Smoking Ban

[chocolatepossum]

It looks like we'll be seeing some kind of ban on smoking in public in the UK soon. Today, doctors have attacked opponents of the ban for "peddling myths" about the issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4489463.stm

Apparently, these opponents claim that the risks of passive smoking are unproven. Now, what I wanted to ask you all is whether there is good evidence for a risk between passive smoking and lung cancer etc. It seems fairly obvious to me that there would be some risk, but is it significant?

Personally I would be against a total ban in any case: I don't see why at least some bars and pubs can't allow smoking, nobody has to there after all.

and yes, I am a dirty smoker. A dirty asthmatic smoker

 

[richardm]

It depends who you ask. If you ask the British Medical Association, the risk from passive smoking is real and significant. If you ask the tobacco industry, the risk is negligible.

 

[Stitch]

And if you ask P&T Bull$hit series 1, it may well be true, but the supposed evidence is all based on 1 report where they couldn't find any evidence to support the risk of passive smoking but stated they "suspect" there may be a link.

 

[a_unique_person]

There are more studies than just one. P&T are prisoners of their ideology. I have no respect for them at all.

 

[dann]

It seems fairly obvious to me that there would be some risk, but is it significant?

Apart from the risk of cancer, don't forget that it's also very annoying, and for some reason smokers don't seem to get that. (I didn't myself when I used to smoke.)

Personally I would be against a total ban in any case: I don't see why at least some bars and pubs can't allow smoking, nobody has to there after all.

Well, the people working there do! And apparently the risks of passive smoking is so much worse for waiters etc. at bars and discos. In Denmark a ban on smoking in public places may be the result of unions wanting to protect their members from having to work in an unhealthy environment.

and yes, I am a dirty smoker. A dirty asthmatic smoker

Asthmatic and smoking??! Then you're also a ... no, none of my business. I don't think we freqent the same public places anyway.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Re: Re: Smoking Ban

[

Well, the people working there do! And apparently the risks of passive smoking is so much worse for waiters etc. at bars and discos. In Denmark a ban on smoking in public places may be the result of unions wanting to protect their members from having to work in an unhealthy environment.

Well they don't have to work there do they? Are you saying that nobody should be allowed to employ people for a job with health risks associated with it? I understand that non-smokers don't like sitting in smoky pubs and bars beacause neither do I. Maybe the government should give out smoking licences to ensure that a maximum of 1/3 of bars allow smoking, then there would be plenty of alternatives for anyone who objects to a smoky atmosphere.

It seems wrong to me, however, that if I wanted to open a pub, call it " The Smokers' " or something and warn my staff, and my customers that they would be working/drinking in a smoky environment, I would not be allowed to.

What I genuinely don't get is why there aren't more non-smoking bars without the need for government intervention. If so many non-smokers object to smoky atmospheres (as I'm sure they do) then why don't bar owners try and fill the gap in the market for non-smoking pubs and bars? Beats me.

Why can't we all just get along?

 

[dann]

Sometimes you do have to work there! Sometimes you have the choice of working in three discos - with smokers in all of them.

As a salsa dancer I hate having to dance in a room full of smoke - and in my city there aren't any others. Salsa and cigars seem to belong together, and it doesn't bother me in Cuba where most salsa is played and danced in outdoor or semi-outdoor places. In cold Copenhagen, however, it's a very different question!

When we started having no-smoking compartments in trains and subways in Denmark, even smokers enjoyed being able to sit in clean compartments full of fresh (well, more or less) air.
The difficulty is that most smokers would enjoy to be able to sit in no-smoking compartments ... smoking!

 

[chocolatepossum]

Sometimes you do have to work there! Sometimes you have the choice of working in three discos - with smokers in all of them.

I still wouldn't accept that you HAVE to work in one of these discos, are there no other jobs around? Besides, if licences were introduced like I suggested then only one of those discos would be allowed to host smoking.

"When we started having no-smoking compartments in trains and subways in Denmark, even smokers enjoyed being able to sit in clean compartments full of fresh (well, more or less) air.
The difficulty is that most smokers would enjoy to be able to sit in no-smoking compartments ... smoking!"


I think smoking on public transport systems is a different issue. These places really are public property, owned equally by all users, whereas a bar is owned by the proprietor and not the customers.

And I don't think it's really fair to expect something to be banned outright because you find it annoying or unpleasant.

 

[El Greco]

Stay away from smokers! It's them who feed the health system and then die before they can get back their money as pension or treatment costs. Where would we be without them ? How soon would the health systems collapse ? Personally I can put up with a little smoke, no matter how annoying it may be, when I think that those adorable people actually support my pension and my health insurance.

 

[dann]

I still wouldn't accept that you HAVE to work in one of these discos, are there no other jobs around? Besides, if licences were introduced like I suggested then only one of those discos would be allowed to host smoking.

