Smoking Ban

[brodski]

Apparently your spelling and typing skills are more than OK if you take the time to check them!

I agree with most of what you have said so far, which is why I think that the arguments that you present deserve the extra attention that will make them easy to read for everybody else.
And of course you are right: Spelling has nothing to do with the contents of the reasoning that you present.

It is true that I am often too lazy to spellcheck my posts in word then paste them back into my browser.
I often tend to try and get a post up as soon as possible so you will often get stream of consciousness rantings.

I do not object to people taking the p*ss out of my spelling (I am quite comfortable with my dyslexia), what I object to is people attacking my spelling in an attempt to discredit my arguments.

 

[asthmatic camel]

and so we get to the customary point where the pretence of civilised debate goes out fo the window and we resort to personal abuse.

so my spelling and typing skills leave a lot to be desired, do you have a problem with my reasonaing, if so perhaps we can cary on a reasnoable (and reasond) debate, otherwise may I suggest that you go forth and multiply?

To be fair, your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and your grammar and spelling are so poor that your posts make for tedious reading.

 

[brodski]

To be fair, your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and your grammar and spelling are so poor that your posts make for tedious reading.

Ok, maybe I should explain my arguments again for the hard of thinking.

The general principles first.

Governments regulate the operations of commercial undertakings.
These regulations are for a number of reasons, usually to protect one group or another.
For instance trading standards laws protect business customers, laws on fraud protect consumers and other businesses, health and safety laws protect workers, any monopoly legislation protects competition in the marketplace.

The fact that the businesses are privately owned and often operated on private premises is irrelevant; the government can still regulate those activities to achieve ends which are decided politically to be societal goods.

Most regulation of business is designed to correct a failing of the market.
Workers health and safety is no more protected by the operation of the market than fraud victims would be in the absence of anti-fraud legislation.

The government intervenes in the running of businesses with regards to health and safety because without that intervention businesses in highly competitive markets which are forced to keep costs as low as possible, would begin to make savings by cutting corners on health and safety, there would eventually be “a race to the bottom” as all companies began to gut health and safety expenditure as “unnecessary” spending.

(For a real world example of this see the loss of final salary occupational pensions in the U.K.. As fewer and fewer companies offered occupational pensions, the was less and less pressure on other companies to offer their staff final salary schemes as their competitors where not trying to attract labour with offers of pension benefits.)

It is for this reason that many businesses actually welcome clear, proscriptive (as opposed to goal setting) legislation, they are glad not to have to wrestle with their morals over whether to compete effectively with their rivals or protect their workers.

If companies could transfer the responsibility (and therefore cost) of health and safety to the employees, then the market would ensure that all companies transferred the responsibility to employees, which would in effect mean that there where no health and safety controls.

The only exceptions to this would be where there was a shortage of people with the skills required by the business. Those in highly skilled jobs tend to be able to negotiate better packages with their employers, health and safety may become one of these benefits.

Were the work is unskilled, and where there is a large pool of labour available, then all of the bargaining power is on the side of the employer.

Regulation of health and safety at work is required to protect the most vulnerable (legal) workers in our society.
Understand so far?

Now, the specific argument.

If ETS does pose a risk to the health and safety of bar workers, then the employer has a duty to protect its workers from its ill effects, there cannot be an opportunity for health and safety responsibility to be transferred to the worker for the reasons outlined above.

The fact that smoking under some circumstances is legal and the fact that bars are private property is no more relevant than the fact that fireworks are legal and petrol stations are private property, I don’t think the government will be letting Shell put on any demonstrations come November.

There does appear to be some evidence that ETS damages the health of those expose to it long term. The evidence is not yet conclusive, therefore a political decision baked up with primary legislation (or not, as the case may be) is needed on this issue.


Of course I have just wasted my time trying to explain this to you, as all you appear to be interested in at this time are ad hom. attacks.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Yes, that's what I mean! I just wonder why you seem so obsessed with the question of property. If the owner of a place, be that the owner of a pub or you yourself at home, doesn't mind smoking, then everybody else seems to have to endure it. Apparently it's a question of power, the kind of power that ownership entitles you to.

No, they don't have to endure it. They only have to endure it if they CHOOSE to patronise or work in an establishment which allows smoking. This is the basis of my whole argument and you can either argue with that premise or accept it.

From what I've heard the only reasonable argument that can be made for the complete banning of smoking in bars is that passive smoking is a health hazard, although none of the customers are forced to submit to it, the bar staff are; by the pressures of the job market, and that therefore the allowance of smoking in bars is immoral.

I would disagree with both the idea that bar staff have no choice other than to work where they they work, and what seems to be the unspoken premise behind a lot of your arguments: that workers should never be exposed to health risks.

 

[brodski]

I would disagree with both the idea that bar staff have no choice other than to work where they they work, and what seems to be the unspoken premise behind a lot of your arguments: that workers should never be exposed to health risks.

Workers should no be exposed to unreasonable or uncontrolled health risks.

As for the other point see my last post.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Yes, that's what I mean! I just wonder why you seem so obsessed with the question of property. If the owner of a place, be that the owner of a pub or you yourself at home, doesn't mind smoking, then everybody else seems to have to endure it. Apparently it's a question of power, the kind of power that ownership entitles you to.

