Smoking banned in English restaurants and pubs

[AlexB]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4709258.stm

Smoking ban in all pubs and clubs

Ministers have argued about the extent of a ban
MPs have voted by huge margins to ban smoking from all pubs and private
members' clubs in England.
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt said the change, expected to take effect in
summer 2007, would "save thousands of people's lives".

Ministers gave a free vote amid fears Labour MPs could rebel against plans to
exempt clubs and pubs not serving food.

The Commons decided by a margin of 328 to ban smoking from all pubs. It
then voted by 200 to extend this to clubs.

The Cabinet had been split on how far restrictions - set out in the Health Bill -
should go, with Conservatives calling government policy a "shambles".

'Historic day''

Smoking is already to be banned in pubs and clubs in Scotland and Northern
Ireland.

The Health Bill gives the Welsh Assembly the right to decide for itself whether
to implement a ban it has already twice approved in principle.

Ms Hewitt, who voted for a total ban for England, told the BBC: "I'm
absolutely delighted. This is really a historic day for public health."

She added: "This is going to save thousands of people's lives."

Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gordon Brown and Home Secretary
Charles Clarke all voted for a blanket ban.

But Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell,
Defence Secretary John Reid and Education Secretary Ruth Kelly opposed it.

'Illiberal'

Elspeth Lee, of Cancer Research UK, said: "This is really going to affect
generations to come and make the nation a lot healthier."

However, Simon Clark, director of smoking support group Forest, said: "This is
a double whammy and an unnecessary and illiberal piece of legislation that
denies freedom of choice to millions of people.

"The Government should educate people about the health risks of smoking
but politicians have no right to force people to quit by making it more
difficult for people to consume a legal product."

About one third of people who smoke more than 20 cigarettes a day will have
their first within five minutes of waking

Earlier, health minister Caroline Flint said fines for failing to stop people
smoking in restricted areas would go up by more than ten times from £200 to
£2,500.

She said: "I am confident that these increased fine levels will result in better
compliance with smoke-free legislation, which of course, will make
enforcement easier."

The Cabinet originally proposed prohibiting smoking only in pubs serving food,
in line with Labour's election manifesto.

A free vote was offered after many Labour MPs, fearing a partial ban could
increase health inequalities among customers and staff, threatened to rebel.

Ministers came up with three choices: a total ban; exempting private clubs;
or exempting clubs and pubs not serving food.

Many MPs opposed a smoking ban on civil liberties grounds.

'Good news'

The government predicts an estimated 600,000 people will give up smoking as
a result of the law change.

Conservative MPs were offered a free vote on the issue.

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said ministers had "put forward
proposals which their own backbenchers thought were completely
unworkable".

But it was "a very important step", he added there "had to be a culture that
encourages better health".

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Steve Webb said: "This legislation is good
news for tens of thousands of bar staff up and down the country.

"The key issue has always been the health and safety of people who work in
public places."

Tory leader David Cameron missed the vote following the birth of his third
child, a son, earlier on Tuesday.

In a recent report, the Commons health select committee said a total ban
was the "only effective means" of protecting public health.

This strikes of a complete mess - we have civil liberty questions, implied hypocrisy and celebrating non-smokers not aware this ban will cost them money.

A partial ban would have worked: people would have the choice to smoke a legal product while enjoying a drink, and others can go to a smoke free bar if they wish. Perfect. However now one group is denied their choice.

The government are celebrating that the ban will save tens of thousands of lives, which may be true. A total ban on smoking would save hundreds of thousands - if you are banning cigarettes in public places, why not just ban them outright if health is the reason?

And finally, the 600,000 who are expected to give up will cause the government's income to drop by a vast amount, and this will have to made up somewhere: the additional taxes will not just be applied to ex-smokers: everyone will pay.

The situation is a mess: I am trying to stop smoking anyway, but the only answers to me that make sense are that establishments have the choice to be smoke-free if they wish, or cigarettes are banned wholesale. If tobacco had been introduced now, it would not be legal: therefore the latter is probably the more sensible option.

I am getting sick and tired of this big brother mentaility that is taking over my country from one side, and then the liberal woolly jumper wearing idiots on the others making the lives of scrubbers, delinquents and criminals akin to a holiday camp on the other.

[Glengoyne]

...
I am getting sick and tired of this big brother mentaility that is taking over my country from one side, and then the liberal woolly jumper wearing idiots on the others making the lives of scrubbers, delinquents and criminals akin to a holiday camp on the other.Welcome to America!

Oh!

[sovereignstar]

I am getting sick and tired of this big brother mentaility that is taking over my country from one side, and then the liberal woolly jumper wearing idiots on the others making the lives of scrubbers, delinquents and criminals akin to a holiday camp on the other.

Three words: health care costs

[MrBigglesworth]

Three words: health care costs
This is why I am conflicted on the whole smoking issue. Because I hate Bush I am seen as some kind of super-liberal, but I'm more of a libertarian on issues like personal rights. The rationale for banning smoking in public places is that people are exposed to it through no personal choice of their own. I like to think that the market would take care of the situation and smokeless bars would open and flourish if there was a demand for it. But employees are also subject to the secondhand smoke. You could say that they could just work elsewhere, but I don't think that kind of logic applies to other occupational hazard cases (safety on construction sites, for example) so I can't apply it here.

And then the whole health care thing is thrown in. Billions and billons of dollars, which I help pay for, goes to the health costs of not only the people that smoke but also the people that are exposed to secondhand smoke.

So I'm conflicted, but I think if I were in charge I would tax tabacco more so that the revenue would cover the societal costs of smoking. Would probably lead to less smokers, which would lead to a bigger demand for smoke free areas, which would solve the smokey bar problem without the need for a blanket ban.

[Drake]

When scientists figure out fifty years from now that cigarettes don't really cause cancer, we're going to look back on stuff like this and laugh.

[MrBigglesworth]

When scientists figure out fifty years from now that cigarettes don't really cause cancer, we're going to look back on stuff like this and laugh.
All of us except the smokers. They'll be dead from emphysema.

[Super Ugly]

I am getting sick and tired of this big brother mentaility that is taking over my country from one side, and then the liberal woolly jumper wearing idiots on the others making the lives of scrubbers, delinquents and criminals akin to a holiday camp on the other.

Daily Mail reader, by any chance? ;)

Sorry, that was low ...

I'm surprised that this has gone through. I'm in agreement with you in that people ought to have a choice of how they want to enjoy a night out. Christ, there are enough pubs in England and Wales to get a decent split of smoking and non-smoking establishments.

When scientists figure out fifty years from now that cigarettes don't really cause cancer, we're going to look back on stuff like this and laugh.

Have you seen the movie Sleeper? :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well done, England. Well done.

I just look at it as a mini-Environmental law. We have laws that regulate what kind of/how much toxic waste companies and factories can emit and where they can emit them (zoning laws for the last bit). This is just taking it on a smaller, more personal level by furthing limiting where people can emit toxic fumes into the air. There are all sorts of strong policy reasons behind such a ban too.

