Ireland's Smoking Ban

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

We're a society. That means that our lives do impact on those of others. It could be smelling their *** smoke, or it could be inhaling their diesel fumes. That happens.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

If smoke free and smoker bars were established, people would have a choice...

That is a worse position than smokers sections in a bar. Rather than have your friends go off a few yards they have to go to a different bar, OR you have to stay all night in a smokey bar.

Well there's the option of finding new friends, or trying to compel your existing friends to share your values.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
We're a society. That means that our lives do impact on those of others. It could be smelling their *** smoke, or it could be inhaling their diesel fumes. That happens.

Yeah. People shoot each other. People break into your house and steal all your stuff. People steal your identity and make it impossible for you to get credit or pay off all the bills they charged against you. That happens. No reason we should interfere with their choices to do those things.

[rah]

I'm a smoker. I have no problem going into resturants or work and only smoke outdoors. I've gotten used to it. Even in places that I do smoke, like casinos I try to be very considerate of those that are annoyed by the smoke. Like majorly reducing how much I smoke, moving to the other end of the table, and just paying attention to where my smoke is going. I usually ask the person next to me before I light up to see where there tolerance level is.

BUT, it would be nice to have a sanctuary where I could smoke when I'm out, without standing out in the freezing cold, or jungle heat to snatch a 30 second smoke. I can understand why most of you would want smoke free areas, but is it too much to ask that we have at least a few places where we could smoke? Speciallized smoking bars would accomplish that. I'm not asking for every bar to be one, just one or two so I can choose to patronize them.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Well there's the option of finding new friends, or trying to compel your existing friends to share your values.

Would you dump all your non-smoking friends if it meant you could have a drag at a pub?

[Sava]

Originally posted by rah
I'm a smoker. I have no problem going into resturants or work and only smoke outdoors. I've gotten used to it. Even in places that I do smoke, like casinos I try to be very considerate of those that are annoyed by the smoke. Like majorly reducing how much I smoke, moving to the other end of the table, and just paying attention to where my smoke is going. I usually ask the person next to me before I light up to see where there tolerance level is.

BUT, it would be nice to have a sanctuary where I could smoke when I'm out, without standing out in the freezing cold, or jungle heat to snatch a 30 second smoke. I can understand why most of you would want smoke free areas, but is it too much to ask that we have at least a few places where we could smoke? Speciallized smoking bars would accomplish that. I'm not asking for every bar to be one, just one or two so I can choose to patronize them.

Can I have your computer when you DIE OF CANCER MUHAHA?

[rah]

Yes, that is the type of tolerance that we have come to expect from non-smokers.

[Sava]

Originally posted by rah
Yes, that is the type of tolerance that we have come to expect from non-smokers.

I'm a smoker... just not cigarettes



What's the point if it doesn't get you high?

[debeest]

RAH, I think you present a much more reasonable case than most. I can imagine working out a situation with a few smoking bars. The California law provides a list of places that are exempt from the law, including tobacco shops (duh!), stage plays where smoking is integral to the story, modest portions of hotel facilities, and so on. one exemption is for private truck cabs where only smokers are present. Driving alone or with a smoker? Fire up! Driving with a non-smoker? Respect his health and keep your pack in your pocket.

It's harder to include bars in the exempted group, because you're usually talking about several exposed workers rather than just one as in a truck cab.

California law also allowed for installation of ventilation systems, if they could be demonstrated to be effective enough. No one bothered to do that.

[Ming]

Originally posted by debeest
But until you can find reputable studies supporting your point, you might want to acknowledge the validity of the whole collection of reputable studies that show you to be wrong. Remember, your friends are reading this, wondering whether you're a bullheaded idiot determined to ignore the evidence.

Unless you have seen the technical appendixes of the studies you are quoting from, how do you know if the are reputable

And why ther personal attack at the end... I'm discussing the issues, and you seem to want to make personal insults... not allowed at this site

The laws are based on worker protection. It is long established that employers have greater power than workers and that workers must therefore be protected against them. If people were blowing asbestos around the room instead of smoke, would you still say "It's the owner's right?" Remember, your friends are watching what you say here.

No need to watch what I say... your comparison isn't a good one. Blowing asbestos around the room would be illegal. Smoking is a legal product.

Car pollution in major cities is a major health hazard. On days with high pollution, deaths increase detectably. And every toxic insult that you add to the mix adds to the hazard. Don't dismiss one because there's another one that we haven't yet been able to control.

I'm not dismissing one... just point out the inconsistency in the laws. Using your logic, cars should be outlawed by the government because of the health hazzard.

Again, it's about the workers. There are good reasons why you can't put workers into the position of saying "OK, I'll work in the dangerous smoky bar."

Yet the government has no problems letting coal miners make that decision.

No one is discriminated against by broad smoking bans. Only the activity, inside the place of employment, is prohibited.

Smokers are being discrimiated against

So again... having smoking and non smoking bars would be a fairer than saying only non smoking bars. And to solve your work place danger point... make it a rule that only smokers could work in them... because second hand smoke isn't going to hurt them anymore than they have already chosen to hurt themselves...

[rah]

Yes, just a couple of places. You could even pay the help a little more because of the associated risk. Not much different from coal miners who get a premium pay due to the added risks. If it was only a few, the arguement for saying the workers don't have a choice loses it's punch. If severly limited, I bet they would be quite lucrative.

