I'll play devil's advocate for a minute [I spent a good part of my life on 40 gauloises a day, gave that up but am not a reformed anti smoke zealot, it doesn't bother me all that much]. if you look at it as a health and safety in the workplace measure, is it still so bad? Nobody complains if governments regulate concentrations of solvents in the atmosphere where people use spray paint, nobody complains when car emissions in confined spaces where peole work are regulated [garages] I am sure Zub wouldn't mind if a goverments would put health and safety measures in place that regulate the amounts of fixer and selenium toner fumes he is breathing in when working someone's darkroom. Nobody is bothered if cutting sheets of asbestos in public is prohibited, most people would see the sense in that given the known risk.
So for workplaces where people smoke [and the argument that people who mind shouldn't be working in pubs doesn't cut it because this law covers offices, hospitals and go knows what other places of work] potentially hazerdous fumes are banned. Why is that a problem all of a sudden?
Smoking Ban imposed in Ireland
-
The Weekenders
- Posts: 10300
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: SF East Bay Area
[chucklin with satisfaction at the French libertarian, after takin all the slings and arrows for bein' jeered as an American "cowboy" wistfully longing for some sense of independence from government intrusion into daily life]
Yes, too much law kills the Law by making everybody into a criminal. Everytime another ban or control is enacted on personal behavior, police power is emboldened to be used at unknown discretion. It's that Road to Hell That's Paved with Good Intentions thing...
The respiratory impact on us whistlers and flutlers, not to mention singers, cannot be ignored, as well as closed ventilation systems in various workplaces.
For better or worse, the use of tobacco is being socially engineered out of existence. I have mixed feelings about it, but the devil weed, implicated in the takeover of North America, the rise of slavery and the birth of corporations, seems to have finally met its non-combustible match...
Except for aboriginal Americans, its hard to remember that this is a relatively RECENT folkway (500 years or so), that of tobacco use, but when you consider the demise of it, it seems as though we are somehow being robbed of cultural heritage.
Can't remember the author, but a fairly new book about the history of tobacco covered this in gory detail and its INCREDIBLE what tobacco's "discovery" by Europeans led to.
As I pointed out elsewhere, smokin' is even banned on many beaches here in Calaforny....
Yes, too much law kills the Law by making everybody into a criminal. Everytime another ban or control is enacted on personal behavior, police power is emboldened to be used at unknown discretion. It's that Road to Hell That's Paved with Good Intentions thing...
The respiratory impact on us whistlers and flutlers, not to mention singers, cannot be ignored, as well as closed ventilation systems in various workplaces.
For better or worse, the use of tobacco is being socially engineered out of existence. I have mixed feelings about it, but the devil weed, implicated in the takeover of North America, the rise of slavery and the birth of corporations, seems to have finally met its non-combustible match...
Except for aboriginal Americans, its hard to remember that this is a relatively RECENT folkway (500 years or so), that of tobacco use, but when you consider the demise of it, it seems as though we are somehow being robbed of cultural heritage.
Can't remember the author, but a fairly new book about the history of tobacco covered this in gory detail and its INCREDIBLE what tobacco's "discovery" by Europeans led to.
As I pointed out elsewhere, smokin' is even banned on many beaches here in Calaforny....
How do you prepare for the end of the world?
-
missy
- Posts: 5833
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:46 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Contact:
First - I don't smoke. Never have. Never will.
Back in the '70's (oh,my - showing my age) when I was in my "bar hopping" days, I had really long hair, and would come home and wash it at 2 in the morning before going to bed, just so I didn't smell the smoke all night. But it was MY CHOICE to go to the bars.
My DH does smoke. Outside. He never smokes in our house, he never smokes when any of us are in the car, and he never smokes in a bar or restaurant, even if they DO allow smoking. If outside with others, he will walk away before smoking.
