Ireland's Smoking Ban

[Gibsie]

You can take away that which makes the smoky bar dangerous, but you can't do it for a mine. If you could, gee, don't you think the government or unionns would demand it?! Hello, anyone in there Ming?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I've got a real urge to stand outside the doorway of a non-smoking pub and blow *** smoke in through the door.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Gibsie
You can take away that which makes the smoky bar dangerous, but you can't do it for a mine. If you could, gee, don't you think the government or unionns would demand it?! Hello, anyone in there Ming?

I can't argue with your point.

However, it is still the choice of the employee in both cases to assume the risk. If you don't want to work in a smoky bar... you don't HAVE to. If you don't think the employment benefit out weights the "marginal" risk, you can find a place where there is no smoke.

Bus drivers who sit in traffic all day could be fitted with oxygen masks to remove any harmful effects of car pollution... but gee... the government doesn't think enough of them to protect them, and unions don't demand it

We are talking about degrees of danger... and second hand smoke is no worse than what most people face walking down the street... something else they really can't avoid.

[Gibsie]

You don't have to? Tell that to someone who left school at 16 and has worked solely in bars and attained no other skills, who gets diagnosed with some nasty pulmonary disease as a result of all the time he or she have spent in smoky bars. If the government doesn't act, then people have no choice- how many bars do you know that have banned smoking entirely through choice?

Also, I wouldn't know about bus-drivers, I don't really understand the point since they're not exposed to fumes any more than the rest of us? However, on that point, do you think it was wrong for governments to ban smoking on buses out of respect for those who work on them?

[debeest]

One last try.

The scientific evidence indicates that ETS is hazardous, responsible for a great deal of heart disease and cancer and childhood asthma. You can argue about the evidence, but this is the consensus of the groups of scientific experts that society usually relies on, for good reason.

We regulate hazards in order to protect people, even though regulation inevitably constrains people's choices and has other costs. We do it in the workplace, we do it in consumer products, we do it with laws against assault and rape. We do it with asbestos, we do it with chromium, we do it with PCBs. Why wouldn't we do it with tobacco, which is clearly the leading cause of death in America?

ETS is not the leading cause of death, but the risk assessment numbers I discussed way earlier in this thread demonstrate that ETS is indeed a large hazard by EPA standards, and not trivial even by OSHA's inadequate standards.

Banning smoking from workplaces does not cost money to the owners of bars and restaurants. So what if bar owners are afraid it does? It doesn't.

So, there's a significant health hazard, and we can control exposure through a method that costs business owners nothing, and has only one downside: smokers have to go outside to smoke.

Feel free to ignore these facts, distract attention from them by raising irrelevancies, misrepresent my meaning, fabricate straw man arguments, or even, if you want to be reasonable, try to provide evidence that ETS is not significantly harmful to health or does significantly reduce business profits. If you can demonstrate large costs to business, be prepared to present a cost-benefit analysis showing that the benefits of protecting worker (and public) health are outweighed by the costs to businesses, and further demonstrate why businesses should be allowed to impose the health hazard on their customers when other businesses are not allowed to do so.

[rah]

If 95% of bars were smokefree, Employees would have a choice. And all the rest of your arguements, while mostly true, don't apply. All I want is a couple so I can smoke while I have a drink without bothering non-smokers. Your fanatasism to deny a few specialized bars to those of us that are addicted and have tried to quit many times without success just makes you look like a thoughtless person, no matter how you try to justify forcing your will on the whole. I'd hate to think you show similar compasion to those with other addictions.

[Arrian]

I really don't see why there can't just be a different (and more expensive) liquor license that allows smoking in the establishment. Or maybe only allow the licenses for bars with more than 1 floor, so that they can have a smoking floor and non-smoking floor (because I think we all know that a "smoking section" on the same floor doesn't work). There are a couple of places in Boston I can think of off the top of my head where that would work.

At the end of the day, I don't really care that much. I don't mind going outside, except for during the worst part of winter. But I don't see why it has to be all or nothing.

-Arrian

p.s. The economic argument is rather silly - people will still go to bars and drink, regardless of the smoking ban.

