-02-2006, 01:23 PM
"Whether or not bar workers are exposed to toxic fumes as an integral part of their work should not be a choice FOR ANYONE - especially not their managers."

Sure but there must be a way around this. Whetherspoons Pubs and lots of others have no smoking at the bar, couldn't there be a way to extend this? Why not have a non-smoking room and a smoking-room and only the non-smoking room have a bar? That's a fairly simple answer but there must be other ways, again I think that the legislation is unneccessary and hamfisted.

john eden
15-02-2006, 01:31 PM
Sure but there must be a way around this. Whetherspoons Pubs and lots of others have no smoking at the bar, couldn't there be a way to extend this? Why not have a non-smoking room and a smoking-room and only the non-smoking room have a bar? That's a fairly simple answer but there must be other ways, again I think that the legislation is unneccessary and hamfisted.

All sorts of things have been suggested in the discussions up to the law being changed but my understanding is that none of them were workable either.

Non-smoking rooms still have to be cleaned and have glasses collected, etc.

Ventilation seemed like a good idea but then the research showed that it only removed the odour and not the nasty stuff which gives you cancer.

jenks
15-02-2006, 01:32 PM
i think it's a good thing but i do wonder how it will work in practice, will certain bars turn a blind eye to smoking? how will no smoking be enforced, with coppers, smoking police?

i can see it leading to some ugly scenes but in the long run it will be the right thing

we don't expect to smoke upstairs on the buses and it is very rare to see someone smoking on a train, eventually smoking in pubs will be much the same

droid
15-02-2006, 01:38 PM
They police it with a combination of fines, inspectors, and general mean-spiritedness/indignation on the part of the snitch-happy non-smoking public...

IdleRich
15-02-2006, 01:46 PM
"Non-smoking rooms still have to be cleaned and have glasses collected, etc.
Ventilation seemed like a good idea but then the research showed that it only removed the odour and not the nasty stuff which gives you cancer."

Good points I must admit. But then again surely smokers wouldn't mind bringing glasses back if it meant that their hobby could stay legal. What if smoking bars employed smokers or would that run into of some kind of equal opportunities legislation?

john eden
15-02-2006, 01:49 PM
Good points I must admit. But then again surely smokers wouldn't mind bringing glasses back if it meant that their hobby could stay legal.

No 'cos they are all selfish tossers. ;)



What if smoking bars employed smokers or would that run into of some kind of equal opportunities legislation?

I think there is equal opps but also just because someone smokes 10 a day doesn't mean they should be exposed more of a health risk throughout their shift.

IdleRich
15-02-2006, 01:56 PM
"I think there is equal opps but also just because someone smokes 10 a day doesn't mean they should be exposed more of a health risk throughout their shift"

OK - and I admit this is getting a bit stupid, what if there is a bar owner who runs his own bar single-handed, smokes a hundred cigarettes a day and wants people to smoke in his bar (if they like)?
What I'm saying is that there are people who want to smoke in bars and people who want to allow them to smoke in their bars, should the government be getting between them?

john eden
15-02-2006, 02:04 PM
OK - and I admit this is getting a bit stupid, what if there is a bar owner who runs his own bar single-handed, smokes a hundred cigarettes a day and wants people to smoke in his bar (if they like)?
What I'm saying is that there are people who want to smoke in bars and people who want to allow them to smoke in their bars, should the government be getting between them?

errrrrrrr.... possibly not. He may also have super-babe robot staff like on Westworld? Or maybe even undead Zombie staff? That would be awesome!

I myself would have to think very hard about whether the risk of being exposed to cancerous smoke outdoes the sheer coolness of being served a pint by a robot version of one of Russ Meyer's vixens...

But there are also cleaners, people making deliveries, so I dunno.

The fact remains that in most pubs this isn't the case.

D7_bohs
15-02-2006, 03:28 PM
one thing to watch out for - in the immediate aftermath of the smoking ban being introduced here, it was a shock getting used to the - previously masked - smell of people in pubs - sometimes nearly worse than tobacco

henry s
15-02-2006, 03:40 PM
you all know exactly where this is headed: self-service pubs, pints, drinks and food doled out by vending machines, which will have retina scanners to verify age and breathilizers to check blood/alcohol levels...all music handled by jukeboxes, sprinkler system kicks in when fights break out...