I have no problem with this what so ever. I think a person's right to breath clean, smoke-free air in a public restaurant or bar (store, hospital, sporting arena, shopping mall, or any other public place) out weighs another person's right to pollute said air. Simple as that. Just like a city's right to have clean, healthy water out weighs the right of some company to pollute said water.

It's not like smoke really bothers me. I have no sense of smell. The only times I have ever been bothered by smoke during a night out where a few times in Belgium where the bar was so smoking my eyes and skin started to dry up. I felt like Kramer looked in that cigarette advert.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Dola.

A complete ban on cigarettes wont work. It didn't work for alcohol in the US back during prohibition and wouldn't work now. Just keep jacking up the price, like they have in New York. The cigarette ban and outrageous taxes work together as a good deterant on new/would-be smokers. This is a good thing. If you can't smoke in a bar and cigarettes cost $7.50 a pack there are not a lot of incentives to pick up such a nasty habit.

[Honolulu_Blue]

When scientists figure out fifty years from now that cigarettes don't really cause cancer, we're going to look back on stuff like this and laugh.
I expect this to happen right around the time aliens come to earth and start destroying it because all of the whales are extinct.

[sabotai]

Will never support a law that limits what legal activities a private business can allow inside their place of business.

(Que the irrational, slippery slope statements from the fascists of the board. :D )

[MrBigglesworth]

Will never support a law that limits what legal activities...
Well once there is a law against it, they aren't legal anymore, are they?

[Coder]

As of June 1st 2005, this ban has been in effect in Sweden and let me tell you.. it's fan-fucking-tastic..

I love it.. sure, I'm a non-smoker, but I have friends who smoke who think it's great.. and this is during the winter time when they have to go outside to smoke in the cold and snow.

What's so great about it?

1) That sweater or shirt you wore doesn't need to go directly into the laundry basket once you get home
2) You don't have to wash your hair just so that you can sleep without smelling smoke
3) You can breathe inside the bar
4) Your eyes don't start running after a while inside a bar

Oh I love it

[sabotai]

Well once there is a law against it, they aren't legal anymore, are they?So smoking is completely illegal now?

(I think what I meant was clear enough....)

[Icy]

It has been aproved in Spain too. The difference is that here since 1st January, the restaurants, pubs, bars etc under 100 square mts must decide if smoking is allowed or not, and the ones over 100 square mts must be or non smoking or to have a fully separate areas for smoking. The stupid thing is that as they let decide the small bars what to do... all them decided to be smoking bars, so the law didn't change things a lot here. The only good thing is that smoking at work is not longer legal. You need to smoke in your home, in the street or in the small bars.

And the smokers here are talking about our new laws being the harder in the world... they should read a bit about smoking laws in USA or now in UK. Anyway some of you said it, health care costs are huge, specially in European countries where we have full health care paid by the goberment, not like in the USA that is private.

I found it here in English for you:


Spain Update

Spain Passes Tobacco Law, But Bars to Stay Smoky

December 16, 2005

MADRID - Spain passed a law aimed at cutting smoking in public places on Thursday, but bar owners plan to exploit a loophole to make sure their bars remain havens for Spain's millions of smokers.

In Spain until recently it was not unusual to see doctors smoking in their surgeries, but now the government has made it obligatory for restaurants and bars over 100 square metres (1,076 sq ft) to set up non-smoking sections next year.

Smaller venues have to choose whether to ban or allow smoking on their premises and many owners of small bars, which dominate Spanish night life, say they have never even considered opting for a ban.

"If I want my business to work then I'd better let people come in and smoke," Alfredo Amarilla, owner of Taberna de Conspiradores in the popular La Latina district, told Reuters.

He said most of his regulars smoked.

The manager of El Tomas, in the same area, agreed.

"We want people to keep smoking and drinking ... The way people think in this country is 'I won't go to a bar where I can't smoke'," Jose Barcena said, speaking soon after the new law won final approval from parliament.

The law in Spain, where the government says a third of the population smokes every day and 50,000 die from tobacco each year, is much softer than legislation in countries such as the United States, Ireland and Italy.

The new Spanish law also bans tobacco advertising in all media, outlaws smoking in offices, schools and shopping centres and raises the minimum age for buying cigarettes to 18 from 16.


CHILDREN BANNED FROM SMOKING AREAS

Children will be banned from smoking areas in venues larger than 100 square metres and the law gives local authorities the power to ban children from small bars where smoking is allowed.

That possibility has enraged some bar owners in Spain, where families often take their children to bars and cafes.

"Who am I to say whether someone can come in here with their child? I'm not responsible for the child," said the owner of La Cava de Illan bar, where the rich odour of cured Spanish ham overpowers the lingering smell of smoke.

Health Minister Elena Salgado said on Thursday she wanted the new law to reduce smoking by 5 percent in two years.

But 30-year-old jewellery designer Josefina Suarez says Spaniards will be reluctant to change.

"Spain is the country where we have the most vices, where people drink most, where they smoke most, where you go to most parties. That's just typical Spain."

The last puff saloon?

Spain is about to ban smoking in the workplace and fine bars and restaurants without smoking areas. But will it really work?

We have all been there before. You are in the middle of a great dinner, savouring the way Spaniards eat well so effortlessly.

You have just finished your main dish and are perhaps sipping a decent red wine.

Then someone at the next table lights up and somehow, no matter what you do, the smoke billows over towards you.

This happens not infrequently in Spain, even though officially less than a third of the population still smokes. Smoking in general is still tolerated and, with a few notable exceptions, lighting up in restaurants and bars is not frowned upon.

But all this is about to change.

Spain, one of the few countries in Europe where smokers may still indulge their habit almost anywhere, is moving to drastically restrict tobacco use in most public and many private places.

This week, smoking was banned on train journeys of less than five hours by Renfe.

The Socialist government will ban smoking in workplaces and in bars and cafes without a designated smoking area, and end tobacco sales to minors.

Health Minister Elena Salgado announced a draft bill which should come into effect in 2006. The new law would replace current Spanish law, which, according to Salgado, is one of the "most permissive" in Europe.

The bill will include limits on sales and on print, radio and television advertising. The bill would also set up a system of fines for those who break the new law.

Cash from these fines will be used to finance anti-smoking programmes.

Salgado said that under the proposal, tobacco sales to minors would be viewed as "very serious" infractions.

Tobacco use is the "main cause of preventable death and illness" in Spain, according to Salgado, who added that the bill is aimed at protecting the rights of non-smokers and making it easier for smokers to quit.

The limits on tobacco use will distinguish between places where it is absolutely prohibited and others where it will be allowed only in designated smoking areas.

In general, smoking will be banned in public and private workplaces, health facilities and schools, indoor sports facilities, recreational and leisure facilities, and places where food is produced, prepared or sold.