[rah]

I buy the economic arguement for resturants since most people go to eat over smoking so I wouldn't expect much losses, but i tend to believe stand alone bars would take a hit. Heck, I don't frequent bars much anymore since I can't smoke. I'm sure there are more smokers not going as much to bars than non-smokers now going more to bars because of less smoke. The group of heavy drinkers seem to have a higher % of smokers than the average group of people.

[Dauphin]

If smokers don't go to bars, then where do they go? I'd have thought that even if bars lose money to no-smoking laws that other areas would pick up the disposable cash somehow.

[Arrian]

Yep - liquor stores. Better bang for the buck anyway, and then you can go home and smoke all you want.

-Arrian

p.s. And not have to listen to godawful "music" blasted at high volume, either.

[debeest]

RAH, I already commented above that I could imagine your solution working, although I have reservations about it.

If I'm a fanatic (now who's making personal attacks?), I'm a fanatic for honest and accurate discussion rather than dishonesty, evasion, irrelevancy, distortion, and so on. I think you've written reasonably, but others have not.

Actually, I'm full of compassion. I support funding for programs to help addicts quit. I support removal of price supports for tobacco growers. I support advertising that will help convince people not to start smoking. I would support a phased-in, age-dependent restriction on tobacco purchases that would allow all current smokers to buy tobacco for the rest of their lives, while making it illegal for anyone currently under age ever to buy tobacco. Some would call that age discrimination, but I think it would be a reasonable way to eventually stamp out the leading cause of death without putting the burden on addicts.

I also have compassion for people who have to work in bars and restaurants (when you talk about workers having a choice, consider how much choice you have if that's the best job you can find).

Consider whether you'd make the same recommendation of "just a few workplaces where we can stir up asbestos without having to bother to protect people from it." Consider whether you'd recommend "just a few workplaces where you have to drink some alcohol on the job, whether or not you're already an alcoholic." Yes, the risk of ETS is smaller, but the logic is the same.

Bottom line again:

ETS kills lots of people.

Banning workplace smoking has little or no cost other than sending people outside if they must smoke.

Arguments based on personal choice are usually overridden by large public health exigencies.

Why should smoking in bars be an exception?

[rah]

In all bars, I'm not concerned with and I agree, but for a few smoking clubs/bars, I dissagree. If 95% of the bars are non-smoking, there is considerable choice. Especially if they get paid a bit more. How about topless bars? THere are not many of them either. Do they mean that girls don't have choice of not working in one? Most choose not to, but some want to make more money and that's there choice.

Maybe not the best comparison but Heck, it's always fun to bring them into the discussion.

[Gibsie]

Screenshot!

Also I think that there should remain some bars where smoking is allowed under license, we gotta make some allowances for the less fortunate junkies in our midst

And heck, if any great number of people addicted to asbestos demand it, I say why not let a limited number of asbestos bars open up as well!

[debeest]

RAH, I don't want to beat this to death, but I worked for almost 20 years in workplace health and safety. It's a tenet in the biz that you don't expose people to significant risk unless it's unavoidable. In coal mining, risk is unavoidable, and the product has high value to society, so rather than banning coal mining, they regulate it to reduce the risk as far as is economically feasible. Same with asbestos: construction work, or brake work, or asbestos mining or processing, cannot be made free of risk from asbestos exposure, so there are regulations to reduce the risk.

Since banning smoking is an easy and highly effective way to reduce the risk from tobacco smoke, and there is no economic argument to balance against it, there's not considered to be any valid reason to allow some workers to be exposed to unnecessary risk. Paying them more for their excess risk is considered to be an immoral way of taking advantage of the poor.

You may well disagree with the rationale, but it's just not done.

[Ming]

But again... what if they don't care if they are exposed to a MINIMAL potential increased risk... and what if they are smokers already? Then there is really no increased risk. People make their own choices on their health EVERY day... you seem to be ignoring that fact. It would be really easy to out law food that is bad for you... but people want it. You keep talking about the poor people who are forced to work in such an enviornment... that's not what this discussion has envolved to any more. People are talking about seperate and limited establishments where smoking is allowed... and people have a choice to enter or work there or not... no different than stopping at a fast food place... So your rationale doesn't hold water