Here in Ireland, since something like March of this year, we have had a total smoking ban in all places where there are workers; so you can’t smoke in any pub, restaurant, shopping centre, bus, company vehicle, etc etc. There are no smoking rooms in any offices any more and any smokers have to smoke outside the building. The only place you can smoke is outside in the air or in your own home or in another private house, with, of course the owner’s consent. You can smoke in prison, too, now as I think of it, but that’s about it.
Before the ban came in there was a lot of huffing and puffing ( ) abut how it wouldn’t work and how the pub culture was so ingrained that no one’d stand for it in pubs and I reckon the pub culture here is as big a part of life as it is over there. But by and large it passed off pretty peacefully and while there have been a few high profile attempts at defying it, mostly everyone now just gets on with it. Sure, there are pubs where the landlord lets people smoke, after hours or on the sly, but by and large, the ban seems to have been pretty succesful.
Will the smokers across the Irish Sea be more defiant than us? Are we more complacent than them? I don’t know, but I’ll be interested to see what does happen.
Anybody from over there who wants to see what it’s like to have a complete ban should come over here for a visit. Speaking as a smoker who was horrified at the notion, when I first heard about it, I have to say it isn’t all that bad and anyone I know who smokes has just got on with it.
There are some smoke free pubs, however, they’re very few and far between.
Based on debates I’ve had on other message boards on this very topic, it seems that the revenue from tax on tobacco far outweighs the cost of treating smoking related diseases via the NHS.
I quit 15 months ago. Would I react to this proposal differently now to then? Not really.
I didn’t mind going outside in California (and eventually New York) for a fag (‘cigarette’ in British English - you could imagine the reactions to the question “can I bum a fag?”: “I dunno. Get him drunk?”). It was a curiously social action, since you feel a camaraderie with your fellow outcasts with a ready-made reason for small talk if they were quite fanciable.
What did annoy me was when places were so busy that if you went outside you would not be allowed back in: this did cause difficulties if there was absolutely no place to smoke whatsoever, so I just went ahead and smoked anyway.
Now I’ve quit, I still have sympathy for the smoker. Pubs and restaurants should still make it possible to smoke somewhere in the vicinity, and establishments should be allowed to apply for a smoking license, or have air-conditioned areas.
Try this in Spain or Italy, by the way, and you’ll be laughed out of parliament. And don’t get me started on motorists…
One of the reasons that I no longer go to some of my favorite places in NYC is that I can’t have a smoke with my beer. Now, when I go up to visit friends from when I lived there, if we go to a bar, we go to one in Jersey.
I think it ought to be up to the person whose property it is to determine whether or not smoking will be allowed on that property.
Within my life I can remember - smoking in cinemas and theatres, smoking on the underground (truly vile), smoking at one’s desk in the office etc. All of these have gone, and no one really complains.
I thought that the paddies would riot in the street (they are, at a guess, bigger smokers than we are). That didn’t happen (I also thought they’d just ignore the ban - which also seems not to have happened).
Pubs are as important to them as us - so if it can go OK on the other side of the Irish Sea i can see no reason why it can’t work here - after all there will still be pubs you can smoke in - horrible ones.
From a purely personal perspective the ban can’t come soon enough
On these grounds, I agree; it is a place of work and employees should not generally be expected to endure injurious conditions; it is rather curious though, that this doesn’t seem to be the motivator for the ban agenda.
Note, incidentally, that some of those workers smoke. An “opt out” scheme allowing establishments to retain their smoking rights could simply advertise for staff on that basis.
Oh come on, think this one through. What if a staff member decides to quit smoking? Is the pub owner then required to provide a non-smoking environment? Can they sack the non-smoker?
They would have signed the contract knowing the conditions - employment law is full of such examples: A butcher’s assistant who became a vegetarian has no grounds for legal action given the prior agreement.
So what about the health of bar workers? Can an adult not have the ability to consent to working in a dangerous environment? Is it the proper role of government to restrict people from working in an environment which they know to be hazardous?
Nobody owes bar workers a job. If they don’t like smoking environment, then they should work someplace else. They don’t have a right to work in a pub. Pub stuff are adults and have willingly consented to working in a stinky workplace which is probably bad for their health. They had the prior knowledge that pub work would involve cigarette smoke and agreed to a contract of employment nonethless. Why should the government play a role in preventing adults from doing what they’ve agreed to do?
Besides, if bar workers didn’t want to work in a smoky workplace, why do pubs have little trouble filling their positions? Is it the government’s job to save consenting adults from their own health choices?