The same ban will apply to lifts, telephone boxes, cash machines and bus stations, as well as to trains and ferries.

Smoking kills more than 50,000 people each year in Spain (or 16 of every 100 deaths among persons over 35), a figure that is higher than the combined number of fatalities from AIDS, alcohol, and traffic accidents.

So how have the Spanish reacted to what might be a seismic cultural change?

An editorial in the Spanish daily El Pais argued that the problem will not be tackled simply by tough legislation.

"The first obstacle is a cultural one; oncologists and cardiologists are always alerting us to the excessive social tolerance of tobacco, the biggest cause of avoidable deaths.

"If society finds the deaths of 4,000 people on the roads each year in Spain unacceptable, why not the deaths of 50,000 Spaniards from smoking at a cost of EUR 3.5 billion?"

Some believe a crackdown on smoking, particularly in restaurants and bars, is long overdue.

Isabel Maestre, writer of the authoritative Good Food Manual, considers smoking and eating out "dreadful".

Maestre says: "We cannot have smoke in the atmosphere when we eat; we lose the tastes and the smells. And it is not right to smoke between courses."

Many believe the hardest part of implementing the new law will be in restaurants and bars, because many restaurateurs fear it will result in a drop in business.

Jose Luis Guerra, spokesman for the Spanish Hoteliers Federation, pointed to the example of the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants in Ireland, where he claimed it had hit business.

Guerra said: "A system of self-regulation would work better than a drastic ban, which puts jobs at risk. We would advocate having good ventilation in many restaurants."

Predictably enough, this view is not shared by the anti-smoking lobby.

Rodrigo Cordoba, president of the National Committee for the Prevention of Smoking, said: "According to a study, published in New York [which has banned smoking in bars and restaurants] these establishments have seen an increase in their takings by 23 percent since the law changed there."

But Isabel Vison, author of the Gourmet Guide, commented: "In Spain they do not like to be told what to do and Spain has not got into the fashion of not smoking.

[sovereignstar]

Will never support a law that limits what legal activities a private business can allow inside their place of business.

I've never hunted before, but I might if some dance club said that I could in their establisment.

[sabotai]

I've never hunted before, but I might if some dance club said that I could in their establisment.Sure, why not?

Don't think such a place would be open for long, and would have a nice set of wrongful death lawsuits to deal with....but hey, a world with a few less "ravers" wouldn't be such a bad place, would it? :D

[MrBigglesworth]

So smoking is completely illegal now?

(I think what I meant was clear enough....)
Sex is legal. There are laws against doing it in public.

Drinking alcohol is legal. There are laws regulating who can sell it to whom.

Speaking is legal. There are laws regulating what you can yell in a crowded theater.

Do you not support all these laws?

[sabotai]

Sex is legal. There are laws against doing it in public.

Drinking alcohol is legal. There are laws regulating who can sell it to whom.

Speaking is legal. There are laws regulating what you can yell in a crowded theater.

Do you not support all these laws?Well, the "sex in public" yeah (as in a public park), but in a private establishment, no, don't support that law. If someone wants to allow people to have sex within their private place of business, fine by me.

The drinking age is a blanket law. It's not legal for a 17 year old to drink in one place and not another. It's not legal to sell alcohol to a 17 year old in one place and not another. So that doesn't apply here.

And no, a theater should take care of what they allow and don't allow in their theaters, not the government.

Any more of these predictable questions?

[Drake]

I'm always amused by how liberals end up sounding like conservatives (and vice versa) whenever smoking bans come up. Smoking is like the anti-Gay Marriage.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, the "sex in public" yeah (as in a public park), but in a private establishment, no, don't support that law. If someone wants to allow people to have sex within their private place of business, fine by me.
So the restaurant on Main Street with the open-air seating and the big plate glass window can allow their patrons to engage in sexual intercourse?

The drinking age is a blanket law. It's not legal for a 17 year old to drink in one place and not another. It's not legal to sell alcohol to a 17 year old in one place and not another. So that doesn't apply here.
I didn't mention drinking age. Governments regulate the sale of alcohol, tell you who can sell it and who can't.

And no, a theater should take care of what they allow and don't allow in their theaters, not the government.
So if someone yells, "Fire!" in a crowded theater and a couple people are trampled to death, the theater owners can kick him out but he can not be charged with a crime?

Any more of these predictable questions?
Sure.

It's legal to descriminate based on race or ethnicity. Do you support businesses being able to hang, "whites only", or "Irish need not apply" signs in their windows?

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm always amused by how liberals end up sounding like conservatives (and vice versa) whenever smoking bans come up. Smoking is like the anti-Gay Marriage.
How so?

[sabotai]

So the restaurant on Main Street with the open-air seating and the big plate glass window can allow their patrons to engage in sexual intercourse?Sure.

I didn't mention drinking age. Governments regulate the sale of alcohol, tell you who can sell it and who can't. In that case, no, I don't agree.

So if someone yells, "Fire!" in a crowded theater and a couple people are trampled to death, the theater owners can kick him out but he can not be charged with a crime?That would be up to the courts to decide if his actions were negligent (assuming the families press charges, which I'm sure they would).

It's legal to descriminate based on race or ethnicity. Do you support businesses being able to hang, "whites only", or "Irish need not apply" signs in their windows?Yes. (and I would never, ever go into these places. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I will support a law against it. I do have principles, and one of them is a business owner running their business as they see fit, regardless of how much I disagree with what they are doing.)

Seriously, any question you can come up with has been asked and answered dozens and dozens of times over by me and several others. I would think by this point in the thread, you would have an understanding of my stance on these issues and we can stop wasting each other's time. I can assure you, there is no hypothetical that you can come up with that will "get me" (but then again....the reactions to some of the things I say on these issues can be priceless, so you're welcome to try. :D )

[MrBigglesworth]

Seriously, any question you can come up with has been asked and answered dozens and dozens of times over by me and several others. I would think by this point in the thread, you would have an understanding of my stance on these issues and we can stop wasting each other's time. I can assure you, there is no hypothetical that you can come up with that will "get me" (but then again....the reactions to some of the things I say on these issues can be priceless, so you're welcome to try. :D )
Well excuse my curiousity, I'm just amazed. They talk about pre-9/11 thinking, but this is pre-industrial revolution thinking. Have you ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? I'm a card carrying Ayn Rand free market capitalism guy, but even I realize that the free market has limits. It's amazing to have someone prefer 1890 America to 2006 America.

[sabotai]

Well excuse my curiousity, I'm just amazed. They talk about pre-9/11 thinking, but this is pre-industrial revolution thinking. Have you ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? I'm a card carrying Ayn Rand free market capitalism guy, but even I realize that the free market has limits. It's amazing to have someone prefer 1890 America to 2006 America.Like I said, some reactions are just priceless. :D

[MrBigglesworth]

Like I said, some reactions are just priceless. :D
I'm not trying to attack you here, just wanting to have a discussion, but we have seen that laissez faire capitalism is tremendously negative in terms of stifling competition, creating terrible working conditions, and repressing the lower classes, so what makes you a big fan of it?