(that Westworld comment got me thinking about this)...

Canada J Soup
15-02-2006, 04:33 PM
They police it with a combination of fines, inspectors, and general mean-spiritedness/indignation on the part of the snitch-happy non-smoking public...
What amazed me about the smoking ban in Ireland was that it actually seemed to be happily observed by most smokers. I think I saw one person try to light up the last time I was home (and he got told to put it out in about two seconds). Wasn't there an incident where a pub was found to be serving after hours due to smokers congregating outside after last call?

It took about six months for enough bars and clubs in NYC to start ignoring the ban that it no longer made that much of an impact on going out. There are still plenty of places that are smoke free, but they tend to be the kinds of venues that have a large security staff and preppy / fratboy / B&T clientele. Anywhere small and even slightly divey with music worth hearing and anywhere with a door policy designed to make hipsters stand in line generally turns a blind eye after midnight.

martin
15-02-2006, 04:42 PM
A FAIR PUB COMPROMISE

No smoking (suits me cos I always fall off the wagon when drink's involved)

AND

No children / sofas / Australasian bar staff

henry s
15-02-2006, 05:00 PM
might I add:

No baseball caps

bassnation
15-02-2006, 05:32 PM
might I add:

No baseball caps

and while we are at it, can we also ban pub djs playing deafeningly loud funky house drowning out any conversation other than the kind of red faced shouting that drunken people like to indulge in?

henry s
15-02-2006, 05:46 PM
and while we are at it, can we also ban pub djs playing deafeningly loud funky house drowning out any conversation other than the kind of red faced shouting that drunken people like to indulge in?
too right...I'm sick of getting inadvertently spit on during conversation...(well, I'm pretty sure it's inadvertently)...

dominic
15-02-2006, 05:50 PM
i'm totally opposed to the smoking bans -- and i only smoke socially

i actually have an entire (err, half-baked) theory on this subject

but i think that smoking has all kinds of cultural meanings -- and very much belongs to the night, to the culture of the night (and of modernity)

health is not the one and only consideration -- it's a philistine measure

and if you say the bans are "democracy in action" -- then whatever happened to protecting the right of the minority to do as they see fit at the margins, in their own corners, in their own bars and clubs

HOWEVER, the one benefit of smoking bans is that it allows a ready compass for determining the best bars and clubs = the places that defy the ban and allow smoking

mms
15-02-2006, 06:29 PM
it might improve beer gardens as a result of more people being forced outside.

that's an unexpected possible bonus..

droid
15-02-2006, 06:44 PM
and if you say the bans are "democracy in action" -- then whatever happened to protecting the right of the minority to do as they see fit at the margins, in their own corners, in their own bars and clubs

HOWEVER, the one benefit of smoking bans is that it allows a ready compass for determining the best bars and clubs = the places that defy the ban and allow smoking

But that right doesnt really exist in our societies does it? I cant go out to a crack club tonight and have a few pipes, or go to a brothel (legally at least). There are already restrictions to liberty when it comes to behaviour that is judged to harm others, and IMO smoking in enclosed public spaces crosses that line.

Smoking kills about 5 million a year... the only other drug that competes in terms of mortality is alcohol... its always struck me as strange that widespread use of such a dangerous substance is so widely accepted and vocally defended... ...almost a tyranny of addicts.

dominic
15-02-2006, 07:32 PM
almost a tyranny of addicts.

if you don't want to be in the company of sinners, go to church and go to work

droid
15-02-2006, 08:35 PM
:D Some of my best friends are sinners - I just dont think its fair to expect others to pay for those sins...

IdleRich
16-02-2006, 08:08 AM
"But that right doesnt really exist in our societies does it? I cant go out to a crack club tonight and have a few pipes, or go to a brothel (legally at least)."

But you should be able to.
Thing is, people should be allowed to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others. Smoking by itself does not intrinsically harm others although as John Eden pointed out it can harm people in the same environment. It seems to me that there ought to be some way to allow people to smoke without people who don't choose to breathe their smoke breathing it and a total ban on smoking in public is heavy-handed.

