UMMM, I don’t think so. They can get in a cab, or on a bus or walk home. That’s what responsible people do.
I am an ex smoker (three years and going strong, whoo-hoo)but I think that banning public smoking is a tiny bit over the top.
That said, you know what really pisses me off? When I go to some groovie little cafe and the smoking section is the fatastic balcony with the wonderful view. All I want is to enjoy the wonderful sun and clean air and I can’t because the smokers need some place that’s “well ventilated” so they can enjoy their habit. I guess I’ll just look out the window.
Boy, I really didn’t mean for that to turn into a rant, I guess that’s what I get for drinking and posting.
C’mon now. I know that’s what “responsible” people are supposed to do but how many people actually take a cab or a bus or walk home after a night of drinking? According to the statistics for people killed because of drunk driving, not the majority, that’s for sure.
No. What I will tell you is that OSHA and a few other laws mandated the coal mines, and other employment cites, to take measures to protect their employees. In the case of the miners, 'twas breathing filters.
So your comparison is not only lame, IMHO, but is also invalid.
And yet, in bars, they just ban the problem. THAT was Rico’s point… in mines and factories, they take steps to keep the air clean even with the impurities being generated. Why can’t they do the same thing in bars? You can go out and by a handful of $500 breathing filters to improve the air quality… bars would be more willing to pay THAT than have to deal with a silly “No smoking” law.
So what will happen when cases like this occur more and more throughout the world? This one was here in Australia:
"A woman contracted throat cancer because of years of passive smoking she endured during her employment as a barmaid in New South Wales, Australia, a court decided.
Marlene Sharp, 63, sued the Port Kembla RSL (recreational club) for negligence claiming her cancer was caused by years of breathing other people’s smoke while working at the club.
The four-man Supreme Court jury took about four hours to decide the club had been negligent and awarded her more than 450,000 Australian dollars in damages.
In legal argument following the jury’s verdict, Mrs Sharp’s barrister, Mr Peter Semmler, QC, said the result was a world first.
“This is the first time in the world that anyone has been awarded damages for cancer caused by environmental tobacco smoke,” he said. Mr Semmler said the first case of this type was heard in the United States in April this year but was unsuccessful.
Mrs Sharp, a non-smoker, told the jury that about 80 per cent of the patrons at the Port Kembla RSL Club, in Wollongong, were smokers. She worked at the club from 1984 to 1995.
“The smoke seemed to rise and come straight at me. There were people sitting, smoking, drinking, exhaling. Cigarettes in the ashtrays burning away. It wasn’t very nice,” Mrs Sharp said."
I understand when you work in a pub you accept certian things, you figure you will have to deal with quite a few drunks, you know you will get at least one or two beers spilled on you, and you will work almost every friday night, but should you expect to get throat cancer? Is that just part of the job?
Just a thought.
Speaking of which … how much ventilation would an indoor bar need before it was as well-ventilated as an outdoor bar? And could such a place qualify as “outdoors” for purposes of anti-smoking laws?
tracer:I said that the W.H.O. suppressed a study showing that marijuana isn’t all that bad for you.
To be fair, tracer, according to the link you provided, even the authors of the study said that the W.H.O. did not “suppress” their study. What they apparently did do was to refrain from quoting the study’s findings explicitly in a final report. They did cite the study and provide copies of it on request. Admittedly, I would be more impressed if they had let the bolder language explicitly comparing cannabis with alcohol and tobacco stand, but this does not seem to me in the same league with actually trying to quash the study itself.
SPOOFE:You can go out and by a handful of $500 breathing filters to improve the air quality… bars would be more willing to pay THAT than have to deal with a silly “No smoking” law.
You really think so? Think bar patrons are going to find it cheery to see their bartenders and waiters behind surgical-mask-looking thingies that just drive home the fact that the atmosphere is sorta poisonous? I’m inclined to think that once bars have to take any step that overtly reminds people “Yes, all this smoke in here is quite bad for you”, they’ve got a serious PR problem. What about lawsuits in response to illegal firings when a bartender insists on wearing a breathing filter and the bar owner doesn’t want him to because it might repel the patrons? You sure that at that point, bar owners wouldn’t rather just accept a general smoking ban that at least would cause the same amount of hassle for all the competition too?