[sabotai]

I'm not trying to attack you here, just wanting to have a discussion, but we have seen that laissez faire capitalism is tremendously negative in terms of stifling competition, creating terrible working conditions, and repressing the lower classes, so what makes you a big fan of it?Not sure I can explain it all in one neat little post on a message board.

Would it help if I also told you I was an anarchist?

[ISiddiqui]

I agree mostly with sabotai. I think laws should be generally applicable and we shouldn't be in the business of telling certain private businesses that they must ban something which is allowed outdoors or in another business. So no smoking bans in restaurants (unless all businesses get the ban), sex in private business ok (even with big ass windows), and discrimination on race alright (though I'm sure lost business oppertunity would stop that in a hurry). The government saying all businesses must X wouldn't violate my principle (it'd be a generally applicable law).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Would it help if I also told you I was an anarchist?

{doubletake}

Umm ... am I the only person who originally read that as "an antichrist"?

[Drake]

Yes.

[clintl]

There is no right to smoke, nor is there a right to expose employees and customers to smoke for profit. Businesses do have an obligation to provide a safe workplace.

I would never want to go back to the days where smoking in workplaces, including restaurants and bars, was permitted. It is immensely better now without the pollution.

So England, you're a decade behind, but better late than never. You're doing the right thing.

[Drake]

There is no right to smoke, nor is there a right to expose employees and customers to smoke for profit. Businesses do have an obligation to provide a safe workplace.

The easy solution to this is to only hire smokers. Then you're not doing them any extra harm by exposing them to second hand smoke. There's no law against discriminating on the basis of smoking -- or so I guess from all the want ads I see that specify a non-smoking workplace.

Not saying that smoking bans are necessarily a bad thing, just that the "protect the workers" argument is inadequate. I'd rather just see people argue that they don't like smoking and it should be illegal than creating a bunch of arguments that sound good but don't hold water.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed... next these people will be trying to shut down nightclubs because the loud music causes hearing problems in their employees.

[clintl]

The easy solution to this is to only hire smokers. Then you're not doing them any extra harm by exposing them to second hand smoke. There's no law against discriminating on the basis of smoking -- or so I guess from all the want ads I see that specify a non-smoking workplace.

I'm pretty sure a business wouldn't get away with that for long. As for the "non-smoking workplace" ads, I wouldn't know about that. All California workplaces have been non-smoking for quite some time now.

Not saying that smoking bans are necessarily a bad thing, just that the "protect the workers" argument is inadequate. I'd rather just see people argue that they don't like smoking and it should be illegal than creating a bunch of arguments that sound good but don't hold water.

I don't think it should be illegal. I just think it should be illegal to smoke where there are other people who may not want to breathe air polluted with smelly, carcinogenic chemicals. Smokers who think they have the right to pollute air other people are using are just plain rude.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think it should be illegal. I just think it should be illegal to smoke where there are other people who may not want to breathe air polluted with smelly, carcinogenic chemicals. Smokers who think they have the right to pollute air other people are using are just plain rude.
Do you have the same viewpoint with noise pollution?

[Drake]

I'd have to agree with Isiddiqui on this one, clint. Just because something is rude doesn't mean that it should be illegal.

In the interest of full disclosure (clint already knows this), I'm a smoker. I'm also a smoker who doesn't go to bars, doesn't eat at restaurants very often and considers being sent outside to smoke one of the greatest inventions in the history of the American workplace. I work on a college campus. The university pays me to stand outside for fifteen, twenty, thirty minutes at a time chatting with my boss and ogling co-eds. If they tried to un-ban smoking in my workplace, I'd launch a formal protest. :)

[clintl]

Do you have the same viewpoint with noise pollution?

Yes. I think noise levels should be regulated to safe levels, and I think noise ordinances in residential neighborhoods are entirely appropriate. But the health consequences of hearing damage are nothing in comparison to the health consequences of cancer, so I'm perfectly content with smoking being dealt with first.

[thesloppy]

I'm glad we're starting to see these issues addressed worldwide and the healthcare issues are coming to the forefront. Too many nights has vile second-hand smoke impeded my full-on charge toward cirrhosis and driven me out of the bar and into my car before I am sufficiently wobbly and wasted.

[Drake]

I'm glad we're starting to see these issues addressed worldwide and the healthcare issues are coming to the forefront. Too many nights has vile second-hand smoke impeded my full-on charge toward cirrhosis and driven me out of the bar and into my car before I am sufficiently wobbly and wasted.

Heh. That's awesome.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes. I think noise levels should be regulated to safe levels, and I think noise ordinances in residential neighborhoods are entirely appropriate. But the health consequences of hearing damage are nothing in comparison to the health consequences of cancer, so I'm perfectly content with smoking being dealt with first.
Like I asked earlier, what about nightclubs? Shut 'em down? Their workers are suffering after all.

[clintl]

Like I asked earlier, what about nightclubs? Shut 'em down? Their workers are suffering after all.

No - turn down the volume to safe levels. I've been to nightclubs where this is standard practice, and the music sounds just as good.

[ISiddiqui]

No - turn down the volume to safe levels. I've been to nightclubs where this is standard practice, and the music sounds just as good.
Haha... turn it down to 'safe' levels. What's the point of a nightclub anymore then?

And how about concerts? Stage staff need to be protected.

[sovereignstar]

Stage staff need to be protected.

Earplugs?

[sabotai]

{doubletake}

Umm ... am I the only person who originally read that as "an antichrist"?Heheh, I'm sure there are some people who would debate over which label more accurately described me. :D

Interesting tidbit, I was born at 7:06AM....expressed in a different way, 6:66AM

[ISiddiqui]

Earplugs?
Get the waitstaff at bars oxygen tanks then.

[sabotai]

I'm glad we're starting to see these issues addressed worldwide and the healthcare issues are coming to the forefront. Too many nights has vile second-hand smoke impeded my full-on charge toward cirrhosis and driven me out of the bar and into my car before I am sufficiently wobbly and wasted.I <3 thesloppy. :D

[-Mojo Jojo-]

discrimination on race alright (though I'm sure lost business oppertunity would stop that in a hurry).

If you believe that to be true, I am curious how you explain the hundred years of segregation that followed the Civil War, and which was only ended by government intervention. Your assumption seems to be pretty strongly counter-factual...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Get the waitstaff at bars oxygen tanks then.
Health care costs related to cancer/other health issues casued by second hand smoke vs. Health care costs related damaged hearing caused by loud music.

Cost of earplugs vs. Cost of oxygen tanks.

This comparison fails on many levels.

