Let us dispense with all this straw: I could retort “Would you ban people from working on oil rigs or playing rugby, then? What’s the difference to banning work in a handful of smoking-licensed pubs?”
The approach I advocate is one of balanced consideration of the risks and the benefits from exposure thereto. There cannot reasonably be said to be significant benefits of allowing unprotected work with chemicals as hazardous as mercury, uranium or asbestos, and people do not generally consume them for their own subjective pleasure. The risks with passive tobacco smoke are small, *especially if you already smoke!, to the extent that I consider the option allowing work in a small minority of pubs which almost all allow smoking now to be as reasonable as allowing people to choose to work in an atmosphere containing, say, faint paint or traffic fumes.
Of course we can’t ban people from working in environments which have inherent risks which cannot be removed. We can minimise those risks, and do so with legislation. Where risks which are not integral to the work can be eliminated, we do so. Which suggests removing smoke from the environment of bar workers.
There is no benefit to allowing people to work in a smokey environment. And I don’t know anybody who takes pleasure from passive smoking.
How exactly would this licencing system for smoking pubs work? Would they have to demonstrate that every single member of staff already smokes?
I would say there is a benefit: it allows the patrons of that establishment to enjoy the smoke. There is no a priori benefit of allowing people to work in a noisy environment, but patrons who wish to enjoy loud music will frequent such establishments, which must therefore employ people based on the understanding that it might get a bit loud occasionally. This would hold true even if no employee could be found who enjoyed the music.
No, they must simply describe the working conditions clearly in the contract of employment.
Nah sentient meat that ain’t gonna work. All places of work have a risk assessment (or should have unless they want to be sued to buggery) and allowing exposure to a chemical that the government has deemed harmfull without offering methods to reduce risk (maybe filter masks etc?) would get an employer into serious problems.
Also the health and safety nazis (this isn’t Godwinising - they are actual real nazis) wouldn’t allow it and would be down on the employer before you could say “20 bensons”
There’s a quantifiable safe limit to noise, which is legally enforceable in all working environments. If a safe level of passive smoking could be identified, then we could have a similar system.
And those current employees who object to the introduction of new contracts? It’d be constructive dismissal.
Oh, I have little doubt that a ban ultimately makes such an option economically nonviable, owl: these pricks will no doubt have my glass of whiskey next lest I spill the benzene-ring-ridden poison on the hand of these precious albino bar staff. And I don’t even care personally any more 'cos I don’t smoke.
But the option to choose to work in a pub with an air conditioner and a sign saying “no smoking at the bar”, such that the risk from passive smoking was comparable to that from the traffic fumes you were exposed to on your drive to work, is eminently reasonable IMHO.
None here. Honestly. Just about every nightclub has a section outside roped in, or designated in some way, for people to smoke. So long as you have gone in, paid cover and been stamped, you are still counted as in the bar even if you are outside smoking. No problems at all here. And that’s in the land of hockey fights and subzero temperatures.
Ah, the roped-off area: yes, come to think of it I remember them in the US.
And I suppose an airport-style air-conditioned room in a nightclub or pub, such that the smoke levels were comparable to those within that roped-off area outside, is simply unthinkable?
I don’t think it’s allowed here, and personally I have zero pity for any smoker anyway, but I imagine the real reason is because it’s expensive to properly isolate a specific area or room and properly ventilate it. So most if not all places don’t. And again, no one is closing down because of it. People will always want to go out, and not being able to smoke inside isn’t exactly stopping them here.
Another California resident who thinks the smoking bans have worked wonderfully. Tha bars are still doing business adn I can breathe clean air while hanging out with friends. The minor inconvenience that smokers face is far outweighed by a cleaner working environment for employees and breathable air for the customers. I find it hard to feel too bad for the many inconsiderate smokers who pollute the air and treat the world as their ash tray. Forcing others to partake in your drug of choice is really rather rude.
I don’t think it’s that expensive to fit a decent air conditioner, but in any case the issue is whether the establishment is allowed to create such a zone (which clearly are allowed in eg. airports). Even if it is so expensive that only classy bars or restaurants could afford it, well, classy shops have such areas where they sell their cigars - it seems absurd that it would be illegal for a classy bar or restaurant to have an area where you can smoke the damn things without putting your coat on.
As do staff in airports and the like. Staff must even expose themselves to non-zero smoke when they collect the ashtrays outside: Given adequate air-coditioning, we would be getting down to absurdly small levels of exposure for absurdly brief periods, similar to exposure to paint fumes from walking down a recently painted corridor, traffic fumes from crossing the road to post a letter, or benzene fumes from pouring a glass of whiskey.
Nightclubs won’t be subject to the ban as they don’t sell food (there’s no money in trying to pursuade people who are coked off their swedes to eat chips).
However the fighting thing is a point. Think of some of those town centre booze meccas where every second building is a Yates or Edwards. Having their pissed up chav clientele on the street is a flashpoint and sooner or later someone is going to look at some else’s bird, with ensuing hilarity.
Yes, and I presume the law will remove the smoking zones in airports (although I suspect airlines will desperatly plead for an exception, citing nervous fliers as the excuse). And you’re returning to your strawman, of comparing avoidable and proven-to-be-hazardous passive smoking with unavoidable exposure to fumes that probably hasn’t been shown to do harm
Well, the UK would then be amongst the most draconian in Europe, and indeed the world. That would be a pretty big leap from the current situation, and a rather “unBritish” extremism in my opinion, but I suppose it is the next logical step short of banning it outright (which might very well make me start smoking again just out of spite).
The benzene rings in paint, trafic and whiskey fumes “not shown to do harm”? Funny, they’re the exact same benzene rings which are found in tobacco smoke. These compounds are all ‘avoidable’ by sufficiently draconian legislation. Heck, the smoker could take their own glass in and out of the smoking room themselves, just like they do in those outside zones.
…)