Well they now have a Sbarro that does rather nice pizza slices.
Benzene and its compounds are extremely hazardous molecules. We are talking about how many molecules are ingested by a human being in the course of their work: long exposure to a weak source would equal brief exposure to a stronger source.
What we are talking about here is exposure for that brief period of collecting glasses or whatever, in an air-conditioned room, containing a source that becomes very dilute anyway in passive ingestion compared to smoking one of the things oneself. Such a dose, I believe, will be comparable to the dose you receive when you visit a petrol station.
What is it about outside that magically makes passive smoking disappear, exactly? Clearly, it is simply “better air-conditioning” that reduces the dose to infinitessimal levels. I am suggesting that if it can be proven that the levels in that room are comparable to those in the smoking zone outside, that a ban as extreme as Ireland’s is unnecessary.
Why? According to the OP, the the proposed legislation is only concerned with restaurants and pubs where food is served. I spend a bit of time in UK airports and any of those that I’ve been in have smoking zones in areas where food is not served. So their removal can’t be part of this particular proposal.
Of course, the next anti-smoking law brought in might very well address these zones, and their removal, but for the moment, this first law hasn’t even been passed, never mind any future ones.
Sorry, GM, but that’s complete bullshit. Health issues are absolutely considered legitimate grounds not to apply for a job.
Firstly, you seem to be arguing against the health risks of passive smoking, or am I misinterpreting? Secondly, it’s not necessarily ‘brief periods’ - what about somebody collecting glasses for an 8 hour shift, with one smoking room and one non-smoking? 4 hours exposure is hardly brief.
Specific health issues, sure (e.g. asthma) - but would a Jobcentre really accept somebody refusing to work in any environment where smoking is permitted, purely because they want to avoid passive smoking?
I am associating health risk with benzene exposure and arguing that a smoking room could involve less benzene exposure to staff than many other jobs.
Well, the stipulation could be that smokers take their glasses in and out themselves, but in any case the glass-collector could be told to collect the glasses only at intervals dictated by a health and safety policy, and stand outside the smoking room at all other times. For giggles, they could even come in wearing a full radiation suit.
There’s more than one carcinogen in cigarette smoke. And in any case, your argument could just as easily be used to make the case for increased protection for your example of petrol station workers. (And that’s still a fundamentally different example, because the presence of hazardous substances is integral to the operation of a petrol station.)
As there is in paint, traffic or whiskey fumes. Almost all of them are based on benzene rings.
OK, let’s exemplify not just the petrol station worker but the outdoor worker in general - the postman, the traffic policeman, the road workman (or “person” if you prefer), whatever. What is their daily dose of harmful molecules? Let us call it X.
Now, this dose might well lead to health problems: traffic pollution has long been linked to respiratory disorders. But is this avoidable? Of course it is. Those little charcoal filter masks which you see on cyclists - how easy it would be to stipulate that everyone working in or near traffic, or indeed experiencing a dose equal to or greater than X in the course of their work, wear one by law.
And so what of the dose to the staff working in the bar or restaurant with the deadly smoking room? Given certain standards such as effective air-conditioning and containment and limits to the time they were allowed to spend in the room when people were smoking, would their dose be higher than X?
If the dose to staff in such an establishment is shown to be lower than X, I can see no reason to make such rooms illegal. And even if it was higher (which I seriously doubt), well my precious wee glass retriever or whatever you are who absolutely has to go into the Room of Death, put the frigging mask on.
Don’t be silly - give us a realistic parallel to not allowing smoking in pubs.
If it were realistic to be able to monitor this accurately, then fine.
Eh? Are you arguing ad numerum or ad antiquitatem or something? We are speaking here of what dose of harmful chemicals a worker ought to be allowed to be exposed to in a working day, given that measures could be taken to forcibly lower that dose via legislation.
As accurately as in the original WHO report on passive smoking, say?