Sometimes it is a choice between unemployment and having to accept unacceptable working conditions, but, of course, that is a choice, too! (There are a lot of threads dealing with people's personal experiences in this field!) I would love the opportunity to go to salsatequas without smoke!

I think smoking on public transport systems is a different issue. These places really are public property, owned equally by all users, whereas a bar is owned by the proprietor and not the customers.

A lot of the public transport system in Denmark is not public property!

And I don't think it's really fair to expect something to be banned outright because you find it annoying or unpleasant.

Is it fair to expect somthing to be allowed when an awful lot of people find it annoying and unpleasant - and some even get really sick from it? (some asthmatics, for instance?)

 

[a_unique_person]

Stay away from smokers! It's them who feed the health system and then die before they can get back their money as pension or treatment costs. Where would we be without them ? How soon would the health systems collapse ? Personally I can put up with a little smoke, no matter how annoying it may be, when I think that those adorable people actually support my pension and my health insurance.

I think the issue is not those who smoke because they want to, it is those who smoke because it is forced on them as a condition of getting work.

I would also guess that cancer treatment for smokers is expensive, not to mention the years it takes emphysemia sufferers to die.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Is it fair to expect somthing to be allowed when an awful lot of people find it annoying and unpleasant - and some even get really sick from it? (some asthmatics, for instance?)

Yes, on private property. If the people smoking are choosing to do so, the people working at the bar are choosing to work there, and all the non-smokers are choosing to drink there. I don't see why not. And, again, there are plenty of things that I find annoying and unpleasant (top 40 music for example) that I don't expect to be banned just because I don't like it.

As regards the workers, are you saying that any profession that has the sightest health risk should be banned? Lets say we ban smoking in bars, shall we ban drinking too? Drinking makes people more likely to be violent, bar staff or bouncers are the ones who have to deal with these people, is it fair that they are forced to undergo this risk to their health? Or loud (salsa) music for example, that damages hearing, shall we ban it?

As for the public transport system not being public property, I would say that special rules still apply because (I guess) they have a kind of monopoly on providing what is a public service.

 

[asthmatic camel]

Yes, on private property. If the people smoking are choosing to do so, the people working at the bar are choosing to work there, and all the non-smokers are choosing to drink there. I don't see why not. And, again, there are plenty of things that I find annoying and unpleasant (top 40 music for example) that I don't expect to be banned just because I don't like it.

As regards the workers, are you saying that any profession that has the sightest health risk should be banned? Lets say we ban smoking in bars, shall we ban drinking too? Drinking makes people more likely to be violent, bar staff or bouncers are the ones who have to deal with these people, is it fair that they are forced to undergo this risk to their health? Or loud (salsa) music for example, that damages hearing, shall we ban it?

As for the public transport system not being public property, I would say that special rules still apply because (I guess) they have a kind of monopoly on providing what is a public service.

Well said! Although I no longer smoke, I despise non-smokers who seek to criminalise what is a perfectly legal activity which earns the government a whole heap of cash. I can understand and accept that smoking should be banned in truly public places, owned and run by the state, but there is no way that this should become a blanket ban.

Publicans and restauranteurs should be able to decide for themselves what measures they take about smoking. Many already do, either by having no smoking areas, banning smoking completely or allowing smoking everywhere. Some even take the drastic step of paying for decent air conditioning systems.

How much control do you really want the government to have? That's the real question. Alcohol is far more damaging to society than tobacco, for all sorts of reasons. What's next? Close all the pubs? Turn them into milk bars? We know that this approach doesn't work.

Allow the poor smoker some slack. At least allow the poor bugger to enjoy a smoke with his pint somewhere!

I'm not sure of the exact figures, but I'm willing to bet that the proportion of regular pub-goers who smoke is significantly higher than that of the general population. It's a fact that large numbers of publicans and bar staff smoke; some work in the industry because it's one place where they don't get badgered about smoking at work!

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Re: Re: Re: Smoking Ban

Well they don't have to work there do they? Are you saying that nobody should be allowed to employ people for a job with health risks associated with it? I understand that non-smokers don't like sitting in smoky pubs and bars beacause neither do I. Maybe the government should give out smoking licences to ensure that a maximum of 1/3 of bars allow smoking, then there would be plenty of alternatives for anyone who objects to a smoky atmosphere.

It seems wrong to me, however, that if I wanted to open a pub, call it " The Smokers' " or something and warn my staff, and my customers that they would be working/drinking in a smoky environment, I would not be allowed to.

What I genuinely don't get is why there aren't more non-smoking bars without the need for government intervention. If so many non-smokers object to smoky atmospheres (as I'm sure they do) then why don't bar owners try and fill the gap in the market for non-smoking pubs and bars? Beats me.

Why can't we all just get along?

Would you apply the same logic to exposure to radioactive material?