To take an analogy, I may believe pearl diving is a hazardous profession. But I don’t try to restrict the ability of pearl divers to work, or prevent pearl diving companies (if there’s such a thing) from hiring consenting, fully-informed adults. Instead I sit on my arse in an office, insulated from dangerous activities. I chose not to work as a pearl diver. I similarly choose not to work in a pub. I consider their terms of work to be too dangerous to my health, but realise that neither the pearl diving industry or hospitality industry owe me a living,
You know, it always strikes me as funny when people question a smoking ban and the effects it will have on business, when it has already been done elsewhere and not had a negative effect. Seriously. We’ve had a ban for something like 5 years here and I can say without exaggerating that it has been a great success. All the same places that were open before the ban are still open or are new pubs/restaurants/bars etc. Really, honestly, do you think people will stop going out? Will the fact that they can’t pollute the air around others prevent them from wanting to go out to eat or drink, because I can tell you that that is not the case here.
Plain and simple truth, smoking is only bad. There are no objective benefits to smoking, and only negatives. So smokers really don’t have any leg to stand on here. The government is within its rights to limit hazards to health, so they can ban smoking as they see fit. The reason it is not banned outright is because of tradition and circumstance. Personally, I would put money down that if the UK goes through with this ban, in 5 years only a small and laughable fringe will have any desire to see it removed.
Again, there are all kinds of health issues in current employment law: so long as those conditions are clearly set out in the job description, it is up to the applicant to take the job or not, and subsequently seek other employment if those conditions become unsatisfactory for any reason at a later date.
Unfortunately, many people have little choice but work in a pub. If they’re on benefits, and they refuse to apply for pub work (other than, eg, on religious grounds), then they can be stripped of all benefits.
Plus, we know now far more than we did ten or twenty years ago of very direct links between passive smoking and health problems. People have built up jobs and careers in these environments, only now having the firm evidence that they’re being harmed. Are you saying they should just walk away from it all?
When I smoked, I enjoyed it as much as, say, a glass of wine or a piece of music. The reason it is not banned outright is because I can choose harmful pleasures if I so wish.
Then let us not ‘strip the benefits’ of those who have solely declined work in a smoking-licensed pub.
No, that is outright strawmanship: I am suggesting that pubs ought to be allowed to apply to opt out. Only a few such applications need be granted, thereby maintaining a vast majority of the non-smoking pubs in which non-smoking pub workers can seek work.
The problem with this analogy, and often the reason I just can’t fully buy into libertarian ideology even though I’d like to, is that it always seems to ignore the fact that we are not alone as individuals. Regardless of whether my actions directly affect another at any point in time, my existence has an effect on others. If I choose to put myself in harm’s way, that can have a significant impact on the lives of others, even if my actions don’t involve them or anyone else.
We accept government regulations for miners. We accept it for nuclear waste management. We accept it for medical procedures, etc, etc. So why not for something that is also hazardous? It’s all well and good to talk about personal choice and responsibility, but remember that those people who choose to work in a currently-smoky pub have families, children, debts, mortgages, etc. Those people have an effect on the world around them. Should they be allowed to harm themselves? Well, you can never really regulate people’s behaviour completely, or ideas or beliefs, but you can afford them an environment in which to work, especially those who have fewer job options, where they will not be exposed to harmful hazards.
Just because they would choose to work in a smoky pub doesn’t mean their children won’t cry when mommy or daddy dies at 50 because of lung cancer. People will often work in adverse conditions because that’s all they know, or all they feel they can do. I don’t want the government regulating everything anymore than most other do, but I can’t argue against this, because it really comes down to health, and that comes first.
Personal freedom is all about subjectivity. I play sports in the knowledge that I risk harm. I might choose to work on an oil rig, building site or any other place of employment which spells out the risks before I sign the contract. Heck, even driving to work risks considerable harm.
Call me a bad husband or father for making such choices if you wish. I consider such choices reasonable, and attempts to outlaw them absurd nanny-statery.
[QUOTE=SentientMeat]
I might choose to work on an oil rig, building site or any other place of employment which spells out the risks before I sign the contract./QUOTE]
Would you be happy for the law to allow people to work unprotected with asbestos, or low-level radioactive waste, or other substances with severe implications for long-term health, provided they signed a disclaimer? If not, then why is cigarette smoke different?
Most bar workers are Aussies/kiwis/Expendable anyway. Especially the sith Effriken ones
A question for the Irish - how much compliance with the ban is there. Not in them horible Temple Bar type beer halls but in your ordinary run of the mill juicer?
From what I can remember (fuzzy for obvious reasons) most irish ruba dubs ignored pretty much every other rule - eg licensing hours etc.
) abut how it wouldn’t work and how the pub culture was so ingrained that no one’d stand for it in pubs and I reckon the pub culture here is as big a part of life as it is over there. But by and large it passed off pretty peacefully and while there have been a few high profile attempts at defying it, mostly everyone now just gets on with it. Sure, there are pubs where the landlord lets people smoke, after hours or on the sly, but by and large, the ban seems to have been pretty succesful.
