Ireland's Smoking Ban

[Kuciwalker]

Compelling public interest.

The state has a compelling public interest (public health) that overrides the comparatively unimportant right to smoke in a bar.

In the government's opinion.

[debeest]

Choice choice choice choicechoicechoeichocei choicechoiecchoicechoicechoicechoicechioce choicechiocehcioechoicechiocheocchoice choiechoeichcehochcochoechcoeichoicechoicechoice

OK, I know that you want everybody to have choices. I agree, choices are good. Can you now admit that not all choices should be allowed?

Experience has shown that when poor people are presented with a choice such as, "remove your uterus so that you can't become pregnant and put a baby at risk, or else you can't work in this lead industry anymore," poor people will make the choice to remove their uterus.

Some people think that allowing a business to present that sort of forced choice is immoral. You may disagree if you wish.

Please, stop calling ETS a minimal risk. (In all caps, yet!) Read the whole thread. The risk from ETS is very significant. If you wish to disagree, dispute the science, or else accept the consensus view of health professionals.

[Ming]

Originally posted by debeest
Choice choice choice choicechoicechoeichocei choicechoiecchoicechoicechoicechoicechioce choicechiocehcioechoicechiocheocchoice choiechoeichcehochcochoechcoeichoicechoicechoice

that sums it up pretty good

OK, I know that you want everybody to have choices. I agree, choices are good. Can you now admit that not all choices should be allowed?

I would agree... however... in this case, the choice that smokers is asking for is far less dangerous than many other choices that are allowed... and remember, we are talking about people that are smokers already... or people who don't mind being around them.

Experience has shown that when poor people are presented with a choice such as, "remove your uterus so that you can't become pregnant and put a baby at risk, or else you can't work in this lead industry anymore," poor people will make the choice to remove their uterus.
Some people think that allowing a business to present that sort of forced choice is immoral. You may disagree if you wish.

Not relevent... because working for any lead industy would be considered bad. Here, there would be an option if you are a bartender or work in the bar trade, you could choose to work in non smoking establishment if you so choose.

Please, stop calling ETS a minimal risk. (In all caps, yet!) Read the whole thread. The risk from ETS is very significant. If you wish to disagree, dispute the science, or else accept the consensus view of health professionals.

The biggest risk of ETS is to children... and we are talking about bars.

Again, you can hurt yourself more walking down the street of a major city for an hour than being in a smoking bar for an hour... a choice. You don't have to go into the smoking bar if you don't want to. Having smoking bars and non smoking bars will not force anybody to have to increase their risk if they don't want to.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ming
I have to agree with the Gimp. I don't see why their shouldn't be smoking and non smoking bars. Let the market decide the need. By reading the posts here... many people WANT smoke free bars.

Here's a situation where the market fails. Somehow, pub owners still think that operating non-smoking outfits will be bad for business, even though all statistics I know of points to the other direction.

Originally posted by Ming
I hear the ole... why should smokers impose on non smokers stuff.. fine. There are already many rules in place to make sure this doesn't happen in public places. But when it comes to private, why should the non smokers impose their will on the smokers.

It's not really a private place when it's open to the public, isn't it? Don't pubs and bars need to follow certain ordinances and regulations already, in fire, hygiene, number of stalls in bathrooms, etc?

[debeest]

The risk of ETS is to exposed people, children or not. ETS is estimated to kill over 50,000 Americans a year, mostly through heart disease, relatively few through cancer. Are you knowledgeable on the subject? What is the basis for your claim that the biggest risk is to children? Don't you think you should stick to arguing subjects you know something about, or at least acknowledge when you're just making stuff up?

My point is that employers are not allowed to expose their workers to hazards if it can be avoided. Instead, they have to reduce the exposure to the extent feasible. That's what they have to do with lead instead of requiring women to get sterilized. That's what they have to do with asbestos. Finally, they're catching up and regulating exposure to tobacco smoke as well. So -- yes, completely relevant.

The worker has to go into the bar where s/he works. Society has concluded -- rightly I think -- that the conditions imposed on workers are not entirely their choice. Few people choose to work in bars because it's a great choice; they choose it because they can't get a better job. You're saying, in essence, that people are free to choose between starving and suffering exposure to a substance that kills thousands of Americans per year. I realize it's not that stark, but that's the true nature of the choice you're "offering" workers.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ming
The biggest risk of ETS is to children... and we are talking about bars.

This does not mean ETS post no signficant danger to adults. Did you see the WHO link I posted earlier?

Originally posted by Ming
Again, you can hurt yourself more walking down the street of a major city for an hour than being in a smoking bar for an hour... a choice.

