IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Sit in the non smoking section it works for me and I'm actually allergic to cigarette smoke.
Anti-Smoking Tyrants Killing Scotland's Pubs
- Thread starter AnyOldIron
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"And bars can provide ventillated smoking zones...."
The problem lies in the fact that when a bar is crowded and the smokers light up, the ventilation systems cannot suck it up fast enough. Even in the ones that have high end ventilators, you still go home smelling like an ashtray.
The problem lies in the fact that when a bar is crowded and the smokers light up, the ventilation systems cannot suck it up fast enough. Even in the ones that have high end ventilators, you still go home smelling like an ashtray.
If I choose to work in an environment that has smoke, then I too am choosing to take on that risk. It is the same, just one is more popular to trash than the other.
You get to drive your car, which UK published studies show causes children to have smaller lungs, why are we not banning automobiles?
Working to make them cleaner is not a good argument, they could work to make a "cleaner" environment by using high-powered filtration in bars with smoking.
What is popular or not definitely plays a factor in what they decide to ban.
Thorn
Member
I resisted trading in my old Jeep for years because of that; finally I relented, and took out the fuses for the airbags first thing. The symbol shows up chronically on the dash, but it's worth it. It isn't just the airbag itself, which is bad enough (my owner's manual has several pages dealing with the hazards of this "safety" feature!), but the cover can seriously cut you when it flies off. The NHTSB doesn't collect data on airbag-produced injuries, either.
At the same time, though, I never even turn the key until I'm buckled up.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
But, in general, in my view "personal freedom" ends where it infringes on the rights and safety of others. Those waitresses have to work 8-hour shifts in clouds of carcinogenic smoke. One function the government legitimately has, to to ensure adequate worker safety.
Yet people work around traffic, which kicks out carcinogens, and there is no campaign to end traffic?
Yet people work around traffic, which kicks out carcinogens, and there is no campaign to end traffic?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Smoking is just all around bad. It's a terrible addiction, and it's hard to kick, and I understand that, having kicked it myself. But nobody wants to be around a smoker. It's just time for people to realize that and stop trying to defend these rights. It stinks up the whole place, and if you're around it it stinks you up. It's bad for everybody who comes into contact with it.
There is nothing that forces non-smokers being around smokers.
If there is a market for non-smoking pubs, the market will provide them. If people wish to work in a non-smoking pubs, then they are the ones they can work in.
But people can't complain about working in smoking pub if they knew the pub was smoking when they applied for the job. Its like complaining about the hours they are working when they signed up for those hours in the contract.
As for smoking being bad, should we ban anything that some people might consider to be bad? How about banning alcohol, or driving?
There is nothing that forces non-smokers being around smokers.
If there is a market for non-smoking pubs, the market will provide them. If people wish to work in a non-smoking pubs, then they are the ones they can work in.
But people can't complain about working in smoking pub if they knew the pub was smoking when they applied for the job. Its like complaining about the hours they are working when they signed up for those hours in the contract.
As for smoking being bad, should we ban anything that some people might consider to be bad? How about banning alcohol, or driving?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Correct. The other difference is that stuntmen, miners etc... CHOOSE to work in the professions that they do. The risk they take is to themselves. Smoking creates a risk not only to the smoker, but to those around the smoker. A big difference.
The person, when applying for the job, should ask if its a smoking or non-smoking environment.... They have a choice...
The person, when applying for the job, should ask if its a smoking or non-smoking environment.... They have a choice...
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I should read the whole thread before posting. People have already raised my points.
uscitizen
Villified User
No one would touch that Anyold. It has been shown that children living in high traffic levels have stunted lungs......
The automobile is next to god in the USA.
Why do you think we make deals with the satan of big oil like invading Iraq ?
In my view this is like allowing coal mine companies to volutarily decide if they will use air filtering equipment, to mitigate the effects of air quality on their mining employees.