I have to say, I agree with Zub here (I also have to say, I tend to be more of the "liberatarian" bend). There are SO many regulations, and more and more trying to get "passed" every day. Our city has a "pit bull" ban. The AKC doesn't even recognize a "pit bull" - what most people call that is actually a American Strattfordshire Terrier. And the ban goes as far as to say a dog being 1/4 pit bull. How the heck are you supposed to determine that? If you want laws against aggressive dogs, that's one thing, but to ban a "breed" is just plain silly.
There are still some "dry" counties in my area. It's a riot - on either side of these as soon as you cross the county line - there are numerous quick marts with "BEER, WINE, LAST / FIRST CHANCE". Oh, goody. Now everyone has to drive 10 miles to get their beer. That's definately making it safe for others. There are also blue laws in effect in this state - including not being able to buy alcohol from 1am to 1pm on Sundays. There is routinely a riot at several universities each year when Daylight Savings time goes back to Standard time, and the bars have to close early.
Missy
Back in the '70's (oh,my - showing my age) when I was in my "bar hopping" days, I had really long hair, and would come home and wash it at 2 in the morning before going to bed, just so I didn't smell the smoke all night. But it was MY CHOICE to go to the bars.
My DH does smoke. Outside. He never smokes in our house, he never smokes when any of us are in the car, and he never smokes in a bar or restaurant, even if they DO allow smoking. If outside with others, he will walk away before smoking.
I have to say, I agree with Zub here (I also have to say, I tend to be more of the "liberatarian" bend). There are SO many regulations, and more and more trying to get "passed" every day. Our city has a "pit bull" ban. The AKC doesn't even recognize a "pit bull" - what most people call that is actually a American Strattfordshire Terrier. And the ban goes as far as to say a dog being 1/4 pit bull. How the heck are you supposed to determine that? If you want laws against aggressive dogs, that's one thing, but to ban a "breed" is just plain silly.
There are still some "dry" counties in my area. It's a riot - on either side of these as soon as you cross the county line - there are numerous quick marts with "BEER, WINE, LAST / FIRST CHANCE". Oh, goody. Now everyone has to drive 10 miles to get their beer. That's definately making it safe for others. There are also blue laws in effect in this state - including not being able to buy alcohol from 1am to 1pm on Sundays. There is routinely a riot at several universities each year when Daylight Savings time goes back to Standard time, and the bars have to close early.
Missy
-
buddhu
- Posts: 4092
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 3:14 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: In a ditch, just down the road from the pub
- Contact:
All the arguments in favour of the smoking ban make a lot of sense. The arguments against it make less sense. I do not smoke - I gave up about 17 or 18 years ago.
Despite all that, I have to say that my personal preference would be for restrictions rather than a ban. There are too many bans; too many laws; too much tendency to litigate. We live in communities that are rapidly becoming obsessed with blame and scapegoating (is that a word? It is now...).
Obviously any reasonable person (in my opinion) will agree that the safety of non-smokers in any environment where they and smokers are compelled to mix should outweigh the desires of smokers to smoke. I fail to understand, however, why this means that *all* public places must be non-smoking. Pubs are the obvious example: why not have separate, clearly identifiable establishments for both camps?
Staff safety? Surely staff who smoke can decide for themselves if they wish to add to their already elevated risk of lung and heart disease by smoking passively while they work. The same goes for non-smoking staff: if they decide they want to work in a smoking environment, despite being made aware of the dangers... then why interfere?
As for health service costs as an argument for banning smoking in public, it doesn't work for me. Not unless you ban every unnecessary activity that people undertake that may cause them to incur health service costs. And anyway, if people still smoke in private the health issues remain.
Despite all that, I have to say that my personal preference would be for restrictions rather than a ban. There are too many bans; too many laws; too much tendency to litigate. We live in communities that are rapidly becoming obsessed with blame and scapegoating (is that a word? It is now...).