In fact, darn it, yes! This exactly what it's about. You seem to be of the opinion that you should be able to walk into any private premises in the country that sells alcohol and not have to encounter what you see as a disgusting habit. I'm afraid that not everyone agrees about what's disgusting and what's not, so how about everyone who finds smoking disgusting goes to non-smoking bars and everyone who either smokes or doesn't care goes to the smoking ones. That suit you? Of course you know all the cool people will be in the smoking bars.

This is, of course, ignoring the real argument which is about the workers and their health.

 

[brodski]

This is, of course, ignoring the real argument which is about the workers and their health.

so we agree on something then

 

[dann]

No, they don't have to endure it. They only have to endure it if they CHOOSE to patronise or work in an establishment which allows smoking. This is the basis of my whole argument and you can either argue with that premise or accept it.

You are the one who brings up the question of property and ownership all the time! Having to endure smoke is OK if the premises are owned by somebody else, is private property. As if it were less unpleasant to be exposed to smoke in the compartment of a privately owned train, and as if smoke in a pub is somehow less obnoxious than in a private home or in some kind of community meeting place.

From what I've heard the only reasonable argument that can be made for the complete banning of smoking in bars is that passive smoking is a health hazard, although none of the customers are forced to submit to it, the bar staff are; by the pressures of the job market, and that therefore the allowance of smoking in bars is immoral.

Who said immoral? All the time I've been saying unpleasant and unhealthy. In your mind it always comes back to the old question of being forced. Yes, it is true, you cannot be forced to kill somebody in a war, to be a soldier. You can always choose to dodge the draft or, if that is not an option, kill yourself. You refuse to understand that there are actually people out there who don't have much of a choice in this matter, who can't be picky when they need an income. Sometimes some of these people have discussions in the Forum community threads ...

I would disagree with both the idea that bar staff have no choice other than to work where they they work, and what seems to be the unspoken premise behind a lot of your arguments: that workers should never be exposed to health risks.

Not unspoken: Workers should not be exposed to health risks. Now you can go ahead and repeat the asthmatic camel's favourite argument: that life is full of risks and therefore workers don't have reason to complain about poor working conditions, the standard argument for accepting unacceptable conditions.

 

[chocolatepossum]

The fact that smoking under some circumstances is legal and the fact that bars are private property is no more relevant than the fact that fireworks are legal and petrol stations are private property, I don’t think the government will be letting Shell put on any demonstrations come November.

Although I appreciate what sems to be a more reasoned approach to the argument on your part, I would definitely take
issue with this analogy which is just, I think.... a bit silly really. The reason being that the explosion of a petrol station would clearly affect people who have in no way consented to being exposed to that health risk.

I think the fact that bars are private property is crucial to this debate, do you not think so? Wouldn't this argument be a whole lot different if bars were publicly owned?

 

[chocolatepossum]

Not unspoken: Workers should not be exposed to health risks. Now you can go ahead and repeat the asthmatic camel's favourite argument: that life is full of risks and therefore workers don't have reason to complain about poor working conditions, the standard argument for accepting unacceptable conditions.

But then you must also object to the innumerable other jobs which expose workers to health risks. Do you?

I think we're going in circles here. As far as I can see it is accepted that customers have a choice as to which bar they frequent but not that bar staff have the same choice.

Remember that I am arguing against a total ban and nothing else, propose some other measure if you wish and then we can debate that.

 

[dann]

You seem to be of the opinion that you should be able to walk into any private premises in the country that sells alcohol and not have to encounter what you see as a disgusting habit.

Too harsh a word, maybe. Annoying, to me and many others. Unhealthy, but not as much as smoking yourself. And literally sickening to some poor bastards who are asthmatic or have other lung diseases. But I would love to be free from having to endure it, yes.

I'm afraid that not everyone agrees about what's disgusting and what's not, so how about everyone who finds smoking disgusting goes to non-smoking bars and everyone who either smokes or doesn't care goes to the smoking ones.

How about smoking outside or in a room particularly suited for this purpose, like a toilet, but for smoking? Why should people, a majority, actually, have to endure tobacco smoke? We do all the time; not because we don't mind, but because we want to be there, take part in the activities there. We just don't want to have to do it in a room full of smoke. And, no. A lot of the time there is no real alternative, as I've already pointed out when talking about salsa discos in my home town.

That suit you? Of course you know all the cool people will be in the smoking bars.

When you say cool, I suppose that you are not talking about the effects of tobacco on blood circulation ...

 

[brodski]

Although I appreciate what sems to be a more reasoned approach to the argument on your part, I would definitely take
issue with this analogy which is just, I think.... a bit silly really. The reason being that the explosion of a petrol station would clearly affect people who have in no way consented to being exposed to that health risk.

I think the fact that bars are private property is crucial to this debate, do you not think so? Wouldn't this argument be a whole lot different if bars were publicly owned?

Why have people living near a petrol station not consented to being exposed to that health risk, I mean no one forces people to live near petrol stations, or to be near them.
But yes my example was intended to be a bit silly, the intention was to lightly mock the arguments that fags are legal and bars are private property so smoking in bars should not be banned.