Slothrop
16-02-2006, 08:51 AM
But you should be able to.
Thing is, people should be allowed to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others. Smoking by itself does not intrinsically harm others although as John Eden pointed out it can harm people in the same environment. It seems to me that there ought to be some way to allow people to smoke without people who don't choose to breathe their smoke breathing it
You mean like not letting them smoke in enclosed pubs and clubs?

droid
16-02-2006, 08:54 AM
You mean like not letting them smoke in enclosed pubs and clubs?

Bingo!! :D

IdleRich
16-02-2006, 09:01 AM
Originally Posted by Slothrop
"You mean like not letting them smoke in enclosed pubs and clubs?


Bingo"

You can all fuck off.

Er, ok, maybe another way is what I'm saying.

michael
16-02-2006, 09:07 AM
I'm just a lousy Australasian, so don't have any place in a bar :p but in NZ the smoking ban seems to have caused little stress.

The venue owners I have heard from who are finding it shit are not those who are running clubs for fringe dwelling extremists or something, but rather those who have old pubs where a middle aged drinking crowd have always met in the late afternoon to get pissed, smoke some ciggies and have a chat. Anyone under 40 doesn't seem to have got fucked off about it.

The big change I noticed is that you can smell a lot more, so if you're standing in a room full of predominantly men talking shit and drinking beer, you know all about it. Likewise if you're surrounded by people dancing near you, particularly anyone with their arms above their head, you know about that too.

I dunno, I've never been a smoker, so maybe I'm missing out on the culture nuances. I do find it funny that many of the same people who rave about the health benefits of it are the same who bitch about health being a lousy argument for the illegality of any other drug. I guess it's not making a substance illegal though; it's not supposed to be protecting the health of the user, but those around them.

droid
16-02-2006, 09:26 AM
I do find it funny that many of the same people who rave about the health benefits of it are the same who bitch about health being a lousy argument for the illegality of any other drug. I guess it's not making a substance illegal though; it's not supposed to be protecting the health of the user, but those around them.

I think your misinterpreting my comments above. From a health perspective Tobacco and Alcohol should be illegal - its that simple. Weed has never (according to the official records) killed a single human, the death toll from heroin and cocaine consumption are miniscule (and stable) in comparison, and there is significant evidence to suggest that the decriminalisation of hard drugs would make life safer for addicts, and postively effect society through better use of resources and less drug motivated crime.

michael
16-02-2006, 09:49 AM
Yeah, I take back what I said there, I was thinking out loud, but I agree with your point.

Melchior
16-02-2006, 10:26 AM
The venue owners I have heard from who are finding it shit are not those who are running clubs for fringe dwelling extremists or something, but rather those who have old pubs where a middle aged drinking crowd have always met in the late afternoon to get pissed, smoke some ciggies and have a chat. Anyone under 40 doesn't seem to have got fucked off about it.

Plus you can still smoke in out door areas of bars etc (will you be able to do that in the UK?). bar staff etc I spoke to said the main immediate effect was a month of people getting unbelievably drunk while they got used to not putting a drink to their lips everytime they would have had a puff previously. It was apparently some kind of party time.

dominic
16-02-2006, 12:15 PM
i suspect that the health risks of second-hand smoke are way over-stated

moreover, even if second-hand smoke did pose a substantial health risk, what about all the other pollutants that people are exposed to on a daily basis?

therefore, you have to ask what *motivates* the smoking bans

(1) demonization of smoking and smokers based upon the association of smoking with evil -- in any number of guises

(2) simple intolerance for behavior that, several decades back, was not deemed annoying or a threat

(3) maniacal (if contradictory) pursuit of health as the chief good to be had in life, and certainly the chief social good

and as for whether the bans serve to improve bars and clubs, i suppose the answer depends on whether you like your nightlife antiseptic

bassnation
16-02-2006, 12:34 PM
From a health perspective Tobacco and Alcohol should be illegal - its that simple

i agree with your overall point - but i'm not sure it is a simple proposition that dangerous things should always be banned.

we don't take that approach with extreme or dangerous sports where its regarded as an issue of personal freedom.

the whole smoking in workplaces issue aside, if people want to smoke then they should be able to. if it was totally prohibited, illegal channels would spring up immediately just like they have for other narcotics. hell, theres already illegal channels right now, to avoid taxation.

droid
16-02-2006, 12:43 PM
i agree with your overall point - but i'm not sure it is a simple proposition that dangerous things should always be banned.

we don't take that approach with extreme or dangerous sports where its regarded as an issue of personal freedom.

the whole smoking in workplaces issue aside, if people want to smoke then they should be able to. if it was totally prohibited, illegal channels would spring up immediately just like they have for other narcotics. hell, theres already illegal channels right now, to avoid taxation.