Obviously any reasonable person (in my opinion) will agree that the safety of non-smokers in any environment where they and smokers are compelled to mix should outweigh the desires of smokers to smoke. I fail to understand, however, why this means that *all* public places must be non-smoking. Pubs are the obvious example: why not have separate, clearly identifiable establishments for both camps?
Staff safety? Surely staff who smoke can decide for themselves if they wish to add to their already elevated risk of lung and heart disease by smoking passively while they work. The same goes for non-smoking staff: if they decide they want to work in a smoking environment, despite being made aware of the dangers... then why interfere?
As for health service costs as an argument for banning smoking in public, it doesn't work for me. Not unless you ban every unnecessary activity that people undertake that may cause them to incur health service costs. And anyway, if people still smoke in private the health issues remain.
And whether the blood be highland, lowland or no.
And whether the skin be black or white as the snow.
Of kith and of kin we are one, be it right, be it wrong.
As long as our hearts beat true to the lilt of a song.
And whether the skin be black or white as the snow.
Of kith and of kin we are one, be it right, be it wrong.
As long as our hearts beat true to the lilt of a song.
-
The Weekenders
- Posts: 10300
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: SF East Bay Area
Man, both Zoob and Buddh, tryna get on the good side of the Weekenders.... You guys are killin' me.buddhu wrote:. There are too many bans; too many laws; too much tendency to litigate. We live in communities that are rapidly becoming obsessed with blame and scapegoating (is that a word? It is now...).
Are fish flying over the skies of Europa???
Waitaminit, is it April 1 there????
Either that, or all of Stony and me's verbal barrage is having an effect. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh.
Just remember, GW is all for tort reform... but of course only because it helps his big-business buddies, not for anybody else who has seen the bad side of huge civil suit damage awards for absurd things...And tort lawyers are always aligned on the Left side of things, because they CARE FOR THE LITTLE GUY! Damn right!
Cowboy up, bhoys!!
How do you prepare for the end of the world?
I didn't realise I'd drunk that much already tonight... 
-
GaryKelly
- Posts: 3090
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:09 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Swindon UK
Bhuddu, good to see you back and posting old chap.
Peter, I think we sort of focused on the "in pubs" bit 'cos that's what the thread was entitled...
At the risk of flying way off topic, I have something of a problem with believing any government really gives a rat's 'arris about its citizens' health. 5 years ago I was researching biological warfare tests that took place in Dorset, and typically that research led me down all sorts of roads I think I may have preferred not to have travelled. Try doing a google search for "Killing Our Own", and "ACHRE" for example.
D'oh...way off topic...still, that's what you get for mentioning 'health and safety', toxic substances, and 'government' in a post...!
Peter, I think we sort of focused on the "in pubs" bit 'cos that's what the thread was entitled...
At the risk of flying way off topic, I have something of a problem with believing any government really gives a rat's 'arris about its citizens' health. 5 years ago I was researching biological warfare tests that took place in Dorset, and typically that research led me down all sorts of roads I think I may have preferred not to have travelled. Try doing a google search for "Killing Our Own", and "ACHRE" for example.
D'oh...way off topic...still, that's what you get for mentioning 'health and safety', toxic substances, and 'government' in a post...!
"It might be a bit better to tune to one of my fiddle's open strings, like A, rather than asking me for an F#." - Martin Milner-
Cayden
Call me crazy but where does 'Smoking ban imposed in Ireland' mention pubs?GaryKelly wrote: Peter, I think we sort of focused on the "in pubs" bit 'cos that's what the thread was entitled...
:
I was only playing devil's advocate, I don't mind either way. There's good things about it as well as downsides. And a caring government? Well, it's an election year, they want to be seen to care for a while at least
-
GaryKelly
- Posts: 3090
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:09 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Swindon UK
Peter Laban wrote: Call me crazy but where does 'Smoking ban imposed in Ireland' mention pubs?
OK, You're crazy. And I've clearly lost the plot completely... uhm, I think I'll just...go and...stand over there...somewhere... I blame Marko, he started it, honest, it's all his fault.