[sabotai]

If you believe that to be true, I am curious how you explain the hundred years of segregation that followed the Civil War, and which was only ended by government intervention. Your assumption seems to be pretty strongly counter-factual...You forget that segregation started with government intervention as well (Jim Crow laws)

[ISiddiqui]

If you believe that to be true, I am curious how you explain the hundred years of segregation that followed the Civil War, and which was only ended by government intervention. Your assumption seems to be pretty strongly counter-factual...Simple, poor blacks who weren't given anything after being freed and were purposely pushed down by government intervention. Nowadays, blacks have money, are educated, and can make their economic voices heard. That, and people don't like racism no more.

Health care costs related to cancer/other health issues casued by second hand smoke vs. Health care costs related damaged hearing caused by loud music.

Cost of earplugs vs. Cost of oxygen tanks.

This comparison fails on many levels.I really don't see how. What is the argument for banning cigarettes as restaurants and bars? It causes health problems in those that work there. Wouldn't the same apply to nightclubs and high decibel music? If your argument is that the health problems are more serious for those that work in restaurants, what about the people who work in, oh say, mining (and not because of cave ins) or other high risk jobs for disease or illness? Aren't their health risks serious? So why do waitstaff get special benefits? If your argument is that the miners signed on for the job, well didn't the waitstaff as well? They knew what it meant!

The argument that you are doing this to protect the workers fails on so many levels. The argument that you are doing this to cut down health care costs is even more silly. Why not stop bars from serving alcohol, which causes severe health care risks (probably more than smoking)?

[sabotai]

The argument that you are doing this to cut down health care costs is even more silly. Why not stop bars from serving alcohol, which causes severe health care risks (probably more than smoking)?You would think that the #1 target on the list for people who want to cut down on health costs would be sugar....

Maybe that's next.

[ISiddiqui]

When is that obesity lawsuit coming down the pike? ;)

[sabotai]

When is that obesity lawsuit coming down the pike? ;)Sugar can boost a person's likelyhood of developing type II diebetes, increase your risk of colon cancer (and who knows what other cancers), not to mention all of the dental care required for people who eat a lot of sugary food (all of this is, of course, in addition to the obesity).

And then of course obesity can lead to heart attack or stroke, type II diabetes (again), high blood pressure, other cancers, gallbladder problems and gallstones, gout and the list goes on and on.

And what are the "we need to bring down health care costs" people focusing on? Casual exposure to 2nd hand smoke in a bar or resturant.

Wait, it's the future....I see the future and I see all of these bar and resturant bans on smoking not causing a dent in the health care costs. Nice try. :p

[MrBigglesworth]

These arguments are heading into fantasy land. Just because you think it's a good idea to outlaw one health hazard, doesn't mean you have to think it's a good idea to outlaw paper (to avoid paper cuts) to be intellectually consistent. Sugar is a food. We need food to live. Nicotine, not so much. There might be some merit to taxing empty calorie foods, but it ends up being a highly regressive tax so it would end up doing more harm than good.

[Klinglerware]

Banning either alcohol or smoking does not work and is not the answer. However, the opportunity for heavy taxation should certainly be considered. As was mentioned previously, $8 cigarettes and $12 cocktails are an accepted fact of life in places like Manhattan--due to the nature of the product, I doubt that taxes would really deter sales. The price inelasticity of tobacco and alcohol should be taken advantage of. In fact, the tax revenues generated could be (theoretically) be plowed back into subsidizing the health care costs resulting from smoking/drinking.

As for sugar, I've read that part of the problem is that corn syrup has taken the place of sugar in many processed foods. A return to sugar might be a healthier choice, though agricultural interests may not allow for its promotion.

[ISiddiqui]

What about alcohol, Bigglesworth? It isn't necessary to live (plenty of other drinks), and I'm sure it causes as many, if not more health problems than cigarettes or cigars.

[sabotai]

Sugar is a food. We need food to live. Complex sugars are good for us, the simple sugars found in soda, candy, cupcakes (and everything else we pretty much associate with the word "sugar") have no nutriitional value and in fact, do harm to our bodies.

Now I'll fight for anyone's right to ingest as much simple sugars as they want, but don't play them off as if they get a pass because they count as a food. They are harmful and not nutritious at all.

[sabotai]

As for sugar, I've read that part of the problem is that corn syrup has taken the place of sugar in many processed foods. A return to sugar might be a healthier choice, though agricultural interests may not allow for its promotion.Yeah, I'm pretty sure that sugar from sugarcane is a complex carbohydrate (= good for you (to a point)). High fructose corn syrup is a simple carb (= very bad)

[MrBigglesworth]

What about alcohol, Bigglesworth? It isn't necessary to live (plenty of other drinks), and I'm sure it causes as many, if not more health problems than cigarettes or cigars.
I also believe that employees shouldn't have to do shots of tequila when working at a restaurant. Crazy, I know! :)

[MrBigglesworth]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that sugar from sugarcane is a complex carbohydrate (= good for you (to a point)). High fructose corn syrup is a simple carb (= very bad)
Complex carbs are starches, simple carbs are sugars. High fructose corn syrup has two problems. One, it doesn't do the normal function of fructose of telling the body that it should be full. Two, the subsidies we give to farmers make corn syrup super cheap, so it is replacing sugar in foods.

Now I'll fight for anyone's right to ingest as much simple sugars as they want, but don't play them off as if they get a pass because they count as a food. They are harmful and not nutritious at all.
I don't know why you quoted me, because I didn't pass it off at all. I said that a empty calorie tax could be feasible, but would have to be structured to not be regressive.

[sabotai]

Complex carbs are starches, simple carbs are sugars.My bad,

High fructose corn syrup has two problems. One, it doesn't do the normal function of fructose of telling the body that it should be full. Two, the subsidies we give to farmers make corn syrup super cheap, so it is replacing sugar in foods.Can we all just agree that farm subsidies are evil? :)

[AlexB]

Daily Mail reader, by any chance? ;)

Sorry, that was low ...

I'm surprised that this has gone through. I'm in agreement with you in that people ought to have a choice of how they want to enjoy a night out. Christ, there are enough pubs in England and Wales to get a decent split of smoking and non-smoking establishments.


That is low and in my opinion there are few bigger insults you could make. I appreciate it was in jest, but no: the Daily Mail is so anti Labour it goes OTT and loses any basis for the arguments it may have. And it is (not so subtly) racist, elitist - my folks read it and I wouldn't use it to wipe my arse.

My position is I quite like some of the ideas Labour promised, but don;t like the results that they have, and am 100% against any party that wants to go further into a united Europe: trade - fine, government - no way. Labour are untrustworthy (as likely would any of the others if they were in power), Tories are directionless, Liberals are a joke. All have some decent ideas, but all have more areas that I am opposed to. So that leaves me with protest vote: UKIP, etc to voice my opinion on the way we are moving to as far as Europe goes.

[AlexB]

Dola.