"You can choose to work in this power plant, but if you do then you accept you will be working in an environment where we accept no responsibility for keeping you safe from radioactive material."

In other words, what is so special about smoke as an environmental hazard that it should have different rules from every other hazard in the workplace?

 

[El Greco]

I think the issue is not those who smoke because they want to, it is those who smoke because it is forced on them as a condition of getting work.

I would also guess that cancer treatment for smokers is expensive, not to mention the years it takes emphysemia sufferers to die.

All costs factored in, smokers pay much more than non-smokers. This has been the conclusion of several papers, the infamous Philip-Morris report being one of them. Not to mention the extra taxes they pay for tobacco.

Passive smoking of course is different. Nobody should have to tolerate that in public places, although many times non-smokers are not as vocal as they should be. For starters, they should boycott clubs and restaurants with smoky environments and make sure the owner learns about that.

 

[asthmatic camel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Smoking Ban

Would you apply the same logic to exposure to radioactive material?

"You can choose to work in this power plant, but if you do then you accept you will be working in an environment where we accept no responsibility for keeping you safe from radioactive material."

In other words, what is so special about smoke as an environmental hazard that it should have different rules from every other hazard in the workplace?

Jaggy, how far do want to take this? It's proven that inhaling vehicle exhaust fumes can cause cancer. Therefore, if I have to leave my house to go to work, I'm exposed to carcinogens. Going to work should obviously be banned because it causes cancer.

 

[dann]

Yes, on private property. If the people smoking are choosing to do so, the people working at the bar are choosing to work there, and all the non-smokers are choosing to drink there. I don't see why not.

No, again, they sometimes have the choice between working there or being out of a job and an income. And, yes, the non-smokers are choosing to drink there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they want to be pestered by smoke.

And, again, there are plenty of things that I find annoying and unpleasant (top 40 music for example) that I don't expect to be banned just because I don't like it.

The funny thing is that it never occurs to advocates of smoking that nobody (at least nobody that I've heard of) actually wants to ban smoking as such. They would just like to be free from having to inhale it themselves. If the so-called ban on smoking came into effect, it would just mean that the smokers could go outside (or home) to smoke.

As regards the workers, are you saying that any profession that has the sightest health risk should be banned? Lets say we ban smoking in bars, shall we ban drinking too?

You do know that people go there in order to drink, don't you? The drinking doesn't bother anybody else's liver. The fighting does harm others, however - which may have something to do with the fact that it usually isn't encouraged but banned.
Your logic is very strained!

Drinking makes people more likely to be violent, bar staff or bouncers are the ones who have to deal with these people, is it fair that they are forced to undergo this risk to their health? Or loud (salsa) music for example, that damages hearing, shall we ban it?

Ban music that is so loud that is impairs hearing, for instance? I wouldn't mind! There is one difference, however. I go to salsa concerts and discos where the music is too loud for my own and many other people's tastes. Which is why we bring earplugs. I always carry mine in a pocet, but the bottle of oxygen is too heavy.

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Jaggy, how far do want to take this? It's proven that inhaling vehicle exhaust fumes can cause cancer. Therefore, if I have to leave my house to go to work, I'm exposed to carcinogens. Going to work should obviously be banned because it causes cancer.

Why do the advocates of smoking always come up with these poor arguments? Is it something they inhale?
I would suggest that putting a stop to carcinogenic exhaust fumes would be a much better idea!

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smoking Ban

Jaggy, how far do want to take this? It's proven that inhaling vehicle exhaust fumes can cause cancer. Therefore, if I have to leave my house to go to work, I'm exposed to carcinogens. Going to work should obviously be banned because it causes cancer.

Do you think employers should be allowed to expose their workers to asbestos or nuclear waste in the workplace if they warn them it is there? If not, why should some carcinogenic materials be treated differently?

 

[Cleon]

Why do the advocates of smoking

Dishonest comments like that are why I'm becoming increasingly convinced that people simply can't discuss this issue rationally.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

My 2 cents ...

I effing hate being around tobacco smoke. Here in Las Vegas I like to go out and gamble either on Video Poker or Pai Gow. It seems every time I sit at a lone video poker slot, no one to the left or right, and I start winning, some smoker sits right next me blowing tons of stinky smoke. Maybe it's a casino conspiracy.

One relatively large casino I frequent even has a bank of video poker machines that are designated "non-smoking", with signs everywhere. Even though there are many machines everywhere else, there is inevitably a clueless smoker sitting there puffing away.

I really don't care about any proofable evidence of the dangers of second-hand smoke. There was a waitress up in Ottawa (Canada), who never smoked, but worked for 20 years in a smokey environment. She's dying of in-operable lung cancer. Is there a link? Who knows.

Smoking is a habit you get to share with friends and strangers.

Charlie (gagging in Vegas) Monoxide