Marko wrote:No more smoky pubs!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3565899.stm
and the happy side effect is that crazy drink prices might drop.
"It might be a bit better to tune to one of my fiddle's open strings, like A, rather than asking me for an F#." - Martin Milner
-
GaryKelly
- Posts: 3090
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:09 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Swindon UK
Heh, yup, we're all monkeys. I worked for a small company some years back and actually overheard the General Manager say to the Managing Director as they walked past my desk: "I wouldn't trust any of these trained monkeys with keys to the office..." Well, if you pay peanuts, that's what you get, was my retort.
"It might be a bit better to tune to one of my fiddle's open strings, like A, rather than asking me for an F#." - Martin Milner
-
OnTheMoor
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:40 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Hate to revive a dead thread, but a study is released in the British Medical Journal today. Since banning smoking in work-places, bars and restaurants in 2002, the number of heart attacks in Helena Montana dropped by 40%. "The doctors studying compared heart attack rates for the same months of the four years before the ban and first year after it, to avoid any seasonal differences" -Ottawa Citizen
The article also says that the area around Helena held steady at app. the same heart attack rate.
Now at first I was all puffed up because I had ammo against those against smoking bans. then I read "Before the smoking ban, the town averaged seven heart attacks a month. After the ban it averaged four"
Looks like the jury's still out.
The article also says that the area around Helena held steady at app. the same heart attack rate.
Now at first I was all puffed up because I had ammo against those against smoking bans. then I read "Before the smoking ban, the town averaged seven heart attacks a month. After the ban it averaged four"
Looks like the jury's still out.
-
Bikehunter
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Boise
- Contact:
I'm gonna open a private club.....$1 per year. As the autonomous owner I plan to allow smoking, but.......if someone doesn't like you lighting up a stinking coffin nail in their face.....as the owner, I will allow that person to punch the smoker's teeth out....with complete immunity.
What? No? You don't like that. Well.....it's my place, right? I should be able to allow anything in MY establishment because......hey it's my place and the government should keep it's nose, and it's laws, out of my private business. And if you don't like being punched in the face.....hey, you can go somewhere that doesn't allow that......right? That IS the logic we're being asked to follow here, isn't it?
I mean, should it be OK for someone to assault your health with second hand smoke, but it's not your right to defend yourself against it? Second hand smoke can kill me, but a punch in the nose can, at worst, send you to the hospital for a few hours. Which is the worst kind of assault? I think these smokers would be getting off lightly with a simple broken nose or jaw. (smoking may not be addictive, but I bet a smoker with his jaw wired shut would figure out some way to get that smoke to their lungs)
Besides.....if I'm not allowed to let my customers defend themselves against an assault on their health, what's next. Will "they" start telling us how to dress....what to eat.....? Where does it all end if we keep letting these Nazis tell us how to run our lives?
So....whadda ya' say. Think my new club will go over?
What? No? You don't like that. Well.....it's my place, right? I should be able to allow anything in MY establishment because......hey it's my place and the government should keep it's nose, and it's laws, out of my private business. And if you don't like being punched in the face.....hey, you can go somewhere that doesn't allow that......right? That IS the logic we're being asked to follow here, isn't it?
I mean, should it be OK for someone to assault your health with second hand smoke, but it's not your right to defend yourself against it? Second hand smoke can kill me, but a punch in the nose can, at worst, send you to the hospital for a few hours. Which is the worst kind of assault? I think these smokers would be getting off lightly with a simple broken nose or jaw. (smoking may not be addictive, but I bet a smoker with his jaw wired shut would figure out some way to get that smoke to their lungs)
Besides.....if I'm not allowed to let my customers defend themselves against an assault on their health, what's next. Will "they" start telling us how to dress....what to eat.....? Where does it all end if we keep letting these Nazis tell us how to run our lives?
So....whadda ya' say. Think my new club will go over?