A complete ban on cigarettes wont work. It didn't work for alcohol in the US back during prohibition and wouldn't work now. Just keep jacking up the price, like they have in New York. The cigarette ban and outrageous taxes work together as a good deterant on new/would-be smokers. This is a good thing. If you can't smoke in a bar and cigarettes cost $7.50 a pack there are not a lot of incentives to pick up such a nasty habit.

Dola

£7.50! We'd be lucky - over £5 here: the majority is taxed, so the health care costs argument, while it may still be valid, is contributed to more so in the UK.

My position is this: people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others: this is a principle which carries on into every walk of life: religion, music, TV, sexetc. With smoking, there is a passive risk, so yes: give pubs the right to choose if they are smoky or smoke-free. Do/don't something if you want to, as long as no-one gets hurt or prevented from doing what they also want to do, who cares if you agree/disagree with it?

Smokers and bar workers who wnat to smoke will go to pubs where they are allowed to light up, those who want smoke free environments will go to those banning it.

With a total ban, non-smokers are in effect infringing the right of smokers to have a cigarette.

[AlexB]

Indeed... next these people will be trying to shut down nightclubs because the loud music causes hearing problems in their employees.

Double Dola,

This is the problem, the government is beginning to dictate how you can enjoy yourself, and it will get to the point where because you can;t do x,y and z, nobody will be able to enjoy anything.

Sports will be banned beacuse they cause injuries, or health problems (from stress, over excitement, etc) music because it can be played loud, drinking because people get sick/fighting, TV because it hurts your eyes, etc.

Taken too far? Yes: but it is a logical (over)progrssion, Who is to say it will stop at the right place?

[AlexB]

I'm glad we're starting to see these issues addressed worldwide and the healthcare issues are coming to the forefront. Too many nights has vile second-hand smoke impeded my full-on charge toward cirrhosis and driven me out of the bar and into my car before I am sufficiently wobbly and wasted.

Triple Dola,

The point is that why can't some places be allowed to be smoking places, and some places smoke-free? You go to the smoke free places, smokers go to the fuggy places. Simple. Everyone wins. Why should one group have the total market?

This law is dumb: it applies to pubs and restaurants, one the main reasons being dangers to non-smoking staff/clients through passive smoking. Fair enough. But it does not apply to prisons, nursing homes, etc - are the non-smoking elderly, careworkers or prison officers less important somehow?

And it applies to private clubs, who can decide membership on ethniticy, gender, height, weight, sexuality, whatever, but no-one can smoke. So you can have a wine club where they can drink wine, a gay bondage club where they can, well, whatever, but you can't have a cigar club where they can smoke cigars? :rolleyes:

I repeat, I don't have a problem with making the majority of places smoke-free and would see a sensible solution is to give people a choice of environments, but if healthcare is the reason, be consistent and ban it throughout the entire public sector. And putting a ban on private clubs on a legal practice is very worrying.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Simple, poor blacks who weren't given anything after being freed and were purposely pushed down by government intervention. Nowadays, blacks have money, are educated, and can make their economic voices heard. That, and people don't like racism no more.

I really don't see how. What is the argument for banning cigarettes as restaurants and bars? It causes health problems in those that work there. Wouldn't the same apply to nightclubs and high decibel music? If your argument is that the health problems are more serious for those that work in restaurants, what about the people who work in, oh say, mining (and not because of cave ins) or other high risk jobs for disease or illness? Aren't their health risks serious? So why do waitstaff get special benefits? If your argument is that the miners signed on for the job, well didn't the waitstaff as well? They knew what it meant!

The argument that you are doing this to protect the workers fails on so many levels. The argument that you are doing this to cut down health care costs is even more silly. Why not stop bars from serving alcohol, which causes severe health care risks (probably more than smoking)?
First off, we tried stopping bars from serving alcohol. Didn't work.

As for the mine shaft analogy, that falls apart too. While I am not familir with them, there are a number of "mine safety laws." In fact, after the recent tragedy in West Virginia these laws were revised to make mines more safe. There are obvious risks associated with mining but the government has passed laws forcing (infrining?) owners of mines to take steps to make their mines more safe. Obviously they can't make mines 100% safe, but laws are there to make sure mines are reasonably safe, balancing safety of the miners and the burden on mine owners. This type of cost/benefit analysis is rather common when passing "safety laws." Certain jobs, mining, have more risks.

I really don't see this as restaurant workers getting any sort of special protection over oher types of workers. Chemical factories are forced to take steps to ensure that they don't expose their workers willy-nilly to poisonous gases. Why not restaurants? This isn't a case of special treatment/benefits.

It's a pretty simple equation.

Costs associated with harm of second hand smoke = Very high.

Negative effect on bars/restaurants after a smoking ban is put into place = Very small. (If this weren't the case and bars/restuarants were suffering economic harm from these laws, they would have been repealed in a New York minute. Do not underestimate the power of the almighty dollar)

Public benefit from smoking ban (lower health costs, not reeking of smoke, etc.) = Moderate.

Smoking ban makes sense. I am not sure banning sugar, alcohol, or the whole sound levle thing hold up under a similar analysis.

Property rights aren't inalienable. Private businesses don't have the right to ignore the minimum wage or health and safety regulations. Since the New Deal, the federal government has regulated private businesses in order to serve the public welfare.

As for the cry about civil liberties. I am more concerned that the government can arrest you/fine you for smoking pot in the privacy of your own home, than I am about a ban on smoking in bars/restaurants.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Double Dola,

This is the problem, the government is beginning to dictate how you can enjoy yourself, and it will get to the point where because you can;t do x,y and z, nobody will be able to enjoy anything.

Sports will be banned beacuse they cause injuries, or health problems (from stress, over excitement, etc) music because it can be played loud, drinking because people get sick/fighting, TV because it hurts your eyes, etc.

Taken too far? Yes: but it is a logical (over)progrssion, Who is to say it will stop at the right place?
It's not a question of "who" will stop it, but what will stop it. And that answer, my friend, is simple:

The Almighty dollar, pound, Euro, yen, rupee, etc, etc, etc.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Tiple dola, Jari Shorts Style!

As for that whole mining thing...

This is taken from Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

1.9.1 Smoking
Smoking shall be prohibited in all underground and surface coal mines and all other work areas associated with coal mining. MSHA currently prohibits smoking in all underground mines and in surface coal mines where fire or explosion may result [30 CFR 75.1072 and 77.1711]. In addition, NIOSH recommends that smoking be prohibited to prevent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, a potential occupational carcinogen [NIOSH 1991a].

Special benefits for waitstaff or just catching up with the times?

[Drake]

First off, we tried stopping bars from serving alcohol. Didn't work.

This is pretty clearly the solution to smoking bans, too. If smokers will all get together and just agree to flout the laws at every opportunity (and who cares? -- in most places, it's the business that gets fined, not the customer who is smoking), smoking bans won't work either. Smoking bans only work as long as the smokers play along.