Im not calling for the banning of these substances... Im a libertarian, Im just pointing out the facts from a health viewpoint.

Dominic - I disagree with your assessment of the health risks of secondhand smoke, and if you can find a legal pollutant that we breathe in every day that is as harmful as cigarette smoke (other than car exhausts) ill be surprised...

One of the things that gets overlooked is the legal motivations for a ban - ie that in x amount of years, bar workers who end up with lung diseases will be well within their rights to sue their employers, and presumably the health and safety authorities, and by extension the Government...

dominic
16-02-2006, 03:37 PM
One of the things that gets overlooked is the legal motivations for a ban - ie that in x amount of years, bar workers who end up with lung diseases will be well within their rights to sue their employers, and presumably the health and safety authorities, and by extension the Government...

what about garbage collectors, people who work w/ known toxins, etc -- how does the law work here? presumably if the risk is unknown, they can make a claim against employer. but if the risk is known to the worker, and the employer takes reasonable measures, is there a viable claim??? i ask b/c i don't know the answer off top of my head . . . .

as for workers in bars and nightclubs, i'm simply not that sympathetic to their position. mainly b/c i don't see bars and nightclubs as being primarily work places. yes, these are places where some people, the staff, happen to work, but the primary purpose of such spaces is social/cultural. granted, this is not how the law views such places, but it's the common sense view. working at a bar or nightclub is not like working at the factory or in the office. category difference. NOT every place is a work place. the law likes to treat every space like a work place, b/c then people can be more easily infantilized . . . .

and last, no, i haven't read any studies on second-hand smoke. but i reckon the cases are few and far between of people developing cancer b/c they worked in a smokey bar. indeed, i imagine it's rare for the spouse of a heavy smoker to develop lung cancer. and even if there are studies to this effect, i think they should be taken with several grains of salt b/c both sides of this debate are highly politicized and fund studies to reach findings convenient for their position

john eden
16-02-2006, 03:43 PM
and last, no, i haven't read any studies on second-hand smoke. but i reckon the cases are few and far between of people developing cancer b/c they worked in a smokey bar. indeed, i imagine it's rare for the spouse of a heavy smoker to develop lung cancer. and even if there are studies to this effect, i think they should be taken with several grains of salt b/c both sides of this debate are highly politicized and fund studies to reach findings convenient for their position

"Professor Konrad Jamrozik, formerly of Imperial College London, has estimated that domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry. This equates to about one-fifth of all deaths from secondhand smoke in the general population and up to half of such deaths among employees in the hospitality trades."

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

The opposing research is of course funded by the tobacco industry. Nice!

john eden
16-02-2006, 03:47 PM
what about garbage collectors, people who work w/ known toxins, etc -- how does the law work here? presumably if the risk is unknown, they can make a claim against employer. but if the risk is known to the worker, and the employer takes reasonable measures, is there a viable claim??? i ask b/c i don't know the answer off top of my head . . . .

If someone exhibits symptoms of, say, asbestosis, then either the employer has not taken suitable care (in which case they can be prosecuted under I think the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974) OR they have but the worker concerned has wilfully disregarded the safety procedures (in which case they are fucked).

I can't think of any other outcomes from a situation in which the hazard is a known quantity.

john eden
16-02-2006, 03:49 PM
as for workers in bars and nightclubs, i'm simply not that sympathetic to their position. mainly b/c i don't see bars and nightclubs as being primarily work places. yes, these are places where some people, the staff, happen to work, but the primary purpose of such spaces is social/cultural. granted, this is not how the law views such places, but it's the common sense view. working at a bar or nightclub is not like working at the factory or in the office. category difference. NOT every place is a work place. the law likes to treat every space like a work place, b/c then people can be more easily infantilized . . . .

People working in bars should have exactly the same protection under law as everyone else. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Nobody is saying every place is a workplace.