A lot has been done to aerosols and other pollutants (SOx, NOx) in the air caused mainly by internal combustion engines. The thing is, however, a person does not have to smoke, while a person has to breathe.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
A lot has been done to aerosols and other pollutants (SOx, NOx) in the air caused mainly by internal combustion engines. The thing is, however, a person does not have to smoke, while a person has to breathe.

The point is, one does not have to emit toxic fumes, whatever they are.

[Urban Ranger]

I am all for bicycles

[Solly]

Rah

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.

Only because non-smokers have not yet the habit of attending bars (mainly due to smokiness of the places in the past). In the long term the bars are likely to do much better. I would have indeed expected a short term hit to revenues due to the reasons you positted. But that hasn't happened has it Rah..

The group of heavy drinkers seem to have a higher % of smokers than the average group of people

People do tend to be stupid when they drink a lot.

[Drake Tungsten]

I am all for bicycles

Imagine that...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by debeest

You're deliberately ignoring the obvious. Choosing to drink alcohol, you endanger yourself. Choosing to smoke around other people who have no choice in your action, you endanger others.

Eh? How does drinking not have easily measurable negative effects on the safety of anyone who comes into contact with someone who drinks (eg violence, accidents etc.)? Why should the prissy folk who would use the heavy hand of government to stop people from smoking not do the same for drinking?

Originally posted by debeest
Why do some people insist that no one, anywhere, ever, for any reason, has any right to limit their choices? Do you think you have a right to take a dump on my lawn?

I'd would normally tend to respect your property rights, except you don't seem to respect mine, so yea I'd take a dump on your lawn.

Originally posted by debeest
Do you think you have a right to spray E. coli on my salad?

Of course not.

Originally posted by debeest
Do you think you have a right to shoot guns in a crowd?

It depends on the context, but generally shooting at the people in a crowd is going to be illegal as well as immoral, and should be.

Originally posted by debeest
What makes smoking different from those actions?

There isn't room enough on the web to list the ways these actions are different. It would be infinitely simpler for you to list the ways that they are similar.

[Skanky Burns]

Eh? How does drinking not have easily measurable negative effects on the safety of anyone who comes into contact with someone who drinks (eg violence, accidents etc.)? Why should the prissy folk who would use the heavy hand of government to stop people from smoking not do the same for drinking?

Alcohol only leads to problems when the person drinking it breaks the law. Not only is this a minority of drinkers, but their offences are punishable. The vast majority of drinkers do not cause any harm at all to other people.

Smokers on the other hand all cause harm to other people through second-hand smoke.

[Ming]

Originally posted by debeest
My point is that employers are not allowed to expose their workers to hazards if it can be avoided. Instead, they have to reduce the exposure to the extent feasible. That's what they have to do with lead instead of requiring women to get sterilized. That's what they have to do with asbestos. Finally, they're catching up and regulating exposure to tobacco smoke as well. So -- yes, completely relevant.

Again... you ignore the fact that the situation is completely different since there could be smoking and non smoking bars for people to CHOOSE to work in... You keep bringing up sterilized women as a strawman argument... nothing to do with this what so ever...

The worker has to go into the bar where s/he works. Society has concluded -- rightly I think -- that the conditions imposed on workers are not entirely their choice. Few people choose to work in bars because it's a great choice; they choose it because they can't get a better job.

Have you ever worked in a bar... maybe you should stick to supjects you know something about Many people choose to work in bars because they like the life style and the pay. You are basically saying that working in a bar is a crappy job... Maybe you look down your nose at people who work in bars... but many would disagree with you.

You're saying, in essence, that people are free to choose between starving and suffering exposure to a substance that kills thousands of Americans per year. I realize it's not that stark, but that's the true nature of the choice you're "offering" workers.

Being a little over dramitic aren't you... and totally unrealistic.
People could choose NOT to work in a bar that allowed smoking... you seem to imply that them doing so is the only way they could live and that they would have no choice... yeah, right.. There would be smoke free bars that these "poor and miserable second class citizens" could work in if they were forced to work in such a terrible establishment as a bar for slave wages... And non smoking bars (as proposed by people in this thread) would only consititute a small portion of the overall market... ensuring that people would have the choice to avoid working in such a place if they didn't want the risk...

And you also seem to overlook that if the person smoked... the additional risk would be almost non existent... There are far greater risks that the government already allows... to pick on this one is just pure discrimination of users of a legal product, and one that the government makes a ton of money off of through user taxes.

[our_man]

~~~

[C0ckney]

yeah, our government is planning to have a crackdown on 'binge drinking'. to achieve this they want to ban '10 quid, all you can drink' style offers and raise the price of drinks across the board.


Last comment edited by Ming... I was unaware that the "c" word got past the censor in it's plural form... that word isn't allowed