I think the fact that bars are private property is crucial to this debate, do you not think so? Wouldn't this argument be a whole lot different if bars were publicly owned?

Why do workers in the public sector deserve greater protection than workers in the private sector?
If bars where publicly owned (a few are) the debate is no different, society has accepted that the government can regulate the operations of businesses on private property (trading standers laws, licensing laws, taxation etc.) why is intervention regarding ETS any different from this?

the only argument I can really see here, without proposing the dismantling of the entire state, is over whether ETS poses an uncontrolled risk to eth health and safety of employees, be they private sector employees or public sector employees.

 

[brodski]

Not unspoken: Workers should not be exposed to health risks. Now you can go ahead and repeat the asthmatic camel's favourite argument: that life is full of risks and therefore workers don't have reason to complain about poor working conditions, the standard argument for accepting unacceptable conditions.

But then you must also object to the innumerable other jobs which expose workers to health risks. Do you?

The point is that steps are constantly being taken to minimize those risks, as society progresses and we have better technology we are able to reduce the number of cases of occupational injury and ill health. Smoking in bars is only a big political issue as it affects the general public in a very obvious way. Very few people (outside readers of the telegraph group of papers) complained about the Control of Asbestos at Work regulations brought in a couple of years ago, apart from the public angle, the issues are actually very similar.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Why do workers in the public sector deserve greater protection than workers in the private sector?
If bars where publicly owned (a few are) the debate is no different, society has accepted that the government can regulate the operations of businesses on private property (trading standers laws, licensing laws, taxation etc.) why is intervention regarding ETS any different from this?

What I meant was that if bars were publicly owned then the customers preferences would be a factor too, because it would be as much their pub as anyone else's. You are right that this wouldn't make any difference to the protection that should be afforded to the bar staff.

 

[brodski]

What I meant was that if bars were publicly owned then the customers preferences would be a factor too, because it would be as much their pub as anyone else's. You are right that this wouldn't make any difference to the protection that should be afforded to the bar staff.

That is possibly why smoking is not allowed in most publicly owned bars which I can think of.

 

[chocolatepossum]

The point is that steps are constantly being taken to minimize those risks, as society progresses and we have better technology we are able to reduce the number of cases of occupational injury and ill health. Smoking in bars is only a big political issue as it affects the general public in a very obvious way. Very few people (outside readers of the telegraph group of papers) complained about the Control of Asbestos at Work regulations brought in a couple of years ago, apart from the public angle, the issues are actually very similar.

But I am arguing against a total ban on smoking in bars, not against any regulation of smoking in bars (although I don't see why regulation should be necessary).

 

[dann]

But then you must also object to the innumerable other jobs which expose workers to health risks. Do you?

I do

I think we're going in circles here. As far as I can see it is accepted that customers have a choice as to which bar they frequent but not that bar staff have the same choice.

No, it isn't. I don't know of any smoke-free bars. And I know of no smoke-free salsa discos. (Or any other discos, for that matter, not that I'd want to go there.)

Remember that I am arguing against a total ban and nothing else, propose some other measure if you wish and then we can debate that.

Remember that nobody, as has been pointed out several times, is arguing for a total ban. Smoke whereever you want to - as long as you don't make it annoying for other people to be there - and impossible for the ones who get really ill. (No, wait, asthmatics have a choice, too - they can stay at home, can't they? Or open a pub of their own!)
The point is that you don't really care who you bother with your smoking - guests at your home or people at a bar. They are all free ..... free to leave!

 

[dann]

But I am arguing against a total ban on smoking in bars, not against any regulation of smoking in bars (although I don't see why regulation should be necessary).

Somehow this is impossible for smokers to see. Even the non-smokers don't argue for a total ban on smoking in bars. They just want the smokers to go to their own cubicle to smoke and not do so in the area where non-smokers are sitting, chatting, dancing, drinking, whatever.

 

[brodski]

But I am arguing against a total ban on smoking in bars, not against any regulation of smoking in bars (although I don't see why regulation should be necessary).

If ETS is a risk to the health of bar workers then it should be controlled, the alternatives are impracticable.

A total ban on smoking in bars may be the most effective (and cost effective) way reducing this health risks to tolerable levels.

Effective ventilation is costly to install, run and maintain, in some (possibly all) cases a ban may be preferable.

 

[brodski]

Somehow this is impossible for smokers to see. Even the non-smokers don't argue for a total ban on smoking in bars. They just want the smokers to go to their own cubicle to smoke and not do so in the area where non-smokers are sitting, chatting, dancing, drinking, whatever.

I disagree with you on two counts,
Firstly I can see your point and I am a smoker, but I try to respect others comfort.
Secondly the real issue is about workers exposure to ETS, exposure every working day for up to 12 hours, this may be a real health risk, sitting next to a smoker in a restaurant may be bloody annoying, but it aint gonna kill you.

It is quite likely that employees will still have to work in the smoking areas therefore a ban may be necessary, however I have always accepted that there may be other methods to control occupational exposure to ETS.