In the libertarian world, one could argue that miners then have a choice: they can work in mines with clean air, or in mines with poisonous air. It's the beauty of the wonderous free market.
I don't buy it. Some risks aren't preventable, in a realistic sense. Some risks can realistically be mitigated Cars are the backbone of the economy. We have indeed regulated their emissions. We've taken lead out of fuel, and today's cars emit - what - 10% of what cars in the 1950s did? But, we can't simply eliminate cars altogether.
Having employees work 8-hour shifts in smokey bars is something that can be mitigated.
That's nothing like that. It would be if they were forcing bars to put in stronger systems of filtration to mitigate the effects of air quality on their employees.
Instead they use the unpopularity of the item to simply ban it entirely. Once again, previously in this thread and now again, it has been shown that the popularity of the substance effects the laws.
It would put more than just bar owners out if they simply banned the practice of mining altogether to totally mitigate the danger. It would make energy more expensive, etc.
In the case of the pubs in Scotland it appears that it effets the bars negatively, some people who would otherwise be working have lost jobs. But the effect is only to a minority of people so it is all good.
The second hand effects of smoke, is well-documented medically and is a significant risk. And eight hour shift in a smoky bar, is probably equivalent to smoking two packs of smokes. I don't think it can be written off as a popularity contest.
No one is banning smoking. They're banning smoking inside an enclosed area, where employees work in 8 hour shifts.
No one has yet explained to me, what exactly is so horrible about stepping out on the patio or sidewalk to light up, before heading back to your ale.
No one is banning smoking. They're banning smoking inside an enclosed area, where employees work in 8 hour shifts.
No one has yet explained to me, what exactly is so horrible about stepping out on the patio or sidewalk to light up, before heading back to your ale.
uscitizen
Villified User
We have also delayed emission controls and mileage requirements (linked) for reasons of profit over health...
As well as the effects of breathing the fumes from your car is well documented to be a danger to others. Why are they not making laws to "mitigate" it in the same way and banning the use of that item, which is far more detrimental and prevalent than the other?
There is nothing "horrible" about stepping out to smoke. I did it all the time when I did smoke.
There is something "horrible" about banning the use.
In CO, to get the license to own the bar you had to allow the smoking, there was no choice, now you have to ban the smoknig, again there is no choice. Allow these people to make choices best for their business.
If I owned three bars, two would have smoking the other would not. If they would allow me the choice.
uscitizen
Villified User
That is not possible in many bars due to restrictions on how close to a door you can smoke...I guess you could stand in the middle of the street....
also Cypress not everyone lives in warm CA, gets darned cold out there
But then since I don't drink in Bars this is not an issue for me, they can all close as far as I personally am concerned.
That is not possible in many bars due to restrictions on how close to a door you can smoke...I guess you could stand in the middle of the street....
also Cypress not everyone lives in warm CA, gets darned cold out there
But then since I don't drink in Bars this is not an issue for me, they can all close as far as I personally am concerned.
this is a good point. I suppose in sub-zero weather, going outside to light up would really suck.
That is not possible in many bars due to restrictions on how close to a door you can smoke...I guess you could stand in the middle of the street....
also Cypress not everyone lives in warm CA, gets darned cold out there
But then since I don't drink in Bars this is not an issue for me, they can all close as far as I personally am concerned.
Aww...lol. I don't care if people smoke at the door usc. I have seen some uptight types, waiving their arms as if they were going to be poisoned on their way in the door. They're silly. I never make people feel uncomfortable like that. That's over the line.
But I agree with Cypress overall. You can't really have a no-smoking section in a bar, the way you can in a restaurant. And your clothes and hair end up stinking by the end of the night.
And we could have legislated better filtration to mitigate the other.
However, the unpopularity of the item, and the fact that the largest effects would be to a minority of the population, makes it more popular to just ban it entirely rather than attempt to mitigate, or compromise on a solution that would allow the maximum freedom with a good success at mitigating the effects.