Whoops, you probably mean the standalone breathing filters and not the personal mask systems, don’t you? Yes, that would probably be more inconspicuous. Never mind (Emily Latella here too).
You mean such things actually do exist, and are effective enough to reduce the amount of cigarette smoke in the air to non-smoking or near-non-smoking levels?
Actually tracer, I thought so when I wrote that, but now I’m not so sure. All the “breathing filters” I come up with seem to be meant for use with “supply-air respirators”, which sounds like the “personal mask system” bit I was talking about. Are there “ambient air cleaners” that are as effective as mask/filter systems?
Yes, Kim, I was referring to the sort of air purifier that you just toss in a corner and let it do its work… although I guess I was a bit ambiguous in distinguishing those from the air cleansing masks that miners wear.
And, yup, they do exist. This site details some purifier units that they say can greatly improve cigarette smoke problems.
One little thing I cannot for the life of me understand:
I am not supposed to smoke. It is not good for me, and you shouldn’t have to die fromm inhaling my second hand smoke.
If smoking is so bad for people, why doesn’t the government go all the way and just ban tobacco? Make it an illegal drug. Confiscate farms and jail the farmer if the he has the gall to grow it. After all, it kills many and makes everyone else sick. And no industry (with perhaps the exception of oil companies) is hated as much as the evil tobacco company.
Good idea, you say? Well, it will never happen. They raise the taxes to keep me from smoking so much, but if everyone quits smoking and tax revenue from tobacco falls, I am then responsible for the budget shortfall. I can’t win for losing. They want my cigarette tax money, but don’t want me to smoke. Should I buy the cigarette and just throw them away instead of smoking them?
Ironic, ain’t it?
As for a ban on indoor smoking, I think that should be up to the business or location to decide what is in its best interest. Joe’s Bar and Grill could allow smoking everywhere but Fife’s Bar and Disco could ban smoking. If a toy store or book store or department store wants to allow smokers to light up in the aisles, then there shouldn’t be a law preventing that business from making that decision. Each place makes its own rules about smoking. If Bob Jones doesn’t like smoke than he patronizes a smoke-free place. Sally Smith smoke like a chimney than she visits places where smoking is allowed. Very simple. But no, very simple is not good enough for some people. Some people just will not be satisfied until the blessed, beatific Governments gets to us how to live our lives and run our businesses.
As a bit of background, I quit smoking in September of 1998 and would spend my money in a smoke free establishment or one that segregated smokers. If there was something I wanted that could only be obtained in smoker’s place I would have to make the decision if it was worth it or not. If my office decided to allow smoking inside, then I would have to make the decision if it was worthwhile remaining employed there
Pyrrhonist: *As for a ban on indoor smoking, I think that should be up to the business or location to decide what is in its best interest. Joe’s Bar and Grill could allow smoking everywhere but Fife’s Bar and Disco could ban smoking. If a toy store or book store or department store wants to allow smokers to light up in the aisles, then there shouldn’t be a law preventing that business from making that decision. Each place makes its own rules about smoking. *
The trouble with that strategy is that it is fairly clearly established by now that smoke is, to some extent at least, a health risk. As I pointed out when Wildest Bill started a thread making the same argument, I don’t hear any proponents of “market solutions” on the smoking issue complaining because the “blessed, beatific Government” makes Joe’s employees wash their hands after using the toilet or forbids Fife to block the fire exits. We mostly seem to have accepted the idea that the government plays a legitimate role in making rules that minimize certain health and safety risks in places of public access, and these days that includes the risks from cigarette smoke.
Hey Pyrrhonist, there is a bar here that banned all smoking and business WENT UP, did you have something to do with that? think I know where you have been spending your friday nights!