All true, but there’s a huge difference between simple rules (‘No smoking’), and ridiculous, complex, bureaucratic or intrusive ones like in your suggestions.
Note that I said realistic. Is it realistic for all your licenced smoking rooms to be constantly monitored in the way the WHO monitors a sample group for a set period of time? How would you implement this?
I’m arguing that oversimple rules like Ireland’s are ridiculous, bureacratic and intrusive.
Well, the dose in the room is a function of the amount of smoke and the efficacy of the air conditioner. So, on the original inspection, a portable smoke machine could be set to output a reasonable maximum of smoke assuming full room capacity and everyone chugging away like mad on Gauloises. The air conditioner would have to be capable of removing that smoke faster than it was being produced, such that the dose of harmful chemicals which the bar worker could expect to receive on a very busy night was still below that from other jobs. So, as long as the air conditioner indicated its operability reliably from then on, the room could be declared legal.
Look, I agree with limiting smoke in bars and restaurants: indeed, I am a bar worker in that smoky pubs pay me to play guitar there. I am simply arguing that outside is effectively achievable inside, and that Ireland’s ban is overly nannyish.
I don’t see how Ireland’s simple, easy-to-understand ‘no smoking inside’ can be described as bureacratic. Having environmental health officers trekking around with smoke generators (and subsequent spot-checks that a/c units are working properly etc.) seems to fit that description far better. And who pays for all that time and equipment, anyway?
And who goes around checking that the ban is being complied with, and prosecutes those in violation of it, both of which are unnecessary here at present? Bureaucrats, effectively.
Env health officers must inspect such properties anyway - the smoking room would be just another tick on the list.
So you object to inspections to enforce a ban, but approve of inspections to enforce a selective-licence system? How is the latter less bureaucratic?
It would be a lot more than a ‘tick’ - getting the smoke generator to accurately get the room to a simulated 10pm-Friday-night will take hours.
No. I argue that Ireland’s ban requires just as much bureaucracy as allowing smoking rooms.
Which is why the smoke generator need only be used to test different models of air conditioner in different sized rooms rather than literally hoofed around town, which is the basis of all standardised testing.
But we still need checks to ensure the a/c units in the pubs are maintained and functioning correctly.
As we do already to ensure that they are not an electrical hazard.
I feel a bit guilty about interrupting this but just because something is “part of the culture” doesn’t mean that it can never be changed. There are many things not allowed today which previously were allowed.
As a life- long drinker but an ex-smoker I take heart from the Irish experience, and I think people here would also take it in their stride.
I don’t like the government poking their nose into personal business (but that’s what they seem to do best!) but the smoking lobby don’t appear to want to compromise. As an example my local club were threatened with closure if they didn’t fit air conditioning and filters and keep the doors shut to prevent a noise nuisance to immediate neighbours. They complied, and the atmosphere in the club was much better, but as time has gone by they switch off the a/c and open the windows again because the humming fans “are too noisy”. Another warning has been issued by the council…
Most non-smokers of my experience don’t give a monkey’s if someone else smokes, they just want to breathe clean air and clothes that don’t smell like an ashtray.
I have only ever found one complete non-smoking pub (it’s in Stratford on Avon if anybody wants to know) but I spoke to the manager there. The pub was absolutely packed out and I asked if him it was unusual. He said that they were as busy as before the ban, with a few smokers moving to other pubs but being replaced by non-smokers. He also said that the majority of smokers stayed as regulars but went outside when the need arose.
I would prefer the trade to take the responsibility on themselves, but if they don’t then I would have no problem accepting a new law.
It’s true you see, there’s nothing worse than an ex-smoker.
It’s about time for the UK to ban smoking. The UK is supposed to be a freedom hating, nanny state. It wouldn’t be keeping up with this image by not attacking yet another freedom.
You don’t like something because its unpleasant or unhealthy, then don’t do it. This includes going to someplace that allows smoking even if its for a job.