Smoking Ban

[droid]

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]

Yeah, I take back what I said there, I was thinking out loud, but I agree with your point.

 

[Melchior]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.