[thesloppy]

And while I'm at it, although I will get slated for this, and it's probably because I'm angry, but this type of attitude

which can be easily be perceived as arrogance, is what gets people riled about America - I know it's only your comment, and not representative of the nation, but if I'm angry about my own government telling people what they can and can't do. you can probably imagine how my blood pressure is rising when the comment is made from thousands of miles away that the whole world should adopt the health legislation of the US, when somebody smoking or not smoking in a British pub affects you, oh, how about not in the slightest?


Whoah there, hotrod. I guess sarcasm doesn't translate into the King's english.

[AlexB]

Whoah there, hotrod. I guess sarcasm doesn't translate into the King's english.

Ah - apolgies: scanned the post the first time and only got as far as the end of the first sentence - as I said I was steaming at the time.

Repeated apologies: now I've read the second bit it was a quality post :D

[ISiddiqui]

I really don't see this as restaurant workers getting any sort of special protection over oher types of workers. Chemical factories are forced to take steps to ensure that they don't expose their workers willy-nilly to poisonous gases. Why not restaurants? This isn't a case of special treatment/benefits.
You just undermined your argument. Chemical factories take steps to prevent workers don't get exposed to gases, why can't a restaurant also take those steps? What if a restaurant did want to spend the cash to provide servers with oxygen masks? Or what if it only hired smokers to work a smoking part, enclosed from the other side? Chemical factories don't have the toxic chemicals banned, they have the ability to shield those chemicals from people. Why don't restaurants?

Public benefit from smoking ban (lower health costs, not reeking of smoke, etc.) = Moderate.
I consider personal liberty to be part of the 'public benefit', so I wouldn't go with moderate here.

Like Jari said, where does it stop? People say using a slippery slope doesn't work here, but when you start letting the government tell you to ban smoking in your restaurants for public health, what is next?

Hell, if the government said that all restaurants must serve diet sodas and ban regular sodas, that may be 'better' for the general public's health than a smoking ban (cardiac problems are the #1 killer of Americans).

In addition, NIOSH recommends that smoking be prohibited to prevent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, a potential occupational carcinogen [NIOSH 1991a].
NIOSH has also recommended that sandblasting be banned because of black lung disease problems (which is what I was refering to mining about). AFAIK, it hasn't been.

This is pretty clearly the solution to smoking bans, too. If smokers will all get together and just agree to flout the laws at every opportunity (and who cares? -- in most places, it's the business that gets fined, not the customer who is smoking), smoking bans won't work either. Smoking bans only work as long as the smokers play along.
Indeed. I hope smokers get together in certain restaurants and tell the government to screw off (and chip in together for a 'fine fund', just in case).

[st.cronin]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if anybody has said this or not, but, at least in America, smokers as a group use LESS health care than non-smokers (because they don't live as long, primarily).

[ISiddiqui]

So they are helping reduce health care costs! Oh yeah! ;)

[Coffee Warlord]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if anybody has said this or not, but, at least in America, smokers as a group use LESS health care than non-smokers (because they don't live as long, primarily).

And pay more anyway.

[MrBigglesworth]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if anybody has said this or not, but, at least in America, smokers as a group use LESS health care than non-smokers (because they don't live as long, primarily).
I call shenanigans. Can you provide a link to the study?

[st.cronin]

And pay more anyway.

Isn't it ironic?

[Honolulu_Blue]

You just undermined your argument. Chemical factories take steps to prevent workers don't get exposed to gases, why can't a restaurant also take those steps? What if a restaurant did want to spend the cash to provide servers with oxygen masks? Or what if it only hired smokers to work a smoking part, enclosed from the other side? Chemical factories don't have the toxic chemicals banned, they have the ability to shield those chemicals from people. Why don't restaurants?


I consider personal liberty to be part of the 'public benefit', so I wouldn't go with moderate here.

Like Jari said, where does it stop? People say using a slippery slope doesn't work here, but when you start letting the government tell you to ban smoking in your restaurants for public health, what is next?

Hell, if the government said that all restaurants must serve diet sodas and ban regular sodas, that may be 'better' for the general public's health than a smoking ban (cardiac problems are the #1 killer of Americans).


NIOSH has also recommended that sandblasting be banned because of black lung disease problems (which is what I was refering to mining about). AFAIK, it hasn't been.


Indeed. I hope smokers get together in certain restaurants and tell the government to screw off (and chip in together for a 'fine fund', just in case).
Equipping waitstaff with oxygen tanks doesn't hold up under a cost-benefit anaylsis. It'd cost too much money and interfere with their tasks. That places too much of a burden on restaurant/bar owners. Banning smoking is easier on them. Like I said, if smoking bans really hurt these people they would have been reppealed a long time ago. The dollar rules the day.

When does it stop? Remember: The dollar rules the day. The diet soda thing doesn't hold up either. If drinking regular soda caused everyone around to inject the sugar then maybe we could start talking about it. Second hand smoke harms people who don't smoke. It's like the difference between seatbelt laws and drunk driving laws. The former pretty much effects only "you", while the latter is in place to protect others and "you".

Peronsal liberties? Again, I think a person's right breath clean, smoke-free air inside (excluding private homes, but including bars, restaurants, offices, hospitals, stores, etc, etc.) out weighs the right of someone to pollute said air. From a persona liberty stand point, IMHO, I see this as a gain.

Good luck with that collective strike/sit in.

[ISiddiqui]

I call shenanigans. Can you provide a link to the study?Not sure if this is the exact one, but it does deal with the issue:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

ABSTRACT


Background Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public<SUP> </SUP>health perspective, its consequences with respect to health<SUP> </SUP>care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than<SUP> </SUP>nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health<SUP> </SUP>costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers<SUP> </SUP>and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking<SUP> </SUP>cessation.<SUP> </SUP>

Methods We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking<SUP> </SUP>on health care costs — one for a mixed population of smokers<SUP> </SUP>and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for<SUP> </SUP>a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to<SUP> </SUP>estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs<SUP> </SUP>over time.<SUP> </SUP>

Results Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as<SUP> </SUP>much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in<SUP> </SUP>a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent<SUP> </SUP>higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs<SUP> </SUP>in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If<SUP> </SUP>all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first,<SUP> </SUP>but after 15 years they would become higher than at present.<SUP> </SUP>In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a<SUP> </SUP>net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen<SUP> </SUP>as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount<SUP> </SUP>rate and evaluation period.<SUP> </SUP>

Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings<SUP> </SUP>in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually,<SUP> </SUP>smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.<SUP> </SUP>

[Klinglerware]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if anybody has said this or not, but, at least in America, smokers as a group use LESS health care than non-smokers (because they don't live as long, primarily).

Actually this is true.

Smokers insurance premiums are higher because when they do get sick, the diseases they get are catastrophic. The net savings comes from the fact that they die earlier than non-smokers.

The malthusian in me still advocates heavy taxation on cigarettes and alcohol. Smokers (and drinkers to some extent) are more or less a captive population who will tolerate a very high price point--the increased tax revenues can help subsidize health care costs (again, theoretically).