[Solly]

It's really funny how arguments swing one way when just the Europeans are awake and then swing back when America gets out of bed..anyway

Ming

"So again... having smoking and non smoking bars would be a fairer than saying only non smoking bars."

How do you decide which bars are smoking and which are non-smoking?

Wouldn't the best solution be for smokers to somehow pay for ventilation? Perhaps through a surcharge for those who wish to smoke..

[Ming]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Wouldn't the best solution be for smokers to somehow pay for ventilation? Perhaps through a surcharge for those who wish to smoke..

I don't know about the "best" solution... (I still think seperate smoking and non smoking bars is the better) but I wouldn't mind paying more to drink in a place I can smoke. Now, I vote with my pocket book and frequent establishments that allow me to smoke, even if it costs more.

Since it is a legal product, I still think the owner of private establishments should be able to make their own decision on this issue. And if the government wants to make money by issuing special licenses like they do for booze... fine by me.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Ming
And why ther personal attack at the end... I'm discussing the issues, and you seem to want to make personal insults... not allowed at this site

I didn't attack anyone; I just noted that people would learn a lot about you from your responses, so you might want to take a rational sensible approach if you didnt want to look foolish.

No need to watch what I say... your comparison isn't a good one. Blowing asbestos around the room would be illegal. Smoking is a legal product.

Oh puh-leeeze. It's a perfectly good comparison. Making it illegal to smoke in bars and restaurants is exactly what we're discussing here. It IS illegal in California, in NYC, and now in Ireland. The decision to ban smoking in workplaces puts dangerous smoking properly in the same position as dangerous asbestos. So, try again. How is protecting workers against ETS different from protecting workers from asbestos?

Using your logic, cars should be outlawed by the government because of the health hazzard.

Oh puh-leeeze again. Are you suggesting that air pollution from cars is not regulated, specifically with the intent of reducing hazard? If smoking was as integral to our society as cars are, we wouldn't be able to ban smoking in workplaces any more than we've banned cars. But cars have value to society far far greater than tobacco does. Thus, we control the hazards in different ways.

Yet the government has no problems letting coal miners make that decision.

Oh, puh-leeeeze yet again! Coal mining is inherently dangerous. We take steps to reduce the danger; in fact, there's an entire federal agency, MSHA, comparable to OSHA, with its own extensive set of regulations for mine safety and health. So, now we're also taking steps to make bar and restaurant workers safe too. You're objecting to that. Is that the position you really want to adopt?

Smokers are being discrimiated against

OK, I'll give you some credence on this one. The law applies to everyone, not just to smokers. From that point of view there's no discrimination. But of course it only affects smokers, because they're the ones who want to smoke. From that point of view there's discrimination.

It's exactly parallel to the gay marriage discussion.

By this definition, we also discriminate against people who drink and drive. Call it discrimination if you want to. I for one am not afraid to discriminate on the basis of protecting public health against other people's dangerous personal choices.

[Ming]

Originally posted by debeest
I didn't attack anyone; I just noted that people would learn a lot about you from your responses, so you might want to take a rational sensible approach if you didnt want to look foolish.

I am taking a rationale approach... just because it is different than yours doesn't make one more sensible than the other.
And that's my point... I'm sticking to the discussion, you seem to want to be saying somebody (a person) is not being sinsible or or rational

Oh puh-leeeze. It's a perfectly good comparison. Making it illegal to smoke in bars and restaurants is exactly what we're discussing here. It IS illegal in California, in NYC, and now in Ireland.

But it is not illegal in most of the world...

The decision to ban smoking in workplaces puts dangerous smoking properly in the same position as dangerous asbestos. So, try again. How is protecting workers against ETS different from protecting workers from asbestos?

There is a big difference to blowing asbestos around the room then second hand smoke. The level of hazard based on the test show it to be marginal at best... and some experts still claim there is no real proof. Where as the dangers of asbestos are well know, documented, and not disputed.

Oh puh-leeeze again. Are you suggesting that air pollution from cars is not regulated, specifically with the intent of reducing hazard?

Did I suggest that? While it might be regulated, the danger still exists... and has been proven to be a far greater danger than second hand smoke even at it's current regulated stage.

If smoking was as integral to our society as cars are, we wouldn't be able to ban smoking in workplaces any more than we've banned cars. But cars have value to society far far greater than tobacco does. Thus, we control the hazards in different ways.

Oh... you make it sound like we have contoled or removed the problem of air polution from cars So your argument would be that if there was a value to society for blowing asbestos across the room, you would have no problem with it

[quote]
Oh, puh-leeeeze yet again! Coal mining is inherently dangerous. We take steps to reduce the danger; in fact, there's an entire federal agency, MSHA, comparable to OSHA, with its own extensive set of regulations for mine safety and health. So, now we're also taking steps to make bar and restaurant workers safe too. You're objecting to that. Is that the position you really want to adopt?
[quote]

Again... I must ask, do the all the regulations make it totally safe to work in a coal mine? Even with the rules, it's still more dangerous to work in a coal mine than work in a smoking bar... yet we allow one and now you want to take the right away from a bar owner to make his own choice? On what basis?

There are many things that people do that are harmful to themselves... smoking, fast food, no exercise, drinking... all legal. If smoking and non smoking bars were established, there would be a real choice, and no discrimination. How is this any different.