[ISiddiqui]

Equipping waitstaff with oxygen tanks doesn't hold up under a cost-benefit anaylsis. It'd cost too much money and interfere with their tasks. That places too much of a burden on restaurant/bar owners. Banning smoking is easier on them. Like I said, if smoking bans really hurt these people they would have been reppealed a long time ago. The dollar rules the day.
ARGGHHH!! How is giving the restaurant owner a choice placing "too much of a burden on them"?! How is just banning it outright making it easier?! Are you on something?!

It's like the difference between seatbelt laws and drunk driving laws. The former pretty much effects only "you", while the latter is in place to protect others and "you".
You do realize that just about every state has a law requiring you to use your seatbelt?

Peronsal liberties? Again, I think a person's right breath clean, smoke-free air inside (excluding private homes, but including bars, restaurants, offices, hospitals, stores, etc, etc.) out weighs the right of someone to pollute said air. From a persona liberty stand point, IMHO, I see this as a gain.
It's like free speech. Is a person's right to not be offended by what he consideres harmful speach outweigh your right to say offensive speech? And before you say speech has no physical effects, ask a black guy who has just seen a burning cross in front of his house.

[AlexB]

...Peronsal liberties? Again, I think a person's right breath clean, smoke-free air inside (excluding private homes, but including bars, restaurants, offices, hospitals, stores, etc, etc.) out weighs the right of someone to pollute said air. From a persona liberty stand point, IMHO, I see this as a gain.

OK - your personal liberties may be infringed as a non smoker by passive smoke. Perfectly acceptable and sensible argument. But why should everybody follow this: the smoker is having his liberties restricted.

But no-one has come up with a sensible reason why those who wish to smoke and have a drink if they want, in an establishment specifically set up to do so. The only argument I have heard is that places have the choice at the moment, and many do not have smoke free environments. OK - lets say by default pubs and restaurants are smoke free: places apply for a permit to allow people to smoke: if 60% of people want smoke free places, you only give license to 40% of the total pubs. That way everyone wins, workers can choose to work in a smoke free or smoking place, whichever they prefer: as long as the percentages match the percentage of smokers, there should not be a problem.

[sabotai]

Anyone feel like they're listening to a broken record?

(Seriously, is there nothing new to discuss that we need to redo old threads?)

And BTW, how about that farm subsidies are evil? Can't I get an amen from anyone on that!? :D

[AlexB]

Anyone feel like they're listening to a broken record?

(Seriously, is there nothing new to discuss that we need to redo old threads?)

And BTW, how about that farm subsidies are evil? Can't I get an amen from anyone on that!? :D

The ban was only voted on yesterday!

But I guess you have had the debate before based on a US/state decision... TBH I wrote my initial post for a BBC website reply, and it got fired back because it was over 500 characters (I thought it said 500 words - still might have been over :D ) and I wasn't going to waste my typing, so pasted it here.

And for the record, I wouldn't call farm subsidies 'evil' but they do defy logic in a free market economy.

[Drake]

Bottom line is that non-smokers want to congregate where smokers congregate, because smokers are, and always have been, the cool kids. Non-smokers aren't cool, and they're going to be disappointed when they realize that they've taken over the cool kids' hangouts, but the cool kids have all gone elsewhere.


Tongue planted firmly in cheek. :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

ARGGHHH!! How is giving the restaurant owner a choice placing "too much of a burden on them"?! How is just banning it outright making it easier?! Are you on something?!


You do realize that just about every state has a law requiring you to use your seatbelt?


It's like free speech. Is a person's right to not be offended by what he consideres harmful speach outweigh your right to say offensive speech? And before you say speech has no physical effects, ask a black guy who has just seen a burning cross in front of his house.
Smoking in a bar is like free speech? Are you kidding me? Free speech??? Weakest. Analogy. Ever.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Anyone feel like they're listening to a broken record?

(Seriously, is there nothing new to discuss that we need to redo old threads?)

And BTW, how about that farm subsidies are evil? Can't I get an amen from anyone on that!? :D
If your looking for the latest and greatest, I heard through the grapevine that some dude's edit button was deleted and that someone may not be dead. There may be a thread or two on that. Oh yeah, and Darko maybe traded.

[Buccaneer]

Anyone feel like they're listening to a broken record?

(Seriously, is there nothing new to discuss that we need to redo old threads?)

And BTW, how about that farm subsidies are evil? Can't I get an amen from anyone on that!? :D
Amen. (You knew you'd get one from me.)

[Dutch]

Would it be illegal to create smoking lounges that sells tobacco and also serve alchohol? Maybe play a little music, serve some dinner....might catch on.

[ISiddiqui]

Smoking in a bar is like free speech? Are you kidding me? Free speech??? Weakest. Analogy. Ever.
Yes. Both are personal liberty interests. Both have harmful effects and arguments to limit them or take them away based on those harmful effects. I'd rather not take away someone's liberty (right to breath clean air?! Are you kidding me? In Manhatten? In LA?)

[ISiddiqui]

Would it be illegal to create smoking lounges that sells tobacco and also serve alchohol? Maybe play a little music, serve some dinner....might catch on.
Yes... I believe that would be illegal.

[sabotai]

Would it be illegal to create smoking lounges that sells tobacco and also serve alchohol? Maybe play a little music, serve some dinner....might catch on.This is how it is in NJ. In bars and resturants it is illegal to smoke, but if the place sells tobacco products (and not just cigarettes), they can still allow smoking inside. And you are still allowed to smoke in casinos.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but I don't think the tobacco stores can 'serve some dinner' ;).

[sabotai]

Yeah, but I don't think the tobacco stores can 'serve some dinner' ;).I'm not exactly sure how the wording of the law goes. But wouldn't it be funny if all a resturant had to do was sell tobacco products and then be able to allow smoking?

Go to Denny's "Smoking or non?" "Isn't it illegal." "No, no, no. You can buy tobacco here, so we can still allow smoking in here."

:D

[Drake]

Yeah, but I don't think the tobacco stores can 'serve some dinner' ;).

If they have a microwave, they can serve dinner.

[Cards4ever]

I will never understand if no-smoking is in such demand, why aren't there more non-smoking bars?

As long as smoking is a legal activity, bar owners should have the right to allow smoking or ban smoking.

Why don't cops sit outside bars and give breathalyzer tests? Smoking is just the witch hunt of the 21st century.

[MrBigglesworth]

Not sure if this is the exact one, but it does deal with the issue:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052
Ah ha, exactly the problem with it that I thought there would be. It takes into account expenditures, but ignores revenues. For instance, health care costs may go up 5.5% for smokers, but since they would live 10-15 years longer they would end up paying 10-15 more years of insurance (give or take some years for medicare for some, no insurance for others, etc) into the sytem, more than offsetting the small increase in costs.